Not just spit with same sex partners, but Music file swaping is legal too.
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/31/ca ... ourt040331
Swapping is legal in Canada.
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
-
STRESSTEST
- DBB DemiGod
- Posts: 6574
- Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 3:01 am
-
Mobius
- DBB_Master
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
- Contact:
And two independent and thoriughly respectable studies have just shown that P2P music actually BOOSTS record sales. The Austrialian (ARIA) industry just had its best year EVER.
This kind of shootsw to sh!t the RIAA bullcrap about P2P hurting record sales. Don't get me started!
YAY FOR CANADA!!! A SENSIBLE COUNTRY!!
This kind of shootsw to sh!t the RIAA bullcrap about P2P hurting record sales. Don't get me started!
YAY FOR CANADA!!! A SENSIBLE COUNTRY!!
Mobius, when will you learn how easy it is to debunk you. 
Stop fooling yourselves, stealing is stealing. It's one thing to say *OK, I'm a thief and I know it* but it gets silly when people pretend it isn't. Me, I steal music. No ifs, ands or buts about it, and I'm hoping I'm too small a fish to get caught. Everyone knows the *fair use* defense is just a bs smokescreen to hide illegal activity. I'm part of the problem and I admit it. Free music is just too damn tempting and convenient.
In many ways file-sharing is actually hindering efforts to force the recording industry to change the way it does business and the ways we get our music. We all lose because small acts die on the vine due to Internet theft of their music. Their only recourse is to slog it out on the road 350 days a year selling t-shirts until they burn out, break up and are never heard from again. When swapping stops, these little acts can actually make a reasonable living simply producing their own music and putting it out on their own labels FOR PAY via the Internet. There will never be too much music in the world. That's the paradigm we need to get to and swapping makes that nearly impossible. As a result these new bands need the protection of the RIAA and similar organizations. Unfortunately, the recording industry only deals in sure things, large budgets and big marketing campaigns. Hence, we get a small variety of crap to listen to.
Trust me, I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy and the recording industry has a shameful history of exploitation, but swapping actually keeps the powers that be in power.
http://www.aria.com.au/news.htmInternet file-sharing and CD burning have now been confirmed as having a negative impact on the Australian sales of recorded music, according to a ground-breaking study released today by the Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA).
Stop fooling yourselves, stealing is stealing. It's one thing to say *OK, I'm a thief and I know it* but it gets silly when people pretend it isn't. Me, I steal music. No ifs, ands or buts about it, and I'm hoping I'm too small a fish to get caught. Everyone knows the *fair use* defense is just a bs smokescreen to hide illegal activity. I'm part of the problem and I admit it. Free music is just too damn tempting and convenient.
In many ways file-sharing is actually hindering efforts to force the recording industry to change the way it does business and the ways we get our music. We all lose because small acts die on the vine due to Internet theft of their music. Their only recourse is to slog it out on the road 350 days a year selling t-shirts until they burn out, break up and are never heard from again. When swapping stops, these little acts can actually make a reasonable living simply producing their own music and putting it out on their own labels FOR PAY via the Internet. There will never be too much music in the world. That's the paradigm we need to get to and swapping makes that nearly impossible. As a result these new bands need the protection of the RIAA and similar organizations. Unfortunately, the recording industry only deals in sure things, large budgets and big marketing campaigns. Hence, we get a small variety of crap to listen to.
Trust me, I hate the RIAA as much as the next guy and the recording industry has a shameful history of exploitation, but swapping actually keeps the powers that be in power.
And would the band be able to do even that if nobody has heard of them? File sharing is just free advertising. Most small bands don't make any money from CD sales to begin with.bash wrote:In many ways file-sharing is actually hindering efforts to force the recording industry to change the way it does business and the ways we get our music. We all lose because small acts die on the vine due to Internet theft of their music. Their only recourse is to slog it out on the road 350 days a year selling t-shirts until they burn out, break up and are never heard from again. When swapping stops, these little acts can actually make a reasonable living simply producing their own music and putting it out on their own labels FOR PAY via the Internet.
I agree with you that music sampling is a killer way to get a buzz going for a new band but what it comes down to is it should be the band's decision on how to market themselves, not yours, and on what music they wish to share and what music they wish to sell. I have no doubt they will put some of their stuff out for free but not all of it. They still have to make a living, however meager. As it stands, all of their stuff gets offered so there's no reason to pay for any of it. And, yes, I know most bands (big and small) make the bulk of their money through shows and t-shirt sales. The new paradigm would expand on that and bands selling their own music--via download or CD--can start counting that as part of their revenue.
