The end of File Sharing ?!

[nostatic]

Most artists don't want "complete control over the consumption of their product." Rather, they would like to be fairly compensated for what they create. Copyright is the vehicle that forces people to "do the right thing." You can call it whatever you want - some people just don't give a crap about anyone else and want free stuff. The music in the mp3 that they downloaded didn't magically get made. People actually worked on a number of different levels to make the final product happen. If you think it is good enough to listen to, then it should be good enough to pay for.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

You demand examples of the above, yet cannot provide examples of what you say below.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/18/harvard_working_paper_weak_copyright_protections_b enefit_society/

http://liquidculture.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/the-supposed-link-between-unrestricted-file-sharing-and-declining-cd-sales/

OK?

Some artists realize this and allow it, or even encourage it. That is their prerogative. It is not a decision you can make for them, however, to justify stealing their material.

Nope, I personally decided to stop downloading AND purchasing their work(s), period. Not allowing your customers to "try before you buy" is just an excuse to put out over-hyped garbage.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Nostatic, did you strike a deal with Harpo's estate for the continued use of his likeness in your avatar? Or is that image in the public domain?

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by BlueSkyJaunte

Nostatic, did you strike a deal with Harpo's estate for the continued use of his likeness in your avatar? Or is that image in the public domain?

Not quite the same thing. If I was using his image for commerce then it would in fact require a deal. I can argue "fair use" as I'm using it as parody and not for profit. Plus the income of his estate cannot be impacted by the 64x64px image.

But hey, if it makes you feel better about pirated music, go for the moral equivalence. We all make our own lines in the sand as none of this is black and white.

[Jeff Higgins]

There is a bumper sticker seen around Seattle now and then that claims to quote Chief Joseph. It says "It takes few words to speak the truth".

BlueSkyThief's endless machinations to justify stealing others' work reminds of that, for some reason. I guess for guys like that, it really does depend what "is" is. For the more honest among us, it's all pretty clear. Taking another's work without paying them for it is stealing. Plain and simple.

[gr8fl4porsche]

I disagree with 'plain and simple'.

If a cover band plays all night and collects a check - is that not 'stealing'?

Yes, I know the laws concerning copyright infringement and playing live, but the point is the same.

Not much is simple.

[gprsh924]

Originally Posted by gr8fl4porsche

I disagree with 'plain and simple'.

If a cover band plays all night and collects a check - is that not 'stealing'?

Yes, I know the laws concerning copyright infringement and playing live, but the point is the same.

It's not quite the same because either the band or the bar owners bay the copyright holders for the license for the song.

[gr8fl4porsche]

Why shouldn't they pay a fee?

They are profitting from others copyrighted work.

[gr8fl4porsche]

The point is about the 'grey' area we are in here.

If I buy a cd - should I be able to share it with my friends or not?

They can come over to the house and listen, but can they leave with a copy?

That is the issue.

Of course, are total strangers on the web really friends?

[gprsh924]

Originally Posted by gr8fl4porsche

Why shouldn't they pay a fee?

They are profitting from others copyrighted work.

The cover band? Or the bar in which they are playing? In my above posted I said that someone does pay a fee. It depends on the licensing agreement as to who actually pays. However, because it would be nearly impossible for a band to keep track of every entity who plays their music and attempt to charge them a fee, most record companies and labels have blanket agreements (typically with bars) where cover songs may be played.

Ultimately, the original content creators are seeing some money when their songs are covered.

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Not quite the same thing. If I was using his image for commerce then it would in fact require a deal. I can argue "fair use" as I'm using it as parody and not for profit. Plus the income of his estate cannot be impacted by the 64x64px image.

Now you're rationalizing that in essence , you copied something, which you've just been arguing is stealing.

It's like going onto somebody's property, and taking away a bucket of dirt,
And then saying it would be ok, if they don't notice they are missing the dirt...
regardless the fact that you took away the dirt, from their property, without permission...
"their estate was not impacted by the 10 lbs bucket of dirt".

At least it would be if you keep up the jibber jabber that copying is stealing...
Either you think it's stealing, and you stole the 64x64 picture
or it's not stealing, in which case it's time to walk away from the argument that copying is in deed stealing.

can't have it both ways.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

BlueSkyThief's endless machinations to justify stealing others' work reminds of that, for some reason. I guess for guys like that, it really does depend what "is" is. For the more honest among us, it's all pretty clear. Taking another's work without paying them for it is stealing. Plain and simple.

Funny. Convicted without due process, now? That's "BlueSkyMarxist", by the way. Get it right.

I invite you to install a packet sniffer on my router and see how many file-sharing applications I'm running. You'll be sorely disappointed. Hell, I don't even use torrents for downloading Linux distributions anymore.

Originally Posted by nostatic

Not quite the same thing. If I was using his image for commerce then it would in fact require a deal.

Ah, but you do! Are those not links in your .sig to art that you yourself are selling? One might even contend that the Harpo image IS the face of nostatic on Pelican Parts. It has become your "trademark", so to speak.

Honestly I don't care what you do. But the whole black and white argument is getting tiresome, so I elect to play (1) Devil's Advocate and (2) advocate for less legislation and special interest protection. Plus I like tweaking Jeff's nose; he seems pretty wound up about it. Maybe he's related to Lars Ulrich?

[Highlander179]

Originally Posted by gprsh924

It's not quite the same because either the band or the bar owners bay the copyright holders for the license for the song.

Really? So if I go to my local Starbucks that has an open mic night where someone is doing covers, he has paid a fee to do so? This is everywhere across the globe where live performances including covers occurs?

How do they manage to collect all those fees? Every bar or cafe or wherever there is a mic on the globe?

Wow! The magnitude of such an operation is just... Wow!

[Cdnone1]

If I shoot a movie and have a percentage of the profit participation that is figured into my up front salary.
I am now a vested owner in the production that I am "trading" my skills or talents for equity.
The distribution deal is worked out in advance and are part of the negotiations.
I now own part of this and I don't want you taking it for free. I don't care what your reasons or logic for taking something I own with out paying for it are but since it is mine and I don't want you to have it for free, you taking it form me for free is stealing. Period!
My brother is a musician. He has had his music on sound tracks.
He has heard his music being played at parties and asked where they got it. When the people told them they downloaded it and find out he owns the rights to it it can get awfully quiet and uncomfortable.
I don't think any of you would go online and steal my work with me sitting in the room.
Steve

[widebody911]

Originally Posted by Cdnone1

People in my business (film, TV shows, commercials) are really suffering.

Yet we keep hearing how many bazillions are being brought in at the box office. Where is all the money going?

[gprsh924]

Originally Posted by Highlander179

Really? So if I go to my local Starbucks that has an open mic night where someone is doing covers, he has paid a fee to do so? This is everywhere across the globe where live performances including covers occurs?

How do they manage to collect all those fees? Every bar or cafe or wherever there is a mic on the globe?

Wow! The magnitude of such an operation is just... Wow!

Why does everyone discussion on the internet reach this low level so quickly. Do some reading:

http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

I'm sure not every bar owner pays the fees they are supposed to, but ASCAP also sends in under cover agents to crack down on places that don't.

[svandamme]

maybe the movie industry is suffering because it's been copying from old movies to death, and copying poorly if i may say so.

+ Adding to the fact that the Movie industry is constantly tinkering with the way movies are released.

Why do i have to wait on average 4 months before a movie is released in Belgium, when y'all have it already?
Why can't they release it before it's available on Torrent, in DVD Quality?

Maybe i would not torrent it, if they got it out here in time?
Star Wars was a really good example for that.

There is no technical reason why i should wait even one day longer then you guys, yet, in reality, they want me to wait months.. Guess what, i'm impatient, and many are just like me.

And another thing, why should i drive at least 35 km for a movie theater? when there was a perfectly good one just 5 km away? Why did they close the 1 movie theater near my town?

Because the studio's set requirements on where a movie could be played. and they deemed this theater not good enough for their movies , because it didn't have the THX and whatever other.
Well guess what, That place was doing good, sure, not the most high tech theater, but it was fun to go to... And close by.
I went there by myself, or with friends from when i was 10 years old, my sister, now 9, can't go to the movies when she wants to. Because she first needs to nag an adult into driving there...

That's not the fault of a torrent, that's the fault of the movie industry, but you won't ever hear no Mea Culpa from any of the big boys in charge, no no, no CEO of anything will ever admit guilt.. Not even when they are given the Golden Parachute by the Board, because they replaced him for somebody who will hopefully please the sharholders a bit more.... Talk about stealing...

[nostatic]

Originally Posted by svandamme

Why do i have to wait on average 4 months before a movie is released in Belgium, when y'all have it already?.

Because we hate Belgium.

Not as much as we hate France, but since Flemish sounds kinda like French...well, you know...

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins

So, if your employer decides not to pay you for your work, that would not be "stealing" by your logic. After all, you have nothing less than you did beforehand. If you are a landlord, and a tenant does not pay, that is not stealing, either - again, you have nothing less than you had before - he took nothing from you.

No , that's not stealing, that's breach of contract.
I'de take him to court, and he would be convicted for "breach of contract" , not "theft".

poor argument, since i have no written contract with any artist, hence i could not possibly breach any contract.

[svandamme]

Originally Posted by nostatic

Because we hate Belgium.

Not as much as we hate France, but since Flemish sounds kinda like French...well, you know...

Flemish does not sound like french at all, it's a Dialect of Dutch, wich is close to German, and the dialect actually sounds a bit like Swedish... Not french...

Besides, most Americans don't even know what Belgium is, at best they heard of Brussels, often thinking it's the capital of a country called Yoooorop.