The Recording Industry Likes to Make Me Look Like an Asshole(blog.earbits.com)
blog.earbits.com
The Recording Industry Likes to Make Me Look Like an Asshole
http://blog.earbits.com/online_radio/the-recording-industry-likes-to-make-me-look-like-an-asshole/
30 comments
HE'S A WITCH! BURN HIM!
This is an interesting point.
I have no idea, but is it reasonable to make the claim that the DMCA is flawed? By that I mean, is it excessively annoying / ineffective to actually use the DMCA for its intended purpose?
(I'm not referring to DMCA abuses... just whether it's fundamentally broken or not.)
I haven't really given it much thought. I always assumed that the DMCA was a reasonable middle ground. But is it?
I have no idea, but is it reasonable to make the claim that the DMCA is flawed? By that I mean, is it excessively annoying / ineffective to actually use the DMCA for its intended purpose?
(I'm not referring to DMCA abuses... just whether it's fundamentally broken or not.)
I haven't really given it much thought. I always assumed that the DMCA was a reasonable middle ground. But is it?
If you believe that the purpose of the DMCA is to make it so you can sit back and do nothing and all piracy magically stops by Sheer Force of Law, it doesn't work.
If you believe the purpose of the DMCA is to give rights holders a certain amount of power to self-enforce and are willing to concede that it won't all be stopped, it works pretty well.
If your opinion is somewhere in between, adjust as needed.
I think if earbits wanted to clean up his essay a bit he should come out and state clearly and explicitly what his goal for his desired legal regime is. I suspect he's sneaking in an implicit requirement that it be perfect on us, and if you accept that you'll never be satisfied. There is no set of tools that the government can hand the industry to eliminate piracy. Even SOPA isn't draconian enough. On the other hand, once you accept that a certain amount of lossage is inevitable and that we expect rightsholders to only really have to chase down violations on the largest sites and have the tools to catch the vast bulk, the argument that the DMCA is some sort of grossly flawed bill becomes much, much harder to just float by without justification. There's a huge gap in the logic there, which I think is what some people are choking on without quite consciously realizing it.
I suspect that actually filling in that gap will inevitably erode the perceived power of the argument, though. He complains technical people aren't working out how to solve a problem that he can't actually give his true requirements for without losing his audience.
If you believe the purpose of the DMCA is to give rights holders a certain amount of power to self-enforce and are willing to concede that it won't all be stopped, it works pretty well.
If your opinion is somewhere in between, adjust as needed.
I think if earbits wanted to clean up his essay a bit he should come out and state clearly and explicitly what his goal for his desired legal regime is. I suspect he's sneaking in an implicit requirement that it be perfect on us, and if you accept that you'll never be satisfied. There is no set of tools that the government can hand the industry to eliminate piracy. Even SOPA isn't draconian enough. On the other hand, once you accept that a certain amount of lossage is inevitable and that we expect rightsholders to only really have to chase down violations on the largest sites and have the tools to catch the vast bulk, the argument that the DMCA is some sort of grossly flawed bill becomes much, much harder to just float by without justification. There's a huge gap in the logic there, which I think is what some people are choking on without quite consciously realizing it.
I suspect that actually filling in that gap will inevitably erode the perceived power of the argument, though. He complains technical people aren't working out how to solve a problem that he can't actually give his true requirements for without losing his audience.
I think it's safe to say that the Web 2.0 user-generated content sites were not envisioned (by either side) when the DMCA was drafted. These sites have made it so easy to share content and their business model does nothing to discourage infringement (compared to traditional Web hosting); these factors have shifted the balance so that infringement is much easier than enforcement. I don't know how to fix that, especially since there's a powerful status quo bias now that Web 2.0 has existed for so long.
Well, I'll start by saying that it's excessively annoying that each artist and independent label and movie creator and so on, are responsible for knowing about and checking for their material on every site that provides MP3s, videos, etc. New ones pop up all of the time and it's impossible for most of these companies and individuals to even know about them, let alone check them from time to time.
But then it gets worse, because you have sites like Grooveshark, which plenty of people do know about, do police, and do contact to have their content taken down, only to have that content reappear every other day. As of right now both The Eagles and King Crimson have publicly shared their lengthy email histories with Grooveshark, asking repeatedly to have their content removed. Grooveshark removes it, and then 24-48 hours later most of it is back on the site. Technically this is covered by the DMCA and it is the artist and their label's job to go to Grooveshark every day, find the content, pull the links, notify the company, and keep doing this over and over. The problem is, between the upload and the takedown, the content is there long enough for people who might otherwise use a legal service or purchase the material to access it as much as they want.
But then it gets worse, because you have sites like Grooveshark, which plenty of people do know about, do police, and do contact to have their content taken down, only to have that content reappear every other day. As of right now both The Eagles and King Crimson have publicly shared their lengthy email histories with Grooveshark, asking repeatedly to have their content removed. Grooveshark removes it, and then 24-48 hours later most of it is back on the site. Technically this is covered by the DMCA and it is the artist and their label's job to go to Grooveshark every day, find the content, pull the links, notify the company, and keep doing this over and over. The problem is, between the upload and the takedown, the content is there long enough for people who might otherwise use a legal service or purchase the material to access it as much as they want.
The fundamental flaw of the DMCA is that it does not provide a mechanism for handling sites that exist outside U.S. legal jurisdiction (but of course are just as easily reached by U.S. citizens).
There is a volume problem with the DMCA, as earbit notes, but I tend to think that that is solvable with software.
But when a site sits on a fat pipe in the Ukraine, serving up every movie made in the last 10 years for free, there is currently nothing in the DMCA or other U.S. law that can do anything about it.
There is a volume problem with the DMCA, as earbit notes, but I tend to think that that is solvable with software.
But when a site sits on a fat pipe in the Ukraine, serving up every movie made in the last 10 years for free, there is currently nothing in the DMCA or other U.S. law that can do anything about it.
I hope one day you come to think about what you are really saying.
The music industry isn't a thousand part as important as a usefull internet. Frankly copyright has become far too difficult to enforce without killing the internet so we should drop the enforcement, accept the decline in output from the movie/music industry (and I am ok with it going all the way to zero) and move on.
Unlike a lot of others here I don't have anything against mainstream music, but I do no that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that the price of copyright, compared to the additional value created by it, is too high.
Remember there is no natural right to copyright, it was allowed by the founders as a way to promote useful art and science - and there is no requirement that we keep it.
The music industry isn't a thousand part as important as a usefull internet. Frankly copyright has become far too difficult to enforce without killing the internet so we should drop the enforcement, accept the decline in output from the movie/music industry (and I am ok with it going all the way to zero) and move on.
Unlike a lot of others here I don't have anything against mainstream music, but I do no that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that the price of copyright, compared to the additional value created by it, is too high.
Remember there is no natural right to copyright, it was allowed by the founders as a way to promote useful art and science - and there is no requirement that we keep it.
You could model after the pharmaceutical companies where
the drug gets a waiting period before generics can compete.
Use 12 months, Require downloadable files be zipped with a header that can be searched and automatically deleted.
Everything on the internet must be downloaded before it gets to you. Even if you suppose there's some censor out there looking for anything with the "copyright bit" set, it still wouldn't work, because so long as you could send two different messages that would pass some censor, you could encode one of them as a 0, the other as a 1, then do a horribly inefficient data transfer that bypasses whatever controls are in place.
You may think that's ridiculous, but things of that sort already exist. For example, there's a way to use DNS as a tunnel for other data. Yes, doing that is crazy.
If I'm incredibly pessimistic about this, it's because I've watched the long history of failure as many smart people attempted, then utterly failed, at doing this. One side must be perfect. The other needs just one opening. Games like that are so massively unfair that the only winning move is not to play. And you don't have to play: I've already pointed out how some artists have adapted and are doing good business. People want to support them. That's the way forward.
Maybe I'm wrong and someone will invent some magic technology that stops piracy. But anyone who is holding their breath waiting for it is very likely to suffocate. There are people looking for the way forward. It's just not a technical solution.
You may think that's ridiculous, but things of that sort already exist. For example, there's a way to use DNS as a tunnel for other data. Yes, doing that is crazy.
If I'm incredibly pessimistic about this, it's because I've watched the long history of failure as many smart people attempted, then utterly failed, at doing this. One side must be perfect. The other needs just one opening. Games like that are so massively unfair that the only winning move is not to play. And you don't have to play: I've already pointed out how some artists have adapted and are doing good business. People want to support them. That's the way forward.
Maybe I'm wrong and someone will invent some magic technology that stops piracy. But anyone who is holding their breath waiting for it is very likely to suffocate. There are people looking for the way forward. It's just not a technical solution.
I hope one day you come to think about what you are really saying. It's too hard to protect the interests of artists, fuck 'em.
>It's too hard to protect the interests of artists, fuck 'em.
It's too hard to protect the interests of buggy-whip makers. Let's outlaw automobiles. It's too hard to protect the interests of barges. Let's outlaw trains. It's too hard to protect the interests of ocean liners. Lets outlaw air travel.
No one is entitled to a living. No one should have to rely on the government to protect their business model. If your business model doesn't work in an Internet-enabled world, too fucking bad. We didn't bail out the buggy whip makers for having a business model that couldn't survive in an automobile enabled world. We didn't bail out the barge and steamboat industry when trains came along. Why should we bail out the recording industry because they can't hack it in an Internet-enabled world?
Because that's what this is. A bailout. This a bailout that dwarfs the bank bailout in terms of the harm it can do to our economy and our liberty. And it's not even a bailout for artists. It's a bailout for a parasitic monster that, as far as I can tell only serves to funnel money from consumers to lobbyists.
EDIT: By your logic, even the recording industry itself shouldn't exist. The recording industry killed off the "home-performance" industry and drastically cut sheet music sales by making and distributing recordings of performances. So who's looking out for their interests?
It's too hard to protect the interests of buggy-whip makers. Let's outlaw automobiles. It's too hard to protect the interests of barges. Let's outlaw trains. It's too hard to protect the interests of ocean liners. Lets outlaw air travel.
No one is entitled to a living. No one should have to rely on the government to protect their business model. If your business model doesn't work in an Internet-enabled world, too fucking bad. We didn't bail out the buggy whip makers for having a business model that couldn't survive in an automobile enabled world. We didn't bail out the barge and steamboat industry when trains came along. Why should we bail out the recording industry because they can't hack it in an Internet-enabled world?
Because that's what this is. A bailout. This a bailout that dwarfs the bank bailout in terms of the harm it can do to our economy and our liberty. And it's not even a bailout for artists. It's a bailout for a parasitic monster that, as far as I can tell only serves to funnel money from consumers to lobbyists.
EDIT: By your logic, even the recording industry itself shouldn't exist. The recording industry killed off the "home-performance" industry and drastically cut sheet music sales by making and distributing recordings of performances. So who's looking out for their interests?
The difference between your examples and the music industry is that buggy whip makers lost because they had an inferior product; who would want a horse-driven carriage when they could have a car? But here, people are still TAKING the music, just without paying. That's the problem.
SOPA isn't the right answer. It tramples on too many fundamental rights for it to be. But to simply say that the music industry should die because the Internet makes piracy easy, that's a bold statement. Within a decade, books will be scanned and turned into eBooks at an incredible rate. It's already happening, but the technology is too slow to make digitizing every book right away possible. But when it does get there, will writers still be encouraged to write? Their books could be so easily pirated. Sure, some might still write. But those who write books on obscure subjects might not find the motivation to write anymore books when their book turns up on a torrent site instantly. And what about when 3D printers and 3D scanners get to a state of mass-consumption? Who will buy furniture anymore when they could scan and build it themselves from pirated blueprints?
There's no easy answer. But to just say "too fucking bad" is wrong.
SOPA isn't the right answer. It tramples on too many fundamental rights for it to be. But to simply say that the music industry should die because the Internet makes piracy easy, that's a bold statement. Within a decade, books will be scanned and turned into eBooks at an incredible rate. It's already happening, but the technology is too slow to make digitizing every book right away possible. But when it does get there, will writers still be encouraged to write? Their books could be so easily pirated. Sure, some might still write. But those who write books on obscure subjects might not find the motivation to write anymore books when their book turns up on a torrent site instantly. And what about when 3D printers and 3D scanners get to a state of mass-consumption? Who will buy furniture anymore when they could scan and build it themselves from pirated blueprints?
There's no easy answer. But to just say "too fucking bad" is wrong.
I doubt quanticle's intent is to say the music industry should die simply because the Internet makes piracy easy. I certainly wouldn't say that. What I would say is the music industry needs to adapt, and find a business model that works in an Internet-enabled world. Instead, they're digging in their heels and trying to "solve" this problem by suing their customers and trying to turn their customer base into felons. Actually, I take it back. The music industry absolutely should die. They're just a bunch of middlemen who are now living in a world where the Internet makes middlemen obsolete. Musical artists absolutely should thrive, and there's ample evidence to suggest that they can thrive in an Internet-enabled world. For a perfect example, just take a look at Jonathan Coulton. There's absolutely no reason to believe that musical artists can't continue to create and sell their music with the Internet. But the music industry itself is a parasite.
But that is my point. SOPA is necessary if you want to defeat piracy (actually even SOPA isn't enough, since you can still lend a friend you physical drive, but I guess they would be ok with that), nothing less will do. Even the DMCA (which is still a horrible piece of crap) isn't nearly enough.
So the deal is: do you want to de facto (but not de jure) allow the unrestricted copying of copyrighted works, or do you want to effectively reduce the internet to a walled garden of a few big companies? No more startups, no more wikipedia, no more youtube, no more wordpress, no more twitter?
And it isn't just that -- no more youtube means no more police brutality videos, no more twitter means no more real-time updates from ordinary people, no more wordpress means that if you want to launch a movement or voice your concern you better pray that the MSM will pick it up.
So the deal is: do you want to de facto (but not de jure) allow the unrestricted copying of copyrighted works, or do you want to effectively reduce the internet to a walled garden of a few big companies? No more startups, no more wikipedia, no more youtube, no more wordpress, no more twitter?
And it isn't just that -- no more youtube means no more police brutality videos, no more twitter means no more real-time updates from ordinary people, no more wordpress means that if you want to launch a movement or voice your concern you better pray that the MSM will pick it up.
>The difference between your examples and the music industry is that buggy whip makers lost because they had an inferior product; who would want a horse-driven carriage when they could have a car?" But here, people are still TAKING the music, just without paying. That's the problem.
I think an argument could be made that the music industry has such a piracy problem (I concede this here, in spite of the music industry constantly reporting greater profit) because it is providing an inferior product, or service.
