Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hedgehog on June 19, 2009, 09:17:47 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html?iref=newssearch
The big corps and politicians in both parties are trying to dictate what anyone does on their computer in their homes.
That's just not right.
I hope this become a real big issue in the mid term elections and that everyone press their candidate on how they will vote on privacy legalizations.
The government should not be allowed to check up on what a citizen is doing with his or her computer!!! >:(
Let alone allow a fcuking corporation scan the traffic out of their homes.
That's beyond messed up.
We need to put an end to this globally. >:(
France is doing this to their citizens, but they're fcuking backwards there, Sarkozy is a fcuking Fascist.
-
isn't there some type of software that comes with a bi-torrent that disables spy ware?
-
isn't there some type of software that comes with a bi-torrent that disables spy ware?
There are numerous solutions.
But that's not the issue IMO.
The issue is that big corporations and politicians are ganging up on individuals rights, trying to spy on what you and I do with our computers! >:(
This is just bullshit.
And we need to say enough of this.
These companies have plenty of lobbyists in Brussels, London and Washington.
But we can't let these fcukfaces kill our freedom.
I never thought I would agree with a nutjob like Billy Mimbo, but the Government should stay the fcuk out of my life.
At least on this issue.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html?iref=newssearch
The big corps and politicians in both parties are trying to dictate what anyone does on their computer in their homes.
That's just not right.
I hope this become a real big issue in the mid term elections and that everyone press their candidate on how they will vote on privacy legalizations.
The government should not be allowed to check up on what a citizen is doing with his or her computer!!! >:(
Let alone allow a fcuking corporation scan the traffic out of their homes.
That's beyond messed up.
We need to put an end to this globally. >:(
France is doing this to their citizens, but they're fcuking backwards there, Sarkozy is a fcuking Fascist.
:o Harsh, but what's the alternative? How do you prevent illegal downloads, or punish someone when they do it?
-
:o Harsh, but what's the alternative? How do you prevent illegal downloads, or punish someone when they do it?
Here's the thing:
There should be regulation on filesharing between individuals. One reason, among many, is that to regulate, it infringe the individual privacy.
What could/should be regulated is filesharing between corporations.
I am a big believer in privacy.
And that personal freedom is a fundamental to our democracy.
-
:o Harsh, but what's the alternative? How do you prevent illegal downloads, or punish someone when they do it?
To clarify:
Between individuals there won't be any illegal downloads since filesharing should not be illegal between private persons.
So the need to punish individuals won't exist.
Only corporate filesharing should be regulated.
-
To clarify:
Between individuals there won't be any illegal downloads since filesharing should not be illegal between private persons.
So the need to punish individuals won't exist.
Only corporate filesharing should be regulated.
I understand the file sharing between individuals part, but what about the person who downloads music without paying for it? Are you saying that shouldn't be regulated?
-
I understand the file sharing between individuals part, but what about the person who downloads music without paying for it? Are you saying that shouldn't be regulated?
isn't this kind of stupid. Before the internet countless people copied from record to tape, from radio to tape, from tape to tape etc. Most home sterio systems were/are geared to do this. Anyone could walk right into the library, pick up a recording they liked, go home and copy it and many did. You still can. Then again many wanted to own the actual recordings released so they bought them and they still do that. I understand going after the people who provide the service. Before the internet they went after pirates that copied in mass making it available for cheap. The change here is going after people for having copies. What about a person who buys a bunch of CDs, copies them and then sells the original. That happens a lot but they don't go after those people. What happens when you copied your music and your collection was stolen. What happens if your collection was stole so you downloaded the music? What happens when you've bought the music and your copy is wore out after years. Some people burn the CD and play the burned CD saving the original from wear so they can have it much longer. Well what's the difference between that and someone who downloaded a copy of something they had but doesn't play worth a shit anymore. I could go on and on with other examples...
-
isn't this kind of stupid. Before the internet countless people copied from record to tape, from radio to tape, from tape to tape etc. Most home sterio systems were/are geared to do this. Anyone could walk right into the library, pick up a recording they liked, go home and copy it and many did. You still can. Then again many wanted to own the actual recordings released so they bought them and they still do that. I understand going after the people who provide the service. Before the internet they went after pirates that copied in mass making it available for cheap. The change here is going after people for having copies. What about a person who buys a bunch of CDs, copies them and then sells the original. That happens a lot but they don't go after those people. What happens when you copied your music and your collection was stolen. What happens if your collection was stole so you downloaded the music? What happens when you've bought the music and your copy is wore out after years. Some people burn the CD and play the burned CD saving the original from wear so they can have it much longer. Well what's the difference between that and someone who downloaded a copy of something they had but doesn't play worth a shit anymore. I could go on and on with other examples...
I agree it's pretty futile and a waste of resources to go after people for copying.
Maybe I don't completely understand how this stuff works. What exactly is an "illegal download"? Is that were someone buys a song, puts it on the internet, and someone else then downloads the song for free?
-
I agree it's pretty futile and a waste of resources to go after people for copying.
Maybe I don't completely understand how this stuff works. What exactly is an "illegal download"? Is that were someone buys a song, puts it on the internet, and someone else then downloads the song for free?
that's pretty much it.
-
I'm also having a hard time believing that a jury would nail a mother for 24 songs with this kind of judgement. This is like 1.9 trillion dollar judgement against a large corporation. Wouldn't happen. I can't fathom that it did not happen without pressure on the jury. That should be investigated because if that happened, it's a much bigger crime than downloading 24 songs.
-
that's pretty much it.
Thanks. Don't you have to agree to some conditions when you pay for a song before it's downloaded? If so, then if anything I'd go after the person who posts it on the net after paying for it, not anyone else who later downloads the same music.
This all does sound like a royal waste of time.
-
What's the point of slapping a woman with a 1.9 million dollar fine if she never going to pay it?
Is this all done to discourage piracy?
-
What's the point of slapping a woman with a 1.9 million dollar fine if she never going to pay it?
Is this all done to discourage piracy?
it's corporate terrorism. They've destroyed this woman and her kid's lives for a number of years in order to effect change in a population. She'll probably have to pay an amount of her earnings every month. I don't know, maybe she can declare bankruptcy. I don't know if that works for this. Anyway, this is nothing but corporate terrorism. I would say people should strike back by boycotting the music industry but that won't happen.
-
I understand the file sharing between individuals part, but what about the person who downloads music without paying for it? Are you saying that shouldn't be regulated?
If you buy a record, then you should be allowed to share it with whoever you want.
However you want.
I used to be of the opinion that there should be some type of "internet tax" that would then be re-distributed to artists, film makers and writers.
But I've come to understand that it is an old way of thinking.
People will pay for what they perceive is worth paying for.
And they shouldn't be punished for sharing information over the internet.
Trying to legislate and hunting down individuals, making a whole world into criminals, is just anti-technology.
-
it's corporate terrorism. They've destroyed this woman and her kid's lives
+1
I agree.
I want to add that it's all done with the good support of most of the current Congressmen.
And Obama is yet to speak out in favor of filesharing and internet rights. >:(
-
it's corporate terrorism. They've destroyed this woman and her kid's lives for a number of years in order to effect change in a population. She'll probably have to pay an amount of her earnings every month. I don't know, maybe she can declare bankruptcy. I don't know if that works for this. Anyway, this is nothing but corporate terrorism. I would say people should strike back by boycotting the music industry but that won't happen.
i say they have struck back in some respects.....
-
We can't just sit back and let these fcukers anally rape us on this one.
-
We can't just sit back and let these fcukers anally rape us on this one.
seems the only people who've ever figured out how to have some success in standing up to shit they don't like are gun owners--NRA. I know you won't like that example but to me it seems the only way. People create an association and pay a small fee and then the RIAA and other rats will take a different view when they're up against teams of crack lawyers burying them in counter lawsuits. Not to mention this issue is going worldwide now. People start joining around the world and they won't have to pay very much at all to create a colossus to match them...
-
seems the only people who've ever figured out how to have some success in standing up to shit they don't like are gun owners--NRA. I know you won't like that example but to me it seems the only way. People create association and pay a small fee and then the RIAA and other rats will take a different view when they're up against teams of crack lawyers burying them in counter lawsuits.
I think internet privacy and freedom is a big symbol for everything American, and something that the whole spectrum of people of all walks of life will be able to find a reason to fight for.
Guys like the homos in San Franscisco, as well as the anti-govermnent nutjobs in Montana.
Nerds on campus that wears Ron Paul Revolution teeshirts and sports Jansport backpackers with peanutbutter sammiches.
And pornoholics/ web designers surfing the web at their freetime. ;D
Many Republicans will probably find a reason to fight this fight because they could probably see the integrity aspect of the issue.
And mainly, the average American will hopefully see that the government is currently shooting down the personal freedoms and will start to say that enough is enough.
-
I think internet privacy and freedom is a big symbol for everything American, and something that the whole spectrum of people of all walks of life will be able to find a reason to fight for.
Guys like the homos in San Franscisco, as well as the anti-govermnent nutjobs in Montana.
Nerds on campus that wears Ron Paul Revolution teeshirts and sports Jansport backpackers with peanutbutter sammiches.
And pornoholics/ web designers surfing the web at their freetime. ;D
Many Republicans will probably find a reason to fight this fight because they could probably see the integrity aspect of the issue.
And mainly, the average American will hopefully see that the government is currently shooting down the personal freedoms and will start to say that enough is enough.
sounds cool, but I have a funny hunch nothing will happen and we'll just take it up that ass as usual.
-
The internet and cd's changed everything. Sure you were able to record to tape but now it's all digital. There is no loss in sound quality like there were with tapes or records when you record audio, so people have less of an incentive to buy the better quality original like they used to. The internet also reaches millions of people, tapes made by some guy on the street didn't, that's another whammy against the artist and record company.
Plus, so many bands and individual artists make their own cd's or own small recording companies on their dime and time, it's not just huge mega corporations that are losing money, is it fair to them?
People feel like they are now entitled to someone else's hard work without paying for it and hide theft under the guise of personal freedom, what's up with that? Just buy the record or cd or whatever and this becomes a non issue and the government/corporation won't have a need to intrude.
-
Good luck with that.....
There's an ethical and moral issue here. At least that is what some people would tell you. Is it right to obtain copy righted material illegally? Is it wrong? Is it stealing? Under the guise of "file sharing" and "backing up" we want to download files so we don't have t pay for them at a store. Plain and simple. You can down load movies that are still in theaters, sometimes movies that haven't been released yet. You can download songs; whole discography's. You can download virtually any song ever recorded and released. You can download games. You can download expensive software like Adobe Photo shop or Maya. All for free.
Some people would say that's no different than stealing. So the government, under pressure from the entertainment industry, is trying to find a way to stop millions upon millions of people in the world who just don't give shit. They figure the more examples they can make the more discouraged people will become and the less pirating there will be. I hope not. I think this keeps them honest about the drivel they put out there sometimes. I think this "file sharing" cannot be stopped and the entertainment industry will have to find a way to put out material that encourages people to spend money on it.
-
Imagine art not motivated by fame
Being a great artist brings fame, like it or not. Fame is what brings in the money. The old "starving artist" saying is a romantic dream created by those that don't go hungry trying to create the art.
-
The internet and cd's changed everything. Sure you were able to record to tape but now it's all digital. There is no loss in sound quality like there were with tapes or records when you record audio, so people have less of an incentive to buy the better quality original like they used to. The internet also reaches millions of people, tapes made by some guy on the street didn't, that's another whammy against the artist and record company.
Plus, so many bands and individual artists make their own cd's or own small recording companies on their dime and time, it's not just huge mega corporations that are losing money, is it fair to them?
People feel like they are now entitled to someone else's hard work without paying for it, what's up with that? Just buy the record or cd or whatever and this becomes a non issue and the government/corporation won't have a need to intrude.
Individual bands will lose.
But the technological leap is allowing bands to get their music out and then they are making much more money on ttheir tours and gigs and extra activities than they were before the internet.
I think this whole internet-infringement deal in the name of copyright is fcuking up both the technological advancement, and also creating a Big Brother society we don't want.
And don't give me the bullshit about that we already have it. Ok, if we already have it, give me a reason why it should be fcuking exteneded?
I used to be of the opinion that there should be some type of tax and some type of measuring tool for the traffic. so that a tracker, an unpartial tracker would count what files were shared. But after listening to the pirate activists, I've come to admit that I've been wrong about the whole thing. That I've had an outdated way of thinking.
We need to apply the same type of democratic principles as always on the internet. Look at the individual freedom and guard it.
-
Individual bands will lose.
But the technological leap is allowing bands to get their music out and then they are making much more money on ttheir tours and gigs and extra activities than they were before the internet.
What if you don't sell enough records to make touring realistic or profitable? Not all artists tour. You could have made some pocket change to feed yourself, pay rent and buy new equipment to keep going if you were able to sell some songs over the net instead of having people copy someone else's bought copy.
I think you guys are thinking way too big and forgetting the starting folks, the struggling folks.
Write some songs, make a movie. Think it's easy? Now imagine people making perfect audio/video quality duplicates and trading them with others for nothing. Maybe the extra advertsing will help you get huge enough to tour, etc... maybe it won't, doesn't matter, it's still theft. You are entitled to profit from your hard work if your intention is to sell the result of the effort, plain and simple.
-
What if you don't sell enough records to make touring realistic or profitable? Not all artists tour. You could have made some pocket change to feed yourself, pay rent and buy new equipment to keep going if you were able to sell some songs over the net instead of having people copy someone else's bought copy.
I think you guys are thinking way to big and forgetting the starting folks, the struggling folks.
Write some songs, make a movie. Think it's easy? Now imagine people making perfect audio/video quality duplicates and trading them with others for nothing. You are entitled to profit from your hard work if your intention is to sell the result of the effort, plain and simple.
In the early days, record making was expensive.
So artists would have to perform and make a living for awhile before making that recording.
Now they can make that recording almost even before they have a band, they just need a song, and a computer.
From what I understand people still spend the same kind of money on entertainment as we did BEFORE Napster came around.
Which means that the people are still prepared to spend the moneyt, just not on expensive CD's.
And that's a pretty good thing IMO.
I'm not dumb enough to think that from a CD price of $15 anywhere close to $15 is going into the pockets of the artist. Maybe $5. If he's lucky.
So I support my favorite artists by going to see them live whenever I get the chance. And I don't mind paying $80-100 for a Springsteen ticket which perhaps 15 years ago was about close to half that price.
I think that''s part of the deal.
I also watch Springsteen on TV when I get the chance, and I still think companies and organisations still should have to pay for the use of artistic work.
It's only individual filesharing and downloading I think should be totally free.
-
It's only individual filesharing and downloading I think should be totally free.
When starting bands played gigs back in the day, they would sell their tapes at the door while people were leaving. They didn't give them away because the gig wasnt paying enough to pay for all the expenses that come with trying to make a living from playing. Gigs pay fuck all when your starting, they hardly afford anyone a living, more like barely surviving. Again, these were demo tapes with shit sound quality, so fear of wide spread piracy wasn't an issue, eventually people bought the original album, if the band ever made a record. It's the same with downloading, some artists depend on selling whatever they can in hopes of being able to fund the next project, feed themselves... whatever.
The software used for producing your music isnt cheap, it's fucking expensive. The hardware is ridiculously expensive. If the artist uploaded their music with the intention of selling it, then people who copy it and distibute it are thieves and arent doing the artist a favor.
If an artist wants to give away their music, the means are there to do it and they can indicate it's ok, otherwise individuals should be paying for what the artist is trying to sell.
-
When starting bands played gigs back in the day, they would sell their tapes at the door while people were leaving. They didn't give them away because the gig wasnt paying enough to pay for all the expenses that come with trying to make a living from playing. Gigs pay fuck all when your starting, they hardly afford anyone a living, more like barely surviving. Again, these were demo tapes with shit sound quality, so fear of wide spread piracy wasn't an issue, eventually people bought the original album, if the band ever made a record. It's the same with downloading, some artists depend on selling whatever they can in hopes of being able to fund the next project, feed themselves... whatever.
The software used for producing your music isnt cheap, it's fucking expensive. The hardware is ridiculously expensive. If the artist uploaded their music with the intention of selling it, then people who copy it and distibute it are thieves and arent doing the artist a favor.
If an artist wants to give away their music, then the means are there to do it, otherwise individuals should be paying for what the artist is trying to sell.
You will see the light too my friend. Just as I did. 8)
-
You will see the light too my friend. Just as I did. 8)
Not while I'm writting music. ;D
-
Not while I'm writting music. ;D
I think you actually will.
Because there are going to be numerous ways for you to get paid - commercials, soundtracks for movies, et al.
It just keeps evolving.
And to fight that is just conservative and anti-technological.
BTW, I wish you good luck with your music, how about you actually try uploading a few of your songs on piratebay and see how that will benefit your career?
-
I think you actually will.
Because there are going to be numerous ways for you to get paid - commercials, soundtracks for movies, et al.
It just keeps evolving.
And to fight that is just conservative and anti-technological.
BTW, I wish you good luck with your music, how about you actually try uploading a few of your songs on piratebay and see how that will benefit your career?
I already have some tunes out that have been scooped up by marketing firms, etc.. I also have a compilation cd out. I got recognized by uploading partial tracks on sites like the one you mentioned. I didn't want to put up full songs just to have them ripped off. It happens a lot.
Thanks for the well wishes, I appreciate it.
-
thanks to the news about this verdict, there are 10,000 people out there who will turn OFF the sharing on their limewire or whatever tomorrow.
So yeah, it's an effective deterrent.
-
thanks to the news about this verdict, there are 10,000 people out there who will turn OFF the sharing on their limewire or whatever tomorrow.
So yeah, it's an effective deterrent.
10,000 compared to how many millions do download illegally? And how long will these 10,000 stop doing it?
-
thanks to the news about this verdict, there are 10,000 people out there who will turn OFF the sharing on their limewire or whatever tomorrow.
So yeah, it's an effective deterrent.
Rob, you play in a band. You would know how much effort goes into your art. How would you feel about having people take some of your original tunes and spread them around if your intention was to sell them for $ to further fund your career? Or would you go the route of using the sharing in hopes that your name would spread and eventually you would get recognized enough to be able to tour and make money through the gigs and selling merchandise ?
-
Rob, you play in a band. You would know how much effort goes into your art. How would you feel about having people take some of your original tunes and spread them around if your intention was to sell them for $ to further your career? Or would you go the route of using the sharing in hopes that your name would spread and eventually you would get recognized enough to be able to tour and make money through the gigs and selling merchandise ?
Come on man.
You're usually high up Ron Paul's ass because he's so big on individual rights and liberties.
But that doesn't apply all of a sudden?
Now the government and record companies should have the right to track our internet actions?
You will find ways to make a living on your music. But you can't just give up on personal freedom.
You gotta believe that.
-
Good argument Hedge.
BD, where does a musician make his most money? From CD sales or Concerts? Because of "file sharing" concerts might be the money maker.
-
Come on man.
You're usually high up Ron Paul's ass because he's so big on individual rights and liberties.
But that doesn't apply all of a sudden?
Now the government and record companies should have the right to track our internet actions?
You will find ways to make a living on your music. But you can't just give up on personal freedom.
You gotta believe that.
So you feel you have a right to something that belongs to me and that I'm trying to sell and give it away for free?
-
Good argument Hedge.
BD, where does a musician make his most money? From CD sales or Concerts? Because of "file sharing" concerts might be the money maker.
It all depends on where that person(s) are in thier career. You guys are thinking too much about mega stars who might lose money through loss of CD sales or uploaded singles for sale but can recoup those loses through selling merchadise through a clothing line, huge concert tours, etc...
Starting bands rely on whatever they can sell to make money but most of it will come from having a job, untill they are well known enough to get the fan base and finacial support to tour. But what if the artist doesn't want to tour but just sells their music to DJ's to play? What if only one DJ buys your song and gives away copies for free? You won't make any money at all.
Either way it's all irrelevant if the person is hugely popular or not well known. The music is theirs and if they want to give it away for free they can do so, otherwise the intent is to sell the work for money. I don't understand whats so hard to follow.
-
So you feel you have a right to something that belongs to me and that I'm trying to sell and do give it away for free?
I'm saying that the current system has run out of its course.
If we stay in it, it's like the Soviets trying to fight democracy, trying to create jobs where there aren't any.
In this case, it will work fine for some time to go chasing filesharers, because you and other in naivety have supported the government and the big corporations in their quest to trying to run our lives.
I have no doubt that your intents are sincere.
But if you give the corps and the governments a carte blanche we're heading down a dangerous road.
Instead we should be trying to act to do away with laws like the Patriot Act that are in place all over the world.
-
BD, the current court ruling is a perfect example of what a bunch of jerks the government and the media corps are in this case.
1.9 million dollars.
WTF?
24 songs?
That's something that only George Orwell could come up with, almost.
-
I'm saying that the current system has run out of its course.
If we stay in it, it's like the Soviets trying to fight democracy, trying to create jobs where there aren't any.
In this case, it will work fine for some time to go chasing filesharers, because you and other in naivety have supported the government and the big corporations in their quest to trying to run our lives.
I have no doubt that your intents are sincere.
But if you give the corps and the governments a carte blanche we're heading down a dangerous road.
Instead we should be trying to act to do away with laws like the Patriot Act that are in place all over the world.
You didn't answer my question. Do you feel you have a right to something that belongs to me and that I'm trying to sell and give it away for free?
People think fame and money come right away ,thats rare. Few know that bands are slogging through shit for years before a break comes their way. We are always getting raped in the ass as artists. First it was the club owners that would pay fuck all. Then it was the record companies that penned shitty contracts. Then it was concert promoters that would whip the bands like slaves for more gigs, more effort, more travel, while the ticket distributers raised prices and pocketed the difference. Now it's "fans" that are too cheap to pay 99 cents for a song. Lame.
That's what it all boils down to, everyone feels like they are entitled to anything and everything. People need to start doing the right thing and then we wouldn't have government or big corporations getting invovled which is the way I would perfer it and you know that to be true.
Good debate, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
-
BD, the current court ruling is a perfect example of what a bunch of jerks the government and the media corps are in this case.
1.9 million dollars.
WTF?
24 songs?
That's something that only George Orwell could come up with, almost.
I would have sued her 10 million and punched her in the face if she distributed my material without permission.
-
You didn't answer my question. Do you feel you have a right to something that belongs to me and that I'm trying to sell and give it away for free?
We are always getting raped in the ass, as artists. First it was the club owners that would pay fuck all. Then it was the record companies that penned shitty contracts. Then it was concert promoters that would whip the bands like slaves for more gigs, more effort, more travel, while the ticket distributers raised prices and pocketed the difference. Now it's "fans" that are too cheap to pay 99 cents for a song. Lame.
That's what it all boils down to, people feel like they are entitled to anything and everything. People need to start doing the right thing and then we wouldn't have government or big corporations getting invovled which is the way I would perfer it and you know that to be true.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
No, I will answer your question.
I don't think I am entitled to your work.
If someone share your song to me, I think I can share it however I want though.
So how are you supposed to get paid?
If you're not prepared to get out of your living room and start touring?
First of all, we don't know how tomorrows type of music industry will look like exactly.
I just know that we can't and shouldn't try to stop the technology with laws that can threaten our integrity and democratic rights.
But what I see is that I when I turn on the computer and watch eg espn's website and clips from it, and there is a commercial there, perhaps you have a song on one of them.
Now, in the past the commercials may not have paid all that much.
But since could potentially not be paying anything for private filesharing in the future, and we will still be spending the same kind of "media dough", the media outlets will be paying more money for those commercial tunes.
Now you may object - but they will just pick famous songs.
I doubt it. Look at that song "Veneer", that accompanied those millions of tennis balls bouncing down San Franscisco in that commercial the other year.
Media makers will be looking to find unique songs to make standout commercials.
But that's of course not the only way to finance.
My point is that the "media budget" for the households" have remained the same, even after Napster and the filesharing era.
And as you pointed out yourself, small artists were given the shaft before.
Now they have a chance on getting their songs out on the internet and to be heard, without being filtered and controlled by the fcuking record companies.
I think you should look at the opportunities instead of the negatives.
I really mean no offence, and I actually am trying to get my point across here. ;D
-
I would have sued her 10 million and punched her in the face if she distributed my material without permission.
Sorry if you feel that way.
-
No, I will answer your question.
I don't think I am entitled to your work.
If someone share your song to me, I think I can share it however I want though.
So how are you supposed to get paid?
If you're not prepared to get out of your living room and start touring?
First of all, we don't know how tomorrows type of music industry will look like exactly.
I just know that we can't and shouldn't try to stop the technology with laws that can threaten our integrity and democratic rights.
But what I see is that I when I turn on the computer and watch eg espn's website and clips from it, and there is a commercial there, perhaps you have a song on one of them.
Now, in the past the commercials may not have paid all that much.
But since could potentially not be paying anything for private filesharing in the future, and we will still be spending the same kind of "media dough", the media outlets will be paying more money for those commercial tunes.
Now you may object - but they will just pick famous songs.
I doubt it. Look at that song "Veneer", that accompanied those millions of tennis balls bouncing down San Franscisco in that commercial the other year.
Media makers will be looking to find unique songs to make standout commercials.
But that's of course not the only way to finance.
My point is that the "media budget" for the households" have remained the same, even after Napster and the filesharing era.
And as you pointed out yourself, small artists were given the shaft before.
Now they have a chance on getting their songs out on the internet and to be heard, without being filtered and controlled by the fcuking record companies.
I think you should look at the opportunities instead of the negatives.
I really mean no offence, and I actually am trying to get my point across here. ;D
No offense taken. Like I said good debate. Would you feel the same way if people scanned books from famous authors or printed copy's of paintings and gave them away for free? Or people that make copies of other manufacturers merchandise and gave it away for free?
-
No offense taken. Like I said good debate. Would you feel the same way if people scanned books from famous authors or printed copy's of paintings and gave them away for free? Or people that make copies of other manufacturers merchandise and gave it away for free?
Never heard of it.
Only heard about people trying to pirate-copy shit and trying to sell things.
And I'm against that.
But this is something different.
This is completely non-profitable. People sharing their own files with someone else.