We need more legitimate copyright dependent artists (let's not argue artistic ability on this one) to hop onboard the bandwagon if anything's ever going to be changed about the copyright system. Good for Card.
Re:About time
by
XeresRazor
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, I want the copyright laws changed back to the way they were before the 100 year lifetimes and worst of all, corporations being able to own the copyright to a creative work. I'm all for a corporation being able to own a patent but copyrights should belong to the artists that create the work, never to the company that distributes it. If the corporations couldn't own the copyright the artists would be able to distribute the music any way they want, and in multiple ways (exclusivity contracts not withstanding). A given artist could distribute their music through a record company (who would take a percentage of the income to cover production costs and overhead and a small profit), and at the same time could distribute some or all of their tracks via the internet, or a service like mp3.com, the point being the artist would maintain control, someone wants to use their song in a movie? Fine, they license it from the musician who takes the whol cut from the film company instead of the record company who's put no effort into it taking a large chunk. I also think the record studios charging so much for production costs is ludicrous as well. I have a feeling (I'll have to do some research to be sure) that a decent production studio could be setup on open source software and mostly commodity hardware for about the same if not less than the record labels charge to record an album in their studios. (I'll admit some of the hardware might be a bit spendy, mics, mixing boards etc, which is why people set up a studio and rent out time, still cheaper than what the recording studios charge I'm sure).
I've finally figured it out. It's rather simple, isn't it?
We don't NEED publishers, record labels and their various executives anymore, do we? Self-publishing and self-recording is now simple and cheap to do. Digital downloading and print-on-demand have made it a snap.
So when you have the critical mass of artists realize this, and refuse to play the game any more, this whole problem is going to go away.
The CD isn't needed any longer, and print-on-demand publishers seem to do fine without requiring a large piece of the action.
The only people left crying in their Smirnoffs will be the industry crooks represented by RIAA et al.
-- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Well, that settles it then
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Funny
Now that we've got the opinion of a semi-famous author of the written word on the sharing of music files, that should pretty much close the discussion right there.
Now if we could only get Gary Coleman's take on this whole SCO thing...
Re:Well, that settles it then
by
DrEldarion
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
While I can see your point, it's a lot more helpful than you'd think. ANY famous person is helpful to the cause, whether they're in the music industry or not.
Imagine if the cast of Friends spoke out against the RIAA - how many previously-uninformed people do you think would look into it more and take a stand?
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Article is +5 Insightful
by
herko_cl
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Having actually RTFA, I think his take on the problem is quite good. It's not like we haven't read this on Slashdot a thousand times before, but the real deal is that it's a known, mainstream author that's publishing this kind of thing.
"In other words, the people complaining about all the internet "thieves" are, by any reasonable measure, rapacious profiteers who have been parasitically sucking the blood out of copyrights on other people's work.
And I say this with the best will in the world. In fact, these companies have expenses. There are salaries to pay. Some of the salaries are earned. ".
Maybe you pirate one of his e-books and you like it enough to buy the print version for the "feel."
Maybe you don't buy that one in print, but buy others either in paper or electronically because you like his writing.
Or maybe you decide he sucks as an author and never read anything of his again.
In any of these cases, what has he lost? Nothing. You weren't going to plop down $7 for his paperback anyhow.
The only way he loses is if you decide he is a great author, so you pirate all his books.
interesting about this whole issue
by
yajacuk
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
What I find interesting about this whole issue with mp3's and the RIAA is that for years now, the RIAA and it's affiliates have contributed to the destruction of the morals in the US. By selling music that teach nothing more then violence, indiscriminate sex, and foul language. Now they come after their very consumers and ask them about their morals, amazing. When they were talking about child porn being found on Kazza, I wondered if they ever bothered to look at the Britney Spears video clips they were putting out.
Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true:
by
__aagmrb7289
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This is true. Read the rest - it is the fact that you keep a copy of the music while others also have a copy that violates the copyright. That's why it is "copy" right. Anyway, handing the CD over means you don't have it, right?
Not just a good author...
by
Xenius
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
...also a reasonably intelligent guy, unlike the Record execs.
"The record companies swear that it's making a serious inroad on sales, and they can prove it. How? By showing that their sales are way down in the past few years."
First off, anyone whose taken any intro psych class knows that the RIAA's data is bull. Hell, even those who haven't know it. All they are showing is correlational data. Whoopdie doo, cd sales are down while "piracy" is up. Watch me publish correlational data that shows quality of music is down and sales of cds are down. They haven't proven jack.
"It couldn't possibly be because (a) most of us have already replaced all our old vinyl and cassettes, so all that windfall money is no longer flowing in, or (b) because the record companies have made some really lousy decisions as they tried to guess what we consumers would want to buy."
Because Mr Card is publishing an article that will probably be viewed by many, he had to censor himself. What b) really means is that big record companies are trying to force-feed crap to the masses. How many boy-bands do we really need? How many no-talent implant laden morons do we really need singing "I'm not that innocent"?
The RIAA isn't a publisher, nor are they an editor, etc. They are a consortium of individual companies that have formed to protect their industry's "interests". If you want to restate this as something the companies themselves do, fine - I don't have enough information to argue. But please, this does NOT describe the RIAA.
Re:Research
by
Decameron81
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I don't know about "people" but I can surely tell you why I use kazaa.
The problem is I'm not rich. I can't spend all that money on CDs. If I were to spend $15 each time I like a new song I would be quite poor by now. I DO buy CDs, just not as often as I would like to listen to the music I download. And this wasn't any different before napster, because to be honest, I didn't care about music before it. I never cared too much about listening to the radio or watching MTV, but I do care now about downloading random songs from the Internet to listen to them.
The big music companies are just being silly. They should be offering online services with very low prices so that people can download the music they want, and they would get the money the desire so much. That, together with a simple and secure system for people to pay for the service, and I will be glad to switch to it.
And they should stop claiming I am causing a loss in profit, because I simply don't have all the money they want from me.
Decameron
-- diegoT
Re:Wait a second... I didn't think this was true:
by
cpt+kangarooski
·
· Score: 5, Informative
CDs are a terrible example. I'll get into why in a minute. For now, let's use books.
Yes, if you got together with others and each bought different books and lent them to one another, you would not violate copyright laws. Let's look at precisely why this is so.
17 USC 106 states in short that only the copyright holder may distribute copies of his copyrighted work. This explicitly includes lending.
17 USC 501 tells us that to violate any of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, such as those in 106 is to infringe.
Fortunately, you're saved by 17 USC 109, which carves out an exception to the broad 106 right to distribute, and permits people who lawfully acquire a copy of a work to resell, or lend it out as they see fit. Because 106 as modified by 109 no longer makes this activity exclusive to the copyright holder, it's not an infringement under 501.
So you can lend books. You can lend any copyrighted matter. At least, as long as it falls under 109!
Unfortunately, two special interest groups had strong enough lobbies to get exempted from 109. The music industry, and the software industry. The exemptions can be found in 109(b)(1)(A). (the general first sale provision itself is 109(a))
There is NO FIRST SALE RIGHT FOR SOUND RECORDINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE insofar as 1) this only pertains to rental, lease or lending -- you can still sell this stuff used if you lawfully acquired it, 2) this only pertains to sound recordings, or computer software that is not embodied in hardware, or that is not intended for use on a limited purpose computer for game playing (i.e. console games), 3) there are some exceptions for libraries with regards to this, but most of us are not a real library.
So you actually would be infringing copyrights to lend a CD to a friend, provided that a court construes "lending" in the statute to be the same kind of lending, which on the face of it, seems to be inescapable.
Fortunately, if it's just between friends, you're unlikely to get _caught_, and if you're not caught, do you really care if it's illegal?
Now, you could further claim that lending it to a friend is a fair use, under 17 USC 107, but that requires an analysis of the SPECIFIC FACTS under the fair use test, a form of which is given in the section. Note that ALL PURPORTED FAIR USES MUST BE ANALYZED, NO EXCEPTIONS. The examples given in 107 aren't broad exceptions, they're examples of the kinds of uses Congress _imagined_ would probably suffice. News reporting has been held unfair before, for example, so don't take anything for granted.
So this is nonprofit (good), with non-factual works (bad), distributing the entire work (bad), with the effect on the market of making a sale less likely to the person who borrowed it since he can just borrow it (and perhaps make an unactionable infringement per 17 USC 1008 IF HE COMPLIES WITH THE STATUTE FULLY AS DEFINED IN 17 USC 1001 which no one ever reads) and not have to pay to enjoy it. OTOH it's rather de minimis since the lending circle is quite small, presumably.
I think it would be fair, but it's actually a borderline case given how the test works.
That's why the example using CDs is not very good.
On the whole, it pays to look through the copyright statute (17 USC) rather than listen to what a lot of the/. crowd has to say.
-- --
This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Thomas Babington Macaulay explained it in 1841
by
Sphere1952
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
"I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
--
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Re:Research
by
Decameron81
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
You miss the point. I download songs to try and find stuff that is worth a purchase. To be honest I don't care if you consider that like a theft, but that's the way I decide what songs are worth my bucks.
