another thing is the inherent Quixoitic nature of those who pursue the downloaders. How is it even feasible to stop hundreds of millions of people from illegally downloading? How do you go about that? You sure as hell dont go about it the way the industry has since 1999. For all the lawsuits and jail time and fines, 2010 has more people downloading now than at any time since 1999. Cd sales continue to slip month after month, year after year.
As has been stated, you are for prosecuting the downloaders? Fine. Now tell us a legitimate legal and law enforcement strategy to stop hundreds of millions of people worldwide who download. Whats your plan? Whats the strategy? The game plan? Cause it has to be different than whats been going on. We have tried fines, jail time and hauling people into court. We have tried demonizing those who download. That hasnt worked. What should be the next course of action?
Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.
I agree because I made the same of point of co-songwriter Pye Dubois on the song *Tom Sawyer* by RUSH. Everytime that song is on video, dvd or cd even played in concert he gets royalities. Just imagine how many times that song has been played in concert, in fact every RUSH show since it's release. He's able to live well due to having written that song along with some others and NOT being a performer in concert. They're many others like you stated and should be conpensated for their gifts of songwriting and not being able to play the stage.
Peace
So some frat kid at the University of Iowa is damaging the financial status of Pye Dubois? Excuse me while I politely disagree friend.
per usual Damien Rice has sobering thoughts on the whole issue. Brilliant as always:
"A true artist does art for its own sake and has no fear of not having money. Great songs write themselves—a song, like fresh air, is a gift. We are programmed into thinking we can buy and own things, but it’s all just an illusion. I play along because that’s what we do here on earth—for now."
per usual Damien Rice has sobering thoughts on the whole issue. Brilliant as always:
"A true artist does art for its own sake and has no fear of not having money. Great songs write themselves—a song, like fresh air, is a gift. We are programmed into thinking we can buy and own things, but it’s all just an illusion. I play along because that’s what we do here on earth—for now."
Quote-unquote. Discussion put to bed.
So because Damien Rice thinks so this puts the discussion 'to bed'?
The fact is that the music being downloaded does NOT belong to anyone apart from the ARTIST. If they wanna share it for free, there you go. But the arrogance demonstrated by thousands by assuming it's OK to download is beyond me. I'm thinking of thousands of people who aren't on major labels, independent labels that may have started in bedrooms and are offering fair deals to artists they believe in. No one is forced into a record deal.
I don't agree with suing some college kids who will never be able to pay off any of their debts anyway. That's just counter productive. I also don't want tight regulation of the internet.
Trent Reznor, Radiohead, Damien Rice (who I all love by the way) keep being mentioned, but these guys are in certain positions and can afford to say and do the things they do.
per usual Damien Rice has sobering thoughts on the whole issue. Brilliant as always:
"A true artist does art for its own sake and has no fear of not having money. Great songs write themselves—a song, like fresh air, is a gift. We are programmed into thinking we can buy and own things, but it’s all just an illusion. I play along because that’s what we do here on earth—for now."
Quote-unquote. Discussion put to bed.
So because Damien Rice thinks so this puts the discussion 'to bed'?
apparently so :?
if an artist wants to give away their music, that's up to them. they don't speak for every other artist. and what about all the new and upcoming artists. what will happen to them. they don't have an abundance of funds like the already well established artists. they need someone to invest in them before they can even think about living off what they would make from hitting the tour scene.
Something that a LOT of people are forgetting here is that it's not just the performers. Some of the greatest music written in the last century was written by people who never had hits themselves, or who weren't performers at all. Does Bernie Taupin deserve to possibly be a pauper because he wasn't much of a performer, even though he co-wrote most of Elton John's career building hits? While his stuff isn't really my cup of tea, should Burt Bacharach only have a minimal level of assets from his mediocre performing career, instead of writing royalties from all of the monster hits he wrote for others? For that matter, should Dave Abbruzzese not get royalties for Elderly Woman or Corduroy? There are TONS of song writers who never made it as performers, but live very comfortably because they wrote the music and/or lyrics of a platinum record or two. All of those who suggest that obtaining music illegally is OK and the performers should make all of their money on concerts and merchandising are massively screwing over thousands of songwriters. In some cases, they could keep the world from experiencing further art from the writers that would possible due to the cushion they have from their first hit. Some people out there are pretty myopic about this issue, and need to consider a bit more of the overall picture.
I agree because I made the same of point of co-songwriter Pye Dubois on the song *Tom Sawyer* by RUSH. Everytime that song is on video, dvd or cd even played in concert he gets royalities. Just imagine how many times that song has been played in concert, in fact every RUSH show since it's release. He's able to live well due to having written that song along with some others and NOT being a performer in concert. They're many others like you stated and should be conpensated for their gifts of songwriting and not being able to play the stage.
Peace
So some frat kid at the University of Iowa is damaging the financial status of Pye Dubois? Excuse me while I politely disagree friend.
Not necessairly. Lets say Pye Dubois got, 10 cents from every Rush record sold (I don't know what the total is, but for numbers sake). If that record were to sell a million copies, then he would make $100,000. Now, if half those people just downloaded, he would only make $50,000. Thats a hell of a difference. So, an individual fat kid downloading doesn't make a difference, but a million of them do.
