why do recording artists insist on stealing from me?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Blank_CD_levy_that_allows_for_legal_backups_of_music_goes_up_by_almost_40_per_cent.html

and how can I bring a lawsuit against them for thier theft?

""In this age of arts cuts and economic recession, it is of even more importance that rights holders receive the compensation to which they are entitled," she said in a statement."
THEN MAKE MUSIC PEOPLE WILL BUY!!!
bitch.

Amen, Brother Dean!

What about my rights when I produce a program on a CD? Where's my money, Metallica?

Haha. Italy already taxed blank cd's and dvd's. I buy mine in Slovenia. :-)

Do you have to play duty bringing 'em across the border, or are they hidden on your person? :twisted:

heehee "play duty" heehee.
That's a good one.
Nope. No more border.

Oh yeah, it's the EU!

Dean you have to fight fire with fire - charge people for reading your posts. Good luck with that collection effort. Seriously though - this pirating/proprietary stuff is a joke and my comment applies to other areas like photography too. I once hired a photog to shoot a plate of food for an ad for a popular chain and when he overheard we were putting the pic into 4,000 flyers he wanted $10 per reproduction (yes, $40,000). So I escorted him out of the building and hired another photographer in 5 minutes that was more than agreeable to click his button for 2 minutes for the $400 payment. The world of commerce is going to have to adjust to the new world of communication - not the other way around. Bands can start playing for paying crowds again for their revenue - like is already happening/changing.

And I'll add that I've never copied a song to a CD - I don't even know how to. And I'm paying .29 cents per CD now because they think I MIGHT? Somebody should sue whoever.

Problem is we may see less movies as it is not worth investor,s time to lose money. Royalties are a big chunk of change for a movie. Same for professional bands , after all you won't work for free will you Dean .

You steal a candy bar, you download Nickelback... both are criminal offences.

well I often do... but to get to your point... let me answer it this way.
I sure wont!... but I wont make money off of people for no reason at all either...hmmm maybe I should produce a song that is entirely based on the sound of electricity running through a piece of glass and the sound it makes.. then charge anyone who buys sand, glass or wire that can conduct electricity just in case some one tries to copy my work... nah to hard.

I KNOW!// I will make and copyrite a snowball. Then charge anyone who has snow on their property as they might use it to make a snowball that looks like mine..

Movies will still be produced - they just won't pay actors $20,000,000 to pretend for a few weeks. Call it market-correction. The same logic should apply to all of this downloading stuff - it's not possible to enforce - leaving the only method a blanket levy that doesn't apply to many. Like I said - I've never downloaded a song in my life and I'm not interested in subsidizing people that do.

Yes but royalties pay for all that high tech wizadry,

incognito wrote:You steal a candy bar, you download Nickelback... both are criminal offences.

Listening to Nickelback should be a criminal offence. Those dudes suck...

Apparently the link no longer works...when I clicked it...I received this message:

Oops! We apologize...you’ve discovered a black hole that we’ve yet
to corral as we move our site to a new web publishing platform.
Our team has been notified and will work to correct the issue as soon as possible.
If you are trying to reach a page you have bookmarked in your web
browser, note that some web addresses have changed. If you are trying
to access a specific page, please try using the "search" box at top
right to find the page, then re–bookmark the new location.

The WFP must be reworking their web site. I get that error message quite frequently. For the WFP types reading the sandbox you might want to tell someone to fix your web site.

Goth_chic wrote:

incognito wrote:You steal a candy bar, you download Nickelback... both are criminal offences.

Listening to Nickelback should be a criminal offence. Those dudes suck...

Amen, Sister!

A bigger offence in my book is the proprietary Digital Rights Management schemes employed by the various online music vendors (Apple/iTunes specifically).

Personally, I have the point of view of, if they play it on the radio, on TV, or any other form of "free" media...then it's fair game for making copies and sharing them with friends.

Considering more and more TV Shows are airing full episodes online and artists are making their entire CD available on their websites...it seems almost stupid for them to expect royalties for things they are giving away for free. What's to keep someone from recording a radio broadcast? or TV show?

How many of us who grew up in the 70s/80s didn't tape songs off the radio (and get ticked when the DJ talked over the beginning or end of the song)? How many of us didn't use our VCR (or BetaMax) to record shows off TV (or especially HBO type channels)...and then hit the "pause" button to "freeze" the frame when there might be something "juicy" revealed?

If something has been broadcast...it has been released for "free"...and sharing that, or making copies for yourself is only fair.

As far as the mention of the photographer...did you know if you go get your photos taken at any studio (even WalMart or Superstore)...though the photos may be of you and/or your family...you "legally" are not allowed to make copies of the photos (ie. scan them and/or e-mail them)? There's actually a watermark on the paper of the photos you purchase which is supposed to prevent you from making high-quality reproductions. Several legal cases have been argued deeming the "owner" of any photograph to be the photographer, unless released through contract.

You have a unique perspective AA...

Try a different perspective: The tunes were "licensed" for use by a particular radio station for that one time use with no extension of the license to the listener to make copies.

As for the photographers you are right. They sell you X copies of "their" photographs and they retain the right of ownership.

In my marketing days I made it very clear to photographers and marketing companies that we will retain full ownership of all product they create for us. Some quibbled but that was made clear up front and was included on our PO's.

Of course that is correct (copyright on photos) - I'm just saying it's not practical. Like I said - I hired another photog in 5 minutes. That's about how fast other industries will self-correct once they accept that it's immpossible to control what will only continue to ocurr. And as communication/technology develops - even moreso.

grumpy old man wrote:

The tunes were "licensed" for use by a particular radio station for that one time use with no extension of the license to the listener to make copies.

A radio station can issue a license?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying...can you expand please?

No, I took literary license in an effort to make myself understood. I see I was very successful in that regard.

Who issued you that license? The Canada Literary Office?