Lots of animals and wildlife flora/fauna live in the deserts. Many of which are endangered. Many of which provide valuable eco-service to the land around them. It might not be prudent to just blot out the sun with solar collectors and think everything's going to be okay.
Tens of thousands (or more) of human beings were killed very recently over another energy source, oil. What makes you think a few snakes and scorpions are going to stop them if this is viable? And if you want an eco-service, by shading a lot of desert you might well be able to turn it into valuable farmland or something like that.
I would be very interested to see what savings this could bring from a rooftop installation however, in a temperate climate.
If you don't sign the contract (which always screws the artist over) with the parasites, you don't get on the radio. Fucking Clear Channel. Indie labels get ignored.
Oho so you want the fame and fortune with none of the expense or effort? I see. My advice to you, get a website.
Ah the old racist strawman. You may as well godwin the thread and get it over with. And yes, this comment is about as relevant to the discussion as yours.
You mean in practice the *AAs have the right to veto and shutdown any reseller for any reason whatsoever ?
They aren't selling twinkies here. In any case, I didn't at any point say they should shut down anyone; just in this case they were perfectly within their rights to refuse to deal with AllofMP3.com.
People who own copyright don't make laws. Not in my country, anyway. But you're right in one thing, the government listens to them. Nothing to do with morality or legality though.
Vendor says, my song is worth $x, if you want to sell it, thats what you pay. Country y says, no we don't want to pay that, vendor puts pressure on them through larger more powerful country until they get what they get everywhere else. No amount of misguided pseudo-moralistic posturing will change that. As I said, buy a guitar. And what is it with you people anyway, are you tag teaming me?
And according to the Russian laws that AllOfMP3 diligently followed, so can anyone else who has possesion. So far AllOfMP3 have been operating as a legitimate business, regardless of what your opinion on the matter is.
All that means is that Russian law was borked according to the owners of the copyright, and its their opinion that people listen to, not yours. Presumably because you don't own any copyrights yourself. The situation has now been rectified in any case.
Eh where in any of my posts did I say that there wasn't? I am well aware of that. However the content owners in this case felt they were not being looked after, and so used whatever leverage they could get. I'll say it yet again, if you don't like the price, don't buy it.
It's the problem that ROMS (the Russian version of the **AA) does not have a standing agreement with the RIAA and the MPAA. Allofmp3 paid the required royalty fees to ROMS, which then failed to pay **AA. So where is it Allofmp3's fault?
They took advantage of a dubious legal situation, to their own immense financial gain, using someone else's content.
Why would it be due "regardless of the laws of the land"? If the law says you only have to pay your local organization royalties, then that's it.
Yup, I never denied that.
Why would an US law stating that the original vendors need to get their money be anything more than a local law?
Its not the US, its the PROPER LEGAL owners of the content that have a problem here. That they use the might of the US to get results is mildly objectionable, but I can understand their reasoning.
And your weak link is that, if they were operating legally with respect to the laws that governed them, whether or not the original vendors received their "required" due is irrelevant (it strikes me that, in their case, legally, that due wasn't required).
First off I said they were at the time operating legally. The vendors did not feel that they were getting anything from the sale of their goods, so they applied pressure any way they could to get what they felt they were due. Thats the market; if you don't like it, don't buy it. Make your own.
The price is set with the assistance of coercive government monopoly powers; as such most of the price is entirely derived _from_ that particular legal construct, and has little to do with the inherent value of the good.
What coercive monopoly? And heres a news flash, nothing has much to do with the inherent value of the good. The prices are set to what the market will bear, no more no less. Same with housing, same with cornflakes. If music seems expensive to you, your element of the market can't bear it, so don't buy it.
Yes, that's how monopolies work and why they're such a destructive force on the wealth of an economy.
I don't see how it is possible to have a monopoly on something that almost anyone can replicate.
In a competetive market, the market can simply purchase the good from another vendor. I dont see five brands of specific modern recordings for sale that often
Ye gods its not spaghetti we're talking about here. There aren't five brands of recordings because the artist didn't sign five contracts. If artists don't like the contracts, they don't have to sign them.
Try duplicating hammers and selling them for a while, then try duplicating a number of CD's and selling them, and I'll betcha you'll notice the barrier to entry fairly soon.
Aha so now we get to the crux of your problem. Its not about the music, its about the distribution, media and advertising. Yes, there is a steep barrier to entry on that, but thats the price you pay if you want to reach large populations. Or it was before the advent of the internet.
you'll find that, oddly, the 'protection' of copyright appears mainly to be protecting the *AA from playing on a level field.
Only if you try to sing other people's songs. Savvy? Write your own. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.
Yeah.. If they can't afford it why should we care? They are the worthless part of our society, they have no rights to make use of our culture!
I know I shouldn't be feeding trolls, but... by your reasoning, taken to an extreme level why shouldn't social welfare add a lexus purchasing allowance? The "culture" is available for free on the radio and in libraries, and mostly for free on TVs. And another very important point that people like you seem to miss is that by taking up guitars and learning music for themselves, people are creating and enriching their own culture, producing works never before seen or heard, which for my money is a very very good thing. Isn't that how rap and jazz got started?
It did not made the "reception" of such intellectual property legal on your country but what they were doing was completely legal and moral in their country.
And your weak link is that the orginal vendors were not receiving their required due, regardless of the laws of the land. This would be the people that create the content. Analogies about marijuana fall flat here, I am afraid.
I thought music (and art, in general) is done not for money, but for the pleasure itself.
You could say the same about anything. Ultimately, what takes time to do costs money. The more people it takes to do it, and the more skill required, the more money it costs. Saying art is done purely for pleasure is nonsense.
An as far as I know, a very small procentage from CD selling goes to the artist, the big part is taken by the record company. Am I wrong?
They shouldn't have signed the contract without reading it then, should they?
Allof MP3 offered to pay royalties. All anyone had to do was fill out a form. The **AAs refused to deal with them
How does that change anything? The *AAs have the right to refuse to deal with them, or any vendor they like. That doesn't give vendors the right to go ahead and sell their music anyway.
if someone has no money then them downloading 10,000 illegal tracks online doesn't mean any loss of revenue as they wouldn't be able to purchase the songs legit.
Who cares? We're not talking bread and water here. If they can't afford the music, they don't need to download it or pirate it. Whats so hard about investing in some instruments and making their own music? Or just learning how to sing?
First off, at the end of the day AllofMP3 was not giving artists and production / media companies their required due, so what they were doing was immoral, if technically legal at the time. No matter how you cut it, these goods and services have a value set by the vendor; if the market doesn't want to pay the price demanded, the market can simply not purchase them. It doesn't give people laissez-faire to take other people's work without paying for it. Before I get jumped on by the million-boot slashdot hive mind, I am completely opposed to the RIAA and MPAA and thier ilk, and think they are dinosaurs that should be expunged from the bodies social and politic.
Secondly, the US has vast amounts of wealth, which few other groups have. This is the reason for the "asslicking". How long the US will continue to be comparatively wealthy is another question entirely. Once the greenback stops being the de facto currency of global trade, it will decrease in value sharply, and US spending power with it. The natural inheritor of that throne is the euro; not only is it based in a group of stable democracies with no expansionist ideals, the EU market is what, double or triple the size of the US. Also you have to factor in enrmous foreign debt and a looming housing price collapse. What I do strongly object to is the US tying IP laws to deals for trade with third world nations, thus denying these nations the very means by which the US became so powerful (ignoring IP laws).
Iraq is a nasty snarl up, but to be honest you can lay the blame for that at the feet of Winston Churchill when he drew the lines on the map that bundled a group of unrelated cultures into one single country - fairly typical English ignorance in their colonial matters, I have to say. The most recent debacle involving the US is not going to end well.
This is a bit rambling, but the upshot of my post is, if you don't like the price, don't buy it. Its not like theres a steep barrier to entry. Buy a guitar. If you want to get worldwide audiences with your music and maybe get rich, into bed with the *AA you climb. Or set up your own one.
Anything more than 10 years (in my view) is actually counterproductive.
On the other hand, the argument could be made that making copyright terms as long as 50 years actually inspires the creation of completely new, non derivative works. Theres a lot to be said for that.
It's probably because you posted the same exact thing two other times in this thread. I, of course, correctly moderated only the second and thread postings as redundant, but whoever moderated this one was surely trying to get the same point across.
So the fact that I mentioned I was multiple posting IN THE POSTS means you didn't bother your arse to read the posts? Excellent moderation, genius. Let me know the username sunshine, and I'll return the favour.
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of animals and wildlife flora/fauna live in the deserts. Many of which are endangered. Many of which provide valuable eco-service to the land around them. It might not be prudent to just blot out the sun with solar collectors and think everything's going to be okay.
Tens of thousands (or more) of human beings were killed very recently over another energy source, oil. What makes you think a few snakes and scorpions are going to stop them if this is viable? And if you want an eco-service, by shading a lot of desert you might well be able to turn it into valuable farmland or something like that.
I would be very interested to see what savings this could bring from a rooftop installation however, in a temperate climate.
As you can see, your sentence doesn't mean anything!
Your solid grasp of googling shows us, once again, that the internet is just no replacement for a decent education...
And to top it all off, you completely missed my Indigo joke!
That would be Inigo, and it wasn't funny.
Thats very interesting... over here banks have stopped accepting or giving out $100 bills (!). Anyone know what thats about?
Do you think the contracts would change if they weren't buying airtime? I'm going to try this one more time.
Internet.
Yer as I said in my OP, I don't agree with or like the *AAs. However in this case I can see their point.
If you don't sign the contract (which always screws the artist over) with the parasites, you don't get on the radio. Fucking Clear Channel. Indie labels get ignored.
Oho so you want the fame and fortune with none of the expense or effort? I see. My advice to you, get a website.
What, free rein? I do not think you should be correcting people when you do not know what it is that you are saying.
But they're only foreigners, after all.
Ah the old racist strawman. You may as well godwin the thread and get it over with. And yes, this comment is about as relevant to the discussion as yours.
You mean in practice the *AAs have the right to veto and shutdown any reseller for any reason whatsoever ?
They aren't selling twinkies here. In any case, I didn't at any point say they should shut down anyone; just in this case they were perfectly within their rights to refuse to deal with AllofMP3.com.
People who own copyright don't make laws. Not in my country, anyway. But you're right in one thing, the government listens to them. Nothing to do with morality or legality though.
Vendor says, my song is worth $x, if you want to sell it, thats what you pay. Country y says, no we don't want to pay that, vendor puts pressure on them through larger more powerful country until they get what they get everywhere else. No amount of misguided pseudo-moralistic posturing will change that. As I said, buy a guitar. And what is it with you people anyway, are you tag teaming me?
And according to the Russian laws that AllOfMP3 diligently followed, so can anyone else who has possesion. So far AllOfMP3 have been operating as a legitimate business, regardless of what your opinion on the matter is.
All that means is that Russian law was borked according to the owners of the copyright, and its their opinion that people listen to, not yours. Presumably because you don't own any copyrights yourself. The situation has now been rectified in any case.
Eh where in any of my posts did I say that there wasn't? I am well aware of that. However the content owners in this case felt they were not being looked after, and so used whatever leverage they could get. I'll say it yet again, if you don't like the price, don't buy it.
It's the problem that ROMS (the Russian version of the **AA) does not have a standing agreement with the RIAA and the MPAA. Allofmp3 paid the required royalty fees to ROMS, which then failed to pay **AA. So where is it Allofmp3's fault?
They took advantage of a dubious legal situation, to their own immense financial gain, using someone else's content.
Why would it be due "regardless of the laws of the land"? If the law says you only have to pay your local organization royalties, then that's it.
Yup, I never denied that.
Why would an US law stating that the original vendors need to get their money be anything more than a local law?
Its not the US, its the PROPER LEGAL owners of the content that have a problem here. That they use the might of the US to get results is mildly objectionable, but I can understand their reasoning.
Because they refused to take it.
So what? They own the product. They can do what they like with it, or not, regardless of what your opinion on the matter is.
And your weak link is that, if they were operating legally with respect to the laws that governed them, whether or not the original vendors received their "required" due is irrelevant (it strikes me that, in their case, legally, that due wasn't required).
First off I said they were at the time operating legally. The vendors did not feel that they were getting anything from the sale of their goods, so they applied pressure any way they could to get what they felt they were due. Thats the market; if you don't like it, don't buy it. Make your own.
The price is set with the assistance of coercive government monopoly powers; as such most of the price is entirely derived _from_ that particular legal construct, and has little to do with the inherent value of the good.
What coercive monopoly? And heres a news flash, nothing has much to do with the inherent value of the good. The prices are set to what the market will bear, no more no less. Same with housing, same with cornflakes. If music seems expensive to you, your element of the market can't bear it, so don't buy it.
Yes, that's how monopolies work and why they're such a destructive force on the wealth of an economy.
I don't see how it is possible to have a monopoly on something that almost anyone can replicate.
In a competetive market, the market can simply purchase the good from another vendor. I dont see five brands of specific modern recordings for sale that often
Ye gods its not spaghetti we're talking about here. There aren't five brands of recordings because the artist didn't sign five contracts. If artists don't like the contracts, they don't have to sign them.
Try duplicating hammers and selling them for a while, then try duplicating a number of CD's and selling them, and I'll betcha you'll notice the barrier to entry fairly soon.
Aha so now we get to the crux of your problem. Its not about the music, its about the distribution, media and advertising. Yes, there is a steep barrier to entry on that, but thats the price you pay if you want to reach large populations. Or it was before the advent of the internet.
you'll find that, oddly, the 'protection' of copyright appears mainly to be protecting the *AA from playing on a level field.
Only if you try to sing other people's songs. Savvy? Write your own. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.
Yeah.. If they can't afford it why should we care? They are the worthless part of our society, they have no rights to make use of our culture!
I know I shouldn't be feeding trolls, but... by your reasoning, taken to an extreme level why shouldn't social welfare add a lexus purchasing allowance? The "culture" is available for free on the radio and in libraries, and mostly for free on TVs. And another very important point that people like you seem to miss is that by taking up guitars and learning music for themselves, people are creating and enriching their own culture, producing works never before seen or heard, which for my money is a very very good thing. Isn't that how rap and jazz got started?
It did not made the "reception" of such intellectual property legal on your country but what they were doing was completely legal and moral in their country.
And your weak link is that the orginal vendors were not receiving their required due, regardless of the laws of the land. This would be the people that create the content. Analogies about marijuana fall flat here, I am afraid.
I thought music (and art, in general) is done not for money, but for the pleasure itself.
You could say the same about anything. Ultimately, what takes time to do costs money. The more people it takes to do it, and the more skill required, the more money it costs. Saying art is done purely for pleasure is nonsense.
An as far as I know, a very small procentage from CD selling goes to the artist, the big part is taken by the record company. Am I wrong?
They shouldn't have signed the contract without reading it then, should they?
Allof MP3 offered to pay royalties. All anyone had to do was fill out a form. The **AAs refused to deal with them
How does that change anything? The *AAs have the right to refuse to deal with them, or any vendor they like. That doesn't give vendors the right to go ahead and sell their music anyway.
if someone has no money then them downloading 10,000 illegal tracks online doesn't mean any loss of revenue as they wouldn't be able to purchase the songs legit.
Who cares? We're not talking bread and water here. If they can't afford the music, they don't need to download it or pirate it. Whats so hard about investing in some instruments and making their own music? Or just learning how to sing?
First off, at the end of the day AllofMP3 was not giving artists and production / media companies their required due, so what they were doing was immoral, if technically legal at the time. No matter how you cut it, these goods and services have a value set by the vendor; if the market doesn't want to pay the price demanded, the market can simply not purchase them. It doesn't give people laissez-faire to take other people's work without paying for it. Before I get jumped on by the million-boot slashdot hive mind, I am completely opposed to the RIAA and MPAA and thier ilk, and think they are dinosaurs that should be expunged from the bodies social and politic.
Secondly, the US has vast amounts of wealth, which few other groups have. This is the reason for the "asslicking". How long the US will continue to be comparatively wealthy is another question entirely. Once the greenback stops being the de facto currency of global trade, it will decrease in value sharply, and US spending power with it. The natural inheritor of that throne is the euro; not only is it based in a group of stable democracies with no expansionist ideals, the EU market is what, double or triple the size of the US. Also you have to factor in enrmous foreign debt and a looming housing price collapse. What I do strongly object to is the US tying IP laws to deals for trade with third world nations, thus denying these nations the very means by which the US became so powerful (ignoring IP laws).
Iraq is a nasty snarl up, but to be honest you can lay the blame for that at the feet of Winston Churchill when he drew the lines on the map that bundled a group of unrelated cultures into one single country - fairly typical English ignorance in their colonial matters, I have to say. The most recent debacle involving the US is not going to end well.
This is a bit rambling, but the upshot of my post is, if you don't like the price, don't buy it. Its not like theres a steep barrier to entry. Buy a guitar. If you want to get worldwide audiences with your music and maybe get rich, into bed with the *AA you climb. Or set up your own one.
Anything more than 10 years (in my view) is actually counterproductive.
On the other hand, the argument could be made that making copyright terms as long as 50 years actually inspires the creation of completely new, non derivative works. Theres a lot to be said for that.
It's probably because you posted the same exact thing two other times in this thread. I, of course, correctly moderated only the second and thread postings as redundant, but whoever moderated this one was surely trying to get the same point across.
So the fact that I mentioned I was multiple posting IN THE POSTS means you didn't bother your arse to read the posts? Excellent moderation, genius. Let me know the username sunshine, and I'll return the favour.