I have seen this before and frankly it is simply poppycock to use a nice word. I know my nephew and whole generation of college age kids NEVER pay for a song or movie. I have never illegally downloaded anything, I have also never bought anything via download so hardly works re the stats used here. I often hear that same claim to justify illegal movie downloads. Someone here posted a study claiming Animee in particular was making money because people who downloaded illegally later bought it , which I simply find absurd. I know people who download illegal stuff ( like my nephew ) and buy nothing. I know people who pay for downloads. I don't know anyone who downloaded a film illegally and THEN decided to buy it. This is fake argument used to defend theft. So basically if I steal a few dozen cars but actually by one this is OK and good for the car business?
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Folmar David <keyfram...@gmail.com> wrote: > Although I understand the knee jerk reaction to music downloading and > royalties, here is an interesting article that shows that heavy > downloaders actually are th people buying music, so yes there is some > question about getting royalties from all the people who are not "heavy > downloaders" but the record companies strategy of suing people who > download music is sort of self-defeating because the same people turn out > to be their biggest consumers > > http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/illegal-downloaders-spend-the-mo > st-on-music-says-poll-1812776.html > > > -David Folmar > > > > On 8/15/11 2:51 PM, "Mike Tribby" <mike.tri...@quality-books.com> wrote: > > >A very interesting develpoment. A few years ago when I still subscribed > >to the Music Library Assoc. email discussion list another list member > >brought up a company (Proper) that put out nicely-packaged selections of > >music that may or may not have been in the public domain and the > >disinterest on the part of the majority of the list surprised me. In fact > >many members of the list felt no compunction about buying offered > >recordings for which the rights were an open question. They didn't seem > >to feel it was up to them to be concerned about such matters. > > > >"I wonder if all the artists involved reclaimed their works would the > >millions of people who rip them off with illegal downloads etc. stop > >claiming it did not matter because they were only getting even with rich, > >evil corporations who took advantage of artists? I doubt it." > > > >I wonder about that, too. Of course there are evil coporations and then > >there are evil corporations. In one previous case cited in the link > >Jessica provided, it mentioned the estate of Bob Marley losing a case in > >which they tried to regain control of some of Bob's music recorded before > >1978. But more recently, the estate (ie-- Bob's surviving family) > >prevailed in a lawsuit brought by former members of the Wailers who > >claimed that their oral contracts and rights as participants in Bob's > >recordings had been violated by the family/estate after Bob's death. > > > >To paraphrase Ollie, popular music is a whole other kettle of fish. > > > > > > > > > >Mike Tribby > >Senior Cataloger > >Quality Books Inc. > >The Best of America's Independent Presses > > > >mailto:mike.tri...@quality-books.com > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu > >[mailto:videolib-boun...@lists.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Jessica Rosner > >Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 11:00 AM > >To: videolib@lists.berkeley.edu > >Subject: [Videolib] Fascinating Copyright situation > > > >Not much to do with our usual discussions, but very interesting > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/arts/music/springsteen-and-others-soon-e > >ligible-to-recover-song-rights.html?hp > > > >I wonder if all the artists involved reclaimed their works would the > >millions of people who rip them off with illegal downloads etc. stop > >claiming it did not matter because they were only getting even with rich, > >evil corporations who took advantage of artists? I doubt it. > > > > > >-- > >Jessica Rosner > >Media Consultant > >224-545-3897 (cell) > >212-627-1785 (land line) > >jessicapros...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >No virus found in this incoming message. > >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > >Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3835 - Release Date: 08/15/11 > >06:34:00 > > > >VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of > >issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic > >control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in > >libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve > >as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel > >of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video > >producers and distributors. > > > > VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues > relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, > preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and > related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective > working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication > between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and > distributors. > -- Jessica Rosner Media Consultant 224-545-3897 (cell) 212-627-1785 (land line) jessicapros...@gmail.com
VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
