Jump to content

Copyright enforcement from Ole?


slowroll
 Share

Recommended Posts

Copyright law needs to be updated for the digital age. Media distributors can not expect their content not to be shared and distributed freely on the internet. They need to evolve with the times, and governments need to stop enabling their entitlement.

 

Paying for music is an old model... something that harkens back to an era when music was manufactured and mechanical. Now, the flow of digits is free and unlimited, and if music wants to be an industry in modern times, it needs to evolve to accept that.

 

How do you expect them to make money? I suppose you feel the same way about photography. I'm a photographer and people lifting my images without paying for them led me to not post anything on line anymore. I feel that people need to respect the artist and the laws.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copyright law needs to be updated for the digital age. Media distributors can not expect their content not to be shared and distributed freely on the internet. They need to evolve with the times, and governments need to stop enabling their entitlement.

 

Paying for music is an old model... something that harkens back to an era when music was manufactured and mechanical. Now, the flow of digits is free and unlimited, and if music wants to be an industry in modern times, it needs to evolve to accept that.

 

How do you expect them to make money? I suppose you feel the same way about photography. I'm a photographer and people lifting my images without paying for them led me to not post anything on line anymore. I feel that people need to respect the artist and the laws.

 

The fundamental model needs to change. Artwork needs to be commissioned. Someone should be paying for work up front, the final product should generally not be the commodity to be sold, the work should be.

Edited by KenJennings
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copyright law needs to be updated for the digital age. Media distributors can not expect their content not to be shared and distributed freely on the internet. They need to evolve with the times, and governments need to stop enabling their entitlement.

 

Paying for music is an old model... something that harkens back to an era when music was manufactured and mechanical. Now, the flow of digits is free and unlimited, and if music wants to be an industry in modern times, it needs to evolve to accept that.

 

How do you expect them to make money? I suppose you feel the same way about photography. I'm a photographer and people lifting my images without paying for them led me to not post anything on line anymore. I feel that people need to respect the artist and the laws.

 

The fundamental model needs to change. Artwork needs to be commissioned. Someone should be paying for work up front, the final product should generally not be the commodity to be sold, the work should be.

 

If that's the way it worked, no one would work as a musician. There wouldn't be any money in it. The product hasn't changed. Just the way it's delivered. Besides that, in general, people don't respect things near as much if it's free.

Edited by Mr. JD
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Copyright law needs to be updated for the digital age. Media distributors can not expect their content not to be shared and distributed freely on the internet. They need to evolve with the times, and governments need to stop enabling their entitlement.

 

Paying for music is an old model... something that harkens back to an era when music was manufactured and mechanical. Now, the flow of digits is free and unlimited, and if music wants to be an industry in modern times, it needs to evolve to accept that.

 

How do you expect them to make money? I suppose you feel the same way about photography. I'm a photographer and people lifting my images without paying for them led me to not post anything on line anymore. I feel that people need to respect the artist and the laws.

 

The fundamental model needs to change. Artwork needs to be commissioned. Someone should be paying for work up front, the final product should generally not be the commodity to be sold, the work should be.

 

If that's the way it worked, no one would work as a musician. There wouldn't be any money in it. The product hasn't changed. Just the way it's delivered. Besides that, in general, people don't respect things near as much if it's free.

 

 

C'mon Mr. JD, it's time to evolve into the digital age. "SOMEONE" should have just reached into their own pocket, pulled out $306 MILLION dollars, and "commissioned" Star Wars The Force Awakens... then the rest of us could see it for free. Christ, it's a pretty simple concept man.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon Mr. JD, it's time to evolve into the digital age. "SOMEONE" should have just reached into their own pocket, pulled out $306 MILLION dollars, and "commissioned" Star Wars The Force Awakens... then the rest of us could see it for free. Christ, it's a pretty simple concept man.

 

No, but someone would've made some passion project out of pocket for a few grand, streamed it freely to raise attention, proved that they can do less for more, and then been able to crowdfund the funds to do something bigger. It's been done, and the dinosaur middlemen power-brokers hate it.

 

The old fashioned model doesn't work in the digital age. It stands in the way of fair and open competition. It makes art about profit. It need to me phased out, and digital piracy is doing that legwork.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon Mr. JD, it's time to evolve into the digital age. "SOMEONE" should have just reached into their own pocket, pulled out $306 MILLION dollars, and "commissioned" Star Wars The Force Awakens... then the rest of us could see it for free. Christ, it's a pretty simple concept man.

 

No, but someone would've made some passion project out of pocket for a few grand, streamed it freely to raise attention, proved that they can do less for more, and then been able to crowdfund the funds to do something bigger. It's been done, and the dinosaur middlemen power-brokers hate it.

 

The old fashioned model doesn't work in the digital age. It stands in the way of fair and open competition. It makes art about profit. It need to me phased out, and digital piracy is doing that legwork.

 

Who exactly profits from this other than the tech industry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon Mr. JD, it's time to evolve into the digital age. "SOMEONE" should have just reached into their own pocket, pulled out $306 MILLION dollars, and "commissioned" Star Wars The Force Awakens... then the rest of us could see it for free. Christ, it's a pretty simple concept man.

 

No, but someone would've made some passion project out of pocket for a few grand, streamed it freely to raise attention, proved that they can do less for more, and then been able to crowdfund the funds to do something bigger. It's been done, and the dinosaur middlemen power-brokers hate it.

 

The old fashioned model doesn't work in the digital age. It stands in the way of fair and open competition. It makes art about profit. It need to me phased out, and digital piracy is doing that legwork.

 

This is not what you said before. You said artwork should be "commissioned" and "the work" be paid for upfront so the end product is not a commodity and FREE for everyone.

 

But OK, I'm a big enough guy to give you a mulligan on that one.

 

Now you're saying people should invest their OWN money on some kind of demo to "…proved that they can do less for more". To whom? The big industry you just took down? The government? Jesus? "The people?" Whatever… there's nothing stopping ANYBODY from doing this right now, not a single thing.

 

So as you yourself said "it's been done", please cite one single FULL-LENGTH, crowd-sourced, COMPLETED, feature film that can compete with "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" in scope, cgi, location shoots, compositing and desirable casting… oh, and somebody besides Google has to have heard of it.

Edited by RobK
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because YouTube made it easy for everyone to upload bootleg footage doesn't make it legal. That's why it's called a bootleg. Bootleggers were outlaws. Unless you pay licensing fees to copyright owner or at least get permission to post something, you're posting someone else's legally protected performance of legally protected material that they may not want out there for whatever reason, including if the band feel it's a crappy quality representation of themselves or record label feels it's discouraging sales of the official release.

 

If this was the case, we'd be seeing bands throwing out C&Ds left and right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't have to. As a matter of fact one of the bands I recorded with was offered as "sound replacement" by YouTube for videos in which the soundtrack was unauthorized use of copyrighted music. You'd be surprised what gets you a c&d by the way. Jack Daniels sent our label one for using album art featuring a gorilla holding a great big square bottle of whisky with a black label with white print that was in the same style as the JD label. They claimed trademark infringement, and insisted that any future release (including digital downloads of the songs or album) had to be sold with different cover art. The artist who did the cover modified the label on the bottle and JD approved of the change, but I don't think the album has been repressed in any form since then, and I have not seen any downloads with the new art--iTunes and Amazon both have original artwork. These days the webmaster just removes the offending video or audio if contacted and asked or if they have software it can be programmed to find and remove stuff automatically. No c&d required.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking down videos of commercially available material is one thing, but if they start to false DMCA covers of Rush songs, amateur footage and old bootlegs, then you know what? That is more than enough reason to be pissed off in my book. There is such thing as "fair use".

 

Agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking down videos of commercially available material is one thing, but if they start to false DMCA covers of Rush songs, amateur footage and old bootlegs, then you know what? That is more than enough reason to be pissed off in my book. There is such thing as "fair use".

 

Agreed

 

I understand if they take down officially released stuff, but stuff like covers, bootlegs, and concert footage does not need to be taken down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking down videos of commercially available material is one thing, but if they start to false DMCA covers of Rush songs, amateur footage and old bootlegs, then you know what? That is more than enough reason to be pissed off in my book. There is such thing as "fair use".

 

Agreed

 

I understand if they take down officially released stuff, but stuff like covers, bootlegs, and concert footage does not need to be taken down.

 

1) What if someone wanted to share there music talents with the world. How would they do that if people will keep taking it down?

 

2) What if someone did not want to mess up there computer by downloading Torrents and Bootlegs. They could just go on you tube and listen to the bootleg or torrents there. But if people take down the videos, they will have to download that stuff and it could ruin there computer. That person would then have to waste a lot of money just for a new computer.

 

3) People should be allowed to post concert footage to you tube without it getting taken down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because YouTube made it easy for everyone to upload bootleg footage doesn't make it legal. That's why it's called a bootleg. Bootleggers were outlaws. Unless you pay licensing fees to copyright owner or at least get permission to post something, you're posting someone else's legally protected performance of legally protected material that they may not want out there for whatever reason, including if the band feel it's a crappy quality representation of themselves or record label feels it's discouraging sales of the official release.

 

If this was the case, we'd be seeing bands throwing out C&Ds left and right.

 

Exactly...and most of the music and production would be crap

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon Mr. JD, it's time to evolve into the digital age. "SOMEONE" should have just reached into their own pocket, pulled out $306 MILLION dollars, and "commissioned" Star Wars The Force Awakens... then the rest of us could see it for free. Christ, it's a pretty simple concept man.

 

No, but someone would've made some passion project out of pocket for a few grand, streamed it freely to raise attention, proved that they can do less for more, and then been able to crowdfund the funds to do something bigger. It's been done, and the dinosaur middlemen power-brokers hate it.

 

The old fashioned model doesn't work in the digital age. It stands in the way of fair and open competition. It makes art about profit. It need to me phased out, and digital piracy is doing that legwork.

 

I'm sure that for the artist, art IS about profit. Believe me, I'm glad my pictures make some profit so I can make my house payment. If I gave them away, I wouldn't have time to take pictures because I would be to busy at my other job saying "Welcome To Walmart"

Edited by Mr. JD
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taking down videos of commercially available material is one thing, but if they start to false DMCA covers of Rush songs, amateur footage and old bootlegs, then you know what? That is more than enough reason to be pissed off in my book. There is such thing as "fair use".

 

Agreed

 

I understand if they take down officially released stuff, but stuff like covers, bootlegs, and concert footage does not need to be taken down.

 

1) What if someone wanted to share there music talents with the world. How would they do that if people will keep taking it down?

 

 

Then they can post their own original material. Showing how well you can mimic another artist's music is a sign of ability, not talent.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon Mr. JD, it's time to evolve into the digital age. "SOMEONE" should have just reached into their own pocket, pulled out $306 MILLION dollars, and "commissioned" Star Wars The Force Awakens... then the rest of us could see it for free. Christ, it's a pretty simple concept man.

 

No, but someone would've made some passion project out of pocket for a few grand, streamed it freely to raise attention, proved that they can do less for more, and then been able to crowdfund the funds to do something bigger. It's been done, and the dinosaur middlemen power-brokers hate it.

 

The old fashioned model doesn't work in the digital age. It stands in the way of fair and open competition. It makes art about profit. It need to me phased out, and digital piracy is doing that legwork.

 

This is not what you said before. You said artwork should be "commissioned" and "the work" be paid for upfront so the end product is not a commodity and FREE for everyone.

 

But OK, I'm a big enough guy to give you a mulligan on that one.

 

Now you're saying people should invest their OWN money on some kind of demo to "…proved that they can do less for more". To whom? The big industry you just took down? The government? Jesus? "The people?" Whatever… there's nothing stopping ANYBODY from doing this right now, not a single thing.

 

So as you yourself said "it's been done", please cite one single FULL-LENGTH, crowd-sourced, COMPLETED, feature film that can compete with "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" in scope, cgi, location shoots, compositing and desirable casting… oh, and somebody besides Google has to have heard of it.

 

Reread and comprehend.

 

Try using your imagination, understanding and being openminded rather than getting defensive and dismissive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people have an amazing sense of entitlement to stuff they have no right to feel entitled to. Any idea how much time and prep work goes into a rush tour, not including the years spent figuring out how to play an instrument with any passable level of skill (or several instruments), how to perform well, how to compose original music, etc, etc? I guess all that should be rewarded with everyone posting every show from umpteen different angles in HD so they have no need to spend any money on a DVD or concert ticket.
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people have an amazing sense of entitlement to stuff they have no right to feel entitled to. Any idea how much time and prep work goes into a rush tour, not including the years spent figuring out how to play an instrument with any passable level of skill (or several instruments), how to perform well, how to compose original music, etc, etc? I guess all that should be rewarded with everyone posting every show from umpteen different angles in HD so they have no need to spend any money on a DVD or concert ticket.

 

^^^ This

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people have an amazing sense of entitlement to stuff they have no right to feel entitled to. Any idea how much time and prep work goes into a rush tour, not including the years spent figuring out how to play an instrument with any passable level of skill (or several instruments), how to perform well, how to compose original music, etc, etc? I guess all that should be rewarded with everyone posting every show from umpteen different angles in HD so they have no need to spend any money on a DVD or concert ticket.

 

Late to this but for me this is too simplistic and I'm sure that the rights owners and artists know this. Part of the issue is that if you turn a blind eye to minor copyright infringements (minor loss of earnings, artistic control etc) then you are in effect saying it is ok to infringe copyright sometimes in certain cases that would be difficult to legally define.

However, much of the YouTube stuff is pure fandom only intended to share something they have experienced for the enjoyment of others and of course to say, "I was there". It's free but uncontrolled advertising for the band. The real stickler is that YouTube (Google) is making revenue out of these innocent videos - making revenue with little or no recompense to the original artists - and building influence over those same artists by positioning their platform at the forefront of publicity for the them in a way that bands would be cutting their nose off to spite their face if they brought about its demise.

I suspect that for many artists YouTube is seen as an essential part of their publicity machine and the balance has to be between what they choose to officially release and crowdsourcing, which is in effect what ad hoc fan videos become. I'm pretty sure that for major artists whilst the loss of earnings through copyright infringement is vast it pales into significance when compared to their overall income.

The issue is when you move down the ladder of relative success those loss of earnings are crippling. Through my involvement with Progarchives I've been in contact with many bands and artists who are relatively successful for the Prog Scene but aren't making good money compared to how much of their product is consumed. If you give away 2/3rds of a cupcake then you've not much cake left and it wasn't worth the effort (to you) in making the cupcake even if it was a rather nice cupcake that the recipients enjoyed.

Edited by Tony R
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...