I am writing as a nonspecialist, but to me the problem of copyright infringement, to use Thomas Friedman's analogy, is a little like the sunrise; it's going to happen whether or not we like it.
Before capitalism there was no real need for copyright that I know of. Authors were flattered to have other authors borrow their ideas; Erasmus was highly insulted when someone suggested he had written for money. It might well be that centuries from now, if other economic systems develop, that there will again be no need for such protections.
In our present system, we do need some form of protection to guarantee further investment, whether it be in music, film, software, or medicine. Nevertheless, I think that much of the problem would disappear with considerably less greedy copyright periods. A film or recording might have ten years; a piece of software or medicine might have five. This would ensure profit while permitting a much vaster repository of public-owned materials, and I think the key difference is fairness. This concept sounds a little naive, but one emotion which I believe drives piracy is the partly justified feeling that copyright has been abused.
I agree that intellectual property exists, but perhaps property is indeed a misleading word, as it suggests something permanent and tangible. I also think it is important to point out that free access to someone's ideas is different from plagiarism. I would not have a problem with a book falling into public domain in a shorter time period, but there still needs to be recognition of the author's origination of the work in the academic world.
"Signs Arnold Schwarzenegger is Getting Older" From THE LATE SHOW with DAVID LETTERMAN
10. He's been triggering explosions with The Clapper 9. After day of shooting action scenes, entire set smells like Ben Gay 8. Over two dozen times in T3, he says, "You'll have to speak up". 7. Instead of shooting bad guys, challenges them to $10 game of shuffleboard 6. For "Terminator 4," he's been replaced by Don Knotts 5. Recently switched from steroids to Metamucil 4. Special effects in latest movie provided by Sy Sperling 3. Bulging chest muscles really just a Wonderbra 2. Catch phrase changed from "I'll be back" to "Oh, my back!" 1. His stunt double: Bob Dole
We seem to be getting a little off-topic here. As I said before, we can debate the ethics of filesharing until the cows come home. But it's not going to stop. So what's going to happen? Let's talk about that for a moment.
Worst-case scenario 1: The RIAA is suing the users with larger numbers of files. This is not out of any arbitrary distinction they make between givers and takers, but rather the low-hanging fruit. Give it time--maybe a few weeks--and the lawsuits will be extended, Agent Smith-like, to everybody.
WCS 2: Kazaa, Imesh, and major filesharing programs go down or are emptied of useful content. What happens? The posters who suggested that users will migrate to other forms of trading were right on. Look for an increase in encrypted and anonymous filesharing programs, or in alternative systems such as Mirc or Irc.
WCS 3: The RIAA becomes so efficient at destroying Zion--whoops, filesharing on the internet, that it disappears. What happens? Users might be able to return to non-internet transmission clubs, such as bulletin boards or other systems that conceivably don't involve ISPs.
WCS 4: The RIAA shuts all internet and telephone filesharing options down. What happens? People will trade mp3 CDs with their friends, and underground clubs will spring up. Copy-protected CDs will be transferred in analog. If new computers are built that won't do this--there's a mountain of used computers on the market that will last traders decades.
In short, again, I leave the question of whether filetrading is right or wrong to the theologians and lawyers (never thought I'd put them in the same sentence). The only truly useful tool the record companies had--convincing us that it's bad--won't work well from an industry that pricefixed CDs and sponsored bills to create hardware-destroying viruses. It's going to continue, and change is coming to the record companies whether they embrace it or fight it like dinosaurs sinking into the tarpits. Thus far, I'm betting on the tarpits.
Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net/wabbit ---- free mp3s of Ken's band
We seem to be getting a little off-topic here. As I said before, we can debate the ethics of filesharing until the cows come home. But it's not going to stop. So what's going to happen? Let's talk about that for a moment.
Worst-case scenario 1: The RIAA is suing the users with large file numbers. This is not out of any arbitrary distinction they make between givers and takers, but rather the low-hanging fruit. Give it time--maybe a few weeks--and the lawsuits will be extended, Agent Smith-like, to everybody.
WCS 2: Kazaa, Imesh, and major filesharing programs go down or are emptied of useful content. What happens? The posters who suggested that users will migrate to other forms of trading were right on. Look for an increase in encrypted and anonymous filesharing programs, or in alternative systems such as Mirc or Irc.
WCS 3: The RIAA becomes so efficient at destroying Zion--whoops, filesharing on the internet, that it disappears. What happens? Users might be able to return to non-internet transmission clubs, such as bulletin boards or other systems that conceivably don't involve ISPs.
WCS 4: The RIAA shuts all internet and telephone filesharing options down. What happens? People will trade mp3 CDs with their friends, and underground clubs will spring up. Copy-protected CDs will be transferred in analog. If new computers are built that won't do this--there's a mountain of used computers on the market that will last traders decades.
In short, again, I leave the question of whether filetrading is right or wrong to the theologians and lawyers (never thought I'd put them in the same sentence). The only truly useful tool the record companies had--convincing us that it's bad--won't work well from an industry that pricefixed CDs and sponsored bills to create hardware-destroying viruses. It's going to continue, and change is coming to the record companies whether they embrace it or fight it like dinosaurs sinking into the tarpits. So far, I'm betting on the tarpits.
Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net/wabbit ---- free mp3s of Ken's band
We seem to be getting off topic in this thread, going back to defending/attacking filesharing itself. I'm puzzled reading the news article. Why is Kazaa doing this? They give no real mission statement or reason for wanting to become an 'official' distributor of media, whatever that is. There's nothing on their website.
There can't possibly be a good outcome from Kazaa's efforts to reach this Faustian deal. Even if an agreement is reached with record companies, it will be so tailored to their interests that users will quickly migrate to whatever new free filesharing utility is out, and they'll be in the history bin along with Napster.
Then why does Kazaa want to do this? If they feel the future is in paid-for file transfers, they betray the principles they had in launching the software (they don't approve of transferring copyright materials--Please!). Do they honestly expect to make money off this? Or are they suddenly filled with conscience and a yearing for industry respect?
We can debate all we want about the ethics of file transferring. It will go on until the day the internet is shut down, and after then we'll trade burned mp3 CDs with our friends. The only way we'll see 'official' file-transfer sites is when they're free, or so cheap that people will pay to avoid the nuisance.
I still think it's possible for record companies to make money off free music; radio stations do it for them every day. But for this to happen, there will have to be a quantum leap in how record companies view this technology, and Kazaa for now is wasting their time and credibility hoping for that to happen. Or am I missing something?
Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net/wabbit--- You can click here to listen to mp3s from my band. Maybe it's awful music, but it's free, and no focus group told me how to record it.:>
We seem to be getting off topic in this thread, going back to defending/attacking filesharing itself. I'm puzzled reading the news article. Why is Kazaa doing this? They give no real mission statement or reason for wanting to become an 'official' distributor of media, whatever that is. There's nothing on their website.
There can't possibly be a good outcome from Kazaa's efforts to reach this Faustian deal. Even if an agreement is reached with record companies, it will be so tailored to their interests that users will quickly migrate to whatever new free filesharing utility is out, and they'll be in the history bin along with Napster.
Then why does Kazaa want to do this? If they feel the future is in paid-for file transfers, they betray the principles they had in launching the software (they don't approve of transferring copyright materials--Please!). Do they honestly expect to make money off this? Or are they suddenly filled with conscience and a yearing for industry respect?
We can debate all we want about the ethics of file transferring. It will go on until the day the internet is shut down, and after then we'll trade burned mp3 CDs with our friends. The only way we'll see 'official' file-transfer sites is when they're free, or so cheap that people will pay to avoid the nuisance.
I still think it's possible for record companies to make money off free music; radio stations do it for them every day. But for this to happen, there will have to be a quantum leap in how record companies view this technology, and Kazaa for now is wasting their time and credibility hoping for that to happen. Or am I missing something?
Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net/wabbit---
You can click here to listen to mp3s from my band. Maybe it's awful music, but it's free, and no focus group told me how to record it.:>
I find it odd that artists are bringing up the excuse that they don't like people keeping individual songs, out of the context of the complete album. What do they think radio stations do?
The other factor which needs mentioning is that the album format itself is still quite new. Until the mid-60s, all music was sold in single format--and early LPs were simply compilations of older singles. The 70s was the time of the concept album, but this obviously isn't the norm anymore. It's been a while since 'The Lamb lies down on Broadway'.
It would help if artists called a spade a spade and admitted it's about the money. They have a point, as we are cutting into their bread and butter. But then again, any artist with the sort of clout to make this an issue, and who has enough money that they can risk attacking their own fans, will have a hard time generating sympathy.
It's a little silly to make too much of this. Record store chains are constantly coming and going. As a boy in Canada, I remember Kelly's, Mr. Sound, Sam the Record Man... all gone. Some were eaten by Wal-Mart, others were simply badly run and were replaced by something else.
The RIAA gestapo will certainly attempt to build a link between the failure of record chains and filesharing, but it has little to do with people buying more or fewer CDs.
CDs were even more outrageously overpriced in the 80s, but at that time CD sales were much higher as people were replacing their old LP collections. Funny how the record companies no longer talk about that phenomena when whining why people aren't buying their latest releases by The Backsync Boys or one of the 17 bands who sound like Pearl Jam.
>I don't get it. Don't pirate anything, AND pay for not pirating anything.
The same thing happened in Canada several years ago when a CD levy went on blank CDs--we paid a penalty for the pirating we're not allowed to do. And half the people in my dorm building who hadn't previously used filesharers said, "If we're doing the time, we're entitled to the crime" and started downloading and burning away. I sure did; I was paying a license fee to record my own original music.
I'll say it again: treating your customers like criminals is an unworkable business strategy. And making laws that a majority of your citizens don't think are fair undermines the laws that are fair.
It reminds me of an old expression. Replacing the head of the RIAA is like moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic.
The internet is only ten years old, and we haven't begun to see its impact. I'm maybe more optimistic than most when I predict that at some point the RIAA is going to admit defeat. No industry has ever thrived--ever--by waging war against its customers. At some time the RIAA will accept that mp3s are simply a part of the scene just like radio is, and we won't care any longer who heads the organization. At least I hope this happens.
Ken:>
Re:Put your tin foil hats away, please
on
Roswell Declassified
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
>The conclusion I have come to is that the Roswell case is a conglomeration of multiple accounts of unrelated occurences occuring over the span of ten years that were later cobbled together into a single, misinformed account.
This is excellent writing. Thank you for the voice of sanity. I often wonder how the same government which can't balance a budget, and can't hide from the public either bugged party offices or intern oral sex, is capable of covering up Kennedy's FBI assassination, a faked moon landing, and space aliens. This is not a criticism of the American government, rather the reality that they are human beings like us who make mistakes.
I agree with a previous poster who claimed that the desire to believe in conspiracies alleviates some from accepting that life can be unpredictable and tragic--one loony can, in fact, go out and kill the president. I do not think that condemning those who have religious belief for the same reason is a good comparison. Believing that God has a personal and historical relationship with man, and being in a community with extensive written records of this relationship going back thousands of years, is not the same as believing Elvis is alive because the Midnight Star says so. If one doesn't believe, fine, but I don't think the situation is equivalent.
Slashdot Mirror
I am writing as a nonspecialist, but to me the problem of copyright infringement, to use Thomas Friedman's analogy, is a little like the sunrise; it's going to happen whether or not we like it. Before capitalism there was no real need for copyright that I know of. Authors were flattered to have other authors borrow their ideas; Erasmus was highly insulted when someone suggested he had written for money. It might well be that centuries from now, if other economic systems develop, that there will again be no need for such protections. In our present system, we do need some form of protection to guarantee further investment, whether it be in music, film, software, or medicine. Nevertheless, I think that much of the problem would disappear with considerably less greedy copyright periods. A film or recording might have ten years; a piece of software or medicine might have five. This would ensure profit while permitting a much vaster repository of public-owned materials, and I think the key difference is fairness. This concept sounds a little naive, but one emotion which I believe drives piracy is the partly justified feeling that copyright has been abused. I agree that intellectual property exists, but perhaps property is indeed a misleading word, as it suggests something permanent and tangible. I also think it is important to point out that free access to someone's ideas is different from plagiarism. I would not have a problem with a book falling into public domain in a shorter time period, but there still needs to be recognition of the author's origination of the work in the academic world.
"Signs Arnold Schwarzenegger is Getting Older"
From THE LATE SHOW with DAVID LETTERMAN
10. He's been triggering explosions with The Clapper
9. After day of shooting action scenes, entire set smells like Ben Gay
8. Over two dozen times in T3, he says, "You'll have to speak up".
7. Instead of shooting bad guys, challenges them to $10 game of shuffleboard
6. For "Terminator 4," he's been replaced by Don Knotts
5. Recently switched from steroids to Metamucil
4. Special effects in latest movie provided by Sy Sperling
3. Bulging chest muscles really just a Wonderbra
2. Catch phrase changed from "I'll be back" to "Oh, my back!"
1. His stunt double: Bob Dole
Ken http://keneckert.byus.net
We seem to be getting a little off-topic here. As I said before, we can debate the ethics of filesharing until the cows come home. But it's not going to stop. So what's going to happen? Let's talk about that for a moment.
Worst-case scenario 1: The RIAA is suing the users with larger numbers of files. This is not out of any arbitrary distinction they make between givers and takers, but rather the low-hanging fruit. Give it time--maybe a few weeks--and the lawsuits will be extended, Agent Smith-like, to everybody.
WCS 2: Kazaa, Imesh, and major filesharing programs go down or are emptied of useful content. What happens? The posters who suggested that users will migrate to other forms of trading were right on. Look for an increase in encrypted and anonymous filesharing programs, or in alternative systems such as Mirc or Irc.
WCS 3: The RIAA becomes so efficient at destroying Zion--whoops, filesharing on the internet, that it disappears. What happens? Users might be able to return to non-internet transmission clubs, such as bulletin boards or other systems that conceivably don't involve ISPs.
WCS 4: The RIAA shuts all internet and telephone filesharing options down. What happens? People will trade mp3 CDs with their friends, and underground clubs will spring up. Copy-protected CDs will be transferred in analog. If new computers are built that won't do this--there's a mountain of used computers on the market that will last traders decades.
In short, again, I leave the question of whether filetrading is right or wrong to the theologians and lawyers (never thought I'd put them in the same sentence). The only truly useful tool the record companies had--convincing us that it's bad--won't work well from an industry that pricefixed CDs and sponsored bills to create hardware-destroying viruses. It's going to continue, and change is coming to the record companies whether they embrace it or fight it like dinosaurs sinking into the tarpits. Thus far, I'm betting on the tarpits.
Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net/wabbit ---- free mp3s of Ken's band
We seem to be getting a little off-topic here. As I said before, we can debate the ethics of filesharing until the cows come home. But it's not going to stop. So what's going to happen? Let's talk about that for a moment.
Worst-case scenario 1: The RIAA is suing the users with large file numbers. This is not out of any arbitrary distinction they make between givers and takers, but rather the low-hanging fruit. Give it time--maybe a few weeks--and the lawsuits will be extended, Agent Smith-like, to everybody.
WCS 2: Kazaa, Imesh, and major filesharing programs go down or are emptied of useful content. What happens? The posters who suggested that users will migrate to other forms of trading were right on. Look for an increase in encrypted and anonymous filesharing programs, or in alternative systems such as Mirc or Irc.
WCS 3: The RIAA becomes so efficient at destroying Zion--whoops, filesharing on the internet, that it disappears. What happens? Users might be able to return to non-internet transmission clubs, such as bulletin boards or other systems that conceivably don't involve ISPs.
WCS 4: The RIAA shuts all internet and telephone filesharing options down. What happens? People will trade mp3 CDs with their friends, and underground clubs will spring up. Copy-protected CDs will be transferred in analog. If new computers are built that won't do this--there's a mountain of used computers on the market that will last traders decades.
In short, again, I leave the question of whether filetrading is right or wrong to the theologians and lawyers (never thought I'd put them in the same sentence). The only truly useful tool the record companies had--convincing us that it's bad--won't work well from an industry that pricefixed CDs and sponsored bills to create hardware-destroying viruses. It's going to continue, and change is coming to the record companies whether they embrace it or fight it like dinosaurs sinking into the tarpits. So far, I'm betting on the tarpits.
Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net/wabbit ---- free mp3s of Ken's band
We seem to be getting off topic in this thread, going back to defending/attacking filesharing itself. I'm puzzled reading the news article. Why is Kazaa doing this? They give no real mission statement or reason for wanting to become an 'official' distributor of media, whatever that is. There's nothing on their website. There can't possibly be a good outcome from Kazaa's efforts to reach this Faustian deal. Even if an agreement is reached with record companies, it will be so tailored to their interests that users will quickly migrate to whatever new free filesharing utility is out, and they'll be in the history bin along with Napster. Then why does Kazaa want to do this? If they feel the future is in paid-for file transfers, they betray the principles they had in launching the software (they don't approve of transferring copyright materials--Please!). Do they honestly expect to make money off this? Or are they suddenly filled with conscience and a yearing for industry respect? We can debate all we want about the ethics of file transferring. It will go on until the day the internet is shut down, and after then we'll trade burned mp3 CDs with our friends. The only way we'll see 'official' file-transfer sites is when they're free, or so cheap that people will pay to avoid the nuisance. I still think it's possible for record companies to make money off free music; radio stations do it for them every day. But for this to happen, there will have to be a quantum leap in how record companies view this technology, and Kazaa for now is wasting their time and credibility hoping for that to happen. Or am I missing something? Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net/wabbit--- You can click here to listen to mp3s from my band. Maybe it's awful music, but it's free, and no focus group told me how to record it.:>
We seem to be getting off topic in this thread, going back to defending/attacking filesharing itself. I'm puzzled reading the news article. Why is Kazaa doing this? They give no real mission statement or reason for wanting to become an 'official' distributor of media, whatever that is. There's nothing on their website.
There can't possibly be a good outcome from Kazaa's efforts to reach this Faustian deal. Even if an agreement is reached with record companies, it will be so tailored to their interests that users will quickly migrate to whatever new free filesharing utility is out, and they'll be in the history bin along with Napster.
Then why does Kazaa want to do this? If they feel the future is in paid-for file transfers, they betray the principles they had in launching the software (they don't approve of transferring copyright materials--Please!). Do they honestly expect to make money off this? Or are they suddenly filled with conscience and a yearing for industry respect?
We can debate all we want about the ethics of file transferring. It will go on until the day the internet is shut down, and after then we'll trade burned mp3 CDs with our friends. The only way we'll see 'official' file-transfer sites is when they're free, or so cheap that people will pay to avoid the nuisance.
I still think it's possible for record companies to make money off free music; radio stations do it for them every day. But for this to happen, there will have to be a quantum leap in how record companies view this technology, and Kazaa for now is wasting their time and credibility hoping for that to happen. Or am I missing something?
Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net/wabbit--- You can click here to listen to mp3s from my band. Maybe it's awful music, but it's free, and no focus group told me how to record it.:>
I find it odd that artists are bringing up the excuse that they don't like people keeping individual songs, out of the context of the complete album. What do they think radio stations do?
The other factor which needs mentioning is that the album format itself is still quite new. Until the mid-60s, all music was sold in single format--and early LPs were simply compilations of older singles. The 70s was the time of the concept album, but this obviously isn't the norm anymore. It's been a while since 'The Lamb lies down on Broadway'.
It would help if artists called a spade a spade and admitted it's about the money. They have a point, as we are cutting into their bread and butter. But then again, any artist with the sort of clout to make this an issue, and who has enough money that they can risk attacking their own fans, will have a hard time generating sympathy.
Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net
It's a little silly to make too much of this. Record store chains are constantly coming and going. As a boy in Canada, I remember Kelly's, Mr. Sound, Sam the Record Man... all gone. Some were eaten by Wal-Mart, others were simply badly run and were replaced by something else.
The RIAA gestapo will certainly attempt to build a link between the failure of record chains and filesharing, but it has little to do with people buying more or fewer CDs.
CDs were even more outrageously overpriced in the 80s, but at that time CD sales were much higher as people were replacing their old LP collections. Funny how the record companies no longer talk about that phenomena when whining why people aren't buying their latest releases by The Backsync Boys or one of the 17 bands who sound like Pearl Jam.
Ken:> Ken's band: http://keneckert.byus.net/wabbit
>I don't get it. Don't pirate anything, AND pay for not pirating anything.
The same thing happened in Canada several years ago when a CD levy went on blank CDs--we paid a penalty for the pirating we're not allowed to do. And half the people in my dorm building who hadn't previously used filesharers said, "If we're doing the time, we're entitled to the crime" and started downloading and burning away. I sure did; I was paying a license fee to record my own original music.
I'll say it again: treating your customers like criminals is an unworkable business strategy. And making laws that a majority of your citizens don't think are fair undermines the laws that are fair.
Ken:> http://keneckert.byus.net
It reminds me of an old expression. Replacing the head of the RIAA is like moving around the deck chairs on the Titanic. The internet is only ten years old, and we haven't begun to see its impact. I'm maybe more optimistic than most when I predict that at some point the RIAA is going to admit defeat. No industry has ever thrived--ever--by waging war against its customers. At some time the RIAA will accept that mp3s are simply a part of the scene just like radio is, and we won't care any longer who heads the organization. At least I hope this happens. Ken:>
>The conclusion I have come to is that the Roswell case is a conglomeration of multiple accounts of unrelated occurences occuring over the span of ten years that were later cobbled together into a single, misinformed account.
This is excellent writing. Thank you for the voice of sanity. I often wonder how the same government which can't balance a budget, and can't hide from the public either bugged party offices or intern oral sex, is capable of covering up Kennedy's FBI assassination, a faked moon landing, and space aliens. This is not a criticism of the American government, rather the reality that they are human beings like us who make mistakes.
I agree with a previous poster who claimed that the desire to believe in conspiracies alleviates some from accepting that life can be unpredictable and tragic--one loony can, in fact, go out and kill the president. I do not think that condemning those who have religious belief for the same reason is a good comparison. Believing that God has a personal and historical relationship with man, and being in a community with extensive written records of this relationship going back thousands of years, is not the same as believing Elvis is alive because the Midnight Star says so. If one doesn't believe, fine, but I don't think the situation is equivalent.
Ken:>