That's what's so amusing about this whole debate. Everyone's screaming as though some big corporation is witholding water from drought-starved 3rd world countries. But in actual fact its the world's elite whining because the new geek toys might no work exactly how they want them to.
Holy christ that all sounds far too complicated. Um, sorry if I sound archaic, but WTF is wrong with simply recording it to a cassette tape and using your walkman/tape deck/ghetto blaster etc.? It's how 99% of the world's population still does it. Are tapes are "too low class" for your bourgeois tastes? Sheesh, what a bunch of spoilt brats you all are.
You seem to only defend copyright (and maybe trademark), and I believe this stance is much more defendable
Agreed. I even think trademarks often either go to far, or are granted too easily (eg. Lucas attempting to trademark "Ark of the Covenant" is a Bad Thing).
But what are your main arguments? Incentive to create (produce?) more?
That's a major one.
Right to control what you have created?
To a certain degree. Here is an interesting one: Tom Petty was recently nonplussed with the Republican party's use of one of his song at their conventions. He did not write it as propaganda to support their platform, he did not authorize its use. He sent them a cease and desist letter, and they had to comply.
And at the end of the day, there's one thing I don't want to give up: the ability to share information I possess in my brain or my hard drive, the ability to share and swim in human culture.
This is an extremely vague statement. Publishing someone else's copyrighted work against their will (as Napster facilitates) is simply wrong. Sharing information, ideas, this is not being denied (unless you live in a censorship state).
I believe ideas have never been priced before in history. By their very nature, memes try to survive and prosper alike genes.
Copyright law does nothing to prohibit this. Patents often do however, and I oppose many things about patents. This is off topic for this thread.
If shakespeare came back and desired to completely stop the diffusion and the use of his work, I would say sorry but no
And he could do no such thing, even if he could be resurrected. Once a work goes into the public domain, it's there for good. I don't think anyone is suggesting, or even believes it would be possible to force the return of their work after they had willingly distributed it. I also mentioned earlier that there may be some merit to limiting the ability of corporations to extend copyrights indefinitely past the lifetime of the original author.
Who is making money on copyrights? Small bands? A few big artists? A few very big entreprises?
Life has never been fair. Large institutions will always have the upperhand, with or without IP laws. You should be aware that copyright laws were introduced on behalf of the independent creator.
Me, I say the guys with the lawiers:) Artists make their living through performances,
VERY few artists make their living this way. Forcing all artists to make a living off performance only makes it easier to exploit them by concert promoters, ticket sellers, etc. who will definitely not be displaced by "free distribution". If you create that kind of a bottleneck for revenue, the corporations will only squeeze it that much more tightly.
through their fans, not by controling the flow of information.
As an artist, control of your distribution is your only commodity. Even if you just sell promo T-shirts, having control over their distribution is your revenue. As I mentioned earlier, the advent of printing presses, recording equipment, and now the internet has made art more democratic (i.e., the ability to charge small fees for many copies, as opposed to charging large sums to an elite few). With this new reproduction technology comes piracy. That's why we have copyright laws. People should not be so quick to villify the very laws that are there for their benefit. They are taken for granted and have been maligned to an obscene degree lately.
Who are you in RL? What job do you have?
Well, as a newbie here, I'm not too comfortable being entirely public on Slashdot yet. Suffice it to say I work in both digital and traditional art.
What core beliefs do you hold? Isn't there something about progress? Why would you think scientists take such pride in the free flow of information? How do you think mr Watt managed to imagine his first motor if he didn't have a monetary incentive?
I feel like a broken record now. There is a world of difference between protecting, limiting or charging for the use of information and ideas, and controlling the distribution of an actual implementation or expression. This thread is about Napster, and that only has to do with copyright infringements.
Too bad IP laws actually favor much more the big copyrights or patents or trademarks holders of this world: the big corporations. I wonder if anybody has any sort of study about the demographics of IP "owners" (understand I'm using the term owner in a ironic tone). How many individuals do actually make a living out of them. How many work of arts are controlled by how many enterprises.
Do not confuse patents and copyrights. They are very different things. Copyrights encourage new work; patents discourage new work, siphoning licensing revenue from anyone wanting to implement similar ideas or systems. Copyrights do not protect "ideas", they only protect the actual implementation or expression. (They're not supposed to anyways, there are some companies that try to wield their copyrights as patents. This issue should be addressed, but not at the expense of copyright law itself.)
Where I will agree with you is that I find it disheartening that not enough people take advantage of the potential to profit from their own creative. Instead, most are satisfied to get corporate jobs and make their 5 or 6 figure salaries til retirement, never bothered by the fact that they are simply running corporate errands. People are lured by easy money, feeding the machine rather than taking the intiative to exercise their creativity to implement their vision.
[Have I been ambushed by a band of trolls looking for fun (just wondering, don't want to sound rude)? I do find weird another post in that thread being moderated to 3 insightfull, could that be multiple accounts? Your account looking quite young too...]
Oh please. Is this how you handle losing an argument? I could put the shoe on the other foot however: I notice your website at www.sourceforge.net is promoting some form of collaborative writing tool. Perhaps your arguments against IP are simply a ploy to foster support for your project..
Art and Music should never be considered a business.
Now you say:
I was merely stating my version of utopia.
I'm merely pointing out that your "utopia" either has artists living in poverty, or only funds artists sactioned by the government. So it's definitely not my utopia. You can claim babbling as a defense, but that won't stop people from replying.
That's an interesting argument: "democratisation". Too bad there is a price tag attached. How do you assure everybody free access to culture? Libraries, schools are a good start. What about third world countries? You apply special discounts. You add some more to their debts?
Um.. who is going to pay to give every 3rd world citizen a broadband connection? File sharing users are the most priviliged.01% of the world's population. That's a wonderful moral crusade you've got yourself.
Compensation? Do you know that in france, only 3% of the total number of writers actually live by their writing. I expect an artist to create something because they want to communicate, not because they want money. Money is necessary, but it is not such a motivator in itself. Money is a common denominator in society, but not the goal of life in the universe.
3%? Hmm.. that actually sounds rather good. I doubt 3% of the writers anywhere are good enough to warrant making a living off of it. I'm not saying a career in art (for art's sake) is the most sensible financial choice one could make, but it does provide a natural selection process. ANYONE can create; you have to be clever, talented, dedicated and somewhat lucky to make a living off of it. OTOH, you can always fall back on writing for hire (ads, corporate work, tech manuals, etc.)
I most certainly don't, considering I'm very much leaning toward libertarian views. I go for no trademark, no copyright, no patent. No corporation owning and controling -for life- every bit of anime or book I've read when I was a kid. Thinking someone (possibly one CEO somewhere) has actually the power to take away asterix or matrix is real scary.
Well you should cling to your copyrights for dear life because that's the only thing keeping the corporations, the political fanatics, the religious zealots, the ad-clickthrough-schemers (including Napster, Hotline, et al.), and the plagarists from appropriating your work and using it to their own ends.
I think independant artists should be encouraged through -less protecting- show bizness. If shakespeare and homère (the greek one) made a living in such tough times, I'm not worried about stephen king or sharon stone
Well excuse my populist viewpoint, but if Stephen King or Sharon Stone are liked by the public, who the hell are you to tell the public they're wrong? And to compare any old indie artist to Shakespeare and Homer.. please. It's more likely Shakespeare would've been regarded as a Stephen King in his day. Furthermore, if you think life was easy for anyone in those times, you are extremely naive. Shakespeare was extremely lucky for his time, and yet his standard of living was far below what a successful artist's would be today.
I go for decentralising content production, less power to the big studios and the multinational copyright holders
So put your money where your mouth is! Don't sell them your stuff to them! Copyright law is the only thing keeping them from publishing your work without your express permission. If you don't like the deal, don't sign! It's as simple as that. I don't like the multinationals either, I prefer the entrepreneurial route. Copyright laws are precisely what makes this choice possible.
There may be some merit to limiting copyright lifetimes, so that megacorps cannot continue to monopolize the work long after the artists' death. But IP is the only commodity an artist has, ever since famous (in their day) cave-painters were doled out favours for their services. We do live in a capatalist society. And I need to eat; I don't want to be forced into whoring unless I choose to. Sometimes I need to whore out my skills to a megacorp, sometimes I don't. My choice. My right.
And IP laws, although still in their infancy (only some 100 years old I believe), are real stupid ones!
Actually, no one has yet come up with a reasonable justification for tearing down IP laws. They evolved quite sensibly out of the invention of printing presses, recording equipment, etc. and the evolution of the middle class. Mass-production of creative work has made it more democratic than ever, yet much of the public fails to appreciate this, thinking artists will produce polished, finished masterpieces without compensation. Without democratic forms of compensation, you have highly centralized forms of compensation (Catholic church, communist governments, corporations, the wealthy elite). You really want to give them absolute control over what gets produced?
I sure hope you enjoy your govt/church/corporate sponsored propaganda..
I am very much of the tradition that art and music should be free and artist and musicians should be supported via the community as a whole (call me an idealistic-commune oriented hippie-chick type person). Art and Music should never be considered a business.
So you think artists should live in poverty until the western world gets around to electing a communist government? We should be martyred for your "free art" cause while the lawyers, CEOs, accountants, middle-managers continue to pull in 5,6,7 figure salaries and have no intention of implementing a socialist state? Sheesh, talk about your deranged logic.
BTW, artists don't appreciate facists telling them how to make a living.
First you say:
I maintain a copyright, and I have no problem with people asking for credit. I also don't openly support taking of someone's work if they have not expressed a desire for their work to be traded.
Then you say:
Personally, I say screw IP and keep pursuing something new
IP laws encourage people to create new work. You can't get rid of IP laws and then expect any sort of protection or reward for your effots. People should not be so quick to give up their rights, especially since the rogue distribution channels are already disintigrating.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what's so amusing about this whole debate. Everyone's screaming as though some big corporation is witholding water from drought-starved 3rd world countries. But in actual fact its the world's elite whining because the new geek toys might no work exactly how they want them to.
Well, I guess we can hope anyways..
Holy christ that all sounds far too complicated. Um, sorry if I sound archaic, but WTF is wrong with simply recording it to a cassette tape and using your walkman/tape deck/ghetto blaster etc.? It's how 99% of the world's population still does it. Are tapes are "too low class" for your bourgeois tastes? Sheesh, what a bunch of spoilt brats you all are.
You seem to only defend copyright (and maybe trademark), and I believe this stance is much more defendable
:) Artists make their living through performances,
Agreed. I even think trademarks often either go to far, or are granted too easily (eg. Lucas attempting to trademark "Ark of the Covenant" is a Bad Thing).
But what are your main arguments? Incentive to create (produce?) more?
That's a major one.
Right to control what you have created?
To a certain degree. Here is an interesting one: Tom Petty was recently nonplussed with the Republican party's use of one of his song at their conventions. He did not write it as propaganda to support their platform, he did not authorize its use. He sent them a cease and desist letter, and they had to comply.
And at the end of the day, there's one thing I don't want to give up: the ability to share information I possess in my brain or my hard drive, the ability to share and swim in human culture.
This is an extremely vague statement. Publishing someone else's copyrighted work against their will (as Napster facilitates) is simply wrong. Sharing information, ideas, this is not being denied (unless you live in a censorship state).
I believe ideas have never been priced before in history. By their very nature, memes try to survive and prosper alike genes.
Copyright law does nothing to prohibit this. Patents often do however, and I oppose many things about patents. This is off topic for this thread.
If shakespeare came back and desired to completely stop the diffusion and the use of his work, I would say sorry but no
And he could do no such thing, even if he could be resurrected. Once a work goes into the public domain, it's there for good. I don't think anyone is suggesting, or even believes it would be possible to force the return of their work after they had willingly distributed it. I also mentioned earlier that there may be some merit to limiting the ability of corporations to extend copyrights indefinitely past the lifetime of the original author.
Who is making money on copyrights? Small bands? A few big artists? A few very big entreprises?
Life has never been fair. Large institutions will always have the upperhand, with or without IP laws. You should be aware that copyright laws were introduced on behalf of the independent creator.
Me, I say the guys with the lawiers
VERY few artists make their living this way. Forcing all artists to make a living off performance only makes it easier to exploit them by concert promoters, ticket sellers, etc. who will definitely not be displaced by "free distribution". If you create that kind of a bottleneck for revenue, the corporations will only squeeze it that much more tightly.
through their fans, not by controling the flow of information.
As an artist, control of your distribution is your only commodity. Even if you just sell promo T-shirts, having control over their distribution is your revenue. As I mentioned earlier, the advent of printing presses, recording equipment, and now the internet has made art more democratic (i.e., the ability to charge small fees for many copies, as opposed to charging large sums to an elite few). With this new reproduction technology comes piracy. That's why we have copyright laws. People should not be so quick to villify the very laws that are there for their benefit. They are taken for granted and have been maligned to an obscene degree lately.
Who are you in RL? What job do you have?
Well, as a newbie here, I'm not too comfortable being entirely public on Slashdot yet. Suffice it to say I work in both digital and traditional art.
What core beliefs do you hold? Isn't there something about progress? Why would you think scientists take such pride in the free flow of information? How do you think mr Watt managed to imagine his first motor if he didn't have a monetary incentive?
I feel like a broken record now. There is a world of difference between protecting, limiting or charging for the use of information and ideas, and controlling the distribution of an actual implementation or expression. This thread is about Napster, and that only has to do with copyright infringements.
Too bad IP laws actually favor much more the big copyrights or patents or trademarks holders of this world: the big corporations. I wonder if anybody has any sort of study about the demographics of IP "owners" (understand I'm using the term owner in a ironic tone). How many individuals do actually make a living out of them. How many work of arts are controlled by how many enterprises.
Do not confuse patents and copyrights. They are very different things. Copyrights encourage new work; patents discourage new work, siphoning licensing revenue from anyone wanting to implement similar ideas or systems. Copyrights do not protect "ideas", they only protect the actual implementation or expression. (They're not supposed to anyways, there are some companies that try to wield their copyrights as patents. This issue should be addressed, but not at the expense of copyright law itself.)
Where I will agree with you is that I find it disheartening that not enough people take advantage of the potential to profit from their own creative. Instead, most are satisfied to get corporate jobs and make their 5 or 6 figure salaries til retirement, never bothered by the fact that they are simply running corporate errands. People are lured by easy money, feeding the machine rather than taking the intiative to exercise their creativity to implement their vision.
[Have I been ambushed by a band of trolls looking for fun (just wondering, don't want to sound rude)? I do find weird another post in that thread being moderated to 3 insightfull, could that be multiple accounts? Your account looking quite young too...]
Oh please. Is this how you handle losing an argument? I could put the shoe on the other foot however: I notice your website at www.sourceforge.net is promoting some form of collaborative writing tool. Perhaps your arguments against IP are simply a ploy to foster support for your project..
Who said I was telling anyone what to do?
You said:
Art and Music should never be considered a business.
Now you say:
I was merely stating my version of utopia.
I'm merely pointing out that your "utopia" either has artists living in poverty, or only funds artists sactioned by the government. So it's definitely not my utopia. You can claim babbling as a defense, but that won't stop people from replying.
That's an interesting argument: "democratisation". Too bad there is a price tag attached. How do you assure everybody free access to culture? Libraries, schools are a good start. What about third world countries? You apply special discounts. You add some more to their debts?
.01% of the world's population. That's a wonderful moral crusade you've got yourself.
Um.. who is going to pay to give every 3rd world citizen a broadband connection? File sharing users are the most priviliged
Compensation? Do you know that in france, only 3% of the total number of writers actually live by their writing. I expect an artist to create something because they want to communicate, not because they want money. Money is necessary, but it is not such a motivator in itself. Money is a common denominator in society, but not the goal of life in the universe.
3%? Hmm.. that actually sounds rather good. I doubt 3% of the writers anywhere are good enough to warrant making a living off of it. I'm not saying a career in art (for art's sake) is the most sensible financial choice one could make, but it does provide a natural selection process. ANYONE can create; you have to be clever, talented, dedicated and somewhat lucky to make a living off of it. OTOH, you can always fall back on writing for hire (ads, corporate work, tech manuals, etc.)
I most certainly don't, considering I'm very much leaning toward libertarian views. I go for no trademark, no copyright, no patent. No corporation owning and controling -for life- every bit of anime or book I've read when I was a kid. Thinking someone (possibly one CEO somewhere) has actually the power to take away asterix or matrix is real scary.
Well you should cling to your copyrights for dear life because that's the only thing keeping the corporations, the political fanatics, the religious zealots, the ad-clickthrough-schemers (including Napster, Hotline, et al.), and the plagarists from appropriating your work and using it to their own ends.
I think independant artists should be encouraged through -less protecting- show bizness. If shakespeare and homère (the greek one) made a living in such tough times, I'm not worried about stephen king or sharon stone
Well excuse my populist viewpoint, but if Stephen King or Sharon Stone are liked by the public, who the hell are you to tell the public they're wrong? And to compare any old indie artist to Shakespeare and Homer.. please. It's more likely Shakespeare would've been regarded as a Stephen King in his day. Furthermore, if you think life was easy for anyone in those times, you are extremely naive. Shakespeare was extremely lucky for his time, and yet his standard of living was far below what a successful artist's would be today.
I go for decentralising content production, less power to the big studios and the multinational copyright holders
So put your money where your mouth is! Don't sell them your stuff to them! Copyright law is the only thing keeping them from publishing your work without your express permission. If you don't like the deal, don't sign! It's as simple as that. I don't like the multinationals either, I prefer the entrepreneurial route. Copyright laws are precisely what makes this choice possible.
There may be some merit to limiting copyright lifetimes, so that megacorps cannot continue to monopolize the work long after the artists' death. But IP is the only commodity an artist has, ever since famous (in their day) cave-painters were doled out favours for their services. We do live in a capatalist society. And I need to eat; I don't want to be forced into whoring unless I choose to. Sometimes I need to whore out my skills to a megacorp, sometimes I don't. My choice. My right.
And IP laws, although still in their infancy (only some 100 years old I believe), are real stupid ones!
Actually, no one has yet come up with a reasonable justification for tearing down IP laws. They evolved quite sensibly out of the invention of printing presses, recording equipment, etc. and the evolution of the middle class. Mass-production of creative work has made it more democratic than ever, yet much of the public fails to appreciate this, thinking artists will produce polished, finished masterpieces without compensation. Without democratic forms of compensation, you have highly centralized forms of compensation (Catholic church, communist governments, corporations, the wealthy elite). You really want to give them absolute control over what gets produced?
I sure hope you enjoy your govt/church/corporate sponsored propaganda..
I am very much of the tradition that art and music should be free and artist and musicians should be supported via the community as a whole (call me an idealistic-commune oriented hippie-chick type person). Art and Music should never be considered a business.
So you think artists should live in poverty until the western world gets around to electing a communist government? We should be martyred for your "free art" cause while the lawyers, CEOs, accountants, middle-managers continue to pull in 5,6,7 figure salaries and have no intention of implementing a socialist state? Sheesh, talk about your deranged logic.
BTW, artists don't appreciate facists telling them how to make a living.
First you say:
I maintain a copyright, and I have no problem with people asking for credit. I also don't openly support taking of someone's work if they have not expressed a desire for their work to be traded.
Then you say:
Personally, I say screw IP and keep pursuing something new
IP laws encourage people to create new work. You can't get rid of IP laws and then expect any sort of protection or reward for your effots. People should not be so quick to give up their rights, especially since the rogue distribution channels are already disintigrating.