Wikipedia blackout to protest SOPA

[JamesInFlorida]

No they don't. The record companies almost always own the rights to the songs. That's a fact. Artists make not like it-but that doesn't mean the labels don't own rights to the songs.

Funny.

When UMG issued a takedown of Megaupload's video because it had some stuff will.i.am specifically wrote for the video, and than sang, will.i.am insisted that he owned the rights to stuff he wrote, and that it was used with his permission.

Want to try again?

That's one example. You do know what "The record companies almost always own the rights to the songs" means right? Pointing out one example and using to describe a whole industry is laughable.

Artists rarely go into a studio with just a computer and record an album. It takes a lot of training to be able to record, mix, master, etc. a record. And if artists want to they can buy their own recording studios and record there (many do)-and they still hire people to help record. Not to mention artists sign with record labels for many reasons-the record label forks over a lot of money for them to record (recording at a studio is VERY expensive-even local smaller ones), market the band, get their information out for them, etc. Labels do much more than just record and release a record.

Funny, I don't recall saying they did. I pointed out that new technology is reducing the need for studios.

I'm well aware of that, it states:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

So if you're citing the constitution that says they should have exclusive rights to their ideas....then you say oh no it's ok to illegally download it? That makes no sense.

Why is me pointing out that downloading songs does not equal lost jobs a defense of doing something illegal? There are artists out there that base their entire business model on letting their fans download their songs without paying for them, yet they are still making money.

My position throughout this thread is that the industry needs to adapt to new technology, not force people to live in the stone age. One is innovation, which, as you pointed out, is why copyright exists. The other is going backward.[/QUOTE][/quote]

Saying that illegal downloading doesn't cost jobs is just ridiculous. If you can't see that selling less products means less income, which means they have to cut other expenses-than you're out of your mind.

What artists base their business around allowing fans to download their music for free? Can you provide a list of them?

As I said earlier-I wouldn't hold the stance I do if music wasn't available to download legally. What you get from downloading music off of itunes vs illegally downloading them is the exact same. You get the exact same product. The only difference is the method of downloading it. One you pay for-the other you don't.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

Me giving a song to a friend is not stealing. Are you aware that, if you buy a CD, rip it to your computer, and then throw the CD away, you are stealing if you don't delete the songs from your computer? Do you think that makes sense?

You giving your CD to your friend is not stealing. You burning or ripping your CD and giving that to your friend is.

Why?

For the same reason if you buy a t-shirt and try to bring it into a place where you can make your t-shirts they wont copy what you bought at a store.

When you buy a CD (or buy files online) YOU'RE paying for them. You're paying for a product. The product you are paying for is the music. If you then turn around and start giving up copy-righted products/material (the songs) then your friend is stealing.

I guess technically you wouldn't be stealing, but you'd be aiding in it.

 

[Montrovant]

No they don't. The record companies almost always own the rights to the songs. That's a fact. Artists make not like it-but that doesn't mean the labels don't own rights to the songs.

Funny.

When UMG issued a takedown of Megaupload's video because it had some stuff will.i.am specifically wrote for the video, and than sang, will.i.am insisted that he owned the rights to stuff he wrote, and that it was used with his permission.

Want to try again?

That's one example. You do know what "The record companies almost always own the rights to the songs" means right? Pointing out one example and using to describe a whole industry is laughable.

Artists rarely go into a studio with just a computer and record an album. It takes a lot of training to be able to record, mix, master, etc. a record. And if artists want to they can buy their own recording studios and record there (many do)-and they still hire people to help record. Not to mention artists sign with record labels for many reasons-the record label forks over a lot of money for them to record (recording at a studio is VERY expensive-even local smaller ones), market the band, get their information out for them, etc. Labels do much more than just record and release a record.

Funny, I don't recall saying they did. I pointed out that new technology is reducing the need for studios.

I'm well aware of that, it states:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

So if you're citing the constitution that says they should have exclusive rights to their ideas....then you say oh no it's ok to illegally download it? That makes no sense.

Why is me pointing out that downloading songs does not equal lost jobs a defense of doing something illegal? There are artists out there that base their entire business model on letting their fans download their songs without paying for them, yet they are still making money.

My position throughout this thread is that the industry needs to adapt to new technology, not force people to live in the stone age. One is innovation, which, as you pointed out, is why copyright exists. The other is going backward.

[/quote]

Saying that illegal downloading doesn't cost jobs is just ridiculous. If you can't see that selling less products means less income, which means they have to cut other expenses-than you're out of your mind.

What artists base their business around allowing fans to download their music for free? Can you provide a list of them?

As I said earlier-I wouldn't hold the stance I do if music wasn't available to download legally. What you get from downloading music off of itunes vs illegally downloading them is the exact same. You get the exact same product. The only difference is the method of downloading it. One you pay for-the other you don't.[/QUOTE]

I've never used itunes, but don't they have some kind of Apple-specific protections on the songs you get there? I wouldn't be able to download a song from itunes and play it on a Creative mp3 player, would I?

I'm not really trying to refute your point, I've just been under the impression that downloaded music would be more 'open' to use than things bought through Apple. Maybe that's just my bias, I've long looked at Apple as a company that makes you go through too many hoops to use their products.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's one example. You do know what "The record companies almost always own the rights to the songs" means right? Pointing out one example and using to describe a whole industry is laughable.

Almost always means they assume they own things they do not, it is only laughable if it is an exception.

Warner Brothers admits making false takedown requests - The Inquirer

UMG claims "right to block or remove" YouTube videos it doesn't own

RIAA Really Planning To Join Righthaven Fight | Techdirt

There is an an entire industry devoted to issuing takedowns and suing people. The studios want to eliminate fair use as a defense, and the only way to accomplish that is to exaggerate the economic damage. Do you feel good being part of a conspiracy to restrict what little rights the public, who are the ones that are supposed to benefit from copyright, actually have

Saying that illegal downloading doesn't cost jobs is just ridiculous. If you can't see that selling less products means less income, which means they have to cut other expenses-than you're out of your mind.

Saying that it does is what is ridiculous. They make an assumption, make up numbers, multiply them by a fudge factor, and expect us to support their antiquated business models. Reputable studies repeatedly show that the more a song is pirated the more people that end up buying it legally.

Downloading benefits artists and record labels - Blogcritics Music

What artists base their business around allowing fans to download their music for free? Can you provide a list of them?

Nope, but I can provide a copule of examples. HAve you heard of Mariah Carey? Lady Gaga?

Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music | Techdirt

Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring | Techdirt

Do you think that, if someone like Lady Gaga can figure out how to make money off of giving away songs, record labels just might be able to do it?

As I said earlier-I wouldn't hold the stance I do if music wasn't available to download legally. What you get from downloading music off of itunes vs illegally downloading them is the exact same. You get the exact same product. The only difference is the method of downloading it. One you pay for-the other you don't.

You think music is always available legally? Did you ever try to legally download Beatles music before before 2010? Have you tried buying a song from an artist you like who is popular in Europe but not the US? Are you aware that Apple believes it owns the songs you download form them? They can legally go into your iPod and delete your music if they decide the DRM warrants it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You giving your CD to your friend is not stealing. You burning or ripping your CD and giving that to your friend is.

Why?

For the same reason if you buy a t-shirt and try to bring it into a place where you can make your t-shirts they wont copy what you bought at a store.

When you buy a CD (or buy files online) YOU'RE paying for them. You're paying for a product. The product you are paying for is the music. If you then turn around and start giving up copy-righted products/material (the songs) then your friend is stealing.

I guess technically you wouldn't be stealing, but you'd be aiding in it.

How is it aidning in stealing if I give a CD to a friend?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've never used itunes, but don't they have some kind of Apple-specific protections on the songs you get there? I wouldn't be able to download a song from itunes and play it on a Creative mp3 player, would I?

I'm not really trying to refute your point, I've just been under the impression that downloaded music would be more 'open' to use than things bought through Apple. Maybe that's just my bias, I've long looked at Apple as a company that makes you go through too many hoops to use their products.

DRM for Apple varies, some songs are restricted in what you can do with them, others are DRM free. To be fair, most of that is because of the studios, not Apple.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

That's one example. You do know what "The record companies almost always own the rights to the songs" means right? Pointing out one example and using to describe a whole industry is laughable.

Almost always means they assume they own things they do not, it is only laughable if it is an exception.

Warner Brothers admits making false takedown requests - The Inquirer

UMG claims "right to block or remove" YouTube videos it doesn't own

RIAA Really Planning To Join Righthaven Fight | Techdirt

There is an an entire industry devoted to issuing takedowns and suing people. The studios want to eliminate fair use as a defense, and the only way to accomplish that is to exaggerate the economic damage. Do you feel good being part of a conspiracy to restrict what little rights the public, who are the ones that are supposed to benefit from copyright, actually have

Saying that illegal downloading doesn't cost jobs is just ridiculous. If you can't see that selling less products means less income, which means they have to cut other expenses-than you're out of your mind.

Saying that it does is what is ridiculous. They make an assumption, make up numbers, multiply them by a fudge factor, and expect us to support their antiquated business models. Reputable studies repeatedly show that the more a song is pirated the more people that end up buying it legally.

Downloading benefits artists and record labels - Blogcritics Music

You have anything more legit than a random random who provides no evidence to back up his opinions? Or any rational reasoning?

And once again the majority of music out there is owned by the record labels. That's just the way it is (sadly enough). It's why when most artists go into a recording studio-the record label tells them what to do with songs many times.

What artists base their business around allowing fans to download their music for free? Can you provide a list of them?

Nope, but I can provide a copule of examples. HAve you heard of Mariah Carey? Lady Gaga?

Lady Gaga's Use Of Free Music | Techdirt

Lady Gaga Says No Problem If People Download Her Music; The Money Is In Touring | Techdirt

Do you think that, if someone like Lady Gaga can figure out how to make money off of giving away songs, record labels just might be able to do it?

She doesn't make money giving them away. And quite frankly she can afford to (one of the few). You keep naming the really big names in the industry-but what about the average musician who makes music for a living? You can name exceptions all day long-but it doesn't make them the norm. Metallica famously went after Napster after file sharing first broke out. And they sell just as well as Gaga does (in the US at least-not sure about the rest of the world). My point here is that Gaga saying her fans should download her music doesn't add to her selling albums. That's ridiculous.

And speaking of Gaga even though she's probably the biggest name in the music industry today...her 2nd CD has sold significantly less than her first. To say her sales haven't dropped is inaccurate. As of right now her sales in the US is down 50% and worldwide is down 33%.

As I said earlier-I wouldn't hold the stance I do if music wasn't available to download legally. What you get from downloading music off of itunes vs illegally downloading them is the exact same. You get the exact same product. The only difference is the method of downloading it. One you pay for-the other you don't.

You think music is always available legally? Did you ever try to legally download Beatles music before before 2010? Have you tried buying a song from an artist you like who is popular in Europe but not the US? Are you aware that Apple believes it owns the songs you download form them? They can legally go into your iPod and delete your music if they decide the DRM warrants it.

I never said it was always available. That's putting words in my mouth. AND once again using an exception in The Beatles. And how can you buy music from an artist big in Europe nad no the US? That's easy. Most of the music I listen to isn't mainstream, doesn't get played on the radio, and is much bigger in Europe than the US. And it's not too hard. I can go to a local store, purchase it on Ebay/Amazon, download it from itunes (or other legal downloading services).

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have anything more legit than a random random who provides no evidence to back up his opinions? Or any rational reasoning?

And once again the majority of music out there is owned by the record labels. That's just the way it is (sadly enough). It's why when most artists go into a recording studio-the record label tells them what to do with songs many times.

That is not all he had, but it is nice to see you aren't going to let a single study convince you that the studios are lying to you. Here are a few more for you.

Swiss Government Study Finds Internet Downloads Increase Sales - Forbes

Study: P2P Music Downloads Increase Music CD Sales

Infringing anime downloads increase DVD sales - Boing Boing

She doesn't make money giving them away. And quite frankly she can afford to (one of the few). You keep naming the really big names in the industry-but what about the average musician who makes music for a living? You can name exceptions all day long-but it doesn't make them the norm. Metallica famously went after Napster after file sharing first broke out. And they sell just as well as Gaga does (in the US at least-not sure about the rest of the world). My point here is that Gaga saying her fans should download her music doesn't add to her selling albums. That's ridiculous.

It is ridiculous for me to say that her willingness to accommodate her fans helps her make money?

And speaking of Gaga even though she's probably the biggest name in the music industry today...her 2nd CD has sold significantly less than her first. To say her sales haven't dropped is inaccurate. As of right now her sales in the US is down 50% and worldwide is down 33%.

So, even though she is giving away all her music, and encouraging fans to share her songs, she is still selling albums? Yet you, for some obscure reason, think that is a negative.

I never said it was always available. That's putting words in my mouth. AND once again using an exception in The Beatles. And how can you buy music from an artist big in Europe nad no the US? That's easy. Most of the music I listen to isn't mainstream, doesn't get played on the radio, and is much bigger in Europe than the US. And it's not too hard. I can go to a local store, purchase it on Ebay/Amazon, download it from itunes (or other legal downloading services).

If you biy it on Ebay it might be pirated, same for Amazon. They police their sites, but they don't catch everything.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Go fuck yourself, you miserable prick. Every word I posted is true.

Reading comprehension is a real challenge for you, isn't it?

Even if what you claim is true, which is unlikely - in the time the fool spent with you, 30,000 copies were downloaded across IRC.

I admit that I'm dating myself with IRC, most P2P runs on the torrents these days. Same basic difference.

Regardless, the amount of piracy on P2P is about 99%

You just LOVE to blame you some poor college kids, don't you? Fuck you.. hey... let's have a peek at your hard drive asshole. How much stolen shit you got?

I pay for what I have.

The Shitters have a basic mentality that they should be given whatever they want. Free houses, free college, free medical care - why WOULDN'T they steal software? Theft is their basic MO.

What you aren't getting is that he wanted the LICENSE. The disc is nothing. You aren't paying for the disc. You are paying for the license. the real license... not some hacked key generator that you have to update every other fucking month.

Who cares?

Some idiot in a strip mall is irrelevant to the millions of copies of software that are stolen each month.

Shitters? Once again... go fuck yourself. Typical Conservative response... can't talk a decent game? Just accuse everyone else of lying and being a "shitter".

So you're one of the Shitters? No real surprise there.

You at "occupy Detroit" until the weather got too cold, then back to Mommy's basement?

You're nothing but a right wing propagandist's wet dream.... someone stupid enough to believe their bullshit... Typical day in Uncensored's world.... Listen to AM... Masturbate... go to work.... come home... watch Fox...drool. Repeat as necessary.

Then claim some moral superiority.

Yawn...

You know what pissed me off?

Life - and your general failure at it.

Is that I DIDN'T Make this personal. I posted the truth and my experience... and you shit all over me and called me a fucking liar.

I did?

Even if what you claim is true, which is unlikely - in the time the fool spent with you, 30,000 copies were downloaded across IRC.

Doesn't look like it.

You got a guilty conscience?

BTW... in case you didn't get it the first two times? Fuck off.

Are you going to hold your breath until you turn blue?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here you go Uncensored, an independent, non touring, artist who is upset that he can no longer make money by giving away his songs.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw3DjJJhEjM]MEGAUPLOAD (by Dan Bull) - YouTube[/ame]

Do you think it is even remotely possible you are wrong?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here you go Uncensored, an independent, non touring, artist who is upset that he can no longer make money by giving away his songs.

Do you think it is even remotely possible you are wrong?

There are lots of programmers who work on the Shareware model, and musicians that use a similar model. They are free to do as they please.

Downloading their stuff isn't piracy and is irrelevant to our discussion.

 

[Dr Grump]

That's one example. You do know what "The record companies almost always own the rights to the songs" means right? Pointing out one example and using to describe a whole industry is laughable..

Um, actually, they don't. The publishing company does. These days - since about the 1980s - the artists usually have a majority share in the publishing company, or own it outright. The record company owns the mechanical rights to the recording, and the artist has a share in the mechanical and recording rights.

The artist - unless they have signed it away (see John Fogerty vs Saul Zantz for example), always owns the song if they have written it. And even if they don't own it, the still get money. That is why even though Michael Jackson owned a large chunk of the Beatles back catalogue Paul McCartney and John Lennon's estate still get royalties because they wrote the songs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here you go Uncensored, an independent, non touring, artist who is upset that he can no longer make money by giving away his songs.

Do you think it is even remotely possible you are wrong?

There are lots of programmers who work on the Shareware model, and musicians that use a similar model. They are free to do as they please.

Downloading their stuff isn't piracy and is irrelevant to our discussion.

You keep insisting that the labels and studios are loosing jobs because of piracy. I provide studies that show differently, you counter with a chain of reasoning that has no facts behind it. You insist that it is impossible to make money by giving away your songs, I show that Lady Gaga does it, you think it is because she is big enough to make money off other things. I provide an example of a small artist that makes money giving away his sons, and you then change the debate again to being about piracy.

As I keep saying, my point is that the studios and labels want us to keep doing business in the 19th century, and they want to eliminate the internet. The issue is not piracy, despite your attempts to make it so, the issue is innovation and progress. There are already laws that cover theft, they work fine, and will continue to do so. They will work even better once the entertainment companies either collapse because they fail to adapt, or make themselves even more money by adapting.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8p_A5KrwGc&feature=share][Dubstep] Arion - Internet Rebellion (Fuck S.O.P.A) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

You keep insisting that the labels and studios are loosing jobs because of piracy.

I said that PC gaming was destroyed by piracy, and pointed to both Crytek and ID as major developers who shifted away from the platform directly because of piracy.

I provide studies that show differently, you counter with a chain of reasoning that has no facts behind it.

Nonsense, you offered an utterly unrelated fact, a red herring.

It's nice that there are indy musicians. Irrelevant, but nice.

You insist that it is impossible to make money by giving away your songs,

Utter bullshit.

I "insisted" no such thing, nor did I say anything like it.

I show that Lady Gaga does it, you think it is because she is big enough to make money off other things. I provide an example of a small artist that makes money giving away his sons, and you then change the debate again to being about piracy.

Your straw man is not impressive.

As I keep saying, my point is that the studios and labels want us to keep doing business in the 19th century, and they want to eliminate the internet.

Which is nearly as idiotic as creating positions for me and claiming that I said...

What were the big 19th century software studios, BTW?

The issue is not piracy, despite your attempts to make it so, the issue is innovation and progress.

This issue is about theft, about your desire to take what you do not pay for, because you feel entitled.

When you download a PC game, it's no different than going into Best Buy and snagging it off the shelf.

It's theft - regardless of how you justify it.

There are already laws that cover theft, they work fine, and will continue to do so. They will work even better once the entertainment companies either collapse because they fail to adapt, or make themselves even more money by adapting.

Obviously not. You obviously steal software all the time and feel justified in the theft. Hey, there are soup kitchens that give food away. So you're justified in stealing from grocery stores because they just haven't adopted the profitable model of giving food away. You can take what you want - right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You keep insisting that the labels and studios are loosing jobs because of piracy.

I said that PC gaming was destroyed by piracy, and pointed to both Crytek and ID as major developers who shifted away from the platform directly because of piracy.

I provide studies that show differently, you counter with a chain of reasoning that has no facts behind it.

Nonsense, you offered an utterly unrelated fact, a red herring.

It's nice that there are indy musicians. Irrelevant, but nice.



Utter bullshit.

I "insisted" no such thing, nor did I say anything like it.



Your straw man is not impressive.



Which is nearly as idiotic as creating positions for me and claiming that I said...

What were the big 19th century software studios, BTW?

The issue is not piracy, despite your attempts to make it so, the issue is innovation and progress.

This issue is about theft, about your desire to take what you do not pay for, because you feel entitled.

When you download a PC game, it's no different than going into Best Buy and snagging it off the shelf.

It's theft - regardless of how you justify it.

There are already laws that cover theft, they work fine, and will continue to do so. They will work even better once the entertainment companies either collapse because they fail to adapt, or make themselves even more money by adapting.

Obviously not. You obviously steal software all the time and feel justified in the theft. Hey, there are soup kitchens that give food away. So you're justified in stealing from grocery stores because they just haven't adopted the profitable model of giving food away. You can take what you want - right?

Funny how when arguments fall short some people resort to claiming that the oter person is stealing, why is that?

 

[Montrovant]

You keep insisting that the labels and studios are loosing jobs because of piracy.

I said that PC gaming was destroyed by piracy, and pointed to both Crytek and ID as major developers who shifted away from the platform directly because of piracy.

I provide studies that show differently, you counter with a chain of reasoning that has no facts behind it.

Nonsense, you offered an utterly unrelated fact, a red herring.

It's nice that there are indy musicians. Irrelevant, but nice.



Utter bullshit.

I "insisted" no such thing, nor did I say anything like it.



Your straw man is not impressive.



Which is nearly as idiotic as creating positions for me and claiming that I said...

What were the big 19th century software studios, BTW?

The issue is not piracy, despite your attempts to make it so, the issue is innovation and progress.

This issue is about theft, about your desire to take what you do not pay for, because you feel entitled.

When you download a PC game, it's no different than going into Best Buy and snagging it off the shelf.

It's theft - regardless of how you justify it.

There are already laws that cover theft, they work fine, and will continue to do so. They will work even better once the entertainment companies either collapse because they fail to adapt, or make themselves even more money by adapting.

Obviously not. You obviously steal software all the time and feel justified in the theft. Hey, there are soup kitchens that give food away. So you're justified in stealing from grocery stores because they just haven't adopted the profitable model of giving food away. You can take what you want - right?

I don't want to become embroiled in the argument between you and QW, but I do feel a need to repeat my question about your statement regarding MW3 sales. You said that the game sold more copies on pc than any console (I believe that was it, feeling too lazy atm to go back ). From the little digging I did, that seemed unlikely. On the first day of sales, when over 9 million copies were sold, only 4% of those copies were for the pc and WII combined. Unless the console gamers stopped buying after the first day, it seems unlikely pc versions outsold any console version other than the WII.

Also, while piracy may well play a part in a drop in pc game sales, I wonder if it is more important that the increase in capabilities of consoles is a bigger draw for many people than having to buy a whole pc. People can now access the internet, play dvd's and blu ray, as well as play games on their console systems. For people who don't care about other functions of a pc that a console cannot replicate, the console probably seems like a better purchase. Also, I recently read an article about how pc sales in general have been falling, due in large part to things like tablets and even the increased functions on smart phones. So, again, I am not saying piracy doesn't play a part, but I think it is a far larger issue than just that, and I find it unlikely piracy is even the main cause of a drop in pc game sales.

I guess I'd just like to see some sources for stats if you have them as I'm perfectly willing to admit my ignorance on the subject may be leading me to incorrect assumptions.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Funny how when arguments fall short some people resort to claiming that the oter person is stealing, why is that?

Uh, because piracy is stealing for 100, Alex...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny how when arguments fall short some people resort to claiming that the oter person is stealing, why is that?

Uh, because piracy is stealing for 100, Alex...

You stated that I "obviously" steal software all the time. Do you have actual evidence of that, or is it just your way of not admitting defeat?