[ShepherdsDog]

In those places copyright means,'It's a copy, right?'

[PublicAnimalNo9]

I will not download games without paying for them. I will not d/l movies, well because I'm not big into movies but music, yer damn right I'll d/l it. Let's see, I've bought several versions of certain albums from vinyl, to 8 track to cassette to CD. Now, when it comes to the artists in the music industry, they make their real money from concerts and concession sales ie; T-shirts, programs etc. The recording companies pay musicians only a small fraction of what they charge for a CD. Do I feel bad about taking something I already paid for several times in the past? Hell no and why should I?
As has been pointed out, some of the companies have provided the technology to DO what we do, then cry foul because we do it.
That's like buying your spouse alcohol everyday and then complaining about them being an alcoholic.

[Zipperfish]

Brenda wrote:

Wow Donny!

My thoughts exactly.

[Zipperfish]

SprCForr wrote:

Artists should not be paid from my efforts in preserving family memories. Since they are, I'll let my kid download a few songs in exchange and then we're square.

OTOH, if they stop collecting money they're not entitled to, I'll get my kid to stop downloading.

If I understadn it correctly--and there is absolutely no guarantee that I do--the fee you pay for balnk media is to reimburse the artist for reproduction rights of copyrighted material you may already have bought a copy of.

If you own a copy of a song (let's say the latest Disturbed CD Indestructible, 'cause it's awesome), it is illegal to copy it again (thus the term "copyright"). Onto a tape, a computer, an iPod--anything. It was recognized that people will of course copy copyrighted material onto blank media, and no one could figure out how to protect artists in that case, so they developed this fee that gets paid to SOCAN who pay it out to artists through soime kind of formula.

[Zipperfish]

Choban wrote:

1. 2. I'll also say that these so called artists that are supposidly getting ripped off can't be feeling it too badly, they still drive nice cars, live in mansions and wear designer clothing.

My car is a five year old minivan, I live in a townhouse and the most designer piece of clothing I have is Levis.

So much for that theory, eh?

[SprCForr]

Zipperfish wrote:

If I understadn it correctly--and there is absolutely no guarantee that I do--the fee you pay for balnk media is to reimburse the artist for reproduction rights of copyrighted material you may already have bought a copy of.

If you own a copy of a song (let's say the latest Disturbed CD Indestructible, 'cause it's awesome), it is illegal to copy it again (thus the term "copyright"). Onto a tape, a computer, an iPod--anything. It was recognized that people will of course copy copyrighted material onto blank media, and no one could figure out how to protect artists in that case, so they developed this fee that gets paid to SOCAN who pay it out to artists through soime kind of formula.

Sure people out there do copy, but just because the bureacratic twats were too lazy to find a viable solution to the issue, they've lumped us all into the same "guilty" category. The recording business was trying to resist the profound change that digital media brought. These dinosaurs were too stupid to be innovative and instead suceeded in getting some softheaded pol to get a tax slapped on everyone, no exceptions.

My sore point is SOCAN/Artists (how much of every buck collected goes to the artists I wonder?) making money off of something that they had nothing to do with. I don't copy. No need, no desire. But everytime I put my home movies onto a disc they got undeserved money via the tax I was forced to pay. Back up my quarterly reports, ka-ching!

Since they convinced the govt to collect on their behalf, I've decreed it equitable if my kid grabs a song here and there. They get my money, my kid gets a song. (Specifically, it's a song from a soundtrack to one of her DVD's or a video game (that anime stuff) it's not like the compleat works of Metallica or anything.) If that tax was meant to cover that kind of thing off, then no problemo, we're good. If they figured it isn't then tough, stop taking my money and I'll stop the cheesy anime song from getting downloaded. Personally, them bastards should be paying me to put up with it. <-- damn, I'm my old man.

[SprCForr]

Zipperfish wrote:

Choban wrote:

1. 2. I'll also say that these so called artists that are supposidly getting ripped off can't be feeling it too badly, they still drive nice cars, live in mansions and wear designer clothing.

My car is a five year old minivan, I live in a townhouse and the most designer piece of clothing I have is Levis.

So much for that theory, eh?

Condo living Fatcat.

My newest vehicle is 10 yrs old and I wear the cheap jeans and live in a plain old house.

[Zipperfish]

SprCForr wrote:

Sure people out there do copy, but just because the bureacratic twats were too lazy to find a viable solution to the issue, they've lumped us all into the same "guilty" category. The recording business was trying to resist the profound change that digital media brought. These dinosaurs were too stupid to be innovative and instead suceeded in getting some softheaded pol to get a tax slapped on everyone, no exceptions.

My sore point is SOCAN/Artists (how much of every buck collected goes to the artists I wonder?)

How much the artists get is a difficult question. Generally, the newer artists are at the mercy of the industry, and might not make a dime off a CD. Actually, you usually start off with a huge debt to the record company--they shell out for all the production, marketing amd distribution, but they want allthat money back. Sure, the industry has been screwing the artists fopr years, but it's hard to see how massive illegal downloading of music and movies is going to improve things for artists.

As for being innovative--well, I can't really blame the reocrd companies for that. Nobody has any idea how to deal with this situation. Every proposed solution has pretty strong flaws. I think there was a copyright bill in front of Parliament not too long ago to address these emerging technological issues, but I don't think it went anywhere. Apple has their DRM but, in the words of one wag, that's just a dinosaur waiting for an asteroid to hit it.

Quote:

Since they convinced the govt to collect on their behalf, I've decreed it equitable if my kid grabs a song here and there.

And I think that that is the issue. What we nhave now is a voluntary payment mechanism. I'll download your stuff. If I like it, or if the mood strikes me, I might pay for it. Otherwise I won't. Wish they would institute that at my local musical instrument store--I'd have a wall of guitars at my place!

Quote:

They get my money, my kid gets a song. (Specifically, it's a song from a soundtrack to one of her DVD's or a video game (that anime stuff) it's not like the compleat works of Metallica or anything.) If that tax was meant to cover that kind of thing off, then no problemo, we're good. If they figured it isn't then tough, stop taking my money and I'll stop the cheesy anime song from getting downloaded. Personally, them bastards should be paying me to put up with it. <-- damn, I'm my old man.

You could argue that a little piracy isn't all that bad a thing. But I think it's gotten out of hand, and newer artists are suffering.

I haven't suffered from it personally, but know some who have.

To tell you the truth it's not the piracy that bothers me the most, it's the mealy-mouthed justifications offered up by those who do it (please note this is a general rant--I'm certianly not putting you in this category). Just admit it--you're stealing the music because it's ludicrously easy and your chances of getting caught are virtually nil. Please don't try to sell me on the idea that you're really helping the artists. Or that you are somehow being more moral than buddy who goes out and shells out for the CD. /rant

[Zipperfish]

SprCForr wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Choban wrote:

1. 2. I'll also say that these so called artists that are supposidly getting ripped off can't be feeling it too badly, they still drive nice cars, live in mansions and wear designer clothing.

My car is a five year old minivan, I live in a townhouse and the most designer piece of clothing I have is Levis.

So much for that theory, eh?

Condo living Fatcat.

My newest vehicle is 10 yrs old and I wear the cheap jeans and live in a plain old house.

And my townhouse is in North van, so it's actually worth about 17 bazillion dollars!

[SprCForr]

Zipperfish wrote:

SprCForr wrote:

Sure people out there do copy, but just because the bureacratic twats were too lazy...

How much the artists get is a difficult question. Generally, the newer artists are at the mercy of the industry, and might not make a dime off a CD. Actually, you usually start off with a huge debt to the record company--they shell out for all the production, marketing amd distribution, but they want allthat money back. Sure, the industry has been screwing the artists fopr years, but it's hard to see how massive illegal downloading of music and movies is going to improve things for artists.

I absolutely see your point. The massive downloading is a problem that needs to be addressed and it won't improve things for the artist. A part of the problem that needs to be tackled is the middleman siphoning off the bulk of the money. I don't know enough of that industry to even guess at a solution.

Zipperfish wrote:

As for being innovative--well, I can't really blame the reocrd companies for that. Nobody has any idea how to deal with this situation. Every proposed solution has pretty strong flaws. I think there was a copyright bill in front of Parliament not too long ago to address these emerging technological issues, but I don't think it went anywhere. Apple has their DRM but, in the words of one wag, that's just a dinosaur waiting for an asteroid to hit it.

IIRC, some artists are trying to think out of the box and seem to make it work, again the details are lost on me. Still, I can't help but to think that it's not in the interests of SOCAN or the recording industry to assist in getting a solution. Just like buggy makers. Some of these prosecutions we read about reinforce that conclusion.

Zipperfish wrote:

SprCForr wrote:

Since they convinced...

And I think that that is the issue. What we nhave now is a voluntary payment mechanism. I'll download your stuff. If I like it, or if the mood strikes me, I might pay for it. Otherwise I won't. Wish they would institute that at my local musical instrument store--I'd have a wall of guitars at my place!

It's only voluntary to a point. The tax on media and devices isn't voluntary.

I wish I could get the govt to slap a tax on every instrument, amp and lighting array without exception and give me a cut-- I'd have a North Van condo worth about 17 bazillion dollars! (<-- ha ha! got the other post woven in!)

Take my money you're (the industry "you" not the "you" you)not entitled to? I deserve something in exchange. Then we both win.

Zipperfish wrote:

SprCForr wrote:

They get my money...

You could argue that a little piracy isn't all that bad a thing. But I think it's gotten out of hand, and newer artists are suffering.

I haven't suffered from it personally, but know some who have.

To tell you the truth it's not the piracy that bothers me the most, it's the mealy-mouthed justifications offered up by those who do it (please note this is a general rant--I'm certianly not putting you in this category).

No problem, I fully acknowledge my gnat's ass sized POV in this issue.

Zipperfish wrote:

Just admit it--you're stealing the music because it's ludicrously easy and your chances of getting caught are virtually nil. Please don't try to sell me on the idea that you're really helping the artists. Or that you are somehow being more moral than buddy who goes out and shells out for the CD. /rant

The piracy is a problem, it needs to be addressed. Absofcukinglutely. But this level of change to an industry isn't unprecedented, they should acknowledge it and get more effort into a solution. Wether the recording companies have a sunset clause inflicted on their rights, the software writers or hardware designers have to change or whatever I don't know, but there is a solution.