So if its ok to just make a copy of the music would it also be ok for me to just download and print photographs that I like? Or what about if someone was out their creating pdf's of books? How about movies?
Well. I do all that except I can't print, due to not having a printer. I would print if I had one though
Seriously, both copyright and patents are deals between the creators and the public. Contrary to the claims of some folks earlier on the thread breaking the deal is not stealing, it's copyright/patent infringement.
The deal.
Creator explains, in public, thoroughly what the invention is about, so that others may research it. Or he publishes his copyrighted work. In exchange for the disclosure, and to encourage the creation of such work in advance, Public gives him a short-lived exclusive right to the use of the work.
The copyrights are now how many years long? Patents, how many years?
I say when we look at those year counts, the public is getting shafted on the copyrights. The business is hurt by the patents. It's a ripoff and lawyers and politicians are the ones who get the benefits. I don't honor deals like this, thankyouverymuch.
The realist side of me says laws on private, non-profit copyright infringement have long been practically unenforceable and new technology like anonymous public networks will make them unenforceable in an absolute (mathematical) sense. New laws can't be written to curb the new developments, since anything that had the desired effect would require a totalitarian police state of vast proportions.
Unenforceable laws are bad (mmkay?), so we might as well do away with copyright for noncommercial use. Not immediately, it's still good for a few years maybe, but then the tech will kick in and it's game over. I think it would be a good idea to adjust the copyright terms now, when there's still at least a small legal pressure for the infringers to change their thought models. Then when the technological enablers come in, the people might retain the opinion that they are supposed to pay for stuff. What's happening now is the direct opposite: the youngsters are learning that things do not cost anything on the Net.
you don't like copying? The rock band (your band?) you have linked in your profile sounds a lot like a whole lot of other rock bands I've heard. Somehow I doubt they were the originators or that none of the chord progressions and/or rhythms have been used in similar music.
Actually that is my band and right or wrong copyright does not cover chord progressions or rhythm, only lyric and melody. Some have called this racist which is actually an interesting discussion of it's own.
Quote:
However, what you get away with in the music world could at times be called plagiarism in when dealing with written work.
Off topic, but I totally disagree with this. Most novels follow the same plot structures and story arcs. The uniqueness is in the stories told and the cadence, selection and phrasing of the words which is pretty much the same reason not all standard blues progressions create the same song even if they are structurally identical.
Look, all I can say is, do what you like and are comfortable with. I have my reasons for limiting the sharing of music, movies, software and photographs that I engage in. I don't think we have a perfect system now and I think things like the DMCA are horrific, but like a lot of things I feel there has got to be some kind of third way between strict copyright control and total intellectual property freedom.
Hey, college textbooks are way more of a ripoff than cd's shouldn't they just publish them to pdf and give them to the students?
It somewhat undermines you point that a) yes, they should and b) many of them are, or are about to. Of course when I say 'them' I'm not talking about the current textbook industry as they are parasites that exist almost solely to extract money from students and so are incapable of moving to this new paradigm. So Universities and Open Access organisations will need to step up to the plate. (A parallel movement is encouraging the free publication of science journals and seems to have finally caught the imagination of the relevant funding bodies)
rick fall, I'd like to know, if you didn't have a band of your own, would you still think the same way?
I don't know that I can really answer that, but I can say that I give my music away for free and have never made a significant amount of money from it.
If you pirate something you would've otherwise paid for, the companies and the musicians are effectively losing money.
You obviously have the money to pay for SOME of your music, you just chose not to.
Not to mention, you obviously pirate a LOT, you're probably experiencing diminishing returns from music.
Basically, each individual album has less and less value to you as you accumulate them. Where you might be willing to pay $2 per album now, you might have been willing to pay $6 per album 20 gigs ago.
If you can sit there and say if not for piracy you would not own a single one of those albums, then there's no argument, it can't be won.
But you and I both know that's not true. You are OBVIOUSLY a music lover. You WOULD have maybe 1/10 of those albums at $15 a piece if piracy didn't exist, and you know it. I can't prove it, but I'm convinced of it.