That's like saying 'So one person driving a car wrecks the environment'... One doesn't, but at the combined, they do.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
One thing that is frustrating is how hard it is to find who has the rights to things. I have a pretty extensive collection of bootlegs on YouTube, and I'd love to get permission from the performers and song writers. It's a pain in the neck to find the proper contacts in the first place, and the few I have never get back to me. Actually, Cheap Trick took the initiative and commercialized their song that I posted, and now ads show up. More power to them if they can make a few bucks from it... I have no problems with that. I certainly don't make any money off of it, and I think it only helps the artists. Seeing one of my videos is far more likely to make someone want to go see the artist live than to say that my footage is an adequate substitute to doing that. However, I'll always respect the artists wishes and take down the video if they want. It's only right.
this is a little bit off topic but still relevant to your youtube comment. it's also a problem for musicians who for whatever reason might want to broadcast their covers of other artists work. i know thousands of people do do it, and every now and then YouTube go on a rampage and delete delete delete :(
they get their revenue from advertising based on the number of hits each time someone accesses the link, and because they are receiving a financial benefit for the videos, they say they have to be careful of copyright laws. there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistancy in how they enforce it though.
i have played guitar for years, and mostly it wasn't an issue if we wanted to play tribute songs at clubs and bars because the venues would usually buy a licence from one of the societies. i understand that scenario is different to what you are talking about, because we were getting paid to perform.
if we were just having fun with the artists music with a few friends in our living room, then we are not publically playing copyrighted material so we were ok. no one can tell you what you can or cannot do with it. on YouTube though, according to them, whether you are being paid or not, you are still performing publically, so that's where they will get you everytime. I agree it's over the top and ridiculously anal, but i also see the otherside where music is like all personal property, when you want to use it, you need permission.
It's also ridiculous to expect that everyone will automatically join a Performance Rights Organization (like ASCAP) and pay their membership dues.
and no one can deny that if it wasn't for places like YouTube, we would not have the exposure to so many artists work that we may not have heard any other way.
have you ever had any dramas with your videos? i've seen posts in the porch where the fan boys go absolutely nuts if you post a link to a video of PJ performing, and they say you have to keep it a secret, otherwise the 10c will get it deleted because it breaches copyright. i don't go in that forum much unless it's tour time, but is there any truth to that?
I agree with Bono on this. To say cracking down on illegal downloading (filesharing is such a bullshit term) is like totalitarianism is beyond ridiculous... I'm sorry, but it is.
OK, I admit, I have illegally downloaded silly pop songs in the past, shit I would never buy anyway, and I have downloaded leaked albums.... but I later bought the CDs (if the music was worth the price of the CD). But I haven't been on any "filesharing" site in about 3 or 4 years, and I'm glad that steps have been taken to shut down those sites, or fill them with shitty quality or misnamed mp3s.
I like owning CDs. I like having the highest quality digital sound (even the best quality mp3s don't measure up) and having the artwork that comes with it. I don't mind the space they take up... I love looking at CD collections. I hope they don't go away. There's no need to make them smaller either... the album covers and booklets would be too small then... some might say they are already too small.
Of course I don't think that people should be arrested at random for downloading music. Crack down on the sites, not the individuals. It's not fair... millions and millions are also guilty and you can't charge them all.
And the monopoly should be reduced for 5 years from publication.It should only apply to the original work.
So you're cool with Barnes & Noble printing up copies of Ten, Vitalogy, etc and selling them with no $ going to PJ? Unless I'm missing something, these albums are well past the 5 year mark and would be fair game for that under your plan. If that's the case, I can't say that I agree with that.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Next, I love how, on these discussion forums, positions with no basis in reality get attributed to people. Both Pauland74 and Musicismylife78 seem to have me down as someone who wants the government to hunt down illegal downloaders and who wholeheartedly supports the RIAA suing 'little folks' for thousands or millions of $. I'm sorry, but I looked again and never found that part of my post that says, "...Therefore, we need gov't monitoring all of our computer usage." I absolutely, positively do NOT advocate anything like that. We're a bunch of cyber friends bullshitting on an issue, and I'm trying to make some see the bigger picture and maybe re-think their assumption that this is a victimless crime. It's my understanding that under the ASCAP type compensation plan out there, both the performers and the writers get a cut from every sale. So, if someone downloads Better Man from iTunes, Eddie should get two payments; one for being the sole writer of the song (as per the credit) and one that is an equal portion with the rest of the band members who performed it (just legal band members, though, and not session players.) For Eddie, maybe it doesn't matter that much. For Bernie Taupin, Pye Dubois, etc., it could be the difference between living in the street or not. I dunno... maybe I'd be a little more sympathetic if I knew some big evil corp bought out the rights long ago, and I'm certainly guilty of downloading some Django Reinhardt tunes for free figuring that he's long dead and doesn't need the royalties, but even that's me rationalizing.
All of that said, NEVER did I suggest that the gov't should intrude on our privacy. I'm just telling you knuckleheads to stop stealing. Hell... I could steal a thousand things a day. I could walk into 10 yards a day stealing hoses and garden gnomes. I certainly don't want cops searching me everyday to see if I've done this, just as I don't want them checking my computer data to see if the e-mail I'm getting has an illegally downloaded file. The point is that I don't go around stealing garden gnomes on a regular basis (which really is a victimless crime, right? ) because it's wrong, so I also shouldn't be stealing some artist's means of support.
And on that subject, screw Damien Rice... screw him right in the stinkhole. As others have stated, more power to him if he wants to give his stuff away, but how dare he belittle others who don't feel that way. Let's see how he feels about it in 20 years when he's not filling concert venues anymore. I'm personally acquainted with someone who was in a band that was somewhat popular in the 1980s and had a couple of huge hits that are still played on the radio a decent amount. He's at that stage of professional life where he has to hustle projects to keep afloat and will even do gigs in people's houses. He is adamant about the detrimental effect downloading has had on his financial condition, which includes his obligation to pay child support. Sit face-to-face in the kitchen with someone like, seeing how middle class (at best) their existence is and then get back to me on how they should just suck it up and not care about some kid at the University of Iowa downloading their property with no compensation.