I would also like to point out a few points:
1 - The fact that I get or not the song from the internet is irrelevant. I am not stealing since I am not depriving someone from stuff he has, nor profits he could make. How can someone steal bits? Even those are just copied into my box!
2 - To prove me that I am doing something wrong you would have to show me how I am hurting somebody. I'm not reselling the music I download, nor even uploading it online... just downloading. A theft to me is what I explained on point 1.
3 - I am actually helping the corps make some better publicity of their songs by actually downloading what I find and buying those CDs I trully like. Otherwise they would be loosing a profit. So to put that in their words, I would be committing a crime if I didn't do so (hehehe).
Yeah isn't it funny how all of the "great" Disney movies were nothing more than remakes of old stories, legends, etc that are in the public domain, and yet they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent their own works from ever going into the public domain?
But thats a whole nother' thread...
Anyways, I'm sure one could easily argue that sometimes people benafit from pirating. I'm sure if college kids didn't rampantly pirate MS Office and Windows, Microsoft wouldn't have the market share that it currently does, and these same kids wouldn't be "locked" into Office and other such software as adults.
Heck, in college I had a cracked version of Warcraft II that I played all the time. I loved that game so much what did I do later on? I bought StarCraft and WarCraft III.
Slashdot Mirror
We need more legitimate copyright dependent artists (let's not argue artistic ability on this one) to hop onboard the bandwagon if anything's ever going to be changed about the copyright system. Good for Card.
Now that we've got the opinion of a semi-famous author of the written word on the sharing of music files, that should pretty much close the discussion right there.
Now if we could only get Gary Coleman's take on this whole SCO thing...
Having actually RTFA, I think his take on the problem is quite good. It's not like we haven't read this on Slashdot a thousand times before, but the real deal is that it's a known, mainstream author that's publishing this kind of thing.
"In other words, the people complaining about all the internet "thieves" are, by any reasonable measure, rapacious profiteers who have been parasitically sucking the blood out of copyrights on other people's work. And I say this with the best will in the world. In fact, these companies have expenses. There are salaries to pay. Some of the salaries are earned. ".
I like the way he puts it <grin>
No
Maybe you pirate one of his e-books and you like it enough to buy the print version for the "feel."
Maybe you don't buy that one in print, but buy others either in paper or electronically because you like his writing.
Or maybe you decide he sucks as an author and never read anything of his again.
In any of these cases, what has he lost? Nothing. You weren't going to plop down $7 for his paperback anyhow.
The only way he loses is if you decide he is a great author, so you pirate all his books.
What I find interesting about this whole issue with mp3's and the RIAA is that for years now, the RIAA and it's affiliates have contributed to the destruction of the morals in the US. By selling music that teach nothing more then violence, indiscriminate sex, and foul language. Now they come after their very consumers and ask them about their morals, amazing.
When they were talking about child porn being found on Kazza, I wondered if they ever bothered to look at the Britney Spears video clips they were putting out.
This is true. Read the rest - it is the fact that you keep a copy of the music while others also have a copy that violates the copyright. That's why it is "copy" right. Anyway, handing the CD over means you don't have it, right?
...also a reasonably intelligent guy, unlike the Record execs.
"The record companies swear that it's making a serious inroad on sales, and they can prove it. How? By showing that their sales are way down in the past few years."
First off, anyone whose taken any intro psych class knows that the RIAA's data is bull. Hell, even those who haven't know it. All they are showing is correlational data. Whoopdie doo, cd sales are down while "piracy" is up. Watch me publish correlational data that shows quality of music is down and sales of cds are down. They haven't proven jack.
"It couldn't possibly be because (a) most of us have already replaced all our old vinyl and cassettes, so all that windfall money is no longer flowing in, or (b) because the record companies have made some really lousy decisions as they tried to guess what we consumers would want to buy."
Because Mr Card is publishing an article that will probably be viewed by many, he had to censor himself. What b) really means is that big record companies are trying to force-feed crap to the masses. How many boy-bands do we really need? How many no-talent implant laden morons do we really need singing "I'm not that innocent"?
- Xenius
The RIAA isn't a publisher, nor are they an editor, etc. They are a consortium of individual companies that have formed to protect their industry's "interests". If you want to restate this as something the companies themselves do, fine - I don't have enough information to argue. But please, this does NOT describe the RIAA.
I don't know about "people" but I can surely tell you why I use kazaa.
The problem is I'm not rich. I can't spend all that money on CDs. If I were to spend $15 each time I like a new song I would be quite poor by now. I DO buy CDs, just not as often as I would like to listen to the music I download. And this wasn't any different before napster, because to be honest, I didn't care about music before it. I never cared too much about listening to the radio or watching MTV, but I do care now about downloading random songs from the Internet to listen to them.
