True, he isn't trying himself to cram it down their throats. But he's made himself a demogogue, advocating the rights of those that are trying to cram it down the record companies. A thin distinction, frankly.
You do have the right to complain, and tell them how you think they should run their business.
You do NOT have the right to take the initiative, and start treating their works, as if they were operating under your "improved" model. It's their perrogative to change the terms of use, not yours.
I'm positive, that if you were willing to take a huge haircut on your advances, your publisher would give you the rights to post your material for free on the web, as soon as it's in dead-tree form.
Oddly tho, you don't seem well inclined to negotiate those sorts of terms. Even tho the books are a very small portion of your income, you still want to make as much as possible for writing them. How does that differ from Metallica? They work hard to produce that which provides the bulk of their income, and you want them to cede rights to distribute it for free.
Remember, JK seems to mouth the "information wants to be free" mantra, whenever anyone but his publisher is listening. Of course he's gonna rip someone elses work, rather than writing his own column.
Going after users who appear to be offering Metallica MP3s that they might have a legal right to have isn't diplomatic.
It's pursuing people that are attempting to illegally distribute goods. Nothing more/less. I doubt very highly, that any of the named Napster users, have a license to distribute Metallica MP3's. They have no legal right to be doing what they are being accused of doing.
the information that was collected on the users, was just the user name, by Metallica's investigators. The law was primarily focused at making people targeting that age group jump through hoops before collecting information, they should be ok. The onus, if any, will likely fall on Napster, to collect more information on it's user base, or possibly to ban users that claim to be under a particular age.
who have no idea their online movements are being tracked, and who certainly have the right to pursue individual cultural interests without worring that they're being watched.
They aren't "pursuing cultural interests", they are stealing Intellectual Property.
isn't a step forward towards artists' controlling their art.
Stopping people from illegaly copying your IP, is a perfectly valid step towards controlling your art.
In addition to protecting their own work, artists also have a responsibility to protect freedom and creativity.
But their priority, is to protect their own work. And it's their perrogative to do just that.
Metallica's name-gathering is an ugly, excessive and noxious assault aimed at curbing the free movement of information and ideas that characterizes the Internet, while doing little to resolve the many copyright, commercial and other issues involved in the free music controversy.
It's not ideas, and information that's moving about freely, it's pirated IP. Nothing less. Once again, JK characterizes everything as an assault on poor, helpless computer nerds.
Everyone reading this can name at least a half dozen alternative sites and programs that have boomed in recent weeks even as the music industry, Metallica and Dr. Dre have moved against Napster and MP3.com
Everyone reading this can name at least a half dozen alternative sites and programs that have boomed in recent weeks even as the music industry, Metallica and Dr. Dre have moved against Napster and MP3.com
In the eyes of the mass public, Napster, and MP3 have the mind-share. They worked to get noticed, and they have. They are the largest sources for trading in material like this, so they are the biggest target to aim at.
There is simply no justification for a band to go after hundreds of thousands of its own fans, mostly kids, for the purpose of intimidation.
I'd say that protecting their IP, is a perfect justification. If the pirates are intimidated, maybe some of them will stop engaging in a blatantly illegal activity.
Metallica is invading its fans' privacy, challenging the ability of others to move freely and privately about the Net and the Web -- perhaps the hallmark social, creative and educational feature of the Internet.
Actually, they are pursuing thieves. They are pursuing people that have no respect for the rights of Metallica, why should we worry about the "rights" of people that don't respect the rights of others?
Urge everyone you know to do likewise until Metallica calls off its legal Rottweillers, leaves kids downloading music alone, and agrees to slug the issue out in court and other venues where it belongs.
I suppose we could leave it until later. But when existing IP rights are validated in the courts, professional musicians will have lost millions potentially in revenue to piracy. Would you prefer if they sued for back potential losses?
Jon, no matter how much you paint the picture, as being helpless little geeks, against the big bad system. The fact of the matter is, that under current law (and by the way, Napster's End User License), these kids are engaging in illegal IP piracy.
Based on your staunch defense of the rights of computer users to copy IP freely, I assume that I have carte blanche to set up a site, with copies of all your works Jon? I would be freeing information, so that the community can read it, without having to pay a rapacious author.
Take basic Econ classes. When people are allowed to specialize on things that they have a comparative advantage in doing, then the system as a whole gains. If "artists" were forced to hold a "regular" job to sustain themselves, they would have significantly less time to create their art, thus creating less of it. In a well functioning economy, you let the teenagers flip burgers at McD's, and the artists create music. The artist is much happier. And the teenager gets to listen to far more music than if he had a kazoo of his own to create with.
Society as a whole, gets both more burgers, and more art, when teenagers, and artists can devote more of their energy to the things that they are best suited to.
I must say that the populace here, is very entertaining sometimes. The last time I saw this much chatter on a topic here, was when the users found out that their comments were being published in a book, without reimbursement, or attribution.
You can't have it both ways folks. If information wants to be free, than JK & Co, were perfectly within their rights to do whatever they wanted with the comments that were posted here last year.
If you don't believe that they should have done that, then delete Napster, and Gnutella off your systems. Purge your MP3 collection of everything that you haven't bought. And quit foaming at the mouth about how evil the RIAA is.
I really enjoy how the works of "professional artists" are freebies to be traded with impunity. But the comments of the community, are to be cherished, and held close. Never shared with the outside world.
"3. Allows the free market system to function rationally and profitably."
We have a free market now. I have never been forced to but a CD that I didn't want. And any CD that I thought was too expensive, I was free to decline to purchase.
"3. Busts up the music industry cartel and monopoly over music, the biggest outside of Columbia."
a. Beautiful job of sequencing thoughts. b. 2 of my co-workers have their own band. They make money. They make money selling CD's. They have NOTHING to do with RIAA. In their words it's a dinosaur.
So apparently it's your god given duty to cram alternative distribution down the throats of the RIAA, and their artists? I really don't see where you get off telling others how they need to run their business.
As several others have suggested, Jon, why don't you start your own record label that's MP3 based. Give away the tracks, and make the revenue up elsewhere. Knock yourself out. But don't tell others that they have to do that, just because you want them to. It's their business, not yours.
Why shouldn't the kid be cut off from that? I find it incredibly difficult to imagine how the world would be worse off, if the kid couldn't download ripped CD's. It's music. It's a commercial good. And there is no reason on earth that I can see, that they should get it for free, if the artist says otherwise.
Actually, his original comment was: "First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc..."
Where he plainly admits that it's difficult to get, but does say that he could get trance elsewhere. And one other reply to his comments listed a source for hard to find music that would ship anywhere in the world.
His comments actually started at least one thread of the type that I repeated advocated for him. The rudest beginnings of a community, that would allow him to legitimately obtain that which he is so unwilling to pay for. Too bad he's not interested in being aboveboard.
Bully for you, and entirely irrelevant. Unless you are only collecting mp3's for things that you own already, in which case you still don't need Napster.
"First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc..."
So because you have "rarified tastes", you suddenly have carte blanche to steal whatever you want. I'm sure that the stuff is available somewhere, otherwise, it wouldn't be available as mp3's. You could always try and join/build a community of trancers, that would let people know what's new, and good, and where to get it. I'm sure that you could legitimately pay for what you use, if you only wanted to.
"Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA..."
So don't buy the stuff you don't like. And everyone buys CD's that have dreck on them. Just don't buy more from that band, if you don't like the direction that they're going. If it's worth stealing tho, it ought to be worth buying. Caveat Emptor. And if it's available outside the US, I'm sure that there is some channel that you could use to get it here as well. What with all the online music vendors.
"Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Napster (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise."
So because it's a "victimless crime", it's perfectly ok? Or because you're poor, you should have a different set of guidelines, than someone that makes more money? Get a job. If the music is so important to you, that you HAVE TO HAVE IT, then get a second job. It's a matter of priorities. The things that really matter to you, you can find a way to facilitate.
"Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase."
So because you are stealing from people that might be better able to afford it, it's suddenly acceptable? I'm sure that breaking and entering, carries a much lighter sentence when you bust into Bill Gates's house, than when you bust into mine. Makes sense. Yeah, record company greed does suck. But just because they are greedy, doesn't justify the fact that you are too. Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"?
"The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews."
If you don't like the sales help, don't patronize the store. The fact that you don't like the salesclerks at Tower Records, doesn't suddenly give you carte blanche to steal the products elsewhere. And sure buying online is a risk, you don't know if you'll like what you're buying. In case you didn't catch it earlier, it's called caveat emptor. Buyer beware. Build a community of friends whose tastes you do trust. Find legitimate samples of the musicians work, so you can taste before you buy. Become an informed consumer, rather than a petty theif.
"I'm glad Napster exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on."
I'm sure you do love it. You get to take whatever you want, without actually having to walk into a store, and risk getting popped for shoplifting. It's great for you. But you're not the only person involved. The artists have rights as well, and in stealing their work, you are trampling all over their rights.
How is it a natural process for people to have the right to copy your intellectual property? That's not a happenstance. It's a concious act that they are taking. By what natural right does someone take whatever IP you have created, and do whatever they want freely?
From several back --- "However, now that reproducing information is so much less of a noticeable task, there are no longer reasonable means to restrict information copying. The reason that we don't seem that adverse to saying people can't reproduce our information in print is because we are still clinging to old notions of information existing in discrete elements, and hence 'copying' still is a notion that many of us still have. Since we don't have a strong concept of owning 'copies' of speech restricting it borders on ludicrous."
Sure sounds like you are advocating allowing people no rights to limit in any way their own creations. Or at least significantly reducing what rights they will have in the future.
Basically your reasoning seems to boil down the same way that others have gone around here. Might makes right.
Because technology has empowered you with the ability to copy freely whatever you don't feel like paying for, you seem to think there is a natural law that says you must use that power with no restrictions.
It just ain't so. Just because you can steal my IP doesn't mean that you have the right and the responsibility to do so.
So it's perfectly legitimate, and acceptable, and desired, if an artist wants to give away his work. And he has every right to limit what people do with it commecially. But if an artist chooses to sell his work, he's doing a bad thing. And so any limits s/he might want to impose on his work, is completely unforgivable, and unallowable?
Everyone here seems to think, that it's easy for Netpliance to add HDD's and whatnot to these. One thing that you are forgetting, is that currently this machine is a sealed box. Practically a dumb terminal. It would be extremely difficult for an average user to blow it up. The OS is on a non-volatile, non-crashable media. As long as the chips don't fail, it's gonna run forever.
If the company started selling all these new configurations, especially if they start selling with a HDD installed. Suddenly their support consts are gonna skyrocket. Now you have to deal with people erasing their systems. Adding on plug-ins, and new software that doesn't work right. All manner of stuff, that's gonna blow the platform. And since the company is selling these as a standard configuration. All the neophytes that are buying them, will expect to be cared for, just like with any other computer.
I think the company is between a rock, and a hard place. If they change the system, to make it a hackers dream, how do they differentiate them in the market, so they don't kill themselves supporting these things? Frankly right now, they have it pretty good. It's to the point, where you have to be fairly dedicated to hack one now. And it's pretty clear that once you do, you're on your own for support. So not too many people are gonna get them, for other than the original design, which is the company's cash cow. And those that do, will cost the company little in lost ISP revenue. And nothing at all in ongoing support.
Based on the title of your comment, you seem to operate under the same ideals as others around this place. That in effect might makes right. Because the bandwidth is there, and the capability to copy is there, it's your god given right to pirate whater you want, whenever you want.
You give a list of "options" that an artist has to make money.
With regards to the value adds, what's to keep someone from copying those? Why suddenly are the words, or the art less a piece of art that should be protected, than the sounds are? So any copier can just as easily duplicate the entire package.
Teaching music is a valid way to earn money, and it is how quite a lot of musicians make some money.
Once you've destroyed the commercial art fields, why would anyone be willing or able to pay a living wage for studio artists? If the main group isn't getting paid for the recording, how can they ever pay you for working on it?
Creating custom pieces is no longer an option, since art is now public domain. There's no money in making a piece of IP, so there's no money to hire collaborators.
Working as a subject matter expert, is one other way that struggling artists make $$ now. But how many retail jobs are there? And how much can an expert make, when his clients aren't making any money?
So in summary, there are ways that some artists could make money, if the system were scrapped, and redone. But if it were possible for them to live in a manner that they find acceptable, don't you think at least a few of them would? Why is it that even the artists that own their own labels, don't release all their product as freebies, and live off the alternative revenue streams that you suggest? Could it be possible, that they can't live in the style to which they would prefer to?
I suppose that living in the style to which they prefer to, is something that some people think is ok. Why should they be rich? Because they work their asses off, and earn it. That's why. The economic system that the US thrives under, rewards people for what they do. And I see no reason whatsoever, to object to someone elses success. Tearing down someone else, doesn't make the world a better place. You make the world better by improving peoples lot in life, not by reducing everone to the same low standard of living.
The government doesn't tax property, by and large.
The local governments do get annual property (real estate kind) taxes, but generally other personal property is taxed via transfer taxes only. And I don't think that treating IP the same as real estate is necessarily a fair treatment. IP is something that is produced, so it would be more equitable, to treat it as goods.
(disclosure point - I'm Bill's son. I'm the one that roped him into this forum)
This isn't what most people think of, when they hear DSL line. This is a point to point network connection, nothing more. This is not a way to get on the net cheap, it's just a way to establish a MAN (metropolitan area network). You still need an ISP somewhere, to actually provide a connection to the internet.
It's a helluva deal, for a remote office connectivity point, but it's not an internet connection.
With a cable modem (bizarre term in and of itself. ITS NOT A MODEM) you share the total theoretical bandwidth with all your neighbors. This is great, if nobody in the area owns a computer, you have the whole pipe to yourself. But if all your neighbors are sucking down porn of the newsgroups, and hoovering warez from FTP's, your speed will plummet.
With a DSL line, the connection between you, and your service provider, is a constant, flat rate. No matter what your neighbors do, you never slow down. Theoretically. There is a potential bottleneck tho, your service provider, has to have a big enough pipe from their office, to the internet to support all the users. But since most of the time it's a phone company, they can certainly afford the pipe(s) out to the net.
Slashdot Mirror
True, he isn't trying himself to cram it down their throats. But he's made himself a demogogue, advocating the rights of those that are trying to cram it down the record companies. A thin distinction, frankly.
You do have the right to complain, and tell them how you think they should run their business.
You do NOT have the right to take the initiative, and start treating their works, as if they were operating under your "improved" model. It's their perrogative to change the terms of use, not yours.
I'm positive, that if you were willing to take a huge haircut on your advances, your publisher would give you the rights to post your material for free on the web, as soon as it's in dead-tree form.
Oddly tho, you don't seem well inclined to negotiate those sorts of terms. Even tho the books are a very small portion of your income, you still want to make as much as possible for writing them. How does that differ from Metallica? They work hard to produce that which provides the bulk of their income, and you want them to cede rights to distribute it for free.
Remember, JK seems to mouth the "information wants to be free" mantra, whenever anyone but his publisher is listening. Of course he's gonna rip someone elses work, rather than writing his own column.
Going after users who appear to be offering Metallica MP3s that they might have a legal right to have isn't diplomatic.
It's pursuing people that are attempting to illegally distribute goods. Nothing more/less. I doubt very highly, that any of the named Napster users, have a license to distribute Metallica MP3's. They have no legal right to be doing what they are being accused of doing.
the information that was collected on the users, was just the user name, by Metallica's investigators. The law was primarily focused at making people targeting that age group jump through hoops before collecting information, they should be ok. The onus, if any, will likely fall on Napster, to collect more information on it's user base, or possibly to ban users that claim to be under a particular age.
who have no idea their online movements are being tracked, and who certainly have the right to pursue individual cultural interests without worring that they're being watched.
They aren't "pursuing cultural interests", they are stealing Intellectual Property.
isn't a step forward towards artists' controlling their art.
Stopping people from illegaly copying your IP, is a perfectly valid step towards controlling your art.
In addition to protecting their own work, artists also have a responsibility to protect freedom and creativity.
But their priority, is to protect their own work. And it's their perrogative to do just that.
Metallica's name-gathering is an ugly, excessive and noxious assault aimed at curbing the free movement of information and ideas that characterizes the Internet, while doing little to resolve the many copyright, commercial and other issues involved in the free music controversy.
It's not ideas, and information that's moving about freely, it's pirated IP. Nothing less. Once again, JK characterizes everything as an assault on poor, helpless computer nerds.
Everyone reading this can name at least a half dozen alternative sites and programs that have boomed in recent weeks even as the music industry, Metallica and Dr. Dre have moved against Napster and MP3.com
Everyone reading this can name at least a half dozen alternative sites and programs that have boomed in recent weeks even as the music industry, Metallica and Dr. Dre have moved against Napster and MP3.com
In the eyes of the mass public, Napster, and MP3 have the mind-share. They worked to get noticed, and they have. They are the largest sources for trading in material like this, so they are the biggest target to aim at.
There is simply no justification for a band to go after hundreds of thousands of its own fans, mostly kids, for the purpose of intimidation.
I'd say that protecting their IP, is a perfect justification. If the pirates are intimidated, maybe some of them will stop engaging in a blatantly illegal activity.
Metallica is invading its fans' privacy, challenging the ability of others to move freely and privately about the Net and the Web -- perhaps the hallmark social, creative and educational feature of the Internet.
Actually, they are pursuing thieves. They are pursuing people that have no respect for the rights of Metallica, why should we worry about the "rights" of people that don't respect the rights of others?
Urge everyone you know to do likewise until Metallica calls off its legal Rottweillers, leaves kids downloading music alone, and agrees to slug the issue out in court and other venues where it belongs.
I suppose we could leave it until later. But when existing IP rights are validated in the courts, professional musicians will have lost millions potentially in revenue to piracy. Would you prefer if they sued for back potential losses?
Jon, no matter how much you paint the picture, as being helpless little geeks, against the big bad system. The fact of the matter is, that under current law (and by the way, Napster's End User License), these kids are engaging in illegal IP piracy.
Based on your staunch defense of the rights of computer users to copy IP freely, I assume that I have carte blanche to set up a site, with copies of all your works Jon? I would be freeing information, so that the community can read it, without having to pay a rapacious author.
Take basic Econ classes. When people are allowed to specialize on things that they have a comparative advantage in doing, then the system as a whole gains. If "artists" were forced to hold a "regular" job to sustain themselves, they would have significantly less time to create their art, thus creating less of it. In a well functioning economy, you let the teenagers flip burgers at McD's, and the artists create music. The artist is much happier. And the teenager gets to listen to far more music than if he had a kazoo of his own to create with.
Society as a whole, gets both more burgers, and more art, when teenagers, and artists can devote more of their energy to the things that they are best suited to.
I must say that the populace here, is very entertaining sometimes. The last time I saw this much chatter on a topic here, was when the users found out that their comments were being published in a book, without reimbursement, or attribution.
You can't have it both ways folks. If information wants to be free, than JK & Co, were perfectly within their rights to do whatever they wanted with the comments that were posted here last year.
If you don't believe that they should have done that, then delete Napster, and Gnutella off your systems. Purge your MP3 collection of everything that you haven't bought. And quit foaming at the mouth about how evil the RIAA is.
I really enjoy how the works of "professional artists" are freebies to be traded with impunity. But the comments of the community, are to be cherished, and held close. Never shared with the outside world.
"3. Allows the free market system to function rationally and profitably."
We have a free market now. I have never been forced to but a CD that I didn't want. And any CD that I thought was too expensive, I was free to decline to purchase.
"3. Busts up the music industry cartel and monopoly over music, the biggest outside of Columbia."
a. Beautiful job of sequencing thoughts.
b. 2 of my co-workers have their own band. They make money. They make money selling CD's. They have NOTHING to do with RIAA. In their words it's a dinosaur.
So apparently it's your god given duty to cram alternative distribution down the throats of the RIAA, and their artists? I really don't see where you get off telling others how they need to run their business.
As several others have suggested, Jon, why don't you start your own record label that's MP3 based. Give away the tracks, and make the revenue up elsewhere. Knock yourself out. But don't tell others that they have to do that, just because you want them to. It's their business, not yours.
Why shouldn't the kid be cut off from that? I find it incredibly difficult to imagine how the world would be worse off, if the kid couldn't download ripped CD's. It's music. It's a commercial good. And there is no reason on earth that I can see, that they should get it for free, if the artist says otherwise.
Actually, his original comment was:
"First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc..."
Where he plainly admits that it's difficult to get, but does say that he could get trance elsewhere. And one other reply to his comments listed a source for hard to find music that would ship anywhere in the world.
His comments actually started at least one thread of the type that I repeated advocated for him. The rudest beginnings of a community, that would allow him to legitimately obtain that which he is so unwilling to pay for. Too bad he's not interested in being aboveboard.
"(I own several hundred CDs btw)"
Bully for you, and entirely irrelevant. Unless you are only collecting mp3's for things that you own already, in which case you still don't need Napster.
"First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc..."
So because you have "rarified tastes", you suddenly have carte blanche to steal whatever you want. I'm sure that the stuff is available somewhere, otherwise, it wouldn't be available as mp3's. You could always try and join/build a community of trancers, that would let people know what's new, and good, and where to get it. I'm sure that you could legitimately pay for what you use, if you only wanted to.
"Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA..."
So don't buy the stuff you don't like. And everyone buys CD's that have dreck on them. Just don't buy more from that band, if you don't like the direction that they're going. If it's worth stealing tho, it ought to be worth buying. Caveat Emptor. And if it's available outside the US, I'm sure that there is some channel that you could use to get it here as well. What with all the online music vendors.
"Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Napster (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise."
So because it's a "victimless crime", it's perfectly ok? Or because you're poor, you should have a different set of guidelines, than someone that makes more money? Get a job. If the music is so important to you, that you HAVE TO HAVE IT, then get a second job. It's a matter of priorities. The things that really matter to you, you can find a way to facilitate.
"Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase."
So because you are stealing from people that might be better able to afford it, it's suddenly acceptable? I'm sure that breaking and entering, carries a much lighter sentence when you bust into Bill Gates's house, than when you bust into mine. Makes sense. Yeah, record company greed does suck. But just because they are greedy, doesn't justify the fact that you are too. Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"?
"The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews."
If you don't like the sales help, don't patronize the store. The fact that you don't like the salesclerks at Tower Records, doesn't suddenly give you carte blanche to steal the products elsewhere. And sure buying online is a risk, you don't know if you'll like what you're buying. In case you didn't catch it earlier, it's called caveat emptor. Buyer beware. Build a community of friends whose tastes you do trust. Find legitimate samples of the musicians work, so you can taste before you buy. Become an informed consumer, rather than a petty theif.
"I'm glad Napster exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on."
I'm sure you do love it. You get to take whatever you want, without actually having to walk into a store, and risk getting popped for shoplifting. It's great for you. But you're not the only person involved. The artists have rights as well, and in stealing their work, you are trampling all over their rights.
How is it a natural process for people to have the right to copy your intellectual property? That's not a happenstance. It's a concious act that they are taking. By what natural right does someone take whatever IP you have created, and do whatever they want freely?
From several back --- "However, now that reproducing information is so much less of a noticeable task, there are no longer reasonable means to restrict information copying. The reason that we don't seem that adverse to saying people can't reproduce our information in print is because we are still clinging to old notions of information existing in discrete elements, and hence 'copying' still is a notion that many of us still have. Since we don't have a strong concept of owning 'copies' of speech restricting it borders on ludicrous."
Sure sounds like you are advocating allowing people no rights to limit in any way their own creations. Or at least significantly reducing what rights they will have in the future.
IP, as in Intellectual Property.
Nuclear Bombs are a technolgy, that is an alternative to other forms of combat. But it's not socially acceptable.
Just because a new technology exists, doesn't mean that it's moral that you use it.
Basically your reasoning seems to boil down the same way that others have gone around here. Might makes right.
Because technology has empowered you with the ability to copy freely whatever you don't feel like paying for, you seem to think there is a natural law that says you must use that power with no restrictions.
It just ain't so. Just because you can steal my IP doesn't mean that you have the right and the responsibility to do so.
So it's perfectly legitimate, and acceptable, and desired, if an artist wants to give away his work. And he has every right to limit what people do with it commecially. But if an artist chooses to sell his work, he's doing a bad thing. And so any limits s/he might want to impose on his work, is completely unforgivable, and unallowable?
You really expect us to equate infringing on the rights of IP creators, to protesting against the governments limitations on the use of crypto?
Everyone here seems to think, that it's easy for Netpliance to add HDD's and whatnot to these. One thing that you are forgetting, is that currently this machine is a sealed box. Practically a dumb terminal. It would be extremely difficult for an average user to blow it up. The OS is on a non-volatile, non-crashable media. As long as the chips don't fail, it's gonna run forever.
If the company started selling all these new configurations, especially if they start selling with a HDD installed. Suddenly their support consts are gonna skyrocket. Now you have to deal with people erasing their systems. Adding on plug-ins, and new software that doesn't work right. All manner of stuff, that's gonna blow the platform. And since the company is selling these as a standard configuration. All the neophytes that are buying them, will expect to be cared for, just like with any other computer.
I think the company is between a rock, and a hard place. If they change the system, to make it a hackers dream, how do they differentiate them in the market, so they don't kill themselves supporting these things? Frankly right now, they have it pretty good. It's to the point, where you have to be fairly dedicated to hack one now. And it's pretty clear that once you do, you're on your own for support. So not too many people are gonna get them, for other than the original design, which is the company's cash cow. And those that do, will cost the company little in lost ISP revenue. And nothing at all in ongoing support.
Based on the title of your comment, you seem to operate under the same ideals as others around this place. That in effect might makes right. Because the bandwidth is there, and the capability to copy is there, it's your god given right to pirate whater you want, whenever you want.
You give a list of "options" that an artist has to make money.
With regards to the value adds, what's to keep someone from copying those? Why suddenly are the words, or the art less a piece of art that should be protected, than the sounds are? So any copier can just as easily duplicate the entire package.
Teaching music is a valid way to earn money, and it is how quite a lot of musicians make some money.
Once you've destroyed the commercial art fields, why would anyone be willing or able to pay a living wage for studio artists? If the main group isn't getting paid for the recording, how can they ever pay you for working on it?
Creating custom pieces is no longer an option, since art is now public domain. There's no money in making a piece of IP, so there's no money to hire collaborators.
Working as a subject matter expert, is one other way that struggling artists make $$ now. But how many retail jobs are there? And how much can an expert make, when his clients aren't making any money?
So in summary, there are ways that some artists could make money, if the system were scrapped, and redone. But if it were possible for them to live in a manner that they find acceptable, don't you think at least a few of them would? Why is it that even the artists that own their own labels, don't release all their product as freebies, and live off the alternative revenue streams that you suggest? Could it be possible, that they can't live in the style to which they would prefer to?
I suppose that living in the style to which they prefer to, is something that some people think is ok. Why should they be rich? Because they work their asses off, and earn it. That's why. The economic system that the US thrives under, rewards people for what they do. And I see no reason whatsoever, to object to someone elses success. Tearing down someone else, doesn't make the world a better place. You make the world better by improving peoples lot in life, not by reducing everone to the same low standard of living.
The government doesn't tax property, by and large.
The local governments do get annual property (real estate kind) taxes, but generally other personal property is taxed via transfer taxes only. And I don't think that treating IP the same as real estate is necessarily a fair treatment. IP is something that is produced, so it would be more equitable, to treat it as goods.
(disclosure point - I'm Bill's son. I'm the one that roped him into this forum)
This isn't what most people think of, when they hear DSL line. This is a point to point network connection, nothing more. This is not a way to get on the net cheap, it's just a way to establish a MAN (metropolitan area network). You still need an ISP somewhere, to actually provide a connection to the internet.
It's a helluva deal, for a remote office connectivity point, but it's not an internet connection.
In a word, bottlenecks.
With a cable modem (bizarre term in and of itself. ITS NOT A MODEM) you share the total theoretical bandwidth with all your neighbors. This is great, if nobody in the area owns a computer, you have the whole pipe to yourself. But if all your neighbors are sucking down porn of the newsgroups, and hoovering warez from FTP's, your speed will plummet.
With a DSL line, the connection between you, and your service provider, is a constant, flat rate. No matter what your neighbors do, you never slow down. Theoretically. There is a potential bottleneck tho, your service provider, has to have a big enough pipe from their office, to the internet to support all the users. But since most of the time it's a phone company, they can certainly afford the pipe(s) out to the net.