Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    Franklin
    Guest
    When you sign up and give your cell number to these so called free or
    donation sites...
    can the publishers subponea them to get your number on a copyright
    infringement claim?

    I'm a bit concerned that unlike napster where everyone was anonymous here
    they can just call you up and say here's what you owe us.

    Anybody care to comment on this timely issue?





    See More: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR So CALLED DONATION SITES...




  2. #2
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR So CALLED DONATION SITES...

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Franklin" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > When you sign up and give your cell number to these so called free or
    > donation sites...
    > can the publishers subponea them to get your number on a copyright
    > infringement claim?


    Absolutely.



  3. #3
    Franklin
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR So CALLED DONATION SITES...

    > Absolutely.

    Do you know the amount you will have to pay if you have downloaded
    unlicensed ringtones or graphics?
    I heard it was like a couple of hundred bucks or something.

    Franklin

    "Robert M." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Franklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > When you sign up and give your cell number to these so called free or
    > > donation sites...
    > > can the publishers subponea them to get your number on a copyright
    > > infringement claim?

    >
    > Absolutely.






  4. #4
    O/Siris
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR So CALLED DONATION SITES...

    In article <pTUZb.3228$yZ1.1615
    @newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,=20
    [email protected] says...
    > When you sign up and give your cell number to these so called free or
    > donation sites...
    > can the publishers subponea them to get your number on a copyright
    > infringement claim?
    >=20
    > I'm a bit concerned that unlike napster where everyone was anonymous here
    > they can just call you up and say here's what you owe us.
    >=20
    > Anybody care to comment on this timely issue?


    What kind of fear-mongering is this? It is *not* illegal=20
    to download the files. So the users aren't in any danger.

    --=20
    -+-
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    I work for SprintPCS
    I *don't* speak for them.



  5. #5
    Robert M.
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR So CALLED DONATION SITES...

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Franklin" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Do you know the amount you will have to pay if you have downloaded
    > unlicensed ringtones or graphics?



    In the case of the RIAA they have not gone after downloaders. They go
    after those who then make downloaded files available for others to
    download, via Kazaa or other. Newspaper stories suggest they currently
    go after those posting 800 or more files. Also they currently go after
    those who post the original work. I have heard of no one worried about
    derivitive snipets, like ringtones.



  6. #6
    Mastec
    Mastec is offline
    Member

    Cell Phone
    Kyocera Hydro Icon
    Carrier
    Boost Mobile
    Location
    Sunny Florida
    Posts
    42 - liked 1 times

    Ringtones are also just a small sample of a song, which you can find and listen to all over the net in 30 to 45 second lengths. I dont think the RIAA is too worried about someone downloading a 13 track album to their phone.



  7. #7
    Franklin
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR So CALLED DONATION SITES...

    Copyright is considered any recognisable portion of a work
    For instance the guitar intro to Pretty Woman.

    So you're saying we can get all we want no worries?

    > Ringtones are also just a small sample of a song, which you can find and
    > listen to all over the net in 30 to 45 second lengths


    If you go to Sony's site you will see the new beyonce real voice ringtone
    They are seliing it for $2.50 per download (that's more than they charge for
    the CD single) it's less than 30 seconds in length

    They have sold over 12 million copies so far

    At $2.50 per delivery

    You're saying that they are not interested in going after people who want to
    get the file free by infringing on their copy right?

    What does copy right mean?

    The Right To Copy?

    If they allow you to make and distribute copies they are out of business
    Right?

    You got to ask yourself is this business worth protecting

    All I'm saying is for people NOT to give their phone numbers out to these so
    called FREE/Donation sites

    Time will tell how all of this ends up but if it was your work that was
    being stolen from you you might have a better comprehension of the value
    these files represent to the copyright holders and why they are in a
    posistion where they have to go after the infringers or lose the right to
    enforce their copyrights there by losing rheir claim on the works


    Franklin








    "Mastec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Ringtones are also just a small sample of a song, which you can find and
    > listen to all over the net in 30 to 45 second lengths. I dont think
    > the RIAA is too worried about someone downloading a 13 track album to
    > their phone.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Mastec
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > http://cellphoneforums.netView this thread:

    http://cellphoneforums.net/t110470.html
    >






  8. #8
    Chris Taylor Jr
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR So CALLED DONATION SITES...

    If I were an artist I could really care less about ringer swappers

    I wonder how much of that pie the artists gets for those paid for downloads.

    I do not agree with the paid for download scheme. at least not at what they
    charge!! **** I can get the FULL SONG from itunes for 99 cents and make my
    own ring tone with it and I STILL think thats overpaying.

    the ONLY way people can show their distaste for this kind of behavious is to
    NOT BUY but they are also NOT going to go without. THAT is how the internet
    empowers people. it allows me to say screw you and get my cake too. I would
    glady pay if it were reasonable.

    with sprint its not bad. you pay $15 a month for vision BUT you also get $10
    in credit for use on the vision store for ringers etc.. not a bad tradeoff I
    can live with that.

    so I honor it and buy ringers from them (never over my $10 quota though)

    if its not their I WILL get it. whether I have to rip or download it.

