Comment Re:How long can they fight it (Score 1) 348
Since I am not going to convince you otherwise, my replying seems a waste of time. Let's try this from a different angle:
We are now back in time. Music is only available on vinyl disks. If you want one, you have to go buy one. If you have a friend who is generous and sharing, he lets you borrow his disks which you record for your own personal use on a reel-to-reel tape recorder. Cumbersome, but it works. The quality degrades, but only once removed from the original vinyl it is still quite listenable.
You manage to acquire a vinyl pressing facility for dirt cheap and proceed to take purchased vinyl records and make bootleg copies of them. Selling them is a problem because of the shipping costs plus you actually have to come up with money to make them, and the fact that this is clearly stealing; you have goods - disks - that are not legal.
Fast forward a few years. We know have digitized media. All sorts. Protecting it from theft is quite impossible. Publishers try all kinds of things to protect themselves but to no avail. They ultimately have no alternative but to go after a minute % of those they can identify as egregiously illegally sharing copyrighted material they have no right to.
Your rant about unjust laws and tactics by publishers overlooks the fact that these tactics are in direct reaction to the downloading/sharing phenomenon that has undisputably taken money out of their pockets. I bet you would have to look long and hard for someone who was sued for making cassette copies of albums they owned so they could listen to them in their car.
Record comapanies have been screwing artists forever. It is their game. It is what they do. No artist is compelled to sign a contract with them, but most can't wait to do it anyway. Please explain how your position on the morality of taking something from media publishers without compensating them aids the plight of the poor artist whose labors you are enjoying for nothing?
"Getting back at The Man" as an excuse seems so 60's.
We are now back in time. Music is only available on vinyl disks. If you want one, you have to go buy one. If you have a friend who is generous and sharing, he lets you borrow his disks which you record for your own personal use on a reel-to-reel tape recorder. Cumbersome, but it works. The quality degrades, but only once removed from the original vinyl it is still quite listenable.
You manage to acquire a vinyl pressing facility for dirt cheap and proceed to take purchased vinyl records and make bootleg copies of them. Selling them is a problem because of the shipping costs plus you actually have to come up with money to make them, and the fact that this is clearly stealing; you have goods - disks - that are not legal.
Fast forward a few years. We know have digitized media. All sorts. Protecting it from theft is quite impossible. Publishers try all kinds of things to protect themselves but to no avail. They ultimately have no alternative but to go after a minute % of those they can identify as egregiously illegally sharing copyrighted material they have no right to.
Your rant about unjust laws and tactics by publishers overlooks the fact that these tactics are in direct reaction to the downloading/sharing phenomenon that has undisputably taken money out of their pockets. I bet you would have to look long and hard for someone who was sued for making cassette copies of albums they owned so they could listen to them in their car.
Record comapanies have been screwing artists forever. It is their game. It is what they do. No artist is compelled to sign a contract with them, but most can't wait to do it anyway. Please explain how your position on the morality of taking something from media publishers without compensating them aids the plight of the poor artist whose labors you are enjoying for nothing?
"Getting back at The Man" as an excuse seems so 60's.
