ChrisDAT
Google Keyword Compsysnyc
join:2002-02-26
Hollis, NY | Only ONE needs to WIN...
All it takes is for one person to win to set a precedent that could make all of the other suits the RIAA brings frivolous.
Go get'em MOM  |
|
johnh123
join:2002-11-19
Chicago, IL
| The only problem is that most of the suites that the RIAA brings are not frivolous. They are suing people that are stealing from them. It appears to me that the mom is most likely guilty. I hope she looses. She should have been smart enough to dl from the newsgroups where you can't get caught. |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
 ·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | Theft is not frivolous, but the punishment should fit the crime. Downloading MP3s is somewhat akin to speeding (really, speeding is more dangerous as it causes a loss of life). People who are caught should have to pay a one, maybe two hundred dollar fine. These multi-thousand dollar ransom checks the RIAA wants are downright extortionate. And what if the moms ARE innocent? There isn't a due process to determine that. How would you like it if the RIAA asked you to pay up and you hadn't been doing anything wrong? What's to stop these people from just randomly picking IP addresses and demanding money?
I could probably go down to Best Buy and bolt out of the store waving a stolen CD in my hand and it would cause less trouble for a first time offense. And at least then there's due process.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| said by djrobx  :Theft is not frivolous, but the punishment should fit the crime. Downloading MP3s is somewhat akin to speeding (really, speeding is more dangerous as it causes a loss of life). Downloading is stealing once. Uploading is stealing many times.
Listen. You people (not djrobx in particular) need to grow up, get a job, and stop living in mommys basement. The real world is built on money, and if you were stealing it from me and all you got was a lawsuit, you'd be thanking God.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Do you have anything real to say other than just throwing insults all over? File sharing is NOT stealing. It's not even proven to be copyright infringement. IF it's indeed copyright infringement then it is STILL not stealing. This is a legal fact. Not opinion.
No money is being stolen from the record labels. No matter how you slice it. Music is an art form. Not a commodity. Copyright law was put in place to balance out that fact and give artists a way to make a living off of their art. Just because the music industry has twisted that effort to squeeze all the money they can doesn't change the fact it is what it is.
There is no evidence to suggest sharing music is affecting the industry. There is plenty of evidence that shows the music industry itself is causing its own losses. So you can make all the statements you want about what you would do you if someone was stealing YOUR money. That doesn't change the fact no money is stolen here. |
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| Ask any successful musician how they feel about file sharing. This debate has been hashed over so many times in this forum, and it always ends up the same. One side claims "It's not stealing" while the other side claims that an artist has a right to make money any time their art is reproduced.
Lets say you created a piece of software. It was the hottest thing since google. You are selling a licence to use your product, but people are downloading it and using it for free. So instead of selling 3 million copies, you sold only 2 million copies. Are you making as much money as you would if it wasn't available for free? No. Are those people using it for free stealing money from you? I say yes, they are.
If you had to rely on the profits from your intellectual property for a living, I think your tune would change.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| I am a musician. I have been writing music for quite a while now. I know many musicians, especially unknowns who rely on every penny of sales, what endorse file trading completely. Keep in mind for independent labels and artists there simply is no viable outlet to promote their music outside of their own local scene. File trading has actually lead to strong sales for these people.
The thing about intellectual property (or just about any business) is there is a level of "giveaway" that has to be accepted. Even before file trading people would pass CDs to each other and make copies. The end result? Some of those people liked what they heard so much that they bought the album for themselves. So in turn sharing brings gains to the market.
Alternately you will always have those people who will only get what's free for them. They have always existed and always will. In the past those were the ones who would tape off the radio or a friend's record. Now you have Kazaa, but the end is the same for them. They would rather have teeth pulled then spend money on IP. You can't stop this. It's just the cost of doing business.
Luckily the "try before you buy" crowd outweighs the "you'll take my money out of my cold, dead hands" crowd significantly. This is evident from the actual sales gains in the industry in spite of large increases in P2P users. User benefit by finding new music they wouldn't be able to in a Top 40 controlled media environment. Artists benefit because their music is heard when it wouldn't be and more album sales came from it. Retailers and record labels benefit from increased sales as well.
So there is a perspective that says file trading is actually beneficial to the music industry. The major labels don't agree with that. Not because they are losing money, but because they are losing control over which acts get exposure (like the ones they have complete IP control over). I have studied this issue a while and my stance hasn't changed after considering all the arguments. |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
 ·Qwest.net
4 edits | SRFireside you have it absolutely correct. I listen to a lot of streaming radio, what is offered on the Clear Channel controlled airways these days is not worth my time. If I hear something new I will first see if the artists I am listening to have a website. Most that do also have sample tracks available for downloading. If I like what I hear I will purchase it. There are other musician would do not have a website in these cases I will try to find them on a P2P so I can listen to some of their music. If I like what I hear I will track down where their works are for sale. Before I purchase anything I make sure the artists are in control of their music and not slaves to some fat cat label.
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you.
|
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
2 edits | reply to SRFireside
And I agree with you that file sharing and word of mouth on the internet can be a very good way to get exposure and recognition for an indie band. But if you are an already successful artist, and are already making money from the sales of your art, there is no reason that you shouldn't be protected from people making unauthorized copies of your work.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you remove the profit motive from creative art, then there is much less incentive for people to create that art. Would you like to make a good living from your music? You can't do that by giving your product away.
I'm not a fan of major labels, or the shit music they put out. I support my local music scene by buying the CDs and merch of bands that I like. If I got a copy of one of their albums off of the 'net, I'd feel bad that I was taking cash out of their pocket.
said by SRFireside :Alternately you will always have those people who will only get what's free for them. They have always existed and always will. In the past those were the ones who would tape off the radio or a friend's record. Now you have Kazaa, but the end is the same for them. They would rather have teeth pulled then spend money on IP. You can't stop this. It's just the cost of doing business. The big difference now is that it's not people letting one or two of their friends copy a CD onto tape. It's people uploading copyrighted material hundreds if not thousands of times. Each time they upload a song to another user, they are creating an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. That's illegal. Not only is it illegal, IMO, it's also wrong.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you. |
|
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to djrobx
And speeding is debatable. 
I like speeders. They behave in a predictable, if illogical, way. Slow drivers? Forget it, who knows what they'll do next.
/offtopic
--
Learn about Real ID and why it's so horrible. |
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to Transmaster
said by Transmaster :SRFireside you have it absolutely correct. I listen to a lot of streaming radio, what is offered on the Clear Channel controlled airways these days is not worth my time. If I hear something new I will first see if the artists I am listening to have a website. Most that do also have sample tracks available for downloading. If I like what I hear I will purchase it. There are other musician would do not have a website in these cases I will try to find them on a P2P so I can listen to some of their music. If I like what I hear I will track down where their works are for sale. Before I purchase anything I make sure the artists are in control of their music and not slaves to some fat cat label. Theres also a big difference between an artist making a few tracks from their album available for free download to promote their art, and someone taking their whole album and making it available for free download.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you. |
|
ffink20001
join:2002-12-18
Norwich, CT
| reply to bent
I do not know about you but if I charged as much as some companies do like for windows and photoshop I would not care if I sold 1 million copies instead of 2 million. Hell I would allready be rich who cares if I have 1 million dollars instead of two I invest that 1 million in mutual funds then BANG I have millions more.. Greed is greed |
|
jp10558
Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY
| reply to bent
What I constantly want to know is why anyone feels that an artist/author should be paid infinite times for their x hours of work, while everyone else in any other job gets paid once for their x hours of work?
Can you explain that?
Why not just have companies that want to sell music or whatever pay the musicians a salary or hourly wage like everyone else? And then sell the products like we sell toothpicks or whatever.
