The record labels never stole anything. They entered into agreements with the artists. They put cds in stores that consumers agreed to pay for.
How can people on your side, in one argument say it isn't stealing to copy music, but it is stealing to enter into an agreement whereby one party exchanges something (music) for something else (money) and all parties freely choose to do so?
Please, those 'agreements' were put together by the best shyster lawyers to put artists in debt even if they were successful.
> How can people on your side, in one argument say it isn't stealing to copy music, but it is stealing to enter into an agreement whereby one party exchanges something (music) for something else (money) and all parties freely choose to do so?
Because 'just because it is written on a piece of paper and has a signature under it' doesn't make it right.
The music industry had turned fraud in to an art form.
Arists that don't get paid royalties, artists that are signed to a label only to find out there is no intention to produce, artists that are screwed in to being in major debt just because of some fine print clause that you'd have to be another shyster lawyer to spot and so on. The list is endless.
And then we're not yet talking about price fixing, the war on fair use (especially sampling) and so on.
And don't get me started on stupidity like the 'happy birthday' thing and Mickey Mouse and copyright.
Really. If you want to be the champion of something find a group or a cause that is worthy of it, the major labels are not, and plenty of the smaller ones are not much better.
If A list artists have a problem you can bet your life that it is worse at the lower rungs of the ladder.
At a friends (who is an artist, and a fairly famous one here in NL, several major hits and an enormous repertoire of songs for third parties) invitation I went to a local BUMA/STEMRA meeting a year ago, it was unbelievable how strong the disconnect is between the rights organizations, the labels and the artists.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Everyone knows when you enter into a legal contract you should understand what the legal words mean or don't sign it.
I don't care about the major labels, what I care about is maintaining a social structure where creativity can be rewarded and the investment and time put into great quality intellectual products isn't wasted.
You really have no idea what you're talking about here. An industry that has had almost a century to prepare has a considerable legal advantage over rookie musicians, who can usually barely afford their instruments, let alone proper representation.
> I don't care about the major labels, what I care about is maintaining a social structure where creativity can be rewarded and the investment and time put into great quality intellectual products isn't wasted.
Such a structure will eventually unfold, we're looking at a lively market here.
Just like open source didn't kill software development wholesale copying won't kill the music market. But it will kill the current business model.
You have no idea of what I have an idea. Why do conversations here seem to degrade into "You don't know what you're talking about?" Or as camperbob puts it, "Clearly you've thought a lot about this?"
bit sharing and open source are two topics that are so religious around here. This community has a huge axe to grind against powerful organizations who have profited off intellectual property. Why?
What exactly is so wrong about profiting off intellectual property? Software, music, movies?
> What exactly is so wrong about profiting off intellectual property? Software, music, movies?
Because the current system works by an artificial monopoly. Monopolies harm the public. The compensation that copyright is supposed to provide -- incentivising production -- is not clearly supported by evidence. And the restriction inherent in monopolised distribution is fundamentally opposed to the new benefits that the internet offers -- if we want one, the other must be reduced -- and we want the internet.
The problem is not people profiting from creating, it is that the system has been rigged by current encumbents to rip-off and obstruct the public.
How can people on your side, in one argument say it isn't stealing to copy music, but it is stealing to enter into an agreement whereby one party exchanges something (music) for something else (money) and all parties freely choose to do so?