Stevie IS against File Sharing. [Archive]

ontheEdgeof17

01-26-2005, 01:13 PM

Famous folk among those filing briefs on file-sharing
By Jefferson Graham, USA TODAY

An avalanche of music industry professionals, state attorneys general and educators, as well as U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, filed briefs with the Supreme Court Tuesday asking to have a controversial Internet file-sharing decision overturned.

The top court is scheduled in March to hear the case of the record labels and movie studios, vs. file-sharing companies Grokster and Morpheus. Lower courts found that users of their systems were liable for copyright infringement, but the owners weren't.

Among those who filed briefs: The Eagles, the Dixie Chicks, Bonnie Raitt, Sheryl Crow, Stevie Nicks, Tom Jones and Beach Boys founder Brian Wilson.

"There is no more important case for the future of our business," said Don Henley of the Eagles. "These systems promote copyright violations on an unprecedented scale."

About 13 billion songs were available for unauthorized free trading on online swap networks in 2004, according to Internet measurement service BigChampagne. Around 200 million songs last year were sold to consumers at authorized sites such as Apple's iTunes and Yahoo's Musicmatch.

The flip side to the music and movie industry position is that overturning the Grokster case would stifle innovation.

Supporters point to the 1984 Betamax ruling, when the high court said that VCRs weren't liable for copyright infringement, a decision that ultimately paved the way for new products such as today's iPod digital music device and TiVo digital video recorder.

"Betamax established a clear legal principle," says Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, which plans to file its own briefs next month in support of Grokster/Morpheus.

"A product is legal if it has legal uses," he says. "We're petrified of what the court could do to limit new technology."

The number of people rounded up by the studios and labels to urge the court to overturn the decision could seem daunting, but Fred von Lohmann, one of the lawyers representing Grokster, says it was no different in 1984.

"All the prominent movie stars of the day talked about how the VCR was the death of Hollywood," he says. "The court wasn't fooled then by the parochial interests of one industry, and it won't be now."

Michael Weiss, CEO of StreamCast, which owns Morpheus, said companies like his "can be part of the solution for the future of digital distribution of entertainment and is not part of the problem."

skcin

01-26-2005, 01:19 PM

I'm not really surprised. :shrug:

ontheEdgeof17

01-26-2005, 01:23 PM

I'm not really surprised. :shrug:

Th artists who filed look like a Stevie and Friends Concert. :lol:

seeker007nmss

01-26-2005, 01:24 PM

LilyRose

01-26-2005, 01:57 PM

But this really isn't about the bootlegged songs that were released without her consent.

This is about legally released songs that are on albums being shared illegally through the internet.

Susie

skcin

01-26-2005, 02:15 PM

Th artists who filed look like a Stevie and Friends Concert. :lol:

Funny, because it's true :nod:

amber

01-26-2005, 02:17 PM

Th artists who filed look like a Stevie and Friends Concert. :lol:
:laugh: :lol: :laugh: :lol:
I was thinking that. What, did they all go to the same party.?

tommer

01-26-2005, 02:32 PM

i don't see the point here, that's so ridiculous, i bet the vast majority of her income now comes from live concerts, if she still made any real money from her recent recordings (something i somehow doubt), that's still nothing compared to her tours earnings. i'll also bet that if you'd take the money she makes from an album, and split by the time she spends working on it, you'll find that by the hour, she DOES make less than a cleaning lady.

if you consider the sad truth that she's not that popular anymore in the media which is aimed towards younger audience, file sharing is a brilliant alternative way to reach them, and have them pay those absurd tickets prices.

LilyRose

01-26-2005, 02:39 PM

tommer

01-26-2005, 02:52 PM

Maybe she doesn't get much money from sales, but it still doesn't make illegal sharing right.

i think that sharing is one of the finest qualities of mankind. right now, ANY file sharing is illegal, but hey, you can not prevent people from sharing, coz in a civilized society that's what they do almost naturally in every aspect in their social behaviour.

strandinthewind

01-26-2005, 02:57 PM

WARNING DANGER WILL ROBINSON DANGER WARNING WARNING

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

LilyRose

01-26-2005, 02:59 PM

i think that sharing is one of the finest qualities of mankind. right now, ANY file sharing is illegal, but hey, you can not prevent people from sharing, coz in a civilized society that's what they do almost naturally in every aspect in their social behaviour.

Yo, I said "illegal sharing". I'm not talking about sharing in general, I'm not talking about social behavior, I'm talking about the topic at hand. I'm not going to get all over dramatic and turn this into something it's not...I don't have the time.

SUsie

tommer

01-26-2005, 03:10 PM

Yo, I said "illegal sharing". I'm not talking about sharing in general, I'm not talking about social behavior, I'm talking about the topic at hand. I'm not going to get all over dramatic and turn this into something it's not...I don't have the time.

yeah, apparently you didn't have the time to think about what i wrote, i noted that there is no such thing as "legal sharing". what i'm saying is that sharing would always be there, whether you decide to call legal or illegal.

Mageboy25

01-26-2005, 03:40 PM

working on it, you'll find that by the hour, she DOES make less than a cleaning lady.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

dissention

01-26-2005, 03:41 PM

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

These people are still too stupid to acknowledge file sharing as helping a dying industry.

As for Stevie joining into this hoopla, whatever. I'm sure there's just a gigantic market for pirated copies of Running Through the Garden and Too Far From Texas that none of us know about. :rolleyes:

KateTheCursed

01-26-2005, 03:43 PM

Not that my opinion matters much, but I have to say I agree with Susie. Whether or not I agree with the rational behind artists and musicians trying to put a hault to illegal sharing. (For the record I think you make a very interesting and compelling argument, LilyRose, regarding the benefits that a mature artists could reap from file sharing.) I cannot argue with their right to pursue legal action. It is their art. It is their craft. It is their labor of love and if they want to make a legal stand in an effor to protect that it is their right. And frankly whether she garners 90% of her income from sales or 1/100th of a % of her income from sales is irrelevant. Taking is taking.

Serrart

01-26-2005, 04:17 PM

I imagined she was against it, but the people who adore her are so cruel... no seriously, file-sharing has been helping me to know much more about her music, besides the records and the videos that I bought in normal stores. I know she wouldn't be pleased but I don't feel really guilty doing it.

Romy

Livia

01-26-2005, 04:21 PM

I am curious if that is her - personally- or the record management. I had a chance to ask her in person many years ago about bootlegs, and her only quam was that the songs weren't complete, but once they were out they were out. She didn't seem to care too much about it at the time.

It's definitely her - 'cause "She writes the songs that make the whooooole woooooorld siiiiiing." Illegal file sharing prevents the writers from earning royalties.

Did you ask Stevie about the bootlegs on one of those Rockline radio shows? I seem to remember that....

Oh, and remember - some of those people on the bandwagon w/ her (Tom Petty, Sheryl Crow) did that Concert for Artists Rights w/ Don Henley, back in 2001?

paleshadow

01-26-2005, 05:07 PM

I am curious if that is her - personally- or the record management. I had a chance to ask her in person many years ago about bootlegs, and her only quam was that the songs weren't complete, but once they were out they were out. She didn't seem to care too much about it at the time.

This is one more example of Stevie saying different things about the same subject. If you look at question #6 in the Ask Stevie section of the Nicks Fix she said that it "Greatly upsets me that people came into my life and stole my tapes". The answer was even a hand written note and "stole my tapes" was underlined, so you know she meant it!
Now, I can see how the older stuff got out because during much of the time during those years she was still on coke, but recent demos and unreleased songs are still surfacing. I wonder what the real source of this stuff is. If it upset her so much you'd think she would be more careful about it?

Livia

01-26-2005, 05:20 PM

Here's another article:

Top 40 (http://top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=12935)

LilyRose

01-26-2005, 05:22 PM

Johnny Stew

01-26-2005, 05:52 PM

As for Stevie joining into this hoopla, whatever. I'm sure there's just a gigantic market for pirated copies of Running Through the Garden and Too Far From Texas that none of us know about. :rolleyes:

:laugh: Wiseass. :xoxo:

But if you check Peer2Peer services like WinMX and KaZaA, thousands of people have "Landslide," "Rhiannon," "Dreams," "Gold Dust Woman," "Silver Springs," "Edge Of Seventeen," "Stand Back," and quite a number of her others.
So even though there's not a massive market for her newer songs, a good chunk of the royalties she'd still be making on the older songs IS probably being damaged.

Quite honestly, I have mixed emotions about file sharing. I love it when it comes to hard-to-find and/or unreleased stuff, like live concerts, remixes, etc. But when it comes to album tracks, I'm not so fond of the idea.
I have to admit though that I have downloaded album tracks by artists whose material I was only slightly familiar with, in order to see if I'd want to own an entire album... so having that abillity is a welcome thing.
It's just a shame that it gets abused (ie: people downloading entire albums and never owning a commercially released copy).

Also, a great deal of Stevie's material is available to download LEGALLY now, through services like Rhapsody, iTunes, Walmart's Music Downloads, etc.
For less than a dollar.
So it's not like she's completely turned a blind-eye to the idea of online song downloading... she's simply balking at the illegal side of it.

amber

01-26-2005, 06:06 PM

:laugh: Wiseass. :xoxo:

But if you check Peer2Peer services like WinMX and KaZaA, thousands of people have "Landslide," "Rhiannon," "Dreams," "Gold Dust Woman," "Silver Springs," "Edge Of Seventeen," "Stand Back," and quite a number of her others.
So even though there's not a massive market for her newer songs, a good chunk of the royalties she'd still be making on the older songs IS probably being damaged.

Quite honestly, I have mixed emotions about file sharing. I love it when it comes to hard-to-find and/or unreleased stuff, like live concerts, remixes, etc. But when it comes to album tracks, I'm not so fond of the idea.
I have to admit though that I have downloaded album tracks by artists whose material I was only slightly familiar with, in order to see if I'd want to own an entire album... so having that abillity is a welcome thing.
It's just a shame that it gets abused (ie: people downloading entire albums and never owning a commercially released copy).

Also, a great deal of Stevie's material is available to download LEGALLY now, through services like Rhapsody, iTunes, Walmart's Music Downloads, etc.
For less than a dollar.
So it's not like she's completely turned a blind-eye to the idea of online song downloading... she's simply balking at the illegal side of it.
Oh.My.God. Fav. Sig. Ever!!!! (along with trackie's "great odin's raven!! will farrell "cowbell" one)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup: :xoxo:

markolas

01-26-2005, 06:47 PM

I've never understood how "file sharing" is any different from those book clubs people used to organize, where one person would buy a book and circulate it among the group.

I think the idea of an actual recording being subject to copyright laws is ridiculous. Music and lyrics, yes...recordings, no.

flyfirefly

01-26-2005, 06:55 PM

file sharing is a brilliant alternative way to reach them, and have them pay those absurd tickets prices.

But don't you think she should get to decide?

In comparison to other artists' prices, the tickets for 2003-04 tour were hardly absurd. High, yes. Not substantially more than other artists of the same calibre.

seeker007nmss

01-26-2005, 07:17 PM

I think they have learned NOTHING from the VHS - Cassette - history. They all screamed it would kill the industry , and now people own more movies than ever. Time to adapt and inovate. The fact of sharing is so popular is a reaction to the way they have been running the music industry into the ground. Take it away from the bean counters and give it back to the artists,

so there..... :mad: :p :mad:

77Rumours77

01-26-2005, 10:22 PM

Johnny Stew

01-26-2005, 11:39 PM

Oh.My.God. Fav. Sig. Ever!!!! (along with trackie's "great odin's raven!! will farrell "cowbell" one)
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :thumbsup: :xoxo:

:xoxo:
Thanks, Amber! I saw it in the window and just couldn't resist. ;)

catinthedark

01-27-2005, 12:15 AM

First off, there IS a difference between sharing commercially released music and sharing demos, outtakes, concert boots, etc. The latter would not be earning the artist any money, so the sharing of songs between fans only serves only to share the love. As soon as someone makes a CD of those demos and tried to sell it on eBay, then it's a different story. THAT'S illegal. But my downloading someone's crummy boot of a SYW tour concert and playing it in my car is not going to take money out of FM's pocket.

As for the argument that downloading music is simply the new reality and these artists have to "get with it" - I don't buy it. Yes, downloading is incredibly easy and convenient. I downloaded three songs tonight myself - that I paid for and bought off of a legal site. I don't get why people think they are "entitled" to an artist's work for free. Do you think because it's hanging in a public museum that you can just go and "download" a Picasso off the wall? Not quite. It's stealing. Downloading an artist's creation, which is what music is, when it is commercially available, is stealing from them. The people who don't buy albums anymore are the ones who are killing the music industry - and driving up prices. I just don't get the whole entitlement thing. You are not entitled to anyone's music. It is their gift - you should be honoured that you get to experience it. Would you want to go to work everyday for 8 hours a day, but only get paid for 4? Didn't think so.

Think about it the next time you download a song for free. Then go find a legal site and splurge on the whole 99 cents it costs to download a tune legally.

Kelly

01-27-2005, 07:22 AM

Stevie's stolen and leaked demos are a completely different issue than the topic at hand. It is very hard to understand how and why people feel entitled to download entire cds, such as Say You Will. Whether or not Stevie needs the money is not the point. Whether it draws people to concerts is not the point. The point is Stevie owns the rights to her songs. They are her art, her creation, her vision. It is stealing no matter how you try to justify it. I am guilty of downloading demos and having BN on cd but I have never downloaded an entire commercially available album. Nor have I asked someone to burn me a copy of one. Just because Stevie may not be the most mainstream of artists anymore does not mean she is not afforded the same legal protection as Usher or The Dixie Chicks. Perhaps this has nothing to do with money in Stevie's mind and everything to do with principal.

markolas

01-27-2005, 08:20 AM

GateandGarden

01-27-2005, 11:05 AM

amber

01-27-2005, 12:08 PM

What about copying a CD I bought and giving it to someone else? Is that stealing, too? How about letting someone read a book that I purchased? The line between that and file sharing seems awfully blurry to me.
Well, when my friend did that, and I accepted the CD, Many people here on the ledge called me a scurvy, stealing whore, no better than a mangy cur.
So, I bet some people will say that's stealing... :wavey: :laugh:

ontheEdgeof17

01-27-2005, 12:45 PM

Many people here on the ledge called me a scurvy, stealing whore, no better than a mangy cur.

Sounds about right. :wavey: :lol:

I kid.

GateandGarden

01-27-2005, 02:10 PM

Well, when my friend did that, and I accepted the CD, Many people here on the ledge called me a scurvy, stealing whore, no better than a mangy cur.No way! :xoxo: :wavey:

tommer

01-27-2005, 02:12 PM

before we continue screaming the music corporates' arguments so loudly here, i'd like to point out some missed issues if you don't mind.

1. The Internet appears to be benefiting more musicians than it hurts. READ (http://www.synthtopia.com/news/2004_01-04/MostMusiciansDontSeeBenef.html)
2. in fact, it is those poor record companies who phuck the artists. (remember Courtney's letter?) (http://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy2.html)
3. there is no direct correlation between file swapping and music sales, in fact, they were both on the rise in 2004.

thank you. do continue now.

DrummerDeanna

01-27-2005, 02:23 PM

I honestly have no opinion whatsoever on this topic - I prefer cds - I like having the tangible cd in my collection - I can't afford an IPod and really have no use at this time for downloaded music of the internet...perhaps if I did I'd have more of an opinion on this :shrug:

dissention

01-27-2005, 02:39 PM

Well, when my friend did that, and I accepted the CD, Many people here on the ledge called me a scurvy, stealing whore, no better than a mangy cur.
So, I bet some people will say that's stealing... :wavey: :laugh:

That was absurd. I'll make you a copy of any one of my Mac CDs, they aren't hurting for the cash and the stars above know just how much we've given them over the years. I think my monetary contributions alone have insured that LeeLee Buckingham will get the braces she needs when she reaches that stage.

strandinthewind

01-27-2005, 02:51 PM

That was absurd. I'll make you a copy of any one of my Mac CDs, they aren't hurting for the cash and the stars above know just how much we've given them over the years. I think my monetary contributions alone have insured that LeeLee Buckingham will get the braces she needs when she reaches that stage.

How Robin Hood of you :rolleyes:

Who are you to make that judgement call and, more importantly, where do you draw the line? How about here - I think the next time someone wants your services, you should just count your blessings (which are many to some if not most) and give your time, materials, etc. away for free, which is EXACTLY what you are asking (actually you are not even asking - you are stealing) LB, FM and other artists to do when you give away a commercially available product to someone so they do not have to buy it.

That is pathetic and you know it, but refuse to apply it to yourself :rolleyes: Whatever.

P.S. Lest this encites a riot, stealing is stealing and to justify it just because you think someone has made enough money is just flat out wrong.

Caveat - this in no way means that the music industry is not an idiot for not seeing the value of the net in marketing, etc. That is an unrealted topic to you deciding on your own that artists have made too much money and therefore it is okay to steal their commerically available product.

dissention

01-27-2005, 02:56 PM

How Robin Hood of you :rolleyes:

:D :xoxo: :angel:

strandinthewind

01-27-2005, 02:58 PM

:D :xoxo: :angel:

I know I know - I harp on that issue too much :cool:

dissention

01-27-2005, 03:03 PM

I know I know - I harp on that issue too much :cool:

I'm just starting to wonder if you're a lawyer for the music industry. You wanted to see Amber prosecuted for "stealing" Say You Will a couple of months ago, dear. :laugh:

strandinthewind

01-27-2005, 03:12 PM

I'm just starting to wonder if you're a lawyer for the music industry. You wanted to see Amber prosecuted for "stealing" Say You Will a couple of months ago, dear. :laugh:

I said she should be prosecuted - I think not :cool: I just pointed out that she should have gone to the store and bought it like people are supposed to do and if she could not afford it, she should have done without it or something else for awhile until she could. People do that everyday. Her situation was a little different because someone gave it to her, but that is still receiving stolen goods in that the intent was not to buy another commercially available product :shrug: So, I stand by that even though people think it is cruel of me to assert that not everything in this world is free and that taking someone else's commercially available product is just wrong - period. I mean I am sure GM has made enough money, should I just go appropriate a car I cannot afford for myself? How about one of my rich neighbor's cars - I mean screw them, they have enough already and if not, they have enough money to go and buy another one. It is all the same to me. Also, I am using Amber as an example only because you brought her up AND I like Amber - we just disagree on this topic :cool:

Personally, I think the music industry should find a way to maket this and make money off of it. I think that if you counted all of the SYW downloads, the tally would be in the millions, which is WAY more than the record sold. But, they are slow to act and I think it will cost them because people in general do not care that they are stealing, esp. when no one is going to catch them and or doing anything about it other than, maybe, tell them to stop :shrug:

dissention

01-27-2005, 03:20 PM

I said she should be prosecuted - I think not :cool: I just pointed out that she should have gone to the store and bought it like people are supposed to do and if she could not afford it, she should have done without it or something else for awhile until she could. People do that everyday. Her situation was a little different because someone gave it to her, but that is still receiving stolen goods in that the intent was not to buy another commercially available product :shrug: So, I stand by that even though people think it is cruel of me to assert that not everything in this world is free and that taking someone else's commercially available product is just wrong - period. I mean I am sure GM has made enough money, should I just go appropriate a car I cannot afford for myself? How about one of my rich neighbor's cars - I mean screw them, they have enough already and if not, they have enough money to go and buy another one. It is all the same to me. Also, I am using Amber as an example only because you brought her up AND I like Amber - we just disagree on this topic :cool:

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=215463&postcount=22

Sounds to me like a ringing endorsement for her prosecution. :laugh:

I, personally, find it silly to equate stealing a car and "stealing" a $10 piece of plastic that you're going to buy eventually, which is what Amber said she was going to do. Should she just go without until she can afford to buy it? Maybe. But if she's going to buy it anyway, why should she go without? They won't be losing any money. :shrug:

Personally, I think the music industry should find a way to maket this and make money off of it. I think that if you counted all of the SYW downloads, the tally would be in the millions, which is WAY more than the record sold.

That would be assuming that without available downloads, people would actually go out and buy the album for one or two tracks, therefore benefitting the artist financially. And that's not realistic, IMO.

strandinthewind

01-27-2005, 03:28 PM

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=215463&postcount=22

Sounds to me like a ringing endorsement for her prosecution. :laugh:

I, personally, find it silly to equate stealing a car and "stealing" a $10 piece of plastic that you're going to buy eventually, which is what Amber said she was going to do. Should she just go without until she can afford to buy it? Maybe. But if she's going to buy it anyway, why should she go without? They won't be losing any money. :shrug: . . .

Sighes - the quote said:

Originally Posted by amber
oh, hush, Mr. No Votey. What was i supposed to do? be all "no, i'm sorry, i can't accept this thoughtful gift, it was dl'd"? ok, how bout this - you send me $15, and i'll buy Say You Will with it... :D Deal?

How about this - if someone ever steals anything you are selling - I hope you are as willing to accept that lame ass excuse and not prosecute them. That you cannot afford $15.00 is complete and utter bullshi& and you damn well know it :mad:

Thus, I was saying that if someone steals from her - I hope she is forgiving. But, I never said she should be prosecuted for accepting that disc. Nice try though :wavey:
________________________

Also, I have no problem with downloading it and then buying it soon thereafter. So, I am not talking about that. In fact, if people could be trusted to do so, which I think we all know the vast majority cannot, that would be a GREAT marketing tool.

Also, I think we should drop this, because our conversation is bringing Amber into it and that is not fair to her :nod:

dissention

01-27-2005, 03:34 PM

Yes, let's drop it. Because Miss glitter_fades said it better than I ever could have:

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showpost.php?p=216346&postcount=46

:wavey:

strandinthewind

01-27-2005, 03:56 PM

On a different note and not involving other Legies in the conversation :cool:

Here is some info. on the legality of this:

http://mp3.about.com/library/weekly/aa061200.htm

Go to Jail for Downloading?

Downloading MP3's Could Be Stealing
Is it illegal to download music from the Internet? I mean, can you really go to jail for it?

Music industry officials have threatened as much. As early as 1999, some executives proposed that "a student or other individual found downloading illegal MP3 tracks (should) go to jail as a clear signal that piracy will not be tolerated in the US."

Some say copyright laws should be changed to reflect the new digital reality. Whether copyright laws and regulations should be revised or scrapped has been a hot discussion topic for several years. Still, the question remains: under current law, is downloading MP3's illegal?

First, we need to make it clear that MP3 is just a file format (see The ABC's of MP3 ), so you cannot make a blanket statement that all MP3's are illegal. Indeed, the vast majority of MP3 files found on the Web are perfectly legal, put up there by unknown bands who want to get noticed or by established artists promoting their current material.

What is illegal is unauthorized copying of commercial music. This usually means MP3's that are made from CD's and then put on the Net by individuals who haven't sought permission from the artist or music company. Most MP3 files traded with one of the post-Napster programs violate copyright law.

To put it simply, you may make a copy of your own CD for your personal use. That means you may record it to a cassette tape or rip it to MP3 files. You may not, however, give this copy to another person. Many people believe that if no money is involved, then no law has been broken. This is false. Whether you give the copy away or sell it, this is still a violation of copyright law. (See Ten Big Myths about Copyright Explained).

So, can you go to jail for this? It isn't very likely, but you could find yourself in court as the defendant in a nasty civil suit. The Copyright Law of the United States addresses "Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media" in Title 17, Chapter 10 (.pdf file) Remedies mentioned there are limited to civil judgments and violators may be forced to pay "actual damages." In other words, violators could be forced to pay large fines, but would not be sent to jail.

Chapter 12 of the U.S. Copyright law does call for criminal penalties for big-time violators. It states:

Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain —(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and (2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

You can find out more on the U.S. Copyright Office Home Page. Most countries have laws similar to those of the U.S., even if enforcement is sometimes laxer than in the States.

The bottom line? Distributing copies of commercial music is illegal. If you really want a band's music, and they aren't offering it free on the Net, show your support by purchasing the CD!
_____________________________________________________________

others:

http://encarta.msn.com/college_article_campusmusicswappers/File-sharing_blues.html

http://www.whatsthedownload.com/whats_the_controversy/sued_for_a_song/index.aspx

http://www.musicunited.org/

In the end, most people are cowards. They are not scared to steal on the net, yet would they have the courage to steal the music from Target. I mean the much ballyhooed but specious logic that "screw the band and indutry they make enough money" is the same. Yet, few have the sand to do that. Why? Well, because they would get caught. Thus, cowardice of commercial music file theft. Even greater is the hypocrisy of it. Again, I think all who download commercially available music lose the right to complain if such or similar action is ever done to them.

Nixxxed

01-27-2005, 03:59 PM

I agree with

strandinthewind

01-27-2005, 04:00 PM

I agree with

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

dissention

01-27-2005, 04:01 PM

In the end, most people are cowards. They are not scared to steal on the net, yet would they have the courage to steal the music from Target. I mean the much ballyhooed but specious logic that "screw the band and indutry they make enough money" is the same. Yet, few have the sand to do that. Why? Well, because they would get caught. Thus, cowardice of commercial music file theft. Even greater is the hypocrisy of it. Again, I think all who download commercially available music lose the right to complain if such or similar action is ever done to them.

That's bull****. I just don't know how to get the CDs out of the plastic security cases. :p :laugh:

strandinthewind

01-27-2005, 04:01 PM

That's bull****. I just don't know how to get the CDs out of the plastic security cases. :p :laugh:

your tongue is sharp enough to cut that with :cool: :xoxo: :angel: :D :wavey:

dissention

01-27-2005, 04:04 PM

your tongue is sharp enough to cut that with :cool: :xoxo: :angel: :D :wavey:

:lol:

I used to steal CDs all the time from a K Mart I lived near when I was in my early teens. They had one of those horrific "K Mart Cafe's", but the entrances and exits didn't have the security detectors, so I'd just walk in and out with stacks of CDs. :laugh:

strandinthewind

01-27-2005, 04:05 PM

:lol:

I used to steal CDs all the time from a K Mart I lived near when I was in my early teens. They had one of those horrific "K Mart Cafe's", but the entrances and exits didn't have the security detectors, so I'd just walk in and out with stacks of CDs. :laugh:

:eek: :eek: you are sooooo going STRAIGHT to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Nixxxed

01-27-2005, 04:09 PM

First off, there IS a difference between sharing commercially released music and sharing demos, outtakes, concert boots, etc. The latter would not be earning the artist any money, so the sharing of songs between fans only serves only to share the love. As soon as someone makes a CD of those demos and tried to sell it on eBay, then it's a different story. THAT'S illegal. But my downloading someone's crummy boot of a SYW tour concert and playing it in my car is not going to take money out of FM's pocket.

I totally agree with everything you said -- I'm just playing Devil's Advocate...

What about the people who don't buy a ticket for any show on the concert tour, knowing they can probably dl a show bootleg instead?

Also, I'm glad the industry has finally caught up and is offering more stuff for legal download, but I think 99-cents is still too high. Especially after seeing all those news report pie charts that show how the costs of a CD/DVD are really distributed. The actual music recording cost and artist royalty section is something like 25%. The other 75% is for production, marketing, and admin costs, which you're not even getting with a song download. I mean -- you don't get a disc, no booklet, and you're not buying from a store so no real distribution cost, etc...

amber

01-27-2005, 04:40 PM

:eek: :eek: you are sooooo going STRAIGHT to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D :D :D :D :D :D
oh, nice. He steals STACKS of CD's and gets smiley guy from you. My friend gives me one unasked for CD and i get the riot act and a big ol' frowny. I see. I see how it is. :laugh: BTW, I have never stolen a CD. :)

SuzeQuze

01-27-2005, 05:38 PM

It is stealing technically to make a copy of a CD and give it to someone or to take one. But is it "wrong"? Probably. Should someone fry for sharing a CD? I don't think so! A CD you weren't going to buy anyway? If people really like a band they're going to buy the CD to support them. Most are anyway, most people are honest. There will always be the few that really push it but they're not the majority.

The music industry was successfully sued and had to pay folks that were part of the class action money for price fixing. They jack the prices way up. Does that make it right to take music? No. Does it make you want to take some to stick it to them, you bet your *ss. :laugh: But really, $15 - $20 for a CD? It's just crazy. Again, does that justify things? No.

I just think there's a lot of gray area here. I wouldn't hold file sharing against anyone but that's just me. I mean, someone who willfully distributed massive amounts of free mp3s of commercial music is different from sharing a few files with my roommate or coworker.

Copyright does get excessive too. Disney keeps on extending their copyrights somehow. They're supposed to run out after a certain number of years and then the material should be part of the public domain. I believe that early Mickey should be now, but they keep on getting the copyright extended. How long should they be extended? I know that this isn't directly related to the issue of current music being shared but it's an interesting fact.

strandinthewind

01-27-2005, 05:39 PM

oh, nice. He steals STACKS of CD's and gets smiley guy from you. My friend gives me one unasked for CD and i get the riot act and a big ol' frowny. I see. I see how it is. :laugh: BTW, I have never stolen a CD. :)

Well, I figure I have to correct him so much that he needs an easy ride every now and then ;) :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

strandinthewind

01-27-2005, 05:44 PM

. . .Copyright does get excessive too. Disney keeps on extending their copyrights somehow. They're supposed to run out after a certain number of years and then the material should be part of the public domain. I believe that early Mickey should be now, but they keep on getting the copyright extended. How long should they be extended? I know that this isn't directly related to the issue of current music being shared but it's an interesting fact.

The worst I have EVER seen was when the Olympics came to Atlanta in 1996. MARTA, the local subway/bus system, printed up tokens with the Olympic seal on then. The Olympic people wanted MARTA to assure them that ALL tokens would be collected and DESTROYED after the games because that is when the license to use it expired. MANY people here collected the tokens just out of spite and to give the finger to the Olympic big wigs :laugh:

Related, the Olympics are fun to watch and the atheletes are stellar, but the people that run it on the international level are the biggest bunch of crooks I have ever seen :mad: They literally personally and professionally extort money from everyone and then the one that gives the most gets the games - then these jerks really go for the jugular. CREEPS!!!!

SuzeQuze

01-27-2005, 05:57 PM

The worst I have EVER seen was when the Olympics came to Atlanta in 1996. MARTA, the local subway/bus system, printed up tokens with the Olympic seal on then. The Olympic people wanted MARTA to assure them that ALL tokens would be collected and DESTROYED after the games because that is when the license to use it expired. MANY people here collected the tokens just out of spite and to give the finger to the Olympic big wigs :laugh:

Related, the Olympics are fun to watch and the atheletes are stellar, but the people that run it on the international level are the biggest bunch of crooks I have ever seen :mad: They literally personally and professionally extort money from everyone and then the one that gives the most gets the games - then these jerks really go for the jugular. CREEPS!!!!

I never heard that stuff about the Olympic peeps. I guess Salt Lake City must've paid a pretty penny. And now we have Romney as governor. Bleck.

amber

01-27-2005, 06:19 PM

Well, I figure I have to correct him so much that he needs an easy ride every now and then ;) :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:
Wow! You actually found the only acceptable answer to that! :lol: :thumbsup: Just kidding, sort of. :wavey:

dissention

01-27-2005, 06:21 PM

And now we have Romney as governor. Bleck.

Double bleck.

How a f*cking Mormon from Utah got elected as governor in Massachusetts is one of life's great mysteries (though it did help that O'Brien ran against him, of all people :rolleyes: ). But he's on his way out, so I'm pretty much over it.

SuzeQuze

01-27-2005, 06:23 PM

Wow! You actually found the only acceptable answer to that! :lol: :thumbsup: Just kidding, sort of. :wavey:

By the way, Amber, I would share any of my songs with you :D. Just don't tell. ;)

My roommate got caught stealing CDs as a teen, it wasn't her proudest moment. :distress: We've been friends a long *ss time. No more stealing CDs Ryan, you little... :laugh: I used to steal makeup in my teens. :shocked:

SuzeQuze

01-27-2005, 06:26 PM

Double bleck.

How a f*cking Mormon from Utah got elected as governor in Massachusetts is one of life's great mysteries (though it did help that O'Brien ran against him, of all people :rolleyes: ). But he's on his way out, so I'm pretty much over it.

Honestly, I think it was about appearances. Sad but true. She was sort of sloppy and he's all slick "looking like" a governor. But you're right, he's out.

amber

01-27-2005, 06:30 PM

Honestly, I think it was about appearances. Sad but true. She was sort of sloppy and he's all slick "looking like" a governor. But you're right, he's out.
I always think, about politicians, that there is a reason why they don't spend more on education. They want the American public to be dumb. It's the way they can push their bull****, and still have people elect them. My theory is,
A-holes love power... :shrug: And it's a boon to them how soo many Americans can be swayed by appearances. :cool:

markolas

01-27-2005, 07:17 PM

Who are you to make that judgement call and, more importantly, where do you draw the line? How about here - I think the next time someone wants your services, you should just count your blessings (which are many to some if not most) and give your time, materials, etc. away for free, which is EXACTLY what you are asking (actually you are not even asking - you are stealing) LB, FM and other artists to do when you give away a commercially available product to someone so they do not have to buy it.

Oh, this is such bull****...if I buy a CD, it's *my* CD, and I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. Like I said, the idea of copyright laws pertaining to actual recordings is f*cking ridiculous, and it's something the record companies made up to squeeze money out of those of us who actually *work* for our money.

I'm not saying anymore. Your ideas on this subject are beyond ridiculous. :D

dissention

01-27-2005, 07:22 PM

Honestly, I think it was about appearances. Sad but true. She was sort of sloppy and he's all slick "looking like" a governor. But you're right, he's out.

She was a wet rag, simply put. She had the personality of a soda cracker and f*cked up the treasury so badly that even I had a hard time voting for her. But now we have Romney and he's the devil incarnate.

strandinthewind

01-27-2005, 07:25 PM

catinthedark

01-27-2005, 11:37 PM

I totally agree with everything you said -- I'm just playing Devil's Advocate...

What about the people who don't buy a ticket for any show on the concert tour, knowing they can probably dl a show bootleg instead?

Also, I'm glad the industry has finally caught up and is offering more stuff for legal download, but I think 99-cents is still too high. Especially after seeing all those news report pie charts that show how the costs of a CD/DVD are really distributed. The actual music recording cost and artist royalty section is something like 25%. The other 75% is for production, marketing, and admin costs, which you're not even getting with a song download. I mean -- you don't get a disc, no booklet, and you're not buying from a store so no real distribution cost, etc...

I'm answreing this before reading through the rest of the answers - so sorry if what I write's been said already. Question was asked to me - so I want to answer. First off, thanks for the vote of support. :thumbsup:

As for the people who skip the show for a bootleg, personally, I have never net anyone who'd do that. Let's face it, the boots aren't that great in terms of quality. And they only mean something to us because A) we've been to the shows and B) we're just insane fans! :nod: Plus, the issue isn't about not buying a concert ticket. It's about not buying CDs.

I think 99 cents is a bar-goon! I'm not that old, and the cheapest I ever remember a 45 being (yes, I owned and played 45s!) was a dollar each. So, 25 years later, to get a song I love for the moment, 99 cents is no skin off my back. I wouldn't pay 99 cents for, say, a FM song. I know I'm going to buy the CD. But for that new Jennifer Lopez song I couldn't get out of my head yesterday - yeah, I'm going to drop the buck at Puretracks.com for a few minutes of dancin' pleasure! :)

catinthedark

01-27-2005, 11:44 PM

Oh, this is such bull****...if I buy a CD, it's *my* CD, and I'll do whatever the hell I want with it. Like I said, the idea of copyright laws pertaining to actual recordings is f*cking ridiculous, and it's something the record companies made up to squeeze money out of those of us who actually *work* for our money.

I'm not saying anymore. Your ideas on this subject are beyond ridiculous. :D

How can you say his views are beyond ridiculous? All he's doing is relaying what the law says. No matter how many times you say it, or try to explain it away, or make excuse for it, you're stealing. You can try to make yourself feel better about it by implying that only you work for your money, as opposed to people who work in the music business, and so you deserve to steal... But it wouldn't stand up in court, friend. Copyright laws are actually put in place to protect an artist's creative body work. As I said earlier, just because a Picasso is hanging in a museum - a public domain - does that give you the right to go "download" it off the wall?

Right. Thought so.

tommer

01-28-2005, 05:28 AM

As I said earlier, just because a Picasso is hanging in a museum - a public domain - does that give you the right to go "download" it off the wall?

Right. Thought so.
would you please stop using that irrelevant comparison? that's so lame and demagogic! would it be okay if you take a photo of that picasso? yes. would it be fair if you took that digital image from your camera and sent it via email to your friends? i think Paloma would forgive you for that.

GateandGarden

01-28-2005, 08:52 AM

would you please stop using that irrelevant comparison? that's so lame and demagogic! would it be okay if you take a photo of that picasso? yes. would it be fair if you took that digital image from your camera and sent it via email to your friends? i think Paloma would forgive you for that.I agree. The comparisons I've seen don't really apply, IMO. :shrug:

Kelly

01-28-2005, 09:14 AM

The comparisons make perfect sense to me.

Off topic and I am sure no one really gives a hoot, but the snarkiness around here lately is getting old. It runs through alot of threads. Newbies are made to feel stupid and completely unwelcome. Differing opinions are met with name calling and hostile, although sometimes funny, sarcasm.
The healthy debates used to be quite fun but the nasty undercurrent lately is quite sad. (I know, I know, learn to take a joke, if I don't like it go someplace else, smiling emoticons make it all ok, blah blah)

Nixxxed

01-28-2005, 01:13 PM

I think 99 cents is a bar-goon! I'm not that old, and the cheapest I ever remember a 45 being (yes, I owned and played 45s!) was a dollar each. So, 25 years later, to get a song I love for the moment, 99 cents is no skin off my back. I wouldn't pay 99 cents for, say, a FM song. I know I'm going to buy the CD. But for that new Jennifer Lopez song I couldn't get out of my head yesterday - yeah, I'm going to drop the buck at Puretracks.com for a few minutes of dancin' pleasure!

Ah, good ole '45s! :blob1: But how many more songs would you download if they were 49-cents instead? I'm just saying that would be more in line with the actual *cost* of providing it for download instead of producing singles for sale in stores. Plus, for the price of a 45, you were getting 2 songs, plus artwork...

By the way, did you hear that J-Lo and Usher were feuding over her new song? He claims she stole it, she says "stick-it-up-yer-...". :laugh:

catinthedark

01-28-2005, 02:05 PM

Ah, good ole '45s! :blob1: But how many more songs would you download if they were 49-cents instead? I'm just saying that would be more in line with the actual *cost* of providing it for download instead of producing singles for sale in stores. Plus, for the price of a 45, you were getting 2 songs, plus artwork...

By the way, did you hear that J-Lo and Usher were feuding over her new song? He claims she stole it, she says "stick-it-up-yer-...". :laugh:

Honestly, not trying to be argumentative at ALL, but I wouldn't download any more or less if they were 49 cents. The stuff I buy off download sites is stuff I know I won't buy the whole album of (ie. J.Lo). But I also know that the 99 cents is paying for more than just the song. It goes towards the cost of running the site, and since I support the philosophy of the site, I don't mind that part of the cost goes to that. :nod: In fact, the site I use charges about $9.97 for a full album download, so it IS way cheaper than buying the CD in the store, which is fair, given that you don't get the artwork, etc.

(And no - I didn't hear about the feud!! Jui-ceee! Funny, first time I heard the new song, i was like "what the HECK is that? It's horrid!" Then I caught myself singing it all day long, and suddenly, I love it. Go figure. It doesn't sound too Usher-ish. He's probably just jealous. :laugh: )

catinthedark

01-28-2005, 02:19 PM

[QUOTE=Kelly]The comparisons make perfect sense to me. QUOTE]

Thanks, Kelly. :)

Nixxxed

01-28-2005, 04:04 PM

Honestly, not trying to be argumentative at ALL, but I wouldn't download any more or less if they were 49 cents. The stuff I buy off download sites is stuff I know I won't buy the whole album of (ie. J.Lo). But I also know that the 99 cents is paying for more than just the song. It goes towards the cost of running the site, and since I support the philosophy of the site, I don't mind that part of the cost goes to that. :nod: In fact, the site I use charges about $9.97 for a full album download, so it IS way cheaper than buying the CD in the store, which is fair, given that you don't get the artwork, etc.

(And no - I didn't hear about the feud!! Jui-ceee! Funny, first time I heard the new song, i was like "what the HECK is that? It's horrid!" Then I caught myself singing it all day long, and suddenly, I love it. Go figure. It doesn't sound too Usher-ish. He's probably just jealous. :laugh: )

I didn't think you were being argumentative, and I wasn't trying to be either (just so ya know fer shure). Like I said - just playing Devil's Advocate. :xoxo:

I only dl boots and demos, never "real" songs, so I didn't know about the $9.97 deal. Is that price good no matter how long the albums are? What about an 18-tracker like Say You Will, or a 19-er, like the new Tori album below (shameless plug :p)? If longer albums are the same, that really IS a good deal.

Here's the J-Lo, Usher dirt: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144923,00.html

I didn't like the song too much, but thought the video (where she's playing 4 or 5 characters) was pretty cool. They coulda bumped it up a notch and included a 4-way J-Lo catfight tho, instead of all that silly dancing... :laugh: ;)

MacMan

01-28-2005, 07:52 PM

One thing they do here in Canada with blank dvd's, cd-r's, burners, mp3 players and all the necessary articles that allow a person to download, make copies of and distribute is they tax these things heavily and this extra tax that is collected is distributed somehow amongst the Canadian artists that belong to socan or something like that. It's not exactly a fairly divided pot of cash, as some artists are more popular then others, but it's something a little extra in place to cover some losses. There might even be a built in tax on computers, I'm not entirely sure on that one.

dissention

01-28-2005, 07:55 PM

strandinthewind

01-28-2005, 09:51 PM

You know, you bring up an interesting point. Music companies bitch and moan about losing sales due to pirated CDs, yet look at the mondo profits they make off of blank media.

Apples and oranges - they are different products and the company has a right to profit off of both.

And the artists are still left in the cold due to the theft of their product and last I checked Maxell and other such companies were not a music company :shrug: <----- is that still on moratorium :cool:

This argument is essentially pointless because it is stealing - there is n arguing around that - that is the law - if it is not - let's see some contrary law - I submit there is none.

So, it becomes a question of whether we as individuals have the right to supercede the law based on our opinion of someone's wealth - in other words is it okay to say that I can steal from someone because they are IMO too rich already. My answer will always be that is wrong because I do not want anyone to treat me that way. Others cannot see it like that because they want an excuse to break the law and that is a good one to them. Again, I think they should really put their views to the test and have the sand to go into a physical store and steal away - after all companies like WalMart and others sure make more money than most artists - and as you are walking out with the stolen property exclaim that you are proudlty stealing because the rich deserve it :rolleyes: Yet, that never happens - I blame it on cowardice.

dissention

01-28-2005, 09:56 PM

Apples and oranges - they are different products and the company has a right to profit off of both.

My point was that, in the end, they are essentially promoting the theft of the product they put out by marketing such materials. Kids aren't going to go out and buy something if they can get a blank CD for ten cents and burn something onto it.

strandinthewind

01-28-2005, 09:59 PM

My point was that, in the end, they are essentially promoting the theft of the product they put out by marketing such materials. Kids aren't going to go out and buy something if they can get a blank CD for ten cents and burn something onto it.

they are still stealing - there really is no way around that one - and the fact that they are kids does not make it right.

Moreover, the theory behind blank CD's is you can buy the download or CD or individual song from a service like Itunes and then burn your own CD with the songs you bought.

Personally, I think they should make the songs in such a way that they corrupt on an illegal download and notify the authorities. That way there is no download.

dissention

01-28-2005, 10:04 PM

they are still stealing - there really is no way around that one - and the fact that they are kids does not make it right.

That's not the point. Stealing or not stealing, the companies make it possible for them to do it so easily. It may be wrong, but they promote it in the end.

Moreover, the theory behind blank CD's is you can buy the download or CD or individual song from a service like Itunes and then burn your own CD with the songs you bought.

That wasn't the theory when they first introduced them years and years ago without outlets such as iTunes. :shrug:

Personally, I think they should make the songs in such a way that they corrupt on an illegal download and notify the authorities. That way there is no download.

:laugh: I don't know what to say to that.

strandinthewind

01-28-2005, 10:07 PM

That's not the point. Stealing or not stealing, the companies make it possible for them to do it so easily. It may be wrong, but they promote it in the end.

I think (but am not certain) only Sony makes blank CD's - the rest are not affiliated with the music industry - and the artist is still getting left out even in the case of Sony.

That wasn't the theory when they first introduced them years and years ago without outlets such as iTunes. :shrug:

No - it was so people could buy the CD and put it on their computer and then make up playlists from songs they had bought and put those playlists onto the black CD

:laugh: I don't know what to say to that.

Strand you are a genius and I will never question your authority again :laugh: :wavey: :laugh:

dissention

01-28-2005, 10:11 PM

No - it was so people could buy the CD and put it on their computer and then make up playlists from songs they had bought and put those playlists onto the black CD

Ah. And the record companies never imagined that people would do completely different things with them. :laugh:

Cry me a river, honestly. They're practically putting the songs in their hands. I don't download commercially released material, but I won't condemn people who do.

Strand you are a genius and I will never question your authority again :laugh: :wavey: :laugh:

In another life, when the God's were crazy... :xoxo:

WildHeidi

01-28-2005, 10:12 PM

Well I knew that she got peeossed about people 'stealing' her demo's as she put it and sharing them. I still download them though. I don't do any of that illegal stuff from thoes strange sites though. I think artist are just trying to protect there music from being given away. It's ok...

glitter_fades

01-28-2005, 10:12 PM

strandinthewind

01-28-2005, 10:17 PM

Ah. And the record companies never imagined that people would do completely different things with them. :laugh:

Cry me a river, honestly. They're practically putting the songs in their hands. I don't download commercially released material, but I won't condemn people who do.

Interestingly and I know no one is going to believe me, but I kind of could care a less if people download it. I just get annoyed when they use the rationale of I know it is illegal but screw it and them because they have enough money already. That is where my problem with it is for the most part. Again, although I am not nearly as rich as any of these people (DAMNIT :laugh: ) I still believe in karma and the law of threes - so I just do not do it.

ontheEdgeof17

01-28-2005, 10:20 PM

I still believe in karma and the law of threes - so I just do not do it.

You don't own a piece of bootlegged material? Odd.

Live or not. It's copyrighted.

strandinthewind

01-28-2005, 10:24 PM

You don't own a piece of bootlegged material? Odd.

Live or not. It's copyrighted.

Oh - I totally have boots and demos and I totally realize I am somewhat of a hypocrite for that - although they are somewhat different because they are not commerically available. Actually, I am unsure if a recording of a concert is copyright protected - it probably is though. Finally, many artists do not mind the boots of the concerts being traded but not sold.

But, I specifically have been referring to commecially available material in this discussion. AND - my beef is the excuse of screw them they are rich enough so it is not stealing - which I can assure you I have never said.

glitter_fades

01-28-2005, 10:27 PM

It's definitely her - 'cause "She writes the songs that make the whooooole woooooorld siiiiiing." Illegal file sharing prevents the writers from earning royalties.

Did you ask Stevie about the bootlegs on one of those Rockline radio shows? I seem to remember that....

Oh, and remember - some of those people on the bandwagon w/ her (Tom Petty, Sheryl Crow) did that Concert for Artists Rights w/ Don Henley, back in 2001?

My understanding was the AR gig in 2001 at the LA Forum was a protest against unfair practices of the recording industry toward artitst and songwriters. It was a beef with record execs and labels on their payment practices and not about file sharing. With the lopsided deals and unfair payments historically in the industry, these same artists are now getting in bed with the devils who screwed them to gang up on music fans? What next?

File sharing is more a plus for aging artists who won't do much in record sales anyway, but may still reach a younger audience from file sharing. This will get more butts in the seats at concerts which is the artists bread and butter. By getting on the bandwagon of this lawsuit Stevie and Friends are too stupid to realize they're turning off a lot of the people who could be paying their 401Ks.

:nod:

strandinthewind

01-28-2005, 10:27 PM

Here are some cites on this:

http://www.csusa.org/face/music/basics.htm

http://www.law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v47/no3/schwartz.html

they are a good read IMO

dissention

01-28-2005, 10:32 PM

Finally, many artists do not mind the boots of the concerts being traded but not sold.

The members of Blondie not only approve of taping shows, but they seek out certain shows from the fans on the off-chance that they don't have a soundboard recording of it. :shocked: Franz Ferdinand let's you videotape or record, they don't give a ****. And, of course, the Grateful Dead.

I love what Bowie said about people taping his shows: "I don't give a flying f*ck." :laugh:

strandinthewind

01-28-2005, 10:33 PM

The members of Blondie not only approve of taping shows, but they seek out certain shows from the fans on the off-chance that they don't have a soundboard recording of it. :shocked: Franz Ferdinand let's you videotape or record, they don't give a ****. And, of course, the Grateful Dead.

I love what Bowie said about people taping his shows: "I don't give a flying f*ck." :laugh:

ITA - and wan't it Bono that said he did not care if concert boots were traded for free but if he sees one on Ebay he would be pissed?

catinthedark

01-28-2005, 10:40 PM

But, I specifically have been referring to commecially available material in this discussion. AND - my beef is the excuse of screw them they are rich enough so it is not stealing - which I can assure you I have never said.

That excuse, as well as the "CDs are too expensive - why should I pay xx dollars to buy one when I can get it free?" one. Because, I say to the users of said excuse, YOU are not entitled to everything you may want. You, just like every kid and teen and adult before you, have to work for what you get. Nothing comes for free. You aren't entitled to whatever you desire for free. Especially when it belongs to someone else. And an artist's song is, in fact, personal property. They are entitled to remuneration from those who partake in it.

glitter_fades

01-28-2005, 11:33 PM

That certainly was mature :rolleyes:

Look - I did not make the law. I am just telling you what it is. If you do not like it, write your Congressman :shrug:

See, I don't agree it's the law. You can. That's your perrogative.

Copyright law isn't a single federal statute 100% applicable to all situations. It's a huge ongoing statutory "work in progress." New inventions and new technologies come along all the time which need to be evaluated for applicability. The Supreme Court has not made blanket rulings totally outlawing all forms of sharing copyrighted material. Remember the library? (Ben Franklin turning over in his grave. Repeat chorus...) :]

This lawsuit tries to make new technologies illegal the way they tried with cassette recorders and VCRs. That won't fly. The people pushing this suit want inventors of products which allow sharing to be held liable for what buyers do with their products. That concept was already litigated for cassette recorders and VCRs. They tried again when dual recorders and dual VCRs like Go Video's machine came out. Not outlawing the machines and not jailing the inventors because people might copy protected material did not lead to the collapse of the music and video industries as feared. The entertainment industry moguls lost those suits and if law is still about precedent they'll lose this one too. That will force the music industry to innovate and find new ways of doing business. Why is it business people only favor innovation and decry protectionism except when it applies to their industry?

The area of copyright law that's more clearly defined is not allowing buyers to duplicate and resell copyright goods for profit. I'm behind the FBI all the way in stopping the sale of bootleg goods. Oh, don't come to my yard sale this weekend if you think it's wrong to resell old copyrighted goods. I have software, dvds and books I'm getting rid of I don't use anymore. Do I owe a fee to anyone for that old stuff? I don't agree with people selling new duplicated copies of music they own. I just don't see anything wrong with people sharing copies of music they own especially when it can win over new fans to artists who wouldn't otherwise get the exposure. It's a myth that file sharing hurts artists. It may hurt record companies but the idea that artists are the big losers has not be proven to my satisfaction.

Here's an interesting blurb about the music industry posted by Bob Welch on his board.

http://www.bobwelch.com/_Forum/000001ee.htm

:wavey:

tommer

01-29-2005, 04:58 AM

through the years, the music industry became the biggest manipulator of all merchants. as a loyal (not to say "addicted") consumer, i've been subjected to countless ripoffs and manipulative temptations.
a vast portion of the material which is being promoted at any given time is commercially unavailable, stuff which wasn't released yet, remixes from non-commercial singles and so on, i suppose that if i'll try buying a full-day playlist of my favorite hit radio station, i might find not more than 60% from it in my local music store (please, don't flag that Itunes argument at me; it's available in 13 countries only, and mine's not one of them), and i'll end up buying most of the rest attached to other tracks i didn't intend to buy but got forced to.
yes, i was also taught to believe that it's okay for me to pay for an entire album for the sake of one song, especially with albums that included stuff i've purchased before. apparently, time made me both cheaper and more suspicious, nowdays it seems to me like the parallel would be something like asking me to buy a full season's collection in order to own my lone desired shirt.
i learned to believe that i wasn't exactly buying the music itself, but a product, a substance. i bought a 7" of Dreams, but then i bought the song again on a 12" LP, and then again that same exact recording on a cassette, and then once more on the green greatest hits album and in The Chain set, and a few times more when i converted all that big black vinyl to silver smaller plastic, and its special editions too. but now, guess what, my new beloved format has no substance whatsoever, so i don't need anyone's help manufacturing it for me, suddenly i realize i was overpaying for too long! now it's not my primitive desire to screw the richer, it's the realization that they got so wealthy mostly thanks to manipulatively milking poor little me for years. should they be worried? yes. although i'll probably be more than pleased to pay for whatever stevie nicks releases till the end of times, i will do my best not to pay for Dreams at the 95th chance!
at this point, as a consumer, i learned to be smarter, i no longer buy albums unless i listened to them fully (thanks to p2p) and realize they justify their pricing, or with artists i'm keen to support.
it's funny though, coz in my efforts, the most basic tool in which i'll check out a new album by the sony-signed Jennifer Lopez, would be my portable sony minidisc, which points again that what goes around comes around.

GateandGarden

01-29-2005, 08:24 AM

The subject of intellectual property is so murky that it warrants just leaving it alone. I like to note the difference between replicating and stealing. Stealing implying the removal...Well said. :thumbsup: Good post and I agree.

Someone releasing Lindsey's demos against his will is another thing however but I notice this is the Stevie forum, not the Lindsey and incidentally this is only my second time in this strange purple place.Same with the Stevie demos.

By the way, does anyone know of a thread in which y'all discuss who might've taken these demos (both Stevie's and Lindsey's) and how all of that went down? Thanks in advance. :)

strandinthewind

01-29-2005, 10:45 AM

See, I don't agree it's the law. You can. That's your perrogative.

Copyright law isn't a single federal statute 100% applicable to all situations. It's a huge ongoing statutory "work in progress." New inventions and new technologies come along all the time which need to be evaluated for applicability. The Supreme Court has not made blanket rulings totally outlawing all forms of sharing copyrighted material. Remember the library? (Ben Franklin turning over in his grave. Repeat chorus...) :]

This lawsuit tries to make new technologies illegal the way they tried with cassette recorders and VCRs. That won't fly. The people pushing this suit want inventors of products which allow sharing to be held liable for what buyers do with their products. That concept was already litigated for cassette recorders and VCRs. They tried again when dual recorders and dual VCRs like Go Video's machine came out. Not outlawing the machines and not jailing the inventors because people might copy protected material did not lead to the collapse of the music and video industries as feared. The entertainment industry moguls lost those suits and if law is still about precedent they'll lose this one too. That will force the music industry to innovate and find new ways of doing business. Why is it business people only favor innovation and decry protectionism except when it applies to their industry?

The area of copyright law that's more clearly defined is not allowing buyers to duplicate and resell copyright goods for profit. I'm behind the FBI all the way in stopping the sale of bootleg goods. Oh, don't come to my yard sale this weekend if you think it's wrong to resell old copyrighted goods. I have software, dvds and books I'm getting rid of I don't use anymore. Do I owe a fee to anyone for that old stuff? I don't agree with people selling new duplicated copies of music they own. I just don't see anything wrong with people sharing copies of music they own especially when it can win over new fans to artists who wouldn't otherwise get the exposure. It's a myth that file sharing hurts artists. It may hurt record companies but the idea that artists are the big losers has not be proven to my satisfaction.

Here's an interesting blurb about the music industry posted by Bob Welch on his board.

http://www.bobwelch.com/_Forum/000001ee.htm

:wavey:

No - it is the law - just because you think it is not or that the law is silly, should not be, or is vague does make it so :cool: Trust me when I say the jails are full of the people of asserted the same argument when brought to trial :nod:

But, I certainly do not know all of the court case decisions on this. If you know any law made by a Federal Court or stemming from a Federal statute that says downloading a song in lieu of paying for it (for whatever reason) is within the law, please cite it. I looked and could not find any. Maybe you will be more profficient :cool:

Note - I am not being snarky - just curious because I looked and found
none :cool: But, I did find this http://mp3.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/chapter10.pdf which is the Copyright Law of the United States addresses "Digital Audio Recording Devices and Media." Maybe Courts have struck it down - but I could not find those cases if they exist. This fully supports my conclusion that it is against the law to download a commercially available song as a way to avoid paying for it :shrug:

Also, I am not in any way saying it ought to be the law or that the industry is being smart by refusing to see the vast marketability concepts in downloading. I am just saying it is the law that downloading a commercially available product is illegal. So, we agree there :cool:

strandinthewind

01-29-2005, 11:15 AM

Is it against the law to posses a copy of a file? I'm pretty sure it's illegal in Australia to posses a copy of an mp3 which brings into question how we can sell mp3 players here.

The thought behind them and the intent in allowing them is that you go to the store and buy a CD or you buy songs off of a pay website like itunes and them you can load them onto your MP@ player. Much the same way that people used to copy LPs onto cassettes. When you buy a CD or download a song from a legal site, you can record it or use it in anyway that you want as long as you do not give it to someone in an attempt to allow them to avoid going to the store and paying for it.

I think that Diss' point that the music industry is well aware that probably more than half of the people who have them use them for other reasons is valid though. But, that is still against the law and still against the intent behind MP3 players.

Again and to be clear lest someone chides me for something I am not saying (unless of course it is Lux who is always free to both chaff and chide me :eek: ) - I think the music industry should push to change the law and realize the goldmine that is waiting for them in the download area via marketability of the songs that way - for example, I think TISL would not have done as well but for the CH-a media blitz. But, until they do and the law is changed, it is still against the law to download a commerically available product as a way to avoid paying for it. Maybe - they will one day see the light :cool:

As an aside to Lux's comment, here is an interesting read on library law and copyright law http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/okbooks.html