Company Must Help ID Suspects Accused of Pirating Music

[jumar]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1442301


July 6th, 2007 @ 7:24am
(KSL News) A federal judge has ordered a Utah County Internet company to help identify four people accused of music piracy.

A group of music companies filed suit against the four, who are only known by their Web addresses. A Provo company will now help track down the suspects' personal information.

The Deseret Morning News reports the four allegedly downloaded hundreds of pirated music files from a peer-to-peer file-sharing network.

The music industry has as many as 18,000 similar suits against people across the country. This is the first suit of its kind in Utah.

[ericchile]

Comcast and Qwest have been giving Personal Contact info to RIAA for a long time.....

[Sombeech]

The freaking music business still believes they need to be rich.

Actors, Musicians, and Artists can make a great living, but they don't always need to be billionaires. They can make their money through sponsorships & concerts as well.

[CarpeyBiggs]

The freaking music business still believes they need to be rich.

Actors, Musicians, and Artists can make a great living, but they don't always need to be billionaires. They can make their money through sponsorships & concerts as well.

Hmm.... Stealing is still stealing... And I'm sure there are alot of musicians out there who can't make a good living then there are who do.

[Sombeech]

Hmm.... Stealing is still stealing... And I'm sure there are alot of musicians out there who can't make a good living then there are who do.

There are always arguments made for the struggling musicians that are false.

1. Recording musicians get paid by the record company.
2. Struggling musicians' songs are rarely, rarely shared, or "stolen". Nobody knows them. It is always the big names, the multi millionaires.
3. Selling records is just one way to make money. Free publicity is actually very good for a poor musician. This is why they often hand out their albums on the corner or at events.

We have this concept that not paying for a song is stealing. It's false. This would mean we are stealing every day, just by logging on to the internet and reading the news.

People used to buy a lot more newspapers before the internet. But if KSL.com supplies the news for free, is that stealing?

It's the end of a certain era, and music companies won't accept that.

[derstuka]

Hmm.... Stealing is still stealing... And I'm sure there are alot of musicians out there who can't make a good living then there are who do.

There are always arguments made for the struggling musicians that are false.

1. Recording musicians get paid by the record company.
2. Struggling musicians' songs are rarely, rarely shared, or "stolen". Nobody knows them. It is always the big names, the multi millionaires.
3. Selling records is just one way to make money. Free publicity is actually very good for a poor musician. This is why they often hand out their albums on the corner or at events.

We have this concept that not paying for a song is stealing. It's false. This would mean we are stealing every day, just by logging on to the internet and reading the news.

People used to buy a lot more newspapers before the internet. But if KSL.com supplies the news for free, is that stealing?

It's the end of a certain era, and music companies won't accept that.

Ya know, I am all for burning the CD's I have, and sharing them, however, I know that this is stealing in a way, even though I do not care if they sell on less CD. I do not think that your analogy of comparing it to KSL news holds water. I mean, they make money from advertisers, and want put their news on the web for free for a reason. Newspapers make very little money from their circulation charges, most is from advertisers and whatnot.

I think you are trying to jusfity it because it is not physical really (well, on a CD it is). They cannot be like Toyota and sell you a truck, and not worry about you having a way to copy that truck and give it to every friend that you know for free, otherwise, Toyota would have a big problem with you. You would have hurting their sales, and costing them big money.

What if only one person in a town of 5000 bought a CD of yours for $10 bucks? He burned it, and gave a copy to everybody free of charge. Would this make you unhappy? Losing $49,990 dollars?

I think that the "free publicity" that you mention might be good for a no-name band to get noticed, but not for big name bands. Lots of $$ being lost by the execs and the musicans.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Sombeech, my guess is you haven't produced much intellectual property you actually care about maintaining rights to. Your perspective is interesting from a money perspective, but under US law, the original holder (Author) to the intellectual property is the ONLY person who has the rights to distribute that piece of property. Unless he sells or assigns that right to someone else.

While I understand your argument on the money, the law isn't concerned so much about the "money" aspect. It's about "rights management." No matter how you slice it, it is stealing. Justify it how you may.

[stefan]

We have this concept that not paying for a song is stealing. It's false. This would mean we are stealing every day, just by logging on to the internet and reading the news.

People used to buy a lot more newspapers before the internet. But if KSL.com supplies the news for free, is that stealing?


i'm not following ...

well in many cases the news is not free ... it's subsidized by advertisements. your ksl example is compared with broadcasting music over the radio. we're talking more about books or chapters of books or something. are books free beech?



It's the end of a certain era, and music companies won't accept that.

there is some truth to this. music does need to be supported but it shouldn't be absurdly expensive to have access to a lot of it. there is a large difference between the quality of FM broadcast, mp3/compressed, and lossless music too, though the general population might not care too much.

i think it's neat to witness such transitional times. records, 8tracks tapes, cds, digital files, ... someday the celestial jukebox with access to more than one could ever imagine at the touch of a button. pretty wild time. though i must admit, we certainly do take music for granted in this day and age. how special must music have been to people of the past ... something we likely will never comprehend.

