Posted on 02/06/2007 9:17:22 AM PST by dbehsman
I remember all the local dances I went to in the Sixties when the Beatles,Stones,Kinks,etc were big.It was cool for these garage bands to do their music and get paid maybe forty bucks for four hours of work.No one ever thought they might be violating copyrite laws.
I know that one. Any income from the initial extortion attempt gets put back into the lawsuit machine. The artists receive zero compensation. In fact, the agreement people sign when they pay the extortion money specifically says they're only clear with the labels. That means the artists are still free to sue on their own behalf if they want any money.
For one, the person uploading the music doesn't pay ASCAP fees.
Do radio stations? I honestly don't know.
If they do, shouldn't uploaders simply be liable for ASCAP fees then?
Yes.
If they do, shouldn't uploaders simply be liable for ASCAP fees then?
ASCAP is for performances. Streaming is a performance, but making available for download is a copy, so I don't think uploaders could just pay an ASCAP fee and be legal. I guess an uploader could stream it at 100% quality, and the player on the other end have an option to save the stream. But we know the RIAA doesn't like that since they're going after XM radio for a recording feature.
Thanks for the information.
What you wrote leads me to another issue:
File sharing is overwhelmingly not at "100% quality". While I'm sure there are some people sharing the byte-perfect .WAV files, 99% of them are compressed with the lossy MP3 algorithm, usually at 128Kbps. This is known in the industry as "radio quality".
So, the RIAA's complaint that it's somehow worse than recording off the radio really doesn't hold up. If that were the issue, then any MP3's should be OK, since they aren't 100% quality.
You said: Isn't that a little extreme? If someone stole a candy bar from a store, should the store try to extort $750 from the thief? Who would be the worse thief in that case? The person who tried to steal a candy bar, or the stores lawyer who tries to steal $750 from the thief?
***
I don't think so. It would be too little to ask the guy simply to pay the amount he should have paid in the first place for the music he stole. If that was all that was required, why pay in the first place? Just wait and see if you are caught, then pay. It costs money to bring an action to protect one's rights. $750 per song doesn't sound that steep to me.
All of that said, I do have conceptual problems with much of copyright law. For example, one can buy a book and give it away, allowing many others to benefit from what was only paid for (to the writer) once. I could buy a CD, invite friends over every night and play it for them, without further compensating the artist. And, of course, copyright infringement is different from other theft in that the owner still retains that which is "stolen" from him, unlike the store owner who gets a candy bar stolen in your example.
For me, the bottom line is, the law is pretty clear, and unless the "theft" was accidental, the punishment should be imposed.
You said, in part: So for 10 songs 10 bucks? Nope, too much. When CD albums are 5 bucks I'd be glad to start buying them again.
***
If it isn't worth it to you, don't buy and do without. The seller sets the price. If buyers balk, the price will drop. The solution is not to just take something when you think the price is too high.
The buyers are balking. The sellers are not adjusting the price.
>>Your piffle speaks for itself.<<
That was the idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.