Home Forums General Discussions Open Topic U.S. citizens… Your rights are in serious jepardy!!!

Viewing 14 posts - 31 through 44 (of 44 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #68665

    Halfman
    Participant

    Rosa,
    I saw in either this month’s or last month’s Rolling stone that Don Henley and Alanis Morrisette have been fighting another related "bill", I think.

    This one talks about how a previous law that gave copyright ownership back to an artist after a time should be modified so that a label will end up with permanent ownership and say-so over creative use of said material. I forget the specifics, but that is the general idea. Running Henley and "copyright" through an engine will probably pull it up on line.

    Glad you mentioned this. It goes right in line with the other SSSCA crap, privacy for sale and artistry transported to and from the bordello.

    #68666

    bean
    Participant

    but is it really about record companies anymore? I saw a pie chart one time about how the money is divvied up and the actual band got the smallest possible piece-like 8% or something like that. even if the songs were sold online for I’d say a dime but for the sake of argumentation we’ll say a quarter a piece the bands would make so much more money than they are now. seems like record companies are dinosaurs now and they dont know what to do. and popularity would be based on how many copies got sold. just from word of mouth,you know? like Im hearing about all kinds of bands on this site that otherwise i might not hear about.

    <small>[ 03-26-2002, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: bean ]</small>

    #68667

    everyonelovesjaron
    Participant

    </font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><table><tr><td><table><tr><td>Originally posted by Mattman:
    <strong>My point, Jaron, is that, from what I can tell, you’re trying to bastardize a form of technology, because some people mis-use it.

    Some people use cars as getaway vehicles from bank-robberies. Shall we outlaw cars, as well?

    What about knives, sure they’re useful for cutting food, as well as a whole lot of other uses. But some people use them to kill. Maybe we should get rid of them too…

    <img> </strong></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></blockquote>1. I find your analogy to be stupid. Try morphine. Sure, some people need it for medicinal purposes (just as some bands need it to get their music heard) but I don’t think legalization is a great idea.

    2. You are not addressing the central issue. My point is, you’re acting like you have some God given right to do this stuff, when in actuality you don’t. You act like the fact that YOU proclaim the way the music industry works is an outdated model to be important. It’s not.

    The local Pizza Hut by my house demands all people to have no sideburns (for real). Is this outdated? Sure. But buisness owners have every right to run their buisness as they desire. Likewise, music labels have entire say about how the artists they represent musics should get released. Don’t like it? Tough, you have no financial investment in anything.

    #68668

    everyonelovesjaron
    Participant

    </font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><table><tr><td><table><tr><td>Originally posted by bean:
    <strong>but is it really about record companies anymore? I saw a pie chart one time about how the money is divvied up and the actual band got the smallest possible piece-like 8% or something like that. even if the songs were sold online for I’d say a dime but for the sake of argumentation we’ll say a quarter a piece the bands would make so much more money than they are now. seems like record companies are dinosaurs now and they dont know what to do. and popularity would be based on how many copies got sold. just from word of mouth,you know? like Im hearing about all kinds of bands on this site that otherwise i might not hear about. YOUUUUU KNOWWWWWW……..</strong></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></blockquote>Yeah, and book publishers make the majority of the money on books sold, not the authors. Financial investment is what’s important, not talent, in the buisness world.

    #68669

    everyonelovesjaron
    Participant

    </font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><table><tr><td><table><tr><td>Originally posted by jeremiah:
    <strong>

    To rip the whole format is wrong. Many bands are getting their music heard by people that would have never known they existed.
    </strong></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></blockquote>The number of bands who have their music "heard" because of MP3s are about 1/100,000th as many as bands who are heard because a label puts out a record. If a band MP3s it’s own album, it’s still 100% the result of the label that the music got heard.

    The only artists who have music released on MP3 only without label help are people recording stuff in their own garage.