[Sombeech]

What if only one person in a town of 5000 bought a CD of yours for $10 bucks? He burned it, and gave a copy to everybody free of charge. Would this make you unhappy? Losing $49,990 dollars?

This is the problem. If somebody downloads a song for free, the industry assumes they would've paid for it. This is rarely the case. Most people are just "checking out" the music, and sometimes even decide to buy the album after sampling it.

Let's take the news again, including all of television. They pay their reporters, producers, sometimes interns, and the rest of their bills. How many news stations & employees are there across the nation? How many of these services are free to the public?

It's 100% paid for by sponsorship. Maybe some donations here and there....

Now, musicians on the other hand, STILL sell albums. They perform concerts, and we all know they are sponsored by multi billion dollar companies. They are not hurting.

[CarpeyBiggs]

We have this concept that not paying for a song is stealing. It's false. This would mean we are stealing every day, just by logging on to the internet and reading the news.

People used to buy a lot more newspapers before the internet. But if KSL.com supplies the news for free, is that stealing?

It is if those people are stealing content from other sources and distributing it. Absolutely. But under your argument, they are the original AUTHORS of the content, so they can distribute it however they choose.

[asdf]

I think the problem is that POP sucks... POP rock, Hip-POP, American Idle, and Lip syncing asslcowns that no one wants to pay good money to see them preform live. So they live and die on CD sales... of course they always assume that if you download a song that were would of gone to a store and paid full price for the album. :roflol:

[CarpeyBiggs]

Now, musicians on the other hand, STILL sell albums. They perform concerts, and we all know they are sponsored by multi billion dollar companies. They are not hurting.

You LDS? Do you use this same argument for why you should only pay a 2 percent tithing? I mean hey, the church ain't hurting for money is it? But I imagine you realize the law is the law.

Okay, religion is probably not a fair comparision, but you are still yet to explain how this isn't stealing. Just because a company is getting filthy rich, doesn't warrant that someone can steal from them.

[stefan]

Sombeech, my guess is you haven't produced much intellectual property you actually care about maintaining rights to. Your perspective is interesting from a money perspective, but under US law, the original holder (Author) to the intellectual property is the ONLY person who has the rights to distribute that piece of property. Unless he sells or assigns that right to someone else.

While I understand your argument on the money, the law isn't concerned so much about the "money" aspect. It's about "rights management." No matter how you slice it, it is stealing. Justify it how you may.

yup and well said.

and when it comes to purchasing a CD, the only right you have, under the law, is to burn a single disc for backup.

[stefan]

a big part of the problem is that we've had the ability to record since the recording magnetic tape emerged. recording the radio broadcasts and other records and tapes and then CDs has developed a *false* sense of entitlement to music amongst a span of generations. this is only amplified and worsened with computers and the ability to generate a near exact copy and the capability of broadbanding it.

ultimately a happy medium between those who make, sell and listen to music must be reached for this to be sustainable and fair.

[Sombeech]

Sombeech, my guess is you haven't produced much intellectual property you actually care about maintaining rights to.

yup and well said.

Hmmm, think again.

http://uutah.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1469

I'm making 1-2 of these a week now.

I am actually happy to distribute these for free, even with the time and energy I spend almost every day producing them. You guys have to get off of the record sales bandwagon. You'd never make it in the TV/radio business.

[Sombeech]

But under your argument, they are the original AUTHORS of the content, so they can distribute it however they choose.

In my experience, 100% of the news' content is from other people. It is all other people's content that they distribute. Of course, they get consent to air the material, but the argument is whether or not we should pay for the news.

Why is it not stealing to log onto YouTube.com? It's all media that we're not paying for. Many of those videos cost money to make too, like mine.

[asdf]

Did you know that Dave Matthews Band pre-releases their albums online to the file sharing community and they are still one of the top selling artists.
Most bands (keyword bands) support free files sharing.

[hank moon]

Comcast and Qwest have been giving Personal Contact info to RIAA for a long time.....

thet's a mighty strong claim there, pardnuh - can you dockit? I read somewhere that Qwest was one of the only telecoms to refuse to cooperate nicely with Bush's Domestic Spying Initiative (DSI) so a bit skep they're singin' to the RIAA.

[CarpeyBiggs]

I'm making 1-2 of these a week now.

I am actually happy to distribute these for free, even with the time and energy I spend almost every day producing them. You guys have to get off of the record sales bandwagon. You'd never make it in the TV/radio business.

And all the while PIRATING and illegally DISTRIBUTING the music you use to make them. :roflol: Hey, I'm guilty of making videos with music as well, but I at least don't justify it by saying "it isn't stealing." I know it's illegal, but I just assume I won't get busted. At least I paid for the track I used though... (oh wait, there I go justifying)

Honestly, what is your incentive for making these videos? It certainly isn't money. I imagine it is for fun, for recognition, to help get more people to uutah.com, etc... And so your motives for protecting your stuff aren't as threatened as others. And what's more, no one else has the ability to clone your videos and distribute them for their personal gain at this point. That's the big difference. Or if they did, I bet you'd be pissed. Say someone takes all your master files, makes a DVD, calls it their own, and starts selling it online. I bet you'd change your tune. (no pun intended)

I actually worked for KUTV for some time, and currently work in the cable tv industry. This kinda stuff is exactly why digital rights management is at the forefront of every new technology.

