The great music copyright debate.

[Cabinfever]

they'd be no need for lawyers and copyright court cases if lazy musos stopped stealing music.

if these so-called artists are going sample chunks of other peoples work then of course they should be penalized.

if someone steals my stuff i want to see their ass fried. they're taking away my wages and parasiting on my work. are they so lacking in talent they can't make up some of their own stuff ?

you want to rap over some beats ? well buy some beats - theres so many apps or loop disks for cheap these days. why steal ? maybe for some people this question is the same as 'why use warez' ? they just don't want to be bothered. lazy

it's just like the mp3 file-sharing whores. seems to me a lot of kids want something for nothing these days. and then they start crying like babies or getting foul-mouthed if someone suggests they should actually pay for what they want !

personally i hope that the record companies nail every one of these music swappers.

bottom line: if you want something, do some work earn some money and buy it.

and if you write music, write the whole dam track yourself, or be prepared to face the person you stole from in court

[TVD]

Copyright law was designed to encourage artists to share their work.

It was intended to protect them from blatant acts of theft (e.g. someone else, for example a publishing house, claiming authorship of their work and making money off of it.)

But now it is being used by huge corporations to rip off artists. Copyright law has become so complex that we have bizarre situations like an author not legally being able to read his own book on his own computer.

This complexity ensures that lawyers will have a large and increasingly dominant roll in the music industry. I have trouble seeing how this can be good for artists or for our collective culture. Something seems kind of skewed when the only really certain way of getting signed to a major label is to get your demo into the hands of the right ENTERTAINMENT LAWYER.

I am not saying what is right and what is wrong. But in the case of music, this whole "Stealing is wrong, period" attitude seems rather simplistic. The major labels, and the lawyers, "publishers", and promoters that work with it, have been ripping off artists and our culture for decades. And if its not against the law when they do it, that is because THEY WRITE THE LAWS.

Please check out the following links:

http://reason.com/0107/cr.mg.copywrong.shtml

http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

They are kinda scary if you ask me.

Also, if you make music professionally,check out:

http://www.nolo.com where you can find easily
understood explanations of the laws that apply to public musicians.

Please don't believe that the mainstream entertainment industries aren't stupid and corrupt and unfairly hegemonic in the marketplace.

They are.

You're damn right they are! Just look at the artists that had gotten screw over the years because of the way the music industry conduct dirty business that benefit the industry itself & their stockbrokers more than the artists that made the music:

Little Richard
Prince (WB Music Group owns the master tapes)
TLC
George Michael
The Beatles (Michael Jackson & Sony Entertainment owns the publishings)
Madonna (just recently in 2004)
Dr. Dre (Suge Knight owns the The Chronic)
N*SYNC
Teena Marie
Martha Reeves

...and basically most of the artists you hear about on VH-1 Behind The Music!

[TVD]

As for isolated examples of NAPSTER and P2P being good for artists, for every one person like that, I know two who have huge CD collections and have never paid for a single one. If I know two, there are millions more who I am yet to encounter. I even got an email from a small label teh other day with an .nfo file from one of their releases which has been pirated by some hacker group, just like software. The band haven't sold out their first pressing and some bunch o' c**ts are ripping 'em off. Wrong is wrong.

The same damn thing happen to the rap artist Nelly a few years back.

3 weeks before the release of his second album, Nelly reported to Bill Mader that bootleg CDs & mp3s were already on the market (all free of charge!) & that the prime suspects of this crime were actually a few of the employees of the CD album pressing factories owned by Universal Music Group!!!

If the RIAA really want to put a stop to all of this "illegal" music uploading, they need to get an arrest warriant on some members of the Major Record Labels themselves for having very poor security!

[Sepheritoh]

ANd once again something amazes me. How many attempts are there in this thread that attempt to "justify" some form or other of music theft.

If this opinions tried to justify theft of software in anyway this thread would have been locked by now.

[TVD]

ANd once again something amazes me. How many attempts are there in this thread that attempt to "justify" some form or other of music theft.

If this opinions tried to justify theft of software in anyway this thread would have been locked by now.

In case you think that no one is speaking out against:

http://www.rapstation.com/promo/lars_vs_chuckd.html

[freeztar]

It's a shame really...
Music used to be about art. Now it is about money.
The transition occured when all the starving artists of the world could be heard the world over.
It is a paradox.
An increase in the proliferation of art, for a (literal) price.
We all want money, but at what price?