(I am linking to the discussion.) There was a very interesting GamaSutra article posted here about a month ago, on how Valve sees piracy as a "non-issue": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3155052
The summary from 10,000 feet is that the way to beat the pirates is to give those that buy the product a better service than the pirates do. Making music as difficult to acquire (oy, the fuss they put up about previews and digital distribution!) and use (format shifting, moving your music along with you) is not a a very customer-friendly mod of operation.
I buy my music, but, with BitTorrent, you can listen to the entire song before you buy it. I don't know how much music I passed over because I didn't want to waste money on something that I may or may not like.
I think an argument could be made that the music industry has such a piracy problem (I concede this here, in spite of the music industry constantly reporting greater profit) because it is providing an inferior product, or service.
(I am linking to the discussion.) There was a very interesting GamaSutra article posted here about a month ago, on how Valve sees piracy as a "non-issue": http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3155052
The summary from 10,000 feet is that the way to beat the pirates is to give those that buy the product a better service than the pirates do. Making music as difficult to acquire (oy, the fuss they put up about previews and digital distribution!) and use (format shifting, moving your music along with you) is not a a very customer-friendly mod of operation.
I buy my music, but, with BitTorrent, you can listen to the entire song before you buy it. I don't know how much music I passed over because I didn't want to waste money on something that I may or may not like.
That's the thing, no one is entitled to free music, either.
Your argument is ridiculous because we're talking about a product that everybody still wants. It's not a buggy whip. It's music. If you don't want it enough to pay for it, then you just don't need to have a copy. Is that really such a hard concept for you to grasp?
Your argument is ridiculous because we're talking about a product that everybody still wants. It's not a buggy whip. It's music. If you don't want it enough to pay for it, then you just don't need to have a copy. Is that really such a hard concept for you to grasp?
>Your argument is ridiculous because we're talking about a product that everybody still wants.
Is it a product that everybody wants? Or is it a product that everybody says they want? If music were truly as appreciated as you say it is, then more people would be paying for it, no?
And guess what? More people are paying for music. iTunes is selling millions of tracks each year. Amazon is doing the same. Do you really think that artists would go out of business if they got the whole share of their iTunes proceeds, rather than having to split it with the recording industry?
As another comment below me says so eloquently, "Louis CK gets it. Trent Reznor gets it. Radiohead gets it. The recording industry doesn't get it and neither do you."
Is it a product that everybody wants? Or is it a product that everybody says they want? If music were truly as appreciated as you say it is, then more people would be paying for it, no?
And guess what? More people are paying for music. iTunes is selling millions of tracks each year. Amazon is doing the same. Do you really think that artists would go out of business if they got the whole share of their iTunes proceeds, rather than having to split it with the recording industry?
As another comment below me says so eloquently, "Louis CK gets it. Trent Reznor gets it. Radiohead gets it. The recording industry doesn't get it and neither do you."
Your ignorance and oversimplified reasoning is woeful. If banks left their vaults on locked and didnt enforce theft, you would bet your ass that people would filling their fat pockets with wads of $100s. If someone makes something and wants to charge a dollar amount you cannot say no and just take it.
Your argument of people doing it right is irrelevant. They choose to sell it one way, and other artists choose another. You as a consumer can have an opinion as to which way is most effective, but you cannot decide how they distribute.
Your argument of people doing it right is irrelevant. They choose to sell it one way, and other artists choose another. You as a consumer can have an opinion as to which way is most effective, but you cannot decide how they distribute.
Think of a bank that CANNOT have an effective vault because there is technology available that allows people to walk through solid matter.
You could outlaw (or make difficult to use, restrict its features) the walk-through-walls technology. Or you could just stop clinging to your old idea of what a bank or a vault is.
You could outlaw (or make difficult to use, restrict its features) the walk-through-walls technology. Or you could just stop clinging to your old idea of what a bank or a vault is.
You're going to drive away customers by being negative like that. That's your right to be angry, but it's not good business. The new way of doing things is to work with your fans. Screw the pirates. Pretend the pirates don't exist. They weren't going to give you money anyhow, so they can go screw themselves.
But your fans? They are. Focus on making them happy. You can't do that by being negative all the time. I know this issue is a sore spot and it makes you feel hurt. That's why I'd focus on the fans. You know, people who are happy to hear your music. You're absolutely right that making music is not obsolete, so focus on getting that music to your fans and providing the things they want. It's just good business.
See Louis CK? See that success? Go copy it.
But your fans? They are. Focus on making them happy. You can't do that by being negative all the time. I know this issue is a sore spot and it makes you feel hurt. That's why I'd focus on the fans. You know, people who are happy to hear your music. You're absolutely right that making music is not obsolete, so focus on getting that music to your fans and providing the things they want. It's just good business.
See Louis CK? See that success? Go copy it.
Why are you suddenly focusing on happiness of customers?
I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music. And what earbitcom is saying is - if you think the digital music costs too much or has too much DRM, you don't have to download it.
And, by the way, what Louis CK did that is so revolutionary? He did a show and sold the recording online. For money. What is so revolutionary in that?
I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music. And what earbitcom is saying is - if you think the digital music costs too much or has too much DRM, you don't have to download it.
And, by the way, what Louis CK did that is so revolutionary? He did a show and sold the recording online. For money. What is so revolutionary in that?
> Why are you suddenly focusing on happiness of customers?
Because that's how you get people to give you money. It should be common sense, but I see people failing badly.
Louis CK is a good example because he showed that caring more about fans than pirates is good business sense. Pirates are going to pirate, so he said screw them, I'll do right by my fans. See, you get $0 whether they pirate or don't pirate. But with fans? You get a sale if they buy and no sale if they don't. So the pirates are all zeroes anyway, while the fans are the difference between sale and no sale, and that is what makes or breaks your business.
> I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music.
As far as business goes, that debate is irrelevant. And unless you enjoy the whole starving artist thing, business is kind of important. Pirates haven't gone anywhere, so screwing your fans in the name of fighting piracy is cutting off your nose to spite your face. But you don't have to listen to me. You can tell your fans that it's your way or the highway if you want to. Just don't complain when they take the highway instead and go off to buy from someone who treats them well, like Louis CK.
Because that's how you get people to give you money. It should be common sense, but I see people failing badly.
Louis CK is a good example because he showed that caring more about fans than pirates is good business sense. Pirates are going to pirate, so he said screw them, I'll do right by my fans. See, you get $0 whether they pirate or don't pirate. But with fans? You get a sale if they buy and no sale if they don't. So the pirates are all zeroes anyway, while the fans are the difference between sale and no sale, and that is what makes or breaks your business.
> I thought the debate was about legality, or, if not that, at least about moral right to download music.
As far as business goes, that debate is irrelevant. And unless you enjoy the whole starving artist thing, business is kind of important. Pirates haven't gone anywhere, so screwing your fans in the name of fighting piracy is cutting off your nose to spite your face. But you don't have to listen to me. You can tell your fans that it's your way or the highway if you want to. Just don't complain when they take the highway instead and go off to buy from someone who treats them well, like Louis CK.
The thing is, it's the copyright holder's right to do whatever he wants with what he owns. If he wants, he can put it online for free, with Creative Commons license, for everyone to enjoy and reuse. Or he can go and sell individual songs for 50 dollars each.
And it should be his right to do so, and this right should be protected.
If you write software, you can put it under GPL code and demand that everyone, who sells and re-uses your code, also release it under GPL. And that's OK, you wrote the code, you are the author, you can do whatever you want to do with it, you can set your own rules (within the law).
But you wouldn't like some corporation (say, Microsoft) to take your GPL code and re-sell it as closed-source without you seeing a dime of that money. But that's exactly what is going on at large with music and other culture today. Sites like MegaUpload, that is now seen on here like almost a harbringer of free speech, is making giant amounts of money on other people's work.
Now I like that Louis CK is selling his comedy online without DRM. But conceptually it's not that much different from bands selling their music on iTunes, only that Louis is well known from TV.
And it should be his right to do so, and this right should be protected.
If you write software, you can put it under GPL code and demand that everyone, who sells and re-uses your code, also release it under GPL. And that's OK, you wrote the code, you are the author, you can do whatever you want to do with it, you can set your own rules (within the law).
But you wouldn't like some corporation (say, Microsoft) to take your GPL code and re-sell it as closed-source without you seeing a dime of that money. But that's exactly what is going on at large with music and other culture today. Sites like MegaUpload, that is now seen on here like almost a harbringer of free speech, is making giant amounts of money on other people's work.
Now I like that Louis CK is selling his comedy online without DRM. But conceptually it's not that much different from bands selling their music on iTunes, only that Louis is well known from TV.
> And it should be his right to do so, and this right should be protected.
While we're at it, there should also be no poverty, everyone should have a place to live, and be safe from violence, etc. But this is the real world and people need to figure out how to deal with that, unfairness included.
There simply aren't any working solutions. Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. To computers, everything is a number. You tell the computer that no one is allowed to say "5" any more and they'll say 2+3. Or 6-1. Or 10/2. You block those and they'll find infinitely many other ways of saying it. It's binary. All or nothing. Half a solution is nothing. Zero. No good. One copy is enough for everyone.
The game is completely, utterly unfair. You have to control every computer. Once there's one unrestricted copy, it's game over. That's why people are not eager to accept "solutions" that merely screw a lot of things up, but do not, will not, and cannot fix the problem, any more than all the effort put into anti-spam has stopped spammers, in spite of 99.99% of the techies in the world hating them with undying passion and working night and day to stop them.
When's the last time you got no spam at all? The piracy thing is harder because people actually want to pirate and nobody wants spam. So why would anyone accept something like SOPA, which will drag tons of innocent sites into the crossfire while accomplishing nothing? I responded initially to someone blaming the techies for not coming up with solutions. The reason for that is because there are no technical solutions.
The only real solution to piracy that anyone has managed is not to play that game. Forget the copyright game, you're just going to spend your life swearing at pirates and wasting your energy on things that do not make money. Instead, play a different game where you build up a fanbase that supports you. It has worked. I have shown actual, living, breathing examples of people who have become successful playing that game instead. If copyright were abolished tomorrow, it wouldn't even matter. The fans support them, not some knock-off or pirate.
I can't for the life of me understand why someone would instead keep at the old game. Don't they want to be successful?
While we're at it, there should also be no poverty, everyone should have a place to live, and be safe from violence, etc. But this is the real world and people need to figure out how to deal with that, unfairness included.
There simply aren't any working solutions. Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. To computers, everything is a number. You tell the computer that no one is allowed to say "5" any more and they'll say 2+3. Or 6-1. Or 10/2. You block those and they'll find infinitely many other ways of saying it. It's binary. All or nothing. Half a solution is nothing. Zero. No good. One copy is enough for everyone.
The game is completely, utterly unfair. You have to control every computer. Once there's one unrestricted copy, it's game over. That's why people are not eager to accept "solutions" that merely screw a lot of things up, but do not, will not, and cannot fix the problem, any more than all the effort put into anti-spam has stopped spammers, in spite of 99.99% of the techies in the world hating them with undying passion and working night and day to stop them.
When's the last time you got no spam at all? The piracy thing is harder because people actually want to pirate and nobody wants spam. So why would anyone accept something like SOPA, which will drag tons of innocent sites into the crossfire while accomplishing nothing? I responded initially to someone blaming the techies for not coming up with solutions. The reason for that is because there are no technical solutions.
The only real solution to piracy that anyone has managed is not to play that game. Forget the copyright game, you're just going to spend your life swearing at pirates and wasting your energy on things that do not make money. Instead, play a different game where you build up a fanbase that supports you. It has worked. I have shown actual, living, breathing examples of people who have become successful playing that game instead. If copyright were abolished tomorrow, it wouldn't even matter. The fans support them, not some knock-off or pirate.
I can't for the life of me understand why someone would instead keep at the old game. Don't they want to be successful?
>The piracy thing is harder because people actually want to pirate and nobody wants spam.
Spammers want spam. And there's more money in being a spammer than there is in being a pirate.
Spammers want spam. And there's more money in being a spammer than there is in being a pirate.
I'm not so sure about that. And they face a lot more technical opposition than pirates have, not that it matters so much.
Except that we don't see corporations taking someone else's music and selling as their own. File-sharing applies to copyrighted software too.
Sites like Grooveshark or Megaupload are distributing other peoples' work, directly making money from the distribution - it could be called selling. You can make the same argument against torrent sites like PirateBay too, they have tons of ads around the site (and that's one of the arguments against them in Swedish court). They may be in loss, but that doesn't justify their actions.
I agree with second part - that's why BSA is pushing SOPA, too. Yes, I agree that BSA itself does things that are verging from borderline legal to illegal (see earbit's article, just substitute BSA and RIAA).
I agree with second part - that's why BSA is pushing SOPA, too. Yes, I agree that BSA itself does things that are verging from borderline legal to illegal (see earbit's article, just substitute BSA and RIAA).
Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and a ton others are also directly making money from distribution of other people's work. These concepts are not clear-cut on the internet. Grooveshark often get's bundled with file-sharing websites, but they do have a deal with EMI and smaller labels, it's just that UMG want's a larger slice apparently.
I agree that this right should be protected (selling my work), but you do have this right today and nobody is going to take it away anytime soon. It just so happens that information can be distributed instantly to anywhere in the world nowadays, so the business model of selling copies is failing. There is no conceivable way of changing that other than breaking the internet.
If you paid U$1000 for a karate lesson, is teaching your friend a bit of karate stealing?
I agree that this right should be protected (selling my work), but you do have this right today and nobody is going to take it away anytime soon. It just so happens that information can be distributed instantly to anywhere in the world nowadays, so the business model of selling copies is failing. There is no conceivable way of changing that other than breaking the internet.
If you paid U$1000 for a karate lesson, is teaching your friend a bit of karate stealing?
>If you paid U$1000 for a karate lesson, is teaching your friend a bit of karate stealing?
Depends on your agreement with the karate teacher.
If you agree that you won't teach other people this technique, then technically, yes. To a friend it doesn't really matter, but on bigger scale, it does. It's called intellectual property.
Depends on your agreement with the karate teacher.
If you agree that you won't teach other people this technique, then technically, yes. To a friend it doesn't really matter, but on bigger scale, it does. It's called intellectual property.
Thing is, music isn't even a product. It's an experience. Packaged, mass-produced, recorded music is a product, but it has only been in existence for a tiny fraction of human history. On the basis of history alone, there's no good reason to think it will continue to exist.
Consider a few centuries in the future, when everybody has brain / computer interfaces, and access to perfect recollection through playback of previous sensory input. Do you think recorded music will still be a traded product then, when any friend or family member can casually transfer to you an exact reproduction of their own experience?
Consider a few centuries in the future, when everybody has brain / computer interfaces, and access to perfect recollection through playback of previous sensory input. Do you think recorded music will still be a traded product then, when any friend or family member can casually transfer to you an exact reproduction of their own experience?
