songs on the hot new CD were actually worth listening to. You could get around RIAA pricing so skewed that, for some titles, the soundtrack to a movie cost only $1 less than the whole DVD!
ahhh there's the rub!
the main reason the recording industry is dying, is perceived value!
you can buy a movie on dvd, usually 2 discs! (for big releases) for about the same price as a cd.
not to mention the fact that i think everyone feels that side by side a movie is of larger artistic merit than a record. i mean it's just a bigger deal.
(look at the rise in dvd sales with fall of cd sales, they're congruent!)
add to that, the inbred tendencies of labels to only sign carbon copies of previous success's and you have a recipe for disaster.
the toothpaste is out of the tube, and i think all the big five are praying for is a piece of the hardware (ala the video tape spiff hollywood gets) action to compensate for lost royalties.
which would float their corpulent carcasses a few more years.
Absolutely not. Copyright is concerned with publication - that is, making things available to the public. Piracy means unauthorized publication. If I buy a book and run 10,000 copies of it, and put them in my storage room, I have not broken any law. If I give the book and all 10,000 copies of it to to the same person, I have not broken any law.
If I give one copy to a friend, I have (under the 1976 law) committed a de minimus violation, which was fair use and legal (and might still be - I've never had the stomach to read the DMCA end to end, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say much about physical books).
Mac OS X Unleashed, Second Edition
Copyright (c) 2003 by Sams Publishing
All rights reserved. No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.
All rights reserved. No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.
Yup. That's the text on the book. Now go read the law.
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
Oh, this is a quote from the United States Copyright Office's website. I thought I better say that so don't get in trouble for copyright infringment.
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
Oh, this is a quote from the United States Copyright Office's website. I thought I better say that so don't get in trouble for copyright infringment.
*sigh*
OK, since you are determined not to go read the law, I'll do all the legwork for you:
Title 17 is the law I've been referring to all this time.
Sections 107-112 deal with the fair use exceptions to the rule you quoted above, which are the provisions in the law I have explicitly identified as my subject matter.
Now, some Supreme Court cases for your edification:
First, a general statement of the goal of US copyright law (emphasis mine):
Quote:
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution provides:
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
[p.429] The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.
"The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948).
As the text of the Constitution makes plain, it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product. Because this task involves a difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society's competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand, our patent and copyright statutes have been amended repeatedly. n10
And the note 10 footnoted at the end of the quote:
Quote:
n10 In its Report accompanying the comprehensive revision of the Copyright Act in 1909, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives explained this balance:
"The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, . . . but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings. . . .
"In enacting a copyright law Congress must consider . . . two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and, second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly." H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909).
The monopoly established by copyright law is here explicitly identified by Congress as evil, albeit necessary; but its evilness is given as a powerful incentive to limit its scope and duration.
The RIAA wouldn't be frantically lobbying to change the law if it already backed them up.
Second, repeated affirmation of the "no harm, no foul" (de minimus) standard for fair use. From the introduction (all emphasis mine):
Quote:
In summary, those findings reveal that the average member of the public uses a VTR principally to record a program he cannot view as it is being televised and then to watch it once at a later time. This practice, known as "time-shifting," enlarges the television viewing audience. For that reason, a significant amount of television programming may be used in this manner without objection from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. For the same reason [respondents] were unable to prove that the practice has impaired thecommercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm.
More:
Quote:
The staple article of commerce doctrine must strike a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective -- not merely symbolic -- protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate,
unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
I think that describes the feature in iTunes 4 well enough. In fact, it couldn't even be used directly for infringement, unlike a copier; another program had to be used with it. The removal of the 'net broadcasting feature from iTunes was a political move to placate the recording industry. It had no basis in copyright law.
And, from Harper & Row vs. Nation Enterprises, a landmark Fair Use case (where, incidentally, the defendant lost the claim to fair use by quoting all the good parts of former President Ford's memoir before it had been published):
Quote:
(d) Taking into account the four factors enumerated in 107 as especially relevant in determining fair use, leads to the conclusion that the use in question here was not fair. (i) The fact that news reporting was the general purpose of The Nation's use is simply one factor. [...] The fact that the publication was commercial as opposed to nonprofit is a separate factor tending to weigh against a finding of fair use. Fair use presupposes good faith. The Nation's unauthorized use of the undisseminated manuscript had not merely the incidental effect but the intended purpose of supplanting the copyright holders' commercially valuable right of first publication. [...] (iii) Although the verbatim quotes [471 U.S. 539, 541] in question were an insubstantial portion of the Ford manuscript, they qualitatively embodied Mr. Ford's distinctive expression and played a key role in the infringing article. (iv) As to the effect of The Nation's article on the market for the copyrighted work, Time's cancellation of its projected article and its refusal to pay $12,500 were the direct effect of the infringing publication. Once a copyright holder establishes a causal connection between the infringement and loss of revenue, the burden shifts to the infringer to show that the damage would have occurred had there been no taking of copyrighted expression.
So: 1) copyright concerns publication, first and foremost; 2) financial interest weighs against fair use, which means that lack of financial interest weighs in favor (i.e., there's a difference between copying CDs and handing them out, and copying CDs and selling them); 3) the unauthorized use of the material caused specific and provable harm to the publisher. No harm, no foul; but in this case Harper & Row lost $12,500 for an exclusive preview from Time Magazine as a direct result of the Nation's actions.
That's a negative definition. I won't quote further, just because this post is already absurdly long, but I've linked the decision. You can read for yourself. If the copying is not piracy (that is, unauthorized publication); is not for profit; is for personal, educational, critical, or parodic use; and has no causally established negative effect on the marketability of the product; then it's probably fair use (although the Court notes, and it's important to remember, that copyright violations have to be considered on an individual basis).
Now, Copyright law is currently infested with all kinds of crap that runs absolutely counter to basic principles such as prior restraint, thanks to the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA. These organizations are not primarily concerned with rewarding artists or enriching the public domain, so I consider their opinions on the nature of copyright law to be irrelevant.
...Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah...Now, Copyright law is currently infested with all kinds of crap that runs absolutely counter to basic principles such as prior restraint, thanks to the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA. These organizations are not primarily concerned with rewarding artists or enriching the public domain, so I consider their opinions on the nature of copyright law to be irrelevant.
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, Fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated, opinions expressed herein are those of Fahlman and do not necessarily represent the views of AppleInsider.com(or Amorph).
All rights reserved. No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
While these quotes are on the topic of Copyright law, they aren't actually the text of the law.
Addressing the first quote:
Publishers have an economic incentive to characterize copyrights as more protective than they actually are. Thus, they aren't the most unbiased source.
Addressing the second quote:
The key phrase in this sentence is not 'reproduced' but rather 'As a general matter'. As Amorph has so verbosely and eloquently pointed out, further reading can clarify this generalization.
Has anyone here ever stolen an orange? I doubt it. Most people consider that oranges go for a fair price, and it is low. If people started charging 14.99 for a dozen oranges, I assure you people would start lifting them from the grocery store, and it wouldn't be prosecuted.
My point isn't that it is OK as to steal as long as you feel ripped off. What I am pointing out is that with digital files, music and movies are a commodity. People don't take the claims of theft seriously because we don't feel like the labels are hurting. I would buy a million songs if the price were more realistic (and no $1 is not realistic except for the newest hits). I'll be damned if I will ever pay a dollar for some of Van Halen's '80s stuff, but I would like to have it. The music companies are passing up the 2 bucks I would pay for "1984", and I don't feel too bad ripping it from a friend because it sits in the bottom row of their CD rack. The odds of him and me listening to it at the same time are slim, so we actually would be practicing fair use, I just don't have a physical copy.
Is there any particular reason that the idea of copyright as rewarding artists and enriching the public domain is so onerous to you? Is my ability to back up CDs to a personal archive (or, say, the ability of a library to back up its collection to an archive) such a tremendous burden? Have we fallen so far that immediate profit outweighs the most fundamental principle of democracy? I'm not exaggerating here: The Supreme Court has repeatedly described (and defined) copyright as "the engine of free speech." (This is, historically, a polemical definition: Government enforcement of the original copyright collusion was granted by the British government to the presses in return for the presses' promise that they wouldn't print books the Government didn't want them to.)
You wouldn't happen to work for a publisher, would you? That might explain your insistence that the copyright holder (as distinct from the creator, of course) have absolute control - except that I know some publishers with more enlightened views than that.
Further reading for anyone interested in my post: The Statute of Anne, the first modern (read: sensible) copyright law, enacted by the Parliament of England in 1710, and the historical antecedent for the Copyright Clause in the US Constitution.
The Interactive Digital Software Association on how the Doctrine of First Sale does not allow people to just hand out copies willy-nilly (but it does allow people to make as many copies for their own needs as they please. Note that handing out tapes of albums is tolerated as a de minimus violation under the 1976 Copyright Act; this paper addresses a different issue. Note also that most software vendors attempt to use licenses to get around the Doctrine altogether - Deneba's license agreement for Canvas purports to conjoin me from giving the CD to anyone else, as if it were any different in substance from a book or an audio CD.
Has anyone here ever stolen an orange? I doubt it. Most people consider that oranges go for a fair price, and it is low. If people started charging 14.99 for a dozen oranges, I assure you people would start lifting them from the grocery store, and it wouldn't be prosecuted.
So, by your definition, it would be morally OK to just steal the current PowerMacs? 8)
first off, I agree that music labels are bad to an extent, but eliminating them all-together is not the end-all, be-all answer. I've yet to see a business model in place that can benefit both the consumer and artist, without the help of a middle man. When it happens(it will one day) I'll be happy, but until then....
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
[B]That does happen, but that's not all: You always have to assume a "dull roar" standard of abuse and fallibility. If the referees called every actual foul in a game, no-one would get anywhere.
if you've ever been a ref, and actually went through the training for one, you'd realize what you just said is false. Not all calls are made due to how they comprehend what happened, and where they saw it from. If some ref's let a foul slide, it is by no means "acceptable" and you can be fired for doing so. Missing a call on a foul is either incompetence or bias, neither of which are permissible.
Quote:
The other side of the coin is that the music industry is abjectly terrified of copying, and Apple has to shut down any obvious avenues that allow it in order to sell them on distributing music online at all. This is a pragmatic gesture as much as (or more than) an ethical one.
it's called the domino effect. If people steal music, the industry doesn't get paid, which means the artist does not get paid. And there is a reason the industry gets paid, it's called advertising and marketing, and those two things can make or break an artists career.
Quote:
After all, if you measured the damage done by the music industry's dishonesty in dollars, vs. the iTunes rippers, I think you'd find the result was hopelessly lopsided toward the industry. The big 5 labels were just busted for collusion and price-fixing, and nobody here is calling for iTunes to be patched to deal with their abuses.
no, the industry patches come in the form of millions of dollars in lawsuits.
Quote:
Looks like you bought into the RIAA's story hook, line and sinker. Sorry, but no. Napster was user-friendly, interactive, and convenient. You could get albums that were hard to find in stores, or that were no longer in print. You could sample new bands, and find out how many songs on the hot new CD were actually worth listening to. You could get around RIAA pricing so skewed that, for some titles, the soundtrack to a movie cost only $1 less than the whole DVD!
And the music industry was slapped w/ a lawsuit for price-fixing. And you work under the assumption that all those millions of people on napster are "honest" people, who only sample the music to see if they like it, then go buy it. Are we living in the same world here? I know almost no one who buys cds now, because p2p is free and no one is getting punished for doing it. It sounds to me that you are one of the many who have convinced yourself and bought into the mentality that it's ok to download music without paying for it. You think that because it only costs pennies to make an actual cd, that a whole cd should be only a dollar. Never mind the fact that it costs money to make plants to produce these cds, and to put the music onto them. And then there's the cost of distribution. And what about the time and money spent on recording this music? The equipment that is used to record this music on? The equipment to play the music? What about the building this is all done in, and the money required to power it? Do you think this is all free of charge? I got a feeling you've never worked or been around the music industry.
