Gene Simmons: The fans destroyed the record industry.

[shgshg]

From the example I gave, it pretty clear that the author is no longer in commercial use and the material falls under fair use or possibly public domain depending on the artist. My example is an edge case, an exception to the rule. Not everything is black and white.

This is. For works produced since 1978 the copyright term is "life of the author plus seventy years". Seventy years from the death of the composer of that piece of music you really want is when it becomes public domain. If the album is currently out of print, or hard to find, or if the only physical example you can find is a $50 CD on Ebay, that doesn't change a thing. You're just making up rationalizations to make yourself feel better about being a copyright infringer.

by simply watching/listening to something on YouTube doesn't mean that you've downloaded it.

Yes it does. Argue all you want, but you downloaded it. The ones and zeroes that represent someone else's intellectual property were transferred over the series of tubes we call the Internet to your computer. End of story.

Tape trading is a completely different world to digital downloading. For one, a cassette recorded off the radio was not a quality or permanent recording and chances are a listener would end up buying an official release anyway.

I'm seeing a trend here, one that reads like "Copying music hurts the artists and people who do it are criminals! Except for me when I do it!"

There is no black and white perfect answer to this. Times have changed. You have to adjust.

+1

 

[TrueTone500]

 

[ocgeardisorder]

How much more honest can one Kiss member be? Yes he is very opinionated, and full of himself, but I like the perspective he has.

 

[Red_Label]

Friggin hell... I couldn't even get through the first page of this thread. The bloated pontificating and endless bullshit was just too much.

There's still good/great music out there. You just have to sift through all of the shit to find it. Just like it's been for decades.

 

[rp108]

From the example I gave, it pretty clear that the author is no longer in commercial use and the material falls under fair use or possibly public domain depending on the artist. My example is an edge case, an exception to the rule. Not everything is black and white.

This is. For works produced since 1978 the copyright term is "life of the author plus seventy years". Seventy years from the death of the composer of that piece of music you really want is when it becomes public domain. If the album is currently out of print, or hard to find, or if the only physical example you can find is a $50 CD on Ebay, that doesn't change a thing. You're just making up rationalizations to make yourself feel better about being a copyright infringer.

by simply watching/listening to something on YouTube doesn't mean that you've downloaded it.

Yes it does. Argue all you want, but you downloaded it. The ones and zeroes that represent someone else's intellectual property were transferred over the series of tubes we call the Internet to your computer. End of story.

Tape trading is a completely different world to digital downloading. For one, a cassette recorded off the radio was not a quality or permanent recording and chances are a listener would end up buying an official release anyway.

I'm seeing a trend here, one that reads like "Copying music hurts the artists and people who do it are criminals! Except for me when I do it!"

There is no black and white perfect answer to this. Times have changed. You have to adjust.

+1

You looked up public domain and ignored fair use. Typical when someone is wrong.

 

[shgshg]

A primer from UMUC. Let's imagine the situation you described earlier: you want to download a copy of an album because you can't find a legit copy to buy. I'll highlight the bits that support an assumption that doing so is fair use in green; the bits that suggest you'd be breaking the law in red.

Fair use is the most significant limitation on the copyright holder's exclusive rights (United States Copyright Office, 2010, para. 1). Deciding whether the use of a work is fair IS NOT a science. There are no set guidelines that are universally accepted. Instead, the individual who wants to use a copyrighted work must weigh four factors:

The purpose and character of the use:

Is the new work merely a copy of the original? If it is simply a copy, it is not as likely to be considered fair use.
Does the new work offer something above and beyond the original? Does it transform the original work in some way? If the work is altered significantly, used for another purpose, appeals to a different audience, it more likely to be considered fair use (NOLO, 2010, para. 6).
Is the use of the copyrighted work for nonprofit or educational purposes? The use of copyrighted works for nonprofit or educational purposes is more likely to be considered fair use (NOLO, 2010, para. 6).

The nature of the copyrighted work:

Is the copyrighted work a published or unpublished work? Unpublished works are less likely to be considered fair use.
Is the copyrighted work out of print? If it is, it is more likely to be considered fair use.
Is the work factual or artistic? The more a work tends toward artistic expression, the less likely it will be considered fair use (NOLO, 2010, para. 9).

The amount and substantiality of the portion used:

The more you use, the less likely it will be considered fair use.
Does the amount you use exceed a reasonable expectation? If it approaches 50 percent of the entire work, it is not likely to be considered a fair use of the copyrighted work.
Is the particular portion used likely to adversely affect the author's economic gain? If you use the "heart" or "essence" of a work, it is less likely your use will be considered fair (NOLO, 2010, para. 13).

The effect of use on the potential market for the copyrighted work:

The more the new work differs from the original, the less likely it will be considered an infringement.
Does the work appeal to the same audience as the original? If the answer is yes, it will likely be considered an infringement.
Does the new work contain anything original? If it does, it is more likely the use of the copyrighted material will be seen as fair use (NOLO, 2010, para. 11).

The most important aspect is that you are making a simple copy of a copyrighted work. You're not using it, you're not doing a remix, you're not making some sort of mashup or creating something new out of pre-existing material. You're just making an unauthorised copy because you want one. That's open and shut.

So, again, your position is more clearly expressed as "I think illegal copying is justified WHEN I REALLY REALLY WANT THE THING."

You looked up public domain and ignored fair use. Typical when someone is wrong.

You're welcome.

 

[rockify]

I hate henry rollins. He's a self important douchebag.

Well I think he is important and a cool dude. The world needs unique and varied opinions otherwise we'd all just have Marshalls.

 

[satannica]

Just want to revisit a few points.

I said earlier that an artist went platinum with only 10,000 sales. Apologies, incorrect information / poorly remembered. What I was remembering was this which, in my opinion, is still very indicative of what a catastrophic state the music industry is in!

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/music/news/ ... story.html

A top mainstream artist couldn't sell 10,000 copies in a year. Yet, she still got to No. 1. When even a mainstream hyped-to-fuck artist can't even break 10k, what hope does a non-mainstream act have? Added to that Rhianna is basically an advertising machine for high power corporate brands so like fuck album sales are hurting her. Sadly, that Grindcore band from the Midlands can't seem to entice the same level of product placement and are STILL reliant on selling their recorded product. By downloading it, you're selling out the underground scenes and making it just as disposable as any mainstream trash!

Tape trading: No, it wasn't OK when I did it. It was still illegal. Most of the copied tapes I have were from CDs I owned simply as I didn't have a CD walkman, only tape. My first cars all only had tape players. I'm sure you can argue the technicalities of piracy and try to paint me just as black as you when you download entire back catalogs at a time, but it just is not the same thing! I'm sorry, it just fucking isn't! Artists that time were still able to shift thousands of units of their recorded product. Nobody begrudged the £12 or so we'd pay for a CD, or £8 for a cassette. We wanted the product, we adored the artists, we wanted the lyric sheets, we wanted our collections!

Times have moved on / technical advances: I fully agree. I have my MP3 player for the gym and I have MP3s in my car. MP3 is very handy and when you're out and about, the reliability and convenience is unparalleled! Also, people live smaller these days. OK, you don't want a massive CD collection so you don't have to! You can buy everything digitally, store it digitally and take it wherever you want to go! It's great!

What I disagree with, what's different about piracy today: Entitlement!!! You're downloading entire careers worth of music. Bear in mind you had to have heard of these artists first, right? How do you think you heard of them? The majority of them were always there. Iron Maiden, Motorhead, you heard of them because your Dad heard of them - and bought their albums! You download entire back catalogs that you didn't pay for and see absolutely no value in. You are not going to go to the effort of getting into an album or checking out lyrics because it has no value and is therefore completely disposable.

Tape trading in the 90s was an entirely different driver. The prospect of one's collection based solely on traded tapes is ridiculous beyond comprehension! Aftermarket cassettes were usually poor 2nd generation copies, or even converted from joint stereo FM > tape > probably another tape. The quality was sub par at best and nobody who made music even a past-time would have put up with that for long. Especially when a full album was only £8. But tapes were traded to raise awareness about bands and most of those would lead to sales! Yes it hurt the industry somewhat, but the hurt was negatable. It didn't make it OK, it was simply an itch.

These days, entire careers are automatically disposable free-for-alls. It's cheap. You apply the exact same disposition to all that old stuff you downloaded which I'd bet is beneath you to have even listened to everything else. Which really puts the cry of "If I like it, I'll buy it" rhetoric into perspective. Chances are you won't buy it. You already have it. And even if you are the epitome of honor and do buy it, the 20,000 people who also downloaded it that day. But this same system of disposability also plays straight into the hands of the money men.

Why? Because the same standards that applied to mainstream pop must now also apply to all the subgenres too! Metal today sucks. It sucks fucking ape dick. Why? Because you now need a one-hit instantly titillating formulaic catchy soundtrack to your shopping experience at Hot Topic. Nothing too extreme or your parents or your vapid girlfriend won't approve. Nothing too pussy either as you need to impress your friends. Yes, this is what happens when the "cool kids" all of a sudden like metal! So who gives a fuck about them selling albums now; they're part of that same advertising corporate machine just like Rhianna!

The underground? Well, under that very same model, except without the advertising, they'll disappear in a few years. Guaranteed. Scandinavia is still doing their best to not drown, but it's just a matter of time.

It's happening - it has happened - and all you twats bleating on about how downloading doesn't hurt it helps and your oh-so-clever comeback of "So you mean it was OK when I did it?" bollocks, sputed amidst your Starbucks froth-face... you're a moron! A straight-up moron!

 

[locoed]

I dig Gene Simmons but its not like hes never stolen anything, Ace,Peter.
It's all about green, and taking what you can, and he's taken money right
Outta they're pockets over the years.

 

[rupe]

by simply watching/listening to something on YouTube doesn't mean that you've downloaded it.

Yes it does. Argue all you want, but you downloaded it. The ones and zeroes that represent someone else's intellectual property were transferred over the series of tubes we call the Internet to your computer. End of story.

No, you didn't. The file does not exist on your computer...you can't watch/listen to it again without going back to the website.

Why do I waste my time arguing with mouth-breathing moron trolls? I really need to stop.

 

[satannica]

by simply watching/listening to something on YouTube doesn't mean that you've downloaded it.

Yes it does. Argue all you want, but you downloaded it. The ones and zeroes that represent someone else's intellectual property were transferred over the series of tubes we call the Internet to your computer. End of story.

No, you didn't. The file does not exist on your computer...you can't watch/listen to it again without going back to the website.

Why do I waste my time arguing with mouth-breathing moron trolls? I really need to stop.

Regardless of the fact of YouTube's legitimacy, the complete and total problem for the music industry - in particular younger underground acts - is digital piracy in the form of MP3 download. That right there is the biggest problem.

If bands were still able to sell recorded output, be it digitally or physically, there would be no problem. The fact is that they cannot.

I fully believe that until they stigmatize illegal downloading in the same way that they did cigarettes, this will continue on and on until we get to a point where the only music available is that which has been rubber-stamped by some 60 year old as it's friendly enough to attract people to whatever it's advertising. As that is all the music industry has become! It's a sincere shame!

 

[shgshg]

You can't stop it though. Trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet.

A digital file is just a number. When you say "we want to stop people illegally downloading music files" it's the same thing as saying "we want to stop people telling each other numbers". It's retarded. And you can't stop it.

 

[Atropos_Project]

To be fair, there's a ton of music still being made 'the old way'. He either happens to not mention it, or is oblivious to it due to it's mass-market obscurity.

 

[Atropos_Project]

No, you didn't. The file does not exist on your computer...you can't watch/listen to it again without going back to the website.

That isn't true at all.

 

[TrueTone500]

There already is a new system. It's played right into the money men's hands and has served to devastate all those pesky underground scenes that wouldn't go away. Sure the old timers are left, but there's nobody new to replace them because it's beyond anyone's financial ability to do so. That is the new system, that is the new model.

What you're talking about is the return of the OLD model. The 20th century was an aberration. The heydey of the music-publishing industry from, let's say, the ragtime era to Napster, will soon be acknowledged as a temporary blip in the history of entertainment, one that was only possible during a small window during which the technology was advanced enough for printing and recording and distribution to be mechanized but primitive enough that only some large rich groups of middle-men had the tools to do it.

What we're seeing now is a return to the normal state of the entertainment industry - the way it was for Homer, Shakespeare, Khayyam, Bach, Mozart, and almost every other author and composer you've ever heard of. That normal state is this: if you want to be a musician, you have three choices.

1. Do it in your own time while you're not doing whatever it is that puts food on the table.
2. Make music interesting enough and be talented enough that a wealthy patron will pay you to do it. This is the "MacArthur Fellowship" end of the scale.
3. Make music popular enough and be entertaining enough that lots of people will pay you small amounts of money to do it. This is the "play for your supper" end of the scale.

Let me guess, Berkley? Oberlin maybe?

 

[shgshg]

I find it fascinating that you consider discussion of a thing to be advocacy of a thing.

Interesting aside: while having a similar discussion on a completely different forum, my comments were attacked for being a hideous expression of Randian neoliberal capitalism. Several people took offense that I was saying "if you want to make money playing music, be good at it. Nobody owes you a living because you decided you wanted to drop out and be a musician. The best musicians will make money as they always have, and the shit musicians will have to face up the the fact that that they're shit."