Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 12:02 UTC
Multimedia, AV I generally need a billion words to explain the problems inherit in the current copyright system. Joss Stone needs just one minute. "I don't care how you hear it - as long as you hear it." Can we please appoint Ms Stone as supreme overlord of the universe?
Order by: Score:
Impressive
by Paradroid on Mon 17th Jan 2011 12:48 UTC
Paradroid
Member since:
2010-01-05

This girl is seriously hot too. Definitely in my top ten now.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Impressive
by joekiser on Mon 17th Jan 2011 16:36 UTC in reply to "Impressive"
joekiser Member since:
2005-06-30

I seriously had no clue who Joss Stone is until I looked her up because of this article.

She thinks she is being deep and insightful by saying "music should be shared." But she is saying this as someone who has already benefited from copyright laws and the "industry" to its fullest possible extent. Her stance reeks of arrogance.

If you really feel this way, Ms Stone, put your money where your mouth is and release everything under Creative Commons. Except she won't, because there's money to be made.

I can't believe that people are willing to overlook this because she may be good looking.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Impressive
by yoinks on Mon 17th Jan 2011 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Impressive"
yoinks Member since:
2010-06-01

I seriously had no clue who Joss Stone is until I looked her up because of this article.

She thinks she is being deep and insightful by saying "music should be shared." But she is saying this as someone who has already benefited from copyright laws and the "industry" to its fullest possible extent. Her stance reeks of arrogance.

If you really feel this way, Ms Stone, put your money where your mouth is and release everything under Creative Commons. Except she won't, because there's money to be made.

I can't believe that people are willing to overlook this because she may be good looking.


Exactly. She is speaking out of both sides of her sweet a**. She is depending on enough people who are willing to fork out money, legally, for her music. Then she can declare that she is all for sharing, so she can sound like she is for the little people (and therefore sell more product).

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Impressive
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 17:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Impressive"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

She is depending on enough people who are willing to fork out money, legally, for her music.


Like most artists, she is depending that people will pay to see her perform live. Albums sales don't make you rich - only a very tiny few (think U2, Coldplay, groups and artists of that calibre) get rich that way.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Impressive
by yoinks on Mon 17th Jan 2011 18:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Impressive"
yoinks Member since:
2010-06-01

"She is depending on enough people who are willing to fork out money, legally, for her music.


Like most artists, she is depending that people will pay to see her perform live. Albums sales don't make you rich - only a very tiny few (think U2, Coldplay, groups and artists of that calibre) get rich that way.
"

All I'm saying is that Joss S is claiming that she is all for sharing her music, but she isn't sharing it herself - she is selling it.

If CDs/MP3s were purely for promotional purposes, she would just give it away for free. Obviously there is something in it for her.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Impressive
by dylansmrjones on Tue 18th Jan 2011 02:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Impressive"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Bullshit.

First of all because she doesn't get to decide the terms under which her music is distributed. EMI does.

Second. She doesn't care about the copyright violations. EMI does. They make money from those songs (particularly due to what is known as Hollywood accounting (a criminal accounting approach which is tolerated in USA)). She doesn't make much money of those records.

Third. She's trying to get out of her contract.

Fourth. Free art does not mean gratis art. One is free to sell, and resell and so on.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Impressive
by jackeebleu on Mon 17th Jan 2011 19:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Impressive"
jackeebleu Member since:
2006-01-26

Simply put, you are ignorant on the state of the music business and compensation. Artists no longer make the bulk of their money from touring/concerts, etc, as a result of low music sales. Read up on 360 Contracts. These contracts allow the record company to own a larger part of the artists performances, ringtones, merchandising, endorsements, appearance fees, etc. In turn the record label takes a more active role in A&R/development of the artist. The artist becomes a brand and the record company can own all the verticals. So if music becomes "free", as in you cheap SOB's continue to steal/"share" it, the artist and the label can still survive to introduce more artists and create more for you to steal.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Impressive
by Soulbender on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Impressive"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yes, this is obviously an art form we should all fully support....
Perhaps we should look at piracy as civil disobedience.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Impressive
by shmerl on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Impressive"
shmerl Member since:
2010-06-08

There is a big difference between those who support and push DRM, and those who say they don't care (even if they don't dismiss their authorship rights). Releasing everything under Creative Commons is not practical for every case. Unless you'll propose a business model which will support the artist that way. She might be not precise expressing the feelings, that music should be not a business but just sharing (that's creative Commons, you are right). But artists also need to eat something.

I think she meant that turning music into commercial focused cruel machine is bad (DRM being an extreme example of this). So she just expressed it as other extreme.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Impressive
by ARUmar on Mon 17th Jan 2011 17:20 UTC in reply to "Impressive"
ARUmar Member since:
2009-10-08

Pirates on Joss Stone "She's great.We love her" ;)

Reply Score: 3

Yes, you need a lot of words to explain it.
by axilmar on Mon 17th Jan 2011 13:07 UTC
axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

I generally need a billion words to explain the problems inherit in the current copyright system.


You need a billion words, indeed, but not because the problem is so great, but because the problem does not exist.

There is no problem with copyright at all. In fact, people should be allowed to profit by their works. That's the cornerstone of the free economy, which has make the western world as developed as it is right now.

Piracy is illegal. Let's get over with that, please. I am not a software developer, only a humble programmer, but to say that piracy can ever be good or that it does not hurt the sales and profit of a software company is totally stupid.

Reply Score: 4

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Piracy is illegal


Not in The Netherlands. Sorry.

Reply Score: 6

DOSguy Member since:
2009-07-27

It isn't illegal to download copyrighted music and movies in the Netherlands, but it is illegal to spread them.

Edited 2011-01-17 13:52 UTC

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

It is not illegal in EU at all. It is a copyright violation, but not a criminal offense.

Copyright is no right - it's a privilege (and a bad one, just like all other privileges).

Reply Score: 5

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

It is not illegal in EU at all. It is a copyright violation, but not a criminal offense.

Copyright is no right - it's a privilege (and a bad one, just like all other privileges).


In most EU countries, there is no such thing as copyright(Maybe UK and Ireland have copyright). There are author's rights.

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

That's merely the name of the laws. These laws also cover what is "copyright" in English. Danish "ophavsret" (author right) is essentially identical to the concept of "copyright" in that the laws on author rights also handle the question of copyright. But the difference in name does show certain fundamental cultural differences between European countries and USA.

Reply Score: 3

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

That's merely the name of the laws. These laws also cover what is "copyright" in English. Danish "ophavsret" (author right) is essentially identical to the concept of "copyright" in that the laws on author rights also handle the question of copyright. But the difference in name does show certain fundamental cultural differences between European countries and USA.


Agh... They are very similar when covering the right to reproduce, but author's rights are much wider than copyright. Main difference, the attribution clause. Copyright has no attribution clause, only authors' rights protect attribution(prevention of plagiarism).

Reply Score: 2

flypig Member since:
2005-07-13

Agh... They are very similar when covering the right to reproduce, but author's rights are much wider than copyright. Main difference, the attribution clause. Copyright has no attribution clause, only authors' rights protect attribution(prevention of plagiarism).


I think this is what would generally be refered to as Moral Rights under UK law. You can transfer copyright to someone else (e.g. a publisher) without relinquishing your moral rights (which includes attribution) in most circumstances. It sounds to me that this isn't so different from authors' rights in other countries.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What you seem to be promoting is a society where someone should not be able to make a living making art. Let's see what kind of wonderful art gets created when the artist has no choice but to put in a 40-hour day job as well.


It's not just us. It's this way in most of Europe - i.e., the parts of Europe that are not flat-broke and drowning in debt.

Reply Score: 1

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

"What you seem to be promoting is a society where someone should not be able to make a living making art. Let's see what kind of wonderful art gets created when the artist has no choice but to put in a 40-hour day job as well.


It's not just us. It's this way in most of Europe - i.e., the parts of Europe that are not flat-broke and drowning in debt.
"

Okay, you're right, I was off-base there. There are a lot of people with day jobs that produce excellent music. But should we not allow for the possibility that you could make it your day job? Wouldn't it be nice if your favorite artist had time to come play a show in your city, instead of being busy attaching cover pages to his TPS reports?

I'm all for free music, but it should be the artist's choice to decide what degree they provide their music for free, as they're the one who have taken the effort and expense to produce it. If they don't make it free, than you should either find someone else or tell them how you feel and that you'd like them to make their work freely available.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Wouldn't it be nice if your favorite artist had time to come play a show in your city, instead of being busy attaching cover pages to his TPS reports?


They could, you know, earn money by playing gigs. It's a very recent construct that artists ought to be insanely crazy rich, instead of just rich enough to get by. Most artists of yore - those without rich middle-class or nobility patrons - had to live like the common folk. Why should that be any different now?

Heck, besides a small selection of musicians and actors, MOST artists today have to work very hard to get by - you know, like everyone else. Again - why should we enact laws just to protect the rich few musicians and actors?

Reply Score: 5

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

"Wouldn't it be nice if your favorite artist had time to come play a show in your city, instead of being busy attaching cover pages to his TPS reports?


They could, you know, earn money by playing gigs. It's a very recent construct that artists ought to be insanely crazy rich, instead of just rich enough to get by. Most artists of yore - those without rich middle-class or nobility patrons - had to live like the common folk. Why should that be any different now?
"

Firstly, I'm not for the insanely, crazy rich either. But I think it would be nice if a musician could make a living comparable with a middle-class job. If an artist can do that by gigging alone, awesome. But it should be there call to determine that it is and provide you with free recordings accordingly.

Also keep in mind you're talking about a time where recordings didn't exist. If there's no money fueling the infrastructure around recording (studios, recording equipment, etc.), the means to produce recordings will dry up.


Heck, besides a small selection of musicians and actors, MOST artists today have to work very hard to get by - you know, like everyone else. Again - why should we enact laws just to protect the rich few musicians and actors?


It's the little guys I'm wanting to protect. Small artists often have to get revenue from many different sources to get by. Instead of stealing from the crazy rich artists, why don't we help support the little guys instead by giving them a few nickels and dimes for their efforts?

Reply Score: 2

cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

But I think it would be nice if a musician could make a living comparable with a middle-class job.


And I think it would be nice if I could make a living comparable with a middle-class job by decorating Christmas trees. Shall we now pass a law that everyone who decorates his tree in the same way as mine has to pay me?

Some things simply aren't worth a middle-class job, or aren't worth it any more. Plenty of job types have disappeared and turned into a hobby or part-time job because people no longer consider them as valuable as they used to be. It's called progress.

That said, I do pay for the music I like, some of which I first obtained illegally. I strongly disagree with people who only pirate music so they don't have to pay for it even though they have the money to compensate the artist. By compensating the artist, you show your appreciation and encourage them to keep going - not for the money, but because they know people actually consider their creation valuable.

However, I refuse to listen to anything related to the RIAA as I think they are destroying our civilisation - just like some of those pirates are. Not because piracy is an economical issue, but because it's an emotional thing. If you spend a lot of time and effort creating something really nice and then you see a lot of people ripping it off without showing any sign of honest appreciation then common sense may get thrown out of the window. This is why the RIAA/MPAA can do the damage they do.

Reply Score: 2

stone2020 Member since:
2005-09-23

Most artists of yore - those without rich middle-class or nobility patrons - had to live like the common folk. Why should that be any different now?


Your right. Why should it be different now. So why don't you take down all the ads on OSnews and take the copyright notices off the website? Your just doing it for the art right? How about you just do OSnews concerts to support yourself?

Reply Score: 1

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

It's this way in most of Europe - i.e., the parts of Europe that are not flat-broke and drowning in debt.

Because of that, you use hardware and software produced by USA companies. ARM would never survive without being peeked up by american heavyweights.

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

No, they use hardware produced in Taiwan and China, just like the U.S.

Edited 2011-01-18 16:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

No, they use hardware produced in Taiwan and China, just like the U.S.

Ok, so do they use Longsoon cpus (oops MIPS architecture)?
I though the majority uses Intel/Amd/Nvidia chips.

Reply Score: 2

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

"Piracy is illegal


Not in The Netherlands. Sorry.
"

So, can I sell copies of the Beatles and Michael Jackson songs in Holland on the street without any consequences?

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

So, can I sell copies of the Beatles and Michael Jackson songs in Holland on the street without any consequences?


You are explicitly allowed - by law, by word of the minister of Justice, and by years of jurisprudence - to download music, films, TV series, and so on, online. You are also allowed to do this non-digitally, i.e., receive a copy of a CD from someone else. This is a consequence of the 'personal copy' exception to copyright law; even if the source is illegal, the copy is not.

Our laws have been constructed in such a way as to allow the government to hunt down massive piracy, while not criminalising the entire population in the process. Funnily enough, our laws have had no adverse effect on the media industry (i.e., sales figures correspond to those in other countries, and are, in some cases, higher than others).

Overall, this is the best way to handle it.

Reply Score: 2

rhavyn Member since:
2005-07-06

"Piracy is illegal


Not in The Netherlands. Sorry.
"

The Netherlands is a signatory of the Berne Convention, UCC and WIPO. Which means, by definition, copyright infringement is a crime in the Netherlands. You might want to read Chapter 2 of the Copyright Act of 1912, especially starting around Article 26. Article 31a specifically holds that:

A person who intentionally:

a. publicly offers for distribution;

b. has in his possession for the purpose of reproduction or distribution;

c. imports, conveys in transit or exports, or

d. keeps for profit

an object containing a work infringing another person's copyright is liable to a term of imprisonment of not more than six months or a fine of the fourth category.

Which is just one example of how copyright infringement is a crime in the Netherlands.

UCC and WIPO, of course, extended all of this to include software, databases and extend things to the internet. And EU directive 2001/29/EC implements the European version of the US's DMCA.

Edited 2011-01-19 06:53 UTC

Reply Score: 2

morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

>> Piracy is illegal. Let's get over with that, please. I am not a software developer, only a humble programmer, but to say that piracy can ever be good or that it does not hurt the sales and profit of a software company is totally stupid.

Yes, it is definitely illegal. That it hurts sales and profits is debatable. If Microsoft had come down hard during the initial mass deployments of windows, would they have ultimately been as successful as they are?

Did they know office was very widely pirated? Of course they did. But since the value of the software is in the sales they realize, not the per product deployed I would argue that piracy actually helped their overall sales in the end.

The problem with general, sweeping statements is that they do not fit all cases. If you are a developer of niche software and your software is widely pirated and rarely purchased, you are hurt. If you are a huge company then piracy isn't that painful.

Morglum

Reply Score: 4

ivanzinho Member since:
2009-04-05

There is no problem with copyright at all. In fact, people should be allowed to profit by their works. That's the cornerstone of the free economy, which has make the western world as developed as it is right now.

Piracy is illegal. Let's get over with that, please. I am not a software developer, only a humble programmer, but to say that piracy can ever be good or that it does not hurt the sales and profit of a software company is totally stupid.


The problem with piracy does exist, but instead of realizing they've lost, the industry keeps trying (and by that I mean wasting more money) on solutions that obviously don't work or even hurt the legitimate consumer more than the pirate, DRM.

My opinion is that if companies fail because of piracy, it's because they didn't find a sustainable business strategy, so it's nothing more than their own fault.

The people aren't there to serve the industry's will, it's the other way around.

Edited 2011-01-17 13:29 UTC

Reply Score: 13

NuxRo Member since:
2010-09-25


My opinion is that if companies fail because of piracy, it's because they didn't find a sustainable business strategy, so it's nothing more than their own fault.

The people aren't there to serve the industry's will, it's the other way around.


Totally agree!

Reply Score: 1

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

My opinion is that if companies fail because of piracy, it's because they didn't find a sustainable business strategy, so it's nothing more than their own fault.


What a nice logical fallacy.

So, if the police is unable to catch the thieves, shops must find an alternative business strategy?

How nice.

The attempt to justify piracy is pathetic. Unfortunately, many people are blinded by the "it's free, I can take it" mentality and support this totally illogical view.

Reply Score: 2

ivanzinho Member since:
2009-04-05

Sure, because robbing a store and internet piracy are exactly the same thing, right?

You think exactly what the industry wants you to think.

I'm sorry, but the only pathetic thing here is you trying to use the same excuses the industry has been trying to push down our throat so they don't become irrelevant (too soon).

It's been proven that it's possible to have a viable business strategy on the internet, but they keep on blaming the web. So, yes, let them die. Others will come and make money where they couldn't, and the public will still get what they want.

Anyway, good luck trying to catch all the pirates on the internet.

Reply Score: 1

The1stImmortal Member since:
2005-10-20

"My opinion is that if companies fail because of piracy, it's because they didn't find a sustainable business strategy, so it's nothing more than their own fault.


What a nice logical fallacy.

So, if the police is unable to catch the thieves, shops must find an alternative business strategy?

How nice.

The attempt to justify piracy is pathetic. Unfortunately, many people are blinded by the "it's free, I can take it" mentality and support this totally illogical view.
"

I'm afraid you've a fallacy there yourself - a false analogy. As many others have mentioned, Theft != Copyright Violation. Theft from a store produces a direct financial cost (in the form of assets no longer being in their posession) to the business. Copyright violation is at most the loss of *potential revenue*, and last I checked it's not theft to deprive someone of something that doesn't actually exist in any form.

Admittedly, the copyright violation may decrease the saleable value of assets in the possession of the owner, but hey that's life. Business is an investment, and investments carry risk.

Perhaps a better analogy would be this:

Bob's Drink Shop opens in Drytown, and obtains an exclusive permit from the local authorities to sell bottled water in Drytown.

For a long time, being the source for something popular (even necessary) they make lots of money.

Suddenly someone cottons on to the fact that you can make your OWN bottled water, using other bottles and tapwater. Suddenly Bob's Drink Shop isn't doing so well - not as many people want to buy the water if they can get it for free. Others just find it easier not to have to go all the way across town to Bob's Drink Shop all the time for water, even if they like Bob's water and still buy it regularly.

Bob's Drink Shop then starts to complain, calling the self-bottled-water drinkers "thieves" and making their bottles single-use-only to stop others reusing them.
When that doesn't work, they go back to the local authorities and try to make bottling your own water illegal and later even launches massive lawsuits against known self-bottled-water drinkers, even the ones that still buy from them too! The local authorities institute a tax on mains water to homes and businesses to compensate Bob's Drink Shop for their lost potential revenue.

Should the local authorities simply keep supporting Bob's Drink Shop, even though it's business model is clearly not working anymore? Even if it means a few people who make a living bottling water for Bob's Drink Shop won't have a job anymore? Yes, Bob's Drink shop works hard, as do the bottlers they employ, but merely expending effort doesn't somehow entitle them to income surely?

[Obviously in this analogy, Water itself isn't owned by Bob's, but the "Right to Distribute Bottled Water" in Drytown is. And water, being (essentially) the same no matter the source, is basically a "copy" of the bottled water.
Hmm... if anyone can come up with a better copyright analogy while avoiding actual copyrightable things, please post it. Between us all perhaps we could search for the ultimate rebuttal analogy to those who claim Piracy is Theft.]

Reply Score: 1

sj87 Member since:
2007-12-16

I am not a software developer, only a humble programmer, but to say that piracy can ever be good or that it does not hurt the sales and profit of a software company is totally stupid.

Depends, really.

Microsoft allows piracy every now and then so that people wouldn't learn anything else. After all, they might be the same people who get to decide on what software their company or the local school will be running. It's also to prevent the "Linux cancer" from spreading.

Can you say teenagers pirating Photoshop hurts Adobe's income rate or Photoshop sales? No. On the other hand, some of them will grow up to be masters in graphics design. And which app will they then buy?

Neither would we (not me!!) buy all the movies or music we come around through torrent sites and such. Sure, we would buy loads more. Maybe.

But the people, who don't necessarily consume mainstream entertainment, might also never get to know the stuff without piracy being easy.

Of my current musical taste probably like 60-80 % is due to me downloading songs on the net. Buying random music and movies would become very expensive very fast.

I also buy records, though not for the "full prize" of 20-25 euros, only music that comes without the extra tax of record labels'.

I would also consider renting movies instead of warezing them, but only if they were around in HD and without DRM. That's my attitude.

On the software side: I'm a Linux user and like to stick with open source software. Only last week I changed my graphics card drivers from properietary to open (Nvidia blob -> Nouveau).

Aside Linux, I've got a legal Windows 7 installation aswell. I even bought some games from Steam sales.

-----

But think about this: as a student I never/rarely have extra money to spend. If I spent 100 € on movies, then I would not spend it on something else. It might be my cancelling my personal trainer and go jogging. He wouldn't be there crying I just stole from him.

Edited 2011-01-17 13:46 UTC

Reply Score: 3

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Microsoft allows piracy every now and then so that people wouldn't learn anything else. After all, they might be the same people who get to decide on what software their company or the local school will be running. It's also to prevent the "Linux cancer" from spreading.

Heh, it's ironic how you said that. You know, in that way, piracy could be thought of as one of the "cancers" that allows Microsoft to spread. Some other "cancers" would be their stronghold on the market and OEMs to get their OS on everyone's machines and their massive wallet for bribing and advertising.

If the Linux kernel (or, as they were probably talking about, a typical Linux-based distribution) is the only "cancer" Microsoft has to worry about, then what the hell is the problem? Us Linux users have far more Microsoft "cancers" to deal with than they ever had with us.

Obviously, they're just cranky because Linux has made such massive steps to being able to stand on its own as a worthy Windows successor, and their bottom line is on the... eh, line. They've improved Windows with 7, but they need to improve their ways if they want to look good against the freedom Linux provides.

Then again, it has been said that Windows 8 will require a whopping *two times* the power that Windows 7 did, so maybe they really haven't improved it for the long term; just a quick tweak here and there to get it running on netbooks and further eliminate Linux from that space, as well as shutting everyone up about the hog known as Vista, before they get back to their typical bloating ways.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Piracy is illegal. Let's get over with that, please.

Black people entering white people's places, including buses, was also illegal; just because something is the way it is doesn't make it right.

Reply Score: 10

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

Black people entering white people's places, including buses, was also illegal; just because something is the way it is doesn't make it right.


Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...


Art.

Reply Score: 3

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

"Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...


Art.
"

Now let's hold on a minute. Even going back centuries ago when copyright term was still short - hell, even before copyright - artists were compensated for their works in order to make a living. Composers such as Beethoven and painters such as Leonardo Da Vinci were commissioned to create works of art. These artists were able to make a living, which gave them the freedom to create their art as they see it.

What you seem to be promoting is a society where someone should not be able to make a living making art. Let's see what kind of wonderful art gets created when the artist has no choice but to put in a 40-hour day job as well.

Reply Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Now let's hold on a minute. Even going back centuries ago when copyright term was still short - hell, even before copyright - artists were compensated for their works in order to make a living. Composers such as Beethoven and painters such as Leonardo Da Vinci were commissioned to create works of art. These artists were able to make a living, which gave them the freedom to create their art as they see it.


Now let's. All artists had patrons, that paid and sustained them to create magnificent works of art. I can say, that artists that are in it for money create "cheap art"(All pop/rock music). Now, we get the "art" that sells itself on the net to generate revenue for the "artist".

Reply Score: 3

mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

[q]Now let's. All artists had patrons, that paid and sustained them to create magnificent works of art. I can say, that artists that are in it for money create "cheap art"(All pop/rock music). Now, we get the "art" that sells itself on the net to generate revenue for the "artist".


Are you honestly comparing todays world where art is democratic, to one where all the art that was created was what wealthy patrons would pay for. Art is an expression of the people, and less wealthy people, who cannot ordinarily afford to commission anything greater than a photograph can at least have art that is created for them, not for some wealthy class.

Reply Score: 1

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Are you honestly comparing todays world where art is democratic, to one where all the art that was created was what wealthy patrons would pay for. Art is an expression of the people, and less wealthy people, who cannot ordinarily afford to commission anything greater than a photograph can at least have art that is created for them, not for some wealthy class.


Yes. And if we democratise science, then all research into how the universe got created would be stopped, by the healthy majority that is religious.
There are places where meritocracy yields better results.
Art was forever a democratic thing, there has always been the pop art segment*. It's just lately it's brining those "artists" millions, instead of their deserved pennies**.

* - That is what "cheap art" is. The one that can't stand the test of time. How many 18th century tavern songs are still well known these days? And that was pop art of the day!

** - Yes, there I said it. Most, if not all, popular musicians, actors are worth pennies and tips. Though I do gladly pay for a good show/performance and I will buy the odd album on the net.

This is the end of discussion, for this is my personal view on the matter.

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What you seem to be promoting is a society where someone should not be able to make a living making art. Let's see what kind of wonderful art gets created when the artist has no choice but to put in a 40-hour day job as well.


I'm not promoting that at all. What gave you that idea?

You are one of the many, many people Stone referred to as "brainwashed". Selling records only makes up an incredibly small portion of an artists' income. That's why most artists prefer to tour and do promotion deals - those make them way more money than selling albums. Even before the web.

The simple fact of the matter is that if artists want to make money, they have to work for it. Most of them actually do: they tour, do promotion deals, and so on. Seling albums is mostly of interest to big content, since they are about the only ones truly profiting from that.

Th arrival of the web has shaken up the industry, and has pretty much taken out the need for the middle man (big content). What you are arguing for is that a law that was created to promote the arts and sciences is turned into a law that serves but one purpose: to sustain the outdated and failing business model of big content - no matter how many freedoms we have to give up to do so.

If cars running on fossil fuels ever become superseded by cleaner vehicles, do you also want the government to enact laws that forces us to keep buying petrol so the poor oil companies who didn't adapt to this change don't suffer too many losses? Markets change, and if a company or even an entire industry doesn't adapt, they die.

That's how it should be. Sadly, clueless people seem to think that somehow, the entertainment industry should be exempt from the normal workings of the market that everyone else has to deal with. Why don't we enact laws to protect video stores now that Netflix is here? Why don't we enact a tax on internet use to protect newspapers? Why don't we tax electric car owners for the damage they are causing to oil companies?

Reply Score: 2

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

Selling records only makes up an incredibly small portion of an artists' income.


But it does make them income... which means you are depriving them of income, no matter how small... except your not depriving them by not acquiring it, your depriving them by acquiring it without paying for it... which is theft.

If they want to provide with free music - and I DO believe they should - it should be their choice.


The simple fact of the matter is that if artists want to make money, they have to work for it.


Recording an album isn't work? It take a lot of people's time, effort and money to record music. Go read a few blogs of musicians and studio engineers discussing the recording of music, then see if you still want to argue that it isn't work.

Seling (sic) albums is mostly of interest to big content, since they are about the only ones truly profiting from that.


THIS one I agree with you on. Artists get far too small a share of recording sales, which drive artists towards making music that will sell millions, and we wind up with 99% garbage on the airwaves. But if you were to remove Big Content from the picture, why is an artist not allowed to say what they've created is worth something?


Th arrival of the web has shaken up the industry, and has pretty much taken out the need for the middle man (big content). What you are arguing for is that a law that was created to promote the arts and sciences is turned into a law that serves but one purpose: to sustain the outdated and failing business model of big content - no matter how many freedoms we have to give up to do so.


Sorry, no, that wasn't what I was arguing, and I am sorry if it came off that way. I think that by a combination of copyright law (the original, not the mangled mess it's become) and licenses like the Creative Commons, we get a climate both healthy for the artist AND the public, and Big Content loses their control.

I'm saying we need a system where everybody (except big content) wins.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm saying we need a system where everybody (except big content) wins.


Which is exactly what I've been saying.

Reply Score: 2

_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

there are unfortunately such taxes in some countries. Like France.

Reply Score: 2

viton Member since:
2005-08-09

You are one of the many, many people Stone referred to as "brainwashed". Selling records only makes up an incredibly small portion of an artists' income.


And to continue your logic, programmers must make the money not from selling their products, but from some other sources?

Reply Score: 2

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And to continue your logic, programmers must make the money not from selling their products, but from some other sources?


One option: by selling expert support for their software.

Reply Score: 2

MyNameIsNot4Letter Member since:
2011-01-09

[...] Sadly, clueless people seem to think that somehow, the entertainment industry should be exempt from the normal workings of the market that everyone else has to deal with. Why don't we enact laws to protect video stores now that Netflix is here? Why don't we enact a tax on internet use to protect newspapers? [...]


Sadly, we already have this tax in Denmark. Ever empty medium i buy, i have to pay big-content-tax because it CAN be used to infringe on someone's copyright. For access to the internet i have to pay "media license," to support another dying medium, public service television.

/Uni

Reply Score: 1

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

Some of the folks around here are under the delusion that in order to be a true "artist" one must go without payment (as if that were EVER the case), and that those that take payment aren't real "artists", they are instead "sell-outs".

Reply Score: 3

unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

[/q]

Now let's hold on a minute. Even going back centuries ago when copyright term was still short - hell, even before copyright - artists were compensated for their works in order to make a living. Composers such as Beethoven and painters such as Leonardo Da Vinci were commissioned to create works of art. These artists were able to make a living, which gave them the freedom to create their art as they see it.
[/q]

This simply isn't true. Artists had to produce what their patron wanted. Artists and musicians were nearly always low status and poorly paid.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...

Any large records company, perhaps?

Reply Score: 3

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...

Any large records company, perhaps?


Record companies pay their artists. Poorly, but they do. Next argument.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Record companies pay their artists. Poorly, but they do. Next argument.

Poorly indeed. AFAIK artists only get about 1% of the money their records actually produce, and when the artists sign a contract with such a company the contract usually even has a clause stating that the copyright doesn't belong to the artist anymore.

Call me idealist, but IMHO that's also a form of stealing.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the rather recent case where the company actually didn't day the artists and just used their works to pound money.. You know, the case which just recently went through court and they had to shell out over 5 million dollars. How does that make you feel?

Edited 2011-01-17 16:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

Record companies pay their artists. Poorly, but they do. Next argument.

Poorly indeed. AFAIK artists only get about 1% of the money their records actually produce, and when the artists sign a contract with such a company the contract usually even has a clause stating that the copyright doesn't belong to the artist anymore.

Call me idealist, but IMHO that's also a form of stealing.

EDIT: Forgot to mention the rather recent case where the company actually didn't day the artists and just used their works to pound money.. You know, the case which just recently went through court and they had to shell out over 5 million dollars. How does that make you feel?


I like everything you said here. In fact, recalling what I've seen of album sales breakdowns, 1% may actually be generous. Maybe somewhat better when it comes to digital distribution, where artists get slightly more of the pie. Sad when Apple are the relative good guys, isn't it.

But not paying for artist's recordings means that instead of 1%, they get 0%. If you want to call yourself an idealist, fight for a ideal where the artists get more, Big Content less (or none), and with us possibly paying even less.

And yeah, I was outraged over artists treatment in that lawsuit, which sadly was done by my own country's music industry, and was actually 50 million! But if you're pirating an artists music, you're no better (well, okay, you're better, but still, shame on you).

Look, I'm not supporting rolling over and paying Big Content. I'm just saying our money should be finding their ways into the pockets of the musicians we love - in the best way possible for them - so they can keep on making it for us.

Reply Score: 1

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

If you want to call yourself an idealist, fight for a ideal where the artists get more

I'm an idealist, not a fighter ;)

Reply Score: 2

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Poorly indeed. AFAIK artists only get about 1% of the money their records actually produce, and when the artists sign a contract with such a company the contract usually even has a clause stating that the copyright doesn't belong to the artist anymore.

Call me idealist, but IMHO that's also a form of stealing.

If you want, I've got some official numbers on that matter. They are about the French market, but it's probably the same everywhere.

For physical distribution :
Artist 4%
Producer 5.97%
Studio&Editor 15.6%
Sacem (local RIAA) 4.46%
Distributor 19.95%
Reseller 40.22%
The rest (~10%) is VAT

For online distribution
Artist 2.8%
Producer 7%
Studio&Editor 25.6%
Sacem 7.6%
Digital distributor 35%
Online reseller 1%
DRM&related 5%
The rest (~16%) is VAT

(From : SVM/L'ordinateur individuel n°232, 11/2010)

Think about it : the artist gets much less than even the VAT ^^'

Edited 2011-01-17 17:23 UTC

Reply Score: 1

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

"Poorly indeed. AFAIK artists only get about 1% of the money their records actually produce, and when the artists sign a contract with such a company the contract usually even has a clause stating that the copyright doesn't belong to the artist anymore.

Call me idealist, but IMHO that's also a form of stealing.

If you want, I've got some official numbers on that matter. They are about the French market, but it's probably the same everywhere.

For physical distribution :
Artist 4%
Producer 5.97%
Studio&Editor 15.6%
Sacem (local RIAA) 4.46%
Distributor 19.95%
Reseller 40.22%
The rest (~10%) is VAT

For online distribution
Artist 2.8%
Producer 7%
Studio&Editor 25.6%
Sacem 7.6%
Digital distributor 35%
Online reseller 1%
DRM&related 5%
The rest (~16%) is VAT

(From : SVM/L'ordinateur individuel n°232, 11/2010)

Think about it : the artist gets much less than even the VAT ^^'
"

See, now that's really interesting. I've found indications that online distribution is better for musicians.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artist...

Hmph...

Reply Score: 1

_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

"Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...

Any large records company, perhaps?


Record companies pay their artists. Poorly, but they do. Next argument.
"
Simply solved. Let's all of us, as humanity, pay 1 cent for every song, regardless of what the artist wants (just like the industry does to them). They won't have a choice than to sell for 1 cent then.

By your logic, it wont be stealing then would it? Next argument.

Reply Score: 1

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

"[q]Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...

Any large records company, perhaps?


Record companies pay their artists. Poorly, but they do. Next argument.
"
Simply solved. Let's all of us, as humanity, pay 1 cent for every song, regardless of what the artist wants (just like the industry does to them). They won't have a choice than to sell for 1 cent then.

By your logic, it wont be stealing then would it? Next argument. [/q]

Artists sign contracts, agreeing to that 1 cent. They have the alternative to find labels that will give them a bigger cut, or release their music independently to keep even more of a cut. No theft. Next argument.

Unless you'd like to cite what the Canadian record labels did with their "pending lists" classification, in which case, argument accepted (though without the 'any' qualifier).

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...

Shareholders ?

Reply Score: 1

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

"Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...

Shareholders ?
"

Seriously?! They literally give you money that you can use to run your business!

I really need to stop using sarcasm in posts.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Because they gave a small amount of money to the company a long time ago, it now gives them the right to do whatever they want with it and get a margin on all profits made.

The problem I have with shareholders as opposed to, say, bankers, is that you have a lifetime contract with them. You sold part of your company to them and because of this they can now benefit from work they don't even take part in for the entire life of the company.

A banker gives you some money, you have to reimburse him during a period which is defined in advance, in a way that's defined in advance, and that's all. Once you have reimbursed your debt, there's no link between you and him anymore. The link between him and you is a purely monetary one. His benefit is doing so is included in loan interests, which are received in a well-defined way.

Reply Score: 2

mkone Member since:
2006-03-14

Because they gave a small amount of money to the company a long time ago, it now gives them the right to do whatever they want with it and get a margin on all profits made.

The problem I have with shareholders as opposed to, say, bankers, is that you have a lifetime contract with them. You sold part of your company to them and because of this they can now benefit from work they don't even take part in for the entire life of the company.

A banker gives you some money, you have to reimburse him during a period which is defined in advance, in a way that's defined in advance, and that's all. Once you have reimbursed your debt, there's no link between you and him anymore. The link between him and you is a purely monetary one. His benefit is doing so is included in loan interests, which are received in a well-defined way.


Shareholder put their money at risk. Many make huge losses on their investment. Banks get to take over businesses when shareholder fail to pay their debts. When the proverbial s*#t hits the fan, shareholders could be left with nothing. Now bankers. They don't get to risk anything of theirs, and they make outsize profits. They, you should have a problem with.

Reply Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I also have a problem with them (the first Money as Debt pretty much sums up why), but it's a different one. The basic "just pay what you owe us, we don't care about the rest" principle behind a bank loan is a more sensible one in my opinion, but you're right that specific clauses of the implemented contracts based on this principle (like the "we may take over everything if you fail to pay") are not okay either.

Then again, I think that loans, like any form of contract where you depend on money from exterior people, should always be approached with extreme caution, and with absolute certitude that you can get rid of them as soon as reasonably possible...

Edited 2011-01-17 18:04 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Brunis Member since:
2005-11-01

"Black people entering white people's places, including buses, was also illegal; just because something is the way it is doesn't make it right.


Benefiting from the results of labour without providing compensation, hmmm... now what does that remind me of...
"

The Music industry?

Reply Score: 1

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Black people entering white people's places, including buses, was also illegal; just because something is the way it is doesn't make it right.

I don't think it was illegal for them to *enter* the bus; they just weren't privileged to sit wherever they please (back seats only?), and if the number of seats available were getting low the black person had to leave to make room. Rosa Parks, if that is who you are referring to with the bus example, refused to give her seat up to a white person.

Of course, this probably wouldn't have happened if some dumbasses didn't decide to bring the blacks over with them as slaves in the first place, and instead just left them in Africa way back then, where they could be the rulers of the entire continent and not be whining to some other government on the other side of the ocean for (and getting) exclusive freedoms over everyone else and crap like reparations and affirmative action. Slavery was one of the dumbest things in history IMO, and it's only come to bite most of the population in the ass (as long as their ass is not black).

[ducks]

But then, to be fair, I know you're Finnish, and you could be talking about racism issues over there that I don't know anything about... [Admittedly, I know virtually nothing about Finland except that it probably gets freakin' cold up there based on its location.]

Edited 2011-01-17 19:01 UTC

Reply Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

[Admittedly, I know virtually nothing about Finland except that it probably gets freakin' cold up there based on its location.]

Just be glad, there is nothing positive to know about Finland ;)

Reply Score: 3

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

Just be glad, there is nothing positive to know about Finland ;)

Well Linus is from there--that's a plus, isn't it? Heh.
Not that he's been living there for years, though...

Edited 2011-01-17 19:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"Black people entering white people's places, including buses, was also illegal; just because something is the way it is doesn't make it right.

I don't think it was illegal for them to *enter* the bus; they just weren't privileged to sit wherever they please (back seats only?), and if the number of seats available were getting low the black person had to leave to make room. Rosa Parks, if that is who you are referring to with the bus example, refused to give her seat up to a white person.

Of course, this probably wouldn't have happened if some dumbasses didn't decide to bring the blacks over with them as slaves in the first place, and instead just left them in Africa way back then, where they could be the rulers of the entire continent and not be whining to some other government on the other side of the ocean for (and getting) exclusive freedoms over everyone else and crap like reparations and affirmative action. Slavery was one of the dumbest things in history IMO, and it's only come to bite most of the population in the ass (as long as their ass is not black).

[ducks]

But then, to be fair, I know you're Finnish, and you could be talking about racism issues over there that I don't know anything about... [Admittedly, I know virtually nothing about Finland except that it probably gets freakin' cold up there based on its location.]
"

Dutch Slave traders worked with the Zulu and other warrior tribes who then captured fellow Africans and used them as goods to be traded to the West.

Free Labor in the Colonies for a life time was a bargain to a plantation owner who no longer could use indentured servitude contracts of Western Europeans as a means to get their crops to market.

Either you're not American or your lack of history is a reflection of how bad your education was during your high school days.

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Of all once-illegal-but-not-anymore things you choose, you go with segregation? Really?

As if the ethical issues regarding segregation are at all similar (or as clear-cut) to ethical issues regarding copyright.

Ya know, hyperbole is frequently far more counterproductive to solving complex issues than misinformation.

At least you didn't mention Hitler.

Reply Score: 2

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

As if the ethical issues regarding segregation are at all similar (or as clear-cut) to ethical issues regarding copyright.

If you think I tried to somehow liked segregation to copyright issues then you missed the whole point by a mile.

Reply Score: 2

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

I got your point: Times changes; Laws change What was once illegal no longer is.

However, your choice of segregation laws to demonstrate this is poor at best, but seem to verge on purposeful hyperbole

Reply Score: 2

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

Black people entering white people's places, including buses, was also illegal; just because something is the way it is doesn't make it right.


Concepts can not be deemed comparable because they shared a common attribute. In this case, the violation of human rights cannot be said to be comparable to stealing one's work, just because the word 'right' appears in both of them.

Are you seriously saying that depriving one of the right to profit from his/her works is the right thing to do?

Reply Score: 2

Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

There is no problem with copyright at all. In fact, people should be allowed to profit by their works. That's the cornerstone of the free economy, which has make the western world as developed as it is right now.

If I play your music on my podcast my listeners might like it and go to your website to buy your stuff.
If I play your music in my store my customers might like it and go to your website to buy your stuff.
The point being that I first have to like your stuff before I want to support you by buying your stuff.

The way copyright is used by the music and movie industry is harmful to the people that make/buy music and movies. If you buy a dvd you should be able to watch it without being threatened or be forced to watch commercials. You should be able to watch that movie on every device you own. These companies treat every customer as a thief.

Reply Score: 4

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09


If I play your music on my podcast my listeners might like it and go to your website to buy your stuff.
If I play your music in my store my customers might like it and go to your website to buy your stuff.
The point being that I first have to like your stuff before I want to support you by buying your stuff.


Agreed, but I think it should be up to the artist to realize that. If they want to make it available for free use in podcasts/store ambiance,then they should release it using a CC license or the like. If not, then you should respectfully let them toil in obscurity if that is what they so choose.


The way copyright is used by the music and movie industry is harmful to the people that make/buy music and movies.


Agreed. The concept of copyright has been greatly twisted over the years to the point it is no longer serving it's intended purpose. People should inform themselves on the nature of copyright (again, Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture, Google it).

Reply Score: 1

daedalus Member since:
2011-01-14


Agreed, but I think it should be up to the artist to realize that. If they want to make it available for free use in podcasts/store ambiance,then they should release it using a CC license or the like. If not, then you should respectfully let them toil in obscurity if that is what they so choose.


I agree. It's unfortunate that while there are a lot of "cheap" pop artists who are simply manufacturing pop, if another artist actually wants to become successful, they often have to make a deal with the devil and sign up to a record label. This gives them access to all the recording studio equipment they want or need to fulfil their creative desire, but in return they hand over the rights of their creations to the label. Once the label has them, you'll never see them released under a CC licence, no matter how much that artist wants to.

Reply Score: 1

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

1) Piracy is not illegal. It may constitute a contract violation and one may be ordered to pay compensation to the other part. But a criminal offense it is not (well, perhaps in USA, the country where you'll sell your grandma).

2) Abolishing copyright laws does not prevent artists from profiting from their work. Copyright laws do however prevent people from making a profit from their work. If I create a derivative of Lennon's "Working Class Hero" I'm not allowed to profit from that derivative, despite the derivative being my work. Copyright is not about securing a free market, but creating an unfree, regulated market which violates the artists and the population at large.

3) Intellectual Protectionism is the opposite of a free market. Corporate Capitalism != Free market.

Reply Score: 3

Getulio Brasil Member since:
2006-04-19

There's another thing outside US and EU: Before, the record companies used to dictate what would be playing in our radios, generaly ignoring local musicians or keeping them underpaid. There are some very fine brazilian artists that are known in Europe through alternative channels and not in Brazil.
Well, because of what you call "piracy" and internet, they are getting more public attention, avoiding big companies (most not brazilian and giving a s**t to our culture) and making money even selling DVD's by a dollar with instant copies of their own shows. Some of these bands and singers are lame, as well as Lady Gaga and alike, but they are OUR lame singers and bands.
Plus, the amount of (even very good) international musicians that came to Brazil last years has been increasing like a rocket, because now they must come and present shows themself, rather than sending their "canned things"... They must work to get rich... Sounds fair to you?
There's more roon to local artists and more diversity.
It brings innovation and forces the big pockets to invest on new things (such as 3D movies) to differentiate from what you can easily copy over the net.
So, in cultural aspects, and with respect to "fair and free market", the best thing that ever happened to real entertainment people (not a tiny fraction of them) was what some call "piracy".

Reply Score: 5

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

1) Piracy is not illegal. It may constitute a contract violation and one may be ordered to pay compensation to the other part. But a criminal offense it is not (well, perhaps in USA, the country where you'll sell your grandma).


Illegal is anything that goes against the law. And since piracy is a contract violation, and the law makes the contract valid, then the contract violation is violation of the law, and therefore it is illegal.

Abolishing copyright laws does not prevent artists from profiting from their work.


If 90% of a product's customers pirate said product, then it seriously hurts the profits.

Copyright laws do however prevent people from making a profit from their work. If I create a derivative of Lennon's "Working Class Hero" I'm not allowed to profit from that derivative, despite the derivative being my work. Copyright is not about securing a free market, but creating an unfree, regulated market which violates the artists and the population at large.


You are allowed to profit from the derivative work, provided that you have paid the required royalties.

What you want is not to pay those royalties, i.e. use another man's hard work without paying him/her a dime.

Intellectual Protectionism is the opposite of a free market. Corporate Capitalism != Free market.


You are wrong. Free market does not mean unregulated market. Protectionism is required to balance the game.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

And since piracy is a contract violation, and the law makes the contract valid, then the contract violation is violation of the law, and therefore it is illegal.


That's not how contract law works. Violating a contract is not against the law and it's also not illegal. Depending on the contract it may even be without consequence to violate it if the clauses of the contract violates contract law.
Now, violating copyright *law* is however against the law for obvious reasons and this is what piracy is.

Edited 2011-01-18 14:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

judgen Member since:
2006-07-12

The reason I stopped buying music is that there is an awsome amount of great music out there allready for free under the creative commons & fair use clauses now, not because I do not support the artists, I do go to concerts and the likes mostly all summer and i do not mind donating a FAIR amount for the songs i like.

I must add though: that I strongly dislike most music on the telly and radio. BUT what I am NOT saying is that everyone should listen to what I like, just saying we no longer have to be forcefed the crap like we were used to in the sad state of the 80's music scene.

Maybe I am self centered in this matter, i do not know. If you think so, fine by me. =D

Reply Score: 2

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Piracy is illegal. Let's get over with that, please. I am not a software developer, only a humble programmer, but to say that piracy can ever be good or that it does not hurt the sales and profit of a software company is totally stupid.


What kind of argument is that supposed to be? I'm a proponent of copyright myself (albeit not today's copyright system), but you're basically just saying that since piracy is illegal it can never be right or good or not hurting sales, which is 1) logically unsound and 2) patently untrue.

For one, there are numerous works still under copyright that are unavailable simply because the copyright holders don't find publishing profitable. In such a case, piracy hurts neither sales nor profits.

Reply Score: 3

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

but you're basically just saying that since piracy is illegal it can never be right or good or not hurting sales, which is 1) logically unsound and 2) patently untrue.

For one, there are numerous works still under copyright that are unavailable simply because the copyright holders don't find publishing profitable. In such a case, piracy hurts neither sales nor profits.


Piracy can never be good, period.

If there are works that under copyright but not published any more, then so be it. The owners of the works have decided that they don't want to publish their works any more or profit from those works.

It's their right to do whatever they want with their works, including withdrawing it from the public.

Even if you pirate works that are no longer in publication but they are still in copyright, you violate the owners' wishes.

Reply Score: 3

No it isnt Member since:
2005-11-14

Sorry, but that's just utter bullshit. You provide no valid argument, not even a seemingly plausible one. You know absolutely nothing about every authors' wishes, nor about the reasons for their decisions. Not that a conscious decision, nor even a wish, is needed for something to go out of distribution; only a lack of initiative or resources.

Since you're unable to defend your position in any meaningful way, I suggest you rethink it. Especially since your arguments depend on false premises.

Reply Score: 2

MyNameIsNot4Letter Member since:
2011-01-09

If there are works that under copyright but not published any more, then so be it. The owners of the works have decided that they don't want to publish their works any more or profit from those works.


And how does that advance the arts and sciences? I thought that is why (originally at least) the concept of copyright was created. For the people, not the artist.

/Uni

Reply Score: 1

Anonymous Penguin Member since:
2005-07-06


Piracy is illegal. Let's get over with that, please. I am not a software developer, only a humble programmer, but to say that piracy can ever be good or that it does not hurt the sales and profit of a software company is totally stupid.


I know I am not saying anything new here, but some basic concepts should be told over and over.
When you really, really want something, you buy it. You won't be happy with a pirated copy. If you download something, normally it is something you wouldn't buy anyway.
That, in my experience, is true in any case. I had never bought a copy of Windows (but of course got OEM licenses with prebuild computers). Since Windows 7 is out, I have bought 2 licenses.
With movies and music the case is even more evident: I want the (original) CD or DVD, I want the case, the extras...
Heck, I have even bought many times commercial Linux distributions, even if the word "piracy" doesn't really apply to Linux.
The pleasure of having a SUSE box in your hands (years ago) was almost sensual.

Reply Score: 3

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Copyright is not about a free economy, in fact copyright is a government enforced restriction that removes freedom from the economy.

Reply Score: 2

axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

Copyright is not about a free economy, in fact copyright is a government enforced restriction that removes freedom from the economy.


You mistake anarchy for freedom.

Reply Score: 2

v "as long as you come to my show..."
by red_squirrel on Mon 17th Jan 2011 13:19 UTC
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Lets see if she still loves piracy when people start pirating her concerts instead of attending.


It's clear you've never been to a concert.

Reply Score: 5

leech Member since:
2006-01-10

I'll have to agree with that statement.

Serioiusly, she's hot and smart. We should compile a list of musicians that don't care about piracy, and then have them as a suggested list of people to see their live shows.

I've read many different articles about how much money the musicians themselves actually get. Most of it literally comes from their live shows, and they generally get squat for CD/MP3 sales.

Not sure about T-Shirts and the like. But I bet they get more money off of selling those at a concert than they would if you buy them from a store.

Reply Score: 6

red_squirrel Member since:
2010-09-05

I've been to many.

My point was that she is happy about piracy because she doesn't lose money when somebody torrents her albums. She makes money with concerts and royalties, if people started pirating her live shows instead of attending she'd be against piracy.

Reply Score: 0

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I've been to many.

My point was that she is happy about piracy because she doesn't lose money when somebody torrents her albums. She makes money with concerts and royalties, if people started pirating her live shows instead of attending she'd be against piracy.


You know her personally, I presume, then? From what she's saying here, she still wouldn't care.

I asked about the concerts because, well, a DVD of a concert has about as much to do with the real thing as jacking off has to do with sex.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Except that going to a concert is an entirely difference experience from listening on a recording of the concert. There's no difference in experience and quality when listening to a pirated album rather than a purchased one.

Reply Score: 3

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

It's called bootlegging and it's been around for as long as there has been artists giving concerts. "Amazingly" enough people still go to concerts and it doesnt seem to have affected artists much. Heck, there are even artists that encourage bootlegging and yet people go to their concerts.

Edited 2011-01-17 13:36 UTC

Reply Score: 5

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

You are doing it again... confusing people by giving them facts... *sigh*

If you don't watch out, they'll learn how to think for themself.

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Yes, because watching a low-res video on YT is exactly like being there at the concert.

Oh, and what Thom wrote.

Reply Score: 2

v Piracy
by hussam on Mon 17th Jan 2011 13:54 UTC
RE: Piracy
by daedalus on Mon 17th Jan 2011 13:57 UTC in reply to "Piracy"
daedalus Member since:
2011-01-14

Having said that, piracy can sometimes benefit the music industry. You illegally download a song, you like it then you either buy the whole album or pay for concert tickets. That still doesn't make it right.


Maybe not. But that artist then has the sale of the album and concert ticket that they otherwise would not have got from me.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Piracy
by d.marcu on Mon 17th Jan 2011 14:03 UTC in reply to "Piracy"
d.marcu Member since:
2009-12-27

what about all those concert tickets that i bought after pirating their albums not only because i couldn't afford to buy them, but because I CAN NOT FIND THEM in retail stores? And without pirating them i would have never even heard of those bands, so no piracy, no tickets, no money spent at all.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Piracy
by hussam on Mon 17th Jan 2011 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Piracy"
hussam Member since:
2006-08-17

what about all those concert tickets that i bought after pirating their albums not only because i couldn't afford to buy them, but because I CAN NOT FIND THEM in retail stores? And without pirating them i would have never even heard of those bands, so no piracy, no tickets, no money spent at all.

Still not an excuse. That's the point I'm trying to make. Benefiting from illegal activity doesn't make illegal activity ok.
Illegal sharing of copyrighted media needs to die. Sadly it won't.

Edited 2011-01-17 14:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Piracy
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 14:19 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Piracy"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

IF you think art and science is only about money, then yes, it needs to die.

If you believe art and science is about something more than money, then no, it doesn't need to die.

The original intent of copyright was to promote the arts and sciences. Everything else is bullshit. It was never intended to make anyone any money at all; big content and lobby groups only added this component much later.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Piracy
by WereCatf on Mon 17th Jan 2011 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Piracy"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Still not an excuse. That's the point I'm trying to make. Benefiting from illegal activity doesn't make illegal activity ok.

It's been proven several times that sharing such arts is actually quite often beneficial and as such companies should rather re-think their business strategies harder. At the moment they keep claiming that all piracy is bad because every single pirated copy is a lost sale. That obviously isn't true, even 5 seconds of thinking about it would tell you that.

Then they go and create DRM solutions which only make the lives of honest customers worse and doesn't affect pirates at all and thus they indirectly promote piracy instead.

My point is that they should implement DRM or whatever only to such a degree that it doesn't hamper honest customers, and ignore pirates. They'd save money both because they wouldn't need to spend so much time on useless DRM and because they could use the time for something more productive instead of watching file sharing sites. Not to mention that the honest people whom DRM doesn't screw over would be more likely to continue their business with the aforementioned company.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Piracy
by d.marcu on Mon 17th Jan 2011 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Piracy"
d.marcu Member since:
2009-12-27

What I'm trying to say is that the bulk of the cash comes from live performances, not record sales. A band in Romania, when they release a new album they give it for free download on their website, because if you don't want to/can't afford to buy it you won't, and a message "see you where you live in concert". And that band in a few years became quite successful with no radio/tv support (metal band, that's a no fu..ing way here from mainstream music channels).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Piracy
by _xmv on Tue 18th Jan 2011 13:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Piracy"
_xmv Member since:
2008-12-09

"what about all those concert tickets that i bought after pirating their albums not only because i couldn't afford to buy them, but because I CAN NOT FIND THEM in retail stores? And without pirating them i would have never even heard of those bands, so no piracy, no tickets, no money spent at all.

Still not an excuse. That's the point I'm trying to make. Benefiting from illegal activity doesn't make illegal activity ok.
Illegal sharing of copyrighted media needs to die. Sadly it won't.
"

that doesn't make sense. if 90% of the people do something, then laws and morals must fit that.

Laws must not fit the richest's will because they have more power as a single person (but less than united "relatively powerless" people)

That's a basic, fundamental thing.

Otherwise, we can also keep slavery and such things - which appeared perfectly normal at the time to the rich and powerful people. Sounds far fetched? Not so far, actually. The human mind has troubles accepting such simple things by design.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Piracy
by avgalen on Tue 18th Jan 2011 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Piracy"
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

You can afford concert tickets, but not cd's?
and you couldn't find these cd's on itunes/ebay/amazon/etc?

admit it, downloading them (illegaly) was easier and cheaper. Don't make up excuses like "couldn't afford, couldn't buy"

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Piracy
by d.marcu on Tue 18th Jan 2011 09:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Piracy"
d.marcu Member since:
2009-12-27

actually years ago there was no itunes, amazon etc, next in my country the price of a cd is similar to the price of a 2 day festival ticket bought a few months in advance, and also here you don't earn that much money from a full time job like in more developed countries so buying a ticket for a festival is quite a big event, so i would rather give that money directly to the band by that ticket than to buy albums and pay transaction fees on amazon or to buy a cd and pay the price of a festival

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Piracy
by yoinks on Mon 17th Jan 2011 15:03 UTC in reply to "Piracy"
RE[2]: Piracy
by dylansmrjones on Mon 17th Jan 2011 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Piracy"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Wonder why she's trying to get out of her contract with EMI.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Piracy
by dylansmrjones on Mon 17th Jan 2011 16:17 UTC in reply to "Piracy"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

No offense to anyone, but honestly anyone who defends piracy is either a dumb kid or an immature person.


And that's a very mature statement in your opinion?

In that case I prefer being an immature person.

Reply Score: 2

Alternatives to Piracy
by sparkyERTW on Mon 17th Jan 2011 15:07 UTC
sparkyERTW
Member since:
2010-06-09

I do agree with everyone arguing music and software piracy is illegal. However, I also agree that modern copyright law has become a problem, though I'm not sure a "billion words" are necessary (some excellent words, though, can be heard by Lawrence Lessig and his lectures on free culture).

Free software licenses, and the Creative Commons for music/art/etc., are very powerful and legal ways to share what you create. They can give almost limitless rights to the licensee (copy, distribute and transmit as you like, right to create derivative works) while also allowing the copyright holder to protect their work in some forms (disallowing use for commercial purposes, attribution required, propagation of license terms). It also doesn't mean that the copyright holder isn't allowed to sell their music (though they certainly can give it away for free); they're just allowing fair use rights once it's been bought. A number of artists have had great success with CC licenses.

Of course, this doesn't solve the problem of people who have no respect for the hard work of others. If you want a free copy of a recording, okay; there are other avenues to support that artists. But if you download their entire catalog illegally, sneak into all their concerts, create knock-off merchandise rather than pay for it, basically give them nothing back... you're a jerk.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Dryhte
by Dryhte on Mon 17th Jan 2011 15:40 UTC
Dryhte
Member since:
2008-02-05

I generally need a billion words to explain the problems inherit in the current copyright system.


Allow me to correct you: the problems are not inherit in the system, but inherent to the system ;) but yeah, I agree that Joss has put this quite nicely ;)

Edited 2011-01-17 15:41 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Not the only artist
by reez on Mon 17th Jan 2011 15:41 UTC
reez
Member since:
2006-06-28

We should create a list of famous artists thinking like this (Disturbed to just name one).

I mean besides Jamendo, etc.

Reply Score: 2

Back to the future.
by westlake on Mon 17th Jan 2011 17:35 UTC
westlake
Member since:
2010-01-07

The video is five years old.

Which raises a question the eternally adolescent geek never asks:

What happens when you are too old for the rigors of the concert tour?

What happens when your audience can no longer afford the price of a concert ticket?

Radio and recordings allowed singers like Bing Crosby to perform with an ease and intimacy the arena stage would never allow - and both popular music and jazz are all the better for it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Back to the future.
by TechGeek on Mon 17th Jan 2011 17:41 UTC in reply to "Back to the future."
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

My dad is too old to work anymore due to health problems. He was that way 2 years before the minimum age of retirement. No one argued that he should keep being paid his salary until retirement. Why should an artist get paid if they aren't actively creating? Thats one thing I never understood. So I do a job and get paid for it. The artist does a job and they should get paid for the next 100 years? WTF?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Back to the future.
by sparkyERTW on Mon 17th Jan 2011 18:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Back to the future."
sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

My dad is too old to work anymore due to health problems. He was that way 2 years before the minimum age of retirement. No one argued that he should keep being paid his salary until retirement. Why should an artist get paid if they aren't actively creating? Thats one thing I never understood. So I do a job and get paid for it. The artist does a job and they should get paid for the next 100 years? WTF?


Because in this scenario your dad is the artist and his company is Big Content. Your dad creates something for his company, and his company profits from it while paying him nothing but the initial pittance for it (remember, all subsequent salary payments are for subsequent work). There's some holes in the analogy (artists do get royalty pay, albeit small), but overall it's a decent approximation.

As far as artists getting paid when they aren't actively creating, keep in mind that a) your $0.99 doesn't begin to cover the expense it took them to create that; they need a healthy number of sales to not only cover the cost but actually make some money for themselves, and b) most of us agree here copyright is far too long, so I agree with the "next 100 years" complaint, and c) unless you're a multi-platinum selling artist (which is a very small percentage of artists), you can't live off royalty cheques alone.

Edited 2011-01-17 18:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Back to the future.
by d.marcu on Mon 17th Jan 2011 18:25 UTC in reply to "Back to the future."
d.marcu Member since:
2009-12-27


What happens when you are too old for the rigors of the concert tour?

What happens when your audience can no longer afford the price of a concert ticket?

For your first question, Rolling Stones, Ozzy Osbourne are still touring, those real and old artists, not those fancy pop drama queen teens
For the second, real artists have both older and younger audiences for concerts (Rolling Stones, Ozzy)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Back to the future.
by bert64 on Tue 18th Jan 2011 09:03 UTC in reply to "Back to the future."
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

What happens when you are too old for the rigors of the concert tour?


You retire, just like everyone else does. If you were sensible during your working years, you will have money set aside for your retirement.

What happens when your audience can no longer afford the price of a concert ticket?


Perhaps you should look towards a more affluent target audience... That said, if they can't afford concert tickets they probably won't be buying your CDs or merchandise either. In fact, people are more likely to pirate your CDs in this case because while you can't attend a concert for free, you certainly can acquire a set of digital files representing music for free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Back to the future.
by westlake on Wed 19th Jan 2011 06:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Back to the future."
westlake Member since:
2010-01-07

What happens when you are too old for the rigors of the concert tour?

You retire, just like everyone else does. If you were sensible during your working years, you will have money set aside for your retiremet.


This assumes that the older artist has absolutely nothing left to offer.

--- and that is fundamentally adolescent.

Reply Score: 1

performing artists
by fran on Mon 17th Jan 2011 18:07 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

Dilemma is not all musicians or (artists in general) is performing artists.
If you can pay for it you should.
Industry statistics show 9 out of 10 bands fail and get's unsigned by their record companies.
Sci fi movies has became very scarce, music is canned. Many great novels is not being made into movies.
MGM almost went under. ect. ect. ect.
Industry bosses is playing it very safe.
We are making great projects unviable.

Edited 2011-01-17 18:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: performing artists
by sparkyERTW on Mon 17th Jan 2011 18:18 UTC in reply to "performing artists"
sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

Dilemma is not all musicians or (artists in general) is performing artists.
If you can pay for it you should.

Agree on both accounts.

Industry statistics show 9 out of 10 bands fail and get's unsigned by their record companies.

Then let's make them not depend on record companies. Let's give artists opportunities to thrive and the ease to release their music themselves.

Sci fi movies has became very scarce

Dude, did you not see Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus?! (sorry, I couldn't resist; your point is taken ;) )

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: performing artists
by Neolander on Mon 17th Jan 2011 18:35 UTC in reply to "RE: performing artists"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Then let's make them not depend on record companies. Let's give artists opportunities to thrive and the ease to release their music themselves.

Genuine question : could artists (those new in the field especially) afford the cost of producing a good album without the help of a record company ? If so, how ?

I mean, professional recording/mixing/mastering hardware and software tend to cost thousands of dollars combined. Skilled sound engineers operating it generally have a nice salary, too.

I'm all for getting rid of our complex distribution system and just have artists sell their finished album directly. But there's some work before getting to said finished album, and not only the artist's one...

Edited 2011-01-17 18:40 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: performing artists
by WorknMan on Mon 17th Jan 2011 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: performing artists"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Genuine question : could artists (those new in the field especially) afford the cost of producing a good album without the help of a record company ? If so, how ?


Absolutely, this goofy lookin' fella did, and his stuff is better than 90% of crap I hear on FM these days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8LfoyDFUM

I mean, professional recording/mixing/mastering hardware and software tend to cost thousands of dollars combined. Skilled sound engineers operating it generally have a nice salary, too.


Not anymore ;)

To add to this discussion though, I think piracy has both positive and negative consequences, but the problem is that people who support piracy (and do pirate themselves) never want to discuss the latter, and those who oppose piracy never want to discuss the former.

Edited 2011-01-17 19:13 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: performing artists
by Neolander on Mon 17th Jan 2011 19:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: performing artists"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Not anymore ;)

How ? Last time I checked (it was some years ago, though), it was easy to find dirt cheap to free high-quality audio software on the web (Audacity, REAPER, Kristal Audio Engine, and all the linux stuff, to name a few), but hardware remained quite costly. Examples : good dynamic mics started around 100€ each, preamps started at 100€, static mics at 300€, sound cards began around 100€, and active speakers were around 300-400€ if you were ready to go with some quirks like poor bass response. And that's without the hardware mixing stuff, which becomes quickly nice to have considering that low-end sound cards generally have only one or two stereo audio inputs...

To add to this discussion though, I think piracy has both positive and negative consequences, but the problem is that people who support piracy (and do pirate themselves) never want to discuss the latter, and those who oppose piracy never want to discuss the former.

Indeed :p

Edited 2011-01-17 19:53 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: performing artists
by WorknMan on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: performing artists"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

How ? Last time I checked (it was some years ago, though), it was easy to find dirt cheap to free high-quality audio software on the web (Audacity, REAPER, Kristal Audio Engine, and all the linux stuff, to name a few), but hardware remained quite costly. Examples : good dynamic mics started around 100€ each, preamps started at 100€, static mics at 300€, sound cards began around 100€, and active speakers were around 300-400€ if you were ready to go with some quirks like poor bass response. And that's without the hardware mixing stuff, which becomes quickly nice to have considering that low-end sound cards generally have only one or two stereo audio inputs...


Well, I didn't say you could find all the stuff in a box of Cracker Jacks ;) But still, it's not THAT expensive. I would guess you could get going with a couple thousand or even less, which, if you work at a McJob, is probably not going to be easily obtainable. But for most folks, if you just save up for awhile or get an evening job until you have enough cash, you could certainly afford it.

The point is, you don't need a professional studio costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to make albums anymore. And one could even argue that the concept of an 'album' is so 1990's.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: performing artists
by Neolander on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: performing artists"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Well, I didn't say you could find all the stuff in a box of Cracker Jacks ;) But still, it's not THAT expensive. I would guess you could get going with a couple thousand or even less, which, if you work at a McJob, is probably not going to be easily obtainable. But for most folks, if you just save up for awhile or get an evening job until you have enough cash, you could certainly afford it.

The point is, you don't need a professional studio costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to make albums anymore. And one could even argue that the concept of an 'album' is so 1990's.

Totally agree. With a bit more than 1000€ worth of hardware and either lots of hours to learn how to get the most out of it or more money to hire a professional sound engineer, there are certainly ways to make beautiful-sounding things on these days...

Edited 2011-01-17 20:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: performing artists
by sparkyERTW on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: performing artists"
sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

Last time I checked (it was some years ago, though), it was easy to find dirt cheap to free high-quality audio software on the web (Audacity, REAPER, Kristal Audio Engine, and all the linux stuff, to name a few), but hardware remained quite costly. Examples : good dynamic mics started around 100€ each, preamps started at 100€, static mics at 300€, sound cards began around 100€, and active speakers were around 300-400€ if you were ready to go with some quirks like poor bass response. And that's without the hardware mixing stuff, which becomes quickly nice to have considering that low-end sound cards generally have only one or two stereo audio inputs...


I don't know if hardware prices in Europe are far worse than North America when it comes to recording gear, but 200€ could get you an 8in/8out audio interface with decent mic-preamps built-in. Same goes for some small powered monitors.

Check out a song or two on Jonathan Coulton's website (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/songs/) from the thing-a-week series and give me your take on whether they are of good enough quality to make an actual album out of (which he has, by the way). I've read interviews with him discussing his home recording gear, and it's pretty reasonable stuff all-in-all.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: performing artists
by Neolander on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: performing artists"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I don't know if hardware prices in Europe are far worse than North America when it comes to recording gear, but 200€ could get you an 8in/8out audio interface with decent mic-preamps built-in. Same goes for some small powered monitors.

I didn't check audio interfaces with preamps built in at the time, so it's well possible that with integrated preamps it costs only this price around here too (just replace euros with dollars, as usual when dealing with any stuff including electronic components)...

About monitors, I've just checked, and indeed those BX5 which I were eyeing at the time have now dropped at around 220€, which is close to half their original price...

(Ah, those years where I tried hard to make something sounding decently with a 60€ camera mic and various portable sound recorders, dreaming of becoming a sound engineer, before I changed my mind and chose to get into physics studies instead ^^ *memories*)

Check out a song or two on Jonathan Coulton's website (http://www.jonathancoulton.com/songs/) from the thing-a-week series and give me your take on whether they are of good enough quality to make an actual album out of (which he has, by the way). I've read interviews with him discussing his home recording gear, and it's pretty reasonable stuff all-in-all.

More than decently-sounding indeed. Maybe a few gripes with the way he did his mix and occasional artifacts (themselves probably due to my terrible linux audio stack + mp3 encoding), but it's not about sound quality of the takes themselves.

However, be careful, he's Jonathan Coulton. You shouldn't believe that discussion about his home recording gear you rode, it's probably just as much of a lie as the damn cake was ;)

Edited 2011-01-17 20:59 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: performing artists
by Soulbender on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: performing artists"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Billy Idol made his Cyperpunk album basically in is home on a Mac..in 1993. It sure doesn't sound home produced and that was almost 10 years ago.
You can get VERY good results in a home studio today and it won't cost you your first-born child. On Linux you can get the whole chain from sequencing and software synths to the master mixing without spending a dime and it's good stuff. I'm sure you can do the same on Windows and Mac. True, if you want to release a CD you still need to pay for the pressing but in these days, do you really need to make a CD?
The times are changing and things that was previously incredibly expensive (movie production, music production etc) are becoming cheaper by the minute and this is really for the better.

Edited 2011-01-17 20:33 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: performing artists
by Neolander on Mon 17th Jan 2011 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: performing artists"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I agree. As I said somewhere else in this thread, good audio software is now either highly inexpensive or free. On Linux, you can get everything for free (save for the JACK setup madness), and on Windows Audacity and REAPER form together some very nice setup to play with, with REAPER currently costing $40 and in the future going at $60. Not exactly what I'd call expensive.

It's hardware which remains quite costly in comparison.

Edited 2011-01-17 21:12 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: performing artists
by Soulbender on Mon 17th Jan 2011 21:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: performing artists"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Right, but what hardware do you really need? Other than instruments (unless you're all electronic) and a few microphones (unless you're instrumental) I cant think of any.
You can do all the mixing and effects in software. Well, a pair of monitor speakers would probably be good and those can indeed be a bit costly. On the other hand, this is the age of the mp3 so you might not need super speakers for your mixing and mastering.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: performing artists
by Neolander on Mon 17th Jan 2011 22:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: performing artists"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Right, but what hardware do you really need? Other than instruments (unless you're all electronic) and a few microphones (unless you're instrumental) I cant think of any.
You can do all the mixing and effects in software. Well, a pair of monitor speakers would probably be good and those can indeed be a bit costly. On the other hand, this is the age of the mp3 so you might not need super speakers for your mixing and mastering.

Well, you generally need a new sound card/external audio interface to begin with. Simply put, the usual HD audio and AC 97 have many limitations, which one encounters very soon when making high-quality audio :
* Minijack is simply *not* a standard in the world of pro audio, for good reasons.
* Their mic input sucks badly.
* If you need midi, you generally need a new soundcard too.
* You may also want lots of audio I/O (which is useful for music, because it allows you to keep each instrument/voice on its own audio track and do the mix on the computer, instead of doing it live).
* When you want to do heavy audio processing, it's good to have some very precise digital audio signal in the output, like 24bit/channel at 96KHz. It gives you more flexibility before your processing results in audible noise and distortions.

Another thing which is useful is preamps. These are a special kind of amplifier whose role is to turn mic signal (maximum .1 mV) into line signal which you can put in your sound card (in the volt range). Due to the high amplification they provide (sometimes up to 100dB), these amplifiers must have a very low noise level, which makes them somewhat expensive (they started at 100€ for a 2-mic preamp, a few years ago). On the other hand, someone in this thread claimed that the preamps included in modern cheap sound cards are quite good, to the point where a dedicated preamp is not needed anymore, so maybe this is not mandatory home studio hardware anymore.

To go back to what you mentioned, dynamic mics (those who work properly only when you put them close to your mouth, which often turns out to be more practical for the sound engineer than it's annoying for the musician ;) ) start to give quite nice results at a around 100€.

For more demanding works, there are also static mics, which are much more sensitive, resulting in extremely good sound... But only when you know how to use them well, otherwise they are unforgiving. They started to be good at around 300€ last time I checked. As they must be powered by a 48V tension, I bet that those mics still require dedicated preamps, since I can hardly see a sound card delivering such a high voltage.

Then, as you said, monitor speakers are a bit costly (though apparently their price has heavily decreased in the last few years).

All that combined probably makes a couple thousands of dollars for a home studio. Sure, it's ridiculously cheap compared to what studio gear used to cost. But it still hurts the wallet a little ;)

Edited 2011-01-17 22:24 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: performing artists
by bert64 on Tue 18th Jan 2011 09:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: performing artists"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

You don't need a whole lot of hardware these days to produce decent results, and the software can either be obtained freely or pirated...

As for the skills required, well your band already requires skills such as singing and playing various instruments, whats so hard about adding "sound engineer" to that list?

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: performing artists
by Neolander on Tue 18th Jan 2011 09:20 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: performing artists"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

As for the skills required, well your band already requires skills such as singing and playing various instruments, whats so hard about adding "sound engineer" to that list?

The time it takes to learn the job and then to spend days and nights listening to the same thing over and over again with slightly adjusted settings until it sounds perfect, a time during which most musicians would rather focus on practicing their music instead ;)

(And that's not to mention the depressing effect of sleep, when you go back to your mix on the next morning, listen to it with fresh ears or compare it to something else, and realize how much is left to do)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: performing artists
by fran on Mon 17th Jan 2011 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE: performing artists"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

"Dude, did you not see Mega Shark vs. Crocosaurus?!"

Missed it. Had to choose between that and Piranha 3D :-)

Reply Score: 3

RE: performing artists
by Soulbender on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:01 UTC in reply to "performing artists"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Maybe that's because 9 out of 10 bands are crap? (ok, that's a bit harsh but still...)
Maybe MGM almost went under due to bad management?
Maybe sci-fi movies are scarce because less people want to watch them?
What's good about great novels being made into movies? usually those movies suck anyway,

Edited 2011-01-17 20:02 UTC

Reply Score: 3

It ain't Piracy
by kaelodest on Mon 17th Jan 2011 19:17 UTC
kaelodest
Member since:
2006-02-12

There is a level of too much protection. I play guitar I have since my early teens. Anti Piracy shut down a lot of guitar tabulature (music notation sites). It makes it hard to teach my son guitar.
I can get a show on MY tivo, in my house and watch it, But I cannot take a copy of Cosmos (which I own)- and rip an episode (legally) to watch on the train?

Reply Score: 3

Theft is theft.
by jefro on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:03 UTC
jefro
Member since:
2007-04-13

Seems there are people who feel that being a crook is OK. Do they also feel that a crook overseas stealing money from their bank account is OK too? Thom is continuing his one man show to help all internet users steal music and video and anything else he feels should be stolen. Shame they never seem to have parents that tell them the difference between right and wrong.

I am here to tell you that stealing is wrong. Disney may be evil but you can't steal from them and call yourself good. How hard is that to understand.

You can go to a guitar teacher and get trained or go to amazon or sheetmusicplus and buy music like I do! It is called being honest.

Is it that you are just cheap petty crooks? Why not use your theft powers for good. Steal us a cure for cancer. Help the poor not yourself.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Theft is theft.
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:37 UTC in reply to "Theft is theft."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Shame they never seem to have parents that tell them the difference between right and wrong.


Shame they never seem to have parents that tell them the difference between right and wrong.

Except in my version, "right" is the promotion of art and science, and "wrong" is the intentional stifling of art and science. Too bad you didn't have parents to teach you about how art and science transcend money!

I am here to tell you that stealing is wrong. Disney may be evil but you can't steal from them and call yourself good. How hard is that to understand.


Copyright infringement is not theft, in most of Europe downloading is legal blah blah we've all been here before.

