131–140 of 290 posts
And I'll double down on making sure I never pay the record labels another dime. Authors and artists: make sure you have a way for me to send you money online.
A few options for those looking: Bandcamp, Patreon, Twitch, Ko-Fi, CDbaby, and probably a host of others.
I like this case. It's about recordings that are 70 years old or more, the vast majority are out of print, and the rest are often precariously in print. If I'm reading correctly, the silly nature of the claim that > [...] of the 2,749 recordings listed in the complaint, all but a “small sample” are already available to stream or download from licensed online platforms so they “face no danger of being lost, forgotten,…
Oh no, not free and unlimited access to art! Anything but that!
> The complaint states that when the 78rpm records were converted into digital files, IA reproduced copyrighted recordings without permission. When IA copied those files to a server, that amounted to another unauthorized reproduction Am I wrong to interpret this as trying to outlaw ripping a CD and uploading to a personal NAS? There’s additional claims about distribution to the public that (may??) seem more reasonabl…
Courts have ruled that merely executing an exe file is itself an act of copyright infringment, because the OS copies the contents into RAM. That's how deep it goes. The reason no users are violating copyright when running software normally is because of a special exception for software in the Copyright Act.
You can't just drop an extraordinary claim like that without a citation. When I search those terms, your comment is the only one I can find that remotely resembles anything like the case you're describing.
This really scares me. The wayback machine is a treasure. I don't know what will happen to it if these cases succeed.
Imagine a mixture of 1984: Who controls the past, controls the future: who controls the present controls the past. On the specifics of the lawsuit.. well if the law us bad, then change the law. But not following the law is not nice.
This doesn't refute the general principle though - unjust laws should be broken. Historically enough repulsive stuff was mandated by law.
What is the best way to let these greedy bastards know that we disagree with their conduct? Not buying records will only lead to them wrongfully claiming that they "lost revenue due to piracy".
Build AI music tools. Make it easy for the next generation of artists and create a Cambrian explosion of new music to wash out the old, copyright encumbered works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> how expensive it can be to market music. Did you write this comment in 2001? The cost to produce and promote music has dropped to near zero. SoundCloud rappers have become millionaires. Billie Eilesh recorded her first album in her bedroom.
I'm dating someone who has visions of fame through his music. These "soundcloud rapper millionaires" and Billie Eilesh have so much more marketing spent on them than you might believe. It is hard to make it anywhere in that business without a lot of promotion, and that requires a lot of money. Initially often in the form of small payments that add up. A few hundred dollars here to be added to a playlist, a few hundre…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh no, not free and unlimited access to art! Anything but that!
Think of the middlemen and distributors, they need to get paid, otherwise who will be making the music?
You can't just upload music to Spotify or Apple Music or whatever as an independent artist. You need to pay rent to a distributor who is allowed to interact with the streaming service. (Some of them offer the convenient feature of administering royalties for cover songs, but it's an additional cost and not a given...) Most will probably never make enough royalties to cover the fees.
Then you have the whole growing SubmitHub thing. (Pay for consideration on playlists to get exposure.)
And LPs here: https://locserendipity.com/LP.html
(And donate to IA)