Its a new world, before it was cassettes, then CDs and now its bits, I think music industry shot themselves in the foot for pricing CDs too high back in the day. Interesting thing is that me and many people that I know and others are willing to pay even when it isnt mandatory when the product is good, but that being said, most of the stuff out there is just over produced glittering pile of shit. I´m gladly paying reasonable prices to support the artist. Its the big industry suffering here, many artist are pulling out of it and doing things in new way, maybe all this is good in big picture, less mediocre talents pushed by industry and more genuine stuff can arise to frame. Isnt there all kind of laws already existing, its just matter of forcing the laws ? Sometimes they do it, sometimes not, because there is always the aspect of free advertising in letting it play.
And yet you seem to think that it shouldn't be considered at the time the law is penned, that legislators should just put down the first thing the comes into their head. And of course you can quote me even implying that there should be no legislation? Because I'm fairly sure I haven't, I'm fairly sure the most I've implied is that this legislation takes the wrong approach. I don't recall suggesting they don't - take a moment to think about it. ITC on Wiki The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) is an independent, bi-partisan, quasi-judicial, federal agency of the United States that provides trade expertise to both the legislative and executive branches. Further, the agency determines the impact of imports on U.S. industries and directs actions against certain unfair trade practices, such as subsidies, dumping, patent, trademark, and copyright infringement. Take a moment to think about it. And you missed the point entirely. Do you remember, for example, what action I said Bose took? Court costs are not the only costs a company might incur under these circumstances. Yes, because clearly, not once in the entire history of humanity has "I was just defending my rights" been used as an excuse to pardon bullying. Not what I Suggested. Do try and stick to the point
I agree with the sentiments expressed here. The internet has been an equalizer and levelled the playing field. An independant musician/artist does have access to the technology to produce a quality product and distribute it themselves. The record companies may indeed become obsolete. This reaffirms the need for the music fan to take personal responsibility for their actions. And it doesn't end with music; movies, books and software are also subject to piracy.
Which alludes to another point that I have seen made - do the claimed levels of piracy suggest that more stringent laws are required? Or do they perhaps instead suggest that the business model being used is broken and the product is shit?
There is now, and has always been, shitty product. (This raises the question of, if the product is shit - why do people download it?) The current business model is in a state of flux. Honestly, I don't have an answer - other than people taking personal responsibility for their actions. I applaud artists like Gillian Welch who have started their own label and sell their music from their own website. The files have no copy protection. She respects her fans and trusts her fans to respect her work. What annoys me is the sense of entitlement to free entertainment and the lack of respect for the artist that many people have expressed on this topic.
Amen to that!! As I keep saying, a thief is a thief. And some people here fit that fact all too well. Music, software - makes no difference, they are still SLIMY thieves! :bugeye: Low-life bottom feeders.
Well, I did agree with this guy. What does a bill like PIPA/SOPA mean to our shareable world? Hmm…but wait, wait a minute. This could come in handy because I, myself have been called the “C” word a time or two. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The Only Good Argument on the Internet in Favor of SOPA
Because not everyone thinks it's a shitty product (which, I suppose somewhat negates the point). I think it's a thing of degrees - somebody might be willing to buy a single song for $1 at the appl store, but be unwilling to pay $20 to buy a CD at a record shop because they like that one song, and think the rest of the album is shit - but that goes back to what I said about business models, but also includes the discussion on distribution. I'm a big fan of ideas such as this. Agreed. For my part, content that I have downloaded is (generally) content that I haven't been able to access any other way, however even that generally goes one of two ways, either I buy it because I liked it, or I don't because it's complete shit.
One thing I do resent, though, is being told by Youtube that as a New Zealander, living in New Zealand, I can not watch music videos released by New Zealand Music artists, produced in New Zealand, and released in New Zealand, because the "Content is unavailable in your region".
