If your software is found to be infringing on copyrights, we disable your key. You can get a new one from us. In fact, we can issue you several keys at once, but keep them secure. Keys from us are free.
If you're going to release your software under the GPL, don't release your keys with it. Other people that want to work on your code can apply for their own key from us when they want the software to go live on our system. They can still test it on the system without a key, it just can't run live transactions.
So, the source for the client can be worked on openly, it is just that whenever a client is going to actually become active, it must have a key.
"Associating a digital certificate with a real life identity. How are they going to check this?"
Every user on the network must verify his identity before they are allowed to buy and sell. They do this through a credit card or by sending us (via fax or email) a photo-copied driver's license.
"Will it use a credit card?"
Yes, we use credit cards. You charge your account with a lump sum, and then begin purchasing songs from money in that account. You can also have that money in your Bitmunk account transferred to your bank account (i.e. if you're a seller on the network).
"One has to assume that the system won't allow transactions where the artist's (and Bitmunk's!) share is not covered..."
Correct. There are many other free file-sharing services (i.e. BitTorrent), Bitmunk is not one of them. We have nothing against trading public domain files for free, however, its just not what our network was designed for. Bitmunk is designed to help the artist (especially the independent artist) make money for their work, and allow the end-user to legally purchase and resell copyrighted works.
"Let's say I download the song and I get to play it as much as I want. Let's assume I can't share it over non-protected P2P, but hey, I can sell it again when I no longer want to listen to it (as if there's no way to copy to another, unencumbered format, but bear with me...) Why on earth should the artist get a piece of it every time the same copy is sold? I understand they are trying to appease to RIAA & Co with this but this is not fair. It's not like they get a dime if I re-sell my CDs."
I understand what you're saying here, but its not what the network was designed for. And I'm sure you'll concede that most file-sharing doesn't work the way you've described. If you want to sell your MP3 online and delete it off of your hard drive I guess you could use ebay;). But that's really not a "file-sharing" issue if you know what I mean, you're not sharing, you're giving/selling away indefinitely.
"Furthermore, it may well be that the label claims copyright over the songs, thus keeping any proceeds from methods like this and not really helping the artist."
If the independent artist can get paid something he or she deserves with Bitmunk, then we can only hope that he or she would not give away their copyright to a label that wouldn't properly reimburse them. The independent artist sets their own prices on Bitmunk and gets paid whatever they set... as long as people are willing to pay that price.
A "real" P2P client is in the works, one that is both a download client and sales server, much like you'd use with any other P2P service.
Also, clients must be registered with us to be used on the network. We give each piece of software a private key to sign with -- and we won't be giving any keys out to software that violates copyright:).
"I thought one of the main purposes of P2P was that it is decentralized. A supercomputer cluster is hardly decentralized."
There is a centralized database of all of the creative works on the network (much like Napster), and a copy of each sellable song.
A copy of each work is stored only so that there is always at least one copy available for sale. The sellers on the network provide their own files, just like any other P2P service. They associate those files with a creative work through our software, and then offer them for sale.
If a buyer gets a file that is not what they wanted, they obtain the file they wanted directly from Bitmunk, free of charge, and the seller's rating diminishes. If the seller's rating drops below a certain threshold, they can be banned from the network because they are distributing corrupt or illegal files.
"We don't tell artists what type of art they can produce. We don't legislate the language of speakers. We don't legislate a class of "bakery" that makes round bread illegal. We tried to tell teachers that evolution is illegal, but that just didn't work. I'm really peeved that these politicians are WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS trying to tell programmers that they can't write file-sharing apps."
Here we completely agree. I just think, as programmers and persons who understand that things can always be done better a way, we have a responsibility to try and do so.
"Does it have a slogan with a play on "chipmunk" and "byte monk"?:-)"
:-p, not yet (though the name arises from a combination of bytes and chipmunks), but you could propose one in the forums;-).
"No doubt this will change soon. What use is a theorem if you can't charge for it?"
No one is stopping you from using the theorem, or singing a song, or watching a movie and talking about it later. They are, however, making sure that you don't cheapen the creator of these things by giving them away without permission, or worse, selling them without reimbursing the creator.
Some people making a living off of their creative works. If they want to do that, they certainly ought to be given that opportunity. If no one thinks it worth their money to buy their work, then they might want to reconsider.
