Here's a site with some info about the copyright law
http://www.zdnetasia.com/new-zealand-pa ... 208409.htm
The isps were going to have to cut peoples internet off at first, but now they send fines.
Don't know how the copyright owners find out whose downloading illegally, but apparently thousands of fines have been sent via the isps
I won't break copyright, we have wonderful musicians, and I just couldn't do it with a good conscience.
Why do people still buy cds, dvds?
-
BeyondtheWrap
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:38 pm
- Location: NYC
I do not believe that file-sharing is equal to stealing.
@pax, Re: cars - Stealing cars is definitely not analogous to downloading music. If I steal a car from a car dealership, then the dealership loses one car. If I copy a digital file, then both of us still have it afterwards.
I believe that we should celebrate this capability. Although we live in a world of scarcity, at least on the Internet we live in so much abundance that we can have a gift economy.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
@chilly - Downloading TV shows is another example that is similar. How about recording them off the TV? Recording songs off the radio? How about getting a bike on FreeCycle instead of buying one and supporting the bike industry? Are these stealing too?
You also are not supporting the artist when you buy/sell used CDs/DVDs. I sell you my used CD, the money goes to me and the artist gets none of it. Sure, maybe I originally bought it new and the artist got money from that, but you could have bought it new too and chose not to. Stealing?
@Chad "Just because I create something does not give you an inalienable right to it."
No one's saying we have a right to what you made. Just that once we have a copy of it, we have a right to do with it as we please. For example, by making more copies of it and giving them away.
@pax, Re: cars - Stealing cars is definitely not analogous to downloading music. If I steal a car from a car dealership, then the dealership loses one car. If I copy a digital file, then both of us still have it afterwards.
I believe that we should celebrate this capability. Although we live in a world of scarcity, at least on the Internet we live in so much abundance that we can have a gift economy.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
@chilly - Downloading TV shows is another example that is similar. How about recording them off the TV? Recording songs off the radio? How about getting a bike on FreeCycle instead of buying one and supporting the bike industry? Are these stealing too?
You also are not supporting the artist when you buy/sell used CDs/DVDs. I sell you my used CD, the money goes to me and the artist gets none of it. Sure, maybe I originally bought it new and the artist got money from that, but you could have bought it new too and chose not to. Stealing?
@Chad "Just because I create something does not give you an inalienable right to it."
No one's saying we have a right to what you made. Just that once we have a copy of it, we have a right to do with it as we please. For example, by making more copies of it and giving them away.
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
@BeyondtheWrap - Copyright fair use allows one to record broadcasts for personal use. Personal use has a specific definition, but generally means up to two archival copies for oneself that are not to be distributed.
Filesharing, whether for profit or not, is distribution and thus illegal.
Not all content creators use the corporate channels for distribution. I know of several self-produced DVDs and CDs and books. The host of this web site has written a book. Are you going to rip him off, too, merely because you might have a digital copy of his work?
Filesharing, whether for profit or not, is distribution and thus illegal.
Not all content creators use the corporate channels for distribution. I know of several self-produced DVDs and CDs and books. The host of this web site has written a book. Are you going to rip him off, too, merely because you might have a digital copy of his work?
-
BeyondtheWrap
- Posts: 598
- Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:38 pm
- Location: NYC
@C40: Wow, I didn't even know there were sites like that. Just wow.
@George the original one: Just because recording broadcasts is legal, does that make it not stealing? Just because filesharing is illegal, does that make it stealing?
The law is clear on the issue; I find the topic of the ethics regardless of the law far more interesting.
"Are you going to rip him off, too, merely because you might have a digital copy of his work?"
I don't have a digital copy, but I might rip him off by reselling the physical copy that I own.
It's legal, but is it stealing?
@George the original one: Just because recording broadcasts is legal, does that make it not stealing? Just because filesharing is illegal, does that make it stealing?
The law is clear on the issue; I find the topic of the ethics regardless of the law far more interesting.
"Are you going to rip him off, too, merely because you might have a digital copy of his work?"
I don't have a digital copy, but I might rip him off by reselling the physical copy that I own.