I don't codone p2p. I used to. But, I don't touch it anymore. The Kvr community is solely responsible for that.
Now, I am quite content with other great options, like the Music Cafe and Ampcast.
I still get exposed to music I'm interested in, like with p2p, but now it is mainly "unheard" ARTISTS.

I personally like the idea of evolution somebody hinted at earlier in this thread. Sharing is not going to change. That idea was realized by the advent of tapes. There was a huge outcry when VHS came out. Now we have Tivo.
It became a problem when "tapes" were digitally shared worldwide. The message I get from the record companies is this: WE are THE artist trading house, give US money.
Interestingly, small, independent labels are more likely to share music freely. In other words, most, if not all the users of kvr have freely available art for download. If an artist gets picked up by a large label, from kvr, the artist is likely to morph their attitude to fit the record companies' idea of slavery. That is the only way the record companies know. The artist doesn't mind so much, because they are getting paid now.

Evolution.
It is coming (It is here).
Long live KvR...

[TVD]

It's a shame really...
Music used to be about art. Now it is about money.
The transition occured when all the starving artists of the world could be heard the world over.
It is a paradox.
An increase in the proliferation of art, for a (literal) price.
We all want money, but at what price?

I don't codone p2p. I used to. But, I don't touch it anymore. The Kvr community is solely responsible for that.
Now, I am quite content with other great options, like the Music Cafe and Ampcast.
I still get exposed to music I'm interested in, like with p2p, but now it is mainly "unheard" ARTISTS.

I personally like the idea of evolution somebody hinted at earlier in this thread. Sharing is not going to change. That idea was realized by the advent of tapes. There was a huge outcry when VHS came out. Now we have Tivo.
It became a problem when "tapes" were digitally shared worldwide. The message I get from the record companies is this: WE are THE artist trading house, give US money.
Interestingly, small, independent labels are more likely to share music freely. In other words, most, if not all the users of kvr have freely available art for download. If an artist gets picked up by a large label, from kvr, the artist is likely to morph their attitude to fit the record companies' idea of slavery. That is the only way the record companies know. The artist doesn't mind so much, because they are getting paid now.

Evolution.
It is coming (It is here).
Long live KvR...

Agree.

[bMachine]

Maybe offtopic, what do you think about THIS?

[Sepheritoh]

If I infringe on someone's copyright by making an illegal copy, no one necessarily loses anything.

What a TWAT!!!!

[Edit....]

PS. To add to that. Read the interview with Lars. If you copy something from the artist without his / her concent that artist looses his / her choice.

1. It is MY choice if I want somebody else to profit from my efforts.

2. If you take something from me without paying I am infact loosing that money you should have paid.

[herodotus]

Wow, people really aren't getting this.

As a musician, in America, you have 3 basic forms of income (outside of direct money from live shows).

1.Mechanical royalties: This is income guaranteed by copyright law. There is a MECHANICAL ROYALTY RATE that the law determines, and which is owed to the authors of works whenever these works are used commercially. or sold

2 The AUTHORS share of Licensed Royalties. These (along with #3 below) are what organizations like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC collect from radio stations, clubs, and the like.

3. The PUBLISHERS share of Licensed royalties .

Now here is the deal.

The vast majority of major label contracts force musicians to give up almost all of this income.

These contracts are drawn up by LAWYERS. This is what all of their aforementioned power in the industry comes from, not from chasing down napster and the like.

The labels know that most real musicians are totally ignorant of the complex world of entertainment law. That is how they screw them.

And so cheering on the record companies for cracking down on p2p and the like is like cheering on the guy who stole your identity for "finding" and prosecuting the poor bum who found your empty wallet after the real theft was over and done.

[TVD]

Maybe offtopic, what do you think about THIS?

Print it out. This is crazy info:

Infringement != Stealing (Op-Ed)

By MrSpey
Wed Apr 25th, 2001 at 03:25:32 PM EST
Culture


Almost any time you read, hear, or view anything about Napster, music sharing, or mp3's you hear people talking about stealing music. The MPAA is starting to talk a lot about people stealing movies online. Book publishers are even talking about stealing books through online transfer. Well, I have good news for those who are worried about people stealing music or movies through file-sharing programs: no one is stealing anything. What they are doing is infringing.

You can't steal a song by making an unauthorized copy of it because there's nothing to steal. No one loses property. Things that are stolen are, for the most part, tangible objects. If someone steals a physical CD from me, no matter much time passes it's still a stolen CD, no matter how much time passes. I don't want someone to steal my CD because it deprives me of music. Infringement is different. If I infringe on someone's copyright by making an illegal copy, no one necessarily loses anything. If enough time passes and the copyright expires, it is now legal for me to posses the infringing copy that I made.

So, other than nit-picking, why care when people call infringement "stealing"? Because things that are stolen are objects. Stealing something directly deprives someone of something they own. Infringement, while illegal, may or may not effectively deprive someone of something they own. Infringing copies eventually become legal to posses due to the copyright expiring while stolen objects always legally belong to their previous owner. Which do you think the RIAA, MPAA, etc. would prefer people to use, both in speech and mentally when thinking to themselves?

By using "steal" instead of "infringe", people are both revealing their expectation that copyrights will never expire and enforcing the general belief that copyrights don't expire. For example, if I download a copy of "Pour Some Sugar on Me" by Def Leopard, am I stealing? Most people would say that I am stealing. After all, someone owns the song, right? Wrong, someone owns the rights to the song. Rights expire. Ownership does not. Infringing implicitly says that the rights to own what I'm infringing on will eventually expire, but stealing implies that the ownership will never expire. So if music that I download through Napster is stolen music then the ownership of that music should never expire. So I shouldn't be surprised if the copyright on songs that were recorded 40 years before I was born never expire in my lifetime. After all, the songs are owned by someone. In fact, copyrights should be extended because if a copyright expires then the entity that owns the copyright loses a possession. Using "steal" instead of "infringe" is a way of enforcing the idea that intellectual property is forever.

Understand that I don't think that the RIAA, MPAA and friends have been using "steal" instead of "infringe" for years as part of some plot to brainwash the masses into thinking copyright is forever. But I think they're too smart to not be doing it and encouraging it as much as possible now. Or maybe it's not on purpose at all, but instead is a reflection of the subconscious beliefs of the people in the US and elsewhere. Or maybe I'm just blowing it all out of proportion. But after reading rusty's article on how reality is largely based on belief, I can't believe that it means nothing.

Mr. Spey
Cover your butt. Bernard is watching.

[TVD]

Wow, people really aren't getting this.

As a musician, in America, you have 3 basic forms of income (outside of direct money from live shows).

1.Mechanical royalties: This is income guaranteed by copyright law. There is a MECHANICAL ROYALTY RATE that the law determines, and which is owed to the authors of works whenever these works are used commercially. or sold

2 The AUTHORS share of Licensed Royalties. These (along with #3 below) are what organizations like ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC collect from radio stations, clubs, and the like.

3. The PUBLISHERS share of Licensed royalties .

Now here is the deal.

The vast majority of major label contracts force musicians to give up almost all of this income.

These contracts are drawn up by LAWYERS. This is what all of their aforementioned power in the industry comes from, not from chasing down napster and the like.

The labels know that most real musicians are totally ignorant of the complex world of entertainment law. That is how they screw them.

And so cheering on the record companies for cracking down on p2p and the like is like cheering on the guy who stole your identity for "finding" and prosecuting the poor bum who found your empty wallet after the real theft was over and done.

All of this goes back to what I was telling Cane Creek earlier:

as for Chuck D , i ain't interested what he's got to say because he already made a heap of money before he desided to give away his music.

And Metallica wish that they could be a rock&roll/metal bland like KISS.

BTW, Public Enemy makes a lot more money from their liveshows than their album sales. So yes, Chuck D is living very comfortable.

Somehow you have to wonder if Public Enemy got screw. Because again, this band made most of their money from doing live shows, NOT album sales.

[Sepheritoh]

Wow, people really aren't getting this.

You obviously do not want to get this.

If that bum actively go out there, following the criminals around and picking up the wallets that they drop he is a worthless valture.

Still if it MY CHOICE that he should not pick the dollars out of my wallet, even after finding my name and address with a note saying "please give this back to me".

OK. I give up now.

You all gave me good reasons why cracked software is a good idea and I should never again pay for it.

[Sepheritoh]

ANd once again something amazes me. How many attempts are there in this thread that attempt to "justify" some form or other of music theft.

