RIAA is awarded judgment of $220,000 against a single mother with annual income of $36,000. Way the go corporate america. They are trying to make an example of her. Please help her cause.
http://www.freejammie.com/
no, she did not reply to inquest so it is her own fault
not sure i follow the story. what happened? and why? :dunno_white:
pirating music. err downloading music. ie not paying for it. ( like many do ;) )but she got caught, fought it, and lost
Inquest?? Care to join us in the States? On second thought, care to not?? There are some serious issues with the legal system, but every great civilization has it's faults. Have you considered Columbia as your new residence Frankie??? I hear it's quite warm.
Eh hes canadian, he comes here, bitches and stays. ahhh well :laugh:
Q: Do you know the difference between a Canuck and a Damn Canuck?
A: A Canuck is just visiting a Damn Canuck moves in.
Ok on topic. Copyright violations are a revenue loss of millions of dollars per year to artists and studios etc...
Theft is theft in my book that's how I see it, and I think the penalties are excesssive but that copyright infringement warning has been around on VHS tapes as long as I can remember warning that each incident cna be 10,000 dollars in fines. It's intent was to deter large scale piracy by making the cumulative fines so high even a large well funded operation would be broken if busted.
In cases of individual violations I have a hard time swallowing such massive penalties when someone is doing it for personal usage but that is an issue that needs to adressed in our legal system. I think levying a penalty of repayment at full retail value of the stolen music plus an appropriate fine is in order, but determining the level of theft and writng the law to adress violations by an individual is something that needs to be adressed within our legal system.
Exactly, what she did was wrong and she should be punished. However punishing an individual by levying a fine of 7 times their annual income is unacceptable. I like your idea BP, make her repay the full retail cost of every album she has a pirated song off of, and then asses an appropriate yet hefty fine.
Anyone else notice the site is down???
I think there are a few issues that came up with this case that make it disgusting.
First, the RIAA lawyers saying that to rip a cd that you buy so that you can listen to it on your mp3 player is STEALING! Even though we all know that's not true.
Second, the RIAA had the option (and chose) not to prove that she actually had Kazaa or any other software installed on her machine. This is part of the grounds for her appeal - they never proved that she actually transmitted any data to anyone else. There really is a difference between making the files available for download and actually having someone download them.
Third, why did they only go after 22 songs? What about the other thousand or so (can't remember the #). My guess would be that it was a ploy to set the threshold low enough that the jury would convict. It's one thing to say you have to pay $9k/song for 22 songs. It's another to say you need to pay $9k/song for 1000 songs. I don't see a jury awarding $9 million against a single mother.
Yes - someone with her computer probably downloaded the songs and made them available. But I still don't see how the RIAA has proved their case.
On another note - I'm not sure I see the problem with downloading music that I would never buy. There's no financial impact to the artist or label. If I want to support the artist, I buy their stuff - usually directly from them if possible. But there are tons of albums that I listen to but never would have bought - if I didn't have the option of downloading them, I'd listen to them on the radio. Theft does not always equal victim.
I think this is a sensative issue. Yes piracy is wrong but what i think and what really gets up my f%$king nose is drug dealers and people smoking shaZam! on the streets and caught with it on them can get away with a warning because of "personal use" only amounts. So why can't you just get a warning for "personal use" downloaded music. Yes there should be a hefty fine for somoene who is downloading music, films and games to sell on because you are making money by stealing of someone else. However if i just downloaded an album over the internet to listen to and i like it im likely to go buy an album. As MrDan said, i buy albums from artists that are good and worth buying the album for but im not going to go drop £15 on an album ive never heard before.
Plus artists and record shops HMV being one put huge prices on their albums for one good song. Now there is a record shop in my local town called Chalky's that advertise selling albums at the price they are worth and cheaper than HMV who put huge prices on stuff that isnt worth it. Hence i buy all my albums from Chalky's if they don't have the album i want i may well download it because im not getting ripped off. The music and film industry will rip you off for most stuff because they have the name and the brand and label and people will pay it sometimes which they shouldn't. There is no way some new artist's album is worth £20 quid. Its like shelling out £200 quid for nike trainers when the ones from the local shoe shop are just as good. Artists make too much money as it is and new artists who are usually the bloody good ones have cheaper albums because they haven't been heard off. So why should we pay a fortune for established artists albums when new artists albums are cheaper. Record and film companies are greedy unnecessarily they make a fortune as it is. Especially paying £7 plus just for a cinema ticket! Ridiculous!
