"Is that the word "piracy" is loaded, and that by using it, any writer immediately not only shows bias or misunderstanding of the issues, but also becomes a puppet in big corporations' propaganda show. It's much like the use of the word "war" in reference to the illegal invasion of iraq."
Ah yes, the "the term 'piracy' was invented by the big corporations" meme.
Back when I was a kid and we pirated software for the Apple II, nobody had a problem with the word. We pirated games, we played them, and everybody was happy, unless they were in the business of selling games for the Apple II.
The "please don't call it piracy, call it copyright infringement" movement is, per my best estimate, about ten years old. In 1841, Justice William Story used the word piracy in Folsom v. Marsh, and anybody who goes to a university can use thier library's copy of the OED to confirm that its use as a synonym for unauthorized copying goes back much longer than that. Anybody who doubts its existence in modern dictionary can simply open Firefox (we do all use Firefox, don't we?) and typing "dict piracy" into the address bar. So what if it's a homonym? We're not confused by "bark" or "desert."
Good luck with the "please use 'copyright infringement instead'" efforts, but "bias" and "misunderstanding" are not terms that you would be correct to apply to somebody simply because they use a word according to a definition that goes back some three hundred years.
No, every time there's a story about the IFPI, somebody points that out. I see by your UID that you're a relatively new member, so I'm guessing this is the first time you've read an IFPI story.
I think there's also a "BPI" (British Phonographic Industry) that similarly confounds some Slashdotters. Lots of younger Slashdotters are also surprised by the word "phonograph" in the organization name and don't understand why an organization would have such an archaic word in their title. I guess young people have similar reactions when they learn that the second "T" in AT&T is "telegraph" and the "C" in NAACP is "colored" -- an archaic and, when used in certain contexts, offensive term for black people.
Indeed. The attitude of the parents here brings to mind Blair Hornstine, the young lady who sued her New Jersey high school a few years ago to prevent them from naming a co-valedictorian. It was her father's doing, in a misguided effort to get her into Harvard. The net result was that Harvard rescinded their offer, and although she'd also been accepted to Princeton, Duke, Stanford and Cornell, her noteriety left her no choice but to flee the country and attend school in England.
Sometimes parents just need to sit their kids down and tell them they're acting like a tard.
"But if they're making lots of money, that kind of implies not as many people are copying it, at least to a certain degree."
Maybe in Spain, but in the USA, the P2P download statistics indicate that people are pirating music in roughly the same proportion to legitimate sales. According to BigChamgagne, eight of the top ten downloaded P2P tracks this week are also on the iTMS top 100.
"Say two bands have each 1,000,000 albums in circulation, band A makes a new album and only sells one copy and the other 999,999 are copied and put onto blank CDs, they would only get the royalty for the one CD, now take band B, who makes a new album and all 1,000,000 out there are originals, now they get all the royalties for each album sold and have sales 1,000,000 times greater, and they're the ones who get the money from this new tax?"
Yes -- if that highly unlikely scenario occurs. And if the sun explodes prematurely, nobody will get the tax. Coming up with highly unlikely scenarios sure is fun. At any rate, as the GP pointed out, it's not perfect, but it's the best way that people have come up with.
"Of course we all know the record companies and RIAA equivelants are the only ones who will see any of this money."
Really? That's too bad. That's not how the USA and Canada blank media levies work. In the US I believe 12% of the levy money goes toward record companies (this is actually written out in copyright law -- the vast majority goes to artists, composers, songwriters, session musicians and singers and the like) and in Canada it's an equally tiny amount. In both the USA and Canada the record companies are on the list to receive money; they're not the distributors. If it works differently in Spain, that's unfortunate. If such a law has to exist, I prefer the US/Canada method, in which the record companies wait their turn to get paid, and get the smallest slice of the pie.
"The real criminals are those who sell pirated items."
I think most people reading this will agree with that statement as long as it doesn't include allofmp3.com and the other Russian music/software download sites. And, I think you were right to not word it as "...make a profit off of piracy," otherwise The Pirate Bay and the various P2P services would fall under the "real criminals" classification -- Kazaa and TBP have profited handsomely by fulfilling their mission of providing easy access to pirated material, although they don't technically sell directly to pirates -- they make their money off of donations and ads.
A 5, Insightful to the first person who points out that oh, allofmp3.com DOES pay licensing fees so they can let you download tracks for $0.05 each.
"piracy had been contained!? Is the RIAA talking out of both side of its mouth again. Or, does one hand of the RIAA not know what the other is doing? Hmm."
Let's say that Best Buy announces that shoplifting is contained. Contained, of course, != "eradicated completely." Perhaps to Best Buy it means that their losses to shoplifting are less than 5%.
Does that mean that Best Buy will now:
Immediately cease all measures to curtail shoplifting?
Or, keep doing what they're doing, because it's been effective in containing shoplifting?
Now let's say that you've managed to contain your diabetes, blood pressure, and/or weight gain. Do you now:
Immediately cease all activities related to reducing your condition?
Or, keep doing what you're doing, because it's been effective in reducing your condition?
The answers should be obvious to reading this. But for some reason, there's a disconnect among many Slashdotters when it comes to piracy -- many people believe that if piracy has been "contained" (by whatever definition), then it's prudent to stop anti-piracy efforts.
"Because I'd absolutely never have bought the software otherwise."
You make some great points here, but I'd like to add that "wouldn't have bought it otherwise" is easy for many people to rationalize to the point of being meaningless. For many people, of course, "wouldn't have bought it" holds true simply because it's so readily available on BitTorrent -- why would they pay for something that's free? For others, "wouldn't have bought it" migrates from "...because it doesn't meet my needs" to "...it has features A to Y but I also want feature Z." And "...because I can't afford it" rarely really means that; often, the reality is that the speaker would quite simply rather spend their money on something else.
At any rate, it's great to see this issue of situational ethics being debated in such an intelligent fashion. If this discussion were populated by musicians rather than programmers, it would have shut down right quick with the usual "you can't expect a free ride" and "your record label is ripping you off anyway" retorts. All people are equal, but programmers are more equal than musicians.
"From the sounds of it he works on enterprise software..."
No, it's something truly evil: closed-source software. I run a web site that shares a lot of qualities with Slashdot (except that it's closed source): people visit my site. Some of them pay for the priveledge.
"(and pay armed guards to shoot anyone trying to access the code without the contract?)"
Huh? that's what security mechanisms are for. If you want to put armed guards at your data center, knock yourself out, but I think it's a wee bit much. If somebody manages to break in and get a copy of your code, you have that old nasty copyright law on your side. If "armed guards" is really the best solution you can come up with, maybe you should submit an "Ask Slashdot" asking for advice on securing your servers without the use of weapons.
"This is either a well crafted troll (to which I salute you) or you simply don't understand the concept of copyright law."
Yes, you have nailed it exactly. I simply don't understand the concept of copyright law. Sheesh.
You can go on and continue to explain why my ability to own the code that I write is an affront to the natural universe, and I'll continue to enjoy the fruits of my labor. Thank you for, once again, bringing Thomas Jefferson's opinion into the picture, as his viewpoints on today's economy are hugely relevant. Next, let's talk about Sally Hemming.
I get the choice of having my IP owned by me, not by the people. It's earned me some money, and money is good. How much money I can earn by my IP is only limited by my creativity and intelligence. With hard work and luck I can go as far as I want, without a government limiting my income.
Now let's look at your points:
"It requires the use of an arbitrary legal definition (not related to the free market ideal of providing desired goods or services for acceptable compensation) to create a form of artificial scarcity."
I provide services. I receive compensation. Whether it's "acceptable" is entirely up to me and my customers. No problem, except for the whiners who'd like to have my stuff for free. Sorry, but scarcity, artificial or otherwise, is a fine part of a free market.
"It requires the use of government power to enforce adherence to that arbitrary legal definition (since in a free market most people wouldn't see the point of giving up their rights over their own personal property without being compensated for it in some manner)."
Giving up your rights? To what, my IP? Sorry -- you don't have the rights to my IP. The rights to my IP are not yours to give up. It's my server and my code, and your "rights" begin and end with your IP address and my.htaccess file. Perhaps one day I'll grant you some rights to my creative output by writing some open source code, but not today, thanks. The good news is that if you want some of your own IP, you can create it yourself. Maybe you'll be as succesful as me. Maybe even more successful. But that's up to you, and nobody will try to limit you.
If you take the stance that you have the natural right to the creative output of the world, then I can see why you'd perceive somebody doing something with their IP as an infringement on "your" rights. But nonetheless, you'd be wrong.
"The original motivation behind the mechanism was (supposedly) to encourage societal creativity."
Define "original." The U.S. Constitution states that it is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's deliberately vague. Making money is a perfectly acceptable reason to promote the progress of science and useful arts. If you think that the creation of art is its own reward, that's fine, but lots of us will continue to make money off of our creative works.
Well put. That's why I was careful to use words like "may." I, like you, take a pragmatic view, and fall through to "none of the above." However, I don't agree that IP is a socialist construct -- in fact, I think it's the epitomy of capitalism. I find that many Slashdotters' pro-piracy and/or anti-IP arguments -- "record companies have too much money," "artists are too greedy," "CDs are overpriced," and so on -- lean toward a socialist viewpoint.
Thanks for the clarification. I contend that the parasites will always be there. As long as information "wants to be free," there will be people who'll try to make money by helping its freedom. I'm not just talking about outfits like the record companies that fund the creation and marketing of music. By many accounts the owners of TPB are doing quite well selling ad space, and as the Australia court documents showed us, the owners of Kazaa made millions.
Many people are of the opinion that abolishing copyright will lead to a glorious age of freedom where it's less about money and more about the creative spirit, but I think it will simply transfer the power (and the money) from the people who are good at creating, to the people who are good at copying. Great news if you own a CD pressing or book printing plant in China, or if you run a torrent site.
"So people were able to get "paid, and often paid quite well..." before there was copyright, and before there was any digital distribution of copies. Far from being evidence of how the point that great art will be created regardless of whether people are paid for production/distribution of copies is tough to prove, it actually proves it."
I see your point, but the important difference between today and the days of Shakespeare et al. is that today you have millions of people who can copy something instantly. That dynamic simply did not exist then. Would people have gone to Shakespeare's plays, or would Michaelangelo et al. had their commissions and patronages if anybody could have their own Michaelangelo or their own copy of the Shakespeare folio instantly? We cannot know this. The notion that we don't need sophisticated IP laws because artists 500 or 1,000 years ago didn't need them is somewhat like saying that we don't need an inch-thick vehicle code because our ancestors who made us of horse-drawn carriages didn't need one. In countless areas of technology, technological advances drive the creation of new laws.
"Even if "creators" never receive a cent, dinar sheckle or chicken liver for selling a copy of their work there will still be plenty of art - good art, great art - just as there has always been."
This is a tough one to prove. Although they lived in a time before copyright as we know it existed, Shakespeare, Mozart, Michaelangelo and the other great masters were in it for the money. They were paid, and often paid quite well. They were often the superstars of their era.
"And just possibly, eliminating the artificial "entitlement" money attached to copies will return the economics of art to a sane level, bringing the "artists" and the would be bloodsuckers who infest them back into line with the rest of society in terms of monetary value in relation to actual utility value."
This makes a lot of sense if you turn on "MTV Cribs" or read about Adam Sandler's salary and believe that they are representative of the typical person who makes a living with their creative output. It's roughly analagous to using Larry Ellison as an example of your average worker in the computer industry. The reality is that the professions of poet, musician and writer are among the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. While some people may argue that some professions are overpaid, graphing the average salary by profession would very quickly show you that poet/musician/writer sure ain't one of them.
By the way, the "the producers will still keep producing even if we knock them down a few pegs" thesis was explored heavily in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. In that work, as in the discussions on Slashdot, "greed" and "fair play" were terms thrown about to describe the most successful people in their field, and actions were taken by the government to level the playing field and put the power in the hands of the consumers, rather than the producers. It's an interesting read for those who are concerned with copyright holders having too much power.
"If I am a composer whose works are performed or recorded by others, ASCAP protects my interests. If I am anybody else, then ASCAP protects the interests of composers from me."
Yup. ASCAP and BMI are pretty narrow in their scope... they represent composers and lyricists. Not restaurant owners, and not performers. The trouble is, when you're chartered to represent group A, you're liable to piss off groups B and C if their interests collide with those of group A.
"For example, let us say that I run a restaurant. In that case, ASCAP are the people who prevent me from allowing my employees to sing the "Happy Birthday" song, or virtually any other song for that matter."
Exactly... that's in keeping with their charter... to look out for the rights of composers and lyricists. This is why it's not accurate to say that all Slashdotters are in the "artists are needy" camp. All it takes is one run-in with ASCAP or BMI and composers and lyricists are greedy bastards just like the record companies.
"If I am a small-time composer or musician whose works are not performed by others, ASCAP are the people whom I live in fear of in case I have the temerity to perform a song I did not write under the very wide umbrella of what constitutes a "public performance".
Well, here your issue with ASCAP is in the capacity as a performer, not a composer. It's the same as saying "If I'm a plumber, the ASCAP will get on my case if I performa song that I didn't write." The fact that a performer might happen to also have written their own songs isn't germaine here.
However, I've lost you on the "public performance" part, so please educate me. I've been of the understanding that the ASCAP/BMI licensing is handled by the venue -- that is, if you have a gig in a bar, restaurant or theatre, it's they who pay up, and you can sing all all the songs you want, even "Happy Birthday." Can you give me some examples of a public performance where the performer is liable for the ASCAP/BMI licensing, and not the property owner?
"bzzzzttt...wrong. ASCAP and BMI are colleciton agencies. These are the guys who around to venues and make sure artists are bgine rightfully compensated for the use of their music. If a bar, restaurant, or other establishment has a stereo system larger than a boombox then they have likely been visited by ASCAP and.or BMI."
Correct. ASCAP and BMI collect on behalf of the artists. This is why I wrote that ASCAP and BMI represent artists (as separate and distinct from the RIAA, which represents record companies). When ASCAP or BMI comes a callin', the money goes to the artists, not the record companies.
"The RIAA also collects royalties but this is on msuic sales. Artists can be compensated by both organizations."
The RIAA is a trade group that represents record companies, but it is the record companies that are responsible for calculating and distributing royalties based on CD sales. I know that many people like to use "RIAA" and "big record companies" interchangeably, but it's important to understand that for as much as the RIAA talks about how they are helping the artist, it is the record companies that they represent. Money goes to the RIAA to cover lobbying efforts, lawsuits, and so on, but you won't see the RIAA issuing checks to musicians. That is not their job.
This is why I wrote that the RIAA represents record companies, while BMI and ASCAP represent artists.
Let me know if I'm being unclear, or if you still believe that I'm incorrect.
The money goes to the Creators' Rights Alliance. They include groups that represent poets, songwriters and composers. I do not believe that the CRIA (the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA) is part of this alliance.
Here in the USA, there are groups that represent the media companies (the RIAA and the MPAA), and there are groups that represent artists (ASCAP and BMI). This distinction doesn't matter to many Slashdotters, but for background it's important to understand that the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI are often at odds with each other. Generally speaking, if you're a "little guy" composer or songwriter, ASCAP/BMI are your friends, and the RIAA is not.
Many people reading this will fall into a couple of camps:
If you are in the "hate the big record companies, respect the artists" camp (the "the artists are needy" group), then you might be okay with this.
If you think that anybody fighting for their rights -- whether they're a big media conglomerate, or a poet making $50 a year -- is out of line, or if you believe that any organization made up of initials and which fights for copyright protection is evil (the "the artists are greedy" camp), then this news may upset you.
Thanks for pointing that out. It's sad that whenever a discussion like this, somebody has to point out emusic, Magnatunes, and other purveyors of DRM-free music. If DRM were hated by the general public as much as it was by Slashdotters, then this entire campaign wouldn't need to exist.
The most prominent DRM out there is probably that utilized by the iTMS. Yet it's never gotten in my way. Not once. I can burn as many CDs as I care to, and move the tracks to all of my iPods. I'd wager that it isn't a problem for a majority of iTMS customers, either.
The anti-DRM crowd is a vocal minority. The reason they feel the need to educate people about the evils of DRM is because DRM simply isn't a problem for most people. The iTMS is a rollicking success, the non-DRM online stores cater to a niche market, the free market economy continues to be driven by customer demand, life moves on.
"Logically, anyone should be allowed to make their own copy and send Shakira the same sum of money as she would have received had they bought one from Sony. Yet, for some reason, this is not allowed."
The reason is, of course, that it's Sony who funded the production, marketing, and distribution of the CD. In turn for investing a significant amount of money, their contract with Shakira states that they are the exclusive distributors of the recording. If Sony doesn't turn a profit, they're out of business. Maybe I misunderstood you -- when you wrote "for some reason" did you mean that you actually didn't understand the reason?
"If this were allowed, then there would not be a monopoly situation, since various entities would be competing to supply the same music as though it were a standard industrial part, and the market would decide matters for itself."
It is a monopoly in the sense that copyright provides a limited monopoly, but it is not a monopoly in the sense that the word is typically used. The danger of describing the record industry as a "monopoly" in these terms makes it meaningless, as many, many industries -- pretty much any industry that develops branded products or engages in exclusive contracts -- would also fall under this definition.
Calling the record industry a monopoly may be good for the soul, and if it makes people feel better about using P2P so they can be a "monopoly buster," then it's all good. But be careful about using the m-word around an economist or similar expert. It's a bit like creationists who deliberately misuse the word "theory" (as in evolutionary theory) to make their point. It might sound convincing, and it satisfies the people who want to believe, but it's still hogwash.
"If I didn't have a credit card, I would have no option but to pirate."
A good test for statements like this is to imagine yourself in the room with the artist, composer, author, or programmer whose work you're pirating, and explaining to them in person that you simply have no option but to pirate their work.
I wager that many of these people would tell you three things:
"No, you have the option to do without. You don't need to pirate my work in order to feed your family. If you want free entertainment, turn on the radio or the television."
"I choose to make my work available for sale. If you want some new music, please respect my wishes. If you don't have a credit card and you really feel that you need some new software, music, or literature, why not try downloading something produced by the thousands upon thousands of people who have willingly made their work available for free?"
Something that rhymes with "duck shoe," and perhaps something about being a "spoiled brat" with a "a sense of entitlement that's self-delusional."
There's the odd chance that they will have no problem with you helping yourself to it for free, but in most cases, it's not likely. If they wanted to adopt the model of giving their stuff away for free, they probably would have. When you see a work for sale, it's usually because the creator wants to make money. And, despite the image that MTV conveys, most people who make money off of their creative works are not rich -- or even well-off. Most of the time, they are trying to support their families, just as you are.
"The above situations would remove a tangible product from circulation thus preventing someone who wanted to pay for it from doing so and removing real property from a place of business. Downloading a file that you could not purchase even if you wanted to does no such thing."
Good point, but the fallacy of "I don't have the money to buy it" becomes really easy to rationalize. I'd wager that 9 times out of 10, the person given the "download the track for a buck or get it on P2P for free" does have the money to buy it (after all, they are likely paying for their broadband connection, and rent or mortgage on house that contains the PC with the broadband connection). If somebody really does not have one dollar to spare, they likely have much more grave issues to worry about than whether or not to get that new Gnarls Barkley single. Humans have a great ability to rationalize and fool themselves (for some reasons, it must have helped us along evolutionarily) and the 10th or 100th or 1000th time you happily think to yourself "it's OK, I don't have the money to buy it" it becomes meaningless.
Similarly, "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is a tautology. Again, 9 times out of 10, pirate "wouldn't have bought it" because it's readily available for free.
"Ugh. If someone likes your house, and they take it away from you, you no longer have it. If someone likes your house, and replicates it on their own property (the method is unimportant to this discussion), does that diminish the value of your home?"
You build and sell houses. Somebody invents a magical device to copy your houses and build them at no cost, and then gives them away for free. Does that interfere with your ability to sell the houses that you have built?
Put another way: you can buy a house for $200K. It costs that much because it took time, effort and materials to build. Or, you can get an identical house next door for free, because of the aforementioned magical machine. The person who offers to give you this house did not invest in its creation. What incentive would you have to buy the house when you could get it for free?
Or, more to your point: somebody duplicates your house next door. When it's time to move, they sell it for far less than you paid for yours. Your other neighbors who copied your house do the same -- after all, they got their house for free. Does that diminish the value of your home? Absolutely.
"Why do you, as an artist feel that you should be able to mooch off your one big work for the rest of your life (and your children's lives, etc.)? Do you think it would be equitable for the person who painted your house to receive a royalty check every time someone admires your house? Should the plumber get a check every time you flush your toilet?"
Poets, novelists and musicians pretty much have the lowest per capita income. It is far, far, far easier to make a decent living as a house painter or as a plumber. This is why copyright exists: to incent people to participate in a profession that largely pays shit, but has the potential to improve society. That "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" sort of stuff. This is what many laws do: they address inequities if the value to society makes it worth it.
If you truly believe that this is unfair -- if you think that artists are mooches and don't deserve to have their rights respected -- you can conduct a thought experiment. Rewind your way back to the time you were 18. Would you have rather have taken the path of trying to make a living as a composer, songwriter, author or poet? Making enough money off of your ideas to support yourself and your family? Or, do you think it was a safer -- and ultimately more lucrative -- choice to follow the path you have?
One can judge a society by the value they place on their artists, composers, educators, and so on. You likely hope for a society where mooching artists can be put in their rightful place -- and that's fine. But I think it's sad.
"interfering with peer-to-peer networks by flooding them with bogus files..."
Excuse me? Perhaps plenty of people are using P2P networks for trading stuff that the creators want to be traded -- unsigned bands, artists (of all sorts) who've released their stuff via Creative Commons, shareware, and the proverbial "Linux Distros." Which is great. If the honor system held any weight, that's all we'd be using P2P for.
But how does flooding interfere with those of us who do that? My understanding is that the film and record companies are distributing bogus versions of copyrighted works which are not authorized for trading via P2P. Hot movies and CDs and the like. Not Linux distros.
They claim that this holds back "technological progress and individual freedom." Seems like a Quixotic stance to me.
"A lot of us still rely on food for sustinance (which requires leaving the house). We drive by WalMart / Best Buy / etc. I can wait a day to get my movie. I can wait a day to save a few bucks and get something of value."
People can be roughly divided into "more time than money" and "more money than time" crowds. It sounds like you're in the former. That's perfectly fine, but billions of dollars are made each year off of the latter.
This is why Netflix has hurt Blockbuster et al, and why the iTMS has been a huge success. Blockbuster and traditional record stores still cater to an audience who appreciate the benefit of getting a real CD or a real DVD, but it's an established fact that a sizeable portion of the consumer market will give up a little value in exchange for convenience.
Slashdot Mirror
"Is that the word "piracy" is loaded, and that by using it, any writer immediately not only shows bias or misunderstanding of the issues, but also becomes a puppet in big corporations' propaganda show. It's much like the use of the word "war" in reference to the illegal invasion of iraq."
Ah yes, the "the term 'piracy' was invented by the big corporations" meme.
Back when I was a kid and we pirated software for the Apple II, nobody had a problem with the word. We pirated games, we played them, and everybody was happy, unless they were in the business of selling games for the Apple II.
The "please don't call it piracy, call it copyright infringement" movement is, per my best estimate, about ten years old. In 1841, Justice William Story used the word piracy in Folsom v. Marsh, and anybody who goes to a university can use thier library's copy of the OED to confirm that its use as a synonym for unauthorized copying goes back much longer than that. Anybody who doubts its existence in modern dictionary can simply open Firefox (we do all use Firefox, don't we?) and typing "dict piracy" into the address bar. So what if it's a homonym? We're not confused by "bark" or "desert."
Good luck with the "please use 'copyright infringement instead'" efforts, but "bias" and "misunderstanding" are not terms that you would be correct to apply to somebody simply because they use a word according to a definition that goes back some three hundred years.
No, every time there's a story about the IFPI, somebody points that out. I see by your UID that you're a relatively new member, so I'm guessing this is the first time you've read an IFPI story.
I think there's also a "BPI" (British Phonographic Industry) that similarly confounds some Slashdotters. Lots of younger Slashdotters are also surprised by the word "phonograph" in the organization name and don't understand why an organization would have such an archaic word in their title. I guess young people have similar reactions when they learn that the second "T" in AT&T is "telegraph" and the "C" in NAACP is "colored" -- an archaic and, when used in certain contexts, offensive term for black people.
Indeed. The attitude of the parents here brings to mind Blair Hornstine, the young lady who sued her New Jersey high school a few years ago to prevent them from naming a co-valedictorian. It was her father's doing, in a misguided effort to get her into Harvard. The net result was that Harvard rescinded their offer, and although she'd also been accepted to Princeton, Duke, Stanford and Cornell, her noteriety left her no choice but to flee the country and attend school in England.
Sometimes parents just need to sit their kids down and tell them they're acting like a tard.
"But if they're making lots of money, that kind of implies not as many people are copying it, at least to a certain degree."
Maybe in Spain, but in the USA, the P2P download statistics indicate that people are pirating music in roughly the same proportion to legitimate sales. According to BigChamgagne, eight of the top ten downloaded P2P tracks this week are also on the iTMS top 100.
"Say two bands have each 1,000,000 albums in circulation, band A makes a new album and only sells one copy and the other 999,999 are copied and put onto blank CDs, they would only get the royalty for the one CD, now take band B, who makes a new album and all 1,000,000 out there are originals, now they get all the royalties for each album sold and have sales 1,000,000 times greater, and they're the ones who get the money from this new tax?"
Yes -- if that highly unlikely scenario occurs. And if the sun explodes prematurely, nobody will get the tax. Coming up with highly unlikely scenarios sure is fun. At any rate, as the GP pointed out, it's not perfect, but it's the best way that people have come up with.
"Of course we all know the record companies and RIAA equivelants are the only ones who will see any of this money."
Really? That's too bad. That's not how the USA and Canada blank media levies work. In the US I believe 12% of the levy money goes toward record companies (this is actually written out in copyright law -- the vast majority goes to artists, composers, songwriters, session musicians and singers and the like) and in Canada it's an equally tiny amount. In both the USA and Canada the record companies are on the list to receive money; they're not the distributors. If it works differently in Spain, that's unfortunate. If such a law has to exist, I prefer the US/Canada method, in which the record companies wait their turn to get paid, and get the smallest slice of the pie.
"The real criminals are those who sell pirated items."
I think most people reading this will agree with that statement as long as it doesn't include allofmp3.com and the other Russian music/software download sites. And, I think you were right to not word it as "...make a profit off of piracy," otherwise The Pirate Bay and the various P2P services would fall under the "real criminals" classification -- Kazaa and TBP have profited handsomely by fulfilling their mission of providing easy access to pirated material, although they don't technically sell directly to pirates -- they make their money off of donations and ads.
A 5, Insightful to the first person who points out that oh, allofmp3.com DOES pay licensing fees so they can let you download tracks for $0.05 each.
"piracy had been contained!? Is the RIAA talking out of both side of its mouth again. Or, does one hand of the RIAA not know what the other is doing? Hmm."
Let's say that Best Buy announces that shoplifting is contained. Contained, of course, != "eradicated completely." Perhaps to Best Buy it means that their losses to shoplifting are less than 5%.
Does that mean that Best Buy will now:
Now let's say that you've managed to contain your diabetes, blood pressure, and/or weight gain. Do you now:
The answers should be obvious to reading this. But for some reason, there's a disconnect among many Slashdotters when it comes to piracy -- many people believe that if piracy has been "contained" (by whatever definition), then it's prudent to stop anti-piracy efforts.
"Because I'd absolutely never have bought the software otherwise."
You make some great points here, but I'd like to add that "wouldn't have bought it otherwise" is easy for many people to rationalize to the point of being meaningless. For many people, of course, "wouldn't have bought it" holds true simply because it's so readily available on BitTorrent -- why would they pay for something that's free? For others, "wouldn't have bought it" migrates from "...because it doesn't meet my needs" to "...it has features A to Y but I also want feature Z." And "...because I can't afford it" rarely really means that; often, the reality is that the speaker would quite simply rather spend their money on something else.
At any rate, it's great to see this issue of situational ethics being debated in such an intelligent fashion. If this discussion were populated by musicians rather than programmers, it would have shut down right quick with the usual "you can't expect a free ride" and "your record label is ripping you off anyway" retorts. All people are equal, but programmers are more equal than musicians.
"From the sounds of it he works on enterprise software..."
No, it's something truly evil: closed-source software. I run a web site that shares a lot of qualities with Slashdot (except that it's closed source): people visit my site. Some of them pay for the priveledge.
"(and pay armed guards to shoot anyone trying to access the code without the contract?)"
Huh? that's what security mechanisms are for. If you want to put armed guards at your data center, knock yourself out, but I think it's a wee bit much. If somebody manages to break in and get a copy of your code, you have that old nasty copyright law on your side. If "armed guards" is really the best solution you can come up with, maybe you should submit an "Ask Slashdot" asking for advice on securing your servers without the use of weapons.
"This is either a well crafted troll (to which I salute you) or you simply don't understand the concept of copyright law."
Yes, you have nailed it exactly. I simply don't understand the concept of copyright law. Sheesh.
You can go on and continue to explain why my ability to own the code that I write is an affront to the natural universe, and I'll continue to enjoy the fruits of my labor. Thank you for, once again, bringing Thomas Jefferson's opinion into the picture, as his viewpoints on today's economy are hugely relevant. Next, let's talk about Sally Hemming.
"What part of IP is the epitomy of capitalism?"
The fact that IP is capital.
I get the choice of having my IP owned by me, not by the people. It's earned me some money, and money is good. How much money I can earn by my IP is only limited by my creativity and intelligence. With hard work and luck I can go as far as I want, without a government limiting my income.
Now let's look at your points:
"It requires the use of an arbitrary legal definition (not related to the free market ideal of providing desired goods or services for acceptable compensation) to create a form of artificial scarcity."
I provide services. I receive compensation. Whether it's "acceptable" is entirely up to me and my customers. No problem, except for the whiners who'd like to have my stuff for free. Sorry, but scarcity, artificial or otherwise, is a fine part of a free market.
"It requires the use of government power to enforce adherence to that arbitrary legal definition (since in a free market most people wouldn't see the point of giving up their rights over their own personal property without being compensated for it in some manner)."
Giving up your rights? To what, my IP? Sorry -- you don't have the rights to my IP. The rights to my IP are not yours to give up. It's my server and my code, and your "rights" begin and end with your IP address and my .htaccess file. Perhaps one day I'll grant you some rights to my creative output by writing some open source code, but not today, thanks. The good news is that if you want some of your own IP, you can create it yourself. Maybe you'll be as succesful as me. Maybe even more successful. But that's up to you, and nobody will try to limit you.
If you take the stance that you have the natural right to the creative output of the world, then I can see why you'd perceive somebody doing something with their IP as an infringement on "your" rights. But nonetheless, you'd be wrong.
"The original motivation behind the mechanism was (supposedly) to encourage societal creativity."
Define "original." The U.S. Constitution states that it is "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." That's deliberately vague. Making money is a perfectly acceptable reason to promote the progress of science and useful arts. If you think that the creation of art is its own reward, that's fine, but lots of us will continue to make money off of our creative works.
Well put. That's why I was careful to use words like "may." I, like you, take a pragmatic view, and fall through to "none of the above." However, I don't agree that IP is a socialist construct -- in fact, I think it's the epitomy of capitalism. I find that many Slashdotters' pro-piracy and/or anti-IP arguments -- "record companies have too much money," "artists are too greedy," "CDs are overpriced," and so on -- lean toward a socialist viewpoint.
Thanks for the clarification. I contend that the parasites will always be there. As long as information "wants to be free," there will be people who'll try to make money by helping its freedom. I'm not just talking about outfits like the record companies that fund the creation and marketing of music. By many accounts the owners of TPB are doing quite well selling ad space, and as the Australia court documents showed us, the owners of Kazaa made millions.
Many people are of the opinion that abolishing copyright will lead to a glorious age of freedom where it's less about money and more about the creative spirit, but I think it will simply transfer the power (and the money) from the people who are good at creating, to the people who are good at copying. Great news if you own a CD pressing or book printing plant in China, or if you run a torrent site.
"So people were able to get "paid, and often paid quite well..." before there was copyright, and before there was any digital distribution of copies. Far from being evidence of how the point that great art will be created regardless of whether people are paid for production/distribution of copies is tough to prove, it actually proves it."
I see your point, but the important difference between today and the days of Shakespeare et al. is that today you have millions of people who can copy something instantly. That dynamic simply did not exist then. Would people have gone to Shakespeare's plays, or would Michaelangelo et al. had their commissions and patronages if anybody could have their own Michaelangelo or their own copy of the Shakespeare folio instantly? We cannot know this. The notion that we don't need sophisticated IP laws because artists 500 or 1,000 years ago didn't need them is somewhat like saying that we don't need an inch-thick vehicle code because our ancestors who made us of horse-drawn carriages didn't need one. In countless areas of technology, technological advances drive the creation of new laws.
"Even if "creators" never receive a cent, dinar sheckle or chicken liver for selling a copy of their work there will still be plenty of art - good art, great art - just as there has always been."
This is a tough one to prove. Although they lived in a time before copyright as we know it existed, Shakespeare, Mozart, Michaelangelo and the other great masters were in it for the money. They were paid, and often paid quite well. They were often the superstars of their era.
"And just possibly, eliminating the artificial "entitlement" money attached to copies will return the economics of art to a sane level, bringing the "artists" and the would be bloodsuckers who infest them back into line with the rest of society in terms of monetary value in relation to actual utility value."
This makes a lot of sense if you turn on "MTV Cribs" or read about Adam Sandler's salary and believe that they are representative of the typical person who makes a living with their creative output. It's roughly analagous to using Larry Ellison as an example of your average worker in the computer industry. The reality is that the professions of poet, musician and writer are among the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. While some people may argue that some professions are overpaid, graphing the average salary by profession would very quickly show you that poet/musician/writer sure ain't one of them.
By the way, the "the producers will still keep producing even if we knock them down a few pegs" thesis was explored heavily in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. In that work, as in the discussions on Slashdot, "greed" and "fair play" were terms thrown about to describe the most successful people in their field, and actions were taken by the government to level the playing field and put the power in the hands of the consumers, rather than the producers. It's an interesting read for those who are concerned with copyright holders having too much power.
"If I am a composer whose works are performed or recorded by others, ASCAP protects my interests. If I am anybody else, then ASCAP protects the interests of composers from me."
Yup. ASCAP and BMI are pretty narrow in their scope... they represent composers and lyricists. Not restaurant owners, and not performers. The trouble is, when you're chartered to represent group A, you're liable to piss off groups B and C if their interests collide with those of group A.
"For example, let us say that I run a restaurant. In that case, ASCAP are the people who prevent me from allowing my employees to sing the "Happy Birthday" song, or virtually any other song for that matter."
Exactly... that's in keeping with their charter... to look out for the rights of composers and lyricists. This is why it's not accurate to say that all Slashdotters are in the "artists are needy" camp. All it takes is one run-in with ASCAP or BMI and composers and lyricists are greedy bastards just like the record companies.
"If I am a small-time composer or musician whose works are not performed by others, ASCAP are the people whom I live in fear of in case I have the temerity to perform a song I did not write under the very wide umbrella of what constitutes a "public performance".
Well, here your issue with ASCAP is in the capacity as a performer, not a composer. It's the same as saying "If I'm a plumber, the ASCAP will get on my case if I performa song that I didn't write." The fact that a performer might happen to also have written their own songs isn't germaine here.
However, I've lost you on the "public performance" part, so please educate me. I've been of the understanding that the ASCAP/BMI licensing is handled by the venue -- that is, if you have a gig in a bar, restaurant or theatre, it's they who pay up, and you can sing all all the songs you want, even "Happy Birthday." Can you give me some examples of a public performance where the performer is liable for the ASCAP/BMI licensing, and not the property owner?
"bzzzzttt...wrong. ASCAP and BMI are colleciton agencies. These are the guys who around to venues and make sure artists are bgine rightfully compensated for the use of their music. If a bar, restaurant, or other establishment has a stereo system larger than a boombox then they have likely been visited by ASCAP and.or BMI."
Correct. ASCAP and BMI collect on behalf of the artists. This is why I wrote that ASCAP and BMI represent artists (as separate and distinct from the RIAA, which represents record companies). When ASCAP or BMI comes a callin', the money goes to the artists, not the record companies.
"The RIAA also collects royalties but this is on msuic sales. Artists can be compensated by both organizations."
The RIAA is a trade group that represents record companies, but it is the record companies that are responsible for calculating and distributing royalties based on CD sales. I know that many people like to use "RIAA" and "big record companies" interchangeably, but it's important to understand that for as much as the RIAA talks about how they are helping the artist, it is the record companies that they represent. Money goes to the RIAA to cover lobbying efforts, lawsuits, and so on, but you won't see the RIAA issuing checks to musicians. That is not their job.
This is why I wrote that the RIAA represents record companies, while BMI and ASCAP represent artists.
Let me know if I'm being unclear, or if you still believe that I'm incorrect.
Depends by what you mean by *AA.
The money goes to the Creators' Rights Alliance. They include groups that represent poets, songwriters and composers. I do not believe that the CRIA (the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA) is part of this alliance.
Here in the USA, there are groups that represent the media companies (the RIAA and the MPAA), and there are groups that represent artists (ASCAP and BMI). This distinction doesn't matter to many Slashdotters, but for background it's important to understand that the RIAA and ASCAP/BMI are often at odds with each other. Generally speaking, if you're a "little guy" composer or songwriter, ASCAP/BMI are your friends, and the RIAA is not.
Many people reading this will fall into a couple of camps:
If you are in the "hate the big record companies, respect the artists" camp (the "the artists are needy" group), then you might be okay with this.
If you think that anybody fighting for their rights -- whether they're a big media conglomerate, or a poet making $50 a year -- is out of line, or if you believe that any organization made up of initials and which fights for copyright protection is evil (the "the artists are greedy" camp), then this news may upset you.
I hope this answers your question.
I see your point. Thanks for clarifying that.
Thanks for pointing that out. It's sad that whenever a discussion like this, somebody has to point out emusic, Magnatunes, and other purveyors of DRM-free music. If DRM were hated by the general public as much as it was by Slashdotters, then this entire campaign wouldn't need to exist.
The most prominent DRM out there is probably that utilized by the iTMS. Yet it's never gotten in my way. Not once. I can burn as many CDs as I care to, and move the tracks to all of my iPods. I'd wager that it isn't a problem for a majority of iTMS customers, either.
The anti-DRM crowd is a vocal minority. The reason they feel the need to educate people about the evils of DRM is because DRM simply isn't a problem for most people. The iTMS is a rollicking success, the non-DRM online stores cater to a niche market, the free market economy continues to be driven by customer demand, life moves on.
"Logically, anyone should be allowed to make their own copy and send Shakira the same sum of money as she would have received had they bought one from Sony. Yet, for some reason, this is not allowed."
The reason is, of course, that it's Sony who funded the production, marketing, and distribution of the CD. In turn for investing a significant amount of money, their contract with Shakira states that they are the exclusive distributors of the recording. If Sony doesn't turn a profit, they're out of business. Maybe I misunderstood you -- when you wrote "for some reason" did you mean that you actually didn't understand the reason?
"If this were allowed, then there would not be a monopoly situation, since various entities would be competing to supply the same music as though it were a standard industrial part, and the market would decide matters for itself."
It is a monopoly in the sense that copyright provides a limited monopoly, but it is not a monopoly in the sense that the word is typically used. The danger of describing the record industry as a "monopoly" in these terms makes it meaningless, as many, many industries -- pretty much any industry that develops branded products or engages in exclusive contracts -- would also fall under this definition.
Calling the record industry a monopoly may be good for the soul, and if it makes people feel better about using P2P so they can be a "monopoly buster," then it's all good. But be careful about using the m-word around an economist or similar expert. It's a bit like creationists who deliberately misuse the word "theory" (as in evolutionary theory) to make their point. It might sound convincing, and it satisfies the people who want to believe, but it's still hogwash.
"If I didn't have a credit card, I would have no option but to pirate."
A good test for statements like this is to imagine yourself in the room with the artist, composer, author, or programmer whose work you're pirating, and explaining to them in person that you simply have no option but to pirate their work.
I wager that many of these people would tell you three things:
There's the odd chance that they will have no problem with you helping yourself to it for free, but in most cases, it's not likely. If they wanted to adopt the model of giving their stuff away for free, they probably would have. When you see a work for sale, it's usually because the creator wants to make money. And, despite the image that MTV conveys, most people who make money off of their creative works are not rich -- or even well-off. Most of the time, they are trying to support their families, just as you are.
"The above situations would remove a tangible product from circulation thus preventing someone who wanted to pay for it from doing so and removing real property from a place of business. Downloading a file that you could not purchase even if you wanted to does no such thing."
Good point, but the fallacy of "I don't have the money to buy it" becomes really easy to rationalize. I'd wager that 9 times out of 10, the person given the "download the track for a buck or get it on P2P for free" does have the money to buy it (after all, they are likely paying for their broadband connection, and rent or mortgage on house that contains the PC with the broadband connection). If somebody really does not have one dollar to spare, they likely have much more grave issues to worry about than whether or not to get that new Gnarls Barkley single. Humans have a great ability to rationalize and fool themselves (for some reasons, it must have helped us along evolutionarily) and the 10th or 100th or 1000th time you happily think to yourself "it's OK, I don't have the money to buy it" it becomes meaningless.
Similarly, "I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is a tautology. Again, 9 times out of 10, pirate "wouldn't have bought it" because it's readily available for free.
"The only Starbucks size that makes sense is the 20 oz Venti (venti is 20 in Italian)."
And in Italy, of course, they use the metric system anyway.
"Ugh. If someone likes your house, and they take it away from you, you no longer have it. If someone likes your house, and replicates it on their own property (the method is unimportant to this discussion), does that diminish the value of your home?"
You build and sell houses. Somebody invents a magical device to copy your houses and build them at no cost, and then gives them away for free. Does that interfere with your ability to sell the houses that you have built?
Put another way: you can buy a house for $200K. It costs that much because it took time, effort and materials to build. Or, you can get an identical house next door for free, because of the aforementioned magical machine. The person who offers to give you this house did not invest in its creation. What incentive would you have to buy the house when you could get it for free?
Or, more to your point: somebody duplicates your house next door. When it's time to move, they sell it for far less than you paid for yours. Your other neighbors who copied your house do the same -- after all, they got their house for free. Does that diminish the value of your home? Absolutely.
"Why do you, as an artist feel that you should be able to mooch off your one big work for the rest of your life (and your children's lives, etc.)? Do you think it would be equitable for the person who painted your house to receive a royalty check every time someone admires your house? Should the plumber get a check every time you flush your toilet?"
Poets, novelists and musicians pretty much have the lowest per capita income. It is far, far, far easier to make a decent living as a house painter or as a plumber. This is why copyright exists: to incent people to participate in a profession that largely pays shit, but has the potential to improve society. That "promote the progress of science and the useful arts" sort of stuff. This is what many laws do: they address inequities if the value to society makes it worth it.
If you truly believe that this is unfair -- if you think that artists are mooches and don't deserve to have their rights respected -- you can conduct a thought experiment. Rewind your way back to the time you were 18. Would you have rather have taken the path of trying to make a living as a composer, songwriter, author or poet? Making enough money off of your ideas to support yourself and your family? Or, do you think it was a safer -- and ultimately more lucrative -- choice to follow the path you have?
One can judge a society by the value they place on their artists, composers, educators, and so on. You likely hope for a society where mooching artists can be put in their rightful place -- and that's fine. But I think it's sad.
From The Fine Article:
"interfering with peer-to-peer networks by flooding them with bogus files..."
Excuse me? Perhaps plenty of people are using P2P networks for trading stuff that the creators want to be traded -- unsigned bands, artists (of all sorts) who've released their stuff via Creative Commons, shareware, and the proverbial "Linux Distros." Which is great. If the honor system held any weight, that's all we'd be using P2P for.
But how does flooding interfere with those of us who do that? My understanding is that the film and record companies are distributing bogus versions of copyrighted works which are not authorized for trading via P2P. Hot movies and CDs and the like. Not Linux distros.
They claim that this holds back "technological progress and individual freedom." Seems like a Quixotic stance to me.
"A lot of us still rely on food for sustinance (which requires leaving the house). We drive by WalMart / Best Buy / etc. I can wait a day to get my movie. I can wait a day to save a few bucks and get something of value."
People can be roughly divided into "more time than money" and "more money than time" crowds. It sounds like you're in the former. That's perfectly fine, but billions of dollars are made each year off of the latter.
This is why Netflix has hurt Blockbuster et al, and why the iTMS has been a huge success. Blockbuster and traditional record stores still cater to an audience who appreciate the benefit of getting a real CD or a real DVD, but it's an established fact that a sizeable portion of the consumer market will give up a little value in exchange for convenience.