--
Opera 8.02(Build 7680); Windows XP Pro SP2;Athlon 64 3400+; 1GB PC3200 DDR; 1M/128k DSL; NOD32(Version 2.5.25); Outpost Pro 2.7;Proxomitron 4.5j Grypen 8/28/05(Opera mod),GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3 |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to bent
said by bent :But if you are an already successful artist, and are already making money from the sales of your art, there is no reason that you shouldn't be protected from people making unauthorized copies of your work. Alanis Morissette
Paula Cole
Janis Ian
Ani DiFranco
Scott Page (Pink Floyd)
John Barlow (Grateful Dead)
Tom Petty
Brian Eno
DJ Spooky
David Bowie
They Might Be Giants
Terence Trent D'Arby
Ice T
Chuck D
Beastie Boys
Green Day
Pearl Jam
Sonic Youth
Phish
Smashing Pumpkins
Ween
REM
Heart
Spearhead
Colm O'Riain
These are just the names I could come up with at the moment of well-established artists who support P2P. It's not just the struggling artists who recognize the value of file sharing, but famous artists as well.
said by bent :I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you remove the profit motive from creative art, then there is much less incentive for people to create that art. Would you like to make a good living from your music? You can't do that by giving your product away. The profit motive is far from taken away. People are still buying albums. Lots of them. Sales have been on a steady rise in spite of plenty of outside interference much more quantifiable than P2P. Just people are passing songs back and forth it doesn't mean the industry is onto collapse. That's the way the RIAA thinks.
said by bent :I support my local music scene by buying the CDs and merch of bands that I like. If I got a copy of one of their albums off of the 'net, I'd feel bad that I was taking cash out of their pocket. Good for you. No. Great for you. That's the way it should be. Regarding file sharing you have to look at it this way. If you never heard these bands before, found a few songs online, and liked what you heard... what is stopping you from buying the album? Over 80% of my CD purchases over the past five years are a direct result of music I downloaded from P2P networks. Just because a song was shared doesn't mean a sale is lost. On the contrary many indie labels would tell you about the massive increase in sales due to P2P.
said by bent : Each time they upload a song to another user, they are creating an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work. That's illegal. Not only is it illegal, IMO, it's also wrong. The illegality of it is in question and so far the RIAA has yet to make a solid precedent for individual file sharing. Regarding morals that's solely on your ethics system. For me file sharing in of itself is not a problem at all. I love it when someone downloads one of my songs. It means the music is being spread. Now those people who never buy albums or go to concerts or do NOTHING to support the music they love... they are wrong. Those people who share thousands of songs, not caring about sharing the art and just doing it for bragging rights, they are wrong too. Like anything P2P can be abused. I'm against abuse. |
|
skipon11
Premium
join:2005-06-09
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to SRFireside
Well put SRFireside Finally I see some intelligence here! |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to jp10558
said by jp10558 :What I constantly want to know is why anyone feels that an artist/author should be paid infinite times for their x hours of work, while everyone else in any other job gets paid once for their x hours of work? Can you explain that? Why not just have companies that want to sell music or whatever pay the musicians a salary or hourly wage like everyone else? And then sell the products like we sell toothpicks or whatever. Because we live in a capitalistic society where free market plays frst and foremost. Sounds like you want to live in a socialistic or communist society where you are given what you need and told what you get and what job you will perform and for how much too right?
Technically, you are 101% wrong. The artist made a single song, yes, but they sold it on a CD which is what is being sold. The song is protected by copyright. Microsoft and Apple spend X amount of time making software, should they be told how many times they should sell it ebfore it's free? No. They are able to see as many coppies as they want.
Your argument is flawed, to say the least. |
|
ChrisDAT
Google Keyword Compsysnyc
join:2002-02-26
Hollis, NY
|  reply to ChrisDAT
All I'll say is that when someone wins -- it will be frivolous.
One more thing -- downloading is not the crime here, maybe in the main post it's just a typo, but the thing that prople are doing that's supposedly hurting the music industry is making available copies...
The fact that P2P users are just about the only "civilians" targeted is because P2P only works when people make the stuff available -- "smart people" get what they want, and jump ship (or copy the files elsewhere) -- kids don't know any better, and tend to show off by presenting their musical taste online -- not too bright...
You can argue all you want about downloading, but it's not the issue here. YOU are busted if I can download from YOU.
Sounds frivolous to me... |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
·epix
| reply to bent
said by bent :I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you remove the profit motive from creative art, then there is much less incentive for people to create that art. Would you like to make a good living from your music? You can't do that by giving your product away. As an artist and band member my "soul" motivation is to create art in a musical form, expressing nothing more actually than thoughts put into lyrical form, and my approach to creating art does not involve a profit motive.Cover the cost of gas back and forth to a gig,thrown in a couple of beers.I'll jam for free.
Playing on the local club scene.We practically play for free after expenses are met and the money split 4 ways.Yet there is no greater thrill or rush than getting the crowd physced and turned on , Songs that we play are free to whoever hears them. One can do what one wishes with the music.We'll create and play more
quote:
then there is much less incentive for people to create that art.
IMO that is a myth, let me explain. If your only incentive to create art is money.Then that so called artist does not have much artistic ability, more of a love of money than music.I'm not impling musicians should not make money on their work.
One wanting to make a career out of an art form, with $$$ a main incentive should look elsewhere for a "job".Almost all great bands that became famous didn't do it for money, yet fame,fortune and stardom was a by product of art that just happened along the way.
Musical inspiration of bands they listened to was more influential than the prospect of money.Major acts today, didn't think they would be as succesful as they are.They didn't imagine it in their wildest fantasies.Today bands are getting into music thinking of money and fame first.
Then thinking secondly of the vehicle that can get them there.
--
Bass....the glue of rhythm and harmony...the heartbeat of the band.! Shaking the earth with deep,sonorous vibrations.The dark ominous thunder of an approching storm. |
|
ChrisDAT
Google Keyword Compsysnyc
join:2002-02-26
Hollis, NY
| Bingo
The "value" that a record label puts on "their" work is all about 99% of the "push" (read that money) that they have made in terms of advertisements, videos, and other "help" to promote what amounts to 99% talent-less artists (if you can even call them that).
Those "artists" (and I use that word oh so lightly), are not going to stand up to what amounts to a real sugar daddy for them, because they know that if they have to stand on their talent alone, they would not get very far at all.
What does that have to do with this discussion? -- everything -- the things people are downloading they would not pay for were they not offered for free, moreover, they can listen to them on the radio all they wanted and record them all they wanted were an easier (?) method not presented (p2p).
* I wonder what'll happen to Lil-Kim -- (I'm thinking Mike Tyson, not Martha Stewart).
I also have this crazy idea that the whole copyright issue has seen it's best days -- lyrics and music are copyrightable, a performance is not, and should always remain the intellectual property of the artist, no matter who "recorded" and promoted it for retail sale. This is the 21st century for crying out loud...
*** Change will come. |
|
bent
not broken
Premium
join:2004-10-04
Loveland, CO
clubs:
·Comcast Formerly ..
| reply to guitarzan
said by guitarzan :said by bent :I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you remove the profit motive from creative art, then there is much less incentive for people to create that art. Would you like to make a good living from your music? You can't do that by giving your product away. As an artist and band member my "soul" motivation is to create art in a musical form, expressing nothing more actually than thoughts put into lyrical form, and my approach to creating art does not involve a profit motive.Cover the cost of gas back and forth to a gig,thrown in a couple of beers.I'll jam for free. Playing on the local club scene.We practically play for free after expenses are met and the money split 4 ways.Yet there is no greater thrill or rush than getting the crowd physced and turned on , Songs that we play are free to whoever hears them. One can do what one wishes with the music.We'll create and play more quote:
then there is much less incentive for people to create that art.
IMO that is a myth, let me explain. If your only incentive to create art is money.Then that so called artist does not have much artistic ability, more of a love of money than music.I'm not impling musicians should not make money on their work. One wanting to make a career out of an art form, with $$$ a main incentive should look elsewhere for a "job".Almost all great bands that became famous didn't do it for money, yet fame,fortune and stardom was a by product of art that just happened along the way. Musical inspiration of bands they listened to was more influential than the prospect of money.Major acts today, didn't think they would be as succesful as they are.They didn't imagine it in their wildest fantasies.Today bands are getting into music thinking of money and fame first. Then thinking secondly of the vehicle that can get them there. You're right. I should have said "Intellectual Property" instead of "Creative Art." Remember that this isn't just about music, but IP of all kinds.
--
I don't have to be faster than the bear, I just have to be faster than you. |
|
