Pirate Bay Founders Sentenced Found Guilty of Copyright Infringment

[Stinger]

Pirate Bay four jailed for breaking copyright in Swedish file-sharing trial

The founders of file-sharing website The Pirate Bay have been sentenced to a year in jail in Sweden for breaking copyright laws by helping millions of users download music, movies and computer games for free.

Experts believe the ruling could be the first step towards ending illegal downloading, which has cost music and film companies billions of dollars in lost revenue.

Founders Peter Sunde and Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, along with two other employees Fredrik Neij and Carl Lundström, were sentenced to a year in jail after being found guilty in a Swedish court of making 33 copyright-protected files accessible for illegal downloading on the website Piratebay.org.

The four were also ordered to pay $3.6 m (£2.4m) in damages to copyright holders, including Warner Brothers, MGM, Columbia Pictures, 20th Century Fox Films, Sony and Universal, according to Swedish media reports.

In a Twitter posting before sentencing, Mr Sunde said: "Nothing will happen to TPB [the Pirate Bay], this is just theatre for the media."

The Pirate Bay provides a forum for its estimated 22 million users to download content. The site has become the entertainment industry's enemy No. 1 after successful court actions against file-swapping sites such as Grokster and Kazaa.

Defence lawyers had argued the men should be acquitted because The Pirate Bay does not host any copyright-protected material. Instead, it provides a forum for its users to download content through so-called torrent files. The technology allows users to transfer parts of a large file from several different users, increasing download speeds.

But the court found the defendants guilty of helping users commit copyright violations "by providing a website with ... sophisticated search functions, simple download and storage capabilities, and through the tracker linked to the website".

Judge Tomas Norstrom told reporters that the court took into account that the site was "commercially driven" when it made the ruling. The defendants have denied any commercial motives behind the site.

John Kennedy, the head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, said the verdict was "good news for everyone, in Sweden and internationally, who is making a living or a business from creative activity and who needs to know their rights will be protected by law."

Supporters set up a website dedicated to the trial, and the defendants sent updates from the court hearings through social network Twitter.

Forrester Research analyst Mark Mulligan said: “The music industry has come out of this with a ruling that is more positive for them than many had been expected." But he warned that the epidemic of file sharing will continue to grow via instant messaging, email and blogs, as well as file sharing websites.

He said the verdict could have implications for Google, as it provides links to illegal content.

Dawn Osborne, copyright lawyer at intellectual property firm Rouse, said: “Pirate Bay have been thumbing their nose at the establishment for too long and the view of many content owners will be that they have finally got what they deserved.

“Copyright protection is crucial to ensuring that creativity and innovation continue and much needed economic prosperity returns. The case shows that breach of these rights potentially has very serious consequences.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/5170170/Pirate-Bay-four-jailed-for-breaking-copyright-in-Swedish-file-sharing-trial.html

[Fish]

Yeah.... this will change everything......ROFL

[Buehler445]

Well, shit.
Posted via Mobile Device

[Mr. Krab]

not good, running out of countries to host their servers

[jjjayb]

They should host them in Somalia. Pirates are welcome there. :D

[DaneMcCloud]

not good, running out of countries to host their servers

Not good for whom?

[Pants]

Not good for whom?

The poor folk.

[Bowser]

Limewire still safe, or do I need to burn my computer (after I put it all on CD)?

[WoodDraw]

This is good news, other than now we have to listen to the dumb excuses people will use to defend stealing.

[DaneMcCloud]

Yeah.... this will change everything......ROFL

It IS a step in the right direction.

This is going to be like the "War on Drugs". There will be some big "busts" from time to time but not enough to end the illegalities.

Until the music and movie industry puts enormous pressure on the ISP's (or buys them outright to control downloading), people will still illegally obtain content.

[Bowser]

It IS a step in the right direction.

This is going to be like the "War on Drugs". There will be some big "busts" from time to time but not enough to end the illegalities.

Until the music and movie industry puts enormous pressure on the ISP's (or buys them outright to control downloading), people will still illegally obtain content.

Right. Even if in the end the RIAA owns every outlet imagineable, people are still going to buy CD's, rip it to their computer, and let their bud's burn a copy for a six pack, or something.

[Pants]

This is going to be like the "War on Drugs". There will be some big "busts" from time to time but not enough to end the illegalities.



So you're saying it's going to be a huge waste of resources and money?

Pirating sucks, but Hollywood needs to worry more about putting out quality products and less about piracy.

[WoodDraw]

Pirating sucks, but Hollywood needs to worry more about putting out quality products and less about piracy.

Eh, I think they can worry about whatever they want. If people were stealing what I did for a living, I'd be pretty pissed.

[DaneMcCloud]

Right. Even if in the end the RIAA owns every outlet imagineable, people are still going to buy CD's, rip it to their computer, and let their bud's burn a copy for a six pack, or something.

You know, that's cool. There are built in royalties paid to record and publishing companies for CD's and cassettes. Everyone has always understood that people will pass around music to their buddies.

The problems arose when instead of passing around tunes to a few friends, it became tens of millions of "buddies".

[DaneMcCloud]

So you're saying it's going to be a huge waste of resources and money?

No, that's not what I said. I implied that until the ISP's are pressured or conformed somehow so that their customers can no longer illegally download hundreds of gigabytes of "information" from torrent and peer-to-peer software, there's going to be a huge issue.

Pirating sucks, but Hollywood needs to worry more about putting out quality products and less about piracy.

Taste is subjective. The movie business had the biggest December, January and February on record. Freakin' "Marley & Me" broke box office records for December. "Friday the 13th" opened with $42 million dollars its first weekend.

The legal side of the industry is doing fine. Quite well, actually.

[WoodDraw]

With music, the arguments are just lame now. You can get on iTunes, Amazon, or several other sites and download one song or an entire CD in seconds. You can log onto Pandora and customize your own radio station. There are so many legal avenues available that piracy is nothing but being a cheap scum back.

Even television has modernized rapidly. Hulu is awesome, and most networks have quality internet distribution channels now.

[Demonpenz]

anyone see scary movie 4? good movie

[bowener]

Yeah.... this will change everything......ROFL

Yeah, just like killing off napster was the answer.... this wont do anything at all except allow another network to spring up and take over the top spot.

[DaneMcCloud]

Yeah, just like killing off napster was the answer.... this wont do anything at all except allow another network to spring up and take over the top spot.

Anyone that can't afford a $.99 cent download shouldn't be allowed to have access to a computer.

[Fish]

It IS a step in the right direction.

This is going to be like the "War on Drugs". There will be some big "busts" from time to time but not enough to end the illegalities.

Until the music and movie industry puts enormous pressure on the ISP's (or buys them outright to control downloading), people will still illegally obtain content.

Regardless of whether it's morally right or wrong, what's in it for the ISPs to conform to "Hollywood rules"? All that would bring for them is more legal troubles, which I have a feeling they'd rather avoid.

I understand your stance on this matter, but I equate it to pissing up a flagpole....

[Inspector]

I know that at least some musicians put a lot of time and money into establishing their careers and I have always been dissapointed in those who think it's ok to steal their work.

I have a son who make his living as a musician and a recording artist. I appreciate all those who legally purchase the product he makes. Really - .99 isn't too bad to buy a great song.

[Deberg_1990]

Ill never get this current generational mentality of automatic entitlement to copyrighted property??

[WoodDraw]

Ill never get this current generational mentality of automatic entitlement to copyrighted property??

Rabid mentality, no less. I was just reading comments on Digg, and some of these people sound like they're back in the '60s fighting for civil rights.

[DaneMcCloud]

Regardless of whether it's morally right or wrong, what's in it for the ISPs to conform to "Hollywood rules"? All that would bring for them is more legal troubles, which I have a feeling they'd rather avoid.

Well, it's not really "Hollywood Rules". It's a Federal offense in most countries to file share or illegally download copyrighted movies and music. And this particular case proves that governments around the world aren't backing away from this issue.

At some point in time, the ISP's will be held accountable. It's ridiculous that some kid can sit in his bedroom and download gigabytes of information to his computer. Tell me, if music and movies weren't readily available on the 'net, what kid would need to have the resources to download gigabytes of data?

I understand your stance on this matter, but I equate it to pissing up a flagpole....

I do too, which is why I likened it to the "War on Drugs". If people want drugs, they can easily get drugs.

Unfortunately, the same thing goes for movies and music.

[Reaper16]

Downloading helps bands a lot, too. I've spent so many hundreds of dollars on concert tickets, merchandise, DVDs and even CDs for bands that I never, ever, ever would have been able to even hear for the first time if it weren't for downloading their albums.

[DaneMcCloud]

Downloading helps bands a lot, too. I've spent so many hundreds of dollars on concert tickets, merchandise, DVDs and even CDs for bands that I never, ever, ever would have been able to even hear for the first time if it weren't for downloading their albums.

Why not just preview them on iTunes?

[dirk digler]

That sucks for those guys. The good news is the website stays up and I am sure they have people who were put in place just in case something like this happened.

[Fish]

Well, it's not really "Hollywood Rules". It's a Federal offense in most countries to file share or illegally download copyrighted movies and music. And this particular case proves that governments around the world aren't backing away from this issue.

At some point in time, the ISP's will be held accountable. It's ridiculous that some kid can sit in his bedroom and download gigabytes of information to his computer. Tell me, if music and movies weren't readily available on the 'net, what kid would need to have the resources to download gigabytes of data?



I do too, which is why I likened it to the "War on Drugs". If people want drugs, they can easily get drugs.

Unfortunately, the same thing goes for movies and music.

I meant "Hollywood rules" in the fact that, yes it's a federal offense, but it likely wouldn't be enforced without the significant effort and persistence of the major Hollywood players. IMO, the government wouldn't be pursuing this if not for the pressure from Hollywood. I get the impression that the average Joe holds a "So what?" attitude about this kind of thing, and feels zero sympathy for anyone in Hollywood.

And ISPs have avoided accountability since the beginning of the Intrawebz. For a wide range of issues unrelated to media downloading. And I don't see them voluntarily cracking down now without serious pressure/money. It's just not profitable for them.

[Reaper16]

Why not just preview them on iTunes?
Because perhaps half of my music collection is not available on iTunes. iTunes is not very kind to independent metal labels.

[DaneMcCloud]

I meant "Hollywood rules" in the fact that, yes it's a federal offense, but it likely wouldn't be enforced without the significant effort and persistence of the major Hollywood players. IMO, the government wouldn't be pursuing this if not for the pressure from Hollywood.

Well, of course this is true. Could you imagine if GM had been ripped off to the tune of $10 billion dollars in the last decade? Or any other industry for that matter. It's the Federal Government's responsibility to protect copyrighted material. They're the ones that enacted those laws (to the benefit of those involved).

I get the impression that the average Joe holds a "So what?" attitude about this kind of thing, and feels zero sympathy for anyone in Hollywood.

This is most likely true, though a real shame. For whatever reason (most likely the media and shows and networks like E!, Access Hollywood, TMZ, etc.), the "Average Joe" thinks that Hollywood is just a bunch of crazy movie stars. They ignore the talented visual effects artists, the stunt men, the gaffers, the electricians, the set designers, the art designers and music composers and don't realize how illegally downloading movies puts people out of work. Check out the credit list on your favorite movie sometime. There's generally about four "stars" and hundreds of hard working, behind the scene folks.


And ISPs have avoided accountability since the beginning of the Intrawebz. For a wide range of issues unrelated to media downloading. And I don't see them voluntarily cracking down now without serious pressure/money. It's just not profitable for them.

At some point, a company like Time/Warner will have to do something about it. They have too many intellectual properties to consider. And who knows? Maybe NBC/Universal may jump into the fold and buy up an ISP, just to further control content.

It certainly isn't out of the question.

[Mr.Smartass2U]

this sucks, we already lost torrentspy

[Mecca]

I picture some of the posters on the forum having a fit about things like Limewire in front of their PCs.

[dirk digler]

this sucks, we already lost torrentspy

Pirate Bay is still up and there is a alot of good torrents sites. No worries.

[Deberg_1990]

This is most likely true, though a real shame. For whatever reason (most likely the media and shows and networks like E!, Access Hollywood, TMZ, etc.), the "Average Joe" thinks that Hollywood is just a bunch of crazy movie stars. They ignore the talented visual effects artists, the stunt men, the gaffers, the electricians, the set designers, the art designers and music composers and don't realize how illegally downloading movies puts people out of work. Check out the credit list on your favorite movie sometime. There's generally about four "stars" and hundreds of hard working, behind the scene folks.







For whatever reason, there has always been this thought of "victimless crime" when it comes to pirating music and movies.

[Fish]

Well, of course this is true. Could you imagine if GM had been ripped off to the tune of $10 billion dollars in the last decade? Or any other industry for that matter. It's the Federal Government's responsibility to protect copyrighted material. They're the ones that enacted those laws (to the benefit of those involved).

It's simple.... Hollywood needs to get in bed with the government.... then shit will get done all quick like.... :D

This is most likely true, though a real shame. For whatever reason (most likely the media and shows and networks like E!, Access Hollywood, TMZ, etc.), the "Average Joe" thinks that Hollywood is just a bunch of crazy movie stars. They ignore the talented visual effects artists, the stunt men, the gaffers, the electricians, the set designers, the art designers and music composers and don't realize how illegally downloading movies puts people out of work. Check out the credit list on your favorite movie sometime. There's generally about four "stars" and hundreds of hard working, behind the scene folks.

I think most of it has to do with Hollywood corporatizing and outgrowing the capacity for compassion. There's no human relationship anymore for people to sympathize with. It's become a large emotionless entity that makes it easy for people to hate. The public has forgotten that there are people behind it.

At some point, a company like Time/Warner will have to do something about it. They have too many intellectual properties to consider. And who knows? Maybe NBC/Universal may jump into the fold and buy up an ISP, just to further control content.

It certainly isn't out of the question.

But I still see people violently fighting that content control, for better or worse. The content will simply flow elsewhere wherever it can. I just don't see the studios being able to exert enough control to ever contain it again. The only resolution I see is the "perfect" encryption method. Controlling how the content is viewed. Which would require them to exert control over media production and media player production. That too seems impossible, but less so than what they're fighting now.

[Mecca]

For whatever reason, there has always been this thought of "victimless crime" when it comes to pirating music and movies.

Shush I'll pirate what I want.

[jjjayb]

This is most likely true, though a real shame. For whatever reason (most likely the media and shows and networks like E!, Access Hollywood, TMZ, etc.), the "Average Joe" thinks that Hollywood is just a bunch of crazy movie stars. They ignore the talented visual effects artists, the stunt men, the gaffers, the electricians, the set designers, the art designers and music composers and don't realize how illegally downloading movies puts people out of work. Check out the credit list on your favorite movie sometime. There's generally about four "stars" and hundreds of hard working, behind the scene folks.


ROFLROFLROFL Yep, cause the gaffers are really getting laid off because of movie downloads. ROFLROFLROFL

[88TG88]

For whatever reason, there has always been this thought of "victimless crime" when it comes to pirating music and movies.

it is

[DaneMcCloud]

ROFLROFLROFL Yep, cause the gaffers are really getting laid off because of movie downloads. ROFLROFLROFL

Okay, I'll be sure to tell my neighbor up the street that. I'm sure he'll be so comforted by this knowledge, considering he's only worked about 10 weeks this year.

[Pants]

Okay, I'll be sure to tell my neighbor up the street that. I'm sure he'll be so comforted by this knowledge, considering he's only worked about 10 weeks this year.

You just said that Hollywood had an outstanding December, so what gives? You really believe that pirating put your neighbor out of his job?

I'm not saying pirating is cool, but don't make it out to be this immense problem on Hollywood because they're still making bank.

[WoodDraw]

I'm not saying pirating is cool, but don't make it out to be this immense problem on Hollywood because they're still making bank.

I hate this excuse.

I don't like Walmart. I understand they have some cheap shit, and I might pay more at another store. But, I choose to avoid shopping their as much as possible. Now if instead of avoiding them, I just walked out without paying every time I shopped there, Walmart would still be incredibly profitable. I wouldn't make a dent in their quarterly reports.

But, I'd still be a dick. And I'd deserve a large fine, and a comfy seat in jail.

[DaneMcCloud]

You just said that Hollywood had an outstanding December, so what gives? You really believe that pirating put your neighbor out of his job?