It's legal, but is it stealing?-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
I would argue that our law has evolved over a couple centuries to reflect our ethics. If you look at the time before copyright laws existed, access to media was extremely limited and expensive. A free-for-all copying solution does not work. Free speech and freedom of the press is not the same as free copying.
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
re: gomusicnow.com
They at least appear to be following the law:
"1. Why do we need personal information
GoMusicNow.com collects personal information in order to be able to provide all of the users with effective technical support, to report the news, inform you about updates and special offers, and to monitor downloads of the content to secure payment of royalties to the corresponding copyright holders.
[...]
3. When we are able to disclose you personal information to the third parties.
3.1. In some cases pursuant to licensing agreement the GoMusicNow.com may be requested to provide your personal information to the copyright owners. In this case some of your personal information may be made available to the copyright holder."
They at least appear to be following the law:
"1. Why do we need personal information
GoMusicNow.com collects personal information in order to be able to provide all of the users with effective technical support, to report the news, inform you about updates and special offers, and to monitor downloads of the content to secure payment of royalties to the corresponding copyright holders.
[...]
3. When we are able to disclose you personal information to the third parties.
3.1. In some cases pursuant to licensing agreement the GoMusicNow.com may be requested to provide your personal information to the copyright owners. In this case some of your personal information may be made available to the copyright holder."
As a musician that has produced a number of his own CDs, this is a topic I've read lots about and I believe that the current CD model is definitely outdated. The prices are too high, the demand is too low, especially when there's a less expensive digital alternative that lets you pick and choose which songs you want for a lower price.
If the industry is smart, they should shift back to focusing on singles, as was the rage in the '50s. Of course, these singles would be of the digital variety, and it would save them on overhead of having to buy the materials to print CDs (which add up as the volume increases).
I think Glenn over at To Simplify has the right idea - releasing single songs on his site and giving folks the option to donate a set price (99 cents) or their own price for his work. I've noticed that a lot of younger folks like to be able to customize their playlists, and that's difficult to do with a piece of plastic that has a set number of songs.
Collectors and audiophiles will still hold to the CD formats for their sentimental value and sound quality (respectively), but it's a ever-shrinking niche market. I still buy CDs on rare occasions if I really support what an artist has done, because it's like buying Jacob's book (which I just did) - I feel compelled to send some monetary value towards people that have added some other type of value (through their work) to my life.
Oh and hi, I'm new here.
If the industry is smart, they should shift back to focusing on singles, as was the rage in the '50s. Of course, these singles would be of the digital variety, and it would save them on overhead of having to buy the materials to print CDs (which add up as the volume increases).
I think Glenn over at To Simplify has the right idea - releasing single songs on his site and giving folks the option to donate a set price (99 cents) or their own price for his work. I've noticed that a lot of younger folks like to be able to customize their playlists, and that's difficult to do with a piece of plastic that has a set number of songs.
Collectors and audiophiles will still hold to the CD formats for their sentimental value and sound quality (respectively), but it's a ever-shrinking niche market. I still buy CDs on rare occasions if I really support what an artist has done, because it's like buying Jacob's book (which I just did) - I feel compelled to send some monetary value towards people that have added some other type of value (through their work) to my life.
Oh and hi, I'm new here.
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
Thanks! And yes, a change in the style of marketing would be more beneficial to the industry than holding a death grasp on a dying medium in order to make profits.
Of course, the music industry isn't needed for copyright law these days, as it's pretty easy for independent musicians to get their song(s) protected for a small fee with the copyright office (at least in the USA). The artists can also set up websites relatively easily (again, for a small fee) where they can host their own works and set up systems to receive compensation for said works.
Where the music industry comes in handy is in the marketing and production. They are a juggernaut of connections and are pretty adept at finding the right market for an artist. Also, if the artist needs help with engineering and production of their song(s), there are plenty of studios to help them create a final product.
With the internet, the artists have the opportunity to handle more of the responsibility once the songs are completed, but generally need help getting their material out there. Producers are still needed, but it's getting easier for the artist to create quality work without the help of a full-fledged studio.
The music industry could make their money through promotion of songs to the proper markets and in some cases, through studios as well. The music industry has changed with new mediums in the past (records -> tapes -> CDs), but the new medium now is electronic and there is no real physical product to sell.
