Why We Don't Need To 'Think Of The Artists': They're Doing Fine
from the what's-the-problem? dept
Just as politicians routinely invite us to "think of the children" when they want to push through some new liberty-reducing law, so the copyright industries regularly invoke "the artists" when they want to justify longer copyright terms or harsher enforcement laws.They claim they are being hit so badly by piracy that artists are suffering as a result. But that's a little hard to square with the fact that media companies still manage to pay their CEOs huge salaries. This suggests (a) the media companies are not doing too badly and (b) that if they really cared about the woes of their artists, they could alleviate it by redirecting some of their fat cats' hefty salary downstairs.
Of course, most people have long ago seen through this rather implausible concern on the part of the copyright industries, but that still leaves open the question of how artists are faring. Here's some interesting evidence that in Australia, musicians, at least, aren't doing too badly:
Even though recorded music sales are down, artists are taking a bigger slice of the overall music industry revenue pie - and more total revenue - than they have in decades. Largely fuelled by copyright-based performance royalties collected on their behalf by APRA and AMCOS, artists' revenues from public performance royalties have doubled in Australia from $110 million in 2000 to $220 million in the past 10 years. Compare that with the recording industry, where wholesale sales have dropped from $594 million to $384 million over the past decade and it seems that it is the record labels that are feeling more pain than the artists they claim are the major victims of online piracy.As the writer points out, this suggests that artists aren't really suffering from the supposed scourge of piracy. And since everyone – even the record labels, apparently – agrees that what really matters is whether creators are able to make a living from their work, and thus carry on creating, this has to be good news. It also indicates politicians should stop trying to prop up the copyright industries' old business models and just let the artists get on with it.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: artists, payments, performance royalties
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Come back and talk to me after you spend some time trying to make a living as a creator in the motion picture industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
- Try telling that to the movie business
- They're making record profits
- Try making money being a [i]creator[/i] in the movie biz
Clearest example yet that the problem is within the movie business and not with pirates and lousy customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No.
I bet the income matches the value of "content". Thats probably why it don't get pirated much either...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Further, who needs help in the motion picture industry? The actors who make millions? The indies crowdsourcing their own projects? The motion picture industry is doing fine. Might want to research it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/13500315912/hollywood-accounting-darth-vader-no t-getting-paid-because-return-jedi-still-isnt-profitable.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Seriously though, if you personally can't make money in the movie industry, maybe it's because you suck at it and should think about becoming a women's shoe salesman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Hmm. I know a bunch of filmmakers. And they seem to be doing okay... And they're opposed to SOPA.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111111/12040916725/why-all-filmmakers-should-speak-out-a gainst-sopa.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know more. And they are in favor of SOPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Most entertainment folks I hear speak on the issue are merely repeating the same debunked talking points over and over again. That tells me they're too busy cheating the public to bother researching the issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean the ones premiering at Sundance? They aren't the entire industry.
They get few if any box office releases so they're entirely dependent on other markets (the ones eroded by piracy) to recoup investment.
Ever heard of "Hobo with a Shotgun?" Got bigger because of piracy. They can recoup investment through crowdsourcing which has been proven to make them money.
They also have to rely on private financing which is almost impossible to get due to the risk that your film will be pirated and totally dilute the paying market for the film.
BS. Hollywood is so heavily subsidized, they make money by states being competitive for Hollywood movies. Also, there's little evidence that a cam torrent on TPB is eroding money when Hollywood isn't offering a DVD alternative on day one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...related to any business/industry that relies on a government granted monopoly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
evol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also give permission to anyone who wants to post my Art on their blogs,videos, and websites.
I am an old school original punk rocker who has had nothing to do with nor ever would have anything to do with the RIAA & Big Labels.
Not all the Artists are greedy money seekers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That probably has more to do with the fact that your music stinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That probably has more to do with the fact that your music stinks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Artists
Didn't you get paid when you sold the song? Why do you believe you are entitled to a royalty every time it is played or bought? Do you think that GM or HP should get a percentage of a company's revenue if they use a GM vehicle or HP computer to generate that revenue?
------------------
I'll undertake to answer that, not contrary to my previous statement -- I just don't want people to make MILLIONS off easy work due to mass markets -- but it's simply an unfair attack on the basic mechanism of copyright.
First, let's be clear that music has almost no value. The actual value to anyone is right around the royalty rates for radio play. (Let's say, on indidividual basis using CD costs: that may be a few cents PER LISTEN over time.) -- Anyway, therefore, songwriter or players have to work for less than peanuts PER PERSON. It's a quite equitable arrangement that society has worked out to reward the value of making music by assigning EXCLUSIVE license to get those FEW CENTS per play, and that the popularity of music makes for more rewards. Of course, it's not fair -- if it were, Lady Gaga would make about a thousand bucks a year -- but it IS a practical system that CAN work -- in the ABSENCE of piracy.
But you're simply MEAN to begrudge this person a few cents per play, or recording sold, or whatever. As I mentioned before, you guys want to TOTALLY remove the possibility of getting money, while I just want that kind of income capped at reasonable levels", including executive salaries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Artists
And this is why you have no business being in these discussions. To suggest that music has no value (not the same thing as price) is so counter to the ongoing culture of humanity as to be blatantly silly....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
"First, let's be clear that music has almost no value."
