Register of Copyrights: without SOPA, copyright "will ultimately fail"
#91
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #91
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Eppstein View Post
No, the taxpayer. As with all law enforcement services. This idea that somebody specific should pay the cost of copyright enforcement is peculiar and anomalous.

You're equating copyright enforcement with torture?

Really?

You can't be serious.

Nobody's "punishing society".

Paying for law enforcement services - which most of us will never need, hopefully - is not "punishment", it's our civic responsibility.

Spare me the "War On Drugs" nonsense. I already took that one down in our PM exchange. We can't discuss it adequately in the forum without running afoul of Jules.

Actually, in the last few months China has done a turn-around and is co-operating on piracy issues. How well we shall see.....

India remains a problem, as does Russia. India, however, largely pirates Indian product as I understand it. They pirate ours too, of course, but a lot of their stuff is home grown.

I personally think we should put a big firewall around Russia. I bet they'd clean house in about 6 months.
perhaps you dont quite understand my analogy John-

I guess we should look more close at this- in the enforcement realm we have to look at what it brings us-

I first assuming you are including the end users with the insatiable appetite for illegal media- They should indeed be the brunt of the financial patrons here.... We might also consider how their parent networks are treated.... If a college student, following the old Napster model shares say, 5000 songs- what is the appropriate penalty for them?

is that penalty in line with the cost of prosecuting that case? If we say no, we are in-essence blessing the endeavor....
file sharing is still seen in the courts as a "innocent" sort of crime. That really cannot carry on if we are serious about changing the social fabric of the issue. There needs to be real penalties if we wish the behavior to be changed- The penalty actually needs to be nearly draconian to instill the "fear of God" into the equation- the question is, are all the parties willing to stand in that square.

on the supply side- If ghost IP's, and even CD and DVD sharing is used to bypass the internet (mix tapes- anyone) we are still standing in the swamp of forgiveness.

but all of that aside, my issue doesnt concern people stealing music or film- they can burn in hell as far as I am concerned.

My issue is slippery definitions which allow non commercial information to be protected as though it were. As with Pharma provisions. Our health system here is the most expensive in the world with good, not great average outcome. If companies are allowed monopolies with the governments blessing and protection I see that as a very negative effect on the average citizen who might have little part in the piracy matter.

If we want to stop online piracy, lets stop it- the way to that end is to start seriously and harshly enforcing the laws that already exist.

As to the offshore servers- treat them for what they are- illegal transit points for contraband- we go out and make drug dealers have very bad days- both in the US and outside the US- lets use those same laws and the RICO statutes to do the same to the filesharing sites.

If we want to go after the Ad sites- we go after the advertisers. We boycott them and make their lives a living hell.

I am just fine with that.


As to the torture issue- again its an analogy- Are we against torture or for it? The Courts say its illegal. It should be a done conversation.

If FIle sharing is illegal, define it absolutely and prosecute it- we have ample laws in place for that to happen RIGHT NOW.


one last thing- on the "war on drugs" front..... If the govt is only interested in it to perpetuate spending on a serious paramilitary enforcement mechanism- why would one think they would do any better with our problem? Especially when Bill Gates and The Google boys can saunter into the Oval Office anytime they want, no matter who is the President?

color me cynical? You got that right....
#92
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #92
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

one last thing-

I was asked how the law would effect me-

I already disclosed that I have lost at least a few tens of thousands of dollars to IP theft-

Chris I know is a player on that front- how many others are? How many have major label deals where some asshole in Tajikistan might even know you exist?
#93
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #93
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
one last thing-

I was asked how the law would effect me-
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post


I already disclosed that I have lost at least a few tens of thousands of dollars to IP theft-


Chris I know is a player on that front- how many others are? How many have major label deals where some asshole in Tajikistan might even know you exist?


I'm worried about the assholes in Tennessee! I think the big part you are missing is the attempt to reclaim domestic revenue. If people WITHIN the USA don't have access to illegal free pirated content originating OUTSIDE the USA those are dollars that are returned to OUR economy...


why does this always have to be about major labels? why don't all artists have a right to protection. I charted a top 40 album in billboard this year and haven't worked with a major label since 1992, and even then, it was only a partial distribution deal.


this whole anti-label thing is really funny, considering, as yet, no one has been able to list for me the artists, bands, movies, and meaningful application software developed and financed by The Pirate Bay, Limewire, Kazaa, Napster, Grokster... and now, Grooveshark...


do you really think the DMCA is working when this happens:

Grooveshark email: How we built a music service without, um, paying for music | Media Maverick - CNET News


FYI, that's the same way YouTube was built... and, uhm, Google...

Viacom vs. YouTube/Google: A Piracy Case in Their Own Words - DailyFinance


These are strange allies to align with...


#94
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #94
Quote:
Originally Posted by krheatman View Post
What like green jobs,fixing roads and bridges.
how about some more billion dollar loans that create 350 jobs.

How about shutting down our borders and leveling the playing field with trade.Restore the manufacturing base in the U.S. It shouldn't be cheaper to manufacture things in China.Tariff imports.

But they won't do that because there is too much money to be made overseas in China.We have been sold out.Corporate greed lobbies congress and they are all in the lobbiests pockets for campaign donations and God only knows what else.

Any politician that sells us out for corporate greed is guilty of treason in my book.
That includes Clinton and the Republican led Congress who signed the economy away his last day in office 1999.The idiots at Fannie May and Freddie Mack who have cost us billions.The list goes on.

You can't count on the government.Were screwed.
Unless that is,Chuck Norris gets involved.
this is not the place for those conversations... I would tread lightly how far off the reservation you want to go... this forum is allowed a little wiggle room in discussing the issues of piracy, but broadening the conversation beyond those parameters is an invitation to being banned.
#95
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #95
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post


I'm worried about the assholes in Tennessee! I think the big part you are missing is the attempt to reclaim domestic revenue. If people WITHIN the USA don't have access to illegal free pirated content originating OUTSIDE the USA those are dollars that are returned to OUR economy...


why does this always have to be about major labels? why don't all artists have a right to protection. I charted a top 40 album in billboard this year and haven't worked with a major label since 1992, and even then, it was only a partial distribution deal.


this whole anti-label thing is really funny, considering, as yet, no one has been able to list for me the artists, bands, movies, and meaningful application software developed and financed by The Pirate Bay, Limewire, Kazaa, Napster, Grokster... and now, Grooveshark...


do you really think the DMCA is working when this happens:

Grooveshark email: How we built a music service without, um, paying for music | Media Maverick - CNET News


FYI, that's the same way YouTube was built... and, uhm, Google...

Viacom vs. YouTube/Google: A Piracy Case in Their Own Words - DailyFinance


These are strange allies to align with...


first off- thats very cool you had a top 40 hit.....

And it isnt really so much an anti-majors issue- but its the majors and the film studios who have fulltime legal depts to go after infringers- and they do too.

How much damage has been caused to you personally from file sharing? It seems to me the ones most damaged are the any record company vs an individual artist. I dont at all mean to minimize the artist here either I might add- I am hugely in support of protecting them- but the reality is that the Top 40 Chart ultimately is not seemingly affected by the matter- When we see that happen- when piracy actually REALLY touches Dave Grohl and Bono we will see some real money thrown at it-

In the business world companies are bought for the sole purpose of being put down on a regular basis. If Microsoft targeted 5 big pirate sites- or actually, If they were able to buy the ISP providers of 5 sites they could bring a lot of hurt to the party....

Bono could do that probably.... Paul McCartney might be able to even pull that off.

The sites themselves have to be eliminated. If ISP's then choose to audit site content on a regular basis, it will simply become too much work to maintain the enterprise.
#96
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #96
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
when piracy actually REALLY touches Dave Grohl and Bono we will see some real money thrown at it-
That may or may not be true, but if you are inside music and passionate about music, you know the future of music lies in the unsigned bands releasing their first DIY EP, or the level above that, the small indie.
These are the people being destroyed by piracy - the very future of our industry.
I have a friend who self releases. He sells a few copies of each release until one of his customers uploads the EP to a filesharing site.
As he's both the artist and the label, that's money directly out of his pocket that wont advance his career or ambitions.

It would be like relying on Spielberg and Tom Cruise for the next 20 years of movie innovation. Whereas it's more likely to come via Sundance.
#97
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #97
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
That may or may not be true, but if you are inside music and passionate about music, you know the future of music lies in the unsigned bands releasing their first DIY EP, or the level above that, the small indie.
These are the people being destroyed by piracy - the very future of our industry.
I have a friend who self releases. He sells a few copies of each release until one of his customers uploads the EP to a filesharing site.
As he's both the artist and the label, that's money directly out of his pocket that wont advance his career or ambitions.

It would be like relying on Spielberg and Tom Cruise for the next 20 years of movie innovation. Whereas it's more likely to come via Sundance.
Chris, I will defer to you experience on the music side, but I can assure you- most films at Sundance are not pirated to the degree of honestly impacting the success or failure of the film makers. Transformers is Pirated, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Harry Potter.... there is a thriving bootleg universe in downtown LA- obscure art films ala Herzog are rarely a part of their catalogs- big hits are ALWAYS a part of them however.

and yes, even Tom Cruise films are pirated....so I would say they stand to lose substantially more than the artist potentially selling a 100 cds a month- (which for an indy act is not bad money at all).

Again- I am not implying any artist is undeserving of IP protection, but as I said originally, 1 band out of a 1000 will develop a significant following- with, or without piracy. 1 band in 10000 will get a top 10 hit. One has to be careful to not tie musical success directly to piracy- or if we do, we should show where Piracy really took a band out- I know many bands who have had modest commercial success and are still vibrant here in LA....they mainly live in the punk rock universe, but they do still work, and they do still fill halls and sell records.

The film industry has the same, if not worse metrics for success as well- for every Christopher Nolan, there are 1000 directors who cant even get in the front gate at WB. That has zero to do with piracy.
#98
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #98
Quote:
Originally Posted by krheatman View Post
What like green jobs,fixing roads and bridges.
how about some more billion dollar loans that create 350 jobs.

How about shutting down our borders and leveling the playing field with trade.Restore the manufacturing base in the U.S. It shouldn't be cheaper to manufacture things in China.Tariff imports.

But they won't do that because there is too much money to be made overseas in China.We have been sold out.Corporate greed lobbies congress and they are all in the lobbiests pockets for campaign donations and God only knows what else.

Any politician that sells us out for corporate greed is guilty of treason in my book.
That includes Clinton and the Republican led Congress who signed the economy away his last day in office 1999.The idiots at Fannie May and Freddie Mack who have cost us billions.The list goes on.

You can't count on the government.Were screwed.
Unless that is,Chuck Norris gets involved.
Wow.

Just wow........

I'm drunk. I'll rebut you in the morning.

Oh - my team won at bar trivia. Again. Rah-rah-rah!
#99
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #99
Gear Guru
 
chrisso's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
Chris, I will defer to you experience on the music side, but I can assure you- most films at Sundance are not pirated to the degree of honestly impacting the success or failure of the film makers.
Exactly, you missed my point. I said it would be like.

Allowing the independent and DIY end of the music industry to be denuded of all prospect of income, is like junking Sundance, film school, HBO and vimeo, and just relying on mainstream Hollywood blockbusters and middle aged directors and actors for our entertainment.
#100
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #100
Lives for gear
 
AwwDeOhh's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
Chris, I will defer to you experience on the music side, but I can assure you- most films at Sundance are not pirated to the degree of honestly impacting the success or failure of the film makers. Transformers is Pirated, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Harry Potter.... there is a thriving bootleg universe in downtown LA- obscure art films ala Herzog are rarely a part of their catalogs- big hits are ALWAYS a part of them however.

and yes, even Tom Cruise films are pirated....so I would say they stand to lose substantially more than the artist potentially selling a 100 cds a month- (which for an indy act is not bad money at all).

