NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs(mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com)
mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com
NPR Intern Gets an Earful After Blogging About 11,000 Songs
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/19/npr-intern-gets-an-earful-after-blogging-about-11000-songs-almost-none-paid-for/
11 comments
You forgot the half-dozen people making meta-complaints about the views they'd like to see expressed on HN and the views they'd like to see silenced. :)
Nation-states have the right to pick completely idiotic policies(even if the consequence are horrific) and we citizens have the right to move with our feet(Not so easy with immigration laws)?
In truth, I am kinda bored by these debate. They repeat themselves ad nauseam every time we have them. I wish we see new arguments for a change.
In truth, I am kinda bored by these debate. They repeat themselves ad nauseam every time we have them. I wish we see new arguments for a change.
You do realize that by expressing your opinion you opened yourself to the discussion? And I do want to refute your point: some of us do not believe that these private businesses own the culture they or their artists create, and that society has inherent rights to their consumption and distribution.
Oh yes, I should be able to pick my own business model! What fun. I know: I'll just pay old investors with new investors' money. That may be completely idiotic, but it works. After all, nobody has to invest in my venture! There's always some risk in any investment, so it's only fair.
Now, I'm definitely being too glib. But I think you are as well: it's a complicated issue, and simplifying it down to your view while being almost unbearably condescending helps nobody.
Now, I'm definitely being too glib. But I think you are as well: it's a complicated issue, and simplifying it down to your view while being almost unbearably condescending helps nobody.
The problem with your message isn't that it's glib; it's that it isn't logical. "Just pay old investors with new investors" isn't a business model (it is, obviously, the definition of a Ponzi Scheme). "Pay a licensing fee for XXX" is.
It might be illegal, dishonest and relatively unsustainable, but it is a way to make money. And existing business models (even legal ones) can still be dishonest and unsustainable. It is actually a very similar model to a lottery, except there's more lying involved to get more people to put in more money. So it's just an illegal and unethical business model.
Also, the argument isn't that businesses shouldn't be able to use that model, it's that the government shouldn't be helping with draconian laws.
Also, the argument isn't that businesses shouldn't be able to use that model, it's that the government shouldn't be helping with draconian laws.
So anything that makes money is a "business model", morally and/or economically equivalent to any other business model? That can't possibly be what you meant to imply.
I never implied that it's morally or even economically equivalent to any other business model--nothing says that all business models have to be morally or economically equivalent. But it is a business model very much like an illegal and dishonest lottery (e.g. people put money in with the hope of getting more out).
And yet, despite the fact that it is a business model, society does not condone it. The fundamental point, of which this is a very extreme example, is that there is no inherent right to a business model.
And yet, despite the fact that it is a business model, society does not condone it. The fundamental point, of which this is a very extreme example, is that there is no inherent right to a business model.
Look, again, this is simple:
I said something to the effect of "I have a problem with the mentality that dictates other people's business models to them when we disapprove of the one they're currently using".
You responded with a glib comment to the effect of "You're suggesting we have to respect everyone's business models and make sure they work, so everyone should just run a Ponzi Scheme".
It does not take a cutting intellect to see the problem with your logic. Essentially what you're engaging in is the time-honored message- board- forensics tactic of "redefining words to fit your argument". If it makes you feel better to do that, so be it, but the only people you're going to persuade with that tactic are people who don't care what you say as long as it somehow supports file sharing. I wouldn't want to waste my time writing those kinds of comments, but I can't tell you how to spend your time.
I said something to the effect of "I have a problem with the mentality that dictates other people's business models to them when we disapprove of the one they're currently using".
You responded with a glib comment to the effect of "You're suggesting we have to respect everyone's business models and make sure they work, so everyone should just run a Ponzi Scheme".
It does not take a cutting intellect to see the problem with your logic. Essentially what you're engaging in is the time-honored message- board- forensics tactic of "redefining words to fit your argument". If it makes you feel better to do that, so be it, but the only people you're going to persuade with that tactic are people who don't care what you say as long as it somehow supports file sharing. I wouldn't want to waste my time writing those kinds of comments, but I can't tell you how to spend your time.
They're idiotic because they are not enforceable. It's their own fault for thinking they won't get copied.
By the same token, private businesses who pick their own business models, especially when they all pick the same one, shouldn't be surprised when those models provide, shall we say, less than perfect coverage of the market.
Not only that, but this story is a perfect illustration of someone who has exercised their right to simply not buy music provided under these models. She has a right to this just as much as rightsholders have a right to feed a market failure by not being reasonable in adapting their business models to reality.
Not only that, but this story is a perfect illustration of someone who has exercised their right to simply not buy music provided under these models. She has a right to this just as much as rightsholders have a right to feed a market failure by not being reasonable in adapting their business models to reality.
You know what else provides less than perfect coverage? Pin-tumbler locks. Should we stop prosecuting breaking and entering?
Category error. Pin-tumbler locks work for their purpose, don't they? The current business models for digital music don't, as evidenced by the topic at hand. I'm assuming you know what a market failure is..
pg may well say that HN has not become Reddit, but it has.
(yes, my account is less than a year old but this is a fresh start, my other account is 6x older)
(yes, my account is less than a year old but this is a fresh start, my other account is 6x older)
I think you only say this because you haven't seen reddit any time recently or you've only looked at a select few sub-reddits.
Perhaps HN is closer to something like /. now, but I don't mind that. But it is really nothing like reddit (or at least reddit's front page).
Perhaps HN is closer to something like /. now, but I don't mind that. But it is really nothing like reddit (or at least reddit's front page).
Put morality aside for a second.
The market has clearly dictated they will not support the business practices of the major record labels, and have instead resorted to alternate ways of obtaining their music. The record labels must adapt, or they will fall[1]. Econ 101. You can debate morality until the cows come home, but that's not going to change these simple facts.
[1]Ignoring possible government interference
The market has clearly dictated they will not support the business practices of the major record labels, and have instead resorted to alternate ways of obtaining their music. The record labels must adapt, or they will fall[1]. Econ 101. You can debate morality until the cows come home, but that's not going to change these simple facts.
[1]Ignoring possible government interference
It's not "the market" when the new channel is based on ignoring contacts and copyrights, any more than it's "the market" that would be acting if I went to my local library, scanned all the books, and then resold them at "Bookio.com".
I'm no economist, but AFAIK market forces are defined by the way people buy/sell goods.
Your analogy fails to draw a parallel since you have only one side, the seller. Also, you're talking about reselling here, where the main debate is the sharing of music.
However I fail to realize where you deny this is "the market". Consumers are making their demands known by pursuing alternative ways of obtaining a good. Seems pretty market-y to me, regardless of the means.
Your analogy fails to draw a parallel since you have only one side, the seller. Also, you're talking about reselling here, where the main debate is the sharing of music.
However I fail to realize where you deny this is "the market". Consumers are making their demands known by pursuing alternative ways of obtaining a good. Seems pretty market-y to me, regardless of the means.
I'm not sure how this responds to my comment, since reselling books I scan from the library seems perfectly analogous to the market you propose.
There is a clear disconnect to both of our interpretations of each other's comments. Please see my response to the other comment in this thread.
I'll read and respond to that comment, but I'd like to reiterate that the comment you made immediately above the one I'm responding to is nonresponsive. The analogy I've provided, of pirating and reselling books from the library, is in fact perfectly analogous to the issue we're discussing.
It's not what you as an individual might do that defines "the market" that pdeuchler refers to, it's how the majority of customers behave. If everybody was doing a lot of book scanning and freely sharing copies book publishers would have to find new business models or perish. If customers don't behave in a way that supports your business model, and you can't talk them into changing their behavior, you need to find a new business model.
