I haven't read this whole thread, but as a moderator why do you allow people to post links to download other people's music?
Good point ! Over at DWG people tend to post "old" music that is no longer available but if some posts something "new" i.e. available to buy instore/over the net the link is swiftly removed, even if it's a mixtape. A good policy I think.
Little Timmy is 9 years old and downloads your new track. The RIAA tracks Timmy's IP and sends off a lawsuit. The RIAA wants X amount of money paid. Now, Little Timmy gets in trouble and may feel bad that he's gotten him mommy in trouble, but I bet thats nothing compared to his feelings towards the RIAA and maybe even the artist themselves.
Does Timmy live in Connecticut? I think he posts on here occasionally...
If you had these magical machines that could take one apple and make as many as you wanted, at zero cost. Are you stealing from the farmer that grew the first apple?
Here's the deal. I'm not trying to tell anyone it's right or wrong. Since the laws in my country have never been that it's illegal to download music, I feel I'm not doing anything wrong until the laws are ever changed.
But what I am telling you is, that the old business model of how things use to be are a changin'. You want to hope that some magic fix will come along or that you can sue people into paying for your music. Keep the hope alive. I ain't mad at cha.
True, and the turnover will be so quick amongst artists that can't support themselves that no one will probably ever put out anything interesting.
Being a full time artist isn't a necessary requirement to put out interesting music, though. A lot of the stuff I dug in recent years (similar to a lot of the open source software I cherish) has been done on the side in people's basements and laptops in spare time. I can easily see declines in national/international touring and the death of the studio album (until technology can lower the financial bar on that as well), but I don't see the nothing interesting aspect happening.
If you had these magical machines that could take one apple and make as many as you wanted, at zero cost. Are you stealing from the farmer that grew the first apple?
keep your day job my man. copyright infringement is stealing. the whole purpose of getting a copyright is to make a claim on something that you own. if i take something that has a copyright and unlawfully distribute it or market it as my own, that is stealing and/or copyright infringement (a term of law).
your magical apple machine theory is so irrelevant and off-point, i dont know where to start.
If you had these magical machines that could take one apple and make as many as you wanted, at zero cost. Are you stealing from the farmer that grew the first apple?
Here's the deal. I'm not trying to tell anyone it's right or wrong. Since the laws in my country have never been that it's illegal to download music, I feel I'm not doing anything wrong until the laws are ever changed.
But what I am telling you is, that the old business model of how things use to be are a changin'. You want to hope that some magic fix will come along or that you can sue people into paying for your music. Keep the hope alive. I ain't mad at cha.
Just because the laws in your country make it legal, that doesn't make it right. If Canada made state sponsered murder of Muslims legal would you go out and start killing Muslims? If you want to use retarded arguments like apple farmers, you've got to let me use Hitler and genocide too.
Canada hasn't tackled the issue because they, like many others, have no way of doing it. It is unfuckingstopable. You glazing over the facts because the law doesn't apply to you is so weak of an argument that I can barely even comprehend you using it as a defense. Music costs money to produce, the people making that music are entitled to compensation if you want to own it. It's that simple. There is no argument against it.
Is there a store in Canada that lets you steal apples?
If you had these magical machines that could take one apple and make as many as you wanted, at zero cost. Are you stealing from the farmer that grew the first apple?
keep your day job my man. copyright infringement is stealing. the whole purpose of getting a copyright is to make a claim on something that you own. if i take something that has a copyright and unlawfully distribute it or market it as my own, that is stealing and/or copyright infringement (a term of law).
your magical apple machine theory is so irrelevant and off-point, i dont know where to start.
Technically, yes, copyright infringement is "stealing." But, a brief glance at the history of copyright and intellectual property laws quickly reveals the incredible inconsistencies in the thought and practice of these laws. These inconsistencies are only interesting because they so clearly show that copyright law has never really been about protecting artists or art or intellectual property, but about protecting the economic interests of those in power that make money off these copyrights. So, while copyrighti infringement is "stealing" on some level, I don't think it's difficult to make the argument that--many times (if not most of the time)--it is also much different than "stealing" as well.
People have shared my Cuban comp on a number of Internet forums. I get fairly peeved when I see someone raving about the CD while offering a yousendit link so his buddies can download it. At first I called up the website admins and had them remove the links, but now I wonder whether I should just let it go.
It'll be some time before I don't feel the loss of every CD that is downloaded instead of purchased. I haven't heard any convincing arguments for why I should countenance people stealing my music. It's not as if I'm an artist who can tour or finds comfort in the idea of people listening to my work even if they don't pay for it; I spent a lot of time and money to reissue otherwise inaccessible music and I feel that if people want to hear it they ought to fork out the very reasonable tax.
Should I continue with my threatening phone call rampage, or should I just hope that if people like what they download they'll buy a copy?
Yes
aren't YOU technically bootlegging other folk's music anyways???
aren't YOU technically bootlegging other folk's music anyways???
NO.
It's all legally licensed. Read the thread before responding. The thing is 11 pages. You think you're the only person that would've thought to say that in 11 pages?
People have shared my Cuban comp on a number of Internet forums. I get fairly peeved when I see someone raving about the CD while offering a yousendit link so his buddies can download it. At first I called up the website admins and had them remove the links, but now I wonder whether I should just let it go.
It'll be some time before I don't feel the loss of every CD that is downloaded instead of purchased. I haven't heard any convincing arguments for why I should countenance people stealing my music. It's not as if I'm an artist who can tour or finds comfort in the idea of people listening to my work even if they don't pay for it; I spent a lot of time and money to reissue otherwise inaccessible music and I feel that if people want to hear it they ought to fork out the very reasonable tax.
Should I continue with my threatening phone call rampage, or should I just hope that if people like what they download they'll buy a copy?
Yes
aren't YOU technically bootlegging other folk's music anyways???
I think that people are over reacting to what is probably a market adjusting to new techonology. Studies like this one are finding that inbetween 50% to 70% of the music on most iPods is aquired legally by the owners of the iPod, either through CD purchase or legal (iTunes) download.
James Boyle, a lawyer, and expert on copyright law spoke at my school two weeks ago. He told a story about a panel in which a representative from a movie studio was debating against the idea that people will continue to purchase DVDs if they can download instead. He declared: "You cannot compete with free!" In response his opponents held up a bottle of water.
I think that people are over reacting to what is probably a market adjusting to new techonology.
Since the thread is actually specifically about Danno's compilation CD, and the fact that he has seen it available for free & illegal download around the Internet, I don't think it's fair to call it an "over reaction" - he is seeing his hard work and money invested being siphoned away before his eyes, just like Thes & Day have.
Music costs money to produce, the people making that music are entitled to compensation if you want to own it. It's that simple. There is no argument against it.
Is there a store in Canada that lets you steal apples?
When you buy music, you don't own it. You own a licence for the music.
And yes, it did cost money to make a record. But those days are numbered. Things like the link I posted yesterday are showing it to be true.
People have shared my Cuban comp on a number of Internet forums. I get fairly peeved when I see someone raving about the CD while offering a yousendit link so his buddies can download it. At first I called up the website admins and had them remove the links, but now I wonder whether I should just let it go.
It'll be some time before I don't feel the loss of every CD that is downloaded instead of purchased. I haven't heard any convincing arguments for why I should countenance people stealing my music. It's not as if I'm an artist who can tour or finds comfort in the idea of people listening to my work even if they don't pay for it; I spent a lot of time and money to reissue otherwise inaccessible music and I feel that if people want to hear it they ought to fork out the very reasonable tax.
Should I continue with my threatening phone call rampage, or should I just hope that if people like what they download they'll buy a copy?
Yes
aren't YOU technically bootlegging other folk's music anyways???
It has gotten cheaper to record really simple, cheap albums of limited quality due to the proliferation of prosumer recording gear. But do you understand how limited this makes things musically? Or that it is a reversal in sonic fidelity from 30 years ago?
If you are willing to accept this as the model for how music is made, that real recording studios are unnecessary, you can say goodbye to a lot of the things that we all cherish in recorded music. If you have ever done a real session in a real recording studio you understand that you might try 3 different mics on each instrument, trying to find the right sonic texture. Or that positioning each instrument/musician in the room is essential in creating the right balance. Or that there is a huge, discernable difference between pro gear and the cheap stuff. Oh, and with a room that small, forget tracking a horn section or a string arrangement.
A lot of people have this misconception that beacause a lot of hip-hop producers have home/bedroom studios that you can make a whole record sound great with just the gear in that room. Thes' studio aside for the most part, this isn't true. Hip-hop records that sound great were recorded in great studios, often with a handful of phenomenal engineers. The 8 outs on that MPC are running through a Neve or SSL, and probably through some vintage Urei or massenberg compressors at some point as well.
It will always cost money to make a great-sounding record.
It has gotten cheaper to record really simple, cheap albums of limited quality due to the proliferation of prosumer recording gear. But do you understand how limited this makes things musically? Or that it is a reversal in sonic fidelity from 30 years ago?
I totally disagree w/ this. First off, the most recent music developments, in hip-hop, house, techno, whatever, have been started by people using bootleg-ass equipment because they couldn't afford other shit. Economic constraints on the part of the artist have done an INCREDIBLE AMOUNT for music in the last 30 years.
second, why don't you think that personal, cheap technology will, over time, develop to respond to demands for higher fidelity recording equipment?
Just because its not here now doesn't mean it won't ever be.
It has gotten cheaper to record really simple, cheap albums of limited quality due to the proliferation of prosumer recording gear. But do you understand how limited this makes things musically? Or that it is a reversal in sonic fidelity from 30 years ago?
If you are willing to accept this as the model for how music is made, that real recording studios are unnecessary, you can say goodbye to a lot of the things that we all cherish in recorded music. If you have ever done a real session in a real recording studio you understand that you might try 3 different mics on each instrument, trying to find the right sonic texture. Or that positioning each instrument/musician in the room is essential in creating the right balance. Or that there is a huge, discernable difference between pro gear and the cheap stuff. Oh, and with a room that small, forget tracking a horn section or a string arrangement.
A lot of people have this misconception that beacause a lot of hip-hop producers have home/bedroom studios that you can make a whole record sound great with just the gear in that room. Thes' studio aside for the most part, this isn't true. Hip-hop records that sound great were recorded in great studios, often with a handful of phenomenal engineers. The 8 outs on that MPC are running through a Neve or SSL, and probably through some vintage Urei or massenberg compressors at some point as well.
It will always cost money to make a great-sounding record.
I'm not disagreeing. But you can't deny that many producers out there are getting what was once very expensive gear out of things like protools and some great cracked plug-ins.
Do you really wanna be a part of something thats answer is to go around installing fear into making sure your music is not shared?
Fear is what motivates much of our adherence to regulation. Many people drive seatbelts buckled and sober not because they fear an accident, but because they fear a ticket and points off their license. I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of a government agency enforcing copyright by creating consequences for violations.
Anyway, Mom tells Timmy not steal in the corner store, maybe she should tell him not to steal on the Internet as well.
Fear is what motivates much of our adherence to regulation. Many people drive seatbelts buckled and sober not because they fear an accident, but because they fear a ticket and points off their license. I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of a government agency enforcing copyright by creating consequences for violations.
Well, being those are laws made to save people lives, and I'm not sure I've ever agreed with the seatbelt one.
But in anycase, I hope one day the law is changed for all the artist out there.
Technically, yes, copyright infringement is "stealing." But, a brief glance at the history of copyright and intellectual property laws quickly reveals the incredible inconsistencies in the thought and practice of these laws. These inconsistencies are only interesting because they so clearly show that copyright law has never really been about protecting artists or art or intellectual property, but about protecting the economic interests of those in power that make money off these copyrights. So, while copyrighti infringement is "stealing" on some level, I don't think it's difficult to make the argument that--many times (if not most of the time)--it is also much different than "stealing" as well.
-e
I've never had the sense that Canadian copyright law was in the service of "the powerful".
Canadian copyright law seeks to find a balance between promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works and obtaining a just reward for the author. The balance trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work. The balance is virtually impossible to precisely identify and so courts arrive at inconsistent decisions. I have no reason to think that Canadian courts are just working to protect the interest of the man. Rather, I think they struggle with sometimes clumsy law to arrive at fair decisions.
Since the laws in my country have never been that it's illegal to download music, I feel I'm not doing anything wrong until the laws are
This line of thinking is all kinds of fucked up.
I understand that you think this and I respect your opinion. Doesn't change the facts any.
You're essentially saying you'll do something wrong because its not illegal in your country.
Doesn't change the facts any.
If someone creates and sells something for a living, and someone copies it and distributes it (potentially to millions of people) for free, what do you classify that as?
Bootlegging? Stealing?
You can try to circumvent the argument with semantics like "copyright infringement", but in the end it is taking something without paying.
That said, I agree there is no stopping this and adapting is key.
Comments
Good point ! Over at DWG people tend to post "old" music that is no longer available but if some posts something "new" i.e. available to buy instore/over the net the link is swiftly removed, even if it's a mixtape. A good policy I think.
Does Timmy live in Connecticut? I think he posts on here occasionally...
It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.
If you had these magical machines that could take one apple and make as many as you wanted, at zero cost. Are you stealing from the farmer that grew the first apple?
Here's the deal. I'm not trying to tell anyone it's right or wrong. Since the laws in my country have never been that it's illegal to download music, I feel I'm not doing anything wrong until the laws are ever changed.
But what I am telling you is, that the old business model of how things use to be are a changin'. You want to hope that some magic fix will come along or that you can sue people into paying for your music. Keep the hope alive. I ain't mad at cha.
Being a full time artist isn't a necessary requirement to put out interesting music, though. A lot of the stuff I dug in recent years (similar to a lot of the open source software I cherish) has been done on the side in people's basements and laptops in spare time. I can easily see declines in national/international touring and the death of the studio album (until technology can lower the financial bar on that as well), but I don't see the nothing interesting aspect happening.
keep your day job my man. copyright infringement is stealing. the whole purpose of getting a copyright is to make a claim on something that you own. if i take something that has a copyright and unlawfully distribute it or market it as my own, that is stealing and/or copyright infringement (a term of law).
your magical apple machine theory is so irrelevant and off-point, i dont know where to start.
Just because the laws in your country make it legal, that doesn't make it right. If Canada made state sponsered murder of Muslims legal would you go out and start killing Muslims? If you want to use retarded arguments like apple farmers, you've got to let me use Hitler and genocide too.
Canada hasn't tackled the issue because they, like many others, have no way of doing it. It is unfuckingstopable. You glazing over the facts because the law doesn't apply to you is so weak of an argument that I can barely even comprehend you using it as a defense. Music costs money to produce, the people making that music are entitled to compensation if you want to own it. It's that simple. There is no argument against it.
Is there a store in Canada that lets you steal apples?
Technically, yes, copyright infringement is "stealing." But, a brief glance at the history of copyright and intellectual property laws quickly reveals the incredible inconsistencies in the thought and practice of these laws. These inconsistencies are only interesting because they so clearly show that copyright law has never really been about protecting artists or art or intellectual property, but about protecting the economic interests of those in power that make money off these copyrights. So, while copyrighti infringement is "stealing" on some level, I don't think it's difficult to make the argument that--many times (if not most of the time)--it is also much different than "stealing" as well.
-e
aren't YOU technically bootlegging other folk's music anyways???
R.
I.
C.
NO.
It's all legally licensed. Read the thread before responding. The thing is 11 pages. You think you're the only person that would've thought to say that in 11 pages?
Sheesh.
-e
No.
James Boyle, a lawyer, and expert on copyright law spoke at my school two weeks ago. He told a story about a panel in which a representative from a movie studio was debating against the idea that people will continue to purchase DVDs if they can download instead. He declared: "You cannot compete with free!" In response his opponents held up a bottle of water.
Please ignore accordingly.
Since the thread is actually specifically about Danno's
compilation CD, and the fact that he has seen it available
for free & illegal download around the Internet, I don't
think it's fair to call it an "over reaction" - he is
seeing his hard work and money invested being siphoned
away before his eyes, just like Thes & Day have.
When you buy music, you don't own it. You own a licence for the music.
And yes, it did cost money to make a record. But those days are numbered. Things like the link I posted yesterday are showing it to be true.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/ar...lbum/article.do
My analogy of the magical apple machine wasn't meant to be taken literally. It was a hypothetical question. Hence the use of the word "magical".
But oddly enough, in the real world there is a machine that can make a million copies of one item at almost zero cost.
No he's not.
It has gotten cheaper to record really simple, cheap albums of limited quality due to the proliferation of prosumer recording gear. But do you understand how limited this makes things musically? Or that it is a reversal in sonic fidelity from 30 years ago?
If you are willing to accept this as the model for how music is made, that real recording studios are unnecessary, you can say goodbye to a lot of the things that we all cherish in recorded music. If you have ever done a real session in a real recording studio you understand that you might try 3 different mics on each instrument, trying to find the right sonic texture. Or that positioning each instrument/musician in the room is essential in creating the right balance. Or that there is a huge, discernable difference between pro gear and the cheap stuff. Oh, and with a room that small, forget tracking a horn section or a string arrangement.
A lot of people have this misconception that beacause a lot of hip-hop producers have home/bedroom studios that you can make a whole record sound great with just the gear in that room. Thes' studio aside for the most part, this isn't true. Hip-hop records that sound great were recorded in great studios, often with a handful of phenomenal engineers. The 8 outs on that MPC are running through a Neve or SSL, and probably through some vintage Urei or massenberg compressors at some point as well.
It will always cost money to make a great-sounding record.
I totally disagree w/ this. First off, the most recent music developments, in hip-hop, house, techno, whatever, have been started by people using bootleg-ass equipment because they couldn't afford other shit. Economic constraints on the part of the artist have done an INCREDIBLE AMOUNT for music in the last 30 years.
second, why don't you think that personal, cheap technology will, over time, develop to respond to demands for higher fidelity recording equipment?
Just because its not here now doesn't mean it won't ever be.
I'm not disagreeing. But you can't deny that many producers out there are getting what was once very expensive gear out of things like protools and some great
crackedplug-ins.This line of thinking is all kinds of fucked up.
I understand that you think this and I respect your opinion. Doesn't change the facts any.
Fear is what motivates much of our adherence to regulation. Many people drive seatbelts buckled and sober not because they fear an accident, but because they fear a ticket and points off their license. I'm not uncomfortable with the idea of a government agency enforcing copyright by creating consequences for violations.
Anyway, Mom tells Timmy not steal in the corner store, maybe she should tell him not to steal on the Internet as well.
Well, being those are laws made to save people lives, and I'm not sure I've ever agreed with the seatbelt one.
But in anycase, I hope one day the law is changed for all the artist out there.
I've never had the sense that Canadian copyright law was in the service of "the powerful".
Canadian copyright law seeks to find a balance between promoting the public interest in the encouragement and dissemination of works and obtaining a just reward for the author. The balance trades off the costs of limiting access to a work against the benefits of providing incentives to create the work. The balance is virtually impossible to precisely identify and so courts arrive at inconsistent decisions. I have no reason to think that Canadian courts are just working to protect the interest of the man. Rather, I think they struggle with sometimes clumsy law to arrive at fair decisions.
The last time I saw someone post a currently in-print LP it was promptly removed.
You're essentially saying you'll do something wrong because its not illegal in your country.
Doesn't change the facts any.
If someone creates and sells something for a living, and someone copies it and distributes it (potentially to millions of people) for free, what do you classify that as?
Bootlegging? Stealing?
You can try to circumvent the argument with semantics like "copyright infringement", but in the end it is taking something without paying.
That said, I agree there is no stopping this and adapting is key.
Especially in Canada, apparently.