As a [former?] pirate, I am truly impressed with your collection. I don't deny that I am costing the companies money, though half of the time I don't have enough to pay for groceries let alone music.
Basically, each individual album has less and less value to you as you accumulate them. Where you might be willing to pay $2 per album now, you might have been willing to pay $6 per album 20 gigs ago.
That's a great theory, but it's not realistic and I've never met a single adult who operates that way.
Personally I don't think there is conclusive evidence either way, but if you have proof other than your opinion I'm all ears.
There is more than enough information on the subject of current p2p issues, particularly with grokster going before the supreme court tomorrow, and more than enough written about the never-ending cycle of copyright holders fearing new tech and spreading FUD, only to have that new tech expand their industries in ways they could never imagine. The same thing is already happening with p2p.
Here are the facts: there's no evidence so far that p2p has affected music sales, there are clear examples of it actually creating demand for CDs (I already cited a current well-known example), and history has demonstrated multiple times (hell, every time) that new tech of this sort actually helps these businesses.
You WOULD have maybe 1/10 of those albums at $15 a piece if piracy didn't exist, and you know it. I can't prove it, but I'm convinced of it.
I quote me in the first post of the thread:
Only ~1/4th of that is ripped from my own sources.
I have ~230 CDs from ~15 years of buying music. Add in the stuff my wife brought in and I'm up to ~350.
I could throw away over half my CDs and still be at "1/10th".
I really love the condescending tone of your post when you can't even be bothered to read the first post. I just love it.
trick fall:
Quote:
Personally I don't think there is conclusive evidence either way, but if you have proof other than your opinion I'm all ears.
I think the most conclusive evidence you'll find is that, through 5+ years of doom-and-gloom forecasts, almost nothing has happened to the record industry.
It's just another industry that will be dragged into the modern age kicking and screaming.
That's a great theory, but it's not realistic and I've never met a single adult who operates that way.
Oh really?
What value would you place on a stick of your favorite gum I give you?
OK now what value would you place on it if I then gave you 1,000 additional sticks of gum?
These are the numbers we're talking about.
EVERYONE operates this way, the threshold by which value decreases is just calculated differently based on person to person and item to item.
BTW Groverat I realized I made that typo after I posted, I didn't think you would get snagged on it though... but you got snagged on one line of the last reply I posted so I guess I should've been a perfectionist.
I'm not passing judgement on you over piracy, I really have better things to do. But for you to say that you've pirated ~48GB of music and wouldn't have ever bothered to pay for any of them had you not had that opportunity is a little far fetched sounding.
If you'd read my post, you would've seen the reasons why I think this is true. Please respond past the small faults.
But for you to say that you've pirated ~48GB of music and wouldn't have ever bothered to pay for any of them had you not had that opportunity is a little far fetched sounding.
In the screen shot it said you had 67 gigs of music, 1/4 you said you paid for, negligable digital purchases. That leaves ~50GB (sorry I wrote 48 before) of pirated music.
Oh, and here's where you said you wouldn't have bought it had piracy not existed:
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
How can revenue be taken away when I pirate something I never had any intention of buying?
Oh, and here's where you said you wouldn't have bought it had piracy not existed:
It's pretty clear that question is specific to music I never had any intention of buying. I even included that caveat in the question.
I never once said "I would not have bought any of the music I have pirated" or anything like it.
I have pirated albums that I would have bought in CD form were I unable to get them another way. I have CDs purchased from a store that are terrible and I wish I hadn't purchased at all.
As far as diminishing returns...
As I consume more music the value doesn't really change. The Internet didn't change the amount of time I have available to listen to music, it changed the quality of what I am able to listen to. Pre-piracy I had to either listen to one good thing until it made me feel ill or I had to listen to a varied amount of garbage (like the icky radio thingy).
Now I download a few albums every so often recommended by trusted sources, throw them on the iPod and get a much more varied listening experience with a much better signal:noise ratio.
I shouldn't know every word to CandleBox's "Far Behind", but I do, because at that time I didn't have much choice. Right now crappy music hits the recycle bin faster than a cd hits a real trash can because I can get good music easier and I can find out what is likely to be good much easier.
And as for real CDs, Coheed & Cambria is still sitting there, glaring at me, laughing at me for wasting $11 on it at Target.
The CDs that I like are ripped -aps in Exact Audio Copy and put on the huge bookshelf.
When I buy a CD I pay for promotion that doesn't reach me (TV I don't watch, magazines I don't read, radio I don't listen to) and physical product that I don't want. Is that fair? Is it logical?
Why can't I take this Coheed & Cambria CD back to Target, shout "This is an ass sandwich and it is made of ass and poo." and get my money back? You can bet your life that I'm not keeping a copy.
Liquid r, I'm no fan of the music business or its practices, but anyone who signs anything without having a lawyer they trust look it over deserves what they get....
Yeah, normally I'd argue that is common sense. However, you have to consider most of these young turk musicians are fairly naive and not tempered by the cynicism of middle aged music industrialists. And when the suits send over these hipster A & R guys, they are lulled into a false sense of security. It's all very devious and predatory.
If I thought the suits were really giving the artists a fair shake I would have no guilt in purchasing legally. I still do purchase CDs occasionally, but I always feel a twinge of guilt in knowing the majority of it is going to the suits, and the big star musician really doesn't know how much shit they are in.
Comments
Originally posted by Kishan
Here is a hypothetical situation.
What Omega said.
Every day my department at a major university library makes a couple hundred pdfs
Hey, college textbooks are way more of a ripoff than cd's shouldn't they just publish them to pdf and give them to the students?
Originally posted by trick fall
So if its ok to just make a copy of the music would it also be ok for me to just download and print photographs that I like? Or what about if someone was out their creating pdf's of books? How about movies?
Well. I do all that except I can't print, due to not having a printer. I would print if I had one though
Seriously, both copyright and patents are deals between the creators and the public. Contrary to the claims of some folks earlier on the thread breaking the deal is not stealing, it's copyright/patent infringement.
The deal.
Creator explains, in public, thoroughly what the invention is about, so that others may research it. Or he publishes his copyrighted work. In exchange for the disclosure, and to encourage the creation of such work in advance, Public gives him a short-lived exclusive right to the use of the work.
The copyrights are now how many years long? Patents, how many years?
I say when we look at those year counts, the public is getting shafted on the copyrights. The business is hurt by the patents. It's a ripoff and lawyers and politicians are the ones who get the benefits. I don't honor deals like this, thankyouverymuch.
The realist side of me says laws on private, non-profit copyright infringement have long been practically unenforceable and new technology like anonymous public networks will make them unenforceable in an absolute (mathematical) sense. New laws can't be written to curb the new developments, since anything that had the desired effect would require a totalitarian police state of vast proportions.
Unenforceable laws are bad (mmkay?), so we might as well do away with copyright for noncommercial use. Not immediately, it's still good for a few years maybe, but then the tech will kick in and it's game over. I think it would be a good idea to adjust the copyright terms now, when there's still at least a small legal pressure for the infringers to change their thought models. Then when the technological enablers come in, the people might retain the opinion that they are supposed to pay for stuff. What's happening now is the direct opposite: the youngsters are learning that things do not cost anything on the Net.
you don't like copying? The rock band (your band?) you have linked in your profile sounds a lot like a whole lot of other rock bands I've heard. Somehow I doubt they were the originators or that none of the chord progressions and/or rhythms have been used in similar music.
Actually that is my band and right or wrong copyright does not cover chord progressions or rhythm, only lyric and melody. Some have called this racist which is actually an interesting discussion of it's own.
However, what you get away with in the music world could at times be called plagiarism in when dealing with written work.
Off topic, but I totally disagree with this. Most novels follow the same plot structures and story arcs. The uniqueness is in the stories told and the cadence, selection and phrasing of the words which is pretty much the same reason not all standard blues progressions create the same song even if they are structurally identical.
