What really makes your business model better than that of Anthrax or of a record label? If I re-appropriated all your content via an RSS feed, and ran a mirror site with all your commentary under my own domain name, and kept the ad revenues for myself, would you consider that my business model is better than yours?
I don't care whether you care to call this 'infringement' or stealing, but in actuality, what is the significant difference? If you are a 'fan' of the artists, you will spend money on their creative works, merchandise etc. Merely downloading music without permission from the rights holder for free does not really qualify one as a "fan", or give you some righteous position in my humble opinion.
The ignorant responses to Mr. Ian's rant show the level of maturity of the users of this website, i see responses that would make bloodied Anthrax fans in the pit seem erudite in comparison.
First of all, as far as I can see, Scott Ian's basically right... either you consider supporting artists morally right or you don't. Despite some poorly made comparisons in the responses, Broadcast mediums (Radio,TV) and Films actually do pay artists, they don't steal it. Even Non-Commercial radio pays performance rights. This is done through various compulsory agreements long established with music publishers. I have known artists who certainly appreciated this revenue stream in their careers, even if for some of the lesser played acts & tracks, it can be very miniscule. Internet sites like Kazaa, Napster, and yes, YouTube & GrooveShark have all initially attempted to usurp the payment obligations due to rights holders.
I am not affiliated with the RIAA, Anthrax or any other business that benefits from this economy, but clearly can see the impact that so-called 'sharing' has on these artists and labels.
If you go to your neighbor's house without permission when he's not home, and take fruit off his apple tree, or 'borrow' his tools, or read mail from his mailbox, without express permission, is that 'infringement' or just a type of stealing?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by dv8r.
what is the significant difference twixt 'infringement' / 'stealing' ?
I don't care whether you care to call this 'infringement' or stealing, but in actuality, what is the significant difference? If you are a 'fan' of the artists, you will spend money on their creative works, merchandise etc. Merely downloading music without permission from the rights holder for free does not really qualify one as a "fan", or give you some righteous position in my humble opinion.
The ignorant responses to Mr. Ian's rant show the level of maturity of the users of this website, i see responses that would make bloodied Anthrax fans in the pit seem erudite in comparison.
First of all, as far as I can see, Scott Ian's basically right... either you consider supporting artists morally right or you don't. Despite some poorly made comparisons in the responses, Broadcast mediums (Radio,TV) and Films actually do pay artists, they don't steal it. Even Non-Commercial radio pays performance rights. This is done through various compulsory agreements long established with music publishers. I have known artists who certainly appreciated this revenue stream in their careers, even if for some of the lesser played acts & tracks, it can be very miniscule. Internet sites like Kazaa, Napster, and yes, YouTube & GrooveShark have all initially attempted to usurp the payment obligations due to rights holders.
I am not affiliated with the RIAA, Anthrax or any other business that benefits from this economy, but clearly can see the impact that so-called 'sharing' has on these artists and labels.
If you go to your neighbor's house without permission when he's not home, and take fruit off his apple tree, or 'borrow' his tools, or read mail from his mailbox, without express permission, is that 'infringement' or just a type of stealing?
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by dv8r.
Submit a story now.