Good Copy Bad Copy - What Constitutes Fair Use?

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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?

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

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

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

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

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

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

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.

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.)

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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."

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.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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.

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.

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."

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:

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

"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?

See Sass' examples with U2.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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?

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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?

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 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.

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

Originally Posted by BlueMikey

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

I think Cobain was murdered but OK.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?