The biggest beneficiaries of p2p programs are independent artists. They've made their music and haven't relied on the industry. They may not have enough money to pay for their own marketing, advertising and distribution, and/or the industry might feel that making an investment in that artist is not a profitable venture. For the artist then, p2p is great. It takes care of the distribution, and marketing and advertising to a lesser extent. The songs are out there now, you just have to wait for someone to take a chance on downloading your song.
Now here's another question for you. Say an independent artist does put his/her music on p2p, instead of getting in bed with the industry. How is this artist supposed to recoup the money he/she put into making this music? And how is he/she supposed to provide for themself while making this music? You don't seem the least bit concerned with that, as long as you get your music for free, you're happy.
[quote]
If you look around, you'll find that lots of musicians and songwriters have much higher opinions of P2P than publishers do (of course, this is not unanimously true). If you want to find a far more consistent target for the ill will of the people whose work is under discussion here, look no farther than the companies sheltering behind the RIAA. The RIAA would just love it if you believed that its members were honest, fair-minded businesses, and the P2P services were Mafia-controlled dens of iniquity serving evil, dark-eyed scum who cackled as they stole bread from the mouths of poor, innocent artists with big, moist doe eyes. The fact is that nobody - and I mean nobody - has done more to deprive artists of the fruits of their work than the Big 5 record labels.
Which reminds me: The RIAA's argument (and your argument) is identical, almost verbatim, to arguments against every form of commercially available recordable medium all the way back to the reel to reel, and also to the MPAA's argument against videocassettes. They've always been wrong. These technologies have always grown the industries they supposedly destroy.
P2P programs were the best thing to happen to the RIAA. If it hadn't been for the DMCA, the RIAA would have no law to lay down. As it is, the tactics they've resorted to (trying to pass laws allowing them to hack into people's machines and delete files on suspicion?!) are uniformly dishonest and repugnant.
Quote:
If it wasn't for Napster and Grokster and Gnutella and what-have-you, there would be no iTunes Music Store, and we'd all be discontently shelling out $20 for the latest Coldplay CD (of which money Coldplay would be lucky to see one lonely pence). I cannot stress this often enough: This is an industry that did not want you to be able to listen to a CD before purchasing it! They are completely anti-consumer. If Napster was a bit too pro-consumer, it was hardly worse. If it did any damage at all, and none of the RIAA's claims hold enough water to convince me that it did, then it hurt the labels much more than the artists.
The legal system took care of the pricing, not napster or gnutella. The itunes music store would've came out eventually, as artists have been looking for quite some time for a way to cut the middle man(the record labels) out of the picture.
"Did not want us to be able to listen to a cd before purchasing it?" Isn't that what the radio is for? Or those fancy music stations that are, and have been pretty much standard in music stores? What about this, have you ever just went into a music store and "asked" to hear a particular artist? 99% of the time you'll get a warm response because record labels send out demo cds for that very purpose.
Quote:
The point you consistently miss is that the RIAA is not honest. The politicians who accept hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from the RIAA to pass anti-copyright bills into law are not honest. The aide who slipped in a provision making all music recorded for labels into work for hire, automatically, was not honest.
What you are missing is that I do understand the RIAA and the record labels are dishonest. What you do not understand is that we have a legal system in place. What you also fail to address is dishonest music traders. But alas, you've already convinced yourself it's ok to download music without paying for it.
The thing that artists hope for, almost instinctively, is exposure. Getting their music out where people can hear it is #1 on almost every artist's list (the ones for whom this is not true are generally household names like the Rolling Stones). Widespread copying of bootlegs and albums has served as exposure for lots of up-and-coming bands. It means no album sales - to people who couldn't get their albums anyway. It means an installed fan base they can hit on a tour even though it's far from any of the pitiful distribution channels available to them. It means word-of-mouth marketing, which is both the most influential kind available at any cost and free. P2P is the old way squared. A lot of artists, especially in genres like hip-hop that the major labels don't understand, put their songs on P2P networks themselves. Increasingly, there are bands who offer their songs for free on the web, not bothering with CDs at all, and make money on tours and merchandise - which is about the same business model that major label acts depend on anyway, only without the corrupt middleman, the indecipherable indentured-servitude contract, and the $18 toll you have to pay in order to decide whether or not you like the band.
you're definitely right, exposure comes from marketing and advertising. By word of mouth and airplay. And it's the record label who pays for this.
You also fail to acknowledge that most bands don't get to go on tour until they've actually made it big and are a household name. Unless of course you decide to play in local bars the whole time. But then there'd be no "big money" off of merchandise and tours. By the way it costs money to make this "merchandise", and if an artist is still new and unheard of, without the financial backing of a third party, how are they going to pay for the initial costs?
"Widespread copying of bootlegs and albums has served as exposure for lots of up-and-coming bands"
and in your infinite wisdom, did you ever stop to think that it costs money to make these albums to "bootleg?" You're saying there should be no record labels, and only people with a lot of money should be able to make music? I fail to see your point.
Quote:
If there's any "right" and "wrong" in this issue, the RIAA is on the wrong side on nearly every count. Don't believe the hype. [/B]
touche, and why not try seeing both sides of the music business before making assumptions. All i see is a person who expects a lot, and wants to give nothing in return.
You think that because it only costs pennies to make an actual cd, that a whole cd should be only a dollar. Never mind the fact that it costs money to make plants to produce these cds, and to put the music onto them. And then there's the cost of distribution. And what about the time and money spent on recording this music? The equipment that is used to record this music on? The equipment to play the music? What about the building this is all done in, and the money required to power it? Do you think this is all free of charge? I got a feeling you've never worked or been around the music industry.
You forgot to mention the costs of developing sophisticated copy protection mechanisms.
We work on a system of producer/consumer. The consumer recieves Wages for Labour, Rent for Land, Interest for Capital, and Profit for Enterprise. With that income, the consumer purchases goods and services.
Businesses used to compete on the best economic model, and hence the biggest profit for the producer. That worked with commodities. However, technology like computers are not commodities. They have to be designed. The same applies to art. Art is good. It's part of culture.
However, artists need to be "enabled" to create art. Artists can't produce art for free and do nothing else. They'd starve and die. Hence copyright. Copyright exists to supply a safe minimum amount of money to the artist, so they can be "enabled" to produce art and not starve and die.
