but because there is not copyright, you could reverse engineer it, remove the piracy cruft and release the good source. The market then picks the implementation they prefer. --
THE WITNESS: The answer is, any time that you circumvent an encryption for whatever reason you are breaking the law.
That's his view of fair use. And also the view of the laws he has helped craft. Maybe it's just me, but this willful disregard for our court system gives me absolutely no reason to respect this guys laws. He is lying in court. Is it even possible for very powerful people to be honest in court? (Clinton, Gates, Valenti, etc..) I guess if they were, they wouldn't end up quite so powerful, so there ya go.
You might want to look into the most recent LPFM stuff. A number of industry lobbyists went full bore against it in the last few months. I believe they cut the availabe freqs in half after some totally contrived (emulated) tests showed that LPFM would degrade regular FM signals. I don't have the C-mens names, but they set up the "Radio Preservation Act" that pretty much slams LPFM.
Not to rain on your parade, just trying to inform you that many others are trying to keep you from having a parade permit.
Oh, and I hope they fear me too.:) (it's got links to a number of the things Ms. Love, hehe, mentioned in her speech) --
-- All taping must be for personal use only, which may include trading (via analog or digital tape, CD, or digital file transfer). Recordings may be traded only for an equivalent amount of similar media (cassettes or CDs, pre-recorded or blank). Regardless of any expenses incurred, no money may ever be exchanged as part of a trade; however, stamped, self-addressed envelopes may be included with blank media. In addition, the media by which audio trading is publicized may not be commercialized. Therefore newsletters, web sites, clubs, or any other communication forum facilitating audio trading cannot accept advertising, offer links for compensation, exploit databases compiled from their traffic, or otherwise derive any commercial profit in any form. Stores or businesses may not offer to duplicate Phish media for customers or sell or otherwise provide media containing unreleased Phish music for any price. --
In other words: Listen all you want, but please don't sell it.
IMHO, this is how copyright should be, i.e. the literal translation should be "sellright". --
Modern law is failing miserably to deal with this paradigm shift.
And it's not just law that's failing with this shift. What you propose would cause a fundamental change in society. When property is no longer scarce, all our concepts for dealing with it fail. If we are not careful we could quite easily end up with a society where there really is plenty for all, but it is limited by those who control it, for the sole purpose of leveraging a false scarcity for profit. This is the situation we are currently facing with digital media, and is also the reason why I feel so strongly that NOW is the time we need to approach these issues. AND I think they need to be approached from the viewpoint of the people and NOT from that of the corporations. Government does not exist to protect quarterly earnings to the detriment of society as a whole, it is (here) BtP, FtP, OtP. Blah, rant off.
if you've never watched the show, I would recommend it. They do a bunch of "what if" dream sequences. One of the ones last night was "What if Kurt Cobain had quit." --
Kurt walks of stage "Thanks a lot kids, and remember, say no to drugs!"
Company execs wait offstage, "Great show Kurt, and your seventh album is selling great."
Kurt: "Thanks guys. You remember my girlfriend Courtney Love, right?"
Execs: "Umm, well, uh, no."
(fade to Courtney's sad face)
Anyway, it was a great interview. She know about the legislation and the system as a whole. It's good to see a well known artist take a stand. And using Neal Stephenson as a source was just golden. Great read for anyone interested in this stuff. --
did it occur to you that retail market, and depending on the country, import/export taxes and middleman fees kick the price up a few notches ?
Now you know how the record co's have been able to keep kicking that price up a few notches and remove the ability of the retailers to lower it. Of course everyone in the supply chain raises the price, duh. The $3 figure I pulled outta my ass, but I think you could make a living selling CDs for five. A buck to make, a buck to ship, a buck to promote and 2 for the artist. Of course, that's in an ideal world with consumers who know what they want (or have a simple means to sample every piece available.......!!!!!). In our world there are stupid enough people that have to pay more than the total price of the object for someone to tell them that they want it, and even stupider people who think this is a good thing.
By their own admission the RIAA has deduced that the marketing is the most valuable part of a CD. I think it should be the music, but then again, I don't make $14billion/yr marketing music.
We're counting on you to keep up your end of the bargain.
k, try some music from my friends. (I drew the picture and you can appreciate that for the same price) They are huge Napster fans. I'd quote what the lead singer has to say about the RIAA but there might be children reading.
And no, you can't just steal the work of others and claim that it's yours because you've got two hands capable of stealing it with.
Who is claiming it as their own? I just want to listen to music and give credit where it's due. I think the RIAA has overextended their credit limit (right about the time they started lobbying to take away artists' rights) so they get no more credit from me. --
....because we find it easier to reward creators with "celebrity" rather than our dollars.
Exactly. We reward them with celebrity. Advertisers reward them with money to use the celebrity for advertising. It's a market. Note: I also still buy CDs because I know that supporting the music I like is a Good Thing(tm)
Oh, and I wasn't saying we should get rid of copyright, I just think it needs to be redefined. And under even my liberal redefinition, one wouldn't be allowed to sell another's work for profit. Here's a longer version And another one should be here soon (watch that.sig:).
The sales of there music is a source of income it gives them more time to write good music. Take that away and the artist will for the most part go away.
So you think the only way for music to exist is through a "music industry" that creates an artificial scarcity and then capitalizes it? You mean there's NO OTHER WAY to make money with music other than selling recordings of it? I know that's not what you believe, but it's what you just said.
I've seen this "people will only make music if they are guaranteed an income" argument and it's crap. You have read to far into what you wanted me to be saying. Let me clarify.
. If the artest wanted you yo trade there MP3's for free (and a lot do) that is sharing but if you take it with out the person who created it telling you you can that is stealing.
First off, since you want to split hairs (and some need splitting) I am not "taking" a copy. I am "making" one. This takes no resources from the creator. The only thing that is being transferred is IP. I don't think our government should be expected to control and dole out IP to the same degree it does for PP (phyiscal property.) Why? Because to do so in the context of the Net involves a tremendous overhead, which become the value of the IP. The stealing part is defined by the law. I want to change the law, rather than face a future where $10 of the $15 I pay for a CD is to make sure it costs $15.
You spean like Marx did and communisum failed. Why? Because the incentive to work was gone and the government had to force people to work.
This is a fun point. Communism failed because scarcity exists (and it ignores human nature). To cut a long story short. People eating your potatoes for free when each one costs you a set amount to grow quickly gets old. People listening to your music when each copy costs you absolutely nothing to make increases your standing as an artist. This value can then be molded into money in any of a number of ways, including the ability to sell CDs. This is, IMHO, what right needs to be protected, the right to sell, and not the right to use. Trying to defend the right of an artist to control the (private/personal) use of their work is silly. Policing who is selling it becomes a bit more possible.
The government can use force to create a monopoly no one else can. (by force I mean physical).
The goverment can also use force to create an artificial price for a product that allows them to use marketing to override and extinguish a better consumer product. And they can use force (in the sense of laws) to destroy new competitors in a market, like, say, the market for music services. This is happening right now.
People dont buy them. Why? They are not a good (by good I mean a lot of things avablity is one of them so is compatiblity).
Yes, people don't buy them because M$ used marketing, compatibility and availability (OEMs) to keep competing products out fo the public's mindshare. This is very nearly the same thing the RIAA has done. Bill Gates also argued vehemently against people stealing his software. You see, if he didn't have the massive protection of IP, he could never have used the money to break all those other laws.
Your logic is flawed and stupid. Get a grip and stop trying to start shit.
Show me where. I've got a firm grip, thanks. --
Re:MP3.com once the solution, now part of the prob
on
Napster Wars
·
· Score: 1
I think you forget that money makes the world go round.
unless it's expressly given to you for free, you must pay for it. Without payment, the incentive goes away.
Without cost, there's no need for payment. The payment for art comes from celebrity.
If the recording industry was truly gouging customers, then they wouldn't be able to sell any records.
If Microsoft was gouging customers, they wouldn't be able to sell OSes. That's the power a monopoly gives you. It removes choice and allows for price fixing.
Sharing is not wrong, never has been, never will be. It only hurts artists who suck (which is another reason why the RIAA is against it).
The funny part, IMHO, is when they start to bring morality into the equation. Record Executives and morality, that's almost as funny as that Seagram's guy decrying pirates...when his grandfather was a bootlegger (the real kind).
Of course people do not have to buy your song--but society may give you the exclusive right to profit: that is, society may give you the right to force other people not to sell your song,
up to here, I'm all for your statement, but this part...
or otherwise distribute that song in a manner which prevents you from profiting from it.
..is where I think you are off. (if I am interpreting your tone correctly) I don't think sharing or trading prevents the ability to profit. If you are granted exclusive permission to profit from something, how does a larger exposure and use of that something prevent your ability to profit from it? Especially if that something is a thing of beauty made to be appreciated. --
The promotion costs also include stuff like music videos, worldwide distrubution, schmoozing radio execs, etc. The whole flap with the FTC was about the RIAA building promotion costs into the cost of the CD with their promotion agreements (i.e. We'll pay to promote it, and you can't lower the price to compete, all competition is through promotion).
It's easier to make a dollar per product when the cost $15 per rather than $3 per. Keep the cost high and your can do the same with your margins. Oh, and use that monopoly power to squeeze, squeeze, squeeze. --
reality master, you must repeat your 101 "basics of reality" class. There is no f-ing way that is a picture of a prototype. But I think the rant stands. Gimme 1000x800, touchy, and wireless. About the size of a drawing pad. For $1000. (or $999 at Donny's Discount Laptops) --
and not a drop to drink. Cause it's frozen. Solid. Welcome to Outer Space, where a hot sun is good for the growing season, and meteors polinate class M planets to the tune of one per billion*.
Slashdot Mirror
but because there is not copyright, you could reverse engineer it, remove the piracy cruft and release the good source. The market then picks the implementation they prefer.
--
Google is your friend
"asciimation star wars"
--
THE WITNESS: The answer is, any time that you circumvent an encryption for whatever reason you are breaking the law.
That's his view of fair use. And also the view of the laws he has helped craft. Maybe it's just me, but this willful disregard for our court system gives me absolutely no reason to respect this guys laws. He is lying in court. Is it even possible for very powerful people to be honest in court? (Clinton, Gates, Valenti, etc..) I guess if they were, they wouldn't end up quite so powerful, so there ya go.
--
LOL
GRand Unified Bootloader
--
You might want to look into the most recent LPFM stuff. A number of industry lobbyists went full bore against it in the last few months. I believe they cut the availabe freqs in half after some totally contrived (emulated) tests showed that LPFM would degrade regular FM signals. I don't have the C-mens names, but they set up the "Radio Preservation Act" that pretty much slams LPFM.
:) (it's got links to a number of the things Ms. Love, hehe, mentioned in her speech)
Not to rain on your parade, just trying to inform you that many others are trying to keep you from having a parade permit.
Oh, and I hope they fear me too.
--
Phish's official policy. From here.
--
All taping must be for personal use only, which may include trading (via analog or digital tape, CD, or digital file transfer). Recordings may be traded only for an
equivalent amount of similar media (cassettes or CDs, pre-recorded or blank). Regardless of any expenses incurred, no money may ever be exchanged as part of
a trade; however, stamped, self-addressed envelopes may be included with blank media. In addition, the media by which audio trading is publicized may not be
commercialized. Therefore newsletters, web sites, clubs, or any other communication forum facilitating audio trading cannot accept advertising, offer links for
compensation, exploit databases compiled from their traffic, or otherwise derive any commercial profit in any form. Stores or businesses may not offer to
duplicate Phish media for customers or sell or otherwise provide media containing unreleased Phish music for any price.
--
In other words: Listen all you want, but please don't sell it.
IMHO, this is how copyright should be, i.e. the literal translation should be "sellright".
--
Exactly.
This is why we need to define these things now.
Modern law is failing miserably to deal with this paradigm shift.
And it's not just law that's failing with this shift. What you propose would cause a fundamental change in society. When property is no longer scarce, all our concepts for dealing with it fail. If we are not careful we could quite easily end up with a society where there really is plenty for all, but it is limited by those who control it, for the sole purpose of leveraging a false scarcity for profit. This is the situation we are currently facing with digital media, and is also the reason why I feel so strongly that NOW is the time we need to approach these issues. AND I think they need to be approached from the viewpoint of the people and NOT from that of the corporations. Government does not exist to protect quarterly earnings to the detriment of society as a whole, it is (here) BtP, FtP, OtP. Blah, rant off.
--
on Fox had a slam on Courtney last night.
if you've never watched the show, I would recommend it. They do a bunch of "what if" dream sequences. One of the ones last night was "What if Kurt Cobain had quit."
--
Kurt walks of stage "Thanks a lot kids, and remember, say no to drugs!"
Company execs wait offstage, "Great show Kurt, and your seventh album is selling great."
Kurt: "Thanks guys. You remember my girlfriend Courtney Love, right?"
Execs: "Umm, well, uh, no."
(fade to Courtney's sad face)
Anyway, it was a great interview. She know about the legislation and the system as a whole. It's good to see a well known artist take a stand. And using Neal Stephenson as a source was just golden. Great read for anyone interested in this stuff.
--
Yep, provide more services and get more back, that's definitely a good business model.
Yes, don't allow your distibutors to compete on price, and roll your increasing marketing costs into the price. Sounds like a great business model...too bad it is ILLEGAL.
did it occur to you that retail market, and depending on the country, import/export taxes and middleman fees kick the price up a few notches ?
Now you know how the record co's have been able to keep kicking that price up a few notches and remove the ability of the retailers to lower it. Of course everyone in the supply chain raises the price, duh. The $3 figure I pulled outta my ass, but I think you could make a living selling CDs for five. A buck to make, a buck to ship, a buck to promote and 2 for the artist. Of course, that's in an ideal world with consumers who know what they want (or have a simple means to sample every piece available.......!!!!!). In our world there are stupid enough people that have to pay more than the total price of the object for someone to tell them that they want it, and even stupider people who think this is a good thing.
By their own admission the RIAA has deduced that the marketing is the most valuable part of a CD. I think it should be the music, but then again, I don't make $14billion/yr marketing music.
--
We're counting on you to keep up your end of the bargain.
k, try some music from my friends. (I drew the picture and you can appreciate that for the same price) They are huge Napster fans. I'd quote what the lead singer has to say about the RIAA but there might be children reading.
And no, you can't just steal the work of others and claim that it's yours because you've got two hands capable of stealing it with.
Who is claiming it as their own? I just want to listen to music and give credit where it's due. I think the RIAA has overextended their credit limit (right about the time they started lobbying to take away artists' rights) so they get no more credit from me.
--
Here's a place you can start.
I don't know how up to date it is. You can set them up yourself. It's not hard.
--
....because we find it easier to reward creators with "celebrity" rather than our dollars.
.sig :).
Exactly. We reward them with celebrity. Advertisers reward them with money to use the celebrity for advertising. It's a market. Note: I also still buy CDs because I know that supporting the music I like is a Good Thing(tm)
Oh, and I wasn't saying we should get rid of copyright, I just think it needs to be redefined. And under even my liberal redefinition, one wouldn't be allowed to sell another's work for profit. Here's a longer version And another one should be here soon (watch that
--
The payment for art comes from celebrity.
Nike: Hey, Michael Jordan?
MJ: Hmm?
Nike: Will you wear these shoes for $1 million?
MJ: Why?
Nike: 'cause you make good music.
--
Do I need to spell it out even more? Or do you normally pay for your rent by turning in 1,000 lines of code?
--
The sales of there music is a source of income it gives them more time to write good music. Take that away and the artist will for the most part go away.
So you think the only way for music to exist is through a "music industry" that creates an artificial scarcity and then capitalizes it? You mean there's NO OTHER WAY to make money with music other than selling recordings of it? I know that's not what you believe, but it's what you just said.
I've seen this "people will only make music if they are guaranteed an income" argument and it's crap. You have read to far into what you wanted me to be saying. Let me clarify.
. If the artest wanted you yo trade there MP3's for free (and a lot do) that is sharing but if you take it with out the person who created it telling you you can that is stealing.
First off, since you want to split hairs (and some need splitting) I am not "taking" a copy. I am "making" one. This takes no resources from the creator. The only thing that is being transferred is IP. I don't think our government should be expected to control and dole out IP to the same degree it does for PP (phyiscal property.) Why? Because to do so in the context of the Net involves a tremendous overhead, which become the value of the IP. The stealing part is defined by the law. I want to change the law, rather than face a future where $10 of the $15 I pay for a CD is to make sure it costs $15.
You spean like Marx did and communisum failed. Why? Because the incentive to work was gone and the government had to force people to work.
This is a fun point. Communism failed because scarcity exists (and it ignores human nature). To cut a long story short. People eating your potatoes for free when each one costs you a set amount to grow quickly gets old. People listening to your music when each copy costs you absolutely nothing to make increases your standing as an artist. This value can then be molded into money in any of a number of ways, including the ability to sell CDs. This is, IMHO, what right needs to be protected, the right to sell, and not the right to use. Trying to defend the right of an artist to control the (private/personal) use of their work is silly. Policing who is selling it becomes a bit more possible.
The government can use force to create a monopoly no one else can. (by force I mean physical).
The goverment can also use force to create an artificial price for a product that allows them to use marketing to override and extinguish a better consumer product. And they can use force (in the sense of laws) to destroy new competitors in a market, like, say, the market for music services. This is happening right now.
People dont buy them. Why? They are not a good (by good I mean a lot of things avablity is one of them so is compatiblity).
Yes, people don't buy them because M$ used marketing, compatibility and availability (OEMs) to keep competing products out fo the public's mindshare. This is very nearly the same thing the RIAA has done. Bill Gates also argued vehemently against people stealing his software. You see, if he didn't have the massive protection of IP, he could never have used the money to break all those other laws.
Your logic is flawed and stupid. Get a grip and stop trying to start shit.
Show me where. I've got a firm grip, thanks.
--
I think you forget that money makes the world go round.
I thought it was gravity..?
--
You are wrong.
unless it's expressly given to you for free, you must pay for it. Without payment, the incentive goes away.
Without cost, there's no need for payment. The payment for art comes from celebrity.
If the recording industry was truly gouging customers, then they wouldn't be able to sell any records.
If Microsoft was gouging customers, they wouldn't be able to sell OSes. That's the power a monopoly gives you. It removes choice and allows for price fixing.
Sharing is not wrong, never has been, never will be. It only hurts artists who suck (which is another reason why the RIAA is against it).
--
yes, the connection is that last week they settled a billion dollar lawsuit with the RIAA. There's no need to look further.
--
Hehe, yea, her b.s. pissed me off too.
The funny part, IMHO, is when they start to bring morality into the equation. Record Executives and morality, that's almost as funny as that Seagram's guy decrying pirates...when his grandfather was a bootlegger (the real kind).
--
nitpickin'...just this part....
Of course people do not have to buy your song--but society may give you the exclusive right to profit: that is, society may give you the right to force other people not to sell your song,
up to here, I'm all for your statement, but this part...
or otherwise distribute that song in a manner which prevents you from profiting from it.
..is where I think you are off. (if I am interpreting your tone correctly) I don't think sharing or trading prevents the ability to profit. If you are granted exclusive permission to profit from something, how does a larger exposure and use of that something prevent your ability to profit from it? Especially if that something is a thing of beauty made to be appreciated.
--
From the RIAA site (again)..
For example, the most significant cost of a CD today is the marketing and promotion of that music. To learn more about why CDs are a great value -- check out Cost of a CD.
The promotion costs also include stuff like music videos, worldwide distrubution, schmoozing radio execs, etc. The whole flap with the FTC was about the RIAA building promotion costs into the cost of the CD with their promotion agreements (i.e. We'll pay to promote it, and you can't lower the price to compete, all competition is through promotion).
It's easier to make a dollar per product when the cost $15 per rather than $3 per. Keep the cost high and your can do the same with your margins. Oh, and use that monopoly power to squeeze, squeeze, squeeze.
--
what? do you like work at transmeta or something?!
/.? That's the question...now. :)
hehe.
but is that a picture of it loading
--
reality master, you must repeat your 101 "basics of reality" class. There is no f-ing way that is a picture of a prototype. But I think the rant stands. Gimme 1000x800, touchy, and wireless. About the size of a drawing pad. For $1000. (or $999 at Donny's Discount Laptops)
--
and not a drop to drink. Cause it's frozen. Solid. Welcome to Outer Space, where a hot sun is good for the growing season, and meteors polinate class M planets to the tune of one per billion*.
*approximately
--
The record companies will share an undisclosed amount of money received in the settlements with its artists.
I thought 0 was undefined, not undisclosed.
--
/., we do more copyright infringement before 8:00 a.m. than most people do in their entire lives.
--