And, I have to wholeheartedly agree with Keeponrockin when they point out that it's not just some kid at the University of Iowa. So, do we get rid of all littering laws? Gee... what's the big deal if some snappahhead like me in the NYC area tosses a Fritos bag out the window of his car? Come on... why are you bothered by that? Well... because if a million idiots do that, it has a demonstrable effect. Same with stealing from artists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, yeah TriumphantAngel, I have had issues with YouTube. The first one went without a hitch when Cheap Trick took over ownership of the 'Dream Police' performance I posted. Basically, we mutually get to decide whether to keep it up or not, meaning that I could choose to take it off and they could demand it. They now have a little ad that shows up for which they either get money if it's another product, or they hawk their own ringtones. It's all good. Another artist, who will remain unnamed to protect me from gobs of abuse, has his publishing rights managed by a firm, and they got the videos yanked. Seemed pretty dumb, since I kept reaching out to them to get them to do what Cheap Trick did and could never get through, and the fans thought they were FAH-BU-LOUUUUUS. Finally, my 'How Soon Is Now' by Morrissey at Carnegie Hall got yanked, but it was freakin' Carnegie Hall that did it... Morrissey couldn't care less. The stuffed shirts there are pretentious SOBs who had it pulled for copyright infringement of their venue :shock: Yet they still send me tons of mailings to "be a friend of Carnegie Hall" and donate money
Last Philly Spectrum Show - Halloween 2009
MSG 1 & 2 2010
Montreal 2011
Missoula 2012
Seattle 2013
Denver 2014
Central Park NYC 2015
Sunrise 2016
Wrigley 2 2016 Seattle 1 2018
~~~~~~~
EV NYC 2 2011
RNDM NYC 2012 TOTD SF 2016
The whole thing with Bono is a very strange . I have always admired U2 and especially Bonos support for humitarian issues, but when it comes to filesharing he goes totally bananas! He is looking towards China and there rigurous filtering (read censoring) of the internet and is suggesting if they can (China) so can we..
It seems like some people will willingly accept any draconian actions or abolish important principles just to stop filesharing. What happened to important issues like rule of law, freedom of communication,confidentiality of correspondence etc..
To track and filter private communication is already doubtful when it comes to really serious stuff like chasing terrorists or sex offenders. Doubtful because our freedom to communicate freely and our rights for a private sphere are so central for a democratic society.
It's totally absurd If we do like Bono wants and use very severe measure to chase people who are sharing music. From his pedistal he is supporting those who are dismantling our democracy and even refers to China...
i saw change the way record companies operate, if they didn't have 99.9999% of the artists by the balls would this be as big of an issue? unless you are someone like Ani DiFranco who owns her own label or Radiohead who has no label, just uses certain companies like XL Recordings to help distribute and manufacture the music most of the money is going to the record label instead of the artist.
but i have no real answer on how to fix it because obviously it's far easier for a band like Radiohead to avoid signing to a label than someone new and relatively unknown but i don't see Bono or Metallica using their own money to go after people in court, especially when they most likely wouldn't get much of it back.
on the other hand if an artist says they would rather it not happen shouldn't you respect that? i haven't downloaded anything in a long time other than backspacer and i deleted that without burning it or anything. i think it can be helpful so you don't buy an album and think you just wasted how much ever you spent on it. i used to use filesharing sites more to find videos of performances from tv then burn them to a dvd.
i would rather have the actual album than just a burned cdr written on with a sharpie, except for the vinyl i buy and record to cd because then i already own it and have the booklet and artwork even bigger
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
So you're cool with Barnes & Noble printing up copies of Ten, Vitalogy, etc and selling them with no $ going to PJ? Unless I'm missing something, these albums are well past the 5 year mark and would be fair game for that under your plan. If that's the case, I can't say that I agree with that.
What makes you so certain that PJ is getting money for for Ten, Vitalogy, etc now if they were sold by Barnes & Nobles? Is it cool with you that PJ's record label are selling there music up to 70 years after Pj's "death"?
Sorry that I answered a question with a question.. :oops:
concertaholicshirt wrote:
Next, I love how, on these discussion forums, positions with no basis in reality get attributed to people. Both Pauland74 and Musicismylife78 seem to have me down as someone who wants the government to hunt down illegal downloaders and who wholeheartedly supports the RIAA suing 'little folks' for thousands or millions of $. I'm sorry, but I looked again and never found that part of my post that says,
Hey dude it goes both ways. I'm pretty sure I haven't said that I think that artist shouldn't get paid, maybe that the record industry will slowly lose it money but the music industry (and thus the artists who create it) will always exist because people want and crave culture..
The reason why I argue for my case is that I really see a serious problem with cracking down on filesharing. I agree that people should pay for what they use, even though I don't put stealing and filesharing in the same category, because it isn't. But I can't accept this slippery slope to fascism that the world is heading to. Can't you see these problems as well?
The internet is not just full with people who are downloading movies/music. The internet is a fantastic tool, I would argue the most important tool humanity has recieved. Why should we just throw it away because of corporate interests? The internet is a place where people from all over the world can meet. On the internet people connect with eachother even though they come from different countries or may have different religios,sexual or other differences. Do you know now a person who has a computer and access to the internet from e.g a poor country in Africa can get the same kind of education as a western country due to that school/universties are making this information accesible. What a wonderful world we can build if people are impowered with knowledge. This can definetly lift humanity in this time in our human history..
I hope you and others are understanding what I am trying to say and try to reconsider your position or atleast acknowledge that cracking down on filesharing is a threat to our democratic principles..
what seems to be missing in this discussion is the inherent nature of illegal downloading. Its much like the war on terror. I never supported the us invading iraq or afghanistan. And one of the main reasons I didnt support, and dont support the wars, is that I dont believe that bombs or guns lessen terrorism. That is to say, the u.s. can bomb every terrorist hideout in the world, and can assassinate every known terrorist leader in the world, but it really isnt going to eradicate terrorism is it? Wanting to end homophobia is a noble goal. But I am realistic enough to know that, to reach this goal, murdering every homophobe on the planet isnt going to make the world any less homphobic.
The same can be said of illegal downloading.
So say every bit torrent and file sharing site is shut down. Really, imagine it. That somehow the world came together and somehow shut down all the known illegal downloading sites. Also imagine you jailed or fined every known illegal downloader. Not only would the courts and jails be way more overcrowed than they are, but do you honestly think that this would be the end of filesharing forever?
The issue wouldnt be as big as deal to me, if not for many of the smug folks, some on this board, who seem to live in lala land, where they seem to think that if we just pray hard enough, or fine enough money, or shut down enough sites, then tomorrow we will be rid of fileharing forever. Its silly and naive.
As I said, I am all for any ideas people have reguarding how to deal with filesharing, but please people, come on, lets move beyond the childish notions of shutting down all known downloading sites and that ending the "threat" of this scourge called filesharing.
Again, how do you realistically and practically and effectively stop hundreds of millions of people worldwide, people on every continent of the world who illegally download?
So you're cool with Barnes & Noble printing up copies of Ten, Vitalogy, etc and selling them with no $ going to PJ? Unless I'm missing something, these albums are well past the 5 year mark and would be fair game for that under your plan. If that's the case, I can't say that I agree with that.
What makes you so certain that PJ is getting money for for Ten, Vitalogy, etc now if they were sold by Barnes & Nobles? Is it cool with you that PJ's record label are selling there music up to 70 years after Pj's "death"?
Sorry that I answered a question with a question.. :oops:
concertaholicshirt wrote:
Next, I love how, on these discussion forums, positions with no basis in reality get attributed to people. Both Pauland74 and Musicismylife78 seem to have me down as someone who wants the government to hunt down illegal downloaders and who wholeheartedly supports the RIAA suing 'little folks' for thousands or millions of $. I'm sorry, but I looked again and never found that part of my post that says,
Hey dude it goes both ways. I'm pretty sure I haven't said that I think that artist shouldn't get paid, maybe that the record industry will slowly lose it money but the music industry (and thus the artists who create it) will always exist because people want and crave culture..
The reason why I argue for my case is that I really see a serious problem with cracking down on filesharing. I agree that people should pay for what they use, even though I don't put stealing and filesharing in the same category, because it isn't. But I can't accept this slippery slope to fascism that the world is heading to. Can't you see these problems as well?
The internet is not just full with people who are downloading movies/music. The internet is a fantastic tool, I would argue the most important tool humanity has recieved. Why should we just throw it away because of corporate interests? The internet is a place where people from all over the world can meet. On the internet people connect with eachother even though they come from different countries or may have different religios,sexual or other differences. Do you know now a person who has a computer and access to the internet from e.g a poor country in Africa can get the same kind of education as a western country due to that school/universties are making this information accesible. What a wonderful world we can build if people are impowered with knowledge. This can definetly lift humanity in this time in our human history..
I hope you and others are understanding what I am trying to say and try to reconsider your position or atleast acknowledge that cracking down on filesharing is a threat to our democratic principles..
I agree. There is not, and I dont think there ever could be a realistic way to deal with the massive numbers of people who download. Its like some of these people who are proRIAA and whatnot, they completely are in another planet. They seem to think fines, jail time, or whatnot, can actually eradicate illegal downloading.
concertaholicshirt wrote:What makes you so certain that PJ is getting money for for Ten, Vitalogy, etc now if they were sold by Barnes & Nobles?
Fair point; maybe they are, maybe they aren't. I'm not privy to the deal they have on each album so I don't know one way or the other. But many people do retain the rights to their creations, and this is something that can't be disputed. It's not all owned by record companies.
but there's also the other side that Is it cool with you that PJ's record label are selling there music up to 70 years after Pj's "death"?
Well... YEAH. That's the law. I guess we could change it somewhat, although limiting it to something like 5 years seems a bit rash. My dad owns a small business. Should the customers be able to come in 5 years after he dies and then claim the right to utilize the business as they wish and use my family''s assets with no financial consideration given to me? Why is a an artist's life work less valued than the work that goes into a retail mom & pop shop?
Sorry that I answered a question with a question.. :oops:
Back atcha
Hey dude it goes both ways. I'm pretty sure I haven't said that I think that artist shouldn't get paid, maybe that the record industry will slowly lose it money but the music industry (and thus the artists who create it) will always exist because people want and crave culture.
But the music industry is a part of that. Yeah... many in The Business have screwed over artists through the years, but they were often (even still now) a necessary evil. As others have mentioned, much of the money they soak from the super stars goes back into A&R to find the next huge act, and most of that just goes down the toilet. Most of the people who get contracts never have commercial success, and no one reimburses the record labels for those losses. Again, I can't acknowledge enough how awful it was in the past, especially back in the 50s & 60s... especially with minority artists or pure songwriters who didn't perform. However, PJ might never have hit if the record company didn't have $ from onerous contracts on some of the acts that came before them.
The reason why I argue for my case is that I really see a serious problem with cracking down on filesharing.
Again, I have no huge disagreement with you on this. Some bad things happen on that front. My posts were more of a personal nature to people here, rather than a suggestion on how to address it in the world at large.
...even though I don't put stealing and filesharing in the same category, because it isn't.
I think it often is stealing, although not always. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. No biggie.
But I can't accept this slippery slope to fascism that the world is heading to. Can't you see these problems as well?...
I hope you and others are understanding what I am trying to say and try to reconsider your position or atleast acknowledge that cracking down on filesharing is a threat to our democratic principles.
Absolutely. It sucks on many levels. On that we can agree.
Last Philly Spectrum Show - Halloween 2009
MSG 1 & 2 2010
Montreal 2011
Missoula 2012
Seattle 2013
Denver 2014
Central Park NYC 2015
Sunrise 2016
Wrigley 2 2016 Seattle 1 2018
~~~~~~~
EV NYC 2 2011
RNDM NYC 2012 TOTD SF 2016
Again, how do you realistically and practically and effectively stop hundreds of millions of people worldwide, people on every continent of the world who illegally download?
A lot of us who are against illegal downloading have said they do not agree with the way the industry has been cracking down on illegal downloaders. Do you just choose to ignore those posts?
"We get these pills to swallow... how they stick in your throat... Tastes like gold..."
no i saw and read those posts. I would like to see a solution, or at least some ideas proposed by people who are against illegal downloading.
Otherwise its kind of silly. I am very much against racism, and am antiwar, and am against the building of prisons and all that. I have ideas and theories reguarding what I feel should be done with those issues. Obviously, they are just my ideas, but i have opinions and my own beliefs about what solutions could be offered to deal with these complex and important issues.
With downloading its alot of bunk proposed. Be against downloading. Be my guest. But be intelligent enough to propose a solution or theory, on how to legitimately deal with the issue.
Thats my stance. Every single time a thread like this pops up you have people coming out of the woodwork with their holier than thou attitude saying "how dare illegal downloaders steal music". Nary is a solution ever proposed.
This is an important issue. Filesharing probably is the defining issue of the last decade. Its a big issue. But I have little patience for people who discuss issues and refuse to profer a theory or solution about how one can deal with something that is considered illegal, but hundreds of millions of people engage in it, and defiantly so. It isnt like people secretly fileshare. Its open. Its public...by its nature. Those who engage in it arent doing in secretly in their mom's basement, and hiding it from friends. Those who engage in it, are not shunned, or looked at as deviants. In fact, time and time again, the filesharers who have been fined or jailed have often become heroes, while people like Lars Ulrich and others are maligned and made to be villans.
Well... YEAH. That's the law. I guess we could change it somewhat, although limiting it to something like 5 years seems a bit rash. My dad owns a small business. Should the customers be able to come in 5 years after he dies and then claim the right to utilize the business as they wish and use my family''s assets with no financial consideration given to me? Why is a an artist's life work less valued than the work that goes into a retail mom & pop shop?
I don't really understand the argument with your dad owning a business and how it relates to what I had previously written. But yes it is the law, that's for sure, however is it a good law?
In a free open society it's the will of the people and societies values that should lay the fondations of what constitutes the laws. E.g here in it was illigal for women to vote until 1919, but that was changed due to forces who wanted this to change due to the values of people had changed. I'm suggesting that if people really understood the issues and consequences of the current copyright laws they most definately would like to have this law changed because like I have said several times it's a threat to a free, open and democratic society.
concertaholicshirt wrote:
Back atcha
Touché
I think it often is stealing, although not always. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. No biggie.
OK, it's your moral thought on the subject. But in the legal system it doesn't fall in the same paragraph.
Concertaholicshirt it's great that we can agree on the important matters at least. And I guess the only way to tackle these problems is like we are doing now in this forum in which we found eachother and discussing it. The internet is so great. Here we can meet eachother and discuss issues even though we are from 2 different countries. And what brought us together is our common love for PJ. This is what I love with the internet! No boundaries.
no i saw and read those posts. I would like to see a solution, or at least some ideas proposed by people who are against illegal downloading.
Otherwise its kind of silly. I am very much against racism, and am antiwar, and am against the building of prisons and all that. I have ideas and theories reguarding what I feel should be done with those issues. Obviously, they are just my ideas, but i have opinions and my own beliefs about what solutions could be offered to deal with these complex and important issues.
With downloading its alot of bunk proposed. Be against downloading. Be my guest. But be intelligent enough to propose a solution or theory, on how to legitimately deal with the issue.
Thats my stance. Every single time a thread like this pops up you have people coming out of the woodwork with their holier than thou attitude saying "how dare illegal downloaders steal music". Nary is a solution ever proposed.
This is an important issue. Filesharing probably is the defining issue of the last decade. Its a big issue. But I have little patience for people who discuss issues and refuse to profer a theory or solution about how one can deal with something that is considered illegal, but hundreds of millions of people engage in it, and defiantly so. It isnt like people secretly fileshare. Its open. Its public...by its nature. Those who engage in it arent doing in secretly in their mom's basement, and hiding it from friends. Those who engage in it, are not shunned, or looked at as deviants. In fact, time and time again, the filesharers who have been fined or jailed have often become heroes, while people like Lars Ulrich and others are maligned and made to be villans.
Ok here is the solution that I believe in.
All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free. The monopoly for the copyright holder to exploit an aesthetic work commercially should be limited to five years after publication.
Why?
Filesharing has become (and note it's not just copyrigh materai) unstoppable!! Alot of people think that the people who are downloading are immoral cheap bastards who basically take everything for granted (although those who are complaining admit to atleast one time of downloading but they of course had some special reason). One reason filesharing is here to stay is of course the availability. But also the curiosity as human beings of expanding our life through cultural, intellectual experiences. And you know what there are probably some cheap bastard as well. There is a whole spectrum of people out there.
And even though certain laws might close certain torrent sites or restrict software tools for internet sharing there are always going to come up with new ways. And look at the rate the size of the memory usb sticks are going up. I think now you can get 120 GB (probably in a year it will be 500 GB). Do you know how much music you can put on a 120 GB disk? Trust me you won't have time to listen to it all. And this is a big problem because if government start to this path of hunting people who are filesharing it's never gonna stop. It's going to be like the war on terror which has no end! And we ordinary people are going to be the ones that are suffering because our freedoms and human rights will be diminished and there will no chance for next generations to fight this battle because it will be too late to do anything about it. Future generations will just have to accept the fact that all there communication is registered by "Big Brother". Read Orwells book 1984 to get the picture.
What about the artists?
Well to be honest I really think the "real artists" will do alot better in the new information society (we might be living in an information society you might say, but current/future legislation is restricting it to fully bloom). The cost of distribution, marketing and production will be very much reduced and this together could actually empower artists and make them less dependent of record companies. This has started to happen but hasn't yet bloomed. It will be interesting to see which music artists will take this step. But if I had to choose between the artists losing money or me losing my human right, I guess you can figure out where i stand. ;-)
5 years?
Well current law is 70 years afters ones death!Nobody needs to make money seventy years after he is dead. The commercial life of cultural works is staggeringly short in today's world. If a work hasn't been payed off in the first couple of years it probably never will.
And when I come to think about it isn't it a little sick in a sense that there are record labels making money off of muscicians deaths? Wouldn't it be better that from that moment these muscians die that there music would be free for whole of humanity. Ok it's a bit of a cheesy argument, but a pretty picture isn't it? ;-)
Comments
As has been stated, you are for prosecuting the downloaders? Fine. Now tell us a legitimate legal and law enforcement strategy to stop hundreds of millions of people worldwide who download. Whats your plan? Whats the strategy? The game plan? Cause it has to be different than whats been going on. We have tried fines, jail time and hauling people into court. We have tried demonizing those who download. That hasnt worked. What should be the next course of action?
So some frat kid at the University of Iowa is damaging the financial status of Pye Dubois? Excuse me while I politely disagree friend.
"A true artist does art for its own sake and has no fear of not having money. Great songs write themselves—a song, like fresh air, is a gift. We are programmed into thinking we can buy and own things, but it’s all just an illusion. I play along because that’s what we do here on earth—for now."
Quote-unquote. Discussion put to bed.
So because Damien Rice thinks so this puts the discussion 'to bed'?
The fact is that the music being downloaded does NOT belong to anyone apart from the ARTIST. If they wanna share it for free, there you go. But the arrogance demonstrated by thousands by assuming it's OK to download is beyond me. I'm thinking of thousands of people who aren't on major labels, independent labels that may have started in bedrooms and are offering fair deals to artists they believe in. No one is forced into a record deal.
I don't agree with suing some college kids who will never be able to pay off any of their debts anyway. That's just counter productive. I also don't want tight regulation of the internet.
Trent Reznor, Radiohead, Damien Rice (who I all love by the way) keep being mentioned, but these guys are in certain positions and can afford to say and do the things they do.
Exactly. If music keeps being devalued the way it has been, that makes me rather sad.
if an artist wants to give away their music, that's up to them. they don't speak for every other artist. and what about all the new and upcoming artists. what will happen to them. they don't have an abundance of funds like the already well established artists. they need someone to invest in them before they can even think about living off what they would make from hitting the tour scene.
Not necessairly. Lets say Pye Dubois got, 10 cents from every Rush record sold (I don't know what the total is, but for numbers sake). If that record were to sell a million copies, then he would make $100,000. Now, if half those people just downloaded, he would only make $50,000. Thats a hell of a difference. So, an individual fat kid downloading doesn't make a difference, but a million of them do.
That's like saying 'So one person driving a car wrecks the environment'... One doesn't, but at the combined, they do.
they get their revenue from advertising based on the number of hits each time someone accesses the link, and because they are receiving a financial benefit for the videos, they say they have to be careful of copyright laws. there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistancy in how they enforce it though.
i have played guitar for years, and mostly it wasn't an issue if we wanted to play tribute songs at clubs and bars because the venues would usually buy a licence from one of the societies. i understand that scenario is different to what you are talking about, because we were getting paid to perform.
if we were just having fun with the artists music with a few friends in our living room, then we are not publically playing copyrighted material so we were ok. no one can tell you what you can or cannot do with it. on YouTube though, according to them, whether you are being paid or not, you are still performing publically, so that's where they will get you everytime. I agree it's over the top and ridiculously anal, but i also see the otherside where music is like all personal property, when you want to use it, you need permission.
It's also ridiculous to expect that everyone will automatically join a Performance Rights Organization (like ASCAP) and pay their membership dues.
and no one can deny that if it wasn't for places like YouTube, we would not have the exposure to so many artists work that we may not have heard any other way.
have you ever had any dramas with your videos? i've seen posts in the porch where the fan boys go absolutely nuts if you post a link to a video of PJ performing, and they say you have to keep it a secret, otherwise the 10c will get it deleted because it breaches copyright. i don't go in that forum much unless it's tour time, but is there any truth to that?
OK, I admit, I have illegally downloaded silly pop songs in the past, shit I would never buy anyway, and I have downloaded leaked albums.... but I later bought the CDs (if the music was worth the price of the CD). But I haven't been on any "filesharing" site in about 3 or 4 years, and I'm glad that steps have been taken to shut down those sites, or fill them with shitty quality or misnamed mp3s.
I like owning CDs. I like having the highest quality digital sound (even the best quality mp3s don't measure up) and having the artwork that comes with it. I don't mind the space they take up... I love looking at CD collections. I hope they don't go away. There's no need to make them smaller either... the album covers and booklets would be too small then... some might say they are already too small.
Of course I don't think that people should be arrested at random for downloading music. Crack down on the sites, not the individuals. It's not fair... millions and millions are also guilty and you can't charge them all.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Next, I love how, on these discussion forums, positions with no basis in reality get attributed to people. Both Pauland74 and Musicismylife78 seem to have me down as someone who wants the government to hunt down illegal downloaders and who wholeheartedly supports the RIAA suing 'little folks' for thousands or millions of $. I'm sorry, but I looked again and never found that part of my post that says, "...Therefore, we need gov't monitoring all of our computer usage." I absolutely, positively do NOT advocate anything like that. We're a bunch of cyber friends bullshitting on an issue, and I'm trying to make some see the bigger picture and maybe re-think their assumption that this is a victimless crime. It's my understanding that under the ASCAP type compensation plan out there, both the performers and the writers get a cut from every sale. So, if someone downloads Better Man from iTunes, Eddie should get two payments; one for being the sole writer of the song (as per the credit) and one that is an equal portion with the rest of the band members who performed it (just legal band members, though, and not session players.) For Eddie, maybe it doesn't matter that much. For Bernie Taupin, Pye Dubois, etc., it could be the difference between living in the street or not. I dunno... maybe I'd be a little more sympathetic if I knew some big evil corp bought out the rights long ago, and I'm certainly guilty of downloading some Django Reinhardt tunes for free figuring that he's long dead and doesn't need the royalties, but even that's me rationalizing.
All of that said, NEVER did I suggest that the gov't should intrude on our privacy. I'm just telling you knuckleheads to stop stealing. Hell... I could steal a thousand things a day. I could walk into 10 yards a day stealing hoses and garden gnomes. I certainly don't want cops searching me everyday to see if I've done this, just as I don't want them checking my computer data to see if the e-mail I'm getting has an illegally downloaded file. The point is that I don't go around stealing garden gnomes on a regular basis (which really is a victimless crime, right?
And on that subject, screw Damien Rice... screw him right in the stinkhole. As others have stated, more power to him if he wants to give his stuff away, but how dare he belittle others who don't feel that way. Let's see how he feels about it in 20 years when he's not filling concert venues anymore. I'm personally acquainted with someone who was in a band that was somewhat popular in the 1980s and had a couple of huge hits that are still played on the radio a decent amount. He's at that stage of professional life where he has to hustle projects to keep afloat and will even do gigs in people's houses. He is adamant about the detrimental effect downloading has had on his financial condition, which includes his obligation to pay child support. Sit face-to-face in the kitchen with someone like, seeing how middle class (at best) their existence is and then get back to me on how they should just suck it up and not care about some kid at the University of Iowa downloading their property with no compensation.
And, I have to wholeheartedly agree with Keeponrockin when they point out that it's not just some kid at the University of Iowa. So, do we get rid of all littering laws? Gee... what's the big deal if some snappahhead like me in the NYC area tosses a Fritos bag out the window of his car? Come on... why are you bothered by that? Well... because if a million idiots do that, it has a demonstrable effect. Same with stealing from artists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, yeah TriumphantAngel, I have had issues with YouTube. The first one went without a hitch when Cheap Trick took over ownership of the 'Dream Police' performance I posted. Basically, we mutually get to decide whether to keep it up or not, meaning that I could choose to take it off and they could demand it. They now have a little ad that shows up for which they either get money if it's another product, or they hawk their own ringtones. It's all good. Another artist, who will remain unnamed to protect me from gobs of abuse, has his publishing rights managed by a firm, and they got the videos yanked. Seemed pretty dumb, since I kept reaching out to them to get them to do what Cheap Trick did and could never get through, and the fans thought they were FAH-BU-LOUUUUUS. Finally, my 'How Soon Is Now' by Morrissey at Carnegie Hall got yanked, but it was freakin' Carnegie Hall that did it... Morrissey couldn't care less. The stuffed shirts there are pretentious SOBs who had it pulled for copyright infringement of their venue :shock: Yet they still send me tons of mailings to "be a friend of Carnegie Hall" and donate money
MSG 1 & 2 2010
Montreal 2011
Missoula 2012
Seattle 2013
Denver 2014
Central Park NYC 2015
Sunrise 2016
Wrigley 2 2016
Seattle 1 2018
~~~~~~~
EV NYC 2 2011
RNDM NYC 2012
TOTD SF 2016
Highlights Of Last Spectrum Show
Mike DESTROYING in Seattle 2013
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" - HST
Instagram (great concert shots of many bands): concertaholic
It seems like some people will willingly accept any draconian actions or abolish important principles just to stop filesharing. What happened to important issues like rule of law, freedom of communication,confidentiality of correspondence etc..
To track and filter private communication is already doubtful when it comes to really serious stuff like chasing terrorists or sex offenders. Doubtful because our freedom to communicate freely and our rights for a private sphere are so central for a democratic society.
It's totally absurd If we do like Bono wants and use very severe measure to chase people who are sharing music. From his pedistal he is supporting those who are dismantling our democracy and even refers to China...
It's so sad and sickening...
but i have no real answer on how to fix it because obviously it's far easier for a band like Radiohead to avoid signing to a label than someone new and relatively unknown but i don't see Bono or Metallica using their own money to go after people in court, especially when they most likely wouldn't get much of it back.
on the other hand if an artist says they would rather it not happen shouldn't you respect that? i haven't downloaded anything in a long time other than backspacer and i deleted that without burning it or anything. i think it can be helpful so you don't buy an album and think you just wasted how much ever you spent on it. i used to use filesharing sites more to find videos of performances from tv then burn them to a dvd.
i would rather have the actual album than just a burned cdr written on with a sharpie, except for the vinyl i buy and record to cd because then i already own it and have the booklet and artwork even bigger
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
What makes you so certain that PJ is getting money for for Ten, Vitalogy, etc now if they were sold by Barnes & Nobles? Is it cool with you that PJ's record label are selling there music up to 70 years after Pj's "death"?
Sorry that I answered a question with a question.. :oops:
Hey dude it goes both ways. I'm pretty sure I haven't said that I think that artist shouldn't get paid, maybe that the record industry will slowly lose it money but the music industry (and thus the artists who create it) will always exist because people want and crave culture..
The reason why I argue for my case is that I really see a serious problem with cracking down on filesharing. I agree that people should pay for what they use, even though I don't put stealing and filesharing in the same category, because it isn't. But I can't accept this slippery slope to fascism that the world is heading to. Can't you see these problems as well?
The internet is not just full with people who are downloading movies/music. The internet is a fantastic tool, I would argue the most important tool humanity has recieved. Why should we just throw it away because of corporate interests? The internet is a place where people from all over the world can meet. On the internet people connect with eachother even though they come from different countries or may have different religios,sexual or other differences. Do you know now a person who has a computer and access to the internet from e.g a poor country in Africa can get the same kind of education as a western country due to that school/universties are making this information accesible. What a wonderful world we can build if people are impowered with knowledge. This can definetly lift humanity in this time in our human history..
I hope you and others are understanding what I am trying to say and try to reconsider your position or atleast acknowledge that cracking down on filesharing is a threat to our democratic principles..
The same can be said of illegal downloading.
So say every bit torrent and file sharing site is shut down. Really, imagine it. That somehow the world came together and somehow shut down all the known illegal downloading sites. Also imagine you jailed or fined every known illegal downloader. Not only would the courts and jails be way more overcrowed than they are, but do you honestly think that this would be the end of filesharing forever?
The issue wouldnt be as big as deal to me, if not for many of the smug folks, some on this board, who seem to live in lala land, where they seem to think that if we just pray hard enough, or fine enough money, or shut down enough sites, then tomorrow we will be rid of fileharing forever. Its silly and naive.
As I said, I am all for any ideas people have reguarding how to deal with filesharing, but please people, come on, lets move beyond the childish notions of shutting down all known downloading sites and that ending the "threat" of this scourge called filesharing.
Again, how do you realistically and practically and effectively stop hundreds of millions of people worldwide, people on every continent of the world who illegally download?
I agree. There is not, and I dont think there ever could be a realistic way to deal with the massive numbers of people who download. Its like some of these people who are proRIAA and whatnot, they completely are in another planet. They seem to think fines, jail time, or whatnot, can actually eradicate illegal downloading.
MSG 1 & 2 2010
Montreal 2011
Missoula 2012
Seattle 2013
Denver 2014
Central Park NYC 2015
Sunrise 2016
Wrigley 2 2016
Seattle 1 2018
~~~~~~~
EV NYC 2 2011
RNDM NYC 2012
TOTD SF 2016
Highlights Of Last Spectrum Show
Mike DESTROYING in Seattle 2013
"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" - HST
Instagram (great concert shots of many bands): concertaholic
A lot of us who are against illegal downloading have said they do not agree with the way the industry has been cracking down on illegal downloaders. Do you just choose to ignore those posts?
Otherwise its kind of silly. I am very much against racism, and am antiwar, and am against the building of prisons and all that. I have ideas and theories reguarding what I feel should be done with those issues. Obviously, they are just my ideas, but i have opinions and my own beliefs about what solutions could be offered to deal with these complex and important issues.
With downloading its alot of bunk proposed. Be against downloading. Be my guest. But be intelligent enough to propose a solution or theory, on how to legitimately deal with the issue.
Thats my stance. Every single time a thread like this pops up you have people coming out of the woodwork with their holier than thou attitude saying "how dare illegal downloaders steal music". Nary is a solution ever proposed.
This is an important issue. Filesharing probably is the defining issue of the last decade. Its a big issue. But I have little patience for people who discuss issues and refuse to profer a theory or solution about how one can deal with something that is considered illegal, but hundreds of millions of people engage in it, and defiantly so. It isnt like people secretly fileshare. Its open. Its public...by its nature. Those who engage in it arent doing in secretly in their mom's basement, and hiding it from friends. Those who engage in it, are not shunned, or looked at as deviants. In fact, time and time again, the filesharers who have been fined or jailed have often become heroes, while people like Lars Ulrich and others are maligned and made to be villans.
I don't really understand the argument with your dad owning a business and how it relates to what I had previously written. But yes it is the law, that's for sure, however is it a good law?
In a free open society it's the will of the people and societies values that should lay the fondations of what constitutes the laws. E.g here in it was illigal for women to vote until 1919, but that was changed due to forces who wanted this to change due to the values of people had changed. I'm suggesting that if people really understood the issues and consequences of the current copyright laws they most definately would like to have this law changed because like I have said several times it's a threat to a free, open and democratic society.
Touché
OK, it's your moral thought on the subject. But in the legal system it doesn't fall in the same paragraph.
Concertaholicshirt it's great that we can agree on the important matters at least. And I guess the only way to tackle these problems is like we are doing now in this forum in which we found eachother and discussing it. The internet is so great. Here we can meet eachother and discuss issues even though we are from 2 different countries. And what brought us together is our common love for PJ. This is what I love with the internet! No boundaries.
Ok here is the solution that I believe in.
All non-commercial copying and use should be completely free. The monopoly for the copyright holder to exploit an aesthetic work commercially should be limited to five years after publication.
Why?
Filesharing has become (and note it's not just copyrigh materai) unstoppable!! Alot of people think that the people who are downloading are immoral cheap bastards who basically take everything for granted (although those who are complaining admit to atleast one time of downloading but they of course had some special reason). One reason filesharing is here to stay is of course the availability. But also the curiosity as human beings of expanding our life through cultural, intellectual experiences. And you know what there are probably some cheap bastard as well.
And even though certain laws might close certain torrent sites or restrict software tools for internet sharing there are always going to come up with new ways. And look at the rate the size of the memory usb sticks are going up. I think now you can get 120 GB (probably in a year it will be 500 GB). Do you know how much music you can put on a 120 GB disk? Trust me you won't have time to listen to it all. And this is a big problem because if government start to this path of hunting people who are filesharing it's never gonna stop. It's going to be like the war on terror which has no end! And we ordinary people are going to be the ones that are suffering because our freedoms and human rights will be diminished and there will no chance for next generations to fight this battle because it will be too late to do anything about it. Future generations will just have to accept the fact that all there communication is registered by "Big Brother". Read Orwells book 1984 to get the picture.
What about the artists?
Well to be honest I really think the "real artists" will do alot better in the new information society (we might be living in an information society you might say, but current/future legislation is restricting it to fully bloom). The cost of distribution, marketing and production will be very much reduced and this together could actually empower artists and make them less dependent of record companies. This has started to happen but hasn't yet bloomed. It will be interesting to see which music artists will take this step. But if I had to choose between the artists losing money or me losing my human right, I guess you can figure out where i stand. ;-)
5 years?
Well current law is 70 years afters ones death!Nobody needs to make money seventy years after he is dead. The commercial life of cultural works is staggeringly short in today's world. If a work hasn't been payed off in the first couple of years it probably never will.
And when I come to think about it isn't it a little sick in a sense that there are record labels making money off of muscicians deaths? Wouldn't it be better that from that moment these muscians die that there music would be free for whole of humanity. Ok it's a bit of a cheesy argument, but a pretty picture isn't it? ;-)
Is there anybody else who has any other solution?
You can read the blog by using google translate:
http://translate.google.com/translate?j ... l=sv&tl=en
Original website: http://felten.yi.org/blog/?p=169
Well it will be interesting how it goes for them...