"If I can make a casette of my CD and legally hand it to my friend thne I can legally give him an mp3."
Well, as I understand it, the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) applied to making personal copies, and levied a tax on the related cassette recorders and blank tapes. I'm not sure whether your claim that it's legal to make tapes and give them to friends has ever been tested. You can certainly make tapes of your own LPs/CDs for your use, but perhaps not for your friends.
But even if AHRA is interpreted to allow unlimited distribution of tapes to friends, that doesn't necessarily extend to MP3s, because computers aren't covered by AHRA (or at least that's also untested).
But in any case, the music industry is more comfortable when friends share than when you can get anything anytime from a vitually unlimited anonymous community.
(also note that there's a loss in further copies of those tape, but no loss with further copies of MP3s)
"I also see their tactics working... My private p2p group has had an influx of over 100 requests to be menbers. The usual request rate has traditionally been around 1-5 a month. unfortunately for these people, it's an invite only not a request to eliminate asshat's from the RIAA getting on the inside and trying to call all our legit songs illegal.
because all we trade are indie bands that gave us the rights to trade their songs freely.... really!"
Well, if your private trading group only shares files that you're permitted to share -- who
exactly is going to complain about that? Are you seriously suggesting that the RIAA will infultrate your site and falsely claim that one of your indy tracks was really by one of their memebers?
"Yes. It should be the decision of the owner of the copyright and the publishing rights whether or not to endorse free downloading and filesharing for each particular track."
And I agree with you, but that puts you on the unpopular side of the file-sharing debate...
Why rely on patronizing comments to substitute for meaningful argument? You may actually go out and buy each CD that burn (come on, honest now, do you?) but are you actually saying that your position is that most people also purchase CDs that they burned? Insult me for calling that Utopian, but I don't drink your Kool-aid.
"Personally, I believe a musician has the best chance of making a living by producing lots of good stuff people want."
Perhaps that's your misunderstanding: musicians can't make a living by simply producing lots of good stuff -- they have to sell it, and unlimited file-sharing makes it harder, not easier, to sell their work.
"*if* i decided to share only half of my tracks, i'd have to keep the other half unrecorded, or at least, unreleased."
Huh? You're saying that everything you release you must also give away for free?
You must know that lots of musicians decide to share a few tracks, and save the rest for their CDs. Are you saying that in such cases, it's ok to share those un-shared tracks anyway?
"Let me guess, you're a young American. Here's a clue. People do things not just for reasons of money. Bonus clue: Some people understand the power of money and spend it for reasons other than direct personal gain.
Also, some people aren't so short sighted as to believe that an immediated apparent financial gain is always the best course of action for the long time."
Er, and I guess that makes you a Eurosphere-Socialist?
Hey, it's fine if you want to talk in terms of Socializing music -- in fact, I wish more people would just come out and admit that's their goal.
But let's not pretend that this musician stands a better chance of making a living as a musicin by depending on the Utopian idea that people will voluntarily come back and pay for something that they already have...
"Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes. I rotate which of my tracks are available for download from my site, but all of my tracks are available in my shared kazaa folder. Since i am the writer, copyright holder, and recordings owner for my music, i absolutely have the right to decide how it is used. i didn't sign a bad contract, and therefore, can give it away, sell it, remix it, whore it out, or keep it private."
Actually, you seem to be saying: Yes, No, Yes, and Yes
If you're saying that it's ok for people to go ahead and share copies of your work that you decided not to share, then you're saying that you don't want to be the one making that decision (or at least you're saying that your decision doesn't mean much).
You said that you decided to share all of your tracks, but what if you only decided to chare half of them?
btw, why bother rotating the tracks on your site? Why not just keem them all there, especially if you keep them in other (ie Kazaa) shared folders?
"I think you will find people are much more willing to give money to the artists than to a faceless corporation."
And I think you are mistaken, and here I speak from my experiences selling software. I used to give away full copies as "tryware" and asked people to promise to come back and give any amount at all if they liked it and decided to keep it. That didn't seem to be working (I tried that for almost a year), and as soon as I changed to a 'regular' sale, the volume went up by about 10 times.
Similarly, I've spoken to quite a few GPL coders who had tried tip jars and gave up, switching to a more closed license for their next project after the reality of the tip jar set in...
I'd say that the reason people pay for those drinks is that it's a physical encounter -- the bartender is handing you a drink, and so you're subjected to direct pressure to comply. Not so with a file you download.
In any case, yes *some* people do give when they don't have to, but most won't. If you're advising this guy to base his living on people optionally deciding to pay work that he has already given them, you're not giving wise advice...
"Lots of people will pay for something that they know they like even if they know they can get it for free. In fact, public radio in the United States is pretty much supported by people who know that they can get it for free but choose to pay anyway. Just because you have a somewhat dim view of human nature doesn't make it so."
Hogwash, and don't bother with the "dim view of human nature" routine. People don't pay for stuff if given the choice not to. Sure, some do, but vast vast majority don't.
You're going to tell this musician to base his livelihood on the presumption that people will voluntarily pay for something that they can otherwise have for free?
"Yep, my band has had a bunch of sales because people can hear it free on my site, and I welcome trading."
But did you post a full CD worth of music, or just a few select tracks?
Do you think you should be able to make that decision?
Assuming that you only put up a limited selection, is it ok if people go ahead and share the rest of your music anyway?
Do you only welcome sharing work that you first decided to share, or do you also welcome sharing of all of your work, regarless of whether you decided to share?
"If you can hear it before you pay for it, and you like it, chances are you'll pay for it."
Well, that's just sillyness. If they already have what they want, they're not going to come back and pay if given a choice not to.
"They insist that all GNU developers give them a form assigning the FSF their copyrights"
As I understand your comment, the FSF hasn't litigated such a case, but in any case -- how many coders really want to sign over their copyrights to the FSF? They're already giving away their source -- now they're expected to give away their copyright too?
"And failing that, don't forget that a lot of companies have significant interest in GPL'd software (think IBM, Novell, etc). If the GPL really ever came into question, I imagine you'd see more than a few significant financial contributions from third parties."
heh, I wouldn't count on IBM to swoop in for the rescue. Their interest in GPL is limited to the extent that it can help them sell hardware (and perhaps services). Why would they spend money on a GPL lawsuit? After all, they're still in the same position to sell that same hardware (and perhaps services) regarless of whether some other organization is violating a GPL stipulation...
That seems like it respects copyright to you? Come on.
Sure the EFF advocates Fair Use rights and oppose abuses of the DMCA. And the EFF also encourages file-sharing. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
Fine, but the FSF -- and especially EFF -- message is one that says that copying copyrighted music is cool.
And the FSF botched it when they failed to clearly state that the unauthorized release of WASTE could not be covered by the GPL.
I could provide countless examples, but do I really have to?
Sure the FSF and EFF do good things, but their copyright politics are quite screwy. Copyright as applied to GPL'd code should be respected, copyright as applied to music shouldn't be.
"On the topic of copyrights, the GPL could not survive without them as it provides the basis for the license. Without copyrights, the GPL could not require distributors to provide the source code because the distributor would have the rights to distribute the material freely."
Certainly the GPL is dependent on copyright. But you can't seriously tell me that the FSF -- and moreso the EFF -- is staking out an increasingly infringement-friendly position.
Which is it? The GPL and music are both protected by copyright, or neither are?
If his point is that at least line of thinking within the IP universe sets out to devalue most forms of IP (copyright, patent) -- well, is that not right?
"Actually, I think the message is now "just share with people you can trust, not the whole world".
Between my coworkers and I, we have enough music to last us the rest of the decade."
You may want to reclassify them as "friends" rather than "coworkers" -- you might find that your employer is not inclined to remain your friend if ever confronted with this issue...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as I understand it, the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) applied to making personal copies, and levied a tax on the related cassette recorders and blank tapes. I'm not sure whether your claim that it's legal to make tapes and give them to friends has ever been tested. You can certainly make tapes of your own LPs/CDs for your use, but perhaps not for your friends.
But even if AHRA is interpreted to allow unlimited distribution of tapes to friends, that doesn't necessarily extend to MP3s, because computers aren't covered by AHRA (or at least that's also untested).
But in any case, the music industry is more comfortable when friends share than when you can get anything anytime from a vitually unlimited anonymous community.
(also note that there's a loss in further copies of those tape, but no loss with further copies of MP3s)
Remember the old ladies and little kids getting caught up in their scam^h^h^h^hdragnet?"
Well, here's what I remember:
An older person may have been improperly identified by her ISP, and I think that case was dropped.
A girl that acknowledged that she had copied thousands of files, and her family settled for a few thousand dollars.
But now I'm curious: what exactly is their "scam"?
fwiw, the RIAA would consider that a victory. Your community of a dozen or so users is far less of a threat than a community of millions.
And if you personally set it all up, you may be personally liable...
because all we trade are indie bands that gave us the rights to trade their songs freely.... really!"
Well, if your private trading group only shares files that you're permitted to share -- who exactly is going to complain about that? Are you seriously suggesting that the RIAA will infultrate your site and falsely claim that one of your indy tracks was really by one of their memebers?
And I agree with you, but that puts you on the unpopular side of the file-sharing debate...
Why rely on patronizing comments to substitute for meaningful argument? You may actually go out and buy each CD that burn (come on, honest now, do you?) but are you actually saying that your position is that most people also purchase CDs that they burned? Insult me for calling that Utopian, but I don't drink your Kool-aid.
"Personally, I believe a musician has the best chance of making a living by producing lots of good stuff people want."
Perhaps that's your misunderstanding: musicians can't make a living by simply producing lots of good stuff -- they have to sell it, and unlimited file-sharing makes it harder, not easier, to sell their work.
If you record a CD, should you be allowed to choose which tracks to share, and which not to?
Again, you may choose to share all of your music -- but the question is: should that be your decision to make?
heh, I've never seen an economic argument premised on the financial strength of waitresses... ;)
Huh? You're saying that everything you release you must also give away for free?
You must know that lots of musicians decide to share a few tracks, and save the rest for their CDs. Are you saying that in such cases, it's ok to share those un-shared tracks anyway?
Honest now:
What percent of users do you think voluntarily contribute to their favorite distro?
What percent would you consider a 'failure'?
What about all the other, smaller projects -- just ignore them?
How much do you think that t-shrit sale brought into the Gentoo project? Cafepress isn't the new global economy... ;)
Also, some people aren't so short sighted as to believe that an immediated apparent financial gain is always the best course of action for the long time."
Er, and I guess that makes you a Eurosphere-Socialist?
Hey, it's fine if you want to talk in terms of Socializing music -- in fact, I wish more people would just come out and admit that's their goal.
But let's not pretend that this musician stands a better chance of making a living as a musicin by depending on the Utopian idea that people will voluntarily come back and pay for something that they already have...
Actually, you seem to be saying: Yes, No, Yes, and Yes
If you're saying that it's ok for people to go ahead and share copies of your work that you decided not to share, then you're saying that you don't want to be the one making that decision (or at least you're saying that your decision doesn't mean much).
You said that you decided to share all of your tracks, but what if you only decided to chare half of them?
btw, why bother rotating the tracks on your site? Why not just keem them all there, especially if you keep them in other (ie Kazaa) shared folders?
And I think you are mistaken, and here I speak from my experiences selling software. I used to give away full copies as "tryware" and asked people to promise to come back and give any amount at all if they liked it and decided to keep it. That didn't seem to be working (I tried that for almost a year), and as soon as I changed to a 'regular' sale, the volume went up by about 10 times.
Similarly, I've spoken to quite a few GPL coders who had tried tip jars and gave up, switching to a more closed license for their next project after the reality of the tip jar set in...
In any case, yes *some* people do give when they don't have to, but most won't. If you're advising this guy to base his living on people optionally deciding to pay work that he has already given them, you're not giving wise advice...
Hogwash, and don't bother with the "dim view of human nature" routine. People don't pay for stuff if given the choice not to. Sure, some do, but vast vast majority don't.
You're going to tell this musician to base his livelihood on the presumption that people will voluntarily pay for something that they can otherwise have for free?
But did you post a full CD worth of music, or just a few select tracks?
Do you think you should be able to make that decision?
Assuming that you only put up a limited selection, is it ok if people go ahead and share the rest of your music anyway?
Do you only welcome sharing work that you first decided to share, or do you also welcome sharing of all of your work, regarless of whether you decided to share?
"If you can hear it before you pay for it, and you like it, chances are you'll pay for it."
Well, that's just sillyness. If they already have what they want, they're not going to come back and pay if given a choice not to.
As I understand your comment, the FSF hasn't litigated such a case, but in any case -- how many coders really want to sign over their copyrights to the FSF? They're already giving away their source -- now they're expected to give away their copyright too?
heh, I wouldn't count on IBM to swoop in for the rescue. Their interest in GPL is limited to the extent that it can help them sell hardware (and perhaps services). Why would they spend money on a GPL lawsuit? After all, they're still in the same position to sell that same hardware (and perhaps services) regarless of whether some other organization is violating a GPL stipulation...
If nobody ever gets in any trouble for using GPL code in a closed project, then isn't it reasonable to assume that it'll happen more often?
And who is supposed to hire the lawyers on behalf of a free project? And don't tell me FSF will just handle everybody's legal troubles pro-bono...
However, when an OS project forks, the original coders risk losing their credit.
Sure, their credit is supposed to remain in the source code, but not necessarily so in the running GUI.
So, even though forked projects presumably keep the original coders' credits in the source, they typically remove it from the running interface.
And it's the credit in the running GUI that most people will ever be exposed to.
The most obvious example is the EFF's prominent "File Sharing: it's Music to our Ears" campaign.
That seems like it respects copyright to you? Come on.
Sure the EFF advocates Fair Use rights and oppose abuses of the DMCA. And the EFF also encourages file-sharing. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.
And the FSF botched it when they failed to clearly state that the unauthorized release of WASTE could not be covered by the GPL.
I could provide countless examples, but do I really have to?
Sure the FSF and EFF do good things, but their copyright politics are quite screwy. Copyright as applied to GPL'd code should be respected, copyright as applied to music shouldn't be.
Certainly the GPL is dependent on copyright. But you can't seriously tell me that the FSF -- and moreso the EFF -- is staking out an increasingly infringement-friendly position.
Which is it? The GPL and music are both protected by copyright, or neither are?
If his point is that at least line of thinking within the IP universe sets out to devalue most forms of IP (copyright, patent) -- well, is that not right?
Between my coworkers and I, we have enough music to last us the rest of the decade."
You may want to reclassify them as "friends" rather than "coworkers" -- you might find that your employer is not inclined to remain your friend if ever confronted with this issue...