If this opinions tried to justify theft of software in anyway this thread would have been locked by now.

Still am I amazed even more.

[whyterabbyt]

No your not stealing a song by copying it; but you are stealing the artists's opportunity to make revenue out of their art.

The funniest thing I hear, in a sad way, but I hear and see it over and over again, in this kind of debate is the people who justify ripping off the copyrights of hundreds of artists on the grounds that the major record companies are either screwing their artists or their customers. That doesnt seem to make them care about screwing over the artists themselves, especially when they listen to less mainstream music which are probably on independent labels anyways, not majors. "Hey downloading getting back at the man cos my CDs are too expensive and they screw the artists." Its bullshit, pure and simple.

What are the other classic arguments? That you have a right to listen to stuff before you buy? No you dont, but it sure is handy. But how does that transform into "a copy of every track off every album?". And do you really think people who use this argument actually delete the stuff they dont rush out and buy? I dont know anyone who does; they seem to keep it all, even if its crap.
And you dont need to download it. I heard single tracks on Peel's show, and bought the album the next day; what fuckin happened that people have to suddenly have everything a band ever did before they'll shell out the costs of 4 f**king beers? I heard two Blonde Redhead tracks that were legitimately available on the web, and subsequently bought three albums. Most of the albums Amazon sell have previews, as do many, many other places, and the bands's websites themselves have tracks available. So that argument is bulshit as any other.

Another one - "but I cant afford to buy all the albums I want". Its a f**king harsh world, innit. Funnily enough, even with a good job and a decent salary, neither do I. And yet I have a much smaller music collections than many people who can afford it less than I do, because they spend all their time downloading MP3's because they 'can't afford' CD's. I find not buying them unless I really must have them is what actually saves me the money, not nicking them off small kids, or downloading them.
And these days its TV shows and DVD's as well. How did that become a 'right'? It can be done so it must be done? And it must be done for everything? Im getting sick of tired of telling people about tiny little unknown bands I've found and love (like Blonde Redhead) only for them to turn up 3 days later with everything the band ever did on a CD and say 'here, I know you dont download stuff, but have this'. No I f**king dont want it, I want to give this band some f**king money so they'll continue making stuff I love.
I know someone buying his second 500Gb RAID array just to store his downloaded DVDs. Not someone who's close to being a bit short of cash, btw. Funny he can find the money for the drives but not for the DVD's he likes.
"I cant afford it, so its my right" - yet another classic line of bullshit.

Another one. "Well it promotes the artists and they can make all their money some other way, like touring or selling stuff". D'you know how much a tour costs to set up? Where does that f**king money come from in the first place if noone buys the album? So a band has to finance an album, which they effectively give away, so they can then finance a tour, and hope that enough people can be bothered going to see them to recoup money on the tour? How the f**k do they know what the size of their audience is without sales? What the f**k do they do if they cant perform, if they laboriously construct tracks on a laptop but they dont actually play anything physical? How are they expected to make money touring?
So, more bullshit

If all you do is make music, then if your audience think they're entitled to that for nothing, are you supposed to becomes a plumber to pay the bills just so you can make more music to give away to your 'fans' who tell you they have the 'right' to your work for nothing?

In short, over the years, Ive seen nothing which indicates that people's prmary reason for downloading MP3's isnt just plain old greed. There are plenty of 'justifications' being used, but they just dont wash. And whilst I'd be quite happy to see the major labels disappear in a puff of sulphur tomorrow, the fact remains that people who rely on not paying for their music do so indiscriminately. They dont looks for free stuff by the known bands, they dont look for unknown bands trying to take advantage of this 'publicity by MP3' wonderland that's supposed to exist, and they dont even just listen a couple of times to one or two tracks, and either buy the album or delete the MP3s. They grab everything they can, and keep doing so, and their expectation very quickly becomes that they're entitled to it.

Whether you like it or not, whether you care to admit it or not, that deprives artists of revenue money. No Britney and Robbie dont fuckin' need it. But it doesnt just happen to them. It happens to everyone, big or small, but its the small acts who have most to lose. Even if the large acts made no money from 95% of their listeners, they'd still make money. If a small act only makes money out of 5% of their audience, maybe they can just about fill the van with diesel. But its more than likely they'll become just another group of guys working in regular jobs who'll be telling you how they were in a band 5 years ago, but never 'made it'.