Miscellaneous > Intellectual Property & Law
Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing
avello500:
i dont think its stealing to copy music with permision. p2p, radio and tape, mic and speaker, listening and remembering, you name it, its just copying.
if you make a high quality copy of a copyrighted material and charge tickets to listen/view then your stealing.
if you rent something and copy it without there consent, stealing.
a freind buys a cd and says hey you want a copy? sharing.
labels hurt musicians.
most musicuans get dick from record labels. most of the smarter and wealthier musicians handled everything themselves, they also reaped 100% of the total net profits. signed bands will get at the most 5% of what the record companies tell them. oh out of that 5% the band has to cover management and other services so they may get about 2-3% out of the five.
for every buck made on the whole ball of shit the band may get as little as $.15. whereas the record company make about $.55. the record companies claim that .30 goes to shipping and distrubution, .40 goes to advertising. what they say never adds up. and they really dont share the books freely or otherwise.the amount of money to be sliced is so badly shaded and distorted by the record companies that there is a sub-profession of accounts specifically to discern royalty amounts. this profession is growing every year in size.
the ability to demo a cd allows me to choose what is worth spending money on, in turn i dont just give up on buying cd's all together.
i do know that almost every musician would love to be able to walk past any window and hear there music . the fact that i can hear music that has made/changed history is incredible. you can find work that has been lost for generations, things that can change a persons life.
this inturn helps the art to live.
this would not be possible without sharing.
the free market system runs on the principle of supply and demand. since they have opened asian and eastern markets the formulas of s&d have been tipped in the direction that record companies dont like. thats whats with all the bitchin.
if they lowered the prices to what people pay for bootlegs then people would purchase authentic versions. most people realize they are buying bootlegs. thats why it is usually cheaper.
in places that are more expensive, maybe authentic versions cant be bought, the record companies need to build there distrobution networks to accomadate these markets then pirating would be irrelavent. (shit i spell like a fuking 4year old lol)
billy_gates:
quote:Originally posted by flap:
So then.... presumably Macs/Linux etc. are shit as "a large group of people" don't use them? And Windows must be fantastic, as most people use that.
--- End quote ---
What I said had nothing to do with how popular a band or artists was or how good they are. I was trying to somehow explain to you that all record companies and most artists are after one thing, money. They will do anything to get money. So, according to you they can make more money if people download their music. If this is true, why don't they allow people to download their music. Its like someone saying I can make even more money than I already make, but whatever, I'll waste a bunch of money and time in lawsuits to try and stop it anyway. What I said had nothing to do with popularity or quality. People want money. If they could truly make more money by letting people download their music, they would "let" people download their music. They wouldn't try to fight it.
billy_gates:
quote:Originally posted by avello500:
i dont think its stealing to copy music with permision. p2p, radio and tape, mic and speaker, listening and remembering, you name it, its just copying.
if you make a high quality copy of a copyrighted material and charge tickets to listen/view then your stealing.
if you rent something and copy it without there consent, stealing.
a freind buys a cd and says hey you want a copy? sharing.
labels hurt musicians.
most musicuans get dick from record labels. most of the smarter and wealthier musicians handled everything themselves, they also reaped 100% of the total net profits. signed bands will get at the most 5% of what the record companies tell them. oh out of that 5% the band has to cover management and other services so they may get about 2-3% out of the five.
for every buck made on the whole ball of shit the band may get as little as $.15. whereas the record company make about $.55. the record companies claim that .30 goes to shipping and distrubution, .40 goes to advertising. what they say never adds up. and they really dont share the books freely or otherwise.the amount of money to be sliced is so badly shaded and distorted by the record companies that there is a sub-profession of accounts specifically to discern royalty amounts. this profession is growing every year in size.
the ability to demo a cd allows me to choose what is worth spending money on, in turn i dont just give up on buying cd's all together.
i do know that almost every musician would love to be able to walk past any window and hear there music . the fact that i can hear music that has made/changed history is incredible. you can find work that has been lost for generations, things that can change a persons life.
this inturn helps the art to live.
this would not be possible without sharing.
the free market system runs on the principle of supply and demand. since they have opened asian and eastern markets the formulas of s&d have been tipped in the direction that record companies dont like. thats whats with all the bitchin.
if they lowered the prices to what people pay for bootlegs then people would purchase authentic versions. most people realize they are buying bootlegs. thats why it is usually cheaper.
in places that are more expensive, maybe authentic versions cant be bought, the record companies need to build there distrobution networks to accomadate these markets then pirating would be irrelavent. (shit i spell like a fuking 4year old lol)
--- End quote ---
So your saying that because people are doing good things with the music and good things will come of it that it is no longer stealing...
Just because it is used for a good cause does not take away the fact that it is theft.
Best anology I could think of:
Robbin Hood STOLE from the rich and gave to the poor.
Robbin Hood stole stuff for a good purpose, but we didn't relabel it to take the word stole out.
flap:
quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
What I said had nothing to do with how popular a band or artists was or how good they are. I was trying to somehow explain to you that all record companies and most artists are after one thing, money. They will do anything to get money. So, according to you they can make more money if people download their music. If this is true, why don't they allow people to download their music. Its like someone saying I can make even more money than I already make, but whatever, I'll waste a bunch of money and time in lawsuits to try and stop it anyway. What I said had nothing to do with popularity or quality. People want money. If they could truly make more money by letting people download their music, they would "let" people download their music. They wouldn't try to fight it.
--- End quote ---
No, I'm not saying that. You suggested that artists making their work available for free can't be a good idea as a large number of people aren't doing it already. You were suggesting that if a majority group of (stupid) people do something, it must be right.
flap:
quote:Originally posted by Billy Gates: Mac Comrade Captain:
So your saying that because people are doing good things with the music and good things will come of it that it is no longer stealing...
Just because it is used for a good cause does not take away the fact that it is theft.
Best anology I could think of:
Robbin Hood STOLE from the rich and gave to the poor.
Robbin Hood stole stuff for a good purpose, but we didn't relabel it to take the word stole out.
--- End quote ---
It is not stealing however you look at it. Even if you feel that artists should be paid every time a copy of their work is made, you're talking about paying for a service, not a product. If someone builds a road and charges a toll for everyone who drives down it, then if 3 people drive down it without paying you wouldn't say those people have "stolen" the use of the road, would you?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version