On another side note, I do a lot of photography in my free time, with the hope of making money off of it. Unfortunately, rights management in photography has seriously affected the industry, and new photographers have a very difficult time turning a profit, mainly because of the saturation of "rights free" photography. The same thing would happen in the music industry if artists gave away their rights to their music.

[CarpeyBiggs]

But under your argument, they are the original AUTHORS of the content, so they can distribute it however they choose.

In my experience, 100% of the news' content is from other people. It is all other people's content that they distribute. Of course, they get consent to air the material, but the argument is whether or not we should pay for the news.

Why is it not stealing to log onto YouTube.com? It's all media that we're not paying for. Many of those videos cost money to make too, like mine.

The news is not all regurgitated, there are original authors somewhere. All outlets PAY for the rights to use those other authors.

Also, the news isn't designed to be paid for. CD's are. Sorry, different business models. Let's keep apples and apples in the same basket.

[Sombeech]

no one else has the ability to clone your videos and distribute them for their personal gain at this point. That's the big difference. Or if they did, I bet you'd be pissed. Say someone takes all your master files, makes a DVD, calls it their own, and starts selling it online. I bet you'd change your tune. (no pun intended)

I would support that. I just want my media to get out.

The music industry can control file sharing: They don't need to produce in digital format!

How much filesharing would happen on vinyl? On cassette? There are many other non digital methods they can use, but the point is, THEY WANT TO DISTRIBUTE EASIER. It's a double edged sword.

[Sombeech]

Also, the news isn't designed to be paid for. CD's are. Sorry, different business models. Let's keep apples and apples in the same basket.

CD sales are reducing compared to purchasing online. So, if CDs are meant for sales, they can stay that way. Much of the shared music now never even touched a CD.

[CarpeyBiggs]

I would support that. I just want my media to get out.


Wow. I guess I misrepresented you. My apologies. So why do you want your "media" (which is only half yours, if I must remind you) to get out so badly? What's the incentive? Do you subscribe to an open-source kinda world, where everything should be free and communal?

[CarpeyBiggs]

Also, the news isn't designed to be paid for. CD's are. Sorry, different business models. Let's keep apples and apples in the same basket.

CD sales are reducing compared to purchasing online. So, if CDs are meant for sales, they can stay that way. Much of the shared music now never even touched a CD.

Sorry, by CD's I meant "Albums" or "tracks." Just semantics here.

[asdf]

CarpeyBiggs, I am confused.... do you think people download music to sell it?

[CarpeyBiggs]

The music industry can control file sharing: They don't need to produce in digital format!

How much filesharing would happen on vinyl? On cassette? There are many other non digital methods they can use, but the point is, THEY WANT TO DISTRIBUTE EASIER. It's a double edged sword.

Uhh... The music industry DOES distribute in a controlled method. But there is software that has been designed to break the encryption.

Watch what is happening with HD television and movie distribution via terrestrial networks. The media companies have learned their lesson the hard way. It will be much harder to distribute, and pirate media in the future, believe me.

[CarpeyBiggs]

CarpeyBiggs, I am confused.... do you think people download music to sell it?

Nope. But they do download it with the intent to DISTRIBUTE it. Which is where it becomes illegal. Or they download it from an ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION outlet. Like I said earlier, it isn't always about the money, it's about maintaining rights to your works.

[Sombeech]

Do you subscribe to an open-source kinda world, where everything should be free and communal?

Well, I do like open source software as well.

I'm also a musician. My studio isn't set up yet in my basement though.

I wouldn't mind if my music goes all the way around the world, for free. As long as my name is still on the file. When somebody downloads a song for free, they are still keeping the credits on the song, such as the artist name, performer, song title...

I think the real crime is claiming the song as your own, discrediting the original source.

By the way, I don't have any file sharing software. I don't really download music that much. I just hate the whining from the rich music industry.

[CarpeyBiggs]

I guess if we really want to get at the root of this discussion, we should slow down and really define the issue.

The issue isn't necessarily about money. It's about a person's right to their own property. It's about life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. It's about having your work presented in ways ONLY you feel comfortable with, and have consented to.

So, I guess the question is, do you believe these rights should be taken away. Not just in music, but in photography, video, all other art forms, etc...? Do you believe plagiarism is okay?

Justin, is it appropriate for an anti-biking group to take your videos and use them as proof that mtn biking is bad for the general public. What if someone took your videos and used them in a mtn. biking porno? Or maybe a video of people on mountain bikes killing small children? There has to be some point where you want control of YOUR property. I can't imagine you want everything to be "rights free."

[asdf]

CarpeyBiggs, I am confused.... do you think people download music to sell it?

Nope. But they do download it with the intent to DISTRIBUTE it. Which is where it becomes illegal. Or they download it from an ILLEGAL DISTRIBUTION outlet. Like I said earlier, it isn't always about the money, it's about maintaining rights to your works.

I download music to "test drive". If I like a band I will buy the CD, T-shrit, pay money to see them live, while drinking $8 beers.

I know its illegal.. but should it be illegal?

[CarpeyBiggs]

By the way, I don't have any file sharing software. I don't really download music that much. I just hate the whining from the rich music industry.

Finally, something we agree on. I personally feel like when it comes to money, the music industry isn't losing anything in this whole argument, and they are making a big stink out of the money. But, I do believe that the rights management issue is a big deal, and the time they spend whining should be spend educating people on their RIGHTS. That is what this is all about.

After all, that's why we all love America, correct? We have certain unalienable rights. I just can't see how we can throw those out in the name of some swapping of music files...

[Sombeech]

The issue isn't necessarily about money. It's about a person's right to their own property. It's about life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness. It's about having your work presented in ways ONLY you feel comfortable with, and have consented to.

So, I guess the question is, do you believe these rights should be taken away. Not just in music, but in photography, video, all other art forms, etc...? Do you believe plagiarism is okay?

Of all the file sharing I hear about, nobody erases the artist's name from the credits.

If I want to keep my work my very own, I wouldn't put it into a format that's easily shared.


Justin, is it appropriate for an anti-biking group to take your videos and use them as proof that mtn biking is bad for the general public. What if someone took your videos and used them in a mtn. biking porno? Or maybe a video of people on mountain bikes killing small children?

But does this really happen? Is this the argument, that media is being misused? I don't think it is. Now, the bike porno, I'd at least want a link back to that. :twisted:

But when we're talking about what really happens out there with file sharing, there's hardly any plagiarism, it's not being used against the owner, and it's rarely used in a way against the owner's intentions.

It's almost always shared because it is appreciated by peers. And I support that.

[CarpeyBiggs]

I download music to "test drive". If I like a band I will buy the CD, T-shrit, pay money to see them live, while drinking $8 beers.

I know its illegal.. but should it be illegal?

That's a good question... One that will be addressed in the future with stuff like "freebie" tracks, where it can be played 5 times and then stop working, etc...

The future of this stuff is crazy. There is talk that most of this stuff won't be "owned." For instance, if you want to use Microsoft Word, you won't "own" a copy. Instead, you will access an instance of it through the internet. It won't exist on your computer.

Same with music files. If you want to listen to one, it is simply accessed through the ether, you won't "own" a physical copy. That way, you can access it from wherever, but the ownership and rights are maintained. Welcome to a brave new world, like it or hate it.

It will all be "on demand." The only bottleneck right now is broadband, which ironically the telecommunications industries have seriously stifled in deploying in America.

[CarpeyBiggs]

It's almost always shared because it is appreciated by peers. And I support that.

I can promise you that there are many artists who are not happy with how there work is being used. That is why management companies like ASCAP and BMI exist. If you want to use a song to promote a certain ideal, you have to not only PAY for it, but it has to be approved for that use by the artists and their management companies. Very few artists would allow their music to be the bed to a porno, even if it had the credit back to them...

For instance, if we wanted to use a song for the open to a new television show, it would cost alot of money, but it would also have to fit the ideals of that artist, otherwise we wouldn't get permission. If the show was popular, and we hadn't paid, and received consent, I can promise you there would be huge fines levied.

[hank moon]

Wow. I guess I misrepresented you. My apologies. So why do you want your "media" (which is only half yours, if I must remind you) to get out so badly? What's the incentive? Do you subscribe to an open-source kinda world, where everything should be free and communal?

Sombeech, will you reveal? I hope so...here's a PLEASE!

[Sombeech]

Wow. I guess I misrepresented you. My apologies. So why do you want your "media" (which is only half yours, if I must remind you) to get out so badly? What's the incentive? Do you subscribe to an open-source kinda world, where everything should be free and communal?

Sombeech, will you reveal? I hope so...here's a PLEASE!

I guess I just do it to show my friends and family my different hobbies. Although my videos are viewed by many more than that, this is how it started.

It's just nice that people are using me as a reference to trails now. Plus, many people expect these videos each week now, so that keeps me going.

[Sombeech]

Well, crap, I didn't mean that as a thread killer. Maybe it's just another dead Friday afternoon....

But I hope we can continue this debate. :popcorn:

[CarpeyBiggs]

LOL, I'm back for a few minutes... I am moving apartments today, so I'll be on and off.

My question is if you view the world as an open source community? What should be communal, what shouldn't be?

Really, I just want dibs for your boat tomorrow, because I can't afford a boat, but it seems like it would be fun. Has it been spoken for yet? If so, I'll take your bike. It seems nicer than mine. :haha:

[Sombeech]

Really, I just want dibs for your boat tomorrow, because I can't afford a boat, but it seems like it would be fun. Has it been spoken for yet? If so, I'll take your bike. It seems nicer than mine. :haha:

If we really want to compare apples to apples, then you can't use a physical object, unless I am to be there with you.

The Super Bowl is a great example of greediness. They have banned Super Bowl parties with TVs bigger than a certain size, because of the amount of people watching in one location.

The Media Elitist attitude says you must pay something to see/hear this content. You cannot share.

If the music industry could regulate it, they would make it illegal to play loud enough music for a crowd to hear. They really would. Once you see the whole motive behind it, you'll see that they're not looking out for the "struggling musicians".

