[thehill.com]-

I want to read more about this - see what the real deal is - but what changed my view of the world was last year, finding a digital book download site that had two of my books for free download - together, more than 700 copies had been downloaded - free of charge - in just over a month - in which case I say "snuff these guys out"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 17:38 by hbwriter.

What's your point?

Not keen on reading 14 pages I hav to admitt.

14 pages? It's one page (the article)
here - And my point is - I know how much Stone-related material (and everyone else's) is available on torrents and such and so it seems like a major crackdown is happening -


"The investigative arm of the Homeland Security Department appears to be shutting down websites that facilitate copyright infringement.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has seized dozens of domain names over the past few days, according to TorrentFreak.


ICE appears to be targeting sites that help Internet users download copyrighted music, as well as sites that sell bootleg goods, such as fake designer handbags.

The sites are replaced with a note from the government: "This domain named has been seized by ICE, Homeland Security Investigations."
For instance, 2009jersey.com, 51607.com, and amoyhy.com have each been seized.

One of the site owners told TorrentFreak that his site was shut down without any notice or warning.

The effort come as Congress considers the Combatting Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). Critics, including Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) say it is too heavy-handed. He has vowed to put a formal hold on the bill."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 18:06 by hbwriter.

ok sorry, somehow I was irritated.

it happens

Seems like a major threat to freedom of speech and the freedom to spread culture around the world. Sucks.

LieB-you left out - the freedom to rip off artists and other merchants who own the property that's being sold without their consent or collaboration

one good rip off deserves another

So you were OK with it until you found out that your books were free and available for downloading?
They won't be able to stop people trading music, books and whatever for free.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-27 18:58 by stones78.

Frankly, I found it disturbing when someone posted pages and pages from that new Stones special issue recently. This would be the target audience and it's a shame to discourage buying the thing. Unless someone makes a decent profit, the well is going to dry up and we'll have nothing of any value.

Quote
loog droog
Frankly, I found it disturbing when someone posted pages and pages from that new Stones special issue recently. This would be the target audience and it's a shame to discourage buying the thing. Unless someone makes a decent profit, the well is going to dry up and we'll have nothing of any value.

That's no different than copying an old magazine and posting it online. If anything it might actually help it sell better. I looked for it the other day at the bookstore I was at. The reason I knew to look for it? Because that dude scanned it. I would say that's a good thing. We aren't "stealing" it by looking at it.

And what about the people out there that are interested and can't find the damn thing? At least they get to SEE it.

stones78--no, i wasn't - i don't use those sites - but i just became far more sensitized to the problem when i became a victim - and while this will always exist - you can start someplace to control it - and we are talking about copyrighted material in most of these cases - not fan recordings etc. - that's my big issue - *copying a commercial product that already exists in the marketplace* -

Where do you draw the line with what should and shouldn't be allowed? I understand what you mean but what if I buy a CD and I want to burn a copy for a friend, why shouldn't I do it? Nobody should control that.

Stones - I'm not sure - a work in progress-but i do know that creating an exact copy of a copyrighted piece of work and posting it on line for the entire world to grab for free is wrong - i'd hope we could all agree on that -

Quote
hbwriter
LieB-you left out - the freedom to rip off artists and other merchants who own the property that's being sold without their consent or collaboration

Some days ago I read in Dutch newspapers that the unions of artists and a big Dutch consumers organisation have declared that they want free legal down- and uploading. The artists unions have said that they want to contribute to a free and open internet. "Artists make their works just to be heard and seen, not to forbid the use or spreading of their works", they said. They are, together with the consumers organisation, against criminalisation of consumers who down- and upload their material. They plead for a gradual introduction of a system of internet payment for down- and uploading, but they don't want the use of technics that infringe the privacy of consumers. Well, that sounds very reasonable and fair in my ears.

Sure we can agree. The main issue is that in order to completely control the illegal downloading of copyrighted material on the internet (which is actually impossible) the level of intervention would have to be too high.

1 in 7 Americans survive on food coupons... don't they have anything better to do?

