PDA

View Full Version : ACTA Agreement signed


ShadowbaneX
10-05-2011, 09:42 AM
More information here (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/10/united-states-signs-acta/).

I absolutely loathe this agreement. Way to prop up the failing music and movie industry by letting them sue people for tens of thousands for downloading a few songs or movies.

Davian93
10-05-2011, 09:43 AM
God forbid a dying industry adapt to new technology instead of an outdated and ridiculous price structure.

GonzoTheGreat
10-05-2011, 09:58 AM
Hey, look at the bright side. Whatever that is, in this case.

Jokeslayer
10-05-2011, 10:38 AM
Pirates are going to be up in arrrrms about this.

GonzoTheGreat
10-05-2011, 11:57 AM
Among other things, the accord demands governments make it unlawful to market devices that circumvent copyright, such as devices that copy encrypted DVDs without authorization. That is akin to a feature in the the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States, where the law has been used by Hollywood studios to block RealNetworks from marketing DVD-copying technology.Or, to name another example: pen and paper. With those, you could easily (though somewhat laboriously, perhaps) copy coyprighted documents.

Thus, we can now expect all sales of writing equipment in the USA to stop.

Assuming, of course, that the US government is going to be "fair and balanced" about this.

Brita
10-05-2011, 12:58 PM
Or, to name another example: pen and paper. With those, you could easily (though somewhat laboriously, perhaps) copy coyprighted documents.

Thus, we can now expect all sales of writing equipment in the USA to stop.

Assuming, of course, that the US government is going to be "fair and balanced" about this.

And cameras, keyboards or musical instruments, to name a few more devices that could be used to infringe on copyright property.

ShadowbaneX
10-05-2011, 01:31 PM
Why do that Dav? I mean they're already paying their lawyers tons of cash. It's cheaper just to make them prop-up their bloated carcass instead of spending money on infrastructure to redevelop themselves.

Mort
10-05-2011, 06:22 PM
I'll guess that this sort of thing will sort it self out from the bottom up, but it'll take some time.

Sinistrum
10-05-2011, 07:56 PM
I found the most interesting claim to be those who pushed this through don't seem to think Congressional approval is needed. Something tells me that stance might get this accord in trouble domestically. I can't imagine why it would get in trouble though. Nope nope nope.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

Besides, its not like this will really do anything to eliminate piracy. China is not a part of this agreement after all.

ShadowbaneX
10-05-2011, 08:28 PM
I found the most interesting claim to be those who pushed this through don't seem to think Congressional approval is needed. Something tells me that stance might get this accord in trouble domestically. I can't imagine why it would get in trouble though. Nope nope nope.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec2

Besides, its not like this will really do anything to eliminate piracy. China is not a part of this agreement after all.
True, but it will let a variety of overpaid lawyers sue the hell out of college kids or high school kids' parents for downloading some songs or movies from the internet. You know, cause what the US really needs right now are big businesses frivolously suing people.

Davian93
10-05-2011, 09:55 PM
True, but it will let a variety of overpaid lawyers sue the hell out of college kids or high school kids' parents for downloading some songs or movies from the internet. You know, cause what the US really needs right now are big businesses frivolously suing people.

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/5/52/7proxnew.jpg

Mort
10-06-2011, 04:03 AM
http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/5/52/7proxnew.jpg

I lol'ed.

DahLliA
10-06-2011, 12:09 PM
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k81/dahllia/piracy.jpg?t=

ShadowbaneX
10-06-2011, 04:23 PM
you need to cross out the "il" in illegal as they're killing it in a very legal and very profitable fashion. Just go look at the popular music charts. There isn't any real music in there...and they're making BILLIONS off of it.

Jokeslayer
10-07-2011, 03:36 AM
you need to cross out the "il" in illegal as they're killing it in a very legal and very profitable fashion. Just go look at the popular music charts. There isn't any real music in there...and they're making BILLIONS off of it.

People have been saying this for as long as I can remember (which isn't all that long, admittedly). Unless the "real music" (lol at that, by the way) has gone away, your argument is silly. And even if the music industry is killing "real music", how in the hell is piracy supposed to help? "I know what we'll do, we'll encourage the growth of real music by not paying for it!"

GonzoTheGreat
10-07-2011, 04:38 AM
Real music is anything before Bach (his works can be found on CDs, so that's part of the music industry too), plus Björk. The latter is some sort of alien infiltrator, though I don't know what planet she* comes from.

And Britney, of course, but you lot don't seem to like her.

* May not be the right pronoun, but it'll do.

ShadowbaneX
10-07-2011, 11:10 AM
"Real music", if you want to classify it that way, has sort of gone away, or at least been so massively changed that. Think about the greatest pieces of music ever produced.

As Gonzo has mockingly suggested, the names include the likes of Bach, Beethoven (and other old guys in whigs who's last names begin with B) and the like. Do you ever think Britney Spears, Katy Perry or Kanye West will be mentioned in the same breathe as what is defined as some of the best musicians of the world?

GonzoTheGreat
10-07-2011, 11:21 AM
Well ... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7gaxUBbGmg)

ShadowbaneX
10-07-2011, 11:35 AM
Fiction doesn't count, otherwise I would have added in this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNddW2xmZp8)

DahLliA
10-07-2011, 02:14 PM
"I know what we'll do, we'll encourage the growth of real music by not paying for it!"

artists are making more money from concerts than ever. in fact the only thing that is going down is the CD-sales...

because. you know. the CD is dead. like the casette, the LP, the music box and banging on pots.

but I'm not gonna get into this argument. I've heard pretty much every argument from both sides too many times, and my opinion is very unlikely to change :p

Crispin's Crispian
10-07-2011, 02:30 PM
artists are making more money from concerts than ever. in fact the only thing that is going down is the CD-sales...

because. you know. the CD is dead. like the casette, the LP, the music box and banging on pots.


I won't dispute that CD sales are declining, but you need to complete the argument. Are other revenue sources making up for the loss of copyright/sales revenue? If not, then you didn't address Jokey's point.

DahLliA
10-07-2011, 04:37 PM
I won't dispute that CD sales are declining, but you need to complete the argument. Are other revenue sources making up for the loss of copyright/sales revenue? If not, then you didn't address Jokey's point.

not for the record companies. but artist, that is good artists(or the shitty ones with good marketing) are making more money.

and many more artists are getting paid now. since it's so easy to both record and spread music.

and "most" people will pay for what they like.

so piracy is closer to free advertisement than stealing.

and that has been known since at least 2005. granted this is TV and not music, but the principle is the same: http://www.mindjack.com/feature/piracy051305.html

so basically everyone has it better now, except for the record companies. who could have been making absolute shitloads of money if they used all the money they throw away suing people to develop good online solutions that people are willing to pay for. it's like it's always been. the industry has to be dragged kicking and screaming into every new technology that comes along.

at least they've finally started to take the point(with Spotify and similar services), but they've forever ruined privacy for normal people in most countries

DahLliA
10-07-2011, 04:49 PM
here's some proof. from us proper vikings too:

http://torrentfreak.com/artists-make-more-money-in-file-sharing-age-than-before-100914/

since I realize a site named "torrentfreak.com"(while usually very correct) might sound biased, here is the master thesis that the article is based on: http://www.scribd.com/doc/37406039/Thesis-Bjerkoe-Sorbo

GonzoTheGreat
10-08-2011, 04:02 AM
What do the artists matter? It's all about the corporations; according to SCOTUS those are people who are allowed to pay lobbyists, so they're the ones who get to write the laws.

Crispin is correct, but he did not draw the obvious conclusion: there should be a CD tax. Anyone who doesn't buy enough legal music should pay that tax, (part of) which will go to reimburse the companies for the expenses they have to make hiring those lobbyists.

Or perhaps the "let the idiots either prove that they are telling the truth, and if not, let the market do what it is supposed to do" piracy advocates do have a point after all.
I think there are two sides to this, and we should teach the controversy, so that the little kiddies can make up their own minds.

Mort
10-08-2011, 05:37 AM
What do the artists matter? It's all about the corporations; according to SCOTUS those are people who are allowed to pay lobbyists, so they're the ones who get to write the laws.

Crispin is correct, but he did not draw the obvious conclusion: there should be a CD tax. Anyone who doesn't buy enough legal music should pay that tax, (part of) which will go to reimburse the companies for the expenses they have to make hiring those lobbyists.

Or perhaps the "let the idiots either prove that they are telling the truth, and if not, let the market do what it is supposed to do" piracy advocates do have a point after all.
I think there are two sides to this, and we should teach the controversy, so that the little kiddies can make up their own minds.

Sweden has a copy fee/tax on cassettes and CDs that goes straight to some music organisation. It dates back to the cassette where people recorded music from the radio. Someone thought it a good idea to give them a chunk of money because they lost revenue on the stuff.

Now they are talking about putting a similar fee on USB flash drives, harddrives and such. It has a hard time passing at the moment, but the ass hats are probably gonna make it come true.

This latest thing comes about 5 years too late too. Everyone uses Spotify in Sweden by now or other web service like Soundcloud.com, hypemachine etc for the lastest music and remixes.

Stupid stupid people.

Jokeslayer
10-08-2011, 06:11 AM
"Real music", if you want to classify it that way, has sort of gone away, or at least been so massively changed that. Think about the greatest pieces of music ever produced.

As Gonzo has mockingly suggested, the names include the likes of Bach, Beethoven (and other old guys in whigs who's last names begin with B) and the like. Do you ever think Britney Spears, Katy Perry or Kanye West will be mentioned in the same breathe as what is defined as some of the best musicians of the world?

I didn't classify anything. You introduced the term. I'd just like to know what it means.

As for those artists, no, they probably wouldn't be mentioned as the best musicians in the history of the world, but why is that important? Their job is to produce music (or a reasonable approximation thereof) that people want to buy. Is The Wheel Of Time going to be called the best book series in the history of the world? There's all sorts of problems with only allowing contenders for the "best ever" to be popular, starting with the fact that we'd only get one of anything every fifty years.

Jokeslayer
10-08-2011, 06:16 AM
not for the record companies. but artist, that is good artists(or the shitty ones with good marketing) are making more money.

and many more artists are getting paid now. since it's so easy to both record and spread music.

and "most" people will pay for what they like.

I'd ask you to prove all of those.


so piracy is closer to free advertisement than stealing.


So what? That doesn't mean it isn't stealing. It may well be the case that giving the music away would be better than charging high prices, but the fact remains that it's their property and they choose what to do with it. If they choose to charge $100 per track, your choice is to pay for it or not to pay for it; your choice is not to steal it or to pay for it.


so basically everyone has it better now, except for the record companies.

The evil, evil record companies ... who the artists are choosing to sign with.

GonzoTheGreat
10-08-2011, 06:29 AM
It may well be the case that giving the music away would be better than charging high prices, but the fact remains that it's their property and they choose what to do with it.Is it?

A year or so ago, there was a flap because a bunch of people had bought (that's what they thought, at least) an e-book on Amazon, then someone who had the copyrights protested, and Amazon deleted the books from the e-readers of the 'buyers' again.
Suppose that had been done with paper books: you buy a book in a bookstore, it turns out they might not have been authorised to sell it to you, so they come into your house and destroy the book. Would that have been all right too?

A problem here is: who owns those bits which make up the "digital property"?
According to many of the rules they've attached to it, you're not allowed to sell the digital copies you've "bought" on, you are not allowed to give them to someone else, and so forth. If you die, then your heir can not inherit the music you've bought.
Yet with the stuff for which the original copyright laws were made, all of that is possible. You can legally sell a book, you can give it to someone else, you can leave it to a descendant.

Consider all the quoting we do on the WOT boards: are we stealing from RJ and his heirs by doing that?
I think that if we were sued for it, quite a lot of us would decide not to buy the last book. In that case, how much would RJ's heirs win by insisting on "prosecuting the theft", and in contrast, how much do they lose by "allowing us to steal their property"?