The big music companies are just being silly. They should be offering online services with very low prices so that people can download the music they want, and they would get the money the desire so much. That, together with a simple and secure system for people to pay for the service, and I will be glad to switch to it.
And they should stop claiming I am causing a loss in profit, because I simply don't have all the money they want from me.
Decameron
diegoT
CDs are a terrible example. I'll get into why in a minute. For now, let's use books.
/. crowd has to say.
Yes, if you got together with others and each bought different books and lent them to one another, you would not violate copyright laws. Let's look at precisely why this is so.
17 USC 106 states in short that only the copyright holder may distribute copies of his copyrighted work. This explicitly includes lending.
17 USC 501 tells us that to violate any of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder, such as those in 106 is to infringe.
Fortunately, you're saved by 17 USC 109, which carves out an exception to the broad 106 right to distribute, and permits people who lawfully acquire a copy of a work to resell, or lend it out as they see fit. Because 106 as modified by 109 no longer makes this activity exclusive to the copyright holder, it's not an infringement under 501.
So you can lend books. You can lend any copyrighted matter. At least, as long as it falls under 109!
Unfortunately, two special interest groups had strong enough lobbies to get exempted from 109. The music industry, and the software industry. The exemptions can be found in 109(b)(1)(A). (the general first sale provision itself is 109(a))
There is NO FIRST SALE RIGHT FOR SOUND RECORDINGS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE insofar as 1) this only pertains to rental, lease or lending -- you can still sell this stuff used if you lawfully acquired it, 2) this only pertains to sound recordings, or computer software that is not embodied in hardware, or that is not intended for use on a limited purpose computer for game playing (i.e. console games), 3) there are some exceptions for libraries with regards to this, but most of us are not a real library.
So you actually would be infringing copyrights to lend a CD to a friend, provided that a court construes "lending" in the statute to be the same kind of lending, which on the face of it, seems to be inescapable.
Fortunately, if it's just between friends, you're unlikely to get _caught_, and if you're not caught, do you really care if it's illegal?
Now, you could further claim that lending it to a friend is a fair use, under 17 USC 107, but that requires an analysis of the SPECIFIC FACTS under the fair use test, a form of which is given in the section. Note that ALL PURPORTED FAIR USES MUST BE ANALYZED, NO EXCEPTIONS. The examples given in 107 aren't broad exceptions, they're examples of the kinds of uses Congress _imagined_ would probably suffice. News reporting has been held unfair before, for example, so don't take anything for granted.
So this is nonprofit (good), with non-factual works (bad), distributing the entire work (bad), with the effect on the market of making a sale less likely to the person who borrowed it since he can just borrow it (and perhaps make an unactionable infringement per 17 USC 1008 IF HE COMPLIES WITH THE STATUTE FULLY AS DEFINED IN 17 USC 1001 which no one ever reads) and not have to pay to enjoy it. OTOH it's rather de minimis since the lending circle is quite small, presumably.
I think it would be fair, but it's actually a borderline case given how the test works.
That's why the example using CDs is not very good.
On the whole, it pays to look through the copyright statute (17 USC) rather than listen to what a lot of the
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
A SPEECH DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE 5TH OF FEBRUARY 1841
"I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living."
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
You miss the point. I download songs to try and find stuff that is worth a purchase. To be honest I don't care if you consider that like a theft, but that's the way I decide what songs are worth my bucks.
I would also like to point out a few points:
1 - The fact that I get or not the song from the internet is irrelevant. I am not stealing since I am not depriving someone from stuff he has, nor profits he could make. How can someone steal bits? Even those are just copied into my box!
2 - To prove me that I am doing something wrong you would have to show me how I am hurting somebody. I'm not reselling the music I download, nor even uploading it online... just downloading. A theft to me is what I explained on point 1.
3 - I am actually helping the corps make some better publicity of their songs by actually downloading what I find and buying those CDs I trully like. Otherwise they would be loosing a profit. So to put that in their words, I would be committing a crime if I didn't do so (hehehe).
Just think about it,
Decameron
diegoT
Yeah isn't it funny how all of the "great" Disney movies were nothing more than remakes of old stories, legends, etc that are in the public domain, and yet they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent their own works from ever going into the public domain?
But thats a whole nother' thread...
Anyways, I'm sure one could easily argue that sometimes people benafit from pirating. I'm sure if college kids didn't rampantly pirate MS Office and Windows, Microsoft wouldn't have the market share that it currently does, and these same kids wouldn't be "locked" into Office and other such software as adults.
Heck, in college I had a cracked version of Warcraft II that I played all the time. I loved that game so much what did I do later on? I bought StarCraft and WarCraft III.