Slashdot Mirror
Pete Townshend On Lifehouse, The Net, And Pirating
An anonymous reader sent an interview with Pete Townshend where he talks about Lifehouse and more. He talks about pirating, as well as how Lifehouse was attempting to address the social implications of The Internet before the world had even heard of it. (BTW, I went to the Who concert in detroit last tuesday. It was awesome. I own something like 50 odd CDs of Pete's music, but to finally see them Live was pretty damn cool. If only I had been born 30 years earlier ;)
Control is lost.
Suppose you lived in a dictatorial state, where normally you were left alone but the local authorities reserved the right to pop into your house and take anything they choose. Oh, and if you resist or complain, you'll be summarily executed.
Even if they don't *ever* USE that right, you've lost something -- control. It may be intangible, which perhaps makes it a difficult concept for some people to grasp, but it matters.
Once an author's work is out being used by others in ways beyond his consent, he's lost control. Others may choose to redistribute freely, perhaps ruining him; others may choose to make their own derivative works, confusing everybody else; others may abuse it in any way to their hearts' content. That's all possible unless intellectual property is respected.
Or, perhaps, you'd like to share your identity, including likeness and supporting documents, with the rest of Slashdot. Share your work with your competitors, providing all rights to do as they see fit. And so forth.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
We are not talking about scientific discovery here. No one "pirates" science. Science has always for the most part worked like the open source community does today.
Of course it does. Could you be a LITTLE more vague and naive about it ??
Here is another question. How many drugs that are not patent protected are being pushed by drug companies today ?? How is it that the drugs that work on AIDS all have intellectual property protection that pushes them out of the financial range of African nations who need them most ?? Who exactly is that protecting ??
Discoveries in science that have potential benefit to society are nearly always strongly protected with patents. New cures for diseases are nearly always protected. Things that cannot receive intellectual property protection - such as potential good uses of vitamins as a part of treatment regimes - have limited funding because of their lack of potential utility to a corporation.
Science - wrt generating intellectual property for society's usefulness - is not open and free.
Look at it this way. If it were not for me, the creator of this media, then whatever I created would not exist. Does that not give me some sort of special rights over it?
The creators of the US Constitution allowed congress to grant LIMITED time monopolies on copyrighted works. That concept does not exist today - as copyrights no longer expire (well, technically they do expire, but none have expired in a LONG LONG time). The true perversion is that copyright law has been co-opted by corporations like Disney seeking to protect long time copyrights (like the early Mickey Mouse cartoons) that would have expired under laws written to protect the consumer.
Benefits to society are maximal with LIMITED TIME monopolies. That concept has expired with new laws in the US.
PS. As I'm sure you know, the concept you are suggesting is commonly known as "communism", whereas I am avocating "capitolism".
Whereas that is a nice distractor away from the original arguments, the fact remains that it is in no way capitalistic to maintain absolute control over intellectual property indefinitely. Intellectual property MUST have a limited time protection. That limited time must also expire within a reasonable time frame for benefits to society to be maximized.
Yes, i admit my numbers are just numbers picked out of the air... But they seem reasonable.
But if we assume my numbers are correct for this argument, yes, autodesk didn't spend $6,000,000 to generate the $600,000 in revenues. But they were deprived of the other $5,400,000 by pirates who chose to earn their livings by using their software and not paying for it. If you figure they all would have bought it rather than using a cheaper/inferior product, then those really are just LOST sales.
Who patented quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, the photoelectric effect, the structure of the DNA molecule, the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem?
There is a difference between an invention and a discovery.
"I write software. You "pirate" the software. I have software. You have software. You haven't taken anything _from_ me, rather, I have given something to you, with no loss to myself. If you're implying the thing taken is money, not the information itself, that's on the periphery, and not considered in your analogy."
This is just utter bullshit. I write software for a living. If you take it without paying me, I AM OUT MONEY. I wouldn't be writting the type of software I do if I wasn't getting paid, and you wouldn't be using it. I write a lot of educational software that are used in High Schools and Colleges. This is stuff that would not be helping anyone if someone didn't pay for it. Because I choose to work on software that I feel helps others, I am excluding myself from a lot of lucrative offers I could easily go out and get and work for big business.
The attitude that software does not cost usually comes from people that do not program, or if they do, have never done shit that any one would want anyways.
Now on the other hand, I have finally convinced my boss to GPL a computer adaptive testing package we developed a few years back. As soon as we get clearance from one other copyright holder (so we can give the item bank with this) it will be in the public domain. Still, this was software we have deemed appropriate to give out. It cost us a lot of money to design develop and test...even giving it away for free means we are loosing money that would have probably gone back into the design of new software or improvement of this one. I doubt if many geeks have the psychometric backgrounds to improve this much on their own, but I can always hope someone finds it of use.
clif
Well, the principal of the action is wrong, regardless. But it's senseless to think that anyone can perfectly contain anything... So therefore it's most appropriate to go after the largest exploiter.
Okay, there was NOTHING wrong with the drugs in the 60's, and there still ain't. If you don't like em, don't take em. The Dank
-- Object known as a camera. Vintage uncertain, origin unknown. - Twilight Zone
If you want entry onto how much Brunner gets it right, read Stand On Zanzibar, a work that is of a level of quality to equal or eclipse that of Dune.
I won't even attempt to describe it. Just read it. It's totally visionary.
It's also the place the term 'hipcrime' came from. That fact should have a little resonance with the more attuned denizens of this august forum.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
I think I just found a new idol.
- about me
The following was overheard in a chatroom on AOL recently:
--------------------
Smedley: dude, did you put the Quake III CD in your drive yet?
Fester: yep, it's there now. go ahead.
Smedley: okay, I'll start up the CDR drive.
--------------------
Yep. People are using CDR drives to copy CD-ROMs and Music CD's right across the internet. It happens in chatrooms all across the country. There's a new plugin for AIM specifically for that purpose.
Uh-huh.
All the good musicians are geezers! I just went to see Bob Dylan on Friday, and it was a great concert. A couple months ago, I saw Eliades Ochoa, a Cuban guitarist who'se in his mid-fifties, and in August I'm going to see Compay Segundo, who's well over 70. Most of the music I listen to is either old itself or by old people -- 60s rock, 50s and early 60s jazz, and Cuban music, mostly played by guys over 60, and often over 75. What new music is there? Sleater-Kinney, Elliot Smith, Aimee Mann, that's about it. Most of the stuff that comes out domestically these days is Spice Girls/N Sync/Backstreet Boys/Shitola.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
Hmmm. I thought "Rough Boys" was about his kids and "Who are you" was about the meeting with the Sex Pistols. But my memory isn't what it used to be....
My wife is like Unix. Lots of commands. Lots of arguments.
Funniest fsckin' thing I've read on /. for quite a while. And an excellent summary, too.
I have *never* said this before, but...
MODERATE THIS UP!
"200 Quatloos on the newcomer!" "300 Quatloos against!"
Care to enlighten us on what changes are happening in society? Are you Jon Katz or something?
but to finally see them Live was pretty damn cool.
Hey, hey! You can be happy, but watch your mouth, huh?
the dipshits who somehow manage to get into accidents on the interstate would probably have a much higher fatality rate when they do it in the air...
That would be icing on the cake.
Browser? I barely know her!
Lost revenues aren't expenses. They're just revenues that never appeared. Hence, it doesn't need to be reported.
In some cases, people try to make justifiable arguments about pirating software like "I could never afford AutoCAD, so i stole it" or "i'd never buy, so i got a copy, and got good and then i bought it". Those are one thing. Illegal copies of windows are another.
When you buy a computer with Windows on it, you SHOULD be paying for your copy of Windows. Charges of price gouging/monopoly whatevers aside, if you on't want to pay for what software you're using, you shouldn't be using it. This isn't like empty seats at the theatre. It's more like people sneaking into your movies. Obviously those people are stealing from you, because they're getting what you're selling without paying for it.
Heh. No, that's not quite what I meant. That single sentence you've quoted there is ALL that the Constitution has to say on the subject of copyrights.
But modern day copyright law is a huge beast. And if the specific copyright law (most of which is IIRC (IANAL) in 17 USC) somehow does not promote the progress of the science and useful arts; or secures for an unlimited time; or assigns to someone other than the author or inventor the rights to their respective writings and discoveries; then the copyright law is unconstitutional.
Mostly I'm concerned about the expansion of copyright circa 1976 when everything automatically became copyrightable, though your damages are limited for non-registered works. I'm also worried about the frequent lengthening of the term of copyright recently. And of course the Big Five music labels have been trying to ram through legislation that would retroactively reassign the copyrights of works created by artists to the labels, permanently. (as though they were works for hire, which they weren't) And much of the DMCA is pretty clearly unconstitutional - access restrictions for one thing.
So when I say that copyrights _now_ are likely unconstitutional, I mean that the laws regarding copyrights go farther than the Constitution allows. Copyrights which fall within the boundaries set by the Constitution are of course constitutional.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
{heading a bit off topic with a rant now] It seems to me like the vast majority of newsprint journalism is really quite mediocre. These days, I have to look to non-mainstream sources to find the writers cabable of seriously good analysis to go along with the facts.
Anyway, I, like CT, wish I could have seen The Who and a few other bands in their heyday. At least I got to hear a first hand report about their Woodstock show from my Ancient History teacher :]
White Noise, by Don Delillo. Written in '80, I think, but remarkably prescient w/r/t our current information bombardment.
'least I think so.
-nme!
In a way, they are lost sales, but that would be just like someone lamenting opportunities for a new job having come and gone, and counting lost wages as a result. The people who did not buy never would have, but the ones who did might not have but for the piracy.
Perhaps you would advocate people being forced to verify their legitemate ownership of license to software in order to use it professionally, but that would have kept those "pirates" out of a job and cost autodesk sales.
Besides, even those who are using autocad without paying are making autocad money by promoting the software. They are forcing others to buy the software in order to view and take advantage of their work. They also help autodesk win sales every time someone says "Hey that's a cool design how did you make it?" "Autocad, of course. What else is there?"
Well, it all boils down to the same argument as for mp3's/napster.... who's decision should it be as to how to promote a piece of IP? The creators or the users? I think it should be the creators decision.
You're right... this is dumb. Why do I bother with these silly arguments?
err... your "bob" person totally missed my point, but I won't go into it.
------
Another Gainesville boy that gets it!
1 - Yes, copyprotection just sucks. It's a HUGE inconveinence to legitamate users. I remember when some Mac software (mostly, 4D) was distributed on floppy disks that counted how many times you installed it. If you reached the limit (5, in the case of 4D) you were pretty much out of luck until they sent you new disks. Dongles also pretty much suck if you're using more than 2 or 3 pieces of software that require them.
2 - Advertising is only of use when it returns more revenues than a given advertising campaign costs. The argument for piracy increasing sales goes away when the users of a piece of software NEED that software anyways.
Say AutoCAD sells 10,000 copies per year for $3000 each. That's $30,000,000 in revenues. Now say that each year there are 20,000 more copies pirated. And of those 20,000, 18,000 are just playing with it, eventually deleting it, or relegating it to their unused software collection. 2,000 (10%) actually use the software on a day to day basis. Of those 2,000, 10% actually pay for it when they get the money.
In the end, 18,000 of those copies were just throwaways. They stood to gain nothing from those users because they simply wouldn't have purchased the software anyways.
But with the other 2,000 users. They all use the software on a day to day basis in their lines of work. If you call that advertising, they just spent $6,000,000 ($3000 * 2000) in order to gain $600,000 in sales ($3000 * 200). That's not an effective "advertising campaign", no matter how you look at it.
For music, it's even worse, because at least when you buy software, you get things like manuals and tech support. Music doesn't require any of those. And not many people seem to be overly concerned with the quality of MP3's... Around here, at least, it seems that there's a 50-50 split on whether 128 kbps creates a discenably different sound. But most sites agree that 256 kbps definetly makes it challenging to hear the differnce.
As bandwidth increases and user's local storage increases, it won't be unforseeable to have uncompressed AIFF files traded back and forth on the net just as mp3's are today. And there's no argument about quality loss... Musicians will be forced to sit back and see which ones of their fans will actually pay them for the goods which they're taking from them.
Compare that to your work place. No matter how cool your boss seems, if they turned to you and said "Hey, times are tight. I'd really like to keep you around, but I'm not sure if you're really valuable enough to keep. Could you just put in maybe 4 weeks at no pay? If i decide to keep you, i'll pay you for that time, but i let you go, i'll owe you nothing." Are you going to stick around that there?
Believe or not, the reason people create music is to make money, so they can eat. That's the point.
If you want to write code by night and give your work away, that's fine. Just don't complain while you're flipping burgers during the day.
--
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
There are stupid moderations. I've been thinking why have so few negative moderation descriptions, like "Stupid" (as opposed to insightful).. I've sometimes needed "Overrated" just because something had been moderated up as interesting or insightful while it was at best informative.
/.ers have something extremely interesting (or very funny) things to say about it. When I want to read the discussion, I read at 1 or 2.
/.er (and mods are for average mostly).
/.ers - You're either a fool or working on said field if You think You're qualified).
Mostly, the modaration system works. I usually read at 3 because I want to read the articles and see if the
Generally, I'd advice reading at one less than You really want, because while that way You get lots of crap (compared to the level You wanted), You catch most of the excellent articles that have been written later in the discussion (and haven't thus been seen by enough moderators to bring them up). And at the higher levels (3-5), there is crap anyway. Either trolls have gained mods, the moderators are on crack, or it just represents the average
Of course the moderation/read treshold system could be modeled anew by trying to analyze the moderation that has happened in the last half a year or so (should have enough material at least). If anything like that would ever happen, I'd mostly like to read the 10 best comments, whether that means (in levels) 2 or 5 (although I doubt the latter could really happen - by mismoderation only, I think). Or perhaps the top 10%. Or perhaps I would like to create a profile that tells what moderators I respect and whom I don't want to affect anything I read.
Moderation system is open-ended in possibilities. Profiles with intelligent treshold management and moderator matching are of course possible, might be nice even, but would require some serious analysis of the material available, knowledge about suitable methods and how to apply them, and lots of work. Something I'm probably not qualified for (and neither are most of the other
"Yeah... piracy is a victimless crime. Like punching someone in the dark"
-- Nelson (the simpsons) s/piracy/shoplifting/gi;
--
A mind is a terrible thing to taste.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
Isn't that dude dead? I mean, he must be 25 or older now!
"Yeah.. its the companies fault for making you want it so much"
--Kerny (The Simpsons: same episode)
--
A mind is a terrible thing to taste.
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
Consider that what people in the past thought today would be like, with flying cars and stuff, rather than what we have.
Cars haven't changed substantially but a technology that is really simple in principle is steadily changing society - one that doesn't seem to have been widely predicted.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
Pete Townshend is bad ass, too bad he's deaf. (Or so I hear)... The Who is good stuff, and Neil Young kicks a whole lot of ass. Lynyrd Skynyrd is good stuff too, and so is Styx... I could go on for hours. - Jason Hammons "I wish there was a knob on the TV to turn up the intelligence. There's a knob called `brightness', but it doesn't seem to work." -- Gallagher
Well, as one of the old farts who frequent here . . . (pant, pant, gotta smoke a doobie before I can down my Geritol), lemme say that I see what's gonna happen next.
At the birth of the Web, everybody talked about cyberspace & how cool it would be -- including me. Then came talk about ol' Max Headroom (& I still have a crush on Amanda Pays). Then folks saw _The_Matrix_, & almost evrybody wanted to have the login of ``Neo" (yeah, there was a few wierdos who wanted to be known as ``BOFH").
Now Ol' Bottlenose talks about his ``Lifehouse" album. Who's got *that* domain. (Hrm. Type whois, grumble. Grumble about NSI. Ah, heerweego.)
Registrant:
Christian Life Center (LIFEHOUSE3-DOM)
2020 Vista Street
Belle Fourche, SD 57717
US
Domain Name: LIFEHOUSE.COM
Administrative Contact, Billing Contact:
Manna, Mike (MM14730) mmanna@MATO.COM
Christian Life Center
2020 Vista Street
Belle Fourche,, SD 57717
605-892-4767
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Shafto, John (JS446) jwshafto@MATO.COM
Altaire Enterprises, Inc.
144 East Grant
Spearfish, SD 57783
(605) 642-1400
Record last updated on 18-Jun-1998.
Record expires on 18-Jun-2000.
Record created on 18-Jun-1998.
Database last updated on 2-Jul-2000 18:52:58 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.MATO.COM 199.240.78.3
NS2.MATO.COM 199.240.78.2
Hey, look, they forgot to send their check in! Now which 3I337 4aXoR is gonna send in their $35 & take it away from these lamer Fundies?
Ya know, when ya get old, your mind wanders? Gawd I hope sumone reads this.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
...that you had no right to post your whiney crap to Slashdot.
I pretty much entirely agree with you here. What I was arguing about was the way that people try to justify copyright infringement in the form of piracy, whether it be movies, mp3s etc. etc. in the name of 'sharing ideas' and 'standing on the shoulders of others'. There is a profound difference between using a piece of work as inspiration, and napsterising the latest Metallica MP3.
I definitely believe there should be less control over derivative works. Unfortunately though, like you said, a well paid lawyer these days would have no trouble arguing copyright infringement over an only slightly related derivative work.
As for the employment of artists, I'm well aware that there are many who produce works for the love of it, rather than for monetary reward. However, if there were NO copyrights, then (although there still would be some) the quantity of artwork would decrease - hence less inspiration. Whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing is debatable.
Yeah, but you've got to love those bug eyes on Lars.
--
--
The geeks shall inherit the earth.
Oh sure - I think we've found a common ground. There is still utility that oughtn't to be overlooked in wholesale information sharing (e.g. spreading information - if a procedure for Super CPR were to appear, I'd not worry overmuch about the potential loss of money for the developer if it meant saving lives right away) but there's less that is defensible. Even my great love of the freedom of speech doesn't make me wish to stand fast behind any idiot sharing ripped mp3s of Metallica with perfect strangers just because he can. (though that's not a sufficient reason to kill Napster, imho)
I know about the number of artists that wouldn't practice their art if not for the money beyond the first sale. (which has close to nothing to do with copyrights anyway) I haven't seen anything better than the overall idea of copyrights. My beef is with the system of copyrights that we've currently got. It could be better. It would be better for everyone if it were reformed. But we've got to address the problem of people who don't realize that reform is possible, and that copyrights must follow certain rules, regardless of misapplications of property law on that which is naturally unownable.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I am immensely delighted that Pete Townsend is on 'our side' here. He not only has the right idea around music and creating it and listening to it, but he's also made some of the best _sounding_ albums ever- in fact I own (fetish,treasure etc) a special guitar I made myself with maple body and ceramic pickups a bit lower-impedance than Strat pickups _just_ so I could have a guitar that gets a tone like the Rickenbackers Pete has used. There's nothing quite as rowdy as a cranked-out Rick :) probably the best example of what this tone is like (from my mp3s) is the tune 'Dog' from my 'anima' album, where there's a rhythm guitar that gets a pretty Townsendesque amount of snarl- actually that tune is about the closest to a Who homage tune as anything I've done :)
For _real_ ultimate Who guitar tone: "Live At Leeds". On LP, on a monster uber-high-ender-turntable. Using one of the original British pressings with the label writing that says 'crackling noises OK, do not correct!'. It only crackles like that on bad turntables. On good turntables you are THERE.
for all who asked:
l
http://www.petetownshend.co.uk/life_archive.htm
Pete rocks, and it ain't 'cause I don't listen to new music!
but anyone who listened to Face Dances or I'ts Hard knew that although the tunes might become hits, but they wouldn't become classics
You know, You Better, You Bet is one of the best songs The Who ever did, despite having Kenny Jones on drums. The version on their live album From the Blues to the Bush is one of the best rock songs ever... not bad for a bunch of guys in their late 50s.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
No... because it's incredibly tedious to mass produce CD-R's (on the scale of 1,000's of copies) where as it's relatively simple to let 1,000's of people download a song from you. If people ONLY relied on CD-R's to pirate music, then piracy would not really be as much of a blip on the map to the RIAA as it is today.
If a kid sneaks into that seat, suddenly it's $10 lost.
No, dumbass. That's trepassing. If the kid yells "Fire" after sneaking in, then it's criminal trespass. Remind me to NEVER leave anything of value where you might consider it a loss if it were to come up missing.
I wish that they stuck their original idea. Its odd how peoples perceptions work though. When you're starting to get over the hill, you can say to youself that you better bow out gracefully. When you are way over the hill, you may not think of yourself that way. I bet that Pete can't imagine what was going through his head when he penned I hope I die before I get old. His ideas, perceptions, and experiences are so different, that whatever emotions brought those words up are entirely foreign by now.
But on the main point of the themes of story Lifehouse. I wish he'd stop bringing up that old dead horse. I'm not sure if Fred Brooks was familiar with Townshend's work, but it was a perfect example of what Brooks called the Second System Principle It seemed that he had a success in the Rock Opera genre with Tommy, got cocky, and thought he could do anything. When he couldn't get things together, he through it on Who's Next and went on from there. Now he tries to point to the Internet, point to his failed Lifehouse project, and declare himself a visionary. I don't think it was hard to imagine in the late '60s and early '70s that technology was advancing and allowing people more and more advanced forms of communication, yet making them feel less connnected.
Some visionary.
My guess would be "No." Of course, neither is osm.
If you've heard the original song (their first single, "I Can't Explain", unless you count the few single releases they made for Fontana Records under the name "The High Numbers" that went nowhere) you know well enough that a lot more than a second long sample was used. In fact, I believe Slim re-recorded the intro, but used the same chord progression and meter (in an effort to dodge paying). However the song, "Going out of my head", is based almost entirely upon the original. Passages of the original lyric remain intact (but with some soul-singer sounding woman singing them instead of Roger Daltrey), and the general feel of the song feels more like "I Can't Explain 1999 Remix" than an entirely, or even particularly, different song.
I tend to believe Mr. Townshend was in the right in that instance. Bear in mind, he didn't sue Will Smith for the sample taken from the 1982 WHO release "Emminence Front" in the "Wild-Wild West" theme song (you'll notice in the middle of the song, theres a break with the line "It's a put-on").
Dr. Thacker
Sorry I didn't mean that AutoCAD's price would drop.
Lets say I need a CAD package, I cant afford AutoCAD and I can't pirate it, therefore I will have to buy a cheaper package instead of AutoCAD. If I bought the smaller cheaper HypotheticalCAD package then HypotheticalSoft would have a better chance at funding further development so that one day they could eventually catch up to AutoCAD.
If AutoCAD had to worry about this cheaper competitor catching up to them in features, etc. then AutoCAD would have to either reduce their price or improve their own product to justify their high price.
This is a variation on the argument that Piracy doesn't hurt the dominant product ie AutoCAD, MS-Office, etc. because pirate users will learn how to use AutoCAD, then request it when they get a job using CAD software. Piracy also help the dominant package by keeping down their competitors.
How? Play a piece of music to me and I remember it. I can adapt it for new uses; hum or whistle, and maybe even reproduce it faithfully. How do you propose the creator of that music (or of any other piece of information) control it?
In fact, there is no way to control how people use the information you've called up into being once it's been shown, even once, to an audience of any size. Blame God if you like, but that's how people work. Whether or not we then impose a wholly artificial notion of rights onto the subject is secondary. Even as it stands the fundemental rule of copyright law (in the US - you'll find it in Article I) is that the creators of works only have those rights as far as it's good for society, not the creators. And better yet, what's good for society is for the creators to have as few rights as possible, for as short a time as possible.
In fact, since the goal is not to help creators one whit, or restrict how anyone in the world can use information, if it were found to promote the arts and sciences more by abolishing copyrights altogether - that would be only course of action that Congress could take.
So while I greatly respect the pople that create new works, and in fact, _am_ one of those very people, I realize that works are most valuable when everyone can use them. As well as that once you get an audience (and there's very little information that's useful without an audience for it) you've lost your control. You want them to think about your work? Well, you can't take that back.
If this isn't enough, think about this: Who doesn't stand on the shoulders of giants? Where would we be if no one could create works which relied on past works. Science would be forever reinventing the wheel in a literal sense. No author could write a great novel that either opposed another writer's opus or reaffirmed it. Hell, man - we'd be restricted in the words we could use. Restrict information and it's not helpful, it's harmful. Nothing new happens, nothing is done, no progress is made. Let it flow and it's capable of doing great good and inspiring the creation of more of itself.
On copyrights now: I think that they're unconstitutional. The idea _could_ work, perhaps it has worked. But I sincerely doubt that it's working now, and it goes against the spirit of the law of the land. Reform is necessary. No good can come of expanding copyright further, or letting the status quo persist.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No - he copied. He didn't take. If he had taken something from you, you would have to be deprived of it. This is an old concept rooted in property law. Information - in this instance software - is not property.
;): I rather like the Street Performer Protocol. An author creates a work, sets a price for it, gives it to a trusted escrow holder and sits back. If the fans pay enough for it, they get it. If not, perhaps the author had better reconsider how popular he really is. (Which pretty accurately maps to the current model; Metallica can somehow sell a bajillion copies of their latest CD overnight. No name bands can't give CDs away, despite copyrights, record companies and all the rest.) Once it's made available, the work is in the public domain, where it belongs. Everyone can use it how they like.
Consider: You have a chicken. He takes the chicken. Does he owe you money? Not really. He owes you a chicken. Should he only have chicken bones, guts and feathers handy, you'll have to decide what else a chicken is worth.
Information though, isn't the same. Largely because it not only _can_ be copied so trivially, but because it _must_ be copied in order to be used. You don't read source code by having a wire go from the computer to your head do you? A copy exists on your hard disk. Another in RAM. Perhaps significant parts of a copy in the processor, and additional memories. (e.g. cache, VRAM) Finally a partial copy (unless it's of Hello World length) appears on the monitor. You look at this copy and another copy (or a few - depends on the specifics of how the brain works) end up in your mind. Already, for a simple process like reading and thinking about some source code, you've had to make a multitude of copies. Information is kind of like sound - it needs a medium. But the medium isn't the stuff carried on it.
Now - your argument is basically 'If I weren't getting paid, I wouldn't do it.' Personally, I think that's kind of unfortunate. But we'll ignore that. Are you under the impression that a system of copyrights the only method by which you would get paid? If so, you're wrong. The answer is no.
There is proof in history; until a couple of hundred years ago, the notion of copyrights didn't even exist. Yet there were still people writing, and composing, and singing, etc. And they still got paid. Not for their works as a 'product' but as their works bundled along with the more important service. You paid Michaelangelo to make a nice sculpture of yourself, and the wife and the kids and even the wife's damn dog. When it was done, any idiot could copy it. For 16th century sno-globes perhaps. Shakespeare writes a play and by the end of the week there's already a company on tour performing it without paying Will a red cent.
There are similar proposals to this today (regarding paying authors - not ressurecting Shakespeare
And I'm sure that there are other proposals out there. But don't assume that not paying for each and every copy made, or for different uses of copies by different users throughout perpetuity is the Only Possible Way. It's not. It's not even very likely the best way. Just how we do things right now. There is very likely room for improvement; the current dissatisfaction implies this quite a lot.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Standard I/O Error. Incompetent/Operator.
I believe the question is not whether music piracy is legal or not, but rather whether it is legal to make a product or service that facilitates piracy.
Now, if it is illegal to run such an operation, then perhaps Sony or Panasonic could be sued for selling SVHS decks. They facilitate the piracy of VHS tapes and laserdiscs. To be honest, any producer of a recordable medium could be held legally responsible for piracy if that were the case.
The only ones who should, by old-fashioned logic, be held responsible for piracy are the pirates themselves.
Just think if the stores that sold you your video equipment were legally responsible for what you did with it. How would you like to have to undergo a background check just so you could buy a camcorder? For the same reason this is unreasonable, it is also unreasonable to hold Napster accountable for the actions of its users.
Doing so would be analogous to holding Microsoft responsible for its IPX networking software (still the preferred method of piracy on college campuses), or the US Postal Service for contraband trafficking.
And the existence of trolls is a great big funny joke. If you like your forums sanitized for your protection, there's www.kuro5hin.org, tell 'em I sent you.
I made and then erased a mournful comment about k5n.. I don't want my posts santizied, I read at -1. i think you completely misinterpreted my reasoning - read on...
What are you, some christian religious freak who believes that everything in life needs some praise/punishment system, as if we're some base animals?
I have no issue at all with the existence of trolls, and I'm not going to bother explaining what a troll really is and why 'feeding' a troll is the opposite of what you do with them. Go hang out on usenet for a while.
Everyone else 'got it.' Maybe you should re-read.
I'm doing this because I'm very afraid of what slashdot has become, in wake of the OSM controversy. I fear that we have made a monster by encouraging Rob to develop a system that divides slashdot into 'posters' and 'trolls.' Things have obviously gotten out of hand. He is a good person, but persecuting someone for posting parody borders on heresy.
We have to stand up for OSM's, and our, rights. If we don't the slashdot that we all know and love will come to a disgusting, corporate end.
Please take the time to email rob and tell him how you feel about this.
thanks,
--
blue, outed.
i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
We are not talking about scientific discovery here. No one "pirates" science. Science has always for the most part worked like the open source community does today. We are talking about media. Audio and video clips. And software.
Another thing. I am talking about exact copying. If someone remembers some information and reproduces something similar from their memory, I do not think that that necessarily counts as copying. Remember, we're talking about piracy. No one pirates a game by reproducing it themselves. That is actually not even illegal under copyright law. I'm talking about mechanical and/or digital copying.
Now, if you still stand by what you say, stop to think for a moment. If I spend weeks, months, or even years of my life creating some wonderful piece of information, be it software, music, movies, or art, do you think that I have no right to gain something from it? To use it as I see fit? According to you, that information which I create should no longer be mine, and I should get nothing for it. That idea is so ludicrous that I'm having trouble even describing it in a way that makes sense.
Look at it this way. If it were not for me, the creator of this media, then whatever I created would not exist. Does that not give me some sort of special rights over it?
In an ideal society, people would do what they do solely to help others. However, in real life, people are greedy. Very few people are willing to spend years working on something if they are not going to get anything in return. You can talk all you want about how copyrights are supposed to be good for the people, but they are only good for the people because they encourage the creators to creat. Without copyrights, they would not creat, and we would have nothing.
It seems to me that you are just griping because you want stuff free, and you are not getting it.
That said, I write open source software as a more-than-full-time job and I don't get paid. I do it for personal entertainment. Go to my homepage and see if you must. But, as my /. user info says...
I spend my time writing open source software, not complaining when others don't.
Put more generally:
I spend my time creating free information, not complaining when others don't.
Why? Because everyone has a right to do what they choose with anything that is their sole creation.
PS. As I'm sure you know, the concept you are suggesting is commonly known as "communism", whereas I am avocating "capitolism". You'll notice that communism, as implemented by the Soviets, failed miserably, whereas capitolism, as implemented originally by the Dutch, and brought to its peak by the United States, is and incredible success. Why? Communism tried to force people to do things in a way contrary to human nature. Capitolism, on the other hand, is set up to harness human nature. Under capitolism, people benifit society by helping themselves, and thus the human race manages to advance despite its flaws. Remember, human beings hate to be forced to do things, and any system which tries to control them or limit their rights will inevidably fail.
------
No, they will have YOU, and all other pirates, to blame, for forcing their prices up in the first place.
------
This will probably not do what you expect. Try:
Slashdot >> the_bible
Please do not overwrite the bible; it is very important to many university classes, and several Sunday-morning TV shows. If you feel strongly about it, you can always moderate it down.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
>find out more about Pete Townshend at www.petetownshend.com, which used to be Linux-Netscape friendly, but I can't get to display properly anymore.
Well actually, with netscape 4.73, shockwave flash, and realplayer, everything on that page should work fine. betetownshend.com has been really good about only use plugins that are cross-platform. Yay for them!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Gospod, Gospoda, I give you the master of the obvious.
I never said these days are any better and I qualified my geography with the "USAian" reference. Pissing match. Pissing match.
"As an artist, what I think is important is that people listen to your work, and if you are properly rewarded for it, that's the bonus."
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
From petetownshend.com:
:) In all seriousness, someone should point this out to him, or point that interview out to...
<!-- The images displayed on this web site are for viewing only, and may not be downloaded to be stored locally. -->
So while music piracy is OK, caching is bad
<!-- Site designed and maintained by -->
<!-- Clockwork Web -->
<!-- http://www.clockworkweb.com -->
<!-- +44 (0)20 7471 0770 -->
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
Who could possibly have moderated such oversimplified tripe up to "Insightful"?
... SHEESH!
Teachers certainly didn't like it when we shared our class assignments with other students.
Teachers also taught us to share things we owned, but certainly not to take things from other people.
And justifying "piracy" by saying it only hurts "big fat businessmen" is just salve for your guilty conscience.
I've certainly downloaded a few MP3s, but I don't use third grade logic to fool myself into thinking I'm not stealing.
"Insightful"
That is basically why there are no flying cars. They would require a pilot's license, basically, versus the cracker jack box drivers licenses cars require. And making the licensing easier like they do with cars would be very bad, just for the reasons you mention. Those dipshits would wreck into buildings and such, and can you imagine a drunk aircar driver?
I think they should make them and let people who are very skilled have them. But things are made to work for dipshits, because they are the majority and therefore a larger market. Stuff only moderately skilled people can use would have a very small target market in today's world...
There are a couple of points
- sunk costs are that, effectively lost though humans have sentimental attachment to familiar objects
- when the marginal value of anything (including software) goes to zero or even negative, then the smart thing to do is liquidate it (or equivalent software of GPL) so that hopefully value can be retained by someone else
- Personally I think the point of software is to create user base with a compound average growth rate high enough to keep the idea going and growing. A static entity helps nobody.
- academic computing is different from most in that the return is often far in the future. How can you value the worth of helping someone get out of a poverty trap by equiping them with the skills to enter a higher level profession. It is very difficult to capture this and charging people up-front tends to discourage them into cheaper vocational work rather than higher value learning.
I congratulate you on your willingness to take a risk on GPL. I sincerely hope that you can gather a group of hackers with the same passion for helping others to evolve your system and perhaps, it may one day help find and recognise the next Enstein, da Vinci or Gandhi.
Regards,
LL
This would be wonderful if your numbers had any basis. I see your point, but even assuming every other number in your analogy is correct, autodesk spends $0, not $6,000,000. They incurred no cost in copying, as that was paid by the pirates. They did gain some sales though, which they otherwise would not have.
It is extremely common and very sound legal advice that a litigant not speak about the case in public. Anything they say can be used by the other side, and if it angers the other side it generally makes it harder to reach a settlement.
It is equally common for a judge to issue a gag order to participants in a case.
IANAL but it looks like you aren't either.
If osm is faking why are his natalie stories gone from his website now?
Believe it or not, some people actually enjoy creating music because they derive pleasure from it. Some people even enjoy creating music, because other people derive pleasure from their creations.
Sheesh; I'm almost happy that I heard you say that; it just made my life seem so much fuller by comparison. ;-)
Free music from Jack Merlot.
In the book version of 2001: A Space Odyssey (not the movie), in chapter 9, while en route to the moon, Dr. Heywood Floyd reads from a "Newspad", thru which he can call up news from a variety of sources, perhaps a bit like CNN.com or ZDNet:
There was plenty to occupy his time, even if he did nothing but sit and read. When he tired of official reports and memoranda and minutes, he would plug his foolscap-sized Newspad into the ship's information circuit and scan the latest reports from Earth. One by one he would conjure up the world's major electronic papers; he knew the codes of the more important ones by heart, and had no need to consult the list on the back of his pad. [...] Each had its own two-digit reference; when he punched that, the postage-stamp-sized rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen and he could read it with comfort. When he had finished, he would flash back to the complete page and select a new subject for detailed examination.
Floyd sometimes wondered if the Newspad, and the fantastic technology behind it, was the last word in man's quest for perfect communications. Here he was, far out in space, speeding away from Earth at thousands of miles an hour, yet in a few milliseconds he could see the headlines of any newspaper he pleased. (That very word "newspaper," of course, was an anachronistic hangover into the age of electronics.) The text was updated automatically on every hour; even if one read only the English versions, one could spend an entire lifetime doing nothing but absorbing the ever-changing flow of information from the news satellites.
It was hard to imagine how the system could be improved or made more convenient. But sooner or later, Floyd guessed, it would pass away, to be replaced by something as unimaginable as the Newspad itself would have been to Caxton or Gutenberg.
There was another thought which a scanning of those tiny electronic headlines often invoked. The more wonderful the means of communication, the more trivial, tawdry, or depressing its contents seemed to be. Accidents, crimes, natural and manmade disasters threats of conflict, gloomy editorials -- these still seemed to be the main concern of the millions of words being sprayed into the ether. Yet Floyd also wondered if this was altogether a bad thing; the newspapers of Utopia, he had long ago decided, would be terribly dull.
A few whacks from said cluehammer for you:
www.warmann.com is osm's site for hosting archives of his stories.
Slashdot is a public forum for discussion which is specifically designed to allow everything, including trolls. You do not have to click on osm's stuff, and especially you do not have to click on read more... By doing so it wopuld seem to me you actually liked what you were reading.
Moderation and bitchslapping ensure that osm and the trolls are at -1 anyway. Browse at 0 or better and osm goes away for you. This was the way taco designed /. and it works. try it sometime.
Andover should not be encouraging everyone to post on their site, and yet turning around and suing people for doing that, or censoring anyone who says something they do not like. And as for the trolls they make Andover money, so I do not see what they have to cry about.
This is not a disagreement over fundamental social policies. What the above poster is saying is that ideas, software and the like have no scarcity problems like most other goods and services. That is, in order for me to get it, nobody else has to loose it.
If I want a CD, WalMart has to part with it.
But if I want a song, nobody else has to lose their song. A copy can be made for extremely low or no cost.
Now, you can argue that you have the right to attempt to make money off of your Intellectual Property. But people who don't believe this are not communists. Indeed, they are actually much closer in their beliefs to the founders of the United States of America than you are.
If there's one thing that capitalists hate to do, it is to part with their own money when they believe they shouldn't have to.Intellectual Property is an attempt to limit the rights of people in order to create profits for the Corporation^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HArtist. Yes, the inventors/creators usually like to have some control over their invention so they can profit from it, but the copyright laws in this country are way, way out of control and not at all what was originally envisioned or intended.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
This story just happened to be submitted by an "anonymous author?"
.. pull the other leg, why dontcha. :-)
Go on
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Certain types of information that people create gets protected and others do not.
Have you ever re-told a joke that you heard without seeking the creators permission or paying a fee to do so?
If so, why? You joke pirate you!
I am trying to compile a list of Copyright Questions to illustrate this point. If you have some to contribute, please do so.
all the best,
drew
How? Play a piece of music to me and I remember it. I can adapt it for new uses; hum or whistle, and maybe even reproduce it faithfully. How do you propose the creator of that music (or of any other piece of information) control it?
...
... [ snip ]
On copyrights now: I think that they're unconstitutional
I'm afraid you're confusing the issue. In your post you mention the sharing of ideas and information, and how it benefits society and the go on to say that copyright is bad because it prevents this.
Copyright has nothing to do with whether you can hum or sing a tune and remember the ideas. Copyright is about the implementation - not the ideas contained. For example, if I hear a song and think to myself "hey that's a neat bass riff" and then go and use that bass riff in a composition of mine as inspiration, then that is fine. That is what enables the arts to progress and allows people to 'stand on the shoulders of others', while not at the expense of the original creator. This is perfectly legal under copyright law. Now you tell me how illegally copying a recording equates to sharing ideas and benefitting society. It doesn't. It just lets you get music for free at the expense of the original creator. That is what copyright law is concerned with - protecting artist's rights over their own recordings and implemented creations, not their ideas.
To those that say "well music is just a collection of ideas anyway, and artists can't control ideas", that is absolute rubbish. I guarantee that if you take the 'ideas' from Foxy Lady and perform it, you certainly won't sound like Hendrix. Again, THAT is what copyright law is concerned with. The tangible implementations, not the ideas.
If you truly believe that sharing ideas ais a good thing, you should be totally supportive of copyright law. Without copyrights as a way for artists to make money from their creations, there would be much less incentive (emotional and practical) for them to create new works (artists can't spend time developing their creativity if they're busy trying to put food on the table in a full-time job). Hence without copyrights, we have less implementations of music, and hence there are less ideas that people can draw on 'to stand on their shoulders'.
Although many people are confused about this, the real danger comes from patents which allow people to contain ideas by suing people if they use those ideas. That is bad, and don't confuse this with the copyrighting of actual implementations of an artist's work.
hey there could you expand on your claim that "it's great"? When I heard the new Lifehouse at HMV, it was pretty tired, nothing like some of the bonus tracks added to Who's Next. And I find it pretty revisionist for PT to claim Lifehouse is all about the Internet; even the liner notes in that reissue CD talk alot more about the communicative power of music, not about the Internet.
not working now
I saw them 30 years ago (lessee 00-75= well, 25 anyway), last tour with Keith Moon still alive. Freakin' Awesome! It was in Seattle at the old world's fair center, and it only cost 8 bucks! Two and a half hours of great tunes and lasers and good weed. Eat your hearts out youngsters.
- On the idea of piracy and Napster being sued, I think it is patetic.
I agree. Napster is simply a file-sharing service that is tuned to MP3 files and designed for peer-to-peer transfer rather than client-server. Peer-to-peer FTP with builtin searching capability.- If you think about it, the Napster software copies bits from one source to another. CD-recordable drives, also copy bits from one source to another. BUT, do you see people trying to sue the makers of the CD recordable drives??? NO.
That's because anytime you buy a CD-R labeled as a music CD-R, you pay the RIAA a tax (I'm not sure the amount, but I think it's about 100%) to 'offset piracy' (read: extort money from the average person who doesn't know that music CD-Rs and data CD-Rs are identical except for the label). Don't buy music CD-Rs, you're just wasting your money. Data CD-Rs are much cheaper and work just as good (I use them all the time to burn audio to disc and have yet to have a problem with them).Case in point: I went to get a pack of 10 CD-Rs about a month ago. They were selling two different 10-packs manufactured by TDK, one labeled music, the other data. The music pack was over $20, while the data pack was about $12, yet the discs are identical.
- Napster is doing the exact same thing that the CD-R industry is doing, but the only reason they are being attacked is because of its more widespread use. If everyone had a CD-R, im sure Metallica would be out whining about those companies too.
Like I said, the RIAA is already getting their 'cut' when you buy music CD-Rs._______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Commodore 64 Democoder
FC Closer
Where are my flying cars? I WANT my flying cars! Sharing I25 with 60,000 other people trying to get to work is a drag! Move that problem into 3D space and the commute to work would be a lot faster and easier. Although the dipshits who somehow manage to get into accidents on the interstate would probably have a much higher fatality rate when they do it in the air...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Piracy==Free Advertising.
Autocad is a perfect example, the same goes for other commonly-used, but hideously expensive software packages.
Why? Autocad has been the Most Pirated Software Package (TM) bar *none* and it's the _reason_ for its popularity. There are other packages that are _better_ and _faster_ than Autocad, but they're not nearly as widely known through the Samizdat network because _nobody pirates them_. Autodesk *knows this* and its threats of making it impossible to copy are empty.
Goof software houses learned long ago that copy protection is a good way of annoying your legitimate users and killing off your free PR. Those who have forgotten (like Autodesk seems to have) are throwing out the baby with the bathwater *along with the tub*.
For example: J Random Student has all his money tied up in tuition fees to Brown EDU or Northeastern EDU. Where in bloody blazes is he going to get the multi-kilobuck license fee for Autocad? He doesn't. He gets a Gold Copy (TM) and becomes member of the Autodesk Student Borg Association. He then graduates and becomes a member of the Autodesk Professional Borg Association, through which either he (as a Professional Engineer(R)) or his Employer has the budget for a Legitimate Copy(TM) of Autocad.
J Random Listener also downloads MP3s, decides that the music is cool, but the quality of the copy is utter _crap_ and buys a legitimate copy on CD. Radio Stations, up until now, have performed the SAME SERVICE as Napster or Gnutella for *billions* of people.
Such is the way of All Piracy.
So what the hell is this about "lost revenue"?
It's not piracy, it's Advertising.
Shut The Fuck Up, RIAA, MPAA, SPA. You're giving BAD ADVICE to the producers of IP.
"Piracy" is an issue that I like to be fanatical about. I remeber when teachers taught us that sharing was nice... now they teach us sharing is illegal. I don't think "pirating" music or video hurts anyone except the big fat buisness men. It's so horribly capitalist to sue people for being kind to other people instead of the corporations
So quick with fear you tiny fools!
condone v.tr.
1. forgive or overlook (an offence or wrongdoing) 2. approve or sanction, (usu. reluctantly) 3. (of an action) atone for (an offence); make up for (O.E.D)
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
The frequency of any given band's "farewell" tours will double every two years.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Find music that you really like, even if you have to go beyond companies with RIAA membership. Don't take what you are spoonfed, Thats how the current state of popular music got into the state its in, by the music industry slowly leading the public to the safe choices until there is little choice left.
And thats just one song out of the two albums I mentioned. In the '70s, it was hard to pick one out of the many great tracks on each record.
I have one of their "best of" compliations, being "Who's Better, Who's Best".
Oddly enough "Won't get Fooled Again" is labeled "(Long Version)", yet it is less than 9 minutes long, about 2 minutes shorter than the live version. Strange. It doesn't even sound good.
Of course, all Who tracks sound a lot better live than pre-recorded. Take "My Wife"(Which I got to see entwhistle play about 4 years ago) for example. Yay.
Metallica still supports their fans taping and trading their live concerts. They have mentioned numerous times in their press releases that they are only after people trading their officially released material and continue to support live taping. Burris
Pete Townsend gets it, just like the Grateful Dead got it. It's a *good* thing for a musician when people want to hear what you have to offer.
"As an artist, what I think is important is that people listen to your work, and if you are properly rewarded for it, that's the bonus."
Now, those are the words of a real musician, not some pig-ignorant,washed-up, three-chord headbanging loser.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Wish you were born thirty years earlier!? There's a thought. Let's see: Bad Drugs, a war no-one wanted, race riots and the specter of inflation. Whoo hoo. Let's bring it back! (And that's just what was affecting the USAians). Still, woulda been cool to be a fly on the wall at Bell Labs about that time. huzzah.
My point is that in the article, Townshend says it's OK to do whatever with his music, but the people he hires to make his web page won't even let you store local copies.
On a side note, the page enirely Flash, and it's a piece of shit. But whoever he hired to make eelpie.com (his "proefssional" site) did a nice job.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
Eel Pie is mainly Pete Townshend's solo stuff. For classic Who stuff, you can get that pretty much anywhere.
I grabbed the Lifehouse Chronicles 6 CD box set when it came out back in February (and submitted it to Slashdot..rejected), so it's really the single CD version that's coming out now, which obviously doesn't have as much material. The box set's a little pricey (40 pounds), but they still sell it, and I don't regret for a second spending that money on it. It's great.
If only I had been born 30 years earlier ;)
Finally, someone on /. has recognized that we old farts really did have it better. It is high time that such a prestigious publication as slashdot recognize the truth for what it is.
And, considering that Roblimo is a year older than I am, I'm amazed this has not been addressed before. ;-)
Slashdot News for birds: Shit that splatters.
``Piracy''
Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping and murdering the people on them.
If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''
(http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.h
Oh, wait, the pagan gods throw better parties than the "established" gods. Long live Pete Townshend!
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
"Townshend is one of the few rockers who avidly supports bootlegging. "I'd like to see it proliferate unchecked," he says. "If we don't, we may allow something wonderful to be nipped in the bud." That has got to be among the first sane quotes and stances of someone in the music industry I have heard in a very long time. I think many of us out there should thank and recognise Pete for taking this postition on this contreversial issue. There are many musicians out there who probably feel this way or similiarly to PT. I remember reading articles in magazines in the early 90's about some musicians who actively (and proudly) were collecting bootlegs of thier shows and even a few who gave permission (like RUSH) for limited edition liscensed bootlegs of thier shows to be sold. Does anyone out there remember a Metallica (think before Master of Puppets) that was proud of the fact that thier fanbase was making bootleg audios and videos of thier shows and spreading thier music? Wasn't Cliif'em All produced this way?
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
that everything I know NOW remains intact! Yessir, set the wayback machine for 1973 and I'll personally ensure I'll personally ensure Msft remains an obscure hack shop. No, I won't be fooled again!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Tommy can you hear me? Turn up your fucking hearing aid. Tommy can you see me? Please change my colostomy bag.
Hahaha. You live in Allston and listen to Morrisey. What the fuck do you know? You should be killed man.
Host: ...And welcome back to "Who's Rights are These Anyway?" Alice and Bob, you have 2000 points, Carol, you have 10, and Dave, minus -42.
Alright. Time for "Continuous Conversations" Alice, Bob, and Carol will play, Dave will be the contestant. Alice, Bob, and Carol will each take the side of a certain topic and have to argue their points using the last words the previous person spoke. Dave, you have to guess what side of the argument they're on. Now, audience, we need a topic...
Audience screams out topics
Host: Okay, Abortion, Coke vs. Pepsi, Hemos vs CmdrTaco... ah yes, Copyright laws. Right. And for an additional treat, Alice, Bob, and Carol have use a prop to demostrate their point... how about my left shoe. *tosses shoe to Alice* Alice, you have the shoe...
Alice: "Piracy" is an issue that I like to be fanatical about. I remeber when teachers taught us that sharing was nice...
Bob: *grabs the shoe from Alice and smacks her on the head* ...Sharing was nice, wasn't Alice? That is disgusting. Pirating is NOT sharing. Sharing is letting other people use your stuff at your own expense. That is honorable. Pirating is letting other people use other people's stuff at other people's expense. That is NOT honorable. Take this shoe...
Carol: *grabs shoe from Bob* ...Take this shoe? Don't mind if I do! *hits Bob over head with shoe* I'm going to pertify this shoe and give it to Natalie Portman. Maybe she'll pour hot grits over me...
Alice: *grabs shoe from Carol* Maybe she'll pour hot grits over me, too, or maybe she'll download a mp3 of Metallica's "Pour Some Hot Grits on Me" and be sued by the RIAA for "pirating".
*hits Bob on head* I make shoe. You "pirate" the shoe. I have shoe. You have shoe. You haven't taken anything _from_ me, rather, I have given something to you, with no loss to myself. If you're implying the thing taken is money, not the information itself, that's on the periphery, and not considered in your analogy.
Bob: *reaches for shoe* And not considered in your analogy is this is just utter bullshit. I make shoe for a living. If you take it without paying me, I AM OUT MONEY. I wouldn't be making shoe if I wasn't getting paid, and you wouldn't be using it. *Alice throws shoe over Bob's head*
Carol: *catches shoe* And you wouldn't be using it, either, if you realized what crap your shoe was, anyhow. Besides information wants to be free. *beats Bob with shoe some more*
Alice: *takes shoe from Carol* Information wants to be free, and that's the price it should be, free. Intellectual Property is an attempt to limit the rights of people in order to create profits for the Corporation. err, artist. Yes, the inventors/creators usually like to have some control over their invention so they can profit from it, but the copyright laws in this country are way, way out of control and not at all what was originally envisioned or intended. *beats Bob into the ground with shoe*
Bob: All what was orignially grasp envisioned or intended is that there be some incentive for artists to create orginal work. Intellectual Property was created to give artists a way to protect their orginal works from being ripped off or pirated for someone else's profit.
*stands up*"Pirating" software or mp3 doesn't envolve the physical thief of anything, but you saved the $13 to $15 on the CD you would have bought if you couldn't have copied it. Yes, these prices are high, yes, the music and software industries are making the profits and not the artists, but *starts thumping chest* these are the mechinisms artists use to get published and without them, artists' works will never get out to the general public other through continuous touring and through the small amount of people on the internet. And even then, if artists can't expect people to pay for recorded music, they're stuck living lives of a traveling musicans, lucky if they can find an enough places to play given the number of bands that would also hit the road and travel. Why would anyone prefer that lifestyle instead of receiving royalities on records and touring in support of the record instead of in support of their lifestyle?!
*shouting*AND FORGET ABOUT PROGRAMMERS, HOW THE HELL DO PROGRAMMERS PREFORM CODE "LIVE"?!
Carol: *grabs shoe and puts it on* HOW THE HELL DO PROGRAMMERS PREFORM CODE "LIVE"?! 31337 PROGRAMMERS CAN WHISTLE MODEM SOUNDS INTO A PHONE AND Hax Ur CuMpu73r, SuXoR. *kicks Bob in groin*
*Alice and Carol kick Bob to death*
Alice: Say, Carol, got the new Dr. Dre CD ripped yet?
Carol: Yeah, 91v3 m3 w@r3z & 1ll 91v3 17 2 u. *Audience applauses*
Host: Very good, players. Alice and Carol get 31337 points, and Bob gets an ice pack. Dave, can you name what side of Copyright these three where on?
Dave: Sure. Alice was the 18-24 year old college student with internet access, no money, and lots of bands to follow. Alice is disenchanted with the whole music industry's whoring of artists' work to make a tremedous profit while leaving the artist with zip and see Napster and mp3 trade as a way to strike back against the industry's bottom line.
Host: Correct. And Bob?
Dave: Bob was the 18-24 year old college student with internet access, no money, and lots of bands to follow. Bob also is a computer programmer and sees copyrights as the only way to prevent companies like Microsoft from just taking his code and embedding it into Windows 2001. Bob also is in a rock band and would like to someday be a superstar like Metallica or Dr. Dre.
Host: Correct. And Carol.
Dave: Carol was a troll.
Host: Sorry, Dave, Carol was actually JonKatz researching his new column: "Open-sourced Hot-grits and Natalie Portman down my pants".
Dave: And all three of them are self-righteous.
Host: Correct! Unfortunately, you get a copy of Metallica's new single
Dave: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
George Lee
Apparently he supports bootlegging, why did he crack down on Fatboy Slim for a one second sample? For those who dont know Pete Townshend Sued Fatboy for a sample from the song 'Out of my Head' Rumor has it that he recieved any future royaltys garnered from that song. If you know what song I'm talking about (the one thats used in about 200 commercials) that had to be major bucks! It would seem to me that he is highly hypocritical, and using current music contraversies to springboard himself as trendy. When in actuality he is anything but.
Just a quick note (I seem to be saying that a lot lately)
:)
The 1970s... 30 years ago... CmdrTaco is less than 35 years old "I have a few good years before I'm considered 'old'"(refering to an artical where "old" is 35).
A kid under 15 years old who can lay his hands on pounds and pounds of marijuana in the 1970s has got to rate in the brilent catagory.
This troll didn't do his math
A significant number of "geeks" like CmdrTaco are Xgen (The generation that said "Don't lable me".. what dose that say of the generaton who created the lable?)
When home computers were a new toy for kids. Vic20s, Timex Sinclares, Cocos, Apples, Ataris..
FidoNet... Xmodem... 300 to 1200 baud...
Anybody rember how in War Games the modem was an acustic cup that could dial, hang up and dial again?
Anyone noticed in the 1980s on the death of the acustic cup the final stake in the heart was those phones with the sqare ends instead of round so they wouldn't fit?
They keepped making them mostly for laptops on the go when your at a hotel where the phones won't let you jack in to upload news storys... oh yeah square ends... ack...
That is something however. It's been known for a long time that the information age will be the death of IP laws. Or at least IP rights...
At one time it was a great thing. Book authors, musicians, and inventors would not be ripped off.
But the issues get more complex over time....
Slashdot continually confuses TradeMarks, Patents and Copyrights. All IP rights but people confuse how they can be used.
They are simmiler but not identical and each have specal issues.
The music industry also seems to have similer problems understanding exactly what rights they accually have.
Even Microsoft seems to have problems understanding what IP laws apply and when.
(I read a lot of Nolo press books.. can you tell?.. IANAL so go read the books if you want to understand IP law)..
Even the USPO dosn't really understand Prior Art.
To get anything patented (the protection for the little guy) you need to be wealthy (not the little guy).
Copyrights are significantly better but let's face it. They are screwed.
Trade Marks being probably the only IP not totally messed up. But then it is becouse it's being abused by companys like Matel. On the other hand Matel has as much to worry about as parents who happen to name a kid Barbie.
Anyway... this all known... corprations want to protect IP rights rather than adapt. Thies rights may not exist for much longer. Eventually the laws will have to catch up to the fact that information.. reguardless of what it may or may not wish.. is free...
I don't actually exist.
If you think about it, the Napster software copies bits from one source to another. CD-recordable drives, also copy bits from one source to another. BUT, do you see people trying to sue the makers of the CD recordable drives??? NO.
Napster is doing the exact same thing that the CD-R industry is doing, but the only reason they are being attacked is because of its more widespread use. If everyone had a CD-R, im sure Metallica would be out whining about those companies too.
Standard I/O Error. Incompetent/Operator.
Ah yes, "Rough Boys" off the Empty Glass album.
That would be Townshend's tribute to the Sex Pistols, written, ummm... back in the late 70's when Pete was starting to feel old....
Hmmm....