Boycotting: RIAA and MPAA.

[HasimirFenring]

Of course it would be great if artists actually used it this way - they sell their work directly to those who will listen to it. Unfortunately (for the artist), he wouldn't be very rich, because the networks doesn't reach everyone.

The artist wouldn't be very rich from this becuase no one would pay for it, just like now.  I just meant to say that artists have a choice of whether or not their work is shared freely.  If they choose to share it, they won't profit from it.  For some, that would be acceptable; most musicians still need to make a living, though.

[DukeLeto]

Ah, but there's a difference between "making a living" and "bathing in jewels."  Making a living is 50k-100k a year.  But most of these "music artists" are making 1000 times that much!

I know the argument that P2Pers aren't hurting them seems "communist" - but it's the truth.  A few lost record sales (although the Nielson Billboard charts actually show a 9.4% increase in record sales over last year - [sarcasm]not that the RIAA would lie to us or anything.[/sarcasm]) will NOT affect the lifestryles of these rediculously wealthy stars. 

And there hasn't been any good music since 1975 anyways, so who cares what happens to these modern losers?

[HasimirFenring]

And there hasn't been any good music since 1975 anyways, so who cares what happens to these modern losers?

I'm inclined to agree, it's a combination of my respect for the rule of law and having too much spare time which drives my involvement in this discussion.

Ah, but there's a difference between "making a living" and "bathing in jewels."  Making a living is 50k-100k a year.  But most of these "music artists" are making 1000 times that much!

The law still applies equally.

I know the argument that P2Pers aren't hurting them seems "communist"

I'm as much of a communist as anyone at my school, and I live in an arch-liberal city.  We have laws regarding this sort of thing; not all artists are rich, and all art should be protected equally, whether the creator has made it big or not.

[Caid Ivik]

You mean this?  ;D

Many musicians live from their mass-produced albums, which in cybernetic age lose value. They must start to work, that means making live concerts and other shows, which cannot be exactly turned into data.

[Edric O]

I don't expect my argument to mean anything to you, Edric; you are depriving the artists and laborers (as well as the filthy capitalists) of revenue, but to a communist that wouldn't really matter (don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Marx, just much more moderate than you).

Don't be ridiculous. Of course it would mean something (quite a lot, actually) to me (and any other communist) if artists and laborers were deprived of revenue and livelihood. But, as Caid pointed out, selling albums isn't the only source of revenue for an artist. In fact, the whole idea of selling recorded music is a very recent invention - it started only in the mid-20th century. For thousands of years before any form of sound recording was invented, artists have earned money from their live performances. Is there any reason why they suddenly can't do that any more? After all, the money they get from concerts and other public appearences is more than enough to make them quite rich.

[Caid Ivik]

Exactly. It is a perfect coincidence of history, that internet came in nealry same time as possibility of mass reproduction. Informatization of these forms will only force artists to develop other forms of performance, and thus it will only help the quality. Soon, we will again return to the original state, when the composer was either on same or a higher level than the interpret.

[HasimirFenring]

I thought I'd make one final reply to this thread:

I always come off sounding differently than I intend to on this subject.  I don't argue that copyright law SHOULDN'T be changed for the benefit of humanity, only that law should be enforced as it stands.  Lobby for a change in legislation; you wouldn't steal medicine to protest a privatized healthcare system (bad analogy, but I'm not feeling well).

[nemafakei]

Edric, live performances don't always apply. For example, I might want to make a living composing music to be played by others, or creating it on computer. I might be very good at it, but I might be unable to perform due to old age, imfirmity, or just cack-handedness when it comes to instruments. There needs to be a general method of recompensing authors of information without putting a price on that information.

[HasimirFenring]

I'm breaking my promise about being done with this thread

How is downloading music any different from downloading a video game?  Both are just "information."  Yet if everyone downloaded video games rather than buying them, the industry wouldn't be able to continually produce such goodness as Half-life 2.

[DukeLeto]

Ironically, I know several people that dpwnloaded HL2 - Legally.  (You can get it at a discount by buying it online and DLing it through Steam.)  Something similar should be set up for music.  But not at the rediculous prices they are now...it's more expensive to download somg by song than to buy the CD!  That's not going to encourage people to use official channels at all!

Besides, a video game is worked on by a great many people that each make an honest living from their work.  "Music artists," on the other hand, are individuals who already have millions.  Although I understand that you don't see the difference under the law; indeed, right now, there is none.

[nemafakei]

Both are creators of intellectual products. Why not find a rule for both?

[HasimirFenring]

Ironically, I know several people that dpwnloaded HL2 - Legally.  (You can get it at a discount by buying it online and DLing it through Steam.)  Something similar should be set up for music.  But not at the rediculous prices they are now...it's more expensive to download somg by song than to buy the CD!  That's not going to encourage people to use official channels at all!

I was talking about doing it illegally, I wouldn't trust Steam for that sort of thing...  Bloody steam.

Besides, a video game is worked on by a great many people that each make an honest living from their work. "Music artists," on the other hand, are individuals who already have millions. Although I understand that you don't see the difference under the law; indeed, right now, there is none.

just becuase you don't like musicians doesn't mean that they should be ripped off.  My father plays in an orchestra; his royalties don't reach a dollar annually, but the point is becuase you THINK most artists are already rich doesn't change the law.

Both are creators of intellectual products. Why not find a rule for both?

Exactly.  There should be a consistent rule for intellectual property.

[Megashrap]

[Caid Ivik]

To put it radically, we talk about pseudo-art. I haven't seen a sole positive critics of mass consumerist products of art as whole. Originally, good artists lived only from donations, when somebody liked their work. As roman saying: "if there'll be Maecenati, there'll be also Vergilii". Only these volunteers paid for the "work" itself, we can say, intellectual production. Copyrights had no sense there. Copying only spread the artist's fame and so lured new supporters. If I wasn't able to illegaly get Dune II, I wouldn't buy C&C and TS later... However, since then official game scene changed, and now it is same as ie production of bicycles, so it can't be compared.

A healthy model of game scene would be if studios were making games as demonstrators of new technologies in programming, interface or graphics. This would lure other companies, which may find these things useful (science, practical programmers, advertisment...), to support their art. About movies it can be said there is no need for change, as best movies (like those by Aronofsky or Tarkowski - tough this may be subjective ;D ) aren't in cinemas anyway. And with music, well, we must turn to support primarily composers, not interprets, or merge them...

[Andrew]

  This will always be a no-win situation for both  music and movie industries, that is unless they can somehow control and police the entire net.  Having some sort of control over a few cheesy p2p sites or software does squat to deter downloaders of either type, music or movies. There are by far more reliable dloads from other sources and means than even the most popular p2p's. I buy dvd's and cd's but I also dload many so sue me, and good luck with trying to.

Interesting article I was reading earlier about Bit Torrent.... http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.01/bittorrent.html?tw=wn_story_top5

"A few weeks before the US presidential election in November, when Jon Stewart - host of Comedy Central's irreverent The Daily Show - made a now-famous appearance on CNN's Crossfire. Stewart attacked the hosts, Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson, calling them political puppets. "What you do is partisan hackery," he said, just before he called Carlson "a dick." Amusing enough, but what happened next was more remarkable. Delighted fans immediately ripped the segment and posted it online as a torrent. Word of Stewart's smackdown spread rapidly through the blogs, and within a day at least 4,000 servers were hosting the clip. One host reported having, at any given time, more than a hundred peers swapping and downloading the file. No one knows exactly how many people got the clip through BitTorrent, but this kind of traffic on the very first day suggests a number in the hundreds of thousands - and probably much higher. Another 2.3 million people streamed it from iFilm.com over the next few weeks. By contrast, CNN's audience for Crossfire was only 867,000. Three times as many people saw Stewart's appearance online as on CNN itself." :D

Ironically, I saw it live on CNN, then I went and downloaded it. :P

Jon Stewart rocks. I think more people watch his show than crossfire. And what Jon said on Crossfire was completely true.

[Anathema]

Argument: Music is the same as air / is the same as a christmas tree on a public square

With the difference that nobody worked to create that air, and it belongs to nobody. Though actually it could be justified if the money is spent on cleaning the air: consumers indirectly cause pollution, so why not an environmental tax on goods?

The christmas tree, well it stands on a public square. If the owner wants people to pay for seeing it he should hold an exhibition in a closed building. Similarily, I can't be accused of voyeurism if you chose to walk naked on the street, could I?

Artists/music companies make enough as it is

And that's supposed to justify theft? This is pretty much how sceptics view communism: "stealing" from the rich. Regardless of your political convictions, you're living in a capitalist country and you have no mandate to decide who earns more then he should.

It's not theft, you're not actually depriving anybody of anything

It's not theft in the strictest sense of the word, but it's still wrong. If you're not paying, you shouldn't be picking the fruits of other people's work. And suppose I'm a voyeur, and look from my window to spy on attractive naked women, I'm not doing anything wrong because I'm not depriving anybody of anything? The fact that it's not theft doesn't mean it's right.

But it's a victimless crime!

This is essentially the same as the argument above. You're leeching of the work of others. Those artists aren't better off or worse when you don't listen to their music at all, but they have worked to bring you that music and you should pay them for it, you ingrates.

[Megashrap]

But it's a victimless crime!

This is essentially the same as the argument above. You're leeching of the work of others. Those artists aren't better off or worse when you don't listen to their music at all, but they have worked to bring you that music and you should pay them for it, you ingrates.

Well Boo-F.....Hoo. Just because I have the resource to review before I purchase, rather than relying on a cd cover doesen't bother me at all. Nor does it put any artist directly in the unemployment line.

On a lighter note,

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) suggested Tuesday that people who download copyright materials from the Internet should have their computers automatically destroyed.

But Hatch himself is using unlicensed software on his official website, which presumably would qualify his computer to be smoked by the system he proposes

The senator's site makes extensive use of a Javascript menu system developed by Milonic Solutions, a software company based in the United Kingdom. The copyright-protected code has not been licensed for use on Hatch's website.

"It's an unlicensed copy," said Andy Woolley, who runs Milonic. "It's very unfortunate for him because of those comments he made."

Hatch on Tuesday surprised a Senate hearing on copyright issues with the suggestion that technology should be developed to remotely destroy the computers of people who illegally download music from the Net.

Hatch said damaging someone's computer "may be the only way you can teach somebody about copyrights," the Associated Press reported. He then suggested the technology would twice warn a computer user about illegal online behavior, "then destroy their computer."

Continental Airlines, for example, one of the largest airlines in the United States, uses Woolley's system throughout its Continental.com website. Woolley said the airline has not paid for the software. Worse, the copyright notices in the source code have been removed.

"That really pisses me off," he said.

Source http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C59305%2C00.html

  Give these Industry giants enough power, and eventually virtually everything other than purchasing online will be Illegal, in some form or another, and i'm sure lawyers will conjuer up plenty of grounds for a sue-fest.  The day my ISP informs me that I am dloading media illegally, is the day I stop paying dearly for thier service.

The record industry, movie industry,  micro$oft etc., or a few brain-celled deprived idiots in our government should never have a strangelhold or an overloard almighty net police/snipers snooping everyone 24/7 on how each and every person decides to use thier cookies,and worried or not thier in the crosshairs...or where they decide to view, dload, read, communicate, etc. via their P.C.

aside from clearly justifiable invasion of ones privacy, e.g... tryin to crack the FBI, terrorism, child porn etc..etc. all they are trying to accomplish is nothing more than control of something that is or was a free information gathering source. It's bad enough that I see disclaimers on certain cd's that if i want to play the content say at a party or any public venue, then I'm treading on illegal copywright federal laws that say I'm guilty if I choose to do so.

Maybe try putting the blame were it most likely is, the fact that the band or music,cd etc. may have sucked except for a few songs that maybe one might have dloaded to come to such a conclusion. So f..... what! To blame thier shitty so-called music or video/movie sales revenue soley on some p2p, or any dloading in general is weak, period. To try to control individuals as a whole and dictate what or can be dloaded online with ones P.C. on this matter is far weaker.

[Caid Ivik]

Argument: Music is the same as air / is the same as a christmas tree on a public square

With the difference that nobody worked to create that air, and it belongs to nobody. Though actually it could be justified if the money is spent on cleaning the air: consumers indirectly cause pollution, so why not an environmental tax on goods?

The christmas tree, well it stands on a public square. If the owner wants people to pay for seeing it he should hold an exhibition in a closed building. Similarily, I can't be accused of voyeurism if you chose to walk naked on the street, could I?

Artists/music companies make enough as it is

And that's supposed to justify theft? This is pretty much how sceptics view communism: "stealing" from the rich. Regardless of your political convictions, you're living in a capitalist country and you have no mandate to decide who earns more then he should.

It's not theft, you're not actually depriving anybody of anything

It's not theft in the strictest sense of the word, but it's still wrong. If you're not paying, you shouldn't be picking the fruits of other people's work. And suppose I'm a voyeur, and look from my window to spy on attractive naked women, I'm not doing anything wrong because I'm not depriving anybody of anything? The fact that it's not theft doesn't mean it's right.

But it's a victimless crime!

This is essentially the same as the argument above. You're leeching of the work of others. Those artists aren't better off or worse when you don't listen to their music at all, but they have worked to bring you that music and you should pay them for it, you ingrates.

Why then people make radios and TV, where the music goes without a break?

Why they aren't trying to define the valuable part of their product?

Why do we not punish adultery?

My boy, problem is deeper than you think...

[Anathema]

Because radio and TV stations pay to broadcast music. The other 2 questions don't even make sense, not in this context at least.

Don't patronize me, thanks.

[Caid Ivik]

And creator of that tree doesn't pay for the place, design and material as well? And do you think musicians have no will to broadcast their art? And about the next ones - do you think value of art is understood nowadays enough to make such radical declarations as "downloading kills music"? And that adultery is nothing else than victimless crime, and yet without punishment as well?

[Anathema]

If the creator doesn't want anyone to see his tree without paying, he wouldn't pick a public square to put it. Musicians of course want people to listen to their music, but usually want to make a living of it too (and more then just that). Music is by definition art, regardless of the quality. And adultry is not only victimless, it's not a crime either ;)

[HasimirFenring]

Argument: Music is the same as air / is the same as a christmas tree on a public square

With the difference that nobody worked to create that air, and it belongs to nobody. Though actually it could be justified if the money is spent on cleaning the air: consumers indirectly cause pollution, so why not an environmental tax on goods?

The christmas tree, well it stands on a public square. If the owner wants people to pay for seeing it he should hold an exhibition in a closed building. Similarily, I can't be accused of voyeurism if you chose to walk naked on the street, could I?

Artists/music companies make enough as it is

And that's supposed to justify theft? This is pretty much how sceptics view communism: "stealing" from the rich. Regardless of your political convictions, you're living in a capitalist country and you have no mandate to decide who earns more then he should.

It's not theft, you're not actually depriving anybody of anything

It's not theft in the strictest sense of the word, but it's still wrong. If you're not paying, you shouldn't be picking the fruits of other people's work. And suppose I'm a voyeur, and look from my window to spy on attractive naked women, I'm not doing anything wrong because I'm not depriving anybody of anything? The fact that it's not theft doesn't mean it's right.

But it's a victimless crime!

This is essentially the same as the argument above. You're leeching of the work of others. Those artists aren't better off or worse when you don't listen to their music at all, but they have worked to bring you that music and you should pay them for it, you ingrates.

Thank you Anathema, I don't feel so alone in this thread now.  You stated my feelings perfectly.

[Anathema]

No problem mate, I used to think I'm the only person opposed to illegal downloading as well :)

[nemafakei]

"The christmas tree, well it stands on a public square. If the owner wants people to pay for seeing it he should hold an exhibition in a closed building."

Well, Edric is saying charge for live performances, not for the data itself, which is how your private exhibition would map out from the analogy.

But here at least, a small amount of communal resources (town/county council funds) are set aside for putting up a christmas tree, and all benefit. The christmas tree is an unrestricted benefit to the community, and it is supported by the community at large. Just so could those who produce intellectual benefit for all be rewarded by all.

[HasimirFenring]

"The christmas tree, well it stands on a public square. If the owner wants people to pay for seeing it he should hold an exhibition in a closed building."

Well, Edric is saying charge for live performances, not for the data itself, which is how your private exhibition would map out from the analogy.

Yes, but in the analogy the tree owner has the CHOICE of having an indoor exhibition; musicians can't stop their music from being pirated.