|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
 Posted - 07/24/2003 : 14:46:06 [Permalink]
|
Mass production costs for CD is far lower than producing tapes and vinyl records. It usually costs just pennies to produce the CDs. The majority of their expenses comes from promotion, and from investing in talent.
However, it is important to note that many artists have ZERO right to their own material. Many record companies assume copyright on the materials. That is one of reasons companies pressed for copyright laws to last 70 some odd years AFTER the orignal creator died. That way they can still milk it. I used to be only 17 years that you had copyright, after which it was public domain. However, that is not in the best interest of the companies that hold these rights.
Now, I am not saying theft is right in any way, but I smell something crooked every time I hear about copyright laws.
|
 |
|
|
Florduh
New Member
USA
8 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 15:43:29 [Permalink]
|
| I'm heartened to see some honest people step up to the plate! I know a guy who downloads one or two feature films a week, many before their release dates. He trades his duplicates with other thieves and thus avoids ever renting, buying or paying a theater to see a first run movie. In addition, he doesn't own one piece of legal software, and he has programs that he doesn't even know what they do. Of course he also has hundreds (maybe thousands) of songs recorded as well. It's almost like kleptomania. There are several acquaintanes in the "ring" who help to multiply the offences. The industries creating these stolen properties have to spend a lot of money trying to find ways to encrypt their products, lobby for tighter laws and better enforcement. Every unauthorized use must be considered lost revenue. Who do you think pays for all this extra expense? I DO. A program that should sell for $200 might now cost me $220 or more. A music CD that costs me $14 might sell for $12 if it weren't for the extra expense of fighting theft of their materials. Shoplifting raises the price of everything we buy at the supermarket or clothing store - ask any retailer. Since it ultimately comes out of my pocket, these crimes are committed against me. |
I wanted to be born again, but my mother would have no part of it. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 19:01:22 [Permalink]
|
NubiWan wrote:quote:
Dave W. quote:
"The ignorance contempt of the law expressed in the
first three posts in this thread is simply astounding, and sickening.
Don't even have the common decency to avoid editing my quotes?
No, my initial assessment of your knowledge of copyright law stands, given that you don't have a clue as to when copyright goes into effect, and especially with your feeble comparison of libraries to file-sharing networks. I've never seen a file-sharing network from which you were obligated to give back the downloads you make.quote:
Didn't realize SFN posts were copyrighted..!
They're your words, aren't they? Your original work? Instantaneous copyright.quote:
To answer your question thou, have at various points in my life, and may well again. Although have never used the "protection" that copyrighting claims to provide, as yet.
That's either good news or bad, depending. Maybe both.quote:
Find the system you defend, "astounding and sickening," such as bio-tech firms copyrighting the DNA strings of people, who were test subjects in the hope of advancing medical science, freely.
Another example of your ignorance of the law. DNA strands are not copyrightable. They are, unfortunately, patentable, a part of "the system" that I do not support.quote:
So what is the harm? Nothing till those same people need certain types of tests, that would 'violate' terms strictly applied, of the copyright... (Tests that require samples of their DNA. Hospitals and doctors, that are law-suit shy, refuse to do them without a written release.)
If you have any citations which show that that has ever happened, I'd be amazed. Until you demonstrate that it's a common problem, I'm going to have to assume that you're making things up.quote:
RIAA types abound, such as a blurb caught but once, of course they intend to go about their 'work' quietly, of 'mining' the public domain for literary works that remain un-copyrighted, and claiming the rights, perfectly legal.
Again, you're going to have to back up these claims with evidence. What you describe is unbelievable.quote:
The fragment of an education me do enjoy, comes primarily from reading books for free in the public libaries, the very model of "file-sharring." Do you find them "astounding and sickening" as well, Dave?
No, because they're not at all like file-sharing. If you lose a book you've checked out of the library (or if you decide to keep it, but tell the library you lost it), you have to pay for it. All the books in the library have either been paid for, or are gifts from the publishers. Either way, checking a book out for three weeks isn't theft, it's perfectly-legal borrowing, just as you might borrow a friend's CD for a few days to listen to it. No crime there.quote:
These enrichments brought to you by such types, whose only 'creative talent' lies in the maniplation of the legal system, and they apparently make a good living at it, too. In fact better than most of the artists they "protect."
I don't have any idea of what you're going on about, here. This makes no sense to me.quote:
Understand what is a sake here, we aren't talking about "works," but a picture, a piece of music, or a book, that gives a rewarding experience to the consumer, just as the artist intended and takes their satisfaction from. Should they also recieve material rewards for their efforts? Absolutely...
No, those are "works," as defined in copyright law. People work on these things, to make them.quote:
...unfortunely the RIAA and their like, also want to define the 'acceptable' format, as well as controlling distribution, while taking a very generous skim.
Duh. If there were no theft, none of these things would be necessary. But, people steal copyrighted works all the time, and one way to combat that is through special media, special players, Macrovision, etc.. These things are a response to a threat, not invented out of thin air.quote:
Technology threatens their vise grip on creative processes, and am all for it.
What? Technology allows one to steal from the artist, which actually threatens the creative process itself. If an artist knows they won't make a dime on an album due to theft, then what's the point? The answer there is to not record, just sit around and sing with friends, period. No distribution, no radio airplay, no nothing.quote:
It's their obivious greed that brought it forth.
Ah, so a person who wants to get paid for their efforts is now "greedy"? Tell that to the McDonald's crew.quote:
And btw own about 450 legal cd's, and intend not to buy an additional one, thanks to the RIAA's efforts.
Do you intend to illegally copy any?quote:
Wish you luck in your creative efforts, Dave, may you be over ran with groupies. If you have success, please tell us when you first encounter "kick-backs."
Oh, boy, the assumptions are flying left and right, aren't they? I may be in the process of recording some music, but I have no intentions of ever dealing with the RIAA or its like, and I've got all the groupies I could ever need in the form of my wife, thank you.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 19:15:10 [Permalink]
|
Dave.
I do not now, nor ever, condone the theft of copywritten material. You were right, I was mixing copywrights up with patents. The original intent of copywrights was to perserve and individuals right to his work for the entirety of his life span. It was to protect an individuals work. However, extending it beyond the life of the creator was not the intent. AS for the "estate" claiming it, most of the time there is no estate. Disney, a coporation owns the rights to mickey mouse. To preserve their material, they have thrown millions into getting copywrights extended. If they really wanted to protect their use, just registar it as a trademark, which lasts as long as the company. However, Disney doesn't want Walt's old works to go to public domain, which copyrighted material used to do, before the length of copywrights were extended past death.
As for patents, why shouldn't they be given the same courtesy as copywrights? Is not the process or invention being patented as worthy for protection as copywriting songs or art?
I fully believe in copywrights and patents, with their original intent, to protect the rights of the individual who generates those works to be able to reap the benefits of their inventiveness or creativness. I don't even mind companies using the same laws to protect their investments.
What I do have a problem with is companies donating millions to pass laws to alter and warp copywright and patent laws. It reaks of special interest unduly altering laws that weren't broken in the first place. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 19:22:19 [Permalink]
|
Many years ago I bought both Robert Johnson records. Those collections were on the Columbia label. Unfortunately for Mr. Johnson, he was long dead at the time I made this purchase so I doubt that he earned any of the royalties. However, I was happy to pay for those records. Someone went to the trouble of putting the collections together and deserved to be paid for their effort.
So, if I download a copy of Crossroads, a song that is in the public domain but part of a collection that can still be purchased, and, in fact, I have already bought, am I stealing?
I have never downloaded a song I do not already own in vinyl. Is there a grey area here?
This is a debate I have been having with my girlfriend... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
rickm
Skeptic Friend
Canada
109 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 19:52:46 [Permalink]
|
P2P is not the only medium for copying music, with satellite broadcasting digital quality music free to air, meaning most radio and cd channels delivered via satellite, commercial free, are not scrambled. They are arranged and categorized by genre, making it quite easy to record, for example hits of the 80's. It is perfectly legal for me to listen to this music while being broadcast, but as soon as I record it to listen to it later it becomes illegal. Because it is free to air I never paid a cent to listen to it in the first place, whether or not I record it. Should I feel guilty for listening to this music.
I used to make compilation cd's to listen to at work, but now we have a new radio station that plays the best and newest adult alternative music, therefore rendering the use of cd's unnecessary In my case. Again this is completely legal. Music on the radio is free to listen to. Are we meant to only listen to a song once on the radio and block our ears the next time it plays because we did not purchase the cd.
It seems to me that copyright laws were originally designed so that musicians would not steal other musicians songs and sell and perform the music for profit.
Music is free, but 90 dollar concert tickets cost exactly 90 dollars.
and don't get caught taking a picture, they sell 40 dollar tour books, and 40 dollar t shirts. I went and saw the Kiss reunion tour it cost me 140 dollars for two tickets 35 dollars for the tour book 90 dollars for three t-shirts, for a total of $265.00 that was the last concert
I've seen.
I own all the mainstream Kiss albums produced, roughly 30 in total about 8 of those cd's are compilation cd's of music they already released and I already bought, but I had to have them. How many bands do this today, enter the Box set. Was it Garth Brooks who released a compilation cd available with four different cd covers, hoping that hard core fans would buy the same damn cd four times so they would have all four covers.
I'm sorry but I can not feel sorry for the recording industry. |
How can I believe in God when just last week I got my tongue caught in the roller of an electric typewriter?
-- Woody Allen, Without Feathers, 1975 |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 07/24/2003 : 23:41:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
People regularly try to copy oil paintings, and sell them as if they were originals.
That's fraud and it's illegal.
quote:
If someone makes hundreds of millions of bucks from one of your photos, and you only got the money for which you sold the print to them, how important would the money be then? Actually, forget that question: would the idea that someone else was profiting from your work get you upset enough to punish that person by taking their profits from them?
Right now I only need about $50,000 for what I want. Know any quick way to get it? I'd feel comfortable with $100,000 but 50 will do, so I don't know what I'd do with millions. It would be nice to have it to give to help animal rights causes though but for me, I won't need it.
Hey, if someone thinks money will make him happy and he does it by cheating on someone elses fame and talent....that's his problem. |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 03:42:57 [Permalink]
|
I don't believe that anyone really has a problem woth compensating artists for their work. On the other hand, few have sympathy for the entertainment industry for attempting to control every aspect of the distribution of intellectual or artistic property through the use of legislation like the Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act (ACCOPS).
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/CONYER_069.txt
I have not read the complete bill yet, (and may be wrong), but I have the impression that it would allow the record industry and law enforcement to more easily go after people for saving copywrited material in a file that can be shared via a P2P network.
Do I have a problem with this...Well, yes!
This is another bald-faced attempt by the recording industry to control distribution of media, and to also control new technology. There seems to be no requirement for a burden of proof that the information has already been distributed. Intent is only inferred.
Already, the record industry has successfully gone after Napster, and it's technology platform. The idea seems to preserve corporate profits by using their legislative and judicial influence to eliminate competition.
The argument here is very much like the arguments used by opponents of gun control. Kazaa and 'My Shared Folder' do not steal copywrited material, people do.
Furthermore, there are more than 60 million Kazaa users alone--if I'm not mistaken. Most of these people are likely young and otherwise good citizens. (Again, not an excuse for stealing copywrited material) This does not appear to be an easy tide to stem. There is little money for fines and civil litigation within this group, and sending these young middle class people to jail for stealing music, motion pictures and software through their broadband connection will not go over well within the general population.
For me, the logical solution would be to allow P2P file sharing, but require the networks like Kazaa to charge a nominal fee for block time or bandwidth use, payable in advance through your internet server or other retailer, or with a credit card. The profits may be distributed among the artists or engineers that hold the copywrites. A tagging system such as ID3 can be used to track the number of downloads attributable to a single artist, and each paid appropriately.
The first problem I see with this idea is software development, but if a cost as low as five or ten dollars per month can be charged to over 60 million clients, plus ad space on the network, I think the software will be perfected in near record time.
The next problem, and the big one will be that this plan either by-passes the recording industry, or significantly reduces their profit margin.
Maybe, that's why they're so dead set against this technology! |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 04:04:24 [Permalink]
|
Dave, Dave.., think you really understand "what am going on about," huh? But you do have me out on intermixing copyright and patent laws. Both were intended to protect the original creator of a "work." However in modern pratice, the team with the highest powered lawyers generally can enforce their ownership, with or without a patent or copyright. If they worked as intended, no bitch from me, but they don't.
As for the examples sited, my source was news outlets, either broadcasts or net based. However accept your validity to reject them without references, just by accepting that you are 'trying' to produce music without any provided evidence may show am not the skeptic as yourself.
And will stand on my "feeble" example of public libaries, being the model of file sharring. Couldn't publishers make the claim of lost revenue? True, one must return the hard copy, but depending on one's retention, the content remains with the reader..., duh.
Question your assumption that the only motive an artist has for producing their "works" is profit. In my own case, enjoyed playing in several "garage bands" way back in the sixties. After inflicting our efforts on neighbors for a few months, we too approached "music." To the point that commercially successful professionals begin to show up to just 'jam.' Absolutely no chance of material reward with us, had to assume they, too, just enjoyed the experience as it's own reward. That was the time of 'acid rock' bands' "war" with the record labels of the time, too. When we actually started drawing an audience, would've paid to play. But perhaps thats just me... |
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 07:45:45 [Permalink]
|
Darwin Storm wrote:quote:
I do not now, nor ever, condone the theft of copywritten material.
Since it was not at all my intent, I apologize for making you feel the need to write the above.quote:
You were right, I was mixing copywrights up with patents. The original intent of copywrights was to perserve and individuals right to his work for the entirety of his life span. It was to protect an individuals work. However, extending it beyond the life of the creator was not the intent.
Well, the Supreme Court has said otherwise. Unfortunately, and you're absolutely right about this, what constitutes a "reasonable time limit" has been slipping, and is obviously more malleable than it should be. Personally, life plus 50 years seems good to me.quote:
As for patents, why shouldn't they be given the same courtesy as copywrights? Is not the process or invention being patented as worthy for protection as copywriting songs or art?
I'll tell you why: many inventions are intended to better the quality of life for people in general. So, you can have a short monopoly on whatever new and unique method you've come up with, but after that, people are free to use your invention as they will. With books and other artworks, there's really no reason to allow anyone to copy them willy-nilly. Threshing machines, infant car seats, or life-saving drugs, on the other hand, will oftentimes vastly improve the lives of many, in a quantitative manner, not just along the lines of "my life is better because I can freely listen to the music I like." And in such cases, opening the invention to competition after a short time can result in even more improvements, since competition will drive attempts at better or cheaper manufacturing (for just one example).quote:
What I do have a problem with is companies donating millions to pass laws to alter and warp copywright and patent laws. It reaks of special interest unduly altering laws that weren't broken in the first place.
On that, we agree completely.
Kil wrote:quote:
So, if I download a copy of Crossroads, a song that is in the public domain but part of a collection that can still be purchased, and, in fact, I have already bought, am I stealing?
I have never downloaded a song I do not already own in vinyl. Is there a grey area here?
This is a debate I have been having with my girlfriend...
Whether or not there's a grey area depends on who you talk to. If the copy of Crossroads you download is the same as the one from the collection - in other words, came directly from the collection, on CD - then Columbia (if they still own the rights) could argue that what you've downloaded is vastly superior in quality to the vinyl you've got, and since Columbia doesn't offer "free upgrades," you're in trouble.
On the other hand, if the song you downloaded was from the vinyl, and someone recorded it with a microphone, you've probably got something which sounds much crappier than the vinyl, so who cares? Well, the record company still might.
rickm wrote:quote:
It is perfectly legal for me to listen to this music while being broadcast, but as soon as I record it to listen to it later it becomes illegal. Because it is free to air I never paid a cent to listen to it in the first place, whether or not I record it. Should I feel guilty for listening to this music.
No. The company broadcasting the music is actually paying the copyright holders to do so. If they fail to protect their investment by not scrambling the signal, thus allowing any schmoe with the right equipment to listen, that's their problem.quote:
Music on the radio is free to listen to. Are we meant to only listen to a song once on the radio and block our ears the next time it plays because we did not purchase the cd.
Again, no. The radio stations pay to play music. They attempt to make that money back - and then some - via advertising. Every time you hear a song on the radio, the artist gets a couple pennies.quote:
It seems to me that copyright laws were originally designed so that musicians would not steal other musicians songs and sell and perform the music for profit.
No, they were designed so that creative people could retain control of their creations.quote:
Music is free, but 90 dollar concert tickets cost exactly 90 dollars.
and don't get caught taking a picture, they sell 40 dollar tour books, and 40 dollar t shirts. I went and saw the Kiss reunion tour it cost me 140 dollars for two tickets 35 dollars for the tour book 90 dollars for three t-shirts, for a total of $265.00 that was the last concert I've seen.
I stopped buying T-shirts when it finally dawned on me that I shouldn't be paying someone for me to advertise for them. If someone wants to give me a t-shirt, I'll be happy to wear it, but I'm not going to pay for the priviledge of being a walking commercial. In fact, the next time I buy a car, I'm going to tell the dealer that they can either drop the price by $1,000, or get rid of that stupid dealer logo on the trunk (the dealer license-plate frames went into the trash as soon as I got the permanent plates for my last cars).quote:
I own all the mainstream Kiss albums produced, roughly 30 in total about 8 of those cd's are compilation cd's of music they already released and I already bought, but I had to have them.
So who's to blame for your addiction?quote:
How many bands do this today, enter the Box set. Was it Garth Brooks who released a compilation cd available with four different cd covers, hoping that hard core fans would buy the same damn cd four times so they would have all four covers.
Yeah, and Stephen King first released the Green Mile as a set of 6 tiny books |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Darwin Storm
Skeptic Friend
87 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 10:42:31 [Permalink]
|
| Are patents still good for 17 years? I though I read somewhere different technolgy bases had different patent lengths, but I am not sure on this. IF I remember, drugs and software both had shorter patent times. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 12:51:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave, Dave.., think you really understand "what am going on about," huh?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, actually, I said, "I don't have any idea of what you're going on about, here. This makes no sense to me." How you could take that sentence as the opposite of what I wrote, I really can't comprehend."
Alright, will accept, "I really can't comprehend." Your posts lead me to believe that you really did have a handle on the crux of my rejection of this system. This exchange seem to wrap it up pretty well.
quote Daave W. & Darwin Storm:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I do have a problem with is companies donating millions to pass laws to alter and warp copywright and patent laws. It reaks of special interest unduly altering laws that weren't broken in the first place.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"On that, we agree completely."
DW qoute:
"Another example of your ignorance of the law. DNA strands are not copyrightable. They are, unfortunately, patentable, a part of "the system" that I do not support."
Well the abuse of the patent system seems astoundingly simalar to the copyright abuses to me. Perhaps you could drawn a clearer distinction for me..? Still, can see that your defense of the 'system' is apparently selective.
DW quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they worked as intended, no bitch from me, but they don't.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously, if your sources are confusing you about what's been going on, it seems obvious that the laws won't appear to be working as intended."
Creedence Clearwater and Louis Armstrong, for instance.
Quote:
"I'll tell you why: many inventions are intended to better the quality of life for people in general."
Ahh, an even older debate. The "arts," the "muses," of what value are they? Tend to believe they too, better the quality of life. Do you see your efforts on a par with turning out gigets, Dave, or are you trying to create something of a more cerebral nature? It is true that the music industry tends to turn out clones of past hits, much like gigets. There's an old joke to the effect, that if they could patent or copyright, (whatever), air, they would.
And that is the point really, should we allow these arts to be locked into a legalistic system, that actually strangles invention and exploration of new forms? If you can control distribution, you control the gateway as well. If you think the current system 'works' in bringing the freshest, most current creative artistic efforts to the public's attention, fine. Twisted or not, me don't, just an endless supply of retreads of the same old same old. Want deep changes in the status quo. Technology in the form of file sharring appears to be the best bet in bringing about such changes. |
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 13:23:35 [Permalink]
|
There is another thing to consider: The RIAA seems to think that if people are downloading songs then this will mean it is in place of purchasing music. This is just not true. Someone could download thousands of songs but many people would have a hard time buying more than 5 or so CDs a month. If people pay for their true favorites and download just to try things out it might be technically illegal but the argument that a teen downloading thousands of songs hurts the artist is a big fat lie because this teen would never have the money to buy that music.
So I am not really sure if downloading is all that wrong while it is indeed illegal. But there are many laws that are wrong. Fortunately, a lot of fans understand that they need to support their favorite artists if they want them to continue producing and some groups take donations and sell directly from their websites. This is what the RIAA fears, not the downloading. They want to maintain control of the industry and the web allows a closer connection between artist and consumer sans RIAA.
I myself have never done file trading but I am all too aware of how easy it is to be tracked down. I have, however, enjoyed going to a group's website and buying that one song I like instead of a whole album. This model of buying what you want and skipping the crap could benefit everyone. No longer will groups need to stay in the studio until they have a regular CD length. They can do one song at a time and only put their name on works they deem to be great or feel like selling. And they can put it on their site for download the next day. Ya gotta love that.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 15:06:06 [Permalink]
|
What @tomic says is very true. I just bought 3 cds from local bands....with that said I also downloaded some of their songs so I can play them off my computer.....this is illegal?
One suggestion, that I think makes sense, is to make downloading new cds illegal. Wait say a couple of months to let the sales pile up at the cd stores, then it is fair game on the internet. Sorry but Iam not going out to buy a 10 year old 'Stones' cd that I want 2 songs from. |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 07/25/2003 : 15:51:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sorry but Iam not going out to buy a 10 year old 'Stones' cd that I want 2 songs from.
When you download songs you NEVER would have paid for the artist is hardly losing out. This is the big lie about how downloading is always stealing. I think if people pay for what they really would have bought anyway they are at least obeying the spirit of the law. Never paying for any music is just stupid and you ultimately cheat yourself as well as the artist because your favorite musicians will turn to selling insurance because they, like everyone else, need an income.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
