but where does the money come from? I doubt it's coming from google/youtube's own pocet.
LOL of course, I'm merely pointing out that its illegal. from the library point of view, there's nothing else they can do, apart from not lending CDs at all.
I don't think TV is totally different. It's still recorded and transmitted media. The way people consume TV is different, but with all of our portable devices, that's even changing. All the music streaming services have ads in their free offerings, and they remove them for their subscription services, much like premium cable services.
Well, it depends on how its downloaded. If it's an open file, you can't. If you need to use say a "Spotify Music Player" to play the track, they can make you listen to a commercial every fifth track.
Fair enough, but I don't think the big issue among musicians on this board is what it's called. We all know what the issue entails here - lost revenue. While you make a fair point, I don't think the semantics are that big of a deal.
Music will become like TV when Net Neutrality is finally dead. But that's the only way.
Piracy is funded by advertising. Stop the advertising and you stop the piracy (more realistically manage it). This isn't that hard to deal with if the political will is there.I don't think TV is totally different. It's still recorded and transmitted media. The way people consume TV is different, but with all of our portable devices, that's even changing. All the music streaming services have ads in their free offerings, and they remove them for their subscription services, much like premium cable services.
I just think that if there is a future for the music industry, it will look more like this model than the traditional model where everyone buys and stores copies of albums. There will still be people why do that, just like there are people who buy DVDs and Blu-Rays, but I think eventually most people will be happy with streaming as long they can whatever they want whenever they want.
Maybe then piracy will be over...
nonsense. piracy is about big business not individual downloaders. we're not talking about kids in bedrooms were talking about corporations and boardrooms. piracy is a mass scale, enterprise level transfer of wealth from musicians to silicon valley interests as lead by google and ad tech. bit-torrent provides the delivery mechanism and google (and others) provide the financing.
But times have changed. Libraries could lend books without worrying about copyright infringement by borrowers because it was just not practical to do. For most of time, it had to be done by hand - so it was hardly worth it. Only recently has photocopying been available, and even that's barely practical (and usually banned at libraries, except for short excerpts anyway). The advent of digital technology and the ability to directly make a perfect copy in seconds or music and movies is a very recent game-changing thing, and while there may be some "rule" that supposedly bans you from doing it, even THAT would surprise me, frankly.
Absolutely true, AND why it can't effectively deal with digital formats that no longer conform to the old way of using words.
The overriding, very old principle is that of intellectual property, which is independent of the carrier technology, although for many years the two were largely inseparable, because making "things" that embodied an idea was difficult and expensive.
Although even there, the simplest retorts would likely be that intellectual property rights do not resemble property rights by design, and copyright in particular does not confer ownership of ideas.
As as in the point I'm making, if you follow it, this has little to do with how it is actually dealt with and little to do with reality.
The mp3 is separate from the thing that actually matters: the conceptual content, which can exist in a myriad of formats.
But the conceptual content ONLY exists as something that can be interpreted. Whether that's an mp3, a AAC, an FLAC file, whatever. It can ONLY exist as such, and really, only exist as a played thing, since as a series of stored ones and zeros, it doesn't really exist at all as an idea. If it did, then NONE of it could be copyrighted because all possible permutations of binary data either already exist, or can be deemed as pre-existent, because that is the nature of binary data. Plus, it's just math, which is (nearly) always in the free domain. And how does the recent ruling by SCOTUS affect all this? There's another rub.
But words are composed of the same symbols and letters, too, with now centuries of permutations and combinations thereof. I wonder if your argument isn't conflating the medium of storage with what the copyright applies to -- namely, the original, fixed expression. This doesn't mean that if one writes a novel the copyright only applies to others copying it in novel form, or written form at all. If you took a copyrighted novel and made it into a film, or a play, or an audiobook, or multimedia presentation without legal excuse or license, that would likely constitute copyright infringement. That is, the copyright does not cover the idea as such, but by design it covers that expression of the idea, rather than simply narrowly covering the form that expression takes or the storage medium containing it.
