Off Topic Messages

Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:14 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Eg, if you want to love a rat, that's fine with me.

what rat?? why are people talking about i love rats all the time??!

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:As far as rats go, I'd say she's pretty cute, if repulsive at the same time!

who??

*confused*
:?

Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:22 pm

Elvisgirl wrote:*confused* :?


On so many levels.

Tom

Tue Jul 12, 2005 9:29 pm

Actually, I think the worse example of stealing a song
is stealing the lyrics/melody and trying to claim you are the composer.
to literally steal a song from its rightful composer.

That's a serious offense.


FREE promo cds/albums/singles are distributed to many persons and places every week.
Freebies are they not?
Record labels do not expect an exchange of money received on every copy they produce.

What the music industry designates as official "freebies" (and several thousand units per year there are) depends on their discrimination

the listener-on-the-street (shouldn't get it free)

but the listener-in-the-magazine publ. office, listener at the radio station, listener at the board meeting, etc (are allowed to get it free)

A job perk of getting a free cd is common place and accepted.
Most copies go in the trash tho!

But example, a woman gets free cd at work...is allowed to take it home and keep...gives it to her kid, who in turn listens, and perhaps likes, and listens to it alot...plays it for friends...
is that thievery?


And what about retail cd that someone spent $17 to buy sealed new,
but now I go buy that very same one, for $8 used?
And I later trade or sell, for someone else to buy for $4 in a clearance sale?

How much out of those dwindling prices: $17...$8...$4... on one unit
is the artist actually receiving, and expecting to anyway?


music availability in the brick & mortar outlets often has a price rate go from 0.99 cents a song, to 0.10 cents a song.


the only people in the history of the music industry who has ever expected and demanded to get $$$ for every listen ever made is
Col. Parker, Metallica, and Garth Brooks! :lol:

Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:04 pm

Elvisgirl wrote:
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Eg, if you want to love a rat, that's fine with me.

what rat?? why are people talking about i love rats all the time??!

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:As far as rats go, I'd say she's pretty cute, if repulsive at the same time!

who??

*confused*
:?




Elvisgirl: you'd better sit down.

Some evil person has snuck into your "profile" ........and inserted a photograph of ...


of...


(you're not going to like this)




a Rat. :shock:

Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:14 pm

it's not a rat it's a hamster......my hamster

Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:25 pm

Elvisgirl wrote:it's not a rat it's a hamster......my hamster


Rat/hamster=same thing.

Elvisgirl wrote:now i'm here, now i'm there


Considering the number of names you post under, this is actually true.

Tom

Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:58 pm

Elvisgirl wrote:it's not a rat it's a hamster......my hamster



O.K., I though that's what you'd say.

I have to admit it does look like a rat each time I see it.

She's...er. cute.


Whoops: there she goes: she's nibbling on your new CDR copy of "Elvis-Today" on FTD :shock: :!:

Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:39 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:O.K., I though that's what you'd say.

I have to admit it does look like a rat each time I see it.

She's...er. cute.

thanks! but dosen't look like a rat! XD


Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Whoops: there she goes: she's nibbling on your new CDR copy of "Elvis-Today" on FTD :shock: :!:

haha! she don't have time for things like that. she's busy
Last edited by Elvisgirl on Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

Tue Jul 12, 2005 11:51 pm

hey you guys and gals,

I made some valid points about the record companies' freebie promo policies,
and the nature of re-selling used cds,
and am interested in comments.

But you guys are wasting bandwith here with rat crap.
:x

enough of posts about her beloved fuzzy declawed rectal tickler

Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:34 pm

Graceland Gardener wrote:Actually, I think the worse example of stealing a song
is stealing the lyrics/melody and trying to claim you are the composer.
to literally steal a song from its rightful composer.

That's a serious offense.


FREE promo cds/albums/singles are distributed to many persons and places every week.
Freebies are they not?
Record labels do not expect an exchange of money received on every copy they produce.

What the music industry designates as official "freebies" (and several thousand units per year there are) depends on their discrimination

the listener-on-the-street (shouldn't get it free)

but the listener-in-the-magazine publ. office, listener at the radio station, listener at the board meeting, etc (are allowed to get it free)

A job perk of getting a free cd is common place and accepted.
Most copies go in the trash tho!

But example, a woman gets free cd at work...is allowed to take it home and keep...gives it to her kid, who in turn listens, and perhaps likes, and listens to it alot...plays it for friends...
is that thievery?


And what about retail cd that someone spent $17 to buy sealed new,
but now I go buy that very same one, for $8 used?
And I later trade or sell, for someone else to buy for $4 in a clearance sale?

How much out of those dwindling prices: $17...$8...$4... on one unit
is the artist actually receiving, and expecting to anyway?


music availability in the brick & mortar outlets often has a price rate go from 0.99 cents a song, to 0.10 cents a song.


the only people in the history of the music industry who has ever expected and demanded to get $$$ for every listen ever made is
Col. Parker, Metallica, and Garth Brooks! :lol:


Having friends and even a family member as recording artists, perhaps I can enlighten the financial situation.

A recording artist signs a contract to record enough songs for a CD + 2 CD-singles plus a certain amount of time for promotional interviews and appearances (either live or for TV and/or radio).
For this, the artist gets a certain amount of money. It does not matter if the CD sells or not. That is the problem of the record company now.

The record company hopes to make a profit by selling as many CD's as possible. So they give away promotional discs to radio stations, magazine publishers, et cetera.
Sometimes people at radio stations or publishers give copies to friends and/or relatives, but that is not what these discs are given away for.

So the record company prints, let's say 10,000 copies of the disc. Before they can do that, the record company has to pay the copyright organisation royalties for the composer(s) of the songs on the CD.

It is possible that the CD sells like hot cakes and millions of copies are printed and sold. Good for the record company and good for the composers of the songs on the CD. However, the artist (unless he/she stipulated in the contract he/she gets an amount per CD sold) does not get any extra money. Of course when signing a contract to record songs for the next CD, he/she can ask a higher fee!

It is also possible the CD does not sell. As storage space is expensive, the record company rather "dumps" remaining stock for a low price. So the CD that was $17 can now be bought for $4 or even less.
In that case the music fan profits as he gets a legitimate CD for a low price.

In The Netherlands in the fixties and sixties shops could only sell old stock for lower prices during January and July (wintersale and summersale). So in 1967 it was possible to find an original 1958 Eddie Cochran LP during the sale as at that time the shop got their old stock out of the cellar!

The cost for the material for a CD is something like 50 cents. The remainder is for "rights", taxes, profit margin.

Wed Jul 13, 2005 12:37 pm

May I add that the real money is made by performing? And the more hits an artist has, the higher the fee they can charge for a performance.

Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:50 pm

To all our upstanding citizens who condem we 'theives'...........have you ever recorded anything off the TV???????
In case you did not know this.....you do not own the copyright for these broadcasts, and are therefore breaking the same laws...hypocrites.

Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:56 pm

Larry Dickman. wrote:To all our upstanding citizens who condem we 'theives'...........have you ever recorded anything off the TV???????
In case you did not know this.....you do not own the copyright for these broadcasts, and are therefore breaking the same laws...hypocrites.


According to Dutch law it is allowed to tape anything off the TV for private use and/or later viewing. Blank VHS tapes and blank DVD-R's have a fee added which goes to the Dutch copyright organisation.

I taped all the Monkees episodes, but when it became available on DVD I bought those and even bought a regionfree DVD-player as it was only released in zone 1 (USA).

By the way, not all money the Dutch copyright organisation receives goes to composers/performers! They have an expensive office, a director with a huge salary, secretary, company car, et cetera. And they have inspectors who search websites, shops, recordfairs and any place where illegal CD's/DVD's might be sold.

Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:22 pm

Luuk wrote:
By the way, not all money the Dutch copyright organisation receives goes to composers/performers! They have an expensive office, a director with a huge salary, secretary, company car, et cetera.


enough said there, in regard to the Dutch laws, me thinks.

Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:46 pm

I'll let someone better versed in U.S. law (Mike C.?) cover this, but I think Luuk's discussion has plenty of over-lap with the use. Europe is different on copyright law (more sensible, methinks) but most of the rest he described is pretty much the same - and answers GG's questions.

Taping off the TV, Mr. Dickman, is, last I check, "fair-use" -assuming you don't resell the tapes, etc.

Why are you so defensive? :wink:

Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:13 pm

So I can tape a movie off TV and yet, I cannot rent it on DVD and tape it from that??

I know in the US there are provisions for TIME SHIFTING.......
Where I live (Australia), NO recording at all.

Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:33 pm

Further..

U.S. Supreme Court
SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)

The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i. e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it can be watched at a later time).

Wed Jul 13, 2005 4:36 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr.:

Why are you so defensive?


Larry Dickman.

we 'theives'



Is that whats called a stupid question, Gregory?

Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:02 pm

Larry Dickman. wrote:Gregory Nolan Jr.:

Why are you so defensive?


Larry Dickman.

we 'theives'



Is that whats called a stupid question, Gregory?



It's not a stupid question. Really, people hate to be judged, but it comes with the territory. All I said was " but don't tell us it's not a form of thievery."

I'm no purist on it on the subject, but watching some folks turn themselves into a human pretzel as they try to justify it is worse than a plain admission of "hey, I'll do what I can get away with for now."

Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:19 pm

Some things are illegal only in a technical sense.

There are places in the UK where it is impossible to 'legally' dispose of babies nappies [diapers].

They cannot be put out in the refuse.

They cannot be flushed down the toilet.

They cannot be burned on a fire.

But thousands of mums are disposing of them every day !

Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:26 pm

currently on kazaa, there is 2,595,579 illegal users online, on bittorrent's azureus there are 437,260 users online at this very second.

they just ain't goin' away. no matter what record companies think. everytime they close down a program, a new one springs up, or some nerd cracks it and sticks it back on the web again. :lol:

back in the free-days, i also used napster and morpheus.

kazaa is great. azureus is great for bittorrent files (big file packages--tv shows and what-not for fanvidding--i already have those shows on dvd though).

Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:32 pm

That's funny because the law does seem to be catching up to them.

I hear what you're saying, but the legal strategy looks pretty sound to me.

Image

Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:55 pm

Elvis' Babe -

You wrote:
...currently on kazaa, there is 2,595,579 illegal users online, on bittorrent's azureus there are 437,260 users online at this very second.


But they aren't 'illegal users' !

Nothing illegal about KaZaa either.

What is illegal is sharing copyright material.

These users could be sharing recordings they made of the lesser spotted warbler-tit, or Aunt Jane singing in the bath !

Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:06 am

ColinB wrote:These users could be sharing recordings they made of the lesser spotted warbler-tit, or Aunt Jane singing in the bath !


Colin,

I'm missing those two! Please PM me! :wink:

Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:06 am

umm, Colin, if Aunt Jane is a hottie, :oops:
got an mpeg vid of her singing in the bath?

upload it please to the latest greatest share site:
http://www.Kazookallamazoobazookachooo.com

:roll: