uhh... using music you don't have permission to use is a human right?
See, this is when the discussion gets moronic.
I understand that people want to use their favorite songs for dopey little lo-fi things online. And I do think it's stupid for companies to bother perusing it as if it was a real issue.
But no one has a right to use something they don't own the creative license for.
And the family in the cartoon isn't stealing, neither is the person who made the video. But the person who made it did violate copyright laws.
You know how to protest companies that engage in overly aggressive copyright enforcement? DON'T BUY THEIR SHIT.
You know how to protest games that do things like have obnoxious setups and invasive coding that makes it so you can't install more than X times or blah blah blah exists to prevent pirating? DON'T BUY THEIR SHIT.
I guess I'm missing the part where this cartoon is saying that "using music you don't have permission to use is a human right".
Would you say that someone does, or does not, have the right to post a funny video of their child dancing on the internet? Should the music they are dancing to matter? Where's fair use in that?
The point is that every single issue BEFORE the internet fought against fair use, too. And every medium experienced GROWTH in the new era, not loss. So the continued efforts for these mice to keep getting their cheese from the same place is not supported by historical confirmations that they are doing the right thing.
i think the issue at stake here is the lengths the RIAA and MPAA have gone to to protect those rights, including the exention of rights in to the futer every 20 years, sueing people without pc's, dropping root kits on to peoples hard drives without consent, and a number of other things...
and, in the root kit case, sony told no one, and it was incredbly damaging. the riaa and mpaa have the us goverment sown up, it seems sometimes, so its hard to fight
that being said, the tied are turning. a number of music selling componeys no longer use DRM, witch is, insdently, a reson people pirarite music, (becous its is illigle to strip DRM, so that if it locks it to a singal place, stripping it away is a violition of the DMCA and illigle as much as pirating the stuff)
ive lost my starting point, so ill shut up now. but yea.
people listen to pirated music because they don't want to pay for music. Or they want to take a stand against something but they're too lazy to actually boycott something while actually not having it.
If they were against DRM and explained that to justify pirating music, they would have bought the product then downloaded the easier to use version.
im sorry, i kinda missed the part where the RIAA more or less have the music industry sown up. film copy rights dont expire for, get this, 100 years.
100 years. all so disny dosent lose its rights to micky. there have been 3 exentions in the last 50 years alown. it has, through the moves of the music componys, becomes illigle to circemvent copy protection. even if you mark up a cd with a black marker to get it to play, thats illigle, punishble by law.
further more, the riaa still sues the pants of people without pcs, would still sue you if you downloaded drm free versions of there products, and are still pushing to enforce ever more draconian penltys for circmvention of there system.
i give it 10 years befor the next sony bono act. at this rate, nothing will pass in to the public domain. ever agine.
Considering how cheap it can be to produce a movie, and how often people are leaning toward just viewing things online than watching tv/going to a movie/etc (normally the same people who are fighting for fewer copyright laws), the fact that the RIAA has a lot of influence via older mediums really shouldn't matter that much.
You want to distribute your own work and not worry about the RIAA? Get a Youtube/Vimeo/etc account, work the rounds to get attention, especially in the online media circles that are so againsts the RIAA and overly corporatized media, and offer to sell your work.
(And then when people decide they don't want to pay and decide to just torrent your stuff, let me know so I can laugh).
"people listen to pirated music because they don't want to pay for music."
Not quite. People listen to pirated music because they don't want to pay music industry's insane price for music. Even in this age of technology that allows zero reproduction cost and near-zero distribution cost, the music industry refuses to get its head out of its ass and let the market set the price. At today's arbitrarily inflated prices, it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fill even a small MP3 player. Nobody will ever pay that. So they pirate. What do you expect?
Fifty cents an album or get the fuck out, bitches.
Nobody ever seems to comment on the Marketing Value of piracy. A couple of examples:
First, Auntie Val's dancing kitty video includes a song I've never heard before. If I didn't hear it during the video, I never would have bought it. But, now I hear it and I kinda like it. So I call Auntie Val and say "Where did you get that music?" And she says, oh, that's Donald Fagan from his Kamakiriad album. So, I go to iTunes and I buy the motherfucker. Cha-Ching for the music industry.
Here's another: My girlfriend makes me a mix tape (do they still call them that?). I own CDs with some of the songs that she included in the mix. Some of the other songs are nice, but I don't think I would ever actually go out and buy a Justin Timberlake CD. So, tell me, what's been stolen. At what point did the music industry lose revenue? Hmmm?
The marketing value of piracy, let alone the marketing idiocy that is actually suing individual people adding a song or two to something they videotaped, has very little to do with actual law.
That said, I'm very pro copyright for those who wish to have a copyright, but I also think it's marketing suicide to enforce them when it's just some person doing some minor dopey thing.
We agree for the most part, but I'd postulate that the continued efforts to legislate increased copyright protections is damaging to the marketplace and becoming a real problem. Of course outright piracy is wrong and should be illegal... that does not mean that the continued efforts to make fair use illegal in order to catch more and more of the bad guys is hazardous to our marketplace and the legal environment of our nation.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 07:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 07:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 07:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 09:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 09:30 pm (UTC)See, this is when the discussion gets moronic.
I understand that people want to use their favorite songs for dopey little lo-fi things online. And I do think it's stupid for companies to bother perusing it as if it was a real issue.
But no one has a right to use something they don't own the creative license for.
And the family in the cartoon isn't stealing, neither is the person who made the video. But the person who made it did violate copyright laws.
You know how to protest companies that engage in overly aggressive copyright enforcement? DON'T BUY THEIR SHIT.
You know how to protest games that do things like have obnoxious setups and invasive coding that makes it so you can't install more than X times or blah blah blah exists to prevent pirating? DON'T BUY THEIR SHIT.
Good lord each side is moronic in this.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 09:36 pm (UTC)Would you say that someone does, or does not, have the right to post a funny video of their child dancing on the internet? Should the music they are dancing to matter? Where's fair use in that?
The point is that every single issue BEFORE the internet fought against fair use, too. And every medium experienced GROWTH in the new era, not loss. So the continued efforts for these mice to keep getting their cheese from the same place is not supported by historical confirmations that they are doing the right thing.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 09:42 pm (UTC)All those issues also now have them get paid for usage rights.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 09:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 12:48 am (UTC)Glad you can see the distinction. The music industry, apparently, cannot.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 09:37 pm (UTC)and, in the root kit case, sony told no one, and it was incredbly damaging. the riaa and mpaa have the us goverment sown up, it seems sometimes, so its hard to fight
that being said, the tied are turning. a number of music selling componeys no longer use DRM, witch is, insdently, a reson people pirarite music, (becous its is illigle to strip DRM, so that if it locks it to a singal place, stripping it away is a violition of the DMCA and illigle as much as pirating the stuff)
ive lost my starting point, so ill shut up now. but yea.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 09:44 pm (UTC)If they were against DRM and explained that to justify pirating music, they would have bought the product then downloaded the easier to use version.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 09:56 pm (UTC)100 years. all so disny dosent lose its rights to micky. there have been 3 exentions in the last 50 years alown. it has, through the moves of the music componys, becomes illigle to circemvent copy protection. even if you mark up a cd with a black marker to get it to play, thats illigle, punishble by law.
further more, the riaa still sues the pants of people without pcs, would still sue you if you downloaded drm free versions of there products, and are still pushing to enforce ever more draconian penltys for circmvention of there system.
i give it 10 years befor the next sony bono act. at this rate, nothing will pass in to the public domain. ever agine.
what a sad world.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 10:02 pm (UTC)You want to distribute your own work and not worry about the RIAA? Get a Youtube/Vimeo/etc account, work the rounds to get attention, especially in the online media circles that are so againsts the RIAA and overly corporatized media, and offer to sell your work.
(And then when people decide they don't want to pay and decide to just torrent your stuff, let me know so I can laugh).
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-02-27 12:53 am (UTC)Not quite. People listen to pirated music because they don't want to pay music industry's insane price for music. Even in this age of technology that allows zero reproduction cost and near-zero distribution cost, the music industry refuses to get its head out of its ass and let the market set the price. At today's arbitrarily inflated prices, it would cost tens of thousands of dollars to fill even a small MP3 player. Nobody will ever pay that. So they pirate. What do you expect?
Fifty cents an album or get the fuck out, bitches.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 10:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 10:08 pm (UTC)First, Auntie Val's dancing kitty video includes a song I've never heard before. If I didn't hear it during the video, I never would have bought it. But, now I hear it and I kinda like it. So I call Auntie Val and say "Where did you get that music?" And she says, oh, that's Donald Fagan from his Kamakiriad album. So, I go to iTunes and I buy the motherfucker. Cha-Ching for the music industry.
Here's another: My girlfriend makes me a mix tape (do they still call them that?). I own CDs with some of the songs that she included in the mix. Some of the other songs are nice, but I don't think I would ever actually go out and buy a Justin Timberlake CD. So, tell me, what's been stolen. At what point did the music industry lose revenue? Hmmm?
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 10:34 pm (UTC)That said, I'm very pro copyright for those who wish to have a copyright, but I also think it's marketing suicide to enforce them when it's just some person doing some minor dopey thing.
no subject
Date: 2009-02-26 10:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-01 05:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-02-28 05:49 pm (UTC)