Posted on 10/04/2007 9:44:30 PM PDT by janetjanet998
Philosophically, it may be only right to kill someone who has wronged you in the least — after all they shouldn’t have broken the law and stolen something from you, however small in value.
That philosophy is loosely known as “fascism”, or any madly inspired “-ism” that callously seeks some perfect society at whatever great price in human suffering.
Troll.
“By using such a ludicrous definition of stealing they are inadvertently conditioning millions to be comfortable with the idea that they are criminals.”
This ludicrous definition of stealing is costing US entertainment and software companies billions worldwide each year. It is done on a massive scale in foreign countries and the governments do little to stop it even though trade agreements obligate them to enforce copyright laws.
It’s a type of theft and it costs jobs, prevents companies from growing as they could and is a very big cause of lost economic activity for the US since these products are among our largest exports, and should be far bigger.
“The greedy record companies have stolen more from artists than downloaders ever could.....
Spoken like a true marxist.”
Statements like this piss me off like you can’t believe.
I’ve worked in the music industry for over 20 years professionally, with everyone from major labels down to local bar bands. I know the industry, and the labels are full of some of the most corrupt, greedy backstabbing, conniving scumbags I have ever come across in my years. There’s also some really, really cool, talented people, that you run across once in a while.
Ask ANYONE, who’s worked in the music industry for any amount of time, how screwed up and nasty and effed up the music industry is at the corporate level. These people ruin people lives, their art, steal income, hide profits, hide royalties, sell albums out the back door as “distressed” so they don’t have to pay the artist royalties, and bill EVERYTHING to the musicians - some of whom never get enough royalties to pay back their advances, let alone get royalty money.
And yes, nobody twisted their arms, but until recently, it was the only game in town. They own it all - the studios, the venues, the radio, the tv stations, and to a certain extent the magazines, the ones left, anyway. The internet changed all that, that’s what this is about at it’s basis. Artists are seeing finally that a 97/3% split is highway robbery.
There’s nothing marxist about it, and knee-jerk reactionary statements like that are ignorant, especially if you don’t have the personal experiences I have.
Show me your music industry resume, and then accuse someone of being marxist for telling it like it is about the major record labels. They’ve been filthy in their business dealings since day one, go google “ record industry payola” for proof (and it’s STILL happening).
Being against the scumbags at the majors does NOT mean you are anti-capitalist, anti-profit, or anti-American. Just knock that @#@# off, already.
“Philosophically, it may be only right to kill someone who has wronged you in the least — after all they shouldn’t have broken the law and stolen something from you, however small in value.
That philosophy is loosely known as “fascism”, or any madly inspired “-ism” that callously seeks some perfect society at whatever great price in human suffering.”
Fantastic! Now there’s a rationalization for theft I haven’t heard before: prosecuting illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted music can lead to fascism.
Adding to my collection.
The internet has changed everything.
The old rules of copyright simply will never work again.
Never buy RIAA music again..... the corruption of the RIAA is massive.
Only buy used cd’s
Listen to freely distributed music..it’s as good or better than the crap the RIAA pushes.
Download freely...but be careful and use a safe method...
it is possible to get music through TOR.
Maybe it would be cool to donate a buck to this poor woman every time you bootleg a RIAA tune.
Then these companiesbetter find a better business model. People don't generally steal 9 dollar DVDs. Why should 15 songs cost 20 bucks? If the market technology is geeared to allow copying the CD in less than an hour then the record companies better come up with a better defense. Like making the music cheap enough to be not worth stealing and moving towards volume sales rather than a hardcore markup. The business model for music as it stands is dead.
“Being against the scumbags at the majors does NOT mean you are anti-capitalist, anti-profit, or anti-American. Just knock that @#@# off, already.”
I don’t doubt anything you say, but how does any of it justify fans illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music? Is that helping struggling musicians?
If musicians do find success through use of the internet, the same downloaders now will still be downloaders if the musicians manage to become independent of the record company scumbags. Just stealing directly from the musicians, and no, I don’t buy it that all the downloaders would suddenly decide to legally purchase all their music under the new paradigm if it ever arrives.
Ms Thomas, who has two children aged 11 and 13, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. The sum is equivalent to around five times her annual salary.
Not a bit your reply had anything to do with the point I was making.
Feel free to convince yourself that you have “won” some debate in which we were never even engaged.
“The business model for music as it stands is dead.?”
In other words, if people don’t like anything about the business model, they’ll just steal the product?
And the business model might not be as dead as you think it is. Many developments could come about that you aren’t anticipating.
“So, musicians now don’t count on record sales, just concerts. Why should you have to pay to go to a concert? Would it be all right if you found a hole in the fence and snuck in for free?”
That’s not the arguement I’m making, please don’t accuse me of being FOR downloading. I have never said that, nor do I.
There’s a bigger picture here, that downloading is *part* of, but my point is that to most artists, downloads don’t hurt them as much as the RIAA claims, and yes, the revenue streams for a band or an artist are from concert tickets, t-shirt sales, and publishing/ASCAP fees. Even multi-platinum artists like Brittney had to hit the road and sell tickets and merch.
