# Internet piracy



## Josh Oakley (Jan 27, 2012)

Yet another longer article, I know. This one is about the concept of internet piracy and its effect on local bands. SOPA and PIPA may be written too loosely and open up a can of worms on the first amendment should they be passed. I will agree with that for the sake of argument. 

However, the problem of internet piracy IS a problem. There is a pervasive mentality that music, all music, should be free. Well, that sentiment is selfish and destructive. Selfish in the sense that you are telling the artists should just be happy they they are liked and being listened to. Destructive in that the artists have to eat. Do you honestly expect they will keep putting out that music you love for long if there's not at least the possibility of being able to get COMPENSATED for what they do?

The Seattle area is home to some fantastic artists. To name a few: MG The Visionary, The Uptown 4, and Q-dot. these are all incredible musicians. I am friends with these guys. I am also A FAN of their music. And because I am a fan of their music, I bought MG's cd's and played them in my van until they almost melted. I bought Q-Dot's cd... in bulk. True story. I went to the Uptown 4's winter concert and paid cash, full price, even though I hang with these guys on a regular basis. When their album comes out, I am buying that too.

I am not doing this to toot my own horn. I am doing this to say that if you like a musician's music, YOU PAY THEM FOR IT. I could have gotten MG's music for free. Q-Dot's too. It is out there. And when the Uptown 4 puts out their album (which will be EPIC), it is only a matter of time before that is available for free as well. 

And damn it, everybody should be paying for the privilege of having a copy of this music. There needs to be enforcement of this right to intellectual property which is granted them by th CONSTITUTION. 

These guys are all too nice to say it. They are happy that their music is being listened to, and that they are motivating people. Well, frankly, I am not. If you have their music for free, or the music of another local artist, you are a thief. And a punk *****. 

Pay up. They deserve it.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-01-25/music/standing-with-the-man/ 

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 27, 2012)

Agreed. 

But the response from the industry has not been the correct one. The ability to but RDM free albums and individual songs fom something like the iTunes store will go some ways to curb piracy. It may be time that the content provider do the same on a large scale for both music and movies.

The industry is doing itself a huge disfavour though by spewing $$$ loss figures that make absolutely no sense. I've downloaded pirated movies. But my actions incured no loss to the studio, as they were generally movies that I did not want to go see in the theatre and would not have rented. Blame the high cost of tickets and rentals and a lot of borderline movies being made.

I classify movies in 4 categories. 
1) Got to see it. I'll catch it in the theatre
2) Interested in seeing. I'll rent of catch the PPV
3) Wouldn't mind seeing it, but not worth the money, but likely worth the bandwidth
4) Worthless, not even worth the bandwidth, let alone the $$

3 and 4 would never get back to the studio. With the demise of video stores, the increasing costs of PPV, and the ever decreasing bandwidth caps for stuff like Netflix, 2 is in danger of no longer be applicable. 

The industry has to adapt to new realities. They have to start producing more quality products. They also have to stop putting so many roadblocks on content delivery companies like Netflix. 


There are prople who will pirate no matter what, but the content, or lack of, and the poor delivery methods contribute pushing more people to pirate.

If the industry wants to use their lobbying efforts, don't push for punitive legislation like SOPA, but push for forcing ISPs to stop reducing bandwidht. NA is pathetic when it comes to service to $$ ration on internet delivery. That will allow more people to subscribe to services like Netflix.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 27, 2012)

Canuck... Maybe you missed the point of what I wrote. It wasn't focused on the industry. It was focused on local artists. The industry doesn't really represent local artists. 

The article is not about the industry either. It is about local artists. The industry faces lost profits from piracy. Local artists face... Extinction. My post and the article are pretty clear on what the focus of this is. 

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 27, 2012)

So canuck in your world its ok to steal something as long as you didn't really want it in the first place.  Oh I would never buy that jacket so they would have never gotten my money anyway so its ok if I steal it.  Just because you can't hold a movie in your hand like a jacket its still someones property and you still stole it.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 27, 2012)

Guys. Seriously. Local artist focus. Think local/small time/independent music. 

This may be crazy, buy can we TRY to stay on topic? 

Big movie and music industry is a DIFFERENT ANIMAL ALTOGETHER. 

Focus. I know it is possible. This is not about the entertainment industry as a whole. It is not about SOPA even. 

