Gamingforce Interactive Forums
85239 35211

Go Back   Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace

Notices

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).


Good Copy Bad Copy - What Constitutes Fair Use?
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Dopefish
I am becoming a turkey.


Member 42

Level 42.28

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 12:39 AM #26 of 115
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

BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 12:40 AM Local time: Aug 12, 2007, 10:40 PM #27 of 115
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.

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.
and Brandy does her best to understand
I poked it and it made a sad sound
Struttin'


Member 24

Level 51.86

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 12:44 AM #28 of 115
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.

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

Last edited by I poked it and it made a sad sound; Aug 13, 2007 at 12:46 AM.
Dopefish
I am becoming a turkey.


Member 42

Level 42.28

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 12:48 AM #29 of 115
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

Smelnick
Banned


Member 12225

Level 26.09

Sep 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 12:49 AM Local time: Aug 13, 2007, 12:49 AM #30 of 115
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.
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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
KrazyTaco
urrrrrr


Member 753

Level 13.94

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 12:50 AM #31 of 115
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.

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.

FELIPE NO
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hopeâ„¢


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 12:52 AM Local time: Aug 13, 2007, 12:52 AM #32 of 115
Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
People have a problem giving money to these big, faceless corporations.
Consequently, without these big, faceless corporations, your favorite band wouldn't have the resources to put out a record.

Additional Spam:
Quote:
There lies a problem though, how can you copyright lyrics?
The same way you can copyright a book.

Quote:
Can a company copyright a random set of numbers, and likewise can a person copyright words strung together to form a song?
Because these numbers are generated via a proprietary process developed by the vendor.

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

Last edited by Night Phoenix; Aug 13, 2007 at 12:55 AM. Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
Dopefish
I am becoming a turkey.


Member 42

Level 42.28

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 12:58 AM #33 of 115
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


Last edited by Dopefish; Aug 13, 2007 at 01:06 AM.
I poked it and it made a sad sound
Struttin'


Member 24

Level 51.86

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:06 AM #34 of 115
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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Last edited by I poked it and it made a sad sound; Aug 13, 2007 at 01:08 AM.
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hopeâ„¢


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:08 AM Local time: Aug 13, 2007, 01:08 AM #35 of 115
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.

How ya doing, buddy?
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:13 AM Local time: Aug 12, 2007, 11:13 PM #36 of 115
You make some interesting assumptions.
Uh, have you? You talk about your job in your journal all the time.

Originally Posted by Sass
Um, music and software have two vastly different purposes in the world, Mikey.
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?

Originally Posted by Sass
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.
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."

Originally Posted by Sass
You ENDORSE this behavior?
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?

Originally Posted by Sass
Presently, he buys NO CDs. Because....it's a hassle. A waste of money.
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.

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

Originally Posted by KrazyTaco
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.
The people who create karaoke CDs pay royalties.

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

Originally Posted by Sass
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?
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."

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?
and Brandy does her best to understand

Last edited by BlueMikey; Aug 13, 2007 at 01:14 AM. Reason: This member got a little too post happy.
Night Phoenix
The Last Great Hopeâ„¢


Member 668

Level 20.50

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:16 AM Local time: Aug 13, 2007, 01:16 AM #37 of 115
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, 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.

I was speaking idiomatically.
Dopefish
I am becoming a turkey.


Member 42

Level 42.28

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:22 AM #38 of 115
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:
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?


What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?


Last edited by Dopefish; Aug 13, 2007 at 01:24 AM.
I poked it and it made a sad sound
Struttin'


Member 24

Level 51.86

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:25 AM #39 of 115
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.

FELIPE NO

Last edited by I poked it and it made a sad sound; Aug 13, 2007 at 01:27 AM.
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:25 AM Local time: Aug 12, 2007, 11:25 PM #40 of 115
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?

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.
"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?

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.
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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
and Brandy does her best to understand
Dopefish
I am becoming a turkey.


Member 42

Level 42.28

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:35 AM #41 of 115
"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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:39 AM Local time: Aug 12, 2007, 11:39 PM #42 of 115
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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.
and Brandy does her best to understand
I poked it and it made a sad sound
Struttin'


Member 24

Level 51.86

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:42 AM #43 of 115
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
Dopefish
I am becoming a turkey.


Member 42

Level 42.28

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:49 AM #44 of 115
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.

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


Last edited by Dopefish; Aug 13, 2007 at 01:52 AM.
BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 01:58 AM Local time: Aug 12, 2007, 11:58 PM #45 of 115
So you're a complete hypocrite, then? =/
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.

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.
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.

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

Originally Posted by Dopefish
if they want to maintain their business, they have to react to changing market conditions
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.

Originally Posted by Dopefish
Piracy is one thing; remixing a song and not making money off of it is another.
But it's not!

How ya doing, buddy?
and Brandy does her best to understand
Dopefish
I am becoming a turkey.


Member 42

Level 42.28

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 02:02 AM #46 of 115
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?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

BlueMikey
TREAT?!?


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 02:06 AM Local time: Aug 13, 2007, 12:06 AM #47 of 115
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.

FELIPE NO
and Brandy does her best to understand
I poked it and it made a sad sound
Struttin'


Member 24

Level 51.86

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 02:16 AM #48 of 115
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.

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


Member 12

Level 35.70

Feb 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 02:23 AM Local time: Aug 13, 2007, 12:23 AM #49 of 115
Originally Posted by Sass
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.

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

I don't think the government has any business telling any of us what "creative" is, or trying to define art by dollar signs.
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."

How ya doing, buddy?
and Brandy does her best to understand
Guru
:wink wink:


Member 85

Level 27.73

Mar 2006


Old Aug 13, 2007, 03:01 AM Local time: Aug 13, 2007, 03:01 AM #50 of 115
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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.
<@a_lurker> I like zeal better than guru.
<@a_lurker> There, I said it, I'm not taking it back.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis > Garrmondo Network > Political Palace > Good Copy Bad Copy - What Constitutes Fair Use?

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.