if a guaranteed good copy of the song is readily, legally, and cheaply available. Most people will then choose to buy the song, those who don't probably don't have much money in the first place or they wouldn't waste their time.
These phrases, *by themselves*, should be modded +5.
This succinctly and conclusively argues for the continued viability of a music industry, which is a good thing(tm) for everyone involved.
It is entirely possible that society is now saying that authors and/or musicians may not be assigned a value high enough that their creative work alone will be sufficient to give them the standard of living that they want.
Then there will be no creative work. When the buyers leave, so do the sellers.
That may obligate such creative persons to either work harder, have a "day job," or abandon the field.
They'll probably have an (inadequate) day job (or not) *and* abandon the field. So we as a society lose twice, and add another several industries to the formerly economically viable but now displaced and unable to make the house payment list.
The important thing to understand is that it is in society's best interest to fund creative work which is why society has always done so, whether copyright was the law or not. That will never change. We're talking about creative works. THINK ABOUT THEIR FUNDING CREATIVELY!
Why can't people just buy the book? About the most creative thing I think will come from electronic publishing and distribution is lower prices. Sure, there may be some further creative ways of making revenue, but at the end of the day, someone has to ring a sale and make change, or the product has no economic value.
It's not exactly unheard of for an author to find they can't get published or they can and sell their rights to a publishing house that doesn't promote their book.
That's the publisher talking, not the author. Abolishing copyright is not going to make this any easier. In fact, it will make it even *more* difficult, since it will remove the only authority an author has with regard to their own work. Think publishers and distributors aren't playing fair now? lol
It is just silly to presume that these other jobs will be low-paying, as if a person who has the capability to create great art is going to be completely talent-less otherwise.
They'll be low paying. No doubt about it. I can't think of three high-paying jobs for which a professional writer would even be considered, much less hired.
Talent has nothing to do with getting a job.
Does society owe this minority a living? Does society owe anyone a job doing what they want?
While ignoring the fact that this is a red herring which neatly reframes the argument in terms sympathetic to your conclusion, I'll reply by saying yes, *our* society promises the "pursuit of happiness." That usually means a career of something other than dull, pointless, joyless drudgery for low or no pay.
People should be encouraged to pursue that which makes them happy, because it is in those fields of endeavor where they will contribute the most to our society. Forcing people to work two jobs: one of suffering for a paycheck and another of uncompensated joy, is patently unfair, pun intended.
Copyright has exceeded its original purpose, and it is because of this fact that I support modifying the law so that it helps authors, musicians and artists do what they do best. I do NOT support abolishing copyright along with the livelihoods of millions of people so that the warezzzzzz d00dz can have everything for free.
Abolishing copyright will eviscerate the entirety of most authors and artists' ability to produce anything of value. This is a fact. Without copyright, artists would have absolutely no standing whatsoever across the table from Big Music Inc. Authors would have no ability to negotiate with Big Publisher Inc. And so on.
I think lower prices and a lesser term for copyright should be the net result of the influence of electronic publishing. Beyond that, the balance will have swung too far in the other direction, and that is unfair to the authors, artists and musicians for whose benefit this *entire argument* is being discussed.
Fanfiction is usually told in the form of a short story at it's most developed. There are few, if any, professionally written completed novels of fanfiction written for free.
Even if there were, it is UNFAIR to expect people to produce professional works of literature AND hold down full time jobs just so we can have it free.
Individual examples do not make arguments. The point stands. Writing a novel is an incredibly difficult and time consuming effort. To expect an author to do it for absolutely no compensation AT ALL while holding down an (inadequately paid) day job is selfish and ridiculous.
This site has been harping on the *AA for years now about how greed and profits drive their buisnesses, yet when given the chance to be fair, the market responds by doing the EXACT SAME THING: wanting it all and wanting it for free.
There are a variety of ways they could get income that may or may not be directly related to their writing.
But writing becomes a valueless profession? Great. Add all the other jobs that rely on copyright and that should put about 20 million people out of work and into the market to compete for the last half-dozen grocery-bagger jobs.
Actually, I did write a book and I did take about a year (not two) off of work for it (across several editions). If there was no copyright law I would have approached it very differently but I still would likely have done it.
Gratis? A whole year of work for nothing? Fine. Sounds great. Maybe when I can buy a house and food for nothing that kind of business model will work.
There is no one true business model for writing books or making widgets or anything else.
Well, there is in this case. If you want a copy of the book, PAY FOR IT. This entire argument is ridiculous.
There will be other authors who will choose to adjust and they will thrive.
Thrive on their paycheck from Wal-Mart while they work nights for years to produce valueless works of great literature? Nobody can seriously expect someone else to do that.
Nobody pays me to post to Slashdot. Nobody pays you. Nobody pays the article submitters. Human beings need to create. If you leave them alone, they will create cool stuff.
Ok, tell you what. You go spend two years of full-time days (and nights and weekends) to write a novel and then give it all away. You have absolutely no idea how much work is involved in writing or developing "cool stuff."
Then we can talk about copyright law again. My guess is you may have a slightly different opinions.
Like Bowie said, bands have a chance to elimnate the record company completely and build their audiences via word of mouth and downloands on the net. We are a long ways off from that becoming a viable model, though.
Mainly because of the stampede to warezzzz everything the moment it hits the net.
Perhaps copyright law would be a good thing(tm) if it supported smaller, independent artists, right?
Or maybe we'll just throw the whole thing out and let the indepedent artists go get jobs at Wal-Mart while the mega-corps move on to some other business model (totally unaffected, of course).
If I have an investment banker, they get paid when they buy, sell, or recommend stock to me.
That's a broker, not an investment banker.
Same thing with an advertising agency. They get paid to create ads for my specific product. Not to create a single generic ad that they sell to everybody.
lol If only ad agencies worked on a fee for service basis! Ad agencies usually get paid every time you use the ad they made. They get paid when the ad runs, during a campaign, as consultants, etc.
Your other example is that nobody you pay to buy a CD had anything to do with making that music. I'll agree that a lot of the proceeds (in many cases *all* of the proceeds) go to someone other than the musician, and that isn't fair.
However, if the proceeds did go to the musicians, and people *still* wanted the music for free, that wouldn't be fair either. If a band records 10 songs, and wants to charge $8 for a CD of those 10 songs, then they should get their $8.
Anybody who doesn't want to pay the $8 shouldn't get the CD. Anything else is unfair. Rationalizations notwithstanding.
I'm in agreement with people who would rather not see MegaMusic Inc. pocket billions while the musicians have to live off $30K a year, but I don't agree with this free-for-all idea either, because it puts fans in exactly the same greed-driven position as the corporations.
Better to reach a balance: substantially lower prices, substantially more revenue for the musicians, and observance of the copyright laws by the fans.
No, the free market has determined that value to be zero.
Ironic, given the hours that go into discussing it, and the days and weeks that go into building these massive mp3 "collections" that nobody has time to listen to.
To anybody who insists that they should keep getting paid after they stop working, I say "Screw you. Get a real job."
Like investors, banks, representatives, brokers, advertising agencies, etc.? So what are real jobs? Everyone punches a clock until they turn 65, right?
Suppose some of those people would prefer to spend time with their families, or doing something other than putting in a 10 hour day?
If you don't want to pay for it, don't listen to it.
An amazing accomplishment in development, to say the least. In case any of the developers are reading, here is a copy of our e-mail sent to mozilla.org this morning:
"On behalf of Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd. I would like to offer our congratulations on your spectacular success in software development. We have been developing with Mozilla for almost three years now, and we have been consistently impressed with its progress. Developing for Mozilla is a joy for which we are very grateful.
let's say $89 worth of Microsoft, you don't get a copy of Windows for free, in exchange for your shares.
Sure you could. Provided that Microsoft had some mechanism to accept stock as payment for goods. Since they probably don't, most people just sell the stock and use cash.
It IS owned by Microsoft, a government recognized entity.
Which has issued n shares of stock representing ownership of the company, which are in turn owned by shareholders.
The shareholders *own* EVERYTHING. They own the money, the buildings, the IP, the trademarks, the source code, the chairs and the coffee maker.
The reason Microsoft doesn't pay dividends is because the directors haven't approved them, and the directors are elected by the shareholders. If the shareholders (of voting stock) decide they want dividends, then they shall have dividends. If the shareholders decided they wanted that $40 billion to form a picture of a GPF dialog on the floor of the Superdome, the trucks would leave Redmond the next day.
In any corporation, public or private, everything that happens is at the pleasure of the shareholders of voting stock. If one owns a majority of the voting shares, they run the company. Simple as that.
In other words, they're only in it to make money, right? (Now in fourth place as the current most overused and flawed argument)
Guess what? Business isn't and shouldn't be *only* about making money. Businesses only concerned with making money usually don't produce much of value.
Threatening with or filing an invalid lawsuit is called "Abuse of Process" and is actionable in itself. There is also Rule 11 in Federal Court, and likely a variety of other possible problems, like Contempt charges, et al.
From the home office in Anchorage, Alaska, the TOP TEN PLACES TO ADD JAR-JAR IN EPISODE 4:
10. Orbiting Tatooine in the opening scene. 9. Sweeping the hallway on the Princess' ship right before the stormtroopers cut through the door 8. In the first escape pod from the Princess' ship 7. Standing behind Obi-Wan at the bar 6. Under the table during Greedo and Han's conversation 5. Admiring the Millenium Falcon from the doorway just prior to its departure 4. Running a lemonade stand on Alderaan 3. Last (almost) through the blast doors 2. Porkins' co-pilot
..and the NUMBER ONE place for Jar-Jar in Episode 4:
I think it's time for a new rule. Any argument that defends a business practice by citing the "fact" the business wants to make money should immediately give the argument to the other side.
This "businesses want to make money, and so they are fully justified in doing/not doing _________" line is getting so fatiguing.
While we're at it, let's throw in "plunk down/fork over/shell out"
Slashdot Mirror
if a guaranteed good copy of the song is readily, legally, and cheaply available. Most people will then choose to buy the song, those who don't probably don't have much money in the first place or they wouldn't waste their time.
These phrases, *by themselves*, should be modded +5.
This succinctly and conclusively argues for the continued viability of a music industry, which is a good thing(tm) for everyone involved.
This new learning amazes me... explain again how sheep's bladders may be employed to prevent earthquakes...
rofl
Bread!
Apples!
Very small rocks
Cider
Mud
Churches!
Lead Lead!
A Duck!
It is entirely possible that society is now saying that authors and/or musicians may not be assigned a value high enough that their creative work alone will be sufficient to give them the standard of living that they want.
Then there will be no creative work. When the buyers leave, so do the sellers.
That may obligate such creative persons to either work harder, have a "day job," or abandon the field.
They'll probably have an (inadequate) day job (or not) *and* abandon the field. So we as a society lose twice, and add another several industries to the formerly economically viable but now displaced and unable to make the house payment list.
All so the warezzzz d00dz can have it for free.
And no, the buggy whip example won't fly.
That's the free market. No-one ever said it was fair.
No, that's not the free market. If you don't want the book, fine. If you want the book, PAY FOR IT.
So much effort devoted to "wahhhh I want it all for freeeeee!!!"
The important thing to understand is that it is in society's best interest to fund creative work which is why society has always done so, whether copyright was the law or not. That will never change. We're talking about creative works. THINK ABOUT THEIR FUNDING CREATIVELY!
Why can't people just buy the book? About the most creative thing I think will come from electronic publishing and distribution is lower prices. Sure, there may be some further creative ways of making revenue, but at the end of the day, someone has to ring a sale and make change, or the product has no economic value.
It's not exactly unheard of for an author to find they can't get published or they can and sell their rights to a publishing house that doesn't promote their book.
That's the publisher talking, not the author. Abolishing copyright is not going to make this any easier. In fact, it will make it even *more* difficult, since it will remove the only authority an author has with regard to their own work. Think publishers and distributors aren't playing fair now? lol
It is just silly to presume that these other jobs will be low-paying, as if a person who has the capability to create great art is going to be completely talent-less otherwise.
They'll be low paying. No doubt about it. I can't think of three high-paying jobs for which a professional writer would even be considered, much less hired.
Talent has nothing to do with getting a job.
Does society owe this minority a living? Does society owe anyone a job doing what they want?
While ignoring the fact that this is a red herring which neatly reframes the argument in terms sympathetic to your conclusion, I'll reply by saying yes, *our* society promises the "pursuit of happiness." That usually means a career of something other than dull, pointless, joyless drudgery for low or no pay.
People should be encouraged to pursue that which makes them happy, because it is in those fields of endeavor where they will contribute the most to our society. Forcing people to work two jobs: one of suffering for a paycheck and another of uncompensated joy, is patently unfair, pun intended.
Copyright has exceeded its original purpose, and it is because of this fact that I support modifying the law so that it helps authors, musicians and artists do what they do best. I do NOT support abolishing copyright along with the livelihoods of millions of people so that the warezzzzzz d00dz can have everything for free.
Abolishing copyright will eviscerate the entirety of most authors and artists' ability to produce anything of value. This is a fact. Without copyright, artists would have absolutely no standing whatsoever across the table from Big Music Inc. Authors would have no ability to negotiate with Big Publisher Inc. And so on.
I think lower prices and a lesser term for copyright should be the net result of the influence of electronic publishing. Beyond that, the balance will have swung too far in the other direction, and that is unfair to the authors, artists and musicians for whose benefit this *entire argument* is being discussed.
Fanfiction is usually told in the form of a short story at it's most developed. There are few, if any, professionally written completed novels of fanfiction written for free.
Even if there were, it is UNFAIR to expect people to produce professional works of literature AND hold down full time jobs just so we can have it free.
Individual examples do not make arguments. The point stands. Writing a novel is an incredibly difficult and time consuming effort. To expect an author to do it for absolutely no compensation AT ALL while holding down an (inadequately paid) day job is selfish and ridiculous.
This site has been harping on the *AA for years now about how greed and profits drive their buisnesses, yet when given the chance to be fair, the market responds by doing the EXACT SAME THING: wanting it all and wanting it for free.
It's unfair. Period.
There are a variety of ways they could get income that may or may not be directly related to their writing.
But writing becomes a valueless profession? Great. Add all the other jobs that rely on copyright and that should put about 20 million people out of work and into the market to compete for the last half-dozen grocery-bagger jobs.
Actually, I did write a book and I did take about a year (not two) off of work for it (across several editions). If there was no copyright law I would have approached it very differently but I still would likely have done it.
Gratis? A whole year of work for nothing? Fine. Sounds great. Maybe when I can buy a house and food for nothing that kind of business model will work.
There is no one true business model for writing books or making widgets or anything else.
Well, there is in this case. If you want a copy of the book, PAY FOR IT. This entire argument is ridiculous.
There will be other authors who will choose to adjust and they will thrive.
Thrive on their paycheck from Wal-Mart while they work nights for years to produce valueless works of great literature? Nobody can seriously expect someone else to do that.
So much effort and thought to avoid paying the author a few bucks....
sigh...
Nobody pays me to post to Slashdot. Nobody pays you. Nobody pays the article submitters. Human beings need to create. If you leave them alone, they will create cool stuff.
Ok, tell you what. You go spend two years of full-time days (and nights and weekends) to write a novel and then give it all away. You have absolutely no idea how much work is involved in writing or developing "cool stuff."
Then we can talk about copyright law again. My guess is you may have a slightly different opinions.
If copyright did not exist:
The GPL would be unenforceable.
Millions of people would lose their jobs.
Further millions of people would see the value of their property, in many cases entire careers of work, destroyed.
Yeah, sounds great.
Nothing. Great authors write because they have to write.
Great authors eat because they have to eat. With no income, they have no food.
Why is this ALWAYS an argument? What are these people supposed to do for a paycheck? Work at the Arco Station on the corner?
Like Bowie said, bands have a chance to elimnate the record company completely and build their audiences via word of mouth and downloands on the net. We are a long ways off from that becoming a viable model, though.
Mainly because of the stampede to warezzzz everything the moment it hits the net.
Perhaps copyright law would be a good thing(tm) if it supported smaller, independent artists, right?
Or maybe we'll just throw the whole thing out and let the indepedent artists go get jobs at Wal-Mart while the mega-corps move on to some other business model (totally unaffected, of course).
Yeah, that'll ensure many new great songs.
Game publishers are obviously listening.
Interesting how they are always listening when it's 400,000x$15 per month, isn't it?
They often weren't listening when the Sims was being pitched, by the way...
Just an observation...
If I have an investment banker, they get paid when they buy, sell, or recommend stock to me.
That's a broker, not an investment banker.
Same thing with an advertising agency. They get paid to create ads for my specific product. Not to create a single generic ad that they sell to everybody.
lol If only ad agencies worked on a fee for service basis! Ad agencies usually get paid every time you use the ad they made. They get paid when the ad runs, during a campaign, as consultants, etc.
Your other example is that nobody you pay to buy a CD had anything to do with making that music. I'll agree that a lot of the proceeds (in many cases *all* of the proceeds) go to someone other than the musician, and that isn't fair.
However, if the proceeds did go to the musicians, and people *still* wanted the music for free, that wouldn't be fair either. If a band records 10 songs, and wants to charge $8 for a CD of those 10 songs, then they should get their $8.
Anybody who doesn't want to pay the $8 shouldn't get the CD. Anything else is unfair. Rationalizations notwithstanding.
I'm in agreement with people who would rather not see MegaMusic Inc. pocket billions while the musicians have to live off $30K a year, but I don't agree with this free-for-all idea either, because it puts fans in exactly the same greed-driven position as the corporations.
Better to reach a balance: substantially lower prices, substantially more revenue for the musicians, and observance of the copyright laws by the fans.
No, the free market has determined that value to be zero.
Ironic, given the hours that go into discussing it, and the days and weeks that go into building these massive mp3 "collections" that nobody has time to listen to.
Time is money.
To anybody who insists that they should keep getting paid after they stop working, I say "Screw you. Get a real job."
Like investors, banks, representatives, brokers, advertising agencies, etc.? So what are real jobs? Everyone punches a clock until they turn 65, right?
Suppose some of those people would prefer to spend time with their families, or doing something other than putting in a 10 hour day?
If you don't want to pay for it, don't listen to it.
Our congratulations. ^^
An amazing accomplishment in development, to say the least. In case any of the developers are reading, here is a copy of our e-mail sent to mozilla.org this morning:
"On behalf of Heavy Cat Multimedia Ltd. I would like to offer our congratulations on your spectacular success in software development. We have been developing with Mozilla for almost three years now, and we have been consistently impressed with its progress. Developing for Mozilla is a joy for which we are very grateful.
Once again, ometedou gozaimasu!"
Enjoy the parties!
let's say $89 worth of Microsoft, you don't get a copy of Windows for free, in exchange for your shares.
Sure you could. Provided that Microsoft had some mechanism to accept stock as payment for goods. Since they probably don't, most people just sell the stock and use cash.
It IS owned by Microsoft, a government recognized entity.
Which has issued n shares of stock representing ownership of the company, which are in turn owned by shareholders.
The shareholders *own* EVERYTHING. They own the money, the buildings, the IP, the trademarks, the source code, the chairs and the coffee maker.
The reason Microsoft doesn't pay dividends is because the directors haven't approved them, and the directors are elected by the shareholders. If the shareholders (of voting stock) decide they want dividends, then they shall have dividends. If the shareholders decided they wanted that $40 billion to form a picture of a GPF dialog on the floor of the Superdome, the trucks would leave Redmond the next day.
In any corporation, public or private, everything that happens is at the pleasure of the shareholders of voting stock. If one owns a majority of the voting shares, they run the company. Simple as that.
In other words, they're only in it to make money, right? (Now in fourth place as the current most overused and flawed argument)
Guess what? Business isn't and shouldn't be *only* about making money. Businesses only concerned with making money usually don't produce much of value.
Threatening with or filing an invalid lawsuit is called "Abuse of Process" and is actionable in itself. There is also Rule 11 in Federal Court, and likely a variety of other possible problems, like Contempt charges, et al.
IANAL either.
From the home office in Anchorage, Alaska, the TOP TEN PLACES TO ADD JAR-JAR IN EPISODE 4:
10. Orbiting Tatooine in the opening scene.
9. Sweeping the hallway on the Princess' ship right before the stormtroopers cut through the door
8. In the first escape pod from the Princess' ship
7. Standing behind Obi-Wan at the bar
6. Under the table during Greedo and Han's conversation
5. Admiring the Millenium Falcon from the doorway just prior to its departure
4. Running a lemonade stand on Alderaan
3. Last (almost) through the blast doors
2. Porkins' co-pilot
..and the NUMBER ONE place for Jar-Jar in Episode 4:
1. In the exhaust shaft!
Ok. You're obviously right. Big, huge bureaucratic corporations are the centers of innovation and original thinking in the economy.
Here's a fact. Studios want to make money.
I think it's time for a new rule. Any argument that defends a business practice by citing the "fact" the business wants to make money should immediately give the argument to the other side.
This "businesses want to make money, and so they are fully justified in doing/not doing _________" line is getting so fatiguing.
While we're at it, let's throw in "plunk down/fork over/shell out"