I lived in the US during my high school days, in a "what-church-do-you-go-to" town, and we had people paint things on our garage door, etc, because there was a rumor going around that we were all "satanists". (I mean, my mother does astrology and reads Tarot cards, so she must be a "satanist", right ?)
There's a common myth going around that the RIAA
are all about cheesy pop tunes, and this is a
lie propogated by the Napsterites. The truth is
that the napsterites are at least as in to cheesy
pop tunes as the RIAA (if the napsterites weren't
leeching RIAA songs, there wouldn't be a problem)
Moreover, it's not true tht the RIAA is a single
entity -- they represent several music publishers (NOT just 5), and many of those are labels that
specialise in music more obscure than anything the
average napster chimp ever listens to...
Yeah, I agree about the napster users, they
are more like ruthless amoralists than they are
malicious. As are the RIAA (after all,
public corporations are like this in general --
their job is to offer value to shareholders )
I don't think they need to outright destroy
napster, what they need to do is go after large
scale infringement.
At the end of the day, what's going to happen
is that those cheesy pop tunes that everyone
whines about will not be available on Napster,
but the "indie bands" that everyone speaks of
will still be there.
t sounds like what you're saying is that it's
okay to break the part of the law that you don't like, but not the part you do like.
My main objections to the actions of the Napster cult are not that their actions are illegal, it is that their actions are unethical, because they are attempting to deprive creative authors of a legitimate livelihood. I don't think their actions
have anything to do with the "free flow of information", they are more about freeloading.
There's also another issue
your post raises, the question regarding whether or not it's OK to break laws that you don't agree with. This is an involved and interesting debate in its own right and one that I don't wish to participate in right now.
You do realize that current law forbids this, don't you?
Yes.
Are you saying that you have no problems with people distributing any derivitave works, or do you think copyright should cover more than just a particular recording
This is certainly a delicate issue. However,
IMHO, allowing others to perform derived works
really does contribute to the "free flow of
information" the napsterites keep mindlessly
quacking about
Because the artist who re-interprets a work adds
value, while the CD pirates aren't doing anything
of artistic merit (in fact quite the opposite
since they're depriving the artist of their
livelihood)
The short answer is no, I don't have a problem
with bands performing covers (eg public performances of other peoples songs),
as long as they don't lie and say that they
wrote the song. Translations of texts into
other languages is a delicate issue, because the
translator has to exercise some discretion,
and a bad translation may be to the detriment
of the author. I'm not sure I agree with the
idea of translation without permission, though
I think the copyright holder should grant all
reasonable requests to translate.
I have no problem with translation of CDs into
alternative formats either, as long as those
translations are only redistributed to legitimate
owners of the same CD.
Basically, I don't agree with the RIAA and MPAA's
ruthless selfish stomping over anyone who gets
in my way anymore than I agree with the napster
cult who IMO are not much different.
My point is that no one can actually have a right to an idea, or to anything ephemeral, because ultimately, there is no way to control it. You can't keep people from hearing
music in their heads, or playing it on their own instruments, or whistling it in the street.
noone is complaining about "ideas" being taken (you can't copyright an idea), and noone is complaining here about others whistling their tune. Your remarks are off base.
While I don't think his analogy was that good, forcefully relieving people of their livelihoods as the napster thugs advocate is not going to produce a fairer society. The napsterites goals resemble the dark side of communism -- you make a quick grab at the livelihoods of others because it will supposedly be better for everybody that way, only it's not.
I don't want to abolish copyright but I do want the author to be the holder of the copyright not the suits
Fair enough. It makes perfect sense that the copyrights should be retained by the authors, since that is who copyrights are supposed to serve. I'd support a law that made it impossible to sign away copyright on ones own creative work. It would greatly reduce the power of the distributors whithout hurting authors.
Congratulations. You have discovered that in every conflict there are no good-guys, and no bad-guys.
Exactly. Perhaps the most disgusting thing about this debate is both sides attempts to
claim the "moral high ground", when it seems
pretty clear (at least to me) that neither side
has a moderately legitimate claim to such a thing.
Take a public key from the keyservers for someone named 1337-Warez, post an encrypted message on alt.test for him. If he sees it (as millions of others will) then he can decrypt it and return the message using the private key that you included.
I see your point. Though I think he wants to return the message using the *public* key you included (and he wants to "sign" it with his private key.)
This works reasonably well, the problem is that he has no way to trust you, because you are after all anonymous.
Another problem with the system is its complexity. You'll probably get a small group of users who do this, but it's not going to be accesible to Joe Napster Luser.
If you're trying to say that the RIAA labels only put out cheesy pop tunes, this is completely wrong. I listen to jazz (some of it is very obscure jazz) and most of it is on RIAA labels.
The RIAA couldn't give two sh*ts about what you listen to, as long as it's their stuff (and nearly all of it is).
The mind control conspiracy theory just doesn't wash. The reason that unheard of acts are hyped probably has a lot to do with the bands networking behind the scenes, and that's not just networking with the record labels.
As for wanting TV that supports the tastes of non-mainstream viewers/listeners, I agree that this is a desirable thing, but entertainment for fringe groups will not be mainstream any time soon. If you care about quality, and you believe in other models, then support subscriber funded radio. (I do -- there's a gem of a subscriber funded non profit jazz station near where I live)
I have no problem with supporting alternative models, I only have a problem with vandalising existing ones (ie those that would abolish copyright are IMO vandals and theives)
There'll be less users when they dish out the fines, just like less people speed less often when they have speeding tickets and enforcement. Of course, the problem doesn't go away completely, but you don't get everybody doing 60 in a 40 zone either. The fact that a law is widely broken is not good cause to remove it. However, it is good cause to consider a penalty that is effective, without being overly punitive.
2) They will adopt new techniques like anonymity and encryption.
Not very effective. The problem is that encryption
excludes anonymity (authentication boils down to proving that you're a person who can be trusted) -- if you want to make the material unavailable to certain parties, you can no longer make it publically available.
Moreover, the majority of users will not go to such extreme lengths. Since the effectiveness of the service depends on its size, it's sufficient to diminish its user base.
Violence and FUD has never solved any problem completely.
Well, tell that to the napsterites. THey're the ones proposing some kind of neo-Marxist revolution, where the mob make a "grab" at resources by depriving others of their livelihood.
All I'm proposing is fines for those who break the law and deprive others of their livelihood for short term economic gain.
orbidding someone to create and share whatever software they choose, is precisely like forbidding someone to write down their own thoughts on paper and share them.
But this is not about forbidding anyone to "create and share software". It's about forbidding people from sharing software that someone else created. Do what you like with your own creations, but have respect for the wishes of those whose creations you use.
ou're still missing the bigger point. Gnutella has the possibility to distribute warez, etc. but it also has the ability to distribute very useful stuff. It's like trying to ban FTP or HTTP
I think banning gnutella (or for that matter, Naopster) is a stupid idea. There's nothing wrong with the software, however the software can be abused and abusers should be dealt with. I agreed with his sentiments, but I thought he should have gone after the users and sued them into bankruptcy. (I only skimmed it, the all-caps was hard to read but I get the impression he went after AOL which just seems wrong.)
I think of the "war on warez" the same way I view the "war on drugs".
Except using warez isn't really a victimless crime. IMO they should take a different approach -- go after the users, but don't use criminal sanctions. Fine them instead. If you're not locking them up or imposing criminal records, you can fine everyone (but you can't lock everyone up). Fines also would be an effecive deterrent, since the users are only motivated by saving money (whereas criminals often have compulsive traits that render deterrents ineffective)
Cassette tapes are recorded, not pressed. They typically sell for $9.00 or so here in Canada. CDs are pressed, not recorded. They typically sell for $14 here in Canada. Pressed media are FAR less expensive to make than recordings, yet somehow CDs (which cost less to produce) cost over 50% more than cassettes. Perhaps the recording industry isn't charging us what the product is worth, maybe they're charging us what they know we will
This is a stupid argument that appears all too often here. The problem is this -- cassette sales are not a winning proposition when viewed in isolation. Can anyone make a profit just selling cassettes ? The only thing that makes them worthwhile is that the marginal cost of adding a cassette operation to a CD operation is lower than the cost of just running a cassette business.
