Copyright Trolls Steal All the Fun...

[bernie's bender]

Mike,

if you buy a book and lend it to a friend... no problem. If you buy a book and reprint it for 1 million people and become an 'important person' with 3 million hits and there is advertising on every single page for which someone gets paid, it is a problem.

The math is the thing. lending to a friend, no problem. Sharing to anyone else in the world, problem. Make sense?

Playing hotel california in your living room for friends... no problem. humming it in the kitchen, no problem. Playing it in a bar for money, bar pays the fee.

reproducing it and putting it on the internet for millions of people to enjoy and benefit from without paying 15.00 fee, problem. 15 bucks to entertain the world legally seems like a small price, right?

Is 15.00 too much to be in accord with the laws and with your favorite songwriters and bands?

btw, CCM has the right like any citizen or group to report when folks are breaking the law... they do it for a fee which is paid by artists to protect the rights of the artist.

[bernie's bender]

Mike said: "Personally, if I do something like that, you can rest assured that I have no motive of profit. I'm not trying to impress anyone so that they will pay me to have them teach them to play guitar or sing. It is NOT going to improve my resume in any way....performing and music and writing code for mainframe computers have very little in common and if I crudely perform (or do a perfect rendition) of a song, it is in no way going to impact my salary nor will it enhance my "job security." I can't see how that is going to impact the success of the artist nor is it going to decrease the profits the artist can expect."

Mike,

When you post songs here and receive praise, does it benefit you? I think it does. It feels good, right? If you chose a public domain song, would it get the same response? Is the 'good feeling' you get from hearing from forum members telling you 'good job' worth anything to you? What is it worth in dollars?

Talent is talent. whether that is hitting a baseball, doing accounting, coding software, playing guitar, acting in a scene, performing heart surgery... the folks with the most talent, who can do things few others can, generally can command a higher price for their talent than can folks who have talent in lesser measure. So, someone who writes songs is comparable to a computer programmer in the marketplace.

If someone pirates a copy of Adobe Photoshop and puts it up on the internet for anyone to download and provides the unlock code... most of us would see that as theft. It is the intellectual property and the reflection of talent of that group of coders who made that. The people who steal it say "it costs too much" "I don't use it that often" "information wants to be free" and other things like that. Does it sound familiar? Sure it does. Psychologists call it rationalization.

People rationalize all the time to explain away things that they don't want to admit about their actions. The net result is: You like the fun and good feeling of not only recording songs, but songs from your heroes and the added bonus is sharing them to a largely unknown audience (the world) and getting some kudos which make you feel good. But, you are unwilling to pay the fee for the good feeling which amounts to 15.00.

I think I am understanding your position.

[EagleLady]

Comparing watching a video on Youtube to breaking the law is ludicrous and it seems Don wants to alienate more fans.

[bernie's bender]

Comparing watching a video on Youtube to breaking the law is ludicrous and it seems Don wants to alienate more fans.

not watching a video, posting a video.

posting things that aren't ours to post is against the law.

[EagleLady]

You must be from the time one didn't need Youtube, but You and Don are making it seem like Youtube is the enemy and it's not. And you take joy away from something one puts extremely hard work in.

[sodascouts]

not watching a video, posting a video.

So it's OK to watch a "stolen" video on YouTube, take pleasure from it, then condemn the person who posted it?

Sounds like rationalization to me.... or at the very least, hypocrisy.

The RIAA has prosecuted people who downloaded commercially available music for free, even though they didn't upload it. Streaming is temporary downloading.

I personally don't think it's wrong to watch YouTube videos (obviously) but if one takes the position that it's illegal to upload certain videos, it leads naturally to the position that it's illegal to download (ie., view) them.

[bernie's bender]

You must be from the time one didn't need Youtube, but You and Don are making it seem like Youtube is the enemy and it's not. And you take joy away from something one puts extremely hard work in.

I don't think anyone NEEDS youtube. Most of us like it a lot, but it is like television, we don't need it, we just like it.

Youtube is a company that is working to make a profit. It is a business.

I enjoy youtube as much as anyone, but I also recognize that what I post needs to be my work, my resources or I need to license it. Licensing material is inexpensive and easy.

Let's say you really like your local market. No, you love your local market. You've been a fan of the store since you were a little kid. To pay tribute, you go in to the store and steal some eggs, cake mix and frosting, go home, spend hours and hours and hours making a beautiful cake which, dutifully, you take to the store owner and beam at him while you present the cake to him.

He is in a tough spot.

On one hand, he appreciates that you love his store and took the time to make a cake for him. On the other, you stole from him actually whittling away at his earnings. The real problem he sees is that if he doesn't make sure that you know that you stole, you and others may continue to do so which eventually will make it very hard for him to stay in business at all.

I think what the store owner is asking is: if you would just pay for the mix, eggs and frosting, we could all have a healthy, happy relationship without the complications. But, if the 'happy customer' gets mad when the store owner points out that they took something without paying, puts hands on hips and says, "I have loved this store and made this cake as a tribute and all you do is call me thief" in a petulant rage... I think the problems run much deeper.

[sodascouts]

I sense that you are a creative person, that is why it is so curious that your position would appear to be so counter and so at odds with the things you care about... If I am adamant about my position, it is because it is real to me. I am someone who has been ripped off, and I have lots of friends who rely on their work for their living...

If I truly thought that people strumming covers in their bedroom and uploading it to YouTube was stealing from the original artist, I would be in your camp... but I don't believe that. I argue passionately about it because I feel that CCM and the record companies are hurting the little guy and it upsets me. I'm a "little guy" too.

With regard to your example above, why is it OK to eat a piece of that cake and then condemn the person who cooked it? That's what you do when you enjoy those videos on YouTube. (I should note that I do not concede that the videos are stealing, but I am working within the boundaries of your analogy even though I disagree with its basic premise.)

[bernie's bender]

If I truly thought that people strumming covers in their bedroom and uploading it to YouTube was stealing from the original artist, I would be in your camp... but I don't believe that. I argue passionately about it because I feel that CCM and the record companies are hurting the little guy and it upsets me. I'm a "little guy" too.

With regard to your example above, why is it OK to eat a piece of that cake and then condemn the person who cooked it? That's what you do when you enjoy those videos on YouTube.

It isn't an issue of faith. It is a legal issue. So long as folks are willing to admit that they are in violation of existing law and that they understand that they are stealing under the current law... I stop there. Once folks see and admit what they are doing, then it is up to them. I think most people just don't understand that they are violating existing law. If, once they understand what they are doing and continue to do it, I am done trying to explain or get them to see... then, it is their personal sense of right and wrong that govern them, not mine.

The law is clear on these issues. You limited your example to someone strumming their guitar, but we all know it goes much farther than that, but even at your example, if the 'little guy' could license the song for 15.00 and be legal.... why wouldn't he/she?

As for the 'guilty eating the cake', I think you are assuming too much at least about me and I think you'd be incorrect. First, if I know something is pirated and stolen, I would not participate. Sometimes it is hard to know which things have been licensed and which haven't. Then, it is the responsibility of the producer and youtube to police it... at this point, there are a lot of pirates and a lot of confusion about what is legal. But, that will sort.

The things I most enjoy on youtube are home made things made by regular people but completely their work.

But, even if I were the worst youtube pirate, posting stolen things all day and watching stolen work all day... that wouldn't change what any other individual does. If I were the worst hypocrite and stealer of music, my theft doesn't change what you or anyone else might do in one bit. In the end, (and I know our moms told us this) two wrongs don't make it right, and just because the other kids are doing it, doesn't make it legal or right.

I have made copies of out of print records for people before. Other than trying to track down a copy at a used record store or on ebay, or when I have found the rare record, I HAVE copied it for someone who I knew would love it. But, I also found a cd by that same artist that was still for sale and bought that in its stead (even when I already owned a copy) just so that I could make it right in my own mind. It was still not exactly right, but it was a 'best effort'... which is the standard I hold myself to.

So, if folks are cognizant of the law and that they are violating it as it is currently written and still choose to do what they do, I have no comment. My only concern is that folks understand that they are doing something that is not permitted by current law. No moral judgement, no beliefs, none of that... the morality trip is our own to take... the legal trip is just part of the social contract we agree to as citizens.

[MikeA]

B.B.:

I think the only disagreement I have with your position (and I really don't argue that you are wrong....it is the whole premise I totally disagree with). is that matter of degree.

I can't see any legal difference in playing a song that everyone knows for one friend and posting it on YouTube to be heard by millions. The magnitude of the audience is all that defines the two scenarios.

Understand me, I am NOT talking about copying a Cut from an album and distributing it.

But maybe you are right. Maybe a group or a songwriter should hope never to become so popular that folks would want to play or sing their songs just for the heck of it.

I think that maybe it is that attitude of trying to insure that no one ever sings their songs by policing the practice so severely that brought about a lot of activity back in Kansas during the Prohibition. It didn't stop people from drinking, it just made a lot of people rich by forcing them to meet the demands of the public ILLEGALLY. I think that's happening now.

Okay, you want to cover the song...pay them $15 and sell the hell out of it if you can...that's okay, as long as the songwriter gets his portion of that $15. If he doesn't get it, he'll starve. I can understand that. I can understand that that $15 is just extracting every penny that they can out of what they do....any real money is going to be made if that version of the song becomes commercially successful to the playgerizer and the original artist collects royalties from it.

And by the way, I'm not too concerned about anything I post here in the form of a recording bring down any legal action....the artist would have a heck of a time proving that anything I did resembled enough anything THEY did to stand up as plagerism <LOL>.