Here’s an example. One of th biggest names in hard rock is rumored to make 6.5% royalties, and they are a special case. Try and get rich off of 3%, split 4 ways (or however band members there are), after the producer takes his points, the label takes theirs, the manager takes his cut. Then, the band gets to pay for all of the expenses for the album *before* they get to keep any of that money. That’s *before* taxes. Most bands are happy to sell 50K. Do the math. I know of bands who were huge on MTV, had hits, toured forever, and walked away still owing the label money. In the music biz, everything is recoupable - a record label is essentially a bank who loans money to musicians, and takes 95-98% of all sales - and the band goes on the road to sell tickets. (Which is why it’s even filthier because the labels are demanding and sadly getting percentages of tour amd merch income now, too.)
And you buy a ticket, because I know that money will go directly to the band (or most of it, after TicketMaster, the promoter and tour costs are taken out). I’ll go see a band at a local club in a heartbeat, because I know my money is going to put food on their table and gas in their van’s tank - and I’ll buy a cd and a t-shirt from them too (especially the cd, as cds sold at shows don’t have to be shared with the label in most cases).
Plus, you get to see a good, live show. I’ll take that over a cd any day, that’s what it’s all about - musicians playing their music.
“Better question: what do you get paid for? Can I have it for free?”
If I like you, maybe. My income is made at a different level, I’m paid once, and that’s it - what I do, there are no royalties. I’m fine with that. I’ve also had work bootlegged. I’ve had to sue for copyright infringement - but for different reasons. I support artists copyrights, but within reason. The RIAA is playing fast and loose with these cases, and it’s dangerous. And in the bigger picture, I’m getting tired of being accused of being a thief by huge, heartless money addicted corporations.
Look, my loyalties are with the artists, but even they are getting tired of the sickening greed that the RIAA is displaying. Trust me, I’ve had long talks with musicians who are VERY concerned that the RIAA is alienating their audience in their name, and they really don’t know how to counter it - and they don’t agree with it, at all.
“Feel free to convince yourself that you have “won” some debate in which we were never even engaged.”
You do the same. Precisely what point were you trying to make?
“Even if you oppose file-sharing, this is moronic. In this case, we’re talking about something like thirty dollars worth of music. This is absurd.”
I think you are missing the point. If I understand this case correctly (and I may not), this women was not just downloading stuff illegally for herself. She was distributing it on a large scale. That’s obviously a more serious offense.
“Some of us ARE in the music biz, and these damned file sharing sites are KILLING us, understand me?”
I would suggest putting music on a CD that is worth buying. Instead of marketing faces, try putting more than two songs on a release and not charging $15.99. It makes the price/value ratio, in the mind of the customer, easier to justify.
Every other industry has to change their product and strategy with the times. The music industry missed the boat.
However people participating in the thread earn income (if they do), if some way were found to siphon off a portion of that income, and they could do little about it, I don’t think they’d be too happy. They’d probably be screaming louder than the RIAA.
From the article: "They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights."
That is NOT just 28 songs... they merely limited the scope of the testimony and evidence to 28 specific songs as representative of the product she was distributing illegally.
Look, I've had my intellectual property stolen by someone in a similar manner. Many years ago I developed specific database application. It took me two years of work to develop it, idiot proof it, and polish it. The copyrighted database application was licensed by me (for a nominal $10 fee, to establish a legitimate contract) to a couple of charities who used it quite effectively.
A business owner saw the application and was impressed and I was in negotiations to license it for their use for $1500 plus a support contract. Suddenly they broke off negotiations. I learned later that the Executive Director of one of the charities GAVE them a copy of MY software and told them just to go ahead and use it. They did.
I later found MY software being used at other non-profits and businesses around the area... who had also been given a copy by the THIEF who converted MY HARD WORK and my PROPERTY to his purpose of getting brownie points by giving it away. Because of this THIEF, I was never able to make a dime (except for the $20 from the two charities) from two years of hard work.
I confronted the A**hole who was giving away my intellectual property and he told me that his AGENCY owned it because they had bought it from me for $10 (He even signed the LICENSE I provided when I allowed them to use it) and he could do with HIS PROPERTY what ever he wanted to... including making copies and giving them away if he wanted.
Almost thirty years ago, a friend of my wife's, a teacher, developed an excellent educational program for the Apple II. He invested over a year in it, arranged packaging and put it up for sale through the educational channels for $49.95. In a very short time it was in use in over 5,000 schools around the country and receiving rave reviews from other teachers and news pundits in the Computerized Education press. Teachers thought nothing about making copies and handing them out to other teachers... after all, it was "too expensive" to buy. The STATE OF MINNESOTA bought one original copy and made disk copies along with photocopies of his manual for every elementary school in the state! He sold exactly SIX copies and lost his shirt. He never wrote another piece of software in his life.
In my long life, I've also been a professional musician... and I did get paid royalties on some of my recorded work... not much but it was royalties. I've also produced a few CD for our local Choral group... and negotiated the rates and PAID extra to the orchestra musicians for the RIGHTS to sell their performances under our Chorale's copyright. The rates the musicians wanted were based on the estimated future sales of the CDs. They essentially got about four times what they would have charged us for merely accompanying the singers for a couple of rehearsals and two performances before a live audience. The contract we negotiated with their union allowed that one time payment... but if we went over our anticipated sales numbers, then each and every musician would have been due royalties on a per CD basis... not much per CD... but they would have been due them. One of the CDs we produced had 85 musicians in a Symphony Orchestra... each of them would have receive a couple of cents per CD, if I recall correctly, after the first 1,000 sold. If someone had copied and distributed those CDs, then the musicians would be deprived of the just and due recompense for their artistry and skill.
My writing was clear, you didn't get it, and I prefer to ignore you now.
“you really have no clue...how old are you 85?”
I can only deduce what you mean is only old people respect laws and property rights,
...and if you are young, hip and cool you disregard laws and property rights?
I guess being older, I have known all along it was ILLEGAL to copy and distribute movie DVDs and music.
This case proves I was correct, in my understanding of copyright law.
Stealing and distributing others’ property, by whatever means is illegal and wrong.
Rant all you want about “business models.” “Sharing” is distribution and that is illegal.
How about if I “borrow” your car, and let all my friends drive it for free?
Wouldn’t I be a nice, hip, cool young dude for “sharing?”
“I would suggest putting music on a CD that is worth buying. Instead of marketing faces, try putting more than two songs on a release and not charging $15.99. It makes the price/value ratio, in the mind of the customer, easier to justify.”
So, if the product is not packaged and priced to meet your strict standards, you’ll just steal it? Does that go for all products, or just music. Movies?
Why not just be an adult and have nothing to do with products that don’t meet your standards: neither purchase nor steal.
“Being against the scumbags at the majors does NOT mean you are anti-capitalist, anti-profit, or anti-American. Just knock that @#@# off, already.”
“I don’t doubt anything you say, but how does any of it justify fans illegally downloading and distributing copyrighted music? Is that helping struggling musicians?”
It doesnt, nor was I claiming it does.
“If musicians do find success through use of the internet, the same downloaders now will still be downloaders if the musicians manage to become independent of the record company scumbags. Just stealing directly from the musicians, and no, I don’t buy it that all the downloaders would suddenly decide to legally purchase all their music under the new paradigm if it ever arrives.”
In the past, it was considered a cost of doing business. In the 80’s, the RIAA threw a ft exactly like this one, when their profits started to sag, and they “discovered” people were buying blank cassette tapes to....gasp...SHARE the music with friends. (Or in my case, the lp for home, cassette for the car.)
They made all kinds of noise about it, until their pal Al Gore passed a blank cassette tax while his wife was babbling about the evils of music with the PMRC in Congress. That tax STILL exists. The labels shut right up as soon as it was passed.
I think - and a lot of people in the industry agrees with me, that once a new fad or trend starts, and albums start selling again, this will all go away. It’s typical for the record labels to cry poor when their profits drop, mostly due to their being nothing worth buying. The record industry goes in cycles, and we’re in the bottom of the trough at the moment.
Trust me. If albums start selling, they won’t sue anyone. And they will. The rise of iTunes and the other music sites is proof that people DO pay for music, but the majors have been resistant to it in their usual pig-headed way. Look at allofmp3.com. They’re making money hand over fist, over albums you could also get illegally by file sharing. I know I dropped a bundle on iTunes. I know artists who LOVE iTunes, they pay quarterly, and that’s unheard of in the music industry, where it can take years for them to release royalties. Bands are seeing income from iTunes, Rhapsody, eMusic, all of the sites. People ARE buying music - and a LOT of it.
As a curious thing, Universal now sells non-drm music on iTunes. It costs a little more, the quality is a little better, and it can be shared easily because of the lack of drm. Last i looked, Universal was a member of the RIAA. Why would a member of the RIAA sell a product that’s easier to share?
And on another note...the Zune can “squirt” songs to other Zunes. That’s...why, it’s file sharing!
How can that be?
It’s because Microsoft has a percentage of the sale of the device that goes to the labels.
What does that remind you of? A blank cassette tape tax?
Would’nt that be a much better way to handle the problem? Hmmm? That’s what I’m saying - people have been sharing music every since cassette tapes came along. It was a cost of business. They also had a LOT more product available, but that’s a whole ‘nother issue that would take a while to plow through, why the labels are releasing less and less, signing less bands, and everyone’s scared to try anything new.
It’s just a matter of scale - shoudl a kid who taped a song off the radio in the 80’s and made copies for friends be charged thousands of dollars? Or do we pay $5 per ISP account, add a few bucks to each iPod/Zune sold, maybe a few dollars per hard drive, make the music easy to get and more importantly easy to pay for, and everything will be just fine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.