Plenty of people run home-bound Web servers. It's a bit of a pain because most high-bandwidth lines are asynchronous, meaning slower outbound bandwith than incoming.
Lots of people use my app Andromeda on home-bound servers so that they can play their collection from work. Also handy is dynamic-IP to pseudo domamin service like DynDNS.
But generally because of bandwidth considerations, most want to keep their sites private anyway.
"Filesharing by people who aren't looking to profit from it (eg. not selling the copies, selling is the criminal offense) will just be something that the industry will learn to live with, and compete against (via quality, features, etc), just as they do with people who copied VHS movies, or Cassette tapes from their friends."
Well, of course the entire retail music business is "people who aren't looking to profit from it" so expecting that "the industry will learn to live" with it isn't really productive.
As you point out, infringing on copyrighted works isn't legal, but note that some are now trying to make that legal, regardless of the will of the copyright holder.
Obviously, the cassette/VHS analogy doesn't hold up because it each copy is generationally worse, and, more importantly, it takes 45 minutes to copy a 45 minute CD.
But copyright infringement remains illegal. So, if you want file-sharing (of the infringing variety) to be legalized, you need new laws -- but will they actually be better? Check out Derek Slater on the topic.
If all they have to is file a "John Doe", and then they immediately have the same subpoena access to subscriber info anyway, then how much of an pracitcal barrier is filing the "John Doe"?
"exactly who is to be compelled to license what, from whom?"
It's just that sort of question people should be asking! I just wrote an article for Salon about the rhetoric and it was published simultaneously with a response by the EFF.
If you're not a Salon subscriber, you can click the free 'day pass' link for the full articles.
me: "Ok, and so if the RIAA sues people for copying music that's less than 10 years old, that would then be ok?"
you: "You're being purposely dense."
Er, and you're avoiding the question. If copyright terms were reduced to 10 years, would it be ok to sue people for copying music that's less than 10 years old?
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
"The only thing copyright has done is allow a smaller number of people to control the mass distribution of certain creative works, allowing them to make money without having to produce continuously (unlike any normal job)."
Exactly. People like musicians, authors, coders and so on expend considerable effort making some new work. Nobody is paying them to do this, and they hope that they can make something that worthwhile and that enough people like, and hopefully they'll be able to make some money, pay life's bills and create more works.
That's a good thing, for them and for the people that come to enjoy their work.
Re:The death throes of the RIAA's clients.
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
"In your own article, you raise privacy questions regarding a hypothetical tracking system you envision, without noting that the enacted Patriot Act does that very thing."
This is exactly the sort of mumbo-jumbo I'm talking about. I point out serious privacy flaws in a government controled compensation system, and you defend them by pointing to other messed up legislation? What, you want more of the same?
Rather than adding to the mess, you should be focusing on the Patriot Act.
"And if you're referring to an EFF proposal, it's hardly a stretch to imagine that the organization would prefer a simple repeal of the DMCA and moderate expansion of Fair Use provisions of the existing Copyright Act to a completely new regulatory regimen."
Unless your "moderate expansion of Fair Use" legalizes file sharing, that can't be a soultion now can it?
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
But the problem is, what do you replace it with, and is that any better?
No doubt it's a popular movement, but it's basically saying: "let's toss away copyright just because we hate the RIAA" and that's just bad thinking. It's not meaningful unless you're looking at the details of what you'd be replacing it with.
Did you read into article to get to the free speech and privacy problems introduced by the government instituted alternatives?
Re:The death throes of the RIAA's clients.
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
Let me be as clear as I can:
Expecting that the RIAA is just going change it's mind is wishful thinking.
The law grants exclusive distribution rights to copyright holders, that's just the way it is.
Even if the RIAA miraculously decideded that sharing non-DRM'd MP3s over Kazaa was ok, what about somebody who decides otherwise.
For that reasons, the leading alternatives call for governmental intervention and new laws.
I'm simply suggesting that people should be getting better informed about what those new laws would be before they decide that they are better
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
"They (and their parasites) might not have made as much money (and would've had to work harder), but the main reason their music became popular was because there was a big enough audience _ready_ to listen to their kind of music."
What you're missing is that they pursued a career in music in part because they believed that they were good enough to make a living doing it, and they believed that they could help support a family.
You argue to make that harder.
I have absolutely no dobut if musicians have less hope of making a living, there will be fewer musicians. Perhaps you don't care, and think 'good riddance' -- but that's not how I feel. I think we should protect and encourage art, and not just toss it all away so people can get stuff free.
