I already knew that there was a reason why the company is called Apple, but I was kidding anyway. Interesting that it was after the co-founder's favourite fruit, though!
The illegal download/piracy/legal download/music business in 2011 thread
- Thread starter Symphony
- Start date
mr NOT
Chinese gold farmer
Talk about going off topic, geez.
Anyone seen the second video I posted? Very interesting if you see how that band made a lot of money.
Anyone seen the second video I posted? Very interesting if you see how that band made a lot of money.
Power_Metal_Dom
Epic Metaller
Shredgirl
Can You Remember?
Anyone read this article?
http://www.torrentsites.info/news/the-ethics-and-implications-of-piracy/
I'm going to go and smoke a cigarette before I fecking kill someone.....I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading there
http://www.torrentsites.info/news/the-ethics-and-implications-of-piracy/
I'm going to go and smoke a cigarette before I fecking kill someone.....I can't believe some of the stuff I'm reading there
1928
Children of the Dream
- May 13, 2007
- 2,798
- 23
- 38
Sadly, I know so many people who actually believe that and have personally mocked me for arguing against it. They've left me flabbergasted - just like this article.
First of all, bit torrent is not stealing. It is an intellectual theft. It is a theft of experience. Stealing means taking without replacing. Copying is different, and as such is not held under the same banner of theft.
Wow, the amount of semantics in this article is staggering.
So many things wrong with that article that I don't even know where to begin.
First of all, bit torrent is not stealing. It is an intellectual theft. It is a theft of experience. Stealing means taking without replacing. Copying is different, and as such is not held under the same banner of theft.
Wow, the amount of semantics in this article is staggering.
So many things wrong with that article that I don't even know where to begin.
Shredgirl
Can You Remember?
I read it, I hope someone steals his (the author) only mode of transportation and his identity and cleans out his bank accounts and runs up all his credit cards.
Happened here to, it's sad really. Don't really understand why so many people support it.
Another question for anyone out there.
What do you think of illegally download music from artists which are dead or from a band that doesn't exist anymore?
I personally don't know what i think of this, i mean the artist doesn't make any cash on it if i buy the CD.
Just imagine if Beethovens music would be owned by the government. Still if it was allowed to download/upload music that was written by now dead artists, people would of course abuse this and upload/download pretty much anything(well they already do, but you know what i mean). And therefore i have to say that this should be illegal, still, it's a hard question to me.
Philomelle
ain't no junior member
- Jan 22, 2011
- 77
- 0
- 6
I think the difference is that you aren't buying Beethoven's version, even if he wrote it originally. Somewhere a modern artist/orchestra had to learn the music and record it, and they're the ones who deserve to be paid for their version of it.
Shredgirl
Can You Remember?
This goes hand in hand with my posted reply.
If the band/artist is dead and the record company no longer exists, and the material is no longer available, then what?
mr NOT
Chinese gold farmer
I can tell you how it would work in the Netherlands, I am sure most laws elsewhere kind of relate to the same.
The music is then still intellectual property of a family member or a company. It's like when someone dies and leaves money behind. That doesn't vaporate in thin air, it goes to the first person in the family bloodline of the deceased. Same happens with intellectual ownership, which you have when you wrote music. Up to 70 years after your death. Then it becomes public from what I can read in the law here, although thats a bit hard to imagine for me...
I can imagine intellectual rights can be lengthed by Notary, although I cant find anything about that.
It's a little bit different with reproducing music, like covering a song. The actual author of a song has the right to drag you to court when you reproduce his or her music. Unless he or she died more than 70 years ago, then you have the right to reproduce music without authorisation. But the music that you make then, is then also protected by the same author rights.
For example, Power Quest covers a Megadeth song and makes it sound like a COMPLETE copy of the original, including the singer who tries to immitate Dave Mustaine. (pure fictional example ofc
)Dave is pissed off and has the right to collect money on it unless it's arranged otherwise between the 2 parties because he is the author and intellectual owner of his music.
Now, Dave and Megadeth died 71 years ago. Power Quest covers the song, which they are allowed to do. Point.
Then an asshole comes in and records Power Quest playing it live. He puts it on mp3 and spreads it. PQ can drag that asshole to court, because PQ now has the rights on the PQ version, because they are the author of the version the way they performed it.
I believe it works like that.
Do I still make any sence?
Philomelle
ain't no junior member
- Jan 22, 2011
- 77
- 0
- 6
^ So in this hypothetical situation, is Dave Mustaine mad because Power Quest never got authorization from him to cover the song, or did they get authorization and Dave Mustaine got mad because they made the cover sound too much like the original?
Shredgirl
Can You Remember?
I can tell you how it would work in the Netherlands, I am sure most laws elsewhere kind of relate to the same.
The music is then still intellectual property of a family member or a company. It's like when someone dies and leaves money behind. That doesn't vaporate in thin air, it goes to the first person in the family bloodline of the deceased. Same happens with intellectual ownership, which you have when you wrote music. Up to 70 years after your death. Then it becomes public from what I can read in the law here, although thats a bit hard to imagine for me...
I can imagine intellectual rights can be lengthed by Notary, although I cant find anything about that.
It's a little bit different with reproducing music, like covering a song. The actual author of a song has the right to drag you to court when you reproduce his or her music. Unless he or she died more than 70 years ago, then you have the right to reproduce music without authorisation. But the music that you make then, is then also protected by the same author rights.
For example, Power Quest covers a Megadeth song and makes it sound like a COMPLETE copy of the original, including the singer who tries to immitate Dave Mustaine. (pure fictional example ofc
Dave is pissed off and has the right to collect money on it unless it's arranged otherwise between the 2 parties because he is the author and intellectual owner of his music.
Now, Dave and Megadeth died 71 years ago. Power Quest covers the song, which they are allowed to do. Point.
Then an asshole comes in and records Power Quest playing it live. He puts it on mp3 and spreads it. PQ can drag that asshole to court, because PQ now has the rights on the PQ version, because they are the author of the version the way they performed it.
I believe it works like that.
Do I still make any sence?
That makes sense. However. That was not where I was going with my response.
I was referring to when the copyright and intellectual property rights have expired for said material (and they do if noone re-establishes them again) and it falls under public domain, what are the moral implications here as by the legal standpoint the person (who has a copy)can do whatever they wish with the material.
I actually own and have purchased public domain material in the past and made copies for myself and other people for personal use in the past.
I meant more like
If an artist dies, should it be allowed to get the origianal version of that artist songs by downloading, with other words, should it be allowed to download a song, original version, if the author of that song has died? Just like Shredgirl asked above
Sorry, but as i've said before, my english isn't the best
1928
Children of the Dream
- May 13, 2007
- 2,798
- 23
- 38
Well... I don't think that changes much, in the end - even if the person dies, usually *somebody* has the rights to it, so it shouldn't feel like an obligation to buy the music only because the person is alive.
Like, if I want a Jimi Hendrix album, I'll go out and buy it, even though he's been dead for ages. Or any blues artist... or any classical musician who composed music before it was possible to record sound!
Like, if I want a Jimi Hendrix album, I'll go out and buy it, even though he's been dead for ages. Or any blues artist... or any classical musician who composed music before it was possible to record sound!
Blinded No More
Christian power metaller
On the topic of piracy.... Grooveshark (free music streaming site) now has Blood Alliance.... in addition to all the other albums with bonus tracks.
mr NOT
Chinese gold farmer
That makes sense. However. That was not where I was going with my response.
I was referring to when the copyright and intellectual property rights have expired for said material (and they do if noone re-establishes them again) and it falls under public domain, what are the moral implications here as by the legal standpoint the person (who has a copy)can do whatever they wish with the material.
I actually own and have purchased public domain material in the past and made copies for myself and other people for personal use in the past.
Ah ! thats clear, will dive into that if I have time today ! (working)
Similar threads
