Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 09:40:26 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Music Piracy: the bands fight back

Started by Famous Mortimer, June 21, 2012, 09:19:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

rudi

I'll just get 'em from the internet. No one gets paid that way. :-)

NoSleep

As long as you can bear the weeping and gnashing of teeth (in this thread).

Dusty Gozongas

Quote from: MojoJojo on July 08, 2012, 07:48:59 AM
To be fair, you don't suggest an alternative compensation models, and I for one still don't know whether you mean free as in speech or beer.

I've pointed out that the alternative models do exist already and that it's only those with an un-progressive approach who are unable (or unwilling) to see it. See also the Pirate Party link I posted re: their totally reasonable and fair suggestions for copyright reform. 


jutl

Quote from: rudi on July 08, 2012, 04:04:00 PM
Copywright barely protects any music, to be honest. There's a current spate of tracks being redone and released a week before the original is released; it has resulted in two virtually identical tracks being in the charts at the same time. I guess no one on here watches the charts though... :-)


This concerns a very specific issue with compulsory mechanical licences in  the US; we don't have those here. Also, it seems that the copyists are recognising that their compulsory mechanical licences are invalid, as the article mentions. This is no out and out piracy, it's exploitation of the provision in US law that makes it mandatory to allow others to record cover versions.

Quote from: Dusty Gozongas on July 08, 2012, 05:38:10 PM
I've pointed out that the alternative models do exist already and that it's only those with an un-progressive approach who are unable (or unwilling) to see it. See also the Pirate Party link I posted re: their totally reasonable and fair suggestions for copyright reform.

I wouldn't call those unequivocally reasonable and fair. Allowing file sharing providing 'no money changes hands' would be impossible to police, and makes all the other suggestions unenforceable and therefore moot.

Dusty Gozongas

Quote from: jutl on July 08, 2012, 05:47:38 PMI wouldn't call those unequivocally reasonable and fair. Allowing file sharing providing 'no money changes hands' would be impossible to police, and makes all the other suggestions unenforceable and therefore moot.

Most file sharing involves no exchange of money. It would be far easier to police the transactions that do exist if the music industry wasn't lobbying and spunking cash at political parties to further the current scatter-shot policy of calling everybody with p2p software a criminal.  The law is obviously causing the problem here.

I hope my frequent mentions of "passing off" are now clearer.

MojoJojo

Quote from: Dusty Gozongas on July 08, 2012, 05:38:10 PM
I've pointed out that the alternative models do exist already and that it's only those with an un-progressive approach who are unable (or unwilling) to see it. See also the Pirate Party link I posted re: their totally reasonable and fair suggestions for copyright reform.

Calm down, my comment was only reflecting that I couldn't work out what you meant, and if you had suggested an alternative it would have made it clear.


Dusty Gozongas

Apologies for sounding a bit brusque. Wasn't meant to sound that way.

jutl

Quote from: Dusty Gozongas on July 08, 2012, 06:04:49 PM
Most file sharing involves no exchange of money. It would be far easier to police the transactions that do exist if the music industry wasn't lobbying and spunking cash at political parties to further the current scatter-shot policy of calling everybody with p2p software a criminal.

Firstly they're not calling them criminal unless their infringement is large scale and commercial. More usually they're calling them civil infringers. Secondly, having p2p software is not the problem, or anyone who runs the World of Warcraft updater would be being hassled. It's those who seem to be sharing someone else's copyright files. Sometimes there are fuck ups, but that's the principle at work.

QuoteThe law is obviously causing the problem here.

This is not obvious at all. How you view this will depend entirely on how just you see the law as being.

Dusty Gozongas

Quote from: jutl on July 08, 2012, 07:34:09 PM
Firstly they're not calling them criminal unless their infringement is large scale and commercial.

You haven't been paying attention if you actually thing that.

Quote from: jutl on July 08, 2012, 07:34:09 PMSecondly, having p2p software is not the problem.

The lobbyists are constantly pushing for indiscriminate p2p filtering and punishment though. I mentioned it for that very reason.

Quote from: jutl on July 08, 2012, 07:34:09 PM
This is not obvious at all. How you view this will depend entirely on how just you see the law as being.

If you don't see an ass in the room I have to wonder why you don't see it.

Dead kate moss

BUT IT TOOK ME 2 YEARS TO WRITE THE ADVENTURES OF KEVIN THE MAGIC SEX OCTOPUS AND ONLY A FEW THOUSAND PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY PAID FOR A COPY AND ABOUT TEN MILLION HAVE SHARED IT AND READ IT FOR FREE AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR. I AM WRITING THIS FROM THE FUTURE. IT'S ALL CAPS IN THE FUTURE, YEAH, WHO SAW THAT COMING, NOBODY.

MojoJojo

Quote from: Dusty Gozongas on July 08, 2012, 08:54:08 PM
You haven't been paying attention if you actually thing that.

Yes, and judges told them to stop. And a solicitor got struck off and things. It backfired massively on them, so I don't think the law needs to be changed on that basis.

Quote from: Dusty Gozongas on July 08, 2012, 08:54:08 PM
The lobbyists are constantly pushing for indiscriminate p2p filtering and punishment though. I mentioned it for that very reason.

Sorry, I'm going to have to do a [citation needed] on that one.

Quote from: Dusty Gozongas on July 08, 2012, 08:54:08 PM
You haven't been paying attention if you actually thing that.

The lobbyists are constantly pushing for indiscriminate p2p filtering and punishment though. I mentioned it for that very reason.

If you don't see an ass in the room I have to wonder why you don't see it.


Dusty Gozongas

Quote from: MojoJojo on July 08, 2012, 09:16:06 PM
Yes, and judges told them to stop. And a solicitor got struck off and things. It backfired massively on them, so I don't think the law needs to be changed on that basis.

Just the one instance then? I'm going to have to risk sounding rude again by suggesting that you're not paying attention to the lobbying power being fought against.

jutl

Quote from: Dusty Gozongas on July 08, 2012, 08:54:08 PMThe lobbyists are constantly pushing for indiscriminate p2p filtering and punishment though. I mentioned it for that very reason.

Filtering yes, and many organisations already implement that in order to reduce the number of infringement notices they have to deal with. However as the WoW updater shows, there are ways to leverage p2p technologies without falling foul of these. It's a real shame that 'citizen-led' p2p is getting filtered, but there are ISPs that don't, and it's hard to see how to those that do could better distinguish legitimate from illegitimate uses. As Mojojojo says, I'm not aware of anyone seeking implementation of legal sanctions for just using p2p, but I'm sure you have examples.

edit to add: I'm sure Microsoft would object, given that Skype would fall foul of such sanctions.

Quote from: Dusty Gozongas on July 08, 2012, 11:12:07 PM
Just the one instance then? I'm going to have to risk sounding rude again by suggesting that you're not paying attention to the lobbying power being fought against.

The lobbying power of the internet rights groups is not negligible these days either, of course.