ShadowbaneX
10-08-2011, 09:20 AM
Sweden has a copy fee/tax on cassettes and CDs that goes straight to some music organisation. It dates back to the cassette where people recorded music from the radio. Someone thought it a good idea to give them a chunk of money because they lost revenue on the stuff.

Now they are talking about putting a similar fee on USB flash drives, harddrives and such. It has a hard time passing at the moment, but the ass hats are probably gonna make it come true.

This latest thing comes about 5 years too late too. Everyone uses Spotify in Sweden by now or other web service like Soundcloud.com, hypemachine etc for the lastest music and remixes.

Stupid stupid people.
Only now? I believe they put some crap like that in to law here a few years ago. Must be nice. I guess in another five years the recording industry will get around to taxing/hating streaming music and the like.

ShadowbaneX
10-08-2011, 10:18 AM
The evil, evil record companies ... who the artists are choosing to sign with.

Evil, evil record companies...that make artists sign with them demanding tens of thousands and percentage points of their sales...who generously forward them thousands and expect them to pay them back with interest.

Who will make them sign contracts which essentially say that they'll sign them to real contracts then refuse to do anything with them, making it impossible to sign with other companies.

Who'll put most bands so far in to debt and take 90%+ of their royalties that most bands needs to get to their third successful album in order just to start turning a profit.

There was an article I read recently in the last month that details exactly how much it costs to actually produce a record and how much the musicians actually see from all that after the recording company takes their cut, but I cannot find it again. I think it was something like $5,000 for an album, at least at the start. For bands that might only release an album ever few years, yeah, they're not getting that much out of it, while the companies they're signed to make millions off of them.

Jokeslayer
10-08-2011, 02:43 PM
Evil, evil record companies...that make artists sign with them demanding tens of thousands and percentage points of their sales...who generously forward them thousands and expect them to pay them back with interest.

Who will make them sign contracts which essentially say that they'll sign them to real contracts then refuse to do anything with them, making it impossible to sign with other companies.

Who'll put most bands so far in to debt and take 90%+ of their royalties that most bands needs to get to their third successful album in order just to start turning a profit.

There was an article I read recently in the last month that details exactly how much it costs to actually produce a record and how much the musicians actually see from all that after the recording company takes their cut, but I cannot find it again. I think it was something like $5,000 for an album, at least at the start. For bands that might only release an album ever few years, yeah, they're not getting that much out of it, while the companies they're signed to make millions off of them.

What a wonderfully concise definition of "real music" that brilliantly demonstrates your point.

Anyway, those evil record companies might be producing unfair contracts and exploiting their artists, but what does that change? The artists are still choosing to sign those contracts. There are procedures in place if the contract is not adhered to or whatever, but ultimately the artists are choosing to sign those contracts (and as we appear to have established, there are other ways to establish yourself as a musician in the modern world - apparently better than selling your music to people via physical product, which I accept would be very hard for a small-scale operation to do effectively). I still don't see how illegal downloads help those artists (until someone proves that non-paid downloads lead directly to concert attendance - I highly doubt some downtrodden band in SoCal are going to benefit from having their music downloaded in Norway or England or Mongolia).

Jokeslayer
10-08-2011, 03:04 PM
Is it?

yes



Consider all the quoting we do on the WOT boards: are we stealing from RJ and his heirs by doing that?


no

(I wrote this once and lost it; this is the short version. I hate typing on a laptop)

Amazon probably have conditions in the licence or whatever that lets them do that. If they don't, it's different, but assuming they do you have a choice between accepting it or not buying a kindle. Like with the music industry, if they've got it all wrong they'll get punished by the market turning away from their products and not buying them - or can I go and steal a bunch of BMWs because I think they're overpriced?

Copyright law allows us to reproduce small amounts of text for certain purposes. If we were distributing digital copies of the text to people in lieu of purchase, that would be wrong. But we're not.

These high-minded theoretical arguments are fine, but does anyone really think most piracy is not based on wanting things but not wanting to pay for them, and then trying to find a way to justify it? Same as that gay choice thread of yours - start with what you want (free stuff/a way to hate gays) and work backwards from there to a way to make it ok (big business is evil/it's a bad moral choice) instead of the other way round (it's their property/who cares?)

