"I'm not saying that what they do has no value. I just question a legal system that winds up giving more rights to the people behind the marketing than the people behind the creating."
FYI, that's not a product of our legal system, but of the contracts that most record companies offer: they get the rights to the recording of your work, you retain the rights to your work.
Companies like Magnatune don't try to assert rights on your recordings, because they don't spend any money or effort on creating the recordings -- they just distribute them for you.
Also, once musicians get a few successful CDs under their belts, they get more leverage. They can strike deals with labels that state that the musicians keep the rights to the recordings.
"That is because the artist, at this point, has already lost money. Or do you figure those songs create themselves? No, the artist must spend time, time which cannot be spent on making money, but during which the rent will still have to be paid, to create songs."
You are very correct (the econ term for this is opportunity cost), but this is a variable that we can remove from both sides of the equation when pondering the "which sucks more, signing a recording contract or going it alone?" question.
Putting it another way, the choice to spend time on one's craft rather than, say, working at a day job is one which an artist must make well before they even get to the "recording contract or self-published" decision.
"And once the author dies, they keep those rights for many more years (going on forever right now) because that also encourages the dead authors to crawl out of the grave as artistic zombies. It all makes sense now."
Yup. And to make matters worse, the artist's children also enjoy those rights for up to 70 years after the artists's death (the record company gets the rights to the recording, the artist, everything else, including the words and music.)
"...by doing and end-run around the monopoly that controls the market and distribution channels and has been convicted of illegally abusing that monopoly to the detriment of the consumer. You just have to call up all the distribution chains and get them to carry your product..."
You're correct as well, if you're an indie record label, or if you're trying to sell a self-produced CD, it can be next to impossible to get to the retailers.
Likewise, if you've designed your own mouse in your garage, you can effectively forget about Best Buy, CompUSA, Wal-Mart or other major retailers even talking to you -- they're perfectly happy dealing with Microsoft, Logitech and the rest. However, "monopoly" is not an appropriate word to use here, either. But I agree with you that in the mouse and record industries, as well as thousands of others, it can be tough to be a tiny, tiny fish in a big, big pond.
"even though you are not getting compensated for any airplay, restaurant play, or other imposed fees collected by the RIAA on behalf of all copyright holders, but not distributed to any independents."
Huh? The RIAA has nothing to do with radio, restaurant, and other airplay. That's managed by artists' rights societies like BMI and ASCAP. They're wholly unrelated to the RIAA and are typically non-profits run by and for musicians, songwriters and composers.
You're correct, however, that if you're not getting much airplay, your checks from BMI or ASCAP can be tiny or even nonexistent.
"MPAA maybe, but most members of the RIAA just "lend" the artist the money to create and promote their work and then collect it back after they sell records.... If the artist doesn't the artist owes. I know more then one artists getting fucked this way."
The record company is at risk of losing money, but the artist is not. If the record company ends up spending more on the record than is recouped in sales, then the artist, unfortunately, will end up with a big fat ZERO, but the record company will have lost money. The artist generally doesn't start seeing money until the record company sees money.
This can certainly suck for the artist. It can also suck to invest a lot of your own money, never to see it again -- but at least your destiny is in your hands. Signing a record deal vs. producing and promoting your work yourself each have a long list of pluses and minuses.
"The **AA don't create things, they just hoard the rights to other people's creations."
... and pay to have those creations made, and cover the costs involved in marketing, selling and sistributing those creations.
If you have a piece of paper with some lyrics and chords on it, the idea is that you take it to a record company, which comes up with the money to turn that into a CD, then comes up with more money to make sure the radio stations play it and the stores sell it. They get (or at least share) the rights to the recording, while you keep the rights to the words and music that you wrote.
The way to avoid this is, of course, to fund the recording, producing, marketing and sales of your work yourself, rather than allowing experts to do this in exchange for a share of the sales. This is a perfectly viable solution provided that you have a lot of money in the bank that you don't mind risking, and you have the skill and the talent to be an engineer, producer, marketer and salesperson.
"How many times do we have to say it's not stealing????"
Okay, now do the one about "it's only piracy if you're on a boat and wearing an eye patch."
Wait... wait... no, sorry, didn't work. I'll still kick your ass right proper if you "steal," "infringe," "pirate," or otherwise help yourself to my work without my permission.
Play word games all you like if you think it will sanitize what you do. When people who make their living with their brains have trouble making the rent because legions of 14-year-olds have convinced themselves that they're not hurting anybody when they pirate -- oh, excuse the fuck out of me, infringe copyright -- their landlord doesn't care what it's called.
"What about the big entertainment companies' "victimizing" the American people by charging $30 for something that costs $1 to produce?"
Can you give me an example of a big entertainment company selling an item for $30 that costs them just one dollar to create, produce, and bring to market?
"That's the point the RIAA & MPAA are missing. With digital music/movies supply is infinite, so normal economics rules indicate that price should drop. Instead they want to charge as much as, or more, than it costs to buy a better quality physical copy. No wonder they're doing so poorly, they haven't got a clue how to handle the digital market, not technically or economically."
You make some very good points, but iTunes is indeed selling tracks like crazy at $0.99. That equates to $12 for a 10-song album, while the average price of a new CD has dropped to around $12.50 in the US. But -- and this is a huge Jennifer Lopez-sized but -- the comparison is much more than the price of the tracks vs. the price of the physical CD. It's the convenience -- avoiding the trip to the store, taking the time to rip the CD, and finding a place for it on one's shelf.
In short, when I look at the iTMS success, "haven't got a clue" is not the phrase that comes to mind. It appears to me that they understand the supply/demand curve just fine.
Thank you for your astute post -- I'm glad you took the time to point that out. Many people simply don't do enough research before they post.
However, you wrote:
"The big problem I have with this is that there's no easy way for someone writing, say, a 15-line python P2P system, to take that "reasonable care" to restrict copyrighted traffic."
This is a bit like saying "gun safety laws mean that there's no easy way for a guy developing a bazooka in his back yard with a can of propane, a pipe and a tennis ball can add a trigger lock." Yes, regulating the P2P industry would make P2P apps harder to write -- and that's the point. The point of gun safety laws is to keep those backyard-built pipe bazookas off the market, while allowing the sale of products in which care has been exercised in the design (engineering trigger locks and other safety precautions) to be sold.
Similarly, P2P regulation would be an attempt to keep that 15-line Python program off the market, while giving protection to the developer who puts reasonable effort into preventing their application for being used for unauthorized purposes.
"That might be a good comment to make to the legislators (if anyone actually thinks this will go anywhere). Describe the futility of the bill, the impossibility of checking an individual file, and how the only even remotely feasible technical mechanism is a central file/hash listing maintained by the content creators."
Companies that have developed viable screening/filtering/fingerprinting systems have already given demonstrations to legislators. While they are breakable (as is everything), this is what the legislators probably have in mind when they use phrases like "reasonable care."
"(not that I even agree the software authors or distributors should be shouldered with the blame of their users' actions...)"
I don't think so, either. The good thing about this bill is that if P2P vendors take reasonable care in the development phase -- hooking in some filtering technology, for example -- then they won't be.
"P2P software manufacturers are liable if someone uses their product to do something illegal?"
No -- did you read the article? Per the bill, P2P software manufacturers would be required to take reasonable steps in the development of the software to discourage it from being used to trade unauthorized material. For example, using filtering technology. If they take "reasonable steps" (the definition of which may be vague), they're in the clear, even if those steps are circumventable.
"Gun manufacturers are liable if someone uses their product to do something illegal?"
The proper analogy is the requirements imposed on gun manufacturers to take reasonable steps to ensure that their products are safe -- trigger locks, drop tests, and so on. It's impossible, of course, to make a gun that won't be used illegally, which is why government only requires that gun makers take reasonable steps to make sure that they're as safe as possible.
" So does this mean we can hold gun makers, people who build cars and knives to the same level of responsiblity?"
Laws already exist for these industries. Guns have very stringent safety restrictions, as do cars (ever notice that every car you look at has seatbelts? That's because of a law, not by choice of the manufacturer), and there are limits on the sales of certain types of knives. Power tools, kitchen appliances, children's apparel, and innumerable other industries have similar laws. Even software does -- you can't export software to certain areas if it contains certain types of cryptography.
The bill is an attempt to add P2P applications to a long, long, long list of items whose design, manufacture and sale is regulated.
The fact that your post has been modded 5, Insightful shows that many Slashdotters could use a basic civics lesson.
