SOPA/PIPA Petition: Sign this People

What I'm saying is that the real artists who get into the mainstream music biz don't go into it expecting a bankroll and that it is ultimately up to the quality of the content that decides whether or not you're gonna be a millionaire.

If you look through your iPod, 90% (I'm being really generous here, probably closer to 99%) will see a VERY minimal impact from unpaid downloads of music.

Think about how many songs you've downloaded and didn't pay for, and think of how many albums you've bought as a direct result of the song you downloaded. What about all the songs you've "downloaded" that turned out to be garbage music anyway? The last CD I downloaded was the leak of Tha Carter 4. I don't like little Wayne in the first place, but I downloaded it anyway and, surprise, the album was garbage, if it was any good, I would have purchased the lossless version from apple (cause I'm a stickler for sound quality) So in the end, neither Wayne, nor his label would have seen a red cent from me anyway

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

What I'm saying is that the real artists who get into the mainstream music biz don't go into it expecting a bankroll and that it is ultimately up to the quality of the content that decides whether or not you're gonna be a millionaire.

---

Are you honestly saying that Jay Z stopped slinging crack and started making music without the intention of making money? Do you honestly think I am that stupid?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

If you look through your iPod, 90% (I'm being really generous here, probably closer to 99%) will see a VERY minimal impact from unpaid downloads of music.

---

We have already been over the fact that the individual artists dont see a meaningful impact from illegal downloads. The labels do see the impact though and it does have an effect on their contracts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Think about how many songs you've downloaded and didn't pay for, and think of how many albums you've bought as a direct result of the song you downloaded. What about all the songs you've "downloaded" that turned out to be garbage music anyway? The last CD I downloaded was the leak of Tha Carter 4. I don't like little Wayne in the first place, but I downloaded it anyway and, surprise, the album was garbage, if it was any good, I would have purchased the lossless version from apple (cause I'm a stickler for sound quality) So in the end, neither Wayne, nor his label would have seen a red cent from me anyway

---

I've never purchased an album as a result of music I illegally downloaded. Back when I did download music, I had a site I used that you got uncompressed, CD quality music. The site is likely down now even if I could remember the name of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Are you honestly saying that Jay Z stopped slinging crack and started making music without the intention of making money? Do you honestly think I am that stupid?

---

Jay was well off financially before he went into the music biz. Jay is a notable exception. He pretty much got himself off the ground as far as hip hop goes, but he was still a talented lyricist selling tapes and being a backup singer before he saw his first mainstream music dollar.

Here is my quick stance on why sharing music should not be illegal:

No one can truly own a sound or an idea and generally the sharing of knowledge and art should be encouraged unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. Copyright is not an inalienable human right but simply a societal agreement to promote the development of music. Remember copyright is a very new invention in the history of man and yet there have been musicians for millenia.

The copyright for music supports a particular business model which is selling a recording. This is not the only business model for music (e.g., merchandising, endorsements, shows, etc). Thus with all the possible ways to generate revenue from (or incident to) being a music creator, I no longer feel the reason for music copyright is compelling. In my opinion, the value of allowing free sharing of music, outweighs the need to incentivize music making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Here is my quick stance on why sharing music should not be illegal:

No one can truly own a sound or an idea and generally the sharing of knowledge and art should be encouraged unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. Copyright is not an inalienable human right but simply a societal agreement to promote the development of music. Remember copyright is a very new invention in the history of man and yet there have been musicians for millenia.

The copyright for music supports a particular business model which is selling a recording. This is not the only business model for music (e.g., merchandising, endorsements, shows, etc). Thus with all the possible ways to generate revenue from (or incident to) being a music creator, I no longer feel the reason for music copyright is compelling. In my opinion, the value of allowing free sharing of music, outweighs the need to incentivize music making.

---

This

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

Here is my quick stance on why sharing music should not be illegal:

No one can truly own a sound or an idea and generally the sharing of knowledge and art should be encouraged unless there is a compelling reason otherwise. Copyright is not an inalienable human right but simply a societal agreement to promote the development of music. Remember copyright is a very new invention in the history of man and yet there have been musicians for millenia.

The copyright for music supports a particular business model which is selling a recording. This is not the only business model for music (e.g., merchandising, endorsements, shows, etc). Thus with all the possible ways to generate revenue from (or incident to) being a music creator, I no longer feel the reason for music copyright is compelling. In my opinion, the value of allowing free sharing of music, outweighs the need to incentivize music making.

---

I tried to write out some well thought out response to this, but I cannot do it. This whole thing is so absolutely asinine that I can barely come to terms with it.


Do you really think the Windows operating system should be free for everyone to use? It is intellectual property and no different under the law than a CD.

I know I enjoy watching movies, do you really think they should be free for everyone also? Who is going to make a movie if they are a money losing venture?

What about the next generation of processor for your computer or smart phone? Yep free for everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

I tried to write out some well thought out response to this, but I cannot do it. This whole thing is so absolutely asinine that I can barely come to terms with it.

---

I definitely understand. The concept is hard to grasp, but enlightening once you come to terms with it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

Do you really think the Windows operating system should be free for everyone to use? It is intellectual property and no different under the law than a CD.

---

There are actually FREE alternatives to windows that are actually vastly superior that have been around for a good while. Has windows gone out of business yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

I know I enjoy watching movies, do you really think they should be free for everyone also? Who is going to make a movie if they are a money losing venture

---

How long do you really think Hollywood will remain in business charging $20/ticket to watch a movie when I can wait a few weeks and rent it from Redbox for $1 and play it in the comfort of my own home, where I have better, cheaper concessions, better screen, better sound, and I dont have to deal with people talking/texting/baby crying? They're killing themselves slowly, but a lot faster than piracy is killing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

I definitely understand. The concept is hard to grasp, but enlightening once you come to terms with it

---

You actually think thats enlightening? I hope I would never have to come to terms with a reality in which my intellectual property is free for anyone to use and I get no compensation for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

There are actually FREE alternatives to windows that are actually vastly superior that have been around for a good while. Has windows gone out of business yet?

---

I dont care as it has nothing to do with this conversation. I asked if you think Bill Dbees should be required to make Windows free for everyone to use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

How long do you really think Hollywood will remain in business charging $20/ticket to watch a movie when I can wait a few weeks and rent it from Redbox for $1 and play it in the comfort of my own home, where I have better, cheaper concessions, better screen, better sound, and I dont have to deal with people talking/texting/baby crying? They're killing themselves slowly, but a lot faster than piracy is killing them.

---

Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

Ever think ticket prices increase because of theft? Gasp!

LOL its not even worth arguing because their concept of how business invests and works is so absolutely wrong they can't comprehend simple supply and demand economics.

They act like an artist makes 1 deal and then its out of their hands, and in their world, people are driven by fuzzy feelings and warm hearts.

Yet every rapper talks about how rich they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

This

---

Its nice rhetoric but its not how the world works. We pay people for talent, which society usually determines.

Its perfectly OK for people to want to be rich, and to do something to be rich.

Kanye makes music to BE RICH. Not cause he gives a shit about telling you some particular message.


N***as in paris , while i love the song, is hardly a fucking intelligent conversational piece. Its a song bragging about HOW RICH THEY ARE.

Labels an publishers decide what to pay people based on what they think they can make. Compensation is based in investment projection,demand, marketing, etc.

Music is an artistical expression which IS protected by copyright. It is intellectual property. Courts have already determined this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

I tried to write out some well thought out response to this, but I cannot do it. This whole thing is so absolutely asinine that I can barely come to terms with it.


Do you really think the Windows operating system should be free for everyone to use? It is intellectual property and no different under the law than a CD.

I know I enjoy watching movies, do you really think they should be free for everyone also? Who is going to make a movie if they are a money losing venture?

What about the next generation of processor for your computer or smart phone? Yep free for everyone.

---

Exactly....what bu said makes no sense at all. I guess Bu wouldn't mind working for free? Because that's what it sounds like to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Kanye makes music to BE RICH. Not cause he gives a shit about telling you some particular message.

---

I'm not sure if you know this, but that's pretty far from the truth and how it actually works, and hardly a
minuscule scope of Kanye's lyrical or musical repertoire. If you're basing it on the lyrics of one song, that that's pretty short sighted. If what you said was true, any and every idiot who decided to rap or punch a soundboard would be millionaires. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. He may continue to make music now that it makes him money, but he knew before he got into it that this business isn't guaranteed.

Then you're absolutely fucking retarded, to be polite.

I probably listen and know more hip hop and music in general than most anyone. I'm well aware of kanyes lyrics.

People like being musicians sure, but they also expect to be compensated.

Have you ever listened to LAST CALL

He raps about how BROKE AND POOR HE WAS, GETTING EVICTED, HOPING HIS NEXT BEAT WOULD GET HIM PAID.

So spare me the rappers of the world unite bullshit

Common prob delivers a message more, but even he is motivated by being successful.

If what you say is true, then they would all refuse the MILLIONS IN DOLLARS they make

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

I probably listen and know more hip hop and music in general than most anyone.

---

Goddamn tall wor............ohh...I see it now. You said "most anyone," lolol. Carry on. Later, QD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BanginJimmy

I tried to write out some well thought out response to this, but I cannot do it. This whole thing is so absolutely asinine that I can barely come to terms with it.


Do you really think the Windows operating system should be free for everyone to use? It is intellectual property and no different under the law than a CD.

I know I enjoy watching movies, do you really think they should be free for everyone also? Who is going to make a movie if they are a money losing venture?

What about the next generation of processor for your computer or smart phone? Yep free for everyone.

---

I didn't say anything about software or movies so I'm not sure why you brought that up. And a processor? That's hardware, even more irrelevant to my argument. I'm not sure why you are all so upset about my stance. It's simply my opinion that I would rather live in a country that allows music to be shared freely even though it will likely come at a cost of less music being produced. If by chance I am wrong and all music creation would cease without the ability to sell a CD or digital download, then I would have to rethink my position. I don't see this as a moral issue, just as an issue of how much we need to incentivize the creation of art.

Dance movements aren't protected by intellectual property laws. Do you think they should be so dancers can make more money off their art? Or do you feel musicians deserve more protection than other artists?

If a person wants to copyright their dance moves they should be able too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

If a person wants to copyright their dance moves they should be able too

---

I disagree. The freedom to move your body in any way you want is more important than giving dancers another way to make money...(waiting for outrage)

::waiting for the day when all dance moves are copyrighted and I can't walk to my car without getting sued::

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bu villain

I disagree. The freedom to move your body in any way you want is more important than giving dancers another way to make money...(waiting for outrage)

---

I should have been more clear.

If someone comes up with a form of choreography that is unique and uses that in a show or something should be able to protect it somehow


Meaning a kid at a club doing the moves isn't liable, but someone who copies it and creates an identical show for profit should be liable

Dancing is like painting, its hard to copyright

Music itself isn't copyrighted. Its the physical media that is. If you sing a kanye song you aren't stealing, cover bands aren't stealing.

Copying media without purchase is stealing

So a guy walks into the Atlanta Journal Constitution headquarters and buys a paper for $2, he parks himself across the street with his own copy machine, runs off 1000 copies of it and says "hey everyone, I've got the AJC for free, come get it". So all of the customers who were gonna go inside and get the AJC instead goes to him and gets a copy for free.

Let's say you left your wallet at home and only had $5 in your pocket. You're hungry but you want a copy of the paper too. You can get a sandwich for $5, but if you buy the paper, you can't. So you go pick up a copy from this guy and still get a sandwich.

Who is at fault there?

The Guy is stealing. He's at fault, not the person getting it for free IMO.

The Guy purposefully stealing the paper, reproducing it without consent, and giving it away is wrong.

The guy taking a free copy, is just being smart.

I don't think the RIAA should gop after individual downloaders, rather the sites who knowingly host illegal copyright material.

RIAA and Hollywood also need to find a way to secure their assets, its on them to invent a technology that will better protect their property.

In your example the guy making copies has intent, intent to defraud and steal.

The $5 guy just wants the cheapest product he can find

Remember when we all used to copy tapes, or record radio songs in the 80s, technically that was stealing. Or rent VHS tapes and "dub" them? Stealing.

Difference is back then you were severely limited to who you could share physical media with. It was usually friends and people in close proximity.

Now, you can share 1 "dub" with 10,000,000 people you don't even know. The problem is far greater now thanks to technology.

I never though the guys selling fake Gucci purses new York really effect GUCCI because the fake copy quality is not up to par.

Music, it can be identical to the original media

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

The Guy is stealing. He's at fault, not the person getting it for free IMO.

The Guy purposefully stealing the paper, reproducing it without consent, and giving it away is wrong.

---

But this guy didn't really steal anything. He went in and legitimately purchased a real copy of the paper, which paid for AJC's inks, manpower, paper, etc, and he's not claiming it as his own IP. He has his own copy machine and his own paper.

What if instead of giving it away, he charged 25 cents for it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

But this guy didn't really steal anything. He went in and legitimately purchased a real copy of the paper, which paid for AJC's inks, manpower, paper, etc, and he's not claiming it as his own IP. He has his own copy machine and his own paper.

What if instead of giving it away, he charged 25 cents for it?

---

I totally get what you're saying, but its still viewed as theft

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

I totally get what you're saying, but its still viewed as theft

---

Are you sure? So if I go inside AJC, purchase a paper, and then leave, I should be charged with theft?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

Are you sure? So if I go inside AJC, purchase a paper, and then leave, I should be charged with theft?

---

No that's legal. But if someone from the AJC found you selling or distributing copyrighted material to other people without them paying for it, then yes, that's is considered illegal.

Ever watch an NFL or NBA game, there's always that 10 second "ant copying, taping, reproduction of this broadcast without express written consent constitutes blahblahblah".

Purchasing the paper is fine, copying it is illegal, copying it to distribute is illegal.

In your scenario the second he copies the paper he is Technically violating copyright law

That is of the paper is protected by that law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

::waiting for the day when all dance moves are copyrighted and I can't walk to my car without getting sued::

---

As long as you're not making money off of it, You won't get sued.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

I should have been more clear.

If someone comes up with a form of choreography that is unique and uses that in a show or something should be able to protect it somehow


Meaning a kid at a club doing the moves isn't liable, but someone who copies it and creates an identical show for profit should be liable

---

Key word there. For Profit. VtecKidd hits the nail on the head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

I never though the guys selling fake Gucci purses new York really effect GUCCI because the fake copy quality is not up to par.

---

Unless he is using the Gucci name, design, or logo... which is copyrighted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

But this guy didn't really steal anything. He went in and legitimately purchased a real copy of the paper, which paid for AJC's inks, manpower, paper, etc, and he's not claiming it as his own IP. He has his own copy machine and his own paper.

What if instead of giving it away, he charged 25 cents for it?

---

He won't get in trouble if he is not making money off of it. Just like you can get yourself free USA Today's newspapers at airport lounges or in your hotel room. Or read books for free at your local Barnes and Nobles.

If he charges .25 cents for it, it's stealing intellectual property.

** CORRECTION: In your case, since he made COPIES, he can actually get in trouble. Like Vteckidd says, he is reproducing and distributing copyrighted content without explicit permission from the author(s).

It all boils down to intent. If he buys the paper and takes it to his office and puts it on the desk in the break room for everyone to read if they want to, that's fine.

If he makes 10.000 copies, he is REPRODUCING a copyrighted content, which is wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ISAtlanta300

If he makes 10.000 copies, he is REPRODUCING a copyrighted content, which is wrong

---

so you're arguing that the act of reproduction for profit and/or personal gain makes it illegal, correct?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

so you're arguing that the act of reproduction for profit and/or personal gain makes it illegal, correct?

---

when the work belongs to someone else yes.

Plagiarism is stealing from another author, copyright really goes to the intellectual property, rights, media, money in works.

In your scenario, the SECOND the guy makes copies of the paper, he is TECHNICALLY doing something illegal and is liable. the AJC pays people to write, they then sell what they write , if you buy from them, no one is saying you cant let your buddy borrow the sports section at work. But if you go out an willingly and maliciously reproduce their product that could threaten their business, they CAN sue you and i bet you would be found guilty.

Do you think the RIAA cares if you let me borrow the newest Katy Perry cd? no, they dont. But they do care if you decide to uplaod the CD to a File Sharing service and distribute it for free to hundreds of thousands of other people.

the reproduction for profit of someone elses COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL is illegal, so is giving it away for free.

I mean, its not that hard to comprehend. IF you buy a movie ticket YOURE allowed entry, not you and 5 other people just because you bought a ticket.

but if you buy a bluray you can invite 40 people over, who cares. but if you COPY the movie to distribute, theyll come after you.

Im kinda on both sides of this issue. Have you heard what they are proposing to do in the video game industry? People buy a $65 video game. They play it, they beat it, they sell it back to gamestop for $25, gamestop then sells it for $60, then $50, then $40 etc. Gamestop makes a profit on the same game sometimes 3-4-5 times. The developer only makes it once, the initial sale.

Well, the developers are arguing that its a form of piracy. when the user buys the game at MSRP, and sells it back legally to Gamestop, and then another person buys it "used" , the developers are arguing that they are losing that second customer. The guy who waits a week to buy it used, should HAVE to buy it from the developer, not the gamestop.

I dont know if i agree with that. are they going to outlaw all games for sale on ebay then? are you not allowed to ever sell your video game after you play it? Are they going to make games locked to 1 console for 1 use only? so no replay value? I have no idea how you fix it other than

A) Lower your prices
B) offer some kind of incentive to keep the game.
C) the best way would be to make all games digital downloads tied to your social security number or something. So the game is stored in the cloud and is always for your access, but makes it much harder to "resell" or "redistribute".

So then technically it's illegal, but technically its not.

If I set a news paper down in a break room and 50 people read it, it's perfectly legal. One person exchanges money for a packet of information, 50 people read it and acquire the same information for free. If I take that paper and copy it 50 times and set it in everyone's office, it's criminal. Same packet of information, same people reading it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vteckidd

Im kinda on both sides of this issue. Have you heard what they are proposing to do in the video game industry? People buy a $65 video game. They play it, they beat it, they sell it back to gamestop for $25, gamestop then sells it for $60, then $50, then $40 etc. Gamestop makes a profit on the same game sometimes 3-4-5 times. The developer only makes it once, the initial sale.

Well, the developers are arguing that its a form of piracy. when the user buys the game at MSRP, and sells it back legally to Gamestop, and then another person buys it "used" , the developers are arguing that they are losing that second customer. The guy who waits a week to buy it used, should HAVE to buy it from the developer, not the gamestop.

I dont know if i agree with that. are they going to outlaw all games for sale on ebay then? are you not allowed to ever sell your video game after you play it? Are they going to make games locked to 1 console for 1 use only? so no replay value? I have no idea how you fix it other than

A) Lower your prices
B) offer some kind of incentive to keep the game.
C) the best way would be to make all games digital downloads tied to your social security number or something. So the game is stored in the cloud and is always for your access, but makes it much harder to "resell" or "redistribute".

---

This is where the whole IP issue is muddy! You can't say exactly who or what is ultimately the end user!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .blank cd

So then technically it's illegal, but technically its not.

If I set a news paper down in a break room and 50 people read it, it's perfectly legal. One person exchanges money for a packet of information, 50 people read it and acquire the same information for free. If I take that paper and copy it 50 times and set it in everyone's office, it's criminal. Same packet of information, same people reading it

---

absolutely which i think comes down to what we are both trying to say.

You buy a newspaper and leave it in the breakroom and 50 people read it, no big deal.

You buy a newspaper, copy it, and distribute it to 50 people to read, "illegal".

The problem is the motive of the latter. Both instances have the same outcome, but in example 1, 1 media is shared between 50 people. in the second example, 1 media is replicated and copied to be distributed.

IMO its the act of COPYING that sends them into distress. The RIAA knows that 1 CD being lent through an office building is not something they can ever stop. But what they are deathly afraid of is you copying that cd, then giving it to someone else (while still possessing the original) because then, the piracy grows exponentially. You LOAN 1 CD out, its a very slow and tedious process to spread, and once its done being loaned, the cd is moved on. Or, the person goes out an buys it.

If you COPY that CD and give it to everyone in your building, then they can copy and distribute the copy, so on and so forth. Also, a copy removes the incentive to go out and purchase the original.

Take your break room for instance, leave a newspaper behind. Well if someone WANTS a certain article to keep or bring home, they have to go out an buy the paper. You COPY it, they no longer have to do that.

i believe that is at the heart of the issue