This isn't complicated.
Perhaps the music industry does need a new business model. In fact, I'm pretty sure they do!
That does not give the people who disagree with their business model license to cheat the companies.
Perhaps the music industry does need a new business model. In fact, I'm pretty sure they do!
That does not give the people who disagree with their business model license to cheat the companies.
While adaptation might be necessary, to say debating this topic can't change the future is inaccurate. I have this debate with plenty of people, and I know at least a few who have changed their behavior as a result. Educating people about the consequences of their actions is important, even when it seems like it has little impact.
I'm not discouraging debate. I'm simply saying that arguing morality will fail to sway market forces, and the fact that record labels believe in the exact opposite is foolish, and bordering on ignorant. The record labels can stand on the side of "good" until they go bankrupt. Pyrrhic victories do nothing for the bottom line.
Oh, I see what you're saying. You're saying "right and wrong don't matter, what matters is what you can get away with". In other words, "might makes right".
Well then! In that case, I have very much chosen the wrong business model. Perhaps I should reconsider. A better business model might be: NO UPFRONT FEES FOR SQL INJECTION VULNERABILITIES! Woohoo! In fact, no upfront anything! We'll just go ahead and find them. But don't ask how much they'll cost after we do find them. It'll... uh... depend.
I often find myself feeling the same way in these kinds of discussions as I do about being a well-off liberal Democrat with good career prospects. In other words, I feel like I'd probably be a lot better off personally if I just shrugged my shoulders and ignored what I thought was right and joined the other side of the argument. Free music! No capital gains taxes! Sounds awesome!
Well then! In that case, I have very much chosen the wrong business model. Perhaps I should reconsider. A better business model might be: NO UPFRONT FEES FOR SQL INJECTION VULNERABILITIES! Woohoo! In fact, no upfront anything! We'll just go ahead and find them. But don't ask how much they'll cost after we do find them. It'll... uh... depend.
I often find myself feeling the same way in these kinds of discussions as I do about being a well-off liberal Democrat with good career prospects. In other words, I feel like I'd probably be a lot better off personally if I just shrugged my shoulders and ignored what I thought was right and joined the other side of the argument. Free music! No capital gains taxes! Sounds awesome!
I'm not saying that at all, in any way, shape or form.
My argument is that people are failing to distinguish the moral argument from the economic one. Market forces don't have to be just or moral, they just have to be exactly that... market forces. There's no room for a "morality" variable in an economic formula, there's only concrete numbers that dictate price and demand.
In this case the market has decided that they will not use the current business model offered by the record labels. This same market has shown exactly what they want, and given birth to many new, profitable business models (Spotify, for instance). For the record companies to BLATANTLY IGNORE these market forces, and instead rely upon moral arguments to sway consumer thinking is becoming a more and more untenable position. It has very clearly not worked[1]. Thus, for the record labels to continue to offer this business model is very clearly not in their best economic interests.
Note that I am not passing judgement on either side. In my personal opinion pirating music without paying for it is clearly wrong. However my personal ethics have no effect on the fact that millions of people pirate millions of songs every day, and the fact that they will continue to do so until the current record companies (in their current form) will become extinct.
If the record labels truly want to win this battle they will provide consumers with a legal alternative that suits the market's demands[2]. That will not only erase the issue of morality, but will allow them to continue to profit. Now, obviously, companies have the right to choose whatever business model they want. That does not mean that the market has the OBLIGATION to support said business model. A better business model might, in fact, be "NO UPFRONT FEES FOR SQL INJECTION VULNERABILITIES! Woohoo! In fact, no upfront anything!". Doesn't mean it should be enacted, or that the market will decide to support it.
I'm simply trying to couch the debate in purely economic terms for the purpose of clarifying the exact problem and solution.
Now straying from the issue at hand, why are you bringing politics into this? What does you being a "well-off liberal Democrat with good career prospects" have to do with the current music industry? Furthermore, what gives you the idea that the "other side" (I'm assuming you're talking about Republicans) support "Free music"? Even if that wasn't your intention, by introducing the political paradigm you open yourself up for that exact interpretation. But even beyond all of that, I would say that by bringing the us vs. them mentality ("the other side") into the discussion you've already cheapened the debate from an intellectual discussion to a personal soapbox.
[1] To be frank, the average joe, and especially the average 21 and under individual doesn't give a rat's ass about the morality argument.
[2] This might include investigating several new methods of revenue if the market continues to demand free music (endorsements, lifestyle brands, etc. not necessarily concerts and merchandise sales). Not saying this is "right" or "just", just merely stating possibilities.
My argument is that people are failing to distinguish the moral argument from the economic one. Market forces don't have to be just or moral, they just have to be exactly that... market forces. There's no room for a "morality" variable in an economic formula, there's only concrete numbers that dictate price and demand.
In this case the market has decided that they will not use the current business model offered by the record labels. This same market has shown exactly what they want, and given birth to many new, profitable business models (Spotify, for instance). For the record companies to BLATANTLY IGNORE these market forces, and instead rely upon moral arguments to sway consumer thinking is becoming a more and more untenable position. It has very clearly not worked[1]. Thus, for the record labels to continue to offer this business model is very clearly not in their best economic interests.
Note that I am not passing judgement on either side. In my personal opinion pirating music without paying for it is clearly wrong. However my personal ethics have no effect on the fact that millions of people pirate millions of songs every day, and the fact that they will continue to do so until the current record companies (in their current form) will become extinct.
If the record labels truly want to win this battle they will provide consumers with a legal alternative that suits the market's demands[2]. That will not only erase the issue of morality, but will allow them to continue to profit. Now, obviously, companies have the right to choose whatever business model they want. That does not mean that the market has the OBLIGATION to support said business model. A better business model might, in fact, be "NO UPFRONT FEES FOR SQL INJECTION VULNERABILITIES! Woohoo! In fact, no upfront anything!". Doesn't mean it should be enacted, or that the market will decide to support it.
I'm simply trying to couch the debate in purely economic terms for the purpose of clarifying the exact problem and solution.
Now straying from the issue at hand, why are you bringing politics into this? What does you being a "well-off liberal Democrat with good career prospects" have to do with the current music industry? Furthermore, what gives you the idea that the "other side" (I'm assuming you're talking about Republicans) support "Free music"? Even if that wasn't your intention, by introducing the political paradigm you open yourself up for that exact interpretation. But even beyond all of that, I would say that by bringing the us vs. them mentality ("the other side") into the discussion you've already cheapened the debate from an intellectual discussion to a personal soapbox.
[1] To be frank, the average joe, and especially the average 21 and under individual doesn't give a rat's ass about the morality argument.
[2] This might include investigating several new methods of revenue if the market continues to demand free music (endorsements, lifestyle brands, etc. not necessarily concerts and merchandise sales). Not saying this is "right" or "just", just merely stating possibilities.
And to be sure, the labels and rightsholders are insisting on a morality that they themselves are not subject and do not follow. Note also that nobody is asking why the labels aren't being "reasonable" in adapting their business models. "Might makes right" indeed.
For a much better post than the skimpy NYT rehash see :
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emi...
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emi...
David Lowery (the former lead singer of Cracker [of "Low" fame from the early '90s] and Camper Van Beethoven [of "Take The Skinheads Bowling" fame from the '80s), the guy who wrote the page at the link you posted, took up this issue a few months ago to great effect, complete with numbers, and we kind of discussed it then a little:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3850935
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3850935
Two initial reactions:
1) with the current state of iTunes and Amazon downloads, it seems easier, safer, more legal, and more supportive to buy songs, instead of relying on P2P. You can't claim to be a music lover with 15 GB of free music, IMHO - you're only a collector without commitment.
