Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

REDNEX (and supposedly several other artists) has announced their support for The Pirate Bay. http://rednexmusic.com/info/RednexSaysHowdyAtPirateBay_READ_NOW.pdf

I might point out that shortly after this, BMI launched Operation: Save Our Asses, a massive DOS attack against the Pirate Bay website.

I like Pureed Bays.

I love when "artists" profess their fealty to their fans and then figure out a way to make sure they(the "artist") make the money. I don't have a problem with making as much money as you can. I find it sad that fans believe this is something done for the fans. All Rednex is doing is redistributing the wealth to themselves.

Zip Napalm wrote:I love when "artists" profess their fealty to their fans and then figure out a way to make sure they(the "artist") make the money. I don't have a problem with making as much money as you can. I find it sad that fans believe this is something done for the fans. All Rednex is doing is redistributing the wealth to themselves.

As opposed to the major corporation, which was getting it previously. Personally, I don't mind paying the artists. What I do mind is fueling the Music-Industrial Complex. feth BMI/Sony/etc

BaronIveagh wrote:

Zip Napalm wrote:I love when "artists" profess their fealty to their fans and then figure out a way to make sure they(the "artist") make the money. I don't have a problem with making as much money as you can. I find it sad that fans believe this is something done for the fans. All Rednex is doing is redistributing the wealth to themselves.

As opposed to the major corporation, which was getting it previously. Personally, I don't mind paying the artists. What I do mind is fueling the Music-Industrial Complex. feth BMI/Sony/etc

This is what I was getting at. You seem to be happy with "taking it to the Man" via Rednex actions and that's fine, the problem is as Cake put it "You're drinking what they're selling". Make no mistake, Rednex and groups with the same business acumen want to be part of their own Music-Industrial Complex.

There is a music video that shows a shot of Hank Williams Jr. swimming in a pool of real $100 bills. Good for him, he earned it. I wouldn't feel the same though about Kid Rock or M-N-M.

G

LOL I'm a fan of the pirate bay. I've never actually listened to rednex, but I'm a believer in p2p and the death of 'intellectual property'.

I'd love to see how you feel about the death of intellectual property when people start churning off knockoffs of something you invented/worked on for half the cost(and a quarter of the quality)--and undercut you

Part of what killed the music industry was the prevalence of inexpensive means of recording, producing and distributing independently. Everyone and their mother can put out their own album now.

I am curently working on a death metal rap label. It's going to rip the ryhmes.

G

Crablezworth wrote:Part of what killed the music industry was the prevalence of inexpensive means of recording, producing and distributing independently. Everyone and their mother can put out their own album now.

The other part being the mindless drivel supported by Simon Cowell?

Inexpensive media was less of a threat to the music industry than their expectation that they may not need to change their business model to match technology.
How far back do you want to blame cheap media? Casette tapes?

Green Blow Fly wrote:I am curently working on a death metal rap label. It's going to rip the ryhmes.

G

My Golden Retriever's been selling an album of her covering Journey.

She's more popular than Kelly Osbourne!(But really...who isn't?)

I still have all my eight tracks.

G

Kanluwen wrote:(But really...who isn't?)

apparently me. Even my mom left negative comments about my EBM Zydeco album

Green Blow Fly wrote:I still have all my eight tracks.

G

8Tracks eh? The first time I EVER heard AC/DC was on an 8Track. Those things were cool if not bulky and cumbersome. Funny thing though, is my mud bogger had an 8track in it, and Id rock those the whole time wheeling, just made me feel a little more redneck

Kanluwen wrote:I'd love to see how you feel about the death of intellectual property when people start churning off knockoffs of something you invented/worked on for half the cost(and a quarter of the quality)--and undercut you

yourself. They already did. A certain multi-million dollar company took my work, claimed it as their own, and then using a loophole in the law, preemptively sued me to prevent me from suing them to get my property back. And it was all legal.

Better, Congress shortly thereafter issued the Mickey Mouse Protection Act (or as it's also known, the Bono Copyright Extension) so that I would have to wait 75 years for the rights to revert.

Real Irony? It will never see the light of day due to the idea that it would 'compete' with their established product lines.

So, yes, I would like to see intellectual property die horribly, since the only people it protects are the ones who are already rich.

How is people stealing things from you a justification for no one owning property in the first place? Or did you give them the rights to it and then regret it later?

I'm not really sure what your story is supposed to show.

Crablezworth wrote:Part of what killed the music industry was the prevalence of inexpensive means of recording, producing and distributing independently. Everyone and their mother can put out their own album now.

Nah, because the record companies still control the thing that really matters - market access. You can produce an album for $0.18 but ten years ago if you couldn't get it on the radio you weren't going to sell copies. Which is why the internet is such an issue - legally or illegally there is a whole new model forming where the consumer can access whatever music he wants to hear.

What annoys me is the sheer profiteering that goes on. ~£15 for a cd that cost 5p to make? get real! but since it's all out of our control we have to pay what they tell us to pay, which is why unless it is an artist I am a fan-boy over, I will download rather than buy a cd.

Leigen_Zero wrote:~£15 for a cd that cost 5p to make? get real!

Sure, the entire cost of it comes down to the hardware itself.

The way to combat this is to go see more live music. Live performance is the future of where artists will make their living with sponsorships and so on.

I think the creation of the Internet was the real major blow to the music industry.

It just sounds like those artists are trying to get cool points and sucking up to the pirates in general as a really stupid way of trying to avoid having all their stuff pirated, leaving them on the street. Reverse psychology much?

n0t_u wrote:It just sounds like those artists are trying to get cool points and sucking up to the pirates in general as a really stupid way of trying to avoid having all their stuff pirated, leaving them on the street. Reverse psychology much?

Try Radiohead, who can base a large part of success on the same stance on piracy.

Rednex like the pirate bay so long as they are not being pirated themselves?

I agree with what what. Live performance is what generates artist revenue look at the number of deal made last year with big artists, money is split between the promoters and the artists. Their music effectively becomes their marketing aid, money making or not.

whatwhat wrote:

n0t_u wrote:It just sounds like those artists are trying to get cool points and sucking up to the pirates in general as a really stupid way of trying to avoid having all their stuff pirated, leaving them on the street. Reverse psychology much?

Try Radiohead, who can base a large part of success on the same stance on piracy.

It works for them

As an aspiring artist/indie music producer, I have recently bought a mixing desk and mics. The biggest problem that my band and I face is getting into the market, yes I can put my music up of iTunes and other places easy but the real hard thing is get noticed or listened to.

You have to do something great to be seen on Youtube or get alot of air time on radio, which frankly costs heaps to get into, even internet radio is increasingly hard to get into.

Despite torrenting and others P2P systems, the music industry has the market, has the legal backing and has artists on their side. I dont want to see a break down of the industry, I would like to see it expand and the model change to incorporate indie artists like my band and others, and to be leading the way in a technological market.

n0t_u wrote:I think the creation of the Internet was the real major blow to the music industry.

It just sounds like those artists are trying to get cool points and sucking up to the pirates in general as a really stupid way of trying to avoid having all their stuff pirated, leaving them on the street. Reverse psychology much?

Nah, a lot of artists make next to no money from album sales. All their money comes from live shows and festivals. They need to release albums to gain market exposure, but if that can be done by putting their stuff out there for free then so be it.

This prompted Radiohead to put their last album up for download, with a choice to pay whatever you wanted. Around a third of people paid nothing, and the average amount paid was around five pounds - a little over double what the band would be getting on any album sold through a record label.

I don't think this is a "Major" blow to anything. They aren't exactly a cultural dynasty. When radiohead went all digital and free it impacted a considerably large number of wallets, and that passed somewhat quietly.

Orkeosaurus wrote:How is people stealing things from you a justification for no one owning property in the first place? Or did you give them the rights to it and then regret it later?

I'm not really sure what your story is supposed to show.

Orky, it was to point out the flaw in argument of the person who proclaimed that I would feel differently if I had worked hard to create a product and then had it ripped off. Having already had his supposition take place, it refutes the idea that I would feel differently, as his theoretical scenario has, in fact, already taken place in reality.

