Slashdot Mirror
Pew Study: File Traders Don't Care About Copyright
An anonymous reader writes "A recent poll by the Pew Internet and American Life Project focused on that portion of the file trading community that is over 18. The major finding is that two-thirds of all file traders in this age bracket are not concerned about violating copyright laws. This remained consistant even when they split up the respondents by sex, income, and race."
You mean the death of meaning of the Constitution's language "limited times," effective eternal copyright on software and media, along with excessive laws that provide jail time for what would be a minor property crime in the physical world have eroded respect for copyright law?
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Windows is insecure? Warez dudes like to crack software? RIAA is evil?
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Did anybody else see this coming from the "No Duh" category?
Yeah, there is a link here too (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/31 15829.stm).
The RIAA have dismissed this, as the time the survey was taken was before their recent legal action. Note that doesn't mean the action will work, just this survey is irrelevant for the here-and-now.
--
FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
A recent /. study shows that anonymous cowards don't care about karma.
It's no big surprise to discover that most people who violate copyright laws aren't concerned about violating copyright laws. I'm more surprised by the other third - do they represent the traders of legal files (new Linux distros, freely tradeable music etc.) or the truly stupid?
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
Bring on the revolution!
Seriously though, we live in a democracy, congress gets to set the limits it wants. If life + 90 years is 'reasonable' then so is a day. Copyright protection is a matter of practicality, not morality. If it's impractical in it's present state, then we should change it.
Note to RIAA: we will dance on your grave.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Over 18 is a bracket? Anyway, it just goes to show those that should know better, don't. There's that pesky average IQ in there, where those who straddle 100 you can't help but see all day, every day, from whom and can't get away no matter where you go.
.
do pedestrians care that jaywalking is illegal?
The bulk of the noise is by posted by the anonymous cowards. Eliminate anonymity
This coming from an anonymous coward? hmm...
The only thing that's a crime with copyright law is creating anti-copy-protection devices. In the real world it would be like marketing a device that could open any lock.
Which would actually be totally legal (unless they passed a new law)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
But I am perfectly willing to give up my anonymity for improved signal-to-noise ratio.
Because of moral and ethics?
There's two sides, the producer and the consumer. The consumer tries to get as much from the producer for as little as possible. Now the consumers can get almost anything for 0 $. Why should they pay in that case?
Because the producer ALWAYS acts in a sensible, philanthropic way, thinking only what is best for the consumer? HA, HA, HA.
Copyright violators not interested in copyright?
What are the chances??
Has there ever been such a (seemingly) general disrespect of copyright? Given that this is only recently become such an enormous societal issue, I don't think there are any statistics or numbers; but if there were, would they show anything different from what this survey concluded? I actually tend to think that this attitude has been somewhat widespread, but that technology brings it to the forefront.
Furthermore most really free stuff can be easily downloaded from special websites.
So, I wonder about these guys who need a poll to get the result that people who are circumventing copyright laws don't care about copyright.
Usually you would suspect that every person on this planet has something called "common sense".
Next we'll see from these guys:
- Thiefs don't care about property.
- Phyromaniacs like fire.
- Drug dealers don't care about the health of other people.
- Bush invaded Iraq for Oil.
- Communism is a oppressive dictatorship.
- Linux and FreeBSD are for free.
But on the other hand, not everybody can be as clever as me.Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Mod this guy up as Interesting! Does anyone know more about these algorithms?!
This is why I have proposed to our representative in Congress, Mr. Berman and Mr. Hollings, that copyright violations be made punishable by death.
A new force will be recruited from among our friends at BayTSP, MediaDefender, and our more clandestine operatives to man squads carrying automatic weapons. These will be authorized by Congress to carry out summary executions against those sharing our property via P2P networks.
Perhaps this will engender the respect our copyrights deserve.
But I come here for the trolls, you insensitive clod!
But will it mean they're done politically? They've bought an awful lot of politicians in Washington, no matter what our honored lobbiest guest said here a couple days ago. (If Bill Clinton and other top pols show up to a going-away party for Hilary "Wicked Witch of the East" Rosen, I would say they have bought influence.)
My question is, the media like to talk about how the average person doesn't know what file sharing is and what the issues at stake are, but if there are 60 million people doing it then how can that possibly be true? If one fifth of the population of your country does anything on a regular basis, then how can you seriously claim that they don't understand what that activity is? It seems like so many other ridiculous claims ginned up by journalists like that disgraced NYTimes reporter, and repeated unthinkingly by the rest of the news crowd.
OK, so if that's bunk, and those 60 million people do understand what is at stake with file-sharing, then why aren't they making themselves heard in the government? Why isn't that anger translating politically? My theory is there is no membership organization they can focus their voice through. If we had something like the AARP or NRA for online freedoms, my bet is you'd start seeing politicians learning to dance to our tune in an awful hurry. (and no, the EFF is not that organization. they do great work, but a membership organization they are not).
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
Yes, very useful.
Problem is that I post from work too and there are probably others using that same IP
This has got to be the most amazing discovery ever! I hope that more funding is put into research like this.
Also, 'duh.'
America - Home of the scapegoat, land of the Corporation
"Consider the lillies of the goddamn field."
From the report itself:
... of the political process, which may be subverted temporarily by injecting enough money, but in the end the political process will always revert to majority rule.
Therefore, the public *owns* the political process.
When the RIAA says they want to educate the public about the law, the public may eventually lash back by educating the RIAA about what it means to be at the receiving end of the public's wrath.
If Michael say Billy Jean is copyright, Billy Jean is copyright. There is no debate.
I suggest you read Slashdot
While the study says that 30% of file-swappers say they care about the copyright status of the files they're sharing, it doesn't say that they're not actually sharing those files. They may still be stealing music, but they feel bad about it... :-)
Also according to the study, only 5% of file-traders were truly clueless ("don't know or don't have a position").
when do we see the study about how corporate weenies feel about consumers rights? Or how about the 'business' model they would like: they (and not neccassarily the actual artist) get a payment from me every time I listen to "Taking Tiger Mountain...".
...for most people.
In most people's minds, this is a crime in exactly the same sense as going 5 clicks over the speed limit. People just don't even think about it.
And when they do they just don't think its important. This is the reason that the more the RIAA ramp up the legislation and bully-boy tactics, the more they will get up the nose of Joe Average.
Everyone agrees that, in the abstract, speeding can kill people, just as in the abstract, people agree that musicians need to get rewarded. However, no-one thinks THEIR teensy, weensy breach will really hurt anyone.
Good point. I suppose you also get the 'feeling scared' category there - they're trading music anyway, but they care about the copyright laws because they fear the RIAA will be beating down their door and taking their computer away...
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
well i totally agree with the poll that most people do not care about copyrights et al, but one should not forget that these polls do not reflect the recent riaa attempt to sue everyone and everything that has something to do with down or uploading contraband.
these scare tactics will work in my eyes, as people will get educated by the laws that are being introduced slowly but surley by the riaa and its henchmen...
surely a handfull of people wont care and continue and it will take a lot more than a few laws to eradicate the filesharing scene, since its roots are deep..but at the end of the day the normal non-geek user will stop and start using itunes and its clones and start paying...
at least thats what i think...
Quoted from the report:
Kinda half-serious, half-joking, but I wonder if those that participated in this survey should also be categorized as folks that are willing to submit to phone surveys. Is that something that's worth considering?
And am I reading the above correctly that of the 2,515 folks they called, only 32.7 percent actually responded? That's a little over 820 individuals. Is a survey successful if only 32% responded? Inquiring minds and all that.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if they did a similar survey among folks that use computer software in the workforce and found that most people don't comprehend that software itself is copyrighted. I still meet plenty of folks that pirate alot of software, with rather innocent looks on their faces when told that they're not supposed to do that. I'm not talking about lone computer users... I'm talking about the head of a business that oversees a few dozen machines and they're all running Word with pirated numbers, etc.
n/a
Another proud carrier of the $rtbl flag
Duh.
I'm glad someone spent the time to study this. Next they'll tell us that those same people were concerned with copyrights when it was their own works being copied and distributed.
Jeremy Baumgartner
Drug dealers don't care about the health of other people.
I have pharmacists in my family. Please don't knock the profession.
Bush invaded Iraq for Oil.
Are you sure? I seem to recall that the government had evidence that Iraq was getting ready to attack the United States. The forces in Iraq may not have found a smoking gun, but there was still enough evidence to warrant an invasion under the previous United Nations resolutions.
Communism is a oppressive dictatorship.
Perhaps as misimplemented by Joseph Stalin and his followers, but I've read that even Vladimir Lenin didn't like the direction the government was going under Stalin.
Linux and FreeBSD are for free.
In other words, you confirm that your time is worth little to nothing.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Shut up. Tux is much sexier than any of those whores.
I think the majority of Americans understand this as all some stupid game and one side has already bribed the referees.
Ex1: Disney's obvious bribing of Congress to get the Copyright length extended.
Ex2: AOL, Microsoft etc bribing state politicians to pass DCMA even though it is as anti-consumer a law as you can get.
and so on....
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Pew (pronounced poo) stinks.
but in the end the political process will always revert to majority rule.
The people may control the republic through voting, but the broadcasters control the people to a large extent. TV and radio advertising paid for with campaign contributions from broadcasters seems exempt from FCC "equal time" regulation. MPAA movie studios own all major U.S. commercial broadcast networks except NBC. Get the picture?
Will I retire or break 10K?
It would have been a better study if they had delved more into the reasons why most people don't care.
For example, do people not care because they don't even think about it, because they think they won't get caught, or because they think a monopoly is abusing both copyright law and the campaign finance system? Some of the above ? None of the above ?
My only reaction to the study in its current form is like "well duh-uh !!!".
why is this? because of the stupidity, and restrictive ness of modern copyrights. any patent/copyright scheme which lets you copyright a generic idea is stupid. if you can patent the idea of a bicycle, im aganst it, now different models and makes, innovations on concepts are ok, but creative freedom and a good economy depend on being able to expand on a general idea without having to pay royalties.
Noone writes jokes in base 13!
They adamantly state that the GPL must be followed to the letter. Hypocrits.
are they trying to say that file trading stinks?
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
All your states are belong to us!
-insert a witty something-
Most people probably don't even know that what they are doing is forbidden by copyright law. It is human nature to share to an extent after all, I bet it doesn't seem wrong to them but the article just indicates that they "don't care".
I can go snag a book from the library for free, copy it onto paper, and give it back. There. I have it, without paying for it. Without being sued for copyright infringement. Same deal with music, only I'm using a machine to copy it.
You can't stop it. What are you going to do about it? Stop selling music? Hah. If you can hear it, you can record it. Give it up.
Don't think I don't buy music, though.
Information wants to be free, unless, of course, it's your DNA or viewing habits or buying info, then WHERE IS OUR PRIVACY! CURSES!
The copyright system has traditionally been a system that concerns professional authors and professional publishers and distributors. The general public has never really had a need to pay any more attention to copyright than to many other business-to-business issues or issues that concern a narrow field of profession.
Now basically every individual who can access the Internet can distribute works in massive quantities. Any person who makes their own web page and has a few hundred visitors has done what was very hard for an average person a decade ago. Publishing is no longer an expensive task that only traditional medias such as newspapers and record companies can afford.
The copyright system will eventually go through a major reform. The current form is simply designed for a situation where there are few authors and few publishers and then the general public that isn't either an author or a publisher. That situation no longer matches the reality which is why a new copyright system (if there will be a copyright system at all) will need to handle copyright as an issue that concerns each and everyone.
The plural of thief is 'thieves'.
;)
Does that make me more clever than you?
Well, lets see, RIAA sets up a cartel, overcharges for CDs (and still does), gets convicted for it, and uses bribed politicians to get out of it with 50 cent coupons for purchase of more inflated priced music.
