Anyone actually pay for their music?

[quote name='Soodmeg']I finally found it.

I want you guys to watch this clip of Louie. Starting at the 5 min mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNRNCk3YwqE


Do you understand where he is coming from, that the lady is stealing what makes them whole. Pay pirating this music without any regard you are basically saying you have a right to be happy fist pumping, head banging, dancing, snuggling with your boo in the love chair etc etc but my right is limited to only providing you entertainment.

So while you get to talk with your friend about how awesome fast five was or whatever I get to struggle with my bread and water. As the thing I have said this entire time, it boils down you being so selfish that you view your right to happiness and the purist of making a living how you see fit FAR more important than mine.

You are no different than the person on a cell phone at a movie, the person who cuts in line, the person who talks so loud that everyone else has scream, the person who lets their kid run around all willy nilly.

You simple view your life as far more superior to others around you and as long as you are having a good time screw everyone else even if it result in their ultimate end. I am sure you never think about the many bands you broke up before they even go started because they couldnt get any funding.


The final note is, what logic are you using that a 16 year old kid working at Target getting carts and bring them into the store is deemed worthy of payment but making content is not. I dont understand how people are drawing this line. What you are saying is that my entire lifes work is more worthless than even the most minimal of services out there. Last time I checked making a movie was slightly harder than bagging at Whole Foods but you have no problem with them making money but you have a problem with me making the same? I just dont get it.

Again, not directed towards Camoor expect this, you work in IT camoor. You are one of 60 million people who can do that service...in fact its so easy that it mostly get shipped overseas. So explain to me why anyone should even dare pay your salary for anything?[/QUOTE]

Eh I think you are taking it too personal. My beef, as it has always been, is with the music industry fatcats at the top who screwed up their business, sued dead gradmothers and single moms for millions as part of an extortion racket, admitted to pay-for-play, admitted to cartel pricing, enacted mickey mouse copyright law, trying to push SOPA through - the guys who haven't acted in good faith. And you guys think they are angels now - LMAO. You guys say I am living in the past but when I look at the law the copyright period is still 99+ years and the fines are still in the millions, so who is really being naive?

On a personal level - as usual they are getting you all riled up about piracy so you won't think to ask them for a raise that you probably deserve. Meanwhile think about us poor citizens who can't even sing happy birthday or youtube the electric slide without risking getting sued (challenge me - I'll link it). The little people are the ones who got screwed here, if the people could take back copyright law and make it more reasonable then everyone would be happier and there would be more money for all.

But no, the RIAA extortion racket, going after sampling and creative hiphop, going after internet radio and innovative apps, etc and the inevitable loss of consumer trust that follows - it's why we can't have nice things in the music industry.

Personally - I've support my shoutcast stations, I don't break the law, and I just want to be left alone. However I can still have an opinion can't I?
 
Camoor, again see my post to you in post #122.

What kind of "nice things" do you want that the music industry isn't providing?

I get that the RIAA fines are stupid, I agree 100% with that and have argued that more fair punishments need to be installed. I agree they've done a lot of shitty things like pay to play and all that as well. However, I have no problem with copyright lengths personally. I think they should last until at least a few years after the creator's death so they never have to see someone else profit from their work while alive. And they should go a few years beyond death so they have some incentive to still put out work late in life (so at least their heirs benefit from it, rather than profits just going to others if they die right after releasing it.). If I was a creator and copyright only lasted until death, no way I do anything when I knew I was near the end since neither myself or my heirs would get anything out of it.

But those gripes aside, what the fuck do you want from the music industry that you aren't getting right now? Digital music is DRM free and cheap as fuck right now with lots of albums (including big name acts) selling for $4 or less on Amazon regularly. There are tons of cloud options for uploading the music (and Amazon and iTunes have built in cloud features for anything you buy from them, that you can also upload more stuff into). What more do you want them to do in terms of giving you nice things?

Again, I agree they need to ditch the lawsuits, pay for play an all that kind of crap etc. But that has nothing to do with whether those of us legitimately buying our music can have nice things or not. And if you want to boycott buying music over that kind of stuff, that's your prerogative. I can certainly respect that, especially since you boycott without pirating stuff and just get by with streams etc. That is the morally proper way to go about it if choosing not to purchase music for whatever reason. So props to you for that.

But you just be more clear that those kind of things are your beef with the music industry (if that's the case). And not spout off about things like DRM, lack of cloud options etc. that haven't been relevant for years. And especially don't try to talk like other media like e-books are better when digital music is the only digital media currently that's truly good for consumers as it's the only thing that's totally DRM free across the board. Digital music is currently great for consumers, despite getting off to terrible start. Books, movies and games, however, are much like music back in the day with most mainstream titles having restrictive DRM, limited number of devices it can be on at one time, limited loaning options etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']Camoor, again see my post to you in post #122.

What kind of "nice things" do you want that the music industry isn't providing?

I get that the RIAA fines are stupid, I agree 100% with that and have argued that more fair punishments need to be installed. I agree they've done a lot of shitty things like pay to play and all that as well. However, I have no problem with copyright lengths personally. I think they should last until at least a few years after the creator's death so they never have to see someone else profit from their work while alive. And they should go a few years beyond death so they have some incentive to still put out work late in life (so at least their heirs benefit from it, rather than profits just going to others if they die right after releasing it.). If I was a creator and copyright only lasted until death, no way I do anything when I knew I was near the end since neither myself or my heirs would get anything out of it.

