Members flatfinger Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Good read : http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i062b16e707aa99915e4020e2fef62399 I suggest we shift the focus of moral pressure away from the individual P2P file thief and on to the multi billion dollar industries that benefit from these countless tiny crimes -- The ISPs, the telcos, the device makers. Let's appeal to those fine minds at Stanford University and Silicon Valley, Apple, Google, Nokia, HP, China Mobile, Vodafone, Comcast, Intel, Ericsson, Facebook, iLike, Oracle, Microsoft, AOL, Yahoo, Tiscali etc, and the bankers, engineers, private equity funds, and venture capitalists who service them and feed off them to apply their genius to cooperating with us to save the recorded music industry, not only on the basis of reluctantly sharing advertising revenue but collecting revenue for the use and sale of our content. They have built multi billion dollar industries on the back of our content without paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DanielQ Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Um, that's utter garbage. Google and *most* of those other companies have helped or benefited from piracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Sounds like Mr. McGuinness has done an excellent job of representing U2 and making those large giants money. Where's my cut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Standard8 Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Daniel Q is a secret detective in the Secret Detective Society (SDS... the same group that brought you the SARS epidemic scare of 1998). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members nerol1st Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I didn't read it but judging the quote we should ban hi tech devices including the internet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flatfinger Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I didn't read it but judging the quote ................. Who has the time to read anymore:poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I think he's right on the money in that quote. This was being discussed in another thread. Apple has (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) benefited directly off the backs of the music industry via the iPod. They know perfectly well why those devices are selling so well and how they are getting filled up. Same with p2p software manufacturers and newgroup vendors. They know perfectly well that their products and services move hugely more bytes of illegal content than legal. So what he's saying makes sense. Instead of trying to stop people from downloading, which is almost impossible, make those companies who are benefiting from it at the expense of the music industry pay a tax on those earnings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I think he's right on the money in that quote. This was being discussed in another thread. Apple has (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) benefited directly off the backs of the music industry via the iPod. They know perfectly well why those devices are selling so well and how they are getting filled up. Same with p2p software manufacturers and newgroup vendors. They know perfectly well that their products and services move hugely more bytes of illegal content than legal. So what he's saying makes sense. Instead of trying to stop people from downloading, which is almost impossible, make those companies who are benefiting from it at the expense of the music industry pay a tax on those earnings. A tax? And just who gets the revenue? Certainly not the musicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members thedolaon Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 all these topics about the industry goin' down is getting so redundant, but i really like being updated, and as an artist i have to know this. but i sometimes wonder how long will it take until everything is settled. imo, the labels are soon going to like sponsors (i mean they basically are, but you know what i mean). Like how there are apparel sponsorships, labels will be the advertising sponsorships. thats what i see soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 A tax? And just who gets the revenue? Certainly not the musicians. It would have to be apportioned somehow. They manage to do that for various other types of non-CD sales revenue, and somehow that tax on blank CDs (which I think is pretty useless at this point since not much of it actually probably gets onto a CD anymore) must get apportioned out, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 all these topics about the industry goin' down is getting so redundant, but i really like being updated, and as an artist i have to know this. but i sometimes wonder how long will it take until everything is settled. imo, the labels are soon going to like sponsors (i mean they basically are, but you know what i mean). Like how there are apparel sponsorships, labels will be the advertising sponsorships. thats what i see soon. +1 Dola Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Gabriel Raphael Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Good read : http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i062b16e707aa99915e4020e2fef62399 Peace people, I will trade the sleazy record companies and there con artists liars for Internet pirates any day when in the end of the day your a broke artists anyway and all you gained was the fame and glory while most not all artists end up been OWNED or LEASED when they loose there copyrights.I say if your a great artists people will decide your fate on what they will pay for about you, if you can sell shows you can bring in over $250,000 a week just playing 10,000 seaters every day for 5 days. Maybe Bono and his manager can find a solution to this since they are a huge band, but the reason they are huge all his time is cause they do not want one, you need to take care of yourself i guess, no ego rock stars to be out