RIAA buys more laws with more bribe money not to charge customers to copy the above music 50 cents per violation (like they got away with above), but rather to hit them with multi thousand dollar lawsuits.
RIAA then buys more laws making copyrights to be infinate in length (effectively).
Then some wonder why people have no respect for copyright laws as they are now. Uh... why should we? The current laws were all bought and paid for, and represent the interests of 'we the people' in no way whatsoever. So screw them..
If CD's sold for $5 per disk (which is what they should sell for without all the cartel and payola action), the problem would pretty much go away, as most people wouldn't have a problem buying CDs for that price rather than hassle with looking for downloading them.
A survey of 1000 internet users found that most breathe while typing, regardless of age,sex or race.
What a useless poll.. of course they dont care.. or they wouldnt be doing it...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Has posted the same BS further down...
If you tune into the Fox News channel to catch that story, the sky will be green, the grass will be blue and the shit will smell like sandlewood insense, and you'll actually believe it for a few seconds. Then after you turn the channel you'll have a really bad headache until the effect diminishes. Remember that movie "They Live"? Grab your special sun glasses sometime and check that channel out. P.S. Theres a meeting tonight
Well, let's see here. File sharing of copyrighted material is becoming a felony. Let's follow the trend, shall we?
... and 4 CDs. Get's charged with a felony. What are the best defenses for felony charges?
Some file sharer get's caught with 200GB of music
Addiction/Insanity!
Lawyer: Your honor, my client is addicted to music. His income is insufficient to purchase the music legally so he trades online.
Judge: Six months in rehab, two years probation. *bang*
RIAA Lawyer: *stunned bunny look*
This guy is an obvious troll. Look at his past work if you don't believe me.
DUH! Interesting to note this is a US survey. Getting out into the real world, the support of copyright laws falls to amasing lows, particularly among those that are highly educated. These are indeed among the most unpopular of laws. They will be reformed or repealed. Thank you USA for making the most stupid laws (DMCA, et al) that ultimately does away with all IP repression. This is the only area that i can think of where the USA has helped make the world a better place.
Troll -50
In the beginning, books could only be reproduced by carefully copying it line after line, like monk did. It took very much time to make a single copy. Every copy had a great value... But anyone with enough time and knowledge (not everyone was able to write) could do it... without being prosecuted.
Then came Gutemberg. He found a way to make numbers of copies of a single work much faster. The initial work was still a long process.
Now, anyone can have a copier at home and copying of paperwork became available to anyone. But "production" costsof a copy and the finish of that copy are still quite expensive in comparison to "commercial" process. And duplicating a book damage the original and is still slow.
There are some "pirate" distribution of books, but having a book scanned in PDF or in TXT is not similar to hving the real thing.
For the music, the way was a little bit different...
At the beginning, there was NO way of recording music. Bands were paid to play. Then came the firsts recording, which were process unavailable to people (a little like Gutemberg press) and there was a protection which was mostly between companies (not companies vs individuals). This is like what we have for books.
Then, new media appeared, beginning by big tapes on a wheel, then the tapes we still use today, then the CD and now, computer formats like MP3.
The biggest difference is that, where it's still more expensive, destructive and less appealing to copy a book by an individual, copying a song is (very) cheap, don't damage the original recording and with color printers and scanners, you can have a CD-box with a copy of the original artwork or some custom artwork. Only the on-cd picture can't be done.
So, even if the law protecting both a book and a music record is the same, we have 2 distinct situations.
Add to that the fact that many musician complain about recording companies, that even if the manufacturing costs have dropped, the cost of music has increased (the cost of books has DROPPED).
One more is the fact that record companies are introducing more and more "one-shot" artists (making new stars from nothing, using mass advertisement and such). When you like some artist which make new musics of equal (or similar) quality over the time, you are more willing to buy its CD than when it's some "jack out of the box" artist you don't know and which won't last past the summer. You can be willing to support some artist you like, but when it's a one-shot artist, you are NOT given that opportunity.
And you can add to that the fact that many songs are unavailable at stores because the recording companies found that these were too old or that there is no interrest in these. While you can rent a book at the local library and won't probably read it again and again, this is not true when we are speaking of music because when you like a song/tune, you'll listen to it again and again nad will need to keep it. and if you can't find it at your local music-store, you're left with only ONE solution : copying it.
We have a similar problem with films. many films are NOT worth the price you've to pay for them. and, when you've paid to see it in a theater, you could find it incorrect to have to pay for it again to see it at home... not speaking about the many films which NEVER find their way out of their original country because of lack of interrest.
For films, we see more and more films with nearly no story but loads of known actors and of special effects. This lead to lots of "junk" with little interrest, which cost more and more to produce and is less and less worth it's price... and while the actual manufacturing of the film support (VHS or DVD) is less and less expensive, prices have actually gone UP.
Both for music and films, the people feel that it has a "real" value which is constantly decreasing and a price which is increasing... Add to that the wories like protected-CD (well... these are not really CD as they don't conform to the standard)
And while there has been a remarkable "revolution" in the arts which has created some "in the gut" recognition for something called "intellectual property," the human animal simply has a terrible time recognizing that music, or performance, or writing, or any idea made slightly tangible, is not just something you share.
They're like the air on a hot summer day. We swim in an ocean of ideas - our own indistinguishable from those around us. We inhale and osmose and exclaim and excrete all as natural instinctive intellectual processes. We are not built to recognize such artificial distinctions as "the owner of a song" (or a sentence, or an idea) because they are simply unnatural. This ownership must be violated at every instant - as you sing in the shower, as you share a rumor, as a teacher teaches or a librarian lends you our richest treasures. Calling it "intellectual property" is itself propaganda - it is the most shocking of bad metaphors in recent times.
Copyright is the barest of fictions, intended to allow artists to live, not Michael Eisner to summer in Tenerife. It does make for some interesting, even good, results, in the way they were originally practiced (as intended by the folks who founded our nation, for instance) - where for a few (like seven!) years there were some artifical means for an artist to thrive from her work, that didn't involve the help of wealthy patrons (which was how the old world used to do it).
But I think if you asked Washington he would be very surprised at the idea of copyright taken precedence over sharing - though of course he and his colleagues would have shaken their heads at the complexity of "mass-scale distributed sharing."
They would certainly rage at and mock the outrageous "extend every time mickey mouse is in danger" new time limits (one of the more transpareant examples of the subversion of democracy by a wealthy cartel). And if informed of the new punishments for violators, or pre-punishment of potential violators, or direct trust "taxes" on things which might be used to violate... they would pick up their arms and fight.
You think it's melodramatic to say so, but America is a nation of ideas, of rational supremacy, and the economic achievement that can only come from intellectual liberty. The new rules that Disney and Microsoft have mutated intellectual property with over the last decade choke off that liberty in the most violent way, by destroying the commons of ideas, erasing the essential quality of trust in our democracy, and violating the supremacy of free speech and free expression that made our country wealthy, successful in affairs of state, and also a fun place to live.
And all this, not for some grave end - to fight terrorism or feed the hungry - but only so a publisher can increase their profit margins.
Not even the politicians would countenance it, ordinarily. It's bad for almost everyone but a select few, and it is even bad for them - content creators need the commons more than anyone. But politicians have a unique respect for those who control the media...
Remember what copyright was originally intended to do. Consider the new tools we have - there are better ways now than what we did in the past, and anything is better than what the cartel wants.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
"In other news, I had an mp3, named after a particular Metallica song, of my voice saying to not buy, purchase or download anything Metallica related. I'd rather just see those meatheads not sell another album or concert ticket. Now, that's been downloaded hundreds of times."
;-)
So that was you!!
And you dare admit it!
and I always wondered how that gloomy voice found its way on my xmms playlist...
http://www.masquilier.org/republic/election/ Condorcet, Plurality voting and alternative voting enabled bulletin board.
Seriously though, we live in a democracy, congress gets to set the limits it wants.
No, Congress is supposed to set the limits that best serve the public, i.e. what the PEOPLE want. And yes, it does need to be changed. You got the millions of dollars needed to lobby Congress? Neither do I. I do have the power to write to my reps incessantly to make my point heard. (In fact, I think that's what I'll do today...write to my new reps [just moved])
BTW, "life + 90 years" is NOT reasonable. The copyright law needs to revert back to the 14-year limit, with certain circumstances making that time frams SHORTER. To use everybody's favorite OS as an example, if I want to run Win95 for some reason and MS doesn't sell it anymore, than I should be free as the wind to make as many copies as I desire. It's not as if I'm taking away from their revenue stream, they weren't going to sell it to me anyway. (No jokes about forced upgrade paths, please.)
The same holds for music, books, movies, whatever. If I want a copy of a book or CD that the original copyright holder/publisher/etc. doesn't make available, then I should be free to make my own copy as I see fit, even if has been less than 14 years since the copyright took effect.
"Intellectual Property" my ass.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Is that it exemplifies 'legality' and 'deviance'.
For a quick lesson in socialogy, legality is whether the law has determined something to be wrong. Deviance is whether or not it is against societal norms.
Speeding is and example of something that is NOT deviant, but is illegal. EVERYONE speeds, if only a little bit, despite that the law says you arn't supposed to. When a situation like this arises, usually the law is repealed, the punishment is slack, or there is leeway when enforcing the law. That is why cops tend to be lenient with speeding tickets. Cops will let you get away with 5-10 MPH over, while someone who is doing 35+ over will almost certainly come down hard. Prohibition in the 20's is another example, except in this case, the laws were repealed. (there are probably more recent examples, but IANAL, or a socialogist, so I havn't done much research)
This survey shows that amoung (american) internet users, file-sharing(downloading) isn't deviant, despite it's illegality. I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd say in most of the world, file-sharing isn't illegal, and it certainly isn't deviant. Even if laws are passes to severly punish the users, the judiciary system will almost certainly strike them down if the behavior is relativly harmless (nobody is getting killed), and it isn't deviant.
No.
It can often be much safer too! In Amsterdam this is often the case and the law allows for such a defence. If you cross at the intersection outside my house, you are at great risk of death. (There have been a few.) I therefore advise all visitors to jaywalk. This has nothing to do with copyright laws except both are very stupid laws.
[Chorus]
Billie Jean is not my copyright.
It's just a song that I have shared on Kazaa.
But it's an EXE -- booyah.
It is amazing to see how the people are always right, ahead of the politicians.
Since "intellectual property" is not a natural law, but was introduced only to increase productivity, one cannot help feeling that IP law, in its current form, may have outlived its usefulness.
What does the society gain by protecting the IP of music publishers? Do we risk underproduction (or extinction?) of music if the IP "rights" of Sony Entertainment are not protected at all? Or would that rather restore some sanity and the value of culture? IP is becoming a tool with which major corporations tax average joe and small business startups, not unlike emperors used to tax salt.
In the software field, for all I see, dispensing of IP would stop corporate lawyers from trying to destroy honest developers working in companies without huge legal departments, and would even encourage sane re-use of software and thus increase the general welfare, the Linux way.
If everyone sent their old cd's back to the RIAA. Also send them AOL Cd's too. I mean just to flood their headquarters with like cds. Penny jam doors and such fun.
Another fun thing to do may be to like have vans blast indie music at them.
Just bored,
st.
This could be a good topic for a /. poll.
... For. ... Against. ... Doh.
Copyright Laws?
1
2
3
siggy played guitar
It's no real mystery what people do with P2P applications.
1) Provide free advertising for the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software
2) Make it harder for independent musicians, independent filmmakers, and free software to be seen through all the noise of the more well-known, possibly inferior products
3) Prove that the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software vendors are relevant by demonstrating that their marketing works even if their products are inferior
4) Giving the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software vendors a leg to stand on when they go to congress to complain about illegal file sharing on P2P networks
Sharing content that the RIAA, MPAA and proprietary software vendors own the copyrights to doesn't help anybody's cause except the RIAA's, MPAA's and proprietary software vendors'. Do you want to be counterproductive?