GonzoTheGreat
10-09-2011, 05:08 AM
These high-minded theoretical arguments are fine, but does anyone really think most piracy is not based on wanting things but not wanting to pay for them, and then trying to find a way to justify it?I think that piracy, like most things, is a lot more diverse than you're suggesting.

Yes, what you say is one of the possible reasons for it.

Another is that people may use it to find out whether there are other interesting artists/bands/authors to buy stuff from.
I have bought quite a lot of CDs because after downloading them, I decided that I wanted to actually own them. I have bought quite a lot of books because after reading some of the work of that author in digital format, I decided I liked it.
Please tell me: how much did those people lose because I "stole" their work? Bonus question: did they gain anything from it, and if so, in what other plausible way could they have made that gain?

Mort
10-09-2011, 06:02 AM
These high-minded theoretical arguments are fine, but does anyone really think most piracy is not based on wanting things but not wanting to pay for them, and then trying to find a way to justify it? Same as that gay choice thread of yours - start with what you want (free stuff/a way to hate gays) and work backwards from there to a way to make it ok (big business is evil/it's a bad moral choice) instead of the other way round (it's their property/who cares?)

Some of it probably are. But what needs to be addressed is that the music, movie and even the book industry to some extent is changing. Digital over physical. Kids aren't buying CDs today, not because they don't want to pay for it, but because there are better options out there. Even the concept of an album is being redefined, because of this shift. People listen more to specific songs than albums, so buying an album where only one song is okay is pointless, which it always has been, but only now do we have a better system to deal with it.

There are basically two factors when it comes to "piracy".

1. Price.

2. How available is the music, how easy is it for me to get it, listen to it etc.

I believe number 2 is a big factor for a lot of people. Kids might not have the money to buy all their music they want to listen to, but adults usually do. Then it comes down to how easy it is. If I want to listen to 5 songs from 5 different artists, I need to load 5 different CDs in my player. Hassle. So you download.

Is "digital piracy" really such a problem nowadays when you actually have good options, either if you want to buy your music from Itunes or have it streamed from Spotify for a monthly fee? I don't think so.

I rarely bought music before, I own maybe 10-15 CDs of artists I really liked when I bought them. I downloaded a lot. Now I pay Spotify 15 dollar each month for unlimited music on my laptop and smartphone. I also listen and find more music nowadays thanks to services like Spotify.

Point is, innovation moved faster than the industry wanted it to, fearing the new. Now the industry is catching up somewhat and everyone is better for it.

DahLliA
10-09-2011, 06:49 AM
I'd ask you to prove all of those.

read the master thesis. granted it's only for Norway, but I don't see any massive differences between the music industry in Norway and elsewhere.

hell. we still don't sue random people for downloading so in countries like the US the artist should have it even better(according to the industry's logic anyway)

ShadowbaneX
10-09-2011, 10:36 AM
What a moronically naive sarcastic response that brilliantly shows that it's the victim's fault that they're getting exploited. The musicians get people coming to them, telling them they're awesome, they're wonderful, they're going to be the next huge star. They puff up their egos, getting them feeling important, mentioning millions in their bank account, fame, celebrity...anything they could ever want...all they need to do that is sign this one little piece of paper and they'll have millions at their disposal to make their records and they'll be on the Tonight Show and touring the World in a few months...riiiight.

The music industry is exactly that, an industry. It's there to produce money, not music, "music" and I use the term loosely, is how they make their money. They're not looking to produce lasting works for the ages, just the next 'big thing' that will get the (pre)teens attention for five minutes and force them to nag their parents to buy movies, dvds, downloads, posters, t-shirts, and all the other associated product that goes with the "top recording artists" of the day.

They're a bunch of slick air-brushed assholes that's selling a product to consumers...it's just that the product are musicians.

As for downloads in the rest of the world, you'd be surprised as to some of the people that will go out, listen or watch stuff, and then if they like the product, they'll actually go out and buy the stuff and support the artist(s). They'll tell their friends about it, get them to listen to it, and all of a sudden, yeah, those downtrodden SoCal artists might just start gaining some popularity in places.

My main beef though is that the Recording Industry is holding so tight to their marking plan that they cannot see the way things are going. They have a huge potential tool to help the artists (and themselves) but rather than taking advantage of it, they're just trying to shut it down and keep things the way they are. They're stagnating in a world that's rapidly evolving...and that's just stupid.

GonzoTheGreat
10-09-2011, 12:10 PM
My main beef though is that the Recording Industry is holding so tight to their marking plan that they cannot see the way things are going. They have a huge potential tool to help the artists (and themselves) but rather than taking advantage of it, they're just trying to shut it down and keep things the way they are. They're stagnating in a world that's rapidly evolving...and that's just stupid.However, it does seem to be a sound business strategy, considering the fact that they've been using this lunatic approach for at least the last 30 years, and (from what I have read on it) even before that.
So yes, it is stupid, it screws over all but the biggest artists (who, one may note, almost all begin their own record company), but it works. Lawyers beat reality, at least for a while. And when it eventually stops, the lawyers will find another lucrative niche market. So you don't have to worry about them, they'll be all right.

ShadowbaneX
10-09-2011, 02:03 PM
30 years is a very short time, and it's been longer than though. Try closer to 60 or 70 years, pretty much since the recording industry (you'll note it's not the music industry, simply the recording industry, you know, recorded music) but even that is a pretty short time...and you'd think given their more modern existence they'd be more adaptable to changing technology. Instead they want to force the rest of the world to stay the same so that they have don't have to change.

Mort
10-09-2011, 05:52 PM
There was a time when the music industry was against the radio for much the same reasons as they are against stuff today.

In 15-20 years, the record companies that havn't changed with the times won't be here.

DahLliA
10-09-2011, 06:42 PM
In 15-20 years, the record companies that havn't changed with the times won't be here.

problem is that they're wrecking so much of the world in their death throes

The Unreasoner
10-10-2011, 03:00 AM
The recording companies think they are being robbed. I'm not sure I really have a problem with them trying to do something about it. I doubt it will work though. I make rolling stops at stop signs all the time, and I'm not supposed to do that either. Usenet still is largely not monitored, TOR browsers are common, uTorrent and its like are as big as ever and more and more people are relying on VPNs anyway.

I think the free market will settle this issue. Lawyers will not make enough, stop prosecuting, and move on to metasbestos lawsuits. I am curious to see what the future music field will look like. Will we be stuck with listening to bands that are local, or are among the handful that pops up on facebook notifications? Music will become just noise then. After all, Facebook is killing taste (http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2011/09/not_sharing_is_caring.html) and the local bands here are shit. And people are less discriminating when a thing is free anyway. What about people like Elvis Costello? Not a top ten guy. Certainly isn't showing up in my facebook feeds. But he is a phenomenal artist and commercially viable. Probably my favorite musician, all-time. Would I have run into him, if I looked 10 years from now? Or even today? Or would I just see a dozen one hit wonders by the next 50 Biebers on youtube and my friends' shitty bands' music videos?

Anger at the record companies for not embracing new technology seems a little silly. You don't see people attacking Apple or the Amish for doing the same thing, do you? They also stick with antiquated methods of doing things, but are both commercial successes.

I'm more than a little worried that the future of all media is 'streaming' (from the magical Cloud, also known as the same shit we've had for years now). Any sense of ownership will be gone, for both the artist and the audience.

GonzoTheGreat
10-10-2011, 05:01 AM
Anger at the record companies for not embracing new technology seems a little silly. You don't see people attacking Apple or the Amish for doing the same thing, do you?Do the Amish send lawyers asking for tens of thousands of dollars after every school kid who dares buy an iPad?
Does Apple try to prosecute everyone who dares offend the Lord by driving a car on Sunday?

The anger is not about their "not embracing new technology". The anger is about the use of government power to prevent everyone else from being modern.

