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.

Comments

what a goof.

[geekoid]

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.

Sharing is the tip of the iceberg

[Junks Jerzey]

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.

Re:Sharing is the tip of the iceberg

[HydroCarbon10]

Of course, it could be argued that if there was no money to be made in the arts then only those who truly love them will produce them. This would create a situation in which only the highest quality works would be produced. So what if copyrights were abolished? Take the above statement and change the word arts to software and you'll see my point.

Re:Sharing is the tip of the iceberg

[joshsisk]

Does it really? I'm gonna lose karma for this but I can't think of any software in my field that has a OSS version as good as the commercial. Photoshop, AfterEffects, Final Cut Pro, ProTools... Nothing open source can touch these programs. the Gimp is getting there, but has a good ways to go. As far as the others go, it probably has a lot to do with lack of good drivers, etc... But I still can't edit a video and mix sound using OSS like I can using Mac or Windows software.

OSS definitely holds or even exceeds in more "traditionally geeky" areas like web servers (nothing beats Apache IMHO), but in a lot of other areas it doesn't seem like it's there yet.

Re:Flint does have a point...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gotta play the devil's advocate here...

The problem is not about the CURRENT situation, but about the precendent that CURRENT copyright law exerts over FUTURE copyright law.

If we let people wantonly "share" books when there are no feasible ways of reading online, there's a precedent set. If the powers that be decide that the proliferation of unlicensed copyrighted books on the internet is bad (probably because it could lead to a lot of headache down the line, a la mp3z) then they have every reason to cork the bottle while the leak is small.

The difference between the used book and the electronic copy is that there's only ONE used copy, and (apparently) one can make money if the maximum rate of transfer from person to person is one (i.e. I can give my copy of LOTR to ONE person). Obviously I can give my electronic copy of LOTR to a practically unlimited number of people.

My...

[Anonymous Coward]

The response to the Ellison boycott is horribly written. I had to point that out. Second, I agree that "openness" is good but it has to be openness made with the conesnt of the author. You should not force it upon them. The case is even more true with short fiction. Whereas with novels you could release the entire novel and most people would get tired of reading it on their computer and so they would buy the book. If people just openly release short fiction works on the internet without the author's consent or a directed plan, there's really no incentive for anyone to ever buy anything from them. They'll read the short story on their computer thrught to the end. When they want another, they'll read another.

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.

0 - 0 = 0

[MadAhab]

Holy shit that was the most clear-headed rant I've seen in a long time, and just about the only coherent one on the topic of publishing in the electronic age.

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.

Re:0 - 0 = 0

[acceleriter]

What intellectual property have you created in your lifetime?

He hasn't created any, because there is no such thing. Knowledge and information cannot be owned, and what little pretention to "ownership" of it exists in law is a legal fiction created to stimulate "science and the useful arts." Unfortunately, this limited fiction has been perverted into a "property" "right" by the RIAA/SPA/MPAA/BSA, &c.

It's time for them to take a reality check, because without DMCA death squads, the degree of enforcement of their so-called "rights" they desire will never come to pass. And if it does, it will be at the cost of some of thier lives.

Re:What about...

[aozilla]

Its much easier to go to tower and spend 15 bucks on a cd than spend an hour of my time searching for a full cd.

Sure, but you probably make more than $15/hour. Most of the people downloading mp3s don't.

Re:What about...

[Aiku1337]

That's true. Thinking back when I was in college (last year), I would be more inclined to pirate music. I had more time to fart around on the net, and the lack of money thing was a huge factor. Still though, if I like a band enough I used to buy their cds.

Also, its next to impossible to find a 74 minute techno cd that is complete without pops in it =)

Re:A duel of copyrights, patents, and trademarks

[Istealmymusic]

Asinine indeed. Copyright is not a natural right.. It is a necessary evil, necessary to encourage innovation and creativity. I think we can all agree having a (say) 60 year copyright is 3 times as evil as 20 years, and 2 times as evil as 30 years. But does the increasing amount of evil so drastically amount to an increasing amount of innovation and creativity? I think not.

Sharing = Good for GOOD ARTISTS

[dh003i]

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?

Re:Sharing = Good for GOOD ARTISTS

[Kwil]

Artists don't lose.

The music industry on the other hand.. ahh.. now they lose big time.

After all, now you like some guy that most of us haven't ever heard of. Think of what would happen if, as individuals, we each found different artists that we really liked? How the heck do you market that? You have a fixed budget for marketing, but if you split it up among fifty or a hundred or a thousand artists, you don't have enough for a video for any of them and your television ad airs once or twice instead of thirty times per day. Sure you can try, but people are going to like what they're going to like. If they don't like the crap you're shovelling, *and* they can easily find and get something else, that's what they're going to do.

If control of access to music returns to the people, then control of the marketing and distribution of music becomes meaningless - unfortunately, marketing and distribution are the primary functions of the music industry (as opposed to the artists, whose primary function is to create music)

So how does the music industry lose? Easy, it becomes meaningless, then valueless, then gone.

Of course, music will still be around, probably more music that more people like more, but that doesn't feed anybody who used to work in the industry of music industry; and that's what they're really afraid of.

Re:Sharing = Good for GOOD ARTISTS

[LennyDotCom]

I thought you said you were a fan of music.

MTV hasn't been about music for many years now

Re:A consumer's rant...

[jcsehak]

Eviscerate The Damn Middlemen

I was with you up to here. Labels serve a very important purpose: they let us know which artists are worth listening to. I don't know about you, but I don't have time to wade through piles of indie crap hoping to find something I like. Most of the good musicians out there, I (and most everybody else) am aware of because a major label spent money in putting them in the limelight. That said, I can't fathom why an artist would stay with a label after they've made it big (and their contract's out). But I'm sure they have their reasons.

Someday Soon

It's already happened. Ani DiFranco built up Righteous Babe records all on her own, after developing a huge and loyal fan base by touring her ass off. Aimee Mann started her own label after getting screwed by a major one. Incidentally, all you /.ers out there who don't buy CDs because they don't want to support the RIAA need to be aware that some labels are artist-owned and you should be going out of your way to support those. There are even some labels that are responsible and great to work with. Rory Block has recorded 10 or 15 albums with Rounder records, and the first few were done without even signing a contract. No, I couldn't believe it either when I heard it, but it's true. Some labels really exist to support the musicians.

As an aside, anyone turned off by Ani should check out Revelling/Reckoning. Her politics still (and probably always will) annoy me, but the music is truly amazing. Just about everything about Aimee Mann is good, and Rory Block can play the old-time country blues like nobody's business.

Most have no credentials to argue the point

[RalphSlate]

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

Yet another misconception being spread...

[DreamingReal]

Labels serve a very important purpose: they let us know which artists are worth listening to. I don't know about you, but I don't have time to wade through piles of indie crap hoping to find something I like. Most of the good musicians out there, I (and most everybody else) am aware of because a major label spent money in putting them in the limelight.

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.