Remixing Is Creating And Original — It's Not Just Derivative Copying
from the understanding-creativity dept
At the beginning of the month we were one of the first to write about the amazing Thru-You “album” created by a DJ named Kutiman, who took individual sounds off of YouTube and mixed them into a full album. I’ve always been a believer in the concept that remixing something is a creative endeavor in its own right, but I’d never seen the point driven home quite as clearly as in this album. Not suprisingly, Kutiman has received plenty of well-deserved attention for the project, and Wired is running a great interview with him that’s well worth reading. The idea that what he’s done is almost certainly illegal and copyright infringement (he seems incredulous at the idea) should be a clear indication that something is wrong with the current copyright regime.
But, again, there’s this false belief out there that “remixing” is simply copying. But I defy anyone to explain how taking a simple kid playing a scale on a trumpet could become integral to an entire (great) funk song. Here’s the trumpet bit:
Filed Under: copying, derivative works, kutiman, remix, thru-you
Comments on “Remixing Is Creating And Original — It's Not Just Derivative Copying”
“It’s difficult to see how anyone could claim that’s not a massive problem. “
Don’t worry, WH will be here soon, I’m sure.
WH! I checked out your blog today; it is so lonely! I feel a little bad. I was just wondering…why do you come here so much, just to disagree all the time. If you are trying to advertise for your blog, why wouldn’t you start with people who predominantly agree with you, to build up a fan base? I guess you could just be trying to develop your arguments by hearing the other side? Is that why stick around here?
Re: Re:
I suspect WH doesn’t have many repeat visitors to his blog so the only way for him to get much of an audience is to come here.
An analogy would someone who had some strange desire to offend people by puking in front of them. Now that person could invite people over to his own house for “dinner”, but once they got there and smelled all the puke they would likely leave and never come back. That’s kind of like WH’s blog.
So that person begins going out to public restaurants (other people’s public comment sections) and puking there instead. That’s like what WH is doing here. And if that person can get some of the restaurant’s competitors (who would like to see it shut down) to also pay him for his efforts, well then so much the better.
Re: Re: Re:
hahahaha a very amusing analogy. I can’t stop laughing. I guess I don’t mind the smell of puke that much. Perhaps I’ll go visit your house, WH, and join your puking efforts.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
ahhhh i have to register to puke in your house…that’s no fun!
Jesse, this place is more inspirational – plus it is mucho fun to try to discuss things with people who have their hands over their ears and are yelling “LALALALALA” at the top of their lungs 🙂
As for these pieces, well…
The problem is simple: the presentation is massively creative. The material used is straight up in violation unless they all signed off on it. The world wouldn’t have been a worse place without it. Nothing new here at all, just good technique.
Re: Re:
Im sure being culturally arrogant is just as creative.
Re: LALALA
Um, Weird Harold, we’re not the ones shouting “Lalala” at the top of our lungs. We ARE listening. But your arguments are always matters of principle, whereas we come up with fact after fact after FACT. And fact beats theory by definition.
Playing the devil’s advocate can be an useful role in a debate. But you fail to bring up real points.
Re: Re: LALALA
What real points do you need here that haven’t been covered?
This is a straight forward sampling mix job done with video clips. Thousands of DJs and others have been doing this for over 20 years. The only difference is that this guy used video clips from YouTube and, while I appreciate the output, isn’t a new thing.
He’s just another mixer. And, as the mash-up/sampling/whatever you want to call it has been covered to death here and elsewhere, I think we can move on.
Re: Re: Re: LALALA
The question isn’t whether the technology or technique is new, because it isn’t (and I don’t think anyone believes it to be).
It is whether the resultant work is a new creation or not. Some here have argued that since it is “simply sampling” existing material (some copyrighted, some…er…copyrighted-by-default) that the resultant is not new and that it specifically violates copyright.
I think this guy has a true talent. His output is certainly a new creation and, IMO, is quite good.
The point to copyright is not to stop the progression of the arts. Someone taking these independent clips and making a comprehensive larger work is most definitely an advancement.
Copyright is an artificial monopoly granted because the art has a beneficial effect for society as a whole. It is asinine to block the creation of this type of new work base on previous ones that in almost all likelihood would never leverage the benefits granted them by current copyright thinking (i.e. the original clips were never going to make money for those who posted them, for free, on YouTube).
Re: Re: Re:2 LALALA
He has a great talent for mixing. And, yes, it’s a new work BUT it uses extensively work from others, in most cases without their okay.
And, I agree that in many cases, the use of small samples should be fair use. However, this is not small samples but large sections of published works. In the print world that’s called plagiarism, in the music world it’s called “fair use”
I think he mixed an interesting work, however, it’s still using other peoples’ works in extended sections and if there was a reward being generated, those people should be allowed to a cut, just like a session musician is given a cut of a concert if they play in it.
Re: Re:
If those are your best arguments then you’re pathetic. The material is straightup in violation. Duh, because copyright law is broken. The world wouldn’t have been a worse place without it. Duh, the same can be said for all the original pieces. Nothing new here at all. Except the presentation and the unique application of good technique and artistic vision. Unless you think just anyone could do as well.
Your arguments are so broad and idiotic that they could be used to argue these same about all music, all videos and movies, and all lyrics and written works.
Re: Re:
“plus it is mucho fun to try to discuss things with people who have their hands over their ears and are yelling “LALALALALA” at the top of their lungs :)”
No, Harold. It annoys us when you cover your ears.
Re: Artists
The work is clearly derivative but at the same time, unless all these you tube pieces are licensed under Creative Commons or something similar, you have images of artists and their work that are clearly part of this new work.
IHMO, without the video it’s probably going to pass muster, however with the video you need clearance on the faces/images of all the artists.
Re: Re:
If this isn’t fair use, I don’t know what is.
Re: Re: Re:
Then you don’t know what it is.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Then you don’t know what it is”
Please enlighten us
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Please enlighten us
fair use isn’t a right. it’s a defense. you can’t claim fair use until someone else claims infringement. this is how the DMCA and many other laws get abused.
you could be on perfect legal ground, and unless you have the money to go into court and make your case, you have no choice but to shut down.
now, if intellectual property law had provisions for fair use, or if there were penalties for abusing IP laws… the legal landscape would be different.
It’s insulting to say it isn’t copying.
Re: Re:
You don’t understand insults then, fuckface.
LALALALALA
“The world wouldn’t have been a worse place without it.”
That’s where you’re wrong Harold, the world is a better place because of what Kutiman made. It not only brightened the lives of many listeners, but also had a profound effect on many of the creators. Read for yourself how one of the original creators actually felt.
“*Recently on March 4th I found out that I was a part of the Thru-You.com. Basically a man named Kutiman who is awesomely skilled took 2 months to work on a project its called (This is the 1st Movement) and it is complexly wonderous full of different sounds I have never heard mashed together so skillfully. Basically what he has done is revolutionized youtube he mixes them together and creates wonderful sounds every song sounds like a different genre of music. I was lucky enough to be on the final track of his movement entitled (Just a Lady) it can be found on the following places.”
http://www.youtube.com/user/Songdreamer
As a result of the exposure from Kutiman’s amazing creation, Songdreamer has been discovered. Without it, she may have had just had a small group of fans on YouTube, now she’s has been heard by the very music executives who seem to fear letting go of the content.
Awesome
In this case, where you have recognizable people, I don’t think that this is a question of copyright at all. It’s more a question of people allowing themselves to be misrepresented.
While on the one hand, the people being sampled might object to be taken out of context, I agree that this is something that has taken a massive amount of creativity and musicology. Kutiman has produced something that is clearly more than the sum of it’s parts.
The point of being taken out of context and placed into something that they might object to is hard to ignore though. You could say that since they’re on youtube they automatically consent to being shown to the world, but the point is all about context. In this case, being produced into something great is probably not going to be objectionable, but the case would be different if the song was about violence or the lauding the virtues of ponzi schemes.
It’s a pity that YouTube doesn’t have an opt-in checkbox for things like this – I think it would be awesome if this sort of creativity continued without being threatened.
LALALALALA
If I play a song on my electric piano, it’s all recorded sounds. I should probably credit and pay whoever played the original sounds, right? Nobody is arguing that it isn’t a violation of current copyright law. That is exactly what was stated in the article. The point is, that it shouldn’t be.
The fact that the world wouldn’t have been a worse place without it, in your not-so-humble opinion, is irrelevant. That argument could be used both ways: “This work isn’t in need of copyright protection because it isn’t that good.” Then we can get into a big debate about what is worthy and what isn’t and in whose opinion. That argument goes nowhere fast, for any side that tries to employ it.
Andrew: sorry you took it so personally. Tissue? Lollipop?
WH: “Hi, my name is Weird Harold, and this is my little part of the net. I don’t claim to know everything, I don’t claim to post eerything.”
You liar! you claim to know everything all the time! (If only implicitly) PS the typo is yours, you’re welcome. Glad you enjoy the debate; for me it sure beats debating evolution over at slashdot (that gets really boring really fast). I have to admit, I pretty much just read the articles and then look for your “outrageous” comment (though I notice you’ve been a little less crazy lately…are you feeling sick or something?) 😉
Re: LALALALALA
Jesse, actually, unless you electric piano is playing samples, there is no original performance. Even if there is, the manufacture bought all the rights up front (work for hire) and sold you the use of those samples. So no big deal, you don’t owe anybody anything.
The argument isn’t that it isn’t good so it doesn’t deserve copyright, the argument is that the performances are copyright, and collecting together COULD be copyright, if in fact he got clearance from everyone in the video(s).
Well, knowledge in and of itself is only part of living in the world. I find real life to be a combination of some knowledge, decent logic, and a sense of both right and wrong and a passing understanding of the law. It’s very enjoyable to get to play with people who are sometimes better informed in specific areas, but to work on getting them to see how changes in that area affect other things. This place is full of very smart people, that is for sure, and some people who have a great way with words. My comments are only outrageous because they don’t usually toe the company line here, so I stand out. That makes it more fun. I am sure this is more fun than debating evolution (try debating religeon, now that’s fun!)
Mike should be thrilled – since I came along, the Alexa ranking has shot up to read 24,000 rank today. I’m still waiting for his call to work some events with him. 😉
Re: Re: LALALALALA
*yawn*
you’re getting boring.
Re: Re: LALALALALA
Mike should be thrilled – since I came along, the Alexa ranking has shot up to read 24,000 rank today.
That would be in spite of you, not because of you.
Re: Re: LALALALALA
Mike should be thrilled – since I came along, the Alexa ranking has shot up to read 24,000 rank today
Alexa is notoriously inaccurate.
For the record, since I have the log files in front of me… our traffic was going up for three straight months prior to WH making himself a regular presence. Since he showed up, traffic has actually stagnated (this week, it’s even down a bit). I’m not thrilled about this, but we do get seasonal fluctuations. But to attribute any “growth” to WH is simply incorrect.
His other claim that we get more comments due to him is also untrue. On average, our comments have actually stayed almost exactly the same as in the past since he showed up. We’ve always had people who disagree — most recently folks like MLS, Lonnie and Wilton have done so — and they tend to do so in a way that is a lot less troll-like than WH.
Re: Re: LALALALALA
I am going to take all your material no matter how bad it stinks and post the shit all over the net and not give you one bit of credit or money. Catch me if you can Fucker.
damn you davis
you took my “post LALALA in the subject” idea before i could 😛
So if he hadn’t sold the rights to the individual tones, you think it is right to call a song I composed on my piano copyright infringement? That is not what copyright is for, that is not a promotion of the useful arts. Today, it is frequently being used as a tool to squeeze money out of individuals and companies when none is reasonably due.
Again, I don’t think many people are debating how copyright is, but rather defending the opinion that it is not serving the purpose for which it was initially intended.
And yea, debating religion was essentially what I meant. I am doing a physiology degree and this guy started defending creationism or ID or whatever kids are calling it these days…I couldn’t resist. And then it started to feel like banging my head against a wall..so I moved on.
I’m not familiar with the Alexa ranking; what was the ranking before? But yea, I wouldn’t be surprised, controversy can do that.
Marcus Carab: so go to sleep then.
“That would be in spite of you, not because of you.”
I’d probably attribute it to him. I mean WH is really good at getting people riled up, which keeps them coming back, “to prove him wrong.” Which is why I was largely suspecting that WH=Mike. And true enough, it really was ditto-city around here. The debating keeps it fun and lively, wouldn’t you agree WH? (I know agreeing isn’t really your thing :P)
Re: Re:
I’m the anti-Mike. 😉
I agree that debating keeps it likely. before this place was getting 10 comments a thread – now some of them have 100. The hate mail has been amusing as well. 🙂
Re: Re: Re:
To be fair, we’ve also gotten an influx from a number of techmeme listings. I dunno if it’s increased readership but I can see a number of new people for you to fight with.
Bad Grammer
It is “an Original”,not “And Original”
Re: Bad Grammer
It’s “grammar” and not “grammer”
😉
Who cares! Take it and make it!
If copyright had existed since the beginning of “Art” we would all be painting on walls and banging rocks together.
The anti-Mike. hahaha that’s funny. Well, it looks like we’ll have to wait out the weekend for some more material. Perhaps if I feel like procrastinating from my paper I’ll go register at your blog and puke something fierce. Maybe you should make most of your additions on the weekends and then the shit show will never have to stop!
I think it’s funny how we just start out yelling at each other and then become fast friends, eh?
Re: Re:
heh-heh. Reality is that no matter how far apart anyone’s views, as long as you respect them for having a view, everything is good.
Agreeing. What a concept. Now people are going to start giving you the same reception they give me! 🙂
ps i can’t believe we agreed on something. i think i hear hell freezing
You fail at proving a point even with those lame videos… whatever you say, they still use someone else’s creativity and they someone else should give their approval first.
What if I copied and pasted your html code to another page then remixed the content? And did it over and over again. I bet you’d start getting mad. I’m not stealing, I’m remixing!
Re: Re:
Why don’t you try it, #23? Try it and see what happens, instead of being rethorical.
Oh wait… you know perfectly well what would happen, don’t you? That is to say, absolutely nothing. I’d still come to Techdirt to read the material, NOT to your hypotetical page. And knowing that drives you mad, right?
You see, that’s why us creative people aren’t worried about copying. Because no-one can copy creativity itself. And nothing can replace it.
Re: Re: Re:
Remixing is not creative at all.. if you had 2 cents of creativity in you, you would know that. Why do you think no one respects DJ’s? 90% of them just remix the same beat and try to make money off that.
Sure it’s fun for the kids.. but as long as it doesn’t take the focus away from the original artist.
Those youtube videos mostly suck anyway…… and not like they’re trying to rip anyone doing it.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, remixing isn’t creative becasue most people suck at it. YouTube isn’t creative because most of it sucks. Cubism isn’t creative because it sucks. See where I’m going here? You could also say that manufactured teeny-bop pop wasn’t creative because it sucks, and you’d be equally right. How about you examine the small percentage that *doesn’t* suck, and evaulate the artform based on the excellence instead of the crap. Losing the music snob attitude would help too.
I don’t see how this has anything to do with copyrighting… Isn’t that just like quoting someone and saying its yours? isn’t it something like as long as he gives proper citations? from his content no one should complain… besides its Youtube… as long as they attribute the authors of the original…It should not matter!!!!!
Sample Size
As sample size decreases, at what point does it become no longer copyright material? For example, a single note is not something that can be subject to copyright. So what is the equivalent in terms of video?
Re: Sample Size
A single note played is a performance, and remarkably is copyright automatically. Just the act of performing and recording that performance makes it a product, even if it is a single note. A single frame from a movie is copyright, isn’t it?
Re: Re: Sample Size
“A single note played is a performance, and remarkably is copyright automatically.”
Wow, I would guess that every possible note has been played at least once in the history of the human race, so that means that every musician is a thief because all they are doing is sampling the work of others.
Re: Re: Re: Sample Size
Wrong, please learn to read.
The PERFORMANCE is copyright (not the note, the playing of the note). Everyone can play the same note with out issue.
Heck, if you are in a band that does a cover song, you don’t own the song, but remarkably, you own the performance.
I know it’s hard to understand.
Re: Re: Re:2 Sample Size
“The PERFORMANCE is copyright”
I’ll ignore your attitude.
How is sampling one note from a performance different than the note by itself and how can you tell the difference. Do you rely upon the honesty of the artist?
Re: Re: Re:2 Sample Size
Harold,
Your point is moot, because most most recording contracts limit performances during the contract length, or the performance copyright is waived by the performer, and owned by the Recording Company.
the difference is the same as the difference between me hand writing the letter A and you hand writing the letter A. The letter A isn’t copyright, but technically, we each own our own writings.
You could make a sample so small it is hard to tell, but in the end, your sample wouldn’t be the note, but the performance of the note by someone else.
if you just want a note, use like a korg-10 and hit the note yourself. Then you own your own performance.
I have to say this line makes me laugh:
The idea that what he’s done is almost certainly illegal and copyright infringement (he seems incredulous at the idea) should be a clear indication that something is wrong with the current copyright regime.
Actually, it should be a clear indication that people no longer have a respect for the work of others, and no longer consider the borrowing / using / stealing of the work of others to be important or even a problem.
This is the total proof that the performance and the music have lost their value in people’s minds. They are no longer works, just grains of sand.
Proof once again that Mike’s message is confused.
Re: Re:
Actually, it should be a clear indication that people no longer have a respect for the work of others, and no longer consider the borrowing / using / stealing of the work of others to be important or even a problem.
I think that anyone can see that it actually shows quite clearly that Kutiman has TREMENDOUS respect for those whose work he used. He took what they had done and ADDED value to it, making it even more special. It appears that many of the artists agree.
This is the total proof that the performance and the music have lost their value in people’s minds. They are no longer works, just grains of sand.
I’m sorry, but if you honestly think that people view these videos in that way, I can only say that you have no soul. It’s almost sad to watch someone so pathetic that they think this devalues the work, rather than increases its value. I really wouldn’t want to live a live so sad.
Re: Re: Re:
Can you please ban Weird Harold, just for a week. I’m getting sick of seeing his comments, plus now people are anticipating his comments and making preemptive rebuttals. One week free of his crazy ranting so we all can have an intelligent discussion. Then he can come back.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amen, Brotha! Or better still, can one of those “Techdirt Impostors” make a filtered version of techdirt that removes Weird Harold’s comments??
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Chris, need a week off? just don’t check the comments for a week.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Why don’t you go do something Canadian for a week? May I suggest going to sit on the roof with a keg of Molson and some Tim Hortons?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
WH! You have an offer for free bad beer and donuts! If he comes through, can I have some?
Didn’t some guy try to copyright silence?
What ever happened to that?
Re: Re:
John Cage – 4’33”
Auto-tuned?
I was really surprised to learn he’d not used much pitch-tuning; that makes it ten times as awesome. He must have used some re-processing to clean up the trombone audio for the song, but it must be a painstaking task to search for a clip with not only the notes and instrument you want, but also that sounds in tune with everything you have already.
Whatever the implications...
this was mesmerizing! I couldn’t take my eyes off it. This is certainly the work of a quite creative person, an artist, that assembled something new, innovative, creative.
Perhaps the solution is as simple as this…if you don’t want your material in the public domain, don’t sing it in public or record it at all.
The days of multi-millionaire rock stars are dwindling. They had a good run and are using the funds to, among other things, protect their business. Why not, from their perspective? It’s been extremely lucrative.
Moving forward, I think music will be an art pursued by those with passion and who are willing to live modestly. Sure, some will do better than others, but this fight against ubiquitous technology is ultimately futile. It can be argued someone didn’t get paid a second or third time for something 15 years ago. Heck, I wish I got paid for my work 15 years ago…what a gravy train that would be. But as a consumer, I’ve already moved away from any new music purchases toward the myriad other options (Wii, internet radio, old CDs I own burned to MP3, etc.). I’m waiting for something new…and Kutiman is a worthy product to consider. I frankly don’t feel bad about that at all.
Re: Whatever the implications...
Perhaps the solution is as simple as this…if you don’t want your material in the public domain, don’t sing it in public or record it at all.
Actually, you just hit EXACTLY one of the key the reasons why there is a need for copyrights, patents, and trademarks in this world. It would be a sad world where artists are forced to shut up, avoid cameras and recording devices, and so on just so that people won’t rip off their work and image for their own profit.
Also, please understand “public domain” is a very specific thing, I think you are trying to say “in public” – public domain suggests there is no copyright or any restrictions on use.
Again, not exactly perfectly right, but a good enough primer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain
Re: Re: Whatever the implications...
Actually, you just hit EXACTLY one of the key the reasons why there is a need for copyrights, patents, and trademarks in this world. It would be a sad world where artists are forced to shut up, avoid cameras and recording devices, and so on just so that people won’t rip off their work and image for their own profit.
riiiight, and it’s way better to try and innovate in an environment where you need legal counsel to have a thought or make a statement.
you bemoan an environment where copying is rampant as unsustainable, yet how can you consider the current environment of rampant lawsuits to be sustainable?
you claim that no one will create anything when it will just be copied, yet why would anyone create anything now when as soon as you show any success, you will be sued for violating a vague patent?
“I know it’s hard to understand.”
-WH
That’s exactly the point. Why have a law that is so complicated and so non-intuitive that most of the population doesn’t get it let alone think it is necessary? Laws are generally supposed to be a reflection of the collective ideals of a society. If the vast majority doesn’t agree with the current enforcement of copyright, then it is time for a change.
Again, I don’t think most people are debating what the laws are or how they would be interpreted; the main point of this blog is that current intellectual property laws don’t make sense in this day and age. Yet, WH, you keep coming back to how the law is written. I would appreciate it if you would try address why you think current copyright makes sense (if that is indeed the case).
Re: Re:
It is difficult to understand for a couple of reasons, most of which have to do with the social aspects of intellectual property “borrowing”. In many ways, “Masnick’s Law” and similar are part of parcel of the issue.
Laws are generally supposed to be a reflection of the collective ideals of a society.
In general terms, yes. But there is a point where you reach “mob rules” rather than any great collection of ideas. Numbers that I have seen tossed around indicate that less than 20% of the internet users are active downloaders. So if we look at the ideals of the collective, 80% don’t pirate stuff. Yet, there is a mob rules mentality online that makes it appear okay. It’s almost like looters in a riot, rather than normal day to day life.
SO in the end, the vast majority of the public is okay with copyright, they are okay with patents, and they benefit from it. The only people who don’t benefit are people who just borrow from other people and slap their name on it, the people who aren’t creative enough to do anything for themselves.
Re: Re: Re:
So how could the industry accurately monetize derivative works? It seems like it’s all about making it overly complex.
By your own admission, you’ve seen many people enter this industry with a wad of cash and dreams exit with tattered dreams and a bankruptcy notice.
Re: Re: Re:
WH -> “80% don’t pirate stuff.”
So why would the 80% be asked to fork over a fee, tax, or whatever they want to call it? Because it is an excuse, nothing more. Greedy basturds want their hands in your pockets, all of your pockets, not just the 20%.
Re: Re: Re: (Discussion on creating a Derivative Media/Music Market)
I wouldn’t say that, more accurately it should be about leveraging the massive hobby base to license derivative works. After All, 8 hours of content are uploaded to YouTube every minute.
But the process of licensing is so manual, that I doubt that the industry, even if it wanted to, could legally license 3% of this content with background music or whatever. From there, the cream of the crop could be distributed through international distribution channels. If properly done, it may even hold promise into stimulating trade by strengthening the US’s Media/Entertainment export business.
Do note, a 4 pager on this concept is “Currently being reviewed by Techdirt Staff”.
Re: Re: Re:
“Numbers that I have seen tossed around indicate that less than 20% of the internet users are active downloaders. So if we look at the ideals of the collective, 80% don’t pirate stuff.”
Odd, because numbers I’ve seen tossed around (when the industry are trying to claim ‘losses’) suggest that 96% of teens have at least some ‘pirated’ music on their mp3 player, or that 19 out of 20 music downloads are illegal, or that 80% of all Internet traffic comes from illegal peer-to-peer file sharing.
Which kinda flies in the face of “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”. When somewhere past 80% of the governed are ignoring what they (presumably) consider an unreasonable law, it’s way past time to change the law.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are playing a numbers game, but you are just trying to lie with numbers.
First off, teens aren’t 100% of the population. They are less than 10%. Second and just as important, they are most likely to be active only stealing stuff because they don’t have the money to buy it.
Since teens aren’t a big percentage of the population, and the vast majority of the population actually follows the rules, your numbers are both meaningless in context. Your 80% number is traffic, not people. Internet traffic doesn’t get to vote.
Oh yeah, site your source or your numbers are crap.
Does your mom know you use the internet to steal stuff?
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
“You are playing a numbers game, but you are just trying to lie with numbers.”
Thanks. I was hoping you would agree with me that the RIAA and MPAA are lying with the numbers.
References as you wish. Numbers were from memory so I googled these for you. Only one directly from a recording industry representative site but I’m sure I could fine references for all of them with a little more work;
“Illegal copying in some form is undertaken by 96 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds surveyed” (sorry, not precisely what I said) – http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/personal_tech/article4144585.ece
“it is estimated that 19 out of every 20 downloaded songs infringe copyright.”-
http://www.apra.co.nz/html/news_item.php?id=6555&newsCat=m
“The record industry estimates that 80 percent of all Internet traffic comes from illegal peer-to-peer file sharing.” – http://media.www.thesantaclara.com/media/storage/paper946/news/2009/02/12/News/Internet.Piracy.Debated-3626739.shtml
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Okay, let’s answer your links:
1) Define the form for illegal copying. Moving a file from your computer to your sister’s Ipod is illegal – but pretty much like it has always been and a non issue. It would be interested how many of them actually downloaded file sin the last 30 days ( In a recent Canadian survey, that was only 23% of internet users)
2) Very likely – again, your kids in example 1 have 800 songs on average, and likely have paid for, I dunno, NONE of them? Heavy file traders tip the average massively.
3) Not surprising. However, 80% of the traffic does not mean a majority of the users. Again, Canadian study shows only 23% active in the last month trading files, so file traders are eating up insane amounts of bandwidth. In a comcast article I read, the CEO was quote as saying something like 5% of the users were using more than 50% of the bandwidth or something to that effect. In some areas, it was even higher.
So you have failed completely to show where 80% of bandwidth = majority of users, and you have also failed to show that a majority of all users (not just teens with plenty of time, no money, and not enough parental supervision) are pro-file sharing and breaking copyright.
So the fail whale says “try again later”
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Now YOU cite YOUR sources. Something you’ve been historically reluctant to do.
Re: Re: Re:5 Re:
The ghosts quote above comes right of wikipedia.
Canadian file sharing survey (conducted by Angus Reid, one of the top of the line polling firms, not some random group of guys): http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads/pages/pdfs/2009.03.12_FileSharing.pdf
Re: Re: Re:4 Re:
Harold,
Do you see a maple leaf on the Techdirt logo? No, your not at Techdirt.ca (However, as I write this, I realize how it may be a great way to move Harold’s Comments so they keep from skewing the regular conversation here.)
Maybe you need to re-evaluate what’s legal in your country versus this country.
Again, your country doesn’t have something called “fair use” because no one fought it to the highest court in your land.
Discussion on creating a Music and Media Derivatives Market
Earlier this week, Harold complained that a lot of art isn’t copyrightable- that it wasn’t really creative but derivative in manner.
But that’s the point, and what we’ve seen over the past decade. The RIAA’s started with issues around the Diamond Rio, Napster, and the like. None of these technologies were really “creative” but derivative. They identified an underserved marketplace called “electronic distribution” of works. But overall, this is just one more problem of the Recording Industry.
The process of sound recordings was not invented by the recording industry. In fact, Thomas Edison invented the art form and it was subsequently embraced by the record industry when it saw ways to control the content, and the distribution channels the Recording Industry setup made it a commercially viable business.
In many ways, the industry wasn’t new, just a derivative of existing inventions when it formed the RIAA in 1952. Its existence was based on commercialization of existing pieces. I find it odd that this is the basis of the recording industry itself, but when it comes to serving a marketplace, and creating new works of derivative art, the industry comes to a full stop, when it isn’t creative. This seems to run in reverse of the actual history of the industry itself.
We keep talking about the gaffes of Music and Entertainment industries here, probably because it’s Tech-related and the site is called “Tech Dirt”, it attracts an audience of technology professionals, and we naturally see the best solution is probably some sort of a tech-based solution. Many of these discussions have veered into areas which prevent tech-based solutions from going mainstream. This includes the often discussed patent/copyright debate. If you are granted a Government-sponsored monopoly, it should do something to serve its citizens, and furthermore strengthen the economy. For more background, do read into Thomas Jefferson’s original intent of the USPTO.