It's slightly different with products like computers. Businesses compete on economic models still. It's not like they would recieve no money on their product if copyright didn't exist. However, where's the incentive? Why should a business design a product if all other companies would copy it? There is a DISincentive, as the business is spending money that other companies don't have to. So copyright exists to provide and incentive to create products. Again, a safe minimum incentive is what should be aimed for.
The question which SHOULD be asked is this; "If respect for copyright by individuals is not enforced, will artists/businesses continue to receive enough money to continue to create art/products?"
The question that SHOULDN'T be asked is this; "Are artists/businesses recieving the money that THEY want for every single use of their creative or unique work?"
The reason for the producer/consumer system, and copyright, is to ensure that consumers all get the most possible goods and services. The latter question is the polar opposite of the "public interest", because it's artifically reducing the goods and services consumers recieve.
Artists are now 99% of the time consumers. No doubt they want the most goods and services they can get. Some artists (ie musicians) don't see a dime anymore for their labours. All the enabling money they should recieve due to copyright is ending up in the hands of a few "gatekeepers". The system we have now with regards to music is the worst of both worlds. Not only do we only get art from those desperate enough to create it for free, but that art is controlled by the "gatekeepers" so that we the people cannot legally buy it at a market price or use it how we want.
A copyright system where a safe minimum of enabling money is distributed to artists and businesses without personal freedom being sacrificed is probably achievable. Hopefully I won't be dead by the time such a system is put in place.
first off, I agree that music labels are bad to an extent, but eliminating them all-together is not the end-all, be-all answer.
Eliminating publishers is definatly not be all/end all. Someone needs to get the music out. And businesses with lots of capital will always be better than individuals (ie P2P). Hence the reason why copyright works at all. Eliminating the music labels would be a good start though. The reason music so expensive is because the big 5 music labels are bloated and corrupt. They don't have to be efficent at helping create and distribute music, they don't have to. They just send their FBI cronies in to bust down the door of anyone who competes with them.
Missing a call on a foul is either incompetence or bias, neither of which are permissible.
it's called the domino effect. If people steal music, the industry doesn't get paid, which means the artist does not get paid. And there is a reason the industry gets paid, it's called advertising and marketing, and those two things can make or break an artists career.
Artists got paid!? When did this happen!? Also, check out "consumer soverignty" v "business soverignty" sometime. And think to yourself, if a piece of music or an album needs anything more than a minimum amount of marketing to get the public aware of it, is it really art? Are people just buying it because they're conviced that a particular piece of trash is a good product? Also, I renew my objection to people who refer to copyright violation as stealing.
"Did not want us to be able to listen to a cd before purchasing it?" Isn't that what the radio is for?
Why should analoge radio exist then and not internet radio, or P2P? What gives you or anyone else the right to choose which distrobution mediums should exist and which should not, except for the people as a whole?
You also fail to acknowledge that most bands don't get to go on tour until they've actually made it big and are a household name. Unless of course you decide to play in local bars the whole time. But then there'd be no "big money" off of merchandise and tours. By the way it costs money to make this "merchandise", and if an artist is still new and unheard of, without the financial backing of a third party, how are they going to pay for the initial costs?
This is completely false! Most non-famous musicians only make money at small gigs. That 3 bucks you give the bouncer at the door... is frequently the only money that the musicians make. Sometimes the bar gets a cut and sometimes the bar takes it all and pays the band a pre-arranged amount. Also, T-shirts only cost a few bucks to make... go out and investigate how much it costs to have 100 shirts printed. Its pretty damn cheap. Local musicians also just burn CDRs and photocopy inserts at the local copy shop. Once again, investment in a stock of band related merchandise is pretty cheap.
It is nearly impossible for musicians to make money with a major-label distributed and promoted CD. However, nearly all professional musicians at least partially support themselves with local gigs and intermittent tours with cover bands. Basically, while I agree with the motivation for copyrights, they aren't achieving their intended goal in the music industry. They aren't promoting creative endeavor by musicians and are, IMHO, hurting the music industry by perpetuating an inefficient and unsustainable economic model.
So, by your definition, it would be morally OK to just steal the current PowerMacs? 8)
No, for two reasons.
1) It would be depriving the current owner (Apple, Reseller, Individual) of their actual property.
2) Apple doesn't collude with Dell, HP and IBM to keep the price of PC cum workstations high. Apple just sells 'em at a high price and no-one buys them.
Artists got paid!? When did this happen!? Also, check out "consumer soverignty" v "business soverignty" sometime. And think to yourself, if a piece of music or an album needs anything more than a minimum amount of marketing to get the public aware of it, is it really art? Are people just buying it because they're conviced that a particular piece of trash is a good product? Also, I renew my objection to people who refer to copyright violation as stealing.
if no one hears a piece of music, is it good?
Quote:
Why should analoge radio exist then and not internet radio, or P2P? What gives you or anyone else the right to choose which distrobution mediums should exist and which should not, except for the people as a whole?
i've never stated that internet radio shouldn't be an option. P2p is a problem because you can download cd-quality music without paying the artist. If it were a perfect world, there'd only be short clips of each song on a P2P that you could download, or even a full song that could only be played once or twice before it expunges itself. That'd benefit the consumer and the artist. But you know, someone will always try to come along and find a way to try and crack it so that song can never expunge itself.
It's always going to be a battle between consumers who feel music should be free and the artists who want to get paid.
If you want an issue that really peeves me, and is probably more of a joke than the music industry, its the unGodly amount of money that is paid to professional athletes, and the whole business model behind that.
Comments
Originally posted by Amorph
songs on the hot new CD were actually worth listening to. You could get around RIAA pricing so skewed that, for some titles, the soundtrack to a movie cost only $1 less than the whole DVD!
ahhh there's the rub!
the main reason the recording industry is dying, is perceived value!
you can buy a movie on dvd, usually 2 discs! (for big releases) for about the same price as a cd.
not to mention the fact that i think everyone feels that side by side a movie is of larger artistic merit than a record. i mean it's just a bigger deal.
(look at the rise in dvd sales with fall of cd sales, they're congruent!)
add to that, the inbred tendencies of labels to only sign carbon copies of previous success's and you have a recipe for disaster.
the toothpaste is out of the tube, and i think all the big five are praying for is a piece of the hardware (ala the video tape spiff hollywood gets) action to compensate for lost royalties.
which would float their corpulent carcasses a few more years.
Originally posted by Amorph
Absolutely not. Copyright is concerned with publication - that is, making things available to the public. Piracy means unauthorized publication. If I buy a book and run 10,000 copies of it, and put them in my storage room, I have not broken any law. If I give the book and all 10,000 copies of it to to the same person, I have not broken any law.
If I give one copy to a friend, I have (under the 1976 law) committed a de minimus violation, which was fair use and legal (and might still be - I've never had the stomach to read the DMCA end to end, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't say much about physical books).
Mac OS X Unleashed, Second Edition
Copyright (c) 2003 by Sams Publishing
All rights reserved. No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.
Originally posted by fahlman
Mac OS X Unleashed, Second Edition
Copyright (c) 2003 by Sams Publishing
All rights reserved. No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.
Yup. That's the text on the book. Now go read the law.
Originally posted by Amorph
Yup. That's the text on the book. Now go read the law.
5. What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
Oh, this is a quote from the United States Copyright Office's website. I thought I better say that so don't get in trouble for copyright infringment.
Originally posted by fahlman
5. What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
Oh, this is a quote from the United States Copyright Office's website. I thought I better say that so don't get in trouble for copyright infringment.
*sigh*
OK, since you are determined not to go read the law, I'll do all the legwork for you:
First, read this: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
Title 17 is the law I've been referring to all this time.
Sections 107-112 deal with the fair use exceptions to the rule you quoted above, which are the provisions in the law I have explicitly identified as my subject matter.
Now, some Supreme Court cases for your edification:
The famous "Betamax" case: http://www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/sony_..._decision.html
First, a general statement of the goal of US copyright law (emphasis mine):
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution provides:
"The Congress shall have Power . . . To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
[p.429] The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.
"The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, 'The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948).
As the text of the Constitution makes plain, it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product. Because this task involves a difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society's competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand, our patent and copyright statutes have been amended repeatedly. n10
And the note 10 footnoted at the end of the quote:
n10 In its Report accompanying the comprehensive revision of the Copyright Act in 1909, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives explained this balance:
"The enactment of copyright legislation by Congress under the terms of the Constitution is not based upon any natural right that the author has in his writings, . . . but upon the ground that the welfare of the public will be served and progress of science and useful arts will be promoted by securing to authors for limited periods the exclusive rights to their writings. . . .
"In enacting a copyright law Congress must consider . . . two questions: First, how much will the legislation stimulate the producer and so benefit the public; and, second, how much will the monopoly granted be detrimental to the public? The granting of such exclusive rights, under the proper terms and conditions, confers a benefit upon the public that outweighs the evils of the temporary monopoly." H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909).
The monopoly established by copyright law is here explicitly identified by Congress as evil, albeit necessary; but its evilness is given as a powerful incentive to limit its scope and duration.
The RIAA wouldn't be frantically lobbying to change the law if it already backed them up.
Second, repeated affirmation of the "no harm, no foul" (de minimus) standard for fair use. From the introduction (all emphasis mine):
In summary, those findings reveal that the average member of the public uses a VTR principally to record a program he cannot view as it is being televised and then to watch it once at a later time. This practice, known as "time-shifting," enlarges the television viewing audience. For that reason, a significant amount of television programming may be used in this manner without objection from the owners of the copyrights on the programs. For the same reason [respondents] were unable to prove that the practice has impaired thecommercial value of their copyrights or has created any likelihood of future harm.
More:
The staple article of commerce doctrine must strike a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective -- not merely symbolic -- protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate,
unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
I think that describes the feature in iTunes 4 well enough. In fact, it couldn't even be used directly for infringement, unlike a copier; another program had to be used with it. The removal of the 'net broadcasting feature from iTunes was a political move to placate the recording industry. It had no basis in copyright law.
And, from Harper & Row vs. Nation Enterprises, a landmark Fair Use case (where, incidentally, the defendant lost the claim to fair use by quoting all the good parts of former President Ford's memoir before it had been published):
(d) Taking into account the four factors enumerated in 107 as especially relevant in determining fair use, leads to the conclusion that the use in question here was not fair. (i) The fact that news reporting was the general purpose of The Nation's use is simply one factor. [...] The fact that the publication was commercial as opposed to nonprofit is a separate factor tending to weigh against a finding of fair use. Fair use presupposes good faith. The Nation's unauthorized use of the undisseminated manuscript had not merely the incidental effect but the intended purpose of supplanting the copyright holders' commercially valuable right of first publication. [...] (iii) Although the verbatim quotes [471 U.S. 539, 541] in question were an insubstantial portion of the Ford manuscript, they qualitatively embodied Mr. Ford's distinctive expression and played a key role in the infringing article. (iv) As to the effect of The Nation's article on the market for the copyrighted work, Time's cancellation of its projected article and its refusal to pay $12,500 were the direct effect of the infringing publication. Once a copyright holder establishes a causal connection between the infringement and loss of revenue, the burden shifts to the infringer to show that the damage would have occurred had there been no taking of copyrighted expression.
So: 1) copyright concerns publication, first and foremost; 2) financial interest weighs against fair use, which means that lack of financial interest weighs in favor (i.e., there's a difference between copying CDs and handing them out, and copying CDs and selling them); 3) the unauthorized use of the material caused specific and provable harm to the publisher. No harm, no foul; but in this case Harper & Row lost $12,500 for an exclusive preview from Time Magazine as a direct result of the Nation's actions.
That's a negative definition. I won't quote further, just because this post is already absurdly long, but I've linked the decision. You can read for yourself. If the copying is not piracy (that is, unauthorized publication); is not for profit; is for personal, educational, critical, or parodic use; and has no causally established negative effect on the marketability of the product; then it's probably fair use (although the Court notes, and it's important to remember, that copyright violations have to be considered on an individual basis).