Juan
10-10-2011, 12:04 PM
As a musician, who loves listening to music (without having to pay to download it) and yet produces my own, I found myself caught between two sides. Therefore, I never really had an opinion.. After reading this thread, I'd have to say I agree with Jokeslayer for the most part.

As a musician, relatively unknown, I release my songs for free and I encourage people to download them and listen to them. I could have an option to buy the song if you wish, but I think I would leave that as an option to the people. But that's just me. However, I completely understand: what if I just wanted to sell it? In that case, people have to pay for it if they choose to, or not pay for it if they so choose as well (in which case they don't get the product).

The point is very simple to me now. A song or album is produced and can be quite expensive. I actually have a little recording business on the side. But this work of music is a property. Think of something physical if you can't grasp your mind around the concept that a musical work is a property/product/good. I open up my shop of sandwiches. Because you don't wanna pay for them that means you can take them (my property) without permission. I think the reason why I tried to justify not paying for it was because I wanted (and still do) to get music without monetary charge.

Every other argument of it's better to not pay, musicians are taken advantage of, etc is a separate issue. All of these don't change the fact that you're taking someone else's (property/product/good) without their permission. End of discussion.

DahLliA
10-10-2011, 12:09 PM
Anger at the record companies for not embracing new technology seems a little silly. You don't see people attacking Apple or the Amish for doing the same thing, do you? They also stick with antiquated methods of doing things, but are both commercial successes.

oh. the industry can stay in 1980 for all I care. what I'm angry about is how they're bribing politicians into pissing on privacy and how their greed is sending us straight into 1984

GonzoTheGreat
10-10-2011, 12:36 PM
The point is very simple to me now. A song or album is produced and can be quite expensive. I actually have a little recording business on the side. But this work of music is a property. Think of something physical if you can't grasp your mind around the concept that a musical work is a property/product/good. I open up my shop of sandwiches. Because you don't wanna pay for them that means you can take them (my property) without permission. I think the reason why I tried to justify not paying for it was because I wanted (and still do) to get music without monetary charge.Now assume that someone who has bought one of your sandwiches and liked it goes back to his own home, and makes himself precisely such a sandwich.
Do you now have the moral right to sue him?

That's the problem with this discussion: that which is 'stolen' is not something physical, for which the rules are pretty obvious and simple.
You can of course say that ideas should be protected too. But if you go that way, then for the next 130 or so years, no American politician apart from Obama would be allowed to use "change" in any speech. That'd be a somewhat stifling on debate, I think you can will agree.

Crispin's Crispian
10-10-2011, 12:49 PM
Now assume that someone who has bought one of your sandwiches and liked it goes back to his own home, and makes himself precisely such a sandwich.
Do you now have the moral right to sue him?

That's the problem with this discussion: that which is 'stolen' is not something physical, for which the rules are pretty obvious and simple.
You can of course say that ideas should be protected too. But if you go that way, then for the next 130 or so years, no American politician apart from Obama would be allowed to use "change" in any speech. That'd be a somewhat stifling on debate, I think you can will agree.
So it sounds as though you're suggesting that artists (or anyone, really) should not be allowed to profit from their ideas. Is that accurate?

What kind of chilling effect will that have on art?

DahLliA
10-10-2011, 12:57 PM
http://www.knowaguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Piracy-vs-Theft.jpg

and I know at least a few people here like Neil Gaiman. he explains it better than I ever could: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qkyt1wXNlI

ShadowbaneX
10-10-2011, 12:57 PM
And what if, as I've suggested above, people take that property and really like it? Like it so much that they actually come back and not only pay for it, but buy a lot of other stuff as well? They also go around telling their friends about it and then they go and listen to it and start buying stuff.

What happens then? Would kinda seem that all of a sudden what was "Theft" is now "Viral Marketing" and helping the Industry instead of harming it.

ShadowbaneX
10-10-2011, 12:59 PM
I was thinking about posting that...but I'd have to go find it and I'm still feeling lazy after all that turkey last night.

DahLliA
10-10-2011, 01:01 PM
What kind of chilling effect will that have on art?

meh. art died the day artists started getting known before they had been dead a hundred years :p

EDIT: and if Neil Gaiman isn't hot enough for you. here's Joss Stone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCkX0KcNwrI&feature=related

Juan
10-10-2011, 01:05 PM
@sbx
Again, that's a different issue.