But those gripes aside, what the fuck do you want from the music industry that you aren't getting right now? Digital music is DRM free and cheap as fuck right now with lots of albums (including big name acts) selling for $4 or less on Amazon regularly. There are tons of cloud options for uploading the music (and Amazon and iTunes have built in cloud features for anything you buy from them, that you can also upload more stuff into). What more do you want them to do in terms of giving you nice things?

Again, I agree they need to ditch the lawsuits, pay for play an all that kind of crap etc. But that has nothing to do with whether those of us legitimately buying our music can have nice things or not. And if you want to boycott buying music over that kind of stuff, that's your prerogative. I can certainly respect that, especially since you boycott without pirating stuff and just get by with streams etc. That is the morally proper way to go about it if choosing not to purchase music for whatever reason. So props to you for that.

But you just be more clear that those kind of things are your beef with the music industry (if that's the case). And not spout off about things like DRM, lack of cloud options etc. that haven't been relevant for years. And especially don't try to talk like other media like e-books are better when digital music is the only digital media currently that's truly good for consumers as it's the only thing that's totally DRM free across the board. Digital music is currently great for consumers, despite getting off to terrible start. Books, movies and games, however, are much like music back in the day with most mainstream titles having restrictive DRM, limited number of devices it can be on at one time, limited loaning options etc.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough - I was just offering my analysis of the situation. But if it's great for consumers then I'm sure in time it will do well. Good goods have traditionally held their own against counterfeits and if that's the case here then I'm sure this will be no different. The invisible hand of the market yada yada.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']You still haven't responded to my providing links to full, free streams for Blink 182 and Adele that you requested.

It's pretty easy to sample things for free these days. Even if it's something you can't find a full album stream off you can hear the singles usually and listen to clips from the rest of the songs on store sites like Amazon.

With e-books every book in the Kindle store has a free sample available that's the first chapter or two usually.

Movies are a bit tougher, but with trailers and reviews I seldom watch something I end up hating. And it's super cheap to rent with Netflix and Redbox and then wait and buy the ones you love when they're on sale later.

You just act like there are no legal options for sufficiently sampling things before buying, when that's just not the case. There's never been a time period with MORE options for legally sampling music, books and movies than the present.[/QUOTE] Point taken with the links. As someone else said I've been basically willfully ignorant (read: stupid) on that. What it is is laziness. I've been too lazy to look elsewhere when I know right where I can go to easily get it. I'll change that much though. I'll look for something legal for music and only use that. Though it probably still isn't as convenient and as centralized as it could be (obviously I dont know if that's actually the case though).

[quote name='smallsharkbigbite']Yes, I understand, and how you can morally support pirating is right along the lines of the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. You're taking advantage of people's work, but not compensating them and you think that is somehow moral? Sure your a petty theft because you steal $3 from 200 different artists, how does that make what you do moral?[/QUOTE] I'll try once more so I'm clear. I do not feel I am perfectly moral when it comes to pirating. Stealing a song and keeping/enjoying it is immoral to me. What is not immoral to me is pirating a song or movie and then paying for it later if I like it. I realize they're both equally illegal.

Edit: A question out of curiosity for soodmeg/sharkbite/anyone else that may find it terrible to pirate. How do you feel about people who buy online tax free and then don't report it come tax time? I only equate piracy with tax avoidance because both are things that millions do, both are illegal, and I personally dont find either immoral (aside from piracy for the sake of piracy).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is indeed in all of our interest for content to be paid for, otherwise American consumers are just subsidizing the cost of the rest of the world’s entertainment. If there were more trust between consumers and content companies it would be easier to make common cause. It is notable that there has been much less alarm on the web about corporate piracy (i.e. the Chinese eating our lunch) than about content piracy (i.e. the world eating our snacks). The moral is, never get between Americans and their snacks!
Click to expand...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthony...nal-rifts-beneath-our-content-infrastructure/

Ain't it the truth
 
[quote name='camoor']Fair enough - I was just offering my analysis of the situation. But if it's great for consumers then I'm sure in time it will do well. Good goods have traditionally held their own against counterfeits and if that's the case here then I'm sure this will be no different. The invisible hand of the market yada yada.[/QUOTE]

Well I think the problem is a lot of people have just gotten used to stealing albums for free. So they're not changing their tune now and buying many albums even though they're now very cheap and have no DRM etc.

Others are probably like you and just so bitter over how bad the music industry bungled things that they aren't aware that digital music is now cheap, 100% DRM free with tons of cloud options etc.

If all that stuff bothers you so much, you really should be directing a lot of ire at book publishers and movie studios who are forcing DRM on their products and repeating a lot of the same mistakes the music industry made. There's just less bitching their as digital movies haven't really caught on, and people don't really care about re-reading books or having an e-book on a bunch of different devices so the DRM isn't as noticeable as it was on music.

