If the bag was sealed at a warmer temperature, or with a humidity level that the current temperature cannot keep in gas form, condensation will occur regardless of whether or not there was anything dangerous in the bag.
I'd say GP has a point -- the idea that the bag is there so they can see condensation sounds bogus.
According to the TSA's website, the reason for the bag is to impose an overall limit on the amount of liquid carried by each passenger. (Which as near as anyone seems able to tell is also silly, but that's another matter...)
"Right to profit" is an incorrect pharsing of the concept, I admit.
But then the fact that you (and at least one other poster) jump on that wording only proves my point: Given the option, those who don't want to respect IP laws will argue about words rather than issues.
When a shop owner has goods on his shelf, he has a legally assigned right to dispose of that object. You can't take it without paying him. While this is not a "right to profit", it is the concept I was talking about.
Likewise, a copyright holder has legally assigned rights to control over the covered content. This is not a "right to profit" -- and indeed in the effective exercise of those rights he might not profit -- but it is the concept I was refering to.
My advice: Put the quote back in context, read it (and the context) again, and write a reply that has some connection to what I said.
For the record, I have had an employer refuse to pay me. My right to have him pay me was a legally-assigned one (not a morally-assigned one). His action in not paying me was both illegal and imoral, as he harmed me in contravention to social (and legal) norms. I hired a lawyer, and I got paid. And, I will never allow him to owe me anything again.
This is entirely consistent with my position on MobiTV -- which is that the people distributing the URL publically and those using it without paying are in the wrong. You'd know that if you actually read my posts instead of focusing on one sentence that doesn't sound right to you.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
"Lock people up"? I'd be truly curious to hear of a case where someone is in prison for IP violations.
I don't believe that the use of the term "steal" has any impact on public policy as it relates to copyright, patent, trademark, etc. But then, what are you bitching at me for -- I just finished saying we should avoid language that detracts from the issues.
"You are the CEO of a multinational corporation. You manage the company into the ground. You are fired, but the golden handshake provision of your contract entitles you to 150M$. Money you didn't, in the strictest sense of the word, earn. Are you stealing?"
The CEO indeed did not steal, but the reason isn't that the company from whom he takes the money left it unprotected; it's that they gave explicit consent that in those circumstances, he would be allowed to take that money.
By contrast, putting content on a URL you don't publish is not accepted (by society in general -- outside of technical circles -- nor by the law) as giving explicit concent for everyone to access that content. It probably should be, but it isn't.
A better analogy would be, a company has poor security policies and the account numbers for their corporate holdings fall into every employee's inbox. If employees make withdrawels, are they stealing? Yes they are.
"Look, if I leave a sofa on the curb in San Francisco, and don't look like I am moving, it will disafsckingppear in less than an hour. The internet is no different; you make a stream avail without any protection, I tap into the stream, you don't want me to, you block it. You don't block, you are ok with it. Like leaving the sofa out, implied consent to access unprotected content/stuff."
Neither restating how you'd like the social norms to be, nor citing other situations where the social norms are how you think the should be, has any connection to the discussion at hand.
Leave your car unlocked in parts of St. Louis, someobody will take your car stereo. The argument has the same logical structure as yours, yet it doesn't lead to the conclusion that taking car stereos from unlocked cars is ok. Abstraction and analogy is fine, but when you abstract away differences that matter, it's just sophistry.
There is no such thing as a direct moral right to profit from anything; commerce is a construct of law.
It is immoral to do willful harm in contravention of social norms. While the commercial rights being violated are not "morally assigned", it is still not moral to subvert them deliberately.
Change the law, change the social norms (across all of society, not just the tech-aware that swim these waters), change the moral issue. Until then, I stand by my previous conclusions.
The information, or Verizon's copy thereof, or their legal suscribers' access thereto -- those things are not destroyed.
The legally assigned rights related to profit for distribution are damaged.
Yes, Verizon can and should take steps to protect that value; but that doesn't make ir "right" or "ok" to take part in destroying it just because it's easy to do so.
The law probably should state that making information publically visible by posting it on the web without protection constitutes an implicit license to all who visit that URL. This would clear up a lot of problems.
If it were so, companies like Verizon would get serious about protecting their web-based content (or, failing to do so, have no recourse). Unless/until it is so, their failure to lock the doors doesn't make it ok to walk in and take what isn't yours.
Now you've opened up the line for yet another debate on the true meaning of "steal".
A lot of people don't accept that the legally-assigned right to profit from (propagation of) information (1) is a distinct thing from the information itself, and (2) can be and is destroyed / taken from the right-holder when unauthorized propagation of the information occurs.
I don't agree, and for that reason I don't have a big problem with the shorthand of calling it theft in casual contexts even though the analogy is imperfect.
Or rather, I wouldn't have a problem about it, except the reality today is it pushes the debate away from the issues as people wrangle about the semantics.
If the only two choices were "rely on the RIAA" or "hope a whole lot of established acts will rescue us, even though evidence suggests that at most a handful will try (any time soon, at least), and even though some bands actually side with the RIAA", then I would agree with you.
In reality, I find being spoon-fed by an artist you like is just as bad as being spoon-fed by the RIAA. The person to be deciding what music you should like is you.
The market is changing, and new ways to find music are emerging. Don't try to wish in a world where we replace sales charts with an old-boys network that rates bands based on who they know -- eventually the new boss will be the same as the old boss.
There are a number of sites creating a direct artist-and-fan marketplace right now, which has far more potential to revolutionize the music world than what NIN is doing. Again, don't get me wrong -- I like what NIN is doing. But for real impact... I've heard of many; the one I'm most familiar with is sellaband.
Yes, that would be a nice thing to see. It would still be incremental. It would affect some bands (those Trent likes, probably with some bias towards certain styles), and some fans (those who like NIN). It would work in cases where those fans click with those bands.
But "smash the system"? I don't think so. That's like saying you can boil the ocean with a magnifying glass. Again, it's merely a step in the right direction.
No, the limited edition is a physial CD, which is physically signed and numbered, and typically contains additional content not available for download. The exact nature of the "extras" with the limited edition vary from artist to artist.
The digital downloads are MP3; I've seen no attempt at DRM, etc. in sellaband's music.
"If they put out an album that's just bad, though, I don't know whether you could get your money back"
No, of course not; if you're going to pre-order, you want to have reasonable confidence in the artist.
But then, if you picked a dog... ok, you're out $10 (or less, really; you will get a little money back from your cut of the band's profits). How many times have you bought a big-label CD only to find that it contained exactly two tracks you like (which you'd heard on the radio) and felt you were out $10-$20? How many of those times were you able to get a refund?
The way many sellaband artists promote, you can get the same kinds of assurance of a good product as you could for a "mainstream" CD purchase. Neither is 100%.
It's common to assume, just because you "can" produce a pressed CD for a few thousand dollars, that you'll get the same value from doing so as if you paid more. I don't buy it -- and I wonder, if that were the case, why the big labels would dump so much money into each release. Some of the artists on sellaband have even commented that they've gone the "inexpensive" route before, and not been fully satisfied with the result.
But it's a moot point -- no individual is required to front the $50,000 to get the album made, so nobody has to worry about whether that price is high, low, or indifferent. That's the beauty of the system -- you pay $10, you'll get a CD. If the artist does well, you'll also get some money back. (And if the artist never raises the $50,000... well, you can take your $10 back. The only money that's not refundable, up until the budget is met, is the transaction cost when you transfer money into or out of the system; as we know, the credit card companies always get paid...)
Don't want to pre-order untested music? Well, each artist posts sample tracks for you to hear before you decide. Some have links to band-specific sites with even more music you can hear. Some already have indie CD's released, existing fans, etc. In short, you decide what you need as proof before you believe.
If you don't find any artists you can believe in... ok, head over to the music store section and there's music available for download, ranging from FREE to $0.50 per track, from artists who have accumulated $50,000 from believers and recorded their albums. Or you can buy the "regular edition" of the CD for $10 + shipping. Or (if it's not sold out) the limited edition -- the same version the pre-orders got -- for $15 + shipping. Seven artists (I think) are available today; nine or ten more are in the recording phase. Others are moving through the pipeline, fast. Not a huge catalog, but hey, you've gotta start somewhere.
It's easy to be cynical about a new idea, but if you're genuinely interested in hearing a wide range of great music from people who don't want to sue you for liking their product, then you really should check out sellaband.com for yourself before rushing to judgement.
Actually, you can kill a set-in tick by scorching it. Not recommended though, as it will probably vomit blood into your bloodstream, which could carry disease....
Come to think of it, I like where your analogy is heading.
I agree that this is a much better approach than the traditional. I applaud NIN for wanting to find a consumer-friendly way to do business, and for actually getting out there and doing something about it.
Undeniably this worked beautifully for Ghosts I-IV. I have my doubts that it could work for a lot of music, though. A few points of perspective:
1) NIN are an established band with a following of fans who would buy a $300 limited edition package. Not all bands have that. And no, it's not just because some bands suck -- it's also because some are just starting out. Could NIN have done this with their first album?
2) The free release included 1/4 of the material. For a "normal" single-disc mainstream release, that's like releasing two or three tracks for promotional purposes. This is not unusual (though the normal delivery mechanism is "radio" rather than "digital download"). To be fair, there are two major differences:
a) The scale of the release and the low pricetag for the first paid tier are such that arguably if you pay the $5 you already know you'll get $5 of value, even if you don't like the remaining 3/4 of the music... With mainstream music, you buy a $10-$20 CD and still might only like the two songs you'd already heard... But part of the reason NIN can do that is, they can cut out a middle-man. They don't need a label to make them known -- see point (1) above.
b) Not clear to me whether the Creative Commons license applies to the whole thing, or just Volume I. If it applies to the whole thing, then presumably there will be a free, legal option for getting the entire release as soon as someone puts it on a p2p network... But whether that's the case, or in any case the impact of that variable on the experiment as a whole, isn't yet clear to me.
3) One of the big draws of the $75 package vs. the $10 package would be the session.WAV files; this idea lends itself well to some styles of music, but not others IMO. (Of course, it would be up to each artist to figure out what premium offerings would make sense with their particular music. Does every musician have the additional skills and insight to do that? Should every musician have to?)
The tiered product structure isn't unique, though this takes it up a notch. That's the big thing to me: This is great in that NIN is pushing their product "the right way", but it relies on a little innovation and a lot of leveraging their established position. Not enough innovation to be the future of music; just a step in the right direction.
"Everyone" will download their HD content? Well, that may be the future, but not the near future. That's the one point where I think the cited experts are off -- they mostly seem to assume that download / streaming services are already knocking on the door, whereas I'd say the market for physical media still has some running room.
Enough to make a profit? Don't know -- they did spend a lot of money on this war. But, sunk costs are sunk costs and can't be wished away; I'd rather be Sony than Toshiba in this situation.
Don't get me wrong; the technology moves fast. Someone "could" set up a download-based video store today -- though I'm not sure how well it would scale on the various network infrastructures they'd hit today.
But the technology isn't the only thing that has to move. The businesses have to move. Oh, they're making their plays, but they're not thinking big just yet; and they seem a long way from the insight that profit is not maximized by making the customer into the enemy.
Also, the public has to move. You may think that downloading a video is so easy anyone could do it; but even though you're surrounded by people like yourself, you are in the minority when it comes to the market of movie-watchers. A lot of people still have a VCR, with a clock that needs to be set manually, which they can't set. A lot of people don't have a PC with a broadband conection.
And of the people who "could" move to all-downloads-all-the-time, not everyone will; not right away, anyway. I'm not treating a subscription to a video stream as "equivalent" to a physical disc; I've watched how companies will leverage central storage and on-demand distribution into control and, eventually, extra money from your wallet. Or, the movie you want to see isn't popular to keep in live storage any more, so too bad for you. I'm also not putting up with extra "protections" that providers like to put in place to offset the perceived risk that I'll pirate the video (apparently if it's on a disc I'd probably be honest, but if it's pre-ripped that'll just push me over the edge...) -- or more likely just to again squeeze more money out of me for the same thing I was already getting.
I haven't looked into this, but don't you suspect that maybe the EU has copyright treaties with the US? Would the EU really want to risk the US refusing to recognize European copyrights (either across the board or at the US government's discretion)? I doubt it, and if not, that probably means they have to respect US copyrights, even when those copyrights belong to companies who are "misbehaving".
If MS were to continue ignoring the EU rulings, I beleive their next recourse would be to deny MS the right to operate in the European market. Companies you might think are "big enough to be above the law" have nonetheless had to bow to that pressure.
Sorry to reply twice, but I meant to cover one other point and forgot to include it in the first reply:
"A "digital audio recording medium" is any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device."
(Emphasis mine.) Even Recordable CD's aren't strictly within that definition"
Partially correct. A general-purpose CDR is deliberately not within the definition. There are special "music only" CDR's, which do fit the definition of a digital audio recording medium. What makes them special? Well, they're physically the same product; but they're marketed for the purpose of recording digital music. (Also, the disc info seen by devices that read the disc identify it as a "music only" disc, so that consumer CD recorders will accept them.)
The "music only" CDR's are also more expensive. Why more expensive? Because you pay a fee that lands in the RIAA's pocket for each disc. So it's not too surprising if the law treats these "special" discs differently than general-purpose CDR's.
So again, you can argue that a lot of things are wrong with the definitions, but the problem isn't that they're outdated; they're actually quite up-to-date, and they do mean what they say.
The distinction may seem insane from a consumer perspective, but it is in the law on purpose. Congress does that kind of thing quite a bit. (Go read up on the various classifications of light bulb if you'd like another fine example of your tax dollars at work.)
The current definitions are from the DMCA. You might argue a lot of things, but you can't argue that they're out of date.
"hard drives, flash drives, and networks are how the consumer makes 'digital audio recordings'"
Based on the definitions used in the law, I disagree. Those are the tools used to copy a digital music recording, which is not the same thing.
"When I rip a CD I'm copying a file."
Actually, no, you're not. At least not with typical consumer equipment. A rip is not a direct copy, though today's hardware is good enough I doubt anyone can tell the difference.
I also don't know that it would qualify as "making a digital music recording".
"When I buy an itunes song, I'm copying a file."
When you buy an iTunes song, you are copying a file; but what makes you think you're "making a digital music recording" per the law's meaning?
"I can use consumer equipment to make personal use copies"
No, that is not what that section of the law says.
"It just so happens consumer grade equipment has reached the point that it can make hundreds of perfect copies an hour from an original 10,000 miles away with half a dozen mouse clicks. The stuff of science fiction when this law was written"
Again, you're over-estimating the age of the law in question (or else under-estimating the age of the Internet, I don't know which). Much of the DMCA was written speciically because of the technologies we're discussing.
However, it was written by Congressmen; not programmers, not geeks and nerds, nobody from the demographics I'm assuming apply to you, nor from the demographics that apply to me. What it means and what it appears to you to mean are not necessariy going to be the same thing, not because it was written for a different time, but because it was written from a different perspective.
"By contrast, removing the limited monopoly of copyright entirely -- such as by allowing free p2p sharing of tracks -- is a longer-term consideration that cannot simply be thrust on the market as it exists today.
Technology has *already* done this"
No, it hasn't. The limited monopoly is a legal construct and it is still in place, the ease with which it can be violated notwithstanding. The monopoly was always intended to apply even to those who had the technological means to compete against it; that's why a law was needed in the first place.
"When the printing press arrived and the scribes were put out of work, we didn't try and protect them and artificially suppress the press to preserve their business model "
Poor analogy for three major reasons.
1) The scribes -- the ones who could no longer be compensated due to the press -- were no longer a key provider of anything useful in the supply chain. The artists -- whom copyright law is designed to compensate -- are still required to make music.
2) To prop up scribes would've required a new legal infrastructure. Not temporary maintenance and phase-out of an existing structure -- a new structure.
3) Copyright isn't about propping up a business model; it's a standing method of solving an economic problem recognized by society, albeit a method that is aging and that will eventually fail. Contrary to your belief, it has not failed yet.
Again, copyright and "the RIAA" aren't the same thing. The RIAA is about protecting a business model. Copyright is not.
So overall, I'd say the analogy has no relation beyond surface appearances to the situation at hand. I'd also say it appears as though you're imagining that you can move the whole world from "where we are" to "where you think we should be" overnight. Sorry to tell you, that approach leads only to disasters.
(As an aside, it also happens to be bad strategy. It polarizes the debate, creates conflict in which both sides suffer unnecessary harm, and usually delays or
You've taken sec 1008 out of context. I doubt a PC can meet the definition (in sec. 1001) of a "digital audio recording device" (or in any event that it's acting in that capacity when being used to download a music file), nor that downloading a copy over a p2p network would qualify as "making [a] digital musical recording".
The point of sec 1008 is that I can record music off the radio, etc., for my own personal use. It is not intended to suggest that digital music files aren't subject to copy restrictions.
Even if you were right that the downloading party were legally in the clear, that would have nothing at all to do with the legal standing of the person who made the track available for download.
In any event, noncommercial copying is not automatically legal. Specific uses -- which tend to be non-commercial -- are legal under various exemptions, of which fair use is the most-often cited.
"Fair comment. But the point is that he's not a drug trafficker. He shouldn't be charged as one."
If you're saying that the offense of a p2p sharer should carry a lesser penalty than would the offense of a big-time boot-legger, I agree. I never said otherwise. What I said is, it's still copyright infringement.
In the one p2p case I'm aware of that went to a jury, the judgement was too high up the range of possible penalties IMO. That doesn't mean I don't think she was guilty, though.
"I'm a big Alice Cooper fan for example, have been forever. If he wanted to release a new album and wanted to make 1,000,000 from it, I'd pledge $5 to the cause. If 200,000 other like minded individuals around the globe came forward, the 1,000,000 bounty would be met and it would be released"
And yes, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say the market has to change; but it's not quite that simple and, at least for now, copyright is still a necessary piece of the puzzle.
Reducing copyright term to reasonable levels and ensuring that penalties are proportional to offenses are both necessary in the immediate term; that's what I mean by "restore balance".
By contrast, removing the limited monopoly of copyright entirely -- such as by allowing free p2p sharing of tracks -- is a longer-term consideration that cannot simply be thrust on the market as it exists today.
I'd say typical stated motives are some combination of
(1) belief that the music, being mere information, "wants to be free" (2) willingness or desire to participate in a community that makes music available for free (much like your "pay it forward" theory
Neither of these have much to do with whether the act is legal, though. Whether you think the music "should be" free or not, the question is whether the law says it is free. You can lobby for change. You can go the "civil disobediance" route, but a key element of civil disobediance is that you accept the legal and social consequences of your action... so are you prepared to pay civil fines for your beliefs on this?
You may believe that making one or two copies is fair use; I disagree, and I'm pretty sure both the written law and the case law disagree with you as well. Fair use is a complicated topic, though, so I don't expect either of us to commit the resources to "prove" our point of view to the other.
A person who passes a joint at a concert isn't a trafficker, but he is breaking drug laws (if he's in the US, at least). A person who makes a few copies of a copyrighted work and propagates them isn't a kingpin of a piracy ring, but he is a copyright infringer.
"What happens to libraries when books become as easy to copy as music?"
It's a fair question, though whether they can provide photocopiers may be the least of their worries. For that matter, what will happen to book stores?
You might look at the current music and video situation as a dry run for the impact of easy-to-copy books. With books, it might be worse, though. Opinions vary on whether musicians "would" write music without profit motive. Many would, because it's a form of artistic expression -- in fact, while there might be less music, the field would probably be higher quality if nobody doing it was just "in it for the money". Can the same be said for all types of book, though? Probably not.
Remember that while modern media companies use copyright law to control markets and maximize profits, this is not the purpose of copyright. Copyright is meant to solve a simple problem -- "How do we compensate creators of art, literature, etc.?" -- in a way that aligns costs with benefits. It was never perfect, and in the modern world it's showing its age.
Ultimately I think the way people look at the music, video, and literature markets is going to have to change. Enforced scarcity is becoming an impossibility. For now, though, copyright is a key component that helps those markets tick. The first objective is to restore balance to copyright law (which is not the same thing as ignoring or nullifying it); creating a new type of market is a longer-term necessity.
"nd P2P sharing doesn't transfer ownership, it effectively multiplies ownership."
I think you're stretching a bit on that point; I could make the same claim about using a dual tape deck to copy a cassette.
This (along with another slashdot story I happened to read today) got me thinking, though...
If your argument is valid, then GPLv2 is worthless. (It only imposes restrictions on what I must do if I "distribute" copies of a covered program; so it would be ok for me to use a p2p network to make my binary-only modifications available? Or for that matter, nothing in your logic would exclude me using a website to make the modifications available...)
Don't get me wrong; the possible negative consequences of your argument do not stand as a proof against your argument. But I certainly hope you're being consistant in how you interpret copyright law, and not using one definition when you talk about music and a different one when you talk about software.
To be fair, that may be one reason why GPLv3 replaces "distribute" with "propagate", which it defines as more or less any action that would be infringing if you didn't have copyright-holder permission.
Which points out that even if p2p sharing of copyrighted music isn't "distribution", that doesn't mean it's necessarily non-infringing. Ultimately, if its legal to use kazaa to share copyrighted music, then it's equally legal to use similar means to share binary-only modifications to a GPLv3-covered program.
Slashdot Mirror
If the bag was sealed at a warmer temperature, or with a humidity level that the current temperature cannot keep in gas form, condensation will occur regardless of whether or not there was anything dangerous in the bag.
I'd say GP has a point -- the idea that the bag is there so they can see condensation sounds bogus.
According to the TSA's website, the reason for the bag is to impose an overall limit on the amount of liquid carried by each passenger. (Which as near as anyone seems able to tell is also silly, but that's another matter...)
"Right to profit" is an incorrect pharsing of the concept, I admit.
But then the fact that you (and at least one other poster) jump on that wording only proves my point: Given the option, those who don't want to respect IP laws will argue about words rather than issues.
When a shop owner has goods on his shelf, he has a legally assigned right to dispose of that object. You can't take it without paying him. While this is not a "right to profit", it is the concept I was talking about.
Likewise, a copyright holder has legally assigned rights to control over the covered content. This is not a "right to profit" -- and indeed in the effective exercise of those rights he might not profit -- but it is the concept I was refering to.
My advice: Put the quote back in context, read it (and the context) again, and write a reply that has some connection to what I said.
For the record, I have had an employer refuse to pay me. My right to have him pay me was a legally-assigned one (not a morally-assigned one). His action in not paying me was both illegal and imoral, as he harmed me in contravention to social (and legal) norms. I hired a lawyer, and I got paid. And, I will never allow him to owe me anything again.
This is entirely consistent with my position on MobiTV -- which is that the people distributing the URL publically and those using it without paying are in the wrong. You'd know that if you actually read my posts instead of focusing on one sentence that doesn't sound right to you.
But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
"Lock people up"? I'd be truly curious to hear of a case where someone is in prison for IP violations.
I don't believe that the use of the term "steal" has any impact on public policy as it relates to copyright, patent, trademark, etc. But then, what are you bitching at me for -- I just finished saying we should avoid language that detracts from the issues.
Ah, the parade of false analogies is here.
"You are the CEO of a multinational corporation. You manage the company into the ground. You are fired, but the golden handshake provision of your contract entitles you to 150M$. Money you didn't, in the strictest sense of the word, earn. Are you stealing?"
The CEO indeed did not steal, but the reason isn't that the company from whom he takes the money left it unprotected; it's that they gave explicit consent that in those circumstances, he would be allowed to take that money.
By contrast, putting content on a URL you don't publish is not accepted (by society in general -- outside of technical circles -- nor by the law) as giving explicit concent for everyone to access that content. It probably should be, but it isn't.
A better analogy would be, a company has poor security policies and the account numbers for their corporate holdings fall into every employee's inbox. If employees make withdrawels, are they stealing? Yes they are.
"Look, if I leave a sofa on the curb in San Francisco, and don't look like I am moving, it will disafsckingppear in less than an hour. The internet is no different; you make a stream avail without any protection, I tap into the stream, you don't want me to, you block it. You don't block, you are ok with it. Like leaving the sofa out, implied consent to access unprotected content/stuff."
Neither restating how you'd like the social norms to be, nor citing other situations where the social norms are how you think the should be, has any connection to the discussion at hand.
Leave your car unlocked in parts of St. Louis, someobody will take your car stereo. The argument has the same logical structure as yours, yet it doesn't lead to the conclusion that taking car stereos from unlocked cars is ok. Abstraction and analogy is fine, but when you abstract away differences that matter, it's just sophistry.
There is no such thing as a direct moral right to profit from anything; commerce is a construct of law.
It is immoral to do willful harm in contravention of social norms. While the commercial rights being violated are not "morally assigned", it is still not moral to subvert them deliberately.
Change the law, change the social norms (across all of society, not just the tech-aware that swim these waters), change the moral issue. Until then, I stand by my previous conclusions.
It's not that simple.
The information, or Verizon's copy thereof, or their legal suscribers' access thereto -- those things are not destroyed.
The legally assigned rights related to profit for distribution are damaged.
Yes, Verizon can and should take steps to protect that value; but that doesn't make ir "right" or "ok" to take part in destroying it just because it's easy to do so.
The law probably should state that making information publically visible by posting it on the web without protection constitutes an implicit license to all who visit that URL. This would clear up a lot of problems.
If it were so, companies like Verizon would get serious about protecting their web-based content (or, failing to do so, have no recourse). Unless/until it is so, their failure to lock the doors doesn't make it ok to walk in and take what isn't yours.
Oh, great.
Now you've opened up the line for yet another debate on the true meaning of "steal".
A lot of people don't accept that the legally-assigned right to profit from (propagation of) information (1) is a distinct thing from the information itself, and (2) can be and is destroyed / taken from the right-holder when unauthorized propagation of the information occurs.
I don't agree, and for that reason I don't have a big problem with the shorthand of calling it theft in casual contexts even though the analogy is imperfect.
Or rather, I wouldn't have a problem about it, except the reality today is it pushes the debate away from the issues as people wrangle about the semantics.
If the only two choices were "rely on the RIAA" or "hope a whole lot of established acts will rescue us, even though evidence suggests that at most a handful will try (any time soon, at least), and even though some bands actually side with the RIAA", then I would agree with you.
In reality, I find being spoon-fed by an artist you like is just as bad as being spoon-fed by the RIAA. The person to be deciding what music you should like is you.
The market is changing, and new ways to find music are emerging. Don't try to wish in a world where we replace sales charts with an old-boys network that rates bands based on who they know -- eventually the new boss will be the same as the old boss.
There are a number of sites creating a direct artist-and-fan marketplace right now, which has far more potential to revolutionize the music world than what NIN is doing. Again, don't get me wrong -- I like what NIN is doing. But for real impact... I've heard of many; the one I'm most familiar with is sellaband.
I'm not going to keep going back and forth about what the "right" figure is for the cost of production; as I said, it's moot.
The only downside I see is that the band has to pay WAY too much
I'm not sure if you're getting this -- the $50,000 doesn't come from the band. The band doesn't pay. The band makes and promotes music.
Speculative, but for the sake of argument...
Yes, that would be a nice thing to see. It would still be incremental. It would affect some bands (those Trent likes, probably with some bias towards certain styles), and some fans (those who like NIN). It would work in cases where those fans click with those bands.
But "smash the system"? I don't think so. That's like saying you can boil the ocean with a magnifying glass. Again, it's merely a step in the right direction.
No, the limited edition is a physial CD, which is physically signed and numbered, and typically contains additional content not available for download. The exact nature of the "extras" with the limited edition vary from artist to artist.
The digital downloads are MP3; I've seen no attempt at DRM, etc. in sellaband's music.
"If they put out an album that's just bad, though, I don't know whether you could get your money back"
No, of course not; if you're going to pre-order, you want to have reasonable confidence in the artist.
But then, if you picked a dog... ok, you're out $10 (or less, really; you will get a little money back from your cut of the band's profits). How many times have you bought a big-label CD only to find that it contained exactly two tracks you like (which you'd heard on the radio) and felt you were out $10-$20? How many of those times were you able to get a refund?
The way many sellaband artists promote, you can get the same kinds of assurance of a good product as you could for a "mainstream" CD purchase. Neither is 100%.
It's common to assume, just because you "can" produce a pressed CD for a few thousand dollars, that you'll get the same value from doing so as if you paid more. I don't buy it -- and I wonder, if that were the case, why the big labels would dump so much money into each release. Some of the artists on sellaband have even commented that they've gone the "inexpensive" route before, and not been fully satisfied with the result.
... well, you can take your $10 back. The only money that's not refundable, up until the budget is met, is the transaction cost when you transfer money into or out of the system; as we know, the credit card companies always get paid...)
But it's a moot point -- no individual is required to front the $50,000 to get the album made, so nobody has to worry about whether that price is high, low, or indifferent. That's the beauty of the system -- you pay $10, you'll get a CD. If the artist does well, you'll also get some money back. (And if the artist never raises the $50,000
Don't want to pre-order untested music? Well, each artist posts sample tracks for you to hear before you decide. Some have links to band-specific sites with even more music you can hear. Some already have indie CD's released, existing fans, etc. In short, you decide what you need as proof before you believe.
If you don't find any artists you can believe in... ok, head over to the music store section and there's music available for download, ranging from FREE to $0.50 per track, from artists who have accumulated $50,000 from believers and recorded their albums. Or you can buy the "regular edition" of the CD for $10 + shipping. Or (if it's not sold out) the limited edition -- the same version the pre-orders got -- for $15 + shipping. Seven artists (I think) are available today; nine or ten more are in the recording phase. Others are moving through the pipeline, fast. Not a huge catalog, but hey, you've gotta start somewhere.
It's easy to be cynical about a new idea, but if you're genuinely interested in hearing a wide range of great music from people who don't want to sue you for liking their product, then you really should check out sellaband.com for yourself before rushing to judgement.
Actually, you can kill a set-in tick by scorching it. Not recommended though, as it will probably vomit blood into your bloodstream, which could carry disease....
Come to think of it, I like where your analogy is heading.
I agree that this is a much better approach than the traditional. I applaud NIN for wanting to find a consumer-friendly way to do business, and for actually getting out there and doing something about it.
.WAV files; this idea lends itself well to some styles of music, but not others IMO. (Of course, it would be up to each artist to figure out what premium offerings would make sense with their particular music. Does every musician have the additional skills and insight to do that? Should every musician have to?)
Undeniably this worked beautifully for Ghosts I-IV. I have my doubts that it could work for a lot of music, though. A few points of perspective:
1) NIN are an established band with a following of fans who would buy a $300 limited edition package. Not all bands have that. And no, it's not just because some bands suck -- it's also because some are just starting out. Could NIN have done this with their first album?
2) The free release included 1/4 of the material. For a "normal" single-disc mainstream release, that's like releasing two or three tracks for promotional purposes. This is not unusual (though the normal delivery mechanism is "radio" rather than "digital download"). To be fair, there are two major differences:
a) The scale of the release and the low pricetag for the first paid tier are such that arguably if you pay the $5 you already know you'll get $5 of value, even if you don't like the remaining 3/4 of the music... With mainstream music, you buy a $10-$20 CD and still might only like the two songs you'd already heard... But part of the reason NIN can do that is, they can cut out a middle-man. They don't need a label to make them known -- see point (1) above.
b) Not clear to me whether the Creative Commons license applies to the whole thing, or just Volume I. If it applies to the whole thing, then presumably there will be a free, legal option for getting the entire release as soon as someone puts it on a p2p network... But whether that's the case, or in any case the impact of that variable on the experiment as a whole, isn't yet clear to me.
3) One of the big draws of the $75 package vs. the $10 package would be the session
The tiered product structure isn't unique, though this takes it up a notch. That's the big thing to me: This is great in that NIN is pushing their product "the right way", but it relies on a little innovation and a lot of leveraging their established position. Not enough innovation to be the future of music; just a step in the right direction.
In soviet russia, snarky chiches post you, you insensitive clod!
"Everyone" will download their HD content? Well, that may be the future, but not the near future. That's the one point where I think the cited experts are off -- they mostly seem to assume that download / streaming services are already knocking on the door, whereas I'd say the market for physical media still has some running room.
Enough to make a profit? Don't know -- they did spend a lot of money on this war. But, sunk costs are sunk costs and can't be wished away; I'd rather be Sony than Toshiba in this situation.
Don't get me wrong; the technology moves fast. Someone "could" set up a download-based video store today -- though I'm not sure how well it would scale on the various network infrastructures they'd hit today.
But the technology isn't the only thing that has to move. The businesses have to move. Oh, they're making their plays, but they're not thinking big just yet; and they seem a long way from the insight that profit is not maximized by making the customer into the enemy.
Also, the public has to move. You may think that downloading a video is so easy anyone could do it; but even though you're surrounded by people like yourself, you are in the minority when it comes to the market of movie-watchers. A lot of people still have a VCR, with a clock that needs to be set manually, which they can't set. A lot of people don't have a PC with a broadband conection.
And of the people who "could" move to all-downloads-all-the-time, not everyone will; not right away, anyway. I'm not treating a subscription to a video stream as "equivalent" to a physical disc; I've watched how companies will leverage central storage and on-demand distribution into control and, eventually, extra money from your wallet. Or, the movie you want to see isn't popular to keep in live storage any more, so too bad for you. I'm also not putting up with extra "protections" that providers like to put in place to offset the perceived risk that I'll pirate the video (apparently if it's on a disc I'd probably be honest, but if it's pre-ripped that'll just push me over the edge...) -- or more likely just to again squeeze more money out of me for the same thing I was already getting.
Actually, whether it was done within the industry or not, it's a compulsary license. Unlike fair use, it's only legal if royalties are paid.
I haven't looked into this, but don't you suspect that maybe the EU has copyright treaties with the US? Would the EU really want to risk the US refusing to recognize European copyrights (either across the board or at the US government's discretion)? I doubt it, and if not, that probably means they have to respect US copyrights, even when those copyrights belong to companies who are "misbehaving".
If MS were to continue ignoring the EU rulings, I beleive their next recourse would be to deny MS the right to operate in the European market. Companies you might think are "big enough to be above the law" have nonetheless had to bow to that pressure.
Sorry to reply twice, but I meant to cover one other point and forgot to include it in the first reply:
"A "digital audio recording medium" is any material object in a form commonly distributed for use by individuals, that is primarily marketed or most commonly used by consumers for the purpose of making digital audio copied recordings by use of a digital audio recording device."
(Emphasis mine.) Even Recordable CD's aren't strictly within that definition"
Partially correct. A general-purpose CDR is deliberately not within the definition. There are special "music only" CDR's, which do fit the definition of a digital audio recording medium. What makes them special? Well, they're physically the same product; but they're marketed for the purpose of recording digital music. (Also, the disc info seen by devices that read the disc identify it as a "music only" disc, so that consumer CD recorders will accept them.)
The "music only" CDR's are also more expensive. Why more expensive? Because you pay a fee that lands in the RIAA's pocket for each disc. So it's not too surprising if the law treats these "special" discs differently than general-purpose CDR's.
So again, you can argue that a lot of things are wrong with the definitions, but the problem isn't that they're outdated; they're actually quite up-to-date, and they do mean what they say.
The distinction may seem insane from a consumer perspective, but it is in the law on purpose. Congress does that kind of thing quite a bit. (Go read up on the various classifications of light bulb if you'd like another fine example of your tax dollars at work.)
"In the mordern world ..."
The current definitions are from the DMCA. You might argue a lot of things, but you can't argue that they're out of date.
"hard drives, flash drives, and networks are how the consumer makes 'digital audio recordings'"
Based on the definitions used in the law, I disagree. Those are the tools used to copy a digital music recording, which is not the same thing.
"When I rip a CD I'm copying a file."
Actually, no, you're not. At least not with typical consumer equipment. A rip is not a direct copy, though today's hardware is good enough I doubt anyone can tell the difference.
I also don't know that it would qualify as "making a digital music recording".
"When I buy an itunes song, I'm copying a file."
When you buy an iTunes song, you are copying a file; but what makes you think you're "making a digital music recording" per the law's meaning?
"I can use consumer equipment to make personal use copies"
No, that is not what that section of the law says.
"It just so happens consumer grade equipment has reached the point that it can make hundreds of perfect copies an hour from an original 10,000 miles away with half a dozen mouse clicks. The stuff of science fiction when this law was written"
Again, you're over-estimating the age of the law in question (or else under-estimating the age of the Internet, I don't know which). Much of the DMCA was written speciically because of the technologies we're discussing.
However, it was written by Congressmen; not programmers, not geeks and nerds, nobody from the demographics I'm assuming apply to you, nor from the demographics that apply to me. What it means and what it appears to you to mean are not necessariy going to be the same thing, not because it was written for a different time, but because it was written from a different perspective.
"By contrast, removing the limited monopoly of copyright entirely -- such as by allowing free p2p sharing of tracks -- is a longer-term consideration that cannot simply be thrust on the market as it exists today.
Technology has *already* done this"
No, it hasn't. The limited monopoly is a legal construct and it is still in place, the ease with which it can be violated notwithstanding. The monopoly was always intended to apply even to those who had the technological means to compete against it; that's why a law was needed in the first place.
"When the printing press arrived and the scribes were put out of work, we didn't try and protect them and artificially suppress the press to preserve their business model "
Poor analogy for three major reasons.
1) The scribes -- the ones who could no longer be compensated due to the press -- were no longer a key provider of anything useful in the supply chain. The artists -- whom copyright law is designed to compensate -- are still required to make music.
2) To prop up scribes would've required a new legal infrastructure. Not temporary maintenance and phase-out of an existing structure -- a new structure.
3) Copyright isn't about propping up a business model; it's a standing method of solving an economic problem recognized by society, albeit a method that is aging and that will eventually fail. Contrary to your belief, it has not failed yet.
Again, copyright and "the RIAA" aren't the same thing. The RIAA is about protecting a business model. Copyright is not.
So overall, I'd say the analogy has no relation beyond surface appearances to the situation at hand. I'd also say it appears as though you're imagining that you can move the whole world from "where we are" to "where you think we should be" overnight. Sorry to tell you, that approach leads only to disasters.
(As an aside, it also happens to be bad strategy. It polarizes the debate, creates conflict in which both sides suffer unnecessary harm, and usually delays or
You've taken sec 1008 out of context. I doubt a PC can meet the definition (in sec. 1001) of a "digital audio recording device" (or in any event that it's acting in that capacity when being used to download a music file), nor that downloading a copy over a p2p network would qualify as "making [a] digital musical recording".
The point of sec 1008 is that I can record music off the radio, etc., for my own personal use. It is not intended to suggest that digital music files aren't subject to copy restrictions.
Even if you were right that the downloading party were legally in the clear, that would have nothing at all to do with the legal standing of the person who made the track available for download.
In any event, noncommercial copying is not automatically legal. Specific uses -- which tend to be non-commercial -- are legal under various exemptions, of which fair use is the most-often cited.
"Fair comment. But the point is that he's not a drug trafficker. He shouldn't be charged as one."
If you're saying that the offense of a p2p sharer should carry a lesser penalty than would the offense of a big-time boot-legger, I agree. I never said otherwise. What I said is, it's still copyright infringement.
In the one p2p case I'm aware of that went to a jury, the judgement was too high up the range of possible penalties IMO. That doesn't mean I don't think she was guilty, though.
"I'm a big Alice Cooper fan for example, have been forever. If he wanted to release a new album and wanted to make 1,000,000 from it, I'd pledge $5 to the cause. If 200,000 other like minded individuals around the globe came forward, the 1,000,000 bounty would be met and it would be released"
You should take a look at SellABand.
And yes, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say the market has to change; but it's not quite that simple and, at least for now, copyright is still a necessary piece of the puzzle.
Reducing copyright term to reasonable levels and ensuring that penalties are proportional to offenses are both necessary in the immediate term; that's what I mean by "restore balance".
By contrast, removing the limited monopoly of copyright entirely -- such as by allowing free p2p sharing of tracks -- is a longer-term consideration that cannot simply be thrust on the market as it exists today.
I'd say typical stated motives are some combination of
... so are you prepared to pay civil fines for your beliefs on this?
(1) belief that the music, being mere information, "wants to be free"
(2) willingness or desire to participate in a community that makes music available for free (much like your "pay it forward" theory
Neither of these have much to do with whether the act is legal, though. Whether you think the music "should be" free or not, the question is whether the law says it is free. You can lobby for change. You can go the "civil disobediance" route, but a key element of civil disobediance is that you accept the legal and social consequences of your action
You may believe that making one or two copies is fair use; I disagree, and I'm pretty sure both the written law and the case law disagree with you as well. Fair use is a complicated topic, though, so I don't expect either of us to commit the resources to "prove" our point of view to the other.
A person who passes a joint at a concert isn't a trafficker, but he is breaking drug laws (if he's in the US, at least). A person who makes a few copies of a copyrighted work and propagates them isn't a kingpin of a piracy ring, but he is a copyright infringer.
"What happens to libraries when books become as easy to copy as music?"
It's a fair question, though whether they can provide photocopiers may be the least of their worries. For that matter, what will happen to book stores?
You might look at the current music and video situation as a dry run for the impact of easy-to-copy books. With books, it might be worse, though. Opinions vary on whether musicians "would" write music without profit motive. Many would, because it's a form of artistic expression -- in fact, while there might be less music, the field would probably be higher quality if nobody doing it was just "in it for the money". Can the same be said for all types of book, though? Probably not.
Remember that while modern media companies use copyright law to control markets and maximize profits, this is not the purpose of copyright. Copyright is meant to solve a simple problem -- "How do we compensate creators of art, literature, etc.?" -- in a way that aligns costs with benefits. It was never perfect, and in the modern world it's showing its age.
Ultimately I think the way people look at the music, video, and literature markets is going to have to change. Enforced scarcity is becoming an impossibility. For now, though, copyright is a key component that helps those markets tick. The first objective is to restore balance to copyright law (which is not the same thing as ignoring or nullifying it); creating a new type of market is a longer-term necessity.
"nd P2P sharing doesn't transfer ownership, it effectively multiplies ownership."
I think you're stretching a bit on that point; I could make the same claim about using a dual tape deck to copy a cassette.
This (along with another slashdot story I happened to read today) got me thinking, though...
If your argument is valid, then GPLv2 is worthless. (It only imposes restrictions on what I must do if I "distribute" copies of a covered program; so it would be ok for me to use a p2p network to make my binary-only modifications available? Or for that matter, nothing in your logic would exclude me using a website to make the modifications available...)
Don't get me wrong; the possible negative consequences of your argument do not stand as a proof against your argument. But I certainly hope you're being consistant in how you interpret copyright law, and not using one definition when you talk about music and a different one when you talk about software.
To be fair, that may be one reason why GPLv3 replaces "distribute" with "propagate", which it defines as more or less any action that would be infringing if you didn't have copyright-holder permission.
Which points out that even if p2p sharing of copyrighted music isn't "distribution", that doesn't mean it's necessarily non-infringing. Ultimately, if its legal to use kazaa to share copyrighted music, then it's equally legal to use similar means to share binary-only modifications to a GPLv3-covered program.
Just something you might want to think about...