Slashdot Mirror
Copyright!
A good example is a demand letter to a Swiss university, ETH Zurich, which demands that the school immediately terminate all web pages with illegal MP3 files (illegal is of course a judicial decision; the letter presumes that all MP3s are illegal); that the school provide names and home addresses of all students with MP3 files hosted on the school's servers; that the school provide the date that those MP3 files were first hosted (for every MP3 on every server); and that the school provide the IP address for every machine anywhere on the internet which downloaded a MP3 file from the school's servers.
The letter closes with a carrot: we'll adjust our monetary demands based on how well you comply with this letter. Better hope your IP address doesn't appear too many times in those web server logs.
We can probably assume that the demands to U.S. schools are much the same - far-reaching, extortionate letters which are not specific about any particular infringement alleged to be occurring, but which are intended nonetheless to scare the universities into cracking down on their students. The terms of the compromise of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act were that the RIAA and related groups would do the policing of their copyrights - if they found a specific file that they alleged was unlawfully infringing, they have a procedure to follow, specific information to provide about the specific infringing file, and the ISP (college or whatever) is supposed to "do their part" by deleting/removing said file if the paperwork is correct. ISPs and colleges are not supposed to do the grunt work themselves - that results in the kind of overbroad crackdowns that we've seen. This was the subject of specific negotiations during the process of creating this law.
But the RIAA, of course, would prefer that schools and ISPs do their cracking down for them. So they send these general scare letters, hoping to trigger a reaction.
Scare tactics work. Universities scan through student computers, trying passwords on protected directories. The new Rio players will incorporate all of the RIAA's desired protections against copying of MP3 files - the price of settling the RIAA's lawsuit. The next target is Napster.
RIAA will now be filing suit against Napster, an application which effectively functions like a single purpose IRC server, connecting people who want to share MP3 files, whether legally or not. (There's a linux port of Napster; better download it quick.) Some schools, like Oregon State University, are so scared they're blocking all access to Napster servers from school systems. In the ideal world, Napster should probably win - the RIAA could monitor their servers and demand that infringing users be eliminated, but the service equally provides people with an avenue to share legal MP3 files, and this significant non-infringing use is all that is needed under copyright law. The article I just linked to and a nice Wired story both show Napster feebly trying to insist on their duties under the DMCA, saying that the RIAA needs to tell them in writing about specific instances of infringement - but the RIAA doesn't care about the law.
Napster, of course, has no money to fight a lawsuit. This is exactly what happened to the Rio: they won in court, but since the RIAA planned to appeal the suit and drain more money out of Diamond Multimedia, they settled by promising that future Rio's would include the RIAA's copyright protections. Like the Dentist's extortion tactics in Cryptonomicon[1], RIAA lawsuits are equally powerful whether they are on solid legal grounds or not - Napster will lose this suit, whether they win or lose, because the RIAA can afford the money to fight it and Napster cannot. So presumably Napster and RIAA will come to some agreement, settle the lawsuit, and Napster's next generation will incorporate the RIAA's demanded copyright protection system.
Just remember, RIAA CEO Hilary Rosen says she loves the idea of Napster to build communities, "but not on the backs of huge mega-corporations with billions of dollars of revenue quarterly."[2]
The RIAA is hardly the only abuser. The Business Software Alliance, essentially a front group for protecting Microsoft's copyrights, does similar things with regard to "pirated" software. (What a PR genius it was who thought of describing all copying of software as piracy! Probably the same person behind the "cyber-squatter" label for anyone who owns a domain that a company covets.) The BSA is now raiding homes of people accused of copying software.
The idea behind copyright is to expand the amount of information available to the public by creating a government-mandated monopoly on reproducing it - for a limited time (28 years maximum, at the beginning - today the maximum copyright term could be over 150 years). Copyright has always has the inherent give-back to society - the work would pass out of protection, and then anyone could copy it and use it as they saw fit. But copyright is now essentially unlimited - over the last twenty years, the length of the copyright period has increased by forty years, so that essentially no materials produced since World War I have entered the public domain. In about 15-18 years, copyright holders will again be petitioning Congress to extend the copyright term, so that entities like Mickey Mouse never enter the public domain. The extension is now being challenged as unconstitutional, but the challengers lost in District Court and it's far from certain that this suit can succeed.
In today's world, it's customary to speak of copyright as some sort of innate right. It isn't. It's there for the betterment of society, but its functioning, today, contributes nothing to society - all it is is a government-sanctioned monopoly transferring money from your pocket to others, with nothing ever given back - and no possibility of give-backs until 2019, under current law.
We need to rethink copyright. It's not a fundamental right of corporations to receive a 95-year government monopoly. Businesses plan on a five-year cycle - if something isn't forecast to make a return on investment in five years, it doesn't get done. A five-year grant of copyright to corporate authors would serve just as well in promoting the development of new material, and would bring a tremendous amount of material into the public domain, which is copyright's true intent. With a much smaller amount of material actually under copyright, enforcement of it would be far simpler and more straightforward.
But naturally this would cost certain companies a lot of money - they're used to wallowing in their government-granted monopoly. Disney has made back their costs for creating Mickey Mouse billions of times over, but they're used to the cash flow now and would be willing to buy an entire Congress to protect it. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act was passed with the aid of a great deal of subterfuge, but most importantly, a great deal of campaign contributions. Now you can be a criminal not just for actually copying anything, but for making a "device" (hardware or software) which facilitates copying - we're talking five years in Federal prison. Imagine doing five years in Federal prison so that Congress can protect their campaign donations, errr, I mean, Disney's cash flow.
We're extremely close to the day when debuggers are illegal. Through threats, strategic campaign donations, and outright extortion practiced on upstart companies, copyright-holders like the RIAA are building copyright protection into the very infrastructure of computing.
Making changes in this system requires a fundamental commitment from the U.S. populace that it be changed. The commitment doesn't exist yet, but as more and more people experience the power of copyright to affect what they can and cannot publish online, and the abuses of the companies dedicated to protecting copyright beyond the terms of the increasingly-protective law, perhaps it will in the future.
Some slashdot readers will no doubt say, "Open source, you idiot!" Open source is a reaction to these problems, not a solution to them. Despite the open source phenomenon, the trend is toward more and more works being locked up, and locked up permanently, behind laws and cryptographic protocols. It shouldn't have to be a war between words, pictures and code that is always free to use and words, pictures and code that is locked up for all eternity - we should demand that the social contract envisioned in the Constitution be fulfilled by forcing copyright holders to give back to society, whether they want to or not.
-- Michael Sims
[1] Gratuitous Cryptonomicon reference provided free of charge.
[2] Quote may not reflect Rosen's exact words, but does reflect her intent.
folks would be wanting to read this very fine text on the econ. of copyright, which msakes the same points as the article on copyright-as-monopoly, in a slightly more rigourous fashion.
jsm
Unfortunately, history also teaches us that many innocent lives will be destroyed in the process, and many people whose only qualifications are a complete willingness to destroy those lives will make themselves very rich.
To bad it's not realistically possible to hold lawmakers personally responsible for passing bad laws...
NOTE: Any MP3, MP2 and GAME files not related to school and academic research will be deleted without advanced notice. If you need temporary disk space then type make_download and read the instructions.
Whether or not anyone is actively checking through accounts for MP3 files, I can't say (I haven't had any in mine.) It is tempting, as a friend suggested, to rename all files to *.MP3, just to see what happens. After a thorough backup, of course.
From my notebook of random thoughts:
(Yes, really. These are the unedited musings of me last night.)
Or perhaps consider the individual who has been granted a patent for a software engineering method in spite the existence of prior art. Most reports indicate that those being sued for patent infringement are likely to settle rather than litigate to have the patent invalidated because the accounting cost of a settlement is less. Regardless of the outcome, an injustice has been done because resources have been wasted. If litigation is pursued, some individuals will have assumed a financial burden that benefits their competitors...(absolutely and relatively)
In fact, there is another reason for a powerful corporation to settle this suit. If no one challenges the patent, then those corporations which are best able to assume the cost of settlement will gain an advantage over any rival which is not so able. If one of those lesser competitors should pursue patent invalidation, the larger corporations still gain the same relative advantage and may even recoup the cost of settlement and perhaps damages as well.
Perhaps a class action lawsuit should be brought to settle this case?
It will also be an injustice if this individual is allowed to accumulate wealth through this 'legal fraud'.
How should this have occurred? Simply put, the USPTO should not have granted the patent. But again they have every incentive to do so. Approving the patent incurs more fees. (?) The resulting litigation can only benefit them. (They will not be held accountable, there is really no penalty in this regard that does not get passed the the tax-payers.) It is in the interest of the largest corporations to permit this injustice in the USPTO because they can use similar tactics and the cost of settlement is always a relative benefit to them.
So let me get this straight: authors, artists, and other people with unique talents spend their lives sweating over typewriters or playing music in shitty bars, and you want to take the fruits of their labors without payment? After they sacrifice their lives to hone their skills and abilities, betting everything on the of chance that they could become successful in an unforgiving field? Bah. I guess you have never been in a situation where your next meal depends on the royalties from a novel... or a song... or a program.
A society based on your give-back principle would be a very gray society... No one would bother producing anything new. You can't say "give me" without giving back- in this case, paying the people who produce for you the things you enjoy.
Scudder
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
Rant:
;).
I couldn't agree more that the copyright system is in need of serious modification, if not outright elimination. The rabid libertarians (and believe me, I consider myself one) will scream at me about the right of an individual to profit from their labor. Blah Blah fucking Blah. I agree in principle, but:
We're moving into a new world here, ladies and gentlemen. To paraphrase Bill Hicks, it's time to evolve ideas. The reason our cherished institutions (religion, government, intellectual property, etc.) are crumbling around us is because They Are No Longer Relevant. It's as simple as that. The ideas just don't apply any more. They're outdated. The world has changed. It's time to move on.
Unfortunately, "moving on" (at least as us idealist type geeks have envisioned it) involves radical concepts like giving things away for free. Ideas like this are dangerous. They scare the living shit out of the entrenched power structure (which tells us over and over again about how it nailed this guy to a tree about 2000 years ago for daring to suggest ideas like that) If we were to start thinking in that direction, we might do something really radical like abandon our current concept of money (just an example, don't go there
So, keep buying those $18 CDs guys. You're supporting the artist you know.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
I don't think organizations like the EFF actively pursue the issue of drasticly reducing copyright durations. ("Drasticly" may sound extreme, but that's only because they've already been drasticly increased, with no benefit to the consumer whatsoever.)
Are there any organizations which specifically advocate copy-right term reduction?
Maybe we should start one.
This is a period of major disinterest in American politics, because the general public feels it cannot affect the system. Links like these scare me, but they are not only online issues. People with no access to the internet feel the same disillusionment slashdot readers do, we are merely seeing a national trend reflected here, in discussions I have seen in the past few days, in fact the whole time I have been reading this site. Slashdot readers have no monopoly on cynicism, look at the voter turnouts in America.
Look at the comments on the Gore/Microsoft story. As long as politicians need money for campaigns, they will be, or be perceived to be, in the pockets of corporations whose pockets I can't match. They want to be reelected: they /can't/ change the laws because then they risk losing that source of money to get reelected. Each professional politician, in his hubris, believes that if only he can stay in office long enough, he can accomplish his idealistic goals. But he gets so caught up in staying in office that he never gets around to those goals.
This recursion can only be broken by term limits, finance reform, and getting the corporations out of politics. But these three things are necessary to produce these three things, and I personally have no idea where to start. I write my congressman: I get a form letter back, my letter gets listed on a statistical analysis of letters that came in that day, the man never sees it. I vote: I get caught in a twisty maze of politicians who all sound alike. I'm 20 and in college, I really can't afford the time or money to run for office myself, if there are even any open to 20-year-olds. Even if I won, I would need to stay in office long enough to cause change; spot that damn recursion? What else can I do?
Communication is only possible between equals
Giant impersonal corporation is trying to screw you.
;) Either way, discussion forums like this are a great way for people to bring into the open and discuss/debate the relevant issues in the case.
I would say that this is a very defendable proposition. Wouldn't you? Maybe not all the time as you suggest, but my experience in the corporate sector has shown me that (for the most part) they don't give any more of a shit about you or me than they have to in order to get our money. The corporate world revolves around the bottom line. Keep that in mind at all times.
Nope, they never have a case or a legitmiate point, they are just trying to give you the bone.
I'm sure in many cases they do have legitimate points. We're just as wack as they are sometimes
Would you rather we just shut the fuck up about it? I'm sure they would.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
I agree that articles about corportions screwing you are tiresome, if not misleading, but I have to admit that it is tough for a big company to look good with all the crap they do. Small companies tend to do a lot better at looking good without lots of PR hype.
However, I would debate that this article, at least the way I see it, is not about that. It's about copyright and how, in this day and age where copying is so easy, that the law is in need of some major revision. Copying physical entities exactly is a difficult thing to do and copyright as of now is good for that. Copying books in physical form is not worth the effort and considering the benefit I get from them, I am willing to comply with copyright on that book in the form as we now have it.
Software and the digital form of such entities, however, is much different. Copying can take place in a matter of seconds and takes little to no effort. Old laws here become pointless. Anything in digital form is not difficult to distribute. People can easily obtain copies from somewhere other than a store or a small set of distributors. Now, it is simple to get a copy from a friend. Limiting this not only annoys consumers, but it binds their hands, so to speak. People like to be able to do this. It makes things easier for them. Some artists/creators of items distributable in digital form realize this and cater to it. However, most companies cling to the notion of old rules in a new medium, thinking that it will actually work.
There is far too much tension between these viewpoints. Obviously something has to be done. Trying to enforce these old laws will only result in more tension. Articles like this hopefully get people thinking about this and saying something about it. I think you were a bit hasty to judge this article as crap.
Woz
gzw@home.com
Last Friday we blocked all access to the napster domain; basically, NOC freaked out when they realized that >30GB of traffic in a single day were napster sends and recieves. This is a big problem for universities b/c people don't necessarily realize that they are sharing their files, and since the connection speed is very fast, the university network in effect becomes a target.
;)
Personally, I hate to see the 'net restricted like this, but bandwidth is $$$, and the traffic to napster had nowhere to go but up. University networks *are* supposed to be available for actual work to get done once and ahwile.
~Tiroth
Let's get real here: Universities know that their students are trading MP3's and warez illegally on their dorm ethernets. Some turn a blind eye to it, others devote some meager resources to fighting it. None consider it a top priority to investigate, because it would entail devoting a lot of resources.
These letters from the RIAA are in no way a summons or a subpoena. It's just a "warning" from the RIAA that states they're going to attempt to hold the universities accountable for their student's actions unless the servers in question are put to a stop. As best as I can tell, that's all the university is obligated to try and do (if that) from these letters.
Yes, all it is is a scare tactic. Since when is this worthy of a Slashdot article? These things happen all the time, and are perfectly legal. Paraphrased, their letter reads, "We will take you to court (ask a judge whether we are right or wrong and if you should be helping us) if you fail to help us remove MP3 redistributors from your network."
that the school immediately terminate all web pages with illegal MP3 files (illegal is of course a judicial decision; the letter presumes that all MP3s are illegal);
So in order to classify something as illegal, you have to have a judge order it so in your specific case? "Why yes, judge, I killed him, but it wasn't illegal!" Come on, every one of those kids knows what they're doing breaks copyright law. Every public web site/share that contains MP3 files of known artists/songs (at least) means that user is re-distributing MP3's illegally. You don't need a court case to see that. If I had a bunch of MP3's of my own private works or items not copyrighted by others, and the university came to me and told me to shut it down, all I should have to do is let the university know this fact and everything should be fine. And before you start going off about "guilty until proven innocent" remember this is a university we're talking about, not the government.
Better hope your IP address doesn't appear too many times in those web server logs.
Yah because I'm sure the RIAA is going to go to ever IP address that has ever downloaded an MP3 and track each and every person down via their ISP.
"Umm yah, hi, this is the RIAA. We have a list of 132 IP's from your ISP over the course of 18 months. We'd like you to go into your dialup logs and give us the names and addresses of the users that had these IP's at that time."
Let's be realistic here and avoid the biased slurs when reporting "news" to us.
ISPs and colleges are not supposed to do the grunt work themselves - that results in the kind of overbroad crackdowns that we've seen. This was the subject of specific negotiations during the process of creating this law.
Correct. But if the ISP's are *willing* to do so after a simple letter like this, then the RIAA has accomplished something. Granted, it's pretty evil of the RIAA, but it's all very legal.
Most major universities have a legal staff of their own that can see these letters for what they're worth. (In other words, they're not as clueless as you seem to think every corporation/non-human legal entity is.) This legal staff will no doubt become familiar with the laws in question and be able to report *factually* to the university as to what is required on their part. (Note: Factually does not include Slashdot articles or comments by 99.5% of its users.) Reasons a university might be willing to take the initiative on their own:
- PR. If a university steps up and proudly weeds out a bunch of evil MP3/warez-trading kids from their university network, they get a reputation for it. People start to see that university as one that doesn't tolerate these types of people and one that puts scholastic achievement ahead of a waste of university network resources. Universities that choose not to comply with the conditions might be viewed as a "warez kiddie university", a haven for kiddies that like to trade MP3's and warez.
- To avoid legal hassles. Granted, their liability is limited without specific instances of copyright violation, many small universities may not have the funds/resources with which to object to the RIAA's pleas. A handful of students can probably be much more efficiently investigated than a larger university might be able to do.
- Because they don't know any better. Some universities may just not have competant legal staff (or may not have legal folks at all), nor would they be willing to spend money on any (see previous).
- Because they honestly weren't aware of the problem on their networks, and generally make a huge effort to keep their students honest and legal.
The BSA is now raiding homes of people accused of copying software.They wouldn't be allowed to do so without a search warrant, and a search warrant would require convincing a judge that it's needed. They couldn't just do this on a whim, so I hardly see how this could be construed as an "abuse" of BSA's copyright "enforcement" abilities.
all it is is a government-sanctioned monopoly transferring money from your pocket to others
OH MY GOD! PEOPLE ARE MAKING MONEY OFF OF THEIR IDEAS AND/OR HARD WORK! LET'S KILL THEM!
If you have concerns about current copyright terms, write your congressman. Don't post some foolish Slashdot note, and PLEASE try to collect your facts before you do so. I shudder to think how many letters my congressmen get that are from just plain uneducated people that have no clue about the things they are vehemently opposed to (or in favor of).
copyright-holders like the RIAA are building copyright protection into the very infrastructure of computing.
I fail to see how this is a bad thing. If you don't want there to be such a thing as copyright and/or trademarks, just come out and say it. At least then we can be sure what it is you're fighting against. I too feel that copyright terms are a bit lengthy, but I don't think we should abolish copyrights entirely.
but as more and more people experience the power of copyright to affect what they can and cannot publish online
I'm sorry, but I cannot subscribe to your interpretation of this whole MP3 fiasco. The kids were KNOWINGLY breaking the law by redistributing MP3's illegally. I mean come on, realistically, how many of these people think they're acting legally by ripping their CD's and putting them up for download?
we should demand that the social contract envisioned in the Constitution be fulfilled by forcing copyright holders to give back to society, whether they want to or not.
If they were trying to make a statement against excessive copyright, even then I fail to see how redistributing MP3's of modern works would help that cause. If anything, it seems as though you're against excessive copyright terms. I think the new Metallica CD will still fall under whatever "new" copyright laws that come about, so it seems unfair to say that this latest MP3 thing has anything to do with limiting copyright terms. The bottom line is that these people are breaking the law, and in most all cases, they knew it. If you are successful in changing copyright law more to your liking, I seriously doubt trading MP3's like this will ever be legal.
We need Congress to enact a law spelling out a list of things consumers may do with copyrighted materials they purchase (CDs, software, video games, movies, etc) that are explicitly guranteed to be legal and to bar lawsuits filed directly against the consumer for exercising these rights. These rights would also preempt and override anything vendors try to write into the license.
With this in mind, I hereby propose the following "Consumer Fair Use Bill of Rights" that among these rights shall include:
(1) The RIGHT to convert copyrighted media [*] to a different format. e.g., copy CDs to to Cassette for the car or to copy a DVD to VHS for viewing in the bedroom (where a 2nd DVD player is not present).
(2) The RIGHT to make compilations of copyrighted media [*] for their own use. e.g., combine tracks from several CDs onto one CD.
(3) The RIGHT to make a backup copy of copyrighted media [*] for archival purposes. e.g., backup that PSX game, as kids are often burtal to delicate CDs and one scratch can too easily ruin a $70USD game.
(4) The RIGHT to rent copyrighted materials [*] to others for a fee. This is allowed by well entrenched precedent for movies but needs to be explicitly allowed for all copyrighted media (video games, audio CDs, and software).
(5) The RIGHT to record unowned copyrighted broadcast material (including Satellite and cable as well as over the air) for time-shift-viewing purposes. e.g., legally record a movie from your subscribed HBO channel while you're at work for viewing later that night or on the weekend.
(6) The RIGHT to allow certain other 3rd parties to view copyrighted materials you acquired [*]. e.g., explicitly allow for all residents of the household to view the DVD Dad bought or use the software Dad bought, and explicit allowance for other relatives and friends to view/use the copyrighted material in a non-commercial manner. e.g., make it explicitly legal to invite a friend or SO over to watch your DVD.
(7) The RIGHT of consumers to modify their own equipment and for the necessary parts and optional installation service to be legally available in order to carry out the above 6 rights. Additionally, the sale of already modified devices shall be explicitly allowed. e.g., I legally bought import PSX games and import DVDs and need my playstation/DVD player to play them and grant me access to what I paid for legitimately.
Write your representative and senator and copy them this message! Raise this issue on any wide-reaching media (TV, radio) you have access to. Get people talking about it.
[*] of course this refers to copyrighted material legally acquired by the consumer.
Enlighten us. What is their "case or legitimate point" for demanding that all MP3s be removed from campus networks without any proof that any of them infringe any copyrights? What is their case for demanding that products with legitimate, legal uses be pulled from the market or crippled because they "might" be used to illegally copy copyrighted material? What is their case for using the civil justice system as a club to get restrictions enforced that they could never get past a duly elected legislature (even one as heavily influenced by campaign contributions as ours is)? What is thier case for demanding that they be allowed to keep their copyrights for over 4 times the length of time originally envisioned by the writers of the Constitution? What is their case for continuing to own a copyright decades after the person who did the actual creative work is dead; for that matter, what is their case for being entitled to nearly a century of profits for work done by someone else? (Reality check: how many musicians sit on the board of recording companies? How many authors sit on the board of publishing companies?)
In other words, your objection would be more credible if you actually addressed the (IMO quite serious) issues the article raised, instead of just slinging names.
Corporations exist to maximize their bottom line profits. For the most part they will use every legal means at their disposal to achieve that goal. That means that we have to make sure the law really does do what we want it to, and only what we want it to. If any loophole exists, you can be sure businesses will exploit it. Don't get me wrong. I am not opposed to people making an honest profit. I am not even opposed to people getting filthy rich by making honest profit by the bushell (although I do think that as a society we place far too much emphasis on this dubious goal). However, if a law has negative consequences that outweigh its benefits, then that law can and should be changed. That some corporation depends on that law to make staggering amounts of money concerns me not in the least. I am not out to put anyone out of business, but I do not think they have a God-given right to make their executives and stockholders rich at everyone else's expense.
In this case, I think it is clear that there are some fairly negative consequences to the copyright laws as they stand; viz., they produce a chilling effect on legitimate uses of technology, and due to the long copyright terms, the copyrighted material is effectively never given back to the public domain, as was originally intended. We should be thinking about how we can fix copyrights so that these problems are mitigated or eliminated, while retaining the incentive to publish original music, manuscripts, programs and so on. We also need to end the abuse of the civil justice system and put the burden of proof back on the accuser. (Yes, I know, technically it is on the accuser, but having rights does you no good if you can't even afford to set foot in a courtroom to defend them.) If these reforms mean that record executives will wind up making only 5 times
instead of 100 times the median household income, (and don't let them fool you into thinking that they will be sent to the poorhouse by reforms; it just won't happen--people will always be willing to pay a fair price for quality entertainment) well, those are the breaks. Nobody promised you a rose garden.
-r
Why do people assume a company holding the rights to a particular creation is "wrong" or "unfair"?
If you take that right away from corporations, you also take it away from individuals, individuals who may have spent years creating or inventing something.
It's the Many ganging up on the Few to say, "We've decided you don't have the rights to your own creation anymore
It's not an objection to them owning it, it's an objection to them owning it for ETERNITY. Why does Mark Twain care what we do with his books? He's DEAD! We could all xerox (Uhoh, now they'll be suing me too) every book he's ever written and distribute them free of charge and he wouldn't bat an eye (Dead people aren't prone to sudden movement). So why is it STILL illegal to do so? Because some random publisher bought the rights to his work so that THEY could make money off of something they didn't create and shouldn't own!
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Limiting this not only annoys consumers, but it binds their hands, so to speak
So what's to stop somebody then from making a digital copy of some company's latest work and redistributing it to a list of free subscribers, completely bypassing their need to pay for what you've created.
I won't disagree that copyright laws need some changes, but I do disagree in the extent of those changes. A lot of people here seem to want them abolished in the case of digital works because of the "ease" of duplication. If unlimited digital reproduction were ever legalized, it would have disastrous consequences for producers of all digital works.
Everyone would start (through free and public channels) redistributing everything everyone ever released in digital form (CD's, movies, books, etc.), and the authors would never receive a dime for their efforts. For that reason, authors would cease producing and the industry would shrivel up and disappear.
Well, here we go:
Enlighten us. What is their "case or legitimate point" for demanding that all MP3s be removed from campus networks without any proof that any of them infringe any copyrights?
Well, since unsigned bands aren't represented by the RIAA, I'm sure they don't care about those MP3s. Obviously they are going after pirated music, which is their right under the law. So some kids who are stupid enough to put their music warez or whatever they call them are going to get smacked. Good. Just becuase you disagree with the concept of IP doesn't mean you can ignore the law.
What is their case for demanding that products with legitimate, legal uses be pulled from the market or crippled because they "might" be used to illegally copy copyrighted material?
Silly me, I thought private companies had the right to make whatever agreements between each other they wanted to. If a company is making products that don't fail some legal test, why shouldn't they go to court to stop those items from being distributed?
)? What is thier case for demanding that they be allowed to keep their copyrights for over 4 times the length of time originally envisioned by the writers of the Constitution?
There is no time limit for copyrights mentioned int the US Consitution.
? What is their case for continuing to own a copyright decades after the person who did the actual creative work is dead; for that matter, what is their case for being entitled to nearly a century of profits for work done by someone else?
Why shouldn't a person's estate be allowed to profit from the person's work?
I'm going to skip your middle paragraph.
In this case, I think it is clear that there are some fairly negative consequences to the copyright laws as they stand; viz., they produce a chilling effect on legitimate uses of technology, and due to the long copyright terms, the copyrighted material is effectively never given back to the public domain, as was originally intended
That's funny I see a whole bunch of stuff at say, Project Gutenberg, that is PD.
If these reforms mean that record executives will wind up making only 5 times
instead of 100 times the median household income,
Ah, I knew this would come down to this in the end. The "wah, they charge too much for music so I am going to steal it" argument. Look, you don't have the right to other peoples things, and its wrong to take things without permission. My mom taught me this when I was like, 3 years old. I guess such an idea is far to antiquated in today's soceity.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
If I'm a med student writing a thesis you are right in theory. However what if I'm a music student, and those are really mp3s, of my preformance. Of course they are on comptuer because I'm doing digital editing, and mp3 because no school provides me enough disk space for a lossless recording.
By in theory above I mean that in theory you can deduce what a file is by the extention, but in practice that is neither true nor desirable. Many people I know have no idea what the extentions are for or what they mean. Further in non-dos enviroments using a dot may be a useful way of seperating things out. Thesis.mp3 might be version 3 of my malpractice thesis, while Thesis.oh7 would be version 7 of my open heart surgery thesis. Okay, so it is a stupid naming scheme, but I've seen math professors who name files 29dj6221 and other such meaningless things - invariably these people do not belive in subdirectories.
If no computer professional would work for companies like the RIAA, they would quickly find themselves going out of business in a digital world. How might we go about arranging that? Hmm...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You are starting with the wrong assumption: we think that a company holding copyright is unfair.
Now I'll grant that some people blieve that. However don't be over broad, I don't, and many others do not.
What I'm arguing, and many others is that copyright lasts too long. That is we want someone to create, and make enough money in doing it that it is worth their while to create quality works. (Micky mouse isn't really quality IMHO, but I grant them rights in hopes that someone will create quality) Once those who have put for the effort have been rewarded for their time, I feel that we should put the work into public domain for the good of all. I cannot afford to have all the books I want on my bookshelves. Libaries help here, but are not the full answer. I paid $1.75 for a new copy of "Much ado About Nothing" not too long ago. If that work was copyright it would have cost far more money, and may not be one my bookshelf today.
Well, since unsigned bands aren't represented by the RIAA, I'm sure they don't care about those MP3s. Obviously they are going after pirated music, which is their right under the law
They are going after ALL MP3s (and trying to equate MP3=Piracy), this is purposely misleading. I have tons (95%) of legal MP3s which would get flagged and I would get in trouble for. Is this what you want?
There is no time limit for copyrights mentioned int the US Consitution
from here
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To...
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Now maybe its just my interpretation, but I don't see "limited" as meaning "life + 95 years". Nor do I see how not letting the public look at it for a lifetime "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts." (which doesn't even cover useless(MHO) Arts like pop music, music videos, most motion pictures, etc) Congress was given a power and has abused it to the delight of their financial backers. That is a fact, if you don't think it's bad thats a different story, but that is a fact.
Why shouldn't a person's estate be allowed to profit from the person's work?
They should, but there are limits to a government granted monopoly. I can think of numerous examples where something taken to one degree is fine, but taken to another becomes unpleasant (temperature, for example)
Look, you don't have the right to other peoples things, and its wrong to take things without permission.
Is it wrong if I listen to something you own, without you knowing, without you noticing, and without ANY cost to you whatsoever? It is wrong for you to cry to the police when such a thing happens because (~whiny brat voice) That's MY music!!! (/~wbv).
My mom taught me to share, and that was sharing things that I couldn't use if I shared them!
+&x
I started reading this article from the perspective of someone who has personally witnessed RIAA scare tactics and the damage they can do. By the time I was halfway through, I realized the article was written by one of the people who give the RIAA their excuses to abuse the powers they've been granted.
The open source philosophy is a wonderful thing. If you're reading slashdot, you know all about how it can increase colaboration, speed up development time, and contribute to creating a more functional product. But this philosophy simply doesn't apply to art. The element that makes art such a beautiful thing is its unique expression of an individual's viewpoint. In art, collaboration is unnecessary (and potenetially harmful), devel time is irrelevant, and "a more functional product" equals the Backstreet Boys.
Sure, it sucks that most recording artists only receive a few pennies for every CD they sell and that "big, evil corporations" seem to control the record industry; that's what makes online distribution such a revolutionary thing. The Artist (FKAP) can sell albums directly from his website (either as MP3, another format, or by mail) and receive all the profit in return. Is there something wrong with that? Is there some reason that you, me, or anyone else should have the right (after 5 years or any other amount of time) to take his art and modify and distribute it as we see fit? Let Disney keep Mickey as long as they want; it's by far the lesser of two evils.
Don't give the RIAA an excuse to bully people who have done nothing wrong (see what happened to the Smashing Pumpkins Audio Archive for a case study), or to force out MP3's in favor of a format they can control. Respect the rights of artists - they don't owe you anything, but if you take pleasure in what they've created, you owe them a debt you'll probably never be able to repay.
I have nothing to declare except my own genius - Oscar Wilde
. I have tons (95%) of legal MP3s which would get flagged and I would get in trouble for. Is this what you want?
No, I have tons of legal MP3s myself. But I'm not dumb enough to put them on a web server.
Now maybe its just my interpretation, but I don't see "limited" as meaning "life + 95 years".
I would suggest that life + 95 years is a perfectly legitimate definition of limited. In fact, anything less than eternity would seem to fit the definition.
Is it wrong if I listen to something you own, without you knowing, without you noticing, and without ANY cost to you whatsoever? It is wrong for you to cry to the police when such a thing happens because (~whiny brat voice) That's MY music!!! (/~wbv).
Yes, if I do not give you permission to listen to something I own, reguardless of cost to me, it is still wrong. I don't see what is so hard to understand about this. If I don't care I will put something out under GPL / or some less restricitive license. Copywriting something is saying exactly "You have no rights to this other than what I give to you". Forcing someone to share the fruits of their labors is the first step down a very slippery slope.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
we'll drop the MP3 discussion, I was arguing under the assumption that they were on locally shared drives and not 'Net accessible servers (to convince you the second is o.k. would take too long)
I would suggest that life + 95 years is a perfectly legitimate definition of limited.
Very much in disagreement here. The only measuring stick in governmental mandates should be the human life, not the half life of hydrogen. I don't consider anything "limited" that will still limit the freedom of my grandchildren.
Yes, if I do not give you permission to listen to something I own, reguardless of cost to me, it is still wrong.
Your example would work if we were talking about a personal diary, for example. However, we're not.
If you put something out in the public sector, where, if I want to spend my $18 dollars I can listen to it, and then try to say that it is *wrong* for me to listen to it without paying the $18, I'm going to call you a selfish bastard, especially since (again) there is no cost to you, no effect on you, or anything else done to you, nothing.
Forcing someone to share the fruits of their labors is the first step down a very slippery slope.
Agreed, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about limiting an infinite supply through the use of legislation to maintain artificially high prices. And to keep it in the real world, we're talking about Art, I don't know of many artists that don't want me to listen to their music. If they didn't they would never have created it or given it only to their closest friends with instructions to NEVER show it to anybody, which is how the RIAA wants you to act. I make these concession ONLY for my closest friends after they have shown the same discretion. Nameless profit driven corporations are not afforded the same courtesy, at least not until they show it to me.
+&x
Tell that to all the teachers that GIVE their time and knowledge to all the students they teach,
:)
then tell me that has no value to the students.
Interesting point. An angle I hadn't considered. I think we're talking about different kinds of giving, but I agree with you
Honestly, I only included that "Something given has no value" bit because the sound bite from Starship Troopers popped into my head when I was writing the reply. Decided it was too good a quote to pass up.
I'd rather have quoted "They sucked his brains out." or "If you find a bug hole, nuke it." but those would have been even more off topic than my previous rant.
Anthony
^X^X
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
I really don't understand why everyone is so caught up in the twenty-year extension. It's frustrating, it's creating an insidious and pervasive feeling that all words and images are owned by someone, yes, it's bad. However, the restrictions applied are pretty much the same as ever. The more compelling threat to civil rights, in my opinion, is the addition of restrictions against devices intended to copy.
In the words of the Digital Millenium Copyright act summary linked above,
Section 1201 proscribes devices or services that fall within any of the three following categories:
- They are primarily designed or produced to circumvent.
- They have only limited commercially significant use other than to circumvent; or
- They are marketed for use in circumventing.
Am I the only one who notes the striking similarity to the British law that allowed this bullying incident so recently discussed on slashdot? Am I the only one that thought they couldn't do that to us in America?
Please note the -or- clause, and consider that only one has to be shown. If you can show that far more people will use the device to break the law than will use it legitimately, the device (like, say, the DeCSS program) will become illegal.
Libraries, non-profit organizations and educational institutions are protected from criminal, but not civil, liability in these cases, but individuals have no such protection. If I'm putting the pieces of the summary together correctly, a successful lawsuit means you could be put in prison for up to five years for contributing to the DeCSS project. Hopefully, the developers would win, but I don't think (though IANAL) that they could get the case dismissed out of hand; it would go to trial, and cost lots of money to someone.
--Parity
--Parity
'Card carrying' member of the EFF.
I can't resist one last shot. (Deep breath..)
First, intellectual "property" is not the same as physical property. Copying someone's intellectual property does not deprive them of the use of that property the way stealing physical property would. Any argument based on that supposed analogy is immediately suspect.
I disagree totally. The one element in determining the value of something is scarcity. In this case IP is exactly like physical property. By distributing someone else's IP without their permission you are reducing the scarcity of that item and reducing its value.
Second, as copying becomes easier with the advance of technology, it becomes harder and harder to enforce copyrights without trampling on noninfringing behaviors.
OK lets replace a few words in this sentence... try: Second, as forgery becomes easier with the advance fo technology, it becomes harder and harder to enforce contracts without trampling on noninfringing behaviors.
Sounds a little sillier, doesn't it? If murder becuase quick and easy (not that it isn't) would you no longer attempt to uphold those laws as well?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
[What's with] the changing slashdot colors? First the FreeBSD article and now this. I hardly find it becoming.
How hard is it to figure out? "Your Rights Online" is a relatively-newly-created "section" on Slashdot. Recently, some categories of stories have been pulled off the front page into separate sections, to cut down on the volume of the front page, and some of these sections are color-coded for clarity. For example, "Ask Slashdot" is in gray, "Slashdot radio" is in black, BSD is in red, and "Your Rights Online" is in this strange orange/brown. Our beloved "#006666" green is still Slashdot's standard color.
Or is it that you understand about the color-coding and you're just disagreeing with the particular colors chosen? I commented on this before, when I first saw the new "Your Rights Online" colors. It might be partly my fault, since I had jokingly nominated orange as a possible color. Sorry.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Apparently Republic claims copyright on the music. See:
Article 1
Article 2
...which is bull, regardless of how often that argument comes up.
Things like identity theft and plagiarism are still, frankly, theft. Things like a reputation, or the ability to be the sole provider of a new service or product, have value despite being intangible.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I would have no argument with copyrights if they protected the people that you describe. The reality is very different. Since the first copyright law, copyrights have gone from 28 years (which was essentially the mean remaining lifespan for artists at the time) to the artist's death + 70 years. In the last 50 years copyrights have been continually and retroactively extended so that works like the original Mickey Mouse movies won't ever enter the public domain.
Copyright is a compact. It balances my natural right to express myself however I please and to do anything I want with what is in my possession, including copying it, with the need to provide an incentive for art. Copyright is a good idea, but the lengths of time in use now, and the unnerving idea that copyrights may be extended indefinitely are completely beyond the original intent of what is in the Constitution.
Furthermore, artists benefit very little from extending copyrights, since the vast majority of work is popular for only a short time, so the present value of royalties is hardly effected by changes beyond a few years. The only ones who benefit are the copyright holders of older material which still happens to be profitable. Clearly, protecting this older material has no bearing on promoting creativity, in fact it stifles it, since no one else can use that material as a basis of new art.
I strongly hope that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (The Sonny Bono Copyright Act) will be declared unconstitutional and that some sense will be returned to copyright law.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
two words "time" and "stamp"
That may or may not be a problem. All users on a shell account have the same IP address. The moral is, never use your shell account to download warez if you're the only one on at the time. That also pre-supposes that web server logs are kept forever. I know that I don't, they take up too much space. Logrotate ages 'em for a while then trashes them.
It's easy to be upset at copyright because the big corps are using it as a weapon, and overlook the consequences of getting rid of it. ;) I do studio projects and won't gig, so for me it'd be a question of making CDs to sell, maybe posters or shirts (I have a friend who runs a T-Shirt print shop), and of course if I got known enough I'd be able to sell recording time at my studio, and that would be a kick, helping other people do what I did and getting paid for it. ;P ) Why is this suddenly okay when it's being done in cyberspace? Is data not property?
Basically, the last thing you want to do is obliterate the few protections artists and authors _do_ have: get rid of copyright and what happens? Your buddy records a great song, and in two weeks the Spice Girls are flooding the market with it, followed by Hanson, Ricky Martin and Etc., and there's no recourse and nothing to be done about it. Weakening copyright itself will _not_ help the already very weak position of the modernday artist. Varese said "The present day composer refuses to die!" but he can sure be forced to starve, with a bit of work.
The problem here is not copyright: it is abuses by large corporations, in particular it is attempts by these industries to _establish_ a monopolistic 'trust' situation. They feel very strongly that no art, music, whatever _can_ occur outside of their control, so they see nothing wrong with cracking down on all the TECHNOLOGIES that could proliferate alternative distribution channels that would compete with them.
This is worsened by the fact that they are already exploiting their artists so badly (taking a cut away from the artist for typical rates of broken SHELLAC on CDs? It was already absurd to do this to artists when records had become vinyl and not so subject to cracking, but with CDs it's beyond ludicrous, it's insulting, a slap in the face), that the artists do NOT have a financial incentive to stick with the industry. It is genuinely a better risk to try being a cottage indie CD producer and distribute your own stuff with _no_ industry support or music store presence or radio play- that's not a claim of how great indie-land is, it's a withering indictment of just how bad the industry has become.
And yet that's the reality- so the problem is this: rather than attack copyright, you have to defend the ability of artists to get their works to their customers. I don't care how many people rip songs to mp3 (I don't), I want the ability to put MY music on it and distribute it. I want mp3 walkmen, a whole proliferation of technology that I as an independent can tap into. I don't even care if only one in a thousand of my listeners buys a CD from me- that's still better than I'd be doing with the mainstream industry, at least I'd have half a chance to _get_ that thousand listeners and sell a CD.
As an artist I would _cheerfully_ put up with my stuff being widely copied. Hell, I wouldn't expect to be able to charge for mp3s in the first place. The money is just where it is in the mainstream industry- gigging, merchandising, merchandising and merchandising
I'm still doing the legwork on all this. It's slow when you don't have a budget or a team of people. However, it's still a worthy dream- and it _requires_ that people have access to the media I'd have to use. If the industries kill mp3s they kill me as an artist, because I could use that media, given the chance, and get a fair hearing with things produced the way I wanted them. On the other hand, if the world killed copyright- I'd be hosed. I have a _book_ online, I have songs that are to be online when I have the tech to master them really _well_, and if you take copyright it's an open invitation for the wealthy industry to go cherry-picking, take anything they like, and build synthetic artists with lots of distribution and promotion on the back of MY creative work, if it's good enough to steal. That's not acceptable- I can't afford to fight that, and it'd be horribly destructive.
See the issue as access to tools! And fight to make sure the technologies remain available! It's OK if they want to make stupidly encrypted DVDs as long as we have the capacity to make NON encrypted DVDs that will play on consumer players. It's okay for the idiots to invent a new encrypted CD format as long as the consumer players still play the extant CD audio format that we have access to writing. It's okay if digital walkmen play some twisted encrypted MS format as long as they still play the mp3 format that indies can afford to use! This is the key point: access to tools. Don't even try to hit the industries directly, defend! Defend against the determined attempts to remove choice for the consumer, to make the consumer incapable of consuming the 'outlaw' media. That outlaw media is the last great hope of independent artists in a corporate-controlled world. There's not much money in it- this differs from record company exploitation how? It's access to tools, access to media- it must not be lost. Already there are blank tape taxes (as ktakki mentions), basically the music industry TAXING indies as if they were a government, on the grounds that no artists other than record company clients exist. How much more is in store if we don't defend against this? What would it have been like if blank tapes were simply outlawed? Throw the internet into the equation, and they might do the equivalent of outlawing blank tapes just because 'it's Internet', it's different. These crackdowns: imagine if the record industry insisted on doing spot checks, breaking into people's rooms and confiscating all their cassettes to see if any were taped off LPs. (That'd be real popular at the Berklee College of Music!
If the middle class actually believed in investments and occasionally saving money instead of lottery tickets, frequently eating out, and having the latest clothing, perhaps they'd do better.
It's not coincidental that excess consumption is not a common trait about the self-made wealthy; folks like the late Mr. Walton, for instance.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Desktop Pictures (jpg) :) it's the sort of thing where I can vow to never restrict or limit it, because I'm not greedy- I can give some things and sell others, I don't need 'protection' in the form of mp3 encryption, I don't need to harass music listeners like a repo man- that sucks, it's stupid, it's bad business, and it's certainly not entertainment.
Tiling Background Library (gif/jpg/xpm)
Dithered Background Textures (gif/xpm)
Oddly enough, just last night I was doing an analysis of airwindows.com traffic, and found that although no specific weblog showed it, a huge amount of activity at my site had to do with people who were searching for art. They found it at airwindows, they downloaded it, they looked around to see what else was there.
I went and enhanced what I had. I made web gifs of the XPM tiles I'd originally meant for strictly Linux background purposes. Conversely, I went to the dithered GIFs I'd made, and I made XPM versions of all of them. I made all of it available, updated the links, tidied it up a bit, made sure it worked.
All of these are free downloads. I request that nobody try to take credit: that's it, that's the only condition. Anything else is fair game.
I can't do this with mp3s on my site- for the very simple reason that I have way too much music to store as mp3s on my site (by several orders of magnitude), some of which is very long format. However, I've been steadily building the needed mastering equipment to go into mp3 in a very big way, and when I do I anticipate loading really huge amounts of original music onto mp3.com or somewhere like that, somewhere that just yells, 'Bring it on! more megabytes please!' knowing that they get ad revenues for hosting good content.
At that point, my making money from that content is _my_ problem. If my engineering isn't good enough to be worth spending money on an uncompressed CD version, that's my problem- if my music isn't so cool that everybody buys T-Shirts and posters from me, that's my problem. MP3 will be my radio- it's the loss leader, it's what I give out like I give out the silly little webgifs
Entertainment is optional. It seems the big entertainment industries are forgetting that....
Okay, so I went to download Napster to see what it's all about.
Looks like a members-only IRC server that's seriously underpowered. Takes me a long time to connect, and that's only after several tries. Searches take as long as five minutes. And while I admit I only downloaded two things, neither went above 2.3kbps.
I think, if you're gonna leech mp3s, mIRC will do a much better job for you.
P.S. Is there anybody here who's been using Napster for a while, and can tell me if they've always been like this, or if it's due to media attention? I'd appreciate it.
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Correction: the artistic equivalent of OSS might well be commission or retainer. I've been commissioned for fiction writing- the story Passages was a commission for money, for which the client was well satisfied. I even got to use my own artistic judgement on how it came out and the points it made- it was a lot of work balancing that, but I did it. ;) ;) ;) )
However, with regard to music the money is in _merchandising_, not having people commission you to write songs for them. Yes, if you're amazing then maybe you might get commissioned- just as, if you're an amazing instrumentalist, you can be retained as a house musician somewhere. However, in the world of the net, where the art goes out there for free, the winning solution is to then sell posh versions, or shirts, or posters, that sort of thing. Hell, sell figurines
For example, I don't have stuff up at the moment, but my most recent mix was a long format rock instrumental with a 'live band feel' in which the low-end was absolutely phenomenal- we're talking low end authority to utterly show off any subwoofer no matter how expensive, or on the other hand to make any truck go 'boom'
Bearing that in mind, I have a definite outlet for 'audiophile' CDs (actually, I could omit the quotes- I mix _damn_ well and build my own equipment- but my point is that I'd have a big market in pure bass test stuff, which is not truly audiophile).
I have albums of pop/rock songs which I think are good songs. If I can deliver them well enough, really rock 'em and make great albums, then I'd have an extra outlet- besides selling audiophile CDs of the original sources for the mp3s (or custom mixes, for instance for more dynamic range or 'in your face' radio mix CDs), I would definitely be well advised to try and come up with a T-shirt or poster. How many techno bands would be well advised to do a _mouse_ pad? I use a fancy 3M mousepad, but even so I could easily see using a 'u4ia' mousepad if he made them (classic Amiga techno MOD artist, now goes by F8 and no he doesn't make mousepads
You've got to think merchandising, not trying to 'milk' the very music that you're trying to have _everybody_ listening to. Having it be free is a very good way to help 'everybody' be listening to it. If you can get that happening, if you're that good an artist, then other avenues begin to open up. And you won't make millions- but seriously, lots of 'industry' artists end up heavily in DEBT for their art. Bands that don't recoup royalties, artists signing away everything, pay-to-play just in order to get booked at gigs: it's an absolute snake pit, evil, if you want to make money you're better off giving away free mp3s and then trying to sell mousepads, CDs and figurines over your little website. Seriously...
Oh, man, I wish more people realised how wickedly sarcastic you are being with that remark ;)
...well, then you wouldn't be as _subtle_ ;)
Of course, if you add "Except that the royalty they get on the CDs is diluted and taken away by every random charge up to and including charges for broken SHELLAC on CD pressings (I am not making this up), plus it only goes to pay back the advance which is only an advance on royalties but the artist does have to cover all promotion, recording costs etc. out of their own pocket, meaning that for most platinum sellers they are _paying_ a lot of money to be a rock and roll star, not making it, and if they're riding around in Caddys they're all the worse in debt to the record company, which will be expecting to be repaid, either in royalties recouped directly from the artist's cut, or just plain money from getting a day job..."
Sorry, you're _way_ out of the ballpark with that one, not that this conflicts with your opinions or anything ;) ;) ), it's more reasonable to include the actual costs of playing the game and say, "The average artist PAYS ten cents to the record company for each CD sold, due to having to cover promotion and pay their way the whole time, plus having to recoup recording expenses from advance royalties."
Virtually no artists get even that $1. You're totally overlooking the costs of recording, pay to play, and getting to the point of having the 16$ CD on sale. Being signed may well mean being given money by the record company to do these things- all that comes out of the royalty. The artist has to come up with their own money to promote, and is contractually bound to the record company.
On top of this, that 1$ is reduced to *estimate* I'd guess about 50 or 60 cents due to extensive commissions and cuts and charges every step of the way: exemplified by the 'shellac breakage' charge that artists are _still_ paying. It's a racket: this _is_ the industry busted for payola, after all. In the modern day, if there is payola, the artist has to come up with _that_ out of his remaining 50-60 cents, which also goes to paying off recording costs.
I would say if you want to average it out, and calculating only for the major labels, out of a $16 CD sale, your average artist also pays another 30 cents or so to the record company for the _privilege_ of being a rock and roll star. That's average: some will be further in debt, and some will manage to earn between ten to thirty cents on each $16 CD the record company sells. You might have the occasional superstar making $1 or more, but platinum != superstar, and some of the real chart toppers have ended up in the worst debt- it is the businessmen musicians who manage to actually earn anything, and most of them still do not recoup their recording costs and never see a royalty.
Again (with the dreaded boldface!
Read Steve Albini's rants if you want more relentless detail on all this. Yes, it's that bad. Another good resource is a man whom I took a music business course in the 80s, Peter Knickles, who is really gifted at getting this reality through musician's heads and then helping them learn how to turn enough of a profit that they can afford to survive doing music as a job (!), which involves a tremendous amount of work and the total abandonment of silly trust in record companies.
The original idea behind 28 years as a copyright was that was a reasonable estimate of the remaining life expectancy of an artist. It was not intended to be extended beyond the artist's death and certainly not in perpetuity.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I take it your ISP doesn't accept identd requests.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
That's funny I see a whole bunch of stuff at say, Project Gutenberg, that is PD.
Yes, and it's all pre-WWI. It will be that way for many years to come. That's because those things DID have their copyright expire. Since that time, copyright has been expanded every time a certain copyrighted mouse would move into the public domain. At the rate we're going, the copyright won't run out until the language is so archaic and the culture so distant in the past that only 5 people or so will even get the jokes. That is not what copyright was EVER supposed to be.
Note also, that several corperations are working hard to secure exclusive rights to digital representations of great works of art. Apparently, if you're a copyright, you can rise from the dead.
There comes a point where the written work becomes part of a culture. No corperation can be allowed to OWN culture.
I've been trying to read this in a fairly evenhanded way, but this was just too much:
:-)
I disagree totally. The one element in determining the value of something is scarcity. In this case IP is exactly like physical property. By distributing someone else's IP without their permission you are reducing the scarcity of that item and reducing its value.
If I'm in the business of building cars, should it be illegal for anyone else to build cars because they might reduce the scarcity of cars and thus reduce their value?
Now, this is of course covered by patents. However:
1) I think that this example points out the fundamental difference between
'IP' and something I can hold;
2) Do you want patents to last for 70 years past the death of the patent holder? Please think carefully before answering
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
A society based on your give-back principle would be a very gray society... No one would bother producing anything new.
Why, look! There it is, in its natural habitat! The elusive econodwarf!
You can't say "give me" without giving back- in this case, paying the people who produce for you the things you enjoy.
How much of the purchase price of a new CD do you think the artist gets? And how much goes to the record company and the various middle-men?
I've noticed that you don't like to keep all the issues in mind when you reply to things. For instance, the RIAA did not go to court and charge a student with having illegal MP3s on the school network. The RIAA did not call the FBI and request an investigation. The RIAA did not get a search warrant to go through the school's networked computers and check for illegal material. These are all due process of the law. The RIAA instead threatened (implied) lawsuits and scared the schools into doing police work on the students. It wasn't ever shown that many of these persons had illegal MP3s; if they were
Your comment is almost true -- but out of context again. The question was:
... which you didn't answer. There is no implied agreement here between companies. The question is whether one company or association (the RIAA) can force another "free" company (as you pointed out) such as, for instance, Diamond multimedia, to change their software because it -MIGHT- be used to pirate music. Isn't it illegal for the user of the software to use it illegally? There isn't even a clause on my hammer at home telling me to not use it to smash peoples' car windows.
It's illegal to copy commercial music and distribute it to those who have no right to that music. It doesn't matter if the tools are available; you're just not allowed to do it.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)