I have a question.
How much of a copywrited file must you have for it to be illegal.
I mean if you only have half of it is it considered copywrtitten? or what about if you only have 2 seconds of it. at what point do they say it is or its not?
Printable View
I have a question.
How much of a copywrited file must you have for it to be illegal.
I mean if you only have half of it is it considered copywrtitten? or what about if you only have 2 seconds of it. at what point do they say it is or its not?
Thats subjective.
However consider:
Some bands get taken to court because a few bars off their record is from another tune...and thats considered breach of copyright, or even sounds similar but the notes arent the same..
How can they do that?!?
thats bulshite....all new pop songs are just old tunes with a modern spin on them anyways.
at this rate in 50 years every possible sound will have a fat C stamped on it.
how can u copywrite three notes or a single sound?
So true.
But not Bullshit... I said a few Bars, not a few notes...a recognisable segment.
Bands are normally careful to get permission when they make a cover version. Its the others that get caught, ones that are not intentionally ripping any other tune off.
eg:
Sweet Lord by George Harrison was No1 all over the world in the early '70s.
It was decided it sounded too much like another (unknown) tune and on the initial release actually lost money, due to court costs and compensation payments to the guy who wrote the "copyrighted" tune.
This was not George Harrison ( a very gifted songwriter (RIP)) trying to rip anyone off, it was an honest mistake.
How many times have you found yourself humming a tune that you have no idea where you heard it?
Now place yourself in the shoes of a songwriter? Was it yours or did you hear that little bit of melody somewhere?
Maybe this is why most modern music is either cover versions of something else or sound remarkably similar...with shared roots where they know where to go for permission.
very good point.
This is why I think Copywrite laws on art will fail in the future after P2P takes the world over and the RIAA is destroyed.
Copywrite was made to protect the designer of a product, a machine, or invention.
Copywrite in my opinion was not intended to be used on ART such as music or pictures or movies. It was applied to art after art started to make large amounts of money as an entertainment. it seems that artist in america (at least the ones that are famouse) no longer make art as an expression of themselves to the world but are just good looking puppets of the RIAA and Holywood created to bring in revenue.
if you look in the world history, ARTIST have never been rich, artist are known as people who struggle in life and work hard to express themselves through different mediums, yet in our modern day artist are the best of use, they are the richest and most famouse of all. they make more money than doctors and get more attention the the president.
WHAT UP WITH THAT
;)
WTF?
This is messed up.
I think artists should be honored and feel proud if someone should be inspired by their work
True artist wouldnt care.
Skillian
Um, that article about Metallica is a hoax.
Look at the URL of the story.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
<_<
that one fooled me.
Even the links to the other sources are links to their own site
lame
Music and movies are a product.Quote:
Originally posted by Serus@20 July 2003 - 21:31
Copywrite was made to protect the designer of a product, a machine, or invention.
Copywrite in my opinion was not intended to be used on ART such as music or pictures or movies.
We say it every day:
The music industry
The movie industry
However, I believe copyrights on music only last 100 years or so, so you can use Beethovens th as much as you like. :D
well...
See what I meant was back in the day like a few hundred years ago people didnt copywrite their art work.
Bethoven never had a copywrite on his music. art WAS NOT considered a product then,
but now it is, which I think is bullshit. art shouldn't be a product, it should'nt have a price or a value....it is supposed to be an expression of the artist. who pays to see people get angry or smile
I don't see a problem with people paying for art. ist good,
it supports the artist and inturn they can produce batter art work with the extra cash, but paying shouldnt be a requirment.
especially with music. if a band wants to get money for its music they should go on tour. If they make a cd it's free for all and they shouldnt complain about people sharing, they make enough money as it is.
So do they take the proceeds from the tour they just did to pay for the cd's they are then supposed to give to you?Quote:
Originally posted by Serus@22 July 2003 - 09:22
if a band wants to get money for its music they should go on tour. If they make a cd it's free for all and they shouldnt complain about people sharing, they make enough money as it is.
That makes no sense. Of course they should get paid for it. My only dissagreement is the price. And the quality of the music.
It is too bad that they couldn't really make that whole pick your songs and we will burn them thing go. Then we could have the whole package(fancy little book etc.) and only pay for what we want.
I also can't think of a single thing I would want to do for a living if I had to do it under the same conditions/reward systems as they did "back in the day".
TD
if you notice I said "IF" they made CD's.
and IF they made CD's some people would buy them but not as many as 10 years ago. I think they should just go on tour and make money without sitting on their ass.
if they want to sell CD's it doesnt cost much to make a CD.
Buy blank CD's in bulk and make a simple cover. it could be as cheap as $1.00 to make, and sell it for $5 at thier concerts. thats a good profit.
Going on tour costs a lot of money.
How much do you think it would cost to rent a football stadium, rent/buy the lighting/amplifiers/speakers/stage, etc?
Hire security personnel?
Transportation?
Catering the roadies?
And in your $1.00, did you account for studio time?
That is not cheap, last I heard.
I'm not saying that a top artists income isn't ridiculous, but I just think you're oversimplifying things a bit.
Can't find the page right now, but I read that artists get around 12% of a CD's retail price.
Reducing that price to $5.00 would get them like $ 0.60 a copy. Hardly a motive to keep going, IMHO. (especially when we're talking about bands)
Some of them are married you see, and their wives wouldn't be too happy about it.
Do NOT underestimate the power of a woman. ;)
Well thats if a compnay makes them thier CD's if they hire somone to just burn cds for them they could make a bigger profit.
plus if they have a small fan group then they dont need to play in a stadium.
they can work their way up.
I'm saying that music shuoldnt be their career.
http://www.unfaith.net/pages/hoax/
this explains it all
:">Quote:
Originally posted by harrycary@21 July 2003 - 01:49
Skillian
Um, that article about Metallica is a hoax.
Look at the URL of the story.
My bad.
Well although this got totally off the original topic, I have been thinking about the hole how much thing, and think about this. I can gurantee that i have never uploaded an entire file to someone. K-lite does not work that way (chunks) I do not stay on direct connect for too long at once, puts me way over my cap, and so on. So how can I be sued for distrubting a copywrited file, I did not give even 10% of the file, right? I dunno just thinking about that, a little.
THE FILE SHARING MANIFESTO
So now the music industry greedheads want to play rough. What’s the matter, their coke dealer won’t front anymore? Those techno-ghouls have been living high on the hog for the past 100 years and now they’re upset because the river of gold is down 10%. If they want to play rough, so can we. The only reason they can afford to pay their lawyers is because we all still buy CDs.
There is only one proper response to the file sharing attack – a complete and total boycott of all new recorded music purchases. Imagine if you got a summons in the mail. We must support our file sharing brothers and sisters. I SAY NO PURCHASES OF ANY NEW CDS OR DOWNLOADS UNTIL THEY CHANGE THE LAW ON FILE SHARING!! If you want music go to a show, or buy or trade used CDs.
Copy this and spread the word!
To those who are concerned about artist's royalties, you've been brainwashed. Music is a performing art - the key word here is performing. If artists want to get paid, they need to perform. Not live like ghouls on the ghosts of old echos.
Consider the artists who have been most commercially successful on recordings. They have almost all been destroyed by that success. On the other hand an old dope fiend like Jerry Garcia survived for years despite his self destructive ways, largely, IMHO, because his recordings were not money makers and he had to tour.
Besides the whole industry is only the result of a technical glitch where it was easy to record, but difficult to copy. Those days are over. They all need to accept the new paradigm or fade away.
Have you ever seen the copyright warning at the start of a movie it says copy in whole or in part of the movie is illegal that means any of it.