Not too long ago we had a semi-loss for The Pirate Bay in The Netherlands, which was convicted 'by default' because the defendants did not show up in court to plea their case. Today, The Netherlands once again saw a ruling in a high-profile piracy case, and again, there's a loss for the defendants. Update: Oh, and by the way - thought about putting some lyrics you like on your website or blog? Think again. We live in a crazy world, people.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2009-08-26
Portraying companies as selfish and greedy isn't a good excuse for ignoring copyright laws. Businesses by nature are self-serving. They exist to make money, but at the same time they have to provide a service to artists if they want the artist to sign. They also have to provide something of value to consumers or else they will replaced by a competitor. Serving others for selfish reasons. It's capitalism and it works better than the alternatives.
Most artists dream of getting a deal with a record company. It's a business relationship they dream of since it allows them make music for a living. The record company makes the majority of the profit but they also are the ones making the investment. The artist is always free to self-produce and distribute, especially in our internet age. However most artists want to sign with a company because they know that by partnering with a record company they can expect greater return than if they go it alone.
The same goes for authors. Authors know that the book publisher makes the majority of the profits but they still dream of getting a book deal. They know that without the publisher they wouldn't be able to produce, market and distribute their book at the same level. Furthermore, they don't want to. Artists want to create, they don't want to spend time studying ideal distribution points. That job belongs to someone else. It's called economic specialization.
If you don't like the business relationship that artists and record companies have then you are free to not purchase the music. Breaking the law because you don't like the relationship that artists willingly take part is a lousy excuse. You are free to find artists that are unsigned and self-distribute.
Member since:2008-03-17
Authors and artists that relinquish responsibility of their OWN material then shouldn't have any complaints. They give their stuff to "greedy distributor x" it is not theirs anymore so why worry about it. It is kind of amusing that the cost to produce music is so small compared to the cost of hiring the lawyers to litigate and to lobby and middle management that for every song you buy you're not really buying music but more likely funding some lawyer somewhere.
It is a much more difficult road to remain independent but it provides more control. Only then can an artist complain about piracy.
Member since:2005-07-08
Well, I didn't want to portray media companies as greedy only, and I'm certainly not opposing modern free market system in itself.
I was just saying that you can do business both in a good or a bad way. It is up to democratic law making to ensure that business is done in a good way that serves people, artists, customers and society the best. It is also an unrealistic and ideological myth to claim that the free markets by themselves will always be able to miraculously turn the bad things into good ones.
The mafia and crime can be seen as business too. Selling non-working crap as magical equipment that will miraculously improve your health and life is business too. Heck, even selling pirated content is a big business in the third world countries. How could you ever fight them if you think that business will take care of itself without any need for restricting such business by laws? Greed is greed, and it often needs to be restricted, especially when people may not notice the danger they may be facing if they buy bad products.
There are many examples of both good and bad media business. Not every artist in history has been very happy just because they have gotten a poor contract with some media company. Sometimes those media companies have been acting like pimps, not much caring for the interests of those they should serve. Also, these times media companies have become huge empires that try to dictate to us, according to their own commecial interests, what things we should consume, what music to listen to etc. If you are a talented musician but are not willing to sell your whole artistic person (music style, image etc.) to these commercial empires, it may be quite difficult to even get that record contract in the first place.
"Is it really jazz that you want to play? Hahaha... Get out of here grandpa! And no, we really don't care how well you can play or sing, or whether you studied music at the Juilliard or not. It is hot music videos and rap that sell these days. Hmm, but your wife, she has a nice ass; if she could get off her clothes we might give her a dance job on our next hiphop video. Still interested?"
Member since:
2005-07-08
If media companies are in the business just for the money and greed, not even trying to serve any higher purposes (like the true interests of artists and customers), what moral right would they actually have to claim that downloading their stuff for free would be wrong? After all, wouldn't the downloader of pirated content and the big greedy media company both be following the exact same credo, being greedy and not caring for the interests of anybody else...
In a democracy, if we want to have balanced and respected copyright and other laws respecting all interest groups, we cannot just follow the greedy whims of those who happen to be strongest in some situation, be they greedy corporations or greedy piracy supporters. The main goal of all law making is to restrict the greed of people (and so companies and business) so that civilized living together is possible.