"The sad reality is that most bands have to give up their copyrights to the record company to get their first record deals. That's why some of the early Beatles songs are owned by Michael Jackson and not the Beatles themselves."
Not hardly. The Beatles were making too much money on royalties and were losing 90% of their income to taxes (the UK does not, or at least did not, have the caps on personal income tax that US residents enjoy). So, they formed Northern Songs as a corporation to manage the publishing rights, so the revenue would be capital gains, rather than income. This was a tax dodge created by the Beatles themselves well after their first record deal, and the record company had nothing to do with it.
And keep in mind that we're talking about the publishing rights to the Beatles songs, not the recordings. Even when artists do own the publishing rights (and many, if not most, do), artists still typically don't have the right to distribute recordings on their own -- those rights are owned by the record label.
"Current works are built of previous works as a matter of necessity. So calling music distributors thieves is not simply "hot headed". It's simply taking EVERYTHING into account. People build on the works of others and the expect exclusive ownership."
They expect exclusive ownership of the recordings which they produce. The artist maintains the copyright on the words and music, assuming that they wrote them. There's a big difference between a piece of paper with some words on it, and a finished recording of same. It often takes a lot of money to turn those words into a complete album, and that's why the record companies insist on having exclusive distribution rights: so they can make their money back.
"Now the RIAA is trying to interfere with one of it's artists that has realized that pirates are a damn good distribution medium. This situation simply highlights the fact that artists have no real control over their work anymore."
A finished CD is the end result of the work of a lot of people.
If Trent Reznor and crew produced and funded the recordings themselves (which they may have) and then signed over the distribution rights to a record company, perhaps that was a mistake -- instead, perhaps NIN should have started their own record company. Lots of established artists do.
I certainly understand that it would work much better for the artists if the record companies were to put up the cash to produce the music, without any sort of agreement that they would get the exclusive rights to distribute that music. It would be tough to make this work as a for-profit business. There are plenty of smaller record companies that don't want to own the masters or even have exclusive distribution rights, but the musicians have to pony up the cash to produce the music themselves.
"who owns these songs? I rather suspect it isn't the artists any more."
I don't know the details of NIN's contract, but generally the people who wrote the words and music own the words and music, and the people who funded and produced the recording own the recording.
There are several record labels for which SOP is for the artists to own the masters, but -- and this is very important -- the artist must pay for and arrange for the production of those masters themselves. Magnatunes comes to mind here, but there are several others.
I think what a lot of Slashdotters would like to see is a record company that provides the cash and the expertise for producing the recordings, and then lets the artist have the rights to the masters to use as they see fit without worrying about the record company recouping its investment. This would be absolutely great for artists... it would be like finding a rich uncle or a bank that would give you a loan and never expect to be paid back.
"Yes, in this case the label was ok with the distribution, and therefore RIAA should not have taken any action, but the article summary completely missed this point."
We should keep in mind that this statement is attributed to "a source." It's important to point out that "Anonymous guy says the label was OK with the distribution" != "the label was OK with the distribution." Anonymous guy might be mistaken, or might even be fibbing in an effort to draw sympathy, make the label look bad, or any of a number of other reasons.
"So you're opposed to people talking to other people on the airplane too huh? Seriously, its irrelevant that the person is using a cell-phone. The experience is the same so far as you are concerned is the same as if they were talking to someone in-person."
Can you elaborate? People generally find mobile phone conversations to be more annoying than in-person conversations between two strangers; it's been scientifically documented. I'm not sure where you're going with your statement that the experience is the same -- it's that difference in the experience that's responsible for the additional annoyance.
"Cheaper than most CD's? Where do you shop, Best Buy? I don't remember paying more than $10 for a music CD any time in the last decade."
The phrase usually mentioned on Slashdot is the "$20 for a CD." Not in the sense of "I used to have to pay $20 for a CD; at least they're down to $13 or so nowadays," but usually in the context of "How dare the record companies charge $20 for a CD!* This give me the moral justification to acquire my music with BiTTorrent**."
"what you described is not DRM. simple password-based authentication cannot be construed as DRM without the term losing all meaning."
I manage the rights to my *nix box digitally, through the use of a password. It's DRM. So is the use of passwords on your personal PC, as well as security software that scrambles your data, as well as your PIN codes. It's your digital data, and you're protecting your rights to your data. You don't want it copied or misused any more than that guy at the record company wants his to be copied or misused.
I am aware that the term DRM is most commonly applied to the other guy's data; it certainly makes the "DRM is evil and has no useful purpose" credo more appropriate. But we all use DRM every day with our own data as well. It's grayer than many of us would like to think.
"Yes, Steve Jobs may be a publicity hog. Why shouldn't he be? Good for him as long as it's good for Apple. It's impossible for us to say how sincere Steve Jobs' editorial was, but I'm sure it has more to do with the European antitrust issues than anything else. (Hey, it's not my fault, go bug the record companies)."
A good test of his sincerity will be whether iTunes starts selling the Disney/Pixar films in a DRM-free format which one can easily burn to CD or move to a non-iPod player. Steve Jobs certainly has the pull to make this happen.
There are also "iTunes exclusive" music tracks which are not produced by the record companies. I'm thinking of the "Live at KCRW" stuff; I'm sure there are other examples. I don't think that KCRW, a public radio station in the LA area, is insisting that their iTunes tracks be distributed with DRM. But they are, so there ya go. If we see this changing in a few weeks, it will be more evidence of Steve Jobs' sincerity.
"It's generally very difficult to defend any overly broad generalisation. On the other hand, I think I'd find it quite easy to defend the notion that DRM is almost universally bad."
Another example: I use a form of DRM (password protection) on the *nix box that holds my web site. I do this because my web site is my revenue stream, and I would like to prevent people from either copying my code (yeah, I subscribe to that ancient "closed source" model) or sabotaging my web site.
I grant that I'm probably the only person on the planet for whom it's a good thing that my server has a password (well, and my site's customers as well, were somebody to take down my site). On the other hand, there are undoubtedly tens of thousands (or more) hackers, crackers, or just plain "information loves to be free" advocates who would like to be able to get into my server to copy the code or to crash it. So, I'm outnumbered by a wide margin, and thus I grant that DRM is "almost universally bad" in this case. But it's good for ME, and since it's my server, that's what counts.
"It's because the U.S. government effectively makes money when people hoard them and thus take them out of circulation."
Interesting; the government typically wants us to spend money. If you spend that Sacajawea you get from the stamp machine rather than hiding it away, you'll likely pay sales tax on the item you buy with it, and the person you buy it from will pay income tax on the sale. Various governments might get up to half of that buck back.
On a macro level, when people stop circulating money, the economy slows down. I don't see how encouraging people to hoard dollar coins would be beneficial to the government.
"Promoting a new small business is not a new challenge. Musicians can do what other businesses do; take a small business loan, and use that to pay for marketing and promotion services by a promotion company. That would be much preferable to the current system where all of a band's output is owned by the label, and they get a few pence in the pound back from sales."
Taking out a bank loan and doing it yourself is a good proposition for that subset of musicians who (a) qualify for a bank loan in the first place, and (b) are able to repay the loan. For the rest... that's why record companies still fill a need. The record companies are evil and all, but if you get a record company to pay the costs of producing and marketing your CD, they take the loss if it fails. Banks are not nearly so forgiving and can do some incredibly nasty things to you if you default.
"Internet promotion is not to be sneezed at either (just look at the Arctic Monkeys) and that's virtually free!"
I am of the understanding that the Arctic Monkeys are an exceptional example of self-promotion using the Internet -- similar to the "results not typical" examples one sees in weight loss commercials.
"Please tell me again why we *need* labels? It's reasonably straightforward for an artist to record, mix, produce, and market a song, album, ringtone, or whatever. Even I could do a reasonable job, and I'm certainly not even a "prosumer.""
I'll admit upfront that most people reading this won't believe me, but:
Many musicians do not want to be mixers, producers, and marketers.
Many musicians do not have the skill set to be good mixers, producers, and marketers.
...and, as a result, there are still artists out there (call them ignorant dumbfucks if you like, but they're out there) who seek assistance. There's a big gap between a sheet of music and lyrics and a finished, produced, and distributed track, and some musicians simply want or need help bridging that gap.
The record industry is just one of innumerable industries which provide a service. Some people need 'em, some don't. It's a similar story with plumbers, accountants, hair salons, designers (of all stripes), and many, many other professions: you probably don't need them, but you might find it worthwhile to use them from time to time. And even if you're this totally amazing Renaissance Person who has the time, patience, aptitude and desire do all of that yourself (in addition to recording, mixing, producing and marketing music), you probably know somebody who doesn't.
It's a common Slashdot meme that the recording industry will go out of business really soon. The trouble is, this meme has been going strong for ten years now. If we simply sit back and say it will happen, it won't. It will only happen when this industry no longer serves a purpose.
You (yes, I mean YOU) can make this happen by volunteering to record, mix, produce and market music for your favorite unsigned artist. Pull the rug out from under the record industry by doing it yourself. And, do it at no charge -- at least, do it for less than the record company would charge. If you don't, then the record labels will step in, and the meme will go unfulfilled.
A future without record labels can happen... but we need to make it happen.
"Why does Apple get to dictate the price of the iPod?"
Apple has a MAP program. You can sell iPods for less; you just can't advertise them for less if you expect to get any support (cash or otherwise) from Apple.
Fry's gets around this. They'll run newspaper ads in which they state that the price of the iPod is $X and that you'll get a $Y rebate, but they stop short of the usual step of pointing out that your final price is $X - $Y.
By the way, Universal Music tried doing a similar MAP program with Tower Records a few years back, and Best Buy and Wal-Mart put a stop to that real fast. We all got settlement checks from Universal, and Tower eventually went out of business. Great news for anybody who doesn't like record companies, subscribes to "what's good for Wal-Mart is good for the country," and doesn't particularly mind the slow death of the indie music retailer at the hands of outfits like Best Buy and Wal-Mart which can afford to use CDs as loss leaders.
"Generally, copyright infringement is limited to actual damages + expenses (atty. fees). In this case, it will be $800 (what you would have paid for these images) + attorneys' billable hours + cost of long distance calls (if any - they may have informed their lawyers via email). This is far, far less than $25,000."
You're lucky. FWIW, here in the US, statutory damages also apply (S504(c), if anybody's interested). The range is $750 to $30K, per the court's discretion. I believe the maximum statutory damages per case are $150K.
"As much as the RIAA has stirred up resentment for attempting to keep the status quo at all costs, including alienating the record buyer, I pretty sure that this poll was done before Halliburton announced that they're moving their headquarters to Dubai."
Consumerist blogspam shows up on Digg all the time; with such a small sample size, the list of finalists is not suprising. The home page of digg has even more RIAA coverage then/. (and the RIAA articles are often humorously interleaved with articles about BitTorrent), and Best Buy and Wal-Mart have gotten lots of coverage on Digg lately, too. That's what the Digg populace cares about. Haliburton? Not so much.
Of course Haliburton is more evil than the RIAA and Best Buy -- jokes aside, Haliburton is actually responsible for deaths -- but they're a more abstract evil to the typical Digg reader. When Haliburton or Best Buy start shutting down torrent sites, that'll change.
"Yes. It was good enough for them, it's good enough for you."
Folks in the 19th century didn't have P2P apps, high-speed connections, iPods, and CD burners. It was good enough for them. Is it good enough for you, too?
"Wow, I guess if one musician from one band can do it, so can everyone else. And this whole 'sing for dinner' thing gets me. So what you're saying is the only way I should be able to make money off my music is to somehow travel your town, perform for you, and hopefully sell you a T-Shirt? So my method of making income as a musician should be limited to what 19th century musicians did?"
You've pretty much nailed it. A popular meme is that we are entitled to enriching our lives with technology (P2P and ever-faster Internet connections), but if you want to, why then you're just being a whiner. Shakespeare didn't need copyright protection*, and wasn't in it for the money**, so what's your problem?
"Of all the assumptions you could make, this is probably one of the safest."
In general, yes (PT Barnum was certainly correct), but in this case, it's a false assumption. I have never -- not once -- met somebody who was confused by my use of the term "software piracy."
"Has anyone ever traced the origins of the term "pirate" with regard to un-licensed informational products? I wonder if its origins have ever been really well researched, because it's probably too late now to ever change it."
Good dictionaries, like the OED, feature etymologies. The OED entry gives some examples of uses going back to the 18th century. From there, if you have access to a sufficiently large library, you may be able to find the original sources.
"I suspect that the generation of young people growing up now are going to, on hearing the word 'pirate,' think first of a hot copy of Photoshop, and only second of a smelly guy with a knife clutched in his teeth. So there's no getting rid of it now."
The English language has so many homonyms and homophones that most capable English speakers can understand the definition being used based on the context. For instance, nobody thinks of parrots when they see the phrase "software piracy," nor do they think of software when they see the phrase "pirates of the carribean." Likewise, if you see the word "bark" in a sentence, you'll quickly be able to tell whether it's referring to dogs or trees by the context.
Either way, I can assure you that in the late 70's (when I was in to pirating software) there was no confusion; people were generally clear that the word had multiple definitions. And, as the word's definition is nearly 300 years old, it's safe to assume that there was no confusion among earlier generations, either.
So, in response to your query about the likelihood of changing the definition, my question is why you think it should be changed.
"...so what's the prospect for making **AA officials and the congresspeople they've purchased stop calling unauthorized copying "theft", "piracy", etc.?"
The use of "theft" is just people taking liberty with that word (as we do in "theft of service" and variants like "you stole my idea," "stealing one's thunder" and "stolen kisses," which also don't hold up under the usual Slashdot scrutiny). Unfortunately, a lot of people just like colorful uses of English language, even if it's technically incorrect.
But to get people to stop using the word "piracy" is tilting at windmills. It's recorded in the OED as well as countless other dictionaries, and has had the relevant meaning for hundreds of years. But why would you want to change it? Why not fly the jolly roger proudly? Thepiratebay certainly does, and there are many, many software pirates who proudly use that word. It's only a pejorative word if you let it be.
The best argument I've heard here for changing the definition of "piracy" is that people may confuse it with the other meanings of the world. This assumes that most people aren't very smart; it makes about as much sense as changing the meaning of the word "bark" because of the assumption that people will get trees and dogs confused. If anybody here is really avoiding calling themselves a "music downloader" or a "software downloader" rather than a "music pirate" or "software pirate" because you think you'll confuse your audience if you use the latter... you're probably mistaken.
I know it's somewhat common on Slashdot to underestimate the intelligence of the common person... but trust me on this: if you tell people that you're a music pirate, they won't think that you have a parrot and an eye patch. People understand the meaning of the word.
"After they pulled that patent crap on Carmack who _invented_ Carmack's reverse!"
Trouble is, Creative invented it before John Carmack did. I've no doubt that Carmack came up with it individually, and it's fine that it's called "Carmack's reverse," since he did think of it, but he was not the first to think of it. He was beaten by several years. That sort of stuff happens.
She's been ejected from courtrooms by judges and attacked in a hallway by a convicted child molester she was trying to capture on film. She's been arrested in Wisconsin for refusing to turn over her video equipment to a police officer and detained at the Colorado Springs Airport because she forgot to remove a.380-caliber pistol from her carry-on items.
"It's simpler than that. The rest of us apply for a job, and then do the work required for money delivered. Muscicans and such do things backwards: they do the job then whine when somebody uses the service already performed without paying for it. Then they want "protections" so they can do things backwards. Well, reality recently caught up with content makers. Either switch to a "Agree to pay, do work, then pay" like everybody else does, or shut up."
I can understand why the guy who goes to the factory to assemble lawn mowers might have the level of hate and/or jealousy that you describe, but the question was about the tech community. Lots of us dream of launching the next big web site, or writing the next killer app, or possibly even getting a patent under our name. Why do we hate musicians, yet look up to the people who sell a big idea to Yahoo! or come up with a web site that makes them recurring income?
I'm also surprised by your comment because the tech community tends to pay fairly well, I don't think we're all in a financial position where we're not able to save or invest. I made money on my savings accounts and my house overnight. I'm sorry if you're not in a similar financial position. If that's the case, do you have the same disdain for people with investment income as you do for people who use their creativity to make money? Shall we go build lawn mowers, instead?
"But the majority of the people in the US isnt on their side."
Bullshit. If somebody has that magical combination of talent, hard work and luck to produce a song of a movie that I want to see, then more power to 'em. Lots of people feel the same way. I concede that perhaps most of your friends have a firm anti-musician stance, but trust me: a lot of people simply don't care, and even more people actually have no problem with musicians making money by selling CDs. You'll have a hard time proving your "majority of the people in the US" claim.
"Copying a piece of software does not deprive the owner of anything if you aren't selling it afterwards and weren't going to pay for it anyways."
This is one of my favorite tautologies. Fast networks and easy-to-use P2P software allows us to get our hands on lots of stuff we weren't going to pay for anyway. And the reason why we wouldn't pay for it anyway is because it's readily available due to fast networks and easy-to-use P2P software.
"I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" is a good general-purpose magic bullet against any tinge of guilt over one's piracy possibly having a negative financial impact on somebody else. The best thing is that it's entirely the pirate's prerogative to claim that they wouldn't have bought it anyway -- and it's the desire to pirate and the means to pirate that create the "wouldn't have bought it" condition.
Slashdot Mirror
"The sad reality is that most bands have to give up their copyrights to the record company to get their first record deals. That's why some of the early Beatles songs are owned by Michael Jackson and not the Beatles themselves."
Not hardly. The Beatles were making too much money on royalties and were losing 90% of their income to taxes (the UK does not, or at least did not, have the caps on personal income tax that US residents enjoy). So, they formed Northern Songs as a corporation to manage the publishing rights, so the revenue would be capital gains, rather than income. This was a tax dodge created by the Beatles themselves well after their first record deal, and the record company had nothing to do with it.
And keep in mind that we're talking about the publishing rights to the Beatles songs, not the recordings. Even when artists do own the publishing rights (and many, if not most, do), artists still typically don't have the right to distribute recordings on their own -- those rights are owned by the record label.
"Current works are built of previous works as a matter of necessity. So calling music distributors thieves is not simply "hot headed". It's simply taking EVERYTHING into account. People build on the works of others and the expect exclusive ownership."
They expect exclusive ownership of the recordings which they produce. The artist maintains the copyright on the words and music, assuming that they wrote them. There's a big difference between a piece of paper with some words on it, and a finished recording of same. It often takes a lot of money to turn those words into a complete album, and that's why the record companies insist on having exclusive distribution rights: so they can make their money back.
"Now the RIAA is trying to interfere with one of it's artists that has realized that pirates are a damn good distribution medium. This situation simply highlights the fact that artists have no real control over their work anymore."
A finished CD is the end result of the work of a lot of people.
If Trent Reznor and crew produced and funded the recordings themselves (which they may have) and then signed over the distribution rights to a record company, perhaps that was a mistake -- instead, perhaps NIN should have started their own record company. Lots of established artists do.
I certainly understand that it would work much better for the artists if the record companies were to put up the cash to produce the music, without any sort of agreement that they would get the exclusive rights to distribute that music. It would be tough to make this work as a for-profit business. There are plenty of smaller record companies that don't want to own the masters or even have exclusive distribution rights, but the musicians have to pony up the cash to produce the music themselves.
"who owns these songs? I rather suspect it isn't the artists any more."
I don't know the details of NIN's contract, but generally the people who wrote the words and music own the words and music, and the people who funded and produced the recording own the recording.
There are several record labels for which SOP is for the artists to own the masters, but -- and this is very important -- the artist must pay for and arrange for the production of those masters themselves. Magnatunes comes to mind here, but there are several others.
I think what a lot of Slashdotters would like to see is a record company that provides the cash and the expertise for producing the recordings, and then lets the artist have the rights to the masters to use as they see fit without worrying about the record company recouping its investment. This would be absolutely great for artists... it would be like finding a rich uncle or a bank that would give you a loan and never expect to be paid back.
"Yes, in this case the label was ok with the distribution, and therefore RIAA should not have taken any action, but the article summary completely missed this point."
We should keep in mind that this statement is attributed to "a source." It's important to point out that "Anonymous guy says the label was OK with the distribution" != "the label was OK with the distribution." Anonymous guy might be mistaken, or might even be fibbing in an effort to draw sympathy, make the label look bad, or any of a number of other reasons.
"So you're opposed to people talking to other people on the airplane too huh? Seriously, its irrelevant that the person is using a cell-phone. The experience is the same so far as you are concerned is the same as if they were talking to someone in-person."
Can you elaborate? People generally find mobile phone conversations to be more annoying than in-person conversations between two strangers; it's been scientifically documented. I'm not sure where you're going with your statement that the experience is the same -- it's that difference in the experience that's responsible for the additional annoyance.
"Cheaper than most CD's? Where do you shop, Best Buy? I don't remember paying more than $10 for a music CD any time in the last decade."
The phrase usually mentioned on Slashdot is the "$20 for a CD." Not in the sense of "I used to have to pay $20 for a CD; at least they're down to $13 or so nowadays," but usually in the context of "How dare the record companies charge $20 for a CD!* This give me the moral justification to acquire my music with BiTTorrent**."
* Not true. ** Not true, either.
"what you described is not DRM. simple password-based authentication cannot be construed as DRM without the term losing all meaning."
I manage the rights to my *nix box digitally, through the use of a password. It's DRM. So is the use of passwords on your personal PC, as well as security software that scrambles your data, as well as your PIN codes. It's your digital data, and you're protecting your rights to your data. You don't want it copied or misused any more than that guy at the record company wants his to be copied or misused.
I am aware that the term DRM is most commonly applied to the other guy's data; it certainly makes the "DRM is evil and has no useful purpose" credo more appropriate. But we all use DRM every day with our own data as well. It's grayer than many of us would like to think.
"Yes, Steve Jobs may be a publicity hog. Why shouldn't he be? Good for him as long as it's good for Apple. It's impossible for us to say how sincere Steve Jobs' editorial was, but I'm sure it has more to do with the European antitrust issues than anything else. (Hey, it's not my fault, go bug the record companies)."
A good test of his sincerity will be whether iTunes starts selling the Disney/Pixar films in a DRM-free format which one can easily burn to CD or move to a non-iPod player. Steve Jobs certainly has the pull to make this happen.
There are also "iTunes exclusive" music tracks which are not produced by the record companies. I'm thinking of the "Live at KCRW" stuff; I'm sure there are other examples. I don't think that KCRW, a public radio station in the LA area, is insisting that their iTunes tracks be distributed with DRM. But they are, so there ya go. If we see this changing in a few weeks, it will be more evidence of Steve Jobs' sincerity.
"It's generally very difficult to defend any overly broad generalisation. On the other hand, I think I'd find it quite easy to defend the notion that DRM is almost universally bad."
Another example: I use a form of DRM (password protection) on the *nix box that holds my web site. I do this because my web site is my revenue stream, and I would like to prevent people from either copying my code (yeah, I subscribe to that ancient "closed source" model) or sabotaging my web site.
I grant that I'm probably the only person on the planet for whom it's a good thing that my server has a password (well, and my site's customers as well, were somebody to take down my site). On the other hand, there are undoubtedly tens of thousands (or more) hackers, crackers, or just plain "information loves to be free" advocates who would like to be able to get into my server to copy the code or to crash it. So, I'm outnumbered by a wide margin, and thus I grant that DRM is "almost universally bad" in this case. But it's good for ME, and since it's my server, that's what counts.
"It's because the U.S. government effectively makes money when people hoard them and thus take them out of circulation."
Interesting; the government typically wants us to spend money. If you spend that Sacajawea you get from the stamp machine rather than hiding it away, you'll likely pay sales tax on the item you buy with it, and the person you buy it from will pay income tax on the sale. Various governments might get up to half of that buck back.
On a macro level, when people stop circulating money, the economy slows down. I don't see how encouraging people to hoard dollar coins would be beneficial to the government.
LaLa Girl, who was profiled in the LA Times article, has her blog here.
"Promoting a new small business is not a new challenge. Musicians can do what other businesses do; take a small business loan, and use that to pay for marketing and promotion services by a promotion company. That would be much preferable to the current system where all of a band's output is owned by the label, and they get a few pence in the pound back from sales."
Taking out a bank loan and doing it yourself is a good proposition for that subset of musicians who (a) qualify for a bank loan in the first place, and (b) are able to repay the loan. For the rest... that's why record companies still fill a need. The record companies are evil and all, but if you get a record company to pay the costs of producing and marketing your CD, they take the loss if it fails. Banks are not nearly so forgiving and can do some incredibly nasty things to you if you default.
"Internet promotion is not to be sneezed at either (just look at the Arctic Monkeys) and that's virtually free!"
I am of the understanding that the Arctic Monkeys are an exceptional example of self-promotion using the Internet -- similar to the "results not typical" examples one sees in weight loss commercials.
"Please tell me again why we *need* labels? It's reasonably straightforward for an artist to record, mix, produce, and market a song, album, ringtone, or whatever. Even I could do a reasonable job, and I'm certainly not even a "prosumer.""
I'll admit upfront that most people reading this won't believe me, but:
...and, as a result, there are still artists out there (call them ignorant dumbfucks if you like, but they're out there) who seek assistance. There's a big gap between a sheet of music and lyrics and a finished, produced, and distributed track, and some musicians simply want or need help bridging that gap.
The record industry is just one of innumerable industries which provide a service. Some people need 'em, some don't. It's a similar story with plumbers, accountants, hair salons, designers (of all stripes), and many, many other professions: you probably don't need them, but you might find it worthwhile to use them from time to time. And even if you're this totally amazing Renaissance Person who has the time, patience, aptitude and desire do all of that yourself (in addition to recording, mixing, producing and marketing music), you probably know somebody who doesn't.
It's a common Slashdot meme that the recording industry will go out of business really soon. The trouble is, this meme has been going strong for ten years now. If we simply sit back and say it will happen, it won't. It will only happen when this industry no longer serves a purpose.
You (yes, I mean YOU) can make this happen by volunteering to record, mix, produce and market music for your favorite unsigned artist. Pull the rug out from under the record industry by doing it yourself. And, do it at no charge -- at least, do it for less than the record company would charge. If you don't, then the record labels will step in, and the meme will go unfulfilled.
A future without record labels can happen... but we need to make it happen.
"Why does Apple get to dictate the price of the iPod?"
Apple has a MAP program. You can sell iPods for less; you just can't advertise them for less if you expect to get any support (cash or otherwise) from Apple.
Fry's gets around this. They'll run newspaper ads in which they state that the price of the iPod is $X and that you'll get a $Y rebate, but they stop short of the usual step of pointing out that your final price is $X - $Y.
By the way, Universal Music tried doing a similar MAP program with Tower Records a few years back, and Best Buy and Wal-Mart put a stop to that real fast. We all got settlement checks from Universal, and Tower eventually went out of business. Great news for anybody who doesn't like record companies, subscribes to "what's good for Wal-Mart is good for the country," and doesn't particularly mind the slow death of the indie music retailer at the hands of outfits like Best Buy and Wal-Mart which can afford to use CDs as loss leaders.
"Generally, copyright infringement is limited to actual damages + expenses (atty. fees). In this case, it will be $800 (what you would have paid for these images) + attorneys' billable hours + cost of long distance calls (if any - they may have informed their lawyers via email). This is far, far less than $25,000."
You're lucky. FWIW, here in the US, statutory damages also apply (S504(c), if anybody's interested). The range is $750 to $30K, per the court's discretion. I believe the maximum statutory damages per case are $150K.
"As much as the RIAA has stirred up resentment for attempting to keep the status quo at all costs, including alienating the record buyer, I pretty sure that this poll was done before Halliburton announced that they're moving their headquarters to Dubai."
Consumerist blogspam shows up on Digg all the time; with such a small sample size, the list of finalists is not suprising. The home page of digg has even more RIAA coverage then /. (and the RIAA articles are often humorously interleaved with articles about BitTorrent), and Best Buy and Wal-Mart have gotten lots of coverage on Digg lately, too. That's what the Digg populace cares about. Haliburton? Not so much.
Of course Haliburton is more evil than the RIAA and Best Buy -- jokes aside, Haliburton is actually responsible for deaths -- but they're a more abstract evil to the typical Digg reader. When Haliburton or Best Buy start shutting down torrent sites, that'll change.
"Yes. It was good enough for them, it's good enough for you."
Folks in the 19th century didn't have P2P apps, high-speed connections, iPods, and CD burners. It was good enough for them. Is it good enough for you, too?
"Wow, I guess if one musician from one band can do it, so can everyone else. And this whole 'sing for dinner' thing gets me. So what you're saying is the only way I should be able to make money off my music is to somehow travel your town, perform for you, and hopefully sell you a T-Shirt? So my method of making income as a musician should be limited to what 19th century musicians did?"
You've pretty much nailed it. A popular meme is that we are entitled to enriching our lives with technology (P2P and ever-faster Internet connections), but if you want to, why then you're just being a whiner. Shakespeare didn't need copyright protection*, and wasn't in it for the money**, so what's your problem?
* Not actually true.
** Not actually true, either.
"Of all the assumptions you could make, this is probably one of the safest."
In general, yes (PT Barnum was certainly correct), but in this case, it's a false assumption. I have never -- not once -- met somebody who was confused by my use of the term "software piracy."
"Has anyone ever traced the origins of the term "pirate" with regard to un-licensed informational products? I wonder if its origins have ever been really well researched, because it's probably too late now to ever change it."
Good dictionaries, like the OED, feature etymologies. The OED entry gives some examples of uses going back to the 18th century. From there, if you have access to a sufficiently large library, you may be able to find the original sources.
"I suspect that the generation of young people growing up now are going to, on hearing the word 'pirate,' think first of a hot copy of Photoshop, and only second of a smelly guy with a knife clutched in his teeth. So there's no getting rid of it now."
The English language has so many homonyms and homophones that most capable English speakers can understand the definition being used based on the context. For instance, nobody thinks of parrots when they see the phrase "software piracy," nor do they think of software when they see the phrase "pirates of the carribean." Likewise, if you see the word "bark" in a sentence, you'll quickly be able to tell whether it's referring to dogs or trees by the context.
Either way, I can assure you that in the late 70's (when I was in to pirating software) there was no confusion; people were generally clear that the word had multiple definitions. And, as the word's definition is nearly 300 years old, it's safe to assume that there was no confusion among earlier generations, either.
So, in response to your query about the likelihood of changing the definition, my question is why you think it should be changed.
"...so what's the prospect for making **AA officials and the congresspeople they've purchased stop calling unauthorized copying "theft", "piracy", etc.?"
The use of "theft" is just people taking liberty with that word (as we do in "theft of service" and variants like "you stole my idea," "stealing one's thunder" and "stolen kisses," which also don't hold up under the usual Slashdot scrutiny). Unfortunately, a lot of people just like colorful uses of English language, even if it's technically incorrect.
But to get people to stop using the word "piracy" is tilting at windmills. It's recorded in the OED as well as countless other dictionaries, and has had the relevant meaning for hundreds of years. But why would you want to change it? Why not fly the jolly roger proudly? Thepiratebay certainly does, and there are many, many software pirates who proudly use that word. It's only a pejorative word if you let it be.
The best argument I've heard here for changing the definition of "piracy" is that people may confuse it with the other meanings of the world. This assumes that most people aren't very smart; it makes about as much sense as changing the meaning of the word "bark" because of the assumption that people will get trees and dogs confused. If anybody here is really avoiding calling themselves a "music downloader" or a "software downloader" rather than a "music pirate" or "software pirate" because you think you'll confuse your audience if you use the latter... you're probably mistaken.
I know it's somewhat common on Slashdot to underestimate the intelligence of the common person... but trust me on this: if you tell people that you're a music pirate, they won't think that you have a parrot and an eye patch. People understand the meaning of the word.
"After they pulled that patent crap on Carmack who _invented_ Carmack's reverse!"
Trouble is, Creative invented it before John Carmack did. I've no doubt that Carmack came up with it individually, and it's fine that it's called "Carmack's reverse," since he did think of it, but he was not the first to think of it. He was beaten by several years. That sort of stuff happens.
"It's simpler than that. The rest of us apply for a job, and then do the work required for money delivered. Muscicans and such do things backwards: they do the job then whine when somebody uses the service already performed without paying for it. Then they want "protections" so they can do things backwards. Well, reality recently caught up with content makers. Either switch to a "Agree to pay, do work, then pay" like everybody else does, or shut up."
I can understand why the guy who goes to the factory to assemble lawn mowers might have the level of hate and/or jealousy that you describe, but the question was about the tech community. Lots of us dream of launching the next big web site, or writing the next killer app, or possibly even getting a patent under our name. Why do we hate musicians, yet look up to the people who sell a big idea to Yahoo! or come up with a web site that makes them recurring income?
I'm also surprised by your comment because the tech community tends to pay fairly well, I don't think we're all in a financial position where we're not able to save or invest. I made money on my savings accounts and my house overnight. I'm sorry if you're not in a similar financial position. If that's the case, do you have the same disdain for people with investment income as you do for people who use their creativity to make money? Shall we go build lawn mowers, instead?
"But the majority of the people in the US isnt on their side."
Bullshit. If somebody has that magical combination of talent, hard work and luck to produce a song of a movie that I want to see, then more power to 'em. Lots of people feel the same way. I concede that perhaps most of your friends have a firm anti-musician stance, but trust me: a lot of people simply don't care, and even more people actually have no problem with musicians making money by selling CDs. You'll have a hard time proving your "majority of the people in the US" claim.
"Copying a piece of software does not deprive the owner of anything if you aren't selling it afterwards and weren't going to pay for it anyways."
This is one of my favorite tautologies. Fast networks and easy-to-use P2P software allows us to get our hands on lots of stuff we weren't going to pay for anyway. And the reason why we wouldn't pay for it anyway is because it's readily available due to fast networks and easy-to-use P2P software.
"I wouldn't have paid for it anyway" is a good general-purpose magic bullet against any tinge of guilt over one's piracy possibly having a negative financial impact on somebody else. The best thing is that it's entirely the pirate's prerogative to claim that they wouldn't have bought it anyway -- and it's the desire to pirate and the means to pirate that create the "wouldn't have bought it" condition.