What it really comes down to is that the price of CDs is massively overinflated, does not reflect the huge drop in cost of CD replication, and does not reflect the fact that there is now competition in the form of trivial online replication.
If the free market were working normally here, the studios would have dropped their prices to the point where they could view MP3s as a highly effective channel of popularization, just like broadcasting. *Everyone* likes jewel cases and sleeve notes of their favorite artists; they just don't like being ripped off by an industry that feels it is above market pressure.
Alternative distribution channels *ARE* being shown to musicians, not just mp3.com's "take 50%"-style but also self-promotion and direct patronage.
It's happening, but very slowly because of the inertia of a century of doing things the old way.
Meanwhile, it doesn't help when folks that are vastly more clued up on things like OSS and on the potential of the net still fall for the RIAA's use of emotive words that simply do not apply here.
> If I "trivially" borrow your car, drive it > around the block and return it to the exact > same position should I be in trouble? > Assuming I refilled the gas tank to the same > level, I have done no damage to you.
You're totally missing the point that the car is no longer available to its owner once you've "borrowed" it. Material and intellectual "properties" are utterly different in this respect. In fact the term "property" is downright misleading when applied to something that can be copied for free without loss of the original, and may be the source of so many of these problems.
Appealing to higher authority rather than to logic is bunkum. You know very well that the copying of music without permission is not piracy in the classical sense, yet the word still carries its old stigma despite everyone (including Websters) using it in its new computer-age context. And the RIAA and studios are counting on precisely that, because if it sounds nasty then they must be right.
> if someone creates something, they should be > able to do whatever they want from it: give it > away for free or charge a billion dollars
I agree. Unfortunately, that does *NOT* happen with music, because the middleman acquires the rights and then feeds the musicians peanuts, and of course the musician has NO say as to whether it can be given away for free or for billions, and there is NO possibility of passing on copies along with the same rights we acquired when we obtained our own copy. The entire structure is contrary to the freedoms that seem so natural on the net.
... because you guys have bought into the meme that the RIAA is spreading by using the words "piracy" and "theft".
Theft implies the loss of the item being stolen from the possession of its rightful owner. The owner does not lose music when it is copied with or without permission.
Piracy combines theft with personal violence. There is no violence involved when music is copied with or without permission.
By accepting those emotive words in a context to which they do not naturally apply, you have in large measure already lost the battle for unrestricted online distribution for which so many are fighting.
In a community that appreciates the benefits of OSS and regularly comments on the harm caused by IPR and patents, that really sucks.
The RIAA model is not the only way for musicians to make money. It is the only way for the *studios* that the RIAA represents to make money in the huge amounts that they do as middlemen. There is a difference between those two things, but that difference is obscured quite effectively once the music-buying sheep can be made to think in terms of piracy and theft as if those terms were at all valid in this area.
X10 is not only still around but is growing in popularity rapidly. The hardware is out in 220V versions nowadays so we're happy in Europe too, and it's quite inexpensive, and it's supported on Unix/Linux/BSD platforms well. The data throughput is very very low so you wouldn't want to layer X11 on it, but for its intended purpose it does the job just fine.
I currently run a pile of X10 gear controlling various power loads at home, with control coming from my Linux systems, standalone switches, standalone timers, and from the radio remote. And of course it's integrated into the net, since the controlling systems are accessible through IP via a couple of firewalls and gateways.
A new system is needed though, one that is quite a bit faster and that has a defined data payload capability and forward error correction built in. I sure hope that someone comes up with such a system before the nightmare of a Microsoft solution rears its head. That would be terrible, not only for the reasons expressed by others but also because the "standard" would be a continually moving target.
Slashdot Mirror
What it really comes down to is that the price of CDs is massively overinflated, does not reflect the huge drop in cost of CD replication, and does not reflect the fact that there is now competition in the form of trivial online replication.
If the free market were working normally here, the studios would have dropped their prices to the point where they could view MP3s as a highly effective channel of popularization, just like broadcasting. *Everyone* likes jewel cases and sleeve notes of their favorite artists; they just don't like being ripped off by an industry that feels it is above market pressure.
Alternative distribution channels *ARE* being shown to musicians, not just mp3.com's "take 50%"-style but also self-promotion and direct patronage.
It's happening, but very slowly because of the inertia of a century of doing things the old way.
Meanwhile, it doesn't help when folks that are vastly more clued up on things like OSS and on the potential of the net still fall for the RIAA's use of emotive words that simply do not apply here.
> If I "trivially" borrow your car, drive it
> around the block and return it to the exact
> same position should I be in trouble?
> Assuming I refilled the gas tank to the same
> level, I have done no damage to you.
You're totally missing the point that the car is no longer available to its owner once you've "borrowed" it. Material and intellectual "properties" are utterly different in this respect. In fact the term "property" is downright misleading when applied to something that can be copied for free without loss of the original, and may be the source of so many of these problems.
Appealing to higher authority rather than to logic is bunkum. You know very well that the copying of music without permission is not piracy in the classical sense, yet the word still carries its old stigma despite everyone (including Websters) using it in its new computer-age context. And the RIAA and studios are counting on precisely that, because if it sounds nasty then they must be right.
> if someone creates something, they should be
> able to do whatever they want from it: give it
> away for free or charge a billion dollars
I agree. Unfortunately, that does *NOT* happen with music, because the middleman acquires the rights and then feeds the musicians peanuts, and of course the musician has NO say as to whether it can be given away for free or for billions, and there is NO possibility of passing on copies along with the same rights we acquired when we obtained our own copy. The entire structure is contrary to the freedoms that seem so natural on the net.
... because you guys have bought into the meme that the RIAA is spreading by using the words "piracy" and "theft".
Theft implies the loss of the item being stolen from the possession of its rightful owner. The owner does not lose music when it is copied with or without permission.
Piracy combines theft with personal violence. There is no violence involved when music is copied with or without permission.
By accepting those emotive words in a context to which they do not naturally apply, you have in large measure already lost the battle for unrestricted online distribution for which so many are fighting.
In a community that appreciates the benefits of OSS and regularly comments on the harm caused by IPR and patents, that really sucks.
The RIAA model is not the only way for musicians to make money. It is the only way for the *studios* that the RIAA represents to make money in the huge amounts that they do as middlemen. There is a difference between those two things, but that difference is obscured quite effectively once the music-buying sheep can be made to think in terms of piracy and theft as if those terms were at all valid in this area.
I expected better from the folks here.
X10 is not only still around but is growing in popularity rapidly. The hardware is out in 220V versions nowadays so we're happy in Europe too, and it's quite inexpensive, and it's supported on Unix/Linux/BSD platforms well. The data throughput is very very low so you wouldn't want to layer X11 on it, but for its intended purpose it does the job just fine.
I currently run a pile of X10 gear controlling various power loads at home, with control coming from my Linux systems, standalone switches, standalone timers, and from the radio remote. And of course it's integrated into the net, since the controlling systems are accessible through IP via a couple of firewalls and gateways.
A new system is needed though, one that is quite a bit faster and that has a defined data payload capability and forward error correction built in. I sure hope that someone comes up with such a system before the nightmare of a Microsoft solution rears its head. That would be terrible, not only for the reasons expressed by others but also because the "standard" would be a continually moving target.