[quote name='ShockandAww']I'll look for something legal for music and only use that. Though it probably still isn't as convenient and as centralized as it could be (obviously I dont know if that's actually the case though).[/quote]

There's not going to be a centralized place as it's up to each artist whether to take advantage of it. But finding it is usually as simple as googling and finding the artists website or My Space/Facebook page and seeing if it's on there. For big name acts there's usual stories on the major music sites like Spin or Rolling Stone etc. about their new album streaming online as well.

Edit: A question out of curiosity for soodmeg/sharkbite/anyone else that may find it terrible to pirate. How do you feel about people who buy online tax free and then don't report it come tax time? I only equate piracy with tax avoidance because both are things that millions do, both are illegal, and I personally dont find either immoral (aside from piracy for the sake of piracy).
Click to expand...

It's wrong for sure. I don't view it as bad as piracy personally as I view as much worse to acquire a product without compensating the artist or stores selling in than simply not paying a sales tax to the government.

They just need to change the system and make stores charge sales tax IMO. Most people probably don't know about the requirement to pay it, and for those who do, it's a big burden to expect them to track every online order and how much sales tax they owe for orders that didn't charge tax. Especially for people who order hundreds of things online every year. Probably too much hassle for the stores to distribute sales tax to each state, so just put a federal sales tax rate for online orders and have the IRS collect that and distribute it to the states to take that burden off online stores.

But it's still wrong and I wouldn't go around justifying people not paying the taxes or trying to rationalize it. It's wrong, period. But the fact of the matter is that hardly anyone is going to do it, so it's going to have to be an automated process if states want that money.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Soodmeg']

Best Buy has convinced you that buying a 1080p handicam, Windows movie maker super and youtube access has made you in the same realm as a studio. You no idea of the cost it takes to produce this content. Like it was said before, not even the biggest bands on the planet can self produce an album.

[/QUOTE]

Not even the biggest bands on the planet can self-produce an album? I know tons of independent bands and musicians that self-produce their albums. I own a large number of self-produced albums.

Anyway, i don't pirate and I don't think it's OK, but, IMO, the cost to produce the content is irrelevent to consumers.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Not even the biggest bands on the planet can self-produce an album? I know tons of independent bands and musicians that self-produce their albums. I own a large number of self-produced albums.
[/QUOTE]

It's tough to do on a large scale.

Even Pearl Jam had to sign an exclusivity deal with Target to be able to self publish their last CD.

It will be easier when CDs truly die off and only digital sales matter though. Then the only real issues is getting money to record and master the songs at a quality level (rent or build a studio, hire a producer etc.) and money to market the album to sell big numbers.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Not even the biggest bands on the planet can self-produce an album? I know tons of independent bands and musicians that self-produce their albums. I own a large number of self-produced albums.

Anyway, i don't pirate and I don't think it's OK, but, IMO, the cost to produce the content is irrelevent to consumers.[/QUOTE]

Sure you can self produce an album but actually marketing, publishing and selling said album in mass scale ie millions of copies it's a whole other story.
 
Mass scale... an example.
- Tech N9ne - his latest studio album (from the label he created; indie label) sold 167,000+ and debut #4 on Billboard 200 chart.
 
[quote name='lordopus99']Mass scale... an example.
- Tech N9ne - his latest studio album (from the label he created; indie label) sold 167,000+ and debut #4 on Billboard 200 chart.[/QUOTE]

Well that statistic is proof positive that CD sales have plummeted. With that said good for him. Also, my guess is he had help in this endeavor from other folks. It's incredibly difficult to manage and sell that amount of merchandise around without the proper infrastructure.

Edit: Note that Billboards top 200 now includes digital downloads in total sale numbers.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']And not spout off about things like DRM, lack of cloud options etc. that haven't been relevant for years.[/QUOTE]

I know it's beating a dead horse at this point - but just to say one more thing about this.

Customer trust is one of the hardest things to attain and easiest things to lose. You truly have to earn it and work hard every single day to keep it. If you lose it, you can expect the cold soldier for a long, long time.

That goes for any industry. Now - as to the music industry you gave alot of great examples where pioneers are trying to win back trust. That's great but after all the bullshit in the past decade and a half, I think it's going to take the public some time to come back.

I'm not talking right or wrong here - this is more an attempt at objective observation from a business perspective. Honestly I think you me and Sood see somewhat eye-to-eye on the moral question, or at least moreso then you would think.
 
[quote name='camoor']I know it's beating a dead horse at this point - but just to say one more thing about this.

Customer trust is one of the hardest things to attain and easiest things to lose. You truly have to earn it and work hard every single day to keep it. If you lose it, you can expect the cold soldier for a long, long time.

That goes for any industry. Now - as to the music industry you gave alot of great examples where pioneers are trying to win back trust. That's great but after all the bullshit in the past decade and a half, I think it's going to take the public some time to come back.

I'm not talking right or wrong here - this is more an attempt at objective observation from a business perspective. Honestly I think you me and Sood see somewhat eye-to-eye on the moral question, or at least moreso then you would think.[/QUOTE]

I agree with that for sure.

I just don't see the point in people depriving themselves of owning music due to past issues. There's lots of great music out there (new and old) that you can now buy cheap and DRM free and it's just silly to pass on that (if you really care about owning music anyway) just over hatred from how the music industry messed up their entry to the digital era.

