Post by: krissel on February 21, 2007, 01:29:16 AM
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10165_7-57985...html?tag=viddet
Post by: chriskleeman on February 21, 2007, 01:56:22 AM
I routinely rip CD's for my car, because they take such a beating in the car CD player, and that's really no different than copying for personal use with a cassette recorder, that provision of the law is really just outdated with present technology. The fact that it was done a computer is laughable, really! Why buy a CD recorder when you can do the same thing on a computer?
Intellectual property laws have been tightened greatly in the last 5 years, and some of that is for the good for folks like me. It also costs me money when I record a blues tune that may or may not be copyrighted material.
FYI, and I'll be darned if I know why, there is a very discernable difference in the audio quality of audio-specific CDR's and data CD's, I'll take enlightenment on that anytime, by the way, but when I master anything for duplication, I use the highest quality Audio CD I can get, and it always comes out sounding better than using a data CD.
Thanks Krissel, good food for thought!
Chris K
Post by: Gregg on February 21, 2007, 07:37:25 AM
QUOTE(chriskleeman @ Feb 21 2007, 01:56 AM) [snapback]119668[/snapback]
It's really a very gray area, that fine article notwithstanding. As an INDIE artist, I don't have much claim to many royalties, but I do wince everytime one of my younger fans tells me that he or she just ripped a few copies of one of my CD's to their friends.
It's small "compensation" for being treated that way that payments for legally using your intellectual property are called "royalties".
Post by: gunug on February 21, 2007, 08:22:05 AM
QUOTE
one of my younger fans tells me that he or she just ripped a few copies of one of my CD's to their friends
I think that points out a difference between an 51 year old guy like me and those in my son's generation. Not only would I not tell you about it but I really wouldn't make copies for my friends; let 'em buy there own! My younger sister was for a number of years a singer in a Washington D.C. area blues band called the Meteors. They have steadfastly refused to make CD's of their music even in the face cheaper and cheaper technology because they don't want people copying their stuff. They all have other jobs so obviously they're not trying to make a living at music!
Post by: tacit on February 21, 2007, 12:29:32 PM
Music is given away for free all the time. The radio plays it for free, for example. The record labels do not make radio stations pay licensing fees because the radio stations are in effect nothing but constant advertisements. People do not buy music they do not know about.
Every study that has been done on music sharing and P2P distribution, including a study done by the Recording Industry Ass. of America, has shown that music copying increases sales. If people really like the music they hear online, they tend to buy it.
And that is the problem.
In the past, before the days of the compact disc, it cost about $100,000 to cut an album--not including duplication, advertising, or distribution costs. That was just the cost of recording, mixing, mastering, engineering, and making the duplication original that the records were pressed from. Because very few artists had that kind of money, the music labels grew up to provide the front money to record an album.
The money that the record labels put up to record an album is a loan. The artists are required to pay it back out of royalties (typically between 25 cents and a dollar) on every sale. Most artists never sell enough records to pay back the loan; only the top few ever really make any money from record sales. Often, small artists are forced into bankruptcy after signing a record deal.
The advent of digital recording and the CD has changed that. Today, an album can be made, mastered, and duplicated for only a few thousand dollars. It is within the reach of an average person to make a record on his own; I have friends who have done it.
But you still need the labels.
Why? Advertising. The labels are--or were--the only way to advertise and distribute an album. If I make a record in my basement, it will never get on Top 40 radio, it will never be sold in Virgin megastores, and it will never get enough publicity to go platinum...
...until the day of P2P music sharing.
Now, for the first time, an average person can make a record and advertise that record to a wide audience. Now for the first time, the record labels are no longer necessary.
And that is what it is really all about.
Most record artists starve, while the executives who run the labels become fabulously wealthy. Think they are going to give up their 12-million-dollar homes and two hundred thousand dollar yachts without a fight? Think again.
They are not stupid. They know that if people can create, promote, and distribute music on a wide scale without labels, eventually the labels will vanish--and the executives will have to sell their yachts and find real jobs. So they will do anything to shut down P2P networks and to convince people not to swap music.
Let's take a great example. There is a band called The Dresden Dolls that's about typical of bands that sign a record label. They're moderately successful, and fairly well-known; they have radio airplay and three abums that you can buy in music stores. They tour all the time.
They make, in total, once the label fees and loan repayments are deducted, a total of about $1,500 a month ($750 a month for each of the two members) on album sales, concert tickets, and T-shirts. In other words, this band, which tours aggressively and has a label contract and three albums in stores, can not make a living from their music.
Now let's look at Jonathan Coulton. He's a quirky, kind of funny singer/songwriter who makes his own albums but has no record deal. He sells his music for $1 a song from his Web site. His music is all released under the Creative Commons License--that means that anyone who wants to is free to redistribute his music, put it on P2P networks, share it with friends, give it away, rebroadcast it, or anything else.
Everyone who wants can legally give his music away. He has no record deal. He is less popular than the Dresden Dolls. Want to hear the kicker? He makes a lot of money from his music--a very comfortable living, in fact.
He has been offered music label contracts on several occasions and has turned them down--because if he signs on to a label, he'll go bankrupt.
People who say that copying music hurts the artists don't understand the whole story; it's not that simple. Most often, it hurts the labels; most artists never make any money from their album sales.
Post by: sandyman on February 21, 2007, 03:19:41 PM
QUOTE
Music is given away for free all the time. The radio plays it for free, for example. The record labels do not make radio stations pay licensing fees because the radio stations are in effect nothing but constant advertisements. People do not buy music they do not know about.
Not in the UK. Every time a track is played on the radio the station has to pay a "royalty"
Sandy
Post by: () on February 21, 2007, 04:00:41 PM
And if the industry didn't provide the technology to the consumers then they wouldn't have anything to cry about.
Corporate greed is what got the best of all of us.
Companies created not only the hardware for burning files (music and movies), but they also provided the consumers with the software, enabling this type of activity.
They are no different than a drug pusher supplying the addicts with the drug, but when it all spins out of control with ripping music cds, movies and software programs, now companies are looking back and are having regrets in supplying the people with the technology, along with the software to commit the act of what is known as "illegal copying" of Music, Software, and Movies.
No one cried about the consumers setting their VCRs to record movies off of HBO, Showtime, CMax, and when people all dubbed their LP's to cassette and played them I their car stereo systems, boom-boxes. It's only now that the consumer can actually make better copies of the movies, music and whatever they want to that the industries are now bickering about the copywrite laws.
QUOTE
Needless to say, people shouldn't burn copies and sell them for profit. But if you put a bowl of candy in front of a five year old and tell them to leave it alone. You might as well be talking to yourself.
So if you give the consumer the technology, software and the way to make the so-called illegal copies; You have no one to blame but yourselves.
I'm shocked at all the FREE downloads on Limewire and other sites that still allow illegal downloading. Why not just shut down these companies that still enable people to download for free?
I also heard on the news today here in Long Beach, CA that the college students are still downloading file-swapping music etc, and that the industry is going to go after them.
Cut the lan-lines in the dorms and you will put a big dent into all the file-sharing/swapping that goes on.
QUOTE
Music is given away for free all the time. The radio plays it for free, for example. The record labels do not make radio stations pay licensing fees because the radio stations are in effect nothing but constant advertisements. People do not buy music they do not know about.
Not really! There's something they call "PAYOLA" where the labeling company will pay a radio station to play their song more times than others in order to generate sales.
The whole industry is corrupt in my opinion, and the last CD I purchased was a Clay Aiken that I got at a yard sale for $2.
My belief is that the companies weren't selling much music many years ago, and the way to generate it is to supply the technology to the consumer, and then sue them.
Post by: tacit on February 21, 2007, 06:05:06 PM
Because the companies that make peer to peer software are not doing anything illegal. They are just making software which allows people to copy files from one computer to another, that's all.
There are legitimate, legal uses for software like Limewire. There are also illegal uses for it--just like there are legitimate, legal uses for bolt cutters and also illegal uses for them.
The companies that make the software do not make any music or files available for download. When you download a music file from Limewire, you are downloading it from some guy's home computer somewhere--you're not downloading it from the people who make the Limewire software.
Post by: Highmac on February 22, 2007, 03:11:37 AM
A read a while back - can't find the reference now - that the British government makes far more money from the sale of cigarettes and tobacco than it needs to spend on health service treatment for victims of smoking diseases. So it's really not in the nation's best interests to stop everybody smoking.
Post by: sandbox on February 22, 2007, 04:09:16 AM
Back in the seventy a friend of my brother's converted his farm at the cost of millions to create a studio so folks could publish their music. The farm offers the environment and equipment needed to produce great sound. One would like to say evil company, but in this case, this guy built this as an act of love.
He didn’t make his money in music he gave his money to those who love music.
There is a difference in sound and environmental quality coming from your basement and coming from the the farm. Quality to some is paramount. Creating an atmosphere to deliver quality sound is a very important part of the process I’m told. So much so that musicians go to great lengths to find that environment.
If you have ever been to a concert at the Hat Shell or Red Rocks then you already know that acoustic environment adds to that outdoor experience in the same way the farm adds to the quality of production and resulting product.
The farm is not unique these days, I know of another in Sedona as well and others, and I feel if done right, the music industry can be a useful part of the art.
Post by: chriskleeman on February 22, 2007, 10:39:51 PM
I beg to differ with you on this subject, in only one small way. And that is, that, when radio stations play an artist, that artist does get a share in the royalties, however small that cut is, if the song is properly copyrighted... BMI and ASCAP have worked tirelessly to that end, and I have been the beneficiary of that on both ends, to both my pain, sorrow, and occasional joy...
That being said, if you post a downloadable song in it's entirety on the Internet, you are your own worst enemy.
Chris K
Post by: jepinto on February 23, 2007, 06:51:08 AM
QUOTE(chriskleeman @ Feb 22 2007, 11:39 PM) [snapback]119845[/snapback]
Tacit,
I beg to differ with you on this subject, in only one small way. And that is, that, when radio stations play an artist, that artist does get a share in the royalties, however small that cut is, if the song is properly copyrighted... BMI and ASCAP have worked tirelessly to that end, and I have been the beneficiary of that on both ends, to both my pain, sorrow, and occasional joy...
I beg to differ with you on this subject, in only one small way. And that is, that, when radio stations play an artist, that artist does get a share in the royalties, however small that cut is, if the song is properly copyrighted... BMI and ASCAP have worked tirelessly to that end, and I have been the beneficiary of that on both ends, to both my pain, sorrow, and occasional joy...
ASCAP's thugs regularly visit bars and restaurants demanding licensing fees also. If your local pub is playing the radio as background music, has CD's in the house stereo, the fees are due. Jukeboxes need to show the licensing stickers.
Yes, I meant thugs, as their methods of persuasion are highly reminiscent of "strong arm" protection rackets.
For those that might like more indepth coverage http://www.woodpecker.com/writing/essays/r...y-politics.html
QUOTE
ASCAP has field agents on payroll, employed by their 23 field offices, who watch the newspapers and radio (and even hire clipping services) and when a new nightclub starts offering live music, for example, an agent will either show up or write a letter demanding money for the license. Refusals and arguments eventually lead to lawsuits, and the club always loses, often to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars in fines plus legal fees per infraction allowed by law. If a nightclub or even a store refuses to buy the license, then ASCAP or BMI will hire spies, often local music teachers or semi-professional musicians, who will make notes and testify in court as expert witnesses that on a certain day at a certain time a certain song was indeed played. Attempts by club owners to post "No ASCAP material to be performed here" signs or to ask that no musicians perform ASCAP material have not worked (Dreamland Ballroom vs. Shapiro, 1929; also Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. vs. Veltin, 1942), and invariably some musician unwittingly performs something in ASCAP's immense catalog.
QUOTE
There are many stories of store and restaurant owners who had no idea what they were dealing with and actually thought they were being shaken down by the Mafia when ASCAP agents confronted them. Indeed, ASCAP has been sued on mob-like charges numerous times, and in the important ASCAP vs. Buffalo Broadcasting case in 1980-82, ASCAP lost in federal court on charges of price-fixing, racketeering and monopolistic activities. The decision was reversed in appeals court based on the court's odd determination that since a radio station could buy a per-song license (at a phenomenally higher rate per song) from ASCAP, there was somehow free trade and no price-fixing inherent in the blanket license. In the fine print of ASCAP's contract with broadcasters it says that a user may buy a per-song license, though apparently no licensee has ever bought one in their 90 year history. It is extremely interesting to note that live music venues are not offered a per-song license from ASCAP as an option. They have only one choice: the blanket license.
QUOTE
# ASCAP's policies and the rates charged to copyright users are determined by its 12-member board of directors (who are elected by the membership), and votes cast in their elections are weighted according to the amount of money paid that year. If you did not receive royalty money from ASCAP last year, you cannot vote this year. Because of this, it is unlikely that changes to make sure smaller writers and publishers get a fair share will come from within ASCAP.
# Many states, (including Nebraska and Wyoming which still have them on the books), have passed laws prohibiting the collection of music licensing fees (at one time in the 1930's, shortly after the system was set up, there were some 30 states that banned its operation) and Louisiana, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Georgia currently have laws that tax ASCAP's collection, Georgia at the rate of $1000 per county per year! Somehow, federal courts have ruled that even if a state law prohibits ASCAP from operating, they can still do so under federal decree. (Nebraska vs. Remick Music, 1946 and Ocasek vs. Hegglund, 1987) There has been some recent activity in state legislatures trying to tax and regulate ASCAP, and nothing definitive has happened yet. Kentucky and Ohio are currently considering a gross-receipts sales tax. Presumably ASCAP passes taxes on to the user in states that impose such taxes.
# Many states, (including Nebraska and Wyoming which still have them on the books), have passed laws prohibiting the collection of music licensing fees (at one time in the 1930's, shortly after the system was set up, there were some 30 states that banned its operation) and Louisiana, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Georgia currently have laws that tax ASCAP's collection, Georgia at the rate of $1000 per county per year! Somehow, federal courts have ruled that even if a state law prohibits ASCAP from operating, they can still do so under federal decree. (Nebraska vs. Remick Music, 1946 and Ocasek vs. Hegglund, 1987) There has been some recent activity in state legislatures trying to tax and regulate ASCAP, and nothing definitive has happened yet. Kentucky and Ohio are currently considering a gross-receipts sales tax. Presumably ASCAP passes taxes on to the user in states that impose such taxes.
Post by: sandbox on February 23, 2007, 07:53:15 AM
Post by: kimmer on February 23, 2007, 01:58:15 PM
QUOTE(sandbox @ Feb 23 2007, 05:53 AM) [snapback]119881[/snapback]
ah, memories..... I can remember being visited by those guys in my pub many years ago. I was uglier than they were so there were no quarrels. Today I would use XM radio over my TV satellite and tell them where to go.
Almost every restaurant/diner we visit does this and the reasons are what you and kris have stated. The ones that don't use satellite radio - have no music at all.
Post by: () on February 24, 2007, 12:26:26 PM
Also, the companies that create "Peer to Peer" already know what the people are using it for and aren't blocking these types of transfers that are deemed illegal.
Limewire and all the other's are quite aware what their software is used for; and Apple put a stop to downloading their software from these types of "Peer to Peer" programs years ago.
Post by: tacit on February 25, 2007, 11:23:43 AM
QUOTE(Nutterbutter @ Feb 24 2007, 06:26 PM) [snapback]120039[/snapback]
Tacit, "Enabling" is the word that comes to mind when I think of the "Peer to Peer" software companies. When they first surfaced, these companies did promote how people could exchange music files from one computer to another over the internet.
Also, the companies that create "Peer to Peer" already know what the people are using it for and aren't blocking these types of transfers that are deemed illegal.
Limewire and all the other's are quite aware what their software is used for; and Apple put a stop to downloading their software from these types of "Peer to Peer" programs years ago.
Also, the companies that create "Peer to Peer" already know what the people are using it for and aren't blocking these types of transfers that are deemed illegal.
Limewire and all the other's are quite aware what their software is used for; and Apple put a stop to downloading their software from these types of "Peer to Peer" programs years ago.
You could make the same arguments about guns. Gun manufacturers know that their products are used for illegal purposes. Does that mean if a criminal uses a gun, we should arrest the employees at the factory that made it?
Bolt cutters are used for illegal purposes too. Do the manufacturers of bolt cutters enable crime?
Te fact is, peer to peer software has legal uses. Almost all open source software is distributed via BitTorrent and other P2P programs. Blizzard downloads updates to thegame "World of Warcraft" using the BitTorrent protocol. People use P2P software to collaborate on programming jobs.
We live in a country where the law says that if a person commits a crime, the responsibility for the crime is on the person who does it, not on the manufacturers of whatever tools he used to break the law. We hold individuals responsible for the consequences of their own actions. Why should computer software be any different? Why should we say that if you commit a crime using a crowbar, you are responsible, but if you commit a crime using a computer program, the programmer who wrote the program is responsible?
Post by: () on February 25, 2007, 12:42:33 PM
QUOTE
You could make the same arguments about guns. Gun manufacturers know that their products are used for illegal purposes. Does that mean if a criminal uses a gun, we should arrest the employees at the factory that made it?
Gun manufacturers made a tool for people to protect themselves, their property and for self-defense. People didn't predict the future on what people would end up using guns for. It is illegal to own a gun without a gun permit. you also have to have a gun lock on your weapon, placed in a locked cabinet or strong-box to keep kids from getting ahold of them.
Software manufactures that produced peer-to-peer software promoted as a way of transferring your files, songs to one another over the internet. They stopped promoting it, but once you plant the seed, you just can't wash your hands and pretend it was never planted.
Roxio, Napster, and all these companies made it possible for people to copy DVDs, Music, and pass them around to others. The companies promoted their products to the consumers, and "enabling" them with the software they advertised for burning, coping, and transferring music, movies and other files through the the use of software products that teaches you how to do this.
Look at Mac-The-Ripper...
It's a program that allows you to rent dvd's and then rip them and make identical copies of that DVD. At the end of the rip you are told that it is illegal to do this, but why put out a program that allows you to rip and burn an illegal dvd, and then at the end of the rip session, tells you that it's illegal.
Bottom line is; If the companies didn't make the products to commit the crime, then we wouldn't have the problems that we have today.
QUOTE
Bolt cutters are used for illegal purposes too. Do the manufacturers of bolt cutters enable crime?
What real crimes are committed with bolt cutters on a scale compared to illegal software downloading.
If people were committing crimes daily with bolt-cutter, you bet there would be an outcry to stop the use of them. Just like guns. You now have to go through a background check, mental/psychiatric check, register your name along with the gun, get the safety devices for it before you can even own a gun. Those that don't follow the proceedures are alredy law breaking people to begin with.
Software companies need to pull the plug on what they create and sell to the consumers. Thet promoted the illegal use of their software in order to get people hooked.
Post by: chriskleeman on February 26, 2007, 12:31:56 AM
(except me, for good reason).
I am a performing and recording artist, I have CD's, I sell CD's, people buy them, people copy them to their friends, I get CD's from friends who want me to hear a particular song, work it out so they can hear me do it, the CD sits in my car forever, gets trashed, etc... I mean I can go on, but here it is in it's most elemental form:
It's always been about the record companies getting the money. Artists have been ripped off from the time records came out! ASCAP and BMI should not be out there strong-arming clubs, restaurants and bars, but that's what the law allows. And that is absolutely shameful.
Artists should get their due, but the bureaucracy created in this world will never get the money where it should go in many situations.
Example: Someone had enough money to copyright the entire Robert Johnson catalogue. Now if you're not a blues afficiando, that may not mean much to you, but imagine if your favorite old-time folk artist's music had become Public Domain (i.e. traditional) and then someone goes and re-copyrights the material, making everyone who records those tune pay licensing fees to them. Does any of this money go to the family or estate of the person who originally wrote the tune?
No, not one penny. And if I want to record a Robert Johnson song, I have to pay this person royalties for a song he had nothing to do with other than buying the rights. I would love to donate the licensing fee to the heirs of Robert Johnson, who richly deserve it, but instead it goes only to someone who just figured out how to siphon off the money.
The answer? There is no simple one. Support the artists you love, encourage everyone you know who likes them to purchase their own CD... my last CD cost me over $10,000 to produce, and that is chicken-feed to most record companies. I did it with my musician pals all donating their time, and a lot of favors. I'm still paying for it, and the CD before that.
But I can still dream. Support your local artists! Please!
I remain, humbly yours,
Chris K
Post by: tacit on February 28, 2007, 06:47:29 PM
QUOTE(Nutterbutter @ Feb 25 2007, 06:42 PM) [snapback]120159[/snapback]
Bottom line is; If the companies didn't make the products to commit the crime, then we wouldn't have the problems that we have today.
What problems do we have today? Copying music does not prevent artists from making money; in fact, the Recording Industry Ass. of America's own study showed that P2P file sharing actually promotes CD sales, just like radio airplay promotes CD sales. If you believe that artists make less money when people copy their music, the facts weigh against you.
So what problems do we have today that you believe are caused by P2P software?
And do you believe that all P2P software should be banned? What, exactly, do you propose as the solution to the problems you see?
Post by: () on February 28, 2007, 09:19:06 PM
You put out dvd recorder and burners on the market place. For what? to buy and look at,
or to record on. DUH! A seven year old can figure that out.Companies that make software and hardware products that "enable" people to burn and copy materials. If you listen carefully...
The companies promoted on how you can burn your "Favorite Music CD's, DVD's, and what ever you feel the need to burn" is all in your (the consumers) hands.
Now that it had gotten so out of control, now the companies are whining about it.
I don't do any illegal burning, but I do burn my DVD's I have purchased and make copies of them so I can put away the original disc away. When you have kids over, I am not paying out 20 bucks for them to destroy and then go buy another disc.
Those at SWAP-MEETS that burn illegal discs and sell them for a profit is another story. They are stealing from the artist by preventing the sale of the music or dvd they sell at the swap-meet.
If I buy a music cd at a yard-sale, swap-meet, or a used record store. I am buying a used/recycled item and the artist loses out. May not sound fair, but that's just the way life goes.
Now if the record companies didn't overcharge so much on their cd's and dvd's, then there probably wouldn't be so much so-called illegal downloading, pirating going on in our society.
And if companies didn't make it so appealing when it comes to burning dvd's and music cds, then I don't think we would have this huge problem today.
QUOTE
What problems do we have today? Copying music does not prevent artists from making money; in fact, the Recording Industry Ass. of America's own study showed that P2P file sharing actually promotes CD sales, just like radio airplay promotes CD sales. If you believe that artists make less money when people copy their music, the facts weigh against you.
So what problems do we have today that you believe are caused by P2P software?
And do you believe that all P2P software should be banned? What, exactly, do you propose as the solution to the problems you see?
So what problems do we have today that you believe are caused by P2P software?
And do you believe that all P2P software should be banned? What, exactly, do you propose as the solution to the problems you see?
If P2P is promoting such great revenue for the industry, then why try and sue people for downloading music.
P2P allows people to send music, movies, software files globally.
IT's a BIG PROBLEM!
No! Not all Pq2P software should be banned. but if Apple can make it so that their products cannot be uploaded and downloaded on P2P (Apple went after Napster and Limewire for this), then other people such as Music Artist and the Film Industry should do the same, but then that alone would put the P2P out of business too.
I say "BAN P2P" and you can stop all the criminal activity altogether.
(Just my take on it!) Nothing personal. Okay Tacit!
Post by: tacit on March 01, 2007, 12:39:30 PM
Control. If artists can make lots of money using P2P software without the record labels, then the record labels go bankrupt and the executives lose their money. The executives won't let that happen. The executives will do anything to make sure that artists can not promote their music without the labels.