Stance on pirating?

[highfigh]

I would personally assist any aspiring musician, for free, to set up e-shop for their endeavors.

Let's be real for a minute. It's the industry machine that is typically losing money, not the artist. The machine itself robs the artist that puts his/her heart and soul into their craft and is paid pennies on the dollar for their efforts. The performers that take the change they earn and turn it into revenue generating investments, like licensing deals and clothing labels and endorsements, are the ones that make good money. The rest are just lining some executive's pocket. Typically the hand that feeds them is simply sweeping leftover scraps off the table for them to nibble on.

Be careful of what you offer- if too many people see this and take you up on it, you may never have time for anything else. If you really want to do this, check out www.garageband.com

With the easy access to the web, new artists have the opportunity to promote and sell their music or other art with no outside help, which is the polar opposite to how it was and that's one of the reasons the industry is in such bad shape. It's easier than ever to reach a distribution agreement with a retailer and that's good for a lot of people, especially the artist. Now, instead of pennies per sale, it's dollars. It still takes a lot of hard work but it's no longer necessary to sell a million copies in order to break even.

 

[nibhaz]

Marijuana is different than ganking music though, it hurts more people that it is illegal than if it was decriminalized. It doesn't stop anyone from using it, and it puts a lot of non-violent people away in jail, and we've paid billions looking for something much more harmless than the alcohol sold at grocery stores. Some states are coming around, but, it is taking way too long.



Beer and then pot? To get the spins. Bad mix. Herb is best on its own or with less toxic drugs (like shrooms). Marijuana before bed is like the best thing ever.

You'll get no arguments from me on either point

The war on drugs, specifically marijuana, is one biggest waste of tax payer’s money…aagghh, it pisses me off!

 

[highfigh]

This makes perfect sense to me. A copy to try something and then maybe buy it doesn't seem so bad. (Not everyone wants to go to the mall and put on those headsets that every Tom, **** and Harry have had on to test a CD) Same as my buying a CD and then making a copy for my car. Technicly, we broke the copywrite laws, but I don't think they were aiming at us when they were written. It's the people who only copy, and never buy, who are stealing. (Note: If anyone doesn't like the word stealing, they are welcome to use their own word, but it adds up to the same thing) Some people make a living making copies and selling them. That money belongs to someone else.

Making a copy for your own use isn't illegal and has been tested WRT vinyl/cassettes and VCR use. It's when making multiple copies in an effort to avoid paying for the material that the copyright infringement becomes an issue. When someone gets some kind of material (DVD/CD/tape/vinyl) legally and makes many copies, they're depriving the artist of revenue (I don't care as much about the record company but they're the ones with the flock of legal beagles) and it really doesn't matter if the person who gets the copy thinks it's crap, or not.

 

[highfigh]

If you mean, "drinking and driving", yes. I see it. But that wasn't the original statement from Mark.

And his response to my post bore almost no relation to what I wrote.

 

[esox72]

To me there is no difference between piracy and walking into Best Buy and taking it off the shelf. Theft is theft. I don't believe most people that pirate music, movies, or software ever go and buy the retail version.

 

[JerryLove]

Doesn't effect the "right or wrong" argument, but does effect the "hurts the artist" argument (so now someone accusing me of justifying would still be wrong, but it would at least make sense)

There are actually several studies that link piracy in the US to *increased* purchasing.

I've already mentioned how products like Windows benefit from personal piracy.

There are also companies taking advantage of the pirate market. It's been an argument by BioWare about their DLC in their new games: they make money off stolen versions of their software.

There's no real data on this (just like there's no real data on how many pirated CDs would have been bought were the bootleg not available, as opposed to never listened to); but how many people end up at a concert for a band they liked that they heard on a pirated CD? How many (remember, pirates on average buy more too) bought CD #2 at the music store because they torrented CD #1 and loved it?

It is entirely not clear whether any given artist or company is more hurt or helped by piracy. I can think of quite a few people who get pirate versions of PC games to see if they want to buy them or not. Some they might have bought to try out: others they certainly would not have (me, I just buy a lot from the bargain bin).

What's funny to me is, it's exactly the "it's theft" group whose entire argument is damaged by these facts. For me they are irrelevant to copyright.

 

[Nemo128]

To me there is no difference between piracy and walking into Best Buy and taking it off the shelf. Theft is theft. I don't believe most people that pirate music, movies, or software ever go and buy the retail version.

That's actually not even the point. The point is, would they have bought it if they weren't able to pirate it? Fact is, much of the piracy we see is a result of people not being willing to pay for something. This is far more telling in the software industry and in the music industry. Video games and movies honestly are a more gray area, since it is possible to simply rent these forms of entertainment and the prices of those rentals are typically more forgiveable when the product is of subpar quality.

If someone would not have bought the product anyway, no one lost money because there was no potential income. That's like saying a shopper who walks into Best Buy, talks to no store employee, and leaves without buying anything cost Best Buy money. At the very most, they cost the company the money it took to power the automatic doors granting them access to the building.

Especially in the case of music, I would much rather buy the product than pirate it. If I download an album, and it is good quality music, I will buy it just to have the best quality source material to generate my own rip. If there's one good song on an entire album, I would buy the highest bitrate digital file of it I could. But if an album is total trash, how am I not being robbed of my hard earned money by the producers and publishers of the material? It's a two way street. If their efforts are worth money, my efforts to earn the money to spend on their efforts are also worth money, and I expect a quality product for my efforts just as they expect fair compensation for theirs.

 

[nibhaz]

I would personally assist any aspiring musician, for free, to set up e-shop for their endeavors. One of my closest friends when I was slightly younger was an excellent producer who formed a duo with an even more excellent lyricist, and I offered for free to press their discs, design their artwork, and market their material online. I demo'd their EP for many people, and it would have easily been sold by the thousands had they pursued the end result actively. Sadly, they let their lives force them into giving up their passion, but I still have the EP and listen to it regularly. I hate to see great talent go to waste due to stupid setbacks like lack of technical knowledge or minor startup costs.

I hear ya!

I helped the previously mentioned employee with his first album. I got him registered with the RIAA so that he could assign ISRC codes to all of his recordings, and somewhat ironically, completed the copyright process for the album. Easy stuff!

It’s a pretty fun experience to be involved in the process, getting the behind the scenes listen as the various tracks are laid and combined to form a finished product. The hardest thing for me to do was critiquing what he thought was the finished product on my system…it was pretty hard telling him it was over-compressed, but in the end he made changes, and thanked me for it.

 

[Nemo128]

how many people end up at a concert for a band they liked that they heard on a pirated CD?

Jerry, you're exactly right.

Last summer I went to Rock The Bells in Jones Beach theater. Nas and Damian Marley were the headliners, and I wanted to see their performance. Damian Marley made more money off those two $175 front row tickets than he would have made if I bought one copy of his album Welcome to Jam Rock.

I subsequently downloaded it, based on the three songs I heard at the concert. I liked the whole album so much that I bought it.

So piracy haters, explain to me how he, as the artist, made less money???

 

[JerryLove]

To me there is no difference between piracy and walking into Best Buy and taking it off the shelf. Theft is theft. I don't believe most people that pirate music, movies, or software ever go and buy the retail version

You don't believe it but you don't *know* either... and I don't believe the statistics bear you out.

But there are several differences. The main one is that, in the case of stealing a physical CD you've actually committed theft.

It's of interest that, when Best Buy puts the loss on their books, they will not list the retail price. They did not loose $14.99 (or whatever the CD cost); rather they lost what they paid for that CD... and that's exactly what they will put in their balance sheet.

If I walked in to Best Buy and magically made a copy of the CD: what would they put as a loss then? What was their actual cost of nothing? Will an artist be surprised when he goes to his bank and sees all the deductions from his account for "lost revenue"? No.

Thefts are based on real values, not potential values. Copyright infringement is based on potential values, not real ones. This post: unless the agreement I checked to post on this site say otherwise, is copyright to me (ever since the 70s, you don't need to file to be copyright). Anyone repeating what I say, except under fair-use, is violating my copyright. How many dollars do they owe me?

 

[Adam]

This post: unless the agreement I checked to post on this site say otherwise, is copyright to me...

I believe that the agreement makes all content the property of Audioholics. That was my understanding, anyway, and why I don't post content that I might later want to claim as mine.

 

[krzywica]

Making a copy for your own use isn't illegal and has been tested WRT vinyl/cassettes and VCR use. It's when making multiple copies in an effort to avoid paying for the material that the copyright infringement becomes an issue. When someone gets some kind of material (DVD/CD/tape/vinyl) legally and makes many copies, they're depriving the artist of revenue (I don't care as much about the record company but they're the ones with the flock of legal beagles) and it really doesn't matter if the person who gets the copy thinks it's crap, or not.

