[Public_Domain]

[Smacle]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

To someone like me, art should be made for the love of it, and when you make art because you love to, you show it to the public so they too can love it.

That's nice and all. It's just that it's not reality.

Tricks Tricks:

Radiohead had it right. When they released an album a few years ago, they released for donation.

That's cool. Radiohead is a good band. If they want to do that then its their call. Most bands don't do that though. Just because radiohead gives their music for nothing doesn't mean you can take everyone elses at the same value.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

How does Sony justify claiming tens of thousands in damages for d/ling one song that they sell for $1 on iTunes?

Because each song is downloaded thousands of times... 1x1000 = 1000... Math.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

How does the gov't and legal system justify it while handing out a "slap on the wrist" to those that shoplift the physical cd?

Well, having experience in the law system, I would argue that if a retail store decides not to press charges, then they accept the financial loss of the item. Sony, for example, is still paid their entitlement. If you're caught shop lifting and charges are pressed then you get a criminal record and spend some time in prison. The SOPA bill doesn't punish people who download though. It clearly focuses on uploaders, as presented earlier... To answer your analogy, say I steal the album, burn it onto 50 CDs, stand outside futurshop or what ever retail store I took it from, and give it away to everyone who walks past, the bill would charge the guy handing out the CDs and not the people taking the free copies. Nobody is gonna buy it from futureshop if they can just get it for free outside. Of course, online you only need to get the physical album copy and duplicating the files is free.

[Public_Domain]

[Smacle]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Yet.

If all of theses artists and record labels wanted their work given away for free... then they wouldn't have been supporting the SOPA bill.

It does happen, not by choice but by illegal means against the wishes of the creators and rights holders.

[BRAH]

[Bruce_E_T]

Lemmy Lemmy:

You've also conveniently skipped over the fact that the artists are making out better under the current system. They're the ones benefiting most from having their music traded (whether legal or not). You can't say I'm stealing from their profits when I'm contributing more to their profits than ever before. And I'm not stealing from the record companies either. I'm just choosing to no longer purchase their product. I'm going to get a better product from a new competitor. Free market, literally. I'm buying the automobile and rejecting the horse and buggy.

What I would like to see is a money trail leading to the artist.

[$$$ -----------> artist] ???

It is one thing to take the product for nothing but quite another to say that you are helping, or at least not hurting the producer. The recording/distribution business may operate on a strange logic but taking product for free cannot help an industry.

[Lemmy]

Bruce_E_T Bruce_E_T:

It is one thing to take the product for nothing but quite another to say that you are helping, or at least not hurting the producer. The recording/distribution business may operate on a strange logic but taking product for free cannot help an industry.

That's the same failed, shortsighted logic that Major League baseball team owners had in the 1920s when radio stations began broadcasting baseball games. The owners didn't want games broadcast. They thought their businesses would die at the turnstiles if radio stations gave away their product for free. It turned out that the free broadcasts created new fans and drove the demand for baseball (and hence both owners' and players' salaries) way up. Same thing here.

[Brenda]

Dutch paper mentions that record companies (not artists, RECORD COMPANIES) get 32% of their world income online. In the US, it is 52%. Just sayin'.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/05/technol ... /index.htm

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Smacle Smacle:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

How does Sony justify claiming tens of thousands in damages for d/ling one song that they sell for $1 on iTunes?

Because each song is downloaded thousands of times... 1x1000 = 1000... Math.

Not by the same listener. I don't know a single person that downloaded the same song 1000 times. And you missed the context. Sony ponied up only $150 for each computer they damaged/destroyed when they installed rootkits on their cds. So, they ruin my $1000+ computer and I get $150 bucks, but I "illegally" d/l ONE song they charge $1 for and they think I owe them tens of thousands of dollars.
Do you not see the bullshittery here? Further investigation revealed that Sony had created its copyright protection software, in part, using LAME code, violating the GNU Lesser General Public License, and VLC code violating the GNU General Public License. It was so bad that the states of Texas, New York and California filed class action suits against SonyBMG. The rootkit software creates security holes that can be exploited by malicious software such as worms or viruses. The XCP software installed silently before the EULA appeared, the EULA did not mention the XCP software, and there was no uninstaller, all of which are illegal in various ways in various jurisdictions. And finally, the software would be installed on a computer even if the user declined the license agreement that would authorize its installation. And that was just if you played the cd, you didn't have to rip it to get the illegal rootkit installed.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

How does the gov't and legal system justify it while handing out a "slap on the wrist" to those that shoplift the physical cd?

