|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 219 responses total. |
russ
|
|
response 179 of 219:
| 
Mar 19 03:11 UTC 2002 |
I think brighn likes bickering more than he likes firm conclusions.
Get to the root of the issue and resolve it, and he sulks and won't
talk to you anymore. I'll have to remember this if I'm ever stuck
in a car with him. ;-)
|
brighn
|
|
response 180 of 219:
|
Mar 19 04:29 UTC 2002 |
#178> Mike, I asked you a simple question.
#179> I'm not sulking. If Mike doesn't want to answer the question, why don't
you do it?
|
mcnally
|
|
response 181 of 219:
|
Mar 19 08:10 UTC 2002 |
re #180: You asked me a "simple" question to which you already know,
or should already know, the answer. Your question isn't an honest one --
it's asked not out of a desire to hear my answer but because you want
to prolong a pointless argument. As I've already said, I don't see any
point in obliging you.
|
gull
|
|
response 182 of 219:
|
Mar 19 14:01 UTC 2002 |
http://www.theregus.com/content/54/24356.html
Summary: Canada is considering adding a CAN$1.23 charge to each blank CDR,
and a CAN$100 charge to every MP3 player sold in the country. The money
would go to the Canadian Private Copying Collective, which already gets
money from similar levies on other recording media. The idea is to
compensate musicians for illicit copying.
Now, my opinion is this could backfire. If you knew you were already being
charged a tax on your blank media on the assumption you'd use it for
infringing copyrights, would you feel guilty about living up to that
assumption?
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 183 of 219:
|
Mar 19 14:48 UTC 2002 |
Hell, no.
|
brighn
|
|
response 184 of 219:
|
Mar 19 16:11 UTC 2002 |
#181> Mike, there have been so many twists in this conversation over the
course of multiple Agoras, I honestly do not know the "single thing" to which
you are referring. If you don't want to tell me, at least point me to a post
number.
I'd thank you to stop assuming malice on my part. I'm not Leeron.
|
russ
|
|
response 185 of 219:
|
Mar 19 23:41 UTC 2002 |
Oh, no, brighn. I won your withdrawal from the discussion fair and
square, I'm not about to give you license to come back with more
postmodern pointlessness. (I'm also not going to let you pretend
that the question you asked in #177 wasn't already answered in #173,
or that you're the only one who doesn't publicly acknowledge this.)
I know you like to feel like everyone's against you, but you shouldn't
be so insecure that you need us to re-affirm it several times a day.
We're not about to stop disagreeing with you that fast; you might
want to check back once a week.
And as long as I'm on a roll with analogies here, let me try to work
up one that Courtney Love might agree with:
Downloading music and listening to it without ever buying the media is
like bypassing a criminal cartel which has enslaved most of the artists
and paid them almost nothing for their work; you've taken the cartel's
ill-gotten gains and put them back in your own pocket. If you spend
any of that money on tickets to a live concert, you've given the artist
more than most would ever get from buying music in a store.
Waitasec, that's not an analogy; it's pretty much what Love says herself.
|
russ
|
|
response 186 of 219:
|
Mar 20 03:25 UTC 2002 |
Re #182: You mis-stated the taxes. It's CDN$1.23 per *audio* CD-R,
CDN$.59 per data CD-R. Fees on CD-RWs are much higher (as if you can
have more than one thing on a CD-RW at once... what *are* they thinking?).
More to the point, with such outrageous taxes on media I would feel no
qualms about smuggling either. The fee on CD-Rs amounts to about 60%
of the US retail price, no? At a difference of US$36 per hundred,
there will be people making a very tidy profit on the arbitrage.
Maybe this will start a long-overdue backlash against Canadian taxes.
At the very least, Canadian garage bands having to pay a royalty to
the establishment for the priviledge of making CDs of their own music
should be raising a huge stink in Ottawa.
|
brighn
|
|
response 187 of 219:
|
Mar 20 04:18 UTC 2002 |
#185> Russ, I didn't withdraw from the conversation, I withdrew from talking
to you about it so long as you were going to insult me. If you're going to
answer the question, politely and civilly, I'll gladly discuss it with you.
Since that's not likely to happen, I really don't have to worry about it, but
I'm ready in case you do.
|
slynne
|
|
response 188 of 219:
|
Mar 20 16:10 UTC 2002 |
I think it is funny how russ pretends that he gets to give people
permission to engage in conversations here.
|
brighn
|
|
response 189 of 219:
|
Mar 20 18:21 UTC 2002 |
I think Russ is just funny, period. ;}
|
russ
|
|
response 190 of 219:
|
Mar 21 03:55 UTC 2002 |
McNally, you want to administer the clue-by-four? I'm curious
to see what lame excuse brighn will come up with to ignore you.
|
brighn
|
|
response 191 of 219:
|
Mar 21 04:18 UTC 2002 |
Mike has already declined. Surely you wouldn't be goading him into doing what
you've chastised me for allegedly doing?
The only "single thing" I could identify as a candidate is that copying does
not diminish the quantity available. If I steal an apple, the vendor has one
fewer apples; if I photograph an apple, the vendor still has the apple.