They just want money money money.

They can put their media in a format that is unshareable. But it wouldn't distribute fast enough. Greed. I oppose that.

[CarpeyBiggs]

If we really want to compare apples to apples, then you can't use a physical object, unless I am to be there with you.

This is in response to where we draw the line, and who has what rights to one's property. If we strip rights from "intellectual property" why can't we from physical property. It is a question of where to draw the line.



The Super Bowl is a great example of greediness. They have banned Super Bowl parties with TVs bigger than a certain size, because of the amount of people watching in one location.


Haven't heard of this before... Links? Not sure the reasoning behind it unless I have more details. Sounds strange though, since the super bowl is broadcast "over the air," i.e. on airwaves owned by the people of this US of A.

If it were a movie, I could understand. Again, you must PAY for the rights to PUBLICLY PERFORM or DISTRIBUTE another's intellectual property. Just like you RENT a movie, and have the rights to PRIVATELY display it in your home.



The Media Elitist attitude says you must pay something to see/hear this content. You cannot share.


This is not a fair statement. Some things are designed to be shared by everyone (i.e. free "over the air" television), Radio, etc... But some things are not, such as newly released movies, etc... You have the rights to listen to or watch anything that is in the public domain. Not things that are not. Nothing "Elitist" about that. But companies do have rights... Let's remember that.



If the music industry could regulate it, they would make it illegal to play loud enough music for a crowd to hear. They really would. Once you see the whole motive behind it, you'll see that they're not looking out for the "struggling musicians".

Again, struggling musicians are trying to gain an audience, so they take a loss up front. Much the same way capital is invested into a company. It is not the industries job to look out for struggling musicians, but it is the hope of most every struggling musician to "sell out." Nature of the beast.

As for playing music loud enough for a crowd to hear? Yes, that is illegal, because it is again UNAUTHORIZED DISTRIBUTION. Remember, distribution is one of the protected rights of intellectual property. If you have a broadcast license, you are free to broadcast it.



They just want money money money.

And you are a regular Robin Hood, rob from the rich, give to the poor. How noble.



They can put their media in a format that is unshareable. But it wouldn't distrte fast enough. Greed. I oppose that.

Again, your perspective is whacked. MP3's were not created by the "industry." Hackers created it. Napster made it famous. The industry now uses MP3's, but when purchased legally, they are more difficult to distribute. Not impossible, but more regulated than Napster type applications. You can't say the "industry" is behind the MP3s. This is why they are learning how to encrypt their newer media, because they won't make the same mistake twice.

[Sombeech]

If we really want to compare apples to apples, then you can't use a physical object, unless I am to be there with you.

This is in response to where we draw the line, and who has what rights to one's property. If we strip rights from "intellectual property" why can't we from physical property. It is a question of where to draw the line.

If I parked my boat outside on the trailer, with the keys in it, and left it over the weekend at the marina, I deserve to get it stolen.

If greedy artists record in digital format because it's easier to distribute/make money, and they are WELL AWARE of the piracy issue, they deserve to get it stolen.

They could at least just throw it on a flash site like Youtube, and make it more difficult to download and distribute. Otherwise, they can make money with sponsorships and concerts.

[asdf]

NFL puts kibosh on giant-screen Super Bowl parties (http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/02/02/nfl-puts-kibosh-on-giant-screen-super-bowl-parties/)

[Sombeech]

The artists know their material will be shared (if it's requested).

They know of this "danger", but yet, they think "How can I ever be a billionaire if I don't go digital?" So that money fairy keeps pestering them, and they accept the risk.

[CarpeyBiggs]

NFL puts kibosh on giant-screen Super Bowl parties (http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/02/02/nfl-puts-kibosh-on-giant-screen-super-bowl-parties/)

This still doesn't say why it was illegal. There is obviously a reason, the article just doesn't mention it. I'm curious.

[CarpeyBiggs]

The artists know their material will be shared (if it's requested).

They know of this "danger", but yet, they think "How can I ever be a billionaire if I don't go digital?" So that money fairy keeps pestering them, and they accept the risk.

Wait, so now it's the artists who are at fault, not the big media elitists? You've lost me...

[asdf]

NFL puts kibosh on giant-screen Super Bowl parties (http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/02/02/nfl-puts-kibosh-on-giant-screen-super-bowl-parties/)

This still doesn't say why it was illegal. There is obviously a reason, the article just doesn't mention it. I'm curious.

http://www.google.com/search?q=super+bowl+55%22+tv&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[CarpeyBiggs]

If I parked my boat outside on the trailer, with the keys in it, and left it over the weekend at the marina, I deserve to get it stolen.

If greedy artists record in digital format because it's easier to distribute/make money, and they are WELL AWARE of the piracy issue, they deserve to get it stolen.

They could at least just throw it on a flash site like Youtube, and make it more difficult to download and distribute. Otherwise, they can make money with sponsorships and concerts.

I will try to be as polite as possible, but this argument is so far beyond reason that I can't fathom that you are being serious. You have completely changed from hating the recording industry, to now implying that musicians want their music distributed for free...

You are still yet to explain anything about how musicians rights shouldn't be protected. Apparently they "deserve to have their music stolen."

