The entitlement question(attitudes towards copyright)

Tinalera

Tinalera

Got my darned self heated up in another thread, and would love other's opinions.


I wondered where train of thought about musicians and using their works and the "There wouldn't be a problem, right?" type of mentality came from, and I wondered:

Is the "Youtube" effect (or free download-take your pick)? The idea that so many people put their buddies day out footage on youtube to Lady Gaga or whoever, does it lead those who are entering the movie industry to have this view (and hence the constant questions, and I'm sure for some surprising legal answers)? I'll admit myself up until recently I thought maybe that Youtube had a blanket type of "coverage" that allowed it to happen-because I see so much of it. I didn't realise there is no "blanket" coverage, and that violation of copyright is in use (even if you say in the little blurb "I don't own rights to the music") doesn't take you off the hook legally.

Where did the sense of "meh, I don't need to pay 10 bucks to see Avatar, I'll download it" or "Musicians are rich anyway, they don't need the money" come from?




EDIT: I'm just looking at discussion of this on a casual basis-don't want any otherwise great relationships here strained by this-I'm looking more into where it came from-what you choose to do on your own time is your business! :)
 
Last edited:
Tinalera said:
Where did the sense of "meh, I don't need to pay 10 bucks to see Avatar, I'll download it" or "Musicians are rich anyway, they don't need the money" come from?
Click to expand...

From the fact that you can do it over and over and, statistically, get away with it scot-free.
 
I thought youtube used to remove material that contained copyright violations. Am I wrong about that? Maybe I'm thinking of another site, or maybe they just gave up.
 
Zensteve said:
From the fact that you can do it over and over and, statistically, get away with it scot-free.
Click to expand...

Right, so if I rob a bank and get away with the first time-that's okay? (Doesn't matter on the severity, it's still theft). And for those who would say "Well there's no victim in taking a song/movie"-I think there are those in both professions would beg seriously to differ.

Yea, I know what your saying, though :) Call it playing Devil's advocate with the prospect of promoting discussion :)

So, where does one draw the line then?
 
2001 Productions said:
I thought youtube used to remove material that contained copyright violations. Am I wrong about that? Maybe I'm thinking of another site, or maybe they just gave up.
Click to expand...

If they have, that would be news to me, and would love to know how a Buddy and his friends 4wheeling in the backroads managed to get a deal to let A-kon music be used. :)

I think, as someone suggested, it's just too big to regulate the whole thing-something will get taken down if someone complains, otherwise no harm.

I'm referring to Youtube specifically in this case- I can't speak for other sites. I do know way back when I did a my videos list on youtube-visited it the other day, about half of them have been "removed", so I think they where they can.


I just wonder where the mentality started-song downloads when people didn't want to pay 30 dollars for one song on a CD?
 
Last edited:
Tinalera said:
if I rob a bank and get away with the first time-that's okay?
Click to expand...

Banks that are easy to rob will get robbed more often.

This is more akin to printing your own money, though, with a printing press that makes perfect, untraceable hundred-dollar bills. Counterfeiting. If you can get away with it almost every single time, why stop?
 
Zensteve said:
Banks that are easy to rob will get robbed more often.

This is more akin to printing your own money, though, with a printing press that makes perfect, untraceable hundred-dollar bills. Counterfeiting. If you can get away with it almost every single time, why stop?
Click to expand...

We know where your moral compass is, don't we? ;)

Okay we know where you stand on the issue- so that's it? We're able to do it so far, so why not?


I edited my post because I REALLY want to keep this more about attitudes and less about how "right" it all is....though it may head there anyway....lol
 
Last edited:
You asked where the idea came from, and Zen is answering that question. I don't think he's necessarily referring to himself.
 
Uranium City said:
You asked where the idea came from, and Zen is answering that question. I don't think he's necessarily referring to himself.
Click to expand...

This is true....and I apologise for the inference.

I WAS asking about mentalities-not if people did them(which is why I edited my last post!):lol:

If I lived near Zen, I'd buy him a beer :)
 
Tinalera said:
We know where your moral compass is, don't we? ;)

I like the refreshing honesty....and now we seriously get into the question of ethics the mentality of "if you can do it, and you know won't caught, will you?"
Click to expand...

Please don't mistake my answer for an admission of complicity. You asked why.

My forum responses to copyright-issue threads have been very consistent, and demonstrate my firm support of IP rights.


Tinalera said:
You KNOW someone is going to pose the question "If someone uses your footage and makes money off it, then you're okay with that?" (I'm not saying it, but SOMEONE will...)
Click to expand...

Not without my permission.
smiley_coppa.gif
 
Zensteve said:
Please don't mistake my answer for an admission of complicity. You asked why.

My forum responses to copyright-issue threads have been very consistent, and demonstrate my firm support of IP rights.




Not without my permission.
smiley_coppa.gif
Click to expand...

I had to read what I said after I said it (why does that sound familiar.....)and I adjusted my post, and apologies and grovelling where applicable.

You were in fact, also playing Devil's Advocate to my Advocate :).


BTW, never saw the cop smiley before, that's cool! :)


So, going back to the idea of "Why"...as I said, is it as simple as that-because we(the cultural we) get away with it, so we continue to do it? So what leads to the second part of the attitude-the "they make too much money anyway, so we should get it for free" (acknowledging what YOU say may not be in fact your own values :))
 
Last edited:
"they make too much money anyway, so we should get it for free"
Click to expand...

I think this is different than "why." This is justification meant to deal with feelings of guilt, which implies there are feelings of guilt in the first place. I don't think there usually are feelings of guilt when it comes to artistic piracy. I think usually it begins and ends with "HEY, DUDE! FREE MUSIC!"

I think this justification comes out more when dealing with software piracy, ie "I shelled out $1,000 for FCP five years ago, why should I shell out another $1,000 for line Steve Jobs's pockets?"
 
Using cracked software, sharing copyrighted music, etc. is theft, pure and simple. Part of what is happening in the digital age is that these folks aren't stealing something physical, like a CD or a car, so they don't see it as theft. The concept of intellectual property is a hard one to grasp for these morons. These same folks would scream bloody murder if someone stole their iPod or cell phone.

I wish that I still had the link - there was a judge who gave a great sentence a guy who boasted of downloading over ten thousand songs illegally. The police(?) got his hard drive and were able to track where he got all of his illegal downloads and closed down over a dozen of the associated websites. The sentence for the guy was to pay for each of the illegal downloads, double the cost of the downloads to the defrauded artists to whom he had to hand write and mail a check (imagine having to hand write thousands of checks) with a handwritten letter of apology, to pay for the cost of the trial (about $20k) and the cost of the computer analyst (about $25k). The alternative was to spend two days in prison for each illegal download, which comes down to about 26 months. The case was under appeal the last that I heard...
 
The cool thing about Avatar is that it's the most pirated movie ever as well as being the most grossing movie ever.

Which means people still have a sense of quality and wanted to watch it in the theaters.


I'll also never forget the kid I saw with a laptop in line for the 3rd Star Wars streaming a pirated copy of it waiting to buy his ticket to it.
 
Last edited:
ROC said:
The cool thing about Avatar is that it's the most pirated movie ever as well as being the most grossing movie ever.

Which means people still have a sense of quality and wanted to watch it in the theaters.


I'll also never forget the kid I saw with a laptop in line for the 3rd Star Wars streaming a pirated copy of it waiting to buy his ticket to it.
Click to expand...

See, and that's an argument I've heard "If it's quality, I'll pay money in the theatres to see it". And yet when band (was it REM?) did a "pay what you want" for their CD on their website, almost nobody paid anything. Avatar raked in 700 million domestic, so obviously people went to see it (I actually haven't yet-maybe I'll rent it later this month).

:lol: Kid with laptop- that's just crazy.

As for the judge handing down the sentence.....that's creative! Wonder how it will all end after appeals.

And yet (playing Advocate again)- as far justification-could the same not be argued when all those people taped music off the radio (I know Canada eventually put a surcharge as part of the price of blank tapes to offset this-I'm also showing my age.....:blush:
 
What is tape? How do you tape the radio? It travels in the air...

Someone said VHS to me the other day - isn't that a disease?

You cut a hard drive with a razor blade? What??
 
Not that I condone piracy, but there is something to be said for downloading bringing a larger ratio of money earned back to the original artist. At least in the case of music.

Most musicians get a very small piece of the back end on record sales. The profits mainly go to the label. Remember the first band to make a stink about napster? It was Metallica, and their pockets were being hurt because they own their label and therefor saw a lot more of those profits than most bands.

You can see a movement even in more mainstream artists to give their recordings away for free (didn't radiohead release one of their last albums just on their website). They are the smart bands. Screw the bit of royalties you'd get from each record sale, the real money is in touring, always has been, and not to mention, you can't replace the experience of going to a live show.
 
Last edited:
I dunno...

Residual checks on Thriller are enough to buy a house in Malibu.

Also, I stay away from concerts as I value my ears :)


One of the top music mixers can't hear a triangle. He jokes about it.
 
Well commercial royalties are different than album sales royalties. You don't have people getting away with using Thriller for profit, they either do it legally and pay the (huge) royalties, or they get sued. And Michael Jackson also saw a lot of that money because he was big enough to own his own music. Not only that, Paul McCartney sold him a huge part of the Beatles collection (mostly John's songs, seems kinda spiteful to me), so he was sitting pretty from selling off commercial rights of Beatles songs. Do you really think John or Yoko would let his music be used to sell dishsoap? SO unfortunate, but I digress....

I do think that the album sales vs concert situation is similar to what film is going through. I think it's like that Avatar example you used. Cameran wanted to get people to actually go to the theater so he had to create an element that you couldn't download. Live music shows already had that, which is their advantage.

Not sure what else you could do besides 3D or actual live theatre to 'fix' the movie downloading problem...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top