Sticking music videos on YouTube is called COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT *NOT* MUSIC VIDEO STEALING.

This Newspeak is really giving me the shits.

Rick

lets not forget that four multinational corporations control 82% of the global music copyrights (& with the potential merger of EMI & Warner this would become 3 companies); that their business model is based on restriciting cultural diversity; that on average only 30 CDs a year in the USA actually produce royalties for artists signed to major labels – becuase of the one sided exploitative contracts that arists are faced with, the average american artists needs to sell 1 million CDs before they see any royalties meanwhile the record label has recouped $11 million in gross revenue; that their business model was always based on creating an ARTIFICAL scarcity that no longer exists and instead of evolving to meet market conditions (like so many industries have had to do because of technology), they are using their political and financial power to litigate their way back into a market (at least trying to).

The simple fact is that there are other ways to make money from music that doesnt depend on controlling every copy but as it would open the market to competition and reduce their ability to control everything they’re simply not into it…

imagine if steam train drivers had a legal entitlement to prevent us from using cars… imagine if the agricultural industry had a legal entitlement to prevent automated farming …. imagine if secretaries had had a legal entitlement to prevent wide spread word processing…

the people arent wrong, the law and the industry are…

HOWEVER… that’s where the simularity ends. Money has changed hands indirectly and through a third party. You got money to pay your bills by using my identity for credit. In turn I have to pay back that money or have my credit ruined preventing me from buying a home car or starting a business. IE, your actions has hurt me financially and can be proven. In the case of the music and movie industry, every single independent study on the problem cannot find any proof where the industry has been hurt by file sharing. on the contrary many studies suggest the oppisite.

“Just like people on peer to peer and YouTube borrow the branding of artists to increase their coolness factor.”

coolness factor?? everyone I know who has downloaded music do so because they love the muisc, not because it makes them look cool.

“Identity theft is rarely done by honorable people and that’s why it can be such a nightmare. Let me add, that non-monetary music and video theft has a similar degrading effect not only upon the person engaged in it but also on society at large.”

So using that anology 60 million people in the U.S and tens of million people around the world are not honorable people??

I suggest you look at the methods and techniques the industry itself uses to gain control and ownership of songs that isn’t even theirs to begin with before you start talking about honorable people.

Rick

“Let me add, that non-monetary music and video theft has a similar degrading effect not only upon the person engaged in it but also on society at large. ”

This statement has NEVER been proven. Ever.
In fact, it has been shown to have a ZERO effect on sales.
The effect on “society at large” is simply an attempt to use
morality to stop something that harms no one.
If you wish to use a “moral compass” to point the direction to
good and right, perhaps you might want to show it to the
labels that are suing that have been caught and CONVICTED
of …..

Fraud
Payola
Bribery
Breach of contract ( deliberately failing to pay royalties to those
artists they care sooooo much about ).
etc …. there is much more, all with actual CONVICTIONS.

Allowing large wealthy corporations to do as they will, with ony
wrist slaps for punishment, allowing them to buy laws that
help them victimize regular people in the name of profit,
welll ….

That has a HUGE “degrading effect not only upon the person engaged in it but also on society at large. ”

Very huge.

The word “Honorable” has no place in any article defending the
media industry.

( not even going to go into the fact that most people that
dl .. yes MOST .. actually used to go out and buy .. IF they
liked it .. thereby increasing sales. Now ??? Blame “piracy”
all you like, it’s people BOYCOTTING that’s hurting them.
Since they control the news outlets, no one will know the truth )

This notion has been repeated verbatim in this forum many times and needs to be challenged. Let me give you an example of theft where there is no money changing hands. What If I were to steal your identity and apply for credit and pay all the bills properly. To you this would be totally invisible and non-detrimental. So why if this happened to you would you be and feel violated?

1. I would have borrowed your brand that you worked so hard to establish in order to get easy credit. Just like people on peer to peer and YouTube borrow the branding of artists to increase their coolness factor.
2. It would still be a crime per the law and I can be prosecuted by the state even if there is no monetary harm to you directly. You see, there is harm to the social structure that has to be accounted for.

Worst yet, the above benign scenario where I pay all my bills promptly and not eventually harm you with the identity theft would be exceedingly rare. Identity theft is rarely done by honorable people and that’s why it can be such a nightmare. Let me add, that non-monetary music and video theft has a similar degrading effect not only upon the person engaged in it but also on society at large.

BUT, that having been said, it is far more convenient for me to listen to a few tracks from ABC’s album on line, than to go to HMV and ask them to open a copy for me to hear before I decide whether or not to buy it. Of the last 10 CD’s I bought, one was introduced to me by TV advertising, one by a music store owner and two by my appreciation for the particular artist. That leaves 6 – or 60% – that caught my ear on the net.

RIAA might be a bit pissed that I could listen to these for free, but the copyright owners, the CD manufacturer, the artists and the song-writers all ‘won’ because I was able to find and review the work for free. Three of them I would never have heard of, seen or purchased had it not been for free downloads.

Now, maybe my attitude on copyright is a bit more ‘legit’ than most, but I doubt I am alone in buying copies of CDs I hear first for free and like. I would also bet the dollar value gained by record companies from file-sharing (i.e. free previews and access to stuff that never got to stores) is considerably greater than their real loss.

In the earlier days of movies on TV there was a school of thought that believed if a million people watched a film on TV it was a million ticket sales lost to the theater chains and studio. Eventually they realized it was a million viewings that would not have otherwise occurred and for which they at least got something. The exposure for the next film was good for stars, directors, producers and theaters as well.

Yahoo!
(Not an anonymous coward as the heading would suggest, but the victim of a faulty registration system)