don't buy Sony!!

[SPORK]

Just in case anyone is still suffering under the misunderstanding that downloading music is stealing from the Artists: They get paid well before you buy a CD. Airplay royalties are handled by Performing Artists bureaucracies in each respective country and aren't related to CD sales. Downloading music is stealing from the music corporation that markets the product. Karma? I think so.

Oh good, that makes me feel better. Time to fire up Limewire and Warez, I guess! I've been hankering after "We are all on Drugs" for some reason, oh well, here we go!

[SPORK]

these guys have mapped the sony rootkit infection.

http://www.doxpara.com/

From that I can see that Eastern America has the worst taste in music, and Asia is too cool.

[Phurrball]

Dunno how behind the times on this I am, but on Morning Report this morning I heard that Sony were doing a 'recall' of the CDs containing their dubious DRM malware.

Anyone want to volunteer to do Sony's PR? Didn't think so...

[Lias]

Obligatory "Paying for anything when you can pirate it on teh interweb is immoral post".

PS: I have no moral objection to paying for software per see, its just I think their prices are gouged to buggery.. When a PS2 game is $10, a CD/DVD is $5, and M$ Office is $30 a copy, I might just buy their stuff.. Until then I shall not give the bastards a cent!

[Brian d marge]

Actually, I feel the same ...Auto cad ..1100 dollars or so in NZ ..In Hawaii the Book was thirty us and the program was about 150 ish ,,,
Windows was around the 50 ish mark ...It was a few years ago but I remember thinking How come they charge so much for the same program in NZ AND Japan ,,,,,,
I would pay microsoft ,,but A the products are crap , B they cost to much ..

As for Sony I have a clie PDA ,,,,wonderful and easy to use, great key pad ...Just cant use any other storage device apart from Memory sticks , and at 20 000 yen for a 1 gig stick ,,,,,,yeah right ,,,I wont buy a sony again

Stephen

[TwoSeven]

Just in case anyone is still suffering under the misunderstanding that downloading music is stealing from the Artists: They get paid well before you buy a CD. Airplay royalties are handled by Performing Artists bureaucracies in each respective country and aren't related to CD sales. Downloading music is stealing from the music corporation that markets the product. Karma? I think so.

What rubbish.

I wouldnt test that theory in court.

If you make a copy of something (which is what a download does), without paying a license fee to the main (C) holder or owner of the product, its theft. Unless the (C) holder or owner decides not to charge a fee.

If a work has been commissioned from an artist, it may still be owned by the artest, even if someone else is distributing it.

There is a difference between someone owning distribution rights and someone owning the product.

[Badcat]

Just in case anyone is still suffering under the misunderstanding that downloading music is stealing from the Artists: They get paid well before you buy a CD. Airplay royalties are handled by Performing Artists bureaucracies in each respective country and aren't related to CD sales. Downloading music is stealing from the music corporation that markets the product. Karma? I think so.

jim, you've obviously no experience in this industry.
to say that you're not stealing from the artists is so ignorant i'm truly surprised at you.

[James Deuce]

What rubbish.

I wouldnt test that theory in court.

If you make a copy of something (which is what a download does), without paying a license fee to the main (C) holder or owner of the product, its theft. Unless the (C) holder or owner decides not to charge a fee.

If a work has been commissioned from an artist, it may still be owned by the artest, even if someone else is distributing it.

There is a difference between someone owning distribution rights and someone owning the product.

It's not rubbish. You're a belligerent little cunt.

The artists signed to major labels do not own publishing rights for their music.

Unlike you, you little fuck, I've had a lot to do with music publishing, and the only way artists who sign with major labels make money is by having an extensive back catalogue played on high rotation over decades, not years. That generates royalties at a fraction of a cent per airplay. Bands, and solo artists are paid an up front retainer that has to pay for everything - recording, touring, artwork, roadies, airlines, hotels, and living expenses. The only thing that the major companies care about are distribution and publishing rights. If the band or artist is clever enough, they setup their own publishing company, setup andndie label and then sell distribution rights to their own Indie label. Very few bands or people do that because they usually enter the global music market via the large companies because they don't have the funds to setup a global distribution network.

No major record label "commisions" work from an artist. They don't need to. They have a queue of "artists" ready to slot into this month's mold. You don't make money comissioning projects from decent musicians, you make it from mass market bubble gum.

I'm sick of your southern bastard attitude to everything. Why don't you fuck off back to your smog infested rathole in the northern hemisphere you know it all, swollen testicled, knuckle dragging, inbred pile of molten creosote.

[hXc]

It's not rubbish. You're a belligerent little cunt.

The artists signed to major labels do not own publishing rights for their music.