Now, Copyright law is currently infested with all kinds of crap that runs absolutely counter to basic principles such as prior restraint, thanks to the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA. These organizations are not primarily concerned with rewarding artists or enriching the public domain, so I consider their opinions on the nature of copyright law to be irrelevant.
Originally posted by Amorph
*sigh*
OK, since you are determined not to go read the law, I'll do all the legwork for you:
First, read this: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
...Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah...Now, Copyright law is currently infested with all kinds of crap that runs absolutely counter to basic principles such as prior restraint, thanks to the likes of the RIAA and the MPAA. These organizations are not primarily concerned with rewarding artists or enriching the public domain, so I consider their opinions on the nature of copyright law to be irrelevant.
I give up
NOTICE: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, Fahlman cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated, opinions expressed herein are those of Fahlman and do not necessarily represent the views of AppleInsider.com (or Amorph).
LOL
Originally posted by fahlman
Mac OS X Unleashed, Second Edition
Copyright (c) 2003 by Sams Publishing
All rights reserved. No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from the publisher.
5. What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.
While these quotes are on the topic of Copyright law, they aren't actually the text of the law.
Addressing the first quote:
Publishers have an economic incentive to characterize copyrights as more protective than they actually are. Thus, they aren't the most unbiased source.
Addressing the second quote:
The key phrase in this sentence is not 'reproduced' but rather 'As a general matter'. As Amorph has so verbosely and eloquently pointed out, further reading can clarify this generalization.
US Copyright Law
[edit]misrepresentation of fair use doctrine deleted[/edit]
My point isn't that it is OK as to steal as long as you feel ripped off. What I am pointing out is that with digital files, music and movies are a commodity. People don't take the claims of theft seriously because we don't feel like the labels are hurting. I would buy a million songs if the price were more realistic (and no $1 is not realistic except for the newest hits). I'll be damned if I will ever pay a dollar for some of Van Halen's '80s stuff, but I would like to have it. The music companies are passing up the 2 bucks I would pay for "1984", and I don't feel too bad ripping it from a friend because it sits in the bottom row of their CD rack. The odds of him and me listening to it at the same time are slim, so we actually would be practicing fair use, I just don't have a physical copy.
It doesn't make it OK, but I can sleep at night.
My $.02
Originally posted by fahlman
I give up
Is there any particular reason that the idea of copyright as rewarding artists and enriching the public domain is so onerous to you? Is my ability to back up CDs to a personal archive (or, say, the ability of a library to back up its collection to an archive) such a tremendous burden? Have we fallen so far that immediate profit outweighs the most fundamental principle of democracy? I'm not exaggerating here: The Supreme Court has repeatedly described (and defined) copyright as "the engine of free speech." (This is, historically, a polemical definition: Government enforcement of the original copyright collusion was granted by the British government to the presses in return for the presses' promise that they wouldn't print books the Government didn't want them to.)
You wouldn't happen to work for a publisher, would you? That might explain your insistence that the copyright holder (as distinct from the creator, of course) have absolute control - except that I know some publishers with more enlightened views than that.
Further reading for anyone interested in my post: The Statute of Anne, the first modern (read: sensible) copyright law, enacted by the Parliament of England in 1710, and the historical antecedent for the Copyright Clause in the US Constitution.
The Interactive Digital Software Association on how the Doctrine of First Sale does not allow people to just hand out copies willy-nilly (but it does allow people to make as many copies for their own needs as they please. Note that handing out tapes of albums is tolerated as a de minimus violation under the 1976 Copyright Act; this paper addresses a different issue. Note also that most software vendors attempt to use licenses to get around the Doctrine altogether - Deneba's license agreement for Canvas purports to conjoin me from giving the CD to anyone else, as if it were any different in substance from a book or an audio CD.
Originally posted by muah
Has anyone here ever stolen an orange? I doubt it. Most people consider that oranges go for a fair price, and it is low. If people started charging 14.99 for a dozen oranges, I assure you people would start lifting them from the grocery store, and it wouldn't be prosecuted.
So, by your definition, it would be morally OK to just steal the current PowerMacs? 8)
Originally posted by Amorph
[B]That does happen, but that's not all: You always have to assume a "dull roar" standard of abuse and fallibility. If the referees called every actual foul in a game, no-one would get anywhere.
if you've ever been a ref, and actually went through the training for one, you'd realize what you just said is false. Not all calls are made due to how they comprehend what happened, and where they saw it from. If some ref's let a foul slide, it is by no means "acceptable" and you can be fired for doing so. Missing a call on a foul is either incompetence or bias, neither of which are permissible.
The other side of the coin is that the music industry is abjectly terrified of copying, and Apple has to shut down any obvious avenues that allow it in order to sell them on distributing music online at all. This is a pragmatic gesture as much as (or more than) an ethical one.
it's called the domino effect. If people steal music, the industry doesn't get paid, which means the artist does not get paid. And there is a reason the industry gets paid, it's called advertising and marketing, and those two things can make or break an artists career.
After all, if you measured the damage done by the music industry's dishonesty in dollars, vs. the iTunes rippers, I think you'd find the result was hopelessly lopsided toward the industry. The big 5 labels were just busted for collusion and price-fixing, and nobody here is calling for iTunes to be patched to deal with their abuses.
no, the industry patches come in the form of millions of dollars in lawsuits.
Looks like you bought into the RIAA's story hook, line and sinker. Sorry, but no. Napster was user-friendly, interactive, and convenient. You could get albums that were hard to find in stores, or that were no longer in print. You could sample new bands, and find out how many songs on the hot new CD were actually worth listening to. You could get around RIAA pricing so skewed that, for some titles, the soundtrack to a movie cost only $1 less than the whole DVD!
And the music industry was slapped w/ a lawsuit for price-fixing. And you work under the assumption that all those millions of people on napster are "honest" people, who only sample the music to see if they like it, then go buy it. Are we living in the same world here? I know almost no one who buys cds now, because p2p is free and no one is getting punished for doing it. It sounds to me that you are one of the many who have convinced yourself and bought into the mentality that it's ok to download music without paying for it. You think that because it only costs pennies to make an actual cd, that a whole cd should be only a dollar. Never mind the fact that it costs money to make plants to produce these cds, and to put the music onto them. And then there's the cost of distribution. And what about the time and money spent on recording this music? The equipment that is used to record this music on? The equipment to play the music? What about the building this is all done in, and the money required to power it? Do you think this is all free of charge? I got a feeling you've never worked or been around the music industry.
The biggest beneficiaries of p2p programs are independent artists. They've made their music and haven't relied on the industry. They may not have enough money to pay for their own marketing, advertising and distribution, and/or the industry might feel that making an investment in that artist is not a profitable venture. For the artist then, p2p is great. It takes care of the distribution, and marketing and advertising to a lesser extent. The songs are out there now, you just have to wait for someone to take a chance on downloading your song.
Now here's another question for you. Say an independent artist does put his/her music on p2p, instead of getting in bed with the industry. How is this artist supposed to recoup the money he/she put into making this music? And how is he/she supposed to provide for themself while making this music? You don't seem the least bit concerned with that, as long as you get your music for free, you're happy.
[quote]
If you look around, you'll find that lots of musicians and songwriters have much higher opinions of P2P than publishers do (of course, this is not unanimously true). If you want to find a far more consistent target for the ill will of the people whose work is under discussion here, look no farther than the companies sheltering behind the RIAA. The RIAA would just love it if you believed that its members were honest, fair-minded businesses, and the P2P services were Mafia-controlled dens of iniquity serving evil, dark-eyed scum who cackled as they stole bread from the mouths of poor, innocent artists with big, moist doe eyes. The fact is that nobody - and I mean nobody - has done more to deprive artists of the fruits of their work than the Big 5 record labels.
Which reminds me: The RIAA's argument (and your argument) is identical, almost verbatim, to arguments against every form of commercially available recordable medium all the way back to the reel to reel, and also to the MPAA's argument against videocassettes. They've always been wrong. These technologies have always grown the industries they supposedly destroy.
P2P programs were the best thing to happen to the RIAA. If it hadn't been for the DMCA, the RIAA would have no law to lay down. As it is, the tactics they've resorted to (trying to pass laws allowing them to hack into people's machines and delete files on suspicion?!) are uniformly dishonest and repugnant.
If it wasn't for Napster and Grokster and Gnutella and what-have-you, there would be no iTunes Music Store, and we'd all be discontently shelling out $20 for the latest Coldplay CD (of which money Coldplay would be lucky to see one lonely pence). I cannot stress this often enough: This is an industry that did not want you to be able to listen to a CD before purchasing it! They are completely anti-consumer. If Napster was a bit too pro-consumer, it was hardly worse. If it did any damage at all, and none of the RIAA's claims hold enough water to convince me that it did, then it hurt the labels much more than the artists.
The legal system took care of the pricing, not napster or gnutella. The itunes music store would've came out eventually, as artists have been looking for quite some time for a way to cut the middle man(the record labels) out of the picture.
"Did not want us to be able to listen to a cd before purchasing it?" Isn't that what the radio is for? Or those fancy music stations that are, and have been pretty much standard in music stores? What about this, have you ever just went into a music store and "asked" to hear a particular artist? 99% of the time you'll get a warm response because record labels send out demo cds for that very purpose.
The point you consistently miss is that the RIAA is not honest. The politicians who accept hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from the RIAA to pass anti-copyright bills into law are not honest. The aide who slipped in a provision making all music recorded for labels into work for hire, automatically, was not honest.
What you are missing is that I do understand the RIAA and the record labels are dishonest. What you do not understand is that we have a legal system in place. What you also fail to address is dishonest music traders. But alas, you've already convinced yourself it's ok to download music without paying for it.
The thing that artists hope for, almost instinctively, is exposure. Getting their music out where people can hear it is #1 on almost every artist's list (the ones for whom this is not true are generally household names like the Rolling Stones). Widespread copying of bootlegs and albums has served as exposure for lots of up-and-coming bands. It means no album sales - to people who couldn't get their albums anyway. It means an installed fan base they can hit on a tour even though it's far from any of the pitiful distribution channels available to them. It means word-of-mouth marketing, which is both the most influential kind available at any cost and free. P2P is the old way squared. A lot of artists, especially in genres like hip-hop that the major labels don't understand, put their songs on P2P networks themselves. Increasingly, there are bands who offer their songs for free on the web, not bothering with CDs at all, and make money on tours and merchandise - which is about the same business model that major label acts depend on anyway, only without the corrupt middleman, the indecipherable indentured-servitude contract, and the $18 toll you have to pay in order to decide whether or not you like the band.
you're definitely right, exposure comes from marketing and advertising. By word of mouth and airplay. And it's the record label who pays for this.
You also fail to acknowledge that most bands don't get to go on tour until they've actually made it big and are a household name. Unless of course you decide to play in local bars the whole time. But then there'd be no "big money" off of merchandise and tours. By the way it costs money to make this "merchandise", and if an artist is still new and unheard of, without the financial backing of a third party, how are they going to pay for the initial costs?
"Widespread copying of bootlegs and albums has served as exposure for lots of up-and-coming bands"
and in your infinite wisdom, did you ever stop to think that it costs money to make these albums to "bootleg?" You're saying there should be no record labels, and only people with a lot of money should be able to make music? I fail to see your point.
If there's any "right" and "wrong" in this issue, the RIAA is on the wrong side on nearly every count. Don't believe the hype. [/B]
touche, and why not try seeing both sides of the music business before making assumptions. All i see is a person who expects a lot, and wants to give nothing in return.
Originally posted by liquidh2o
You think that because it only costs pennies to make an actual cd, that a whole cd should be only a dollar. Never mind the fact that it costs money to make plants to produce these cds, and to put the music onto them. And then there's the cost of distribution. And what about the time and money spent on recording this music? The equipment that is used to record this music on? The equipment to play the music? What about the building this is all done in, and the money required to power it? Do you think this is all free of charge? I got a feeling you've never worked or been around the music industry.
You forgot to mention the costs of developing sophisticated copy protection mechanisms.