And it looked silly to be bashing that and trying to praise other digital media like ebooks have DRM pretty much identical to what music DRM was like 10 years ago.

It's almost more frustrating to see e-books and digital movies doing that as it shows they're totally clueless and didn't learn from the mistakes of the music industry. The music industry at least had the excuse of being the guinea pigs with being the first media industry to have to figure out how to make money in an era of easily pirated digital goods.

Lastly, I'd note that what I've talked about in the music industry isn't just a few "pioneers." Every single digital music site has been 100% DRM free for years now. The cloud stuff is newer, but just because cloud storage is relatively new. With DRM free files there was never anything stopping people uploading them to any online storage they had access to though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dmaul1114']I agree with that for sure.

I just don't see the point in people depriving themselves of owning music due to past issues. There's lots of great music out there (new and old) that you can now buy cheap and DRM free and it's just silly to pass on that (if you really care about owning music anyway) just over hatred from how the music industry messed up their entry to the digital era.[/QUOTE]

It may not be logical but that's how folks are wired.

I used to use GameTZ back in the day, but then the guy moved from free trades to a paid subscription model. Predictably everyone switched over to Goozex, because, hey, if you're going to pay why not get the best. The GameTZ guy went back to being free but the damage was done, I recently tried using GameTZ and it's pretty damn dead.

Now music labels - well they have a monopoly, most people want to do the right thing, and IMO unless you're a college student then who has time for torrents. So yes they will win the customers back, it's just a matter of time. But it's probably going to take alot longer then they would like...
 
[quote name='camoor']BTW does anyone know a site that sells music videos? I'd love to download some of them on my phone but I haven't found anything like that.[/QUOTE]
iTunes
 
[quote name='Soodmeg']
You simple view your life as far more superior to others around you and as long as you are having a good time screw everyone else even if it result in their ultimate end. I am sure you never think about the many bands you broke up before they even go started because they couldnt get any funding.


The final note is, what logic are you using that a 16 year old kid working at Target getting carts and bring them into the store is deemed worthy of payment but making content is not. I dont understand how people are drawing this line. What you are saying is that my entire lifes work is more worthless than even the most minimal of services out there. Last time I checked making a movie was slightly harder than bagging at Whole Foods but you have no problem with them making money but you have a problem with me making the same? I just dont get it.

Again, not directed towards Camoor expect this, you work in IT camoor. You are one of 60 million people who can do that service...in fact its so easy that it mostly get shipped overseas. So explain to me why anyone should even dare pay your salary for anything?[/QUOTE]

I think what you're missing is that this torturous content creation process you describe is something millions of people do for fun every day. You don't see anyone bagging groceries or corralling carts during their leisure time.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I think what you're missing is that this torturous content creation process you describe is something millions of people do for fun every day. You don't see anyone bagging groceries or corralling carts during their leisure time.[/QUOTE]

I think that's part of the problem. Most people are miserable, bitter fucks who hate their jobs and this don't view artists as pople who do "real work" out of jealousy. That jaded mindset makes it easy for them to justify taking other's work without compensating them for it.
 
I honestly can't think of many musicians (myself included) who would be upset over the idea of a million people downloading their work for free. Do I think piracy is the answer? No. But demonizing people who download music (they often buy way more than people like me who use Spotify or just don't listen) is short-sighted and ignorant.
 
Metallica obviously had huge issues with it! :)

For the most part I think the only artists who are truly only in it for the art are those who haven't been able to suceed at making a career of it.

I imagine once one starts making decent money off of it they become more cognizant of lost revenue and what they can do to maximize their income just like everyone else. To someone who's hardly sold any albums, the idea of a million people downloading their work is exciting. To an artist that's already sold tons of albums it's just lost revenue opportunities.

I don't think very many are like Metallica and supported lawsuits etc. Just that they all try to think of ways to get more fans to buy their albums rather than pirating them. Hence why so many bands have fan clubs and give bonus tracks or merchandise to fans who preorder albums from them and so on. Which is a smart way to try to encourage people to buy.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I honestly can't think of many musicians (myself included) who would be upset over the idea of a million people downloading their work for free. Do I think piracy is the answer? No. But demonizing people who download music (they often buy way more than people like me who use Spotify or just don't listen) is short-sighted and ignorant.[/QUOTE]
You know, this is something I noticed with the industry. People who don't mind when people pirate music are in it for the music. I noticed a lot of artists when they get super popular, become in it for the money and lose sight of what the genre is about. It seems like a lot of artists, when they get really popular, they make music for money and the quality decreases and is not true to themselves.

This is when I stop buying music. I don't pirate it, but I don't buy it. If a band really wants people to buy their music, they need to make music that is both true to them, but also is music that they want to make. Not music some jackass at the record company forced them to make for money.

My favorite bands are ones that don't just change their sound to sell records, but more they feel like it's needed to make them better. Those bands are the same ones where I will buy everything they do, special editions, t-shirts, etc. I truly believe that if you want to cut down on piracy, make music that is worth buying. If you just make rehashed crap, people wont feel the need to buy it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Metallica obviously had huge issues with it! :)
[/QUOTE]

I honestly think the rest of the band didn't give a shit. It was just Lars, because he wanted a second indoor pool for his summer mansion or something like that. Those other guys were lower middle class blue collar kids but Lars was an upper middle class kid that played tennis, used to the finer things in life.

