The "copyright should be returned to the original 14 year period just like the framers of the constitution intended it" crowd probably believe that things started going to hell in 1831.
"You know, one thing they might do to return copyright to its original intent is to make it so that copyright cannot be "transferred" as property. There should still be the ability to act on the creator's behalf, but it should be more like an agent or manager."
That's an interesting idea. Do you have any suggestions for how to make it work in practice?
In the music world, of course, the artist typically keeps the copyright on their words and music -- of course, it's 100% their creation. The copyright on the recording is owned by the record company or shared between the label and the engineer/producer. For purposes of changing the law, who would you deem to be the creator in this extent? What if the artist went into the studio with just a sheet of lyrics and, due to the genius of the producer, the finished, arranged and mixed recording sounded nothing like what the artist did on their original garage tape, and it's a whole lot better?
In the case of a film, who do you think should own the copyright? The director, the screenwriter, the cinematographer? What if the editor does an amazing job of transforming an awful directing or writing job that's something quite watchable? Who decides?
"Rights" cannot be sold or transferred. If, for example, I decided I never want to vote in a public election again, can I then sell my right to vote to someone who is otherwise not elligible? Could I sell my right to vote to someone so they could vote more than once? Why then can we sell "copyrights"?"
I don't follow that reasoning of thought at all. We buy and sell rights all the time. Ever bought a house? That's property rights you just bought. Signed a rental agreement? Buying and selling IP is just like buying and selling physical property. I'm not drawing the connection between voting and buying or selling property.
"There's no reason why a CD should cost $20 (and only a dime going to the creator) when the manufacturing cost of CD is in pennies... just my two cents."
A manufacturing cost of a finished CD is a bit north of a buck. I'm guessing you're confusing it with the cost of a CD-R? At any rate, the manufacturing cost of an item usually has very little to do with the cost of sale... stating the manufacturing cost is pointless. The retailer that sells you the CD usually makes more commission than the manufacturing cost. Lots of people -- you're certainly not the first -- are of the impression that the various people who help make the CD a reality work for free, but that's just not the case.
You mentioned "huge profits" a few times and based on the numbers you threw out, you're apparently believe that "huge profits" are made on the sales of CDs, and this is one of your problems with copyright law (and, I'm guessing, your justification for breaking it). If the net margin made on CDs upsets you, you really don't want to know the margin made by Apple on your iPod, by the manufacturer of your mouse and keyboard, the clothes you're (hopefully) wearing right now. Your CDs are among the lowest-margin products you own. If you want a moral justification for piracy, "CDs have huge net margins" isn't a logical one.
"No offence, but you should really look at what typical recording contracts actually say before launching into a rant like that. Hint: if you're part of a newbie band and things go to hell, you're probably going to get stuck with most of the expenses, not the record label."
I'm aware that many recording contracts are designed so that every last staple and paper clip is charged to you. Thus, many new artists in awful contracts find that they never make money -- and if they have a particularly bad contract, then they might be stuck making more records for the label, which also probably won't make any money.
But these expenses are charged to you out of the gross sales profits. Typical recording contracts do not require that the artist whip out their personal checkbook or credit card number and partially fund the endeavor. If the record ultimately loses money (and most do; it's a highly speculative business) the artist loses nothing but time, and the record company eats the financial loss. If a new artist is suckered into a multi-CD contract and the first CD doesn't break even, the record company may not opt to drop them from their contract. In that case, the artist may "owe" the record label (revenue on the next CD would go toward the negative balance), but not in the sense that the artist has to pay them cash out of their own bank account or risk losing their house. And, this isn't a typical situation.
This is why the alternate route of getting a huge loan from the bank (assuming one has the collateral) and hiring one's own experts may be preferable for many people. If the endeavor is a failure, you must pay back the loan, but at least you were personally responsible for spending every dollar.
"People around here need to stop associating defending the principle of intellectual property with defending the big record labels, who are for the most part the scum of the earth."
And people around here really need to stop using the evilness of the big record labels as justification for piracy. I am against unfair contracts (as we all are, I'm sure). I'm also against lame rationalizations for piracy. Most people here could simply acknowledge that they pirate as a means to save money, and move along.
"How did these companies manage to convince the creator they were necessary in the age of digital content? They are leeches who have yet to wake up to the fact that their business model is faulty."
Hi there. I have a pretty good singing voice, and a sheaf of paper with some lyrics that I wrote. I would like your help in:
Securing a studio and some session musicians;
Finding an engineer and mixer to create a commercial-quality recording;
Publicity photos, and wardrobe and makeup consultants, so I can get some attention amongst the thousands of other pretty people who are vying for attention;
Getting my music reproduced on CD and distributed to thousands of radio stations (and I also want somebody to call all these radio stations to pester them to play it);
Some publicity, so that magazines and newspapers will write about me;
Some advertising and promotion -- and I don't mean that "put it on P2P and let people spread it via word of mouth" promotion that everybody gets for free. I want real advertising and promotion.
Arranging some concert gigs to promote my music -- including booking, transportation, and all the various minor expenses and details.
I don't want to spend any out-of-pocket money on this, since, like most struggling musicians, I don't have any. If I get a record contract, the record company will take care of all the above. They'll cover the expenses. Worst case is that I'll make no money; if the record loses money, I won't have to pay them back. And, no, I'm not interested in just putting my stuff on Magnatune and hoping to make a few hundred bucks a year. Just as you would like to reach your full potential at your choice of profession, I would like to do the same.
But since all the people who do that are unecessary, it wouldn't be fair for you to ask for any sort of payment for your time and effort in helping me accomplish all those. After all, that would make you just as much as a "leech" as they are. So, what do you say?
"Not to mention that original copyright laws - a time-limited monopoly - has been twisted into an abomination that only serves the industries. Seventy years after the creator's death? Combined with "work-for-hire" clauses which effectively makes a company the "creator"? Society is not served by that, only the media megacorporations."
This is correct if you don't include the many individual rightsholders whom copyright law has served. All cats are white, except those that aren't.
"no no, they demand state protection for their business model, and even accept any violation on basic human rights as "collateral damage"."
Nonsense. We all rely on state protection to do business. No matter what you sell, and in what quantity you sell it, there's always going to be somebody who wants it for free. This is why we have laws. Your corner grocery depends on the protection of the police. Your local businesses depend the FAA and the Coast Guard to help their trade go smoothly, and their employees rely on the SEC and state and federal labor laws to keep their employers in check.
The ability to get a free copy of the Fray CD and distribute it to all your friends with impunity is not a "basic human right." Nor is it a "basic human right" to buy a DVD and give copies to all your friends. Talk to some people who've come to the US as refugees, or who participated in the civil rights protests in the South in the 1960's, or who were interred in camps in the US or Germany about "basic human rights" and they'll check you right proper.
"I equate them to traitors of human civilisation and guilty of high treason (taking the dismantling of democracy by buying layws and bribing politicians as necessary to reach their goals). should I ever have something to say politically, i'd lock all of them away for a long time."
Really? I know several people who've owned copyrights on their work (books, poetry, even songs) and I wouldn't consider them traitors to human civilization. Are you talking about the industries that make their money with IP? Sadly, every industry buys laws. If you were to start locking up people in order of how much money they spend on lobbying efforts, the industries that represent artists, writers, coders, and singers would be far down on your list.
Nope. You can prove this yourself by doing a thought experiment: think of any arbitrary song that you'd like to have a copy of. Being an "information wants to be free" sort of dude, buying it is out of the question. So, you make a bet with your friend on who can get a copy first, with each of you trying a different method:
Your friend uses a P2P service.
You record it off the radio.
Now, what will likely happen is that your friend will take all of two minutes searching on a tracking site, and even if he has a few false starts, he'll very quickly have a CD quality, digital rip of the song that's indistinguishable from the version he'd have bought. Meanwhile, you'll be sitting there with your radio attached to your PC, patiently waiting for the song to be played. After much waiting, if you're lucky you'll get a substandard, analog version with the beginning or end cut off, faded out, or otherwise messed with -- even if you're pulling it off of XM. It's not a very good substitute at all for the pristine digital quality version that your friend pirated.
This is why free radio exists. The quality just isn't that great, and you don't get much choice of what you get to hear and when. It's an inducement for a sale, not a replacement. Compare this to the high-quality MP3s you get via BitTorrent: they sound just like the original, and you can get whatever you want, and listen to it whenever you want, as much as you like. It's a substitute for a sale -- after all, why would you go out and buy a copy on the iTMS or buy the CD, once you have your own free copy that's just as good?
If you're still not getting it, think of it this way: if collecting MP3 files via P2P were just like the radio, then there wouldn't be a demand for pirated MP3 files. We'd all just be listening to the radio instead!
Or maybe the "bad guys" here are the people who've spent untold effort, time and money in producing the work that we enjoy, and then having the audacity to release it under their own terms.
"Improper care for it's people resulting in 30 million deaths IS NOT THE SAME THING AS COPYRIGHT. In fact, it's pretty damn insulting to even make the comparison."
The GP did indeed use small words, but it looks like he wasn't clear enough. Communism did not work for China. It hasn't worked for a lot of places. Generally speaking, the standard of living is higher in countries that embrace capitalist values and respect property rights -- both intellectual and physical property. China understands this. They know that to be a player in the world's economy (and, some would say, become the winner in their economic war with the west), they'll have to embrace property rights.
"Copyright had very little to do with the economic development of the US."
That's a surprising statement. Can you elaborate on that? The US exported $27 billion in IP in 1995 (the latest year I could find with a few minutes of research). Whether we like it or not, the money that comes into our country due to the creative output of our software developers, filmmakers, musicians, novelists and other artists and scientists is a major factor of the quality of life we enjoy.
By "economic development of the US" do you mean in, say, the 1790's? If so, how would you compare and contrast the economic power of IP exports back then, vs. in today's information age?
"Copyright is about maintain total control over a work that is displayed publicly."
Correct. And you might choose to copyright your work in an effort to profit from it. That's perfectly acceptable.
"For the record, I think a 14 year copyright is a good thing, but it's current length is preventing culture from evolving. We know the culture will evolve and something will give. It seems to me what's going to give is copyright law completly."
I've heard this before. Can can you explain (in small words, to use the GP's phrase) why this is the case? Will allowing the teens of America to trade the music and movies of 1992 with impunity have a significant effect on accelerating our culture? Has our pop culture been hindered ever since the copyright term was extended to 28 years in 1831?
"Clear Channel is a copyright-created cartel that would not exist if it wasn't for their right to monopoly given to them by copyright laws."
I believe the business unit we're discussing here is the one that owns the radio stations. They don't own the copyright on the music they play. They pay the artists (not the record companies) for the priveledge of playing music... the copyrights of which all belong to other people. I'm also not sure of your choice of the word "cartel" here. The first definition provided by "dict cartel" is "A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members." Clear Channel is a single business.
"My wife and I are friends with 2 bands that are in the Top 100 right now. They make almost NO money from the distribution of their music (one of them will sell millions of albums in the next 2 years). They make ALL their money from touring. How does copyright help them?"
"almost no" != "no."
I presume they're under contract with record labels. The record labels funded the production of their music, in exchange for exclusive rights on the distribution of the recordings. The label's promotion and marketing machines have given these bands noteriety and allowed them to embark on an apparently lucrative tour.
If the record labels didn't have copyright protection -- that is, if they'd invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into producing and promoting the music, only to see some Chinese company or anybody else distribute the finished product with impunity -- then they wouldn't have taken a chance on your friends in the first place. We can have fun with "what if" scenarios of how your friends might have been equally successful if, say, they'd instead taken a loan out from a bank and hired their own marketing and promotion experts -- but here in the real world, it's copyright laws that allow the record companies to operate as they do, and it's the record companies that gave your friends a chance.
"They understand that the only way to enter the monopoly-controlled market (FCC and copyright created artificial barrier to entry) is to give up the rights to their music to the cartels."
Bullshit. They could have signed with Magnatunes or another "non-evil" label. The top bands at Magnatunes make thousands of dollars per year. They could have signed with one of the tens of thousands of indie record labels -- the sort that have fewer than ten employees and most certainly aren't members of the RIAA. And, of course, they could have absorbed all the burden themselves by taking personal loans from the bank, and used the services of CDBaby to get their stuff onto the iTMS (the vast majority of the stuff I buy on iTMS is the work of tiny indie labels). But your friends chose to sign with major labels. Maybe they had a good reason to -- maybe they wanted to take that chance of making millions of bucks, a chance that, frankly, Magnatunes and the tiny labels and the self-publishing routes just don't offer. Maybe making just a few thousand bucks a year at their craft via Magnatunes just wasn't good enough for them. That's perfectly fine... if that's the case, I don't fault them at all. But it was their choice, and nobody else's.
"Every report on p2p I've ever read talks about "illegally downloading music" or "used for illegal software downloads" with no mention of copylefted / public domain / other non-infringing uses."
Every report on P2P that you've ever read? That's really quite odd; I just spent about 20 seconds entering "P2P" into the search box at wired.com and couldn't come up with any articles that even came close to implying that all music/software downloads are illegal. Frankly, I don't believe you, and I think that you're trying to set up a HUGE straw man here.
My experience is that I don't recall reading an article that deliberately implied that all music/software downloads are illegal. I may have read one that I don't remember, but at the most, it's the exception, not the rule. I know this is Slashdot, where we're all smarter than everybody else, but I really do think that the typical reader who follows stories on P2P or piracy understands that there is indeed freeware/shareware/open source software, and that a trivial amount of P2P traffic is indeed permission-based.
"Whether or not file sharing is fair use is, to the best of my knowledge, an as of yet unsettled legal question. I don't necessarily believe it is, but there's arguments to be made both ways and I think it's far less black and white than the RIAA likes to pretend."
To be fair to you, the "Making copies of my CDs for my friends is fair use" meme is a popular one -- but it's wrong, at least in the US (this particular case is in Germany). Many people start with this incorrect foundation and make the next leap to "file sharing is just like sharing with 10,000 of my closest friends" -- which, of course, is also incorrect.
A similar argument is "fair use allows copying in some instances for educational purposes. By putting this CD in my share directory, I am 'educating' others about how great this music is." Or, "fair use allows copying in some instances for scholarship and research. I am allowing others to research how great this music is." The trouble is, while these arguments may sound good to many Slashdotters, they're not aware of a legal term called the "laugh test" -- if you wouldn't buy it yourself, the courts probably won't buy it, either.
There are indeed lots of gray areas where new technology clashes with existing laws, but in the USA, this ain't one of them. If you distribute a copyrighted CD to others without the permission of the copyright holder in a manner that you wouldn't reasonably expect to fall under fair use doctrine -- whether you're giving ten copies to your friends, selling 100 copies out of a suitcase in Times Square, or allowing 10,000 people to download it from your hard drive, "fair use" is going to be a tough position to argue. Not even the EFF is going there.
No intellectual dishonesty is intended. The discussion of the effects of copyright law as it exists today, vs. how it was envisioned by the framers of the constitution, is an interesting one -- but it's lateral to the Q&A. He asked "why should artists have the right to set the terms by which their work can be copied?" and I answered, quoting the constitution: "to promote the progress of science and useful arts."
Referring to your assertation: I know several people (and I'm talking actual people, not large corporations) whom copyright law has helped. I really don't think I'm alone here. Unless one has a very small social circle, even by Slashdotter standards, the average person likely knows a few people who make money off of their ideas.
I think many people subscribe to an ideal that abolishing copyright law would bring about a new enlightened age; I think that it would simply shift the economic scales more toward those who are already good at copying -- e.g. it would be a lot easier to get a cheap t-shirt or DVD featuring Mickey Mouse, since every factory in China would be able to produce and export them without restriction. There are already plenty of artists who give their work away for free, and there always will be. Copyright law is not putting a stranglehold on our ability to enjoy and appreciate free art. Allowing me to get that Mickey t-shirt for $5 instead of $20, or to help myself to a copy of any CD I like, is not going to significantly increase my quality of life. But pushing artists and writers even further down the socio-economic hierarchy would have grave implications. I think one can judge a society on how it treats its artists. Taking away rights from a group that are already among the lowest-paid would not be a good step for our society. The fact that I have to pay $0.99 if I want my own copy of a Pussycat Dolls track? That doesn't bother me. I'll pass, thanks. The fact that the right to set their terms likely encouraged them to get into the entertainment business? I'm all for that. If they've made somebody's life happier, then good on them. The system has worked.
Taking a more pragmatic view, I'm aware that intellectual property is among the USA's biggest exports. Whether we it or not, the taxes that our film studios, software companies and book publishers pay are a significant reason for the quality of life we enjoy. Even if we don't care much for the livilihoods of individual artists, taking deliberate steps to set our economy back a few notches is too large a price to pay for free Slipknot CDs for every teenager.
"Many, sadly here on Slashdot, too, subscribe to the thought that "artists *deserve*" this-or-that."
... straw man...
"That it's their "right" for such-and-such. Okay, let's accept that for a moment."
Excellent suggestion. Creators of works of art do have rights, as codified by law.
"Do -you- have a "right" to royalties for a work you performed for your employer? This is a "moral" question to you all. Not a technicality one. Please answer accordingly."
The difference between your working day and the working day of a typical artist is that you can probably go to your office and read Slashdot all day, and you'll still get a paycheck this week. And next, and the next after that. By comparison, novelists, poets and musicians are among the three lowest paying profession. An average McDonald's employee brings in more than the median income for poets, musicians and writers.
"Do you see a difference in the "right" for royalties - future compensation on work done "today" - of the following:"
...followed by a list of jobs where work is much easier to find, and the pay is much higher, than for most artistic professions. That's the difference.
"If I'm passing a street performer and, though I enjoyed the performance they gave, I didn't donate into their hat, do you consider me a "thief"?"
Of course not. The street performer sets the terms: watch my performance. Pay if you like, or don't. Likewise, an artist sets their terms. Some musicians release their music on a payment-optional basis, much like that street performer. Others don't. You're not violating the terms if you don't tip the street performer. Likewise, you're not violating the terms of the musician who releases MP3s with a voluntary donation system, and you opt not to donate. But if that musician releases their stuff only on a for-sale basis, and you pirate it, you're violating their terms. Do you understand the difference?
"WHY "should" an "artist" receive recurring payments for a job performed ONCE, while a, uh, bricklayer, trash-man, flight attendant, hooker, cab driver, teacher, mechanic, PC repair tech, etc., etc.,..., etc. NOT?"
The U.S. Constitution puts it pretty succinctly: to promote the progress of science and useful arts. If you feel it's a great inequity that a poet or a novelist enjoys the advantage of royalties while a cab driver must go to work each day to get paid, try the thought experiment of which you'd rather try to make a living at for a year: creating and selling your poetry/prose/music, or driving a cab.
You raise some interesting points. You also raise some additional questions:
"We don't need them to record music. Artists can do that themselves, and release it for free if they want to."
You're actually referring to the subset of artists who have the either the means or the talent to record, mix, engineer and produce their own stuff, right? Do you have a suggestion for musicians who don't happen to have the cash or the skills? Are they SOL in the future world where record companies don't exist?
"They've always made more money from concerts, belly-button rings and T-shirts anyway. For the artist, a recording is basically a form of advertising live performance."
Here, you're excluding the artists who, for whatever reason, can't or won't tour or perform live, right?
I get a big kick out of Zero 7, D'Nell and Ultra Nate, but the odds are basically nill that I'll ever be able to see them in concert, and I certainly won't buy a t-shirt. So, I supported them by buying their stuff on the iTMS. And the only reason I was able to learn about them was because a record company gave them a chance and got their stuff produced and got it out there. If I'd subscribed to your viewpoint and simply helped myself to their stuff for free, would this have benefited them?
"We don't need record companies to distribute music. If I am an artist I can put it on my site and let the public decide. If people like it, it will spread virally. It will cost me virtually nothing."
You're not the first to claim that the Internet eliminates the need to do sales or marketing. Do you believe this holds true for other industries? For example, would you advise, say, the Ford Motor Company to cease all marketing and advertising, and just rely on word of mouth?
"What else is left for record company employees to do, other than support the cocaine industry?"
I don't understand what you mean here. I haven't met very many people who worked in the record industry, but I've met a few. One was a graphics designer who did freelance stuff for a few tiny indie labels in the bay area. Another was a guy who ran his own ten-person label. He paid himself something like $20K a year. Neither of them used cocaine. Do you believe that they are in the minority as far as folks who are in the music business? For example, do you think the guy who runs Magnatunes does coke?
"First off, copyright infringement is neither stealing nor piracy."
I'll avoid the "stealing" issue here (lest we get into "stolen thunder," "theft of service," and other colorful but inaccurate phrases) but "piracy" is what's known as a homonym, or what some call a homophone. I think you're thinking of piracy in the sense of "piracy on the high seas" but it has a separate definition relating to unauthorized copying of copyrighted material (type "dict piracy" into the Firefox URL window if you don't believe me -- and amazingly enough, this definition goes back some 300 years). Slashdotters aren't confused by the fact that "bark" is both a tree covering and the sound a dog makes, but lots of Slashdotters are tripped up by "piracy" -- so you're not alone.
"How many homes were raided when they found out that the RIAA was illegally price fixing? How many people went to jail?"
The price-fixing settlement is not what you think it was. I believe you're of the understanding that it was record companies colluding to keep their prices in line with each other. The reality is that it was Universal (not the RIAA -- the RIAA is a trade group to which Universal belongs) that was caught attempting to set the price of their product at the retail level. Here's how it went down:
Best Buy and Wal-Mart started selling CDs as loss leaders (selling at sub-optimal margins, or even at a loss) to get consumers into their stores. They could do this because they didn't need the profit on the CDs to pay the rent.
A few dedicated CD chains (Tower Records, TWE and one store the name of which I forget) complained to the record companies. Unlike Wal-Mart and Best Buy, they didn't have a vast store of high-margin clothes and electronics. They simply could not match Best Buy and Wal-Mart's pricing on CDs.
Universal set up what's known as a MAP program with these retailers. It stands for "Minimum Advertised Price" and it's still prevalent in many industries. With a MAP program, a manufacturer helps pay for a retailer's ads (called co-op ads) with the stipulation that the advertised price not fall below a certain minimum. Of course, the retailer can still sell a product for whatever price works for them, but if they advertise a product from a vendor with whom they're on a MAP program, they have a price minimum.
Best Buy and Wal-Mart got wind of this, and complained to the government. The government then bitch-slapped Universal.
Best Buy and Wal-Mart had the last laugh. They still sell CDs for cheap. Tower Record subsequently filed for bankrupcy, and has been sold a few times since.
Lots of other industries -- including the computer industry -- still happily use MAP programs. For instance, this is why you rarely see the Bose SoundDock listed for less than retail. I could list dozens of other examples.
When Universal was running the MAP programs, it only affected you, the consumer, if you had bought CDs at Tower or TWE during that period.
The winners here are Best Buy and Wal-Mart. The losers are the dedicated music chains like Tower, and the indie record stores that must fight to stay in business in the wake of Best Buy and Wal-Mart, who don't need to worry about making a profit when they set their pricing on CDs. The price-fixing settlement was good news for you if you subscribe to the "What's good for Wal-Mart is good for America" theory, or if you're a fan of the homgenous music that the big box retailers sell. It was bad news for you if, like me, you're a fan of indie record stores. The lesson here is "don't piss off Wal-Mart or Best Buy."
Universal admitted no wrongdoing when they agreed to the settlement. Since I work in the computer peripherals industry, where we still use MAPs, I've got to agree with them here.
I wish I could tell you that the price-fixing settlement was what you thought it was; it would fit in with the whole "record companies are evil" thing. But you're off-base here.
Do you have any suggestions for an alternative? Should the authorities simply ignore claims of copyright infringement? Or perhaps use the honor system -- call the suspects on the phone and ask them if they've been sharing gigabytes worth of copyrighted material?
"The ethical debate we - as citizens, consumers, potentially file-sharers, and ultimately the ones with the votes - have to deal with is: which is more, or in this case less ethical? Corruption at a federal or even International level, or Copyright Infringement?"
Why even set up a straw man here? Big companies buying government influence is bad. Copying somebody else's work against their wishes is also bad. It's not an either/or, and certainly not a situation where two wrongs make a right.
"That is a choice I leave to you."
The implication here is, of course, that if you're against copyright infringement, then you're for corporate corruption of government.
"You may find the comparison fatuous. But, once you finally drill down to the core issue, you must ultimately acknowledge that what's at stake is nothing less than your freedom to do with your property as you please."
I'm not sure what you're referring to be the "property" in this context.
If by "property" you mean that Slipknot album I downloaded from the iTMS, it's still the intellectual property of Slipknot (they own the copyright on the words and music) and the record company (they own the copyright on that particular recording thereof). They are the ones who invested the time and money; not I. On the other hand, if I'd put a similar amount of my own time and money into producing my own album, and somebody tried to dictate the terms under which I could release it, then I would have an issue. But I'm the consumer here, not the producer.
If by "property" you mean my PC, I still have the right to do with it as I please. I have complete autonomy over whether I want to download that Slipknot album from the iTMS. I know the terms under which I download it -- that I can only burn it ten times before I have to rearrange the tracks, for instance -- so I can make that choice.
Following up to my own post, I just got the new PC Magazine, and one of the cover stories is headlined "Red is the New Gray" in relation to a new Dell notebook. Again, the editors at PC Magazine are not of the misunderstanding that red and gray are the same color.
With all the discussion here of whether copying with attribution is really plagiarism, I'm guessing that the "______ is the new _______" phrase just isn't well-known among the Slashdot generation.
"When a news story breaks, and you see a report raw from a wire service feed, watch as practically every news outlet copies and pastes that report verbatim."
Perhaps you're joking, and it flew right over my head. But FWIW, news outlets such as newspapers pay the wire services for the priveledge of doing so. There's a pre-existing arrangement, and this is how the wire services make their money.
Correct. "The new plagiarism" is not really plagiarism.
Likewise, when you see something like "white is the new black," the person making the statement is not actually confused about the difference between white and black. They are using irony and literary license.
Of course, on Slashdot, if somebody were to write something like "white is the new black" or "Linux is the new Windows" or "Larry Ellison is the new Bill Gates," somebody would probably reply with "no, Linux and Windows are actually different operating systems," and be modded +5, Informative.
You raise some interesting points. As background, what sort of artistic works have you produced, and how have you licensed them? Have you ever undertook something as big and costly as a music video, and then released it with less restrictive terms? In particular, has it been something related to your livelihood?
It's easy for us, as consumers, to state that creators should give away their stuff for free and unrestricted; and when they don't, it's also easy for us to rationalize ignoring others' copyrights. Kudos to you if you've created major works of art and given them away restriction-free -- and if you have, you know it's a pretty big and scary step.
Re:Creative == SCO, hope they get crushed.
on
Apple Sues Creative
·
· Score: 1
What is your point... that the algorithm is so obvious that it should not have been patentable?
If so, it raises the question of why it needs to be called "Carmack's reverse" if it's so blindingly obvious.
I have no doubt that Carmack was very, very clever to have thought of it. Trouble is, somebody else thought of it first.
Your post echoes the same sentiment of several posts here: this initiative is doomed to fail because it's priced too high for the quality of the material.
However, the market shows us that Slashdotters are not as large of a market force as we think. "Slashdotters don't like it, thus it's a terrible idea" is not borne out by the empirical evidence:
Downloading songs off of iTunes: a buck a song and encumbered by DRM. If you listen to enough Slashdotters, you'll learn that songs really should be $0.10 each and in unmolested MP3 format. Yet the iTMS is a runaway success by any definition.
Downloadable ringtones: paying $1, $2 or more for a ringtone? What a stupid idea! One can just use their phone's music composer program to create the ringtone of that popular song from scratch, or download a MIDI file to their phone, or even just create their own sample of the MP3 file or song off of the CD... for free. Yet downloadable ringtones are a billion dollar business.
XM and Sirius? You mean pay for radio? A CD changer or an iPod will do the same, with no monthly fee. Read the Slashdot reaction when the subject comes up, and you'd think that satellite radio is sure to go the way of that little magazine barcode scanner that looked like a kitty. Yet XM and Sirius are mostly doing fine (Howard Stern's paycheck notwithstanding).
Now, let's look at some businesses which fit the common Slashdot idea of how to do things right:
Magnatunes. It's an open source record label! Payment is optional, and they don't ask for your first born! What's not to love? Yet they haven't signed any major artists, haven't had any breakout hits, and the general public hasn't heard of them.
AllofMP3. It's great! Music in any format you want, DRM-free. And the artists get paid! Okay, they don't really get paid, but at least the record companies aren't getting paid, either. What's not to love? Yet, the general public hasn't caught on.
Linux. Sorry... I don't know a single person who uses it. I tried. I really tried. It just didn't do what I needed. And I've been coding on *nix boxes since 1985. I think that for many people, running Linux is a political statement more than anything else. Yeah, yeah, I know... say goodbye to "karma: excellent."
Of course, these are just my opinions. The real answer will lie in what the market's like in five years. I think Warner (and more film studios) will still be selling films online, even using P2P. I think that the iTMS and downloadable ringtones will still be going strong, and Magnatunes will still be a tiny label that nobody's heard of. Let's see, shall we?
Slashdot Mirror
The "copyright should be returned to the original 14 year period just like the framers of the constitution intended it" crowd probably believe that things started going to hell in 1831.
"You know, one thing they might do to return copyright to its original intent is to make it so that copyright cannot be "transferred" as property. There should still be the ability to act on the creator's behalf, but it should be more like an agent or manager."
That's an interesting idea. Do you have any suggestions for how to make it work in practice?
In the music world, of course, the artist typically keeps the copyright on their words and music -- of course, it's 100% their creation. The copyright on the recording is owned by the record company or shared between the label and the engineer/producer. For purposes of changing the law, who would you deem to be the creator in this extent? What if the artist went into the studio with just a sheet of lyrics and, due to the genius of the producer, the finished, arranged and mixed recording sounded nothing like what the artist did on their original garage tape, and it's a whole lot better?
In the case of a film, who do you think should own the copyright? The director, the screenwriter, the cinematographer? What if the editor does an amazing job of transforming an awful directing or writing job that's something quite watchable? Who decides?
"Rights" cannot be sold or transferred. If, for example, I decided I never want to vote in a public election again, can I then sell my right to vote to someone who is otherwise not elligible? Could I sell my right to vote to someone so they could vote more than once? Why then can we sell "copyrights"?"
I don't follow that reasoning of thought at all. We buy and sell rights all the time. Ever bought a house? That's property rights you just bought. Signed a rental agreement? Buying and selling IP is just like buying and selling physical property. I'm not drawing the connection between voting and buying or selling property.
"There's no reason why a CD should cost $20 (and only a dime going to the creator) when the manufacturing cost of CD is in pennies... just my two cents."
They don't. New releases are around $13.
A manufacturing cost of a finished CD is a bit north of a buck. I'm guessing you're confusing it with the cost of a CD-R? At any rate, the manufacturing cost of an item usually has very little to do with the cost of sale... stating the manufacturing cost is pointless. The retailer that sells you the CD usually makes more commission than the manufacturing cost. Lots of people -- you're certainly not the first -- are of the impression that the various people who help make the CD a reality work for free, but that's just not the case.
You mentioned "huge profits" a few times and based on the numbers you threw out, you're apparently believe that "huge profits" are made on the sales of CDs, and this is one of your problems with copyright law (and, I'm guessing, your justification for breaking it). If the net margin made on CDs upsets you, you really don't want to know the margin made by Apple on your iPod, by the manufacturer of your mouse and keyboard, the clothes you're (hopefully) wearing right now. Your CDs are among the lowest-margin products you own. If you want a moral justification for piracy, "CDs have huge net margins" isn't a logical one.
"No offence, but you should really look at what typical recording contracts actually say before launching into a rant like that. Hint: if you're part of a newbie band and things go to hell, you're probably going to get stuck with most of the expenses, not the record label."
I'm aware that many recording contracts are designed so that every last staple and paper clip is charged to you. Thus, many new artists in awful contracts find that they never make money -- and if they have a particularly bad contract, then they might be stuck making more records for the label, which also probably won't make any money.
But these expenses are charged to you out of the gross sales profits. Typical recording contracts do not require that the artist whip out their personal checkbook or credit card number and partially fund the endeavor. If the record ultimately loses money (and most do; it's a highly speculative business) the artist loses nothing but time, and the record company eats the financial loss. If a new artist is suckered into a multi-CD contract and the first CD doesn't break even, the record company may not opt to drop them from their contract. In that case, the artist may "owe" the record label (revenue on the next CD would go toward the negative balance), but not in the sense that the artist has to pay them cash out of their own bank account or risk losing their house. And, this isn't a typical situation.
This is why the alternate route of getting a huge loan from the bank (assuming one has the collateral) and hiring one's own experts may be preferable for many people. If the endeavor is a failure, you must pay back the loan, but at least you were personally responsible for spending every dollar.
"People around here need to stop associating defending the principle of intellectual property with defending the big record labels, who are for the most part the scum of the earth."
And people around here really need to stop using the evilness of the big record labels as justification for piracy. I am against unfair contracts (as we all are, I'm sure). I'm also against lame rationalizations for piracy. Most people here could simply acknowledge that they pirate as a means to save money, and move along.
"How did these companies manage to convince the creator they were necessary in the age of digital content? They are leeches who have yet to wake up to the fact that their business model is faulty."
Hi there. I have a pretty good singing voice, and a sheaf of paper with some lyrics that I wrote. I would like your help in:
I don't want to spend any out-of-pocket money on this, since, like most struggling musicians, I don't have any. If I get a record contract, the record company will take care of all the above. They'll cover the expenses. Worst case is that I'll make no money; if the record loses money, I won't have to pay them back. And, no, I'm not interested in just putting my stuff on Magnatune and hoping to make a few hundred bucks a year. Just as you would like to reach your full potential at your choice of profession, I would like to do the same.
But since all the people who do that are unecessary, it wouldn't be fair for you to ask for any sort of payment for your time and effort in helping me accomplish all those. After all, that would make you just as much as a "leech" as they are. So, what do you say?
"Not to mention that original copyright laws - a time-limited monopoly - has been twisted into an abomination that only serves the industries. Seventy years after the creator's death? Combined with "work-for-hire" clauses which effectively makes a company the "creator"? Society is not served by that, only the media megacorporations."
This is correct if you don't include the many individual rightsholders whom copyright law has served. All cats are white, except those that aren't.
"no no, they demand state protection for their business model, and even accept any violation on basic human rights as "collateral damage"."
Nonsense. We all rely on state protection to do business. No matter what you sell, and in what quantity you sell it, there's always going to be somebody who wants it for free. This is why we have laws. Your corner grocery depends on the protection of the police. Your local businesses depend the FAA and the Coast Guard to help their trade go smoothly, and their employees rely on the SEC and state and federal labor laws to keep their employers in check.
The ability to get a free copy of the Fray CD and distribute it to all your friends with impunity is not a "basic human right." Nor is it a "basic human right" to buy a DVD and give copies to all your friends. Talk to some people who've come to the US as refugees, or who participated in the civil rights protests in the South in the 1960's, or who were interred in camps in the US or Germany about "basic human rights" and they'll check you right proper.
"I equate them to traitors of human civilisation and guilty of high treason (taking the dismantling of democracy by buying layws and bribing politicians as necessary to reach their goals). should I ever have something to say politically, i'd lock all of them away for a long time."
Really? I know several people who've owned copyrights on their work (books, poetry, even songs) and I wouldn't consider them traitors to human civilization. Are you talking about the industries that make their money with IP? Sadly, every industry buys laws. If you were to start locking up people in order of how much money they spend on lobbying efforts, the industries that represent artists, writers, coders, and singers would be far down on your list.
"Recording a song off the radio..."
Nope. You can prove this yourself by doing a thought experiment: think of any arbitrary song that you'd like to have a copy of. Being an "information wants to be free" sort of dude, buying it is out of the question. So, you make a bet with your friend on who can get a copy first, with each of you trying a different method:
Now, what will likely happen is that your friend will take all of two minutes searching on a tracking site, and even if he has a few false starts, he'll very quickly have a CD quality, digital rip of the song that's indistinguishable from the version he'd have bought. Meanwhile, you'll be sitting there with your radio attached to your PC, patiently waiting for the song to be played. After much waiting, if you're lucky you'll get a substandard, analog version with the beginning or end cut off, faded out, or otherwise messed with -- even if you're pulling it off of XM. It's not a very good substitute at all for the pristine digital quality version that your friend pirated.
This is why free radio exists. The quality just isn't that great, and you don't get much choice of what you get to hear and when. It's an inducement for a sale, not a replacement. Compare this to the high-quality MP3s you get via BitTorrent: they sound just like the original, and you can get whatever you want, and listen to it whenever you want, as much as you like. It's a substitute for a sale -- after all, why would you go out and buy a copy on the iTMS or buy the CD, once you have your own free copy that's just as good?
If you're still not getting it, think of it this way: if collecting MP3 files via P2P were just like the radio, then there wouldn't be a demand for pirated MP3 files. We'd all just be listening to the radio instead!
Or maybe the "bad guys" here are the people who've spent untold effort, time and money in producing the work that we enjoy, and then having the audacity to release it under their own terms.
"Improper care for it's people resulting in 30 million deaths IS NOT THE SAME THING AS COPYRIGHT. In fact, it's pretty damn insulting to even make the comparison."
The GP did indeed use small words, but it looks like he wasn't clear enough. Communism did not work for China. It hasn't worked for a lot of places. Generally speaking, the standard of living is higher in countries that embrace capitalist values and respect property rights -- both intellectual and physical property. China understands this. They know that to be a player in the world's economy (and, some would say, become the winner in their economic war with the west), they'll have to embrace property rights.
"Copyright had very little to do with the economic development of the US."
That's a surprising statement. Can you elaborate on that? The US exported $27 billion in IP in 1995 (the latest year I could find with a few minutes of research). Whether we like it or not, the money that comes into our country due to the creative output of our software developers, filmmakers, musicians, novelists and other artists and scientists is a major factor of the quality of life we enjoy.
By "economic development of the US" do you mean in, say, the 1790's? If so, how would you compare and contrast the economic power of IP exports back then, vs. in today's information age?
"Copyright is about maintain total control over a work that is displayed publicly."
Correct. And you might choose to copyright your work in an effort to profit from it. That's perfectly acceptable.
"For the record, I think a 14 year copyright is a good thing, but it's current length is preventing culture from evolving. We know the culture will evolve and something will give. It seems to me what's going to give is copyright law completly."
I've heard this before. Can can you explain (in small words, to use the GP's phrase) why this is the case? Will allowing the teens of America to trade the music and movies of 1992 with impunity have a significant effect on accelerating our culture? Has our pop culture been hindered ever since the copyright term was extended to 28 years in 1831?
"Clear Channel is a copyright-created cartel that would not exist if it wasn't for their right to monopoly given to them by copyright laws."
I believe the business unit we're discussing here is the one that owns the radio stations. They don't own the copyright on the music they play. They pay the artists (not the record companies) for the priveledge of playing music... the copyrights of which all belong to other people. I'm also not sure of your choice of the word "cartel" here. The first definition provided by "dict cartel" is "A combination of independent business organizations formed to regulate production, pricing, and marketing of goods by the members." Clear Channel is a single business.
"My wife and I are friends with 2 bands that are in the Top 100 right now. They make almost NO money from the distribution of their music (one of them will sell millions of albums in the next 2 years). They make ALL their money from touring. How does copyright help them?"
"almost no" != "no."
I presume they're under contract with record labels. The record labels funded the production of their music, in exchange for exclusive rights on the distribution of the recordings. The label's promotion and marketing machines have given these bands noteriety and allowed them to embark on an apparently lucrative tour.
If the record labels didn't have copyright protection -- that is, if they'd invested tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into producing and promoting the music, only to see some Chinese company or anybody else distribute the finished product with impunity -- then they wouldn't have taken a chance on your friends in the first place. We can have fun with "what if" scenarios of how your friends might have been equally successful if, say, they'd instead taken a loan out from a bank and hired their own marketing and promotion experts -- but here in the real world, it's copyright laws that allow the record companies to operate as they do, and it's the record companies that gave your friends a chance.
"They understand that the only way to enter the monopoly-controlled market (FCC and copyright created artificial barrier to entry) is to give up the rights to their music to the cartels."
Bullshit. They could have signed with Magnatunes or another "non-evil" label. The top bands at Magnatunes make thousands of dollars per year. They could have signed with one of the tens of thousands of indie record labels -- the sort that have fewer than ten employees and most certainly aren't members of the RIAA. And, of course, they could have absorbed all the burden themselves by taking personal loans from the bank, and used the services of CDBaby to get their stuff onto the iTMS (the vast majority of the stuff I buy on iTMS is the work of tiny indie labels). But your friends chose to sign with major labels. Maybe they had a good reason to -- maybe they wanted to take that chance of making millions of bucks, a chance that, frankly, Magnatunes and the tiny labels and the self-publishing routes just don't offer. Maybe making just a few thousand bucks a year at their craft via Magnatunes just wasn't good enough for them. That's perfectly fine... if that's the case, I don't fault them at all. But it was their choice, and nobody else's.
"Every report on p2p I've ever read talks about "illegally downloading music" or "used for illegal software downloads" with no mention of copylefted / public domain / other non-infringing uses."
Every report on P2P that you've ever read? That's really quite odd; I just spent about 20 seconds entering "P2P" into the search box at wired.com and couldn't come up with any articles that even came close to implying that all music/software downloads are illegal. Frankly, I don't believe you, and I think that you're trying to set up a HUGE straw man here.
My experience is that I don't recall reading an article that deliberately implied that all music/software downloads are illegal. I may have read one that I don't remember, but at the most, it's the exception, not the rule. I know this is Slashdot, where we're all smarter than everybody else, but I really do think that the typical reader who follows stories on P2P or piracy understands that there is indeed freeware/shareware/open source software, and that a trivial amount of P2P traffic is indeed permission-based.
"Whether or not file sharing is fair use is, to the best of my knowledge, an as of yet unsettled legal question. I don't necessarily believe it is, but there's arguments to be made both ways and I think it's far less black and white than the RIAA likes to pretend."
To be fair to you, the "Making copies of my CDs for my friends is fair use" meme is a popular one -- but it's wrong, at least in the US (this particular case is in Germany). Many people start with this incorrect foundation and make the next leap to "file sharing is just like sharing with 10,000 of my closest friends" -- which, of course, is also incorrect.
A similar argument is "fair use allows copying in some instances for educational purposes. By putting this CD in my share directory, I am 'educating' others about how great this music is." Or, "fair use allows copying in some instances for scholarship and research. I am allowing others to research how great this music is." The trouble is, while these arguments may sound good to many Slashdotters, they're not aware of a legal term called the "laugh test" -- if you wouldn't buy it yourself, the courts probably won't buy it, either.
There are indeed lots of gray areas where new technology clashes with existing laws, but in the USA, this ain't one of them. If you distribute a copyrighted CD to others without the permission of the copyright holder in a manner that you wouldn't reasonably expect to fall under fair use doctrine -- whether you're giving ten copies to your friends, selling 100 copies out of a suitcase in Times Square, or allowing 10,000 people to download it from your hard drive, "fair use" is going to be a tough position to argue. Not even the EFF is going there.
No intellectual dishonesty is intended. The discussion of the effects of copyright law as it exists today, vs. how it was envisioned by the framers of the constitution, is an interesting one -- but it's lateral to the Q&A. He asked "why should artists have the right to set the terms by which their work can be copied?" and I answered, quoting the constitution: "to promote the progress of science and useful arts."
Referring to your assertation: I know several people (and I'm talking actual people, not large corporations) whom copyright law has helped. I really don't think I'm alone here. Unless one has a very small social circle, even by Slashdotter standards, the average person likely knows a few people who make money off of their ideas.
I think many people subscribe to an ideal that abolishing copyright law would bring about a new enlightened age; I think that it would simply shift the economic scales more toward those who are already good at copying -- e.g. it would be a lot easier to get a cheap t-shirt or DVD featuring Mickey Mouse, since every factory in China would be able to produce and export them without restriction. There are already plenty of artists who give their work away for free, and there always will be. Copyright law is not putting a stranglehold on our ability to enjoy and appreciate free art. Allowing me to get that Mickey t-shirt for $5 instead of $20, or to help myself to a copy of any CD I like, is not going to significantly increase my quality of life. But pushing artists and writers even further down the socio-economic hierarchy would have grave implications. I think one can judge a society on how it treats its artists. Taking away rights from a group that are already among the lowest-paid would not be a good step for our society. The fact that I have to pay $0.99 if I want my own copy of a Pussycat Dolls track? That doesn't bother me. I'll pass, thanks. The fact that the right to set their terms likely encouraged them to get into the entertainment business? I'm all for that. If they've made somebody's life happier, then good on them. The system has worked.
Taking a more pragmatic view, I'm aware that intellectual property is among the USA's biggest exports. Whether we it or not, the taxes that our film studios, software companies and book publishers pay are a significant reason for the quality of life we enjoy. Even if we don't care much for the livilihoods of individual artists, taking deliberate steps to set our economy back a few notches is too large a price to pay for free Slipknot CDs for every teenager.
"Many, sadly here on Slashdot, too, subscribe to the thought that "artists *deserve*" this-or-that."
"That it's their "right" for such-and-such. Okay, let's accept that for a moment."
Excellent suggestion. Creators of works of art do have rights, as codified by law.
"Do -you- have a "right" to royalties for a work you performed for your employer? This is a "moral" question to you all. Not a technicality one. Please answer accordingly."
The difference between your working day and the working day of a typical artist is that you can probably go to your office and read Slashdot all day, and you'll still get a paycheck this week. And next, and the next after that. By comparison, novelists, poets and musicians are among the three lowest paying profession. An average McDonald's employee brings in more than the median income for poets, musicians and writers.
"Do you see a difference in the "right" for royalties - future compensation on work done "today" - of the following:"
...followed by a list of jobs where work is much easier to find, and the pay is much higher, than for most artistic professions. That's the difference.
"If I'm passing a street performer and, though I enjoyed the performance they gave, I didn't donate into their hat, do you consider me a "thief"?"
Of course not. The street performer sets the terms: watch my performance. Pay if you like, or don't. Likewise, an artist sets their terms. Some musicians release their music on a payment-optional basis, much like that street performer. Others don't. You're not violating the terms if you don't tip the street performer. Likewise, you're not violating the terms of the musician who releases MP3s with a voluntary donation system, and you opt not to donate. But if that musician releases their stuff only on a for-sale basis, and you pirate it, you're violating their terms. Do you understand the difference?
"WHY "should" an "artist" receive recurring payments for a job performed ONCE, while a, uh, bricklayer, trash-man, flight attendant, hooker, cab driver, teacher, mechanic, PC repair tech, etc., etc., ..., etc. NOT?"
The U.S. Constitution puts it pretty succinctly: to promote the progress of science and useful arts. If you feel it's a great inequity that a poet or a novelist enjoys the advantage of royalties while a cab driver must go to work each day to get paid, try the thought experiment of which you'd rather try to make a living at for a year: creating and selling your poetry/prose/music, or driving a cab.
You raise some interesting points. You also raise some additional questions:
"We don't need them to record music. Artists can do that themselves, and release it for free if they want to."
You're actually referring to the subset of artists who have the either the means or the talent to record, mix, engineer and produce their own stuff, right? Do you have a suggestion for musicians who don't happen to have the cash or the skills? Are they SOL in the future world where record companies don't exist?
"They've always made more money from concerts, belly-button rings and T-shirts anyway. For the artist, a recording is basically a form of advertising live performance."
Here, you're excluding the artists who, for whatever reason, can't or won't tour or perform live, right?
I get a big kick out of Zero 7, D'Nell and Ultra Nate, but the odds are basically nill that I'll ever be able to see them in concert, and I certainly won't buy a t-shirt. So, I supported them by buying their stuff on the iTMS. And the only reason I was able to learn about them was because a record company gave them a chance and got their stuff produced and got it out there. If I'd subscribed to your viewpoint and simply helped myself to their stuff for free, would this have benefited them?
"We don't need record companies to distribute music. If I am an artist I can put it on my site and let the public decide. If people like it, it will spread virally. It will cost me virtually nothing."
You're not the first to claim that the Internet eliminates the need to do sales or marketing. Do you believe this holds true for other industries? For example, would you advise, say, the Ford Motor Company to cease all marketing and advertising, and just rely on word of mouth?
"What else is left for record company employees to do, other than support the cocaine industry?"
I don't understand what you mean here. I haven't met very many people who worked in the record industry, but I've met a few. One was a graphics designer who did freelance stuff for a few tiny indie labels in the bay area. Another was a guy who ran his own ten-person label. He paid himself something like $20K a year. Neither of them used cocaine. Do you believe that they are in the minority as far as folks who are in the music business? For example, do you think the guy who runs Magnatunes does coke?
"First off, copyright infringement is neither stealing nor piracy."
I'll avoid the "stealing" issue here (lest we get into "stolen thunder," "theft of service," and other colorful but inaccurate phrases) but "piracy" is what's known as a homonym, or what some call a homophone. I think you're thinking of piracy in the sense of "piracy on the high seas" but it has a separate definition relating to unauthorized copying of copyrighted material (type "dict piracy" into the Firefox URL window if you don't believe me -- and amazingly enough, this definition goes back some 300 years). Slashdotters aren't confused by the fact that "bark" is both a tree covering and the sound a dog makes, but lots of Slashdotters are tripped up by "piracy" -- so you're not alone.
"How many homes were raided when they found out that the RIAA was illegally price fixing? How many people went to jail?"
The price-fixing settlement is not what you think it was. I believe you're of the understanding that it was record companies colluding to keep their prices in line with each other. The reality is that it was Universal (not the RIAA -- the RIAA is a trade group to which Universal belongs) that was caught attempting to set the price of their product at the retail level. Here's how it went down:
When Universal was running the MAP programs, it only affected you, the consumer, if you had bought CDs at Tower or TWE during that period.
The winners here are Best Buy and Wal-Mart. The losers are the dedicated music chains like Tower, and the indie record stores that must fight to stay in business in the wake of Best Buy and Wal-Mart, who don't need to worry about making a profit when they set their pricing on CDs. The price-fixing settlement was good news for you if you subscribe to the "What's good for Wal-Mart is good for America" theory, or if you're a fan of the homgenous music that the big box retailers sell. It was bad news for you if, like me, you're a fan of indie record stores. The lesson here is "don't piss off Wal-Mart or Best Buy."
Universal admitted no wrongdoing when they agreed to the settlement. Since I work in the computer peripherals industry, where we still use MAPs, I've got to agree with them here.
I wish I could tell you that the price-fixing settlement was what you thought it was; it would fit in with the whole "record companies are evil" thing. But you're off-base here.
Do you have any suggestions for an alternative? Should the authorities simply ignore claims of copyright infringement? Or perhaps use the honor system -- call the suspects on the phone and ask them if they've been sharing gigabytes worth of copyrighted material?
"The ethical debate we - as citizens, consumers, potentially file-sharers, and ultimately the ones with the votes - have to deal with is: which is more, or in this case less ethical? Corruption at a federal or even International level, or Copyright Infringement?"
Why even set up a straw man here? Big companies buying government influence is bad. Copying somebody else's work against their wishes is also bad. It's not an either/or, and certainly not a situation where two wrongs make a right.
"That is a choice I leave to you."
The implication here is, of course, that if you're against copyright infringement, then you're for corporate corruption of government.
"You may find the comparison fatuous. But, once you finally drill down to the core issue, you must ultimately acknowledge that what's at stake is nothing less than your freedom to do with your property as you please."
I'm not sure what you're referring to be the "property" in this context.
If by "property" you mean that Slipknot album I downloaded from the iTMS, it's still the intellectual property of Slipknot (they own the copyright on the words and music) and the record company (they own the copyright on that particular recording thereof). They are the ones who invested the time and money; not I. On the other hand, if I'd put a similar amount of my own time and money into producing my own album, and somebody tried to dictate the terms under which I could release it, then I would have an issue. But I'm the consumer here, not the producer.
If by "property" you mean my PC, I still have the right to do with it as I please. I have complete autonomy over whether I want to download that Slipknot album from the iTMS. I know the terms under which I download it -- that I can only burn it ten times before I have to rearrange the tracks, for instance -- so I can make that choice.
Following up to my own post, I just got the new PC Magazine, and one of the cover stories is headlined "Red is the New Gray" in relation to a new Dell notebook. Again, the editors at PC Magazine are not of the misunderstanding that red and gray are the same color.
With all the discussion here of whether copying with attribution is really plagiarism, I'm guessing that the "______ is the new _______" phrase just isn't well-known among the Slashdot generation.
"When a news story breaks, and you see a report raw from a wire service feed, watch as practically every news outlet copies and pastes that report verbatim."
Perhaps you're joking, and it flew right over my head. But FWIW, news outlets such as newspapers pay the wire services for the priveledge of doing so. There's a pre-existing arrangement, and this is how the wire services make their money.
"Its not plagiarism then is it?"
Correct. "The new plagiarism" is not really plagiarism.
Likewise, when you see something like "white is the new black," the person making the statement is not actually confused about the difference between white and black. They are using irony and literary license.
Of course, on Slashdot, if somebody were to write something like "white is the new black" or "Linux is the new Windows" or "Larry Ellison is the new Bill Gates," somebody would probably reply with "no, Linux and Windows are actually different operating systems," and be modded +5, Informative.
You raise some interesting points. As background, what sort of artistic works have you produced, and how have you licensed them? Have you ever undertook something as big and costly as a music video, and then released it with less restrictive terms? In particular, has it been something related to your livelihood?
It's easy for us, as consumers, to state that creators should give away their stuff for free and unrestricted; and when they don't, it's also easy for us to rationalize ignoring others' copyrights. Kudos to you if you've created major works of art and given them away restriction-free -- and if you have, you know it's a pretty big and scary step.
What is your point... that the algorithm is so obvious that it should not have been patentable?
If so, it raises the question of why it needs to be called "Carmack's reverse" if it's so blindingly obvious.
I have no doubt that Carmack was very, very clever to have thought of it. Trouble is, somebody else thought of it first.
Your post echoes the same sentiment of several posts here: this initiative is doomed to fail because it's priced too high for the quality of the material.
However, the market shows us that Slashdotters are not as large of a market force as we think. "Slashdotters don't like it, thus it's a terrible idea" is not borne out by the empirical evidence:
Now, let's look at some businesses which fit the common Slashdot idea of how to do things right:
Of course, these are just my opinions. The real answer will lie in what the market's like in five years. I think Warner (and more film studios) will still be selling films online, even using P2P. I think that the iTMS and downloadable ringtones will still be going strong, and Magnatunes will still be a tiny label that nobody's heard of. Let's see, shall we?