    Now, extrapolate this for a second. If this is how music is going to be run, we have a sad state of affairs in 20 years. We are going to miss out on so much if already financially strapped music lines are further depreciated sales-wise by MP3 stealing.

    #68670

    Mattman
    Participant

    </font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><table><tr><td><table><tr><td>Originally posted by Jaron:
    <strong>1. I find your analogy to be stupid. Try morphine. Sure, some people need it for medicinal purposes (just as some bands need it to get their music heard) but I don’t think legalization is a great idea.</strong></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></blockquote>I find your analogy dubious as well. I shall hardly lower myself to calling it "stupid", because I do not believe your, nor my examples are as such. Though they may vary in there degrees of correctness.

    Anyway, the reason I find your analogy to be incorrect, I’m sure there are people out there somewhere who feel it (along with other drugs)should be legalized as well. Be they in the minority or the majority, it does not negate their opinion, nor does it make it "stupid". Honestly, I’m not a %100 sure I disagree with them, but that’s neither here nor there…

    Now, do you care to give me a reason why you found my analogy to be "stupid", or shall I assume your post to be little better than mere name calling?

    </font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><table><tr><td><table><tr><td>
    2. You are not addressing the central issue. My point is, you’re acting like you have some God given right to do this stuff, when in actuality you don’t. You act like the fact that YOU proclaim the way the music industry works is an outdated model to be important. It’s not.

    The local Pizza Hut by my house demands all people to have no sideburns (for real). Is this outdated? Sure. But buisness owners have every right to run their buisness as they desire. Likewise, music labels have entire say about how the artists they represent musics should get released. Don’t like it? Tough, you have no financial investment in anything.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></blockquote>If anyone’s deviating from the central issue, it’d appear to be you. I thought it to be clear, but for the sake of anyone who misunderstands, I am in oposition to this bill because it gives the media an unfair advantage over both the consumer, and the technology sector. If the media and tech sectors got together on their own and devised some sort of digital rights management, I’d have a lot less problem with it, because I’d have the option, as a consumer, to take my business elsewhere. This bill, however, seeks to lock in these restraints to ANY technology capable of playing and/or recording audio/video so that there no longer is a choice. It is my belief that this is bad government, and that it stipends invovation.

    Believe it or not, I’m not against copyright laws, at least not in their original purpose, as I understand them. From what I have been lead to believe, copyright laws were intended to create a balance between the sharing of information, as consumers, vs the promotion of inovation, so that the creators of the ideas could profit off their work. Copyrights were originally intended to expire after a certain amount of time, but due to what I consider to be other examples of bad government, this concept as been distorted by those who saw a way to squeeze an extra buck out of th econsumers by keeping an iron grip on the copyrighted material.

    </font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><table><tr><td><table><tr><td>
    The number of bands who have their music "heard" because of MP3s are about 1/100,000th as many as bands who are heard because a label puts out a record. If a band MP3s it’s own album, it’s still 100% the result of the label that the music got heard

    The only artists who have music released on MP3 only without label help are people recording stuff in their own garage.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></blockquote>Again, you spout off these numbers, with no evidence to back them up. I cannot take this argument seriously if I don’t believe it to be true.

    </font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><table><tr><td><table><tr><td>Now, extrapolate this for a second. If this is how music is going to be run, we have a sad state of affairs in 20 years. We are going to miss out on so much if already financially strapped music lines are further depreciated sales-wise by MP3 stealing.</td></tr></table></td></tr></table></blockquote>Again, this is off topic. I created this thread to oppose a specific bill that I feel to be bad government. If you want to discuss the validity of a particular industry’s ligitimacy, which should be obvious that I have quite a strong opinion, feel free to start your own thread on the subject. As it is, I’d like to get this thread back on track, and that is (il)legitimacy of the the CBDTPA. If you’d like to further debate that, I welcome it, but try to keep this discussion on topic from now on. That goes for me and everyone else as well…

    <small>[ 03-25-2002, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Mattman ]</small>

    #68671

    AGAP
    Participant

    Well said Mattman! People disagree all the time, most enjoy a good discussion without resorting to name calling never mind lame attempts to minimize/distract from the initial idea with insults. Jaron what is up with that…BIG BLAH <img>

    Allison

    ps sorry for the off topic rant but HEY!

    #68672

    everyonelovesjaron
    Participant

    I didn’t call anyone a name, I said his argument is tupid, and here is my justification as such: with the example of the knife, we all know the major usage of knives is not to hurt people, nor is that usage of knives making up a justifiably large precentage of knife uses, [now, I don’t have, say, NUMBERS to back this up, but I assume you’re willing to be logical enough to assume something so apparent is correct], but for other purposes. I do not feel that is the case with MP3s. A large precentage of people who d/l MP3s do not buy albums, as many have already in this thread conceeded.

    And as for questioning my numbers in your previous post, Matt, I think you’re trying to avoid the obvious, simply, that without big buisness promoting, marketing, and selling records, we would not have any idea what bands music to download in a no-label system.

    Indie rock tried word of mouth instead of label promotion as a system. It got them no where – Mike Watt is poor, among many others. It is in the artists best interest, the labels best interest, and true music conosseiur’s best interest for the music industry to keep running in the tried and true method it has ran for years, and if anything would better the system, it’s stricter copyright laws.

    #68673

    AGAP
    Participant

    there you go making assumptions again <img>

    I’ll say it for one last time BLAH

    Allison

    #68674

    everyonelovesjaron
    Participant

    </font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><table><tr><td><table><tr><td>Originally posted by Another Girl Another Planet:
    <strong>there you go making assumptions again <img>

    I’ll say it for one last time BLAH

    Allison</strong></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></blockquote>What assumption? And you assume that that’s a bad thing.

    I’d like to remind you all what a former chief Justice of the Supreme Court once said about pornography: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.â€

    #68675

    Mattman
    Participant

    Yes Jaron, but my question for you is… HOW and WHY does anything in your last post justify the media’s attempt to use the law to force their digital rights management methods on both the public, and an unwilling tech industry.

    I have no problem with an artist’s promotion of one’s self, nor do I have a problem with said artist seeking an outside source (record label, ect) for promotion.

    However, when these media companies attempt to manipulate the law so that we are forced only to buy products on their approved list, it is then, that I have a problem. As a voting citizen, and a member of the tech sector, I choose to speak out against it, as well as try to convince those who will listen why I feel they should stand against it as well.

    </font><blockquote><font>quote:</font><table><tr><td><table><tr><td>
    …without big buisness promoting, marketing, and selling records, we would not have any idea what bands music to download in a no-label system.

    I’d like to remind you all what a former chief Justice of the Supreme Court once said about pornography: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.â€

    #68676

    bean
    Participant

    HOCUS POCUS, YOU MUST FOCUS! STUPID , FUCKWAD, PENILE IMPLANT, NYAH NYAH, BUUUUUUUTTHOOOOOOLLLLE! <img>

    #68677

    Mattman
    Participant

    heh?!? <img>

    #68678

    Halfman
    Participant

    Here’s a link for the pro-active dissenter:

    http://www.eff.org/alerts/20020322_eff_cbdtpa_alert.html

    My apologies to those who are offended.
    However, I cannot and will not support legislation that is class-based in origin and punishing for consumers who own works of art and are forced to rebuy them over time as the medium for containing these works wears out. Certainly, abusers of reproduction technology made the CBTPA get more press coverage. I am not buying that they are the sole reason for its existence. Myriad reasons not covered in this link or the various news enclaves supporting the bill exist.

    The individual concerned with what movies and T.V. shows can be taped for viewing at other times than their broadcast might be curious to see how this bill is handled also.

    <small>[ 03-28-2002, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Half-Man ]</small>

Viewing 14 posts - 31 through 44 (of 44 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.