?????? (Click At My Name For Link)

Did you consider possibilities that the free shit may not be available in countries due to refusal to do business plans with said countries?

At the end of the day the labels will not see any money. Regardless if people get it from non-label sites for a cost, or if people download them from free sources, or if people just choose to go without.

By the way, the same labels also think that if you live in a country that they don’t provide services to, you’re a loser. Go ahead, line up with Neostyles, Anon and WillaLavie under PelouzeTF’s special desk for your candy ration.

I have not discussed my personal opinions, nor have i tried to start a debate, i have simply responded to some of your many misconceptions, and pointed out some facts which you seem to be unaware of, which leads you to conclusions that ignore the relevant premisses.

> “Recommended reading:..”

Nothing of what was written there changes the fact that nor radio stations or Russian on-line services require your permission for anything, and that they set the price for their service. They follow copyright law, not meaningless words on some webpage.

> “Anyone can put $0 as a price and download it for themselves.”

Yes where that service is offered freely. But that a service is offered freely in one place does not mean that others must offer their service freely.

> “A paid “mirror” is similar in function to someone paying $10 for uTorrent or Firefox just because it’s on a different site.”

uTorrent or Firefox are intellectual works, which in turn does not constitute property, therefore intellectual works can not be owned, sold or bought. In your example what costs money is a service, and that one service is free does not mean that another one has to be.

> “Is it morally right to profit from something that doesn’t have a price?”

If a seller sets a price for his service it has a price. Moral belief has no relevance to this fact.

> “Please give me a few sources to backup your claim.”

In basically all countries there are licensed collecting agencies, which require fees if you use intellectual works in public. They usually have legal rights to demand these fees even for CC works when the use is freely allowed under the CC licenses. There are very few countries, if any, were CC is written into the actual copyright legislation so collecting agencies don’t have a right to collect fees for use of CC works, when it can be used freely according to the CC license.

> “Well, sure I was! Doesn’t it explicitly say that the license terms prohibiting commercial distribution could be waived if you had permission from me?”

Words in a CC license does not supersede copyright legislation. According to the copyright legislation they do not require your permission, so you were not supposed to be contacted.

> “It’s not like I was going to say no..”

You do realize that no copyright monopoly is absolute and that there are many instances, both non-commercial and commercial, where you can’t say no, regardless of what CC license you release your works under. The only thing CC does is allow things, it can not forbid things that are allowed in the copyright legislation.

> “Like publishing works that they do not own against the fairly lenient license terms I’ve provided?”

Collecting agencies never publish works. The most legal problems i’ve read about when it comes to collecting agencies revolves around embezzlement of funds and collecting fees they don’t have a right to collect.

> “Well, I could hook a nigga up with some masters. Not these niggas, though.”

I’m sure you can do all sorts of things to all kinds of people regardless of race, but that does not change the fact that nor Itunes or LegalSounds sell originals, and that’s it’s impossible to download the original, which was what you incorrectly claimed.

> “Radio stations pay royalties to the copyright owner..”

No, radio stations pay fees to collecting agencies as does LegalSounds.

> “..and libraries, notwithstanding digital ones, only shelve physical copies.”

Which has no relevance to the comparison i made about them not being regulated by a legislative monopoly, a trait they share with LegalSounds.

> “Now, what would you do in the case that someone takes that physical copy from the library and sells it on the corner for a dollar?”

This discussion has nothing to do with libraries physical property, theft of it, or fencing of stolen goods.

>They do all the job, they distribute al the signals to the listeners, so
naturally they set the price, and they do not need your permission.

Recommended reading: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

>…where
the retailers can set their own prices, without being regulated by the
monopoly holder, which was the reason why appreciated on-line services
without any DRM and with reasonable pricing existed there many many
years before it did elsewhere in the world.

Anyone can put $0 as a price and download it for themselves. A paid “mirror” is similar in function to someone paying $10 for uTorrent or Firefox just because it’s on a different site. Is it morally right to profit from something that doesn’t have a price?

>CC licenses are invalid under many copyright legislations i the world, you are aware of this?

“To CC’s knowledge, the licenses have never been held unenforceable or invalid.” Please give me a few sources to backup your claim.

>Fully correctly they didn’t contact you, because you were not supposed
to be contacted

Well, sure I was! Doesn’t it explicitly say that the license terms prohibiting commercial distribution could be waived if you had permission from me? It’s not like I was going to say no, albeit now I’m not sure of accepting any offers from them.

>There are registered collecting agencies for copyrighted works i almost
every country in the world, and this is the Russian equivalent. Although
i wouldn’t rule out that they are corrupted, because most collecting
agencies around the world are nothing more than criminal organisations,
who continuously seems to be in trouble with the law for their wrong
doings and extortions of people and companies.

Like publishing works that they do not own against the fairly lenient license terms I’ve provided?

>The original is never available for sale, the only things that’s
available for sale is copies, or the service of streaming information
describing a pattern of a copy.

Well, I could hook a nigga up with some masters. Not these niggas, though.

>Why? Because they aren’t regulated by a legislative monopoly? Then do you equal radio or libraries with piracy as well, minus a guilty conscience?

Legislature is different than morals; it’s most apparent in politics. Radio stations pay royalties to the copyright owner, and libraries, notwithstanding digital ones, only shelve physical copies. Now, what would you do in the case that someone takes that physical copy from the library and sells it on the corner for a dollar?