Let’s not forget that copyright, until the Bono Law, was based around the blanket axiom that content, after a certain amount of time, has the ability to change from a product to something identifiable with an entire culture, not the other way around.
To this point, it also seems that the original protections of TradeMark have been moved to support Copyright law. This is interesting because a trade mark rights are granted to protect an inventor and product and in turn encourage trade. It appears the need to stimulate Trade was removed. Subsequently, content has become locked up for years; you’re unable to Pass Go without paying $200.00 licensing fees. As a result, alternative use of licensing such as Creative Commons has gained momentum. Consumers have plenty of choices about where to get their content online, and “FREE” doesn’t get the overseas folks who have our TARP money open their wallet.
With 30% of TARP funds going overseas, I have trouble understanding what we are going to produce to tender that debt, but there may be hope in using the internet to sell digital assets.
Today, we suffer from issues around increasing productivity and creating exportable goods to tender our debt. Now we have a crisis where our largest export- Financial Derivatives has cratered, so we need to find a new export.
Why not find a way to support monetization of derivative music and media works? Distribution channels such as iTunes already exist, and with the correct legislative pieces in place, it could re-stimulate the once powerful Media and Music Export Industries.
If it means we have to make 2,000,000 apps and remixes to be sold on iTunes for 99¢, so be it. These are low-startup-cost industries that have the ability to stimulate trade almost immediately.
A fundamental problem is that the current system and business model isn’t setup to make it easier to purchase and be legit. Not just for final products, but also for derivative works. The former has been demonstrated correct with the phenomenal success of services such as iTunes. When content companies make purchasing uncomfortably complicated, there are few other alternatives.
What can be done?
Possibly the best idea is something that should have been discussed years ago– Find ways to license music under the auspice of a low-cost promotional licensing scheme, so people can create and manufacture derivative works to lift up and re-stimulate the once powerful Media and Music Export Industries.
It needs to be setup to avoid things such as Warner/YouTube shakedown. I’m not saying have the approvals go through 30 people at 3 licensing entities to get a price, but make it available, with the intention to monetize it.
A foundational principal needs to be either your going to sell a license because content is for sale or it isn’t. don’t care about use so much. I doubt in most cases, you’ll find these people are sharing their life freely with others and presenting it as their culture, and not deliberately trying to skirt paying a 25¢ royalty.
We’re wallowing in a sea of content and you have a generation that can come up new ways to do it, but are spooked to get in the box. Many, many new uses of content coming to the surface. Look at YouTube’s “Chad Vader” series as an example. Some 10 to 13 hours of content is uploaded to Youtube every minute.
Considering the circumstances, and repeated conditioning based on the threats of suing, it’s no surprise people devalue content so much. Yet, you can create an entire manufacturing base with a near-zero setup cost.
Why do this?
Well, perhaps you’ve noticed the incredible adoption of FinalCut, Garage Band, and Avid. These programs were once only available to the few, but these same tools have become increasingly within grasp of hobbyists. Still, the industry seems to not see how to make money on it. The TriBecca Film Festival had its most entries ever this last year, and Sundance receives over 9000 entries to fill 200 slots. So user-generated and hobbyist-generated content is gaining in momentum.
There is a market, which if setup correctly, could stimulate trade. It’s just figuring out how to set up the business so it can be successful in profiting from it. This is probably why so many people are upset, and increasingly looking to people like Rio Caraeff to help drive the industry forward.
Hey Mike, great job. But you scare me sometimes, because I wrote this on Monday, didn’t post it, and you hit most of these points over the course of the week.
Thru-You is amazing.
What’s wrong with Derivative works? If it stimulates the economy…
Remixing simply isn't copying
This is interesting to me, as I am currently working on a Linux distro, and I am basically remixing one Linux distro into something different. Now you could call that copying, except I am taking totally different things and putting them into an existing thing to make something somewhat unique. How does that differ from remixing other than the open source model?
What - no answer
WH -> “80% don’t pirate stuff.”
So why would the 80% be asked to fork over a fee, tax, or whatever they want to call it? Because it is an excuse, nothing more. Greedy basturds want their hands in your pockets, all of your pockets, not just the 20%.
Have your overlord puppetmasters given you an answer to this question yet?
Re: What - no answer
1) I have no overlords.
2) “Greedy basturds” is a nice term. Does your momma know you use it?
3) what fee or tax are you taking about?
The rest is just baiting. Please – site your sources, make your point, and stick the name calling back in the drawer.
Here's another for Harold
http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2009/01/12/lawrence-lessig:-70%25-kids-are-taking-part-illegal-file-sharing
Re: Here's another for Harold
Lawrence lessig isn’t a source, he’s a pundit.
Please.
Re: Re: Here's another for Harold
Lawrence lessig isn’t a source, he’s a pundit.
Please.
Actually, Lawrence Lessig (note capitalization) is not a pundit. He’s actually very well-respected. Lawrence earned a BA in Economics (Wharton), BS in Management (Wharton), A Masters in Philosphy (Oxford), and a JD from Yale. As a Stanford Professor, he used is knowledge and was instrumental in many things, most notably Creative Commons, and the EFF. Lawrence is about to join the faculty at Harvard.
Considering you see him as a mere “pundit” just helps to understand how little grasp of reality you have.
“The record industry estimates that 80 percent of all Internet traffic comes from illegal peer-to-peer file sharing.”
I estimate that this is 100% pulled out of their ass
Re: Re:
“I estimate that this is 100% pulled out of their ass”
I had a chat to the guys at a major network research group a while back, and it seems the 80% figure is probably not too far wrong. And a rather impressive amount of the rest is porn.
No references, sorry. The numbers are probably published somewhere but I can’t be arsed digging them up.
Ahh, I missed a classic quote from WH too
“Second and just as important, they are most likely to be active only stealing stuff because they don’t have the money to buy it.”
Another excellent point WH. They couldn’t afford to buy it, therefore the industry counting it as ‘lost sales’ is absolute bollocks.
We generally object to calling copyright infringment ‘stealing’ around here because nobody has been deprived of anything, except ‘possibly’ the potential to have made a sale. In this case we’re all in agreement that they haven’t even lost that. So how are they possibly ‘harmed’ by this copying?
Re: Ahh, I missed a classic quote from WH too
Stealing. That is what it is. You can play fancy games with “you didn’t take the original, just a copy”, but it’s a crappy answer. You don’t have something, then you have something you didn’t have before, but you didn’t pay for it, and don’t have the right to have it. The method that you used to obtain it isn’t relevant – you have something you didn’t pay for and should have.
It’s really freaking basic stuff. Retail cost is $X – you didn’t pay, therefore you got it by stealing it – even if you just used 1s and 0s to do it.
“Another excellent point WH. They couldn’t afford to buy it, therefore the industry counting it as ‘lost sales’ is absolute bollocks.”
Sigh. This is a really, really tired argument. Quite simply, if enough people who couldn’t afford it are stealing it, the people who would have paid are more likely to steal it – see mob mentality.
Re: Re: Ahh, I missed a classic quote from WH too
Scare tactic. That is what it is.
If I come by your house and take your car, I have a car that does not belong to me, and you are denied access to your car. that is stealing.
If I come by your house, take a couple pictures of your car, go home, and construct my own identical vehicle, I have committed infringement at worst, but you have suffered no substantial damage.
Even that analogy is imperfect because it is attempting to apply real world physics to purely informational logic. Calling infringement “stealing” is an appeal to people’s moral senses, but it holds no truth.
What we have here is a situation where digital creations carry arbitrary contracts. Sure, the guy who bought a song from iTunes technically agrees to contracts X Y and Z, but the guy who copied it from that guy never agreed to those contracts. So, the government comes in and says, “Oh, well, you can’t have that information because the creator said so.” Sorry, but that is not how the Internet era works.
If you don’t want your creation “stolen”, don’t put it out in public. Ever.
I used to respect most content creators, but once they started implementing provisions to block consumer rights (such as secondhand sales) I moved on. Screw last generation.
Re: Re: Re: Ahh, I missed a classic quote from WH too
Your car example is cute, but not very relevant. You didn’t need the pictures to be able to build the car, and you still ended up paying for all the parts anyway, unless you stole them. You didn’t get a free car. You are looking for an analogy that just doesn’t work.
Your Itunes example is also meaningless. The guy who bought the content is in trouble for sharing it. The guy who got it for nothing (knowing that he should have paid for it) is also in violation. When he got the content, he should have asked – ignornance sually isn’t an acceptable defence.
If you don’t want your creation “stolen”, don’t put it out in public. Ever.
Again proving the point that copyright and patents are needed, otherwise fools like you will steal everything that isn’t nailed down.
why 'shouldn't' have
Retail cost is X – you didn’t pay, therefore you got it by stealing it. Does that apply to water too? Retail cost of bottled water is X, I got exactly the same thing for free, yada yada.
Or food. Tomatoes cost X per kg at the supermarket, I grew my own at home..
Funny thing is, a friend of mine grew his tomato plants by planting the seeds out of some of his supermarket tomatoes. In a Monsanto world that wouldn’t even be legal.
As for the Assumption that people wouldn’t pay if they could get stuff for free, well. Not always true. Great example, Ghosts I-IV. Or bottled water. Or radio. In fact far from killing music sales, that one turned out to actually sell MORE music and the recording industry ended up paying under the table (See: Payola) to control what songs were getting promoted.
wtf I’m bored with this already. Go argue with Thomas McCauley. He’d long dead so you won’t have to worry about any rebuttals;
http://baens-universe.com/articles/McCauley_copyright
Re: why 'shouldn't' have
You didn’t steal the store’s water – you paid taxes to get the tap water. If you took a bottle of water from the store and drank it in the store before the cash, leave the empty bottle and didn’t pay them, did you steal the water or not? Not entirely relevant. Getting something from a different source means you didn’t get the same product.