And this is why you have no business being in these discussions. To suggest that music has no value (not the same thing as price) is so counter to the ongoing culture of humanity as to be blatantly silly....
-------------
There you go again. Pick out one sentence which is explained by the rest, but ignore that so as to make another baseless ad hom attack. -- AS IF you're the arbiter of anyone's business, sonny. -- And when I'm defending a songwriter that some other chowderhead says doesn't deserve to even get paid!
You're a mere ankle-biter. Go back to off-topic, bizarre sexuality and penis jokes, it's all you're up to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
To be fair, everyone does....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
You said music has no value, and then "explained" it in terms of price. In other words, you're completely wrong.
And you need to look up the definition of ad hom, because that wasn't one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Artists
No one has this position.
We just don't think it's equitable to hinder the rights of the world'd citizens so you can get some pennies for your what you admit has "almost no value."
You're MEAN that you don't want me to make some money, not a lot mind you, for being a professional napper which has limited value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
But you're simply MEAN to begrudge this person a few cents per play
No one has this position.
------------------
You're trivially wrong, AC; here's what prompted my response (amazing how you guys can totally drop context; you're like GNATS, two seconds of memory), where "someone" certainly "has this position" that the songwriter is NOT entitled to royalties:
--------------------
Vincent Clement (profile), Dec 2nd, 2011 @ 9:32am
Didn't you get paid when you sold the song? Why do you believe you are entitled to a royalty every time it is played or bought? Do you think that GM or HP should get a percentage of a company's revenue if they use a GM vehicle or HP computer to generate that revenue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Artists
Do musicians pay Yamaha or any instrument manufacturer?
Do film makers pay Sony for use of their hardware?
Are musicians paying Youtube for the use of the platform?
Are musicians paying Facebook for using it to promote themselves commercially?
No they are all freetards that believe only they need to get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
Why you freetard don't try to build a platform then, Zuckberg did it, Google came from a dorm too its easy right?
Build one up and see what it takes don't depend on them to do business go and create one from the ground up freetard.
You should be paying them for the use of their platform not them paying you.
The day you can get your own satellites in orbit and build lay your own fiber over the ocean than you talk about wanting things for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Artists
Songwriters do get paid up front and then get royalties or residuals should sales (not air play) reach a certain level similar to how session musicians are hired and paid. And some songwriters and session players get paid far more than peanuts for their work. Places like Tin Pan Alley didn't exist waiting for air play royalties, you know. They got paid up front.
As for Lady Gaga she sells recordings, sells out concerts, endlessly promotes herself, attaches herself sincerely to issues such as bullying that affect her fans and more so let's be a bit less critical there. She works hard for the money and she gets what she earns.
Your assertion that the the system that existed prior to the Internet worked for artists doesn't hold a teaspoon full of water when you look at it closely. Particularly the
"front end" of the food chain, namely the bands that went in unpaid up front to record their music. George Harrison didn't write "Only A Northern Song" because he and the band were happy with how Northern Songs dealt with them, you know.
To that extent I'm not sure what you're saying piracy upset. Songwriters get paid, session players and background singers get paid while the recordings are done. Same as before. The artist whose name goes on the end product is in there on spec, same as before and if this evidence that musicians, the people whose name is on the end product are doing very well then the ones who may not be are the member companies of the RIAA and their ilk. Y'know the gatekeepers you don't like. At least claim to.
And performance royalties don't just come in from radio airplay, they come in from songs played in your local coffee shop and supermarket, your barber shop, streamers like last.fm, your dentist's office and a host of other places. Unless, of course, all those places are pirates too. But I suppose anything is possible even if not probable.
Though I'd rather not be getting my hair cut by a barber while he listens to a mix of death metal and punk. I have no idea what the hair cut would look like!!
If it's bizarre sex you're after, and that seems to be part of your motivation for coming here then let me suggest you break into your local aquarium at 3am and slip into a nice warm tank and have sex with an electric eel while listening to Rocking The Casaba. I'm sure you'll have a wonderful time.
And music does have intrinsic human value. Keep in your binary with me or against me mind that humans are the only animal that creates music for reasons other than communication. We create it for the intrinsic reasons. We love the stuff. No other reason needed. Just because we love it. We create music for its own sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Artists
If the law said copyright should last 30 secs would you still be claiming it was in the constitution?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
I'm not sure I buy into what seems to be your claim that your music is being downloaded hundreds of thousands of times on P2P networks but if it's a general statement, once again, there's no definitive proof that you have lost so much as a single sale. I agree that the position makes some sense but the other side is that your music gets heard by more people and may increase sales in other areas and formats.
Search engines don't charge for searches, so if I search for "where do I find writeem's latest hit" I don't get charged for it, Google ads have to be clicked on for the advertiser to make a penny off my quick drive through; payment processors don't make a penny if I don't buy something, if the site owner doesn't charge for downloads somewhere, somehow, no money changes hands; I block display ads something a large number of people do so I don't even see those and they don't register on ad servers like doubleclick; so no money changes hands there either. So far no money has changed hands.
Include in that that a lot of P2P activity is perfectly legal, legit and moral and doesn't involve your song it involves distributing Linux releases, documents shared by users or businesses and organizations having nothing whatever to do with your song.
