Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I see the debate is still going strong.

Sadly there will never be a solution to this.

At least not in the UK anyway.

 

I don't think this is necesarily true. I feel optimistic that a solution could be found if it was thought important enough. It's not like trying to create world peace or overthrow capitalism or anything. I think a lobby group fronted by successful musicians could be pretty powerful.

 

What I don't think anyone will be able to change, is the public's perception of their responsibility.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm being niave, but I still can't see much wrong with the artists receiving compensation via ISPs, personally. The ISPs are not directly responsible but if they weren't providing the service in the first place, it wouldn't be happening, and they are making profits out of providing that service, so I can't see why some of those profits can't go towards compensating the losers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this is necesarily true. I feel optimistic that a solution could be found if it was thought important enough. It's not like trying to create world peace or overthrow capitalism or anything. I think a lobby group fronted by successful musicians could be pretty powerful.

 

What I don't think anyone will be able to change, is the public's perception of their responsibility.

 

I don't know, maybe I'm being niave, but I still can't see much wrong with the artists receiving compensation via ISPs, personally. The ISPs are not directly responsible but if they weren't providing the service in the first place, it wouldn't be happening, and they are making profits out of providing that service, so I can't see why some of those profits can't go towards compensating the losers.

That's just it though, if the money isn't going to find it's way into a politicians back pocket then they don't give a fuck!

Sorry but that's just how it is here.

 

It's like the whole banking charges debate. Conveniently, they got the supreme court to rule in favour of the banks then the very next day the banks announce that bonuses are back. Funny that!

So the politicians jump in and say, you'll be taxed on it, mainly because they want some of the spoils.

 

If they made it so that the ISPs were paying for the music that's downloaded the musicians still wouldn't see a penny of it because they will find a way of claiming it back in admin costs and red tape.

So much red tape you could hang yourself with it!

 

Sorry to sound so negative, but I see no solution that will benefit musicians!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me I hate the way the banks were bailed out and have been allowed to carry on, but I don't think money goes directly into the pockets of politicians. The expenses thing was something else entirely.

 

I think the problem is that big industries have so much influence because of their potential impact on the economy and their ability to spend large amounts on lobbying for their own interests. And I really doubt that struggling musicians have a hope in hell of making a difference, but I don't know, successful musicians possibly have if they can be seen not to be addressing it for their own interests.

 

Though with so many other more pressing problems its a complex one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Believe me I hate the way the banks were bailed out and have been allowed to carry on, but I don't think money goes directly into the pockets of politicians. The expenses thing was something else entirely.

 

I think the problem is that big industries have so much influence because of their potential impact on the economy and their ability to spend large amounts on lobbying for their own interests. And I really doubt that struggling musicians have a hope in hell of making a difference, but I don't know, successful musicians possibly have if they can be seen not to be addressing it for their own interests.

 

Though with so many other more pressing problems its a complex one.

 

That's just it though, If a successful musician is seen trying to stick up for the less successful ones, they fall victim to the press and how they will let the info be publicised. Newspapers and some shitty mags will twist it to their own ends because they want sales. If a less successful musician goes off on one about the same issue, they are seen as having a dose of the green eyed monster. You can't win.

The moment your product is a downloadable item that's it. You basically have to kiss it goodbye it no longer belongs to you.

 

I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's what happens.

 

That's how it's been for many years. Sad but true.

 

A better plan would be if there was a register of songs and an income for the lesser known artists based on how many times they performed it live.

 

It's not a solution to the whole isp debate, there's never going to be an end to that problem, but if there was a buffer zone income for musicians then they wouldn't be struggling so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know, maybe I'm being niave, but I still can't see much wrong with the artists receiving compensation via ISPs, personally. The ISPs are not directly responsible but if they weren't providing the service in the first place, it wouldn't be happening, and they are making profits out of providing that service, so I can't see why some of those profits can't go towards compensating the losers.

Do you also believe that automobile manufacturers or breweries should be required by law to compensate people who are injured/ families of those who were killed in drunk driving accidents? After all, if there was no alohol or no cars, the accident would never have happened and they are making a profit...

 

I don't like the idea of 'punishing' (for lack of a better word) the nearest person to you because you can't figure out a workable way to get the one you're really after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you also believe that automobile manufacturers or breweries should be required by law to compensate people who are injured/ families of those who were killed in drunk driving accidents? After all, if there was no alohol or no cars, the accident would never have happened and they are making a profit...

