A question for the SS folks (in particular, the ones who are against the excessive downloading of music that is not rare/hard to get/OOP):
Musicians, graphic wizards, web designers, writers and so forth, was your latest beat/.gif heatery/web site/article/whatever created on officially purchased copies of Ableton Live, Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office et cetera? Or did you get your software from torrents et al?
Not pointing fingers. I'm solving linear equations on a booted copy of Matlab?? right now. Just playing devil's advocate.
Just so people know. Downloading music in Canada is not[/b] illegal. For years we've been paying a levy on all recordable media (And I believe things like ipods, SD cards, etc) that is collected and suppose to be distributed to artist (Not that I think the money gets to them). It's only illegal for us to share mp3's. So, for whatever you believe to be illegal in the US, things might totally be different in another country.
Hence, thoughts on the subject might been different from person to person.
That's actually not true - the law treats bootlegging versus sampling differently because one has its foundations in artistry and the other in commerce.
They are both instances of copyright infringement but they are not the same and are not treated as "all business".
The law might treat them differently & make a distiction and they well should because they're different, but lawsuits have happened in both cases and cash has to change hands whatever the case.
Haz, no offense but you're comparing apples and oranges. Even YOU acknowledge this. So why do you keep insisting on comparing them?
A lot of things involve "lawsuits" and "cash changing hands." Paternity suits, for example. Auto accidents for another. Do these have a relationship to DJing/sampling/bootlegging too?
I also find it highly problematic that people (not just Haz) are suggesting that because certain forms of intellectual property are covered under the law, then that alone justifies an ethical comparison. What I hear people saying is some suspect logic: "well, if the law says it's illegal, it must be wrong."
If I'm not mistaken, under current copyright coverage, drum patterns don't earn the same protection as melodic passages. Does this distinction in the law mean that people don't have a problem with Clyde Stubblefield not getting sampling $$$ but are willing to come to Monty Stark's defense? Just because the law is different?
GTFOOHWTB.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
Would you be fine with a producer sampling your music and not paying you?
Sampling and bootlegging are not exactly the same, but in the end, theft is theft. Don't some people even call it "jacking a beat"?
To answer the original question, I think both the original artist and the rapper in question have the right to be mad for not getting paid.
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
Or DJing for that matter. Since possibly a huge % of the time, the proper license has not been paid. And even though you paid for the music, technically, ur playing it illegally.
Though, I think it's the event holder that would get the fines.
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
Why? Are you selling stolen records?
No, (hopefully) the artist got paid the first time when the record was sold as "new". Nobody expects to get paid for selling the same record twice.
I'm not saying that the grievances aren't legitimate. But to compare a DJ mix-CD with a bootlegged album - as if they're the same thing - is just fucking ridiculous. If you really believe that, then Deej has a great career future with RIAA.
Similarly, those who would equate sampling with bootlegging are similarly conflating two distinctly different acts. That doesn't mean uncleared sampling is "ok" while bootlegging is not. But you can't claim the two are similar acts. If I steal someone's piano and then record a hit song with it, I've done something illegal, sure - I stole someone's piano. But the piano didn't write/record/engineer/press/distribute/promote the song. Bootlegging that final product is theft of a different kind. Both piano owner and artist have legit grievances. Just not the same ones.
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
No, (hopefully) the artist got paid the first time when the record was sold as "new". Nobody expects to get paid for selling the same record twice.
Why shouldn't they tho? Hasn't the RIAA gone after little mom & pop used CD spots before for this?
Hell, the rights holder is suppose to get paid off every time the song is played commercially. They could do the same off the sale of their records.
Side thought. I always hate paying taxes when spots charge it buying used records.
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
Why? Are you selling stolen records?
No, (hopefully) the artist got paid the first time when the record was sold as "new". Nobody expects to get paid for selling the same record twice.
This raises an interesting question: at what point is an artist considered to be "properly compensated"?
Legally, you're not supposed to play music on the radio without paying a small fee to the record label. If I am running a pirate radio station and don't report my playlist to EMI/ASCAP, and I play your record, do you have a legit gripe?
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
Why? Are you selling stolen records?
No, (hopefully) the artist got paid the first time when the record was sold as "new". Nobody expects to get paid for selling the same record twice.
This raises an interesting question: at what point is an artist considered to be "properly compensated"?
Legally, you're not supposed to play music on the radio without paying a small fee to the record label. If I am running a pirate radio station and don't report my playlist to EMI/ASCAP, and I play your record, do you have a legit gripe?
Otis -
Do you really believe that? Think about it.
I don't know if I would say the majority, but a fair-sized portion of the "used" records currently coming up for sale were never sold in the first place. Cut out warehouses, One stops, defunct mom-n-pop stock, journalist/promo/record label personnel collections... none of these records were bought in the first place and some were even marked "not for sale"! Even if they were initially purchased it is doubtful that the artists got a good accounting of the numbers. There has never been a good way to account accurately for sales at mom-n-pop shops.
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
Why? Are you selling stolen records?
No, (hopefully) the artist got paid the first time when the record was sold as "new". Nobody expects to get paid for selling the same record twice.
This raises an interesting question: at what point is an artist considered to be "properly compensated"?
Legally, you're not supposed to play music on the radio without paying a small fee to the record label. If I am running a pirate radio station and don't report my playlist to EMI/ASCAP, and I play your record, do you have a legit gripe?
Would I have a legit legal gripe against a "pirate" radio station? Isn't it's very existence illegal?
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
Sorry but I don't understand the relevancy of this image unless you're insisting on the "theft is theft" model again.
Would I have a legit legal gripe against a "pirate" radio station? Isn't it's very existence illegal?
For the sake of my example, I realize I could have just used a radio station that didn't kick back to BMI (not EMI as I erroneously listed before).
And with pirate stations, I've never understood the specific "harm" they have except that they're using frequencies for free that other stations have to pay for. In that case, they're "stealing" from the gov't that has decided that it has the power to regulate (and thereby "own") specific frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum but again, I'm not sure if pirate radio - despite its name - is really "theft" in any real way (unless you're trying to take over a pre-existing frequency) even though legally, sure, it's considered wrong.
Just so people know. Downloading music in Canada is not[/b] illegal. For years we've been paying a levy on all recordable media (And I believe things like ipods, SD cards, etc) that is collected and suppose to be distributed to artist (Not that I think the money gets to them). It's only illegal for us to share mp3's. So, for whatever you believe to be illegal in the US, things might totally be different in another country.
Hence, thoughts on the subject might been different from person to person.
People should notice this post. I know of a few artists in Canada who got the government to subsidize everything from their pressing to high quality music videos on non-recoupable grants. I think that the money is going back to the artists and helping sustain them. To think that this could ever happen in America though, sheesh.
Hey Odub thanks for engaging with what I was saying. I think yr making a mistake, though, by conflating DJ mixes with uncleared samples. Its a logically fallacious slippery slope argument. As rap fans most of us agree that sampling is an art. I'm sure most of us agree that DJing is its own art too. But at the same time, I think if a DJ is expecting to make his living off of party mix cds its a little bit suspect for them to protest dudes bootlegging their own uncleared mixes.
I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to make some statement about the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of what certain hip party mix DJs do as a matter of course - I purchase Boolu Master and DJ Lil Jon mixes regularly, and used to record those mixes off the radio when they would get played on power 92 or wgci. I have no ethical qualms about such. I think DJ mixes, sold under the table, are great promotional tools for dudes who are trying to make names for themselves, get gigs as DJs or solidify their reps etc.
I really do have to wonder, though, if those DJs start complaining about their mixes being bootlegged - assuming their names are still on the label, the kids downloading their mixes aren't claiming someone else created them. They're already operating in a legal gray area. When yr talking about DJ Drama or someone who made his name offering exclusive content, who is providing a service for the artists he features on his CDs, its one thing (fuck the bootleggers!) but when you're talking about party DJs who use mixtapes as promotional tools, without the input of the artists...I donno. I still think there's something worth debating here.
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
Why? Are you selling stolen records?
No, (hopefully) the artist got paid the first time when the record was sold as "new". Nobody expects to get paid for selling the same record twice.
This raises an interesting question: at what point is an artist considered to be "properly compensated"?
Legally, you're not supposed to play music on the radio without paying a small fee to the record label. If I am running a pirate radio station and don't report my playlist to EMI/ASCAP, and I play your record, do you have a legit gripe?
Would I have a legit legal gripe against a "pirate" radio station? Isn't it's very existence illegal?
Should have used not playing the proper licence fees as examples IMO.
IE: A band playing another groups song or a DJ playing music at an event.
Tho, they don't really go after these offences, they are technically illegal. And have had cases of people getting fined.
Just so people know. Downloading music in Canada is not[/b] illegal. For years we've been paying a levy on all recordable media (And I believe things like ipods, SD cards, etc) that is collected and suppose to be distributed to artist (Not that I think the money gets to them). It's only illegal for us to share mp3's. So, for whatever you believe to be illegal in the US, things might totally be different in another country.
Hence, thoughts on the subject might been different from person to person.
People should notice this post. I know of a few artists in Canada who got the government to subsidize everything from their pressing to high quality music videos on non-recoupable grants. I think that the money is going back to the artists and helping sustain them. To think that this could ever happen in America though, sheesh.
I think they have been cutting down on these tho. Sad really. One of my best friends didn't get any support from the gov on his last LP I believe. No video really hurt IMO.
my bad, thats the first thing that pops into my head when i hear "theft is theft". for the record i pretty much agree with you. to me there is a difference in the the dude who steals a candy bar cuz he's hungry vs. the dude who steals a candy bar to sell to the hungry man to make some money.
When yr talking about DJ Drama or someone who made his name offering exclusive content, who is providing a service for the artists he features on his CDs, its one thing (fuck the bootleggers!)
Yeah but the issue with Drama is that he's using artists outside of their contractual agreements with their labels (even if said labels are PAYING Drama to put their artists on).
Again, technically: illegal. Some have argued it's ethically illegal, especially when Drama isnt' paying those artists for their cameos.
So yeah, there's a lot of relativity here and I just think we need to parse things rather than conflate everything.
Musicians, graphic wizards, web designers, writers and so forth, was your latest beat/.gif heatery/web site/article/whatever created on officially purchased copies of Ableton Live, Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office et cetera? Or did you get your software from torrents et al?
Are you suggesting that taking money out of Bill Gates' pockets is morally equivalent to taking money out of Cosmo Baker's pockets?
Musicians, graphic wizards, web designers, writers and so forth, was your latest beat/.gif heatery/web site/article/whatever created on officially purchased copies of Ableton Live, Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office et cetera? Or did you get your software from torrents et al?
Are you suggesting that taking money out of Bill Gates' pockets is morally equivalent to taking money out of Cosmo Baker's pockets?
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
Why? Are you selling stolen records?
No, (hopefully) the artist got paid the first time when the record was sold as "new". Nobody expects to get paid for selling the same record twice.
This raises an interesting question: at what point is an artist considered to be "properly compensated"?
Legally, you're not supposed to play music on the radio without paying a small fee to the record label. If I am running a pirate radio station and don't report my playlist to EMI/ASCAP, and I play your record, do you have a legit gripe?
Otis -
Do you really believe that? Think about it.
I don't know if I would say the majority, but a fair-sized portion of the "used" records currently coming up for sale were never sold in the first place. Cut out warehouses, One stops, defunct mom-n-pop stock, journalist/promo/record label personnel collections... none of these records were bought in the first place and some were even marked "not for sale"! Even if they were initially purchased it is doubtful that the artists got a good accounting of the numbers. There has never been a good way to account accurately for sales at mom-n-pop shops.
That's why I said "(hopefully)". We are talking about ideals here, of course there are always exceptions in reality, and there is little that can be done about people fudging numbers.
Anyway, the mom-n-pops had to buy from distributers, so they were "sold". Don't one-stops also have to purchase their inventory from the labels? Promo records are an understood sacrifice by the label/artist/publisher.
I don't know the exact science but I wouldn't wager a whole lot that cut-out records (literally, throw aways) made money that found its way back to the artist. Selling records to a distributor is one thing, collecting from the distributor quite another, and collecting from the label (after buybacks and whatnot) a whole 'nother thang.
Bottom line is, theft isn't always just theft.
Do you compensate artists when you cover their material live? I believe that is against the law (although it's rarely enforced).
When yr talking about DJ Drama or someone who made his name offering exclusive content, who is providing a service for the artists he features on his CDs, its one thing (fuck the bootleggers!)
Yeah but the issue with Drama is that he's using artists outside of their contractual agreements with their labels (even if said labels are PAYING Drama to put their artists on).
Again, technically: illegal. Some have argued it's ethically illegal, especially when Drama isnt' paying those artists for their cameos.
So yeah, there's a lot of relativity here and I just think we need to parse things rather than conflate everything.
oh i agree with this, i'm talking about ethical/moral issues though; I understand why Drama would get mad at bootleggers. I'm having more trouble seeing why a party DJ who makes a mix of (to take this off of cosmo) say classic disco is gonna get mad when his mix is bootlegged. I mean, its music that is largely available elsewhere; you just made a bunch of disco tracks available to a wider audience without paying the artist; how is it different when some dude does the same, just over the internet?
Is it really all that different because maybe you did a few creative blends?
I don't know the exact science but I wouldn't wager a whole lot that cut-out records (literally, throw aways) made money that found its way back to the artist. Selling records to a distributor is one thing, collecting from the distributor quite another, and collecting from the label (after buybacks and whatnot) a whole 'nother thang.
The details of the deal between the artist and label are a whole other issue, I'm argueing on behalf of the labels and publishers rights, too.
Either way, by and large, the records you sell in your store were not stolen from the record labels.
Do you compensate artists when you cover their material live? I believe that is against the law (although it's rarely enforced).
The venue should be paying a blanket licence for public performances.
And if not, then the artists/labels/publisher have every right to go after the venue or my band. I'm not telling you that I don't do anything illegal or ethically wrong, and i'm not judging the practices of anyone here. We're just having a discussion about morals and law.
Comments
Musicians, graphic wizards, web designers, writers and so forth, was your latest beat/.gif heatery/web site/article/whatever created on officially purchased copies of Ableton Live, Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office et cetera? Or did you get your software from torrents et al?
Not pointing fingers. I'm solving linear equations on a booted copy of Matlab?? right now. Just playing devil's advocate.
Hence, thoughts on the subject might been different from person to person.
I'm not sure what you're saying.
Would you be fine with a producer sampling your music and not paying you?
Sampling and bootlegging are not exactly the same, but in the end, theft is theft. Don't some people even call it "jacking a beat"?
To answer the original question, I think both the original artist and the rapper in question have the right to be mad for not getting paid.
There people go again, asserting these vague moral equivalencies that are not, in fact, equivalent.
Whether an artist wants to get paid off a sample or an artist wants to get paid off an album (vs. seeing his/her work bootlegged) are two very different kinds of grievances, both ethically as well as in the eyes of the law. Yet folks keep insisting that we're taking about the same thing.
I suppose we should all stop buying and selling used records because we are not paying royalties to the artists.
Or DJing for that matter. Since possibly a huge % of the time, the proper license has not been paid. And even though you paid for the music, technically, ur playing it illegally.
Though, I think it's the event holder that would get the fines.
Why? Are you selling stolen records?
No, (hopefully) the artist got paid the first time when the record was sold as "new". Nobody expects to get paid for selling the same record twice.
I'm not saying that the grievances aren't legitimate. But to compare a DJ mix-CD with a bootlegged album - as if they're the same thing - is just fucking ridiculous. If you really believe that, then Deej has a great career future with RIAA.
Similarly, those who would equate sampling with bootlegging are similarly conflating two distinctly different acts. That doesn't mean uncleared sampling is "ok" while bootlegging is not. But you can't claim the two are similar acts. If I steal someone's piano and then record a hit song with it, I've done something illegal, sure - I stole someone's piano. But the piano didn't write/record/engineer/press/distribute/promote the song. Bootlegging that final product is theft of a different kind. Both piano owner and artist have legit grievances. Just not the same ones.
Why shouldn't they tho? Hasn't the RIAA gone after little mom & pop used CD spots before for this?
Hell, the rights holder is suppose to get paid off every time the song is played commercially. They could do the same off the sale of their records.
Side thought. I always hate paying taxes when spots charge it buying used records.
This raises an interesting question: at what point is an artist considered to be "properly compensated"?
Legally, you're not supposed to play music on the radio without paying a small fee to the record label. If I am running a pirate radio station and don't report my playlist to EMI/ASCAP, and I play your record, do you have a legit gripe?
Otis -
Do you really believe that? Think about it.
I don't know if I would say the majority, but a fair-sized portion of the "used" records currently coming up for sale were never sold in the first place. Cut out warehouses, One stops, defunct mom-n-pop stock, journalist/promo/record label personnel collections... none of these records were bought in the first place and some were even marked "not for sale"! Even if they were initially purchased it is doubtful that the artists got a good accounting of the numbers. There has never been a good way to account accurately for sales at mom-n-pop shops.
Would I have a legit legal gripe against a "pirate" radio station? Isn't it's very existence illegal?
Sorry but I don't understand the relevancy of this image unless you're insisting on the "theft is theft" model again.
For the sake of my example, I realize I could have just used a radio station that didn't kick back to BMI (not EMI as I erroneously listed before).
And with pirate stations, I've never understood the specific "harm" they have except that they're using frequencies for free that other stations have to pay for. In that case, they're "stealing" from the gov't that has decided that it has the power to regulate (and thereby "own") specific frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum but again, I'm not sure if pirate radio - despite its name - is really "theft" in any real way (unless you're trying to take over a pre-existing frequency) even though legally, sure, it's considered wrong.
People should notice this post. I know of a few artists in Canada who got the government to subsidize everything from their pressing to high quality music videos on non-recoupable grants. I think that the money is going back to the artists and helping sustain them. To think that this could ever happen in America though, sheesh.
thanks for engaging with what I was saying. I think yr making a mistake, though, by conflating DJ mixes with uncleared samples. Its a logically fallacious slippery slope argument. As rap fans most of us agree that sampling is an art. I'm sure most of us agree that DJing is its own art too. But at the same time, I think if a DJ is expecting to make his living off of party mix cds its a little bit suspect for them to protest dudes bootlegging their own uncleared mixes.
I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to make some statement about the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of what certain hip party mix DJs do as a matter of course - I purchase Boolu Master and DJ Lil Jon mixes regularly, and used to record those mixes off the radio when they would get played on power 92 or wgci. I have no ethical qualms about such. I think DJ mixes, sold under the table, are great promotional tools for dudes who are trying to make names for themselves, get gigs as DJs or solidify their reps etc.
I really do have to wonder, though, if those DJs start complaining about their mixes being bootlegged - assuming their names are still on the label, the kids downloading their mixes aren't claiming someone else created them. They're already operating in a legal gray area. When yr talking about DJ Drama or someone who made his name offering exclusive content, who is providing a service for the artists he features on his CDs, its one thing (fuck the bootleggers!) but when you're talking about party DJs who use mixtapes as promotional tools, without the input of the artists...I donno. I still think there's something worth debating here.
Should have used not playing the proper licence fees as examples IMO.
IE: A band playing another groups song or a DJ playing music at an event.
Tho, they don't really go after these offences, they are technically illegal. And have had cases of people getting fined.
I think they have been cutting down on these tho. Sad really. One of my best friends didn't get any support from the gov on his last LP I believe. No video really hurt IMO.
for the record i pretty much agree with you.
to me there is a difference in the the dude who steals a candy bar cuz he's hungry vs. the dude who steals a candy bar to sell to the hungry man to make some money.
Yeah but the issue with Drama is that he's using artists outside of their contractual agreements with their labels (even if said labels are PAYING Drama to put their artists on).
Again, technically: illegal. Some have argued it's ethically illegal, especially when Drama isnt' paying those artists for their cameos.
So yeah, there's a lot of relativity here and I just think we need to parse things rather than conflate everything.
Are you suggesting that taking money out of Bill Gates' pockets is morally equivalent to taking money out of Cosmo Baker's pockets?
Hello???? THEFT IS THEFT.
Cocaine Blunts is straight THIEVING, son.
That's why I said "(hopefully)". We are talking about ideals here, of course there are always exceptions in reality, and there is little that can be done about people fudging numbers.
Anyway, the mom-n-pops had to buy from distributers, so they were "sold". Don't one-stops also have to purchase their inventory from the labels?
Promo records are an understood sacrifice by the label/artist/publisher.
Bottom line is, theft isn't always just theft.
Do you compensate artists when you cover their material live? I believe that is against the law (although it's rarely enforced).
What??
Of course I would have a legit gripe against any radio station that didn't kick back to BMI! How is that legal (if they're playing BMI music)?
Is it really all that different because maybe you did a few creative blends?
the line has to be drawn somewhere
(or maybe it doesnt!)
The details of the deal between the artist and label are a whole other issue, I'm argueing on behalf of the labels and publishers rights, too.
Either way, by and large, the records you sell in your store were not stolen from the record labels.
The venue should be paying a blanket licence for public performances.
And if not, then the artists/labels/publisher have every right to go after the venue or my band.
I'm not telling you that I don't do anything illegal or ethically wrong, and i'm not judging the practices of anyone here. We're just having a discussion about morals and law.
^True. But lest you forget - THIEVERY IS HIP HOP, YO!