Likes: So, Trent and the RIAA sign the same petition to make the DMCA stronger.
And Thom Yorke describes Google as Nazis.
Godwin's Law invoked in the first salvos WTF is going on?
Guess Trent's taking his CCO of Apple seriously, heh.
Faceplams: 0
Stubby Member
So, Trent and the RIAA sign the same petition to make the DMCA stronger.
And Thom Yorke describes Google as Nazis.
Godwin's Law invoked in the first salvos WTF is going on?
Guess Trent's taking his CCO of Apple seriously, heh.
Captain Rustleboots
Well that's fucking stupid.
Memb, Member, The Membest
Upcoming NIN tour attenders are welcomed to our free taping policy*
*first row: Ipads/Iphones only allowed; whole venue: no Android devices
Active Member
I hate to be an asshole, but this "our content is free online!!!!" battle has been lost a long time ago. The same way I didn't feel like I was stealing shit when I taped music videos from MTV on my VCR as a kid (yes, I'm that old) I don't feel like I'm stealing when I check a band out on youtube. It's just the world we live in. I don't want to buy every song I listen to.
And the reason I defend youtube (as a platform, not as a corporate money making machine) is precisely the death of MTV. That's where we used to soak up content. That's where we used to be exposed to music. You can't expect people to buy your stuff without hearing it/falling in love with it. Okay, so youtube goes away, and then I will hear the new NIN single... where, exactly? On nin.com? Or you know what, just go to Itunes I guess. right.
God is an American
MTV was a paid cable service that gave artists royalties for airtime. YouTube does not in most cases pay artists a dime even with billions in ad revenue. That's not fair.Originally Posted by hellospaceboy
Last edited by botley; 06-23-2016 at 08:38 AM.
Memb, Member, The Membest
It's like a crusade towards torrents. Everyone now knows it's synonymous with piracy even though many free and fair-use media is distributed via torrents. Often they provide a way to get something not in stores anymore, or hardly available otherwise. Corporations seriously need to be less intrusive in our lives.
I was nobody. Nothing.
Steal and steal and steal some more and give it to all your friends and keep on stealin'.
One way another these motherfuckers will get it through their heads that they're ripping people off.
what up @hellospaceboy
I treasured the cassette i recorded of a Peal Jam show in like 1992 for years, so yes. I am that old too
Last edited by elevenism; 06-23-2016 at 07:19 AM.
God is an American
The fact that Reznor has advocated for fairness on the side of both the artist and the fan is lost on people.
I was nobody. Nothing.
Oh hell no. I don't debate @botley anymore.
i never win
Active Member
... He said, when he learned that his Australian fans were ridiculously overcharged ...
He never said fans should have his shit for free. He said that there's a right price for it, and that he'd rather see you steal it than getting ripped off. Nuances, context, those are important...In a post on the official Nine Inch Nails website, Reznor condemned Universal Music Group—the parent company of Interscope Records—for its pricing and distribution plans for Year Zero.[52] He wrote that he hated Interscope for setting the price of the album higher than usual, humorously labeling the company's retail pricing of Year Zero in Australia as "ABSURD", [sic] and concluding that "as a reward for being a 'true fan' you get ripped off." Reznor went on to say in later years the "climate" of record labels may have an increasingly ambivalent impact on consumers who buy music
Seriously I'm amazed that you're all treating this as if Reznor Jesus just fell from grace... The amount of outrage, entitlement and disappointment is fascinating. The guy has always, always wanted people to buy his stuff, and only reluctantly admitted that piracy was here to stay and that it had to be taken into account. He has never supported it, and everything he's done in the past was trying to find ways to make his work more visible, more available, so that you would buy his stuff.
"True fans", in this context, means "People who will go and purchase my records", not "Guys who'll F5 the hell out of KAT and PB to get my shit for free".
Last edited by Khrz; 06-23-2016 at 07:34 AM.
I was nobody. Nothing.
well @Khrz , i've already bought and lost every nin release (which i know is anathema to a lot of you collectors,) with the exception of YZ which i PHYSICALLY stole because i was broke.
So now, every once in awhile, i download all the albums and burn them so i will have them all again (see, i have to do it more than once because i'm not good at physical reality.)
i don't feel bad though because i already bought them.
Active Member
I'm not arguing against or for piracy. That's an old, tired debate, and by now everyone knows the ins and outs of it, morally, economically, legally, etc...
In your example, you bought an object, the object gets broken or lost, but somehow you're entitled to the commodity of the object and that's what you fundamentally purchased, to you. Which means somehow that you can go to a store and just grab one and walk out, because you already bought one in the past. That kind of logic, oddly enough, only applies to entertainment products such as music, movies and games, but okay... If you buy a sandwich and drop it before you ate all of it, you can't get one for free just because you're still hungry.
But well, we'll never agree on that. It's become as inarguable as religion. You're on either side of the fence because it aligns with your understanding of the world, and nothing will change that, so there's really no point in arguing.
No, what I'm really saying that Reznor has always defended his right for a fair pricing, which is neither "404 bupkes" nor "40 dollahz", but right in between. Whoever thought that he was some messiah of the free distribution has been delusional for a long while, that's all.
Last edited by Khrz; 06-23-2016 at 08:15 AM.
Memb, Member, The Membest
It's not about getting free shit. It's about flushing all shit to oblivion because someone says a fraction of said shit is illegal.
Active Member
I was directly referring to the -very popular yet always misused- quote posted by @elevenism .
