Copyright cases more harsh on music than photos.

<p>This topic was motivated by my coming across the link provided below today hunting for new music on Amazon where Grooveshark allows me to sample more than 30 seconds on music that is over 3 minutes long...</p>

<p>http://html5.grooveshark.com/</p>

<p>This article has the details on the copyright infringement take down case the owners of Grooveshark faced...</p>

<p>http://torrentfreak.com/court-orders-cloudflare-to-disconnect-new-grooveshark-150605/</p>

<p>Do you feel music is more protected over our own photos? I do. But I'ld like to get thoughts, opinions and other interesting info to support or deny this POV. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think the difference isn't between the kinds of artwork; its more about the distribution channels. I am pretty sure big image agenciess are as nasty as the worst record company, when it comes to using something pirated from them. Do we really want to see youtube prompt: "Sorry this video contains an image owned by ** and isn't available in your country"? - They are doing that here when the background music is owned by the wrong corporation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...its more about the distribution channels.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's an interesting take I'ld not considered which seems to add another level of complexity from corporation's attempt at mating distribution with ownership in order to enforce take down notices.</p>

<p>I just don't notice that much action taken against photo theft outside the Richard Prince appropriation brouhaha. How many times do we see in the news that someone claimed a photo as their own that they didn't take like what's done with wedding photographers and they get more guff taking a stand over the help they should get from online social networks which are distribution channels.</p>

<p>I think it's the dollar valuation after the theft is when everyone takes notice while others who don't make money with their images get ignored or harassed for complaining.</p>

<p>Getty is renowned for being brutal about copyright infringement on their stock photos.</p>

<p>When it comes to intellectual property rights in the age of the internet, copyright becomes near impossible to enforce. Once anything enters the public domain someone somewhere can and mostly likely will upload it and others will download it. Doesn't matter if it is an image or a song. Record labels can run around hunting down sites and individuals but they can never put the genie back in the bottle. How all of this is going to shake out over time remains to be seen. Times have changed, old models are crumbling and new models will appear.</p>

<p>For an interesting perspective on the shifting landscape of the music industry post internet, here is a link to a keynote address from Steve Albini. The talk is an hour long but worth the time imo.</p>

<p><a href="

Face The Music 2014 - Keynote Address: Steve Albini - YouTube</a></p>

<p>Gordon, that was about the best one hour I spent on YouTube with regard to getting insightful information concerning enforcing copyright protection of content (music streaming) a medium that is becoming ubiquitous as the air we breath due to multiple sites that pop up on the internet like Grooveshark that provides streaming service.</p>

<p>So basically according to Steve Albini taking down Grooveshark punishes folks like myself who just want to sample before I buy the CD. I don't buy mp3's.</p>

<p>So the music label industry would rather lose that sale and other sales in order to stop the free distribution of their content. But with a photo the consumer just looks at it online and if they like it they share it with others by posting it on Instagram or Facebook or providing a link from the source without any take down notices I'm having to assume.</p>

<p>So my solution for getting a better experience sampling music I'm interested in is to find and participate in discussion forums (social network) that share similar musical tastes and see if they can direct me to a place online that provides this capability.</p>

<p>It would be so easy I would think for these music streaming sites and point of sale sites like Amazon and others to provide a player that allows skipping from beginning to middle to the end within 30 second time limit or maybe a few seconds more. That would be a reasonable compromise.</p>

<p>Thanks for the YouTube link, Gordon.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Getty is renowned for being brutal about copyright infringement on their stock photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Getty also offers a program that allows free embedding of millions of their images with no cost and, obviously, no payments to the photographers.</p>