Slashdot Mirror
BBC In Trouble Over Free Music
Take a Byte Out of Crime writes "According to this article, British classical labels are claiming that the BBC giving away the these symphonies, which were performed by the BBC Orchestra for free, constitutes unfair government competition. Apparently all free music really is illegal these days, or soon will be, public domain be damned."
is that corporations will sue private citizens giving things away for free, claiming "unfair competition by [those people who damn well should be] the buying public."
Corporations = have rights.
Anyone/thing else = "with the terrorists."
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Is it for the protection of the original ideas?
Or the protection of individual performances?
===
Can you play only public domain songs, sell it, and then have people trading your performances withouit purchasing them be pirates?
Does anyone know?
[I legitemately don't but would like to]
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
First of all the music industry is consipiring to strangle the very human instinct of music. It is in us, and we are genetically programmed to appreciate it.
The reason this industry is fighting so hard is greed. Pure and simple greed.
They have a way of life/business model that can't addapt to the quickly changing digital world around them so like vultures they are clawing at their food supply.. namely your dollars.
So whats to do? Namely the copyright holders of each song/piece of music ulitmately control if it is placed in the public domain. Currently most are being greedy.. or are just clueless.
Its pyrimid ponzi scheme of artistic and corporate collusion, and its only getting worse.
They are the music nazis, and if you want it you must join their party and play their game.
We need to continue to encourage folks to step up to the plate. Bands, artists, songwriters of all flavors should make thier stuff availible online with one CC stipulation.. It can't be sold/profitted from unless the copyright holder changes the license.
Most of the stuff from the big labels is corporate shit anyway.. the only reason folks buy it is they are told its cool.
So those of who do make music cause you frelling love it, and not because you want a damn easy check fight on.
Live it, love it, make it real.
Even if you suck its better than canned spam coming out yer radio.
Peace, D
I'm sure many of us understand how the BBC works, it's funded in majority by the license fee we Brits have to pay per household every year. I think I paid 130UKP last year (220USD).
The argument about value for money is a can of worms I'm not going to touch, however, it smacks a little bit of unfairness if my US based cousins can enjoy what is arguably the best part of the BBC (BBC Online) without having to contribute a penny.
BBC Online should be protected in-line with the rest of the BBC, the content should be un-lockable via entry of my license number.
The same goes for the recent deal done to broadcast Radio 1 on Sirrius. Presumably the profit goes back in to creating the BBC, however, I'd prefer it to go back in to my already stretched pocket.
A French bus company sues cleaning ladies who carpool.
Guardian article here.
What is up with Europe these days? We were glad when they rejected software patents, but these sorts of legal actions? They make the US look like a country where nobody ever sues anyone without reason ever....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Laughing aside the argument that giving away something provides a justification(1) for stealing, lawyers could argue the following:
So, is this like when Microsoft first gave away Internet Explorer, in an attempt to shut down Netscape, which ultimately succeeded. What happened to them? Well, the Justice department decided that Microsoft was a monopoly and was unfairly using its monopoly powers. In the end, in spite of being found guilty, no punishment was enacted and the give away of Internet Explorer continues to this day.
This argues that BBC should be allowed to give away music.
Your opponent might then argue that BBC is a government entity and that private music producers have to compete against an entity giving away product subsidized by taxpayers money.
You could then counter and compare it against the situation where a government gives away medicine in an attempt to wipe out a disease affecting its citizens. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any cases where giving away medicine in such circumstances has been prohibited. There are even case of patent violations where countries have copied drugs (I seem to remember this has occured in South Africa and Brazil) in order to reduce the cost.
In this case you might argue that the drug is music and the disease is modern culture.. but let's not start up that old argument.
In any case, this also argues that BBC should be allowed to give away music.
-----
(1) Think about the free product samples you see in stores occasionally. Do you think that this makes people believe that they can take home large packages of the same product being offered for sale without paying?
---- It won't be as bad as you fear or as good as you hope, but it will take twice as long as you plan.
"There ought to be but one large art warehouse in the world, to which the artist could carry his art-works, and from which he could carry away whatever he needed. As it is, one must be half a tradesman." -- Ludwig van Beethoven, January, 1801
And, as for tough competition, last time I looked The Guardian, a small circulation not for profit UK newspaper, had a website which has more page views than most of the rest of the UK newspaper industry put together, and competes with the BBC given far less resources. The truth is, Murdoch, Rothermere and Sullivan between them have reduced the UK newspaper industry to such low grade sensationalist crap that they cannot compete with anybody who does a half decent job, at least where the audience who can read and write are concerned.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Record companies are well aware that certain artists, orchestras, choirs, etc. draw far better sales than unknowns. This fact alone makes their point fairly mute. They gladly put out whole new recordings simply because $conductor's name is on it and charge a premium.
In addition, there are so many variables for "classical" music, you would have a hard time labeling it a commodity. Not to berate pop music, but there is simply more to something like a Beethoven symphony than the latest $band single.
For example, I have three copies of Handel's Messiah. One is a great recording in the style of Handel's time period (the choir's enunciation is extremely distinct, for example). Another is an Americanized version with fewer instruments, mellowed diction, and a very clear recording. The third one has strong diction, full accompaniment, lackluster performance, average recording quality, and a few modern twists (for example the soporano is a male).
Each of these recordings sounds incredibly different. Everything from the dynamics to the recording quality itself significantly add to the experience. And I'm not even an audiophile. I intentionally bought different interpretations of the music because I enjoy Handel's work through the ears of different artists.
things that he and his associates are trying to sell
What's more, people in his line of work have (had?) a habit of going to Iron-Curtain principalities to get their orchestras to record the classical works so they could just pay them a couple thousand dollars for all rights to the performances and then never pay royalties or share of profits, which western orchestras would require.
Check out the credits on the typical classical CD's in the record store next time you're in.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)