Pro-Copyright Musician Was Pirating Music

[swamprat]

I'd not be entirely suprised if the quitting thing was either a tantrum or something similar (or someone else getting on to her account)

Where people say "I'm against copyrighted music" etc and think it should be free - there's complete difference between the system needing changes / people trying to be greedy and it being good to break the rules. I'd not think "ooh that's a nice car but it costs too much, besides I don't really drive much - it's only fair I just take it rather than buying it" - that'd be blatently wrong. Intangible things are less obvious on the ownership stakes, but if someone does work (be it designing something, writing a book or people at schools/universities writing essays etc) then other people didn't ought to just take it.
If musicians / record companies charge too much for their songs, don't buy them - that doesn't mean you should just take them instead. If they're good enough that you can't live without them then they're probably worth the money and they aren't charging too much...
A few years ago not having availability of online music was more of an issue, but you can buy things legally and often fairly cheaply. Taking it is just being greedy and rude.
Pah

 

[FSC]

swamprat said:
"ooh that's a nice car but it costs too much, besides I don't really drive much - it's only fair I just take it rather than buying it"

You just don't get it do you? Stealing a item is a totally different thing than copying a thing. Consider this: "ooh that's a nice car but it costs too much, besides I don't really drive much - it's only fair I just push this button and copy it rather than buying it"

There is a great difference between stealing and copying. In stealing somebody LOSES Something they already have. In copying somebody loses what they don't have, which in this case is, note, POTENTIAL incomes.

You just cannot parallel stealing and copying.

"- -record companies charge too much for their songs, don't buy them". I am sorry but WTF... If I like a song I want that song. And when I want it I have to pay what the record company dares to ask. You know.. there just aren't alternatives for music like there are for fizzy drinks.

 

[decepticon]

Key word here is 'sharing' music. Just leech it and you'll be fine. Uh oh, here comes the thumbs down!

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]FSC[/nom]You just cannot parallel stealing and copying.[/citation]
Just as an additional note, the japanese car industry has been 'copying' car designs since their humble beginnings in the 60s, and to some extend still do. And the car industry in india has started copying british luxury cars almost 100% without being busted. And though people have noticed, they've not ever claimed that a bentley was stolen, but merely that it was copied. So we must assume that a large number of people actually know the difference. There's merely a bunch of lost sheep which haven't yet seen the light. Incidently most of them work for mpaa or similar organization.

 

[bored1ed]

http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9-esIM2CY

Enjoy.

 

[bored1ed]

http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL9-esIM2CY

Enjoy.

 

[eyemaster]

[citation][nom]dnaeye[/nom]She seems very confused. Also, she made good music. Why is she quitting music altogether? Is she that embarrassed by her lapse in logic?[/citation]

Chances are, she didn't make her music. Then again, I got no idea who this signer is...

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]eyemaster[/nom]Chances are, she didn't make her music. Then again, I got no idea who this signer is...[/citation]
Her music is unique in many ways, so I think it's unlikely that pet shop boys, or someone else who write pop songs for others, would've written her albums.

 

[djackson_dba]

I have always wondered if Metallica ever reimbursed for the songs they covered when they were getting started. Unlikely.

 

[snarfeck]

music isn't even real. none of this is real. *whoa* i just had a keanu reeves thought.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]djackson_dba[/nom]I have always wondered if Metallica ever reimbursed for the songs they covered when they were getting started. Unlikely.[/citation]
All tracks on their debut album were their own. In fact the first released cover came in form of garage days many years later.

 

[djackson_dba]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]All tracks on their debut album were their own. In fact the first released cover came in form of garage days many years later.[/citation]

Before they cut their first album, they were covering a lot of songs in their club performances that they did not write. They were making money off other peoples work.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]djackson_dba[/nom]Before they cut their first album, they were covering a lot of songs in their club performances that they did not write. They were making money off other peoples work.[/citation]
Which is completely legal as long as you only sell the performance and not recorded copies.
I remember jeremy clarkson asking some british pop stars host about this very thing a while ago (dun remember his name, but he's famous in the uk I believe).

Anyway, you can sell performances of covered songs with certain restrictions that I do not recall, and make money off of your performance. But what's that got to do with anything? In any event, did you know that lily allen made a cover of a 2008 britney spears song? Or that apocalyptica got big by covering metallica?

 

[LLJones]

This is yet another case of hypocrisy. There is absolutely no one in some position of power who is what they claim. There are just people who haven't been caught yet.

Don't like my dim view of the world and the people in the spotlight shouting from soapboxes? Then prove me wrong.

 

[djackson_dba]

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]Which is completely legal as long as you only sell the performance and not recorded copies. I remember jeremy clarkson asking some british pop stars host about this very thing a while ago (dun remember his name, but he's famous in the uk I believe). Anyway, you can sell performances of covered songs with certain restrictions that I do not recall, and make money off of your performance. But what's that got to do with anything? In any event, did you know that lily allen made a cover of a 2008 britney spears song? Or that apocalyptica got big by covering metallica?[/citation]

Paid performance of a cover might be legal where you are, but it is not legal here in the US. You have to have permission and many times, that permission comes with a hefty percentage of the performance take.

"But what's that got to do with anything?"
Just citing another example of hyprocrisy in the music industry.

 

[r0x0r]

[citation][nom]Honis[/nom]I would agree with you except like I said 5 years is a long time to learn something. By you're and seems every ones argument I can hold you all accountable for believing in Santa Claus when you were 5. My argument is that people learn and change over time especially when they better educate themselves.[/citation]

True. The problems is that, although Lily Allen changed, her actions did not. She was still illegally distributing those mixtapes after 5 years.

If she was distributing those songs 5 years ago, but was no longer distributing them when she became famous, there would have been no real problem. Instead she cried foul on piracy when she was part of the problem.

And before anyone says she didn't know better, she had 5 years to know better. Lily Allen really should know that, because she is in the spotlight, she will be held accountable for everything she says and does, so it would behoove her to know what she is talking about.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]djackson_dba[/nom]Paid performance of a cover might be legal where you are, but it is not legal here in the US. You have to have permission and many times, that permission comes with a hefty percentage of the performance take."But what's that got to do with anything?"Just citing another example of hyprocrisy in the music industry.[/citation]
Is that something you know, or something you assume? Which law sais it anyway? Can you quote the parahraph even perhaps?

It isn't illigal in denmark, germany or the uk, so what would have me think it is in the us?

 

[eccentric909]

[citation][nom]djackson_dba[/nom]Paid performance of a cover might be legal where you are, but it is not legal here in the US. You have to have permission and many times, that permission comes with a hefty percentage of the performance take."But what's that got to do with anything?"Just citing another example of hyprocrisy in the music industry.[/citation]

It is not. You do not need "permission" to cover a song in a club or in a performance. You would need permission to record said cover song and distribute it, however live performances are fine. It's in the same breath that parody is considered legal, I would think.

[citation][nom]neiroatopelcc[/nom]All tracks on their debut album were their own. In fact the first released cover came in form of garage days many years later.[/citation]

Wrong.

Metallica itself is known for doing covers; their original album Kill Em All included a couple of covers (Diamond Head's Am I Evil and Blitzkrieg's Blitzkrieg), the original Garage Days Re-Revisited was a collection of covers paying homage to a number of mostly obscure bands, which were later combined with additional new covers on the 2 disc Garage Inc., which among other things included covers of Black Sabbath, Bob Seger, Blue Öyster Cult, Mercyful Fate, and numerous Motörhead tracks. In an interesting turn around there were even a couple of releases of The Metallic-Era CDs collecting tracks from bands that Metallica had covered, both the original versions of the covered songs, and some additional songs by the same artist.

 

[ricdiculus]

[citation][nom]redgarl[/nom]If only it was LARS...[/citation]
+100
Fire Bad, Money good!

 

[rooket]

I thought it was common knowledge at least ever since the whole vanilla ice fiasco with the under pressure song remix.

anyway I'm glad to not be tied up in all this legal crap. I managed to get as many songs as I want off the net under the radar. just sucks that they go after people who barely have any money. I think that is pretty hypocritical in itself. A big shot wearing a suit and a $20k rolex going after someone that probalby has under 20 grand in the bank. yeah I just call that greed.