Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Operation Teddy: P2P sharing is not illegal

By pik in Internet
Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:06:57 PM EST
Tags: Freedom (all tags)
Freedom

A group of activists is planning to download a song from the internet in front of the building of the SGAE (the Spanish association of authors and editors, well known for its campaigns against file sharing in P2P networks). The action will take place on the forth-coming monday.


The act of sharing music and culture in the internet is NOT illegal under Spanish law, something that has already been demonstrated with clear facts. P2P sharing is practised by more than 2 million citizens in Spain and it is the base of the new ways of cultural evolution made possible by the new technologies. To demonstrate that sharing culture is an easy, legitimate and legal act a group of activists will gather this monday (7th November) at 11:00 am in front of the building of the SGAE in Bilbao (Street "Gran Vía" No 29, Bilbao is a city in the Basque Country, in Spain) to perform a live download to a laptop of the song "Get on Your Knees" of Teddy Bautista, the president of the SGAE. Three burofaxes have been sent to the government delegation, to the police and to the SGAE itself, explaining the action and requesting for the due legal action in the case of law breakage. This initiative rises from the campaign CompartirEsBueno.Net (Sharing Is Good), and other internet user groups and activists that fight for the universal access to the culture and the copyleft.

Lately we are suffering a quite aggressive media campaign from the Spanish ministries of Justice and culture, and two Spanish TV channels, (Antena 3 and Tele 5) to try to make us believe that sharing is illegal. In that campaign the P2P networks are deliberatley related with the gangs that sell music illegally or even the terrorism. For that reason, and in the context of the preparatory meeting of the world summit of the information society, this action aims to present to the public the campaign Compartir Es Bueno (Sharing Is Good). That campaign defends the free flow of the copyleft knowledge, culture and technics, against the digital gap built by the monopolies of propietary software, the patents over the technological development and the technologies and laws of digital control that try to degrade the cultural commons of the humanity: the internet and the techno-scientific knowledge.

COPYLEFT 2005 Teresa Malina Torrent

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/es/legalcode.es

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o CompartirE sBueno.Net
o copyleft
o quite aggressive
o campaign
o Antena 3
o Tele 5
o related with the gangs that sell music illegally
o the terrorism
o the world summit of the information society
o Compartir Es Bueno
o http://cre ativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/es/legalcode.es
o Also by pik


Display: Sort:
Operation Teddy: P2P sharing is not illegal | 101 comments (85 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
no (1.38 / 18) (#1)
by eumenides on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 08:14:51 AM EST

Produce some original content and you'll realise that sharing isn't good, you fucking degenerate hippie.

Copyright is immoral (1.66 / 6) (#9)
by Eight Star on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 03:04:06 PM EST

Copying is a basic human right. The ability to be copied is a fundamental property of information. The market can ensure that content creators are paid without copyright. Get a new business model.

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 0) (#13)
by duffbeer703 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:19:05 AM EST

Say I take a book out of the library and photocopy & bind it. Then I change the author to "duffbeer703" and sell it for $5/copy.

Exactly where in this process does the market provide the content creator with anything other than heartburn?

[ Parent ]

Maybe (none / 0) (#16)
by Viliam Bur on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:46:29 AM EST

the author should publish as many books as possible... so before you start selling your copy from library, the market is already saturated.

Anyway, the "market is always right" is a dogma, not a thing to be proved, or... what a terrible thought... disproved. If you ever think you have found a contradiction, it only means that your perception of right and wrong is flawed.

Maybe an "author" that cannot make profit of the work without copyright, should simply not be called "author"; if you make money from someone else's book, then you are the real author, not the one that wrote it. Just as workers in the factory do not own the factory, why should writers own the books? They do the dirty work, indeed, but the true honor of authorship is more than that! Laws in a perfect society should protect those who own the values, not those who create them. There are millions of creative people around, but each thing has only one owner.

(Disclaimer: Not my real opinion... I am only doing an exercise in the free market worship.)

[ Parent ]

nice strawman (none / 0) (#21)
by Eight Star on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:22:12 AM EST

The core of my argument is not the market, but basic human rights. I only refer to the market because people inevitably make pragmatic arguments about the need for copyright, and I need to counter those. If you have another economic theory you would like me to use as a basis, I would be delighted.
I am not a randroid, by a long stretch.
In fact Rand, and many others free-marketers, think that IP rights are at the core of all property rights, and the market itself. Clearly this is insane.
The relationship between the author and the reader can be very direct, especially with modren technology. To use your analogy, the goods can go directly from the workers to the consumers, and money directly the other way. It is a simple sale. the author offers his book for release, his fans pay him what it is worth to them. Factories (publishers, marketers, reviewers) still serve a role in the market, but the workers do not need them. Authors may sitll partner with publishers when it is advantagous to do so.

[ Parent ]
here's a thought (none / 1) (#18)
by speek on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 09:10:52 AM EST

Stop writing all those stupid books and get a real job, you pencil-pushing hippy.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

simple answer (3.00 / 2) (#20)
by Eight Star on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:56:33 AM EST

Authors should be paid for writing books, not for making copies. Your argument presupposes that the author only got a few dollars from the sale of the library's copy, as opposed to many thousands of dollars for the release of the book.

Further, changing the author has little to do with copyright law. Plagiarism is sadly not illegal, though it may constitute fraud.
The market would find a way to pay authors even if copyright did not exist. Your process of copying would be entirely after the fact, and largely irrelevant to the authors business model.
As long as people want new books, they will pay authors to write them, it is supply and demand.

[ Parent ]
Sure (none / 0) (#28)
by duffbeer703 on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:34:06 PM EST

That would work if most authors were wealthy to underwrite the publishing, placement and promotion of their work. Most are not, hence the existance of publishing houses.

Once upon a time during the medieval period, books were commissioned by rich folk as you alluded to. While some of the works of art were brilliant, most of them reflect the tastes of the patrons. (Mostly the catholic church)

We're probably moving towards that model as more and more publishers merge and start targeting specific demographics. (Look at the book section of walmart for an example)

Except that instead of paintings of angels dancing around the head of a pin, we'll be damned to a hell of pseudo-religous garbage, John Grisham and Tom Clancy novels and a few Thomas Kincade prints to brighten things up.

[ Parent ]

of course (none / 0) (#29)
by Eight Star on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:08:37 PM EST

As long as people who are unsatisfied with the likes of Grisham and Clancy are unwilling to pay for the writing of books they want to read. Will you sit by, or will you fund new works? Authors do not need to be wealthy, they just have to be good. If they can build a fanbase that wants them to write more, or impress a respected reviewer, then they will be able to raise a release price. This is like any other transaction of a thing of value in exchange for a price. There are millions of ways the transaction can be carried out, and various parties will evolve to fulfill different roles, as needed. Publishing, placement, and promotion of works would still be handled by publishers, with or without agreements from the artists. Are you trying to argue that publishers won't print books unless they can do so exclusively? Publishers that DID have agreements with artists would benefit from being able to market themselves as 'official' versions, as some people would buy these copies in order to support the artist, even if they didn't pay for the work's release beforehand.

