Good Copy Bad Copy - What Constitutes Fair Use?
 

Recently, a ~1 hour long documentary entitled 'Good Copy Bad Copy' was released free of charge. The docu's website is at
http://www.goodcopybadcopy.net/about
The documentary, I felt, was excellent at raising awareness and questions concerning copyright and what 'fair use' should involve. It takes a look at view points from 'pirates', executives, and artists all alike and would be a great source material for beginning discussion on fair use and intellectual property.

So the main question, is what should 'fair use' be defined as. When you purchase a CD what should you, the buyer, be allowed to do with that CD? Do you have the right to take clips from that CD, and mix them into another song/beat with-ought paying royalties of any sort to anyone? When you actually purchase the CD, is it even yours, or are you simply licensing it under the distributors terms?

I've always been under the impression that when you purchase a CD, it is yours to use however you like for your own benefit. Of course, I see no problems ripping those songs to a hard drive and chopping up various songs and doing with those what you want. The CD is yours after all, why not be able to? If you release your mix to the public, proper credit should be given to the artist, but nothing more should be expected.

Of course the concepts of fair use can apply to all sorts of digital technology's. When you record a show on TV to your TIVO, should you have the right to take that video and transfer it to your computer, or to another TIVO device?

Before even going into a discussion about fair use, you need to consider why it continues to be an issue. And frankly, it's because the MPAA and RIAA are pathetic in how low they will go to fight copyright infringement, which poisons the well before everyone can sit down and think rationally.

I'm a believer in the notion that what you buy should belong to you, and you should be allowed to chop up/re-encode for a very limited audience. However, if you publish your recreation online for free, you should need permission (and if demanded, pay royalties), and if you sell the creation, you of course should pay royalties.

It's just that the MPAA and RIAA shouldn't be so damn greedy about the way they handle consumers.

Yeah they should give away their products for free!

Slimey bastards!

No, but they shouldn't fuck over their customers either. All they do is screw us over with Copy-Protection, over-priced media and trying to get our established rights taken away...

Hell, they get money on each back-up media sold to counter pirating and they still fuck us over this. Damn, found a site that went into how it might very well be illegal what they are doing, just as much than the whole pirating issue. Will see if I can find the link. :)

Here's at least a few:

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=40474
http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=200900640
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...practices.html
http://www.mp3.com/news/stories/9815.html

And even more stupid:

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/21...w-file-sharing

Sheesh, what a bunch of morons. This is all definitely a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". :rolleyes:

They get money sold on each blank CD sold in Canada, not in the US.

"Over-priced media"?? I still see people buying CDs every time I walk into Best Buy, so, obviously, the price is set correctly for the market. I have a feeling the economists who work for these ginormous companies have an idea of what they are doing.

Well, I can agree and disagree with that. I want to first get this out of the way: Remember that originally piracy and pirates were the first offenders that started the whole protection scheme concept. Normally, a product is released to market at a price, and you as the customer obtain it by paying the cost of the item. At that time, no copy protection is required because no one is stealing it, rather they are paying. The first time someone stole a product though is when, as a natural reaction, the people who make that product started trying to defend against people illegally obtaining that product. Regardless of how much the CD is sold at, whether it be $2 or $200 for a single CD, you must pay that price or else you are performing a criminal act by not paying it. Music, although many would like to say otherwise, is not a core essential in your being able to live your life, and so the marketers can sell it at whatever price they want and get away with it.

I agree with you though, in that I believe organizations such as the MPAA and RIAA are taking draconian measures at this point to impede progress and their methods inadvertently affects thousands of legitimate owners of the material in question. They have a right to defend their product, but I agree they must remain ethical about it, staying above the moral level of the pirates who steal their products in the first place.
Which again reinforces why I think sampling is okay. If you bought the CD's or MP3's that contained the clips you're using, then they are now your clips and you can do with them what you want short of giving away the majority of the song. Majority is subjective of course, but I suppose if I were to define it I would say no more than half of a song in total could be used in any one clip.

That doesn't take into consideration the actual complete transformation of a song, e.g remixing the entire song and setting it to a new beat or what have you. I feel that should definately be considered fair use since you have morphed that which you legally purchased into your own unique work.

Basically sums up what I'm saying as far as the legality of obtaining the source in the first place. Even if the CD were "Over-priced" though, it's not an excuse to steal the copy.

Don't call it stealing. There's a word for it already. It's copyright infringement, it's not stealing. It's also against the law, and I'm not trying to defend copyright infringement, but I don't think it's fitting to refer to that act as stealing. In fact I think that it's very silly indeed. The RIAA are trying to push this new usage on us, but lets not give them the satisfaction of winning.

But the actual performance of the song is not the only copyrighted portion of it. The lyrics and the written music are as well. So even if you only take the original song in spirit, if you are using the same lyrics and/or musical progressions, it's still plagiarism.

If I buy a copy of Van Gogh's Starry night, I can cut it up and make a collage out of it as I see fit. No one argues this.

If I happen to put this collage up on my dormitory wall and people like it, I see no reason why I can't charge someone $5 for my time and effort in re-creating a collage of Starry Night (with due credits!) like the one I would have on my wall. Hell, I could chop up Starry Night and then throw in a bunch of Dali, maybe some DaVinci - what the hell, why not.

I think once you buy a copy of a CD, what's on it is now yours. You didn't CREATE it, but you have a copy of it. You paid the amount to purchase an own it's contents.

I am sure Mikey is going to argue that, but look. The only reason they're doing this all is because there's money in it.

You can't put a stamp on everything human-made and demand royalties for fucking everything.

Edit: PS - this documentary is boss. If you don't want to use a torrent, google video has it up. <3

SECOND edit: At the risk of sounding like a pinko commie, I don't think the government has any business telling any of us what "creative" is, or trying to define art by dollar signs. Stick that in you pipe and smoke it.

That's true to an extent. You have a right to listen to that CD and even make backup copies for your own personal use. The problem arises when people start making multiple copies and giving them to friends or distributing MP3s derived from that CD to other people.

That's the whole reason why it is called copyright[. You don't have the right to copy and distribute to others, only the copyright owner. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this concept.

O jesus, it's so horrible to succeed through word of mouth.

I don't know about you, but to think that my music (or whatever art) was so good that people actively distributed it to their friends, interacted with the art, and actually passed it on is a hell of a lot more flattering than "yea, I'm in the top 20 because my record company promoted the hell out of my one hit." I'm sure being a musician yourself, you can appreciate the word-of-mouth thing.

The concept of "copyright" is all fine and well - and I am not disputing "copyright." I think if you use something, you credit the person or people who provided you with the materials for you to recycle their art into your own.

I just don't see why people think this only applies to media. Can you explain this, NP? There are millions and millions of human-made things out there which anyone can replicate and share. Why is it all about the movies and the music? I mean, if you're going to lock down and control EVERYTHING that could be argued as having been infringed upon (copyright-wise), why are you limiting it to this one niche of the market?

You COULD just take over the world and control everything creatively produced - ever.

Can I ask you a question? Would you sue me if I made a remix of one of your awesome songs and distributed it over the internet - with the pertinent credit to you?

I believe the problem that this particular documentary discusses with regards to copyright infringement is that copyright restricts or inhibits the creativity of others who tend to base their work on the work of others. (The other subject of the documentary being the culture of the major media in the United States and how it so severely differs from that of poorer countries.) I don't mind that people want to remix music, especially if it makes something better, but I think the argument here is that while, say, Gnarls Barkley made something based in the typical American commercial setting and made X amount of dollars (which the recording studios will ravenously defend, to the point of litigation), why shouldn't people be allowed to download their music for free to remix it if they aren't going to make anything, or nearly as much, from its sales? (For example: the Brazilian real is 1.94x the amount of the American dollar.)

I think it's interesting to see the way Nigeria handles piracy is to set the price of their product to match that of the pirated sort, and hope that the consumer will prefer the official copy over the pirated copy. It's one way of handling piracy that I can't imagine the media industries adopting unless there's an extremely radical revolution in our society that one would have expected from the proliferation of free downloading services over the past decade. The difference in this country, obviously, is that there isn't as great a demand for purchasing pirated music/films/games as there as to get it for free or next to free. This isn't the case in some places (New York City is a major example, and one I've personally experienced) but there's enough of a gap between the demand for purchasing pirated materials and getting the same stuff for free that the major media probably sees it as a niché market and doesn't see playing along as being a viable option as opposed to litigation and scare tactics.

I agree that the industry, if it wants to continue making revenue, is going to have to change to keep up with the times. Otherwise, they're fighting a downhill battle.

As it stands now (and I am almost sure I'll get flak for this), iTunes is a good starting point. You download the songs you want - not an entire album - for what, $.99? I mean, a lot of people find this as the medium between out-and-out pirating the music and buying a CD in Best Buy. It's a great starting point, but there's a long way to go.

I don't understand how you feel there is any difference between buying a song on iTunes and buying a CD at Best Buy.

There are a couple differences here:

1) All the works you listed are in the public domain.

2) Assuming they weren't, you are welcome to do with your physical copy as you choose. But you wouldn't be allowed to say, take Starry Night, print up 5000 copies of it, and sell them for $5 a pop.

No one is saying that you can't take a CD that you bought at a store and sell it. If you want to cut up the disc and make a collage out of it, I guess that's your prerogative.

That's certainly your choice. No one is prosecuting anyone who shared music that's in the public domain, and all musicians are welcome to do that. They don't have to sign a contract with a music label, they don't have to get paid for their work if they choose not to. They can accept donations instead.

The problem is people who don't want their product sold like that.

The funny thing is that you're saying you could take over the world and control all the copyrights, but what you advocate means that the creator has no rights whatsoever.

Because the RIAA and MPAA are organizations representing those types of media. I would be willing to bet there is one for books too, and if those were getting traded online as much as music and movies, I bet they would be up in arms about it too.

iTunes has only been around for what? 4 or 5 years? and it's already the third largest music retailer in the world.

I think a lot of the reason people prefer to download content is that it's easier than going to the store. At least the industry is starting to recognize that.

In terms of fair use, I think, it's easy enough to give credit where credit is due. And if one wants to potentially use another's work as a source of revenue, they either need to get permission, or collaborate and split the profits. That's pretty much how it works now, and I don't see much wrong with it. If a DJ wants to remix a song and distribute it for free, I don't see much wrong with that -- but apparently this is the sticky spot where the music industry disagrees with me. Unfortunately that's the downside of the music industry. There's always someone, somewhere, worried about making a buck, and it's usually not even someone that had much to do with the original musical content to being with.

An interesting anecdote in this regard is the story of the band Negativland, who essentially took and remixed a bunch of U2 songs and released it as an album, and consequently got sued by U2's label without the band U2 even being aware of the whole situation. Ultimately, the band U2 supported the remix, but they had no power over their record label's legal battles.

BlueMikey: are you then of the opinion that something that is broadcasted in public is not public domain?

Uh, I didn't say there was a difference, as far as legality or whatever is concerned. I made a very clear point, however, the iTunes is a fuckload more progressive than buying CDs at Best Buy or whatever. If you don't see the difference there, then I am afraid there is no hope for your brain. ;_;

Whats stopping me from recording off the radio. That's pretty public.

Also, music SHOULD be public domain. Some of it IS already, if I understand it properly. Who is to say "THIS is public, THIS is not." I am pretty sure that they have music you can borrow at the public libraries.

Music is an art - not a money-making machine. Of course, thats a matter of opinion, and I am sure that because people value the buck more than they do anything else, it will inevitably BE a money-making machine. ;_;

Ooooo, I see. When I am actually making money, people want a share. Yea, ha ha silly me. I didn't see that one coming.

A musical collage, sure, why not. The documentary showed plenty of artists who actually do this. They own the albums and they take beats, rhythms, melodies and so on from one artist and mix it with the work of others.

It just so happened that their shit was pretty good. People liked it. And ha ha OOPS they get nailed for copyright infringement for it, even though they didn't make a dime off their work. That's a little moronic, you've got to admit.

Wait, people who don't want their product sold....by their fans? I don't understand. How would they PREFER to have it sold?

I never said I had anything qualms with copyrights. They're there for a reason. Give credit where credit is due. But otherwise, hey. Art is art.

The creator has whatever rights they want. Though, once you throw the Internet into the equation, things twist a little thanks to file sharing.

I'd like for you to expand on this "creator has no rights whatsoever" shit, though. If you don't want the public to get a hold of your work and possibly warp it into another interpretation of YOUR work, don't make it public.

Yea, you never really hear too much other than the things that actually take money away from the "industry," right?

Look. I'm not saying this shit should be free all around. I saying that the market reeeeally needs to stop fighting and start ADAPTING. Instead of throwing your hands up in the air and suing the fans, start trying to appeal to another kind of consumer.

Did you watch the documentary, by the way? 'Cause there are some really good ideas in there.

The simple act of being broadcast does not put a work into the public domain, that is correct. You are not allowed to record, say, the latest Justin Timberlake song off the radio and sell copies of it (unless whomever owns the song said otherwise).

That's not really an opinion.

Who said anything about selling it? I'm just going to remix it and give it to some friends.

They've already heard the song; they can listen to it themselves on the radio if they want to. But making something original out of it and then giving it out isn't a bad thing, right?

Did you watch the doc, Mikey. Most of these artists make nothing out of their work. They do it....imagine this....for the love of the music.

With the exception of those Brazilian guys, but if they're selling those discs for R$5 they're making hardly anything in American money, and definitely not as much as the record labels are here for the source music, which is the main argument in the video.

I'm wondering if you feel this way because you've never worked in a field where your work, your labor, your time, can be stolen so easily. I worked for a company that made software that only corporations used and we had to put all these copy protections in.

If we didn't, you know what would have happened? They wouldn't have made enough money to come up with more versions later, they would have had to fire all the programmers and close up shop.

Essentially, if a musician isn't allowed to live off his work, then it doesn't give him (or any artist) the freedom to do that as a job. If you can't get paid, then you have to work someway else and the art of music suffers.

I didn't watch the documentary and I don't really care why they did it. Some people make music because they like to. Some people do it to make money. Why shouldn't the market be set up so that both objectives can be met fairly?

Why?? What about people who make music not for the creative aspect of it? That's pretty shortsighted to say that the only reason anyone would ever want to make music is because they want it to be heard by a lot of people. The creator should get to decide how the music is used.

No, that's not what I said. You can take your physical copy that you purchased from the seller and mash it up and sell it for $1000 for all anyone cares. Fair use incorporates original, physical copies, not extra copies.

You don't own the art, you own the print. You don't own the music, you own the CD.

Now you're just being obtuse.

But they didn't! That's the thing. The work is still private, I sold you a means of enjoying it, I didn't sell you the work.

As it is now, the creator has the opportunity to own his work or to allow others to do with it as they will. Why are you so against the creator having control of his own work?

Let me ask you this: if a musician really only cared about the art and not getting paid and wanted all their fans to mash-up the music, why didn't they just create music and release it into the public domain rather than signing a record deal?

Adapting to what, piracy? I mean, you're basically saying that if I own a store and someone is stealing gum from me every day, that instead of putting a camera on the gum and throwing people out of the store, I should instead move the candy section outside and look the other way if people chose not to pay me.

That is absolutely and utterly absurd.

The short and sweet of my counter-argument to what you just said is this: if you don't make any money off your work, then it probably wasn't good enough and people either didn't want to pay for it or they didn't want to pay so much for it. In which case, if you're not making money selling it for a lot of money, maybe you should be selling it for less and producing it for even less, or make something better. The way technology is going, both will have to become viable options to musicians in the future or they WILL have to find another line of work.

If that seems cruel, well...no one ever said the music industry, or capitalism in general, was a very nice economic system.

As far as art is concerned, it's tougher to duplicate anyway. Regardless, most art that's worth duplicating is so old the term "copyright" shouldn't even apply.

What does that have to do with anything? The ability to earn a living off your work says nothing about whether or not you should get to own it.

And, trust me: if what you guys are advocating was legal, artists wouldn't make money off their music. Why?

An artist wants to sell it for $10 and people are willing to buy it for $10. But instead, people make their own copies and sell it for $8. People buy the pirated copies because they are cheaper, the artist makes nothing, despite having a viable market product.

You are absurd for saying that someone should have to do something else with their life because others can't stop breaking the law. That's like saying the solution to murder is moving out of the city so you can't be shot dead instead of arresting the bad guys.

I really don't have much to say in regards to the subject of music. Mainly because I am a major pirate in a sense. I've never bought a cd in my life. All the music that I own is downloaded. Obviously its theft because the artists of this music used their own money to get their music produced. The music is a product of their mind and who am I do not recognize them for that creativity. They should be getting something anytime someone experiences their creation. But alas, I still don't feel guilty about getting their music for free. I try to make up for it by not sharing the music I download with my friends. I only use it for my own listening purposes.

One thing I came across a little while ago is the subject of music tablature. Is that copyright infringement?

I play guitar, and I used to enjoy looking up the tablature for various songs that I liked so that I could learn to play those songs, and in doing so, practice various techniques. However, about a year ago, when I went to browse one of my favorite sites for tablature, I found that they had removed all the tabs from their site. Apparently the big name music associations had shut them down saying that the tablature was copyright infringement.

I disagree with this of course. All the tabs on that site were user submitted. These users basically listened to the songs and wrote down what they thought they heard. Then they submitted them to a site so that others could attempt to learn the song. Thats no different then one or two people sitting down at someones house, listening to a song, and then attempting to play it themselves. These big name music associations just feel like controlling every aspect of the music they sell I guess.

Sounds to me like the artist should sell their product for $8.

And your murder analogy is a little far-fetched with regards to other viable options.

But the pirates will always sell it for cheaper than the artist! They have nothing to lose, they didn't have to spend their time creating it, their time recording it.

What makes you think in your system that musicians would ever make a single cent on recorded music? It hurts music. You can't make music for a living if you can't make a living at all.

Music tablature is copyright infringement. The artists get paid when their music gets printed in one of those guitar or piano books, and if you are a songwriter and not a musician yourself, that can provide a good chunk of income.

The act of doing tabs yourself would be akin to taking a book, recording yourself reading it aloud, and then distributing it.

You make some interesting assumptions.

Um, music and software have two vastly different purposes in the world, Mikey.

I would hope you can acknowledge that.

I AGREE.

I am not arguing against major musicians. Hell, even Guru said there in his post (which references the article about Negativland) that U2 was into the work the band did. It's the labels that I have a problem with. I wish you would have watched the documentary to actually understand what people are saying here, in the shadow of it.

People have a problem giving money to these big, faceless corporations. They'd likely be THRILLED to give the money to the band or artist, if they knew it was going to them and their costs.

You know as well as I do that major-label artists can go BROKE just from the fees the industry slams on them, no matter how big a star. The money DOES NOT GO directly into Jessica Simpson's pocket. These people pay exorbitant amounts for just getting on the label.

Sigh.

Because this will just become a horrific quote war, I'll try to address only a few of these points, here.

I AM NOT AGAINST IT. I want the artists to actually BE INVOLVED. I don't think anyone here likes giving the majority of their $15 CD purchase to a large label who makes fat cats more fat.

The only reason artists (like The Beatles, god bless McCartney's heart) go after guys like Danger Mouse (if you would watch the goddamned doc)) is because WOW, he used some beats and rhythms from a few of their songs. NOT THE WHOLE SONG! Just a few little blips and clips.

And they tried to sue the pants off the guy.

You ENDORSE this behavior?

MOST OF THEM DO! There's this thing. I think it's called the internet? Really gets a fan base going if you're good. A lot of the guys out there do these cut-out, mash-ups for the hell of it.

NO. You're just playing stupid now. C'mon, Mikey.

THE INDUSTRY. IS BITCHING. about LOSING MONEY from piracy.

Instead of whining and bitching, they need to find a way to appeal to people who are NOT BUYING CDs (pirates, afterall, will be pirates). Parents of our parents, for instance.

I know if my father liked this ONE SONG, he'd buy it for $0.99 on the internet for his iPod instead of buying the whole goddamned Gwen Stefani CD which is mostly SHIT.

Presently, he buys NO CDs. Because....it's a hassle. A waste of money. He doesn't want to pop in a CD of 14 tracks just to hear one song he likes, and then have to put up with sub-par crap after he hears it.

You know what he does? He hesitantly asks me to download the songs he LIKES. He knows it's illegal, but it's just so much a hassle for him to buy all the CDs for those few songs he wants. So, I pirate for him. When he could be a little more comfortable paying money to get his favorite songs without the CRAP, you know?

People like you or I, well. We know we can get shit for free on the internet. But I assure you, most of the people out there aren't necessarily like you or I. People still buy albums at Best Buy, but they'll be a lot more likely to buy singles or favorite songs if they didn't have to put up with all the CRAP and the shitty prices.

Adaptability, Mikey. The market, if it wants to stay alive, will need to change. They'll lose the battle if they don't.

Maybe you should WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY AS IT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD and try seeing what we're talking about.

Yah, I guess that makes sense. I guess also in a round about way, even if noone is making money by sharing the tabs, the people learning from the tabs could possibly end up making money with their own music. Music that they learned through the exploitation of another's music. Possibly a stretch but I see your point.

There lies a problem though, how can you copyright lyrics? It's a bit like the HD-DVD fiasco, with the folks who make encryption for HD-DVD's suing sites that were posting the hex value that unlocked the HD-DVD, claiming that code was their intellectual property. Can a company copyright a random set of numbers, and likewise can a person copyright words strung together to form a song?

If this is the case, then shouldn't we all be required to pay royalties to the artists if we sing their song in a public avenue at say a Karaoke bar? It's the artists song, their written music, and you are blatantly parroting it.

If this is not the case, than how is taking the song you purchased and remixing the whole thing to a different tune, and handing this mix out freely any worse? Either way your distributing a different interpretation of the music to a public audience.

See, that's the problem with cats like you - you don't understand the game as it is.

Why would you buy something when you can get it for free or as close to free as possible?

For every legitimate copy of a CD or MP3 downloaded, I can guarantee that at least three illegitimate copies are made by someone who also enjoys the product, they just aren't willing to pay for it.

Let's go back to 2000 when it was common to sell 2-3 million records off a minor hit record. Hell, the bigger acts managed to go platnium in a day.

Do you think that less people listen to music now than they do now in 2007?

Fuck no. It's just that with the proliferation of cheap CD recordable drives, the applicable media, high speed internet connections, P2P like Limewire, BitTorrent where you can find virtually every commercial release up to 3 weeks before it's retail release date PEOPLE CAN GET THE SHIT FOR FREE.

Remember when your favorite band or artist could literally ride an album for a full 18 months with touring and four or five singles that got a good three to four months radio rotation?

You can't do that anymore because people have the whole fucking album before you can even get it legitimately.

Consequently, without these big, faceless corporations, your favorite band wouldn't have the resources to put out a record.

Additional Spam:
The same way you can copyright a book.

Because these numbers are generated via a proprietary process developed by the vendor.

Wouldn't the logical approach to this then be to adapt, instead of hanging on to the aging tactics and hope for the government and the legal system to catch up to all the violators? Or, like the President/CEO of the MPAA said in the documentary, would you simply accept that you can't stop piracy and just make it as difficult as possible?

Because, let me tell you, when a CD or movie gets leaked days/weeks in advance of its official release, it's more because the consumers and the market wanted it sooner than anything else. The market has CHANGED, despite what you or BlueMikey still believe, and iTunes is evidence of that.

(I take it you didn't watch the documentary either. For all the times people have told me on here that I don't know what the fuck I was talking about, at least now I can say it about someone else.)

(Plus, we're straying from the original argument.)

Completely untrue.

My favorite artists are pretty much freelance. I don't listen to much that I could buy in the record store. (With the exceptions of old, classic rock)

There's a revolution going on out there, hadn't you heard? People are using the internet to get a fan base. Aren't you listening?

I don't know too many people these days who actually like anything those big faceless corporations put out. They're out of touch, man.

I have actually made the most purchases in the past 12 months from CDBaby.com. I made it a point to buy when it directly profits the artist. I am not a stingey person. I just appreciate good music, and I will PAY for good music - when it rewards the artist.

Not to mention that bands can completely live off of live performances (where copyright gets tossed out the window). Bands like Phish made all their money in performance, as I hear it. And thats a nice way to go.

Yeah, they wanted it sooner - they just aren't willing to pay for it.

What happened to this 'It wasn't good enough' shit?

How do you adapt in this day in age when people expect to get your music for free? It's not cost effective to go strictly digital downloads because even with legitimate outlets like Itunes, there's still BitTorrent, Limewire, people posting up .rar and .zip links to albums on Rapidshare, etc.

I love the music, but a nigga has to eat, too.

Uh, have you? You talk about your job in your journal all the time.

Video games are software, and many people consider them art. So are you saying that code written for games shouldn't be protected, but Windows should be? Or the story and music and graphics in a game should be free for people to redistribute as they choose, but the game itself should be protected?

The musician signed a contract. Do you not understand much behind contracts?

It's funny. I received my very first law assignment a few days ago, and its for my contracts class that begins a week from tomorrow. And the first few pages basically state that a contract is a way for two parties to create their own laws. I mean, that's the whole point of it. "You do this for me, I do this for you." And those contracts say, "You sell us your music and we will compensate you in this way for it." Artists don't just get drafted into the music industry, they volunteer to sign the contracts.

As I stated before: If someone wants their music to be available, free of charge, for anyone to use as they wish, why would they have signed the record label contract? Signing a major label contract is basically the exact thing as "My music will not be available in the public domain."

A person shouldn't be allowed to break the law simply because they call what they do "art".

And I think the RIAA's strategy could be better. But (other than any illegal tactics they employ), it is well within their right to ask the law be enforced.

But I don't endorse my own behavior either. Like Smel, have almost no non-pirated music. But I'm not going to complain if someone fights me on that. If I do some illegal shit to their work, pirate it, mash it up, whatever, I mean, I broke the law.

Are you the type of person who complains when you get pulled over for speeding, even though you know its against the law?

I mean, it's your dad's choice not to buy CDs. And if the record companies don't want to adapt and, in turn, miss out on selling something to your dad, that is perfectly well up to them to do.

You don't get to justify breaking the law because the company you are stealing from is making poor business decisions. If the law worked that way, it would be anarchy.

Heh. So because I disagree with you, I need to watch something that's going to try and influence me another way? I obviously can't form an opinion on copyright infringement without someone telling me why he's breaking the law.

It isn't that as much as it's more that the original owner loses money because people can bypass buying the book by getting it for free from someone else's duplication.

The people who create karaoke CDs pay royalties.

There are rules for all this, see: the Copyright Royalty Board.

A lot of these people try to make a fan base to...wait for it...sign a big record deal!

Additional Spam:
I like how Dope and Sass's argument boils down to this: "Because it's easier to break the law, the law should be repealed."

Yeah, but how known is Phish really?

Big corporations get you major exposure on all the major media outlets. They allow you to set up nationwide tours and get that massive exposure. Of course, it comes at a price, but what doesn't?

In the hip-hop scene, yeah, there's some underground independents that are cakin' up, sellin 50-100k and that's fine, but at the end of the day, your goal is to get on that nationwide and world stage with your shit.

You're not gonna see cats like Phish or Cunninlynguists even go Gold in this day in age ever again. It's just not possible. Even when Phish did go platnium, it took them 15 years to do it even in the apex of CD sales.

No; signing a major label contract is basically the exact thing as "I will get paid big bucks whether or not my album sells well". It's the RIAA's fault for shelling out said big bucks, and, at that point, they've made an investment into the album's success. If it fails, it's because the artist sucks, not because people prefer to get the album for free.

I guess hearing both sides of a well-presented argument is passé, especially when someone can't be bothered to think about the other side of an argument because of what the law says, regardless of whether or not it is fair or properly argued.

I think the manner in which the RIAA continues to practice with regards to piracy and sales is short-sighted. The law isn't the issue; it's the manner in which the law is used that is.

Night Phoenix, answer this:

I already addressed this a few posts above.

There are people who don't use the internet like the majority of us GFFers do. There are people who would be a lot more likely to buy their music if it wasn't ridiculously produced. 17 tracks for one good song, paying $17. That's just bad marketing when you're competing against piracy.

A lot of people feel guilty about downloading illegally. If you give them a reasonable alternative, you'd be amazed at how well it would do. Like Guru said: iTunes is #3 worldwide (I think) for music providers. That speaks volumes about the market you're dealing with, here.

A LOT of people don't even KNOW about this shit, man. We're dealing with internet savvy people on these boards and probably in our social circles - because we identify with them.

There are a lot of folks out there who don't "expect it for free." A lot of folks who just don't fucking bother with buying CDs anymore and find a better alternative. People are fucking SCARED of "getting caught." Hell, some of my friends have asked me not to talk in public about piracy because they're AFRAID I'll get caught. Thats a load of shit, but I know plenty of people who need introduction to file sharing programs.

If there were incentives to PAY for your music to those of us who know how to get shit free, they could also boost their sales.

It's really not hard to do. They just need to give up the old way of doing business and getting on with the new way. They're just so stubborn and, if you watched the documentary, they've invested a lot of money into their way of business right now. I can see why they'd be reluctant to switch over to a new way.

Incentive and convenience - at a good price. That's all it takes.

I completely agree with this sentiment. And if I were to buy one of your fantastic albums, I would hope that the MAJORITY of the money I pay for it goes directly to you, THE ARTIST.

And Mikey, I'll save my reply for you later, but I can assure you: you don't have a CLUE what I deal with at work for copyright, patents, so on. Not. a. clue. Talk to Uncle Sam about it. I am sure he wouldn't tell you a fucking THING.

It is absurd to say that someone should have to compete with someone who is breaking the law.

What's the point of even having laws then?

"RIAA's fault"? What are you even talking about? What does what you just say have anything at all to do with the argument at hand?

What, are you arguing that this documentary is the exposé into the music copyright world? That it is impossible that I've ever discussed or researched this before?

I think I'm going to just start replying to what Sass has to say now.

See Sass' examples with U2.

Oh, I'm sure you have discussed this before. That explains why you're using the same old arguments that others have parroted before instead of watching the documentary and applying what was given in it to what you know and basing your opinion around it, which is what had been going on in the beginning of the thread.

I guess when the law is involved, everything has to be black-and-white.

The law makes sense. It protects companies interests to run their businesses as they see fit.

You are basically saying that a company must run their business in a certain way or it is perfectly valid to commit crimes against them.

I've watched the first 10 minutes of the documentary, and while it states that companies are changing their business models, it basically says that they are doing it voluntarily. Why do you have such a problem with a business running itself as it sees fit? (Also, I've heard nothing new whatsoever.)


Question: Why can't people who mash-up songs simply stick to songs that are in the public domain? Why do they mash-up songs that are protected under their respective copyrights?

I likely deal with more government red tape due to these copyrights and patents and PARANOIA than you can conceive of.

I said software, not video games.

Unless I misunderstood what you were doing for a living prior to now. I should say what you had your degree in.

Maybe you just want to argue. I don't know shit about video games and everything that applies to them, so I can't argue this point. But I know a lot about books, actual art, and other traditional forms of "intellectual properties!"

Do you need to be so condescending? Of course I know what a contract is. I sign about a dozen a day.

I know plenty about the law. I don't need a diatribe about your law class.

An artist does not need to sign a contract for fucking SHIT, and you know it.

Yea, uh, you're not getting what I am trying to tell you.

Just keep on going about your law classes, I guess. *shrug*

I can tell you that the MPAA has admitted that no matter what they do, piracy will occur and they can't catch the vast majority of them. (You'd know this if you watched the documentary!) All they can do is try to make it as tedious as possible.

Good luck with all that.

pquote]But I don't endorse my own behavior either. Like Smel, have almost no non-pirated music. But I'm not going to complain if someone fights me on that. If I do some illegal shit to their work, pirate it, mash it up, whatever, I mean, I broke the law. [/quote]
So you're a complete hypocrite, then? =/

I complain when I get pulled over for stupid shit.

Going 80MPH in a 65MPH is not stupid shit.
Going 69MPH in a 65MPH is.

See my point, I hope.

So they have no grounds to bitch when people find other ways to get a piece of their product when they can't adapt.

Snooze, ya lose. They shouldn't be in the business if this is the case. They're gonna fail.

Hey man. How do you justify it?

I break the law every time I go over 65MPH and every time I rip the tags off my pillowcases. I can live with these grievances. When they come up with something better as a system, I will continue to do what I do. And I am sure you will do what I do, too. So n'yah.

Dude, it doesn't try to INFLUENCE ANYONE. It's not a guerilla documentary.

Are you admitting that you're an impressionable guy who believes everything he sees? ^_^

Besides. The OP posed the question with the doc in mind. It's the least you could do. I mean, a lot of the topics we're bringing up were discussed in the doc. It would behoove the discussion. =/

Absolutely not what we're arguing. I urge you to take notes or something.

;_;

I don't see how you determined that the companies are changing their business models voluntarily. It's not like they saw the proliferation of free music downloading coming 10 years ago, and they're still reacting to it. I'm not suggesting they MUST do anything, but if they want to maintain their business, they have to react to changing market conditions. Look at the Big Three auto companies. It's not part of the subject, but they've fallen behind in a similar manner (car buyers expecting better manufacturing and reliability, etc.) and they've only recently worked to adjust.

To answer your second question: I'm sure there are people who take music in the public domain and remix them. That's not the issue. It's not even an issue of whether or not someone is downloading something the don't own. Piracy is one thing; remixing a song and not making money off of it is another.

I guess, I dunno. I speed also. But I don't have a problem with cops pulling over people for speeding, whether it be 1 MPH+ or 100 MPH+. I broke the law, I don't deserve to complain about breaking it.

I'm also not going to insist that a record label change their business model so I can break the law. See, what some DJ should say is, "Hey, I'm going to obtain the proper rights to these songs and mash them up and if the people who own the songs don't want to give them to me, I'm not going to mash them up." Or if an artist doesn't mind their music being used in such a way, they shouldn't have signed the contract in the first place.

But you're totally missing my point. He has a grounds to bitch! He can buy music from people who don't sign with major labels! He can write a letter to BMG. That's valid, I have no problem with that. I have no problem if, I dunno, Sony-Columbia goes out of business because they run their business stupidly. I have no problem if they buy up all the music and never let it see the light of day.

It's their business.

It really is though. You're saying, "Hey, RECORD COMPANY should adapt because people break the law!"

Which means one of two things:

1) You feel the law is wrong and repealed.
2) You feel the law should be unenforced.

Which is the same means to the same ends.

But the market isn't a free market, it's a black market. Businesses should be protected from black markets, or else, as I said, it would be anarchy, the entire market would fall apart.

But it's not!

What have you got to lose by someone else making your song into something else and distributing it for NOTHING, and how is that piracy?

I lose control over my creation. I don't want my creation being used in such a way.

I chose not to give anyone the use of my music in that way. It isn't up to you to question why I made that decision.

I'm going to try and make this my last post in the thread for the night, since it's 3am and I've gotta work. But I'll try to be brief

Absolutely not. Please read carefully now, as I would rather not say it a third or fourth time:

I said that I would be much more likely to change MY ways if they'd change THEIRS. Many people feel the same way I do, I assure you.

I also said that there are a lot more people out there who have NO ways. They don't pirate music, they don't BUY music. The market needs to CHANGE to get more revenue. NOT because of pirates, but because the industry is sucking big time at progressing where others have progressed already.

A lot of the new, upcoming artists are doing their own thing, doing word-of-mouth marketing and relaying on a certain niche. It works really well. A lot of them are making free downloads available to sample songs. You can't do that with a CD. The internet is awesome for this, and I URGE you to stop hearing "PIRACY GOOD, LAWS BAD" from me, as that is NOT. WHAT. I. AM. SAYING.

In all likelihood, I will continue to download as much as I can for free directly from artists themselves. I tend to support the grassroots music thing, so I have the ability to DO that. With the corporations muddling up the artist/consumer line of work, I don't feel secure in giving my money away to a useless cause.

Look, I'm not trying to understand you improperly. That was your entry into this conversation. That screams, "The laws suck!"

If you feel the labels need to make an economic decision to stay afloat (and it's probably incorrect, I bet they are doing just fine), I'm OK with that. But most of what you've said is classic extortion. "The market will continue to commit whatever crime it wants if you don't bow to their demands."

There have been numerous research projects done and articles written that state that online music piracy does not decrease music sales.

And another

And yet another.

I could find more if I wanted to, but I think 4 articles is sufficient for now.

Basically, whatever sort of decline the RIAA has stated can be easily attributed to the cyclical nature of the US economy, the increased price of CDs in general, and, the most glaringly obvious -- being that the RIAA takes their statistics from units SHIPPED to retail stores, not units SOLD. Big retail stores don't like having a huge backstock of CDs like they once used to, and stores like Best Buy and Wal-Mart have put the Sam Goody's and Musiclands of the world out of business, mostly. There's some other good stuff in the articles too.

Basically, there hasn't been any substantial evidence EVER since the advent of P2P technology that proves that internet sharing has dented major label sales. If anything, evidence points to the contrary in that digital music services like iTunes and Rhapsody have helped bolster major label sales by making songs even more accessible to consumers.

See, this is what I don't get:

I still don't understand why everyone thinks they should have a say in how a music company runs its business. It really makes no sense to me how people get so worked up about how the RIAA does business.

For example: what did people do when they didn't like Microsoft's OS and how it marketed and distributed it? That's right, they created their own operating system, from scratch, put it into the public domain, and created competing companies. Or, in Apple's case, it created other products which broadened its visibility in the marketplace which helps it compete. Microsoft can choose to adapt or not if it wants to.

If people want to make music that isn't constrained by the limits of the major label contract, if people want to mash-up music, I don't understand why they don't just compete rather than complaining and committing crimes.

Mostly my post was directed at Night Phoenix, who said something about record sales declining because people don't want to pay for music. I should have quoted him.

I don't disagree that music piracy is ultimately wrong. But to answer your question, Mikey...I also don't agree with the way that the recording industry usually screws over it's artists and pays the record executives more than it pays the people who actually make the music. You telling me that it's silly I have an issue with the RIAA is like you telling me it's silly I have an issue with clothes sold at Wal-Mart made by children in Bangladesh. It's a disagreement with a business practice. No, I wouldn't walk in to a Wal-Mart and steal a shirt. But I still wish that, if I were to buy that shirt, the child that actually made it was getting paid more than 2 cents a day.

That is completely ridiculous.

I also would definitely prefer the artists making the lion's share of the funds. But, then again, why did TLC sign? Where is the accountability placed on the artist, why is it the big bad RIAA when they couldn't do jack shit if people didn't sign with the big labels?

That's why its completely different from your scenario. They aren't preying on workers in impoverished countries who would be unemployed if not for the Nike factory. It's not forced slavery or even a bad business practice. No one has to sign with the RIAA.

Plus, while that is a sad tale, record contracts, like anything else, reward longevity. Did, I dunno, Tom Cruise made $25 million in his first hit movie? Hell no. You become a star and then you have some negotiating power. Think about how much risk, how much money, the labels have to spend to promote brand new artists. I don't have stats, I bet that most don't pan out. So if they are going to honor the contracts of people who don't succeed, why would you expect them to over compensate the ones who are successful right out of the gate?

It is well within an artist's rights to say, "I don't like this contract. Put me on a percent earned plan and I'll sign" and see what the labels have to say.

The labels would probably say "hell naw" because they can make anyone a star and exploit them just the same. You don't need me to list examples of fabricated music stars, do you?

A fabricated star would be someone presented as a star but is anything but. What you probably meant to say is manufactured stars, since they grab people with a bit of singing talent and then mold their image into star material. Big deal.

There is no one Mega Label which oversees all contracts and dominates distribution in all retail outlets. An artist can always take his talents to another label to find a better deal. This is not entirely one-sided, and I'm really finding it hard to shed a tear for people that make 5-10% out of millions. The real money is in concert sales anyways.

But, just like you find it hard to shed a tear for people that make 5-10% of millions, I find it hard to shed a tear for people that make 50-60% of millions when someone decides that they want to remix a song and play it in a club. It's not even a blip on the radar.

Well, neither do I. The thing is that it's well within their rights to sue for plagiarism, since they can claim ownership, just like it's well within the rights of an artist to negotiate with another company.

Record labels aren't just one guy with a record press, they require a lot of effort and costs have to be factored in across multiple services and markets. The Evil Record Companies can claim the lion's share of profits because they do the lion's share of work.

That's funny.

Without the artist, they wouldn't have a product to sell. They may market the fuck out of their artist and produce a record, provide studios, and so on - but they're not required.

And before you come back with "well, without the recording/label companies, the artists wouldn't have a way to produce records," I'm just going to go ahead and tell you that an artist can definitely turn a profit without the companies.

Okay, but let's assume that we forgo buying a karaoke CD and just sing the lyrics withought music to it. You were claiming earlier
Which, if I understand you right, means if you are using any of these three factors composing a song, you are infringing on copyright. With that said, if you were to stand on a street corner and start singing the latest Fall Out Boy single, to the dismay of the public, you are infringing on their copyright of the song, are you not?

Another example that comes to mind is Weird Al and what he does. It's my understanding that Weird Al can take the original artists song, keep the same music composition, swap around the lyrics, and release it withought permission of the original composer and avoid paying any royalties while he's at it. How is this any different then taking the song, and morphing it to your own beat, e.g remixing it, and releasing it to the public. Are you infringing?

Also on the note of record labels -
I agree that the record labels have every right to protect their copyrights by means of litigation. But, like Sass said, the record labels would not exist withought the artist, I think it's just important that everyone including the labels themselves remember that.
There was a day when record labels didn't exist. Back then, music still flourished, and was just as important to people as it is now. So I would simply argue that the record labels depend more on the artist then the artist does on them, and that the distribution of royalties should be balanced appropriately. 50/50 would be a good starting point, though I honestly feel the artist should get more than that. Honestly, I think the record labels are engaging in royalty gouging, and it's borderline criminal, though don't misunderstand me, technically I agree they have the right to and it is legal to charge what they do.

Actually, Weird Al won't record any parodies without the original artist's consent. But he will definitely perform them live. (I heard it in an interview with him recently).

Just wanted to, you know. Interject. ;_;

Parody is fair use, so long as it doesn't slander the original artist.

I think Weird Al asks permission just to be a nice guy, but it isn't a requirement.

Of course, if you're going to go and parody something, expect a legal suit just because; so many people can't take jokes these days and are so quick to offend.

Hey, I'm a funny guy.

Yeah, it's not required to produce millions of copies and spend millions on marketing to sell records, but it is required to sell millions of records.

Whether or not the resultant gains were worth the investment is the label's responsibility to determine the risk. If the band attempted to produce 15,000 copies on their own, and sell them for 10 dollars a copy, they make 150,000 before costs. But with the record deal, a million copies are produced and sold, making a profit of let's say: $6,000,000. If which, the band is entitled to 5% of: $300,000. That is twice the return on what for the band was only a marginally larger expenditure of effort, yet because the band agreed to this trade, you claim that the record company is not entitled to the returns agreed upon.

Well, that's their decision to make. Nobody is forcing them to sign the contract.

And we had to walk 15 miles to school in rain and snow...

Yes Brady, record companies are unfortunately seen by most musicians as a necessary evil. But the last word in that title is still "evil."

If they sign the contract, they're certainly bound.

But a smart artist wouldn't. Guru posted what I was thinking about last night - CrazySexyCool.

These days, it's (of course, my opinion) a better idea to go with a small label, something independent or whatever, who can provide what you need, but isn't greedy or demanding of you. Hell, you can get a business on the internet to provide your songs on a server for a cost - and people can download your song if they like it for just short of a buck. Cuts out the middle men, cuts out the crappy "evil" corporations. It's much more direct, and I promise you'll see a lot more of it in years to come.

In fact, some artists make a copy of their album and submit it to some websites to offer it. I believe this is how CDBaby works - you can find obscure (but great!) artists you love and pay a small amount for a copy of the album. Some of the money goes to the distributor, some directly to the artist. It's an awesome system, if you ask me.

I mean, if we're talking about contracts in general, how many people actually bother reading the whole small print section? And I mean, the artists themselves likely don't even READ it - that's what lawyers and agents are for. And if you need a lawyer, an agent, a publicist - all that shit just to get a mediocre label produced, well hell. Talk about a fucking RISK.

I don't disagree with you as far as contractual obligations are concerned. But I think an artist should certainly put the desire of being on TRL or whatever the modern equivalent is aside and cut to the real meat of the matter.

You can be a star. How do you want to go about it?

Absolutely right.

But you implied that these corporations are needed to do business as an artist. Maybe it's an eventuality for some artists: they get too big and too popular to manage without. It's a sad state of affairs at that point, if you ask me.

But to get to my point: the companies need the artists more than the artists need them. This puts the artist at an advantage to make better business decisions.

He has a point, Brady.

Music hasn't always been this way. Nor has the film industry. Because there's big money involved, you can expect this kind of behavior, though. (Like most things)

You are.

Parodies are covered specially in the Fair Use Act. And I don't know if it's ever been tested at a high level in a court. Weird Al's most infamous one, Amish Paradise, never went to trial and Weird Al ended up paying royalties to Coolio. He usually asks artists and won't parody a song if they refuse.

A restaurant without a chef has no food to sell, but that doesn't mean that a patron can go into the back of a successful restaurant kitchen and make his own food.

That's essentially what you're saying, that anyone should be allowed to go back there, take the food the chef cooked, fuck with it, and take it out and serve it to whomever they please and not pay the restaurant. And not only that, but obtain the recipe, make as many dishes as it wishes, fuck with all those, and give them out as they please. All without any payment to the restaurant.

And damn the restaurant owner and all his costs that it takes to run advertising, hire chefs, buy supplies, buy food, pay utilities, etc.

Then why are they signing?? You seem to have no answer to this fundamental question. If an artist wanted his work used freely, why is he signing a record label contract?

1) If you don't, you're a dumb motherfucker.
2) That doesn't excuse you from the obligations.

No, but that means the patron can go elsewhere to get some food.

Are you intentionally misinterpreting what I am trying to explain just to rile me up? =/

First of all, there are a million ways to make any given dish, no matter who makes it. Just because Jane Doe publishes a recipe in her cook book doesn't mean a MILLION OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE were already cooking that dish are now infringing on Jane's goddamned recipe. Your analogy is flawed.

As far as the restaurant is concerned: if I go to, let's sayyy, I dunno. Francois's House of Delicious Snails. And I like the sauce they put on my escargot. There is NOTHING STOPPING ME from going home, experimenting with my own kitchen and making an equally as delicious sauce for my snails. And I got the inspiration and some of the ingredients from Francois's place. I don't sell my recipe in a cookbook, but I will make these delicious snails with my recipe for the local church get together every Sunday. Maybe I will put my excellent recipe on the internet for people to try themselves.

No offense, but if you really want to continue with your crazy cooking analogy, let me know. I'd love to play with it.

Honeychile, I've been telling you for pages that a lot of them AREN'T.

What do you think the industry is bitching about? It's not fucking piracy. There's proof that pirates are hardly even noticeable on their income loss. It's the smaller, more awesome companies who are stealing the artists.

Besides. Everyone knows none of the major labels produce anything good anymore. =p

No, I agree. I am not excusing it at ALL. You sign a piece of paper, you better damned well know what you're signing for. Most people out there do not share this sentiment, as I am sure most of us here are aware.

Sigh. Sometimes I think I must be speaking something other than English to you because you never ever seem to understand what I'm saying. I'll try again.

Let's say the restaurant is Sony-Columbia. A chef by the name of TLC signs a contract with Sony-Columbia. The contract states that TLC will make dishes (read: albums) for the restaurant and no other restaurants, and Sony will compensate TLC for its work. Any recipes that the chef comes up with, Sony will own. These are the terms of the contract.

Sony buys a brand new restaurant, advertises its new chef as being the best chef ever in the history of the world, buys supplies, food for TLC to cook with.

TLC's food becomes wildly successful and makes the restaurant a ton of money. Sony continues to pay TLC just as it said it would within the terms of the contract.

Similarly, at another restaurant, Joe Blow has become Sony's chef and the restaurant failed miserably. Sony continued to honor its contract.

Now here's where what you are saying comes in:

A guy who likes to make food himself, DJ Mix Guy, visits Sony's restaurant. He's eaten there before, he knows it's good. But this time, instead of sitting down at a table, he gets up and goes into the back. He reads the secret recipes of TLC, and proceeds to make similar dishes, but changes the recipes to his own liking. He then takes the food out to the dining area, and serves all the customers.

Now, DJ Mix Guy used all of Sony's resources. He used their food (I guess this would be rhythms or beats or something like that), he used TLC's recipes (which Sony owns, and would represent the original lyrics and music), and he took his own food, put it on plates, and gave his own dishes (CDs) away for free!

Feeling full from the meal, the patrons walk out of the restaurant, and Sony doesn't make much money that evening. Sure, some people still pay Sony for the privilege of eating in the restaurant, some even buy a dish from TLC instead.

But at this point, Sony has lost full control of all its capital and work that it put into making TLC's dishes the cream of the crop.


Now, I doubt you'd find that to be an acceptable scenario, maybe because restaurateurs don't make much money, not nearly as much as a record label. I would hope that you can see that someone should have controlling interest over their own products, over the contracts.


Or maybe I'm just not understanding what you're saying. I mean, you keep saying that everyone should abide by the law, but then you say how silly it is for record labels to not adapt. You say that piracy doesn't hurt album sales, so I'm wondering why you insist that the record labels need to change their own business practices.

I also wonder how reactive you'd be if someone walked into your office and started telling you how you were doing a shit job because you weren't on the cusp of new technology and pandering to every single person you can find.

I think this has a lot more to do with Big Money.

When Timberland plagiarises some obscure Finnish artist's Commodore 64 tracks, it's a terrible indecency, yet when DJ Mix Trick McQuick plagiarises U2 it's a victimless crime.

Well, you don't have to be smart to be an artist. Anybody who considers an entity which gives them larger returns for the same amount of effort, as an evil has several screws loose.

Also, since Mikey covered everything else:
No, he doesn't. Just because this isn't the way things used to be done does not make it worse. It would be like saying that we should've kept using steam engines for cars instead of the internal combustion engine.

Record labels allow artists to make much larger returns on their labor and creativity. If Record Labels provided no benefit to the artist then they would not exist.

A recording artist is the same as someone that does product development at a large company. If you come up with a great product you get a bit of a bonus, but generally retain no patent rights, no IP rights, and no profit sharing. Without those product development engineers the company wouldn't have anything to sell either.

Hell, take that Jarvik guy that's shilling some drug on TV now for cholesterol. He probably designed that artificial heart while at a company, is making no money off of the profits off of it, and is probably making much more off of his endorsement deal than as an employee (sounds kinda like the music industry, doesn't it?).

There's no argument here that piracy, by definition, is wrong.

But there are gray areas, as usual.

I am talking about two separate issues, that are kind of linked. The industry, if it adapted, would make more money than they now.

They bitch that piracy is ruining their income (which is untrue). To help stop piracy, they could make other options available to the consumers.

I made it clear that I would likely NOT stop pirating. Because hey, let's face it. It's rad that you can get shit for free on the internet. I like this idea. I am not saying it's RIGHT, but I do a lot of things which aren't "right." And so do you, apparently. =D

If I knew that the money I personally invested into CDs were going mostly to the artist though? I would be much more likely to buy CDs. See what I am saying, now?

I don't understand the parallel, man. ??

I will respond to the rest of you later. Fattie requires food.

If something is wrong there is no gray area. Gray areas come into play when it is difficult to determine right or wrong, but since we've already assumed that piracy is wrong then it is always wrong.

According to who, exactly.

"Killing another human is wrong." Discuss.

Aw man I'm funny.

What does "by definition" mean in Oklahoma I wonder.

I'll first say, that if you are correct in saying the public performance of a song is copyright infringement, then I think something has gone wrong somewhere.

I guess then, since parody is covered and protected under copyright law, I fail to see why remixing wouldn't also be allowed. If anything, remixing a song is an advanced parody. Just an example

Couldn't you then loosely say that chopping up a song to your own tune is a grotesque rendition of the original art, or perhaps say that the mix mocks the dignity of the original source, thus loosely associating it as a parody?

Not that it matters, I can't see why the law would permit parody but not remixing a song. Both fall under the same principles, that is taking an original work and morphing it into something else. Perhaps there should be a modification to fair use to allow for remixing?

Teamed up with Brady, 'sup.

But why do you care? I mean, do you go into 4 page diatribes about every company that you feel doesn't do business well?

Anger against the labels has nothing to do with suppressing art because, as we already established, the musicians themselves have as much or more to blame for signing the contract.

You aren't being forced to buy music from the major labels, so that can't be it. You already established you have alternatives, that the labels have competitors.

Who cares why they are bitching about crimes being committed? If someone steals $300 from my checking account, I shouldn't have to explain why I'm taking the guy to court. And no one should be able to tell me that $300 isn't a big deal and that I shouldn't care about it, that it doesn't really hurt me.

I mean, I really don't get at all where you are coming from on this.

Well, OK. But no one can get mad at the RIAA and the labels for that. That's something people should take up with their Congresspeople, not the businesses.

ONLY ON PAY-PER-VIEW

Not really. Re-mixing takes somebody else's property (or your own), re-arranges it, throw in some additional compositions or phat beets, and claiming the end result as your own.

If the re-mix was made with the consent of the artist and/or the label, then proper credit is given. When permission and credit have not been acquired or given, it's plagiarism.

The reason a re-mix is different from parody, is because parody will use practically the same song, so that the listener intrinsically knows what property is being parodied. While it's still possible to recognize the source material in a re-mix, it's not being used for the purposes of parody.

Well, no. Your definition states burlesque, not grotesque.

A re-mix does not factor in to the definition of burlesque.

The diatribe is more about the companies and their misplaced accusations. Pirates aren't ruining their businesses - they are.
It says a lot about a band when they sign a major contract. At least in my view. I don't know about yours.

I am not angry with the labels so much as I am frustrated with the idea that they're accusing pirates of running them in the red when it's just not so. Maybe if they could evolve with a changing market, they could cash in on the internet instead of whining about it and suing people.

Absolutely right. I pirate. Just like you do. But that's apparently "wrong" with no gray area (which I still find lol, Brady).

I'm just saying man; if they opened their eyes and stopped beating a dead horse, they could make a hell of a lot more money. Focus elsewhere. The money isn't in suing the people like you or I who share music on the internet. (Because that is, afterall, what we're doing. We share music on the internet. As far as I know, no one around really charges for pirated CDs, right? Just as an aside.

Well, I am pretty sure a lot of people care. Especially those who get threats and/or sued or raided by these guys. I mean, fuck. That Danger Mouse guy? He does some good remixes. And so does this Girl Talk person! I kind of care if I never hear original, recycled music again. =/

I don't know about you, but I like the idea of taking something awesome and altering it a little bit, or maybe chopping it up to fit a certain culture. (WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY). Taking little BLIPS (seriously, little blips) from a song or whatever hurts NO ONE.

Maybe if they burned their bras, would that placate you?

Or perhaps if they Kurt Kobain'd?

So wait. Because you do it, that makes it ok? That's your gray area?

Hell I've done it, but I'm not going to lie myself and try to justify it by claiming I'm not really hurting anybody. Regardless of whether or not I would have ever bought the music (I wouldn't) that doesn't change the fact that I'm stealing.

Nobody takes issue with the awesome nature of the re-mix. They take issue with the plagiarism.

I loathe Cobain. He deserved death. Whiny bitch.

Hardly. I am just saying it's a reality. People will do it - they'll continue to do it. There's really no stopping it. The MPAA has admitted it.

You do it too, then. So you're also a huge hypocrite?

We're stealing - you and I are stealing - about as much as a person steals when they give someone a book to read.

Speaking of books, is it wrong to sell old books you have collecting dust at a yard sale, Brady?

Do you know what plagiarism means?

Let me quote the dictionary for you:
These artists give credit, in MOST cases. Now, if you don't give fucking credit, you're a hack. I don't LIKE it when people don't give due credit to an original author or artist.

But I don't think "credit" is monetary reimbursement, necessarily.

I think Cobain was murdered but OK.

You THINK. Conspiracy theorist. Angsty little baby killed himself. And with Courtney Love as his wife, who wouldn't commit suicide.

With a crazy coke whore like Courtney Love as his wife, who wouldn't be surprised if she killed him for money.

You forget Cobain was also a drug fiend. Just as bad as Courtney.

But enough of this crap - more about copyright infringement and defense of evil corporations!

I think that falls under the same category of selling anything that's intellectual property. You're transferring your right of possession of the material to somebody else and charging them for the service.

Much the same reason I imagine stores don't need the express written consent of the commissioner of major league MPAA in order to sell records.

Of course, you should probably also remember that those e-books you download off of the internet are just as illegal as the movie or album you torrented yesterday.

There must've been a point here. I'm not seeing it.

It's hypocritical to say that what I'm doing is wrong? :confused:

Sharing the copy you own does not violate distribution because you own one copy, which you shared. The book you own is a copy of an intellectual property, over which you own discretion of use.

You can't copy the book and sell it, you can't copy the book and share it, because that would violate terms of use, and/or copyright. You can sell the copy that you own, but you cannot make more copies and sell or give them away.

But that's not what people take issue with. People take issue with the plagiarism, but they don't take issue with the copyright infringement. That's the problem.

Edit:
I wonder, now, what you think of Iggy Pop, Sass?
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/articl...rview-iggy-pop

Sorry, I don't know if it is true or not, but I have read otherwise online, IIRC. Will look into it some more... ;)

Just because some people are dumb enough to pay $20 a CD doesn't mean it's not over-priced. People are also dumb when it comes to gasoline too, doesn't make them equally "not all there" IMO though. :D

Either way, Best Buy isn't that over-priced, so, what's your point? Go to a local music store like Sam Goody to see over-priced CDs, or anywhere that is selling the albums at, near or over the MSRP. BB sells at about $10-15 each, the last time I was there, a reasonable price. Selling at $17-20+ is not. Hell, most of the CDs I have seen at $16-20 recently should have been closer to $7-10... :)

Overall, I remember reading an article on this issue, and yes, they are charging more than they should, even more than they said such media would cost when it first came out years ago. Sheesh, it's the reason why piracy is taking over and their so-called profits keep going down, even though the actual numbers show otherwise. Well, the industry likes to cook the books so to speak.

I will see if I can find some more links, but still, they are screwing over their customers way more than any one downloading online is. Hell, most of the people I know only download because the actions taking place against both legitimate and illegitimate users of their content.

Well, there is such a thing as price-gouging. If it was okay to go after the gougers during the Katrina hurricane aftermath for over-charging on Gas, it sure as well better be okay to do the same for gougers of CDs and anything else for that matter...

I know the market will determine the price, but at a certain point it's just greed, pure in simple. In the case of CDs, they lied, since the discs were supposed to come down in price, not up. It just goes to show how greedy they are and all the extra costs they put on to the CD to justify their price. It's BS, though I for one do pay it, I'll just screw them over by going to where it's the cheapest for the official CD and will occasionally buy used, if needed. Though, if it gets any worse I'll stop buying music altogether and just enjoy what I already own.

Well, there's a problem with your logic here though. See, that's an actual "reasonable" price, and the people willing to pay $8 would most likely not mind paying the extra $2 to get the real deal. Now, there's some that might, but it's not nearly the amount you insinuate would do so. That, and most pirates seem to use CD-Rs to pirate the music these days, so I'd think that would be a factor for some as well. I don't buy CD-Rs for one! There's no point in doing so since they are less quality than a real CD and many people give out CD-R copies for free anyway...

The only way it might work is if the pirate gave away the music for free, and we know that true "evil" pirates would never do that. Regardless, I don't know many that wouldn't buy the official CD if it was worth buying. Really, if it isn't worth buying, they wouldn't bother with it to begin with. Maybe I just don't hang around pirates too much, since for everyone I know that does steal the music, I know more that don't. Maybe it's just me! :)

Even though I think by and large price-gouging laws are bullshit....

There is a fundamental difference between gasoline (which people need in order to travel) and CDs, which are a total discretionary product.

I am just saying there's some industries that can get away with fucking people over while many other less powerful people, or businesses would get in trouble, if not getting sent straight to jail over the same type of shit. Basically, I am saying there needs to be some consistency. If it's wrong for the small guy to screw over people, so as well it should be for the cock suckers like the music and oil industry...

Hell, I recall a local contractor doing what the big guys do in their gouging on their prices, yet, who do you think was the one that got fucked over it. BS on all parts, but that is still wrong IMO! :rolleyes:

You're wrong. What you are talking about is over-valued, not over-priced. Price is set where a company can make the most profits. They could sell CDs for less and more people would buy them but they'd make less profit. I mean, this is economics 101 and I'm pretty sure that some of the biggest media companies in the world would have some people on their staffs who know a thing or two about economics.

Same goes for the retailers.

You assume too much.

1) We're in the first generation of people who steal all kinds of luxury items. Before pirated music, movies, TV shows, software, etc., you actually had to have physical copies. Sure, people bootlegged, but back then, it was also costly and time consuming.

But a generation or two later, when everyone is accustomed to something other than the "real deal", almost no one would go for it. And those people would get snickered at, like the idiots who take their cars to the dealer after the warranty is up.

It's a product of an open-source culture.

2) If you cycle through a market where the price is always lower than what you can get from a manufacturer, and significantly lower...my example may not have been extreme enough. A person making a copy of a CD and selling it for $8 is almost all profit, while the record company has so many more costs. And, as I said, if one pirate sells them for $8, the next guy will sell them for $7. The record company wouldn't even have a chance to catch up to the market by the time the profit is barely pennies.

The hell's that supposed to mean?

A well-mastered album can make a band sound better, but a producer with no musicians to create music is nothing.

It means that without somebody to produce things like instruments, studios, venues, buses, etc., music doesn't get made.

Now, I can make music using my voice. I can sing to all of the people I want. Without a producer, though, it's impossible for my songs to be heard outside of a circle of thousands.

You could be your own producer, but there's also a benefit to having somebody else produce the music for you.

There are places for producers. But calling producers "the real music makers" is completely false.

Is it? Without producers, willing to invest in the creative talents of individuals, the barriers to entry mean that there's much less incentive for somebody to create music, because the potential benefits aren't great enough to justify the labor.

To be fair, many musicians who work on an album don't get paid (if it's a one-shot deal) or get a yearly salary from the label and don't get any part of the sales of the record.

Have you ever been in a real recording studio fucking with REAL ARTISTS?

More often than not, the producer makes the entire record possible. Most producers often write and arrange the music you hear. What you hear is by far more of a product of what the producer does AFTER THE ARTIST HAS LEFT THE STUDIO than you think.

Take it from someone who has actually been through the process of creating a record.

Where would Run DMC be without Rick Rubin? Amerie without Rich Harrison? Da Brat, Bow Wow, Mariah Carey, Jagged Edge without Jermaine Dupri? 112, Faith Evans, and Mary J. Blige without Sean Combs?

Better get your facts straight, pimpin'. Producing is where the money is at.

Another statement that I do not contest. My point being that the people who actually sing (however poorly), recite vulgar poetry, or play instruments are the ones that make music. The producer's role is analogous to the conductor of the orchestra - he can shape the sound, control what happens when, but at the end of the day the musicians make the music.

You could also say that the musicians make noise and the producers shape that noise into music.

No, he's right. With the recording industry as it is in America (one word: unbalanced,) being the producer is far more profitable than being the band. They may not make as much money as the Record Company Execs, but they see a hell of a lot more money than most bands ever do.

And so what if the band/artist makes the music. Again, with the recording industry as it is in America, that means shit since usually all artists have to sign off the copyrights to the label. So while they may make the music, it never truely becomes theirs, and they don't even see the money for it, to boot.

If you want to make money in the music industry, be a producer. If you just want to do it for the music, just stay independent.

Over-valued? Over-priced? It ends up coming out to about the same thing IMO. That said, I still think in this case they will keep losing profits either way. If they were smart they would sell them cheaper and make less profits than they want, but more than they are or will by keep on gouging/inflating the cost to the consumer. This isn't a piracy issue, it's "the consumer doesn't want to pay X amount for a CD" issue...

Overall, it might be economics 101, but if more and more people stop buying CDs because of the current pricing how's that going to keep making the most profits. The only way that will work is if they start charging even more, $30 a disc? That would just get more people to not even buy the stuff even more than they are already skipping doing so and finding another hobby or entertainment choice for their dollar.

Perhaps, but I still think you assume too much as well. Piracy isn't nearly the issue the entertainment industry and others claim it is, the numbers in more than one study have proven so. So, it's time to move on to find a way to get those that do pirate to move over to the legit item, another is to price the the legitimate item accordingly. It's doesn't have to be free or even even cheap, but to out price the item isn't smart either...

I can't argue with that, but from everything I hear the industry isn't hurting. So, they should stop crying and find a way to prevent piracy that doesn't screw over me, the legitimate consumer. That's all I am asking for! Maybe that's a pipe dream, but at this rate the industry won't have any consumers left within several years to decades if they don't at least work with people to find a compromise. All they want is the for us to have the "bend over and take it" mentality and buy their BS...

I guess that is big business for you, but, no thanks! :D

I think this cements the image of you not even understanding Economics 101.

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

Incorrect (if this were so, the prices would be lowered).

Absolutely incorrect.

Again, the answer to people breaking the law willingly is not to change policy, it is to punish the lawbreakers. They are not breaking the law for any compelling reason other than to get cheap music, which is not akin to, say, sitting at the front of the bus as a black woman in the 60s.

Are you screwed over because you can't purchase other luxury items? If you work minimum wage and can't afford a new car, does that mean you are screwed over by the car companies for pricing their product accordingly?

You haven't indicated a single way in which you are "screwed over" other than things cost more than you value them at.

I find that highly unlikely. "Because some people steal from us now, all people will steal from us in the future. If you don't bring people breaking the law back into the fold, then everyone will break the law. And it will all be the record companies' faults for not changing their policy to accommodate law breakers."




I mean, really, you don't seem to have any idea what the hell you are talking about. I think someone who even disagrees with me would think you are completely wrong.

Isn't hurting my ass. It's to the point where virtually all new acts have to fork over nearly a third of their touring revenue if they sign to a major label because revenue from CD sales has declined so much.

Sheesh, you are all making me feel like an idiot for bothering to post to begin with! Oh well, let me try to explain my thoughts. As naive as they may be... :D

I don't know, but making billions in profits seems pretty much like not hurting to me. If the artists signs the contract and they don't get enough of that money, well, that's their fault for signing a bad contract along with those who were greedy enough to not give them a better deal to begin with. That said, I am not sure I understand the issue that you mean here. What, that they could make more? Well, everyone could make more money, but there's no way to prove that they lost X amount when their own numbers typically don't match those done by surveyors outside the industry. If anything, the numbers I have seen touted online show piracy has little effect if at all, but to piss them off for making billions less than the billions they already do. Not that I blame them, mind you. But, not everyone thinks making more is necessarily a good indicator because how can you say that Pirate A would have bought it and Pirate B wouldn't have? You can't, even though they try to put out numbers that make it appear that way. But, what do I know, I am naive and who knows whether either side is worth believing the numbers they spew forth. I am just saying there's contradictions all over the place on just how bad they have it.

As for economics 101, I never took that class, always thought it meant what's best for business, so to speak. I guess I am wrong, and am big enough to say so. Sorry!

I guess I figured, that if selling for less could (I'd assume) realistically earn more profits from having people who wouldn't have purchased otherwise do so (which it possibly could in today's marketplace, piracy or no piracy) well, how is that not good for the industry and all involved? Hell, the whole pay-to-download services could be utilized much better. Though, it seems they are against change, whether it's from piracy (which I am not even really taking into account to be honest) or just changing the medium to one that people would consider buying more than they currently do with CDs. Really, I don't get it, wouldn't that be a good thing? Maybe I am giving people too much credit to think they too would buy the music if the price was at the price point the industry said they would sell for or even slightly higher.

Either way, this is all opinion based from what I have read and having talked with other people over the years. I'll be the first to admit I am not fully aware of all the facts, but I do get tired of facts thrown around here and elsewhere just as blindly by both sides. Sorry if I came across as thinking I knew better than the rest, didn't mean it that way. Overall, there has already been links earlier that show some of what I was trying to get at, I guess some just can't get past the piracy issue. Since I am not even using that as my basis for my point and most seem to be, I might as well keep quite.

Oh and BTW, I don't know about anyone else, but I do think we "are" so-called, screwed over, by copy-protection and the other areas that the industry uses that make lawfully backing-up people's legitimately purchased CDs impossible. I don't buy protected discs, but many seem to have tried at least in the past to hide the fact if they have such protections. So, I think I and others have good reason to feel that way, the Sony Rootkit anyone?

Regardless though, I don't care if it's a luxury item or not, when I pay the manufacturer for their item, on sale or not, there should be no extra hassles to come along with it in my view. I bought it legitimately, that should be the only thing that matters. Some might disagree I guess, but money spent is still money spent. Basically, there's no need to alienate those who are the reason you make the money you do. Oh well, take that as you well...

You're suggesting that the secret to success is to sell at a loss. Products don't actually become cheaper until they've achieved sufficient economies of scale, and producing music isn't exactly as simple as producing a widget.

Well, obviously.

On a side note, we should be there day #1 if he ever opens a store.

"Come on in neighbors! I bought all this stuff and I'm selling it back to you for cheaper than I paid! Yeeeeeeehaw, open Sundays."

That's not what I am saying, well, it's not what I meant at least!

I understand what you all are saying, but still, assuming people would buy more CDs if they were at a cheaper price, how's that taking a loss if you have way more sales? That's all I am asking and no one seems to want to answer that. Oh well, no point in continuing since I think selling at $10-13 would be fine and you don't.

Cost to produce a single item: $4

Price --- Buyers --- Total Profit
$4.50 --- 25,000 --- $12,500
$5 --- 24,000 --- $24,000
$6 --- 20,000 --- $40,000
$7 --- 15,000 --- $45,000
$8 --- 8,000 --- $24,000

It's called the law of diminishing returns.

You'd have to sell proportionally so many more CDs to reach that same margin of profit.

Sorry for the late reply, but thanks for the info. I am generally interested in this topic and from everything I am told elsewhere, they seem to think differently. Regardless, I'll take your word for it...

Here's hoping a way can be found to bring prices down, yet not hurt anyone in the process! :)

Dude, there was no excuse for this whatsoever. Don't practice necromancy.