Good Copy Bad Copy - What Constitutes Fair Use?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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?

Most amazing jew boots

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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

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. ;_;

Quote:

There are a couple differences here:

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

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. ;_;

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

You make some interesting assumptions.

Quote:

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.

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

I would hope you can acknowledge that.

Quote:

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 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.

Quote:

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?

Sigh.

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

Quote:

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?

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?

Quote:

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?

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.

Quote:

Adapting to what, piracy?

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

Quote:

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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

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

Quote:

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?

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!"

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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."

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

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

Quote:

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.

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? =/

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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. =/

Quote:

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."

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

;_;

Most amazing jew boots

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

Quote:

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

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco

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?

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. ;_;

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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?

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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

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)

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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?

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

Quote:

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

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

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?

Quote:

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 don't understand the parallel, man. ??

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

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Aw man I'm funny.

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

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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?

The diatribe is more about the companies and their misplaced accusations. Pirates aren't ruining their businesses - they are.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

Or perhaps if they Kurt Kobain'd?

I loathe Cobain. He deserved death. Whiny bitch.

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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

Do you know what plagiarism means?

Let me quote the dictionary for you:

Quote:

Plagiarism is the practice of "dishonestly" claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created, such as when a person incorporates material from someone else's work into their own work without attributing it.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by The Dopefish

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!

Most amazing jew boots