As for their approach the copyright law and the copyrights that they currently hold, they need to go after the services that are propagating the free distribution of works, rather than the consumers that partake in receiving free works.
The music industry is trying to grip every last dollar that they can because I think they realize that the market is continually changing towards an electronic product, yet they keep fighting tooth and nail against changing with it.
Of course, the music industry isn't needed for copyright law these days, as it's pretty easy for independent musicians to get their song(s) protected for a small fee with the copyright office (at least in the USA). The artists can also set up websites relatively easily (again, for a small fee) where they can host their own works and set up systems to receive compensation for said works.
Where the music industry comes in handy is in the marketing and production. They are a juggernaut of connections and are pretty adept at finding the right market for an artist. Also, if the artist needs help with engineering and production of their song(s), there are plenty of studios to help them create a final product.
With the internet, the artists have the opportunity to handle more of the responsibility once the songs are completed, but generally need help getting their material out there. Producers are still needed, but it's getting easier for the artist to create quality work without the help of a full-fledged studio.
The music industry could make their money through promotion of songs to the proper markets and in some cases, through studios as well. The music industry has changed with new mediums in the past (records -> tapes -> CDs), but the new medium now is electronic and there is no real physical product to sell.
As for their approach the copyright law and the copyrights that they currently hold, they need to go after the services that are propagating the free distribution of works, rather than the consumers that partake in receiving free works.
The music industry is trying to grip every last dollar that they can because I think they realize that the market is continually changing towards an electronic product, yet they keep fighting tooth and nail against changing with it.
I mainly buy CD's for my music purchases because I like to own a durable physical copy with the highest sound quality. Most digital downloads are lossy encoded and for the price, are simply not worth it unless you only primarily care about convenience.
The business models based upon artificial scarcity (enforced through DRM and copyright litigation) for digital content NEEDS TO DIE. A world where digital content is shared freely is much better than a world with corporations suing and invading the privacy of individuals. It's sickening how the RIAA and MPAA are behaving, threatening to sue 1,000's of people at a time, and suing some for upwards of $500,000 for less than a 100 songs. The current copyright laws make criminals out of at least half of the American population. It is impossible to evaluate the moral standing of an individual pirate without contrasting it with the absolute corruption of his prosecutors. And when doing so the pirate almost looks like a saint. Especially since the culture pimp fat cats from the RIAA and MPAA only stand to make money from their own evil due to the supposed wrong-doing of the pirate.
Also the "piracy of digital content=stealing physical objects" equivalence is so dumb its not even funny. A couple of points.
1. Making or downloading a digital copy of music does not deny any one else the ability to own a copy of that creative work. Therefore it does not deny the content creator a sale, as would be the case for stealing something like a car.
2. A used marketplace exists for physical objects. For digital content no such market exists, further breaking down the equivalence between physical and digital products.
3. Digital copies can be made practically endlessly with no investment in resources beyond the initial creation of the work. This is not the case for physical things, as they can be valued for each individual copy and the resources invested into the creation of each physical instance.
Oh and they even have a word for this kind of "stealing", its called copyright infringement. So how wrong is copyright infringement objectively speaking? Does it prevent the creator from creating new works? No. Does it deny other people from owning that artists work. No. Does it prevent people who wish to contribute monetarily to the artist? No.
So whats with this irrational hatred?
@George the original one
"I would argue that our law has evolved over a couple centuries to reflect our ethics." Yes the laws have evolved to reflect corporate greed and the continued criminalization of the average citizen.
The business models based upon artificial scarcity (enforced through DRM and copyright litigation) for digital content NEEDS TO DIE. A world where digital content is shared freely is much better than a world with corporations suing and invading the privacy of individuals. It's sickening how the RIAA and MPAA are behaving, threatening to sue 1,000's of people at a time, and suing some for upwards of $500,000 for less than a 100 songs. The current copyright laws make criminals out of at least half of the American population. It is impossible to evaluate the moral standing of an individual pirate without contrasting it with the absolute corruption of his prosecutors. And when doing so the pirate almost looks like a saint. Especially since the culture pimp fat cats from the RIAA and MPAA only stand to make money from their own evil due to the supposed wrong-doing of the pirate.