    I say if its not available in brick and mortar (online ONLY things such as
    ring tones excepted off course) mp3's NOT excepted though. I say its fair
    game.

    if its for sale them I am a wee bit more on the side of the legal owner. but
    not for mp3's thats another battle all together and has different reasons.

    Chris Taylor
    http://www.zodiacreview.com/

    "Franklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Copyright is considered any recognisable portion of a work
    > For instance the guitar intro to Pretty Woman.
    >
    > So you're saying we can get all we want no worries?
    >
    > > Ringtones are also just a small sample of a song, which you can find and
    > > listen to all over the net in 30 to 45 second lengths

    >
    > If you go to Sony's site you will see the new beyonce real voice ringtone
    > They are seliing it for $2.50 per download (that's more than they charge

    for
    > the CD single) it's less than 30 seconds in length
    >
    > They have sold over 12 million copies so far
    >
    > At $2.50 per delivery
    >
    > You're saying that they are not interested in going after people who want

    to
    > get the file free by infringing on their copy right?
    >
    > What does copy right mean?
    >
    > The Right To Copy?
    >
    > If they allow you to make and distribute copies they are out of business
    > Right?
    >
    > You got to ask yourself is this business worth protecting
    >
    > All I'm saying is for people NOT to give their phone numbers out to these

    so
    > called FREE/Donation sites
    >
    > Time will tell how all of this ends up but if it was your work that was
    > being stolen from you you might have a better comprehension of the value
    > these files represent to the copyright holders and why they are in a
    > posistion where they have to go after the infringers or lose the right to
    > enforce their copyrights there by losing rheir claim on the works
    >
    >
    > Franklin
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Mastec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > Ringtones are also just a small sample of a song, which you can find and
    > > listen to all over the net in 30 to 45 second lengths. I dont think
    > > the RIAA is too worried about someone downloading a 13 track album to
    > > their phone.
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > Mastec
    > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > http://cellphoneforums.netView this thread:

    > http://cellphoneforums.net/t110470.html
    > >

    >
    >






  9. #9
    Franklin
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR SO CALLED DONATION SITES...

    So what do you do for a living Chris?

    Please don't take this in a negative way but have you ever created a work,
    and then somebody comes long bigger than you, and takes it away because your
    not strong enough to stop them?

    If you were an artist, a real artist who had created a work of value
    something that meant something to you would feel much different.

    Sure you can get the full song and rip and tear but you got it to do, you
    have to do the work
    Why should anyone do the work if this guy over here's got it for FREE?

    It's much easier for someone to just go and get an illegal copy of the file
    on a free/donation site, right?

    However
    Just because a convieniance store sells milk for 1 dollar more and you don't
    like the price (but you love the convieniance), is it ok to rob them or
    steal some candy on the way out the door.

    It's just a piece of candy right?

    Someones property is theirs, just because someone can steal it because it's
    on line doesn't make it right
    it doesn't matter how small it is if you're getting it. and taking time to
    search for it download it etc.. it must mean something to you.

    ..if it means something to you it probably means a great deal to the owner.

    The way I understand the copyright laws in the U.S. is this, if you don't
    enforce your copyrights you lose them all together

    If that's the case, artists, publishers, and record companies simply will
    have no choice in the matter, if they do not try to protect their property
    they lose all of their rights period

    So what would you have them do?

    Again, I would caution anyone who is giving their phone numbers to these so
    called free/donation sites to reconsider
    With file sharing your not as exposed as you might be if they have your
    phone numbers .That's my concern
    What do you think?

    Franklin


    "Chris Taylor Jr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > If I were an artist I could really care less about ringer swappers
    >
    > I wonder how much of that pie the artists gets for those paid for

    downloads.
    >
    > I do not agree with the paid for download scheme. at least not at what

    they
    > charge!! **** I can get the FULL SONG from itunes for 99 cents and make my
    > own ring tone with it and I STILL think thats overpaying.
    >
    > the ONLY way people can show their distaste for this kind of behavious is

    to
    > NOT BUY but they are also NOT going to go without. THAT is how the

    internet
    > empowers people. it allows me to say screw you and get my cake too. I

    would
    > glady pay if it were reasonable.
    >
    > with sprint its not bad. you pay $15 a month for vision BUT you also get

    $10
    > in credit for use on the vision store for ringers etc.. not a bad tradeoff

    I
    > can live with that.
    >
    > so I honor it and buy ringers from them (never over my $10 quota though)
    >
    > if its not their I WILL get it. whether I have to rip or download it.
    >
    > I say if its not available in brick and mortar (online ONLY things such as
    > ring tones excepted off course) mp3's NOT excepted though. I say its fair
    > game.
    >
    > if its for sale them I am a wee bit more on the side of the legal owner.

    but
    > not for mp3's thats another battle all together and has different reasons.
    >
    > Chris Taylor
    > http://www.zodiacreview.com/
    >
    > "Franklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Copyright is considered any recognisable portion of a work
    > > For instance the guitar intro to Pretty Woman.
    > >
    > > So you're saying we can get all we want no worries?
    > >
    > > > Ringtones are also just a small sample of a song, which you can find

    and
    > > > listen to all over the net in 30 to 45 second lengths

    > >
    > > If you go to Sony's site you will see the new beyonce real voice

    ringtone
    > > They are seliing it for $2.50 per download (that's more than they charge

    > for
    > > the CD single) it's less than 30 seconds in length
    > >
    > > They have sold over 12 million copies so far
    > >
    > > At $2.50 per delivery
    > >
    > > You're saying that they are not interested in going after people who

    want
    > to
    > > get the file free by infringing on their copy right?
    > >
    > > What does copy right mean?
    > >
    > > The Right To Copy?
    > >
    > > If they allow you to make and distribute copies they are out of business
    > > Right?
    > >
    > > You got to ask yourself is this business worth protecting
    > >
    > > All I'm saying is for people NOT to give their phone numbers out to

    these
    > so
    > > called FREE/Donation sites
    > >
    > > Time will tell how all of this ends up but if it was your work that was
    > > being stolen from you you might have a better comprehension of the value
    > > these files represent to the copyright holders and why they are in a
    > > posistion where they have to go after the infringers or lose the right

    to
    > > enforce their copyrights there by losing rheir claim on the works
    > >
    > >
    > > Franklin
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Mastec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > > >
    > > > Ringtones are also just a small sample of a song, which you can find

    and
    > > > listen to all over the net in 30 to 45 second lengths. I dont think
    > > > the RIAA is too worried about someone downloading a 13 track album to
    > > > their phone.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > Mastec

    > >

    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > > > http://cellphoneforums.netView this thread:

    > > http://cellphoneforums.net/t110470.html
    > > >

    > >
    > >

    >
    >






  10. #10
    Mastec
    Mastec is offline
    Member

    Cell Phone
    Kyocera Hydro Icon
    Carrier
    Boost Mobile
    Location
    Sunny Florida
    Posts
    42 - liked 1 times

    Re: Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR So CALLED DONATION SITES...

    Originally posted by Franklin
    Time will tell how all of this ends up but if it was your work that was being stolen from you you might have a better comprehension of the value these files represent to the copyright holders and why they are in a posistion where they have to go after the infringers or lose the right to enforce their copyrights there by losing rheir claim on the works


    Franklin
    I haven't made ringtones but I have made some screens for my phone and posted the images in another forum. Others have downloaded them and used them on their own phone, I really dont care. If they think that my creations are good enough for personal use, I say COOL. I make enough money on bigger projects that I am not worried about 132x176 or 240x320 screens. How is taking a 30 second clip of a song, say downloaded from MTV.com, stealing? They don't charge you for the clip, they charge you if you want the full mp3.



  11. #11
    Franklin
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR So CALLED DONATION SITES...

    How is taking a 30 second clip of a song, say
    > downloaded from MTV.com, stealing? They don't charge you for the clip,


    There is a big difference between a stream and a download.
    Previews are just that, meant to give you a preview of the song you're
    interested in.

    The previews are not meant to be downloaded for playback as alerts for you
    wireless device. They are streams

    It's just 30 s3econds you say? In for a penny in for a pound is what they
    may say.



    here's todays headline with regard to DVD ripping
    http://www.cnn.com/fortune/ontech/0,...0.html?cnn=yes

    The thing I'm stressing is not to give the so called free sites you contact
    information phone number etc..
    You're probably safe as long as you don't give them your info





    "Mastec" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Franklin wrote:
    > > *Time will tell how all of this ends up but if it was your work that
    > > was being stolen from you you might have a better comprehension of
    > > the value these files represent to the copyright holders and why they
    > > are in a posistion where they have to go after the infringers or lose
    > > the right to enforce their copyrights there by losing rheir claim on
    > > the works
    > >
    > >
    > > Franklin
    > > *

    >
    > I haven't made ringtones but I have made some screens for my phone and
    > posted the images in another forum. Others have downloaded them and
    > used them on their own phone, I really dont care. If they think that
    > my creations are good enough for personal use, I say COOL. I make
    > enough money on bigger projects that I am not worried about 132x176 or
    > 240x320 screens. How is taking a 30 second clip of a song, say
    > downloaded from MTV.com, stealing? They don't charge you for the clip,
    > they charge you if you want the full mp3.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Mastec
    > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > http://cellphoneforums.netView this thread:

    http://cellphoneforums.net/t110470.html
    >






  12. #12
    Chris Taylor Jr
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR SO CALLED DONATION SITES...

    Below

    > Please don't take this in a negative way but have you ever created a work,
    > and then somebody comes long bigger than you, and takes it away because

    your
    > not strong enough to stop them?