I'd be interested in knowing what the numbers would be for adults that don't trade files.
I'd be willing to bet that the percentages are probably similar. In fact, it's far more likely that the _average_ adult has far less respect for copyright than the average file trader simply because of the demographic distribution of people who have computers and networks good enough to actually play music and movies. Things like education and knowledge work would tend to imply a higher exposure to copyright issues, wouldn't it?
I also highly doubt that this has changed much in the last century or so. The only thing that has changed is the ease of copyright infringement.
c.
Log in or piss off.
Not Hilary Rosens, apparently.
-- james
Well, the "democracy" entry mentions rule by majority vote, and the "republic" entry mentions rule by elected officials according governed by a body of laws. According to this, we in the U.S. currently live in neither.
Cantankerous old coot since 1957.
Copyright is largely an artificial construct, unlike theft (which certain people like to erroneously and politically link it to.) It's never really existed in any significant portion of our evolution, so (I'd say) it's not really considered a real thing: it's an artificially imposed prohibition.
If the same principle was applied to food, or furniture, with everyone having their own little Star Trek replicators, people wouldn't respect it then, either.
Maybe it means: since everyone has their own printing-press, making a significant living from the prohibition of duplication of a work, is nolonger feasible or realistic? Like any number of other professions (starving (visual) artists languishing in obscurity and poverty, anyone?)
I don't think it's so much about price (though it's always a factor) as people's psychology: copyright doesn't really make sense in a world where things are easily and cheaply copyable; where the means of production and dissemination is in the hands of everyone.
Is that noise I hear the fingernails of the copyright cartels screeching down the cliff-face of a paradigm shift?
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
2. This moronic myth of the 'Troll' has been getting sillier of late. Just because a person doesn't agree with a poster's viewpoint doesn't automatically make that poster a 'Troll'. People deliberately posting to raise ire for purposes of Ego-boosting, are much fewer and further between than most people seem to believe. I have been labeled a 'Troll' more times than I can count, and I certainly do not have any Ego problems. I just don't like to waste my time posting to say, "Me Too". I post when I think I have an alternative viewpoint worthy of consideration, which, I dare say, is the whole point of networking. --What good is a forum if there is no effort to explore as many different viewpoints as can be brought to bear on a subject? Those who complain, are those who can't deal with any information which falls outside the boundaries of the school-of-fish mentality. These people often cry, 'Troll' rather than think or read what is written.
3. If people are going to go to the trouble of maintaining multiple on-line personalities which require near-daily upkeep, then those people are spending enormous effort. --I can spend a couple of *hours* at a sitting just using my single personality, (yes, just the one), in viewing all the various information/news sites I visit. I think the exercise you are concerned about is A) a LOT less exagerated in reality than you believe it to be, and B) a short lived practice among those who DO maintain many on-line personalities simply because of the level of effort required.
4. Do away with anonymity? Anonymity is a treasure. --It stops the drunken bar crowd from being able to pound you if you vote for the 'wrong' party. Anonymity is one of the most valuable assets of the Internet. In any case, even a stupid heckle from the peanut gallery can be a valuable indicator of public opinion. (Indeed, if you are a 'Troll' yourself right here with this very post, then SO WHAT? You've raised an interesting argument and I'm raising an appropriate response. There are more people who read here than you and I; people on all points of any number of learning curves. This exchange might actually be useful to somebody.) In any case, I notice that you posted anonymously yourself for this very article.
5. And finally. . . Who cares? Don't you have a scroll tab on your browser? Sheesh. Learn how to skim. I've NEVER had any problem picking out the "Signal" to the "Noise" on Slashdot or anywhere else I visit. Indeed, Slashdot remains, as it always has, a valuable source of information and measure of public reaction to whatever subject is being discussed.
You are over-reacting.
-FL
...I'd mod you up for "insightful".
I don't believe Mensa membership gets you discounts at the grocery store, you don't earn points towards frequent flyer programs, you can't get free upgrades on your hotel or car rental, so honestly, what is the point? You can get credit card offers and insurance anywhere.
If you are a
- Your local chapter of 2600
- Slashdot meet-ups
- Toastmasters
- Association of Computing Machinery
- IEEE
- A user group for Linux or a retired OS, proprietary server software, programming language, etc.
If you are looking for that elite publication, some of the groups mentioned above have a more focused publication, as opposed to something across the board. Here are some of my "intelligentsia publication picks:"- IEEE Spectrum
- Bohemian Club Library Notes
- Science News
- Policy Review
- any museum quarterly/newsletter
- Cinema Journal
What this all boils down to is: none of the intelligent elite crowd waste their time pirating the copyrighted material of their circles. Seriously, when was the last time a film director ran a site containing screenplays or what-not of a rival director he/she didn't like? How often do you see nuclear physicists ripping each other's ideas off? Their papers are about 30% acknowledgements/references as it is. Most truly innovative computer software is either government funded and top secret, or it is public domain and funded any number of ways.I see the RIAA as the champion of those who make their money off of cultural information. Musicians, actors, etc. The RIAA is trying to keep the poor from having the cultural enrichment that they think is entitled to them. Think about it, people are stealing copies of Harry Potter, not Jules Verne, JRR Tolkien, or Joseph Conrad.
Our local (NY, NJ, CT) WB affiliate ran a poll the other day, and their result was that 92% think it's OK to share copyrighted files using P2P systems.
:-)
As they reported that number, the anchor's comment was, "As you'd expect..". I guess he thought it was OK too.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
Now that all computer users have what are, in effect, their very own presses, they're likely to publish whatever occurs to them as interesting.
Quite a few of our novice publishers will get to learn about plagiarism, copyright infringement, even Intellectual Property and that idea's ramifications.
So, are the courts going to treat us as the publishers we are, or as consumers of the Great Media, to be controlled and exploited?
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
You have to pay for bandwidth, too. The point is that if I have a copier, and I have paper, I don't have to pay any overhead costs except my own time and energy.
Basically your post is anal-retentive in that it tries to be utterly literal about these things. If I can do something on my own time and energy, it's, for all intents and purposes, 'free.'
yup
Fat people don't care that being fat will kill you, either. And smokers don't care that smoking will kill you, either. And soldiers don't care that trying to kill people who are trying to kill you will kill you, either.
So let's not worry too much about who doesn't care about illegitimate or unenforceable copyrights anyway.
What is the practical effect of forever copyrights? Lack of creativity. Copyright holders concentrate on protecting the value of their current copyright rather than think up new things to copyright.
... I wonder if it's coincidence that the trend before rock n roll was for each generation to come up with their own kinds of music sooner and sooner ... ragtime, early jazz, swing .... then rock n roll came along, and has dominated ever since and shows no signs of going away. The Roilling Stones still going after 40 years? Bizarre! I bet if their coyrights weren't still in force, there's be much different kinds of music ruling the airwaves now.
Imagine if Disney had had to keep on thinking up new characters and ideas, instead of the same old mouse and duck. Those would have been retired, new ideas would have come into play, and Disney would stand for new ideas every few years rather than tired variations of the same old mouse products. There would be no incentive for others to mimic the mouse and duck, because it would be so out of fashion, no one would care. Every generation would have their own Disney memories.
When the same stuff gets repeated over and over, the public just doesn't care. That old stuff becomes part of public history whether it's copyrighted or not, a de facto public domain.
I wonder if rock n roll is the same
Infuriate left and right
Gimme laws WORTHTY of respect, uh, huh!
Couldn't the data here be interpreted as how the surveyed response to systems we don't like. Justice, to be a term which is not spoken with contempt, must be just. Even a person who is schooled in law as they are schooled in gravity, not by books but by a lifelong pressure will not respect a system which serves others without giving some benefit to themselves. (and a leap from an even semi-rational process into this) The issue is just too one-sided in who it favors, a just system should favor the intangible, lest the disbalance crack it apart. Human creativity grows in the dark and the light. if the light across the street shines away your dreams, it's a simple thing to get the bb gun and pop it out .. simple things are favored.
sorry, you should read things like that tho, and you shouldn't be afraid to write them either.
"Well, lets see, RIAA sets up a cartel, overcharges for CDs (and still does)"
...so in conclusion, I wan't that Porsche. I know it doesn't really cost twice as much as that nice Buick, but I really deserve it and therefore demand that you price it accordingly. I mean how can I afford the actual price on my allowance...
This is the most moronic reasoning I am forced to hear over and over...Who are you to say what a CD should cost -- I understand what you would like for them to cost, but from what part of your anatomy do you pull your numbers from. --
I would like you to work for half of what you usually get paid(I assume you have a job and are not either living with your parents/in a dorm/in a basement)...I just feel that you are paid too much and I believe that you should be compensated less. Sure the business you work for has costs, but can't they really just get by on less. I know I would appreciate it if the widgets you produced cost less. Since they don't cost less, I figure instead of not purchasing your widgets, I will partake of them and constantly berate your inability to just lower your wage and make it easier for me to access them...
-- Insert luxury car analogy here --
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
Most people have no understanding of copyright at all. They can't respect something they don't really understand.
The average person doesn't understand what a copyright is. It's too abstract. A CD or a book is something they can physically hold. To them they think they own the book not a "COPY" of the book. Stealing a book is easy to understand and visualize. Stealing potential profits that one has a limited right (sic) to is something that is harder for people to understand or care about.
If they can't see and touch it they don't care. Many people bitch and moan about ATM fees because they can see that $2 charge taken away from them right at the time of withdrawal. Yet they don't realize that the amount of taxes a person has withheld on a paycheck is really double. They don't see so they don't understand it or they don't care.
They don't understand the difference between a constitutionally granted right and a constitutionally protected right. Copyrights are granted rights. Free speech and the right to bear arms are protected rights.
Despite the Slashdot wish that this was a grand showing of defiance against the evil corporations most people don't understand about that and don't care.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
OK, maybe I was wrong. Linux and BSD operating systems may have value to users, especially in network environments, but some say the Linux distributions published in the first half of 2003, when used as desktop operating environments especially in a home environment, are free only to those whose time is worth nothing.
Most inexperienced home users don't feel a need to do most of what you listed. Many of the things you listed need a second computer; many families can afford only one. Many of the things you listed (receive and process e-mail, run web servers) are prohibited by typical acceptable use policies of residential Internet access providers. GUI programs can feel as easy as your text mode programs provided that they're made keyboard accessible. Most commercial PC games are made for inexperienced home users with one computer per household.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Yet another brilliant finding from the science journal DUH.
- http://pakman.sytes.net/
The term "overpriced" is relative. Who determines what the price should be? You? I would expect that the company selling the disk would be the one to determine its price.
Perhaps the RIAA was involved in some price-fixing, but should that really bother you? Unlike price fixing in other markets (diamonds, cars, you pick), music is not really as competitive. Does it really matter that your Michael Bolton CD costs the same amount as a Metallica CD? Would a discount Bolton CD really make you change your mind on your purchase if you are more of a Metallica fan?
The competition in the music industry happens before the CD is even released. It happens in the signing of new bands and in the recording studio.
If you were trying to make a living off of copyrighted music/books/etc., I would expect that you would feel far differently about your "respect for copyright laws as they are now." Perhaps there are aspects of those laws that you would like to see changed, but ripping off the innocent artists that created that material is not a good solution to changing them.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
People are used to getting books for free. It's called the library. There just a shift in the ways and means of distributing the books.
Based on your argument that copyright is largely an artificial construct and people don't really buy into the who idea of paying for things that are cheaply copiable, then no one should have a problem with the following.
When O'Reilly publishes a new book, I should buy it, scan in the pages into an electronic format and put it on the internet for the whole world to copy. After all, "copyright doesn't make sense in a world where things are easily and cheaply copiable", and all I did was easily and cheaply copy a book.
O'Reilly is abusing people with the high costs of his books. For example, "Programming Perl" is $49.95. This is far more that the cost of the paper to publish this book, so there is obviously some sort of collusion to artificially keep the costs of books so high. I think a valid form of protest is to boycott buying books.
