"Slashdot. Schmam notes that Stevie Case, one of the designers for Quake II"
No, Stevie Case had nothing to do with Quake II, nor id. Well, she had a thing going with "Xian" "Disruptor" "Anktow" there for a bit, but not quite the same thing.
Fellow Lawrencite Brandon James did have something to do with Quake II, but has since moved on to Rogue Entertainment. I guess hanging out with people like Paul Steed really does get to you after awhile.
"You're comparison of Napster to an atom bomb is completely inappropriate, not to mention outright wrong."
I made a goofy illustration to point out the flawed logic your own analogy uses. "Inappropriate" and "wrong" don't really apply.
"Napster was never intended for such things, or anything illegal at all."
If you're really so naive as to believe whoever wrote Napster didn't think it's primary use would be transmitting copyrighted material, you need to sit down and count your marbles. I was about to go into a litany of why this is so obvious, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing something so blatantly clear.
"You cann my comparison of Napster to an acetylene torch to be a silly extreme; your atom bomb example is both sillier and more extreme"
Since you made an abstraction in your example, I didn't think you'd have so much trouble abstracting mine. For examples you might find more relevant (mileage varies by state) - Cable descramblers, radar dectectors, high quality lock picks... and on.
"And for an honest question: what do you think of the legalization of drugs?"
This is not at all the same bag.
"Napster is not EBay. Napster cannot do anything"
Well by this reasoning, neither can ebay, as anyone can simply re-open another account and repost an auction.
"Looking at filenames. This is truly idiotic, because filenames are trivially easy to change"
This is true, but are you really going to spend all day downloading "notasong.3pm"'s and hoping it's something you want to listen to? If artist names/song titles are removed from the material, the idea of quick-n-easy searching for whatever song or band you're looking for is over. If using napster comes down to something like this, this will cause big problems for Napster.
"You got any other ideas? Let's hear them"
What should Napster itself do? Make some sort of good faith effort to remove abuses. They aren't doing this because it'd basically equate to shutting themselves down, as virtually no free material passes through them.
"Oh, yes, this reminds me; is there any fair way to punish users?"
Yeah, for those handing out 40 gigs of copyrighted material, fines and/or jail time, the traditional way of punishing crime. Since attempting to catch everyone is close to impossible, I imagine you'll see more random enforcement focusing on the worst abusers, as with that college student up in Oregon.
"You can cancel their accounts, but that's no big deal; they'll just grab other ones"
This is obviously not a total solution, but it'd stop some people. Besides the fact extra hassle equates to less interest to start with, many people using napster barely know how to use their computers in the first place.
"Dynamic IP's make IP-banning unreliable, and banning a whole ISP for the sake of a few abusers is just plain unfair."
True. Ironically, most ISP's already ban napster by the way of banning any server is their usage agreements. The only two ways around this are 1) Paying 4x+ as much for a contract without server restrictions 2) Switching from an unlimited plan to a metered one. As broadband providers get their feet more firmly planted, I imagine you'll find crackdowns on high-traffic servers of any type common. My ISP just did this April 15th, specifically because Napster was sucking away an incredible amount of bandwidth.
"In practical terms, this underlying concept is now obsolete, since digital artifacts can be duplicated in any quantity at zero cost."
I'm a little lost at your jump in logic here. One would think the idea behind protecting someones exclusive control of the work is independent of it's duplication cost. A million bee stings are much worse than a couple bites from the big dogs.
"We must therefore redesign IP laws such that they acknowledge infinite, zero-cost duplication by anyone, anywhere."
And so, how would you begin redesigning them? Seriously. Idea's that won't cut it are
- People will do (insert activity here) anyway during their free time.
- Buisnesses will fund everything
- Advertising will fund everything
- Ransomware in any form
- Folks will donate something to things they really like/use because people are just good that way.
- We will place taxes on appropriate physical goods and distribute them ala the NSF to whoever is appropriate
Let's not forget -- zero-cost duplication is possible given the right tools, but we haven't managed to pull off zero cost creation.
"Arguing about whether it's ethical to copy another artist's music is rather like arguing about whether it's ethical for tornadoes to strike trailer parks. While we may lament when it happens to someone we like, the fact is, it's going to happen, so it's probably a good idea to start structuring your life around this reality."
Poor argument. Petty theft of all kinds of physical goods is very common. The solution to this very old problem has been lots of cameras, gizmos placed on items that set off alarms if unchecked, pre-pay gas, etc. Without all those checks, petty theft would be rampant. I suspect that's what you'll see the solution heading towards as far as IP goes, with privacy laws being the only blockade. I'm not saying this is how I'd deal with it, but I'll be eat a copy of the consitution if copyright is fundamentally reworked in the next 50 years.
"Folks, there's an awful lot of good music out there, for free, available to download any time of day. You don't *have* to buy the force-fed 'product' that's being pushed in the frontlines"
Well, some aren't buying it, and that's what all the fuss is over isn't it? Flipside is they're still listening to the stuff, and smaller/unknown/consentually free artists are almost completely neglected.
If someone feeds you shit, and you don't like the taste, that's one thing. If you just can't get enough, that's another problem entirely.
"I pay musicians with the time, effort, and bandwidth it takes to promote their music"
Problem is when the authors consider it theft. Anti-copright? Alright. Support free music? Okay. Explain how you're doing people a *favor* by stealing their work against their wishes? Hah. You're morality is just fine, as long as you don't start telling me that's how I have to do things when it comes to works I create.
I suppose one day I might roto-till your lawn as my way of saying thanks for the great post, but I imagine you might not feel quite as happy about my "generosity".
"Regardless, I've already learned that whining children should NOT get what they want as a general rule"
No kidding - especially when they're all crying for free beer.
If a band becomes popular from a purely free music background, that may actually cause large waves. Sitting around with napster running while trading britney spears is doing very little to change the status quo. So if you must spend time promoting bands, support the unknowns who are giving their music away for free.There's a billion out there - some of them really good. Not many on Napster of course.
I think your area needs better filters on the tap water.
"Does this mean acetylene torches should be made illegal? Of course not."
Atom bombs - legalize it! Sure, the potential for abuse is pretty bad, but Atom bombs don't kill people, people kill people!
Some things are obviously much more dangerous or susceptible to abuse than others. You point out a silly extreme, and there are plenty of silly counter examples like the above to come back with. What people have generally attempted to apply to law here is a sense of "rational" thought. The problem with Napster is, it's completely about abuse. 99%+ of the files on Napster at a given time are copyrighted works. The huge, vast, overwhelming majority of folk do not use napster for anything else. Napster is not like your acetylene torch.
"with Napster, a program made with purely benign intentions".
... "It seems as though the US is ruled by corporations now."
Surely you're not this stupid. Here's a clue: Napster IS a corporation. They have VP's, CFO's, CEO's, Directors, the whole bit. They have wild dreams of going IPO in the not-so-distant future and becomming multi-zillionares. That would quite an impossibility if they were blocked from their by far, far and away main source of interest - copyrighted music (and also vastly dominated by already-popular, established artists. Viva the mp3 "revolution"!).
"They do absolutely everything they can legally and fairly do to prevent piracy"
No, they actually didn't do anything, unlike say ebay, which actually has people sifting through e-mails and auctions attempting to keep their hands clean. Napster on the other hand has done absolutely nothing until this whole challenge to provide "lists" of abusers - which I'll wager, they were real surprised and upset Metallica decided to take them up on.
If you're going to support free music, at least support something like Gnutella, where the anti-copyright sentiment and non-commercialism IS pure, even if I don't agree with it at all.
Assuming imdb knows what it's talking about, this should clear up the confusion about alternate version's of dune and 'the directors cut', as well as the references to seeing a longer film I've seen scattered around.
http://us.imdb.com/AlternateVersions?0087182
I sought this out awhile ago as I swore, many many moons ago, my freshman year roomate in college watched an extremely long version of dune (IE - 4+ hours). I must have been dreaming though.
"You can't control the use of ideas like you can control to use of your car."
Once again, a piece of art, be it code, music, writing, or what have you is not "thought". It's an entity of it's own - that exists whether or not anyone is "thinking about it". Simply because it is easily duplicable does not render it a "thought".
I *can* control my works completely if I hoarde the physical media they are on. Good luck on making any sort of duplication of a symphonic piece by listening to it, then attempting to recreate it with your own orchestra. I may make the greatest movie int he world, keep one copy, and tour it to theatres and simply charge per showing. This is ridiculous of course, but certainly possible. Copyright allows me ot share and control my work without having to resort to such extreme stupidity to do so.
"seeks to allow those in power to continually screw the general public."
And how are you getting so screwed? You have the freedom to do whatever you wish with your own works. If someone else decides they don't want to share them with you in the same way, you're somehow getting screwed?
"I classify my right to life as a natural one. Most religions/philosophies condem murder; it's just plain wrong."
You're beginning a completely indefensible argument. Right - so murder is wrong. Many people consider abortion murder. Many people consider the death penalty murder. You may disagree and say "No, aborition isn't murder" just like you might say "No, piracy isn't theft". Let's just forget that tangent - there is no natrual law or anything resembling it. You can espouse all day about what you might consider more "reasonably natural" but it is simply a matter of your opinion, regardless of how many people, religions, or whatever agree or disagree with you.
"Music, writing, and code are all thoughts and ideas"
Once again, no. I can not recreate listening to a piece of music or running a program in my mind anywhere near to perfection.
"If you paint a picture, you can own the physical medium (the canvas and paint) that you used to express your thought, but you can't prevent someone from taking a picture of it, making copies, and showing other people."
Sure I can - what exactly prevents me from doing this? Heck, most art museums I've been to forbid cameras of any sort.
"Thats why your comparison to houses, cars, and toasters is bunk"
No, it's not bunk. I consider the things I actually create far more personal and "mine" than material goods. "But I do hope that in the government and economic systems of the future, copyright law will not be necessary" This will not happen. Most people, at heart, are individualists.
"What we _can_ do now is make an effort stop the current copyright abuses."
I'm all for that on both sides of the fence. However there is very large difference between making sure the rules make sense versus abolishing them.
