Comments on: Stuff Infringers Like

By: SteveAK

SteveAK — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:20:49 +0000

Larry: My sentiments are similar to yours, with the small exception that I would replace “file sharer” with “media executive”.

By: J.D.

J.D. — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:39:42 +0000

So, I buy a CD and let a friend put some of the music from it on her computer because we both like the artist. I do this not knowing if she will buy anything by this artist in the future but also knowing that I will buy more by said artist. Where does this fit in the argument?
I also buy most of my books and CDs second hand due to school related expenses. Do author royalties come anywhere close to covering re-buys?
I do not pirate, but if buying used is just as bad, then that would cut my consumption and lead me to stick to writers and musical artist I am already comfortable with rather than spending the three dollars and getting something totally new. Is it black and white, or is there a grey area?

By: Brenda Williams

Brenda Williams — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:06:27 +0000

Well…I am just beginning to get my writing out to the public and I don’t understand all the copywrite laws, however, I do think that we will never get every cent that is deserved. There will always be those that will freeload in our society whatever the race and try to justify it (some more than others). When is the last time you found something that wasn’t yours and willfully returned it if no one caught or saw you…guilty as charged:-) I would like to say that I would never do it, but…I plea the fifth…my race…it doesn’t really matter…the genes are all mixed up…which ones faught is it?…Anyway…Whatever…trust that which flows through you to do the right thing…inspiration, understanding and knowledge belongs to no one…we are only the vessel allowing the flow and claiming rights to be paid for it…trust that compensation follows understanding:-) What you resist comes faster than what you desire.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:55:53 +0000

Well look at that! Someone who was giving his content away for free on a blog realized there was a secondary market for this content: a book that is a physical representation of his humor. And he was able to become a best selling author without having to bully readers, accuse them of being freeloaders for reading the blog and not buying the book. This is a great example of how all creative people should operate. See we do not need stronger copyright laws.

By: Jeff Power

Jeff Power — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:16:32 +0000

“it is not against the law for you to make multiple copies of intellectual property that you own - it’s called “fair use” ”
False statement
Why is it a completely false assertion is allowed to stand and mere mention of the facts not allowed a voice.
Looks like this site is just another voice not for artists but people that profit from artists to perpetuate falsehoods

By: Tom Z

Tom Z — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 18:18:59 +0000

RE Richard Berger’s comment: I find it hilarious that one of the first responses to a story about the lame excuses people use for stealing intellectual property is a bunch of lame excuses for stealing intellectual property. C’mon, at least take the time for a little self examination instead of instantly putting up the same tired defenses for bad behavior that have been rehashed hundreds of times. By the way, it is not against the law for you to make multiple copies of intellectual property that you own - it’s called “fair use” and it is (by law) legal. Sharing it with others is illegal and given that the vast majority of artists are independent, (and severely in the hole regarding the expenses to create their music) immoral.

By: Jeff Power

Jeff Power — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:25:51 +0000

Richard well said, but I’m afraid the adversarial relationship with customers is now so entrenched I’m not sure it’s reversible. And it looks like it will continue with things like 3 strike laws and the like. Something like a 3 strike law could push the music industries biggest customers off the Internet. I think it’s unlikely that they’ll end up in music stores, meaning more revenue loss.
And how will that loss be received? Probably with “it’s the infringers we’re not getting!”
Another instance of attack on the consumer, Current ACTA drafts ban interoperability laws … terribly anti consumer. This is probably corporate lobbying but artists will also take the heat for it.
What I’d like to see is a post that might stimulate conversation around how you foster better and mutually beneficial relationship with said infringers. A little more how can we get together on this and a little less blame game.
For instance how about a bill of Copy/Consumer rights that protected both sides together
You will never win fighting with the customer

By: Larry Piltz

Larry Piltz — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:05:05 +0000

It should have read: “a spoiled two-year-old child ripping the toy out of the hands of a kind child whose toy it is, and then hitting the kind child on the head with it and walking off with the toy as if it deserved it.

By: Larry Piltz

Larry Piltz — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:04:00 +0000

It’s very simple, these rationalizations for thieving. In my mind, it all boils down to one image, that of a spoiled two-year-old child ripping the toy out of the kind child whose toy it is, and then hitting the kind child on the head with it and walking off with it.

That is your typical file sharer.

By: Richard Berger

Richard Berger — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:51:33 +0000

There is no doubt a case to be made for paying for intellectual property…the question is: How? and How much? If I take a CD I have bought in a store, rip the music into an MP3 and stick it on my iPod, am I breaking the law? According to many people, I am. It doesn’t matter to them that I may have bought the same music on 3 or 4 different formats already (say Vinyl, cassette, 8-track, and CD - true in the case of Led Zeppilin I)…they say I do not have the right to do that, and that I should pay for it yet again. The only problem I have with this scenario is that record labels (which anyone who has ever been signed to one can tell you) are the biggest crooks in the universe, and are no longer doing their job…which is to give the public new exciting music…they are now in the history business and mainly just re-package what they have in their vaults. New artists have decided that they do not need record labels, and realize the real enemy is obscurity and not the file sharer…that’s why many have been giving their music away in order to support their live playing…which ironically is the same argument record labels used to use to get artists to sign a bad contract for a few cents a recrd which could be negated by “expenses” anyway.
I’m in my 60’s and retired, and don’t care…but even I realize that the old model is dead, and a new kind of music business will have to rise from the ashes. If you look back, what you see is that the people who built the entertainment business were risk-takers. They spotted talent, and put their money on the line. They did not have “A&R Committees”, and marketing departments picking what movies they could make. They did not need something to be “Branded” before they could act. They had “Ears” and “Taste” and were not corporate suits more concerned with their perks than their product…and the people who are making money today are largely the people who have embraced that same model…they will not be one-hit wonders and have a real chance to carve out a living because they respect their fans and understand a very basic business concept…be nice to your customers.