All of the CD's in my truck are copies. Getting ready to do away with that though since I can just plug my Ipod ito the truck stereo.
I also have several DVD's that I have duplicated and you guessed it all of the originals are sittng in a drawer at home, when we travel especially with my son we take movies along.
Both of those are legal to do and you can not be prosecuted provided you have proof of legal ownership.
The originals are all at home in a box. Everything has been imported into iTunes. BTW the greatest thing apple has ever done :thumb: Any music I own which has been downloaded has been done through iTunes, and guess what you can listen to sample clips of any song they have available :icon_rolleyes:
Sorry Dan but I call :bs: dowloading bootleg music is theft it is wrong and by doing so you are enabling thieves. There is no peer to peer file sharing software on my computer nor will there ever be.
As a proffesional in the computer field I personally find the illicit downloading of anything personally offensive not to mention unethical yeah call me a boy scout or whatever but if you don't like the fact that she got slammed and received legal penalties which have been in place for over 20 years now get the law changed.
In closing iTunes, i believe Amazon and one other online retailer are all in the market selling music if you only want one song buy just one song, or buy the whole album online. Plus iTunes has a pretty decent license manager sytem you just need to remember to back it up regularly.
Quote from: MrDan on October 10, 2007, 07:11:26 AM
On another note - I'm not sure I see the problem with downloading music that I would never buy. There's no financial impact to the artist or label. If I want to support the artist, I buy their stuff - usually directly from them if possible. But there are tons of albums that I listen to but never would have bought - if I didn't have the option of downloading them, I'd listen to them on the radio. Theft does not always equal victim.
Agreed. Most of the songs I download, I would never buy the album for (or pay for the song). Another thing is artists are losing very little money. They make most of their money from touring and merchandise, not album sales.
I don't consider downloading music stealing at all. By this logic, if you record a song off the radio and give a copy to your friend, you're breaking the law. If you were making a profit off that, then it's illegal. Most artists embrace downloading music because it's much easier for them to get heard. It's only the greedy ones that really complain *cough*lars*cough*.
Bottom line, it's a crappy way for an aging, greedy industry to get as much money as they can before falling completely flat on it's face.
Look back at the first point I made. I'm afraid that making legal copies will be the next thing attacked. The RIAA Sony BMG lawyer said that it is stealing to backup your own music. While the law is on the consumers side on that, it's still bothersome that the labels/RIAA disagrees. Here's the quote - "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song. Making a copy of a purchased song is just a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'".
I'm not disputing that downloading pirated music is theft. I'm just making a very fine distinction. I personally am not stealing anything from Kanye West by downloading his new album. He did not have a potential album sale in me that he has lost. There is no revenue loss to anyone in his production team, studio, label, etc since I never had any intention to buy the album. If I did not have the option to download it, I still would not buy it. Yes - you could (and I do) consider it theft, but there was nothing of value that was stolen.
Here's another aspect of the law that irks me. If there is a particular artist that I like and have bought all of their albums, supported them at concerts, purchased clothing, etc, it is still illegal for me to download a copy of a cd that I own. Hand in hand, if I rip songs from a cd that I own, and email the files to my wife, I would be in violation of the law - even though that used to fall under Fair Use.
Moving on, there are many valid uses for P2P file sharing softwares - so don't write them off just yet. Check out etree.org for example. They host/share concerts - every artist on there has approved the sharing of their shows. It's an excellent resource to legally download concerts. Also, while BitTorrent is probably primarily used for illicit purposes, there are many bands and companies that use it to push their own products out.
I'm not calling you a boy scout for having a problem with these actions. I'm starting to become conflicted myself as my wife and I start talking about having kids. I do think that there is more to the issue though - and that changing the law, while ideal, is not likely to happen. In the meantime, it takes people who disagree with the law and subsequently break it, to present the opportunities to change it. I do not think this law will be changed through the legislature, it will take the courts unfortunately (just like the abusive drivers fees in VA).
In regards to your iPod. What size do you have and how full is it? Don't you see something wrong when it costs $40,000 to fill the top end iPod? Because if the labels and RIAA have their way, the only way to get music on there would be to buy every song - no more ripping.
+1000 on
Quote from: MrDan on October 10, 2007, 08:57:15 AM
I'm not disputing that downloading pirated music is theft. I'm just making a very fine distinction. I personally am not stealing anything from Kanye West by downloading his new album. He did not have a potential album sale in me that he has lost. There is no revenue loss to anyone in his production team, studio, label, etc since I never had any intention to buy the album. If I did not have the option to download it, I still would not buy it. Yes - you could (and I do) consider it theft, but there was nothing of value that was stolen.
Also to point out. What do kids do everyday with their new fangled mobile phones, they share songs, video clips, tv clips all through their phones via bluetooth, you can't stop that and nor have the record companies tried because that works in their favor as its hard to transfer whole albums but a song or two is easy = spreading the record lable and increasing overall sales.
Everything in this f%$king world is hypocritical. Laws are only instated if it suits the person who is pushing for the law and in the end someone makes money out of it. For example here in the UK they fought against a law that said speed cameras had to visible (i.e painted yellow) now why would you fight against a law that displays speed cameras which will force people to slow down. Well its because someone (i.e. government) are making shaZam! loads of money from speed cameras and making them visible (i.e painted and not hidden behind trees) will lose them revenue that goes in their back pockets. Laws and governments are hypocritical, if its detramental to the record label they will sue sue sue, however if the distributing of single songs via their target audience through mobile bluetooth, which can potentially increase their sales they will happily turn a blind eye. f%$king Hypocrits.
QuoteBy this logic, if you record a song off the radio and give a copy to your friend, you're breaking the law.
Radio stations pay fees to license music for public broadcast. It's intended purpose is to be heard the time of broadcast by recording it and redistributing you have in fact broken the law. The same applies to television shows and movies on pay channels. Youi can record them to be viewed at any time by you and your household. The minute you redistribute, sell or publicly exhibit or rebroadcast a transmission you are in violation of a usage license agreement. It is theft period end of story, hell Lars doesn't even like beiing on iTunes for 99 cents a song but that is legal.
Theft is theft plain and simple, no wonder artists are no longer putting out albums where the majority of an album was good material why put the time and effort forth when people are just going to steal it and they don't get paid. You can justify it all you want but it is theft. What are you people retarded they are in business to make money and their music is their intellectual property. I bet 1/2 you tards are probaly running bootleged operating systems or applications.
I am done on this one try to convince the rest of the world it's right to take other people's shaZam!, but it's no different than going out and jacking bikes or cars. Just less volent.
And speeding is bad and cussing is bad and wars are bad. You can't change them. This will happened whether is theft or legal. I don't agree with bootlegging and selling music on but if i give an album to my friend with songs that have been downloaded i would be f%$king pissed off if i got fined that much money. I will legally buy any album that i want to support the artist off that i know im going to listen to and that i want the album for. If i want to listen to one song because someone said it was good and i download it. I had no intention of buying it or getting the album the artist has lost nothing from me like MrDan said. However if i liked the song i might buy the album. Record companies and artists give no incentive to buy their music because they make it an absolute fortune because they want to make a tonne of money. The only way to change the illegal downloading of music is for artists to cut their cost of their albums making it much easier for me to go buy their album than spending an hour downloading it.
Plus you can't pull the whole theft is theft card, like speeding is speeding card. Its not true its unreal. Laws and rules have to suit the world as it is today. Theft isn't theft. Hows that pen that you "borrowed" of your work collegue the other day and havn't returned. Oh sorry $9000 thankyou for stealing that pen, thief! See what i mean? Speeding is another one (yes you the person who has undoubtedly speeded on your motorcycle) please explain to me the incentive that the government give people to slow down when they are caught for doing 10 over the limit by a speed camera placed on a road where there has never been an accident just to make money out of you. There isn't Just as paying £20 for an album or £1.50 for a song that your friend told you to listen to. There is no incentive to buy over priced stuff that is going into the back pockets of some chap who you were told to listen to. Also don't mention programs like itunes and napster to me. They were designed by people to rip you off. You have to pay for membership first then you pay for your songs, and then your songs only last so long before you lose them and the money you spent on them. And if you disagree, why do apple insist on converting perfectly good mp3 files into apple ipod files that can't be distributed.
apple ipod songs export just fine as mp3 or even better fully decompress to wma files :dunno_white:
there is no membership fee for itunes again maybe you should use the application :dunno_white:
Never heard of an expiration either like I said you get a license for music you buy from iTunes it goes in a license manager it is your responsibility to keep up with it and make sure it is backed up :cookoo:
I wish I could hand out $9000 fines to every coworker who borrows a pen from me since everyone seems to like my pens but no one else bothers to order any on the supply order. But since I don't buy or bring my personal office supplies to work I don't have to worry about it.
Now let's deal with speeding. Is it illegal? Yes.
Do I speed? Yes. Can I afford to pay the fines if I get pulled over for speeding? Yes. Can I afford to bail myself out of Jail and pay for the ensuing fines which will arise from my stupidity when I treat public roads like a race track? Yes.
Have I been caught? You betcha. Do I stlll speed? Yep right again the answer is yes. Can I ride without breaking laws? Yes I can and often do especially when riding with my wife since she does not have the long term experience and instincts from years of riding. Well why don't I haul ass then? Because the cost of losing my wife would be too great to me if something happened.
Moral of the story if you can not do the time do not do the crime. I will even go one better I have never been pulled over when I wasn't speeding and was driving a tagged and inspected vehicle. Wow novel idea don't break the law.
so....my computer came in the box with "livewire" software in it. with this progam i can find almost any song, movie etc. i use it for my personal music library on the computer. do you guys also view this as "stealing" or "copy-right infringement". i'm not making a profit. i'm not hurting anyone. :dunno_white:
Yep your stealing prepare to be erm fined alot of money and sent to prison and beheaded. No don't worry about it. We all do it, some people appear to have light shining out of their arses' on this subject but you will find 90% of this board download all sorts of stuff.
seriously, every computer i've seen for sale has some sort of program that comes with it for downloading music and such. i don't think i can copy the music i've got since i've only got the "free" version. but hell, i don't need to copy it. like i said, i use it for my computer music library.
welcome to the world of litigation and large corporation control that is the USA.
the golden rule: "he who has the gold makes the rules"
And life's like a shaZam! sandwich, the bread you have the less shaZam! you have to eat.
Frankie: do the G-men monitor your thoughts with satellites??? OOOOOH or maybe they bug your phones!!! Better yet I bet they drug you and try to brainwash you while anally violating you! Seriously, get a grip on how the real world works then Buddha Loves You about things. Not everything can be simple. Man is a complex beast and is driven to success at all costs. There is no way to change what is and always will be.
yes to all of the above :) at least i don't pretend to be 007
the music industry is supposedly on its last legs in its current form, and not having a lot of leadership... their legal arm is just attacking the weak. doesn't have anything to do with fairness or what will actually end up working. the medium has surpassed the industry and left it in the dust.
the ny times did an article on the head of columbia (ram dass type guy) and how screwed the music business is (hugely). sucks for them but things have changed. for the better. i dont have $17 to be paying for a good song or two. I used to tape shaZam! off the radio cause i couldn't afford a cd collection. that is probably the very reason i bought a computer too--for music.
the fines are ridiculous. it is very common. i do it with no regrets. i think the record execs should be guillotined.
If you REALLY hate the RIAA, click here:
http://www.riaaradar.com
Quote
Theft is theft plain and simple, no wonder artists are no longer putting out albums where the majority of an album was good material why put the time and effort forth when people are just going to steal it and they don't get paid.
If anything, downloading would encourage an artist to make an album that is full of good material. Not the opposite. If they have a great album, people are more likely to buy it instead of just downloading a single track.
