What is PJ's view regarding filesharing of their music?

Pepe Silvia

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

pauland74

concertaholicshirt wrote:

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..

musicismylife78

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?

musicismylife78

pauland74 wrote:

concertaholicshirt wrote:

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

pauland74 wrote:

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.

Yielded

musicismylife78 wrote:

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?

musicismylife78

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.

pauland74

concertaholicshirt wrote:

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.

pauland74

musicismylife78 » 07 Jan 2010 14:41 wrote:

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? ;-)

Is there anybody else who has any other solution?

pauland74

5 mins after my last post I found a blog with information regarding the swedish music group Rednex doing a reverse U2.

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...