[hank moon]

NFL puts kibosh on giant-screen Super Bowl parties (http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/02/02/nfl-puts-kibosh-on-giant-screen-super-bowl-parties/)

This still doesn't say why it was illegal. There is obviously a reason, the article just doesn't mention it. I'm curious.

Legality is a fluid thing. I suspect the NFL is bullyin'

[CarpeyBiggs]

NFL puts kibosh on giant-screen Super Bowl parties (http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/02/02/nfl-puts-kibosh-on-giant-screen-super-bowl-parties/)

This still doesn't say why it was illegal. There is obviously a reason, the article just doesn't mention it. I'm curious.

http://www.google.com/search?q=super+bowl+55%22+tv&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Thanks, but I'm not going to fish out the answers from a google search. I'm just wondering what the reasoning is, that's all. It may or may not be absurd. Like I said, I'm sure there is some reasonable reason. It probably falls under public performance or distribution or intellectual property, which would again, be illegal. It would be the same as a musician doing a cover of another band at a concert. Sure, it probably happens. But generally, they'd be liable for rights infringement.

[CarpeyBiggs]

Legality is a fluid thing. I suspect the NFL is bullyin'

I agree, it sounds ridiculous. Not sure why they would be mad about this.

[derstuka]

If I parked my boat outside on the trailer, with the keys in it, and left it over the weekend at the marina, I deserve to get it stolen.



Even if you are stupid enough to leave your car in the mall parking lot with the keys in the ignition when you went inside, that doesn't mean that the person taking your car is not a thief, and is not stealing from you. He is a thief and he stole your car.

Sombeech, you get SO MAD and enraged when a person gets something stolen from them (bike, car, etc...), you talk about killing them, beating them to death, or whatnot, well, this is the same, only different because these are big companies. It doesn't seem as wrong because they are big and rich. Bill Gates has tons of money, however, if you use a pirated copies of windows you are still stealing.

Here is a silly analogy. What if I go to eat at a restaurant like Chili's. They have lots of stores, lots of cash, so what if I eat a dinner there and just walk out when nobody is looking? I mean, they have tons of money, so who cares? If they catch me, I will just tell them that instead of paying them I was going to advertise for them by word of mouth. Is this stealing? Not paying for a meal?

Just admit you are a thief and be done with it!!! :2thumbs:

[Sombeech]

You have completely changed from hating the recording industry, to now implying that musicians want their music distributed for free...

Hell, who doesn't want free distribution? But that's not what I'm saying.

Music Industry = recording industry & artists.

I know it's illegal. I'm not arguing that. I'm comparing one form of media sharing to another.

[Sombeech]

If I parked my boat outside on the trailer, with the keys in it, and left it over the weekend at the marina, I deserve to get it stolen.



Even if you are stupid enough to leave your car in the mall parking lot with the keys in the ignition when you went inside, that doesn't mean that the person taking your car is not a thief, and is not stealing from you. He is a thief and he stole your car.

I'm saying the Music Ind. shouldn't be shocked when they expedite their distribution for more profit, and files get shared. That's leaving the keys in the boat for convenience on my next trip. I should take more precautions.


Here is a silly analogy. What if I go to eat at a restaurant like Chili's. They have lots of stores, lots of cash, so what if I eat a dinner there and just walk out when nobody is looking? I mean, they have tons of money, so who cares? If they catch me, I will just tell them that instead of paying them I was going to advertise for them by word of mouth. Is this stealing? Not paying for a meal?

Just admit you are a thief and be done with it!!! :2thumbs:

Again, talking about taking a physical object away from somebody. It doesn't measure up.

And, I don't download music. I don't have Limewire or Bittorrents, nothing. Just like nobody here is a struggling musician.

[Sombeech]

Legality is a fluid thing. I suspect the NFL is bullyin'

I agree, it sounds ridiculous. Not sure why they would be mad about this.

Welcome to my point of view.

[CarpeyBiggs]

I'm saying the Music Ind. shouldn't be shocked when they expedite their distribution for more profit, and files get shared. That's leaving the keys in the boat for convenience on my next trip. I should take more precautions.


Again, not true. The industry isn't the ones distributing files, at least not until iTunes and pay-per-download services convinced them to allow it (with the influence of a checkbook, I'm sure). But that is very recent. The problem with digital files is the public, not the industry. Sorry.



Again, talking about taking a physical object away from somebody. It doesn't measure up.

And on this, we will never agree, I assume. Theft is theft, bottom line.

It's been a fun conversation though. And for what it's worth, I enjoy your videos, so keep posting them. For now, it's time to pack up the rest of the apartment.

[Sombeech]

It's been a fun conversation though. And for what it's worth, I enjoy your videos, so keep posting them. For now, it's time to pack up the rest of the apartment.

Same here bud. Thanks.

Have fun packing. Where are you moving?

EDIT: don't answer that. I'll let you get back to work.

[stefan]

What if I go to eat at a restaurant like Chili's. They have lots of stores, lots of cash, so what if I eat a dinner there and just walk out when nobody is looking? I mean, they have tons of money, so who cares? If they catch me, I will just tell them that instead of paying them I was going to advertise for them by word of mouth. Is this stealing? Not paying for a meal?