    First please show me how any file swapper is "bigger" than as big as they
    get (music labels)

    >
    > If you were an artist, a real artist who had created a work of value
    > something that meant something to you would feel much different.


    I am a photographer. I have taken 10's of thousands of pictures. I never
    have a problem with them being used NON commercially. Now if someone tries
    to make a profit off my work I hunt them down.

    > Sure you can get the full song and rip and tear but you got it to do, you
    > have to do the work
    > Why should anyone do the work if this guy over here's got it for FREE?


    Its easier to rip than to download.

    Downloading is good for quantity. Ripping is good for quality. the work I
    put out is irrenevant.

    > It's much easier for someone to just go and get an illegal copy of the

    file
    > on a free/donation site, right?


    Thats the problem. I do not recognize it as illegal. Their in lies the
    problem. I see it as Fair use. they do not.

    >
    > However
    > Just because a convieniance store sells milk for 1 dollar more and you

    don't
    > like the price (but you love the convieniance), is it ok to rob them or
    > steal some candy on the way out the door.


    Get this straight. its called copyright infringement. NOTHING IS BEING
    STOLEN. is copyright infringement wrong. ABSOLUTELY. should people be
    prosecuted for it ABSOLUTELY

    Is it STEALING. NO. therfore you can NOT compare it to stealing milk out of
    a store.

    one thing of note. with milk I can goto competition but with intellectual
    rights I can not in most cases.

    Stealing and Copyright Infringement are NOT the same thing no matter how the
    RIAA tries to twist it.

    >
    > It's just a piece of candy right?


    Candy is physical. Theft. Music is intellectual. Copyright Infringement.

    >
    > Someones property is theirs, just because someone can steal it because

    it's
    > on line doesn't make it right


    I can not steal it. its intellectual. that would require stealing their
    brain and even that would prove pretty ineffective. its infringement. bad
    yes but not the SAME thing and I do not see what I do as infringement. I see
    it as fair use. NO different than listening to the Radio and RECORDING off
    the Radio (BOTH of which btw are PERFECTLY legal)

    > it doesn't matter how small it is if you're getting it. and taking time to
    > search for it download it etc.. it must mean something to you.


    Fair use.

    >
    > .if it means something to you it probably means a great deal to the owner.


    I own it. its my file. I do not own the intellectual rights to it.


    >
    > The way I understand the copyright laws in the U.S. is this, if you don't
    > enforce your copyrights you lose them all together


    Incorrect. that only applies to Trademarks and maybe patents. copyrights DO
    NOT have to be enforced for you to retain the rights.

    >
    > If that's the case, artists, publishers, and record companies simply will
    > have no choice in the matter, if they do not try to protect their property
    > they lose all of their rights period


    They do not. you are basing that statement on clearly flawed information.
    PLEASE research the subject before making blanket statements like that.

    >
    > So what would you have them do?


    Play fair. but they are not. they are big enough that they are using the law
    to allow them to shove their UNFAIR practices down our throats.

    >
    > Again, I would caution anyone who is giving their phone numbers to these

    so
    > called free/donation sites to reconsider


    SO would I.


    > With file sharing your not as exposed as you might be if they have your
    > phone numbers .That's my concern
    > What do you think?


    I agree. although I think it is your right IE fair use to do it the RIAA is
    distorting the laws and your rights on a daily basis. so be careful.

    Chris Taylor
    http://www.zodiacreview.com/





  13. #13
    PleaseEngageBrainFirst
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR SO CALLED DONATION SITES...

    "Chris Taylor Jr" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > > If you were an artist, a real artist who had created a work of value
    > > something that meant something to you would feel much different.

    >
    > I am a photographer. I have taken 10's of thousands of pictures. I never
    > have a problem with them being used NON commercially. Now if someone tries
    > to make a profit off my work I hunt them down.



    Chris -

    I had to chime in on this one.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but being a photographer is NOT a suitable
    analogy to being a musician; you didn't make a case for your (illogical)
    point of view with that one.

    Here... I'll explain it so that you can understand the simple difference.
    As a photographer, you charge a FEE for your work for those who want to use
    it COMMERCIALLY, correct? Hello... are you still with me on this? Good.
    Now, I'll take it EXTRA SLOW, because based on your illogical premises and
    conclusions, you apparently need things spoon-fed to you in order for you to
    understand.

    Musicians create music for "individuals" (not commercial concerns) to
    consume. As compensation, they are paid for the work they do, WHICH IS
    ENJOYED BY INDIVIDUALS, NOT COMMERCIAL CONCERNS (note the distinction here;
    different from what you apparently CHOOSE TO DO as a photographer).
    Therefore, the individuals (artists and consumers) are exchanging something
    of value (money) for something else of value (the pleasure of hearing the
    music). Still following this? Wow, you're apparently making progress...
    Good. We're almost home now. There is an expected and implied agreement of
    an exchange that takes place by both parties. Pretty much everyone who
    wants a copy of the music expects to pay a reasonable price for it. I won't
    argue "reasonable price" here; that's a totally separate issue (even though
    you probably don't understand that concept either) on which we probably are
    a lot closer in agreement.

    Sooooo, your comment about being a photographer is not suitable as an
    analogy here.

    If a commercial entity uses one of your creations (like a photo) and they
    don't pay for it, you stated that you will "hunt them down." But why? Why
    don't you simply do what you're asking the musicians to do - not worry about
    getting paid for their creation? Why is it OK for YOU to get upset if a
    commercial entity (your target market for sustaining your photographic
    pursuits) doesn't pay, while musicians should be fine when you (or anyone
    else, for that matter) don't pay?

    Here's a graphic to illustrate:


    _Creator_ _Exchange Medium_ _Target Market

    You -------------Photo ----------> Commercial entities
    You <------------Money ------- Commercial entities
    (A typical arrangement between a producer and a consumer)

    You -------------Photo ----------> Individual Consumers
    You <------------NOTHING-----> Individual Consumers
    (Note: this particular setup is by YOUR choice - the SUPPLIER or PRODUCER of
    the goods)

    Musicians --------Music---------->Individual Consumers
    Musicians <-------Money----------Individual Consumers
    (Another typical arrangement between a producer and a consumer)


    Did you notice a difference? Which picture is different from the others?
    Hey, you got it! Now, the explanation: you DECIDED to ask for nothing
    tangible from individual consumers. YOU (as the product supplier/producer)
    made that choice. Musicians expressly request financial reward for their
    labors. Now here's the part I'm sure will totally LOSE YOU (at least for
    the first 3 or 4 times you read it):
    You can't legitimately - simply because YOU WANT TO - change the rules of
    the game just because you don't like them. You can't simply say, "I don't
    think the musicians need to be compensated because I'm not compensated for
    non-commercial use of my work." Actually, you CAN SAY that, it's just not a
    legitimate assertion or comment.

    Whew! OK; I have to get back to work, but hey, this was fun. You have a
    few fairly interesting points, but the way you expressed the one above just
    made my fingers start flying on the keyboard. I couldn't help myself.

    I hope you decide to reexamine your philosophy with respect to acquiring
    "things" in the future. If producers/suppliers have no ability to continue
    to produce (i.e., they don't get compensated), what will you do when you
    want to listen to new music?

    Have a great day!





  14. #14
    Chris Taylor Jr
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR SO CALLED DONATION SITES...

    Your twisting things. let me untwist them for you.

    First I do not make much money on photography. I deal almost exclusively
    with end users (infact I Can not recall dealing with a commercial entity)

    Hunt down commercial users.

    their is a difference between using my work for your own person wants or
    needs and taking my work and PROFITING on it (THAT is what I mean by
    commercial use)

    so do I care if some user uses one of my pictures whether he bought it or
    not as a background for his desktop (good analogy) NO

    Now if he made a BOOK and used my picture IN THAT BOOK and was SELLING that
    book without my permission IE now he is "making" money on my work.

    THAT is commercial to me.

    AGAIN the law does not have a problem with users listening to radio's. they
    are not paying for it.

    AGAIN the law does not have a problem with users RECORDING their songs off
    the radio they are not paying for it.

    mp3 is the same thing. Digitally swapping my photos is the same thing.

    If I sell someone a picture I could really care less if they run to a copy
    machine or their scanner and make copies of it. SO LONG as they do not try
    to PROFIT from it.

    You reply was extremely sarcastic and does not appear to be benevolent or
    HONEST in any way but I will reply as if it was See below I mixed it in.

    7>
    > Chris -
    >
    > I had to chime in on this one.
    >
    > Sorry to burst your bubble, but being a photographer is NOT a suitable
    > analogy to being a musician; you didn't make a case for your (illogical)
    > point of view with that one.


    My viewpoint was quite logical to me. saying it is illogical does not make
    it so. back your claims up. I backed mine up.

    >
    > Here... I'll explain it so that you can understand the simple difference.
    > As a photographer, you charge a FEE for your work for those who want to

    use
    > it COMMERCIALLY, correct? Hello... are you still with me on this? Good.
    > Now, I'll take it EXTRA SLOW, because based on your illogical premises and
    > conclusions, you apparently need things spoon-fed to you in order for you

    to
    > understand.


    I do not charge a fee for my work. I charge "nothing" for taking the
    picture. I charge to GIVE you the picture whatever you decide to buy from
    me. I sell 4x6's for $1 and 8x10's for $4 ($6 framed)

    it could be more for something more involved but my most common use is
    Rocket Launches so I am shooting the users "rocket" on lift off etc..

    > Musicians create music for "individuals" (not commercial concerns) to
    > consume. As compensation, they are paid for the work they do, WHICH IS
    > ENJOYED BY INDIVIDUALS, NOT COMMERCIAL CONCERNS (note the distinction

    here;

    The analogy as I described is perfect to your above description.

    I create my photographs for INDIVIDUALS with NO commercial concerns in mine.
    to CONSUME. (LOOK AT and enjoy as you would LISTEN to and enjoy)

    so whats your problem ? I said the same thing. Replace Music with Picture.
    Same thing exactly.

    my problem would be if they tried to PROFIT off my work without my ok.

    Now lets take the analogy further.

    My images are 5mp and higher (soon to be 8mp) I sometimes put zvga copies of
    the images on my website. Equivalent to an "mp3"

    I do not care and have no problem with people taking and sharing these. I
    have no problem with them putting them in an album or on their site (as long
    as they actually copy it and do not just leech it using my bandwidth another
    issue all together)

    I do not care if they share it. I do not care if they PRINT IT OUT. its not
    nearly enough resolution to equal the original. ITs a sample. if they are
    happy with the sample so be it. thats their problem.

    I charge a reasonable rate most have NO issues at all with paying me.

    If I had some on display and someone walked up with their digicam etc.. and
    took a snapshot. (that is analogous to someone ripping a CD to mp3) again no
    problem. what do I care. its not hurting me and they are not getting the
    "real thing"

    Now if no one is buying and everyone is just copying low res stuff I would
    simply stop selling it. it would be clear their is no "market" for it.

    now where can casual copying become a problem for me. lets make the music
    industry analogy. Lets say I sell someone an 8x10 and he scans it into his
    computer. no big deal its his he paid for it. he can use it however he
    wishes. if he wanted I would hav given him an electronic copy no big deal.

    but now he starts trading that image around. their is a lot more work that
    goes into a print than just hitting print. and a print of a scan of a print
    is going to get pretty nasty pretty fast.

    now what would cause people to use this method to get my pictures instead of
    using the proper method (buying from me)

    2 things. one they are really not all that interested in the image (its not
    their rocket it just looks neat etc..) this is casual copying. its of no
    concern to me. those people are NOT going to become my costumer regardless
    of whether they CAN copy the image or not. its just not important enough to
    them. so they are irrelevant to me.

    2 I am screwing up (way overcharging or have a strangle hold on the market
    limiting their means to aquire from alternative sources)

    How ? what if i got so good and powerful that I could pay Launch
    Coordinators to limit personal camera use and or keep put other pro
    photographers. IE I have locked out the competition so you have to deal with
    me or not at all since their is no one else.

    Now if I am really good and prices are fair this "might" work out but
    probably not.

    but now imagine. I now have this total "effective" monopoly and I can not
    give out whatever crap I want and charge whatever I want for it. so I take
    random snapshots do not put anymore work into editing them and charge $10 a
    print.

    suddenly I am no longer their friend. but they still want their pictures. so
    they will PIRATE THEM. sneak a pro photographer into the launch or start
    pirating my pictures.

    this is called free society at work. the consumers are getting screwed so
    they retaliate in any way they can. some will pirate. some may sue for anti
    trust practices (assuming I am not so big that they would have no chance in
    succeeding.

    is all this sounding familiar? let me clarify for you RIAA come to mind ?

    Artists come first when it comes to their works. they can do what they want
    with it.

    UNTIL they try to SELL IT. now the tables are changed.

    now the artists is LAST and the CONSUMER IS FIRST. PERIOD.

    that is how a free capatalistic society works.

    when you decide to PROFIT from your work you are not in MY (consumer's)
    service.

    you are working for ME. because you want MY MONEY.

    why do people not understand this.

    it is MY JOB to give my consumers what they want or they will not PAY.

    the RIAA is twisting this to the point where they are the ONLY SOURCE and
    control all aspects. THIS is called a monopoly and is NOT GOOD for our type
    of society.

    consumers rebel. instead of doing what most companies would do. either go
    out of buisness OR FIX their bad practicies the RIAA is use legal strong
    arming and their massive POWER to FORCE their crap down people's throats.

    > different from what you apparently CHOOSE TO DO as a photographer).
    > Therefore, the individuals (artists and consumers) are exchanging

    something
    > of value (money) for something else of value (the pleasure of hearing the
    > music). Still following this?


    Question is are YOU following this.

    > Wow, you're apparently making progress...
    > Good. We're almost home now. There is an expected and implied agreement

    of
    > an exchange that takes place by both parties. Pretty much everyone who
    > wants a copy of the music expects to pay a reasonable price for it. I

    won't
    > argue "reasonable price" here; that's a totally separate issue (even

    though
    > you probably don't understand that concept either) on which we probably

    are
    > a lot closer in agreement.


    NO its not a SEPERATE ISSUE. its the main freaking holy crail CENTRAL ISSUE
    to this ENTIRE DISCUSSION.

    its the KING. the TOP of the TOTEM POLE. its GOD. it IS the entire STINKING
    POINT of all of this.

    I do not sell photo's for pleasure. I TAKE photo's for pleasure.

