So Open Source is connected with the repression of free speech and the mass murder of millions. Idiot.
He didn't in any way infer such a connection. Read Marx ( start with the communist manifesto ), then talk. In particular, tell us where it says anything about "repression of free speech" and "mass murder of millions".
Oh, by the way, none of this alters the fact that he is completely wrong. The Open Source philosophy works just fine for capitalists, democrats, republicans, communists, and socialists.
So Open Source is connected with the repression of free speech and the mass murder of millions. Idiot.
He didn't in any way infer such a connection. Read Marx ( start with the communist manifesto ), then talk. In particular, tell us where it says anything about "repression of free speech" and "mass murder of millions".
Oh, by the way, none of this alters the fact that he is completely wrong.
I don't see the efficiency, all "artificial scarcity" does is provide a way for one entity to control supply, unless you think high price = efficient, if which case the current system is quite efficient.
It's efficient in that the copyright model has been the only commercial viable model under which software has been developed and sold. I've yet to see another distribution model for software that is profitable for the developers as well as offering reasonable prices to consumers. Not really true because of current copyright law no other reason. Watch. I'm taking an MP3, copying it, again, again, again, again, and dangit it just keeps making the same thing. How is this not really true?
Fine. You just keep copying those MP3s. But remember this -- copying MP3s does not get new songs written. Songs will not get written unless the artist has the means to achieve compensation. Copying is not productive creative activity, and compared to the cost/effort/skill required to create the work, copying is something a monkey could do.
But it's not worth anything at all until there is a demand. So record companies spend a great deal of money creating demand.
There is demand whether or not the record companies create it. Simply put, the public are prepared to pay to have those songs written. If they weren't prepared to pay, they obviously wouldn't be buying. So the question is not if the public are prepared to pay, but how should the costs be shared. The copyright system (usually) has everyone who owns a copy of the media paying an equal amount.
The artist does not by default offer a valuable service.
I disagree. Millions of dollars also disagrees with you. The public are prepared to pay for the artists services. As I've already said, the long term way to get the big companies out of the picture is have the artists set up their own smaller distribution networks.
It just so happens that the music distrubution cost-of-entry barrier has been totally removed, and the only way to re-create it is with a police line.
I have no objection to a low cost of entry. I only have objections to freeloading. When you say it's OK to freeload, you remove incentive to compensate the artist.
Red Hat is a 11 billion dollar company. Dont see them compensating the people who continue to make their distribution usable, do you?
Actually, they do. They pay GNOME developers and AC. Also, Mandrake are currently paying one of the KDE developers. Sure you could argue that Redhat should pay everyone -- but not because of their large market cap. Remember -- Redhat are running at an operating loss. They are already paying too many people as it is. They are a business and ultimately, they are supposed to make money. And again, I emphasise -- raising venture capital doesn't count. Making money means maintaining a steady ( preferably growing ) operating profit.
If there were no copyright law, the GPL wouldn't be needed.
WRONG. Just look at the slashdot kiddies getting up in arms, when someone recently violated the GPL ( John Carmack was the copyright holder ). In this instance, the guy was not selling it. To put it bluntly, It's free speech, not free beer. Imagine someone violates the GPL by not distributing the source code, and then they make the software require some key to use it. This is a clear exploitation and affront to the GPL that could take place in the absence of copyrights.
[ snip : Copyrights and patents ] Copyrights and patents are not the same thing, if you're too ignorant to know the difference, don't bother debating the topic. I was NOT talking about patents, so you are either building straw men, or you are just ignorant.
I can't tell you what the solution is,
It's funny, that. The people who advocate vandalism of the copyright system don't have any solutions. To hell with solutions, as long as you can freeload, right ?
100 years from now we will laugh at how silly we were to make the first infinite resource artificially
Intellectual labor is not an "infinite resource". It costs nothing (or say epsilon) to distribute, but actually production cost is quite high. Since the production costs are incurred prior to sale, it's necessary to find some kind of distributed payment system ( since no individual customer can afford to hire the developer ). Copyrights address this issue quite well. I have doubts that any GOOD alternatives exist. The problem is this -- how do you construct a payment scheme that enables users to share costs ? And IMO, copyrights are the best answer.
Try not to get caught in the rubble
Are you trying to imply I have financial interests here ? FYI, I work for a University, and plan to for some time. I don't have financial interests, I am just put off by all the freeloaders.
I am very uncomfortable with government enforcing contracts stipulated by one party without having the explicit consent of the other.
You buy it, you consent. I see no problem with this, as long as the license is made available to users, or users have the option of returning the software in the event that they disagree with the license. Sharing information is well and good, if everyone who "shares" the information is willing to compensate the author. You can't have it both ways -- if you want to share the information, you should be prepared to share in the costs of compensating the author. Anything less is freeloading ( though slashdot is becomming a haven for the "freeloader community" )
HOW does MY buying shareware fonts, however a good action it is and however little it will help, cause corporations to own up to their responsibility?
My point is that if you really believe in compensating the artist, then you should do so, for example, by using typefaces you paid for instead of the usual knockoffs.
I didn't realise you were advocating holding corporations accountable. I don't see how advocating large scale piracy and the dismantling of copyright helps to hold corporations to their duty to compensate the artist. As I've said before, the best way to get artists compensated is have them do their own distribution so that they won't be dependent on corporations. This will inevitably happen, it's only a matter of time.
Wait a few minutes. Do you realize piracy and loss of sales are not equivalent?
Not quite equivalent. I'd say piracy implies loss of sales beyond a certain point. Without copyright protection, sales will definitely be lost, because there is an economic disincentive to pay ( namely that you are not legally required to, and you loose money if you do ). Sure, the "piracy costs (X) figures" are inflated. However, it seems clear enough that in places like Japan, where the population has the money to purchase software, and the piracy rate is high, that real money is being lost. It is also interesting to note that the software industry is strongest in the pplaces that do have effective copyright protection. ( An interesting example: the US produce good software but most of the typeographers are in Europe. the US have good copyright protection on software, but not on typefaces )
Are they so naive to assume that each and every person who obtained a pirated product would have actually BOUGHT the product if a pirated version were not available?
No, I'm not. I am not assuming that everyone who pirates would have purchased a license. Let's turn that around -- are you saying that all of the people who pirate would not have purchased a license ? Now suppose you remove copyright altogether. Then noone will pay for software. However, it seems self evident that some of those would have if they were required to.
actly, that's why I pay for bandwidth and diskspace. It's my part of the cost in distrubuting and reproducing the music. That's why I don't think I should be forced to pay those costs again.
As you and I have agreed on, the distribution costs are in fact minimal.
On one side we have big companies using massive forces to create artificial scarcity,
Like I said, the point of the so-called "artificial scarcity" is to provide an efficient means of cost-sharing. This is not just a "greedy megacopr" thing, it is about the right of the artist to be compensated for their creative work.
and the other we have talented artists getting massive, free, personal distrubution.
Well that's all well and good, but let the artist choose free distribution. No one has the right to force anyone else to share.
Now unless you think that having 2,000,000 people singing your song and knowing your name is not a position from which you can recieve recompense,
Whether or not it'd be a good position depends on the means by which you can recompense.
And, because they have the copyright, anyone who tries to *profit* from their work should be prosecuted,
Yes, but if you remove the laws that make the music industry profitable, that doesn't help much.
go read the DMCA or UCITA to get a feel for this
These cases are an example of the big corporations simply getting greedy. They are about protecting big companies. And making life harder for the little guy. But this in itself does not serve as evidence that we need to dispose of copyrights.
This open model makes more sense to me,
I can see why it makes sense for you -- it's a model under which you can get something for nothing, and circumvent your obligation to compensate the artist.
seeing as how the products value in supply and demand terms is 0
Again, not really true. The product is the song itself, not electronic or physical copies of the song.
The artist is fully equipped and protected to use this goodwill to profit in any way possible, endorsements, selling cds, live shows.
Yes, but apparently, you are saying that they shouldn't be payed to write and record the music. I consider this position absurd, because I believe that simply by producing the piece of music, the artist has already performed a valuable service, and is entitled to collect compensation ( the amount to be determined by the market ) without recourse to sideline activities.
It's all well to say that they can make money doing something else, but this totally ignores the fact that what they have already done is worthy of compensation.
Okay, then I guess we have a difference of opinion there - I always thought EULA's were a travesty, even if only because I couldn't negotiate different terms.
You can "negotiate different terms" by taking your business to a different vendor. However, if all the vendors are using draconian terms, then it's a sign the vendors have too much power ( IMO, software vendors should be held to the same level of accountability as vendors of tangible goods )
I believe we should respect the author's liscensing terms - by that I mean, if it's a restrictive, lawyer-trash liscense, don't use it.
That sounds fair enough. BTW, does the GPL count (-; (I'm going to have to get Berkeley DB, because I can't link against GDBM )
The system we have has major and obvious flaws, but at least it rewards artists. Well, what if we all become artists?
I don't get your point. I don't think "we'll all become artists" any time soon.
Remember the Slashdot Beanie 2000 awards?
Yep. I wrote a HOWTO, some miscellaneous perl bits and pieces and contributed to vim ( an award winning project ). So -- where's my money ? This system is a nice way of rewarding and recognising volunteers, but can you honestly say that anyone would write free software for the money ?
We will need a new system.
Well, tell us when you have it.
I'm a Libertarian, myself, so I trust in the free market to give us a solution.
