Copyright Infringement

I want Attick FREE

Due to the consistent lack of quality or point in any of your posts... welcome to my ignore list.

I think I can explain this to you, Ripper. I have friend named Kierstin Gray. She is a song writer/singer and in the midst of producing her first solo album. There are costs involved in completing such a project and she hopes to cover those costs and make some money to pay her mortgage for a few months.

As you pointed out in your infinite number of watches example, everything in reality is finite, including, I would say, the number of possible consumers of her album. You can determine such a number by how many people are interested in a particular kind of music. Hers happens to be jazz guitar w/vocals.

Every unauthorized download of her songs removes one person from the pool of possible sales. If the downloads go viral, it's quite possible for the pool of possible sales to disappear completely. (You can do the math, if you download a song and ten of your friends rip it from you and their ten friends do the same---the number goes exponentially large very quickly. A million downloads in just five generations.O)

You do see that, right?

So, even if Kierstin could write the songs, do the arrangements, hire a drummer and someone to play lead guitar behind her, pay for studio time, record the tunes and get a web-based site to provide access to the music, it's possible that even though thousands of copies of her songs are out there on people's MP3 players, none of them would have been paid for.

That can't be right. You know that.

Add to that songs have a limited life span themselves, tastes change, (You're not downloading any versions of "Shoo shoo Sugartown" are you?), songs disappear and die, but you know that you're a fan of music, just not the people who create it.

Songwriters and musicians are creating limited things with limited lives in their limited lives. By downloading you further limit those creations and the persons who created them from the number of possible paying consumers.

And you can't argue that you only rip off those musicians who have already made millions from their art, if it's wrong to rip off Kierstin, and it is, it's wrong to rip off Katy Perry's California Gurls.

You in NYC?
Kierstin's next show is on Tuesday night.
Joe(pm me for details)Nation

What petunia is thumbing my experience down?

Man up and talk to me.

Joe, you're going to lose this one. You see, there are two kinds of questions: one that seeks information, and one that pushes an already concluded viewpoint. People asking the former are usually called authors or OPs (Original Posters). The latter are called trolls.

Really, I know about stuff like this.

I do have experience. I so do not like bullshit. Oh, and hi, Roger.

Cripes, someone doesn't want to talk.

You have fallen for the same logical fallacy that the RIAA and MPAA have fallen for, namely, that every download represents an otherwise lost potential sale. This ignores the fact that many people simply would not buy her music for any amount of money but would download it and listen to it for free. Either way, your friend will never get a dime from those people. Their downloading of the album changes nothing. There's no reason why those people owe her anything since they never intended to buy it anyways.

I am aosweep@hamstertrap

I guess I'll tell a story of when my husband was first trying to write screenplays (already moderately accomplished re regular old plays).

He was taking a screenwriting class at the same time he was working up his own script. He naturally shared it with the teacher. The teacher apparently shared this as news to others. One of the others took it to Paramount, a big place at the time. So, when my x went to paramount with it, some cad had been there.

A) that teacher was way on coke at the time
B) life sucks.

Screen writing and maintaining your so called morals, a real challenge.

(I still admire or semi admire my ex.)

Plagiarism is fraud. A crime was committed but the victim was Paramount, not your friend. Paramount could have sued the teacher if it was worth the time and effort.

Likewise, if I sell you a can of Pepsi but it's really Dr. Wham (gross) then you are the victim, not Pepsi.

All those years of script writing.. made up years of our lives.

What on earth are you saying? The culprit was the creep who took the story to sell, and, the teacher - possibly - who let that happen.

The victim was my husband, and myself, as I was the wage earner then.

My ex and I now take this ironically, but not cheerfully.

Even though it's possible to do a lot with a little, I don't want to be limited to movies that are made on shoe-string budgets. These success stories are the exception, rather than the rule. I'd love to see you spend the rest of your life only watching $10,000 movies. It'd be like a bad... $10,000 movie.

What asshole zeroes me re posting about scripts and writing?

Please stop with the thumbs and just argue.

The argument shouldn't be that there would be none, but that there would be less.

And back then there was certainly a lot less, and a lot of musical talent that couldn't make a living from music (which basically meant being a rich guy's minstrel back then) worked on a farm instead.

With the ability to monetize creativity we gain more of it. It's a basic concept of economic incentive that you shouldn't have this hard a time grasping.

So, your argument is that we would have less art if we didn't lock people up in rape dungeons or murder them?

Hmm, I think I'll take less art. The quality will still be there. Do we really need that many Bach's, Shakespeare's and da Vinci's to be amused? Is it worth the cost? I don't think so but maybe you are far more selfish than I am.



Clerks? Eraserhead? Do you think those are bad movies? Well, if you do then you have no taste. Again, I'll be fine with the exceptions. I don't need a new Transformers movie every summer.

The music industry being stupid, resisting technology and trying to hold on to legacy distribution monopolies just means they are dumb as rocks, it doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of intellectual property.

Let's not confuse stupid enforcement of intellectual property laws (DRM etc) with the notion that intellectual property deserves no legal protection.

It has nothing to do with the industry and everything to do with the law. If I am an indie artist and you infringe on my copyrights, I can have you locked in the same rape dungeons as the RIAA. You should read more than the first sentence of a post before responding.