There is lot's of discussions regarding copyrights.
Some people feel that copyrights are a bad thing.
I would say that these people have not bothered to check the whole picture.
What is copyright?
It's rather simple.
An example: If a band creates music they have the copyright for it.
Sometimes the band has their work released by their own label.
They own their music. Then it is common that they work together with a record label who either license the rights and pay for that, or, at times, the record label buy the music. Basically there is these three ways to go. Either the band owns the copyrights or a label owns it. If they license the rights they own it for a limited period. If the bought the music they own it forever - if they do not sell it, or hire it to some other company.
Either way the bands get paid.
That anyone else should claim that they should have the rights to use the music without asking for permission is in no way acceptable.
Copyrights are not a bad thing. It is simply a way for the originator to protect the rights to decide about his/hers own work.
It is common sense.
How can anyone disagree with that?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
More intelligent debate from the pro-downloading brigade, I see.
It amazes me that something that far down the evolutionary scale can even use a computer.
hmmmmmmm, now that makes sense!
Gosh, with arguments like that I am sure the musicians represented here will be happy to give their music away for free!
sheeeeeeeesh!
"which old pussy fart to punch in the face"
Another person *flexing his muscles while hiding behind an ananymous tag"?
Gert
ps. You are only proving our points with these remarks. Like Martin said....something this far down the evolutionary scale can even use a computer....
Gert
Anonymous,
You wrote:
"why have you taken up this 'righteous' cause again?"
To inform the listeners what copyrights actually is. It seems that there are quite many out there arguing about copyrights without knowing what is is.
"you guys are really jealous?"
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
"what do you think you're gonna get licensing for everything and make money off downloads!?!"
Sorry, don't understand that one either.
"please post all the names of your cunt friends and bands so I know which old pussy fart to punch in the face if I run into them..."
From this "comment" we all understand that you are a violent and unpleasant person. Not all pirates are that unpleasant but I have noted that they quite many.
I've read through all the posts and comments on the blog and find both pirates and anti-pirates to indulge in one-sidedness and half-truths.
There are 3 angles to the downloading issue: legal, moral and practical.
The legal issue is simple: Uploading any copyrighted material for public download is illegal unless you have the permission of the copyright-holders. Copyright laws differ (for example between the EU and the US). Presumably the location of the webserver housing the files and/or links is the determining factor on which copyright laws apply. Downloading copyright-protected files is not illegal in most countries (thus "illegal downloading" is a half-truth at best). File-sharing is illegal because it means you also participate in uploading or seeding files, not because of downloading them.
The moral issue is more complicated: It is obviously wrong to give away other people's work if that work is available commercially. When a work has been out of print a long time and no reissues are imminent, I think public interest takes precedence. If an historically important record costs thousands of dollars at auctions and is not available elsewhere how is anyone to understand it's position. What you can't hear you can't think about (to quote Some Bizarre label boss Stevo). A question to the artist would probably yield a yes for the most part, but many record labels won't say yes even if they have no intention of ever marketing an album again.
Practical issues: Can we get rid of them all? etc. (I'm not as verbose on this as I don't really care or know enough about this.)
Too often legal arguments are met with moral arguments to which the response is practical and everybody talks beside each other.
Personally I download AND buy records (download more than I could possibly buy, buy a lot more than I can really afford). I dream of the giant music industry-controlled download store that carries every album ever made in good bitrates and with cover-scans. Boy would I buy music then. The prospect isn't likely, I know.
Gs
Hi Gs,
Your posting makes sense to me.
It is obvious that the law is behind reality and that morality and ethics are very low on planet Earth.
Your dream about the giant download store will most probably not see daylight because of free downloading.
Too many copies have already been "shared" to make it worth it.
But...if the freeloaders could realize this and stop downloading for free, enough money would come in to restore old LP's. The original tapes for many of the more "obscure" 60's and 70's albums are now destroyed. But what can be done is to hand over the LP to a skilled mastering guy so that he/she can work with it to restore the sound, remove scratches etc etc.
This work can not be done for free. Commons sense tells me that it will only be done if one can expect to at least sell enough to break even. Or hopefully earn at least as small amount to invest in the next simular project.
Personally I really don't care if people like you download and then buy the music you like. Even if it is against the law. The problem is that you are rare. Most people simply think that "free" is a better alternative than "pay", without thinking about the long term consequences.
If ethics was higher no one would rage over "sharing". It would be the good thing today's "sharer's" claim it is, if everyone used it the way you do.
Unfortunately most of them don't.
Please explain how posting a 20 yr out of print, totally commercially UNAVAILABLE piece of music can harm anyone, even the artist of said music. If anything it could initiate interest in that artist, and help to sustain his creativity for many years to come. Please advise
PS Have you compensated the artists that playing on your blog?
We didn't post it because you had obviously not understood the point of the post, which was, at what level of certainty of punishment will pirates suddenly be less sure that what they are doing is fine.
holy shit, how many times do we have to say it - we're not dealing with out of print material, and the huge majority of these blogs aren't either, and yes, the artists playing are compensated and want their material in the player.
Anonymouslice5000 replies...
This blog is dead... :-/
Yet you are still here. If it isn't for a discussion then what?
Gert
"PS Have you compensated the artists that playing on your blog?"
On both blogs i have a player and on both blogs i have the permission to play those songs. Either the label or the bands gave the permission to play those songs.
Gert
If you're only concerned with IN print music blog posts, then why go after Lost in Thyme? Most of blogs like that one ONLY deal in OUT OF PRINT music. And what if they post IN print music... how do you KNOW they didn't get permission to do so as you SAY you did for your music player!
Ah, but the reality is--
The commercial appeal of much of what is shared is no longer relevant.
Say, for example, a small label in England released a work by an artist in the 1980s or 1990s--their ability to reap a profit from that ended when they deleted the title, sold off their stock, and/or folded up their tent. Many, many labels and publishing companies are now defunct.
The post-commercial release "sharing" of works--copyrighted or not--is akin to trading the material in used record shops or between friends. There is no commercial viability for the product.
So if we're talking tomorrows new release by the biggest artist on EMI--you're correct.
If you're talking about The Jazz Butcher's "In Bath of Bacon" from the early 1980s, with zero commercial value on the market today--you're wrong. Despite the fact that "someone" holds a near worthless copyright on an album that will never be reissued or re-released in any meaningful form, it's like picking it up from the used or discount bin for someone to share the ripped MP3s.
Nice try. Who's paying you to be the guardian of nothing?
Lost in Time is NOT just putting up out of print music, why do you think he got that DMCA complaint from blogspot for specific material? I've asked him to post his authorizations for music, but he keeps deleting my posts.
Did you really read through this whole site and come back with the same tired and worthless argument that covers only a small corner case of the pirating problem that we've address like 50 times already?
WE ARE PROTECTING OUR CURRENT ARTISTS AND INTERESTS.
Won't be long PK and they blame for the melting icecaps too.
Gert
I believe that it is Prog Not Frog's desinformation campaign who makes people believe that PAP is responible for all deletings on the net. As far as I remember I have not found any of our stuff at L.I.T or P.N.F. and therefore have not delete anything there.
But, while searching for Progress releases, I visited Lost In Tyme and saw several of titles recently re-released by Musea and others.
If Lost In Tyme said that they ONLY put up OUT OF PRINT albums they were either lying or they had not been responsable enough to check copyrights before putting it up.
Why don't these people bother to check with the copyright owners?
If they did everyone would be happy.
Can it be that they know that the music is not OOP?
What you say is just bullshit.Ownership is something that is not acceptable by everyone,though the you say it is to take it for granted that ownership is an authenticity.I claim for example that ownership is thievery.Anyway if someone makes "art" in order to own he's simply NOT an artist.He is just a merchant.
From which company are you paid from? Because piracy just kills the companies not the music.The bands can be paid in many ways from live performances for example.The ones that rig the market from the art are the companies.So i just don't care if they will be exterminated.
Kisses baby!
To Anonymous (....yawn, not another one)
If ownership is "thievery" then let me know your address and I'll be round in the van to take all your stuff away. Oh, that isn't acceptable? Well shut up then.
And by the way, speaking personally, my music is made purely to entertain, and I HATE to be described as an artist. Art is all the useless unlistenable stuff that no-one wants.
"from live performances for example."
NewsFlash bands don't make much money when touring. Stop looking at the big acts (or the big labels).
Gert
The myth about the struggeling, suffering artist as the only "true" artist is nothing but a myth. It is probably invented by suppressive people who want artists to entertain them without giving anything in return.
They simply want artists to be "entertainment slaves".
"Good boy. If you suffer enough you will be a great artist".
This is one of the most stupid ideas about art and artists.
This "free art is true art nonsense" is another myth invenmted for the same reason.
These comments are only coming from non-artists or failed dito.
There is absolutely no reason why art should be greater just because the artist is not paid for it.
To get it back on topic. Any of the uploaders ever read "unauthorised copying,hiring,public performance and broadcast of this recording is prohibited"?
Everytime you buy a cd you agree to follow the law. Since you guys seem to despise the law then why agreeying with it when you buy an album for the purpose of uploading?
"ownership is something that is not acceptable by everyone"
Ok...hey neighbour i see you have a bigger car then me. I don't agree with the fact that it is yours so i grab it for myself now.
I wish downloaders would come up with some better stuff then this...
Gert
Speaking of copyrights and who owns what, looks like Gail Zappa (Widow of Frank Zappa) is suing her husband's fans and tribute bands:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2008/02/throttling_the_mother_of_inven.html
yea, I saw that, on the surface it seems strange, but I don't know enough about the details to make a comment, there could be very good reasons, but it does seem odd.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-weaver20feb20,0,1675278.story
yep, read that one when it came out, the Swedish government hack that is being quoted is virtually an unknown in their own country. It's always easy to find a nutty government hack.
Hi dicducfacfer,
What is your stance on the topic?
Don't you think it is fair that the artists have right to decide about their own work?
Stop using the bands' financial state as an excuse for repudiate the downloading of music.
If you have any degree of inteligence that phrase should sufice.
Again, if a artist wants to express itself how can (s)he prohibit the sharing of it? If an artists puts his work on the public he can't stop the listeners from doing whatever with it. if an artist doesn't want to have is work being used, then don't bring it to the public. Copyright is an obselete notion. get over it.
Regads
Pedro
PS: keep on killing the music. but then don't come whining...
"Copyright is an obselete notion. get over it."
It isn't. New laws are being made to get a grip of the downloading criminals. The days people who lead 'prog not frog" and "last in tyme" are being caught i will give a party. Remember...the guy from Oink thought he was invisible too....bet he sings a different tune now.
Gert
Hello Pedro,
Do you disagree to artists making a living from their music? Or to their rights to decide about their own work?
It seems to me that you do.
I would not say that we are killing music. Quite the opposite.
Our stance is that every artist has the right to decide about his/her work.
You are free of creating your own music and give it away for free.
You can not decide for others.
The general attitude among freeloaders seems to be "All that is yours is mine" but also "All that is mine is NOT yours".
It is the same disrespect for owning as criminals demonstrate.
What have you contributed with to deserve music for free?
What gives you the right to make decisions for others?
Please give is your intelligent replies to these questions.
this site should be named "businessmen against pirates"
prog has nothing to do with fucking copyright, and every artist that has some common sense should release their art for free, art shouldnt be only for those with money.
padilla,
Exactly why should artists give away their work for free?
1. Prog has nothing to do with fucking copyright.
- wrong it has all to do with copyright but i guess since you download you never see the copyright message printed on the sleeve
2. every artist what has common sense should release their art for free
The next question will be. How does an artist make money then and please don't come up with the suggestion: they can make money when touring. Should such artist go to a music store and ask if he can get the equipment for free. Afterall if he wants to tour he needs equipment and he can't make money when given his music for free
3. Art shouldn't be only for those with money
Ok now give me a Rembrand please because i can't afford to buy one myself and since all art must be free i should get it right?
4. You didn't bring one good idea up like most downloaders do... next!
Gert
"this site should be named "businessmen against pirates"
Yes we're businessmen (and what on earth is wrong with that anyway?), but we're also musicians. I've probably played on 40 or more albums over the years so you can hardly say I'm not a musician.
For decades now, the only way to get our music heard has been to handle the business side ourselves. The days when musicians playing non-mainstream music could afford to let others take care of business ended years ago. Didn't you know that?
Your "art should be free" argument achieves nothing other than completely souring the relationship between the musician and the consumer. We really will not carry on making music just to be ripped off and abused by the likes of you.
Musicians hate illegal downloading and we will not put up with it.
Post a Comment