Is SOPA bad?

Lawmakers on Friday indefinitely postponed anti-piracy legislation that pits Hollywood against Silicon Valley, two days after major Internet companies staged an online protest by blacking out parts of prominent websites.

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid postponed a showdown vote in his chamber on the Protect Intellectual Property Act, or PIPA for short, that had been scheduled for January 24.

Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, followed suit, saying his panel would delay action on similar legislation called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or SOPA, until there is wider agreement on the legislation.

I posted before I read Duncans post. Sorry.
 
Great news guys, thanks for sharing !!!

Now let's stay alert 'cause they'll be coming back for more soon.

Cheers!
 
If the worst does happen, will Drummerworld go down?
 
But how will you earn the money to buy the food/pay the taxes. Without owning what you create how can you make even a penny from it? How would you charge a high price for live perfomances without the label promotion in the first place? The starving musician thing is all very romantic but it starts to hurt the old noggin after a while.

can't tell if you are joking? i've been making money through music since I was 16 lol.
you don't only have to play your own music to make money do you. infact most people don't.

why not treat other things you could do which relate to music (sessions, producing, live sound, arranging, covers, management, branding) as your work? that way you can still release your music on your own terms. of course it depends how much hard work you're willing to put in. you only get back what you put in.

oh and why do you need a record company to do promotion lol?
if i add enough people on facebook I could probably arrange a gig in kiev (ukraine) and have 100 people turn up. that would still be enough money to cover the cost of fuel (if i was driving from bucharest for example).

you realise most of the "big" record companies now have under 200 staff. that is the big independents.

but you're right, it's just all a very romantic dream.
 
From MY Congressman



January 20, 2012



Because of your strong concerns with online piracy bills currently under consideration in Congress like H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), I thought you might be interested to learn of recent events in this regard.

On January 17th, after thoroughly reviewing the draft version of SOPA, you will be pleased to know that I formally expressed my opposition to this legislation with my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee, which has since suspended deliberations on this controversial measure. As you are fully aware, H.R. 3261, a bill that I never sponsored in the first place, was introduced earlier this Congress in an attempt to prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property.

While it is important that we protect copyrighted material, like you, I feel we can address this issue without restricting the Internet. Our democracy is founded on certain unalienable rights including the freedom of speech and expression. Unfortunately, the current version of SOPA would violate this basic right and is nothing more than modern day censorship. The Internet belongs to the people and instead we must support policies in Congress that promote a free and boundless world wide web.

As always, I greatly appreciate knowing of your support for my efforts on this important matter of mutual concern. With best wishes and personal regards, I am
 
From MY Congressman



January 20, 2012



Because of your strong concerns with online piracy bills currently under consideration in Congress like H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), I thought you might be interested to learn of recent events in this regard.

On January 17th, after thoroughly reviewing the draft version of SOPA, you will be pleased to know that I formally expressed my opposition to this legislation with my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee, which has since suspended deliberations on this controversial measure. As you are fully aware, H.R. 3261, a bill that I never sponsored in the first place, was introduced earlier this Congress in an attempt to prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property.

While it is important that we protect copyrighted material, like you, I feel we can address this issue without restricting the Internet. Our democracy is founded on certain unalienable rights including the freedom of speech and expression. Unfortunately, the current version of SOPA would violate this basic right and is nothing more than modern day censorship. The Internet belongs to the people and instead we must support policies in Congress that promote a free and boundless world wide web.

As always, I greatly appreciate knowing of your support for my efforts on this important matter of mutual concern. With best wishes and personal regards, I am



Mr. Mayor, way to go and thank you.
 
I'm actually surprised that this question was even asked at all, let alone on an open forum on the internet itself.

Kind of weird, to be honest.
 
can't tell if you are joking? i've been making money through music since I was 16 lol.
you don't only have to play your own music to make money do you. infact most people don't.

why not treat other things you could do which relate to music (sessions, producing, live sound, arranging, covers, management, branding) as your work? that way you can still release your music on your own terms. of course it depends how much hard work you're willing to put in. you only get back what you put in.

oh and why do you need a record company to do promotion lol?
if i add enough people on facebook I could probably arrange a gig in kiev (ukraine) and have 100 people turn up. that would still be enough money to cover the cost of fuel (if i was driving from bucharest for example).

you realise most of the "big" record companies now have under 200 staff. that is the big independents.

but you're right, it's just all a very romantic dream.

Yes, the fact is that the vast majority of pro musicians earn most if not all of their money from incomes other than royalties; even in today's climate, you're still one of the talented few if you see anything worthwhile on a PRS cheque.
If nothing else than on a point of principle, the concept of copyright shouldn't be allowed to die. Where's the incentive to maintain quality? It pisses me off badly to think that individuals feel they have a right to upload enormous amounts of other people's hard work and investment. I've got no problem seeing those people sent to prison. That said, badly drafted legislation such as this could never be a good thing.
 
Yes, the fact is that the vast majority of pro musicians earn most if not all of their money from incomes other than royalties; even in today's climate, you're still one of the talented few if you see anything worthwhile on a PRS cheque.
If nothing else than on a point of principle, the concept of copyright shouldn't be allowed to die. Where's the incentive to maintain quality? It pisses me off badly to think that individuals feel they have a right to upload enormous amounts of other people's hard work and investment. I've got no problem seeing those people sent to prison. That said, badly drafted legislation such as this could never be a good thing.

so why would anyone even bother trying to earn income through copyright?
if you already know that most young people these days have ipods, computers, the internet, and prefer to download the thousands of songs they listen to for free (even music they may feel very passionate about) then why would you bother trying to rely on obtaining income from that source?
(Note; I used the word listen to, not own, because I find it hard how anyone can "own" a data file, when everyone else in the world can also "own" said data at the exact same time. This is why analogies to do with stealing cars/etc instantly make people look stupid. data is to cars what god is to science - see, now i look stupid too! ;).

forget all the moral stuff, i don't care about any of the surrounding noise.

If you are trying to make a living through selling your music (and that alone, take everything else out of play, including playing live) then you will end up losing.

Metallica (losers), Elton John (loser).
Prince (winner), Radiohead (winners).

Now these are two sets of high profile artists. What's the difference between those two sets of people? Well the latter understand the market they are selling to. I would argue that prince & radiohead would be playing music for counts & countesses in country houses if we were in the 1700's but that's just my imagination overacting.

If you are a band/artist nowadays and want to make money through royalties on a copyright that you own on a piece of data which is infinite and which can be zoomed around the world via cables instantaneously then I wish you good luck.
I'd also wish you would stop being so tragically naive and go get a day job. Then you can release music on your terms, without having to worry about "illegal downloads". You can just ignore them, and release your music for its sole purpose - to be listened to!

Now of course EJ could have played piano back in the day, he just would have required someone else to write the words for him. Or maybe he would just play piano without words? Some people used to do that too.
 
I'd also wish you would stop being so tragically naive and go get a day job. Then you can release music on your terms, without having to worry about "illegal downloads".

Well, I can't quarrel with that, although I think you're being equally naive in thinking social networking could ever be an effective route in building a fan base big enough to sustain a career.

How did Prince and Radiohead get to points in the careers where they had the freedom to release their music for free? By making music that people wanted to buy and therefore having the investment of record labels to promote their music to the public.
What's the future for record labels and publishing companies? Is there any value in investing in artist development? Will home recordings suffice? The worry has to be an eventual dearth in depth and breadth of talent.
 
In my world there would simply be these places that musicians resided in.
Various musicians & dudes. Prince, Dr.Dre, Opeth, Tool, Outkast, George Martin. Many more of course, but they would be a decent start.

The public could visit this place and hand over an item of value, which would be exchanged to see the musicians play their music. Of course the music would be unreleased. There would be a ban on all recording devices and heavy security. If the public didn't like it, well they don't have to watch! They can just stand outside in the rain.

The price to hear a performance would not be high, it would be just at a point to cover the costs of running the joint, and maybe a little extra to afford some food.

Anyway that's just my idea for the future. I didn't really feel like destroying your post because quite frankly it's something i've read a million times before (and i've debated this argument with much more industry savvy people than you seem to be). Whether you like my opinion is irrelevant, it will be sitting here forever.

Imagine if Kahn/Cerf had have made a royalty on TCP/IP and forced you to pay to use it every time you wanted to access a webpage. Mmmmhhh why the money would be utterly stupendous! But they didn't. Because the internet is free.

Just remember one thing Jones. If you don't want to lose out on royalties, then don't upload it to the internet yourself. And if anyone else does, then issue a takedown notice, because you're well within your rights to, as long as you are the owner of the copyright then it will be gone.
As long as your record label doesn't own it.
Or you traded it away for a gram of coke in Tijuana.

Now i've had enough of this fruitless debate, as it goes round and round in circles (everything always does that but that's a debate that I'm not sure this board can handle). Time to make some tea and record some drums. Ta ta.
 
Anyway that's just my idea for the future. I didn't really feel like destroying your post because quite frankly it's something i've read a million times before (and i've debated this argument with much more industry savvy people than you seem to be). Whether you like my opinion is irrelevant, it will be sitting here forever.


Sorry you feel debating two points of view is fruitless, and sorry you feel the need to turn hostile.
 
I'm not being hostile Jones. Really I'm not.
The last time I left Drummerworld for months it was because of stuff regarding downloading/the music industry. Don't infer my posts as being hostile, that's just you projecting feelings onto words that aren't there! See now I could infer from your words that you were getting defensive because I was talking with confidence. But of course that isn't the case at all.

let me type my mantra; do not debate illegal downloading on random forums. waste of time.

See it's past the point where I even need to debate the "points of view" on this subject, I simply give my opinion. If my opinion is of any value then people can read it, otherwise they can keep calm and carry on. No skin off my back!
See, if I am for illegal downloading, then why do I even need to worry about those against it? Remember, the majority of young people are on my side, and i don't like big businesses that want to steal my money!
 
Short answer, yes. Not because it stops you from downloading stuff, since we'll always be able to get shit for free. It pretty much gives whatever agency the ability to censor the internet. Deeming whatever they feel to be copywrite infringement to be taken down. You want to post a drum cover? Hope they let you keep it up. Maybe they wouldn't do that, maybe they will just stick to piracy, but why leave it to chance?
 
I'm not being hostile Jones. Really I'm not.
The last time I left Drummerworld for months it was because of stuff regarding downloading/the music industry. Don't infer my posts as being hostile, that's just you projecting feelings onto words that aren't there! See now I could infer from your words that you were getting defensive because I was talking with confidence. But of course that isn't the case at all.

let me type my mantra; do not debate illegal downloading on random forums. waste of time.

But this is one of the most crucial and interesting topics in music at the moment, there's nothing better to debate on, surely. No doubt, I have an opinion, as do you; by thrashing it out we might just come up with something interesting. I know you've got your problems, let's just avoid the childish stuff.
 
Things are pretty wacky at the moment. I think there's too many lawyers involved.

YouTube allows you to download your own videos. However, if the content is identified as copyright then you can't. Yet I can't download the vid of some of my old band's unpublished music that I'd uploaded (I just wanted the compressed file). No idea how it happened. No idea what recourse there is.

One time I uploaded an old KD Lang track from a long forgotten album to YouTube. I was going through my old casettes for stuff worthy of being digitised - most of the cassettes are about 25 years old. So I uploaded it, mainly to show off a very cool drum track and to reinvigorate interest in KD's early stuff.

I got a take down notice almost immediately.

That's personally irritating.

More importantly, the broader system is messy - whimsical and unaccountable. The law is cumbersome, a blunt instrument, and it can only prevent unauthorised copying and distribution with significant imposts on others' freedom. IMO the costs aren't worth the benefits.

A technological solution is best.
 
Back
Top