Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

  • Thread starter drumming sort of person
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I did actually buy this CD. So i don't feel bad about sharing it here. Those who gather the Money will only ever be envious of the Ones who Create the Money, it's how it's always been. Nothing new just different Technology. https://youtu.be/CGcONiRQqcc

Who in the world is David Lindley? I'm going to have to Goodle this guy and then listen to some of his tunes on Toutube.

Then I will buy one of his CDs! Promise.

CDs are so cheap nowadays, I reckon it can't be much more expensive than downloading from a legitimate source. It's nice to have a physical representation of the music with a cover.

I then convert it on my PC to MP3 for my mobile device. I still have the CD as backup in case my hard drive suddenly bites the dust. Simples.
 
I'm more than happy to re-state my concerns/questions I have about the type of control looking to be implemented by media groups. Freedom, liberty and consumer rights are very important to me!

Like I said, these are very valid concerns. Here's a thought that could strike fear into all our hearts:

Here on the forum we are relatively free to exchange information how we like. Amongst other things, I regularly see posts with links to youtube and posts with images taken from the internet.

Are we doing bad things here that are detrimental to artists? I think not. It's clear to me that this site is in fact much in support and promotion of artists.

So, what if the internet were policed in such a way that it led to this site being curtailed in any way? That would be a sad, repressive move and would be completely unjustifiable in the context of the civil liberties that we (hopefully) enjoy. Hence, I can see the challenges of trying to "do good" on the internet without "doing bad".

Just a thought.

By the way, my aforementioned post is still in the pipeline. It's going to take at least half a day to find the exact post extracts that I want to quote. And the trawl begins...
 
I've read most all of this thread. I was gonna reply. Really, really wanted to. But then remembered - my opinion is my own; nobody really cares about it but me! Might as well keep it to myself.

But, one note. In my world, if the greater preponderance of any population wants one thing over another, that's what we all get. Safety? Liberty? Some compromise? I guess we'll see!
 
So, what if the internet were policed in such a way that it led to this site being curtailed in any way? That would be a sad, repressive move and would be completely unjustifiable in the context of the civil liberties that we (hopefully) enjoy.

If some website forum doesn't let you say what you feel you need to say (and no website is under any obligation to do that btw), you are free to create your own website where you can publish anything you wish.
 
Recording Industry Association of America’s Cary Sherman said:
YouTube is the world’s biggest on-demand music service, with more than 1.5 billion logged-in monthly users. But it exploits a ‘safe harbor’ in the law that was never intended for it, to avoid paying music creators fairly. This not only hurts musicians, it also jeopardizes music’s fragile recovery and gives YouTube an unfair competitive advantage that harms the digital marketplace and innovation.

Lyor claims the focus on this safe harbor is ‘a distraction,’ but it’s YouTube that seems obsessed with this legal pretext, probably because it’s the safe harbor that enables YouTube to drive down payments to creators, inappropriately. The safe harbor was intended to protect passive Internet platforms with no knowledge of what its users are doing, not active music distributors like YouTube.”

http://variety.com/2017/digital/new...log-post-from-youtubes-lyor-cohen-1202533230/
 
Chris Castle said:
Moral rights are largely statutory rights that maintain and protect the connection between an author and their work. (As I highlighted in Artist Rights are Human Rights, moral rights are not economic rights like copyright, but transcend those rights. This is why you see language in the human rights documents, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that essentially track the moral rights language.)

The two principal moral rights are the right of integrity and the right of attribution. These are recognized in the Berne Convention.

When it comes to attribution, or what we might think of as credit, there is a form of imperfect social contract between record companies, film studios and television producers with the creative community. This is largely thanks to years of collective bargaining with guilds such as the Writers Guild, SAG-AFTRA and the Directors Guild as anyone who has been to a Writers Guild credit arbitration can attest. It is unlikely that any of these would trade on a creators name.

The place where we have problems, of course, is with the New Boss companies like YouTube, Google and Facebook. These companies don’t just trade on your name, they SELL your name as an advertising keyword thus associating the artist’s name with products, works or services without the artist’s knowledge, albeit somewhat in the background.
https://musictechpolicy.com/2017/08/20/youtube-facebook-and-moral-rights/
 
But what if somebody else steals the music and the another somebody steals it from them?

What if i had 4GB of music on a flashdrive and I lose it? Does the person who finds it feel obligated to find the owner of the flashdrive? What if they found it and liked the music on there? Delete it right away?
 
just going to leave this here. he he!
 

Attachments

  • 20915235_1879226232118077_7781402419783248420_n.jpg
    20915235_1879226232118077_7781402419783248420_n.jpg
    77.6 KB · Views: 153
just going to leave this here. he he!

Oh man! That is cool!

Jimmy still digs digging for vinyl!

I would have thought that in his ripe old age, with all his money, he'd have found a less labour intensive way of looking for music.

Sometimes our elders really do know better...
 
Of course artists aren't forced to do anything. And of course they aren't owed anything by default. But that's beside the point.
With respect, I don't think it's besides the point. At no point in my life did I ever feel that anyone owed me compensation for art directly unless they were commissioning the art specifically. The idea that we can feel entitled to anything because we've created art that we assign value to ourselves doesn't hold a lot of water; EVEN if that art is shared. I think anyone with a artistic bone in their body would love to be an artist and get a living from it, but that's just not realistic because no matter how much we want it to be otherwise, Capitalism and our society does not value art the same way we value a carpenter or shoe maker. Feeling entitled to money any time we can prove someone consumed our art (which does not deprive us or others) is not logical any more than a renaissance artist sitting by his sculpture with a ledger. Art galleries do not track who looked at what art and pay the artists for each view, even though they make money from the content they host.

The point is that some artist's material is being used by third parties for the immense benefit of these third parties.
Abstractly, I agree. Realistically, as I said, these changes can't really be stopped and information flow is just a lot more free than it was for all of human history. This is BECAUSE of the work that google does, not in spite of it. They profit by being a content upload and delivery service, not by stealing and selling the music of others. Period.

Once they have done that it just confirms very clearly that they attribute value to that content, lots of value. At that point the artist has every right to expect their fair share of the spoils.
Google adding ad and metric revenue on top of all content is not the same thing as assuming a specific value for any specific content, nor is it the same as directly stealing and selling use/access of someone's content.

Well, here we are moving closer to agreement. I recognise that you at least identify a considerbale flaw in the way things are currently handled, and allowed to be handled. I think most of us are probably much more in agreement than we realise. I think there's a general aspiration amongst us for the music world that things should be much better. Despite accusations by others that some here do not care about musicians, I find that a little far-fetched.

IMO, what happens when a system goes through large-scale changes is that it creates tensions. In the worst possible case these tensions have a polarising effect and people find themselves pushed into groups of "changers" versus "rectionaries". I think when a situation is strongly polarising it's a clear indication of an imbalance which must be addressed. People's grievances cannot be ignored or talked down in the name of change and having to adapt.

It's not good for wider society.
Well, I look at it differently than lots of folks here. You say it's not good for society, and I see society benefiting immensely from these systems. As I said, the very stuff we're talking about here is also the same stuff that totally enables other artists like us to upload, produce, promote and earn a living from content. If a popular artist wanted to, not only could they use this platform to distribute, become known, and keep in touch with fans, they can also take it upon themselves to police their own content that makes it to the systems from other sources. If they see their art on youtube monetized for some thief, they can immediately take ownership and start receiving the money that would have gone to the up-loader. In a lot of cases this is even somewhat retroactive should a dispute arise. Instead of being lazy and expecting checks to show up because your friendly recording group has your best interests at heart (yea, right) you could be using this system to do it yourself. It just means we have to adapt and that the old business models (which never worked that well for artists anyway) need to go the way of the coal miner, carriage driver, or any number of other professions, artistic or not.

It's both good and bad that users can monetize content directly. I spoke of the negative bathwater without also mentioning the baby we don't necessarily want to throw out. Google is not a thief in the night the way recording groups would say, and in fact is doing more to personally empower artists than any of the greedy corporate music labels ever did or wanted to.
 
Well, how very very absent-minded of me. Of course I should have remembered the old bootleg "business" (after all, I own a few bootlegs myself, naughty me).
"Bootlegging" was actually very minor compared to the outright piracy through tape media.

The underground bootleg business was indeed heavily lambasted as being a parasitical drain on artists and the legitimate music industry. Some folks were very "passionate and forceful" in their combat of bootlegging (Peter Grant, manager of Led Zeppelin, ring a bell anyone?). So pirating did of course exist already.
Maybe I remember it better for some reason, but I remember the music industry being in a huge tizzy over all the money they weren't getting due to piracy. Run a few google searches on tape piracy and you'll see what I mean. Consider that the huge majority of the blank tapes sold eventually had unauthorized unpaid copies of music on them. Did you know that the music industry went after it just like it's doing now with Google's "digital tapes"? At one point, recording groups were attempting both to sue and create legislation giving them access to blank tape, and tape recorder profits, and I'm not joking. They blamed the content media companies and thought they should be doing something to stop people from doing what they wanted... Just like now.

However, I stand by my initial comparison between "then" and "now".
Whilst some folks said at the time that bootlegging was losing them huge amounts of money, I don't quite accept that the problem was anywhere this acute. Bootlegs were mostly live recordings of at best very mediocre quality. Because of their low quality and the "underground" nature of their availability they were hardly going to present any considerable problem. Instead, I think they were just an additional source of material for die-hard fans who were already buying all the official albums. Record companies still in general held firm control of the most desirable content and the distribution of it. In this sense bootleggers really were like pirates. Fringe elements that might have been irksome and made the occasional haul of bounty, but their activity was never going to lead to the established order being seriously troubled.
Again, expand the thought from just the bootlegging of concerts and look at the purpose most blank tapes were bought for. Copying music.

Like tape copies, bootlegs are insignificant in comparison to the enormity of the challenges presented by contempory technologies.
Well, yes and no. Don't you remember all the "home taping is killing music" campaigns?
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/13/b...industry-hopes-bar-taping.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/21/a...lties-on-recorders-and-blank-audio-tapes.html
Look at the date of that article when you read.

Here's the reality. Google is not killing music. Home taping didn't kill music. Music and art are in no danger of going anywhere soon. The only thing in danger is some of the antiquated ways artists were able to make livings in the past through legislation that's no longer enforceable through any acceptable means(at least without taking freedoms, consumer rights, and privacy at the govt level). There are lots of new opportunities, and even if not, art can still be for the sake of art rather than the expectation of profit.

Home_taping_is_killing_music.png
 
Last edited:
They profit by being a content upload and delivery service, not by stealing and selling the music of others. Period.

Google adding ad and metric revenue on top of all content is not the same thing as assuming a specific value for any specific content, nor is it the same as directly stealing and selling use/access of someone's content.

Well, I look at it differently than lots of folks here. You say it's not good for society, and I see society benefiting immensely from these systems. As I said, the very stuff we're talking about here is also the same stuff that totally enables other artists like us to upload, produce, promote and earn a living from content.

RIAA said:
YouTube uses the safe harbor to skew negotiations with music creators in its favor; to offer a below-market rate and say “take it or leave it,” knowing that by “leaving it” music creators will have to spend countless hours and resources sending takedown notices when they find unauthorized copy after copy of their music on YouTube, only to find them pop right back up again.

That’s precisely why dozens of music organizations and thousands of individual creators across the entire global music spectrum have banded together to protest the existing laws — valuethemusic.com — or simply asked YouTube to be a better partner: YouTubeCanDoBetter. Their concerns are real, their indignation is genuine. To dismiss that is to turn a deaf ear to an entire creative community."

https://medium.com/@RIAA/five-stubborn-truths-about-youtube-and-value-gap-4faff133271f
 
Last edited:
The only thing in danger is some of the antiquated ways artists were able to make livings in the past through legislation that's no longer enforceable through any acceptable means(at least without taking freedoms, consumer rights, and privacy at the govt level). There are lots of new opportunities, and even if not, art can still be for the sake of art rather than the expectation of profit.

Terry Hart said:
John Adams famously said, “Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist.” Property was really important, and they saw copyright as a type of property. By giving authors these exclusive rights, it enabled this marketplace for creative works. This is consistent with other things you hear. When the Continental Congress recommended to the states, the Committee that made that recommendation said they were “persuaded that nothing is more properly a man’s own than the fruit of his study and that the protection and security of literary property would greatly tend to encourage genius, to promote useful discoveries, and to the general extension of arts and commerce.” You’ll see this elsewhere, where they talked a lot about how this property regime would encourage the types of works that they thought would really benefit culture and the nation as a whole.

http://www.copyhype.com/2017/08/copyright-and-the-historical-record/
 
You say it's not good for society, and I see society benefiting immensely from these systems.

PARASITIC EXPLOITATION IS NOT INNOVATION: FREE AND OPEN SHOULD BE FAIR AND HONEST
The illegal exploitation of individuals for commercial gain is not innovation, it is techno-thuggery and cyberbullying.


We see many companies on the internet illegally exploiting the work, labor, innovation and creations of others simply because they can get away with it. We’re often told that innovation requires the unauthorized exploitation of creators in some kind of technological determinism that rejects the innovation of creators because it “scales”. That is just another way of using “convenience” as an excuse for theft. Any business that requires the illegal exploitation of individuals to be profitable is not a business but rather is a parasitic engine of oppression.
 
https://thetrichordist.com/2012/06/05/artists-know-thy-enemy/

Artists, Know Thy Enemy – Who’s Ripping You Off and How…

The enemy are the for profit businesses making money from our recordings and songwriting illegally. Let’s be clear about this, our battle is with businesses ripping us off by illegally exploiting our work for profit. This is not about our fans. It is about commercial companies in the businesses of profiting from our work, paying us nothing and then telling us to blame our fans. That is the ultimate in cowardice and dishonesty.
 
Watso, what do you do for a living?

As I previously hinted at; combination of IT work, Photography, and music make up the whole of my income. The IT work being the lions share and the other two will wax/wane to one side or the other for periods of time. One job begets another, you know I'm sure as I've gathered you also freelance a bit.
 
RIAA said:
YouTube uses the safe harbor to skew negotiations with music creators in its favor; to offer a below-market rate and say “take it or leave it,”
First, it's not just youtube. This is kind of my argument in a nutshell. The internet will force your hand in the matter if you don't adapt. "Below-market-rate" sounds like a cool term and all, but when you're not really talking about a product, but rather a set of 1's and 0's that can be copied with no effort and "you" don't even have a part in the transaction, it has zero meaning. "Market-rate" is supposed to be what the actual market will bear and realistically pay for something. It's not supposed to be a term for "they aren't paying as much as we want them to". In short, the RIAA does not have the power to determine "market rate" at this point in human advancement. Only artistic merit and hard work will give your stuff worth in this current world. That might mean "hours" enforcing your content licensing if that's what you feel is best. Tough nuggets. You get money for making art, which you're not entitled to.

That’s precisely why dozens of music organizations and thousands of individual creators across the entire global music spectrum have banded together to protest the existing laws — www.valuethemusic.com — or simply asked YouTube to be a better partner: YouTubeCanDoBetter. Their concerns are real, their indignation is genuine. To dismiss that is to turn a deaf ear to an entire creative community."
I really like the sound of "youtubecandobetter". I agree. We all have to be on our toes. It's a quickly changing world. The more we pay attention and advocate for ourselves, the better.

https://www.defectivebydesign.org/faq

https://www.eff.org/issues/drm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top