Businesses used to compete on the best economic model, and hence the biggest profit for the producer. That worked with commodities. However, technology like computers are not commodities. They have to be designed. The same applies to art. Art is good. It's part of culture.
However, artists need to be "enabled" to create art. Artists can't produce art for free and do nothing else. They'd starve and die. Hence copyright. Copyright exists to supply a safe minimum amount of money to the artist, so they can be "enabled" to produce art and not starve and die.
It's slightly different with products like computers. Businesses compete on economic models still. It's not like they would recieve no money on their product if copyright didn't exist. However, where's the incentive? Why should a business design a product if all other companies would copy it? There is a DISincentive, as the business is spending money that other companies don't have to. So copyright exists to provide and incentive to create products. Again, a safe minimum incentive is what should be aimed for.
The question which SHOULD be asked is this; "If respect for copyright by individuals is not enforced, will artists/businesses continue to receive enough money to continue to create art/products?"
The question that SHOULDN'T be asked is this; "Are artists/businesses recieving the money that THEY want for every single use of their creative or unique work?"
The reason for the producer/consumer system, and copyright, is to ensure that consumers all get the most possible goods and services. The latter question is the polar opposite of the "public interest", because it's artifically reducing the goods and services consumers recieve.
Artists are now 99% of the time consumers. No doubt they want the most goods and services they can get. Some artists (ie musicians) don't see a dime anymore for their labours. All the enabling money they should recieve due to copyright is ending up in the hands of a few "gatekeepers". The system we have now with regards to music is the worst of both worlds. Not only do we only get art from those desperate enough to create it for free, but that art is controlled by the "gatekeepers" so that we the people cannot legally buy it at a market price or use it how we want.
A copyright system where a safe minimum of enabling money is distributed to artists and businesses without personal freedom being sacrificed is probably achievable. Hopefully I won't be dead by the time such a system is put in place.
Barto
Originally posted by liquidh2o
But alas, you've already convinced yourself it's ok to download music without paying for it.
You bet your filthy copywrong apologist ass it is.
PS I love/hate my emotional/rational split/personality
Eliminating publishers is definatly not be all/end all. Someone needs to get the music out. And businesses with lots of capital will always be better than individuals (ie P2P). Hence the reason why copyright works at all. Eliminating the music labels would be a good start though. The reason music so expensive is because the big 5 music labels are bloated and corrupt. They don't have to be efficent at helping create and distribute music, they don't have to. They just send their FBI cronies in to bust down the door of anyone who competes with them.
Missing a call on a foul is either incompetence or bias, neither of which are permissible.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.06/view.html
it's called the domino effect. If people steal music, the industry doesn't get paid, which means the artist does not get paid. And there is a reason the industry gets paid, it's called advertising and marketing, and those two things can make or break an artists career.
Artists got paid!? When did this happen!? Also, check out "consumer soverignty" v "business soverignty" sometime. And think to yourself, if a piece of music or an album needs anything more than a minimum amount of marketing to get the public aware of it, is it really art? Are people just buying it because they're conviced that a particular piece of trash is a good product? Also, I renew my objection to people who refer to copyright violation as stealing.
"Did not want us to be able to listen to a cd before purchasing it?" Isn't that what the radio is for?
Why should analoge radio exist then and not internet radio, or P2P? What gives you or anyone else the right to choose which distrobution mediums should exist and which should not, except for the people as a whole?
Barto
Originally posted by liquidh2o
You also fail to acknowledge that most bands don't get to go on tour until they've actually made it big and are a household name. Unless of course you decide to play in local bars the whole time. But then there'd be no "big money" off of merchandise and tours. By the way it costs money to make this "merchandise", and if an artist is still new and unheard of, without the financial backing of a third party, how are they going to pay for the initial costs?
This is completely false! Most non-famous musicians only make money at small gigs. That 3 bucks you give the bouncer at the door... is frequently the only money that the musicians make. Sometimes the bar gets a cut and sometimes the bar takes it all and pays the band a pre-arranged amount. Also, T-shirts only cost a few bucks to make... go out and investigate how much it costs to have 100 shirts printed. Its pretty damn cheap. Local musicians also just burn CDRs and photocopy inserts at the local copy shop. Once again, investment in a stock of band related merchandise is pretty cheap.
It is nearly impossible for musicians to make money with a major-label distributed and promoted CD. However, nearly all professional musicians at least partially support themselves with local gigs and intermittent tours with cover bands. Basically, while I agree with the motivation for copyrights, they aren't achieving their intended goal in the music industry. They aren't promoting creative endeavor by musicians and are, IMHO, hurting the music industry by perpetuating an inefficient and unsustainable economic model.
Originally posted by RazzFazz
So, by your definition, it would be morally OK to just steal the current PowerMacs? 8)
No, for two reasons.
1) It would be depriving the current owner (Apple, Reseller, Individual) of their actual property.
2) Apple doesn't collude with Dell, HP and IBM to keep the price of PC cum workstations high. Apple just sells 'em at a high price and no-one buys them.
Barto
Artists got paid!? When did this happen!? Also, check out "consumer soverignty" v "business soverignty" sometime. And think to yourself, if a piece of music or an album needs anything more than a minimum amount of marketing to get the public aware of it, is it really art? Are people just buying it because they're conviced that a particular piece of trash is a good product? Also, I renew my objection to people who refer to copyright violation as stealing.
if no one hears a piece of music, is it good?
Why should analoge radio exist then and not internet radio, or P2P? What gives you or anyone else the right to choose which distrobution mediums should exist and which should not, except for the people as a whole?
i've never stated that internet radio shouldn't be an option. P2p is a problem because you can download cd-quality music without paying the artist. If it were a perfect world, there'd only be short clips of each song on a P2P that you could download, or even a full song that could only be played once or twice before it expunges itself. That'd benefit the consumer and the artist. But you know, someone will always try to come along and find a way to try and crack it so that song can never expunge itself.
It's always going to be a battle between consumers who feel music should be free and the artists who want to get paid.
If you want an issue that really peeves me, and is probably more of a joke than the music industry, its the unGodly amount of money that is paid to professional athletes, and the whole business model behind that.