I suggest that intellectual property should be eliminated on the grounds that it is obsolete and structured to favor the wealthy and big corporations, rather then independent innovators, which is actually an inversion of what it was designed to do originally. An example of this would be, say, Congress stretching copyright out further and further to benefit corporations rather then creators (who at this point would in all likelihood be long dead before anything entered public domain. And so far, they show ever sign of continuing this trend, until, like nobility, copyright holders would be handed the rights accorded their ancestors rather then anything they've earned for themselves.

I see why that's relevant with patent rights, but not necessarily copyright for music.

If a person invents something, they have a right to their own labor; that's common enough sense, but intellectual property law then violates this when it prohibits a person from owning something created by them simply because some has also created a similar thing. If someone independently invents a telephone, the fact that they didn't take advantage of Graham Bell's work is irrelevant; not only can they not claim the patent for it exclusively, but they can't have any part in it.

For music though, there is a lot more ability to create something independently. A radio is bound by the laws of physics, trying to make one that uses, say, X-Rays just isn't going to compete with one that uses radio waves, but there's no objective impediment to differentiating a song The range of successful songs that can be composed also seems to be a lot wider than the range of methods you can use to transmit messages over long distances; thus while two nations on different sides of the world are likely to have invented the same device in parallel (bow and arrow, for example), it's very unlikely - near impossible really - for them to simultaneously write the same song.

Of course, another thing to look at is the absoluteness of ownership. If someone makes a chair, they own all of it, even down to the little bits you put on it to stop it from scraping up the floor, but you can't own the note "C sharp" just because your song contains it. In this sense, you can't own the song completely, you can only own it when enough of it is present to be readily recognized as your work (and only your work; i.e. no one could have reasonably thought of these notes/lyrics by themselves and used them by coincidence).

The idea of expiring rights is also an odd one; if you create a chair, you absolutely have the right to inherit it for generations. Even if it's some sort of super-chair that's worth millions, and you do become a (sort of absurd) dynastic patriarch because of it. This isn't the case with (most?) intellectual property though, and this one is really stranger than it not applying to ever part of the property. The expiration on patent law makes sense, because as I said patents are really something that are liable to be invented by others even if they are never exposed to them; to allow them to be held indefinitely would make the chances of this happening pretty much 100%. With music it's a little stranger though, because if there's really no chance of it being created independently then the rest of the world doesn't have an right to the work, and there is no reason for the right to expire at all.

I'm not that knowledgeable in song writing, so maybe writing songs in parallel is more common than I would think, or maybe there's some other reason for the limit on private song ownership (to make it consistent with other intellectual property law perhaps?) that I haven't thought of.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Boy was that post rambling.

Orkeosaurus wrote:For music though, there is a lot more ability to create something independently.

Except forms of music are very specific, and a lot of songs start to sound very similar. Look at Avril Lavigne's Girlfriend, which sounds almost identical to the 80s song from the Rubinoos, so much so they went to court over it. If you listen to the two songs they're both pop by the numbers that its easy to believe that they could both be built following the same pop methodology.

While we don't know the exact details of the settlement between Lavigne and the Rubinoos, Lavigne and her song-writing partner were cleared of plagiarism.

The idea of expiring rights is also an odd one; if you create a chair, you absolutely have the right to inherit it for generations. Even if it's some sort of super-chair that's worth millions, and you do become a (sort of absurd) dynastic patriarch because of it. This isn't the case with (most?) intellectual property though, and this one is really stranger than it not applying to ever part of the property. The expiration on patent law makes sense, because as I said patents are really something that are liable to be invented by others even if they are never exposed to them; to allow them to be held indefinitely would make the chances of this happening pretty much 100%. With music it's a little stranger though, because if there's really no chance of it being created independently then the rest of the world doesn't have an right to the work, and there is no reason for the right to expire at all.

The idea is that chair is a material object available for the use of one person. If after twenty years I lose ownership of the chair, the most use it can achieve is someone else sitting in it. But ideas don't work that way, if an idea is freed up and put into public domain then many, many people can benefit from it at once.

But that isn't to say that patents shouldn't exist - if the creator can't control his idea and profit from it for a length of time why would he bother creating in the first place? So certainly they should have a period of time where they're free to benefit from their ideas. But is there any greater profit incentive in controlling an idea for 100 years than there would be for 20?

So, after a reasonable length of time has passed, doesn't it make sense for intellectual property to move into public domain?