Look, all I can say is, do what you like and are comfortable with. I have my reasons for limiting the sharing of music, movies, software and photographs that I engage in. I don't think we have a perfect system now and I think things like the DMCA are horrific, but like a lot of things I feel there has got to be some kind of third way between strict copyright control and total intellectual property freedom.
thanks.
Originally posted by trick fall
Hey, college textbooks are way more of a ripoff than cd's shouldn't they just publish them to pdf and give them to the students?
It somewhat undermines you point that a) yes, they should and b) many of them are, or are about to. Of course when I say 'them' I'm not talking about the current textbook industry as they are parasites that exist almost solely to extract money from students and so are incapable of moving to this new paradigm. So Universities and Open Access organisations will need to step up to the plate. (A parallel movement is encouraging the free publication of science journals and seems to have finally caught the imagination of the relevant funding bodies)
Rip-off 101
Penn State investigates online publishing
rick fall, I'd like to know, if you didn't have a band of your own, would you still think the same way?
I don't know that I can really answer that, but I can say that I give my music away for free and have never made a significant amount of money from it.
t somewhat undermines you point that a) yes, they should and b) many of them are, or are about to.
It seems to me from reading those articles that the creators of the textbooks would still be getting paid for their work.
Originally posted by groverat
Music piracy deprives no one of property as would shoe theft. Do not start this argument, you will lose.
Have you ever heard of opportunity cost?
If you pirate something you would've otherwise paid for, the companies and the musicians are effectively losing money.
You obviously have the money to pay for SOME of your music, you just chose not to.
Not to mention, you obviously pirate a LOT, you're probably experiencing diminishing returns from music.
Basically, each individual album has less and less value to you as you accumulate them. Where you might be willing to pay $2 per album now, you might have been willing to pay $6 per album 20 gigs ago.
If you can sit there and say if not for piracy you would not own a single one of those albums, then there's no argument, it can't be won.
But you and I both know that's not true. You are OBVIOUSLY a music lover. You WOULD have maybe 1/10 of those albums at $15 a piece if piracy didn't exist, and you know it. I can't prove it, but I'm convinced of it.
As a [former?] pirate, I am truly impressed with your collection. I don't deny that I am costing the companies money, though half of the time I don't have enough to pay for groceries let alone music.
I think what you fail to realize, trick fall, is that your belief about p2p hurting musicians is a myth.
Personally I don't think there is conclusive evidence either way, but if you have proof other than your opinion I'm all ears.
Originally posted by slughead
Basically, each individual album has less and less value to you as you accumulate them. Where you might be willing to pay $2 per album now, you might have been willing to pay $6 per album 20 gigs ago.
That's a great theory, but it's not realistic and I've never met a single adult who operates that way.
Originally posted by trick fall
Personally I don't think there is conclusive evidence either way, but if you have proof other than your opinion I'm all ears.
There is more than enough information on the subject of current p2p issues, particularly with grokster going before the supreme court tomorrow, and more than enough written about the never-ending cycle of copyright holders fearing new tech and spreading FUD, only to have that new tech expand their industries in ways they could never imagine. The same thing is already happening with p2p.
Here are the facts: there's no evidence so far that p2p has affected music sales, there are clear examples of it actually creating demand for CDs (I already cited a current well-known example), and history has demonstrated multiple times (hell, every time) that new tech of this sort actually helps these businesses.
You WOULD have maybe 1/10 of those albums at $15 a piece if piracy didn't exist, and you know it. I can't prove it, but I'm convinced of it.
I quote me in the first post of the thread:
Only ~1/4th of that is ripped from my own sources.
I have ~230 CDs from ~15 years of buying music. Add in the stuff my wife brought in and I'm up to ~350.
I could throw away over half my CDs and still be at "1/10th".
I really love the condescending tone of your post when you can't even be bothered to read the first post. I just love it.
trick fall:
Personally I don't think there is conclusive evidence either way, but if you have proof other than your opinion I'm all ears.
I think the most conclusive evidence you'll find is that, through 5+ years of doom-and-gloom forecasts, almost nothing has happened to the record industry.
It's just another industry that will be dragged into the modern age kicking and screaming.
Originally posted by giant
That's a great theory, but it's not realistic and I've never met a single adult who operates that way.
Oh really?
What value would you place on a stick of your favorite gum I give you?
OK now what value would you place on it if I then gave you 1,000 additional sticks of gum?
These are the numbers we're talking about.
EVERYONE operates this way, the threshold by which value decreases is just calculated differently based on person to person and item to item.
BTW Groverat I realized I made that typo after I posted, I didn't think you would get snagged on it though... but you got snagged on one line of the last reply I posted so I guess I should've been a perfectionist.
I'm not passing judgement on you over piracy, I really have better things to do. But for you to say that you've pirated ~48GB of music and wouldn't have ever bothered to pay for any of them had you not had that opportunity is a little far fetched sounding.
If you'd read my post, you would've seen the reasons why I think this is true. Please respond past the small faults.
Originally posted by slughead
But for you to say that you've pirated ~48GB of music and wouldn't have ever bothered to pay for any of them had you not had that opportunity is a little far fetched sounding.
When did I say that?
Originally posted by groverat
When did I say that?
In the screen shot it said you had 67 gigs of music, 1/4 you said you paid for, negligable digital purchases. That leaves ~50GB (sorry I wrote 48 before) of pirated music.
Oh, and here's where you said you wouldn't have bought it had piracy not existed:
Originally posted by groverat
How can revenue be taken away when I pirate something I never had any intention of buying?
Originally posted by slughead
Oh, and here's where you said you wouldn't have bought it had piracy not existed:
It's pretty clear that question is specific to music I never had any intention of buying. I even included that caveat in the question.
I never once said "I would not have bought any of the music I have pirated" or anything like it.
I have pirated albums that I would have bought in CD form were I unable to get them another way. I have CDs purchased from a store that are terrible and I wish I hadn't purchased at all.
As far as diminishing returns...
As I consume more music the value doesn't really change. The Internet didn't change the amount of time I have available to listen to music, it changed the quality of what I am able to listen to. Pre-piracy I had to either listen to one good thing until it made me feel ill or I had to listen to a varied amount of garbage (like the icky radio thingy).
Now I download a few albums every so often recommended by trusted sources, throw them on the iPod and get a much more varied listening experience with a much better signal:noise ratio.
I shouldn't know every word to CandleBox's "Far Behind", but I do, because at that time I didn't have much choice. Right now crappy music hits the recycle bin faster than a cd hits a real trash can because I can get good music easier and I can find out what is likely to be good much easier.
And as for real CDs, Coheed & Cambria is still sitting there, glaring at me, laughing at me for wasting $11 on it at Target.
The CDs that I like are ripped -aps in Exact Audio Copy and put on the huge bookshelf.
When I buy a CD I pay for promotion that doesn't reach me (TV I don't watch, magazines I don't read, radio I don't listen to) and physical product that I don't want. Is that fair? Is it logical?
Why can't I take this Coheed & Cambria CD back to Target, shout "This is an ass sandwich and it is made of ass and poo." and get my money back? You can bet your life that I'm not keeping a copy.
originally posted by trick fall
Liquid r, I'm no fan of the music business or its practices, but anyone who signs anything without having a lawyer they trust look it over deserves what they get....
Yeah, normally I'd argue that is common sense. However, you have to consider most of these young turk musicians are fairly naive and not tempered by the cynicism of middle aged music industrialists. And when the suits send over these hipster A & R guys, they are lulled into a false sense of security. It's all very devious and predatory.
If I thought the suits were really giving the artists a fair shake I would have no guilt in purchasing legally. I still do purchase CDs occasionally, but I always feel a twinge of guilt in knowing the majority of it is going to the suits, and the big star musician really doesn't know how much shit they are in.