I wish Harlan Ellison would just die already...

[David cgc]

It's theft because it's taking something that doesn't belong to you.

Wrong again.

You might want to read that article.

It's starting to look like one of us is stupid. Why don't you support your assertions beyond just saying "Wrong," and we can see who.

For instance, I don't see how "music sales have jumped in 2011," "Physical albums [have]... a 15-point turnaround. Digital albums [have]... a nearly 6-point turnaround," "physical [media] has been positive in four out of five months," and "given the state of recorded music sales in late August, it appears the U.S. market could end the year in positive territory" contradict the notion that "music sales are up this year despite the bad economy."

 

[JarodRussell]

It's theft because it's taking something that doesn't belong to you.

Wrong again.

You might want to read that article.

It's starting to look like one of us is stupid. Why don't you support your assertions beyond just saying "Wrong," and we can see who.

For instance, I don't see how "music sales have jumped in 2011," "Physical albums [have]... a 15-point turnaround. Digital albums [have]... a nearly 6-point turnaround," "physical [media] has been positive in four out of five months," and "given the state of recorded music sales in late August, it appears the U.S. market could end the year in positive territory" contradict the notion that "music sales are up this year despite the bad economy."

The article also says that it could be due to shutting down LimeWire. I believe that's what he meant.

 

[Neroon]

It's theft because it's taking something that doesn't belong to you.

Wrong again.

You might want to read that article.

It's starting to look like one of us is stupid. Why don't you support your assertions beyond just saying "Wrong," and we can see who.

A much better idea would be to have both of you take a breath and step back from the brink on this disagreement, before someone gets this thread shut down.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

So, you'd be OK with someone making a Beastiality Porno out of your earlier work, nothing you can do about it, except take the $500.

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Hold on a second! ... ... ... I just got an idea. ... Is Animal Farm in the public domain yet? (It's a more literal metaphor for how the Romanovs were fucking over the proletariat!)

Elves are folklore and have no owner.

So really, the main reason for more vigorous copyright enforcement is because our record keeping is better. We have yet to identify the heirs of Homer or William Shakespeare. We've never even identified the original author (or more likely authors) of Beowulf or the King Arthur stories. But because we can now definitively identify the descendants of the creators of Superman, Mickey Mouse, & Bugs Bunny, it's a total game changer. (Then there's Sherlock Holmes, who exists in some weird middle ground where some of it is public domain and some of it is still marginally controlled by the heirs of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.)

Easy for a studio to tack on extra costs to the budget, to lower the profit that is split up (Make did mean profit right?)

"Remember, it's gross, not net. The net is fantasy." --Freakazoid

 

[RJDiogenes]

To some people, the semantics, that when you make a digital copy you aren't erasing the original, makes a difference. Since the original possessor of a digital file isn't deprived of it when a copy is made, they say, it can't be theft in the same way that, when a burglar has broken in and taken my stereo from my house, I don't have it any more.

What's actually being discussed are things like when access to media is authorized, and when and under what circumstances someone has the privilege of marketing certain kinds of merchandise. But this gets obscured by what amounts to a semantic straw man argument over exactly what words best describe things like unauthorized duplication or illegal use of a trademark.

Exactly. Illegal downloading of digital media is wrong because it deprives the owner of income. Then there is the issue of artistic control and integrity. It all comes down to the fact that the owner is the owner.

It's starting to look like one of us is stupid. Why don't you support your assertions beyond just saying "Wrong," and we can see who.

It's been explained to you again and again, by both myself and others. If you need it explained again, it's all upthread.

For instance, I don't see how "music sales have jumped in 2011," "Physical albums [have]... a 15-point turnaround. Digital albums [have]... a nearly 6-point turnaround," "physical [media] has been positive in four out of five months," and "given the state of recorded music sales in late August, it appears the U.S. market could end the year in positive territory" contradict the notion that "music sales are up this year despite the bad economy."

Because they are describing a bounceback that is the result of closing down an illegal trafficking network. As noted in the article Jan quoted, sales are down more than 50% over a a decade.

So really, the main reason for more vigorous copyright enforcement is because our record keeping is better. We have yet to identify the heirs of Homer or William Shakespeare. We've never even identified the original author (or more likely authors) of Beowulf or the King Arthur stories. But because we can now definitively identify the descendants of the creators of Superman, Mickey Mouse, & Bugs Bunny, it's a total game changer.

That's right. It's a game-changer when you know who the people are. That's pretty obvious. Plus you'd have to have existing heirs and know who they are. And that's assuming that Copyright laws existed for thousands of years.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

For instance, I don't see how "music sales have jumped in 2011," "Physical albums [have]... a 15-point turnaround. Digital albums [have]... a nearly 6-point turnaround," "physical [media] has been positive in four out of five months," and "given the state of recorded music sales in late August, it appears the U.S. market could end the year in positive territory" contradict the notion that "music sales are up this year despite the bad economy."

Bleating about the "poor musicians" misses the point of what's happened. It's really the big music companies that have been hurt by file-sharing on the Internet to a far greater degree than musicians who've been able to leverage access to a bigger audience. The TV and film industry have been dealing with essentially the same issues, but while they make enforcement efforts as well they also have embraced every one of the technologies that they at first were alarmed by - and the markets opened up by home entertainment have probably saved their businesses. They've certainly made hellacious amounts of money off of copyable formats that they fought tooth and nail.

But then, the folks in the big business end of film and TV are used to working for their money. Big music is and always has been lazy - why shouldn't they go all-in on legal remedies? They love lawyers; they've used them to rip off artists for generations.

 

[JarodRussell]

The big music companies live from selling CDs. The artists themselves live from their tours. Basically.

Then the labels are pretty much acting stupid when it comes to piracy, as this article describes: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/15/b...-old-fashioned-way.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm They throw hundreds of copies out there for promotion, and then wonder that things get leaked.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

If Big Music "lives from selling CDs" they're screwed, obviously. That ship has sailed.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

The article also says that it could be due to shutting down LimeWire. I believe that's what he meant.

Could be. I don't think Limewire was that much of a factor in the file sharing market. Most people use the bittorrent networks.

Not that I know this from personal experience or anything.

Another factor that needs to be considered in identifying why music sales are down include that, in my opinion, new music sucks!

The music market for the past 10-15 years has been far too heavily focusing on the 'tween market, with a constant barrage of boy bands and Madonna rip offs. When was the last time we got a decent rock group gain worldwide fame to the level of Pearl Jam or Nirvana?

 

[JarodRussell]

If Big Music "lives from selling CDs" they're screwed, obviously. That ship has sailed.

Which is why they are battling so hard. The Internet era is seriously damaging the labels. The artists themselves aren't hit so hard. People who download their songs or watch them on Youtube are still going to the concerts for the experience. You can't download that.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The music market for the past 10-15 years has been far too heavily focusing on the 'tween market, with a constant barrage of boy bands and Madonna rip offs. When was the last time we got a decent rock group gain worldwide fame to the level of Pearl Jam or Nirvana?

Well, tell those kids to get off your lawn and start buying music you like again!

Ain't happening. Suits me; I like current pop music a lot, anyway.

If Big Music "lives from selling CDs" they're screwed, obviously. That ship has sailed.

Which is why they are battling so hard. The Internet era is seriously damaging the labels. The artists themselves aren't hit so hard. People who download their songs or watch them on Youtube are still going to the concerts for the experience. You can't download that.

Exactly so.

The Fillmore opened a venue down the street (literally, two blocks) from my home this month. People are out there in line every night; it's pretty awesome. Ziggy Marley's performing on 10/30.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

Well, tell those kids to get off your lawn and start buying music you like again!

Ain't happening. Suits me; I like current pop music a lot, anyway.

I don't care what kids buy. But if the music industry wants to have growth and broader appeal, they need to cater to people who are over the age of 14.

Not only is that age group less likely to have money, they are far more likely to steal music!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The kids are and really always have been the backbone of the industry. Older folks don't become fanatical followers/consumers of what's new. They can be depended upon, though, to buy backlist as gifts.

 

[David cgc]

I don't have any difficulty finding new music I like, even if my tastes skew a bit less than bleeding-edge. I tend to rely on new material from favorite artists, but there are new acts that are markedly different from whatever it is the tween girls like. As long as people produce stuff I like, I couldn't care less whether it's explosively popular. I'd almost prefer it wasn't, for a couple reasons.

t's been explained to you again and again, by both myself and others. If you need it explained again, it's all upthread.

You're the only person here who has taken a public stand for perpetual copyright. Another poster repeatedly questioned my character for even postulating that someone could believe something so outlandish, and said I was insulting you by assuming you did.

Your only explanation for why the public domain should consigned to history has been to write off all the stuff that makes intellectual property its own thing with its own legal protections as that it's "easier to steal," and pretending that physical property and intellectual properties don't work in totally different ways. Oh, and to declare that if you don't know who owns something, then no one owns it, and it must've just appeared out of thin air.

 

[TremblingBluStar]

The kids are and really always have been the backbone of the industry. Older folks don't become fanatical followers/consumers of what's new. They can be depended upon, though, to buy backlist as gifts.

I agree they have always been important, but not the most important segment. They are, however, the most fickle.

I almost feel bad for artists that depend on 'tweens for a career. They are a ticking time-bomb of craziness!

 

[barnaclelapse]

That's going to be my headline someday. Just you wait and see.

 

[Sindatur]

So, you'd be OK with someone making a Beastiality Porno out of your earlier work, nothing you can do about it, except take the $500.

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Hold on a second! ... ... ... I just got an idea. ... Is Animal Farm in the public domain yet? (It's a more literal metaphor for how the Romanovs were fucking over the proletariat!)

LOL, you got me there. Not a movie I'll be watching, but, heh, Touche nonetheless

 

[JarodRussell]

So, you'd be OK with someone making a Beastiality Porno out of your earlier work, nothing you can do about it, except take the $500.

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Hold on a second! ... ... ... I just got an idea. ... Is Animal Farm in the public domain yet? (It's a more literal metaphor for how the Romanovs were fucking over the proletariat!)

LOL, you got me there. Not a movie I'll be watching, but, heh, Touche nonetheless

Seeing that there's TOS and TNG porn out there counting as parody, I think nothings sacred anymore anyway.

 

[RJDiogenes]

You're the only person here who has taken a public stand for perpetual copyright. Another poster repeatedly questioned my character for even postulating that someone could believe something so outlandish, and said I was insulting you by assuming you did.

Perpetual copyright is beside the point when people are arguing for automatic eminent domain.

Your only explanation for why the public domain should consigned to history has been to write off all the stuff that makes intellectual property its own thing with its own legal protections as that it's "easier to steal," and pretending that physical property and intellectual properties don't work in totally different ways. Oh, and to declare that if you don't know who owns something, then no one owns it, and it must've just appeared out of thin air.

Uh, if you can translate that into English and it's something new, I might respond. Otherwise, I'm pretty much done repeating the obvious.

 

[Sindatur]

You're the only person here who has taken a public stand for perpetual copyright. Another poster repeatedly questioned my character for even postulating that someone could believe something so outlandish, and said I was insulting you by assuming you did.

Perpetual copyright is beside the point when people are arguing for automatic eminent domain.

Your only explanation for why the public domain should consigned to history has been to write off all the stuff that makes intellectual property its own thing with its own legal protections as that it's "easier to steal," and pretending that physical property and intellectual properties don't work in totally different ways. Oh, and to declare that if you don't know who owns something, then no one owns it, and it must've just appeared out of thin air.

Uh, if you can translate that into English and it's something new, I might respond. Otherwise, I'm pretty much done repeating the obvious.

At least break up that first sentence with some punctuation or splitting the sentence. I read it 5 times, and don't seem to be able to find the right flow for it to make sense to me.