[ Parent ]
of course (fixed whitespace) (none / 1) (#30)
by Eight Star on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:09:35 PM EST

As long as people who are unsatisfied with the likes of Grisham and Clancy are unwilling to pay for the writing of books they want to read. Will you sit by, or will you fund new works?

Authors do not need to be wealthy, they just have to be good. If they can build a fanbase that wants them to write more, or impress a respected reviewer, then they will be able to raise a release price.

This is like any other transaction of a thing of value in exchange for a price. There are millions of ways the transaction can be carried out, and various parties will evolve to fulfill different roles, as needed.

Publishing, placement, and promotion of works would still be handled by publishers, with or without agreements from the artists. Are you trying to argue that publishers won't print books unless they can do so exclusively?
Publishers that DID have agreements with artists would benefit from being able to market themselves as 'official' versions, as some people would buy these copies in order to support the artist, even if they didn't pay for the work's release beforehand.


[ Parent ]

Yes (none / 0) (#50)
by duffbeer703 on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 09:27:04 PM EST

"Are you trying to argue that publishers won't print books unless they can do so exclusively?"

Yes. Find me anyone foolish enough to take a risk to market and distribute a product that anyone can start knocking off will be out of business in a short period of time.

There are publishers like Penguin that sell out of copyright classics for $5. Its a niche market that works because marketing costs are near zero. Schools & colleges teach out of the same books, creating an automatic demand for 10,000 copies of Madame Bovary and Julius Caesar every year.

[ Parent ]

Ok (none / 0) (#51)
by Eight Star on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:12:03 PM EST

How about cafepress and lulu? Just off the top of my head.

"Find me anyone foolish enough to take a risk to market and distribute a product that anyone can start knocking off will be out of business in a short period of time."
You contradict yourself. Who would start 'knocking off' a product if they can't do so exclusively?
Your argument is that no one will print because everyone will compete with them? It makes no sense.
You obviously implicitly know that there will be a demand for printed copies of nearly every work. Printers will fill that demand, they will get paid for making copies. They will compete on the quality of their copies. They will market Their copies, not the text itself. (unless they also happen to have an agreement with the author.)

[ Parent ]
SPP (none / 0) (#61)
by cpt kangarooski on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:05:46 AM EST

Well, I think you're not quite getting the scenario right. Publication of the first run of a work would be part of the money paid to the author by the underwriters (unless they didn't care about getting hardcopies). Once the work is in the public domain, publishers may print it of their own accord. The underwriters might want to help this along, with the idea of popularizing the book so that there's a larger pool of underwriters in the future, and none of them has to pay as much, but it could go either way. Just as easily the author could reinvest some of his profits into self-promotion, also to get more underwriters, but to command a higher fee in the future.

As for the underwriters being rich, they don't have to be. They only need to be numerous. It still tends to reward popularity, but allows for even small authors to work in a system that basically would operate via the street performer protocol.



--
All my posts including this one are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
[ Parent ]

Huh Yourself (none / 0) (#49)
by virg on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 06:13:35 PM EST

> Say I take a book out of the library and photocopy & bind it. Then I change the author to "duffbeer703" and sell it for $5/copy.

Exactly where in this process does the market provide the content creator with anything other than heartburn?


Exactly where in copying a file does the parent poster describe claiming the copied work as his own? Duplicating the work and plagiarizing it are different things.

Virg
"Imagine (it won't be hard) that most people would prefer seeing Carrot Top beaten to death with a bag of walnuts." - Jmzero
[ Parent ]
Nice straw-man (none / 0) (#58)
by PhilHibbs on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 06:28:18 AM EST

No-one is saying that you should have the right to download copyrighted music and sell it. That's your own invented proposition that you are attacking.

[ Parent ]
I've asked this elsewhere (none / 0) (#67)
by davidduncanscott on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:10:37 PM EST

so now I'll ask you -- why not?

If what you're doing is right, if you're confident that information wants to be free and you're just letting it roam, why shouldn't you download it and sell it?

We both know that the GPL, for instance, absolutely allows you to do that, as does the BSD license, so why does your conscience bother you with respect to the latest Foo Fighters album? Could it be because you know damned well you're in the wrong, but at least you're not doing it for money?

Here's a moral guideline: if it's wrong to do it for pay, it's probably wrong to do it at all.

[ Parent ]

That's fraud $ (none / 0) (#81)
by SoupIsGoodFood on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 05:32:00 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 1) (#36)
by davidduncanscott on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 04:55:19 PM EST

I'll grant that "The ability to be copied is a fundamental property of information," since that's a pretty well observable fact. I don't see where "Copying is a basic human right" is anything but a bare assertion.

By contrast, allow me to present, "Murder is a basic human right. The ability to die is a fundamental property of living things" or "Watching you in the shower is a basic human right. The ability to be observed is a fundamental property of human beings."

I understand the arguments about civilization advancing through the collective culture, and I'm not actually against them, but they get fairly creepy after a while. After all, my physical being is also based on the work of others before me, but I'm not really prepared to consider myself a resource of the collective.

[ Parent ]

dude (none / 0) (#72)
by insaniac on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 05:46:21 AM EST

your pamper is dirty, go change it!

[ Parent ]
Fascist. n/t (none / 0) (#92)
by der on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 08:07:45 PM EST



[ Parent ]
-1 (1.04 / 22) (#6)
by The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 12:58:28 PM EST

Copyleft = filthy goatfucking hippy.

___
I'm a pompous windbag, I take myself far too seriously, and I single-handedly messed up K5 by causing the fiction section to be created. --localroger

+1FP I am a GNU/Hippy. (2.00 / 3) (#10)
by Lemon Juice on Sun Nov 06, 2005 at 05:26:02 PM EST



As long as they don't use non-free software (none / 0) (#27)
by MichaelCrawford on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 01:33:15 PM EST

... to share That Which Yearns to Be Free.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


[ Parent ]

p2p sharing is *practiced* (none / 1) (#11)
by dimaq on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 05:57:04 AM EST

what's with excessive civilitization of speech here? is p2p the new sex? cause for some reason beyond me everyone is *practising* safe sex rather than shagging with condom!

Practicing safe sex (3.00 / 3) (#32)
by davidduncanscott on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:24:49 PM EST

is what most internet users are doing most of the time. Their pallid skin and clammy hands prevent them from ever actually having sex, but they practice furiously.

[ Parent ]
Lets see how long that lasts... (2.00 / 4) (#14)
by neozeed on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:20:08 AM EST

OTOH what is the last great thing Spain has contributed to the global economy? Ibiza?

-----------------------
Unless you're alive you can't play. And if you don't play, you don't get to be alive.

The last, I don't know, but the greatest? (none / 0) (#64)
by hummassa on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:27:11 AM EST

Like America?

[ Parent ]
Good point (none / 0) (#93)
by der on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 08:11:45 PM EST

We should be doing all we can to prevent Spain's further contributions to the world. This America Problem is their fault? Case closed.