 

I don't like the idea of 'punishing' (for lack of a better word) the nearest person to you because you can't figure out a workable way to get the one you're really after.

 

Do you have a personal interest in internet service providers Dead-duck? :LOL:

 

It's not punishing them, they are a profitable concern who have benefitted while other people have have lost out as a result of the service they provide. High earners are taxed more to help provide a more level playing field to those less well off (in theory). That's not (necessarily) because the high earners are directly responsible for other people's poverty. It's just a way of trying to establish a fairer society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is the Internet funneled to the people and back out? Basically, the people have a cable company place coax into the home. Next, we have to purchase an Internet service provider. Businesses have web sites and they have to protect themselves from fraud, hackers, ect. Oh! I forgot the business has to follow the the same procedure as placed in the home.

 

When we rent the Internet service provider, we pay a monthly fee for the amount of time that we chose to spend online....on my bill, they tell me how many minutes I've used. I am sure that if our time is tracked, how much data is passed, and the history of all the sites visited online. It seems, a logical leap, that we pay for movies that we rent PPV. I can still see a fee being placed for downloads then distributed to the artists.

 

It is unfortunate that we really have no laws to protect entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs may be able to protect themselves partially by either controlling all their own online sales. The subject not dealt with is the CDs/DVDs and illegal copying of CDs/DVDs paces with technology to make the discs unable to be replicated.

 

This type of work would require collaberation amongst the artists'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply put, what I am suggesting is only a tiny piece of a bigger problem. No blame placed anywhere. The ISPs appears to be the most logical place to get the monies owed to the artists...like renting a PPV. That in itself, opens up many questions as how to get the monies to the artists. Obviously, some tracking system should be used to direct the monies to the correct artists? This can not be a blame game. This should be about attempting to make a flawed system improved in some arena. It would allow smaller bands more of a chance to survive without crawli ng under the umbrella of a large corporation. Times have been tough on all of us. We all are making changes to the way we live in small steps. At times, one automatically adjusts personal lifestyles...per chance, if you look back, there have been many changes to personal lives. We can not cure the system. Possibly, improve an aspect to give greater advantages to more people, artists, etc. Christina

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand all of the first post, but I understand the main idea (I hope !).

I'm going to try to give you my opinion in english about what Bono said because both opinions are identical.

Please, forgive my bad English and my restricted vocabulary.

 

Some people find his speach out of place as he is already in a huge band with a lot of money.

First, U2 has put their money in the Netherlands. Now, he speaks about theft while he is rich. For a lot of people, Bono seems to be stingy and to want always more.

But Bono's opponents seem to forget that U2 gain more with gigs than with albums.

Bono did not speak on his behalf, nor in that of U2.

 

In my opinion, concerts are what is going to make the musical industry remain what it is now. Because, more and more people go to concerts (and thus pay more than the price of a CD), without forgetting that concerts happened in bigger and bigger spaces.

But here, I only speak about famous artists.

 

 

I agree with Duck that the Internet service provider don't have to be blamed and don't have to pay fees. Indeed, that's would be the same as blaming breweries or automobile manufacturers for car accidents.

They are not responsible for how the customers use the internet.

You shouldn't forget that unknowned people became famous thanks to "free" download or free music via YouTube for example. These artists wouldn't have made a name for themselves without internet.

Before Internet, it was much more difficult to become famous. A lot of time was necessary to break through so the artists coudn't make a living. Today, they can be famous in only a few hours and quickly earn much money. And without ISP, the Internet doesn't exist.

 

 

 

If you are watching and controlling the illegal downloads in every home, doesn't it mean that you are watching the internet of everyone ?

In any case, the border is very thin. So where is the freedom and the right to use the internet like we want ("big brother is watching you") ?

 

I have had a very great respect for Bono since I know him and know U2 (I am a fan for a little more than 20 years). He is, for me, one of the greatest man in the world. But sometimes, what he says is not always carefully thought out (Matt also?), even when, he just wants to help and to support the young artists. That is very honourable from Bono.

 

The debate of illegal downloads reminds me when the audio cassette made its appearance. Nevertheless, the musical industry survived.

And A CD is still expensive while in fact, the manufacturing is not very costly.

Honestly, I do not know who started this debate but it certainly comes from those who think they lose the most in that story.

And in my opinion, those who lost the most are record companies and not artists... Now, I may say is not always carefully thought out too !

 

I do not mean that this practice is not wrong. But I think that it is necessary to find a good compromise.

The idea of Duck to pay a copyright fee, as for the TV, may be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have a personal interest in internet service providers Dead-duck? :LOL:

 

It's not punishing them, they are a profitable concern who have benefitted while other people have have lost out as a result of the service they provide. High earners are taxed more to help provide a more level playing field to those less well off (in theory). That's not (necessarily) because the high earners are directly responsible for other people's poverty. It's just a way of trying to establish a fairer society.

Well, I generally disagree with that idea of "fairness", but that's off topic ;)

 

No, I don't have any personal interest in ISPs, I just don't like that the only reason you seem to giving for why you think the ISPs should be responsible is that you (and Bono) are saying "They're making money while the music industry loses it" - it's like you're suggesting something and when I say "why?", you say "why not?" That's not good enough, IMO, in part because it opens a lot of doors for a lot of other companies and people to be penalized for things that they are only tangentially related to - hence my analogy to the car companies and breweries being held responsible for drunk driving that I don't think you've addressed? (unless I've missed it, I was out of town :unsure:)

 

There are a lot of companies that are rich that could give their money to the musicians, why zero in on the ISPs? What about computer manufacturers? Ones that make modems, network cards and routers? Ones that make blank media? MP3 players? Hard drives? If we didn't have computers and modems we couldn't use the internet, if we didn't have blank media or mp3 players our downloads would be of limited use..... why are the ISPs the only ones who have to share the wealth?

 

And how much is enough, btw? How much money do we take from the ISPs? How do we quantify how much each individual artist is owed? How do you truly quantify how much money someone "could have made if not for..."?

 

How is the Internet funneled to the people and back out? Basically, the people have a cable company place coax into the home. Next, we have to purchase an Internet service provider. Businesses have web sites and they have to protect themselves from fraud, hackers, ect. Oh! I forgot the business has to follow the the same procedure as placed in the home.

 

When we rent the Internet service provider, we pay a monthly fee for the amount of time that we chose to spend online....on my bill, they tell me how many minutes I've used. I am sure that if our time is tracked, how much data is passed, and the history of all the sites visited online. It seems, a logical leap, that we pay for movies that we rent PPV. I can still see a fee being placed for downloads then distributed to the artists.

 

It is unfortunate that we really have no laws to protect entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs may be able to protect themselves partially by either controlling all their own online sales. The subject not dealt with is the CDs/DVDs and illegal copying of CDs/DVDs paces with technology to make the discs unable to be replicated.

 

This type of work would require collaberation amongst the artists'.

For what it's worth, that's not what my internet bill looks like... I pay a flat rate and while I'm sure they know what I'm doing they never tell me how much data transfer I've used. I'm sure they can tell you where I've been going, but I don't know that they know what is contained in every file I download.... I don't know that any ISP does that.

 

What I mean is if I download something called "IllegalMuseSong.mp3", they might have a record of that filename somewhere if someone asks them to look it up, but if I download something called "GrandmasCruisePics.zip" that in reality contains a rip of Hullabaloo, I doubt that the ISP is reading the file to know what's actually in it - so if someone were to ask them later if I downloaded Hullabaloo, they wouldn't know.... if that makes any sense.

 

Simply put, what I am suggesting is only a tiny piece of a bigger problem. No blame placed anywhere. The ISPs appears to be the most logical place to get the monies owed to the artists...like renting a PPV. That in itself, opens up many questions as how to get the monies to the artists. Obviously, some tracking system should be used to direct the monies to the correct artists? This can not be a blame game. This should be about attempting to make a flawed system improved in some arena. It would allow smaller bands more of a chance to survive without crawli ng under the umbrella of a large corporation. Times have been tough on all of us. We all are making changes to the way we live in small steps. At times, one automatically adjusts personal lifestyles...per chance, if you look back, there have been many changes to personal lives. We can not cure the system. Possibly, improve an aspect to give greater advantages to more people, artists, etc. Christina

About the pay per view idea you mentioned here and in the quote above, the PPV-type option for the internet already exists, and has nothing to do with ISPs - iTunes, hulu, amazon, netflix etc. offer downloads and streaming of video/music legally in a way that compensates the people who own the copyright. Like with PPV, the site knows exactly what was viewed/downloaded so they know who gets the money and in the case of pay services like iTunes, they also know who did the download, so they know who to charge.

 

If we try to do some flat sort of thing through the ISP, like you mention, one problem is how do we figure out who gets the money? There is also a question of how do we figure out who owes the money?nThis is the problem that I can't get past - how do we know what's been downloaded without tracking and "reading" everything that's been downloaded?

 

The biggest concern that I have about this is finding a balance between limiting the illegal behavior while maintaining people's civil liberties. I don't like the idea of everyone on the internet being treated like/assumed to be a criminal because some people do illegal things online. I don't want my ISP given a green light by the government to analyze every file I download to determine if it was legal - who collects this information? How is it collected? What do they collect? Where is it stored? What is it used for?

 

Imagine if the postal service said tomorrow that they knew some people were using the mail for a particular illegal activity, so from now on they're going to open, read and look at every piece of mail that comes through, make a list of what goes to each person for future reference and report any suspicious messages to the authorities. This is what the ISP would have to do in order to know exactly what people are doing online and whether any laws have been broken.

 

Also, just in case I haven't mentioned it, I'm not a person who says "so what, let them eat cake" about the violated copyright. I'm all for finding a way to compensate the artists, but I want to be sure that the solution doesn't trample on people's rights and privacy in the process.

 

 

... and wow, this is long and I'm sure I'm repeating myself so :$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am meerly suggesting that ISPs are used to funnel the money to the artists;. The artists' would have to create a technology for themeselves as a band or band together (sounds messy). Part of collecting for illegal downloads is in place with the ISPs. I am saying, use what is in place as a part of a fix for music industry. This idea is in a basic form and I can see the tree of legalities, creating of technology, and so forth. Maybe, you haven't looked at your internet bill. If they can track the exact amount of time you use, even if you pay a flat rate, ISPs still track and probably track more than you think. I've called. I've researched. I am a computer programmer so I know capabilities of a computer or even software. How do you think the government has already entered our personal lives?

 

That is beside the point. Nobody said you were wrong. IMO, Dead-Duck, you are taking this personally when this should be a discussion. We may not make it anywhere or we may all spark an idea that would make a difference. The world is not fair, neither is life. Is your glass half-full or half-empty? I choose to make the best of every situation to best of my ablility. Nobody can be the morale police or belief police or fairness police. I don't want to be a judge for anyone else. I also don't want people to allow themselves to be taken advantage of by someone else, whomever that may be. That is why, right now the bands themselves need to think like a company and protect themselves, be it technology, using the system in place, creating technology.

 

Subjects like the ISPs should be analyzed without emotions and focus on the reality of the practice and possible ways to solve/enhance such practices. Breweries, automobiles, drunk driving are all heated topics and have absolutely nothing to do with trying to take care of ourselves from a business standpoint. We may not be in the artists' exact position. One day, you may own a company or design a patent (idea) which may be stolen from you. Would you like to have morale, government, or people dismiss your loss with answers from a completely idealogical viewpoint or would you like to find a possible solution or at least some ideas to draw upon?

 

As for the other questions you stated, those were the on the same thought process that I stated to begin with in the discussions including Dead-Duck? I think privacy is a mask. We have already had many rights taken away and the government keeps getting stronger. Health care bill, the government can take you off the list if your in the system without disclosing their reasons. Is that not an intrusion in our health care listed in the new health care bill? We have now asked the same questions (latter portion of your post). So, might we agree to agree about something? Compromise.

 

If we even need to bring up idea of fairness....our mothers and fathers taught us a children about fairness. Do the best with what you have before you?

Edited by asianorchid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe, you haven't looked at your internet bill. If they can track the exact amount of time you use, even if you pay a flat rate, ISPs still track and probably track more than you think. I've called. I've researched. I am a computer programmer so I know capabilities of a computer or even software. How do you think the government has already entered our personal lives?

I know what's on my internet bill, there's nothing listed but a title and the monthly rate, but that's not important, I was just mentioning it to say that not everyone's bill is going to look the same ;)

 

About your other comments, I'm not taking anything personally or being emotional at all, so not sure where you're getting that from... I thought we were just having a discussion? I also wasn't necessarily disagreeing with you in my last post, I was following from what you said and stating my thoughts on it... so...? :unsure:

 

About the drunk driving thing, that wasn't meant to be a distraction, it was an analogy - and it was aimed not at anything you had said but at Bono's comment about the holding ISPs responsible for making money off of other people's bad fortunes. The ISP isn't the one doing the illegal behavior, they are simply providing a service which is sometimes used in an illegal manor that results in people getting hurt. In the same way, breweries and car manufacturers are not taking part in illegal activity, they are simply providing products that are sometimes used by people illegally in a manor that results in people getting hurt. If the ISPs can be held accountable for the damages that follow from people using their services illegally, what's to stop that from being applied to other areas?

 

It's a question of precedent... that's why mentioned it. It wasn't meant to bring emotion in at all, it was just the first thing that came to my mind when trying to think of an example to explain why I disagreed in principle with what Bono was saying.

 

But on the main topic, I don't know that I agree with the whole premise that the system should be changed in such a way that the copyright fees are collected on the illegal downloads... I don't know that I think there's a workable way of doing that. But I've said already - I don't think the best solution will be one that works within the existing system or that looks like TV or radio licensing, it'll be something unique and new and will probably end up with the system looking very little like it does today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think all ideas should be considered and welcomed. The analogies chosen, at least to me, is like comparing possible death to the internet and it's concerns. Apples to oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*grabs a seat and some popcorn*

 

This looks like it's getting interesting.

:awesome:

 

Well, I think all ideas should be considered and welcomed. The analogies chosen, at least to me, is like comparing possible death to the internet and it's concerns. Apples to oranges.

I never compared the outcomes of the "illegal behavior", but the idea of "blaming" and "punishing" a corporation that played a role in facilitating the "illegal behavior" by expecting them to compensate for the "loss". They're not meant to be 100% the same, it was just an example... but either way, no one ever said you had to like my analogy ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:awesome:

 

 

I never compared the outcomes of the "illegal behavior", but the idea of "blaming" and "punishing" a corporation that played a role in facilitating the "illegal behavior" by expecting them to compensate for the "loss". They're not meant to be 100% the same, it was just an example... but either way, no one ever said you had to like my analogy ;)

 

 

One of the reasons why I voted you for funniest muser, you're intelligently funny.

 

 

Some musicians are already finding a way round this. Without pointing fingers or trying to get ISPs to cough up.

Just check out Julian Lennon's myspace profile, he's part of a group of musicians that are selling direct to the fans so your money goes straight to the artists.

Not sure how it's going to work in the long run but it's a start I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons why I voted you for funniest muser, you're intelligently funny.

 

 

Some musicians are already finding a way round this. Without pointing fingers or trying to get ISPs to cough up.

Just check out Julian Lennon's myspace profile, he's part of a group of musicians that are selling direct to the fans so your money goes straight to the artists.

Not sure how it's going to work in the long run but it's a start I suppose.

Trent Reznor did something similar as well after he dumped his label. The thing is, if an artist can put together their own CD and sell it for like $5, the fans will get it for cheaper while the artist ends up making more money... doesn't stop the illegalities, but maybe if songs were cheaper less people would take them :erm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trent Reznor did something similar as well after he dumped his label. The thing is, if an artist can put together their own CD and sell it for like $5, the fans will get it for cheaper while the artist ends up making more money... doesn't stop the illegalities, but maybe if songs were cheaper less people would take them :erm:

 

I know a lot of musicians that already do that. They sell their cds at £5 each at the venues.

I know how hard it is for them to get to a venue and set up, so I make a point of buying at least 1 of each cd from an artist if I like what they're doing.

Even getting the artists to sign them. (It gives them an ego boost)

I've got quite a collection now. The only problem I see with it, is that once you've got the cd in your possession, there's bugger all to stop you making a copy of it.

You never had this malarky before it all went digital! Vinyl was basically all there was. Yeah you could tape it, but it would sound like shit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know a lot of musicians that already do that. They sell their cds at £5 each at the venues.

I know how hard it is for them to get to a venue and set up, so I make a point of buying at least 1 of each cd from an artist if I like what they're doing.

Even getting the artists to sign them. (It gives them an ego boost)

I've got quite a collection now. The only problem I see with it, is that once you've got the cd in your possession, there's bugger all to stop you making a copy of it.

You never had this malarky before it all went digital! Vinyl was basically all there was. Yeah you could tape it, but it would sound like shit!

True, and even if you could make an easy copy back with cassettes or even copying it on a CDR for someone, having to physically give something to someone made distribution harder, which limited it. With the internet and digital copies I can send 1000 (good quality) copies of a song to people all over the world and it wouldn't cost me any time or money...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True, and even if you could make an easy copy back with cassettes or even copying it on a CDR for someone, having to physically give something to someone made distribution harder, which limited it. With the internet and digital copies I can send 1000 (good quality) copies of a song to people all over the world and it wouldn't cost me any time or money...

 

So much for the golden age of technology making life easier for everyone.

Since computers became the norm, human nature has found a way to abuse it.

If it's not to shaft the artists it's to watch someone getting shafted!

 

Once something is sent digitally, that's it, you've lost it. Fair enough, a lot of musicians aren't in it for the money, just as well really, but you don't expect someone else to make a profit off of your back.

Getting it for free is one thing, some artists just share their music freely, but they'd be pretty pissed off to find someone was making money off them, when they aren't doing the work. See it's not just about the ISPs, it's the whole attitude towards art.

There seems to be an attitude of "It's not a proper job"

So it gets little respect if any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So much for the golden age of technology making life easier for everyone.

Since computers became the norm, human nature has found a way to abuse it.

If it's not to shaft the artists it's to watch someone getting shafted!

;) It really is human nature, though, isn't it? Always looking to get something for nothing... ahhh people.... :p

 

Once something is sent digitally, that's it, you've lost it. Fair enough, a lot of musicians aren't in it for the money, just as well really, but you don't expect someone else to make a profit off of your back.

Getting it for free is one thing, some artists just share their music freely, but they'd be pretty pissed off to find someone was making money off them, when they aren't doing the work. See it's not just about the ISPs, it's the whole attitude towards art.

There seems to be an attitude of "It's not a proper job"

So it gets little respect if any.

Yeah, I generally agree with that sentiment about the difference between someone sharing the music/giving it away or taking it for free and someone making money off of it. A lot of bands generally seem to have the same idea about bootlegs - it's one thing to make a recording of a gig for yourself or even to share with others, it's another to sell it to people or play a DVD at your house and charge admission.

 

About the not respecting musicians, or maybe more generally the not respecting "intellectual property" I don't really understand the attitude behind that. If someone has made something, it's theirs, and you don't have a right to take it unless you have their permission... it seems so common sense! But the thing is, I think people do understand this, they just don't care. IMO it's less a matter of "what's wrong with what i'm doing?" and more one of "so? what are you doing to do to stop me?"

 

This is a bit of a ramble, and a bit tl;dr but on the subject of "who's making money off of the music".... that's why I've said that sites like YouTube (or Napster back when it was illegal) are a more logical place to go to than ISPs. Like I mentioned before, if you want to treat the internet like TV or radio, the ISP isn't the broadcaster, the websites are. If copyright owners are looking for someone to work with on getting proper compensation, the websites are the ones to look to, IMO.

 

I remember all the controversy around here when WMG started taking vids down and while I understand why people were frustrated, I think WMG had a point. It's not so much about going after the random kid who puts up or watches a muse video, it's about the fact that every time someone watches that video youtube/google is making money.

 

Controlling something like YouTube, however hard it may be, is still easier than trying to control the flow of information to and from every person who's online. If they want the content broadcast, WMG can set up a deal with youtube where they sort out the payment. With the illegal stuff, WMG can set up a bot to go through, identify their copyrighted material and notify YouTube who can easily take it down and notify/warn the user who uploaded it (which is what they've already done) NBC/Universal is one that has done well with this - I've tried to find SNL or Jimmy Fallon skits on YT before and it's virtually impossible to get them, they get them taken down very quickly.

 

This method also doesn't violate anyone's privacy because when I put something up on youtube, I'm broadcasting it to the world - I've given up my privacy to some extent. Same as with the filesharing programs, if I'm putting a song or movie up there to share, I'm putting myself out there, and so if the "property owner" sees me doing it, they can come after me/shut me down. I guess I'd consider it the difference between the police arresting someone who is committing a crime in the middle of a public street in broad daylight and them randomly coming to people's houses to look around and make sure they're not committing any crimes.

 

So, yeah... another long post :awesome:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the pot is still open....Here's the idea....taxcut. Don't throw me out yet! Taxcut files cannot be copied unless the file has been run through the taxcut program. If one copies the file, the file unable to be opened.

 

Theorhetically, a band use their website as a funnel or program to verify a valid copy of their artistic innovation. The band can choose which music/videos are to be free downloads for publicity and which are for purchase (like iTunes). One would be able to purchase singles, full cd/dvds, or the conventional actual disc to be sent to the purchaser. Certainly, discs can be made not to replicate. That would eliminate file/disc sharing at the personal level. It would also be inconvenient to those of us who like to create playlists and what not. That decision would be made at the band level. I, as an individual, would still purchase a disc that could not be copied....meaning it wouldn't thwart sales because I and probably others? still like the music and it would be a minor inconvenience.

 

Unfortunately, someone will be able to get around the technology. The band would be able to buy some time to recoupe the costs of production of the cd, touring (which I can't even imagine the total costs incurred by a band), and publicity. With the fiberoptic cabling in our homes, there would not be a problem with speed of downloading and purchasing through a band's website. This method may enable bands to survive without crawling under another umbrella of a major label which takes a percentage of the band's income. Each cost to the band gets passed along to the buyer. This simplistic idea can be changed to the bands' needs or desires. This will be complicated in the end because of copyrights, patents, and other costs.

 

The band would have autonomy. Let technology be an asset instead of a hinderance. This ideal is still only part of the answer. We really don't know who makes the money. Honestly, knowing or not knowing wouldn't change my position because the band is taking care of their own innovation, music, and dvds. If the band already has a shop, there lies the beginnings of creating their funnel.

 

Times are tough all around. Re-inventing the wheel, internet, will happen or crash at some point. I don't know who would be responsible, in that instance...the world...in essence. Right now, the dollar is monopoly money. The middle class looks a little smaller from some vantage points.

 

I hope that entraprenuership {sp) is favoured for all of us. Music is an intregal part of my life. It is not my job (persay). but it is someone elses', such as MUSE. MUSE have been innovative with their creation of MUSEBAY for tickets. That is great!

 

I, often wonder, when you're brilliant and genius with music, have a band....enjoyable part that makes you want to pick up the next day....when it comes to this side of the business, does it become a job or duty or is it still a love or devotion...quite a delicate balance, I would have to say?

 

Hope all of you have a great day or evening!

 

Christina;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the idea of somehow "authenticating" things might be able to work, as could making the CD's so that they couldn't be copied (at least not easily). I recall a similar idea back maybe 10yrs ago when the Napster thing happened and the music sharing controversy became big news - some labels made it so that the CDs couldn't be played in a CDROM drive figuring this would keep people from being able to make them into MP3s. I remember some people complaining, especially college students, because they essentially used their comp as their CD player so it made the discs worthless to them.

 

It also hinders people's ability to make legal copies for themselves (i.e. if i want to keep a master copy of a CD or if I want to take a CD I bought and put it on my ipod), but you could get around that by having a license for a digital copy come with the CD (they already do that with movies - you get the DVD/BlueRay and a code to download a copy from itunes. It usually costs more, but not as much as buying both the DVD and the download) In the absence of labels, the artists wouldn't have to do it alone, they'd be able to work with companies that offer downloads or could form a consortium of some sort amongst themselves.

 

About people being able to get around safeguards, you'll never be able to make something that can't be broken into, but I think the key is to make it too difficult/costly/annoying to break into - that way, sure, some people will do it, but the average person either won't have the knowledge or won't want to be bothered with it.

 

That's really the problem, isn't it? People have been illegally trading music on the internet since the beginning, it's just that when Napster and other similar programs came out it made it so easy, and that, combined with the new high speed connections that every college kid had in their dorm, made it go from something that one group of people were involved in to something that anyone with an internet connection could do.

 

You may not be able to stop it completely, but if you put up enough road blocks, a lot of people won't bother with it, and you may be able to cut down the amount of trading that's going on. (especially if you also give people an affordable, easy alternative)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISP's... I'd like to share one more thing that somehow fits in this context.

 

In Belgium, they suddenly came up with "Auvibel tax", starting from February 1st. As my English isn't that great, I'd say you have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy#Belgium (see under "Belgium"), so you have an idea.

 

What do you guys think about this? I think once again the wrong people are being penalized. If I buy a cd, I pay for it, and when I want to listen to that cd on my MP3-player, I have to pay again?

 

What's the next step, extra taxes on pencil and paper, as I COULD copy a whole book with that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...