Paul McCartney: Pirate Bay verdict is 'fair'
Singer Paul McCartney has voiced his support for the verdict rendered in The Pirate Bay trial.
"If you get on a bus you've got to pay," the former Beatle told the BBC. "And I think it's fair, you should pay your ticket."
On Friday, a court in Stockholm convicted four men connected to The Pirate Bay--Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Peter Sunde, Fredrik Neij, and Carl Lundstrom--of charges related to copyright infringement. The court sentenced each to a year in jail and fined the group the equivalent of $3.6 million. On Thepiratebay.org, a blog post indicated that the men have filed an appeal.
Fans of The Pirate Bay have condemned the verdict as many in the entertainment industry celebrated the decision. McCartney, who helped produce--along with bandmates Ringo Starr, George Harrison, and John Lennon--such classic songs as "Yesterday," "Help" and "Let it Be," said he thinks people should pay for music, especially when it comes to work from start-up bands.
"The problem is you get a lot of young bands coming up and some of them aren't going to last forever," McCartney said during the interview. "So if they have a massive hit, that's going to pay their mortgage forever. They're going to feed the children on that, and if they don't get that money, if they don't see that money, I think it's a bit of a pity."
These statements are unlikely to be very popular in the file-sharing community. Such members have often said the world doesn't owe recording artists a lifetime salary. Among other the arguments most often cited for downloading music illegally, they say art should be free and major record labels are greedy, overcharge, and don't compensate artists fairly.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
Just goes to show that not everyone can appreciate the finer things in life.
NO, he MUST BE Steve Ballmer.
No other way...
Tell me when Zunes get a touchscreen.
While I do not condone piracy I can understand the frustration that some users have. Example: why are CD's still ?13 or ?14 when the price to produce them is so cheap? How about the fact that a download costs the record company next to nothing and what do they provide with those downloads? Any liner notes, or lyrics embedded in the download file? Nope. The record companies want something for nothing and continue to be scumbags in my opinion for the way they crap on their consumers and in some cases artists.
So why the hell should anyone listen to someone who is not loosing money by online pirates instead he is loosing money by not making their stuff available online.
Anyway as has been stated so much, people who 'file share' also spend money on music, movies and all forms of entertainment.
This whole 'do it for the children' thing just don't stick with me.
forever? so paul is assuming that once a person gets any success as a musician he shouldnt ever have to work again?
I agree with your general point that it would be better to have a chain of smaller hits, but it's possibly also relevant that being a professional musician has *very* iffy job security so it doesn't seem unreasonable that a significant body of good work should result in the artist being set for life, in the same way that people in other high-risk jobs (whether we're talking physical risk or notional risk of some kind) get paid well for taking the risk.
Henry Ford had a simple idea - made him rich.
Many many rich folks had one great idea/product, etc.
Intermittent windshield wipers anyone?
And why not?
You and I may work our ***** off until we die, and while providing useful services, don't get rich.
Life's unfair - as I tell my kids.
Get used to it.
You coulda been born Macca, you coulda been born an African slave.
My guess is you're doing OK and have no right to begrudge Macca his money.
They weren't prosecuted for copyright infringement per se. They were prosecuted for assisting/encouraging infringement. You may argue that they're "just a search engine", but the fact is that they are a "search engine" that has intentionally allowed infringement, intentionally and publicly flouts copyright law and posts and ridicules letters from any solicitor or lawyer brave enough to send a complaint their way, and that was *deliberately* set up to aid infringement.
That's where they differ from (say) Google, which at least tries publicly to look neutral.
There is also the issue that they have publicly admitted infringing copyright themselves via their own site, not to mention the issue that they run adverts on the site presumably in order to make a profit.
These guys are *not* the heroes you might think.
Labels continue to repackage crap and sell it to us for the same price as new stuff. Like that isn't a theft in and of itself. (yeah, not legally, I get that, but come on - you expect ME to have morals after you do that??)
BTW, yes, I've pirated, and yes I pay for music. I pay for the music I enjoy and I feel lucky when I download crap, cause it didn't cost my anything. Most of the artist in my library are people I've paid for before and simply redownloaded, artist I've gotten free samples of (who I then bought if I liked them), or rips of cds from friends (oh noes! piracy doesn't stop at the internet!).
I can agree with Paul a little - if you get on the bus, you have to pay the ticket - but seriously, where do I go for a refund for the bad trips the music industry wants to take us on?
Indeed, you've always been able to go to a record store and listen to stuff, though I agree that doing so is often inconvenient and the listening stations are usually broken and/or tied up with teenagers. But the notion that copyright infringement as a try-before-you-buy mechanism is somehow acceptable is wrong-headed.
This is a generation that listens to mp3's from a cellphone speakerphone a lot can't tell the difference.
They had nothing - read some Beatles history.
They worked and worked and rode around Germany stacked up like sardines in a van.
What's lacking today is not just talent, but work ethic.
TPB is not getting on this bus, they're paving the road it drives on.
And, quite frankly, so it should. Nobody is arguing that TPB are entirely innocent in their intent; they clearly mean to make it easy to infringe copyright, and that's morally wrong at the very least. It doesn't matter whether or not you think the RIAA are scum, or any of that; copyright isn't just used by big corporate bodies like RIAA, it's used by individuals to protect their work (which, by the way, is *also* illegally made available on TPB), and that simply isn't fair, particularly when these guys were running ads on their site to make money.
Be careful, cause the internet and computers make it easy to infringe. A great deal of technological advancement has been in moving bits around quicker, which makes infringement easier.
Let's not confuse law with morality. Copyright changes (usually at the behest of lobbyists and substantial contributions (read payment for doing their bidding)).
And them thinking their appeal will get them anywhere is fantasy thinking.
I call BS.
I don't expect to "feed the children on that" in near-perpetuity just because I install one VM cluster farm. A plumber doesn't get royalties just for fixing a leaking toilet.
So what right does McCartney, or any musician for that matter, have to expect to sell a "hit song" and expect to live off of it forever?
It must be nice to have an obscene amount of cash, and live a lifeso out-of-touch with the rest of the planet that you can afford to make statements out of pure ignorance, from a fantasy world where you only need to hit it big a couple of times and then live off the fat of that work for (literally) decades, even a lifetime afterwards.
Maybe if McCartney had to, you know, work for a living like the rest of us?
The point is that musicians have next to no job security. An awful lot of them produce some good work, and then the fashion changes and although they may still be good musicians and may still have some fans, that might not be enough to support them on its own.
They take a *huge* risk by doing such a job rather than (say) working in an office, and in other walks of life people are rewarded for the risk they've taken (if it comes off) with a big payout. That's really all we're talking about here.
Now, it may very well be that sometimes the payout is a little crazy, or that sometimes a lot of it goes to the wrong people, but at the end of the day they only make a lot of money if the public (that's you and me, by the way) actually likes their music. So we have *direct* control over how much money they make, and if you don't think they're worth it then don't buy their music (but at the same time, don't steal it either; that's not playing the game).
I think that McCartney may have gone a little far (I'd prefer a few hit albums, maybe, before someone is "set for life"), but then again if they don't make enough money to concentrate on making more music then maybe that's wrong as well? Assuming, again, that they have some actual talent (so we aren't really talking "invented" boy/girl bands here).
That is the problem with these copyright extension. Instead of encouraging new work, they encourage people to hit it big once and then rest on their laurels.
Musicians have no job security? Well hellfire, kid - Welcome to Planet Frickin' Earth! Nobody else has job security of any real measure either (what? companies can go under, layoffs happen, etc etc.) What makes musicians so precious that they have to be sheltered from unemployment and be exempt from the facts that the rest of us have to deal with?
"They take a *huge* risk by doing such a job rather than (say) working in an office"
Ah, so folks like, oh, Ironworkers say, take no risks at all as they pursue their careers, right? Small business owners, most of whom have their life savings and mortgages on the line when they start a business, they don't take risks? A college student takes no risks when choosing a major?
***?
I really hate to break it to you, but everyone takes risks - a large number of those risks are just as big, if not bigger, than the risks a band takes when trying to impress an A&R man. Even a kid who pursues a CS degree in college during the dot-bust (...ever priced a college degree?) is taking a far larger risk than some bubblegum pop-band ever thought of doing.
"...but at the end of the day they only make a lot of money if the public (that's you and me, by the way) actually likes their music."
Funny, but I only get paid if the company's product is actually liked by the public (that's you and me, by the way), and buys enough of it to cover the costs of production. So what was that diff you were focusing on again? Oh, you were just waving around a strawman argument... nevermind.
"...if they don't make enough money to concentrate on making more music..."
False premise - otherwise, how do you account for the band/musician making music back when they were broke and unknown?
To be honest, I don't know for certain if you're trolling very well, shill for the music industry, or what... but seriously, you need to come up with better arguments than the ones you've presented.
Maybe if McCartney had to, you know, work for a living like the rest of us?"
Hit it big a couple times? Clearly you have no comprehension of just how many times The Beatles wrote hit songs. Also, if you put just a little more time into researching the person you're criticizing, you would also know just how much work and how long he and the rest of the Beatles worked their ***** off to get just where they did.
I'm sorry, but I believe you're the one being ignorant here. You haven't a clue what you're arguing against.
While I understand that it may seem *unfair* that writing music shouldnt feed someone for the rest of their lives, it does - and the work that not only the Beatles, but many MANY other musicians put into their job earns them every right to live off their work for however long it'll take them.
OTOH, he said, and I quote (again) "So if they have a massive hit that's going to pay their mortgage forever." Those were McCartney's words, not mine. I was merely being charitable and bolstered it to "a few times" instead of McCartney's one hypothetical instance.
Literacy - it's not just for breakfast ;)
As for the rest? Well, hey - when I can collect government- and cartel- enforced royalties off of the work I do, then I'll sympathize with 'em. Until then, sorry... I just can't seem to scrounge up any sympathy, empathy, or even pity for the travails that a corporate-manufactured "star" has to go through to get there. It's not like they were forced into such a life.
We can argue forever and a day over whether the copyright term is now too long, and frankly I'm not sure I care either way. The issue here, is that being a musician (or writing a novel, or a computer program) is a risk. Often quite a serious risk; these things often take over a year out of someone's life, time for which they usually won't get paid, and there is no way for them to know before starting to sell copies of their work whether or not they're ever going to make any money out of it.
Clearly given that situation, it seems not unreasonable that the reward should be high for doing this. And equally clearly in the case of people like McCartney, whose music has been very popular for a very long time, people must agree, otherwise they wouldn't buy copies of his music.
Within reason, yes.
Now explain why they have been extended to near-perpetuity, long after the original creator is dead?
In exchange the artist of this label gets to use a expensive recording studio access to writers to make his/her job a bit easier strong legal protection as seen here and even though record companies take a chunk the artist still takes a huge majority.
It's in the contract they agreed to it stop acting like the people who sign these deals were held hostage or didn't know what they were getting into.
And because record companies take a portion does that make it better for to not pay for the song altogether?
And if you don't think there is sufficient support, then you're going against the will of the people, which is undemocratic and wrong (regardless of your thoughts on copyright).
Personally I reckon you're too chicken to stand for office, and I bet you can't be bothered to lobby your representatives either, which leads me to the conclusion that you really have no right to pontificate on the matter.
Please, what chance does a private citizen have of swaying a representative when the RIAA has literally billions at their disposal for "campaign contributions". The system itself is corrupt, and it's about time for a little civil disobedience.
Representatives no longer serve the people, just the corporations with the most money.
Why not?
Its a pretty simple concept really - if you want to enjoy something and the creator of that thing wants you to pay for it, then pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it then you don't get to enjoy it.
Apparently Mr. McCartney has forgotten what it's like to be a young band. The contracts they have with their label insure they will only see a very small percentage.
P.S. I don't support IP infringement, but also don't support corporate greed. Tough line to sit on.
Of course, I only attend rock/metal/prog metal concerts so maybe it's different elsewhere.
(* we have a handful of local stations out here that are not ClearChannel clones, so even the radio is all nice and indie-fied - supporting them is well worth the while to me. :) )
--
The funny part about all this is, Metallica once went out of their way to encourage literal bootleg taping of their concerts to pass around, for the exact same reason. Only after they began to flop (we can start with 'Garage...' blecch!) did they suddenly change their minds. Instead of going back to their music and wondering why world+dog thought their new stuff sucked (and you know, do something about fixing their music), they instead got all cozy with the RIAA.
Doesn't sound to fair to me, but then again I do not have the net worth Paul has. Maybe if I was filthy rich I would appreciate being nickel and dimed.
Looks like we've added copyright trolls to the list of things that hamstring innovation.
As a friend of mine once said to Macca, in a pub, when MAcca asked him ' What you looking at?'
"Shame about John. But he was the talented one. That's why he's a legend mate. You're just a past it pop-star."
Another disgusting moneybag musician voiced his preference for money over understanding anyone else - it's really a routine statement for most of them (and most of them are actually way more stupid, uneducated losers than this plastic-faced old fart.)
(that is to say if "junior" still stands up for me in that era)
- by krosafcheg April 27, 2009 4:59 PM PDT
- Copying isn't theft
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(60 Comments)Copying isn't theft
Stealing a thing leaves one less left
Copying it makes one thing more
That's what copying's for.
Copying isn't theft
If I copy yours, you have it too
One for me and one for you
That's what copies can do.
If I steal your bicycle,
You have to take the bus
But if I just copy it,
There's one for each of us!
Making more of a thing
That is what we call copying
Sharing ideas with everyone
That's why copying...
...Is fun!
(song written by Nina Paley)