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 ;)
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.
"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
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.
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
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
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.
Merchandise is available from http://www.eelpie.com.
A search engine is at http://www.google.com.
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
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.
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.
------
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
"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
The things he does don't quite seem awful cold, though :)
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
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.
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
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" 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!
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.
its just a new mother nature taking over.
Please moderate this comment down to (Score: -1, Troll). Thank you.
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. ;-)
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.
> Even Worse Drugs (crack et al)
Heh freebase cocaine has been around for a long time...the only thing "newer" about crack is that somone realised that you can make freebase with sodium bicarbonate...which means any moron can do it and NOT blow themselves up (like say Richard Priar did back in the 80s - most people just should not be playing with ether and other volitale solvents in their kitchen)
I still maintain that there are NO bad drugs...just bad relationships with drugs. Peoples lack of self disipline and concern for themselves that is the real problem... that and the use of drugs outside of a socially acceptable context. Other cultures have integrated drugs into their culture...drugs are as much a part of our culture as they are of any other the difference is that we choose to close our eyes and wish they didn't exist... like maybe we can put the genie back in the bottle... but I digress....
> many wars no one wants
Has anyone, with the exception of people in power who have something to gain (like say land or more power), ever WANTED war?
> I don't think we're any better or worse off than
> our parents' generation.
That depends how you define "better or worst". What is the criterea for judgement? We are still human beings...no better and no worst in breed than we ever were...still fundamentally the same animal as we were say 5000 years ago.
Whats different now is that we are on the leading edge of a wave of technological advancement that is unrivaled throughout all of history. Our abilities to manipulate the world around us and pass information around have advanced more in the past 50 years then in ALL of recorded history.
I think our culture is somewhat in shock from this...as cultures always are after large changes. Just think of the internet itself...the barrier to entry is tiny compared to traditional media.
Compare to television. What do we see on TV? Is it any wonder that it is called "programming"? Its lots of shows...all paid for and written by the same group sof people. A small, rich, elite control the media. I seem to remember that if you trace the money back, 4 individuals control 90% of the traditional media in all of the US. (in other countries its probably either the same or worst...like the government itself in control).
In short...I think that our generation, and the ones to come, are in the most interesting situations of all time (well assuming our generation only includes people in the US and similarly developed countries, middle class and "up"...).
Of course...on the whole the human animal is the same creature, and the biggest unknown variable in how things will progress. It will be interesting to see what social change comes of this.
Does any of this mean we are "better off"? Thats so subjective that no answer is really possible I guess. However thats never stopped it from being argued before.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
I know, we'll change the language. That'll fix everything.
"Holdup"
Convenience store owners often refer to this kind of prohibited payment as a "holdup". In this way, they imply that illegal payments are ethicly equivalent to preventing people from ariving at work on time by stopping all the trains and buses in the city. If you don't believe that illegal payments are just like transportation disruptions, you might prefer not to use the word "holdup" to describe it. Neutral terms such as "prohibited payment" or "unauthorized wealth transfer" are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as "encouraging local businesses to give something back to the community".
#VRML V2.0 utf8
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?