2) She claims that the music wasn't illegally downloaded, implying to me that she trades legally purchased copies with friends. Since she's only purchase 15 albums worth, I'd claim she's a leach to her friends, as that seems really uneven an exchange.
I dunno. I'm older now, and selectively downloaded free music when I was younger and poorer. I never wanted to collect hundreds of albums I would never get around to listening to, so even in the Napster heyday, my collection didn't explode like others. Now I buy my music, but I don't know if that's because iTunes removed the ethical dilemma for me, or because I have more cash and maturity.
Though these days, I seem to only listen to podcasts.
2) She claims that the music wasn't illegally downloaded, implying to me that she trades legally purchased copies with friends. Since she's only purchase 15 albums worth, I'd claim she's a leach to her friends, as that seems really uneven an exchange.
I dunno. I'm older now, and selectively downloaded free music when I was younger and poorer. I never wanted to collect hundreds of albums I would never get around to listening to, so even in the Napster heyday, my collection didn't explode like others. Now I buy my music, but I don't know if that's because iTunes removed the ethical dilemma for me, or because I have more cash and maturity.
Though these days, I seem to only listen to podcasts.
Let's say that a musician goes $50k in debt making an album. They are now given a choice: would you rather be listened to by 50 million people and get no immediate money, or by 10k people and be quickly made whole?
Which do you suppose they'd choose?
The fact is that celebrity, attention, and "coolness" are more than enough reward for most aspiring musicians.
Anyone who gets famous by giving their art away has been more than fairly rewarded for their work. Evidence for this comes from the 10k+ ultra-capable undiscovered who would happily pay to take this artist's place.
[Edit: I write this as someone who has earned good money through music, and thus I'm not sure what is being objected to, here. It is plainly true that fame brings instantaneous massive rewards and significant potential to earn more, later. It is also plainly true that even in the current "bad" economic environment for music, millions of people spend 10s of millions of hours each week writing, rehearsing, and performing. Clearly, the motivations are not primarily monetary.]
Which do you suppose they'd choose?
The fact is that celebrity, attention, and "coolness" are more than enough reward for most aspiring musicians.
Anyone who gets famous by giving their art away has been more than fairly rewarded for their work. Evidence for this comes from the 10k+ ultra-capable undiscovered who would happily pay to take this artist's place.
[Edit: I write this as someone who has earned good money through music, and thus I'm not sure what is being objected to, here. It is plainly true that fame brings instantaneous massive rewards and significant potential to earn more, later. It is also plainly true that even in the current "bad" economic environment for music, millions of people spend 10s of millions of hours each week writing, rehearsing, and performing. Clearly, the motivations are not primarily monetary.]
Unless the band you create is called Sparklehorse, and you're considered an indie-musician's indie-musician, and you collaborate with PJ Harvey and Tom Waits and Danger Mouse and James Mercer, and tour with Radiohead, and end up destitute living out of your old recording studio too in hock to hospitals to pay for mental health care and then shoot yourself in the chest.
On the plus side: now you're extra famous.
On the plus side: now you're extra famous.
Isn't this more an indictment of the U.S. social safety net than it is of the economics of music performance?
And, am I to conclude from your statement that, in fact, all artists who are as good as Sparklehorse are entitled to sufficiently remunerative compensation, in addition to their fame and prestige?
And, am I to conclude from your statement that, in fact, all artists who are as good as Sparklehorse are entitled to sufficiently remunerative compensation, in addition to their fame and prestige?
A. Yes
B. No
I'm just responding to the "fame can be its own reward" sentiment I detected.
B. No
I'm just responding to the "fame can be its own reward" sentiment I detected.
Just curious, how does she have 15gb of "legally downloaded" music that she didn't pay for?
I assume she means that she didn't download it, but copied from a friend or similar. And, the law is a bit inconsistent on whether that's legal, since it depends strangely enough on what technology you use to do the copying, which may be leading to some confusion.
Copying music on analog media for personal use from a friend is fair use, under the Audio Home Recording Act; in return, the music industry gets a kickback from every blank tape sold to compensate them. However, the AHRA does not apply (in either the fair-use or kickback portions) to copying music from a friend for personal use onto your iPod. It's not clear very many people who aren't specialists understand that home-taping is legal but home-iPodding isn't...
Copying music on analog media for personal use from a friend is fair use, under the Audio Home Recording Act; in return, the music industry gets a kickback from every blank tape sold to compensate them. However, the AHRA does not apply (in either the fair-use or kickback portions) to copying music from a friend for personal use onto your iPod. It's not clear very many people who aren't specialists understand that home-taping is legal but home-iPodding isn't...
I think people don't get what "legal" really means. It seems comparable to all illegally-uploaded YouTube videos with "I don't intend to violate copyright" messages, which the posters seems to think exempts them from the law.
The utter disconnect between actual behavior and what is dictated by law is rather problematic. Seems like some compromise is necessary.
The utter disconnect between actual behavior and what is dictated by law is rather problematic. Seems like some compromise is necessary.
She does not say that those 15gb where "legally downloaded". They where copied to her iPod by a friend. She also ripped CDs and copied music from other sources, which are not categorized as "illegally downloaded". Seemingly "illegal downloading", in her eyes, is only done via file-sharing networks.
She didn't say it was legally downloaded, she said it was not illegally downloaded. Meaning she got it from a source other than downloading it.
Because it's not currently illegal to download.
Once again, killing (or at least assaulting) the messenger.
I don't actually see it that way. Admittedly, there is always some gray area when it comes to Intellectual Property, but, in this case, the intern's behavior was just disgraceful. Stealing is stealing. Ever since reasonably priced alternatives (iTunes and Amazon) of non-drm content in flexible packaging (per song purchasing) became available - music listeners have no excuse for stealing music.
I.E. This might have been excusable behavior in 1997-2009, but starting January 6, 2009 (The day Apple removed DRM from iTunes), the rationale for stealing music effectively disappeared.
Now, Game of Thrones torrentors on the other hand....
I.E. This might have been excusable behavior in 1997-2009, but starting January 6, 2009 (The day Apple removed DRM from iTunes), the rationale for stealing music effectively disappeared.
Now, Game of Thrones torrentors on the other hand....
They still don't offer lossless, so there's one rationale right there.
While it's oh so easy to claim a moral high ground on this there are still things in the market which could be easily offered (ALAC downloads in the iTunes store, for example) but aren't. As such, I use spotify premium for day to day, but if I'm buying music, it's lossless or nothing. I'm not paying the same price for a CD for a worse experience. That is not value.
While it's oh so easy to claim a moral high ground on this there are still things in the market which could be easily offered (ALAC downloads in the iTunes store, for example) but aren't. As such, I use spotify premium for day to day, but if I'm buying music, it's lossless or nothing. I'm not paying the same price for a CD for a worse experience. That is not value.
Have you done a blind A/B test to determine if you can hear the difference between 256 kbit/sec AAC and lossless?
It doesn't matter. One is a reference quality file, the other has been artificially degraded. I'm not paying the same price as a physical, reference quality medium for an artificially degraded file.
Except this article has nothing to do with stealing...
Here's my issues with this line of thought. For one, why is 99c considered "reasonable" for a song? I feel as though this price point has little to do with the economics of the song-making business and a lot to do with the economics of iTunes/etc. Secondly, what is "convenient"? Why is iTunes downloading convenient, but watching GoT on HBO's online service not? I'm not saying they are equal, I think iTunes is easier, but why does the line fall in between them? Basically, the writer in question thinks the line still falls on the other side of iTunes, so why does that make their behavior disgraceful?
Why do you get to demand a third choice, besides "Pay 99 Cents" and "Don't Get The Song"?
A small bag of M&Ms costs, I don't know, 79 cents? Why is 79 cents considered reasonable for 29 peanut M&Ms? If I object to that price, and instead pony up the marginal cost of those M&Ms and their packaging (more like 13 cents), am I being reasonable or unreasonable?
A small bag of M&Ms costs, I don't know, 79 cents? Why is 79 cents considered reasonable for 29 peanut M&Ms? If I object to that price, and instead pony up the marginal cost of those M&Ms and their packaging (more like 13 cents), am I being reasonable or unreasonable?
First, to answer the broader question: we get to "demand" another choice simply by expressing an opinion about the structure of the market, the lack of sensible choices, and the existence of bugs in the legal system that need fixing. At least in this case, I don't think anyone in this discussion harbors any delusions that downloading a song qualifies as legal, but most of the people in this discussion can make a sensible distinction between right and legal; anyone wanting to change the legal system has to have the ability to discuss bugs in that system.
That discussion remains distinct from the question of whether any individual person would choose to (openly or secretly) flaunt the existing legal system and take the associated risks; I don't personally want to take those risks, but that doesn't mean I see those choices as wrong, just currently illegal.
To answer the more specific question: since you've already seen all of these arguments play out enough times to become jaded by them, you already know the entire line of arguments differentiating physical property with scarcity from infinitely copyable digital files. In short, taking a bag of M&Ms means the owner of them no longer has it, whereas copying (not taking) a file leaves the original in place.
That discussion remains distinct from the question of whether any individual person would choose to (openly or secretly) flaunt the existing legal system and take the associated risks; I don't personally want to take those risks, but that doesn't mean I see those choices as wrong, just currently illegal.
To answer the more specific question: since you've already seen all of these arguments play out enough times to become jaded by them, you already know the entire line of arguments differentiating physical property with scarcity from infinitely copyable digital files. In short, taking a bag of M&Ms means the owner of them no longer has it, whereas copying (not taking) a file leaves the original in place.
Did you read my comment, or did your nerd brain instantly detect "comparison between $PHYSICAL_PRODUCT and $ENTITY_EXPRESSIBLE_AS_A_NUMBER" and cause you to blurt out this comment? Because I addressed the point you thought you were making against my comment.
I mean this playfully. If we were discussing DOM corruption or block cipher modes I would probably have a hard time carefully reading comments that disagreed with my worldview too.
I mean this playfully. If we were discussing DOM corruption or block cipher modes I would probably have a hard time carefully reading comments that disagreed with my worldview too.
I did read and fully understand your comment, and no, I don't think you've addressed the point in my comment. However, I do agree you've suggested a subtler issue than the one usually discussed in this context, and since my comment used terms like "scarcity" and "infinitely copyable", I may have come across as endorsing a much more simplistic argument than I intended to make.
You described the idea of taking a physical item and paying only the manufacturing cost of that item, and I'd assume you intended that to define copying a file as taking it and "paying" the copying cost of 0.
However, those two actions still have a fundamental difference, and not one of price. Assuming a price (zero or otherwise) also assumes a particular entity owed that price; the analogy you made assumes a price inherently owed to the original author of some piece of data, and that copying the file amounted to refusing that price and choosing to pay 0 instead. When I disagreed with that analogy, I didn't intend to imply that the zero cost of copying data provides a justification; rather, I disagreed with the implicit assumption of inherently owing any particular price to the author (zero or otherwise).
To elaborate on that distinction: if I want to copy a chair, I can look at it, perform measurements of it, perhaps perform some materials analysis, and given sufficient skill I can make a copy of it, all without affecting the original. I argue that I have the inherent right to perform that process. That process will almost certainly entail some cost to me: for instance, I'll have to purchase materials to build the copy. However, I don't inherently owe any price to the original designer or builder of the chair, beyond what I might have originally paid them to obtain the original chair. I'd consider the copying of a chair in this manner exactly analogous to the copying of a digital file in all relevant respects. As it turns out, copying digital files requires no particular measurements, materials analysis, or skill, and costs effectively nothing; however, that particular detail doesn't matter for the question we've both asked, namely "does the copier inherently owe anything to the author". And if we build a system to automatically analyze the chair and print a new one on a 3D printer, and can thus copy a chair at minimal expense, that doesn't affect the key question either.
Bringing that back in the direction of copyright, the same thing applies to the copying of a physical book: that process typically involves a non-zero cost, in some combination of time, wear on equipment (copier, scanner, etc), and possibly materials (if copying onto paper), but the conclusion remains the same.
And to go in a different direction: if I hear a song, and later sing it myself, I've copied it (lossily) with my brain and vocal cords, at zero cost to me and zero inherent price owed to the singer or author of the song. We've had infinitely copyable goods long before we had computers.
If you take a bag of M&Ms and pay less than the cost, the proprietor of those M&Ms no longer has them, and cannot then choose to do with them as they see fit; I'll assume from your use of that analogy that you already agree that such an action violates basic expectations of property rights, and that the proprietor of the M&Ms can choose to demand any particular price or none at all. I agree with you completely there: you don't have the inherent right to steal a bag of M&Ms because you find the price not to your liking. However, I hope I've made it sufficiently clear why I don't find that situation analogous to copying a file, or to copying a chair, or a book, or a collection of sound waves.
However, your analogy does actually suggest a rather clear approach to handling trade secrets, or (as brought up by another reply to my comment) private information. If someone chooses not to distribute certain information at all, then taking it from them against their will does not seem reasonable to me. For instance, if someone breaks into my personal system, copies my passwords or encryption keys, and distributes them to the world, I don't consider that reasonable, despite the copying occurring at zero cost; that situation seems quite analogous to the one you described.
That seems like an entirely different situation from the one more commonly addressed by copyright, namely the original author choosing to distribute information and then attempting to control the subsequent distribution of that information by others. I'd argue that the author has every right to choose what to do with the information they have, including not distributing it at all; however, if they choose to distribute that information to others, I'd also argue that those others have every right to choose what to do with the information they have, including distributing it further.
Hopefully I've managed to make it clear that my comment came from a position of careful thought, not from a pattern-matched knee-jerk reaction. :)
You described the idea of taking a physical item and paying only the manufacturing cost of that item, and I'd assume you intended that to define copying a file as taking it and "paying" the copying cost of 0.
However, those two actions still have a fundamental difference, and not one of price. Assuming a price (zero or otherwise) also assumes a particular entity owed that price; the analogy you made assumes a price inherently owed to the original author of some piece of data, and that copying the file amounted to refusing that price and choosing to pay 0 instead. When I disagreed with that analogy, I didn't intend to imply that the zero cost of copying data provides a justification; rather, I disagreed with the implicit assumption of inherently owing any particular price to the author (zero or otherwise).
To elaborate on that distinction: if I want to copy a chair, I can look at it, perform measurements of it, perhaps perform some materials analysis, and given sufficient skill I can make a copy of it, all without affecting the original. I argue that I have the inherent right to perform that process. That process will almost certainly entail some cost to me: for instance, I'll have to purchase materials to build the copy. However, I don't inherently owe any price to the original designer or builder of the chair, beyond what I might have originally paid them to obtain the original chair. I'd consider the copying of a chair in this manner exactly analogous to the copying of a digital file in all relevant respects. As it turns out, copying digital files requires no particular measurements, materials analysis, or skill, and costs effectively nothing; however, that particular detail doesn't matter for the question we've both asked, namely "does the copier inherently owe anything to the author". And if we build a system to automatically analyze the chair and print a new one on a 3D printer, and can thus copy a chair at minimal expense, that doesn't affect the key question either.
Bringing that back in the direction of copyright, the same thing applies to the copying of a physical book: that process typically involves a non-zero cost, in some combination of time, wear on equipment (copier, scanner, etc), and possibly materials (if copying onto paper), but the conclusion remains the same.
And to go in a different direction: if I hear a song, and later sing it myself, I've copied it (lossily) with my brain and vocal cords, at zero cost to me and zero inherent price owed to the singer or author of the song. We've had infinitely copyable goods long before we had computers.
If you take a bag of M&Ms and pay less than the cost, the proprietor of those M&Ms no longer has them, and cannot then choose to do with them as they see fit; I'll assume from your use of that analogy that you already agree that such an action violates basic expectations of property rights, and that the proprietor of the M&Ms can choose to demand any particular price or none at all. I agree with you completely there: you don't have the inherent right to steal a bag of M&Ms because you find the price not to your liking. However, I hope I've made it sufficiently clear why I don't find that situation analogous to copying a file, or to copying a chair, or a book, or a collection of sound waves.
However, your analogy does actually suggest a rather clear approach to handling trade secrets, or (as brought up by another reply to my comment) private information. If someone chooses not to distribute certain information at all, then taking it from them against their will does not seem reasonable to me. For instance, if someone breaks into my personal system, copies my passwords or encryption keys, and distributes them to the world, I don't consider that reasonable, despite the copying occurring at zero cost; that situation seems quite analogous to the one you described.
That seems like an entirely different situation from the one more commonly addressed by copyright, namely the original author choosing to distribute information and then attempting to control the subsequent distribution of that information by others. I'd argue that the author has every right to choose what to do with the information they have, including not distributing it at all; however, if they choose to distribute that information to others, I'd also argue that those others have every right to choose what to do with the information they have, including distributing it further.
Hopefully I've managed to make it clear that my comment came from a position of careful thought, not from a pattern-matched knee-jerk reaction. :)
It really seems like you just listed out a bunch of things that are different about a bag of M&Ms and a piece of music without addressing the economic question. I think I understand that an M&M is different from an A minor chord voicing.
About the closest you came to the point I raised was to point out that even if you "square up" with the M&M vendor by paying his cost basis, you've still deprived that vendor of the right to sell their music --- oops, I mean M&Ms --- at the price they determined.
In other words, the closest you came to my point was by agreeing with me.
About the closest you came to the point I raised was to point out that even if you "square up" with the M&M vendor by paying his cost basis, you've still deprived that vendor of the right to sell their music --- oops, I mean M&Ms --- at the price they determined.
In other words, the closest you came to my point was by agreeing with me.
You seem to have completely ignored any parts of my comment that didn't directly agree with you, and then attempted to reimpose the analogy that I spent the entire comment systematically rejecting. Specifically, I made the point that the rationale for copying data has nothing to do with its zero cost to copy, and even with a non-zero copying cost the rationale still applies. That rationale depends on the differences between a bag of M&Ms and a piece of music (or other data), which you dismissed as not "addressing the economic question"; you said that you "understand that an M&M is different from an A minor chord voicing", but then you reimposed an analogy that assumes you can treat them identically. I addressed the economic question quite plainly: a copier does not inherently owe anything to the author of the copied data. Anyone currently in possession of a piece of data can let anyone else copy it (on whatever terms they see fit), and the author has no inherent right to get involved in that transaction. They currently have an artificial right to get involved in that transaction, hence this discussion.
To further abuse analogies for a moment (note that I used "candy" rather than "M&Ms" to avoid confusing the copying analogy with trademark issues): if I open up a stand across the street from the candy vendor and start giving away free bags of candy, I haven't "deprived the vendor of the right to sell their candy at the price they determined". They have no such right; they have the right to try to sell it. (They might even successfully sell a few bags to people who don't want to cross the street.) Fundamentally, I've done nothing wrong and I owe the candy vendor nothing. I certainly don't owe them the cost basis of a bag of candy, and implying otherwise would make no sense. Even if I created those bags of candy by purchasing a bag from the vendor and analyzing it so I could precisely duplicate it, I still owe the vendor nothing beyond the original price I paid for that one bag of candy. Do you see anything particularly wrong with that analogy? (If you'd like to complain that I've suggested giving away something that costs a non-zero amount to produce, consider that people routinely provide free downloads even though they pay for bandwidth.)
To further abuse analogies for a moment (note that I used "candy" rather than "M&Ms" to avoid confusing the copying analogy with trademark issues): if I open up a stand across the street from the candy vendor and start giving away free bags of candy, I haven't "deprived the vendor of the right to sell their candy at the price they determined". They have no such right; they have the right to try to sell it. (They might even successfully sell a few bags to people who don't want to cross the street.) Fundamentally, I've done nothing wrong and I owe the candy vendor nothing. I certainly don't owe them the cost basis of a bag of candy, and implying otherwise would make no sense. Even if I created those bags of candy by purchasing a bag from the vendor and analyzing it so I could precisely duplicate it, I still owe the vendor nothing beyond the original price I paid for that one bag of candy. Do you see anything particularly wrong with that analogy? (If you'd like to complain that I've suggested giving away something that costs a non-zero amount to produce, consider that people routinely provide free downloads even though they pay for bandwidth.)
Exactly what is the difference between depriving the owner of the bag of M&Ms of the opportunity to make more money than they paid to obtain the M&Ms, and depriving the owner of a song copyright from the opportunity to make more money (really, any money) from their investment in that song?
Your answer seems to be that the latter opportunity is "artificial", but here "artificial" seems to be a synonym for "pertaining to copyright". If that's the best you can do, I stand pat on my M&M analogy.
Your answer seems to be that the latter opportunity is "artificial", but here "artificial" seems to be a synonym for "pertaining to copyright". If that's the best you can do, I stand pat on my M&M analogy.
You seem to have responded to the first paragraph of my comment; the second paragraph answers your question.
I've argued that an inherent difference exists between copying something and taking the original. Your analogy discusses taking the original, and I've already agreed that taking the original does not seem acceptable; applying that analogy to information produces a useful approach to handling trade secrets and personal/private information.
However, you've provided no reason or rationale to treat copying something the same as taking the original. Your analogy does not cover that case, and your subsequent comments have not addressed it either.
Person A has a piece of data. Person A lets person B copy that data. What gives person C any particular right to complain?
Person A has a chair. Person A lets person B construct a copy of that chair. What gives person C any particular right to complain?
I view this as simple rent-seeking.
(The rest of this comment just responds to your specific complaint about "artificial", which seems like a side-track. The point above represents the fundamental point of my series of comments.)
> Your answer seems to be that the latter opportunity is "artificial", but here "artificial" seems to be a synonym for "pertaining to copyright". If that's the best you can do, I stand pat on my M&M analogy.
I've made the assumption here that you don't mind having a discussion about rights that does not assume the current state of law as having any particularly inherent claim to optimality. I don't want to privilege the hypothesis; I want to determine the optimal approach. Assuming the current state of law puts the burden of proof on anyone arguing to change it. Starting from nothing and arguing about what laws should exist puts the burden of proof on anyone wishing to construct a right where none inherently exists. Hence my use of the word "artificial": I don't intend it as a synonym for "pertaining to copyright"; I intended it as a label for a "right" that would have no particular reason to exist without the explicit construction of laws to enforce it.