I honestly think downloading has very little, if anything, to do with the quality of albums now. The reason albums aren't as good is because of the record companies. Music has become more and more commercial, and the companies just want to put out as much radio friendly, cookie-cutter, over-produced songs as possible. It's a known fact that there are many popular bands out there that are terrible live (or even worse, just lip sync).
I can't say I agree with the rest of your post either, but Kasumi and MrDan said it better than I could.
Quote from: bettingpython
apple ipod songs export just fine as mp3 or even better fully decompress to wma files :dunno_white:
there is no membership fee for itunes again maybe you should use the application :dunno_white:
Never heard of an expiration either like I said you get a license for music you buy from iTunes it goes in a license manager it is your responsibility to keep up with it and make sure it is backed up :cookoo:
I believe Napster now works on a subscription plan - you subscribe, pay to download the music and are forced to pay napster every month for the pleasure of listening to the music you downloaded. If you stop paying monthly, you lose the songs. Correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that's how they were set up though.
Quote from: bettingpython
I wish I could hand out $9000 fines to every coworker who borrows a pen from me since everyone seems to like my pens but no one else bothers to order any on the supply order.
+1 - lost a Mont Blanc I've had for 15 years this way. Sucks
Quote from: bettingpython
Now let's deal with speeding. Is it illegal? Yes.
Do I speed? Yes. Can I afford to pay the fines if I get pulled over for speeding? Yes. Can I afford to bail myself out of Jail and pay for the ensuing fines which will arise from my stupidity when I treat public roads like a race track? Yes.
Have I been caught? You betcha. Do I stlll speed? Yep right again the answer is yes. Can I ride without breaking laws? Yes I can and often do especially when riding with my wife since she does not have the long term experience and instincts from years of riding. Well why don't I haul ass then? Because the cost of losing my wife would be too great to me if something happened.
While I agree with your point, it's becoming a slippery slope in places - and it does not stand as proof that the fines/repercussions are valid. In VA, they now have abusive drivers fees that are only for VA residents, and are well beyond reasonable. Imagine failing to use your turn signal, and paying $3750 over 3 years plus an additional $750 for 7 because of the points. Does that sound reasonable for changing lanes without a signal?
That's more in line with what is happening here. A woman is being fined ~$9000 for songs that can be purchased for $1. One might say that $9000 people downloaded each song from her so there was a loss to the label, but that has not been proven and has formed the grounds for an appeal. I'm all for having a punishment that fits the crime, but this is the modern day version of losing a hand for stealing a loaf of bread.
Regarding your earlier post ...
Quote from: bettingpython
QuoteBy this logic, if you record a song off the radio and give a copy to your friend, you're breaking the law.
Radio stations pay fees to license music for public broadcast. It's intended purpose is to be heard the time of broadcast by recording it and redistributing you have in fact broken the law. The same applies to television shows and movies on pay channels. Youi can record them to be viewed at any time by you and your household. The minute you redistribute, sell or publicly exhibit or rebroadcast a transmission you are in violation of a usage license agreement. It is theft period end of story, hell Lars doesn't even like beiing on iTunes for 99 cents a song but that is legal.
As I've mentioned before, it would appear that the next step for the labels/RIAA would be to make it illegal to ever make a copy of anything. So no more backups of your cds, no more mix tapes, etc. They've already claimed it is stealing - they just need to modify the law to back them up. And I have more faith that they'll be able to accomplish that than in our congress to stop them.
Quote from: bettingpython
Theft is theft plain and simple
It's not that clear. Is there theft if there is no loss? How do you steal something that has no value. I understand that in theory, it's that black and white with no gray area, but look at is this way. If I stole your bike, and the cops couldn't prove it, and I was acquitted, did I commit a theft? Legally, no. Even if I then drove it to your house to show you I'd taken it, legally, I did NOT steal it. In another situation, if you're walking through a field with your girl, and pick wildflowers for her, you've stolen from the state (or whomever the owner is). But there's no inherent value in the wildflowers so did you actually commit theft? And should you be fined $50 for stealing the daisy?
Quote from: bettingpython
no wonder artists are no longer putting out albums where the majority of an album was good material why put the time and effort forth when people are just going to steal it and they don't get paid.
Maybe this has more to do with the lack of talent in many (if not most) new artists. Also, I think it has more to do with contractual issues. The band has to put out in album in a year, regardless of whether they have enough good material - so they put in fluff.
Quote from: bettingpython
I am done on this one try to convince the rest of the world it's right to take other people's shaZam!, but it's no different than going out and jacking bikes or cars. Just less volent.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I wish it were as clear cut as you're making it, but I don't believe it is. Regardless, nice to have fully thought out posts to reply to :thumb:
Slippery slope ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/7029892.stm
This case is an abomination, and I hope it's overturned on constitutional appeal under the "Cruel and unusual punishment" heading. To hell with the RIAA and its gestapo-style witch hunt and extortion. Downloading music is a victimless crime, I don't care what the DMCA or the spokespeople for the music industry would have you believe. Technology has made the recording and distribution hierarchy obsolete and pursuing retribution from those who are too weak to defend themselves shows just how desperate this dying monopoly has become. I say let it die.
agreed, it IS theft, BUT i think the punishment was very severe. then again , i do not know the specifics here, BUT i hope it is reduced, if not overturned, or if punishment has to be madef, say price the fine, according to cd prices, say $15 for 10 songs
Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on October 20, 2007, 11:10:08 PM
agreed, it IS theft, BUT i think the punishment was very severe. then again , i do not know the specifics here, BUT i hope it is reduced, if not overturned, or if punishment has to be madef, say price the fine, according to cd prices, say $15 for 10 songs
It's copyright infringement, not theft.
Quote from: MrDan on October 15, 2007, 07:43:40 AM
It's not that clear. Is there theft if there is no loss? How do you steal something that has no value. I understand that in theory, it's that black and white with no gray area, but look at is this way. If I stole your bike, and the cops couldn't prove it, and I was acquitted, did I commit a theft? Legally, no. Even if I then drove it to your house to show you I'd taken it, legally, I did NOT steal it. In another situation, if you're walking through a field with your girl, and pick wildflowers for her, you've stolen from the state (or whomever the owner is). But there's no inherent value in the wildflowers so did you actually commit theft? And should you be fined $50 for stealing the daisy?
That is a very good way of putting it. Kudos.
If it keeps going this way were will it all end?
Before you know it you will be charged for each breath you take because someones tree put that O2 in the air for you. :cookoo:
Damn shame what this country has come too. :mad:
the other great american pastime.......lawsuits. :cookoo:
Quote from: Oklahoma_Mike on October 23, 2007, 10:14:31 AM
Quote from: MrDan on October 15, 2007, 07:43:40 AM
It's not that clear. Is there theft if there is no loss? How do you steal something that has no value. I understand that in theory, it's that black and white with no gray area, but look at is this way. If I stole your bike, and the cops couldn't prove it, and I was acquitted, did I commit a theft? Legally, no. Even if I then drove it to your house to show you I'd taken it, legally, I did NOT steal it. In another situation, if you're walking through a field with your girl, and pick wildflowers for her, you've stolen from the state (or whomever the owner is). But there's no inherent value in the wildflowers so did you actually commit theft? And should you be fined $50 for stealing the daisy?
That is a very good way of putting it. Kudos.
If it keeps going this way were will it all end?
Before you know it you will be charged for each breath you take because someones tree put that O2 in the air for you. :cookoo:
Damn shame what this country has come too. :mad:
Daisies are not a good metaphor. Music is original and unique, and by being able to access it online for free, the musicians are not getting paid for the use of their work by their entire listening public. Maybe that public wouldn't have bought the music anyway, but a percentage of them would have. In this way, artists are at risk of making a reduced living, or maybe in some cases, not making a living at all.
I still do it. :dunno_white:
Well the world need ditch diggers too. :dunno_white:
I am just kidding, but I totally disagree. The sky is Blue! :cheers:
Quote from: nightrider on October 23, 2007, 11:45:48 AM
Daisies are not a good metaphor. Music is original and unique, and by being able to access it online for free, the musicians are not getting paid for the use of their work by their entire listening public. Maybe that public wouldn't have bought the music anyway, but a percentage of them would have. In this way, artists are at risk of making a reduced living, or maybe in some cases, not making a living at all.
I still do it. :dunno_white:
Bottom line - if I didn't download albums I've heard good things about with bittorrent, I wouldn't buy half the music I do. And I hit RIAA Radar first before buying anything so I know whether I should buy it new or used - used sales don't bolster the recording industry's lawsuits against individuals.
I suspect many others feel the same way. All the arguments against peer to peer could presumably be posed against radio too - either traditional, online or software. The problem for the recording industry is that peer to peer takes the control over distribution and promotion out of their hands and gets people interested in indie music because they can actually hear it before buying it now.
If you want justification for copyright infringement look no further than the payola that reeks from almost every Clear Channel station. You won't hear indie music on any of them. They want to play fast and loose with the law, we can too.
Quote from: nightrider on October 23, 2007, 11:45:48 AM
Quote from: Oklahoma_Mike on October 23, 2007, 10:14:31 AM
Quote from: MrDan on October 15, 2007, 07:43:40 AM
It's not that clear. Is there theft if there is no loss? How do you steal something that has no value. I understand that in theory, it's that black and white with no gray area, but look at is this way. If I stole your bike, and the cops couldn't prove it, and I was acquitted, did I commit a theft? Legally, no. Even if I then drove it to your house to show you I'd taken it, legally, I did NOT steal it. In another situation, if you're walking through a field with your girl, and pick wildflowers for her, you've stolen from the state (or whomever the owner is). But there's no inherent value in the wildflowers so did you actually commit theft? And should you be fined $50 for stealing the daisy?
That is a very good way of putting it. Kudos.
If it keeps going this way were will it all end?
Before you know it you will be charged for each breath you take because someones tree put that O2 in the air for you. :cookoo:
Damn shame what this country has come too. :mad:
Daisies are not a good metaphor. Music is original and unique, and by being able to access it online for free, the musicians are not getting paid for the use of their work by their entire listening public. Maybe that public wouldn't have bought the music anyway, but a percentage of them would have. In this way, artists are at risk of making a reduced living, or maybe in some cases, not making a living at all.
I still do it. :dunno_white:
not making a living? or taking a "loss"? are u kidding me? half of these so-called, "artists" have $15 million dollar mansions, have 5 or more cars. 3 yacths....should i go on? my point is they aren't really losing as much as they say they are. many of them can't even sing, or play an intrument. so what intellecutaly property do they have? i think it's sad when someone who merely sings for a living makes more money than the president, or the dr who's responsible for your life when something goes wrong. i haven't bought a new cd in so long i almost don't remember what it was. wait, i do. a james blount cd for my wife last year. i'm sick of paying $15 or more for a cd and only getting one maybe two songs that are worth a damn.
[/quote]
not making a living? or taking a "loss"? are u kidding me? half of these so-called, "artists" have $15 million dollar mansions, have 5 or more cars. 3 yacths....should i go on? my point is they aren't really losing as much as they say they are. many of them can't even sing, or play an intrument. so what intellecutaly property do they have? i think it's sad when someone who merely sings for a living makes more money than the president, or the dr who's responsible for your life when something goes wrong. i haven't bought a new cd in so long i almost don't remember what it was. wait, i do. a james blount cd for my wife last year. i'm sick of paying $15 or more for a cd and only getting one maybe two songs that are worth a damn.
[/quote]
... :cookoo:
Jserio :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
Hit the nail on the head.
no, his logic is pretty focked. most musicians are nowhere near as wealthy as he describes... that is ludicrous wealth which very few ever attain. even the smallest popular artists are affected by filesharing of their music.
im saying this because one stayed in my home (friend of roommate) and her group is becoming popular. www.carolinachocolatedrops.com they are growing in popularity within their niche... they rely entirely on cd sales and tickets to their shows to survive. travelling constantly because they are lucky enough to have an audience, but not yet able to afford health insurance.
yea, id say they are far from the standards whatsisname described, but they know the filesharing affects them.
I still have limewire, just saying, it does affect people.