[ Parent ]
Actually, USA is not Spain's fault (none / 0) (#94)
by Niha on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 09:03:29 PM EST

 In any case, Spain could be held responsible for Central and South America.

[ Parent ]
Redeemed (none / 0) (#95)
by der on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 12:39:25 AM EST

Central and South America don't seem to be causing all that many global problems (outside their own territory).

[ Parent ]
Let me get this straight (2.00 / 2) (#15)
by j1mmy on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 08:28:48 AM EST

You're going to protest anti-piracy sentiment by downloading copyrighted material off the internet, e.g. piracy?

Who is it you expect to sympathize with you?

What do you expect this to accomplish?


g/re/p (3.00 / 2) (#37)
by ewhac on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 06:42:08 PM EST

You're going to protest anti-piracy sentiment by downloading copyrighted material off the internet, e.g. piracy?

Who is it you expect to sympathize with you?

What do you expect this to accomplish?

You're going to protest anti-integration sentiment by sitting in the whites-only section of the bus, e.g. integration?

Who is it you expect to sympathize with you?

What do you expect this to accomplish?
---
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions. Priest, Internet Oracle.
[ Parent ]

What piracy? (none / 0) (#57)
by PhilHibbs on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 06:22:08 AM EST

They're protesting against the characterization of the legal sharing of cultural artefacts as piracy. In what way is it piracy? No-one got raped, and no-one's ship got sunk.

[ Parent ]
There might be potential here (none / 1) (#22)
by sbash on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:34:13 AM EST

Though the content is lacking. I am going to vote this down. However, if you recreate this and add results, background and what they were trying to achieve. Also, English links would be good too.

|_
"Eating curry with the boys? You must be British or boring" - Stinky Bottoms
what the internet needs (1.41 / 12) (#24)
by army of phred on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:38:37 PM EST

I've said this many times but I'll repeat once again, this general purpose net connection stack tcp/ip has to go. In its place a large defined set of protocols can allow broadcast style networking for the internet savvy consumer, and if Microsoft had the lead in engineering this, you can be sure that most computers would be compatible, and Microsoft could also sell "Microsoft Gateway" products to let Apple participate.

This set of protocols could allow trusted machines to receive properly licensed and authorized content but still filter out other less useful but more dangerous content/extentions like exe's, zips, tar.gz's, bz2, py, and iso's, and additionally any encrypted content, and the major webserver venders would have to outlaw application/octet mime types to regain control of the internet-turned-piracy haven that the thieves like warez groups and gnu have perverted, not to mention all the pornography and child molesting an open internet produces.

Its time to make the net safe again for our families and businesses.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber

that's actually a pretty good troll (none / 0) (#40)
by Phil Urich on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:02:19 AM EST

And I endorse it, while at the same time utterly refusing to believe that it could be serious. Because, come on. In the off chance that it's intended . . . naw, I'm not even gonna go there.

[ Parent ]
its been getting a few bites on slashdot (none / 0) (#60)
by army of phred on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:59:16 AM EST

not nearly on the scale of the "small recordstore owner" classic, but I try anyways.

"Republicans are evil." lildebbie
"I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about." motormachinemercenary
"my wife is getting a blowjob" ghostoft1ber
[ Parent ]
It's legal in Canada too (none / 1) (#26)
by MichaelCrawford on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 12:40:18 PM EST

.. and the downloads are paid for. That is, the copyright holders are compensated by a special tax on recordable audio media.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


I've wondered about that (none / 0) (#31)
by davidduncanscott on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 02:18:32 PM EST

My daughter has a friend (call him Bill, because I can't remember his name) who has downloaded some absurd number of mp3 files, enough to fill a 60 GB drive or something. He has no reason to burn those to CD, preferring to listen to them on his PC or perhaps using an iPod-like device , so he's not buying recordable audio media to any extent proportional to his downloading. (He'll also probably be old and gray before he ever listens to all that music, but that's another discussion.)

Hypothetically moving him to Canada, let's put him in the apartment next door to an enterprising independent rock band. They buy recordable audio media in quantity, because they sell CD's at their shows.

Doesn't this leave the band underwriting the putative cost of Bill's downloads? Is there a word in Canadian for "irony"?

[ Parent ]

There is a valid argument that it's unfair (none / 0) (#34)
by MichaelCrawford on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:17:36 PM EST

I think having to pay by the byte for incoming internet might be more fair.

I don't know if it actually went through, but there was a proposal to also tax hard drives.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


[ Parent ]

Also, Churches and other legit users... (none / 1) (#39)
by sudog on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:58:55 PM EST

... are also subsidising the downloaders. Neat huh?

I for one don't actually mind giving up a bit of extra cash that is relatively miniscule in the grand scheme of things if it buys me a bit of justice.

The other side of the coin is just as valid, though:  what loss is there that this user has filled a 60GB drive with mp3s? There is little to no tangible loss. The user would NOT have paid the thousands of dollars required to purchase the CDs, he wouldn't have searched through endless record stores to find the more elusive ones.

Nobody is actually deprived of anything: the only thing that might be lessened is the artificial demand that the record industry forced on the consumer public in order to generate an unrealistically inflated interest in cultural media.


[ Parent ]

Well, (none / 0) (#44)
by davidduncanscott on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 11:30:12 AM EST

that's why I referred to the "putative" cost. I agree that "Bill" never would have bought all that music.

On the other hand, he almost certainly would have bought some of it.

I have to admit to a bias on this. I'm not in any way connected with the music industry, but I am a listener, and it strikes me that there was a tremendous opportunity in the digitization of music. Suddenly there was no need for any album to go out of print ever again, since there was no need to mass-produce them. At this point in history, I should be able to go to Sony or BMG or whomever and download a copy of some 1929 jazz album if I want to.

The fact that I can't I blame squarely on Shawn Fanning and his customers. They couldn't even manage to be discreet about it and let the record companies look the other way, as they did with cassettes in my youth. No, Fanning had to go on talk shows and snicker at their inability to stop him, chortle and point at the millions of users downloading songs, and generally make himself obnoxious. The response was as predictable as sunset, at least to anybody with more brains than a sleeping cat.

It may be that this will all wash out someday and "copyright" become as quaint a term as "scutage", but I frankly doubt it, simply because people with ideas have always wanted to benefit from those ideas, although lesser minds have never understood why they should.

Perhaps I'll believe in music sharing the day that the ante is changed to actual contribution -- you can download somebody else's recording when you upload one of your own. Surely all these critics of Brittany Spears can manage to sing at least as well as she, so let's hear them!

In the meantime, it's always easy to share that which someone else created.

[ Parent ]

Here, have mine (none / 0) (#45)
by MichaelCrawford on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 12:54:35 PM EST

They'd give me crap for whoring my links if I used a proper A tag, so I wont:

  • http://www.geometricvisions.com/music/
Note the Creative Commons license, and which version I used. Source code, in the forms of PDF and lilypond scores to my songs, will be posted when I can devote the time to writing them down.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


[ Parent ]

Excellent (none / 1) (#47)
by davidduncanscott on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 02:49:23 PM EST

I salute you. You are, in fact, contributing to the common good.

