Internet piracy

[ballen0351]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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