Does the punishment fit the 'crime'? Out of touch laws

[SemperFiUSMC]

My overall point is this: It's too bad for record companies that things have changed. People are no longer willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money for albums with 1 decent song. It's time to make some changes to your business model, not destroy someone's life to make an example of him.

Yes, just like a rape victim a music label should just roll over and enjoy being violated. Brilliant idea. Theft is theft, except to anarchists.

Some people freely distribute their music. Why do you think it's OK to steal from those who don't?

OK so lets say is is not a student. Say middle class Joe. Still the same process?

Same thing happens.

 

[jedi]

Same thing happens.

So what is the point then?

 

[steveh_131]

Yes, just like a rape victim a music label should just roll over and enjoy being violated. Brilliant idea. Theft is theft, except to anarchists.

Some people freely distribute their music. Why do you think it's OK to steal from those who don't?

Because I don't think it's theft. But that discussion is over in the other thread. Gonna keep it out of this one out of respect for Prometheus.

Comparing copyright law to rape. Stay classy.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Because I don't think it's theft. But that discussion is over in the other thread. Gonna keep it out of this one out of respect for Prometheus.

Comparing copyright law to rape. Stay classy.

Comparing criminal act to criminal act.

 

[Garb]

Comparing criminal act to criminal act.

Don't make me give you positive rep today.

 

[Plinker]

We used to check lime wire and you could see how many people had downloaded your songs. If you broke a cd down to about $2.00 a song you'd realize that if these people had paid for your cd you'd be $1,000 richer and more apt to put out another one...if your label still existed.

Not accurate. First of all, individual songs can be purchase from sites like iTunes and walmart.com. Second of all, 5000 people (arbitrary number) illegally downloading your music does not equate to 5000 lost sales, as many of those downloads may have been people checking out your music who may have never paid for it in the first place (and may not have heard it either).

 

[steveh_131]

Don't make me give you positive rep today.

Speeding = rape.

Do I get a positive rep now too?

 

[Garb]

Speeding = rape.

Do I get a positive rep now too?

No lol. Nice try though. What he's saying is that both are criminal acts, and must be treated as such. Speeding or violating a copyright law is not nearly as serious as rape, but legitimate laws must be enforced.

 

[steveh_131]

No lol. Nice try though. What he's saying is that both are criminal acts, and must be treated as such. Speeding or violating a copyright law is not nearly as serious as rape, but legitimate laws must be enforced.

That wasn't his point, but I do see your point.

 

[Garb]

That wasn't his point, but I do see your point.

After rereading his post, you're right. But I'm glad you see my point.

 

[vitamink]

Not accurate. First of all, individual songs can be purchase from sites like iTunes and walmart.com. Second of all, 5000 people (arbitrary number) illegally downloading your music does not equate to 5000 lost sales, as many of those downloads may have been people checking out your music who may have never paid for it in the first place (and may not have heard it either).

incredibly accurate, as it happened to me, we did the math, our label went bankrupt. To whomever said advertising doesn't cost anything... You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Yes individual songs can NOW be purchased from iTunes i was referring to when napster started and iTunes didn't exist. But then again we aren't talking about iTunes where you purchase a song and the band gets paid, we're talking about file sharing P2P or using even more illegal services like fileserv, wu upload, rapidshare etc where you get paid to host your illegal files and make money off of their downloads. Im all about iTunes.

I do agree with the 5000 doesn't equal 5000 in lost sales, however if i'm not giving it away you shouldn't be able to take it. Your son leaves his bike in the front yard. I'm interested in the bike. It's available, i take it, i like it, i keep it.

 

[Prometheus]

Ah, so you agree the d-bag who stole my truck should die. It is, after all, our modern day version of the horse.

I don't the penalty for motor vehicle theft should be death after the fact.

I do think that the property owner should be allowed to use deadly force to prevent the theft from occurring. Irregardless of the vehicle being occupied or not.

As it stands in Indiana, the vehicle must be occupied to legally use deadly force.

 

[steveh_131]

incredibly accurate, as it happened to me, we did the math, our label went bankrupt. To whomever said advertising doesn't cost anything... You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

The money spent on advertising was obviously wasted. Time to find a cheaper and better advertising venue. Once again, not my problem.

I do agree with the 5000 doesn't equal 5000 in lost sales, however if i'm not giving it away you shouldn't be able to take it. Your son leaves his bike in the front yard. I'm interested in the bike. It's available, i take it, i like it, i keep it.

If you want to compare copyright infringement with stealing a physical bike, head over to the other thread where it's already been refuted over and over again.

 

[vitamink]

Advertising costs a ton there are no cheaper venues. The label invests in you by paying for you to record, paying for you to tour, paying for you to press a cd, paying stations to play your music/sending them free cd's to play. When there is no return on the investment, the label craps out. I experienced it first hand when p2p sharing took off. The smaller the label or band the larger the hit.

Ok after months of research and 1000's of dollars i develop the cure for cancer which puts me in the poor house but hopefully my new discovery will make me set for life. You come along and read the final page of my hard work and learn that the cure for cancer is carrot extract. You then go online and market YOUR cure for cancer and make a profit off of it. The idea is intangible, you have no right to it and yet you're profiting off of other's hard work.

For those that don't know i attended indiana university in 94. While there i met "dave blood" from the "dead milkmen" i think they had 1 mtv hit but were a big underground success. Dave had tendonitis in his hands which caused issues when he played shows. Luckily as he had released several albums, he learned that the money was in owning the rights to your songs and collecting royalties. With making an investment in himself, the music that he made was paying for his college along with some school loans. He wanted to start his own label (mostly electronic rave type stuff) and was in the process of signing bands and promoting them. P2P sharing took off and he noticed that he no longer had cd sales to help fund his education and had to get a job at the student library to finish his degrees. He soon noticed that the label that he started which took off so well was loosing money hand over fist and the bands he signed were only able to sell cd's at shows. Debt was overwhelming. The depression got to him and he ended his life in march 2004. I know, "once again not my problem", but i'm showing that it does affect people and mostly the "small business man" of the music industry.

I stand by my statement. If I'm not giving it away, you shouldn't be able to take it.

 

[steveh_131]

Nobody says you have to publish your research. I stand by property rights and contracts. Keep your research a secret through those tools. Just sell your cure and become rich.

I'm sorry your friends hands got crippled. That's unfortunate but it's also not my problem. He's not entitled to wealth just because he was successful back then.

 

[vitamink]

Nobody says you have to publish your research. I stand by property rights and contracts. Keep your research a secret through those tools. Just sell your cure and become rich.

I'm sorry your friends hands got crippled. That's unfortunate but it's also not my problem. He's not entitled to wealth just because he was successful back then.

First i have to sell my cure to cover all the cost i've incurred developing the cure, but when someone buys my cure, copies my cure then mass distributes my cure without my consent i'm now not making money off of my cure. You are now making money off of my cure and i'm left with all the debt.

The point isn't that his hands got crippled. He was smart and owned the rights to his songs unlike most musicians. "Punk rock girl" was played daily on MTV throughout the 80s. Dave was able to survive off of the money he made from the albums he sold, plus the dividends received from selling songs to movies commercials etc. He wanted to put himself through college and start his own record label since he couldn't play anymore. Both were going well until he suddenly stopped making money off of his music, and could no longer pay the debts incurred by producing other peoples music which became overwhelming.

I agree you are not entitled to wealth, but when you own the rights to your songs, it's like owning stock. If your stock does good, you do good. The more stock you own the more money you stand to make (see also michael jackson feud with paul mccartney). The price of his stock never changed in value, people still wanted his music they just didn't want to pay for it anymore as there were ways to steal it. There were also people who had his music and wanted to make money off of it. Here are 66 examples

Dead milkmen - free download - (724 files)

if you click on those links you can download all of his intellectual property free to you but someone other than the dead milkmen gets paid for it. That someone didn't spend months away from home on tour, didn't write the songs, didn't front money for the cd's etc etc. That someone is a person wanting to make money off of someone else's invention.

My only point to this is that it affects people. It affected me, my friends, the label i worked for,... in fact there wasn't a person in the music industry that it didn't profoundly and negatively affect (though oddly enough the least affected were the largest labels who are complaining the most). You can download whatever you want for free which is cheaper than paying $1.00 on iTunes. You can buy a kia instead of a ford as it's cheaper. You can quit shopping at bradis and buy all your ammo at walmart. You can do a lot of things...but someone feels the effects.

 

[steveh_131]

First i have to sell my cure to cover all the cost i've incurred developing the cure, but when someone buys my cure, copies my cure then mass distributes my cure without my consent i'm now not making money off of my cure. You are now making money off of my cure and i'm left with all the debt.

Oh I'm sure you could sell a whole lot of cancer cures at a reasonable price before I'm able to find a way to copy it without your notes and research.

The point isn't that his hands got crippled. He was smart and owned the rights to his songs unlike most musicians. "Punk rock girl" was played daily on MTV throughout the 80s. Dave was able to survive off of the money he made from the albums he sold, plus the dividends received from selling songs to movies commercials etc. He wanted to put himself through college and start his own record label since he couldn't play anymore. Both were going well until he suddenly stopped making money off of his music, and could no longer pay the debts incurred by producing other peoples music which became overwhelming.

I agree you are not entitled to wealth, but when you own the rights to your songs, it's like owning stock. If your stock does good, you do good. The more stock you own the more money you stand to make (see also michael jackson feud with paul mccartney). The price of his stock never changed in value, people still wanted his music they just didn't want to pay for it anymore as there were ways to steal it. There were also people who had his music and wanted to make money off of it. Here are 66 examples

Is it possible that nobody has heard of this band any more and nobody likes them any more? I certainly haven't. Or are you certain that it's only because of piracy that he's not making money?

My only point to this is that it affects people. It affected me, my friends, the label i worked for,... in fact there wasn't a person in the music industry that it didn't profoundly and negatively affect (though oddly enough the least affected were the largest labels who are complaining the most). You can download whatever you want for free which is cheaper than paying $1.00 on iTunes. You can buy a kia instead of a ford as it's cheaper. You can quit shopping at bradis and buy all your ammo at walmart. You can do a lot of things...but someone feels the effects.

I won't deny that it affects some people in some ways. I just believe these effects to be a part of the free market, just like your examples of buying a kia instead of a ford or buying your ammo at walmart. And I have don't think that's a bad thing.

Music existed before copyrights did. Plays existed. Writings existed, art existed. People invented things before patents came around.

We're dependent on these legal constructs because that's the only way we've ever seen the world. Even with rampant and easy piracy, there's still plenty of superstars out there making a lot more money than they're realistically worth. The music scene is filled with talentless hacks putting out the most inane music and banking millions. Millions are spent on movies that are absolute rubbish but are able to make money on the uninformed who blow $15 on them at walmart and then toss them in a box to never be watched again.

Nevertheless, the real question here is whether or not the punishment fits the crime. And no, charging someone hundreds of thousands of dollars for songs that are worth $1 each at the very most does not fit the crime. Especially when you consider the fact that the actual creators of this content will see virtually none of this money.

 

[Prometheus]

Is it possible that nobody has heard of this band any more and nobody likes them any more? I certainly haven't. Or are you certain that it's only because of piracy that he's not making money?

I don't think I have, there were a lot of one hit wonders in the 80's. Sounds like that was the case with these dead milkmen.

I loved MTV in the 80's, I can't say I remember them or 'punk rock girl'. I haven't bothered to look it up either though. Obviously it went out of style, as is the case with most bands. Album sales usually plummet for most groups. It's normal.

I don't find it odd to think that a relatively obscure band would drop album sales over the span of several years, with or without the interwebz.

Nevertheless, the real question here is whether or not the punishment fits the crime. And no, charging someone hundreds of thousands of dollars for songs that are worth $1 each at the very most does not fit the crime. Especially when you consider the fact that the actual creators of this content will see virtually none of this money.

There it is and no, the punishment certainly does not fit the crime.

 

[vitamink]

Oh I'm sure you could sell a whole lot of cancer cures at a reasonable price before I'm able to find a way to copy it without your notes and research.

*****You can steal it, therefore you can get rich off of it as long as i've made some money from my idea?


@@
Is it possible that nobody has heard of this band any more and nobody likes them any more? I certainly haven't. Or are you certain that it's only because of piracy that he's not making money?

******It's more of a cult following. They were one of the first punk rock bands to make a palatable enough song to get on mtv. Today kids that are getting into punk rock music still listen to the misfits, ramones, dead milkmen, and sex pistols in the same way that young people who are just getting into country listen to patsi cline or johnny cash. There music still sells but far less of it is sold than is stolen.

Anything is possible, but like i said i saw it first hand. If your cd sales figures are at a certain level then p2p sharing comes along and you're 1000 copies a month almost drops instantly to 4 copies a month you'll recognize the 2 are directly analogous. Couple that with everyone else in the recording industry noticing the same sharp and instant decline, plus the fact that you can track how many people are stealing your songs online or selling them online and as i showed you earlier, people are still stealing and selling their songs online. I know you haven't heard of them, but like i said advertising is expensive and since their label went under from lack of income...


@@
I won't deny that it affects some people in some ways. I just believe these effects to be a part of the free market, just like your examples of buying a kia instead of a ford or buying your ammo at walmart. And I have don't think that's a bad thing.

*****I am all for a free market. Unfortunately stealing songs isn't an example of a free market. QUOTE: "Within an ideal free market, property rights are voluntarily exchanged at a price arranged solely by the mutual consent of sellers and buyers. "
The keywords here are PRICE and MUTAL CONSENT. IF you are stealing from me, i certainly am not giving you my consent.

THis is just me, but i prefer to keep the small business man in business.

@@
Music existed before copyrights did. Plays existed. Writings existed, art existed. People invented things before patents came around.

*******They sure did... and when you wanted to see this painting, you paid to go see it in a museum. When you wanted to hear this music, you paid to go to a concert. Copyrights weren't necessary as you couldn't COPY.

@@@@
We're dependent on these legal constructs because that's the only way we've ever seen the world. Even with rampant and easy piracy, there's still plenty of superstars out there making a lot more money than they're realistically worth.

*****Yes and no. I've given you several examples of how the small businessman in the music industry can't compete. It is next to impossible now to start up a new label. You won't find any start up bands anymore like you used to. No more elvis's or johnny cash's of the world. The only ones that can brave the storm are the largest labels like sony or geffin . So you'll be stuck with justin beiber, and whatever new bastardization of the backstreetnewkidsonthensyncjonasbrothers.

As i mention earlier when i would sign a band the contract would read that we owned the rights to your songs, but you owned the cd's. Most bands get a similar contract. I don't know if you remember the paul mcartney/michael jackson feud, but it was over the fact that paul didn't own his songs and when he could finally purchase the rights to them, michael jackson bought them out from under him. When you see these "superstars" with money, know that it isn't theirs. They don't make money anymore as they don't sell cd's. The houses and the cars are paid for by the label. The Ca$h money millionaires rap group lost their home...and they're millionaires (cash money?).

It's all an act unless you own the rights to your songs.


@@@
The music scene is filled with talentless hacks putting out the most inane music and banking millions. Millions are spent on movies that are absolute rubbish but are able to make money on the uninformed who blow $15 on them at walmart and then toss them in a box to never be watched again.


*****The music scene IS filled with talentless hacks...all the talented ones are out of business and no one is rich but the largest labels. Just because you think something sucks, i don't think you should be able to steal it. If everyone started stealing movies, no one would bother making them.

Nevertheless, the real question here is whether or not the punishment fits the crime. And no, charging someone hundreds of thousands of dollars for songs that are worth $1 each at the very most does not fit the crime. Especially when you consider the fact that the actual creators of this content will see virtually none of this money.

*******
You're leaving out the part that he was reselling the songs, not that that matters to you. The creators of the content will see NONE of the money. Luckily those that steal it and post it for free on rapidshare get to make $1.00 a download, so at least someone is making money even if its someone that doesn't deserve to. Did the punishment fit the crime? No. is it still a crime? YES!

 

[bigg cheese]

I wish it worked like this in the real world.

"Uh, your honor? i'm going to go rob a bank, but I really don't think that jail time is for me, so I want you to just give me a stern talking to. alright, I'll see in in a few weeks. Kthxbye."

Law breakers don't get to arbitrarily decide what the consequences are, nor should they.