Posted on 06/18/2009 6:29:59 PM PDT by dayglored
That's not a proper analogy, since Mozart's music is in the public domain.
Try that with a contemporary pop song, and Rudy will be over to buy yez a drink... so to speak....
It’s not the same - a copy of a song leaves the original; though I’d love to see technology that can copy cars! Yeah, baby!
It depends on what the studio time cost,the production cost were,the union cost,the promo cost,disturb cost,the lawyers fees,the royalty fees and the deal that was set up in the beginning.Not many people understand what it really cost to put out a record on the national/international level.A production cost alone could be half a million dollars.
It depends on what the studio time cost,the production cost were,the union cost,the promo cost,disturb cost,the lawyers fees,the royalty fees and the deal that was set up in the beginning.Not many people understand what it really cost to put out a record on the national/international level.A production cost alone could be half a million dollars.
That's the first I've heard of that angle.
If that's the case, I have no sympathy whatsoever if they nail her for that.
The more I see millions of people walking around with music plugged into their heads, the less I am interested.
So what if I record music into my computer from any of the numerous fine FM radio broadcasters using the common FM tuner card?Why is that fundamentally different from tape recording the song from the radio's earphone jack?Or are you going to tell me that is somehow stealing?
Moreover, the copy of a song most often ends up in the possession of someone who would not have paid the price of a CD anyway. So it's not even a "lost sale" (a strawman often used to justify the "copying is stealing" mantra).
As soon as they come out with a technology for copying cars that leaves the original intact, let me know...
“Tell me, since I’m not real clear on this: Say a track sells on iTunes or Amazon for 99cents. Who gets how much of that buck? How much does the artist see? How much the store? how much goes into actual musical production (recording, mixing)? how much to promo? and how much goes to the middlefolks?”
Why is that your business? You feel laws should be broken, to limit revenue and profit?
One thing I find annoying—how many times are we reasonably expected to buy rights to the same song? Vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD, iTunes, etc.
Alright, a singer goes to the park and sings the Rolling Stones “Satisfaction”...
...the same point applies.
No one would fine/arrest the listeners.
FROM http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/06/riaa-jammie-thomas-rasset-piracy-verdict-kazaa.html
She was getting illegal downloads.”STEALING”.
When this first happened it was stated she may have been an illegal.
I assume you mean she owned a PAPER copy of the book. If so, then the audio copy is a separate creative entity, and IMO is deserving of a separate fee if the audio producer requests one.
No of course not. What's your problem -- get off my case with the personal accusations, please.
I asked a simple question of someone who claimed greater knowledge of a topic than mine, and am curious to know the answer.
I have no problem with making revenue and profit in business. I have a problem with parasitic middlemen who do not add value to the product, but time wounds all heels.
I’m not a judge or a lawyer but I do know that the courts are cracking down on illegal thief of music/copyright law on the net.Many people I work with have been devastated via internet thief.
“Each product can easily be in the millions.”
You’d think for that much money the product would be better.
But then again, how much did Pontiac spend on research for the Aztek ?
You had better hope that jury nullification stays in the shadows; if it ever becomes the norm we are done for.
Lady Justice wears a blindfold. That is meant to symbolize that the law is supposed to be followed regardless of one's feelings or emotions or prejudices or sympathies.
Part of me feels sorry for this lady. But she plainly broke the law, and the penalties are set forth in the law.
In the olden days, horse thieves were hanged. That was not because horses were so expensive or rare. It was so that people did not steal horses because the penalty was so harsh.
Jury nullification is just another form of judicial activism. Don't like the law? That's cool. Just ignore it and do what you want.
We've already agreed that what she did was wrong.
> ”STEALING”.
No, find another verb, like "copying". "Stealing" is a misnomer, and you know it. What she was doing was making (and probably distributing) copies of files.
If she took someone else's copy -- such that they didn't have it any more -- THAT is stealing.
Copying. Not stealing. C'mon, it's not hard to understand.
And just so you get it this time, COPYING for your own use is not the same as COPYING AND DISTRIBUTING. IMO the latter is WRONG, while the former is entirely ethical.
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.