|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
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
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? I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Teamed up with Brady, 'sup.
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.
I was speaking idiomatically.
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
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.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
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.
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.
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. FELIPE NO |
Or perhaps if they Kurt Kobain'd?
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.
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
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?
Let me quote the dictionary for you:
But I don't think "credit" is monetary reimbursement, necessarily. Jam it back in, in the dark.
Last edited by I poked it and it made a sad sound; Aug 13, 2007 at 09:23 PM.
|
I think Cobain was murdered but OK.
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
With a crazy coke whore like Courtney Love as his wife, who wouldn't be surprised if she killed him for money.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
But enough of this crap - more about copyright infringement and defense of evil corporations! Most amazing jew boots |
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. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
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.
Edit: I wonder, now, what you think of Iggy Pop, Sass? http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/articl...rview-iggy-pop
FELIPE NO
Last edited by Bradylama; Aug 14, 2007 at 05:04 PM.
|
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.
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.
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! What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
There is a fundamental difference between gasoline (which people need in order to travel) and CDs, which are a total discretionary product. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
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! There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Same goes for the retailers.
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. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
A well-mastered album can make a band sound better, but a producer with no musicians to create music is nothing. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
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. I was speaking idiomatically. |
There are places for producers. But calling producers "the real music makers" is completely false.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
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.
FELIPE NO |
What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
and Brandy does her best to understand
|
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. Most amazing jew boots |
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
You could also say that the musicians make noise and the producers shape that noise into music.
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
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. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |