Comments on: Stephen Fry Compares RIAA to “Big Tobacco”

By: johnno23

johnno23 — Sat, 28 Aug 2010 02:23:05 +0000

it would work for the simple fact that copyright holders and their strangle hold on the industries are based purely upon return on investment.
I believe the Wiki states that approx only 10% of all literature is in libraries…..the rest is defunct out of print as there is no profit.
P2P sharing often digs up past gems of music film and literature which is then sometimes removed from Public domain and in court gets a new lease of copyright…..This should be illegal but it is not.
Copyright for more than a 100 years is obscene…..
research results have proven that P2P users generally spend more on entertainment.
Itunes proved that people would pay and those asked to join Apple laughed and even head of Sony was removed for making such a blunder as not to get involved. Apple proved it was fair usage. People were tired of being ripped off. many artists are great but have plenty of songs that just fill the space. itunes changed that. if people don’t like it it won’t sell…..period.
If I find a piece of music that is from a lesser known or unknown artist and I am impressed I regard it as my duty to share. Sharing of this discovery helps the artist in that more people become aware. If the artist fan base should grow the opportunity to earn income is increased.
I am sick of misleading numbers. 10,000 downloads does not equate to 10,000 sales losses.
Many artists who are not supported by major labels find success due to P2P and file sharing.
Many of us that download something are often just seeking something new and the files that truly make an impression are often followed up by active search for information on the artists.
Who are they?
Do they have a website?
Are they playing live somewhere?
The industry missed the boat and lost control so now they want to shut down the net or at least seize control so that they can censure what the public might hear see and purchase based upon their business model of making a profit.
This business model is not suited to creativity or freedom of expression.
Who would ignore that the Beatles were great? The question i ask is how many fabricated bands that essentially were beatle clones have the record industries created purely for profit at the expense of artists trying to do something new?

By: D.AN

D.AN — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:35:59 +0000

plagiarism*

By: D.AN

D.AN — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:34:49 +0000

“You can legally borrow from the past and the present all you want, you just can’t plagiarize.”

Stating the obvious again?

“Look at all the books and songs, most of them are pretty much the same, …”

Did you actually read and listen to every single one of them? You are most likely basing your claim either nothing at all or a biased sample. And no you may not take another person’s word for it.

“… so obviously you can be as unoriginal and boring as you want.”

Nice reflecting of yourself. You are the same as always, (like) malgre.

“You just can’t lift stuff, passages, your thing has to be different to a degree or it’s a direct rip off.”

You assume non-creativity is plagiarism. That’s foolish of you. What if the the similarities were just coincidence? The easiest example of non-creativity not plagiarism is Newton and Leibniz’s simultaneous discoveries of calculus.

“You can’t sample because it’s like plagiarism.”

So all of those who have ‘sampled’ music are plagiarizing? Even your ideas of plagiarism is an affront.

“Used to be sampling was interesting but as an electronic musician I think it’s for chumps now, the real challenge is making sounds of your own and playing instruments, not starting out with someone elses beat or melody.”

Declaring that you are an electronic musician at this point is utterly futile in these arguments. If you are arguing subjectively I would have nothing to say, but this is about facts, not fallacies, i.e. opinions.

“Sampling is an excuse for labels and artists to not do anything new. It was exciting once but now it’s boring.”

Subjective garbage.

“Basically, make your own. That’s creative. We obviously haven’t run out of art yet.”

You have quite deluded ideas of creativity and plagiarism. If you haven’t realized, you’ve strayed far from the main topic that weaker copyright encourages creativity, not less plagiarism.

weaker copyright =/= less plagiarsm

Understand?

By: D.AN

D.AN — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:07:08 +0000

“HOW? How does weakening copyright encourage creativity?”

Haven’t you read the study posted a few months ago? If you’re not going to search for an explanation, nobody will bother doing that just for you, malgre.

“Right now, there are tons of books and songs that are virtually identical, strong copyright and all.”

Is that not the main point?

“Sometimes people are creative and make a new sounding thing, or write a story with a new element, and then everyone copies them.”

Making up stuff with the same random speculations again?

“Copyright doesn’t stop artists from making anything. All it does is makes it so people can’t just publish it without paying the rights holder. In an ideal situation, that;s the person who did the actual work.”

Whoever said anything about stopping “artists from making anything”? This is about creativity, a psychological characteristic of humans.

Are you an artist constantly subject to copyright? If not, then you are just speculating nonsense.

“I mean, just go learn how to play an instrument, sample your own sounds, make up your won story. Sounds creative to me.”

That is not how musicians are born, dumb ass. Your over-simplistic ideas are quite ridiculous.

“I wonder how much the RIAA and MPAA payed this guy to nudge the downloading community in Britain – on the verge of crinializing p2p – to nudge them over to legal downloading. But none of you guys were exactly jumping for joy when Universal announced what you said you wanted for years. That’s becuase it wont be free any more.”

Now that’s the dumbest and ignorant thing I’ve read today: non sequitur and outright lie in the first sentence, idiotic speculation and blatant lie in the second, and a moronic statement in the last.

You are still as imbecilic as ever.

By: Joan

Joan — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:41:56 +0000

Just to add – Hirst himself was victim of copyright law with his work ‘Hymn’. Humbrol the toy company threatened to sue him over it as they claimed it was a copy of their Young Scientist Anatomy Set! Well, fortunately (or unfortunately!) Hirst could afford to settle out of court and still produce the work. Had you heard about that before? I hadn’t.. who knows what work is stifled before it sees the light of day? There are reportedly traditional African folk songs now effectively wiped off the face of the earth as Disney owns copyright. Should anyone want to record and introduce them to me (and for me in turn to draw influence and compose a piece in response) first a large settlement would have to made to Disney. If you stop that chain reaction of influence through copyright law you stiffle human creativity and change its potential course over the next millenia.. Fortunately there are people who do spread art and creativity ‘illegally’ .

By: Joan

Joan — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:20:26 +0000

You obviously didn’t hear about the obscure and unknown artist who did nothing more that portray a sparkly scull in a piece of work and then was duly hounded and forced to pay royalties to Damien Hurst. Of course the guy didn’t even get to defend himself as he is simply not rich enough to contest it! Think was this means – even artisicly valid critiques or statements about established artist’s work can be put down and killed in this way – human culture has thrived on these ideas for thousands of years. Copyright law puts the power to stifle creativity and human cultural progress firmly in the hands of those with money. Original works by poorer artists can be effectively freely copied and flaunted at will by richer ones or corporations whist the same freedoms do not apply to others. And what is the motivation for this situation? Is it enhancing creativity or is enhancing wealth?

By: Stephen Fry Steals Copies of “House” in “Quantum of Torrents”

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:10:55 +0000

[...] known for making online games based on topical issues, has released a new one in response to the recent disclosure by renowned UK actor Stephen Fry that he had used BitTorrent to illegal download an episode of [...]

By: malcolm hume

malcolm hume — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:51:52 +0000

You can legally borrow from the past and the present all you want, you just can’t plagiarize. Look at all the books and songs, most of them are pretty much the same, so obviously you can be as unoriginal and boring as you want. You just can’t lift stuff, passages, your thing has to be different to a degree or it’s a direct rip off. You can’t sample because it’s like plagiarism.

Used to be sampling was interesting but as an electronic musician I think it’s for chumps now, the real challenge is making sounds of your own and playing instruments, not starting out with someone elses beat or melody. Sampling is an excuse for labels and artists to not do anything new. It was exciting once but now it’s boring.

Basically, make your own. That’s creative. We obviously haven’t run out of art yet.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:23:50 +0000

I would love to feel that anything I download I am doing it legally.. It’s a minefield on the net working out what is or isn’t legal to download.

By: UK SURVEY: Teens Prefer Streaming to P2P

UK SURVEY: Teens Prefer Streaming to P2P — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 05:57:36 +0000

[...] way the news is sure to bolster critics of the Digital Britain report who argue it caters to “industry insiders” and not the public at [...]