Again- I am not implying any artist is undeserving of IP protection, but as I said originally, 1 band out of a 1000 will develop a significant following- with, or without piracy. 1 band in 10000 will get a top 10 hit. One has to be careful to not tie musical success directly to piracy- or if we do, we should show where Piracy really took a band out- I know many bands who have had modest commercial success and are still vibrant here in LA....they mainly live in the punk rock universe, but they do still work, and they do still fill halls and sell records.

The film industry has the same, if not worse metrics for success as well- for every Christopher Nolan, there are 1000 directors who cant even get in the front gate at WB. That has zero to do with piracy.
Here ya go, you can appreciate this:
Dirty Money. Who Profits from Piracy?

In sheer numbers, yes, the most popular stuff is the most stolen.
When you get down past number 5 on the chart, the number stolen could mean the difference of making a profit, breaking even, or loosing money.

And what about people like me? (non-performing songwriter)
I don't get tour money , i don't get t-shirt money...
Yes there are other revenues, but you cut out one major source of revenue, and it hurts.. alot.
We put in the heart and soul, and we're last in line to get paid. I don't think Google should be before me in that line.
#101
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #101
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
first off- thats very cool you had a top 40 hit.....
thanks, and that was largely due to aggressive anti-piracy measures during a brief two week period around the release date where we knew we had a hit before the pirates did. by the time the chart had actually run in billboard, we couldn't keep up with the DMCA takedowns...

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
And it isnt really so much an anti-majors issue- but its the majors and the film studios who have fulltime legal depts to go after infringers- and they do too.
yes, but it's largely ineffective due to the failings of existing legislation that was passed Pre-Napster as illustrated here:

Grooveshark email: How we built a music service without, um, paying for music | Media Maverick - CNET News


Viacom vs. YouTube/Google: A Piracy Case in Their Own Words - DailyFinance



Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
How much damage has been caused to you personally from file sharing?
Alot. I've seen sales and revenues plummet in direct proportion to increasing piracy rates that expanded over the last decade with broadband, my story is here:

Piracy Is Personal - Tell Your Story Here

Yes, sure, I have the benefit of a career and earnings history where I will personally be OK no matter what, but really that's no justification for the earnings I'm losing as the result of piracy.

But what's more important is that there is a generation of musicians and professionals that will not get to have the career opportunities I have had because the revenue from recorded music sales is funding the tech industry, and not the record industry.


Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
It seems to me the ones most damaged are the any record company vs an individual artist. I dont at all mean to minimize the artist here either I might add- I am hugely in support of protecting them- but the reality is that the Top 40 Chart ultimately is not seemingly affected by the matter- When we see that happen- when piracy actually REALLY touches Dave Grohl and Bono we will see some real money thrown at it-
oh man charles, you could not be more wrong. the industry as a whole is down 60%+ in about a decade. yes, sure there will be #1 albums in billboard whether they sell 1,000 units a week or a million units a week, because the chart is relative, but see here:

Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half in 2000s - Feb. 2, 2010




When the entire industry is down, EVERYONE is effected. The difference being that the people who earned their wealth through sales prior to piracy may be insulated (NIN, Radiohead, Etc), but what consolation is that really when they should still be earning more on their current new releases?

By your own logic, if piracy doesn't hurt Bono, than it MUST have a more negative impact on those without the benefit of Bono's earning history from the pre-piracy era.

You comment really smacks of jealousy and contempt for the successful. It's like the pro-pirate talking points, "rock stars don't need any more money", usually coupled with "and labels are evil, ripping off artists".

The contradiction and paradox is of course, if labels are ripping off artists how come labels keep creating millionaire rock stars (who are now unaffected by piracy?!?). It's an absurd rationalization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
In the business world companies are bought for the sole purpose of being put down on a regular basis. If Microsoft targeted 5 big pirate sites- or actually, If they were able to buy the ISP providers of 5 sites they could bring a lot of hurt to the party....
right, now you are getting it! ask yourself, why hasn't this happened already? also, how do you know that if a pirate site was purchased, they wouldn't take the money and start five new ones the next day? they're pirates, do you really think they can be trusted? look at how much time and expense is already required with lawsuits....

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
Bono could do that probably.... Paul McCartney might be able to even pull that off.
why should they have too? why should they have to resort to that? really charles you have a unique way of looking at fairness and justice. so it's OK if Bono or Paul McCartney spend their money to buy pirate sites, but it's not OK if the RIAA spends it's money to shut them down?

how on earth does that work in your head? why the focus on rich rock stars... there is a saying, only the hungry obsess about food...

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
The sites themselves have to be eliminated.
this we agree upon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
If ISP's then choose to audit site content on a regular basis, it will simply become too much work to maintain the enterprise.
this is where you are wrong. how on earth can the US shut down a site in Russia? the best we can do is shut down the sites that originate in the US, and have the ability to block sites from US consumers that move off shore.

This is the essence of SOPA.
#102
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #102
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
thanks, and that was largely due to aggressive anti-piracy measures during a brief two week period around the release date where we knew we had a hit before the pirates did. by the time the chart had actually run in billboard, we couldn't keep up with the DMCA takedowns...



yes, but it's largely ineffective due to the failings of existing legislation that was passed Pre-Napster as illustrated here:

Grooveshark email: How we built a music service without, um, paying for music | Media Maverick - CNET News


Viacom vs. YouTube/Google: A Piracy Case in Their Own Words - DailyFinance





Alot. I've seen sales and revenues plummet in direct proportion to increasing piracy rates that expanded over the last decade with broadband, my story is here:

Piracy Is Personal - Tell Your Story Here



oh man charles, you could not be more wrong. the industry as a whole is down 60%+ in about a decade. yes, sure there will be #1 albums in billboard whether they sell 1,000 units a week or a million units a week, because the chart is relative, but see here:

Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half in 2000s - Feb. 2, 2010




When the entire industry is down, EVERYONE is effected. The difference being that the people who earned their wealth through sales prior to piracy may be insulated (NIN, Radiohead, Etc), but what consolation is that really when they should still be earning more on their current new releases?

By your own logic, if piracy doesn't hurt Bono, than it MUST have a more negative impact on those without the benefit of Bono's earning history from the pre-piracy era.

You comment really smacks of jealousy and contempt for the successful. It's like the pro-pirate talking points, "rock stars don't need any more money", usually coupled with "and labels are evil, ripping off artists".

The contradiction and paradox is of course, if labels are ripping off artists how come labels keep creating millionaire rock stars (who are now unaffected by piracy?!?). It's an absurd rationalization.



right, now you are getting it! ask yourself, why hasn't this happened already? also, how do you know that if a pirate site was purchased, they wouldn't take the money and start five new ones the next day? they're pirates, do you really think they can be trusted? look at how much time and expense is already required with lawsuits....



why should they have too? why should they have to resort to that? really charles you have a unique way of looking at fairness and justice. so it's OK if Bono or Paul McCartney spend their money to buy pirate sites, but it's not OK if the RIAA spends it's money to shut them down?

how on earth does that work in your head? why the focus on rich rock stars... there is a saying, only the hungry obsess about food...



this we agree upon.



this is where you are wrong. how on earth can the US shut down a site in Russia? the best we can do is shut down the sites that originate in the US, and have the ability to block sites from the US that move off shore.

This is the essence of SOPA.
hmm- I guess I am a misunderstood sort of person....


lets be clear on this-

1. I dont support piracy. in any way, shape or form.

2. If we are going to attack piracy as a criminal endeavor, it needs to be attacked in every direction- from the downloader to the ISP operator.

3. I have no jealousy in the matter at all- you can check my day job to verify that. That being said. I have been on probably a dozen recordings as a musician that had some measure of regional success- Do I believe that every record that is released is worthy of attention? no, I do not. there is much crap that gets released, that someone might like, but not the same numbers that bought Thriller, or Sgt Peppers. Thats the reality of art. I am a film artist- I have to say a good number of the films I work on are absolute crap. In fact, we joke about that inside our craft a fair amount... Some of the films I work on are really good too- and the Box Office usually reflects that as well- Should all albums be made.... well, I dont think think I will open that can of worms-

If piracy was destroying the film industry then please explain these sorts of things-

http://screenrant.com/2009-box-offic...ns-kofi-36396/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...s-call-of-duty
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...box-office.ars
http://www.grabstats.com/statmain.asp?StatID=67

in that last item the claim is that record industry profits have actually grown since 2006..... Are they lying? If so- why?

having a hit record is not an entitlement. nor is having a hit film- there is always risk attached to it.

4. I have no expectation of the government being able to effectively enforce SOPA in the media industry. They cannot prosecute the drug war, which people on a day to day basis are losing their lives on- they cannot prosecute effectively the Wall Street fiasco. Yes, I am jaded.

that being said, How much might we cast blame on the situation to publically held corporations- I do have to say in the film industry, they have wrecked things to an exponentially greater degree with their executive decision making than piracy has wrecked the industry (if we say that it does indeed wreck the industry).

5. If Media companies want to shut down the websites, the fastest way to do it is in FOREIGN courts. Theft is usually a crime in most countries. And laws suits and cease and desist orders are usually a requirement of enforcement- Companies like Coca Cola and others have doing that for decades, and with some success. This is a part of the cost of doing business, and we cant lose sight of it.

6. The little fish in this argument are a triviality to the government. When you bundle your half million to the Democrats or the Republicans you can get some face time- thats what PFizer, Microsoft and Google do.

The reality of the matter is that this is not about the arts, or artists rights. It is about copyright holders and barring foreign pharmaceuticals from being available for sale in the US. Have you google the Fortune 500 lately to see where the firms are who are most successful? Do you seriously think that pirate sites are driving Goggles profitability? really? I will say this- if you believe that to be the case, start public efforts against Google- and all the search engines- If they see their business impacted by those efforts they will respond. They dont really care how they make money, just that they DO make money. They would sell dog poo bracelets if there were people willing to buy them. They also realize that content is important, and if they have to pay for it, they will. It is very much the same for the Mexican Cartels- if they made more money selling chicklets at the border crossings than they did selling blow into the US they be doing it- they are about maximum return with minimal effort. Thats Business 101- they dont have an ideology beyond making money.

perhaps we should put a hold on the conversation until the mark up in the House and Senate is completed, but when we have Senators and Congressmen on those commmittees openly admitting their lack of understanding on the issue, I have to say we are pretty much doomed as artists in this round. I might add- they didnt allow people who actually were competent to comment in the hearings so far.

and I think it is great that the RIAA aggressively attacked on the matter. They used existing law in an effective manner.

this is the way it has to go- and it is expensive. http://www.scottandscottllp.com/main...rns_Award.aspx

in the end, this blames the car for the driver killing someone when they were drunk.
#103
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #103
Lives for gear
 
krheatman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AwwDeOhh View Post
Here ya go, you can appreciate this:
Dirty Money. Who Profits from Piracy?

In sheer numbers, yes, the most popular stuff is the most stolen.
When you get down past number 5 on the chart, the number stolen could mean the difference of making a profit, breaking even, or loosing money.

And what about people like me? (non-performing songwriter)
I don't get tour money , i don't get t-shirt money...
Yes there are other revenues, but you cut out one major source of revenue, and it hurts.. alot.
We put in the heart and soul, and we're last in line to get paid. I don't think Google should be before me in that line.
If the industries band together could they be bringing lawsuits against Google for starters?It seems to me that even the service providers hosting illegal content could be sued.Someone has to police the internet,but who and how.
#104
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #104
#105
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #105
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by krheatman View Post
If the industries band together could they be bringing lawsuits against Google for starters?It seems to me that even the service providers hosting illegal content could be sued.Someone has to police the internet,but who and how.
the sites and ISP's have to be sued in their country of origin.

Any other action is like having a fire in your bedroom and responding to it by closing the door.
#106
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #106
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

ASCAP 2009 Revenues Jump $176M To $995M - hypebot

EMI Publishing Dumps ASCAP : The Record : NPR
For now, digital music rights make up a very small portion of the royalty pie for songwriters and publishers. ASCAP reports that of the $935 million it collects each year, only $17 million comes from digital sources. But everyone, including ASCAP, knows that's going to change. If EMI is successful in its move to negotiate its own digital rights, and others follow, the PROs
may turn out to be yet another casualty of the shift to online music.



BMI Reports Increased Revenues for 2010 | News | BMI.com

BMI has announced that it generated more than $917 million in revenues for its 2010 fiscal year ended June 30, including its subsidiary Landmark Digital Services®, LLC. The company also announced distributable royalties of more than $789 million for the songwriters, composers and copyright owners it represents. With more than 475,000 songwriters, composers and music publisher affiliates, BMI is the world’s largest music copyright organization.

BMI’s long-term focus on revenue diversity yielded a $30 million increase in revenues from New Media, cable and satellite audio and video programming services. These gains more than offset a decline in radio and television license fees and adverse movement in foreign exchange rates during the January-June period.


you guys getting any of that splash?
#107
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #107
Lives for gear
 
krheatman's Avatar
 

Ok,so the courts decision for them not to knowingly allow the copyrighted material should not absolve them from making sure the content is not on their site.
Lawyers only stand to benefit from all this anyway.
It does nothing to reimburse all the originators of the media,only those with enough lawyers to bring a suit,and that is assuming there is anything to collect.
Still will take a global task force to be effective,and buying the sites does nothing,need to remain proactive to constantly abate the media terrorists.
I am sure NATO can handle it
#108
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #108
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
hmm- I guess I am a misunderstood sort of person....


lets be clear on this-

1. I dont support piracy. in any way, shape or form.
that is great.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
2. If we are going to attack piracy as a criminal endeavor, it needs to be attacked in every direction- from the downloader to the ISP operator.
agreed, which is why I support penalties for both the commercial and consumer infringers including a three strikes disconnect policy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
3. I have no jealousy in the matter at all- you can check my day job to verify that. That being said. I have been on probably a dozen recordings as a musician that had some measure of regional success- Do I believe that every record that is released is worthy of attention? no, I do not. there is much crap that gets released, that someone might like, but not the same numbers that bought Thriller, or Sgt Peppers. Thats the reality of art.
sure, but why discriminate? the goal is the true democratization of the internet, like Ted Nelson's Xanadu. Not everyone will have hits, but why shouldn't every be entitled to make an extra few thousand a year, or 10 thousand a year, fairly without fearing piracy should they work hard enough or be lucky enough to have a hit?

maybe the next generation of genius musicians do evolve from bedrooms and basements, but we'll never know if at that critical moment where they can actually become self sustaining their revenue is diverted to pirates and tech companies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
4. I have no expectation of the government being able to effectively enforce SOPA in the media industry. They cannot prosecute the drug war, which people on a day to day basis are losing their lives on- they cannot prosecute effectively the Wall Street fiasco. Yes, I am jaded.
you don't know how much worse drug use and it's effects would be without those laws and enforcements, I can't possibly imagine we would be better off... one only needs to look to mexico, and no I don't want to have a lengthy off topic conversation about the pros/cons of the drug war... that and piracy are music comparing apples and Orangatang's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
5. If Media companies want to shut down the websites, the fastest way to do it is in FOREIGN courts. Theft is usually a crime in most countries. And laws suits and cease and desist orders are usually a requirement of enforcement- Companies like Coca Cola and others have doing that for decades, and with some success.
This is just not true, why is the pirate bay still functioning?... what if the servers move to Nigeria? All the pirates have to do is move the servers to a country without these laws (or the desire to enforce them) and you're instantly back to square one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
6. The little fish in this argument are a triviality to the government. When you bundle your half million to the Democrats or the Republicans you can get some face time- thats what PFizer, Microsoft and Google do.
But this is what you are missing, then the RIAA takes down Limewire and Napster, it also benefits the little fish. This is important to understand. This is why copyright protection does not discriminate. It would be a horrible world where ONLY the corporations got copyright protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
The reality of the matter is that this is not about the arts, or artists rights. It is about copyright holders and barring foreign pharmaceuticals from being available for sale in the US.
again, you are wrong, it is absolutely about artists rights. it's about getting paid fairly and not have one's work and labor stolen. artists are paid by label through both investments and royalties. artists are paid from direct sales. a fair and level playing field for all is essential for a free market economy, piracy disrupts the marketplace unfairly which is why in the most common sense it is illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
perhaps we should put a hold on the conversation until the mark up in the House and Senate is completed, but when we have Senators and Congressmen on those commmittees openly admitting their lack of understanding on the issue, I have to say we are pretty much doomed as artists in this round. I might add- they didnt allow people who actually were competent to comment in the hearings so far.
sure, and I am under no illusion there won't be compromises to the bill, I just hope this one comes out better than the DMCA did. thank God some of the people who framed that bill are still around and hopefully they can be consulted for insight on what worked and what didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
and I think it is great that the RIAA aggressively attacked on the matter. They used existing law in an effective manner.
somewhat, it is time consuming and costly. sure, limewire is gone, but now we have to deal with Grooveshark... how long will that take and how much money, there has to be a way to not have the patient die on the table while waiting for the transplant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
this is the way it has to go- and it is expensive. Court Overturns “Grossly Excessive” $1.3 Billion Copyright Infringement Award

in the end, this blames the car for the driver killing someone when they were drunk.
I'm not aware of that case... but if you dig checking out legal opinion on copyright infringement check these out:

Music Tech Policy
www.musictechpolicy.com


Copy Hype
Copyhype


Creative America
Home | Creative America


Music Rights Now
Music Rights Now | Facebook

#109
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #109
Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
ASCAP 2009 Revenues Jump $176M To $995M - hypebot

EMI Publishing Dumps ASCAP : The Record : NPR
For now, digital music rights make up a very small portion of the royalty pie for songwriters and publishers. ASCAP reports that of the $935 million it collects each year, only $17 million comes from digital sources. But everyone, including ASCAP, knows that's going to change. If EMI is successful in its move to negotiate its own digital rights, and others follow, the PROs
may turn out to be yet another casualty of the shift to online music.


BMI Reports Increased Revenues for 2010 | News | BMI.com

BMI has announced that it generated more than $917 million in revenues for its 2010 fiscal year ended June 30, including its subsidiary Landmark Digital Services®, LLC. The company also announced distributable royalties of more than $789 million for the songwriters, composers and copyright owners it represents. With more than 475,000 songwriters, composers and music publisher affiliates, BMI is the world’s largest music copyright organization.

BMI’s long-term focus on revenue diversity yielded a $30 million increase in revenues from New Media, cable and satellite audio and video programming services. These gains more than offset a decline in radio and television license fees and adverse movement in foreign exchange rates during the January-June period.


you guys getting any of that splash?
some sure, but why does it matter? why shouldn't I be entitled to collect all the money I earn? why does my ability to "adapt and evolve" mean I should surrender or give up on what is rightfully mine?

the USA is an idea... it's the idea that anyone, if they work hard enough, (and maybe with a little luck) can have a better life as a result. piracy removes a very large part of that possibility (as a musician and creator), because the harder I work, the more someone else makes from my labor. that sounds a lot like slavery to me.
#110
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #110
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Point 1
Quote:
sure, but why discriminate? the goal is the true democratization of the internet, like Ted Nelson's Xanadu. Not everyone will have hits, but why shouldn't every be entitled to make an extra few thousand a year, or 10 thousand a year, fairly without fearing piracy should they work hard enough or be lucky enough to have a hit?

maybe the next generation of genius musicians do evolve from bedrooms and basements, but we'll never know if at that critical moment where they can actually become self sustaining their revenue is diverted to pirates and tech companies.
Just because someone releases a recording doesnt entitle them to it being profitable.
did piracy lose any of its bite when Napster and Limewire went down?

Being a successful artist in most endeavors is about as hard as becoming a pro athlete. It is not an entitlement. If you make stuff people like they will buy it- at least that has been the case for Lady Gaga- does she get pirated- yes, I am quite certain she does.

Quote:
Point 2
you don't know how much worse drug use and it's effects would be without those laws and enforcements, I can't possibly imagine we would be better off... one only needs to look to mexico, and no I don't want to have a lengthy off topic conversation about the pros/cons of the drug war... that and piracy are music comparing apples and Orangatang's.
No, it is quite similar, it speaks directly to the governments interest in effective prosecution.

Quote:
Point 3
This is just not true, why is the pirate bay still functioning?... what if the servers move to Nigeria? All the pirates have to do is move the servers to a country without these laws (or the desire to enforce them) and you're instantly back to square one.
If the site holder are thrown in jail or fined substantially they will need to factor that into their cost of doing business. This has been a tenet of organized crime for hundreds of years.

Quote:
Point 4
But this is what you are missing, then the RIAA takes down Limewire and Napster, it also benefits the little fish. This is important to understand. This is why copyright protection does not discriminate. It would be a horrible world where ONLY the corporations got copyright protection.
No, Corporations wouldnt get the protection solely but the artist would have to pay legal fees to defend their property. Again, its a cost of doing business, just like having liability insurance.
It is why IP holders have legal departments, and any serious IP creator will have legal contracts if they plan on commercially exploiting their work.

Quote:
Point 5
again, you are wrong, it is absolutely about artists rights. it's about getting paid fairly and not have one's work and labor stolen. artists are paid by label through both investments and royalties. artists are paid from direct sales. a fair and level playing field for all is essential for a free market economy, piracy disrupts the marketplace unfairly which is why in the most common sense it is illegal.
And who is managing those payments?- see above re- lawyers.

Quote:
Point 6
sure, and I am under no illusion there won't be compromises to the bill, I just hope this one comes out better than the DMCA did. thank God some of the people who framed that bill are still around and hopefully they can be consulted for insight on what worked and what didn't.
Yeah, so far all the bills to specifically address the issue have been unsuccessful- so I have great hope that a magical rainbow will descend into the halls of Congress to make change happen-

You want change? call the Committee chairmens office and say you are going to donate 10 thousand dollars to his re-election campaign- actually, gather up a 100 of your friends, and bundle a 100k donation to the DNC, or RNC, and you might even get to tak with him for 5 or 10 minutes.

Quote:
Point 7
somewhat, it is time consuming and costly. sure, limewire is gone, but now we have to deal with Grooveshark... how long will that take and how much money, there has to be a way to not have the patient die on the table while waiting for the transplant.
The patient wont die, because art is irrational. In classes I always tell the film students- that If this work is something they would do for free- with all its attendent suffering, then they are ready to get to work. The exploitation of the labor is business though, and it needs to be treated as such.

I have had friends who spent big money getting people like Jeff Porcaro and Tony Levin to play on their tracks-

and the only thing that ended up making the work notable was the presence of those players-
#111
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #111
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
some sure, but why does it matter? why shouldn't I be entitled to collect all the money I earn? why does my ability to "adapt and evolve" mean I should surrender or give up on what is rightfully mine?

the USA is an idea... it's the idea that anyone, if they work hard enough, (and maybe with a little luck) can have a better life as a result. piracy removes a very large part of that possibility (as a musician and creator), because the harder I work, the more someone else makes from my labor. that sounds a lot like slavery to me.
why is it important? Oh, you must be talking about the 10 cents per song you get from iTunes, who keeps the other 89 cents...

most money for songwriters comes from ASCAP and BMI PERIOD.

you do not have an entitlement to success in the arts- PERIOD.

And you call me jealous.... shit, I do audio for a living, and its paying for my house, and putting my kids through college. And funding my retirement.... I guess I have a very clear idea of why this is a problem-

well, if SOPA passes, I wouldnt go take loans for a new car I guess-
#112
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #112
Lives for gear
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
Those two comments are absolutely key to the anti piracy position.
Right now, you can pirate millions of products in your sleep with absolutely no consequence.
Neighbors of mine, who frankly struggle to program their set top box to record a tv programme, have downloaded hundreds of albums illegally.
If you make people work for it you will undoubtedly end up with a smaller minority who have a 'mind to infringe'. Those people have always been there, and very likely almost anything you could do to stop them would fail.
So the absolute goal is to greatly reduce or eradicate the casual piracy, leaving you with a small percentage of infringing, which has always been more or less manageable.

Just because people pirate a bunch of music doesn't mean they would have bought it to begin with. You think yout neighbor would buy those hundreds of albums if they weren't available to pirate?

I personally think this bill is dangerous. You are giving government control to monitor and censure. That's opening a door.

All the big piracy sites are foreign. Block the websites and you can still access them via proxies.
#113
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #113
Lives for gear
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rack gear View Post
thanks, and that was largely due to aggressive anti-piracy measures during a brief two week period around the release date where we knew we had a hit before the pirates did. by the time the chart had actually run in billboard, we couldn't keep up with the DMCA takedowns...



yes, but it's largely ineffective due to the failings of existing legislation that was passed Pre-Napster as illustrated here:

Grooveshark email: How we built a music service without, um, paying for music | Media Maverick - CNET News


Viacom vs. YouTube/Google: A Piracy Case in Their Own Words - DailyFinance





Alot. I've seen sales and revenues plummet in direct proportion to increasing piracy rates that expanded over the last decade with broadband, my story is here:

Piracy Is Personal - Tell Your Story Here

Yes, sure, I have the benefit of a career and earnings history where I will personally be OK no matter what, but really that's no justification for the earnings I'm losing as the result of piracy.

But what's more important is that there is a generation of musicians and professionals that will not get to have the career opportunities I have had because the revenue from recorded music sales is funding the tech industry, and not the record industry.




oh man charles, you could not be more wrong. the industry as a whole is down 60%+ in about a decade. yes, sure there will be #1 albums in billboard whether they sell 1,000 units a week or a million units a week, because the chart is relative, but see here:

Music's lost decade: Sales cut in half in 2000s - Feb. 2, 2010




When the entire industry is down, EVERYONE is effected. The difference being that the people who earned their wealth through sales prior to piracy may be insulated (NIN, Radiohead, Etc), but what consolation is that really when they should still be earning more on their current new releases?

By your own logic, if piracy doesn't hurt Bono, than it MUST have a more negative impact on those without the benefit of Bono's earning history from the pre-piracy era.

You comment really smacks of jealousy and contempt for the successful. It's like the pro-pirate talking points, "rock stars don't need any more money", usually coupled with "and labels are evil, ripping off artists".

The contradiction and paradox is of course, if labels are ripping off artists how come labels keep creating millionaire rock stars (who are now unaffected by piracy?!?). It's an absurd rationalization.



right, now you are getting it! ask yourself, why hasn't this happened already? also, how do you know that if a pirate site was purchased, they wouldn't take the money and start five new ones the next day? they're pirates, do you really think they can be trusted? look at how much time and expense is already required with lawsuits....



why should they have too? why should they have to resort to that? really charles you have a unique way of looking at fairness and justice. so it's OK if Bono or Paul McCartney spend their money to buy pirate sites, but it's not OK if the RIAA spends it's money to shut them down?

how on earth does that work in your head? why the focus on rich rock stars... there is a saying, only the hungry obsess about food...



this we agree upon.



this is where you are wrong. how on earth can the US shut down a site in Russia? the best we can do is shut down the sites that originate in the US, and have the ability to block sites from US consumers that move off shore.

This is the essence of SOPA.


The biggest drop in your chart happened around 2007/2008? Wonder what that could have been? Piracy?

The biggest piracy today is being perpetuated by the Federal Reserve and crony politicians giving trillions of dollars to multinational banks. Fix that problem and people will actually have money to buy luxuries such as music.
#114
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #114
Banned
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charles maynes View Post
Point 1


Just because someone releases a recording doesnt entitle them to it being profitable.
did piracy lose any of its bite when Napster and Limewire went down?

Being a successful artist in most endeavors is about as hard as becoming a pro athlete. It is not an entitlement. If you make stuff people like they will buy it- at least that has been the case for Lady Gaga- does she get pirated- yes, I am quite certain she does.


No, it is quite similar, it speaks directly to the governments interest in effective prosecution.


If the site holder are thrown in jail or fined substantially they will need to factor that into their cost of doing business. This has been a tenet of organized crime for hundreds of years.



No, Corporations wouldnt get the protection solely but the artist would have to pay legal fees to defend their property. Again, its a cost of doing business, just like having liability insurance.
It is why IP holders have legal departments, and any serious IP creator will have legal contracts if they plan on commercially exploiting their work.


And who is managing those payments?- see above re- lawyers.


Yeah, so far all the bills to specifically address the issue have been unsuccessful- so I have great hope that a magical rainbow will descend into the halls of Congress to make change happen-

You want change? call the Committee chairmens office and say you are going to donate 10 thousand dollars to his re-election campaign- actually, gather up a 100 of your friends, and bundle a 100k donation to the DNC, or RNC, and you might even get to tak with him for 5 or 10 minutes.


The patient wont die, because art is irrational. In classes I always tell the film students- that If this work is something they would do for free- with all its attendent suffering, then they are ready to get to work. The exploitation of the labor is business though, and it needs to be treated as such.

I have had friends who spent big money getting people like Jeff Porcaro and Tony Levin to play on their tracks-

and the only thing that ended up making the work notable was the presence of those players-
This is all so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start, but I'm sure others will.

It's like you're living in a parallel universe where cause and effect or reversed.

It's rare to see a case of such highly selective reasoning, and I'm actually pretty certain you believe it all, which is pretty astounding really.
#115
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #115
Lives for gear
 
krheatman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
The biggest drop in your chart happened around 2007/2008? Wonder what that could have been? Piracy?

The biggest piracy today is being perpetuated by the Federal Reserve and crony politicians giving trillions of dollars to multinational banks. Fix that problem and people will actually have money to buy luxuries such as music.
But they won't.Why would they when everyone steals.A whole generation of hard hearted thiefs.They learned it from Youtube etc.It is all there for the taking.They will pay for concert tickets though.
#116
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #116
Lives for gear
 
krheatman's Avatar
 

In a way it has put the musicians back on the street playing live more.They have to to make a living now.
#117
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #117
Lives for gear
 
Animus's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by krheatman View Post
But they won't.Why would they when everyone steals.A whole generation of hard hearted thiefs.They learned it from Youtube etc.It is all there for the taking.They will pay for concert tickets though.
Well they were paying but then the "recession" hit and it had the biggest drop of 6 billion. SOPA would bring that 6 billion back? There was also another recession in the early 2000's coming off a big boom in the 90's when people had disposable income to buy luxury items. Piracy is an issue but nowhere near as big as they want us to believe. Fix the economy (or more like wait til it recovers) and music sales will come back and have a far larger effect than SOPA ever will. I know when I am low on money entertainment such as buying cds and such is the first thing I cut out. People might still pirate the music but that doesn't mean they would have bought it anyway. Look at the housing market. The bottom fell out of that too. Accordingly, are people pirating houses the reason people are not buying houses? Piracy is a big red herring.
#118
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #118
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GearOnTheGo View Post
This is all so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start, but I'm sure others will.

It's like you're living in a parallel universe where cause and effect or reversed.

It's rare to see a case of such highly selective reasoning, and I'm actually pretty certain you believe it all, which is pretty astounding really.
so the stats of BMI, and ASCAP making growing profits is fraud?

you might consider your parallel universe, because as one inside Hollywood, and who makes his living in Mass Media (Film, TV and Game development) I do feel confident in my knowledge of how piracy is affecting my industry.

whats sad is the lack of objective (and perhaps fantasy wishful) thinking shown by those supporting the act- but there was a time when I believed in Santa Claus and Unicorns too I guess.


somebody really needs to go something about this lying bastards too-

http://investors.wmg.com/phoenix.zht...137&highlight=
Warner Music Group Corp. Reports Results for the Fiscal Third Quarter Ended June 30, 2011
Digital Revenue Approaching Half of U.S. Recorded Music Revenue; Music Publishing Grows Digital, Synchronization and Performance Revenue
-- Total revenue of $686 million grew 5% from the prior-year quarter and
declined 1% on a constant-currency basis. THIS IS FROM 3 MONTHS......


-- Digital revenue was $203 million, or 30% of total revenue, up 13% from
$179 million in the prior-year quarter, and up 9% on a
constant-currency basis.



If this is going to be about going after pirate sites- I will once again say- if there is a fire in your bedroom, just closing the door is not a good substitute for extinguishing it.
#119
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #119
Lives for gear
 
krheatman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Animus View Post
Well they were paying but then the "recession" hit and it had the biggest drop of 6 billion. SOPA would bring that 6 billion back? There was also another recession in the early 2000's coming off a big boom in the 90's. Piracy is an issue but nowhere near as big as they want us to believe. Fix the economy (or more like wait til it recovers) and music sales will come back and have a far larger effect than SOPA ever will. I know when I am low on money entertainment such as buying cds and such is the first thing I cut out. Look at the housing market. The bottom fell out of that too. Are people pirating houses the reason people are not buying houses? Piracy is a big red herring.
I know kids that have money and they watch every movie before it comes out on hack sites.They only go to the show for stuff w/3D or when they want it on the big screen.The older kid that knows the hack sites steals the music the younger buy's itunes cards.Learned behavior and easy access to stolen material.
There are engineers all over that buy plugins on hack sites I am sure.They justify it by the money they are not able to charge clients that have no budget.Clients have no budget because they are hacked within a couple weeks at the latest or even before when the stupid client posts the material on their myspace or facebook before it even get's mastered.
#120
29th November 2011
Old 29th November 2011
  #120
Gear Guru
 
charles maynes's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by krheatman View Post
I know kids that have money and they watch every movie before it comes out on hack sites.They only go to the show for stuff w/3D or when they want it on the big screen.The older kid that knows the hack sites steals the music the younger buy's itunes cards.Learned behavior and easy access to stolen material.
There are engineers all over that buy plugins on hack sites I am sure.They justify it by the money they are not able to charge clients that have no budget.Clients have no budget because they are hacked within a couple weeks at the latest or even before when the stupid client posts the material on their myspace or facebook before it even get's mastered.
yawn....
Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.