OK, now I've found your song, no money has changed hands and I download it, listen to it and find I like it but not enough to hold onto it taking up disk space but I do tell a couple of friends about it that I think will like it. Say my niece and her husband. I do a bit more research and find out where it can be paid for and tell them that too. IF I can find that information, not always the easiest thing to do which is often what sets people looking for other ways of finding it.
My niece likes it enough to buy your latest shiny disk from Amazon and there you go, a sale. Or she hates it and doesn't and no sale. But until the moment she clicks on buy at Amazon not a penny has changed hands, no one has made a penny off you as they search for the song.
Actually, if I click on an ad as I look the odds are it probably isn't for music at all but something I've been looking for elsewhere so no one has made a penny off you either. Say that dandy tiller attachment I've been looking for to go with my ECHO gear in the garden.
OK, so where's the theft? If I didn't go looking for your song in the first place my neice wouldn't know about it and she wouldn't have bought your CD, even if your song doesn't appeal to me it does to her and you made a sale.
There's no empirical evidence that you've lost anything when file sharing takes place. You can't lose or have a potential sale "stolen" if it doesn't take place to start with. It's still just potential, nothing, nada, zippidy do dah that you can legally place on a balance sheet. You can't steal a ZERO.
There is plenty of empirical evidence for the scenario I outlined above where I tell someone that may be interested in the song actually buys it (or the whole CD) after through word-of-mouth they find out about it.
Perhaps think of it as a form of comparison shopping, if you will. Most people don't buy music without sampling it in some form be it radio, a music channel, or whatever particularly after the bad old days of the 1990s where most CDs were jammed with junk hiding one good piece. As most people I know, of any age, don't listen to radio that programs simply music anymore that avenue is slowly closing down so what's left? (Song, annoying DJ telling the world in full throated volume about what they had for breakfast as if anyone cares, endless ads, back to the DJ holding a "contest", back to the ads and then music comes up under the ads and the whole cycle starts again until the talk radio show comes on in half an hour and music vanishes till the afternoon drive and even if I do like it I haven't a clue who you are cause current programming practices on radio seem to have ditched that part.)
The point is that people went to Napster and other P2P stuff to find what they couldn't find elsewhere through "normal" distribution channels. And they still do it for exactly that reason.
The bigger point is that most of these people want you to get paid, too. As I pointed out above during the search for you no one made so much as one red cent, the download didn't cost anything if the searcher has two brain cells to rub together, and now because person A heard it, liked it enough to tell persons B and C about it and one of those actually bought your CD. (Anyone serious about listening to music doesn't create libraries of the sonic sewerage known as .mp3 unless a device demands it.)
The flaw is in distribution by the gatekeepers, you know, the RIAA, MPAA of the world not in the musician (seller) and those who like the song (buyer). If I can't find you and be exposed to your music through those channels then I'm not gonna buy what you have to sell, am I? Nor am I about to pay outrageous prices for a CD by an artist I know next to nothing about.
Nor am I gonna demonize you. I will say you're uninformed, frightened to the point where you'll believe what your told by RIAA and MPAA propaganda that has no factual basis and you do want to make some kind of living from your music. I'd also say practice up and get out and perform live because that's the best advertising a musician can have. Learn to perform live, if you must but get out there and gig. Work hard for your money like the rest of us have to. Artists who hit the big time have had to do that, major label backing or not, they went out and gigged, gigged and gigged some more until they were sick of it, then gigged some more. Beatles, Stones, Zep, Metallica, Lady Gaga, Elvis, Sinatra, Crosby, Neil Young or just about anyone else whose name falls off the tongue or tip of the brain had to do that. So do you.
Stop complaining and get to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
You are lucky that the market is big and that this is not a zero sum game because if it was radio would have killed your "job" a long time ago.
You don't deserve protections you deserve scorn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
If we would go back to it and its origins you wouldn't have protections at all and I doubt you would be homeless either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
And so you know I'm one of the many teaching them how to do it.
I'm sick and tired of IP law encroaching on my rights and eroding them.
I'm sick and tired of having to pay for music every time I go eat out or go to the gym or go to any store, I pay that crap everytime and probably will cost me thousands of dollars through my life that is a rip off, I'm sick and tired of people trying to demonize casual downloaders that probably are your biggest fans and would spend every penny they have to buy something from you and then go download some more because they can't get enough and then they get you calling them thieves and trying to throw them in jail, you deserve to be ripped off, you deserve to end up on the poor house, you deserve to not have fans, you deserve every fucking bad thing that happens to you.
I'm sick and tired of companies trying to shutdown the competition, I'm sick and tired of laws being used to censor others, I'm sick and tired of seeing people try to use children to achieve their goals, I'm sick and tired of your BS rights and I will not respect them any longer, I'm your enemy now and I want you gone.
Be glad that I don't believe in violence, not even for your kind of BS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Artists
So please tell me how an average middle class artist getting less money is better. You guys all claim to support indie musicians, but then turn around and cry bloody murder over things like royalties. It costs you nothing for your artist to get a royalty since you aren't the one paying for the license at a business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Artists
If this is true, then why do you give a rat's ass about piracy?
The only thing piracy might effect is "when the consumer buys an album." It sure as hell doesn't keep your song from being played in places like airplanes and restaurants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
...then I agree, that is piracy for profit, and it is not acceptable at all. (I personally have never seen a business do this, by the way - if they're allowed to play music outside the store at all, they must pay all three of the PRO's, or get shut down/sued.)
On the other hand, the vast majority of piracy nowadays is not for profit. Music blogs, forums... hell, even the people putting stuff on The Pirate Bay, don't make a dime from it.
And it is solely this type of piracy that the "anti-piracy" folks commenting here are focusing on. They throw around insults like "freetardo" and call Mike Masnick "pirate mike," but when, say, Universal Music doesn't pay $50 million in royalties to artists, they are completely mum.
You might recognize one of the most idiotic. He's the one who called you an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
"hell, even the people putting stuff on The Pirate Bay, don't make a dime from it."
Not true. They might not make money from the actual dl, but they DO make money off of ads and their t-shirts. Since they facilitate piracy, how is selling t-shirts NOT profiting from it? Because my mind, that is definitely (but probably indirectly) profiting from piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
Yeah, I'm not lying about it either. I went to this pizza place in my area, and saw they had a dj. I went to request a song, and noticed his ENTIRE playlist was on on of those programs that lets you pirate music and play it.
News flash: If they are paying the PRO's, what the pizza place is doing is entirely, 100% legal. If you are allowed to play music in a certain context (like, having a DJ), then it does not matter one whit where that music came from. Stores who have DJ's don't supply the music (the DJ does), so they would not have to pay one penny more, or less, if all of those tracks were bought and paid for on iTunes.
Nor would any artist get paid any differently from the pizza shop's fees. Playlists for live music (including DJ's) are not tracked by PRO's at all. The PRO's simply take the lump sums that the businesses pay, and internally divide it up according to terrestrial radio play. Meaning: If a Boston DJ spends all night playing the works of a local artist, and that local artist is not represented on terrestrial radio, then the artist won't see any money whatsoever from royalties. Instead, that money will all go to Aerosmith and other Top 40 artists.
By the way - what is this program that "lets you pirate music and play it"? I'm only familiar with software that allows you to play digital music files, and doesn't give a rat's ass about where those files come from.
Seriously, the more you talk about this stuff, the more your ignorance is apparent.
"hell, even the people putting stuff on The Pirate Bay, don't make a dime from it."
Not true. They might not make money from the actual dl, but they DO make money off of ads and their t-shirts.
How do the users of The Pirate Bay make money off of ads and T-shirts? Answer: They don't. And the users are the ones who are actually pirating the material. If the users don't put something on TPB, it's not there.
TBP may facilitate infringement, but the infringement they are facilitating is completely non-commercial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
Do you pay the musical instrument manufacturer for using their instruments or are you a freetard that believes everything should be free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
Do artists not do work when they compose a song or an entire album? If you seriously think that is the case, then you better provide some kind of reason. Because that "easy" work actually isn't very easy or non time consuming at all. That favorite album that you've been listening to for a while? Probably took about a month or two's worth of work to create. And maybe around the price of a not so old used car for the studio time.
And really? What work is the DJ doing? Ooh. Pressing spacebar to play or searching for a song title is SUCH hard work. If it were a real DJ that actually remixed everything, then I wouldn't have much of a problem with it since they are actually putting effort into their performance. The problem I have though, is when businesses just pirate everything instead of paying the licenses like they are supposed to, so the artists get paid the money they deserve. Many of my teachers make an extra 2-4 grand a year from their royalties. Are you just gonna take that away from them because you feel they don't deserve it? And note that they are musicians who play classical music, so they are actually the ones "doing the work" and not just playing cover music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
The only thing they should be able to provide is an original copy of the work, then they should be allowed to make money out of it without having to pay you anything, just like in every other industry in the world except of course the copyright industry that believe they are somehow different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
Do you pay the guy who make your clothes every time you use them to make money?
Do you pay the guys who make the CD everytime you get paid, after all you are making money with their work are you not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Artists
100% wrong.
The idiocy on this blog knows no bounds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
The idiocy on this blog knows no bounds.
The A.C. who you are responding to is, if he's telling the truth, a songwriter (not a performer).
And, he is arguing against piracy.
You know, when you call even the people who agree with you idiots, then perhaps it's not them who are the idiotic ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Artists
YouTube pays royalties to ASCAP and BMI. They have for years.
In addition, ASCAP is trying to get websites that embed those videos - which are already paid for in licensing fees - to pay additional licensing fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artists
Of course, you can actually do it all on your computer now. Sure, it's become easier to infringe, but it's also become easier to create.
Tell that to Jonathan Coulton and Paul and Storm, who are making money in spite of using creative commons licenses. Also, the Chip Music scene is filled with people who have "made it" (even to #1 on bandcamp). They're not only not suffering, they have a new source of income thanks to the internet.
Do you have any idea how many "exceptions" there are? The Jonathan Coulton example listed above tried to become a musician in the early 90's, couldn't, and became a computer programmer for a database software company instead. Thanks to the internet, he has a Billboard-charting album (Artificial Heart, BTW) produced by a member of They Might Be Giants. This simply would not have happened without the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artists
Please. Of course they don't make money when a song is infringed - the programmer, the studio musician, etc., they were already paid for their services. Why do they deserve perpetual income from their one-time work?
This 'food-chain' evolved around artificial monopolies created by copyright. It was given and it can be taken away, so you have to be ready to move on. This is no different than any other industry on Earth, if you think otherwise then it's entirely due to your own misconception that you are somehow special.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Artists
Just for a bit of reality for you.
Anyone can put words together. It doesnt mean anyone else wants to repeat them.
Anyone can put musical notes together. it doesnt mean anyone else wants to hear them.
Anyone can make noise with their throats. It doesnt mean anyone else finds them pleasurable.
Anyone can move around. it doesnt mean anyone else wants to see them.
Anyone can put all these together. it doesnt mean anyone else will give them money to do so.
As a songwriter you are infringing. Many people use the same words you do and in the same order. Not everyone gets paid for it. If someone gives you money for putting certain words together good for you and you should feel grateful. Not demanding continuous payment for life and ban anyone else from using them. If everyone did this we wouldnt have LANGUAGE.
"By the way, these are freaking talented people who got into music for the love of it, to maybe make a living, not a killing,"
Talent is a perception. not a definitive fact. Not everyone is guaranteed to be able to make a living off of it let alone get rich. Just like not every songwriter can or will write a "hit song" and not every singer can or will be a "star". Also , one "star" having one "hit song" doesnt mean they never have to do anything ever again in order to "make a living". If doing what you think you do best doesnt make you enough money to live on then you should find something to do that will and stop whining about the people who dont think what you do is good enough to pay you their money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If artists were doing fine and didn't want to be paid for you consuming their work...
Then they would be giving it away, not charging for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I hear the IP supporters pointing the finger and accusing people of feeling entitled, but it's quite apparent that the complainers are just as guilty of entitlement issues or possibly even more so. Publishers and artists (but mostly publishers) feel entitled to be paid for their works long after the job has been done and they've been compensated for it. They make use of the common wealth that is all of art history and bundle it into a new piece of art and hold it in a monopoly to extract money from people. They also feel entitled to have the power to stop others from using the works they have created to produce other new works just as they did when they created theirs, only they did it with stuff by people that are long dead and ineligible for copyright protection.
Let me be clear, I don't oppose people getting just compensation for the work that they do. I do, however, oppose the way the art industry at large does it. Let's be logical here. What people are really compensating an artist for when they buy copies is the labor and time that took to create it. The industry made a mess out of the whole thing when they tried to establish absolute control over who can access it in order to create a market scarcity on something that is not scarce. If you can copy a work like you can with any data, it's not scarce and using restrictive software measures does not change that fact. As I've mentioned here time and time again is that labor and time is scarce. In fact, it's probably the only true scarcity that exists. So the logical business model would put an emphasis on deriving compensation for artists for the actual labor they put in to their art and ignore the flimsy wall they try to put around their garden.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"wholesale sales ... dropped from $594 million to $384 million"
First, the irrelevant "think of the children" mantra. This gets readers into scoffing mode.
2nd, mention irrelevant US salary figures while piece is on Australia. This gets readers angry, and then...
3rd, confuse overall gross figures that are comparing wallabies to koalas. (It's at best unclear whether "wholesale sales" are all going to "public performance"; IF SO, then 220M out of 384M is much larger portion than stated elsewhere, and since rising, I'd say that's commendable progress that you should cheer on.)
4th, overlook that Big Media (Australia) income is actually down, and don't even hint that could be due to piracy.
In sum, spin good news for artists into yet more justification for piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "wholesale sales ... dropped from $594 million to $384 million"
How about/when/ YOU jaywalk? Do you justify it out of the blue?
I have no need to justify any and all of my actions. Why would a pirate need to?
Why do people climb K2? Because it is there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "wholesale sales ... dropped from $594 million to $384 million"
When /you/ speed, do you justify it?
How about/when/ YOU jaywalk? Do you justify it out of the blue?
I have no need to justify any and all of my actions. Why would a pirate need to?
Why do people climb K2? Because it is there.
-----------------
You are off topic, defensive, and stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "wholesale sales ... dropped from $594 million to $384 million"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "wholesale sales ... dropped from $594 million to $384 million"
You constantly repeat that you don't like the current copyright regime. You insist that you don't like BigMedia and then come to the rescue of it's Aussie branch when it's income is down after endlessly repeating the mantra that "it's about the artists". Suddenly you like BigMedia.
I mentioned how you repeatedly tie yourself into emotional and logical Gordian knots a while back but you've just outdone yourself.
Tell me, do you stand for anything other than find new and inventive ways to troll? (Something else you're not particularly good at.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I am Holly, the ship's computer, with an IQ of 6,000. That's the same IQ as 6,000 copyright maximalists. Or 6,000 times the IQ of Out Of The Blue."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Adjusted quote ahead, courtesy of Red Dwarf:
"I am Holly, the ship's computer, with an IQ of 6,000. That's the same IQ as 6,000 copyright maximalists. Or 6,000 times the IQ of Out Of The Blue."
--------------------
That's not even an ad hom attack, fool. It's just feeble. My points therefore stand without you even being up to contradicting them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He'll fit right in,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hmm...
I concede that the current length of copyrights is excessive in many cases. But eliminating copyright would have a profound and terrible effect on our culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...
The above comment about most artists struggling is what it's all about, what it's always been about. Copyright, while useful, has devolved into a money making scheme for those running media companies. Artists' well being are the farthest thing from a record or film company's or minds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
It's got to do with the accepted rule in society that if someone wants to consume your work that is for sale, then you pay for it, you don't just take it illegally.
Stop being willfully stupid.
As for the rest of your comment, your suggestion that copyright is bad and that all creations should immediately belong to the collective, is nothing but pure communism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
Public Domain occurs after copyright expiration. Not communism.
Everything immediately belonging to the collective upon creation:
Pure communism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
Collectives existed long before the words communist, socialist, capitalist and all the rest of our secular economic religions appeared and will exist long after they're gone.
I get your drift, I don't necessarily agree with it but I see it. But do, please, have a doctor find out where your sense of humour went.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
Call it preemptive rip off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
I really hate to keep harping on you, but you just continue to say so many wrong things, I can't really help myself.
Getting works into the public domain is supposed to be the goal of copyright. It's not because copyright "ran out," it's because copyright served its purpose (getting the works published in the first place), thus is no longer necessary.
Copyright's purpose was never to enrich artists or publishers, but to benefit the public. The two are not incompatible (and were largely in synch prior to the internet), but when push comes to shove, it's the public who decides what copyright should be.
Also: it is legally impossible for an artist to put a work into the public domain - at least worldwide.
In any case, I know of not a single artist who had declared their work public domain. Millions, however, use things like Creative Commons.
They use these licenses, in part, because they make more money by doing so. Witness Trent Reznor, for example - he made more money selling one record, special editions of an album that was also free in digital format, than he ever did from artists royalties under a major label.
These are not "hobbyists." They are professional artists who realize that they need to adapt to make money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
Communism? Do you even know what that means? If anything reeks of socialism, it's the government handing out monopolies left and right -- especially when said monopolies overrule physical property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
Or go to a library.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
While you're in that library, you might want to learn to comprehend shit better.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
So, wait... a library can only lend books that are not available in bookstores?
You can't possibly believe that. So what's your point, exactly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...
Don't delude yourself. There are thousands upon thousands of new content creators waiting for a break, and if some existing creators don't like those terms they are free to step aside and make way for others to take their place. Life will go on and they will not be missed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...
It's completely absurd to say that without copyright law anyone could copy and then publish it as their own work. Copyright law doesn't have to exist to consider this fraud and therefor illegal. It's completely possible to abolish copyright as we know it today without capitulating to this silly scenario where all book publishing is just plagiarism. Case-in-point, public domain works are not covered by copyright but I don't see a rash of copies of The count of Monte Christo by John Smith, some schmuck with a printer, popping up anywhere.
MOST ARTISTS CANNOT CURRENTLY SUPPORT THEMSELVES. The state of the world today, with copyright in place is that 'artist' is not a sustainable profession for most 'artists.'
Frankly if every person that was just trying to 'make it big' dropped out everyone would be better off. I personally would be ok with copyright ending this silly phenomena.
Your view of copyright is idyllic, you need to at least attempt to see the bigger picture and the damage that copyright does to society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm...
What copyright does is give a tool to extort money from others, increase the bar for entry in that market, create uncertainty which increases the cost of entry into that market, reduce the experimentation that should be happening for people to be able to see what works and what doesn't and a lot of other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...
No, there would be more art at cheaper costs to the consumer and artists. Technology is the largest anti-copyright mechanism simply because it makes art easier to do whether it's a painting, a song, or a movie. We no longer need papyrus or paper to write a story that people can enjoy. All we need is English, 30 minutes and an idea of what we want to discuss or type to have it enjoyed. Evidence all supports that copyright does not support the artists in making better deals, it actually hinders them with arbitrary licenses and penalties that are not needed.
Lets say I spend 5 years researching and come up with the perfect story then I publish my work, without copyright everyone would be legally entitled to copy the book, slap their name on the book and republish it.
And you're confusing plagiarism with copyright. Sure, someone can post a book with your work, but the better thing to do would be to add more to your story and make your characters just that: Your own. A pirate, by definition, has to lag behind what you do. If all they're doing is copying you, the answer is to create more original content and separate yourself from the pack. It doesn't lie in trying to arrest the pirate for showing off your work.
The number of people who would be able to create art would decrease dramatically as the would be artists would be forced to find some other means to support themselves.
No, it wouldn't. Weaker copyright laws allow for more innovation. More draconian has investors in technology look elsewhere.
Also without copyright providing the ability for some artists to "make it big" there would be fewer people who wanted to produce art.
Again, this is a falsity. Why do so many people argue against the ICE domain seizures, Andy Baio's court case or Chanel's lack of due process in seizing a competitor's website? Piracy is competition, true. But there are ways to compete in every competitive industry that doesn't devolve to censorship.
But eliminating copyright would have a profound and terrible effect on our culture.
I don't think so. But I'd be interested in the research that shows this. All I've seen says otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hmm...
One of the reasons that the Statue of Anne was passed wasn't that writers weren't being paid, by and large they were. Not much, but they were being paid. It was that more than one publisher could release the same title and author at the same time leading to marketplace confusion. While the act did stipulate that it was also intended to make sure that only one publisher would have the right to copy the work at one time. Hence the name.
It also granted perpetual copyright to the Kings/Queens Printer to reproduce acts of parliament, regulations and laws.
I'm not sure when the concept of copyright was applied to the visual arts though I suspect it was probably around the time of the invention of photography when it became easier to duplicate and reproduce the image of a painting or sculpture.
Anyway, while movable type was new in Europe and did cause the arrival of copyright it had existed in China for a couple of centuries at least prior to Gutenberg and I'm unaware of any similar concept being introduced there.
The best selling author I mentioned above will get an advance from the publisher to do her research before she produces the manuscript which carries her over until the publication date of the novel.
Prior to copyright's existence authors did "make it big" in England. Notable examples were John Milton's epic poems Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained. Poets, remember, were the rock stars of the day.
And we can be sure that Shakespeare got paid, if only for the simple reason that he owned the Globe Theatre. He was a production company unto himself. Even at that he had the time and inclination to write the plays which changed the English language even more that the King James Version of the Bible did and all his sonnets.
I know these men were the exception, not the rule, but it does appear that writers could "stike it big" before copyright in the English speaking world.
The point I'm making here is that writers, and other creators created before copyright came into existence. Should it vanish they'll continue to create because of the powerful human urge to do just that. We have this unquenchable urge to tell stories to one another. Stories to instruct our children, to make sense of the world around us, to entertain ourselves and to draw us closer. We'll make music for its own sake simply because it's the art form that most deeply resonates with the human brain, mind and spirit, we;ll draw to represent our view of the world in ways photography cannot. To our core and soul we're creative beings. If you accept the Judeao-Christian creation story even as a narrative explanation then being made in God's image we could hardly be much else. God is creative, so we must be creative. God creates so, being in His image we create.
It'd be harder without copyright perhaps. Though I wonder sometimes when I read stories of authors in legal battles with publishers trying to make sure they were paid properly by their contract. Publishers are as good at mythic accounting as movie companies and record companies. Maybe better they've had more experience and time at it.
Nina is right. Most artists are poor. Few get to the lower middle class scale even fewer fully middle class. That wouldn't change in the absence of copyright. The Stephen Kings of the world would still be superstars. Margaret Lawrence would still be a literary star, barely able to pay for her middle class family life in Toronto. Margaret Atwood would still be a literary star and sales star living very comfortably, thank you very much. Brian Adams, of all people, would still afford seafront property in the most expensive neighborhood (West Vancouver) in the most expensive city in Canada and one of the most expensive in the world (Metro Vancouver).
The good copyright does has more to do with the reasons it was passed in the first place. To reduce confusion in the marketplace with two, three and four publishers and more simultaneously bringing out the same book. Maybe they all paid the author, maybe they didn't. It appears that they didn't because the Statute of Anne was passed. Copyright was also passed to preserve works for educational purposes not lock it away in walled gardens only the publishers could touch. On that score it's failing completely.
I guess you can tell I utterly reject that fewer people would want to produce art. Artists I know are driven to it. So I do reject that. Utterly and completely. They created for thousands of years without it and will go on creating no matter what happens going forward.
They do ok. Kinda like the rest of us. They do ok.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
artists
#1. beemp3, not sure what their business model is, says it's free. Was loath to click through to find out the catch.
#2, mp3raid, my song for .10 cents (tip off it's probably Russian mafia) along with ads for ATT, Motorola and Radio Shack. (I went through 3 more pages and Itunes, a legit site, didn't come up. Google, what's that about?? Let me guess.) Shall I go on? Try it yourself with any song, then explain to me why you are defending to the death these foreign black market thieves and demonizing me? How bout Mr Limewire's $100,000,000 judgement last year? He's the good guy right? I'm the dick?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: artists
If you don't get a penny from lyrics sites then sic BMI or ASCAP on them, assuming you're a member. That's what you pay them for.
Nor do I care one bit about what ads are being displayed until someone actually clicks through on the ad they're just an annoyance whether the site is "legal" or "illegal" in your mind.
I already knew what results come up when I search for a song for whatever reason. I wouldn't download from any of the first couple of pages of returns that come back as mp3 download sites if my life depended on it because most of them are a serious security risk, particularly if you're on a Windows box.
And no, you're not a dick because you want to get paid something for your work. You're a dick because you appear to rather come here than create anything, go out and gig and actually work for your money like everyone else does, including uber successful artists. You've listened to "Money For Nothing" one too many times and totally missed that it's satire. That's what makes you a dick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: artists
Lol. Are you even a musician? Because if you were, you would notice that gigs have actually been poofing one by one, slowly but surely, over the last 5 or 10 ish years. Probably thanks to DAW and other tech if I had to guess. Most restaurants and small businesses don't want to pay a fair price for a group like a string quartet or a band to come play at their place anymore. And don't even get me started on how cruise ships have been cutting down on their musicians too. There's a reason why companies like carnival are nicknamed greyhound of the seas. My parents took me on a carnival cruise this summer, so I DO know what I'm talking about. If anyone here has been on one too, then you know the pathetic excuse that they call "entertainment" offered on board.
