Turn on thread page Beta

RIAA, Kazza, Napster, the law & you - views of an artist with a BA Mus & PSCI watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't keep it posted online because:
    a) I don't want to be plagerized
    b) I sell these, thus giving it away for free hurts sales - lol
    c) Regarding b): only St. FXU and a few first nations bands have been given free copies.

    Do you want to buy a copy? It will cost me $35 CAD to put a copy together for you (it's 167 pages). Just email me at [email protected] m and we'll see what we can do about getting you a copy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does this mean that if i enter i copyrighted waveform in an editor (eg wavelab) do something such as invert its phase (Almost certainly not altering the sound in any way, but certtainly altering the wave form) i can do what i want with it if so anyone with any audio editing knowledge can easily laugh in the face of "Wave form copyright"?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does this mean that if i enter i copyrighted waveform in an editor (eg wavelab) do something such as invert its phase (Almost certainly not altering the sound in any way, but certtainly altering the wave form) i can do what i want with it if so anyone with any audio editing knowledge can easily laugh in the face of "Wave form copyright"?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    not quite
    any wave form could be altered by that definition by erasing 1-bit from the end of the data-stream in the file - programs like WinMX even enable the option to delete the last 2-bytes of any downloaded file for reasons unbeknowst to me. But this doesn't remove copyright from any copywritten work. Case in point, a wave encoded to MP3 - the mp3 is still a copywritten piece. Strictly speaking, a copyright is applied to the idea, not the execution, of a song. The lyrics, structure, arrangment, progression, and in some cases even the mix, are all deemed copywritten aspects of a song.

    So, inverting phase, applying a reverb, cropping out some silence, normalizing, EQ'ing, running through a flanger, echo-plex, or any other alteration still does not remove a copyright - but with permission from the copyright holder, you can copyright your alterations to it as a remix or sample.

    Unfortunately, too often, the writer doesn't legally own the copyright of most top 40 songs these days - even though a copyright is meant to protect mental properties, the creative ideas produced by the brains of the original author. The labels tend to force artists to sign their rights away.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dragon_Amor)
    I've published a thesis on Liberalism as a Defense of Native Self-Government. It's enjoyed widespread success.

    I don't keep it posted online because:

    b) I sell these, thus giving it away for free hurts sales - lol
    You're arguing for people to use file-sharing programs and distribute free copies of what they would have to otherwise pay for, yet in the same situation you're charging people for your work. It seems a little hypocritical to me.

    I can understand you not wanting people to access your thesis for free - you wrote it and worked very hard on it. But isn't this the same as a band's new single? They will have spent hours writing it, practicing it and spent a lot of money getting it recorded and released. I'm guessing this costs more than it cost you to write your thesis, yet you are charging about three times the cost of a normal album.

    Successful bands who have released a lot of albums and singles may have enough money already to be able to afford their music to be freely distributed but I doubt new artists have that sort of money.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    When I write a thesis, I invest months into it's preperation, research, drafting, proof-reading, amending, until printing and publishing. There is no third party company involved, nor any marketting at all.

    When a band records an album, they compose and arrange the music, rehearse it, finance the recording, and record it, and support it with live performances. They own the copyrights, they negotiate sales within stores. Unless they are on a label.

    In any case, the label, with rare exception, owns the copyrights to all songs - and as far as the top 40 is concerned, the artists are hired based on ability and appearence to perform songs someone else wrote to be released as a package marketing indicates has all the elements that are selling. If sad songs and waltzes are what's hot - that's what gets the most financing. And yes, I do have a moral issue with heart-less preformulated acts pumped out to fit the current conformula.

    But, as thoroughly expressed in my opinion of filesharing, forums like Kazaa provide everyone an even ground. Yes, it transfers songs for free. But market research also proves that album sales high gone up a LOT since filesharing became popular, thus it is reasonable to conclude that those who download songs tend to also buy albums of what they liked from what they had previuosly downloaded. RIAA has one gripe - all these increased sales are not occuring on the projects they currently spend the most on - ie - the top 40 as dictated by the RIAA is not representing the majority of sales like it used to.

    So if one can thus demonstrate that filesharing free mp3's facilitates higher sales for the general musical community (even if it hurts the sales of the music the RIAA is trying to tell you you like) then all us musicians have a lot to gain financially. Filesharing = publicity.

    If I release my thesis for free, no one is looking for the rest of the album, are they. There is no difference in the quality between a downloaded thesis and a paper copy like there is a difference between the sound quality of an mp3 and the original CD it came from. And, finally, bands are trying to make a living with their music, so an internation publicity forum like Kazaa can really help them achieve that as independant artists free of label influence at all. I'm not trying to make a living off of my thesis at all. It's free for North American Natives, and anyone else pay's what it costs me to print.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    and I'm not arguing that people acquire for free what they otherwise pay for - I'm arguing that most of those who do download for free pay for quite a bit in the long run regardless. I base this on the RIAA's own sales figures that they themselves blocked Napster from using in court.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for replying to my post - I didn't mean to sound too harsh or anything, I hope it didn't come across that way!

    I think you've made a good argument...although it's not one I agree with completely.

    I agree that file sharing increases publicity for bands, but maybe it should be restricted in some way (I have no idea how) so that only bands who want or who can afford the free publicity put their songs up onto p2p software.

    What about just having 1 minute samples of songs for free distribution? That way people can decide whether they like the music without them being able to copy entire albums for free off the Internet. Surely that would be a better way to increase record sales?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well these are good ideas on the surface and they have been explored in the past, but I think there is something to be said of evolution here.

    First we get recorded music in the forst place circa early 1910's.
    Then along comes radio
    Then along comes appliances like the phonograph where people can listen to pre-recorded music at home for the first time
    Then the evolution of convienient function ensues:
    better recording formats for higher quality
    a record button on tape players to make the radio more convienient
    a built in mic to record local sounds
    higher fidelity
    stereo
    surround sound
    digital to get past audio degradation over time inherent in analog formats


    I think Kazaa is an expression of the next step in the evolution of how we listen to share and buy music - it just causes a lot of controversy because it's new and scares those managing the status quo.

    The radio gives people free full length songs they can record and have a very listenable copy of a song from an album - but you have to wait for the song to be played

    Kazaa does the same thing but with three extra benefits - you can listen to the music whenever you want, you can preview an entire album, and you can preview anyone rather than be a slave to the top 40 on the radio. But like radio, all the music is at reduced quality. Maybe people can't tell or don't care, maybe they think the radio sounds awesome - but as an engineer, I can assure the average mp3 on Kazaa is laughable in terms of sound quality - even compared to the mp3's I made of my 934 CD collection - 9423 tunes, 96.7GB of space - ya, I buy music too. lol


    besides, what band can't afford free international publicity?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just read about this in the Doom9 news


    "2/20/2004
    On one side of the ocean The European Parliament is up for the vote of "DMCA on steroids" while on the other a New Jersey woman got fed up with the RIAAs threats and counter-sues them under the "RICO (Racketeering Influenced & Corrupt Organizations) Act" enacted in 1970 to prosecute organized crime (that is, to destroy the Mafia).
    At least the lawyers are very happy with these kind of legislation."

    The RICO Act... Never heard of it but this could sure make things VERY interesting if she wins....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Gotta say this. I really think this topic is getting too stuck in the details, yes I feel a barrage of abuse coming on please bear with me.

    This seems to be a really simple argument that needs to be dealt with then action set to solve the problem allowing us to move into the next era.

    1. Filesharing should not ever become illegal. anybody who threatens to do so really should take a serious look at their actions. We do it everyday by passing on ideas, reading the paper, swapping notes at school, taking notes at school, photocopying, swapping books...

    2. What should remain illegal is 'sharing' anything you do not have the right to 'share' ie that the owner has requested to remain their property via copyright, patent, title...

    3. The artists who have joined a 'Label', are working for a newspaper etc and have given their rights away in the process have done just that, given their right away.. They have 'washed their hands' of the issue (I know out of context quote, but tired and needing to get this rant out), and cannot complain unless the 'Label' has impinged on their rights at some stage. The legitimate owners of that material have the right to decide what to do with the file.


    A few "If's"

    If there are people out there who wish their work to be OPEN (ie available for anybody to access) or OPEN to people who have paid membership to a filesharing group... then that's fine, create a site, join an existing filesharing network and set your boundary's

    If you believe that 'because it's there and millions are doing it so you should be able to' then stiff ****, respect the wishes of the owner. As mentioned earlier in this thread, sorry I cant be bothered going back over it to credit the individual, if that logic applied elsewhere where would that leave us. Ohh that house is just there I may as well use it, oh there's a car, some food, a CD... property is property our society has supposedly evolved to a point where we accept both physical and intellectual property deal with it.

    If you believe that artists are hard done by and record companies are pilfering their right's then your probably correct (I can't say for certain because I cannot speak for all artists out there). Your not helping them by taking their product and using it, your just fueling a fire to make it harder to create grassroots movements that are socially supportive and responsibe! Do something, (one of Dragon Amor's idea early on sparks in my head $1 per user per year with revenue going to files according to their popularity...)


    Sorry there's my rant, my opinion's only. It seems much of the emotion stems from 2 causes; 1. I have done it so if I did it then I should be able to justify that it is OK, and 2. 'They' are getting one over us and the musicians so we must get them.
    There are 2 distinct responses to those comments 1. get over it, and 2. Get out there and make a difference.

    I see a lot of good ideas not coming to fruition simply because they remain in forums... Best of luck and I applaud you all for getting up and chatting about this topic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Pangeanteleman is right about that - let's do it.

    ****, if you got some coding skill and want to get this moving with me, I got the working model of how this can benefit all of us musicians and audience alike without elements of bias or greed helping any corporate flakeoff, so CALLING ALL CODERS.

    I got an idea, and I got it in great detail how this can work - what I don't have is a strong grasp of coding in C++ or assembler to create a new filesharing network to base this on. Get a hold of me - let's ****ing do the $1 per year per user model, then. ^_^
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pangeanteleman)
    Gotta say this. I really think this topic is getting too stuck in the details, yes I feel a barrage of abuse coming on please bear with me.

    This seems to be a really simple argument that needs to be dealt with then action set to solve the problem allowing us to move into the next era.

    1. Filesharing should not ever become illegal. anybody who threatens to do so really should take a serious look at their actions. We do it everyday by passing on ideas, reading the paper, swapping notes at school, taking notes at school, photocopying, swapping books...

    2. What should remain illegal is 'sharing' anything you do not have the right to 'share' ie that the owner has requested to remain their property via copyright, patent, title...

    3. The artists who have joined a 'Label', are working for a newspaper etc and have given their rights away in the process have done just that, given their right away.. They have 'washed their hands' of the issue (I know out of context quote, but tired and needing to get this rant out), and cannot complain unless the 'Label' has impinged on their rights at some stage. The legitimate owners of that material have the right to decide what to do with the file.


    A few "If's"

    If there are people out there who wish their work to be OPEN (ie available for anybody to access) or OPEN to people who have paid membership to a filesharing group... then that's fine, create a site, join an existing filesharing network and set your boundary's

    If you believe that 'because it's there and millions are doing it so you should be able to' then stiff ****, respect the wishes of the owner. As mentioned earlier in this thread, sorry I cant be bothered going back over it to credit the individual, if that logic applied elsewhere where would that leave us. Ohh that house is just there I may as well use it, oh there's a car, some food, a CD... property is property our society has supposedly evolved to a point where we accept both physical and intellectual property deal with it.

    If you believe that artists are hard done by and record companies are pilfering their right's then your probably correct (I can't say for certain because I cannot speak for all artists out there). Your not helping them by taking their product and using it, your just fueling a fire to make it harder to create grassroots movements that are socially supportive and responsibe! Do something, (one of Dragon Amor's idea early on sparks in my head $1 per user per year with revenue going to files according to their popularity...)


    Sorry there's my rant, my opinion's only. It seems much of the emotion stems from 2 causes; 1. I have done it so if I did it then I should be able to justify that it is OK, and 2. 'They' are getting one over us and the musicians so we must get them.
    There are 2 distinct responses to those comments 1. get over it, and 2. Get out there and make a difference.

    I see a lot of good ideas not coming to fruition simply because they remain in forums... Best of luck and I applaud you all for getting up and chatting about this topic.
    totally totally agree
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    theres nothing wrong with file sharing. its a good idea. its not anyones fault that people share illegal files though , and the p2p authors shuldntbe blamed
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 20, 2004
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.