Of course, they could adopt a policy of selling cassettes at a profit and CDs at a loss. But how succesful do you think that would be ? CD prices and cassette prices are both determined by constraints imposed by the market. The difference is that given the existence of CDs, the market is not prepared to pay much for cassettes.
How many artists got into the business to make money and how many to make music?
Answer: not nearly as many as programmers who get into CS to make money and not great software.
Art simply isn't terribly profitable.
Does anyone really question the fact that if all music was distributed online by the creators with a facility to pay (either voluntary or compulsory) that the wheat and chaff would be seperated by our wallets and that our wallets would ensure that many more artists would be able to be financially viable and even rich.
If the vote was voluntary, I think it would hurt the system. Voluntary payment isn't so bad in itself (works for waiters) but voluntary *and* anonymous is. If the payment was not voluntary -- well that's an interesting thought experiment indeed. I think everyone would benefit.
I don't think an online system would improve the average person's taste in music though. Television is free (beer), as is commercial radio, and that hasn't improved anyones taste.
ou want to know exactly? Well, here it goes: he HATES the fact that people can write stuff as cool as his and then have the gall of letting people read it for free.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. He's not trying to stop anyone writing free books. He's merely concerned about people distributing his work.
You aren't actually interested in thinking, you're interested in calling people names.
No, I call a spade a spade, someone who freeloads a freeloader, and someone who commits crimes a criminal. The remarks weren't necessarily directed at you.
A great deal of the software I write is under GPL
Good for you. I write free software too, though I prefer the LGPL (for *everything*, so I'm not scrwed when I want to factor code into a library)
If there isn't a different model, that's exactly what will happen.
I don't mind if there's a different model -- but obtain it without vandalism. If your model depends on vandalising the current model, and forcefully redistributing authors works against their will, it's unacceptable. I agree that looking for new models is desirable. I don't believe we need a techno Khmer Rouge to do it.
nd a lot of people will end up in jail,
Bad idea to put too many people in jail, especially if a lot of people are doing it. Lock up the big offenders, give the others small fines. Since they're only in it to save money, they'll quit if it causes them to lose money.
Trying to stop the free flow of information is
like trying to stop people from having kids.
What, inconvenient ? They managed to stop people having kids in China. I object to the napsterites talking about "free flow of information" when what's really going on is freeloading. The napsterites aren't interested in information at all, they want to be entertained for free.
Consultants often negotiate a specific compensation for a specific product.
They negotiate an hourly rate. And they negotiate it with *one* other party. So there is no free rider problem -- because no-one else is going to pay the consultant to do the work, so there's no point in waiting for others to do it.
The streetperformer protocol stipulates that you ask for a specific total donation before you will release your work to the public. You then provide the work to people who've donated more than a certain amount for free, and charge everybody else to download it. You're only guaranteed to make the original required donation.
Not even that. What if you don't make your goal ?
Who's going to pay for vapor (especially if the author hasn't established any kind of reputation) ? Does the author have a copyright to prevent those who download for free from redistributing over (for example) Napster ? IF not, then is there any point charging the other guys ?
Why should anyone pay anyway ? The people who don't
pay and let others bare the burden, then get it off Napster for free are the winners here. The system awards freeloaders (which is why the freeloaders advocate it)
think they have a chance of increasing compensation because the middleman is less able to demand a large cut, which is what happens no
if they have such a good chance, then why isn't everyone dying to use this model, why is it so often wished upon others but so rarely wished upon oneself ? This in itself seems to indicate a win-lose model (hence it's hardly surprising that a lot of it's passionate advocates are freeloaders and their advocates)
You can't presume guilt when filing criminal charges. However, Napster are not doing this. They are merely banning people from using their service. Moreover, they aren't even doing this in an arbitrary manner -- it is being made fairly clear what the criteria is for banning someone.
In conclusion, I'm in complete agreement that you need to presume innoncence in criminal law cases, and your assertion that I am not is a misrepresentation of my argument.
In fact, most consultants already do. Very rarely does a consultant impose any distribution or copying restrictions on what they produce for their client.
no, they don't use the street performer protocol at all as a means of compensation. They bill an hourly rate. IOW, they have a depedable source of income that is not based on the goodwill of people who remain anonymous.
The closest an artist has come so far has been Stephen King with "The Plant", but he didn't follow it precisely.
A great success that was, huh ? I find it implausible that the failure of it was due to his not following it precisely (rather it was due to the classic "free rider" problem). Why do you believe his version was less likely to succeed ?
The streetperformer protocol tends not to let you reap as many rewards from popularity as some other ideas
IOW, it reduces the artist's compensation -- "win-lose".
The problem here is that if anonymous luser can find encrypted titles, so can the RIAA. This is a big problem, because you can't allow anonymous searches and at the same time prevent the RIAA from searching.
BTW, I don't think that everyone is going to go through so much inconvenience. Only the hardened Napster-criminals will do so, the average Napster-luser will not bother. Then they have a convenient way of identifying the hardcore thugs, and they can lock 'em up and throw away the key.
Likewise, if they move off shore, the thing to do is go after the users. If napster appear to be making good faith efforts to make their service legit, it's not really fair to blame them for the actions of their users.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think they need to outright destroy napster, what they need to do is go after large scale infringement.
At the end of the day, what's going to happen is that those cheesy pop tunes that everyone whines about will not be available on Napster, but the "indie bands" that everyone speaks of will still be there.
My main objections to the actions of the Napster cult are not that their actions are illegal, it is that their actions are unethical, because they are attempting to deprive creative authors of a legitimate livelihood. I don't think their actions have anything to do with the "free flow of information", they are more about freeloading. There's also another issue your post raises, the question regarding whether or not it's OK to break laws that you don't agree with. This is an involved and interesting debate in its own right and one that I don't wish to participate in right now.
Yes.
Are you saying that you have no problems with people distributing any derivitave works, or do you think copyright should cover more than just a particular recording
This is certainly a delicate issue. However, IMHO, allowing others to perform derived works really does contribute to the "free flow of information" the napsterites keep mindlessly quacking about Because the artist who re-interprets a work adds value, while the CD pirates aren't doing anything of artistic merit (in fact quite the opposite since they're depriving the artist of their livelihood)
The short answer is no, I don't have a problem with bands performing covers (eg public performances of other peoples songs), as long as they don't lie and say that they wrote the song. Translations of texts into other languages is a delicate issue, because the translator has to exercise some discretion, and a bad translation may be to the detriment of the author. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of translation without permission, though I think the copyright holder should grant all reasonable requests to translate.
I have no problem with translation of CDs into alternative formats either, as long as those translations are only redistributed to legitimate owners of the same CD.
Basically, I don't agree with the RIAA and MPAA's ruthless selfish stomping over anyone who gets in my way anymore than I agree with the napster cult who IMO are not much different.
You are confusing the song with a recording of the song. They are not the same thing at all.
I have no problems with people distributing transcriptions of songs others have written.
noone is complaining about "ideas" being taken (you can't copyright an idea), and noone is complaining here about others whistling their tune. Your remarks are off base.
While I don't think his analogy was that good, forcefully relieving people of their livelihoods as the napster thugs advocate is not going to produce a fairer society. The napsterites goals resemble the dark side of communism -- you make a quick grab at the livelihoods of others because it will supposedly be better for everybody that way, only it's not.
Fair enough. It makes perfect sense that the copyrights should be retained by the authors, since that is who copyrights are supposed to serve. I'd support a law that made it impossible to sign away copyright on ones own creative work. It would greatly reduce the power of the distributors whithout hurting authors.
Exactly. Perhaps the most disgusting thing about this debate is both sides attempts to claim the "moral high ground", when it seems pretty clear (at least to me) that neither side has a moderately legitimate claim to such a thing.
I see your point. Though I think he wants to return the message using the *public* key you included (and he wants to "sign" it with his private key.) This works reasonably well, the problem is that he has no way to trust you, because you are after all anonymous.
Another problem with the system is its complexity. You'll probably get a small group of users who do this, but it's not going to be accesible to Joe Napster Luser.
The mind control conspiracy theory just doesn't wash. The reason that unheard of acts are hyped probably has a lot to do with the bands networking behind the scenes, and that's not just networking with the record labels.
As for wanting TV that supports the tastes of non-mainstream viewers/listeners, I agree that this is a desirable thing, but entertainment for fringe groups will not be mainstream any time soon. If you care about quality, and you believe in other models, then support subscriber funded radio. (I do -- there's a gem of a subscriber funded non profit jazz station near where I live) I have no problem with supporting alternative models, I only have a problem with vandalising existing ones (ie those that would abolish copyright are IMO vandals and theives)
There'll be less users when they dish out the fines, just like less people speed less often when they have speeding tickets and enforcement. Of course, the problem doesn't go away completely, but you don't get everybody doing 60 in a 40 zone either. The fact that a law is widely broken is not good cause to remove it. However, it is good cause to consider a penalty that is effective, without being overly punitive.
2) They will adopt new techniques like anonymity and encryption.
Not very effective. The problem is that encryption excludes anonymity (authentication boils down to proving that you're a person who can be trusted) -- if you want to make the material unavailable to certain parties, you can no longer make it publically available. Moreover, the majority of users will not go to such extreme lengths. Since the effectiveness of the service depends on its size, it's sufficient to diminish its user base.
Violence and FUD has never solved any problem completely.
Well, tell that to the napsterites. THey're the ones proposing some kind of neo-Marxist revolution, where the mob make a "grab" at resources by depriving others of their livelihood. All I'm proposing is fines for those who break the law and deprive others of their livelihood for short term economic gain.
But this is not about forbidding anyone to "create and share software". It's about forbidding people from sharing software that someone else created. Do what you like with your own creations, but have respect for the wishes of those whose creations you use.
I think banning gnutella (or for that matter, Naopster) is a stupid idea. There's nothing wrong with the software, however the software can be abused and abusers should be dealt with. I agreed with his sentiments, but I thought he should have gone after the users and sued them into bankruptcy. (I only skimmed it, the all-caps was hard to read but I get the impression he went after AOL which just seems wrong.)
I think of the "war on warez" the same way I view the "war on drugs".
Except using warez isn't really a victimless crime. IMO they should take a different approach -- go after the users, but don't use criminal sanctions. Fine them instead. If you're not locking them up or imposing criminal records, you can fine everyone (but you can't lock everyone up). Fines also would be an effecive deterrent, since the users are only motivated by saving money (whereas criminals often have compulsive traits that render deterrents ineffective)
This is a stupid argument that appears all too often here. The problem is this -- cassette sales are not a winning proposition when viewed in isolation. Can anyone make a profit just selling cassettes ? The only thing that makes them worthwhile is that the marginal cost of adding a cassette operation to a CD operation is lower than the cost of just running a cassette business.
Of course, they could adopt a policy of selling cassettes at a profit and CDs at a loss. But how succesful do you think that would be ? CD prices and cassette prices are both determined by constraints imposed by the market. The difference is that given the existence of CDs, the market is not prepared to pay much for cassettes.
Answer: not nearly as many as programmers who get into CS to make money and not great software. Art simply isn't terribly profitable.
Does anyone really question the fact that if all music was distributed online by the creators with a facility to pay (either voluntary or compulsory) that the wheat and chaff would be seperated by our wallets and that our wallets would ensure that many more artists would be able to be financially viable and even rich.
If the vote was voluntary, I think it would hurt the system. Voluntary payment isn't so bad in itself (works for waiters) but voluntary *and* anonymous is. If the payment was not voluntary -- well that's an interesting thought experiment indeed. I think everyone would benefit.
I don't think an online system would improve the average person's taste in music though. Television is free (beer), as is commercial radio, and that hasn't improved anyones taste.
In a nutshell. Beautifully put.
I don't think that's what he's saying at all. He's not trying to stop anyone writing free books. He's merely concerned about people distributing his work.
No, I call a spade a spade, someone who freeloads a freeloader, and someone who commits crimes a criminal. The remarks weren't necessarily directed at you.
A great deal of the software I write is under GPL
Good for you. I write free software too, though I prefer the LGPL (for *everything*, so I'm not scrwed when I want to factor code into a library)
If there isn't a different model, that's exactly what will happen.
I don't mind if there's a different model -- but obtain it without vandalism. If your model depends on vandalising the current model, and forcefully redistributing authors works against their will, it's unacceptable. I agree that looking for new models is desirable. I don't believe we need a techno Khmer Rouge to do it.
nd a lot of people will end up in jail,
Bad idea to put too many people in jail, especially if a lot of people are doing it. Lock up the big offenders, give the others small fines. Since they're only in it to save money, they'll quit if it causes them to lose money.
Trying to stop the free flow of information is like trying to stop people from having kids.
What, inconvenient ? They managed to stop people having kids in China. I object to the napsterites talking about "free flow of information" when what's really going on is freeloading. The napsterites aren't interested in information at all, they want to be entertained for free.
They negotiate an hourly rate. And they negotiate it with *one* other party. So there is no free rider problem -- because no-one else is going to pay the consultant to do the work, so there's no point in waiting for others to do it.
The streetperformer protocol stipulates that you ask for a specific total donation before you will release your work to the public. You then provide the work to people who've donated more than a certain amount for free, and charge everybody else to download it. You're only guaranteed to make the original required donation.
Not even that. What if you don't make your goal ? Who's going to pay for vapor (especially if the author hasn't established any kind of reputation) ? Does the author have a copyright to prevent those who download for free from redistributing over (for example) Napster ? IF not, then is there any point charging the other guys ?
Why should anyone pay anyway ? The people who don't pay and let others bare the burden, then get it off Napster for free are the winners here. The system awards freeloaders (which is why the freeloaders advocate it)
think they have a chance of increasing compensation because the middleman is less able to demand a large cut, which is what happens no
if they have such a good chance, then why isn't everyone dying to use this model, why is it so often wished upon others but so rarely wished upon oneself ? This in itself seems to indicate a win-lose model (hence it's hardly surprising that a lot of it's passionate advocates are freeloaders and their advocates)
In conclusion, I'm in complete agreement that you need to presume innoncence in criminal law cases, and your assertion that I am not is a misrepresentation of my argument.
no, they don't use the street performer protocol at all as a means of compensation. They bill an hourly rate. IOW, they have a depedable source of income that is not based on the goodwill of people who remain anonymous.
The closest an artist has come so far has been Stephen King with "The Plant", but he didn't follow it precisely.
A great success that was, huh ? I find it implausible that the failure of it was due to his not following it precisely (rather it was due to the classic "free rider" problem). Why do you believe his version was less likely to succeed ?
The streetperformer protocol tends not to let you reap as many rewards from popularity as some other ideas
IOW, it reduces the artist's compensation -- "win-lose".
BTW, I don't think that everyone is going to go through so much inconvenience. Only the hardened Napster-criminals will do so, the average Napster-luser will not bother. Then they have a convenient way of identifying the hardcore thugs, and they can lock 'em up and throw away the key.
Likewise, if they move off shore, the thing to do is go after the users. If napster appear to be making good faith efforts to make their service legit, it's not really fair to blame them for the actions of their users.