If people aren't making a living off their ideas and offer them freely into the public domain, then that is fantastic, and we all owe them our gratitude for helping to advance society in an altruistic manner. But keep in mind not everyone is in such a position to give away their ideas without compensation; getting compensated is how they survive.
"First we should note that the advent of the photocopier has not necessitated huge laws regulating the sharing of books"
Substitute "photocopier" for "printing press," which I think is a valid swap given that this analogy refers to the ability to copy intellectual property (specifically books), and you've got quite the contrary. Copyright law was invented as a direct consequence of the advent of the printing press.
In England, the Licensing Act of 1662 was passed to prevent the unfair copying of books, and the Statute of Anne followed shortly thereafter (1710) as the first true copyright law.
So, in short, the invention of devices that can be used to easily copy intellectual property has effected law, and in dramatic ways.
"has not made public libraries illegal"
No, but public libraries are rental services. If you take a book and claim it as you own property, you will be fined for it, because it must be paid for.
"It is because the quality of the original is far superior to the quality of the copy that this is not necessary. People will naturally gravitate towards the original and it is only the political power that lobbyists have which allows tag-alongs to steal from the real artists."
And with the advent of the mp3, this point is made irrelevant. If the original work held any meaning that prevented the piracy of one's work, it certainly does not now. A quick question: If someone had to buy a song to obtain it in the first place, why musn't anyone else that it is shared freely with?
It isn't "stupidity" that your creation or idea is stolen from you because it is easily reproducable. It is "unfortunate" and "reprehensible" that we live in a society where the value the artist is cheapened in such a way. You see -- P2P networks are used to distribute ideas because they are so valuable to people. Music sharing runs rampant for that very reason. Yet, the creator of the very thing people find so valuable continues to lose money to both greedy corporations and fans who aren't prudent enough to recognize that they aren't just "sharing a file", they are trading away someone's life's work.
I think file sharing is fantastic. I don't think that taking someone's idea and reproducing it to give to others without reimbursing them is. I don't think it makes sense to say that if an artist wouldn't give someone a copy of his work without just compensation, that that somebody can then justly reproduce it and give copies to anyone that they please.
Do you think that all copyright and patent law should be defenestrated?
As far as your comments go with respect to the music industry, I mostly agree. And I do think that P2P both helps and hurts the music industry. I just think that there's a better solution -- one that keeps P2P, it just makes it legal, and gets the artist paid.
"Any artist who is spectacularly talented would naturally realize their maximum profit in any fair and honest system. Any bad artist shouldn't be rewarded for producing crappy music. Rather than attacking P2P networks, I think we should reform the system which puts talent like Joe Satriani at mid-scale and Britney Spears in the spotlight."
And I agree. That's one thing that Bitmunk's for. And its in stark contrast to what the EFF is trying to do... which will effectively determine the prices for the artist, rather than the other way around. The EFF's solution will result in giving the majority of the $5 you put into a P2P network per month to the most downloaded media, it will not allow the artist and consumer to decide the worth of each individual song.
"I realize you're plugging your product here but I'm more than happy to help you."
Yes, I am, but it is more than just a plug -- it is a philosophy that I and my partners are committed to. One of the core philosophies of our company is recognition of the real people involved in progressing society -- the artists and the consumers. Without them, c
"I have to reiterate: If I bought it then it belongs to me."
I agree. I'll reiterate this: If you record a song or write a book, its content belongs to you. That's the part that's being missed here. When you buy an idea, you don't get to claim it as your own. That's what I'm saying. If you copy that idea and claim it as your own, selling it or giving it away to someone else without the original creator's permission, then what you have done is called "piracy" or "plagiarism."
You can give away your copy of a book, but you can't copy it, keep your copy, and give the other copy away. That's effectively shafting the author just as bad as any corporation. Can you imagine if you wrote a book, which you do for a living, then sold it to someone for $5... only to see them give it away to everyone else on the planet? What would you call that? Sharing or piracy?
Now, here's where I agree with you. There are artists out there that give away their work to corporations in return for measely royalties. Its the only way they can get recognized and make money. In these cases, they effectively tell the corporations that it is them who created the work. That's not the way it should be.
There are independent artists that are not backed by corporations that struggle to get by. If a P2P network could offer them a means by which to distribute their work and get paid, then they wouldn't have to give away the rights to what they have created. That's what I'm getting at -- do you understand/agree?
"In REALITY this is nothing short of obfuscated thievery as the upper end of the corporate ladder can do something that no one else can do: set their own salary and take the largest share of the overall profit. How does this benefit the artist? My heart goes out to the artists. My heart does not go out to the tag-alongs who profit."
I entirely agree! That's why a P2P network needs to give artists control. They need to give them the freedom to set their own prices and have their work distributed on a file sharing community of fans. Each time their work gets traded, they get paid the price they set. If their price is too high, they won't get traded, if its just right, they will make the money they deserve.
"There is no amount of TCPA, or DRM, or encryption, or legal jargon which will stop people from sharing something which has been SOLD to them."
You're absolutely right! But they'll trade it legally if they can make a few cents on each transaction. If you had a service where you could make some money every time you traded a file, and the artist would get paid, wouldn't you use it over one where both you and the artist get nothing? I'm talking about the artist really getting paid too -- they set their own price.
Well, they aren't seeing the whole picture -- they're only seeing child porn and piracy.
But the one of the main reasons why they aren't seeing the big picture is because a legal, copyright-aware P2P network hasn't hit the public eye yet. My company has created what we think is going to solve this problem, get consumers their fair use rights, and get independent artists paid what they deserve. If you want to help make that happen, please visit our website, and let some others know about it as well:
As you can see, this topic directly effects us and we want to see everyone come out of this positively -- instead of someone ending up getting screwed (i.e. the consumer or artist). It doesn't have to be that way, and I think we've finally got the solution that people have been looking for. Let me know what you think.
"I agree. P2P networks aren't selling anything. If there was sale and profit involved for the third party then I would call it piracy. Sharing is _NOT_ piracy, no matter how many years down the road of delerium our society is."
1. If P2P networks were selling and everyone involved was getting paid what they asked for, it wouldn't be piracy, it would be a real online digital marketplace. Consumers could buy and resell music and artists, especially independent ones, could get their work recognized and paid for.
2. Sharing is piracy, IF you're "sharing" something that doesn't belong to you and you don't have permission to share it.
"If they're unhappy with the sale price after the sale that does not make me a criminal."
When you buy a song or CD, you've got the one copy you purchased. You can do what you want with that one copy -- but you can't make more copies of it and then resell it or give it away without the creator's permission. The content isn't now made yours, a single copy of it is; the content belongs to its creator.
"Instead they've chosen to go through the underhanded political rigamarole of turning a "sale" into a "rental" and a "rental agreement" into a "licensing agreement" to make it a felony. I don't agree with that on any moral, ethical, legal, personal, or social level."
Here I agree -- when you purchase a song from someone, that particular copy is yours. You should own it, put it on a CD for you to listen to, put it on any mp3 device you want, etc -- that copy is yours. The problem is when you take your one, legally purchased copy, and reproduce it -- and start giving it away without the creator's permission.
You make a very good point in that if you purchase music and its DRM'd for instance, then its very much like a rental. You can't do with it what you want, you have to play by the rules of the corporation that sold it to you. This is quite different from taking that music and reproducing it and giving it away without permission... that's piracy. But being able to give away your one copy (so it is no longer in your possession), or use that one copy however you want for yourself should be your fair use rights.
"For every law that exists to protect artistic or intellectual property there are a thousand talented artists and scientists who are still living in poverty and a handful of controlling shareholders who are laughing to the bank on a daily basis. My heart strings aren't that easily fooled."
Right! That's why we need a P2P network that empowers the independent artist. One that lets them set their own prices and gives them access to a file sharing community of fans. Everytime their song gets traded, they get paid -- and paid the price they set. So if their price is too high -- no one will trade, if its just right, they'll make the money they should be making.
"But then there are those that really are artists, and when I hear them, I think it's good that they earn enough off of music that they can devote their life to it. So yes, we need a system that does that, and it might even involve something like copyright."
Agreed.
"But what does that have to do with what's going on? The RIAA has made billions, by stealing the money that was supposed to be for artists, they have no interest in giving them more than table scraps."
Oh, I definitely agree that the artist is not getting his or her dues. But just imagine the power of P2P for them then! What if they could get an mp3 of their song and get it on a P2P network that would pay them a price they set... just like a competitive marketplace. Imagine how empowering that would be for the independent artist. A real medium by which they can have thousands or even millions of people sharing their song and paying them, just by getting it on a P2P network and setting a price.
"I've never believed in intellectual property because of the selective enforcement and abuse inherent in the system. For example: My math book is copyrighted, yet I can teach calculus freely (assuming the student has the ability). Karaoke is legal. Time Life books may publish a series on home improvement, but I can freely learn the trade from anyone who's read them."
Well, you can sing any song you want to -- but that doesn't mean that you can take someone else's recording of that song and sell it without reimbursing them. Similarly, once you learn calc, you can teach it to whoever you want or write your own book. That doesn't mean that you can now take someone else's book and sell it without their approval.
Its one thing to learn from something else and make it your own -- its another to simply take something from someone else and give it away without their permission. Don't you agree?
"I feel strongly that too much profit from the sale of CDs (indeed, all intellectual property) goes to CEOs/VPs/directors and not to the originating inventor (be it artists, scientists, tinkerers, whoever)."
Oh, absolutely. I'm in agreement with you here. Corporations wouldn't be around if it weren't for the artists and consumers... the ones who make the music and listen to it. Corporations certainly play a role -- in marketing artists, etc... but artists are certainly getting ripped off.
"At least file-sharers aren't leeching from someone else's creativity--they're not charging."
But at the same time, they are making it harder for the artist to survive. If the artist is already getting ripped off for every sale of their music, don't you think its even worse when their music gets traded for free? At least they get a few measley cents when someone pays for it. Things need to change -- artists need to get fairly reimbursed and consumers need to be able to share music legally. Both of these things can happen on a P2P network.
... a solution was presented that didn't force us to choose between screwing the artist or screwing the consumer.
The consumer should be able to redistribute the music that he or she obtains, but whenever it happens, the artist needs to get paid. And if the consumer could make a couple cents for every redistribution, then he or she would have the incentive to start sharing files legally.
Education couldn't hurt, but it isn't what is really necessary. P2P companies need to come up with better legal solutions that allow consumers to keep their fair use rights and get the artists paid whenever a file is shared.
It shouldn't have to be a decision to choose between screwing the artist or the consumer.
I don't think you should have to purchase distribution rights, but there has to be a way to make sure the artist of the song you're sharing gets paid. Its the content in that song that you're sharing, not just "a file."
Right, if you can make it, you should be able to distribute it. But I'm not sure you're talking about music you made -- you're talking about music someone else made, aren't you?
When it comes to intellectual property, you're talking about content, not what medium its printed on. You can't just take someone else's book, copy it, and then sell it without reimbursing them. The same applies to music -- the artist needs to get paid for their efforts, they are the ones who really "made" what you're selling. Don't you agree?
While you're right, at the same time no average consumer has ever been given the chance to easily obtain distribution rights to the music they purchase. There's no reason that a P2P network can't make this possible -- in fact, its now been done by my company. We're hopeful that we can turn illegal file sharers into legal ones by giving them the opportunity to legally redistribute music -- and get paid while doing it, feel free to check it out:
Slashdot Mirror
If you're going to release your software under the GPL, don't release your keys with it. Other people that want to work on your code can apply for their own key from us when they want the software to go live on our system. They can still test it on the system without a key, it just can't run live transactions.
So, the source for the client can be worked on openly, it is just that whenever a client is going to actually become active, it must have a key.
Every user on the network must verify his identity before they are allowed to buy and sell. They do this through a credit card or by sending us (via fax or email) a photo-copied driver's license.
"Will it use a credit card?"
Yes, we use credit cards. You charge your account with a lump sum, and then begin purchasing songs from money in that account. You can also have that money in your Bitmunk account transferred to your bank account (i.e. if you're a seller on the network).
"One has to assume that the system won't allow transactions where the artist's (and Bitmunk's!) share is not covered..."
Correct. There are many other free file-sharing services (i.e. BitTorrent), Bitmunk is not one of them. We have nothing against trading public domain files for free, however, its just not what our network was designed for. Bitmunk is designed to help the artist (especially the independent artist) make money for their work, and allow the end-user to legally purchase and resell copyrighted works.
"Let's say I download the song and I get to play it as much as I want. Let's assume I can't share it over non-protected P2P, but hey, I can sell it again when I no longer want to listen to it (as if there's no way to copy to another, unencumbered format, but bear with me...) Why on earth should the artist get a piece of it every time the same copy is sold? I understand they are trying to appease to RIAA & Co with this but this is not fair. It's not like they get a dime if I re-sell my CDs."
I understand what you're saying here, but its not what the network was designed for. And I'm sure you'll concede that most file-sharing doesn't work the way you've described. If you want to sell your MP3 online and delete it off of your hard drive I guess you could use ebay ;). But that's really not a "file-sharing" issue if you know what I mean, you're not sharing, you're giving/selling away indefinitely.
"Furthermore, it may well be that the label claims copyright over the songs, thus keeping any proceeds from methods like this and not really helping the artist."
If the independent artist can get paid something he or she deserves with Bitmunk, then we can only hope that he or she would not give away their copyright to a label that wouldn't properly reimburse them. The independent artist sets their own prices on Bitmunk and gets paid whatever they set ... as long as people are willing to pay that price.
On Bitmunk, the artist selects his or her license before his or her work can be sold (i.e. standard copyright, creative commons, etc).
Also, clients must be registered with us to be used on the network. We give each piece of software a private key to sign with -- and we won't be giving any keys out to software that violates copyright :).
"I thought one of the main purposes of P2P was that it is decentralized. A supercomputer cluster is hardly decentralized."
There is a centralized database of all of the creative works on the network (much like Napster), and a copy of each sellable song.
A copy of each work is stored only so that there is always at least one copy available for sale. The sellers on the network provide their own files, just like any other P2P service. They associate those files with a creative work through our software, and then offer them for sale.
If a buyer gets a file that is not what they wanted, they obtain the file they wanted directly from Bitmunk, free of charge, and the seller's rating diminishes. If the seller's rating drops below a certain threshold, they can be banned from the network because they are distributing corrupt or illegal files.
Here we completely agree. I just think, as programmers and persons who understand that things can always be done better a way, we have a responsibility to try and do so.
"Does it have a slogan with a play on "chipmunk" and "byte monk"? :-)"
No one is stopping you from using the theorem, or singing a song, or watching a movie and talking about it later. They are, however, making sure that you don't cheapen the creator of these things by giving them away without permission, or worse, selling them without reimbursing the creator.
Some people making a living off of their creative works. If they want to do that, they certainly ought to be given that opportunity. If no one thinks it worth their money to buy their work, then they might want to reconsider.
If people aren't making a living off their ideas and offer them freely into the public domain, then that is fantastic, and we all owe them our gratitude for helping to advance society in an altruistic manner. But keep in mind not everyone is in such a position to give away their ideas without compensation; getting compensated is how they survive.
Substitute "photocopier" for "printing press," which I think is a valid swap given that this analogy refers to the ability to copy intellectual property (specifically books), and you've got quite the contrary. Copyright law was invented as a direct consequence of the advent of the printing press.
In England, the Licensing Act of 1662 was passed to prevent the unfair copying of books, and the Statute of Anne followed shortly thereafter (1710) as the first true copyright law.
So, in short, the invention of devices that can be used to easily copy intellectual property has effected law, and in dramatic ways. "has not made public libraries illegal"
No, but public libraries are rental services. If you take a book and claim it as you own property, you will be fined for it, because it must be paid for.
"It is because the quality of the original is far superior to the quality of the copy that this is not necessary. People will naturally gravitate towards the original and it is only the political power that lobbyists have which allows tag-alongs to steal from the real artists."
And with the advent of the mp3, this point is made irrelevant. If the original work held any meaning that prevented the piracy of one's work, it certainly does not now. A quick question: If someone had to buy a song to obtain it in the first place, why musn't anyone else that it is shared freely with?
It isn't "stupidity" that your creation or idea is stolen from you because it is easily reproducable. It is "unfortunate" and "reprehensible" that we live in a society where the value the artist is cheapened in such a way. You see -- P2P networks are used to distribute ideas because they are so valuable to people. Music sharing runs rampant for that very reason. Yet, the creator of the very thing people find so valuable continues to lose money to both greedy corporations and fans who aren't prudent enough to recognize that they aren't just "sharing a file", they are trading away someone's life's work.
I think file sharing is fantastic. I don't think that taking someone's idea and reproducing it to give to others without reimbursing them is. I don't think it makes sense to say that if an artist wouldn't give someone a copy of his work without just compensation, that that somebody can then justly reproduce it and give copies to anyone that they please.
Do you think that all copyright and patent law should be defenestrated?
As far as your comments go with respect to the music industry, I mostly agree. And I do think that P2P both helps and hurts the music industry. I just think that there's a better solution -- one that keeps P2P, it just makes it legal, and gets the artist paid.
"Any artist who is spectacularly talented would naturally realize their maximum profit in any fair and honest system. Any bad artist shouldn't be rewarded for producing crappy music. Rather than attacking P2P networks, I think we should reform the system which puts talent like Joe Satriani at mid-scale and Britney Spears in the spotlight."
And I agree. That's one thing that Bitmunk's for. And its in stark contrast to what the EFF is trying to do ... which will effectively determine the prices for the artist, rather than the other way around. The EFF's solution will result in giving the majority of the $5 you put into a P2P network per month to the most downloaded media, it will not allow the artist and consumer to decide the worth of each individual song.
"I realize you're plugging your product here but I'm more than happy to help you."
Yes, I am, but it is more than just a plug -- it is a philosophy that I and my partners are committed to. One of the core philosophies of our company is recognition of the real people involved in progressing society -- the artists and the consumers. Without them, c
I agree. I'll reiterate this: If you record a song or write a book, its content belongs to you. That's the part that's being missed here. When you buy an idea, you don't get to claim it as your own. That's what I'm saying. If you copy that idea and claim it as your own, selling it or giving it away to someone else without the original creator's permission, then what you have done is called "piracy" or "plagiarism."
You can give away your copy of a book, but you can't copy it, keep your copy, and give the other copy away. That's effectively shafting the author just as bad as any corporation. Can you imagine if you wrote a book, which you do for a living, then sold it to someone for $5 ... only to see them give it away to everyone else on the planet? What would you call that? Sharing or piracy?
Now, here's where I agree with you. There are artists out there that give away their work to corporations in return for measely royalties. Its the only way they can get recognized and make money. In these cases, they effectively tell the corporations that it is them who created the work. That's not the way it should be.
There are independent artists that are not backed by corporations that struggle to get by. If a P2P network could offer them a means by which to distribute their work and get paid, then they wouldn't have to give away the rights to what they have created. That's what I'm getting at -- do you understand/agree?
"In REALITY this is nothing short of obfuscated thievery as the upper end of the corporate ladder can do something that no one else can do: set their own salary and take the largest share of the overall profit. How does this benefit the artist? My heart goes out to the artists. My heart does not go out to the tag-alongs who profit."
I entirely agree! That's why a P2P network needs to give artists control. They need to give them the freedom to set their own prices and have their work distributed on a file sharing community of fans. Each time their work gets traded, they get paid the price they set. If their price is too high, they won't get traded, if its just right, they will make the money they deserve.
"There is no amount of TCPA, or DRM, or encryption, or legal jargon which will stop people from sharing something which has been SOLD to them."
You're absolutely right! But they'll trade it legally if they can make a few cents on each transaction. If you had a service where you could make some money every time you traded a file, and the artist would get paid, wouldn't you use it over one where both you and the artist get nothing? I'm talking about the artist really getting paid too -- they set their own price.
But the one of the main reasons why they aren't seeing the big picture is because a legal, copyright-aware P2P network hasn't hit the public eye yet. My company has created what we think is going to solve this problem, get consumers their fair use rights, and get independent artists paid what they deserve. If you want to help make that happen, please visit our website, and let some others know about it as well:
Bitmunk, the first Legal, Copyright-aware P2P Network
As you can see, this topic directly effects us and we want to see everyone come out of this positively -- instead of someone ending up getting screwed (i.e. the consumer or artist). It doesn't have to be that way, and I think we've finally got the solution that people have been looking for. Let me know what you think.
1. If P2P networks were selling and everyone involved was getting paid what they asked for, it wouldn't be piracy, it would be a real online digital marketplace. Consumers could buy and resell music and artists, especially independent ones, could get their work recognized and paid for.
2. Sharing is piracy, IF you're "sharing" something that doesn't belong to you and you don't have permission to share it.
"If they're unhappy with the sale price after the sale that does not make me a criminal."
When you buy a song or CD, you've got the one copy you purchased. You can do what you want with that one copy -- but you can't make more copies of it and then resell it or give it away without the creator's permission. The content isn't now made yours, a single copy of it is; the content belongs to its creator.
"Instead they've chosen to go through the underhanded political rigamarole of turning a "sale" into a "rental" and a "rental agreement" into a "licensing agreement" to make it a felony. I don't agree with that on any moral, ethical, legal, personal, or social level."
Here I agree -- when you purchase a song from someone, that particular copy is yours. You should own it, put it on a CD for you to listen to, put it on any mp3 device you want, etc -- that copy is yours. The problem is when you take your one, legally purchased copy, and reproduce it -- and start giving it away without the creator's permission.
You make a very good point in that if you purchase music and its DRM'd for instance, then its very much like a rental. You can't do with it what you want, you have to play by the rules of the corporation that sold it to you. This is quite different from taking that music and reproducing it and giving it away without permission ... that's piracy. But being able to give away your one copy (so it is no longer in your possession), or use that one copy however you want for yourself should be your fair use rights.
"For every law that exists to protect artistic or intellectual property there are a thousand talented artists and scientists who are still living in poverty and a handful of controlling shareholders who are laughing to the bank on a daily basis. My heart strings aren't that easily fooled."
Right! That's why we need a P2P network that empowers the independent artist. One that lets them set their own prices and gives them access to a file sharing community of fans. Everytime their song gets traded, they get paid -- and paid the price they set. So if their price is too high -- no one will trade, if its just right, they'll make the money they should be making.
"But then there are those that really are artists, and when I hear them, I think it's good that they earn enough off of music that they can devote their life to it. So yes, we need a system that does that, and it might even involve something like copyright." Agreed.
"But what does that have to do with what's going on? The RIAA has made billions, by stealing the money that was supposed to be for artists, they have no interest in giving them more than table scraps."
Oh, I definitely agree that the artist is not getting his or her dues. But just imagine the power of P2P for them then! What if they could get an mp3 of their song and get it on a P2P network that would pay them a price they set ... just like a competitive marketplace. Imagine how empowering that would be for the independent artist. A real medium by which they can have thousands or even millions of people sharing their song and paying them, just by getting it on a P2P network and setting a price.
"I've never believed in intellectual property because of the selective enforcement and abuse inherent in the system. For example: My math book is copyrighted, yet I can teach calculus freely (assuming the student has the ability). Karaoke is legal. Time Life books may publish a series on home improvement, but I can freely learn the trade from anyone who's read them."
Well, you can sing any song you want to -- but that doesn't mean that you can take someone else's recording of that song and sell it without reimbursing them. Similarly, once you learn calc, you can teach it to whoever you want or write your own book. That doesn't mean that you can now take someone else's book and sell it without their approval.
Its one thing to learn from something else and make it your own -- its another to simply take something from someone else and give it away without their permission. Don't you agree?
"I feel strongly that too much profit from the sale of CDs (indeed, all intellectual property) goes to CEOs/VPs/directors and not to the originating inventor (be it artists, scientists, tinkerers, whoever)."
Oh, absolutely. I'm in agreement with you here. Corporations wouldn't be around if it weren't for the artists and consumers ... the ones who make the music and listen to it. Corporations certainly play a role -- in marketing artists, etc ... but artists are certainly getting ripped off.
"At least file-sharers aren't leeching from someone else's creativity--they're not charging."
But at the same time, they are making it harder for the artist to survive. If the artist is already getting ripped off for every sale of their music, don't you think its even worse when their music gets traded for free? At least they get a few measley cents when someone pays for it. Things need to change -- artists need to get fairly reimbursed and consumers need to be able to share music legally. Both of these things can happen on a P2P network.
The consumer should be able to redistribute the music that he or she obtains, but whenever it happens, the artist needs to get paid. And if the consumer could make a couple cents for every redistribution, then he or she would have the incentive to start sharing files legally.
Education couldn't hurt, but it isn't what is really necessary. P2P companies need to come up with better legal solutions that allow consumers to keep their fair use rights and get the artists paid whenever a file is shared.
It shouldn't have to be a decision to choose between screwing the artist or the consumer.
I don't think you should have to purchase distribution rights, but there has to be a way to make sure the artist of the song you're sharing gets paid. Its the content in that song that you're sharing, not just "a file."
Right, if you can make it, you should be able to distribute it. But I'm not sure you're talking about music you made -- you're talking about music someone else made, aren't you?
When it comes to intellectual property, you're talking about content, not what medium its printed on. You can't just take someone else's book, copy it, and then sell it without reimbursing them. The same applies to music -- the artist needs to get paid for their efforts, they are the ones who really "made" what you're selling. Don't you agree?
While you're right, at the same time no average consumer has ever been given the chance to easily obtain distribution rights to the music they purchase. There's no reason that a P2P network can't make this possible -- in fact, its now been done by my company. We're hopeful that we can turn illegal file sharers into legal ones by giving them the opportunity to legally redistribute music -- and get paid while doing it, feel free to check it out:
Bitmunk