Linux? BSD? both of those will have caved in to the DRM monster by then as well.
How can an OS that I can compile cave to the wishes of others?
Especially since lots of code is still written by people who don't live in the US, and in countries where (so far!) the laws are not made by corporate interests?
And if the worst thing that happens to my computing experience is that I run FC5 forever...so be it.
And if the worst thing that happens to my entertainment choices is that I stick with cc-licensed works, again, so be it.
The operators of The Pirate Bay have publicly ridiculed copyright holders and taunted law enforcement for years claiming immunity to copyright laws.
Hate to break it to the spinster who wrote this, but it does appear (though IANASL) that their actions were not illegal in Sweden, and it seems to me that PB never said they were immune to copyright law; just that their specific actions didn't fall under that particular law in their particular country.
Like I said... might as well charge them with speeding; it's equally related.
Most people will not continue to create if their ability to financially benefit is removed or damaged.
Care to back that up?
You've bought into the notion that 100+ year monopolies generating billions in profits are required to encourage creation, and there's two problems with your argument:
The fact is that innovation and creativity existed before copyright and patent laws, and would continue to exist after they are removed. The reality is that what sets humans apart from animals is creativity, not the opposable thumb. The ability to make the leap from a couple of disjointed concepts into a new creation is why humans dominate this planet. To suggest that we can stop creating is akin to suggesting that we stop breathing, procreating or eating.
The second point works on the assumption and that the Intellectual Monopolists might be right, and that despite the fact that we will create without monopoly protection, that granting it will generate more innovation than without. (though I've seen absolutely nothing to substantiate this).
In economic parlance, 'economic incentive' is when, all else being equal, you earn more (even $.00001!) than the other alternative.
If we look at musicians, many (even most) have a job working for relatively low wages (serving coffee, beer even medical guinea pigs!). It would not be unreasonable to assume that their earning potential was generally in the order of less than $30k per year (maybe less than $20k for many).
Therefore, if a musician can earn in the order of $31k per year, they have an economic incentive to do so.
To put it in perspective, earning that kind of money touring requires playing in the order of 150 gigs (for a small band), as little as 30 gigs for a bigger bar band, and of course arena bands can earn hundreds of thousands in a single show.
Since I work more than 150 days (and certainly more than the 90ish minutes each gig will last!) I'd say that there's plenty of economic incentive for musicians even if their recorded works are not protected...
...and for those that still insist that $31k is insufficient for their incentive, I again remind you that top bands can and do earn millions touring...there is plenty of incentive to be creative.
Don't confuse 'earning a living' with 'buying another Porsche'
hey Raffaello;
So what does the " ' " replace when it's on a plural or names that end in 's'?
Like "The boys' toys", or "Jesus' sandals" ?...ise thee olde englishe "The boyse toys" and "Jesuse sandals" ???
I'm just curious... I don't normally get involved in grammar/spelling discussions but your link peeked my curiousity, and it only discusses -'s, not -s' and not proper names...
What is really needed for security applications that use RFID is a kind of shielded wallet, that when an RFID tag is placed inside would keep the RFID tag from being read. Preferably one that could carry multiple cards and such. When you want something to be able to read it, you open it up. When you don't, you close it.
...more like what's needed for tags that contain private data is for the tag to be physically activated by the holder. It would only work when you press a 'button' on it...It's the passive nature of these cards that is the issue.
Alternatively, for pure authentication purposes they could respond to a challenge, that way if it was passive it wouldn't matter. The tag wouldn't broadcast a static number, but rather a response...
What kills me here is that lots of the solutions to security have been dealt with in 'fixing' the internet. We have here a chance to learn from all the mistakes we made by not making security a fundamental component of the 'net... and do we? nope.
Just broadcast numbers and leave tags writable. That makes good security sense.
I agree it is stupid that there were no passwords on the system, but just like a yard without a fence, the fact the fence is there does not imply permission to run around there and dig up the flowers.
It's not quite so simple.
The reason you know that a yard without a fence is still private property is because there is social history - first around property, and more recently around 'suburb property'. So now we have an acceptance of what is private and what is not, even if it's not marked.
But, if you are in the middle of nowhere, and crossed no fence and passed no sign, you could be under the impression that you're still on public property. While you may still be trespassing, no judge is going to find you guilty. The rightful owner can certainly ask you to leave, but charges are never going to stick.
So, by the same token, any computer system that has no password could easily be assumed to be open to the public.
I'm strongly against computer owners who take no steps to mark the territory as private who then sue and/or lay charges. Anything I can access using a typical browser or ssh/telnet/ftp/whatever client is public property. As soon as it prompts me for a password, or even displays a notification that this is private, then anything beyond that is unauthorised access.
Note that shopping centers are private property, and yet we assume we can enter and move about freely. Sure, they can ask us to leave, but we work under the assumption that since the door is open, we are free to enter.
Once inside, there are often doors that are either locked or marked for no entry, and again, we assume that these areas are off-limits, but the rest of the area is 'public' (of course, not in the legal sense)
So, if from my computer I can access a remote computer belonging to the US Army, am I breaking the law?
Those who immediately say 'yes' forget that the US Army has a very public HTTP server which anyone can access freely.
So now the questions are (much more correctly) how does one tell whether one is on 'private property' out in the wilderness? Because that is what the internet is - a giant otherwise unmarked wilderness. Sure, parts of it look like the burbs with the on-line shopping and home-pages, but there's a whole host of other computers out there performing tasks, responding to credit, time, stocks quote, system update and various other queries. Which of those is public? Which is private?
It's only by putting up signs and locks that people can know which computers are public and which are not... in my opinion the onus starts with the computers owner. If you attach a computer to the public network (aka the internet) and you fail to take a minimum of steps to state that this computer is private, than you should have no recourse if someone accesses it without your expressed permission.
I don't know about you, but when I pay for music I want the artist to get the money, not some random other people.
Am I misreading you, or are you under the delusion that artists get the money when you buy a CD?
Under the current system "some random other people" get 95%-99%* of the money... it might as well be nothing.
Not that I agree with paying to download from AllOfMP3.com... if you're going to get a non-licensed version, at least don't pay for it.
*Out of which they must pay for the recording, production, legal and other costs... bands can easily lose money making a CD, while their record company makes millions off that same CD.
Copyright protects the artist. The fact that an artist willingly signs it away is another issue.
Once upon a time in a far away place that statement might have been true.
Today, it is very difficult (some would say impossible, but I don't think quite impossible) for an artist (musician specifically) to publish and become a $million success without the big labels.
There's a long line of reasoning behind this (and I'll type it all out if you insist!) but the short version is that people like what they currently listen to, the big labels own what you listen to, the big labels control what is played in radio, and unless you play with the big labels you are unlikely to get any quantity of air time. As radio remains the number-1 way people hear new music, you need to sign up with the big label to get air-play, and once you sign up, the copyright is theirs, not yours.
In short: any new mode of delivering new music to people is doomed because it doesn't have the current music.
So, in fact the copyright and the signing over are not seperate issues.
That is really incorrect. In fact, as soon as an artisits starts creating for money they have some how sold out.
no, it's when they accept artisitic direction from marketers that they have sold out.
Copyright will be a huge benefit for artisits as the old model dies away and it becomes a lot more esier to self publish and self promote.
As long as there is copyright, this model will not die.
If copyright went away, those largeindustries wuld just use other peoples material without ANY compensation.
well, a lot of things change if copyright is removed.
One is that the 'value' of the creative work is no longer $.99 a song, since this is an inflated monopoly value that only exists with the government granted protections.
So, without copyright, there is no Sony Music, and so no large corporation to to use the matrial without compensation...in other words, the monopoly profits are gone, and with it, the companies incentive to appropriate the works.
But at the same time, artists can still sell their music: will they make a million on a single? nope. but then again, they (generally) don't make a million on a single now: the label does.
With out the insentive to develop the skill, a person with 'talent' will never create anything.
OK, so it's time to discuss 'incentive'. While you do go on to say that for some the joy of creation is incentive enough, let's assume the hard-line monopolists are right, and people will only create if they can make a living at it.
In order for something to be considered an economic incentive, it must only slightly better the persons alternative. Essentially, it needs to be just as good +$1. So let's look at what some of these people were before they became millionaire rock stars: Garth Brooks briefly worked as a nightclub bouncer. Axl Rose signed up to serve as a medical guinea pig for $8/hr.
So basically, the economic incentive for either of these two is probably in the $15-$20k/yr range; certainly not millions.
The reality is that it takes very little money for most artists to equal their employment alternatives. It is only the current monoploy labels that want everyone to keep believing the lie that without copyright musicians would stop creating...
yeah, i guess what I'm saying is that today ID numbers get stolen and misused... and none of them are broadcast.
So there is nothing in today's reality that leads me to believe that this new ID number won't also be "stolen", and won't also be misused...
Anyone who thinks that "it will never happen" doesn't live on Planet Earth... or at least not in my reality.... or maybe they just have never written or maintained software before...
The phrase "it will never happen" is uttered right before the unhandled expection creates a hole big enough to drive into... pwning yet another computer:)
Are you reading Minority Report or TFA?
TFA says nothing about the database containing biometric data, nor does it say that any other biometric data will be checked*. And quite frankly, if the border does start getting iris and/or fingerprint scans for everyone...well, then WTF is the RFID for? You are then eliminating all the benefits of having an RFID system: you still need the person to stop and present.
What would be the benefit compared with a carried paper passport with your picture and a bar code?
*Except for the last line in TFA, where it says some such data might be needed to make the broadcast happen - but this is different from it being stored in the database....
That ID is tied to biometric data and corroborating identification -- e.g scans of foreign passport/visas/drivers license etc. etc. Oh, and PHOTOGRAPHS.
...
Honestly, do you people really think these things through? Cripes. The ID by itself is totally, 100%, COMPLETELY USELESS
I like indignant people who yell that someone else hasn't thought it through, when they in fact havn't thought it through....:)
So here goes: I'm a bad-guy (tm). I want to move through a busy border without being noticed.
So, I wait for someone of my race, my approximate build and height and if I'm lucky similar features. Add appropriate parts of disguise (a-la hollywood if necessary) and move through border.
Since it's a busy border, and I'm some 30-ft away, moving in a line of other people, and since I resemble the picture that is streaming past the overworked border guard (s)he doesn't pay me another look.
Meanwhile, I'm in as someone else.
It only takes a little imagination to realise that while borders might be the first places the official readers are installed, it won't be long before they are used at landmarks and official buildings. Now as I enter a building (as you) and do my bad-things(tm) *you* will be questioned... not me.
At best your concerns with the plausibility of this scheme are limited to how well someone can disguise themselves, how quickly they need to move, and how often someone 'close-enough' broadcasts an ID number...
Maybe it is no different than today's threats, just new; "Why add another way to get hijacked?" should be the real question asked here, not "How is this different?". And if you believe that just because it's just a number you're safe, you just havn't thought it all the way through. From 30-ft, a disguise doesn't have to be perfect. And if you start by picking someone who looks somewhat like you, you can pretty much move around as them.
So, imho, it is different due to the perceived infallibility of computer reports (which is a joke, since all those same people who claim it must be true 'cause the computer said so, also say their computer crashes all the time)
So I guess where I'm going with this is that if I can forge your chip, I can then move about leaving *your* electronic trail behind. Then when something goes bad the cops show up at your house, not mine.
I guess it's kinda like being able to scan and replicate your DNA from 30 ft. If I can then leave it somewhere you *will* be convicted...they won't even talk to me: I wasn't there.
too bad you're AC... hope you find this response nonetheless.
if you re-phrased this as "not today. Today copyright is how some businesses steal 'ownership' from some artists.", you'd be better off.
Sure. You can liberally add "some" to various statements if it makes you feel better. By the absence of the word "all" the word "some" can be implied, I've got no issue with that. Certainly there are businesses out there that don't completely f*!over their artists, but we're not really talking about the minority here.
In addition, it puts it under lock and key for individuals that wish to protect their creations - are you arguing that they shouldn't be permitted to do so?
Well, I'm saying that the only protection you need is the right not to release it. It will be 100% protected if it's not released. Now I know that people will instantly jump on this and say that I'm obviously deranged/mean/I-suck, whatever. Then people will say that it is precisely to get the music released that we have copyright, and without copyright we lose that music (by the very logic I just used).
The problem is that it doesn't actually work that way.
Artists make art, and when they start, before they get corrupted by a big corporation in a fancy cadilac car, they have only this music inside them that needs to get out. Sure, once someone comes and offers them a ton of cash (or seems to offer them a ton of cash) why not take it?
The truth is, all most people that whine about copyright abuse on the part of corporations do is just that: Whine.
Well, that is what it's called when the public does it. When the C/RIAA does it it's called lobbying, and is well funded.
"Clearly it's about money, not creativity."
You say that as though it is a bad thing, and as though the two are diametrically opposed. They aren't, nor need they be
hmm... I'm going to say that they are opposed... quite possibly diametrically opposed. If creativity is subject to profitability, doesn't profitablilty dictate what is creative?
And, there's absolutely no evidence that it hasn't. See how easy it is to say things like that?
Correct. I never argued it did, merely that we are paying a system to incent creativity when creativity exists without copyright.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
Aren't we getting along well?:P
no reason why not... just a friendly discussion!:)
I guess then what really needs to be a part of this conversation is what an adequate 'reward' or 'payment' there should be for creating work.
Certainly what I (and many others here) don't agree with is being paid forever for working for one hour. Like the day-job you have, your creative work should be compensated on (in essence) an hourly wage.
The current system pays $millions/hour to a select few, and basically doesn't pay the vast majority anything - (yourself included). So if it takes even 40hrs to write a new song what's that worth? At say $60/hr that's only $2400.
Now, for there to be an incentive to do something, economically speaking, it only needs to pay equal to the persons alternate income choices. For you, that is writing software. For Chad Kruger (Nickelback) that's serving coffee. Technically, as long as Chad could have made in the order of $15-$20k/yr making music there would be sufficient economic incentive. Specifically, Chad would have to write a song every week (he doesn't) at $9/hr he would get paid about $320 for writing a song. Even if we figure it takes him a month to write a song, each song would still only be worth about $1300. People confuse "making millions", with "making money".
And let's note that you get paid not by how much time passes between completed songs, but by the time spent on a song. I've heard many artists state that they wrote a song in 5-min. While I'm sure that more often than not, it takes more than five minutes, I highly doubt most song writers spend 160 hours writing a single song.
The next point is that again, no copyright doesn't mean no one will author music except to play it live. This copyright-as-only-way-to-monetize-music is the myth that the *AAs have been pushing, and has gained wide spread acceptance. But it is a myth.
Pure composers exist today. Most pop-stars don't write their own music. Once upon a time, the term 'singer/songwriter' was applied to people. Note that both words are there, because it's not a given. There are plenty of people who can play but not author, and plenty of people who can author but don't want to play, or for whom it is impractical.
There is no reason why composers could not sell their work to performers (much as they do today). In this manner, the performer has work to perform, and gets paid for performing it, and the composer gets paid for authoring the work.
Despite your fears and concerns, I don't see any great loss by removing copyright. I see big companies profits disappearing. I see more artists having more access to fans. I see more art being created and more art being enjoyed by people.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
Just like when Neal Stephenson the Author writes a book, he gets paid for writing the book. But Neal does not get paid every time someone...wait...what?
Shockingly, different industries have different models for compensation.
huh? that is the copyright model. whether it's music or books.
This is a music discussion (and not a book discussion) because people (so far) still like to read from paper, and so 'piracy' became an issue first and most easily for music.
Everything being said here can equally be said for books.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
I'm pretty sure that doctors get paid for each patient that sees them; why shouldn't creative people be paid for every copy of their song that a person gets to enjoy?
I'm pretty sure that doctors get paid for each patient that sees them, not by every person that gets to enjoy the patient for 50yrs after the patients death....:)
so, I'd say the analogy is intact.
In other words, the doctor gets paid for the work, not for the number of people who come in contact with her work later.
As the doctor gets paid by each patient, so too does the artist get paid by every attendee of a live show.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
I guess I have two follow-ups:
No copyright law doesn't mean you could not sell your music. It would just be different than today.
Couple of options:
You have a site where you sell your music. Even without copyright a substantial number of people would buy it from you instead of looking for it 'for free'. iTunes is the proof.
Alternately, you sell your music to a site, who then sells it. They will pay for the music because they get first-mover advantage.
I'm sure that there are other ways art can be sold in a non-copyright world, and I'm also sure that if you take away copyright some enterprising entrepreneur will monetise it. Linux is the proof.
But what good stuff that might otherwise have rocked your world won't we get?
First off, I don't agree that we would have less art, and there is no proof there would be. But for the sake of discussion, let's say that there is somewhat less works created. How is that different from the numbers of works that are held in the 'vault' because the 'owner' doesn't see a profit in releasing it? The artist would release it (afterall, they did!) so we are already under the current system without 'good stuff'. Secondly, the rock-band that quits due to label disputes are what songs are written about. How much art is being crushed by the big labels (who only exist because of copyright) ? How much art is being corrupted because the label doesn't think it will sell the way the artist wrote it? How much material is rejected by the label?
All these things happen under the current system. You argue "what might be", I'm pointing out "what is".
When people talk about the current system vs. another, the argument usually comes that the proposed system has flaws. Any system has flaws. The current system is no exception.
What I believe is that the current system has *more* flaws and causes *more* damage than the complete abolition of copyright.
oh, and one more thing:
In my case, yeah, maybe no great loss.
That's not for me, for you and most importantly, not for a record exec to decide. The recording industry points out that it needs big profits from the succesful albums to finance the less succesful ones. They use the number 1-in-20. This tells me that their 'experts' are only right 5% of the time. Any business that is wrong 95% of the time, should die, and quickly.
Put your music out there, let the public decide if it likes it. Yes, maybe that means giving it away right now. But if people like it, money will follow. If people don't like it, than copyright isn't going to help.
Re:Some artists just want to be heard...
on
CRIA Falling Apart?
·
· Score: 1
I've enjoyed gigging, but I don't think I'd like to tour really. But why shouldn't I make a living selling music? ... ... Which is why I've skipped trying to make a living from music, and instead I'm a games programmer who makes music in his spare time.
So it would be fair to say that copyright hasn't helped you make a living at 'art' then, no?
Why argue to protect a system that already doesn't pay you anything?
I'm going to go on a limb here, and suggest (without intending to offend, pretty much 100% of everything I listen to isn't major label) that even if you wanted to sell your music, you'd discover that the Big Labels weren't buying. And if they were buying, then you'd discover that they were going to take 99% of the profits, so you'd still not make any money...
So, tell me again why you want to keep this system propped up?
Copyright is the means by which a person or a business makes a living from creativity.
not today. Today copyright is how businesses steal 'ownership' from artists.
Copyright also protects culture...
bullsh*t. Copyright puts culture under the lock and key of a corporation for their own profit, not for the protection of the culture. There's plenty of culture that is currently unavailable to us because the 'owner' doesn't see a profit. how exactly is that 'protecting' it in any good way?
...and fosters artistic integrity.
right. that's why when an artist is signed to a label who owns them and their work they always remain true to their roots and never produce works as they are told to. sure.
This gives talented people the incentive to create great works...
Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence that without copyright 'great works' would not be created, in fact shakespear worked without the benefit of copyright, and has arguably created some of the greatest works of all time. Secondly; talented, creative people can no more not-create than they can not-breathe. It's in their blood. It consumes them. It drives them. They require no outside incentive.
And if it's all about incentive, how does retroactively extending copyright (Sonny Bono Copyright act) increase their incentive? It's already made! no further 'incentive' is necessary... Clearly it's about money, not creativity.
Copyright has underpinned an extraordinary modern economic success story, accounting for tens of millions of jobs worldwide.
There's two possibilities here: Either copyright has created the correct number of jobs (i.e. the same as without) or copyright has created an innefficient system where the consumer is paying too much (in order to pay for the bloat, i.e. the *extra* jobs created) If it's the first case, than copyright has done nothing, and is irrelevent. If it's the second, than we have done ourselves and economic disservice...
The dramatic growth of the artistic, cultural and other creative industries in today's major economies would have been impossible without the strong levels of copyright protection that those countries have developed over many decades.
Proof please.
Again, there is absolutely no evidence that copyright has in any way increased the quantity of artisitic creativity anywhere. What there is, is proof that creativity happens without copyright, and there is proof that copyright generates monopoly profits for corporations who become larger and more powerful and demand tighter copyright controls for their own profits.
I'm going to postulate that the real reason that there is more recorded art today is for a few other reasons:
Increased leisure time for the masses (increases both the time for people to create and consume art)
Increased ease of access (thanks to recordings, and modern transportation, including the steam engine, internal combustion engine, the airplane and last (but not leastly) digital media and digital transports),
Decreased creation costs. Joe six-pack can have a semi-professional recording studio in his basement, write a book and self publish etc etc. i.e. The production costs have dropped to really really cheap
I would argue that the creative work that will have the most impact on society this century will have been created largely by people who will never be monetarily compensated, will be consumed by people who will never even say thanks, and yet will continue to evolve, to be worked on and yes to be monetized. That creative work is known as GNU/Linux, but comprises a larger scope of work that can also be called Open Source, or Free Software.
Slashdot Mirror
Especially since lots of code is still written by people who don't live in the US, and in countries where (so far!) the laws are not made by corporate interests?
And if the worst thing that happens to my computing experience is that I run FC5 forever
And if the worst thing that happens to my entertainment choices is that I stick with cc-licensed works, again, so be it.
The mpaa (pdf warning) press release is the usual drivel:
Hate to break it to the spinster who wrote this, but it does appear (though IANASL) that their actions were not illegal in Sweden, and it seems to me that PB never said they were immune to copyright law; just that their specific actions didn't fall under that particular law in their particular country.Like I said ... might as well charge them with speeding; it's equally related.
now I know: Managing Lawsuits!
You've bought into the notion that 100+ year monopolies generating billions in profits are required to encourage creation, and there's two problems with your argument:
So what does the " ' " replace when it's on a plural or names that end in 's'?
Like "The boys' toys", or "Jesus' sandals" ?
I'm just curious ... I don't normally get involved in grammar/spelling discussions but your link peeked my curiousity, and it only discusses -'s, not -s' and not proper names...
Alternatively, for pure authentication purposes they could respond to a challenge, that way if it was passive it wouldn't matter. The tag wouldn't broadcast a static number, but rather a response...
What kills me here is that lots of the solutions to security have been dealt with in 'fixing' the internet. We have here a chance to learn from all the mistakes we made by not making security a fundamental component of the 'net... and do we? nope. Just broadcast numbers and leave tags writable. That makes good security sense.
The reason you know that a yard without a fence is still private property is because there is social history - first around property, and more recently around 'suburb property'. So now we have an acceptance of what is private and what is not, even if it's not marked.
But, if you are in the middle of nowhere, and crossed no fence and passed no sign, you could be under the impression that you're still on public property. While you may still be trespassing, no judge is going to find you guilty. The rightful owner can certainly ask you to leave, but charges are never going to stick.
So, by the same token, any computer system that has no password could easily be assumed to be open to the public.
I'm strongly against computer owners who take no steps to mark the territory as private who then sue and/or lay charges. Anything I can access using a typical browser or ssh/telnet/ftp/whatever client is public property. As soon as it prompts me for a password, or even displays a notification that this is private, then anything beyond that is unauthorised access.
Note that shopping centers are private property, and yet we assume we can enter and move about freely. Sure, they can ask us to leave, but we work under the assumption that since the door is open, we are free to enter.
Once inside, there are often doors that are either locked or marked for no entry, and again, we assume that these areas are off-limits, but the rest of the area is 'public' (of course, not in the legal sense)
So, if from my computer I can access a remote computer belonging to the US Army, am I breaking the law?
Those who immediately say 'yes' forget that the US Army has a very public HTTP server which anyone can access freely.
So now the questions are (much more correctly) how does one tell whether one is on 'private property' out in the wilderness? Because that is what the internet is - a giant otherwise unmarked wilderness. Sure, parts of it look like the burbs with the on-line shopping and home-pages, but there's a whole host of other computers out there performing tasks, responding to credit, time, stocks quote, system update and various other queries. Which of those is public? Which is private? ... in my opinion the onus starts with the computers owner. If you attach a computer to the public network (aka the internet) and you fail to take a minimum of steps to state that this computer is private, than you should have no recourse if someone accesses it without your expressed permission.
It's only by putting up signs and locks that people can know which computers are public and which are not
...so you're suggesting they turn off Ask Slashdot? :)
is this new!?!?
was there a warning somewhere?
and most importantly: can I sue someone now that I know this?
there's just so freakin' little that hasn't been corrupted by the *AA it's easier to assume that people are talking top-40/RIAA.... :(
I like alternative music: stuff that'll never make top-40, and still I find the bulk (all???) of it is on an RIAA label. (or so they claim...)
why? what've you got?
Under the current system "some random other people" get 95%-99%* of the money
Not that I agree with paying to download from AllOfMP3.com ... if you're going to get a non-licensed version, at least don't pay for it.
*Out of which they must pay for the recording, production, legal and other costs ... bands can easily lose money making a CD, while their record company makes millions off that same CD.
Today, it is very difficult (some would say impossible, but I don't think quite impossible) for an artist (musician specifically) to publish and become a $million success without the big labels.
There's a long line of reasoning behind this (and I'll type it all out if you insist!) but the short version is that people like what they currently listen to, the big labels own what you listen to, the big labels control what is played in radio, and unless you play with the big labels you are unlikely to get any quantity of air time. As radio remains the number-1 way people hear new music, you need to sign up with the big label to get air-play, and once you sign up, the copyright is theirs, not yours.
In short: any new mode of delivering new music to people is doomed because it doesn't have the current music.
So, in fact the copyright and the signing over are not seperate issues. no, it's when they accept artisitic direction from marketers that they have sold out. As long as there is copyright, this model will not die. well, a lot of things change if copyright is removed.
One is that the 'value' of the creative work is no longer $.99 a song, since this is an inflated monopoly value that only exists with the government granted protections.
So, without copyright, there is no Sony Music, and so no large corporation to to use the matrial without compensation...in other words, the monopoly profits are gone, and with it, the companies incentive to appropriate the works.
But at the same time, artists can still sell their music: will they make a million on a single? nope. but then again, they (generally) don't make a million on a single now: the label does. OK, so it's time to discuss 'incentive'. While you do go on to say that for some the joy of creation is incentive enough, let's assume the hard-line monopolists are right, and people will only create if they can make a living at it.
In order for something to be considered an economic incentive, it must only slightly better the persons alternative. Essentially, it needs to be just as good +$1. So let's look at what some of these people were before they became millionaire rock stars: Garth Brooks briefly worked as a nightclub bouncer. Axl Rose signed up to serve as a medical guinea pig for $8/hr.
So basically, the economic incentive for either of these two is probably in the $15-$20k/yr range; certainly not millions.
The reality is that it takes very little money for most artists to equal their employment alternatives. It is only the current monoploy labels that want everyone to keep believing the lie that without copyright musicians would stop creating...
So there is nothing in today's reality that leads me to believe that this new ID number won't also be "stolen", and won't also be misused...
Anyone who thinks that "it will never happen" doesn't live on Planet Earth... or at least not in my reality.... or maybe they just have never written or maintained software before... :)
The phrase "it will never happen" is uttered right before the unhandled expection creates a hole big enough to drive into... pwning yet another computer
TFA says nothing about the database containing biometric data, nor does it say that any other biometric data will be checked*. And quite frankly, if the border does start getting iris and/or fingerprint scans for everyone
What would be the benefit compared with a carried paper passport with your picture and a bar code?
*Except for the last line in TFA, where it says some such data might be needed to make the broadcast happen - but this is different from it being stored in the database....
So here goes: I'm a bad-guy (tm). I want to move through a busy border without being noticed.
So, I wait for someone of my race, my approximate build and height and if I'm lucky similar features. Add appropriate parts of disguise (a-la hollywood if necessary) and move through border.
Since it's a busy border, and I'm some 30-ft away, moving in a line of other people, and since I resemble the picture that is streaming past the overworked border guard (s)he doesn't pay me another look.
Meanwhile, I'm in as someone else.
It only takes a little imagination to realise that while borders might be the first places the official readers are installed, it won't be long before they are used at landmarks and official buildings. Now as I enter a building (as you) and do my bad-things(tm) *you* will be questioned ... not me.
At best your concerns with the plausibility of this scheme are limited to how well someone can disguise themselves, how quickly they need to move, and how often someone 'close-enough' broadcasts an ID number...
So, imho, it is different due to the perceived infallibility of computer reports (which is a joke, since all those same people who claim it must be true 'cause the computer said so, also say their computer crashes all the time)
So I guess where I'm going with this is that if I can forge your chip, I can then move about leaving *your* electronic trail behind. Then when something goes bad the cops show up at your house, not mine.
I guess it's kinda like being able to scan and replicate your DNA from 30 ft. If I can then leave it somewhere you *will* be convicted...they won't even talk to me: I wasn't there.
- Capture your data.
- Encode to my chip.
- Now I'm you, I can:
- Travel as you.
- Commit various offences as you
- Do whatever I want as you, and hell, the computer can't be wrong.
- (mandatory) PROFIT!
But I'm sure more devious plots will come to other people's minds......isn't snobism - it's that people don't understand Linux because it's just bazaar.
The problem is that it doesn't actually work that way.
Artists make art, and when they start, before they get corrupted by a big corporation in a fancy cadilac car, they have only this music inside them that needs to get out. Sure, once someone comes and offers them a ton of cash (or seems to offer them a ton of cash) why not take it? Well, that is what it's called when the public does it. When the C/RIAA does it it's called lobbying, and is well funded. hmm
I guess then what really needs to be a part of this conversation is what an adequate 'reward' or 'payment' there should be for creating work.
Certainly what I (and many others here) don't agree with is being paid forever for working for one hour. Like the day-job you have, your creative work should be compensated on (in essence) an hourly wage.
The current system pays $millions/hour to a select few, and basically doesn't pay the vast majority anything - (yourself included). So if it takes even 40hrs to write a new song what's that worth? At say $60/hr that's only $2400.
Now, for there to be an incentive to do something, economically speaking, it only needs to pay equal to the persons alternate income choices. For you, that is writing software. For Chad Kruger (Nickelback) that's serving coffee. Technically, as long as Chad could have made in the order of $15-$20k/yr making music there would be sufficient economic incentive. Specifically, Chad would have to write a song every week (he doesn't) at $9/hr he would get paid about $320 for writing a song. Even if we figure it takes him a month to write a song, each song would still only be worth about $1300. People confuse "making millions", with "making money".
And let's note that you get paid not by how much time passes between completed songs, but by the time spent on a song. I've heard many artists state that they wrote a song in 5-min. While I'm sure that more often than not, it takes more than five minutes, I highly doubt most song writers spend 160 hours writing a single song.
The next point is that again, no copyright doesn't mean no one will author music except to play it live. This copyright-as-only-way-to-monetize-music is the myth that the *AAs have been pushing, and has gained wide spread acceptance. But it is a myth.
Pure composers exist today. Most pop-stars don't write their own music. Once upon a time, the term 'singer/songwriter' was applied to people. Note that both words are there, because it's not a given. There are plenty of people who can play but not author, and plenty of people who can author but don't want to play, or for whom it is impractical.
There is no reason why composers could not sell their work to performers (much as they do today). In this manner, the performer has work to perform, and gets paid for performing it, and the composer gets paid for authoring the work.
Despite your fears and concerns, I don't see any great loss by removing copyright.
I see big companies profits disappearing. I see more artists having more access to fans. I see more art being created and more art being enjoyed by people.
This is a music discussion (and not a book discussion) because people (so far) still like to read from paper, and so 'piracy' became an issue first and most easily for music.
Everything being said here can equally be said for books.
so, I'd say the analogy is intact.
In other words, the doctor gets paid for the work, not for the number of people who come in contact with her work later.
As the doctor gets paid by each patient, so too does the artist get paid by every attendee of a live show.
No copyright law doesn't mean you could not sell your music. It would just be different than today.
Couple of options:
You have a site where you sell your music. Even without copyright a substantial number of people would buy it from you instead of looking for it 'for free'. iTunes is the proof.
Alternately, you sell your music to a site, who then sells it. They will pay for the music because they get first-mover advantage.
I'm sure that there are other ways art can be sold in a non-copyright world, and I'm also sure that if you take away copyright some enterprising entrepreneur will monetise it. Linux is the proof. First off, I don't agree that we would have less art, and there is no proof there would be. But for the sake of discussion, let's say that there is somewhat less works created. How is that different from the numbers of works that are held in the 'vault' because the 'owner' doesn't see a profit in releasing it? The artist would release it (afterall, they did!) so we are already under the current system without 'good stuff'. Secondly, the rock-band that quits due to label disputes are what songs are written about. How much art is being crushed by the big labels (who only exist because of copyright) ? How much art is being corrupted because the label doesn't think it will sell the way the artist wrote it? How much material is rejected by the label?
All these things happen under the current system. You argue "what might be", I'm pointing out "what is".
When people talk about the current system vs. another, the argument usually comes that the proposed system has flaws. Any system has flaws. The current system is no exception.
What I believe is that the current system has *more* flaws and causes *more* damage than the complete abolition of copyright.
oh, and one more thing:
That's not for me, for you and most importantly, not for a record exec to decide. The recording industry points out that it needs big profits from the succesful albums to finance the less succesful ones. They use the number 1-in-20. This tells me that their 'experts' are only right 5% of the time. Any business that is wrong 95% of the time, should die, and quickly.Put your music out there, let the public decide if it likes it. Yes, maybe that means giving it away right now. But if people like it, money will follow. If people don't like it, than copyright isn't going to help.
Why argue to protect a system that already doesn't pay you anything?
I'm going to go on a limb here, and suggest (without intending to offend, pretty much 100% of everything I listen to isn't major label) that even if you wanted to sell your music, you'd discover that the Big Labels weren't buying. And if they were buying, then you'd discover that they were going to take 99% of the profits, so you'd still not make any money...
So, tell me again why you want to keep this system propped up?
not today. Today copyright is how businesses steal 'ownership' from artists.
bullsh*t. Copyright puts culture under the lock and key of a corporation for their own profit, not for the protection of the culture. There's plenty of culture that is currently unavailable to us because the 'owner' doesn't see a profit. how exactly is that 'protecting' it in any good way?
right. that's why when an artist is signed to a label who owns them and their work they always remain true to their roots and never produce works as they are told to. sure.
Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence that without copyright 'great works' would not be created, in fact shakespear worked without the benefit of copyright, and has arguably created some of the greatest works of all time. Secondly; talented, creative people can no more not-create than they can not-breathe. It's in their blood. It consumes them. It drives them. They require no outside incentive.
And if it's all about incentive, how does retroactively extending copyright (Sonny Bono Copyright act) increase their incentive? It's already made! no further 'incentive' is necessary... Clearly it's about money, not creativity.
There's two possibilities here: Either copyright has created the correct number of jobs (i.e. the same as without) or copyright has created an innefficient system where the consumer is paying too much (in order to pay for the bloat, i.e. the *extra* jobs created)
If it's the first case, than copyright has done nothing, and is irrelevent. If it's the second, than we have done ourselves and economic disservice...
Proof please.
Again, there is absolutely no evidence that copyright has in any way increased the quantity of artisitic creativity anywhere. What there is, is proof that creativity happens without copyright, and there is proof that copyright generates monopoly profits for corporations who become larger and more powerful and demand tighter copyright controls for their own profits.
I'm going to postulate that the real reason that there is more recorded art today is for a few other reasons:
I would argue that the creative work that will have the most impact on society this century will have been created largely by people who will never be monetarily compensated, will be consumed by people who will never even say thanks, and yet will continue to evolve, to be worked on and yes to be monetized. That creative work is known as GNU/Linux, but comprises a larger scope of work that can also be called Open Source, or Free Software.
So all we really do get