You of course, get nowhere appealing to folks in control of copyright to be more sensical about the laws when you simply ignore them in the first place. Why bother listening to arguments about mitigating copyright abuse who's going to violate copyright regardless of what the laws are?
"Like I have already said, RMS is alarmingly radical and idealistic, but people like him are necessary to get things moving in the right direction."
Radicals really aren't very alarming. Anyway, I'm pretty convinced these days most people who espouse his belief system are in it for the free beer, not the actual idea.
"any real artist would like every human being on the planet to hear their work"
Not really - you should see some of the fans.
"There's no natural right"
Period. I get awfully tired of people pointing to IP law as "artificial", as if virtually every other law was something else. All laws are created by humans. Your right to free speech, personal property of any sort, no taxation without representation, or whatever you please, are just as artificial as the copyright clause in the US constituion.
"Artists have only the artifical "intellectual property" legal rights granted to them by legislatures on behalf of "we the people" "
The legislatures certainlly have extended on copyright law, but the foundation for copyright is sitting right in the US constituion (assuming we're talking US legislatures).
"And "we the people" are deciding that granting an artificial right to prevent copying doesn't make sense anymore."
We the not-very-many people, anyway. Having been drawn to all sorts of IP discussion on/. over time, I'd be more than a tad surprised if a majority of/. posters would be in favor of eliminating copyright, heck, even 1/4. While there are RMS types out there, it seems most people enjoy the *freedom* to decide how they're going to share easily copiable creations with the world. Reworking patents as far as software and making sure copyright laws are sane (IE - not 100 years past the life of the author, not infringing on fair use), sure... but not eliminating them.
"Copying by its very nature is not and cannot be theft. Theft takes something away from the victim. If I make a copy, you still have the original"
. Apparently your definition of theft means you physically take something away from someone. So alright, that doesn't happen here, so uh, let's call it, piracy! When you steal music, no, you don't take away a physical object, but you do remove the creators ability to control and profit from the work in a variety of ways. This doesn't just mean preventing freeloading folks from passing your songs around for party mixes, it also means preventing pepsi from bastardizing your music in some incredibly hip superbowl advertisement.
"You don't have a moral right to stuff that you could have had if circumstances had been different."
Err, no. They're just saying, don't steal our stuff.
As far as moral rights go, it seems your morality allows you to step on that of whoever you wish. That kind of morality enforcement just isn't a good thing. Uf you put out a piece of code under the GPL, I'll respect your terms. If you put out a closed source product, same thing - and if I don't like/want it, I won't buy it. Amazing. You on the other hand, feel it's your moral imperative to break whatever license I may put on any easily duplicable creation I make.
I'm certainly a lot more comfortable on this side of the fence.
But considering that CD sales are up, it's hard to even argue that potential profits were lost.
Actually, it's really easy. Just because the growth continued to be *positive* doesn't mean there was no effect. Indeed - many "moral crusaders" love to champion the idea that mp3 theft (and thus "promotion") contributed leaps and bounds to the purchase of CDs.
"Yes, freedom means that you can do whatever you want with your code, but it doesn't meant that you can tell someone else what they can and can't do with that software."
You're contradicting yourself. Doing *whatever* I want with my code means, putting a license on it that restricts (or doesn't) it's use with whatever terms I wish. In your world, apparently "whatever I want" doesn't the terms I share code under. Restricting the terms I can release code under to one is certainl limiting freedom of choice, for a communal good, under terms I may or may not agree with.
"Ownership of intellectual property is an illusion, a byproduct of living in a capitalistic system."
Ownership of *anything* is the by-product of a capitalistic system. As an aside, Intellectual property/Copyright are not at all new ideas.
"Copyright laws protect an artificial right"
All "rights" are artificial, period. If you want to appeal to philosophy or religion, there is always another out there that espouses the opposite.
"The original intent of copyright law was to encourage creativity in a capitalistic system by allowing authors to profit from their work for a limited time, not to uphold some sort of fundamental ethical belif."
Supreme court justices with far more experience and historical knowledge than you or I have argued over "original intent" of virtually every piece of the US consistution and continually reargue it. I am sure those that drafted the consitution also held no absolute, unified belief backing the "intent" of the words they wrote.
Regardless, the idea of copyright and the "artificial" right to it are mentioned explicitly. The intent is irrelevant when you are discussing beliefs like RMS's, which intend to throw them way entirely.
"from those who would try to own thought."
My code, my music, and my writing are not "thought". They are creations. As much so as any house, car, or toaster oven designed and built. It may be practical to define different aritifical rules on them given the fact we have the ability to easily duplicate things, but I certainly feel I own my works at least as much as I own my car or land, or whatever physicial possesion I've purchased with artificially valued currency.
"The problem today is that copyright law has been abused to no end"
This is true, but it goes both ways. Witness the DMCA, and in the other corner, Napster.
"In a perfect world without copyrights and licensing, everything would be in the public domain and we would not have to protect ourselves from those who would try to own thought."
Perhaps your perfect world. If everything were in the *public domain* - this would mean there is no resitriction/condition on distribution at all - such as releasing source code or crediting authors.
"RMS is concerned primarily with ethical issues, and that is a Good Thing(TM)"
I certainly respect RMS's views, and the fact I think he truly believes he's fighting for what's right. Of course, I do get sick of seeing endless posts about the benefits of destroying copyright from people who have written no "significant" amount of code, written any music... What most people really want is free beer, and have nothing to contribute.
"Whether or not we can follow his philosiphies today is not as important as recognising that his belifs are fundamentally good. Only then can we hope to see a world where there is no need for copyrights."
I think we can at least agree on his intentions being fundamentally good.
In a world without copyrights, we're going to need to convince authors that people using their creation for purposes they may consider annoying, offensive, or even harmful is palettable. Not likely to happen. Additionally, we're going to need to find a way to economically support the very sizable number of people on the planet who make their livings through the (now fairly old)existence of copyright and intellectual property. The only solution proposed by RMS that begins hinting at the tip of the iceberg here (no, please don't tell me advertising and co-sourcing by buisness will do it, even if we're just talking about software) is a "Software Tax" levied on all hardware sold and then distributed to developers. Extending this idea to all IP is going to be one hell of a tax, and whew boy, deciding who gets what out of it is going to be quite a doozy, even assuming whatever institution was going to handle this was completely free of corruption. I think you'll then find all the free beer advocates dissppearing in cries of "I don't want to fund that! Just let me pay for what I want to support and don't force me to subsidize the creation of all sorts of junk I have no use, or interest, in contributing to!"
Open source software is a good thing - I'm glad the movement has picked up steam, and I'm glad to have contributed to it. I find it an unfortunate that with virtually every philosophy or idea, some must always stand and shout the THIS way is the best way, the only way, and the way everyone should (have) to do it. I'll do it my way, thanks, and respect your choice as well.
"Surely there is a case somewhere where the ACLU defended the rights of a conservative Christian to share their personal belief system in a highly public forum"
As many others have already mentioned, there is a difference between quoting the bible and leading prayer in a PUBLIC school. This should be more than obvious.
As for counterexamples of extremely conservative christians being defended:
In Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette, 63 U.S.L.W. (June 29, 1995)(7-2), the Court upheld the right of the Ku Klux Klan to place a cross in a public park bordering the statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. As the majority noted, the park was a traditional public forum that had long been used by residents of Columbus for all sorts of speech activities, including the placement of other religious displays during the holiday season. Under these circumstances, seven members of the Court concluded that there was no violation of the Establishment Clause in allowing the Klan display. Significantly, however, five members of the Court, reaffirmed that the appropriate Establishment Clause question is whether a reasonable person would perceive that the state had endorsed a religious message, expressly rejecting the effort by four members of the Court to further dilute the constitutional standard governing the separation between church and state. The ACLU supported the Klan's free speech rights in this case.
There are of course, many, many others if you wanted to take the time to scour through their history.
Of course, your perception is understandable, as the ACLU does deal with Christians more than any group in fighting for the seperation of Church and State. There are of course many possible reasons for this, but I think the largest variable is accounted for: There are more "Christians" in this country than any other group. Not very surprisingly, the dominating religion comes up in these sorts of cases more often. If the dominant faith in America were Muslim, it'd be pretty obvious.
>
Sorry, those are the rules. Funny. It's too bad though I had real points, and you had no full answers. I suppose I should quote some source about arguing with a wannabe-dead-head (wink), but I guess I'm just not witty enough to keep track of such great retorts. Not only are most people not fools, but there's a good bet that half of them are smarter than you, in one way or another
Here we dip off into lala-land, but it's my fault. Fool is not the right word - self-interest is not really correlated with intelligence. It doesn't take extreme scrutiny of our world to realize this fact. Nor did I say I was any "better", or that this was wrong. Freedom and personal liberty, things I'm a fan of, have this notion built in - self-interest is put above that of community interest. Much like the notion of allowing individuals to copyright work rather than say they can't, in the name of whatever "greater good".
Anyway, it's been fun, I'll leave you to get muddled down with the likes of "Emerson", who seems to have some well-thought through points without having mentioned the Nazi party.
(to steal is not only to take, but also to deprive, IMO)
Indeed - and you're taking/depriving artists of control of their work, is this case, their ability to profit from it.
Contributing my personal resources, I become the equivalent of a radio station. Except my listeners get to pick their own music and listen to it on their own time.
With an important difference - signals from radio stations are poor quality. mp3's are (generally) not. Radio doesnt remove the incentive to buy a CD - you providing high quality mp3's of a CD does.
This Right is what needs better defining.
I think the definition of copyright has been well defined for quite some time. New laws are mostly unnecessary. And under the "old" laws, pirating on napster was still illegal.
But what scares the RIAA (and their (tense) clueless friends in Radio
Right right - that certainly is a large part of it, and quite frankly, as a musician who's been involved in the "buisness" in a variety of ways for awhile, I probably have a lot more personal reasons to dislike the RIAA than you do - and I defintely dislike them. However, simply because the RIAA in very general terms supports copyright, does not mean copyright is bad. I'm sure the Nazi party had/has a few ideas I'd very generally support too, despite their overall evil. This is why you find musicians who've been screwed horribly by the RIAA still coming in on... "their side"... in an article regarding Napster in Salon magazine.
You've admitted a couple of times that you don't like our current establishment, yet you defend the tactics they have used the establish that position.
I don't think I have. I've defended copyright. The "system" used the inability of cheap duplication to take control, back in the day, not copyright. If the first phonograph had been really as cheap/easy to duplicate as a CD is now, I have a strong feeling the RIAA and "big seven" labels would not exist -- copyright would. Stealing stuff on napster would not be so easily rationalized away by fighting bad guys.
I understand the need to profit as an incentive to work, I hope somewhere you can see how some of the things I have mentioned would work
I can't recall anything besides a mention toward micropayment/mp3. I'd re-read it all again, but it's been a long fun saturday night, and I've lost an hour. If you'd like to briefly relate your ideas, I'd be all ears. I have yet to hear one that will work that excludes copyright. Micropayment on mp3s just might do the trick, someday - but it will not if those mp3s can be freely copied once the first person pays for them.
wait until eveyone in your neighborhood has brodband and a home website
Well actually, I live in Austin Texas, and this is already a reality here. Broadband is availible basically everywhere in the city. I'd have DSL or cable, but my apartment complex has it's own T1, and it's a better deal.
But it's not even throwing out copyright laws, we just need to bring them back to reality (which I outlined above for you, so argue that).
I read your message again, and I don't see where you've outlined bringing copyright laws back into reality appears. The constitution does not make any distinction between "Content that begets other content, in a particular way", yet you differentiate stealing photoshop and stealing music. I think there's little confusion about whether existing copyright laws protected music from "personal use" theft (transferred on mp3, CD, tape, or otherwise) yet you seem to feel this isn't so.
The RIAA has an easy time laughing off someone like me, since they've been laughing off the COnstitution for over 20 years
No. The DMCA is not unconsitutional, even if it may be "bad". The words in the constitution certainly require limits, not the lack of them (and if we're going to cite the US consititution as any sort of universal springboard for correct thought in the first place). Semi-sadly, for any upset webboard rant you'll find on slashdot, you'll probably find a non-voting, apathetic, non-activist behind it. Much like Bob Q. Jones really gets mad about things at the BBQ with his neighbor, but never acts beyond spewing words.
I want you to read this before replying. And then tell me which side of this battle you want to be one.
Yes, the that law is absurd. As I mentioned before, being on the "side" of copyright is independent of the RIAA. As the musicians said in the Salon article -- "No one give a shit about what muscians think" - and that's unfortunately true. This debate extends beyond beating down the RIAA baddies. It certainly helps the cause if you can prevert the idea of copyright into THE RIAA/MPAA/whatever you choose, but that's just not the case.
and then tell me what that Right should be, given the Internet
Some things are a little more fundamental. Given the printing press, cassettes, mp3's, or the internet, the basic question is the same. Does a person have a right to *exclusive* control, for a limited time, over their specific creation, regardless of the ease or economics of duplication.
In less that two weeks of "insanely prolific posting", I have had over 600 individuals in 42 different countries visit my website
Right right. Given serious exposure via the enormous/. community and moderation, it happens if you stick it in your tag. As Han Solo said, don't get cocky, kid!
That being said, this has been a fun debate, you are no fool.
And neither are you, and yes, it has been a fun debate. I've had few occasions where I spent time continuing conversations in ancient threads with/,'ers, and so far, despite the raging heat of divided opinion, respect has (mostly) continued and positive discussion prevailed. Thank you for continuing the streak.
On a related final note, I'll point out that it is my opinion most humans are fools. Humans are not inheriently evil, they are inheriently selfish. In the context of this dicussion, most people do NOT care about copyright, napster, patents, or anything one way or another beyond: 1) They way the were... taught... was the "right" way 2) What they see as more beneficial, *personally*(or to those they decide to personally care about), in the long run. Pushing a tad further, must humans are followers. It made be sickening to me (and probably you) that Nsync sold 2.4 million copies of their latest CD in a week, shattering all records, but destroying copyright will not change this. A minority of people will ALWAYS control what a majority of others think about and "like" or "believe in". Destroying copyright will not do anything to change this.
Copyrights and patents DO NOT exist with the intention that the creators of given work or invention will make money. That's entirely secondary. The point, as you'd know just by looking in the relevant part of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8) is to increase the amount of works that enter into the public domain.
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
Your interperetation of -the- word "promote" is quite liberal, wouldn't you say?
Regardless, it seems the founding fathers felt "but people who really want to will do it anyway" felt that wouldn't cut it to the point they put it into the consitution.
Well suprisingly enough, virtually no copyrighted material has entered the public domain in recent years. This clearly indicates a breakdown in the existing copyright law.
This is certainly true.
Is there such a thing as a free lunch? YES. Thoughts are not chattel
This is true, but there's a difference between thoughts and explicit works. Hence the difference between patent law and copyright law. In the case of explicit works, IE - a song, I have a hard time finding the rationale that the person who brought it into existence has no logical "ownership" of it. It certainly doesn't seem any more absurd than you claiming you own a piece of land. Men with guns years ago took it from others, claimed it, then through a process of transactions involving the exchange of artificially valued paper units (mostly anyway), it's now "yours".
Given as how a lot of great works were created in times when there were no protections, I sincerely doubt that you're correct in believing that in the absence of copyright the media would dry up. I think that it would just get bigger.
How do you envision it getting bigger? Any artist can currently can freely release their work if they so choose. So as far as "pure" art goes, I fail to see how it'd have any positive effect. On the other hand, all those artists that currently do help support their hobby (or in the lucky cases, career) via the sale of their work, you do not think this would have a negative impact?Stanley Lippman probably does get some joy out of writing C++ books. However, I have a strong, strong feeling that without economic incentive, he'd be far less inclined to spent the enormous amount of time he has writing them (and he'd have less time to do it!).
I'd be in favor of limiting copyrights and patents to somewhere between 10-20 years and never extending them.
I think we're going to need to dip quite a bit under 10 years regarding software PATENTs, don't you?
As far as copyright goes - quite frankly, I don't have a problem with the original creator retaining copyright for a lifetime, I do have a problem with transferring copyright to others and enforcing similar limits. Despite his death, I do stil get a sick feeling when I hear Jimi-Hendrix songs playing as background music in Tommy Hilfiger ads and the like.
Most likely they'd get sued, stealing the work for personal gain, not personal use. If you'll reread the whole argument, I AM TOTALLY FOR PROTECTING AN ARTIST'S RIGHT TO PROFIT
This is again where your personal notion of theft gets confusing again. As long as you don't attempt to use something you've stolen for "personal gain" it's not theft. Theft is taking something without permission - it does not matter whether that's for person use, selling it, or giving it to charity. Your gain in getting music is that - you (hopefully) get a nice musical experience. At times it may even be pretty damn moving. Your rationalization is amusing, though.
I DO pay to go see bands play. Quite often as a matter of fact. This was to illustrate the difference between playing music for a living and writing for a living.
I'm sure you do. Also note, many types of music don't lend to live performances. So suddenly writing music becomes like writing in some cases -- ut-oh!
Hullo, go take that book, photocopy it 1,000 times and tell me how much time and effort it takes. Put an MP3 on the Net, let 1000 people DL and tell me how much time and effort it takes. Are these things similar, NO! That's my point.
Alright - take that book, may a high quality scan and turn it into a PS file. One method of copying and redistribution may be a whole lot easier/cheaper than another, how that makes a difference regarding whether you have the right to steal it, got me.
Analogies, metaphors. Like your O'Reilly Books, or Photoshop, or (as many people have tried to argue) Cars. None of these "examples" can be used to argue that you shouldn't freely exchange music files. They don't "fit" the same model.
No to cars, the others, yes, the same thing. I may never use Photoshop for any sort of economic gain, but that doesn't mean copying it from a friend isn't stealing it. I suppose pirating games is alright, since I don't err, "remove id's right to profit from them" - I'm just personally using them! Of course, selling games IS id's way of profiting from them! You can't opt out of stealing simply because you don't see yourself as "gaining" or "profiting" from your theft in some particular way. If I steal a car, I stole the car, it doesn't matter if I'm using it to deliver food to the homeless while the owner was just letting it rot in the driveway.
Yep, and both of them could be argued to decrease music sales in the same way as MP3s, they attack "potential" sales. This loss of potential is one of the RIAA's cornerstones on why they want to make the everyday and convenient tasks of listening to music, illegal.
However there is a very clear difference between the two, and I'm not going to bother bickering over stupidity further.
The RIAA has an easy time laughing someone like you off because you make such ridiculous statements. No, the RIAA does not want to make listening to music illegal. They do not want people to steal it (and, as a side note, they'd like to maintain the current system's control, which is not so wonderful). However, for each blithering idiot argument they get in e-mail, the more they decide they're simply fighting a tide of moronic teenagers.
This is where I realized you were an idiot. Go check up on some fundamental economics and tell me how supply has nothing to do with price or value.
With such insanely prolific commenting on slashdot (I originally tried to track your old replies via your user info -- so many comments they scrolled off the last 50 list in less than a week!) you'd think by now you'd gotten over the joy of weak personal attacks.
Anyway -- "supply" is irrelevant. Duplicating CDs is a trivial matter, and beyond a certain point, can cost no less. The price of CDs has nothing to do with supply, just as the price of books, art, software, or any other media has nothing to do with supply. The value is detemined by who's created it, or whoever they've signed control over to. As far as physical goods - supply of the materials needed to create is often a small factor in the price. Photoshop, which is apparently not okay to steal in your book, doesn't cost $400 (or whatever it is) because of "supply and demand". Economics is just a tad more complicated.
again, this IS the issue.
If you think overthrowing popular culture is simply a matter of throwing out copyright laws (for certain things - anyway) alright! You're greatly oversimplying things, it won't do it (even if it were to happen - which it won't!).
Then just use that as the reply.
Referring to t-shirt sales and gains from touring? Alright, I'll give an answer.
Small band: You can't tour in the first place - bars in distant lands will not book you period, much less to fit into your tour schedule. You'll only be able to play local shows, when the bars decide to give you one, with very little or no minimum. Your cut from the door will be a pittance. Local stores will likely put your CD in the aisles, but not your t-shirts or other wares. People will buy your CDs, but not your shirts (if you have shirts). At this point (assuming you're gaining an audience) CD/Tape sales will be the majority of your small income.
Medium sized band: You can tour and the minimums are higher, but still awful in some places. You may do pretty well on weekend nights in bigger towns or where you've got a good following, but your weekday shows will not draw enormous crowds. You try and stay at as many friends and "friendly bands" houses as you can, but it doesn't always work out. You soon realize sleeping in a van at rest areas, with 4 others, loaded with music equipment, for 2 months is not really an option -- particularly in extreme heat and cold. The gas, food (and laundromat, etc, etc)... and (when you need them) living accomodations begin to add up very quickly. If you're frugal and play nearly every single night, you will come out ahead, but once again it's all about the door and CD sales. CD sales FAR outnumber your t-shirt sales, and probably your cut of the door some nights, because people like your music - not your t-shirt (and hopefully people who heard about the show, heard from a friend at the show, etc, will go and buy a CD later). Anyway look in anyones closet and compare the number of band t-shirts vs their music collection sometime. When you get back home with whatever profit you've made, you notice you have 2 months of rent and other assorted bills accumulated without your 2 months of "day-job" paychecks waiting in the mail. Your door earnings and mechandising minus expenses may be enough to cover it, but you certainly didn't earn as much as you would've working minimum wage for 8-10 weeks.
Of course if you've made it this far, you've almost certainly spent a large chunk of change recording. Getting into a studio with a knowledgable engineer with good equipment costs a pretty penny per hour. No, you can't create a pro-sounding CD with an SBlive card, Cakewalk Pro, and a $50 mic at home. So you're still recouping this money as well.
If you're a large band, taking you to music halls and arenas, you're rolling in it right? Not quite. Now you're hauling an enormous amount of musical gear around requiring semis/tour busses, and this costs a small fortune (you and all those roadies need to sleep there, too!). Renting the PA/lighting gear that goes into the buses/trailers costs a small fortune. You will need a host of roadies to deal with setting this all up and tearing it down every night, not to mention lighting and soundguys who know how to run the stuff. It gets better - arena's/musichalls require you pay them anywhere between 10-40% of anything you've sold in their venue (they don't subtract "cost" either - this is why you find $20+ t-shirts at large concerts). Are we done? No! You'll need Ticketmaster to sell all those tickets now, which cuts badly into your profit from ticket sales. And finally, moving to the next show is now an event in itself. Tearing down, setting up, checking for problems, fixing the problems, checking again -- it's not just throwing a little gear in the van and hitting the road. Coupled with the fact that your tour is more spread out (and centered on major cities -- no place to play in Smallville, Texas anymore) means you can't play every night and keep income rolling -- unfortunately you can't stop your expenses. This is why you will find many uber-popular musicians touring behind the sponsorship of corporation X or with heavy promotion of local radio station Y - they can't afford to do it otherwise.
So there you go. That is why touring and mechandising are not cash cows.
That and every other revenue stream that already exists.Do you even read posts before you reply, seriously?
If you'll notice my responses to you, nearly everything I'm responding to is quoted. Do you pay any attention to what you're saying, or are you simply too busy spouting comments out on webboards to pay attention?
Anyway, CD sales are *by far and away* the "primary revenue stream" for the music industry and musicians in general. Cut that out without a replacement and you have a real problem. "Look, I'm just saying, you don't own your music and can't sell it -- but you can still do everything else" doesn't quite cut it. Note here - I'm talking about original music. Yes, you can make money playing cover tunes at Fat Tuesdays, weddings, frat parties, or write advertising jingles, but these things are a far different beast.
So you'd like to see major changes....without making major changes, riiiight.
Eh? Copyright is the only relevant major change needed to fix everything?! Whew.
Quite frankly, I'd love to see a popular artist who's done with their label contract opt to attempt self-distribution through mp3's/selling CDs via a website and whatever traditional store distribution channels will still take them... at a fraction of the current retail price CDs (which would still be a gain for them, supposing they would sell comparible numbers).
However they aren't going to do it when the mp3s they put up will immediately be pirated, and even better, folks like you will feel quite righteous in stealing them.
If you think the media companies in this country are doing a good job and have a positive effect, fine, stick with them.
I've said many things otherwise, actually. Unlike you though, I think condoning pirated music works against smaller/unknown artists, not for them. More fundamentally, of course, I do believe I have the right to control the distribution and terms of what I create - whether that happens to be on duplicable media or not. Saying I can't removes individual freedom for a (supposed) greater good, but I'm not a big communitarian.
Yes, same with E-bay, but if I remember they did get into the buisness of removing some heavy weaponry and drug sales, among other things. I suppose you might say this was "just too illegal", but can you make that distinction?
In the last couple cities I've lived in, there's been a free "culture" magazine paid for by nothing more than ads and classifieds. A paper equivalent of Yahoo's auction, sorta. I can't ever think of seeing an ad for illegal anything in there, and I bet that's probably not coicidence, I'm sure they simply don't accept them because there's liability in it for them.
And you bring up another interesting point - that Yahoo is primarily used legitimately. What if their service was primarily being used for illegal purposes -- say something like, Napster?
Tough issues. My two cents is that certainly Yahoo should be active about removing anything called to their attention, at minimum. Beyond that it is a tough call. As far as suing the actual pirates stopping piracy -- no more than all the millions in jail quickly stop others from repeating the same crimes. Some crimes, like piracy, underage drinking, pot smoking, etc, are simply so rampant they are impossible to effectively enforce. And making an example of the big fish, or a couple random smaller fish, doesn't do much to dissuade the masses.
No, thieves steal things. Pirates forcibly board ships, murder the crew, and then steal the cargo. Referring to illegal copying as piracy, even if you believe that the law is a right and moral law, is absurd.
That fact that you're responding a quote from the original post, not my reply, makes this very tired attempt at a witty quip even that much better. To respond to your words in kind - this is the common termonolgy and it's not patently offensive -- "live with it".
No, that's not theft, that's a contract violation. They are different things
Ahh I see. So then in your view, contract law has no meaning. I can sign a contract with you regarding something, but if I don't feel like abiding by your terms, oh well!
To steal something is to take it away by force or without permission
Plenty of theft has nothing to do with force, but you're right on the other point - without permission.
But if on monday, you are in posession of something, and on wednesday, you are still in posession of that thing, how can it have been stolen on tuesday?
Property is not just posession -- it's also about control. I may live in your yard and use your garage - you still "posess" these things,but you'd probably have a problem with my use of them.
Many people believe that information cannot be a subject of property, as it has no physical reality
Information has a physicial reality, but I won't nitpick. And no, not many people believe this - this is a view very much in the minority.
The nature of property is tied up in the fact that objects can only be in one place at a time. Information doesn't work that way.
Let's get something clear - the "anture of property", in any form, is an artificial construct. There is no natural law dictating what is and what isn't property. "Information" can easily be controlled - simply protect the physical media. I may make the greatest movie ever, keep one copy, and simply show it and charge per view. Bang - "information" works that way here. Of course this is silly given current technology which allows cheap, high quality copies of my movie to be made. However in your world, apparently the only "sharing" I can do without losing all control (not the least of which is the ability to profit), is to keep control of the physical media. This sort of idea is why copyright law came about many moons ago, and why such a huge number of countires in our world have it on the books.
Copyright law does two very important things - it allows the creator to benefit economically and control the use of what they have created. The second issue is just as important, because having your personal love ballad used as the friends theme or a Star Wars trailer being shoddiy preverted into piece of political propogranda is a bad thing. The last quick point - Unlike patent law, we're not talking about an "idea" - we're talking about the specific work. There is a very large difference.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac McPherson, 1813
Right about the same was also writing a host of letters asserting the right to own (some) other humans as property. Not sure he's a great source to quote on the theory of property (besides, it sounds as if he was talking about the concept of patents).
All that said, I would like to live in a world where artists get compensated for their work, so that there is more incentive for artists to produce art. However, I don't think we live in that world today: the people getting compensated are, by and large, not the artists, but their lawyers.
Having a problem with the music industry is independent of the notion of copyright. At least artists get a pittance of their CD's sales (if they are on a label, anyway, otherwise this isn't a problem). You pirating CDs isn't getting them anything.
And if by some miracle some band does gain a huge wide audience without succumbinhg to a major label contract, will you buy their music from them? The answer for most people is: They don't give a crap whether this or that mp3 is under this or that contract. It's free, it's easy, WWF is on in 5 minutes, I don't care about this debate.
If you can provide a good model where free-trading of songs presents a musician with a similar opportunity to make money as they have now, I'm all for hearing it. I haven't heard one yet. Even if I did, I'd be just as for copyright law - I should have the freedom to choose how I share my work, and the manner in which you can use it. The world has changed. Figure out a way to live with it. "I'm stealing from you - figure out a way to live with it". Like the old addage - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. As you've said, you sure do hope someone figures out how to compensate musicians someday, but you'll continue to screw them yourself in the meantime. Congradulations.
We can debate the definition of stealing in the digital realm all day long.
And we could also debate the definition of "personal property" or "land rights". However, we already have defintions for these things. Stealing things in the "digital realm" is simply a logical extension of copyright law, which has been on the books in many, many countries for quite some time.
I don't consider Photoshop to be the same thing as an MP3. One it is a tool used to create content, rather than the content itself. Photoshop is not somethig you can turn on the radio and hear.
Uh, right. So anything that creates content can be copyrighted, otherwise no. What happens when someone takes that mp3 as begins sampling it or putting it as the background to their adbertosement (IE - Using it to create new content)? Ut-oh! This is a silly, and impossible, distinction to make.
I don't pay to go see Tim (or any of his authors) read thier books live?
And your point is?
Why take the hours to copy something when I could spend those same hours making the money to buy it?
I don't know if you've seen a modern photocopying machine lately, but it's a very simple, automated process to copy hundreds of pages at a time -- and certainly far cheaper than say, a O'Reilly book would cost new.
I've seen numerous "examples" in various debates on this issue, and have yet to find one that fits or makes any discernable point by fitting.
Examples of? Fitting "what"?
That is a response to the whining of the RIAA that "pirating" costs them potential sales. Well, heart disease does the same thing.
This is a stupid analogy. Uhh -- murders cause people to die, but so does heart disease! Guess it's the same thing.
The only way they would lose "sales" is if someone spends the money somewhere else to obtain the same product.
Err, no! It's if they'd have bought the product if they hadn't been able to get it "freely".
The RIAA is working very hard to keep the supply of it's product limited, which goes against both the ideals of music as an art form and the current nature of the product (given the Internet).
Supply has nothing to do with anything. Nor does the ideals of music as an art form (As shown in this article, as screwed as many get by the RIAA, most just don't feel you have the right to take their work and do what you will with it).
Hell no. At least not under the current environment.
What "environment" is preventing you? You feel the RIAA is screwing everyone, including musicians. So you steal the musicians music and screw them yourself. At least the RIAA pays them a little, eh?
Nope, just the idea that art should appeal to *you* and not someone you've been taught to think is better than you
This is great, but it has nothing to do with the issue.
By convincing you so deeply that sharing is stealing, they've built a nice nest egg with which to sue.
Sharing something YOU created freely is just fine, sharing something I've created without my consent and against my terms is stealing. And I think that is exactly the kind of attitude the RIAA will continue to enforce, through repetition, repetition, repetition. No, actually, the RIAA does not make it expensive to buy high quality recording equipment or enforce audio engineering rates. Nor do they make it expensive or difficult to book venues.
When the Net is as common as TV (which should be about 5 years now if trends continue to accelerate as they have been), I think the only thing that will keep it from working is artists thinking it won't. It will take an example to kick start the thing, but it will happen.
Something might happen, if people quit stealing mp3s. If mp3 distribution continues on it's current path, where it's just a free for all of "trading", artists aren't going to get behind it if they begin achieving any modicum of success. Touring and merchandising do not generate hoardes of cash - having been around and in the music scene for 15 years, I'd go into much greater detail on this for you, but this post is long enough.
I tell how I don't think the right way is to do it, the DMCA, and UCITA.
Right - you have no plan other than vague allusion to a micropayment scheme (where it would seem, given your other startments, would simply be a good faith gesture, these mp3s would be freely re-distributable).
But, what you are proposing we do
I do propose copyright law stays intact. I'd like nothing more than to see the music industry as we know it disappear, but I'd really rather not see the ability to control my work disppear. I'm not a fan of popular culture either. What I suppose you don't see is that that trading mp3's is doing zippo to change it. There are 10 billion copies of Nsync songs being traded on Napster, numerous IRC channels and FTPs right now, and thousands and thousands of unknown artists with free stuff up on mp3.com or wherever completely ignored. The mp3 "revolution" has had nothing to do about promoting the small guys. Most people just think it's nice they can get the newest Metallica CD for free and without any real fear of penalty. It's doing zippo to expand culture.
Now before I get into long, winding arguments again, let me make this clear, I think we do need some form of intellectual copyright protection. HOWEVER, given the nature of the Internet and the nature of digital media, our current model for IP is laughable.
Given the rest of your post, I'm interested in hearing a quick summary how you would change IP to make it "workable".
You shouldn't be forced to limit your choices in a "free" country.
I'm all for this idea, as long as your choices don't adversly bother me. In this case, they do.
It's not. I am not a pirate. Pirates steal things. Listening is not stealing
Ah the rationale. Breaking the terms under which someone releases them to you is stealing, whether it happens to be easily copiable or not. I suppose if you copy photoshop and use it and give it to whoever you wish, as long as you don't sell it, that's okay. What if you simply photocopy all the Tim O'Reilly books rather than buy them?
Copyright should protect the authors of original works to profit from them. If you want to look at it realisticaly, Napster TOTALLY DESTROYS the *real* pirates, those that SELL other artists works.
You seem to have the very confused idea that stealing equals "Selling what I took". And reality check here - I have never once seen someone attempting to sell pirated CDs. I'm sure it happens, but that's not the major concern.
But what we can do, if we can keep this argument objective, is create an environment where people respect the copyrights of another because of the willingness of the original author to share
I see - so I suppose you send off checks to the artists you're "listening to" currently? Do you pick an arbitrary amount, or do you ask the artist? What about all those mp3s you "don't like that much and wouldn't actually buy" - are you obligated to send checks off anyway, or are you just entitled to them because you're uh, just listening? So we just need to do is indoctrinate society to do the right thing, and viola, problem solved!
By enforcing these types of values, we can make it a moral decision that the only person who should be paid for a CD is the artist, not some pirater (be they corporate or independant).
Unfortunately, the moral decision you make may not be the one the artist decides to make. And it's no wonder - with all the wonderful hype about mp3 taking the music industry down with this new self-distribution method, nothing has really changed from the artists point of view. Why? Many reasons, but I'll stick to one - almost no one is willing to pay for these mp3s you self distribute. That makes it real hard to make a pro sounding CD, support a tour, or cut back on the dayjob a little to make more music. So as bad as the tradional model is, artists are forced to it simply because it is the only way they can hope to make any money.
Personally I prefer a society that uses values to protect the rights or artists, rather than a government that enforces the rights of corporations at the point of a gun.
I'm still lost on your plan to protect the rights of artists. It appears you don't have a problem with stealing mp3's, as you're just listening to them (I imagine you've probably also redistributed a few of them, but hey). So what is your plan? Complaining about the current model is easy. Coming up with a good solution is not.
(1) - As far as patents, I think you're right to a degree - reforming software patents is something most geeks agree with. Exactly how far to go is NOT so simple. You run into trouble when you equate patents to IP.
(2) There is a little more to it than that, including your idea of what should be "fair use" in the first place. This is certainly an area where there is no "geek" consensus at all. (3) Well, organizations like the ACLU and EFF already take up these causes, although I'd be surprised to hear if they'd defended any child pornographers legally. There are all kinds of complications to this, and there are a million opinions about them. (4) Problems, problems.
have been burned so many times I cannot count... I have dozens of CDs that have only one or two decent songs, but the rest of the CD is crap or totally unlike the "hit single" they released.
In the last two cities I've lived in, numerous record stores (and ALL the many I shopped at) allow you to listen to whatever CD you wished. Since you make such frequent trips to buy CDs of these mp3s you like, what's the problem with doing something like this (or listening to lower quality clips, which are often freely - and not illegally - availible)? Anyway, I don't doubt your sincerity, but virtually everyone I know that trades mp3s works like this, but with a twist you omitted. People may be introduced to new music... but only if it's a pain to get the full CD of songs via mp3. Many times only one song gets transferred around, or the band is just obscure enough this isn't possible.
However, as broadband continues to roll out, 40 gig hard disks and CDR's become even cheaper, finding this obscure band or "that other CD by them" is not going to be a problem and burning it redbook is as easy as pie. The only reason at that point to buy CDs is conscience, but then we run into:
1) Information is free, period. I'm fighting a moral crusade, your morality is unfortunately not a factor.
2) I don't advocate hurting artists, but the music industry is so screwed up I will not support the recording industry no matter what (and thanks for the free lunch too!)
3) Photoshop. I use it, but if for some reason I couldn't use it without buying it, I wouldn't buy it. So I'm not hurting anyone's pocketbook by using it, so who cares.
4) (And the vast majority) Huh dude? I found it on napster. Intellectual property? Copyright? Who cares about that man - what are you taking about anyway> Have another beer and relax, WWF is on in 5 minutes.
That's the story. I've never, ever, once heard of someone will a full CD of mp3s and a CDR going to buy same CD at the store unless the mp3s were low quality/had problems, whatever. I'm sure more of my serious musician friends would, but most don't do much with computers, and the ones that do are awfully poor.
What to do about all this, you got me. Most people have no interest in the debate one way or another - it's simply a matter of "if it's free, they'll take it". Unless of course they've got a vested interest in what they're selling, then they get mad about people copying it freely. Anyway, we can relate anecdotes all day about mp3s attracting or detracting from CD sales -- but if you believe easy access to any virtually perfect digital song you wished == people buying the CDs as a show of support, you're crazy.
The founding fathers had personal cannon and warships
Really? Their own, personally owned warships? I hadn't heard about this, you have a source?
There is no sign they intended that to change as technology improved - and plenty of sign that they intended the trend to continue. They knew about progress, especially in weaponry, and wrote about it incessantly.
Right. Perhaps machine guns had been protyped, but machine guns are pale in comparison to whats happened with military weaponry in the last 200 years. They had no idea what was coming, and to implicity guess they'd consider a rifle the same thing as an H-bomb is ridiculous.
So if the minions of governments have SAWs, RPG, nerve gas, or nukes, what makes anyone think the founders would not have wanted the citizens to have them, too? The logic of the "balance of terror" is as valid between a population and its government as it is between two governments
Because these things are insanely dangerous. In any large population, nuts pop up (like yourself perhaps). Imagine if getting upset over daytrading didn't mean shooting a few people, but rather lobbing some mustard gas around. Headline: "It's believed the bloods just purchased 4 more howitzers". Personal accountability means nothing to someone so extreme or insane they do not care about their own life - there is no "balance of terror". Giving individual people easy access to weapons capable of mass destruction is, to put it bluntly, very stupid idea. Fortunately most the vast majority of people, even hardcore NRA and libertarian folk, are sane enough to realize this.
And what makes anyone think they're safer from a nuke in the hand of the likes of Hussein, or flammable-gas-projecting tanks in the hands of the likes of Horriuchi and Reno, than they are with them in the hands of a private citizen with the means to purchase them?
I was going to write a further response to this, but it's so blatantly stupid I will not be bothered. If you'd allow the rich to create their own personal armies, uh, alrighty. "You're going to break up Microsoft eh? My military leaders don't think so". One fortunate thing about our democracy is that really confused extremists advocating stupid ideas very rarely given the power to make law.
Claiming that we would need bombs in the event we have to revolt against a civilized government might be a valid argument for large explosive ownership, until you realize that the potential for abuse is simply too large, from a utilitarian point of view, to allow.
With 60,000+ deaths per year due to gunfire in the US (compared to hundreds in a host of our peer first world nations with much stricter gun laws), it seems like there's really compelling argument that the the "potential" for abuse concerning small arms is quite high!
even though it lowers the chances that the people win their future revolt by x%?
This makes a few very poor assumptions 1) An overthrow of the system will have to include violence and 2) Small arms will make a difference. Skipping the first point, the second is simply funny (as previously mentioned). Sending out a "citizen army" with legal small arms against the US military would be a joke. You can fire all the rifles you want at M1's, Bradley's, F-15's flying overhead, etc... all day while dodging artillery fire, bombs, missiles, etc -- but it ain't going to be much different than throwing rocks.
In viewing today's reality, this "need guns to have a revolution" argument is really a non-argument. Personal defense? Well, that's a much stickier question.
Slashdot Mirror
"Slashdot. Schmam notes that Stevie Case, one of the designers for Quake II"
No, Stevie Case had nothing to do with Quake II, nor id. Well, she had a thing going with "Xian" "Disruptor" "Anktow" there for a bit, but not quite the same thing.Fellow Lawrencite Brandon James did have something to do with Quake II, but has since moved on to Rogue Entertainment. I guess hanging out with people like Paul Steed really does get to you after awhile.
I made a goofy illustration to point out the flawed logic your own analogy uses. "Inappropriate" and "wrong" don't really apply.
"Napster was never intended for such things, or anything illegal at all."
If you're really so naive as to believe whoever wrote Napster didn't think it's primary use would be transmitting copyrighted material, you need to sit down and count your marbles. I was about to go into a litany of why this is so obvious, but I'm not going to waste my time arguing something so blatantly clear.
"You cann my comparison of Napster to an acetylene torch to be a silly extreme; your atom bomb example is both sillier and more extreme"
Since you made an abstraction in your example, I didn't think you'd have so much trouble abstracting mine. For examples you might find more relevant (mileage varies by state) - Cable descramblers, radar dectectors, high quality lock picks... and on.
"And for an honest question: what do you think of the legalization of drugs?"
This is not at all the same bag.
"Napster is not EBay. Napster cannot do anything"
Well by this reasoning, neither can ebay, as anyone can simply re-open another account and repost an auction.
"Looking at filenames. This is truly idiotic, because filenames are trivially easy to change"
This is true, but are you really going to spend all day downloading "notasong.3pm"'s and hoping it's something you want to listen to? If artist names/song titles are removed from the material, the idea of quick-n-easy searching for whatever song or band you're looking for is over. If using napster comes down to something like this, this will cause big problems for Napster.
"You got any other ideas? Let's hear them"
What should Napster itself do? Make some sort of good faith effort to remove abuses. They aren't doing this because it'd basically equate to shutting themselves down, as virtually no free material passes through them.
"Oh, yes, this reminds me; is there any fair way to punish users?"
Yeah, for those handing out 40 gigs of copyrighted material, fines and/or jail time, the traditional way of punishing crime. Since attempting to catch everyone is close to impossible, I imagine you'll see more random enforcement focusing on the worst abusers, as with that college student up in Oregon.
"You can cancel their accounts, but that's no big deal; they'll just grab other ones"
This is obviously not a total solution, but it'd stop some people. Besides the fact extra hassle equates to less interest to start with, many people using napster barely know how to use their computers in the first place.
"Dynamic IP's make IP-banning unreliable, and banning a whole ISP for the sake of a few abusers is just plain unfair."
True. Ironically, most ISP's already ban napster by the way of banning any server is their usage agreements. The only two ways around this are 1) Paying 4x+ as much for a contract without server restrictions 2) Switching from an unlimited plan to a metered one. As broadband providers get their feet more firmly planted, I imagine you'll find crackdowns on high-traffic servers of any type common. My ISP just did this April 15th, specifically because Napster was sucking away an incredible amount of bandwidth.
I'm a little lost at your jump in logic here. One would think the idea behind protecting someones exclusive control of the work is independent of it's duplication cost. A million bee stings are much worse than a couple bites from the big dogs.
"We must therefore redesign IP laws such that they acknowledge infinite, zero-cost duplication by anyone, anywhere."
And so, how would you begin redesigning them? Seriously. Idea's that won't cut it are
- People will do (insert activity here) anyway during their free time.
- Buisnesses will fund everything
- Advertising will fund everything
- Ransomware in any form
- Folks will donate something to things they really like/use because people are just good that way.
- We will place taxes on appropriate physical goods and distribute them ala the NSF to whoever is appropriate
Let's not forget -- zero-cost duplication is possible given the right tools, but we haven't managed to pull off zero cost creation.
"Arguing about whether it's ethical to copy another artist's music is rather like arguing about whether it's ethical for tornadoes to strike trailer parks. While we may lament when it happens to someone we like, the fact is, it's going to happen, so it's probably a good idea to start structuring your life around this reality."
Poor argument. Petty theft of all kinds of physical goods is very common. The solution to this very old problem has been lots of cameras, gizmos placed on items that set off alarms if unchecked, pre-pay gas, etc. Without all those checks, petty theft would be rampant. I suspect that's what you'll see the solution heading towards as far as IP goes, with privacy laws being the only blockade. I'm not saying this is how I'd deal with it, but I'll be eat a copy of the consitution if copyright is fundamentally reworked in the next 50 years.
Well, some aren't buying it, and that's what all the fuss is over isn't it? Flipside is they're still listening to the stuff, and smaller/unknown/consentually free artists are almost completely neglected.
If someone feeds you shit, and you don't like the taste, that's one thing. If you just can't get enough, that's another problem entirely.
Hello? This already happens. It just turns out that despite this new avenue of easy-to-get, artist-decreed-free music, very few people want it.
Problem is when the authors consider it theft. Anti-copright? Alright. Support free music? Okay. Explain how you're doing people a *favor* by stealing their work against their wishes? Hah. You're morality is just fine, as long as you don't start telling me that's how I have to do things when it comes to works I create.
I suppose one day I might roto-till your lawn as my way of saying thanks for the great post, but I imagine you might not feel quite as happy about my "generosity".
"Regardless, I've already learned that whining children should NOT get what they want as a general rule"
No kidding - especially when they're all crying for free beer.
If a band becomes popular from a purely free music background, that may actually cause large waves. Sitting around with napster running while trading britney spears is doing very little to change the status quo. So if you must spend time promoting bands, support the unknowns who are giving their music away for free.There's a billion out there - some of them really good. Not many on Napster of course.
I think your area needs better filters on the tap water.
"Does this mean acetylene torches should be made illegal? Of course not."
Atom bombs - legalize it! Sure, the potential for abuse is pretty bad, but Atom bombs don't kill people, people kill people!
Some things are obviously much more dangerous or susceptible to abuse than others. You point out a silly extreme, and there are plenty of silly counter examples like the above to come back with. What people have generally attempted to apply to law here is a sense of "rational" thought. The problem with Napster is, it's completely about abuse. 99%+ of the files on Napster at a given time are copyrighted works. The huge, vast, overwhelming majority of folk do not use napster for anything else. Napster is not like your acetylene torch.
"with Napster, a program made with purely benign intentions".
Surely you're not this stupid. Here's a clue: Napster IS a corporation. They have VP's, CFO's, CEO's, Directors, the whole bit. They have wild dreams of going IPO in the not-so-distant future and becomming multi-zillionares. That would quite an impossibility if they were blocked from their by far, far and away main source of interest - copyrighted music (and also vastly dominated by already-popular, established artists. Viva the mp3 "revolution"!).
"They do absolutely everything they can legally and fairly do to prevent piracy"
No, they actually didn't do anything, unlike say ebay, which actually has people sifting through e-mails and auctions attempting to keep their hands clean. Napster on the other hand has done absolutely nothing until this whole challenge to provide "lists" of abusers - which I'll wager, they were real surprised and upset Metallica decided to take them up on.
If you're going to support free music, at least support something like Gnutella, where the anti-copyright sentiment and non-commercialism IS pure, even if I don't agree with it at all.
http://us.imdb.com/AlternateVersions?0087182
I sought this out awhile ago as I swore, many many moons ago, my freshman year roomate in college watched an extremely long version of dune (IE - 4+ hours). I must have been dreaming though.
Once again, a piece of art, be it code, music, writing, or what have you is not "thought". It's an entity of it's own - that exists whether or not anyone is "thinking about it". Simply because it is easily duplicable does not render it a "thought".
I *can* control my works completely if I hoarde the physical media they are on. Good luck on making any sort of duplication of a symphonic piece by listening to it, then attempting to recreate it with your own orchestra. I may make the greatest movie int he world, keep one copy, and tour it to theatres and simply charge per showing. This is ridiculous of course, but certainly possible. Copyright allows me ot share and control my work without having to resort to such extreme stupidity to do so.
"seeks to allow those in power to continually screw the general public."
And how are you getting so screwed? You have the freedom to do whatever you wish with your own works. If someone else decides they don't want to share them with you in the same way, you're somehow getting screwed?
"I classify my right to life as a natural one. Most religions/philosophies condem murder; it's just plain wrong."
You're beginning a completely indefensible argument. Right - so murder is wrong. Many people consider abortion murder. Many people consider the death penalty murder. You may disagree and say "No, aborition isn't murder" just like you might say "No, piracy isn't theft". Let's just forget that tangent - there is no natrual law or anything resembling it. You can espouse all day about what you might consider more "reasonably natural" but it is simply a matter of your opinion, regardless of how many people, religions, or whatever agree or disagree with you.
"Music, writing, and code are all thoughts and ideas"
Once again, no. I can not recreate listening to a piece of music or running a program in my mind anywhere near to perfection.
"If you paint a picture, you can own the physical medium (the canvas and paint) that you used to express your thought, but you can't prevent someone from taking a picture of it, making copies, and showing other people."
Sure I can - what exactly prevents me from doing this? Heck, most art museums I've been to forbid cameras of any sort.
"Thats why your comparison to houses, cars, and toasters is bunk"
No, it's not bunk. I consider the things I actually create far more personal and "mine" than material goods. "But I do hope that in the government and economic systems of the future, copyright law will not be necessary" This will not happen. Most people, at heart, are individualists.
"What we _can_ do now is make an effort stop the current copyright abuses."
I'm all for that on both sides of the fence. However there is very large difference between making sure the rules make sense versus abolishing them.
You of course, get nowhere appealing to folks in control of copyright to be more sensical about the laws when you simply ignore them in the first place. Why bother listening to arguments about mitigating copyright abuse who's going to violate copyright regardless of what the laws are?
"Like I have already said, RMS is alarmingly radical and idealistic, but people like him are necessary to get things moving in the right direction."
Radicals really aren't very alarming. Anyway, I'm pretty convinced these days most people who espouse his belief system are in it for the free beer, not the actual idea.
Not really - you should see some of the fans.
"There's no natural right"
Period. I get awfully tired of people pointing to IP law as "artificial", as if virtually every other law was something else. All laws are created by humans. Your right to free speech, personal property of any sort, no taxation without representation, or whatever you please, are just as artificial as the copyright clause in the US constituion.
"Artists have only the artifical "intellectual property" legal rights granted to them by legislatures on behalf of "we the people" "
The legislatures certainlly have extended on copyright law, but the foundation for copyright is sitting right in the US constituion (assuming we're talking US legislatures).
"And "we the people" are deciding that granting an artificial right to prevent copying doesn't make sense anymore."
We the not-very-many people, anyway. Having been drawn to all sorts of IP discussion on /. over time, I'd be more than a tad surprised if a majority of /. posters would be in favor of eliminating copyright, heck, even 1/4. While there are RMS types out there, it seems most people enjoy the *freedom* to decide how they're going to share easily copiable creations with the world. Reworking patents as far as software and making sure copyright laws are sane (IE - not 100 years past the life of the author, not infringing on fair use), sure... but not eliminating them.
"Copying by its very nature is not and cannot be theft. Theft takes something away from the victim. If I make a copy, you still have the original"
. Apparently your definition of theft means you physically take something away from someone. So alright, that doesn't happen here, so uh, let's call it, piracy! When you steal music, no, you don't take away a physical object, but you do remove the creators ability to control and profit from the work in a variety of ways. This doesn't just mean preventing freeloading folks from passing your songs around for party mixes, it also means preventing pepsi from bastardizing your music in some incredibly hip superbowl advertisement.
"You don't have a moral right to stuff that you could have had if circumstances had been different."
Err, no. They're just saying, don't steal our stuff.
As far as moral rights go, it seems your morality allows you to step on that of whoever you wish. That kind of morality enforcement just isn't a good thing. Uf you put out a piece of code under the GPL, I'll respect your terms. If you put out a closed source product, same thing - and if I don't like/want it, I won't buy it. Amazing. You on the other hand, feel it's your moral imperative to break whatever license I may put on any easily duplicable creation I make.
I'm certainly a lot more comfortable on this side of the fence.
But considering that CD sales are up, it's hard to even argue that potential profits were lost.
Actually, it's really easy. Just because the growth continued to be *positive* doesn't mean there was no effect. Indeed - many "moral crusaders" love to champion the idea that mp3 theft (and thus "promotion") contributed leaps and bounds to the purchase of CDs.
You're contradicting yourself. Doing *whatever* I want with my code means, putting a license on it that restricts (or doesn't) it's use with whatever terms I wish. In your world, apparently "whatever I want" doesn't the terms I share code under. Restricting the terms I can release code under to one is certainl limiting freedom of choice, for a communal good, under terms I may or may not agree with.
"Ownership of intellectual property is an illusion, a byproduct of living in a capitalistic system."
Ownership of *anything* is the by-product of a capitalistic system. As an aside, Intellectual property/Copyright are not at all new ideas.
"Copyright laws protect an artificial right"
All "rights" are artificial, period. If you want to appeal to philosophy or religion, there is always another out there that espouses the opposite.
"The original intent of copyright law was to encourage creativity in a capitalistic system by allowing authors to profit from their work for a limited time, not to uphold some sort of fundamental ethical belif."
Supreme court justices with far more experience and historical knowledge than you or I have argued over "original intent" of virtually every piece of the US consistution and continually reargue it. I am sure those that drafted the consitution also held no absolute, unified belief backing the "intent" of the words they wrote.
Regardless, the idea of copyright and the "artificial" right to it are mentioned explicitly. The intent is irrelevant when you are discussing beliefs like RMS's, which intend to throw them way entirely.
"from those who would try to own thought."
My code, my music, and my writing are not "thought". They are creations. As much so as any house, car, or toaster oven designed and built. It may be practical to define different aritifical rules on them given the fact we have the ability to easily duplicate things, but I certainly feel I own my works at least as much as I own my car or land, or whatever physicial possesion I've purchased with artificially valued currency.
"The problem today is that copyright law has been abused to no end"
This is true, but it goes both ways. Witness the DMCA, and in the other corner, Napster.
"In a perfect world without copyrights and licensing, everything would be in the public domain and we would not have to protect ourselves from those who would try to own thought."
Perhaps your perfect world. If everything were in the *public domain* - this would mean there is no resitriction/condition on distribution at all - such as releasing source code or crediting authors.
"RMS is concerned primarily with ethical issues, and that is a Good Thing(TM)"
I certainly respect RMS's views, and the fact I think he truly believes he's fighting for what's right. Of course, I do get sick of seeing endless posts about the benefits of destroying copyright from people who have written no "significant" amount of code, written any music... What most people really want is free beer, and have nothing to contribute.
"Whether or not we can follow his philosiphies today is not as important as recognising that his belifs are fundamentally good. Only then can we hope to see a world where there is no need for copyrights."
I think we can at least agree on his intentions being fundamentally good.
In a world without copyrights, we're going to need to convince authors that people using their creation for purposes they may consider annoying, offensive, or even harmful is palettable. Not likely to happen. Additionally, we're going to need to find a way to economically support the very sizable number of people on the planet who make their livings through the (now fairly old)existence of copyright and intellectual property. The only solution proposed by RMS that begins hinting at the tip of the iceberg here (no, please don't tell me advertising and co-sourcing by buisness will do it, even if we're just talking about software) is a "Software Tax" levied on all hardware sold and then distributed to developers. Extending this idea to all IP is going to be one hell of a tax, and whew boy, deciding who gets what out of it is going to be quite a doozy, even assuming whatever institution was going to handle this was completely free of corruption. I think you'll then find all the free beer advocates dissppearing in cries of "I don't want to fund that! Just let me pay for what I want to support and don't force me to subsidize the creation of all sorts of junk I have no use, or interest, in contributing to!"
Open source software is a good thing - I'm glad the movement has picked up steam, and I'm glad to have contributed to it. I find it an unfortunate that with virtually every philosophy or idea, some must always stand and shout the THIS way is the best way, the only way, and the way everyone should (have) to do it. I'll do it my way, thanks, and respect your choice as well.
As many others have already mentioned, there is a difference between quoting the bible and leading prayer in a PUBLIC school. This should be more than obvious.
As for counterexamples of extremely conservative christians being defended:
In Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette, 63 U.S.L.W. (June 29, 1995)(7-2), the Court upheld the right of the Ku Klux Klan to place a cross in a public park bordering the statehouse in Columbus, Ohio. As the majority noted, the park was a traditional public forum that had long been used by residents of Columbus for all sorts of speech activities, including the placement of other religious displays during the holiday season. Under these circumstances, seven members of the Court concluded that there was no violation of the Establishment Clause in allowing the Klan display. Significantly, however, five members of the Court, reaffirmed that the appropriate Establishment Clause question is whether a reasonable person would perceive that the state had endorsed a religious message, expressly rejecting the effort by four members of the Court to further dilute the constitutional standard governing the separation between church and state. The ACLU supported the Klan's free speech rights in this case.
There are of course, many, many others if you wanted to take the time to scour through their history.
Of course, your perception is understandable, as the ACLU does deal with Christians more than any group in fighting for the seperation of Church and State. There are of course many possible reasons for this, but I think the largest variable is accounted for: There are more "Christians" in this country than any other group. Not very surprisingly, the dominating religion comes up in these sorts of cases more often. If the dominant faith in America were Muslim, it'd be pretty obvious.
Anyway, it's been fun, I'll leave you to get muddled down with the likes of "Emerson", who seems to have some well-thought through points without having mentioned the Nazi party.
On a related final note, I'll point out that it is my opinion most humans are fools. Humans are not inheriently evil, they are inheriently selfish. In the context of this dicussion, most people do NOT care about copyright, napster, patents, or anything one way or another beyond: 1) They way the were ... taught... was the "right" way 2) What they see as more beneficial, *personally*(or to those they decide to personally care about), in the long run. Pushing a tad further, must humans are followers. It made be sickening to me (and probably you) that Nsync sold 2.4 million copies of their latest CD in a week, shattering all records, but destroying copyright will not change this. A minority of people will ALWAYS control what a majority of others think about and "like" or "believe in". Destroying copyright will not do anything to change this.
Your interperetation of -the- word "promote" is quite liberal, wouldn't you say?
Regardless, it seems the founding fathers felt "but people who really want to will do it anyway" felt that wouldn't cut it to the point they put it into the consitution.
This is certainly true. This is true, but there's a difference between thoughts and explicit works. Hence the difference between patent law and copyright law. In the case of explicit works, IE - a song, I have a hard time finding the rationale that the person who brought it into existence has no logical "ownership" of it. It certainly doesn't seem any more absurd than you claiming you own a piece of land. Men with guns years ago took it from others, claimed it, then through a process of transactions involving the exchange of artificially valued paper units (mostly anyway), it's now "yours". How do you envision it getting bigger? Any artist can currently can freely release their work if they so choose. So as far as "pure" art goes, I fail to see how it'd have any positive effect. On the other hand, all those artists that currently do help support their hobby (or in the lucky cases, career) via the sale of their work, you do not think this would have a negative impact?Stanley Lippman probably does get some joy out of writing C++ books. However, I have a strong, strong feeling that without economic incentive, he'd be far less inclined to spent the enormous amount of time he has writing them (and he'd have less time to do it!). I think we're going to need to dip quite a bit under 10 years regarding software PATENTs, don't you?As far as copyright goes - quite frankly, I don't have a problem with the original creator retaining copyright for a lifetime, I do have a problem with transferring copyright to others and enforcing similar limits. Despite his death, I do stil get a sick feeling when I hear Jimi-Hendrix songs playing as background music in Tommy Hilfiger ads and the like.
The RIAA has an easy time laughing someone like you off because you make such ridiculous statements. No, the RIAA does not want to make listening to music illegal. They do not want people to steal it (and, as a side note, they'd like to maintain the current system's control, which is not so wonderful). However, for each blithering idiot argument they get in e-mail, the more they decide they're simply fighting a tide of moronic teenagers.
With such insanely prolific commenting on slashdot (I originally tried to track your old replies via your user info -- so many comments they scrolled off the last 50 list in less than a week!) you'd think by now you'd gotten over the joy of weak personal attacks.Anyway -- "supply" is irrelevant. Duplicating CDs is a trivial matter, and beyond a certain point, can cost no less. The price of CDs has nothing to do with supply, just as the price of books, art, software, or any other media has nothing to do with supply. The value is detemined by who's created it, or whoever they've signed control over to. As far as physical goods - supply of the materials needed to create is often a small factor in the price. Photoshop, which is apparently not okay to steal in your book, doesn't cost $400 (or whatever it is) because of "supply and demand". Economics is just a tad more complicated.
If you think overthrowing popular culture is simply a matter of throwing out copyright laws (for certain things - anyway) alright! You're greatly oversimplying things, it won't do it (even if it were to happen - which it won't!). Referring to t-shirt sales and gains from touring? Alright, I'll give an answer.Small band: You can't tour in the first place - bars in distant lands will not book you period, much less to fit into your tour schedule. You'll only be able to play local shows, when the bars decide to give you one, with very little or no minimum. Your cut from the door will be a pittance. Local stores will likely put your CD in the aisles, but not your t-shirts or other wares. People will buy your CDs, but not your shirts (if you have shirts). At this point (assuming you're gaining an audience) CD/Tape sales will be the majority of your small income.
Medium sized band: You can tour and the minimums are higher, but still awful in some places. You may do pretty well on weekend nights in bigger towns or where you've got a good following, but your weekday shows will not draw enormous crowds. You try and stay at as many friends and "friendly bands" houses as you can, but it doesn't always work out. You soon realize sleeping in a van at rest areas, with 4 others, loaded with music equipment, for 2 months is not really an option -- particularly in extreme heat and cold. The gas, food (and laundromat, etc, etc)... and (when you need them) living accomodations begin to add up very quickly. If you're frugal and play nearly every single night, you will come out ahead, but once again it's all about the door and CD sales. CD sales FAR outnumber your t-shirt sales, and probably your cut of the door some nights, because people like your music - not your t-shirt (and hopefully people who heard about the show, heard from a friend at the show, etc, will go and buy a CD later). Anyway look in anyones closet and compare the number of band t-shirts vs their music collection sometime. When you get back home with whatever profit you've made, you notice you have 2 months of rent and other assorted bills accumulated without your 2 months of "day-job" paychecks waiting in the mail. Your door earnings and mechandising minus expenses may be enough to cover it, but you certainly didn't earn as much as you would've working minimum wage for 8-10 weeks.
Of course if you've made it this far, you've almost certainly spent a large chunk of change recording. Getting into a studio with a knowledgable engineer with good equipment costs a pretty penny per hour. No, you can't create a pro-sounding CD with an SBlive card, Cakewalk Pro, and a $50 mic at home. So you're still recouping this money as well.
If you're a large band, taking you to music halls and arenas, you're rolling in it right? Not quite. Now you're hauling an enormous amount of musical gear around requiring semis/tour busses, and this costs a small fortune (you and all those roadies need to sleep there, too!). Renting the PA/lighting gear that goes into the buses/trailers costs a small fortune. You will need a host of roadies to deal with setting this all up and tearing it down every night, not to mention lighting and soundguys who know how to run the stuff. It gets better - arena's/musichalls require you pay them anywhere between 10-40% of anything you've sold in their venue (they don't subtract "cost" either - this is why you find $20+ t-shirts at large concerts). Are we done? No! You'll need Ticketmaster to sell all those tickets now, which cuts badly into your profit from ticket sales. And finally, moving to the next show is now an event in itself. Tearing down, setting up, checking for problems, fixing the problems, checking again -- it's not just throwing a little gear in the van and hitting the road. Coupled with the fact that your tour is more spread out (and centered on major cities -- no place to play in Smallville, Texas anymore) means you can't play every night and keep income rolling -- unfortunately you can't stop your expenses. This is why you will find many uber-popular musicians touring behind the sponsorship of corporation X or with heavy promotion of local radio station Y - they can't afford to do it otherwise.
So there you go. That is why touring and mechandising are not cash cows.
If you'll notice my responses to you, nearly everything I'm responding to is quoted. Do you pay any attention to what you're saying, or are you simply too busy spouting comments out on webboards to pay attention?Anyway, CD sales are *by far and away* the "primary revenue stream" for the music industry and musicians in general. Cut that out without a replacement and you have a real problem. "Look, I'm just saying, you don't own your music and can't sell it -- but you can still do everything else" doesn't quite cut it. Note here - I'm talking about original music. Yes, you can make money playing cover tunes at Fat Tuesdays, weddings, frat parties, or write advertising jingles, but these things are a far different beast.
Eh? Copyright is the only relevant major change needed to fix everything?! Whew.Quite frankly, I'd love to see a popular artist who's done with their label contract opt to attempt self-distribution through mp3's/selling CDs via a website and whatever traditional store distribution channels will still take them... at a fraction of the current retail price CDs (which would still be a gain for them, supposing they would sell comparible numbers).
However they aren't going to do it when the mp3s they put up will immediately be pirated, and even better, folks like you will feel quite righteous in stealing them.
I've said many things otherwise, actually. Unlike you though, I think condoning pirated music works against smaller/unknown artists, not for them. More fundamentally, of course, I do believe I have the right to control the distribution and terms of what I create - whether that happens to be on duplicable media or not. Saying I can't removes individual freedom for a (supposed) greater good, but I'm not a big communitarian.In the last couple cities I've lived in, there's been a free "culture" magazine paid for by nothing more than ads and classifieds. A paper equivalent of Yahoo's auction, sorta. I can't ever think of seeing an ad for illegal anything in there, and I bet that's probably not coicidence, I'm sure they simply don't accept them because there's liability in it for them.
And you bring up another interesting point - that Yahoo is primarily used legitimately. What if their service was primarily being used for illegal purposes -- say something like, Napster?
Tough issues. My two cents is that certainly Yahoo should be active about removing anything called to their attention, at minimum. Beyond that it is a tough call. As far as suing the actual pirates stopping piracy -- no more than all the millions in jail quickly stop others from repeating the same crimes. Some crimes, like piracy, underage drinking, pot smoking, etc, are simply so rampant they are impossible to effectively enforce. And making an example of the big fish, or a couple random smaller fish, doesn't do much to dissuade the masses.
Copyright law does two very important things - it allows the creator to benefit economically and control the use of what they have created. The second issue is just as important, because having your personal love ballad used as the friends theme or a Star Wars trailer being shoddiy preverted into piece of political propogranda is a bad thing. The last quick point - Unlike patent law, we're not talking about an "idea" - we're talking about the specific work. There is a very large difference.
Right about the same was also writing a host of letters asserting the right to own (some) other humans as property. Not sure he's a great source to quote on the theory of property (besides, it sounds as if he was talking about the concept of patents). Having a problem with the music industry is independent of the notion of copyright. At least artists get a pittance of their CD's sales (if they are on a label, anyway, otherwise this isn't a problem). You pirating CDs isn't getting them anything.And if by some miracle some band does gain a huge wide audience without succumbinhg to a major label contract, will you buy their music from them? The answer for most people is: They don't give a crap whether this or that mp3 is under this or that contract. It's free, it's easy, WWF is on in 5 minutes, I don't care about this debate.
If you can provide a good model where free-trading of songs presents a musician with a similar opportunity to make money as they have now, I'm all for hearing it. I haven't heard one yet. Even if I did, I'd be just as for copyright law - I should have the freedom to choose how I share my work, and the manner in which you can use it. The world has changed. Figure out a way to live with it. "I'm stealing from you - figure out a way to live with it". Like the old addage - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. As you've said, you sure do hope someone figures out how to compensate musicians someday, but you'll continue to screw them yourself in the meantime. Congradulations.
(2) There is a little more to it than that, including your idea of what should be "fair use" in the first place. This is certainly an area where there is no "geek" consensus at all. (3) Well, organizations like the ACLU and EFF already take up these causes, although I'd be surprised to hear if they'd defended any child pornographers legally. There are all kinds of complications to this, and there are a million opinions about them. (4) Problems, problems.
However, as broadband continues to roll out, 40 gig hard disks and CDR's become even cheaper, finding this obscure band or "that other CD by them" is not going to be a problem and burning it redbook is as easy as pie. The only reason at that point to buy CDs is conscience, but then we run into:
1) Information is free, period. I'm fighting a moral crusade, your morality is unfortunately not a factor.
2) I don't advocate hurting artists, but the music industry is so screwed up I will not support the recording industry no matter what (and thanks for the free lunch too!)
3) Photoshop. I use it, but if for some reason I couldn't use it without buying it, I wouldn't buy it. So I'm not hurting anyone's pocketbook by using it, so who cares.
4) (And the vast majority) Huh dude? I found it on napster. Intellectual property? Copyright? Who cares about that man - what are you taking about anyway> Have another beer and relax, WWF is on in 5 minutes.
That's the story. I've never, ever, once heard of someone will a full CD of mp3s and a CDR going to buy same CD at the store unless the mp3s were low quality/had problems, whatever. I'm sure more of my serious musician friends would, but most don't do much with computers, and the ones that do are awfully poor.
What to do about all this, you got me. Most people have no interest in the debate one way or another - it's simply a matter of "if it's free, they'll take it". Unless of course they've got a vested interest in what they're selling, then they get mad about people copying it freely. Anyway, we can relate anecdotes all day about mp3s attracting or detracting from CD sales -- but if you believe easy access to any virtually perfect digital song you wished == people buying the CDs as a show of support, you're crazy.
In viewing today's reality, this "need guns to have a revolution" argument is really a non-argument. Personal defense? Well, that's a much stickier question.