|
Grex > Music2 > #280: An item in which the author talks about Napster, VMA's, Metallica and the RIAA... |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 126 responses total. |
md
|
|
response 16 of 126:
| 
Sep 8 16:04 UTC 2000 |
If you're looking for an analogy, it would be someone buying a CD,
making five million copies of it, and placing them all in a big box in
Times Square with a sign saying "Take one."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 17 of 126:
|
Sep 8 16:47 UTC 2000 |
I hear another "tragedy of the commons". Just because each copy made
is just a *little bit* of theft, it is not thought significant by
some people compared to the benefit they reap from the theft. That is
used to justify everyone doing it. Of course, if everyone did it, there
would not be an industry from which to steal.
|
krj
|
|
response 18 of 126:
|
Sep 8 17:08 UTC 2000 |
We hear that claim often -- if everyone steals, there would be no
incentive to create new work. In music, at least, history tells us
that is not so. There was no effective copyright system in the era
which gave us Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and all the great musicians
of the past. Pirate editions were common; in opera, rival prouduction
companies might send scribes into theatres to try to note down the
music for a particularly hot show.
Music predates copyright; if copyright were to end tomorrow, there would
still be music next week.
|
bru
|
|
response 19 of 126:
|
Sep 8 17:12 UTC 2000 |
It isn't theaft if the group who made the song put it on there for people to
download and listen to.
It is theft if I buy the CD and put it on napster so all the people can
download it for free.
It isn't stealing if I make a mix and play it for myself adn my freinds.
It is stealing if I make a mix and then sell it for a profit to people on the
street.
I think the question of Napster is that they are making a profit by letting
people share music over the net. If they weren't making money (somehow) they
would not be in trouble.
I think it a much better idea if each artist were to set up his website so
that they could cahrge you for the download.
|
jep
|
|
response 20 of 126:
|
Sep 8 17:15 UTC 2000 |
Is it stealing to listen to music on the radio? How about if you record
what you hear on the radio? Is that stealing if you record the
commercials, too? Is it stealing if you erase the commercials?
Are you stealing when you rent a videotape?
With software -- if you go over to a friend's computer and use his
software, is that stealing (from the software company)? If my whole
family uses a copy of a program I bought and installed on the computer,
are the rest of them stealing it? If I buy one copy of a program, and
install it on two computers, but I'm the only one who uses it (because
the kids like to play games on the main computer), have I stolen a copy?
If I install a program on my laptop, and it is never installed on
another computer, but the laptop gets passed around to 24 people who all
use it at separate times for an hour per day, did 23 of us steal it?
What if I installed 24 separate copies on the laptop, so each of us can
use a separate environment, did I need to buy 24 copies in order not to
be stealing?
Copyright law in the electronic age is not straightforward. I am not
convinced that software, video and music "piracy" are unethical. The
word "piracy" is a marketing term, not one that is concerned with
ethics.
|
jp2
|
|
response 21 of 126:
|
Sep 8 17:40 UTC 2000 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 22 of 126:
|
Sep 8 17:41 UTC 2000 |
In each case, it depends upon the terms of the license you implicitly
agree to when you purchase the product. For example, you cannot *own*
most software - you can only buy a license to use it. At the other
extreme, the radio station has purchased a license to play the music,
but that does not give the listener a license to make a copy. That
infringement can only be detected, of course, if the listener distributes
(or sells) copies and gets caught. There are many ways in which these
licenses can be infringed without much chance of getting caught. They
are infrinements nevertheless, and honest people would not do it.
Re #18: you are quite right. Copyright law, and patent law too, were
developed when the industrial revolution made it possible to mass produce
items. Since an idea or a work only occurs once, it was easy for others
to just take the idea or work and make copies. This could give the
inventor or author very little return for their invention or work,
*which stifled innovation and creation*. Therefore laws were created
to give the inventor or author exclusive rights for a limited period
of time, but enough for the inventor or author to obtain a return on
their effort if they continued to be diligent.
Many inventors and authors are persons whose motivations lie primarily, or
initially, in the creative act itself. But others also need to support
themselves. "Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and all the great musicians
of the past" were in this category, and many *suffered financially* while
pursuing their drive to create. Mozart was a classic example, who died
pennyless, and whose body was dumped in a pauper's grave. Is that a
civilized way to "recognize" creative people? Patents and copyrights are
better.
(Many of those great musicians, by the way, survived by having *patrons*,
wealthy and powerful individuals that wanted what the musicians could
create. This is not a good system if society wants more of such creativity
|
krj
|
|
response 23 of 126:
|
Sep 8 20:30 UTC 2000 |
A number of people have suggested that the future of the music
business lies in exactly the patron model. In the past, the patrons
were the few rich and powerful people who held all the spare money.
In the democratic era, the patrons will have to be the ordinary people.
I know that there are musicians who I love who I would be happy to send
a $5, $10, $20 tip to every year. Say some folk musician I like,
a solo performer, can have 1000 dedicated fans who will send her
$20 bucks a year. That's the start of a livable income.
Such a performer probably gets less than that from current CD sales.
Models like this are being seriously discussed in various online
publications.
----------
Rane, let's concede for a moment that Napster-style file trading is
theft. What can be done about it? The options seem to be:
1) Legally require that all computer and network systems
recognize and block illicit copying. Michael Eisner of Disney
is demanding this solution. It does not seem to be
very technically feasible.
2) Start feeding hundreds or thousands of middle-class kids
into either the civil or criminal legal system.
We would have to have a War on Copyright Criminals on a
scale roughly equal to the War on Drug Users.
And this becomes a nightmare for the music copyright industry,
because a substantial number of the people being prosecuted will
be their best customers.
|
drew
|
|
response 24 of 126:
|
Sep 8 20:37 UTC 2000 |
Exactly my argument against keeping the notion of "intellectual property" in
our laws. It makes trouble with powers-that-be way too easy to get into, if
persued seriously. It was at least tolerable when you had to have an expensive
printing press, or else go through some other effort and expense, in order
to "steal" the protected material. But now the concept steps on more toes than
its benefits are worth.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 126:
|
Sep 8 21:20 UTC 2000 |
There will be a lot less "intellectual property" created if the creators
cannot make a living from their work. This is why the patent process
was invented - to promote invention. If you want to have lots of new
music created, you have to protect the investment and living of the
musicians.
|
krj
|
|
response 26 of 126:
|
Sep 8 21:27 UTC 2000 |
... but by that standard, Rane, the current system is not suceeding
very well, except for a small number of megastars. Currently the
system protects the investment and living of the five (soon to be four)
music companies who control the distribution system.
This is why musicians are quite split on Napster.
|
drew
|
|
response 27 of 126:
|
Sep 8 21:33 UTC 2000 |
Re #25:
Yes, there will be a lot less "intellectual property" created. I would
rather have this than a system of laws which a large part of the population
runs afoul of.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 28 of 126:
|
Sep 8 21:48 UTC 2000 |
actually, according to the article in the Atlantic Monthly's sept. issue,
musicians are so screwed by their record companies vis a vis *their*
intellectual property that any new system couldn't help but be an improvement.
For example, the musicians have to pay for the production, distribution, and
advertising for their records (unlike a book's author, who may or may not make
money on any given book but usually doesn't end up in DEBT to the record
company!) and if they aren't the songwriters for that particular song, they
don't get royalties for any performances. It's amazing that anyone actually
goes into music.
|
krj
|
|
response 29 of 126:
|
Sep 8 21:53 UTC 2000 |
Heh. The political situation for the music industry is quite grim:
they are going into this battle with many of their suppliers (the
artists) and many of their customers cheering for their destruction.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 30 of 126:
|
Sep 8 22:12 UTC 2000 |
The technology exists today for Lars to get his 5.7 cents for the
one song the kid downloaded. Instead of persueing that revenue avenue,
Lars wants us not to think of how he and other artists can get payment
for their works when the media and distribution costs are borne by the
end user.
|
krj
|
|
response 31 of 126:
|
Sep 8 22:14 UTC 2000 |
I just went and skimmed the Atlantic Monthly article online.
http://www.theatlantic.com Wow. It's even more brutal than the
celebrated Courtney Love piece.
|
scott
|
|
response 32 of 126:
|
Sep 8 23:28 UTC 2000 |
I'd be very happy to contribute $x directly to artists I like. Some long-term
favorites would be better off that way than with the pennies they get from
rereleases ("record club" stuff might not result in *any* money to the
artist!). When possible I buy stuff from independent artist's web sites; I've
done this for Pete Townshend, Aimee Mann, and Jello Biafra. In some cases,
such as the Sluggy Freelance web comic, I don't really want any of the
T-shirts. I'd rather just send $20 in return for the ongoing comic.
|
gull
|
|
response 33 of 126:
|
Sep 9 02:05 UTC 2000 |
Do you have any of the Sluggy Freelance books? I don't, because I'm not all
that into the strip. A friend of mine does have one, and says it's
interesting because the book makes something noticable that the online
strips don't -- that Pete Abrams often cuts and pastes frames, then changes
a few details, instead of hand-drawing each one. To me that seems a bit
cheap, but obviously the appeal of the strip isn't the artwork. It's the
fact that it pushes geek-culture buttons.
|
scott
|
|
response 34 of 126:
|
Sep 9 02:25 UTC 2000 |
The artwork is pretty good. I don't really want a book either, though. I'm
into one of those "don't make me store any more *stuff*" periods.
|
krj
|
|
response 35 of 126:
|
Sep 9 14:40 UTC 2000 |
I'm hoping Rane will get back to the second part of my resp:23 ::
if downloading music from the Internet is theft, what do you propose
to do about it?
|
md
|
|
response 36 of 126:
|
Sep 9 14:46 UTC 2000 |
If it's Lars you're stealing from, I'll be cheering you on.
Opps, you were asking Rane. Sorry.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 37 of 126:
|
Sep 9 16:12 UTC 2000 |
Re #35: I don't propose to do anything about it. I'm not the one violating
the law, or responsible for its enforcement. However I don't buy the
*selfish* arguments in #23 that the buyers are the ones that should have
the sole say on what they will "donate" after they take what they want.
Most people will take what they want and give nothing, when it is so
convenient to do so. I much prefer the bargaining mode, where the owner of
the property can set a price and the buy can say what they will pay, and
then they negotiate in the market - the usual process by which prices are
established. Just stealing the goods isn't a very ethical end-run around
this process.
|
gull
|
|
response 38 of 126:
|
Sep 9 20:09 UTC 2000 |
The failure of most shareware to make much money is proof that the
"patronage" system doesn't really work in the real world.
|
krj
|
|
response 39 of 126:
|
Sep 9 21:20 UTC 2000 |
My arguments in #23 and elsewhere aren't "selfish," they are observations
of what is happening. The number of Napster users is guesstimated
at 20 million and growing explosively. Aimster, a similar program
designed to piggyback on AOL Instant Message, has been out for one
month and the news reports estimate that it has already got
one million users.
Here's my predictions for the near term: remember, Rane, these are
observations, not endorsements. I expect Napster, Inc., to get
whacked. I expect that it won't make any difference. About a year
from now, the business model for music on the Internet is going to be
something like the marijuana business in the 1970s, and 30-50 million
Internet users will be downloading music for free from a variety of
guerrilla sources. The next battle for the copyright holders will
be to overturn the DMCA immunity which the ISPs have for the
copyright violations of their users, which will be a direct attack
on the economic viability of the Internet.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 40 of 126:
|
Sep 10 05:26 UTC 2000 |
Will the streets be flooded with starving artists, too?
|