Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There is a thriving community of artists who freely exchange songs with each other the community at large.I think anyone who wants to put their art on the web for free, more power to them, I do the same thing. Those artists who encourage folks to spread their art around, that's great. Those artists who utilize the freedom of the web to get their vision out into the world, I wholeheartedly support them all.
But this isn't about the music companies, this is about stealing from the artists. Artists who write music, compose songs, and then people take their work without paying? People get the artist's songs without paying for it are stealing. Rationalizing it as "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so no one is losing income" is bogus. You don't want to pay for it, then you don't get the product, that's fine. But getting the product without paying for it is stealing, period.
I have no objection to paying for a product. What I do object to is paying a music company upwards of $20 for doing something that could be done for pennies and then not even being sure of what I'm getting.As someone who has composed songs and put them on the web for free, I am all about getting your name out, sharing your art with the world with little cost, that's all great. If that's what you want to do. But my art is not my livelihood. For some artists, it is very much their livelihood. If they don't get paid for their work by people who enjoy it, then those artists lose income. If you don't want to pay for the song or the movie, then don't listen or watch it. If you do want to own it, listen and/or watch it, then be honest about it and pay for it.
If you mean when does copyright material become free to use, the law used to say about 70 years, but I think it may have changed recently. If you mean going from "fair use" to copyright infringement, there are standards for each medium, but there's no definitive line (29.9 seconds of a song is ok, 30.0 becomes infringement).My issue with copright laws is when does it cross over from freedom of information to copyright material?
When I go listen to live music, I tend to go listen to no-name singer/songwriters standing on stage with a guitar, maybe 2-3 other people but often not. This person is on stage somewhere several days a week, busting their butt trying to make a living. These people do tend to make several songs of theirs available for free to get people interested. I don't know of anyone who puts their entire album out for free (although I'm sure there are plenty that do). File sharing to get their albums for free is wrong, if they aren't giving you permission.And the man has a real point. We cant STOP people creating music, but what file sharing can and will do is cut the legs out from under bands created solely to generate profit for music companies and bands that are truly good will receive more attention. Music will go back to being a community effort.
I agree music companies charge way too much money for CDs. So don't buy it. That still doesn't give you the right to have it for free because you don't like the price.I have no objection to paying for a product. What I do object to is paying a music company upwards of $20 for doing something that could be done for pennies and then not even being sure of what I'm getting.
That IS how we buy most things. If you walk into a store and see a new cereal box, all you get is the picture on the front; no sample, no taste test, no hole of any size, no anything. If you walk into a store and see a new flavored drink, you don't even see what you're purchasing. You see a fancy logo and that's it. Do you think you have the right to open a box of cereal in the store and taste it, or pop open a bottle of drink and try it? And then tell the store manager, "you're not losing money, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway"?? Of course not.Yes there are 30 second previews but that doesnt give you an overview of the entire song. What if we bought everything that way? If you went to a store and all the bread was in black boxes with a little tiny hole in it and you got 30 seconds to look at it and see if thats the one you wanted. That's ridiculous, so why is it any better with multimedia?
I think you've got some good ideas, and I do think that the music industry is going to go through a major change, whether they like it or not. What you suggest, and other ideas that are out there, are worth exploring, and I don't disagree with them in principle, as long as the musicians agree to them. But file sharing music that musicians don't allow to be file shared, and don't want distributed for free, is wrong.As I see it there are a few options....
Their living is made doing what they're doing, not selling CD's. Of the cost of a CD sold in stores, an artist sees pennies of that price. Most of the money made by artists is made through live performances, merchandise, endorsements and advertisements.When I go listen to live music, I tend to go listen to no-name singer/songwriters standing on stage with a guitar, maybe 2-3 other people but often not. This person is on stage somewhere several days a week, busting their butt trying to make a living. These people do tend to make several songs of theirs available for free to get people interested. I don't know of anyone who puts their entire album out for free (although I'm sure there are plenty that do). File sharing to get their albums for free is wrong, if they aren't giving you permission.
As Im sure Ford was depriving the income of companies that made horse drawn carriages.Bands created by companies to make music can be irritating. But those people are also busting their butts trying to make a living. Bands distributed by companies, not created by them, are also busting their butts. Whether it's John Mayer or Paul Thorn, someone is doing what they can to make a living. File sharing music they don't want file-shared is depriving them of that income.
This is a frequent argument I see but this necessitates an almost total abstenation from music completely if you dont download and only purchase CD's. You must cut yourself off from an avenue of popular culture.I agree music companies charge way too much money for CDs. So don't buy it. That still doesn't give you the right to have it for free because you don't like the price.
Food is a poor example and one I should not have chosen. Multimedia is unique and upon further examination, I dont think it has an analogy in the marketplace.That IS how we buy most things. If you walk into a store and see a new cereal box, all you get is the picture on the front; no sample, no taste test, no hole of any size, no anything. If you walk into a store and see a new flavored drink, you don't even see what you're purchasing. You see a fancy logo and that's it. Do you think you have the right to open a box of cereal in the store and taste it, or pop open a bottle of drink and try it? And then tell the store manager, "you're not losing money, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway"?? Of course not.
The difference is that bikes have a return policy whereas multimedia does not. It is a one-way purchase that cannot be undone for any reason.If you want to buy a bicycle, you can ride it around the parking lot (analagous to a 30-sec preview), but you can't take the bike home with you without asking, ride it around your neighborhood back and forth to work for weeks and say "you're not losing money, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
That IS how we buy most things. If you walk into a store and see a new cereal box, all you get is the picture on the front; no sample, no taste test, no hole of any size, no anything. If you walk into a store and see a new flavored drink, you don't even see what you're purchasing. You see a fancy logo and that's it. Do you think you have the right to open a box of cereal in the store and taste it, or pop open a bottle of drink and try it? And then tell the store manager, "you're not losing money, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway"?? Of course not.
If you want to buy a bicycle, you can ride it around the parking lot (analagous to a 30-sec preview), but you can't take the bike home with you without asking, ride it around your neighborhood back and forth to work for weeks and say "you're not losing money, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway."
You can't take things that aren't yours on the pretense that if you aren't allowed to take it, you wouldn't have paid for it anyway.
So an artist has an incentive to distribute their music for free, what you say may very well be true. That doesn't give you the right to take their music for free without permission.Their living is made doing what they're doing, not selling CD's. Of the cost of a CD sold in stores, an artist sees pennies of that price. Most of the money made by artists is made through live performances, merchandise, endorsements and advertisements.
You're talking about competition, which is irrelevent. Madonna isn't taking money from John Mayer.As Im sure Ford was depriving the income of companies that made horse drawn carriages.
I totally disagree. There's radio, there's XM, there are sites that allow you to listen to entire songs without being able to download it, there are borrowing friend's albums... to say the only choices are to download music for free or cut yourself off from culture is a false choice.(If you don't like the price, don't buy it) is a frequent argument I see but this necessitates an almost total abstenation from music completely if you dont download and only purchase CD's. You must cut yourself off from an avenue of popular culture.
True, multimedia is a different medium. And maybe a return policy is needed, agreed. That still doesn't give anyone permission to take someone's music without permission.The difference is that bikes have a return policy whereas multimedia does not. It is a one-way purchase that cannot be undone for any reason.
Their living is made doing what they're doing, not selling CD's. Of the cost of a CD sold in stores, an artist sees pennies of that price. Most of the money made by artists is made through live performances, merchandise, endorsements and advertisements.
For the bulk of artists, any money that would be seen from CD sales gets kicked back to the industry to pay back costs of promotion and such.To put real figures on this discussion; as things are right now, most big label artists get about 8-14% of the sales revenue they generate. The artist's percentage for indie labels is higher than that (pushing 20%). If you buy a CD or download a full album, the artists "cut" is more like $1 to $1.50 per album. iTunes' take is 35% and the balance (~55%) goes to the recording company. SOURCE 1
SOURCE 2
Personally, i think in the short term, some artists do end up getting the short end of the stick in addition to their recording companies by music piracy. That has to do with the way they get their checks, though...
In the long run, if the Internet turns into a viable direct-to-consumer means of delivering inexpensive high quality music, with a means of delivering the majority of compensation to the artist and production crew responsible for the music, then the RIAA and every last bloated major record label can go hang; they've been obsoleted, just like the rotary telephone.
its not stealing its copyright infringement. the recording industry isn't losing anything, in fact people that share music get charged with more than stealing a cd from a store, people get fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, even up to millions for sharing songs, while stealing a cd costs you a lot less.But this isn't about the music companies, this is about stealing from the artists. Artists who write music, compose songs, and then people take their work without paying? People get the artist's songs without paying for it are stealing. Rationalizing it as "I wouldn't have paid for it anyway, so no one is losing income" is bogus. You don't want to pay for it, then you don't get the product, that's fine. But getting the product without paying for it is stealing, period.
that sounds all good, if the riaa and the recording industry treated their customers like people and believed that buying a cd means you own it.As someone who has composed songs and put them on the web for free, I am all about getting your name out, sharing your art with the world with little cost, that's all great. If that's what you want to do. But my art is not my livelihood. For some artists, it is very much their livelihood. If they don't get paid for their work by people who enjoy it, then those artists lose income. If you don't want to pay for the song or the movie, then don't listen or watch it. If you do want to own it, listen and/or watch it, then be honest about it and pay for it.
not only that but if the artist isn't up on how to deal with the industry they get nothing even after paying the money they owe.[serious];52453348 said:For the bulk of artists, any money that would be seen from CD sales gets kicked back to the industry to pay back costs of promotion and such.
I think it is stealing, because you are getting their product without paying for it. It doesn't take any money from them, but you obtain something that should have involved a money transfer to them but did not.lol, it's certainly not stealing. People call it stealing for emotional appeal, but it's simply copyright infringement. What monetary loss or potential loss did they suffer? None.
My issue with copright laws is when does it cross over from freedom of information to copyright material?
I think it is stealing, because you are getting their product without paying for it. It doesn't take any money from them, but you obtain something that should have involved a money transfer to them but did not.
The current system is bad, probably because technology progressed faster than lawmakers could figure out how to control it.
Some artists, like David Drainman from the band Disturbed, support file sharing. Drainman points out that they don't make much money from record sales, and the more people that have their music for free, the better, because they become more popular.
Artists make a lot of money from concerts, and if you have a lot of people that own your music and wouldn't if they had to pay for it, then you help ensure that your concerts are full.
-Lyn
I think there are some unfair stereotypes here, but let's go with this view of the RIAA and industry for the moment.the music industry still has a racket, most music you can't just taste a song or two of and find out if you like it, you have to buy it first and then you payed 15-20 bucks for crap....
becides the riaa count "potential sales" when they whine about how they didn't get 2billion this quarter. ....
that sounds all good, if the riaa and the recording industry treated their customers like people and believed that buying a cd means you own it.
but they don't, they consider it a service, not an ownership.....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?