The bill was introduced by a California senator to be entered as a state law. Each state has its own set of laws, from everything as mundane as importing produce, to combatting spam. Each state generally has its own set of laws regarding things relating to cars, such as emissions, speed limits, and traffic laws.
To be perfectly clear:
California has laws about pesticide use and produce. This does not mean that Californians are of the understanding that produce does not exist elsewhere in the world.
California has anti-spam laws on the books -- some of the stricter in the nation, in fact. This does not imply that we harbor the notion that all spammers reside in California.
In California, you can generally make a right turn on a red, and make a U turn if it's not specifically disallowed. However, we are aware that cars are manufactured, sold, and driven elsewhere besides in California.
To fight unfair laws, we must understand them. We must also make clear and coherent arguments if we are to defeat them. Statements such as " I take it this idiot senator believes all the world's coders live in the US, right?" are, sadly, not helpful.
"The Advent of the Railways didn't happen in 1990, you know, just because that was when you first became old enough to buy a train ticket."
If -- just to throw some dates out -- the first railroad line were run between two towns in 1836 but the railroad system exploded country-wide in 1845, then here in the US, it would be appropriate to say "the advent of the railroad in 1845." This would have a different meaning of "the invention of the railroad in 1836."
That's how we use English in the US. You are welcome to tell us we're wrong, or otherwise argue with us some more.
"Bollocks. Advent means, and always has meant, the very beginning. Check any dictionary. 'Advent', for Christians, is the month before Christ was born - not the month when Christianity 'caught on'. You can't just just go around redefining words because you've made an arse of yourself in public."
Thanks for your insights into the colloquial differences between British English and American English, and the anecdote about the religiious meaning of the word (which applies here in the US, as well). Here in the US, it does indeed possess that colloquial meaning which I've described. I guess it's one of those fine points that require a native to understand.
If it helps, British have been accusing the Americans of mangling the English language since -- well, since there were British and Americans. Needless to say, differences do abound... on your turf, one might call you a "wanker," but here, you're simply an asshole.
"Aside from the obvious chicken-and-egg problem of claiming to have been an ISP before the "I" was even invented - 1989 may pre-date the web but it's a long way short of pre-dating the Internet."
"Advent" is commonly used to describe when something catches on and takes hold. "before the advent of the Internet" has a subtle yet distinctly different meaning than "before the Internet was invented" and that's why I think they chose to write it the way they did.
You're 100% correct, of course, that had they tried to claim that they were around before the Internet was invented, then it would be laughable.
"Money is power. The limits of individual power should be decided democratically. So yes you're right, I'm a socialist *because* I'm a democrat"
Fair enough. What is your personal opinion of the limit that should be set on an individual's annual earnings? It's just your opinion, so there's no right or wrong, of course. Would you apply that limit to everybody equally, or would you prefer a system where, say, doctors and other professionals have one limit, and musicians and other artists have another limit?
As a point of reference, when I asked this question on the Napster forum long ago, the consensus was that musicians should be limited to earning $50,000 USD a year.
"Shakespeare had to contend with pretty heavy piracy of his work as in England at the time actors were considered scum, so there was no legal protection offered to plays. Yet, amazingly Shakespeare and company routinely performed to sold-out houses. Why? Because that's all the entertainment there was."
Shakespeare's family was pretty well off. His troupe called themselves the "King's Men," and they were in pretty good with the Queen. There was legal protection afforded to plays, and Shakespeare and his crew relied on that protection more than one time when they found unauthorized versions of their works being produced elsewhere.
However, we owe our nearly-complete collection of his oeuvre to piracy. For some of his work, the only copies we have are unauthorized.
"If you tell me that I can only be creative for my own enjoyment, and can't make money off it, then I'll tell you this: Nobody is going to create music, movies, etc anymore."
Agreed. I applaud those people who do take the effort to create and release artistic works purely for the public good and for their own enjoyment, and if that little community thrives, then God bless them.
However, I don't think too highly of people who embrace the "info wants to be free" belief only as a means to provide moral absolution for helping themselves to others' work without the creators' permission. Information wants to be free? Great, then help yourself to the works of others who willingly make it freely available -- there's certainly a lot out there, although I can't vouch for the quality. But if somebody hasn't given you permission, then respect their wishes.
"If you want everything for free, you can have it...but there'll be nothing created you want."
Well put. And as an aside, I have a feeling that Marco and others who share his viewpoint generally aren't churning out huge volumes of music, film and other works of art that are in huge demand.
"If they think that people are buying iPods so that they can download music from the ITMS, they still don't get it."
I bought an iPod because I was an iTMS user first. I had momentum with my iTMS library and I didn't want to have to build a new library in another format from some other store.
"People don't buy a music player because of the options that are available to buy music online, they (usually) already have gigabytes of music on their hard disks & want to listen to it on the go."
Agreed. And I bought an iPod because most of the music on my hard drive was from iTMS and thus not easily transferrable to a non-Apple player. yes, I know I could have jumped through some hoops to convert each one to MP3, but it was simply not worth the time.
I am aware that this is Slashdot, where the typical user's music library is in MP3 format, and was probably not paid for. We may heap scorn upon them and proclaim that they "don't get it," but the sad fact is that there's a world of people out there for whom Apple's strategy of getting people hooked on the iTMS first, and then selling them an iPod, works according to plan.
Apple's success has hinged on selling to those who don't fall into the Slashdot demographic.
Your indignation is indeed righteous, but entirely misplaced. I agree 100% with you. My post is summarizing what I think is the feeling of many Slashdotters. If you don't agree with me that the attitude I've describe is prevalent, stick around here a while. You'd be amazed at what lengths people will go to to justify violating others' intellectual property rights.
"And trying to use the American Indian situation as support for your arguments shows that you don't have a grasp of either situation."
Do tell. Sorry, but I think that these situations have everything to do with each other in terms of mob behavior. Our ancestors justified taking land from the Indians, and today we justify helping ourselves to others' intellectual property. I am definitely most not trying to equate killing an entire race vs. merely hurting somebody's livelihood; my point is that as a human race we're quite predictable.
"I'm perfectly happy to stop using the words 'theft' and 'property' when someone suggests alternative words that adequately express the loss that the creator of a work suffers when control of that work is ripped from their hands without their say so."
I'd say that the response to this by many people reading this would be fuck them. If they're greedy enough to subscribe to this silly notion of expecting to be paid for their creative output, then they deserve what they can get.
Putting all concepts of right and wrong aside for a moment, I think many reading this will agree that said greedy content creators are a bit like the American Indians in the 18th and 19th century with their similar notions of "we were here first." Again, right/wrong aside, you simply can't win against a much larger group of people who have technology on their side, whether they're a bunch of settlers with guns who want your land, or a bunch of teenagers with P2P apps who want your song. This is how it has always worked. Obviously, there's an insurmountable gulf between a songwriter missing a few rent payments and an entire tribe being massacred, but the fundamentals of group behavior are the same.
Propaganda can be a useful tool here. Eradicating the Indian problem was made easier for our ancestors when they were fed the notion of Indians being diseased, drunken savages who raped our women. Likewise, today, although smart people know that the lifestyle of the typical artist is not a glamorous one, note how often it is that "artists are greedy, yadda yadda, limousines, yadda yadda, cocaine habits, yadda yadda they should just shut up and learn that P2P helps them" posts are modded +5, Insightful.
"No memetic hijacking of the words "property" and "stealing", please."
You appear to be unaware -- or at the least, hopeful that the reader is unaware -- that the term "intellectual property" has been in existence since before you and I were born. Perhaps it is a new concept to you, but frankly, that's not good enough.
"Your point about "communism"? Jefferson and his allies wanted no copyrights in the constitution. Damned commie."
Jefferson, that bulwark of freedom, owned slaves. Cherry-picking his beliefs to support piracy doesn't give us more grounding.
The free software movement does embody the ideals of communism -- a deemphasis of private ownership and individual gain. Indeed, the enormous popularity of the movement shows that a non-capitalist approach to the arts can and does work. There's nothing wrong with this. "Communism" only takes on a bad connotation if you let it.
I have no problem with people who embrace the free software / free music / etc. movement; those tireless individuals who create and give away their stuff for free simply for the pleasure of creating and for the common good. They are true heroes. On the other hand, those who give lip service to this movement simply so that they can help themselves to the intellectual property of those who don't give it away for free are jerks. They are hurting your movement.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm not saying that what they do has no value. I just question a legal system that winds up giving more rights to the people behind the marketing than the people behind the creating."
FYI, that's not a product of our legal system, but of the contracts that most record companies offer: they get the rights to the recording of your work, you retain the rights to your work.
Companies like Magnatune don't try to assert rights on your recordings, because they don't spend any money or effort on creating the recordings -- they just distribute them for you.
Also, once musicians get a few successful CDs under their belts, they get more leverage. They can strike deals with labels that state that the musicians keep the rights to the recordings.
"That is because the artist, at this point, has already lost money. Or do you figure those songs create themselves? No, the artist must spend time, time which cannot be spent on making money, but during which the rent will still have to be paid, to create songs."
You are very correct (the econ term for this is opportunity cost), but this is a variable that we can remove from both sides of the equation when pondering the "which sucks more, signing a recording contract or going it alone?" question.
Putting it another way, the choice to spend time on one's craft rather than, say, working at a day job is one which an artist must make well before they even get to the "recording contract or self-published" decision.
"And once the author dies, they keep those rights for many more years (going on forever right now) because that also encourages the dead authors to crawl out of the grave as artistic zombies. It all makes sense now."
Yup. And to make matters worse, the artist's children also enjoy those rights for up to 70 years after the artists's death (the record company gets the rights to the recording, the artist, everything else, including the words and music.)
"...by doing and end-run around the monopoly that controls the market and distribution channels and has been convicted of illegally abusing that monopoly to the detriment of the consumer. You just have to call up all the distribution chains and get them to carry your product..."
You're correct as well, if you're an indie record label, or if you're trying to sell a self-produced CD, it can be next to impossible to get to the retailers.
Likewise, if you've designed your own mouse in your garage, you can effectively forget about Best Buy, CompUSA, Wal-Mart or other major retailers even talking to you -- they're perfectly happy dealing with Microsoft, Logitech and the rest. However, "monopoly" is not an appropriate word to use here, either. But I agree with you that in the mouse and record industries, as well as thousands of others, it can be tough to be a tiny, tiny fish in a big, big pond.
"even though you are not getting compensated for any airplay, restaurant play, or other imposed fees collected by the RIAA on behalf of all copyright holders, but not distributed to any independents."
Huh? The RIAA has nothing to do with radio, restaurant, and other airplay. That's managed by artists' rights societies like BMI and ASCAP. They're wholly unrelated to the RIAA and are typically non-profits run by and for musicians, songwriters and composers.
You're correct, however, that if you're not getting much airplay, your checks from BMI or ASCAP can be tiny or even nonexistent.
"MPAA maybe, but most members of the RIAA just "lend" the artist the money to create and promote their work and then collect it back after they sell records.... If the artist doesn't the artist owes. I know more then one artists getting fucked this way."
The record company is at risk of losing money, but the artist is not. If the record company ends up spending more on the record than is recouped in sales, then the artist, unfortunately, will end up with a big fat ZERO, but the record company will have lost money. The artist generally doesn't start seeing money until the record company sees money.
This can certainly suck for the artist. It can also suck to invest a lot of your own money, never to see it again -- but at least your destiny is in your hands. Signing a record deal vs. producing and promoting your work yourself each have a long list of pluses and minuses.
"The **AA don't create things, they just hoard the rights to other people's creations."
... and pay to have those creations made, and cover the costs involved in marketing, selling and sistributing those creations.
If you have a piece of paper with some lyrics and chords on it, the idea is that you take it to a record company, which comes up with the money to turn that into a CD, then comes up with more money to make sure the radio stations play it and the stores sell it. They get (or at least share) the rights to the recording, while you keep the rights to the words and music that you wrote.
The way to avoid this is, of course, to fund the recording, producing, marketing and sales of your work yourself, rather than allowing experts to do this in exchange for a share of the sales. This is a perfectly viable solution provided that you have a lot of money in the bank that you don't mind risking, and you have the skill and the talent to be an engineer, producer, marketer and salesperson.
"How many times do we have to say it's not stealing????"
Okay, now do the one about "it's only piracy if you're on a boat and wearing an eye patch."
Wait... wait... no, sorry, didn't work. I'll still kick your ass right proper if you "steal," "infringe," "pirate," or otherwise help yourself to my work without my permission.
Play word games all you like if you think it will sanitize what you do. When people who make their living with their brains have trouble making the rent because legions of 14-year-olds have convinced themselves that they're not hurting anybody when they pirate -- oh, excuse the fuck out of me, infringe copyright -- their landlord doesn't care what it's called.
"That equates to $12 for a 10-song album"
This shows my ability to do math before I've had my coffee. You may read that as "$12 for a 12-song album" if you like.
"What about the big entertainment companies' "victimizing" the American people by charging $30 for something that costs $1 to produce?"
Can you give me an example of a big entertainment company selling an item for $30 that costs them just one dollar to create, produce, and bring to market?
"That's the point the RIAA & MPAA are missing. With digital music/movies supply is infinite, so normal economics rules indicate that price should drop. Instead they want to charge as much as, or more, than it costs to buy a better quality physical copy. No wonder they're doing so poorly, they haven't got a clue how to handle the digital market, not technically or economically."
You make some very good points, but iTunes is indeed selling tracks like crazy at $0.99. That equates to $12 for a 10-song album, while the average price of a new CD has dropped to around $12.50 in the US. But -- and this is a huge Jennifer Lopez-sized but -- the comparison is much more than the price of the tracks vs. the price of the physical CD. It's the convenience -- avoiding the trip to the store, taking the time to rip the CD, and finding a place for it on one's shelf.
In short, when I look at the iTMS success, "haven't got a clue" is not the phrase that comes to mind. It appears to me that they understand the supply/demand curve just fine.
Thank you for your astute post -- I'm glad you took the time to point that out. Many people simply don't do enough research before they post.
However, you wrote:
"The big problem I have with this is that there's no easy way for someone writing, say, a 15-line python P2P system, to take that "reasonable care" to restrict copyrighted traffic."
This is a bit like saying "gun safety laws mean that there's no easy way for a guy developing a bazooka in his back yard with a can of propane, a pipe and a tennis ball can add a trigger lock." Yes, regulating the P2P industry would make P2P apps harder to write -- and that's the point. The point of gun safety laws is to keep those backyard-built pipe bazookas off the market, while allowing the sale of products in which care has been exercised in the design (engineering trigger locks and other safety precautions) to be sold.
Similarly, P2P regulation would be an attempt to keep that 15-line Python program off the market, while giving protection to the developer who puts reasonable effort into preventing their application for being used for unauthorized purposes.
"That might be a good comment to make to the legislators (if anyone actually thinks this will go anywhere). Describe the futility of the bill, the impossibility of checking an individual file, and how the only even remotely feasible technical mechanism is a central file/hash listing maintained by the content creators."
Companies that have developed viable screening/filtering/fingerprinting systems have already given demonstrations to legislators. While they are breakable (as is everything), this is what the legislators probably have in mind when they use phrases like "reasonable care."
"(not that I even agree the software authors or distributors should be shouldered with the blame of their users' actions...)"
I don't think so, either. The good thing about this bill is that if P2P vendors take reasonable care in the development phase -- hooking in some filtering technology, for example -- then they won't be.
"P2P software manufacturers are liable if someone uses their product to do something illegal?"
No -- did you read the article? Per the bill, P2P software manufacturers would be required to take reasonable steps in the development of the software to discourage it from being used to trade unauthorized material. For example, using filtering technology. If they take "reasonable steps" (the definition of which may be vague), they're in the clear, even if those steps are circumventable.
"Gun manufacturers are liable if someone uses their product to do something illegal?"
The proper analogy is the requirements imposed on gun manufacturers to take reasonable steps to ensure that their products are safe -- trigger locks, drop tests, and so on. It's impossible, of course, to make a gun that won't be used illegally, which is why government only requires that gun makers take reasonable steps to make sure that they're as safe as possible.
" So does this mean we can hold gun makers, people who build cars and knives to the same level of responsiblity?"
Laws already exist for these industries. Guns have very stringent safety restrictions, as do cars (ever notice that every car you look at has seatbelts? That's because of a law, not by choice of the manufacturer), and there are limits on the sales of certain types of knives. Power tools, kitchen appliances, children's apparel, and innumerable other industries have similar laws. Even software does -- you can't export software to certain areas if it contains certain types of cryptography.
The bill is an attempt to add P2P applications to a long, long, long list of items whose design, manufacture and sale is regulated.
The fact that your post has been modded 5, Insightful shows that many Slashdotters could use a basic civics lesson.
The bill was introduced by a California senator to be entered as a state law. Each state has its own set of laws, from everything as mundane as importing produce, to combatting spam. Each state generally has its own set of laws regarding things relating to cars, such as emissions, speed limits, and traffic laws.
To be perfectly clear:
To fight unfair laws, we must understand them. We must also make clear and coherent arguments if we are to defeat them. Statements such as " I take it this idiot senator believes all the world's coders live in the US, right?" are, sadly, not helpful.
"The Advent of the Railways didn't happen in 1990, you know, just because that was when you first became old enough to buy a train ticket."
If -- just to throw some dates out -- the first railroad line were run between two towns in 1836 but the railroad system exploded country-wide in 1845, then here in the US, it would be appropriate to say "the advent of the railroad in 1845." This would have a different meaning of "the invention of the railroad in 1836."
That's how we use English in the US. You are welcome to tell us we're wrong, or otherwise argue with us some more.
"Bollocks. Advent means, and always has meant, the very beginning. Check any dictionary. 'Advent', for Christians, is the month before Christ was born - not the month when Christianity 'caught on'. You can't just just go around redefining words because you've made an arse of yourself in public."
Thanks for your insights into the colloquial differences between British English and American English, and the anecdote about the religiious meaning of the word (which applies here in the US, as well). Here in the US, it does indeed possess that colloquial meaning which I've described. I guess it's one of those fine points that require a native to understand.
If it helps, British have been accusing the Americans of mangling the English language since -- well, since there were British and Americans. Needless to say, differences do abound... on your turf, one might call you a "wanker," but here, you're simply an asshole.
"Aside from the obvious chicken-and-egg problem of claiming to have been an ISP before the "I" was even invented - 1989 may pre-date the web but it's a long way short of pre-dating the Internet."
"Advent" is commonly used to describe when something catches on and takes hold. "before the advent of the Internet" has a subtle yet distinctly different meaning than "before the Internet was invented" and that's why I think they chose to write it the way they did.
You're 100% correct, of course, that had they tried to claim that they were around before the Internet was invented, then it would be laughable.
"Money is power. The limits of individual power should be decided democratically. So yes you're right, I'm a socialist *because* I'm a democrat"
Fair enough. What is your personal opinion of the limit that should be set on an individual's annual earnings? It's just your opinion, so there's no right or wrong, of course. Would you apply that limit to everybody equally, or would you prefer a system where, say, doctors and other professionals have one limit, and musicians and other artists have another limit?
As a point of reference, when I asked this question on the Napster forum long ago, the consensus was that musicians should be limited to earning $50,000 USD a year.
"Shakespeare had to contend with pretty heavy piracy of his work as in England at the time actors were considered scum, so there was no legal protection offered to plays. Yet, amazingly Shakespeare and company routinely performed to sold-out houses. Why? Because that's all the entertainment there was."
Shakespeare's family was pretty well off. His troupe called themselves the "King's Men," and they were in pretty good with the Queen. There was legal protection afforded to plays, and Shakespeare and his crew relied on that protection more than one time when they found unauthorized versions of their works being produced elsewhere.
However, we owe our nearly-complete collection of his oeuvre to piracy. For some of his work, the only copies we have are unauthorized.
"If you tell me that I can only be creative for my own enjoyment, and can't make money off it, then I'll tell you this: Nobody is going to create music, movies, etc anymore."
Agreed. I applaud those people who do take the effort to create and release artistic works purely for the public good and for their own enjoyment, and if that little community thrives, then God bless them.
However, I don't think too highly of people who embrace the "info wants to be free" belief only as a means to provide moral absolution for helping themselves to others' work without the creators' permission. Information wants to be free? Great, then help yourself to the works of others who willingly make it freely available -- there's certainly a lot out there, although I can't vouch for the quality. But if somebody hasn't given you permission, then respect their wishes.
"If you want everything for free, you can have it...but there'll be nothing created you want."
Well put. And as an aside, I have a feeling that Marco and others who share his viewpoint generally aren't churning out huge volumes of music, film and other works of art that are in huge demand.
"If they think that people are buying iPods so that they can download music from the ITMS, they still don't get it."
I bought an iPod because I was an iTMS user first. I had momentum with my iTMS library and I didn't want to have to build a new library in another format from some other store.
"People don't buy a music player because of the options that are available to buy music online, they (usually) already have gigabytes of music on their hard disks & want to listen to it on the go."
Agreed. And I bought an iPod because most of the music on my hard drive was from iTMS and thus not easily transferrable to a non-Apple player. yes, I know I could have jumped through some hoops to convert each one to MP3, but it was simply not worth the time.
I am aware that this is Slashdot, where the typical user's music library is in MP3 format, and was probably not paid for. We may heap scorn upon them and proclaim that they "don't get it," but the sad fact is that there's a world of people out there for whom Apple's strategy of getting people hooked on the iTMS first, and then selling them an iPod, works according to plan.
Apple's success has hinged on selling to those who don't fall into the Slashdot demographic.
Your indignation is indeed righteous, but entirely misplaced. I agree 100% with you. My post is summarizing what I think is the feeling of many Slashdotters. If you don't agree with me that the attitude I've describe is prevalent, stick around here a while. You'd be amazed at what lengths people will go to to justify violating others' intellectual property rights.
"And trying to use the American Indian situation as support for your arguments shows that you don't have a grasp of either situation."
Do tell. Sorry, but I think that these situations have everything to do with each other in terms of mob behavior. Our ancestors justified taking land from the Indians, and today we justify helping ourselves to others' intellectual property. I am definitely most not trying to equate killing an entire race vs. merely hurting somebody's livelihood; my point is that as a human race we're quite predictable.
" The OED says that piracy (as in the theft of intellectual property) predates the American revolution. Damn."
Excellent, thank you for the cite. I did not know that it went back as early as 1771.
Unfortunately this will be lost on the "words should not be allowed to have multiple meanings" crowd around here.
"I'm perfectly happy to stop using the words 'theft' and 'property' when someone suggests alternative words that adequately express the loss that the creator of a work suffers when control of that work is ripped from their hands without their say so."
I'd say that the response to this by many people reading this would be fuck them. If they're greedy enough to subscribe to this silly notion of expecting to be paid for their creative output, then they deserve what they can get.
Putting all concepts of right and wrong aside for a moment, I think many reading this will agree that said greedy content creators are a bit like the American Indians in the 18th and 19th century with their similar notions of "we were here first." Again, right/wrong aside, you simply can't win against a much larger group of people who have technology on their side, whether they're a bunch of settlers with guns who want your land, or a bunch of teenagers with P2P apps who want your song. This is how it has always worked. Obviously, there's an insurmountable gulf between a songwriter missing a few rent payments and an entire tribe being massacred, but the fundamentals of group behavior are the same.
Propaganda can be a useful tool here. Eradicating the Indian problem was made easier for our ancestors when they were fed the notion of Indians being diseased, drunken savages who raped our women. Likewise, today, although smart people know that the lifestyle of the typical artist is not a glamorous one, note how often it is that "artists are greedy, yadda yadda, limousines, yadda yadda, cocaine habits, yadda yadda they should just shut up and learn that P2P helps them" posts are modded +5, Insightful.
"Even without filesharing, there'd be lots of "piracy", as it's now labeled."
Been labelled that for more than a century. Hit your school library's OED if it has one.
Otherwise, great post. I would mod it up if I could.
"No memetic hijacking of the words "property" and "stealing", please."
You appear to be unaware -- or at the least, hopeful that the reader is unaware -- that the term "intellectual property" has been in existence since before you and I were born. Perhaps it is a new concept to you, but frankly, that's not good enough.
"Your point about "communism"? Jefferson and his allies wanted no copyrights in the constitution. Damned commie."
Jefferson, that bulwark of freedom, owned slaves. Cherry-picking his beliefs to support piracy doesn't give us more grounding.
The free software movement does embody the ideals of communism -- a deemphasis of private ownership and individual gain. Indeed, the enormous popularity of the movement shows that a non-capitalist approach to the arts can and does work. There's nothing wrong with this. "Communism" only takes on a bad connotation if you let it.
I have no problem with people who embrace the free software / free music / etc. movement; those tireless individuals who create and give away their stuff for free simply for the pleasure of creating and for the common good. They are true heroes. On the other hand, those who give lip service to this movement simply so that they can help themselves to the intellectual property of those who don't give it away for free are jerks. They are hurting your movement.