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
"Who would you rather have monitoring your music? The government or the RIAA?"
"Hence, my battle plan:
Create an amendment to the constitution, granting a 10 year copyright. Term is not subject to extension, ever."
Ok, and so if the RIAA sues people for copying music that's less than 10 years old, that would then be ok?
I agree that the copyright term limit has been extended and the public has been given nothing in return.
I disagree that then means that it's ok to go ahead and copy anybody's work, regardless of whether it's by some big company or somebody in a garage.
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
me:"Funny that you should invoke Orwell. Take a look at the EFF's alternative systems -- some call for the govermental to track downloads in order to compensate musicians from a new tax.
That sounds more Orwellian to me than what we have now."
you:"Actually that alternative authored by the EFF (and other similair alternatives) was what I was alluding to."
And all I'm suggesting is that people take a closer look at these alternatives, rather than just accept them because "the RIAA sucks."
Why replace Orwell with Orwell...
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Fine, but don't forget Copyright also protects -- Jonny Cash, Ween, Marvin Gaye, The Clash, Brian Eno, Funkadelic, Charles Mingus and countless great people.
Just because you don't like some music doesn't really make your point. If you dont like N'Sync, Britney Spears, and Eminem just don't listen.
Back in Mozart's time, only a very tiny minority of artists could support themselves by being an artist, and that generally meant finding a rich benefactor. Are you telling me that's better?
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
"Realisticly, this would destroy the current business models surrounding mass produced music and video because short of some orwelian surveilance system there is no way to effectively police human behavior."
Funny that you should invoke Orwell. Take a look at the EFF's alternative systems -- some call for the govermental to track downloads in order to compensate musicians from a new tax.
That sounds more Orwellian to me than what we have now.
The problem is that people are so accustomed to hating the RIAA, that they aren't bothering to look critically at the details of alternative systems being pushed to replace what we have now.
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
"I don't understand why _we_ are the ones that are supposed to come up with a business model for the RIAA...?"
You aren't necessarily going to be the one to come up with an alternative, but you do deserve a chance to see if you prefer that alternative, regardless of who offers it.
This isn't really about a new business model for the RIAA. Under current copyright law, they have every right to sue people for distributing their works.
If you want the lawsuits to stop, there needs to be a new system (or people need to stop sharing RIAA files).
The EFF is trying to present alternatives, and I'm suggesting that people should look at these alternatives, consider the pros and cons, and see how they compare.
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
Is your suggestion that musicians, authors, coders, photographers, and so on deserve no protection? The EFF certainly isn't arguing that.
Re:5 minute survey to read an article?
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
I misread you -- you don't have to take a survey! You just have to look at the ad for a few seconds, and then you can click into the site...
Re:hypocrisy, rhetoric: is it time for something n
on
RIAA Bits
·
· Score: 1
I'd say that it's far more absurd to "burn it down" before you know what you're going to put in its place.
You (and everybody else) should have a chance to see the details of the alternatives and, then choose what you like best.
Slashdot Mirror
Lots of people use my app Andromeda on home-bound servers so that they can play their collection from work. Also handy is dynamic-IP to pseudo domamin service like DynDNS.
But generally because of bandwidth considerations, most want to keep their sites private anyway.
Well, of course the entire retail music business is "people who aren't looking to profit from it" so expecting that "the industry will learn to live" with it isn't really productive.
As you point out, infringing on copyrighted works isn't legal, but note that some are now trying to make that legal, regardless of the will of the copyright holder.
Obviously, the cassette/VHS analogy doesn't hold up because it each copy is generationally worse, and, more importantly, it takes 45 minutes to copy a 45 minute CD.
The problem is that we may wind up with a legislated solution that's even scarier than the RIAA suing people for direct copyright infringement.
Here's a rule of thumb... Eminiem: infringement; Brittney: infringement; The Kinks: infringement; Steely Dan: infringement; Outkast: infringement; Liz Phair: infringement;
That about covers it. ;)
But copyright infringement remains illegal. So, if you want file-sharing (of the infringing variety) to be legalized, you need new laws -- but will they actually be better? Check out Derek Slater on the topic.
If all they have to is file a "John Doe", and then they immediately have the same subpoena access to subscriber info anyway, then how much of an pracitcal barrier is filing the "John Doe"?
So, in that scenario, expect a higher percent of sympathetic defendents, rather than fewer...
Well, did he delete the file? ;)
It's just that sort of question people should be asking! I just wrote an article for Salon about the rhetoric and it was published simultaneously with a response by the EFF.
If you're not a Salon subscriber, you can click the free 'day pass' link for the full articles.
By coincedene, LawMeme also reacted to the pair of articles on Salon.
I'd like to hear more specifics about alternative systems *before* I decide that they're any better.
ah, GPL! ;)
I can see why you're qualified to provide financial advice to other artists...
"Adapt or die. I'm not worried about the lack of music or art. There will always be people who want to create it... "
Actually, I agree that people will always be creating new art. It's just that I think that should be rewarded, and even the EFF agrees with that.
you: "You're being purposely dense."
Er, and you're avoiding the question. If copyright terms were reduced to 10 years, would it be ok to sue people for copying music that's less than 10 years old?
Exactly. People like musicians, authors, coders and so on expend considerable effort making some new work. Nobody is paying them to do this, and they hope that they can make something that worthwhile and that enough people like, and hopefully they'll be able to make some money, pay life's bills and create more works.
That's a good thing, for them and for the people that come to enjoy their work.
This is exactly the sort of mumbo-jumbo I'm talking about. I point out serious privacy flaws in a government controled compensation system, and you defend them by pointing to other messed up legislation? What, you want more of the same?
Rather than adding to the mess, you should be focusing on the Patriot Act.
"And if you're referring to an EFF proposal, it's hardly a stretch to imagine that the organization would prefer a simple repeal of the DMCA and moderate expansion of Fair Use provisions of the existing Copyright Act to a completely new regulatory regimen."
Unless your "moderate expansion of Fair Use" legalizes file sharing, that can't be a soultion now can it?
No doubt it's a popular movement, but it's basically saying: "let's toss away copyright just because we hate the RIAA" and that's just bad thinking. It's not meaningful unless you're looking at the details of what you'd be replacing it with.
Did you read into article to get to the free speech and privacy problems introduced by the government instituted alternatives?
What you're missing is that they pursued a career in music in part because they believed that they were good enough to make a living doing it, and they believed that they could help support a family.
You argue to make that harder.
I have absolutely no dobut if musicians have less hope of making a living, there will be fewer musicians. Perhaps you don't care, and think 'good riddance' -- but that's not how I feel. I think we should protect and encourage art, and not just toss it all away so people can get stuff free.
Let me say this as loudly as possible: NEITHER!!!
Create an amendment to the constitution, granting a 10 year copyright. Term is not subject to extension, ever."
Ok, and so if the RIAA sues people for copying music that's less than 10 years old, that would then be ok?
I agree that the copyright term limit has been extended and the public has been given nothing in return.
I disagree that then means that it's ok to go ahead and copy anybody's work, regardless of whether it's by some big company or somebody in a garage.
That sounds more Orwellian to me than what we have now."
you: "Actually that alternative authored by the EFF (and other similair alternatives) was what I was alluding to."
And all I'm suggesting is that people take a closer look at these alternatives, rather than just accept them because "the RIAA sucks."
Why replace Orwell with Orwell...
Fine, but don't forget Copyright also protects -- Jonny Cash, Ween, Marvin Gaye, The Clash, Brian Eno, Funkadelic, Charles Mingus and countless great people.
Just because you don't like some music doesn't really make your point. If you dont like N'Sync, Britney Spears, and Eminem just don't listen.
Back in Mozart's time, only a very tiny minority of artists could support themselves by being an artist, and that generally meant finding a rich benefactor. Are you telling me that's better?
Funny that you should invoke Orwell. Take a look at the EFF's alternative systems -- some call for the govermental to track downloads in order to compensate musicians from a new tax.
That sounds more Orwellian to me than what we have now.
The problem is that people are so accustomed to hating the RIAA, that they aren't bothering to look critically at the details of alternative systems being pushed to replace what we have now.
You aren't necessarily going to be the one to come up with an alternative, but you do deserve a chance to see if you prefer that alternative, regardless of who offers it.
This isn't really about a new business model for the RIAA. Under current copyright law, they have every right to sue people for distributing their works.
If you want the lawsuits to stop, there needs to be a new system (or people need to stop sharing RIAA files).
The EFF is trying to present alternatives, and I'm suggesting that people should look at these alternatives, consider the pros and cons, and see how they compare.
Is your suggestion that musicians, authors, coders, photographers, and so on deserve no protection? The EFF certainly isn't arguing that.
I misread you -- you don't have to take a survey! You just have to look at the ad for a few seconds, and then you can click into the site...
You (and everybody else) should have a chance to see the details of the alternatives and, then choose what you like best.