Heh if it worked like current DRM, you'd have to delete your own memory to transfer it to someone else, but only when that memory is of some copyrighted visual or sound. Really interesting thought experiment :-)
No one wanted a buggy whip. They wanted, and still want, what the buggy whip got them: transportation from point A to point B.
People still want music. They never wanted the music industry.
People still want music. They never wanted the music industry.
It's worth pointing out that in general, people still have to pay for transportation even though the buggy whips are gone.
The argument here is whether in general, people still have to pay for music.
The argument here is whether in general, people still have to pay for music.
It's not just "too hard", it's impossible. You need to control every computer, everywhere, perfectly. One failure is all it takes, then its game over for your protection scheme. Technical people have been trying--and failing--to stop the piracy of computer programs. I've watched them do it for pretty much my entire life and I'm over 30. And piracy of computer programs is, in theory, an easier problem than the one faced by music because the programs have to be executed and they can try to check if they're legit or not, while music is just data. Dongles, type the Nth word on page X from the manual, code wheels, code that breaks when run in a debugger... I can relate to you the entire, long, history of failure and tell you why the schemes do not work and cannot be made to work. It's like trying to watch people prove that 2==1, convinced that they could make it work if they could find a bigger one or a maybe a smaller two.
The techs are upset because the new ways people are proposing won't just fail, they'll create all sorts of new problems in addition to failing.
Nobody hates the artists. Why would they? Artists give us great entertainment! Without the artists, we'd have nothing to enjoy. There are solutions, though. The solutions don't require new laws, they require new ways of doing business. Maybe that's not fair, but I can't help you there. No one can help you there. It's like we're trying to convince one of King Canute's advisers that a more strongly-worded rebuke will not, in fact, turn back the tide that's swallowing up their property and they're stubbornly holding their breath, waiting for a proclamation that works. The way forward is more like using the waves to provide power. Use piracy as marketing. Money comes from other things: signed products, live appearances, merchandising.
There are creative ways to solve these problems. You can even get your fans to help, like that guy I pointed to who holds parties with his fans while they help him ship his books. Anyone who is not doing this kind of thing, but instead holding their breath, waiting for techies, lawmakers or even King Canute to solve them is going to suffocate. It's not fair, but that's life for you. If it could be changed, it already would have.
The techs are upset because the new ways people are proposing won't just fail, they'll create all sorts of new problems in addition to failing.
Nobody hates the artists. Why would they? Artists give us great entertainment! Without the artists, we'd have nothing to enjoy. There are solutions, though. The solutions don't require new laws, they require new ways of doing business. Maybe that's not fair, but I can't help you there. No one can help you there. It's like we're trying to convince one of King Canute's advisers that a more strongly-worded rebuke will not, in fact, turn back the tide that's swallowing up their property and they're stubbornly holding their breath, waiting for a proclamation that works. The way forward is more like using the waves to provide power. Use piracy as marketing. Money comes from other things: signed products, live appearances, merchandising.
There are creative ways to solve these problems. You can even get your fans to help, like that guy I pointed to who holds parties with his fans while they help him ship his books. Anyone who is not doing this kind of thing, but instead holding their breath, waiting for techies, lawmakers or even King Canute to solve them is going to suffocate. It's not fair, but that's life for you. If it could be changed, it already would have.
I make video games, so I'm in exactly the same boat as musicians with respect to piracy. It sucks, sure.
But it is not worth destroying the internet to try to fix it. I would rather go bankrupt than live in the world this bill is pushing us towards.
A free and open internet is on track to do more to progress humanity than any other invention in history. Trying to derail it because musicians are finding it hard to sell CDs is selfish at best and borderline psychopathic at worst.
But it is not worth destroying the internet to try to fix it. I would rather go bankrupt than live in the world this bill is pushing us towards.
A free and open internet is on track to do more to progress humanity than any other invention in history. Trying to derail it because musicians are finding it hard to sell CDs is selfish at best and borderline psychopathic at worst.
From everything I've seen, the Internet has made distribution, sales, and publicity of indie video games vastly easier than before. This is especially true with high-profile distribution channels like Steam and Humble Indie Bundle and others. The indie video game industry seems like an industry that really does get the internet and understands that it can be a powerful force for good rather than just a means for people to pirate your stuff.
Look Joey, if you want to argue that the DMCA is flawed and we should have a stronger law to protect rightsholders, then you really need to spell out what you want that law to look like. Because it turns out that whenever anyone tries to suggest a "compromise", that compromise will break the internet in some fundamental way. That is the point that tomjen3 is making.
So tell us - how to you propose to "fix" the DMCA? Because if you won't give us any specifics except saying that the DMCA is flawed, and you won't come out against SOPA, then guess what - the recording industry is just showing the rest of us who you really are.
So tell us - how to you propose to "fix" the DMCA? Because if you won't give us any specifics except saying that the DMCA is flawed, and you won't come out against SOPA, then guess what - the recording industry is just showing the rest of us who you really are.
Okay. Don't say I didn't try.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3372166
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3372166
Some kind of audio/video fingerprint registry that allowed copyright holders to once and for all register their copyrights seems like it could be a good balance.
Places like youtube already use methods like that to keep track of copyrights. But that still doesn't deal with the problem of convincing every website to use a registry. Places like TPB definitely wouldn't. And I doubt some file locker services like MegaUpload would willingly go along with it. And if you still have websites that ignore the regulation, it basically becomes useless. So what is the benefit?
Not to mention that Youtube's system and fingerprint systems in general don't understand fair use, permission, or false positives.
My suggestion was that the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA be weakened so that you only qualify if you've taken reasonable technological steps to identify copyrighted content. You're right that's not a solution to overseas websites.
There can't be any "reasonable steps," Copyright is a matter of permission and the only people who know who has permission to do what are the owners, who are the only people authorized to give that permission in the first place.
Techies everywhere hate spam. They've used every trick in the book on the spammers. There's also anti-spam legislation. But how much spam do we still have? Tons of it. And any filter you make won't even work as well as the spam filters do, because the people actually want to pirate stuff, while they don't want spam.
So this is one of those solutions where we end up worse off than when we started, being forced to buy or create useless filters that get in the way and still don't solve the problem they were supposed to, perhaps with legal penalties for failing to do the impossible.
Techies everywhere hate spam. They've used every trick in the book on the spammers. There's also anti-spam legislation. But how much spam do we still have? Tons of it. And any filter you make won't even work as well as the spam filters do, because the people actually want to pirate stuff, while they don't want spam.
So this is one of those solutions where we end up worse off than when we started, being forced to buy or create useless filters that get in the way and still don't solve the problem they were supposed to, perhaps with legal penalties for failing to do the impossible.
Who pays for those "reasonable technological steps"?
It's too hard to protect the interests of artists, fuck 'em.
On some level I would agree with that. If the rights of party A can be protected only by draconian laws that trample the rights of parties B, C, and D, then we shouldn't pass those laws even if it really is unfair to A. And in the real world that formulation is overly generous to the record labels, who do have means to enforce their rights, just not as conveniently as they'd like because they have to deal with annoyances like evidence and due process.
On some level I would agree with that. If the rights of party A can be protected only by draconian laws that trample the rights of parties B, C, and D, then we shouldn't pass those laws even if it really is unfair to A. And in the real world that formulation is overly generous to the record labels, who do have means to enforce their rights, just not as conveniently as they'd like because they have to deal with annoyances like evidence and due process.
I do not care about the 900,000th totally unoriginal song. Nor do I care if they keep on doing it. It wouldn't do a thing to my universe of musics, nor the fact that there are too many songs in the world to consume within my lifetime, or the next lifetime.
In this context, whether or nor the music record industry lives or die have zero impact on my music collection other than when it's about dying time, or rather they think it's dying time, they must poison the landscape and everything else.
The record industry is not dying. They are actually thriving. Nor are they particularly significant. However, they want to destroy the internet in the ways it work. I resent that.
In this context, whether or nor the music record industry lives or die have zero impact on my music collection other than when it's about dying time, or rather they think it's dying time, they must poison the landscape and everything else.
The record industry is not dying. They are actually thriving. Nor are they particularly significant. However, they want to destroy the internet in the ways it work. I resent that.
Let's put that concept to bed straight away.
Nobody was protecting the interests of artists before the Internet. Nobody. 0.1% got Ozzy-level rich, 0.9% did OK, the rest of the artists were not even allowed to sell their out-of-print back catalog.
READ THIS
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Nobody was protecting the interests of artists before the Internet. Nobody. 0.1% got Ozzy-level rich, 0.9% did OK, the rest of the artists were not even allowed to sell their out-of-print back catalog.
READ THIS
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
Everyone interested on the matter should read that.
Record labels used to be a way of getting access to top equipment, producers, marketing and studios. This is all cheap nowadays, so why keep the old middlemen?
Record labels used to be a way of getting access to top equipment, producers, marketing and studios. This is all cheap nowadays, so why keep the old middlemen?
What he is saying is that the output from artists and the resulting copyrights has next to no value when compared with the value of the internet. I tend to agree, people will still make music even if they cant easily profit from it, yet if we lose the internet we are back in the stone age of communication. So what if a few special interest groups pay the price via a failed business model, empires rise and fall as it has always been and will continue to be.
Losing the internet would not send us back into the 'stone age of communication'. Losing culture/art would be much more costly. I agree that people will still make music even if they can't profit from it but the best music is made by someone who can invest all of their time into it. Having a full time jobs and trying to create great music will likely result in mediocre music.
Copyright is not the only way to financially motivate progress in culture. Public subsidy toward individuals who have enhanced culture is already a working model, and we've also had institutions like this in the past (even in the U.S. government, see Federal Project Number One).
If people create useful original content, others can reward them so as to promote future development. Donating to your favorite artist or an emerging talent should be the nature of our cultural progress, rather than the selfish strive for exuberant compensation. If money is actually necessary to produce better than what you'd call "mediocre" content, we can establish public systems to direct money for those purposes.
I highly doubt money is so necessary anyway, considering audio and video equipment and editing software are easier and easier to attain. There are kids creating music and uploading it to Soundcloud every single day, giving it away, and forming networks to distribute this content with their friends. Some of them can produce some really amazing music with _very_ cheap equipment. I could produce objectively more sophisticated music in thirty minutes with a kaossilator I've had sitting in my garage for five years, than probably any song in the top-100 charts right now -- sans auto tuned vocals.
I know that's "mainstream" hit piece, but it's true. You can't honestly tell me when you think "progress in culture" you imagine that most of our cultural funding should go toward "artists" who do not actually produce their own content, but rather sell their public image. Somebody with barely any experience in music production can produce a pop song similar to most of the popular content out there. It's all being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, who is then conditioned to expect even dumber content in the future.
How easy is it for actually creative music to be accepted by a wider audience? Not easy, when the distribution channels are owned by the people representing the distributors and producers of the content. Then the Cable companies also are owned by those organizations too, and it becomes a sick and twisted mess.
Further proof is shown in television. BBC and NOVA and NPR and other organizations have far more accurate and superior scientific and culturally educational programming and journalism, but they're publicly funded. Whereas the History channel probably hasn't played a single history program for years, and runs "Modern Marvels" reruns every hour on the weekend until the next primetime spot for "Ice Road Truckers" opens up. The Science and discovery channels almost never produce unique or interesting content.
These organizations and their strangleholds on our legislative process keep the status quo of copyright intact, even despite grave consequences to our personal liberties, knowing full well that their financial benefit has a more immediate and self-perpetuating impact on society. It's disgraceful.
Why can't a more universal public funding system be embraced, considering we have the technology to do it? If we care about personal liberties and advances in communication, we should take innovative steps in that direction.
If people create useful original content, others can reward them so as to promote future development. Donating to your favorite artist or an emerging talent should be the nature of our cultural progress, rather than the selfish strive for exuberant compensation. If money is actually necessary to produce better than what you'd call "mediocre" content, we can establish public systems to direct money for those purposes.
I highly doubt money is so necessary anyway, considering audio and video equipment and editing software are easier and easier to attain. There are kids creating music and uploading it to Soundcloud every single day, giving it away, and forming networks to distribute this content with their friends. Some of them can produce some really amazing music with _very_ cheap equipment. I could produce objectively more sophisticated music in thirty minutes with a kaossilator I've had sitting in my garage for five years, than probably any song in the top-100 charts right now -- sans auto tuned vocals.
I know that's "mainstream" hit piece, but it's true. You can't honestly tell me when you think "progress in culture" you imagine that most of our cultural funding should go toward "artists" who do not actually produce their own content, but rather sell their public image. Somebody with barely any experience in music production can produce a pop song similar to most of the popular content out there. It's all being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, who is then conditioned to expect even dumber content in the future.
How easy is it for actually creative music to be accepted by a wider audience? Not easy, when the distribution channels are owned by the people representing the distributors and producers of the content. Then the Cable companies also are owned by those organizations too, and it becomes a sick and twisted mess.
Further proof is shown in television. BBC and NOVA and NPR and other organizations have far more accurate and superior scientific and culturally educational programming and journalism, but they're publicly funded. Whereas the History channel probably hasn't played a single history program for years, and runs "Modern Marvels" reruns every hour on the weekend until the next primetime spot for "Ice Road Truckers" opens up. The Science and discovery channels almost never produce unique or interesting content.
These organizations and their strangleholds on our legislative process keep the status quo of copyright intact, even despite grave consequences to our personal liberties, knowing full well that their financial benefit has a more immediate and self-perpetuating impact on society. It's disgraceful.
Why can't a more universal public funding system be embraced, considering we have the technology to do it? If we care about personal liberties and advances in communication, we should take innovative steps in that direction.
Mass-distribution recorded music has existed for barely more than a century. Are you suggesting that the only music of any value ever created, was created in the last century?
There are even better (as in, economically more efficient) ways of financing culture production with technology. For example, consider a situation where playback devices were (perhaps intermittently) connected to the internet, were able to track audio fingerprints of music they played back, and had a tax on their sale. The proceeds of that tax could be redirected in proportion to the popularity of particular works. You wouldn't have to worry about sharing or lending. Everyone could consume as much as they wanted to, and there would still be the benefits of competition.
But instead, we have anti-free-market approaches that institute monopolies. And companies have massive vested interests in perpetuating those government-granted monopolies. The purpose of copyright is to incentivize the creation of works of art. Extending the copyright term for existing works has no such justification; but that's exactly what corporations were able to convince Congress to do with the Sonny-Bono act.
There are even better (as in, economically more efficient) ways of financing culture production with technology. For example, consider a situation where playback devices were (perhaps intermittently) connected to the internet, were able to track audio fingerprints of music they played back, and had a tax on their sale. The proceeds of that tax could be redirected in proportion to the popularity of particular works. You wouldn't have to worry about sharing or lending. Everyone could consume as much as they wanted to, and there would still be the benefits of competition.
But instead, we have anti-free-market approaches that institute monopolies. And companies have massive vested interests in perpetuating those government-granted monopolies. The purpose of copyright is to incentivize the creation of works of art. Extending the copyright term for existing works has no such justification; but that's exactly what corporations were able to convince Congress to do with the Sonny-Bono act.
Recording industry != art & culture. The recording industry is an artifact of a particular distribution medium (e.g. records and radio). The Internet has rendered both of those distribution mechanisms obsolete. Therefore, unless the recording industry can adapt and adopt new methods of distribution, it deserves to die.
Conflating the recording industry with art and culture (or even music) in general is like conflating Amtrak with the concept of 'transportation' in general. Losing the recording industry won't deny us music any more than the loss of Amtrak will deny us transportation.
Conflating the recording industry with art and culture (or even music) in general is like conflating Amtrak with the concept of 'transportation' in general. Losing the recording industry won't deny us music any more than the loss of Amtrak will deny us transportation.
Or the business model changes, perhaps we revert back to patronage. Or they make money by touring and through merchandising; isn't that how most artists earn money anyway?. Or better yet, their fans still buy their stuff even though they can get it for free because they want to support them.
But the thing is that we won't lose what culture we already have.
Books aren't scarce anymore. You could not, in several life times, read all the books on project Gutenberg. Yet not a single one of those is protected by copyright today.
Books aren't scarce anymore. You could not, in several life times, read all the books on project Gutenberg. Yet not a single one of those is protected by copyright today.
I do care about the artists. I don't care for the labels. In a world where listening to music is as easy as downloading a file from Amazon they just don't add any value.
You want me to find a copyright enforcement law that is better than SOPA and DMCA? I'll do you one better. I want you to find an artist compensation mechanism that cuts out the fat middle-man (the labels).
You want me to find a copyright enforcement law that is better than SOPA and DMCA? I'll do you one better. I want you to find an artist compensation mechanism that cuts out the fat middle-man (the labels).
Agreed. Conflating the interests of artists with the interests of media companies is the best strategy the latter have found.
And I really never thought I'd read anyone saying that the DMCA wasn't strong enough to protect the rights of copyright holders. Amazing.
And I really never thought I'd read anyone saying that the DMCA wasn't strong enough to protect the rights of copyright holders. Amazing.
I don't think strong enough is what earbitscom was talking about; after all, SOPA is a stronger version of the DMCA.
I actually have to agree with him that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is broken because it serves neither party well, as the current Megaload vs. Universal case shows: Megaload makes a lot of money with ads on their download site, but at the same time calls itself a "safe harbour". And on the other side we Universal abusing the DMCA to oppress free speech.
My point is that we could go and try to make a law that fixes both these problems. Or we could just accept that if we put the infrastructure in place to stop all copyright infringement, the same infrastructure will be very effective in stopping freedom of speech. And only after we accepted this, will we be able to start thinking about a better way to fairly(!) compensate artists for their work.
I actually have to agree with him that the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is broken because it serves neither party well, as the current Megaload vs. Universal case shows: Megaload makes a lot of money with ads on their download site, but at the same time calls itself a "safe harbour". And on the other side we Universal abusing the DMCA to oppress free speech.
My point is that we could go and try to make a law that fixes both these problems. Or we could just accept that if we put the infrastructure in place to stop all copyright infringement, the same infrastructure will be very effective in stopping freedom of speech. And only after we accepted this, will we be able to start thinking about a better way to fairly(!) compensate artists for their work.
As an artist, I assure you, the recording industry has done way more damage to me than the internet has.
Yes, they'll shift to different business models just as buggy-whip manufacturers did. Whether or not you take it personally, history has spoken.
[deleted]
"Don't fight the Internet." - Eric Schmidt
Well said. I think it would be interesting to see the reactions/votes/comments to this broken down by age group. I suspect those > 30, by and large, agree strongly with you, those between 25 and 30 would be a mixed group, and those younger than 25 would think you are a crazy person. I have no "data" to back this up but it's my guess.
Well written - thanks for sharing. (And I'm 40 if that matters)
Well written - thanks for sharing. (And I'm 40 if that matters)
I suspect those > 30, by and large, agree strongly with you
I wish to register myself as a counterexample in the strongest possible terms.
I wish to register myself as a counterexample in the strongest possible terms.
Over 40, think real art and music are created for reasons other than profit, and will be regardless of business model.
In fact, I believe un-funding the "recording industry" would result in an immediate and measurable net increase in the quality to junk ratio.
In fact, I believe un-funding the "recording industry" would result in an immediate and measurable net increase in the quality to junk ratio.
Over 30. Content creator myself. Completely disagree in strongest possible terms.
> I don’t see people in the technology community making real and productive proposals for how to solve the problems of copyright protection and piracy.
That's because there is no technical solution, this is a people problem, not a tech problem. I've thought about it a lot myself. Software gets pirated too, after all, so if there was some technical way to block it, it would've happened already. Microsoft controls a significant fraction of the world's OSes and they can't even manage it, and not for lack of trying or lack of funding.
But that does not mean that artists are screwed, only that they'll have to adapt. Computers won't replace authors any time soon[1]. And adapting is possible, though it relies less on copyright and more on business acumen. Look at the webcomic authors: they give away their work for free, but the smart ones can still make good money. If you want lessons on how, start watching how Howard Taylor does business. He gets his fans to ship his books for him and they like it.
You can give the pirates the middle finger all you want. But, laws or no laws, I don't see how people are going to stay in business unless they adapt. I can understand it being painful: I see factory workers getting replaced by machines, after all. But the lesson is the same: evolve or die.
[1] Uncreative fill-in-the-blanks style writing, like that program that does sports reporting, excepted.
That's because there is no technical solution, this is a people problem, not a tech problem. I've thought about it a lot myself. Software gets pirated too, after all, so if there was some technical way to block it, it would've happened already. Microsoft controls a significant fraction of the world's OSes and they can't even manage it, and not for lack of trying or lack of funding.
But that does not mean that artists are screwed, only that they'll have to adapt. Computers won't replace authors any time soon[1]. And adapting is possible, though it relies less on copyright and more on business acumen. Look at the webcomic authors: they give away their work for free, but the smart ones can still make good money. If you want lessons on how, start watching how Howard Taylor does business. He gets his fans to ship his books for him and they like it.
You can give the pirates the middle finger all you want. But, laws or no laws, I don't see how people are going to stay in business unless they adapt. I can understand it being painful: I see factory workers getting replaced by machines, after all. But the lesson is the same: evolve or die.
[1] Uncreative fill-in-the-blanks style writing, like that program that does sports reporting, excepted.
* That's because there is no technical solution, this is a people problem, not a tech problem. *
That's just not correct. The technical "solution" of Napster and later torrenting enabled this on a mass scale, did it not? Surely that's a "technical" matter and not only a people matter? If you make it technology easy enough that a 14yo with little tech skills can download the latest pop album for free and with virtually no risk of any consequences, then you've technically provided a way for someone to take the easy way out. People are like water - they'll almost always take the easiest route to get what they want. If it's easier to torrent/download and there are no repercussions (of whatever type), then they'll choose that more often than not.
Take away the tech that made it easy (or technically add in repercussions like a virus/trojan) and they'll stop.
That's just not correct. The technical "solution" of Napster and later torrenting enabled this on a mass scale, did it not? Surely that's a "technical" matter and not only a people matter? If you make it technology easy enough that a 14yo with little tech skills can download the latest pop album for free and with virtually no risk of any consequences, then you've technically provided a way for someone to take the easy way out. People are like water - they'll almost always take the easiest route to get what they want. If it's easier to torrent/download and there are no repercussions (of whatever type), then they'll choose that more often than not.
Take away the tech that made it easy (or technically add in repercussions like a virus/trojan) and they'll stop.
You can't make it hard. People have been trying that for ages and all that happened was that people got really good at cracking the protections. It only takes one "smart cow" to open the barn door for the rest. The situation is not symmetric. The attackers have an overwhelming advantage: the defense must be perfect while the attackers of a protection scheme need just one flaw. That's so massively unfair that we have never yet seen it succeed for very long. And even then, most of the things that weren't cracked were ignored because there were easier ways to get the content. Which is, of course, an observation you were quite correct to point out.
You can't take away the enabling, either, any more than you can turn back the hands of time. Information is information. If I can transmit a message to you, then I can do so whether or not it's copyrighted. I can just encrypt it to block out any middlemen who would otherwise censor it. I can route it through third parties. I can use steganography to hide it. It's not fair, but it is. Like much of life, it's evolve or die.
Even if we ramp the controls and enforcement to police state levels, one look at China's Great Firewall shows that it leaks like a sieve. What you say has been tried already. For my entire life. It has yet to succeed. I don't believe it ever will.
You can't take away the enabling, either, any more than you can turn back the hands of time. Information is information. If I can transmit a message to you, then I can do so whether or not it's copyrighted. I can just encrypt it to block out any middlemen who would otherwise censor it. I can route it through third parties. I can use steganography to hide it. It's not fair, but it is. Like much of life, it's evolve or die.
Even if we ramp the controls and enforcement to police state levels, one look at China's Great Firewall shows that it leaks like a sieve. What you say has been tried already. For my entire life. It has yet to succeed. I don't believe it ever will.
"Take away the tech that made it easy (or technically add in repercussions like a virus/trojan) and they'll stop."
Just admit it. You have no idea what you are talking about.
There is no "the tech". There is no head to cut off. If one group of people stop distributing the knowledge to share files, the another will take its place.
Just admit it. You have no idea what you are talking about.
There is no "the tech". There is no head to cut off. If one group of people stop distributing the knowledge to share files, the another will take its place.
What tech do you propose to take away? HTTP? Because a big part of sharing is done through generic servers and browsers, possibly with generic SSL encryption to avoid detection by middle men. How do you take that away without destroying the web?
I hate to get 2nd-amendment-peanut-butter into your piracy-chocolate, but as I was reading your comment, the phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" flashed through my mind. Guns are a mix of a technology/people problem, must as much as copyright infringement is, and we haven't even solved that problem yet. (At least, we don't seem to have solved it in the USA.)
There is one really good point in there. If you want to be a successful artist, make it so that people want to support you. That's what Louis CK was doing the other day. That's how Howard Taylor operates. It's just good business. You have happy customers. That makes you happy. Good times all around.
Data is just bits, bits can be copied with virtually no cost. Welcome to the internet.
Thank you. What's been conspicuously missing from the entire SOPA debate is how there does exist rampant and willful violation of copyright currently hidden under the safe blanket of the DMCA and that this is a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed.
SOPA is not the right way to do it but denying the reality makes the anti-SOPA side's message not being heard by those across the aisle.
SOPA is not the right way to do it but denying the reality makes the anti-SOPA side's message not being heard by those across the aisle.
Would you mind giving examples so we can understand what scale of problem you're alleging?
To put no blame on either side, as the only attempts I've seen on this ground involve louis CK and some small-time dubsteppers, what of the music industry's effective monopoly and set-without-alternative pricing? Not many artists have the resources to bypass this system when they really have the opportunity to opt out of the label system, so the argument of "pay for it or find another way to get music" isn't exactly reasonable. And as a better indication, there's been a clear decrease in consumer valuation of individual songs, as evidence of the total effort exerted to bypass current prices, and yet the prices for music have remained steady.
I believe that there is a market equilibrium, and that as songs are made cheeper to reflect their new value to consumers, more will buy rather than steal, but it seems like labels are insisting that they should dictate market price without alternative rather than adjust price to demand. I don't mean that they should just lower prices until we get what we want, but I think the direction the music industry is headed is more enforcement of monopoly than prevention of theft.
If there were a way for artists to effectively bypass the system, or for value to consumers to have sway in the market price, this may not be an issue, but it is. In reality, the system means more theft, so artists see less revenue, and I'd imagine that artists would go for an alternative as readily as many consumers. And further, if there were some way to do away with it, there'd likely be far less of a culture of theft, or say, less communally supported resources for it, so artists might conceivably be able make money if they attempted to go sans-label.
Obviously these are just more reasons why the system is broken, but the difference is the availability of a market solution. And if there isn't in fact, a treatment for the disease rather than the symptom, I really only see SOPA as reasonable if it were immediately followed by anti-trust legislation against some big name labels.
I believe that there is a market equilibrium, and that as songs are made cheeper to reflect their new value to consumers, more will buy rather than steal, but it seems like labels are insisting that they should dictate market price without alternative rather than adjust price to demand. I don't mean that they should just lower prices until we get what we want, but I think the direction the music industry is headed is more enforcement of monopoly than prevention of theft.
If there were a way for artists to effectively bypass the system, or for value to consumers to have sway in the market price, this may not be an issue, but it is. In reality, the system means more theft, so artists see less revenue, and I'd imagine that artists would go for an alternative as readily as many consumers. And further, if there were some way to do away with it, there'd likely be far less of a culture of theft, or say, less communally supported resources for it, so artists might conceivably be able make money if they attempted to go sans-label.
Obviously these are just more reasons why the system is broken, but the difference is the availability of a market solution. And if there isn't in fact, a treatment for the disease rather than the symptom, I really only see SOPA as reasonable if it were immediately followed by anti-trust legislation against some big name labels.
[deleted]
Anyone who disagrees, frankly, can go fuck themselves.
Well consider me fucked.
What the author doesn't realize is that he's fighting against an organic phenomenon. Even if SOPA passes, piracy will continue to thrive. There are thousands of eager engineers begging for the chance to prove that they can produce an elegant hack around this poorly considered attempt to control the internet. There is also a culture that has now adjusted its formula for content value, and those people will demand piracy, just as they demand jailbroken phones and modded xboxes, and someone will rise to meet their demands. A new file sharing solution will emerge, and the media companies will have to spend another decade trying to lobby for a way to whack the next mole.
In the meantime, those of us who understand that you can't prevent a bit from being copied have learned how to create content that people feel good paying for. Of course, people don't have the right to download content without paying for it, but you can't stop the spread of 1s and 0s without giving the media companies an authority that goes beyond what is reasonable.
Well consider me fucked.
What the author doesn't realize is that he's fighting against an organic phenomenon. Even if SOPA passes, piracy will continue to thrive. There are thousands of eager engineers begging for the chance to prove that they can produce an elegant hack around this poorly considered attempt to control the internet. There is also a culture that has now adjusted its formula for content value, and those people will demand piracy, just as they demand jailbroken phones and modded xboxes, and someone will rise to meet their demands. A new file sharing solution will emerge, and the media companies will have to spend another decade trying to lobby for a way to whack the next mole.
In the meantime, those of us who understand that you can't prevent a bit from being copied have learned how to create content that people feel good paying for. Of course, people don't have the right to download content without paying for it, but you can't stop the spread of 1s and 0s without giving the media companies an authority that goes beyond what is reasonable.
This. A million times this. Thank you.
The customer's desire to give you money is the product. This is inherent in the nature of near zero cost replication.
Loius CK gets it, Reznor gets it, Yorke gets it, kickstarter gets it. OP doesn't, the RIAA doesn't.
The customer's desire to give you money is the product. This is inherent in the nature of near zero cost replication.
Loius CK gets it, Reznor gets it, Yorke gets it, kickstarter gets it. OP doesn't, the RIAA doesn't.
So you're saying that we only REALLY want the products to which we would chritably throw cash? so when I buy coke at the grocery store, it's because I want to charitably contribute to the coca-cola company's artful soda recipe? And when I don't feel like appreciating it, I should just take them?
OBVIOUSLY NOT. If you don't appreciate the music, or even the artists work, then don't download it. If you don't want it, dont steal and insist that your "just getting it for the right price." I can't even begin to explain how entitled it sounds o hear people saying that they wil pay for the things that they "really should be paying for because they want to be." This is a justification for piracy and is in no way a solution to the curent issues. You buy a product, you donate to charities which you like. Charities ask you to contribute, firms tell you what you need to to pay for their product. Louis CK is in no way an indication that people will pay for things they 'really appreciate,' lots of people really wanted the experiment to work. But what of Kanye's album? I see hundreds saying "Oh this guy is a jerk, I'm just gonna take his album." Is that how natural markets work?
Don't like it? Good, that's your NATURAL INCLINATION to go for lowest price possible which will in no way just 'go away' when you really appreciate your products, nor should it.
And this is not zero cost replication. There are people that put a ton of time and effort into piracy to make it work. We'll know when we've reached a solution that works when the enormous online filesharing infrastructure necessary for the current levels of piracy dissolves, and people simply start to pay for the products like they would any other.
OBVIOUSLY NOT. If you don't appreciate the music, or even the artists work, then don't download it. If you don't want it, dont steal and insist that your "just getting it for the right price." I can't even begin to explain how entitled it sounds o hear people saying that they wil pay for the things that they "really should be paying for because they want to be." This is a justification for piracy and is in no way a solution to the curent issues. You buy a product, you donate to charities which you like. Charities ask you to contribute, firms tell you what you need to to pay for their product. Louis CK is in no way an indication that people will pay for things they 'really appreciate,' lots of people really wanted the experiment to work. But what of Kanye's album? I see hundreds saying "Oh this guy is a jerk, I'm just gonna take his album." Is that how natural markets work?
Don't like it? Good, that's your NATURAL INCLINATION to go for lowest price possible which will in no way just 'go away' when you really appreciate your products, nor should it.
And this is not zero cost replication. There are people that put a ton of time and effort into piracy to make it work. We'll know when we've reached a solution that works when the enormous online filesharing infrastructure necessary for the current levels of piracy dissolves, and people simply start to pay for the products like they would any other.
> This is inherent in the nature of near zero cost replication
If coca-cola sold their recipe rather than selling cans of soda, then I would agree with your paragraph one.
Remember that coca-cola does not pay royalties to many of the inventors of the ideas the bottler uses to bottle soda. Newton's heirs do not own the world.
As for paragraph two, all I can say is that yes: human markets do work that way. My advice to you is to remember that a rational man adjusts to the world, rather than becoming angry that it isn't the way he wants it to be.
As for paragraph three, you're wrong -- we all donate to charities we like, we all give gifts, we all help each other; we read books by great thinkers and are thankful for their gift. When you really like an artist, learning that they need money to recoup their cost of production is much the same as learning what a friend wants for their birthday: you give it as a token of your affection.
edit: you just added paragraph four. Please reread what you wrote. You're not even pretending to understand the subjects you're commenting on any more :(
If coca-cola sold their recipe rather than selling cans of soda, then I would agree with your paragraph one.
Remember that coca-cola does not pay royalties to many of the inventors of the ideas the bottler uses to bottle soda. Newton's heirs do not own the world.
As for paragraph two, all I can say is that yes: human markets do work that way. My advice to you is to remember that a rational man adjusts to the world, rather than becoming angry that it isn't the way he wants it to be.
As for paragraph three, you're wrong -- we all donate to charities we like, we all give gifts, we all help each other; we read books by great thinkers and are thankful for their gift. When you really like an artist, learning that they need money to recoup their cost of production is much the same as learning what a friend wants for their birthday: you give it as a token of your affection.
edit: you just added paragraph four. Please reread what you wrote. You're not even pretending to understand the subjects you're commenting on any more :(
You need to take some time and think about whether you have the right to impose a system upon musicians. There was a time when people did not believe in free speech. Free speech is an ideology. A widespread ideology, but one nonetheless. You need to consider very seriously whether your right to "free speech" of posting another person's work and creation is more important than an artist's right to their own work. Is it? Can you seriously tell yourself in "net benefit to society" that your ability to distribute stolen content is more important than the security an artist might need to create that content in the first place? And yes, some may produce anyway, even without that right to their own work, but beyond the speculation as to the cultural benevolence of man, can you really say that your "right to distribute" is more important than their right to simply have real ownership over that which they may have work on for months before they created a music product? Is it important that you have that right? or is it maybe selfish?
You are on a forum for technical people. We don't talk about things that are provably impossible to implement. Enforcing copyright law is provably impossible, hence the moral question is moot. We are trying to examine what that will mean for artists and producers.
You on the other hand, are whining about the unfairness of it all. On a forum for technical people.
You are either ignorant of the technology portion of things, or are trolling. Either way, please leave until you have fixed the problem.
You on the other hand, are whining about the unfairness of it all. On a forum for technical people.
You are either ignorant of the technology portion of things, or are trolling. Either way, please leave until you have fixed the problem.
That is not for you to choose. If the artist wants you to give as a token of your affection, they can, but for now, you have no right to decide that you need not pay for their work until they've earned your affection. This is in no way a solution. And I have every right to be angry at justifications for theft with claims that theft is the baseline, and benevolence is a product of further appreciation. Theft cannot be the baseline.
People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. And if say this magical benevolent system is implemented, are you to guarantee that good will can ensure that the money is actually paid? I can't, and based on the justifications for theft I've seen on this forum, I seriously doubt anyone here will actually pay for the all music they take, especially under the anonymity and "I'm special so it doesn't matter when I do this immoral thing" of the internet.
People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided. And if say this magical benevolent system is implemented, are you to guarantee that good will can ensure that the money is actually paid? I can't, and based on the justifications for theft I've seen on this forum, I seriously doubt anyone here will actually pay for the all music they take, especially under the anonymity and "I'm special so it doesn't matter when I do this immoral thing" of the internet.
What, exactly, is the 'service' that needs to be paid for? Is it the creation of the work in the first place? I have no problem with artists having the right to stop producing works if they're not paid. Or is it the replication of the work? This is not something the artist does, with digital works. And herein lies the problem.
You are looking at things with the assumption that copyright is a natural system, and any deviation from that system requires a justification. Hence your taking as an axiom that allowing others to copy a work is a service provided by the artist for payment.
I feel that a more rational basis is assuming a system of no laws as a 'default' state. Any deviations from this state require a justification of how they would benefit society as a whole.
To give an exaggerated example, let us consider whether murder should be outlawed. In a 'default state', there would be no prohibition on murder, and anyone could murder anyone else for whatever reason they like. It is clear that murder may benefit the person doing the murdering in some cases; is there a sufficient cost to society as a whole? Naturally there is - the fear of being murdered forces everyone to take security precautions into their own hands (inefficient), and causes needless pain and suffering. So murder should be outlawed.
Now, let's look at theft of material goods. Note that theft of physical goods and copyright infringement (or unauthorized copying) are two entirely different things, and must be treated as such - in particular, theft deprives the original owner of enjoyment of the object in question. So, why is theft of material goods a bad thing? Well, in a capitalistic society, material goods are provided as compensation for doing something of benefit for society (ie, payment). Allowing theft subverts this system; those doing the work don't get paid, and instead thieves get the benefit. The nash equilibrium of such a state is for everyone to engage in at least some level of thievery, which competes for their time - thus reducing the amount of useful work performed. Thus, societal efficiency drops, for no benefit on average. As such, it should be outlawed.
What about copyright? As a first-order effect, it's clear it benefits the artists (although this becomes unclear when you consider the additional advertisement provided by free availability of the works in question). However, what about everyone else? On average, does society as a whole benefit from this deviation from the 'default state' of no copyright law? It's clear there's harm to individuals other than the artist - they must pay, or they are prevented from doing things they would otherwise be able to (ie, replicating the work). So there must be a corresponding benefit to others; the benefit gained by the artist cannot alone offset the harm to society as a whole.
The original conception of copyright aimed to increase the prevalence of artistic works, by providing artists with royalties. This was the benefit to society that made the original equation balance. However, with the Internet, there is no shortage of artistic works being provided completely for free by the author, with no copyright royalties coming to the author. This lessens the benefit to society provided by copyright law.
We must also consider the additional costs of copyright law added in the modern era. 'Mash-ups' are artistic works in their own right; however, copyright is used to force them to be removed from public view. This was a scenario that would have been unheard of back when copyright law was first envisioned, and is a further cost on society as a whole.
But, you might ask, isn't the provision of material goods (ie, royalties), the basis for encouraging work for societal benefit, as in the theft example? I would argue that there are a few important differences:
* It has been demonstrated that there is no shortage of people willing to do artistic work for free. This is not the case for all jobs - eg, there are very few people willing to work in a sewer for free.
* It is still possible for artists to be rewarded for their works even without a system of royalties. Donations, commissioned works, advertisements, hard-to-replicate physical goods (special CD cases, etc), and live performances are good examples of this.
* People sometimes choose to pay for something even when they can have it for free. This is irrational behavior, but it's how human psychology works - just look at the humble indie bundles (http://www.humblebundle.com/) as an example. You could buy the bundle for $0.01, or you could even just snag a copy off bittorrent or something (there's no DRM!), but yet the average payment for bundle #4 is $5.33 - and the current total income is at $1,578,109.48. Even though copyright is not being enforced here, money is still being made.
* Most importantly, unauthorized replication does not actually deprive anyone of enjoyment of the work in question. As such, the very act of copying creates some level of cultural value, by exposing the artistic work in question to more people. Theft of material goods creates no value, as any additional enjoyment in the new owner is offset by the deprivation of the old owner of enjoyment of the object in question.
In short, copyright was a good trade-off between individual rights and societal benefit back when it was first conceived. However, things have changed, and it can be argued that copyright no longer provides such a benefit. Once it loses its reason for being, it should be repealed, or modified to bring a net benefit to society. I certainly cannot support anything that would attempt to simply extend copyright at this point.
You are looking at things with the assumption that copyright is a natural system, and any deviation from that system requires a justification. Hence your taking as an axiom that allowing others to copy a work is a service provided by the artist for payment.
I feel that a more rational basis is assuming a system of no laws as a 'default' state. Any deviations from this state require a justification of how they would benefit society as a whole.
To give an exaggerated example, let us consider whether murder should be outlawed. In a 'default state', there would be no prohibition on murder, and anyone could murder anyone else for whatever reason they like. It is clear that murder may benefit the person doing the murdering in some cases; is there a sufficient cost to society as a whole? Naturally there is - the fear of being murdered forces everyone to take security precautions into their own hands (inefficient), and causes needless pain and suffering. So murder should be outlawed.
Now, let's look at theft of material goods. Note that theft of physical goods and copyright infringement (or unauthorized copying) are two entirely different things, and must be treated as such - in particular, theft deprives the original owner of enjoyment of the object in question. So, why is theft of material goods a bad thing? Well, in a capitalistic society, material goods are provided as compensation for doing something of benefit for society (ie, payment). Allowing theft subverts this system; those doing the work don't get paid, and instead thieves get the benefit. The nash equilibrium of such a state is for everyone to engage in at least some level of thievery, which competes for their time - thus reducing the amount of useful work performed. Thus, societal efficiency drops, for no benefit on average. As such, it should be outlawed.
What about copyright? As a first-order effect, it's clear it benefits the artists (although this becomes unclear when you consider the additional advertisement provided by free availability of the works in question). However, what about everyone else? On average, does society as a whole benefit from this deviation from the 'default state' of no copyright law? It's clear there's harm to individuals other than the artist - they must pay, or they are prevented from doing things they would otherwise be able to (ie, replicating the work). So there must be a corresponding benefit to others; the benefit gained by the artist cannot alone offset the harm to society as a whole.
The original conception of copyright aimed to increase the prevalence of artistic works, by providing artists with royalties. This was the benefit to society that made the original equation balance. However, with the Internet, there is no shortage of artistic works being provided completely for free by the author, with no copyright royalties coming to the author. This lessens the benefit to society provided by copyright law.
We must also consider the additional costs of copyright law added in the modern era. 'Mash-ups' are artistic works in their own right; however, copyright is used to force them to be removed from public view. This was a scenario that would have been unheard of back when copyright law was first envisioned, and is a further cost on society as a whole.
But, you might ask, isn't the provision of material goods (ie, royalties), the basis for encouraging work for societal benefit, as in the theft example? I would argue that there are a few important differences:
* It has been demonstrated that there is no shortage of people willing to do artistic work for free. This is not the case for all jobs - eg, there are very few people willing to work in a sewer for free.
* It is still possible for artists to be rewarded for their works even without a system of royalties. Donations, commissioned works, advertisements, hard-to-replicate physical goods (special CD cases, etc), and live performances are good examples of this.
* People sometimes choose to pay for something even when they can have it for free. This is irrational behavior, but it's how human psychology works - just look at the humble indie bundles (http://www.humblebundle.com/) as an example. You could buy the bundle for $0.01, or you could even just snag a copy off bittorrent or something (there's no DRM!), but yet the average payment for bundle #4 is $5.33 - and the current total income is at $1,578,109.48. Even though copyright is not being enforced here, money is still being made.
* Most importantly, unauthorized replication does not actually deprive anyone of enjoyment of the work in question. As such, the very act of copying creates some level of cultural value, by exposing the artistic work in question to more people. Theft of material goods creates no value, as any additional enjoyment in the new owner is offset by the deprivation of the old owner of enjoyment of the object in question.
In short, copyright was a good trade-off between individual rights and societal benefit back when it was first conceived. However, things have changed, and it can be argued that copyright no longer provides such a benefit. Once it loses its reason for being, it should be repealed, or modified to bring a net benefit to society. I certainly cannot support anything that would attempt to simply extend copyright at this point.
The service of creative content production, or intellectual property in general, is an artificial one, not a natural one. We've endowed ourselves with this institution, presumably to promote cultural progress. So established, we can argue against the idea that it is "theft" because we have artificially stimulated that definition in the first place; it is not "theft" naturally, it is theft due to centuries of a model that used to work, but cannot work anymore.
To refuse to reconsider whether it is theft or not is therefore asinine.
That said, I'd like to ask what more than a cynical and baseless speculation you use to support the argument against a patronage model for creative content? You're looking at charity in the wrong way -- a number of individuals who enjoy the benefits of some action are free to provide as much of their own incentive to support those institutions.
Your argument against a patronage (donation based, or public subsidy) model is akin to complaining that a homeless shelter should expect all of the homeless they take care of to pay their share in the service they provide. That is not the point and is clearly not the effective strategy. Enough people who have the cultural motivation and desire can donate to those shelters, or a number of other non-profit institutions who provide different solutions.
There simply is no evidence for you to base the allegation that it is "in no way a solution" because we already see patronage as an effective model for a number of systems that capitalism has failed to address. Once we stop pretending creative content can be owned, we can actually begin progressing as a culture.
The days for copyright are numbered, and the selfish and entitled are not the pirates but the artists who demand that their content be worth something to everybody.
To refuse to reconsider whether it is theft or not is therefore asinine.
That said, I'd like to ask what more than a cynical and baseless speculation you use to support the argument against a patronage model for creative content? You're looking at charity in the wrong way -- a number of individuals who enjoy the benefits of some action are free to provide as much of their own incentive to support those institutions.
Your argument against a patronage (donation based, or public subsidy) model is akin to complaining that a homeless shelter should expect all of the homeless they take care of to pay their share in the service they provide. That is not the point and is clearly not the effective strategy. Enough people who have the cultural motivation and desire can donate to those shelters, or a number of other non-profit institutions who provide different solutions.
There simply is no evidence for you to base the allegation that it is "in no way a solution" because we already see patronage as an effective model for a number of systems that capitalism has failed to address. Once we stop pretending creative content can be owned, we can actually begin progressing as a culture.
The days for copyright are numbered, and the selfish and entitled are not the pirates but the artists who demand that their content be worth something to everybody.
Refer to response above.
People need to adjust to idea that services need to be paid for. Plain and simple, if they aren't paid for, in full, they stop being provided.
I agree, but that doesn't justify copyright or any other draconian law. We should do away with them and people will need to decide if they want to pay and ensure their survival or not.
immoral
Oh, I love this. You can't even comprehend the notion that people may actually not find copyright infringement to be immoral, can you? Tip: many don't.
I agree, but that doesn't justify copyright or any other draconian law. We should do away with them and people will need to decide if they want to pay and ensure their survival or not.
immoral
Oh, I love this. You can't even comprehend the notion that people may actually not find copyright infringement to be immoral, can you? Tip: many don't.
I meant stealing from an artist due to sheer I-don't-give-a-fuck-erry. And you have no right to decide for an artist that they simply need to provide their hard work to the "pay if I feel like it" system. Is that your right? Do you think that artists will continue to produce when you rid them of their right to sell their product in the way they choose?
You should separate "legal" and "moral" right. They're not the same.
Example: Morally (in my moral code, obviously), I don't have the right to e.g. throw racial insults at people, legally, I do (Free Speech and all).
So I believe legally, one should have the right to download anything without censorship like copyright. Whether it's moral is not relevant.
Do you think that artists will continue to produce when you rid them of their right to sell their product in the way they choose?
Uh, that's not what it does. It doesn't take away the right to sell it, just the exclusive right, and I believe lots of people would still buy it and it would still be profitable, so yes, I think they would continue to produce.
But, whether they would or not is irrelevant to my viewpoint that copyright should be abolished.
Example: Morally (in my moral code, obviously), I don't have the right to e.g. throw racial insults at people, legally, I do (Free Speech and all).
So I believe legally, one should have the right to download anything without censorship like copyright. Whether it's moral is not relevant.
Do you think that artists will continue to produce when you rid them of their right to sell their product in the way they choose?
Uh, that's not what it does. It doesn't take away the right to sell it, just the exclusive right, and I believe lots of people would still buy it and it would still be profitable, so yes, I think they would continue to produce.
But, whether they would or not is irrelevant to my viewpoint that copyright should be abolished.
Something tells me you benefit a lot from copyright being abolished, and that in many ways lots of musicians would suffer. Do you think it's possible that you don't value copywrite law nearly as much as an artist would because their music would be effectively free and you wouldn't pay for music or movies anymore? And quite obviously, I mean for you to answer "I'm going to pay for everything because I want to!" so I can understand that there isn't something I'm missing in all this, just a lot of people who want an easier and cheeper way to get music and movies.
Something tells me you benefit a lot from copyright being abolished
"If you don't agree with me it's because you're corrupt". Frankly, that's just a disgusting personal attack. And if I do, it's just because I'm a member of society and I believe society as a whole benefits a lot from copyright being abolished.
Do you think it's possible that you don't value copywrite law nearly as much as an artist would because their music would be effectively free and you wouldn't pay for music or movies anymore?
Hmm, you should checkout http://www.thepiratebay.org. Music and movies are already effectively free for anyone who doesn't want to pay, and for nerds like me who know how to install and run complex software it'll always be. The elimination of copyright (not copywrite) law doesn't benefit me in that way, no.
And quite obviously, I mean for you to answer "I'm going to pay for everything because I want to!" so I can understand that there isn't something I'm missing in all this, just a lot of people who want an easier and cheeper way to get music and movies.
If I pay, it's already because I want to. Do you really think copyright law stops a person with the average knowledge that HN users have from getting free stuff?
Yes, I pay for stuff I can get for free.
"If you don't agree with me it's because you're corrupt". Frankly, that's just a disgusting personal attack. And if I do, it's just because I'm a member of society and I believe society as a whole benefits a lot from copyright being abolished.
Do you think it's possible that you don't value copywrite law nearly as much as an artist would because their music would be effectively free and you wouldn't pay for music or movies anymore?
Hmm, you should checkout http://www.thepiratebay.org. Music and movies are already effectively free for anyone who doesn't want to pay, and for nerds like me who know how to install and run complex software it'll always be. The elimination of copyright (not copywrite) law doesn't benefit me in that way, no.
And quite obviously, I mean for you to answer "I'm going to pay for everything because I want to!" so I can understand that there isn't something I'm missing in all this, just a lot of people who want an easier and cheeper way to get music and movies.
If I pay, it's already because I want to. Do you really think copyright law stops a person with the average knowledge that HN users have from getting free stuff?
Yes, I pay for stuff I can get for free.
Every word you write here is stolen. Every last one of them was created by someone, and you stole them, according to your own mental model, the way you keep using the word "theft". But has that stopped them from being invented? Or has the use of English, it being shared amongst so many peoples of the world, actually increased the number of words?
You have no basis for asserting that culture "services" stop being provided when they are not individually exchanged for cash for every use and reuse. In fact, the vast majority of human history stands as testament to the opposite: works are commissioned by patrons, or financed by performance, or even simply as acts of self-expression.
You have no basis for asserting that culture "services" stop being provided when they are not individually exchanged for cash for every use and reuse. In fact, the vast majority of human history stands as testament to the opposite: works are commissioned by patrons, or financed by performance, or even simply as acts of self-expression.
I'm glad you're willing to risk the income of musicians everywhere on this theory of yours. And you know what, I really don't support SOPA, and I know that the system is broken, but it astounds me that so many people on HN will openly claim that it just doesn't make sense to pay for music because "copywrite law is crazy and everything is stolen." You can steal. I don't care if you steal. But know that you're stealing from a person who provided you with their work under the expectation that you would buy it. Frank Ocean released a great mixtape, go download it. But don't act like every artist should just know that their content is effectively free. Think about what you want the internet to be when you stomp all over sale of goods over the internet. This kind of assumption, that information cannot be sold, destroys the internet as much as any piece of legislation would, because it perpetuates the mentality that information is nothing. Don't destroy the internet, and acknowledge that the information is valuable, you just didn't want to pay for it. And if you can't acknowledge that, imagine you're staring you're favorite artist in the face and telling him/her why it doesn't make sense that they expect you to pay for their art.
It's hard for me to take you seriously when you continue to misuse the words "theft" and "stolen". Intellectual "property" has few of the attributes of property; concepts rooted in exclusive use of something don't work well for things that are intrinsically not limited to single users.
What you really seem to have a problem with, though, is your inability to separate mechanisms from goals. The goal of copyright is to incentivize production. The mechanism is government-enforced monopolies over intangible things which, for legal purposes, are treated as property.
The main problem is that the mechanism is breaking down because citizens are becoming more powerful. They have access to technology that permits copying and distribution. This makes cultural IP less property-like, and more language-like.
The correct response to this is not to make the mechanism more powerful, especially not a response that actively increases the (necessary) tyranny of government over citizenry. The correct response is to create a different mechanism for incentivizing creative work, one that is robust in the face of increasing citizen sovereignty.
I mentioned in another comment here a tax redistributed based on popularity, as measured by fingerprinting playback. That's just one idea.
But when you say that I, or people like me, support theft or stealing, or suggest that artists shouldn't get paid, you're simply wrong; worse, you're deeply misguided in what you're attacking. You are defending the mechanism. You should try standing up for the goal, with the rest of us.
What you really seem to have a problem with, though, is your inability to separate mechanisms from goals. The goal of copyright is to incentivize production. The mechanism is government-enforced monopolies over intangible things which, for legal purposes, are treated as property.
The main problem is that the mechanism is breaking down because citizens are becoming more powerful. They have access to technology that permits copying and distribution. This makes cultural IP less property-like, and more language-like.
The correct response to this is not to make the mechanism more powerful, especially not a response that actively increases the (necessary) tyranny of government over citizenry. The correct response is to create a different mechanism for incentivizing creative work, one that is robust in the face of increasing citizen sovereignty.
I mentioned in another comment here a tax redistributed based on popularity, as measured by fingerprinting playback. That's just one idea.
But when you say that I, or people like me, support theft or stealing, or suggest that artists shouldn't get paid, you're simply wrong; worse, you're deeply misguided in what you're attacking. You are defending the mechanism. You should try standing up for the goal, with the rest of us.
And when I don't feel like appreciating it, I should just take them?
Taking a coca-cola can leaves the grocery store with one less can. Until we have Makers, that analogy will always be broken. And when we have Makers, people will probably copy coca-cola cans too.
Taking a coca-cola can leaves the grocery store with one less can. Until we have Makers, that analogy will always be broken. And when we have Makers, people will probably copy coca-cola cans too.
If you're comfortable not stealing the products that you don't "feel good paying for" then go right ahead, only pay for the products you feel good paying for. But if you're saying that it's cool to just steal the work and effort of a product that just didn't sit right with you, then you are far in the wrong. No one insists that we can all steal from athletic shoe companies with factory worker human rights issues overseas, and yet somehow every time we think a media company abuses our rights to their content with oh so high pricing, we're just entitled to take their content. The issue of online theft isn't one of personal ethical comfort, and that it is no way to convince lawmakers that the online community is onboard to accept FAIR legislation, or even be civil with a government-free solution.
if you're saying that it's cool to just steal the work
From my post: Of course, people don't have the right to download content without paying for it.
There is no doubt that people deserve compensation for their work, but if the full value of your effort can be represented as a string of 1s and 0s, then you must accept the reality that computers, the most ubiquitous machines on the planet, are all designed with the fundamental purpose of shifting around 1s and 0s. You simply cannot fight the reality that data is cheap and easy to share without setting back progress.
From my post: Of course, people don't have the right to download content without paying for it.
There is no doubt that people deserve compensation for their work, but if the full value of your effort can be represented as a string of 1s and 0s, then you must accept the reality that computers, the most ubiquitous machines on the planet, are all designed with the fundamental purpose of shifting around 1s and 0s. You simply cannot fight the reality that data is cheap and easy to share without setting back progress.
"There is a plan to murder 6 million jews. Some of you have written in to ask me to condemn this plan. Unfortunately, I cannot condemn this plan, because none of you have come up with a reasonable alternative."
I don't think you can use the excuse that we don't have a way to support your business model, to turn around and support fascism.
I don't think you can use the excuse that we don't have a way to support your business model, to turn around and support fascism.
Godwin'd
He forgets that in most countries Copyright, IP, etc are public commons 'licensed' to private companies by the laws passed. It is not an automatic privilege and does change over time as the public adjusts its laws to match reality.
In other words MPAA and RIAA do not have an automatic right to their business models because as technology changes so than to how much we the public grant in rights to companies in form of copyrights, etc.
Remember this dumb fuck MPAA and RIAA when DCMA was passed it got redefined by negotiation and court cases. When SOPA gets redefined we do not have to be nice about it..fair warning..
In other words MPAA and RIAA do not have an automatic right to their business models because as technology changes so than to how much we the public grant in rights to companies in form of copyrights, etc.
Remember this dumb fuck MPAA and RIAA when DCMA was passed it got redefined by negotiation and court cases. When SOPA gets redefined we do not have to be nice about it..fair warning..
I was very close to giving you an upvote, and then you resorted to calling the author a "dumb fuck" after he posted one of the most thoughtful, poignant essays I've recently read on the subject.
Because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinions. If anything, in perhaps a better time, it would open the invitation for frank, but ideally _civil_ discussion.
Because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily invalidate their opinions. If anything, in perhaps a better time, it would open the invitation for frank, but ideally _civil_ discussion.
"Anyone who disagrees, frankly, can go fuck themselves."
"the most thoughtful, poignant essays I've recently read on the subject."
You might want to read more...
"the most thoughtful, poignant essays I've recently read on the subject."
You might want to read more...
In context, he's saying that to anyone justifying theft from the artists who are producing work.
I _did_ read more.
I _did_ read more.
Copyright infringement, not theft. Artist's property before infringement == Artist's property after infringement.
If you say so. I'm not willing to get into that argument at the moment, but let's just say that yes, I fall into the camp that believes it does deprive the artists of revenue.
I play guitar, and I know and play with a lot of small / amateur musicians who literally pay their rent with their artistry.
I find it amazing that in the dawn of all the technology we have at our hands, people would honestly advocate that all of an artist's digitally distributed goods should be 'free', whether they intend it that way or not, relegating the artists to only being able to make money by performing in public shows, and I guess hoping against hope that the pirating public doesn't decide that that is too proprietary a way for them to distribute their music.
Hell, the way it's going, I can see people making an argument for holding artists down while we surgically remove their talent from them so that we can stick it up on the Pirate Bay. :-\
I play guitar, and I know and play with a lot of small / amateur musicians who literally pay their rent with their artistry.
I find it amazing that in the dawn of all the technology we have at our hands, people would honestly advocate that all of an artist's digitally distributed goods should be 'free', whether they intend it that way or not, relegating the artists to only being able to make money by performing in public shows, and I guess hoping against hope that the pirating public doesn't decide that that is too proprietary a way for them to distribute their music.
Hell, the way it's going, I can see people making an argument for holding artists down while we surgically remove their talent from them so that we can stick it up on the Pirate Bay. :-\
I fall into the camp that believes it does deprive the artists of revenue.
No more than simply not buying and not listening does, and I doubt you consider that "stealing".
I find it amazing that in the dawn of all the technology we have at our hands, people would honestly advocate that all of an artist's digitally distributed goods should be 'free', whether they intend it that way or not, relegating the artists to only being able to make money by performing in public shows, and I guess hoping against hope that the pirating public doesn't decide that that is too proprietary a way for them to distribute their music.
I find it amazing that some people can't comprehend that one can find the notion of copyright wrong, regardless of its benefits.
I also note that buyer have shown multiple times that they're willing to pay way more than they need, even if they can get it legally for $0.01, so that assumption that it would relegate the artists to just public shows remains to be proven.
No more than simply not buying and not listening does, and I doubt you consider that "stealing".
I find it amazing that in the dawn of all the technology we have at our hands, people would honestly advocate that all of an artist's digitally distributed goods should be 'free', whether they intend it that way or not, relegating the artists to only being able to make money by performing in public shows, and I guess hoping against hope that the pirating public doesn't decide that that is too proprietary a way for them to distribute their music.
I find it amazing that some people can't comprehend that one can find the notion of copyright wrong, regardless of its benefits.
I also note that buyer have shown multiple times that they're willing to pay way more than they need, even if they can get it legally for $0.01, so that assumption that it would relegate the artists to just public shows remains to be proven.
Not buying and listening doesn't derive benefit from it.
If you don't believe in copyright as a natural right, and as a result, simply do not purchase music that you find objectionable on whatever grounds, then I support you 100%.
Regardless of whether or not copying the material deprives them of a tangible good, it didn't cost them nothing to produce the work. Instruments are expensive, recording time is expensive, distribution is expensive, etc.
More to the point, I believe that even if you don't consider the artist the owner of the work, then I believe you should respect that they are the owners of its distribution.
If you don't believe in copyright as a natural right, and as a result, simply do not purchase music that you find objectionable on whatever grounds, then I support you 100%.
Regardless of whether or not copying the material deprives them of a tangible good, it didn't cost them nothing to produce the work. Instruments are expensive, recording time is expensive, distribution is expensive, etc.
More to the point, I believe that even if you don't consider the artist the owner of the work, then I believe you should respect that they are the owners of its distribution.
[deleted]
Perhaps you should judge replies by the standard of civil disagreement set by the essay itself.
The first paragraph of the essay says anyone who disagrees that copyright is a natural right "can go fuck themselves".
The first paragraph of the essay says anyone who disagrees that copyright is a natural right "can go fuck themselves".
I strongly disagree. By my interpretation of his stance, you're more than welcome to disagree with copyright as a natural right, but you aren't allowed to use that as justification for theft of copyrighted material which the artists releases for sale.
That is circular logic and represents all that was wrong in the original article. Copyright, as an institution, implies that ownership of data is possible and real, therefore implying that the data can be "stolen".
People who disagree with copyright as an institution would do so conclusively because they do not believe in the ownership of intellectual thought. They believe that there are better, more progressive institutions for cultural progress. They do not agree that somebody owns the content they produce.
The article stubbornly ignores that assessment and then tells people to fuck themselves if they can't subscribe to failed logic.
People who disagree with copyright as an institution would do so conclusively because they do not believe in the ownership of intellectual thought. They believe that there are better, more progressive institutions for cultural progress. They do not agree that somebody owns the content they produce.
The article stubbornly ignores that assessment and then tells people to fuck themselves if they can't subscribe to failed logic.
If artists can't be allowed to keep the content they produce, then why should Chrysler be allowed to sell the cars they manufacture, or Coke to make a profit off of its drinks?
I understand that there are dissenting arguments from the propagation of natural copyright, and while I agree that our patent system is horribly, horribly broken, I do not believe that artists should not be able to set a price, of their choosing, for the release of the works they produce.
I understand that there are dissenting arguments from the propagation of natural copyright, and while I agree that our patent system is horribly, horribly broken, I do not believe that artists should not be able to set a price, of their choosing, for the release of the works they produce.
Imagine somebody built a matter duplicator. I decide to use it to duplicate a can of soda instead of buying it from the company. The original creator hasn't been paid for their efforts, but they definitely haven't expended any costs due to my duplication. Am I now a pirate of their property? No, they haven't lost any actual property. I haven't taken anything from them physically.
Now imagine somebody built so many of these matter duplicators that we could literally carry them in our pockets and duplicate whatever we want. Should we start putting cameras in everybody's home to make sure they're not duplicating stuff they should be paying for?
This is exactly what we're talking about. We have digital consumer technology that can replicate and distribute almost any media, and the reason these problems have only just started propping up in the last couple decades is because before that, all media was physical. It was on newspaper, or film roll, or vinyl record, or cassette, or in books.
Why should we be paying a company when we aren't losing them anything? Why do they call us thieves when we have not harmed them in any way? Are we supposed to ignore these new technologies because they don't support their business model? Fuck them, I'll use my matter duplicator however I want.
The only way I'll consider giving my money to Coca-Cola when I can just use a matter duplicator, is if they're producing new and tasty beverages that they could not develop without my money. This is exactly my reasoning for being a pirate.
Now imagine somebody built so many of these matter duplicators that we could literally carry them in our pockets and duplicate whatever we want. Should we start putting cameras in everybody's home to make sure they're not duplicating stuff they should be paying for?
This is exactly what we're talking about. We have digital consumer technology that can replicate and distribute almost any media, and the reason these problems have only just started propping up in the last couple decades is because before that, all media was physical. It was on newspaper, or film roll, or vinyl record, or cassette, or in books.
Why should we be paying a company when we aren't losing them anything? Why do they call us thieves when we have not harmed them in any way? Are we supposed to ignore these new technologies because they don't support their business model? Fuck them, I'll use my matter duplicator however I want.
The only way I'll consider giving my money to Coca-Cola when I can just use a matter duplicator, is if they're producing new and tasty beverages that they could not develop without my money. This is exactly my reasoning for being a pirate.
Ah yes. The old "you wouldn't download, errr, steal a car" logic.
Classic.
Classic.
You'll pardon me if I don't consider it quite as cliche as the "information wants to be free" logic being spat from all angles.
I'm not saying "information wants to be free". You however are comparing downloading music with car theft.
Simply amazing. I never suspected that even the people who made that advertisement took it seriously.
Simply amazing. I never suspected that even the people who made that advertisement took it seriously.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I never thought that there was anybody "reappropriating copyright" on digital artwork that didn't honestly believe they were doing something wrong.
If nobody gets paid for producing art, then our artists can't afford to make it their jobs, which means they won't have enough time to make better art.
What is simply amazing to me is that anybody would rather steal the work than just not have it. If it doesn't have any value, then why do you need it?
Yes, I'm implying that there is tangibility to a digital good. Perhaps the car analogy wasn't great, but if you're the guy selling your mother's famous chocolate chip cookie recipe, and I steal... errr, COPY the recipe down and put you out of business, I'd imagine you wouldn't think too fondly of me.
Please excuse me if I can put myself in the shoes of those being stolen... pirated... copied... victimlessnessed upon, and that I feel more for their needs to get compensated more than the arrogant needs of those who feel justified in stealing something they didn't create while trivializing the efforts of those who created it in the same breath.
If nobody gets paid for producing art, then our artists can't afford to make it their jobs, which means they won't have enough time to make better art.
What is simply amazing to me is that anybody would rather steal the work than just not have it. If it doesn't have any value, then why do you need it?
Yes, I'm implying that there is tangibility to a digital good. Perhaps the car analogy wasn't great, but if you're the guy selling your mother's famous chocolate chip cookie recipe, and I steal... errr, COPY the recipe down and put you out of business, I'd imagine you wouldn't think too fondly of me.
Please excuse me if I can put myself in the shoes of those being stolen... pirated... copied... victimlessnessed upon, and that I feel more for their needs to get compensated more than the arrogant needs of those who feel justified in stealing something they didn't create while trivializing the efforts of those who created it in the same breath.
One of the (many) problems here is that you seem to believe for some unexplained reason that if something is "wrong", then it must therefore be stealing.
I simply don't know how to correct this sort of willful ignorance.
I simply don't know how to correct this sort of willful ignorance.
I don't believe that. I believe that lying is wrong, but I don't believe it's stealing.
It costs money to make music. It costs money to make films. It costs money to make art.
The way one is able to make those as a living is to sell the finished products and/or distribute them. If you consume the good and do not recompense, then you are depriving the artist of their means of making a living, which takes away their ability to make more art.
It costs money to make music. It costs money to make films. It costs money to make art.
The way one is able to make those as a living is to sell the finished products and/or distribute them. If you consume the good and do not recompense, then you are depriving the artist of their means of making a living, which takes away their ability to make more art.
You're welcome to disagree, but you aren't allowed to base any arguments on that disagreement? What kind of nonsense is this?
You've conflated my argument.
Disagree all you like. Theft of intellectual property is against the law.
Disagree all you like. Theft of intellectual property is against the law.
So when you say "use that as justification", you mean purely in a legal sense? That was most unclear if so.
No, I just thought I'd point out that it is in fact illegal.
I think your moral justifications are simply that; justifications. Stealing isn't right, and if you don't want to support an artist, don't buy their work. That is, in my opinion, both the legal and moral way to be on the right side of artists.
I think your moral justifications are simply that; justifications. Stealing isn't right, and if you don't want to support an artist, don't buy their work. That is, in my opinion, both the legal and moral way to be on the right side of artists.
I'm still confused. Approximately nobody thinks copyright infringement is legal, even people who spend all day doing nothing but pirating media. There's no reason to point it out. Secondly, "you aren't allowed to use that as justification" means something very different from simply pointing out that the activity is illegal, at least to me.
> Anyone who disagrees, frankly, can go fuck themselves.
I really don't think it's the recording industry that's making you look like an asshole.
I really don't think it's the recording industry that's making you look like an asshole.
Our founding fathers believed that you should be very careful what powers you give to any authority because, even though they may be nice now, you have no idea who will be in charge in the future.
This is why any student of history is against SOPA. We believe that it does not protect the rights espoused in the Constitution. We believe that it may be abused in the future.
Some people, such as yourself, seem to believe that this would never happen. You seem to think that because there is a need (in your view) for copyright holders to remove "owned" content, that we need a law like this. And further you seem to believe that its ok to have such a broad law, even though it may be open to such abuse.
UMG is just demonstrating why the founding fathers were right and why you are naive and short-sighted.
Here's the thing: if UMG wasn't actively doing it, you'd still be naive and short-sighted. You'd still be an "asshole", in your words, and the founding fathers would still be right.
This is why any student of history is against SOPA. We believe that it does not protect the rights espoused in the Constitution. We believe that it may be abused in the future.
Some people, such as yourself, seem to believe that this would never happen. You seem to think that because there is a need (in your view) for copyright holders to remove "owned" content, that we need a law like this. And further you seem to believe that its ok to have such a broad law, even though it may be open to such abuse.
UMG is just demonstrating why the founding fathers were right and why you are naive and short-sighted.
Here's the thing: if UMG wasn't actively doing it, you'd still be naive and short-sighted. You'd still be an "asshole", in your words, and the founding fathers would still be right.
Why would you put "owned" in quotes there?
There's one thing that the OP is indisputably correct about: Content creators (should) own the content they create. When Isee someone do something like putting "owned" in quotes, it just immediately strikes me as someone who justifies piracy to themselves by saying that no one owns content.
There's one thing that the OP is indisputably correct about: Content creators (should) own the content they create. When Isee someone do something like putting "owned" in quotes, it just immediately strikes me as someone who justifies piracy to themselves by saying that no one owns content.
Or at the very least, if nobody owns it (as some people seem to believe), then content creators shouldn't be deceived into thinking that they own it and that society won't just pass it around. Whether or not IP exists, society at large needs to mostly agree one way or another, or a lot of people will put a lot of effort into something they wouldn't otherwise, and they won't be reimbursed in the way that convinced them to put in the effort in the first place.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
"limited times". Apparently the US Constitution disputes your assertion. Bunch of pirates, those founding fathers.
More on the "ownership" myth. Just one of many sites picked from google. http://c4sif.org/2011/07/the-mythology-of-intellectual-prope...
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
"limited times". Apparently the US Constitution disputes your assertion. Bunch of pirates, those founding fathers.
More on the "ownership" myth. Just one of many sites picked from google. http://c4sif.org/2011/07/the-mythology-of-intellectual-prope...
It's not that the recording industry is, just coincidentally, a bunch of jerks.
Copyright is not about money, not directly. Copyright is about power. In the case of the content industries, honking great amounts of government backed power to grant or withhold access to what is basically the shared culture of the planet. Enough to, eg: strong arm a company that would prefer not to be evil into accepting at-whim takedown - that's what power does. And that's what by-design amoral money-grubbing organizations do when you hand them that much power, they turn into thugs, because their only way to make money is to hold things hostage. Even those around them who would be moral are pulled into the amoral system, because of that power.
Regardless of whether you agree that artists and labels should be paid, copyright is a bad way to implement it.
Thus, defending copyright but saying "you make me look bad" - no, this is inevitable. If you shook the dice again and re-implemented copyright with different starting people, personalities and companies, this would happen again. it's what copyright does.
Copyright is not about money, not directly. Copyright is about power. In the case of the content industries, honking great amounts of government backed power to grant or withhold access to what is basically the shared culture of the planet. Enough to, eg: strong arm a company that would prefer not to be evil into accepting at-whim takedown - that's what power does. And that's what by-design amoral money-grubbing organizations do when you hand them that much power, they turn into thugs, because their only way to make money is to hold things hostage. Even those around them who would be moral are pulled into the amoral system, because of that power.
Regardless of whether you agree that artists and labels should be paid, copyright is a bad way to implement it.
Thus, defending copyright but saying "you make me look bad" - no, this is inevitable. If you shook the dice again and re-implemented copyright with different starting people, personalities and companies, this would happen again. it's what copyright does.
It isn't the job of government to ensure that a business model is profitable where it otherwise wouldn't be. The concept that creating music or film (or any other kind of intellectual property) would be predictably profitable enough to merit investing so much in its production is a rather recent phenomenon.
Consider, when musicians and performance artists play on the street, they determine based on the donations they get whether or not their efforts are worth their time, and adjust their future investments accordingly - they don't use law enforcement to force every viewer/listener to pay, claiming entitlement to compensation. On the internet, the sound reaches further, and the street is larger - as are opportunities for donations, and the cost of using law enforcement to extort payment.
Perhaps a better solution hasn't been offered because, for things that travel and are reproduced more like sound waves than physical objects, this model of business/enforcement just isn't scalable, at least without infringing on people's rights.
Consider, when musicians and performance artists play on the street, they determine based on the donations they get whether or not their efforts are worth their time, and adjust their future investments accordingly - they don't use law enforcement to force every viewer/listener to pay, claiming entitlement to compensation. On the internet, the sound reaches further, and the street is larger - as are opportunities for donations, and the cost of using law enforcement to extort payment.
Perhaps a better solution hasn't been offered because, for things that travel and are reproduced more like sound waves than physical objects, this model of business/enforcement just isn't scalable, at least without infringing on people's rights.
[deleted]
Culture: No one ones it. Not even creators.
Copyright: An incentive to produce culture.
The Internet: A bit distribution platform.
Technology: Gave you the ability to sell physical records, then took it away. That was a quick century.
Copyright: An incentive to produce culture.
The Internet: A bit distribution platform.
Technology: Gave you the ability to sell physical records, then took it away. That was a quick century.
While I agree that the protection of copyright is a noble pursuit (yes I believe people should be paid for things they create if they request to be paid), the recording industry is going about it in totally the wrong way.
Time and again, people have proven that if there is a SIMPLE EASY alternative, then we will use it. Take a look at Steam, Spotify, Amazon etc. All of these people provide a service that is easy to use, and despite there being a simple way to pirate the content provided on most of those services (and btw, this here is the big secret), MOST PEOPLE DON'T.
Most of the time, if there is a valuable product out there, then consumers have no problem paying for it. Yes, there will still be piracy for a variety of reasons just as there will always be physical theft, e.g. too high a cost, people are too poor etc..., most people support artists and content creators and are willing to pay for their use of those products.
Game manufacturers are starting to catch on, so are software producers with the emergence of app stores (the restrictions on those platforms are another matter entirely and I won't judge them here), but despite the fact that the music industry is older than either of those industries, it is aiming to shut down the only platform in modern society that can push their profits incredibly high if they do it right.
Yes, to do this right (and I am not saying Spotify or ITunes have this down), they would have to invest, A lot, but given how much they are investing in lobbying for SOPA, it is a joke to think they couldn't devote a tiny bit of their über profits to developing a platform that actually works.
P.S. earbitscom - Here is an alternative. One that your site goes some way towards providing.
Time and again, people have proven that if there is a SIMPLE EASY alternative, then we will use it. Take a look at Steam, Spotify, Amazon etc. All of these people provide a service that is easy to use, and despite there being a simple way to pirate the content provided on most of those services (and btw, this here is the big secret), MOST PEOPLE DON'T.
Most of the time, if there is a valuable product out there, then consumers have no problem paying for it. Yes, there will still be piracy for a variety of reasons just as there will always be physical theft, e.g. too high a cost, people are too poor etc..., most people support artists and content creators and are willing to pay for their use of those products.
Game manufacturers are starting to catch on, so are software producers with the emergence of app stores (the restrictions on those platforms are another matter entirely and I won't judge them here), but despite the fact that the music industry is older than either of those industries, it is aiming to shut down the only platform in modern society that can push their profits incredibly high if they do it right.
Yes, to do this right (and I am not saying Spotify or ITunes have this down), they would have to invest, A lot, but given how much they are investing in lobbying for SOPA, it is a joke to think they couldn't devote a tiny bit of their über profits to developing a platform that actually works.
P.S. earbitscom - Here is an alternative. One that your site goes some way towards providing.
I'm not going to argue, but this one thing always bugs me, and it happens all the time:
"You get people like Universal, who yanks down a Youtube video that they have no copyright claim to, simply because they don’t like it and they can. This is suppression of free speech and a violation of the most important right in our country."
Only the government can suppress free speech. If you're talking to someone and I come in and shout over you so nobody can hear you, I'm not limiting your freedom of speech, I'm just being an obnoxious asshole.
"You get people like Universal, who yanks down a Youtube video that they have no copyright claim to, simply because they don’t like it and they can. This is suppression of free speech and a violation of the most important right in our country."
Only the government can suppress free speech. If you're talking to someone and I come in and shout over you so nobody can hear you, I'm not limiting your freedom of speech, I'm just being an obnoxious asshole.
If there's a law that says you can call in the police to drag people away if they don't shut up when you tell them to, it certainly is an issue of freedom of speech.
Maybe the law itself is unconstitutional (I won't argue that either), but there is nothing that I, a private party, can do to you, another private party, that will violate your right to free speech.
The author claims "And I support record labels, because many of the albums I love would not exist without label financing, and I might not know about them if not for label marketing and promotion."
While this statement may be true about "the particular albums this particular author likes" it is untrue in general. A good song will get popular through various means. An artist does not need his life to be controlled by a middle man so that the audience can be advertised to. There are many ways in which the word spreads in the 21st century. The hard thing for an artist is to acquire the minimum artistic ability which probably means years of toil to reach a level when some one cares to listen to you. Making a song is a relatively inexpensive task. And once u have a reputation, you have mechanisms like kickstarter to fund your project. More alternatives will evolve as the recording industry dies.
While this statement may be true about "the particular albums this particular author likes" it is untrue in general. A good song will get popular through various means. An artist does not need his life to be controlled by a middle man so that the audience can be advertised to. There are many ways in which the word spreads in the 21st century. The hard thing for an artist is to acquire the minimum artistic ability which probably means years of toil to reach a level when some one cares to listen to you. Making a song is a relatively inexpensive task. And once u have a reputation, you have mechanisms like kickstarter to fund your project. More alternatives will evolve as the recording industry dies.
> far bigger dogs than me are on both sides of this fight and my opinion isn’t going to have an impact.
And that is where I stopped reading, unfortunately. Have a little faith in yourself, why don't ya?
And that is where I stopped reading, unfortunately. Have a little faith in yourself, why don't ya?
I like to view copyright as a short-circuit path to fast promise-exchanges of the following form:
"I have a really interesting piece of information. In fact, I create this information, and it takes a lot of work. For whatever reason, you want the information. I'm happy to share it with you, for a price far lower than the cost of creation, but only if you promise not to tell anyone else." Copyright is a short-circuit process whereby anyone who has ever received the information in whatever way (including hearing/seeing it in public) is legally treated as though they agreed to the above terms.
I think that some kind of "I'll give you info X if you promise not to redistribute it" structure is not a priori a bad idea. Obviously, it is unclear that those promises would be upheld in practice ... but at that point I believe it becomes a market question of whether people are willing to live up to their promises and not a question of bad policy.
Copyright, as an approximation to such a structure, is fundamentally problematic because it attempts to make the above exchange work without:
a) having to trust people (the law is used to scare them into behaving)
b) the receivers of the information having felt like they made a valuable promise in return for the valuable information (the receivers are told they are getting something that is "owned" as opposed to merely "not public knowledge")
"I have a really interesting piece of information. In fact, I create this information, and it takes a lot of work. For whatever reason, you want the information. I'm happy to share it with you, for a price far lower than the cost of creation, but only if you promise not to tell anyone else." Copyright is a short-circuit process whereby anyone who has ever received the information in whatever way (including hearing/seeing it in public) is legally treated as though they agreed to the above terms.
I think that some kind of "I'll give you info X if you promise not to redistribute it" structure is not a priori a bad idea. Obviously, it is unclear that those promises would be upheld in practice ... but at that point I believe it becomes a market question of whether people are willing to live up to their promises and not a question of bad policy.
Copyright, as an approximation to such a structure, is fundamentally problematic because it attempts to make the above exchange work without:
a) having to trust people (the law is used to scare them into behaving)
b) the receivers of the information having felt like they made a valuable promise in return for the valuable information (the receivers are told they are getting something that is "owned" as opposed to merely "not public knowledge")
The SOPA outcry reminds me of global warming - specifically the generation that doesn’t believe in it, that scoffs at the notion that man could even affect mother nature.
That generation seems so backwards and hubrisitic: the crazy idea that one could just take and take and take without giving something back, without respect for the balance of the system. “My actions don’t count because mother nature will always figure a way to make it all work out okay.” Could there be a more juvenile train of thought?
That’s the fundamental problem when it comes to content; that’s the fundamental problem when it comes to ‘business models’ - not the RIAA or MPAA or even TPB - but the hordes of people who have too little respect for the people who create the content that is voraciously consumed. Hordes that take advantage of a system and predictably cry out when anything threatens their spot at the teet.
The earth, of course, doesn’t ask for money - just for respect - respect shown when each individual asks “Am I hurting you?” and when each individual wonders “Is there a better way I could be doing this?”
A lot of folks fancy themselves the smartest person in the room, but there is a lesson in respect for others that needs to be learned before true success can be realized. Put away the false dichotomy of how things used to be and how you want them to be; there is a real way they can be, and a balanced way they should be.
I remain optimistic. But then, it's sometimes tempered; Upton Sinclair said it well:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
That generation seems so backwards and hubrisitic: the crazy idea that one could just take and take and take without giving something back, without respect for the balance of the system. “My actions don’t count because mother nature will always figure a way to make it all work out okay.” Could there be a more juvenile train of thought?
That’s the fundamental problem when it comes to content; that’s the fundamental problem when it comes to ‘business models’ - not the RIAA or MPAA or even TPB - but the hordes of people who have too little respect for the people who create the content that is voraciously consumed. Hordes that take advantage of a system and predictably cry out when anything threatens their spot at the teet.
The earth, of course, doesn’t ask for money - just for respect - respect shown when each individual asks “Am I hurting you?” and when each individual wonders “Is there a better way I could be doing this?”
A lot of folks fancy themselves the smartest person in the room, but there is a lesson in respect for others that needs to be learned before true success can be realized. Put away the false dichotomy of how things used to be and how you want them to be; there is a real way they can be, and a balanced way they should be.
I remain optimistic. But then, it's sometimes tempered; Upton Sinclair said it well:
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Joey,
I am in the same business as you and I will say this old quote. "Do not cut your nose to spite your face".
So to fix lets say $50 billion worth of losses, you support destroying the Internet?
Do you realize that the way the DCMA is abused this moment, SOPA can and will be abused?
Based on your accusation of Grooveshark, let us take the reverse. do you realize with SOPA anyone can take down earbits every single day for any song and you have to prove you have the legal right to stream those songs?
Be careful what you wish for.
I am in the same business as you and I will say this old quote. "Do not cut your nose to spite your face".
So to fix lets say $50 billion worth of losses, you support destroying the Internet?
Do you realize that the way the DCMA is abused this moment, SOPA can and will be abused?
Based on your accusation of Grooveshark, let us take the reverse. do you realize with SOPA anyone can take down earbits every single day for any song and you have to prove you have the legal right to stream those songs?
Be careful what you wish for.
Here's is the thing: earbitscom _is_ an asshole. I think he might make a decent point toward the end of his piece, but he is an asshole and it shows in his comments and it shows in this article.
>> But the other reason is that, for all the reasons that SOPA may be bad, I don’t see people in the technology community making real and productive proposals for how to solve the problems of copyright protection and piracy.
It's not that simple to "solve" piracy with technology. Technology inherently makes it easy to copy and share things. The changes will have to come from the businesses that accept that they have a failed business model. They must accept that have no realistic way to continue.
It's not that simple to "solve" piracy with technology. Technology inherently makes it easy to copy and share things. The changes will have to come from the businesses that accept that they have a failed business model. They must accept that have no realistic way to continue.
"But the other reason is that, for all the reasons that SOPA may be bad, I don’t see people in the technology community making real and productive proposals for how to solve the problems of copyright protection and piracy."
As far as artists being compensated for their work, I really have enjoyed some of Jaron Lanier's talks where he argues that if the net had retained a design intended to keep "provenance" then every person would get paid for the bit's (no pun intended) they've input, and ideally this is the direction that would have been more equitable. As to the feasibility or how "realistic" his views can extend beyond "talks" , I have no idea. I do think within the current framework piracy is simply the norm and all the politics around are just a barrage of job opportunities to try and "solve" unsolvable problems. The point of the piracy "war" isn't to end it, it's to extend it out as long as possible. :)
As far as artists being compensated for their work, I really have enjoyed some of Jaron Lanier's talks where he argues that if the net had retained a design intended to keep "provenance" then every person would get paid for the bit's (no pun intended) they've input, and ideally this is the direction that would have been more equitable. As to the feasibility or how "realistic" his views can extend beyond "talks" , I have no idea. I do think within the current framework piracy is simply the norm and all the politics around are just a barrage of job opportunities to try and "solve" unsolvable problems. The point of the piracy "war" isn't to end it, it's to extend it out as long as possible. :)
If this is the crux of your argument (and I fully believe it is), then your entire premise is flawed. There are big players making major inroads into this problem already. You might have heard of some of them, like iTunes, Pandora, Spotify, Amazon MP3, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Google Market, Steam, and Origin.
You should read what Gabe Newell, the CEO of Valve Software, the owner of Steam (which is often credited with singlehandedly saving PC gaming as an industry) has to say about piracy: http://www.gamefront.com/gabe-newell-piracy-is-a-non-issue/
The solution isn't DRM, or dispatching special ops to assassinate teenagers who pirate Ke$ha music, or giving corporations an internet killswitch. The solution isn't even to eliminate piracy. You can't, and you'll never be able to. Beyond that, you don't even need to eliminate piracy. What you want to eliminate is lost sales. There's a lot of conflating piracy and lost sales, especially by the content producers, and it's utter bull.
If Newell is correct (and I have every reason to believe that he is), then the way you capture sales lost to piracy is you establish distribution that is easier and more accessible than piracy, and people will use it. The "they wouldn't buy it anyway" argument is old and tired, but there's a nugget of truth in it - there are two general classes of content pirates; those who would buy the item, but for whom piracy is more convenient, and those who wouldn't buy the item, and take it because they feel entitled to it. There's a third, smaller class, who would buy items, but lack the finances to do it, but it's arguable that that's not a lost sale, and in all three cases, you're still achieving greater distribution, which does make at least some contribution to your product's success, however nebulous. That's not to make an excuse for piracy, but I firmly believe it to be a reality of any form of content distribution.
The consumers have proven over and over again that we'll legitimately buy things if there are easy, convenient ways to get them legitimately. You generally lose sales to piracy when it becomes easier to pirate content, not when it becomes cheaper. I would argue that the majority of piracy is about convenience moreso than it is about money. The solution isn't to make it less convenient to be legitimate (hi, DRM), but more convenient, and all of a sudden, you find yourself recapturing those lost sales.