100M : The Pirate Bay is blocked

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Maggy I am dissapointed you completely ignored my post in reply and you just kept repeating the same again.

I will say it again and hope you read it this time, for the struggling small artist their main problem is the publisher who takes the vast majority of profits as well as putting the artist in debt at startup. Piracy is all too conveniant to cover this little fact up. The artists who have made it and in turn get better record deals are not struggling.

Actually I do get that point.BUT it is still taking without permission the intellectual property of another person whether they be struggling or not.I understand you don't want to pay the fat cats.However the artist STILL wants to be paid for their work..Or why the blooming heck should they fecking bother to even write,produce,hire a studio and go to all all the expense of producing their product.

You can hide behind all the semantics,complaints about high powered music producers asking too much and copyright lasting until the 100th generation as much as you like what you are advocating is just plain wrong.

It's no better than shoplifting.Yes lets not give it the romantic appellation of piracy. Let's just call it digital shoplifting.

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

donations, then with popularity gained from free publications they can sign a deal and starts releasing paid material

Excellent business model......

Any examples where that has worked for lots of 'little artists' (rather than just a couple of exceptional outliers, because, as we all know, exceptions very rarely prove the rule)?

[_wtf_]

Record sales account for next to nothing as regards to an artists earnings. What they do, is give the artist exposure that can then be transferred into ticket sales. Artists actually make more from merchandise at gigs/concerts during a tour than they ever would from a number 1 hit single in the UK. If 'piracy' was killing artists would Adele be able to afford her new home? Of course she would, she sings to sell out concerts at venues like the Albert Hall.

Maggy, what would be your thoughts on the recent ruling on Metropolis? A film made in 1927 by Fritz Lang. It actually became public domain in 1956, Fritz Lang died in 1976 (over 35 years ago). Yet on Jan 18th 2012 the US Supreme Court renewed its copyright for some lucky company until 2023. Would you be okay with no creative work ever becoming public domain in the future?

As to your argument of why bother if your not making money ask the thousands of people who picked up an instrument as a child and still play in pubs/clubs or even just in the house. Ask the people who've spent thousands on equipment for their 'bedroom' studios who release music for free all over the internet. An artist is an artist even when nobody is looking or listening. Sure, some would love to make the 'big time' but there's an awful lot that simply refuse to sign a contract with a studio.

This is an interesting read.

This is also interesting.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by _wtf_

Record sales account for next to nothing as regards to an artists earnings.

So let's have them earn even less by not paying for their CDs?

Originally Posted by _wtf_

Record sales account for next to nothing as regards to an artists earnings. What they do, is give the artist exposure that can then be transferred into ticket sales. Artists actually make more from merchandise at gigs/concerts during a tour than they ever would from a number 1 hit single in the UK. If 'piracy' was killing artists would Adele be able to afford her new home? Of course she would, she sings to sell out concerts at venues like the Albert Hall.

Maggy, what would be your thoughts on the recent ruling on Metropolis? A film made in 1927 by Fritz Lang. It actually became public domain in 1956, Fritz Lang died in 1976 (over 35 years ago). Yet on Jan 18th 2012 the US Supreme Court renewed its copyright for some lucky company until 2023. Would you be okay with no creative work ever becoming public domain in the future?

As to your argument of why bother if your not making money ask the thousands of people who picked up an instrument as a child and still play in pubs/clubs or even just in the house. Ask the people who've spent thousands on equipment for their 'bedroom' studios who release music for free all over the internet. An artist is an artist even when nobody is looking or listening. Sure, some would love to make the 'big time' but there's an awful lot that simply refuse to sign a contract with a studio.

This is an interesting read.

This is also interesting.

Small flaw in your otherwise perfect argument - you have to be a best selling artist before you can sell out your concerts to make money from your merchandise, and how can you be a best selling artist if no one pays for your material?

Some artists do do it for their enjoyment, but what about the ones who would like to earn a living from the skills and efforts - shouldn't it be their choice whether people can have their intellectual property, rather than having it distributed without their permission?

btw, any examples where donations, with popularity gained from free publications which they can then sign a deal and starts releasing paid material, has worked for lots of 'little artists' (rather than just a couple of exceptional outliers, because, as we all know, exceptions very rarely prove the rule), rather than generalities or theories?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Skie

The "little" artists are also the ones who stand to gain the most from their stuff being "stolen". A larger audience is the best kind of springboard to make it big. And then be signed by a major label who loan you £2million which your music never makes back thanks to magical accounting practices so you are always paying off that debt.

whos stealing what?

we back to using wrong words again?

---------- Post added at 05:53 ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Actually I do get that point.BUT it is still taking without permission the intellectual property of another person whether they be struggling or not.I understand you don't want to pay the fat cats.However the artist STILL wants to be paid for their work..Or why the blooming heck should they fecking bother to even write,produce,hire a studio and go to all all the expense of producing their product.

You can hide behind all the semantics,complaints about high powered music producers asking too much and copyright lasting until the 100th generation as much as you like what you are advocating is just plain wrong.

It's no better than shoplifting.Yes lets not give it the romantic appellation of piracy. Let's just call it digital shoplifting.

The point is you was using a point which probably has little affect on how well they do. Torrents and the like probably help the small artists as its free publicity and distribution which in turn will help them fill up tour events.

Some new bands who have decided to remove the publishers from the loop actually give away their music and live of donations and tour events.

One of the big rappers from the USA even said to the media he doesnt care about piracy it spreads his music.

In my view its wrong by law (to share) but I dont see a major moral issue with it. A far bigger moral issue is how the record industry go about their business.

What is evident tho is those defending the record industry have to resort to use words like "stealing" theft" which arent applicable and then pretend its the artists been affected when its actually not. Then the RIAA start claiming every download is a lost sale, the whole thing has no credibility. The fact is piracy has always existed, its part of the business, and it will never go away, cant deal with it? then leave the business, its life. It isn tsomething that was born with the internet, I used to pirate the entire top 40 every week in the 80s. Remember these are the same guys that said the VHS recorder would kill the tv/movie industry.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

whos stealing what?

we back to using wrong words again?

Nothing new there, the argument over how its worded has gone on for years.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

whos stealing what?

Anyone who takes a copy of a commercially-released CD without paying for it.

we back to using wrong words again?

No ifs, buts or qualifications required.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

whos stealing what?

we back to using wrong words again?

---------- Post added at 05:53 ---------- Previous post was at 05:50 ----------



The point is you was using a point which probably has little affect on how well they do. Torrents and the like probably help the small artists as its free publicity and distribution which in turn will help them fill up tour events.

Some new bands who have decided to remove the publishers from the loop actually give away their music and live of donations and tour events.

One of the big rappers from the USA even said to the media he doesnt care about piracy it spreads his music.

In my view its wrong by law (to share) but I dont see a major moral issue with it. A far bigger moral issue is how the record industry go about their business.

What is evident tho is those defending the record industry have to resort to use words like "stealing" theft" which arent applicable and then pretend its the artists been affected when its actually not. Then the RIAA start claiming every download is a lost sale, the whole thing has no credibility. The fact is piracy has always existed, its part of the business, and it will never go away, cant deal with it? then leave the business, its life. It isn tsomething that was born with the internet, I used to pirate the entire top 40 every week in the 80s. Remember these are the same guys that said the VHS recorder would kill the tv/movie industry.

Actually I'm not thinking of Big Business.I'm also not particularly ONLY thinking of films and music.I'm thinking of painters,photographers and digital artists as small producers trying to protect their work whilst promoting themselves via the internet.The piracy,stealing,copyright abuse among these groups is rife as I have heard within the various communities' forums.To be frank if you don't have someone supporting you it's very difficult to protect yourself from people just taking and using your work for their own ends.You can ask for donations but can you be sure that you are being paid at all times?
Do you begin to see where I am coming from?

[_wtf_]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'm thinking of painters,photographers and digital artists ...

Then this should give you an idea of how absurd it's become and why current copyright laws need reform and how you yourself could potentially end up being on the wrong side of copyright infringement.

Photographers, thanks to copyright trolls, now have to have waiver and release forms signed by just about anyone or thing in a photograph. Which means this is become more difficult with each passing year.

Some of my other stuff.

[carlwaring]

Whilst you may have a point, it's not the point being made here; which is that taking something that you do not have the right to without paying for it, is stealing and is, therefore, wrong/illegal/in breach of copyright/however you want to put it.

[peanut]

I don't get it myself, I dabble a little with digital art, and if I was to do it commercially then I'd watermark my work, or I would use smaller pictures so they are just a samples of my work. On the other hand if I was going that way and wanted to make a name for myself then I'd be getting some of my work out there, and if anyone used my work for their own commercial gain then that would have to be my choice, immation is a form of flattery an all that. But if I was that hung up on people stealing my work the last thing I'd do is put it on the net.

Besides, I don't think my work is of any value to anyone, even if I or others think it's good (or bad), I'll like to show people some of it now and again but it's nothing compared to what is out there. Maggy your work must be exceptional if you are that worried by people stealing your work.

On another note, how many people use Photoshop these days, and compared to how many people have paid for it. And yet Photoshop is the still by far the market leader. It doesn't excuse people that download it, but it's done wonders for Abode in general. My opinion of course.

[Dush]

You guys here of not being able to skip 20 seconds of warnings on Blu-rays?!

http://www.myce.com/news/dvdblu-rays...arnings-61574/

Makes me think of

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by _wtf_

Then this should give you an idea of how absurd it's become and why current copyright laws need reform and how you yourself could potentially end up being on the wrong side of copyright infringement.

Photographers, thanks to copyright trolls, now have to have waiver and release forms signed by just about anyone or thing in a photograph. Which means this is become more difficult with each passing year.

Some of my other stuff.

Good point. Just shows that we need reform of the copyright laws now not later. The problem is that there are those who will just post its wrong, wrong and wrong without any real input in to the argument. There are so many question that need answers on both sides.

How much is to much for a product if its an electronic copy
why are companies unwilling to use online methods of distribution
When online methods are available why do products cost the same as ones that has a physical copy instead of an electronic copy
Why do people think it right to copy copyrighted works and what would change there attitude to copying.
Why are the copyright laws stuck in the past.
What is needed to bring copyright laws up to date to encompass new media types.

Well carry on with that thinking while they close down the internet..At least my conscience is clear.

I'm finished with this discussion.People can always defend the indefensible if they don't think they can be caught.