MOTUnation.com

shaman wrote:Record Labels have to take part of the responsibility of this subjet... They earned a lot of money selling a low quality media like CDs (dithering, poor sample rate...), and they earned a lot of money with contracts that didn't benefitted to musicians in most case. For example, I was in a band 12 years ago, and I recorded 2 or 3 discs for the band under an important internacional Record Label. Do you know how much the band earned for each sold CD? Nothing... yes, nothing. The band earned its money from live shows. That is steal too... or not?

Still, none of that is justification for piracy. "Low quality media like CDs?" At the time they were selling them, what was better? Did consumers complain? "Poor sample rate?" 44.1k is fine. Maybe you mean low bit depth... still CDs were plenty good for listening in one's vehicle or the average consumer's home listening environment.

As for the band you were in, it sounds like you were probably one of the many bands that had a crappy contract. I'm assuming nobody put a gun to your head and made you sign it? You did and you took your chances-- that's how it works.

On a somewhat unrelated note it reminds me of a time my band was approached by some guy who owned a club in Arizona or something. He wanted us to play five nights at his club. I quoted him the going rate back then. He wanted to pay us substantially lower than that, but he told us it was a small town and out of town bands were a big deal there and we'd have a limo we could use to go around town and essentially pretend to be important. We turned him down. Money talks... the rest walks.

mikehalloran wrote:Someone once pointed out that downloading is legal in Canada. Yep. The US, too as far as I know.

Downloading is not legal in Canada. Obviously it isn't in the US either.

bayswater wrote:

mikehalloran wrote:Someone once pointed out that downloading is legal in Canada. Yep. The US, too as far as I know.

Downloading is not legal in Canada. Obviously it isn't in the US either.

You are absolutely wrong on this. Limewire and other such methods allow you to share files - that's the problem. Look at any of the lawsuits ongoing or settled. No one has been busted for downloading only.

Don't believe me. Check it out for yourself. The information is readily available.

Are we splitting hairs here? So is downloading copyrighted files which the downloader has not legally purchased illegal then?

Distribution regardless of whether you charge or not, if not authorized, is infringement. Even innocent distribution. Min: $30K. Criminal around $150k.

Hey, if you believe it is legal, please do it on my repertoire and see what happens...

James Steele wrote:Are we splitting hairs here? So is downloading copyrighted files which the downloader has not legally purchased illegal then?

Yes, of course. The existance of Limewire users that have not been convicted is not the point. Copyright violations are illegal in Canada just as they are in most places. The means of copying is not relevant. But enforcement is not a priority. Current techniques are expensive, invasive, and ineffective. The RCMP is more interested in dealing with terrorism, cocaine, human trafficking, etc. The general public doesn't regard music piracy as one of the top issues. The federal government has come up with legislation that would interfere with simple things like using a VCR to time shift, or making backups, so there is not a lot of public support. Canada also has indirect means of supporting music like taxes on media that are distributed back to copyright holders.

There is obviously a lot of understandable anger around here on copyright violation, but it's here, it's not going away, and all the enforcement in the world won't make more than a dent.
Some of that energy might be better spent on practical alternatives.

bayswater wrote:

James Steele wrote:Are we splitting hairs here? So is downloading copyrighted files which the downloader has not legally purchased illegal then?

Yes, of course. The existance of Limewire users that have not been convicted is not the point. Copyright violations are illegal in Canada just as they are in most places. The means of copying is not relevant.

Great. That's all I was trying to get at. It felt like we were deposing a politician for a moment there.

But enforcement is not a priority. Current techniques are expensive, invasive, and ineffective. The RCMP is more interested in dealing with terrorism, cocaine, human trafficking, etc. The general public doesn't regard music piracy as one of the top issues.

I'm not surprised, as the general public isn't the one being stolen from by and large. In fact, a good part of the general public are the ones doing the stealing.

There is obviously a lot of understandable anger around here on copyright violation, but it's here, it's not going away, and all the enforcement in the world won't make more than a dent.

Maybe so. But I still think it would be cool if some of the regular guys who routinely sell pirated software on craigslist got arrested in a rather high profile manner. For example, when someone gets audited by the IRS all the people that know that person or business get a reminder. And I'm not against making a "dent."

Some of that energy might be better spent on practical alternatives.

Such as? Live concerts? T-Shirt manufacturing? Job training for other professions that produce tangible goods that are more difficult to steal?

James Steele wrote:Maybe so. But I still think it would be cool if some of the regular guys who routinely sell pirated software on craigslist got arrested in a rather high profile manner. For example, when someone gets audited by the IRS all the people that know that person or business get a reminder. And I'm not against making a "dent."

I agree. And I think you'll see it. One of those guys in Kazahkstan will decide to take on an Oligarch, and we'll see the Russian answer to Valentine's day. But people will still download music and copies of DP and cracked Waves.

James Steele wrote:Such as? Live concerts? T-Shirt manufacturing? Job training for other professions that produce tangible goods that are more difficult to steal?

I don't have a handy answer. If it was easy, we wouldn't be having the discussion. Everyone would have moved on to it. Music has always been with us, and millions of people have made their fortunes with it over the last thousand years or so. But like everything else, as the technology changes, the business model changes. No one ever knows what the next big winner will be. This is what every industry faces.

