Yup.. seems silly right? However, it's a give and take, music stations don't make money without the music, artists don't make money without the stations.

You don't want to know. It's based on a certain % of revenue, and some stations out there bring in a lot of cash. (much of it is spent right back, so if they did a % of profit, that would be much more tolerable)

 

No no no, the notebook paper is notebook paper. It has lines on it like any other piece of notebook paper. Its NOT a blank piece of paper. Maybe the notebook paper is colored too like pink. Is this intellectual property infringement to make infinite numbers of copies of colored notebook paper with lines on it and distribute for free? It seems to me if music is, so too should be notebook paper if you get technical. Im sure someone at Mead sat in a drafting room or board room, designed the notebook paper, decided how far to spread the lines, what color to make it, got it copyrighted, patented etc. I know its just notebook paper but someone had to design it.

Im trying to see how literal the law can be drawn and why or why not some things are excluded.

 

Okay Chris.. drop the notebook paper analogy.. its getting a little retarded... imho..

 

I think most people know that copying intellectual property without permission is against the law, as we see it on CD liners and DVD introductions all the time. But since it is available, with certain "tools", for free, then the rationalizations and denials all start so we don't have to pay anymore. Yes, the draconian distribution system that artists have trusted the record companies with all this time is broken, but don't punish the artists by "looting" it until it can be fixed, and don't play Robin Hood and vent at the RIAA, (I shouldn't even use the acronym, because some of the few remaining un-bought indies aren't even members but are just as guilty) because even though they are already rich, some of the money they are trying to collect is contractually due to the artist. And artists are guilty of letting the company rape them if they don't do some research or are willing to sell their souls (the equivalent now of getting free exposure on the web) to "make it in the business". Amidst all the hate for record companies I hear those complain that there are only one or two songs on a CD that are any good, therefore it isn't a good value. Remember that "pop music" is short for popular music, which usually means what is popular or familiar to people. They usually judge what is good or bad music this way, what is getting air play, what their friends like. If this fits you, then the record companies have just gotten you, too, because most likely they chose which singles get played (they're alright at first, right, then descend into "overplayed"?). I think you would find better music right there on the CD you just bought if you approached it with a more open mind. No? It all sounds the same? Really only one "good" tune on it? Then maybe the artist that you worship really isn't that good, and you just found out for yourself without hearing from some other source. Mainstream music is a popularity contest, and we enable the RIAA by letting that happen. The best true musicians and artists don't play mainstream stuff but deserve to make the better money, but by enabling people like Guns N Roses, WE make that happen. Most can't readily tell that someone's writing or musicianship is not good, drug-induced or not, all they know is they or their friends like it (like most peer pressure in pop culture). And if you like it, I guess that's supposed to be what it's all about. But however it was created, that artist is still due all the money coming to him. (Axl probably wasn't any more blasted than Jimi Hendrix or John Lennon). Even being pro-artist like I am, I do think they, as are athletes and actors, are WAY overpaid compared to the really important people like doctors, teachers, law enforcement and firefighters. But blame that on pop culture, not all on the record companies. The market is bearing what is contractually due to the artists. It isn't "sharing" if you end up having one, too. And if I didn't think a new GT2 was a good enough "value", I could rationalize and with certain "tools" that were available to me, take it without permission, for free, too. Or would that be wrong?

 

Wade - I totally respect your opinion, and I agree that downloading and rationalizing the "theft" of intellectual property comes down to morals or ethics. Mine are obviously different from yours, but you have to respect that as much as I respect yours.

In my case, if I hear a song put out by a fledgeling band, I have absolutely no inhibition to go out and buy thier CD. In fact I usually do go out and buy it.

But when [artist's name removed for privacy reasons] pulls up in his $120,000 pimped out SUV and opens the door only to have a CLOUD of weed smoke pour out, this after ordering $200 worth of roomservice and eating maybe only $5 worth, and seeing all kinds of excess wealth being blatently displayed and wasted, and then him insulting ME, I have absolutley NO QUALMS about downloading his mp3s. Maybe if I were able to spend $$ like many wealthy artists do, I would buy CDs, but even then, still knowing it's theft, I could care less.

If you take away my ability to download mp3s - fine, I'll listen to the radio. For me it's a matter of convenience as I generally would not buy CDs anyways, unless it was a fledgling band or a whole CD that I really really liked.

Now, I'll say it once more - if Axl Rose, Jimi Hendrix and john Lennon never ever stole anything not once in thier life, then I'd consider never downloading mp3s again. But since I know for a fact that most of the guys who's music I listen to have stolen **** at some point in thier lives when they were poorer, I don't feel at all guilty about returning the favour.

You can call me whatever you like now, hypocrite, thief, unscrupulous, but odds are these feelings will change as I mature and grow older, have kids, make more money, and am able to support the fledgling artists that aren't rich...

that's the truth..

BTW - Everyone loved Robin Hood. He stole from the rich and gave to the poor. He was an equaliser and a hero. But here we have people doing it in real life and everyone says it's wrong??? Back to basics here - as people grow older they lose the ability to think in basic terms. Everything becomes complicated and deep... Maybe we should take Robin Hoo doff the shelves and teach our children that the Evil Prince is really the good guy...

 

BTW#2 Because of Metallica's blatant whing and bitching about Napster - I went out and downloaded every Metallica song I could find.

I loved thier music and bought thier a couple of thier albums on tape. I was pissed to hell when Napster got shut down partly because of them.

Gee, like 4 heavy metal rockstars never thieved anything in thier life - now they are at the recieveing end of the stick and are bitching... give me a break.

 

I know what you mean about the excess, Rich, as I played in several bands that "warmed up" for both current (at the time) and "has-been", "B-list" acts. I saw it more in their attitudes than actions, though. I respect your opinion, too, mainly because you seem to realize that it does come down to your own ethics as opposed to just what you want, and you are truly honest about your final opinion. Some people really try to understand the dilemma and see all sides, as some have with their analogies and statements in this post, and if they at least see a different point of view before they do what they do, I'm a little happier, even if there isn't much I (or anyone else, for that matter) can do to influence their final decision. I just want people to consider the artist more, as I would think people would see them as the "little guy" against the big, bad record companies. Even our buddy Axl was a fledgling rebel act at one time. Now I see where someone might change those feelings later on, even if I didn't handle my reaction in the same way you have chosen. Guess they aren't considered the little guy any more. That said, and points taken, from an artist's standpoint, even the a**holes are due their money, and that doesn't even gripe me as much as the ones who actually have lots less talent, which is supposed to be what the music business is about. Another analogy maybe? Yeah, we need some more! Should a baseball player be denied admittance to the Hall of Fame for the stuff he did OFF the field?

 

I dont mean to beat the notebook paper analogy but I would like a good argument against it. Im still not understanding what "intellectual property" is. Its just that we hear the music industry quote this term and pretty much accept it as true, but Id like to know exactly what intellectual property IS and IS NOT so I can make up my own mind if the music industry is feeding me a bunch of fancy words to impress me or not about having rights violated. And if their rights ARE being violated, who else falls under the umbrella under the definitions.

I thought we had a few lawyers on the Renn...

 

The worst part is the band that released "Kill 'em All" (a song about killing record execs) turned into those four sell-out tools...well three, Cliff never became a tool.

UD, when I said blank paper, I meant nothing written on it. Lined paper or graph paper isn't copyrightable. Yes somebody set a machine up to inject ink into the stack of paper (or whatever), but there's no copyright involved, so there would be no criminal act. The fruit of that labor is the actual paper, which you bought and can use as you wish. With a CD, the fruit is the music, the disc is just a way to store it.

As I said above, IP is a smokescreen to confuse people. There are three types of ideas that can be owned. Patents (a design or invention), copyrights (something creative, e.g. music, movies, software, novels), and trademarks (something representative of a brand).