The only "loophole" "gray area" that is actually debatable is after your song is bought can you give the mp3 to a friend. Problem here is that with a physical object like a sandwich, if you give it to your friend, you no longer have it. So it's not like you're duplicating that sandwich, whereas with a song you give it to your friend, so now he or she has it, but you still have it to. And then because of this sharing the artist misses on profit.

But as for someone going on Internet themselves and directly firsthand download song without buying it without permission, then that's not ok. And this part is not debatable.

ShadowbaneX
10-10-2011, 01:08 PM
actually, no, it pretty much is the issue at hand. Also, go see the vids that Dahl is posting.

DahLliA
10-10-2011, 01:20 PM
And then because of this sharing the artist misses on profit.

that would be true if people would have bought everything they download. which is completely ridiculous.

they'd simply never hear the music at all. and the artist would still not get paid.

and no one would ever hear their music

GonzoTheGreat
10-10-2011, 01:22 PM
So it sounds as though you're suggesting that artists (or anyone, really) should not be allowed to profit from their ideas. Is that accurate?No, it's not accurate.

What kind of chilling effect will that have on art?I thought you'd never ask (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc). :D

Jokeslayer
10-11-2011, 04:32 AM
http://www.knowaguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Piracy-vs-Theft.jpg



Haven't watched the video yet so I don't know if it addresses this, but your image misses the point.

If I walk into a shop and steal a CD, I've disadvantaged two groups: the people who would have received money had I bought the CD (the shop, the record label, the artist), and the consumer who now can't buy the CD I just stole. If I illegally download it, I only disadvantage the first group. It's better, yes, but it's still not exactly good. It's nothing like your car getting stolen; it's really more like stealing a car from a lot with lots of cars.

GonzoTheGreat
10-11-2011, 05:48 AM
If I walk into a shop and steal a CD, I've disadvantaged two groups: the people who would have received money had I bought the CD (the shop, the record label, the artist), and the consumer who now can't buy the CD I just stole. If I illegally download it, I only disadvantage the first group.If you hook up with a chick who has bought the CD, and listen to her copy of it, those who would have received money if you had bought your own copy are precisely as disadvantaged.

So, should we prohibit listening to other people's CDs?
If not, then on what grounds do you think that is any different?

ShadowbaneX
10-11-2011, 08:26 AM
Haven't watched the video yet so I don't know if it addresses this, but your image misses the point.

If I walk into a shop and steal a CD, I've disadvantaged two groups: the people who would have received money had I bought the CD (the shop, the record label, the artist), and the consumer who now can't buy the CD I just stole. If I illegally download it, I only disadvantage the first group. It's better, yes, but it's still not exactly good. It's nothing like your car getting stolen; it's really more like stealing a car from a lot with lots of cars.

First, go watch the video. Second, go watch the video. Third, CDs are out of date. Fourth, places that sell CDs are out of date. Fifth, also go watch the other video that Dahl posted. The entire industry is ass backwards, and all the rules and regulations are only in place to help maintain that system which profits the people that sell the music, not the people that make it.

There's another vid linked from the others that Dahl linked that talks about how pissed off EMI was when Joss Stone just went to them and handed them a complete album. The reason they were most likely pissed wasn't that they had a finished product in their hands that could make them millions, but more likely at the fact that if more artists realised that they didn't need the industry, they'd be screwed. The industry should be supporting musicians & not just propping themselves up.

If you hook up with a chick who has bought the CD, and listen to her copy of it, those who would have received money if you had bought your own copy are precisely as disadvantaged.

So, should we prohibit listening to other people's CDs?
If not, then on what grounds do you think that is any different?

You might be trying to make a joke here to prove a point, but software licenses certainly try to work this way and I'm fairly sure that the Recording Industry would also like for it to be this way...hell, I'm sure the Industry would love it if they could get it so that you had to pay for each time you listen to that CD in addition to it's initial cost.