If you've ever had to live in that sort of environment (where drug traffickers kill people on a regular basis), you'd know you have it exactly right. It's generally counter-productive to fuck with with violent criminals, especially if they are major features of your landscape and know where you live. "Respect" and "don't fuck with" certainly overlap in common usage. Which is not to say that we should honor either MS or drug dealers.
Hey, I was looking for the proper place to make this exact comment. I also really like Linus' take:
CW: Microsoft has recently claimed that free software and some e-mail programs violate 235 of its patents. But Microsoft also said it won't sue for now. Is this the start of a new legal nightmare?
Torvalds: I personally think it's mainly another shot in the FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] war. MS has a really hard time competing on technical merit, and they traditionally have instead tried to compete on price, but that obviously doesn't work either, not against open source. So they'll continue to bundle packages and live off the inertia of the marketplace, but they want to feed that inertia with FUD.
CW: Do you think you and the open-source software community are prepared for this battle?
Torvalds: I don't actually see it as a battle. I do my thing because I think it's interesting and worth doing, and I'm not in it because of any anti-MS issues. I've used a few MS products over the years, but I've never had a strong antipathy against them. Microsoft simply isn't interesting to me.
And the whole open source thing is not an anti-MS movement either.... Open source is a model for how to do things, and I happen to believe that it's just a much better way to do things and that open source will take over not because of any battle, but simply because better ways of doing things eventually just replace the inferior things. [my emphasis]
Bottom line is that ones energies are much better focused on creating a great product, and not fighting a battle. Personally, I think the firebrands and the rabid dogs on either side of the MS/FSF debate just get off on the emotional charge of being outraged or are manipulating others with it. You see this sort of stuff a lot in politics. (Oh, and, what's the last program RMS wrote and how long ago? That should provide a nice outrage high for one of our friendly rabid freetards.)
I didn't say it was going to be as easy as just pushing a button on your VCR. However, I've seen no evidence that the stream is DRMed. It requires Google's special player? Big whoop. A proprietary player doesn't equal DRM. There are methods to capturing that stream into a format that is playable on other players and storable, and if you really cared beyond just complaining about DRM, you'd know about them. If my father cared enough, he'd learn how to program his VCR so it doesn't blink 12:00, 12:00, 12:00.
Other poster overreacted a bit. I wouldn't go so far as to say that you're biased, but I will say that you hold some very common misperceptions about Apple's suitability for the Enterprise. However, there is a basis for this perception, and it's not really that far off the mark, and further, Apple has not done much to counter this perception.
John Siracusa recently wrote an interesting bit about why this is so. His basic thesis is Apple has not made headway in the Enterprise because it focuses all its efforts on the end user, and focuses its marketing on the enduser. To make real headway in the Enterprise, one needs to focus on the IT department, whose needs, constraints, and goals are often very different from the end user.
You can rattle off a list of things that Apple does not do that makes its products and services a poor fit for corporate IT, and this list has not changed for years. [my emphasis]
Siracusa also notes that in the case where the IT department is the end user, Apple develops products and markets them to the IT department as if the IT department were the end user. Check out the Apple web page for IT professionals.
One thing worth mentioning about the suitability of Apple technology for running servers. Apple technology is used to run both Apple's website and iTunes, neither of which are what anyone could call light weight. Granted, Apple has to eat its own dog food, but didn't Dell run it's website for a while on WebObjects? And they had to make a painful transition over the MS technology at the behest of Redmond?
Anyway, I said at the outset that you held a common misperception, but I hopefully made clear the qualifications on that statement. You are partially right about Apple vis-a-vis the Enterprise and partly wrong. Also, in the case of an IT department that is very focused on the end user as customer (usually the focus is on management being the customer; the endusers aren't signing the checks), Apple might be a good fit. Read the article. It's not very long.
I'm not sure if this will help the analogy and if it points to other parallels, but there's an important historical context to WW2. Hitler and the Nazis were extremely anti-communist at the outset, so there was some sympathy for them, some looking the other way, even some approval among other anti-communists. They really were considered the lesser of two evils in some quarters, and even after the war some felt that we should have sided with Germany against the Soviet Union (if only the Nazis hadn't been so regrettably anti-semitic, don't you know?).
Another wrinkle is that Hitler and Stalin made a secret pact before the invasion of Poland. The Soviets got half of Poland! (And all of it after the War due to Truman's missteps, but that's another story.) It wasn't until after Germany's surprise invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941 that Stalin joined the alliance. (Has Bill made a secret alliance with RMS* to, uh, invade Sun? =) Hmmmm, and does that make Jobs Churchill or Roosevelt?)