Unlike you, you little fuck, I've had a lot to do with music publishing, and the only way artists who sign with major labels make money is by having an extensive back catalogue played on high rotation over decades, not years. That generates royalties at a fraction of a cent per airplay. Bands, and solo artists are paid an up front retainer that has to pay for everything - recording, touring, artwork, roadies, airlines, hotels, and living expenses. The only thing that the major companies care about are distribution and publishing rights. If the band or artist is clever enough, they setup their own publishing company, setup andndie label and then sell distribution rights to their own Indie label. Very few bands or people do that because they usually enter the global music market via the large companies because they don't have the funds to setup a global distribution network.

No major record label "commisions" work from an artist. They don't need to. They have a queue of "artists" ready to slot into this month's mold. You don't make money comissioning projects from decent musicians, you make it from mass market bubble gum.

I'm sick of your southern bastard attitude to everything. Why don't you fuck off back to your smog infested rathole in the northern hemisphere you know it all, swollen testicled, knuckle dragging, inbred pile of molten creosote.

Jim, you know your stuff. I completely agree with what your saying. Being a musician myself, I know what goes on in recording and stuff like that. You definately are right.

TwoSeven, you're an arse fucking wanker and you don't know anything. It's a shame to see such a stupid arsehole on this site actually. If you don't believe Jim, then become a musician and get signed to a major label to see what happens. I don't think you could do that so I suggest you just shut up and learn your shit before you post.

Rant over.

[TwoSeven]

It's not rubbish. You're a belligerent little cunt.

Yep, and your an **** **** throwing a babies tantrum - whats new.

Your statement to me endorsed stealing of (C) items which is theft. Dont care what bullshit you spout to try and justify that - theft is still theft dude.

If you can show me the legal clause in any contract that states someone can download any product that someone else produces/owns/or has rights to distrubute thats not being given out for free without it being theft - then I will withdraw my statement.

I checked an album just to check on your woffle, a main stream artist. Found out that she owns the rights to her music and lysrics, interscope owned the publication rights and Universal owned the rights to distribute the CD. That means, if you download a copy of the music without paying for it, your stealing from all of those people INCLUDING THE ARTIST BECAUSE THE ARTIST HOLDS (C) ON THE LYRICS AND MUSIC.


You at the very least have to get permission first. If you knew anything about (C) laws at all, you'd know that.

[James Deuce]

Yep, and your an **** **** throwing a babies tantrum - whats new.

Your statement to me endorsed stealing of (C) items which is theft. Dont care what bullshit you spout to try and justify that - theft is still theft dude.

If you can show me the legal clause in any contract that states someone can download any product that someone else produces/owns/or has rights to distrubute thats not being given out for free without it being theft - then I will withdraw my statement.

I checked an album just to check on your woffle, a main stream artist. Found out that she owns the rights to her music and lysrics, interscope owned the publication rights and Universal owned the rights to distribute the CD. That means, if you download a copy of the music without paying for it, your stealing from all of those people INCLUDING THE ARTIST BECAUSE THE ARTIST HOLDS (C) ON THE LYRICS AND MUSIC.


You at the very least have to get permission first. If you knew anything about (C) laws at all, you'd know that.

Interscope was setup by Les Claypool (of Primus fame) as a challenge to the major record companies, and a challenge to the standard operating procedures of the recording industry. He setup an Indie label and sold the distribution rights in perpetuity for anything published by Interscope to Interscope. Thanks to that little hook, even though Interscope hase been sold to Sony, Interscope still pays artists from profits.

You are using an anomaly to reinforce corporate propaganda. Most artists do NOT own their own publishing rights. You have not even quoted the artist. 9/10ths of music downloaded does not affect the artist's income, and 90 percent of the tenth left is music being disseminated for free because it is a better way for small bands to build a small following and distribute music locally in an electronic format.

I'm not condoning theft, I'm tired of a multi-billion dollar empire of 4 main record companies who own the majority of the publishing and recording companies worldwide, brainwashing the "general public" into believing that file sharing is stealing moey from artists. It is not. It is stealing money from the "middleware" of corporate music publishing and marketing. They find it so difficult to play astraight game that they can't even accuse file sharers of the correct crime.

The only way it is stealing money from artists is that it is eroding the huge pile of money that they use to suck people into deals that look good, but involve selling control of your "product". The model is rotten and the industry is running scared. They deserve this bout of panic for not adapting to a new model of distribution, and for not adding a point of value to the new model.

As for the tanty, yes it was. I am heartily sick of your belligerent approach to everything you disagree with. They way you react to people online would get you a smack in the mouth out the back of pub anywhere in the "real" world.

[gamgee]

after sony's hypocritic stance towards mp3 format shifting i wouldn't buy from them no matter how good the deal was, they are all for keeping format shifting illegal and yet they sell players specifically aimed at mp3 when they don't sell music in mp3 format, so um sony how do we get the music onto your players without breaking the law and format shifting? at least prosecution in NZ is rare to non existent.

[Ramius]

well, no.. and sony do have some good things, but as far as their music stuff goes, it'll taint everything that sony do for a while.. see their pathetic attempt at the MP3 player, and their ATRAC crap or whatever..

their music labels are worth a few billion tho, and if the artists are having their records dubbed with crap people don't want, who's really loosing?

I must say, in all the years of owning Sony stuff, the only thing that went back was my Digital Camcorder which had dead pixels and went in a few weeks ago. Their service is secind to none in sorting out problems. And their MD player is the best thing I have ever brought. 14hours of music on a $3 disk, and 27 hours + on one rechargeable battery. What more could I ever want. (Also can use it as a portable hard drive)

[TwoSeven]

Interscope was setup by Les Claypool (of Primus fame) as a challenge to the major record companies, and a challenge to the standard operating procedures of the recording industry. He setup an Indie label and sold the distribution rights in perpetuity for anything published by Interscope to Interscope. Thanks to that little hook, even though Interscope hase been sold to Sony, Interscope still pays artists from profits.

You are using an anomaly to reinforce corporate propaganda. Most artists do NOT own their own publishing rights. You have not even quoted the artist. 9/10ths of music downloaded does not affect the artist's income, and 90 percent of the tenth left is music being disseminated for free because it is a better way for small bands to build a small following and distribute music locally in an electronic format.

I actually I wasnt, I just picked up the CD that was topmost on my collection which was recorded by a pretty popular artist.

A quick check of the half dozen CDs underneath that shows a (C) statement for the producer and owner of the works. Your right in saying that the owner is often the record label these days and not the orignal artist, but your original post, perhaps badly written gave me the impression that you indorse (C) theft, which is illegal because of this point. Being a producer of (C) material myself (in a different industry), I do not really hold with that kind of behaviour which is why I disagreed with it.

I'm not condoning theft, I'm tired of a multi-billion dollar empire of 4 main record companies who own the majority of the publishing and recording companies worldwide, brainwashing the "general public" into believing that file sharing is stealing moey from artists. It is not. It is stealing money from the "middleware" of corporate music publishing and marketing. They find it so difficult to play astraight game that they can't even accuse file sharers of the correct crime.

Your position on theft is now noted

This is the bit that I dont hold with. If the artist was the main distributor of their work, then I would agree if someone else is taking the money that should be going to them, but they are not, and I do not have a problem with corporations making profits so long as they dont price gauge the consumer. Having produced commercial CDs (for s/w) I have a fair idea of the cost of distribution, and these days music is cheap enough (I paid $25 for my last music CD which I think was ok for 15 songs and the glossy that came with it). Not like the old days where it was $35+ to get a CD. At the end of the day, who the money actually goes to is to be honest completely irrelevant.

If music was electronically distributed - and lets face it, most albums are not in this country, then I would expect to pay even less simply because the production costs are reduced and should be reflected. Apple with their iTunes are a champion of this cause. However, I would not justify using my own personal opinion on whether I believe in the actions of the music industry or not to imply it's ok to download without some payment to the owner/producer of the work.

The only way it is stealing money from artists is that it is eroding the huge pile of money that they use to suck people into deals that look good, but involve selling control of your "product". The model is rotten and the industry is running scared. They deserve this bout of panic for not adapting to a new model of distribution, and for not adding a point of value to the new model.

I too think its a bad idea to sell control of your product, however sometimes you have to if you have been commissioned to produce a set of works for the company. It is a normal thing to do in many industries and has been happening for at least the last two hundred years. I've been involved in producing a few legal contracts where this has been an issue.

Where I do draw the line on an area which I think is unethical is where someone signs a contract giving away all rights to any future works they may produce beyond what a normal comissioning would ask for. Unfortunately many people sign contracts with out getting them checked or understanding their content, likewise, many people seed rights in the desire to get recognised or to receive a cash payout. At the very least, I would suggest including a viable opt-out clause for the future.

Using this as a justification to download or receive a product without paying for it tho, is also not an ethical thing to be doing either.

As for the tanty, yes it was. I am heartily sick of your belligerent approach to everything you disagree with. They way you react to people online would get you a smack in the mouth out the back of pub anywhere in the "real" world.

I dont have a problem with your views about me or anyone else - they I suspect are already well known, this being the rant n rave thread, its probably a place where you feel you can express them.

However, my perception with someone who I think is threatening racial and violent behaviour against someoene results in them not being held in very high regard. Its also likely that other people who view this type of behaviour would also change their perception of the poster.

If your core values say that its ok to be a racist and violent person, then thats up to you and an expression of your free will. However, you would not be welcome in my circle of friends simply because they are not any values that I build my life on.

But I would have a little suggestion for you, based on my experience in life, that it may be a good idea not to treat things said and done on the internet as real life (other than for legal purposes). Simply put, the bevaviour principles that people use in real time interaction (real life) are different than those used in non-real time (eg. internet) based situations - so it is important for people not to try and confuse the two as you seem to be doing by implying I should use your perception of an ideal real world to deal on the internet. Put another way, I am not you, I dont hold the same values as you, and I probably never will abide by them.

Learning this different then probably wont upset you so much when you realise that the other 6 billion odd people on the planet probably dont have the same views and experiences as you do either?