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 ;)
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
If someone creates a piece of information, they have every right to control how it is used. Don't like it? Don't use their stuff. If it weren't for them, you would not have it. You think you have a right to disrespect them?
Now, there are some artists who choose to make their works freely available. I applaud their generosity. If you want free stuff, you should be supporting these people, not fighting those who choose to do other things with their creations.
Better yet, spend a few years of your life creating something, and then give it away. Until you do, you have no right to complain.
------
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. ;-)
"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.
Tommy can you hear me? Turn up your fucking hearing aid. Tommy can you see me? Please change my colostomy bag.
Scientific discoveries are typically protected by patents. And trust me, there are no small number of people out there who want to copy patented discoveries. You're dead wrong if you say that no one wants to copy science.
Anyway - you're off base on a few things. First of all, it is illegal to reproduce a work which is still protected by a valid copyright (assuming that the reproduction is, for instance, in order to sell copies - other purposes are likely quite legal) even if done so from memory.
Otherwise there would be no small number of people with good or even perfect memories employed to go into bookstores, read the latest bestseller, and run back to a publishing company to type from memory.
Now of course, I have never said that you have no right to make money from your hard work and toil. I'm all for it. I hope you do very well. But once that work has been distributed, as it somehow must be in order for you to actually make any money off of it, you've lost that right. Presently, there is a rather expansive artificial right which helps to replace it, but the justifications are all different, and I don't think that anyone knowledgeable on the subject defends it as an innate right.
Now you do have some special abilities because of your authorship; that ability is that you can create this work. How on earth do you propose that you automatically - without laws to supply this right - get everlasting powers over it? If that were so, why would we need copyright laws?
Would creators still create without those laws? I think so in a lot of cases. This has been the example for thousands and thousands of years. I will grant that they might not create as much, and that there might be fewer people creating works. But I have been trying to say that copyright law is not necessarily the best way, it's not at all natural (free speech is natural - copyrights are in direct opposition to free speech) and that it's a great mistake to assume that it is the best way, or that it is natural. I would rather see significant changes made to copyright law to make it serve the people again, than for it not to. And copyrights, as spelled out in the US Constitution, must advance the useful arts and sciences. There's no mention there of paying authors. The goal is human betterment. The *tool* employed is your vaunted greediness. But it's just a tool, and clearly not a goal in itself.
But I'm not griping because I want and am not getting anything. I'm an artist, and I routinely create works of art - generally work for hire, and also many things just for fun. So not only does copyright law have a lot to do with me, I think that it is important for me to understand copyright law, to understand the basic fundementals that copyright law is founded upon, and to take all of it with some grains of salt; humans are fallible. I don't presume to know that copyright is the best way, but I'm willing to chance it that there's something better, even if I'll never know what. I try to keep this in mind.
Your 2nd to last paragraph is kind of startling to me though. Is your code your own creation? I say it's not. I say you're full of beans. Did you wake up one morning with the knowledge of how to write code newly shining in your head? No, you learned it somewhere. You pretty certainly use other people's code (e.g. standard headers and libraries) and techniques and algorithims developed by others. The language you use, and the compilers, and the processor were all certainly developed by other people unless you're awfully prolific. If Ritchie solely created the use of
No one stands alone. We all stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. If people did somehow acquire permanent rights to their creations it would be far worse than if people had rights only until they revealed their work. If you say otherwise then it is you who is acting unreasonably. Why should the protection of your code for your benefit be any different than the protection of the letters of the alphabet for the fellow who invented them so long ago? You insist that your works be protected, but that the works of the people who you rely on constantly not be - both times for your benefit.
I'm no communist. I think that it's a nice enough idea, but I know I could never be a communist, and I can tell the difference between someone who is a communist and someone who claims to be. The Soviets had a brutal dictatorship, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Stalin was, in many ways, worse than Hitler, and that's not at all easy to do.
But capitalism is not perfect either. I will easily say that capitalism more closely aligns with how humans generally prefer to behave. But there are problems with it, there's no doubt. Capitalism has it's own cancer: monopolies. It frequently causes great harm to people in the sake of profits. I would much prefer that no harm, or as little harm be done, even if it should hurt your money. Money's a tool of people, just like copyrights. It's not a worthy goal in itself.
In closing, here's a great gem from your post:
So what is copyright, but a limit on my natural right, granted by God, to free speech? Clearly it is such an infringement, and I take heart in your statement that the system of copyrights will someday fail.
-- 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.