I disagree that someone's right to complain is contingent upon their behaviour too (you always have the right to complain, even if you're wrong), but that's a different issue.
I meant it figuratively, not politically. You have the freedom of speech, of course, like most of the rest of the planet.
Let's rephrase that so that the linguistically challenge have a chance to understand it, too: It isn't socially correct from you to complain when someone else behaves similarly. In the broad sense of "you", that is.
No, but language changes, and there's nothing you can do about it. It always has and it always will. FWIW, you can find "infrigment of copyritght" as a definition of piracy in any dictionary.
Do you complain when someone says cool when they don't mean something is cold? Are people liers when they use the word hip in a meaning different from the Old High German hiafo? How about words like hooligan which refers to an Irish person called Hoolihan... My god - what do British soccer fans have to do with an Irish person... And lets not even get started about words like mouse (the rodent on your desk), kangaroo ("I don't understand" in Australian aboriginal language of Queensland) or galvanizing (in political language)...
I do not support perpetual copyright, nor the use of incorrect terms (piracy, theft) for copyright infringement.
Software piracy has been used as a term to describe copyright infringement for at least 20 years, and I can't see anyone not understand it correctly by now. To be quite honest, the people who have been parroting "piracy is not the c0rrekt term!!!1" for decades now are starting to sound a bit silly. In fact, they are downright childish and lack the ability to support their views in an adultlike manner, instead of having an "argument" by trying to ridicule the opponent's use of language. Of course, piracy is impossible to defend with non-narcissistic arguments, so I can see why the pirate camp likes to argue semantics.
Absurd. If there's one cake left in the shop and I want it then maybe I'm going to rush to get it before they're sold out. I'm also hoping that nobody else is doing the same because if they get it then I don't. That isn't illogical. It also isn't hypocritical.
But that's not the same logic. By the OP's analogy, in this case you'd lose your right to complain if someone else rushed and got the cake first, because that's what you were doing, essentially.
If you then complained loudly that he's an idiot for doing so, it would make you narcissistic, however.
In fact, you could probably have a decent random number generator just by sampling the noise on an unused input on a soundcard (the crappier the soundcard, the better).
I would expect a bad quality soundcard to have all sorts of filters to improve its noise and distortion characteristics (instead of higher-quality components). Wouldn't this make it less than ideal?
CDs are a different story, since they are produced by near-monopoly companies.
I keep hearing this and don't understand it even though I am in the business. How are record companies near-monopolies? The CD itself is quite cheap, but the covers and all the necessary licences and fees add up to quite a bit. For a small pressing, manufacturing costs alone are easily the 5 bucks apiece which is a pretty common wholesale price. We never see the same kind of margins as electronic appliance manufactures, for example. In fact, we're lucky if an album breaks even! Retailers can price the CD's whichever way they like, and they price to maximize profits. This includes taking competition into account.
Inverse square... Yeah, so what? You fail to realise just how much energy a supernova releases... If one goes bang 5000 light years away, you'll be able to see it burning bright even during the day. But within a thousand lightyears... We really would never know what hit us...
The idea that a supernova would just happen to pinpoint all that energy towards the Earth in such accuracy has such a low likelyhood that making claims that it such an event happens once every 100 million years is meaningless. I can see why there is exactly one scientist supporting this theory, like the article says.
And the rest of the stuff launchd is supposed to load doesn't get loaded and you have a broken system.
And you know that how? If there's a typo and I only get a partial system, I'd much rather still have the rest of it boot and let me fix the problem.
The reason systems DON'T boot when/etc/intttab get's toasted is they SHOULDN'T boot with out the service it kicks off running.
That's circular thinking. You're essentially saying that it's good to have a fragile system (inittab) so that your computer wouldn't boot if the fragile system (inittab) is misconfigured.
When inittab is toasted on one of my AIX servers, I simply boot off of the install CD or a backup tape(yes I can do that). I mount rootvg in maintenance mode, FIX inittab and then reboot. That simple.
As opposed to just getting an error message and fixing it without install CD's, backup tapes or mounting rootvg's in maintenance mode? Yeah, sounds dead simple.
And if the system gets toasted so badly that you can't do that, you STILL have the option of booting from a CD and doing it that way.
She pretty much gave out the same grade on all your papers you got on your first paper.
I noticed something like this, too, and what we did was myself and another student submitted the SAME paper. Not only did the proferssor not notice, he also gave me a C and the other guy an A. Obviously, we complained, but nothing ever happened.
That is an *excellent* question to ask, and the answer appearantly is 'no'. Nobody forces you to be in the music business.
The ultimate result of devaluing art is that no more will be made. I consider that a step backwards, but it seems we are heading back towards barbarism, anyway.
The problem here is that times change.
No. The problem is that some people want something for nothing. But you can't simply wish the concept of intellectual property (it's just another term for content!) away, no matter how much you'd like it to vanish.
So, if instead of 'standing up for your rights' (which does not seem to have any tangible effect other than that it lets you blow off steam)
Copyright law still exist, don't they? There are two parties arguing. One is for copyright and the other one is against. If myself and others who support artists' rights shut up, there'll be no more copyright law next year. So my standing up for my rights does have a defensive effect, even though you wish not to see it.
For me it meant a switch from licensed software to a service model, the music equivalent would be to go touring and charge for access. But you have to be damn good and have a bit of a 'name' to make that work and I don't know if that's an option.
Again, I'd be fine if the world was suddenly full of artists doing free gigs and giving out their music for free on the Internet. I'm perfectly fine with open source software. In fact, I applaud and embrace the OSS movement. But it's their choice to give away their work. I still feel it's wrong when people make illegal copies of Microsoft software, even if the company is filthy rich.
The world didn't get where it is today by giving up to anarchy. Your suggestion of changing profession is silly at best. I'll do it when people think my music sucks and they prefer something else. Not when they decide that it is their god-given right to benefit from my hard work while stumping on my constitutional rights.
I was just hitting what I could recall off the top of my head with that handfull. And if I could pull that many out of random memory...
The thing is, there isn't a whole lot preserved from before the 16th century, partially because of the church burning everything that contradicted their then-current christian principles, but also because the works had little value to anyone creating (or even duplicating) them before that. It was still hard even after that, but at least it was no more legal for someone else to take your art and claim it was his.
And trying to downgrade some of the more well known literature of the past by pointing out that some loss of translation because of a significant drop of civilisation for a few hundred years....
There are no writings from Socrates preserved at all. There is exactly one work from one of his pupils, Plato, existing today that is thought to be an original. Everything else that is attributed to him is just patched together from multiple sources, a lot of which likely has nothing to do with him. But ancient Greece was an enormously rich culture and a peculiarity in the pre-christian world. Most of the great thinkers were also politicians, teachers or playwrights and their works are side-products of their main professions than the other way round. Oh, and the philosophers weren't widely accepted at all during that time, because they defied superstition. But I'm sure you knew all that.
On a related note, even if copyright didn't exist, I'm sure that scientists and humanists would still carry on writing, just like they did then. They'd just not get published as widely.
It's also worth nothing that one of the principles of copyright is that the works must not be altered without permission.
As far as the dark ages go food and shelter and little else was important, let alone a bunch of musings on the meaning of it all, however profound
I doubt that people became dumb for a few hundred years, when very rich cultures had already existed, and in fact still existed, in the Middle East, for example. They were oppressed by the Church, but I am sure people were interested in art and poetry just like any other time. Of course, visual arts are a bit different in that it is normally only the original that has value.
I seriously doubt Micky Mouse or Brittiny spears will even be known in 500 years outside obscure historical texts even if society continues, let alone if we go through something akin to the dark ages.
I agree. It is completely irrelevant, though. Copyright doesn't care whether a work is good or bad or artistic. It is also relatively short-term. Copyright gives you a possibility to sell your work. It gives you a possibility to make money with your own art. Without copyright, anyone could take your work and distribute it, even for gain. I doubt no one would want to spend years writing a book, if they had almost zero chance of making money with it. No sane person anyway. All publishers would just print whatever they felt is good and try to make money, and the author would get nothing. The whole industry would probably collapse into the impossibility of the situation.
Copyright and Patents as the original founders intended it could have value in helping foster the public domain of knowledge and culture
That's true, but not the whole truth. The reason for the introduction of copyright was that authors didn't want their books being sold without themselves getting a share. It gave those works value, which made them marketable, thus giving an incentive to create AND publish those works. More would be created, more would be published. Take that incentive away, and much less will be made and even less published, if any, because there'd be no more money-making opportunity, and people need to eat.
If there'd be no copyright, then you couldn't accuse anyone of plagiarism, either. If you think about it, if "IP" didn't exist, then wouldn't it mean that
IIRC the Bible, Koran, Socrates, Homer, Plato, and who knows how many other written works that are generally considered 'great' were written before 1600.
Strangely enough, I find that your few examples from a time span of thousands of years prove my point more than anything else.
What is preserved of those writings (with the exception of Quran, I think) is very fragmented and very different from the original manuscripts, and in many cases such never even existed. Most of the greek philosophers' texts are merely attributed to them. Little original text is left, largely due to the fact that they had no value to people in the dark ages.
Copyright gives art and literature a financial incentive. Without copyright, I find it very hard to believe that someone would dedicate years of their life to write a book.
Agreed, music isn't 'easy', but once the dough starts rolling in you don't actually have to go out and do much to get that recurring income.
None of that 'steady life' feeling while being able to rake in the dough.
It's not really like that, in my experience. You'll have to be constantly out there gigging, doing interviews, etc. Every new album sells for a few weeks, but then there is normally a sharp decline. To even release an album per year requires a huge effort, so you have to live off just one product for a long time. Personally, I don't know anyone who would have got rich by making music, even all the "name" bands I know only have average income, even though the media would like us to think otherwise. Even a lot of the limousines and other crap is normally provided by the record company as an 'image building' effort, not by the artists themselves.
I know that's harsh, but by externalising the blame for the situation you are really trying to sidestep the issue, which is: what are you going to do about it ?
What I'm going to do is stand up for my rights. When people start saying things such as "there's no such thing as IP" or "it's my god-given right to share [your work]", I voice my opposing opinion. Distributing copyrighted material without consent is illegal, and it should stay that way. I'm even fine with the large fines when it's done at an outrageously large scale. That's what I'm raving about. I don't mind friends sharing with friends at all, but the efficiency of P2P is outrageous. I could log on to a P2P network right now and download my whole catalog with just a few mouse clicks. Do you really think that's fair? Are you honestly saying that my right for getting compensated for my work isn't being stumped on?
The fact is, there have always been people who were prepared to pay for my music. It has given me an "OK" living, just like it has for many others. I don't think that the value these people saw in this music has vanished - they still get enjoyment from my hard work, and if it weren't possible for them to get it for free, I'm sure they'd still carry on paying a modest sum of money for it.
Granted, there are some people in the music biz making lots more money than they need. But they aren't even the tip of the iceberg. Besides, jealosy is as bad as greed in my book, so to me basing one's opinion on IP or whatever on Bill Gates, Britney, 50cent and such alone is just ignorance.
But even then you can not reasonably expect to have a 'right' to make a living of it.
I don't expect that at all! I'm perfectly fine with people not buying my albums. I'm not fine with people who do not buy my albums, but download them off a P2P, listen to them for enjoyment, share them to a 100,000,000 unknowns while claiming that it's their "right" to do so for whatever reason. There's a difference.
But it says more about your planning abilities (as it said a lot about mine when I found myself in that situation) than about the 'meanness' of those who pirate your music.
I still fail to see the logic in this. It's hard to make "buying" easier than from a P2P. When you've got the exact same product obtainable with the same amount effort, one of which costs money and one which doesn't, what are you going to plan, exactly? There are still people who aren't using P2P and buy CD's instead, but what about 5 years from now? 10 years? Why should I carry on making music, if the public opinion persists that as soon as an album is recorded, it's worthless and everyone should be allowed to freely make copies of it. Why should anyone?
Actually, this quote is much more appropriate to the current situation than you may think. The monks were the "distributors", much like the members of the RIAA/MPAA. P2P represents a threat to the "monks", not the artists, at least not directly.
I don't think so, and few of the bands that I know personally don't believe in that, either. Most are pretty understanding and don't really care if their fans download their stuff (I don't like it, though), but none of them feel that it's exactly right, either. I do know that there have been some publicity stunts by certain bands, but it's pretty easy to rave when you already have a name and lots of money in the bank.
A massive publicity download for lots of mostly unknown bands.
It just doesn't work that way. Web sites are much better for them.
Anyhow, printing press was the original reason. It was the authors who didn't want to grant the printers the right to distribute their work for no compensation.
I agree that you should be paid for any intellectual property that you produce, what I do not agree with is the draconian approach currently being taken by the *IAA.
You know what, I am not perfectly happy with the RIAA, either. But then again, I have nothing to do with them, either. That doesn't mean I take it lightly when someone suggests that all the work I've done in the past 20 years is now worthless because it can be so easily distributed over the Internet.
There's nothing harder than to have to give up 'easy money' and to go back to working for a living.
If it's so easy, why isn't everyone making music, then?
I have worked really hard to get where I am, musically, today. Harder than you can ever imagine. Somehow it's now right for everyone else to take the results of that work for free, because they can.
You made a product and you sold it. The fact that your product is easily replicated puts you in the same boat as a good portion of the rest of the population.
It's also quite easy to kill someone. Does that in your opinion make it right? If I want to have sex with your girlfriend or wife (Though on Slashdot this is VERY hypothetical) and I need to do you away, does owning a gun somehow make it ok? In your own words: Life's not easy. Cope.
At my last employer I was required (extorted) to sell my patent rights to the company for $1 or risk termination of employment.
So why didn't you sue them? Are you stupid or what? (Ok, after reading your trol^H^H^H^Hidiocy it's quite obvious, but it's still a fun question.)
What do you mean by "professional"?
Same as everyone else. A person who does music for livelihood (or gain).
The severity of the situation which you've described is completely hypothetical and composed of conjecture.
I've been somehow involved in the music business for the past 20 years. I know what I'm talking about. A lot of artists stay quiet about the P2P because they don't want to advertise that their album is there, simple as that. And they also don't want to engage in discussions such as this.
You did not have proper advertising or distribution planned before you released the product.
There is no such thing as guaranteed album sales, and it's a pretty widely accepted fact that advertising is rarely beneficial in music in general. Our channels are very different. Sometimes it is done, but is known to have even been detrimental to sales. Most often bands "advertise" themselves by simply playing in clubs until there is demand for an album. But of course, on Slashdot all record labels are evil and in the very least criminal.
In other words, you are speaking out of your ass about things you have no clue about. Basically, you're saying that you should get music, films and whatever for free (i.e. other people's work without their consent) whilst dressing it in some sort of vague "it's a bad world and the whole concept of IP is false" ethics.
You have a right to work just like anyone else who finds themself in the unemployment line.
What I meant is no one can force me to work for free.
No one's rights are being stomped except for the right of a consumer to own a product they bought.
Yes they are. I should be the only person allowed to decide who gets to copy the music I've made (=duplicat the results of my work). And it so happens that I choose to only allow those who pay me for the work that I've put into it to do so. By stating that I should now allow anyone to make copies you are taking away my right.
Owning is different from copying and distributing. It can't be that difficult to understand, can it?
Let's just say that the IP gravy train has ended.
I don't know what that is, but I think there'll soon be no more professional recording studios nor musicians.
Slashdot Mirror
I meant it figuratively, not politically. You have the freedom of speech, of course, like most of the rest of the planet.
Let's rephrase that so that the linguistically challenge have a chance to understand it, too: It isn't socially correct from you to complain when someone else behaves similarly. In the broad sense of "you", that is.
No, but language changes, and there's nothing you can do about it. It always has and it always will. FWIW, you can find "infrigment of copyritght" as a definition of piracy in any dictionary.
Do you complain when someone says cool when they don't mean something is cold? Are people liers when they use the word hip in a meaning different from the Old High German hiafo? How about words like hooligan which refers to an Irish person called Hoolihan... My god - what do British soccer fans have to do with an Irish person... And lets not even get started about words like mouse (the rodent on your desk), kangaroo ("I don't understand" in Australian aboriginal language of Queensland) or galvanizing (in political language)...
Software piracy has been used as a term to describe copyright infringement for at least 20 years, and I can't see anyone not understand it correctly by now. To be quite honest, the people who have been parroting "piracy is not the c0rrekt term!!!1" for decades now are starting to sound a bit silly. In fact, they are downright childish and lack the ability to support their views in an adultlike manner, instead of having an "argument" by trying to ridicule the opponent's use of language. Of course, piracy is impossible to defend with non-narcissistic arguments, so I can see why the pirate camp likes to argue semantics.
There it is, off my chest.
But that's not the same logic. By the OP's analogy, in this case you'd lose your right to complain if someone else rushed and got the cake first, because that's what you were doing, essentially.
If you then complained loudly that he's an idiot for doing so, it would make you narcissistic, however.
I think you really mean NCSA Mosaic, not Mozilla.
I would expect a bad quality soundcard to have all sorts of filters to improve its noise and distortion characteristics (instead of higher-quality components). Wouldn't this make it less than ideal?
I keep hearing this and don't understand it even though I am in the business. How are record companies near-monopolies? The CD itself is quite cheap, but the covers and all the necessary licences and fees add up to quite a bit. For a small pressing, manufacturing costs alone are easily the 5 bucks apiece which is a pretty common wholesale price. We never see the same kind of margins as electronic appliance manufactures, for example. In fact, we're lucky if an album breaks even! Retailers can price the CD's whichever way they like, and they price to maximize profits. This includes taking competition into account.
The idea that a supernova would just happen to pinpoint all that energy towards the Earth in such accuracy has such a low likelyhood that making claims that it such an event happens once every 100 million years is meaningless. I can see why there is exactly one scientist supporting this theory, like the article says.
See inverse square law.
And you know that how? If there's a typo and I only get a partial system, I'd much rather still have the rest of it boot and let me fix the problem.
The reason systems DON'T boot when /etc/intttab get's toasted is they SHOULDN'T boot with out the service it kicks off running.
That's circular thinking. You're essentially saying that it's good to have a fragile system (inittab) so that your computer wouldn't boot if the fragile system (inittab) is misconfigured.
When inittab is toasted on one of my AIX servers, I simply boot off of the install CD or a backup tape(yes I can do that). I mount rootvg in maintenance mode, FIX inittab and then reboot. That simple.
As opposed to just getting an error message and fixing it without install CD's, backup tapes or mounting rootvg's in maintenance mode? Yeah, sounds dead simple.
And if the system gets toasted so badly that you can't do that, you STILL have the option of booting from a CD and doing it that way.
I noticed something like this, too, and what we did was myself and another student submitted the SAME paper. Not only did the proferssor not notice, he also gave me a C and the other guy an A. Obviously, we complained, but nothing ever happened.
You are confusing Star Wars fans with Slashdot posters. I know quite a few female SW fans. Many of them even have kids.
The ultimate result of devaluing art is that no more will be made. I consider that a step backwards, but it seems we are heading back towards barbarism, anyway.
The problem here is that times change.
No. The problem is that some people want something for nothing. But you can't simply wish the concept of intellectual property (it's just another term for content!) away, no matter how much you'd like it to vanish.
So, if instead of 'standing up for your rights' (which does not seem to have any tangible effect other than that it lets you blow off steam)
Copyright law still exist, don't they? There are two parties arguing. One is for copyright and the other one is against. If myself and others who support artists' rights shut up, there'll be no more copyright law next year. So my standing up for my rights does have a defensive effect, even though you wish not to see it.
For me it meant a switch from licensed software to a service model, the music equivalent would be to go touring and charge for access. But you have to be damn good and have a bit of a 'name' to make that work and I don't know if that's an option.
Again, I'd be fine if the world was suddenly full of artists doing free gigs and giving out their music for free on the Internet. I'm perfectly fine with open source software. In fact, I applaud and embrace the OSS movement. But it's their choice to give away their work. I still feel it's wrong when people make illegal copies of Microsoft software, even if the company is filthy rich.
The world didn't get where it is today by giving up to anarchy. Your suggestion of changing profession is silly at best. I'll do it when people think my music sucks and they prefer something else. Not when they decide that it is their god-given right to benefit from my hard work while stumping on my constitutional rights.
The thing is, there isn't a whole lot preserved from before the 16th century, partially because of the church burning everything that contradicted their then-current christian principles, but also because the works had little value to anyone creating (or even duplicating) them before that. It was still hard even after that, but at least it was no more legal for someone else to take your art and claim it was his.
And trying to downgrade some of the more well known literature of the past by pointing out that some loss of translation because of a significant drop of civilisation for a few hundred years....
There are no writings from Socrates preserved at all. There is exactly one work from one of his pupils, Plato, existing today that is thought to be an original. Everything else that is attributed to him is just patched together from multiple sources, a lot of which likely has nothing to do with him. But ancient Greece was an enormously rich culture and a peculiarity in the pre-christian world. Most of the great thinkers were also politicians, teachers or playwrights and their works are side-products of their main professions than the other way round. Oh, and the philosophers weren't widely accepted at all during that time, because they defied superstition. But I'm sure you knew all that.
On a related note, even if copyright didn't exist, I'm sure that scientists and humanists would still carry on writing, just like they did then. They'd just not get published as widely.
It's also worth nothing that one of the principles of copyright is that the works must not be altered without permission.
As far as the dark ages go food and shelter and little else was important, let alone a bunch of musings on the meaning of it all, however profound
I doubt that people became dumb for a few hundred years, when very rich cultures had already existed, and in fact still existed, in the Middle East, for example. They were oppressed by the Church, but I am sure people were interested in art and poetry just like any other time. Of course, visual arts are a bit different in that it is normally only the original that has value.
I seriously doubt Micky Mouse or Brittiny spears will even be known in 500 years outside obscure historical texts even if society continues, let alone if we go through something akin to the dark ages.
I agree. It is completely irrelevant, though. Copyright doesn't care whether a work is good or bad or artistic. It is also relatively short-term. Copyright gives you a possibility to sell your work. It gives you a possibility to make money with your own art. Without copyright, anyone could take your work and distribute it, even for gain. I doubt no one would want to spend years writing a book, if they had almost zero chance of making money with it. No sane person anyway. All publishers would just print whatever they felt is good and try to make money, and the author would get nothing. The whole industry would probably collapse into the impossibility of the situation.
Copyright and Patents as the original founders intended it could have value in helping foster the public domain of knowledge and culture
That's true, but not the whole truth. The reason for the introduction of copyright was that authors didn't want their books being sold without themselves getting a share. It gave those works value, which made them marketable, thus giving an incentive to create AND publish those works. More would be created, more would be published. Take that incentive away, and much less will be made and even less published, if any, because there'd be no more money-making opportunity, and people need to eat.
If there'd be no copyright, then you couldn't accuse anyone of plagiarism, either. If you think about it, if "IP" didn't exist, then wouldn't it mean that
I never said it was.
IIRC the Bible, Koran, Socrates, Homer, Plato, and who knows how many other written works that are generally considered 'great' were written before 1600.
Strangely enough, I find that your few examples from a time span of thousands of years prove my point more than anything else.
What is preserved of those writings (with the exception of Quran, I think) is very fragmented and very different from the original manuscripts, and in many cases such never even existed. Most of the greek philosophers' texts are merely attributed to them. Little original text is left, largely due to the fact that they had no value to people in the dark ages.
Copyright gives art and literature a financial incentive. Without copyright, I find it very hard to believe that someone would dedicate years of their life to write a book.
None of that 'steady life' feeling while being able to rake in the dough.
It's not really like that, in my experience. You'll have to be constantly out there gigging, doing interviews, etc. Every new album sells for a few weeks, but then there is normally a sharp decline. To even release an album per year requires a huge effort, so you have to live off just one product for a long time. Personally, I don't know anyone who would have got rich by making music, even all the "name" bands I know only have average income, even though the media would like us to think otherwise. Even a lot of the limousines and other crap is normally provided by the record company as an 'image building' effort, not by the artists themselves.
I know that's harsh, but by externalising the blame for the situation you are really trying to sidestep the issue, which is: what are you going to do about it ?
What I'm going to do is stand up for my rights. When people start saying things such as "there's no such thing as IP" or "it's my god-given right to share [your work]", I voice my opposing opinion. Distributing copyrighted material without consent is illegal, and it should stay that way. I'm even fine with the large fines when it's done at an outrageously large scale. That's what I'm raving about. I don't mind friends sharing with friends at all, but the efficiency of P2P is outrageous. I could log on to a P2P network right now and download my whole catalog with just a few mouse clicks. Do you really think that's fair? Are you honestly saying that my right for getting compensated for my work isn't being stumped on?
The fact is, there have always been people who were prepared to pay for my music. It has given me an "OK" living, just like it has for many others. I don't think that the value these people saw in this music has vanished - they still get enjoyment from my hard work, and if it weren't possible for them to get it for free, I'm sure they'd still carry on paying a modest sum of money for it.
Granted, there are some people in the music biz making lots more money than they need. But they aren't even the tip of the iceberg. Besides, jealosy is as bad as greed in my book, so to me basing one's opinion on IP or whatever on Bill Gates, Britney, 50cent and such alone is just ignorance.
But even then you can not reasonably expect to have a 'right' to make a living of it.
I don't expect that at all! I'm perfectly fine with people not buying my albums. I'm not fine with people who do not buy my albums, but download them off a P2P, listen to them for enjoyment, share them to a 100,000,000 unknowns while claiming that it's their "right" to do so for whatever reason. There's a difference.
But it says more about your planning abilities (as it said a lot about mine when I found myself in that situation) than about the 'meanness' of those who pirate your music.
I still fail to see the logic in this. It's hard to make "buying" easier than from a P2P. When you've got the exact same product obtainable with the same amount effort, one of which costs money and one which doesn't, what are you going to plan, exactly? There are still people who aren't using P2P and buy CD's instead, but what about 5 years from now? 10 years? Why should I carry on making music, if the public opinion persists that as soon as an album is recorded, it's worthless and everyone should be allowed to freely make copies of it. Why should anyone?
I don't think so, and few of the bands that I know personally don't believe in that, either. Most are pretty understanding and don't really care if their fans download their stuff (I don't like it, though), but none of them feel that it's exactly right, either. I do know that there have been some publicity stunts by certain bands, but it's pretty easy to rave when you already have a name and lots of money in the bank.
A massive publicity download for lots of mostly unknown bands.
It just doesn't work that way. Web sites are much better for them.
Well, copyright law originates from the 16th century, so I guess you could tell me what great works of music and art were made before that...
And then there's this stupid little US paper from 1787 that touches on the subject.
Anyhow, printing press was the original reason. It was the authors who didn't want to grant the printers the right to distribute their work for no compensation.
You know what, I am not perfectly happy with the RIAA, either. But then again, I have nothing to do with them, either. That doesn't mean I take it lightly when someone suggests that all the work I've done in the past 20 years is now worthless because it can be so easily distributed over the Internet.
If it's so easy, why isn't everyone making music, then?
I have worked really hard to get where I am, musically, today. Harder than you can ever imagine. Somehow it's now right for everyone else to take the results of that work for free, because they can.
It's not improbable. Spiced up a bit, but by no means uncommon, even.
And I'm not talking about ownership. You brought that up. I'm talking about rights, you know, the vague concept you think doesn't exist.
The IP age is over.
But apparently, the parroting age isn't.
If you want to share it with others then you accept all risk of redistribution.
If you go out, you accept all risk of being shot. So what?
It's also quite easy to kill someone. Does that in your opinion make it right? If I want to have sex with your girlfriend or wife (Though on Slashdot this is VERY hypothetical) and I need to do you away, does owning a gun somehow make it ok? In your own words: Life's not easy. Cope.
At my last employer I was required (extorted) to sell my patent rights to the company for $1 or risk termination of employment.
So why didn't you sue them? Are you stupid or what? (Ok, after reading your trol^H^H^H^Hidiocy it's quite obvious, but it's still a fun question.)
What do you mean by "professional"?
Same as everyone else. A person who does music for livelihood (or gain).
I've been somehow involved in the music business for the past 20 years. I know what I'm talking about. A lot of artists stay quiet about the P2P because they don't want to advertise that their album is there, simple as that. And they also don't want to engage in discussions such as this.
You did not have proper advertising or distribution planned before you released the product.
There is no such thing as guaranteed album sales, and it's a pretty widely accepted fact that advertising is rarely beneficial in music in general. Our channels are very different. Sometimes it is done, but is known to have even been detrimental to sales. Most often bands "advertise" themselves by simply playing in clubs until there is demand for an album. But of course, on Slashdot all record labels are evil and in the very least criminal.
In other words, you are speaking out of your ass about things you have no clue about. Basically, you're saying that you should get music, films and whatever for free (i.e. other people's work without their consent) whilst dressing it in some sort of vague "it's a bad world and the whole concept of IP is false" ethics.
What I meant is no one can force me to work for free.
No one's rights are being stomped except for the right of a consumer to own a product they bought.
Yes they are. I should be the only person allowed to decide who gets to copy the music I've made (=duplicat the results of my work). And it so happens that I choose to only allow those who pay me for the work that I've put into it to do so. By stating that I should now allow anyone to make copies you are taking away my right.
Owning is different from copying and distributing. It can't be that difficult to understand, can it?
Let's just say that the IP gravy train has ended.
I don't know what that is, but I think there'll soon be no more professional recording studios nor musicians.
I have all the reason to believe it didn't lose its value suddenly after P2P music sharing came into existence.
Welcome to real life.
Oh, I get it. Because the world is evil and can never be perfect, we should all be allowed to do whatever we please.