Except the DNS blocking was taken out of the bill. And SOPA it is NOT about stopping people from sharing. Indeed: SOPA only intent is to apply the same rules to foreign intenet sites that are ALREADY applied to Domestic ones: And so the Sweedish site, the Pirate Bay is not about sharing. It's about Sweeds stealing from the US, plain and simple. Here is their self serving BS: With ONE little caveat. None of the actual US creators of their content gets a dime. And it appears we have lots of people on this board who applaud these thieves. What is really BS is they do it while saying they are all for the creators of Content. So the simple question is, what content has the Pirate Bay EVER created?
an update on that....... On Tuesday, in Los Angeles Superior Court, UMG sued the National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh for failing to reimburse $15 million needed to settle a class action lawsuit led by jazz great Chet Baker. That class action was filed in 2008 in Canada and alleged that several record labels had participated in a scheme that was nicknamed "Exploit now, pay later." Until the late 1980s under Canadian law, when record labels put out compilation albums, they didn't need to get the permission of artists. Instead, they merely needed to pay compulsory mechanical royalties. Then, the country changed its law to require the permission of song artists, but according to the 2008 lawsuit, the labels continued to put out compilation albums without getting approval. Not only did they not get permission, but the record labels allegedly held back royalties. Instead, the labels marked songs onto a "pending list" for later approval and payment. According to the class action complaint, the defendant record labels estimated that monies earmarked for copyright holders on the Pending Lists was $50 million. So record labels owed $50 million, but the plaintiffs brought charges of copyright infringement, which meant potential statutory damages amounting to more than 100 times that amount. The lawsuit was deemed at the time to be Canada's largest ever copyright infringement case, This past January, record labels settled the case and handed over $45 million. In other words, about the same amount of money that labels were said to have acknowledged owing in the first place. At the time of the settlement, the attorney for the plaintiffs commended the labels for resolving the matter. sweet! still tho...... Thus, the net average payment per work alleged to have been infringed will be something probably well below an average of $135 after CMRRA and SODRAC and the plaintiff’s class action counsel get paid. For better or worse, settlements have no binding precedential value as such in the Courts for future court cases. It would have been very interesting and informative had this matter gone to trial, but we will presumably never know why it did not. Nonetheless, there are some interesting and ironical lessons that some might argue are can be gleaned from this settlement, if it is approved. For example, the American international parents of the same record companies that are getting off the hook for less than $150 per alleged infringement in Canada are asking for and pushing with all their considerable might for $62,500 for each of the 24 songs that Jamie Thomas-Rasset, a single native American mother, downloaded and "shared" in litigation brought by in the USA. ja Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yeah, I've noticed that with YouTube and a number of other sites when I'm abroad (I'm U.S. based). One of the labels I'm on has released a massive amount of N.Z. undergound garage, psych, and uncategorizable stuff--the Terminals, Futurians, Renderers, RST, et al: Last Visible Dog He's also re-issued some stuff of and from Antony Milton's label.
Nope. One could be against both. Some have suggested they are against both. Others however have stated or implied that they think piracy is justified for various reasons, such as the cost of the product, the quality of the product, that distributors get too much of the profit etc etc.
is SOPA something else in disguise? let's see, theft of music and movies, right? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704789404574636531903626624.html edit: i have found a number of movies for sale at places such as "big lots" only to find out later that those very same movies were available for free from the internet archive. speaking of which: why hasn't the "archive" put up a stink about this? (SOPA)
And yet you have implied or stated precisely this, more than once during the course of this thread. But of course you're going to deny it, and your denial of it is going to fail to convince me, and ordinarily I'd cite a few examples, and how they imply it, and then you'll either deny it, or get huffy, or deny it while getting huffy, and it some point I'll decide pursuing the argument simply isn't worth the energy and drop the point. All the while missing the point that, just like Billy T with his NG Tanks, while that might not neccessarily have been the impression you have intended to given, that has been the impression that has been received regardless.
No, you won't cite any examples because there are none. As to the impression you got, then one would think that my simple direct statement: Nope. One could be against both. Would have cleared up that misconception.
Right, now, after 9 pages, after you were finally forced into the position of having to say that after the absurdity of your statement was pointed out to you. As opposed to, for example, the first page where you make exactly that kind of statement to Arfa (the difference being that I don't infer the same things from Arfa's post that you do, it seems, which changes the context of your statement as seen by me), or the disingenuity of your appeal to ridicule against my comments on the fourth page, which in an of itself is sufficient to make you presenting a false dichotomy (you either support SOPA or Pirates) seem more plausable.
