|
| Posted by: Tree, also @ work
- Donor [599393013] Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 13:57
um, come on..aren't there more important issues to be addressing here...
i'm *in* the music business, and i lose a lot of money with downloading and such...but the RIAA is rather heavy handed lately, and now it's really becoming obscene with Orrin Hatch's latest idea...
The surprise statement by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, that he favors developing technology to remotely destroy computers used for illegal downloads
there are so many things wrong with this idea, i'm not even sure where to begin, so i'll just throw this out there and see what happens...
peace, Tree |
| | | 1 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 14:02
|
Wow...Hatch is usually more level-headed.
|
|
| | | 2 | UGABravesDawg - work
ID: 52537723 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 14:09
|
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
|
|
| | | 3 | Tortfeasor Donor
ID: 55912113 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 14:15
|
I hope this isn't a thread jack. At least I'm trying for it not to be. Here goes.
I still fail to see how downloading songs off the internet is any different than taping a song off the radio or taping a show off of TV. In one medium, it's free for you to listen to; in the other, it's a copyright violation.
I don't understand why something is protected by copyright if it's in digital format and you're downloading it off the internet, but if the radio is broadcasting it and you record it, that's okay.
Yes, I understand copyright laws and the fact that any copying of a copyrighted work is tecnically infringement. I just fail to understand why medium-shifting is any different than time-shifting (like in the Sony VCR case, for any lawyers or others that might know that case).
Oh yeah, I forgot. Money.
|
|
| | | 4 | Motley Crue Donor
ID: 21553314 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 15:01
|
I say we develop technology to remotely destroy Utah.
|
|
| | | 5 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 24561615 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 15:11
|
It's too pretty to blow up.
|
|
| | | 6 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 15:11
|
Utah or your computer?
|
|
| | | 7 | Pancho Villa Donor
ID: 533817 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 16:09
|
Hello, gang from the great state of Utah. I may not be the most beloved contributor on this board, but I didn't think I'd be sacrificed so readily. Think of my kids!
Hatch..level headed? *uncontrollable laughter* Now him you can level.
|
|
| | | 8 | Tree, also @ work Donor
ID: 599393013 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 17:51
|
Tort - post 3 - technically, it's the "tape traders" that are the issue. it's the folks putting music on a server, and allowing millions to download it.
i'm about to leave the office now, but this evening, if i remember, or if someone reminds me, i'll explain at length why the RIAA feels the way they do, and that ultimately their ignorance and stupidity will cost me, and this business we call music, more $$$ than illegal downloads...
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 9 | Tortfeasor Donor
ID: 55912113 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 18:06
|
Tree: "that ultimately their ignorance and stupidity will cost me, and this business we call music, more $$$ than illegal downloads..."
Of course it will. The fact that the record companies are more willing to try to stop this type of music downloading than to try to make a profit off of it is ludicrous. People are going to download music. And the fact is, I don't want, for ewxample, Fifty Cent's whole album, so I'm not willing to pay the 15 bucks for it. So rather than pay the 15 bucks, I, along with millions of others, will simply download the one song I want from a file sharing system for free.
In other words, the record company is not getting any of my money, when they could have simply offered me the one song I wanted and charged me 99 cents for that song only. They are getting none of my money when I would have gladly paid somre money for what I got off the internet. But they're apparently too stupid to figure that out.
However, the new Apple music downloading service is apparently doing this now. I have heard that the record labels were slow to get on board though.