Note: I removed the *big fish* part.
Note: I removed the *big fish* part.
Perhaps, but I see it more as the publishers are not selling people what they want. And asking bands to remain independent in order for them to control their music is a pretty tall order.
And if you're talking about me being a big fish, hardly. I don't share my music, and all the music I listen to that's distributed on CDs in the states I've bought. A lot I've had to import.
And if you're talking about me being a big fish, hardly. I don't share my music, and all the music I listen to that's distributed on CDs in the states I've bought. A lot I've had to import.
-
Mobius
- DBB_Master
- Posts: 7940
- Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
- Contact:
Bash - you don't honestly believe any study done by, or sponsored by ANY musical corporation do you? Good Lord - you probably believe they left "Gullible" out of the latest Oxford English Concise!
NO - music sharing is NOT stealing. It is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. It is NOT theft. Check the definition. Theft deprives the victim of the item. Ipso Facto, File Sharing is NOT theft.
It is not "PIRACY". Piracy involves murder on the high seas. The only thing it is - is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
The very same COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT which formed the basis of HOLLYWOOD, the US PUBLISHING INDUSTRY, and the US MUSIC INDUSTRY. Why do you think Hollywood was set up in California? Because the law couldn't do anything about if from the East Coast!
No - Copyright Law is only bearable by a population provided the population IS NOT AFFECTED BY IT. So, you see, as soon as file sharing becomes available, the majority of people are happy to use it to get music.
Music has ALWAYS been FREE. FREE to listen to. FREE to create, and FREE to copy. This has ALWAYS been true. What has NOT always been true is makes of music earning the kind of money which - frankly is obscene.
Singers and musicians have, historically made money by PERFORMING. New technology (the Phonograph) allowed recording of the sounds - and the birth of the phonograph signalled the start of COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT on a massive scale.
The only difference today is that it is EASIER to infringe, and the copies are BETTER.
Hell, my Dad is the straighest arrow you could ever meet. He used to declare income to the IRS when people paid him with cases of Stout, Crayfish and sacks of potatos. And yet, he feels not one iota of guilt about downloading masses of music. In fact, he gets CDs from the library and rips those too.
So - what does this tell you?
It tells you that normal people consider that music is FREE and that copyright means NOTHING to individual users. Copyright should ONLY be enforceable when someone sells the resulting product.
The MILLIONS of users of P2P sharing apps all agree: Music is GOOD, and music is FREE. It's free on the TV, it's FREE on the radio. It's free EVERYWHERE - except your local record store - where they charge you about 5 times what the product is WORTH.
Make no mistake - the RIAA and its ilk are going to go down. Not because of file sharing, but because they are monopolies which can not and will not adopt new business models to take advantage of the technology which allows totally FREE music.
So - get out there. Download as much as you can - and share whatever you got! Encourage new users to share their music, and download MORE.
NO - music sharing is NOT stealing. It is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. It is NOT theft. Check the definition. Theft deprives the victim of the item. Ipso Facto, File Sharing is NOT theft.
It is not "PIRACY". Piracy involves murder on the high seas. The only thing it is - is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
The very same COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT which formed the basis of HOLLYWOOD, the US PUBLISHING INDUSTRY, and the US MUSIC INDUSTRY. Why do you think Hollywood was set up in California? Because the law couldn't do anything about if from the East Coast!
No - Copyright Law is only bearable by a population provided the population IS NOT AFFECTED BY IT. So, you see, as soon as file sharing becomes available, the majority of people are happy to use it to get music.
Music has ALWAYS been FREE. FREE to listen to. FREE to create, and FREE to copy. This has ALWAYS been true. What has NOT always been true is makes of music earning the kind of money which - frankly is obscene.
Singers and musicians have, historically made money by PERFORMING. New technology (the Phonograph) allowed recording of the sounds - and the birth of the phonograph signalled the start of COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT on a massive scale.
The only difference today is that it is EASIER to infringe, and the copies are BETTER.
Hell, my Dad is the straighest arrow you could ever meet. He used to declare income to the IRS when people paid him with cases of Stout, Crayfish and sacks of potatos. And yet, he feels not one iota of guilt about downloading masses of music. In fact, he gets CDs from the library and rips those too.
So - what does this tell you?
It tells you that normal people consider that music is FREE and that copyright means NOTHING to individual users. Copyright should ONLY be enforceable when someone sells the resulting product.
The MILLIONS of users of P2P sharing apps all agree: Music is GOOD, and music is FREE. It's free on the TV, it's FREE on the radio. It's free EVERYWHERE - except your local record store - where they charge you about 5 times what the product is WORTH.
Make no mistake - the RIAA and its ilk are going to go down. Not because of file sharing, but because they are monopolies which can not and will not adopt new business models to take advantage of the technology which allows totally FREE music.
So - get out there. Download as much as you can - and share whatever you got! Encourage new users to share their music, and download MORE.
We have a mini RIAA here in Belgium called Sabam (no, not Sadam). They are ★■◆●ing nazi's! Whenever you throw a party, you have to pay a substantial fee to them because they hold all the copyrights in Belgium. They <b>will</b> show up to see if you paid and if you paid enough (if you said you're throwing a party for 50 people and there's 200... you're in trouble).
They raised the price of one blank CD-R media to about $0.80, to cover for author rights of the songs that potentially could end up on the disc.
They also send warnings without interruption, and have people's computer confiscated on a regular basis. They come and whine at every ISP with a list of IP addresses of music sharers, and while the ISP's protect their customers, they are forced to issue a warning themselves. The university here was forced to filter out all P2P traffic because they were fed up with calls, faxes and letters from Sabam.
So we're kindof getting screwed here -- hard.
They raised the price of one blank CD-R media to about $0.80, to cover for author rights of the songs that potentially could end up on the disc.
They also send warnings without interruption, and have people's computer confiscated on a regular basis. They come and whine at every ISP with a list of IP addresses of music sharers, and while the ISP's protect their customers, they are forced to issue a warning themselves. The university here was forced to filter out all P2P traffic because they were fed up with calls, faxes and letters from Sabam.
So we're kindof getting screwed here -- hard.
Mobius, have you ever been in a band? Have you ever written, practiced and performed original music? Have you ever spent your hard-earned money buying expensive equipment/studio time and making albums? Until you do, I don't care who you take your cues from, you are benefitting from another's WORK and not compensating them for it. That's stealing, semantics and narrow definitions aside.
The artists and the folks they entrust to represent them are the ones that hold the COPYRIGHT (ponder on that word's roots: RIGHT-TO-COPY) and retain the COPYRIGHT to decide how they market themselves and how they distribute their WORKS for COMPENSATION.
As in the case of radio play, what you call FREE is really just that someone else has paid for it to provide you with a one-time LISTENING only. It doesn't matter that you didn't pay for it, someone did. If you enjoy it, great, but it's not a present for you to take or give to others.
If you want the RIGHT to listen to it as often as you please, buy that right. If you want to distribute it to others, buy that right. Just because you hear it doesn't make it yours any more than claiming anything you see is yours. It's presented for your ONE-TIME enjoyment and appreciation, it's not there for you to take.
Your arguments are just rationalization for stealing. You have no RIGHT TO COPY something you did not create unless you purchase that right and compensate teh creator. Copying or letting others copy without compensating the creator for their WORK is depriving the artist of their RIGHT TO MAKE A LIVING, plain and simple. What do you suppose will be the net effect when struggling artists can't even feed themselves or their families because you feel you have a RIGHT TO COPY and DISTRIBUTE their work? I'll tell you; fewer artists.
The artists lose and we lose because it severely restricts variety and the financial motivation to jump through the hoops of fire required to bring an ORIGINAL WORK to fruition in the hope of gaining some COMPENSATION for all those UNCOMPENSATED hours of toil. Unlike some of you who live in socialist welfare states, American artists DO NOT GET PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT to sit around and write ORIGINAL MUSIC. It's done on their own time, on their own dime, in a hope that they may one day be able to make a living from their artistry.
The RIAA isn't going down at all and it's folks like you (and me) that will keep them in place as the overlords and gatekeepers to new artistic WORKS because swapping DEPRIVES THE CREATORS OF THEIR RIGHT TO COMPENSATION for your enjoyment. As a result, they need PROTECTION and ENFORCEMENT to retain the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP to their own WORK. WE ALL LOSE.
Swapping prevents the rise of small labels and vanity presses that have something genuinely new to offer but don't have the money to launch a worldwide tour and break into regular radio airplay. That costs money and takes risk. If they can't support themselves, they can't make music. Keeping a band together is alot of WORK and LIFE ON THE ROAD SUCKS no matter what you've heard or fantasized about. Artists would prefer to be artists and not carnival workers. That means having the financial freedom to remain focused on their art, push it to new heights and present it for your enjoyment with the hope that you will COMPENSATE the artist for the WORK he put in to entertain you.
Put in your own terms, if you spent months creating an e-commerce Web site, do I have the right to copy every line of code/image/script and distribute it to others simply because I can? Wouldn't you expect compensation for the hard work you put in (especially if it was original and not simply a derivative creation)? Wouldn't you deserve it? Before you start urging the masses to COPY and DISTRIBUTE WORK you have no rights to, maybe you should reflect upon how you would feel and the MONEY YOU WOULDN'T MAKE if everyone started taking your stuff (assuming you've ever created anything original worth copying) and SHARING it without your permission or without paying for the RIGHT TO COPY.
The artists and the folks they entrust to represent them are the ones that hold the COPYRIGHT (ponder on that word's roots: RIGHT-TO-COPY) and retain the COPYRIGHT to decide how they market themselves and how they distribute their WORKS for COMPENSATION.
As in the case of radio play, what you call FREE is really just that someone else has paid for it to provide you with a one-time LISTENING only. It doesn't matter that you didn't pay for it, someone did. If you enjoy it, great, but it's not a present for you to take or give to others.
If you want the RIGHT to listen to it as often as you please, buy that right. If you want to distribute it to others, buy that right. Just because you hear it doesn't make it yours any more than claiming anything you see is yours. It's presented for your ONE-TIME enjoyment and appreciation, it's not there for you to take.
Your arguments are just rationalization for stealing. You have no RIGHT TO COPY something you did not create unless you purchase that right and compensate teh creator. Copying or letting others copy without compensating the creator for their WORK is depriving the artist of their RIGHT TO MAKE A LIVING, plain and simple. What do you suppose will be the net effect when struggling artists can't even feed themselves or their families because you feel you have a RIGHT TO COPY and DISTRIBUTE their work? I'll tell you; fewer artists.
The artists lose and we lose because it severely restricts variety and the financial motivation to jump through the hoops of fire required to bring an ORIGINAL WORK to fruition in the hope of gaining some COMPENSATION for all those UNCOMPENSATED hours of toil. Unlike some of you who live in socialist welfare states, American artists DO NOT GET PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT to sit around and write ORIGINAL MUSIC. It's done on their own time, on their own dime, in a hope that they may one day be able to make a living from their artistry.
The RIAA isn't going down at all and it's folks like you (and me) that will keep them in place as the overlords and gatekeepers to new artistic WORKS because swapping DEPRIVES THE CREATORS OF THEIR RIGHT TO COMPENSATION for your enjoyment. As a result, they need PROTECTION and ENFORCEMENT to retain the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP to their own WORK. WE ALL LOSE.
Swapping prevents the rise of small labels and vanity presses that have something genuinely new to offer but don't have the money to launch a worldwide tour and break into regular radio airplay. That costs money and takes risk. If they can't support themselves, they can't make music. Keeping a band together is alot of WORK and LIFE ON THE ROAD SUCKS no matter what you've heard or fantasized about. Artists would prefer to be artists and not carnival workers. That means having the financial freedom to remain focused on their art, push it to new heights and present it for your enjoyment with the hope that you will COMPENSATE the artist for the WORK he put in to entertain you.
Put in your own terms, if you spent months creating an e-commerce Web site, do I have the right to copy every line of code/image/script and distribute it to others simply because I can? Wouldn't you expect compensation for the hard work you put in (especially if it was original and not simply a derivative creation)? Wouldn't you deserve it? Before you start urging the masses to COPY and DISTRIBUTE WORK you have no rights to, maybe you should reflect upon how you would feel and the MONEY YOU WOULDN'T MAKE if everyone started taking your stuff (assuming you've ever created anything original worth copying) and SHARING it without your permission or without paying for the RIGHT TO COPY.
<--- @ Jimmy PageOkay fine I'll bite.
Which is why I'm for compulsive licensing.
The whole purpose for copyright is, of course, to promote the arts by allowing the copyright holder to make money off of their work for a limited amount of time. But it does not (or at least, should not) allow people to not have said work simply because you don't want them to. Art belongs to everybody. If somebody wants to have something I made, I should get paid for it, right? Well, I should not be allowed not to sell it simply because I don't like or have not taken advantage of that particular channel of distribution.bash wrote:and retain the COPYRIGHT to decide how they market themselves and how they distribute their WORKS for COMPENSATION.
Which is why I'm for compulsive licensing.
Once more in English, please. But I'll take a crack at deciphering it.
-Copyright is limited currently to the lifetime of the artist/copyright holder plus an additional 100 years or so (it varies depending on the type of artwork). If you are saying artists/copyright holders who have been dead for more than 100 years should not have the right to prevent copying, I agree. Plus, I'd be damn surprised if they showed up and made the attempt.
-There are not so many double negatives not in that sentence for me not to misunderstand it. Not.
-Art is owned by the artist/copyright holder until it is donated, or automatically reverts, to the public domain (see above).
-Copyright is limited currently to the lifetime of the artist/copyright holder plus an additional 100 years or so (it varies depending on the type of artwork). If you are saying artists/copyright holders who have been dead for more than 100 years should not have the right to prevent copying, I agree. Plus, I'd be damn surprised if they showed up and made the attempt.
But it does not (or at least, should not) allow people to not have said work simply because you don't want them to.
-There are not so many double negatives not in that sentence for me not to misunderstand it. Not.
-Art is owned by the artist/copyright holder until it is donated, or automatically reverts, to the public domain (see above).
-There are not so many double negatives not in that sentence for me not to misunderstand it. Not.Well, I should not be allowed not to sell it simply because I don't like or have not taken advantage of that particular channel of distribution.
Tetrad, part of owning the copyright for something is having the privilege to choose the distribution channel. Electrolux owns the copyright for their vacuums, and only sell them door-to-door. Why? Because it's a lucrative business model. Are you suggesting that Electrolux be forced to sell its vacuums over the Internet, in stores, and on street corners? The same story applies to Longaberger baskets, and up until recently, Tupperware.
DC, there is a very clear distinction between copyrights and patents and trademarks. They don't own the 'copyright' to their vacuum cleaner, because a vacuum cleaner is not a piece of intellectual work. And people aren't prohibited on making other vacuum cleaners similar to that particular one, with the exception of where trade secrets and patents are concerned.
But they own the name Electrolux, which is copyrighted (registered trademark). You can create similar vacuum cleaners, sure, but can never market them under the Electrolux name, just like my band can create music of the same genre as any popular band, market it however we want, such as distributing it over the internet, but we cannot say that it's actually another band's work in an attempt to piggyback their success. Our ability to choose our distribution channel is not infringed by the major band's decision not to utilize the Internet as a method of distribution.
-
TheCops
- DBB Fleet Admiral
- Posts: 2475
- Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 2:01 am
- Location: minneapolis, mn
- Contact:
would you please cease and desist with the bullfrog. you are not paying for the play... quit rationalizing taking money away from the creators of whatever work.
i am not an innocent... i got dsl right when napster began to take off... you're damn right i was happy to have 5 jeff buckley tunes by the time i got back from the liquor store... and i downloaded about 1,400 mp3's in all. i was a non-musician at the time.
then it struck me one day, after playing a guitar for almost 20 years, piano, spending almost 5 grand on private vocal lessons... that it simply wasn't right. it was a rip-off.
not only was the audio quality lacking... and it does lack compared to a store bought cd... i was ★■◆●ing people, like me, out of money they earned through sacrifice, diligence, and hard work. (yes, even bad pop tunes are work.)
at that point i revised my stance... i think it's ok to check out a particular artist and make your decision. it's an honor system thing... and humans on the grand scale have little honor.
do you really buy the cd if you like the download? or do you just type that response on the dbb?
the small time musicians trying to make a career are not generally well to do. i worked at a kinkos in minneapolis, second shift, for 3 years to meet the contacts that led to a puny demo deal that went no where. now a days down loaders could have snubbed it much sooner (with the possibility of better exposure – that’s up to the artist… NOT YOU)... with your "art belongs to everyone" BS. YOU DO THE WORK!
is it ok to snatch your html programming? is it ok to snatch your 3D graphics? is it ok to snatch your network admin skills without pay?
OH, HELL NO!
just discontinue the bullfog. you are tappin' peoples' rent money.
i am not an innocent... i got dsl right when napster began to take off... you're damn right i was happy to have 5 jeff buckley tunes by the time i got back from the liquor store... and i downloaded about 1,400 mp3's in all. i was a non-musician at the time.
then it struck me one day, after playing a guitar for almost 20 years, piano, spending almost 5 grand on private vocal lessons... that it simply wasn't right. it was a rip-off.
not only was the audio quality lacking... and it does lack compared to a store bought cd... i was ★■◆●ing people, like me, out of money they earned through sacrifice, diligence, and hard work. (yes, even bad pop tunes are work.)
at that point i revised my stance... i think it's ok to check out a particular artist and make your decision. it's an honor system thing... and humans on the grand scale have little honor.
do you really buy the cd if you like the download? or do you just type that response on the dbb?
the small time musicians trying to make a career are not generally well to do. i worked at a kinkos in minneapolis, second shift, for 3 years to meet the contacts that led to a puny demo deal that went no where. now a days down loaders could have snubbed it much sooner (with the possibility of better exposure – that’s up to the artist… NOT YOU)... with your "art belongs to everyone" BS. YOU DO THE WORK!
is it ok to snatch your html programming? is it ok to snatch your 3D graphics? is it ok to snatch your network admin skills without pay?
OH, HELL NO!
just discontinue the bullfog. you are tappin' peoples' rent money.
In what way doesn't it apply?
I directly countered that with my analogy to other products that are sold through specific distribution channels when alternatives clearly exist, but where there is perfect reason to sell only through the "tried-and-true" method: big, guaranteed profit margin.
You then brought up a semantics issue between copyrights and patents/trademarks, and I brought it full circle by bringing up the following:
You said the following: copyright holders should not have the right to hold back from certain distribution channels simply because they don't want to use them.Tetrad wrote:But it does not (or at least, should not) allow people to not have said work simply because you don't want them to. Art belongs to everybody. If somebody wants to have something I made, I should get paid for it, right? Well, I should not be allowed not to sell it simply because I don't like or have not taken advantage of that particular channel of distribution.
Which is why I'm for compulsive licensing.
I directly countered that with my analogy to other products that are sold through specific distribution channels when alternatives clearly exist, but where there is perfect reason to sell only through the "tried-and-true" method: big, guaranteed profit margin.
You then brought up a semantics issue between copyrights and patents/trademarks, and I brought it full circle by bringing up the following:
The whole point is "use it if you want to". Dream Theater made As I Am, the first single from their newest album, available as a free 96 kbps MP3 from their homepage. Based on that sample, I was able to determine whether to purchase the album or not. Unfortunately the answer was "no", but nonetheless they are a MAJOR-LABEL band (Epic). Aerosmith has done the same thing time and time again, with MP3's and hi-res QuickTime full-length music videos. Slowly the RIAA is beginning to realize that the Internet is a valid way to market a product, but until some method exists that provides the same secure profit margin that a brick-and-mortar store does, it would be ridiculous to pursue such distribution channels with more effort than that put into traditional distribution.DCrazy wrote:Our ability to choose our distribution channel is not infringed by the major band's decision not to utilize the Internet as a method of distribution.
I understand your analogy, but there are several differences between selling art and selling consumer goods or whatever.
Copyrights are a relatively new idea. Prior to that, there was no intellectual property rights. Artists made their money, as it were, simply due to their skill instead of the content in and of itself.
With the advent of mass produced items like books and eventually music, it would not be financially feasible to go into the artistic world without some sort of government enforced temporary monopoly, after which said artwork would be in the public domain as usual. And more art in the public domain enriches everybody's lives, blah blah blah.
Now I'm simply saying that I don't agree that copyright holders should be able to prevent their holdings from reaching a willing/paying audience. In fact, this is already the way it is in radio with statutory licensing. The radio does not have to get permission to play songs, and the copyright holder must give them a license (and associated fees) which is set by law.
It just seems to me that copyright holders are borderline abusing their government-granted monopolies on their specific material, given the whole purpose of copyrights is to encourage artists and whoever to make more.
Copyrights are a relatively new idea. Prior to that, there was no intellectual property rights. Artists made their money, as it were, simply due to their skill instead of the content in and of itself.
With the advent of mass produced items like books and eventually music, it would not be financially feasible to go into the artistic world without some sort of government enforced temporary monopoly, after which said artwork would be in the public domain as usual. And more art in the public domain enriches everybody's lives, blah blah blah.
Now I'm simply saying that I don't agree that copyright holders should be able to prevent their holdings from reaching a willing/paying audience. In fact, this is already the way it is in radio with statutory licensing. The radio does not have to get permission to play songs, and the copyright holder must give them a license (and associated fees) which is set by law.
It just seems to me that copyright holders are borderline abusing their government-granted monopolies on their specific material, given the whole purpose of copyrights is to encourage artists and whoever to make more.