Slashdot Mirror
Sharing Still Doesn't Hurt
Robotech_Master writes "Eric Flint has posted two new Prime Palaver rants. The first one is a continuation of the one that was mentioned here on Slashdot the other day, about the Free Library, the e-book, encryption, and you:'One thing you have to understand about this whole controversy is how much of it is sheer hot air. Many authors and most publishers, when they address this issue, give people the impression they're at risk of losing their shirt through electronic "piracy." That's pure hogwash[...]' The second is a response to the idea of boycotting Harlan Ellison for his anti-piracy stance (and I imagine some Slashdot faces will be red over some of what he has to say!)." We linked to Ellison's rant last year.
..the people who "share" full albums, burn them, and "share" them with their "friends" for a small fee? Personally, I've never bought a music CD, or a pressed CD of any kind.
"The lesson to be learned is not to take the comments on slashdot too literally." --Vinnie Falco, BearShare
The fact of the matter is that people like books. Sure, I can read the entire PHP manual online, but there's just something comforting about having a big volume open in front of me. The same applies to fiction - while some may read, say, The Lord of the Rings online, many will not. The eyestrain alone would turn any reasonable person off of it. And can you imagine reading through several inches of printed pages? The cost of the ink and paper alone would be roughly the same as a cheap paperback version of the book.
The way I see it, piracy is no different than buying the book for $0.50 at a used book store. The fact of the matter is that the type of person who would pirate a book would also pay half a dollar for it - it becomes a matter of cost. And of course, an author loses no money on used books.
The RIAA wants taxpayers to pay for the cost of tracking down those who 'diminish the incentive to invest in creating music'
First of all: Most of the money from sales of music goes to marketing of music. This is because the music listening public are too stupid and sheepish to be immune from being convinced to buy whatever crap BMG wants to sell. This marketing machine payed for by record companies does more to stifle the creation of music than CD pirates ever could. Since local bands could never spend so much to convince the public to buy their stuff, it takes a back seat to the stuff on MTV. Most of the value of the music IP that the RIIA is worried about is not in the music itself but in the marketing investment that the record company has made in pushing the music. For example: Britanny Spears mad diddly off her first album, but could command huge $$ for another one since the record company had already invested mega $$ in marketing her.
Is this maketing a service? Should we thank the record companies for bringing us music we might not otherwise know about? I think not. I think that especially with the internet, bands can show the world what they've got easily, and people can find it on their own. In this wired age record companies who once were the only way to distribute music find that they no longer serve a useful purpose and are nothing more than leaches on society. They control what is on the radio, so that's what I hear, and that's all I know to buy. Without them the radio would play other stuff by artists who have placed their stuff on the internet for free, and who would be happy if I listened so I would want to go to one of their concerts. Music would continue to be created even if there were no such thing as record companies. Maybe artists would not get rich by leveraging the record company's marketing investment, but maybe lesser known artists would make a better living if they could get a little airplay.
Second of all: Do we want an IP police to tell us what we are allowed to think without paying a fee?
Do you think the cops can shut down p2p file trading of copyrighted material without snooping on everything that is traded on p2p? If the FBI can't stop illegal IP traffic on it's budget and using it's existing powers, then it still has use in stopping kidnappers and terrorists, in fact that 'failure' doesn't tarnish the public's image of the FBI because most people who want music and would rather wait for it to download than pay the money for it at the store download it guiltlessly, and don't want the FBI to stop them.
But if there is a special agency who's only purpose is to stop illegal IP trading, they will called before congress if their agency is innefectual, and they will explain that the task is impossible, and that to enforce the law they need an SSSCA type law, and that Freenet should be banned, and that so should most p2p, and gpl software too.
I would be willing to give up the notion of copyright and the patent systems altogether. What moral right does someone who creates an artifact that represents an idea to the very eternal notion itself? They should own only the artifact itself. Why should we subsidise the creation of such artifacts by granting copyright? I don't think the value of what is created in that way warrants the subsidy since the material created is mostly created with the express purpose of making $$ and not with enriching my life. Why is fostering technological growth good in and of itself? Is the car really a good thing? Has it actually benefitted mankind? If patents are granted to compete with other countries then maybe we should stop the war and sign a peace treaty outlawing patents.
To draw a connection to boycotting a dead creater to boycotting a living creater is spurious, at best.
You have 0 chanve of getting Wagner to change his views, or even take a closer look at them, because he's dead. You have nearly 0 chance of getting HE to re-think his position, but nearly 0 is not 0, and if enough people do it, maybe he'll actually try to put a story onto the baen library to see if it works.
I won't buy anything new from Ellison. No I won't boycot him, but I sure as hell will see that no money I spend ends up into his pocket. His thinking is draconion, and feeds right into the corporate misconception. Fortunatly I have a library card and easy access to a used book store.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This rant would have been a lot easier to read on paper ;-)
He gets, what he calls "a very nice letter", which -notice- does NOT ask him to boycott anyone or anything, does not say anyone's going to try and force anyone to do anything, he's not going to even try and INFLUENCE anyone to do anything.
He just informs he's going to boycott someone's writing because he doesn't agree with him.
That's all.
And that leads to this rant by Mr. Flint?
Just who needs to grow up here anyway?
Watch the Teaser Trailer for "The Lightning Thief" Her
Okay, let's clarify things. Yes, libraries give copyrighted works away free, so does radio, blah, blah, blah. And that's great. Libraries and radio don't cut into book or music sales and they're wonderful resources. But that's not how the Angry Young 3/_33+ see it. Their take is that the companies that distribute music and books are evil and should be taken out of the picture. So when they argue about sharing being okay, there's a stronger agenda behind it: that copyrights should be abolished. The attitude of "entertain me for free" is a a hard view to get people to agree with.
Sharing is great. I mommy taught me to share.
But, last time I checked, when you share somebody else's stuff, it's called stealing.
Mommy told me not to steal.
Why support a twit financially if you feel that he's acting contrary to your own interests? You can "consume" the works of anyone that has been elevated to the status of cultural icon without it profiting them. Flint alludes to these methods in his own commentary. Also, Flint's comparison is flawed since some of his examples are people that are no longer even around to gain benefit from patronage. You simply can't punish Wagner anymore, while you could try and punish Ellison.
This is an important distinction between Wagner and Ellison.
Although, I do agree that boycotting Ellison even at the public library would be a bit silly.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Donate money to Harlan Ellison to prevent authors' rights on the internet.
I am sure the money will be well spent.
--Metrollica
Many people on Slashdot are just way too into the idea of "make it free - everyone wins!" The fact is, in most cases you will win and the creators will lose. Releasing portions of one's work - whether a few songs, or the first quarter of one's book - may well work but having people try to justify pirating books online just will hurt the creators. Unless you're like the writer of the response - unknown and obviously limited in talent. Don't give me reponses about libraries or borrowing your friend's copy of a book unless you can honestly say that only one person will have access to the electronic copy at a time. At libraries they don't let you copy the books on the copy machines because it's illegal. A one-person type of ownership is fine - guess where that leads? - eBooks, albeit with better encryption schemes than they currently have.
Surely you don't believe that!
I mean, everybody says, this is so wrong!
Cooperation, scary...
BOYCOTT Eric Flynt!!! Seriously!
It's comical to see how various groups are attempting to use the DMCA,
as well as traditional IP law, against each other, in a vain effort to control
the ideas they call "their" "intellectual property." As Benjamin Franklin said,
when someone else uses your idea, you are not diminished... you still "possess"
it as much as you ever did.
For example, see this humorous(?) dispute between a small web site and someone
claiming to represent Wired Magazine, in which everything from the DMCA,
to copyright and patent law, to the GPL(!), is invoked to assert one side
or the other's IP claims:
http://subintsoc.net/blowback_200203.php#wired2
Just goes to show how asinine these sorts of things can get.
Here's a fun game to play w/
I may come off as uneducated here, but I don't care.
Who is Eric Flint and why the heck should we care what he thinks???
From the rant I read, it appears he is an author. Still, there are tons of authors out there. What makes him newsworthy? Why is he one we should pay attention to?
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Zero minus zero equals zero. Read the rant, learn the phrase. Seriously. RIAA types and the IP-martial-law crowd still won't get it (because they can't conceive of anything from which they can't get a percentage), but the average person understands that going to a public library and reading a book is not theft, and neither is 0 - 0 = 0.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
I'm a conservative, but I don't boycott Mercedes Lackey because of her politics. I boycott her because of her contrived plots, shallow characters, stilted dialogue, and a preachy tone that annoys me whether it comes from her or Robert Heinlein. How this woman became a popular writer when she produces such crap is something I don't understand.
And the brethren went away edified.
I haven't seen any actual new work of his in 20 years. I probably have a bunch of his old books stored somehow -- but I wasn't in any hurry to take them out and read them again anyhow.
A long time ago, I decided that Harlan Ellison was clever, but he wasn't sufficiently hooked into _reality_ to write sci-fi that survived five seconds of critical thinking. Which is a pretty good reason not to take what he says about the economics of writing seriously...
Last year when this came up I read one of his free books but got distracted and didn't follow up. After seeing this again on /. and enjoying his article I read the first two in the Belasarius series and got thoroughly sucked in. I tried tracking down the rest at the library but they closed early on the weekend so I bought the next two from the Webscriptions. (looks like I could have saved $4 on Destiny's Shield but hey, overall I'm quite happy, $8 for 4 books worth of entertainment is a great deal).
Now I'm wading my way through 1632 and I'm going to have to track down the rest of the books in this series. I might try the library or I might end up buying them, we'll see. And, as I mentioned, I'm reading it on a Palm Pilot. Not as good as paper, not even as good as the HTML versions, but definately readable and I can take it to the toilet with me...
Bleh!
From looking at the original story, somebody went and posted copies of his books on usenet, so HE went after them legally. How is this a problem? If I were an author and found somebody passing out copies of my book, I'd sic a lawyer on them too.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Go to the local library and read his stuff for free. That'll piss him off!
Setting his threshold to 5, Sparky eliminated most of the trolls on /.
In the 1948 war, Jewish forces would empty Arab villages of their populations, often by threats, sometimes by just gunning down a half-dozen unarmed Arabs as examples to the rest. To make sure the Arabs couldn't return to make a fresh life for themselves in these villages, the Israelis put typhus and dysentery bacteria into the water wells.
Uri Mileshtin, an official historian for the Israeli Defense Force, has written and spoken about the use of bacteriological agents. According to Mileshtin, Moshe Dayan, a division commander at the time, gave orders in 1948 to remove Arabs from their villages, bulldoze their homes, and render water wells unusable with typhus and dysentery bacteria.
Acre was so situated that it could practically defend itself with one big gun, so the Haganah put bacteria into the spring that fed the town. The spring was called Capri and it ran from the north near a kibbutz. The Haganah put typhus bacteria into the water going to Acre, the people got sick, and the Jewish forces occupied Acre. This worked so well that they sent a Haganah division dressed as Arabs into Gaza, where there were Egyptian forces, and the Egyptians caught them putting two cans of bacteria, typhus and dysentery, into the water supply in wanton disregard of the civilian population. "In war, there is no sentiment," one of the captured Haganah men was quoted as saying.
Got paid to create their art, was it amateur, or "PROFESSIONAL-LEVEL ART" as Ellison put it? they got paid a lot, but they didn't get paid over and over again.
Why should modern works be different?
(Posted to the Pho list last year),
Seeing as I don't work in the music industry, I've been a little hesitant to
post this, but I'm feeling a little froggy today. If I'm being a little
presumptuous feel free to hack me to shreds, but here goes:
The Nature of Demand
It seems to me one of the key problems facing the music industry in the
digital age is the "commodity" approach to marketing music. Who was the
genius that first determined that the real product is a piece of plastic?
When I buy a CD, it's not because I simply want to be able to play the music
at my leisure. At the core of every music purchase is a connection between
the artist and the consumer. For some, it's an association of ideals. For
others, it may be image, lust, identity, craft or a myriad of other
possibilities. This is the real nature of demand in this business and it's
being completely ignored under the current model.
Pissing Off the Consumer
This whole idea came to me as I was driving to work one day listening to
"Celebrity Skin." I'm on my third copy now and it irks my hide a little each
time I buy a CD that I have previously owned. Especially considering the
fact that I know so little money is going to the artist.
Why can't I just buy personal rights to the piece of work and pay a media
fee for whatever form of media I choose as a playback device? If I lose the
CD, why can't I just pay a reasonable media fee to replace it? Why can't I
be a patron of the artist rather than a consumer of plastic? The value of a
CD is in the beauty of the work, not in its physical manifestation.
In a Perfect World
I'd pay $25 bucks for a CD. It would come with a serial number. I'd go to a
Web site managed by the artist or their representatives and register. Once
registered, I'd be able to download the CD in MP3 format. Maybe I'd get
access to a couple of bonus tracks as well. Maybe I'd like a second copy of
the CD or a tape for my car. I'd be able to buy a second copy for 5-7 bucks.
Call it a media fee.
A Different Approach
Now here's the real power of this model. Now that I've registered, the
artist can send me an email telling me about what's going on in their
creative life every now and then. Maybe I'd be able to get an early copy of
the next album in MP3 format for pre-ordering. Maybe the artist could send
me a link to some live tracks from concerts or some things they have been
playing around with in the studio between major releases. Maybe they could
point me to a couple of older albums I might be interested in. Maybe once I
have purchased the rights to three albums I would achieve "distinguished
patron" status that allows me special access to other material. That's
value. Now I feel like I have a relationship with the artist. Now I feel
like a patron who helps support the artist so they can spend their time
working on their art. Now the artist has a direct way to build a
relationship with me the fan. Foster that relationship and the artist is
meeting the real demand of a music consumer.
Maybe when the artist comes to town, they can put on a special show at a
small venue for "distinguished patrons." I think a show like this would be
good for the artist and the patron. The artist would know they are
performing for a select group that appreciates their craft and has shown it
by supporting them. The patron gets to see his or her favorite artist up
close and personal. The patron would be willing to pay a higher price as
well. The next day, maybe a special commerative t-shirt would be available
at the web site when the patron logs in.
Also, think about how valuable the database would be.
Watch the Money Roll In
So under this scenario, I'd probably spend at least a couple hundred bucks
with an artist. Under the current model, I might have shelled out $100 for a
CD and a couple of concert tickets. Why allow labels to take so much money
for "managing" the artist, when what they really should be doing is managing
the relationship with between the artist and the patron? The marketing
potential under this model is a no brainer. Some might abuse it, some might
manage it well. At the end of the day, it's the relationship that counts.
Piss off your registered fan base with a load of spam and chances are the
fan won't cough up any more dough. Provide a real value to registering and
watch the money roll in. The better an artist manages the relationship, the
more money they make. Make the management earn their keep for a change.
This Kills the Napter Problem
Piracy will never go away. Instead of trying to limit access to an artist's
work, why not take a different approach... provide real value for paying for
the work. Why would I spend hours trolling Napster for bad MP3's encoded at
different bit rates and labeled with no common format when I can just buy
the CD and have access to clean copies encoded at a high bit rate for my
desktop machine and maybe another set encoded at a low bit rate for my car
or portable player? Napster's cool, but face it, it's still a
pain-in-the-ass. Today's average MP3 collection is a sloppy mess. Why would
I pirate when buying the work and registering offers me real value? Sure
some people will pirate. Face it folks, it's going to happen no matter what.
The loss from piracy would be more than covered by the additional revenue.
This would also go a long way to killing the demand for used CD's.
Eviscerate The Damn Middlemen
I'm offended that the record companies skim off such a disproportionate
amount of income from the process compared to the value they inject into the
transaction. They get away with it because they control the distribution
channel. That control is dying and all the industry seems to want to do is
come up with another way to protect it. Wake up! Fans are pissed off.
Artists are pissed off. Everyone is sick and tired of paying twenty bucks
for a CD and knowing that the artist only ends up with a buck or two. That's
why everyone is sucking songs off of Napster. We're all tired of feeding
your machine. Let go and start fresh. Didn't most people in the business get
into management or promotion or whatever because they loved music? Wouldn't
it be nice to get back to that rather than working in a system that is
basically a leech feeding upon both artist and consumer?
Someday Soon
An new act is going to make it big direct. No label. No management. No
distribution deal. Self-financed. Self-promoted. Self-Published. Another
possibility is a major act going direct successfully. The day is coming soon
and when it happens, a lot of people in this business are going to face a
rude wake-up call. Why not make a deal now while you still have a chance?
Apologia...
I've had all this bouncing around in my head for some time now. I honestly
planned on writing it up as a coherent article. If I waited till I had time
to do it, I would never have gotten around to it. I'm truly sorry to have to
present it in such a disjointed rant.
I don't have a chip on my shoulder. I truly love music. I work for a living.
I don't have the kind of talent musicians have. The mere fact that there are
beautiful souls out there producing such wonderful works of art makes the
drudgery of my day to day a little brighter. I'm willing to pay for that. As
a matter of fact, I'd feel damn privileged to be part of a support base that
allows an artist to focus on their art instead of schlepping food at a
restaurant for a living. I just wish doing it under a the current model
didn't leave such a bitter taste in my mouth. Fix it and I guarantee you'll
make more money, see a more diverse range of work and happier artists and
consumers.
...is a jerk. I had a friend that idolized him and wanted to be a writer. He sent some of his work to Harlan, and Harlan returned it with a note that basically called my friend an idiot and provided nothing at all constructive... all this knowing that at the time my friend was a young kid in high school... It doesn't surprise me that he'd take this idiotic stance on this... probably because he's alienated all his fans!
At that time of the holy month of Ramadan, there were many people who flocked the Abraham Mosque to perform their prayers. Goldstein passed two army checkpoints at the dawn of February 25, 1994 from the northeastern gate of the mosque near privy. That privy could be the reason why Goldstein decided on that gate because he, probably, received his contemplation about Arabs from the Rabbis of Kach in Kiryat Arab where the Arabs were described as the demons of the privy. [Talmud - Mas. Kiddushin 72a ''Shew me the Ishmaelites.'-'They are like the demons of the privy.''] The privy of the mosque is important not only because it has two Israeli army checkpoints on its nearby mosque's gate, but also because it is surrounded by Israeli army posts from the east and army patrols in the west. So Dr. goldstein was acting from the deepest parts of the Zionistic ideology in liquidating the demons. But in this case and as a typical Zionist, shooting from the back was the style. Dr. Goldstein walked at least 100 yards in the mosque before he decided to choose the exact location to liquidate his demons. Dr. Goldstein positioned himself at the last row of the main hall, just opposite to the Imam's place (Manbar.)
The position was not arbitrary not only because it enabled him to shoot directly at the largest number of the backs of the worshippers but also because it was supposed to have enabled him to get a fast escape or protection from the Israeli soldiers who were scattered right behind him in the northern hall "the plate" of the mosque.
Dr. Goldstein thought about the best moment to execute the plan: maximize the number of casualties and secure the escape or rescue. The best moment, of course, was when the Muslim worshippers knelt on the floor with their backs towards Dr. Goldstein.
It was first a hand grenade that he threw among the worshippers causing casualties, confusion, and possibly an invitation to the Israeli soldiers in the halls and outside of the mosque to intervene for rescue. And in no time, the automatic massacre took place with the same kind of mercy that other Zionists like Dr. Goldstein showed in the past toward Arabs.
An eyewitness told HIPRS that when Dr. Goldstein was executing the massacre and people attacked him, there was a soldier who attempted to come closer to the scene. But instead of "rescuing" Dr. Goldstein, the Israeli soldier shot his bullets in the air and then escaped from the inside eastern door of the northern hall to the previously known "women praying area." In the opinion of the eyewitness, the soldier could have rescued Goldstein by killing 5 or 10 more Palestinians, but it appeared that his personal safety was above any Jewish blood value.
I fully support patents and copyrights as an incentive for the creation of new ideas. The last thing I want is a world where people think to themselves, "I could write a book, but I would make a lot more money for a lot less work if I just stole someone else's and sold it." I've heard some countries are like this. The thing is that banning technology because of it's capabilities is not only futile, but does more harm than good because of the brick wall it places in front of innovation.
I think the corporations are scared of technology because they don't understand it. They really have no cause to be so paranoid however, because as any Gnutella user knows, free information is only worth as much as the people who are making it available get paid.
So what if everything gets pirated on-line? No matter how good P2P gets, it will never be able to duplicate the quality of media that one receives from a legitimate centralized service (such as Amazon). In order for the quality of pirated materials to equal that of the legitimate version, the pirated version has to be subsidized somehow. As long as it is illegal to sell copyrighted material, no pirate distribution system will ever be able to provide the equivalent value.
Of course, new technology could always prove me wrong, but it's a little tiresome to see a raging political debate fueled by people who make all sorts of outrageous claims about what 'technology is doing' without the slightest understanding of the reality.
One way to counteract Ellison's pro-censorship stance is to only download/copy his material from now on for free. Never buy anything.
Here's my true story about how sharing is good.
I'm a young guy (20 years old). When Prince (aka, "The Purple One," "The Artist Formally Known As Prince," etc) was just getting started up, I was very young and not too interested in music. I knew who Prince was, however, and I remembered that.
However, I didn't know who Morris Day was -- an artist who, in my view having heard him, is superior to Prince.
Now, about a year ago, I saw the movie "Purple Rain". In that movie, I saw the story of Prince and Morris Day competing at a local club. They showed several songs of each artist. As it turns out, in reality, Prince and Morris Day were actually in the same band and good friends, but the movie is a dramatization which sets them up as being enemies.
Anyways, in this movie, they showed Morris Day performing the song called "The Bird". I thought that song was really fun and great, so I looked it up on Amazon, and looked for Morris Day on Google. So I found out this was a real guy, and he had a alot of songs before he unexplicably quit the music industry.
I thought cool. But I'm not going to buy an album by a guy just because he had one good song. So I downloaded Day's album's off from Grokster and LimeWire. Turns out, almost all of the guys music is good -- some real great songs, like Jungle Love, Fishnet (Black Pantyhoes), Color of Success, Get It Up, The Walk, 777-9311, etc.
That's how I found out about Morris Day. And that's how I found out his songs were good. And that's why I've bought a few of his albulms. In short, he made money because of file-sharing. Of course, if he had sucked, he wouldn't have made money; but he also wouldn't have lost any either.
The general point that can be taken here is that almost all people who download tons of stuff from LimeWire/Kazaa wouldn't have bought it anyways. I have about 40Gigs of songs. Do you really think I would have actually gone out and bought 40Gigs worth of songs if it weren't for file-sharing? Of course not, that's absurd. So in short, the artists who's songs I've downloaded haven't lost anything because I wouldn't have paid them anyways. Some gain alot, because I like them enough to buy their albums.
In fact, everyone gains. Before file-sharing I wasn't an avid fan of music. Now, I am. All kinds of music too. I even watch M-TV once in a while, something which I never did before.
In fact, I'd venture to say that the interest in music today is higher than its EVER EVER BEEN. And that's accounting for the size of the population.
So, how exactly is it that artists and the music industry loses from this?
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
bug i!
bug superior have antenules and many legs I!
bug make gooey SPLAT! on windshield!
SPLAT! SPLAT! oooze bug guts on you hooman!
BUG - SPLAT!
Ellison would be just another author I've never read except that my high-school buddy lent me a copy of one of his books ("I have no mouth and I must scream"). Ellison garnered some profit from my purchases following that sharing event. Now I see the error of my buddy's ways. Sharing is bad, and Ellison's fame was a mistake.
Not only that, but what about the music that the record companies REFUSE to sell, such as out of print albums and bootlegs? I want to pay them for copies (or did, at least before they slammed Napster!), but they don't want to bother to sell me the product.
So I download it..... how are the companies losing from this?
At least Israel doesn't specifically call for terrorist gurilla warfare in it's national charter.
--
Articles of the Charter:
Article 1. Palestine, the homeland of the Palestinian Arab people, is an inseparable part of the greater Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are a part of the Arab Nation.
Article 2. Palestine, within the frontiers that existed under the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.
Article 3. The Palestinian Arab people alone have legitimate rights to their homeland, and shall exercise the right of self-determination after the liberation of their homeland, in keeping with their wishes and entirely of their own accord.
Article 4. The Palestinian identity is an authentic, intrinsic and indissoluble quality that is transmitted from father to son. Neither the Zionist occupation nor the dispersal of the Palestinian Arab people as a result of the afflictions they have suffered can efface this Palestinian identity.
Article 5. Palestinians are Arab citizens who were normally resident in Palestine until 1947. This includes both those who were forced to leave or who stayed in Palestine. Anyone born to a Palestinian father after that date, whether inside or outside Palestine, is a Palestinian.
Article 6. Jews who were normally resident in Palestine up to the beginning of the Zionist invasion are Palestinians.
Article7. Palestinian identity, and material, spiritual and historical links with Palestine are immutable realities. It is a national obligation to provide every Palestinian with a revolutionary Arab upbringing, and to instill in him a profound spiritual and material familiarity with his homeland and a readiness for armed struggle and for the sacrifice of his material possessions and his life, for the recovery of his homeland. All available educational means and means of guidance must be enlisted to that end, until the liberation is achieved.
Article 8. The Palestinian people is at the stage of national struggle for the liberation of its homeland. For that reason, differences between Palestinian national forces must give way to the fundamental difference that exists between Zionism and imperialism on the one hand and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On that basis, the Palestinian masses, both as organizations and as individuals, whether in the homeland or in such places as they now live as refugees, constitute a single national front working for the recovery and liberation of Palestine through armed struggle.
Article 9. Armed struggle is the only way of liberating Palestine, and is thus strategic, not tactical. The Palestinian Arab people hereby affirm their unwavering determination to carry on the armed struggle and to press towards popular revolution for the liberation of and return to their homeland. They also affirm their right to a normal life in their homeland, to the exercise of their right of self-determination therein and to sovereignty over it.
Article 10. Commando action constitutes the nucleus of the Palestinian popular war of liberation. This requires that commando action must be escalated, expanded and protected and that all the resources of the Palestinian masses and all scientific potentials available to them be should be mobilized and organized to play their part in the armed Palestinian revolution. It also requires solidarity in national struggle among the different groups within the Palestinian people and between that people and the Arab masses, to ensure the continuity of the escalation and victory of the revolution.
Article 11. Palestinians shall have three slogans: national unity, national mobilization and liberation.
Article 12. The Palestinian Arab people believe in Arab unity. To fulfill their role in the achievement of that objective, they must, at the present stage in their national struggle, retain their Palestinian identity and all that it involves, work for increased awareness of it and oppose all measures liable to weaken or dissolve it.
Article 13. Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are complementary objectives; each leads to the achievement of the other. Arab unity will lead to the liberation of Palestine and the liberation of Palestine will lead to Arab unity.. To work for one is to work for both.
Article 14. The destiny of the Arab nation, indeed the continued existence of the Arabs, depends on the fate of the Palestinian cause. This interrelationship is the point of departure of the Arab endeavor to liberate Palestine. The Palestinian people are the vanguard of the movement to achieve this sacred national objective.
Article 15. The liberation of Palestine is a national obligation for the Arabs. It is their duty to repel the Zionist and imperialist invasion of the greater Arab homeland and to liquidate the Zionist presence in Palestine. The full responsibility for this belongs to the peoples and governments of the Arab nation and to the Palestinian people first and foremost. For this reason, the task of the Arab nation is to enlist all the military, human, moral and material resources at its command to play an effective part, along with the Palestinian people, in the liberation of Palestine. Moreover, it is the task of the Arab nation, particularly at the present stage of the Palestinian armed revolution, to offer the Palestinian people all possible aid, material and manpower support, and to place at their disposal all the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to perform their role as the vanguard of their armed revolution until the liberation of their homeland is achieved.
Article 16. On the spiritual plane, the liberation of Palestine will establish in the Holy Land an atmosphere of peace and tranquillity in which all religious institutions will be safeguarded and freedom of worship and the right of visit guaranteed to all without discrimination or distinction of race, colour, language or creed. For this reason, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support.
Article 17. On the human plane, the liberation of Palestine will restore to the Palestinians their dignity, integrity and freedom. For this reason, the Palestinian Arab people look to all those who believe in the dignity and freedom of man for support.
Article 18. On the international plane, the liberation of Palestine is a defensive measure dictated by the requirements of self-defense. This is why the Palestinian people, who seek to win the friendship of all peoples, look for the support of all freedom, justice and peace-loving countries in restoring the legitimate state of affairs in Palestine, establishing security and peace in it and enabling its people to exercise national and sovereignty and freedom.
Article 19. The Partition of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel, are fundamentally invalid, however long they last, for they contravene the will of the people of Palestine and their natural right to their homeland and contradict the principles of the United Nations Charter, foremost among which is the right of self-determination.
Article 20. The Balfour Declaration and the Mandate Instrument, and all their consequences, are hereby declared null and void. The claim of historical or spiritual links between the Jews and Palestine is neither in conformity with historical fact nor does it satisfy the requirements for statehood. Judaism is a revealed religion; it is not a separate nationality, nor are the Jews a single people with a separate identity; they are citizens of their respective countries.
Article 21. The Palestinian Arab people, expressing themselves through the Palestinian armed revolution, reject all alternatives to the total liberation of Palestine. They also reject all proposals for the liquidation or internationalization of the Palestine problem.
Article 22. Zionism is a political movement that is organically linked with world imperialism and is opposed to all liberation movements or movements for progress in the world. The Zionist movement is essentially fanatical and racialist; it objectives involves aggression, expansion and the establishment of colonial settlements, and its methods are those of the Fascists and the Nazis. Israel acts as cat's paw for the Zionist movement, a geographic and manpower base for world imperialism and a springboard for its thrust into the Arab homeland to frustrate the aspirations of the Arab nation to liberation, unity and progress. Israel is a constant threat to peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Inasmuch as the liberation of Palestine will eliminate the Zionist and imperialist presence in that country and bring peace to the Middle East, the Palestinian people look for support to all liberals and to all forces of good, peace and progress in the world, and call on them, whatever their political convictions, for all possible aid and support in their just and legitimate struggle to liberate their homeland.
Article 23. The demands of peace and security and the exigencies of right and justice require that all nations should regard Zionism as an illegal movement and outlaw it and its activities, out of consideration for the ties of friendship between peoples and for the loyalty of its citizens to their homelands.
Article 24. The Palestinian Arab people believe in Justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity and the right of peoples to enjoy them.
Article 25. In pursuance of the objectives set out in this charter, the Palestine Liberation Organization shall perform its proper role in the liberation to the full.
Article 26. The Palestine Liberation Organization, as the representative of the forces of the Palestinian revolution, is responsible for the struggle of the Palestinian Arab people to regain, liberate and return to their homeland and to exercise the right of self-determination in that homeland, in the military political and financial fields, and for all else that the Palestinian cause may demand, both at Arab and international levels.
Article 27. The Palestine Liberation Organization shall cooperate with all Arab countries, each according to its means, maintaining a neutral attitude vis-à-vis these countries in accordance with the requirements of the battle for liberation, and on the basis of that factor. The Organization shall not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab country.
Article 28. The Palestinian Arab people hereby affirm the authenticity and independence of their national revolution and reject all forms of interference, tutelage or dependency.
Article 29. The Palestinian Arab people have the legitimate and prior right to liberate and recover their homeland, and shall define their attitude to all countries and forces in accordance with the attitude adopted by such countries and forces to the cause of the Palestinian people and with the extent of their support for that people in their revolution to achieve their objectives.
Article 30. Those who fight or bear arms in the battle of liberation form the nucleus of the popular army which will shield the achievements of the Palestinian Arab people.
Article 31. The Organization shall have a flag, an oath of allegiance and an anthem, to be decided in accordance with appropriate regulations.
Article 32. Regulations to be known as Basic Regulations for the Palestine Liberation Organization, shall be appended to this Charter. These regulations shall define the structure of the Organization, its bodies and institutions, and the powers, duties and obligations of each of them, in accordance with this Charter.
Article 33. This Charter may only be amended with a majority of two thirds of the total number of members of the National Assembly [this name was later changed to the Palestine National Council] of the Palestine Liberation Organization at a special meeting called for that purpose.
If you would like to contact Ellison, either to say hello or send death threats, the address is as follows.
Harlan Ellison
c/o The Harlan Ellison Recording Collection
P.O. Box 55548
Sherman Oaks, CA 91413-0548
--Metrollica
I must say, I'll probably never buy a work of fiction (pleasure reading) again, unless they can seriously cut down the price they're charging for these things. At first I thought the entire idea of eBooks was stupid...I mean, who would want to read a book on a computer? Then I got a PDA, and it came with a couple free eBooks. I tried reading one of them ("The Time Machine") and I found the entire experience very enjoyable. You don't have to hold the book open or flip the pages, it'll sit flat on a table, it's backlit, I keep my pda in my pocket anyway, so I've always got it with me, it's smaller and more convienient, etc.
So I thought I'd get on the net and buy an ebook. They couldn't be that expensive, right? WRONG. I couldn't believe they wanted $10 for an eBook just about everywhere I looked. It just boggles my mind...I mean, really, it can't take more than a few hours to turn a paperback into an ebook. Rip out the binding, automatic document feeder, OCR software, clean it up a little bit, put it on the webserver and hook it into the e-pay system...there's no materials, printing, packaging, shipping, stocking, etc..
I would have paid $2 for an eBook, I figure. That's worth it, just not to have to go through the hassle. Instead, they priced them so high I started poking around gnutella instead. omg. I've downloaded several large archives of books...I've probably got about 500MB (zipped) of eBooks...complete collections of Asimov, Clarke, Lovecraft, Shakespeare, Twain and on and on and on...I would have paid for them, really I would have, if they just hadn't made them so damn expensive... Now, I have an entire library for the rest of my life, for free. Thank you internet.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
KOffice, KMail, KAlarm, etc. are all incredibly stupid names, and make the entire KDE project look very amateurish. Microsoft uses names like Outlook, Explorer, Frontpage. All sound more appealing than "KMail".
...i have to empathize with Mr. Ellison.
Maybe his problem is that he expresses his points so viscerally, or maybe he doesn't understand all that well how this internet thing works (he's over 70 years old, so cut him some slack here). But his point is important.
I mean, a paperbak costs what, 7, 8 bucks? You spend that in a movie that lasts a couple of hourse but can't be bothered to pay that for a book that woll last you for years, that you can share with friends and family and reread as much as you want?
Really, among the artists, writers are the worst paid. Except for a few (maybe less than 10), writers need to keep a day job. If you enjoy someone's work, I don't see why you can't spare 10 bucks to buy the book.
There is an article at Radio Free Nation about creating and using collaborative spaces (wikis) to wrest control away from the media giants who want to destroy fair use, individual's copyright and access to unfettered media.
This might be a way to do it and it uses the same "waste not want not" approach as Seti@home. Wikis set up to serve an artistic community using only excess capacity.
Got a some disk space and some bandwidth to spare on a Linux box with a DSL link? You can be a benevelent media mogul helping the creative community in your area.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I myself write, I have several short stories published, I have made very little in profit off of them. However I don't want any of my stories on the internet, because I then lose control over them, and short stories are a lot easier to read online then novels. People who I may not want to be associated with can use and post my stories, they can even steal them quite easily. (I've had this happen before). In print however I have a lot more control, and it take more effort to steal them then most thieves will willingly go thru.
In short, Ellison (for example) doesn't want his stories on line, as the creator, that's his right, they're still under copyright. Flint DOES want his stories on line, again, that's his right as well. But criticizing someone because they don't want their work shared in ways they don't agree with is pretty stupid.
Try using this argument on a woman or man you want to sleep with about why they 'must' sleep with you, because it's your 'right' to have sex with anyone you want, regardless of their opinion on the matter. Don't be surprised by the result!
I'd wager you have a better chance of getting Wagner to change than Ellison. :-)
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
I really think it's only a matter of time before more authors come around to the advantages of electronic distribution. I'm really excited about the possibilities, and I'd love to take a look at some of this guys stuff.
Can anyone recommend a decent gizmo to read electronic texts on? Is that RCA ebook thing any good?
Kwil, your post is perhaps the most interesting thing i've read all day. It puts together many of the things i've been thinking, and makes some new conclusions i hadn't thought of before. +3, revelation to me.
curse me and my never-moderator status.
[ignore if you are an off-topic nazi]
Is there some magic switch to moderate? I am "willing to moderate" but I never see an option to. what am i missing?
[/ignore].
Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
I don't like to share. So steal your own MP3s...You won't be getting any from me.
unless you show us your clit, we don't believe you.
Why? Because almost everyone understands, on at least a subconscious level, that "time is money." For the great majority of people, "saving" $4 or $5 is simply not worth the time and trouble they would have to go through to find a pirated edition
Thank you.
Last week, the register.co.uk website reported that The Association of Independent Music, a trade body for independent musicians in UK, wanted to study on putting anti-copying measures in their music CD's.
m l
So it's not just the big media companies that want anti-copying measures, even the independent musicians want them too.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/24947.ht
Now, because of the DMCA do we go to the library and remove all the fictional works? My county has a wonderful library system which contains so many works I couldn't guess how many individual books, audio, microfilm, movies and other forms of media.
My local system takes donations, buys media and even copies a few things. There are several texts which are printed and bound for them - so you can borrow them.
Certainly non-fiction is information, but are works of fiction? We have library systems; reading is not only a way to gain knowledge - but a fruitful way to entertain yourself. I can "check out" Ellison's work almost indefinitely.
Do we now have precedent to shut down the library system? If he wins does that mean that we don't have a right to read his work without paying a fee?
I think I'm starting to see a future where we have to pay to see everything...
Get your Unix fortune now!
Unless you have written a book and published it, I don't think you have a pot to piss in on the issue. If Mr Ellison thinks he is being screwed by piracy, its his perogative to believe it, and to take action. Flint's or anyone else's ideas on what Ellison's business plan should be are completely irrelevant.
Writing is hard work, harder than coding because you have to please people, not just a machine. Professional writers do it for money, and they really are hurt financially when they lose control of their works.
If you don't agree with me, just you go write yourself a book and get it published, and then come back to me and tell me he is not within his rights.
While much Fan fiction might not called great art, there is much of it. And that is written by fans who actually love to tell stories. Take any popular show, and you'll find a slew of fans, regular people with regular jobs, but their hobby is to write stories, love stories about characters in their favorite show, or action stories and any kind of story that just might take place on their favorite show, and they don't get payed to write this. That's not because nobody reads it, there are legions of other people out there who read those tories and love them. If the "big" writers go, others will take their place. And face it, while not all writers are motivated by the dream of the big score, a lot of them are, because with books, or so has it been, you keep getting payed... unlike if Joe Schmo builds a bridge - does he keep getting payed when someone uses it? Naa.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
City on the Edge of Forever. The best Star Trek episode was written by Harlan.
Watch it on video, it will break your heart. Then get Harlan's book by the same title. If you don't like to hear Harlan's ranting, then just read the original screenplay.
The rant in a nutshell, Rodenberry changed Harlan's original work and lied about the reasons why. (standard for hollywood)
I will say again, that COTHEOF was _the_ best of the original Star Trek stories, the original screenplay makes the star trek episode look like amateur night.
If you like star trek, you will become an instant ellison fan.
(BTW, after seeing the evidence on the baen site, i have to aggree with those guys, and respectfully disagree with harlan. But i'll still buy and read harlan's books)
-- There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
What is amusing is seeing the response of thieves to being called thieves (and thieves are parasites). Guess what - outside of a self-congratulatory cadre of thieves, the actual creators of some works do not appreciate having their work stolen. The mere ability to copy does not confer ownership, any more than the ability to turn the keys in a car permits you to drive away with it when you don't own it. Ellison's point is simple and direct - the creator of a work OWNS that work and those who would copy it "freely" are thieves. That this sounds shocking is a sad testament to the communist mindset engendered by Stallman and co.
That's just another word for capitalist greed. Property is something you can touch.
Why does Flynt criticize Ellison, and then criticize a reader who wants to boycott Ellison.
Flynt criticizes Ellison because he thinks his actions are wrongheaded and counterproductive based on a misconception of supposed lost sales. However, he also points out that Ellison has the right to pursue the actions that he is.
Flynt criticizes the reader because he is trying to punish Ellison for performing these actions when 1) Ellison is already punishing himself by doing it, 2) The reader is punishing himself if he likes Ellison's work but is forcing himself not to for political reasons, and 3) the idea that this would cause Ellison to change his mind is silly (particularly if you know anything about him).
My girlfriend won't read David Brin because he was rude to her once. I don't agree with everything David Brin says or writes, but I read it because it is well written, thought provoking, and mostly because I like it. I think she is punishing herself by not reading it, but oh, well.
If I find that Ellison collection I may buy it, because it will be a good addition to my library, and Ellison deserves to be compensated for writing his stuff (and the publisher for publishing it, considering how few publishers do). This won't mean that I agree with his actions (I really don't agree with anyone who invokes DMCA, it is such a flawed law), but that I find his work interesting to read.
If you don't like an author, don't buy their work. If you do, be self serving, buy it. That way they can publish more of it.
my $.02
In a previous post I made here about boycotting, I said that boycotting isn't enough, and sometimes it's harder on yourself than it is on your intended target.
Expanding on that idea, I think boycotting is one of the least effectual (and cheapest) ways to send a message to a company.
It's one thing to boycott Coca-Cola, for example. It'd show up on a chart somewhere if a large number of people suddenly stopped drinking Coke. But for a company like Adobe (like I mentioned in the previous post), they wouldn't get that chart until they either a.) released a new product or b.) released a new upgrade to an existing product. They have 0 ways of determining that the lack of income was the result of angry customers vs. releasing a product that nobody wants. So besides inconeniencing yourself, what good did you do?
Most companies (particularly the big ones) would shrug off a boycott with little to no problem. As a matter of fact, I think they would prefer a boycott to nearly any other form of expression. Let's say Newtek (creators of Lightwave) were to piss me off. It'd cost me a minimum of $2,000 to have an adequate replacement. For me to do that, I'd have to spend a good deal of hard earned money. And for what? Chances are, it'd make me want to use Lightwave even more. I'd be buying a product for the sake of getting rid of another one, instead of buying it because I think it'd be better. Under that mindset, I'd be saying "Damn, this program's different from LW, how annoying." Even if ultimately it is better, that's an attitude that'd work against it. That would make forgiving Newtek a lot easier.
Boycots just don't do any good. You know what I think does do good? Ever see the TRUTH ads against Cigarette Smoking? They are commercials showing people making public anti-smoking events. For example, they had a guy in a rat suit climb out of New York's subay and suddenly fall over on his side and die (well, play dead...). There was a sign next to his body saying 'Cigarettes contain the same chemicals used in rat poison...'. Not only did their message get across, but it's the type of thing that would scare a tobacco company. Cigs are addictive. Cig companies don't have to worry about anybody 'boycotting' them. It's too hard to quit! But they will have a problem if those ads reach potential customers.
I'm not willing to boycott Adobe or Blizzard or anybody else for that matter, but I am willing to donate time/money towards methods like that to fight things like the DMCA or the CBT..uh.. SSSCA (easier to spell). I'm willing to take a day off of work to publically protest Adobe, but I'm not willing to stop using After Effects or Photoshop. If I'm willing to do that, then I'm basically quitting my job.
You know what'd be neat? What if there was an organization for 'the little people' that would air commericals similar to the TRUTH ads I mentioned earlier? "If you can get 10,000 people to spend $10 each and raise $100,000, we'll make a nationally aired commercial for you."
"Derp de derp."
Check out this RIAA chart: http://www.riaa.com/PDF/2000_consumer_profile3.pdf
Trends don't look that bad, eh?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
A socialist wants everyone to share. Film at 11.
That's just another word for capitalist greed. Property is something you can touch.
Let me guess -- you've never created anything either.
How would you like to have people who have never touched a computer, and don't even understand what one is regulating the computer industry?
Regardless of whether or not that has happened in the past, you wouldn't like it, would you?
Now let's try again:
Have you created anything of merit in your life that would come under the guise of intellectual property? That means music, art, or words of high quality.
If not, then what gives you the right to decide that such things are of zero value?
Hey, I have most of his work in my library...I've been a big fan of HE for many years...heck, most of my life. But I refuse to buy anything new of his, not that he has produced much recently...But let him know that he is wrong...nicely...and that you do not agree with him.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
I hereby ghetto mod you +1 Funny.
What a disappointment:
Grew up reading and idolizing ellison for his
graphic anti-authoritarian ideals. I guess he just got old and burnt out, like a lot of 9-5 hippies.
What an enormously pompous dick. I actually agree with his stance on sharing his writings, but I would never buy (OR download) anything of his. He's an asshole.
I can't help it - I'm a 19D.
Of course sharing doesn't hurt. If somebody asks me for a copy of something, and I am willing to give it to them, nobody is hurt. OTOH, if somebody asks me for a copy of something, and I don't feel like they are entitled to it, or would like to have some compensation for my time, or I'm from a society where it's considered polite to compensate, and the requester refuses to abide by the terms, then I am hurt. Not just financially either--emotionally too. It hurts to think that I am surrounded by people who feel entitled to reap where they have not sewn. God is just such a master, but few men are godly, and I will have none of them as my master.
Ask yourself--would you feel comfortable copying something if the person who created it was in the room with you and knew what you were doing? Would the exchange be a polite exchange? Today, as always, virtue is what you do and say when the other party is not in the room.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
"..Communist mindset engendered by Stallman and co..." Warning: Author of the previous statement may be a card holding subscriber to the fascist mindset popular with repressive oligarchies and used to great effect by 'truly' Communist countries like China.
Yo man, I downloaded this new song with my p2p app. Check it out -- it's the new song by The Evil Meals. I really like when the singer goes "Yaddah, yaddah, yaddah".
I'm tired of this debate. I myself am confident that one day soon I will be a rock star and make millions of dollars. Therefore, I'm against file sharing because I feel this sort of thing will eat into my future profits, which I will need to maintain a proper boozing, whoring, and stoned rock star lifestyle. I can't wait.
Also, I know that all you slashdot nerds are just computer geeks who wish you could be as cool as me. You probably all wanted to be artists, musicians, or something like that at one time, and then settled for engineering because it's KINDA creative but less risky. Oh wait, maybe that's just me. No, no, I'm really going to be a rock star, you wait. Anyway, so you hate the rock stars and want to take their songs without paying because you think the whole thing is a big sham. Also you hate your hippie rock star parents who did drugs, or maybe you are a baby boomer who hates your rock star successful peers who got all the attention during the 60's and 70's.
Ultimately rock stars are evil beings because of the boozing, whoring, and drug taking, so that justifies file sharing in your mind. And corporations are evil! Fuck capitalism! Maybe you are all Linux Euros on the dole so you don't have to have anything to do with Capitalism (lucky you!).
Anyway the thing that's funny about all this is all the big whining. Somewhere a kid is getting locked in a closet somewhere or getting beaten with a broomhandle, people are starving to death and getting shot, and all we can do is whine about how the big mean green money man wants to take away my mp3 recording of The Pencils "Smile, You're My Foot". What a waste of words and time, just like my typing of this post. End of transmission.
Prince is way better than Morris Day. If you find you don't like Prince, do this: close your eyes and just listen. Do not think about the costumes or stage presentation, the lyrics, skin color, femininity/masculinity, culture, or anything. Do not think about yourself or even how you feel. Just listen to the sounds. Listen to notes, sounds, timbre. Do not pay attention to what Prince is saying (if he was a great lyricist, I'd give you different advice on this count). Just listen to the sounds. Don't do this while cleaning your room, or driving, or at a party, or with any other distractions. Do this and exclusively this: you are just listening to music. With Prince, there is so much more to listen to, there's an entire world in that music. Morris Day is just party music.
They are. What's your point?
~~~
There are two sides to every coin. Regardless of whether any given person creates, there must be a constant tension between the rights of the creator and the rights of everyone else. To simply reject any person who has not "contributed" as having zero input does not help.
Its rather the same thing that annoys me about laws past using "protection of children" to be the reason for the law, and than blasting anyone who has an opinion on such law because "you don't have children, how would you know whats necessary." Of course I have an opinion.
In this case, we take those who stand directly to gain from said laws (extension of intellectual property, draconian anti-piracy laws, etc) with those who stand to lose from those laws (fair use, freedom to comment, and fairness in punishment when such laws are broken). Neither side is going to win. We'll never prevent all copying, nor should we strip all rights from the author. Your argument that because someone has never delt with an area that they are not allowed to decide for themselves what is proper is flawed. Given a full examination of the facts anyone has the right to form an opinion. How else does a representative goverment work... our Senators are not experts at everything they vote on.
Now before you ask, no you won't find me published, but I have made things that are protected under copyright. It is a useful law. But at some point it has to be understood that such material should revert to public domain.
And define quality?
Go ahead. You can even use Mozart and Britney Spears in your example. No matter what you say, it comes down to personal opinion. If I like superficial teenage pop better than complex heart-wrenching orchestrations, then pop is better. It's all relative.
So what if copyrights were abolished?
Well, how'd you like it if you recorded a CD and a big label copied it and mass-produced it with way nicer packaging then you offered, and stuck it in Wall-mart and Strawberries, sold a million copies, and didn't give you a dime? Or worse, if they represented it as being done by someone else, and that other person got all the fame and fortune and nobody belived you when you said you did it. This is why we need copyright law. Granted, it doesn't need to be longer than 20 years or so, and there's no reason people shouldn't be able to make derivative works (incl. sampling) without permission, but that's another story altogether.
c-hack.com |
When Radiohead's "Kid A" first came out, someone at work brought in a copy she had burned off of Napster. I liked it a lot, but I thought two things were kinda wierd: the robotic voice that said "this will not be on the final disc" and the Steve Vai-esque extended guitar solo in the middle. Then someone else at work brought in the real CD, and neither of these things were present! Somehow, the tracks from Napster had been pre-release or something, or maybe even (in the case of the guitar solo) done by another artist altogether. Marcel Duchamp would've shit his pants in excitement. Napster introduced an element of randomness that in effect created a different CD! So now I had burned copies of Kid A: the Napster mix, and the real Kid A (which I prefer), both of which I now listen to. Here I am with 2 CD-Rs. Guess what I did next.
I went out and bought a real copy of Kid A. Not exactly sure why, I guess partly to show my support for the artist and partly to get the packaging. I consider packaging to be a very important part of an album. I would've been alright listening to the CD-Rs, but I just liked it so much I had to buy it. Go figure.
c-hack.com |
i think it has somethignto do with the meta moderation at the top too.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
And how does this differ from me going to the library and "loaning" a copy of a book, or a CD? I got the library card for free. They paid for the original media (which someone has to do for online purposes).
Why is it that people who argue for stealing ("sharing") are never the ones who create any works in the first place? Why do they always want to share what others have with themselves?
I am constantly amazed at the selfishness of these people, wrapped up in noblelistic and academic language. "Music should be free, because no one owns an idea". "Books should be free, because otherwise writers are just slaves to corporations".
Just level with us and say what you really mean. "Books, music, and software should be free because I'm a cheap bastard and don't feel like paying for them if I can find a way to steal them and rationalize about it". Use as much rationalization as you need so that you can sleep at night, denying that you are stealing a single penny from anyone.
Illegal copying is theft. It is legally wrong, and is ethically wrong. This is exactly the "free riding" ethical dilema. You can argue that jumping a turnstyle isn't a crime because you don't cause the subway any more expenses by cheating your way on than if you didn't ride. You're hoping that someone else pays the cost so you get your service. It's still wrong.
Ralph
I have just been informed that Lt. Leary is a Drake book, not a Weber book. Goddamn it, these authors need to get different first names! Too much semantic overlap!
DOH!
Perhaps boycott is the wrong word here. For instance, I am not boycotting Metallica. Whenever I happen to hear a Metallica tune; I feel disgust at yet another carriage maker bemoaning the automobile. I suppose that if I were a better person I could get past the behaivor of that greedy pighead Lars Ulrich but in this regard I'm sorry to admit I'm small and petty. I don't meet the ideal in this regard; so sue me....oh wait...someone probably will.
If an artist is loud and obnoxious enough in their public life then it WILL change the light in which their art is seen. Sometimes the art can survive the opproprium an artist brings on himself but sometimes not. Lars Ulrich could put out what could have been the best music I have ever heard in my life. He will never ever have to worry about me using PAN to download it from USENET but then he won't have to worry about my buying it either. I'm disgusted with the little prick. Why would I want to leech anything of his?
Here's a guy who reflects our collective instincts, yet defends his stance towards Ellison (one which I agree with, BTW).
I'm a bit to the right, he's a bit to the left, but you know what? He's cool all the same.
Incidentally..
If I'm conservative, why do I like Christopher Hitchens? (sp?)
Perhaps because he's BullShit Free. He believes what he says. And also has Reasons for believing those things.
Maybe we all *can* get along.. If we try.
Brak: What's THAT?
Thundercleese: A light switch.. of TOTAL DEVASTATION!
is a member of the RIAA. Can't use them any more as an example. Several requests to RBR to explain why they are members have never been answered. Then again, it's probably those gold records hanging on the wall, since they are awarded by the RIAA.
Books, music, software have common elements with respect to distribution. Who is hurt by free copying of these products? I don't think authors are hurt.
What's the difference between me and Erik Flint and Robert Heinlein? EVERYBODY THE HECK KNOWS WHO HEINLEIN IS. (Other differences include having a book deal and writing talent. Look at the New York Times Bestseller lists and you'll see books written by professional wrestlers. So, I presume that writing talent isn't everyting.)
Let's go back to KNOWING who Erik Flint is. The more his books are copied, the more people are reading him. The more people who read him, the more people who might send some sheckles his way. If everyone in the free world reads Erik Flint, he'll be a bigger deal than Heinlein, or Clancy, or friggin' Faulkner.
For this reason, I don't think "illegal" copying hurts the artist, author, or programmer. Now, it can hurt the publisher, since the publisher's pricing strategy is based upon the artificial scarcity it creates.
The artist, author, and programmer are in a schitzo position: On one hand, we want EVERYONE to see our deathless prose. On the other hand, we want MAXIMUM payment for our work.
They needn't be contradictory if we can come up with a way to allow unlimited copies at very low cost. What I think we'll eventually have is a tiered pricing scheme. The kids (like me) who haunted public libraries and checked out all the Heinlein books will pay with mindshare only. The poor college students who haunt used books stores (like me) will pay a little more. When they graduate, they'll start buying paperbacks. The professionals with good paying jobs (like me) will pay full price for the hardbook books.
Conversely, the buying public may look at what appears to be greedy money grubbers, and say screw you. That's why I haven't bought any CDs lately.
This is utter rubbish. At eMusic and MP3.com ( prior to being absorbed by the Beast) I often sample music by finding a genre I like and seeing which artists were downloaded the most - the best artists typically bubbled to the top. I found many acts that were "worth listening to" without having my hand held by the RIAA.
Unfortunately, some labels have a single agenda - that agenda is Make Money. So they will thrust into the limelight those bands they believe will make money. Witness the countless knock-off boy and girl bands from the last several years - fucking O-Town, a band manufactured during primetime for God's sake - is this an example of the bands they think are "worth listening to"??
The fact is, you are spreading the same myth the RIAA uses to justify their existence at this point. MP3.com was an effective way to market music without signing your soul to the major labels. And guess what? The stupid, mindless, sheep fans were actually able to decide for themselves which music was good and which music was bad, all without Uncle Hilary Rosen having to say "Put down that silly O Brother, Where Art Thou? disc and look at this shiny, new N'Sync album!"
People love music. Left to their own devices, they will find ways to talk about music, spread the word about the bands they love, and find as many new acts as they can afford. And in the process the good with be separated from the bad.
I do agree with your latter point, however. Not all labels are bad and some do sincerely promote the artists they believe will produce good music and not only good royalties. But the labels are on borrowed time. There are alternatives.
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I just went to the Baen Books web site and discovered that they have a ton of books for sale for download. Being a bit of a Science Fiction addict, I have the problem that I wind up with a ton of books that I'd kind of like to have around for later use, but that I don't want to have to actually store.
So I just bought a couple of old classics online for a lot less than they cost in paper, they are each on the order of a megabyte in RTF, and I can have them in a subdirectory of my home directory! This is really cool!
The main problem with copyright today is that the term is too long. U.S. patents are now 20 years (it used to be 17 years from issue; it's now 20 years from filing, which works out about the same), and so should be copyrights.
One thing I liked about this piece was the position that we should assume people are going to do the right thing, in general. The recording and movie industries have pointed to illicit file trading networks as being proof that people will do the wrong thing (i.e., copying copyrighted works without authorization), but that's an invalid conclusion because there are many valid reasons why people would use those services. If those industries came up with a mechanism for providing the same convenience, breadth, and freedom of use (as in burning, copying to work, etc.) of mp3s or divX files and people were STILL copying works without authorization (and most importantly) to the demonstrable detriment of their deserved profits, I would stand with them in condemning these criminals. But they've never given us the benefit of the doubt in that. They're comparing something that was free, illegal, convenient, diverse, and easy against something that often costs an unreasonable amount, is legal, can be inconvenient, is often bland and generic, and can be troublesome to deal with, but focusing ONLY on the distinction of price and legality in determining what motivates those of us who use the service. Any rational thinker knows that when comparing two dissimilar things, you factor out as many variables as possible, and when there are some you can't get rid of, you fully qualify your conclusions.
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
As much as I lopve his music, as part of Tool and A Perfect Circle, Maynard James Keenan is just lame about people sharing his music. From his comment in the tool webcast last year ("yeah, send me $10") to his recent statement in an interview that peple don't ahve his 'permission' to share his music, he's just a lame jerk who doesn't understand that more people hearing his music only increases its popularity.
I don't agree with Lar's marketing decisions, but I read Lars' rant, and he makes some very good points. He owns rights to his stuff, and if he wants to control distribution, it's most certainly his right.
How much do we complain when our stuff is used in ways we don't like - like GPL'd code. We all own it, because we're in a social contract with it.
Lars complaining about free sharing of his stuff is equivelant to us complaining about GPL'd code being taken into closed software.
hanzie
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
You know, nobody forces people to sign up with the middlemen. The studios pay for studio time, production, marketing and an advance to live on during the process. And then they lose money for most of the people they do this for.
Sure, they have control for too long, and some people sign up for contracts they probably shouldn't have done, but nobody has to sign up with the major labels.
My Journal
Buy a copy of that collection, take it down to the local quick print and get the spine cleaved off, then run the pages through your sheet-feeding scanner and OCR program...(Yay, "paperless offices"!) Split the stories up into individual files and get them marching around the internet. Now THAT, my friends, is a remedy. Who says that a single person can't affect an issue?
:)
The real pisser, of course, would be when Ellison's backcopy sales took off like a cheap russian rocket. It'd be amusing as hell for him to figure out why.
I think my friends site http://www.mettlemusic.co.uk/ does it pretty well, they've got CDs for sale, with MP3 taster tracks to hook you in... Not too many that you'd not bother with a CD anyway, but enough to get a feeling... You _are_ a patron of the artist this way, not merely a subservient consumer of the distribution mechanisms latest offering
Sign with a smaller label. Or hire people to push your music yourself.
Sure, we should smash the payola system into little bits, so that other people _can_ get onto MTV and radio stations, but apart from that I'd be all in favour of people signing whatever contracts they like. If to get the one they want they have to go to a smaller label, then they'll have to depend on the rewards that brings. If they're good enough they'll still get heard.
My Journal
If people can give away their works for little or no cost, then the incentive to make new works is ruined. Thus, to preserve the urge to create, we must have a system of rewarding the creators, preferrably through a system of IP controlled by the corporations.
Just think, those vile people who are releasing GPL software are destroying our way of life! It needs to be outlawed! Just like the ability to share files and the ability for local artists to release their music over the internet for free!
The above was sarcasm, btw.
I sure don't. I live in a good-sized city, but the problem is that all of the stations seem to want to attract all of the listeners. So instead we have several stations playing a mix of genres. I like lots of music genres sold in stores but can't think of the last time a radio station played a song that made me want to buy an album. NPR is an exception, but on NPR I've learned of artists by listening to talk radio.
The big labels don't tell you anything, but smaller labels are excellent for finding good music. 4AD (ex. Cocteau Twins, Lisa Gerrard, Dead Can Dance) is a great label. IRS records, run by the Copeland boys, used to be a great source, and now they run Ark21 that delivers some really interesting stuff. And back in the day when "New Age" wasn't laughted at, Narada and Windham Hill were respected labels.
As much as I agree with the large part of those points, the whole last paragraph basically is flawed. Is copyright law currently being abbused horribly by the corporate media? YES. Is patent law being abused by certain bad apple software makers? YES. Are thes things in such bad shape that they should be done away with? Absolutely not! Think about those same artists freely releasing their music for you to listen to. Let's assume no copyright law. Let's assume a recording company has little if any morality (stifles a snicker). Let's watch as this company claims that they or one of their artists wrote the song, and proceeds to play it all over the country, drawing a huge crowd using the company's marketing capital. Let's watch as any two bit crook with a printing press print out their own editions of "Lord of the Rings" or "Harry Potter" stripping the writer or their family of the credit and royalties that they do deserve. Let's watch as some corrupt company prints that new hit book without ever giving a cent to the truly gifted(assumedly) author, causing him or her to work 10 hours a day to feed his or her children, perhaps finishing one book in a lifetime instead of a world enriching library like Shakespeare's or Asimov's. And patents? Think small business. What if a small firm of mechanical engineers creates a lightweight engine that can power 300 hp for 50 mpg. Let's say they spent 4 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars geting it right. And let's watch as adopts this technology to revolutionize their line of cars, and because NOONE owns the rights, that little firm has long since been out of business. This is why these laws were originally made. to protect the creators, the innovators the little guys if you will. How can any of us possibly consider throwing away their hard earned rights just because they did not have the express purpose of "enriching my(your) life."
Common sense is what tells us that the world is flat