Well if the free market can give us a solution that's more efficient, then it will produce such a solution whether the copyright system is there or not. IMO, we won't find a better system.
Don't pull the "nature thing" out. Property itself is also un-natural, certainly not some kind of moral absolute. Ditto with intellectual work or property.
The real problem that copyrights try to solve is this -- given software package (*), none of the users can afford to pay for the developers time. So there needs to be a way of sharing the costs. The way copyrights work is this -- developer (X) licenses software to uses. Developer (X)'s prices are constrained by competition from developers (Y) and (Z). The main thing that copyright laws do is attempt to stop people freeloading, ie everyone who uses the software is supposed to share the costs.
by applying them
Well frankly, even your supporters are lost on the meaning of this one.
IMO, when you argue by analogy, you concede. An argument that requires an analogy is simply wrong. Moreover, an analogy does not constitute any kind of proof. For example, when I say "A group is like a ring, so the isomorphism theorems for rings are true for groups", I've explained how one could prove a theorem, but this hand wave should certainly not be mistaken for a proof.
"Sure, you can try to rationalise it by saying "the big evil corporations are exploiting poor third world countries". If you really mean this, go give to charity or something"
Even though I consider using an analogy itself an admission that you have no point, I will explain why I think your analogy is not applicable. My point is that the main reason people hold these opinions is expediency -- as some kind of retrospective rationalisation of unethical behaviour.
Now I'd certainly agree that corporations should face up to their responsibility. However, I'd be sceptical of any protests against a corporation that seemed to be driven by expediency ( an example would be an anti-CocaCola movement who were primarily funded by pepsi and lead by people on Pepsi's payroll )
Perhaps. But you still haven't proven't that someone is actually HURT by privacy. THAT should be your argument.
What, you don't think no one is hurt by loss of sales ? I think it's self evident that widespread piracy will undermine any chance of selling anything. This is certainly the case in instances where copyright laws don't work ( for example, selling software in Japan is impossible, and selling typefaces in the US is equally imossible )
I agree with you fully except for one point - information has never been a good to be bought or sold, it has always been free.
It's not a good, but it hasn't "always been free".
We can buy a book that the information is printed on, or a jewel case, liner notes, and cd that the music is recorded on, or a floppy disk that a computer program is written on. We buy and sell the physical media containing the information.
No, you don't. In the case of software, you buy a license, which clearly costs more than the price of duplicating media. The payment is primarily to compensate the author. It seems only fair that the author, as well as the distributors, should be compensated.
information is priceless
The copyright system allows us to put a price on information -- the price is simply whatever the market is willing to pay. Moreover, someone can create information by spending (X) amount of capital. So it is clearly not priceless. You also assert that the only thing information is worth is more information. Well that's a nice theory, but there's an immediate consequence, and that is that creators of intellectual works should only be compensated in "information", and that they should forgo all material things, because their productivity has no material worth.
A fisherman and a trapper...
What if the person who wants to use your information can not offer you information in return ? What if someone would rather pay for the information than offer some ? The reason why we abandoned the barter system is because a long time back, we worked out that we needed a common medium to trade with.
You say yourself that information isn't free of cost. So how do you propose that the creators of intellectual works be compensated in the absence of a copyright system ?
is voluntary. If they don't want to share it, they make sure it's never recorded digitally. Seems pretty simple to me.
Great. You're a professional musician, and you don't want to share it with everyone, so you don't record digitally. Who pays your bills now ? Are you trying to argue that musicians shouldn't be paid for writing and recording music ?
And why should digital recording mandate sharing ?
Many artists do want to put out some of their songs in MP3 format and such but are unable to do so due to their contracts that they signed years ago with their record company...
Yeah, I was almost waiting for someone to raise this issue. It's a good point. I addressed it in another post.
Personally, I hope/think that artists will start taking advantage of technology, and the decreasing costs of distribution, and bypass the "middlemen".
I thought the moderation was interesting too. I was expecting to be shot down in flames by the moderators ( especially since my post was deliberately inflammatory ), but it looks like I've struck a chord here. Or maybe I'm just telling the side of the story that you don't see much of on slash. Anyways, don't get all uptight. Even if no-one's moderating your complaint up, some of the people who posted intelligent replies to my post have got +1 or +2. So your point about "biased moderation" isn't really much of a point.
Who's benefitting now? Your brain needs another washing, that first one left quite a bit of debris.
If it really is in the artists interests to offer their music under some kind of shareware / demoware scheme, they will do this. However, it's certainly not for you to decide what is and what isn't good for the artist. Sharing is fine, but sharing should be voluntary.
Firstly, the GPL itself is a license, and would be unenforceable if it were not for copyright protection. There have been cases where GPL authors had to enforce their copyrights against those who tried to commercially exploit their work ( for example, Jeremy Allison had someone try to rip off his SAMBA code ). Why should we abide by the GPL, but ignore other copyrights ?
Secondly, I know a GPL program can be distributed anywhere. Unlike a lot of the slashdot leech kiddies, I've actually contributed free documentation and code, and I do not have any problem whatsoever with those who wish to redistribute my free documentation and code... that is, as long as they abide by the terms of the (free) license. What does bother me, however, is when users abuse this "sharing" software and don't abide by the terms of their licenses, whether that license be the GPL, or a proprietary license.
What do you have to gain by comming in here and saying crap like 'We all know its for pirating.'
Nothing. I'm a graduate student in math, I have no financial interests in the music biz.
Sorry to dissapoint you, Mr. Holyer Than Thou... but I actually use it to disperse my friends OWN music that he makes. W/O glorious Napster and even the MP3 phenomenon
Calm down. I'm not at all dissapointed if it helps artists who want to share their music. However, I object to "sharing" things against the will of the author. My objection is mainly to those in the slashdot peanut gallery who are acting as though this program is good because it makes piracy easy, not inspite of it.
It will become very difficult to make money in the future on the distribution of creative work...as the distribution of information is no longer a value-added process; instead, it is an AUTOMATIC process.
The fact that distributing creative work is cheap does not justify attempts to circumvent paying the artists.
Instead of making money from recordings, musicians will make their money from touring and promotions.
What if they don't want to tour ? Shouldn't they be payed whether they tour or not ?
The hundreds of companies making money by leeching funds from creative artists for the service of distribution of the artists' work will go out of business,
Personally, I'd like to see this happen. As the cost of distribution gos down, it will become easier for artists to distribute themselves without signing their souls away to a distributor.
I'm positively dissappointed to see slashdot becoming a haven for warez kiddies and cheapskates. I guess it's an inevitable fact that a "gift culture" will always be met with a "leech culture". We all know what this software is for. It's greet for advocates of pirated software and illegiemate music distribution. Sure, you can try to rationalise it by saying "the big evil corporations get all the money and the artist doesn't get any". If you really mean this, go buy some shareware fonts or something -- there are means of distribution that enable the artist to get compensation without a middleman intercepting all of the profits. However, piracy is not one of them. The only people who benefit from piracy are the cheapskates who do the illegal copying.
don't understand your point. The fact that making copies of a work would no longer be a crime doesn't mean that it couldn't be a crime to sell copies without giving a cut to the artist,
Yes, but if it's perfectly legal to freely give away copies of the artists work, it undermines the price of the CDs. Who would pay for it if you can simply copy it ?
(Though on second thought, perhaps this is better viewed as a civil rather than a criminal matter.)
If it only occurs on a small scale, yes. I am not in favor of throwing someone in jail because they make one illegitimate copy of a CD.
There's nothing to say that they can't sell CDs even though they can be freely copied; Red Hat does.
If you want to name examples, could you please name someone who is making a profit ? Redhat are losing money, precisely because they are having a hard time building a revenue stream on a product that can be given away. I'll add that Redhat are not selling the software. They are selling support ( and their manual ). That's what you pay for when you buy the box set. Musicians just want to sell a copy of their music, not support.
The audience is not the composer's or performer's employer; there is no agreement or contract that the audience will pay the artist.
So who should pay the artist ? Or should they just panhandle ? I'd argue that purchasing the CD should activate a binding agreement between the user and the artist. Anyone who copies the CD illegaly would be violating that agreement.
even though they own copyrights on algorithms which have been reimplemented in OSS?
Answer: because they don't own "copyrights on algorithms". Learn the difference between a copyright and a patent, and then we can have an intelligent discussion about copyrights.
Unfortunately it is jimmied by a few factors. First the studios are essentially vertical businesses. They control the content, manufacturing, marketing, distribution, and price of the product. We can't just go to another record label to get the artist we want cheaper.
This is a problem -- because in this instance, it appears that the middleman benefits from copyright instead of the artist ( since the artist essentially signs away their monopoly on the recording to a middleman ). This is a problem more with the music industry than it is with the software industry.
The solution ? Technology. It is becoming easier to distribute music without the middleman. Traditionaly, the main service that the record labels performed was getting the artist's music into record shops ( where another middleman would skim more cream... ) Nowadays, artists can distribute over the internet ( not necessarily MP3 -- they can also do mail order ), or form independent record labels that resell over the internet. Cheapbytes and Linuxmall are living proof that it costs very little to do this.
they have the right to a share of any profit made from the exploitation of the work
A fat lot of good that does if the copyright system is disabled.
Venues that pay performance royalties. People who make voluntary sponsorships. A portion of people who buy concert ticket to bands that play their songs. Website sponsors. All of these are enhanced by having as many people as possible hear their music.
So in other words, someone who just wants to create some music and sell CDs has to panhandle for donations or make their money through other activities. This hardly sounds very fair. How many jobs have you held where you had to beg your employer for your paycheck each week ?
To many other people, most of which are probably tech-savvy youth, the old hacker cry of 'information is meant to be free'
Another way of saying this is that creators of intellectual works should be forced to share their work. And that to me seems absurd unless you put it in the context of a society where everyone else shares.
Today the information as property group has the most power and they can cause a great deal of pain to the information as freedom group
Firstly, I object to your attempt to oversimplify the issue by making out that there are only "two groups". Secondly, it is simply not true that copyrighted works will hurt the "freedom group". What I ask is this -- if the freedom group are so damned savvy, why can't they compete on their merits instead of advocating vandalism against the copyright system ? In practice, of course, very few OpenSource developers advocate dismantling of the copyright system ( most of the advocates of the copyright system are leeches, and leeches are not very good at volunteering to produce OSS )
This group will grow up and when they do they will have money and political power
When they grow up, and get real jobs, if their real jobs require them to contribute to intellectual works, it seems plausible that they will expect compensation for their work ( oh, if they don't then they will not have much "money and power", will they ? )
How do you suppose that free software will become a "multi million dollar industry" ? Free software is not about money, it's primarily about volunteerism, and the vast majority of free software developers are working on their own time, or are funded by public money ( ie universities )
The artist would get to keep their only money rather than some huge media company.
NOt if you trash the copyright system, they won't. However, the internet itself will help the artist, because it will give them ( and small record labels ) a means to distribute directly without bringing in a large greedy record company.
Slashdot Mirror
He didn't in any way infer such a connection. Read Marx ( start with the communist manifesto ), then talk. In particular, tell us where it says anything about "repression of free speech" and "mass murder of millions".
Oh, by the way, none of this alters the fact that he is completely wrong. The Open Source philosophy works just fine for capitalists, democrats, republicans, communists, and socialists.
He didn't in any way infer such a connection. Read Marx ( start with the communist manifesto ), then talk. In particular, tell us where it says anything about "repression of free speech" and "mass murder of millions".
Oh, by the way, none of this alters the fact that he is completely wrong.
It's efficient in that the copyright model has been the only commercial viable model under which software has been developed and sold. I've yet to see another distribution model for software that is profitable for the developers as well as offering reasonable prices to consumers. Not really true because of current copyright law no other reason. Watch. I'm taking an MP3, copying it, again, again, again, again, and dangit it just keeps making the same thing. How is this not really true?
Fine. You just keep copying those MP3s. But remember this -- copying MP3s does not get new songs written. Songs will not get written unless the artist has the means to achieve compensation. Copying is not productive creative activity, and compared to the cost/effort/skill required to create the work, copying is something a monkey could do.
But it's not worth anything at all until there is a demand. So record companies spend a great deal of money creating demand.
There is demand whether or not the record companies create it. Simply put, the public are prepared to pay to have those songs written. If they weren't prepared to pay, they obviously wouldn't be buying. So the question is not if the public are prepared to pay, but how should the costs be shared. The copyright system (usually) has everyone who owns a copy of the media paying an equal amount.
The artist does not by default offer a valuable service.
I disagree. Millions of dollars also disagrees with you. The public are prepared to pay for the artists services. As I've already said, the long term way to get the big companies out of the picture is have the artists set up their own smaller distribution networks.
It just so happens that the music distrubution cost-of-entry barrier has been totally removed, and the only way to re-create it is with a police line.
I have no objection to a low cost of entry. I only have objections to freeloading. When you say it's OK to freeload, you remove incentive to compensate the artist.
Actually, they do. They pay GNOME developers and AC. Also, Mandrake are currently paying one of the KDE developers. Sure you could argue that Redhat should pay everyone -- but not because of their large market cap. Remember -- Redhat are running at an operating loss. They are already paying too many people as it is. They are a business and ultimately, they are supposed to make money. And again, I emphasise -- raising venture capital doesn't count. Making money means maintaining a steady ( preferably growing ) operating profit.
WRONG. Just look at the slashdot kiddies getting up in arms, when someone recently violated the GPL ( John Carmack was the copyright holder ). In this instance, the guy was not selling it. To put it bluntly, It's free speech, not free beer. Imagine someone violates the GPL by not distributing the source code, and then they make the software require some key to use it. This is a clear exploitation and affront to the GPL that could take place in the absence of copyrights.
[ snip : Copyrights and patents ]
Copyrights and patents are not the same thing, if you're too ignorant to know the difference, don't bother debating the topic. I was NOT talking about patents, so you are either building straw men, or you are just ignorant.
I can't tell you what the solution is,
It's funny, that. The people who advocate vandalism of the copyright system don't have any solutions. To hell with solutions, as long as you can freeload, right ?
100 years from now we will laugh at how silly we were to make the first infinite resource artificially
Intellectual labor is not an "infinite resource". It costs nothing (or say epsilon) to distribute, but actually production cost is quite high. Since the production costs are incurred prior to sale, it's necessary to find some kind of distributed payment system ( since no individual customer can afford to hire the developer ). Copyrights address this issue quite well. I have doubts that any GOOD alternatives exist. The problem is this -- how do you construct a payment scheme that enables users to share costs ? And IMO, copyrights are the best answer.
Try not to get caught in the rubble
Are you trying to imply I have financial interests here ? FYI, I work for a University, and plan to for some time. I don't have financial interests, I am just put off by all the freeloaders.
You buy it, you consent. I see no problem with this, as long as the license is made available to users, or users have the option of returning the software in the event that they disagree with the license. Sharing information is well and good, if everyone who "shares" the information is willing to compensate the author. You can't have it both ways -- if you want to share the information, you should be prepared to share in the costs of compensating the author. Anything less is freeloading ( though slashdot is becomming a haven for the "freeloader community" )
My point is that if you really believe in compensating the artist, then you should do so, for example, by using typefaces you paid for instead of the usual knockoffs.
I didn't realise you were advocating holding corporations accountable. I don't see how advocating large scale piracy and the dismantling of copyright helps to hold corporations to their duty to compensate the artist. As I've said before, the best way to get artists compensated is have them do their own distribution so that they won't be dependent on corporations. This will inevitably happen, it's only a matter of time.
Wait a few minutes. Do you realize piracy and loss of sales are not equivalent?
Not quite equivalent. I'd say piracy implies loss of sales beyond a certain point. Without copyright protection, sales will definitely be lost, because there is an economic disincentive to pay ( namely that you are not legally required to, and you loose money if you do ). Sure, the "piracy costs (X) figures" are inflated. However, it seems clear enough that in places like Japan, where the population has the money to purchase software, and the piracy rate is high, that real money is being lost. It is also interesting to note that the software industry is strongest in the pplaces that do have effective copyright protection. ( An interesting example: the US produce good software but most of the typeographers are in Europe. the US have good copyright protection on software, but not on typefaces )
Are they so naive to assume that each and every person who obtained a pirated product would have actually BOUGHT the product if a pirated version were not available?
No, I'm not. I am not assuming that everyone who pirates would have purchased a license. Let's turn that around -- are you saying that all of the people who pirate would not have purchased a license ? Now suppose you remove copyright altogether. Then noone will pay for software. However, it seems self evident that some of those would have if they were required to.
As you and I have agreed on, the distribution costs are in fact minimal.
On one side we have big companies using massive forces to create artificial scarcity,
Like I said, the point of the so-called "artificial scarcity" is to provide an efficient means of cost-sharing. This is not just a "greedy megacopr" thing, it is about the right of the artist to be compensated for their creative work.
and the other we have talented artists getting massive, free, personal distrubution.
Well that's all well and good, but let the artist choose free distribution. No one has the right to force anyone else to share.
Now unless you think that having 2,000,000 people singing your song and knowing your name is not a position from which you can recieve recompense,
Whether or not it'd be a good position depends on the means by which you can recompense.
And, because they have the copyright, anyone who tries to *profit* from their work should be prosecuted,
Yes, but if you remove the laws that make the music industry profitable, that doesn't help much.
go read the DMCA or UCITA to get a feel for this
These cases are an example of the big corporations simply getting greedy. They are about protecting big companies. And making life harder for the little guy. But this in itself does not serve as evidence that we need to dispose of copyrights.
This open model makes more sense to me,
I can see why it makes sense for you -- it's a model under which you can get something for nothing, and circumvent your obligation to compensate the artist.
seeing as how the products value in supply and demand terms is 0
Again, not really true. The product is the song itself, not electronic or physical copies of the song.
The artist is fully equipped and protected to use this goodwill to profit in any way possible, endorsements, selling cds, live shows.
Yes, but apparently, you are saying that they shouldn't be payed to write and record the music. I consider this position absurd, because I believe that simply by producing the piece of music, the artist has already performed a valuable service, and is entitled to collect compensation ( the amount to be determined by the market ) without recourse to sideline activities.
It's all well to say that they can make money doing something else, but this totally ignores the fact that what they have already done is worthy of compensation.
You can "negotiate different terms" by taking your business to a different vendor. However, if all the vendors are using draconian terms, then it's a sign the vendors have too much power ( IMO, software vendors should be held to the same level of accountability as vendors of tangible goods )
I believe we should respect the author's liscensing terms - by that I mean, if it's a restrictive, lawyer-trash liscense, don't use it.
That sounds fair enough. BTW, does the GPL count (-; (I'm going to have to get Berkeley DB, because I can't link against GDBM )
The system we have has major and obvious flaws, but at least it rewards artists. Well, what if we all become artists?
I don't get your point. I don't think "we'll all become artists" any time soon.
Remember the Slashdot Beanie 2000 awards?
Yep. I wrote a HOWTO, some miscellaneous perl bits and pieces and contributed to vim ( an award winning project ). So -- where's my money ? This system is a nice way of rewarding and recognising volunteers, but can you honestly say that anyone would write free software for the money ?
We will need a new system.
Well, tell us when you have it.
I'm a Libertarian, myself, so I trust in the free market to give us a solution.
Well if the free market can give us a solution that's more efficient, then it will produce such a solution whether the copyright system is there or not. IMO, we won't find a better system.
The real problem that copyrights try to solve is this -- given software package (*), none of the users can afford to pay for the developers time. So there needs to be a way of sharing the costs. The way copyrights work is this -- developer (X) licenses software to uses. Developer (X)'s prices are constrained by competition from developers (Y) and (Z). The main thing that copyright laws do is attempt to stop people freeloading, ie everyone who uses the software is supposed to share the costs.
by applying them
Well frankly, even your supporters are lost on the meaning of this one.
IMO, when you argue by analogy, you concede. An argument that requires an analogy is simply wrong. Moreover, an analogy does not constitute any kind of proof. For example, when I say "A group is like a ring, so the isomorphism theorems for rings are true for groups", I've explained how one could prove a theorem, but this hand wave should certainly not be mistaken for a proof.
"Sure, you can try to rationalise it by saying "the big evil corporations are exploiting poor third world countries". If you really mean this, go give to charity or something"
Even though I consider using an analogy itself an admission that you have no point, I will explain why I think your analogy is not applicable. My point is that the main reason people hold these opinions is expediency -- as some kind of retrospective rationalisation of unethical behaviour.
Now I'd certainly agree that corporations should face up to their responsibility. However, I'd be sceptical of any protests against a corporation that seemed to be driven by expediency ( an example would be an anti-CocaCola movement who were primarily funded by pepsi and lead by people on Pepsi's payroll )
Perhaps. But you still haven't proven't that someone is actually HURT by privacy. THAT should be your argument.
What, you don't think no one is hurt by loss of sales ? I think it's self evident that widespread piracy will undermine any chance of selling anything. This is certainly the case in instances where copyright laws don't work ( for example, selling software in Japan is impossible, and selling typefaces in the US is equally imossible )
It's not a good, but it hasn't "always been free".
We can buy a book that the information is printed on, or a jewel case, liner notes, and cd that the music is recorded on, or a floppy disk that a computer program is written on. We buy and sell the physical media containing the information.
No, you don't. In the case of software, you buy a license, which clearly costs more than the price of duplicating media. The payment is primarily to compensate the author. It seems only fair that the author, as well as the distributors, should be compensated.
information is priceless
The copyright system allows us to put a price on information -- the price is simply whatever the market is willing to pay. Moreover, someone can create information by spending (X) amount of capital. So it is clearly not priceless. You also assert that the only thing information is worth is more information. Well that's a nice theory, but there's an immediate consequence, and that is that creators of intellectual works should only be compensated in "information", and that they should forgo all material things, because their productivity has no material worth.
A fisherman and a trapper ...
What if the person who wants to use your information can not offer you information in return ? What if someone would rather pay for the information than offer some ? The reason why we abandoned the barter system is because a long time back, we worked out that we needed a common medium to trade with.
You say yourself that information isn't free of cost. So how do you propose that the creators of intellectual works be compensated in the absence of a copyright system ?
Great. You're a professional musician, and you don't want to share it with everyone, so you don't record digitally. Who pays your bills now ? Are you trying to argue that musicians shouldn't be paid for writing and recording music ?
And why should digital recording mandate sharing ?
Yeah, I was almost waiting for someone to raise this issue. It's a good point. I addressed it in another post.
Personally, I hope/think that artists will start taking advantage of technology, and the decreasing costs of distribution, and bypass the "middlemen".
I thought the moderation was interesting too. I was expecting to be shot down in flames by the moderators ( especially since my post was deliberately inflammatory ), but it looks like I've struck a chord here. Or maybe I'm just telling the side of the story that you don't see much of on slash. Anyways, don't get all uptight. Even if no-one's moderating your complaint up, some of the people who posted intelligent replies to my post have got +1 or +2. So your point about "biased moderation" isn't really much of a point.
If it really is in the artists interests to offer their music under some kind of shareware / demoware scheme, they will do this. However, it's certainly not for you to decide what is and what isn't good for the artist. Sharing is fine, but sharing should be voluntary.
Secondly, I know a GPL program can be distributed anywhere. Unlike a lot of the slashdot leech kiddies, I've actually contributed free documentation and code, and I do not have any problem whatsoever with those who wish to redistribute my free documentation and code ... that is, as long as they abide by the terms of the (free) license. What does bother me, however, is when users abuse this "sharing" software and don't abide by the terms of their licenses, whether that license be the GPL, or a proprietary license.
Nothing. I'm a graduate student in math, I have no financial interests in the music biz.
Sorry to dissapoint you, Mr. Holyer Than Thou... but I actually use it to disperse my friends OWN music that he makes. W/O glorious Napster and even the MP3 phenomenon
Calm down. I'm not at all dissapointed if it helps artists who want to share their music. However, I object to "sharing" things against the will of the author. My objection is mainly to those in the slashdot peanut gallery who are acting as though this program is good because it makes piracy easy, not inspite of it.
The fact that distributing creative work is cheap does not justify attempts to circumvent paying the artists.
Instead of making money from recordings, musicians will make their money from touring and promotions.
What if they don't want to tour ? Shouldn't they be payed whether they tour or not ?
The hundreds of companies making money by leeching funds from creative artists for the service of distribution of the artists' work will go out of business,
Personally, I'd like to see this happen. As the cost of distribution gos down, it will become easier for artists to distribute themselves without signing their souls away to a distributor.
Yes, but if it's perfectly legal to freely give away copies of the artists work, it undermines the price of the CDs. Who would pay for it if you can simply copy it ?
(Though on second thought, perhaps this is better viewed as a civil rather than a criminal matter.)
If it only occurs on a small scale, yes. I am not in favor of throwing someone in jail because they make one illegitimate copy of a CD.
There's nothing to say that they can't sell CDs even though they can be freely copied; Red Hat does.
If you want to name examples, could you please name someone who is making a profit ? Redhat are losing money, precisely because they are having a hard time building a revenue stream on a product that can be given away. I'll add that Redhat are not selling the software. They are selling support ( and their manual ). That's what you pay for when you buy the box set. Musicians just want to sell a copy of their music, not support.
The audience is not the composer's or performer's employer; there is no agreement or contract that the audience will pay the artist.
So who should pay the artist ? Or should they just panhandle ? I'd argue that purchasing the CD should activate a binding agreement between the user and the artist. Anyone who copies the CD illegaly would be violating that agreement.
Answer: because they don't own "copyrights on algorithms". Learn the difference between a copyright and a patent, and then we can have an intelligent discussion about copyrights.
This is a problem -- because in this instance, it appears that the middleman benefits from copyright instead of the artist ( since the artist essentially signs away their monopoly on the recording to a middleman ). This is a problem more with the music industry than it is with the software industry.
The solution ? Technology. It is becoming easier to distribute music without the middleman. Traditionaly, the main service that the record labels performed was getting the artist's music into record shops ( where another middleman would skim more cream ... ) Nowadays, artists can distribute over the internet ( not necessarily MP3 -- they can also do mail order ), or form independent record labels that resell over the internet. Cheapbytes and Linuxmall are living proof that it costs very little to do this.
A fat lot of good that does if the copyright system is disabled.
Venues that pay performance royalties. People who make voluntary sponsorships. A portion of people who buy concert ticket to bands that play their songs. Website sponsors. All of these are enhanced by having as many people as possible hear their music.
So in other words, someone who just wants to create some music and sell CDs has to panhandle for donations or make their money through other activities. This hardly sounds very fair. How many jobs have you held where you had to beg your employer for your paycheck each week ?
Another way of saying this is that creators of intellectual works should be forced to share their work. And that to me seems absurd unless you put it in the context of a society where everyone else shares.
Today the information as property group has the most power and they can cause a great deal of pain to the information as freedom group
Firstly, I object to your attempt to oversimplify the issue by making out that there are only "two groups". Secondly, it is simply not true that copyrighted works will hurt the "freedom group". What I ask is this -- if the freedom group are so damned savvy, why can't they compete on their merits instead of advocating vandalism against the copyright system ? In practice, of course, very few OpenSource developers advocate dismantling of the copyright system ( most of the advocates of the copyright system are leeches, and leeches are not very good at volunteering to produce OSS )
This group will grow up and when they do they will have money and political power
When they grow up, and get real jobs, if their real jobs require them to contribute to intellectual works, it seems plausible that they will expect compensation for their work ( oh, if they don't then they will not have much "money and power", will they ? )
How do you suppose that free software will become a "multi million dollar industry" ? Free software is not about money, it's primarily about volunteerism, and the vast majority of free software developers are working on their own time, or are funded by public money ( ie universities )
The artist would get to keep their only money rather than some huge media company.
NOt if you trash the copyright system, they won't. However, the internet itself will help the artist, because it will give them ( and small record labels ) a means to distribute directly without bringing in a large greedy record company.