So you actually think it's ok to just take a contemporary musician's CD, copy it, and sell it comercially, without their consent? I can see why you choose to remain anonymous...;)
"I mean, the bookstore in my neighborhood has copies of Shakespeare for sale every day. They're unauthorized, and he doesn't get a penny.
Are you saying that it's bad?"
I'm saying that taking a musician's work, and selling it, and giving them nothing in return is wrong.
Are you saying that it's ok to sell bootleg copies of their CDs too?
"this "natural right" theory you have is interesting. too bad it's nowhere to be found in the constitution. art. i sec. 8 cl. 8 is utilitarian, bitch."
Uh, when did I ever say anthing about any "natural right" theory?
"are you a gun-shooting redneck from montana? a retard? or a mpaa/riaa stooge?"
Charming. In any case, here's who I am. Ok, now it's your turn.
"But there's nothing to cheer about a store making money by selling unauthorized copies of a musician's work, and giving nothing to the musician in return."
"The RIAA does it every day."
And what, so now you're happy to see a store doing it too? Geez.
Yes, if a law is unconstistutional it should be fixed.
But there's nothing to cheer about a store making money by selling unauthorized copies of a musician's work, and giving nothing to the musician in return.
Even though this is a repeat, it is interesting to note what sort of stories get duplicated.
In this case, it seems to be an anti-copyright story -- but in this case, we have a store that is making money by selling copies of music, and giving the musicians nothing in return.
The vibe here tends to be anti-copyright, but is it so anti-copyright that we even think it's ok for a store to make a profit off musicians that never get paid?
"The key word here is "if". I see no sign that bootlegs rip-off artists. Most people I know who buy bootlegs have already purchased all of the artist's abumns. Please explain exact what was taken from the artist when a bootleg is sold."
How obvious can this be?
We're not even talking about bootlegs shared among frineds -- we're talking about a store that's making money.
If a store is making money by selling an artist's work, then that artist should be making money too.
"Even though the rapist is freed, and precedent is set, the court isn't saying it's okay to rape someone."
To follow your analogy, would you then consider profiting by selling unauthorized shows to be such a "rape"? (obviously that's too strong a word, and I'm sure neither of us mean to equate it that way)
It seems to me that the prevailing sentiment (like the parent post) sees everything in a "Fuck the RIAA" kind of way -- but if the artist is being ripped off, is that something to cheer?
"But who listens to music tethered to their computer? Its so geeky that guys with taped glasses are laughing."
Sure I'm a geek -- but I don't tape my glasses anymore, now they're metal.
In any case, I sit working at my computer all day, and I can play whatever I want, whenever I want, from wherever I have high-speed access (including wi-fi).
At home, I keep an old PC wired to my stereo, and remote-desktop it so I can control my stereo via my wi-fi laptop.
I subscribe to Rhapsody and I really like it. For $9.95/month I can stream on-demand as much as I like.
Yes, their collection is incomplete, but there's still a huge selection of good stuff.
Not everybody is suited for the streaming approach -- some really prefer to burn CDs for the car, etc -- but for those that are suited for streaming, it's pretty neat.
"Not anymore than crowbar makers can be liable for breaking and entering."
The crowbar analogy isn't so great because, on the other hand, lockpick tools are (generally) illegal.
The difference between the crowbar and the lockpick tool isn't that they have the potential for bad uses (obviously both do) -- it's about what they're generally used for.
The question about this Earthlink P2P will boil down to: is it mostly just another market for illegal filesharing, or will it mostly be used for legit sharing...
I'd say that the big question is whether Microsoft (or the gov't) will start forcing the DRM'd formats -- meaning dropping support for non-DRM'd formats -- kind of like the digital TV "broadcast flag".
If they do, then that could be a big plus for the Open Source OS's.
And if it does wind up a government mandated thing, then would the Open Source OS's be forced into following suit? (ie, will Open Source OS distros have to come from outside the US?)
On the other hand, if the DRM'd formats *aren't* forced on us, then they'll never take over.
"But the dark side of compulsory licensing is that the copyright owner loses right to forgo an arbitrary royalty and grant authorization to use."
That's just one of many dark sides of compulsory licensing!;)
"Nobody is going to sue anybody for using a copyrighted work in an authorized way, but if there's a seperate compulsory license, it's not the copyright owner's right to authorize."
Again, I agree that it is an interesting point, but it's just not going to happen that a CC-only station is going to get sued for not paying the PROs.
Are you similarly of the opinion that such a radio station must also pay to play public domain work?
"This means I can't start an Internet radio station even if I only use content released under the Creative Commons licenses. Crazy, huh?"
That was an interesting scenario, but it lacks "real world" muster.
If you were to start a non-commercial radio station that played only Creative Commons work, who exactly is going to sue you, and on what grounds? Certainly not any of the PROs.
Through a strained reading of webcasting rules you may conclude that a Creative-Commons-only station would still have to pay fees, but that just isn't so.
"I still fail to see how FurtherNET isn't a filesharing network."
Well, from the FurtherNET site:
No Illegal/Copyrighted media - Those who post/share illegal music, videos or software on FurthurNet jeopardize FurthurNet's very existence and this kind of activity will not be allowed or tolerated. Those who wish to circumvent this very basic rule will be dealt with accordingly by losing network access privilege. This includes: "spoofing", in which a corrupt(virus ridden) or otherwise undesirable file(i.e.; porn) masquerades as a different show, video or other file that people are or may be seeking. If you have questionable material and suspect or are unsure something is copyrighted, do not post it. Lest we forget why this community exists, read the bands statement on taping/trading policies when you have a question regarding distribution of any material. Without the Bands, this community would not be so vibrant. This Music Community exists because the bands allow it, and they allow it because they want you to spread their music, just not their commercial stuff. Respect their copyrights and go out and Buy their commercial releases. After all, musicians eat just like us, raise kids like us and pay rent like us.
"What the fuck does it matter if it's for sharing authorized work or not? They are openly advertising for FuthurNET which is a P2P (file-sharing application)."
Uh, if a rightsholder says that it's ok share her work, then it's ok to share her work. What's so complicated about that?
Slashdot Mirror
Would it be better if China took Google offline entirely?
So you actually think it's ok to just take a contemporary musician's CD, copy it, and sell it comercially, without their consent? I can see why you choose to remain anonymous... ;)
That's not how I see it -- here's the top of this thread (in nested form), quoting:
"Don't blame it on the store."
"Really? What's wrong with it?"
"The musicians were already paid when they made the original performance."
etc...
I'm saying that taking a musician's work, and selling it, and giving them nothing in return is wrong.
Are you saying that it's ok to sell bootleg copies of their CDs too?
Yes, musicians never get paid by bootleg shops. Who's the troll?
Uh, when did I ever say anthing about any "natural right" theory?
"are you a gun-shooting redneck from montana? a retard? or a mpaa/riaa stooge?"
Charming. In any case, here's who I am. Ok, now it's your turn.
And what, so now you're happy to see a store doing it too? Geez.
But there's nothing to cheer about a store making money by selling unauthorized copies of a musician's work, and giving nothing to the musician in return.
In this case, it seems to be an anti-copyright story -- but in this case, we have a store that is making money by selling copies of music, and giving the musicians nothing in return.
The vibe here tends to be anti-copyright, but is it so anti-copyright that we even think it's ok for a store to make a profit off musicians that never get paid?
How obvious can this be?
We're not even talking about bootlegs shared among frineds -- we're talking about a store that's making money.
If a store is making money by selling an artist's work, then that artist should be making money too.
Is it OK with you when a store makes money by selling copies of an artist's work without their consent, and without compensated them?
To follow your analogy, would you then consider profiting by selling unauthorized shows to be such a "rape"? (obviously that's too strong a word, and I'm sure neither of us mean to equate it that way)
It seems to me that the prevailing sentiment (like the parent post) sees everything in a "Fuck the RIAA" kind of way -- but if the artist is being ripped off, is that something to cheer?
Here's Reuters
What, that's now ok too?
Sure I'm a geek -- but I don't tape my glasses anymore, now they're metal.
In any case, I sit working at my computer all day, and I can play whatever I want, whenever I want, from wherever I have high-speed access (including wi-fi).
At home, I keep an old PC wired to my stereo, and remote-desktop it so I can control my stereo via my wi-fi laptop.
Geeky, sure. Apologies for that? No way.
Yes, their collection is incomplete, but there's still a huge selection of good stuff.
Not everybody is suited for the streaming approach -- some really prefer to burn CDs for the car, etc -- but for those that are suited for streaming, it's pretty neat.
The crowbar analogy isn't so great because, on the other hand, lockpick tools are (generally) illegal.
The difference between the crowbar and the lockpick tool isn't that they have the potential for bad uses (obviously both do) -- it's about what they're generally used for.
The question about this Earthlink P2P will boil down to: is it mostly just another market for illegal filesharing, or will it mostly be used for legit sharing...
If they do, then that could be a big plus for the Open Source OS's.
And if it does wind up a government mandated thing, then would the Open Source OS's be forced into following suit? (ie, will Open Source OS distros have to come from outside the US?)
On the other hand, if the DRM'd formats *aren't* forced on us, then they'll never take over.
That's just one of many dark sides of compulsory licensing! ;)
"Nobody is going to sue anybody for using a copyrighted work in an authorized way, but if there's a seperate compulsory license, it's not the copyright owner's right to authorize."
Again, I agree that it is an interesting point, but it's just not going to happen that a CC-only station is going to get sued for not paying the PROs.
Are you similarly of the opinion that such a radio station must also pay to play public domain work?
PROs refers to the performance rights organizations (the guys that collect and redistribute compulsory money).
Nobody is going to sue anybody for sharing authorized work, it's just a silly notion.
That was an interesting scenario, but it lacks "real world" muster.
If you were to start a non-commercial radio station that played only Creative Commons work, who exactly is going to sue you, and on what grounds? Certainly not any of the PROs.
Through a strained reading of webcasting rules you may conclude that a Creative-Commons-only station would still have to pay fees, but that just isn't so.
Well, from the FurtherNET site:
Uh, if a rightsholder says that it's ok share her work, then it's ok to share her work. What's so complicated about that?
Well by my count, FurthurNET is 1 of 20 sources in the article, so I'm not sure that really jusifies Slashdot's headline: "NYT Promotes File Sharing"
Furthermore, FurthurNET is only for sharing authorized work, isn't it?
If authorized downloads were all that was file-shared, file-sharing would be a non-issue.
The issue revolves around unauthorized sharing, and this article isn't about that.