Anyway, back to the main point. A partial reason that Hitler wasn't completely opposed from the outset and perhaps even encouraged to re-arm Germany in the 1930s was the hope that he would either provide a bastion against communism or even outright attack the Soviet Union. Although he did the latter, it wasn't until after he'd already conquered most of Europe.
*I used RMS instead of Linus because I just don't see Linus as the Stalin type, while it seems to fit RMS pretty well. Maybe Linus is Trotsky. If so, he should avoid Mexico City and ice picks.
I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to think of a stream as DRM. Do we talk about FM radio being DRMed (or ARMed)? Pay-per-view cable? When you are prevented from bringing a video camera into a movie theater (which is streaming from the projector, onto the screen, and then to your eyes), do you complain about the theater's DRM?
Yes, you can video tape pay-per-view (afaik). You can do the equivalent to a stream coming in to your computer using a variety of software and methods. So, why the insistence on calling everything DRM? The word is losing its meaning. It's getting watered down and eventually will mean "anything I don't like about an entertainment product".
You can see the interaction in the constant writers and actors strikes: the film industry is constantly hashing out the issue of how much creative people should earn, and I hope it continues to. This is an excellent point as far as the fluidity and give and take goes. Honestly, I never thought about it in quite this way, but you're right, and you've given me a new insight into the Hollywood ecosystem. Being an under the line sort, I've always thought of the strikes as an economic annoyance (or worse when they go on too long) even though I'm somewhat sympathetic to the strikers. A strike means less work, which means less money.
In fact, I think the movie business is better able to adapt to changing circumstances because of this. Compare the perceptions and the realities of how each industry handles some new form emerging from the underground. We talk about how the music business co-opted hip hop or punk, how they commercialized it, etc. In the movie business, we might talk about indy filmmakers taking Hollywood by storm, but I think it's a lot harder to argue that successful indy filmmakers are getting co-opted. If anything, they're welcomed with open arms. Certainly this is due to the hope that the fresh blood will be able to make investors a lot of fresh money, but by and large the rebels are allowed to rebel and sink or swim based on their own merits. I'm not saying that compromises are never made or that directors don't sometimes have to fight for their creative vision, but it is much more fluid, as you say.
Perhaps it's also because the movie business doesn't have quite the vertical integration that the music business does. Perhaps they did back in the days of the old studio system, under Louis B. Mayer and other studio heads, but that system became obsolete, and Hollywood adapted to new conditions. New talent is constantly coming to the fore and changing the system in evolutionary ways. Can you think of any business that is so filled with mavericks? That is on the look out for mavericks? (Well maybe some portions of the tech industry.)
I think this also has something to do with Hollywood being a lot less risk averse, more willing to take chances.
And the cloud cover has burned off and the sun is shining, and I think I'm going to ride my motorcycle up Topanga canyon or somewhere else windy and picturesque, instead of following up on that last sentence.
OK, thanks for clearing that up. You're right, it's not technically DRM. Google was selling streams.
So, once again the slashtard editors get it wrong, probably intentionally, although we might give them the benefit of the doubt and call it merely incompetence. This doesn't excuse the Googletards for the somewhat sketchy solution of offering a refund via Google checkout rather than cutting checks. But that also brings up another question about the story summary. It says that customers that didn't use Google checkout are screwed. Point One, was it possible to buy access to these streams without using Google check out? Point Two, if this group that didn't use Google checkout is larger than zero, is it established as fact that they won't be getting a refund in some other way?
If anyone ever had an ethical basis for snagging a copy of something off of bit torrent, it is you, my friend. That or crack the DRM. Granted, your legal rights are not so clear cut. You'd probably be running afoul of the law. But you'd be doing it with a clear conscience at least.
One question for you. The/. summary states that the customers that didn't use google check out will not be getting refunds. But was it even possible to purchase the videos without google check out? Of course, Google really should be giving a cash refund and cutting checks, but that doesn't excuse/. for once again getting a story wrong. The/. staff have learned their lessons from John Dvorak.
Oh, but to respond to your actual point . . . . =)
It's a two fold thing. On one hand, yes, the internet + digital video does change the game radically. On the other hand, not quite so radically that it's going to destroy the movie business. So . . . . I think we're in basic agreement? Beyond that, I think that the movie business is being enriched by DV in a way that the music business is not being enriched by digital music. I think you might have already said that.