You don't change the fact that some portion (estimates vary, but I'm going to say 95%) of the files being "shared" are not so contributed, but were in fact created by people who expected to have some control over their work, and are being downloaded by those who really are "consumers" -- they toil not, but they are apparently entitled to reap. They could simply favor artists like you and despise Metallica, but in fact they want the commercial stuff -- they simply don't want to pay anything for it, either financially or artistically.

You might enjoy sitting around trading licks with other musicians, enjoying each others work and learning from each other, but most of these people simply want a free concert, whether or not you feel like giving one. You donate to the common good, while they consider you a public resource

[ Parent ]

Right you are but wrong in terms of artist payment (none / 0) (#56)
by D Jade on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:20:17 AM EST

You don't change the fact that some portion (estimates vary, but I'm going to say 95%) of the files being "shared" are not so contributed, but were in fact created by people who expected to have some control over their work, and are being downloaded by those who really are "consumers" -- they toil not, but they are apparently entitled to reap. They could simply favor artists like you and despise Metallica, but in fact they want the commercial stuff -- they simply don't want to pay anything for it, either financially or artistically.

You overlook one thing in this statement. It is very rare for an independent artist to gain royalties or creative control over their music once it is released and most artists that are in a position to negotiate a decent royalty/copyright ownership agreement already have enough money.

For a debut artist releasing their first album. Most typical deals will include coverage of all production, marketing and promotions costs as well as a one off payment for the work. So a four member band might get $50,000 cheque for their works.

The justification for this is the higher risk involved with artists who do not have an established commercial fan base that guarantees a certain portion of sales. Which is fair, I suppose. But this fact alone means that no matter how many sales a record has, it is no more or less benefit to the artist in terms of payment for the work of creating the album. It presents other oppurtunities such as potential tours and collaboration within the industry but this has nothing to do with royalties from the recorded works.

Take Luke Chable, a progressive house producer. He is one of the biggest names in the global progressive scene. Yet, on average, he'll get paid between 500GBP - 1500GBP per release. He actually gets paid more to Dj than he does to produce music.

Now go back to that four member band who recorded their debut album for a one-off 50K fee. That's got to split between four people, so they get 12,500 each. That's chicken feed. That's enough to purchase some new instruments and hardware, maybe purchase a legitimate copy of that software they use for all of their work, and then pay a few months rent and bills.

Sure, 95% of the music being downloaded is commercially copyrighted, but much of the loss is on the part of the Big Record Company, and not the artists themselves.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Irrelevant (none / 1) (#66)
by davidduncanscott on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 12:11:08 PM EST

It is very rare for an independent artist to gain royalties or creative control over their music once it is released and most artists that are in a position to negotiate a decent royalty/copyright ownership agreement already have enough money.
See, I don't much care if we're stealing from wealthy musicians or poor musicians, record companies or individual artists. I'm certainly not going to try to judge whether any particular band or artist has "enough money". That's not the point.

The point is that some artists have chosen to release their work under certain well-known conditions. They may have chosen to go with a record company, they may have chosen to release directly to the public, they may have chosen to donate their work to the world -- in all those cases, I see no good reason not to respect that choice. I don't need their music, in the way that I need food and water, and I fail to see why my appetite for entertainment over-rides their wishes that their work be distributed (or not distributed) in certain ways.

[ Parent ]

So what's the point to your argument? (none / 0) (#71)
by D Jade on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:08:14 PM EST

See, I don't much care if we're stealing from wealthy musicians or poor musicians, record companies or individual artists. I'm certainly not going to try to judge whether any particular band or artist has "enough money". That's not the point.

Well it was the point five minutes ago. Now I'm unsure what you're trying to say. But this is the problem I have with the argument against file sharing. Most of the artists are either rich enough or have been paid one-off licenses. In that case, the majority of harm that file sharing causes is born by the record companies. But I have a hard trouble believing that it is crippling their industry when in the first half of 2004 the RIAA announced a 10 per cent growth in sales from the past year... 10 per cent! Not only did sales increase by 10 per cent, there was also an increase of 4 per cent in revenue. Any business operator would be over the moon with such a high profit/loss margin.

A 4 per cent rise in revenue with a growth of 10 per cent is a license to print money when you're talking about something as large scale as the entire RIAA.

... but were in fact created by people who expected to have some control over their work...

Go back and think about this statement for a few mintues. Artists do have control over their work. Whether someone pays for their work or not does not affect their level of control. What you are hearing when you listen to a recorded work is the summary of that control. After that, there is not much else for an artist to control. People either buy the music, record it from the radio, copy it from a friend or download it. Unless you're suggest that the artist should have some kind of control over who listens to their work... Which is a ludicrous suggestion.

$12,154,700,000. That was the total RIAA income for 2004. Compare this to 1994's figure of $12,320,300,000 and take into account the reduced cost of music either through department stores, or legitimate digitial download services and relatively little has changed. Look at the total figures over a the past 10 years and the peaks and troughs in the figures show a fair corellation to the state of the US economy. In short, there is not one shred of actual evidence to support the RIAA's claims. In fact, the profit/loss figures actually show the opposite. As digital downloading has become more widespread, the RIAA has seen revenue increasing at a larger rate than in the mid to late 90's.

What you call stealing, I call promoting. The fact is that without free downloading, a vast drop in listening will occur. Sales will probably drop too because people won't be exposed to music that they could potentially purchase. Concert attendance would go down as well because not as many people would be aware of lesser known artists (after all, they couldn't listen to their music).

You call digital downloads stealing, yet to stop them would rob artists of much more than CD sales... If you could actually provide some real evidence to support the case against digital downloads, you might have half a leg to stand on. But I doubt you'll find any, because evidence can't exist for an argument that is complete bullshit...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I still don't care (none / 1) (#74)
by davidduncanscott on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 02:35:22 PM EST

how much money the RIAA is making -- that doesn't change anything. If it's stealing when you take candy from a baby, it's also stealing when you take candy from WalMart. The consequences are less, but the ethics don't change.

Perhaps signing with a label is stupid. Perhaps musicians should all remain independent. The fact is that many haven't, and your making that choice for them is arrogance at best. Maybe I missed the part where Metallica stopped you from giving away your music, but as near as I can tell this whole thing is pretty one-sided -- you and Shawn Fanning get to make the call for all sorts of people you haven't even met.

Remember, I'm not the one making an argument based on RIAA sales figures, you are. I couldn't care less about their sales figures, because my point is ethical, not financial.

[ Parent ]

I share this argument with Richard Stallman: (3.00 / 2) (#75)
by MichaelCrawford on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 04:40:43 PM EST

Basically, the whole point behind everything Richard Stallman has ever done is that the ability to copy and transmit digital files completely faithfully and with zero cost changes things entirely from the days when it costs money to make a copy, and copying was lossy.

Copyright is granted by the government, not to benefit the artist, but to benefit society. By granting the artist a temporary monopoly, they are encouraged to create more works. A fact that seems to have been conveniently forgotten is that the artist is supposed to pay for the monopoly he was granted by allowing his works to pass into the public domain.

Stallman's argument doesn't dispute the above. Instead, he asserts that society will be benefitted more by permitting free copying of digital files than it would be by granting creators a monopoly.

Note that, in the US at least, copyright was not originally created because creators were considered to have any sort of property that deserved protection. Intellectual property is a very recent invention in history, and has very specious intellectual underpinnings.

The idea that people can own knowledge is propaganda whose drum has been beaten for almost two hundred years by copyright and patent holders, and, much as Hitler explained with his Big Lie, repetition has caused most to come to believe it.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


[ Parent ]

Now, you see (none / 1) (#78)
by davidduncanscott on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 06:47:52 PM EST

you have a principle -- you may even be right -- but the rest of these folks are just looters who pause long enough to say that "WalMart sucks, and they don't pay their cashiers enough, so that's why I'm taking this toaster!"

Their principle is that so far nobody's been able to stop them, so clearly it's the responsibility of the publishing industry to "find a new business model."

Interestingly, when confronted with things like, "Uncle Sam is looking at every credit card transaction you've ever made, and you can't stop him!" hardly anybody in the p2p world shrugs and proposes that we find a new privacy model, that our attitudes are obsolete and the onus is on us to change (yeah, a few I know, but damned few.) Instead, they want legislation and restraint, even though privacy of electronic records is entirely a social construct, and information wants to be free -- that digital picture of you and your girlfriend is just a number, and you can't own a number.

[ Parent ]

If you're going to get ethical then (none / 1) (#80)
by D Jade on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 01:09:07 AM EST

Why not talk about the definition of stealing?

To steal is to deprive an individual or group of property, in that they have one less of that item due to the fact that you stole it. Copying is not stealing. If downloading was to be considered stealing, you would have to actually delete the works from the computer you downloaded it from, without permission.

Theft is apparent when the owner of the property can show a demonstrated loss as a result of the theft. On one hand, you don't care about the profits that are reaped as a result of sales, yet on the other, you say that you are concerned about the ethical side of the argument. Yet the only way you can prove hat file sharing is unethical when talking about an ecomomic argument.

Let's put profits aside for a moment and simplify the economics to volume of sales. Any drop or increase in sales over the past 10 year has a direct corellation to the size and health of the economy. The reality is that with the advent of file-sharing, there has been a marked increase in total sales (whether there is a sales/filesharing corellation is a different argument). There is no evidence of lost sales, so the notion of sharing as theft is absolutely bogus.

The argument against file sharing is not one about the creative control that artists have over their work, it is about the losses they incur as a result of the sharing. File sharing has no impact on the control an artist has on their work.

I understand the ethical argument. But the argument against file sharing is not really that ethical at all because the "ethical" argument is not ethical at all. Ethics determine right and wrong, we all know that. But I still fail to see how sharing is an unethical practice - how is it wrong? No one seems to be able to say why it's wrong, only that it is (kind of like the terrorists) If it really was stealing, then there is room for debate.

I agree that it is wrong to deprive an individual of their property. I also agree that it is wrong to steal. But once again, this is not stealing.

By your logic, it would be wrong to photocopy a chapter from a book (equivalent to downloading one song from an album). Yet laws protect copiers from such penalties under fair use. Funnily enough, the same applies if you copy a CD or a Cassette or a Vinyl recording. Fair use protects all these kinds of activities.

I have a hard time believing that you have never recorded something from the radio, or listened to a recording from the radio. It's definitely unlikely that you have never recorded or accepted a recorded cassette for/from a friend in your entire life, or burnt or accepted a burnt CD. I also have a hard time believing that you have never photocopied pages from a book at the library, recorded a tv show or movie to video.

The reality is that file sharing is tantamount to any of the above activities. Anyone who shares files knows this. The files I share are not downloaded by millions of people. I couldn't afford that much bandwidth. The most downloaded file on my computer is actually my own work, and it's been downloaded a total of 10 times. This is no different for that mix-tape you made for your girlfriend back in 83 that she then copied and gave to her friends and so on.

My perspective is from someone working within the industry, i'm a creator and a promoter, and I really appreciate hearing your point of view. Sadly though, it conflicts with what artists I know and work with from around the world and in all spectrums of music feel about file sharing. The ones who really should be protected by the law (independents, upcomings and all the other poor bastards trying to make a dime) do not share the feelings of the big labels' law departments.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Sure (none / 0) (#97)
by davidduncanscott on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 09:46:34 AM EST

I've burned CD's for friends, and I have some bootlegged disks and tapes around. On the other hand, I never claimed that I don't commit unethical acts.

When you walk into a restaurant and ask for a hamburger, it's understood by both parties that you will be paying for that food. It's an implicit contract. You may feel that food should be distributed freely, but you have nonetheless agreed to this particular transaction, and if you then fail to pay you have broken that agreement.

When you buy a commercial CD, you know damned well that you haven't been sold the copyright. You might like to have it, you may feel that you deserve it, but if you then distribute copies you have made that purchase under false pretenses. Whether or not it's theft may be debatable, but you've broken an agreement into which you freely entered. Fair use is part of that agreement, but that tape I made for my girlfriend in '83 (hope my wife doesn't read this -- we've been married since '81!) really wasn't fair use. I'm not saying that we should both be stoned by an angry mob of musicians, but we might as well be honest with ourselves.

You are, of course, free to patronize only artists who have a view of copyright similar to your own, just as you may choose to dine only with friends, or you may create and freely distribute your own work, or grow your own food and give it away. None of your freedoms are changed here.

Artists who choose to sign with a label and sell copies of their music have made a choice. Why shouldn't we respect their freedom and their choices?

Oh, and next time you're at the library, read the paragraph on the Xerox machine about copying chapters from copyrighted books (That phrase always scans badly. "Books under copyright"?). Better yet, read the copyright notice in a book, which will often detail "short extracts published in a review" as being the limit.

[ Parent ]

well.. I do care.. (none / 0) (#88)
by jx100 on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 06:15:06 PM EST

Well, the purpose of copyright law is *not* to protect property, but to allow the makers to be compensated. If the maker *does* get compensated with some sufficient amount of money, I really don't see *why* copyright infringement is really a problem. The artist gets paid, and the consumers are happy.

[ Parent ]
Ah, digital utopia (none / 0) (#55)
by D Jade on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:09:09 AM EST

I have to admit to a bias on this. I'm not in any way connected with the music industry, but I am a listener, and it strikes me that there was a tremendous opportunity in the digitization of music. Suddenly there was no need for any album to go out of print ever again, since there was no need to mass-produce them. At this point in history, I should be able to go to Sony or BMG or whomever and download a copy of some 1929 jazz album if I want to.

Completely understand where you're coming from and when digitisation first got my attention ten years ago I too was excited by the possibilities. Unfortunately though, the big record companies have not been so forthcoming in providing the service. It's more likely that "Bill" would have been the one to provide you that copy of the 1929 Jazz album because he had an original copy which he recorded into his computer.

It's rare for me to come across any copies of any commercial back-catalogue releases that have been produced by the releasing label itself.

I think that's the one problem though. A lot of the image given to the downloading population is that they are leeching off the system. But most people I talk with (in Soulseek and other places) are some of the most passionate about the music. They're the biggest fans and enthusiasts. They download the music for free because it's the only way they could afford to hear it.

The other thing that gets me is that the popular music is available for free through the radio anyway. I often record radio shows straight into my computer. So I think if they want to get extreme and stop file sharing, they'd best stop the radio and television as well... because obviously they are contributing for the so-called "loss" in sales (which has seen the big four quietly announcing record profits over the last five years).

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I dunno bout that... (none / 1) (#54)
by D Jade on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 02:02:16 AM EST

I have about 200gb worth of MP3's on my computer. About half of those have been downloaded for free. So I am much like your daughter's friend in that respect. The thing is that I have friends and well, when they come visit me, I always burn them some music (usually stuff under the Creative Commons license or rare and cancelled works). Even if I had an iPod for every occasion and wireless this and that and such, I can't see myself not purchasing CDs and DVDs anytime in the near future. I'll go through about 200 CDs a month and 50 DVDs.

Then again, I am also an independent artist, so maybe I fit into the other category.

It's a tough call though. I don't mind that I don't get paid for much of my produced work, it really doesn't bother me because I get paid for my live performances and I am registered with APRA so I get paid when another artist plays my music. It's not much, only a few hundred dollars a year.

Any money I make from my music is seen as a bonus in my eyes anyway. The real payment I get from producing music is seeing the reaction it gets on a dancefloor, hearing feedback from someone who's listened to it and working and learning with other artists. I'd rather that than getting paid millions and millionses of dollars and not having that connection with my audience and with my work.

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

JUST music. (none / 0) (#38)
by sudog on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:47:16 PM EST

ANY other copyrighted works are NOT paid-for and are NOT legal.

It's an important distinction.


[ Parent ]

not only that... (none / 0) (#82)
by issachar on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 03:01:58 PM EST

Just music by Canadian artists. (or more accurately those who the government deems to be Canadian).

I'm not sure if he gets part of the media levy or not, but Brian Adams is considered non-Canadian for the purposes of our stupid Canadian Content laws.


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

You sure? (none / 0) (#84)
by sudog on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 01:08:42 AM EST

Because I believe the Federal Court made the judgement based on the current copyright law as it refers to music and sounds recordings, which covers all music recordings that are protected by Canadian Copyright Law--and that means American, Finnish, British, French..   all of it.


[ Parent ]
It's not even close to that simple. (none / 1) (#83)
by issachar on Fri Nov 11, 2005 at 03:09:57 PM EST

Firstly, if you were going to argue that downloads were defacto legal because you paid for them via the levy, it would only apply to songs by Canadian artists that you actually burn to a media format that is subject to the levy.

Hard drives are not subject to the levy nor are iPods and the like. So unless you're copying the songs to tape or burning them to CD, you're most likely not paying the levy.

Secondly, the argument that the levy actually makes downloading legal has not been proven. As it stands we have copyright law and a levy. No legal judgement has been made that states that the levy provides an exception to copyright law.

That's not to say I don't find the argument compelling. It's just that it's a bit simplistic to say "it's legal".


---
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Humanitarians scare me.
Diary? I do a blog.
[ Parent ]

Very close (none / 0) (#101)
by wnight on Sat Nov 26, 2005 at 07:23:30 AM EST

It has been tested with CD-to-CD copying. I also asked an Industry Canada representative, who had the floor at a copyright symposium, if this meant that copying music was legal. His answer was "Yes".

While there's always a chance things will go differently, and this likely will be different if not onto CDs, it appears that tariffs on CDs have made copying music onto those CDs legal.

No real proof either, just to point out that the government seems to think its legal...

[ Parent ]

The final word on downloading and file-sharing (3.00 / 3) (#35)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 03:38:25 PM EST

It has only served to polarize the two groups of people in the music business: the successful and the non-successful.

How many musicians or people in rock bands do you know that make a solid 40 - 50 K a year? Noe, right?

They either make $10000000000000 a year or $0.99 a year. There has never been an in-between for those cats. At least, not for the last 50 years or so.

So, now, big acts have to actually offer you something. You get a DVD in the CD if you buy it. Or, they have to tour more. Things like that. No more forcing themselves to put in a solid 3 weeks a year of work, like in the good ol' days.

But, for the underground, up-and-comers, they are just not making that possible $15,000 a year they might have made otherwise. On the other had, more people than ever have the chance to hear them, since they are not required to tour excessively to get their music in people's hands. They used to have to do that, of course.

As for the REAL music, that being Black Metal, I can finally find the bands I love and get all their records since they are not sold in normal record stores unless you order them from frikkin Scandanavia. It also keeps me from having to into said gay-ass stores and endure even 2 seconds of some piece of crap from whichever lame Emo band the guy behind the counter is in.

So, on the whole, downloading has just changed the industry and made them have to work a little harder. Also, music is less of a commodity than it used to be, so that's cool, too.

Download 4 evar!

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.

Black Fucking Metal \m/ (none / 1) (#52)
by Jebediah on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:11:43 AM EST

Fuck yeah! I had maybe 20 CDs before I stumbled upon real metal! The Internet is really to thank for it too. Before in the vinyl and tape days you really needed to know somebody into the stuff to hear it. Now we can hit up the sites (unless they are so n3kkr0bskr3 they don't have a site), download samples, order the albums online. Hit me up if you want to talk metal \m/ NP: Pest - Lfit es Dauđafrđ

[ Parent ]
1349 4 EVAR!!!!! \m/ (none / 0) (#63)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:23:07 AM EST


----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

was that the venice opyright act? (none / 0) (#100)
by Lemon Juice on Fri Nov 25, 2005 at 02:26:26 PM EST

by any chance?

[ Parent ]
There is a middle ground... (none / 1) (#53)
by D Jade on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 01:51:11 AM EST

Just because you don't see it, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I know plenty of musicians and producers who earn a steady income through performance and production. Either by single sales or through licensing their works for DJ compilations and the like.

Most of the people I know who aren't making anything out of their work but still do it are happier to know that 1000, 10000, 100000 people have listened to their music. That's why most of those poor musicians do it. I know that's why I do.

It's interesting though because the electronic music industry functions in a vastly different manner to more traditional styles. P2P and file sharing has helped to grow the scene more than any other tool in the past five years. It's also one of the few styles of music I've come across that has fully embraced the whole concept of the digital download business. Sites like beatport, edm and tranzfusion digital are just a few of the sites out there that have legitimate downloads at a cost that is actually affordable and most dj's and fans I know are more than happy to pay 2 dollars for a choon that they like.

Completely agree with what you're saying though. My biggest issue with the case against file sharing is that there is actually no supporting evidence to demonstrate the harm that it causes. I could totally appreciate Lars Ulrich's stance if he could show that Metallica had to shut up shop and go work in a gas station because of P2P Networks. However, I haven't heard any similar stories like this to date.

My feeling is that if you are really an artist then your main intention is to share art with the world. I've never spoken to a producer or band member who had a problem with the fact that I had downloaded their music. I mean, there's just so much out there to listen to. If everyone had to pay for every piece of music they owned, it seems more likely that actual sales would go down because no one could afford it. Then of course, suicide rates would go up because people got sick of listening to the same fucking Britney song on the radio all day...

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

Artists are incredibly needy and insatiable (none / 0) (#59)
by Harvey Anderson on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 09:30:28 AM EST

attention whores. As long as there is one person who will stroke their ego, they will do their thing.

[ Parent ]
Kind of like your comment? eh $ (none / 1) (#69)
by D Jade on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 06:23:14 PM EST



You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
Guy's walking down the street (none / 0) (#73)
by Harvey Anderson on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 09:16:46 AM EST

shooting people. I shoot him. Well, I must like killing too!

[ Parent ]
So by replying, I'm stroking your ego... (none / 1) (#77)
by D Jade on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 06:26:01 PM EST

and so you'll continue doing your thing... right?

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]
I just told you no. (none / 0) (#79)
by Harvey Anderson on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 08:47:14 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Yeah, I understand that there actually IS (none / 0) (#62)
by Egil Skallagrimson on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 10:22:23 AM EST

a small margin of people making a steady, though moderate income. However, ity is highly likely that the internet is helping them far more than it is hindering them. Mostly, this is a paradigm shift that people are having to adapt to.

So, when whiners like Ulrich get up and talk about how someone is taking their money, it makes me think: You wanker, you only have a career because someone bothered to listen to you. Just because you earn 10 million instead o f 11 million doesn't make a difference to me except to say that, now i won't EVER buy your crap again.

But, that margin of middle players are probably not losing becasue they are making their income from word-of-mouth, just like before.

----------------

Enterobacteria phage T2 is a virulent bacteriophage of the T4-like viruses genus, in the family Myoviridae. It infects E. coli and is the best known of the T-even phages. Its virion contains linear double-stranded DNA, terminally redundant and circularly permuted.
[ Parent ]

It's pretty much identical to the design industry (none / 0) (#70)
by D Jade on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 06:26:25 PM EST

Architects have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on materials and tuition. They study for five plus years and then have to work crappy design jobs that pay less than McDonalds.

The only difference between the music industry and any other creative industry is the profile that successful musicians enjoy.

And that's exactly the thought I had when Ulrich started whinging like a bitch... In fact, I downloaded three copies of each of his albums in as many formats as I could find... Just to piss him off... ehehe

You're a shitty troll, so stop pretending you have more of a life than a cool dude -- HollyHopDrive
[ Parent ]

I've always loved the bizarre links drawn (none / 0) (#43)
by Have A Nice Day on Tue Nov 08, 2005 at 08:46:49 AM EST

"Copyright Piracy funds Terrorism!" is my favourite, but linking P2P to illegal music sellers is also crazy.

I've always failed to see how people can be supporting terrorism or organised crime by downloading data and not giving anyone any money for it. I'm not saying the behaviour is necessarily moral or right, just that the FUD, propaganda and outright crap in the anti piracy campaigns is stunning to behold.

Best stop Junior downloading that "Kazaa" thing, when he downloads music he's supporting the darn terr'ists!

--------------
Have A Nice Day may have reentered the building.
Creative? Bah! (none / 1) (#65)
by cdguru on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 11:31:29 AM EST

I keep hearing about how the "sharing of culture allows for the expansion and enrichment of it." Drivel. Nonsense.

Let's see here what the elimination of copyright would get us. The very first thing is the endless repetition of anything that was deemed to be "popular". You would hear the current "popular song" (whatever that is) in every commercial. You would hear people endlessly imitating whatever was found to "work" because it would get them an audience.

Of course, you would also find that large distributors would immediately dive into the market. If you didn't have a fast Internet connection, you could then go buy a copy of the latest collection of boy-band music done by their very own local artists. Think of an entire CD filled with 15 tracks of the same song by 15 different bands. That would certainly eliminate the question about what to do with a CD that has only one track you really want, wouldn't it.

Why do I believe the result would be this? Human nature, partly. If you are rewarded for bringing home flowers, you are likely to do so again. If you are rewarded for performing some task at work, you are likely to be motivated to do that again. You are not anywhere near as likely to experiment and try other tasks that may be just as important, at least not as likely as you are to repeat your recent positive experience.

Similarly, but not exactly the same is the case of Stephen King. He writes what some people consider to be excellent horror fiction. He can pretty much sit down and write a horror novel and have his publisher give him a check. Everyone knows it will sell well. This does not motivate him to write romance novels, something he might be equally good at. Or not.

Removing restrictions on "reuse, rerelease and recycling" of "popular culture" while it is still popular would certainly be reinforced by this. Considering digital reproduction being flawless, there would be significant motivation not to experiment but instead to simply copy. Copies would not be reinterpretations or improvements but copies, with bonus points for being as close to the original work as possible. Sure, there may be some daring souls that are willing to stake their reputation on the idea that their rendition of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" is better than the Beatles - but chances are you would end up with William Shatner's version. Who made more, was more popular and has more recognition with this song; the Beatles or William Shatner?

This is not to imply that William Shatner's version isn't "artistically valid". I can spread dog excrement on wallpaper and be "artistically valid", but it is unlikely I will achieve either fame or fortune by doing so. However, if I have access to something that is a proven success and can provide it to other people, I may achieve both fame and fortune.

Many of you will see right away that the supposed value of the Internet is to eliminate the "providing" part. Suddenly, everyone is supposed to have equal access to all things. This is an illusion. Not everyone is skilled in using a search engine. Not everyone is using the same search engine. Not everyone has equal access to the Internet and equal knowledge of the tools that may be available. This inequality will never be completely resolved - regardless of the attempts of the educational system otherwise, some people will always have talents and abilities that others do not. Therefore, some people will be better at gathering or providing materials for others.

We can choose to have creators or gatherers.

rediculous examples (3.00 / 2) (#68)
by projectpaperclip on Wed Nov 09, 2005 at 04:18:44 PM EST

I'm not going to argue whether or not file sharing is a good or bad thing, or whether or not sharing of culture does anything, but if you expect to be convincing in the least, you need to come up with better examples.

"The very first thing is the endless repetition of anything that was deemed to be "popular". You would hear the current "popular song" (whatever that is) in every commercial. You would hear people endlessly imitating whatever was found to "work" because it would get them an audience."

What evidence do you have to suggest anything like this? This is nothing other than pure speculation, but let's put your theory to the test. What are advertisers trying to accomplish with ads? They want you to remember their brand or product when you make a purchase decision. They currently use popular songs in order to DISTINGUISH themselves from competitors and catch your attention. Now, if copyright was scrapped and every advertisers could use the same popular songs, how could they possibly distinguish their ads from other advertisers using the same songs?? If anything, this would spur more creativity because advertisers would have to continually come up with their own songs to promote their products instead of relying on popular artists to produce music for them. Like I said, I'm not arguing for or against this, but just that your example doesn't prove what you intend it to, and quite possibly could lead to the opposite.

Furthermore: "you could then go buy a copy of the latest collection of boy-band music done by their very own local artists."

Well, holy shit, YOU CAN DO THAT NOW! Anybody can cover any piece of music, for a nominal fee paid to Harry Fox Agency. There is absolutely no way to prohibit another artist from covering your music, you can only require that they pay a statuatory, non-negotiable, and very small fee. Many artists do this. The fee is so small, that anybody could easily pay it if they are selling a CD compilation of cover songs (Cleopatra records practically makes most of their revenue this way). If there was a demand for 15 local boy bands to cover a popular song and sell it on 1 CD, they can do that right now, no laws broken. What you see instead, is that popular songs are often included on compilations of the ORIGINAL tracks, they are of course licensed at a much higher non-statuatory rate that is negotiated with the publisher for use of the ORIGINAL recording, not a cover. Use of an original recording can be prohibited, but you find that these popular songs make so much money, that it is more profitable to license the originals and sell compilations than it is to produce cover versions by local artists. Your example has absolutely nothing to do with the law as it currently exists.

And on your whole argument of copying encouraging copying, instead of experimenting... why would anybody do this? If all the restrictions were off, what possible motive would an artist have to copy another artist? They couldn't possibly count on selling that material since anybody else could similarly copy it for free... you obviously are not an artist if you think that anything will stop artists from experimenting and tweaking things. They do this not to make money, but because it is thrilling for them to do so. More precisely... artists attempt to make money from their art as it affords them more time to do their art, not the other way around. Sure, there are pretenders who do it to make money, but you just removed their incentive to copy, since it will be no more profitable for them than the original artist. Again, not saying this is good or bad from a cultural point of view, your argument just doesn't make consistent logical sense with itself.

[ Parent ]

Ooookay (none / 0) (#91)
by der on Fri Nov 18, 2005 at 07:59:10 PM EST

So basically, artists will quit creating because distributors will make CDs full of boy band songs?

That point about songs in commercials is so incredibly retarded I won't even bother to point out why, assuming the average K5er can breate, chew gum, etc.

I hope you're not serious, because this is one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time. God help you if you're not trolling.



[ Parent ]
The world today (none / 0) (#99)
by elgardo on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 03:23:03 PM EST

The very first thing is the endless repetition of anything that was deemed to be "popular". You would hear the current "popular song" (whatever that is) in every commercial. You would hear people endlessly imitating whatever was found to "work" because it would get them an audience.

This is how the world is today. But how would it be if we eliminated copyright?

[ Parent ]

An Argument I Got from Richard Stallman (3.00 / 4) (#76)
by MichaelCrawford on Thu Nov 10, 2005 at 05:55:48 PM EST

Basically, the whole point behind everything Richard Stallman has ever done is that the ability to copy and transmit digital files completely faithfully and with zero cost changes things entirely from the days when it costs money to make a copy, and copying was lossy.

Copyright is granted by the government, not to benefit the artist, but to benefit society. By granting the artist a temporary monopoly, they are encouraged to create more works that the public can benefit from. A fact that seems to have been conveniently forgotten is that the artist is supposed to pay for the monopoly he was granted by allowing his works to pass eventually into the public domain.

Stallman's argument doesn't dispute the above. Instead, he asserts that society will be benefitted more by permitting free copying of digital files than it would be by granting creators a monopoly.

Note that, in the US at least, copyright was not originally created because creators were considered to have any sort of property that deserved protection. Intellectual property is a very recent invention in history, and has very specious intellectual underpinnings.

The idea that people can own knowledge is propaganda whose drum has been beaten for almost two hundred years by copyright and patent holders, and, much as Hitler explained with his Big Lie, repetition has caused most to come to believe it.


--

Live your fucking life. Sue someone on the Internet. Write a fucking music player. Like the great man Michael David Crawford has shown us all: Hard work, a strong will to stalk, and a few fries short of a happy meal goes a long way. -- bride of spidy


owning knowledge (none / 0) (#102)
by dke on Mon Nov 28, 2005 at 04:45:05 PM EST

Telling that people cannot own knowledge is absurd.

What you're preaching is that people have to share that knowledge. One cannot share what one does not own.
Nothing is ever easy
[ Parent ]

Legality is irrelevant (1.66 / 3) (#85)
by kurtmweber on Sat Nov 12, 2005 at 02:52:54 PM EST

It's still wrong, and those who do it are still evil.  A creator is morally entitled to the products of his own mind, period, end of story.

Kurt Weber
Any field of study can be considered 'complex' when it starts using Hebrew letters for symbols.--me
I am evil $ (none / 0) (#86)
by An onymous Coward on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 08:02:57 AM EST



"Your voice is irrelevant. Stop embarrassing yourself. Please." -stuaart
[ Parent ]
I agree morality and legality can be separate, but (none / 0) (#87)
by jx100 on Sun Nov 13, 2005 at 02:09:50 PM EST

Mm.. no.

A person has the right to control over the ideas in their own head.  A creator has the right to control the ideas they create, but *only* until they release said ideas to the public.  Then they become part of the public consciousness and culture, and the creator effectively loses any sort of moral right to  control.  The true posessors of the idea will be anyone who has the idea in their head or otherwise in their control.

[ Parent ]

Moral Entitlement, in $$ (none / 0) (#89)
by A synx on Mon Nov 14, 2005 at 12:44:49 AM EST

So, how much exactly does a moral entitlement cost in dollars?  What about people who sell their moral entitlement, say for instance to the Disney corporation?  What's the exchange rate these days, between dollars and morality?  I always thought that morals were standards of behavior, not economic assets.  Unless you mean people may become moral by  spending money?  Way to promote crass consumerism!

Or, seriously, are you referring to the Creative Commons by-sa agreement?  Because that doesn't prevent sharing, while preserving the author's "moral entitlement" without a single penny spent.

[ Parent ]

Freedom of thought (3.00 / 2) (#98)
by Znork on Sun Nov 20, 2005 at 12:14:12 PM EST

A creator may be morally entitled to the products of their own mind, but as soon as those products pass out of his mind and merge into anothers mind they become a product of that mind.

As such, attempting to assert control over any such products becomes an attempt to control and prevent freedom of thought and creativity, which is a far more atrocious evil.

[ Parent ]

Hmm (none / 0) (#103)
by MissMatch on Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:20:41 PM EST

Was this campaign sucessful, personally I dont see how this could affect anything by that much. If things have to change you must address everything to the politicians make the rules.

Operation Teddy: P2P sharing is not illegal | 101 comments (85 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!