    I SELL photo's for PROFIT. PERIOD. if your enjoyment was all that mattered
    it would be better to just GIVE you the damned photo's

    the WHOLE STINKING POINT is I want to take the MONEY from your pocket and
    put it into MY POCKET

    MONEY IS THE POINT. do you not GET THAT.

    >
    > Sooooo, your comment about being a photographer is not suitable as an
    > analogy here.


    My analogy was SPOT ON PERFECT. You would be HARD PRESSED to find a more
    PERFECTLY FITTING analogy.

    >
    > If a commercial entity uses one of your creations (like a photo) and they
    > don't pay for it, you stated that you will "hunt them down." But why?


    Because now they are PROFITING from my work.

    > Why
    > don't you simply do what you're asking the musicians to do - not worry

    about
    > getting paid for their creation? Why is it OK for YOU to get upset if a
    > commercial entity (your target market for sustaining your photographic
    > pursuits) doesn't pay, while musicians should be fine when you (or anyone
    > else, for that matter) don't pay?


    I BUY all my music. I have only a few mp3's that I listen to that I do not
    own on CD etc.. and that is because I have YET to FIND them on CD etc..

    Would you BUY a photograph I took of you SITE UNSEEN.
    ALSO on top of this you CAN NOT return it. you can not EXCHANGE IT.

    once you pay me your are STUCK with whatever it is I am going to hand you
    and at that time you have NO IDEA what I am going to hand you. you have NO
    RECOURSE as a consumer.

    Now what ? are you going to BUY that Picture from me ? 99.999999% of
    consumers would say HELL NO.

    yet that is what the music industry is FORCING down out throats every day.

    I could sell you a picture of a pile of dog **** and you would have no
    choice but to SUCK IT UP and LIKE IT because you did not get to see it
    first. you can not return it no refunds no exchanges NO RECOURSE.

    you could compalin but I am a HUGE conglomerate with nearly unlimited
    resources what are YOU going to do you little worm (that is how they see us)

    THINK ABOUT THAT.

    Your graphic illustration is inaccurate. lets rearrange it to mroe closely
    resemble what we call reality.

    > Musicians --------Music---------->Individual Consumers
    > Musicians <-------Money----------Individual Consumers
    > (Another typical arrangement between a producer and a consumer)


    Musicias ----- Individual Consumer (no music in this equation yet)
    Muscisians --->Music---->RIAA (or any label etc..)
    Individual Consumer --->Money---->RIAA

    Notice music to consumer has NOT OCCURED YET.

    in almost all cases the above is factual. AFTER the above has occured and in
    most cases ONLY after the above has occured does this happen.

    Consumer<-----Music

    What you described in your graph is the way is should be the with addition
    of this part.

    Consumer<----Recourse if Screwed

    Except that is NOT how real life works.


    > Did you notice a difference? Which picture is different from the others?
    > Hey, you got it! Now, the explanation: you DECIDED to ask for nothing
    > tangible from individual consumers. YOU (as the product

    supplier/producer)
    > made that choice. Musicians expressly request financial reward for their
    > labors. Now here's the part I'm sure will totally LOSE YOU (at least for
    > the first 3 or 4 times you read it):


    and BY DOING SO place CONSUMERS in the NUMBER #1 Position of IMPORTANCE in
    this transaction since its OUR (consumer's) MONEY that the artists and
    labels WANT.

    > You can't legitimately - simply because YOU WANT TO - change the rules of
    > the game just because you don't like them. You can't simply say, "I don't
    > think the musicians need to be compensated because I'm not compensated for
    > non-commercial use of my work." Actually, you CAN SAY that, it's just not

    a
    > legitimate assertion or comment.


    Yes I can and I WILL - Its called RECOURSE. its called consumer lash back.
    its called consumers saying STOP SCREWING US.

    I DO NOT think musicisans need to be compensated UNLESS they give me
    something WORTHY of that compensation. THAT IS HOW OUR SOCIETY IS SUPPOSED
    TO WORK. That is HOW it works when it is properly functioning.

    You give me something WORTHY of compensation and I therfore GIVE YOU
    compensation.

    that is how its supposed to work.

    > Whew! OK; I have to get back to work, but hey, this was fun. You have a
    > few fairly interesting points, but the way you expressed the one above

    just
    > made my fingers start flying on the keyboard. I couldn't help myself.


    Same here. it drives me NUTS. maybe you just misread or I mistyped to cause
    confusion. maybe this post will clear things up. THIS part of your post is
    the only reason I replied at all. It implies you actually ARE interesting in
    a logical discussion. When I make heated posts I can be a bit unclear. I
    hope this clears thinhgs up even though it too is a bit heated. :-)

    >
    > I hope you decide to reexamine your philosophy with respect to acquiring
    > "things" in the future. If producers/suppliers have no ability to

    continue
    > to produce (i.e., they don't get compensated), what will you do when you
    > want to listen to new music?


    producing is not the issue. they produce because they DESIRE to. that has
    nothing to do with mp3 and piracy.

    NOW where it does come into play is when you desire to CHANGE from producing
    for yourself and decide you would like to PROFIT off of it.

    someone has to PAY that profit. that is called the consumer. I AM YOUR BOSS
    (your being the artist)

    I HAVE THE MONEY. You WANT my MONEY. you need to GIVE me something WORTH my
    money.

    the riaa has TWISTED the system to where they want you to give your MONEY
    FIRST and then if and or when you find out you have been JIPPED their is
    NOTHING you can do about it.

    and they have grown powerful enough to where you do not have much CHOICE but
    to EAT their crap hoping every once in a while one mouthfull of **** will
    have some fruit in it and not taste so bad.

    Imagine if I had you taste something. you have to taste it your hungry. you
    do and it tastes like dog **** (and maybe it is dog ****)

    now you are NOT you MUST SWALLOW IT. you ALREADY PAID for it and CAN NOT
    return it and CAN NOT get your money back. your STUCK WITH IT. you can spit
    it out but you still have to pay for it. your STUCK with it PERIOD. no
    discussion no recourse.

    THAT is today;s music industry.

    when alternatives TRY to manifest themselves they are sued out of existance
    etc.. or shut out of any meaningful part of the market (power and monopoly)

    I am sorry but that is NOW how its supposed to work.

    I AM YOUR BOSS. you work FOR ME since I HAVE the money that you desire.

    YOU GIVE me what I want and I GIVE you my money. You don't and you get
    squat.

    that is how its supposed to work. that is NOT how the music industry works.

    Movies are getting just as bad. for most people its $8 to see a movie. used
    to be $3 and i am only 27 years old !!!! so we are not talking LONG ago !!!

    So if two of you go see a movie you just PAID the price of the DVD that will
    come out later. something is wrong with that. thankfully its partially
    balancing. DVD prices are WAY down. closer to where they SHOULD be.

    CD prices are the same if not HIGHER than they were when they came out
    decades ago.

    yet its cheaper to make and produce and manufacture them at all levels.
    DRAMATICALLY cheaper. they are artificially inflating the prices and
    PREVENTING any consumer recourse.

    THIS is a broken system and needs to be fixed.

    the RIAA does not want it fixed because they are making a boatload off of
    it.

    Piracy as they explain is it is NOT real. they claim billions lost yet fail
    to mention that 99.999999% of those BILLIONS are from overseas operations
    that mass produce "knock offs" the amount lost to internet piracy is ZILCH.
    nothing. its casual sharing like we did with audio casettes which by the way
    is still legal.

    in fact it is a fact that File Sharing mp3's initially INCREASED CD sales
    BIT TIME. first increase in over 10 years IIRC.

    the latest DECREASE is consumer lash back for being screwed and burned.

    I personally have purchased more CD's in my first 2 years of file sharing
    than I did in my entire life previous to that. (I have strange odd musical
    tastes so I got sick of blowing $18 for one or NO songs that I liked)

    Mp3 solved that. I could listen and know I liked it and buy with confidence.

    Lately I do not buy many cd's I listen to what I have. I do not download
    more (no time) which also reduces what I buy since i will not buy an
    "unknown"

    I also will not be told HOW to listen to my music. EVERY CD I buy is first
    RIPPED to mp3 (128kbit for the player and 320kbit for archiving)

    I then put away that VERY expensive CD someplace nice and safe. I put my
    music on my Zodiac. On my Rio. On my CD player . My computer. Laptop. On my
    Minidisc player.

    I WILL NOT be restricted by the RIAA as to what and how I listen to my music
    on. thats my buisness NOT theirs. I paid them for their CD. that is where
    THEIR concern in the matter ends.

    So long as I do not profit from or infringe on their ability to profit from
    (let people copy my cd;s etc..) they have NO SAY in what I do with my cd's
    otherwise for my own personal use. period.

    I will NEVER buy a copyprotected CD. ever. When the day comes that you can
    not buy UNPROTECTED music that day is the LAST day I will ever buy music
    again sadly. I WILL NOT be told how to listen to my music.

    Chris Taylor
    http://www.zodiacreview.com/





  15. #15
    O/Siris
    Guest

    Re: IF WE DL ILLEGAL FILES FROM FREE OR SO CALLED DONATION SITES...

    In article <[email protected]>,=20
    [email protected] says...
    > Again, I would caution anyone who is giving their phone numbers to these =

    so
    > called free/donation sites to reconsider
    > With file sharing your not as exposed as you might be if they have your
    > phone numbers .That's my concern
    > What do you think?
    >=20


    Franklin, show me one case. Just one, where customers who were not=20
    themselves sharing files have been sued for downloading from such=20
    sites.

    I've found not one single example. Those sites you're harping about=20
    like Chicken Little aren't Kazaa or anything even approximating them.

    --=20
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    I work for Sprint PCS
    I *don't* speak for them



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast