white_darkness wrote:It's ridiculous how much these people are raking in for doing silly things.
I agree with this wholeheartedly... but it, nor any other of the points given, chance the fact that taking "intellectual property" without payment is stealing.
(for reference, I'm not pointing the following at any one person in particular, it's a blanket statement)
If you don't think it is... then don't accept anymore paychecks at your work. Why should you be paid for your services rendered.
Making music is these people's job, they should be paid for it.
There's too much blood in my alcohol. - Jhon Balance
white_darkness wrote:It's ridiculous how much these people are raking in for doing silly things.
Making music is these people's job, they should be paid for it.
I agree. However, the laws which RIAA (and some other groups and companies such as Disney) are attempting to change and create protect companies, not individuals.
The amount of money from record and show ticket sales that goes from to an artist is ridiculously small. In some cases, it is nonexistent. Most of the artists fighting against P2P don't even own the copyrights to their music. Most signed artists make their money directly from the label without regard to the sales.
My biggest beef with all of this is that as these laws continue to get pushed through, the concentration is on this notion of stealing intellectual properties, and so we completely miss the laws which destroy things like public domain.
If I download a song by Jimmy Page, how does Jimmy suffer? Oh... and as far as living artists... the few who actually have the ability to gain a percentage of profits in their contracts can only do so for a (usually very short) limited time.
See all those ads on TV that use popular and 'retro' music? The artists didn't make one red cent from that. Michael Jackson owns the rights to almost all of the Beatles' music. The sad thing is that Paul McCartney could not do *anything* to protect *his* work when MJ purchased them, because he didn't own the copyrights to his own work.
So... because it's *legal* to create contracts that remove all rights from the artist, it's okay to do so. And the reason these practices are legal is because the recording industry does everything they can to make sure it stays that way. That is really what this current battle is about. Despite the fact at they really want you to believe this is about stealing from the artist, it is really about ensuring that they can do business as normal.
Yes. P2P filesharing of copyrighted material is 'stealing'. But make no mistake that in almost every case you are *not* stealing from the artist.
The funny thing is that I very rarely download music. I don't even have a P2P program installed on my system. I very much disagree with the practices of the recording industry and believe that letting them make their own self-preserving laws is a phenomenally BAD idea.
And finally... invasion of privacy is, in fact, also illegal (for the time being). My dad used to tell me "two wrongs don't make a right".
The firemen came and broke through the chimney top. And me and Mom were expecting them to pull out a dead cat or a bird. And instead they pulled out my father. He was dressed in a Santa Claus suit. He'd been climbing down the chimney... his arms loaded with presents. He was gonna surprise us. He slipped and broke his neck. He died instantly. And that's how I found out there was no Santa Claus.
Unfortunately for the majority of folks out there, I also fall into the 'it's not your right to steal that work' category. I however learned this one a while ago, when program theft was common on the older IBM's. Code was simple enough to crack that your stuff, if they so chose, was everywhere.
Do you think I shouldn't have been paid for my time and energy and marketing and distribution and servers and la la la in regards to my software? That's what you're telling me. The open source movement grew out of those people who got frustrated at attempts to keep them from being able to freely copy and distribute software. How many of you have copies of games and hacked key-codes from friends? That's theft too.
Same idea. Recording from the radio was always illegal, except for personal use, and then for the songs allowed to be played. Re-recording a CD/Tape/whatever for personal use and preservation of the original is the only reason that copying machines survived the backlash of law that was aimed at removing something that made pirating so easy.
To the other points, unfortunatley they're right. Rarely does an artist make much in royalties after a year or two. They make more on the concert tickets then you'd think, tho', but not at the huge venues. Those prices on the CD's are theoretically (note, I have no idea, as I don't work RIAA's books) validated in the number of crappy bands you never hear, their sound techs, advertising (and if you've never done advertising, allow me to inform you the prices are staggering) promotions and so on so forth. Right or wrong, not for you to decide. If I decide to make widgets that make the world a new place and cure hunger, and sell them for $18 billion a piece so only 20 people can afford them, that doesn't give you any right to steal it. Would you steal it? Most likely someone would. Do you have the 'right'? Hell no.
As to 'sharing a message' or 'making the world better' with music, I ask you to remember that as far back as ancient fantasy literature and biblical times, music was used to make money via entertainment. Going back to tribal days it was used as a form of storytelling, and bragging in certain cases. While some used it to bring a message, ie: Hippie era and similar, this has rarely been its intent in our 'civilized' societies after the hunter/gatherer phases. These people had a talent, and used it in a way that pleased people enough to give them money. If they didn't make money they stopped, either through starvation or common sense.
I can understand the RIAA's desire to nail anyone to the wall who is assisting others in stealing their stuff. If I ever get my hands on the guy who stole my car a while ago I'm going to hang him out a window by his toenails. If I thought I could get a supeona into every computer in the world to find him, I'd try.
You don't like their prices? You don't agree with what they do to their artists? You don't like their 'top 40' stuff? Don't buy it. That's your simple right as a consumer. Anything overpriced for its quality is not purchased. Smaller labels are out there. Used record stores and direct internet purchases from artists you like are out there. Most bands who want their stuff distributed have websites and the like and actually encourage you to share it with friends, under certain conditions (don't say it's yours, don't sample it into stuff without requesting permission, so on). Most bands who issue things on CD and you can't find anything official anywhere allowing download... guess what... they don't want you to.
And to answer your question, yes, I do buy my CD's from up here on my high horse. And yes, I've swapped CD's to listen to new music my friends have or whatnot. It's my CD, if I choose to give it away, I can. That's a far cry from making a copy and giving those away.
If you're going to steal music and break the law and so on, please, stop whining about the RIAA trying to stop you. They are using anything in their legal power they can get their hands on to do it. Yes, they are breaking the law with their invasion of privacy in the supeona's to the ISP's, and these will be stopped with enough public pressure. However, don't complain that they're trying to fight fire with fire, ie: theft with identity invasion.
If you don't know what that sound was, it's usually a good idea to duck.
Buttercup wrote:I think musicians should do it because they want to share their talent, spread some sort of message or something...not for money.
The same goes for computer programmers, sandwich artists, carpenters, police officers, oh, and teachers.
Don't blame Robert Smith for being rich. The fault lies with the millions of people who buy records by The Cure that made him so.
If the issue is truly important to you, instead of buying that "unimportant" album, give the $17 to a favorite teacher and do without the music. There's definately nothing wrong with doing that... in fact, I'd salute you for it.
But its entertainment not educating people or protecting them, or building shelters for them to live in or making food for them to eat. I'd say teachers have pride in their job, maybe even cops (we call them heroes but we pay them like chumps to quote Bill Maher) And I don't think the sandwich artist who busts his ass everyday really takes pride in his work. Nope, I don't think "the arts" should be treated like things that are more necessary.
I'm not blaiming Rob for being rich, I'm not saying they shouldn't be paid or anything, but they shouldn't bitch if they aren't getting MORE money (I'm thinking of Dre and Metallica those rat bastards) because we download some. I mean, its the same as making a mix tape for a friend, but Memorex isn't getting sued for that are they? I mean, outlaw cd burners and friggin' tape recorders. And it is more the corporations that are doing this shit, sadly corporations are treated as constitutional individuals.
See, my tax money goes to help the teachers, which is fine with me, I'm fine with paying lots of taxes if my child gets healthcare and education taken care of. I rarely can afford to buy cd's, if I do, its usually an independent record label. And I can't afford to give teachers cash, nor do I think they'd accept it, but I can donate supplies and volunteer at my son's school. In fact the other day while I waited for him, I sat and weeded their garden...so neener neener .
Buttercup wrote:I'm not blaiming Rob for being rich, I'm not saying they shouldn't be paid or anything, but they shouldn't bitch if they aren't getting MORE money (I'm thinking of Dre and Metallica those rat bastards) because we download some. I mean, its the same as making a mix tape for a friend, but Memorex isn't getting sued for that are they? I mean, outlaw cd burners and friggin' tape recorders. And it is more the corporations that are doing this shit, sadly corporations are treated as constitutional individuals.
Memorex isn't getting sued for the exact reason of personal copies being legal, therefore the individual person is responsible for the results of said copying. That's an old fight and if I remember right started with VCR's. I'd have to do my research, but they can't. It's like making slim jims to break into cars isn't illegal, because there are a few legal uses (locksmith's to get your keys out, for example), while the majority of the time, it isn't.
If you don't know what that sound was, it's usually a good idea to duck.
Buttercup wrote:But its entertainment not educating people or protecting them, or building shelters for them to live in or making food for them to eat. ... Nope, I don't think "the arts" should be treated like things that are more necessary
I agree that "the arts" are not "more necessary"... but I believe that they are AS necessary. Without them we as a species have no external outlet to express our rage, cares, and needs. No poetry. No Song. No Pictures. Without these we are doomed to self-destruction.
I'm afraid without "The Arts" the rest of your existance is moot.
Buttercup wrote:In fact the other day while I waited for him, I sat and weeded their garden.
You, my dear, are one of the good ones and I do applaud you.
There's too much blood in my alcohol. - Jhon Balance
The Prophet Mani wrote:If the issue is truly important to you, instead of buying that "unimportant" album, give the $17 to a favorite teacher and do without the music. There's definately nothing wrong with doing that... in fact, I'd salute you for it.
Mani's got a great point here. BTW, I'm a teacher. Please make all checks payable to Jennifer Mitts. PM me for my mailing addy if you want to get it to me that way. I thank you for your support.
Synthpopalooza wrote:I run an online radio station, and now thanks to the RIAA, I am now having to pay a monthly feel to maintain my webcast.
How many of the artists and labels you play are connected with the RIAA or even like the RIAA? I know that at one point, I asked a label head I like talking with what he thought of the RIAA, and the response was a swift and firm "Fuck the RIAA." Are you currently paying for artists and labels' songs who share similar sentiments? Because that's what kills me: the RIAA trying to extend its reach over people who hate them.
i also believe in supporting artists with dollar votes.
and i do download songs from the internet though all of them are now from band sites or other legal means, but when napster was new i down loaded a crap load of music then got board with it and moved on. the fact that most big "corporate" cds only have one or two tracks worth listening to lends itself to file swapping.
i have a dead kennedys tape with side b left blank with "home taping is killing the recording industry, we left this side blank so you can help" on it home taping turned out not to be killing the recording industry crappy albums were and they are now who's helping? corporate radio! they play the same old crap over and over and then over again, hey guess what i plobably have that cd or my dad has the album or my grandfater has the 45--- whatever the amount of "new" music on the radio is pitiful and so generates very little in the way of cd sales exept for movie sound tracks or artists that have the heavy backing of a big label wich generally means it sounds like every thing else "boring" so i look elswhere for interesting music. i could bitch forever, but my point is....
the reason i hate riaa with a bright pure hatred is that i believe *they* are killing the music by just protecting their own interests. They aren't protecting individuals or intellectual property they are protecting the corporate bottom line.
Fortunatly there are still Artists that love their craft and strive to create innovative music. I will always support them.
[rant off]
"O spanish tonk! your ship baked atists are."
stop. my amygdala is listening!
div wrote:no one is stealing anything. this is something i've never understood about this whole issue.
You are quite wrong in this issue. The music created is considered "intellectual property".
ahhh.. intellectual property... the concept that my thoughts are mine, and if you have the same thought then you stole it, and i'm going to sue. We sure do like to sue. It's a less labor intensive way of making money than actually working.
I'm sure there are pleanty of people who won't agree with this, but the whole concept of intellectual property is crap. If you publish something - you've just made it the property of the whole world. If you don't want it to be the property of the whole world, don't publish it. Keep it under your rock. Then it's your property. But anything accessable to the public is public domain.
Next thing you know someone is going to try to copyright an emotion. Hmmm... sounds like a good idea. I'll copyright anger, fear, and lust... then i get paid royalties anytime anyone in the world experiences one of those emotions. hey, i copyrighted it - it's my intellectual property. you have to pay me to use it, or you're stealing it.
div wrote:But anything accessable to the public is public domain. .
Um, where is it that you park your car?
nonsense
Cars are not published. They are actual property, not an idea or "intellectual property". But since you bring it up, i'd guess that the concept of the automobile was the "intellectual property" of the first person to come up with the idea, and according to you every auto maker after that has stolen the idea. So are you going to stop driving now?
div wrote:But since you bring it up, i'd guess that the concept of the automobile was the "intellectual property" of the first person to come up with the idea, and according to you every auto maker after that has stolen the idea. So are you going to stop driving now?
Silly goose. The patent on making the automobile has long since expired
P.S. Since Div, and others I'd wager, don't seem to understand the differences between copyrights, patents, and trademarks, you may want to give this a quick glance.
div wrote:It's a less labor intensive way of making money than actually working.
This is truly, one of the most asinine statements I've ever read.
I spent six years in college, learning from the likes of Bill Burroughs and Ken Kesey, to spend more time working on one publication than I ever did slinging greasy-ass food to drunk assholes at Vic&Bill's at 4 in the morning.
Not to mention the amount of work going into making two studio albums and touring for them.
I've also sand-blasted aluminum for a living. Been a coffee nazi. Bussed tables at O'Charley's. Was the only barback at BW3 during their 1995 heyday. Cut down trees. Worked countless retail jobs.... and I'm currently an Insurance Underwriter.
And none of them were as much labor as being a touring professional musician and none of them took as much effort as writing fiction.
So please, stop talking out of .......(edited to be more civil)
downright offensive
Last edited by The Prophet Mani on Wed Aug 06, 2003 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There's too much blood in my alcohol. - Jhon Balance
the concept of the automobile would be copyrighted. the individual physical components that make up an automobile would be patented. You don't patent ideas, you patent the physical representation of the idea that you created. read your own link.
div wrote:It's a less labor intensive way of making money than actually working.
This is truly, one of the most asinine statements I've ever read. I spent six years in college, learning from the likes of Bill Burroughs and Ken Kesey, to spend more time working on one publication than I ever did slinging greasy-ass food to drunk assholes at Vic&Bill's at 4 in the morning.
Not to mention the amount of work going into making two studio albums and touring for them.
I've also sand-blasted aluminum for a living. Been a coffee nazi. Bussed tables at O'Charley's. Was the only barback at BW3 during their 1995 heyday. Cut down trees. Worked countless retail jobs.... and I'm currently an Insurance Underwriter.
And none of them were as much labor as being a touring professional musician and none of them took as much effort as writing fiction.
So please, stop talking out of .......(edited to be more civil)
downright offensive
all that education and training... and you still can't read. Either that, or you're deliberatly taking quotes out of context.
div wrote:We sure do like to sue. It's a less labor intensive way of making money than actually working.
and on that note... i've given my two cents. I'm done.
Last edited by div on Wed Aug 06, 2003 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States.
See, an automobile, as an invention, would be patented, as it's a process of putting things together, thereby making a car.
The description of an actual, completed car would be copyrighted. Because it's a work of art. Not an invention.
Most of us quote people in our signatures, whether we give the source or not. I don't see anyone paying to use that quote to the author of it. Why is it that we can regulate SO heavily and stand by this sharing of music but apparently not share the same ethics on a person's words. It's the same, is it not? Yet no one is offering to pay the author or the author's estate for using that line for their signature. For shame....
Libby
------
Everything tastes better when the novacaine sets in.
I agree that "the arts" are not "more necessary"... but I believe that they are AS necessary. Without them we as a species have no external outlet to express our rage, cares, and needs. No poetry. No Song. No Pictures. Without these we are doomed to self-destruction.
I'm afraid without "The Arts" the rest of your existance is moot.
I think we could survive without them, they just make life on this rock much more pleasureable. In the grand scheme of things, whatever that may be (whether we destroy ourselves or not) I don't think they have a big role in it. But thats just my opinion and I could be wrong. I know I wouldn't want to live in that world, but we could.
I don't really pity starving artists. Most of us are not lucky enough to be able to survive by doing something we love. I wanna be an anthropologist, but I don't think its gonna pay squat, but I'd rather be happy than rich. *shrug*
The Prophet Mani wrote:
Buttercup wrote:In fact the other day while I waited for him, I sat and weeded their garden.
You, my dear, are one of the good ones and I do applaud you.
.