|
Before I start I'd like to tell you that I feel you on that thing of the artists vs. the copyright holders. I believe that an artist should always have control over the artististic direction and use of thier product. A perfect example is when Michael Jackson bought the rights to all The Beatles songs in the '80s and Paul McCartney is still pissed for "Wacko Jacko" letting the songs be used in commercials.
Another fine example is the HORRENDOUS decision against George Clinton handed down last week where he lost the rights to ALL the Parlaiment Funkadelic songs and masters due to a contract he signed when he was, in his words, "young and naive." Not only that, but he also mentioned a shit-load of rappers and R&B singers that sampled his music and didn't aknowledged his original song nor pay royalties. As I said, above that was a fucked thing that perfectly represents an artist's creative rights being taken away, but I still don't think Napster falls under that same category.
>
>couple of issues here... letting somebody
>tape from your stereo and
>recording on a vcr are
>both examples of time-shifting, protected
>by the Sony vs. Betamax
>decision of 1984. Time shifting
>for non-commercial purposes is accepted
>in reference to the 'fair
>use' doctrine
I'm familiar with that case. Is it just me, or did Beta have really crappy resolution anyway--even for its time ? I always stuck with VHS (and now DVD).
>>> Technophobia has run rampant and it's only natural for people
>>> in all industries to be scared.
>
>i agree in some respects, but
>many artists are looking for
>an alternative ways to control
>their own ish... the reason
>they don't go for online
>publishing isn't because of the
>piracy itself... but rather the
>inability to afford to control
>their ish. They already
>knows what it means to
>not have control over their
>work because the record companies
>have been taking their rights
>for a long time.
>To not have the rights
>of distribution and not have
>the protection of the record
>companies would be murder. When
>people go to court to
>fight napster, is it the
>artists paying for the lawyers?
>nope - it's the companies
>representing these artists. The
>money machine isn't in the
>favor of the artists, it's
>in the favor of the
>copyright holders with a monopoly
>on the production and distribution
>and a identified illegal price
>gouging, which is also the
>companies who force artists to
>give up the rights to
>their works. (and subsequently charge
>about $17 for a product
>that costs less than a
>quarter to produce in the
>quantities that they produce)
I hear you. That's what I was trying to say with the George Clinto thing. It sucks when even the "protective" record company turns its back on you and you can't (legally) call your own work yours. It seems to me that said companies and copyrighters have convinced the artists that money is more important that creativity--they just don't tell them that they (artists) aren't getting the bulk of the money.
>>> It makes no sense to call it "boot-legging" when they aren't
>>> making money off exchange (although the recent partnership
>>> with BMG will inevitably change that.
>
>Their argument is not the act
>of selling, but consumers not
>buying. RIAA's argument is
>that Napster is (in it's
>illegal context, not the legal
>usages) an example of vicarious
>infringement. Similar to being
>an accomplice to a murder
>- not actually pulling the
>trigger, but knowing that some
>illegal stuff happened and not
>doing anything about it.
I haven't been convinced of any "illegal" action, but I'm open to opinions....though I don't know about the murder comparison, but I see where you're coming from.
>>> I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY AGREE....thier
>>> record sales--increasing said sales, in fact.
>
>the fact is, you've identified artists...
>not copyright holders. most
>artists give less than a
>damn because most artists make
>their real money off of
>tours and concerts, not albums.
> The record company makes
>very little money on artist
>tours as opposed to cd's.
> Record companies support touring
>because it grows a fan
>following that ensures success of
>future works by that artist.
> the same way that
>record companies want to boost
>popularity through tours with little
>compensation, many artists believe that
>distributing music online (free or
>very cheaply) builds a fanbase
>that allows them to tour
>successfully, which is where they
>make their real money.
If record companies could make money without the ridiculous inflated prices of touring, they would.
>>> By the way, doesn't THE RADIO give away music for free on a
>>> 24/7 basis?
>
>Free for who? Record companies and
>artist budgets pay for radio
>time... do you think that
>$17 is just a random
>price. Most of it
>is artificial inflation, but some
>of it goes to promotion.
> When a budget pays
>for promotion and the artist
>has to pay it back,
>do you think $25 for
>a show instead of $15
>or $20 means that nobody
>is paying for the radio?
> Also, would commercial sponsors
>buy commercials if it wasn't
>a proven source of promotion.
> an hour of radio
>usually has between 15 and
>30 minutes of commercials.
>When we go to the
>record store or party that
>we heard on the commercial,
>we are paying for the
>product and the promotion.
>I'm not saying anything is
>wrong with this, but that's
>what we're paying for.
>That's how it is.
Which was one of the things that attracted me to Napster in the first place, I got music without worrying about any flagrant promotion. The RIAA is a business that has an assembly line of one-hit wonders that try to force a whole album of crap down your throat when all you want is the one track. I get my one tracks from Napster and head on my way. Also, the music I play on my computer is up to me, not the radio stations and record companies that decide a single track must be played 14 times in the same day.
>>> It's not about being any "Robin Hood", it's merely about
>>> finding people with whom you share musical tastes and
>>> interacting with them.....sorta like O.K.P itself. But like
>>> I said, this is just one man's opinon.
>
>I appreciate your opinion, and shared
>the same opinion before I
>took a digital media rights
>course that gave alot of
>the basis and viewpoint that
>allows me to be a
>decent devil's advocate...
It's good to have someone hear my opinion without telling me to "fuck off" in their first response.
but when
>all is said and done,
>some people rationalize their actions
>to seem non-criminal, some see
>their criminal actions not needing
>to be rationalized. The
>same basic thoughts are shared,
>just a different perspective.
I'm not perfect. I've spent the last year and a half wondering if Napster was truly legal or not. Maybe I AM rationalising, but I have yet to see any convincing proof that a crime is being committed. If I had, I'd have deleted the damn thing. But apparently it's not for me to decide.
Y'all do read my quotes, right?
-----------------------------------------------------
Well, y'all, it's like my gran-daddy used to say:
"If you don't start no jivin' an' shuckin', I won't have t' start no shootin' an' cuttin' !"
------------------------------------------------
"Knowing others is intelligence, knowing yourself is true wisdom.
Mastering others is strength, mastering yourself is true power."
--first stanza of the 33rd poem in the Tao te Ching
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okayplayer News Discussion 
).
But like I said, this is just one man's opinon.