And honestly, you make that statement as if creating the music in the first place isn't work. I hate to break it to you, but it sure as hell IS work. The composing process itself can take anywhere from a few hours to a few days. Then you need to mix and master it, then go through the whole recording process if it applies to whatever your work is. (but even THAT is preceded by a few hours worth of producing the sheet music for the musicians depending on how many people you need) So that "easy peasy" work you are implying is actually more like a week or so's (or even MORE depending on the project) worth of work. I don't know about you, but I sure wouldn't ask anybody to work that amount for free. YES, people should get out and actually perform, but booking gigs and venues costs money. Without that money to spend, it's impossible to gig. Even a small venue that only seats a couple hundred people is usually a grand or two to book. So please don't pretend you AREN'T screwing a small time artist when you pirate their work instead of paying the 5 or 10 bucks they charge for it. Maybe a-listers don't give a shit since their investors or label pays for everything, but those sales are the difference between performing a show or not getting to perform a show for an indie who needs that money to finance the venue costs. Especially when there are sites like bandcamp that DO give most of the money to artists, there is no reason not to buy it from them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: artists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: artists
And you blame the PRO's...a lot of average everyday musicians (including my teachers) make an extra 2-5k a year off their royalties. If you are seriously for getting rid of PRO's, then you need to suggest what fills in that income gap. Because I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like making 5k less a year...so don't know why you would ask someone else to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: artists
Really? 200,000 results? Can you tell me what that song is, so I can verify it?
Also - you're seriously upset about lyric sites? That's just completely lame. I wouldn't care if any of them put up my lyrics, and in fact, even the most anti-pirate artists I know don't care about them. For fuck's sake, nearly every artist I've ever met puts up lyrics on their own sites, publicly available to all.
#1. beemp3, not sure what their business model is, says it's free. Was loath to click through to find out the catch.
They are a search engine. They only return songs that other people put up on the web. They don't do torrents or file sharing, they sell nothing, and they link to the web site where they found the MP3. Many of those songs are from music magazines or official sites.
#2, mp3raid, my song for .10 cents (tip off it's probably Russian mafia) along with ads for ATT, Motorola and Radio Shack.
Never heard of them. However, going to their terms of service page reveals this:No earthly idea if this is true, but on the off chance it is, it kinda destroys your argument (since they are paying you, through ASCAP or BMI).
By the way, those "legal $.10 per track" downloads? Sponsored links. That is, they are not put there by MP3Raid, but by some ad agency. Most likely, they are scams, and you can't get your song from them at all. So, yeah, they're probably ripping somebody off - but it ain't you.
Google, what's that about?? Let me guess.
An automated search of other peoples' sites? You know, just like Bing, Yahoo, or every other search engine on the entire planet?
then explain to me why you are defending to the death these foreign black market thieves and demonizing me?
Maybe because these "theives" aren't actually selling your music? Maybe because you can't even bother to check out what how these supposed "pirate" sites actually work, but spout off opinions in complete ignorance?
How bout Mr Limewire's $100,000,000 judgement last year? He's the good guy right? I'm the dick?
Well, considering that the labels were asking for $75 trillion (yes, with a "t"), I'd say there's a lot of dickishness to go around.
By the way, as to this line:
Google just paid $500,000,000 million to the justice dept.
That had absolutely zero to do with piracy. They were accepting ad money from Canadian pharmacies who sold prescription drugs to U.S. citizens... and they had stopped accepting that money years before the settlement occurred.
Ironically, this settlement was finalized right around the time that President Obama said he supported the importation of less expensive drugs from Canada.
But why let facts get in the way of a raging hate-on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: artists
You must be a shitty country musician.
Besides you should be getting money only for your personal performances and not trying to make others work for you and pay you.
Thank God open music is not far away is here now, because you people truly disgust me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BMI and ASCAP collect $ from performances, not print $ from lyric. As I suspected, you know just enough about how the biz works to be dangerous.
And, you're right, I don't come here to create anything, only to vent.
Consider this; The reason there is a SOPA bill moving through Congress, the reason that Joel Tennenbaum now owes $675,000 to the RIAA, that Gorton/Limewire had to give back the $100,000,000 he stole from creators, that Google just paid $500,000,000 million to the justice dept. is that whenever facts, not opinions, get within 100 yards of a judge, an impartial jury or a body of legislators, they nearly always come down on the side of copyright holders. That's what I'm counting on, not the verdict rendered here.
I'm done, thanks for the exchange.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The reason copyright will go down and a growing animosity towards you people is growing is because you deserve it.
The funny part is that SOPA will do absolutely nothing to reduce piracy or increase your profits.
I has been years since I last used one, if I want to get anything I just need to ask in a forum and people will post the link.
Here go watch Snowblind.
magnet:?xt=urn:btih:1e2e01f8658f59e3f61ce210dfff4b168d371b88&dn=snowblind+2010+xvid+ vodo&tr=http%3A%2F%2Ftracker.publicbt.com%2Fannounce
Want some music? Go to any open source record label.
Calabash Music
Jamendo
LOCA Records
Magnatune
OnClassical
Opsound
Small Brain Records
Hexawe
Copyleft Records
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_record_label
Not to mention the NetLabels that almost exclusively give away music.
Net record label aggregator.
http://www.dreamstreaming.info/
http://www.netlabels.org/
http://www.archive.org/deta ils/netlabels
And in case you are a dummy.
http://www.wikihow.com/Start-a-Netlabel
See there, in the old days all those links would have been illegal, today people have legal alternatives and that is what will bring you down a-hole.
We don't want your art, we don't want you, we can make our own art and just like your popularity seems to be dwindling so will your revenues I hope you end up on the soup line somewhere, because if you are wanting money know that I will give you not a cent and will way out of my way to make sure others don't give it to you either, and if that means I need to setup the P2P application, show them how to use it or even do it myself and deliver that to them I will.
You screwed with the wrong people for far to long now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sure, the people you've listed owe money. I can't disagree on the fact that it's happened. Good luck, though, exacting your pound of flesh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]