Copyrights, capping, and pirating

[JoleneBrody]

So glad to see people bringing up the business options for music streaming. It's just nice to remind the Internet sometimes that just because a model is playing music doesn't mean she's not doing it legally.

There are also many websites out there that offer Creative Commons and royalty free music that is great for content creation! My production company is very strict about it even for my personal work, and can be a great option if your personal morals are feeling conflicted

coming from a family of professional musicians, It's important to me to pay for my music and promote the artists I love to my audience when I'm live. I want them to go pay for their music too and I know for a fact this happens a lot

 

[Sansa]

The difference is that I don't pirate music. Some of the playlists I have are those which I paid $1 per song (so yea, the playlists cost hundreds of dollars in some cases), some it's via Spotify which I still pay for monthly even though it's a paltry amount in comparison. Stores use channels on Pandora or Spotify too, does that mean that someone has the right to come in and broadcast everything that goes on in their store/restaurant? No.

A store and a cam broadcast still has some element of privacy to it; it's still a private website involving the private homes of models, or the private property of a business, etc. It's more like having the doors open to your home to have anyone visit or stay on a whim. It's not a public broadcast if you play music at a party in your own home, likewise the same can be said for camshow broadcasts, stores, etc.

For the most part, playing songs will probably fall under fair use, but say, creating a video set to a certain song and then selling it? Not so much since the video relies on the song being the selling point.

The difference between a model or store using music to enhance a mood is that they are still selling some other product of their own making. When someone caps a model it's and posts it elsewhere for their own benefit, it's like buying music and setting up a fake iToones site to get people to pay for it that way.

 

[Guy]

I know that this thread is almost a year old, but I do want to state my opinion on this subject. Outside of torrenting, artists are highly selective on what they consider to be pirating. WIth YouTube, when ever I have noticed that a upload with a copyrighted song in it was taken down its always an upload that either A) only featured the song and cover of the album/ picture of the artist. Or B) only featured the song and the lyrics to the song. Do artists consider models that play their music in their rooms to be pirates? Based on the fact that they're not taking legal action against them, obviously not.

 

[DonaDiabla]

Actually, VeronicaChaos, I am very sensitive to other people's intellectual property and I did not use them them often. On camming, I try not to use copyright music most of the time. I used music for my clips that I brought the rights to or copyrights have been up. Now, I did use one DC character for my Machinima but she is used rarely.I used a lot of public domain works when it comes to coming up with clip ideas. Now,

this is a sensitive subject for a lot of girls, so forgive me if I hurt your feelings, and I hope we can be civil in this discussion. I would really like to discuss the way camgirls at large approach copyright and intellectual property laws in regard to their own work and the use of others.

It's brought up sometimes the legalities of playing copyrighted music on cam, but it never seems to go much further than "they have bigger fish to fry" and that's that. That I agree on, and I don't think there's much risk in doing so. But it's more than that. Models use copyrighted phenomena in their shows, and dress up as copyrighted characters. A pretty standard show is a mash-up of different copyright violations.

Now, I don't support intellectual property rights in the least, and am likely more guilty of this than most. I see the value in being able to use something that doesn't legally belong to you and creating something with it that is new and interesting. I believe that the evolution of art is an evolution and that it builds on itself in both blatant copying and subtle inspiration. I believe that had copyright laws been a thing throughout human history we would have a fraction of the art we have today. I believe Nosferatu is one of the finest adaptions of Dracula (https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2011/10/17/dracula-vs-nosferatu-a-true-copyright-horror-story/).

I'd like to get back to capping. I suppose most will say that it is different because it's not improving or changing anything but is simply copying without regard, often automatically. Piracy robots. However, I find it dangerous to place such an emphasis on the illegality of capping while reaping the benefits of your own copyright infringement. I also find it dangerous to draw that line between acceptable and unacceptable piracy and copyright infringement.

Thought experiment: how would you feel if someone took parts of your cam show and used them in their bands music video, uploading it to YouTube without your permission? They've got an ad on it so they're making money on it. You are uncredited.

Other question: is the morality of playing music in your camroom based on the means of acquiring it? Is a torrented discography bad but spotify totally okay? I don't see the difference really; it matters not to the viewer who is now experiencing the music whether they once purchased it or not.

Really curious to hear some perspective on this!