Tman5293 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Pray tell, where did you get this brilliant piece of insight? It's on a public website on the internet that literally everyone has access to. Youtube is free to use and and anything put on it or any other public website becomes public property. Hate to tell you this, but once you put something on the internet it's not yours anymore. It's gone and it's there for billions of people around the world to view and use as they see fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shnate McDuanus Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 It's on a public website on the internet that literally everyone has access to. Youtube is free to use and and anything put on it or any other public website becomes public property. Hate to tell you this, but once you put something on the internet it's not yours anymore. It's gone and it's there for billions of people around the world to view and use as they see fit. I love how you can just make sh*t up and then baselessly assert its veracity without providing anything in the way of sources. I like having physical copies of albums, and I like supporting artists, and I like legally exchanging goods and services for currency. Since a lot of the bands I listen to are smaller bands, I try whenever possible to buy their material from their own websites or at concert venues when they play their shows. I think that the future of the music industry lies in the internet, and if an artist like Trent Reznor decides to self-distribute digitally, then more power to him. I happily paid for Ghosts I-IV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem00n Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 It's on a public website on the internet that literally everyone has access to. Youtube is free to use and and anything put on it or any other public website becomes public property. Hate to tell you this, but once you put something on the internet it's not yours anymore. It's gone and it's there for billions of people around the world to view and use as they see fit. Unless you copyright it and sue what ever ****** used it and didnt cite you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman5293 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I love how you can just make sh*t up and then baselessly assert its veracity without providing anything in the way of sources. I like having physical copies of albums, and I like supporting artists, and I like legally exchanging goods and services for currency. Since a lot of the bands I listen to are smaller bands, I try whenever possible to buy their material from their own websites or at concert venues when they play their shows. I think that the future of the music industry lies in the internet, and if an artist like Trent Reznor decides to self-distribute digitally, then more power to him. I happily paid for Ghosts I-IV. Actually everything I said was entirely true. If something is on the internet people will use it at some point. Pretty good chance they won't cite the author either. I didn't say it was legal. I guess my wording was bad. What I meant was that it is on the internet that the entire world has access to and people are going to use other people's stuff regardless of whether the author wants them to or not or if it's copyrighted or not. People will use copyrighted material because of one of the great evils of the internet: everyone is anonymous. They can't track who the illegal users are and therefore they cannot enforce copyright laws on those breaking them. IMO, the internet makes copyright laws pretty damn useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsburger Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Tman, I think you have simply misunderstood the term public domain. This is a legal term which means that no copyright exists and that anyone is free to reproduce, use, perform, distribute, or diseminate in any way they see fit, quite legally. It is most commonly used to describe intelectual property which was once copyrighted but has passed into the public domain because the last of the original copyright owners died more than 70 years ago (50 in the US) I don't believe that is what you meant when you said "public domain"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 Actually everything I said was entirely true. If something is on the internet people will use it at some point. Pretty good chance they won't cite the author either. I didn't say it was legal. I guess my wording was bad. What I meant was that it is on the internet that the entire world has access to and people are going to use other people's stuff regardless of whether the author wants them to or not or if it's copyrighted or not. People will use copyrighted material because of one of the great evils of the internet: everyone is anonymous. They can't track who the illegal users are and therefore they cannot enforce copyright laws on those breaking them. IMO, the internet makes copyright laws pretty damn useless. so if a guy goes to 7/11 and leaves the car running, its ok for someone to take it? ****, I hate it when dem00n is right, I gave up on this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman5293 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 so if a guy goes to 7/11 and leaves the car running, its ok for someone to take it? ****, I hate it when dem00n is right, I gave up on this thread Of course not! It's not right to steal things on the internet either. But what I was saying is that people do it anyway because they know they wont get caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff-7 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 The music industry as a whole is in a period of turnover and profit growth. True, but how much of that is from reduced material and shipping cost and just throwing it to a digital retailer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 and jack the prices of tickets for shows the **** up. Nah illegal downloading didn't increase ticket prices, diminishing royalty % probably had to do more with it. Then you have the meet and greet tickets which came about for similar reasons. I had floor tickets at the Houston Astrodome for Metallica, Guns and Roses and Faith No More in 1992 and I paid $27.50 face value. My Tom Petty concert ticket last time he was I town was $282 face value...good thing I was an invited guest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TommyK Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 ... Once something is on Youtube it's public domain. Um... no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShredAstaire Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Tman529389321798327493287598743219 needs more edumacation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 ...The MP3, or Motion Pictures Expert Group Audio Layer 3 was designed by an international group of experts in audio technology and asymmetrical algorithmic data compression from university departments, distribution companies, record labels, publishers and others. The music industry as a whole had a hand in it. Sony invented ARTRAC3, now a part of the MP3 standard. .... For myself and others in the 90s who jumped at tech (and that doesn't include the members of the RIAA and MIAA), Fraunhofer had the copyrighted codec everyone wanted to use. Fraunhofer l3enc was the first public software able to encode audio PCM files to the MP3 format in 1994. It took the better part of a day (many hours) to encode a whole album. Originally people were using the tech to encode analog recordings they owned for digital playback on a computer - "fair use" as it's called. Then the portable media players started showing up. I recall the Diamond Rio with like a tiny 32mb of storage showing up around 1998. The RIAA/MIAA should've stepped in right then with a digital distribution/sales strategy, but they didn't. When the Napster media sharing software showed up in 1999, things went south fast for the RIAA/MIAA as illegal sharing skyrocketed. There was no efforts by the RIAA/MIAA to inform and educate the people using digital media tech. This unbridled sharing set the scene for the next decade. After getting their brains beat in for four years, some members of the RIAA/MIAA caved into Apple and went on board the iTunes Store which opened in 2003. After rambling on this, now I'm curious of the current number of claimed/estimated illegally shared files. Does anyone know?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Farnsburger Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 For myself and others in the 90s who jumped at tech (and that doesn't include the members of the RIAA and MIAA), Fraunhofer had the copyrighted codec everyone wanted to use. Fraunhofer l3enc was the first public software able to encode audio PCM files to the MP3 format in 1994. It took the better part of a day (many hours) to encode a whole album. Originally people were using the tech to encode analog recordings they owned for digital playback on a computer - "fair use" as it's called. Then the portable media players started showing up. I recall the Diamond Rio with like a tiny 32mb of storage showing up around 1998. The RIAA/MIAA should've stepped in right then with a digital distribution/sales strategy, but they didn't. When the Napster media sharing software showed up in 1999, things went south fast for the RIAA/MIAA as illegal sharing skyrocketed. There was no efforts by the RIAA/MIAA to inform and educate the people using digital media tech. This unbridled sharing set the scene for the next decade. After getting their brains beat in for four years, some members of the RIAA/MIAA caved into Apple and went on board the iTunes Store which opened in 2003. After rambling on this, now I'm curious of the current number of claimed/estimated illegally shared files. Does anyone know?? In 99 I was working for a small specialist software house, one of my colleagues got in early with an ftp server that would allow you to download 1 MP3 for every 2 you uploaded, very quickly he filled a 8GB raid array with MP3s. That was a tiny private enterprise. I would think the amount of music illegally shared during the time when Napster was operating illegally is enormous. It is much harder to do what my colleague did back then now because very few domestic ISPs will give you a fixed IP address which is required for such an operation so a dedicated server or virtual server is now about the only way to do it, too expensive for the keyboard warrior who wants to collate some MP3s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman5293 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Tman529389321798327493287598743219 needs more edumacation. Take a look at post #29............................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigKahune Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Actually everything I said was entirely true. If something is on the internet people will use it at some point. Pretty good chance they won't cite the author either. I didn't say it was legal. I guess my wording was bad. What I meant was that it is on the internet that the entire world has access to and people are going to use other people's stuff regardless of whether the author wants them to or not or if it's copyrighted or not. People will use copyrighted material because of one of the great evils of the internet: everyone is anonymous. They can't track who the illegal users are and therefore they cannot enforce copyright laws on those breaking them. IMO, the internet makes copyright laws pretty damn useless. Here's some reading for you - DMCA - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmca You know, that little law that causes YouTube and other websites to take copyrighted posts down everyday. Your understanding of copyright laws is very questionable. There's fair use and illegal use. It doesn't matter which anonymous a$$hole posted what, the DMCA always the copyright holder to go after the person/company displaying/using/streaming/hosting the copyrighted material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShredAstaire Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Take a look at post #29............................. Guess those Texas schools aren't up to the task! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TarHeelKid Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 If you put something hot down in the studio, it should be rewarded. I also agree with you that the live show should at least be close to the record sound. These days, with worldwide free sharing, has undeniably hurt the record market. Royalties should be paid, in my opinion, for any sharing of recorded material. Free previews are cool, to wet your whistle, so you go and buy a record. Technology is awesome, but is also a kick in the pants in many ways. Good luck in school dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman5293 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Guess those Texas schools aren't up to the task! Did you forget how to read or something? I never said it was right or legal. I am simply stating the fact that people will use copyrighted material because they don't care. Because no one ever gets in trouble for doing it. Truth hurts bro. And obviously, a lot of people on this forum can't take the truth. Hate to tell you guys, but it happens every day. Millions of people are stealing $hit all over the internet. And once again, I never said it was right or legal. Simply stating a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 Did you forget how to read or something? I never said it was right or legal. I am simply stating the fact that people will use copyrighted material because they don't care. Because no one ever gets in trouble for doing it. Truth hurts bro. And obviously, a lot of people on this forum can't take the truth. Hate to tell you guys, but it happens every day. Millions of people are stealing $hit all over the internet. And once again, I never said it was right or legal. Simply stating a fact. Nobody is disputing the fact that people illegally download **** or whatever, but what I'm pretty sure everyone has a problem with is your comment how everything is up for grabs once it hits youtube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem00n Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I posted some nudes, anyone want in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenced Fred Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 I posted some nudes, anyone want in? only if i can pay. i want to support local artists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lespaulj45 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 during the late 1960's and early 1970's I was a DJ on a local FM radio station. On Tuesday evenings we ran a "New Releases" night where we would play new recordings back to back,both sides without commercial interuption-this show ran from 7-11 every tuesday night year end year out. These were referred to as station cutouts (the record jackets had a small cut in the album cover) sent out by the record distributors. Anybody at home with a reel to reel or cassette recorder could copy the latest releases and not a word was ever spoken to us by the station brass-at least I never heard it if it was. This practice went on for my entire tenure at the radio station, so I can only surmise that the distributors were happy to get the airplay. I still have a lot of the albums in my personal record collection-If the record distributors werent concerned, why should I be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman5293 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Nobody is disputing the fact that people illegally download **** or whatever, but what I'm pretty sure everyone has a problem with is your comment how everything is up for grabs once it hits youtube. What I meant with that statement is that if someone see's something they really like on Youtube or any other site of that nature, they could just take it because no one is going to stop them. Once again this is not right. And it's not legal either if the video they pull off Youtube is copyrighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damian Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 What I meant with that statement is that if someone see's something they really like on Youtube or any other site of that nature, they could just take it because no one is going to stop them. Once again this is not right. And it's not legal either if the video they pull off Youtube is copyrighted. I copyrighted and trademarked "Tman5293".......Why are you still using that handle ??? ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I guess I'll weigh in - but some may not like what I'm gonna say as someone whose copyrighted material has been used, misused, etc., for longer than I think a lotta the readers of this thread have been on the earth - and possibly longer than their parents have been alive. First, yeah, we've got copyright law but there are loads of exceptions both in statute and case law, and there are questions as to what is legal and what isn't. E.g. One can legally listen to the radio at home or in the car, regardless how many people are in the house or car, without technically breaking the law unless you're charging money and even there are questions to ask. Technically, at least, unless money is involved, you can listen to youtube, television, whatever. And there are questions over legality of downloading from Youtube or recording from the radio or your buddy's CD or making a copy of your own CD in case it breaks. There also are questions whether you're breaking the law if you sing a copyrighted song at home, without pay at a charitable function or even in a saloon - although some might suggest that this or that precedent "proves" one or more of those are legal or illegal. Yuh gotta go to court. So much depends on case law, not the statute. It's also not, as some folks such as ASCAP and BMI would suggest, "stealing." You're not stealing, for example, if you read an article I wrote or read it out loud to others or to give them the magazine or reference a web page. You ARE stealing if you put your name on it and sell it as yours. There is an incredible amount of gray area in the arts. Further, there's a real problem morally, IMHO, with the way the music licensing folks set things up for the big guys only. You can make your living writing songs and singing in saloons for the next century and... believe it or not you're unlikely to get a nickel from ASCAP or BMI even if you have 5,000 air or Internet plays a year. Why? It all depends on whether you sign with one or both and whether you "publish" or "broadcast" in ways that are likely to be registered in the way that they "sample" such things. How do they do it? I dunno. It's a secret. So frankly... Although I don't want my original stuff, written or performed, "stolen" by someone else putting their name on or taking cash for, I think it's a tough case to claim that downloading or "tape recording" music for personal use without a tangible physical medium is illegal any more than making a photocopy of my magazine article to put on the refrigerator door or to send to Aunt Mable is illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.