It really doesn't. The only artists who are affected by file sharing are those with enough popularity to be known country or world wide in which case they make a fortune. The sort of music you get on file sharing is hugly popular artists like Oasis, Kanye West. The big people who are easily making millions and millions each year and do own massive houses more than 15 million and lots of cars and live glamourous lifestyles. Plus how can they claim lost revenue when they can't prove you would buy an album anyway. As i see it, some people (has happened to me) will listen to an upcoming artists songs through file sharing networks and then go out and buy the CD. Others will listen to the music and not buy the CD. I don't know how people can claim that file sharing is so bad and artists will be losing revenue. Look at YouTube. You can listen to virtually any song on there from artists and watch the videos. They must effectively have lost my purchasing of that track through Napster or iTunes.
The only reason is record labels are whinging because theyre losing pennies to them. When i see a record label going out of buisness because of this then i will stop. But i think downloading a CD over the internet when i wouldn't even go out and buy it gives them a chance of getting a purchase of something out of me and there are much bigger things to worry about in the world than downloading a cd.
and if this was honestly that big of a deal, why would programs like limewire have their stuff put onto computers before you even purchase the computer? if it's that big a deal why doesn't the RIAA go after the companies that produce these programs instead of lil peons like you and me? quite simply: the money. the RIAA knows it can't deal with another massive company legally. so they choose to bully around the lil guys who don't have the money to front for good lawyers.
has any other band besides metallica whined about file sharing? even they've been quiet lately... they went after napster, but that's it.
Quote from: nightrider on October 24, 2007, 02:54:32 PM
no, his logic is pretty focked. most musicians are nowhere near as wealthy as he describes... that is ludicrous wealth which very few ever attain. even the smallest popular artists are affected by filesharing of their music.
im saying this because one stayed in my home (friend of roommate) and her group is becoming popular. www.carolinachocolatedrops.com they are growing in popularity within their niche... they rely entirely on cd sales and tickets to their shows to survive. travelling constantly because they are lucky enough to have an audience, but not yet able to afford health insurance.
yea, id say they are far from the standards whatsisname described, but they know the filesharing affects them.
I still have limewire, just saying, it does affect people.
Studies have shown that peer to peer is a leveling effect on music sales. It boosts indie music sales tremendously by getting exposure to small bands that no one has ever heard of and otherwise would never hear of because traditional media is bought and paid for by the RIAA and subsidiaries. People discover new music through P2P and if they enjoy it enough, go to the artist's concerts when they're in town. Do you realize how much more an artist makes on concert tickets than CD sales? Particularly for artists on RIAA labels, they may only see 10 cents of an album's $15 price tag per sale. This is why Radiohead's "In Rainbows" is going to change the way people think about selling music. Now if I download an album from your roommate's friend's band, do you really think she's going to care? If one out of every 10 people that listen to that ILLEGALLY DOWNLOADED album go to her concert because of it she'd be far better off.
Copying is not theft, and it's not even a bad thing for the majority of musicians. By the way, I do plan to check out that group's music. Thanks for the recommendation.
Quote from: kdogg84 on October 24, 2007, 09:58:13 PM
has any other band besides metallica whined about file sharing? even they've been quiet lately... they went after napster, but that's it.
exactly. Of the bands that have spoken out about file sharing I've heard 10 in favor of it for every 1 against. Many bands have embraced it and are now giving their music away! See http://www.archive.org/browse.php?collection=etree&field=%2Fmetadata%2Fcreator - anyone else have any questions about whether musicians like or dislike sharing music online?
Seriously...this isn't even a debate anymore - this argument was settled years ago. The RIAA just hasn't realized it yet.
All this is about is the artist are cutting the record companys out of the equation by going directly to the customer and they are pissed. Now the RC knows if it goes after the artist it will never sign another so go after the very people that made them rich to begin with.
The big bands that own there own recording lable are not able to sign as many new artist.The artist wants to keep more of what they earn instead of giving it away, so they start a myspace page or such and throw a few singles up on a P to P site. I have bought 15-20 CD this year ALL because I was able to check out the cd 1st. I will put it to you this way. Up intill file shairing started I probably bought 10 CD every 3 years. Just didn't get into music that much untill it became easy to get into it and hear a varitity. Now I buy way more than I want to, but that is fine with me if file sharing goes away then the RC and :kiss3: my $ goodbuy. :flipoff: