I'm not a moron on this topic, I understand this issue, I've watched Anime, I've studied Japanese, and I currently read it reasonably well, and I understand the social overtones around "chikushou" and "kuso".
You're making the assumption that the people that are correcting you do not share the credentials you do. Guess what, I've studied Japanese too, and can read it reasonably well, and not only do I think chikushou is closer to "damn" than "fucking christ," apparently so do a lot of fansubbers and professional translators. I've never once, ever, seen chikushou translated as fucking christ. Ever. Fucking christ is definately not its "literal translation."
Heck, you're even ignoring posts like MidnightBrewer's who seems to imply that his/her children are in Japanese schools. I know that when I went to Japan, and was trading swear words with the locals (all in good fun), they didn't seem to think that chikushou or kuso were as bad as you said. One guy told me that he didn't really use those words at all, but preferred to just tell people that he was going to kill them when he got mad.
Actually, in my book thats not really a nice thing (taking into account salaries from all over the country). Thats because you have no idea how much these people are really making. Could be that the vast majority of people surveyed are working in California, where $60k is not that much money. It could be that the people surveyed are working at Volition, in which case $60k is a lot of money.
I'm assuming that there's no breakdown of location, because I can't login (forgot my gamasutra login), and if thats the survey doesn't tell you anything. It would be a lot more useful if it was broken down by state/city, or if the income was adjusted based on living expenses.
Its really cool you found a good job in the game industry. I lost interest in it when I learned that 80 hour weeks were (supposably) common. I also had held a normal 40 hour a week job, and really learned to love my free time, so I was really hesitent to go into the industry for seemingly low pay and long hours. I may take another look if its not really that bad, but are you sure you just didn't get lucky?
Erm, aside from shows shown on TV, I haven't seen any sort of censorship in anime. I used to watch a lot of anime DVDs, and still watch anime DVD's often. In fact I just watched half of Full Metal Panic with my brother the other day. I haven't noticed any censorship. And yes, I do speak Japanese, thanks for asking.
I'll give you SouthPark. It's a bit abstract, but does include those things. However, SouthPark is the exception, not the rule. Now for a good example of what I was talking about, look at Inu Yasha. This cartoon is heavily censored in the US, as are most anime.
Most anime on TV. As I said in the other thread, I haven't come across any censoreded DVDs. My Cowboy Bebop, Full Metal Panic, Trigun, and Scryed DVDs all have no censorship, and neither have any of the several dozen DVDs I've rented. To claim that "most" anime are censored in the US is innacurate.
I'm sorry, but I watch both fansubs and DVDs, and I have seen no censoring on the DVDs, unless you buy ones that are explicitely censored (and sold beside the uncensored DVDs). Which shows exactly are censored on the DVDs, because I certainly haven't run accross any (and my rental store has a huge selection).
Maybe you're watching some bad fansubs. I've seen a lot of fansubbers that like to throw in extra swear words when the content in question isn't really. One of the Kromarti High fansubbers did this alot, off the top of my head.
Good post, but I'd like to point out that saying someone makes $60k a year doesn't tell you much about how much spending money they actually have. Cost of living can be dramatically different in different parts of the globe. I could move to California, be making more than I am now, and live in worse conditions with less spending money.
I'm glad to hear that crunch times and whatnot aren't as bad. Out of curiosity how much do you actually work in a week?
Where do you live? It could be that different costs of living are what causes the skew. For example, compared to where I live, my $40k salary is roughly $80k in San Francisco. So if you have me, and another programmer in California making roughly the same adjusted wage, and take the average of our salaries, then you'd come up with $60k. That figure makes me seem like I'm being underpaid, but the reality of the situation is that its $60k for certain living conditions in a certain location.
You mention that the theft of an item is protected by law, but so is copyright. You're right in that creating something doesn't necessarily mean that you deserve to have things turn out how you like. Your examples, however, are bad, as they are examples of property owned by the public, and a right intrinsic to human beings (to think how they wish).
I do not think its either fair or right that someone who creates a song or a video game can have someone take that and distribute it against his wishes. Hearing a song and having it in your head is entirely different than being able to record it. Humming it is entirely different than making a perfect duplicate of the recording. You are able to hear it in your head and hum it by virtue of someone spending their own time to create it. I don't think its right that person should get nothing in return.
However, I'd argue that copyright has a valid reason to exist. The goal of it is to promote creation of art for the public, by giving creators the ability to control distribution for a set time. The law has been twisted and corrupted by corporations, but I believe that we are better with it than without it. I'd rather see people come up with new art and entertainment and get paid, then people deciding its not worth it to come up with new stuff because it will just get copied by a lot of people.
And yes, I know there was art way before copyright laws. But it was also incredibly hard to copy said art. Copyright laws came into existence for a reason.
Overall, the justification seems to be that if you create something you should not expect any sort of control or returns from it. Well, a lot of people think that if you create something, then you should have some control over how its distributed, and be able to make money from it for a small length of time. Thats why copyright came into being. In the same way that a lot of people thought that if you own an object, then you deserve to keep that object, and so came up with laws against theft.
Also note that the original essence of copyright was that these things were basically owned by the public, with the creator only having a monopoly on distribution. I think it would be good to go back to this sort of copyright.
1. I think the pricing of CDs would take care of itself if the music industry couldn't monopolize radio and essentially hype its own product 24-7.
If you take the view that this sort of behavior is keeping independant artists under the radar, this would seem accurate.
2. Copyright is not a natural right, but an artificial one granted for the purpose of encouraging artists to move creative works into the public domain. Creatives works are making more money than ever now. So why was the length of copyright increased.
I wasn't trying to say it was a natural right, but it obviously came out that way. Regardless of whether its an artificial or natural right, its a right regardless, and in my opinion it would be a good one to have if it weren't so broken at the moment. Its broken, in my opinion, because of that last point. I agree with you, its ridiculous that copyrights are so long. They should go back to the normal length. Even shorter for software, in my opinion. 5 years should be more than enough to make any money off of music, video games, or movies.
3. "Information wants to be free" is not, in my mind synonymous with "information should be free." It's a reminder that there are huge economic costs in terms of enforcement and lost opportunity costs in preventing the freeflow of information.
Yeah they're different, but I was responding to people who were arguing that entertainment should literally be free, as in beer. In other words, that its ok to copy music because they shouldn't be charging for it anyways.
I realize that there are some benefits to tax breaks, but not only does it seem like a subversion of law to give breaks if there isn't a clear and immediate economic benefit to the community, but it seems like a subversion of law. Why shouldn't all people get equal treatment from the government? If the RIAA didn't donate huge amounts of money to the government, I might be more inclined to see Gov't favoring of the music industry as a mutually beneficial relationship, as opposed to a straightforward conflict of interest.
Well, I wasn't trying to make any sort of judgement on taxing corporations, just to point out that not taxing isnt the same as giving money. I'm not sure that equal treatment from the government is in everyone's best interest. The rich, after all, have a higher percentage of their income taxed, and most people consider that a good thing, even though its unequal treatment. As far as corporations, its a mixed bag. Taxing them more might just make them move jobs out of country. I don't know because I'm not an expert on these sorts of things. I just know its not black and white.
In addition, if Metallica wants to charge $10 for the concert, and not give away any CD's, but rather charge for them seperately, that is their right to do so regardless of whether they have the copyright to the song or not (if someone else owns the copyright, thats obviously a different matter). The only difference is that, if they don't have a copyright, then someone else can sell the CD's too. But the choice is still up to Metallica as to what that concert ticket price includes.
You know, if you dont want your PIN spread around you should probably keep it to yourself.
Ah but what if my bank gave away my account information? Would that be ok, if I signed no agreement that they keep my information private?
Of course not. That person should be able to charge however much they wish. However, that does not mean they should be allowed to then prevent the purchaser from doing whatever they want with their newly purchased property.
That's the fundamental reason that the free market works; the creation of wealth through the ever increasing efficiency of production. So, yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. Unless you're opposed to or dont believe in competition or free market capitalism in general.
I mostly agree with your assessment, but things like entertainment are different. The only reason to make entertainment is soley for enjoyment. There is no particular problem solved or competitive advantage gained.
Moreover, in the case of entertainment or computer programs, they are not undercutting through better production or efficiency. They are undercutting by taking something that someone else spent a lot of money to produce and simply giving it out for a lower price. Thats not competition, from my point of view.
As far as being able to do what you want with that product, I agree to a point. The problem is that digital media isn't really like anything else in history. I should be able to make copies of any media I own in any format, but once I start distributing that media, I am essentially taking someone else's hard work, and undercutting them on price so that they lose money.
The IP system is in its essence a form of taxation/subsidy system, in the form of monopoly rent on certain items, comparable to other product taxes in economic effects. As for what the public gets for those hidden taxes, it has got to be the absolutely worst performing and undemocratic subsidy/corporate welfare scheme ever invented.
In fact, copyright as it was when it was conceived, was supposed to be for the public's benefit. The idea being that you let people make some money off of their works for a little bit of time, then give it to the public for use and general consumption. It seemed to work pretty well, until corporations lobbied to get them extended to ridiculous lengths.
The way I see it, in the absense of copyright, the only reason to actually create things would be for the love of it. That doesn't sound bad, but you are effectively limited in what you can create if you cannot recoup your costs. Some forms of entertainment would come out better than others. Just look at the indie game scene to see what I'm talking about.
So whats the solution? I don't know. I certainly don't think that copyright infringment is moral, as people are trying to make it out to be. However I try to be practical, and I don't think that digital media can necessarily survive based on current business models.
But that $60k is probably going to be in a big city where it isn't worth that much. I started out making $40k as a normal programmer. Where I live, thats equivalent to making roughly $60k in Chicago, or $80k in San Francisco. With benefits.
Your statement presumes that copyright is an absolute property right, which it is not. It's a limited property right that has been legislated, rather arbitrarily, to the point where it resembles an absolute property right. However, it still has limits.
I was arguing based on copyright law. Paying for a performance lets you see that performance. Paying for a CD gives you that CD, and a right to copy it and modify it for personal use, but not for distribution. For the record, I think people should be able to make recordings of concerts. I'm not sure how I would feel about the distribution of recordings of concerts.
They can't charge me for quietly humming one of their melodies. Under the copyright regime of the original founding fathers, Metallica's first album would already be public domain (and foreign works like Ozzy would have no copyrights at all). If you want to go back to the good old days of the 19th Century before income taxes, it's only fair to roll back copyright laws to the 19th Century terms too.
I agree. I want the laws to go back before copyright extension. I think it was 20 years?
You are wrong. CD sales have plummeted, remember? That's why the RIAA is suing file sharing? OH YEAH - because it's been pretty universally agreed upon that 50 minutes of random music is not worth 20 dollars.
I thought the battle cry was that CD sales were doing better than ever, especially considering economic conditions. I remember there being several slashdot stories, along with a lot posters claiming that it was obvious piracy would improve sells. Do you have any sources?
If it was universally agreed upon that the music wasn't worth the money, then the CDs wouldn't be selling. The music companies are still in business, so obviously there are enough people somewhere who feel that the music is worth $20 to keep them in business.
All your economics classes are taught to you by a power elite driven to never upset the system. This crap you spout was programmed into you by your country and your cheap education.
Wow, just, wow. I'm sorry but university professors are hardly powerful or elite. In fact, a lot of my professors would probably hate the RIAA just as much as I do. That doesn't change facts, which is kinda what economics is based on. As far as my education, it was hardly cheap. I went to a university that, when I entered, was 4th in the nation for engineering. I hear their business school is extremely good as well.
USE YOUR BRAIN.
I'm using mine just fine. When you spout that I'm being programmed by my country (seems to insinuate that my country is evil), and that I'm being deceived by wealthy elite, when the people I learned from were neither wealthy nor elite, it makes me believe you aren't using yours.
I understand you hate the RIAA. I'm no big fan of them either. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that 1) they're somehow forcing people to buy their music and that 2) people don't believe a CD is worth $20 when a lot of people obviously do believe that.
No, read it again. And again. Its obvious what he's saying.
He's saying "I've paid for it once. I won't pay for it again, but I do expect to listen to it again, since I've paid for it already".
Think about what that means. If I paid $15 for a CD, do I own the song? What am I getting rights to? Anticipating your answer, if I'm buying the right to listen to that song, then I shouldn't be charged for it again.
He payed $10 to attend a performance. He was paying for his attendance at his performance, not the CD, nor the right to listen to it in perpetuety. As far as buying a CD, the industry wants it both ways. I disagree with this position.
My personal opinion is that you are buying the actual CD, which means you are free to copy it for personal use (but not for distribution as that would violate copyright).
That still does not explain why he is paying for music if he believes it should be free.
That's a perfectly logical and rational argument. Its even reasonable. Best of all, its consistent.
Doesn't seem consistent or rational to me. If I go to a movie, then I understand that I'm paying to see the movie performed that one time in that one venue. If I buy the DVD then I understand that I'm buying a product that entitles me to view that as many times as I want in any way that I want, but not to give it away for free to other people.
And it certainly isn't consistent to say that entertainment should be free and then go and pay for it.
If you dont' under stand that argument, that speaks more to your reading comprehension than any inherent flaw in his argument.
I understand the argument. I just think its inconsenstent and irrational. My reading comprehension is just fine, but I notice you had trouble reading the rest of my post and argument which explains my position.
Regardless of whether or not they inflate the prices, a music CD is still not a necessity in life, and therefor noone is forced to buy the product. Say they priced the CD at $100. Would anyone still buy it? Or would they lose money and go out of business?
My point still stands. When someone buys music, it is completely by consent. If they are buying a CD for a certain amount, then that is becuase they believe the CD to be worth that price. If the price was raised too high, then the demand for that CD would go down, noone would buy it, and they would be forced to drop their prices to make money.
In fact, I did study monopolies in economics 101. Demand still does have an effect in a monopoly situation, especially one in which the product is completely unnecessary. Monopolies can set their own prices, but in cases such of this, they still cannot control the demand. I also learned that the only fair prices are those that are equal to or under that which you are willing to pay (the utility of the item). If you are willing to pay for something, then it has a utility equal to or greater than that amount of money. You aren't getting ripped off.
So the fact that this never happens means...what? If sales go down, they blame piracy, not the product. If sales are disppointing, they never, never lower prices. In fact, they have a long history of brawling with retailers who tried to sell at discounts (The Wiz, anyone?). There is no stratification of price to match supply and demand - high-demand and low-demand recordings are sold at essentially identical prices. If anything, low-demand usually cost more.
Last I had checked, the RIAA's sales remained rather consistent with economic trends. Never did I say that I agreed with them for blaming piracy. In fact I am no lover of the RIAA. I was countering the point that the person I was posting to felt that they were somehow owed an album at a certain price, or for attending a concert, or that the bands were somehow forcing him to buy an album. Even with the pricing arguments and piracy, it is still a person's choice whether or not to buy a CD. The RIAA can, in no way, force you to pay for a CD. If you don't like the price, then you don't buy it. However, I don't feel that using the price as an excuse to download a CD is justifiable either.
The music industry does not obey the usual rules of economics. This might be for structural reasons, since they have an effective monolpoly over any given artist (no competing suppliers) and much of the demand is organized by artist. Or it might be that the music industry is a corrupt oligopoly that buys legislation and bullies opponent (including artists themselves) to ensure perpetual profits. Or some mix of the two. But it's patently absurd to condescendingly say that Econ 101 still applies to them.
No they don't follow the usual rules of economics. First, I was trying to simplify my argument. Breaking out the economics textbook doesn't tend to go well in internet debates. Second, despite the fact that they are a oligopoly doesn't really effect my argument, which is that people are willingly buying their media at the price they set. Therefore, its not extortion, nor do many people consider the prices to be unfair. If they did consider it unfair, then they wouldn't buy it, as music is in no way, shape, or form a necessity in life. If we were arguing about food or clean water, there might be a point to it.
Moreover, I was arguing that the band has the right to decide how they want to market and sell their music, and how they want to run their concerts. The poster acted as if a concert ticket somehow magically gave him a right to having a free CD, whereas I pointed out that the concert ticket was for the performance only, and if he didn't like that then maybe he shouldn't have bought the ticket. Obviously, attending the performance was important enough to him to spend the money.
If they want to be treated like people, shouldn't they be taxed like people?
I don't think they should be treated like people even if they are taxed like them. I actually found the figures surprising, since I've been of a mindset that corporations payed far more in taxes than people.
But then again, the income that a corporation makes ends up in the hands of people anyway, whether its the shareholders, an employee, or the rich CEO, so its also a bit disingenious to claim that the money doesn't get taxed that much. In one view, its getting taxed twice (once when comming into the corporation, and again when it flows to the individual).
I'm not saying anything should be free. I'm not talking about necessities either. I'm not saying entertainment has no value. All I'm saying is that people in the entertainment industry should not expect to be making big bucks (as a very small portion are). People should create and be involved in entertainment because that's what they like and makes them feel good, not because it's going to make them money. It just makes me sick when i see some pro baseball player or some big industry bitching because they aren't making all the money they should be because the people who don't make nearly as much as them doing productive work for a living can't pay for it.
Ah then I misunderstood your agument. Well, the fact of the matter is that these players and industry executives are rich because people are willing to pay for what they offer. I know that you say entertainers shouldn't expect payment, and I certainly agree with that: noone is oblidged to pay a person for anything. But I disagree with the notion that people should be able to take the work of others and distribute it for free, against that person's wishes.
As for big budget movies and games, doesn't most of that money go into special affects and good looks and less into content and originality?
Not just special effects, but things like studios, quality actors, and technology to remaster and whatnot. I've found that the vast majority of independant works are of low quality, not only in special effects (some people do like their entertainment to be pretty), but in quality of acting and believability. Lets face it, I'm not going to be immersed into a sci fi show that takes place in some kids garage; thats not quality entertainment. So you need sets, and special effects for the immersion.
I think so, which is why, in many cases, the small independant groups end up making it big. because they have more originality and are more about content, which is much cheaper than flashy graphics. Sadly, it's a vicious cycle where they end up churning out the same thing but with flashy graphics that they can now afford because they made it big.
Many cases? I've found that almost all the time, small independant groups put out products that are of a much lower quality than large producers. Independant films can succeed despite the limitations by being artsy, and games can succeed despite the limitations through good game play.
I've found almost all the independant works out there are crap. Speaking from experience in being a hobbyist game developer, being independant barely helps with original ideas at all. Almost every idea I've ever heard for a game is to take some popular game and add one or two mildly original features. Heck, thats what most of my game ideas are too. Thats what professional game developers do anyway (and its one reason why professional game developers don't take unsolicited game ideas).
Special effects and high budgets don't necessarily mean higher quality and more immersion, but on average they do. There is obviously a demand for them, if people continue to pay.
So if person A told person B all about your patterns, say bank account, PIN, Credit Card #, name, etc... Thats ok? OK, not really a good analogy, but lets face it, what you are saying is that if a person works long and hard hours to produce something useful or that people enjoy, then it is ok for people to take what that person has done and not give him any sort of compensation for it. Thats something that I don't swallow.
If I spent tons of money and man hours producing widget A, and then another company went and produced widget A without having to spend all that money and manpower, thus undercutting me and running me out of business, is that OK? If its OK, then why should I bother to develop widget A in the first place? If I want to write a game, and its ok for someone to take my work and give it away for free, then why should I write that game in the first place? No doubt there will be people who do it simply for the love of it, but the net result is that you've dramatically reduced output and quality.
In my view, reducing music and programs to mere numbers and patterns is sort of a red herring. A lot of things can be reduced to simple things. You, for example, are a collection of chemicals arranged in such a way that you form a thinking human being. But in the end you are a bunch of chemicals. Why shouldn't I be able to own that lump of chemicals that make you up, or destroy it? You're just matter in chemicals, so it shouldn't matter, right?
I don't see any justification for why it shouldn't be. Granted I don't like a lot of IP laws in the world today, but if I spend 40 hours a week making music/games/programs, then why should someone be able to take all that work for free without compensating me? Why shouldn't the information on a CD be property?
Why shouldn't they be able to make a living off of entertainment? Even though its not productive to society, it does have a value to people. I think you could say life would be a lot more boring if we didn't have music and the like.
If someone can't make a living off of something, then that means they will have to devote a large portion of their time towards something that they can make a living off of. One could argue that this decreases the quality of art and entertainment, and the amount produced. In fact, this was the original intent of copyright: to promote the production of art and entertainment available to the public by allowing people to make a living off of it. (Unfortunately, originally the intent was that this art would quickly go into public domain for the benefit of everyone, after the artist had made money off of it, which isn't the case anymore)
Also, while musicians can generally put out good quality stuff fairly quickly even with a day job, the same can not be said about other forms of entertainment. The vast majority of independant films and games are low budget, and don't even approach the quality of professional movies and games. In terms of game developement, for any sort of complicated independant project, you may be looking at years of developement, instead of your usual 12-18 months, if it gets done at all.
Another thing I'd like to point out, you seem to be saying, from my point of view, that necessities in life shouldn't be free, but unneeded things should be free. Isn't that the wrong way around? From an idealogical standpoint, the necessities in life should be freely available to everyone, whereas the unneeded things should cost money. This way everyone has their basic right to life fufilled, and are left to pursuit happiness on their own *insert Declaration of Independance quote here*
Looks like you're correct. Can't vouch for the accuracy. My point that tax breaks are equivalent to taking less money rather than giving corporations still stands though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a moron on this topic, I understand this issue, I've watched Anime, I've studied Japanese, and I currently read it reasonably well, and I understand the social overtones around "chikushou" and "kuso".
You're making the assumption that the people that are correcting you do not share the credentials you do. Guess what, I've studied Japanese too, and can read it reasonably well, and not only do I think chikushou is closer to "damn" than "fucking christ," apparently so do a lot of fansubbers and professional translators. I've never once, ever, seen chikushou translated as fucking christ. Ever. Fucking christ is definately not its "literal translation."
Heck, you're even ignoring posts like MidnightBrewer's who seems to imply that his/her children are in Japanese schools. I know that when I went to Japan, and was trading swear words with the locals (all in good fun), they didn't seem to think that chikushou or kuso were as bad as you said. One guy told me that he didn't really use those words at all, but preferred to just tell people that he was going to kill them when he got mad.
Actually, in my book thats not really a nice thing (taking into account salaries from all over the country). Thats because you have no idea how much these people are really making. Could be that the vast majority of people surveyed are working in California, where $60k is not that much money. It could be that the people surveyed are working at Volition, in which case $60k is a lot of money.
I'm assuming that there's no breakdown of location, because I can't login (forgot my gamasutra login), and if thats the survey doesn't tell you anything. It would be a lot more useful if it was broken down by state/city, or if the income was adjusted based on living expenses.
Its really cool you found a good job in the game industry. I lost interest in it when I learned that 80 hour weeks were (supposably) common. I also had held a normal 40 hour a week job, and really learned to love my free time, so I was really hesitent to go into the industry for seemingly low pay and long hours. I may take another look if its not really that bad, but are you sure you just didn't get lucky?
Erm, aside from shows shown on TV, I haven't seen any sort of censorship in anime. I used to watch a lot of anime DVDs, and still watch anime DVD's often. In fact I just watched half of Full Metal Panic with my brother the other day. I haven't noticed any censorship. And yes, I do speak Japanese, thanks for asking.
I'll give you SouthPark. It's a bit abstract, but does include those things. However, SouthPark is the exception, not the rule. Now for a good example of what I was talking about, look at Inu Yasha. This cartoon is heavily censored in the US, as are most anime.
Most anime on TV. As I said in the other thread, I haven't come across any censoreded DVDs. My Cowboy Bebop, Full Metal Panic, Trigun, and Scryed DVDs all have no censorship, and neither have any of the several dozen DVDs I've rented. To claim that "most" anime are censored in the US is innacurate.
I'm sorry, but I watch both fansubs and DVDs, and I have seen no censoring on the DVDs, unless you buy ones that are explicitely censored (and sold beside the uncensored DVDs). Which shows exactly are censored on the DVDs, because I certainly haven't run accross any (and my rental store has a huge selection).
Maybe you're watching some bad fansubs. I've seen a lot of fansubbers that like to throw in extra swear words when the content in question isn't really. One of the Kromarti High fansubbers did this alot, off the top of my head.
Or, you know, buy/rent the dvds.
I wish I had mod points.
Good post, but I'd like to point out that saying someone makes $60k a year doesn't tell you much about how much spending money they actually have. Cost of living can be dramatically different in different parts of the globe. I could move to California, be making more than I am now, and live in worse conditions with less spending money.
I'm glad to hear that crunch times and whatnot aren't as bad. Out of curiosity how much do you actually work in a week?
Where do you live? It could be that different costs of living are what causes the skew. For example, compared to where I live, my $40k salary is roughly $80k in San Francisco. So if you have me, and another programmer in California making roughly the same adjusted wage, and take the average of our salaries, then you'd come up with $60k. That figure makes me seem like I'm being underpaid, but the reality of the situation is that its $60k for certain living conditions in a certain location.
You mention that the theft of an item is protected by law, but so is copyright. You're right in that creating something doesn't necessarily mean that you deserve to have things turn out how you like. Your examples, however, are bad, as they are examples of property owned by the public, and a right intrinsic to human beings (to think how they wish).
I do not think its either fair or right that someone who creates a song or a video game can have someone take that and distribute it against his wishes. Hearing a song and having it in your head is entirely different than being able to record it. Humming it is entirely different than making a perfect duplicate of the recording. You are able to hear it in your head and hum it by virtue of someone spending their own time to create it. I don't think its right that person should get nothing in return.
However, I'd argue that copyright has a valid reason to exist. The goal of it is to promote creation of art for the public, by giving creators the ability to control distribution for a set time. The law has been twisted and corrupted by corporations, but I believe that we are better with it than without it. I'd rather see people come up with new art and entertainment and get paid, then people deciding its not worth it to come up with new stuff because it will just get copied by a lot of people.
And yes, I know there was art way before copyright laws. But it was also incredibly hard to copy said art. Copyright laws came into existence for a reason.
Overall, the justification seems to be that if you create something you should not expect any sort of control or returns from it. Well, a lot of people think that if you create something, then you should have some control over how its distributed, and be able to make money from it for a small length of time. Thats why copyright came into being. In the same way that a lot of people thought that if you own an object, then you deserve to keep that object, and so came up with laws against theft.
Also note that the original essence of copyright was that these things were basically owned by the public, with the creator only having a monopoly on distribution. I think it would be good to go back to this sort of copyright.
1. I think the pricing of CDs would take care of itself if the music industry couldn't monopolize radio and essentially hype its own product 24-7.
If you take the view that this sort of behavior is keeping independant artists under the radar, this would seem accurate.
2. Copyright is not a natural right, but an artificial one granted for the purpose of encouraging artists to move creative works into the public domain. Creatives works are making more money than ever now. So why was the length of copyright increased.
I wasn't trying to say it was a natural right, but it obviously came out that way. Regardless of whether its an artificial or natural right, its a right regardless, and in my opinion it would be a good one to have if it weren't so broken at the moment. Its broken, in my opinion, because of that last point. I agree with you, its ridiculous that copyrights are so long. They should go back to the normal length. Even shorter for software, in my opinion. 5 years should be more than enough to make any money off of music, video games, or movies.
3. "Information wants to be free" is not, in my mind synonymous with "information should be free." It's a reminder that there are huge economic costs in terms of enforcement and lost opportunity costs in preventing the freeflow of information.
Yeah they're different, but I was responding to people who were arguing that entertainment should literally be free, as in beer. In other words, that its ok to copy music because they shouldn't be charging for it anyways.
I realize that there are some benefits to tax breaks, but not only does it seem like a subversion of law to give breaks if there isn't a clear and immediate economic benefit to the community, but it seems like a subversion of law. Why shouldn't all people get equal treatment from the government? If the RIAA didn't donate huge amounts of money to the government, I might be more inclined to see Gov't favoring of the music industry as a mutually beneficial relationship, as opposed to a straightforward conflict of interest.
Well, I wasn't trying to make any sort of judgement on taxing corporations, just to point out that not taxing isnt the same as giving money. I'm not sure that equal treatment from the government is in everyone's best interest. The rich, after all, have a higher percentage of their income taxed, and most people consider that a good thing, even though its unequal treatment. As far as corporations, its a mixed bag. Taxing them more might just make them move jobs out of country. I don't know because I'm not an expert on these sorts of things. I just know its not black and white.
Point. You're completely correct.
In addition, if Metallica wants to charge $10 for the concert, and not give away any CD's, but rather charge for them seperately, that is their right to do so regardless of whether they have the copyright to the song or not (if someone else owns the copyright, thats obviously a different matter). The only difference is that, if they don't have a copyright, then someone else can sell the CD's too. But the choice is still up to Metallica as to what that concert ticket price includes.
You know, if you dont want your PIN spread around you should probably keep it to yourself.
Ah but what if my bank gave away my account information? Would that be ok, if I signed no agreement that they keep my information private?
Of course not. That person should be able to charge however much they wish. However, that does not mean they should be allowed to then prevent the purchaser from doing whatever they want with their newly purchased property. That's the fundamental reason that the free market works; the creation of wealth through the ever increasing efficiency of production. So, yes, that's the way it's supposed to work. Unless you're opposed to or dont believe in competition or free market capitalism in general.
I mostly agree with your assessment, but things like entertainment are different. The only reason to make entertainment is soley for enjoyment. There is no particular problem solved or competitive advantage gained.
Moreover, in the case of entertainment or computer programs, they are not undercutting through better production or efficiency. They are undercutting by taking something that someone else spent a lot of money to produce and simply giving it out for a lower price. Thats not competition, from my point of view.
As far as being able to do what you want with that product, I agree to a point. The problem is that digital media isn't really like anything else in history. I should be able to make copies of any media I own in any format, but once I start distributing that media, I am essentially taking someone else's hard work, and undercutting them on price so that they lose money.
The IP system is in its essence a form of taxation/subsidy system, in the form of monopoly rent on certain items, comparable to other product taxes in economic effects. As for what the public gets for those hidden taxes, it has got to be the absolutely worst performing and undemocratic subsidy/corporate welfare scheme ever invented.
In fact, copyright as it was when it was conceived, was supposed to be for the public's benefit. The idea being that you let people make some money off of their works for a little bit of time, then give it to the public for use and general consumption. It seemed to work pretty well, until corporations lobbied to get them extended to ridiculous lengths.
The way I see it, in the absense of copyright, the only reason to actually create things would be for the love of it. That doesn't sound bad, but you are effectively limited in what you can create if you cannot recoup your costs. Some forms of entertainment would come out better than others. Just look at the indie game scene to see what I'm talking about.
So whats the solution? I don't know. I certainly don't think that copyright infringment is moral, as people are trying to make it out to be. However I try to be practical, and I don't think that digital media can necessarily survive based on current business models.
But that $60k is probably going to be in a big city where it isn't worth that much. I started out making $40k as a normal programmer. Where I live, thats equivalent to making roughly $60k in Chicago, or $80k in San Francisco. With benefits.
Your statement presumes that copyright is an absolute property right, which it is not. It's a limited property right that has been legislated, rather arbitrarily, to the point where it resembles an absolute property right. However, it still has limits.
I was arguing based on copyright law. Paying for a performance lets you see that performance. Paying for a CD gives you that CD, and a right to copy it and modify it for personal use, but not for distribution. For the record, I think people should be able to make recordings of concerts. I'm not sure how I would feel about the distribution of recordings of concerts.
They can't charge me for quietly humming one of their melodies. Under the copyright regime of the original founding fathers, Metallica's first album would already be public domain (and foreign works like Ozzy would have no copyrights at all). If you want to go back to the good old days of the 19th Century before income taxes, it's only fair to roll back copyright laws to the 19th Century terms too.
I agree. I want the laws to go back before copyright extension. I think it was 20 years?
You are wrong. CD sales have plummeted, remember? That's why the RIAA is suing file sharing? OH YEAH - because it's been pretty universally agreed upon that 50 minutes of random music is not worth 20 dollars.
I thought the battle cry was that CD sales were doing better than ever, especially considering economic conditions. I remember there being several slashdot stories, along with a lot posters claiming that it was obvious piracy would improve sells. Do you have any sources?
If it was universally agreed upon that the music wasn't worth the money, then the CDs wouldn't be selling. The music companies are still in business, so obviously there are enough people somewhere who feel that the music is worth $20 to keep them in business.
All your economics classes are taught to you by a power elite driven to never upset the system. This crap you spout was programmed into you by your country and your cheap education.
Wow, just, wow. I'm sorry but university professors are hardly powerful or elite. In fact, a lot of my professors would probably hate the RIAA just as much as I do. That doesn't change facts, which is kinda what economics is based on. As far as my education, it was hardly cheap. I went to a university that, when I entered, was 4th in the nation for engineering. I hear their business school is extremely good as well.
USE YOUR BRAIN.
I'm using mine just fine. When you spout that I'm being programmed by my country (seems to insinuate that my country is evil), and that I'm being deceived by wealthy elite, when the people I learned from were neither wealthy nor elite, it makes me believe you aren't using yours.
I understand you hate the RIAA. I'm no big fan of them either. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that 1) they're somehow forcing people to buy their music and that 2) people don't believe a CD is worth $20 when a lot of people obviously do believe that.
No, read it again. And again. Its obvious what he's saying. He's saying "I've paid for it once. I won't pay for it again, but I do expect to listen to it again, since I've paid for it already". Think about what that means. If I paid $15 for a CD, do I own the song? What am I getting rights to? Anticipating your answer, if I'm buying the right to listen to that song, then I shouldn't be charged for it again.
He payed $10 to attend a performance. He was paying for his attendance at his performance, not the CD, nor the right to listen to it in perpetuety. As far as buying a CD, the industry wants it both ways. I disagree with this position.
My personal opinion is that you are buying the actual CD, which means you are free to copy it for personal use (but not for distribution as that would violate copyright).
That still does not explain why he is paying for music if he believes it should be free.
That's a perfectly logical and rational argument. Its even reasonable. Best of all, its consistent.
Doesn't seem consistent or rational to me. If I go to a movie, then I understand that I'm paying to see the movie performed that one time in that one venue. If I buy the DVD then I understand that I'm buying a product that entitles me to view that as many times as I want in any way that I want, but not to give it away for free to other people.
And it certainly isn't consistent to say that entertainment should be free and then go and pay for it.
If you dont' under stand that argument, that speaks more to your reading comprehension than any inherent flaw in his argument.
I understand the argument. I just think its inconsenstent and irrational. My reading comprehension is just fine, but I notice you had trouble reading the rest of my post and argument which explains my position.
Regardless of whether or not they inflate the prices, a music CD is still not a necessity in life, and therefor noone is forced to buy the product. Say they priced the CD at $100. Would anyone still buy it? Or would they lose money and go out of business?
My point still stands. When someone buys music, it is completely by consent. If they are buying a CD for a certain amount, then that is becuase they believe the CD to be worth that price. If the price was raised too high, then the demand for that CD would go down, noone would buy it, and they would be forced to drop their prices to make money.
In fact, I did study monopolies in economics 101. Demand still does have an effect in a monopoly situation, especially one in which the product is completely unnecessary. Monopolies can set their own prices, but in cases such of this, they still cannot control the demand. I also learned that the only fair prices are those that are equal to or under that which you are willing to pay (the utility of the item). If you are willing to pay for something, then it has a utility equal to or greater than that amount of money. You aren't getting ripped off.
So the fact that this never happens means...what? If sales go down, they blame piracy, not the product. If sales are disppointing, they never, never lower prices. In fact, they have a long history of brawling with retailers who tried to sell at discounts (The Wiz, anyone?). There is no stratification of price to match supply and demand - high-demand and low-demand recordings are sold at essentially identical prices. If anything, low-demand usually cost more.
Last I had checked, the RIAA's sales remained rather consistent with economic trends. Never did I say that I agreed with them for blaming piracy. In fact I am no lover of the RIAA. I was countering the point that the person I was posting to felt that they were somehow owed an album at a certain price, or for attending a concert, or that the bands were somehow forcing him to buy an album. Even with the pricing arguments and piracy, it is still a person's choice whether or not to buy a CD. The RIAA can, in no way, force you to pay for a CD. If you don't like the price, then you don't buy it. However, I don't feel that using the price as an excuse to download a CD is justifiable either.
The music industry does not obey the usual rules of economics. This might be for structural reasons, since they have an effective monolpoly over any given artist (no competing suppliers) and much of the demand is organized by artist. Or it might be that the music industry is a corrupt oligopoly that buys legislation and bullies opponent (including artists themselves) to ensure perpetual profits. Or some mix of the two. But it's patently absurd to condescendingly say that Econ 101 still applies to them.
No they don't follow the usual rules of economics. First, I was trying to simplify my argument. Breaking out the economics textbook doesn't tend to go well in internet debates. Second, despite the fact that they are a oligopoly doesn't really effect my argument, which is that people are willingly buying their media at the price they set. Therefore, its not extortion, nor do many people consider the prices to be unfair. If they did consider it unfair, then they wouldn't buy it, as music is in no way, shape, or form a necessity in life. If we were arguing about food or clean water, there might be a point to it.
Moreover, I was arguing that the band has the right to decide how they want to market and sell their music, and how they want to run their concerts. The poster acted as if a concert ticket somehow magically gave him a right to having a free CD, whereas I pointed out that the concert ticket was for the performance only, and if he didn't like that then maybe he shouldn't have bought the ticket. Obviously, attending the performance was important enough to him to spend the money.
If they want to be treated like people, shouldn't they be taxed like people?
I don't think they should be treated like people even if they are taxed like them. I actually found the figures surprising, since I've been of a mindset that corporations payed far more in taxes than people.
But then again, the income that a corporation makes ends up in the hands of people anyway, whether its the shareholders, an employee, or the rich CEO, so its also a bit disingenious to claim that the money doesn't get taxed that much. In one view, its getting taxed twice (once when comming into the corporation, and again when it flows to the individual).
I'm not saying anything should be free. I'm not talking about necessities either. I'm not saying entertainment has no value. All I'm saying is that people in the entertainment industry should not expect to be making big bucks (as a very small portion are). People should create and be involved in entertainment because that's what they like and makes them feel good, not because it's going to make them money. It just makes me sick when i see some pro baseball player or some big industry bitching because they aren't making all the money they should be because the people who don't make nearly as much as them doing productive work for a living can't pay for it.
Ah then I misunderstood your agument. Well, the fact of the matter is that these players and industry executives are rich because people are willing to pay for what they offer. I know that you say entertainers shouldn't expect payment, and I certainly agree with that: noone is oblidged to pay a person for anything. But I disagree with the notion that people should be able to take the work of others and distribute it for free, against that person's wishes.
As for big budget movies and games, doesn't most of that money go into special affects and good looks and less into content and originality?
Not just special effects, but things like studios, quality actors, and technology to remaster and whatnot. I've found that the vast majority of independant works are of low quality, not only in special effects (some people do like their entertainment to be pretty), but in quality of acting and believability. Lets face it, I'm not going to be immersed into a sci fi show that takes place in some kids garage; thats not quality entertainment. So you need sets, and special effects for the immersion.
I think so, which is why, in many cases, the small independant groups end up making it big. because they have more originality and are more about content, which is much cheaper than flashy graphics. Sadly, it's a vicious cycle where they end up churning out the same thing but with flashy graphics that they can now afford because they made it big.
Many cases? I've found that almost all the time, small independant groups put out products that are of a much lower quality than large producers. Independant films can succeed despite the limitations by being artsy, and games can succeed despite the limitations through good game play.
I've found almost all the independant works out there are crap. Speaking from experience in being a hobbyist game developer, being independant barely helps with original ideas at all. Almost every idea I've ever heard for a game is to take some popular game and add one or two mildly original features. Heck, thats what most of my game ideas are too. Thats what professional game developers do anyway (and its one reason why professional game developers don't take unsolicited game ideas).
Special effects and high budgets don't necessarily mean higher quality and more immersion, but on average they do. There is obviously a demand for them, if people continue to pay.
So if person A told person B all about your patterns, say bank account, PIN, Credit Card #, name, etc... Thats ok? OK, not really a good analogy, but lets face it, what you are saying is that if a person works long and hard hours to produce something useful or that people enjoy, then it is ok for people to take what that person has done and not give him any sort of compensation for it. Thats something that I don't swallow.
If I spent tons of money and man hours producing widget A, and then another company went and produced widget A without having to spend all that money and manpower, thus undercutting me and running me out of business, is that OK? If its OK, then why should I bother to develop widget A in the first place? If I want to write a game, and its ok for someone to take my work and give it away for free, then why should I write that game in the first place? No doubt there will be people who do it simply for the love of it, but the net result is that you've dramatically reduced output and quality.
In my view, reducing music and programs to mere numbers and patterns is sort of a red herring. A lot of things can be reduced to simple things. You, for example, are a collection of chemicals arranged in such a way that you form a thinking human being. But in the end you are a bunch of chemicals. Why shouldn't I be able to own that lump of chemicals that make you up, or destroy it? You're just matter in chemicals, so it shouldn't matter, right?
I don't see any justification for why it shouldn't be. Granted I don't like a lot of IP laws in the world today, but if I spend 40 hours a week making music/games/programs, then why should someone be able to take all that work for free without compensating me? Why shouldn't the information on a CD be property?
Why shouldn't they be able to make a living off of entertainment? Even though its not productive to society, it does have a value to people. I think you could say life would be a lot more boring if we didn't have music and the like.
If someone can't make a living off of something, then that means they will have to devote a large portion of their time towards something that they can make a living off of. One could argue that this decreases the quality of art and entertainment, and the amount produced. In fact, this was the original intent of copyright: to promote the production of art and entertainment available to the public by allowing people to make a living off of it. (Unfortunately, originally the intent was that this art would quickly go into public domain for the benefit of everyone, after the artist had made money off of it, which isn't the case anymore)
Also, while musicians can generally put out good quality stuff fairly quickly even with a day job, the same can not be said about other forms of entertainment. The vast majority of independant films and games are low budget, and don't even approach the quality of professional movies and games. In terms of game developement, for any sort of complicated independant project, you may be looking at years of developement, instead of your usual 12-18 months, if it gets done at all.
Another thing I'd like to point out, you seem to be saying, from my point of view, that necessities in life shouldn't be free, but unneeded things should be free. Isn't that the wrong way around? From an idealogical standpoint, the necessities in life should be freely available to everyone, whereas the unneeded things should cost money. This way everyone has their basic right to life fufilled, and are left to pursuit happiness on their own *insert Declaration of Independance quote here*
Looks like you're correct. Can't vouch for the accuracy. My point that tax breaks are equivalent to taking less money rather than giving corporations still stands though.
Thanks for your input.