0
DSE

Copyright <again>

Recommended Posts

Quote

If I could make a copy of my truck from the master that I keep then no, I probably wouldn't care. It's not the same issue. Owners of original content should have every right to control who has the ability to use that content. This is backed up by the law. My contention is that, when the work is not being used in any commercial capacity, what loss is the copyright holder incurring?

p.s. hope you're healing well DSE



The loss is the RIGHT to do whatever you want with it. There are artists (and presumably, copyright holders that may not be the original artist) that have an interest in tightly controlling their exposure and the use of their work. For example, if a musician is inspired to write a song because they are a rape survivor, and to them that song is deeply personal, they may have an interest in keeping you from using that song in a skydiving video. Sure, they don't lose money over your using it, but they lose the right to how their song gets used, and the context in which people see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So my DZO caught wind of this thread and now we will be using royalty free music. The problem I have is it all sucks... Its also expensive. It all sounds like techno shit.. Anyone got any ideas?



Have you visited jamendo.com? There is a lot of good music there, you just have to put in some time and sample it to find music to your liking. It is free. If you search for music that you can use for commercial purposes and music that you can modify, adapt, or build upon (CLICKY), there's lots of stuff that you can sync in tandem videos. If you want to find music that you can sync to personal non-commercial videos, then just uncheck the box for music that can be used for commercial purposes (CLICKY) in the Advanced search, you'll get an even larger selection to chose from. There is some really good music of all genres on Jamendo.Com and it is free and legal to use under Creative Commons licensing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


-It's the copyright holder's right to choose who may copy their works (hence the term copy-right). By using the music without permission, you've just taken away their right to choose who may copy, and how they'd like to be compensated for granting a license/right to copy.



Where I have a problem with this is that if it were up to the Music Industry, these rights would be perpetual and without limits. They've already managed to extend to 70 years the length of time that a copyright is valid. If we left it up to SONY and their lawyers, copyrights would last forever, and if it could be done, they would implant chips in our brains so that they could collect a royalty every time we listened to one of their copyrighted songs.

There have to be limits. I think we need to draw the line at least where an individual who has legally obtained a work, to make as many copies as they want for PERSONAL USE, be it on DVD, CD, Hard Disk, on paper, in their brains ... whatever, regardless of who made the copy for them as long as they are not claiming the work as their own, they give credit whenever possible to the artist, and they don't try to profit monetarily from it.

I don't think the copyright holder should have the right to control how many times I listen to a song, how many times I read a book, how many times I can watch a movie that I have obtained legally. The copyright holder should also not have the right to tell me where or on how many devices I can do this either. I have the right to make as many copies (backups) of a DVD as I want for PERSONAL USE. I know that some lawyers think otherwise, but it is unenforceable because enforcement requires my right to privacy to be violated. Our rights to Privacy and our right to Freedom of Speech should always trump the copyright holders' rights as far as I'm concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can't apply the analog world to digital, but the principle is the same...no, I can't copy your truck, but I would be depriving you of your right to choose how/where it's used.

If the music isn't being used for commercial use, and it's personal use only, no laws are being broken.
Skydiving videos are commercial use.

I'm healing well, just slowly.[:/] I did walk a mile in the pool last night, so maybe they'll let me start walking on land one of these days.:D Evolution, anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


-*most* tandem videos don't credit the artist (even if they do, doesn't natter, see next point)

-It's the copyright holder's right to choose who may copy their works (hence the term copy-right). By using the music without permission, you've just taken away their right to choose who may copy, and how they'd like to be compensated for granting a license/right to copy.

By that same token then....
UPT would enjoy the free publicity and advertising if I jumped a Vector rig. Do you think that Bill is going to sit quietly and smile if I simply walk into his office, pick up his rig, walk out, and jump it, saying nothing to him as I do? Particularly if he doesn't know me from Adam?
Or...maybe you have a company logo on your truck/car. Surely you'd appreciate the publicity and advertising of me driving around in your truck/car as I pull my DZ trailer behind it? So when you go to get in your car tomorrow and it's gone, you won't mind because someone is giving you free publicity and advertising, right?You're not going to call the police or anything, just because your car/truck has been taken without your permission, right?;)



It's not quite the same thing but I understand the point you're trying to make. (I do have an old truck in my yard that you're welcome to borrow though. You can find me in your trailer playing with your toys).
I'm a Jamendo fan these days. And I don't have a problem buying a license for a few bucks if I find something I really like (which admittedly can take a LONG time). I'd be willing to do the same thing with the big boys. It would beat fining a few of us $22,000-$80,000 per song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


If the music isn't being used for commercial use, and it's personal use only, no laws are being broken.
Skydiving videos are commercial use.



You mentioned that a student could put a track to the video and it's legal. Isn't it personal use when we put music on our fun jump videos? If so, do we only run into the problem when we post them on the net?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Where I have a problem with this is that if it were up to the Music Industry, these rights would be perpetual and without limits. They've already managed to extend to 70 years the length of time that a copyright is valid. If we left it up to SONY and their lawyers, copyrights would last forever, and if it could be done, they would implant chips in our brains so that they could collect a royalty every time we listened to one of their copyrighted songs.


A-Sony has nothing to do with the question. It's not just Sony/BMG (although BMG did some pretty rotten things regarding copyright before Sony bought them)
B-it's the industry in general. Specifically, the RIAA, an association of recording industry businesses (of which I'm a part). No one wants a royalty every time you listen to a song. Someone wants a royalty every time that song is mechanically reproduced, broadcast, or synced. That's fair. If you have a skydiving photo that is unique and special, don't you want to be paid each time it's reprinted?



Quote

There have to be limits. I think we need to draw the line at least where an individual who has legally obtained a work, to make as many copies as they want for PERSONAL USE, be it on DVD, CD, Hard Disk, on paper, in their brains ...



This right already exists. You can copy a purchased song/CD/album/tape to as many mechanical devices as you wish for your own use, in other words, so it can only be listened to on one device at a time. Making copies for your friends isn't personal use. It's theft. Making a copy of your iTunes download to a CD for the car, the iPod for jogging, your computer for listening at work, your laptop for listening at home, an SD card for listening in the RV, or syncing to a personal video of yourself is all perfectly legal.


Quote

whatever, regardless of who made the copy for them as long as they are not claiming the work as their own, they give credit whenever possible to the artist, and they don't try to profit monetarily from it.



here is where we significantly depart in agreement. If you make a copy of a song I wrote, recorded, and sell through iTunes for yourself and your various listening devices, GREAT! Thank you! But when you make a copy for your buddy and he makes copies for his various listening devices, you've just stolen from me. The argument might be made "well, Jim-Bob never would have bought your music in the first place, so I did you a favor by giving him a copy." How is it a favor to me that Jim-Bob is listening to my music but I was not compensated for his enjoyment of my hard work? Sorry, but I can't agree at all with this. "Regardless of who stole the work, you should be allowed to enjoy it?" Doesn't work that way in the analog world, and certainly shouldn't work that way in the digital world.

Quote

I don't think the copyright holder should have the right to control how many times I listen to a song, how many times I read a book, how many times I can watch a movie that I have obtained legally. The copyright holder should also not have the right to tell me where or on how many devices I can do this either. I have the right to make as many copies (backups) of a DVD as I want for PERSONAL USE.



You're absolutely right. The copyright holder has no control over where you listen, how many times you listen, watch, or even replicate for personal use. They never have had this right, and likely never will. The only exception is if you want to play music at a public gathering such as a bar...then you need to be a member of ASCAP, SESAC, or BMI.
I've read "To Kill a Mockingbird" at least 100 times in my life (no exaggeration). I've worn out at least 4-5 copies. But since I paid for it once, should I be allowed to walk into Barnes and Noble and simply take a copy from the shelf because I paid for it once? I wore out my VHS copy of Norman Kent's "Willing to Fly" as well. Does Norman owe me a free DVD now because I paid for it once?

Back to the point and direction of this thread, no matter how you shake it out, using music in a skydiving video is a commercial, non-personal use. There is simply no way to argue otherwise. The videographer is hired to shoot, edit, and deliver a video of a skydive. Even if he/she is doing it for free, there is a perceived value in the end product and it contains an unauthorized duplication of a Master recording, that has been synchronized to video (again without authorization from the copyright holder), and then finally, it is contained on a mechanical device (DVD). Three very separate and distinct copyright laws (two of which having nothing to do with the RIAA) have been violated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


You mentioned that a student could put a track to the video and it's legal. Isn't it personal use when we put music on our fun jump videos? If so, do we only run into the problem when we post them on the net?



Yes. Because at that point, you've made a mechanical copy that is a derivative work for public view (benefit). Keep it off the web, use it for the year-end music video, whatever....and it's legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The loss is the RIGHT to do whatever you want with it. There are artists (and presumably, copyright holders that may not be the original artist) that have an interest in tightly controlling their exposure and the use of their work. For example, if a musician is inspired to write a song because they are a rape survivor, and to them that song is deeply personal, they may have an interest in keeping you from using that song in a skydiving video. Sure, they don't lose money over your using it, but they lose the right to how their song gets used, and the context in which people see it.


I can't argue your point, I'm not saying there isn't legal precedent/law to support the right to choose how the work is used. I'm saying that in cases of purely personal use, where the work has been purchased legally, people should be able to use the work with appropriate attribution. That's just my opinion of course and if asked, I'd certainly remove a song if requested by the artist.

From what I've read, it's not the artists who are asking for their works to be taken out of personal videos. Not to mention that I have *no idea* how to figure out how to request permission to use a work in a personal video and anecdotal evidence suggests that isn't often given anyway. It's just easier for me not to use any music. Now that I've got a site I can look to for music I'll probably do that.

Quote

Of course you can't apply the analog world to digital, but the principle is the same...no, I can't copy your truck, but I would be depriving you of your right to choose how/where it's used.

If the music isn't being used for commercial use, and it's personal use only, no laws are being broken.
Skydiving videos are commercial use.

I'm healing well, just slowly.[:/] I did walk a mile in the pool last night, so maybe they'll let me start walking on land one of these days.:D Evolution, anyone?


But the videos I make of me & my friends aren't for commercial purposes, that's my contention.

Do you have gills!?!? :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Quote



You're absolutely right. The copyright holder has no control over where you listen, how many times you listen, watch, or even replicate for personal use. They never have had this right, and likely never will. The only exception is if you want to play music at a public gathering such as a bar...then you need to be a member of ASCAP, SESAC, or BMI.



Not to split points too finely, but actually, I think that they do. If any of the record companies want to distribute MP3s that expire after a certain amount of time, they can do so. Granted, now we're getting into the contracts aspect of it (what it is that is bought, bargained for, etc), but if you bought a music file that came with a specific duration, hacking it so that it became perpetual would likely get you in trouble.

It's sort of the same example that you used w/r/t books or CDs - it's implied that you have the right to enjoy the work as long as your copy lasts. Though the length can be 1 day or 50 years, when it runs out (i.e. the book or CD is destroyed), you have to get a new one. Music files sold like this would just have the duration explicitly stated.

Now that I think about it, I don't remember what the outcome is of having a CD that you copy for personal use and having the copy outlast the original.... I don't remember if in my classes it was covered (it's been a while since i've thought about copyrights) and i don't recall any case law to that effect. My instinct is that as long as the duration aspect of it was't bargained for, the copy outlasting the original is OK, whereas getting around the duration limits gets you in trouble, but I admit I'm not sure about this.

Also, I am in agreement that the copyright period is too long. I think that the rights should extend beyond the life of the author, but should only be about 20 or so years (arbitrary number that seems fair in my head).

One other thing (trying to remember all the things I wanted to comment on :)
The truck example is a valid one - you can't replicate a Ford truck (assuming it was actually possible for you to do so) without running into a number of patent issues (not to mention trademark and copyright issues of their own). Buying a truck from Ford gives you the right to drive the truck, not the right to copy the technology and sell it as your own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I can't argue your point, I'm not saying there isn't legal precedent/law to support the right to choose how the work is used. I'm saying that in cases of purely personal use, where the work has been purchased legally, people should be able to use the work with appropriate attribution. That's just my opinion of course and if asked, I'd certainly remove a song if requested by the artist.

From what I've read, it's not the artists who are asking for their works to be taken out of personal videos. Not to mention that I have *no idea* how to figure out how to request permission to use a work in a personal video and anecdotal evidence suggests that isn't often given anyway. It's just easier for me not to use any music. Now that I've got a site I can look to for music I'll probably do that.

But the videos I make of me & my friends aren't for commercial purposes, that's my contention.



I see what you're saying. I agree that the powers-that-be haven't made interpreting or seeking permission easy.

I think that one thing people do in this subject is seeing 'personal' (in terms of personal vs commercial) as "I'm not making money off of it" whereas my understanding of it is that it's a combination of that and "lost opportunity for the copyright holder to make money".

So if you make a video for you and your friends to watch, and you include a song that you own on CD, mp3, whatever (that you legally bought), then the argument could be made that maybe one of your friends DOESN'T own the song and you're providing something for free that they'd otherwise have to pay for (whether or not they'd actually do it is irrelevant).

If you do that in the privacy of your own home, then it's really blurry as to whether you'd get into any trouble - it's been a while since i've studied this stuff closely. From what DSE is saying (as I understand it - and i'll defer to him since he's involved with this stuff far more than i am), this use would still be OK. Bring that video to the DZ and show it, that's less clear. Bring that video to the DZ and show it on "Year End Video Day", where the DZ advertises year end videos, free beer and pizza - getting murkier (and probably in trouble). Bring the video to the DZ, show it to prospective students to entice them to make a skydive - now you're treading on thin ice.

Ultimately, i think it's about control, and the fact that as technology develops it becomes harder and harder to maintain that control - so the rules have to remain as cut and dried as possible and as applicable to all as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

B-it's the industry in general. Specifically, the RIAA, an association of recording industry businesses (of which I'm a part). No one wants a royalty every time you listen to a song.



I beg to differ with you. I think that the Recording Industry lawyers and lobbyists have demonstrated that they would welcome the opportunity have the laws written so that they could extort a royalty each time a song or video is played if they could get away with it.




Quote

Someone wants a royalty every time that song is mechanically reproduced, broadcast, or synced. That's fair. If you have a skydiving photo that is unique and special, don't you want to be paid each time it's reprinted?



Not necessarily:P. I sell most of my best photos as RF stock. One of them was chosen to be on the cover of your book by your publisher :P My cut of the extended license was $10. Of course I'd be delighted if you would, out of the goodness of your heart, send me $0.50 for each copy of your book that was printed:);)

Another of my photos was printed in Parachutist, and I was paid $15.00 for it. I could care less how many people reprinted a copy of it to post on their refrigerators :P or to show their friends.

Of course, It would be disconcerting to see anyone selling my images as their own work. It's unlikely though, since I do control the distribution of the high-resolution versions, but you never know:S.





Quote

Quote

There have to be limits. I think we need to draw the line at least where an individual who has legally obtained a work, to make as many copies as they want for PERSONAL USE, be it on DVD, CD, Hard Disk, on paper, in their brains ...



This right already exists. You can copy a purchased song/CD/album/tape to as many mechanical devices as you wish for your own use, in other words, so it can only be listened to on one device at a time. Making copies for your friends isn't personal use. It's theft. Making a copy of your iTunes download to a CD for the car, the iPod for jogging, your computer for listening at work, your laptop for listening at home, an SD card for listening in the RV, or syncing to a personal video of yourself is all perfectly legal.


The key words: "On one device at a time"

That's B.S. Why? It serves no purpose other than to make it difficult to make copies. I still remember what a pain in the ass it was to use that piece of crap SONY MD mini-disk player/recorder I bought a few years ago! I will never forgive SONY Music for that >:(:P





Quote

Quote

whatever, regardless of who made the copy for them as long as they are not claiming the work as their own, they give credit whenever possible to the artist, and they don't try to profit monetarily from it.



here is where we significantly depart in agreement. If you make a copy of a song I wrote, recorded, and sell through iTunes for yourself and your various listening devices, GREAT! Thank you! But when you make a copy for your buddy and he makes copies for his various listening devices, you've just stolen from me. The argument might be made "well, Jim-Bob never would have bought your music in the first place, so I did you a favor by giving him a copy." How is it a favor to me that Jim-Bob is listening to my music but I was not compensated for his enjoyment of my hard work? Sorry, but I can't agree at all with this. "Regardless of who stole the work, you should be allowed to enjoy it?" Doesn't work that way in the analog world, and certainly shouldn't work that way in the digital world.


That's not the case I was referring to. I agree with you totally that it is wrong to make copies to give to your friends or to distribute on the internet. As I stated a couple of times in previous notes in this thread, the scenario I was referring to is the example that champu gave about putting music on a DVD for a student who has already legally obtained a copy of the music! The student has a licensed copy already. He should not be made to feel that he is a criminal for having the music on his skydiving video that he uses for personal use only. I don't think it should matter whether he sync'ed it on there himself, or if the DZ did it for him. He has legally obtained the music in the first place. Period. Of course he should not be allowed to upload the video to YouTube or distibute a copy freely to his friends. That is an entirely separate issue.





Quote


Quote

I don't think the copyright holder should have the right to control how many times I listen to a song, how many times I read a book, how many times I can watch a movie that I have obtained legally. The copyright holder should also not have the right to tell me where or on how many devices I can do this either. I have the right to make as many copies (backups) of a DVD as I want for PERSONAL USE.



You're absolutely right. The copyright holder has no control over where you listen, how many times you listen, watch, or even replicate for personal use. They never have had this right, and likely never will. The only exception is if you want to play music at a public gathering such as a bar...then you need to be a member of ASCAP, SESAC, or BMI.
I've read "To Kill a Mockingbird" at least 100 times in my life (no exaggeration). I've worn out at least 4-5 copies. But since I paid for it once, should I be allowed to walk into Barnes and Noble and simply take a copy from the shelf because I paid for it once? I wore out my VHS copy of Norman Kent's "Willing to Fly" as well. Does Norman owe me a free DVD now because I paid for it once?


IMO, you should have the right to make a photocopy of the book for your own use, as a "backup" for when you wear out the original. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly legal for you to lend the book to all of your friends to read. Why? Because the book publishing industry was never able to practically prevent you from doing that in the olden days ;) Things are much different now. Almost anyone who uses a computer, listens to music, or watches DVD's nowadays is potentially a criminal.

My guess is that Norm Kent wouldn't give a hoot if you made a backup copy of the original, legally obtained, copy of the VHS tape. Of course, chances are that the Industry fixed it so that your VHS recorder made it very difficult or impossible for you to use your VHS recorder to copy it ;) You should have made a backup copy. IMO, since you legally obtained the original, it shouldn't be criminal for you to have a friend make you a backup copy now. Of course, if I were you I'd go ahead and purchase the DVD, since it's a great movie and the quality of the DVD would be better ;)





Quote

Back to the point and direction of this thread, no matter how you shake it out, using music in a skydiving video is a commercial, non-personal use. There is simply no way to argue otherwise. The videographer is hired to shoot, edit, and deliver a video of a skydive. Even if he/she is doing it for free, there is a perceived value in the end product and it contains an unauthorized duplication of a Master recording, that has been synchronized to video (again without authorization from the copyright holder), and then finally, it is contained on a mechanical device (DVD). Three very separate and distinct copyright laws (two of which having nothing to do with the RIAA) have been violated.



I disagree with that first sentence. There are lots of skydiving videos that are non-commercial and personal. You must be referring only to tandem videos or something, since you mentiond the vidiot being hired to shoot, edit, and deliver. Of course, in that case it's a commercial product that contains an unauthorized duplication. But it shouldn't be illegal for the DZ to sync music that the student has already legally obtained onto the DVD for them. That should be considered a "fair use" IMO. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that the student should have no right to give copies to his friends or upload it to YouTube in that case. This is precisely why I think that DZ's should be using RF or Creative Commons BY-SA licensed music and just avoid the other stuff entirely. All of my tandem videos use CC by-sa licensing. I roll credits at the end and I, in turn, license the videos as CC BY-SA so that the student is free to upload to YouTube, FaceBook, their own web site, etc, and it's perfectly legal. They are even allowed to edit and make a derivative work and sell it commercially if they wish as long as they give the proper credits and attributions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

My guess is that Norm Kent wouldn't give a hoot if you made a backup copy of the original, legally obtained, copy of the VHS tape. .



You'd be wrong in that guess. Norman and I have had several discussions on this subject. It's part of why he made Willing to Fly available on DVD, for folks whose VHS tapes have worn out.
The rest of it...we've drifted into SC material, so I'll depart. We're going to disagree no matter what.
I will make one comment...

You're obviously welcome to "disagree that skydiving videos are not commercial videos." But try to understand, by every test of the law, skydiving videos (we're referring to tandem videos ONLY in this thread, as indicated in the very first post), cannot meet tests of Fair Use any more than a wedding video can. Wedding videos have been turned inside and out by attorneys hoping to defend wedding video, and they can't find a legit, bulletproof defense. Wedding videographers outnumber skydiving videographers by at least 50:1. It's taken them a decade to figure it out. Hopefully no DZ will be nailed in the decade that it appears will have to pass before tandem videographers "get it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another option that I've become aware of for those with copies of iLife on a mac (maybe US only):

http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1151236
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2931?viewlocale=en_US

I have used one of these tunes in one of my personal videos. This gives me a good option for personal stuff which will allow me to avoid any complications.

As far as DZ tandem videos go, I have to agree with DSE. If you're being paid to create the video then you should acquire rights to any track you utilize.

I still feel that purely personal use shouldn't be grouped in with commercial but I can see the reasoning wrt personal works being used without consent. I don't feel that the article linked in the OP is really that relevant to tandem videos because file sharing is a hot button issue and requires (at least in the eyes of the RIAA) examples be made of people. The wedding videographer example is much more pertinent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point in the OP was, and still is, copyright enforcement is gaining ground. This was underscored yesterday by the courts siding with the MPAA against REAL Networks as well.

One thing I'm noting in this discussion (which is part of why it's likely soon to end up in SC), is there seems to be a misunderstanding between "This is how it is," "This is how I think it should be."
It doesn't matter what/how any of us think the laws should apply. What matters is how the laws currently apply, and how they affect our current operations.
Now, if you really believe your DZ has the moxy and finances to deal with copyright litigation when it comes, by all means, feel free to test the laws. I'll gladly donate up to 500.00 (roughly an hour of a good IP attorney's fees) to your cause, even though I *know* you shall not prevail. I've been a member of the RIAA for nearly 30 years, been a holder of copyright for more than 30 years, a member of WEVA for the past 12 years, and sat on various NARAS and NAB boards for the past 8 years. Most of the key players in the game have far more money than any dropzone has with which to play this game, not to mention the rules of Congress (which are quite separate from other portions of the applicable laws.
Yes, there are changes in the winds for copyright holders and users of copyrighted works. But those changes are not fast-moving, and until DMCA is amended (and it will be) you'll see an increase in copyright control, litigation, enforcement, and judgements in favor of the holder of copyright.
Bear in mind, those same laws that protect musicians from their music being illegally used in tandem videos are the same laws that protect skydiving photographers from having their works published without a license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's say I want to use a Metallica song in a tandem video that I sell for 50 bucks. How would I go about making it a legal video? How do I contact Metallica to ask them if I can use their music? And how much would I have to pay to use their song just once in a video? I think after all the time and hassle you have to go through, they should give you the music FOR FREE and PAY YOU!

I think it's just wrong to sell your music all over the world, but not add the option (also everywhere!) of a license to use the music "commercially" for regular people like me.

If they we're smart, they would add the FEATURE ON EVERY WEBSITE that sells their music, and they will make a lot more money. Like they want it!

Don't say it's stealing when you leave the door wide open man. I would be glad to pay a DECENT price to use music, just give me the chance. Just make it possible! But let's face it, us skydivers just don't have the money.

Millionaires always need more money and we have to respect that! Skydivers just want to jump and they have respect that :).
All speeding past collide and crashing, I'm in paradise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


If they we're smart, they would add the FEATURE ON EVERY WEBSITE that sells their music, and they will make a lot more money. Like they want it!

Millionaires always need more money and we have to respect that! Skydivers just want to jump and they have respect that :).



Millionaires (successful people) are rarely stupid, particularly as compared to the average skydiver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


If they we're smart, they would add the FEATURE ON EVERY WEBSITE that sells their music, and they will make a lot more money. Like they want it!

Millionaires always need more money and we have to respect that! Skydivers just want to jump and they have respect that :).



Millionaires (successful people) are rarely stupid, particularly as compared to the average skydiver.



Not only that, but I haven't heard of a single case of Metallica not wanting someone to skydive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just saying they should only make people aware of the law and give everyone a chance to follow it. But yeah, it's america right, they sew you for serving hot coffée.

I never said millionaires were stupid. I merely made a suggestion on how they could make more money because they are GREEDY :)

And ow yeah, I'm not rich but I'm "succesfull" in life! You don't have to be smart to achieve succes.
All speeding past collide and crashing, I'm in paradise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'm just saying they should only make people aware of the law and give everyone a chance to follow it. But yeah, it's america right, they sew you for serving hot coffée.

I never said millionaires were stupid. I merely made a suggestion on how they could make more money because they are GREEDY :)

And ow yeah, I'm not rich but I'm "succesfull" in life! You don't have to be smart to achieve succes.



The idea that you had to put a lot of work into editting their music to your video is funny.

I totally agree Metallica makes it sound easy and [here comes the sarcasm] have the "easy" life... they sleep in, party all the time, do some concerts and make boatloads of money.[end of sarcasm]

I think what you're forgetting is that for the 50 bucks you're selling the video for.. that is YOUR time that is getting paid for right there.. what about Metallica's time to write, practice, record, promote their music?

I'm sure they LOVE music.. but Love doesn't pay for guitars, drumsets, microphones, travel, studio time, band managers... etc..

Just a thought.. I know it's crazy.. but I'm just throwing something out there..

People have this idea that just because it's digital and easy, it shouldn't cost anything..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


People have this idea that just because it's digital and easy, it shouldn't cost anything..



That's not what he said. His point was that it's prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to legally use Metallica's music on his videos ;)

ETA: It's ironic that anyone here actually thinks Metallica is a good example :-D :-D :-D

Quote

According to TorrentFreak, Ulrich admitted the crime in a That Metal Show interview with Eddie Trunk on VH1 Classic. He said:

"I sat there myself and downloaded [METALLICA's latest CD] ‘Death Magnetic’ [illegally] from the Internet just to try it. I was like, ‘Wow, this is how it works.’ I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download ‘Death Magnetic’ for free, it’s me. I sat there one night at my house with about six of my friends and a bottle of wine. And what was it called?! [Trying to think of the name of the file-sharing client he used to download the album] We found it — this was like two or three days after ['Death Magnetic'] leaked. I was like, ‘You know what? I’ve gotta try this.’ So we sat there, and thirty minutes later, I had ‘Death Magnetic’ in my computer." It was kind of bizarre.



Here's the source: CLICKY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know I should have used Brittany Spears instead of Metallica!!! I love Metallica, but just want to f*ck Brittany. I'm leaving the subject now because everyting that is comming out is gibberisch... Must be the beer talking. Gonna watch my illegaly downloaded porn now.
All speeding past collide and crashing, I'm in paradise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, and no one has led the anti-piracy fight any harder than Metallica.
You're citing the source, but taking it out of context. Metallica hates for their music to be used illegally.
And has taken steps to stop it.

One of Lar's Ulrich's most elegant lines:
If you're not fortunate enough to own a computer, there's only one way to assemble a music collection the equivalent of a Napster user's: theft. Walk into a record store, grab what you want and walk out. The difference is that the familiar phrase a computer user hears, "File's done," is replaced by another familiar phrase-"You're under arrest."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of context???? :S

I posted a quote that shows that Lars himself, in his own words, admitted to freely downloading music. It was just as illegal for him to do it as anyone else :P

The only reason I cited the source, was so that you could see where I found this gem. I think you would be justified in discrediting the source if you so desire, but the quote I showed you is the entire context that stands by itself. It's a fact. Lars illegally downloads free music and openly admits to it. What part of the "context" of that is missing?:D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0