Antipiracy bill targets technology

A forthcoming bill in the U.S. Senate would, if passed, dramatically reshape copyright law by prohibiting file-trading networks and some consumer electronics devices on the grounds that they could be used for unlawful purposes.

The proposal, called the Induce Act, says "whoever intentionally induces any violation" of copyright law would be legally liable for those violations, a prohibition that would effectively ban file-swapping networks like Kazaa and Morpheus. In the draft bill seen by CNET News.com, inducement is defined as "aids, abets, induces, counsels, or procures" and can be punished with civil fines and, in some circumstances, lengthy prison terms.

The bill represents the latest legislative attempt by influential copyright holders to address what they view as the growing threat of peer-to-peer networks rife with pirated music, movies and software. As file-swapping networks grow in popularity, copyright lobbyists are becoming increasingly creative in their legal responses, which include proposals for Justice Department lawsuits against infringers and action at the state level.

Originally, the Induce Act was scheduled to be introduced Thursday by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, but the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmed at the end of the day that the bill had been delayed. A representative of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a probable co-sponsor of the legislation, said the Induce Act would be introduced "sometime next week," a delay that one technology lobbyist attributed to opposition to the measure.

Though the Induce Act is not yet public, critics are already attacking it as an unjustified expansion of copyright law that seeks to regulate new technologies out of existence.

"They're trying to make it legally risky to introduce technologies that could be used for copyright infringement," said Jessica Litman, a professor at Wayne State University who specializes in copyright law. "That's why it's worded so broadly."

Litman said that under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights. Web sites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients like the Morpheus software are also at risk for "inducing" infringement, Litman warned.

Jonathan Lamy, a spokesman for the Recording Industry Association of America, declined to comment until the proposal was officially introduced.

"It's simple and it's deadly," said Philip Corwin, a lobbyist for Sharman Networks, which distributes the Kazaa client. "If you make a product that has dual uses, infringing and not infringing, and you know there's infringement, you're liable."

The Induce Act stands for "Inducement Devolves into Unlawful Child Exploitation Act," a reference to Capitol Hill's frequently stated concern that file-trading networks are a source of unlawful pornography. Hatch is a conservative Mormon who has denounced pornography in the past and who suggested last year that copyright holders should be allowed to remotely destroy the computers of music pirates.

Foes of the Induce Act said that it would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios case, often referred to as the "Betamax" lawsuit. In that 5-4 opinion, the majority said VCRs were legal to sell because they were "capable of substantial noninfringing uses." But the majority stressed that Congress had the power to enact a law that would lead to a different outcome.

"At a minimum (the Induce Act) invites a re-examination of Betamax," said Jeff Joseph, vice president for communications at the Consumer Electronics Association. "It's designed to have this fuzzy feel around protecting children from pornography, but it's pretty clearly a backdoor way to eliminate and make illegal peer-to-peer services. Our concern is that you're attacking the technology."

News.com

Full text of the bill:
http://scrawford.net/courses/INDUCE%...0of%202004.pdf

[ 06-20-2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

The only thing you could say to ban p2p networks and in defense of video recordes is that the scale at which p2p networks are exchanging music and thus screwing up artists is a lot (well a really awful lot) than the loss of money on films. And of course everything copied with VCR just isn't as good quality as the original ones. I've yet to hear the first film maker/company complein about VCRs whereas a lot of bands do have trouble with copied music and p2p networks.

There are like countless of possibilities to make p2p networks not needed anymore, cause some people seem to like false arguments as sales getting higher because of it. All those options have the disadvantage (in many peoples opinion) that people need to pay for what they listen.

And well if the technology shouldn't be attacked becasue of what it's used for most of the time, it's time to change the technology so that this doesn't happen anymore.

I wouldn't mind having p2p-networks away but banning the VCR at the same time is just overdoing it.

well, if we didnt pay sickening amounts of money to a bunch of predominantly uneducated and mostly untalented nits, then i could see "sticking it to em" by downloading as harsh.

while i dont download music, i dont disagree with it either. so what if brittney spears can't afford to buy a second private jet. and i dont care if metalica wants another set of gold plated toilets... what they take and waste is disgusting.

I'm not saying it's bad that stuff you mentioned gets downloaded. If they can't make anything original and good sounding and can't hit a single note correct live, they're obviously in the wrong business. However I don't download that stuff (I don't buy it either), if something's worth listening too I often listen it a lot and if I look at the price I've paid per hour listeningin say a month it's like already getting really small.

The good thing of the a big organisation like the RIAA moving in is that they can probably accomplish more than a few local bands who do have trouble with downloading. I know enough bands (even more known bands over here) that have to work besides being a musician to survive. And then I think every CD is one and helps them.

<font color=deepskyblue>I personally disagree with anti-P2P legislation for a number of reasons. First of all, if I want to share a file or copy a file from someone else - and we are both willing to share those files - then that should be allowed (IMO, of course). Secondly, I'm not worried about the legislation outlawing VCR's - but I'm extremely worried about it outlawing PC's!!!! CDRW drives are standard equipment on ALL PC's being manufactured today. That - coupled with the availability of P2P software - makes your basic home computer FAR more likely to be targeted as a "dual use" device that has the potential for copyright infringement.

I personally think the impact of P2P sharing is blown greatly out of proportion by the RIAA and others. I admit I could be wrong because I base this on personal experience. I've downloaded many music files in order to make "compilation" CD's. The files include songs by various artists (and sometimes specific artists to create a "Best Of" type album) and it also includes different genres of music.

The plain fact is that I would have spent around $200 or more to get these songs off the original CD's because there were usually only 1 or 2 songs on a specific CD that I wanted or liked. And that is another thing that P2P could accomplish. It could force artists to start producing better quality music and including a larger number of good tracks on a CD rather than putting the one or two tracks they expect to make it as singles and then just putting "filler songs" on the rest of the CD.

Sadly for me - but happily for the supporters of P2P regulation - I lost ALL of my files when I had a new HD put into my machine. So I no longer have the files nor do I have the software to obtain them. Because of all the spyware associated with ALL of the P2P software (even KaZaa Light), I am seriously considering NOT downloading ANY of the P2P programs.

Of course, I downloaded more than just music files. I also downloaded several music videos (especially from the 80's) because I never got to watch MTV very much growing up (our local cable system didn't carry it). So I really enjoyed watching some of those videos I never got a chance to watch when they were new or "hot".

I'll have to abide by whatever decision is reached, but I'll never agree that anti-P2P is a good thing - because I believe it violates the privacy of each of us as individuals, but again, that's just my opinion. YMMV.</font>

You could as well share those files on a site or via messenger if you know each other. And if you compare the files someone wants to share to the copyrighted files that are shared there for free without the author allowing it is small.

But just as VCR it's too much to also make computers illegal. But just the p2p networks helps in any case.

Well I don't know if you have kazaa or another p2p-network but you can often see how many users are online. If there are 3 million users online (tested myself with my brother's kazaa)

There are other ways to get those tracks. There are online services from which you can download mp3s for money. Does quality songs equal songs you like? Cause that would be the wrong way around. Instead of the artist choosing what he wants to make you choose :/ (of course in some genres this won't go up cause it's the record company writing and overproducing everything. But I stay away from those [img]smile.gif[/img] )

There are clients that don't have spyware. My brother's kazaa even links to spybot and adawar IIRC. Also I can't disble it anymore by scanning with a lot of different programs. But these programs are hacked versions and thus illegal already.

I don't know if there are any rules for that but that doesn't seem like a bad thing. Artists aren't selling those clips anyway and they're just for promotion. I don't know for old clips but a lot of the new ones can be found on the internet as well. In my case it takes a lot of searching but that's mainly to blame to what music I listen to.

I might have totally missed that in what you wrote above but how exactly does anti-p2p violates our privacy?

edit - of course I'm against banning VCRs cd/dvd burners or computers at all

[ 06-21-2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: philip ]

The problem with this is that if you run Spybot or Adaware and remove the spyware, Kazaa, Morpheus, or whatever program you're using stops working (in most cases, I have an older copy of Kazaa that didn't freak when I zapped the spyware)

I don't know if there are any rules for that but that doesn't seem like a bad thing. Artists aren't selling those clips anyway and they're just for promotion. I don't know for old clips but a lot of the new ones can be found on the internet as well. In my case it takes a lot of searching but that's mainly to blame to what music I listen to.</font>[/QUOTE]That's the point; many of these songs (and the vast majority of what I've downloaded in the past) is nearly impossible to obtain, especially the older music videos. In my experience, I've purchased very few CD's recently, (in the past 3 years) and the ones I have purchased have been ones I've listened to at least part of the album, if I don't find several songs (not just one or two singles) that I like, then I don't waste my money, or time, and I have found some really great bands through file sharing, like Reliant K "Christian Punk", very interesting stuff.

Congress makes this definition mistake all the time. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

We will see articles like this every congressional session until one passes. Congress will revive the bill to combat piracy in one form or another every year.

<font color=deepskyblue>There isn't anything to support the position that it's a violation of our privacy. That is just my own personal opinion.

<font color=orange>Morguerat</font> hit on another reason I like P2P. A LOT of the music I download are very OLD clips. I like 80's music and a lot of it - especially the One-Hit-Wonders, are extremely difficult to find. I DO support this with my own money as I have almost 20 different cassettes or CD's featuring compilations of 80's music. The problem I've run in to is that - eventually - I'm just finding more copies of songs I already have on another cassette or CD. And some artists - such as <font color=plum>Prince</font> and <font color=white>Madonna</font> - apparantly have not given permission for their songs to be used on these various 80's compilations (although <font color=plum>Prince</font> [b]did[/i] speak out in support of P2P software when Napster was being attacked.

The other thing I like to dowload are music videos. This is another argument against legislating against P2P, because even P2P is a "dual purpose" vehicle - since music videos are NOT copyright material (to the best of my knowledge anyway).

As for the argument about it being used to swap child pornography - I wouldn't be surprised if it happens, but I can honostly say I have never seen any child porno clips in any searches done using Morpheus, KaZaa and WinMX. Not that I was actively looking for it, but I DID learn to be very careful about which song titles I typed in, because the Search just focuses on the KEYWORD, and I often got a LOT of unexpected results to Searches I conducted looking for songs. [img]graemlins/blush.gif[/img] I finally got to the point that I just Searched by Artist instead of title (when I knew the artist). That kept most of my result relevant to what I was actually looking for.</font>

Music videos are copyrighted.

However, it's not yours or their property to share. The SONG belongs to the copyright holder (songwriter/publisher) while the RECORDING belongs to the recording owner (artist/record company). All you own is the license for personal use, not to share it around. You fundamentally attack the very essence of copyright itself - that is the right of the creator of an artistic work to maintain any ownership over their intellectual property. This of course is the same thing as telling me my career is invalid, and you would prefer me to never see any return for my work.

And you wonder why I get pissed off.

Quote:

Secondly, I'm not worried about the legislation outlawing VCR's - but I'm extremely worried about it outlawing PC's!!!! CDRW drives are standard equipment on ALL PC's being manufactured today. That - coupled with the availability of P2P software - makes your basic home computer FAR more likely to be targeted as a "dual use" device that has the potential for copyright infringement.

If that's what it take to get it through to you guys that you are seriously harming creators of music so be it. Bring it on.

Quote:

I personally think the impact of P2P sharing is blown greatly out of proportion by the RIAA and others. I admit I could be wrong because I base this on personal experience. I've downloaded many music files in order to make "compilation" CD's. The files include songs by various artists (and sometimes specific artists to create a "Best Of" type album) and it also includes different genres of music.

And that is a crime, immoral and theft Cerek. You have stolen those songs. RENDER UNTO CAESAR WHAT IS CAESARS. You do not own the right to make a compilation CD from songs you haven't purchased.

It's easy for you to say the RIAA have blown this out of proportion. It's not your career being flushed down the toilet by unthinking theives.

Quote:

The plain fact is that I would have spent around $200 or more to get these songs off the original CD's because there were usually only 1 or 2 songs on a specific CD that I wanted or liked.

Yep. That's the whole point. YOU COULD ALWAYS LIVE WITHOUT THE SONGS!!!!!! If you can't afford a mercedes, does that give you the right to steal it??? Consumerism gone mad. You won't pay what the artist has asked, so you steal their work!

Quote:

And that is another thing that P2P could accomplish. It could force artists to start producing better quality music and including a larger number of good tracks on a CD rather than putting the one or two tracks they expect to make it as singles and then just putting "filler songs" on the rest of the CD.

Taste is subjective Cerek. One mans trash is anothers treasure. Of the 34 records I've been involved in, no track has ever been thought of as a filler, despite those that end up buying the said records perceiveing differing songs as such. What you perceive as a filler, another person perceives as a gem and vice-versa. TASTE TASTE TASTE. Again, not liking the full product is no excuse to steal what you do like. Weigh up whether the one song on an album is worth $15 and buy it. Plenty have done it before you. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars.

Quote:

Sadly for me - but happily for the supporters of P2P regulation - I lost ALL of my files when I had a new HD put into my machine. So I no longer have the files nor do I have the software to obtain them. Because of all the spyware associated with ALL of the P2P software (even KaZaa Light), I am seriously considering NOT downloading ANY of the P2P programs.

Good. I don;t own any and have never ever ever downloaded one song illegally. It's not that hard.

Quote:

Of course, I downloaded more than just music files. I also downloaded several music videos (especially from the 80's) because I never got to watch MTV very much growing up (our local cable system didn't carry it). So I really enjoyed watching some of those videos I never got a chance to watch when they were new or "hot". I'll have to abide by whatever decision is reached, but I'll never agree that anti-P2P is a good thing - because I believe it violates the privacy of each of us as individuals, but again, that's just my opinion. YMMV.

Well the privacy of individuals wouldn't be violated if they obeyed the law, and didn't immorally steal our work. That's the consequence everyone is going to have to live with now.

This issue seriously pisses me off.

"It could force artists into producing better music"

Screw you Cerek. We do the best we can. If it's not good enough for you you could always have a go yourself instead of stealing songs.

I'm out. This is sick.

Yorick, no crap it pisses you off -- I was waiting for your reply. You know I disagree with music sharing. However, I do think the technology that allows one to make personal copies for their own use (such as mp3s for running, etc) should not be challenged. And, I gotta say, your attitude about the thing is over-the-top. Everyone likes to protect their way of living, but at what cost? People who do what I do who feel the way you do about their profession's right to step on toes for a buck are called ambulance-chaser, sharks, and other bad names. If you are seriously advocating outlawing copy technology, you got issues. Well, at least it'll never happen, so I can rest easy.

Q.Who do you think invented the technology to copy flim and music?

A.The same companies who were legally obliged to protect their artists work.

Conflict of interest anyone? Smell a class action?

If record companies had really wanted to protect artists work, they would not have made blank cassettes, minidiscs and CDburners, and now DVD burners, available to the public.

And it's not just my job Timber. It's millions of jobs, it's art and music down the drain, it's an entire culture of subsidised art flushed down the toilet. It's as much a love for the artform as anything else that get's me going.

Now mind, I have no problem with culture changing, and I have no doubt humans will keep creating music. But it is the way that this has happened that's disgusting. People stealing and using every argument they can to talk themselves into the LIE that what they are doing is ok. Or even on some sort of moral crusade. All it is is theft. Hypocritical theft. Kicking people in the teeth who are already being kicked in the guts.People love to cite a Britney, or a Metallica, and completely ignore these people are in the top 1% (if that) of people relying on music sales for their food, or trying to get their work released.

Anyway, you know what's happened?

Many of the best musicians are now doing advertisements. Some of finest musical minds of the 21st century are being wasted on 30second spots covered by a voice over, following the whims of execs, trying to follow a fickle public too lazy to pay for recorded music.

If that's what you call a wonderful culture, you can have it.

[ 06-22-2004, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

so what you mean to say, yorick, is that poor starving musicians, who were poor and starving before P2P ever came out, are still poor and starving? wow, its kindof like actors who are trying to get discovered.

lets be honest with ourselves too. that one percent that always gets cited is also the 1% that sees probably 95% of all downloads. i dont agree with stealing, but i do disagree with lopping off CDs for 18 dollars a pop. where is the art in price gouging because you can in a collaborative market?

AND FYI, several bands have gotten their start by actively PUTTING their music on kazaa and/or napster (when it existed). its and obvious technological advancement that most likely isnt going to stop, so bands/record labels should stop trying to look in vain at how to stop it, and start planning how to use it.

Well, Yorick, I'm not "all for" consumer culture, as you may surmise, but those 30 and 60-second spots have really put some groups on the map. I would not have bought the Dead Vegas CD if it wasn't for that exposure, and though it was not me, I bet many folks bought Moby's "Play" as a result of the same company's commercials (I already owned Moby's CD, FYI).

Additionally, it is always a whole industry we are discussing. I could lament about environmental consultants assuming the role of legal advisors, resulting in the loss of a lot of work for my profession (the environmental law market has TANKED since my graduation into it in 2000), but the salient point is that those consultants are "good enough" for many consumers.

But, let's get back to the point: surely you don't challenge my right to take my CDs and make a mix tape for MY OWN use or my right to make backup copies of my beloved BGII to protect against disk scratches -- do you? In fact, I note most EULA's specifically provide the right to make 1 backup copy.

Look, while there is a fair philosophical argument that "real musical invention" ended circa the time of commercialization of music (meaning the only "real" music is classical and folk music), I for one don't buy it and I support your industry's rights to protect itself. But, damning the technology due to the side effects is like outlawing cars because people die in car crashes -- i.e. silly in the extreme. If enforcement were better (i.e. rip Kazaa and related sites down!), I suspect you wouldn't have such a gripe.

And your argument that the industry who made the artists also made the technology and distributed it also falls on deaf ears. If it is a "conflict of interest," it hurts the whole industry, shareholders and all, as much as it hurts individual artists. I don't think you want to be attacking the industry as a whole, since it seems to share (mostly) your point-of-view.

Finally, to pick a fine nit, the industry is NOT obliged to protect the work of the artist unless the contract says so. This should not be viewed as defeating my overarching argument that the industry itself is in line with the artists and has the same basic goals.

[ 06-22-2004, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

The point is that people who didn't buy their CDs before p2p can actually could be listening their music now while before p2p they had to buy a CD. I think they care less about being not so well-known and don't make much money from it.
Heck, in some people make music because they like it and if they make enough money with it they can afford to go touring and stuff. But I think they do care if millions are now listening to their music for free while they don't see anything back for it. It's not the 'poor and starving' that's important it's the stealing of their income.

I don't think so, I agree with it that a lot of people that download well known numbers but I see a lot go on after they've got these, searching less known or obscure bands. Most people here often have more unknown than wellknown stuff downloaded, just because, taking your numbers, there's 1% widely known and there's 99% less known to obscure local band.

Well I agree that sometimes CDs can be cheaper. However I know that if I pay $18 for a CD it's because of the shop. Now I don't mind paying more to the shop for the service they give me or just because the costs to send orders from a magazine are larger than buying music in the shop. Also I can go immediately to the shop and buy it (sometimes but that's because of my musical taste) while I have to wait if I order them somewhere else. But luckily there are still magazines from which you can order CDs for $9 [img]smile.gif[/img] or a few bucks cheaper than in the shop.

Even if you buy a CD for $18, the price you pay for the entertainment is really low. I calculated it and for this $18 CD I have the price per hour after a month was less than 10ct.

And what if those bands had put the mp3s on a site so that they get known and think of others who don't want to have their songs freely on the net? There are a lot of sites where they could promote their site just as well as playing their songs on internet radios. And I'm curious as to how people find new bands on p2p-networks. Did their download name pr0n or a song by a often downloaded artist wasn't exactly what the name implies? Well when I used winmx (5 years ago have quit soon thereafter) I hated it when a download turned out to be something else and threw it away.

[ 06-22-2004, 04:00 AM: Message edited by: philip ]

<font color=deepskyblue><font color=yellow>"Screw you Cerek"?</font> [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] That's a rather harsh comment. It could also be construed as a personal attack.

Hmmmm...perhaps I should follow your own example and publicly demand that the Mods ban or suspend you for this heinous attack.

Naaaaaahhhh. I understand this is an extremely emotional subject for you, but you also know full well that we disagree completely on this subject. I'm not upset (nor surprised) by your reaction and response, but I think you should ask yourself if this is how one Christian should respond to another. Actually, you should ask yourself if this is how a Christian should respond to anybody.

Yes, I realize this is your livelihood we are talking about. I also realize that God will provide for your needs despite the theft of songs through P2P. And you have admitted yourself that the music executives steal FAR more from the artists than P2P does. I'm sorry your industry is corrupted at the top, but that isn't my fault. I understand that P2P may facilitate more theft and loss of income from the artist - but you have mentioned numerous times before that musicians were being "ripped off" long before P2P ever came around and continue to be ripped off by executives in the business. That is the point that <font color=lime>promethius</font> is making.</font>

The contracts did say so. There was an artist who did at one time attempt to take on his record company for breach of contract. My two contracts with majors included those provisions. They were considered "standard". They were part of the record companies obligations.

That's why record companies have been suing on behalf of artists.

No. Much much worse. The 1% subsidised records that could not and did not RECOUP. Madonna subsidised a slew of lossmaking records, that provided invaluable ideas into the collective musical vocabulary.

By stealing from Madonna, you ensure music doesn't get made. Or get made very well at all.

The percentage of musicians who actually make a decent earning from their craft WAS a much higher percent than actors. I heard 8%-10% but I could be wrong. However, the arse has fallen out. Not just for musicians, but engineers, marketers, accountants, and all the support careers.

Record company offfices that once had whole floors of sales/A&R departments, are now inhabited by one guy in the far corner of a huge office. One A&R guy. That's peoples lives. This country has an unemployement problem that isn't helped by people refusing to pay for product they've stolen.

<font color=yellow>"Screw you Cerek"?</font> [img]graemlins/wow.gif[/img] That's a rather harsh comment. It could also be construed as a personal attack. </font>[/QUOTE]Your post was a giant: "f--- you Yorick" You have no idea do you. You sit there and say things like "The music is crap, so I'll steal only the songs I like, and that will force them to make better music". You cannot believe how hurtful and disdainful that is for the craft, the process, everything. What if EVERYONE did that Cerek? Peoples tatses are all different. If everyone applied your mindset, no human would pay for recorded music.... oh.... I guess that's what's been happening.

As I said, creators of music are doing the best they can. Perhaps you'd like to have a try instead of stealing music based on taste judgements.

Maybe. Maybe this should be a banned topic like other forms of PIRACY on this site. It's a flamebait to post what you did Cerek. You know pro-musicians feelings on the matter. Surely by now.


Once you've picked the log of theft out of your eye, we can talk about my speck reaction to that theft. Your actions have harmed peoples ability to keep making music. Mine is seeking to address a wrong. I am also human and get very upset by the nature of your arguments, more than the actual action itself. I would prefer someone guiltily steal a few songs, than someone try and justify it all using the arguments you have.


No we were not ripped off like this before. Artists made choices to take investors money in return for royalties. We CHOSE to be exploited. It's like walking into a 3rd world sweatshop full of underpaid workers and taking the money from their hands, precisely because they're underpaid. How does that make sense??? What crazy logic are we all using here?

Hey Cerek... do you want to be a record company? Say I ask you for $80,000 to record some music. Are you going to want a percentage on the return? Are you going to perhaps even insist that you get paid back FIRST and then split profits?

In the world of capitalism that seems fair doesn't it? You're the one with the capital, I'm the one with the idea needing financiang.

How are you being 'evil' again? By expecting a return on your investment?

Oh those evil record companies. You know what they would do? If a record DID make profit, they would go and record a slew of other artists. Some of whom returned. others who didn't. The result was music music music. Much of which the public never even heard, but which ARTISTS heard. Many of which influenced those that did sell. The exchange of ideas is what led to an increased musical vocabulary.

Oh so evil! Let's end it in the name of getting free stuff!

You know what I and countless other music lovers would do?

If we like one or two songs on an album, we would weigh up whether the two songs were worth the album price, and buy it.

Then, we would listen to the music we didn't like, and attempt to understand it. Guess what? In some cases, the songs we initially don't like, we end up loving. Our taste is EXPANDED, and we gain a WIDER APPRECIATION. Some music takes work to enjoy. Like Jazz or other alternative forms. Even some classical. They are not instantly ACCESSIBLE. (Meaning instantly likeable)

You've limited you taste to only that which is accessible to you.

Albums that I bought for one or two songs include -

U2 - the Joshua Tree. Bought it for "With or Without You" and "Where The Streets Have no name". I didn't like "Still haven't found what I'm looking for" for example.

By persevering, I ended up loving the entire album. Where I once saw fillers, I later saw exploratory ideas. I got influenced. I BECAME A MUSICIAN as a direct result of buying that album.

Others include:
Tears For Fears - The Seeds of Love. Only liked 2 songs. Ended up loving the whole thing. As much of the album was Jazz influenced it opened the young me to a new genre.

I could go on and on. I would not be a musician today had I not persevered with music that was initially inaccessible to me.

I still do this now. That's how I try and remain current. I bought "Jet" the other day - on iTunes, the entire album, but based on one song. The others I sampled, and I didn't enjoy them, but allowed for the FACT, that with perseverence I may well.

All music is valid. 'Good and bad' are subjective taste judgments that in no way devalidate a piece. If just one person finds worth in a piece, it is valid.

Promie, while I'll agree on the uneducated and mostly untalented part, I won't fault them for having all the wealth they have. If they can find people willing to pay them that much more power to them. Same for sports figures, Lordy if they can find somebody willing to pay them $25, $50, $100 mil for throwing or catching a ball so be it. If I could find somebody willing to pay $1,000,000 for me to poop on a piece of paper, I'd squat and drop it. ;)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA

that's like saying "all movies are valid", go to the books and movies forum and look at the thread about Sex Lives of the Potato Men, try and justify that movie as valid to me, and I might see your point

Well, obviously, downloading songs and software is stealing. I won't say I've never done it because I have, but I will say getting a couple of free songs isn't worth the thought to being fined or going to jail, so I don't do it anymore. I wish I could say I stopped because it was morally wrong, but the truth is I stopped for fear of punishment(even though I have to believe the chance was slim) and never really realized how people can be hurt.

With that said, I still feel I have the right to backup my investments. I have about 75 CD copies that I keep in my Jeep. I'm not about to leave that $1,000+ worth of legitimate CDs in my vehicle, so I've copied them over time. I own the CDs legally, so I see no problem with having a copy.

The idea of banning this technology is silly.

Besides, despite illegal downloads, the pay download sites are hitting new record marks every month. Why would I pay to download a song, if I couldn't put it on a disc?

Yes stealing is wrong, whether it is online or in-store, and it is pretty hard to get around that fact, but legal downloads are the wave of the future, and those who don't see that, and get on board, might as well start a support group with the stock holders who held on to the notions of the 8-Track, the Betamax, and the vinyl record.

Just stepping in now with a reminder that this is a hot topic, we all agree on that. But it should stay focused on the topic, not the posters and above all else, keep it respectful and flame-free. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yorick and Cerek, I appreciate the fact that you both have opposite opinions on this issue, but I want to ask you both to avoid baiting or attacking one another in order to validate your feelings/positions.

Cerek, I'm pretty sure that by now, you know how Yorick will react to specifics on this issue- so I'll ask if you could please try to avoid actively pushing any buttons. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yorick, I know you get VERY upset over this issue and personally I understand it but as a moderator, I'm asking all parties on this thread to keep it respectful, even if you do feel someone is baiting you. Though I sympathize and understand your anger and frustration, gotta say the 'screw you, Cerek' comment was a little extreme for the forum. Show more restraint in future, ok?

This is a very controversial issue, as we've seen each time it comes up. It can be debated/discussed, but please keep in mind the rules of the forum and back up or out if you feel you can't follow them. Thanks!

Can't you if you download from a site?

I believe so, but that statement was regarding the doing away with any tech that would allow copying. The tech that allows the burning of illegal copies of songs, is the same tech that allows you to burn legal copies of songs. The tech isn't the problem for the same reason a few bottles of beer don't cause drunken driven.

<font color=deepskyblue>I don't need to bait or attack anybody to validate my feelings on this issue, <font color=lavender>Cloudy</font>. I am perfectly comfortable with my viewpoint. Neither of my first two posts were directed towards <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> in any way. In fact, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> had not even entered the thread at that point. Then, when he does enter the thread, he comes across with <font color=white>"Screw you, Cerek"</font> and later justifies it by claiming my entire post was a "F*** you, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font>". Sorry, if I had wanted to say that, I know how to do it.

You are right that I know how <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> reacts to threads like these. That is why I specifically did NOT direct any comments towards him. I merely expressed my opinion on the subject.

The only "button" I actively pushed was to highlight how over-the-top his reaction was and how very much out of line his opening comment to me was. And to point out that he has publicly asked for the Mods to ban other members for far less egregious attacks or comments (some of which were not even directed at him). So, yeah, I felt justified in calling him out on that point.

It seems the only way I can avoid pushing his buttons anymore is to just keep my opinion to myself and avoid threads on this topic so that he doesn't have that type of reaction again. Ironically, <font color=yellow>Yorick</font> would be the first to complain about how UN-fair it is that HIS opinion be silenced so as to avoid hurting the feelings of another member.

But since I am seeking to regain my lost title of <font color=red>Cerek the Calmth</font>, I will just bow out of this discussion now before tempers really do start to flare.

<font color=yellow>Yorick</font> - I understand how you feel on this subject and I'm sorry you were upset by my comments. But you also know how I feel on the subject, so my opinion shouldn't have come as any surprise. Still, I value our friendship, so I will leave the discussion to avoid any more disagreements between us.</font>

<font color=skyblue>I think Yorick gets more upset if you say that you download music than he does when you say that his religion is silly. Both are hurtful to him, but it is surprising to me to see which one injures him more.

Anyway, if Cloudbringer has been successful in bringing order to this thread, I would like to move on and add this news link. It is a step in the right direction, but if you read the last part carefully, you'll see how greedy the promoters of their idea really are.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movi...eut/index.html

Basically, the MPAA is offering $500 to a theatre employee if he/she turns in a person copying a movie with a camera. It is a good idea, but then they make the disclaimer that:</font>
<font color=skyblue>What are those other factors that are not listed in this disclaimer? It sounds to me like the MPAA want to tease people into helping them out and then having a condition that will protect them from having to pay out the prize money.

Going beyond this, why would they not offer me $500 for every person that I turned in that I know personally that has downloaded a movie from the net and is offering to make copies for his friends? Why not even $100 per person?

That will get them further than banning VCRs from homes or making me take out my CD burner, which by the way is used only for school projects like my Nutrition class assignment that would have taken 5 floppies last semester.</font>

[ 06-22-2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

Calling my faith silly doesn't prevent me from practicing my faith. Stealing music harms our ability to both create and listen to others recorded music.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHA

that's like saying "all movies are valid", go to the books and movies forum and look at the thread about Sex Lives of the Potato Men, try and justify that movie as valid to me, and I might see your point </font>[/QUOTE]All art is valid if at least one person finds value in it - creator or appreciator. That is correct. Declaring otherwise is ignoring subjectivity, and applying your taste as being universal.
Though they contain objective elements, all art is subjectively appreciated. No getting around that.

Agreed. iTunes is too easy. [img]smile.gif[/img] Way to go.

Larry, to clarify, were people to enact laws that prevented me from practicing my faith, yes that would harm me more than laws preventing me from making music.

However, many times for me the two are linked. ;) I sing praise to my God. :D

Cerek, I'm sorry for reacting so aggressively. :( My apologies old friend. I'll try and agree to disagree. It is quite a hurtful view you have, but c'est la vie. You rock. Be safe.

Hugh

Allright You've done it NOW Ronn trashing Vinyl and 8tracks in the same post. Next you'll trash a '67 Camero SS with With "Smoke on the water" Blaring. It's a CHICK magnet I tell you a CHICK MAGNET...

...Ok a Geritol CHICK magnet. ;)

[img]graemlins/fro.gif[/img]