Really well said. It's interesting that a lot of people view digital piracy as two individuals sharing a file with no money being made and forget that they're both just being used by companies that are making fortunes off of that sharing. When people get rich off of unauthorized use of other people's product, that's not right.I find it amazing that people who don't own valuable intellectual property don't value intellectual property.
The distribution model has changed, and will continue to change, but the work of creative people HAS to be protected and valued. Net Radio is complaining because they are now required to pay the musicians that performed the work as part of their royalty agreement. That's right, the performers will now get paid for performing. That leaves broadcast radio in the US in the unique position of being the only broadcast system that does not pay musicians for their work. The songwriters and the publishers get paid, but not the musicians.
As consumers too many of us have taken it for granted that music will just be out there for free. It's not free, it shouldn't be free, and the people that own the rights to creative works are well within their rights to use litigation to defend those rights. The for-profit organizations, (last I checked Google/YouTube was not a charitable organization), that allow for the distribution of protected works need to pay the owners of the work for the use of the work.
If you haven't been keeping up with the news, the artist actually gets little or none of the revenues collected by lawsuits....but what about the artist or the material owners?
"forget that they're both just being used by companies that are making fortunes off of that sharing"
Good for them... Power to 'em.
Except that I know -I'm- not being 'used' by Youtube.... It's the other way around. Youtube is being used by me. That they found a way to make a few bucks off it? Again, power to 'em.
"the guy on the losing end of the stick"
No such person.
"taken it for granted that music will just be out there for free"
Music always has been free. At the hearth, around the kitchen table, out in muddy fields. It was only when suits discovered they could 'middle man' their way to fortunes did it become a commodity.
Indeed the same is true for ALL arts....
So.... would you rather be a tool for the suits? Or would you rather be an artists? If you're an artist, you'll create as much as you can, and spread it everywhere.
I can't see how my post gave you that idea.By "we" I hope you mean the people who have a financial stake in this.
This includes the songwriters, the publishers, and the performing artists, and anybody to whom those rights may have been assigned!!!!
Bull. They do not help, they do straight into coffers of the collecting society.The lawsuits help the songwriter directly, because they, along with the publisher, have rights currently codified in law.
Auch, don't I know it *rollseyes*The DRM attached to files from ITunes are there to work within American laws. We suffer the spillover.
That is so sad, it makes me ill. Here kids today have the ability to listen to the highest quality of tunage mankind has ever known and yet they choose 96 and 128Kb mp3's on their iPod's with $0.25 earbuds that could barely pass for voice communications, IMO. All for the sake of having enough albums on it, that it could take them 20 years of continuous play to listen to! ARRRGH!With audio quality going in the dumper, (current mastering stnadards and low-fi file formats), not too many people actively listen on a true Hi-Fidelity system any more. Music has become an on-the-go backround distraction. (i-pods and car stereos are among the most common listening environments.)