lazarus_
join:2002-08-31
Resolute, NU
| reply to pianotech
Re: Very nice of them!
said by pianotech  :
So nice of the EFF to help people break the law. 
--
Composer, performer, pianist
[text was edited by author 2003-07-26 09:50:39]
Maybe you should have read the whole article before typing this.. They arent telling people how to not get sued while still breaking the law...
"Either:
Make sure there are no potentially infringing files in your shared folder. This would ordinarily mean that your shared folder contains only files 1) that are in the public domain, 2) for which you have permission to share, or 3) that are made available under pro-sharing licenses, such as the Creative Commons license or other open media licenses, and
Remove all potentially misleading file names that might be confused with the name of an RIAA artist or song (e.g., "Usher" or "Madonna") from your shared folder.
Or:
Disable the "sharing" or "uploading" features on your P2P application that allow other users on the network to get copies of files from your computer or scan any of your music directories. We hate this option, but it does appear that it will reduce your chances of becoming an RIAA target right now. For instructions on how to do this for particular applications, EFF suggests (but cannot guarantee) the following links: "
--
Dont copy that floppy. |
|
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| said by lazarus_ :
said by pianotech :
So nice of the EFF to help people break the law.
--
Composer, performer, pianist
[text was edited by author 2003-07-26 09:50:39]
Maybe you should have read the whole article before typing this.. They arent telling people how to not get sued while still breaking the law...
"Either:
Make sure there are no potentially infringing files in your shared folder. This would ordinarily mean that your shared folder contains only files 1) that are in the public domain, 2) for which you have permission to share, or 3) that are made available under pro-sharing licenses, such as the Creative Commons license or other open media licenses, and
Remove all potentially misleading file names that might be confused with the name of an RIAA artist or song (e.g., "Usher" or "Madonna") from your shared folder.
Or:
Disable the "sharing" or "uploading" features on your P2P application that allow other users on the network to get copies of files from your computer or scan any of your music directories. We hate this option, but it does appear that it will reduce your chances of becoming an RIAA target right now. For instructions on how to do this for particular applications, EFF suggests (but cannot guarantee) the following links: "
It it said "Make sure there are no infringing files on your computer," you would have a point. It said, however, "Make sure there are no infringing files on your shared folder. I see that as a distinct difference.
--
Composer, performer, pianist |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| said by pianotech :
If it said "Make sure there are no infringing files on your computer," you would have a point. It said, however, "Make sure there are no infringing files on your shared folder. I see that as a distinct difference.
Not really a distinct difference at all. You can have copywritten files on your computer. I have made mp3's of all my favorite songs in my CD collection. Nothing wrong with that. The RIAA is after people sharing copywritten works on P2P networks to what the EFF is saying is completely legitimate and is not promoting any copyright infringement.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| It didn't say "copywritten files," it said "infringing files." I can have copywritten files on my computer and that are legally mine and not infringing. And it didn't say not to have infringing files on your computer, it said not to have infringing files in your shared folder.
Soooo...basically what they're saying is to keep infringing files away from where they can bee seen.
--
Composer, performer, pianist |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| That's splitting hairs. I'm sure the terminology was meant for defining any files that would be considered copyright infringement if shared will be called infringing files. Copywritten... infringing... it's all the same to the RIAA. To the casual, non technical, reader it would take up a lot more text and time to explain the difference so I can understand why they still use the term infringing files. The focal point was about what you can or can't share online.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA | I didn't see the words, "don't infringe" anywhere. Did you? |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| said by pianotech :
I didn't see the words, "don't infringe" anywhere. Did you?
Does it have to? It sounds like they are trying to give advice as objective as possible without taking any sides. These people aren't legal eagles who can word their articles to cover every little clause or detail that comes up. I know this because I use the EFF for when I wish to respond to legislation I don't agree with, and some of their form letter responses just don't do my stance justice.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
Kaltes
Premium
join:2002-12-04
Los Angeles, CA
| reply to pianotech
""And it didn't say not to have infringing files on your computer, it said not to have infringing files in your shared folder.""
- HELLO! What is on the _REST_ of your hard drive is not relevant to the topic of the EFF webpage in question. Now you are crying because the EFF did not lecture readers about how copyright infringement is wrong and they should never engage in it in any form whether by sharing on p2p or elsewhere in their computers?? Excuse them for assuming they were dealing with a sophisticated audience!
- The other angle to your stupidity emerges once you realize the fact that ripping your music to your hard drive is not infringement. If you download files using p2p they download to a folder that is *gasp* shared as well, meaning that the EFFs advice to keep infringing files out of your shared folder is not synonymous with "Once you dl infringing songs move them out of your shared folder fast like a good leech so you don't get caught!" which is how you read it, because you are biased and generally incapable of putting 2 and 2 together.
Hey piano, it is about time you just admitted that you aren't all that great and stopped blaming your lack of success on everyone else. This is called 'denial'. Get help. |
|
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| Kaltes,
I know the business, having worked in it for some 20 years. I understand copyrights, which was why I made the distinction between "infringing" and "copywritten."
You choose to pepper your posts with comments such as "The other angle to your stupidity emerges..." and so on. I could respond in like, but choose not to, because I realize that because you disagree with me does not give me any reason (or right) to assume that you are stupid and label you as such.
I'm sure the reality of it is that you are a very intelligent person with a differing opinion. In any case, I would have preferred to have had a reasonable, productive dialog with you. It's a shame you are unwilling or unable to do so.
--
Composer, performer, pianist |
|
ifarrell
join:2000-08-10
Willow Spring, NC
 ·Vonage
| reply to pianotech
said by pianotech :
I didn't see the words, "don't infringe" anywhere. Did you?
Perhaps you should have this out with EFF if it bothers you.
You obviously take every written word literally.
Perhaps you should be a Lawyer for the RIAA, they are obviously need narrow minded people like you. |
|
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| said by ifarrell :
Perhaps you should be a Lawyer for the RIAA, they are obviously need narrow minded people like you.
Thanks for the suggestion, but musicians make lousy lawyers.
--
Composer, performer, pianist |
|
The Truth7
join:2003-05-24
River Grove, IL
| sry buddy, i'm a musician too and guess what. Musicians should be paid based on the performance they promote to the consumer.
Single's should cost no more then a buck a piece and they should be readily available for the songs that are popular.
Why aren't they? Cuz the fucking record industry would rather say buy the whole cd, even though the rest of it is crap for the average 15 bucks.
There's no competition in this field either. Its not like record labels are going to price war with eachother, they banded together and charge the same avg price. Thats why there was a class action law suit against them which they LOST.
They're not offering any way for the consumer to justify the current price scheme.
Thats why there's people sharing these files, and sharing your music. If most of your music is crap, noone's gonna buy your damn cd, point blank. Thats how it should be too, its called competative advantage.
Just bs scare tactics by a company thats started their own death.
I really hope they realise that by sending out all those subpeona'a and screwing all those people like that, they're going to piss off a large amount of today's youth and they aren't going to buy the crap anymore.
You think this is going to make the people buy their cd's? Ha! The people getting sued, are going to tell their friend and family to stop, that the record industry can piss off.
If your going to go on your whole "i'm a musician" play, well guess what, i am too. Its simple economics, quality=consistent demand for your product. Quantity without quality=diminished demand. |
|
ravital
Just Another Pesky Independent Nh Voter
Premium
join:2001-07-19
Merrimack, NH
| said by The Truth7 :
If most of your music is crap, noone's gonna buy your damn cd, point blank.
Here is where your argument fails: The fact that a particular piece of music is bought by many people and downloaded (legally or not) by many others is not an indication of the quality of the work. The difference between the shrink-wrapped CD from the store and the P2P-downloaded material is not that the CD is garbage and the d/l music is the greatest work of music ever recorded. The difference is that the CD is 90% garbage that the consumer doesn't want and the d/l music is 100% garbage that the consumer wants.
Okay, probably not 100% garbage, but this principle that "lots of people want it = high quality music" is simply not true. I mean, isn't that how RIAA labels have suckered all of us for years to begin with? "top 40" and "Platinum" and "Best selling" all of a sudden are the marks of quality? If music proves anything, it proves that different people have different tastes, and what's garbage to you is the most beautiful music to someone else. said by The Truth7 :
they're going to piss off a large amount of today's youth and they aren't going to buy the crap anymore.
While we're on the topic of "today's youth" and different musical tastes and garbage music and all that, I'm sure there's a few young folks out there who dig Jazz or classical music, but do you think you can find a lot of those kinds of music on an average day on Kazaa or any other P2P network? So if you can't find any Bach or Beethoven or Keith Jarrett or Charlie Mingus on P2P, does that mean they're garbage?
[text was edited by author 2003-07-27 02:32:53] |
|
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| reply to The Truth7
said by The Truth7 :
sry buddy, i'm a musician too and guess what. Musicians should be paid based on the performance they promote to the consumer.
Single's should cost no more then a buck a piece and they should be readily available for the songs that are popular.
I agree with you 200%. A buck is actually the highest they should be. .75-99 cents would be about right.
That said, the artist deserves that 79-99 cents if the song is downloaded and kept.
I think the CD model has been dead for several years now except for classical works where you have entire symphonies.
--
Composer, performer, pianist |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| said by pianotech :
said by The Truth7 :
sry buddy, i'm a musician too and guess what. Musicians should be paid based on the performance they promote to the consumer.
Single's should cost no more then a buck a piece and they should be readily available for the songs that are popular.
I agree with you 200%. A buck is actually the highest they should be. .75-99 cents would be about right.
That said, the artist deserves that 79-99 cents if the song is downloaded and kept.
I think the CD model has been dead for several years now except for classical works where you have entire symphonies.
So in your estimation that $0.75-$0.99 should go to the artist in addition to the royalties already charged on blank CD media that are there specifically to compensate the artists for supposed losses attributed to downloading? I'm sorry, my argument would be that I've already paid for that privilege via the up-front royalty fee. Additionally, there are many, many folks who never D/L music, and who only use the CDs to back up data, create family photo albums etc. These folks never receive a dime's of value from their royalty contribution. Why is it that you only see "theft" as a one-way venture?
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony. |
|
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| said by wtansill :
said by pianotech :
said by The Truth7 :
sry buddy, i'm a musician too and guess what. Musicians should be paid based on the performance they promote to the consumer.
Single's should cost no more then a buck a piece and they should be readily available for the songs that are popular.
I agree with you 200%. A buck is actually the highest they should be. .75-99 cents would be about right.
That said, the artist deserves that 79-99 cents if the song is downloaded and kept.
I think the CD model has been dead for several years now except for classical works where you have entire symphonies.
So in your estimation that $0.75-$0.99 should go to the artist in addition to the royalties already charged on blank CD media that are there specifically to compensate the artists for supposed losses attributed to downloading? I'm sorry, my argument would be that I've already paid for that privilege via the up-front royalty fee. Additionally, there are many, many folks who never D/L music, and who only use the CDs to back up data, create family photo albums etc. These folks never receive a dime's of value from their royalty contribution. Why is it that you only see "theft" as a one-way venture?
I don't see theft as a one-way venture, I see it as a two-way venture. Labels rip off consumers, and they rip off the artists. Furthermore, the "royalty" on blank cd's is wrong also, because as you said, people who use cdr's for things that have nothing to do with music are paying it. Plus, that is only distributed to major acts who have contracts with major labels (read, the RIAA), not independents like me.
So in consideration of everything I just said, why should I not receive 79-99 cents for a song? I'm independent, have no label, and could care less about the RIAA.
--
Composer, performer, pianist
[text was edited by author 2003-07-27 12:28:32] |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| said by pianotech :
I don't see theft as a one-way venture, I see it as a two-way venture. Labels rip off consumers, and they rip off the artists. Furthermore, the "royalty" on blank cd's is wrong also, because as you said, people who use cdr's for things that have nothing to do with music are paying it. Plus, that is only distributed to major acts who have contracts with major labels (read, the RIAA), not independents like me.
So in consideration of everything I just said, why should I not receive 79-99 cents for a song? I'm independent, have no label, and could care less about the RIAA.
--
Composer, performer, pianist
[text was edited by author 2003-07-27 12:28:32]
Ok, I'll bite. What genre of music do you produce? Where and how is it available? I frequent events such as Celtic festivals, Native American pow-wows, Renaissance Fairs, Irish Pubs (Seamus Kennedy is a favorite) and such, and purchase CDs at those events in direct support of the artists who produced the works. I've also purchased CDs or simply donated money to various street musicians (New Alburado, for instance, creates a blend of Chilean, Andean, and Peruvian music -- I ran into them performing live outside Luray Caverns, of all places!) If you have something I'm interested in and I can find it for purchase, I'll happily support your endeavors in exchange for a chance to enjoy the music. The one thing that these have in common though, is that I'm able to hear the music before I purchase it, so I know what I'm getting and whether I like it in advance.
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-27 13:00:10] |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to pianotech
I am betting that royalty charge on blank audio CD's doesn't go to any artist at all. I bet all of that money goes to the record label's coffers. It would be easy for them to legally keep the money as the artist cannot prove their music was going to be copied on these disks. However the label can say the money is helping the musician through funding the marketing and promotional costs. Of course this is all bunk, but on paper it looks all nice and legal.
So as far as the artist is concerned those blank audio disks do NOTHING to support them.
BTW wtansill not all blank CD's have that royalty surcharge. Only blank CD's marked as audio, and I seriously doubt people buy those to back up computer data.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| said by SRFireside :
BTW wtansill not all blank CD's have that royalty surcharge. Only blank CD's marked as audio, and I seriously doubt people buy those to back up computer data.
A good point. Frankly, I but the discount CDs 50-100 to a spindle. I've not explicitly checked the see if they were "Audio" CDs or not. That said, I've used them to back up audio CDs for use in my wife's van, the CD player in my machine at work, etc. with no issues. I'm guessing that the public at large does not make the distinction either -- they see a spindle of CDs on the shelf at CompUSA, for instance, and add them to their cart, "Audio" or not...
Regardless of the above -- if you produce music of a genre I like, and it is easily available outside the clutches of the RIAA, I'll certainly consider buying it. You too are a musician, yes?
--
That which does not kill me merely prolongs the agony.
[text was edited by author 2003-07-27 13:27:29] |
|
pianotech
Pianotech
Premium
join:2002-12-30
New Castle, PA
| reply to SRFireside
said by SRFireside :
I am betting that royalty charge on blank audio CD's doesn't go to any artist at all. I bet all of that money goes to the record label's coffers. It would be easy for them to legally keep the money as the artist cannot prove their music was going to be copied on these disks. However the label can say the money is helping the musician through funding the marketing and promotional costs. Of course this is all bunk, but on paper it looks all nice and legal.
So as far as the artist is concerned those blank audio disks do NOTHING to support them.
You are absolutely right, and I highly doubt those so-called "royalties" are distributed to any artists also. The RIAA has a long history of screwing the artists AND the consumer (like the recent price-fixing case that was settled), and that's just another example of it.
--
Composer, performer, pianist |
|