It is about internet piracy and its effect on local artists. I really don't know how to be more clear about the topic.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 27, 2012)

Ballen, no. People do it, I've done it. Does not make it right. But that rationale needs to be used to counter the loss amount bandied around by the industry. Because looking at how many times a movie was downloaded does not directly correlate to lost profit, as a good % of pirates would not have watched the movie  if not available for free.

Josh, Local artists are in a difficult position. The argument has been made that piracy actually helps sales. It does. Not nearly to the amount pirates claim. But certainly more for local artists than big acts. Local artists are less likely to get air time on radio. They need to build a base. And the best way to build a base is to get people to listen to your music. At this point, piracy may be the best way. Once you've sampled the goods, you should buy the CDs. 

You're going to put the genie back in the bottle. Creative ways need to be found to lower the amount of piracy. And to find different ways to raise revenues. Visual media is the easiest by using product placement. Audio is different.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 27, 2012)

That is what artist websites are for, and their music videos. And no, on the local level, it does not help sales. That works at the big industry level. 

Piracy is CRIPPLING to the small names. And a big part of the problem is this BS mindset that piracy is okay.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## CanuckMA (Jan 27, 2012)

Unfortunately, we have probably reached a point where the artists have to derive the bulk of their income from live performances.


----------



## Carol (Jan 27, 2012)

Honestly as a former professional musician (with a music degree from a top school), I don't remember a time when small-time musicians could make a living just from their music...at least if they were an original band.  Piracy when I was playing meant copying a tape or CD on to cassette, there was nothing like material available through youtube or file sharing.  However, even then we didn't earn enough to make bank.  We all had to make bank by some sort of day job or pickup work playing Toora Loora Looral or Mustang Sally in the Irish bars around town.  

The digital era has brought new ways of promotion, far cheaper methods of recording, and more sophisticated sound processing -- but it also brings new pains as well.  There is the issue of piracy. There's also the paradigm shift -- Ian Astbury from The Cult has said that iTunes has essentially killed the album.  I think he's right.

I do not like the attitude that "everything must be free", nor do I condone stealing music.  But I don't think anyone should go in to an original band thinking they can make a living from it.  The odds are just too great.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 29, 2012)

I posted this before, But I'm gonna do it again, since I never got a serious answer.  Sorry Josh, It's not about Local Artists, although I think file sharing COULD be a positive tool for Local artists to get their name out there, if its not abused.

One of the things about these kinds of discussions I find...  troublesome... is that people are willing to accept the answer "Well,  it's illegal, thats the way it is, so you have to deal with it.  It  doesn't have to make sense, and you dont have to understand it, if you  do it you have commited a crime."

Ok.  I get that.  But in this hypothetical discussion, let us assume we  understand that above point... and lets see if we can get to the WHY.

First off, I think that we can all probably be more or less in agreement  that the reason for copyright laws, or anti-piracy laws, or whatever...  is that they are in place to protect the intellectual property of the  Owner of said material, their Music, or Movies, or Videogames, or  Software programs, and ensure they make their fair profits/wages/gains  from their programs, and no one else takes credit for its creation, yes?

Ok, good.  

So lets examine some hypothetical scenarios.  Note that none of these  are for real and when I say "I do this" It is in terms of this  excercise, I am not actually doing the items below.

A) I subscribe to HBO.  I watch the series True Blood, which airs,  Sunday Nights at 7pm.  I work Sundays from 5-11.  But My Cable company  has provided me a DVR, or Perhaps I own a PVR.  I can legally record  this show, or even set my oldskool VCR to record a copy of the show, so  that I can watch it later.  I paid for the product.  The Correct people  made their money, and I have seen the show.  Hooray!  Everbody wins.

OR

I subscribe to HBO.  I watch the series True Blood, which airs, Sunday   Nights at 7pm.  I work Sundays from 5-11.  I decided against purchasing a  DVR, because I am going to buy my own PVR. So that I  can watch it  later, I grab a copy off of Bittorent when I get home from work.  I paid  for the product.  The Correct people made  their money, and I have seen  the show.  BOO!  I broke the law and can be held accountable.

Wait.  Wait.  I paid for it in both cases.  Actually in case 2, at least  2 people paid for it, myself and the original up loader, at least.  Why  am I in trouble for #2, but not #1?