And if concerts are a piece of the next big thing, will that be so bad?

It's funny to think that one good solution might be to go back to vinyl LPs!

Or maybe cloud computing would come into it where no music or movies would downloadable, but upon purchase your registered devices would be approved for on demand streaming of all music you have purchased. Still anything that streams can be captured on a multipurpose PC. Seems all the viable options would involve closed systems and player hardware that could not be easily hacked or modified.

Whatever happens, if the "new model" can't generate cash flow it's not going to matter.

James Steele wrote:Whatever happens, if the "new model" can't generate cash flow it's not going to matter.

That's really the key to all of this. Every model that folks have come up with is too easily pirated. It's a non-stop battle. The real problem is that the waters are full of pirates (or middle-men) and travel by ship just isn't viable any more.

Phil

Phil O wrote:

James Steele wrote:Whatever happens, if the "new model" can't generate cash flow it's not going to matter.

That's really the key to all of this. Every model that folks have come up with is too easily pirated. It's a non-stop battle. The real problem is that the waters are full of pirates (or middle-men) and travel by ship just isn't viable any more.

You guys hit the nail.
As things currently are, it's like a huge dam (reservoir) than does not allow the water to flow into the river. These pirates are not letting the cash flow as it should because they get whatever they want and they don't pay...
We need some C4 to blow those darn dam gates and have the water flow freely again.

AAARRRRGGGH!

No splitting hairs. It really is a black and white issue until Congress passes laws to the contrary. Downloading and uploading are not the same thing.

Downloading, no matter what you think about it, cannot get you in trouble. AFIK, there is no law against it - and none has been cited in any the cases I have read. I am not a lawyer (and am not giving legal advice) but I have read the copyright law many times and there is no prohibition. Not a single person has gotten in trouble for downloading only (in court - if your boss fires you or the university suspends your privileges, that's a different issue).

Uploading, distributing, broadcasting, copying for any reason other than personal use. All of these are forms of publishing and doing so without a) the permission of the publisher or b) paying the license(s) as applicable is what gets you in trouble.

There are many forms of distribution that do not require specific written permission from the publisher. Except for certain performances exempt under Title 17, every one requires that money changes hands and a license be in place. A compulsory license is where the user forces a license on a publisher by paying the statutory fee.

Any time you copy a file from YouTube you are downloading and it does not matter to you if that file should be there or not. You are OK. If the file shouldn't be there, that's Google's problem; not yours.

File sharing programs, however, allow the simultaneous uploading and downloading. It's the uploading that'll get you.

There are moral as well as purely legal issues here. Remember morals?

So stealing a box of candy to sell in your store is illegal, but going into the store and taking a piece of the stolen candy off the shelf is 'ok.' that is essentially what the downloaded is doing; sharing stolen property. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. That applies to a lot of stuff in life and if people followed moral rules our cultures and planet would be in much better shape.

Moral issues and legal issues rarely coincide anymore. I refuse to discuss my moral issues with you or anyone else. Life is hard enough as it is.

If you are concerned about the moral issues, do not visit YouTube. Most of the posts are done without permission of the copyright holders. Google has yet to pay a dime for any of the content and doesn't intend to until the court cases are settled This may take years.

None of my music is on YouTube and I intend to keep it that way.

James Steele wrote:It's funny to think that one good solution might be to go back to vinyl LPs!

Or maybe cloud computing would come into it where no music or movies would downloadable, but upon purchase your registered devices would be approved for on demand streaming of all music you have purchased. Still anything that streams can be captured on a multipurpose PC. Seems all the viable options would involve closed systems and player hardware that could not be easily hacked or modified.

Whatever happens, if the "new model" can't generate cash flow it's not going to matter.

mmmmm..... remember "taping is killing music!"?

Ok well you would if were a "Limey". Downloading, uploading..... "honestly guv I know it was me what pulled the trigger.... but I didn't supply the gun!"

What I don't get is downloading itself is being be replaced by streaming, then in the UK we have the MPG liaising with the Government over who should police illegal downloads, the Record Labels or the ISPs. Why don't they just put a broad stroke levy on every broadband connection and then a bandwidth surcharge/levy in addition, then just make downloading free. The revenues from downloaded copyright materials could then be distributed to their rightful owners, piracy (software excluded) would become a thing of the past. It would certainly cut down on the policing necessary.

ISRC coding has been around for years now so pinpoint accurate distribution on a track by track basis is achievable. At the end of the day that's how radio stations track their plays. Surely there must the digital movie equivalent of ISRC coding. The corporate world could opt out of any surcharge on the basis that their file transfers are data based. Sure, they'd still have to be policed for abuse, but that's a hell of a lot less policing to do, than "the rest of the world".

An interesting survey I heard about recently on some documentary mentioned that it was found that people who downloaded illegally spent more on CDs than people who don't.

You can't stop the means by which are accessing music but can take control of the means by which their accessing it and take away their choice of whether to pay or not. Of course they would still have the means of whether to download or not. Just like you have the choice of whether to turn on your radio or not.

It's quite possible that their is some really obvious catch that I'm not grasping here, and if there is I apologize in advance, just call me thick!

Hell, it wouldn't be the first time. It's not my intention to rant here but more a posing the question........





..........Am I thick?