Smacle Smacle:

Well, having experience in the law system, I would argue that if a retail store decides not to press charges, then they accept the financial loss of the item. Sony, for example, is still paid their entitlement. If you're caught shop lifting and charges are pressed then you get a criminal record and spend some time in prison. The SOPA bill doesn't punish people who download though. It clearly focuses on uploaders, as presented earlier... To answer your analogy, say I steal the album, burn it onto 50 CDs, stand outside futurshop or what ever retail store I took it from, and give it away to everyone who walks past, the bill would charge the guy handing out the CDs and not the people taking the free copies. Nobody is gonna buy it from futureshop if they can just get it for free outside. Of course, online you only need to get the physical album copy and duplicating the files is free.

Your analogy don't work. I already said I agreed with SOPA/PIPA when it comes to full cds. But when a record company gives radio stations new music, it's promotional.
The companies want you to hear the singles so you go out and buy the cd, so they let you listen for free. Having songs on the internet gives newer artists a much wider potential audience. It also provides another way for older artists to tap into the current generation of young listeners.
Another funny thing is, despite the illegality of it, recording companies for years paid radio station to play their singles.
The argument that SOPA/PIPA protects the artist's interests is pure, unadulterated bullshit. What it does is allows an utterly immoral industry to force their definition of "morality" on everyone else.

[Scape]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The argument that SOPA/PIPA protects the artist's interests is pure, unadulterated bullshit. What it does is allows an utterly immoral industry to force their definition of "morality" on everyone else.

Bingo!

[Scape]

Here is a very good explanation on how the current system works Mr. Canada. Give it a listen:

Katy Perry's Perfect Year

[Public_Domain]

[Scape]

Mr_Canada Mr_Canada:

Thanks!

I'm not exactly sure if this is supposed to inspire sympathy for record labels though.

Sympathy? No. It is a good idea to understand where they are coming from though. RIAA and the record industry are dying and the internet is pushing back:


SOPA: the Internet punches back


This is a new era.

[Public_Domain]

[Smacle]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Not by the same listener. I don't know a single person that downloaded the same song 1000 times. And you missed the context. Sony ponied up only $150 for each computer they damaged/destroyed when they installed rootkits on their cds. So, they ruin my $1000+ computer and I get $150 bucks, but I "illegally" d/l ONE song they charge $1 for and they think I owe them tens of thousands of dollars.
Do you not see the bullshittery here? Further investigation revealed that Sony had created its copyright protection software, in part, using LAME code, violating the GNU Lesser General Public License, and VLC code violating the GNU General Public License. It was so bad that the states of Texas, New York and California filed class action suits against SonyBMG. The rootkit software creates security holes that can be exploited by malicious software such as worms or viruses. The XCP software installed silently before the EULA appeared, the EULA did not mention the XCP software, and there was no uninstaller, all of which are illegal in various ways in various jurisdictions. And finally, the software would be installed on a computer even if the user declined the license agreement that would authorize its installation. And that was just if you played the cd, you didn't have to rip it to get the illegal rootkit installed.

I don't know of a single person who has been sued for only downloading songs. It's always "sharing" that gets a person into a lawsuit. AKA; Uploading, or seeding.

If sony destroyed your computer and you can prove it then you should maybe sue for a new computer.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Your analogy don't work. I already said I agreed with SOPA/PIPA when it comes to full cds. But when a record company gives radio stations new music, it's promotional.
The companies want you to hear the singles so you go out and buy the cd, so they let you listen for free. Having songs on the internet gives newer artists a much wider potential audience. It also provides another way for older artists to tap into the current generation of young listeners.
Another funny thing is, despite the illegality of it, recording companies for years paid radio station to play their singles.
The argument that SOPA/PIPA protects the artist's interests is pure, unadulterated bullshit. What it does is allows an utterly immoral industry to force their definition of "morality" on everyone else.

When a single is released the agreement is between the radio station and the record label.. again.. why would you listen to the radio if you could just download every single and make your own playlist.. it's supposed to be exclusive so that you would have to listen to the station in order to hear the single and of course want to buy the new album. So, no, I'm sorry but you're wrong. They don't release a single to have you download it illegally, not on purpose.

What laws were broken between record companies and radio stations has nothing to do with piracy... Your frustrations on one situation should not affect your whole life.

The issue or morality... stealing is wrong. I don't know what you were taught growing up but I learned that from my mother when I was like 5, not from a record label.