B)  Joe Public goes into Target on release day with 50 bucks in his hand  and buys a copy of the brand new "Mario Stripper" for Nintendo Wii.  He  takes it home plays it for a week and decides it sucks.  Joe can't  return opened software, so he takes it to "Gamestop" and gets a 30  dollar credit for selling a used game.  Joe then Buys a copy of  "DeathRace Donkeykong 2000" for his Wii for 24.00 used.  I wanna play  "Mario Stripper" for myself, but read in "Games Reviewd Magazine" that  it only got 4.5 stars outta 10, so I say, Gotta buy it used, and pick up  Joe's copy of it from Gamestop.

Now, Joe paid for his copy of the first game, and Nintendo got their  fair profit.  Joe paid for his copy of the second game... but Nintendo  didn't get anything, because someone like Joe traded it in.  And in  fact, Nintendo didn't make anything off of me either, because I bought  from Gamestop, the same copy Joe paid for.  Nether of us broke the law,  but Nintendo only made their profit from the sale of that original disk  the first time it sold.  We have effectively both just hurt Nintendo's  profits.  In fact, I can tell you IRL, not Hypothetically, for my 360, I  NEVER purchase new games. With 3 exceptions, Every one of the games I  own have come from Gamestop or Disc Replay.  Aside from 3 titles I  picked up when I purchased my system, None of the developers have made  any profits off of me. 

But If Joe had kept his original copy of "Mario Stripper" and I had  copied it for myself from his copy... I would be breaking the law...  even tho in neither of those situations Nintendo made any profit off of  me, only from the initial sale to Joe.

I have like six more examples of this, but Ive been typing for like 45  minutes and this is getting long... in the end, they all demonstrate  ways that the so-called "Piracy" is NOT  impacting the profits of the companies/parties involved, but rather just  the method or technologies involved in obtaining the product determines  in a seemingly arbitrary way what is and is not illegal. 

Now, none of this, BTW, is meant to excuse the people distributing  illegal copies.  But there is a lot of focus on people who "obtain"  copies... and that's what I am looking to address.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 29, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> I posted this before, But I'm gonna do it again, since I never got a serious answer.  Sorry Josh, It's not about Local Artists, although I think file sharing COULD be a positive tool for Local artists to get their name out there, if its not abused.
> 
> One of the things about these kinds of discussions I find...  troublesome... is that people are willing to accept the answer "Well,  it's illegal, thats the way it is, so you have to deal with it.  It  doesn't have to make sense, and you dont have to understand it, if you  do it you have commited a crime."
> 
> ...



 Cryo, the reason I didn't give you a serious answer before is because this thread IS about local artists, and the effects of internet piracy on said artists.

This is the case both in the article I posted ( did you read it?) and in my opening post. Write about that, and ill answer it. Otherwise you're hijacking the thread, bro.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2012)

Whether we're talking about local artists or giant recording companies, I think the subject of this thread strikes to the very root of intellectual property.  Imagine that a very clever caveman invents a way to use a stick to throw another stick (an atlatl) and is able to more easily kill animals to eat.  Now, imagine that the best hunter in the tribe witnesses this, takes this new technology and kills a whole bunch of animals with it.  It is the hunter's choice to give something back to the creator of the atlatl.  This especially becomes apparent after more time passes.  Imagine the hunters had children and grandchildren and are now dead.  Do the families who use the atlatl now owe the family of the creator?  There is nothing universal about intellectual property rights.

Consequently, Led Zeppelin ripped off a huge number of artists.  If you listen to the artists that influenced them they stole all kinds of music and mashed it together into a package the ****ing rocks.  Zeppelin were the best hunters in the pack and their skill has inherit value.  The songs that they produce that are recorded and repeated are valueless like two sticks lying on the ground.  If someone can use them to create something with their skill, the skill is what has value and the skill is actually the only thing owned by the individual.  

Intellectual property rights need legalized force to exist.  They are an opinion with a gun.  Take away the gun and they disappear.  That's how you know they aren't real, that they aren't valid and universal principles philosophically.  The only way intellectual property rights can exist on the internet is if the government can exert legalized force through the internet.  The moment this happens, it ceases to be free.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 29, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Cryo, the reason I didn't give you a serious answer before is because this thread IS about local artists, and the effects of internet piracy on said artists.



Well, BRO, since I copied and pasted that from a thread from like 11  months ago, your point about not giving me a serious answer is moot...  and its clear that you did not even look above to see if I had posted that in your thread above.  The comment about never receiving a serious answer wasn't directed at you.



Josh Oakley said:


> This is the case both in the article I posted ( did you read it?) and in my opening post. Write about that, and ill answer it. Otherwise you're hijacking the thread, bro.



Hmm, well, The Title of this thread is "Internet Piracy", NOT "Internet Piracy and its effects on Indie Artists" so of course you are going to attract people who want to discuss piracy.  If you want a niche discussion, start a thread thats is clearly on that niche... it's obvious from the number of times you had to comment about everyone hijacking your thread that others have seen the title and come into this thread with a wish to discuss the problem at large.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 29, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Whether we're talking about local artists or giant recording companies, I think the subject of this thread strikes to the very root of intellectual property.  Imagine that a very clever caveman invents a way to use a stick to throw another stick (an atlatl) and is able to more easily kill animals to eat.  Now, imagine that the best hunter in the tribe witnesses this, takes this new technology and kills a whole bunch of animals with it.  It is the hunter's choice to give something back to the creator of the atlatl.  This especially becomes apparent after more time passes.  Imagine the hunters had children and grandchildren and are now dead.  Do the families who use the atlatl now owe the family of the creator?  There is nothing universal about intellectual property rights.
> 
> Consequently, Led Zeppelin ripped off a huge number of artists.  If you listen to the artists that influenced them they stole all kinds of music and mashed it together into a package the ****ing rocks.  Zeppelin were the best hunters in the pack and their skill has inherit value.  The songs that they produce that are recorded and repeated are valueless like two sticks lying on the ground.  If someone can use them to create something with their skill, the skill is what has value and the skill is actually the only thing owned by the individual.
> 
> Intellectual property rights need legalized force to exist.  They are an opinion with a gun.  Take away the gun and they disappear.  That's how you know they aren't real, that they aren't valid and universal principles philosophically.  The only way intellectual property rights can exist on the internet is if the government can exert legalized force through the internet.  The moment this happens, it ceases to be free.



So are you saying there should be no copyright or patient laws.  Once you invent something it should be free to anyone that wants it?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So are you saying there should be no copyright or patient laws.  Once you invent something it should be free to anyone that wants it?



Yes.  Consider my caveman example again.  Imagine that the family of the man who created the atlatl grows large enough to bully the tribe.  They begin to threaten to throw anyone who uses the atlatl without permission and without paying them a tithe of meat into a cage where they will be raped and mistreated in all number of ways.  The people with the skill to use the atlatl better suddenly don't have the resources to develop that skill to an even higher level, because the product of their skills is being leached off to people who didn't work at all.  

This is how copyright and patent laws hold society back from it's full potential when it comes to innovation and enterprise.  Imagine what kind of innovation we would see if medicine and technology and all kinds of other important things were allowed to exist in an open creative space and people could take all of the effects of their skill to develop even higher levels of skill?  This is the true potential of the internet.  This is where real freedom could take us.

Ultimately, copyright and patent laws are a form of socialism.  They collectivize and funnel the fruits of other people's labor to a small select group of entitled people who are willing to use legalized force and steal.  Copyright and patent laws are outgrowths of corporations.  They allow the corporation to maximize its profits through government coercion.

The bottom line is that if you are forced to pay to use an idea, THAT is theft.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 29, 2012)

So how are people supposed to make a living if I invent something spend thousnads on research and development of something or thousands on recording and production of music or movie how do I eanr it back or should I just do it for the good of mankind?


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 29, 2012)

Cryozombie said:


> Well, BRO, since I copied and pasted that from a thread from like 11  months ago, your point about not giving me a serious answer is moot...  and its clear that you did not even look above to see if I had posted that in your thread above.  The comment about never receiving a serious answer wasn't directed at you.



Oh, so feisty. The way you wrote BRO in all caps like that. That was hot. I like TOTALLY needed to change my huggies right there.

Yeah baby. Talk dirty to me.



> Hmm, well, The Title of this thread is "Internet Piracy", NOT "Internet Piracy and its effects on Indie Artists" so of course you are going to attract people who want to discuss piracy.  If you want a niche discussion, start a thread thats is clearly on that niche... it's obvious from the number of times you had to comment about everyone hijacking your thread that others have seen the title and come into this thread with a wish to discuss the problem at large.



Oh you are so totally right! Man it was just CRAZY of me to think people would read the original post, or the related article. MAN, WHAT A MORON I AM! Next time I will, like, TOTALLY post a title that leaves absolutely no question about what the topic is, in case people don't actually read and respond to the original posts.

MAN OH MAN. I sure did a disservice to the posters who read "internet piracy" and having formed their post, OP sight unseen,
and went ahead and just did their thing. 

Cryozombie, where would I be without you?


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 29, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Whether we're talking about local artists or giant recording companies, I think the subject of this thread strikes to the very root of intellectual property.  Imagine that a very clever caveman invents a way to use a stick to throw another stick (an atlatl) and is able to more easily kill animals to eat.  Now, imagine that the best hunter in the tribe witnesses this, takes this new technology and kills a whole bunch of animals with it.  It is the hunter's choice to give something back to the creator of the atlatl.  This especially becomes apparent after more time passes.  Imagine the hunters had children and grandchildren and are now dead.  Do the families who use the atlatl now owe the family of the creator?  There is nothing universal about intellectual property rights.
> 
> Consequently, Led Zeppelin ripped off a huge number of artists.  If you listen to the artists that influenced them they stole all kinds of music and mashed it together into a package the ****ing rocks.  Zeppelin were the best hunters in the pack and their skill has inherit value.  The songs that they produce that are recorded and repeated are valueless like two sticks lying on the ground.  If someone can use them to create something with their skill, the skill is what has value and the skill is actually the only thing owned by the individual.
> 
> Intellectual property rights need legalized force to exist.  They are an opinion with a gun.  Take away the gun and they disappear.  That's how you know they aren't real, that they aren't valid and universal principles philosophically.  The only way intellectual property rights can exist on the internet is if the government can exert legalized force through the internet.  The moment this happens, it ceases to be free.



I think you have this backwards. Copywrite and Patent protection are anti-socialist. If I as an individual create something, the copywrite or patent is the government recognizing my idea as MY property. This is an individualistic approach to property.

To say that the idea I come up with does NOT belong to me, but rather to society at large, is COLLECTIVIST, and therefore fits with socialism more closely.

And there is no such thing as an undeniable, universal right. All the "rights" we have are earned at some point, and must be maintained or they can at some point be lost.


Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So how are people supposed to make a living if I invent something spend thousnads on research and development of something or thousands on recording and production of music or movie how do I eanr it back or should I just do it for the good of mankind?



And this is exactly what some of my friends have faced with their careers.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So how are people supposed to make a living if I invent something spend thousnads on research and development of something or thousands on recording and production of music or movie how do I eanr it back or should I just do it for the good of mankind?



https://buy.louisck.net/

He spends his own money to produce it.  He puts it out on the internet and enforces no traditional copyright.  He makes millions.  It's a new model and it works.  The problem is that Hollywood doesn't like it because it cuts them out.  Talentless morons no longer have a way to mooch a living if this catches on.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 29, 2012)

That's great for him but there is not a ton of demand for stand ups like there is for music.  How do people like kenny chesney or adele 
Keep people from stealing there music?  They need to make money the people that support them like producers, background musicians, recording studio staff make money?  Or are they not entitled to earn a living off music? The only viable option would be to make the music free but play a million commercials between songs and id rather just pay for the music then listen to commercials which is why I pay for satellite radio.



Makalakumu said:


> https://buy.louisck.net/
> 
> He spends his own money to produce it.  He puts it out on the internet and enforces no traditional copyright.  He makes millions.  It's a new model and it works.  The problem is that Hollywood doesn't like it because it cuts them out.  Talentless morons no longer have a way to mooch a living if this catches on.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> I think you have this backwards. Copywrite and Patent protection are anti-socialist. If I as an individual create something, the copywrite or patent is the government recognizing my idea as MY property. This is an individualistic approach to property.
> 
> To say that the idea I come up with does NOT belong to me, but rather to society at large, is COLLECTIVIST, and therefore fits with socialism more closely.



Go and think about my analogy again.  What is property?  What is value?  If you have to use coercion to answer both of those questions, you have neither property or value.  You have force and theft.



Josh Oakley said:


> And there is no such thing as an undeniable, universal right. All the "rights" we have are earned at some point, and must be maintained or they can at some point be lost.



If a right can be earned, it can be taken away.  That's why the Founding Fathers believed in Natural Rights.  People often confuse these with legal rights.  The Bill of Rights are not Legal Rights, but that is a side issue.

The point that I'm making about property rights is philosophical.  Intellectual property rights do not exist because they are not universal.  In the absence of government, they disappear.  _Property_ is the fruit of your _labor_, the _product of your_ time, energy, and talents.  These are universal and exist whether a government exists or not.  An idea is not your property because it can exist independently of your time, energy, and talent.  Think back to my analogy, the idea for an atlatl was valueless until someone spent time, energy, and labor to develop it.  That is how property was created.  The idea is not property.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Or are they not *entitled *to earn a living off music?



No, you aren't entitled to earn a living off of your idea.  It's not your property unless you take time, energy, and talent to create something with it.  LouisCK created a cool way distribute his ideas to the public and it is very successful.  A good musician can perform the music and make money because the performance is his property.  There are lots of ways that an artist can make money.  They don't need the government to go and force people to pay them.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 29, 2012)

Copyright, as originally envisaged, was a way to legally protect a persons ideas for a length of time sufficient for them to make some return on their creativity.  

What has gone 'wrong' in the modern era is that, largely thanks to Disney, that length of time has been extended grossly beyond what is 'reasonable' and the law has been twisted so that people 'hire out' their idea under copyright and let other people do the 'heavy lifting'.

When it comes to something that is not a physical product then it is indeed reasonable that the creator should get some return from others who make use of their 'art' for profit if those others do not significantly innovate on their original creation.  Again, problems arise because the legal minds try to copyright things that are inherently public domain, such as words, shapes or images that are *not* the creation of the artist/corporation they represent.  Apple is particularly bad for doing this and it'll be a cold day in hell before I buy anything by them.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 29, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Go and think about my analogy again.  What is property?  What is value?  If you have to use coercion to answer both of those questions, you have neither property or value.  You have force and theft.



Cool. So I can come over and take your car. I refuse to be swayed by appeals to my better nature. Seeing as you at this point have no logical means to stop me or to recover your car, other than coercion or force, the car isn't your property anyway.





> If a right can be earned, it can be taken away.  That's why the Founding Fathers believed in Natural Rights.  People often confuse these with legal rights.  The Bill of Rights are not Legal Rights, but that is a side issue



Uh... What?




> The point that I'm making about property rights is philosophical.  Intellectual property rights do not exist because they are not universal.  In the absence of government, they disappear.



Cool beans. Me and a buddy are coming over when the government fails and taking your house. If you protest, we have a flag.



> _Property_ is the fruit of your _labor_, the _product of your_ time, energy, and talents.  These are universal and exist whether a government exists or not.  An idea is not your property because it can exist independently of your time, energy, and talent.



Cool, I am taking your computer as well as that is something that can exist independently of your time, talent, and energy.

Are you seriously going to tell me that an artist's song can exist independently of said artist's time, talent, and energy? 

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Are you seriously going to tell me that an artist's song can exist independently of said artist's time, talent, and energy?



Yes.  Do you pay the creator of the song "Happy Birthday" every time you sing it?  Of course not, that's because the song exists outside of the artists time, talent, and energy.  An idea is not property because it can exist without anyone applying time, energy, and talent to it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> Again, problems arise because the legal minds try to copyright things that are inherently public domain, such as words, shapes or images that are *not* the creation of the artist/corporation they represent.



If intellectual property rights exist, then a corporation/government could copyright anything.  Taken to the extreme, the "public domain" disappears.  The fact that we have an arbitrary public domain and separate intellectual property invalidates the whole concept.  Is there anything inherit about the amount of time that turns something from intellectual property to public domain?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 29, 2012)

In short, that's the length of time that copyright exists.  What I was referring to is attempts to retroactively establish copyright.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2012)

Sukerkin said:


> In short, that's the length of time that copyright exists.  What I was referring to is attempts to retroactively establish copyright.



If copyright is arbitrary, shouldn't it be possible to retroactively establish copyright?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 29, 2012)

Er, no.  I was going to give an analogy treating the birth of an idea like the birth of a baby but it got too messy (too tired to plot it out properly).  Basically Copyright is a good thing if it is for 10, 20 or even 30 years.  100 years and it's literally a license to print money for doing no work.

Why do you think copyright is arbitrary?  It's the registering of something that noone has thought of before - or at least it should be (don't get me going on the bio-business gene-meddlers).


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 29, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> No, you aren't entitled to earn a living off of your idea.  It's not your property unless you take time, energy, and talent to create something with it.  LouisCK created a cool way distribute his ideas to the public and it is very successful.  A good musician can perform the music and make money because the performance is his property.  There are lots of ways that an artist can make money.  They don't need the government to go and force people to pay them.


