File Sharing court case.
Join Free Art WorkShopJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 94

Thread: File Sharing court case.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Youngstown, Ohio
    Posts
    1,568
    Thanks
    1,169
    Thanked 1,191 Times in 516 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    File Sharing court case.

    MINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.

    A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
    Story

    Good for the recording industry. In case you don't read the whole story they're probably willing to accept a settlement of a $3,500-$5,000, But...


    So, ummm... If I have a friend who copied some songs off of youtube, would that count as pirating?

    Last edited by Bill; June 19th, 2009 at 12:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Bill For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,623
    Thanks
    650
    Thanked 818 Times in 305 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    80 000. A song.

    ???????

    I'm no fan of pirating... but seriously? O.o

    What did she do? Sell them to people numbering in the thousands? O.o

    "The fact that no one understands you doesn't make you an artist"

    Sork's SB - Crits appreciated - not getting updated atm
    C G H U B SB Thread
    Blog
    Facebook, please send me a message about your username
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    The Frozen North (Canada)
    Posts
    1,180
    Thanks
    382
    Thanked 416 Times in 201 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    dude, don't you get it? each song she pirated robbed that artist of a blinged out pendant the size of my head, with spinning shit on it. And that's just not fair.

    MY WEBSITE: PaintedSky.ca
    MY SKETCHBOOK: Ook's Book - Karyl Craves Your Approval
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to KarylGilbertson For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    chriskot's Avatar
    chriskot is online now non-dishwasher safe, keep away from open flame Level 7 Gladiator: Samnite
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    799
    Thanks
    121
    Thanked 688 Times in 203 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Sad as it is, the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) pulls this sort of nonsense all of the time. That's probably one of the reasons that The Consumerist voted them as the most hated company in America in 2007 (with Haliburton in 2nd place). Although this is still way higher than average, Wikipedia says that they usually sue for around $750 per song.

    Also, they have a bad habit of taking an assembly line approach to lawsuits, suing hundreds at a time and just hoping to win as many as possible (including at least one case in which the defendant turned out to have never pirated anything before, ever). They had to revise their strategy once after the way they combed through the IP addresses of file swappers was deemed "illegal", but it didn't slow them too much, unfortunately. They're pretty reckless.

    Last edited by chriskot; June 19th, 2009 at 04:50 AM.
    ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆
    SKETCHBOOK | BLOG
    ☆★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★ ☆ ★
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    1,623
    Thanks
    650
    Thanked 818 Times in 305 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    What actually REALLY irks me with the music industry is their absolute reluctance to step into todays world.

    They cling to the old ways of distributing with nails and claws.

    I've never been a person that needs whatever music getting out RIGHT now straight away, but seriously... (being somewhat off the "whatever is cool right now" charter lists helps )

    The old business plan was to give out albums in different parts of the world at different times, so the artist could tour and whatnot making PR etc for their album. Which made sense. Lot of sense. And more money. Years ago.

    In these days, if an album is released somewhere, but not somewhere else, they're asking for trouble. People networking crossover the world, and that business plan just doesn't work anymore. People get irritated and angry and tells them it's their own fault when people start to pirate it. No matter what, they have to start trying to get on their customers good side instead of bad side. A happy customer is the best way to earn money.

    They need to rethink their philosophy. And business plan. And earn money in ways that won't turn their customers against them.

    Said the girl that still listens to old Pink Floyd and buys Norwegian Metal. Whatever. lol.

    "The fact that no one understands you doesn't make you an artist"

    Sork's SB - Crits appreciated - not getting updated atm
    C G H U B SB Thread
    Blog
    Facebook, please send me a message about your username
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sorknes For This Useful Post:


  9. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,878
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 630 Times in 400 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Old article.

    The industry have moved on since then and started thinking about "new solutions".

    Last edited by George Abraham; June 19th, 2009 at 08:08 AM.
    ----------------------------------
    Scetchbook: View the exhibitionist's stuff.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    39.7,-86.1
    Posts
    1,218
    Thanks
    451
    Thanked 408 Times in 256 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    While I agree that downloading music/movies/etc off internet without paying for it is stealing and distributing it, let me play the devil's advocate for a minute here. The recording companies make millions and the artists get paid in millions (usually). So why are they going after poor people who download a couple of songs for personal use and fining them for tens or hundreds time the market price the songs sell for? Honestly, most of them aren't even worth the CD they are burnt on. They should be made to paid the market price of the music they download, period...that is only fair.