Anyway, I'm tired and rambling, so I'll leave off with one thought that you might appreciate. As sleazy and as fucked up as the movie business can be, I've always been consoled that at least it wasn't the sewer that is the music business.
I wasn't arguing with you! Wanna fight about it? =)
I found it interesting that the directors you knew where not interested in web video or youtube in particular, that's all. I looked over your credits and you've worked some pretty big shows as well as smaller ones. I don't know how much this skews it. I do know a few fairly big names, but they're older dudes, too, so their lack of interest in web video for anything other than promotion of their latest might go with age. They don't feel they have to make little five minute vids. The younger guys, however, aren't coming at it from a "paying your dues" place. They're making this little vids for the fun off it. As a side benefit, some of them are getting noticed and getting directing work. One example of the Channel101 guys is Rob Schrab, who is now a director, writer, and executive producer on the Sarah Silverman Program. (There's actually a funny story behind that, but I won't bother you with it.)
Anyway, if a director is working on features they're not really going to have the time or want to spend mental focus on a web vid, I would guess.
I did exactly what you're talking about, and my server got ripped off! It seems obvious now, but it never occurred to me that I should put the server indoors somewhere safe. Oh, well, live and learn.
I was going to suggest that you put quote marks around journalist whenever referring to Forbes. As it happens, the detail-free story is from the AP.
Why did the submitter choose Forbes? The info is directly available from Google. I can't stand Forbes for a lot of reasons. I didn't glance at my status bar when I clicked the link, but suffice it to say that my reaction was the same as when I clicked a Lemon Party link.
Change the directors and producers. I have many director friends, all young and trying to break in, but none of them are even remotely interested in making a film and putting on YouTube to tell their stories. That's interesting because I know a bunch that are putting stuff up on youtube and elsewhere, and they seem to be getting the attention that they want from the studios and the cable networks. A few have been able to make a living as creators (and not just getting paid to work on another's project), while others have not yet crossed that line, i.e., they have to keep their day gig.
What is really telling is that even the ones that are successful or are becoming successful are still making their goofy little videos for the web. When you ask any of them why, the most common answer is that they're making these vids to entertain their friends and themselves.
Most, but not all, of the people I know doing this are active creators on Channel101. Usually they're also putting stuff on youtube, but Channel101 is for the peer group. Check it out if you haven't seen it. And keep your eyes open for some people you'll surely recognize.
since no one else said it, copyright should take into account that for all intents and purposes we can create and distribute an unlimited amount of video. Trying to hold onto short video clips is like trying to hold onto a saying. Hey, motherfucker, I said that first! =)
There's a number of problems that have become entangled. The major problem with current copyright is that copyright has been extended beyond any sane term. It should be no longer than 10 years. On top of this, we've seen the entertainment business engage in many other abuses of the system. However, these are not the underlying problem. The underlying problem is only somewhat different from the problems that copyright was originally designed to address. The new twist is that reproduction is cheap enough to be considered free, and easy enough that anyone with a computer can do it.
You don't need Netcraft to tell you that the old way the entertainment business works is dying faster than BSD. They're going to fight tooth and nail, but they're on their way out as the gatekeepers. The most important aspect of the new digital world isn't that copies are so very cheap, but that production, distribution, and marketing are all within the means of anyone with a computer and an internet connection. There is no need for a middle man.
As a content creator who gives his creations away for free and does not engage in illegal file-sharing, I was not aware that I even HAD an ethical dilemma.
My mistake. You'll forgive my assumption about your own ethical practice? It really felt like I was forcing your hand over what should have been a simple yes or no answer.
Now, where did that get us?
It gets us to a common ground where we can discuss the complexities of digital copies without glossing over them.
But you CAN assume that I see a very clear distinction between private physical property and digital copies thereof.
I agree with you on this, but what exactly is that distinction? If you're saying that making and distributing a digital copy is different from physical theft, in that one would not be depriving another of their work, I partly agree. The creator or worker is not being deprived of the object of his work. But here is where it gets complicated, and where we start talking about the marketplace. If the creator's work has value to others, he can trade it on the market place, where we can determine exactly what is the value to others.
The next complication comes with mass replication. For (perhaps) thousands of years, we had a much different conception of what we now call Intellectual Property (if we had one at all). Before the printing press, copying of someone's writings was labor intensive, and before the invention of recording technology, copying of music was strictly performance based. If someone created original music, someone else could learn the music and then perform it. The creator might have a proprietary sense, but certainly in a way that is different from how we commonly think of intellectual property today. The concept probably was much closer to our "new" concepts embodied by Creative Commons and OSS licensing. Similarly, replicating a written document was labor intensive (and required a certain amount of technical knowledge, i.e., literacy).
However, in either case, the original creative product, whether concretely expressed in writing or more ephemerally expressed in performance, could be traded on the market. Or not. A creator could keep his work private, or even keep his work methods secret. There is a history of groups keeping secret writings and trade secrets (for whatever reason). In this sense we might talk about proprietary culture, although there are ancient precedents for that as well.* However, on balance, most culture was owned in common by the members of that culture.
OK, I'm getting bogged down in the details. Details are important, but lets fast forward to the time when mass replication becomes easy. It is at this point where things get really interesting. Here is where copyright is born, more or less. Before getting to judgments on copyrights or whether or not they are unnatural**, let's look at why they came about. Cost of production is sometimes overlooked at this stage, but I think it's important, because this is really the first time that we have something of a middle man working with the creator (granted, the creator can be his own publisher, but the principles are the same). This middle man is taking a financial risk, and at least hopes that the work will be well received and that he and the creator will realize a gain. However, without a mechanism like copyright, there is nothing stopping another from usurping the "right" of both the creator and the publisher to benefit from their work and investment. Faced with this, the publisher will not publish at his expense, and the burden falls on the creator. If the creator decides to publish at his own expense***, he could not only not see a financial gain for his work, but actually be ruined. So, absent some mechanism to protect his work and investment, it's fairly rational to not publish, or even to not embark on the writing in the first place. This is a negative for cultural development.
While I agree with your sentiment, I'd rather have a rat that is genetically engineered to produce bacon. Bacon's good. Yes, I was forgetting about Hanibal's brother, Homer Lecter.
I'm not wholly ethically clean in this matter, because I'm in the "try before you buy" school. I'll download a song, and if I don't like it, I'll go buy it. Those songs that I don't like or don't listen to get cleaned off my laptop's HD every three months or so. I'm not condoning your behavior, I'm just not going to criticize you.
That said, the DRM free part is appealing to me, and increases the chance I will buy. Just as important is going to be the ease of use of the online store. If it's a bullshit UI, I'm less likely to buy. If it's a really really good UI, I'm not only more likely to buy, I'm more likely to spend time browsing their selection. This often happens to me on iTunes. I'll be browsing and I'll see a song that I just have to have right now. Since it's only a dollar, I'll buy it. I spend about $20/month on average for music, either on iTunes or rummaging thru the used CD bins at Amoeba or where ever. Some months it's more some less.
We can not reply to your question because the question is wrong. It's a simple question. You're avoiding it not because it's wrong, but because it undermines your entire argument.
Let's face it. You're not sincere about discussing this issue in the least. You've made up your mind that your behavior is OK, you've come up with rationalizations for that behavior so as not to face your ethical dilemma, and now you're engaging in your digital hand waving about the zero cost of digital copies. Your failure to answer the question prevents us from moving on to the next step, which is about value and the marketplace.
Since you are unwilling to answer such a simple question, can I assume that you are trying to conceal that you don't believe in private property? Because if you don't believe in private property, this is a total waste of time discussing this with you. Forced collectivization or despotism? Neither have anything to do with a free society. Is that what you support? Maybe so.
Oh, and one more thing. You're making a huge assumption by thinking this notion is justification for a command economy (although it has been used as such). It's also the basis of a free market economy. What you're talking about is the step that comes after recognizing that an individual has a right to the fruits of his labor.
You're still making this too complicated. I'm not talking about economics or the market. That comes later, after we discuss this basic principle. Until we get this basic principle nailed down, I'm afraid there's no point in delving into the complexities.
I've been putting this in various ways that are simple and easy to understand, but so far the replies, including yours, want to extend it before dealing with a very simple and basic question. You all sound like lawyers.
Let me put it another way. A person creates something for their own personal use. Could be a carrot that they grew. Could be any object. Do you believe that you have the right to deprive that person of that object? Simple question, jed. Are you a carrot thief? =)
Regarding your first 2nd point, non-profit status doesn't excuse bad behavior. Yes, over the years, the ARC has done great work. However, in recent years, like many other charities, they've been devoting a larger and larger part of their budget to fundraising activities, to the point where charities are raising funds to raise more funds. Not enough money is actually going to the charitable work, unless you consider creating a fundraising bureaucracy with high paid executives to be a charity.
