DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM   

Go Back   DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM > General Discussion

General Discussion General discussion forum for all drum related topics. Use this forum to exchange ideas and information with your fellow drummers.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #161  
Old 08-20-2017, 10:30 AM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 384
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by paradiddle pete View Post
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.
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
  #162  
Old 08-20-2017, 10:41 AM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 384
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post

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...
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
  #163  
Old 08-20-2017, 04:07 PM
Smoke Smoke is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lansing, MI, USA
Posts: 620
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

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!
  #164  
Old 08-20-2017, 07:51 PM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,075
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Stand View Post
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.
  #165  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:45 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,075
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Recording Industry Association of America’s Cary Sherman
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/news...en-1202533230/
  #166  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:50 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,075
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Castle
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/...-moral-rights/
  #167  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:52 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,075
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter Via
Google receives 900 million notices a year about copyright-infringing material available on its platforms. If creatives who own copyrighted material tell Google 900,000,000 times annually to take it down, imagine the millions illegally enjoying our content!
https://creativefuture.org/the-copyr...ing-americans/
  #168  
Old 08-22-2017, 03:24 AM
Midnite Zephyr's Avatar
Midnite Zephyr Midnite Zephyr is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Surf City, USA
Posts: 6,244
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

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?
__________________
Drumming for fun.
  #169  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:22 AM
paradiddle pete's Avatar
paradiddle pete paradiddle pete is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: down south
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

just going to leave this here. he he!
Attached Images
 
__________________
petey poo!
  #170  
Old 08-22-2017, 02:15 PM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 384
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by paradiddle pete View Post
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...
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
  #171  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:09 AM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,635
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Stand View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"I always wanted to be remembered for; being honest. Nothing else is worth a damn." - Lemmy
  #172  
Old 08-23-2017, 12:28 AM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,635
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Stand View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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/bu...pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/21/ar...dio-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.

__________________
"I always wanted to be remembered for; being honest. Nothing else is worth a damn." - Lemmy

Last edited by Dr_Watso; 08-23-2017 at 12:48 AM.
  #173  
Old 08-23-2017, 01:59 AM
DrumWild DrumWild is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 387
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Don't copy that floppy!
__________________
I don't really feel like I belong here, so please feel free to delete my account.
  #174  
Old 08-23-2017, 03:07 AM
toddbishop toddbishop is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,801
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Watso, what do you do for a living?
__________________
Visit Cruise Ship Drummer! - a drumming blog | 2017 CSD! Book of the Blog now available
  #175  
Old 08-23-2017, 03:57 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,075
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RIAA
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-stubbo...p-4faff133271f

Last edited by drumming sort of person; 08-23-2017 at 07:17 AM.
  #176  
Old 08-23-2017, 04:02 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,075
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry Hart
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/copy...orical-record/
  #177  
Old 08-23-2017, 04:10 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,075
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.


Quote:
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.
  #178  
Old 08-23-2017, 04:12 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,075
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

https://thetrichordist.com/2012/06/0...now-thy-enemy/

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

Quote:
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.
  #179  
Old 08-23-2017, 04:29 AM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,635
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbishop View Post
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.
__________________
"I always wanted to be remembered for; being honest. Nothing else is worth a damn." - Lemmy
  #180  
Old 08-23-2017, 05:02 AM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,635
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by RIAA
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.

Quote:
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
__________________
"I always wanted to be remembered for; being honest. Nothing else is worth a damn." - Lemmy
  #181  
Old 08-23-2017, 06:25 AM
toddbishop toddbishop is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,801
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.
YouTube isn't "the internet", it's a for-profit business. Any other entity who does the same thing will also be a for-profit business. These are not impersonal, unaccountable forces at work here.

Quote:
"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.
This is just your personal spin to degrade the value of creative works and pretend intellectual property doesn't exist. You can read up on copyright law to learn that intellectual property does exist, and is as real a concept as anything else in law. And those 1s and 0s clearly are a product, or they would not be the subject of the transaction you admit exists. They're not random 1s and 0s, they're 1s and 0s encoding a creative work that is attracting users to YouTube and allowing them to sell advertising. It's a very direct, elementary form of economic value and again and again I mention it, and you refuse to acknowledge it. You're not objecting to the fact that these online businesses pay any royalty at all (pittance though it is) for works played on their sites, so you clearly don't actually believe there is no economic transaction here involving the artist.

I understand I can't force you to be intellectually honest and answer these points.

Quote:
"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.
I guess they mean "the natural market rate if people like this weren't allowing rampant copyright infringement on their site, and paying an unsustainably small royalty, based strictly on what they feel like paying, for legal videos."

This is of course a tactic employed by all of these businesses: artificially drive the price of music down to near zero, drive traditional competitors out of business, then clean up. I might not object if they would pay the creative element a living wage, and if they invested in artist development-- something they clearly have no interest in doing.

Quote:
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.
I feel like this is the crux of it for you. Lecturing artists on their "entitlement", and "true" merit, and all the hard work they're not doing. There's always this deeply personal resentment right under the surface with very committed piracy/tech boosters. Or it's right out in the open. I've had many of these discussions and I've seen these anti-artist attitudes again and again.

Quote:
I really like the sound of "youtubecandobetter". I agree.
Really? How? You've done nothing but shill for them (that is the correct word for it) this entire discussion.
__________________
Visit Cruise Ship Drummer! - a drumming blog | 2017 CSD! Book of the Blog now available
  #182  
Old 08-23-2017, 07:18 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,075
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Debbie Harry, lead singer of Blondie
“In a world in which few people are paying for music, it is imperative for companies that generate enormous revenues, such as YouTube, to support the musicians and artists who have made that platform what it is today.”
Quote:
Streaming music makes listening to the songs we love easier than ever. But some streaming services don’t pay artists fairly.

Some companies are trying to make it right. But others, like YouTube, abuse the law. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act needs to be updated.
Quote:
Some streaming services negotiate fair market deals and license the music they distribute. But others that rely on users to upload music, like YouTube, claim they don’t need a license, hiding behind the outdated DMCA law in the U.S. and similar laws in Europe to get away with it. The result? Services like YouTube reap benefits from distributing thousands of songs uploaded illegally every day.

That’s called a value gap, and it’s a problem. YouTube is the most popular music listening service in the world, and it’s pocketing millions by exploiting legal loopholes and shortchanging artists of their fair share.

https://valuethemusic.com/

https://valuethemusic.com/wp-content...on_on_DCMA.pdf
  #183  
Old 08-23-2017, 08:05 AM
AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 935
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbishop View Post
YouTube isn't "the internet", it's a for-profit business. Any other entity who does the same thing will also be a for-profit business. These are not impersonal, unaccountable forces at work here.
I think there's a point missing: YouTube does make an effort to combat piracy on their site. I once had the (rather flattering) experience of having one of my band's cover songs flagged and removed for copyright infringement. When I uploaded a Beatles song that I had made a video for - as a present for someone - it was immediately flagged and pulled down, even though it was a private link.

Facebook is even more aggressive at detecting copyright infringement.

Could they do more? Possibly. Could they do more without infringing on everyone else's rights and ability to use their services? Probably not.

But more importantly: what is the point?

I think you (and people arguing similarly) are putting way too much hope into this "if we just make YouTube pay a few pennies every song the music industry will be saved" pipe dream. Even if they pay ... they'll pay the licensing companies, who will continue to shell out fractions of fractions of a penny to the actual artist.

Even if we had a "Netflix for music", the actual artists probably wouldn't make a living wage (just as most artists scraped by even before the Internet).

It's like the people who think Erin Brockovich got a bunch of poor suffering people money. The lawyers had a big party with that money (look it up, it will make you hate humanity).

The real money in the average musician's life used to be gigs. Gigs aren't drying up ... they've dried up. And we can rant and rail about that, but that's just the way it is. You can't get people back into bars or concerts by forcing them at gunpoint to pay $0.99 a song.
  #184  
Old 08-23-2017, 08:34 AM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,635
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken View Post
I think there's a point missing: YouTube does make an effort to combat piracy on their site. I once had the (rather flattering) experience of having one of my band's cover songs flagged and removed for copyright infringement. When I uploaded a Beatles song that I had made a video for - as a present for someone - it was immediately flagged and pulled down, even though it was a private link.

Facebook is even more aggressive at detecting copyright infringement.

Could they do more? Possibly. Could they do more without infringing on everyone else's rights and ability to use their services? Probably not.

But more importantly: what is the point?

I think you (and people arguing similarly) are putting way too much hope into this "if we just make YouTube pay a few pennies every song the music industry will be saved" pipe dream. Even if they pay ... they'll pay the licensing companies, who will continue to shell out fractions of fractions of a penny to the actual artist.

Even if we had a "Netflix for music", the actual artists probably wouldn't make a living wage (just as most artists scraped by even before the Internet).

It's like the people who think Erin Brockovich got a bunch of poor suffering people money. The lawyers had a big party with that money (look it up, it will make you hate humanity).

The real money in the average musician's life used to be gigs. Gigs aren't drying up ... they've dried up. And we can rant and rail about that, but that's just the way it is. You can't get people back into bars or concerts by forcing them at gunpoint to pay $0.99 a song.
Very well said. Romanticizing something doesn't make it reality and if they think we'll sit by while they destroy the internet or attempt to force unwanted DRM hardware and proprietary standards, well, no. It's been tried before, and it's not going to happen.

And as I said, with the fall of big corporate music, we have a huge opportunity to start again and do the majority of it ourselves. Youtube, in fact is one potential conduit. Countless "channels" make enough revenue to support entire production teams.
__________________
"I always wanted to be remembered for; being honest. Nothing else is worth a damn." - Lemmy
  #185  
Old 08-23-2017, 08:41 AM
toddbishop toddbishop is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,801
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken View Post
I think there's a point missing: YouTube does make an effort to combat piracy on their site. I once had the (rather flattering) experience of having one of my band's cover songs flagged and removed for copyright infringement. When I uploaded a Beatles song that I had made a video for - as a present for someone - it was immediately flagged and pulled down, even though it was a private link.
Whatever your experience with those two videos, it's clearly not the case. Search any band you like, and you'll find many videos that are obviously not owned by the copyright holder. Often with tens or hundreds of thousands of views, or more. As I wrote earlier in the thread, YouTube will not accept copyright violation notices from anyone but the actual copyright holder, guaranteeing the site will have plenty of infringing content.

Quote:
Facebook is even more aggressive at detecting copyright infringement.
Even if true, Facebook isn't a major medium for streaming music as is YouTube.

Quote:
Could they do more? Possibly. Could they do more without infringing on everyone else's rights and ability to use their services? Probably not.
What legal rights would be infringed, specifically?

Quote:
But more importantly: what is the point?

I think you (and people arguing similarly) are putting way too much hope into this "if we just make YouTube pay a few pennies every song the music industry will be saved" pipe dream.
I haven't expressed any particular "hope" about this at all. But why is internet companies paying royalties for their site content a pipe dream? Why is it any different than any other commercial use of a creative work?

Quote:
Even if they pay ... they'll pay the licensing companies, who will continue to shell out fractions of fractions of a penny to the actual artist.
It depends on the artist, and the deal they have with their record label. And you forget that they are paying right now. What they pay is just inadequate, and their site is loaded with copyright infringing content.
__________________
Visit Cruise Ship Drummer! - a drumming blog | 2017 CSD! Book of the Blog now available
  #186  
Old 08-23-2017, 08:49 AM
AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 935
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
Very well said. Romanticizing something doesn't make it reality and if they think we'll sit by while they destroy the internet or attempt to force unwanted DRM hardware and proprietary standards, well, no. It's been tried before, and it's not going to happen.

And as I said, with the fall of big corporate music, we have a huge opportunity to start again and do the majority of it ourselves. Youtube, in fact is one potential conduit. Countless "channels" make enough revenue to support entire production teams.
A great analogy for this is video games. The PC gaming market has long been haunted by the specter of piracy. It's also a problem with consoles, but markedly less so because the medium for console games is usually proprietary or at the very least difficult to reproduce. But PC games are generally cracked the day they release (if not sooner) and easily available, first on Warez forums and then on BitTorrent.

For a while various companies tried to combat this by putting in ever more invasive and awful anti-piracy measures. Some still try to do it. Each and every time, it causes a gigantic scandal, they lose some customers permanently, they drag their own name through the mud (the most common reason for a game to receive a 1-star rating on Amazon is because of anti-piracy software). And guess what? The games are still cracked pretty damn quickly.

Anti-piracy software can cause crashes and machine lockups, it can steal and leak your private data, it can require a constant online connection or the annoyance of constant physical media presence ... and most importantly it (ineffectively) tries to solve a problem by treating everyone like a criminal.

So most game developers don't even bother anymore. Particularly indie game devs. They know they will lose some sales to piracy (although the numbers are always inflated b/c a thing being free necessarily increases the number of people who will 'own' it). But they count on enough people liking the game and the company to pay and ensure more games. Or they go the Kickstarter route and get paid up front.

The business adapted. I'm sure not a single one of them are happy about having to adapt, but they adapted and survived. A lot of what we now somewhat obnoxiously call "content creators" are doing the same: you can find many of them releasing their material on their own websites, or signing deals with iTunes or working through Bandcamp, or getting money via ad sales on YouTube.

It's made some of them embarrassingly rich, and some barely get any money. Does that sound familiar? :-P
  #187  
Old 08-23-2017, 08:51 AM
toddbishop toddbishop is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,801
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
Romanticizing something doesn't make it reality
Who's romanticizing? I'm talking about law.

Are you going to respond to any of the points I made about your statements?
__________________
Visit Cruise Ship Drummer! - a drumming blog | 2017 CSD! Book of the Blog now available
  #188  
Old 08-23-2017, 09:09 AM
AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 935
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbishop View Post
Whatever your experience with those two videos, it's clearly not the case. Search any band you like, and you'll find many videos that are obviously not owned by the copyright holder. Often with tens or hundreds of thousands of views, or more. As I wrote earlier in the thread, YouTube will not accept copyright violation notices from anyone but the actual copyright holder, guaranteeing the site will have plenty of infringing content.
... but you will never stop that. Let's say you got YouTube to agree to use something like that software that recognizes the music you're hearing at the store. They use that on every upload, and block anything that is copyrighted. Awesome, right?

Except you can easily fool that by slightly lowering or raising the speed or pitch (all of which can be reversed). People do that now to bypass their existing copyright protection scanning. Online converter sites even take playback rate tweaks to balance that out.

Meanwhile, you have to create a multi-tier system: people who pay YouTube money to protect their content can bypass the content upload scanning (so people like Vevo can have YouTube channels) but the average user can't. So I want to upload a video of my kid dancing to Mmm-Bop. Oops, can't do that, peon! That's copyrighted.

So everyone goes to a new website. SheTube.ru or YouOblong.se. It's the Barbra Streisand effect: you cannot control what goes onto the Internet, unless you control all of the Internet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbishop View Post
What legal rights would be infringed, specifically?
I guess it all boils down to what you think are rights and what you think is worth protecting. I don't think my band's cover of 867-5309 should be unpostable because I didn't throw a dollar at Tommy Tutone.

Heck, how would you even sort it out? I once played a show with Roger Fisher of Heart (I have a great picture of my entire band on one side of the stage just staring at him as we play our instruments). He chose to play one of his own songs, and we played backing. How do I get the right to upload that copyrighted material? Do I need a letter from Roger? Because he won't return my calls.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbishop View Post
I haven't expressed any particular "hope" about this at all. But why is internet companies paying royalties for their site content a pipe dream? Why is it any different than any other commercial use of a creative work?
I would say: practicality. Digital copyright is just harder to enforce. And you're also talking about sites that are expressly about hosting _user_ content, which becomes more difficult to attract the more restrictions and blockers you put up for various reasons.

And I have to reiterate that YouTube does attempt to do this. They just don't have great success because they know that enforcing it is a balancing act. I'm sure on the one hand they're happy to have pirated content driving people to their site. Their major revenue source is ads, and an ad doesn't care what it plays over. But most of us tech savvy people use Adblock anyway, so they're quite motivated to find a pay-for-content model. And once they accept direct money for content they _have_ to pay the content creator in some way.

And people will just go somewhere else for their pirate stuff.
  #189  
Old 08-23-2017, 05:05 PM
toddbishop toddbishop is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 3,801
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by AllTheCoolNamesAreTaken View Post
... but you will never stop that. Let's say you got YouTube to agree to use something like that software that recognizes the music you're hearing at the store. They use that on every upload, and block anything that is copyrighted. Awesome, right?

Except you can easily fool that by slightly lowering or raising the speed or pitch (all of which can be reversed). People do that now to bypass their existing copyright protection scanning. Online converter sites even take playback rate tweaks to balance that out.
If only there were some way of identifying works by title and artist name.

Quote:
Meanwhile, you have to create a multi-tier system: people who pay YouTube money to protect their content can bypass the content upload scanning (so people like Vevo can have YouTube channels) but the average user can't. So I want to upload a video of my kid dancing to Mmm-Bop. Oops, can't do that, peon! That's copyrighted.
That's one possibility, according to you. What are you basing this on?

Quote:
So everyone goes to a new website. SheTube.ru or YouOblong.se. It's the Barbra Streisand effect: you cannot control what goes onto the Internet, unless you control all of the Internet.
It's not a question of controlling all of the internet, it's about making multi-billion dollar companies based in the US, which are online media leaders, follow the law-- and updating laws so they don't favor those multi-billion dollar companies over everyone else.

What is it that is going to make people want to go to sketchy-ass Russian video sites? The fact that you can only see official Beatles videos on YouTube, that the Beatles actually get paid for?

Quote:
I guess it all boils down to what you think are rights and what you think is worth protecting. I don't think my band's cover of 867-5309 should be unpostable because I didn't throw a dollar at Tommy Tutone.
If you can't legally post that video, it's not a right, so there's no question of protecting it or not.

Quote:
Heck, how would you even sort it out? I once played a show with Roger Fisher of Heart (I have a great picture of my entire band on one side of the stage just staring at him as we play our instruments). He chose to play one of his own songs, and we played backing. How do I get the right to upload that copyrighted material? Do I need a letter from Roger? Because he won't return my calls.
Apparently you need to pay him a mechanical royalty through Harry Fox and negotiate a sync license. You would have to find out who Roger's management is and contact them. People deny sync licenses all the time, so you may be out of luck. But that's just the law, and nothing to do with YouTube.

Quote:
I'm sure on the one hand they're happy to have pirated content driving people to their site. Their major revenue source is ads, and an ad doesn't care what it plays over. But most of us tech savvy people use Adblock anyway, so they're quite motivated to find a pay-for-content model. And once they accept direct money for content they _have_ to pay the content creator in some way.

And people will just go somewhere else for their pirate stuff.
They're not only happy to have infringing content, they're clearly relying on it, and profiting from it. If there are 500 people posting Beatles videos, and only 25% are monetizing their content, YouTube is clearly paying out less than if there's one entity posting them, collecting royalties for 100% of Beatles content, at a negotiated rate.
__________________
Visit Cruise Ship Drummer! - a drumming blog | 2017 CSD! Book of the Blog now available
  #190  
Old 08-23-2017, 05:10 PM
Hollywood Jim's Avatar
Hollywood Jim Hollywood Jim is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 3,445
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

All very interesting. But how does Hollywood protect their movies.
How come I can't go to YouTube or anywhere on the internet and watch any movie I want for free?

.
__________________
"To play a wrong note is insignificant. To play without passion is inexcusable." - Beethoven
  #191  
Old 08-23-2017, 05:34 PM
vxla vxla is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 550
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by toddbishop View Post
Apparently you need to pay him a mechanical royalty through Harry Fox and negotiate a sync license. You would have to find out who Roger's management is and contact them. [..]
What can't money buy, right?
__________________
Please take a moment for the Bass Drum Pedal Questionnaire
  #192  
Old 08-23-2017, 05:58 PM
KamaK KamaK is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: East Coast
Posts: 5,489
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Jim View Post
All very interesting. But how does Hollywood protect their movies.
How come I can't go to YouTube or anywhere on the internet and watch any movie I want for free?
.
You literally can, though I hesitate to be the one to point out where.

If you want to do it legally, you'll probably want to get a library card.
  #193  
Old 08-23-2017, 06:10 PM
IDDrummer's Avatar
IDDrummer IDDrummer is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 5,098
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by KamaK View Post
You literally can, though I hesitate to be the one to point out where.

If you want to do it legally, you'll probably want to get a library card.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who actually uses the library! We already pay for this stuff in our taxes, at least where I live. Use what you've already paid for, legally.
  #194  
Old 08-23-2017, 08:09 PM
Smoke Smoke is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Lansing, MI, USA
Posts: 620
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

I think somebody mentioned this earlier, but somehow photographers seem to have advanced into the digital age. I'm betting that printed media makes the most money and everything else ends up as stock photos - whether intentionally or not.

It's easy to overlay copyright info on a photograph - if it's stolen, at least we know where it's stolen from. Is there a similar mechanism for digital music? Could that be a revenue stream for some enterprising audiophile/techno-geek?
  #195  
Old 08-23-2017, 09:19 PM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 384
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.
First of all, thank you for your reply. At least my multiple posts have not gone unnoticed. :-)

However, I couldn’t disagree more with the above statement which I find flawed. What you’re suggesting is:
On one hand, someone wants art, they commission it, and they have to pay.
On the other hand, someone wants art, they acquire access to it through an open source, and they don’t have to pay.
Not a very fair and balanced approach IMO. In both cases someone wants the art, so quite obviously they both see a value in it.

I particularly take issue with the idea that an artist is entitled to nothing even if their work is shared. If it is shared by others, then undeniably it has a value for those others. Why should third parties (companies in this case) be able to profit from the sharing of this valued content created by others while the actual content creators are entitled to little or nothing? I think this is the indefensible contradiction that has been pointed out several times in this thread. I think we’re going around in circles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
… 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…..
The physical nature of our existence in effect does put greater emphasis on physical objects rather than on forms of expression. But to relegate art to a comparatively trivial position in society seems not only defeatist but dangerously dismissive. I think this goes against much of the positive ideas of the past that led to society recognizing the importance of non-physical things. Intellectual property rights are just an example. I think the changing attitudes towards how art is consumed represents a possible regression in society. Change does not always mean going forward positively in every way, even if it involves technical innovations…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.
Well, this serves well to reveal how we’re approaching this debate differently. I’m trying to determine what the overriding and guiding principle should be while you’re focusing heavily on the technical intricacies of the issue. Realism is certainly not a bad thing and I appreciate your input on this. You say that you agree “abstractly” but that realistically nothing can be done, which I find very disheartening. I would substitute the word “abstractly” with the words “in principle”. In a sense you’re saying that we should accept being powerless in the face of certain changes even if they contravene certain principles. This surely cannot be right.
You’re coorect that the old industry is declining and will be a thing of the past. But the current “big thing” will one day also be history. What must remain are the principles that make a civilized society. Fairness for example. If artistic content contributes heavily to wealth creation then it is only fair that those involved with the creation of that content be fairly rewarded. I think there is widespread suspicion that the current situation is not fair and that laws are largely favouring the interests of some over the interests of others. This is not surprising. When innovation brings about sweeping change in a short space of time, then often the innovators can temporarily escape the same legal and moral scrutiny that society invariably excercises. Only after a certain delay do people start to widely recognize that a loophole might exist that needs to be closed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.
I would certainly not go so far as to outright equate their activity to daylight robbery as some others have done. However, I do not accept that these companies can be dissociated completely from the content provided on their platforms. Even though, as you say, the hosting of mass content does not assume a value to any specific content, this appears to be just a clever but shady get-out clause to benefit from having this mass content whilst disregarding that a large portion is possibly exploitative of the content creators. And this brings us back to my previous argument: If artistic content contributes heavily to wealth creation then it is only fair that those involved with the creation of that content be fairly rewarded. And let’s be clear, the content is the key to all of this, I doubt that people go online to stare at adverts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.
I am in no denial of the vast benefits provided by such innovations and I think you are seriously misquoting me on this and unfairly making me appear like a luddite. I do not see this debate in black and white with no shades of grey. What I see as detrimental are some of the changes that have been allowed to be brought about by these new technological systems, not the systems themselves. Like I said above, change does not always mean going forward positively in every way, even if it involves technical innovation. It's always desirable to be open to change, but also advisable to be aware that it can bring good as much as it can bring bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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.
You are clearly knowledgeable in this regard and I would be a fool to dispute your championing of the opportunities you describe. I should perhaps even be reassured that some fellow musicians do see these opportunities and are able to seize them. However, I would be concerned that a working musician would have to in effect master much more than just their art form. They will have to be tech savvy, business savvy, marketing savvy. Life is short, time is scarce. If a musician aspires to master their craft they will already need to invest much time and effort just for that. What you describe as being an empowering control of every other aspect might actually represent a considerable burden to many musicians. In this respect the old industry, whilst it had its bad sides, still provided a great degree of support. The musician was there to hone their craft and concentrate on their art. While a competent and intelligent musician may be able to pursue the multiple activities you mentioned, I still see a risk of them being too distracted. They may never have the focus to pass the threshold of being a decent musician to becoming a great artist. Without naming individuals, I think there are numerous giants of music who just would not have coped with anything else but their art. I find your accusation of laziness also very contemptful and unfortunately reinforces the impression that you have been inconsiderate towards musicians in this thread. The work that many musicians have to put in just to begin to create something of interest is not to be neglected. By no means do I want to dictate what a musician should do with their time. If they master the opportunities of the virtual world, all power to them. But if a great musician is less adept in these new, non-musical areas, do we then disregard them? So while you argue that the old industry only “pushed” whatever music suited them and left some out in the cold, will we now see a new monopoly where only tech savvy self-publicists gain greater recognition? Those who know how to exploit the technology will rise to the top whilst others languish, regardless of their musical talent?

Lastly, you again repeat your “coal miner analogy” but I think a previous poster has strongly discredited that argument. I kindly suggest that you give greater consideration to some of the good posts with opposing views here, lest people think that you are as entrenched in your views as the “reactionaries”….
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)

Last edited by Mike Stand; 08-23-2017 at 10:18 PM.
  #196  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:14 PM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 384
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
"Bootlegging" was actually very minor compared to the outright piracy through tape media.

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.

Again, expand the thought from just the bootlegging of concerts and look at the purpose most blank tapes were bought for. Copying music.

Don't you remember all the "home taping is killing music" campaigns?
http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/13/bu...pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/11/21/ar...dio-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.

I must admit that I'm too young to have any vivid recollection of the bootlegging and tape recorder eras and I appreciate your links on this subject.

However, I feel that you're using a "boy that cried wolf" argument.
First the recording industry complained about bootlegs, which were trivial, as you seem to agree.
Then the recording industry complained about tape recorders. And yet, still no wolf.
Now that the same complaints are being levelled at online tech companies you seem to be suggesting that it's still the same silly boy crying wolf again over nothing.

Nonetheless, while I'm too young to have followed these developements in real time, I still think that the situations are very different. I'm thinking that the recording industry was still in rude health and in full command of their interests during the '70s, '80s and '90s despite bootlegging and home tape recorders being at their peak. The wolf was in fact just imaginary.

Regarding contempory tech companies and their innovations it is apparent however, beyond denial in fact IMO, that they have brought in changes that have rocked the recording industry to it's very core. You yourself have been very keen to underline just how great the impact has been. While you may not care for the "old industry", its decline unfortunately also raises the issue of artists rights. Many seem to think that they have also been undermined to such a degree that it is injustifiable.

Again, I applaud you for recognising some of the opportunities accorded by these technological innovations. And I firmly agree with your stance on not allowing this technology to be used in any way that would contradict our civil liberties. But your very last remark goes to the very heart of this debate:

"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."

That's all fine and dandy, very idealistic. But why should artists accept to see a large decline in their potential rewards whilst others appear to profit immensely from "handling" the actual art (even if it is stored in 0s and 1s). It seems like the stereotypical "Do as I say, don't do as I do" kind of comment.
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
  #197  
Old 08-23-2017, 10:19 PM
IDDrummer's Avatar
IDDrummer IDDrummer is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: North Idaho
Posts: 5,098
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Stand View Post
You’re coorect that the old industry is declining and will be a thing of the past. But the current “big thing” will one day also be history. What must remain are the principles that make a civilized society.
Thank goodness someone had the wherewithal to say this so succinctly!

This is the most important issue in the whole discussion, I believe.
  #198  
Old 08-24-2017, 01:13 AM
drumming sort of person's Avatar
drumming sort of person drumming sort of person is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 2,075
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Quote:
Originally Posted by CEO of IFPI, Frances Moore

Google has the capability and resources to do much more to tackle the vast amount of music that is being made available and accessed without permission on its platforms.

Our member record companies’ experience demonstrates that Google’s Content ID tool is ineffective in preventing infringing content appearing on YouTube. Record companies and publishers estimate that Content ID fails to identify 20-40% of their recordings.

Google’s search engine continues to direct internet users to unlicensed music on a large scale. Well over 300 million de-list notices have been sent to Google by IFPI national groups worldwide.

Despite this, the amount of traffic to infringing sites from typical music search queries sent to Google is now higher than it was before Google changed its search algorithm to supposedly address levels of piracy.

Google can, and must, do more to tackle these issues and return fair value to rights holders.
https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.c...ls-spot-20-40/
  #199  
Old 08-24-2017, 06:46 AM
paradiddle pete's Avatar
paradiddle pete paradiddle pete is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: down south
Posts: 1,364
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

Technology has given us everything we want, at the same time stolen anything we really need. Prince EA.
__________________
petey poo!
  #200  
Old 08-24-2017, 10:35 AM
Mike Stand's Avatar
Mike Stand Mike Stand is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Mu-Mu Land
Posts: 384
Default Re: Online Piracy Finally In the Crosshairs

In the context of everything "internet", I suggest posters here head over to the following thread and in particular take note of comment number 9 by Les Ismore:

http://www.drummerworld.com/forums/s...=1#post1519514
__________________
"Uh uh uh uuuuuuuuuuh..." - Art Blakey (as heard on numerous recordings)
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Bernhard Castiglioni's DRUMMERWORLD.com