So by this logic the software I use to host music to myself, my friends, and my family is illegal?

http://www.simplifymedia.com/

Riddle me that.

Also your example/explanation of copyright law is incorect. ANY reproduction of the original material is in breech of the copyright. Technically ripping music to a media server, PC, Ipod, or what have you is in violation of copyright law.

 

[Nemo128]

Best part of all these laws we're discussing? They'd all get scrapped if the companies could make more money on those actions. Legality and rights my @$$, it's all about the $.

 

[JerryLove]

So by this logic the software I use to host music to myself, my friends, and my family is illegal?

That's actually in debate. The first worry is if they call it a "public performance": like when you play loud music in your car.

For example: Amazon was sued for the Kindle reading books aloud. The industry argued that it was not within the right of the book to have it read to you.

The RIAA has, in the past, asserted not only that it may not be legal to rip, but that you don't have a right to perpetual access to the physical CD (that they are legal in disabling media).

So far: the court has not sided with them.

Also your example/explanation of copyright law is incorect. ANY reproduction of the original material is in breech of the copyright. Technically ripping music to a media server, PC, Ipod, or what have you is in violation of copyright law.

There's a "fair use" that allows copying of media you own such as you describe.

The industry has fought against used media: arguing it deprives them of income. They've even made some headway (there's a lot of paperwork selling movies at movie stop now because of changes in the law to make it harder); but again "right of first sale" has prevailed thus-far.

 

[jamie2112]

People suck and thats a fact. Its all about money and I am over it. I will do whatever whenever whereever I please in my own place of course. The music industry has been raping the punters for years with crap acts and overpriced lame production.I have NO sympathy for the lables or Mgmt companies who make money hand over foot and Still whine.........

 

[krzywica]

I just thought of a good point....the people that are hard core pirates aren't just going to come right out and say it on an open forum. I may or may not have some experience in this matter and offer a different perspective than most.

Again....I can neither confirm or deny.

 

[highfigh]

So by this logic the software I use to host music to myself, my friends, and my family is illegal?

http://www.simplifymedia.com/

Riddle me that.

Also your example/explanation of copyright law is incorrect. ANY reproduction of the original material is in breech of the copyright. Technically ripping music to a media server, PC, Ipod, or what have you is in violation of copyright law.

No- if you make a copy for your own personal use, it's OK. A parallel to this is how C-Band satellite equipment users fought against paying license fees to the broadcasters in the '70s and '80s. If the user "profited or benefited from using the broadcast", fees could be collected. That means personal use was OK but if a hotel/motel, bar/restaurant or other venue used it to bring customers into their establishment or charged admission fees, they were required to pay for the use of said broadcast(s). The question of recording from vinyl to another medium was debated ad nauseum in the '70s when I forst got into consumer electronics retailing and we occasionally had people come in claiming to be from RIAA, ASCAP or BMI, trying to charge fees for using pre-recorded music to sell equipment. The EIA fought this on the behalf of retailers all over and won- they also had made it known that for personal use, someone should be able to make a copy of an album because they had already bought the vinyl version and shouldn't be forced to pay for a second, inferior copy when they could make one that sounded better and didn't cost as much.

 

[JerryLove]

No- if you make a copy for your own personal use, it's OK.

Unless you defeated a copy-protection scheme to do it: then it's a violcation of the DCMA.

A parallel to this is how C-Band satellite equipment users fought against paying license fees to the broadcasters in the '70s and '80s. If the user "profited or benefited from using the broadcast", fees could be collected. That means personal use was OK but if a hotel/motel, bar/restaurant or other venue used it to bring customers into their establishment or charged admission fees, they were required to pay for the use of said broadcast(s).

But such prescient has been superseded. You are not allowed to decode DirectTV without paying the company. The ruling is narrowly interpreted. You also cannot legally "steal cable": that is to say watch unencrypted cable signals by manually connecting two wires on the wall of your own house, without paying.

 

[jamie2112]

. You also cannot legally "steal cable": that is to say watch unencrypted cable signals by manually connecting two wires on the wall of your own house, without paying.

I would hope the cable company would turn off the signal at the outside connection point.If not their loss.........

 

[krzywica]

I would hope the cable company would turn off the signal at the outside connection point.If not their loss.........

The majority of the time they do not from what I have seen.