That's from 9 days ago, so you might want to do a better job keeping up with the news.
The internet has a fairly lengthy delay, didn't you know?
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: TJ Spyke on August 16, 2013, 11:39:01 AM
Also, all the proposal would do is increase the penalty for something ALREADY illegal. Streaming copyrighted content without permission is already illegal, this proposal would just increase the punishment. So why the outrage? Or are you trying to create controversy where there is none (something a certain political party loves to do).
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: Stogi on August 16, 2013, 11:55:34 AM
Dude....I constantly stream copyrighted material. I'm watching Adventure Time right now as we speak.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: pokepal148 on August 16, 2013, 12:21:05 PM
Also, all the proposal would do is increase the penalty for something ALREADY illegal. Streaming copyrighted content without permission is already illegal, this proposal would just increase the punishment. So why the outrage? Or are you trying to create controversy where there is none (something a certain political party loves to do).
Tj, where do things like fan remixes and lets plays fall? because there is no set boundary at all to speak of. and you may think of lp'ers as "dirty smelly money-grubbing moochers" but that is irrelevant. there is no set boundary between transformative work and copyrighted material. if such a boundary existed and was set in stone then i would have no problem with this.
but there isn't. a harmless little fan trailer that could practically be considered free advertising(and im gonna be honest the bbc should have sent this person a job application and not a bunch of cease and desist letters) is just as vulnerable and has the same consequences as uploading the 3rd season of american dad. so is curtdogg and his streaming.
---on an interesting note lets players could pull on nintendos lack of any action to shut them down during their little tango a few months ago as 'permission to exist'---
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: TJ Spyke on August 16, 2013, 12:41:11 PM
AGAIN, the ONLY thing this proposal does is increase the penalty of things ALREADY illegal. It does not change the legality of things. Stuff like fan remixes would keep their same legal/illegal status with or without this proposal. You are getting upset for nothing.
This is not about the legality of fan remixes and Let's Play videos. This is apparently you getting mad that they are increasing the penalties for something already illegal (or maybe you did not understand the article and somehow thought that streaming copyright material without permissions was somehow legal before and thought this would make it illegal, not realizing it was already illegal). I want to know if you are upset at them only increasing penalties for something already illegal, or if you just read the article and didn't realize those they are not changing the legal status of ANYTHING?
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: pokepal148 on August 16, 2013, 01:33:49 PM
Quote
This is not about the legality of fan remixes and Let's Play videos....
Tj let me explain something to you. when i read an article i think to myself "who could be negatively affected by this?" i don't just read an article i contemplate its possible unintended effects on people instead of blindly believing whatever it says on the tin. and the people making that kind of content are pretty high on the list, you know why..?
Quote
Stuff like fan remixes would keep their same legal/illegal status with or without this proposal....
Well thats just fine and dandy but theres just one tiny little detail... THERE IS NO OFFICIAL LEGAL/ILLEGAL STATUS ON THOSE THINGS. these things are a massive grey area. arguments can be made for or against their legality but the fact is there is no clear answer. some Lawyers may take advantage of this situation and bend the rules a little bit in order to get a quick buck. and that little kid doing a lady gaga remix gets this for his troubles,
a felony conviction will follow that person for the rest of their life. because of this until there is a set legal/illegal status on those things i am completely opposed to this legislation.
im against somebody streaming the entire 3rd season of american dad but there needs to be a boundary for this law (and i do think a felony is a bit overkill). to summerize what i just said
or if you just read the article and didn't realize those they are not changing the legal status of ANYTHING?
THAT IS EXACTLY THE POINT. Things like fan remixes or trailers, along with lets plays have no official legal status. if some lawyer wants a quick buck nothing can stop them from shutting these things down even though they aren't technically illegal. we are looking at a massive grey area where really anything goes and thats what troubles me. a felony is a big deal and will haunt somebody for the rest of their life.
if you are that kid, about 13 years old lets say, and you were convicted of a felony it will go against you in getting a job and going to college. that bright future ahead of you is fading away and all because you were singing a lady gaga song
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: TJ Spyke on August 16, 2013, 01:39:57 PM
Wow, so you are getting mad at nothing. The proposed changes makes NO impact on the legality of fan mixes. You seem to be getting mad at the increase in penalties, which is silly. If you think they fan remixes and trailers should have their status defined (which may never happen, as how MUCH of the copyrighted content you use has a impact on whether its fair use or not), fine. But your original post made it seem like you did not understand what was going on. But this rule change has no impact on the legality of things, so you shouldn't be upset at it. If a person would get arrested for copyright theft, they would have gotten arrested anyways.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 16, 2013, 01:51:01 PM
Most people misunderstand "fair use" anyways fair use is NOT the law it is a doctrine for interpreting the law. It is always illegal period but it is a burden on the copyright holder to prove a violation has occurred not the other way around, all fair use does is makes it hard to sue someone unless their is a real reason to, nobody is going to sue over fan mixes period they would not risk upsetting their fans, tributes are and always will be acceptable as long as they do not cross that line of devaluing the original work.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: pokepal148 on August 16, 2013, 02:50:28 PM
You seem to be getting mad at the increase in penalties, which is silly.
all i'm saying is that there needs to be a clear definition of what is and isn't copyright infringement. especially if the punishment is going to be this severe.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 16, 2013, 06:20:23 PM
There is a clear cut definition of what is infringement, it is ALL infringement, but courts can decide on a case by case basis what is fair infringement. The law states that, I am summing up here, the copyright owner has exclusive rights to their works, exclusive being a key word though. This notion of Fair Use is very commonly misunderstood. It is NOT a part of the law the LAW is clear if you created it YOU own exclusive rights to it period. You do not even have to register with the government. Also remember that just because someone does something that is illegal does NOT magically make it legal and sometimes copyright owners either don't know about the infringement or they don't see it as a threat. Not taking action does not make it okay though and just because someone breaks the law does not make it legal all of a sudden.
The fair use doctrine is NOT law it is just a guide line the courts use when deciding a case, they can at ANY POINT choose to ignore the fair use doctrine and side with the copyright holder because that is what the law states. The courts often interpret laws in funny and contradictory ways.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 17, 2013, 08:46:58 AM
Streaming audio/video should not be a felony. That's just stupid.
Title: Re: Off-Topic Wise-Ass Comments About Other NWR Forum Threads
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 17, 2013, 08:56:32 AM
I'm going to start a petition to make jaywalking punishable by death. And because increasing the punishment for something that's already illegal is something no one should be concerned about, I think anyone who disagrees with this proposal is an idiot.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: lolmonade on August 17, 2013, 09:59:12 AM
Wasn't the only reason Google/Youtube/Wikipedia held opposition to the original SOPA bill because it held those companies personally liable for copyright infringements?
If this new resurrection of SOPA places the ONUS on the person behind the streaming, then I don't see as much of an uproar happening, meaning it's much more likely this will get passed without much fervor.
-------- Toddra,
From Wikipedia:
Quote
Fair use is a limitation and exception (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_copyright) to the exclusive right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_right) granted by copyright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright) law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_copyright_law), fair use is a doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_doctrine) that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balancing_test).
So no, technically it isn't a "written law", but it is a clearly defined exception to copyright laws by judicial precedent, meaning there are circumstances in which streaming copyrighted material should be granted without permission.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: BranDonk Kong on August 17, 2013, 10:22:48 AM
I'm going to start a petition to make jaywalking punishable by death. And because increasing the punishment for something that's already illegal is something no one should be concerned about, I think anyone who disagrees with this proposal is an idiot.
I was going to make this same point. But to make the point even clearer, TJ Spyke is now banned.
There is a clear cut definition of what is infringement, it is ALL infringement, but courts can decide on a case by case basis what is fair infringement. The law states that, I am summing up here, the copyright owner has exclusive rights to their works, exclusive being a key word though. This notion of Fair Use is very commonly misunderstood. It is NOT a part of the law the LAW is clear if you created it YOU own exclusive rights to it period. You do not even have to register with the government. Also remember that just because someone does something that is illegal does NOT magically make it legal and sometimes copyright owners either don't know about the infringement or they don't see it as a threat. Not taking action does not make it okay though and just because someone breaks the law does not make it legal all of a sudden.
The fair use doctrine is NOT law it is just a guide line the courts use when deciding a case, they can at ANY POINT choose to ignore the fair use doctrine and side with the copyright holder because that is what the law states. The courts often interpret laws in funny and contradictory ways.
well then perhaps the intricacies of copyright law need to be explained more clearly (and if thats the case they need to be reformed as well)
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 17, 2013, 07:25:45 PM
Or a person could just you know come up with their own original ideas and not leech of the work of others?
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: UncleBob on August 17, 2013, 09:02:49 PM
Regarding the actual topic in the OP - the way I understand it, they're simply proposing changing the law so that streaming copyrighted material has the same penalties as file distribution, right?
This is like, speeding in a car is a $25 fine, but speeding in a pick up is a $50 fine - and they just want to make both a $50 fine... right?
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: nickmitch on August 17, 2013, 09:08:22 PM
It seems more like they want to equate being a drug lord with being a street dealer.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: BranDonk Kong on August 17, 2013, 09:15:00 PM
Or a recreational user.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 18, 2013, 12:38:32 PM
all proposals I support. If you can't do the time don't do the crime.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: pokepal148 on August 18, 2013, 01:31:27 PM
well yeah if you have questionable morals that article might hold true but not everyone works like that. For crying out loud it's not like it's the end of the world if you can't listen to your music or watch tv shows you didn't pay for. Should we just put shackles on the ankles of the actors, producers, and crew who make TV shows and force them to entertain us without compensation for their work? Stealing is stealing there is NEVER an excuse for it. Period.
that isn't the problem i have. the problem is how these laws may come to be abused beyond curbing piracy. And I wish I was talking hypothetical but it has happened with other copyright laws.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 18, 2013, 08:15:12 PM
But we don't live in a perfect world, people are going to break the law no matter what it says, likewise people are always going to abuse the law no matter what it says. The best we can do is give law enforcement the tools they need to protect the rights of the citizens they serve and to bring the law breakers to justice. It is not a perfect system but it is as close as we as humans are ever going to get.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: oohhboy on August 18, 2013, 08:56:15 PM
There is a problem with what you have said. To sum it up what you have just said is "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear".
What happens when the injustice stems from the enforcement of laws or even the law itself? Does bring in law breakers justify curbing rights? Does making something lawful or illegal make it just? Handwaving it off as the best imperfect system we have is a massive diservice to both the pursuit of justice and the idea we can do better.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: Wah on August 18, 2013, 09:06:38 PM
Dude....I constantly stream copyrighted material. I'm watching Adventure Time right now as we speak.
And i'am watching game of thrones! a'll from my best friend the internet! :P:
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 18, 2013, 09:14:28 PM
If you're going to turn this into a political discussion I think things are going to escalate. The problem is laws are already being broken and rights are already being ignored, there is always going to be abuse no matter what, you make it sound like we should just not have any laws at all and just exercise our right to do whatever the hell we want willy nilly.
The people this affects are those who already are on the fringe anyways, true law abiding citizens don't have anything to worry about. Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't automatically make it wrong. But if we as a society authorize our representatives to make that judgment in our best interest then we as citizens have a duty to either respect that judgement or petition our representatives to correct the injustice. Should we just all live in fear of some imaginary totalitarian government or should we just abide by the law as best we can and if something happens that affects us then we have a system that allows us to take our grievences to the courts and have them review said law. Do you honestly think if this gets passed it is going to Angry Video Game Nerd into a criminal? No what it is going to do is crack down on harmful infringements.
I have recently been in contact with Nintendo over the course of several months trying to get them to take action against dozens of illegal sites and their response was they have to pick their battles. You are being paranoid that is all there is too it.
None of those examples are anything to get worried about complaints were filed that was all just pure paranoia nothing happened no foul no harm so what is the big deal?
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: nickmitch on August 18, 2013, 09:21:33 PM
Don't you see? This is exactly why Gotham City needs a Batman!
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: pokepal148 on August 18, 2013, 09:27:20 PM
http://www.law360.com/articles/410178/mom-s-suit-over-son-s-prince-ly-youtube-dance-survives (http://www.law360.com/articles/410178/mom-s-suit-over-son-s-prince-ly-youtube-dance-survives) there, a lawsuit thats been going on since 2007. I think there might be some harm and foul here.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 18, 2013, 10:43:36 PM
a youtube video was removed where is the harm? They should have you know asked permission to use the song in the first place when you go through proper channels you tend to get permission just doing it and then claiming fair use is not good enough. I had a video taken down from Youtube where I actually did have permission from the author, I showed them the proof they let me put the video back up. What is so wrong with just playing by the rules?
I want to further elaborate before you reply with some more nonsense. Public performances are NOT covered under Fair Use, Public performances are considered infringement that is why performers have to get permission to use any song they want even if it is a school play especially if it is a Youtube channel where you can you know receive compensation in the form of revenue sharing.
It is always better to ask permission than to ask forgiveness, and in case of copyright law usually just asking is more than enough to get you in the clear but when you do it anyways you always run the risk of getting in trouble it is always better to be safe than sorry, how is that so hard to grasp?
None of this has anything to do with Youtube videos anyways, they are going after people who post full movies and episodes of TV shows without permission and allow users to stream them for free. That is and should be illegal.
What this does is it will give the authorities power to shut down those sites that make movies, tv shows, and sporting events available bypassing the proper channels. That is all, it will NOT affect Youtube one bit so long as the youtubers play buy the rules, those who fall on the outside well run the risk of getting into trouble and that is their fault for not double checking.
Bottom line is it is always better to just ask first, if they author says okay fine go ahead do your work if they author says nope or asks for money then that is it, if you do it without permission and the author catches you they can, if they so choose, to come after you. You might be able to argue it is fair use to the courts and if the court agrees then okay you set a precedent or at the very least dodged a bullet. BTW I am a communications major I have studied copyright law extensively and the law is very clear the author has exclusive rights to distribute, perform, or make copies of their protected works and it should be that way if you were an author it would piss you off if someone was steeling from you and that is why it makes me so damn angry is because people forget that corporations do not exist they are made up of hard working people trying to make a damn living for crying out loud.
It's just like the Happy Birthday song, you want to sing it in public you had better damn well write a letter to Warner first.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: Adrock on August 19, 2013, 12:22:29 AM
If you're going to turn this into a political discussion I think things are going to escalate. The problem is laws are already being broken and rights are already being ignored, there is always going to be abuse no matter what, you make it sound like we should just not have any laws at all and just exercise our right to do whatever the hell we want willy nilly.
The people this affects are those who already are on the fringe anyways, true law abiding citizens don't have anything to worry about. Just because someone does something you don't like doesn't automatically make it wrong. But if we as a society authorize our representatives to make that judgment in our best interest then we as citizens have a duty to either respect that judgement or petition our representatives to correct the injustice. Should we just all live in fear of some imaginary totalitarian government or should we just abide by the law as best we can and if something happens that affects us then we have a system that allows us to take our grievences to the courts and have them review said law. Do you honestly think if this gets passed it is going to Angry Video Game Nerd into a criminal? No what it is going to do is crack down on harmful infringements.
I have recently been in contact with Nintendo over the course of several months trying to get them to take action against dozens of illegal sites and their response was they have to pick their battles. You are being paranoid that is all there is too it.
None of those examples are anything to get worried about complaints were filed that was all just pure paranoia nothing happened no foul no harm so what is the big deal?
I don't see pirating wrong if it's for your own use!
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: MegaByte on August 19, 2013, 01:41:27 AM
It's just like the Happy Birthday song, you want to sing it in public you had better damn well write a letter to Warner first.
Funny you should mention that (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/happy-birthday-all-filmmaker-aims-568355)...
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 19, 2013, 07:41:55 AM
thats old news, they already dropped the lawsuit.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: pokepal148 on August 20, 2013, 03:31:33 PM
In the way the internet has evolved has created an absolutely massive gray area in what you would call "copyright infringement". things like fan trailers and tributes that will outright become expressions of love for the original copyright owners. I fail to see that as theft. I see that as an expression of love for the original creation. At times they end up being used for simple little jokes (in response to Peter Capaldi being announced as the next Doctor we have seen a number of videos poking fun at Capaldi's previous role as Malcom Tucker).
The internet has become a place of expression. if it has proven anything its this: copyright infringement isn't always harmful. provisions need to put in place to protect these types of things that ultimately wind up being harmless. although the people who create those types of things aren't off the hook and had better give credit to the original copyright owners (which they have done an excellent job of so far)
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: Soren on August 20, 2013, 05:28:11 PM
What this does is it will give the authorities power to shut down those sites that make movies, tv shows, and sporting events available bypassing the proper channels. That is all, it will NOT affect Youtube one bit so long as the youtubers play buy the rules, those who fall on the outside well run the risk of getting into trouble and that is their fault for not double checking.
So their punishment for not double checking and getting into trouble should be a felony conviction?! Oh please.
On some jurisdictions you could face misdemeanor charges for simple assault or reckless driving(you know, things that put people in harms way). But God help you if you upload that compilation of Pauley Perrette's best scenes on NCIS to YouTube.
It's just like the Happy Birthday song, you want to sing it in public you had better damn well write a letter to Warner first.
Sure thing. Just let me run to the store and get some postage stamps. Then I'll go to my nearest mailbox and send the letter ASAP.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: Morari on August 20, 2013, 07:24:31 PM
THIS POST HAS BEEN CENSORED FOR YOUR PROTECTION
--Bureau of Internet Morality
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 20, 2013, 08:48:46 PM
So having a moral compass and doing good is now equal to being bad? That makes no sense. And I am not talking about tributes, although using that as proof is not valid because when corporate broadcasters do those things they do get permission first, but when some chump on Youtube does it they should just get a free pass?
It does cause harm how do you not see that? There are actors who are starving because they can't get paying gigs because piracy is out of control and Youtube is changing the entire industry so people are getting used to having to work for little to no pay and that is a good thing? You mean to tell me that you think that just because someone made something that YOU like it gives you the right to make money off it because it is a tribute? If you want to show them love buy their **** and pay them for their work. How hard is that? Do you also support sneaking into ballgames, movie theaters, and airplanes? Do you not realize that when big corporations lose money they downsize and they downsize by LAYING PEOPLE OFF, good hard working people who lose their jobs because of this ****. Holy crap anyone who thinks that is GOOD is out of their damn mind.
If you ever worked in the entertainment business you would know how much this **** is destroying our economy. Our nations number one export is entertainment, and if that starts to fall we are in deep **** because we don't have anything to replace it since we lost our edge in manufacturing. I should have said if you ever worked period because in my experience the people who tend to support any form of infringment or piracy are usually bums anyways.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: Soren on August 20, 2013, 09:10:37 PM
There are actors who are starving because they can't get paying gigs because piracy is out of control and Youtube is changing the entire industry so people are getting used to having to work for little to no pay and that is a good thing...
Ah yes. How I long for pre-internet days where every actor that went to Hollywood found a nice acting gig and didn't starve. Now it's all kids and unemployed bums with nothing to do wasting time uploading episodes of Dharma and Greg. And what are these actors to do but take jobs as waiters and bartenders.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: Morari on August 20, 2013, 09:23:48 PM
This is awesome! Toddra is now my new favorite poster. Are we sure he's not one of TJ's puppets?
Anyway... the only way to get paid is by actually doing something worth getting paid for, like giving me a physical copy of a book, or a concert I can go to, etc. Some industries have already made this transition. Wedding photographers used to shoot weddings for a minimal fee, then charge a large amount for prints and reprints. If you wanted extra copies of your wedding photos for your extended family, you had to pay for the extra prints.
With the advent of scanners and dirt-cheap photo printers, they've transitioned to a model where they charge a lot for shooting the wedding, but charge little for the prints or even give them away for free. Technically they can charge for the prints as they did before, but realistically they know it's so easy to make copies there's no possible way they'd be able to enforce their copyright for every photo the take. So they've just restructured their payment system to reflect reality, rather than copyright laws.
Forget for a moment everything about copyright, publishing, movie/music production, etc. Think of this purely in terms of work vs. compensation. I shoot photos of a wedding and process the photos. That's a lot of work. I print pictures of said wedding. That's very little work. Under the old model, the payment system did not reflect my costs - I charged very little for the part which required a lot of work on my part, but charged a lot for the part which required almost no effort. The new system fixes this. I now charge a lot for the part which requires a lot of work, and charge little for the part which requires little work. The same thing has got to happen to books, music, and movies. In the old days, musicians and actors were paid for live performances. That is the norm.
In the 20th century there was a bit less than 100 years where technology was good enough to allow mass duplication, but not good enough to lower cost of duplication to the point where individuals could duplicate. This allowed a business model to flourish in which payment did not reflect costs. Musicians and actors were able to work once, then sit back and make money over and over based on that single performance. This is not normal. No other business is like that - you have to constantly work if you want to keep making money.
Now in the 21st century, the cost of mass duplication has fallen far enough that it's now easily within grasp of the individual. No longer does it make sense for people to be charged large amounts of money for what is a nearly free service (duplication). People may be stuck on the morality of it because the 20th century way is all they've ever known. But strictly in terms of work invested vs. compensation, the 20th century way was clearly wrong since the most money was being made for the step which cost the least money.
The transition to a model where content creators are not paid for duplication services is not some new journey into unexplored territory. It is a return to what was the norm for millenia. For most of history, duplication was impossible (performances) or nearly impossible (books), so the only way to get paid was for the actual content creation. During the 20th century, duplication became possible, and content creators leveraged it to get paid multiple times over for the same work. Now in the 21st century duplication has become so cheap that people are starting to question if it's really fair for content creators to be paid multiple times for the same job. That is the true crux of the matter, not who owns the work or whether copying is stealing.
I do believe in copyright - the temporary monopoly does encourage creation. But the terms have to be reasonable. With duplication costs having dropped to almost zero, preventing society from making copies simply because of archaic laws does more harm than good. Something like 10-20 years for copyright seems about right to me. Copyright is fundamentally about encouraging creativity and creation of new content. A copyright term of life + 70 years discourages creativity, and instead encourages trying to figure out how to create something new once and live off it for the rest of your life.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: pokepal148 on August 20, 2013, 10:38:52 PM
So having a moral compass and doing good is now equal to being bad? That makes no sense. And I am not talking about tributes, although using that as proof is not valid because when corporate broadcasters do those things they do get permission first, but when some chump on Youtube does it they should just get a free pass?
I can use the strawmans fallacy as well you know, allow me to demonstrate
Quote
It does cause harm how do you not see that? There are actors who are starving because they can't get paying gigs because piracy is out of control and Youtube is changing the entire industry so people are getting used to having to work for little to no pay and that is a good thing?
so those hollywood actors who make more money in a year then the average American in a lifetime are starving now?
Quote
You mean to tell me that you think that just because someone made something that YOU like it gives you the right to make money off it because it is a tribute? If you want to show them love buy their **** and pay them for their work. How hard is that?
im pretty sure most people making those trailers did "buy their ****" and that they are expressing how much of a satisfied customer they are. :D
Quote
Do you also support sneaking into ballgames, movie theaters, and airplanes? Do you not realize that when big corporations lose money they downsize and they downsize by LAYING PEOPLE OFF, good hard working people who lose their jobs because of this ****. Holy crap anyone who thinks that is GOOD is out of their damn mind.
how on earth did you get this idea... wtf your making Tj look good now... although i should get around to demonstrating my skill with the strawman fallacy.
Quote
If you ever worked in the entertainment business you would know how much this **** is destroying our economy.
yes because so many people lost their jobs because a two year old sang a Prince song... screw wall street, screw the real estate market, the entire recession was caused by a two year old singing a prince song. and the euro crisis is because someone made a doctor who tribute(lets not go further in this example, big uncle(bob) is watching)
Quote
Our nations number one export is entertainment, and if that starts to fall we are in deep **** because we don't have anything to replace it since we lost our edge in manufacturing.
idk silicon valley seems to be quite a close contender,
Quote
I should have said if you ever worked period because in my experience the people who tend to support any form of infringment or piracy are usually bums anyways.
so now we are resorting to name calling... you have officially outdone Tj in every regard.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: Silenced on August 21, 2013, 09:29:42 PM
After reading the article, I'm going to drop my two cents in here.
I listen to Full Album Posts on YouTube. It's an easy way to do work or any other task while listening to a full CD of music that you enjoy. It generally loads faster than other sites that offer music, and those sites also require registration to create playlists.
When I find an album I like on YouTube, I try to purchase it. That's the point of the video; to advertise the music in its entirety. These users who post these videos, 'committing a felony' as the law may state should this act be passed, are actually attempting to contribute to the well-being of the record companies selling the CDs.
The problem here lies in the fact that CDs can be grossly over-priced. If, using the example, the CD economy is hurting, whose fault does it fall on? The YouTuber advertising the product, or the company not willing to lower prices to make their material sell easier?
Fan trailers and such have already been covered, and they follow the same road as CDs. It shows appreciation for the product, showing it, advertising it. It's not a crime. It SHOULDN'T be a crime.
Passing this act will destroy YouTube and other streaming sites, including the users dwelling within them that have done no wrong.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 21, 2013, 09:36:05 PM
But they already get free advertising with traditional and internet radio play and artsits get PAID for that, what you are talking about it still equal to stealing and while it is arguable that finding an artists on Youtube might lead you to buy the album chances are if you find it on Youtube you were looking for it. Pandora is free and it loads pretty fast and works on most devices Youtube does.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: UncleBob on August 21, 2013, 09:58:51 PM
When I find an album I like on YouTube, I try to purchase it. That's the point of the video; to advertise the music in its entirety. These users who post these videos, 'committing a felony' as the law may state should this act be passed, are actually attempting to contribute to the well-being of the record companies selling the CDs.
Dude, if you want to make a valid argument, like Morari, that copyright law is whack and the whole system needs to be fixed, then please, do that.
But don't serve us this bull____ and tell us it's chocolate cake.
People don't upload albums to YouTube because they want to help the record companies sell albums. :D :D :D I mean, seriously.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: nickmitch on August 21, 2013, 10:09:49 PM
On a 99-cent download, a typical artist may earn 7 to 10 cents after deductions for the retailer, the record company and the songwriter, music executives say.
Quote
Spotify declined to comment on its rates, but according to a number of music executives who have negotiated with the company, it generally pays 0.5 to 0.7 cent a stream (or $5,000 to $7,000 per million plays) for its paid tier, and as much as 90 percent less for its free tier.
Except concerts, from my understanding.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: UncleBob on August 21, 2013, 10:17:13 PM
If musicians are unhappy with signing with record labels, the easy answer would be to not sign with a label.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: Soren on August 21, 2013, 10:17:38 PM
But they already get free advertising with traditional and internet radio play and artsits get PAID for that,
No they don't. Interactive, on-demand Internet music services are a total grey area: the PROs are not collecting songwriter royalties, and SoundExchange isn’t collecting performance royalties. So far, all deals covering interactive services like Spotify and Slacker have been individually negotiated with record labels rather than mandated by legislation and regulation. The result? Artists have reported earnings in the neighborhood of three tenths of a cent per play … if they see any earnings at all.
But don't serve us this bull____ and tell us it's chocolate cake.
I know, that bugs the crap out of me. Let's just work to reform copyright law instead of working both sides of the fence like an idiot.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: nickmitch on August 21, 2013, 10:31:35 PM
Hey!
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 21, 2013, 10:34:40 PM
3 tenths of a cent is more than nothing at all... just saying. I used to be an independent record producer and it is hard as **** trying to make any money but the artists do get paid, they get it up front and then on royalties and record sales as well as concert tickets. Sure they don't get much on radio play but they get more than they do from piracy.
But the reality is too many people think they are entitled to entertainment they just don't realize how hard working people suffer from their thievery.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: UncleBob on August 21, 2013, 10:46:43 PM
Sure they don't get much on radio play but they get more than they do from piracy.
I do have to agree with this. I'm amused by people who support music piracy because of the poor, poor artists who make virtually nothing from the evil, greedy record labels.
Umm.. dude - you're paying the artists *LESS* than what the record labels pay... :D
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 22, 2013, 11:28:21 AM
Yes, three tenths of a cent is technically more money than zero tenths of a cent. I believe the argument from such people, which I'm not advocating, just explaining, is that the difference is so minuscule that it's essentially the same thing.
I will say that I subscribe to Google Music AllAccess, which I think is great. It integrates perfectly with your own personal collection while also offering a large streaming library. I have to imagine it's at least as convenient and much higher quality than YouTube streaming would be.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: Morari on August 22, 2013, 05:44:47 PM
Dude, if you want to make a valid argument, like Morari, that copyright law is whack and the whole system needs to be fixed, then please, do that.
My argument is valid, so sayeth the moderators.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: UncleBob on August 22, 2013, 06:31:36 PM
Well, I'm only one moderator, but yeah.
There is a bit of a flaw though, and I wanted to discuss it more, but I was out of town and without a laptop charger, so I had to conserve battery as much as possible. :D
Anywhoo, you touch upon this when you say that you believe in copyright, but disagree with the length.
Your idea that creators should be paid for the original work (i.e.: the writing of the book, the performing of the song, the taking of the pictures at the wedding) and not so much for the duplication of that act is an interesting one - but it runs into issues. Sure, a couple is going to be willing to pay a photographer a fair amount to take photos, but who's really going to pay an author a living wage to write a book? A process that can take MONTHS? Sure, if you've got something like Harry Potter, where you get to sell sheets, candy and action figures, you might find a few corporate interests willing to do it - but something that cannot be exploited outside of the easily copied realm (i.e. merchandising)?
Now, there's always the idea of Kickstarter-esque programs (basically, going back to the era of art patronage). Say, someone proposes to write a book if they can reach a certain goal (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1811278131/aeris-innocence-to-ashes), and in exchange, everyone who gave money gets a physical copy and a "thank you" and everyone else just takes it for free... but I'm not sure how successful something like that would really be in the end. Even more so if you move to things like movies and games, where you're not just looking at one person taking a few months to complete the project.
Now, the time limit thing *does* help (be it 10, 20 or 70+ years), but it's a very slippery issue.
I like your idea, I'm just not sure how to work it into today's society.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: Wah on August 22, 2013, 10:25:32 PM
this is hurting my head/aura listening to you guys!
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: UncleBob on August 26, 2013, 02:35:30 AM
[...]Now, there's always the idea of Kickstarter-esque programs (basically, going back to the era of art patronage). Say, someone proposes to write a book if they can reach a certain goal (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1811278131/aeris-innocence-to-ashes)[...]
Aw, comeon! No one bit on that offer?
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: NWR_insanolord on August 26, 2013, 03:11:43 AM
Kickstarter (or similar programs) could never be viable on a large scale. It only works for passionate, dedicated fan bases. The vast majority of pop culture could never work that way, due to vast expense and a much less devoted audience.
Title: Re: oh for @&/? sake
Post by: toddra on August 26, 2013, 03:41:36 PM
Well I began my most dreaded class today, Communications Law 414 our professor started the lecture of telling us this will be the hardest class of our undergrad career. But once I really get going I will be probably coming back to this thread as part of my research project gears up. So stay tune for more anti-piracy ranting.