I only download unreleased recordings. When a favorite previously unreleased recording is commercially released, I buy it. I'm not comfortable with people copying commercially available CDs, though I recognize that goes on all the time. It's only fair that artists should be paid for their work. If one person buys a CD and lets two of his friends copy it, that's two units of lost sales. 1 < 3.

I can fully understand why a creative person would be resentful of torrent sites that permit recording of commercially available work. It's naive to think that artists make their works just to be seen and heard. Artists make their livelihood through their works. They provide essential services by contibuting to my cosmic well-being. Therefore, they should be paid appropriately.

Technology has changed things. Back when we had turntables and cassette decks, home taping created a lossy, inferior recording. If I wanted something that sounds just as good as the original work, I had to buy the original work. The crucial distinction nowadays is that a copied CD-R is lossless. So the copier can get a perfect copy for free.

At the same time, there's no reason to buy bootlegs anymore. While I bought plenty of boots for nearly 30 years, I was never comfortable with people making money off the performances of someone else. The internet has completely destroyed the market for selling bootlegs. And this is a good thing.

The recent Led Zep MSG '77 soundboard boot was a beautiful example. The silvers were unearthed, and recordings were all over the torrent sites within a day or so. Lots of people got free copies, and all was joyful in Led Zeppelinland, until they found out that Black Country Woman cut off after 32 seconds.

ab- that's the post of the day

the money line

"I can fully understand why a creative person would be resentful of torrent sites that permit recording of commercially available work. It's naive to think that artists make their works just to be seen and heard. Artists make their livelihood through their works. They provide essential services by contibuting to my cosmic well-being. Therefore, they should be paid appropriately."

Quote
hbwriter
Stones - I'm not sure - a work in progress-but i do know that creating an exact copy of a copyrighted piece of work and posting it on line for the entire world to grab for free is wrong - i'd hope we could all agree on that -

I'm with hbwriter on this. If the work, be it printed or recorded, is an official release that is commercially available, downloading it for free is comparable to pinching it from a store. If an artist can't make a living or earn money from their work because some feel it's OK not to pay for it, then I fear for the future or artistic endeavors.

Quote
ChrisM

Quote
hbwriter
Stones - I'm not sure - a work in progress-but i do know that creating an exact copy of a copyrighted piece of work and posting it on line for the entire world to grab for free is wrong - i'd hope we could all agree on that -

I'm with hbwriter on this. If the work, be it printed or recorded, is an official release that is commercially available, downloading it for free is comparable to pinching it from a store. If an artist can't make a living or earn money from their work because some feel it's OK not to pay for it, then I fear for the future or artistic endeavors.

Chris, it's mostly the record companies that are against the downloading. It's already practise here in Holland to raise the price of an empty CD/DVD a bit in order to give that part of the price to the artists. So there are many ways of giving the artists what they're entitled to. Other means could be: doing the same with the price of mp3 etc. players and last but not least: the solution proposed by the Dutch artists unions and consumers organisation I mentioned up here.

Btw: sharing bootlegs as is also possible on IORR doesn't harm any artist, but only just the bootleg sellers who stole the stuff from the artists. Stealing from a 'thief' doesn't seem a capital crime to me. Anyway: those bootlegs are also a reason to buy the official stuff (Ladies and Gentlemen for instance). So I don't see any harm in bootlegs as for the artists.

Kleer--I agree on bootlegs to a point - i'd be a hypocrite to argue otherwise

Quote
hbwriter
Stones - I'm not sure - a work in progress-but i do know that creating an exact copy of a copyrighted piece of work and posting it on line for the entire world to grab for free is wrong - i'd hope we could all agree on that -

i don't agree

Quote
hbwriter
Stones - I'm not sure - a work in progress-but i do know that creating an exact copy of a copyrighted piece of work and posting it on line for the entire world to grab for free is wrong - i'd hope we could all agree on that -

Problem with this is that the reason why some stuff is copyrighted is dubious. Jimi Hendrix certainly doesn't benefit any more from me paying for one of his copyrighted pieces of work. There are many cases where the beneficiary has had little part in the creation of the work.
One reason for that is that copyright has been extended out to 70 years, which is weird because a patent expires after 20 years. By now a record like Exile should have been free from copyright already. Had its copyright expired in 1992 we would have had that reissue quite a bit earlier.
Another reason is that the title of the copyright can be transferred. If one can buy and sell these rights that may be good for the free market, but it's clear how inequality of information leads to the whole idea that the maker of the work benefits from you paying a travesty. A musician may sell his copyright to a smart businessguy and loose out terribly just because he/she is not well informed of the value of what is sold.
So I also don't agree.

ST--please explain - and if you can't - then do me a favor - create something of value - then allow all of us to resell it or give it away for free and make sure you get nothing from it -

Quote
hbwriter
ST--please explain - and if you can't - then do me a favor - create something of value - then allow all of us to resell it or give it away for free and make sure you get nothing from it -

I'm with HB..........I've seen my photography used places without my permission etc.....
700 downloads of your book in 1 month?!?!? Wow....literally money out of your pocket.

Personally, I only download unofficial concert recordings shared by fans......only because I
have already purchased the official releases.

Been tempted to download official releases from torrents but i don't.
I have a healthy fear. I've seen people get busted BIG TIME for downloading
official music & movies. Not for me.

To think that this sort of stealing is ok...is 1) naive 2) selfish 3) stupid & 4) to think that
you are above the law. Playing around on the internet.....stealing someone's creative property
or viewing illegal porn.........nothing is private just because you are in your home office with the door closed.

HB - your thread title says "bootleg"...to me that means unofficial recordings etc.... I think
TORRENT sites are the ones that violate with official copyrighted creative property. Correct me
if I'm wrong.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 01:16 by sweet neo con.

The thing is it cannot be stopped...you can't stop me or whoever from burning cd's to my friends, unless you set up a sort of Big Brother vigilancy. What's naive is to think that people who do this are criminals and that they deserve to be put away in jail or something.

Quote
stones78
The thing is it cannot be stopped...you can't stop me or whoever from burning cd's to my friends, unless you set up a sort of Big Brother vigilancy. What's naive is to think that people who do this are criminals and that they deserve to be put away in jail or something.

so...if you create a painting to hang over your fireplace, but I want it to hang over
MY fireplace...I can just walk in your house and take it?? It's theft any way you slice it.

re: copying CDs...if they can copy-guard DVDs they can do it w/Music Cds.


IORR............but I like it!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 01:29 by sweet neo con.

Quote
stones78
The thing is it cannot be stopped...you can't stop me or whoever from burning cd's to my friends, unless you set up a sort of Big Brother vigilancy. What's naive is to think that people who do this are criminals and that they deserve to be put away in jail or something.

Yep. As simple as that. So it's better to looking for other means to settle this thing for all parties. In this little country some people who care about the artist's and the consumer's interest are trying to fix it properly. But then we have the government... and the other governments. They rather cut people off from the net or criminalize them.

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
stones78
The thing is it cannot be stopped...you can't stop me or whoever from burning cd's to my friends, unless you set up a sort of Big Brother vigilancy. What's naive is to think that people who do this are criminals and that they deserve to be put away in jail or something.

so...if you create a painting to hang over your fireplace, but I want it to hang over
MY fireplace...I can just walk in your house and take it?? It's theft any way you slice it.

re: copying CDs...if they can copy-guard DVDs they can do it w/Music Cds.

That analogy doesn't really work, but well. Before I agreed that it was "wrong" to take a CD/Book or whatever and post it for free in the internet. Now I think I should have disagreed (it was completely hypocrite of me since I've downloaded thousands of mp3's) For example, I've downloaded Keith's book, which doesn't seem to be available here, of course when it becomes available I'll buy it. Thinking about it, artists could benefit from this instead of crying over "money out of their pockets"...like Lars Ulrich. If a person gets into the business just for the money, that person's in the wrong business.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-11-28 01:39 by stones78.