Monkey got you down? Don't let the monkey fool you. The monkey doesn't know what you know. And you know? The monkey doesn't care.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Elvis Costello on Anti-Piracy
Looks like the venerable Mr. Costello doesn't like the FBI talking about what you can do with his discs once you buy them. Check out the statement above the warning on the back cover for his latest disc (Click to enlarge):
I have a lot of time for Elvis Costello, and this is all the more reason to buy his cd, methinks. I've bought more cd's as a result of listening to illegal downloads than I've bought cds I've never heard. Kinda obvious really. Just wish those paranoid record companys would wise up!
but, anonymous #1, you should wisen up, too! just because along the way of ripping a CD to MP3s, sharing them with the world, transfering them to your computer and listening to them, something illegal happened, this doesn't mean that your listening was illegal orthat you did anything illegal at all. the only punishable act was that of uploading the rips, because that infringed on the publisher's exclusive distribution rights. (as long as there are no commercial interests involved, i wouldn't call this piracy, i'd call it helping out each other. but that's a different story.) yeah, also the ripping could have been prohibited, if some 'copy protection' (read: playback obstacle) mechanism was 'circumvented' (a.k.a. pressing the shift key, using linux, exhibiting common sense, ...). but this is so ridiculous, the only sensible answer can be civil disobedience.
but the downloading should be OK ... or did they already change that in the US? for every single audio file you download, is it really _your_ responsibility to make absolutely sure that the person who gives it to you has the right to do so? if it has really come that far already, well, tough luck. but this fear-mongering is so powerful that even here in europe people have a bad conscience when they download music, even though there's nothing wrong with that and it's certainly not illegal.
I haven't seen that comment, but his past comments have been more ambiguous, not really liking either side:
"Well, pirating music won't actually kill you like drugs. It's your choice if you want to fuck yourself up. If people want to share stuff they're making themselves and put it up on the Internet so people can get it, that's a very valuable use of this resource. Stealing other people's music and putting it up there is not acceptable. Even though everybody admits that it's slow and not good quality, there's still the temptation for people who don't understand the morality of it, or they don't understand the way the business works. They imagine that everybody that makes records are millionaires. It is unambiguously stealing to download. I won't listen to any bullshit argument about music being free or that it's a blow against the corporations. That's nonsense. The corporations, by the by, have been stealing both from the artists and the audience for years and Universal just admitted it by lowering their prices 30 percent because they are in such dire straits. It's a desperate fire sale tactic by an industry that's admitting its utter bankruptcy in terms of creativity. I say that as a Universal artist. And I have a very good relationship with one particular division of Universal, but in the main, the record companies have been set up as the casino and they've had the game fixed for years. [They] have been stealing from the artists by not paying them their due royalty, and stealing from the public by overcharging. And for the RIAA to sue individuals like 12-year-old girls is just ludicrous. Utterly ridiculous and toothless. What they should be doing is going after the conduit through which the file-sharing services exist. Why don't AOL sue themselves? They own the record company and the thing through which the file-sharers are abusing their copyrights. They could sue themselves and cut out the middleman."
But, keep in mind, that Elvis was one of the first big artists to sell a large portion of his catalogue online. He signed on with eMusic back in 99 or 2000, offering up most of his pre-Warner Bros. days albums, so he's not a luddite.
However, I think this comment on the FBI warning is less about how he feels about file sharing and more about how he feels about criminalizing those who purchase the CD. I think he'd rather be the one to ask that you not redistribute his music, not a governmental entity.
[B]NZBsRus.com[/B] Dont Bother With Slow Downloads Using NZB Downloads You Can Quickly Search High Quality Movies, Console Games, MP3 Singles, Applications & Download Them @ Accelerated Rates
However, I think this comment on the FBI warning is less about how he feels about file sharing and more about how he feels about criminalizing those who purchase the CD. I think he'd rather be the one to ask that you not redistribute his music, not a governmental entity.
I have a lot of time for Elvis Costello, and this is all the more reason to buy his cd, methinks. I've bought more cd's as a result of listening to illegal downloads than I've bought cds I've never heard. Kinda obvious really. Just wish those paranoid record companys would wise up!
ReplyDeletebut, anonymous #1, you should wisen up, too! just because along the way of ripping a CD to MP3s, sharing them with the world, transfering them to your computer and listening to them, something illegal happened, this doesn't mean that your listening was illegal orthat you did anything illegal at all. the only punishable act was that of uploading the rips, because that infringed on the publisher's exclusive distribution rights. (as long as there are no commercial interests involved, i wouldn't call this piracy, i'd call it helping out each other. but that's a different story.) yeah, also the ripping could have been prohibited, if some 'copy protection' (read: playback obstacle) mechanism was 'circumvented' (a.k.a. pressing the shift key, using linux, exhibiting common sense, ...). but this is so ridiculous, the only sensible answer can be civil disobedience.
ReplyDeletebut the downloading should be OK ... or did they already change that in the US? for every single audio file you download, is it really _your_ responsibility to make absolutely sure that the person who gives it to you has the right to do so? if it has really come that far already, well, tough luck. but this fear-mongering is so powerful that even here in europe people have a bad conscience when they download music, even though there's nothing wrong with that and it's certainly not illegal.
Hmmm... this from the same artist who equated downloading an mp3 with stealing a piece of furniture?
ReplyDelete(damn... I swore I had that book marked.... Can't find it)
Perhaps he's seen the light.
I haven't seen that comment, but his past comments have been more ambiguous, not really liking either side:
ReplyDelete"Well, pirating music won't actually kill you like drugs. It's your choice if you want to fuck yourself up. If people want to share stuff they're making themselves and put it up on the Internet so people can get it, that's a very valuable use of this resource. Stealing other people's music and putting it up there is not acceptable. Even though everybody admits that it's slow and not good quality, there's still the temptation for people who don't understand the morality of it, or they don't understand the way the business works. They imagine that everybody that makes records are millionaires. It is unambiguously stealing to download. I won't listen to any bullshit argument about music being free or that it's a blow against the corporations. That's nonsense. The corporations, by the by, have been stealing both from the artists and the audience for years and Universal just admitted it by lowering their prices 30 percent because they are in such dire straits. It's a desperate fire sale tactic by an industry that's admitting its utter bankruptcy in terms of creativity. I say that as a Universal artist. And I have a very good relationship with one particular division of Universal, but in the main, the record companies have been set up as the casino and they've had the game fixed for years. [They] have been stealing from the artists by not paying them their due royalty, and stealing from the public by overcharging. And for the RIAA to sue individuals like 12-year-old girls is just ludicrous. Utterly ridiculous and toothless. What they should be doing is going after the conduit through which the file-sharing services exist. Why don't AOL sue themselves? They own the record company and the thing through which the file-sharers are abusing their copyrights. They could sue themselves and cut out the middleman."
But, keep in mind, that Elvis was one of the first big artists to sell a large portion of his catalogue online. He signed on with eMusic back in 99 or 2000, offering up most of his pre-Warner Bros. days albums, so he's not a luddite.
However, I think this comment on the FBI warning is less about how he feels about file sharing and more about how he feels about criminalizing those who purchase the CD. I think he'd rather be the one to ask that you not redistribute his music, not a governmental entity.
[B]NZBsRus.com[/B]
ReplyDeleteDont Bother With Slow Downloads Using NZB Downloads You Can Quickly Search High Quality Movies, Console Games, MP3 Singles, Applications & Download Them @ Accelerated Rates
[URL=http://www.nzbsrus.com][B]Usenet[/B][/URL]
hey buddy amazing post about Elvis Costello on Anti-Piracy I'm fan of Elvis Costello thanks for sharing!!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think this comment on the FBI warning is less about how he feels about file sharing and more about how he feels about criminalizing those who purchase the CD. I think he'd rather be the one to ask that you not redistribute his music, not a governmental entity.
ReplyDeleteanti piracy should be much better organized!
ReplyDelete