|
|
Posted by Ted 'the only good Kennedy is a dead' Kennedy on 10/15/77 11:26
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 17:46:43 -0400, "Loco Jones"
<locojonesnet@netscape.net> was understood to have stated the
following:
>
>My point being, this "argument" has been going on for *years*, and it still
>hasn't been satisfactorily resolved - and certainly not by the Courts to
>date. Copyright infringement is a civil matter, theft is a criminal matter,
>and it's the RIAA/MPAA cartels confusing the two while trying to bully the
>judicial system into accepting their point of view.
No arguments there.
>Anyone can claim that listening to music without paying to do so is guilty
>of "stealing", they can even claim some moral high ground in defending
>their views, but that doesn't neccessarily mean they are right and anyone
>in disagreement is wrong.
The argument isn't about listening to music without paying for it; the
argument is about possessing music without paying for it, as well as
distributing music for which you do not have the rights to distribute.
>I can claim that it's morally wrong for the RIAA to create one-sided
>contracts which "steal" from the creators of artistic property, or force
>them to sign away their rights in near-perpetuity, but I doubt they would
>see it that way. To them, it's simply a matter of how they have always
>conducted business and how dare anyone question the status quo.
Strange, I didn't realize artists were *required* to sign contracts
with the RIAA. Is the industry holding guns to the artist(s) heads to
force them into coercion?
Interestingly enough, a few weeks ago I was listening to a radio show
that featured "up and coming" or "new" artists in the genre I follow.
The spokesman for one band was featured, ironically enough within a
few weeks of my purchasing one of their CDs. He made the statement
that before his band signed a contract with a record label, a friend
of his with a server set up a site for the band to share up some of
their music with. An industry exec found the site, liked the content,
and offered the group a contract. The group obviously signed a
contract. This group used the 'net as an avenue for discovery, and
after their discovery, decided to sign with a label. If the 'net is so
much better for the artist(s), why didn't they stay with a
distribution medium that was in their favor?
>The problem is... people *are* questioning an industry that has been found
>guilty (by the Courts) of price-fixing and payola for radio airplay (yet
>again in 2005!), and while copyright infringement for profit certainly
>needs to be addressed, downloading music merely to listen to is hardly the
>felony the **AA member corporations would have the news media and the
>public believe.
I never said I was a fan of the ??AA; in fact, I dislike them very
much. However, when it comes to rewarding the artist(s) for their
work, the ??AA is doing a *MUCH* better job than the sharers are. The
??AA is one evil; sharers another. It's just that the latter (IMO) is
the greater of the two evils.
>There's an old saying... "there are two sides to every argument, and the
>truth usually falls somewhere in the middle." I would say that definitely
>applies to this particular issue. Did you even read the article, or the
>reader comments, from the url I provided?
Agreed, there are two sides to every argument. As someone who has made
a living via the development of IP, I have to side with the side of
the artists, but that doesn't mean I'm a fan of the association(s) or
the sharers. All I can do is sit here and laugh because I know that
while the sharers have valid points regarding the ??AA's tactics,
their own credibility is damaged by their actions.
As for the content, as of yet, I haven't read it, although I will do
so at some point in the near future. I've been relatively busy since
my last posting frenzy, and I've got some other tasks of higher
importance right now. I'm developing an app to make life easier for a
couple of my coworkers. :-D
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|