there would ever respect Bono for helping them anyway, this is why U2 capitalized themselves over all Irish artists when invested in the arts over in ireland. But talk about horrible cons!:When Van Hallen returned from there first major tour after selling 2 million records Warner Bros demanded over $270,000, hows that?The Hendrix Experience along with Jimi never lived to see the money they earned, hows that?The Beatles according to John Lennon made millions but they did not et any of it but the people around are who did, hows that? The digital revolution is here to stay, forget the idea of making money by pimping artists, it is the artists turn to prove themselves as such to let the people decide if they should spend there time or money coming to a show, or been a member of the fan club (whatever teh artists shares there too).. i am sure there is a solution, but greed seems to creep in people's hearts all the time so they do not want to see a solution, instead they want control of it all by passing laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soundwave106 Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I didn't read it but judging the quote we should ban hi tech devices including the internet? That speech reminds me why the music industry is battle of hearts and minds, too. You'd think that "stealing music" would be an obvious argument to win hearts and minds, but in this speech the technology industry is being compared to free-loving hippie commies, and it's those goddamn hippies in Mr. McGuinness's eyes that are responsible for the current malaise. Well, gosh. Those goddamn hippies -- along with a whole lot of other non-hippie geeks and business folks, too -- created one of the biggest technological upheavals ever, with a whole lot of benefit to society. Let's face it, the music industry wins no friends if their basic counter-argument to piracy is to "shut off the Internet". For better or for worse -- and honestly, its mostly for better, frankly -- the Internet doesn't care what is in the packets that you send. I can't see a way around this without delving into scary territory. I mean, would you *really* want to appoint a Big Brother to oversee all Internet packets? (And do you really think that will solve "piracy"? China has that Big Brother firewall and oversight, but China is *far* less friendly to copyright law than the US is.) ISPs really don't need to take on this responsibility. The most popular P2P / torrent hubs pretty much all have some form of centralized points, so the hubs themselves seem like pretty obvious suit targets. I would've thought, by now, that it would have been easy to shut the big ones down. Apparently not, since several big ones seem untouched by litigation so far. The music industry shouldn't give a {censored} about the small fry and/or individuals, but apparently some countries' recording industries thinks that suing 80 year old grandmas drives a message harder home than shutting a hub down. One final note: Regarding high fidelity formats, mentioned by McGuinness. The big mega-tech companies (which often are tied to the music companies) shot itself in the foot with a high-def digital format war right from the get-go. There most certainly is an interest in high-fidelity formats, but nobody wants to back a losing standard. The currently more visible HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray war is proof of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 A tax? And just who gets the revenue? Certainly not the musicians. This is true. But U2 did score a pretty sweet deal with Apple for their signature ipod. However, I don't see many of those corporate deals targeting smaller artists. Smaller artists just don't have the star power and resources to net those deals. Nevertheless, I felt McGuinness was just bitching to a large degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Nevertheless, I felt McGuinness was just bitching to a large degree. He'd fit right in here, then, wouldn't he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 He'd fit right in here, then, wouldn't he? ... haha I don't know what you mean, but yeah...to some extent I feel U2's manager has netted that band millions of dollars, but his solutions will do very little to help out smaller artists. Of course, everything will work in favor for U2. But Google or Apple is not knocking on my door anytime soon to offer me a deal or give me my "portion" of the tax money (which currently doesn't exist). But now I sound like I'm bitching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BlueStrat Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 ... haha I don't know what you mean, but yeah...to some extent I feel U2's manager has netted that band millions of dollars, but his solutions will do very little to help out smaller artists. Of course, everything will work in favor for U2. But Google or Apple is not knocking on my door anytime soon to offer me a deal or give me my "portion" of the tax money (which currently doesn't exist). But now I sound like I'm bitching I meant that I do my fair share of bitching! I'm convinced that Internet forums prevent a lot of people from climbing atop a clock tower with a high powered rifle and 'letting off steam'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crossways Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I usually don't get involved in these discussions, but I was struck by the quote as making a lot of sense. When I share with my music students about illegal P2P sharing their first question is always, "but if sharing that stuff is illegal why is it on the net?" i.e. Kazaa, Lime Wire etc. These are 5th-8th graders, so I try to make my analogy fairly simple, but I think it's pretty decent. I tell them that these website provide a software that IS legal, because you can do legal things with it....like a lot of things it is often MISUSED. They provide the PLACE to share...legal or illegal. I tell them it's like a parking lot that is hosting flea market. The Flea Market isn't selling items, they provide the PLACE to buy and sell. But I got to thinking. If I owned a parking lot and hosted a Flea Market and I said to the vendors, "You must sell only legal things." then walked around and notice a pot transaction here, Trademark infringment there (like the fake Louise Viton purses) and I did nothing to report the activity or to stop it, wouldn't I have SOME culpability? I am no lawyer, but I would tend to think at some point I'm as much to blame. That said, I really agree with the quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Newgroups vendors play a game, though it has legitimate points. They want to be treated like the phone company. The phone company is not responsible for what happens on their wires/signals. They are a carrier and nothing more. Newgroup vendors have made noise to get this same status for themselves. And it has some validity. OTOH, it's not like the phone company where all the conversations are supposed to be private and therefore the phone company cannot impose any limitations on the traffic without peaking into people's private business. Newgroups are public conversations, and the places where the illegal content are posted are well known, and it's well known that that content is illegal. The same with the p2p vendors. They know what's being done with their software. It's less openly there for everyone to see since you have to buy their software to find out. But it's clearly as bad or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members doug osborne Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 Good read : http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i062b16e707aa99915e4020e2fef62399 I suggest we shift the focus of moral pressure away from the individual P2P file thief and on to the multi billion dollar industries that benefit from these countless tiny crimes -- The ISPs He's right in a way. Copyright infringement is widespread, embedded in our culture, and enabled by our technology. It's a federal crime, yet the federal government has never seen fit to charge anyone with a federal crime for trading a file; the RIAA has succeeded in civil lawsuits against some people who have made large numbers of files available for trading. The technology will remain as individual file trading methods come and go, shutting down Kaazaa didn't seem to stop P2P, for example. The real money, whether you are U2 or you and me, is in the revenue generated by legal uses. For example, MySpace generates $800M to $1B a year in revenues, yet gives nothing to the artists who supply music that is played on MySpace and draws people there. They claim 7M artists on MySpace Music - with statutory payments for each play to the artist (whether 9.1 cents, or the 15 cents proposed by the CRB), the question of lost revenues by the artist would more than go away. I have one MySpace site that, with absolutely no promotion or fan base, has had nearly 1,000 plays - I could use the $150! Like VCRs, torrents, limewire, and other P2P technology have substantial non-infringing use, and can't be outlawed. Infringing activities using these technologies are already illegal, as they should be. ASCAP, BMI, etc., have workable, if not completely efficient and fair systems to redistribute broadcast, etc., revenues to copyright holders. Generating a stream of revenue from ISPs to copyright holders has to be another link in the chain of the new music industry. The American Home Recording Act still collects revenue from each blank Music CD and CD recorder, yet not a dime has been returned to artists from this (guess who collects the AHRA levies - the RIAA). I don't think the fox can watch the henhouse. I also think that a government tax can't be the solution - but considering the fact that copyright is one of the few rights guaranteed in the constitution, the federal goverment might need to establish a position here, considering technology un-imaginable by our founding fathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 The American Home Recording Act still collects revenue from each blank Music CD and CD recorder, yet not a dime has been returned to artists from this (guess who collects the AHRA levies - the RIAA). I couldn't imagine this is much of a benefit anyway anymore. How much of that music really ends up CDs these days? They RIAA, as I remember, has asked to have this tax stopped, I assume because they don't get much from it and it's used as a justification for stealing form them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members doug osborne Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 ... How much of that music really ends up CDs these days? They RIAA, as I remember, has asked to have this tax stopped, I assume because they don't get much from it and it's used as a justification for stealing form them. Less and less, you're right, but still a substatial amount (although I don't know if anybody hasn't figured out not to buy the CDRs labelled Music). Canada has a similar system to generate revenue from blank CD sales and people there say that is actually redistributes some money, those crazy Canadians... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sabriel9v Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 I meant that I do my fair share of bitching!I'm convinced that Internet forums prevent a lot of people from climbing atop a clock tower with a high powered rifle and 'letting off steam'. LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members flatfinger Posted January 31, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 RIAA Cheif ...."We see no need for filtering..........http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080130-riaa-chief-we-dont-see-a-need-for-mandatory-isp-filtering.htmlWARNING : Slow server!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dean Roddey Posted January 31, 2008 Members Share Posted January 31, 2008 There was just a story on the radio that the Swedish govt has charged four people with the running of Pirate Bay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.