Again, talking about taking a physical object away from somebody. It doesn't measure up.


sombeech, i don't understand your response here. could you elaborate please? what isn't a physical object and what isn't measuring up here?

[CarpeyBiggs]

Where are you moving?

EDIT: don't answer that. I'll let you get back to work.

Dude, I'm going high-class. Moving to East Provo, from the west-side. Believe me, it's a day all of us Provoans dream of. Of course, most people dream of living in a house, but for me, my dream is just a room that is 200 square feet or bigger...

Long live the American Dream!

btw, I think my post count went through the roof today... Can I change my description yet?

[Sombeech]

btw, I think my post count went through the roof today... Can I change my description yet?

Yes, to "Struggling Musician" :haha:

[CarpeyBiggs]

btw, I think my post count went through the roof today... Can I change my description yet?

Yes, to "Struggling Musician" :haha:

Nah, but I would be happy with "Sell-Out" Or "Greedier Than Hell"

[asdf]

Dood... There are plenty of Artists that support file sharing.


Chuck D, leader of Public Enemy, vehemently opposes what the industry is trying to do.

"Technology giveth and it taketh away, and the industry knows this," Chuck D said. "The horseshoe makers probably got upset at the train manufacturers because (the new industry) took away their transport dominance, just as the train manufacturers probably got mad at the airline industry."

"I think this expands artistry and it's about adjustment," he said.

"As an artist representing an 80-year period of black musicianship, I never felt that my copyrights were protected anyway," Chuck D said. "I've been spending most of my career ducking lawyers, accountants and business executives who have basically been more blasphemous than file sharers and P2P. I trust the consumer more than I trust the people who have been at the helm of these companies.

"The record industry is hypocritical and the domination has to be shared. P2P to me means 'power to the people,'" Chuck D said. "And let's get this to a balance, and that's what we're talking about."

http://www.wired.com/gadgets/portablemusic/news/2003/10/60650

[donny h]

It's a myth that struggling artists lose out over P2P file swapping.

A typical record contract shafts the artist on cd sales, most bands are lucky if that make 20 cents a cd. That's why most bands don't care about swapping.

If the band has had huge success, and is on their second or third contract, things may change, they begin dictating terms and these bands may make over a dollar or two per cd sale, that's why bands with the stature of Metallica got involved in the issue, despite the public relations fiasco.

There is no such thing as a sweet record deal for a new artist, even if they release it on their own label, they struggle to get radio air time, struggle to get the release on store shelves, and forget about MTV.

The money is in touring.

The music industry is sick and slimey, I swore off buying new cds when the head of the RIAA called anybody who used Napster a "thieving scumbag", like he thinks the folks who download and the folks who buy music are different crowds, when in fact, they are one and the same.

Screw the major labels, if you wanna support a band, buy a cd directly from them.

Also, support bands that allow taping of their shows, they are out there, here's a list limited to bands I've actually seen: The Dead, Allman Bros, String Cheese, Blues Traveler, Gov't Mule, Leftover Salmon, Widespread Panic, Black Crowes, George Clinton/P-Funk, David Crosby, Dark Star Orchestra, David Grisman Band, Ben Harper, Hot Tuna, Robert Hunter, Steve Kimock Band, Little Feat, Los Lobos, Ziggy Marley, moe, The Mother Hips, Phish, Radiators, Ratdog, Rush, Merle Saunders & The Rainforest Band, Eek a Mouse, Toots and the Maytals, Spearhead.

Many of these bands have fought with their labels over taping, and some cannot allow it anymore due to demands from thier label, just another way the labels are happy to screw us.

Don't buy into the labels self-proclaimed victimhood status, they are the problem, not the victims.

[stefan]

Also, support bands that allow taping of their shows, they are out there, here's a list limited to bands I've actually seen: The Dead, Allman Bros, String Cheese, Blues Traveler, Gov't Mule, Leftover Salmon, Widespread Panic, Black Crowes, George Clinton/P-Funk, David Crosby, Dark Star Orchestra, David Grisman Band, Ben Harper, Hot Tuna, Robert Hunter, Steve Kimock Band, Little Feat, Los Lobos, Ziggy Marley, moe, The Mother Hips, Phish, Radiators, Ratdog, Rush, Merle Saunders & The Rainforest Band, Eek a Mouse, Toots and the Maytals, Spearhead.


and so much can be found on the archive in SF ... give it up to the archive :2thumbs:

http://www.archive.org/details/etree

[fouristhenewone]

There's clearly alot to be said on this subject, and quite honestly, no one is ever going to agree to it. That said, most DRM is a poor attempt to close the cookie jar. Most attempts at successful DRM have turned into p.r. failures, and will continue to do so. I think all of you who are discussing this should read some of the material from http://www.eff.org/.

[JP]

Like Beech, I make movies of my hobbies. If video is taken while we're out 4wheelin', depending on what we're doing, I'll make a video for everyone to see that was there. I put music to those videos that I bought from the store. I'm not selling the vids, just using them for viewing purposes with friends.