That said, the ARC is actually one of the better charities out there. But the fact that they are licensing the red cross symbol to other companies is troubling. In regards to other charities, it is worth your while to see how much of their budget is devoted to administrative and fundraising activities (as well as what percentage of the budget is going to the top executives of the charity) before donating.
This isn't philosophical. It's a basic principal. You're trying to confuse the issue so you can jump ahead to your justifications. It's very simple: Should a person have the right to enjoy the fruits of his labor? Do you have the right to deprive another of the fruits of their labor. If you cannot answer the first in the affirmative and the second negatively, then you're basically saying you're OK with being a parasite. From there, you can rationalize whatever actions you want. In this case, you're claiming to be taking from another parasite (the music business). That makes you something akin to a tick sucking the blood of a leach. Does the fact that you're not getting blood directly from the host animal make that OK?
Slashdot Mirror
If you've ever had to live in that sort of environment (where drug traffickers kill people on a regular basis), you'd know you have it exactly right. It's generally counter-productive to fuck with with violent criminals, especially if they are major features of your landscape and know where you live. "Respect" and "don't fuck with" certainly overlap in common usage. Which is not to say that we should honor either MS or drug dealers.
Torvalds: I personally think it's mainly another shot in the FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt] war. MS has a really hard time competing on technical merit, and they traditionally have instead tried to compete on price, but that obviously doesn't work either, not against open source. So they'll continue to bundle packages and live off the inertia of the marketplace, but they want to feed that inertia with FUD.
CW: Do you think you and the open-source software community are prepared for this battle?
Torvalds: I don't actually see it as a battle. I do my thing because I think it's interesting and worth doing, and I'm not in it because of any anti-MS issues. I've used a few MS products over the years, but I've never had a strong antipathy against them. Microsoft simply isn't interesting to me.
And the whole open source thing is not an anti-MS movement either.
Bottom line is that ones energies are much better focused on creating a great product, and not fighting a battle. Personally, I think the firebrands and the rabid dogs on either side of the MS/FSF debate just get off on the emotional charge of being outraged or are manipulating others with it. You see this sort of stuff a lot in politics. (Oh, and, what's the last program RMS wrote and how long ago? That should provide a nice outrage high for one of our friendly rabid freetards.)
I didn't say it was going to be as easy as just pushing a button on your VCR. However, I've seen no evidence that the stream is DRMed. It requires Google's special player? Big whoop. A proprietary player doesn't equal DRM. There are methods to capturing that stream into a format that is playable on other players and storable, and if you really cared beyond just complaining about DRM, you'd know about them. If my father cared enough, he'd learn how to program his VCR so it doesn't blink 12:00, 12:00, 12:00.
John Siracusa recently wrote an interesting bit about why this is so. His basic thesis is Apple has not made headway in the Enterprise because it focuses all its efforts on the end user, and focuses its marketing on the enduser. To make real headway in the Enterprise, one needs to focus on the IT department, whose needs, constraints, and goals are often very different from the end user. You can rattle off a list of things that Apple does not do that makes its products and services a poor fit for corporate IT, and this list has not changed for years. [my emphasis]
Siracusa also notes that in the case where the IT department is the end user, Apple develops products and markets them to the IT department as if the IT department were the end user. Check out the Apple web page for IT professionals.
One thing worth mentioning about the suitability of Apple technology for running servers. Apple technology is used to run both Apple's website and iTunes, neither of which are what anyone could call light weight. Granted, Apple has to eat its own dog food, but didn't Dell run it's website for a while on WebObjects? And they had to make a painful transition over the MS technology at the behest of Redmond?
Anyway, I said at the outset that you held a common misperception, but I hopefully made clear the qualifications on that statement. You are partially right about Apple vis-a-vis the Enterprise and partly wrong. Also, in the case of an IT department that is very focused on the end user as customer (usually the focus is on management being the customer; the endusers aren't signing the checks), Apple might be a good fit. Read the article. It's not very long.
I'm not sure if this will help the analogy and if it points to other parallels, but there's an important historical context to WW2. Hitler and the Nazis were extremely anti-communist at the outset, so there was some sympathy for them, some looking the other way, even some approval among other anti-communists. They really were considered the lesser of two evils in some quarters, and even after the war some felt that we should have sided with Germany against the Soviet Union (if only the Nazis hadn't been so regrettably anti-semitic, don't you know?).
Another wrinkle is that Hitler and Stalin made a secret pact before the invasion of Poland. The Soviets got half of Poland! (And all of it after the War due to Truman's missteps, but that's another story.) It wasn't until after Germany's surprise invasion of the Soviet Union in June of 1941 that Stalin joined the alliance. (Has Bill made a secret alliance with RMS* to, uh, invade Sun? =) Hmmmm, and does that make Jobs Churchill or Roosevelt?)
Anyway, back to the main point. A partial reason that Hitler wasn't completely opposed from the outset and perhaps even encouraged to re-arm Germany in the 1930s was the hope that he would either provide a bastion against communism or even outright attack the Soviet Union. Although he did the latter, it wasn't until after he'd already conquered most of Europe.
*I used RMS instead of Linus because I just don't see Linus as the Stalin type, while it seems to fit RMS pretty well. Maybe Linus is Trotsky. If so, he should avoid Mexico City and ice picks.
I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to think of a stream as DRM. Do we talk about FM radio being DRMed (or ARMed)? Pay-per-view cable? When you are prevented from bringing a video camera into a movie theater (which is streaming from the projector, onto the screen, and then to your eyes), do you complain about the theater's DRM?
Yes, you can video tape pay-per-view (afaik). You can do the equivalent to a stream coming in to your computer using a variety of software and methods. So, why the insistence on calling everything DRM? The word is losing its meaning. It's getting watered down and eventually will mean "anything I don't like about an entertainment product".
In fact, I think the movie business is better able to adapt to changing circumstances because of this. Compare the perceptions and the realities of how each industry handles some new form emerging from the underground. We talk about how the music business co-opted hip hop or punk, how they commercialized it, etc. In the movie business, we might talk about indy filmmakers taking Hollywood by storm, but I think it's a lot harder to argue that successful indy filmmakers are getting co-opted. If anything, they're welcomed with open arms. Certainly this is due to the hope that the fresh blood will be able to make investors a lot of fresh money, but by and large the rebels are allowed to rebel and sink or swim based on their own merits. I'm not saying that compromises are never made or that directors don't sometimes have to fight for their creative vision, but it is much more fluid, as you say.
Perhaps it's also because the movie business doesn't have quite the vertical integration that the music business does. Perhaps they did back in the days of the old studio system, under Louis B. Mayer and other studio heads, but that system became obsolete, and Hollywood adapted to new conditions. New talent is constantly coming to the fore and changing the system in evolutionary ways. Can you think of any business that is so filled with mavericks? That is on the look out for mavericks? (Well maybe some portions of the tech industry.)
I think this also has something to do with Hollywood being a lot less risk averse, more willing to take chances.
And the cloud cover has burned off and the sun is shining, and I think I'm going to ride my motorcycle up Topanga canyon or somewhere else windy and picturesque, instead of following up on that last sentence.
OK, thanks for clearing that up. You're right, it's not technically DRM. Google was selling streams.
So, once again the slashtard editors get it wrong, probably intentionally, although we might give them the benefit of the doubt and call it merely incompetence. This doesn't excuse the Googletards for the somewhat sketchy solution of offering a refund via Google checkout rather than cutting checks. But that also brings up another question about the story summary. It says that customers that didn't use Google checkout are screwed. Point One, was it possible to buy access to these streams without using Google check out? Point Two, if this group that didn't use Google checkout is larger than zero, is it established as fact that they won't be getting a refund in some other way?
If anyone ever had an ethical basis for snagging a copy of something off of bit torrent, it is you, my friend. That or crack the DRM. Granted, your legal rights are not so clear cut. You'd probably be running afoul of the law. But you'd be doing it with a clear conscience at least.
/. summary states that the customers that didn't use google check out will not be getting refunds. But was it even possible to purchase the videos without google check out? Of course, Google really should be giving a cash refund and cutting checks, but that doesn't excuse /. for once again getting a story wrong. The /. staff have learned their lessons from John Dvorak.
One question for you. The
Oh, but to respond to your actual point . . . . =)
It's a two fold thing. On one hand, yes, the internet + digital video does change the game radically. On the other hand, not quite so radically that it's going to destroy the movie business. So . . . . I think we're in basic agreement? Beyond that, I think that the movie business is being enriched by DV in a way that the music business is not being enriched by digital music. I think you might have already said that.
Anyway, I'm tired and rambling, so I'll leave off with one thought that you might appreciate. As sleazy and as fucked up as the movie business can be, I've always been consoled that at least it wasn't the sewer that is the music business.
I wasn't arguing with you! Wanna fight about it? =)
I found it interesting that the directors you knew where not interested in web video or youtube in particular, that's all. I looked over your credits and you've worked some pretty big shows as well as smaller ones. I don't know how much this skews it. I do know a few fairly big names, but they're older dudes, too, so their lack of interest in web video for anything other than promotion of their latest might go with age. They don't feel they have to make little five minute vids. The younger guys, however, aren't coming at it from a "paying your dues" place. They're making this little vids for the fun off it. As a side benefit, some of them are getting noticed and getting directing work. One example of the Channel101 guys is Rob Schrab, who is now a director, writer, and executive producer on the Sarah Silverman Program. (There's actually a funny story behind that, but I won't bother you with it.)
Anyway, if a director is working on features they're not really going to have the time or want to spend mental focus on a web vid, I would guess.
I did exactly what you're talking about, and my server got ripped off! It seems obvious now, but it never occurred to me that I should put the server indoors somewhere safe. Oh, well, live and learn.
I was going to suggest that you put quote marks around journalist whenever referring to Forbes. As it happens, the detail-free story is from the AP.
Why did the submitter choose Forbes? The info is directly available from Google. I can't stand Forbes for a lot of reasons. I didn't glance at my status bar when I clicked the link, but suffice it to say that my reaction was the same as when I clicked a Lemon Party link.
What is really telling is that even the ones that are successful or are becoming successful are still making their goofy little videos for the web. When you ask any of them why, the most common answer is that they're making these vids to entertain their friends and themselves.
Most, but not all, of the people I know doing this are active creators on Channel101. Usually they're also putting stuff on youtube, but Channel101 is for the peer group. Check it out if you haven't seen it. And keep your eyes open for some people you'll surely recognize.
There's a number of problems that have become entangled. The major problem with current copyright is that copyright has been extended beyond any sane term. It should be no longer than 10 years. On top of this, we've seen the entertainment business engage in many other abuses of the system. However, these are not the underlying problem. The underlying problem is only somewhat different from the problems that copyright was originally designed to address. The new twist is that reproduction is cheap enough to be considered free, and easy enough that anyone with a computer can do it.
You don't need Netcraft to tell you that the old way the entertainment business works is dying faster than BSD. They're going to fight tooth and nail, but they're on their way out as the gatekeepers. The most important aspect of the new digital world isn't that copies are so very cheap, but that production, distribution, and marketing are all within the means of anyone with a computer and an internet connection. There is no need for a middle man.
As a content creator who gives his creations away for free and does not engage in illegal file-sharing, I was not aware that I even HAD an ethical dilemma.
My mistake. You'll forgive my assumption about your own ethical practice? It really felt like I was forcing your hand over what should have been a simple yes or no answer.
Now, where did that get us?
It gets us to a common ground where we can discuss the complexities of digital copies without glossing over them.
But you CAN assume that I see a very clear distinction between private physical property and digital copies thereof.
I agree with you on this, but what exactly is that distinction? If you're saying that making and distributing a digital copy is different from physical theft, in that one would not be depriving another of their work, I partly agree. The creator or worker is not being deprived of the object of his work. But here is where it gets complicated, and where we start talking about the marketplace. If the creator's work has value to others, he can trade it on the market place, where we can determine exactly what is the value to others.
The next complication comes with mass replication. For (perhaps) thousands of years, we had a much different conception of what we now call Intellectual Property (if we had one at all). Before the printing press, copying of someone's writings was labor intensive, and before the invention of recording technology, copying of music was strictly performance based. If someone created original music, someone else could learn the music and then perform it. The creator might have a proprietary sense, but certainly in a way that is different from how we commonly think of intellectual property today. The concept probably was much closer to our "new" concepts embodied by Creative Commons and OSS licensing. Similarly, replicating a written document was labor intensive (and required a certain amount of technical knowledge, i.e., literacy).
However, in either case, the original creative product, whether concretely expressed in writing or more ephemerally expressed in performance, could be traded on the market. Or not. A creator could keep his work private, or even keep his work methods secret. There is a history of groups keeping secret writings and trade secrets (for whatever reason). In this sense we might talk about proprietary culture, although there are ancient precedents for that as well.* However, on balance, most culture was owned in common by the members of that culture.
OK, I'm getting bogged down in the details. Details are important, but lets fast forward to the time when mass replication becomes easy. It is at this point where things get really interesting. Here is where copyright is born, more or less. Before getting to judgments on copyrights or whether or not they are unnatural**, let's look at why they came about. Cost of production is sometimes overlooked at this stage, but I think it's important, because this is really the first time that we have something of a middle man working with the creator (granted, the creator can be his own publisher, but the principles are the same). This middle man is taking a financial risk, and at least hopes that the work will be well received and that he and the creator will realize a gain. However, without a mechanism like copyright, there is nothing stopping another from usurping the "right" of both the creator and the publisher to benefit from their work and investment. Faced with this, the publisher will not publish at his expense, and the burden falls on the creator. If the creator decides to publish at his own expense***, he could not only not see a financial gain for his work, but actually be ruined. So, absent some mechanism to protect his work and investment, it's fairly rational to not publish, or even to not embark on the writing in the first place. This is a negative for cultural development.
So, there's a pretty good reason for so
Wow, you're like the best consumer ever! Yeah, well, my brain farted. You knew what I meant (I hope!) =)
Now, if they'd just turn a rat into a factory for fava beans.
I'm not wholly ethically clean in this matter, because I'm in the "try before you buy" school. I'll download a song, and if I don't like it, I'll go buy it. Those songs that I don't like or don't listen to get cleaned off my laptop's HD every three months or so. I'm not condoning your behavior, I'm just not going to criticize you.
That said, the DRM free part is appealing to me, and increases the chance I will buy. Just as important is going to be the ease of use of the online store. If it's a bullshit UI, I'm less likely to buy. If it's a really really good UI, I'm not only more likely to buy, I'm more likely to spend time browsing their selection. This often happens to me on iTunes. I'll be browsing and I'll see a song that I just have to have right now. Since it's only a dollar, I'll buy it. I spend about $20/month on average for music, either on iTunes or rummaging thru the used CD bins at Amoeba or where ever. Some months it's more some less.
Let's face it. You're not sincere about discussing this issue in the least. You've made up your mind that your behavior is OK, you've come up with rationalizations for that behavior so as not to face your ethical dilemma, and now you're engaging in your digital hand waving about the zero cost of digital copies. Your failure to answer the question prevents us from moving on to the next step, which is about value and the marketplace.
Since you are unwilling to answer such a simple question, can I assume that you are trying to conceal that you don't believe in private property? Because if you don't believe in private property, this is a total waste of time discussing this with you. Forced collectivization or despotism? Neither have anything to do with a free society. Is that what you support? Maybe so.
Oh, and one more thing. You're making a huge assumption by thinking this notion is justification for a command economy (although it has been used as such). It's also the basis of a free market economy. What you're talking about is the step that comes after recognizing that an individual has a right to the fruits of his labor.
You're still making this too complicated. I'm not talking about economics or the market. That comes later, after we discuss this basic principle. Until we get this basic principle nailed down, I'm afraid there's no point in delving into the complexities.
I've been putting this in various ways that are simple and easy to understand, but so far the replies, including yours, want to extend it before dealing with a very simple and basic question. You all sound like lawyers.
Let me put it another way. A person creates something for their own personal use. Could be a carrot that they grew. Could be any object. Do you believe that you have the right to deprive that person of that object? Simple question, jed. Are you a carrot thief? =)
Regarding your first 2nd point, non-profit status doesn't excuse bad behavior. Yes, over the years, the ARC has done great work. However, in recent years, like many other charities, they've been devoting a larger and larger part of their budget to fundraising activities, to the point where charities are raising funds to raise more funds. Not enough money is actually going to the charitable work, unless you consider creating a fundraising bureaucracy with high paid executives to be a charity.
That said, the ARC is actually one of the better charities out there. But the fact that they are licensing the red cross symbol to other companies is troubling. In regards to other charities, it is worth your while to see how much of their budget is devoted to administrative and fundraising activities (as well as what percentage of the budget is going to the top executives of the charity) before donating.
This isn't philosophical. It's a basic principal. You're trying to confuse the issue so you can jump ahead to your justifications. It's very simple: Should a person have the right to enjoy the fruits of his labor? Do you have the right to deprive another of the fruits of their labor. If you cannot answer the first in the affirmative and the second negatively, then you're basically saying you're OK with being a parasite. From there, you can rationalize whatever actions you want. In this case, you're claiming to be taking from another parasite (the music business). That makes you something akin to a tick sucking the blood of a leach. Does the fact that you're not getting blood directly from the host animal make that OK?