Well LouisCk is not popular enough to need to worry about people stealing his stuff so his method works for him.  It would not work for more popular artists.  I hope your not being serious about not being allowed to live off your own ideas and inventions and your just saying that for the sake of argument.  What would be the point of creating anything new if you could not earn a living from it?  Whats the motivation to invent anything, paint anything, write a new song, make a new drug, invent a new medical device, or even go to college if your ideas are not your own.  With your thinking money does not exist either since its only value come from the govt saying its worth something.  The only reason you can stay on your property is because the Govt says your deed is real.  You need rules to have civilization and rules are enforced by the threat of force.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 29, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> Well LouisCk is not popular enough to need to worry about people stealing his stuff so his method works for him.  It would not work for more popular artists.  I hope your not being serious about not being allowed to live off your own ideas and inventions and your just saying that for the sake of argument.  What would be the point of creating anything new if you could not earn a living from it?  Whats the motivation to invent anything, paint anything, write a new song, make a new drug, invent a new medical device, or even go to college if your ideas are not your own.  With your thinking money does not exist either since its only value come from the govt saying its worth something.  The only reason you can stay on your property is because the Govt says your deed is real.  You need rules to have civilization and rules are enforced by the threat of force.



One of my many hats is that of a fiction and non-fiction writer.  I've written and published five novels and have rights to all of them.  I did that because other people could take my stuff and claim it as their own, cutting me off from any way of making money off of my ideas.  So, this argument I'm making is purely philosophical.  That said, I think when you look at a lot of things you mentioned in your post, they don't make any sense at all.  So much of our society does not conform to reason or evidence that it makes the head spin.  Copyright is one of those things, IMO.  

People can still make money without copyright.  There is still plenty of reason to innovate because it gives you the edge and allows you to rake in the profits.  Copyright allows a person to rake in the profits longer then if we lived in a free society.  In this way, copyright slows down the pace of innovation.  People don't need to innovate as fast because the government is essentially redistributing the wealth from innovation and real property rights.  It's something to think about.  How much farther would technology advance without copyright, without the government intervening in the free enterprise of ideas?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 29, 2012)

Copyrights help level the playing field.  It helps the small business compete with major companies.  If I invent a product or software program it gives me time to get it to market before large companies with huge preestablished marketing, distribution, and manufacturing networks steal it and run me out of the market.  At least now if they want my product I can sell it to them and make money.  Without it the day I release it the big guys can snatch it copy it and use their brand name to squish me.


----------



## oaktree (Jan 30, 2012)

The majority of record sales don't even go to the artist.  
  For every $1 down load an artist gets maybe 30 cents.  
For every album a $1. So an.artist isn't making all
The money from sales of music.  Its the concerts and merchandise
that makes the money. Do you think Justin bieber
is crying cause people are downloading his music?
He's got so much merchandise and deals he can give
Up singing which is what a lot or artist do. They
Go into acting or start their own record label.

So who you are stealing from is really the record
label who is essentially stealing from the artist.

I'll leave with a quote from the band choking victim:
" I steal from enemies who steal from me and from you
And if you only knew you'd steal too.


----------



## Carol (Jan 30, 2012)

oaktree said:


> The majority of record sales don't even go to the artist.
> For every $1 down load an artist gets maybe 30 cents.
> For every album a $1. So an.artist isn't making all
> The money from sales of music.  Its the concerts and merchandise
> ...



Excellent, excellent point about merchandising.  :asian:

30 cents is way too generous unfortunately.  Its more like 10 cents.  A bit more for the big names.  Often less for the unknowns.   Now all that being said -- the record label is supposed to be doing things for the artist they cannot do on their own.  One of my music business classes (taught by a fellow who had been producer and executive producer for some well-known acts) started class by asking everyone "What is a truly great song worth?"   The murmurs went around the class "Hundreds of thousands?"  "Millions?"  "Tens of Millions?"  "Priceless?  "How can you put a pricetag on something so valuable?"  He shook his head and said "NOTHING!  A great song is worth nothing.  Because it always takes money to record it, to produce it, to market it, to promote it, etc...."

The reasons why artists sign with major labels to begin with is because the label offers them a recording budget that they could not manage on their own.  They get promoted in a way they couldn't do on their own.  This is how a lot of artists get in to the hole -- they run up expenses that are difficult to recoup  unless the album is a really good seller.  The label wants those expenses recouped before they pay the artist any real money.

Another factor is, at least when I was in school, major labels had a serious 90/10 rule.  10 percent of the artists made 90 percent of the money.  Basically the top artists of a label financed the entire catalog.  The other 90 percent do not turn a profit at all.   I can only speculate that this ratio has gotten even sharper with the advent of file sharing.  As profit has fallen, the labels have consolidated and homogenized, which leads to an even further productization of the artists (if 1 Justin Bieber is good, 20 must be awesome), less risk taking, less of an eye for creativity.   This IMO is unfortunate.  While I'm not necessarily a particular fan of the RIAA, the major labels are 100 percent evil -- although they are less necessary now than they were in the past.   When I was actively performing, I sure as heck wanted to be signed to one.  If I was doing anything more creative than my  Aero-boogie cover band, I'd still want to be signed by one.


----------



## oaktree (Jan 30, 2012)

I played in a local band and I was going to be signed
By one of the members of k.c and the sunshine band
So he said. Anyway since we were a punk band
we all despise anything not DIY and majority
Of punk musicians do it not to get rich but
Because they love the scene.  
I would have loved people downloading my music
Screw the money having people wanting to
Download my music because they think
My music sounds good means more to me.
But I never by CDs new always used and
I mostly download songs off YouTube cause
You can't buy a lot of the music I like.
For example I love this band chocolate chip cookies
but they dont have any CDs so I download from the net.
I use to record most of songs from the radio
Or we all shared mix tapes ever since tape players
Came with play and record we all made backups for
Our friends in the 80's. A lot of artist really don't
Care about their fans so why should their fans
Care about them.


----------



## granfire (Jan 30, 2012)

oaktree said:


> I played in a local band and I was going to be signed
> By one of the members of k.c and the sunshine band
> So he said. Anyway since we were a punk band
> we all despise anything not DIY and majority
> ...




ah. glory days, spending the afternoon on the radio with the trigger finger at the ready, hoping for your favorite songs to come on. They seemed to be more accomodating then, actually having breaks between songs, mentioning the artist and song title now and then....and then the industry got their knickers in a twist, demanding royalties off the blank tapes. 

Wasn't there a stink not too long ago? A CD costs less than a dollar to make, yet generally you pay 15-20 dollars a piece. 

The industry is run by greed. Back in the 80s TV had a lot of shows showing music videos. Instead of considering it free advertisement, record companies started to demand payment...(then they stopped making good videos....there went that outlet)

No easy fix I suppose.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 30, 2012)

So its ok to steal as long as its from the greedy big companies?  You forget all the little people behind the scenes that go into making that cd all the jobs at record companies but because in your opinion they are greedy its ok to steal from them?


----------



## granfire (Jan 30, 2012)

ballen0351 said:


> So its ok to steal as long as its from the greedy big companies?  You forget all the little people behind the scenes that go into making that cd all the jobs at record companies but because in your opinion they are greedy its ok to steal from them?



The big company didn't get big by giving a lot of breaks to the little guys. On their pay roll or not.

But no, strictly speaking, stealing is not ok.

However, the way I am seeing it, the big companies sawing on their own foundation by being greedy and pricing the little guy - their target audience - out of the market.

The deal is, money is often not in the product, but in the vehicle.
I popped an old CD into the computer a while back and was astonished to find a free AOL offer on there. Nothing on the CD case indicated any of that. I am sure AOL did not get that disc space for free! 

File sharing sites? The banner ads bring way more money than what you can possibly charge for the files (AKA songs) 

Like in the old days: The exposure the video TV shows gave the artists was invaluable to the record sales. 
but it's pure greed...deadly....then they want bandaids to stop the bleeding.....


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 30, 2012)

oaktree said:


> The majority of record sales don't even go to the artist.
> For every $1 down load an artist gets maybe 30 cents.
> For every album a $1. So an.artist isn't making all
> The money from sales of music.  Its the concerts and merchandise
> ...



However, local artists are generally making their own cd's and selling them. Between studio costs (maintenance and bailout for their own, or rental costs for using someone else's), production and mastering costs, marketing costs, etc. The margin is about the same on a good day. But the volume is a lot smaller.

And as far as the cost for making a cd, that literally refers to the costs of the materials themselves. Doesn't factor in record time, production time, mastering, shipping, marketing, the wages for the guy who sold you the cd, etc. Etc. Etc.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 30, 2012)

Josh Oakley said:


> Oh, so feisty. The way you wrote BRO in all caps like that. That was hot. I like TOTALLY needed to change my huggies right there.
> 
> Yeah baby. Talk dirty to me.
> 
> ...



Wonderful attitude for a Mentor.  

So Piracy.  I think we should steal as much Indie music as we can to **** the little guy over, they probably deserve it for being the little guy.  Or maybe they just cant get ahead because they suck too much to not be a little indie guy.


----------