I'm not saying pirating is cool, but don't make it out to be this immense problem on Hollywood because they're still making bank.

He's not "out of a job". The jobs are less frequent due to a number of factors and yes, illegal downloading and lost revenues certainly play a role.

The recession has helped and hurt the business (the SAG strike really hurt). Because of the credit crunch, fewer movies are being produced. Have you seen the summer and Christmas slate? Beyond a few movies that were greenlit and nearly completed before the recession, it's weak.

And while December, January and February were record months, that's money in the "pipeline". Lost revenues from illegal downloading would have certainly made a difference.

[Pants]

I hate this excuse.

I don't like Walmart. I understand they have some cheap shit, and I might pay more at another store. But, I choose to avoid shopping their as much as possible. Now if instead of avoiding them, I just walked out without paying every time I shopped there, Walmart would still be incredibly profitable. I wouldn't make a dent in their quarterly reports.

But, I'd still be a dick. And I'd deserve a large fine, and a comfy seat in jail.

Agreed. My point still stands though, piracy isn't the worst thing that's happening to Hollywood and it won't put them out of business. EVER.
As far as music goes... look at the example set by Radiohead. They made their latest album (In Rainbows) available for free on their website with the option to pay for it. They made a lot of money on it.

[DaneMcCloud]

Agreed. My point still stands though, piracy isn't the worst thing that's happening to Hollywood and it won't put them out of business. EVER.
As far as music goes... look at the example set by Radiohead. They made their latest album (In Rainbows) available for free on their website with the option to pay for it. They made a lot of money on it.

Actually, they did not.

More than 84% of the people that downloaded the reduced bit-rate version of Radiohead's CD did not pay for it. The overwhelming majority downloaded it for free.

They did however "make a lot of money' when they signed with a record label to distribute and promote the record.

You can no longer download that record for free from Radiohead.com.

[Pants]

Actually, they did not.

More than 84% of the people that downloaded the reduced bit-rate version of Radiohead's CD did not pay for it. The overwhelming majority downloaded it for free.

They did however "make a lot of money' when they signed with a record label to distribute and promote the record.

You can no longer download that record for free from Radiohead.com.

Article. (http://torrentfreak.com/raiohead-to-testify-against-the-riaa-090404/)

[MTG#10]

Meh, torrents suck anyway. Newsgroups ftw.

[DaneMcCloud]

Article. (http://torrentfreak.com/raiohead-to-testify-against-the-riaa-090404/)

What's your point?

How does that dispute the fact that the overwhelming majority didn't pay for the reduced bit rate download? And how does that dispute the fact that record labels and music publishers aren't negatively affected financially by illegal downloads?

I guess the music publishing company that I worked for from 1997-2003 should have returned their share of the Napster & MP3.com settlements? Because clearly, the music industry wasn't affected?

Puhleese.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Okay, I'll be sure to tell my neighbor up the street that. I'm sure he'll be so comforted by this knowledge, considering he's only worked about 10 weeks this year.

I didn't know gaffers worked on the movies after they were filmed. How would a downloaded film keep them out of work. Maybe it is the unimaginative movie execs, afraid of losing their million dollar jobs, that keep producing horrible movies, or greenlighting movies that have been made and made again.

But I don't really know anything.

[DaneMcCloud]

I didn't know gaffers worked on the movies after they were filmed. How would a downloaded film keep them out of work. Maybe it is the unimaginative movie execs, afraid of losing their million dollar jobs, that keep producing horrible movies, or greenlighting movies that have been made and made again.

But I don't really know anything.

Less funding, less movies.

Get it?

[Pants]

What's your point?

How does that dispute the fact that the overwhelming majority didn't pay for the reduced bit rate download? And how does that dispute the fact that record labels and music publishers aren't negatively affected financially by illegal downloads?

I guess the music publishing company that I worked for from 1997-2003 should have returned their share of the Napster & MP3.com settlements? Because clearly, the music industry wasn't affected?

Puhleese.

My point is that the artist didn't suffer and that they did make a lot of money. Why does it matter if the majority payed or not? They saw 100% of that 16% (which you need to show me a source for)go into their pockets and apparently that was a lot of money.

[DaneMcCloud]

My point is that the artist didn't suffer and that they did make a lot of money.

"A lot of money" is subjective. A lot of money to whom? We're not talking about an unknown startup band who if they had been signed to a major would have required hundreds of thousands of dollars to record and promote, we're talking about an act that routinely sold more than a million copies.

Also, they released the full version on CD and that's where they made a shit ton of money. They didn't reduce the price one cent. And without it, they would have lost major dough.

Again, what's the point of bringing up Radiohead?

Why does it matter if the majority payed or not?

Because it proves, once again, that people believe that music should be "free". And that they have no regard, whatsoever to its value. Essentially, it's worthless.

They saw 100% of that 16% (which you need to show me a source for)go into their pockets and apparently that was a lot of money.

It wasn't "a lot of money" and you won't find a "source" anywhere on the internet. It's not something they want to broadcast.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Less funding, less movies.

Get it?

If downloading movies stops production on movies like the remake of Friday the 13th, or Nightmare on Elmstreet, or that movie where and old/young girl/boy gets turned into a young/old boy/girl, then lets start downloading.

I bet the writers strike did more damage to people like gaffers than some dude downloading The Wrestler off pirate bay.

[DaneMcCloud]

If downloading movies stops production on movies like the remake of Friday the 13th, or Nightmare on Elmstreet, or that movie where and old/young girl/boy gets turned into a young/old boy/girl, then lets start downloading.

If you don't like movies or their premise, don't go. No one's forcing you. I'm not a fan of the horror genre but the "Friday the 13th" earned $42 million dollars its opening weekend, which is a February record.

Why not remake that? Isn't this America and a capitalist nation? Do YOU work for free or something? Are you a Communist?

Or just a thief?

I bet the writers strike did more damage to people like gaffers than some dude downloading The Wrestler off pirate bay.

Then you'd lose your ass on that bet.

[Pants]

"A lot of money" is subjective. A lot of money to whom? We're not talking about an unknown startup band who if they had been signed to a major would have required hundreds of thousands of dollars to record and promote, we're talking about an act that routinely sold more than a million copies.


Did you read the article? Radiohead said that the free downloads which can be compared to pirated downloads actually helped them when their album was released under the label. Radiohead seems to be perfectly OK with "piracy".

And I'm sorry, Dane, if you don't have a source, you have no argument about the 16% to 84% claim.

Is piracy bad and immoral? Yes, it is. It will never drive the industries to their knees though, profits will be made and in some cases will actually increase.

Oh, and as far as Itunes go, they can go **** their collective asses, I'm not subjecting my computer to that ****ing plague.

[oaklandhater]

He's not "out of a job". The jobs are less frequent due to a number of factors and yes, illegal downloading and lost revenues certainly play a role.

The recession has helped and hurt the business (the SAG strike really hurt). Because of the credit crunch, fewer movies are being produced. Have you seen the summer and Christmas slate? Beyond a few movies that were greenlit and nearly completed before the recession, it's weak.

And while December, January and February were record months, that's money in the "pipeline". Lost revenues from illegal downloading would have certainly made a difference.

your a moron 80% of ppl who pirate movies and TV were never planing on buying the Product they pirated so blameing lackluster sales on Downloading is a moot point if the Product doesnt suck most ppl will buy it.

[Reaper16]

Oh, and as far as Itunes go, they can go **** their collective asses, I'm not subjecting my computer to that ****ing plague.
?

[WoodDraw]

your a moron 80% of ppl who pirate movies and TV were never planing on buying the Product they pirated so blameing lackluster sales on Downloading is a moot point if the Product doesnt suck most ppl will buy it.

It doesn't matter. If they don't want to pay to own or rent it than they shouldn't watch it. It's stealing.

[007]

I would just as soon movies go straight to DVD and BD now anyway.

[WoodDraw]

Did you read the article? Radiohead said that the free downloads which can be compared to pirated downloads actually helped them when their album was released under the label. Radiohead seems to be perfectly OK with "piracy".

That's awesome and THEIR choice. The copyright holders should be able to decide how to release their work and for how much money.

You keep giving these backhanded statements on piracy being wrong. Why can't everyone just get behind it being wrong and indefensible?

[Pants]

It doesn't matter. If they don't want to pay to own or rent it than they shouldn't watch it. It's stealing.

Dude, nobody is arguing that it's ok to steal, we're saying that the artists/studios aren't as affected by it as Dane makes it sound.

The only reason they're suing Piratebay et al is to nip it in the bud so it doesn't become mainstream and common practice to where the business of distributing would implode.

They're losing way more money fighting this thing than from the illegal downloads.

[DaneMcCloud]

Did you read the article? Radiohead said that the free downloads which can be compared to pirated downloads actually helped them when their album was released under the label. Radiohead seems to be perfectly OK with "piracy".

Uh, no, they didn't. Unless I missed something in that article.

So you're suggesting that record companies and music publishers should follow the so-called advice of Radiohead, spend millions and millions of dollars on signing, recording and promoting artists only to give away ALL revenues!

Brilliant!

And I'm sorry, Dane, if you don't have a source, you have no argument about the 16% to 84% claim.

Bull Fucking Shit. I spent more than a decade on the business side. Why the FUCK am I going to name my friends that still work in the business for the benefit of this conversation?

Is piracy bad and immoral? Yes, it is. It will never drive the industries to their knees though, profits will be made and in some cases will actually increase.

Bullshit.

I'd like you to go ahead and tell me how pirating movies will "benefit" the movie industry. Movies are only out for a very limited time. If you can download it off of the internet after the movie's run has ended, how does that "benefit" the movie studios?

Oh, that's right. It doesn't.

Oh, and as far as Itunes go, they can go **** their collective asses, I'm not subjecting my computer to that ****ing plague.

What's wrong with Amazon? What kind of computer are you running that iTunes is causing problems? A Pentium 2 300mhz computer?

[Pants]

That's awesome and THEIR choice. The copyright holders should be able to decide how to release their work and for how much money.

You keep giving these backhanded statements on piracy being wrong. Why can't everyone just get behind it being wrong and indefensible?

Once again, I was just using them as an example to show that illegal downloads have little to no effect and in some cases even show gains as far as making a profit goes.

[DaneMcCloud]

Once again, I was just using them as an example to show that illegal downloads have little to no effect and in some cases even show gains as far as making a profit goes.

Well, again, you're wrong. And even IF Radiohead "benefited", the record labels and music publisher certainly DID NOT.

And how can you make an example of ONE band where there are hundreds of thousands of albums and movies available on the internet?

[WoodDraw]

You can't draw the correlation just because it exists in your head. How can you prove that piracy has no, or little, effect on copyright holders?

[ChiefsFanatic]

If you don't like movies or their premise, don't go. No one's forcing you. I'm not a fan of the horror genre but the "Friday the 13th" earned $42 million dollars its opening weekend, which is a February record.

Why not remake that? Isn't this America and a capitalist nation? Do YOU work for free or something? Are you a Communist?

Or just a thief?



Then you'd lose your ass on that bet.

JTFC dude. You are a ****ing douche. There is not now, or will there ever be, any solid numbers that define the damage done by people downloading music or movies without paying for the right to do so. Any attempt to put a number on it is pure bullshit.

And there will never be any proof that having access to content that a consumer never would have purchased otherwise, leads to increased sales.

I pay to see movies in the theater. I have listened to music that was not paid for. I have vowed to never see another movie by certain actors or directors after paying to see their shitty product, and I have paid for merchandise that I never would have (Guitar Hero Metallica) because I heard their music without paying for it.

If the movie and music industry want to continue to make money, then they should put out better product. And illegal downloading cant be hurting the movie industry that much, because, damn, a shitty remake of "Friday the 13th" earned $42 million dollars its opening weekend, which is a February record, afterall. Right?

[Simplex3]

Ill never get this current generational mentality of automatic entitlement to copyrighted property??

Patents don't last forever and neither should copyrights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Tell the people perpetually extending copyrights to quit paying off Congressmen and you might get some sympathy.

[Simplex3]

Well, it's not really "Hollywood Rules". It's a Federal offense in most countries to file share or illegally download copyrighted movies and music. And this particular case proves that governments around the world aren't backing away from this issue.

At some point in time, the ISP's will be held accountable. It's ridiculous that some kid can sit in his bedroom and download gigabytes of information to his computer. Tell me, if music and movies weren't readily available on the 'net, what kid would need to have the resources to download gigabytes of data?

Guilty until proven innocent. I like it. Let's go with it.

[patteeu]

It doesn't matter. If they don't want to pay to own or rent it than they shouldn't watch it. It's stealing.

It's different than stealing. When you steal something, you take it from someone else who can no longer have it. Piracy is copying. Stealing is a natural crime of the sort that has been recognized by all cultures that value property rights. Piracy is an artificial (i.e. manmade) crime.

I'm not saying that you can't consider it wrong, I'm just pointing out that it's different than stealing.

[Simplex3]

At some point, a company like Time/Warner will have to do something about it. They have too many intellectual properties to consider. And who knows? Maybe NBC/Universal may jump into the fold and buy up an ISP, just to further control content.

It certainly isn't out of the question.

They don't have that kind of technology. Unless someone is being stupid all the ISP will know is that a bunch of encrypted traffic is going to/from someone's house. If you start dicking with encrypted traffic you're going to be getting into Visa, MasterCard, Discover, Amex, Amazon, Ebay, etc's business (for starters), not to mention privacy issues.

There's a world of people who rely on the technology that the music & movie people can't allow. I know who I have my money on.

[Deberg_1990]

If downloading movies stops production on movies like the remake of Friday the 13th, or Nightmare on Elmstreet, or that movie where and old/young girl/boy gets turned into a young/old boy/girl, then lets start downloading.



If you dont like the movies, then dont watch them. There are tons of movies out there for all tastes.

If you don't like movies or their premise, don't go. No one's forcing you. I'm not a fan of the horror genre but the "Friday the 13th" earned $42 million dollars its opening weekend, which is a February record.



You know, one thing i never see mentioned much is the actual number of tickets sold. You know why we have new box office record breakers so much? Because ticket prices have steadily increased over the years.

[DaneMcCloud]

Patents don't last forever and neither should copyrights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Tell the people perpetually extending copyrights to quit paying off Congressmen and you might get some sympathy.

So if copyrights expire, only the corporation benefit.

You know that, right?

So the Beatles wouldn't receive a cent if Apple or Cling Wrap used their music?

And ANY movie or television show would have free-use of any song who's copyrights expired.

And ANY advertiser would be able to use ANY song they chose when advertising their product.

No thanks.

[DaneMcCloud]

JTFC dude. You are a ****ing douche.

Oh, so I'm a "douche" because I worked in the industry for more than a decade and saw the rapid decline of our revenue stream?

There is not now, or will there ever be, any solid numbers that define the damage done by people downloading music or movies without paying for the right to do so. Any attempt to put a number on it is pure bullshit.

Who made you the CFO of Universal, Paramount, Sony or Warner Brothers?

And there will never be any proof that having access to content that a consumer never would have purchased otherwise, leads to increased sales.

Bullshit.

If a movie's been released and is out of the theaters, how does it help when people illegally download and watch?

For Fuck's Sake, at least there's a revenue stream with On Demand, PPV and rentals.

I pay to see movies in the theater. I have listened to music that was not paid for. I have vowed to never see another movie by certain actors or directors after paying to see their shitty product, and I have paid for merchandise that I never would have (Guitar Hero Metallica) because I heard their music without paying for it.

Big fucking deal. Are you claiming that every kid in college during the 90's went out and bought all of the music after they shared it peer-to-peer? Are you claiming that people who download movies on the internet will then go buy the DVD?

Nonsense.

If the movie and music industry want to continue to make money, then they should put out better product.

Uh, record box sales from December to February say that they're doing okay. If you don't like the movies released, don't go. But apparently, the American public (and the world at large) disagrees with your sentiment.

IAnd illegal downloading cant be hurting the movie industry that much, because, damn, a shitty remake of "Friday the 13th" earned $42 million dollars its opening weekend, which is a February record, afterall. Right?

And how many people do you think will download the movie illegally instead of purchasing the DVD?

Come on, tell us, genius.

[Simplex3]

So if copyrights expire, only the corporation benefit.

You know that, right?

So the Beatles wouldn't receive a cent if Apple or Cling Wrap used their music?

And ANY movie or television show would have free-use of any song who's copyrights expired.

And ANY advertiser would be able to use ANY song they chose when advertising their product.

No thanks.

So you'd be fine with patents never expiring then I assume? We could all be getting ass-raped forever by the first guy that managed to make a transistor. That would be sweet.

[MTG#10]

And how many people do you think will download the movie illegally instead of purchasing the DVD?

Come on, tell us, genius.

I will. And I dont feel bad about it either.

[Simplex3]

Let's not forget drugs. Felix Hoffmann has been getting screwed since 1897 when he invented Aspirin. I'll bet his great-great grandkids aren't getting a dime when a bottle of pills is sold.

[Deberg_1990]

Im sorry.

I gotta laugh at the hypocrisy of these guys spending all this time downloading movies then on the other hand telling us how much Hollywood sucks. ROFL

[Simplex3]

Wilhelm Konrad von Roentgen, too. We should have to pay that guy a royalty every time someone gets an X-Ray. Those are no less valuable today than they were in 1895 when he discovered a way to use them with film.

[Simplex3]

Of course without the Crookes tube von Roentgen wouldn't have figured that out, so Sir William Crookes should probably be getting a slice, too.

[Simplex3]

To answer your question Dane, yes, eventually it should be release into the public domain. If you can't come up with some new shit every 20 years that's your own fault.

[DaneMcCloud]

To answer your question Dane, yes, eventually it should be release into the public domain. If you can't come up with some new shit every 20 years that's your own fault.

Really?

So, the Beatles should have just continued writing music?

Intellectually Property is a concept that very difficult for most people to wrap their heads around. The bottom line is that if the composers of these songs aren't paid their due royalties because some people want to put an end to copyrights, the end result would be that every corporation would profit from using royalty-free music and the composer wouldn't receive a penny for that usage.

How can you honestly say that's fair?

[DaneMcCloud]

Of course without the Crookes tube von Roentgen wouldn't have figured that out, so Sir William Crookes should probably be getting a slice, too.

Well you can be damn sure that scientist collect royalties and license fees on their inventions in the 21st century.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Oh, so I'm a "douche" because I worked in the industry for more than a decade and saw the rapid decline of our revenue stream?

No. You are a douche because I stated an opinion different from yours, and you insinuated that I was a communist and a thief.

[DaneMcCloud]

They don't have that kind of technology. Unless someone is being stupid all the ISP will know is that a bunch of encrypted traffic is going to/from someone's house. If you start dicking with encrypted traffic you're going to be getting into Visa, MasterCard, Discover, Amex, Amazon, Ebay, etc's business (for starters), not to mention privacy issues.

That's fine. Then the ISP's should license higher transfer rates to those you mentioned.

There is absolutely no reason why a college dormitory room should be able to download data in excess of 500 megabytes, let alone 5 gigabytes.

There's no reason why some household in Wisconsin should be allowed to download in excess of one gigabyte per month of data unless they're running a business.

There HAS to be a solution.

[DaneMcCloud]

No. You are a douche because I stated an opinion different from yours, and you insinuated that I was a communist and a thief.

No, I did NOT insinuate. I ASKED.

And why does that matter? You already admitted to being a thief.

And furthermore, your opinion is based on nothing more than a personal belief.

Mine is based on over a decade of working at both Universal and Paramount Studios.

Believe it or not, I know just a little bit more than you when it comes to the financial aspect of illegal downloading.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Well you can be damn sure that scientist collect royalties and license fees on their inventions in the 21st century.

Yeah, how's that working out for the Fraunhofer-Institut?

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Is it public knowledge what you do in Hollywood Dane? Or is that something you keep on the DL? I don't even know myself, I'm just curious.

[ChiefsFanatic]

No, I did NOT insinuate. I ASKED.

And why does that matter? You already admitted to being a thief.

No, what I said was, I listened to music that was not paid for.

[DaneMcCloud]

Is it public knowledge what you do in Hollywood Dane? Or is that something you keep on the DL? I don't even know myself, I'm just curious.

I spoke about it around 2000-2001 when this was an extremely hot topic.

In general, I worked at Universal and Paramount Pictures music division from 1993-2003. I worked in copyright, business affairs, royalties and income tracking and worked myself into a "lofty" position.

And for those of you that weren't around at that time, I'll let it be known that I warned the heads of these record labels, music publishers and performing rights societies several times at music conferences that illegal downloading was going to be a major headache and issue, but no one listened. Until it was too late.

And the people that got hit the worst were the guys that actually write the songs we all love.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Believe it or not, I know just a little bit more than you when it comes to the financial aspect of illegal downloading.

And after all those years, your numbers are nothing more than an indication that the movie and music industries only make billions of dollars each year, instead of more billions of dollars.

[DaneMcCloud]

No, what I said was, I listened to music that was not paid for.

What does that mean?

Your brother/mother/daughter/sister/father/friend illegally downloaded it and you happened to be in the room when they had it on the stereo?

[DaneMcCloud]

And after all those years, your numbers are nothing more than an indication that the movie and music industries only make billions of dollars each year, instead of more billions of dollars.

So? Why shouldn't they make every penny that they're supposed to make under state and Federal law?

If GM only made a fraction of what they were supposed to make due to thievery, would you have the same opinion?

[Mr. Flopnuts]

I spoke about it around 2000-2001 when this was an extremely hot topic.

In general, I worked at Universal and Paramount Pictures music division from 1993-2003. I worked in copyright, business affairs, royalties and income tracking and worked myself into a "lofty" position.

And for those of you that weren't around at that time, I'll let it be known that I warned the heads of these record labels, music publishers and performing rights societies several times at music conferences that illegal downloading was going to be a major headache and issue, but no one listened. Until it was too late.

And the people that got hit the worst were the guys that actually write the songs we all love.


I had no idea just how involved you were in that. Well, you're perfect for the job. I look at it differently than I did before having this discussion with you.

[DaneMcCloud]

I had no idea just how involved you were in that. Well, you're perfect for the job. I look at it differently than I did before having this discussion with you.

Well, thanks Bro.

I've had numerous discussions on this topic in the past 9 years on the 'Planet. In the beginning, most people felt like illegal downloading was "okay" for many personal reasons. I tried my best to convince them that they were actually hurting the overwhelming majority of artists and composers from whom they were stealing.

I saw positions eliminated and jobs consolidated due to the illegal downloading and had to fire some people myself. Not because they were bad at their job but because revenues declined.

People can argue with me all they want but I guarantee you that I know more about this issue than anyone that's posting because I've seen the effects firsthand and lived it for more than a decade.

99.99999% have not.

[DaneMcCloud]

To answer your question Dane, yes, eventually it should be release into the public domain. If you can't come up with some new shit every 20 years that's your own fault.

Now, you also realize that in your scenario, the music from Star Wars would have been public domain in 1997? Jaws in 1995. Rocky in 1995. And on and on and on.

So, any broadcaster, advertiser, television show or theatrical release would be entitled to use any and all of those cues (typically between 50 and 75 music cues per 2 hour production), royalty free and license free for their own benefit and financial gain? And that those composers (John Williams & Bill Conti in this example) would not receive any compensation?

That's sheer lunacy.

LUNACY.

[007]

You know, one thing i never see mentioned much is the actual number of tickets sold. You know why we have new box office record breakers so much? Because ticket prices have steadily increased over the years.I was wondering this as well. Doesn't Gone with the Wind still hold the real record overall?

[ChiefsFanatic]

So? Why shouldn't they make every penny that they're supposed to make under state and Federal law?

If GM only made a fraction of what they were supposed to make due to thievery, would you have the same opinion?

Once again, I NEVER said they shouldn't make all the money from their efforts. What I DID say was that there would never be any reliable figures on how much illegal downloading would effect the industries.

The music and movie industry will never admit that exposure from illegal downloads would ever have any positive impact on sales, plus any number that they provide would almost assuredly have a 20% bump for effect.

[ChiefsFanatic]

People can argue with me all they want but I guarantee you that I know more about this issue than anyone that's posting because I've seen the effects firsthand and lived it for more than a decade.

99.99999% have not.

Between the two of us, one of us has actually caught and had movie pirates arrested...........and I know it wasn't you.

[DaneMcCloud]

The music and movie industry will never admit that exposure from illegal downloads would ever have any positive impact on sales, plus any number that they provide would almost assuredly have a 20% bump for effect.

I would like for you to explain to me how illegally downloading a movie after its theatrical run has ended would benefit the revenues for that particular movie.

[DaneMcCloud]

Between the two of us, one of us has actually caught and had movie pirates arrested...........and I know it wasn't you.

So, are you stating that you are an expert in the area of intellectual property and its uses?

Or that you're a law enforcement officer?

[Deberg_1990]

Once again, I NEVER said they shouldn't make all the money from their efforts. What I DID say was that there would never be any reliable figures on how much illegal downloading would effect the industries.

The music and movie industry will never admit that exposure from illegal downloads would ever have any positive impact on sales, plus any number that they provide would almost assuredly have a 20% bump for effect.

The most high profile download right now "Wolverine" will suffer some. Ive seen a few websites guess it may take a 25% bite out of the box office, but your right, there is nothing reliable. Its still going to make a ton of money, but how much more money would it have made without the leak??

[Valiant]

not good, running out of countries to host their servers

They just need one.. China

[oaklandhater]

The most high profile download right now "Wolverine" will suffer some. Ive seen a few websites guess it may take a 25% bite out of the box office, but your right, there is nothing reliable. Its still going to make a ton of money, but how much more money would it have made without the leak??

I can not be more GLAD I cant wait for fox to feed us there bullshit line about how piracy killed this movie and not the shitty reviews and shitty plotline that movie has.

I swear believing the movie industry is the same has believing the bullshit Anti Drug ad's 5-8 years ago every time you buy Pot a terroist win's. its small minded thinking

[ChiefsFanatic]

So, are you stating that you are an expert in the area of intellectual property and its uses?

Or that you're a law enforcement officer?

I managed a movie theater and caught kids camming a Super Bad.

[Valiant]

It IS a step in the right direction.

This is going to be like the "War on Drugs". There will be some big "busts" from time to time but not enough to end the illegalities.

Until the music and movie industry puts enormous pressure on the ISP's (or buys them outright to control downloading), people will still illegally obtain content.

Or the industry can make prices cheaper to where they should be at so people will buy them..

The industries brought this upon themselves by overcharging for everything..

[oaklandhater]

Or the industry can make prices cheaper to where they should be at so people will buy them..

The industries brought this upon themselves by overcharging for everything..

QFT

Dane is the Posterboy of Evil Faceless corporations.

[Valiant]

No, that's not what I said. I implied that until the ISP's are pressured or conformed somehow so that their customers can no longer illegally download hundreds of gigabytes of "information" from torrent and peer-to-peer software, there's going to be a huge issue.



Taste is subjective. The movie business had the biggest December, January and February on record. Freakin' "Marley & Me" broke box office records for December. "Friday the 13th" opened with $42 million dollars its first weekend.

The legal side of the industry is doing fine. Quite well, actually.


That because history has proven everybody goes to the movies when things are bad.. Not because of taste/less movies

[pr_capone]

I managed a movie theater and caught kids camming a Super Bad.

LMAO

Dane is gonna eat your ass for lunch.

You should have lied.

[ChiefsFanatic]

I would like for you to explain to me how illegally downloading a movie after its theatrical run has ended would benefit the revenues for that particular movie.

Ok, I will try. People downloading and watching crappy cam versions, or telesync versions, are actually movie fans. They work hard for their money, and don't want to waste $20 for tickets and $20 dollars for refreshments only to waste 1 hour and 40 minutes of their lives on a bad movie.

They see the crappy version on their monitor or laptop, and realize that the movie is good, and would be a blast to see on the big screen or Imax. They buy tickets to see the movie.

The movie companies could very easily stop screeners from being leaked. All they would have to do is give each individual copy a unique watermark. Assign that watermark to each individual crew member, academy member, or critic. When that version appears on the internet, they could go straight to that person and hold them accountable.

They don't do that because they are afraid that they will get politically motivated bad reviews, or less votes when awards season comes.

[DaneMcCloud]

Or the industry can make prices cheaper to where they should be at so people will buy them..

The industries brought this upon themselves by overcharging for everything..

So, the price of a movie ticket is too expensive and the answer is to steal it?

Wow, nice logic.

[ChiefsFanatic]

LMAO

Dane is gonna eat your ass for lunch.

You should have lied.

Dane has already proven that he can't read a post and comprehend the actual words in the post, instead of what he thinks you are saying, so I doubt that he would eat anyone's ass.

Wait...........Dane eats ass for lunch?

[DaneMcCloud]

QFT

Dane is the Posterboy of Evil Faceless corporations.

Wrong, Buttfuck.

Dane is the person that protected songwriter and composer interests and made sure that they were paid properly.

DUMBASS.

[DaneMcCloud]

Dane has already proven that he can't read a post and comprehend the actual words in the post, instead of what he thinks you are saying, so I doubt that he would eat anyone's ass.

Wait...........Dane eats ass for lunch?

Uh, no.

Do you want to make this personal? I'm trying to keep it civil.

[DaneMcCloud]

Ok, I will try. People downloading and watching crappy cam versions, or telesync versions, are actually movie fans. They work hard for their money, and don't want to waste $20 for tickets and $20 dollars for refreshments only to waste 1 hour and 40 minutes of their lives on a bad movie.

They see the crappy version on their monitor or laptop, and realize that the movie is good, and would be a blast to see on the big screen or Imax. They buy tickets to see the movie.

The movie companies could very easily stop screeners from being leaked. All they would have to do is give each individual copy a unique watermark. Assign that watermark to each individual crew member, academy member, or critic. When that version appears on the internet, they could go straight to that person and hold them accountable.

They don't do that because they are afraid that they will get politically motivated bad reviews, or less votes when awards season comes.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're confusing two issues.

First, what happened with Wolverine is unique. I suspect an unhappy Post-Production employee posted the film on the internet. I'm sure that Fox is already implementing procedures to insure that doesn't happen again (though it probably will).

Secondly, I hardly doubt that someone who downloads a camcorder version of a film after its run can positively affect the box office.

[007]

The price of movie tickets is why I wait for movies to come to DVD and BD now. Just not worth it. I still go to a theater 2-3 times per year but those 2-3 times are very thought out as to which movie I will spend the money on.

[Tribal Warfare]

Uh, no.

Do you want to make this personal? I'm trying to keep it civil.

Yeah dude, I wouldn't get pissed off at this shit every asshole with a keyboard has access to the internet so they think their opinions more important than yours.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Uh, no.

Do you want to make this personal? I'm trying to keep it civil.

Well, I believe the part about you not taking the posts as they are intended. But, when people are passionate about something, they tend to be in attack mode. You have assumed from the beginning that I was pro-piracy, when I am in fact not pro-piracy.

Why did you assume this? I think because I shared an opinion that you thought to be opposite of yours.

The part about you eating ass for lunch, that was a joke from Happy Gilmore. You know, the scene where Shooter tells Happy that he eats pieces of shit like him for breakfast, and Happy responds by being astonished that Shooter would admit that he eats shit.

PR CAPONE said you eat ass for lunch, not me. :shake:

[Deberg_1990]

The price of movie tickets is why I wait for movies to come to DVD and BD now. Just not worth it. I still go to a theater 2-3 times per year but those 2-3 times are very thought out as to which movie I will spend the money on.

Granted ticket prices have gotten high, but as Dane said earlier, box office is at an all time high so tons of people still go.

Honestly, i think the older a person gets the less they tend to go. I know for me personally when i was younger and single, i used to go to 20-25 movies a year. Now its probably 7 or 8. But thats mainly because of family and kids. Mostly rent them on DVD now.

Friday/Sat night crowds will always be the domain of the younger generation.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Secondly, I hardly doubt that someone who downloads a camcorder version of a film after its run can positively affect the box office.

If they can't affect it in the positive, how are they affecting it in the negative. By your thinking, they were never going to buy a ticket, and probably never buy the DVD. Would they spend $1 on a Redbox rental?

[DaneMcCloud]

Well, I believe the part about you not taking the posts as they are intended. But, when people are passionate about something, they tend to be in attack mode. You have assumed from the beginning that I was pro-piracy, when I am in fact not pro-piracy.

Why did you assume this? I think because I shared an opinion that you thought to be opposite of yours.

The part about you eating ass for lunch, that was a joke from Happy Gilmore. You know, the scene where Shooter tells Happy that he eats pieces of shit like him for breakfast, and Happy responds by being astonished that Shooter would admit that he eats shit.

PR CAPONE said you eat ass for lunch, not me. :shake:

Look, I appreciate your perspective and I'm absolutely not trying to make this personal. You obviously have a little history in this area and I applaud your actions.

But keep in mind that my responsibility was to make sure that the lawful copyright owner received their due income for each use. And when it was illegally obtained, our songwriter(s)/composers lost money.

There's no two ways about it.

[DaneMcCloud]

If they can't affect it in the positive, how are they affecting it in the negative. By your thinking, they were never going to buy a ticket, and probably never buy the DVD. Would they spend $1 on a Redbox rental?

I understand that "Free" trumps "$1".

The problem with that is that the $1, as minimal as it appears, is better than zero.

[pr_capone]

PR CAPONE said you eat ass for lunch, not me. :shake:

Yeah... no.

I said he would eat YOUR ass for lunch.

Dane has 10 years of dealing with this one specific issue... and your point of reference is that you once caught some kids camming a movie while managing a theater.

The two don't compare. Kind of like a mall security guard comparing battle wounds with a military vet.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Look, I appreciate your perspective and I'm absolutely not trying to make this personal. You obviously have a little history in this area and I applaud your actions.

But keep in mind that my responsibility was to make sure that the lawful copyright owner received their due income for each use. And when it was illegally obtained, our songwriter(s)/composers lost money.

There's no two ways about it.

So, was your role to make sure that the songwriters and composers got what they had coming, or to make sure that the movie studio did not pay them what they had coming when profits were down?

I am asking an honest question. Did these people have contracts that were based on domestic box office, worldwide box office, dvd rentals and purchases? Or were the contracts based on total profits?

[Valiant]

Oh, so I'm a "douche" because I worked in the industry for more than a decade and saw the rapid decline of our revenue stream?

Sorry but your business model is bad and people finally have a option to not follow it.. They have been overpricing people for years..I understand why you are passionate about this since it is your livelihood, but those that agree with you are in the minority..

If a movie's been released and is out of the theaters, how does it help when people illegally download and watch?
[/b]Those people were never going to pay for it anyway, zero percent chance.. People that pay for moneys still pay for movies.. And the majority of the movies that are downloaded/stream are pure crap quality.. You end up having to rent or pay to go see them anyway..[/b]

For ****'s Sake, at least there's a revenue stream with On Demand, PPV and rentals.
And this is where it will be going, The prices are cheaper and more people will pay for them.. Why get raped by the studios/theatres 40 dollars for a family of 4 when you can get 2-3 movies for 10 dollars at home??

Uh, record box sales from December to February say that they're doing okay. If you don't like the movies released, don't go. But apparently, the American public (and the world at large) disagrees with your sentiment.

Every recession we have had in the past has seen a boom of movie goers.. And if everything is okay then obviously the downloaded movies are not hurting it after all??

And how many people do you think will download the movie illegally instead of purchasing the DVD?
After they get fed up with the quality and liked the movie enough, they will go rent it.. And the industry just made 2-4 dollars profit they would never have gotten if they did not download the crappy quality one..


.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Yeah... no. I said he would eat YOUR ass for lunch.


News Flash. Saying he would eat MY ass, is still saying he eats ass.

And perhaps you don't know this, but one of the movie industries biggest policing efforts is educating and training movie theaters and theater managers in preventing movie piracy. They send out material each week on the subject.

I doubt that they feel like theaters and theaters managers are mall cops.

[pr_capone]

BTW... even RedBox can be FREE.

http://www.insideredbox.com/redbox-codes/

Completely legit site.

[Valiant]

Well, thanks Bro.

I've had numerous discussions on this topic in the past 9 years on the 'Planet. In the beginning, most people felt like illegal downloading was "okay" for many personal reasons. I tried my best to convince them that they were actually hurting the overwhelming majority of artists and composers from whom they were stealing.

I saw positions eliminated and jobs consolidated due to the illegal downloading and had to fire some people myself. Not because they were bad at their job but because revenues declined.

People can argue with me all they want but I guarantee you that I know more about this issue than anyone that's posting because I've seen the effects firsthand and lived it for more than a decade.

99.99999% have not.

Question for you, the average artist makes how much per cd?? 5,10,25 cents a cd??? Seems to me the one getting hurt the worst here is the studios, which no one gives a rats ass because they rape you on cost anyway and have been doing it for decades..

Dane you want to get back on top, why don't you go recruit Radiohead(or some other big band) and other bands and start up a new company where the company makes less and gives more back to the artists at the cheaper prices??

[Valiant]

The most high profile download right now "Wolverine" will suffer some. Ive seen a few websites guess it may take a 25% bite out of the box office, but your right, there is nothing reliable. Its still going to make a ton of money, but how much more money would it have made without the leak??

Honestly this is weird on this movie.. I have heard horrible horrible reviews of Wolverine online by websites that made me not want to go see it, ala daredevil..

But the leaked video got out and a couple of my friends said it was actually good, I streamed it and the quality was horrible so I gave up after about 10 mins.. Guess what, I am probably going to go to the theatre to see it.. Without the leaked video I would not have gone to see it..

[007]

Granted ticket prices have gotten high, but as Dane said earlier, box office is at an all time high so tons of people still go.

Honestly, i think the older a person gets the less they tend to go. I know for me personally when i was younger and single, i used to go to 20-25 movies a year. Now its probably 7 or 8. But thats mainly because of family and kids. Mostly rent them on DVD now.

Friday/Sat night crowds will always be the domain of the younger generation.Family and kids is exactly why we don't go to the theater much. Prices are insane when added together. Then you have the additional headache of "dad, can we have candy, popcorn, pop, etc...." To which the answer is always "no" but they put you through it anyway. No, theaters are pricing families right out of the market. We are at 9.50 here in Topeka now for a single ticket. Granted, there are ways to get in cheaper but I don't like to mess with those "Special" tickets. My wife buys them and they end up sitting in a drawer forgotten then expired because I didn't know they were there in the first place.

With home theater being as good as it is and the opportunity to pause a movie to get something to eat or go to the bathroom trumps the theater every time.

EDIT

Plus I don't have that IDIOT with a cell phone sitting next to me.

[Deberg_1990]

BTW... even RedBox can be FREE.

http://www.insideredbox.com/redbox-codes/

Completely legit site.

heh, my guess is Redbox has taken a HUGE chunk of Blockbusters business. The $1 a day rental was genius.

[007]

heh, my guess is Redbox has taken a HUGE chunk of Blockbusters business. The $1 a day rental was genius.It's a great idea if you have a Redbox extremely convenient to you and you don't mind having to watch the movie as a family that night.

Thats not a criticism either. I know for my family that is almost impossible. I can't remember the last time my wife and I were able to sit and watch a movie at home at the same time.

[ChiefsFanatic]

Family and kids is exactly why we don't go to the theater much. Prices are insane when added together. Then you have the additional headache of "dad, can we have candy, popcorn, pop, etc...." To which the answer is always "no" but they put you through it anyway. No, theaters are pricing families right out of the market. We are at 9.50 here in Topeka now for a single ticket. Granted, there are ways to get in cheaper but I don't like to mess with those "Special" tickets. My wife buys them and they end up sitting in a drawer forgotten then expired because I didn't know they were there in the first place.

With home theater being as good as it is and the opportunity to pause a movie to get something to eat or go to the bathroom trumps the theater every time.

EDIT

Plus I don't have that IDIOT with a cell phone sitting next to me.

If theaters made anything significant from the box office, concessions would not be so outrageously priced.

[007]

If theaters made anything significant from the box office, concessions would not be so outrageously priced.I just don't get people today. With our economy as crappy as it is and yet people are spending more money than ever on luxuries.

[ChiefsFanatic]

I just don't get people today. With our economy as crappy as it is and yet people are spending more money than ever on luxuries.

I think they want to escape, or feel that by spending they can ignore the economy and the state of our nation.

[007]

I think they want to escape, or feel that by spending they can ignore the economy and the state of our nation.Well, if it works for them, more power to them I guess. Doesn't seem like much of an escape though.

Granted Topeka has a dump for a theater so I can't say too much. Our $2 theater is falling apart and our high end theater, if you can call it that, sucks ass. I would prefer to drive to Olathe to watch a movie over watching one in our theaters.

[DaneMcCloud]

So, was your role to make sure that the songwriters and composers got what they had coming, or to make sure that the movie studio did not pay them what they had coming when profits were down?

I am asking an honest question. Did these people have contracts that were based on domestic box office, worldwide box office, dvd rentals and purchases? Or were the contracts based on total profits?

Music publishing comprises all of those revenue streams and more.

There aren't really "contracts". The Statutory Rate is set by the Federal Government (and the governments of each and every country outside of the US).

The current Stat rate is 9.1 cents per song for Mechanical Income. What that means is that for each "Mechanical Representation" sold, each song will generate an income of 9.1 cents.

Performance income (any time a song is played on the radio, at a bar, restaurant or television) is collected, determined and paid by a Performing Rights Society (or PRS).

Each and every country in the world has a PRS. Outside of the US, anytime a song or music cue is heard in a movie theater, the composer of said song is paid a royalty.

In the US, each and every time a song is played on TV and Radio, the composer is paid a royalty. The US excludes performance royalties in movie theaters.

Early in my career, my "job" was to make sure that the composers received their due royalties based on the laws set forth by all nations. The individual contracts signed by the songwriters and composers varied:

1. Rock band - 75% songwriter / 25% Publisher
2. Nashville - 50% songwriter/ 50 % Publisher
3. Admin Deal - 90% composer / 10% Publisher
4. Film Composer - 50% composer / 50% Publisher


Now, each and every deal was different. Rock Bands usually get a HUGE advance on royalties, sometimes as high as a million based on anticipation.

Nashville songwriters get the shaft. Everyone thinks they can write country hit, so it's "easy" to get 50%. If a writer "hits", the deal can be renegotiated.

Admin Deals are typically for guys like Roger Waters, David Bowie, Paul McCartney, etc. Guys that have HUGE successful catalogs of music. It's like a "Badge of Honor" for a company to administer those catalogs though with illegal downloading, all of the "boutique" publishers have all but vanished and have been assimilated by the Uni, W-C, Sony, EMI and BMG.

Film Composers are "Work For Hire". That means that they're given an upfront fee which is usually anywhere from $250,000 to $2 million. That fee must include studio time, musicians, orchestrators, producers, etc. Union Scale is still VERY high so a $2 million dollar fee could quickly turn into $200,000 for a composer. I know that sounds exorbitant to many but it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to set up a scoring studio, hire assistants, etc. A film composer is paid 50% of the PRS collected for each cue in every nation.

Same goes for Film/TV. Same pay structure as a film composer but the Work For Hire fee is much less. Anywhere from $10k per episode to $25k per episode. The same PRS rules apply.

I hope this helps.

[pr_capone]

Looks like TPB four are using the publicity of this court case to launch a new, paid, service.


IPREDator is a virtual private networking service offered by the Pirate Bay with the stated goal of providing internet privacy.[1] It is a response to the introduction of IPRED in the European Union, which will allow copyright holders and law enforcement officials to request personal information about copyright infringement suspects.[2]

The official site states that it "costs about 5 EUR [$6.50 USD] a month and we store no traffic data."

[WoodDraw]

It's different than stealing. When you steal something, you take it from someone else who can no longer have it. Piracy is copying. Stealing is a natural crime of the sort that has been recognized by all cultures that value property rights. Piracy is an artificial (i.e. manmade) crime.

I'm not saying that you can't consider it wrong, I'm just pointing out that it's different than stealing.

Nothing is artificial about piracy. If I take something from walmart it is stealing, but if I take something from TPB it is copying?


I'll be honest and say I've done it before. I think I have old posts here asking for torrent sites. But, I grew out of it and after consistently arguing for these lame excuses I realized that it's bullshit.

If anyone can give me a legal argument in defense of this practice, I'll shut up and go home. But every argument on some combination of music and tv and movies not being good enough, except for them to steal.

[edit]

And I'd like to know if patteeu thinks the recent spree of piracy on the seas consists of only copying? And if so, what are they copying? And what sentance should they get compared to those who steal?

[patteeu]

It used to be that musicians made most of their money through performances. Music survived.

[patteeu]

Nothing is artificial about piracy. If I take something from walmart it is stealing, but if I take something from TPB it is copying?


I'll be honest and say I've done it before. I think I have old posts here asking for torrent sites. But, I grew out of it and after consistently arguing for these lame excuses I realized that it's bullshit.

If anyone can give me a legal argument in defense of this practice, I'll shut up and go home. But every argument on some combination of music and tv and movies not being good enough, except for them to steal.

[edit]

And I'd like to know if patteeu thinks the recent spree of piracy on the seas consists of only copying? And if so, what are they copying? And what sentance should they get compared to those who steal?

The piracy off the coast of Somolia and piracy of copywritten material are two different forms of piracy. Don't be confused by the fact that the same word is used. It has two completely different definitions here.

When you download a copy of a song or a movie, you are literally making a copy. The person you copy it from, doesn't lose his/her copy. When you take a CD or DVD from Walmart (or any other physical object), you are actually removing something from the store. If instead, you take an idea from walmart (maybe you think their uniforms are really cool and you go home and sew one for yourself), you're doing something more like music piracy because you didn't physically take a uniform.

As far as legal arguments are concerned, I don't see how one can be made. It's clearly illegal to copy copyrighted material. The more interesting questions are whether or not our copyright laws are appropriate (as Simplex was discussing earlier) and whether or not copying is moral.

Is it moral to enjoy singing someone else's song in the shower in the morning even though you "stole" the idea? Would it still be moral if you had such perfect pitch that you could make yourself sound exactly like the original? Is it moral to play your CD for a friend to enjoy? Is it moral to let your friend borrow the CD for a few weeks? Is it moral to make a digital copy of your CD so the CD remains pristine? Is it moral to lend the digital copy of your CD to your friend for a few weeks? Is it moral to play your CD at a huge Nzoner-style bash for a large group of people who might otherwise go to a nightclub to hear the performer perform? If you listen to a copyrighted song and then transcribe the lyrics onto a piece of paper so you can enjoy the poetry whenever you want, is it immoral? If you had an incredible ear for music and you could listen to copyrighted material and then construct it yourself in digital form rather than using a computer to copy it, would it be moral? etc. etc.

The legal rights we've granted to copyright holders are arbitrary in the sense that they don't clearly align with any identifiable moral principle AFAICS. That's what I mean by "artificial". Maybe it's good public policy or maybe it's just government-granted protection (in the form of a monopoly) that comes as the result of lobbying from an influential constituency. Or maybe it's good public policy that has been extended beyond it's usefulness to society as a result of lobbying from an influential constituency. I presume that music usually sells most quickly during the first year or two of it's release. If this is true, would copyright protection of 5 years (instead of the current life of the author plus 70 years) serve the public interest by motivating artistic innovation without removing IP from the public domain for longer than necessary? Do we even need copyright protection for such things as music at all? Aren't starving artists who create art for arts' sake usually the best artists anyway?

[patteeu]

Now, you also realize that in your scenario, the music from Star Wars would have been public domain in 1997? Jaws in 1995. Rocky in 1995. And on and on and on.

So, any broadcaster, advertiser, television show or theatrical release would be entitled to use any and all of those cues (typically between 50 and 75 music cues per 2 hour production), royalty free and license free for their own benefit and financial gain? And that those composers (John Williams & Bill Conti in this example) would not receive any compensation?

That's sheer lunacy.

LUNACY.

Why is that lunacy? I presume they did pretty well during the first 20 years on that music didn't they? If they knew, in advance, that they were only going to make the boatload of money that they made during the first 20 years, do you think they would have decided not to write the music in the first place?

[pr_capone]

http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/1752/illegaldownloading.jpg (http://img12.imageshack.us/my.php?image=illegaldownloading.jpg)

[Baby Lee]

The piracy off the coast of Somolia and piracy of copywritten material are two different forms of piracy. Don't be confused by the fact that the same word is used. It has two completely different definitions here.

When you download a copy of a song or a movie, you are literally making a copy. The person you copy it from, doesn't lose his/her copy. When you take a CD or DVD from Walmart (or any other physical object), you are actually removing something from the store. If instead, you take an idea from walmart (maybe you think their uniforms are really cool and you go home and sew one for yourself), you're doing something more like music piracy because you didn't physically take a uniform.

As far as legal arguments are concerned, I don't see how one can be made. It's clearly illegal to copy copyrighted material. The more interesting questions are whether or not our copyright laws are appropriate (as Simplex was discussing earlier) and whether or not copying is moral.

Is it moral to enjoy singing someone else's song in the shower in the morning even though you "stole" the idea? Would it still be moral if you had such perfect pitch that you could make yourself sound exactly like the original? Is it moral to play your CD for a friend to enjoy? Is it moral to let your friend borrow the CD for a few weeks? Is it moral to make a digital copy of your CD so the CD remains pristine? Is it moral to lend the digital copy of your CD to your friend for a few weeks? Is it moral to play your CD at a huge Nzoner-style bash for a large group of people who might otherwise go to a nightclub to hear the performer perform? If you listen to a copyrighted song and then transcribe the lyrics onto a piece of paper so you can enjoy the poetry whenever you want, is it immoral? If you had an incredible ear for music and you could listen to copyrighted material and then construct it yourself in digital form rather than using a computer to copy it, would it be moral? etc. etc.

The legal rights we've granted to copyright holders are arbitrary in the sense that they don't clearly align with any identifiable moral principle AFAICS. That's what I mean by "artificial". Maybe it's good public policy or maybe it's just government-granted protection (in the form of a monopoly) that comes as the result of lobbying from an influential constituency. Or maybe it's good public policy that has been extended beyond it's usefulness to society as a result of lobbying from an influential constituency. I presume that music usually sells most quickly during the first year or two of it's release. If this is true, would copyright protection of 5 years (instead of the current life of the author plus 70 years) serve the public interest by motivating artistic innovation without removing IP from the public domain for longer than necessary? Do we even need copyright protection for such things as music at all? Aren't starving artists who create art for arts' sake usually the best artists anyway?

You are, in fact, stealing something, just not something tangible. You are stealing their opportunity to sell you their product before you consume it. What is much more murky is how much of a theft that is. Since it's a theft of opportunity, it's not precisely the theft of a sale. One cannot accurately gauge how much income they could have derived from that opportunity, were a free option not available. Further conflating matters is the real side-issue that free 'sampling' that could end all further transactions, could also lead to publicity which may actually increase sales over all.

What's the most vexing is at play in the Wolverine situation, where there is the spectre of the possibility that what the piracy steals the is studio's opportunity to have a big opening weekend before come people realize what a turd it is.

[patteeu]

You are, in fact, stealing something, just not something tangible. You are stealing their opportunity to sell you their product before you consume it. What is much more murky is how much of a theft that is. Since it's a theft of opportunity, it's not precisely the theft of a sale. One cannot accurately gauge how much income they could have derived from that opportunity, were a free option not available. Further conflating matters is the real side-issue that free 'sampling' that could end all further transactions, could also lead to publicity which may actually increase sales over all.

I agree with that.

My original point was intended to be that it was different from the type of zero sum stealing that occurs when a physical object is taken. We can call both things stealing if we want to, but we still have to recognize that there are two very different meanings. One meaning is based on a nearly universal idea of "wrong". The other meaning is a more artificial and arbitrary idea of "wrong", IMO.

As for your theory that IP "stealing" is stealing an opportunity for a creator to sell their idea before a user uses it, I'd point out that none of us come up with all the ideas in our lives and none of us pay for the use of most of those ideas. The idea of using a hammer to drive a nail is, and AFAIK always has been, in the public domain and rightly so. It would be a terrible detriment to society if everyone had to buy a license from a monopoly holder in order to exploit the idea of using a hammer to drive a nail. But taking someone's hammer without permission to drive your nail is, and for practical purposes always has been, wrong.

[Lzen]

Well, if it works for them, more power to them I guess. Doesn't seem like much of an escape though.

Granted Topeka has a dump for a theater so I can't say too much. Our $2 theater is falling apart and our high end theater, if you can call it that, sucks ass. I would prefer to drive to Olathe to watch a movie over watching one in our theaters.

What is wrong with our high end theater? Seems okay to me. And I have seen a movie at the Great Plains theater shortly after it opened so I do have a little frame of reference.

However, I do agree with your take on movies being too much to be worth going to the theater very often. I am down to 1 or 2 a year. There just are not many movies that are worth the cost, IMO. Especially when you consider a lot of folks are like me nowadays. I have a 42" HD tv and a nice surround system. It is generally much more enjoyable to watch one at home on dvd.
BTW, the only movie I saw in the theater last year was The Dark Knight. We also now have that on dvd, as well. :)

[HC_Chief]

What is wrong with our high end theater? Seems okay to me. And I have seen a movie at the Great Plains theater shortly after it opened so I do have a little frame of reference.

However, I do agree with your take on movies being too much to be worth going to the theater very often. I am down to 1 or 2 a year. There just are not many movies that are worth the cost, IMO. Especially when you consider a lot of folks are like me nowadays. I have a 42" HD tv and a nice surround system. It is generally much more enjoyable to watch one at home on dvd.
BTW, the only movie I saw in the theater last year was The Dark Knight. We also now have that on dvd, as well. :)

Great Plains theatres suck too (not as bad as Topeka's, but close). Try the AMC 30 on Strang Line & I-35.

I lived in Topeka the first time I saw a movie at the AMC 30; The Matrix. Saw it in one of the big auditoriums. For the next year and a half that I lived in T-town I drove to the AMC 30. ;)

Now we go to The Palazzo 16 because it is closer to our house; it is nice too, but the AMC 30 is my preferred venue for "spectacle" movies (e.g. Dark Knight, Pizar features, etc)

[Lzen]

Ok, maybe I'm missing something. Serious question because I truly do not know. What sucks about Topeka's theaters? And what makes the AMC so great? And I'm talking specifically about the West Ridge 14 theaters. Not the old, out dated, crappy other theaters around town.

[Ultra Peanut]

What really bothers me about this is that the guilty decision came in the face of such a clusterfuck of a prosecution. Maybe it's not true, but the message being sent here is that representing big money is more important than actually proving your case. Plus the "prison for copyright infringement" thing. That's a great precedent, for Sweden or the US.

Piracy is wrong, but that doesn't make bending the law in order to punish it a good idea.

[teedubya]

Most of the shit that I download I would have NEVER purchased anyway... most of it is rare shit that I would have never found elsewhere.

I rarely go to shitty movies in the movie theatre... I rarely buy CDs... I mostly listen to podcasts and audio learning stuff... much like I would borrow from a library.

If it is created, there needs to be a way to make money, but there also needs to be a way to share it... its like suppressing knowledge, which should be shared freely.

Not so much movies and music, which I don't really give a shit about anyway... but, learning programs and languages... those need to be available to help us learn freely.

Capitalism takes a wrong turn at times. Greedy fucks need to get over themselves.

The RIAA and MPAA are fucked organizations that are greedy exploiters of other peoples talents. The talented ones need to bring to their audiences independently... and they will be rewarded.

The Recording Industry RAPES their talent for most of the record sales... the acts then then have to tour to make any money... so, sell the music yourselves or give it away... and then make your money on the road.

[teedubya]

“Good artists copy, great artists steal”? Pablo Picasso

[HC_Chief]

Ok, maybe I'm missing something. Serious question because I truly do not know. What sucks about Topeka's theaters? And what makes the AMC so great? And I'm talking specifically about the West Ridge 14 theaters. Not the old, out dated, crappy other theaters around town.

Stadium seating, cleaner theaters, larger screens, better projection system, better audio system, wider concourses, more snack counters & registers. That's why AMC 30 is better.

The Westridge 16 is not crap; just crap by comparison. Plus, it's in Topeka. That's strike three right there. :p

[DaneMcCloud]

The Recording Industry RAPES their talent for most of the record sales... the acts then then have to tour to make any money... so, sell the music yourselves or give it away... and then make your money on the road.

Well, this is just not true.

Record companies are like banks that give loans. They "loan" an artist several hundred thousand dollars to record and promote a record. In turn, the "Bank" sells the product. IF the record recoups its costs (which do rise as the record becomes more popular in the form of promotional costs), then the artist is entitled to 14%-21% of the retail selling price (anywhere from $2-$3 per copy).

The "Bank" also funds the touring. Bands don't just have $30k per month to tour and that's recoupable as well.

Since piracy has become so prevalent, the end result has not only been less artists signed to major labels but a new form of record deal called a "360" deal. Essentially in a "360" deal, the record company shares in not only sales but touring revenue and merchandise sales.

I don't see any "raping" going on anywhere. If you have actual proof, let's hear it.

[DaneMcCloud]

It used to be that musicians made most of their money through performances. Music survived.

This isn't the 19th century anymore. Nor is it the 20th century.

Performance income is exactly how songwriters survive. With the advent of radio, television and satellite radio, it's possible to broadcast a recorded performance to people outside of a theater. With that performance comes income.

If you were to see a musician or band live, you'd likely have to pay an entry fee. Now, you can turn on the radio or television and listen for free. Advertising pays the composer for his or her composition.

[DaneMcCloud]

I agree with that.

My original point was intended to be that it was different from the type of zero sum stealing that occurs when a physical object is taken. We can call both things stealing if we want to, but we still have to recognize that there are two very different meanings. One meaning is based on a nearly universal idea of "wrong". The other meaning is a more artificial and arbitrary idea of "wrong", IMO.

As for your theory that IP "stealing" is stealing an opportunity for a creator to sell their idea before a user uses it, I'd point out that none of us come up with all the ideas in our lives and none of us pay for the use of most of those ideas. The idea of using a hammer to drive a nail is, and AFAIK always has been, in the public domain and rightly so. It would be a terrible detriment to society if everyone had to buy a license from a monopoly holder in order to exploit the idea of using a hammer to drive a nail. But taking someone's hammer without permission to drive your nail is, and for practical purposes always has been, wrong.

You seem to feel that intellectual property and the ability to compose and perform music is common.

It is not.

That is why we as a society do our best to protect those that have these special gifts.

Anyone with two hands and pound a nail with a hammer.

It is extremely rare that some with two hands can write a song that is sung repeatedly for decades, if not longer.

[DaneMcCloud]

That because history has proven everybody goes to the movies when things are bad.. Not because of taste/less movies

There is certainly some truth to this but you also should take into account the fact that December was so huge because of a popular book adaptation.

The "Friday the 13th" remake was clearly a huge success and something that was highly anticipated as well.

Without those two movies, I seriously doubt the numbers would have been nearly as high.

[007]

Ok, maybe I'm missing something. Serious question because I truly do not know. What sucks about Topeka's theaters? And what makes the AMC so great? And I'm talking specifically about the West Ridge 14 theaters. Not the old, out dated, crappy other theaters around town.Outside of screens 13 and 14 the rest of the screens are smaller than the screens at WR 8. That really burned me. Stadium seating is nice but completely cramped compared to KC's theaters. The inside is dull as hell with their tile approach. Nothing attractive about it at all. Oh, and the parking sucks!!!

[DaneMcCloud]

Question for you, the average artist makes how much per cd?? 5,10,25 cents a cd??? Seems to me the one getting hurt the worst here is the studios, which no one gives a rats ass because they rape you on cost anyway and have been doing it for decades..

I addressed this a little earlier but after recoupment, the artist receives anywhere from $2-$3 per copy sold.

Most of the major recording studios have closed their doors in the past 10 years. But the reason isn't file sharing, it's the advancement in technology that allows people to make Master Quality records in less an ideal environments.

Most of the "major" studios left are there for the superstar acts and orchestral recordings.

Dane you want to get back on top, why don't you go recruit Radiohead(or some other big band) and other bands and start up a new company where the company makes less and gives more back to the artists at the cheaper prices??

First, I left the business side on my own accord in 2003. I would never return (but not because of the business model).

There are new labels our there that share more of the profits and losses with artists but so far, none have been what you'd call extremely successful.

And as for pricing, who can't afford $9.99 for a full length 256kbs download on Amazon?

[DaneMcCloud]

Why is that lunacy? I presume they did pretty well during the first 20 years on that music didn't they? If they knew, in advance, that they were only going to make the boatload of money that they made during the first 20 years, do you think they would have decided not to write the music in the first place?

So, you think it would be "okay" for a new NBC Television program to use the Theme and Cues from Star Wars each and every week? Or a new Mafia-related series that uses the music from the Godfather?

Or how about hearing the Beatles songs associated with any and every TV program and commercial? How about hearing Led Zeppelin on a TGI Friday's commercial?

Lunacy.

Fortunately, laws protect that from happening. In your scenario, corporations would have free reign to use popular (and in many cases) legendary music for purposes other than it was created for in the first place.

Is that a world you'd like to live in? One without artistic integrity? A world were works of art can be exploited for mass consumerism?

Not me, Man. No way, no how.

[Baby Lee]

I addressed this a little earlier but after recoupment, the artist receives anywhere from $2-$3 per copy sold.
'Lips' Kudlow said the offer was $1.50 per tangible sale from the majors, is he getting lowballed?

http://www.avclub.com/articles/anvils-steve-lips-kudlow,26572/

[DaneMcCloud]

'Lips' Kudlow said the offer was $1.50 per tangible sale from the majors, is he getting lowballed?

http://www.avclub.com/articles/anvils-steve-lips-kudlow,26572/

He doesn't know what he's talking about. The question was asked if he was looking to sign a major label deal. I'd guess he'd never been in serious negotiations for a major label deal in his life.

Who are these guys? I've never heard of them.

[Baby Lee]

He doesn't know what he's talking about. The question was asked if he was looking to sign a major label deal. I'd guess he'd never been in serious negotiations for a major label deal in his life.

Who are these guys? I've never heard of them.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DT7v2nUcmek&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DT7v2nUcmek&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And between as much good press as this is getting now, and how big they were at their start, I'm sure they've at least talked at some point with the major labels. I havn't gone back to reread the article, I could swear he mentioned a firm offer from someone, BMI?

[patteeu]

This isn't the 19th century anymore. Nor is it the 20th century.

Performance income is exactly how songwriters survive. With the advent of radio, television and satellite radio, it's possible to broadcast a recorded performance to people outside of a theater. With that performance comes income.

If you were to see a musician or band live, you'd likely have to pay an entry fee. Now, you can turn on the radio or television and listen for free. Advertising pays the composer for his or her composition.

Artists don't have to allow their art to be broadcast. They could always refuse to perform except under controlled conditions that don't allow recording or broadcasting equipment, like in the parlor of their own home or in a private theater.

I understand that what you describe is the reality of the way our society has designed the current system, but I'm saying that that's not the only possible way and, IMO, it's not the only moral way.

[patteeu]

You seem to feel that intellectual property and the ability to compose and perform music is common.

It is not.

That is why we as a society do our best to protect those that have these special gifts.

Anyone with two hands and pound a nail with a hammer.

It is extremely rare that some with two hands can write a song that is sung repeatedly for decades, if not longer.

I don't know why you'd get that idea. I understand that many artists are extremely gifted. But being gifted doesn't mean that you have a birthright to get rich off that gift or even to make any money off that gift at all. We've decided as a society that we want to encourage the production of art by granting a monopoly to artists. That's a privilege, not what I would call a true property right. IMO, the monopoly that has been granted has become far too generous. Lifetime of the artist plus 70 years is way too long. Illegal to make a copy even for non-commercial personal use or time shifting purposes is too broad.

[Simplex3]

Well you can be damn sure that scientist collect royalties and license fees on their inventions in the 21st century.

Yes. For no more than 20 years from the date of the first patent application.

[Simplex3]

Really?

So, the Beatles should have just continued writing music?

Intellectually Property is a concept that very difficult for most people to wrap their heads around. The bottom line is that if the composers of these songs aren't paid their due royalties because some people want to put an end to copyrights, the end result would be that every corporation would profit from using royalty-free music and the composer wouldn't receive a penny for that usage.

How can you honestly say that's fair?

Are you actually going to lay claim that "Yellow Submarine" was a more valuable contribution to society than the transistor? That more companies would profit from the use of a damned SONG than are profiting from the use of transistors?

[Simplex3]

That's fine. Then the ISP's should license higher transfer rates to those you mentioned.

There is absolutely no reason why a college dormitory room should be able to download data in excess of 500 megabytes, let alone 5 gigabytes.

There's no reason why some household in Wisconsin should be allowed to download in excess of one gigabyte per month of data unless they're running a business.

There HAS to be a solution.

"640K ought to be enough for anybody." - Bill Gates, at an early microcomputer trade show in Seattle in mid 1981.

See, it isn't up to you or me how much data a person should be allowed to consume. It sure as the hell isn't up to the RIAA.

[Simplex3]

Now, you also realize that in your scenario, the music from Star Wars would have been public domain in 1997? Jaws in 1995. Rocky in 1995. And on and on and on.

So, any broadcaster, advertiser, television show or theatrical release would be entitled to use any and all of those cues (typically between 50 and 75 music cues per 2 hour production), royalty free and license free for their own benefit and financial gain? And that those composers (John Williams & Bill Conti in this example) would not receive any compensation?

That's sheer lunacy.

LUNACY.

Yes, I realize that. It's how patents work. I create a new technology, and then I have 20 years to make as much as I can off of it before everyone else and their brother can reproduce my work for free. It allows for the advancement of society, and for works to be created on top of other works.

I think you're letting your personal situation get in the way of your judgment.

[Simplex3]

So, you think it would be "okay" for a new NBC Television program to use the Theme and Cues from Star Wars each and every week? Or a new Mafia-related series that uses the music from the Godfather?

Or how about hearing the Beatles songs associated with any and every TV program and commercial? How about hearing Led Zeppelin on a TGI Friday's commercial?

Lunacy.

Fortunately, laws protect that from happening. In your scenario, corporations would have free reign to use popular (and in many cases) legendary music for purposes other than it was created for in the first place.

Is that a world you'd like to live in? One without artistic integrity? A world were works of art can be exploited for mass consumerism?

Not me, Man. No way, no how.

ROFL "Oh noes, evil company use my sweet, sweet music 21 year later..."

You think the guys at Bell Labs who invented the transistor should have a say in what products it can or can't be used in?

[htismaqe]

So, you think it would be "okay" for a new NBC Television program to use the Theme and Cues from Star Wars each and every week? Or a new Mafia-related series that uses the music from the Godfather?

Or how about hearing the Beatles songs associated with any and every TV program and commercial? How about hearing Led Zeppelin on a TGI Friday's commercial?

Lunacy.

Fortunately, laws protect that from happening. In your scenario, corporations would have free reign to use popular (and in many cases) legendary music for purposes other than it was created for in the first place.

Is that a world you'd like to live in? One without artistic integrity? A world were works of art can be exploited for mass consumerism?

Not me, Man. No way, no how.

2 years ago the American Idol finalists performed their weekly Ford commercial to the tune of "20th Century Boy".

Artistic integrity went out the window years ago. Greedy people just have to wait for the artist to die and their descendants to stop caring.

[Simplex3]

Also, it amazes me that some people assign more value to the product of a few hippies laying around in a bus for a few hours with a guitar than they assign to the product of dozens of scientists working for years if not decades.

[DaneMcCloud]

Are you actually going to lay claim that "Yellow Submarine" was a more valuable contribution to society than the transistor? That more companies would profit from the use of a damned SONG than are profiting from the use of transistors?

Absolutely.

You seem to think that technology is just as or is more important than art.

You'd be wrong.

Man has survived for tens of thousands of years with technology. But during those tens of thousands of years, art has been a very real part of life. From cave drawings to Greek & Roman statues to Shakespeare to Cecil B. DeMille to the Beatles and beyond.

Art for many IS life.

You don't see people walking around in Alexander Graham Bell T-shirts. But you do see people wearing t-shirts and emulating their favorite artists and bands. Billions of people LIVE for their music. To them, it's just as important as breathing.

The day that we as a human race value technology as much or more than art is the day that humanity lost its soul.

[DaneMcCloud]

ROFL "Oh noes, evil company use my sweet, sweet music 21 year later..."

You think the guys at Bell Labs who invented the transistor should have a say in what products it can or can't be used in?

In your model, radio stations would essentially be nothing but money making ventures.

The product they air would be free. They'd be able to collect ad revenues for a product which is license and royalty free. They could essentially print money.

It's becoming rather apparent that music has no value to you.

That's a pity.

[DaneMcCloud]

Also, it amazes me that some people assign more value to the product of a few hippies laying around in a bus for a few hours with a guitar than they assign to the product of dozens of scientists working for years if not decades.

That's because since the dawn of time, people have enjoyed entertainment.

Again, what you're suggesting is not only NOT feasible, it would essentially make music completely valueless.

IF you placed a limit on royalties paid to a composer, the domino effect would roll over into acting residuals, screenwriter residuals, etc.

In your world, if a song that's heard and purchased by millions only has a 20 year shelf life, why should an actor or actress be paid for an airing more than 20 years after it's first broadcast, right?

Again, the corporations could broadcast anything that's older than 20 years old, charge advertisers there standard fees and keep all of the money for themselves.

Fortunately, the world at large disagrees with your view in this situation.

[007]

Aren't patents, trademarks, etc. renewable?

[DaneMcCloud]

2 years ago the American Idol finalists performed their weekly Ford commercial to the tune of "20th Century Boy".

Artistic integrity went out the window years ago. Greedy people just have to wait for the artist to die and their descendants to stop caring.

And what Simplex is suggesting will only speed up that process.

No thanks

[patteeu]

So, you think it would be "okay" for a new NBC Television program to use the Theme and Cues from Star Wars each and every week? Or a new Mafia-related series that uses the music from the Godfather?

Or how about hearing the Beatles songs associated with any and every TV program and commercial? How about hearing Led Zeppelin on a TGI Friday's commercial?

Lunacy.

Fortunately, laws protect that from happening. In your scenario, corporations would have free reign to use popular (and in many cases) legendary music for purposes other than it was created for in the first place.

Is that a world you'd like to live in? One without artistic integrity? A world were works of art can be exploited for mass consumerism?

Not me, Man. No way, no how.

I don't see why that would be a problem. Lack of copyright protection on classics from Mozart and Beethoven haven't ruined TV or those pieces of music as far as I can tell. Hearing Beatles or Led Zeppelin snippets as bumper music (I just heard a Zeppelin bump today on sports talk radio) haven't ruined either the music or the radio programming for me.

And if it did, I could simply refuse to consume those programs that I thought were deficient for the lack of original music.

:shrug:

[DaneMcCloud]

I don't see why that would be a problem. Lack of copyright protection on classics from Mozart and Beethoven haven't ruined TV or those pieces of music as far as I can tell. Hearing Beatles or Led Zeppelin snippets as bumper music (I just heard a Zeppelin bump today on sports talk radio) haven't ruined either the music or the radio programming for me.

And if it did, I could simply refuse to consume those programs that I thought were deficient for the lack of original music.

:shrug:

Come on. It's a MUCH larger picture than that. And with "bumpers", at least the songwriters are being paid. Television ads would be filled with Classic Rock that they currently have no access to due to artistic control. The Advertisers would be able to use ANY piece of music to push their crap (no offense, Tiny).

Do you really want to live in a world where artists have NO artistic control over how their works are used after 20 years? 20 years? That's NOTHING.

And movies? That would mean that filmmakers would be lining up remakes left and right with NO regard the original. "Star Wars" could have been released numerous time in 1997 by several film makers. That's insane.

It would be a gigantic money grab with no respect to art or the original creator(s).

Dude. You of all people.

This is bumming me out.

[007]

Dane? Bummed? Never thought I would see the day.

[DaneMcCloud]

Dane? Bummed? Never thought I would see the day.

What Simplex has suggested would completely and utterly destroy the artistic value of music and film.

And to think that some people would be okay with that is beyond my ability to comprehend.

I guess the good thing is that it'll never happen.

:D

[patteeu]

Come on. It's a MUCH larger picture than that. And with "bumpers", at least the songwriters are being paid.

So as long as they're getting paid, it's OK if artistic integrity is sacrificed? What kind of sense does that make?

Television ads would be filled with Classic Rock that they currently have no access to due to artistic control. The Advertisers would be able to use ANY piece of music to push their crap (no offense, Tiny).

Do you really want to live in a world where artists have NO artistic control over how their works are used after 20 years? 20 years? That's NOTHING.

And movies? That would mean that filmmakers would be lining up remakes left and right with NO regard the original. "Star Wars" could have been released numerous time in 1997 by several film makers. That's insane.

It would be a gigantic money grab with no respect to art or the original creator(s).

Dude. You of all people.

This is bumming me out.

No need to be bummed out. Right now, at least, your view prevails. Artists have a stranglehold on the IP they generate for longer than a lifetime (and, as Simplex points out, longer than life saving drugs or life changing technologies). I prefer a freer world in which government-sponsored monopolies are less liberally available, particularly for art, but that's not likely anytime soon.

[DaneMcCloud]

So as long as they're getting paid, it's OK if artistic integrity is sacrificed? What kind of sense does that make?

It's radio. Radio has a license to play whatever they want before and after shows, as long as it's not playing in the background while an announcer or advertiser is advertising a product.

Furthermore, the difference between that and an advertiser using an extremely popular song to promote their product in Simplex's world is that the Artist/Composer has NO right to decline that usage and no revenue stream.

How in the world is that fair to the person(s) who created the music being used?

No need to be bummed out. Right now, at least, your view prevails. Artists have a stranglehold on the IP they generate for longer than a lifetime (and, as Simplex points out, longer than life saving drugs or life changing technologies). I prefer a freer world in which government-sponsored monopolies are less liberally available, particularly for art, but that's not likely anytime soon.

It HAS to prevail. Let's take novels as an example.

If the copyright for a novel expired in 20 years, that means that a studio could adapt a screenplay without paying the originator of the work.

Let's say that movie is the Da Vinci Code. A HUGE international best seller. The studio could adapt the novel without ANY regard to Dan Brown or his story. They could change it or duplicate it without any input.

And, they wouldn't have to pay him one red cent for the book rights.

THAT'S the world you'd like to live in?

You MUST be yanking my chain.

[patteeu]

It's radio. Radio has a license to play whatever they want before and after shows, as long as it's not playing in the background while an announcer or advertiser is advertising a product.

Furthermore, the difference between that and an advertiser using an extremely popular song to promote their product in Simplex's world is that the Artist/Composer has NO right to decline that usage and no revenue stream.

How in the world is that fair to the person(s) who created the music being used?



It HAS to prevail. Let's take novels as an example.

If the copyright for a novel expired in 20 years, that means that a studio could adapt a screenplay without paying the originator of the work.

Let's say that movie is the Da Vinci Code. A HUGE international best seller. The studio could adapt the novel without ANY regard to Dan Brown or his story. They could change it or duplicate it without any input.

And, they wouldn't have to pay him one red cent for the book rights.

THAT'S the world you'd like to live in?

You MUST be yanking my chain.

What's wrong with that? Would Dan Brown not have written Da Vinci Code if he only had a 20 year monopoly on it's rights? Given that tons of books are written that will never be made into movies, I find it hard to believe that this would make the difference between Brown choosing to write it or choosing to use his time/talents less productively.

[WoodDraw]

The piracy off the coast of Somolia and piracy of copywritten material are two different forms of piracy. Don't be confused by the fact that the same word is used. It has two completely different definitions here.

When you download a copy of a song or a movie, you are literally making a copy. The person you copy it from, doesn't lose his/her copy. When you take a CD or DVD from Walmart (or any other physical object), you are actually removing something from the store. If instead, you take an idea from walmart (maybe you think their uniforms are really cool and you go home and sew one for yourself), you're doing something more like music piracy because you didn't physically take a uniform.

As far as legal arguments are concerned, I don't see how one can be made. It's clearly illegal to copy copyrighted material. The more interesting questions are whether or not our copyright laws are appropriate (as Simplex was discussing earlier) and whether or not copying is moral.

Is it moral to enjoy singing someone else's song in the shower in the morning even though you "stole" the idea? Would it still be moral if you had such perfect pitch that you could make yourself sound exactly like the original? Is it moral to play your CD for a friend to enjoy? Is it moral to let your friend borrow the CD for a few weeks? Is it moral to make a digital copy of your CD so the CD remains pristine? Is it moral to lend the digital copy of your CD to your friend for a few weeks? Is it moral to play your CD at a huge Nzoner-style bash for a large group of people who might otherwise go to a nightclub to hear the performer perform? If you listen to a copyrighted song and then transcribe the lyrics onto a piece of paper so you can enjoy the poetry whenever you want, is it immoral? If you had an incredible ear for music and you could listen to copyrighted material and then construct it yourself in digital form rather than using a computer to copy it, would it be moral? etc. etc.

The legal rights we've granted to copyright holders are arbitrary in the sense that they don't clearly align with any identifiable moral principle AFAICS. That's what I mean by "artificial". Maybe it's good public policy or maybe it's just government-granted protection (in the form of a monopoly) that comes as the result of lobbying from an influential constituency. Or maybe it's good public policy that has been extended beyond it's usefulness to society as a result of lobbying from an influential constituency. I presume that music usually sells most quickly during the first year or two of it's release. If this is true, would copyright protection of 5 years (instead of the current life of the author plus 70 years) serve the public interest by motivating artistic innovation without removing IP from the public domain for longer than necessary? Do we even need copyright protection for such things as music at all? Aren't starving artists who create art for arts' sake usually the best artists anyway?

Yeah, I think I might of had a couple too many drinks when I made my original argument. Let it be known though, that my logic seemed air tight at the time. ;)


But, I think we've moved from one issue to another. We can argue the exact semantics of free use and copyright law, but my argument here extends only towards blatant copyright infringement. And, the melding of copyright infringement and copyright reform does a huge disservice towards any chance of changing the IP laws. When you have people downloading movies and music from TPB who then turn around and talk about the evils of DRM and the industry, it's hard to take them too seriously.

[patteeu]

Yeah, I think I might of had a couple too many drinks when I made my original argument. Let it be known though, that my logic seemed air tight at the time. ;)


But, I think we've moved from one issue to another. We can argue the exact semantics of free use and copyright law, but my argument here extends only towards blatant copyright infringement. And, the melding of copyright infringement and copyright reform does a huge disservice towards any chance of changing the IP laws. When you have people downloading movies and music from TPB who then turn around and talk about the evils of DRM and the industry, it's hard to take them too seriously.

I was going to a concert tonight (it was cancelled due to the band getting stuck in the snowstorm in Colorado) and I had to leave my house without fully responding to Dane earlier tonight so I was thinking about this as I was driving to the show and, I kid you not, I was thinking something very much like what you said here about how blatant copyright infringement and the arguments generally used by the infringers seem to push the copyright proponents into a more extreme posture.

[DaneMcCloud]

What's wrong with that? Would Dan Brown not have written Da Vinci Code if he only had a 20 year monopoly on it's rights? Given that tons of books are written that will never be made into movies, I find it hard to believe that this would make the difference between Brown choosing to write it or choosing to use his time/talents less productively.

Monopoly on the rights? It's an original work!

Please explain to me how it would be "right and proper" for a multi-billion dollar corporation to exploit that book to their own end after the copyrights expired in a mere 20 years?

And for that same multi-national, mutli-billion dollar company to preclude the originator of any input or revenue is "okay" with you?

Again, you MUST be yanking my chain.

[Baby Lee]

Absolutely.

You seem to think that technology is just as or is more important than art.

You'd be wrong.

Man has survived for tens of thousands of years with technology. But during those tens of thousands of years, art has been a very real part of life. From cave drawings to Greek & Roman statues to Shakespeare to Cecil B. DeMille to the Beatles and beyond.

Art for many IS life.

You don't see people walking around in Alexander Graham Bell T-shirts. But you do see people wearing t-shirts and emulating their favorite artists and bands. Billions of people LIVE for their music. To them, it's just as important as breathing.

The day that we as a human race value technology as much or more than art is the day that humanity lost its soul.

I realize you are passionate about art, but my Lord that is some of the most fallacious reasoning I've seen in some time. In fact, the argument you propend undercuts your initial proposition.
Sure, art has been around forever and technology is a recent development, but it's not because one [art] is MORE IMPORTANT than the other [tech]. It's because one is easy and another is hard. By your reasoning, art is more important than the development of social contracts, and epistimology, giving rise over eons eventually to federal representative democracy with civil rights, including the very right to freely express said art. These social/governmental niceties were necessary to give rise to the societies with enough settled expectations and civilization to create LEASURE, a necessary precondition to a life of study, a further necessary precondition to algebra, calculus, physics, electronics, and all the niceties of a modern world.
Rhythm takes a percussive medium and instinct, drawings take a transfer medium and a working ocular nerve. Technology takes eons of study and concentration. You live in a world where it's all been explained to you with no appreciation for the effort to come up with those explanations. Heck, developments in artistic expressions themselves depended on developments in technology, be it the development of an understanding of perspective, or the development of the understanding of metallurgy sufficient to craft a saxophone or trumpet, or the understanding of electronics sufficient to allow an artist to move his yelps and ululations beyond the here and now.

[Al Bundy]

I agree with Dane on a lot of stuff here. I know people personally people who are affected by the pirating side. I'm talking people who do work on the inside, producers (music wise). The only things I have ever gotten like that were movies that have never been released on DVD (If they haven't been released by now they never will be and even if somehow they do I will buy the regular DVD's).

[patteeu]

Monopoly on the rights? It's an original work!

Please explain to me how it would be "right and proper" for a multi-billion dollar corporation to exploit that book to their own end after the copyrights expired in a mere 20 years?

And for that same multi-national, mutli-billion dollar company to preclude the originator of any input or revenue is "okay" with you?

Again, you MUST be yanking my chain.

The only valid reason for copyright protection at all (that I can think of) is to encourage artists to produce art. Copyright law is supposed to benefit society, not the artist. Making sure artists and their decendents make money for a lifetime and beyond isn't a valid purpose unless it is required for the valid purpose already mentioned. IMO, most artists will create art even if they can only expect a 20 year revenue stream instead of a lifetime plus 70 year revenue stream. IMO, even 20 years is probably longer than necessary.

Instead of Da Vinci Code, let's use an older work like Lord of the Rings since Da Vinci Code is less than 10 years old. LOTR has been around for a really long time and I presume that there have been numerous people who've wanted to make it into a movie, or a TV program, or an animated feature. Some were allowed to do so and some were not. Some failed miserably and some succeeded. Peter Jackson made some of the best movies ever (IMO) out of it, but maybe it could have been done earlier* or better if other artists like Jackson had been able to take shots at it without having to get permission from a single rights holder. It would have enabled competition among artists to put out the best possible product standing on the shoulders of Tolkien in the same way technologists take technologies whose patents have expired and innovate to create next gen technologies. So what if the original artist's opinion of the integrity of his art is offended by some radical artist who is obsessed with the civil rights movement and who turns Hobbits into black characters and uses them to tell some story about how minorities aren't insignificant or incapable. So what if a megacorp wants to produce a LOTR with all kinds of product placements. People who are offended by such commercialism can go to see the black hobbit version or maybe a version that faithfully follows the original story or skip it altogether in favor of Da Vinci Code.


---------------------
* I realize that technologies that made Jackson's LOTR possible were not available much earlier, but an outstanding-for-it's-time version could have been made earlier.

[Brock]

I agree that downloading music and movies is wrong. But of course these companies have to do things to make me not care, like shutting down OLGA. Frankly, I hope they all go out of business. Art will survive just fine without them.

[htismaqe]

The day that we as a human race value technology as much or more than art is the day that humanity lost its soul.

We've already passed that milestone.

The diamond-studded iPod is worth more to it's owner than the 4Gigs of garbage music that's on it...

[htismaqe]

Rhythm takes a percussive medium and instinct, drawings take a transfer medium and a working ocular nerve. Technology takes eons of study and concentration.

By the same token, good music or art is singular and unique. Technology is calculated and repeatable. Good music can only be produced by a select few with the talent to do it. Technology can be schematically documented and mass-produced.

There's really no comparison between the two.

[htismaqe]

---------------------
* I realize that technologies that made Jackson's LOTR possible were not available much earlier, but an outstanding-for-it's-time version could have been made earlier.

You've obviously never seen the masterpiece produced by Arthur Rankin and Jules Bass. :)

[Simplex3]

Aren't patents, trademarks, etc. renewable?

Trademarks, yes. Patents, no. Copyrights weren't supposed to be but Congress keeps bowing to pressure from the entertainment industry and extending them.

One of the copyright extension laws was called something like the Mickey Mouse Protection Act because it was passed, in part, at the behest of Disney because Mickey Mouse's copyright was about to expire.

[Simplex3]

What Simplex has suggested would completely and utterly destroy the artistic value of music and film.

And to think that some people would be okay with that is beyond my ability to comprehend.

I guess the good thing is that it'll never happen.

:D

Give me a fucking break. Artistic value my ass. You think people who invented various technologies are thrilled that 20 years later their stuff is used in ways they don't approve of, like weapons systems?

Besides, without the proper expiration of patents you "artists" still wouldn't be able to distribute your music. They'd be nothing but 3rd rate losers playing shithole clubs every night and the executive structure you live in wouldn't exist.

[Simplex3]

If the copyright for a novel expired in 20 years, that means that a studio could adapt a screenplay without paying the originator of the work.

Let's say that movie is the Da Vinci Code. A HUGE international best seller. The studio could adapt the novel without ANY regard to Dan Brown or his story. They could change it or duplicate it without any input.

And, they wouldn't have to pay him one red cent for the book rights.

THAT'S the world you'd like to live in?

You MUST be yanking my chain.

Your argument is absurd. You cannot rationally be *for* copyrights into perpetuity and *against* patents for that same term.

[Simplex3]

What's wrong with that? Would Dan Brown not have written Da Vinci Code if he only had a 20 year monopoly on it's rights? Given that tons of books are written that will never be made into movies, I find it hard to believe that this would make the difference between Brown choosing to write it or choosing to use his time/talents less productively.

It seems like maybe Dane is trying to have it both ways. First, they are artists, it's all about the art and integrity and other such tripe. On the flip side, however, nobody would be doing it if not for the giant sums of money they can bend people over for forever.

[Simplex3]

Monopoly on the rights? It's an original work!

Please explain to me how it would be "right and proper" for a multi-billion dollar corporation to exploit that book to their own end after the copyrights expired in a mere 20 years?

And for that same multi-national, mutli-billion dollar company to preclude the originator of any input or revenue is "okay" with you?

Again, you MUST be yanking my chain.

Explain how it's right that all those mixing boards, computers, etc you use can be filled with a transistor that the creator didn't authorize?

People and multi-billion dollar companies make money from the direct resale of the work of others every freaking day. You're bent because you don't want it happening to YOU.

[Simplex3]

By the same token, good music or art is singular and unique. Technology is calculated and repeatable. Good music can only be produced by a select few with the talent to do it. Technology can be schematically documented and mass-produced.

There's really no comparison between the two.

How many people in the world could be the originator of the transistor?

As for being able to reproduce music, please. You do that every time you turn on your iPod.

[Simplex3]

To address the original point, which I don't think I have, I'm not in favor of pirating works. I certainly don't feel bad for the music or movie industries, but I also don't do it.

[htismaqe]

How many people in the world could be the originator of the transistor?

As for being able to reproduce music, please. You do that every time you turn on your iPod.

I'm talking about reproducing the event of CONCEIVING the music in the first place. Given the progression of technology, any number of people could have originated the transistor. It's an iterative process. And furthermore, once a technology is conceived, it's an object that can be reproduced to mathematical and mechanical specifications. A song or a movie is a sliver of a particular moment in time, infused with the spirit and soul of the person who created it. Lots of people do cover tunes, but you can't ever reproduce the original.

To address the original point, which I don't think I have, I'm not in favor of pirating works. I certainly don't feel bad for the music or movie industries, but I also don't do it.

I agree with this.

[Baby Lee]

I'm talking about reproducing the event of CONCEIVING the music in the first place. Given the progression of technology, any number of people could have originated the transistor. It's an iterative process. And furthermore, once a technology is conceived, it's an object that can be reproduced to mathematical and mechanical specifications. A song or a movie is a sliver of a particular moment in time, infused with the spirit and soul of the person who created it. Lots of people do cover tunes, but you can't ever reproduce the original.



I agree with this.

Do you have any idea how MP3s work? ;)

[Baby Lee]

By the same token, good music or art is singular and unique. Technology is calculated and repeatable. Good music can only be produced by a select few with the talent to do it. Technology can be schematically documented and mass-produced.

There's really no comparison between the two.

I wasn't the one who suggested comparing them with the soul of a species at stake.

[DaneMcCloud]

It seems like maybe Dane is trying to have it both ways. First, they are artists, it's all about the art and integrity and other such tripe. On the flip side, however, nobody would be doing it if not for the giant sums of money they can bend people over for forever.

You seem to be confusing two points.

First off, I'd say that the majority of people who create music, act, write, direct, etc. do it for the love of the art. Sure, there is a segment of that population that strives to be a "star" but that's really not up to them. It's up to the public to decide who they like and love. Not the individual.

Furthermore, these "gigantic" sums of money have only come into play recently. Movie stars, book authors, rock stars, etc. haven't been making millions of dollars per project forever. It's only been recent, say in the past 30 years.

Anyone who says at age 10 that they want to be a rich and famous rockstar or actor has a screw loose.

[DaneMcCloud]

Your argument is absurd. You cannot rationally be *for* copyrights into perpetuity and *against* patents for that same term.

No where have I stated that I'm against patents.

Did I?

[DaneMcCloud]

Explain how it's right that all those mixing boards, computers, etc you use can be filled with a transistor that the creator didn't authorize?


Fine.

We'll go back to the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's style of recording. Tube mixing consoles, tube tape machines or hell, directly to a lathe. Live recording.

I have a hard time believing it would make any difference in the long run to those who want and need music in their lives.

Mankind has endured tens of thousands of years without the transistor.

But Mankind has always had art and music.

[Baby Lee]

Fine.

We'll go back to the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's style of recording. Tube mixing consoles, tube tape machines or hell, directly to a lathe. Live recording.

I have a hard time believing it would make any difference in the long run to those who want and need music in their lives.

Mankind has endured tens of thousands of years without the transistor.

But Mankind has always had art and music.

You should probably stop at least until you finish the thread.

[DaneMcCloud]

You should probably stop at least until you finish the thread.

The ironic thing is that without the "transistor" and without peer to peer, none of us would even be discussing this issue.

People would still be robbing trains carrying shipments of records and cassettes.

[Baby Lee]

The ironic thing is that without the "transistor" and without peer to peer, none of us would even be discussing this issue.

People would still be robbing trains carrying shipments of records and cassettes.

No, the ironic thing is, before there was so much P2P, I had already bought over 1000 CDs [somewhere just north of 1300 nowadays, ie just 300 or so more in the last decade], and now that I could, if I wanted, get tons of stuff for free, I don't have time to put a lot of attention into music, so I mostly listen to Howard in the morning and NPR the balance of the day, or my CD carousels on random.

I haven't even really been able to come up with a music gift request [bdays, xmas, etc] in the past couple of years.

[Reaper16]

No, the ironic thing is, before there was so much P2P, I had already bought over 1000 CDs [somewhere just north of 1300 nowadays, ie just 300 or so more in the last decade], and now that I could, if I wanted, get tons of stuff for free, I don't have time to put a lot of attention into music, so I mostly listen to Howard in the morning and NPR the balance of the day, or my CD carousels on random.

I haven't even really been able to come up with a music gift request [bdays, xmas, etc] in the past couple of years.
I'm kind of the opposite. I buy more music and music-related items than I did before P2P clients, bit torrent clients, and foreign Blogspot accounts with tons of rapidshare links. Before such means of pirating I was sort of content with radio.

[007]

I'm kind of the opposite. I buy more music and music-related items than I did before P2P clients, bit torrent clients, and foreign Blogspot accounts with tons of rapidshare links. Before such means of pirating I was sort of content with radio.I've all but stopped buying music unless I can get a bargain on it. CDs are overpriced these days and the digital form isn't much cheaper. The only album I have purchased in the past year was U2s new album at Amazon for $3.99. I'm not even interested in todays new artists. From what I hear on the radio I am really not that impressed with the new "talent."

[htismaqe]

Do you have any idea how MP3s work? ;)

I'm obviously not talking about the mechanical or digital process of recording sound. I'm talking about the ability to take a multitude of individual sounds and arrange them in a way that stirs a person emotionally.

[htismaqe]

I wasn't the one who suggested comparing them with the soul of a species at stake.

Well, I don't know about human souls being up for grabs. I just know that technology and art are two completely different concepts and originate in completely different parts of the human brain.

[Baby Lee]

I'm obviously not talking about the mechanical or digital process of recording sound. I'm talking about the ability to take a multitude of individual sounds and arrange them in a way that stirs a person emotionally.

I just found it humorous that your argument was it's a singular thing that can't be reproduced, . . . in a thread about it being reproduced millions of times and circulating the globe fungibly.

[patteeu]

By the same token, good music or art is singular and unique. Technology is calculated and repeatable. Good music can only be produced by a select few with the talent to do it. Technology can be schematically documented and mass-produced.

There's really no comparison between the two.

I know you already know this, but it's worth pointing out that copyright law protects corporate schlock masquerading as music or art to just as great an extent as it protects good music or art. In fact, maybe better because corporate interests are usually lawyered up pretty well whereas a talented starving artist may not always have the good sense or sophistication to protect his intellectual property to the full extent provided for by our laws.

[patteeu]

I'm talking about reproducing the event of CONCEIVING the music in the first place. Given the progression of technology, any number of people could have originated the transistor. It's an iterative process. And furthermore, once a technology is conceived, it's an object that can be reproduced to mathematical and mechanical specifications. A song or a movie is a sliver of a particular moment in time, infused with the spirit and soul of the person who created it. Lots of people do cover tunes, but you can't ever reproduce the original.

Another thing you probably already know: you can get a copyright on a covered tune even if you didn't conceive it originally.

[patteeu]

You seem to be confusing two points.

First off, I'd say that the majority of people who create music, act, write, direct, etc. do it for the love of the art. Sure, there is a segment of that population that strives to be a "star" but that's really not up to them. It's up to the public to decide who they like and love. Not the individual.

Furthermore, these "gigantic" sums of money have only come into play recently. Movie stars, book authors, rock stars, etc. haven't been making millions of dollars per project forever. It's only been recent, say in the past 30 years.

Anyone who says at age 10 that they want to be a rich and famous rockstar or actor has a screw loose.

IMO, the purpose of copyright law is to encourage publication of new works. If it's true that real artists largely do it for the love of art (which I agree with, btw), we don't really need nearly as much copyright protection as the Big Entertainment special interest has managed to gain for itself in order to achieve our public policy goal.

[patteeu]

I've all but stopped buying music unless I can get a bargain on it. CDs are overpriced these days and the digital form isn't much cheaper. The only album I have purchased in the past year was U2s new album at Amazon for $3.99. I'm not even interested in todays new artists. From what I hear on the radio I am really not that impressed with the new "talent."

^^^ A sure sign of old age. :p

[007]

^^^ A sure sign of old age. :p:(Unfortunately, I can't argue with that. :deevee::banghead::)

[DaneMcCloud]

Another thing you probably already know: you can get a copyright on a covered tune even if you didn't conceive it originally.

Hmm?

I worked in the highest offices of music publishing for more than a decade and I've never heard of being able to copyright a song that's in existence.

You must license a copyrighted song to record and distribute a cover of asong but that song can't be re-copyrighted.

[DaneMcCloud]

:(Unfortunately, I can't argue with that. :deevee::banghead::)

Nah.

Most people that dig music from the 50's still listen to music from the 50's.

Most people that dig music from the 60s still listen to music from the 60's.

And so on.

It doesn't mean that you're "getting old". It just means that you're more comfortable with music from a certain era.

Most people are.

[Boon]

Every time a new technology is made available, the recording industry has claimed it would be their undoing. Reel to reel, cassettes, recordable CD, etc. It still hasn't happened and likely never will.

With that in mind the words of H.R Haldeman come to mind: "Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in."

[DaneMcCloud]

Every time a new technology is made available, the recording industry has claimed it would be their undoing. Reel to reel, cassettes, recordable CD, etc. It still hasn't happened and likely never will.

While that may be true, the recording industry (including the music publishers) receive a percentage of sales from blank cassettes, CD's, etc. because everyone knows that copies would be made.

But there's a huge difference between copying a few tapes for your buds and sharing a complete album with millions of people.

With that in mind the words of H.R Haldeman come to mind: "Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's hard to get it back in."

This is absolutely true. But with songs available from Amazon and iTunes at .79 to .99 cents per song, why steal?

[Buehler445]

Pirating is wrong. No doubt.

BUT, my take on it is that it isn't the biggest threat in the internet realm. For the movie and music production companies it is a huge deal. I don't think anyone can argue that. But with all the horrible shit that goes on over the internet, I would place identity theft and hacking over piracy any day in terms of serious offenses that need to be addressed.

I know there is nothing stopping the addressing of both issues simultaneously, but IMO people sharing files over the internet pails in comparison to the attacks that happen to companies and the vast amount of personal information stolen over the internet.

I would rather see resources allocated to these problems before I would the pirating of media. To me it is like taking a pseudophed for a stuffy nose when you have malaria.

JMO.

[irishjayhawk]

While that may be true, the recording industry (including the music publishers) receive a percentage of sales from blank cassettes, CD's, etc. because everyone knows that copies would be made.

But there's a huge difference between copying a few tapes for your buds and sharing a complete album with millions of people.



This is absolutely true. But with songs available from Amazon and iTunes at .79 to .99 cents per song, why steal?

So, what is your stance on "if I buy it, I can do what I want with it" mentality? For example, I buy a song and I make a video with it in it and upload it to YouTube. Is that a violation or is that within my rights seeing as I own the song AND made the content to go with it? Where does fair use come into play?

I think if fair use got cleaned up, you'd see less pirating.

[Jenson71]

Anyone that can't afford a $.99 cent download shouldn't be allowed to have access to a computer.

The Bourgeoisie has spoken. Let it go forth.

[DaneMcCloud]

The Bourgeoisie has spoken. Let it go forth.

ROFL

That's rich.

From the 20 year-old punk who's constantly passing judgment on everyone.

:rolleyes:

[Hootie]

all I can add to this is that...I spend probably 200% more money on movies/music/media since I've started downloading torrents and music from Frostwire, then I did before I had access to that stuff years ago.

I'll go to three movies a year, tops...movies like Dark Knight, etc...so the other movies that I'm watching are usually ones I can get a DVD rip of off mininova or piratebay, etc...I've bought DVD's like Grandma's Boy (which I never would have bought had I not downloaded it illegally) and others that I have really liked...to add to my personal little collection.

That's all I know. I'm sorry you work in that industry, Dane...but I'm not going to feel bad for downloading ANYTHING. I don't judge people who don't tip...so don't judge people who don't want to pay $30 to see how bad Epic Movie is.

[DaneMcCloud]

That's all I know. I'm sorry you work in that industry, Dane...but I'm not going to feel bad for downloading ANYTHING. I don't judge people who don't tip...so don't judge people who don't want to pay $30 to see how bad Epic Movie is.

Wow, I'm shocked.

I really expected you to have a moral compass.

:rolleyes:

Honestly, you're the epitome of the people that steal protected works.

[DaneMcCloud]

So, what is your stance on "if I buy it, I can do what I want with it" mentality? For example, I buy a song and I make a video with it in it and upload it to YouTube. Is that a violation or is that within my rights seeing as I own the song AND made the content to go with it? Where does fair use come into play?

I think if fair use got cleaned up, you'd see less pirating.

You don't "own" the song, just as you don't "own" a movie if you purchase a DVD.

You own a copyright protected copy. As you know, there's a 1:30 Title Card that clearly states that you're watching a copyrighted movie and any breach of that is punishable by law.

Fair use? Why would it "be fair" for you to use a Beatles song to promote an unknown film without licensing the more popular work?

Why would it be "fair" for companies like Guthy-Renkar to play extremely popular songs, without a license fee, so they can promote their crap?

If the movie you're uploading to Youtube is so amazing, I'm sure an amazing composer would love to have his or her work attached.

[Hootie]

Wow, I'm shocked.

I really expected you to have a moral compass.

:rolleyes:

Honestly, you're the epitome of the people that steal protected works.

Meh.

I won't lose any sleep at night. Apparently a very large part of my entire generation have no moral compass and are nothing but criminals!

Sorry dude...but P2P isn't going away. Might as well get used to it...too hard to regulate the internet.

But until then feel free to think of everyone between the ages of 13-35 as thieving communists...because 80% of us are doing it, and 10% out of the 20% who aren't don't know how.

[Jenson71]

ROFL

That's rich.

From the 20 year-old punk who's constantly passing judgment on everyone.

:rolleyes:

Dane, it is nearly impossible to hold at least two of your views from this thread together at the same time. That is the importance of art in life since the dawn of mankind (when, it should be pointed out, cave paintings and jewelry were much more than profit driven industries) and the idea that today, one must go without such an importance if they for some reason do not fit into the very real economic situation that allows for it. Further, you say, they should not even be allowed to be on a computer if they don't have this economic privilege. Yikes.

[Hootie]

and 8% of the 10% are scared they'll get caught.

So props to the remaining 2%!

[DaneMcCloud]

Meh.

I won't lose any sleep at night. Apparently a very large part of my entire generation have no moral compass and are nothing but criminals!

Sorry dude...but P2P isn't going away. Might as well get used to it...too hard to regulate the internet.

But until then feel free to think of everyone between the ages of 13-35 as thieving communists...because 80% of us are doing it, and 10% out of the 20% who aren't don't know how.

You're just further proving my point.

Your generation is the end of the world as we know it.

[Hootie]

I went to visit my dad in KC with my sister and brother-in-law recently...one night we decided, "hey, we don't have an IMAX theater in Champaign, lets go check out a movie and have some fun!"

We buy three tickets to Watchmen, some popcorn, nachos and drinks...nothing like dropping $75 at the theater...in KANSAS (which isn't a big deal because we knew we were going to have to drop a pretty penny for 3 hours of entertainment and we're not cheap people)...

So, Dane...I'm a kid with about $50 to my name at all times (if I'm lucky)...and there are a lot of college kids that live the same way...so if you think that you're losing money from us when we download shit on the internet...you're just wrong.

Congrats on your high paying job in the industry, though...why don't you support your peers and spend some more jack on songs/movies/etc...? You can obviously afford the $75 trips to the movies, the $40 blue ray DVDs, the $20 CDs...

[DaneMcCloud]

I went to visit my dad in KC with my sister and brother-in-law recently...one night we decided, "hey, we don't have an IMAX theater in Champaign, lets go check out a movie and have some fun!"

We buy three tickets to Watchmen, some popcorn, nachos and drinks...nothing like dropping $75 at the theater...in KANSAS (which isn't a big deal because we knew we were going to have to drop a pretty penny for 3 hours of entertainment and we're not cheap people)...

So, Dane...I'm a kid with about $50 to my name at all times (if I'm lucky)...and there are a lot of college kids that live the same way...so if you think that you're losing money from us when we download shit on the internet...you're just wrong.

Congrats on your high paying job in the industry, though...why don't you support your peers and spend some more jack on songs/movies/etc...? You can obviously afford the $75 trips to the movies, the $40 blue ray DVDs, the $20 CDs...

Yes, I understand your POV all too well.

You can't afford to spend the money necessary to have an enjoyable movie experience and since you're either unwilling or unable to pay for the movies you'd like to see, you'll download them illegally.

You can't wait for PPV.

You can't wait for a $3 dollar DVD rental.

You've GOT to see it now! But fuck paying $30 dollars or whatever. Fuck that! Let's download it!

I understand, Hootie. I just think you're the lowest form of American.

And I'm sure your grandparents would be proud.

[Hootie]

You're just further proving my point.

Your generation is the end of the world as we know it.

While I hardly agree with that...are you putting that blame solely on us? LMAO

Movies at the box office are making as much money as ever...you're just in that industry and it frustrates you that you could be making EVEN more if pirating wasn't an issue...

So who's greedy? Me for downloading a movie I'd never watch if it wasn't "free", or you demanding I spend the money I don't have to watch that terrible movie that I only watched in the first place because it was "free"?

Because like I previously said...these downloads have actually resulted in me spending more money in your industry...being able to watch past movies and shows from my favorite actors so when their next movie hits the theaters I'm psyched and go drop that $25 on the "movie theater experience"...shit, I wasted $20 on Observe and Report and that movie was GOD awful...but if it wasn't for my downloaded copies off 40 Year Old Virgin, Pineapple Express, etc...I wouldn't have given a shit (or known who the fuck Seth Rogen was) and wouldn't have spent a dime on that piece of shit movie that makes me want to stab myself.

[DaneMcCloud]

While I hardly agree with that...are you putting that blame solely on us? LMAO

Yes. Absolutely.

Your sense of entitlement rivals that of those that have child after child, just to collect government checks.

You don't care because "WTF? These movies are going to make plenty of money!! Fuck 'em".

[Hootie]

Yes, I understand your POV all too well.

You can't afford to spend the money necessary to have an enjoyable movie experience and since you're either unwilling or unable to pay for the movies you'd like to see, you'll download them illegally.

You can't wait for PPV.

You can't wait for a $3 dollar DVD rental.

You've GOT to see it now! But **** paying $30 dollars or whatever. **** that! Let's download it!

I understand, Hootie. I just think you're the lowest form of American.

And I'm sure your grandparents would be proud.

When it's more convenient to download it free, and when the rip of the DVD hits the internet MONTHS before the DVD is released...you're god damn right I'm going to download it illegally if the movie intrigues me...

I had a subscription to Netflix for a year but I'm just too fucking lazy to do that shit and I ended up renting like 10 movies before I realized that it was just a waste of money for me.

But hey, you know what...I honestly don't give a shit what anyone thinks about me, Dane. I chimed in because I think your stance on this subject is hilarious.

There is a lot of shitty aspects in any industry you choose to have a career in...I can list to you 50 things that pissed me off about the restaurant industry, but at least I kept an open mind and realized why things were done the way they were and why people would act they way they did.

When your industry presents to me a cost efficient and convenient way to deliver to me my desired media, then maybe I'll become a better American.

Until then, I'll keep taking advantage of my 500 KB/s connection, my 1 TB external, and the HOURS of free time I have to catch up on shows and movies I missed the first time around...and Kanye West music.

[DaneMcCloud]

But hey, you know what...I honestly don't give a shit what anyone thinks about me, Dane. I chimed in because I think your stance on this subject is hilarious.



I know, Hootie.

And I know that your sense of entitlement knows no bounds.

[Hootie]

Yes. Absolutely.

Your sense of entitlement rivals that of those that have child after child, just to collect government checks.

You don't care because "WTF? These movies are going to make plenty of money!! **** 'em".

No, I don't care if they make ZERO money...

Trust me. How much money your neighbor is losing out on because of my amazing downloading abilities is about the last thing I worry about.

[Hootie]

I know, Hootie.

And I know that your sense of entitlement knows no bounds.

You only focus on the money you're losing out from all of the downloaders...you don't focus on the fact you've been making as much money as ever. Perhaps YOUR sense of entitlement knows no bounds?

I guarantee not everyone is able to buy that new All American Rejects CD...but I guarantee you all of those 15 year old girl (and me) fans who slobber on that song and follow them around and buy their concert tickets and shit (etc...) who never would have cared if they didn't have access to that song so easily using P2P downloading isn't hurting anyone's wallet.

I promise you 98.5% of the shit I download is stuff I would never, in a million years, spend a dime on. I don't know how to make that sink in...

"but that doesn't mean you have the right to STEAL it!"

Yeah, you're probably right...but guess what...it doesn't hurt you ONE BIT...so all of you just need to get over it.

I bet you 75% of the downloaders are just like me...spend more money on your industry BECAUSE of the downloads...but I guess you selfish, greedy morons don't understand that.

[DaneMcCloud]

I bet you 75% of the downloaders are just like me...spend more money on your industry BECAUSE of the downloads...but I guess you selfish, greedy morons don't understand that.

That's a nice justification from an admitted thief.

[Hootie]

That's a nice justification from an admitted thief.

well props to you and your industry for labeling an entire generation "thieves."

I guess I can be ok with that label. At least we're not hippies...

[DaneMcCloud]

well props to you and your industry for labeling an entire generation "thieves."

I guess I can be ok with that label. At least we're not hippies...

If you're illegally obtaining protected works of art, there's not another word that can be used to describe you or your ilk.

There is no "gray" area.

[Hootie]

and if you jaywalk, you should get a ticket.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I have reached a dialectical moral synthesis with Hollywood. I feel they largely put out shit products with little inspiration other than profit drive. I don't download movies, I pay a meager pittance to Netflix for the ability to rent, rip and burn them, and the associated content providers of digital media and the drives that I use to rip the discs.

[DaneMcCloud]

and if you jaywalk, you should get a ticket.

It happens everyday in Los Angeles.

My parents visited for the first time in 2000. I TOLD my parents not to jaywalk.

They didn't listen and received a $35 fine.

[DaneMcCloud]

I have reached a dialectical moral synthesis with Hollywood. I feel they largely put out shit products with little inspiration other than profit drive. I don't download movies, I pay a meager pittance to Netflix for the ability to rent, rip and burn them, and the associated content providers of digital media and the drives that I use to rip the discs.

Hey, I'll be honest.

I hate nearly every movie and nearly every freaking album that's released every year. I WANT to like the movies and I WANT to like the music but it's very rare that it actually happens.

So, I decided years ago (somewhere around 2000) that I'd just be patient and either rent or buy DVD's at Blockbuster. We have 3 for $20 (and often 4 for $20) every day. I wait 10-12 weeks after a movie's been released and go buy a shitload at once. 99% of the time I'm glad I waited to watch the movies at home.

As for music, it's rare that I find something that I like. Usually, I hear the pre-production (I know just about every music producer in town and most of the peeps at the majors that would be in the know). When I hear about something I might like, I'll buy it. Most of the time I'm disappointed but sometimes I'm not.

Art is subjective.

But one thing I've never done or will I ever do is illegally download. It's NOT because I worked on the business side for 11 years and had to fire people due to downsizing and the effects of illegal downloading. It's NOT because I'm currently working in the movie business.

It's for the same reason why I don't lie to friends and why I'd never cheat on my wife:

It's WRONG.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

I'm not saying I'm necessarily right or wrong, or even that I'm not equivocating, because I am to a degree. I personally feel that the amount that I give Hollywood which is passed to them via their agreement with Netflix is all they are really worth.

[Hootie]

Hey, I'll be honest.

I hate nearly every movie and nearly every freaking album that's released every year. I WANT to like the movies and I WANT to like the music but it's very rare that it actually happens.

So, I decided years ago (somewhere around 2000) that I'd just be patient and either rent or buy DVD's at Blockbuster. We have 3 for $20 (and often 4 for $20) every day. I wait 10-12 weeks after a movie's been released and go buy a shitload at once. 99% of the time I'm glad I waited to watch the movies at home.

As for music, it's rare that I find something that I like. Usually, I hear the pre-production (I know just about every music producer in town and most of the peeps at the majors that would be in the know). When I hear about something I might like, I'll buy it. Most of the time I'm disappointed but sometimes I'm not.

Art is subjective.

But one thing I've never done or will I ever do is illegally download. It's NOT because I worked on the business side for 11 years and had to fire people due to downsizing and the effects of illegal downloading. It's NOT because I'm currently working in the movie business.

It's for the same reason why I don't lie to friends and why I'd never cheat on my wife:

It's WRONG.

and it's wrong for them to charge me $9 for that shit movie Observe and Report...and $10 for Nachos with luke warm (and not nearly enough) cheese...and $8 for popcorn that made me feel like total shit the next day...

I saw Dark Knight twice in theaters...and I downloaded it...

Likening downloading media to cheating on your wife? LMAO

But anyways...I guess I'm just a part of a generation full of low-life, anti-American criminals who probably don't even vote!

[Baby Lee]

In summary, art is almost universally sodden crap that Dane can't even will himself to desire, but it's the ultimate in human aspiration and achievement, and if you consume it you're an idiot with impeccible morals.