Maybe if we are lucky, then OReilly will go out of business since his business model is selling copyrighted materials at artificially high prices, and it seems like everyone is against that.
Of course, this screws people like Larry Wahl who make money selling copyrighted materials. One of the common arguments I've seen is that in this world of easy duplication, that musicians should make their money touring and not selling CDs/Records, then Larry should make his money touring giving speaches and not get any money selling his books.
This could be bad since Larry might not get much money and may not be able to continue Perl development. But if Perl dies and Larry goes bankrupt, then it will be sad, but too bad for him since he hopped into bed with the man and proffiteered by selling copyrighted materials.
If all works perfectly, OReilly goes out of business, Larry Wahl goes bankrupt and Perl dies. But such is the consequence of people rejecting copyrights that don't make sense any more.
Is this really the future that everyone wants?
"Microsoft has made computing accessible to a population who would otherwise not be able to use computers" - B. Kernigha
Exactly. (Mod this parent up!) $5-7 per disk would be reasonable, even $10 is better than what we're paying now. Think about it: if BuyMusic.com is charging $8 per album, why isn't the RIAA trying to compete? If tapes cost $10 a pop 10 years ago, why are CDs $15? If CDs are the default technology, why do they cost MORE than what tapes were when they were the default technology?
Same goes for software and DVDs. DVDs are now the default technology, yet they are higher than tapes. Instead, tapes should be lower, and DVDs should be the same price. Software is at an all-time high, because they all sell to business.
Why spend $600 on Office, when you can pirate it, or (if you want to stay legal) pay $0 for OpenOffice? Why do games cost $50? If I play a game at the arcade 100 times, I'd spend those $50, but most games aren't even worth playing 100 times like that. Then people are sick of spending MORE money on required expansion packs and monthly fees for MMOs. (Why is Star Wars Galaxies $15/mo? Inflation, or just trying to suck up as much money as you can get?)
The current business model demands that prices eventually go down as they age. Web hosting has gone down; the price of a watch has gone down; bikes have gone down. And they have all had improvements to their former models. However, the case seems to be the opposite for the media industry. So, yes, people are pissed off, and they really don't care about copyrights anymore.
Zodiac Survey
Most file traders don't care about copyright!
In other news, most religious people believe in some sort of soul, and most prisoners have committed a crime.
Everybody has their own ideas about how much a CD ought to cost, but they never back it up with a good analysis.
Can you support your $5.00 with facts, or are you just blowing hot air?
Go here to create your own Slashdot dis
I've tried to ask P2Pers why they do it. "Cuz it's FREE dude" They don't care about evil corporations or even understand that they are robbing someone of their profits. I've yet to meet anyone that was file sharing as an act of defiance.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
Nice Archive.org
I'm already downloading Bert.
Thanks.
I mean, its the standard thing of it not being a physical thingt thats being stolen and also that the owner of the copywright it "Just a big moneymaking corporation" mentatlity which means people ignore copywright. Thats not to say i disagree, you can check the music on my computer ;-)
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
So why care about copyright law that only a few people (usually not even the creators) own.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
You are wrong about the extent to which you are able to fairly use that material. College professors had to deal with this a while back...
More to the point, your example clearly illustrates the difference between acceptable fair use and unacceptable use in relation to music sharing(see I didn't use the word stealing:))
Namely, if you are truly unable to honestly differentiate between your personal use -- a lesser copy of the original for your own short term intelectual gain(i.e. studying, researching) -- and wholesale illegal distribution (sharing a music file that you either did or didn't purchase and legally license from the owner of the copyright) then you are really just deluding yourself in an attempt to justify your illegal behavior.
Also, to use the 'Library Argument(C)" as it will now be referred to, and not acknowledge the fact that those works are both specifically paid for by our taxes(or donations) in the spirit of providing access for those who cannot afford them on their own, and thereby placed in a context where they could be easily copied but are in good faith not draconian-ly restricted, is to do a diservice to the system of public good that has been erected in the pursuit of a completely unrelated and specious argument.
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
Well put.
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
I am a member of a fairly successful American university choir. We record all of our performances for our own use, but can't sell--or even distribute for free--most of them, because of copyright laws. Keep in mind nearly all of our repetoire was composed before 1917.
Last fall we performed Mozart's Requiem Mass (composed 1791), and many of the singers wanted to make and sell/give away a recording... but we found out to our dismay that we couldn't. Why? Because the [i]scores[/i] we were using were covered by copyright. This is a bit absurd--of all the people who deserve to earn money off that performance, the typesetters and editors are the last on the list. We already paid them for their work, dammit: we paid $1000 for a hundred copies (plus orchestra parts) of something that should be public domain.
We have many recordings we'd love to publish on the Internet (publicity and all), but can't.
There are two CD's which we have secured copyright permission (from the score publisher--neither work itself is covered by copyright) to sell. While I'm not involved in the finances of the choir, I do know that the CD's cost $10 and we make a $5 profit off of each. Now, where does that other $5 go? Jewel cases, inserts, and the costs of CD replication are no more than $.50-$1, so [i]someone[/i] is getting $4 royalties from each disc--almost certainly the publisher of the score.
Modern copyright law isn't necessarily friendly to the "small artists". We'd love to put up our recordings on the Internet, or sell more CD's at concerts (the two aren't mutually exclusive!) for a greater profit... but we can't.
And all of us would be tickled pink if one of our recordings showed up on Kazaa.
No, Congress is supposed to set the limits that best serve the public, i.e. what the PEOPLE want. And yes, it does need to be changed.
... if I want to run Win95 for some reason and MS doesn't sell it anymore, than I should be free as the wind to make as many copies as I desire. It's not as if I'm taking away from their revenue stream, they weren't going to sell it to me anyway...
...
Yup. You should write your reps if you feel that your are not being sufficiently represented. Unless they know what the people want, they can't do it.
Why do they NEED to be changed?
BTW, "life + 90 years" is NOT reasonable. The copyright law needs to revert back to the 14-year limit,
The same holds for music, books, movies, whatever.
I disagree. I like the life + 90, and I think it is very reasonable. Perhaps the post-life extent could be shorter, but 14 years... Tell your favorite author what you want to do to their work -- most authors don't get paid as well as musicians and other artists...
Anyway, as for your Win95 example, you are hurting their business - Win95 is the ancestor of Windows XP, they would really like you to buy XP -- but if you can get Win95 for free... then they have to compete with themselves, and while they did attempt to make improvements over previous versions, free is a hard price point to beat, especially when many applications will run on either OS.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
I tried to make a copy of a small booklet that belonged to an art museum. They refused because it was copyrighted work. Now OfficeMax had no issues and even bound it for me.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
~~~
Why isn't that anger translating politically?
Maybe it's a lack of concern. That fifth of the nation isn't necessarily of voting age. It is, like most of the republic, politically unaware and uninformed. Also, as with most of the republic, it only acts on what actually affects it in a very tangible way i.e. cops show up at the door. As well, it's only a _fifth_ of the population. Check out the stats on what percentage of people own a gun (ref NRA). Finally, the rich are what get things moving these days (corporations, etc.) The cost of a CD for one good song doesn't even register as a concern for them (unless they're in the business of making money from it).
Summary, the poor prols using file sharing aren't fussed by the current state of affairs. Set up an organization and I'll wager less than a fifth of that fifth of the population would join (check out the stats of how many actually voted last election).
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Copyright could be abolished tomorrow if you could just get the votes in Congress required to pass a bill to repeal it. Sure, Dubya might veto it, but if you can get a two thirds majority in Congress, you can override a veto.
If you don't think this can happen, consider that more Americans are trading files today than voted for George Bush. Yes, many if not most file traders are under eighteen, but political upheavals usually take time. The sort of time that would allow most of today's youthful peer-to-peer users to come of age.
My new piece Change the Law explains this in more detail. It recommends several specific steps you can take to repeal copyright. The recommendations I give are:
- Speak Out
- Vote
- Write to Your Elected Representatives
- Donate Money to Political Campaigns
- Support Campaign Finance Reform
- Join the Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Practice Civil Disobedience
If you're under eighteen, you can do all of those things but vote. And your right to vote will come in time. The RIAA is not going to go away.Finally, Should Copyright Even Exist? considers the question of whether the ability of computers to make faithful copies of digital data without significant cost so outweighs any benefit that copyright may have to society, that we would be better off if copyright were eliminated entirely.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
I have been labeled a 'Troll' more times than I can count, and I certainly do not have any Ego problems.
;)
Well, someone thinks highly of themselves...
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The truth is likely that Americans understand politicians are corrupt and in the hands of big business. The problem is that rather than that generating a force to change things for the better it has given politicians lease to do even more against the best interrests of the public without fear of being singled out.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
I can't take credit for this phrase, but your sarcasm awaits to be destroyed in a fiery blaze like a zeppelin over New Jersy:
"* Thiefs don't care about property."
Stupid. Of course they do; if they didn't, they wouldn't bother to steal. Or protect their own property. Theives simply want to make money.
"* Phyromaniacs like fire."
I suppose.
"* Drug dealers don't care about the health of other people."
I dont think drug dealer care or don't care. They're simply trying to make money.
"* Bush invaded Iraq for Oil."
Maybe. But that's mostly a Democrat's (notice the capital "D"), catch phrase. I don't like bush either, but this is a mindless campaign phrase. If you don't really understand why bush invaded Iraq, then I suggest you aren't clever enough to understand things like "cause" and "effect".
"* Communism is a oppressive dictatorship."
Really? I thought Communism was an economic system. In fact, Communism can be democratic political system. I'm not advocating communism (bad allocation of resources), but you clearly don't understand communism.
"* Linux and FreeBSD are for free. "
Yes, they are. They are "free" in the sense that Windows XP "only" costs $200.
Here's another clue for you.... Copyright terms are too long, the oppression by corporate content providers grows more menacing by the month.
And you're worried about some poor shmuck who downloaded a brittany spears album.
I would suggest, sir, that you have your head up your ass.
The copyright law needs to revert back to the 14-year limit, with certain circumstances making that time frames SHORTER
Prepare to see all SORTS of artists going even more starving. I'm an aspiring photojournalist. Guess what all the folks who made it tell me. If you're great, it takes 5 years to build an archive of shots that is going to be able to moderately support you and allow you to start paying off your debts. It's copyright that gives a photographer that ability. If 9 years later those images that I took go into the public domain, I will be forever working to maintain a barely-decent level of income.
If *I* make it, I get to control it until my death. Period.
If I take a photograph and post it on my web site for people to see for free, I don't want to see it end up in a commercial tomorrow. Copyright is the only thing protecting me from that.
Life + 90 years is not reasonable, I don't see why my great grandkids should profit from my work, but neither is 14 years.
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
File traders have never cared about copyrightlaws and never will. Real file traders, warez dudes, think copyright laws are stupid. And when it comes to girls it does not differ at all. Almost every male on this planet think girls are some kind of aliens that always has a different and more "moral" opinion about stuff, and therefor always follow the law. But as a surprise for many, you can now se it is not the case.
Information wants to be free, piracy rules, bla bla bla..
What kind of argument is that? It cost tens of millions of dollars to develop the 'content' that is the car that you would be so willing to 'copy freely.'
:))
If you could copy it, you would be depriving the developers their revenue to reimburse themselves so that they might actually be able to continue to develop newer better technologies...
By your reasoning, you'd rather have the car industry cease to develop new vehicles once you have made off with the goods(Let's leave aside the fact that car companies SUCK
Cars are complex systems. I think if you were to be more honest, you would acknowledge that other copyrightable content is complex as well. A movie is the collective work of thousands of hard working talented people who deserve to be compensated, and choose to have the large corp.'s serve as the middle man to assure that they get paid(Pimps anyone?) Remove the middle man if you want, but rest assured that the hookers will just start to get ripped off by the Johns and beaten up more frequently.
Same thing goes for music and to some degree literature.
"Intellectual Property", as you derisively quoted it, is only neither to those lacking either. When you have created something more meaningful than an 'asteroids' clone, a bad song, or a DV home movie, you will quickly find I.P. to be of some value.
I think that no doubt, debacles such as the SCO nonsense really do cloud our ability to rationally debate the merits of I.P., however, just because a few bad apples abuse the I.P. system doesn't mean that the system is worthless. It just means we need boycott those things we find offensive -- and that means not downloading and enjoying music created by the system that you despise. It is a cop out to have your cake and eat it too -- in this case...
We apologise for the fault in this post. Those responsible have been sacked. -- Signed RICHARD M. NIXON
The problem I see with this system is that M$ could release windows 95 in a "nostalga" pack at some point and claim that you can't copy it because they still make it available. That's a loophole.
I also think that, for works of art like novels, it should be life of the author.
~Will
sig?
if most americans don't care about copyrights and the associated laws at all, why do we still have them?
I agree that the majority think like that.
/. as well as Dan Gilmors blog is that online poll results don't matter (by implication BBS postings too) because you have a self selected sample and the results don't generalize to the population as a whole. Also see the disclaimer on the New York Times version of opinion polls.
What I've seen in other topics on
The percentage of the population that knows (or cares) about the ins and outs of copyright law is a minority for sure, but how much of a minority ?
The Pew Foundation had a chance to find out this in a supposedly scientifically and statistically valid way. All they came up with was what everybody knew already. More detail could have been interesting and valuable.
"To use everybody's favorite OS as an example, if I want to run Win95 for some reason and MS doesn't sell it anymore, than I should be free as the wind to make as many copies as I desire. "
I think 14 years is still excellent in this case. You don't want to cut the business down too much. Besides, MS will still happily sell you everything from DOS 2.0 and up.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The conclusion that any intelligent person should make from reading this article is that No one believes that sharing intellectual property is morally wrong. Because it's not wrong, no matter how you look at it. There are no victims, and there is no loser from file sharing. Everyone wins.
That's why filesharing is so popular. The average person knows, deep down inside, that even with all the lawsuits and threats that: 1. They aren't doing anything wrong, and 2. They aren't hurting anyone.
-dbc
Well... should there be NO copyrights, all works would be available freely for everyone anyway...
GPL is there to be sure that noone can take a GPL work and lock it using copyright law and such... Should there be no copyrights then the need for the GPL licence would disappear at the same time as the GPL.
And you should avoid to use the dichotomy : Evil file-traders and good law-followers. It's far more complex...
you've file-sharer who grab everything they can and other who search for things they can't find otherwise... Somehow, filetrading works great against censorship...
I've managed to find on filesharing tools songs which have been forbidden to be sold because they made some politician uneasy and such... And I've managed to find some obscure songs that are out of print for years and that can't be found anywhere else.
I also managed to find things that can't be found in europe because noone even thought it could interrest european people.
But I don't want to grab that brand new album from XYZ... perhaps because a CD is much better on my CD-Rack than a file lost somewhere on my HD... although with the coming of so said "copy-protected" CD which I can't read on either my car CD-player or my computer (the only things I use to play CD), I could change my mind...
This is a bit absurd--of all the people who deserve to earn money off that performance, the typesetters and editors are the last on the list. We already paid them for their work, dammit: we paid $1000 for a hundred copies (plus orchestra parts) of something that should be public domain.
It's not absurd to the arrangers, typesetters and editors who have formatted your choral music. You paid for performance rights, not for recording and distribution rights.
The publishers of the score are not in it for the fun of it or for the betterment of society. Who the hell are you to decide who "deserves" the money? They own the arrangement. Deal with it.
(also someone who has recorded a well known university choir and had to deal with distribution and licensing issues)
Yep, free is a hard price to beat. The only way they could do it is by making a much better product, instead of the petty extortion they engage in now.
Do not click unless you want to see a Jap girl shooting liquid shit 5 feet out of her arse
The definition of "worth" is what people are willing to pay. When something costs more than it is worth, people are then unwilling to pay for it. Either they don't buy it, or they steal it.
If a CD isn't selling or is being stolen because it's too expensive something needs to be done. If the manufacturers/labels/artists aren't making enough money when the CD is being sold at a price that consumers feel is valid then perhaps that CD isn't worth putting out in the first place.
If independent laels can sell CDs at an $11.99 list price, major labels should be able to compete.
The immense cost of advertising and "owning" a large name band should be overcome by the massive number of cd's they sell, not by the exorbitant price-per-unit.
help free mickey from the clutches of Disney
. ht ml
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/990310.html
http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,17327,00
"File Traders Don't Care About Copyright"
In other news... Murderers don't care about gun laws, more news at 10.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
From the original article:
The RIAA is inflicting a pogrom against file traders? They are using death camps instead of lawsuits? Such extreme hyperbole does not call the policy of the RIAA into question as much as it does the judgement of the author.
I have a theory that ice cream eaters don't care about fat. Will somebody give me lots of money to confirm that theory?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
If *I* make it, I get to control it until my death. Period.
OK, I'll grant you that. For the individual, I can see where copyright until death can be a good thing. As has been stated, what is yours is yours. When I said that in some cases the copyright epiration would come less than 14 years, I was thinking cases such as the creator's death. It's hard to hold a copyright and benefit when you're dead.
The next argument I can see is the income from a copyrighted work supporting the family after the author's passing. Ponder this for a moment: in some cases, a retired worker's pension will go to the widow/widower on the retiree's death. I can see the same principle applying to a copyright if the "until death" time limit is used. A copyright on a income-producing work can be transferred to the spouse who then holds the copyright until their death. After that, it's in the public domain.
As far as copyright held by a corporation, I stand by the 14-year term. Generally you won't see a company seriously use a work to generate income for a long period of time, as times and cultures change.
Case in point: I have a particular CD that is a copy of one that my parents have. I couldn't buy it as it was only marketed for a short period of time and was no longer available and would not be made available by the publisher. Therefore, I should be free to copy it as desired. Now, to prevent copyright "stalking," I can understand where a time frame may be desired as it would prevent people from waiting for something to go into the public domain before obtaining it. In such a case, a 14-year copyright lifetime would be appropriate.
It's a fine line between protecting the artist and benefiting the public; a fine line that in the current time has been stretched, mangled, and generally jerked about nearly at will by big corporations with the ability to buy laws.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
The problem I see with this system is that M$ could release windows 95 in a "nostalga" pack at some point
More like a "nausea" pack.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
Same goes for software and DVDs. DVDs are now the default technology, yet they are higher than tapes. Instead, tapes should be lower, and DVDs should be the same price.
If anything tapes should be more expensive, since the manufacturing and transportation costs are higher. Then you have the problem of "duds" not being detected until a customer buys one and complains. With a CD or DVD you have an easy to automate pressing operation to manufacture. It's probably not that difficult to automate removing mis-pressed disks from the production line either.
I'd be more interested in seeing a comparison of people's caring about downloading copyrighted music before the RIAA started suing everyone and their uncle versus now. I bet people would have cared a bit more then (a bit, not entirely). More and more I think people are downloading music just to spite the RIAA and their band of thugs (am I the only one that imagines a group of dimwits running around muttering "hup! hup! hup! hup!" ala the FBI in South Park?). If they want to come up with a valuable sales loss figure to tell their management, why don't they calculate the amount of money lost by bullying their customers into never wanting to buy from them again? If they keep targeting college students, they are targeting a group that has a whole lifetime of potential CD buying ahead of them, and I know if they tried to sue me, i'd never buy another album again (I still do, but they haven't released more then two albums a year worth buying in the last five or more years, IMHO). I'm certainly not going to buy an entire album of crap if I like only one song (and usually marginally at that). I just wish there was more selection on iTunes Music Service so I could consider using that instead of "breaking the law" and commiting what is in their twisted little mind a felony. The fact is, even if there was never any Napster, or Kaaza, etc. I'd still be borrowing people's CDs to rip the one song I want off of it. They shouldn't blame the internet when they only have to blame themselves for being a poorly managed organization that causes their product to be overpriced and undesirable.
today is spelling optional day.
It's called capitalism. If you don't think the game is worth $50, don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, the price will come down. Evidently there are enough people buying the game at its current price for the seller to keep the price at $50.
That being said, I think CDs could be priced lower and the labels should have been severely penalized for price fixing. But if music sales are on the decline like the labels say, it may just be the public sending the message that they aren't willing to pay the given price for a CD. If the price is lowered to a "critical mass" (a la iTMS) CD sales will most likely increase significantly.
It's the ol' rule of supply and demand (with a little "is it worth my trouble to use a P2P?" thrown in).
***
Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
But the poll question actually was:
That is entirely different question. If I were polled, I would certainly say that I don't care whether the downloaded music is copyrighted. That is because all recorded music is copyrighted. Even the music that is authorized for free distribution is still copyrighted. I once downloaded some patriotic songs from the US Air Force marching band thinking that it would be in the public domain, but it even had a copyright notice.But if you ask me whether I care about violating copyright laws, I would say that I certainly do. I care enough that I have taken measures to avoid detection, to stay within legal safe harbors, to prepare arguments for the legality of my activities, and to lobby for changes in the copyright laws.
Copyright is largely an artificial construct, unlike theft
Legally, they're different. But, in both cases you're getting to use something for free that you otherwise would have had to pay for, so that the person(s) who produced the thing you're using can makea a living. That to me is stealing. Not the legalese definition of stealing for all of you wannabe slashdot lawyers out there, but because the situations are the same: I get something for nothing when I shouldn't be getting it for nothing.
Also, why isn't theft an artificial construct? Why not go back to the good old days when the only things you could "own" were those things that you could keep by force. Prohibitions against theft, and other property rights are every bit as much "artificial constructS" of societies that copyright laws are.
I think the copyright industry is going to make our lives miserable by trying to take away computers, but I think they'll eventually lose. It doesn't mean that people should hasten their demise by getting something for nothing illegally.
copyright doesn't really make sense in a world where things are easily and cheaply copyable; where the means of production and dissemination is in the hands of everyone.
Copyright makes sense because the means of "production" are not in the hands of everyone. Oh sure, given a piece of data that's already been slaved over, you can easily copy it, but I would hardly call that "production".
Production is where you start with a blank harddrive or tape or film and people sing or act or code or compose or whatever and these actions get recorded by machines and processed and fixed by other people until they look and/or sound good. At that point, "production" is done.
The "production" cost of making the actual physical copies is negligible, and that's really the only part of the "production" cycle that's in the hands of everyone, simply because most people are lazy and not very creative.
The hard part of "production" is what makes up most of the cost of the things you buy. And please, nobody make those snide little comments about how they "waste" money on adverts or other things you find stupid or objectionable.. If you think you can do a better job, do it and come back to me to prove me wrong. If you don't like what they're doing, then you always have the choice to not give them any money. At the same time, you can't just copy their stuff since you "wouldn't pay for it anyway" or "it's too expensive" or "they don't pay the artists enough" or "they engaged in price fixing" or whatever the little BS excuse to justify illegal filesharing is today. I've lost track.
Anyway, they probably are going to fall off a cliff, but I don't think people realize that they aren't going to get the same kind of quality they get now if they allow this to happen. And, although I deplore their tactics on the front of trying to take away computers,, it's not right to copy things illegally.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
I like the life + 90, and I think it is very reasonable.
How exactly? As for the plus bit the phrase "you can't take it with you when you go." sums things up nicely. Also what's so special about this kind of work that people should potentially still get paid for life?
Perhaps the post-life extent could be shorter, but 14 years... Tell your favorite author what you want to do to their work -- most authors don't get paid as well as musicians and other artists...
Book authors tend to be more able to hold on to their "intellectual property" than other creators. Though if even the best selling author in the history of publishing cannot keep hold of the copyrights on her characters things arn't that much better.
Sorry to be harsh, but "so what?"
I know a lot of people who used to call themselves "software developers". That was their job, then, suddenly, things changed and they were unable to make ends meet in that job. So they found a new job.
The way your industry works depends on copyright staying in its current form, but why should we care? Explain to me how this is different from buggy whip manufacturers complaining when their industry changed.
Copyright wasn't designed to be one-sided. It was a trade-off. For a limited time, you are protected, and once that time is up, the public benefits.
I have no problem with your being allowed to control something you make until your death. You can do that by not sharing it with anybody, or by writing your own NDA type contracts and showing it to a limited number of people. When you decide to release it to the public that's another matter.
The very fact that there are starving artists suggests that they'll keep producing their art even if it doesn't bring in money. There may be fewer artists making a lot of money if the power of copyright is hugely reduced, but who says that's a bad thing?
Maybe it's being "stolen" because the risk of doing so is low.
something needs to be done.
For example, increase the risk of "stealing" it.
If independent laels can sell CDs at an $11.99 list price, major labels should be able to compete.
They do compete. If the independent labels really were as good as you say, why don't the artists all sign up with them ? Maybe the major labels provide a more compelling service to the artist in terms of promotion, etc.
and taking their computer away
:). Looks like they have finally adopted a new business model. And lawyers figure prominently in it.
As well as well as the rest of their material goods and 2/3 of every paycheck for the remainder of their lives. Time to buy some record company stock
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The same people who got busted for price fixing on CDs are now claiming their profits are being stolen by those darned copyright theives! Of course stealing money through price fixing is not the same :p.. Their margin isn't down because the case forced them to lower their prices thereby lowering that margin. Of course they'll casually ignore the fact that the sales of cds have remained fairly constant but their profits are down.. MUST be due to those file sharers of course!
I dont remember who said it, but the RIAA (and its "member" labels) failed to innovate so they will litigate. Pretty sad.. its like SCO with IBM.. SCO failed with selling linux, IBM does well so we'll sue! I can see it now... Next on slashdot:
SCO becomes member of RIAA
RIAA buys SCO linux license and unix ip licenses
Prepare to see all SORTS of artists going even more starving. I'm an aspiring photojournalist. Guess what all the folks who made it tell me. If you're great, it takes 5 years to build an archive of shots that is going to be able to moderately support you and allow you to start paying off your debts. It's copyright that gives a photographer that ability. If 9 years later those images that I took go into the public domain, I will be forever working to maintain a barely-decent level of income.
Plenty of people work all the time to make a living. Many of them without a 14 year "buffer" to help them. Is there really that much money to be made selling photos of "old news"? Especially since newspapers and broadcasters tend to have their own extensive archives.
So now pollsters are conducting surveys in church? Blasphemy!
The neutrality of this sig is disputed.
Hey, now you're arguing the other end of why they should be shortened. Copyrights were designed to promote inovation. If there isn't significant progress made in 14 years, they don't deserve more money. You get 14 years worth of profits, then it goes to the community. That's what the original law had in mind. If you can't make your money back, and a profit, in 14 years, your idea sucks! Bill Gates is the richest man in the world because he's been keeping his stuff going far longer than the originally intended 14 years.
Karma Clown
I would tend to agree that the copyright period on certain works of art should be longer, especially if these "rights" are not sold off to the highest bidder. Perhaps copyright should simply be non-transferable, period. Perhaps it should only apply to the original artist/creator. I tend to agree that copyrights on media such as books and photographs could reasonably remain for the life of the creator. Any further just seems completely absurd however. Personally, I think an inverse relationship between copyright length and industry profitability make some sense. Artists that gain vast riches should have shorter copyrights than those that acquire less from the societal construct we call "copyright".
I believe that copyrights on music have been completely abused and the system as it exists is ridiculous. As with our absurd patent system, the copyrights on music are in need of some serious reform to tip the balance more in favor of the public.
Copyright violation is not theft in any sense. Copyrights are clearly an artificial construct to balance the needs of both artist and society. When it comes to music, we just need a bit of re-balancing.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
If *I* make it, I get to control it until my death. Period.
What you want is pretty much irrelevant. If copyrights were shortened there's nothing you can really do about it.
Personaly, I'd like to see a system where we have two kinds a of copyright, one that expires quickly, which prevents people from even sharing files, and another that lasts for decades, which prevents people from profiting of other people's work.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
like blacksmithing or something. Copyright is to advance the useful arts and sciences, not to pay you for photos you took 40 years ago. Just because economic conditions are fouled up against your favor doesn't make you any more entitled than Jimmy Factory Worker who takes photos in his spare time. Archive scouring is not the purpose of copyright.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
It seems that the best way to desribe our style of government is a Federal Republic
Wikipedia also has a long entry for Republic which helps explain the different flavors of Republican governments.
"The moment "pride" is lost, "freedom" is also lost." - Ramza.
Exactly. Dead tree publishers may not be making ridiculous profits like the RIAA is, but they're still making us pay more than their product is worth, largely due to the scarcity of the raw materials and the cost of distributing the finished product. They should start selling their books online for $5. They'd probably make more profit that way.
Any more good ideas, while you're being sarcastic? :o)
I see you are trying to combine open source developers and warez toting script kiddies into one group. Warez toting script kiddes will say "1nformationz zhould ve fr33! C0peer1z R dez suxxors!" Open source developers say copyright is a legitimate thing, but it is being abused at an absurd level.
Of course, your username says it all: WINDOWS TROLL.
You know he's insightfull ;)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
A)I don't think I'll get caught.
B)I don't even thinka bout it.
C)I am fighting the RIAA
D)All of the above.
E)Cowboy Neal told me to do it.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
The United States of America in 2003 A.D. is a representative democracy (a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercized by their elected agents under a free electoral system) but not a direct democracy as Athens had (no middlemen, all issues voted on directly by the minority of the population that was male, of age, free, and who knows what else).
Democracy also refers to "social equality" which in America is codified as "equal before the law" as opposed to equal in height, looks, age, assets, etc. which we strive for more and more as the centuries pass; but are argueably less democratic than the socialist democracies of Europe in "equality in fact" because of their redistributive laws (like our Social Security) but less democratic in "equal before the law" due to their still existing royal families.
Bumper sticker slogans do not do justice to the realities of modern governance.
This remained consistant even when they split up the respondents by sex, income, and race.
Right, because everyone expects women, the poor, and black people to be ok with stealing. Wrong! Taco you racist bastard.
With Mozart's Requiem I can possibly understand to some degree, because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the work--I'm sure the publisher did have to do a significant amount of arrangement to pull together the various pieces written by different people. But for other pieces where the original score is complete, there is absolutely no logical or ethical reason a publisher should have any IP rights to the performance. No, the publishers aren't in it for the fun of it, or for the betterment of society. They're in it for profit. That's why they sell scores, instead of giving them away. They perform a valuable service by recopying original manuscripts, extracting orchestra parts, and printing and distributing scores. None of this, in my opinion and that of many others, is entitled to copyright protection other than "don't photocopy this." In many other languages, French for example, "copyright" is rendered "right of the author". That's the [i]author[/i], not the author's typist or proofreader. If Bach, or Handel, or Brahms were still alive, then I would hope that they [i]would[/i] receive royalties from paid performances of their works. That's what the system's for! But giving royalties to those not involved in the artistic creation of the music (either its composition or its performance) strikes me, and many others, as wrong. Yes, this goes against what the law says. But the situation is the same as with other objections to copyright law: a large number of people believe the law is unjust, but cannot change it because the current political system favors business over individuals. (Keep in mind the chilling statistic that more Americans have used Kazaa than voted for Bush Junior.) So, having no other recourse, people lose respect for the law... which is a dangerous thing. When I buy the sheet music to a composition which is not itself protected by copyright, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want with the knowledge I gain from that music. (Copying it is another issue, of course.) If I discover a new, patentable invention using data obtained with (say) gas chromatography, I do not and should not have to share income from the patent with the inventor of the gas chromatograph. (And, yes, I realize that patents are different from copyrights. It's an example.) Interesting sidenote. In music history, the professor told the following story: The Church had a tradition concerning a 100-200-year-old piece (I forget which) that the score should never be released outside the church, so that no performance could occur without the Church's permission. Mozart, with his incredible memory, attended a church service at which the piece was performed, went home, and copied out the score. The professor's opinion, and that of everyone in the class, was that he had done a Good Deed for Music and for Humanity by making a beautiful piece of music available to everyone. Nowadays he'd be prosecuted. Music needs an equivalent to Project Gutenberg: downloadable, public-domain scores. There is no reason for public-domain information to cost more than the price of compilation and reproduction, which in today's society is essentially zero.
Author, Consumer, and Computer Owner Protection and Security Act (HR 2752), proposed jointly by John Conyers (D-Michigan) and Howard Berman (D-California), would impose criminal penalties of up to five years in prison for online copyright infringement. Additionally, it proposes an allocation of $15 million to the Department of Justice to enhance domestic and international enforcement of copyright laws.
The major finding is that two-thirds of all file traders in this age bracket are not concerned about violating copyright laws.
Hello Captain Obvious!
"As with those who download, those who take the next step and share files are also unlikely to express concern about the copyright of the files they share with others over the Internet. "
The report has an unfactual assumption that biases the report. It assumes all downloaded or uploaded files are illegally downloaded or uploaded; i.e. that there is a copywrite violation going on.
Nowhere is the understanding of myriad other possibilities.
"Seriously though, we live in a democracy "
Err, actually, we live in a republic:
Why is there always some idiot who spouts this crap!! (And get modded up no less!)
Not only do a lot of slashdot readers not live in a republic but the words republic and democracy are not incompatible with one another.
The USA has a presidency rather than a monarchy, that makes it a republic, the government is elected by the people that makes it a democracy (a representative democracy to be more precise). This is not hard to understand.
"Republic" and "democracy" are not alternatives to one another. A country can be both or neither or either one but not the other.
Iraq, pre-war, was a non-democratic republic.
The UK is a democratic monarchy.
Saudi Arabia is a non-democratic monarchy.
The USA is a democratic republic.
And Brannon & Braga will be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Check out the Mutopia Project for scores of classical music that are in the public domain.
I do agree that it is kind of wacky for prints of music to be copyrighted in the same way the music itself is, but it can't be helped with the screwed up system that is copyright unless we let congress know we wish for it to be reformed.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
While the report is unsigned, the organization identifies its researchers online as follows:
Amanda Lenhart
Research Specialist
Research Areas: children, teens, parents and the Internet, intellectual property issues, including music, the digital divide, education.
Amanda Lenhart joined Lee Rainie in August 1999 for the planning phases of the Pew Internet & American Life Project. Before joining what was then known as ResearchEngine, Amanda worked in the communications department of the Radio Television News Directors Association. Her other experiences since graduating from Amherst include working as the editorial coordinator of Civilization magazine and writing restaurant reviews for washingtonpost.com. When she's not in the office, Amanda can be found sculling on the Potomac River.
Mary Madden
Research Specialist
Research Areas: musicians and the Internet, intellectual property, online communities, online identity.
Mary has been with PIP since the spring of 2002. She holds a Master's degree in Communication, Culture and Technology from Georgetown University. Her interest in the digital music debate is fueled by the research she conducted at Georgetown and the experience she gained in music promotion and production while pursuing her undergraduate degree in English and Cultural Studies at the University of Florida.
These people do not understand software. One's big claim to fame is "writing restaurant reviews for washingtonpost.com" and the other basicly listened to music in college (resume interpretation 101).
We have XM radio. Digital radio transmitted via satellite.
Digital transmissions equal identical copy.
Create a radio PVR with a built-in CD burner. You can store a list of songs you've received for later permanent archiving.
How hard can this be? I'm sure the same concept could apply to radio wave radio signals.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
I disagree. I like the life + 90, and I think it is very reasonable.
I think being paid life + 90 years for the work I did yesterday would be reasonable too, but for some strange reason the people who pay my salary disagree. Go figure.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Contact staff members by calling (202) 296-0019.
= 3
Please direct all suggestions for improvements to the study to the staff that wrote it using the number provided above copied from the site itself
http://www.pewinternet.org/about/about.asp?page
thank you.
Actually, radio is not quite free. The RIAA got to that too.
If you play the radio in your shop above the volume of a whisper then you must pay royalties to the RIAA.
If you play the radio on your phone while someone is on hold, you must pay royalties to the RIAA.
I believe in modern copyright like I believe in 45 minute launches of weapons of mass destruction
"The Pew Charitable Trusts support nonprofit activities in the areas of culture, education, the environment, health and human services, public policy and religion. Based in Philadelphia, the Trusts make strategic investments to help organizations and citizens develop practical solutions to difficult problems. In 2000, with approximately $4.8 billion in assets, the Trusts granted over $235 million to 302 nonprofit organizations."
source? Google on you know what; this is from the horses mouth!
Pope Catholic, Bear S**ts in Woods...
If 9 years later those images that I took go into the public domain, I will be forever working to maintain a barely-decent level of income.
Man, I feel your pain. If I don't go out and work today I won't get paid next week either.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
If CD's sold for $5 per disk
I highly recommend buying used CDs at amazon.com. I recently bought an Everclear CD that I wanted just one some from for approximately $1 plus shipping/handling. I rarely buy anything new.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
I'm pretty sure that Radio Broadcasting is what has given consumers the idea that listening to music at a lessened quality (mp3 is "almost" cd quality, and FM radio is "just less than" cd quality) is a right, and one they get to enjoy every day. Few people are familiar with the way marketing works on a radio station, and that commercials and advertisers are actually paying the bills (read: RIAA royalty fees and FCC broadcast license fees and of course, electricity) that allow all of the music the station plays to be played. Most people change the station when a commercial comes on anyhow, which is the rough equivalent of loading up another song in the playlist. I really do honestly believe that a combination of radio broadcasting and listener ignorance is responsible for the feeling that copyright laws don't "matter."
... although if there were (or there were something like it) the listener might just be tempted to fire a couple of neurons and put it together that this widely broadcast "free to us" music is actually costing somebody money, so it really isn't wholly "free" and maybe shouldn't be taken and distributed so freely.
When we listen to the radio we aren't given a PSA that says "The songs played on this station are licensed by the RIAA under [insert name of contract/act/law here] and the next hour of music has been paid for by the advertisers [list of advertisers here]. Please remember that it's these advertisers that enable us to play all of today's hottest music; we can't play this stuff for free!"
The question that really remains to be answered is whether or not average people are indeed the copyright-ignoring file traders in question; with the reasoning that the average person only puts 2 and 2 together when they're told to do so, and they may just not figure out that [some] music isn't free.
Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
Nope, it's just that people want free shit.
Next...
"Sufferin' succotash."
Here's the thing about Win95 and WinXP. See, in the whole course of evolution for the Windows operating system, WindowsXP is "better". It's more advanced, has more features, more compatability, and generally a product that fits more in line with today's current technology.
For example, I wouldn't run Win95 on a brand new machine. Why? Because that operating system just cannot handle the memory, processor speed, or various other pieces of hardware properly. One would use WinXP (if one used windows at all).
Windows 95 is never going to be another revenue stream for Microsoft anymore, but they get to hold the copyright for... life + 90 (how long is the life of a company?). That means, in a century or so, Microsoft could come back and go "Oh, by the way, you're running Windows 95 on that ancient PC. You owe us dollars in back licensing fees" and do so under current copyright laws.
I just want to see projections on when items will start to go into public domain with current laws. Is anything at all entering public domain? It seems to me like it wouldn't.
Scientists steal other scientists ideas all the time, they're just required to state who they stole it from, read any scientific journal and you'll find pages of end notes detailing where some bit of information was originally taken from and that's it, no licensing the information, just a reference in the end notes. A musican on the other hand would need to pay out major cash to even borrow an element of another musicians work, remember what happened with the song "bittersweet symphony"?.
Do not confuse reproduction and distribution with actual publishing and promotion. They are two different concepts. While it is true that that any idiot that can pony up a few dollars each month can POTENTIALLY reach every individual with internet access, that does not cover the costs necessary to ACTUALLY get copy in front of people's faces (e.g., marketing) AND PAY for the costs of producing the work in the first place. The fact is that while there are billions of BLOGs out there, the overwhelming majority of Americans still get their news from other sources be it online in the form of CNN.com, TV, or News--it's all derived from but a couple original newsources and money is kicked up the chain. You can argue that it's luck. You can argue that said consumers are foolish. You can argue whatever you want, but at the end of the day, the content that consumers prefer and (ultimately) pay for DOES revolve around copyright.
If you really believe that "publishing" (in your simplistic sense of the word) is so simple these days, then why is it that there are so few authors that are actually doing just this, by going online, cutting out the middlemen, lowering costs, and what have you? There are probably hundreds or thousands of good authors that are currently languishing without publishing contracts. Why don't we see handfuls of authors producing quality work and living off their online publishing? [There is a world of difference between someone's musings on a blog and most published work] Whey don't we see the majority of popular works "published" in this fashion? I'll tell you why, because it fundamentally rests on copyright. The authors depend on publishers to promote their works, to find them shelfspace. The publishers, in turn, necessarily have to raise prices to cover their costs (to aggregate risk), which relies heavily on copyright.
The fact is that publishing has been quite cheap for decades--hardly at a point where only a few publishers can afford to enter the business. Neither the cost of the printing presses nor the cost of the material is the issue. Shelf space IS the driving force. Very few bookstores or retail chains (e.g., grocery stores) are going to put no-name publishers on their shelves because consumers are unlikely to buy and because they'll ultimately lose money on it. The situation is not so different today. Sure, the internet may have created the first venue for cheap musings and near-real time information, but for more substantial works (e.g., novels, reference materials, etc), the formula is still much the same as it has always been.
If anything COPYRIGHT is more relevent than it has ever been because it is EASIER to violate while its value has only grown (compare the # of volume and variety of books published today compared to 50, 100, 200 years ago). Violating copyright is more akin to short-circuiting than anything else...
"The major finding is that two-thirds of all file traders in this age bracket are not concerned about violating copyright laws"
No derr, this wouldn't be why they are still doing it would they?
Go ahead and get rid of the copywrite law. The only part of it that will concern many of the people who enjoy protection by the law is the assurance that (by law) their name will go on the work copyrighted.
Music should not be a commodity, it should be just like poetry and visual art: considered a high art. Making money from the creation of high art is just a bonus. I (attempt to) write poetry myself, with hopes of being able to make a living off of my writing someday. However, my primary concern (perhaps only concern) is that my name will remain attached to the works I produce. That part of the copyright law I support, and that part of the law can be reasonably followed. Having commercial control over the copyright is of no concern to me. (If I'm a starving artist, so be it. I write to write.)
If you really want to keep the copyright law as close as to how it is and still fix the situation with commercial abuse of the copyright, make it so the copyright cannot be sold. The artist can sell the work to individuals, but cannot sell the copyright of the work. This ensures that the artist will make money off of the work while limiting the ability to abuse it.
If you really want to change something, make the copyright last a short period of time (as has been mentioned). This forces the artist to compete with him/herself and create more works and better works.
There are plenty of ways to change the copyright law to make it work in today's society. The point right now is that it needs to be changed. People have to do what they have to do to get change to happen.
Let the RIAA exist. Any (beneficial) change to the copyright laws will render them harmless, and we can enjoy our music in peace.
...become a hit-man! : )
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Copyright is largely an artificial construct, unlike theft.
*Law* is an artificial construct. Read some Proudhon.
deus does not exist but if he does
Did you know that up until about 12 years ago, copying programs to/from the net for "free" was not considered an offense?
That's right. Because it was a "non-commercial" use. Commercial, until recently, was understood to mean "selling for money".
If I loan a friend my CD, and he/she copies it, it isn't a commercial use, no matter how monied interests want to define it that way.
SO excuse me if I ignore what is pretty clearly a perversion of copyright.
>Don't like a law? Protest, run for office, write your congressman.
That would only work in a democracy. Not in a plutocracy or corruptocracy or a corporatist state (=fascist), like most so-called`democratic' countries are, just like the USA is. Hey, the US `president' was NOT elected---so much for ``run for office''. Protestors are ignored or jailed (or killed)---so much for protests. `Your' congressman is not yours, but some corp or zaibatsu---so much for writing to him, he doesn't give a shit.
Get real, the only way to fight an *imposed* law is CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. And the only way to not to get laws imposed on you is DEMOCRACY.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
Well... there are 2 points about these :
- car MP3 players are still not common so, to listen to the songs in car, you'd need to put these on CD anyway.
- a computer in a livingroom is ugly... (even those expensive computers with special design), in comparison to HiFi (which has been created to integrate nicely).
And you can add the fact that it's also supporting the bands you really like...
>Keep in mind the chilling statistic that more Americans have used Kazaa than voted for Bush Junior
Interesting statistic, but what's your point? I'm not exactly sure what to be "chilled" about.
I don't think it's so much about price (though it's always a factor) as people's psychology: copyright doesn't really make sense in a world where things are easily and cheaply copyable; where the means of production and dissemination is in the hands of everyone.
No, I think it is the price. There are many people who purchase CD's because they are fans of the music, regardless if they can get the same thing for free from KaZaA. If the CD was worth $15.00-20.00 then people woudl buy it. If they don't like the music well enough to pay that then they burn it from a friend or download it or something. If the CD is more appropriately priced, then people will buy it.
--
Adobe's anti-counterfeiting softw
Which law? The original law created by the founders of the U.S.A, or the mangled version of the law that exists today?
If the law of the land instead said that meat-work is valuable and brain-work is worthless, you would be a poor factory worker in sweatshop economy.
He's not saying it is worthless, but he is saying that giving an author control of copyrights to a work as an incentive to create more works needs to be re-evaluated. I haven't come up with an altrernative method, but personally I would like information to spread more rapidly than it does now, with no restrictions. For "art", the value of this is doubtful, but for useful information such as works that teach people "how to" do something, it is easy to see the benefit to the country as a whole. For instance, I come up with a new algorithm that makes not only one application more efficient, but also a slew of other applications more efficient if the knowledge of it were spread. So, which is more beneficial, my putting artificial restrictions (monetary or otherwise ) on the spread ( copying ) of the algorithm, or letting it be copied freely to make applications more efficient as quickly as possible?
Add to that the fact that many musician complain about recording companies, that even if the manufacturing costs have dropped, the cost of music has increased (the cost of books has DROPPED).
This claim is often repeated on slashdot, but is it actually true ? I remember being in high-scool (1990), and I purchased cassette tapes for anywhere between $8 and $11. A CD would have cost a few dollars more (I think about 12-14), so I didn't buy CDs. Today, a CD is between $11 and $18. So I don't think the price in CDs has jumped substantially relative to the cost of living. As for books getting cheaper, when was the last time you tried to buy a text book ? I don't think this claim is correct either.
Where do you shop? I pay $22 on the average per CD.
And you can add to that the fact that many songs are unavailable at stores because the recording companies found that these were too old or that there is no interrest in these.
Whine, whine, whine. Go to a specialty music store, or buy from Amazon (very good range).
From my experience, many works are out of print and no one but the copyright holder has the ability to make them available, thanks to copyright laws. Yes, you can search used/specialty shops for the original, But what if you cannot find it. What if you can only find a copy of it on a file-sharing system because one of the few holders of the original media has chosen to share it? You forgot to handle that case.
Add to that the wories like protected-CD (well... these are not really CD as they don't conform to the standard), mandatory messages on DVD, Zone system on DVD, ... which dissappear when you've a copy... These are incentive to copy... and signs that there is some abuse of the market system...
I agree with you and the creator of the CD standard ( Panasonic ) also agrees with you. They are putting pressure on this companies to label their CD's appropriately ( i.e. impaired CD, non-compliant CD )but it hasn't stuck yet. The DVD region system is definitely an artificial price-fixing tool to sell the same product at different prices based on the local market, while preventing buyers to purchase item from outside of their market for the purpose of saving money. In this way, the seller makes more money and the buyer is stuck with a product that may not work if they relocate themselves to another market. Not to mention the fact that they might not be able to give it as a gift or trade to someone in another market ( region ).
Sorry if this is a little sloppy, the cost for making a post while pressed for time. Hopefully this port fleshes out this thread ( and one that is beneficial ).
I can't afford a sig!
the life+90 number only applies to individuals, not to corporations.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
bravo. hehehehe.
Thank you. That made my evening.
~Will
sig?
My understanding was that the poster was attacking the notion of copyright in general, and arguing that copyright is an outdated concept. I would argue that in the case of the original constitutional law, it is not outdated, and in case of the "mangled version", it is wrong-headed in places more than it is "outdated".
He's not saying it is worthless, but he is saying that giving an author control of copyrights to a work as an incentive to create more works needs to be re-evaluated.
I think if you don't allow the author to control distribution through EULAs or copyrights, you do end up devaluing brain work.
I haven't come up with an altrernative method, but personally I would like information to spread more rapidly than it does now, with no restrictions.
Well, that's the problem. You can't have it both ways. If you have "no restrictions", how are the creators of such works compensated ?
but for useful information such as works that teach people "how to" do something, it is easy to see the benefit to the country as a whole. For instance, I come up with a new algorithm that makes not only one application more efficient, but also a slew of other applications more efficient if the knowledge of it were spread.
You're discussing patents here. This is not the same as copyrights. I was specifically discussing copyrights. In principal, I'm not opposed to the idea of patents, but unfortunately, the current patent system is horribly botched.
Where do you shop? I pay $22 on the average per CD.
amazon.com, for example. Most of the CDs I buy, excluding those where the artist is deceased, are $15-$18. I'm talking about CD prices in the US.
From my experience, many works are out of print and no one but the copyright holder has the ability to make them available, thanks to copyright laws. Yes, you can search used/specialty shops for the original, But what if you cannot find it. What if you can only find a copy of it on a file-sharing system because one of the few holders of the original media has chosen to share it? You forgot to handle that case.
That's a corner case. I believe examples like this can be used to argue for copyright reform, but I don't think it makes a very convincing case for abolishing copyright.
>But what if you cannot find it.
Then you are SOL.
>What if you can only find a copy of it on a file-sharing system because one of the few holders of the original media has chosen to share it?
Then you download it.
What's the problem?
Show some more respect for America's "formers," unless you'd rather live somewhere else.
Communist.
consistant? mother fucker... it's spelt !consistent!
.... stupid stupid fucks... stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid... i fuckin hate slashdot you stupid mother fucks...
Goddamn mother fuckers can't fucking spell
Not even close to true. DISNEY. Not WALT Disney, but DISNEY - the corporation. Not sure if it's Disney, inc., or whatever, but you get the idea. Who owns the rights to Lion King? Disney. And every iteration of Mickey, etc.
If you ask a selection of criminals whether they have a problem, the answer will be, in about 2/3 of cases, they won't have a problem.
i'm not trying to troll, i'm just failing to see the surprise here
gcc is more than 14 years old.
... the file "COPYING" is 12 years old.
The most recent release of gnu m4 is 8.5 years old.
I also use the Gnu "COPYING" file in my own work. The Gnu "COPYING" file is copyright 1991 and is not subject to the GPL (it may be copied verbatim, but modifications are forbidden). So
gzip 1.2.4 will be 10 years old this month.
So the FSF owns copyrights on many useful software packages and licenses which are more than 7 years old. I like to have 100% headroom when laying down something as concrete as a law, so I'd like a copyright term of at least 28 years.
Source
"In the United States, Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 retroactively extended the duration of copyright from the life of author plus fifty years to the life of the author plus seventy years, in the case of individual works, and from seventy-five years to ninety-five years in the case of works of corporate authorship and works first published before January 1, 1978. "
The corporate copyright times out after 95 years. There is no "life+90" for companies. Also to note, the actual term for individuals is life+70, not 90 as was previously stated by a parent poster.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
>We record all of our performances for our own
>use, but can't sell--or even distribute for free-
>-most of them, because of copyright laws.
You say you "can't" but, the truth is, you "won't."
Your group is the ideal sort to be on the front of the wave of civil disobedience. A university chorus performing only works that most people would consider classic.
But, I suppose your University is too dependent on Federal money, and is too interested in keeping the status quo.
I don't blame your group for playing it safe -- but if even YOU have already given up, the war is over and tyranny won.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
You and yur ilk frnakly get boring and tiresome.
Main Entry: democracy
Pronunciation: di-'ma-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges
And just to make sure you get the point, from above:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections".
Idiot.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"Well, lets see, RIAA sets up a cartel, overcharges for CDs (and still does), gets convicted for it"
It's a sad world when you can be prosecuted for setting a price for something that someone thinks is too high. The basic problem is that people have a lack of respect for other people's property. Your explanantion is like when people used complex geometry to explain how the stars revolved around the earth, completely missing the obvious explanantion.
Vote for Pedro
Copyright is not intended to protect a business model.
Is MS wants you to buy WXP that should have absolutely no bearing in how a copyright claim regarding W95 is assesed.
Copyrights are excatly that, the definition of who has roghts to copy something legally. It has absolutely nothing to do about who could be "collateral damage" once a given right to copy is exercised.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It is only fair that you are able to enjoy the fruits of your hard work, but once you are a gonner (touch wood, may that be in the very distant future) frankly you can't enjoy those fruits anymore.
It is more natural to wish that your close relatives benefit from those efforts, but in most you can't stretch that to more than 50 years.
After 90 yaers we are not talking anymore about beneffiting the creator or its closest relatives, but a group of parasite whose only merit is to be liucky bastards that happen to inherit (and now more often than not, boughts) the copyrights.
Society is not benefitting, the creator and his losest relatives are not benefitting, the only ones benefitting are the lwayers and the big media corporations that little by little are claiming ownership of any creative work produced.
The 14 year term is too short perhaps, but the 90 year term is an insult and frnakly I can't see any reason why this can be considered sane.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I will run now to my parents' and grandma's to uninstall that useless, time wasteful Linux. Man, after 3 years using it they have not complained, but thanks to /. wisdom now I know what a pain I have been inflicting on them. Man, I deserve to be punished for that. I am sure they will praise me for taking them back to the Windows eXPerience. Oh yea, they can't afford the 2 yearly upgrade cycle and were fed up with crashes and viruses, nevermond. it is for their own good.
I will not talk about my intrinsic masochism, I have been using Linux since 1995 as desktop OS to write documents, email, web browsing, graphics editing, programming. My 100US$/year salaried time should not be wasted using Linux in the desktop.
Oh shit! My company is rolling out Linux desktops next year.
I should stop them now!
Foooools!
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
There is no such thing as copyrights on a character. That is unadulterated crap (yes, I know it is not your fault). Of course attempts have been made to create such a right by cases like the "sequel" to Gone with the Wind. It is yet another example of why there is such contempt for copyright law.
Anyway, as for your Win95 example, you are hurting their business
A good business model is to do things that people like. I'd like to use win95( just for word processing, say) rather than XP. since only non-availability of 95 forces me to by XP, MS tries to make win 95 unavailable. this is more towards immoral, though legal.
Tell your favorite author what you want to do to their work
Many probably wouldn't care. In fact, a number of authors already offer their copyrighted works free to the public here, including some not-too insignificant ones (Larry Niven, Mercedes Lackey).
The way print publishing of novels work is this. When a publisher agrees to print your work, what you are agreeing on (apart from payment) is the print run. You agree on a number of copies of your book they will print off and sell. If your book sells well, they well run off more copies, according to your agreement. The sad fact is, many works do not ever sell well enough to make it past that first print run. Money from that run on average dries up after about 6 months. Trust me, most of these authors couldn't give a stuff your getting their work free after 14 years; it'll have been out of print for 13.5 years by then.
Of course, the most popular authors' books will outlast this 14 year time frame. And they will miss out on some profit. But, quite simply, that's too bad. Copyright was not designed for a creator too squeeze every penny out of their creation. It was designed to allow them to make a decent living out of writing. If the writers of books that have a staying power of greater than 14 years cannot make decent money out of them, they sure as hell should fire their agent.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Music should be made because an artist believes something passionately and wants to express him or her self. It dosn't cost a lot to do this with current technology, so their is no longer any need for large market driven publicity companies (music companies).
consider the possibility that Music changes peoples opinions and is often very political in nature(madonna, dixie chicks, Niel Young). Do we really want a society where the music industry filters the political and social commentaries of our most gifted artist's based on their compatibility with making a quick profit and achieving their business objectives?
I believe the record industry is parasitic and stunting the development of new musicians.
True, but only to a certain extent. For example, I would really like for Ford to give me a free car -- but I think we can agree that if Ford gave out free cars, it would be bad for business.
Business is about a fine balance between making a profit and keeping the customers happy.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Hypothetical:
Its been 15 years (or 14years and a day) and Major Movie Studio A decides to turn your book into a movie. Since your copyright is expired, they opt not to pay you the millions you would have otherwise received. Sure, you made a comfortable living out of it, but thats all you made, and now someone else is going to make millions off of *your creation* and give you nothing.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
I would share music because it was much easier to grab a dozen mp3's from AudioGalaxy whenever I heard of an artist which might have been my flavour -- giving them a listen, and if it was any good, buying the album.
So I care a great deal about copyright, but was still trading lots of tunes with good conscience.
Call me a hypocrite, but I bought much more music when I had access to AudioGalaxy then today, where I do not trade music, and cannot find any inspiration in the stuff the record labels try to make available through public channels.
Yeah, okay. That is kinda cute.
-FL
I must have missed the memo about the change-over from being a repbulic.
I'd like to see a study done on the population in general. When we see that 2/3 of the country has no concern over copyright violations, maybe we can get some changes in the laws, or at least some candidates to lie to us and promise them.
When more people break the law (so to speak) than voted for the head of the government that makes the laws, one wonders about the health of American democracy...
Err, maybe you should have looked up democracy too:
You see, in our democracy, while we have representatives to take care of the bulk of issues, we still have free elections where we all vote on propositions, measures and those representatives.-T
Its exactly the same as what happens today. The only thing different is the time scale. A lot of things are adapted to screen or stage just after copyright expires. The adapters get money, the original creator doesn't.
If your work was good enough to warrant an adaptation, you should have made a decent amount of money of it in the first 14 years of copyright. Copyright was never intended to give the creator of a work the right to every cent ever generated from their work.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
- Matmatah : l'apologie and Lambe An Dro. (the second one wqas an hit for several month)
...
- billy ze Kick : Mangez moi
- O fortuna remix
these are 3 examples that come in mind... but I'm sure that with some research more are to be found...
Some songs are critics on how things are going in a country. some subjects are very sensible because they are political controversy in the country... For example, mariage between homosexuals, light drugs (mostly Cannabis which is legal in some European countries, tolerated in other or forbidden in other), subjects like international politics (remind the controversy about Gulf War ?),
And the most successful the song is, the more it makes the politicians unhappy... For example, Lambe An dro (which is now forbidden to be sold/on air in France) had big success and was to be heard everywhere...
I don't know if it has been banned, but the "American Life" of Madonna is quite critical about America and it's habit to act as world's police...
And you also have the censorship for other reasons... For example, some video clips who get banned like one of the versions of Relax (Frankie goes to Holliwood).