Is it Wrong to use Limewire to steal.....

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

......Religious Christian rock music?

If I do it, will it make the baby Jebus cry?

[Mook Jong]

it would be wrong if it was worthy of being called music.

[monji112000]

stealing implies taking away something from someone else. downloading music is not paying a company profit, but you are not taking anything away from the company. food for thought:
1) artists get almost nothing from cd sales
2) artists mostly don't "own" the music they write
3) the original law on copywrite was if I remember correctly 15 years, recently it increases every time micky mouse is about to go into public domain. its currently life plus like seventy years. How do you judge the life of a owner that happens to be a company? Its also funny that micky mouse comes from a public domain character steam boat willy. Got to love Disney they get all their classic content from public domain ideas, and then won't let other people do the same. If you think about it all the classic books, and music wouldn't probably have half the effect they did(and do) if they were released with our laws(and future laws).

[NJM]

People still use Limewire?

[Yum Cha]

I believe this is what you call situational ethics.

Right or wrong is not the same thing as fair and unfair. I think the big issue is fairness. Its wrong because your elected officials made it wrong by law. The law may however be unfair, and lots of people in marketing believe it is patently stupid regardless. Hopefully, the law will catch up with the reality.

Just to add, I think Mickey is a trademark, which is different than a copyrighted image. (That's kinda like a corporate copyright, I believe).

Artist own the rights to their music. They may sell those rights in many different ways, and many of course, do get ripped off. Think John Fogerty, even Prince (debatably).

Again, I may be wrong, but I believe the issue with copyright is not the having, but in the profiting from someone elses IP. I.e. its not illeagal to make a copy of me on the cover of Kung Fu Magazine, and to post it in your Shaolin Do DoJo for inspiration, but It is a violation to sell it to club members for $100 in a gilt frame. ( So, everybody doing that, send at least $50 to Gene TODAY, and he may not sink a bootie into your cods).

So, the issue with MP3's should be, is anybody profiting from trading them around, whereas it is instead the "Alleged" loss of revenue that results.

The standard was set with Vinyl, when you could burn a tape and pass it around. Record companies didn't like it, but it wasn't illeagal. The justification was that it was a poor quality copy.

MP3s are likewise poor quality copies...

Anyway, look at all the old blues on the market. The cheap CD's of Robert Johnson and the like. I'm under the sneaking suspicion that that content is out of copyright, and into the public domain, and the people that sell the CDs are making 100%.

I think I'm on the ball, but any of you real copyright experts out there, feel free to fill in the blanks and correct my mistakes.

I think the same applies to video footage and photographs as well, and certainly writing.


stealing implies taking away something from someone else. downloading music is not paying a company profit, but you are not taking anything away from the company. food for thought:
1) artists get almost nothing from cd sales
2) artists mostly don't "own" the music they write
3) the original law on copywrite was if I remember correctly 15 years, recently it increases every time micky mouse is about to go into public domain. its currently life plus like seventy years. How do you judge the life of a owner that happens to be a company? Its also funny that micky mouse comes from a public domain character steam boat willy. Got to love Disney they get all their classic content from public domain ideas, and then won't let other people do the same. If you think about it all the classic books, and music wouldn't probably have half the effect they did(and do) if they were released with our laws(and future laws).

[CLFLPstudent]

As a person in the music industry, lets break this down a bit....


stealing implies taking away something from someone else. downloading music is not paying a company profit, but you are not taking anything away from the company. food for thought:
1) artists get almost nothing from cd sales

Not true. What is true is the artist's main money maker is touring, but artists DO make money on CD sales, depending on how many 'points' they get and if the cost of the CD is recouped. And by copying it over and over the CD will never be recouped.



2) artists mostly don't "own" the music they write

They don't "own" it if they don't write it. If they write it, they absolutely own it. They may ( probably) split a portion with a publishing company, but it is not a large percentage. Say 2 people write a song, each agrees they wrote 50% of it. A song is divided into 2 parts - Publishing and Writing. Now your 50% is divided between the Publishing and the Writing piece, 25% each. Your "Writing" portion you ALWAYS retain - no one can take that from you. Of the "Publishing" portion, a standard publishing agreement will have you split 50/50 with your administering company, so they get 12.5% of your 25% on the Publishing side. A little confusing, but in this scenario. Of your 50% shar of writing this song with someone, your actual take is 37.5%




3) the original law on copywrite was if I remember correctly 15 years, recently it increases every time micky mouse is about to go into public domain. its currently life plus like seventy years. How do you judge the life of a owner that happens to be a company? Its also funny that micky mouse comes from a public domain character steam boat willy. Got to love Disney they get all their classic content from public domain ideas, and then won't let other people do the same. If you think about it all the classic books, and music wouldn't probably have half the effect they did(and do) if they were released with our laws(and future laws).

Again, the Publishing portion and agreement is usually for life. If you are lucky you may get it written into a contract that your publishing returns to you after x many years, but not very common at all.

Even if in fact the "artist" didn't write the song, SOMEONE did, and you are in fact stealing from that person.

-David

[CLFLPstudent]

Anyway, look at all the old blues on the market. The cheap CD's of Robert Johnson and the like. I'm under the sneaking suspicion that that content is out of copyright, and into the public domain, and the people that sell the CDs are making 100%.

Not true. Someone definately owns the publishing to these songs if they are originals ( blues are tricky as who knows who had actually written a lot of the stuff is up in the air).

This was the original trouble people got into with sampling. And what people with money did to make more money. They bought up old Publishing catalogs with the hopes that someone would sample something, it'd be a hit and then they'd sue and then they'd take all ( or most) of the publishing since they owned the rights to publish it.


-David

[monji112000]

I believe this is what you call situational ethics.

Right or wrong is not the same thing as fair and unfair.


right ,wrong, fair unfair are not applicable in law. Its illegal and legal, social morays have little baring on writing law. Judges not wanting to set a precedence is much stronger factor.



I think the big issue is fairness. Its wrong because your elected officials made it wrong by law. The law may however be unfair, and lots of people in marketing believe it is patently stupid regardless. Hopefully, the law will catch up with the reality.

Its not wrong to download music. Its not stealing by definition. Its illegal, like many other things. Its illegal to let a child have a small sip of wine, its not wrong.



Just to add, I think Mickey is a trademark, which is different than a copyrighted image. (That's kinda like a corporate copyright, I believe).


trademark is worse than a copywrite. It doesn't change the fact that they used a public domain character, and made it impossible for others to do the same. Thats WRONG.



Artist own the rights to their music. They may sell those rights in many different ways, and many of course, do get ripped off. Think John Fogerty, even Prince (debatably).


I am not an expert on the trends in so called music and their legal contracts with corporations. BUT, last time I checked most artists didn't own their so called property and made very little on CD sales. I think around 10 cents a cd. again I don't know and don't care. I don't buy or download music. Don't support the people that bring you down. Just copy CD's from friends. If artists are going to support the RIAA, then they don't deserve my money. I buy none RIAA material legally.

Unless you are going to a open network and downloading the songs I would not suggest doing it.



Again, I may be wrong, but I believe the issue with copyright is not the having, but in the profiting from someone elses IP. I.e. its not illeagal to make a copy of me on the cover of Kung Fu Magazine, and to post it in your Shaolin Do DoJo for inspiration, but It is a violation to sell it to club members for $100 in a gilt frame. ( So, everybody doing that, send at least $50 to Gene TODAY, and he may not sink a bootie into your cods).

fair use still exists today but not for long.


The cheap CD's of Robert Johnson and the like. I'm under the sneaking suspicion that that content is out of copyright, and into the public domain, and the people that sell the CDs are making 100%.

public domain is the issue. works are not going into public domain. the rights of the consumers , the people, have been slowly chipped away.
if you want to learn more about the topic visit http://www.lessig.org/
his books are VERY good.
you can read some of them for free.
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/
this presentation says allot. ideas are free, nobody truly owns an idea. They are free as air is free.

[CLFLPstudent]

Monji - How can you say it is not stealing?

Websters definition:

transitive verb1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car>

You don't buy it, but you use it? It is stealing. How can you say 'most artists don't own their music'? Who are you referring to? Like I said, the Writing portion of any music ALWAYS remains property of the writer. No one can take that away.

You split part of your Publishing share with a company ( or not, up to you) in return for services that Publishing company does for you - a good publishing company will set you up with other writers to create more music, will shop your music around for other srtists to cover, try and place the songs in movies/tv shows/video games.

There is a service - actually many - that let you buy a single song instead of a whole album, iTunes being the leader in this regard.

If anything - by downloading songs and not paying for them hurts new artists far more than older established ones.

-David

[monji112000]

Monji - How can you say it is not stealing?

Websters definition:

transitive verb1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car>

You don't buy it, but you use it? It is stealing. How can you say 'most artists don't own their music'? Who are you referring to? Like I said, the Writing portion of any music ALWAYS remains property of the writer. No one can take that away.

You split part of your Publishing share with a company ( or not, up to you) in return for services that Publishing company does for you - a good publishing company will set you up with other writers to create more music, will shop your music around for other srtists to cover, try and place the songs in movies/tv shows/video games.

There is a service - actually many - that let you buy a single song instead of a whole album, iTunes being the leader in this regard.

If anything - by downloading songs and not paying for them hurts new artists far more than older established ones.

-David

legally its stealing, but in reality its not. You are not taking anything from anyone.
If I "copy" your car and build an exact replica is that stealing? What if I were to put your wife through a "magic" duplicating machine. If I a married the duplicate is that stealing? No. Its not paying for using your "Property". Property should be only used for physical entities, not ideas (JMO).

again the specifics of who owns what don't really matter to me. Once you make money of music you have "sold out" in my book.

is it stealing to charge so much money at the movie theater? Yah. Is it stealing if I get my moneys worth and watch three movies for the price of one.. legally yes, morally thats questionable.

just becouse you write a song doesn't mean you you alone created it. You built on thousands of generations of prior ideas public domain ideas. Don't you think that thousands of generations in the future want the same benifit?

Since the RIAA and many other corporations decide to steal my right, I have not issue with not giving them their profit for music. If A musician has a issue with that don't be part of the RIAA.

[monji112000]

Monji - How can you say it is not stealing?

Websters definition:

transitive verb1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully <stole a car>

You don't buy it, but you use it? It is stealing. How can you say 'most artists don't own their music'? Who are you referring to? Like I said, the Writing portion of any music ALWAYS remains property of the writer. No one can take that away.

You split part of your Publishing share with a company ( or not, up to you) in return for services that Publishing company does for you - a good publishing company will set you up with other writers to create more music, will shop your music around for other srtists to cover, try and place the songs in movies/tv shows/video games.

There is a service - actually many - that let you buy a single song instead of a whole album, iTunes being the leader in this regard.

If anything - by downloading songs and not paying for them hurts new artists far more than older established ones.

-David

legally its stealing, but in reality its not. You are not taking anything from anyone.
If I "copy" your car and build an exact replica is that stealing? What if I were to put your wife through a "magic" duplicating machine. If I a married the duplicate is that stealing? No. Its not paying for using your "Property". Property should be only used for physical entities, not ideas (JMO).

again the specifics of who owns what don't really matter to me. Once you make money off music you have "sold out" in my book.

is it stealing to charge so much money at the movie theater? Yah. Is it stealing if I get my moneys worth and watch three movies for the price of one.. legally yes, morally thats questionable.

just becouse you write a song doesn't mean you you alone created it. You built on thousands of generations of prior ideas from public domain. Don't you think that thousands of generations in the future want the same benifit? I'm one person its not like anyone cares about what I have to say.

the sad truth is that when napster first hit, people purchased MORE cds becouse they were able to listen to so many new stuff. Things they would never buy or even borrow. The whole downloading music and movies is a big farce. We are being sold something that looks and smells like music but in reality isn't. Who really cares if some smo gets millions or not for writing shack your A$$ or whatever imitation musical whatever. Get a real job. :(


Since the RIAA and many other corporations decide to steal my right, I have no issue with not giving them their profit for music. If A musician has an issue with that don't be part of the RIAA.

[CLFLPstudent]

If I "copy" your car and build an exact replica is that stealing?

Faulty logic. The reason digital duplication differs from say making an audio cassette copy of a CD is that the digital duplication is a 1:1 duplicate, no generation loss. Not the same with CD to cassette. The copyright infringement is that you now have an EXACT duplicate of a CD/Song whatever.


again the specifics of who owns what don't really matter to me. Once you make money off music you have "sold out" in my book.


Ahh, I see. Here is where you are coming from. Are you an old hippie or a young one? What do you do for a living? Do you perform a service for people?


legally its stealing, but in reality its not. You are not taking anything from anyone.

Again, it is stealing. Fine you hate the RIAA, but you are taking money out of the hands of people who wrote the music you like to listen to. Whatever little amount you may think it is, it is stealing.


ust becouse you write a song doesn't mean you you alone created it. You built on thousands of generations of prior ideas from public domain. Don't you think that thousands of generations in the future want the same benifit?


Everything created is inspired by something. Where the actual line is drawn if something is "inspired by" or a "copy of" is vague. I've heard of suits that were won whne a few notes were "copied", and others that were lost when whole musical phrases were "borrowed". This is a different argument from copying music and trading it online.


Since the RIAA and many other corporations decide to steal my right, I have no issue with not giving them their profit for music. If A musician has an issue with that don't be part of the RIAA.

What, exactly, right did the RIAA 'steal' from you? Like everything else in the world, it costs money to produce a CD ( produce meaning writing songs, record the song, pay the engineers, rent studio time, duplicate CDs, promote them, etc). This money is recoupable by the people fronting it. If you can do all of this without using other peoples money, then you can sell your music much cheaper than the big industries you hate. People are doing it now - recording equipment quality has gone way up at a relatively cheap price. You can make music in you bathroom that sounds 'professional'. You don't even need to duplicate CD's, just upload the stuff to iTunes and get paid directly from them.

But don't try to sugar coat what you are doing. It is stealing. And it is morally wrong.


-David

[Lucas]

I download most all the music i have.

However I generally download music I have listened to for years.

Often times the music I download nowdays, I have already purchased in the form of cassette tapes, and CD's several times over. IMO its my due. I purchased the songs in a format that was designed to break down and make me spend more money. I spent way too much money on the same songs over and over.

Now i have it on MP3, Ill never have to buy/download it again, because I store a back up.

edit: i do purchase CD's from time to time, and rip them. Also there are lots of local artists where i live. I buy their CD's without a second thought, they arent already rich. Rich people get no financial sympathy from me in any form.

[Jingwu Man]

I download music with limewire, but it's usually stuff I already have the CD to.
I have an irritating CD/MP3 player that doesn't actually play commercial CD's (the reason i bought it), but only MP3 cd's. So I often have to download songs i have on disc to put them on mp3 cd, especially newer cd's with encryption (the new foo fighters cd) where you can't even put the songs on your computer to listen to them.

[stricker]

......Religious Christian rock music?

If I do it, will it make the baby Jebus cry?yes that is totally WRONG!!!!

the only CORRECT thing to do with p2p and christian propaganda is get a load of black metal, and re-name it to christian rock names, and then distribute it.

make the world a better place!

[monji112000]

Faulty logic. The reason digital duplication differs from say making an audio cassette copy of a CD is that the digital duplication is a 1:1 duplicate, no generation loss. Not the same with CD to cassette. The copyright infringement is that you now have an EXACT duplicate of a CD/Song whatever.



Ahh, I see. Here is where you are coming from. Are you an old hippie or a young one? What do you do for a living? Do you perform a service for people?



Again, it is stealing. Fine you hate the RIAA, but you are taking money out of the hands of people who wrote the music you like to listen to. Whatever little amount you may think it is, it is stealing.



Everything created is inspired by something. Where the actual line is drawn if something is "inspired by" or a "copy of" is vague. I've heard of suits that were won whne a few notes were "copied", and others that were lost when whole musical phrases were "borrowed". This is a different argument from copying music and trading it online.



What, exactly, right did the RIAA 'steal' from you? Like everything else in the world, it costs money to produce a CD ( produce meaning writing songs, record the song, pay the engineers, rent studio time, duplicate CDs, promote them, etc). This money is recoupable by the people fronting it. If you can do all of this without using other peoples money, then you can sell your music much cheaper than the big industries you hate. People are doing it now - recording equipment quality has gone way up at a relatively cheap price. You can make music in you bathroom that sounds 'professional'. You don't even need to duplicate CD's, just upload the stuff to iTunes and get paid directly from them.

But don't try to sugar coat what you are doing. It is stealing. And it is morally wrong.


-David

well no. a majority of the music you can download or rip off youtube is much lower quality than the CD version. You can also choose to lower the quality manually. I do, and I don't hear a difference. I have always said that the RIAA should adopt a algorithm for reproducing analog distortion that way people can choose to use P2P software that doesn't promote constant copying.

me a hippie ... nah. My mom is though. :D most of the music i get is from dead artists or from CD's you can't buy. So I don't take away profit from anyone.
When my rights a consumer and a citizen are being taken away with the money and power of a group of people, thats stealing. If you start looking into the lobbying and legal habits of these poor companies you will start to see my point.
The smaller labels are not the problem and many agree with a portion of my stance.

by taking away public domain you are stealing past , present and future knowledge. You are also disturbing the natural order of how people evolve.

perfect example: If I were to "write" a version or use a large portion of any Jimi Hendrix song, I would need to get legal permission before I distributed it. Not everyone in all of his bands are dead but when they are it will not change anything. Someone will continue to collect, and protect his works. What about a Rachmaninoff opera? completely different story why?
different legal environment. Think about all the major books, movies, music, and really any other "ART". How much different would life be if they were created during our or future legal environment? Its really a sad situation and the main reason why I didn't do law. Its too depressing! Nobody really cares anyway.

think about the bible, if the first person to print the bible would still "own" the bible how much different would American law be. It doesn't matter what you think about the bible becouse our whole legal and constitutional "ethics" are largely influenced by it. Whats really scary is patents.. all the system of method patents... and they are talking about extending patent too.
I love the whole problem europe had(has) with system or method patents. Lets see I hold the patent for system or method of displaying a cursor on a computer screen. So lets steal money from all the small companies that write software.. its about allot more than Britney Spears mp3s.


I sound really old. :D

anyway don't download christan rock, and don't download music at all. Just find it on youtube and rip it using any audio software you can find. If you are really going to use a P2P software make sure you do 2 things:

1) don't use internet access from your house or anyone you know or live near.
2) don't leave a trace (camera's at starbucks, MAC address in log files, weblogs.. ect..)
what band by the way? not that I know any Christian rock.. LOL the closest thing I listen to the christian rock is maybe Johnny Cash. (He isn't alive so don't feel guilty about "sharing" his music).

Ideas are free nobody owns them.

[CLFLPstudent]

Well, your issue seems to be with government and big companies.

OK. Using your Jimi Hendrix example:

Are you distributing this song ( using a 'large' portion of a Hendrix song) in order to make money? Or just releasing it because it makes the world a brighter place? Say you paint the next 'Mona Lisa'. I look at it, copy it brush stroke for brush stroke into a bigger picture and make loads off of it. This money partly belongs to you since you made a portion of my picture.

You used the best word to describe the situation yourself. "Someone will still be there to protect his works."

You're going to do what your going to do, but what I am saying is don't try to fool yourself that the artist/songwriter doesn't lose money because of it. You are trying to punish big industry but along the way you say it's OK to hurt the little man.

Again, exactly what 'rights' are taken away from you by the RIAA? You want to go after an industry that is raping the people of country, go after the Oil Barons. Thats big fish.

-David

[KC Elbows]

You don't buy it, but you use it? It is stealing. How can you say 'most artists don't own their music'? Who are you referring to? Like I said, the Writing portion of any music ALWAYS remains property of the writer. No one can take that away.


Didn't Michael Jackson buy a large share of the Beatles's library right out from under Paul McCartney?

[KC Elbows]

Again, exactly what 'rights' are taken away from you by the RIAA?

I think you missed the quote, he was talking about the process by which things become part of the public domain- or, as is often the case now, don't.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Rule of thumb, if you gotta ask if something is wrong, you already know the answer.

[CLFLPstudent]

Not sure who owned the Beatles catalog at the time. I believe the laws regarding the song being divided into Publishing and Writing ( the writing portion ALWAYS being in your name, can not be taken from you) was due to the fact that Publishers at that time WERE stealing songs from the artists. It wasn't the case back then, the laws were changed to protect the artist.

Again - why the big hang up on something being public domain? It can still inspire you to create something new if someone else is collection publishing. You cannot copy it note for note. Completely different argument than the "Is downloading songs from Limewire stealing" question.

Monji - ideas ARE free. Once you put it to paper( record it, paint it, mold it, build it, whatever) it becomes property.
-David

[Lucas]

I dont think its wrong. I dont care what people say, I have spent well more than I should have to in my life time to listen to music. If people dont want to share, dont produce on a large scale. keep it to yourself and do it for yourself.

Painters are always trying to sell prints of their originals, but just as often that image is caputred anyhow.

People are contantly making copies of movies that they buy.

When an artists creates, this is given to the world, and belongs to everyone.

At least that is MY spirit as an artist. I would never try to get rich off my art and still consider it a pure form of personal interpretation.

[KC Elbows]

Again - why the big hang up on something being public domain? It can still inspire you to create something new if someone else is collection publishing. You cannot copy it note for note. Completely different argument than the "Is downloading songs from Limewire stealing" question.


Corporate interests pressured politicians to infringe on public domain, which is as much stealing as copying a cd. He's saying that his protest move is to return the favor. Myself, I buy used for the same reason: the only cd's worth the price on the cover are things like Buckley's Grace, all the rest don't deserve my dollars, artists included in most cases.

[CLFLPstudent]

Corporate interests pressured politicians to infringe on public domain, which is as much stealing as copying a cd. He's saying that his protest move is to return the favor. Myself, I buy used for the same reason: the only cd's worth the price on the cover are things like Buckley's Grace, all the rest don't deserve my dollars, artists included in most cases.

These Corporate interests , whether you like to believe or not, are also the interests of songwriters. People who write songs for a living don't get money because of 'trading' which is the same as stealing.

If you want to fight it, protest by not buying the CD's. You are fooling yourselves into think the 'little man' doesn't get hurt by online stealing. The whole "I'm entitled to this" argument if flawed. The world doesn't work that way.

I have spent well more than I should have on heating oil last year. I am paying a
sh!tload more this year. Am I entitled to take it for free then?

You are trying to justify what your doing with arguments against corporations, but are actually hurting individuals in the process.

-David

[CLFLPstudent]

Man, I missed my 100 post anniversary on this stupid argument! :cool:

-David

[KC Elbows]

The whole "I'm entitled to this" argument if flawed. The world doesn't work that way.

It's not "I'm entitled to it," it's "the laws were changed to infringe on the rights of the public to reasonable access to their own culture, that they fostered, so that corporate interests who do not contribute to the creative process can soak it in long after the talent is dead."


I have spent well more than I should have on heating oil last year. I am paying a sh!tload more this year. Am I entitled to take it for free then?

Oil is not art. Art has always flourished in an environment where past themes can be freely revisited in new ways, and always will. Meanwhile, in the present circumstances, the Stones, who made their careers on blues songs that had no such protection, sue at the drop of a pin for someone doing the same to them, while a million so-called "original" bands are simply revisiting the Kinks, the Beatles, the Stones, the Clash, Hendricks, and a few others, without contributing a new sound of their own. Most of the truly original bands tend more towards underground followings, because its easier to repackage the Kink's sound than to promote something genuinely new.



You are trying to justify what your doing with arguments against corporations, but are actually hurting individuals in the process.

I didn't say I download music: I don't. I said I buy it used, which is perfectly legal, and still denies songwriters money for albums I buy for three songs. And unless I feel they actually contribute, I won't buy their stuff new.

[CLFLPstudent]

Uggh I am getting tired of this argument, but here goes....


It's not "I'm entitled to it," it's "the laws were changed to infringe on the rights of the public to reasonable access to their own culture, that they fostered, so that corporate interests who do not contribute to the creative process can soak it in long after the talent is dead."


If you read my earlier post, a publishing company collects a portion for themselves, as a sort of fee for services they perform. A writer will collect ( under todays laws) for life as well.


Art has always flourished in an environment where past themes can be freely revisited in new ways, and always will.

It does still. Why would copying something note for note constitute a new composition? I said before you can ( and people are) inspired by stuff that is not public domain. And depending on how much they 'borrow' from it they don't have to pay royalties to the original writer. The Stones case you are alluding to I think involves the Verve not only using original music from the Stones, but the actual recording of it as well ( Bittersweet Symphony). Extremely different from saying you were influenced by something and wrote your own piece in response. Again - this is a different argument from the download vs stealing argument.


Most of the truly original bands tend more towards underground followings, because its easier to repackage the Kink's sound than to promote something genuinely new.

This is a matter of personal taste. I agree it is a problem with 'commercial' music. But maybe it is just us getting 'old'. My folks couldn't stand the music I listened to when I was younger. Payback is a *****!:p


I didn't say I download music: I don't.
Maybe you don't download it, but ithe original question was regarding downloading music. And while you ( those who do download it) are trying to get back at the 'man', you are hurting people trying to make a living.


-David

[Lucas]

This topic is going to vary from person to person.

I was heavily, heavily into pencil, ink, and paint for MANY years. I still really enjoy viewing art in this form, though I myself am not as involved as I once was, martial arts won over.

One time I was doing a charcole drawing at an airport while I was on layover.

It was actually a really nice drawing, I had spent HOURS on it and was putting on the finishing touches.

Before I finished I was approached by a gentleman interested in buying the picture. I was reluctant, but after a bit of insistence on the matter I sold him the drawing for $80.00. His price, not mine.

At first I was glad that someone liked my art enough to be willing to pay for it. Though after some time and thought I found I wasnt comfortable selling my art. After then when anyone displayed interest in my pieces, I gave them away for free or gave copies if i wanted to keep the piece. Once I bring the art to life with my time and talent, I dont feel that I own it, I was merely its vehicle of dilivery for everyone else.

Now were I teaching an art, the time spent person to person I would consider worth charging for. Unless of course I wanted to teach the person, then I would refuse tuition.

But thats just me, and I know I stand outside the norm, though this is my view on art.

[CLFLPstudent]

This topic is going to vary from person to person.

I was heavily, heavily into pencil, ink, and paint for MANY years. I still really enjoy viewing art in this form, though I myself am not as involved as I once was, martial arts won over.

One time I was doing a charcole drawing at an airport while I was on layover.

It was actually a really nice drawing, I had spent HOURS on it and was putting on the finishing touches.

Before I finished I was approached by a gentleman interested in buying the picture. I was reluctant, but after a bit of insistence on the matter I sold him the drawing for $80.00. His price, not mine.

At first I was glad that someone liked my art enough to be willing to pay for it. Though after some time and thought I found I wasnt comfortable selling my art. After then when anyone displayed interest in my pieces, I gave them away for free or gave copies if i wanted to keep the piece. Once I bring the art to life with my time and talent, I dont feel that I own it, I was merely its vehicle of dilivery for everyone else.

Now were I teaching an art, the time spent person to person I would consider worth charging for. Unless of course I wanted to teach the person, then I would refuse tuition.

But thats just me, and I know I stand outside the norm, though this is my view on art.

Thats great and all, but what about the other artists who do it for a living and need the money? They should give it away because you don't feel right about taking money for it?

Do what you will with your own creations, when it comes to others you can't apply your life's view to their work and take it for free.

-David

[RD'S Alias - 1A]

I have spent well more than I should have on heating oil last year. I am paying a
sh!tload more this year. Am I entitled to take it for free then?

Reply]
Open a Futures trading account, buy Heating Oil futures or options before the season starts. The profits you make will generally pay for all your heating expenses plus some, every year. ;)

[Lucas]

As I said before though, on the topic of downloading music, I down load music I have paid for many times over.

To my knowledge I have never downloaded music from an artist that is NOT rich, far richer than myself.

Myself as a common person feel no shame in taking what I once bought (often more than once) for free from someone of wealth. (many times these artists have already made thousands off of the song....at what point does the artist need to still be milking the same old thing for more cash?

It just is not bothing my moral fiber that much.

Also, as I said, for local and small time artists (relatively unknown, so rarely on person to person file sharing like the big rich kids are) I purchase their albums if I like them.

It depends on the context. Am I worried if guys far more well of than I am, lose 5 bucks from me because I DL a song? Not in the slightest.

They are rich after all, whilst I am not.

[CLFLPstudent]

To my knowledge I have never downloaded music from an artist that is NOT rich, far richer than myself.

Look at the credits on the songs you download. If the artist is not the writer, then chances are you are taking from soemone who is not rich.



They are rich after all, whilst I am not.

Sell some more of your artwork :p

The idea that someone is rich enough, I don't have to pay them is odd. Why stop with music and art? Hell, like I said the bozo oil barons are rich beyond any of our imaginations. Why should I pay for more oil? I bought some already!

Try and justify it any way you like, and it's obvious I am not going to convince you, but it is stealing. And not just from the 'big companies' the RIAA and 'rich kids', but from hard working, non-rich people like yourselves.

-David

[Lucas]

It wasnt I that chose art as a proffession to live by.

Though If I review my mp3 player, I can name every band I have DL music from.

And if any person in their right mind sold a song to any of these bands (all the bands wrote their own material I have btw) for anything less than tons of cash.

THats their deal.

Dont down sell your art, and you wont get screwed. If you sell music to famous bands, get your cut when you sell. or dont sell. IMO.

[CLFLPstudent]

But you don't 'sell' a song to an artist. An artist 'covers' it, and you as the writer make money on it's sale ( CD or single), on it's airplay ( radio/Satelite/via internet), sync fees ( TV or Movies). The artist makes money on it's performance ( CD sale) and live performance, and merchandising.

So if I got lucky enough to write a song that a "big name" covers and someone downloads it for free thinking 'What does so-and-so need my money for", you are hurting the writer, not the artist.

This is my point. Everyone is going to do whatever they want, but don't think it doesn't hurt the 'little guy'. Try and justify it however you want, get back at the RIAA and big business, you are still hurting the 'little guy' much more than the 'rich artists'.


-David

[KC Elbows]

Uggh I am getting tired of this argument, but here goes....

Don't worry, I'm not trying to ruin your Friday, just bantering.




If you read my earlier post, a publishing company collects a portion for themselves, as a sort of fee for services they perform. A writer will collect ( under todays laws) for life as well.

I was referring to public domain in that quote, in reference to the availability of cultural material for revisiting after a reasonable time without vultures hanging over it for their cut when they weren't even alive to make the art.


It does still. Why would copying something note for note constitute a new composition?

Hendrick's cover of all along the watchtower altered Dylan's. I'm not talking about copying a sound, I'm talking about the days when a cover was what a band or performer proved themselves on, like a Red House, or a Crossroads, as opposed to today, when covers are things people do note for note with a vaguely "modern" sound to revive a stale career, because, in the later stages, they can pay off the board of directors of the corp that owns the song of the artist who died before they were in high school.


The Stones case you are alluding to I think involves the Verve not only using original music from the Stones, but the actual recording of it as well ( Bittersweet Symphony). Extremely different from saying you were influenced by something and wrote your own piece in response. Again - this is a different argument from the download vs stealing argument.

I'm talking about the fact that the Stones played other people's blues songs for years, just like all the brits in their era, again, proving their chops. And the Stones, to my knowledge, never got permission for some of those songs, only to turn around years later and sue some other guys for stealing only a part of their song, and not a song they were making money off of radio play from. I like the Stones, but that deal always ticks me off.



This is a matter of personal taste. I agree it is a problem with 'commercial' music. But maybe it is just us getting 'old'. My folks couldn't stand the music I listened to when I was younger. Payback is a *****!:p

I should say that lately, I've been hearing a few more bands that actually take risks on their instruments: for so long, the sound has been the focus, and no real risk or sense of risk, so hopefully I'm not too old.


Maybe you don't download it, but ithe original question was regarding downloading music. And while you ( those who do download it) are trying to get back at the 'man', you are hurting people trying to make a living.

Suffering is good for their art.

[Lucas]

no ones life is perfect.

Hell if you can actually make a living off of freaking playing/writing music.......:rolleyes: oh ya, you got it real bad....;)


so, let me get this straight. An artist can "cover" any song they want, even if the writer doesnt want it to be covered?

Can the writer say no? If the writer can say no, then they should say no, if they say yes.....in todays world that means taking on the bagage of someone DLing your song lyrics performed by the artist for free.

DLing songs has been around for years now, its an aspect a music writer has to take into account when they sell their lyrics. Its going to happen. and its never going to stop.

thats just how it is, and its never going to change. ever. artists have to either get used to it, or change the way they do things.

CD's are fully out dated anyhow. who carries a disk player with them anymore?

[CLFLPstudent]

Okay last time for a bit :rolleyes: I am tired of debating!


Hendrick's cover of all along the watchtower altered Dylan's. I'm not talking about copying a sound, I'm talking about the days when a cover was what a band or performer proved themselves on, like a Red House, or a Crossroads, as opposed to today, when covers are things people do note for note with a vaguely "modern" sound to revive a stale career, because, in the later stages, they can pay off the board of directors of the corp that owns the song of the artist who died before they were in high school.

Again - the performance part of any cover - whether it is of an older song by a new artist, or by any artist of a new song written by someone other than the artist - get's paid by the sale of the CD. It is still a big practice in England to cover an old 'hit' to launch a career. Also happens in US Dance music a lot. Covers are not what was being debated.


I'm talking about the fact that the Stones played other people's blues songs for years, just like all the brits in their era, again, proving their chops. And the Stones, to my knowledge, never got permission for some of those songs, only to turn around years later and sue some other guys for stealing only a part of their song, and not a song they were making money off of radio play from. I like the Stones, but that deal always ticks me off.

Blues - in general- is an often immitated style of writing. no one can lay claim to a 12-bar blues format because it is so prevalent. The song in question "Bittersweet Symphony" was a case where a judge felt the Verve use previously written AND recored material and wrote lryics around it. If the ( verve) had gone about it differently they may have had better results. And it wasn't early in the 'sampling' phenomona (sp?) where they could claim they didn't know better. Other songs have had much more 'borrowing' and verdicts have been in their favor. It's a case-by-case situation and it is hard to define.
But it still is a completely different issue from downloading music for free.....



so, let me get this straight. An artist can "cover" any song they want, even if the writer doesnt want it to be covered?
Sure. I can release any song I want, but I need to liscence it. And any money from it's sale goes to whomever wrote it.


thats just how it is, and its never going to change. ever. artists have to either get used to it, or change the way they do things.

Again, try to justify it however you want but it is stealing.

Peace for now....

-David

[Lucas]

Oh, i never said it wasnt stealing.

So is eating a grape at the grocery store.

[NJM]

www.utorrent.com

[monji112000]

Say you paint the next 'Mona Lisa'. I look at it, copy it brush stroke for brush stroke into a bigger picture and make loads off of it. This money partly belongs to you since you made a portion of my picture.

You used the best word to describe the situation yourself. "Someone will still be there to protect his works."

You're going to do what your going to do, but what I am saying is don't try to fool yourself that the artist/songwriter doesn't lose money because of it. You are trying to punish big industry but along the way you say it's OK to hurt the little man.

Again, exactly what 'rights' are taken away from you by the RIAA? You want to go after an industry that is raping the people of country, go after the Oil Barons. Thats big fish.

-David
its not a black and white issue its stealing according to US law, in most cases. It may or may not be wrong according to your morals.

I know a few people who sell their DVD's, I would never put them on the web or distribute them. I know them, they aren't making much money so I wouldn't take away any profit from them.

I like your example of a painting it works better than my example. If I do not sell the painting as a original by you and I sell it as a "inspired work" my "interpretation" nope you have no legal standing. Just look at all the modern art were they use trademarks all the time!

Again if you look at how the RIAA and its fellow IP holders over the years have constantly reduced consumers rights you will agree 100&#37; with me. They have and continue to destroy fair use, public domain, and many other basic rights. What little man are you talking about? who Jay Z? yah little man.. Britney spears? come on. I personally don't download any music, and I purchase legally all small label music. But, I support people's right to download whatever they want.

What makes it his works? honestly? why not the billions of people's ideas he used to create "his" works? Don't think artists use other peoples ideas... LOL every aspect of our lives uses thousands of generations of ideas being built upon ideas.
what makes a guy with a drum machine, a few rhymes and a half naked woman shacking her ---- any more deserving of proceeds? Many he should cut the drum machine company a check for ever cd sold? That wouldn't make sense would it..
70 years down the road when the guy is dead, his drum machine at the bottom of the trash pile ... why does he (whoever owns it) still own the rights to the "works"??? Its all about public domain. You can't even grasp the relationship between fair use, public domain and modern civilization.. just visit a library while they still exist..

We are just talking about music, but its all the same legally. A book, a patent for sending electricity over a copper wire ect.. (I wonder if thats a useful patent to hold.. who cares if its a novel idea why should that matter right? it has no effect on society right?).

What about drug patents? You want the cure for AIDS to be locked away for only the highest bidder? you think its bad now with drugs in developing countries.. just wait. If they start extending patents life we are going to see a major change in global medicine. Honestly were is most of the medical research done? at least 50% in the US (probably more).

Everything relates my friend. You drop a pebble in a pond you effect the whole pond. You have to say enough is enough somewhere. OK my rant is over you can ignore me if you want. I am more than shore nobody cares.

By the way just as a side note I have known starving artists my whole life, and some of the best musicians were starving artists. They all would probably LOVE the idea of people sharing their music across the world. Just some food for thought.