Why is it so hard to believe that some folks don't want their hard worked shared with out permission. That some people require compensation for their projects and hard work. SOPA and PIPA are just testing the legal waters...Copyright holders want their control back.
Why is it so hard to believe that some folks don't want their hard worked shared with out permission. That some people require compensation for their projects and hard work. SOPA and PIPA are just testing the legal waters...Copyright holders want their control back.
With regards to music real artists know that most the money they would make would be through concerts but they forgot that. Records now they make jack shit.
Case in point TLC when they made "Waterfall". They filed for bankruptcy.
With regards to music real artists know that most the money they would make would be through concerts but they forgot that. Records now they make jack shit.
Case in point TLC when they made "Waterfall". They filed for bankruptcy.
[quote user=cadpig] Why is it so hard to believe that some folks don't want their hard worked shared with out permission. That some people require compensation for their projects and hard work. SOPA and PIPA are just testing the legal waters...Copyright holders want their control back. [/quote]
Yeah......and Hillbillies want to be called "Sons of the Soil", but it aint' gonna happen.
Caddy, the thing is that you can't stop people from sharing music for free between each other anymore than you could stop people from sharing or giving away a newspaper or magazine. Now if you are talking about that they are copying it and selling it......now I see a problem. Think aboot this Caddy. Tomorrow I will be going to the Super Bowl of vinyl record sales held by our local Public Radio station. Thousands upon thousands of records, tapes and CDs will be for sale. Are the artists going to get any of that money for their works? No. Yet nobody seems to have a problem with this PURE profit being made on their records.....and often these records have passed through multiple hands. Every time money is exchanged and not one red cent of it goes to the artist or record company. This is allowed not only at this record sale but at every used record store, garage sale, flea market, thrift store and antique mall this happens....everyday. However, if I get a COPY just to listen to online, FOR FREE, I am the asshole, I am the thief......even though I make ZERO profit.
In your opinion, should ASCAP come to every one of these sales and demand a percentage every time a record is sold? If so this denotes that I don't actually OWN that record nor could I EVER own that record......I am simply "borrowing" it from the artist.....
[quote user=LeonHart] With regards to music real artists know that most the money they would make would be through concerts but they forgot that. Records now they make jack shit.
Case in point TLC when they made "Waterfall". They filed for bankruptcy. [/quote]
cadpig wrote:
Why is it so hard to believe that some folks don't want their hard worked shared with out permission. That some people require compensation for their projects and hard work. SOPA and PIPA are just testing the legal waters...Copyright holders want their control back.
Yeah......and Hillbillies want to be called "Sons of the Soil", but it aint' gonna happen.
Caddy, the thing is that you can't stop people from sharing music for free between each other anymore than you could stop people from sharing or giving away a newspaper or magazine. Now if you are talking about that they are copying it and selling it......now I see a problem. Think aboot this Caddy. Tomorrow I will be going to the Super Bowl of vinyl record sales held by our local Public Radio station. Thousands upon thousands of records, tapes and CDs will be for sale. Are the artists going to get any of that money for their works? No. Yet nobody seems to have a problem with this PURE profit being made on their records.....and often these records have passed through multiple hands. Every time money is exchanged and not one red cent of it goes to the artist or record company. This is allowed not only at this record sale but at every used record store, garage sale, flea market, thrift store and antique mall this happens....everyday. However, if I get a COPY just to listen to online, FOR FREE, I am the asshole, I am the thief......even though I make ZERO profit.
In your opinion, should ASCAP come to every one of these sales and demand a percentage every time a record is sold? If so this denotes that I don't actually OWN that record nor could I EVER own that record......I am simply "borrowing" it from the artist.....
LeonHart wrote:
With regards to music real artists know that most the money they would make would be through concerts but they forgot that. Records now they make jack shit.
Case in point TLC when they made "Waterfall". They filed for bankruptcy.
Shanus... No problems with second hand music sales. When the record companies see a demand for the older music...They will usually re-release the old albums in boxed sets or throw together a best of cd. I don't think i have ever heard of a record company going after second hand sales. I believe that the first sale doctrine covers sales of old vinyl records and CDs here in the states. It doesn't cover computer programs. Have no idea about Canadian or European law. Usually the legal battles are over the songs themselves. It's a tug of war between the Writers/Composers, The singers and performance and the record label. Over reprinting, Derivative works (new versions) and how the songs used in other medias. Like advertising, movies and games etc.
To be honest, i was thinking of other intellectual property like Software programs,Games, Movies and Books counterfeiting. Without permission or compensation.
Shanus... No problems with second hand music sales. When the record companies see a demand for the older music...They will usually re-release the old albums in boxed sets or throw together a best of cd. I don't think i have ever heard of a record company going after second hand sales. I believe that the first sale doctrine covers sales of old vinyl records and CDs here in the states. It doesn't cover computer programs. Have no idea about Canadian or European law. Usually the legal battles are over the songs themselves. It's a tug of war between the Writers/Composers, The singers and performance and the record label. Over reprinting, Derivative works (new versions) and how the songs used in other medias. Like advertising, movies and games etc.
To be honest, i was thinking of other intellectual property like Software programs,Games, Movies and Books counterfeiting. Without permission or compensation.
"To be honest, i was thinking of other intellectual property like Software programs,Games, Movies and Books counterfeiting. Without permission or compensation."
I still don't see the difference. If you are copying but not making a profit we become the fucking bastards of the world yet I can operate a whole business or even run a fund raising program based on PROFITING from selling this used intellectual property? I can sell a used book, game, movie or software. Totally legal. But if I download it for myself personally and listen to it or use it I should be fined or serve jail time? This makes no fucking sense.......
^ "I don't think i have ever heard of a record company going after second hand sales."
"To be honest, i was thinking of other intellectual property like Software programs,Games, Movies and Books counterfeiting. Without permission or compensation."
I still don't see the difference. If you are copying but not making a profit we become the fucking bastards of the world yet I can operate a whole business or even run a fund raising program based on PROFITING from selling this used intellectual property? I can sell a used book, game, movie or software. Totally legal. But if I download it for myself personally and listen to it or use it I should be fined or serve jail time? This makes no fucking sense.......
If you sell a used book or CD, you give up your use. The supply does not increase.
If you take a copy, then you are increasing the supply in the market, devaluing the product.
I know, I know, people sometimes burn CDs and sell them in second-hand stores, but this is pretty much illegal anywhere, is supposedly very rare, and is not the legal justification of second-hand shops. Second-hand stores are supposed to work like any other second-hand market. You can sell your car, but you can't go around driving it anymore. Now somebody else has the title to its use.
If you sell a used book or CD, you give up your use. The supply does not increase.
If you take a copy, then you are increasing the supply in the market, devaluing the product.
I know, I know, people sometimes burn CDs and sell them in second-hand stores, but this is pretty much illegal anywhere, is supposedly very rare, and is not the legal justification of second-hand shops. Second-hand stores are supposed to work like any other second-hand market. You can sell your car, but you can't go around driving it anymore. Now somebody else has the title to its use.
[quote user=cadpig] Why is it so hard to believe that some folks don't want their hard worked shared with out permission. That some people require compensation for their projects and hard work. SOPA and PIPA are just testing the legal waters...Copyright holders want their control back. [/quote]
cadpig wrote:
Why is it so hard to believe that some folks don't want their hard worked shared with out permission. That some people require compensation for their projects and hard work. SOPA and PIPA are just testing the legal waters...Copyright holders want their control back.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=cadpig]Why is it so hard to believe that some folks don't want their hard worked shared with out permission. That some people require compensation for their projects and hard work. SOPA and PIPA are just testing the legal waters...Copyright holders want their control back.[/quote]
[/quote]
Why do you compare people to Nazis simply because they don't agree with you? The tactic of demonising those who dissent is like something from 1930s Germany...
otester wrote:
cadpig wrote:
Why is it so hard to believe that some folks don't want their hard worked shared with out permission. That some people require compensation for their projects and hard work. SOPA and PIPA are just testing the legal waters...Copyright holders want their control back.
Why do you compare people to Nazis simply because they don't agree with you? The tactic of demonising those who dissent is like something from 1930s Germany...
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester][quote user=cadpig]Why is it so hard to believe that some folks don't want their hard worked shared with out permission. That some people require compensation for their projects and hard work. SOPA and PIPA are just testing the legal waters...Copyright holders want their control back.[/quote]
[/quote]
Why do you compare people to Nazis simply because they don't agree with you? The tactic of demonising those who dissent is like something from 1930s Germany...
[/quote]
I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
otester wrote:
cadpig wrote:
Why is it so hard to believe that some folks don't want their hard worked shared with out permission. That some people require compensation for their projects and hard work. SOPA and PIPA are just testing the legal waters...Copyright holders want their control back.
Why do you compare people to Nazis simply because they don't agree with you? The tactic of demonising those who dissent is like something from 1930s Germany...
I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Why do you compare people to Nazis simply because they don't agree with you? The tactic of demonising those who dissent is like something from 1930s Germany...
[/quote]
I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights. [/quote]
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Why do you compare people to Nazis simply because they don't agree with you? The tactic of demonising those who dissent is like something from 1930s Germany...
I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights.
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights.[/quote]
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights.
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
[quote user=otester] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
[/quote]
You been drinking again?
[/quote]
LOL
That's affirmative, good buddy! Birfday boozings is da best.
otester wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
You been drinking again?
LOL
That's affirmative, good buddy! Birfday boozings is da best.
[quote user=DigitalAntichrist] [quote user=otester]I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights.[/quote]
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
[/quote]
I totally agree. Buzzwords like "nazi" and "facist" are spat at anyone they dont agree with.
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
otester wrote:
I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights.
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
I totally agree. Buzzwords like "nazi" and "facist" are spat at anyone they dont agree with.
[quote user=InSOmnIaC] [quote user=DigitalAntichrist]Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
[/quote]
I totally agree. Buzzwords like "nazi" and "facist" are spat at anyone they dont agree with.
[/quote]
The Nazis did censor though...
If cadpig is a Nazi then that's his free choice and his opinion doesn't weigh any less.
InSOmnIaC wrote:
DigitalAntichrist wrote:
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
I totally agree. Buzzwords like "nazi" and "facist" are spat at anyone they dont agree with.
The Nazis did censor though...
If cadpig is a Nazi then that's his free choice and his opinion doesn't weigh any less.
20
| 195 views | www.youtube.com
Case in point TLC when they made "Waterfall". They filed for bankruptcy.
Case in point TLC when they made "Waterfall". They filed for bankruptcy.
[/quote]
Yeah......and Hillbillies want to be called "Sons of the Soil", but it aint' gonna happen.
Caddy, the thing is that you can't stop people from sharing music for free between each other anymore than you could stop people from sharing or giving away a newspaper or magazine. Now if you are talking about that they are copying it and selling it......now I see a problem.
Think aboot this Caddy. Tomorrow I will be going to the Super Bowl of vinyl record sales held by our local Public Radio station. Thousands upon thousands of records, tapes and CDs will be for sale. Are the artists going to get any of that money for their works? No. Yet nobody seems to have a problem with this PURE profit being made on their records.....and often these records have passed through multiple hands. Every time money is exchanged and not one red cent of it goes to the artist or record company. This is allowed not only at this record sale but at every used record store, garage sale, flea market, thrift store and antique mall this happens....everyday. However, if I get a COPY just to listen to online, FOR FREE, I am the asshole, I am the thief......even though I make ZERO profit.
In your opinion, should ASCAP come to every one of these sales and demand a percentage every time a record is sold? If so this denotes that I don't actually OWN that record nor could I EVER own that record......I am simply "borrowing" it from the artist.....
[quote user=LeonHart] With regards to music real artists know that most the money they would make would be through concerts but they forgot that. Records now they make jack shit.
Case in point TLC when they made "Waterfall". They filed for bankruptcy.
[/quote]
Yeah......and Hillbillies want to be called "Sons of the Soil", but it aint' gonna happen.
Caddy, the thing is that you can't stop people from sharing music for free between each other anymore than you could stop people from sharing or giving away a newspaper or magazine. Now if you are talking about that they are copying it and selling it......now I see a problem.
Think aboot this Caddy. Tomorrow I will be going to the Super Bowl of vinyl record sales held by our local Public Radio station. Thousands upon thousands of records, tapes and CDs will be for sale. Are the artists going to get any of that money for their works? No. Yet nobody seems to have a problem with this PURE profit being made on their records.....and often these records have passed through multiple hands. Every time money is exchanged and not one red cent of it goes to the artist or record company. This is allowed not only at this record sale but at every used record store, garage sale, flea market, thrift store and antique mall this happens....everyday. However, if I get a COPY just to listen to online, FOR FREE, I am the asshole, I am the thief......even though I make ZERO profit.
In your opinion, should ASCAP come to every one of these sales and demand a percentage every time a record is sold? If so this denotes that I don't actually OWN that record nor could I EVER own that record......I am simply "borrowing" it from the artist.....
Case in point TLC when they made "Waterfall". They filed for bankruptcy.
I don't think i have ever heard of a record company going after second hand sales. I believe that the first sale doctrine covers sales of old vinyl records and CDs here in the states. It doesn't cover computer programs. Have no idea about Canadian or European law.
Usually the legal battles are over the songs themselves. It's a tug of war between the Writers/Composers, The singers and performance and the record label. Over reprinting, Derivative works (new versions) and how the songs used in other medias. Like advertising, movies and games etc.
To be honest, i was thinking of other intellectual property like Software programs,Games, Movies and Books counterfeiting. Without permission or compensation.
I don't think i have ever heard of a record company going after second hand sales. I believe that the first sale doctrine covers sales of old vinyl records and CDs here in the states. It doesn't cover computer programs. Have no idea about Canadian or European law.
Usually the legal battles are over the songs themselves. It's a tug of war between the Writers/Composers, The singers and performance and the record label. Over reprinting, Derivative works (new versions) and how the songs used in other medias. Like advertising, movies and games etc.
To be honest, i was thinking of other intellectual property like Software programs,Games, Movies and Books counterfeiting. Without permission or compensation.
"I don't think i have ever heard of a record company going after second hand sales."
CEMA and three other major record firms--Time Warner's WEA, Matsushita's UNI and Sony Music Distribution--are under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission and have been the target of several antitrust lawsuits related to their policies against used CDs.
The most prominent case involves Wherehouse Entertainment, which started the brouhaha over secondhand CDs when it began selling them in December. In a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit in Los Angeles federal court, Wherehouse charges that the four record conglomerates conspired to "unreasonably restrain trade" by eliminating advertising and promotional allowances to retailers who sell used CDs.
"To be honest, i was thinking of other intellectual property like Software programs,Games, Movies and Books counterfeiting. Without permission or compensation."
I still don't see the difference. If you are copying but not making a profit we become the fucking bastards of the world yet I can operate a whole business or even run a fund raising program based on PROFITING from selling this used intellectual property? I can sell a used book, game, movie or software. Totally legal. But if I download it for myself personally and listen to it or use it I should be fined or serve jail time? This makes no fucking sense.......
"I don't think i have ever heard of a record company going after second hand sales."
CEMA and three other major record firms--Time Warner's WEA, Matsushita's UNI and Sony Music Distribution--are under investigation by the Federal Trade Commission and have been the target of several antitrust lawsuits related to their policies against used CDs.
The most prominent case involves Wherehouse Entertainment, which started the brouhaha over secondhand CDs when it began selling them in December. In a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit in Los Angeles federal court, Wherehouse charges that the four record conglomerates conspired to "unreasonably restrain trade" by eliminating advertising and promotional allowances to retailers who sell used CDs.
"To be honest, i was thinking of other intellectual property like Software programs,Games, Movies and Books counterfeiting. Without permission or compensation."
I still don't see the difference. If you are copying but not making a profit we become the fucking bastards of the world yet I can operate a whole business or even run a fund raising program based on PROFITING from selling this used intellectual property? I can sell a used book, game, movie or software. Totally legal. But if I download it for myself personally and listen to it or use it I should be fined or serve jail time? This makes no fucking sense.......
If you take a copy, then you are increasing the supply in the market, devaluing the product.
I know, I know, people sometimes burn CDs and sell them in second-hand stores, but this is pretty much illegal anywhere, is supposedly very rare, and is not the legal justification of second-hand shops. Second-hand stores are supposed to work like any other second-hand market. You can sell your car, but you can't go around driving it anymore. Now somebody else has the title to its use.
If you take a copy, then you are increasing the supply in the market, devaluing the product.
I know, I know, people sometimes burn CDs and sell them in second-hand stores, but this is pretty much illegal anywhere, is supposedly very rare, and is not the legal justification of second-hand shops. Second-hand stores are supposed to work like any other second-hand market. You can sell your car, but you can't go around driving it anymore. Now somebody else has the title to its use.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Why do you compare people to Nazis simply because they don't agree with you? The tactic of demonising those who dissent is like something from 1930s Germany...
Why do you compare people to Nazis simply because they don't agree with you? The tactic of demonising those who dissent is like something from 1930s Germany...
Why do you compare people to Nazis simply because they don't agree with you? The tactic of demonising those who dissent is like something from 1930s Germany...
[/quote]
I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights.
Why do you compare people to Nazis simply because they don't agree with you? The tactic of demonising those who dissent is like something from 1930s Germany...
I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights.
[/quote]
I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights.
[/quote]
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
I compare them to Nazis if they believe in state granted monopolies which involve censorship and infringement of physical property rights.
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
[/quote]
Looks like Digi will be joining him, had a bit too much to drink again, going all serious n shit.
Looks like Digi will be joining him, had a bit too much to drink again, going all serious n shit.
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
[/quote]
You been drinking again?
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scaAz1zcdXI[/video]
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
You been drinking again?
[/quote]
You been drinking again?
[/quote]
LOL
That's affirmative, good buddy! Birfday boozings is da best.
You been drinking again?
LOL
That's affirmative, good buddy! Birfday boozings is da best.
[/quote]
LOL
That's affirmative, good buddy! Birfday boozings is da best.
[/quote]
LOL
That's affirmative, good buddy! Birfday boozings is da best.
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
[/quote]
I totally agree. Buzzwords like "nazi" and "facist" are spat at anyone they dont agree with.
Censorship?
Some would suggest the tactic of labeling someone else a Nazi was an attempt to delegitimise their point of view, and thus censor their opinions from the common discourse.
I totally agree. Buzzwords like "nazi" and "facist" are spat at anyone they dont agree with.
[/quote]
I totally agree. Buzzwords like "nazi" and "facist" are spat at anyone they dont agree with.
[/quote]
The Nazis did censor though...
If cadpig is a Nazi then that's his free choice and his opinion doesn't weigh any less.
I totally agree. Buzzwords like "nazi" and "facist" are spat at anyone they dont agree with.
The Nazis did censor though...
If cadpig is a Nazi then that's his free choice and his opinion doesn't weigh any less.