you're confusing reproduction with distribution. The GPL only comes into power when you distribute. And that's outside the organization, so RAM doesn't count.
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
There is a much more balanced, bland feel to/. and I attribute it to the lack of interesting flame wars. Now, no one wants to go so far as offend anyone. This behavior is called being "politically correct" and makes for boring useless debate and generlally bland discourse.(note:/. is just more PC than it used to be, still not 10000th as much as the nightly news)
Of course, the trolls are still funny.
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
You mean there's people out there using computers who don't even know C!?!
Quick! Get 'em off Linux, that way they'll never learn...
Where exactly do you think the next generation of developers is going to come from? Where do you think real innovation is going to come from? How can a generation possibly learn the real value of the Free Software Movement if you want to demonize them for having a good time? How many of them still dual-boot because Linux gaming sucks?
Thanks to those mindless teenagers I can *use* Linux, (since I have a voodoo3) I thought all you ivory tower folks used BSD (we certainly know you don't like new, fast hardware)
And how exactly is market pressure forcing you to code, I thought it was just a fun thing to do. Like the occasional blast-fest.
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
For those of you that don't know, you must sign a NDA, remove Linux from your HD, and sign up for AOL to even *begin* to be considered for the beta. So it's not worth your while, move along please.
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
And the typical person out there isn't going to want to sort through a million unsigned Hootie and the Blowfish soundalikes
No that's why they can go use Napster and find the band that their friend was talking about, or they heard about someplace, or read about on a website.
Distribution isn't just about getting it to people, it's about getting people to want those products.
I totally agree, but what I would rather is that the promotion and distrubution move to a more distributed environment. If you allow people to freely pass digital music, demand will surface. It's why I got the CD I'm listening to right now.
because there's a certain guarantee of quality there.
Yes, but I'm not sure that means what you want it too. Unless you think the Spice Girls are musical geniuses.
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
funny how both of those posts (yours and his) got moderated up./. has gotten waaay more PC recently. Just like the conservative element in the U.S. makes most of the laws we all have to live by, the whacked out element of/. makes most of the moderation we all have to live by. If you don't like how a place works, make an effort to change it (i.e. stop posting so you can moderate)...or leave.
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Like I said, the point of the so-called "artificial scarcity" is to provide an efficient means of cost-sharing.
I don't see the efficiency, all "artificial scarcity" does is provide a way for one entity to control supply, unless you think high price = efficient, if which case the current system is quite efficient.
Well that's all well and good, but let the artist choose free distribution. No one has the right to force anyone else to share.
Yes, let them. Or they can try and fight it with lawyers. What I'm saying is that this situation already exists, to try and fight it is great, buy why do you want to? Oh yeah, control. The owners of the copyright (most likely not the artist) wants to create a market where they can get the most value on a per-unit basis, and then exploit that position. I don't want to support that model, now that I don't need it and the Internet has made it obsolete.
Yes, but if you remove the laws that make the music industry profitable, that doesn't help much.
The recording industry will still be profitable, people will still buy music, I still buy music. Why do you think music buying will stop? It hasn't for me. In fact it's gone up, because now, with a wide open competitive landscape, I can find the music I like, and listen to it enough until I really like it.
These cases are an example of the big corporations simply getting greedy. They are about protecting big companies. And making life harder for the little guy.
*cough* *Cough* *COUGH*
can see why it makes sense for you -- it's a model under which you can get something for nothing, and circumvent your obligation to compensate the artist.
So my paying for bandwidth, diskspace, time, and effort to promote an artist are of no value in your world? In mine they're roughly equivelent to the value of an infinite product. I know you don't think I should have that choice, but I do, until you get the vast Internet security mechanisms in place to stop it, or put enough digital pirates in jails for felonies to scare me aware, I'll still have that choice. Is that the culture you want?
Again, not really true. The product is the song itself, not electronic or physical copies of the song.