Is that the great mystical one thing that makes intellectual property "theft"
morally acceptable? If so, it doesn't. If I make a living as a photographer,
one element that goes into the value of my work is its availability. People
copying my photographs and selling them at a lesser price diminishes the
economic viability of my photographs. That's economics.
Frankly, Russ, your rant re: Courtney Love speaks volumes about your actual
(vs. pretended) bias. You hate the RIAA. You loathe them. You are justified
in your actions because you feel they are lower than low. It has nothing to
do with your attitudes about intellectual property, it has to do with your
attitudes about the RIAA.
No, if this were a simple difference of opinion, you wouldn't be this cranky.
You have a good deal of emotional stock in this, too. Otherwise you wouldn't
be hurling insults around.
If you were to go back and read my posts (I mean the whole things, not just
the parts that piss you off), you'd see that I hate the RIAA too. You want
to call them scum? Groovy. They're greedy fucking bastards. They're immoral
pricks who care more about money than anything else in the world.
You think that justifies pillaging from them. You've said as much. I don't.
That's what this argument is really about, sunshine. You thin kit's all right
to commit immoral acts in response to immorality. I don't. Everything else
is just justification on your part.
|
jazz
|
|
response 192 of 219:
|
Mar 21 07:06 UTC 2002 |
It'd be quite amusing if there was a populist movement to give money
to artists whom a listener has pirated MP3s from. Perhaps music can survive
on a shareware basis.
|
brighn
|
|
response 193 of 219:
|
Mar 21 14:07 UTC 2002 |
#192> Hm. Now, my attitude probably WOULD be different if someone downloaded
entire albums via Napster-clones and then sent a $4 check to the band. Then
they could legitimately say they're giving more to the band than the RIAA
would be (a pittance, to be sure, per item), so they're not hurting the
artist. (Counterargument: The artist doesn't get new contracts without units
sold, but if the artists were getting most of their revenue from online sales,
they'd drop out of the RIAA gristmill anyway.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 194 of 219:
|
Mar 21 15:33 UTC 2002 |
Except then, the big record companies wouldnt be compensated for all
the money they put into the marketing that made someone want the music
in the first place. There is a reason bands dont just set up web sites
that charge $4 for downloads (they could do this I am sure but they
dont, why not?)
|
brighn
|
|
response 195 of 219:
|
Mar 21 16:48 UTC 2002 |
Sure. The RIAA is accused of all sorts of evil doing when N*Sync is selling
5 million copies and only getting a buck a unit, and while I'm inclined to
agree, the record companies are rarely praised for taking on that dark horse
that winds up selling the 5,000 copies and is a huge financial hit for them.
When someone asked my previous boss about profit sharing, his response was,
"Well, are you willing to pay out of your pocket when the company has bad
years?"
All the same, I think the movies, as an industry, runs better. It still has
its share of greedy scumbags, but award-winning actors who want to split their
time between blockbusters and indies (Kevin Spacey, William H. Macy, etc.)
have room to do so, and the indies do actually get made.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 196 of 219:
|
Mar 21 16:54 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
slynne
|
|
response 197 of 219:
|
Mar 21 17:10 UTC 2002 |
I have never heard of Dougie MacLean. I'll bet that most people have
not heard of him. He is serve a niche market so his method of
distribution works but if he were trying to serve a mass market, his
method would all but insure failure.
|
krj
|
|
response 198 of 219:
|
Mar 21 17:15 UTC 2002 |
(The Plant Life record label expired years ago; they didn't even make
it into the CD era. The new label Osmosys seems to have acquired
most of the Plant Life masters and Osmosys issues do turn up
in specialist shops. Pickey details that only Twila will care about.)
|
krj
|
|
response 199 of 219:
|
Mar 21 17:16 UTC 2002 |
Non musical DMCA news: The Church of Scientology has used DMCA
threats to get the major anti-Scientology sites deleted from
Google's search engine listings. Source: Wired, and usenet.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 200 of 219:
|
Mar 21 17:45 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
anderyn
|
|
response 201 of 219:
|
Mar 21 17:49 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 202 of 219:
|
Mar 21 18:35 UTC 2002 |
Slynne, people also said that bands that refused to sign major label deals
were always doomed to staying below the radar. Ani Difranco proved them wrong,
but the fact that ONLY Ani Difranco proved them wrong, proved them right.
All the same, I think the Net could be an incredible marketing tool for the
right artists, and I do think that some bands might be able to become huge
commercial successes without the majors.
|
slynne
|
|
response 203 of 219:
|
Mar 21 19:25 UTC 2002 |
re#201 - It's about marketing, twila. If an artist wants to reach a
*mass* audience, one has to advertise. Most artists dont have the funds
necessary to really promote their work. While the Net can be an
incredible marketing tool, it isnt currently nearly as good as other
marketing tools -- marketing tools that are very expensive.
I get that you, twila, would be happy to buy downloads legally. I would
be happy to legally buy downloads too. But, I'll bet that a lot of
music you like is not mass market type of music. Think about how you
find out about artists. Most people probably discover new artists in a
different way. For me, I usually either hear of something from a friend
or I hear it on the radio. It takes a LOT of expensive marketing to get
a song on the radio.
|