Monsato won’t care if you grow a tomato plant on your balcony. Actually the seeds inside many monsato products don’t regrow (genetically altered). So good luck.
As for Ghosts, well:
“Ghosts I–IV was released in a number of different formats at various price points:
* Ghosts I – free
Contains the first nine tracks, available for free online from either the official Nine Inch Nails website or officially from various BitTorrent trackers, including The Pirate Bay.[18]
* Digital release (Halo 26) – $5 to download directly from the band
The entire album in DRM-free formats, including high bitrate MP3 (320kb/s), FLAC and Apple Lossless formats. Also includes the same extras as the free version.
* Two-Disc release (Halo 26 CD) – $10
Includes two audio CDs and a 16-page booklet. Also includes immediate access to the digital release.
* Vinyl release (Halo 26 V) – $39
Standalone 4-LP 130 gram vinyl set in a double gate fold package.[19]
* Deluxe Edition (Halo 26 DE) – $75
Includes two audio CDs, a data DVD containing multitrack files for use with audio editing software, a Blu-ray Disc with the album in high-definition 96 kHz 24-bit stereo and accompanying slide show, and a 48-page hardcover book with photographs. Also includes immediate access to the digital release.
* Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition (Halo 26 LE) – $300
Includes everything in the Deluxe Edition, as well as a 4-LP 180 gram vinyl set in a fabric slipcase, and two exclusive limited edition Giclée prints, which are different for each copy. Limited to 2,500 pieces, numbered and signed by Trent Reznor.[8][3] “
They didn’t give it all away. So people weren’t paying for what they got free, they were paying for what they couldn’t get free. NEXT.
You shouldn’t be bored, you haven’t done your homework. Next time try siting some examples that actually mean something.
Re: Re: why 'shouldn't' have
They didn’t give it all away. So people weren’t paying for what they got free, they were paying for what they couldn’t get free. NEXT.
Which is the whole freaking point. These musicians have put together great business models by getting people to pay for stuff that they couldn’t have gotten for free.
That’s exactly the type of thing Weird Harold keeps insisting can’t happen.
But as he just showed, it does. All the time.
Thanks for debunking Weird Harold, Weird Harold.
Great Stuff
I liked the song/video/mix creations.
I think I will do that with some of my own stuff.
I hope I don’t sue myself for copyright infringement.
Harold the Canadian cant get a job at Nettwerk, but wants to do something
I think Harold is hailing from Saskatchewan. At this point, it’s just a guess. Now, I can’t blame him, Saskatchewan is a very boring providence. Trust me, I know. Maybe that’s why Harold comes here– Because he wants to whine about something he has no real knowledge about, and he thinks that whining about it will get him a job out of crappy Saskatchewan.
Maybe someone in Los Angeles will please go to Howard’s StuffChannel and send him a comment offering him a job. Please, Please, someone get him a H1B visa, out of Saskatchewan, so he can gain the practical experience he’s lacking.
Re: Harold the Canadian cant get a job at Nettwerk, but wants to do something
Umm, no. I spent a week in regina one night. Otherwise, you miss entirely.
However, I have lived in LA, New York, and spent plenty of time in Canada, Europe, and recently a number of visits to China, Japan, and Hong Kong.
The only thing I have to whine about is idiots who think they know me, and don’t have a frigging clue.
Re: Re: Harold the Canadian cant get a job at Nettwerk, but wants to do something
Harold,
So what’s the problem? For most of us here, it’s just fun, and it seems you have genuine difficulties with us for some reason you can’t/won’t explain.
Somehow and someway it seems you have an entire Library’s worth of untold stories to share.
So I hope to advise you that Nettwerk is off of WA I-5.
Figure out what you want to do. CA or US. Make a decision and get a H1 or whatever.. But please, quite terrorizing Techdirt while you make this decision.
And yes, I posted my 4 pager at lessig.org under creative commons and public domain. See:
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2009/03/remix_buy_the_remix.html#comment-71347
Learn to let go, Harold. Come on, man… Please.
Re: Re: Harold the Canadian cant get a job at Nettwerk, but wants to do something
Hi Harold,
I’ve also been to all the areas you’ve mentioned. Have you been to Florida, Oklahoma, Alabama? How long did you live in LA, NY and the Eurozone?
Have you ever had to tell someone something was “right” to ensure you’d keep a job, even though you knew inside it was absolutely wrong to your inside beliefs?
Got a song for ya: “Say It Right” by Nelly Furtado. I live that fucking song every day.
I believe I speak for others here who don’t conribute so much. You took that from me. This used to be a place I could actually unload at.
Thanks, Harold… For fucking things up.
Re: Re: Re: Harold the Canadian cant get a job at Nettwerk, but wants to do something
Pretty much every part of the US I have at least been through or around (I have driven cross country more than once, east to west and north to south. A couple of years in lala land, a year or so in new york, and I am a euro citizen, so plenty.
As for fucking it up for you, well, I am sorry. I will be sure to change me ways just so you can enjoy your life again.
Re: Re: Re:2 Harold the Canadian cant get a job at Nettwerk, but wants to do something
I actually I enjoy this.
Lorne Michaels, a Canadaian, once said the three most important things to a production are timing, timing and timing. And, no. Your not fucking things up for me.
Re: Re: Harold the Canadian cant get a job at Nettwerk, but wants to do something
Wow! Maybe I’m the first Canadian here to say it, but if someone asked me to go sit on the roof with a Molson…
I’d probably go enjoy a night on the roof with a Molson!
A Keg.. and a box of Tom Hortons, Woah… Mind if I go buy a few Cuban Cigars first?
Creativity vs. Legislation
Hello everyone. I am a frequent reader of Techdirt, but I believe this is the first time I have commented. As for all the comments, I tried to get through them all but there were many.
My comment is not meant to provoke controversy. More to simply stimulate cognitive reasoning of what is I.P. In the case of music (non-lyrical), it’s first necessary to ask what it is. Well, in the most basic sense, it is whatever someone considers it to be. Creating music involves combination of beats and tones, or notes and timing. A note, or tone, is simply a disturbance of air waves reaching our ears then interpreted by our brains. A beat, or timing, is time separated intervals of these notes.
A skilled computer scientist could write a program that could generate pages of music based on musical algorithms. Would all of this then be the I.P. of said computer scientist? If not, then why? In The architect’s handbook of professional practice on page 317 the point is made:
(emphasis added) I would fully consider all music created by such a program as a derivative of that work.
Here I am simply trying to demonstrate clear problems in today’s copyright laws. Without further elongating this comment, my point is this: Music, source code, blue prints, etc. are all ideas that exist before they were created. Isn’t every musician “remixing” notes, beats and words? But somehow in this step “ownership” of this is given. How is that possible? Everything I.P. related is just taking that which already exists and making it different.
Re: Creativity vs. Legislation
I am amused, but please hold on a bit.
There’s much more to this than what you see.
Matt means a lot...
Keep Matthew 5:37 in mind.
If they won’t license, go elsewhere. It’s already extremely complicated.
There are other alternatives that produce no income.
MonSatan
“Monsato won’t care if you grow a tomato plant on your balcony. Actually the seeds inside many monsato products don’t regrow (genetically altered). So good luck.”
I find the above difficult to believe. Monsanto is well known for suing farmers who do not pay a license fee to cover the unintentional cross fertilization into their fields. But that is whole different problem.
There was a story about grapes that came in a package which had a EULA on it. These grapes were from Sunset.
“The recipient of the produce contained in this package agrees not to propagate or reproduce any portion of the produce, including (but not limited to) seeds, stems, tissue and fruit.”
I’m guessing that you do not have to totally destroy your excrement in order to be in compliance with this EULA.
Creative or Copying...
Mike is sort of right. “Mixing,” which is essentially a fancy word for “arranging,” can be creative. Examples: A lot of the Beatles music was creatively mixed, which is why it sounded the way it did. Elton John frequently recorded his vocals and piano or keyboard portion by himself, and Gus Dudgeon or some other producer creatively mixed the various tracks to form the final product.
Would the Beatles or Elton John have sounded good without the talents of a very good arranger? Probably not. However, would the arranger have been able to do what they did without the talents of various musicians? Absolutely not.
Creativity has ranges. There is the absolute creativity of an inventor, writer, or songwriter, who develops a product the world has never seen before, and then there are those who package that product in a shiny new package, which can be creative (it is not necessarily creative – anyone can arrange or mix music badly), but to think that the ability to arrange music can happen without the creativity of the original creator is living in Munchkin Land.
Oh….. I get it. The rights of talentless technician wannabees trumps all rights of actual creative musicians.
Re: Re:
YOU GOT IT DUDE! Those who can…create. Those who can’t…remix “creatively.”
Wow! You just broke it wide open!
Harold is actually a door-to-door salesman some mundane, Government-mandated entertainment technology. Perhaps closed-captioning hardware!
While I hate using Wikipedia for anything, it is pretty much the easiest way to educate you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeport_Music_Inc._v._Dimension_Films
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Get your education. Enjoy.
Re: Re:
Since WH brought up Bridgeport, it’s worth pointing out that he doesn’t seem to understand it at all. It was a terrible decision that most copyright lawyers agree was a terrible decision that goes against pretty much the entire history of copyright law and fair use. Also it only applies to Sixth Circuit, and pretty much everyone expects that once this issue is raised in another circuit and gets to the SC, the ruling from the 6th will get smacked back to where it belongs, and de minimis copying will be recognized (as it should be) as perfectly reasonable.
Re: Re: Re:
I understand completely. I also understand that this is a 2005 ruling, and now we sit in 2009 without any challenges or any further appeals, from what I can see. Bridgeport has been an agressive litigant (the music they hold the rights to is a very common sampled source, it seems).
What is important is only that there is a judgement (albeit at the circuit level rather than the SC) that makes it clear that even minor sampling isn’t acceptable.
Techdirt, a turn for the worst
Sigh, …since the arrival of weird harold, Techdirt has taken a turn for the worst. The comments have become very much like a Jerry Springer show. I find myself visiting the site less and just skimming the comments when before I would read them all.
Weird harold is an obvious internet troll. Also, shame on the other posters who are feeding him.
Re: Techdirt, a turn for the worst
Techdirt was already like Jerry Springer before the arrival of Weird Harold. There are all sorts of people in here who have little or no understanding of intellectual property and an even worse grasp of the English language.
Re: Re: Techdirt, a turn for the worst
I’m just waiting for Mike to wake up and realize what great marketing this is. Then he can quietly offer me a payout to keep this up in the long run.
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/techdirt.com
page views are up, rank is way up, and reach is way up.
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt, a turn for the worst
page views are up, rank is way up, and reach is way up.
I already responded to this above.
Alexa is wrong. Our traffic is actually down since you arrived. It was going up consistently for three months before you showed up. Then it stagnated. The last two weeks have seen a marked decline.
I don’t attribute this to WH at all (we get fluctuations at time). But to claim that traffic is up because of you is simply wrong. Traffic has not gone up one bit since you got here.
Though, it would be interesting to see if traffic went back up should WH go away.
Creativity Vs Origination
It is certainly a creative exercise to paste all these clips together.
If any of the clips are original works…meaning that they were written and arranged in an original manor by the performer or anyone else then, if and when there is a profit generated, that person (or persons) are owed an IP royalty and a performance royalty.
If you don’t think that is fair then you are an ignorant asshole who has never created anything from scratch worth buying.
The people playing non originated works (scales and exercises) are owed a performance royalty only if there is ever any revenue generated. Alternatively, their performance and the master (video) they posted can be bought out or licensed by the owner of the derivative master for a flat fee.
IMO the clip arranger should be paid a producer royalty and and retain some of the publishing as well as the master if all the performers/writers/masters owners agree.
In the real world, the one with litigators, unless all the parties involved were willing to simply split it all up evenly, regardless of the use of their contribution then it’s a legal nightmare and the DJ is liable, if there is any money generated.
If I had done it I’d want to see them all paid.
But many of you are ignoring the difference between creative exercises and origination. It is creative for me to take SGT Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band and remix it with Highway To Hell…but I did not originate either of those 2 works so I cannot under any circumstances own, distribute or share my mash up of the 2 because I did not create something new….and therefor I do not own it.
You make it, you own it.
Sound exists as a potential but naturally inert physical force that requires gas be present to manifest. Arranging it into an organized manor and recording a document of it that people will spend money to own takes an originating human mind. Putting together 2 recorded documents that other human minds have originated from instruments that generate and manipulate sound from it’s inert state is not in itself origination. Sound is an Earthly natural resource but songs are not.
Regardless of the law these are facts. The law does cover most of what I am stating but it is currently not efficient enough to be applied to these new and complex dilemmas in a speedy and equitable way. In that sense the law is currently old and dumb, like George Bush, Record Label Execs and the RIAA staff.
brendan b brown
wheatus.com
...and...
That DJ is so fucking good….I love it!@
bbb
wheatus
Awesome
This is the shit. I love Kutiman.
A reply to Weird Harold's ignorance.
Actually, it should be a clear indication that people no longer have a respect for the work of others, and no longer consider the borrowing / using / stealing of the work of others to be important or even a problem.
I’m sorry, WH, but you are the one who has no respect for artists or their work because you believe market-controlling distribution is the only way these artists can earn respect.
You continue to chastise every new business model by either stating: it doesn’t work because artists aren’t famous enough -or- stating it doesn’t produce enough money because artists are famous.
In all your defensive arguments against piracy (copyright infringement), rarely do you ever quote numbers from artists. You do, quite often, show numbers from the very distribution sources you seem to defend.
Piracy (I don’t like using this term, but I’ll keep it simple) is respect. More so than any distributor can ever recognize (which is why they’re scared).
We people, paying or not, place great value on entertainment. If we see a movie we enjoy, we’re going to find a way to “own” it. If there’s a song out there we like, again, we’re going to try to enjoy it.
But we people also like to share ideas, and what I like is often suggested to others. “Hey, you may want to check this band out. Here’s a copy of their song.”
If you think this is disrespectful, you’re ignorant of art. I would challenge you to find a single artist out there who wouldn’t be thankful for this chance to become one fan stronger.
Artistic content has never been about money. It has always been about recognition. This recognition is achieved through getting art to many people as possible. Not all will enjoy the content, but even a negative reply is still recognition.
To think you want to keep a system which boxes and limits this content is appalling. To think you believe culture defines economic strength shows your true ignorance like never before. I’m sure you believe in a system which charges for teaching, as the works are under copyright.
“But artists need to eat too, so they sell their work!” There is some validity to this argument, but just how much food do they need to survive? Your notion the distributors have every right to continue charging people for content once the initial costs of labor have been achieved denotes you are a greedy person.
There’s a limit to what people can spend, and this limit is set by factors out of our control, such as a salary, and increased costs in fuel, food, or other basic necessities. To think we must then turn around and pay increased costs of content ($1.30 for iTunes songs?) shows a lack of respect to all artists.
Artists don’t command these prices, Weird Harold. I’m sure many artists would be content at receiving labor costs, and a few dollars for profit, but couldn’t care less about copying after that. However, there’s no system in place for many to do this easily. Enter distribution models based on controlling content.
Until you can post a reply, on behalf of every artist out there, challenging this argument, you will be considered an ignorant hum, scratch that, soulless thing whose only intent in life is to destroy human enjoyment.
I pity your ignorance, and I certainly hope to hell you don’t have children who you teach this ignorance to.
For if you do, you are one of the worst parents in the world to teach your kids that art = money and sharing ideas without payment is piracy and wrong.
This is the total proof that the performance and the music have lost their value in people’s minds. They are no longer works, just grains of sand.
Again, an ignorant statement. You, like so many others in the distribution world, are confusing cost with value.
Value has no cost. You can not put a price on value regardless how hard you try. As an example, you may place great value on Britney Spears’ music, while I place none.
I don’t believe performance has lost its value. If someone places great value in the content, there’s a great chance they’ll support the artist through performance. I see this happen every time a concert rolls through Indianapolis.
Tom Petty was here last year, and despite the copying of his music through the internet, his performance was sold out.
Granted, no one is going to want to watch a director perform his ability while filming the next installment of the Batman movie, but to think there is no value in this movie is laughable.
But fans paid for this movie during its release to such an extent, it is the second highest-grossing movie of all time.
Instead of recognizing the fact fans do purchase, you continue to believe them as thieves just because they copy the movie without paying.
That’s insulting to the very people who placed extraordinary value into the movie the first time around.
The DVD copy should be free to everyone, regardless if they paid to see the movie or not.
But not in your world, because those who didn’t pay to see the movie deserve nothing until they fork over the cash.
Your constant belief in the copyright system and distribution model sickens me.
So, let’s see if you’ll stand up and do the right thing. This reply is mine. It’s copyright by your own admission. Therefore, I want you to pay me, regardless if you find value in it or not.
I want $5, Weird Harold. I believe that’s a fair amount to you, and only you for reading my copyright content.
If you refuse to pay me, then you invalidate everything you’ve posted, or will post, on this site.
I defy you to take action, Weird Harold. Oh, and note this $5 applies to every single post you’ve read of mine, or will read of mine.
Ask for my email account and I’ll tell you how to send money to me.
Let’s see if you’ll own up to your own beliefs, or finally realize just how ignorant your comments really are.
For if you don’t pay me, then you are also a pirate because you copied this message via a website not owned by you.
Re: A reply to Weird Harold's ignorance.
A really long post that proves you are an ignorant, arrogant fool.
Thanks for making it easy on me.
Re: Re: A reply to Weird Harold's ignorance.
If this is your only retort, then you should watch yourself, pot.
For someone who likes to challenge people’s “facts”, I find it amusing you continue to dismiss mine with name calling.
It appears educating you is pointless, and the term “troll” seems to be apt.
Why is it you have such a hard time using your defensive arguments against my posts?
Arrogant, you say? I would agree when it comes to dispelling the rhetoric you spew.
Ignorant? Far from it. As I said before, I will counter your rhetoric as to give people an understanding your arguments are not accurate, and tend to be one-sided.
For someone who “believes in the facts”, you sure do know how to skirt them when it comes to replies like mine.
Re: Re: Re: A reply to Weird Harold's ignorance.
You want a retort doughhead? Here:
I’m sorry, WH, but you are the one who has no respect for artists or their work because you believe market-controlling distribution is the only way these artists can earn respect.
Not at all. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Artists are free to do whatever they heck the want. But if they want to make money doing it, they can choose to do it all themselves, or join the existing framework and go from there. There is no “market controlling distribution”,just a system that has worked for 50+ years, getting music into the hands of fans, and making sure that new artists get heard by enough people for those artists to make a living as artists, instead of McDonalds employees that play guitar on the weekend.
You continue to chastise every new business model by either stating: it doesn’t work because artists aren’t famous enough -or- stating it doesn’t produce enough money because artists are famous.
Wrong. Very wrong. You are reading it entirely backwards. The money is just an indication of exposure and fame. Famous artists don’t need anyone else, they are already famous (proof can be found by the number of classic rock bands still touring, 20 years plus after their last commercial albums). I don’t worry about those guys, but I consider looking at the successes in giving away records or doing alternate marketing less than significant because they are already popular, products of the “market-controlling distribution” you so hate.
The question is more how a band will get from the garage to being on every radio station in the nation, which is what is required for them to be able to play 200-250 nights a year and make a good living as artists, not as burger cooks. I haven’t seen any of that here, just lots of “tear down the wall!” sort of things.
In all your defensive arguments against piracy (copyright infringement), rarely do you ever quote numbers from artists. You do, quite often, show numbers from the very distribution sources you seem to defend.
Piracy (I don’t like using this term, but I’ll keep it simple) is respect. More so than any distributor can ever recognize (which is why they’re scared).
How is stealing from the artist “respect?” Can I go respect Donald Trump some and steal his money? Can I respect you and take your computer? You don’t respect anyone by stealing. Your statement is moronic.
We people, paying or not, place great value on entertainment. If we see a movie we enjoy, we’re going to find a way to “own” it. If there’s a song out there we like, again, we’re going to try to enjoy it.
You don’t place enough value on it to actually support it with your pocketbook. Gets back to respect, will you only enjoy your favorite artists if you get free tickets to the show too?
But we people also like to share ideas, and what I like is often suggested to others. “Hey, you may want to check this band out. Here’s a copy of their song.”
If you think this is disrespectful, you’re ignorant of art. I would challenge you to find a single artist out there who wouldn’t be thankful for this chance to become one fan stronger.
I don’t debate it – but there is a different dynamic at work here. You aren’t giving it to one of your friends, in sharing P2P you are just putting it out there so people can take it and avoid paying for it. You aren’t giving anyone a tip, you are just helping them and yourself work around a system that you don’t respect – which is turn fails to respect the artists.
Artistic content has never been about money. It has always been about recognition. This recognition is achieved through getting art to many people as possible. Not all will enjoy the content, but even a negative reply is still recognition.
To think you want to keep a system which boxes and limits this content is appalling. To think you believe culture defines economic strength shows your true ignorance like never before. I’m sure you believe in a system which charges for teaching, as the works are under copyright.
“But artists need to eat too, so they sell their work!” There is some validity to this argument, but just how much food do they need to survive? Your notion the distributors have every right to continue charging people for content once the initial costs of labor have been achieved denotes you are a greedy person.
I am sure in your world the artists will never be about money, because you aren’t intending to pay. Must they all be starving artists to be relevant? Do we have to doom musicians to working in seedy bars all their lives because there is no longer a system in place that allows the best to reach larger audiences and tour at higher levels?
The success seen by a small percentage of all artists isn’t greed – it’s the sign of widespread acceptance and approval, nothing more.
There’s a limit to what people can spend, and this limit is set by factors out of our control, such as a salary, and increased costs in fuel, food, or other basic necessities. To think we must then turn around and pay increased costs of content ($1.30 for iTunes songs?) shows a lack of respect to all artists.
Artists don’t command these prices, Weird Harold. I’m sure many artists would be content at receiving labor costs, and a few dollars for profit, but couldn’t care less about copying after that. However, there’s no system in place for many to do this easily. Enter distribution models based on controlling content.
Sorry, but here is where you are wrong. $1.30 for a song isn’t a big price to pay. It’s a small price to pay, especially for a song you might listen to hundreds of times. If you think $1.30 is overpriced, well, then it just goes to show that you have no intention to pay reasonable amounts of music.
Most artists don’t want to starve. Those who are starving would love to make $1000 a week so they could be an artist full time. But when people like you aren’t willing to pay for music, there is no money to be made making it. You can’t have it both ways.
Until you can post a reply, on behalf of every artist out there, challenging this argument, you will be considered an ignorant hum, scratch that, soulless thing whose only intent in life is to destroy human enjoyment.
The answers to the rest of your post are something like “Jane you ignorant slut” only nicer. Let’s just say that I respect an artist’s choice to put music out there for free or for cheap or whatever, but I don’t appreciate a greedy mob trying to tell the rest of the artists that are enjoying the current setup to walk away.
What you seem to be suggesting is sort of music socialism, where everyone has to share, no artist should be rich, none should starve, and everyone can enjoy their music only for the effort of downloading it for free. Who is giving you economic lessons, Hugo Chavez?
Your spewing, but none of it really goes anywhere. Empty phrases and sloganism isn’t going to change the music industry, but it might make you feel better about ripping off some more music from the torrents this afternoon after class.
Re: Re: Re:2 A reply to Weird Harold's ignorance.
There is no “market controlling distribution”,just a system that has worked for 50+ years, getting music into the hands of fans, and making sure that new artists get heard by enough people for those artists to make a living as artists, instead of McDonalds employees that play guitar on the weekend.
Are you kidding us with this bullshit line? That’s all distribution does is corner the market, and does so only with bands it wants to sign.
You talk about new artists getting heard, but of those artists who made music in the last 20 years, how many became successful?
I’ll tell you. Just get me a copy of Billboard magazine of the year so I can rehash the top 100 sales by CDs while “Jane the plumber” performs at gigs because she refused to put herself into a tramp outfit to sell music, much like Madonna and Britney Spears did and thus, was overlooked by the “business model” you defend.
The question is more how a band will get from the garage to being on every radio station in the nation, which is what is required for them to be able to play 200-250 nights a year and make a good living as artists, not as burger cooks. I haven’t seen any of that here, just lots of “tear down the wall!” sort of things.
Excuse me, but what makes you think this can’t be achieved with free songs? In fact, I would venture to say a garage band today has many more opportunities to get famous today than The Eagles did in the 70s.
Oh, and did you know many bands from the 70s and 80s became famous from doing opening acts rather than radio play? No, of course you don’t, because you assume every band must go directly from the garage to the radio with no work in between to get famous.
How is stealing from the artist “respect?” Can I respect you and take your computer?Your statement is moronic.
No, your statement is moronic. Copying is not stealing. Take my computer, and I’ll be upset. Ask for copies of the content on my computer, and I’ll share.
Theft involves removal. Copying does not.
Until you realize this, you will never understand why piracy exists. It’s not about circumventing revenue. It’s about sharing the content of the artist wanting to become famous.
How do you not get this?
You don’t place enough value on it to actually support it with your pocketbook. Gets back to respect, will you only enjoy your favorite artists if you get free tickets to the show too?
Once again, you clearly mistake value with cost. These are not, and never will be, the same.
What gets to my pocketbook is the COST of the content, which I place significant VALUE on.
I will enjoy my favorite artist due to the content they’ve produced. I will support my favorite artists with their attempt at earning a living, knowing I can’t do it alone.
No artist can.
What you keep harping on are those who will never pay. Who cares about them? If an artist truly has fans, they’ll offer support. To make a living, an artist only needs a small percentage of those who will pay.
To get rich requires controlling the product so fans must buy a multiple copies of the same song such that one is needed for an MP3 player, the automobile, the shower, the CD player in the back bedroom… yeah, like that’s reasonable for consumers.
You aren’t giving it to one of your friends, in sharing P2P you are just putting it out there so people can take it and avoid paying for it.
Who said they had to be friends? For every 10 people who don’t pay, there will be one who will. Again, the artist wants you to enjoy the content. That’s why they created it.
Once you figure out not everyone will pay, then you can easily focus your attention on those who will pay, especially with new ideas. There have been plenty listed on this site. Go re-read them.
I am sure in your world the artists will never be about money, because you aren’t intending to pay. …because there is no longer a system in place that allows the best to reach larger audiences and tour at higher levels?
I don’t pay distribution systems any more. However, I do continue to support artists. Directly. It’s easier for me this way knowing all the money I support with goes to them, not some asshole driving a late model Mercedes for doing nothing more than overseeing the production of plastic disks.
And if you think the radio is the only way an artist can be famous, then you’re a damn fool. John Mellancamp just wrote a blog about his ordeals with radio airplay. I would suggest a great deal of luck ended in his lap, if the only station playing him was in Washington DC.
The success seen by a small percentage of all artists isn’t greed – it’s the sign of widespread acceptance and approval, nothing more.
I will agree with this statement, but only to a point. The royalty system is about greed. There’s no damn reason any artist should demand more for their music once the original costs of labor is returned.
Sorry, but that’s just the way I see it. I will never buy music from an artist heard on the radio. Most artists today just suck, but besides that, most are in it only for the money. Lars Ulrich, anyone? Fuck them.
I’ll focus my attention on groups found via the internet, who have placed their music by choice for me to download.
Amazing how many are finding fame this way. Rock stars? Hardly. So why don’t you hear about them bitching they’re not on the radio?
In your world, that makes them a failure? Such ignorance.
Sorry, but here is where you are wrong. $1.30 for a song isn’t a big price to pay. It’s a small price to pay, especially for a song you might listen to hundreds of times. If you think $1.30 is overpriced, well, then it just goes to show that you have no intention to pay reasonable amounts of music.
But it is a large amount to pay when most of that isn’t going back to the artist. Would I pay $1 for a song? Sure, if 100% of it went to the artist.
But in your world, which sucks by the way, you discount the fact there’s a group supporting the artist, not an individual. When 50,000 people each purchase a $1 song, the artist should be more than content for being “famous”. That’s 50,000 unique fans.
Oh, wait. That may only be 25,000 unique fans who had to buy the $1 song multiple times to be legal. Sorry about that.
It’s been proven over and over people will pay for services to artists if there is value placed in the service.
You just can’t accept the fact people are finally ditching the realization the “services” offered today go to pockets other than the artist.
Food for thought: If you truly believe the distribution model isn’t controlling, then why didn’t the recording industry take an innovative approach to the mp3 format instead of trying to crush it to maintain CD sales?
Those who are starving would love to make $1000 a week so they could be an artist full time. But when people like you aren’t willing to pay for music, there is no money to be made making it. You can’t have it both ways.
Wait, so your garage band you referenced earlier is making $1000 a week for writing and playing songs?
Oh, shit! I’m in the wrong damn business! I wonder who pays their salary? You? Me? Government? Record labels?
Doubt it. They do it because they want to get noticed one day, and yes, the internet will enable them to distribute themselves, for free, to build up a fan base willing to see them in concert, support their business models, and yes, in some cases, donate to produce an album.
All of which is done without radio airplay or distribution by greedy corporations overpricing a digital song for $1.30.
I guess this is why many artists have other jobs until such a time their new business can support them? Sounds like a business decision, not a “I want to be famous” decision.
Artists must work to become famous. Distribution is required for this. But no where is it written distribution must be done by charging people.
That’s your world. Not mine.
What you seem to be suggesting is sort of music socialism, where everyone has to share, no artist should be rich, none should starve, and everyone can enjoy their music only for the effort of downloading it for free.
Share what, their music? That’s their intent, so I’ll disregard this as you’d be a complete idiot to think this isn’t the artists intent.
No artist should be rich? False. As I’ve said, people place value on the content. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, stopping an artist from using different business models to become rich. What I said is I wouldn’t support any artist in it for the money. Big difference.
None should starve? If artists are starving now, wouldn’t this be their own damn fault? I can’t imagine an artist getting up one day and say “I’ll do all my creations for free while I do nothing to support myself.”
Even garage bands have their parents to support them.
If an artist is a business, it’s usually the result of being famous, not before. Because, and once again, if it is before, then they will have capital to support their salary, meaning they won’t starve.
Everyone can enjoy their music only for the effort of downloading it for free? Again, the intent of the artist to begin with, wouldn’t you say?
You don’t get famous by forcing people to pay to enjoy your work. You give them a free copy.
Most music sales of the 70s, 80s, and 90s were obtained due to fans hearing music playing for free, over the radio, which gave the artist revenue via the only distribution model of ownership fans had during these decades.
That’s all changed now, but the concept still remains the same: Give it away for free, and get the fans to buy other goods.
At one point, the CD was that good as it was the only offering people had to buy. That’s all over now. So it’s time to find something else fans will buy.
Tshirts? Concert tickets? Maybe. Or how about signed MP3 players? CDs (now that they’re scarce)? Specialized songs? Memberships to access studio web cams to watch them work?
Oh my, there’s an entirely new opportunity out there waiting. Rich? Maybe not early on, but isn’t this what distribution’s for?
Hello, YouTube. It costs nothing to use. Can hit millions world wide. And all it takes is an initiative from the artist to upload the content and give people a reason to watch it.
Happens every day. You just don’t know it does because you refuse to pay attention because you’re too busy denouncing new ideas on a website not your own.
Side note: As a Lego fan, I was very interested to see a designer’s video on YouTube landed him a paying gig for a store who wanted a unique design for its window display.
Do you know the name of the Lego designer?
Why not?
Oh, right. He wasn’t displayed on television, or the radio, or didn’t have a CD to sell.
Good thing he didn’t rely on the business model you keep insisting needs to be here. Otherwise, he would have never been hired for his artistic skill.
So who’s the doughhead now?
Re: Re: Re:3 A reply to Weird Harold's ignorance.
what a load of spew. You must have been up all night to think of this crap, seriously!
Like I posted in the other thread, it’s really too much to even attempt to answer you, because there is nothing but crap up there. You contradict yourself at almost every turn, and for all the spew, you never answer the very basic questions:
How does a band get from A to B?
Hint, being the 50 billionth no-name band with a video on youtube ain’t gonna do it.
So please, go get some sleep, relax, take a deep breath, because at this point you are going off the deep end and looking foolish.
Re: Re: Re:4 A reply to Weird Harold's ignorance.
Oft, I find myself amused with such questions.
I won’t even get into what asks I’ve answered, much less accomplished. Do note, I’m quite prepared for the future.
I focus on one thing: Michael, The Archangel loudly asking “Does anyone know this man?”
Today, “I Don’t Know You.” will be my answer.
On your recommendation, I learned that the desire of the Illuminati is to vertically align power amongst things social, ecclesiastical, intellectual, geographical, and economic for temporal power.
Harold, you’re probably not written in The Book Of Life. This is the single thing that should matter. I will have no trouble saying I don’t know you.
The fruit of aligning power, your labor, by your own admission, has been tattered dreams, and bankruptcy notices. Good Job. Keep it up.
I look forward to not knowing you.
Bad Harold
Harold has proven himself wrong at least 3 times in this thread, and doesn’t even realize it.
He uses lines that we use to prove our argument, and acts like they somehow make him right, but fails to think anything past step 1.
Anyone else notice that a good 90% of the time you give an example, his only response is “that is not relevant”.
Gawsh people, why do you keep feeding the troll.
Harold a few threads back you mentioned that when people are calling you names, rather than rebutting you, it just means you know they are right. While I would disagree with that to begin with, look what you just did to R. Miles.
Gawsh you are a troll.
And using Alexa to try to justify yourself? Wow you need higher standards man. You would be the type of guy to go into the ghetto to pick up a prostitute, and as long as they allowed you to buy them for an hour, you would use that to claim that you are an obviously good looking person. Grow up.
Re: Bad Harold
Gawsh people, why do you keep feeding the troll.
Feeding? I don’t consider what I do feeding.
I feel it is a responsibility to counter his rhetoric, given someone out there may just take it as “gospel”, running about spewing the same ignorant remark.
Can you imagine even if one person agrees with WH?
Then another?
*shivers*
Re: Re: Bad Harold
I see your point Miles, but a lot of replies to him are not quite so constructive.
I think by this point people would only have to read all of his posts, you wouldn’t even have to read the replies on some of these threads to see how often he contradicts his own baseless opinions.
They just dont 'get' it
I came late enough to this that I’m not going to try to look at the WH v the world discussion.
I will say this:
Learning to play any instrument is hard. Learning to play it well is really hard. The problem with the critics is they don’t get just how incredibly really hard it is to successfully mix something like this.
Can you recognize the source material in these works? Sure. But you can recognize the influences: the progressions, riffs, themes, phrasing (aka source material) in any artists works.
SO when I see that some people can experience something like this and dismiss it as copying while somehow ignoring that all music is built on taking from others, I left thinking:
They just don’t get it
Touring Bands
I think WH misses the point. The current system gives a select few artists a chance to get rich. These select few are by and large cookie cutter bands and nothing else. Every once in a while an original act gets a chance to make it big but it is a rarity.
The question is more how a band will get from the garage to being on every radio station in the nation, which is what is required for them to be able to play 200-250 nights a year and make a good living as artists, not as burger cooks. I haven’t seen any of that here, just lots of “tear down the wall!” sort of things.
This is exactly the opposite of what happens. Take Lucero for instance (http://www.lucermusic.com) who toured for 200+ shows a year before getting signed to major label and then only to a branch of the label that would give them creative control. They made their living by touring and by encouraging their fans to share their music and get the word out. They didn’t have radio play in most of the major markets and very little exposure outside of NPR and still they sold out show across the US and toured full time.
How is stealing from the artist “respect?” Can I go respect Donald Trump some and steal his money? Can I respect you and take your computer? You don’t respect anyone by stealing. Your statement is moronic.
Once again WH: copyright violation is no theft in a legal sense. The constant attempts to emotionalize the argument by using terms that do not apply like “stealing” and “theft” detracts from the debate as people lose sight of the real issue and start insulting each other over improperly used terms. If copyright violation was stealing then the RIAA suits would not have been in civil courts for damages but rather in criminal courts for jail time. Even shoplifting a .75 candy bar can get you jail time but violating copyright, in the absence of commercial gain, can not.
What you seem to be suggesting is sort of music socialism, where everyone has to share, no artist should be rich, none should starve, and everyone can enjoy their music only for the effort of downloading it for free. Who is giving you economic lessons, Hugo Chavez?
No-one is suggesting this. This is strawman you build up over and over and is far from the truth. The overall view espoused is a standard economic principle and that an infinite good will always approach a zero cost. The push here is to find ways to monetize the non-infinite goods available in the music industry. No-one wants to see artists starve. I personally think the world could do without the Britneys and J-LOs. I think that music industry collapsing would honestly lead to better music overall. Maybe less of it but better in quality because the artists making the music would be doing it for the love of music and not to get rich.
I have no problem with a musician, songwriter et al getting right. I have problem with a system that insists they make record company executives, marketing agents, and so rich right along with them. The recording industry has a long history of corrupt from the top down and the modern industry is no different. At one time they used payola to make sure their artists were heard and now they claim that radio is akin to piracy and in some places try to fine people for playing the radio loud enough for others to hear. They are a dying industry and regardless of your apparent love for the sales of plastic discs if they don’t change they will collapse leaving on those who have figured out how to monetize the non-infinite goods.
Your moral arguments lose all credibility when you show over and over again that you support a business model that wouldn’t survive if it was created in these modern times. The record companies served their purpose and it is time for them to reinvent themselves or go the way of the dodo. Some are trying and some are fighting the future. I will give you odds on which ones survive.
Surfin'
Brian Wilson said that he started humming Chuck Berry’s Sweet Little Sixteen and he got Surfin’ USA… Music is a perpetual revolution and when it’s done with talent no one can critic the fact that one creates something original. Music is done with notes and every singer, producer or composer is a remixer-like by the fact that we all have influence… Copyright was made to protect ideas, but it’s too often used to make more money.
Re: Surfin'
I have notice how much “Nights in White Satin” is like “Rock Around the Clock” by Chuck Berry. I have also noticed that “In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida” has notes and is much like Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony.
To say every composer is a remixer is terribly naive. Simply remixing notes does not guarantee that you will have something listenable or potentially worth buying. By your philosophy, everyone is a remixer, which means no one is ever original. I do not believe that and I do not believe you can prove that.