Not really true because of current copyright law no other reason. Watch. I'm taking an MP3, copying it, again, again, again, again, and dangit it just keeps making the same thing. How is this not really true?
I consider this position absurd, because I believe that simply by producing the piece of music, the artist has already performed a valuable service, and is entitled to collect compensation ( the amount to be determined by the market ) without recourse to sideline activities.
But it's not worth anything at all until there is a demand. So record companies spend a great deal of money creating demand. What I'm saying is that demand can be created by people on their own, word-of-napster, using their personally bought and paid for resources. The artist does not by default offer a valuable service. Go sit on a street corner and see how valuable being able to sing and play a guitar is. It's only be creating demand that they have any hope to make money. Currently this entire process is influenced to a frightening degree by the people who own the music, via big movie deals, radio-play, commercials, etc. (Mambo #5 which I heard on a Fox commercial before I heard the real song, waahoo artistic integrity at its finest), rather than those to listen to it. It's also very expensive, and so they *must* keep the music that way to support their model.
It just so happens that the music distrubution cost-of-entry barrier has been totally removed, and the only way to re-create it is with a police line. So you can keep up the fight for an artistic profit center if you want, I'll just fight for good art.
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
The main thing that copyright laws do is attempt to stop people freeloading, ie everyone who uses the software is supposed to share the costs.
Exactly, that's why I pay for bandwidth and diskspace. It's my part of the cost in distrubuting and reproducing the music. That's why I don't think I should be forced to pay those costs again.
And perhaps this is where my personal philosophy parts ways with others. I think art should be appreciated. We came up with the copyright system as a way to make sure artists could have their work protected. Fine, they need a way to say "Hey that's mine." and establish some type of ownership. I also think they should be the only ones to profit from such works. However, given the nature of the beast (the 'Net and all it can do) *everyone* can have a copy at no *cost* to the copyright owner. So we have a dilly of a pickle, and a fork in the road ahead of us.
On the one side, we have a culture where 100,000 lawyers continue suing everyone is sight, hoping to control the uncontrollable, and on the other we have really great artists getting massive exposure because a whole lot of people (not just the radio stations they lobby or take to Bermuda) think they make great music. On one side we have big companies using massive forces to create artificial scarcity, and the other we have talented artists getting massive, free, personal distrubution. Now unless you think that having 2,000,000 people singing your song and knowing your name is not a position from which you can recieve recompense, the copyright owner will be compensated to a degree that they can continue to make good music. And, because they have the copyright, anyone who tries to *profit* from their work should be prosecuted, and the artist has the full force of an already bloated goverment behind them. Play fair, everyone's happy, don't and you'll regret it. I just think "fair" has gotten madly obscured (go read the DMCA or UCITA to get a feel for this) by those in a position to change the only thing that gives thier product any value protection at all, the law.
This open model makes more sense to me, creating (and subsidizing) massive false scarcity in an effort to control the spread of art for profit doesn't. -- by applying them
to control, the original purpose of copyright, who gets to profit in $ (the stuff you need to live) from the protected work. Not who gets to use it. Which are now two completely separate things (seeing as how the products value in supply and demand terms is 0 and I am already paying for the minuscule reproduction and tramsmission costs). The artist is fully equipped and protected to use this goodwill to profit in any way possible, endorsements, selling cds, live shows. etc. (here's a post with more suggestions)
So that's what I think.
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Really? Great! Now I'll just waltz on over to my local Porsche dealership, steal one of those zippy new Boxsters I've had my eye on, and they'll thank me for providing "free advertising" as I drive it around town. Great idea!
Wow, your Porsche dealer has that special model where anyone can walk up, press a button and make a perfect copy a billion times over and he still has his?! That's awesome, give me the address.
Well, go back and read it. The fact that you're losing your bandwidth, or your attention, or your HD space is irrelevant, because I am not gaining it.
So I guess, by your logic, all those pizza delivery people working for Domino's are NOT, in fact, using their cars to help distrubute Domino's product. Domino's isn't gaining a huge personal delivery fleet, just a bunch of people delivering pizzas. ?!?!?
How irrational can a person be? Look, here, I'll pull a dollar bill out of my wallet, tear it up, and throw it in the wastebasket. By your logic, I have "given" you a dollar.
How metaphorically challenged can a person be. First off, you need to stop using examples with physical objects. They don't apply. None of them. We're talking about magnetic charges and electrons, and until E, MC and C come around, they don't have much to do with physical objects that can't be infinitely reproduced. This is a very important point, it's the basis for the rest of the argument, and why MP3s are NOT Porsches.
Furthermore, if I own a thing, I have a perfect right to protect the scarcity which preserves its market value.
You have a right based on the law of the land, not on any natural or perfect model. The only way you can even begin to protect that right it through MASSIVE outside interference, given that your product is inherently infinite, you must CONSTANTLY be making an effort to keep it scarce. This costs money (lawyers are expensive). So, what you're saying, is that you want a market where I pay to help keep an infinite product scarce, so I can pay more, to help keep it scarce. Riiiiight.
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
What difference does it make to you whether I lose value or not? If the value I give you costs me nothing, how does that harm you? It doesn't harm you.
The bottom line is that A must not receive value from B without providing value to B in return, no more and no less.
So given a non-scarce product, I can exchange very little value, something like my attention or my bandwidth or my harddrive, for something of very little value, since it's not scarce, and we're square. Unless you think my attention has no value, in which case the whole advertising industry is a scam. So I am giving something of value (albeit an amorphous value), that's on par with the value of what I'm "taking".
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
The copyright system allows us to put a price on information -- the price is simply whatever the market is willing to pay.
you are familar with the concept of supply and demand right? As a way to determine value, eh? When supply is infinite, the price is.....?
But wait, we have a new force involved. Law. So instead of working through a natural way to determine value, we back it up with a government. So yes, copyrighted digital works do have inherent value, but it's only as much as the enforcement is willing to make them worth. Are you following me here? When you use an unnatual system to determine price, it becomes more and more difficult to support that price, esp. when the natural price should be very close to zero. And even more difficult when the peasants realize it.
So how do you propose that the creators of intellectual works be compensated in the absence of a copyright system ?
By applying them. (note: this is not to say the copyright idea should be nixed, just a reply to a hypothetical)
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
What I don't understand is why people are so intent on parading Napster around as something it's clearly not.
To combat the RIAA who are so intent on parading MP3 around as something it's not. It's a PR/marketing/perception battle at this point. See what happens in a political campaign when one candidate goes the total honest route and the other does politics as normal. In our imperfect world, I can you who will win 95% of the time. The RIAA has billions of dollars, friends with TV networks, radio, and AOL. We have lots of passionate people all with a little time to spare, some bandwidth, and this lil' techy toy called the Internet. -- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Are you trying to argue that musicians shouldn't be paid for writing and recording music
Umm, actually yes. Of course, playing music and selling music are good ways to make money. And you should probably be real good at it. Hey, here's a way I'll know if you're any good regardless of your geographic location, personal appearance, sexual orientation, political leanings, or anything else that might keep you off the radio, RELEASE YOUR WORK TO THE NET!! Jeez, how much money do you spend on music during the average month? And if you are only thinking about how many CDs you buy, this conversation is pointless.
And why should digital recording mandate sharing ?
Not mandate, I'm not forcing anyone, and wouldn't even if I could. But I can pressure them. I do have the ability to say "Hey, I'd really like it if you did this." If you want to reatain *absolute* control over who listens to your music, I would avoid recording it digitally. Digital just makes sharing *real* easy, cost effective, global, instantaneous, and a whole bunch of other cool words.
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
It sure would be tough for a college sysadmin to cut off my connection, since I pay $100/month for my own DSL line, in my apartment, which runs my server, over my router, through my firewall. So unless you can convice USWest that I'm sending bad packets, or get a court order, fuck right off. (note: this is not a Hackme contest, pleeeease..)
If you want to listen to an increasing number of commercials (because there is no competition in radio, or network TV and both have been ramping up advertising "units" consistently for years) with an increasingly limited breadth of choices go for it. More power to you. I pay for my connection so I can make own choices, it's fun, empowering, and I wish everyone would do it too. And as soon as I get the time to hack Icecast to my liking, I'll have my OWN radio station.
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
it is voluntary. If they don't want to share it, they make sure it's never recorded digitally. Seems pretty simple to me. I would agree with your first sentence if you'd just drop the "If".
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
One of the first things they are going to do is called "You've got Music" and continue the push advertising that AOLers must love so much. TW will also push AOL TV this summer, oh and they found about $50 million/yr in "elimination of redundant corporate costs." For a fuller article try Electronic Media (deadtree, emonline.com doesn't seem to be responding, oops, now it works, too bad it sucks...)
-- ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver. ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Slashdot Mirror
the topic isn't, the movement is.
Giving away something for free in the U.S., is akin to setting fire to a herd of cattle in India.
--
you're confusing reproduction with distribution. The GPL only comes into power when you distribute.
And that's outside the organization, so RAM doesn't count.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
PC = Politically Correct Personal Computer.
/. and I attribute it to the lack of interesting flame wars. Now, no one wants to go so far as offend anyone. This behavior is called being "politically correct" and makes for boring useless debate and generlally bland discourse.(note: /. is just more PC than it used to be, still not 10000th as much as the nightly news)
There is a much more balanced, bland feel to
Of course, the trolls are still funny.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Use that link, tell him what you think, and put the pipe down.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
It was great. The first mission had some problems. They lost contact for a while. But finally the decision was made to go on a second mission in the back-up Mars Transport Vehicle©(tm). And thank God they did. Not only did we make contact with an alien race (who had mastered holographic recording techniques), but we rescued the poor chap WHO HAD BEEN LIVING ON THE SURFACE FOR A YEAR IN A CANVAS TENT!!!!!!!
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Then we'll know for sure.
(unless you're the same troll, masqing your grits)
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
good point. After two weeks, every open source developer should be congradufuckinglated. You need air.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
You mean there's people out there using computers who don't even know C!?!
Quick! Get 'em off Linux, that way they'll never learn...
Where exactly do you think the next generation of developers is going to come from? Where do you think real innovation is going to come from? How can a generation possibly learn the real value of the Free Software Movement if you want to demonize them for having a good time? How many of them still dual-boot because Linux gaming sucks?
Thanks to those mindless teenagers I can *use* Linux, (since I have a voodoo3) I thought all you ivory tower folks used BSD (we certainly know you don't like new, fast hardware)
And how exactly is market pressure forcing you to code, I thought it was just a fun thing to do. Like the occasional blast-fest.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
(umm, you want LESS people to sign-up, duh!)
For those of you that don't know, you must sign a NDA, remove Linux from your HD, and sign up for AOL to even *begin* to be considered for the beta. So it's not worth your while, move along please.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
And the typical person out there isn't going to want to sort through a million unsigned Hootie and the Blowfish soundalikes
No that's why they can go use Napster and find the band that their friend was talking about, or they heard about someplace, or read about on a website.
Distribution isn't just about getting it to people, it's about getting people to want those products.
I totally agree, but what I would rather is that the promotion and distrubution move to a more distributed environment. If you allow people to freely pass digital music, demand will surface. It's why I got the CD I'm listening to right now.
because there's a certain guarantee of quality there.
Yes, but I'm not sure that means what you want it too. Unless you think the Spice Girls are musical geniuses.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
funny how both of those posts (yours and his) got moderated up. /. has gotten waaay more PC recently. Just like the conservative element in the U.S. makes most of the laws we all have to live by, the whacked out element of /. makes most of the moderation we all have to live by. If you don't like how a place works, make an effort to change it (i.e. stop posting so you can moderate)...or leave.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Like I said, the point of the so-called "artificial scarcity" is to provide an efficient means of cost-sharing.
I don't see the efficiency, all "artificial scarcity" does is provide a way for one entity to control supply, unless you think high price = efficient, if which case the current system is quite efficient.
Well that's all well and good, but let the artist choose free distribution. No one has the right to force anyone else to share.
Yes, let them. Or they can try and fight it with lawyers. What I'm saying is that this situation already exists, to try and fight it is great, buy why do you want to? Oh yeah, control. The owners of the copyright (most likely not the artist) wants to create a market where they can get the most value on a per-unit basis, and then exploit that position. I don't want to support that model, now that I don't need it and the Internet has made it obsolete.
Yes, but if you remove the laws that make the music industry profitable, that doesn't help much.
The recording industry will still be profitable, people will still buy music, I still buy music. Why do you think music buying will stop? It hasn't for me. In fact it's gone up, because now, with a wide open competitive landscape, I can find the music I like, and listen to it enough until I really like it.
These cases are an example of the big corporations simply getting greedy. They are about protecting big companies. And making life harder for the little guy.
*cough* *Cough* *COUGH*
can see why it makes sense for you -- it's a model under which you can get something for nothing, and circumvent your obligation to compensate the artist.
So my paying for bandwidth, diskspace, time, and effort to promote an artist are of no value in your world? In mine they're roughly equivelent to the value of an infinite product. I know you don't think I should have that choice, but I do, until you get the vast Internet security mechanisms in place to stop it, or put enough digital pirates in jails for felonies to scare me aware, I'll still have that choice. Is that the culture you want?
Again, not really true. The product is the song itself, not electronic or physical copies of the song.
Not really true because of current copyright law no other reason. Watch. I'm taking an MP3, copying it, again, again, again, again, and dangit it just keeps making the same thing. How is this not really true?
I consider this position absurd, because I believe that simply by producing the piece of music, the artist has already performed a valuable service, and is entitled to collect compensation ( the amount to be determined by the market ) without recourse to sideline activities.
But it's not worth anything at all until there is a demand. So record companies spend a great deal of money creating demand. What I'm saying is that demand can be created by people on their own, word-of-napster, using their personally bought and paid for resources. The artist does not by default offer a valuable service. Go sit on a street corner and see how valuable being able to sing and play a guitar is. It's only be creating demand that they have any hope to make money. Currently this entire process is influenced to a frightening degree by the people who own the music, via big movie deals, radio-play, commercials, etc. (Mambo #5 which I heard on a Fox commercial before I heard the real song, waahoo artistic integrity at its finest), rather than those to listen to it. It's also very expensive, and so they *must* keep the music that way to support their model.
It just so happens that the music distrubution cost-of-entry barrier has been totally removed, and the only way to re-create it is with a police line. So you can keep up the fight for an artistic profit center if you want, I'll just fight for good art.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Microsoft sticks rigidly to the iron-clad ideology that Microsoft and its shareholders are the only people who matter.
case in point
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
The main thing that copyright laws do is attempt to stop people freeloading, ie everyone who uses the software is supposed to share the costs.
Exactly, that's why I pay for bandwidth and diskspace. It's my part of the cost in distrubuting and reproducing the music. That's why I don't think I should be forced to pay those costs again.
And perhaps this is where my personal philosophy parts ways with others. I think art should be appreciated. We came up with the copyright system as a way to make sure artists could have their work protected. Fine, they need a way to say "Hey that's mine." and establish some type of ownership. I also think they should be the only ones to profit from such works. However, given the nature of the beast (the 'Net and all it can do) *everyone* can have a copy at no *cost* to the copyright owner. So we have a dilly of a pickle, and a fork in the road ahead of us.
On the one side, we have a culture where 100,000 lawyers continue suing everyone is sight, hoping
to control the uncontrollable, and on the other we have really great artists getting massive exposure because a whole lot of people (not just the radio stations they lobby or take to Bermuda) think they make great music. On one side we have big companies using massive forces to create artificial scarcity, and the other we have talented artists getting massive, free, personal distrubution. Now unless you think that having 2,000,000 people singing your song and knowing your name is not a position from which you can recieve recompense, the copyright owner will be compensated to a degree that they can continue to make good music. And, because they have the copyright, anyone who tries to *profit* from their work should be prosecuted, and the artist has the full force of an already bloated goverment behind them. Play fair, everyone's happy, don't and you'll regret it. I just think "fair" has gotten madly obscured (go read the DMCA or UCITA to get a feel for this) by those in a position to change the only thing that gives thier product any value protection at all, the law.
This open model makes more sense to me, creating (and subsidizing) massive false scarcity in an effort to control the spread of art for profit doesn't.
--
by applying them
to control, the original purpose of copyright, who gets to profit in $ (the stuff you need to live) from the protected work. Not who gets to use it. Which are now two completely separate things (seeing as how the products value in supply and demand terms is 0 and I am already paying for the minuscule reproduction and tramsmission costs). The artist is fully equipped and protected to use this goodwill to profit in any way possible, endorsements, selling cds, live shows. etc. (here's a post with more suggestions)
So that's what I think.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Really? Great! Now I'll just waltz on over to my local Porsche dealership, steal one of those zippy new Boxsters I've had my eye on, and they'll thank me for providing "free advertising" as I drive it around town. Great idea!
Wow, your Porsche dealer has that special model where anyone can walk up, press a button and make a perfect copy a billion times over and he still has his?! That's awesome, give me the address.
Well, go back and read it. The fact that you're losing your bandwidth, or your attention, or your HD space is irrelevant, because I am not gaining it.
So I guess, by your logic, all those pizza delivery people working for Domino's are NOT, in fact, using their cars to help distrubute Domino's product. Domino's isn't gaining a huge personal delivery fleet, just a bunch of people delivering pizzas. ?!?!?
How irrational can a person be? Look, here, I'll pull a dollar bill out of my wallet, tear it up, and throw it in the wastebasket. By your logic, I have "given" you a dollar.
How metaphorically challenged can a person be. First off, you need to stop using examples with physical objects. They don't apply. None of them. We're talking about magnetic charges and electrons, and until E, MC and C come around, they don't have much to do with physical objects that can't be infinitely reproduced. This is a very important point, it's the basis for the rest of the argument, and why MP3s are NOT Porsches.
Furthermore, if I own a thing, I have a perfect right to protect the scarcity which preserves its market value.
You have a right based on the law of the land, not on any natural or perfect model. The only way you can even begin to protect that right it through MASSIVE outside interference, given that your product is inherently infinite, you must CONSTANTLY be making an effort to keep it scarce. This costs money (lawyers are expensive). So, what you're saying, is that you want a market where I pay to help keep an infinite product scarce, so I can pay more, to help keep it scarce. Riiiiight.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
What difference does it make to you whether I lose value or not? If the value I give you costs me nothing, how does that harm you? It doesn't harm you.
Exactly, that's why DL'ing MP3 isn't pirating. It's free advertising.
The bottom line is that A must not receive value from B without providing value to B in return, no more and no less.
So given a non-scarce product, I can exchange very little value, something like my attention or my bandwidth or my harddrive, for something of very little value, since it's not scarce, and we're square. Unless you think my attention has no value, in which case the whole advertising industry is a scam. So I am giving something of value (albeit an amorphous value), that's on par with the value of what I'm "taking".
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
The copyright system allows us to put a price on information -- the price is simply whatever the market is willing to pay.
you are familar with the concept of supply and demand right? As a way to determine value, eh? When supply is infinite, the price is.....?
But wait, we have a new force involved. Law. So instead of working through a natural way to determine value, we back it up with a government. So yes, copyrighted digital works do have inherent value, but it's only as much as the enforcement is willing to make them worth. Are you following me here? When you use an unnatual system to determine price, it becomes more and more difficult to support that price, esp. when the natural price should be very close to zero. And even more difficult when the peasants realize it.
So how do you propose that the creators of intellectual works be compensated in the absence of a copyright system ?
By applying them. (note: this is not to say the copyright idea should be nixed, just a reply to a hypothetical)
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
What I don't understand is why people are so intent on parading Napster around as something it's clearly not.
To combat the RIAA who are so intent on parading MP3 around as something it's not. It's a PR/marketing/perception battle at this point. See what happens in a political campaign when one candidate goes the total honest route and the other does politics as normal. In our imperfect world, I can you who will win 95% of the time. The RIAA has billions of dollars, friends with TV networks, radio, and AOL. We have lots of passionate people all with a little time to spare, some bandwidth, and this lil' techy toy called the Internet.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Are you trying to argue that musicians shouldn't be paid for writing and recording music
Umm, actually yes. Of course, playing music and selling music are good ways to make money. And you should probably be real good at it. Hey, here's a way I'll know if you're any good regardless of your geographic location, personal appearance, sexual orientation, political leanings, or anything else that might keep you off the radio, RELEASE YOUR WORK TO THE NET!! Jeez, how much money do you spend on music during the average month? And if you are only thinking about how many CDs you buy, this conversation is pointless.
And why should digital recording mandate sharing ?
Not mandate, I'm not forcing anyone, and wouldn't even if I could. But I can pressure them. I do have the ability to say "Hey, I'd really like it if you did this." If you want to reatain *absolute* control over who listens to your music, I would avoid recording it digitally. Digital just makes sharing *real* easy, cost effective, global, instantaneous, and a whole bunch of other cool words.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
k, bitch.
It sure would be tough for a college sysadmin to cut off my connection, since I pay $100/month for my own DSL line, in my apartment, which runs my server, over my router, through my firewall. So unless you can convice USWest that I'm sending bad packets, or get a court order, fuck right off. (note: this is not a Hackme contest, pleeeease..)
If you want to listen to an increasing number of commercials (because there is no competition in radio, or network TV and both have been ramping up advertising "units" consistently for years) with an increasingly limited breadth of choices go for it. More power to you. I pay for my connection so I can make own choices, it's fun, empowering, and I wish everyone would do it too. And as soon as I get the time to hack Icecast to my liking, I'll have my OWN radio station.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
it is voluntary. If they don't want to share it, they make sure it's never recorded digitally. Seems pretty simple to me. I would agree with your first sentence if you'd just drop the "If".
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Number of CDs Wah has bought over the last year because of legally sanctioned radio air-play : 0
Number of CDs Wah has bought over the last year because of "illegally" shared MP3s : 5
Who's benefitting now? Your brain needs another washing, that first one left quite a bit of debris.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
One of the first things they are going to do is called "You've got Music" and continue the push advertising that AOLers must love so much. TW will also push AOL TV this summer, oh and they found about $50 million/yr in "elimination of redundant corporate costs." For a fuller article try Electronic Media (deadtree, emonline.com doesn't seem to be responding, oops, now it works, too bad it sucks...)
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Executives make these decisions, not the people who work as sysadmins, DBAs, Webmasters, etc
Exactly, so why pay the huge salaries of people who make decisions like this?
(hint: because they make lots of money for the stockholders)
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
..eh, but who's surprised.
"Justin and Tom work for Nullsoft, makers of Winamp and Shoutcast. See? AOL *CAN* bring you good things!," the Gnutella site said yesterday.
MWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.