God is an American
Straw man. No one is suggesting 'flushing all shit to oblivion', the letter requests reforms to safe harbour copyright legislation.
Stubby Member
He says this in his homestate, so I guess the Aussie and Philly fans get the ok in stealing Trent's music.
All jokes aside, for those that don't know the man who organized the petition is Irving Azoff, big name in the music industry. He's been very vocal about this topic for quite awhile.
God is an American
Someone not caring whether you steal from them because they're already well-off doesn't change the fact that they regard it as stealing. Azoff et al. carefully worded the petition to specifically highlight the fact that the next generation of artists can't survive with their rightful wages stolen.
Memb, Member, The Membest
It all begins with small things... /paranoia
.net (24.24.2.1447)
Even if the artists were fairly renumerated for all their content on YT, they've lost control of the presentation of that content. How can Trent guarantee that if someone listens to a NIN song, even if an ad runs first and he gets paid, that it's a mastering he's approved of, that the accompanying video is the right one, etc.
Throbbing Member
This is the point they should stick to. Although I would say that it is difficult for them to establish lost sales as a direct result of YouTube. But perhaps more importantly, there is a public policy debate to be had about what length society should go to prevent the theft of something that is non-rival, i.e. my consumption doesn't affect anyone else's. To this end, I would argue that any law that makes YouTube non-feasible, by making it impossible for YouTube to allow its users to upload whatever they want, does not server the public interest, because it punishes the vast majority for the benefit of a very small minority.
Except that the next generation of artists will survive, and pretending that they won't is just hyperbolic nonsense. Pretending this has anything to do with promoting art is nonsense. This is business.
Active Member
Wait, could you elaborate on that ? Because I'm not sure I really understand what you meant by that, it really sounded like a huge logic leap.
If you buy something and multiply its availability for free, you devalue it. That's how it works. I'm pretty sure I'm not getting your point because so far it sounds incredibly far-fetched.
Active Member
What I don't understand about this whole thing is that youtube say they introduced something called ContentID which matches infringing material automatically and either removes it, or puts ads on it without the rights holder being involved. So I really don't understand why artists are still upset or is it due to the % payout?
Banned
man Trent has really turned into a corporate yes man asshole these days....
I DON'T WANT YOUTUBE TO POST MY CONTENT...HERE BUY MY EXCLUSIVE NIN REMIX ONLY AVAILABLE ON APPLE! YOU MUST SUBSCRIBE IN ORDER TO GET IT! BUY BUY BUY!
Last edited by billpulsipher; 06-23-2016 at 11:51 AM.
Active Member
Yeah that's either easily circumvented or downright abused, it's an automatic process that has shown time and time again to be problematic for everyone.
Active Member
He even signed a petition to regulate guns, that guy just doesn't like fun things, like killing and stealing...
Throbbing Member
For this point in particular, I'm saying that making YouTube so that any user cannot upload whatever they want would cause more harm that is solves. i.e., to the extent that YouTube causes harm, that harm is only inflicted on a very very small minority, whereas the benefits of YouTube are enjoyed by a much larger majority.
Let me know if I am still being unclear.
xScott
New Head Like a Hole remix with updated lyrics for 2017!
Apple Money I'll do anything for you
Apple Money just tell me what you want me to
Apple Money nail me up against the wall
Apple Money don't want everything he wants it all
No you can't take it
No no you can't take it
(You can't take that away from me)
Active Member
I think it's clear, but I'm sorry, it still doesn't make sense to me... You can't just say "it doesn't harm enough people to be considered a real issue" ?
If we all gang up on one guy to steal his wallet and have fun in the process we're still being dicks, he's still a victim, and it's still a crime ?! I'm not following your reasoning at all?
Banned
Trent didnt mind youtube when he threw up the Tension film on there to promote his tour....how many clicks did he get on that video? couple hundred thousand? he didnt mind youtube when he threw up the CBH video to promote his new album...
Throbbing Member
Copyright law is inherently different than the example you provide (wallet stealing). It is a conceit of intellectual property ("IP") law that nothing is physically lost when someone reproduces someone else's work, but IP law still creates a means by which an IP owner can protect their investment in said work for the purpose of incentivizing the creation of new, innovative work. Thus the goal of copyright law is to balance the incentives for creating new works (by granting the creator a form of legal market power) with the public's benefit from consuming a non-rival good and or producing derivative works through fair use.
Therefore, we must acknowledge that the ultimate goal of IP law is to enhance public welfare. That's why things like patents and copyrights have time limits (but thanks to Disney copyrights are becoming virtually forever). Physically stealing another's property is a completely separate issue. It would be unambiguously illegal for a company to steal a pharmaceutical company's stock of a particular drug and then sell it. However if a generic manufacturer started producing the same drug, that could be legal depending on the validity of any patents covering the drug in question.
That's a long winded way of saying copyrights (like patents) only exist to promote public welfare by balancing the incentives to make innovative investments with the costs paid by society when a firm has market power (Google "inefficiency of monopolies" for an explanation about the costs of market power).
In conclusion, society cannot be blind to the concept of the "greater good" when deciding how to enforce intellectual property laws (in contrast to physical property laws). To this end, the benefit to society (as a whole) stemming from the mere existence YouTube must be taken into consideration when debating the enforcement of copyright law (to YouTube's downfall).
Last edited by HurtinMinorKey; 06-23-2016 at 02:53 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote