Back to Prince... Hey Doc, didn't he release one of his last albums for free over there in conjunction with a newspaper? How did that play out? I guess not well...
Well, above and beyond the ??350,000 upfront payment and the 10% statutory royalty he got on every copy manufactured (what, you didn't think he was literally giving it away, did you?), there was a further spike in his back catalogue sales that Sunday, sales which had already enjoyed a substantial boost due to the 21-date season he played at the O2 Arena that summer. So, yeah, Prince did pretty well out of it - probably a lot better than he would have done by giving the album to iTunes in return for cents on the dollar.
My guess not well comment was in jest. Since I'm sure Prince got everything he wanted out of it. As far as itunes goes... What Prince would have made off itunes, would it amount greatly less than what he would make if he was tied to a major? I'm guessing Prince could have negotiated a better deal than the usual price point no? His comments make it seem like he was upset they wouldn't give him an advance up front.
I was gonna comment on this one too. Basically, someone had to buy it first before it got freed up for the free. Or radio station promo raers pinpricked FREE by Capitol.
I was gonna comment on this one too. Basically, someone had to buy it first before it got freed up for the free. Or radio station promo raers pinpricked FREE by Capitol.
Can you imagine if back in the 70's someone opened up a storefront and all you had to do was walk in, tell them what LP you wanted and they gave you a free tape of the LP.
They would be shut down and/or in jail in very short order.
The argument that friends dubbing tapes is the same as the Internet providing free ILLEGAL downloads for virtually millions is a joke.
Steal it from a store. The Internet just made stealing easier.
That's precisely wrong. Many (I'd bet you, too) never stole a thing before the internet. So it didn't make it easier - it made it morally acceptable, and currently, unpunishable.
Steal it from a store. The Internet just made stealing easier.
That's precisely wrong. Many (I'd bet you, too) never stole a thing before the internet. So it didn't make it easier - it made it morally acceptable, and currently, unpunishable.
When I was talking about free. I mean the radio. But we could talk about getting a tangible product as well. Anyone who spent their day's heading to labels on servicing days knows the deal.
And you guys talking about stealing are wrong. What people do now is commit copyright infringement. It's not the same as walking into a store and stealing an item. It still might be wrong. I'm not up to debating that. Just that they are 2 different things.
True story: I got arrested for stealing Hammer's 2 Legit 2 Quit in the extended, big-box style CD case from Musicland in the sixth grade. That was the last physical product music I ever lifted.
ironically this statement has turned out to be good internet promotion. seeing this quote everywhere. who knew prince had an album coming out this year.
When I was talking about free. I mean the radio. But we could talk about getting a tangible product as well. Anyone who spent their day's heading to labels on servicing days knows the deal.
Commercial radio pays the artist so the music is not "free". It is being paid for by the advertisers who in turn allow the listener to hear it at their cost.
I assume "servicing" days was when FREE promos were sent out....this is done as part of the marketing of a product and is totally controlled by the artist/label and is nothing like illegal downloading.
As far as the semantics of whether or not this is "theft", there are varying descriptions such as with Software theft which can be defined as the unauthorized use or illegal copying of computer software. This can take many forms such as commercial counterfeiting, deliberate and unauthorized copying by dealers, unlicensed copying and use by "end users" and plagiarism by competitors.
As far as music/movies are concerned....
"There are four main categories of music/movie theft and they are bootlegging which involves making a copy of live performance, piracy which involves making copies of the product, counterfeiting which is essentially the same as piracy but also involves duplication of both the music product and of its packaging and plagiarism which is the theft of another person's writings or ideas."
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
DOR said:
What Prince would have made off itunes, would it amount greatly less than what he would make if he was tied to a major? I'm guessing Prince could have negotiated a better deal than the usual price point no? His comments make it seem like he was upset they wouldn't give him an advance up front.
Well, this is the issue - when iTunes came on the scene, Apple wanted to call all the shots, not just with the record companies, but even with artists who controlled their own masters (nobody gave a shit about publishers, and they still don't). Their attitude was, this is the future - you need to get your product on this platform, you know it, we know it, and if you want to do it, it's going to be on our terms. They engaged in a kind of inverse price-gouging, secure in the knowledge (especially after the iPod was such a huge success) that the crisis in the industry was so all-encompassing that even labels who objected to Apple's approach couldn't risk holding out for long. That's without mentioning the issue of DRM on songs bought from the iTunes store, which simply proved that Apple didn't give a tuppenny fuck about music, the artists or the consumers. They simply wanted to corner the digital music market and dictate its development, and were prepared to strong-arm the entire music industry into going along with it.
Why should Prince or anyone else, be they artist or label, accept an argument that essentially says, not only are we not going to pay the market rate for your product, we're going to dictate the technical standards, the packaging, the means of delivery and anything else we feel is appropriate in order to increase our control of the market, and you'll just have to take it or leave it. Why do you think The Beatles or AC/DC still aren't on iTunes? Because they won't (and shouldn't have to) accept the shitty iTunes royalty rate and pricing model, or they won't let iTunes dictate how their music should be presented. And if Prince wants an advance - and if you're being paid a shitty royalty, then trust me, there'd better be a fucking advance - then he's got every right to demand one. If Apple thinks his music has sufficient value that they want it for the iTunes store, how come they don't want to pay him a fair rate for it?
Commercial radio pays the artist so the music is not "free". It is being paid for by the advertisers who in turn allow the listener to hear it at their cost.
My original statement was "Consumers have always enjoyed free music". But it doesn't matter who pays. The fact remains anyone has always had the ability to consume music at no cost. Which goes back to my original statement of "I don???t think it???s a giant leap of a concept???" for consumers to be of the idea that they can hear music they do not own at any direct cost to them.
I assume "servicing" days was when FREE promos were sent out....this is done as part of the marketing of a product and is totally controlled by the artist/label and is nothing like illegal downloading.
Well, actually it falls under most promotion depts. Which most labels place with marketing... As someone who witnessed probably over 10 years of the record promotions world. While the concept you speak of is correct. It didn't really work out that way in many cases. While I won't speak in depth on the subject. Let's just say that only a % of the music ever really reached the proper channels.
As far as music/movies are concerned....
"There are four main categories of music/movie theft and they are bootlegging which involves making a copy of live performance, piracy which involves making copies of the product, counterfeiting which is essentially the same as piracy but also involves duplication of both the music product and of its packaging and plagiarism which is the theft of another person's writings or ideas."
Stealing and theft are when you deprive the owner of their physical copy. When you take an item and someone no longer has that item in their possession. Can you resell an mp3 you just bought or stole?
Copyright infringement is the "violation of the rights secured by a copyright."
I'm pretty sure labels want that distinction made just as much as anyone in a court of law. In public opinion they want people to think it is indeed stealing. But when the RIAA goes to sue someone I'm guessing they use copyright infringement. Since you would have to argue what the value of the product was taken and they don't want to argue that an mp3 goes for .99 cents on itunes.
In anycase. A massive part of the public commit copyright infringement every day. Rock, I'm not sure if you own the rights to the photo in your avatar. You might have very well have created it. But if you didn't and you don't have said rights to display it, you commit copyright infringement every time you post. But I'm probably wrong and it's yours.
I always enjoy your post doc. Even if we don't agree on certain issues. I must say I enjoy your perspective and knowledge. Thx for the reply.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
DOR said:
Can you resell an mp3 you just stole?
There are a number of websites (mainly based in the former Soviet Union) that claim to sell "legal" mp3s for which they almost certainly haven't obtained the proper licenses, and continue to do so in the face of numerous cease-and-desist orders. In many instances, they're "selling" material which hasn't even been released, and which will doubtless have originated from a snide rip taken from an mp3 blog that's offering it up for free. So whilst you probably can't steal a string of zeroes and ones in the literal sense, that hasn't stopped people from trying.
There are a number of websites (mainly based in the former Soviet Union) that claim to sell "legal" mp3s for which they almost certainly haven't obtained the proper licenses, and continue to do so in the face of numerous cease-and-desist orders. So whilst you probably can't steal a string of zeroes and ones in the literal sense, that hasn't stopped people from trying.
No, I understand that. And don't get me wrong. Anyone who makes money off of other peoples works should have to pay. I'm just not in the opinion that personal use should be threatened with lawsuits or cut off internet or jailed, etc.
The fact remains anyone has always had the ability to consume music at no cost.
But they weren't always able to possess and duplicate/disseminate music at no cost - huge difference.
DOR said:
Stealing and theft are when you deprive the owner of their physical copy.
Not true at all, there are many other kinds of theft - theft of services etc.
DOR said:
Can you resell an mp3 you just bought or stole?
Of course you can, the internet is full of people who do this - it's happening to me right now.
DOR said:
Rock, I'm not sure if you own the rights to the photo in your avatar. You might have very well have created it. But if you didn't and you don't have said rights to display it, you commit copyright infringement every time you post.
This is a preposterous example, and not true at all. In order for it to be copyright infringement somebody else would have to have copyrighted that image and they would not be entitled to do so if they had no legal claim to it.
But they weren't always able to possess and duplicate/disseminate music at no cost - huge difference.
Well, I didn't say possess. I said consume or enjoyed - huge difference.
Not true at all, there are many other kinds of theft - theft of services etc.
Do you mean for example of the service of a live performance or Bootlegging? I'm guessing that still falls under intellectual property rights in a court of law would not be subject to say burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud type charges.
I mean, I'm no lawyer. And if you want to say stealing. All the power to you. I'm just saying IMO it's copyright infringement and I don't feel it's as if you are appropriating "property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".
Of course you can, the internet is full of people who do this - it's happening to me right now.
Like I said above a few minutes ago. I don't agree to someone selling your works making money from it. Even if they are making money off just advertising. What I posted I just meant to the fact that an mp3 technically doesn't exist. It's not like I could buy your music and turn around and sell it to someone with say first-sale rights.
DOR said:
This is a preposterous example, and not true at all. In order for it to be copyright infringement somebody else would have to have copyrighted that image and they would not be entitled to do so if they had no legal claim to it.
I don't know why you would think it's "preposterous". Placing your copyright on an image or photo is not a difficult thing in the digital age. It's not like you need to apply or pay a fee to place copyrights on your photos. Wouldn't it make sense to think all images or photos on the internet were copyright protected until you knew they weren't or had a Creative Commons license or something?
Dor,
Which of the following, if any, would you consider "stealing"?
1) A large corporation taking a piece of software sold to the Accounting industry and making copies of it without paying the designer/owner to use in their Accounting department??
2) A Mom & Pop business doing the above?
3) Taking the same piece of Accounting software and making it available to the masses for free at your website negatively affecting the sales of the company that designed the software?
4) Making copies of the above mentioned software and making copies to sell at a profit?
I don't know why you would think it's "preposterous". Placing your copyright on an image or photo is not a difficult thing in the digital age. It's not like you need to apply or pay a fee to place copyrights on your photos. Wouldn't it make sense to think all images or photos on the internet were copyright protected until you knew they weren't or had a Creative Commons license or something?
Your assertion was that Rock was guilty of copyright infringement for posting a photo he took, but did not copyright, is indeed preposterous.
It's all copyright infringement. Depending on what the licencing agreements are of course it's the unauthorized distribution or sale of copyrighted material. But go ahead and use stealing.
Now let me ask you a question rock. When you buy an album, used or new. Do you own it?
It's all copyright infringement. Depending on what the licencing agreements are of course it's the unauthorized distribution or sale of copyrighted material. But go ahead and use stealing.
I never used the word stealing in reference to this.
I think you're assuming Rock took his photo from some website, I'm assuming he took it himself.
Your assertion was that Rock was guilty of copyright infringement for posting a photo he took, but did not copyright, is indeed preposterous.
Whose copyright is he infringing upon?
I'm not sure if you read when I wrote "I???m not sure if you own the rights to the photo in your avatar. You might have very well have created it. But if you didn???t..."
In no way am I claiming he has committed an offense. I'm simply pointing out he could very well be.
But you haven't answered the question. Shouldn't everyone be under the assumption that something is copyright protected if they don't personally own the rights?
But as someone asked the question above. Rock could probably make a fair use case maybe. Just like music should have rules on fair use rights.
It's all copyright infringement. Depending on what the licencing agreements are of course it's the unauthorized distribution or sale of copyrighted material. But go ahead and use stealing.
I never used the word stealing in reference to this.
I think you're assuming Rock took his photo from some website, I'm assuming he took it himself.
I was replying to rock with that post. Not you.
Edit: In any case. Maybe we should get back to talking about Prince. Anyone ever watch the videos of Kevin Smith's dealing with Prince trying to get rights to put a song in one of his movies?
But you haven't answered the question. Shouldn't everyone be under the assumption that something is copyright protected if they don't personally own the rights?
If you are going to reuse the image for certain purposes, yes. Avatars? Not sure about that one.
Percentage-wise I doubt that most images you find on the internet are copyrighted. Haven't seen the whole 'net, though.
Now let me ask you a question rock. When you buy an album, used or new. Do you own it?
I do indeed own that specific physical item.....for at least until it sells on ebay..
Well, I just mention it because there is a large part of the recording industry believes you are in fact (I'll use your words here) "stealing".
In fact, many believe not only do you not own music you purchase (a licence), but you should not be allowed to share that album with your friend, sell it ever again or do anything like format shift your album or back it up.
They have been pushing to make these things illegal for many years and now going about getting it done.
Comments
My guess not well comment was in jest. Since I'm sure Prince got everything he wanted out of it. As far as itunes goes... What Prince would have made off itunes, would it amount greatly less than what he would make if he was tied to a major? I'm guessing Prince could have negotiated a better deal than the usual price point no? His comments make it seem like he was upset they wouldn't give him an advance up front.
Where did you get "free" music pre-Internet??
I was gonna comment on this one too. Basically, someone had to buy it first before it got freed up for the free. Or radio station promo raers pinpricked FREE by Capitol.
Can you imagine if back in the 70's someone opened up a storefront and all you had to do was walk in, tell them what LP you wanted and they gave you a free tape of the LP.
They would be shut down and/or in jail in very short order.
The argument that friends dubbing tapes is the same as the Internet providing free ILLEGAL downloads for virtually millions is a joke.
That's precisely wrong. Many (I'd bet you, too) never stole a thing before the internet. So it didn't make it easier - it made it morally acceptable, and currently, unpunishable.
When I was talking about free. I mean the radio. But we could talk about getting a tangible product as well. Anyone who spent their day's heading to labels on servicing days knows the deal.
And you guys talking about stealing are wrong. What people do now is commit copyright infringement. It's not the same as walking into a store and stealing an item. It still might be wrong. I'm not up to debating that. Just that they are 2 different things.
Commercial radio pays the artist so the music is not "free". It is being paid for by the advertisers who in turn allow the listener to hear it at their cost.
I assume "servicing" days was when FREE promos were sent out....this is done as part of the marketing of a product and is totally controlled by the artist/label and is nothing like illegal downloading.
As far as the semantics of whether or not this is "theft", there are varying descriptions such as with Software theft which can be defined as the unauthorized use or illegal copying of computer software. This can take many forms such as commercial counterfeiting, deliberate and unauthorized copying by dealers, unlicensed copying and use by "end users" and plagiarism by competitors.
As far as music/movies are concerned....
"There are four main categories of music/movie theft and they are bootlegging which involves making a copy of live performance, piracy which involves making copies of the product, counterfeiting which is essentially the same as piracy but also involves duplication of both the music product and of its packaging and plagiarism which is the theft of another person's writings or ideas."
Well, this is the issue - when iTunes came on the scene, Apple wanted to call all the shots, not just with the record companies, but even with artists who controlled their own masters (nobody gave a shit about publishers, and they still don't). Their attitude was, this is the future - you need to get your product on this platform, you know it, we know it, and if you want to do it, it's going to be on our terms. They engaged in a kind of inverse price-gouging, secure in the knowledge (especially after the iPod was such a huge success) that the crisis in the industry was so all-encompassing that even labels who objected to Apple's approach couldn't risk holding out for long. That's without mentioning the issue of DRM on songs bought from the iTunes store, which simply proved that Apple didn't give a tuppenny fuck about music, the artists or the consumers. They simply wanted to corner the digital music market and dictate its development, and were prepared to strong-arm the entire music industry into going along with it.
Why should Prince or anyone else, be they artist or label, accept an argument that essentially says, not only are we not going to pay the market rate for your product, we're going to dictate the technical standards, the packaging, the means of delivery and anything else we feel is appropriate in order to increase our control of the market, and you'll just have to take it or leave it. Why do you think The Beatles or AC/DC still aren't on iTunes? Because they won't (and shouldn't have to) accept the shitty iTunes royalty rate and pricing model, or they won't let iTunes dictate how their music should be presented. And if Prince wants an advance - and if you're being paid a shitty royalty, then trust me, there'd better be a fucking advance - then he's got every right to demand one. If Apple thinks his music has sufficient value that they want it for the iTunes store, how come they don't want to pay him a fair rate for it?
My original statement was "Consumers have always enjoyed free music". But it doesn't matter who pays. The fact remains anyone has always had the ability to consume music at no cost. Which goes back to my original statement of "I don???t think it???s a giant leap of a concept???" for consumers to be of the idea that they can hear music they do not own at any direct cost to them.
Well, actually it falls under most promotion depts. Which most labels place with marketing... As someone who witnessed probably over 10 years of the record promotions world. While the concept you speak of is correct. It didn't really work out that way in many cases. While I won't speak in depth on the subject. Let's just say that only a % of the music ever really reached the proper channels.
Stealing and theft are when you deprive the owner of their physical copy. When you take an item and someone no longer has that item in their possession. Can you resell an mp3 you just bought or stole?
Copyright infringement is the "violation of the rights secured by a copyright."
I'm pretty sure labels want that distinction made just as much as anyone in a court of law. In public opinion they want people to think it is indeed stealing. But when the RIAA goes to sue someone I'm guessing they use copyright infringement. Since you would have to argue what the value of the product was taken and they don't want to argue that an mp3 goes for .99 cents on itunes.
In anycase. A massive part of the public commit copyright infringement every day. Rock, I'm not sure if you own the rights to the photo in your avatar. You might have very well have created it. But if you didn't and you don't have said rights to display it, you commit copyright infringement every time you post. But I'm probably wrong and it's yours.
Also, I'm glad that someone is bringing up the "techinical standards". I loathe the sh*tty sounding mp3s that I've gotten used to.
I always enjoy your post doc. Even if we don't agree on certain issues. I must say I enjoy your perspective and knowledge. Thx for the reply.
There are a number of websites (mainly based in the former Soviet Union) that claim to sell "legal" mp3s for which they almost certainly haven't obtained the proper licenses, and continue to do so in the face of numerous cease-and-desist orders. In many instances, they're "selling" material which hasn't even been released, and which will doubtless have originated from a snide rip taken from an mp3 blog that's offering it up for free. So whilst you probably can't steal a string of zeroes and ones in the literal sense, that hasn't stopped people from trying.
No, I understand that. And don't get me wrong. Anyone who makes money off of other peoples works should have to pay. I'm just not in the opinion that personal use should be threatened with lawsuits or cut off internet or jailed, etc.
But they weren't always able to possess and duplicate/disseminate music at no cost - huge difference.
Not true at all, there are many other kinds of theft - theft of services etc.
Of course you can, the internet is full of people who do this - it's happening to me right now.
This is a preposterous example, and not true at all. In order for it to be copyright infringement somebody else would have to have copyrighted that image and they would not be entitled to do so if they had no legal claim to it.
Well, I didn't say possess. I said consume or enjoyed - huge difference.
Do you mean for example of the service of a live performance or Bootlegging? I'm guessing that still falls under intellectual property rights in a court of law would not be subject to say burglary, embezzlement, larceny, looting, robbery, shoplifting, fraud type charges.
I mean, I'm no lawyer. And if you want to say stealing. All the power to you. I'm just saying IMO it's copyright infringement and I don't feel it's as if you are appropriating "property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".
Like I said above a few minutes ago. I don't agree to someone selling your works making money from it. Even if they are making money off just advertising. What I posted I just meant to the fact that an mp3 technically doesn't exist. It's not like I could buy your music and turn around and sell it to someone with say first-sale rights.
I don't know why you would think it's "preposterous". Placing your copyright on an image or photo is not a difficult thing in the digital age. It's not like you need to apply or pay a fee to place copyrights on your photos. Wouldn't it make sense to think all images or photos on the internet were copyright protected until you knew they weren't or had a Creative Commons license or something?
Which of the following, if any, would you consider "stealing"?
1) A large corporation taking a piece of software sold to the Accounting industry and making copies of it without paying the designer/owner to use in their Accounting department??
2) A Mom & Pop business doing the above?
3) Taking the same piece of Accounting software and making it available to the masses for free at your website negatively affecting the sales of the company that designed the software?
4) Making copies of the above mentioned software and making copies to sell at a profit?
EDIT: I guess they could fall under another exception to copyright, but I really have no idea.
Your assertion was that Rock was guilty of copyright infringement for posting a photo he took, but did not copyright, is indeed preposterous.
Whose copyright is he infringing upon?
Now let me ask you a question rock. When you buy an album, used or new. Do you own it?
I do indeed own that specific physical item.....for at least until it sells on ebay..
I never used the word stealing in reference to this.
I think you're assuming Rock took his photo from some website, I'm assuming he took it himself.
I'm not sure if you read when I wrote "I???m not sure if you own the rights to the photo in your avatar. You might have very well have created it. But if you didn???t..."
In no way am I claiming he has committed an offense. I'm simply pointing out he could very well be.
But you haven't answered the question. Shouldn't everyone be under the assumption that something is copyright protected if they don't personally own the rights?
But as someone asked the question above. Rock could probably make a fair use case maybe. Just like music should have rules on fair use rights.
I was replying to rock with that post. Not you.
Edit: In any case. Maybe we should get back to talking about Prince. Anyone ever watch the videos of Kevin Smith's dealing with Prince trying to get rights to put a song in one of his movies?
If you are going to reuse the image for certain purposes, yes. Avatars? Not sure about that one.
Percentage-wise I doubt that most images you find on the internet are copyrighted. Haven't seen the whole 'net, though.
Well, I just mention it because there is a large part of the recording industry believes you are in fact (I'll use your words here) "stealing".
In fact, many believe not only do you not own music you purchase (a licence), but you should not be allowed to share that album with your friend, sell it ever again or do anything like format shift your album or back it up.
They have been pushing to make these things illegal for many years and now going about getting it done.
Darn....I wanted to see where this one was going.