And as for the tape trader, if a song is out on the radio for free, to be heard by anyone, why is it not OK for me to tape it, convert it to a digital format, and share it with others? It was obtained from the public domain. I didn't have to pay anything to get it. I mean, I see the argument that it is infringing (i.e., the downloader is getting something for free that he would have presumably had to pay for, and that is the same use to which the copyright holder is trying to put it), but it just seems inherently inconsistent to prevent something in the one instance (free downloading) and allow it in the other (taping off the radio).
|
|
| | |
| | | 11 | Pancho Villa Donor
ID: 533817 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 19:23
|
#9..Except that everytime a song is played on the radio(not really, but it's supposed to work that way) the author is paid a royalty by BMI, ASCAP or SEASCAP. Radio stations pay in relation to the market they broadcast to and the revenue they generate. The problem there is that these companies estimate what songs are played by stations' playlists, which doesn't reflect the rotation of gold and recurrents. In the late '80s when I was a radio DJ, about twice a year you would have to fill out a BMI log. Back then, we could somwhat pick our rotation as long as currents were played at least once an hour. Now, all songs at virtually every radio station is on a computerized log and all songs are to be played in exactly that order. The less you know about music, the more you can handle being a DJ nowadays.
|
|
| | | 12 | Tree Donor
ID: 505111821 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 22:17
|
post 9, Tort - you hit the nail on the head. for the past several years, instead of embracing napster technology, the business has been trying to stop it, and that's a fatal mistake.
the president of my company, who was the first employee and without a doubt has had incredible success, helping to turn our company into one that ships 100+ million bucks a year, has been quoted in Billboard as saying things like "we have no desire to go into any sort of downloading type format. there's no future in it..."
and that's the attitude of a lot of the business, and it sucks, because they're wrong. it's a business filled with yes men and morons, and what Apple is doing is what should have been done several years ago, and it will change the way we buy our music.
a related side is the fact that no one wants to pay 18 bucks for a cd anymore, especially when it's not likely to contain more than a few decent songs.
the music business has done a lot to try and end what has been a good thing for itself. and damnit, they're about it succeed.
Hunter S. Thompson said it best: "The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side."
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 13 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 1754479 Wed, Jun 18, 2003, 23:41
|
Good stuff. I'm expounded at length about music copyright elsewhere, and so won't do much except encourage more talk (and respond to one point by Tort). The more we make ourselves heard, the more the RIAA will be forced to embrace new technology.
Tort #9: Excellent post! Except for the last point: Material played on the radio (or performed in concert, or available on sheet music, etc) does not enter the public domain. I won't bore you with the details of how & why, but it's simply not. One single copy of a taped song would probably be OK, but the making of multiple copies would push that envelope too far.
pd
|
|
| | | 14 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 108231015 Thu, Jun 19, 2003, 09:21
|
Lileks on Granpa Hatch:
His remarks about remotely destroying computers that download copyrighted material is just grampa blather. The computers are stealing music! The cars are frightening the horses! The Kaiser took my dog! It would be amusing if these people didn’t have the power to pass thick stupid laws crafted by aides, lobbyists and other gnomes hauling up heavy buckets from the deep sooty mines of legalese. Of course the people who vote them up or down don’t actually read them; they get the gist from the title.
“What’s this Copyright Enhancement Act of 2003 all about, young underpaid aide?”
“It’s about enhancing copyright, sir.”
“Very good then.”
The idea that the government, or recording industries, could remotely destroy your computer isn’t out of the realm of possibility - I suppose they could send a stealthy bug that would scramble the hard drive. I don’t think Sen. Hatch envisioned an electrical spike that would shower the user with broken glass from the monitor.
I know, I know - he was just talking off the top of his head. But if someone is talking about, oh, women’s pay relative to men, and they say off the top of their head “can’t the girls just stay home and put up preserves?” - well, it shows what they really think. Off the top of one’s head means when I reach for an idea, this one is the closest. For a reason.
|
|
| | | 15 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 23581914 Thu, Jun 19, 2003, 21:08
|
It seems to me that the idea of disabling a computer for music sharing is like cutting off the hands of a thief. How very fundamentalist.
|
|
| | | 16 | UGABravesDawg - work
ID: 52537723 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 00:06
|
"The idea that the government, or recording industries, could remotely destroy your computer isn’t out of the realm of possibility"
It's completely unconstitutional, if the guilty aren't given a trial and are punished without due process of law. It would never stand up. Like YH8R said, very fundamentalist.
|
|
| | | 17 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 00:15
|
I am not aware of any fundamentalist christian denomination that has ever chopped off hands of thieves and I would appreciate if people would stop implying otherwise.
|
|
| | | 18 | UGABravesDawg - work
ID: 52537723 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 00:52
|
Who said Christianity?
|
|
| | | 19 | Baldwin
ID: 4261155 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 05:34
|
Well of course you are drawing from Muslims so why don't you say so and not lump me in there, thank you very much? Of course we know why, it's fun for you tarring christians whenever possible and equating Muslim true believers with Christian true believers will come in handy when it comes time to persecute them. And of course you wouldn't be caught dead saying something negative about the Muslim faith. Look at the way I have been vilified for quoting muslims in their own words in other threads.
|
|
| | | 20 | Tree Donor
ID: 425241919 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 06:58
|
Baldwin, posts 17 and 19...to quote someone's famous mama, "wha wha WHAAAAAAAA?!?!?!"
i don't think anyone EVER said christianity. to quote Yank in post 15 "How very fundamentalist."
looking carefully...hmmm..nope..definitely don't see anything pertaining to christianity in there....
the first post to mention christianity in this thread was your very own post 17 Baldwin. so could you please stop implying that fundamentalist christians chop the hands off people? thank you.
peace, Tree
|
|
| | | 21 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 312481619 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 07:23
|
I don't think there is any reason to assume Yh8r was referring to any religion.
|
|
| | | 22 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 23581914 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 07:25
|
Easy Baldwin. You're awful thin skinned on this subject - there was no intent on my part to tar and feather you.
|
|
| | | 23 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 1754479 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 09:17
|
Re #16: Such a thing already happens with cable tv, where those who illegally get it can be subject to a "magic bullet."
While I do not agree with the RIAA's idea, the fact that someone has something illegally is enough--it's like a bank robber claiming the exploding dye pack illegally stained his clothes.
pd
|
|
| | | 24 | Mattinglyinthehall Sustainer
ID: 1629107 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 09:29
|
While I do not agree with the RIAA's idea, the fact that someone has something illegally is enough--it's like a bank robber claiming the exploding dye pack illegally stained his clothes.
True, but there are significant relevant differences between values of both the stolen property and damaged possessions in each case.
|
|
| | | 25 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 108231015 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 10:34
|
There's also a big difference in the relative culpabilty and the liklihood of an innocent person being damaged. Lousy analogy, PD. EG, if my babysitter gets on my computer, downloads $3.00 worth of whatever, unbeknownst to me, should I be in danger of losing the thousands of dollars worth of info I have in my computer? Is this a rationale and measured response in the the way that a dye bomb with stolen money is? It's just a stupid idea and it makes you wonder what world Hatch lives in if he even thinks out loud about it.
|
|
| | | 26 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 2345588 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 11:16
|
MBJ, maybe a better analogy then would be if your babysitter gets in your car and commits an illegal act in it, should you lose the car?
The fact is that we do take away cars and the like. And it is a stupid idea. But not without precedent.
pd
|
|
| | | 27 | Myboyjack Leader
ID: 108231015 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 11:31
|
I don't want to get off on a tangent, PD; I understand the point you're tryinf to make. But, I don't know of any precedent for this idea of blowing up computer because they may or may not be being used to commit a crime; I don't know of any jurisdiction that would take a stolen car from it's rightful owner because a thief used it to rob a bank.
Hatch's idea isn't even that though - it's analogous to detonating the car while it sits in my garage because it may have previously been used in a bank robbery, very possibly without my knowledge or consent.
In cases where the government does take property used in the commission of a criminal act, there's are numerous due process safeguards in place to protect the property. Hatch would just give private individuals care blanche to have at it, process be damned.
|
|
| | | 28 | yankeeh8tr Donor
ID: 465282010 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 12:00
|
And one more thing about the "magic bullet" theory comes to mind here, PD. If you get cable of satellite on the sly, the signal the company sends out fries your cable equiptment or satellite card, not your TV. In other words, they're just zapping theillegal equiptment. Brother Orrins idea would destroy your whole CPU, not just the illegal files.
|
|
| | | 29 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 2345588 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 12:36
|
Well, I'm not so sure Orrin Hatch has a clear idea on anything, let alone what such a idea might do. It would be difficult, in other words, to attach ownership to Hatch for both the idea and its clear ramifications.
That said, I don't want to misrepresent myself here: I believe all along that the RIAA has been within the letter of the law in nearly all of its arguments, but long ago fell outside the spirit of the law.
I'm not the best writer in the world and making that distinction is not clear (witness the other thread, where I said, in talking about homeschooling: Of course, I'm not saying that I have seen all types of homeschool parents. The irony is that you are likely to see more of the parents I don't, and vice versa and it still seemed to a guy I respect like MBJ that I was being "terribly defensive and naive.")
I'll try to make my positions a bit more clear--maybe by not being so damn chatty within them.
pd
|
|
| | | 30 | culdeus Donor
ID: 4171112 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 12:49
|
The fact that Hatch's site has failed to register a freeware version isn't quite the same as music dl. Since his site isn't commercial it depends on the software whether registration is reqired.
The issue that usually arises is the fact that the RIAA is trying to make people think (c) violation is a criminal act when in fact it is a civil act. They continue to blur the lines between the two.
At one time Hatch was an open supporter of Napster. My how things change...
Someone hacked the page and put a link to a pr0n site earlier today if you clicked on the MyUtahSearch.com link. (they took it down)
|
|
| | | 31 | Perm Dude Leader
ID: 2345588 Fri, Jun 20, 2003, 12:55
|
culdeus, one of the more interesting parts of software licensing is how it has become a contractual obligation by the user (User and Site Licenses, etc.) on top of the copyright obligation. In other words, leaking out copies of software your purchased might be in violation of your site license, but they'll come after you as though it were a copyright violation, not a SL contract violation.
pd
|
|
| | | 32 | James K Polk
ID: 51010719 Sun, Jun 22, 2003, 15:18
|
Culdeus -- the page was not hacked. There was a legitimate Myutahsearch.com site, to which Hatch linked. However, that site either went defunct or simply let its domain registration lapse, making the web address available to anyone who wanted it. A porn site snapped it up, and Hatch probably never knew anything about it. Still embarrassing to have a link pointing to porn, though.
|
|
| | | 33 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 17:11
|
Music Industry Goes After Tablature and Sheet Music Sharers “People can get it for free on the Internet, and it’s hurting the songwriters,” said Lauren Keiser, who is president of the Music Publishers’ Association and chief executive of Carl Fischer, a music publisher in New York.
So far, the Music Publishers’ Association and the National Music Publishers’ Association have shut down several Web sites, or have pressured them to remove all of their tabs, but users have quickly migrated to other sites. According to comScore Media Metrix, an Internet statistics service, Ultimate-Guitar.com had 1.4 million visitors in July, twice the number from a year earlier.
The publishers, who share royalties with composers each time customers buy sheet music or books of guitar tablature, maintain that tablature postings, even inaccurate ones, are protected by copyright laws because the postings represent “derivative works” related to the original compositions, to use the industry jargon.
The publishers told the sites that if they did not remove the tablatures, they could face legal action or their Internet service providers would be pressured to shut down their sites. All of the sites have taken down their tabs voluntarily, but grudgingly.
The tablature sites argue that they are merely conduits for an online discussion about guitar techniques, and that their services help the industry.
“The publishers can’t dispute the fact that the popularity of playing guitar has exploded because of sites like mine,” said Robert Balch, the publisher of Guitar Tab Universe (guitartabs.cc), in Los Angeles. “And any person that buys a guitar book during their lifetime, that money goes to the publishers.”
Google also dabbles in tablature through its Google Groups discussion board service, in which guitar players trade tabs they have figured out by listening to the songs, or by copying tabs found elsewhere. A Google spokesman, Steve Langdon, said Google would take down music tablature from its Groups service if publishers claimed the materials violated copyright agreements and if Google determined that infringement was likely. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Web hosts may review, case by case, a publisher’s claims regarding instances of copyright infringement.
To hear music publishers tell it, though, the tablature sites are getting away with mass theft. Mr. Keiser, of the Music Publishers’ Association, said that before these sites started operating in the early ‘90s, the most popular printed tablatures typically sold 25,000 copies in a year. Now the most popular sell 5,000 copies at most.
But Mike Happoldt, who was a member of the ’90’s band Sublime and whose music is sold in sheet music books, said he sympathized with the tablature sites.
“I think this is greed on the publishers’ parts,” said Mr. Happoldt, who played guitar on Sublime’s hit “What I Got.”
“I guess in a way I might be losing money from these sites, but as a musician I look at it more as a service,” said Mr. Happoldt, who now owns an independent record company, Skunk Records. “And really, those books just don’t sell that much for most people.”
Assuming a tablature site musters the legal resources to challenge the publishers in court, some legal scholars say they believe publishers may have difficulty arguing their complaints successfully. Jonathan Zittrain, the professor of Internet governance and regulation at Oxford University, said “it isn’t at all clear” that the publishers’ claim would succeed because no court doctrine has been written on guitar tablature.
Mr. Zittrain said the tablature sites could well have a free speech defense. But because the Supreme Court, in a 2003 case involving the extension of copyright terms, declined to determine when overenforcement or interpretation of copyright might raise a free speech problem, the success of that argument was questionable. “It’s possible, though, that this is one reason why guitar tabs generated by people would be found to fit fair use,” Mr. Zittrain said, “or would be found not to be a derivative work to begin with.”
|
|
| | | 34 | sarge33rd
ID: 3622119 Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 18:49
|
forgive my ignorance, I dont now and never have played guitar, guitar tabs...would this be:
Main Entry: tab·la·ture Pronunciation: 'ta-bl&-"chur, -ch&r, -"tyur, -"tur Function: noun Etymology: Middle French, from Medieval Latin tabulatus tablet, from Latin tabula : an instrumental notation indicating the string, fret, key, or finger to be used instead of the tone to be sounded
essentially, a "how to" reproduce this or that sound? woouldnt that be like a mini guitar lesson and cant anyone "give away" a lesson in guitar if they want to?
|
|
| | | 35 | Mattinglyinthehall Leader
ID: 01629107 Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 18:53
|
Its a sheet music for people who don't know how to read sheet music.
|
|
| | | 36 | Perm Dude
ID: 36726228 Tue, Aug 22, 2006, 22:28
|
Simplified notation for playing. If you want to learn the basics of a song fast (like, you are going on stage and you don't know the song) you can get the rudiments of it quickly. But people who play only tabs don't progress. It's like learning piano by pressing pre-formed chord sticks onto the keys.
|
|
| | | 37 | sarge33rd
ID: 76442923 Wed, Aug 23, 2006, 08:13
|
thx.
|
|
| | | 38 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Tue, Jun 26, 2007, 21:33
|
RIAA sued for malicious prosecution
Tanya Andersen, the plaintiff here, is the single mother in Oregon that the RIAA prosecuted for the last couple of years and then "on the eve of summary judgment" dropped the lawsuit with prejudice. Her counterclaims remain and are restated here and supplemented. It will soon be joined into a single case. So, what started as Atlantic v. Andersen has now turned around, and it is now Andersen v. Atlantic and the defendants are the music companies making up the RIAA -- Atlantic, Priority Records, Capitol Records, UMG and BMG -- the RIAA itself, the Settlement Support Center, and SafeNet, formerly known as MediaSentry. She is asserting claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the RICO Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.
The link includes a link to the actual complaint
|
|
| | | 39 | Myboyjack
ID: 8216923 Wed, Jun 27, 2007, 20:07
|
Man, I'd like to be the Plaintiff's lawyer in this case
A disabled single mother from Beaverton has filed a federal lawsuit against the Recording Industry Association of America, claiming that she is the victim of abusive legal tactics, threats and illegal spying as part of an overzealous campaign to crack down on music pirating.
The recording industry sued Tanya J. Andersen, 44, in 2005, accusing her of violating copyright laws by illegally downloading music onto her computer. Andersen claims in a suit she filed last week in U.S. District Court in Oregon that the recording industry refused to drop its case after its own expert supported her claims of innocence.
Instead, industry officials threatened to interrogate Andersen's 10-year-old daughter, Kylee, if she didn't pay thousands of dollars. The intimidation included attempts to contact Kylee directly. A woman claiming to be Kylee's grandmother called the girl's former elementary school inquiring about her attendance, according to Andersen's suit.
Juicy.
|
|
| | | 40 | holt
ID: 41512278 Thu, Jun 28, 2007, 03:23
|
MITH, PD, regarding posts 35 and 36, you guys obviously don't play guitar. there are a lot of reasons why tab is great for guitar and standard sheet music isn't. tab has been in use for stringed instruments for 800 years. it's good.
if you want to learn a song, you most likely already know its rhythm. all you want to know is the notes, the chords, and the position on the fretboard (one note can be played in as many as 5 different places on guitar).
if someone asks me how to play Tom Sawyer, the easiest way to show them is with tab. I could scribble it out quickly on paper in RL or in ASCII on the net. now imagine if I were to attempt to write in out in standard notation. that's just silly.
btw, I used to play sax and piano by sheet music, so the assertion that tab is for people who don't understand sheet music isn't exactly accurate. tab just happens to be a great tool for guitar.
as far as someone not progressing on guitar because they don't read sheet music... come on. if your aspiration is to be an accomplished classical guitarist then I'll agree with that statement. otherwise, I'll just throw out an example like: how much sheet music do you think David Gilmour used to create the guitar work on Dark Side of the Moon?
the attempt to shut down tab sites is absurd. tab has been passed around on the net since day one. message boards, newsgroups, countless websites. most of the tab being shared isn't even very accurate or complete, so tab books still have their niche. I've bought quite a few of them myself. these people who think that shutting down some websites will improve book sales are delusional. the times are changing and they can't grasp it.
|
|
| | | 41 | holt
ID: 41512278 Thu, Jun 28, 2007, 03:33
|
one more thing. there are a lot of web sites that share song lyrics. how is this any different from sites that share tablature? a cover band wants to play a song. the guitarist gets on the net and scrapes up some crappy tab as a starting point to learning the song. the vocalist does a web search for the lyrics. what's the difference?
I can't believe that the legal threats would stand up in court. in my view it's basically extortion. "hire a lawyer or shut down".
|
|
| | | 42 | Perm Dude
ID: 5853289 Thu, Jun 28, 2007, 10:07
|
Actually, I do play guitar, holt.
I sorta agree with you on #41, except, as you note, the tabs are the rudiments of the song. The lyrics are half (or more) of the song, and is often available on the cd, record, or sheet music of the thing. In fact, a vocalist knowing the lyrics is only half their job--they need to know what notes to sing the words to.
Obviously you are not a vocalist.
;)
pd
|
|
| | |
| | | 44 | Great One Sustainer
ID: 053272014 Fri, Oct 12, 2007, 13:38
|
I've figured out how musicians can avoid the situation in #9 where he just wants the one 50 Cent song - and can make more money.
What modern day musicians should do is actually make an entire album worth owning instead of 2 decent songs surrounded by complete and utter garbage. Then I'll buy your CD.
As an illustration, I'm going to buy Bruce Springsteen's "Magic" this weekend.
|
|
|
|