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

Flint does have a point...

[neksys]

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.

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.

Re:Flint does have a point...

[spectecjr]

But it seems we've taken a step back with books - just like it took a fair bit of time to get a (lower quality) copy of your friend's record or tape, it takes time to transfer a book into digital format. Unlike audio, however, the copying of real books into a digital form should not ever become as easy or as quick as ripping cds.

Not if the books are in digital form to begin with - and that's one thing that they're looking at with this. Remember: It has to take into account the future and the present.

For example, when E-paper finally comes out, the book is going to go the way of the dodo. And the Epaper books will be completely digital from the get-go.

Simon

Re:Flint does have a point...

[Glytch]

Books won't die. People like not having to change batteries.

Re:Flint does have a point...

[spectecjr]

Books won't die. People like not having to change batteries.

Given the amount of CPU power required, etc etc, the batteries would last about a year.

It could even be parasitically powered by inductance - possibly from your mains supply.

They're real low power devices; when you're not turning a page, they're completely static. No current required.

Si

Re:Flint does have a point...

[wurp]

Umm, Flint misses the whole point of boycotting someone, in my opinion. For me to boycott Wagner, or Dostoyevski, etc. can't change their behavior -- they're dead! Enough people boycotting Harlan Ellison could change his behavior, or act as an incentive to others who might be thinking of taking the same stance he does regarding copying.

Of course, I can't boycott Ellison, since I don't buy his books anyway. I think he's a pompous bastard with nothing whatsoever interesting to say.

Re:Flint does have a point...

[Ziviyr]

Books won't die. People like not having to change batteries.

And termites love the taste of plastic and metal.

Just recently a mouse ate some of my laptop. :-)

Re:Flint does have a point...

[Jason Earl]

I used to feel the same way, until I started using my Visor to read books. I have no problems reading books from my Visor, it is lighter than most books, it is with me constantly, and with the Compact Flash springboard module I just bought I can carry 128M worth of books wherever I go. Using the Weasel Reader (GPLed ebook reader) my Visor even turns the pages for me. Not to mention the fact that my Visor is backlit so that I can read at night without bothering my wife.

Now, the Visor is horrible for documents with a lot of diagrams, but it is great for novels.

another evidence against RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:another evidence against RIAA

[HiThere]

The RIAA wants taxpayers to pay for the cost of tracking down those who 'diminish the incentive to invest in creating music'

Why would they want to be eliminated ...
O, that's just what they said, not what they meant. Really what they want is for everyone to pay them money without them having to do anything except "lobby" for more laws to restrict everyones else's freedom.

Of cource, this is preaching to the converted...
Good, but better would be to preach somewhere else, say to the electorate and the legislature. (Do you practice what I preach? I try to.)

Re:another evidence against RIAA

[Planesdragon]

.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 don't have a right to the "eternal notion." They have it, at the maximum, for the entirety of their natural lifetime, plus a few years to cover at-the-grave publishing deals and care for their estate.

In exchange for this limited monopoly, we gain a permantent and complete copy of the "eternal notion." We do not suffer a disaster if an inventor selfishly burns his entire laboratory in an instant, or keeps the real meaning in code to create their own value--we have records in the patent office of how the thing really works.

(At least, this is how the system is SUPPOSED to work.)

They should own only the artifact itself. Why should we subsidise the creation of such artifacts by granting copyright?

First off, creation of artifacts / inventions are covered by patent law, not copyright. Patents last for, IIRC, 15 years max. Copyrights are intended for literary and artistic work, and thus last much longer.

And, yes, I think software should be covered by patent law, not copyright law.

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.

That's just it. We're a capitalist-based economy. Thus, people who make more money have a better life. If not for the patent system, all those that create new things would be at the random and unfair mercy of whomever could copy the idea first. Less brilliant inventions would be more vauable, since fewer people would steal them. Really brilliant ideas wouldn't be worth the time to use, since everyone would take them immediately.

I think such a system would be unfair, and giving everyone who invents something new--even if it's not that good--a flat time to have an exclusive monopoly on that is a fair and good way to do it. Since all timespans are the same, the value of an invention is directly proportional to how many people will want it, and thus better ideas are now really worth more.

Why is fostering technological growth good in and of itself? Is the car really a good thing? Has it actually benefitted mankind?

Technological growth has, by and large, improved the life of everyone on the planet. There's still a lot left to improve, but I for one *like* the idea of being able to easily move more than ten miles away from my birthplace (my wife and I were born several hundred miles apart), being able to communicate with relatives across great distances, and being able to not live in polluted and unkempt quarters just to be able to work.

I have a hard time naming an invention that hasn't improved my life. Heck, even the patent granted on Magic:The Gathering has allowed my favorite hobby to have a competent and strong player in the lead of the industry. This is a good thing.

Re:another evidence against RIAA

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually patents were at 17 years for the longest time, and only _very_ recently got bumped up to 20.

However copyrights started at 14 years and didn't get above IIRC 28 for around a hundred years at least. They are NOT intended to be longer because of the types of works covered. It's easier to get a copyright than a patent, and so there are more copyright holders clamoring to have the term lengthened.

Frankly, the original idea for term lengths was intended to be roughly a generation, so that while you or I might have to buy books encumbered with copyright now, we could share them freely with our children, who could thus be inspired to create a whole new set of works.

A copyright on computer software of more than five years is absurd in the extreme. In fact, that might even be too long itself.

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.

Re:what a goof.

[geekoid]

which is a shame because I like his work, but I'm not going to sell my principles just because the work is nice.
Someday I'll see LOTR.

Re:what a goof.

[istartedi]

I seriously doubt a boycott is going to change anybody's views, unless their opinions are based on nothing more than who shouts the loudest. I imagine that if his views were based on that, they would be boring and nobody would care anyway. This is an author we're talking about here; not Bill Clinton. If his opinion ever changes, it'll be through thought, because that's what real intellectuals do--think.

If you are still clinging to the idea that a mere boycott can change an author's opinion, I have only one more thing to say: Salman Rushdie.

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

[ajs]

Why does the equality seem to hold for software?

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:Sharing is the tip of the iceberg

[kesuki]

You're very wrong there. While it is true only the most dedicated atrists would remain, without money to pay for editing and polishing a manuscript into a finished product the quality of books would drop drastically. We'd get the raw unfinished novels, or worse the authors would be so conserned ovet the quality they would spend decades trying to polish up a single novel, not knowing what needs to be done, and perhaps butchering it worse than any editor could.
Editors can sometime make bad calls on edits, they're only human afterall, but by and far they tend to do good job, or else they find a new line of work.
You do however have a good point in there. Open source software has proven that monetary compensation does not need to be a driving force behind developing quality software. And with digital technology artists could easily form self-serving communities that allow a polished finished product to be released without anyone getting paid. That being said, comercially produced books will always be in far greater supply than any community driven effort. Communities will form where the commercial opportunites are nil.
Open source software is viable, not because it doesn't cost money to produce software, but because the commercial software comapnies have made an environment where open source software is preferable. If you treat your customers like sheep, then don't be surprised if you can't sell to shepards. Then again it isn't possible to satisfy everyone, so there probably isn't anything any software company could do and remain in buisness that would make an environment in which open source couldn't survive. And once that Djinn is out of the bottle there is no way to get it back in. For those not familiar Djinn are evil spirits that grant wishes, but the wishes they grant always turn out for the worst.

Re:Sharing is the tip of the iceberg

[evilviper]

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.

No. Dead wrong.

Just because someone enjoys writing and performing music, doesn't mean anyone else will enjoy listening to it. I know dozens of people that love to play, but aren't very good.

Conversely, I know a lot of people who are great at their respective jobs, but hate to do them... I just happen to be one. If there was no monetary incentive, only a few would perform, and those few may well not be worth listening to.

My enemy, your patron?

[jedidiah]

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 duel of copyrights, patents, and trademarks

[Zufall]

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.

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.

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

[spectecjr]

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.

What intellectual property have you created in your lifetime?

Just wondering.

Simon

Re:0 - 0 = 0

[spectecjr]

Borrowing a book at the library IS theft. If I could go to a videostore and borrow videos for free wouldn't you call that theft? How are libraries and video stores any different?

They're not; the libraries pay the authors royalties.

Of course, unless you are Steven King, you're not going to get much money from them, but hey...

Simon

Re:0 - 0 = 0

[Chris Johnson]

Say what?

My understanding was: libraries are a public resource, and they BUY BOOKS. When the book wears out completely, maybe they'll buy another book. You're making it sound like they pay a royalty- actually that's what you said outright.

If it is true, anywhere, that a library pays a royalty on (say) per-check-out or per-year (as is true for some scientific journals!) this should be fixed. Libraries are a public resource. An important one, unless you like cultivating uneducated peasantry.

Re:0 - 0 = 0

[dieMSdie]

Perhaps, in the UK this is true... but I have yet to see a library in the US that does this...

And, to quote from Eric Flint himself (in his intro to the Baen Free Library)

The same thing happens when someone checks a book out of a public library -- a "transaction" which, again, dwarfs by several orders of magnitude all forms of online piracy. The author only collects royalties once, when the library purchases a copy. Thereafter. . .

Robbed again! And again, and again!

Libraries in the US do NOT pay royalties to anyone. They buy the books (usually discounted heavily) with taxpayer funds. If they had to pay royalties we would not have libraries...

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:0 - 0 = 0

[Issue9mm]

"The library buys X copies of a book, and lends them out to people for free"

Or has them donated, as I do with all of my books after I've read them.

-9mm-

Re:0 - 0 = 0

[YoJ]

There are special laws about libraries. I don't have a reference, but I think there are fees that libraries must pay to publishers that represent lost revenues due to loaning free books out.

Re:0 - 0 = 0

[spectecjr]

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

Knowledge & Information != Arts

A science fiction novel conveys some knowledge, and some information, but the format is where the value lies.

For example:

Black holes are collapsed stars which even light cannot escape IS NOT the same as the Disney movie The Black Hole.

One is knowledge and information - the other is structured use of that knowledge.

For example, music is an arrangement of musical notes. You can't copyright a musical note - but you CAN copyright the arrangement.

Simon

There are other reasons to boycott

[CaptainCarrot]

From the second Prime Palaver rant: Those of you who are conservatives will have to boycott Mercedes Lackey.

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.

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.

Boycott Ellison--how???

[markmoss]

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...

Mr Flint (and Baen) now has some of my money...

[crisco]

Ha, I stop reading his book 1632 on my palm pilot and see this on /.

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...

why are we mad at Ellison?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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.

Re:why are we mad at Ellison?

[ryanwright]

If I were an author and found somebody passing out copies of my book

What if I bought a hundred copies of your book at a used book store and gave them away for free to anyone who asked?

What if I posted a message to Usenet encouraging everyone to go to their local library and read your book instead of buying it?

What if I setup a book borrowing program whereby I loaned my own personal collection of your books to anyone who asked on the Internet for the cost of postage? "Here, I've got a hundred used books. You pay me $10 for the book, read it, enjoy it, and when you send it back to me, I'll give you $9 back." Or, hell, what if I loaned them out for free? What if I ate the shipping costs myself and shipped these books to anyone who wanted to read them under the condition they send them back when they were done?

Would you sue me, and if so, on what grounds?

All of this would be perfectly legal and none of these situations would bring you a penny in immediate revenue. Chances are, however, that all would generate buzz about your books among people who otherwise never would have heard of you, and you'd likely make money as they went out and bought your other books.

Re:why are we mad at Ellison?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

What you do with your property (copies of my alleged book) is your own affair. However, you have no legal right to distribute copies of the book that you have not bought, nor have a contract for. Buzz or no buzz, this is a clear case of copyright violation and I find it ridiculous to boycott someone for demanding that people not copy their work illegaly.

Re:why are we mad at Ellison?

[gad_zuki!]

Yeah, isn't this what netizens have been saying for ages? Don't blame the software/media/internet, blame the people. When someone does blame a person for ostensibly violating a copyright then what's the new position? The laughable "information wants to be free cause I'm cheap?"

Re:why are we mad at Ellison?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

What if these used books had the cover torn off?

Then the book has been reported to the publisher as destroyed and you shouldn't buy it, as trafficing in stolen goods is ethically untenable.

Re:why are we mad at Ellison?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Besides the fact that there is no to know that the book should have been sent back or what ever.

when a book is damaged or remains unsold for a certain period, the bookstore can return the books to the publisher. In order to save on shipping, the bookstore ships the cover and destroys the book. Hence, a book without a cover has most likely been reported as destroyed. Since the publisher wasn't paid for the book, I refer to it as stolen.

Re:What about...

[Istealmymusic]

True, some do re-encode their MP3s at higher bitrates. That's why you should avoid the secondary crowd, and go straight to the source.

See "An Analysis of Current File-Sharing Systems" for more information. IRC trading is the way to go. Branding is just as important in the piracy scene as in corporate America, and specific IRC channels are devoted entirely to single ripping groups.

Ever checked your MP3 comment fields? Most of mine, at least, are riddled with tags from ripping groups, claming credit for their hard work. EGO, CMS, or my personal favorite Team RNS, infiltrate recording studios and provide high-quality rips as zips. You can trust these groups to provide high-quality 192kbps rips, they must provide quality or face dimishining of their brand name. However, once the secondary crowd gets their hands on the perfect MP3s via IRC, they share on second-level trading networks such as FastTrack, OpenNap, Gnutella, Blubster, or WinMX. That's where the problem begins. By using a trusted source, one can easily get perfect copies of CDs online, several times easier than a retail store can provide.

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 =)

Classical Sculptors

[Jon Howard]

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?

Re:Classical Sculptors

[Cato the Elder]

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?

Well, despite the general stupidity of most "popular" art and literature, I still prefer our current system to one where only the rich, governments, and the church support artists.

Re:Classical Sculptors

[spectecjr]

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?

Because instead of being paid 'a lot' once, artists today get paid 'an infinitesimal amount' lots of times.

It equates to the same thing, but ultimately means that you can listen to a band's music on CD for $15.00 or so, instead of paying $200,000 a year for the band to be on-call 24/7 to come to your house and do a live concert for you.

Simon

Re:Classical Sculptors

[Jon Howard]

Of course, if they create it and get paid once - and you can copy it freely thereafter, this isn't a concern.

Re:Classical Sculptors

[Jon Howard]

This is a good angle.

I'll argue that artists don't create such "large" are for individuals nowadays, either. When's the last time you bought a mural, or a family mausoleum?

Art on the scale that we consume at affordable prices could easily be constructed for a few hundred bucks, and it would be easy to start a web service to help collect to prompt artists to create new goodies - like an ebay kind of deal. Raising the price of getting into the biz to the cost of buying/renting equipment would _lower_ the barrier to entry that exists now.

Re:Classical Sculptors

[cpt kangarooski]

This is called the Street Performer Protocol. Contrary to many people's opinions, Stephen King didn't try it out.

Look it up, the paper on it is interesting.

Re:Who needs to grow up?

[NanoGator]

I agree with you. There's a difference between having a difference of opinion and not wanting to support somebody who can potentially destroy something important to you. From the text of his article, I don't think Flint understands that concept. If an author starts taking steps to act against something you believe in (such as fair use rights, for example) then you have every right to say "I don't want to give somebody money who'll use it against me."

A consumer's rant...

[DESADE]

(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.

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.

Re:A consumer's rant...

[pubjames]

Labels serve a very important purpose: they let us know which artists are worth listening to.

Isn't this, like, rubbish? Do you really need a big company to do this? A radio DJ does this. That's their job. So do you friends who are really into a particular genre. I don't need a company taking a big cut of the sale to tell me what is good to listen to.

Re:A consumer's rant...

[WNight]

The middlemen don't push music that's worth listening to, they push music they can make money off of. Big difference. Do you think they'd stop pushing their music if they knew they didn't have anyone worth promoting right then? Of course not. In fact they'd probably promote all the harder to keep from appearing as not having any good artists.

An independent site however could promote only those artists they feel their customers (either paying, or via eyeballs) would actually want to hear.

I once had a really snooty author tell me that I'd be screwed without publishers simply because those publishers have the terrible job of looking through slush piles for the gems.

I've done similar jobs. I've reviewed Quake maps, Star-Trek fanfic, and other amateur works. It's not something I'd want to do all the time, as in, in order to find a book to read I have to go through nine bad ones to find one good one, but as a side project it was actually fun.

And look at the sites that host these reviews. Tons of content, sorted by author, theme, and score, all available for download by anyone interested. All run by fans.

Even if no businesses wanted to touch the music promotion business it'd be taken up by fans in a minute and would likely provide a better service. There's a lot to be said for not having a vested interest in either result.

Copyright just needs to get back to its roots.

[telbij]

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.

Re:Copyright just needs to get back to its roots.

[cpt kangarooski]

What, are you kidding? Authors think about that all the time.

Firstly, let's seperate authors who write for art's sake, and who therefore aren't particularly motivated by copyright, from those who are actually concerned about money.

That latter group, like most people interested in money, wants to reap the largest profit with the least expenditures. So it therefore makes perfect sense to just take a work someone else has already written, and start selling it. Almost no effort is involved! It's all profit!

Unfortunately, if all authors did this, life would suck for them. So copyright makes sense to authors.

The problem is that if total originality were required, the costs of writing a book would far exceed any compensation for it. You couldn't use themes or stock characters. You couldn't parody. You couldn't have deliberate similarities or homages. You couldn't even have accidental similarities. Going to extremes, you couldn't even use the same _words_. (Someone invented "the," and by God, if that was a creative work why shouldn't they get paid for every use of it?)

This would mean that each new work would be more incomprehensible than the last, and utterly worthless to the public. Furthermore, it would be too much effort, so virtually no one would ever want to do it.

Thus it behooves authors to only have a certain degree of copyright, lest it become too hard to create. And it behooves the reading public (which includes all authors), to not permit that copyright to be one iota more expansive than strictly necessary, lest the public good that comes of authorship be any less than the possible maximum amount.

(Incidentally, you're wrong re: quality of pirated materials. Pirated DVDs are made by the same people that manufacture the legitimate ones. They just run off extra copies. Likewise, copyright was not devised in the 18th century to prevent people from hand-copying books, but from printing them on the same types of presses that were used everywhere. It's only recently that the cost of copying technologies of any type that are above a certain ease of use threshold have fallen into the area where ordinary folks can buy 'em)

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

[Hard_Code]

"I even watch M-TV once in a while, something which I never did before."

I thought you said you were a fan of music.

Re:Sharing = Good for GOOD ARTISTS

[ckd]

snipped the whole bit about how a 20 year old discovered Morris Day & The Time

Damn, I feel old now. When we were trying to come up with a motto for my high school graduating class's banner, one suggestion was "Oh-ee-oh-ee-oh" (from Jungle Love, of course).

That was in, erm, nineteen-eighty-mumble. Back when 64K was a lot of RAM, in other words.

Just wait, all you youngsters, one day the "old fogies' music channel" (or webcast, or whatever is left after the RIAA gets done with us) will be playing the songs you remember from high school. Bwahahaha!!

Re:Sharing = Good for GOOD ARTISTS

[dh003i]

Typical of people like you to post as anonymous cowards. What's the matter, afraid to lose a few points out of paranoia that people will judge your post based on its position not its reasoning? Is your dick really that small? Or is it that you yourself think you don't have a well-reasoned point? I think this is more probable.

Lets see, its obvious you've completely ignored my post and went on some rant about what is basically "a matter of principle".

Bullshit. The artist/author (unless he's an anal prick like yourself who's concerned about the "principle of things") doesn't give a ****. To them, if I wasn't going to have bought it anyways, it doesn't matter if I downloaded their music for free. In fact, as I said before, it benefits them as it gains them audience and reputation (if they're good, the word spreads faster). Btw, moron, how much does the avg. artist get when I guy a $14 dollar CD? Its a few cents. So please don't tell me the rational artists gives a flying fuck about my individual actions.

"Stealing music", you say? Abuse of the English language. To steal necessarily means to gain something by unjustly depriving it of another. Now, have I deprived Day of his music? No. Have I deprived him of his profit? As I wouldn't have bought his songs anyways, no. Thus, its not stealing.

Btw, how the fuck is what I'm doing any different from digitally recording stuff that comes off the radio?

Also, why the fuck should I pay 14 dollars for an album which only has one good song on it? A notable example is Paula Abdul, with a few good songs, but mostly sucking songs. And don't tell me that crap, "buy a single". Single's overcharge you for one song.

Hint to you and artists: pissing off the consumer is not a good way to make money. Refer to DESADE's "A consumer's rant", one place above my post if the posts are sorted by score, for an explanation of that.

Re:Sharing = Good for GOOD ARTISTS

[dh003i]

Really, someone suggested you're graduating class' banner should've been"Oh-ee-oh-ee-oh"? That's cool.

That song is really great. Makes ya wanna get up and dance. I like the part in Purple Rain where Day and crew are on stage and all hopping or whatever to the left then to the right...it really goes along with those drum beats or whatever they are in the song.

Imo, M-Day got a bad reputation by the movie "Purple Rain". People my age who saw that movie thought M-Day was a freakin' jerk, because in the movie he was such a prick to Prince; but in real life, they were friends.

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:Sharing = Good for GOOD ARTISTS

[hawk]

>Also, why the **** should I pay 14 dollars for an
>album which only has one good song on it? A
> notable example is Paula Abdul

*really* There's a *good* song?

hawk, who figured here sales were due to people never having heard of, er, seen, Dolly Parton

Re:Who?

[markmoss]

Eric Flint is a science fiction writer who is apparently actually trying to make a living from the royalties on his books. That in itself isn't much of a recommendation, but after reading 1632, I think Flint has a pretty good understanding of history and economics. So I think he has the experience and background knowledge to comment knowledgeably on the economics of SF writing. And, in addition he has kept track of the sales of his books month by month, before and after he posted them on the web. Each time, sales went up.

And when Napster was shut down, music CD sales dropped. Is there a pattern developing here?

Harlan Ellison, who is on the opposite side here, is IMHO a former SF writer who appears to be living off of stuff he wrote -- and other people's work he collected in the Dangerous Visions books -- 20 to 30 years ago. If he's done anything since then, I haven't noticed it -- but then, I got very sick of Ellison a long, long time ago. Basically, I think Ellison is an idiot who thinks that every time someone reads one of his old books without paying him again, he lost a sale. Compare that to Flint, who has actual experimental evidence that giving e-books away increases sales of printed books...

Re:Who?

[GeorgeH]

I don't know who Eric Flint is, and I don't know who you are. You should care what he thinks if you think he makes good points. If he doesn't make a sound argument then just pass it off as part of Stugeon's 90%.

Famous people don't have a stranglehold on intelligent opinions, and judging from the famous people I've seen the opposite could be considered true.

As a writer...

[FurryFeet]

...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.

Re:As a writer...

[jcr]

...i have to empathize with Mr. Ellison.

What you and Harlan both fail to understand is that without sharing, nobody will hear of you and (eventually) buy your books.

I've been buying SF books for about thirty years, and I have yet to buy any book because the cover art caught my eye. I started reading Clarke when I borrowed some of his books from my friends, and I bought his later books because I liked the earlier ones which I did not pay to read. Same with all the other authors I make a point of collecting.

The more exposure an artist gets, the more money he will make. Nobody's going to pay to find out whether or not you suck.

The software industry went through exactly this debate a few years back, and it's perfectly clear that the more an app is copied, the more people eventually buy it.

The asinine premise that Harlan's promulgating is the same one that Bill Gates once did: that every copy made costs the owner the full retail price of the product. That would only be true if the person copying the work would buy it otherwise, which simply isn't the case. The warez kiddiez with their bootlegs of Autocad aren't going to pop for the pretty box and the annual tech support contract if alt.binaries.warez gets shut down.

Hell, there are some books I've bought four or five times, because I keep lending them out to my friends and forgetting who I've lent them to.

You can be damned sure I'm not going to buy one of Harlan's books again. If he didn't get his panties in a bunch about this guy posting scans of his stories on a newsgroup, he probably would have picked up a few more buyers, but Noooo....! Harlan's got to get paid every time someone reads one of his books, or he'll have a major hissy-fit.

Now, if the guy were SELLING copies of Harlan's books without having obtained the rights to do so, sure, Harlan would be justified in having a shit-fit, but this is just like somebody xeroxing a book. Does anyone actually do that if they have the money to just buy it?

-jcr

Re:As a writer...

[FurryFeet]

I think the difference is in scope.
I don't think Harlan objects to book lending. What I think he's objecting to is the scale that the internet permits, which can actually cause a dent on his earnings.
Unlike the common perception, writing IS hard work. It's tiring, mentally exhausting... heck, I can't even start explaining. Harlan makes a living of it, and I can bet he does feel bad when his income diminishes. So would you, and that doesn't make you a greedy bastard.

Harlan's got to get paid every time someone reads one of his books, or he'll have a major hissy-fit.

Here you are misrepresenting his position in order to better attack it. I'll let you reread what you wrote and find out on your own what is so wrong about it.
I don't mind my work being shared on the net, but that's because I don't make my living from it (I make darn little money of it, come to think of it). But if that was my familys livelihood, you bet I'd fight with tooth and nail for it.
And before I start getting trolled with "you can't be a real writer because you misspelled so-and-so": a) I'm not a native english speaker, and I don't write in english and, b) I don't really proofread on Slashdot. Neither does Taco. Deal with it.

Sharing in all kinds of endeavors

[crovira]

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.

Re:Who needs to grow up?

[Robotech_Master]

You have a point. Of course, given the amount of money we're talking about here (as mentioned in Eric's prior rant)--perhaps a few dollars a year at most, it's not like he'll even notice.

I've been "boycotting" Ellison's work for quite some time, myself--but only because the stories of his that I read did not appeal to me.

Perfect

[The Cat]

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.

Ellison...

[ImaLamer]

"WHY SHOULD ANY ARTIST, OF ANY KIND, CONTINUE CREATING NEW WORK, EKING OUT AN EXISTENCE IN PURSUIT OF A CAREER, FOLLOWING THE MUSE, WHEN LITTLE INTERNET THIEVES, RODENTS WITHOUT ETHIC OR UNDERSTANDING, STEAL AND STEAL AND STEAL, CONVENIENCING THEMSELVES AND "SCREW THE AUTHOR"? WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE DEATH OF THE PROFESSIONAL WRITER!"

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...

Re:Ellison...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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?

Libraries don't lend out information, they lend out physical copies of items that contain information. When your public library lends out a HE novel, it lends out a copy that it bought. When someone posts a HE book to usenet, they send out several copies of a book that they didn't buy and have bought no rights to.

The main difference between physical books and usenet distribution of books is that each and every physical book (with a cover on it) can be traced back to a sale.

Re:Who?

[Chris Johnson]

No, Ellison works a great deal- doing things like screenwriting, editing, etc. There's more to writing than just inventing stories.

Of course, this puts him in bed with the MPAA, so it's rather easy to understand why his perspective is a bit shrill :)

How many people actually read these before posting

[quiller]

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

Boycotting is not effectual.

[NanoGator]

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."

I agree, don't buy Ellison!

[farrellj]

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

Of Course Sharing Doesn't Hurt

[istartedi]

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.

Slow down there, speed racer

[jcsehak]

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.

Re:Slow down there, speed racer

[autechre]

> But isnt the reason there are no copycat
> Mozarts because there is no money in it?

No. The reason is because Mozart was a rare combination of a photographic memory and perfect pitch (either of which are pretty uncommon). An anecdote: as a youth, he once heard a piece of music performed in a church. This music was only allowed to be performed once a year, and copies never left the church. He went home, continued composing and playing other music for a month, and then finally got around to transcribing that church music...perfectly, from memory.

Brittany Spears is someone who has a pretty good voice and is considered beautiful by the general public. Does she even write her own songs? She got lucky, and will probably continue to be so for a few more years...where are New Kids on the Block? Fame created solely by marketing is short-lived. Nobody listened to Brittany Spears "when she was just getting her start playing the club scene", because that didn't happen. She was created by the music industry, and will be tossed aside when they've had enough.

This is not to say that there aren't dozens of "emo" bands that all sound pretty much the same, but:

1. At least they wrote their own songs, about things that really matter to them.
2. Most of them are trying honestly to get people to hear their music (i.e., playing dozens of bars in dozens of cities, wherever they can).
3. If they really are fairly unremarkable, I'll listen to them maybe once, or go to see a show if they're playing with a few other bands. The really excellent "indie" stuff, like The Promise Ring, will hang around in my collection.

> Do you really think that people could tell who
> wrote a piece of classical music?

Well, yes. That's because really great composers have something called a unique style. Everyone might not agree that Danny Elfman is really great, but there are certain characteristics present in most music he composes which make it evident that he wrote it. Even if someone copies his style, people will probably agree that "that piece sounds like Elfman."

As for Mozart, scientific studies have shown that his music mirrors that of human brain patterns, which goes some way towards explaining how people who listened to Mozart in studies did better on math tests than those who did not.

Re:Slow down there, speed racer

[jcsehak]

Okay, you here are the things that make musician good, from the previous repliesL

1. Originality of style
Hmm, The Beatles sounded a lot like everyone else out there when they first started out. I can't really tell the difference between DJs like Sasha, Digweed and Tenaglia. Any most any punk band has the exact same style as the rest of them. Does this make any of them not good?

2. Independence from marketing
The reason I bought Beth Orton's latest CD was because I saw a giant poster of it at Tower Records and it looked like something I might like. Sure enough, it (and she) is amazing. As for people who built their careers on marketing, do you really think Hendrix would be as popular as he is if he'd stayed in Harlem playing the juke joints there? Nope. He'd be remembered only by guitar players, probably as the greatest overlooked guitarist of the 20th century.

3. Writing your own songs
Sinatra never wrote his own songs. None of those guys did. Neither did Sarah Vaughn or Billie Holiday (though she had strange fruit written for her IIRC). I'm not a fan of Joe Cocker, who doesn't write either, but a lot of other people are.

4. Paying your dues in the club scene early in your career.
How about Mississippi John Hurt? He played on his porch with friends his whole life, recorded a few sides in the late 20's, then continued porch-playing and farming. Then in the 60s, he was rediscovered and played in huge venues and festivals. Okay, you say, then they have to simply have some musical experience; practicing a lot or something. Well then, what about Kelley Deal of the Breeders? She'd been working as (of all things) a computer programmer when her sister Kim hired her to sing and play guitar in the band.

I repeat: there is no way to define quality, except in your subjective mind.

Do you really think that people could tell who wrote a piece of classical music?
Yup. I can usually tell a Mozart that I've never heard before, and frequently a Bach or a Chopin. They each have a certain way of putting notes together, certain chords and sequences they favor. I'm nothing special though. Anyone can do that, they just have to listen and like the works. Lots of people can even tell you who a given pianist is, just by listening.

Re:Prince vs MD

[dh003i]

Exactly, Morris Day is party/sex music. He's damn fun to listen to. Makes you want to get up and dance.

Btw, my prefs have nothing to do w/ costumes. I like the LOA (Lords of Acid) and they're as tacky as it gets.

Yes, Prince has better vocals. Yes, Prince may be more talented.

But Prince isn't as fun to listen to as Morris Day. What songs has Prince written that are as fun as Jungle Love or The Bird??

My experience with Kid A

[jcsehak]

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.

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

Re:Most have no credentials to argue the point

[Robotech_Master]

Note that the articles this thread is supposedly discussing are about willing sharing, by a fellow who not only created content but is actually sharing a whole lot of it himself. And even he does not condone theft--he suggests that its effects may be a lot less negative and more exaggerated than others make out, but he firmly supports authors' rights to make that decision for themselves.

Prejudice

[dmaxwell]

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?

All I can say is, "WOW!"

[pedro]

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.

Rightous Babe Records

[thumbtack]

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.

Re:Can't buy it anyway

[dillon_rinker]

Precisely. Failure to provide intellectual property at a price less than or equal to the original price should be grounds for loss of copyright protection.

a word from the unpublished writer

[technoCon]

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.

Re:See the fan fiction out there...

[cpt kangarooski]

I dunno. I've read fanfic before that was far, far superior to the original source material.

But hell -- that's old news. You didn't think Shakespeare wrote the original Hamlet did you? People rewrite and refine older works all the time. There's value in stock characters and situations. Value in being able to take advantage of an audience's familiarity with a work.

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.

Re:Yet another misconception being spread...

[jcsehak]

I see your point, but the music industry isn't just about the music. Maybe I'm wrong (and I hope so), but I think most people want a superstar with a soundtrack, not just some good tunes to listen to. They want to scream in adoration at a concert, awestruck (even though it might be the same as listening to the CD with really big loud speakers). And you need a major label to accomplish these things.

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"??

Yes, apparently. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that other people don't. (So what if none of them have pubes yet.) The thing is, no part of any of it is bad. The labels shove N'Sync down our throats at our request. If they didn't sell so many albums, they'd drop the band as quickly as they made them. I say great. Let them have their fun. People obviously like it, so where's the harm? I have absolutely no problem with the existence of any major label. They have just a right to business as anyone else. That said, I think I speak for everyone here when I say that when they start compromising our access to the music we like--which likely will have no part of them--or worse, when they attemp to compromise our basic freedoms, then they need to be cut down. They are a business, not a white house wing.

Re:Yet another misconception being spread...

[56ker]

Yes but changing tack slightly - even books are pirated online these days. Just do a search for hhgttg.txt and you'll find the text for all 5 Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy Books. Before anyone points out - yes the author is dead - but they're all still in copyright.

Re:Yet another misconception being spread...

[jcsehak]

Books are--and will always be, at least until print-on-demand rivals the quality and economy of a trade paperback--a completely different story. I and most people I know HATE reading long texts on the screen. The way I see it, the internet is nothing but a boon to the publishing industry. People can preview the works in lo-fi (their browsers) and decide if the book is worth buying or not. I say, anyone willing to sit through the strain of reading a whole book online deserves to get it for free. And anyone printing out a whole book probably just wasted 5 or 10 bucks in ink just to get something that'll take up twice as much space.

However, the only difference between pirated works of music and the actual CDs are bit rate (soon to be negligible) and the packaging. Many people (myself not included) don't mind not having the packaging of an album. This leaves the music industry in a completely different situation from the publishing one.

Copyright should be 20 years, like patents

[Animats]

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.

Re:It's up to the Author, not Flint

[Hanzie]

Your post is intelligent, and the subject line is dead on. Even Flint agrees with it.

However, if you're a published writer, I'd strongly recommend you read all of his letters over at the Baen Free Library. You're dead wrong on the "he hasn't been able to prove it, just offer ancedotal evidence" line.

He has hard cold figures about money in his pocket that contradicts you. You are the one with only anecdotal evidence. Flint goes out of his way to say that the author is entitled to use his stuff any way he wants, even if it is financially stupid. He just argues about what constitutes financial stupidity.

In your particular case, if you had GOOD stuff in the Baen free library, and I were to read it, I'd go buy the books. Why? I hate reading off monitors. I also love curling up with a good book.

I hate wasting time buying a book that turns out to be unreadable crap, so I spend my limited time and money reading authors I know.

How does it affect you financially? If I were introduced at no cost to myself to your work, and I liked it, I'd buy a book. If I really liked the book, I'd buy everything else you've ever written that I could get my hands on.

I read Flint's work on the free library and have since bought everything I've seen with his name on the cover, because I know it'll be good. I regularly cruise Barnes and Noble, and Media Play. I check the racks for known and loved authors and BUY.

I would never have picked up a Flint book, were it not for the post on /.

Libraries are for the unlucky who have to give their books back. Used books? God only knows what those hands were touching while the pages were turning. I know I read on the john.

Hanzie,
incurable bibliophile and car nut.

Re:Why do you think you have a say?

[Hanzie]

#1. Flint is a published author making a very good living selling SF books. His books are probably in your local bookstore.

I'd say he has a pot to piss in. He's also been helped financially by 'losing control of his work.' He has cold hard numbers about how he has made MORE money by his work getting out where all of us 'thieves' can read it free of charge.

Flint says first and formost that Ellison is within his rights, but as laws change, it is hurting the publishing industry, and authors. That is most assuredly his business.

The too-restrictive laws are also hurting our culture. This is also his business. Mine too. Mabye even yours. Flint makes the point that Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to legally make the works he did, had our copyrights been in place. Surely you can see the implications of that.

hanzie,
bibliophile and car nut.

Lars Ulrich

[Hanzie]

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

Re:Lars Ulrich

[mvdwege]

Actually, I agree with Lars Ulrich too. The only thing wrong is too few people realising that Lars is right because he is one of the lucky few artists that actually own the copyright on their own songs.

Why do you think Radiohead made friendly statements about Napster? Check a Radiohead CD for a laugh: all songs on it are © Universal Music. Even funnier in a sick way: how much have we seen Radiohead promoted by its label since they came out in favour of Napster? Think on the chilling implications of that.

Mart (RIAA: Not just all your copyrights, but all your opinions too are belong to us)

Middlemen

[samael]

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.

Re:Middlemen

[mvdwege]

...nobody has to sign up with the major labels.

Let's, for charities sake, say that artists want to make it big because they want to be heard by as many people possible. For that they need the distribution machinery of a big label.

Guess what? All the big labels have the same standard contract for artists: sign over all your rights, take all the risks yourself, and we skim off the profits while you pay off the costs of producing your album.

Now, where I come from, this is called a cartel, and it's illegal. And from what I gathered, you guys in the U.S. have something called the Sherman Act outlawing this as well.

So tell me again, how is an artist that wants the widest possible distribution of his work, not forced to sign away his soul to a major label?

Mart

Re:Middlemen

[WNight]

Actually, in many ways an artist is forced to sign with one of the big music promoters. You can't get radio play without that, or concert venues, etc, etc.

It's not an open market where everyone can compete equally. It's an ugly market completely controlled by a small number of nearly identical companies who certainly aren't going to tolerate any competition that they could destroy.

Re:Can't buy it anyway

[Fesh]

Not a bad idea... Although some sort of mandatory release would have to be implemented as well. Think of all the old movies disintegrating in vaults in Hollywood that history will never remember. And this covers abandonware as well...

On the downside, it makes too much common sense. We can't have that, now can we?

So?

[samael]

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.

Re:So?

[mvdwege]

Sign with a smaller label.

With proportionally smaller distribution.

Or hire people to push your music yourself.

With what money?

The problem is simply with the Big Five record companies out there having a cartel on promotion and distribution, it is impossible to have world-wide name recognition without them. The cartel must be broken up before we start preaching contract freedom for musicians, because this so-called freedom at the moment is the freedom to sell away your soul, or languish in obscurity.

Mart

I agree with you - Bill Gates was right

[dasunt]

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.

Re:Sharing?

[UnknownSoldier]

> But, last time I checked, when you share somebody else's stuff, it's called stealing.

That is a fallacy - you're logic is not valid due to your definitions being ambigious.

If I borrow a tool from my brother, and then lend it out to a friend, my friend isn't stealing.

It's called [physical] stealing when you take someone else's stuff WITHOUT their permission (And it logically follows: AND they don't have access to it while you have it.)

Now obviously digital stealing is NOT quite the same as physical theft since when digital assests are shared, the original owner still has access to the orginal. Digital theft is ALSO copyright violation, since you don't (YET!) have the right to copy it (or use it.)

Notice that buying an item is equivalent to paying for the "right" of use. Even if the item is free, doesn't mean you necessarily have the "right" to use it.

Re:Who?

[hether]

Thanks. That's exactly what I wanted to know.

And I wasn't trying to be a flamebaiter. It was a legitimate question. Usually opinions and other things like this get posted on Slashdot because a person who is recognized for some reason is writing it. I basically wanted to know what this person was recognized for.

Re:Who?

[hether]

You're exactly right - especially your bit about famous people. I just figured that like most things on slashdot, this was posted because Eric Flint was someone recognizable to all. Since I didn't know he was, I figured it didn't hurt to ask. Oh, except a little karma. :)