Juanra - seriously - this is a silly thing to say. Exactly how do you expect the creative industries to survive if they can't sell what they make? Government funding? Do you want to pay 1000% more tax to support "the arts"? And have those arts seriously limited to the style and taste of just a couple of lame ### politicians?
I dont think 'art' should be subsidized, at all. And I dont think any government should use any public money to help 'artists'.
Just because these people don't see another way of living doesn't mean that the progress and technology has to stop because of them. There's plenty of music groups that offer their songs for free on the internet, and they are earning good money making tours and concerts.
You have the freedom to sell your things, but you cant expect people to pay for them just because it costed a lot of money. 20€ or 15€ for a music CD is really absurd. You are paying for the videoclip cost, for the whole marketing campaign, and a lot of stuff that has actually nothing to do with the songs. You just need to find another way to sell your product.
Originally Posted by Senorita
In essence, the quality of the arts we have in the world at present is fantastic. And fantastic costs a LOT of money. It's a bit of a fallacy that everyone doing these things is "rich". They just aren't. Only a very tiny few make it really big. Everyone else does it as a living, and if those people cannot survive doing it at all, we'll probably never get the next big music and film talents as they'll have to get jobs in banks and insurance firms in order to live and never get good enough to make it.
Quality is subjective, just a matter of taste
And Im pretty scared by the last sentence, Sen. You are talking like if the society really needs a film or music star, like if they were scientists or doctors.
And im pretty sure that cinema and music will not die because of the so called 'piracy'.
I dont think 'art' should be subsidized, at all. And I dont think any government should use any public money to help 'artists'.
Just because these people don't see another way of living doesn't mean that the progress and technology has to stop because of them. There's plenty of music groups that offer their songs for free on the internet, and they are earning good money making tours and concerts.
So how do you suggest films and musicians are funded? You still haven't come up with a viable alternative to not getting people to pay for seeing and hearing things. Tours simply do not sustain. There's not enough live music venues and time in the day to allow music, art, film and culture to exist at even close to the current level. The quality and quantity would dramatically reduce.
Originally Posted by Juanra
You have the freedom to sell your things, but you cant expect people to pay for them just because it costed a lot of money. 20€ or 15€ for a music CD is really absurd. You are paying for the videoclip cost, for the whole marketing campaign, and a lot of stuff that has actually nothing to do with the songs. You just need to find another way to sell your product.
So you agree that a sale must be made then? And not just handed out around the internet for free by people who illegally downloaded it? So how exactly do you see that working - I'm curious as I really don't think you've thought through the consequences of expecting everything for nothing. In my post I suggested that the itunes/lovefilm/netflix way of doing things seemed like a way forward. What are you thoughts about that method?
I agree that when you buy a cd/dvd etc you're paying for more than just the basic essence of the music or the film. You're paying for the marketing. But if a product isn't marketed, it is 99% likely to be a failure. This isn't a debate on the quality of marketing, or the over hype of a small number of products compared to a vast number of lesser budgeted things - but you do need to bring your product to the attention of the potential customer. That's basic business common sense. Marketing exists on the internet too, and it costs money! It's a job.
Originally Posted by Juanra
And Im pretty scared by the last sentence, Sen. You are talking like if the society really needs a film or music star, like if they were scientists or doctors.
I'm worried by all your posts You appear to think that there is no value to the work done by literally thousands and millions of people across the globe. They may not be "saving lives", but not everyone can be a doctor or a scientist, and the arts in general make an enormous contribution to society on so many levels. Through raising awareness, education, social advancement and actually - just giving people a bl**dy good time!! This surely isn't a debate about the value of music, art, literature and film in society though is it? And hopefully if you re read my final sentence you'll see I'm not saying that it's the end of the world without the arts (although it would be for many people), but we can't just smash several industries because "it's their fault for making music or a film".
This stage of the discussion is now about some people being too pikey to pay for something and preferring to take it for free if there's a way round it. Stealing a CD from a record shop is theft. Stealing a book from a bookshop is theft. Sneaking into a cinema without paying for a ticket is theft. And so's illegally downloading material that is protected by copyright.
You're confident that music and cinema will not die because of piracy. I agree with you there. We've been existing with levels of piracy on the internet for over a decade and mostly, no one is suffering hugely and that's a very important thing to remember. I think our discussion is now much more about the fundamentals and the morals of taking something without paying for it, and the fors and againsts on that subject. For the record, in my opinion stealing is stealing, whether you do it from the comfort of your own home or not... what SOPA and all other acts so far have failed to identify, is a universal way of protecting the rights of authors and creators, without limiting the sense of freedom that the internet has created. I'm fairly confident we're not going to come up with the solution here
Back from a short (but incredibly nice break), just some remarks on my own and other posts;
Originally Posted by Smartbean
Not the first:
The US SOPA Law is not the first legalisation to combat piracy. Other countries have already standing law and if not they have jurisprudence (case verdicts) that already define boundries of what is legal and what is illegal when it comes to piracy. There are already countries that have banned sites like The Pirate Bay. Even last week here in Holland, a judge in The Hague ruled that 2 Dutch ISP's need to deny their customers access to The Pirate Bay website. This outcome differentiates from ruling law in Holland concerning internet use. And the people here are saying the same things about censorship of the web.
To illustrate the above, I read this article on the BBC News App today when travelling back from work: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16711416
This article shows that there are already countries where they take action against piracy and in this case piracy via file sharing.
Originally Posted by Smartbean
Copyright Holders:
Ofcourse realisation of law concerning piracy is a huge win for copyright holders. To be fair, they have been a victim of piracy and potentially lost a lot of income/revenue from work that spreads through piracy. I myself think that it's impact on the copyright holders isn't that dramatic (think of the South Park Episode where the cop shows them what happens when people download music - "Not a big deal?") but it's very understandable that they fight for their rights.
To illustrate this passage above I just copy links to the Southpark site(s) where you can see the little clip. Ofcourse, due to copyright restrictions (good job of the Southpark webmasters for protecting these video files themselves this way...that's genuinely meant btw) you need to go to your local Southpark website to watch the clips.
When you see the video you (well I for one) get a bit of the impression that's it's not harming the artists that much. But...See below after Sen's quote about other people involved.
Originally Posted by Juanra
At least in my country (Spain) each consumer has the right to make a copy (called private copy) of the product. Whatever you do with that copy is up to you.
It is not piracy.
Coming back onto this topic. I was going about copying and sharing via the internet and downloading those pirated copies. I did not go into the hard copy debate really, so to set that right;
When you buy a CD/DVD in the shop, take it home, put the CD/DVD into your PC and;
- transfer the files from the CD/DVD onto your PC and burn those files onto another CD/DVD then that is piracy,
- transfer the files from the CD/DVD onto your PC and adjust them (by splitting/changing format/adding/removing things) then that is piracy,
- transfer the files from the CD/DVD onto your PC and save them in a folder which is linked to a program that allows those files to be shared across the internet (for example Peer to Peer network or Torrent) then that is piracy aswell.
So, if you make ANY copy of a legally purchased CD/DVD from the record store, it's a breaching of copyright and thus labelled as piracy.
Originally Posted by Senorita
Reading some of the arguments, even some of the far fetched ones, it became apparent that the concept of "pirate" and "right" and "privilege" differs across borders; even EU ones.
I wondered what UK law says then...
So, instead of thinking I knew what I was talking about (as I can be prone to do after some whisky on a Friday night) - I went to my shelves and looked at this:
1) The most recent UK film DVD I purchased - The Kings Speech.
On the back it says "All rights of the producer and of the owner of the work reproduced reserved. For private home use only. Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performance, radio or TV broadcasting of all videogram formats is prohibited."
This would indicate to me that I could show the dvd in a "private home setting", however, I know from my job that if I wanted to show it to a larger group of people; for free or for cost, public or invited, I would need one of a number of licences to do this. Meaning - copying and "sharing" this film is illegal.
For the record, even though The Kings Speech is based on historical facts, I don't consider it "information". It is quite clearly entertainment.
2) The most recent UK published book I purchased - The Gods of Atlantis by David Gibbins (not read it yet, don't tell me the ending)
On the back it says "Apart from any use permitted under UK copyright law, this publication may only be reproduced, stored, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, with prior permission in writing of the publishers or, in the case of reprographic reproduction, in accordance with the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency"
I am too lazy to look up the law - but the mere fact that there is a copyright licensing agency and a uk copyright law would indicate that one needs PERMISSION and to fall within the law if one wishes to make copies. Eg there are restrictions.
3 The text book from the examining body for my professional diploma
I'm doing a course via online learning. My university is not allowed to provide the students access to an online version of this text book as it is protected by copyright. However, they have made excerpts of plenty of other texts available that aren't under the same protection... meaning my examining body knows how to make a lot of money as each text book costs £25 and you need four!
Very very good post Sen, +1 rep.
What you said at 1) is exactly what I meant in my first post. To point 2) and 3) I have been wrong myself in my previous post. Ofcourse it's illegal to copy pages from text books, though among students it's every day practise really. The so called moral among students concerning copying lectural texts is that it has become normal to do so. Ofcourse it's morally wrong to copy such things, but no less every day practise than downloading music and movies.
Originally Posted by Senorita
Its also important to consider that for every CD/track made... there are dozens of people involved whose pay is related to the number of sales. If Rihanna loses a couple of million, she's unlikely to notice, but the writers, producers, sound technicians, session singers, session musicians, designers, marketers, managers, and assistants will sure as hell notice. It's their livelihood - and they can't just 'do a tour' to make a load of cash to make up for it. Their profession is different.
Thanks for pointing out all the other people involved Sen! I did not take those people into account and you're absolutely right concerning the rights of those people that are involved in the work of all those productions of artists.
However, I think all people involved have made agreements concerning fees or income assurance via contracts with the artists. But thanks again for pointing this out.
Originally Posted by Senorita
What I think, as Cara so eloquently put, is that the law is seemingly VERY badly written, utterly ambiguous, and throws open the prospect of a billion court cases worldwide... no doubt making the very profession that wrote the law a hell of a lot richer (that's the lawyers, by the way, not the creative types).
It might indeed cause billions of court cases, but as I pointed in my first post I think it's good that there will be a lot of cases...from a LEGAL point of view I mean. As with every verdict the playing field and extend of the SOPA will become more clear. Especially with such poorly/general written law it's the judges that will decide on how to interpret the variety of aspects of the law. And in verdicts it's not just argumentation of the lawyers of each side that counts, the public general moral (concerning piracy) and common sense is taken into account aswell.
Ofcourse court cases can be taken to silly proportions such as the variety of lawsuits that Samsung and Apple are throwing at eachother, but hey, you can always find extremes.
I think that when cases come to court against the every day internet user like you and me that judges will take the proportion of offence in the context of the SOPA into account and that extreme verdicts with billions of $/£/€
won't occur.
Originally Posted by Senorita
Of course if the law IS passed, it could go another way - and be disasterous for the US economy - effectively closing down their internet in an almost Chinese/Korean way.
As I stated in my first post, if it really heads the Chinese/Korean way concerning the censorship of the internet then that's unacceptable.
Originally Posted by Senorita
Essentially, I believe this war will carry on for years to come - it's unlikely that the bill will pass, especially in its current state. Money motivates politics. And politics motivate the law. Meaning... people with money can buy the laws they want. So I will watch with keen interest to see who has more money - Google or Sony/A N Other? Google was rated the highest value brand in the world in 2011; it now just depends who their backers are.
Interesting statement, to a large extend true, lobbying is a big part of politics, but as stated above...it's not only money that counts, common sense is the key factor in my opinion.
Last edited by Smartbean; Jan 25 2012 at 02:31 PM.
I made a reference earlier in the thread to this not being about countries, but the people in influence with power and money.
The right to protect and make a living from creative arts is indeed something that needs to be protected, but like many pure ideals this is far from the reality of the modern era. This is more often about monopolies and excessive control, not some poor low budget artist trying to make a living.
If more could be done to produce secure code on the net so that a site could allow people to watch and browse content without it being pirated this is not a bad thing and would drive down costs.
Unfortunately laws in the mould of SOPA are open to abuse and are more likely to be used as weapons by heavyweight players like fox, disney et all to increase their pressure to 'own' all media.
Making an amusing spoof using real footage is fairly harmless, uploading a whole movie and using this to bipass revenue for the manufacturer is not, its a minefield really.
Oh Sen i'd pay a tenner a month for Beyonce to never produce any more music ever ;P
Wait.. wait.. wait... Under SOPA even posting covers of songs is illegal? Ghheeeeze!!
Stopping ACTA too is pretty relevant ..
"An aide to Rep. Smith said, "This bill does not make it a felony for a person to post a video on YouTube of their children singing to a copyrighted song. The bill specifically targets websites dedicated to illegal or infringing activity. Sites that host user content—like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter—have nothing to be concerned about under this legislation" - opening post
No, clearly not in principle, but the sentiment is a move in that direction. I posted that simply to share some harmless copyright infringement >.< sorry for the "here's another" was meant to read "here's another copyright infringment" - but got distracted trying to embed the video.
Posting a clip of a film with comments on its artistic merits would be though, as would be say posting a harmless spoof.
Lets say i wrote an essay on the philosophical content of the "tears in the rain" scene from blade runner and used a clip:P That is illegal under SOPA, which ironicly could probably make more people watch the film.
Or i wrote an article for wikipedia that highlighted blatant provocative racism in a film, but the marketing team objected.
Or potentially you showed a clips of a film that was hideously politicly biased, you wrote your counter feelings about it using the clip to undermine its argument. Law would be on the side of the marketer; this would be an attack on free speach to some extent.
As could be in theory anything a court deemed too similar under copyright law, say potentially you posted something with a plotline that was deemed too close to something released by a major player they could use the legislation to sue.
However once the ball is rolling...
"It doesn’t seem like a huge violation, but that’s the point; if SOPA passes, who knows how minor infractions like this will be handled."
I just think that more effort to secure material is better than trying to legislate media moguls against the masses, because once a precedent is set that gives control of the internet medium to the major players its a slippery slope to take it further. Like i said a minefield.
Years ago I was part of a project group trying to diminish negative imagery about mental health in the media - the papers at the time were full of high profile cases. Yet more people were being hospitalised due to "bizarre" behaviour due to their mental health than than the other way around. In our attempts to highlight negative imagery of mental health in the media, we approached mainstream hollywood to ask if we could include a discussion on the potrayal of Batman's enemies criminals kept in an asylum for the mad and bad. The response was any imagery used would result in legal action. End of.
This:-
"Like many trade agreements, ACTA is a confusing mess. Even its signatories don't agree on how it's supposed to work. The way it's been pushed forward has also been unruly -- talks have been held in secret, without any kind of legislative oversight or input from citizens or public-interest groups. The public only became aware of it in 2008, a couple of years after discussions began, when Wikileaks published a discussion paper. Since then, drafts of the pact have been released to the public, each successively less onerous to critics. Reportedly, though, big media and pharmaceutical lobbyists have been privy to the talks all along"
kinda of is my point.
The world's media is already controlled by a tiny minority, the internet is the only true free medium, keeping it free from political and financial control matters.
ACTA is on its last legs. The European Commission has called on the European Court of Justice to determine whether or not ACTA undermines fundemental EU rights, I doubt they will find that it does not.
Leader of Rogues Gallery. Uruk dominance campaigner.
Senior Member Online status:
Reputation:
Originally Posted by Senorita
Member Online status:
You appear to think that there is no value to the work done by literally thousands and millions of people across the globe. They may not be "saving lives", but not everyone can be a doctor or a scientist, and the arts in general make an enormous contribution to society on so many levels. Through raising awareness, education, social advancement and actually - just giving people a bl**dy good time!! This surely isn't a debate about the value of music, art, literature and film in society though is it? And hopefully if you re read my final sentence you'll see I'm not saying that it's the end of the world without the arts (although it would be for many people), but we can't just smash several industries because "it's their fault for making music or a film".
Member Online status:
Leader of Broken and part of the Allies of Light
Poster of Note Online status:
Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
