Slashdot Mirror
P2P and P2P Links Ruled Legal In Spain
Nieriko writes After three years of arduous litigation, Jesus Guerra Calderon, owner of both a small bar and the P2P link webpage 'elrincondejesus.com' has beaten the SGAE (something like the Spanish version of the RIAA). The historic ruling states not only the legality of link webpages, but also the legality of P2P file-sharing networks. Quoting the judge: 'P2P Networks as mere data transmision networks between individual internet users, do not breach any rights protected by the Intellectual Property Law.' Downloading a file (from a P2P network) for private use is perfectly legal as long as there is no lucrative or collective use of the downloaded copy."
I think my headline is a lot better.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
It would be nice if something like this happened here in America. As it stands now, it seems like Comcast is going to get to mold the internet as they see fit.
The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
Spain needs to be liberated from those evil pirates. And aren't they run by a socialist (read: Communist) government, anyways?
And if Obama won't do it, then he's just a weak socalist loving communist out to destroy the American way
Je ne parle pas francais.
I was going to write a long reply but realized I won't have time before my plane leaves for Spain.. see you guys!
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I think that a system built on this principal can work in theory, but it requires individuals to be responsible for their actions and probably a rewriting of copyright law. As far as I'm concerned the major corporate media can crash and burn.
The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
I hardly think digital transmission of data destroys anything.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I think in Spain they realized just how much the corporate superstructure of the media industry contributes to civilized society: Nothing.
Art and entertainment have value. Paying suits huge amounts to "monetize" art is not only inefficient from the point of view of the economy as a whole (although it is lucrative to them) but undermines the art itself. These people actually end up eliminating the incentive for artists to practice art for art's sake, and replace it with a "make art that sells" incentive. The result is that we get art that does nothing more than appeals to populism, from artists who are only concerned with that agenda.
Exploration of niche areas of morality and challenging flaws in the social order are not serving to that agenda. Thus, we won't get art in the vein of James Joyce's writing, or Mozart's composition, or Shakespeare's plays. Instead, we get the trash that is modern music and cinema.
Thank you Spain, for moving to destroy the stranglehold that corporate interests have on the artistic output of society. Next on the agenda: kill all the fucking lawyers.
I hate printers.
In Hungary, downloading is legal, but uploading not. So, P2P is in a grey area. However, there is a levy on all recordable media, even on pendrives and memory cards. So, clueful hungarians buy their recordable media from Slovakia where there is no such levy.
Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer. - Ludwig von Mises
Oh FFS! We are in a global war on terror, and those crazy Spaniards pull something like this? It is Thursday morning here in Europe, by Monday all of Spain's society will have collapsed and we will have another Iraq, right on our doorstep. Tuesday, tops.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Heres is a poorly idea of the spanish system: ..think the italian president, but seems a no-factor
- you are allowed to make copys of the music you own. Call it backups
- wen you buy a HD, a USB pendrive, a printer, a escaner, etc.. you pay something like a tax. It could be $3 for a $50 multimedia thingie. Its supposed that you are paying with this tax, the money lost by music creators for making this copy.
- totally unrelated, but you can also download music, is not illegal, yet. That can change, but don't get in love with it.
- the govern tell people with ads campaings that downloading music is illegal. and is not true. So some money of our taxes is directed to help a campaing to propagate the ideas of our local MAFIAA.
- the govern is in bed with the people that want to fight piracy. Mostly the POP music industry, and the movie industry... the movie industry is moslty pseudo-intelectual fagots that get money from the govern to make pseudo-intelectual movies no one want to watch other than some old people.
- there are some rich people that own some medias,
- the big ISP's fight any anti-p2p thing, but are of course salivating with the idea of destroying net neutrality. So are your friend now, but can change the idea on the future and backstab the users. Data retention and big fat routers and such stuff cost money, anyway
Is not a good system, since even Bar's have to pay for having a TV (a TV can be used to ear music)... everyone is getting screwed. But Is probably a better system than the USA one, where you commits something illegal, if you download stuff. And maybe slighty better than UK, where you have to pay for owning TV machines.
-Woof woof woof!
That really happened, but...
That's the law in Spain, up to now. It has always been. If you aren't profiting by copyright infringement (other than getting the copied thing, that is), then you are in the clear. In any case the current (left leaning) government has drafted a new law that makes illegal all that the SGAE wants to be illegal .Well, not all, they would like individual users to be punishable too, and the government said no thanks; and they wanted the webs to be closed without judicial intervention, and the government initially complied but then changed it to need judicial intervention, but with the new law judges should put them down, anyway). So from now on (I'm not sure about if it's fully operative now but should be soon) it should be fairly easy to put down a "links" site. At least when it's hosted in Spain.
Anyway the situation in Spain is, I think, not too bad. Individual users are protected if they just download things for themselves or others, or even if they make a thousand photocopies of a book and give them away, as long as they get no profit from it. But that will surely change in the future too. When two groups fight for something, and one (the SGAE) has a clear financial objective, and the other (the file sharers) a vague convenience one, the first group will in the end prevail, against all reason, logic or fairness.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
It's called social rebellion, coming from an anarchist extra lobe in spaniards' hearts. They fuck you, you fuck them. Once equilibrium is restored, we can go back and reopen discussion with media, to plan what the future should be like. At the moment we have to be pirates (soft pirates, we don't go around with a knife in the mouth assaulting SGAE yelling "for Tutatis") in order to compensate for revolutionary tax that they have imposed on CDs and other materials.
By the way, I don't see any real discussion of future plans on how the arts business should be managed in an ideal society. Example: have you ever heard anyone talking about a science-like management of artists? they would receive fellowships/short-term-contracts and fight for resources just like scientists do. Only the good ones survive this sieve, and end up having a merit-based stable job. People now will come with the argument that art cannot be judged on absolute values....bullshit. Talk to real understanders of arts and they will tell that good art can be distinguished from bad art.
As demonstrated by Nine Inch Nails with their "Ghosts I-IV" album, giving away music for free can result in significant financial gain.
Look at it this way: in most music shops there's a section where you can listen to a CD before you buy it (at least here in Estonia). I can listen to an album without paying for it and then decide whether I want to buy it or not. It's the same thing with downloading music - I download it, give it a listen and if I deem it to be good enough, I'll buy it. I buy 4-5 albums a year this way. Of course, this comes down to my being responsible enough to actually buy the albums I like. That's not something you can write into law, though (since I can decide that I don't like a particular album). How is my behavior destroying copyright? Would strict enforcement of copyright (not allowing me to listen before buying) increase or decrease the number of albums I buy?
Overall, I see the ruling as accepting the current public opinion. If a government has a priori knowledge that most people under a certain age download music and movies via P2P networks, would it make sense to start prosecuting as many of them as possible, hoping that the public opinion regarding P2P will change? Sure, if you beat a man enough, you can make him say there are five lights instead of four - but would that work on a large scale? I mean, there has to be something terribly wrong if a large part of population (I'd love to cite some statistics here but couldn't find anything recent) is considered to actively participate in criminal/illegal activities. The people want their horseless carriages and no matter how hard you try to outlaw them (for example, by requiring the drivers to disassemble those carriages whenever seeing horses down the road), the public has already made up their mind about it.
Breaking News: ...
P2P file sharing is also legal everywhere else as well
Using it to upload copyrighted material however .....
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
There is copyright in Spain. When you buy a CD, DVD, iPod, HDD, DSL line, etc. you have to pay a tax to the SGAE as a "compensatory tax" for copying music.
Just because the courts have ruled that it's not illegal under current law, that doesn't prevent the labels lobbying/buying up politicians until there are enough to pass a new, more stringent law.
In the meantime it will be a useful experiment, if music sales in Spain don't suddenly drop off a huge cliff then this could be a strong message of support to people worldwide who have been saying downloading != actual loss for a long time (having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if the labels played it dirty, slashing marketing spend and raising prices to give the opposite result and an excuse for exactly those strict laws).
I never know what to do with my mod points, and now that I find a very informative and insightful post with a score of only 1 (at the time of writing), I don't have any!
Strangely, a "try-before-you-buy" system might be the only niche where DRM could be effective. If I could have an album via a free, or at most nominal (a few pence per download) price for a couple of weeks to decide if I like it, after that the album disappears and I buy the non-DRM version, or not depending on my opinion of the trial.
Of course this terrifies labels because they can't rely on their old fashioned model of having two songs out of 8 worth listening to and hyping the hell out of them in order to sell the album, which is why we're unlikely to ever see it despite it being pretty much a no brainer in terms of the right fit of technology and marketing.
I wish you were right, but check Article 27.2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. You'll find that copyright, or at least something that offers that same basic principles is in fact a fundamental right. Where copyright does stray is in things like transfer of ownership- that's not covered as a fundamental right.
Now, I really have to agree I'm not sure this is something that should sit alongside things like the right to privacy, the right to fair trial and so forth, but unfortunately, as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is currently written, it does.
The real debate is in determining how far above and beyond the basic rights granted by the declaration go if at all. I would say that right now, copyright strays well too far above and beyond those rights granted in the declaration.
Downloading a file (from a P2P network) for private use is perfectly legal as long as there is no lucrative or collective use of the downloaded copy.
So this pretty much destroys copyright in Spain, right?
No it doesn't. It just makes (or keeps) file-sharing legal.
"I mean, there has to be something terribly wrong if a large part of population (I'd love to cite some statistics here but couldn't find anything recent) is considered to actively participate in criminal/illegal activities."
Obvious example
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
wohoo, the search for intraterrestrial intelligence is over =)
The parent makes the point that artists might choose to no longer make content if they can't get paid for it. Some evidence is provided: (perhaps) we are seeing this already in that more and more games are tied to an online service. Why is this a troll? Because some people disagree?
It's pretty hard to have sympathy with Artists who despise the common people and spend their careers intentionally making art that excludes them.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Is only legal in Spain.
Even when so many people download movies, last year was a record year for movie theaters. Also, in Spain we don't have services like Hulu or Netflix, and pretty much every video rental store is closing. The fair copying is only applied to music, movies and books. Software is not in the same page here. Oh! And the SGAE Tax is being run through many legal instances to study its legality, this tax is paid on every appliance capable of storing and reproducing copyrighted material, even printers and photocopiers, even if you use them for your own stuff... This guys are making millions out of this deal.
I do not think this is a political statement or a social claim.
In Spain (most) people understand that murder, rape, robbery and those kind of things harming other people are bad things.
But other kind of laws and regulations are just to be bent, and taken more as suggestions than real obligations.
Compared with Germany, for instance, this makes Spain a mess in some sense, sure.
But people is more or less happy and they simply do what they want if they feel that nobody else is getting hurt (And companies do not count as 'somebody', neither lawyers)
They will not complain too much about bad regulations, they just simply will ignore them collectively.
People just have so low confidence in politicians, lawers, law-makers, and copyright lobbies that it is natural just to sistematically ignore them.
I am pretty sure irrational IP laws will always be bent until broken in Spain and everything will go on, as usual.
Downloading a file (from a P2P network) for private use is perfectly legal as long as there is no lucrative or collective use of the downloaded copy.,
So this pretty much destroys copyright in Spain, right?
No, it does not. If I can extrapolate from the Czech state of affairs, they have probably a clause that allows an individual to make a copy of a copyrighted material for the sole personal use, and it covers all cases of fair use (that is, what is considered fair use by the local legislation), for example taking notes in classrooms, excerpting from books, taping radio songs, downloading web contents etc. It's just that the fair use scope is considered broader. It certainly does not destroy the basic tenet that the author of the copyrighted work is allowed to decide who can redistribute (which in most cases meand "to sell" here) his copyrighted works - modulo certain copyright law provisions such as this, among other things (we have some provisions for free licenses for schools and churches under circumstances I can't recall right now).
Ezekiel 23:20
get bribed and twist the law to favor corporations? I am very happy with this sentence but I believe politicians are now dancing the dance of happiness thinking in all the money SGAE (RIAA) is going to place in their pockets to overturn this sentence.
Dear
Just to point out some cultural differences...
Say more that this judge ruled that FOR THIS CASE, P2P is legal. We use the Roman Law (Natural law you say?), so, a judge ruling do not creates jurisdiction. Tomorrow other judge can rule the opposite and be perfectly Okay.
Laws are interpreted, but not changed by a trial result.
This ambiguity will remain until the senate raises a law saying "P2P is legal for non lucrative uses".
In the summary the text is shown as elrincondejesus.com with no hyperlink! WTF? Does Slashdot or its parent company have a policy against linking to sites containing infringing material? (right there on the front page is a link to "American Playboy")
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I think in Spain they realized just how much the corporate superstructure of the media industry contributes to civilized society: Nothing.
Nah, the reason is probably just the fact that the copyright legislation here in the Old World isn't as "progressive".as the one beyond the pond. Now that it turns out how much the digital revolution reshaped the costs of production and redistribution of creative works, some people are arriving at the conclusion that the old system isn't as bad as some might think. (And I wonder how much do draconian copyright laws and huge corporations help people who actually produce good music and reach for their audience by making fine concerts on their own.)
Ezekiel 23:20
I like lawyers. Can we kill the corporate overlords running the industry instead?
~ C.
Is this what you are saying: artists make trash these days because that way they can make money, so let's make it impossible for them to make any money at all and they will have to switch back to making real art purely for the sake of art (and starving)?
What is preventing those same artists (all the Joyces, Mozarts and Shakespeares who, according to you, are wasting their talents in a movie studio somewhere) from making real art now, of the kind that you approve of and vast majority of people dislike (hence it doesn't sell)? Do you really think it is the corrupting power of dollar signs in their eyes that prevents them from taking even a little bit of time away from frantically making as much trash as they can and make some genuine masterpieces? Does it occur to you that this is completely ridiculous?
Even if it wasn't, what right do you think you have to manipulate the system in a way that you think will make those artists more valuable to you and to what you think "society" needs, even though the artists themselves will end up being worse off, not to mention that most people will be deprived of the "trash" that they actually like?
I think that you and people like you are misunderstanding the world around you and the great era of plenty (when it comes to just about everything, including art) that you live in in a pretty spectacular way.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Ah, this is an easy trap to fall into. Information can be very powerful. This is, in fact, the main reason why we enshrine free speech, as a weapon against corruption. To say that the mere stream of bits, or the vibrations of air molecules could destroy a person, or even a large group of people, seems counter-intuitive, but it can happen, and it has happened before. So, in general, don't underestimate the the transmission of data! It's a good thing the founding fathers didn't make the same mistake!
In this case, the digital transmission of data, in certain circumstances, will destroy the profits of these artists and these companies, and will make it less likely that there will be data worth transmitting in the future. Their existence is dependent upon their providing data to those who wouldn't otherwise have it, and the people paying them back for it. Taking without paying does them nothing but harm. So yeah, the GP got it pretty much right. If P2P of copyrighted files is allowed, then all artists in Spain using copyright are pretty much fucked.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Do you really think it is the corrupting power of dollar signs in their eyes that prevents them from taking even a little bit of time away from frantically making as much trash as they can and make some genuine masterpieces? Does it occur to you that this is completely ridiculous?
How is this ridiculous at all? Society continuously beats into our head that money is equal to success, and success is the only thing worth striving for in life. What kind of musician wouldn't want to be famous, rich, and have a huge following of fans? The kinds that are greedy and want all of this badly ARE the ones that rise to the top. They are shoddy musicians next to some of the deep underground ones, and they are so popular BECAUSE of their drive for money.
even though the artists themselves will end up being worse off, not to mention that most people will be deprived of the 'trash' that they actually like?
Britney Spears, Snoop Dogg, and Miley Cyrus wont be obscenely rich. Cry me a river. Meanwhile, bands that care more about artistic integrity might find themselves with more fans, or maybe not, either way, I'm sure they don't mind (being one of them myself). And when it all collapses people will just sell their iPods and everything because there is no longer any music out there that they would like, which is incredibly far from the truth.
and the great era of plenty
Quality over quantity. That's all I have to say. Who cares about the sheer amount of it when it is completely bereft of quality?
You are now manually breathing.
Well, it isn't exactly as good as it sounds. First of all, private copy is quite old. I think it comes when all people recorded tapes to his friends. Legislators thought that it would be easier to provide a legal way of doing this, than turn half of the citizens into criminals. So, copy of copyrighted products is legal in Spain (and many other countries as France) provided two conditions: don't make money with it, and don't publish it. In exchange, a canon was applied: for every tape bought, copyright holders would receive a little compensation. What judges say with this sentence is first, that p2p is a way of private copy, as it works peer to peer, and second, publishing links to a work, is not publishing the work. But the panorama isn't good at all in Spain. The author organizations still try to criminalize the copy, and lobby aggressively for it. Government is quite near this position, and last legal reforms hardens things a little. Also, government tried to legalize a way of closing websites without judges intervention (so a sentence like this one cannot prevent the closure). In mass media, this powers spread continually the message that copying and downloading is immoral and illegal (which is not true), comparable to terrorism or person traffic. US government is also making high pressure to make countries adopt a stronger copyright police. And no one wants to say no to Obama.
False. p2p of not copyrighted material is legal everywhere, I think. Also, p2p downloading of copyrighted material is legal not only in Spain, but in many countries, as France. In reality, private copy is extended on developed countries, except for anglosaxon ones.
because when ACTA is rammed down everybody's throat... they'll have anti-porn filtering riding on the back of it... and by law, ISPs will have to block sites deemed to be distributing extreme and/or kiddie porn... what's the bets Pirate bay and other popular sites and their trackers get included on the filters then...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Downloading a file (from a P2P network) for private use is perfectly legal as long as there is no lucrative or collective use of the downloaded copy.
So this pretty much destroys copyright in Spain, right?
No.
As long as you don't sell it, Music is free?
No. You have to pay to see live music, you have to pay to buy a CD, you have to pay to buy guaranteed quality music from iTunes. You just don't have to pay to share music you like with other people, ensuring it gets the widest possible audience.
Collective use (what ever the hell that is) is also ok.
Are you sure this is what you want?
Yes. This has (at least) the following positive benefits:
- Killing recording industry (not musician's) profits (I want to help)
- As a side effect of the point above, helping independent music get an equal footing with artists backed by the big four (this could lead to music on the radio which isn't homogeneous shite!!)
- Increasing creativity and artistic output by allowing people to share things they like with each other.
I certainly hope that this can help make sure artists are celebrated on their artistic merits, rather than how much money they can bring in through aggressive, ubiquitous marketing campaigns.
Exactly how much talent did britney spears have, anyway?
"kill all the fucking lawyers"
Well that is pretty bitter. Reading between the lines you seem to be suggesting that Joyce, Mozart and Shakespeare did not try to sell their work. That somehow, the total lack of available avenues to convert their hard work into cash made them better artists. Well, all three did their best to sell their art - Joyce approached publishers (lots of them), Mozart did gigs at weddings and the like to raise cash and Shakespear sold tickets to the Globe. This peculiar idea that art is only art if it is free and produced by people in tremendous poverty fighting some just cause is, frankly, daft and completely detached from reality. If anything - today's system protect artists from a lot of reasons why they might hang up the brush and go do something completely different. Lawyers help stop them being ripped off, help them get paid on time, negotiate the fair use of their output. There's plenty of people out there who have seen their hard work used in some media campaign, etc., without any mention of or payment to the original artist - and that is nothing new. What we have now might not be perfect but it is a whole load better for artists.
AC is quoting Chris Walken's spiel in True Romance, just putting in Spain for Sicily... not really that funny in the context of this thread so just "mini-whoosh".
Set your phasers on "funky"!
>Thus, we won't get art in the vein of James Joyce's writing,
Where do I sign up?
Oh this one's easy. Check Article 29.2 of the UDHR: "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society." All UDHR Rights, if they were capable of judicial interpretation, are qualified. Besides, in the order of the articles, one can argue that even cultural life takes precedence over copyright.
I would be quite shocked myself that living on your copyright is a fundamental human right of gross importance.
So this pretty much destroys copyright in Spain, right?
IANAL so please check with one, but it is my understanding from what a lawyer once told me that a key difference between the Spanish and the US legal systems is that the precedents set in court don't have nearly as much force in Spain as is in the US. In other words, next case will have to be fought all over again going back to reading the law.
copyright holders (i'm talking RIAA here) on the other hand think they can do as they please and that we should facilitate their ever expanding list of demands.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
oh wait a sec....
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Is this what you are saying: artists make trash these days because that way they can make money, so let's make it impossible for them to make any money at all and they will have to switch back to making real art purely for the sake of art (and starving)?
I sincerely hope for return of maecenas (or sponsors). Problem with actual model that artists do not own their art anymore: they stripped of everything (except of authorship) by labels.
What is preventing those same artists (all the Joyces, Mozarts and Shakespeares who, according to you, are wasting their talents in a movie studio somewhere) from making real art now, of the kind that you approve of and vast majority of people dislike (hence it doesn't sell)? Do you really think it is the corrupting power of dollar signs in their eyes that prevents them from taking even a little bit of time away from frantically making as much trash as they can and make some genuine masterpieces? Does it occur to you that this is completely ridiculous?
**AA have established channels for content delivery and if you are an indie without a huge money bag for promotions, you can forget about getting onto the channels. And most consumers know only of the established content delivery channels and thus do not even suspect about all the things around them.
That's why Internet and P2P are so important: they allow all artists to promote themselves on cheap.
Even if it wasn't, what right do you think you have to manipulate the system in a way that you think will make those artists more valuable to you and to what you think "society" needs, even though the artists themselves will end up being worse off, not to mention that most people will be deprived of the "trash" that they actually like?
Friends of mine, artists, getting pissed on me for saying it (though most of them do understand that it is true) but here it goes again:
Empty stomach is the most important factor contributing to the development of a talent.
And about artists being better off now. That is also not true. The point is that unless they conform to mainstream standards, they would never get a contract with labels. Many many talented people avoid going artists solely because they would loose the freedom by being forced into the mainstream conformance cage.
I think that you and people like you are misunderstanding the world around you and the great era of plenty (when it comes to just about everything, including art) that you live in in a pretty spectacular way.
Well... I'm one of those who prefer to own things - rather than being owned by things. More is not always better: what is the point of having so many choices, when regardless what one picks, it is the same generic carp?
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Wait, so a piece of paper written by a bunch of people in suits tells me what everyone's basic rights are? Next thing you'll be telling me that laws define morality.
If they did anything other than express themselves honestly, even if it alienates the "common people" then they're not artists.
I hate printers.
It seems to me that's been the basis of all the P2P cases anyway. The "collective use" of files being shared between users of the P2P network. I don't see how that's any sort of endorsement that prevents more of these cases from coming forward in the future.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
>So yeah, the GP got it pretty much right. If P2P of copyrighted files is allowed, then all artists in Spain using copyright are pretty much fucked.
Why? Why are they fucked?
It seems to me that if you're selling mp3's to end users, then you've got a terrible business model. The industry can blame itself for continually compacting their music formats until there was nothing left but bits.
I remember going to a show once, and after it was over, I went to the concession table and bought all of the band's vinyl. I passed on the CD's and they hated me for it. Why? Because CD's are higher margin.
Same thing happened at a music store. I picked out a bunch of vinyl, and when the guy rang up a CD for $16.99, I put it back. He hated me too. He also went out of business.
Point being, if you're trying to pass off high-margin items (cd's, mp3's) to knowledgeable consumers, then you are a dishonest businessman. High-margin items exist to attract newbies to the store, where they can graduate to higher-quality items. Why? Because selling high-margin crap gets boring, that's why.
If you went into a wine store and asked for Turning Leaf, do you think you would get respected by the sales staff? But you have music companies that sell nothing but Justin Bieber and you think that's OK.
In a record store you can listen to anything before you buy it. I wonder if most people have ever been to one. It makes music shopping absolutely a treat. And suffice to say, every album in the store competes on the merits.
Like a lot of newfangled ideas, it's been done, and it worked.
Quality is a relative thing, and music is a highly subjective medium. Some like Mozart, others like Rachmaninoff, others like Dr. Dre. Just because some music is made for the purposes of making someone rich doesn't reduce its impact on someone out there to whom the music actually speaks, for whatever reason.
There is room for both quantity and "quality". In fact, there is a vast quantity of quality out there now. Just because they aren't household names doesn't mean they aren't successful and happy making the art that they are making now. I have a friend who has maybe 8 CDs, most self-produced and she's wildly happy with her life. Is she a household name? No, but she makes enough money to put food on her table and live the lifestyle she has chosen. She's damned good at what she does but she's never going to be famous. There are thousands more like her out there making music every day. That doesn't make the "popular" music any less meaningful to the people who like it.
I'd like to see more variation played on the radio but these days if I want "other than mainstream" it's quite easy to find on the web and elsewhere. There is no fear of the music industry, or rather music itself, collapsing. If the industry as we know it dies, no one will care and music will still be produced, just as it was "underground" in the Soviet Union when the government banned certain things. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples of art surviving even when it was being oppressed. No one will be getting rid of their iPods anytime soon, even if the industry as it is today dies. Something will always fill the void.
Art will survive and no matter how much we as a society try to force it into a particular mold it simply won't conform. That's the human side of art... it expresses itself whether we like it or not.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Hm. Let me post it again.
Okay? Got that? It will be at the end of the post too, so you won't forget! Now let's try reading this again:
If I had meant "every single circumstance", I would have said "every single circumstance".
I mean, exactly how dumb are you? Did you really, truly think I meant that downloading via iTunes was hurting artists? Really?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
So then why don't they band together and change the law?
It seems every society on the planet is "democratic" at the local level. Sure it might be "illegal" to "rape children," but if everyone in the parish looks the other way, then what are the consequences?
Leaving laws on the books that you disagree with just leaves open the possibility that somebody from outside will come in and screw you over. Marijuana is a great example. It's "legal" as far as anyone is concerned, until they get arrested.
As long as you hide your supposedly-legal activities, you're admitting they should remain illegal. If your activities can stand up to scrutiny (with community support), then the law can be changed.
"People now will come with the argument that art cannot be judged on absolute values....bullshit. Talk to real understanders of arts and they will tell that good art can be distinguished from bad art."
So who are the "real understanders of art", whatever that means? I've seen plenty of "high art" that looks to me like utter dogshit and I've seen pictures made by homeless people that made me cry with the beauty they captured.
By the way, the problem with the "science/fellowship" form of management is you'll end up with only the affluent being able to afford to make art. The people who don't have money and resources to begin with won't be able to effectively compete for those fellowships and such. The art will still be made, though, and the image of the "struggling artist" will survive, whether society wants it to or not.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Apart from the SP's point about laws and treaties not defining morality, one could argue that
means that in the extreme case of there being no copyrights or patents there would be no material interests to protect, so the Charter only means that the rights defined by law must be enforced.
Once could also claim that corporate copyrights don't count because a corporation is not a human, and so does not have human rights, so the Charter does not apply there.
Well, it may well be a simple problem of business model, but as they say, a problem is only a problem if you have a solution. Currently, we don't have a solution, or at least, not one that solves the problem without introducing a whole lot of new, more serious problems.
If Spain (or any other country) makes P2P sharing of copyrighted works legal, then that's copyright essentially gone. Commercial copying? Who cares? It's the free copying that's by far the most appealing, and the practice that kills the most sales. And yes, without sales, such artists are fucked. They need to eat, etc, etc, etc. To summarise:
Legal copying
---> Everyone can get works for free legally
---> Tragedy of commons; paying for it is nobody's problem
---> No money goes to the artist
---> Artist is either fucked, or quits and finds a real job
---> Nobody gets to hear anything new from that artist
Long term: everybody loses.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Like I said, it's really hard to find any sympathy for Artists here. Who would care if Wall Street bankers were getting totally screwed? Nobody, because they're a bunch of self-righteous jerks who hold the rest of us in contempt.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Okay, that's a rather simplistic and ignorant comment, I'll try and explain it for you.
It's a document that outlines the fundamental rights that must be respected by governments and citizens of any nations which has given official recognition to the document, which I believe is in fact every member of the UN- so every country in the world bar Vatican City, Taiwan, and Kosovo.
It tells you what the officially accepted view of rights is, and the fundamental rights which you have in the eyes of international law, such that if someone breaches those rights, that person must face punishment.
Generally, these rights are implemented as laws that recognise said rights, and so adherence to them and punishment for breaching with them is just dealt by local law.
So yes, a piece of paper written by a bunch of people in suits tells you the generally globally accepted view of what everyone's basic rights are. Also yes, laws often define the socially accepted level of morality too- e.g. sex with kids under 16 is generally accepted as wrong.
If you feel that the rights granted and listed by the declaration don't truly reflect the socially accepted view of what counts as a basic right, and which must be protected, then you're more than welcome to go and start a campaign to get it changed.
Are you suggesting basic rights are something that exists independently of social acceptance? Are you suggesting you unilaterally decide your rights? Rights and morals aren't something that "just exist", the natural state of the world is such that no one has any rights, and no level of morality is pre-defined- someone could come and chain you up and make you their slave, whilst raping your sister defying all views of modern rights and morality tommorrow, it relies on a general acceptance of what your rights are to protect that from happening, and those men in suits are the representatives who write the guidelines developed internationally to cover the generally accepted view of what rights people should have. You do not inherently have any rights at all, unless other people allow you them. If you want people to allow you your rights, you better allow others their rights.
Poor artists, then they only have more people enjoying their works, allowing them to have bigger concerts, sell more merchandise, get paid more for tv and corporate appearances, income from product endorsements, etc. Real demotivating.
Warhammer forums
Are you suggesting basic rights are something that exists independently of social acceptance?
Yes. That's kind of the whole point of modern theory regarding these matters. Under your system, the Chinese government has the right to censor information and arrest and execute random people, the Iranian government has the right to brutally put down protests and every other evil regime would be justified because that's just how things work over there.
Do you really think laws define morality? Every day I hear people casually talking about the latest movie they pirated and joking about what trouble they would be in if the government found out how much they lied on their customs forms. And nobody reports on people who do this. If you went around talking about how you steal chocolate bars, you would be shunned from society pretty quickly. There is a massive disconnect between what is legal and what is right, and sometimes breaking the law is the only right thing to do.
This brings me to my whole point: these papers are descriptive, not prescriptive. They try, but often fail, to keep up even with what the socially acceptable view on morality is. Having sex with minors isn't wrong because the law says so, the law says so because it's wrong.
Example: have you ever heard anyone talking about a science-like management of artists? they would receive fellowships/short-term-contracts and fight for resources just like scientists do.
Oh, good. Then we can have music that serves the entrenched power structure the same way science does, where the priorities of the powers-that-be determine where the bulk of our scientific advances should lie, rather than those who understand science or those who will ultimately utilize it, i.e. the people.
Of course, there is a certain amount of that already through various arts endowments. Why not let the people continue to decide? If such a system is desirable, it will come to be. But that sort of 'patron' system produced very little music. The current system may produce a lot of shit, but it does produce a lot of music.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
...and does "lucrative" only refer to monetary benefit? I think this still leaves the door open to action against P2P, because any file that you are downloading, you are usually also uploading as well. Does that count as "collective use"? If you are uploading in order to maintain your "share ratio", and that share ratio is used to allow you to keep on downloading to acquire more material, does that quid pro quo count as "lucrative"? Wiktionary defines lucrative as "producing a surplus", not necessarily monetary gain, but of course the Spanish ruling may have different subtleties of meaning.
It's a fantasy. If this actually worked, and was actually beneficial to the artist, we would be seeing more artists operating this way by choice.
I mean, come on. Did you really think that you could just force artists to provide you with free services, without repercussions? The artists who would be happy doing this, chances are, they are already doing this. If you're so interested in the artists' welfare, why don't you let them make up their own mind, eh?
And besides, I don't see what's so great about concerts, merchandise, tv appearances, product endorsements, etc. With the exception of concerts, I am not interested in any one of these products, and you seem awfully keen to turn artists into peddlers of said "services". I mean, if that's what gets you to support them, then that's what they're going to concentrate on. Certainly not this "recording" business, all of which just gets copied ad nauseum, and is just listened to as a substitute for coming to live gigs and paying real money.
So yeah, it is a pretty demotivating outlook for artist, with a future where they are dictated to a terrible business model by their so-called fans. It's a pretty demotivating outlook for us too, in a world where recordings are shafted to sell more concert tickets.
I repeat: everybody loses.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
"Under your system, the Chinese government has the right to censor information and arrest and execute random people, the Iranian government has the right to brutally put down protests and every other evil regime would be justified because that's just how things work over there."
Absolutely, that's exactly it. If you only look at a localised section of the world- that is, in China, if you ignore all external views and treaties, you do not have the rights you do elsewhere. If however you do not focus purely on China, and instead look at China in the context of the world view, then because there is a stronger view that people in China have those rights, then they can be recognised as rights- again, rights can only exist when there is enough agreement to recognise and enforce them, or at least, for there to be the will and acceptance to recognise and enforce them.
You seem to finally get it in your last sentence.
This is exactly what I said- laws do not define morality, they formally define what has previously been generally agreed as to what is moral. This is precisely the case with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights- it does not define in itself what fundamental rights people should have, it cannot, because that is subjective. It defines the generally accepted world view on what those fundamental rights should be to the extent that enough people are willing to recognise them as, and support them as rights.
Ah, now I recall (I didn't see it in the original version).
Still, I don't think "niggers" invaded Sicily, but I am not sure.
You can repeat it if you want, doesn't make it any less false.
For starters, you don't even get that nobody is forcing artists to provide anything for free, and in fact we're paying them even for services they don't provide. Second, you assume all artists have a choice, which tells me you don't even know how this business works.
Most people that hate the jews, hate them on a political and social basis, not on religious grounds.
There's a common fallacy, which is that being against certain groups means that you are automatically Racist, just because those groups hide behind a given religion/race.
Anyone has the right to hate the Republicans, or the Democrats, or the Communists, or the Bankers, or any other political/economical group. We can disagree with their ideas, and consider their group good/bad/dangerous/whatever and judge their actions. It's part of our Freedom of speech.
Now, when that group hides behind a religion or a race, you suddenly can't do that anymore. One big example is Israel and the Jews. You can be against virtually any group that can be tagged. If you can name it, you can hate it. But if that group (that you are against because of political, economical, social or otherwise valid, non-racist reasons) has a particular religious/race, then you can't hate them, can't question them, can't be against them, or you are racist.
I hate the fucking jews, but I only hate those that actually belong to the sociopolitical group that identifies itself as "Judaism". I don't care where your parents where born, or what their genetic configuration was. I don't give a shit about your skin colour, shape of your eyes, or what invisible man in the sky you claim to telepathically communicate with. But I do care about your actions. So, if you are a member of a group that is responsible for so many crimes from mass murder to brainwashing, and that group keeps buying politicians to shape the laws at their own will, I have a problem with that group, and I have a problem with you.
It's not racism. If your parents where jews, but you don't belong to the religion or any other jew-only groups, then in my eyes, you are not a jew, just another guy.
Oh, and before Godwin's law kicks in, I hate the Nazis almost as much as the fucking Jews. They basically believe in the same race superiority, only happened to be of different races and fought over it.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
However, adding to the building body of arguments for it, will... not make it any less false, I admit, but hopefully it will make others less wrong after they read it.
Did I say that? No, wait, I believe what I said was that their so called fans are forcing them into an inferior business model, which would be true if the GP got his way. How do I know it's inferior? Because a) it's completely and utterly obvious, b) it removes any choice the artist had (restrictions on business models can never lead to a better solution, only the potential restriction of the better solutions), and c) because precious few has tried and made it work. This tells me fairly conclusively that this option, as a business model, is barely even worth exploring as an artist, let alone blindly entrusting with our culture.
So, no there's no formal expectation of free stuff (unless you're stupid enough to expect free distributable copies of recorded music), but nevertheless, there is an expectation that artists will deliver more for a lot less.
Such as?
Did I? Deary me, I'm such a ditz sometimes. Where did I assume such a thing? You might have to help me a bit and point out the specific phrase(s) for me. I can't seem to find them anywhere!
Artists do have choices. They can decide to sign with a label or stay indie, even though deciding the latter can be tough financially. From there, the artist/label can choose a multitude of ways to distribute the music, to promote the music, to tour, etc. They can choose whether they want to make money exclusively off touring, or they can choose to make money off recording as well. They can choose to take a break from touring to work on their music.
Any and all choices of any relevance are removed under the GP's proposed mass oppression and mollycoddling of artists. The choices are restricted to where to tour next and when to retire. It doesn't matter if some artists are forced into a particular pattern, because this proposed scheme will eliminate all choice for those who have choice. And, for those stuck in a particular pattern, that pattern will be a more-or-less optimal business strategy, and thus by eliminating these business strategy, we will essentially force them out of business. That is, the number of choices will drop from 1 to 0, and they become the first casualties of this short-sighted policy.
So, with the increasingly large body of arguments, I will repeat it again: everybody loses. Hopefully, you will either accept this, or refute the arguments supporting it, rather than attacking the rhetorical device of repetition.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Talk to real understanders of arts and they will tell that good art can be distinguished from bad art.
Except that a lot of great art was panned when it first exhibited. And an incredible lot of high art is really without any value whatsoever. It's an Emperor's New Clothes phenomenon.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as though it were holy scripture. It isn't; it's a worthless political creation of the UN, which is nothing more than an international criminal syndicate which has a history of actively working against human freedom. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-527956831065413624
Anyone who would claim copyright as a "fundamental right" as though it was something that was inherent in our nature as human beings or given by God himself is spewing their own wishful thinking. The idea has no basis in logic. Copyright is an arbitrary creation of government based on the questionable premise that it somehow contributes to the greater good of society. Just because it's something we're all familiar with and accustomed to doesn't mean it is good or right.
On the other hand, the freedom of speech and communication has long been (correctly) recognized by many societies as a fundamental right. Any laws, copyright or otherwise, which conflict with the exercise of this right should under any just system of government be forced to yield. That means the rights of individual human beings to use P2P networks trumps the alleged "right" of corporate media entities to make profits.
A proper application of this principle might result in the movie and record industries going out of business. But protecting the right of free communication is more important than the existence of these special interest groups. If they failed, music and movies would not disappear. We might not see the blockbuster wonders costing hundreds of millions of dollars, but movies would still be made. People that wanted to see expensive movies might have to pay for them in advance through clubs of some sort. Art would continue to exist. And society would be free of the weighty burden of entrenched corporate entities that use mafia tactics to perpetually harass and extort the population.
and the great era of plenty
Quality over quantity. That's all I have to say. Who cares about the sheer amount of it when it is completely bereft of quality?
There are lots of good quality artists out there. I have more than a week worth of songs on my mp3 player all made by current bands that I love. (To be clear, I mean no repeated songs that play 24 hours x 60 minutes x 7 days non-stop.)
Some times the issue is not lack of something but an inability to find it. Most of the bands that I really love, I found out about because I have friends obsessed with music. They point out bands regularly. But without them, I would not have half the music I listen to on a daily basis.
Because what kind of civilized society needs laws?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
100% accurate description of what happens in countries like Spain, Portugal, and most of South America.
I always say that Spain is just as "sudaca" as Argentina. And that is a good thing. We have corrupt governments, big national debts, and a bunch of other big issues. But we live freely, and in a much better, unstructured way than the so called real first world.
We don't show have fear (or respect) for the police, the military, the church, the government, the corporations, or other special interests groups. The roots of Anarchy that are foundational to Spain are still there, and in Latin America too, even after they were massacred over and over again, and supposedly eradicated during the 30's. They are still there, and stronger than ever. They live in the population. This is what we are, and I wouldn't change it for anything else.
In resumed words: Bravo, España!
Now, off I go to download some Alex de la Iglesia films ... ;)
( Disclaimer: I was born and currently live in Argentina)
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
But it has to be absolute, either you accept the agreement or you don't, because the clause for the right to recognition of work exists because a large portion of the world do actually agree to that term. If you think picking and choosing is acceptable, then why do you think you have anymore right to ignore that principle than the music industry has to ignore your right to privacy and fair trial? It tries to establish ground that everyone should agree, and can compromise on.
Again, whilst I'm not convinced 27.2 is important enough to put alongside other rights personally, many are, but I'm not sure 27.2 is that unfair- it ensures people can't steal others work and claim it as their own for example, I'd argue that's not too bad a concept, the problem is it's quite arbitrary in it's definition, and much modern copyright law stretches the definition a little too far and often even takes it far beyond what is stated in 27.2.
So whilst I agree it's perhaps not worthy of being a human right personally, I respect that it is, and would expect that in turn, my right to privacy and fair trial is also recognised. You seem to be somewhat against the whole thing in principle, but then where are we? in a situation where a country could invade yours and rape your family, torture you, detain you without trial, and when your nation finally gets it's freedom back there is absolutely no comeback against the nation that invaded? It needn't necessarily be a foreign state either, if your nation's government is not signed up to it could just as well detain you without trial. In the UK for example, our government has in recent years tried to infringe some of these fundamental rights, but thanks to the European Court of Human Rights applying the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human rights, the governments actions have been overturned- sometimes international oversight on national government is actually a very good thing.
That and they keep trying to make the one you buy also DRM laden and sometimes they go poof even though you did buy it. Then, since they're not nearly as interested in fairness in that case, the buyer has to 'steal' a non-DRM copy in order to actually have what they paid for. That and they keep wanting to have things both ways.
Your CD gets broken, they say you bought a physical good and it's broken, go buy another. You try to make a copy for someone else and suddeny you bought a license, not a physical good. So, it gets broken and you ant to make a new copy from someone else and they jump back to claiming it's a physical good that only they are allowed to make a copy of...
If I'm buying a physical medium and a license to play the songs, why can't I buy replacement media to go with my existing license for less when I need a replacement? After all, I don't NEED two licenses to play the song!
Then they wonder why the rest of the population says "how about it's neither!" and starts downloading.
Did you really, truly think that non-profit copying for private use is hurting artists, considering that those artists receive money to compensate the (most likely non-existing) losses that those copies produce, even if no copies are made?
on the other hand, it is pretty stupid to tolerate artists who mass produce crappy shit to make money off the common people, and live high over it.
Read radical news here
I'd rather see copyright destroyed than having 97 years worth of copyright cartel for all creative works.
Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
Empty stomach is the most important factor contributing to the development of a talent.
are you aware of the number of artists who died because they had empty stomachs, or couldnt afford properly heated homes and healthy circumstances throughout 18th, 19th centuries ? are you aware how many potential masterpieces are lost just because of that ? are you aware that what a person has first on their mind would be to feed themselves, and not to make art, if they are hungry ? are you aware that if you are hungry, and shaking, the first thing comes to your mind wouldnt be 'i must make some art so i can feed myself and get warm' but ' i must SOMEHOW feed myself and get warm' ?
have you ever been in a position that you were hungry and cold, and therefore not making those grand assumptions out of your butt ?
this is the exact brutal mindset we need to change. people should make art with inspiration, not for SURVIVAL. art is not some american gladiator game. its an area of creativity in which you need to court your muses in order to be able to produce worthy shit.
Read radical news here
along with your representatives there. take heart. and say no to obama. it doesnt matter whether a person is good or evil of heart, if s/he sides with evil and pursues their agenda for them.
Read radical news here
freedoms and agendas, even if in a convenient way ? start web campaigns to raise awareness and peition your representatives.
Read radical news here
Yes, some of the best people ever lived are lawyers, such as Sir Thomas Moore or John Adams. The problem is the materialistic culture makes it hard to be a lawyer and an upstanding citizen. Yet there are plenty of lawyers out there still manage to keep their ethics. I think NYCL is a prime example of such. So obviously lawyers aren't the cause of problems in the societies today, but rather, a symptom.
Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
I understand that, but my point was that maybe you would actually be able to listen to the radio because there might actually be something worth listening to on there. There is definitely no shortage of quality but I am talking about the mainstream scene.
You are now manually breathing.
Yes and no. In Spain, it's only mandatory to follow rulings by the Supreme Court. All other rulings may or may not be referenced and/or taken into account by judges. So if the law can be interpreted to accomodate it, a judge could kind of ignore it and produce a different ruling than the one described in the article.
only kiddies was addressed at posters here - but yeah, his/her point could be better made.
"Did you really think that you could just force artists to provide you with free services, without repercussions?"
So, now that we've established you're a liar, I shall not entertain your trolling any further, and will instead proceed to answer your absurd question. You asked "such as?", to which the answer is "levy on blank media". If you knew anything about it, you wouldn't even have asked that question.
As for the rest of your nonsense, call me when you have actually seen the business from the inside and can accept that no, artists (and please note I'm not referring to any big names here, since those do indeed have a choice) usually don't have that much of a choice. Oh, and when you can back your claims with something better than "it's completely and utterly obvious", which will probably happen shortly after you actually understand the point being made in the message to which you were originally replying (that being that when your business model is obsolete you either change it or quit, but don't try to screw your customers).
Yes, I really do. In aggregate, copying really does hurt the artists.
It's not productive or sensible to think of a copy as a "lost sale" or not. We really need to look at it in terms of how likely you would have been to buy the music had you no access to pirated music. The probability that you would have bought it multiplied by the price produces the amount of money you're depriving unfairly from the artist.
Unfortunately, this probability is extremely difficult to discern. If you have a large library of music that you've pirated, it's extremely easy to say you would never have bought something when you have so much more music to fall back on. So, it's entirely possible for you to pirate 1000 albums, to reasonably say you would never have bought any of them individually, but had you never pirated, chances are you would have bought 20-30 of them. This is lost revenue to the artists. And just because you are stealing a small amount from a lot of people does not make the stealing justified.
It's a fantasy that people buy what they want, and only pirate what they don't, and artists do get hurt. Even with the small trickle of compensation money.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Not sure what 'uprear' you were expecting. This is true, and the community puts a lot of restrictions on what you can do with your land. You need planning permission, for example, before you can build anything on it. The ownership right can be revoked with eminent domain if it's needed for a public works project (or, in the USA, for Walmart). Noise and pollution ordinance limit certain other activities on the land.
By and large the rights of the owners and of the community have, as the result of the last few thousand years of adjustment, reached something close to a balance.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
No, you're right. My bad. I did say that. I didn't mean it; I meant to say "provide you with unfairly cheap services, at their own expense, without repercussions".
Jesus Christ, do you really find what I'm saying so repulsive, so offensive, that you have to find a way to dismiss it so quickly and completely? I mean, fuck, is this the way you deal with anyone who disagrees with you? This "strategy" is one step down from putting your hands over your ears and shouting "La, la, la, I can't hear you!", since at least the shouting strategy doesn't involve mud-slinging.
What you established was that either I'm a liar (in that I knew that what I said was false, and said it anyway to mislead), or that I made a mistake. Naturally, you couldn't wait to make the distinction. You had to eliminate my arguments some how, and quickly, because you couldn't find a logical basis for attacking them. You make me sick to my stomach.
I think we should remove the troll mod. I know it's your safety blanket, that helps you keep your precious little (very little) mind safe and blissfully ignorant from the rhetorical demons out there, but it might be time for you to grow the fuck up and start either attacking the arguments (as opposed to the person delivering them), or even better, actually get an opinion you can defend!
Argh! Why do I have to explain this over and over again!?
It doesn't matter whether the artist or a company makes the decisions. If it's the artist, then you are depriving them of these choices under this system. If it's the company, then you are depriving them of their choices to generate maximum revenue. Their generation of maximum revenue is through their sales, off of which the artists survive. If you eliminate choice for these companies, then it is akin to depriving the artists of these choice. Instead of depriving the artist personally, you depriving their chosen representative to make these choices for them.
Either way, I think we can now safely come to the conclusion that this proposed system represents, inevitably, less choice for artists.
I did.
Okay, prove that the business model is obsolete. Show that there's a superior business model out there, and we won't hesitate to move to it. I'll give you a hint: better for you does not mean better for everyone.
That's what legoburner was doing in his original post. He was finding a business model, in the hope that it would prove the existing one obsolete. I showed, over and over again, that not only this business model was not superior to the copyright model, but that it was hardly even comparable. So, no, it was his business model that was obsolete on arrival, superseded by the current system.
Now, the problem is, that since nobody has managed to find a system the obsoletes the current one, the argument "change it or quit" no longer makes much sense. What are they supposed to do, if there are no viable changes? Well, I suppose, what they should do is quit. Not just one artist, but almost every artist will be encouraged to quit! We really, truly, do not want this. To put it in terms you can understand, without these artists, there will be nothin
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
It's simpler than that, actually: I assumed you had the ability to read, and that you had therefore read what you yourself posted. Also, that your memory was better than that of a goldfish. So that assumption led me to believe that you claimed to not have said what you had said while knowing that you had, in fact, said it. I guess this will teach me to think twice before I assume others possess certain basic skills.
That said, you have resorted to a pityful argumentum ad hominem, which I'm ignoring because I don't need to lower myself to your level like that. Instead, I'll ask that you read the post you were originally replying to, and keep doing so until you realize nobody is getting deprived of any choices (at least not any more than with the current system), much less so the artists.
As for the model being obsolete... It's "utterly, completely obvious". I mean, it's based on a monopoly that can't be enforced any longer. It's based on selling goods that can be mass-produced with no loss of quality. It's based on something people no longer want (at least not under the conditions imposed by artists/labels). It's based on screwing your customers, and customers don't take well to being screwed by the people they're feeding with their money.
The rest of your message is nothing but nonsense that reality itself has proven wrong, so instead of debunking it once piece at a time, I'll let you have a look at the world around you.
Also, please refrain from calling me a pirate. What pirates do is illegal, what I do isn't.
Well, if you do, then you're painfully mistaken. It shouldn't take you more than five minutes of using Google to find several studies that prove you wrong.
As for how likely people are to buy music of the can't copy it (please refrain from labelling it piracy, it's not piracy, in fact it's not even illegal in most places), I'd say the chance is close to zero (or even zero for most of what they copy). Either way, your argument that the probability multiplied by the price equals the loss that copy produces is utter BS. And even if it were true, it's not "unfair". The law allows it, and the artist knew that before publishing his work, so I really don't see how that's unfair. If the artist wants to play, he must do so by the rules of the game. And those rules include (at least around here) our right to make non-profit, private copies of his work. Copies for which we pay even if we don't make them. And I'm not even taking into account the money (taken from our taxes) that the Government gives to artists so they can produce their art... You simply do not know how that business works over here, if you did you'd agree with me.
So, to keep it short: no, nothing of that is lost revenue to anyone. In fact, it could even be an increase of revenue (what I don't spend on albums, I spend on live shows, which by the way get the artist a alot more money than selling records; and most people do the same, as you'd know if you had researched the topic even a little bit). Furthermore, I'm neither pirating nor stealing, so I would like you to stop being a jerk and accusing me of commiting crimes I did not commit. Unless you want to make an argumentum ad hominem your main point, in which case I hope you don't mind if I start making the assumption that you're a criminal and we end up resorting to namecalling, something you seem to like if the rest of your posts here are indicative of a behavioural pattern.
With the fashion side of the art world, we may think the ridiculous cat-walk haute-couture costing exorbitant amounts of money are a waste of time, but apparently a lot of it gets diluted down and then made available for public consumption. Maybe it is similar with the aloof avant garde artists you refer to? As an aside, I don't really think the artists care for your sympathy. Many do it for passion not profit.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Fair deuce. I looked, and I found no such study. I found plenty of studies that looked at piracy rates, and criticisms of their use of the term "loss" because of their (always stated) assumption that a pirated copy is a lost sale. I have even heard, through many an indirect source, that there are studies suggesting only a small fraction of the pirated works out there are lost sales, but a small fraction of a huge number is still significant, and still unfair on the artists.
It makes no sense to think that people only pirate what they don't want. There's always temptation and reward for letting such a standard slip. It completely flies in the face of everything we know about the human mind to believe that they only take for free what they don't want.
Do you mean, in most places it's not a crime, but you are liable for damages, or are you saying that in most countries, P2P is considered legal and acceptable? Because, the latter is bullshit (most countries are signatories to copyright treaties), and the former, well, that's really just splitting hairs. Either way, it's not OK.
Also, piracy is a long-established term, which I will continue to use (not out of malice, just because it's so much less awkward than the alternatives). If you don't like being labelled a pirate, I have one foolproof method for making sure you're never labelled one again.
Really? I did not expect you to contest that. This is mathematical modelling 101 here. That's how people calculate the expected gains/losses when there's probability involved. The expected value is calculated as the payoff multiplied by the probability of that payoff occurring. If you take the same risk over and over again, you will eventually see an average payoff approaching the expected value.
Well, in Spain, I guess it wouldn't be unfair from a legal perspective. I still think, even if the artist knew beforehand that his so-called fans wouldn't pay him, I still think it's their moral responsibility to pay him nonetheless.
You may well be right. It's hard to say, especially since I don't usually equate legal with moral.
Well, it would be legal lost revenue, but lost revenue nonetheless. Typically, revenue is lost due to the producer of a product doing a bad job, and making something that the public doesn't want. In this case, it's because the public doesn't feel like paying.
I do know, or at least, I have heard that. That, of course, only applies to artists signed with labels. Indie artists subsist more on CD sales.
Of course, in my eyes, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the artists are getting some
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Hey, you set the standard back there with your "troll" comment. I mean, 75% of the time, the "troll" comment is used exactly in the way described: to ignore opposing arguments, especially when they're difficult to counter. It's the ultimate ad hominem, because, when used correctly, it's an instant win in an argument. I am easily offended by such cop-outs, since it, more often than not, is just a symptom of an ultra-narrow world viewpoint; that everyone who disagrees with you is doing it to annoy you, or is doing for pay.
Well, we haven't used all the tricks up our sleeves yet. Let's wait and see.
But can't be produced in the long term if copied indiscriminately. Surely you are aware how copyright works. The "they can copy it as many times as they like for free, so why are they charging for it?" question has been answered rationally and conclusively many, many times before. Surely I don't have to go into the details.
On the contrary. Most people I see are more than happy to pay for music, even if they pirate regularly. They do want this stuff. Hell, even the pirates, even though they pass the costs onto the true fans, they still enjoy the rewards, so the artists must be doing something right.
How is it screwing customers? They provide a service, they ask for payment in return. Having the service is optional. How can that possibly be screwing the customer over?
Well, I suppose if you believe that you are entitled to whomever's work you want for free, then I suppose you would see charging for it as them screwing you over. However, I warn you: most legal systems don't typically sympathise with this viewpoint.
Translation: I am completely and utterly incapable of refuting it, so I shall ignore it, lest it upset my blissful ignorance.
Look, you're very adept at insulting your opponent, but your actual arguments need some extending. I suggest you read through the rest of post again. I assure you, it is not nonsense. If you truly care about your viewpoint, I suggest you actually read through it, and find a convincing rebuttal to each point.
I've concluded also that much of your post is nonsense, but at least, it's popular nonsense (so you weren't the only one seduced into thinking this way), and some of it has a superficial reflection in reality (the truth is often a lot more counter-intuitive when it comes to copyright). Particularly that bit at the end. Piracy doesn't have to be illegal; it's simply the copying of people's work without their permission. Even if the law is different between our countries, the action, the consequences, and the morality of it is still the same.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Fair deuce. I looked, and I found no such study. I found plenty of studies that looked at piracy rates, and criticisms of their use of the term "loss" because of their (always stated) assumption that a pirated copy is a lost sale. I have even heard, through many an indirect source, that there are studies suggesting only a small fraction of the pirated works out there are lost sales, but a small fraction of a huge number is still significant, and still unfair on the artists.
Then you didn't look for more than thirty seconds.
It makes no sense to think that people only pirate what they don't want. There's always temptation and reward for letting such a standard slip. It completely flies in the face of everything we know about the human mind to believe that they only take for free what they don't want.
Bullshit. But I guess you'll say your got a degree in Psichology...
Do you mean, in most places it's not a crime, but you are liable for damages, or are you saying that in most countries, P2P is considered legal and acceptable? Because, the latter is bullshit (most countries are signatories to copyright treaties), and the former, well, that's really just splitting hairs. Either way, it's not OK.
It's not OK, in your opinion. Others, such as me, disagree. AS for what I meant, I meant "considered legal an acceptable". Also, being signatories to copyright treaties means nothing. Read the Bern treaty, for example, and you'll see it allows its signatories to include exceptions to allow the making of non-profit, private copies. P2P clearly falls in that category.
Also, piracy is a long-established term, which I will continue to use (not out of malice, just because it's so much less awkward than the alternatives). If you don't like being labelled a pirate, I have one foolproof method for making sure you're never labelled one again.
Research the origin of the term and realize you're misusing it. Then come and admit how wrong you were. As for your method, I don't think I have to tell you what I think about it, and that I'm not going to stop making use of my rights (yes, you read that just fine, I did say "rights") because of what you say. A truly foolproof method for making sure i'm not labelled one again is for people who'd be tempted to label me one to STFU and make sure they know what they're talking about before they say anything.
Really? I did not expect you to contest that. This is mathematical modelling 101 here. That's how people calculate the expected gains/losses when there's probability involved. The expected value is calculated as the payoff multiplied by the probability of that payoff occurring. If you take the same risk over and over again, you will eventually see an average payoff approaching the expected value.
It's still bullshit. But that doesn't matter, since the probability is about zero.
Well, in Spain, I guess it wouldn't be unfair from a legal perspective. I still think, even if the artist knew beforehand that his so-called fans wouldn't pay him, I still think it's their moral responsibility to pay him nonetheless.
Again, you ignore the fact that his fans are indeed paying him. And the ones that are not his fans are paying him too. And both the fans and the non-fans are paying him even when the law clearly says they shouldn't. Yes, I'm referring to the levy again. Also, add the rest of the payments that the fans make (concerts, actually buying the album because they first downloaded it and they liked it, etc).
You may well be right. It's hard to say, especially since I don't usually equate legal with moral.
I don't usually equate legal with moral either.
Well, it would be legal lost revenue, but lost revenue nonetheless. Typically, revenue is lost due to the producer of a product doing a bad job, an
Hey, you set the standard back there with your "troll" comment. I mean, 75% of the time, the "troll" comment is used exactly in the way described: to ignore opposing arguments, especially when they're difficult to counter. It's the ultimate ad hominem, because, when used correctly, it's an instant win in an argument. I am easily offended by such cop-outs, since it, more often than not, is just a symptom of an ultra-narrow world viewpoint; that everyone who disagrees with you is doing it to annoy you, or is doing for pay.
I think that by now it should be pretty clear that I did not use the word "troll" as an argumentum ad hominem, but because, in my eyes, you truly behaved as one, claiming that you hadn't made a comment which you in fact made.
Whatever, letting this drag on any longer serves no purpose, so I'll be more than happy to let it go if you do the same.
Well, we haven't used all the tricks up our sleeves yet. Let's wait and see.
If you knew anything about the topic, you'd realize there's no trick to enforce that. At least, not one that doesn't involve getting rid of some fundamental rights.
But can't be produced in the long term if copied indiscriminately.
You're very much mistaken, my friend. If you weren't, nobody would be producing CD's anymore, since long ago.
Gee, I wonder how musicians lived before vinyls, tapes and CDs were invented...
Surely you are aware how copyright works. The "they can copy it as many times as they like for free, so why are they charging for it?" question has been answered rationally and conclusively many, many times before. Surely I don't have to go into the details.
Please do. After all, these "conclusive, rational answers" that you mention have been thoroughly debunked many, many times before. So this should be fun...
On the contrary. Most people I see are more than happy to pay for music, even if they pirate regularly. They do want this stuff. Hell, even the pirates, even though they pass the costs onto the true fans, they still enjoy the rewards, so the artists must be doing something right.
Please note I clearly said "under the conditions imposed by the artists/labels". Also, if I'm not mistaken most people you see don't live anywhere where non-profit private copies are legal. You're comparing apples to oranges here.
How is it screwing customers? They provide a service, they ask for payment in return. Having the service is optional. How can that possibly be screwing the customer over?
DRM, lobbying for draconian laws, overprized products (and I'm not even taking into account that the artist sees a miserable amount of that prize, the lion's share being taken by the label, and to a lesser extent by the store), and in some countries a levy that people are forced to pay even in circumstances where the law clearly says they shouldn't... How's that for starters? Come on, did I really have to explain that?
Well, I suppose if you believe that you are entitled to whomever's work you want for free, then I suppose you would see charging for it as them screwing you over. However, I warn you: most legal systems don't typically sympathise with this viewpoint.
I do not believe that. Again, I'm paying even for works I don't copy. Also, if by "for free" you mean the making of non-profit private copies (regardless of there being a levy; BTW, some countries, which happen to be signatories to copyright treaties, allow such copies without imposing any levy, FYI), I believe I've sufficiently proved you wrong.
Translation: I am completely and utterly incapable of refuting it, so I shall ignore it, lest it upset my blissful ignorance.
I refuted it just fine. If you're happier denying it, it's not my problem.
Look, you're very adept at insulting your op
No, there's no such thing as a troll that isn't an argumentum ad hominem. Because, let's face it, calling someone a troll doesn't actually address the arguments presented, rather it addresses the person who serves them up. As an argumentum ad hominem, the troll accusation also shares the same shortcomings and intellectual dishonesty that other argumentum ad hominem. It's only really approaching acceptable when it becomes clear beyond a doubt that the opponent is not at all interested in arguing the point out. It's a position I like to avoid, for as long as possible (unless, the opponent cranks it out first).
That said, what I take from your statement (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that you did not mean it to dishonestly dismiss my arguments; that you genuinely thought I was more interested in generating controversy than actually making a point. I still think you jumped to conclusions way too quickly. I gave you one possible indication that I was trolling, and it was a simple mistake (a lapse of memory). I'm not sure I can believe that you were reading my comment, with a fair and open mind, thinking that these were probably genuinely my opinions, and then an discrepancy like that suddenly completely convinced you otherwise. I'm pretty sure you had some prejudice about my opinion from the start, something akin to "the only people who would write such an opinion must be a troll".
Anyway, I can't prove that, and as much as I hate to be reading your comments with such prejudice, I can't seem to escape the conclusion.
Yeah, OK, I'll let it go. Just, in future, try to remember that there are sane, intelligent, and earnest people who disagree with you fundamentally on just about any of your opinions (this, of course, applies to every human being, not just you).
Save yourself the time: stop adding that redundant condition to your sentences.
I realise doodily squat without proof. If you can show me that out of the infinite space of possible enforcements, that none will make a significant impact, then I will believe you. I will probably also wet my pants with surprise.
Besides, often I have heard this argument that there is no enforcement techniques, and often it's based around the idea that the enforcers can't police everyone at once, and that even if with increased enforcement, people will just move to encrypted channels, correct? I'm assuming this is more or less your argument (feel free to spice it up with something new if you want).
Consider the crime of murder. With a bit of intelligence and a bit of technical knowledge, it is very possible to get away with murder. Unlike in the movies, it's very difficult to track a murder properly premeditated and performed. This doesn't just apply to murder, but to a whole host of other crimes.
Does this mean murder is unenforceable? Yes and no. On one hand, our enforcement is reliant on luck and the stupidity of the killer, so you could argue that murder is unenforceable. On the other, most people don't murder, even if they really, really hate someone. Something is making a dent, and that something is a combination of morals, and a fear that you'll fuck up and get caught for a lengthy prison sentence, or even a death sentence.
Does this mean that the murder laws don't work, and thus we should scrap them? Probably not. Even though it is immoral, we still like our police to have the authority to hunt these people when they can. What it does mean is that we should rely
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
I looked for 5:32. I timed it.
Mathematics, with a bit of economics. That's where most of this comes from. In fact, this is an economics problem. Psychology is far too focused on the individual, not on the group, to be useful in these situations.
Also, it's not bullshit. This is more dismissing of arguments. If you think it's bullshit, why not tell me why it's not bullshit, instead of assuming that I'm more qualified to talk about it, and therefore incorrect?
"Private"? How is sharing with thousands of strangers on a public network considered private?
Anyway, this point is not of great importance.
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/04/piracy-as-copyright-infringement.html
Yes, I admit how wrong you were.
So be it. However, if you insist on causing the price to rise for us true fans, don't be surprised if we call you (long established) names. You can't continue what you're doing and expect us to treat you with respect.
[citation needed]
Seriously, how do you know the probability is about 0? In aggregate, you honestly don't think that someone with as much music as the average pirate wouldn't want more music had he not had any access to pirated works? Obviously there's some appreciation there, and obviously there's been enough time spent trying to find the next thing to enjoy. What makes you think that a pirate, without access to his extensive library, wouldn't have the same urges?
Your position makes no sense, and your insistence to limit your rebuttals to "bullshit" isn't helping it at all.
You're right, I should be more careful. It's your responsibility to pay for what he asks (or not pay or possess at all). Paying him a token amount to ease the pain is not enough to make you and him morally square.
This comes back to what I was saying about the metaphorical pay cut: that not all money amounts are created equal. Paying you 5c a day for your work is not the same as paying you $50 an hour.
So, let's be clear, I'm not ignoring it, however I am claiming that, for the purposes of our discussion, the amount is too small to be significant.
Also, falls under the same argument. Buying a T-shirt at the concert entitles you to a T-shirt and a concert (assuming you actually paid for the ticket). I does not give you full access to the bands catalogue.
Again, to compare it to a paycheque, it would be like an employer deciding every other week that the previous week's paycheque was enough, with no oversight. He pays you for a week's work, he is entitled only for a week work. Not two, not three, but one.
Of course, you could probably survive with every second week's work going unpaid. You wouldn't be h
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
No, there's no such thing as a troll that isn't an argumentum ad hominem. Because, let's face it, calling someone a troll doesn't actually address the arguments presented, rather it addresses the person who serves them up. As an argumentum ad hominem, the troll accusation also shares the same shortcomings and intellectual dishonesty that other argumentum ad hominem. It's only really approaching acceptable when it becomes clear beyond a doubt that the opponent is not at all interested in arguing the point out. It's a position I like to avoid, for as long as possible (unless, the opponent cranks it out first).
Therefore, me using it was acceptable, since (admittedly due to a mistake on your part, and not intentionally) it seemed that you were not interested in arguing the point out, preferring instead to deny having said what you had in fact said.
That said, what I take from your statement (correct me if I'm wrong here) is that you did not mean it to dishonestly dismiss my arguments; that you genuinely thought I was more interested in generating controversy than actually making a point. I still think you jumped to conclusions way too quickly. I gave you one possible indication that I was trolling, and it was a simple mistake (a lapse of memory). I'm not sure I can believe that you were reading my comment, with a fair and open mind, thinking that these were probably genuinely my opinions, and then an discrepancy like that suddenly completely convinced you otherwise. I'm pretty sure you had some prejudice about my opinion from the start, something akin to "the only people who would write such an opinion must be a troll".
And I'm pretty sure you have some prejudice, something akin to "the only people who'd call me a troll when my apparent behaviour, even if only because I made a mistake, is that of a troll, are trolls".
Anyway, I can't prove that, and as much as I hate to be reading your comments with such prejudice, I can't seem to escape the conclusion.
Escaping it is fairly easy, just try to walk the proverbial mile in my proverbial shoes. You're likely to realize then that not only do I have no prejudice against you, but also that my reaction was logical, given the circumstances.
Yeah, OK, I'll let it go. Just, in future, try to remember that there are sane, intelligent, and earnest people who disagree with you fundamentally on just about any of your opinions (this, of course, applies to every human being, not just you).
Oh, don't worry, I'm quite aware of that. Just, in future, try to remember that denying the obvious truth (in this case, denying to have written what you had written), even if by mistake, can make you look like a troll.
Save yourself the time: stop adding that redundant condition to your sentences.
I realise doodily squat without proof. If you can show me that out of the infinite space of possible enforcements, that none will make a significant impact, then I will believe you. I will probably also wet my pants with surprise.
I already instructed you to search for proof. I mentioned several studies (there's one by the Dutch Government, and I believe I already mentioned several by the Spanish equivalents to RIAA and other organizations, and by the Ministry of Culture; there are more, though).
Besides, often I have heard this argument that there is no enforcement techniques, and often it's based around the idea that the enforcers can't police everyone at once, and that even if with increased enforcement, people will just move to encrypted channels, correct? I'm assuming this is more or less your argument (feel free to spice it up with something new if you want).
Consider the crime of murder. With a bit of intelligence and a bit of technical knowledge, it is very possible to get away with murder. Unlike in the movies, it's very difficult to track a murder properly preme
I looked for 5:32. I timed it.
And yet you failed to find anything relevant? Your Google-fu sucks sweaty donkey balls, little grasshopper.
Mathematics, with a bit of economics. That's where most of this comes from. In fact, this is an economics problem. Psychology is far too focused on the individual, not on the group, to be useful in these situations.
Then don't bring "what we know about the human mind" into the argument, lest you embarrass yourself.
Also, it's not bullshit. This is more dismissing of arguments. If you think it's bullshit, why not tell me why it's not bullshit, instead of assuming that I'm more qualified to talk about it, and therefore incorrect?
I believe you misplaced the negative particle here, bro. Anyway, it's bullshit because not everyone conforms to what you claim we know about the human mind. You're making generalizations, and as always when doing so, you're prone to error.
"Private"? How is sharing with thousands of strangers on a public network considered private?
Because it's not a single exchange from one source to multiple receivers. It's multiple private exchanges from one source to one receiver. It's the technologic equivalent of me burning a CD and giving it to everyone that asks me to. And here, both things are legal, under the "private copying" provision. Also, ask the judge, he's the one that ruled P2P to be a case of "private copying", not me. And I trust the judge knows our law better than I do, and obviously better than you do.
Anyway, this point is not of great importance.
And not because it makes half of your points moot or proves 'em wrong, right?
Yes, I admit how wrong you were.
Excuse me? That proves YOU wrong, because the origin is COMMERCIAL unauthorized copying, which was exactly my point. What we are discussing is neither commercial, nor (in lots of places) unauthorized.
So be it. However, if you insist on causing the price to rise for us true fans, don't be surprised if we call you (long established) names. You can't continue what you're doing and expect us to treat you with respect.
Except I'm not the one causing it. And you're still using the name wrong.
[citation needed]
Seriously, how do you know the probability is about 0? In aggregate, you honestly don't think that someone with as much music as the average pirate wouldn't want more music had he not had any access to pirated works? Obviously there's some appreciation there, and obviously there's been enough time spent trying to find the next thing to enjoy. What makes you think that a pirate, without access to his extensive library, wouldn't have the same urges?
What makes you think he would? How do you know that probability is not about zero?
Your position makes no sense, and your insistence to limit your rebuttals to "bullshit" isn't helping it at all.
Except I'm not limiting my rebuttals to that.
You're right, I should be more careful. It's your responsibility to pay for what he asks (or not pay or possess at all). Paying him a token amount to ease the pain is not enough to make you and him morally square.
The "morals" non-argument, yet again. Also, note that I'm indeed paying what he asks. Even when I shouldn't.
This comes back to what I was saying about the metaphorical pay cut: that not all money amounts are created equal. Paying you 5c a day for your work is not the same as paying you $50 an hour.
Metaphorical? More like fictional.
So, let's be clear, I'm not ignoring it, however I am claiming that, for the purposes of our discussion, the amount is too small to be significant.
The amount is what the artists, through the associations tha