I've also made the assumption here, based on your original analogy, that you already agree with the notion of property rights over physical property; I agree with that as well, so I've simply taken that as a given without exploring that issue further. I hope you agree that we don't need to explore that. You can either think of such rights as inherent, or think of them as artificial and assume that we agree on sufficient justification for them to exist. Either way works for the purposes of this discussion. I've stated this assumption explicitly to stave off any complaint you might have in response to my previous paragraph that "property rights are artificial too by that definition".
You also seem to believe that property rights extend to information, which I don't agree with, so that point I've explored quite extensively. I don't consider those rights inherent; I consider them artificial, and I don't believe they have sufficient justification to exist.
I refuse to assume the burden of proof here. You argue for copyright law, so you cannot assume copyright law when making your argument. Please actually argue for it. :)
I've argued that an inherent difference exists between copying something and taking the original. Your analogy discusses taking the original, and I've already agreed that taking the original does not seem acceptable; applying that analogy to information produces a useful approach to handling trade secrets and personal/private information.
However, you've provided no reason or rationale to treat copying something the same as taking the original. Your analogy does not cover that case, and your subsequent comments have not addressed it either.
Person A has a piece of data. Person A lets person B copy that data. What gives person C any particular right to complain?
Person A has a chair. Person A lets person B construct a copy of that chair. What gives person C any particular right to complain?
I view this as simple rent-seeking.
(The rest of this comment just responds to your specific complaint about "artificial", which seems like a side-track. The point above represents the fundamental point of my series of comments.)
> Your answer seems to be that the latter opportunity is "artificial", but here "artificial" seems to be a synonym for "pertaining to copyright". If that's the best you can do, I stand pat on my M&M analogy.
I've made the assumption here that you don't mind having a discussion about rights that does not assume the current state of law as having any particularly inherent claim to optimality. I don't want to privilege the hypothesis; I want to determine the optimal approach. Assuming the current state of law puts the burden of proof on anyone arguing to change it. Starting from nothing and arguing about what laws should exist puts the burden of proof on anyone wishing to construct a right where none inherently exists. Hence my use of the word "artificial": I don't intend it as a synonym for "pertaining to copyright"; I intended it as a label for a "right" that would have no particular reason to exist without the explicit construction of laws to enforce it.
I've also made the assumption here, based on your original analogy, that you already agree with the notion of property rights over physical property; I agree with that as well, so I've simply taken that as a given without exploring that issue further. I hope you agree that we don't need to explore that. You can either think of such rights as inherent, or think of them as artificial and assume that we agree on sufficient justification for them to exist. Either way works for the purposes of this discussion. I've stated this assumption explicitly to stave off any complaint you might have in response to my previous paragraph that "property rights are artificial too by that definition".
You also seem to believe that property rights extend to information, which I don't agree with, so that point I've explored quite extensively. I don't consider those rights inherent; I consider them artificial, and I don't believe they have sufficient justification to exist.
I refuse to assume the burden of proof here. You argue for copyright law, so you cannot assume copyright law when making your argument. Please actually argue for it. :)
You're fixating on the same point over and over again, probably because it is the point that every nerd ever fixates on when this discussion comes up. "The copy leaves the original owner no worse off".
If you actually think through the scenario I presented, you'll see it's more equivalent to copying than you're crediting. The M&M "cheat" is recouping the M&M owner for their cost of goods sold. The M&M owner is no worse off, because the owner can simply buy another bag of M&Ms and wait for the next "sucker" to come along and pay retail.
This is obviously an absurdity. The person who takes a bag of M&Ms, coughs up the wholesale price, and walks out with the product is obviously guilty of a crime: shoplifting. Everyone agrees with this. But the economic impact to the shopkeeper is the same.
Why do you accept one and not the other?
Please don't write another 20 paragraphs about "rent seeking" and "copying" and plans for chairs. By your own definition, the shopkeeper is "rent seeking" when he charges more than his cost basis for the M&Ms.
You put a lot of effort into writing, obviously. Put a little more effort into thinking. When someone is caught shoplifting, do we have them pay the wholesale price of the item they stole as damages to make the retailer whole? Of course not. If we did that, there would be no disincentive whatsoever to steal; if you win, you get the item free, if you lose, you get a discount. But you're applying that same logic to unlawful downloads. And, lo and behold, there is apparently no incentive whatsoever for anyone to compensate artists.
If you actually think through the scenario I presented, you'll see it's more equivalent to copying than you're crediting. The M&M "cheat" is recouping the M&M owner for their cost of goods sold. The M&M owner is no worse off, because the owner can simply buy another bag of M&Ms and wait for the next "sucker" to come along and pay retail.
This is obviously an absurdity. The person who takes a bag of M&Ms, coughs up the wholesale price, and walks out with the product is obviously guilty of a crime: shoplifting. Everyone agrees with this. But the economic impact to the shopkeeper is the same.
Why do you accept one and not the other?
Please don't write another 20 paragraphs about "rent seeking" and "copying" and plans for chairs. By your own definition, the shopkeeper is "rent seeking" when he charges more than his cost basis for the M&Ms.
You put a lot of effort into writing, obviously. Put a little more effort into thinking. When someone is caught shoplifting, do we have them pay the wholesale price of the item they stole as damages to make the retailer whole? Of course not. If we did that, there would be no disincentive whatsoever to steal; if you win, you get the item free, if you lose, you get a discount. But you're applying that same logic to unlawful downloads. And, lo and behold, there is apparently no incentive whatsoever for anyone to compensate artists.
If someone leaves your personal file in its original place I am sure you won't mind some copies around.
Why do you get to demand a third choice, besides "Pay 99 Cents" and "Don't Get The Song"?
We get to because technology provides it. It's not about reasonableness, but ability and convenience. Is business and commerce suddenly subject to morality?
We get to because technology provides it. It's not about reasonableness, but ability and convenience. Is business and commerce suddenly subject to morality?
Awesome. How many YC companies are there now with web apps? How many of their admin consoles do I get to get because technology allows it? I bet a bunch of them would be happy to buy access back from me once I take it from them.
Huh? Hysterical.
I am struggling to see what's hysterical about it at all. Do you not read the news? Or do you genuinely believe that most startups aren't a half day away from a game-over flaw?
Or, like most nerds, are you comfortable with "might makes right" as long as you're the one with the might, and something you perceive as a giant faceless corporation is what the might is directed at?
Or, like most nerds, are you comfortable with "might makes right" as long as you're the one with the might, and something you perceive as a giant faceless corporation is what the might is directed at?
Well, if business has nothing to do with morality and the technology allows it, what's wrong with tptacek's proposal?
At least in the western world, $0.70-$1.29 for permanent, non-drm ownership of a track is within the norms of what people have been willing to pay for the last 60 years for music, inflation adjusted. I consider that historical precedent to suggest that those prices are "reasonable."
Itunes (or Amazon) downloading is convenient because I can download almost _any song I can conceive of_ in 30 seconds.
I've tried purchasing HBO at least four times over the last 3+ years on "Special" deals here in Redwood City - Each time, my absolute minimum monthly cost has been $85 (Digital Cable + Special HBO Offer) - and also required additional installation and hardware costs on the order of $200 or so.
I agree - that there is a grey line - but, for me, "30 seconds and $1.29 for a song" is reasonable, but "$1020 and $200 worth of hardware and wait 2 weeks for installation" is unreasonable.
It's subjective - but I feel music downloaders don't have much in the way of excuses, but those people torrenting GoT, especially if they _always_ purchase it on DVD when it's available, at least have a defensible moral (if not legal) position.
Itunes (or Amazon) downloading is convenient because I can download almost _any song I can conceive of_ in 30 seconds.
I've tried purchasing HBO at least four times over the last 3+ years on "Special" deals here in Redwood City - Each time, my absolute minimum monthly cost has been $85 (Digital Cable + Special HBO Offer) - and also required additional installation and hardware costs on the order of $200 or so.
I agree - that there is a grey line - but, for me, "30 seconds and $1.29 for a song" is reasonable, but "$1020 and $200 worth of hardware and wait 2 weeks for installation" is unreasonable.
It's subjective - but I feel music downloaders don't have much in the way of excuses, but those people torrenting GoT, especially if they _always_ purchase it on DVD when it's available, at least have a defensible moral (if not legal) position.
Is the notion of copyrights obviously the default moral position?
I think attribution rights probably are. The grant and transfer of long term distribution rights is less clear.
I think attribution rights probably are. The grant and transfer of long term distribution rights is less clear.
To watch GoT online, you need to have HBO bundled with your cable package, so for someone without cable, that's essentially $100/mo. I would absolutely pay $10-20/mo or $30-40 to watch GoT just on HBO online or streaming through Amazon. So I would say the inconvenience is more aligned with having to sign up for cable than anything else.
You can get an Australian iTunes account to get GOT in a timely manner.
Any OS restrictions on that GoT/HBO facility? Netflix does.
http://www.hbo.com/game-of-thrones/index.html#/about/faqs/si...
"HBO.com is optimized for the most recent browsers and requires Flash and a broadband connection. Specifically, HBO.com supports Internet Explorer 6+, Firefox 2+ and Safari 2.03+ HBO.com requires the free Flash plug-in, version 9.0124 or greater."
Assuming they don't explicitly block Chrome, either that or FireFox should work fine on Linux.
"HBO.com is optimized for the most recent browsers and requires Flash and a broadband connection. Specifically, HBO.com supports Internet Explorer 6+, Firefox 2+ and Safari 2.03+ HBO.com requires the free Flash plug-in, version 9.0124 or greater."
Assuming they don't explicitly block Chrome, either that or FireFox should work fine on Linux.
It's very difficult to do 'micropayments' on a credit-card based architecture - card fees are usually a percentage + flat rate cost (say 2% and the first 20 cents of any transactions).
Because of this flat fee anything below around 99 cents quickly becomes unprofitable to sell. It's why companies that do microtransactions do so with other payment methods, like alternative currency (FB credits, etc).
Of course, you can also use service such as Spotify if actually having the files themselves isn't important to you (I'm more than happy to pay £5 per month to Spotify for what's actually a quite impressive library). For large consumers of music that can be quite attractively priced.
Because of this flat fee anything below around 99 cents quickly becomes unprofitable to sell. It's why companies that do microtransactions do so with other payment methods, like alternative currency (FB credits, etc).
Of course, you can also use service such as Spotify if actually having the files themselves isn't important to you (I'm more than happy to pay £5 per month to Spotify for what's actually a quite impressive library). For large consumers of music that can be quite attractively priced.
iTunes store shows that it's no longer difficult once you have a critical mass of business.
Not something in reach for indies, but Dwolla is changing that.
Side note: Spotify is horrible for musicians.
Not something in reach for indies, but Dwolla is changing that.
Side note: Spotify is horrible for musicians.
Indies can easily get on iTunes.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but songs are 99c on iTunes? Is it reasonable to expect a 20 year old intern to drop almost $11,000 on songs? It would seem being a music lover is an expensive hobby.
I'm in tears.
Is it reasonable to expect a 20 year old intern to have these 11000 songs? Does her life depend on it? What about other things which are unreasonable expensive for a 20 year old intern? The laptop to store the music on, external hard drive, smartphone with data plan to download and so on ... ?
This one has some background on numbers. And myths about royalties: http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emi...
Is it reasonable to expect a 20 year old intern to have these 11000 songs? Does her life depend on it? What about other things which are unreasonable expensive for a 20 year old intern? The laptop to store the music on, external hard drive, smartphone with data plan to download and so on ... ?
This one has some background on numbers. And myths about royalties: http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/letter-to-emi...
I don't want it to look like I'm defending her position, because I'm not. I think artists need to be paid.
But I can't let that letter's maths go unscrutinised.
He starts off by saying "I’m gonna give you a break" and then ignores the record company's cut, which is about 80%. And then proceeds to use this drastically reduced value to lay a guilt trip.
It doesn't work that way, the record company isn't going to cut her a break, it's going to charge her the full 99c. Which means instead of $17.82 a month, she would need to pay $89.10 a month, for 10 years between the ages of 10 and 20.
He starts off by saying "I’m gonna give you a break" and then ignores the record company's cut, which is about 80%. And then proceeds to use this drastically reduced value to lay a guilt trip.
It doesn't work that way, the record company isn't going to cut her a break, it's going to charge her the full 99c. Which means instead of $17.82 a month, she would need to pay $89.10 a month, for 10 years between the ages of 10 and 20.
And a great simple info graphic about royalties http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music...
I've been taking a simpler approach. I buy about 3 albums a week off Amazon or iTunes, which adds up to 150 albums or 1500 songs a year. By the time that 20 year old is 25, s/he'll easily have 7500 songs paid for over 5 years, instead of one gigantic lump sum. I think it's certainly reasonable when you're getting discounts for buying full albums and doing it over an extended period. Keep in mind, if Amazon has an album for $9, and iTunes has one for $10, that's roughly a "free" album every 10, just for using Amazon.
Is it reasonable that she has actually listened to all of those songs? That's about 733 hours of music. Assuming she listened 2 hours a day and never repeated a song, she'd be listening for over a year before she heard all of those songs. And you know she has Modest Mouse and the Yeah Yeah Yeahs on repeat.
This girl is a thief, plain and simple. It's like walking into a Starbucks and just stealing coffee. The marginal cost of a cup of coffee is just pennies, however there are fixed costs involved. If you don't like Starbucks or think they're corrupt or whatever, no one is forcing you to consume their product. If you don't like Universal Records, then don't support their product.
Musicians must buy equipment and play, usually for years making next to nothing, playing in ratty bars for shitty owners and when they finally do get an album released, they certainly deserve to get paid -- the record companies deserve to get paid as well. For every hit song, they've blown countless dollars supporting musicians that never accomplish anything.
This anti-corporate argument is the argument of a cheapskate thief. There are plenty of Indie labels on iTunes that operate on shoestrings, yet people steal their music too.
This girl is a thief, plain and simple. It's like walking into a Starbucks and just stealing coffee. The marginal cost of a cup of coffee is just pennies, however there are fixed costs involved. If you don't like Starbucks or think they're corrupt or whatever, no one is forcing you to consume their product. If you don't like Universal Records, then don't support their product.
Musicians must buy equipment and play, usually for years making next to nothing, playing in ratty bars for shitty owners and when they finally do get an album released, they certainly deserve to get paid -- the record companies deserve to get paid as well. For every hit song, they've blown countless dollars supporting musicians that never accomplish anything.
This anti-corporate argument is the argument of a cheapskate thief. There are plenty of Indie labels on iTunes that operate on shoestrings, yet people steal their music too.
Whoa calm your jimmies, I'm not saying she's not a thief. I'm just saying that in order to get that many songs you'd have to pay a shitload of money.
And it's very likely that she doesn't listen to all those songs. She does want to work in the music industry though, so I can kinda see how she might want to sample a wide variety of songs. She should probably have used streaming services instead I guess.
And it's very likely that she doesn't listen to all those songs. She does want to work in the music industry though, so I can kinda see how she might want to sample a wide variety of songs. She should probably have used streaming services instead I guess.
By your analogy, then, if I bought a cup of Starbucks coffee and proceeded to give it to someone else that person is a thief?
Copying is not stealing. As said in the article, the files were not obtained by illegal means, just passed around, so I think your "disgraceful" is too strong.
>Ever since reasonably priced alternatives (iTunes and Amazon) of non-drm content in flexible packaging (per song purchasing) became available - music listeners have no excuse for stealing music.
That's subjective, if it were really the case we wouldn't be talking about it now.
That's subjective, if it were really the case we wouldn't be talking about it now.
"...what she really wants is simply to pay to subscribe to “one massive Spotify-like catalog of music that will sync to my phone and various home entertainment devices...”
Isn't that what Rhapsody is?
Isn't that what Rhapsody is?
Pretty much. And isn't that what Spotify is? or is it implied that Spotify doesn't have a library as big as she wants?
Lately, I have been listening to Slacker Radio with a Premium account ($10/month), and it is very much like Spotify and/or Rhapsody, and I have been pretty impressed with how big the library of music is that can be played on-demand.
Lately, I have been listening to Slacker Radio with a Premium account ($10/month), and it is very much like Spotify and/or Rhapsody, and I have been pretty impressed with how big the library of music is that can be played on-demand.
Don't get musicians started on spotify, it's terrible for artists.
It's not implied, it's explicitly defined as part of their business model. Spotify's tagline for their catalog is "something for everyone." "Something," not everything, means it's a limited selection.
All the same, as consumers we are being punished for either (1) desiring and getting music in the means most convenient and historically accessible to us or (2) desire and getting technology in the means most convenient and historically accessible to us.
The historical, political, and mercantile lines draw behind the scenes is a theatre we are not privvy to. Pulling the card "you're actually supporting the big wigs of tech and the cost of the big wigs of music" all to make the point that the big wigs of music could enable artisans assumes that artisans themselves trust and believe in the music industry.
The point I want to make here is that all of this is heavily historical. We're to simply overlook our desires, aforementioned, because of historical and political threads which largely interplay outside of our control? I mean to suggest that, in a sense, reprimanding anyone for jumping onto these historical presentations of music and technology seems like reprimanding one for not staying inside because it _might_ rain, or because aliens might attack. Whether they do or not is a fact of the matter, but should we await for Apple, RIAA, etc. to play their course while they continue to tantalize and bombard us with all sorts of "technology"?
One obvious point is that _that is difficult_. The growing philosophical trend of the counter-culture is this: Hey! Musicians were still making a living out of their music _before_ technology put any of us into this mess!
The historical, political, and mercantile lines draw behind the scenes is a theatre we are not privvy to. Pulling the card "you're actually supporting the big wigs of tech and the cost of the big wigs of music" all to make the point that the big wigs of music could enable artisans assumes that artisans themselves trust and believe in the music industry.
The point I want to make here is that all of this is heavily historical. We're to simply overlook our desires, aforementioned, because of historical and political threads which largely interplay outside of our control? I mean to suggest that, in a sense, reprimanding anyone for jumping onto these historical presentations of music and technology seems like reprimanding one for not staying inside because it _might_ rain, or because aliens might attack. Whether they do or not is a fact of the matter, but should we await for Apple, RIAA, etc. to play their course while they continue to tantalize and bombard us with all sorts of "technology"?
One obvious point is that _that is difficult_. The growing philosophical trend of the counter-culture is this: Hey! Musicians were still making a living out of their music _before_ technology put any of us into this mess!
Spoken like a true intellectual. Historically people have stolen photographs and graphics to use on their web pages. Is that cool? Image if someone just ripped off one of your client's advertising slogans and used the same design to sell their products. All's fair when digital right?
This "historical" argument is the same argument that people use to explain all manner of social ills. It's a cop out. It was wrong historically to steal and it's wrong now. People have a personal responsibility, it isn't societies fault that this girl is a thief.
This "historical" argument is the same argument that people use to explain all manner of social ills. It's a cop out. It was wrong historically to steal and it's wrong now. People have a personal responsibility, it isn't societies fault that this girl is a thief.
I'm suggesting the new departure, a new form of problem is this: casually, it is her fault, but this is irrelevant to responsibility. Responsibility involves a conscious acknowledgement of the world around you, and one is at fault, personally, for a lack of consciousness of that world. However, what is the problematic is the presentation of (1) and (2). Independently, they are harmless. We should consume as much music and as much technology as we can, but whether their political, historical and mercantile threads interweave, we are face with a problematic.
I take a majority of this way of thinking from Alain Badiou: the truth procedures of music and the truth procedures of science. What is most interesting to me is that a truth procedure of polity is _seemingly_ determined by the historical presentation of file sharing software and music. I should hope that my arguments do not justify theft, though I may be led astray by my own constructions of thought. But what I am most concerned here is with White's role played as a militant, within the political theatre of piracy; by Badiou, she would be considered a "militant of truth" I believe. One who compels who to witness a "rupture" of the system which _presents_ such a militant. Her superior's condemnation, to me, presents something that might be expected: that we should be compelled by a _person_ to deal with these abstractions which have happened upon our political drama.
People do have a personal responsibility, but at the same time, "personal responsibility" is a function of an social structure. I do not mean to address any "casual" but rather "semantic" description of this "responsibility." What connections (political, historical, etc.) immediately can be drawn from our _decision_ (rather than hypothesis or principle) that White is "wrong"? One conclusion is "education"; but one problem is that a society may very well believe that stealing is "right," like ours. How _might_ one present a counter-indoctrination? From their perspective, this may be how it is presented. We have had decades to mature the ideologies, I believe we are now at a time where we must accept that fact. Some of these ideologies are inherently confrontational. Calling it theft does not entail that any particular action should follow, so it seems that in the absence of one, we might inevitably decide, produce such a _decision_, what those actions should be. I should hope that I am prompting such a discussion.
It _is_ theft. But it is theft born out of a period that allowed dogmatisim to mature.
I take a majority of this way of thinking from Alain Badiou: the truth procedures of music and the truth procedures of science. What is most interesting to me is that a truth procedure of polity is _seemingly_ determined by the historical presentation of file sharing software and music. I should hope that my arguments do not justify theft, though I may be led astray by my own constructions of thought. But what I am most concerned here is with White's role played as a militant, within the political theatre of piracy; by Badiou, she would be considered a "militant of truth" I believe. One who compels who to witness a "rupture" of the system which _presents_ such a militant. Her superior's condemnation, to me, presents something that might be expected: that we should be compelled by a _person_ to deal with these abstractions which have happened upon our political drama.
People do have a personal responsibility, but at the same time, "personal responsibility" is a function of an social structure. I do not mean to address any "casual" but rather "semantic" description of this "responsibility." What connections (political, historical, etc.) immediately can be drawn from our _decision_ (rather than hypothesis or principle) that White is "wrong"? One conclusion is "education"; but one problem is that a society may very well believe that stealing is "right," like ours. How _might_ one present a counter-indoctrination? From their perspective, this may be how it is presented. We have had decades to mature the ideologies, I believe we are now at a time where we must accept that fact. Some of these ideologies are inherently confrontational. Calling it theft does not entail that any particular action should follow, so it seems that in the absence of one, we might inevitably decide, produce such a _decision_, what those actions should be. I should hope that I am prompting such a discussion.
It _is_ theft. But it is theft born out of a period that allowed dogmatisim to mature.
[deleted]
I have one question for everyone: who cares?
The girl herself cares and is naively lamenting about it while not realising her lack of perspective is part of the problem. It's the whole point of the article you dum-dum.
Read before you comment.
Read before you comment.
But I'm sure the whole thing will wrap up nicely with Hacker News solving the problem of digital music sales once and for all.
(I didn't flag; the articles themselves are interesting, even if I utterly despair for the quality of debate they'll inspire here.)