"The point is that the recording industry/RIAA is just not serious about selling music. When they whine about lost profits, it's all crocodile tears when they are too lazy to sell it in the first place."
Perhaps, but just because they don't sell it doens't mean that it's OK to take it.
band: Royal Guardsmen
artist/band: Eddie Jobson
band: UK
"Are these in Rhapsody?"
No, but plenty of Yes, Roxy Music, etc. is. Also, those all seem to be minor lables, and so I'm not sure if it's fair to blame the RIAA.
Your problem is that you see no benefit to protecting creative works, nor the people making them, at all.
You don't work as a creative professional, and have little understanding of how copyright protects artists, and gives them an opportunity to sell their work.
You seen an independent working in a garage as no different than a multinational corporation -- neither worthy of protection.
You may argue that people should be able to sell copies of others' works without permission, but most people won't agree with you.
Sorry, but your viewpoint that you should be allowed to copy and sell independents' works without permission isn't going to hold water with most people.
"Erm, I don't recall seeing much selling of music on Kazaa, so I guess this is a bad analogy... If you are asking if it is ok to copy music for free, the law seems to say something along the line of "yes, if you only give it to people you know"."
No, that analogy stands -- this guy disregards copyright in general, and so that includes selling unauthorized copies of an independent's work.
"You maybe think the latter will allow you to live a better life as an independent musician. It might or might not be the case(the old argument about whether distributing free music helps sales by expanding the people who know about you or hurts them because no one will buy what they can get for free will probably never be really settled)."
Here's what I think -- I think artists should be making those decisions about what will help them to make a living. If an artist decides that file-sharing is going to help her pay rent -- or support whatever goals she has -- that should be her decision to make.
But to force your view on her simply because you can is no excuse. And it's illegal too.
"Copyright just makes it easy to re sell old work over and over again. It's a gravy train for the lazy who don't want to really create, but who want to control."
Spoken like a creep who knows nothing about how hard it already is to make even a meager living as an independent. Crap thinking like this just makes it even harder.
"No, there is not plenty there. When only 1 in 20 of the songs I look for turn up 0 results (and almost all of the 20 are found in Kazaa), there is really not "plenty"."
Look, I don't want to continue with the comparison to an illegal catalog, it's pointless. There is plenty there. What do you like?
"Does anything stop you from recording the streams you've paid for?"
I guess it depends on what you mean by that. You're cerntaly not 'authorized' to rip streams, but you already know that, eh.
Perfectly well, and as I said, I don't think that technology should be held accountable for how some may misuse it.
But you can't turn a blind eye (or perhaps you can) to the obvious consequence: if you can't blame the technology for how some misuse it, then you can blame those individuals that do.
"Copyright law does not protect the indie artist from being ripped off by the big companies at all. On the contrary, it's used to protect big companies(music, software, etc.) from the independants. So, if the artist doesn't want me to sell dupes of his music, I won't, but he's getting very little "protection" from the law."
What in god's name are you taking about? It's cool for everybody to rip off all artists because some signed bad contracts?
I'm an independant, and I can tell you that copyright protects me. I guess you don't sell your own work for a living, now do you?
"That's right. However, it is more of a "There's More" argument than it is "and it's all free". If the "legit" services actually had the good selection of music, I'd never worry about the non-legit ones again."
As has been sung: "you can't always get what you want" -- and, I note, that's available on Rhapsody.
Again, what's the point of discussing this if you're going to compare the illegal catalog size of Kazaa vs. that of a legit service?
I've been turned onto plenty of great new music via Rhapsody. And they also have a "custom radio" feature that you can configure to play music from artists not contained in the on-demand catalog (the rules covering on-demand are different than those covering radio).
"However, the record companies are too lazy to sell the music. I guess they don't want profits."
Sorry, but that doens't fly. There's plenty there, and stop whining if you can't get everything you want, that happens, you know?
I suggest you try it, if on-demand streaming suits your listening habbits. I'm a music snob, and I like it.
"Well, since I believe that the copyright/patent laws are bad laws(like the "controlled substances act"), people who break these laws shouldn't be punished."
Ok, then, so you believe that it's just perfectly ok to run off duplicates of an independent musician's CDs and sell them on the street?
Perhaps you have been indulging in a little too much controlled substances for the day...;)
"but I think a better analogy is should the phone comany be held liable if the customer made prank calls ?"
You're kind of missing the point -- if we're going to say that the phone company shouldn't be liable for prank calls placed by its customers, we are then implying that the customer should be liable, no?
And that in turn leads to the question of whether those who trade unauthorized copyrighted files should be reasonably held accountable.
If Kazaa is like the phone company here, and is therefor unaccountable, where is the accountablity?
"Doesn't Rhapsody have a pretty small library? Smaller than iTMS? I've checked iTMS and that one was pretty small, and had none of the music I was looking for. Only the open systems like Kazaa or the first Napster have had decent-sized libraries."
I don't really know what their comparative catalog sizes are, but I'm not at all tempted by iTMS. Personally, I don't want to buy DRM'd files, and I think $1 is too much.
Also, I don't like the idea of having to worry about each purchase.
With Rhapsody I can play as much as I want, all day. I think it's similar with the legit Napster, but I haven't tried that one. I think Rhapsody has a larger catalog than Napster, due to the inclusion of indepenets like those on CDBaby, but that may not be right.
But if you're going to resort to the "but there's more and it all free" argument wrt to Kazaa or the first Napster, there's not going to be much to talk about, is there?
"They want to crack down on all this evil P2P stuff but, it CAN be used for legal means. I have a telephone but it doesn't mean I make prank calls all day long."
Most cases so far have upheld the "don't blame the technology" view, and I would tend to agree.
However, following your own analogy, do you think that you should be held liable if you did make prank calls all day long?
"Yeah the only software which can reliably pick an arbitrary set of such obvious locks though is the wetware in your scull (until AI is sufficiently capable and efficient)."
And that would be a huge victory -- they're mostly concerned about the nature of this as a mass cultural movement. And they know perfectly well that some will always copy, and techies will have the tools.
But this isn't merely about techies, it's about everybody.
If people can't stop themselves from clicking spam-virus-attachments, they won't be using their wetware to tar scrambles.
"The GPL does not preclude you from selling your software."
Sure, but it's not really practical, is it? Yes, some groups try to sell a CD for something like $20, but it can't ever be much more. And as I read the GPL other people can sell that same CD too.
Furthermore, for those few who are actually making a little money off CD sales, how many of them are distributing shares to the contributing authors?
Again, there's no realistic way to make money off these sales, and "free as in speech" always winds up as "free as in beer" anyway, and the people doing the real work ain't getting their due.
I absoultely stand by the rights of an author who chooses the GPL, but frankly I don't think that most in the free-everything movement similarly stand by the rights of those that choose not to be.
If you don't think that coders are coerced into writing free software, you must not be trying to sell your own code.
In any case I have no problem with sharing for people who have made that decision regarding their work, but then there should similarly be respect for those who choose otherwise.
AND, I do think that the coercive free-everything environment is duping a lot of young coders into giving away work that could instead be helping them pay their bills.
"Your statements remind me of those made by people who rally behind their first amendment rights and then decry other people's exercise of free speech.
If you stand for copyrights and the rights of the author then you should honor the GPL as a statement of the author's intent. If you challenge the legitimacy of that exercise, then you are challenging the legitimacy of copyright law itself. A reasonable man cannot do both at the same time. Your position appears to be that the world must honor your copyrights, but the exercise of their copyrights should be limited to that which conveniences you. That is not a defensible position.
I have yet to see any situation in which an author was coerced into releasing their software for free. Nor have I seen any situation in which 12 year olds trading Britney Spears MP3's have invoked the GPL as the basis for renewed discussion on the legitimacy of copyright. If anything, it's brought up the inefficiencies of the distribution system, both for the dissemination of content and for the artist's remuneration.
Your only point of evidence appears to be that a culture of content sharing is growing. If that content is shared legally and according to the author's intent, where exactly is your complaint?"
"Naturely, this must be so since you say it is so, but forgive me for being skeptical, particularly since you offer no evidence. The artificial scarcity of information is coming to an ignoble end. I hope that your fortunes are not tied to the wrong side of history. You can no more prevent the people from sharing than you can prevent them from talking to one another or peacefully assembling. If you try to stop them, they will revolt."
Geez, the evidence is right there in your quote: more tacit approval of copying, regardless of copyright status.
But I'm sure if some commercial vendor were to wrap up GPL code into a closed project, you'd be among the first to cry "copyright foul!"?
This is the problem with the free-everything bullies. It's not just about their decision to release their work as they see fit -- it's about forcing everybody else to do the same.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps, but just because they don't sell it doens't mean that it's OK to take it.
band: Royal Guardsmen
artist/band: Eddie Jobson
band: UK
"Are these in Rhapsody?"
No, but plenty of Yes, Roxy Music, etc. is. Also, those all seem to be minor lables, and so I'm not sure if it's fair to blame the RIAA.
AND, all of them are available via Amazon.
You don't work as a creative professional, and have little understanding of how copyright protects artists, and gives them an opportunity to sell their work.
You seen an independent working in a garage as no different than a multinational corporation -- neither worthy of protection.
You may argue that people should be able to sell copies of others' works without permission, but most people won't agree with you.
Cast me as Halliburtan, but you're the thug.
No, that analogy stands -- this guy disregards copyright in general, and so that includes selling unauthorized copies of an independent's work.
"You maybe think the latter will allow you to live a better life as an independent musician. It might or might not be the case(the old argument about whether distributing free music helps sales by expanding the people who know about you or hurts them because no one will buy what they can get for free will probably never be really settled)."
Here's what I think -- I think artists should be making those decisions about what will help them to make a living. If an artist decides that file-sharing is going to help her pay rent -- or support whatever goals she has -- that should be her decision to make.
But to force your view on her simply because you can is no excuse. And it's illegal too.
Spoken like a creep who knows nothing about how hard it already is to make even a meager living as an independent. Crap thinking like this just makes it even harder.
Look, I don't want to continue with the comparison to an illegal catalog, it's pointless. There is plenty there. What do you like?
"Does anything stop you from recording the streams you've paid for?"
I guess it depends on what you mean by that. You're cerntaly not 'authorized' to rip streams, but you already know that, eh.
Perfectly well, and as I said, I don't think that technology should be held accountable for how some may misuse it.
But you can't turn a blind eye (or perhaps you can) to the obvious consequence: if you can't blame the technology for how some misuse it, then you can blame those individuals that do.
What in god's name are you taking about? It's cool for everybody to rip off all artists because some signed bad contracts?
I'm an independant, and I can tell you that copyright protects me. I guess you don't sell your own work for a living, now do you?
Note that this is the argument that the EFF themselves used to make when they suggested that the RIAA should be suing the infringers rather than suing the technology.
But then the EFF logic fell apart when they moved on to justifying the infringers too.
"That's right. However, it is more of a "There's More" argument than it is "and it's all free". If the "legit" services actually had the good selection of music, I'd never worry about the non-legit ones again."
As has been sung: "you can't always get what you want" -- and, I note, that's available on Rhapsody.
Again, what's the point of discussing this if you're going to compare the illegal catalog size of Kazaa vs. that of a legit service?
I've been turned onto plenty of great new music via Rhapsody. And they also have a "custom radio" feature that you can configure to play music from artists not contained in the on-demand catalog (the rules covering on-demand are different than those covering radio).
"However, the record companies are too lazy to sell the music. I guess they don't want profits."
Sorry, but that doens't fly. There's plenty there, and stop whining if you can't get everything you want, that happens, you know?
I suggest you try it, if on-demand streaming suits your listening habbits. I'm a music snob, and I like it.
Ok, then, so you believe that it's just perfectly ok to run off duplicates of an independent musician's CDs and sell them on the street?
Perhaps you have been indulging in a little too much controlled substances for the day... ;)
You're kind of missing the point -- if we're going to say that the phone company shouldn't be liable for prank calls placed by its customers, we are then implying that the customer should be liable, no?
And that in turn leads to the question of whether those who trade unauthorized copyrighted files should be reasonably held accountable.
If Kazaa is like the phone company here, and is therefor unaccountable, where is the accountablity?
I don't really know what their comparative catalog sizes are, but I'm not at all tempted by iTMS. Personally, I don't want to buy DRM'd files, and I think $1 is too much.
Also, I don't like the idea of having to worry about each purchase.
With Rhapsody I can play as much as I want, all day. I think it's similar with the legit Napster, but I haven't tried that one. I think Rhapsody has a larger catalog than Napster, due to the inclusion of indepenets like those on CDBaby, but that may not be right.
But if you're going to resort to the "but there's more and it all free" argument wrt to Kazaa or the first Napster, there's not going to be much to talk about, is there?
Ok, so now comes the next obvious question: should those who trade copyrighted works via P2P be exempt from that same logic?
I like Rhapsody -- I pay $9.95 per month for unlimited streaming from a pretty big library.
You have to pay extra to burn tracks to CDs, and I've never done that. I don't think they have any downloads ("tethered" or otherwise).
Sure you were! ;)
Most cases so far have upheld the "don't blame the technology" view, and I would tend to agree.
However, following your own analogy, do you think that you should be held liable if you did make prank calls all day long?
And that would be a huge victory -- they're mostly concerned about the nature of this as a mass cultural movement. And they know perfectly well that some will always copy, and techies will have the tools.
But this isn't merely about techies, it's about everybody.
If people can't stop themselves from clicking spam-virus-attachments, they won't be using their wetware to tar scrambles.
Sure, but it's not really practical, is it? Yes, some groups try to sell a CD for something like $20, but it can't ever be much more. And as I read the GPL other people can sell that same CD too.
Furthermore, for those few who are actually making a little money off CD sales, how many of them are distributing shares to the contributing authors?
Again, there's no realistic way to make money off these sales, and "free as in speech" always winds up as "free as in beer" anyway, and the people doing the real work ain't getting their due.
If you don't think that coders are coerced into writing free software, you must not be trying to sell your own code.
In any case I have no problem with sharing for people who have made that decision regarding their work, but then there should similarly be respect for those who choose otherwise.
AND, I do think that the coercive free-everything environment is duping a lot of young coders into giving away work that could instead be helping them pay their bills.
"Your statements remind me of those made by people who rally behind their first amendment rights and then decry other people's exercise of free speech.
If you stand for copyrights and the rights of the author then you should honor the GPL as a statement of the author's intent. If you challenge the legitimacy of that exercise, then you are challenging the legitimacy of copyright law itself. A reasonable man cannot do both at the same time. Your position appears to be that the world must honor your copyrights, but the exercise of their copyrights should be limited to that which conveniences you. That is not a defensible position.
I have yet to see any situation in which an author was coerced into releasing their software for free. Nor have I seen any situation in which 12 year olds trading Britney Spears MP3's have invoked the GPL as the basis for renewed discussion on the legitimacy of copyright. If anything, it's brought up the inefficiencies of the distribution system, both for the dissemination of content and for the artist's remuneration.
Your only point of evidence appears to be that a culture of content sharing is growing. If that content is shared legally and according to the author's intent, where exactly is your complaint?"
I'm not familiar with QT -- but if a company didn't need to put it into a closed-source project, it would still be free-as-in-beer, no?
Not sure if I'd really agree -- Harvard Law certainly, but Business?
In any case, the problem with this article, as with the EFF/FSF position, is that it simply pays no mind to the perspective of the working artist.
Is there any "free as in speech" project that isn't also "free as in beer"?
Geez, the evidence is right there in your quote: more tacit approval of copying, regardless of copyright status.
But I'm sure if some commercial vendor were to wrap up GPL code into a closed project, you'd be among the first to cry "copyright foul!"?
This is the problem with the free-everything bullies. It's not just about their decision to release their work as they see fit -- it's about forcing everybody else to do the same.
Digital authors face more immediate threat from the culture of unlimited copying cheered on by FSF, EFF, etc.