    -Mike Cross


    Sculpting Thread|My Website| DeviantArt |My Blog
    -Also on FB and Twitter
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,878
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 630 Times in 400 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Don't worry

    They noticed it's a bad idea to go arround and sue the ones who love them.



    ----------------------------------
    Scetchbook: View the exhibitionist's stuff.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to George Abraham For This Useful Post:


  13. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Youngstown, Ohio
    Posts
    1,568
    Thanks
    1,169
    Thanked 1,191 Times in 516 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Well...

    She had 1,700 songs available on a filesharing program (Kazaa), for years, and before it went to trial she was offered a settlement opportunity of (apparently) a few thousand dollars.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    36
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 8 Times in 6 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Hasn't the industry learned from the napster incident yet?!
    Massive change needs to happen, otherwise, this will generally continue on. I mean even if 'internet piracy' magically stops, what's goona stop a person from copying songs from say...their friends ipod?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lafayette, CO (near Denver and Boulder)
    Posts
    1,716
    Thanks
    560
    Thanked 646 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Back in the day you could just stick a cassette in the player and when the radio got to a song you liked you hit "record." Then you shared it with your friends... I wonder if anyone got sued for that...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Peter Coene For This Useful Post:


  17. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In a Big Country
    Posts
    258
    Thanks
    191
    Thanked 90 Times in 55 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I think these pirates are getting what they deserve. I know most of the artists that have had their songs pirated probably have enough money anyway, but I'd be pretty annoyed if someone was taking something that had I spent time and effort to create, and then just given it away for free over the internet.

    That said, $1.92 million for 24 songs is just stupid. How can they possibly think this woman could pay even half of that if she is not even going to pay for a few songs?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,878
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 630 Times in 400 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The best thing about freedom is the ability to practice it. It's what we live for, it's what makes us human.

    Mammon might just reduce everyone to insect robot's that can't afford anything but to respond to networked hormonal signals. Even the people who pushed it. Tatah.. Human's to insects, what a waste of the marvell of creation.

    Companies enforcing the face book thing, yay.. Freedom to be fake. That bullshit illusion word "Rights"(freedome over selecting from a predecided limmited set of options), like a rat in a cage. He has the right to the inside of his cage. They are making prizons larger and larger untill there's no differance between real prison and the outside.

    Rather support these artists efforts and pay for stuff, instead of the larger monopoly inventors making genius moves towards killing the world for profit. The only thing we can do is to delay that a little.

    Or support free art.. Just like linux, then the microsoftical pay me cult will come an monopolise you back onto their crap.
    Even Bill gates family will be network zombies one day.

    Last edited by George Abraham; June 19th, 2009 at 01:11 PM.
    ----------------------------------
    Scetchbook: View the exhibitionist's stuff.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #14
    Black Spot's Avatar
    Black Spot is online now Pew, Pew, Pew Level 17 Gladiator: Spartacus' Dimachaeri
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    9,681
    Thanks
    3,223
    Thanked 5,366 Times in 3,589 Posts
    Follows
    1
    Following
    0
    I sort of have mixed feelings about this. My husband co-wrote a minor hit in 1979, but since he sold the mechanical rights. There are actually 3 rights a song makes: publishing, performing and mechanical. He only gets money from publishing, so he only gets paid when it’s played on the radio or TV. When Youtube had an agreement with the PRS, he would of got a cut from that. Just remember not all musicians make mega-bucks; he gets about £30-£100 pa.

    Currently, I’m working on an animation for another one of his songs and having fun tracking down where parts of the rights are. Since Youtube fell out with the PRS, songs are being pulled left, right and centre. They should renegotiate with the PRS and composers would be happy.


    I didn't think it was possible to be called an artist when you have nothing to say. It's like being a writer who publishes individual words as books and expects to be praised for it.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #15
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    3,234
    Thanks
    860
    Thanked 847 Times in 457 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    Well...

    She had 1,700 songs available on a filesharing program (Kazaa), for years, and before it went to trial she was offered a settlement opportunity of (apparently) a few thousand dollars.
    That's the kind of information that we need to see more. Someone reads that shes downloaded 24 songs and goes all pissed off, no matter the fact that it was illegal. Justice and appearance of justice are two very different things and if they go out and sue people for downloading a few songs, they are going to make martyrs out of them in the public's mind. I don't worry so much about the people downloading but about the people uploading.


    Quote Originally Posted by Zapp! View Post
    I think these pirates are getting what they deserve. I know most of the artists that have had their songs pirated probably have enough money anyway, but I'd be pretty annoyed if someone was taking something that had I spent time and effort to create, and then just given it away for free over the internet.

    That said, $1.92 million for 24 songs is just stupid. How can they possibly think this woman could pay even half of that if she is not even going to pay for a few songs?
    I can't beleive what I read here, people claiming that artists make enough money. I don't know about you but I don't listen to a lot of Madonna or Shakira and I make sure that some of my hard earned money makes it's way to the obscure artists I like listening to.
    As for the size of the sentence, well, it's partly symbolic becaause they know they will never see that money, but it's a bit like people who get more than one life sentence.... or who get many different sentences and serve them at the same time (wtf?)

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Qitsune For This Useful Post:


  22. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Mad Cross View Post
    While I agree that downloading music/movies/etc off internet without paying for it is stealing and distributing it, let me play the devil's advocate for a minute here. The recording companies make millions and the artists get paid in millions (usually). So why are they going after poor people who download a couple of songs for personal use and fining them for tens or hundreds time the market price the songs sell for? Honestly, most of them aren't even worth the CD they are burnt on. They should be made to paid the market price of the music they download, period...that is only fair.
    So does everything you list after "downloading music/movies/etc off internet without paying for it is stealing and distributing it" justify why it is okay to steal? If anyone is caught stealing they ought to pay the price for stealing. Period.

    Allow me to shed some light onto the purpose of the internet: the internet is a tool whose purpose is to offer communication of information and ideas - the free distribution of information and ideas is then possible. It is through the internet you can get news, games, pictures, music, videos, programs, dictionaries, etc for free, right? But when is it no longer okay to get one of these items for free? Games, music, and video's consist of the three largest, if I'm not mistaken, pirated items off the internet. Those that are caught pirating are taking part in criminal action (yes, pirating is a crime, therefore the one pirating is a criminal) and deserve punishment.

    The law sees a crime as a crime, no matter who they are dealing with - being poor or rich is irrelevant. If anyone were file sharing music, downloading free console video games, or a video that is copy righted and protected by federal law (all that I have mentioned are protected under Copyright Laws). If someone is found guilty of piracy tough luck. Even if they wanted that one good song from the slew of bands they found, they will be seen as a pirate in the eyes of the authority. Besides, didn't you, Mad Cross, say that it was indeed "stealing" to download copy righted items for free?

    We know very well that not all artists make millions. I know you were focusing on musicians, but in a broader sense aren't we all artists, be it visual or audible? Think for a second about all those Independent bands. They have record deals with independent publishing companies that side away from major commercial record labels, making them very little money - with very few of them ever hitting big. Independent bands make so little money because they aren't with the major recording labels who commercialize the more popular bands (these are the millionaire musicians you were speaking of earlier). So in essence: if you are stealing from the Independent bands aren't you stealing from the equivalence of the poorest artists?

    The point I'm getting at is stealing art harms the profit of the artists you're stealing from! What if someone were to steal your artwork and make a profit off of it? Would you want them to be punished for only the money the made off of your work or more to compensate law suit charges and to teach the crook a lesson?

    Protect and honor our fellow artists please.

    -Wiggs

    Edit: Mad Cross, I do not mean to be spiteful or mean sounding with my comment. I wanted to show you a new way of thinking about pirating. I do agree though, downloading for free is stealing. Good day!

    Last edited by Wiggles; June 19th, 2009 at 01:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In a Big Country
    Posts
    258
    Thanks
    191
    Thanked 90 Times in 55 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Qitsune View Post
    I can't beleive what I read here, people claiming that artists make enough money. I don't know about you but I don't listen to a lot of Madonna or Shakira and I make sure that some of my hard earned money makes it's way to the obscure artists I like listening to.
    As for the size of the sentence, well, it's partly symbolic becaause they know they will never see that money, but it's a bit like people who get more than one life sentence.... or who get many different sentences and serve them at the same time (wtf?)
    yeah, I know what you mean, but I don't listen to that many obscure artists and almost all of the bands I like have all made plenty of money out of there songs. I also would never download a song as I would hate for bands to stop making music cos the're not getting that much profit.
    I don't see how making such a high fine makes the record companies point any clearer though. Maybe it's just me but I would be more worried about a fine which is possible to pay than one which I am not even expected to pay all of. But that's just my opinion

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Zapp! For This Useful Post:


  25. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,878
    Thanks
    84
    Thanked 630 Times in 400 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Piracy discussion is like politics and Religion..

