If it is enforced and all WIDELY distributable methods are under control, ie usenet, napster, servers etc, with no copy protection then we will be where we are now anyway. If you want to make an mp3 and give it to your buddy, technically it's wrong but no one will hassle you. If you and your buddy write a little client/server app so the two of you can share music, no sweat. Put stuff out where thousands can get it and you will get in trouble. That is how it works now with almost any IP or copyrightable works and that is the way it should be.
You hit the nail on the head. No copyprotection but really protect copyrights. Besides history has shown that if copy protection gets too tight and starts to affect useability, less people use. Anonymity on the web will go away soon enough (not that I think that is a good thing) and when it does, it will be easy to enforce.
I do agree there. We do have too many "made for mass market" people out there. It's not my thing, but it is for alot of young girls and horny old men, so what the heck. They still produce music that I like too, so all is well.
I still think that what the artist makes is theirs and they should be able to choose how to distribute it. If they want to give everyone mp3's for free and make money on the road, more power to them. If they can make it work, more bands will do it and the record companies will crumble anyway. That is what the free market is all about. However, I don't think we should say that work musicians do should be put into public domain simply because it is easily copied.
If a new distribution method is going to take over and musicians can find other ways to make money that is good. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people saying that since they THE CONSUMER don't like the system then they should be allowed to circumvent it. It really is the artists call. I hope that this kind of distribution would really work, but I want the creator to be able to control how their work is produced, and as of now, work is produced under the assumption that profits will come from cd and tape sales.
I agree with your thought process, but not the legality. Copyrights are in place for a reason. Do you think we would have as much diverse and great music that we have today if everything were given away? I really don't think that many musicians would spend the years developing their skill if there was no "making it". Legally they have to and should protect their property. It is their livelyhood. You probably would not do what you do for 8 or more hours a day if you were expected by society to give away your work would you? That is the Legality. Now for your thought process. I really do think that mp3's have increased sales. As long as it is an mp3 and the quality is not as good as the original, people are motivated to go buy original cd's that they like. I think this is a good thing and if I were an artist I would release my own mp3's of good quality. However, I also think that the record companies are looking 5 or 10 years down the road when looking at what they are doing now. Yes, you hear an mp3, like the song and want a real copy of it because the mp3 is not of the same quality. (No arguments about how "most" people can't tell the difference, fact is it is there and perceptions are everything) 5 years from now whose to say there is not gigabit internet connections to everyone's house and downloading an iso image of a cd and burning it on your new 100x burner will only take 3 minutes. Would you then go buy an original? Not likely. I am not here to discuss the technological possibility of the above, just that someday the above will be possible. Record companies have to protect themselves by what they do now. If they say it is ok to distribute for free copies of their music, they can't backpeddle in the future and say "well it was ok yesterday, but today I changed my mind". The courts would eat that up.
Slashdot Mirror
If it is enforced and all WIDELY distributable methods are under control, ie usenet, napster, servers etc, with no copy protection then we will be where we are now anyway. If you want to make an mp3 and give it to your buddy, technically it's wrong but no one will hassle you. If you and your buddy write a little client/server app so the two of you can share music, no sweat. Put stuff out where thousands can get it and you will get in trouble. That is how it works now with almost any IP or copyrightable works and that is the way it should be.
You hit the nail on the head. No copyprotection but really protect copyrights. Besides history has shown that if copy protection gets too tight and starts to affect useability, less people use. Anonymity on the web will go away soon enough (not that I think that is a good thing) and when it does, it will be easy to enforce.
I do agree there. We do have too many "made for mass market" people out there. It's not my thing, but it is for alot of young girls and horny old men, so what the heck. They still produce music that I like too, so all is well. I still think that what the artist makes is theirs and they should be able to choose how to distribute it. If they want to give everyone mp3's for free and make money on the road, more power to them. If they can make it work, more bands will do it and the record companies will crumble anyway. That is what the free market is all about. However, I don't think we should say that work musicians do should be put into public domain simply because it is easily copied. If a new distribution method is going to take over and musicians can find other ways to make money that is good. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with people saying that since they THE CONSUMER don't like the system then they should be allowed to circumvent it. It really is the artists call. I hope that this kind of distribution would really work, but I want the creator to be able to control how their work is produced, and as of now, work is produced under the assumption that profits will come from cd and tape sales.
I agree with your thought process, but not the legality. Copyrights are in place for a reason. Do you think we would have as much diverse and great music that we have today if everything were given away? I really don't think that many musicians would spend the years developing their skill if there was no "making it". Legally they have to and should protect their property. It is their livelyhood. You probably would not do what you do for 8 or more hours a day if you were expected by society to give away your work would you? That is the Legality. Now for your thought process. I really do think that mp3's have increased sales. As long as it is an mp3 and the quality is not as good as the original, people are motivated to go buy original cd's that they like. I think this is a good thing and if I were an artist I would release my own mp3's of good quality. However, I also think that the record companies are looking 5 or 10 years down the road when looking at what they are doing now. Yes, you hear an mp3, like the song and want a real copy of it because the mp3 is not of the same quality. (No arguments about how "most" people can't tell the difference, fact is it is there and perceptions are everything) 5 years from now whose to say there is not gigabit internet connections to everyone's house and downloading an iso image of a cd and burning it on your new 100x burner will only take 3 minutes. Would you then go buy an original? Not likely. I am not here to discuss the technological possibility of the above, just that someday the above will be possible. Record companies have to protect themselves by what they do now. If they say it is ok to distribute for free copies of their music, they can't backpeddle in the future and say "well it was ok yesterday, but today I changed my mind". The courts would eat that up.