[sparker1]

This topic is so simple in one perspective: copying copyrighted material without permission is illegal. Case closed. From another perspective, revolution by definition always breaks laws/rules, but happens when the legal thing is not the right thing. We are experiencing a revolution spawned by rapid change in technology. It will break some rules in order to create better rules.

Consider the history of music. Kings had court musicians who earned a decent living. The traveling minstrel sang for the love of it, shared it with anyone willing to listen, and was lucky to earn an occasional meal.

The classical composers and musicians did OK, playing for the wealthy.

The invention of the phonograph and radio made music available to the masses. Musicians did much better due to large volume sales, but the distributors made most of the money and held the rights, generally. Records typically had two songs and sold for a modest amount. Radio was free to consumers, but helped promote record sales.

Along comes Eight track, then Cassettes, then CD's. To get the latest technology, consumers had to pay again, and again. It would seem the physical property (record or tape) was the thing sold, rather than the right. If we had bought the right to a song, we would be allowed to copy to the new format. Not so, per the distributors.

Notice that now music comes with a dozen or so songs and the cost has gone way up. Want a song, buy a dozen. That's the way of monopolists.

New technology allows consumers to not only copy music for personal use, to bridge technologies for example, but to share with their friends known and unknown. Suddenly, distributors claim it's the right they sold, not the physical property. They could easily have used the technology to sell songs to the masses and still get rich, but as monopolists, they want to continue forcing customers to buy more than they want. Both artists and distributors have gotten filthy rich this way, and their greed is boundless.

What is needed is a major change in distribution to meet consumer needs, but the monopolists aren't going down without a fight. I'm not opposed to musicians making a good income, even getting rich if they are good enough. However, the greed in the business currently is now under attack. The air waves are full of music (and other stuff no one cares about) and it will be captured one way or another. The artists and distributors need to recognize the inevitability of this and try to find a new advantageous position.

In short, I hate greedy bastards in whatever business they may be.

[asdf]

The artists and distributors need to recognize the inevitability of this and try to find a new advantageous position.

In short, I hate greedy bastards in whatever business they may be.


:hail2thechief:

[the voice]

This topic is so simple in one perspective: copying copyrighted material without permission is illegal. Case closed. From another perspective, revolution by definition always breaks laws/rules, but happens when the legal thing is not the right thing. We are experiencing a revolution spawned by rapid change in technology. It will break some rules in order to create better rules.

Radio was free to consumers, but helped promote record sales.

Notice that now music comes with a dozen or so songs and the cost has gone way up. Want a song, buy a dozen. That's the way of monopolists.

New technology allows consumers to not only copy music for personal use, to bridge technologies for example, but to share with their friends known and unknown.

What is needed is a major change in distribution to meet consumer needs, but the monopolists aren't going down without a fight. .

Paul McCartney Drops Capitol for -- Starbucks?
Coffee Giant Signs Former Beatle to Its Record Label
By Kate MacArthur
Published: March 21, 2007
CHICAGO (AdAge.com) -- Paul McCartney hasn't just signed on to create an album for Starbucks -- it appears he left Capitol Records after 43 years to do so. ...

By Kate MacArthur
Published: March 26, 2007
CHICAGO (AdAge.com) -- Paul McCartney no longer believes in yesterday's music-business model. In signing with Starbucks' Hear Music label with Concord Records, the ex-Beatle is the latest artist to adopt new means to reach the masses in a music market profoundly different from the one he and his mop-top friends conquered during the 1960s. ...

He debuted the video on utube not MTV.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTNXrkBSp_o

No longer do you have to buy the entire album, just one song or music video.

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?playlistId=257627215&s=143441&i=257627217

Everything in our world is changing, always has, always will.

[quote="sparker1"]From another perspective, revolution by definition always breaks laws/rules, but happens when the legal thing is not the right thing. We are experiencing a revolution spawned by rapid change in technology.[quote]

:rockon: :rockon: :rockon:

[nosivad_bor]

here is a good story on the decline of the record industry

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/15137581/the_record_industrys_decline

In 2000, U.S. consumers bought 785.1 million albums; last year, they bought 588.2 million (a figure that includes both CDs and downloaded albums), according to Nielsen SoundScan. In 2000, the ten top-selling albums in the U.S. sold a combined 60 million copies; in 2006, the top ten sold just 25 million. Digital sales are growing -- fans bought 582 million digital singles last year, up sixty-five percent from 2005, and purchased $600 million worth of ringtones -- but the new revenue sources aren't making up for the shortfall.





and here is a short follow up story asking what is next

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/15152483/the_fall_of_the_record_business_what_next

Theory 1: Ad-Supported Music
Theory 2: Peer-to-Peer Goes Legit
Theory 3: Endless Access Points for Music
Theory 4: Labels Change Their Stripes
Theory 5: Consumers Become Retailers


personally I hope the record companies go bankrupt so a new model can emerge that is less greedy.

[JP]

This topic is so simple in one perspective: copying copyrighted material without permission is illegal. Case closed.
Only if everything else was that easy :haha:

[Sombeech]

Yes, let's fight for the millionaires. :2thumbs:

[Sombeech]

http://img130.imageshack.us/img130/4264/hometapingmt8.jpg