For all the Napster did to be rebellious and convince kids to just steal music, I think Amazon did more to convince me to pay for it, and not much at all for it (less than $1 a song, full albums frequently only $5) while getting a straight MP3 file at an acceptable bitrate with no DRM.

But in regards to all the people trying to justify their actions, anybody still pirating music has no excuse except that they're a fucking tightwad. And I kinda roll my eyes at the whole "I steal music to screw over labels but go to concerts to support the band" thing because more often than not the labels (and the profits they make from album sales) are the ones paying for the bus/plane and gas that goes in their tanks so the band can get to the concert hall. Only the really huge bands don't have to rely so much on the labels to financially support the expenses of their tours.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Metallica obviously had huge issues with it! :)

For the most part I think the only artists who are truly only in it for the art are those who haven't been able to suceed at making a career of it.

I imagine once one starts making decent money off of it they become more cognizant of lost revenue and what they can do to maximize their income just like everyone else. To someone who's hardly sold any albums, the idea of a million people downloading their work is exciting. To an artist that's already sold tons of albums it's just lost revenue opportunities.

I don't think very many are like Metallica and supported lawsuits etc. Just that they all try to think of ways to get more fans to buy their albums rather than pirating them. Hence why so many bands have fan clubs and give bonus tracks or merchandise to fans who preorder albums from them and so on. Which is a smart way to try to encourage people to buy.[/QUOTE]
I guess you aren't familiar with the hip hop community; big artists who still release mixtapes/albums that are completely free to download (legally).
 
I hate hip hop, so no, I'm not familiar with that. Any of my comments are just based on rock as that's all I listen to/follow.

In any case, all that's a moot point when it comes to piracy. Any band/artist is always free to give away their music if they're just in it for the music and don't care about maximizing their revenues.

But those who choose to only sell their music and not give anything away have that right, and them doing so is not a justification for stealing their material.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114'] I hate hip hop, so no, I'm not familiar with that.[/QUOTE]
130px-0,555,0,491-GENERAL.jpg


[quote name='dmaul1114'] Any of my comments are just based on rock as that's all I listen to/follow.

In any case, all that's a moot point when it comes to piracy. Any band/artist is always free to give away their music if they're just in it for the music and don't care about maximizing their revenues.

But those who choose to only sell their music and not give anything away have that right, and them doing so is not a justification for stealing their material.[/QUOTE]

Maximizing their revenue? Do you really think someone who claims to be an artist creates solely to maximize their revenue? Seriously? Let the RIAA and MPAA die and never return to bless us with their glorious content.

Soodmeg, you're rambling about commercials and sports broadcasts while posting irrelevant Louis C.K. segments. Guess what? Louis C.K. offered his standup special DRM free for $5 and succeeded. He saw the problem and figured out how to solve it.

Once again, I'm not here to defend the act of piracy even though I think it's irrelevant. I'm here to call out the idiotic claim that SOPA is a reasonable response to the industry's problem. What do you think about the fact that CBS/Timewarner was the biggest distributor of the P2P software that led to the problem in the first place?

Are you really going to fault people who pirated music before all of these legal digital platforms surfaced? It used to be 19.99 for a CD just to get to one song you might like to hear at home. Instead of creating a reasonable service like iTunes or Amazon, the RIAA started suing people.

Finally, I would like to advocate for less industry-produced music and movies. It won't ever happen though, since the music and film industries still make an insane amount of money compared to the grocery and automobile workers whose salaries have flatlined or decreased.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']
130px-0,555,0,491-GENERAL.jpg




Maximizing their revenue? Do you really think someone who claims to be an artist creates solely to maximize their revenue? Seriously? Let the RIAA and MPAA die and never return to bless us with their glorious content.

Soodmeg, you're rambling about commercials and sports broadcasts while posting irrelevant Louis C.K. segments. Guess what? Louis C.K. offered his standup special DRM free for $5 and succeeded. He saw the problem and figured out how to solve it.

Once again, I'm not here to defend the act of piracy even though I think it's irrelevant. I'm here to call out the idiotic claim that SOPA is a reasonable response to the industry's problem. What do you think about the fact that CBS/Timewarner was the biggest distributor of the P2P software that led to the problem in the first place?

Are you really going to fault people who pirated music before all of these legal digital platforms surfaced? It used to be 19.99 for a CD just to get to one song you might like to hear at home. Instead of creating a reasonable service like iTunes or Amazon, the RIAA started suing people.

Finally, I would like to advocate for less industry-produced music and movies. It won't ever happen though, since the music and film industries still make an insane amount of money compared to the grocery and automobile workers whose salaries have flatlined or decreased.[/QUOTE]

You make some good points, I wholeheartedly agree with your stands on SOPA. However the question remains whether people should/do pay for their music now that it's readily available in a digital format?
 
I think that question has been addressed. You can use internet radio, Spotify, artist websites and other avenues to hear music legally online. It's more work to pirate now than it is to hear music for free online (legally).
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I think that question has been addressed. You can use internet radio, Spotify, artist websites and other avenues to hear music legally online. It's more work to pirate now than it is to hear music for free online legitimately.[/QUOTE]

Great, then what's everyone debating about?
 
[quote name='willardhaven']
Maximizing their revenue? Do you really think someone who claims to be an artist creates solely to maximize their revenue? Seriously? Let the RIAA and MPAA die and never return to bless us with their glorious content.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn't saying that was their sole purpose. Just that I think that most artist who can make a career off their art get the point of wanting to maximize their revenue.

Many just go about it the wrong way (supporting law suits, DRM etc.) while others have been smart about it with selling DRM free live shows on their websites, having fan clubs with bonuses to encourage people to order their albums directly from them etc.

It's a matter of having their cake and eating it to. They can make art that they enjoy and also make a lot of money doing it. I think many people are just bitter at anyone that enjoys their job, and even more so at people who get rich doing so.

I get a lot of crap from some of my family and acquaintances because I'm a professor and love my job and they're stuck in dead in blue collar or retail jobs. And that's magnified by 100 fold for artists as it's easier to not view creating art, touring for months at a time etc. as "real work", and another 100x for artists who become rich from it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I wasn't saying that was their sole purpose. Just that I think that most artist who can make a career off their art get the point of wanting to maximize their revenue.

Many just go about it the wrong way (supporting law suits, DRM etc.) while others have been smart about it with selling DRM free live shows on their websites, having fan clubs with bonuses to encourage people to order their albums directly from them etc.

It's a matter of having their cake and eating it to. They can make art that they enjoy and also make a lot of money doing it. I think many people are just bitter at anyone that enjoys their job, and even more so at people who get rich doing so.

I get a lot of crap from some of my family and acquaintances because I'm a professor and love my job and they're stuck in dead in blue collar or retail jobs. And that's magnified by 100 fold for artists as it's easier to not view creating art, touring for months at a time etc. as "real work", and another 100x for artists who become rich from it.[/QUOTE]

In most of these scenarios you'll find the corporate giants at the center of the piracy complaints, not the artist. Your bitter worker anecdote doesn't really make a case here. These people aren't pirating because they are mad at professional artists. Also, the bands doing the "real work" of touring in a van and roughing it for months at a time are not the ones complaining about pirates in the first place.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']In most of these scenarios you'll find the corporate giants at the center of the piracy complaints, not the artist. Your bitter worker anecdote doesn't really make a case here. These people aren't pirating because they are mad at professional artists. Also, the bands doing the "real work" of touring in a van and roughing it for months at a time are not the ones complaining about pirates in the first place.[/QUOTE]

I'm referring specifically to people who pirate and justify it with comments like "Who cares, they sell millions of albums and don't need any more money."

And touring and roughing it in vans is a lot of work, but so is touring in big buses for months at a time for the popular acts. They have a lot more luxury for sure, but it's still not easy being on the road for months at a time most every year like bands like DMB are.

In any case, this thread is just going in circles like all piracy discussions so I'm going to bow out as I don't have anything new to add.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I'm referring specifically to people who pirate and justify it with comments like "Who cares, they sell millions of albums and don't need any more money."

And touring and roughing it in vans is a lot of work, but so is touring in big buses for months at a time for the popular acts. They have a lot more luxury for sure, but it's still not easy being on the road for months at a time most every year like bands like DMB are.

In any case, this thread is just going in circles like all piracy discussions so I'm going to bow out as I don't have anything new to add.[/QUOTE]

Same here but I just want to point out that DMB can stop touring whenever they want and live the rest of their lives without working. The acts touring in luxury buses with people catering to their every whim don't even have to do it. They do it because they are making an ass load of money and they can stop as soon as they get sick of it.

All work is not equal. Comparing entertainers to the guy slaving away over at the Chevy factory is just hilarious.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']
All work is not equal. Comparing entertainers to the guy slaving away over at the Chevy factory is just hilarious.[/QUOTE]

Will respond to that since it's not really piracy related, and to clarify what I meant. :D

I didn't mean to imply that all work is equal. Just that there's no point in being bitter and jealous toward people who had the talent to do something they loved and the luck to make money at it, or worked had and went to school and got an education and a job they enjoyed etc. And certainly it's no justification for some to use for stealing things as some people who pirate try to imply.

That's all I was saying. Not that work is equal. Just that people need to suck it up and make the most of their lives and not waste time and emotional energy being bitter and jealous of people who have better jobs and/or jobs that they enjoy. Yeah, I realize some are born into shitty situations and have little chance to succeed, and that does suck. But for most not born into a terrible neighborhood, broken home etc. our lives are largely what we make of them and are a result of decisions we make throughout life, how hard we're willing to work etc.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']

All work is not equal. Comparing entertainers to the guy slaving away over at the Chevy factory is just hilarious.[/QUOTE]

Ditto. Hence why they aren't compensated equally.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I get a lot of crap from some of my family and acquaintances because I'm a professor and love my job and they're stuck in dead in blue collar or retail jobs. And that's magnified by 100 fold for artists as it's easier to not view creating art, touring for months at a time etc. as "real work", and another 100x for artists who become rich from it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but you do an honest day's work which (I would imagine) requires interaction with the public and your clients (in this case students) every day. This is a little different.

Copyright is an artificial market based on the power of limited monopolies. At it's very best it would be a necessary evil and the US copyright system is certainly not the best it could be (not by a long shot).

Just as we do not blindly trust politicians or cops with the special priveledges the law affords them, I think it is wise to keep a cynical eye trained on copyright law and those who weild this special priveledge. It should be used to fairly compensate artists, but not to shut down innovative business models, innovative art (like sampling), or engorge corporations on shady profit streams by extending the copyright law to ludicrous lengths (99+ years - give me a break!)

Igor Stravinsky once said "Good composer borrow, great composers steal." With everything in copyright lockdown, it's no wonder they don't make great music anymore.
 
As I've said, I'm mixed on the copyright law.

I strongly support the artist/creator having sole right to profit from their work during their life time, and 10 years or so beyond (doesn't need to be 75 beyond death like book copyrights currently) so they don't have to see others profit from their work and to encourage late in life work when near death.

But I don't like the way corporations take advantage of copyrights--the copyright should stay with the content creator solely. Labels should just be getting contracts for sole publication rights to the material for whatever term of time the artist agrees to, and no more control to it than that.

Sampling etc. I'm mixed on. I can see the use of it for art, but I'm also just not a fan of it. I have a lot more respect for artists who create something entirely new, rather than sample or adapt existing material. But if the creator has sole control of the copyright, then I think it's fine as anyone wanting to sample would just have to get permission from the original artist rather than a corporation.

As for professor vs. an artist. I wouldn't be anywhere near arrogant enough to say I work as hard as a touring artist, or an author or a painter or whatever. I imagine many of them put in many more hours than I do, even if they may enjoy their work more than I do. It's still working and is still time not spent with family, friends, on other hobbies etc.

And I certainly don't interact with people on a daily basis, which is one of the things I love about the job. I'm at a research university so I'm at most teaching two classes a semester which are on two days a week. The rest of the time I'm in my office (or workign from home) working on research, preparing for future classes etc. with just occasional meetings etc. mixed in. :D
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']As I've said, I'm mixed on the copyright law.

I strongly support the artist/creator having sole right to profit from their work during their life time, and 10 years or so beyond (doesn't need to be 75 beyond death like book copyrights currently) so they don't have to see others profit from their work and to encourage late in life work when near death. :D[/QUOTE]

We can thank Disney for this change in copyright law. They lobbied their asses off to maintain Mickey under copyright protection.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']We can thank Disney for this change in copyright law. They lobbied their asses off to maintain Mickey under copyright protection.[/QUOTE]

Guess I'll keep posting for a bit since we've shifted to copyright from piracy....and I feel like procrastinating work a bit longer!

Iconic stuff like Mickey Mouse is a tough case for copyright law IMO.

Maybe copyright law should have some provisions that allow things that achieve that level of popularity and market appeal to not enter the public domain.

I mean Mickey Mouse is pretty much the Disney logo as much as it is a fictional character.

But at the same time, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean a book (or album or movie) that continues to sell X number of copies a year never enters the public domain? If not, what's the difference and how do you define it?

For the vast majority of things it's moot as most things aren't going to have much appeal beyond a copyright that goes say 10 years beyond the creators death (other than cases where the creator dies young, and late in life works).

But it's tricky for things that become icons or classics. With my view that copyright should go to the creator rather than the company they're contracted with, I'm inclined to say stuff enters the public domain on the set # of years after the creators death.

That seems perfectly reasonable for books, movies, music etc. IMO. But again, Mickey Mouse is tricky as he's also the Defacto company logo/name brand rather than just a character in a book or movie. And trademarks are different than copyrights.

*shrugs*
 
[quote name='camoor']Yeah but you do an honest day's work which (I would imagine) requires interaction with the public and your clients (in this case students) every day. This is a little different.

Copyright is an artificial market based on the power of limited monopolies. At it's very best it would be a necessary evil and the US copyright system is certainly not the best it could be (not by a long shot).

Just as we do not blindly trust politicians or cops with the special priveledges the law affords them, I think it is wise to keep a cynical eye trained on copyright law and those who weild this special priveledge. It should be used to fairly compensate artists, but not to shut down innovative business models, innovative art (like sampling), or engorge corporations on shady profit streams by extending the copyright law to ludicrous lengths (99+ years - give me a break!)

Igor Stravinsky once said "Good composer borrow, great composers steal." With everything in copyright lockdown, it's no wonder they don't make great music anymore.[/QUOTE]

If you think US copyright laws are stringent you should check out some of the European ones (primarily France). In today's economy, intellectual property protection is at the forefront because it's a huge moneymaker for all US corporations. Many politicians think this is our greatest national resource at this very moment. Intellectual property protection is what assures our foothold on the global markets.
 
With manufacturing jobs being moved to third world countries with cheap labor, intellectual property is the main product produced in the first world.

Not just art/entertainment which falls under copyright law, but also science, inventions etc. that fall under patent law.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Guess I'll keep posting for a bit since we've shifted to copyright from piracy....and I feel like procrastinating work a bit longer!

Iconic stuff like Mickey Mouse is a tough case for copyright law IMO.

Maybe copyright law should have some provisions that allow things that achieve that level of popularity and market appeal to not enter the public domain.

I mean Mickey Mouse is pretty much the Disney logo as much as it is a fictional character.

But at the same time, that's a slippery slope. Does that mean a book (or album or movie) that continues to sell X number of copies a year never enters the public domain? If not, what's the difference and how do you define it?

For the vast majority of things it's moot as most things aren't going to have much appeal beyond a copyright that goes say 10 years beyond the creators death (other than cases where the creator dies young, and late in life works).

But it's tricky for things that become icons or classics. With my view that copyright should go to the creator rather than the company they're contracted with, I'm inclined to say stuff enters the public domain on the set # of years after the creators death.

That seems perfectly reasonable for books, movies, music etc. IMO. But again, Mickey Mouse is tricky as he's also the Defacto company logo/name brand rather than just a character in a book or movie. And trademarks are different than copyrights.

*shrugs*[/QUOTE]

Trademark law provides most of the protections you mentioned above. With Disney what it boils down to is that Disney wants to control how Mickey is used in the marketplace and does not want any of its early classics from entering the public domain. This goes against what copyright protection was created for. The purpose of copyright/patent law is to compensate the creator/inventor via a temporary monopoly. Ultimately all inventions and creations have to enter the public domain to further enrich our society and mankind.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Trademark law provides most of the protections you mentioned above. With Disney what it boils down to is that Disney wants to control how Mickey is used in the marketplace and does not want any of its early classics from entering the public domain. This goes against what copyright protection was created for. The purpose of copyright/patent law is to compensate the creator/inventor via a temporary monopoly. Ultimately all inventions and creations have to enter the public domain to further enrich our society and mankind.[/QUOTE]

I know. It's just tricky here because Mickey is a Trademark and a character in movies that should hit the public domain.

So it overlaps both.

Should the character enter the public domain, and then people are free to make new films with Mickey in them which people will associate with Disney since he's the Disney logo? Which would also make it ok for people to use Mickey to advertise products Disney may not approve of etc.

Should it be a special case where the early classics go public domain, but Disney retains the rights to make new content with Mickey. and to use Mickey in advertising, since it's their trademark?

I lean toward the latter being the way to do it. The early Disney films and stories should be public domain. But trademark law should take precedent when it comes to iconic characters that are still used heavily in marketing etc. after the stories they were first introduced in go public domain. I don't think there's any huge loss to human progress by companies other than Disney not being able to use Mickey et al to tell their stories or sell their products. But the early films/stories should go public domain like any other movie or story.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I know. It's just tricky here because Mickey is a Trademark and a character in movies that should hit the public domain.

So it overlaps both.

Should the character enter the public domain, and then people are free to make new films with Mickey in them which people will associate with Disney since he's the Disney logo? Which would also make it ok for people to use Mickey to advertise products Disney may not approve of etc.

Should it be a special case where the early classics go public domain, but Disney retains the rights to make new content with Mickey. and to use Mickey in advertising, since it's their trademark?[/QUOTE]

Are you familiar with the term trademark dilution? If so, then that theory encompasses Disney's dilemma. If not, look up xerox trademark dilution case (if you really care). I would love to continue this discussion but it's a pain to do on the phone, plus I have to run back to the office.

Ultimately Mickey will have to enter the public domain w/o any exceptions or restrictions as will snow white and many other classics.
 
No, I'm not that knowledgeable on trademark law at all.

If true, that's interesting. Guess the lesson for companies is to not use characters as logos/trademarks then! :D Also speaks to the need for companies to diversify intellectual properties over the long term so they're not out of luck when their breadwinner IP goes public domain.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Trademark law provides most of the protections you mentioned above. With Disney what it boils down to is that Disney wants to control how Mickey is used in the marketplace and does not want any of its early classics from entering the public domain. This goes against what copyright protection was created for. The purpose of copyright/patent law is to compensate the creator/inventor via a temporary monopoly. Ultimately all inventions and creations have to enter the public domain to further enrich our society and mankind.[/QUOTE]

Hell yes. Ironic considering that if current copyright laws were in place in the 50s, Disney would not have had the rights to make many of it's classic animated movies.

Disney took advantage of the law and then bought out the politicians to change it in their favor - US copyright law is a game of Calvinball.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']No, I'm not that knowledgeable on trademark law at all.

If true, that's interesting. Guess the lesson for companies is to not use characters as logos/trademarks then! :D Also speaks to the need for companies to diversify intellectual properties over the long term so they're not out of luck when their breadwinner IP goes public domain.[/QUOTE]

Couldn't have said it better myself. However, most companies find it easier to lobby congress than to diversify. By the way, comic books and video games are going to have to deal with this issue as well. Copyright/patent protection strives to promote HUMAN innovation and not enrich the bottom line of some corporation ad infinitum.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Couldn't have said it better myself. However, most companies find it easier to lobby congress than to diversify. By the way, comic books and video games are going to have to deal with this issue as well. Copyright/patent protection strives to promote HUMAN innovation and not enrich the bottom line of some corporation ad infinitum.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. It will eventually be a big problem for Nintendo if they remain content to just keep shitting out Mario, Metroid and Zelda games ad nauseum.

And agree 100% on the corporate profit point. Again, make it so it copyright just protects the actual creators right to profit through their life time and shortly their after, and that's it. No reason for a corporation to keep profiting from a something a dad past employer (or founder) created.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top