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.

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.)

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.

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. 

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.

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. 

response 205 of 219:

Mar 22 00:11 UTC 2002

Whee!  Wind him up, watch him go!  (Two word refutation:  "fair use".
Also, legality has nothing to do with morality.  But I'll stop here.)

Re #192:  If I recall correctly, there already is.  Fairtunes.com.
Unfortunately I don't know if they use anything other than Paypal.
(Since I have never downloaded any music which was not explicitly
being given away [one whole MP3 file], I owe nothing to any artist.)

response 207 of 219:

Mar 22 02:48 UTC 2002

#205> "Fair use" is not a refutation in and of itself. And legality IS related
to morality: It's socialized morality. A culture's laws are a reflection of
what that culture, together, has decided its morality is. But I see you have
no real interest in a substantive conversation, you'd rather just through out
vacuous barbs.

Maybe I hit too close to home, so you're trying to sneak out of the
conversation.

response 209 of 219:

Mar 22 04:11 UTC 2002

        Wow, isn't that like calling a machinegun a "mobile people renewing
tool"?

response 211 of 219:

Mar 22 04:15 UTC 2002

        They're really not getting this whole concept that, when it comes to
a battle of wits, corporate America pretty consistently loses to rebel youth,
are they?

response 213 of 219:

Mar 22 06:05 UTC 2002

Re #200:  From what little I've had the time to follow, the Co$
did it by making specious allegations of DMCA violations and
invoking the "notice and take-down" provision against Google's
mirrors.  I gather they pretty much deleted xenu.net from Google.

xenu.net is hosted in Europe, outside the reach of the US courts.
However, in order to contest the specious take-down, xenu.net
would have to submit itself to the judgement of US courts in
Scientology's choice of venue.  This means that the asshole
with the most money wins the battle, not the side that's right.

Yet another reason why the entire DMCA is evil and must be abolished.

Re #204:  Now you know why I don't listen to commercial radio any more.

response 215 of 219:

Mar 22 14:42 UTC 2002

((Metadiscussion:  now that Agora has rolled, I'll start the next 
  item in this series later today or this weekend.  I wanted to give 
  Agora a chance to grow a few less argumentative items in its 
  front parlor.))