Thom is continuing his one man show to help all internet users steal music and video and anything else he feels should be stolen.


A "one" man show? Get out more, kid.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Theft is theft.
by axilmar on Tue 18th Jan 2011 12:14 UTC in reply to "RE: Theft is theft."
axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

Except in my version, "right" is the promotion of art and science, and "wrong" is the intentional stifling of art and science.


Promotion of art and science is good, but not over the people's rights.

Too bad you didn't have parents to teach you about how art and science transcend money!


No, they don't. Art and science may be noble things, but the level of prosperity we enjoy in the western world has been reached through democracy and the free market (free as in democratic).

Copyright infringement is not theft, in most of Europe downloading is legal blah blah we've all been here before.


Copyright infringement is illegal and violates laws.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Theft is theft.
by dragossh on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:38 UTC in reply to "Theft is theft."
dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16
RE[2]: Theft is theft.
by sparkyERTW on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Theft is theft."
sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09



"Yarrrrr, ye misunderstand me! I be wanting to just copy your doubloons."

Reply Score: 1

RE: Theft is theft.
by Soulbender on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:43 UTC in reply to "Theft is theft."
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

OK. Do they also feel that a crook overseas stealing money from their bank account is OK too?


Copyright infringement isn't stealing.

Disney may be evil but you can't steal from them and call yourself good.


I seem to recall something about Robin Hood.

Steal us a cure for cancer.

You just said stealing is wrong.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Theft is theft.
by bert64 on Tue 18th Jan 2011 09:11 UTC in reply to "Theft is theft."
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

I would be very unhappy about people stealing money from my bank account...

But if people were duplicating the money thats in my bank account and making their own counterfeit bills i wouldn't care so much.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Theft is theft.
by axilmar on Tue 18th Jan 2011 12:11 UTC in reply to "Theft is theft."
axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

Seems there are people who feel that being a crook is OK. Do they also feel that a crook overseas stealing money from their bank account is OK too? Thom is continuing his one man show to help all internet users steal music and video and anything else he feels should be stolen. Shame they never seem to have parents that tell them the difference between right and wrong.

I am here to tell you that stealing is wrong. Disney may be evil but you can't steal from them and call yourself good. How hard is that to understand.

You can go to a guitar teacher and get trained or go to amazon or sheetmusicplus and buy music like I do! It is called being honest.

Is it that you are just cheap petty crooks? Why not use your theft powers for good. Steal us a cure for cancer. Help the poor not yourself.


Completely agree. We need more people to tell things like they are.

Reply Score: 2

Piracy vs. Obscurity
by TADS on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:35 UTC
TADS
Member since:
2010-11-01

In the words of Neil Gaiman, for any artist obscurity is more dangerous than piracy.

In case someone isn't familiar with the talk, it's some years old, but still as relevant today:

http://blip.tv/file/1410549

If I remember correctly it's also the source of the Douglas Adams's "books are like sharks" quote.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Piracy vs. Obscurity
by sparkyERTW on Mon 17th Jan 2011 20:43 UTC in reply to "Piracy vs. Obscurity"
sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

In the words of Neil Gaiman, for any artist obscurity is more dangerous than piracy.

One of my favourite quotes... though I've seen more sources attribute it to Tim O'Rielly than Gaiman... hmph.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by v_bobok
by v_bobok on Mon 17th Jan 2011 21:07 UTC
v_bobok
Member since:
2008-08-01

My New Swan Queen

Reply Score: 1

Where
by yoinks on Mon 17th Jan 2011 21:25 UTC
yoinks
Member since:
2010-06-01

So...where can I go to download this free music, which is apparently justified if I go to a show, assuming the artist comes to my town?

Reply Score: 1

the rich musician is a modern invention
by unclefester on Mon 17th Jan 2011 23:53 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

Mozart was probably the first musician to make a comfortable income. Prior to that musicians were considered to be nothing but servants. They made very little money and had no status. They mostly wrote and made one-off performances.

The average baroque composer would have written and performed far more in one year (church masses twice a day plus official court events, concerts and private performances) than most modern popular musicians do in their entire lifetime .

Reply Score: 2

I like this chick better and better
by Phloptical on Tue 18th Jan 2011 02:49 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

she's the bomb diggity!

Reply Score: 2

MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

all of her works to public domain if she feels that way. She has no business speaking for anyone else though. She certainly doesn't speak for me (speaking as a former software developer), she doesn't speak for all software makers, video game makers, authors, movie producers, television producers, or even all musical artists.

The fact is that there are plenty of things that take lots of money to make. Movies are the prime example: lots of great movies, both high in artistic quality and/or high in spectacle, that cost tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars to produce, and wouldn't be produced if there were no copyright by which there could be a potential return on investment. Now, lots of artsy-fartsy elitists (many techies fit that description, for some reason), think, "So what, today's movies, music, video games, etc that are produced are utter garbage anyway; I only listen to small independent bands and only watch small art house movies, and pay them by attending their coffee shop "concerts" and movie script public readings."

That's fine for the snobbish elitists, but the rest of us want to watch the high production value movies, we want the high quality video games (not Tux Racer garbage), we want the high quality software, and we want the high quality music (not the artsy small-timer crap) that the elitists look down on. And lack of copyright would prevent those from being made.

For example, without copyright, the LOTR movies wouldn't have been made (I use LOTR as an example, since many techies revere those movies, but there are plenty of high quality works being made today in all sorts of artistic disciplines, contrary to the line pushed by the elitists that trash today's works in order to justify piracy). The elitists might think that's a good thing, the rest of the populace does not.

Edited 2011-01-18 05:27 UTC

Reply Score: 3

zzarko
Member since:
2011-01-09

Here is the letter from the producer of excellent movie "The Man From Earth" emailed to Rlslog.net staff, where he explains why pirating his movie was actually good for the movie itself:
http://www.rlslog.net/piracy-isnt-that-bad-and-they-know-it/
The director of the movie shares the same view, as you can see from their comments.

Reply Score: 1

talent is a myth
by unclefester on Tue 18th Jan 2011 07:34 UTC
unclefester
Member since:
2007-01-13

The greatest musicians and artists in history were all wage slaves.

Modern research shows that "talent" is a total myth. World class excellence in any field is achieved by a minimum of 10,000 hours deliberate practice over many years.

The great artists of the Renaissance were mass produced via an apprenticeship system. The great Baroque musicians like JS Bach were lowly paid servants who were expected to produce high quality original music on demand and perform on a daily basis.

Reply Score: 2

RE: talent is a myth
by JonathanBThompson on Tue 18th Jan 2011 09:07 UTC in reply to "talent is a myth "
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

To a certain extent, yes, 10,000 hours concerted effort (pardon any pun) is a prerequisite. However, I've seen many people exhibit the inability to even be able to start that 10,000 hours in a reasonable fashion because they simply are not innately able to do that readily: even 10,000 hours won't make them better than mediocre.

I find if fscking hypocritical of the self-righteous "Pirate everything" extremists like Thom Holwerda, that insist that copyright and other forms of IP and having power over that is "wrong" and "stifles" in an unfair manner, and therefore things should be pirated, and creators should have to give away all their efforts, and work towards their income in his prescribed manner. Now, there's one thing I can agree with him on: the copyright term has been made too long for its intended original purpose, which was to encourage arts and the like to benefit society after a certain time by being free to use as anyone sees fit, for the reasonable exchange of a time for the original creator to have exclusive rights to choose how it is copied/sold/whatever.

Regardless of what percentage of creators can be successful at selling and exploiting the rights to their works to make a living or even becoming rich without having to do it non-stop to make ends meet, Thom's view is wholly immoral and unconscionable, and flies in the face of long-running legal precedent. In fact, his views can absolutely limit what the public could get long-term for arts and sciences, because, frankly, not everyone can create something that's a performance art where they can perform, for health reasons, wealth reasons, or perhaps they can create, but cannot perform it as well as others. For example, how many book authors can perform their own tales and have a hope of making any money from it? How many creators of music that they compose/write really aren't great performers, or actually physically can't sing in the range it was written in, but know singers and other instrumentalists that can perform it? This sort of thing extends to other forms of IP as well.

There's a little story that demonstrates this sort of problem that Thom would impose on all others that create that he wants to have work on Thom's terms, that involves a farm, a couple animals and a farmer. It goes something like this:

Chicken: "Hey, Pig, the farmer needs breakfast, let's provide it for him!"
Pig: "Oh, really? So, he can have eggs, well, that's easy, right?"
Chicken: "Sure, and he also likes bacon, that's what he needs to have for breakfast! We both need to contribute our parts!"

Thom Holwerda with his extremist self-righteous "Artists and other creators MUST work daily on MY terms because I SAY SO!" is the dumbcluck Chicken, and all the creators, if they were to work according to Thom's terms, would be the poor Pig. It's every easy to give away something that's really no effort on your part, which is the case of Chicken, but demanding the true sacrifice of others of their livelihood on YOUR terms is, effectively, a form of slavery.

Thom, if life is remotely fair, you'd be forced to practice what you preach, by being stuck writing TPS reports (or, even better, shoveling manure for life: it's a symbolic thing) for the rest of your days to suffer from lack of enough financial support, while all consumers pirate your creations, and never contribute in any way, shape or manner to making sure someone can afford to do it beyond being purely volunteer. It's absolutely great when someone can and does just give their creations away: however, when people like Thom insist that they should or must work on terms they don't have any choice of for whatever dumba$$ moral justification (you're awfully fond of doing that, Thom) that's just replacing what you claim to be something akin to slavery by the big labels with another version of slavery, and that's pure evil. Seriously: in reference to the 10,000 hours above, very little that is created is created truly with no real meaningful investment in time/energy/resources, it's just that you're too flippin' stupid to comprehend how much it took to get to that point! Let the market decide what their time/efforts/talents are worth, let them succeed or fail on their terms, you have absolutely NO legal, moral or ethical right to demand or expect them to adhere to YOUR terms, just because you think they should.

Reply Score: 3

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 18th Jan 2011 17:09 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

Don't be such anuses. Sometimes it's the thought that counts!

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Darkmage
by Darkmage on Sat 22nd Jan 2011 23:07 UTC
Darkmage
Member since:
2006-10-20

Economics of music, a personal perspective:
I spent $500 on tickets to live concerts this year alone. I already spent hundreds on merchandise as well.
I may spend $30 on a cd this year.
I pirate the crap out of my music collection.

Do I feel guilty? no way, artists should be getting the word out with their skill and the internet. I don't give a crap who your promoter is, I just give a crap if you can play metal well or not. Bands that aren't willing to tour and play festivals/smaller gigs don't really deserve my money at all. I will listen to any band that makes good music. I'll be seeing Rammstein, Metallica, Iron Maiden, Slayer, Megadeth, and Slash this year alone. The live experience is unbeatable. No $20,000 speaker system can replicate those artists playing live. Thanks to live music I have an appreciation for 3 inches of blood and Trivium whose recordings are frankly crap but live they were very good bands.

Edited 2011-01-22 23:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1