Also the "piracy of digital content=stealing physical objects" equivalence is so dumb its not even funny. A couple of points.
1. Making or downloading a digital copy of music does not deny any one else the ability to own a copy of that creative work. Therefore it does not deny the content creator a sale, as would be the case for stealing something like a car.
2. A used marketplace exists for physical objects. For digital content no such market exists, further breaking down the equivalence between physical and digital products.
3. Digital copies can be made practically endlessly with no investment in resources beyond the initial creation of the work. This is not the case for physical things, as they can be valued for each individual copy and the resources invested into the creation of each physical instance.
Oh and they even have a word for this kind of "stealing", its called copyright infringement. So how wrong is copyright infringement objectively speaking? Does it prevent the creator from creating new works? No. Does it deny other people from owning that artists work. No. Does it prevent people who wish to contribute monetarily to the artist? No.
So whats with this irrational hatred?
@George the original one
"I would argue that our law has evolved over a couple centuries to reflect our ethics." Yes the laws have evolved to reflect corporate greed and the continued criminalization of the average citizen.
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
> The current copyright laws make criminals out of
> at least half of the American population.
I think you have that backwards. The people make themselves criminals by not following the law.
If they really don't like the law, they are empowered to change it by electing the representatives that will change it.
There's nothing that prevents someone from becoming a publisher and creating a publishing system that allows for endless copying if that's what the people seek.
> at least half of the American population.
I think you have that backwards. The people make themselves criminals by not following the law.
If they really don't like the law, they are empowered to change it by electing the representatives that will change it.
There's nothing that prevents someone from becoming a publisher and creating a publishing system that allows for endless copying if that's what the people seek.
This is a general observation regarding this notion that most of us hold:
If they really don't like the law, they are empowered to change it by electing the representatives that will change it.
That remark reminded me of the opening of the film "Food Inc."
Michael Pollan: The way we eat has changed more in the last 50 years than in the previous 10,000. But the image that's used to sell the food, it is still the imagery of agrarian America. You go into the supermarket and you see pictures of farmers, the picket fence, the silo, the '30s farmhouse and the green grass. It's the spinning of this pastoral fantasy.
On the same vein, we have moved away from a democracy into something that appears to be the lovechild of a kleptocratic, mercantilistic, autocratic plutocracy, called "Corporatocracy". But we still maintiain the same notions and ideas of some kind of grassroots democracy in our approach towards governance. Unless one can somehow out-lobby the RIAA/MPAA with several billion dollars, forget getting representatives with that kind of change in the agenda into Congress!
As to this idea of "voting for a change":
Please read the Chapter on the futility (stupidity) of voting from the Freakonomics book, which was itself influenced by the shocking findings of this Swiss(!!) paper.
— — —
@George,
There's nothing that prevents someone from becoming a publisher and creating a publishing system that allows for endless copying if that's what the people seek.
It already exists, it is called bittorrent. It is contextually illegal, which is what is being debated in the first place.
If they really don't like the law, they are empowered to change it by electing the representatives that will change it.
That remark reminded me of the opening of the film "Food Inc."
Michael Pollan: The way we eat has changed more in the last 50 years than in the previous 10,000. But the image that's used to sell the food, it is still the imagery of agrarian America. You go into the supermarket and you see pictures of farmers, the picket fence, the silo, the '30s farmhouse and the green grass. It's the spinning of this pastoral fantasy.
On the same vein, we have moved away from a democracy into something that appears to be the lovechild of a kleptocratic, mercantilistic, autocratic plutocracy, called "Corporatocracy". But we still maintiain the same notions and ideas of some kind of grassroots democracy in our approach towards governance. Unless one can somehow out-lobby the RIAA/MPAA with several billion dollars, forget getting representatives with that kind of change in the agenda into Congress!
As to this idea of "voting for a change":
Please read the Chapter on the futility (stupidity) of voting from the Freakonomics book, which was itself influenced by the shocking findings of this Swiss(!!) paper.
— — —
@George,
There's nothing that prevents someone from becoming a publisher and creating a publishing system that allows for endless copying if that's what the people seek.
It already exists, it is called bittorrent. It is contextually illegal, which is what is being debated in the first place.