    Bottom line

    Don't steal
    Don't be an asshole

    Don't fight fire with fire, don't be an asshole,
    Don't steal

    Harm none
    Everyone is having fun


    Karma, does not give a crap about how legal you are, hurt one to many of the other valuable's because you deem yourself more worthy because you played by the "legal book", the legal book does not make your farts smell like cotton candy, your glamour of life will be removed. Karma will kick your ass so that you can learn the Karma book.

    Last edited by George Abraham; June 19th, 2009 at 01:50 PM.
    ----------------------------------
    Scetchbook: View the exhibitionist's stuff.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to George Abraham For This Useful Post:


  27. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kansas city, MO
    Posts
    1,167
    Thanks
    1,423
    Thanked 867 Times in 333 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    They go after those that provide the free shit more so than the idiot that downloads a few songs. But I have heard of children being sued for downloading a few songs.

    "The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown."

    Most of us (the idiots) are guilty of this to some degree but what she was doing was blatantly a violation. She probably can't afford those damages anyway so the verdict's real purpose might be just to scare us.

    "There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

    Downloading a song can be seen as not much different than borrowing a friends CD and burning it or listening to it. Are there any cases of that out there of this being tried? There are just so many exploits that will allow people to get away with this. The music industry may need to update is method of distribution.

    Last edited by Jason Ross; June 19th, 2009 at 02:01 PM.
    Jay's CA.org Sketchbook:
    Jay's Conceptart.org sketchbook

    Check out my portfolio:
    http://jasonrossart.carbonmade.com

    Check out my blog:
    http://mind2pixels.blogspot.com

    "Practice" DOES NOT make perfect...
    "Perfect Practice" makes perfect...
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Youngstown, Ohio
    Posts
    1,568
    Thanks
    1,169
    Thanked 1,191 Times in 516 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    That you can pull just about any song you can think of off of Youtube makes me wonder what the rules are there. I've seen Warner blocking its properties from Youtube, but is evrything else fair game?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  29. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    That you can pull just about any song you can think of off of Youtube makes me wonder what the rules are there. I've seen Warner blocking its properties from Youtube, but is evrything else fair game?
    I don't think Warner Bros. are alone. I've seen TV episodes taken off of youtube all the time and even some music videos because of "copyright laws."

    If people bothered to check if their work is on youtube I'm sure their video's would be blocked left and right. But that hasn't happened yet, leaving me to wonder as to what is going on.

    -Wiggs

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    553
    Thanks
    201
    Thanked 80 Times in 66 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I might be wrong. But in my oppinion it´s all about some compact cassete... Damn...

    By the way, i don´t have MP3 in my HD. I just listen to Shoutcast Radio.

    My website

    Facebook Page

    New CA Sketchbook

    " The scientific and generally accepted-in-art term for this is "You're fuckin' screwed, dude..." " Ilaekae - May 16th, 2009
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    792
    Thanks
    186
    Thanked 409 Times in 235 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Coene View Post
    Back in the day you could just stick a cassette in the player and when the radio got to a song you liked you hit "record." Then you shared it with your friends... I wonder if anyone got sued for that...
    Actually the recording industry has fought innovations like the ability to record on cassette, cd, and dvd. There is a 3% levy paid to the recording industry on the purchase of "recordable media" for this very reason. Yes, they get paid when you buy blank "music" CD's.

    Now lets take into account the progression of formats over the years: records, 8-track, cassette, and finally CD...until recently every time a new format came out you had to buy the same album in a new format thus increasing their profits. Same goes if the media you were playing on gets lost or stolen, but now it's so easy to back music up people don't have to do this so much anymore. So yeah, they're gonna lose profits on that alone, but they only want to blame piracy.

    Piracy is bad, but I have no love for the recording industry either...

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aphotic Phoenix For This Useful Post:


  33. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,531
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 1,848 Times in 598 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    If you have the balls to steal then for fucks sake have the balls not to whinge when you get caught. If it were up to me I'd double the fine for anyone who whinged. I'm really tired of these people who bang on incessantly about how justice got in the way of their self-proclaimed right to take things that don't belong to them.

    And what on earth does this mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by zaorr View Post
    Mammon might just reduce everyone to insect robot's that can't afford anything but to respond to networked hormonal signals. Even the people who pushed it. Tatah.. Human's to insects, what a waste of the marvell of creation.


    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to Baron Impossible For This Useful Post:


  35. #25
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    428
    Thanks
    120
    Thanked 95 Times in 77 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Aphotic Phoenix View Post
    Now lets take into account the progression of formats over the years: records, 8-track, cassette, and finally CD...until recently every time a new format came out you had to buy the same album in a new format thus increasing their profits. Same goes if the media you were playing on gets lost or stolen, but now it's so easy to back music up people don't have to do this so much anymore. So yeah, they're gonna lose profits on that alone, but they only want to blame piracy.
    What I really don't understand is why most albums don't get their price reduced, and if they do it's not usually more than a dollar or two. I really can't see the manufacture and distribution of, say, a Stone Temple Pilots CD from the early 90s costing 15 dollars per unit. It's not like they've got to pay for new studio space, producer(s), and sound techs every time they roll out a few hundred thousand new copies.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to Ninjerk For This Useful Post:


  37. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SWE
    Posts
    2,536
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 1,309 Times in 389 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter Coene View Post
    Back in the day you could just stick a cassette in the player and when the radio got to a song you liked you hit "record." Then you shared it with your friends... I wonder if anyone got sued for that...
    Home_Taping_is_Killing_Music

    Jamen jag tror att han skäms, och har gömt sig. Vårt universum det är en av dom otaliga spermasatser som Herren i sin självhärliga ensamhet har runkat fram för å besudla intet.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Prometheus|ANJ For This Useful Post:


  39. #27
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    oakland
    Posts
    1,197
    Thanks
    279
    Thanked 200 Times in 122 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    ethical stances aside, piracy is here to stay
    in china the piracy rate is about 99%

    and it is about at 50% globally
    and has climbed steadily since the introduction of file sharing technologies


    this wont change and it will become the norm globally.



    as far as the music industry is concerned.... it is a very poor business strategy to make an enemy of an rapidly diminishing customer base

    we all know it will be decriminalized and be folded into a new business model for different type of music industry. this is simply unavoidable at this point , as long as file sharing tech is around.


    im not sure if this is a god or bad thing, or what the effect will be creatively, for the culture as a whole....but it is going to happen.
    the ethical arguments are moot. its a done deal.

    -

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to kingshaj For This Useful Post:


  41. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    468
    Thanks
    250
    Thanked 759 Times in 157 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Since this is an art forum, let's talk about this in terms of art, not music. Say you create some badass scene, and post it in the finally finished section. Someone likes it, sets it as their wallpaper, and shows it to their friends, who set it as their wallpaper.

    Are you pissed?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  42. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    235
    Thanks
    104
    Thanked 57 Times in 43 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    uuuh... double post? Check on page 2

    Last edited by Wiggles; June 19th, 2009 at 07:29 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  43. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Youngstown, Ohio
    Posts
    1,568
    Thanks
    1,169
    Thanked 1,191 Times in 516 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by hippl5 View Post
    Since this is an art forum, let's talk about this in terms of art, not music. Say you create some badass scene, and post it in the finally finished section. Someone likes it, sets it as their wallpaper, and shows it to their friends, who set it as their wallpaper.

    Are you pissed?

    No. Not until they start selling it. However, that's coming from a wannabe, not a pro. If someone were printing off copies of Dave Palumbo's postcard nudes, for example, then I'd be upset since those same pieces are out in the world for purchase. If someone were printing those pieces and selling them then that would be a whole 'nother level yet again.

    I don't see a reason to object to your example though. The artist made a screen version publicly available by choice. Moving that version from one screen to another doesn't seem like it would cost the artist anything, unless that same image were somehow for sale as a wallpaper.

    When I first got my printer I made prints out of a CA'ers sketchbook. I gave it a second thought, pm'd the artist and eventually ripped up the copies. This seemed especially appropriate as that artist was intending to put those same images on sale as prints. I do have those images saved in digital form though.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •