waffle_x_v
Fun stuff
That's a matter of opinion really. But the rest looks like an agree to disagree sort of thing so i'll leave it at that.
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Pirating of Music and other Digital Media
- Thread starter xDWarrior
- Start date
That's a matter of opinion really. But the rest looks like an agree to disagree sort of thing so i'll leave it at that.
Well you always have to remember an opinion can be wrong, as much as someone like you who wants to not spend money to help out the artist you have to realize this is the real world where money matters, and that this is essentially their job. Next time you're at a job have someone tell you "Oh, we're taking some money out of your paycheck because someone didn't want to pay us. It's alright though, that person says its helping you, so you should be fine"
Which brings us back to the Gaga example. 113 million made from the tour, but she has only brought home 1.3 million dollars. So basically, even though it was 75 percent of her income, she only kept about 1 percent of that. She has to for the set up, all electronics, back up dancers etc. Yes, like you said, 500 dollars can be used if someone spends frugally, yet we aren't taking into account the fact they have to get the next gig, pay for advertisement, pay for the place (unless they are being payed to play) and other things. That why less than 5 percent of musicians are breaking even.
No one has said this. They still make 25% of their profit from songs. The smaller the label, the more they will make from songs. That is also not counting royalties made later down the line. This could change depending on who owns copyright. For example, Michael Jackson's kids are the owners of the Beatles songs. Therefore, anytime someone buys one of their songs/albums/ or plays it on Pandora, Itunes, movies or the like they get paid.
Not necessarily. The reason why people are allowed to do covers and use avatars are strictly for two reasons. The first is freedom of speech. The second reason is monopoly laws. When somethings is put into public domain, you can only copyright the exact product. Further, when it is put on a public site such as youtube, facebook, etc. you have officially signed over the rights to that social site. That is why you do not see a lot of television stations release their shows on youtube. If they did, someone else could re-release it on that public domain. Now what a few people have started doing is augmenting the contract with youtube so that they can keep their copyright. However, without doing this, the rights are signed over. (This extends to radio stations and other things as well.)
Also, with monopoly laws, he have statue of limitations. Specifically for music, one person can only own the rights for about fifty years (its a little less than fifty, like around 47, but I don't feel like getting out my law book again.) After that time period, it becomes free public domain unless someone were to buy it again.
Well, I wouldn't say you owned it. I think it's more appropriate to say that you are allowed to use it recreationaly. I mean, you still can't share it with friend or distribute it like other people.
Like stated above. It is not that it is an opinion. It is just that one gives you permission to use it while the other doesn't.
Last edited:
The Admiral
the star of the masquerade
This is reasonable, but on the "yourself, and only for yourself:"
Should loaning tapes/CDs/MP3 players be illegal, by a similar token? Because if that copy of the music is for myself and myself only, letting anyone else use it should be illegal, right?
Similarly -- second-hand sales -- should they be considered acceptable, since no more money is going to the artist, label, etc. via this transaction? I know there was, at one point, a push to make those illegal.
Well this is why video game companies are using DRM and making it so Gamestop can't sell used games anymore, because they're tired of piracy and stores selling used games. Heavy Rain's producers even said they sold under 2 million copies of the game, but trophy data suggest over 3 million people have at least played the game a little, so to them that's a million people who essentially stole their product to them.
It's just with music it's a lot harder to put something like that in place. If they could do DRM for music I would guarantee it would happen as soon as possible.
The Admiral
the star of the masquerade
They can, but it would require the removal of hard copies, and would only really affect new music -- old CDs/LPs/etc. could still be obtained from second-hand shops. Also, there's the matter of certain folk preferring certain formats because of audiophile reasons. The reason why this works so well with games instead of music is that you don't need to get a new type of CD player every four years or so in order to play the newest CDs. I have a copy of Dire Straits' Brothers In Arms on CD from around its release time (ca. 1985), and I don't need to get out an older machine to play it if I want to switch to that from Rush's Clockwork Angels, which just came out last year. However, if I want to go from playing Super Mario 64 to Metroid Prime, I do need to change machines. Also, the number of people who make games on older consoles as (what basically is) a matter of art is fairly limited. Even a lot of retro-style games are made for newer machinery instead of, say, the NES. I'm not counting ROM hacks, for what I think are obvious reasons.
Music DRM does exist already for digital copies in some cases -- some stuff sold via iTunes is account-locked. Last I checked, too, you can only have your account hooked up to five separate computers. That part is an enormously bad idea, though, since computers have this problem where, once in a while, they break. Which means that you can be locked out of material that is legitimately yours just because you've hit upon a stream of shitty hard drives. I also was not able to burn those files to CD, presumably to keep me from moving to another media player or computer, re-ripping them (in questionable sound quality) and freely distributing those files.
So, yes, music DRM is possible, but not really perfect in those regards, and extant implementations have been flawed. But hey, nothing's perfect.
Actually in some places it is illegal to do that.
I bought a book and in the inside cover it said that I would pay a fine if I lived in a certain country and
lent or resold said book.
Lion Demon
Fairy Type Champion
As far as musicians are concerned... most of their money comes off live shows & Vevo views anyway. Record stores are being shut because nobody buys hard-copy albums so if anything... music should be free: musicians get payed way too much!
lmao what
*pop* musicians are the only ones getting paid too much. most artists only get by comfortably or struggle to get by at all, and the smaller groups still need to hold day jobs to survive.
physical sales are still pretty big by the way. CD sales are declining but they still sell in excess of 100 million units every year (and then there is the resurgence of vinyl, too). digital sales exceeded 1 billion downloads last year too so the music industry is still alive and well (the wealth is just distributed crazy unevenly)