The same federal judge who oversaw the Joel Tenenbaum file-sharing trial earlier this year passed out default judgments this week against other file-swappers who never bothered to show up—and they now owe far less than Tenenbaum.<BR><BR><a href='http://meincmagazine.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/ignoring-riaa-lawsuits-cheaper-than-going-to-trial.ars'>Read the whole story</a>
Ignoring RIAA lawsuits cheaper than going to trial
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It seems that "fair use" is such a nebulous term, the precise definition of which everyone seems to be fighting over, and if I'm doing something that *I* think falls under fair use, then the *AAs disagree and come after me, and I'm going to fight them in front of a jury, I sure as h3ll don't want a judge usurping my right to have a jury hear my argument based on his assessment unless his ruling is black and white (which, to be fair, this case may have been, but I don't remember it being that). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>If only it was listed in the law as to what in the USA fair use is. Again, it doesn't matter what the RIAA thinks or Joel thinks, if the law legally defines fair use as X Y and Z, telling the jury that the law also says it's A B and C when it doesn't isn't going to be allowed.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If only it was listed in the law as to what in the USA fair use is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>If it's not, then how was the judge qualified to decide so easily that it wasn't applicable?<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Again, it doesn't matter what the RIAA thinks or Joel thinks, if the law legally defines fair use as X Y and Z, telling the jury that the law also says it's A B and C when it doesn't isn't going to be allowed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>I thought X, Y, and Z aren't listed so clearly?<BR><BR>I honestly don't mean to belabor this- I'm honestly interested in learning this*.<BR><BR>*Because I believe I'm within my "fair use" rights to copy my DVDs to my PC and create copies for my girls to trash taking them in and out of the van, etc. I can foresee a situation where the RIAA comes after me (somehow) claiming that's not covered under "fair use", and I'd prefer my interpretation wasn't thrown out by one guy's opinion, judge or not, before I ever got a chance to explain my thinking to a jury.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
reflex-croft
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR>This is what I am responding to:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This assertion is incorrect. Retract please. It has been criminal to infringe copyright for 200 years in this country, and longer elsewhere. It has had a variety of names, and a variety of methods of prosecuting, but it has existed nearly as long as this nation. It is not a new concept that it is a criminal act and capable of criminal and civil prosecution.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR> ruddy supplied this citation which states that federal <B>misdemeanor</B> charges were first enacted in 1897.<BR><BR>I am unaware of federal criminal penalties before this date. Similarly, I'm unaware of <B>federal, felony</B> penalties before 1982. That's why I specified 'federal (and felony)' when I wrote what I wrote.<BR><BR>I'd be happy to retract if you provide a citation for the 1809 date of federal, felony, penalties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>As pointed out before, there were(and still are) multiple methods of charging someone with copyright violations. I supply 'counterfeiting' as one of them. Which certainly has existed for centuries as a crime. I believe in past threads we have come up with others as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Counterfeiting is covered under US trademark law, not copyright law, unless something has changed radically in the last three months. My statement is accurate to the best of my knowledge, as stated, and appropriately focused for the point being made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>My point, which you are dancing around rather than addressing, was that from nearly the founding of this nation until today, if you created and/or distributed unauthorized copies of someone else's copyrighted works you could face both civil and criminal penalties, including potential jail time and large amounts of restitution. Regardless of the class of laws it was prosecuted under, the names of the individual classes of crimes, or any other semantic arguments, western society has for over four hundred years recognized infringement as a form of theft and a crime, and had both civil and criminal penalties for that.<BR><BR>Your question is one that is meant to imply that these changes are somehow recent, that criminal penalties never were on the table until 1976. This is false. This is demonstratably false. Do you accept this or are you going to continue to dance around the facts?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bounder:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rodbac:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's up to judge; he/she could refuse it as pro se representation isn't a right in a civil case </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Seriously? I didn't know this was the case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I have strong doubts that it is the case. I have been in courtrooms for 15 years and I have seen some disasterous self representation but I have never seen a judge require an attorney in a civil case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I never said that I know of cases were it wasn't allowed, however, based on what I've read (http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/C...FAQs.asp?topic=ProSe), it can be denied.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rodbac:<BR>Thanks for indulging me, RDV.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Fair use and how it applies is actually written into the law. Joel's team wanted to tell the jury that the legal definition of fair use included things that were not written in the law, ie making up things that they wished the law had said because it would really be good for their client if it was written totally differently. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Why would the entire discussion be thrown out, then, instead of merely telling them they dmn well better not lie about what the law says (which, it seems to me, could be displayed in black and white for any English-readers to see for themselves).<BR><BR>IOW, if the language is so easy to interpret that the judge can say "Nope, doesn't apply in any way whatsoever so you're banned from so much as mentioning it", why does he even need to do so? Why wouldn't the jury be able to see that it's not applicable in any way whatsoever?<BR><BR>And if it's not so easy to interpret, isn't that what the jury is for- to look at the law, listen to the arguments, then decide who's full of sht and who's not? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not quite... because you still don't want the jury to interpret the law (i.e. "I think that this is the way that it should be").<BR><BR>The fact is that it wasn't fair use under the law, so the jury cannot decide for themselves to effectively "alter" the law and potentially find him non-liable.<BR><BR>It's not about whether the jury necessarily agrees with the law, it's about whether the law was violated... that's why you don't want to levave it up for interpretation (which can go both ways... eiher for or against the defendant).
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I have a question. Copyright and copyright infringement is covered under several statutes; but civil and criminal. Now that Joel has admitted on the stand that he infringed; what's to keep his local DA from filing criminal charges against him and using his own testimony to put him away? Anything? Sure sucks to be him.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR>From Wikipedia (it's hardly a legal reference, but I can't be bothered to get real precise when arguing with ruddy): </div></BLOCKQUOTE>So are you still claiming anticopyright is a term I just made up? Why can't you ever admit your mistakes?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Okay. We've all agreed for the purpose of this thread that the work is property. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's new and different. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Someone who copies a work without permission hasn't taken the work from the owner. They still have it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Who did they take it from then? Who does the Constitution grant the exclusive rights to copy and distribute it?<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Someone who copies a work without permission has not taken the copyright from the owner. They still have it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>The copier has taken a copy. Duh. One they have no right to TAKE.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, what's been taken from the copyright holder? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>A copy has been taken. The right to copy and distribute has been taken unlawfully. <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">All of the property that they had before the infringement is still in their posession after the infringement. A new copy has been made, which is clearly infringing on their copyright (yes, it's a violation of the copyright holder's rights), but it's not at all clear to me that this new fixed copy was ever the property of the copyright holder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Whose property was it if not the rightsholder's? It's unclear to you because you want it to be unclear. However, it's perfectly clear in the eyes of the law, as we've seen in any number of cases.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, I'm skeptical that any real taking has occurred here. No doubt I'm just in denial of the obvious, however. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactly so.<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR><B>But, let's just assume that a taking has occurred:</B><BR><BR>Then surely the expiration of the copyright term represents a far, far more significant taking from the copyright holder. That taking is also completely uncompensated (in contrast to, e.g. eminent domain takings by the government of real property). While that 'taking' is legitimate (it's mandated by the constitution, after all), if you're going to hold that the first taking is an act of injustice, immoral according to Locke's theory of property, I'd ask you to explain why the second taking is not also an act of injustice and immoral. Yes, the constitution mandates that second taking, but that doesn't make it right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>This is exactly the argument that natural rights and perpetual copyright advocates make. <BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, given that works are property, and that there are no economic benefits to works being in the public domain, and that moving a work out of copyright and into the public domain represents a clear taking of that property (and also reducing it's economic value significantly), it seems that the term limit mandated by the US constitution is clearly immoral. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Some see it that way. Personally I subscribe to the social contract position.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by reflex-croft:<BR>This is what I am responding to:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">hpsgrad:Criminal actions have done even less in the 27 years we've had federal (and felony) criminal penalties for copyright infringement. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>This assertion is incorrect. Retract please. It has been criminal to infringe copyright for 200 years in this country, and longer elsewhere. It has had a variety of names, and a variety of methods of prosecuting, but it has existed nearly as long as this nation. It is not a new concept that it is a criminal act and capable of criminal and civil prosecution.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR> ruddy supplied this citation which states that federal <B>misdemeanor</B> charges were first enacted in 1897.<BR><BR>I am unaware of federal criminal penalties before this date. Similarly, I'm unaware of <B>federal, felony</B> penalties before 1982. That's why I specified 'federal (and felony)' when I wrote what I wrote.<BR><BR>I'd be happy to retract if you provide a citation for the 1809 date of federal, felony, penalties. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>As pointed out before, there were(and still are) multiple methods of charging someone with copyright violations. I supply 'counterfeiting' as one of them. Which certainly has existed for centuries as a crime. I believe in past threads we have come up with others as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Counterfeiting is covered under US trademark law, not copyright law, unless something has changed radically in the last three months. My statement is accurate to the best of my knowledge, as stated, and appropriately focused for the point being made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>My point, which you are dancing around rather than addressing, was that from nearly the founding of this nation until today, if you created and/or distributed unauthorized copies of someone else's copyrighted works you could face both civil and criminal penalties, including potential jail time and large amounts of restitution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Absolutely. My statement was never intended to imply otherwise, and I'm sorry that you interpreted it incorrectly.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Reflex-croft:<BR>Your question is one that is meant to imply that these changes are somehow recent, that criminal penalties never were on the table until 1976. This is false. This is demonstratably false. Do you accept this or are you going to continue to dance around the facts? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Actually, that's not at all what my question was meant to imply. I was claiming that in the last 30 years, copyright law, criminal or otherwise, appears to have done fuck-all to reduce, prevent, or otherwise affect sharing of digitally-encoded files (via 'sneaker-nets', BBS systems or the more-modern internet). Of the effects that such laws <I>have</I> had, most of the action I've seen has been in civil law; particularly recently.<BR><BR>Now then, two pages after you over-interpreted an admittedly-hyperbolic paragraph of mine, and ignored a clarification which itself denied the claims you thought I implied, I've denied them again. Let me be clear:<BR><BR><B>I NEVER MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW RECENTLY CRIMINAL PENALTIES ENTERED COPYRIGHT LAW. IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT I WAS MAKING.</B><BR><BR>Since you clearly don't think that I'm being honest in this thread, I'm going to leave it here. Thanks.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by earl grey:<BR>I have a question. Copyright and copyright infringement is covered under several statutes; but civil and criminal. Now that Joel has admitted on the stand that he infringed; what's to keep his local DA from filing criminal charges against him and using his own testimony to put him away? Anything? Sure sucks to be him. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>If a DA could show that Joel's actions crossed the threshold for criminal infringement, and then address questions about the chain of custody, trustworthiness of the identification process, etc., then I guess it's possible. I don't think it likely, but then I just ask questions about copyright as a hobby.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By US Law, as amended in 1976, all works are copyrighted when first fixed, automatically. I am aware of no non-revokable procedure for releasing a work from copyright protection (that is, a copyright holder may declare a work to be in the public domain, but it's not at all clear what legal status such a declaration might have, since there is no legislation on the matter, nor have any cases come to trial on the matter, so far as I'm aware). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Then change the opt out part and the point remains the same. The government often charges for services. Part of the charge for protecting your copyrighted work is the fact that eventually it will become public domain.<BR><BR>The point doesn't change. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>fwiw, and particularly since my writing appears to be easily misinterpreted in this thread, I understand your point, and agree that if you view copyright as a contract entered into with the government, then the limited terms make sense. When I wrote that I see lots of ways of making those limits make sense, I didn't mean that as a dismissal of your point, but rather as agreement with it.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
while there are hpsgrad posts prior to where i start quoting, i believe that this goes back far enough to encapsulate the majority of them.<BR><BR><I>hpsgrad:<BR><BR>"If we are really worried about justice, the intent of the founders, and Lockean theory, we should ask ourselves: does handling these cases via the civil courts effectively privilege the rights of copyright holders over the rights of those they accuse of infringing on their rights?"</I><BR>assuming that you're referring to the differing standard of proof between civil and criminal, one need only examine the reasons for the criminal standard. the criminal standard is intended to protect the people from governmental abuse. since civil trials are between private parties, there is no need for such protection or reason to advantage either party.<BR><BR><I>"Ruddy will probably choose this moment to point out to me that different types of property have different characteristics and are therefore governed by different rules (<B>a claim which I've accepted repeatedly</B>)"</I><BR>while this true, it is equally true that you keep harping on the differences as if the inconsistencies somehow preove that intellectual properties are not properties.<BR><BR><I>"That doesn't explain why it is that 'intellectual property' deserves this statutory damages protection, but other sorts don't"</I><BR>even if this were true (it's not, statutory damages are available in a great many circumstances concerning all sorts of property), the reasoning behind statutory damages is incredibly simple and has been presented many times before. damages with respect to intellectual properties can be incredibly difficult to prove.<BR><BR><I>"Perhaps, but then we should again ask: if the results of the civil trial are so much less severe than the results of a criminal trial (ruddy has claimed this in this thread; this justifies the lower standards of evidence, etc., in civil trials), how can it be that this is a 'serious deterrent'?"</I><BR>if you don't believe ruddy, ask yourself which the big bad content providers would prefer civil or criminal copyright statutes? which would jtr and jt have preferred (current criminal statutes could have added a year of imprisonment to the fines they received in the civil trial)? as to the question of whether civil trials can be a serious deterent, are you seriously suggesting that a potential multimillion dollar judgment would not deter some to refrain from the activity that resulted in that judgment?<BR><BR><I>"Again, why not use criminal 'deterrents', if you're going for deterrent effect in the first place?"</I><BR>throw them all in jail? why?<BR><BR><BR><I>"'Intellectual property' is the only sort of 'property' that I'm aware of which we protect primarily via civil actions rather than criminal ones"</I><BR>simply incorrect. the most obvious example to the contrary is land dealings. only an idiot would argue that real estate is not property, yet the vast majority of protections and dealings are done through the civil courts. additionally, since you've acknowledged that different classes of property are governed by different rules, what is the point of this?<BR><BR><I>"It's the only sort of 'property' where no actual evidence of harm is required in order to obtain a judgment against someone for infringing"</I><BR>simply incorrect. to use your example of trespass, is evidence of harm required for a judgement against a trespasser? additionally, since you've acknowledged that different classes of property are governed by different rules, what is the point of this?<BR><BR><I>"Whatever the priorities of society, these features make 'intellectual property' unique as property"</I><BR>all classes of property are unique, that is why they are different classes. additionally, since you've acknowledged that different classes of property are governed by different rules, what is the point of this?<BR><BR><I>"For example, if this stuff is property, and copyright infringement is an infringement on property rights, why is theft the best classification of that infringement?"</I><BR>because it fits the definition, the taking of another's property without the owner's permission.<BR><BR><I>"The short and simple answer is that I repeat questions when I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer to them"</I><BR>just because you choose to dismiss them out of hand, does not make the unsatisfactory.<BR><BR><I>"If you want to discuss particular questions, or point out where a question has been answered, I'll do my best to explain why the answer given wasn't satisfactory, or apologize for asking a question already answered"</I><BR>considering the number of times that i've attempted to do just that, i can only say, <B>bullshit</B>.<BR><BR><I>"There's always someone claiming 'it's property so that law is good'"</I><BR>feel free to point out where such an assertion has ever been made.<BR><BR><I>"I've not only demonstrated that I understand the 'works are property' position"</I><BR>again, bullshit.<BR><BR><I>"but I've even apologized to those whose positions I've mischaracterized"</I><BR>more bullshit.<BR><BR><BR><I>"Instead, you made up a category of people you call 'anti-copyright' and dumped me in it along with all the people who want to abolish copyright protections entirely"</I><BR>my that's an awfully black pot. considering this sinister mythological 'works are property' group that you constantly talk about and dump other folks in, it seems that it would take quite a bit of nerve to voice such a complaint. btw, how does the statement <I>"It may surprise some anticopyrighters to know that legal theory in the US holds the potential loss of one's freedom as a much more severe punishment than the mere payment of damages"</I> dump you into the 'anti-copyright' category?<BR><BR><I>"Better yet, would you admit that this is different from the general case of problems arising from an imbalance of resources, because the imbalance is codified into the law?"</I><BR>the imbalance of resources arises from the simple fact that one party has more resources than the other. if i sue your average college student, i probably have greater resource. if i sue bershire hathaway, they most certainly have greater resources.<BR><BR><I>"After all, I'm not aware of any other sort of property that allows people to file civil suits to recover economic damages which they do not have to present evidence of"</I><BR>and, of course, if you are not aware of it, it must not exist. statutory damages are rather common, as are judgments in civil suits with no presentation of evidence concerning economic harm. btw, who claimed that the suits are meant (only) to recover economic harm? additionally, since you've acknowledged that different classes of property are governed by different rules, what is the point of this?<BR><BR><I>"My point is that the law makes civil suits far, far more appealing to copyright holders for addressing infringements of their rights than for owners of other sorts of property to address their rights"</I><BR>seems that criminal prosecution and prison time would be more appealing to copyright holders for the deterrent value.<BR><BR><I>"Again, it's not my fault you appear unable to understand the difference between someone who disagrees with your position, and someone who doesn't understand it"</I><BR>if you understand the positions of others so well, why do you keep asking the same questions about those positions over and over again (even when it has been answered each time)?<BR><BR><BR><I>"Nothing gets taken from a copyright holder when their work is copied, except the possibility of a sale"</I><BR>are "take" and "take from" the same thing? nope. is to take the act of acquiring or gaining possession? yep.<BR><BR><BR><I>"Someone who copies a work without permission hasn't taken the work from the owner"</I><BR>according to <B>your own</B> definition of theft, does it specify taken from? nope, just taking. what is taking? the act of acquiring or gaining possession. does someone who copies a work (within the context of your hypothetical) acquire or gain possession of a copy of the work?<BR><BR><I>"We also all agree that the copyright is a property"</I><BR>considering the the law specifically states that it is why would anyone think otherwise?<BR><BR><I>"Furthermore, not all of those fixed copies are the property of the copyright holder"</I><BR>the material object in which the work is fixed is not the property of the copyright holder. the work that is fixed in the material object is the property of the copyright holder.<BR><BR><I>"So, what's been taken from the copyright holder?"</I><BR>a copy of the work.<BR><BR><I>"All of the property that they had before the infringement is still in their posession after the infringement"</I><BR>one of the unique attributes of intellectual properties is that they are intangible. as such, multiple instances can exist simultaneously.<BR><BR><I>"So, I'm skeptical that any real taking has occurred here"</I><BR>only because you've equated taking and taking from, as well as requiring intellectual properties act as tangible properties would.<BR><BR><I>"Then surely the expiration of the copyright term represents a far, far more significant taking from the copyright holder"</I><BR>nope, it would simply represent a removal of rights.<BR><BR><I>"That taking is also completely uncompensated (in contrast to, e.g. eminent domain takings by the government of real property)"</I><BR>this is not a taking of property, it is a dissolution of property. when the rights regarding copyrights are removed, the work is simply no longer property.<BR><BR><I>"if you're going to hold that the first taking is an act of injustice, immoral according to Locke's theory of property, I'd ask you to explain why the second taking is not also an act of injustice and immoral"</I><BR>the government agrees to protect copyrighted works by giving the creator a set of rights. it does this to encourage the creation of more works. this set of rights gives the creator legal right to and control over the works. having legal right to and legal control over the works makes them property. the government only offers this protection for a given time, after which the rights are abrogated. there is no taking of property. can one use locke to lend a moral justification to the governments creation of intellectual properties? yep. copyrighted works are examples of applied industry. if you find these incongruous, i don't see how you can claim to understand ruddy's position.<BR><BR><I>"Ruddy has repeatedly asked what economic harm could result from a work remaining in copyright (apparently there isn't any; at least none of the examples I provided seemed to meet his standards), and has repeatedly said that there's no legitimate creative acts that are hampered by a work's being in copyright"</I><BR>while i'm not a scholar of the collected works of ruddy, i have a hard time believing your assertions. seems that your one anecdote concerning economic harm has been acknowledged, virtually universally, and possible solutions have been proffered (and dismissed by you). orphaned works do represent potential economic harm. however, the extent of that harm has been questioned, particularly with respect to the net benefit of potential solutions. can't say that i recall them stating (even once) no creative acts are hampered by copyright.<BR><BR><I>"...and that there are no economic benefits to works being in the public domain..."</I><BR>how does, copyrighted works being more valuable, equate to, there not being economic benefits to the public domain?<BR><BR><I>"...it seems that the term limit mandated by the US constitution is clearly immoral"</I><BR>only if you misrepresent and combine several disparate assertions.<BR><BR><I>"I am aware of no non-revokable procedure for releasing a work from copyright protection"</I><BR>assign the copyright to the public domain, wait forty years (there is a five year period starting after thirty five years in which the assignment can be withdrawn), done.<BR><BR><I>"that is, a copyright holder may declare a work to be in the public domain, but it's not at all clear what legal status such a declaration might have, since there is no legislation on the matter, nor have any cases come to trial on the matter, so far as I'm aware"</I><BR>because hux read on wikipedia that a single source claimed that the public domain isn't a legally sanctioned entity? while the public domain isn't a legally sanctioned entity, it is legally recognized.<BR><BR><I>"Anyway, ruddy's position is that copyright is a property right which derives from the labor exerted to create the work"</I><BR>property is derived from the law. the exertion of labor justifies the law.<BR><BR><BR><I>"I NEVER MEANT TO IMPLY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW RECENTLY CRIMINAL PENALTIES ENTERED COPYRIGHT LAW. IT'S IRRELEVANT TO THE POINT I WAS MAKING."</I><BR>one has to wonder why you made a point of specifying 27 years, if how recently criminal penalties entered copyright law is irrelevant to you point?<BR><BR><I>"Since you clearly don't think that I'm being honest in this thread, I'm going to leave it here"</I><BR>an excellent comment on your honesty.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">By US Law, as amended in 1976, all works are copyrighted when first fixed, automatically. I am aware of no non-revokable procedure for releasing a work from copyright protection (that is, a copyright holder may declare a work to be in the public domain, but it's not at all clear what legal status such a declaration might have, since there is no legislation on the matter, nor have any cases come to trial on the matter, so far as I'm aware). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Then change the opt out part and the point remains the same. The government often charges for services. Part of the charge for protecting your copyrighted work is the fact that eventually it will become public domain.<BR><BR>The point doesn't change. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>fwiw, and particularly since my writing appears to be easily misinterpreted in this thread, I understand your point, and agree that if you view copyright as a contract entered into with the government, then the limited terms make sense. When I wrote that I see lots of ways of making those limits make sense, I didn't mean that as a dismissal of your point, but rather as agreement with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's fine, I'm probably a bit more defensive about things because I tend to take alot of flack on this issue because I tend to be more pro-copyright then most. <BR><BR>It's not that I like the RIAA, and it's not that I think the current laws are great. I think they need to be adjusted.<BR><BR>However...<BR><BR>1. I don't believe that the best place to alter laws that I think need to be scaled back is in the courtroom. Certainly not about this issue. My disagreement is one of scale not that the entire law needs to be tossed.<BR><BR>2. I think pirates like Joel are scum and deserve to be financially punished, the scale is an issue however.<BR><BR>3. I think the court cases as the law is written now were tried fairly and the outcome was how the Jury followed the law.<BR><BR>4. As somebody who makes IP ((Computer Programs)) the idea that anybody who wants my IP without giving me something in return for it pisses me off.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rodbac:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If only it was listed in the law as to what in the USA fair use is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>If it's not, then how was the judge qualified to decide so easily that it wasn't applicable?<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I was being sarcastic. Section 107 ((the copyright law)) lists 4 conditions of fair use. Joel's lawyer wanted to claim several others that aren't part of the law.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <BR>1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes <BR>2. The nature of the copyrighted work <BR>3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole <BR>4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>A fair use defense can make use of any or all 4 of those factors. Had Joel's team wanted to do just that, it would have been fine. Here is the write up on arstechnica about it.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Tenenbaum's only real defense, then, was a plea that downloading a host of songs for his personal use qualified for a "fair use" exemption to US copyright law. Tenenbaum and his lawyer, Harvard Law's Charles Nesson, hoped to argue this case in front of a jury. Not content with discussing the statutory "four factors" laid out in the statute, they also hoped to add a few new factors of their own to the mix.<BR><BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>IE they weren't going to argue Fair Use as it appears in the law, but instead what they wished the law had said. You can't do that.<BR><BR>Again from Arstechnica...<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> other judges have ruled that wholesale copying of songs using P2P networks isn't a fair use </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I saw a comment saying to "Just buy the CD".<BR>I remember a few years ago that there was an issue with the recording industry being charged with price fixing of CDs and a class action lawsuit.<BR>Sometimes I like to try before I buy. If I like more than one song on a CD, and if the CD is reasonably priced, I'll go buy it.<BR>But if I only like one or two songs on an entire album, it's off to itunes for a few cents or whatever service is available at the time.<BR>I'm pretty sure that the RIAA isn't going to see a penny of those judgements.<BR>Those people simply won't ever have the money to pay. Plus how do you know the RIAA evidence is genuine and unaltered? The investigator they used got into trouble for not having the proper credentials to investigate in most states anyway. <BR>What's next from the RIAA? Are the going to send spies into your attics looking for all the mix tapes recorded from the radio back in the 80's?<BR>I fully believe people should get paid for thier work. IF you download a song to listen to and you like it, pay the artist buy getting thier CD at a fair value or download it through an itunes like service.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xanxer82:<BR>I saw a comment saying to "Just buy the CD".<BR>I remember a few years ago that there was an issue with the recording industry being charged with price fixing of CDs and a class action lawsuit.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not sure what those two data points have to do with each other.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Sometimes I like to try before I buy. If I like more than one song on a CD, and if the CD is reasonably priced, I'll go buy it.<BR>But if I only like one or two songs on an entire album, it's off to itunes for a few cents or whatever service is available at the time.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The RIAA gets money from sales from iTunes.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>I'm pretty sure that the RIAA isn't going to see a penny of those judgements.<BR>Those people simply won't ever have the money to pay. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Probably true.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Plus how do you know the RIAA evidence is genuine and unaltered? The investigator they used got into trouble for not having the proper credentials to investigate in most states anyway. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>They had every right to challenge the evidence in court, and well to be fair Joel admitted to everything. So the results of the investigation ended up matching the results of the admission. Seems like it worked just fine.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>What's next from the RIAA? Are the going to send spies into your attics looking for all the mix tapes recorded from the radio back in the 80's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Any evidence that this is even being considered? Of course not. It's a crazy question with no basis in facts. Weeee.....<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>I fully believe people should get paid for thier work. IF you download a song to listen to and you like it, pay the artist buy getting thier CD at a fair value or download it through an itunes like service. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Would be nice, and Joel and the people in the article wouldn't have been in trouble if they had done that.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hpsgrad:<BR><BR>fwiw, and particularly since my writing appears to be easily misinterpreted in this thread, I understand your point, and agree that if you view copyright as a contract entered into with the government, then the limited terms make sense. When I wrote that I see lots of ways of making those limits make sense, I didn't mean that as a dismissal of your point, but rather as agreement with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's fine, I'm probably a bit more defensive about things because I tend to take alot of flack on this issue because I tend to be more pro-copyright then most. <BR><BR>It's not that I like the RIAA, and it's not that I think the current laws are great. I think they need to be adjusted.<BR><BR>However...<BR><BR>1. I don't believe that the best place to alter laws that I think need to be scaled back is in the courtroom. Certainly not about this issue. My disagreement is one of scale not that the entire law needs to be tossed.<BR><BR>2. I think pirates like Joel are scum and deserve to be financially punished, the scale is an issue however.<BR><BR>3. I think the court cases as the law is written now were tried fairly and the outcome was how the Jury followed the law.<BR><BR>4. As somebody who makes IP ((Computer Programs)) the idea that anybody who wants my IP without giving me something in return for it pisses me off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>WRT points #1-3, we're in close enough agreement that there's not much point in going into detail. I wouldn't necessarily call Joel 'scum' for doing what the vast majority of people in the US do (perhaps for lying about it in court...) but that's a character critique that has little to do with copyright.<BR><BR>WRT your point #4: as someone who has made a living doing skilled labor and construction, I had to be content with the knowledge that other people would be benefiting economically from my labor for the rest of my life, and I wouldn't see any additional return. As an educator, I faced precisely the same issue: some of my students would use the instruction I provided to go on to make quite a bit more money than I ever will. If that pissed me off, I'd probably have had a heart attack by now.<BR><BR>Thinking that one deserves every last cent of economic benefit from their labor strikes me as a very very strange attitude to hold about the world. Ruddy clearly holds that attitude. Perhaps you do too (it might be implied by your point #4). I agree that the creator of a work deserves compensation for it, and even an additional incentive to publish it. Does the creator (or their proxy, the copyright holder) deserve <I>all economic benefits</I> from that work? I have to answer 'no, they do not.' And that's the source of some pretty significant differences between me and various others around here.<BR><BR>[And just in case someone 'reads between the lines', let me restate, again, in bold print: <B>I am in favor of copyright protections!</B>]
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">WRT your point #4: as someone who has made a living doing skilled labor and construction, I had to be content with the knowledge that other people would be benefiting economically from my labor for the rest of my life, and I wouldn't see any additional return. As an educator, I faced precisely the same issue: some of my students would use the instruction I provided to go on to make quite a bit more money than I ever will. If that pissed me off, I'd probably have had a heart attack by now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>I see what you are doing much like if Company X hired me to develop a program that they made money on for a long time but I only got a certain amount of money up front for. Seeing as I agreed to enter into that sort of arangement that wouldn't bother me either.<BR><BR>When somebody violates my copyright, they aren't entering into any sort of contract with me it's just them deciding that they don't want to pay for my work and I get nothing for it.<BR><BR>A much more similar situation would be if you entered into a contract to teach 10 students, and 30 more students showed up, refused to pay and convinced 3-4 of your paying students to cancel their checks, drop you class and then show up for free for the rest of the class.<BR><BR>It wouldn't matter to me that the 30 might never have paid for the class, I still would get them kicked them if I could, and if I couldn't it would certainly factor into my choice if I would teach another class.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<br>When somebody violates my copyright, they aren't entering into any sort of contract with me it's just them deciding that they don't want to pay for my work and I get nothing for it. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Exactly. They don't value your work enough to pay for easily created copies, and is the exact problem copyright holders have today.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A much more similar situation would be if you entered into a contract to teach 10 students, and 30 more students showed up, refused to pay and convinced 3-4 of your paying students to cancel their checks, drop you class and then show up for free for the rest of the class.<br><br>It wouldn't matter to me that the 30 might never have paid for the class, I still would get them kicked them if I could, and if I couldn't it would certainly factor into my choice if I would teach another class. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>First, that is not an accurate analogy. Your equating something like class size (something that is finite) that is not easy copyable with something (digital music) that is infinitely copyable. <br><br>An even more similar would be that you enter a contract with the school (record company) to teach (make) a number of classes (albums). You go ahead and set up the course outline, materials etc (write the songs music and lyrics). This is before a disruptive technology comes alone, say a photocopier (P2P). The only way to get the original materials is to pay for the class, or copy the material manually by hand (tape recording) which doesn't cut into class attendance much as it is inefficient, and aside act as a bit of promotion for your class (people want the real thing). <br><br>Now the photocopier comes into fruition and you can no longer stop the copies of the course materials from spreading. They are easily created, and once one is out there is no real stopping it. People stop paying for classes because what you (record company) offered was mostly in all in the materials (selling copies). Students can now get the easily copyable material for free, and pick and choose want they want.<br><br>So what are your options? <br><br>Your first reaction is (and has always been for every company faced with a disruptive technology): you need stronger laws to protect the old way of doing things instead of adapting to the changes. School lobbyists (RIAA) are sent out to fight for tougher laws (DMCA/1998 Copyright Extension Act/1997 NET Act). This eventually raises the damages per infringement to allow for hundreds if not millions of dollars in civil court awards, removes financial requirements for infringement to be liable, extends artificial monopoly on your work for years after your death, and allows to add watermarks (DRM) that cannot be circumvented legally. <br><br>The law is stacked entirely in your favour now. Your copy-protected for life. Your material won't go into public domain till after your kids have grandkids. You can sue for millions for only a couple of copies shared, and even if they were not shared for profit. You can add an additional legal protection by adding DRM. <br><br>So you spend the next couple of years fighting the students and photocopier companies and suing using these new laws. Yet, you still are losing students (customers) every year. Now you could continue to spend the time fighting the photocopier companies (P2P/tech companies), or suing the students (file sharers) who didn't pay for the course for spreading copies, but will it get people into the class again? No, of course not (see how well the last ten years have went for the RIAA). People have long since realized your class material (songs) are easily copied and offer little to no value on their own. Even their way of consumption has changed. Why pay for something that in seconds can be easily copied and shared. Your students (customers) no longer value your easily copyable product, nor consume the material in the way they used to. <br><br>Copyright law isn't necessarily bad overall and does have it's uses. But these laws are now so twisted as to become pointless because they do nothing to solve your actual problem; <i>people don't value purchasing copies of something that is easily reproduced.</i> When a person can be held liable for millions of dollars for sharing 20 or 30 copies (people that weren't even the original uploaders), and it does nothing to stop people from doing it further, it is a bad law in it current form. It is little more than a false sense of security. What point is the law if it doesn't actually protect you? What more can you do with law? Prohibition of the Internet? Extend terms further (death plus 700)? Make it an executable offense? I know this is hyperbole, but obviously this has been the thinking of many for the last 20 years, expand protection and liability over and over. Even now, your now part of the same group of thinking as the current "kicking them of the net" types by your own example: <i>"I still would get them kicked them if I could"</i> whether you know it or not. <br><br>This is where you as a teacher (musician), must think of new ways to get students back into the class rooms and paying. You have to look at your own personal expertise teaching or tutoring (live shows), or non-copyable materials like physical equipment (merchandise). You have to connect with students to get them to want to pay, find out what makes paying worthwhile. <br><br>Maybe you have to be innovative, and think of some entirely new way of doing things. Put up the hard work.<br> <br>It sucks as a teacher (musician) and school (record company) because in the past you could get away with just using course material (albums) to make money. But the reality of the situation has forever changed. The laws support you, but do nothing to actually protect you. If people are no longer viewing the copies as valuable, to continue to teach (or create music) for money your going to have think of new ways of doing it. The law really doesn't do anything for you if your students (customers) don't respect or value you, especially if you won't work harder to do anything. There will always be other teachers (musicians) to take your place that are hungry enough to put the leg work in. Music won't die because sharing, though it has obviously changed. <br><br>Sadly, from your own example however, having to adapt and work harder could likely stop you: <i>"and if I couldn't it would certainly factor into my choice if I would teach another class."</i> <br><br>Side note: If your in it for the art side more however, it couldn't be a better time to be a musician, with the amount of and efficiency of the tools at hand. And typically teachers don't get in it for the pay -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<br>When somebody violates my copyright, they aren't entering into any sort of contract with me it's just them deciding that they don't want to pay for my work and I get nothing for it. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Exactly. They don't value your work enough to pay for easily created copies, and is the exact problem copyright holders have today.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A much more similar situation would be if you entered into a contract to teach 10 students, and 30 more students showed up, refused to pay and convinced 3-4 of your paying students to cancel their checks, drop you class and then show up for free for the rest of the class.<br><br>It wouldn't matter to me that the 30 might never have paid for the class, I still would get them kicked them if I could, and if I couldn't it would certainly factor into my choice if I would teach another class. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>First, that is not an accurate analogy. Your equating something like class size (something that is finite) that is not easy copyable with something (digital music) that is infinitely copyable. <br><br>An even more similar would be that you enter a contract with the school (record company) to teach (make) a number of classes (albums). You go ahead and set up the course outline, materials etc (write the songs music and lyrics). This is before a disruptive technology comes alone, say a photocopier (P2P). The only way to get the original materials is to pay for the class, or copy the material manually by hand (tape recording) which doesn't cut into class attendance much as it is inefficient, and aside act as a bit of promotion for your class (people want the real thing). <br><br>Now the photocopier comes into fruition and you can no longer stop the copies of the course materials from spreading. They are easily created, and once one is out there is no real stopping it. People stop paying for classes because what you (record company) offered was mostly in all in the materials (selling copies). Students can now get the easily copyable material for free, and pick and choose want they want.<br><br>So what are your options? <br><br>Your first reaction is (and has always been for every company faced with a disruptive technology): you need stronger laws to protect the old way of doing things instead of adapting to the changes. School lobbyists (RIAA) are sent out to fight for tougher laws (DMCA/1998 Copyright Extension Act/1997 NET Act). This eventually raises the damages per infringement to allow for hundreds if not millions of dollars in civil court awards, removes financial requirements for infringement to be liable, extends artificial monopoly on your work for years after your death, and allows to add watermarks (DRM) that cannot be circumvented legally. <br><br>The law is stacked entirely in your favour now. Your copy-protected for life. Your material won't go into public domain till after your kids have grandkids. You can sue for millions for only a couple of copies shared, and even if they were not shared for profit. You can add an additional legal protection by adding DRM. <br><br>So you spend the next couple of years fighting the students and photocopier companies and suing using these new laws. Yet, you still are losing students (customers) every year. Now you could continue to spend the time fighting the photocopier companies (P2P/tech companies), or suing the students (file sharers) who didn't pay for the course for spreading copies, but will it get people into the class again? No, of course not (see how well the last ten years have went for the RIAA). People have long since realized your class material (songs) are easily copied and offer little to no value on their own. Even their way of consumption has changed. Why pay for something that in seconds can be easily copied and shared. Your students (customers) no longer value your easily copyable product, nor consume the material in the way they used to. <br><br>Copyright law isn't necessarily bad overall and does have it's uses. But these laws are now so twisted as to become pointless because they do nothing to solve your actual problem; <i>people don't value purchasing copies of something that is easily reproduced.</i> When a person can be held liable for millions of dollars for sharing 20 or 30 copies (people that weren't even the original uploaders), and it does nothing to stop people from doing it further, it is a bad law in it current form. It is little more than a false sense of security. What point is the law if it doesn't actually protect you? What more can you do with law? Prohibition of the Internet? Extend terms further (death plus 700)? Make it an executable offense? I know this is hyperbole, but obviously this has been the thinking of many for the last 20 years, expand protection and liability over and over. Even now, your now part of the same group of thinking as the current "kicking them of the net" types by your own example: <i>"I still would get them kicked them if I could"</i> whether you know it or not. <br><br>This is where you as a teacher (musician), must think of new ways to get students back into the class rooms and paying. You have to look at your own personal expertise teaching or tutoring (live shows), or non-copyable materials like physical equipment (merchandise). You have to connect with students to get them to want to pay, find out what makes paying worthwhile. <br><br>Maybe you have to be innovative, and think of some entirely new way of doing things. Put up the hard work.<br> <br>It sucks as a teacher (musician) and school (record company) because in the past you could get away with just using course material (albums) to make money. But the reality of the situation has forever changed. The laws support you, but do nothing to actually protect you. If people are no longer viewing the copies as valuable, to continue to teach (or create music) for money your going to have think of new ways of doing it. The law really doesn't do anything for you if your students (customers) don't respect or value you, especially if you won't work harder to do anything. There will always be other teachers (musicians) to take your place that are hungry enough to put the leg work in. Music won't die because sharing, though it has obviously changed. <br><br>Sadly, from your own example however, having to adapt and work harder could likely stop you: <i>"and if I couldn't it would certainly factor into my choice if I would teach another class."</i> <br><br>Side note: If your in it for the art side more however, it couldn't be a better time to be a musician, with the amount of and efficiency of the tools at hand. And typically teachers don't get in it for the pay -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif --
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Side note: If your in it for the art side more however, it couldn't be a better time to be a musician, with the amount of and efficiency of the tools at hand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Somebody from ars actually went to the trouble to put out a CD, let's just say it was crazy to how much it cost her. She even had help in the fact that many of the people were willing to help her as they knew her so she didn't have to pay as much.<BR><BR>That said it's always easier to tell people to "work harder" when people decide they want to get the benifit of their work without paying for it.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Side note: If your in it for the art side more however, it couldn't be a better time to be a musician, with the amount of and efficiency of the tools at hand. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Somebody from ars actually went to the trouble to put out a CD, let's just say it was crazy to how much it cost her. She even had help in the fact that many of the people were willing to help her as they knew her so she didn't have to pay as much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Classic strawman. You know some unknown person, who made some unknown CD for some unknown amount, none of which you provide. What does that have to do with the fact that there are so many tools (a lot free or very cheap) to make and distribute music and it is a great time to be creating music. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That said it's always easier to tell people to "work harder" when people decide they want to get the benifit of their work without paying for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Welcome to the reality of today's Internet driven businesses. You have to work harder and smarter for your money because the artificial monopolies of the past no longer work.<BR><BR>I hope you got more out of my previous post than that.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Classic strawman. You know some unknown person, who made some unknown CD for some unknown amount, none of which you provide. What does that have to do with the fact that there are so many tools (a lot free or very cheap) to make and distribute music and it is a great time to be creating music. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>It's not a strawman, it was pretty famous here on Arstechnica. I could maybe see your point if I was talking about somebody from my personal life.<BR><BR>Add on: Modern tech makes it easy to spy on people as well, that doesn't mean that we should just accept that peeping tom's will be able to peep and change the laws to be fine with it.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Classic strawman. You know some unknown person, who made some unknown CD for some unknown amount, none of which you provide. What does that have to do with the fact that there are so many tools (a lot free or very cheap) to make and distribute music and it is a great time to be creating music. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>It's not a strawman, it was pretty famous here on Arstechnica. I could maybe see your point if I was talking about somebody from my personal life.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Sure it is. I presented X(modern tools): see above. You present Y (example with no details): and tried to use Y to disprove X. You still haven't provided the name, what CD and cost. No details what so ever. All very irrelevant.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Add on: Modern tech makes it easy to spy on people as well, that doesn't mean that we should just accept that peeping tom's will be able to peep and change the laws to be fine with it. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>And your next big strawman retort is comparing people spying to creating music using modern tools. This point has nothing to do with anything said. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- I think your simply trying to disagree because it doesn't fit into your view. Your grasping at straws here.<br><br>Edit - from Wikipedia for your information:<br>This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position. (from definition of a straw man)
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Classic strawman. You know some unknown person, who made some unknown CD for some unknown amount, none of which you provide. What does that have to do with the fact that there are so many tools (a lot free or very cheap) to make and distribute music and it is a great time to be creating music. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>It's not a strawman, it was pretty famous here on Arstechnica. I could maybe see your point if I was talking about somebody from my personal life.<br> </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>Sure it is. I presented X(modern tools): see above. You present Y (example with no details): and tried to use Y to disprove X. You still haven't provided the name, what CD and cost. No details what so ever. All very irrelevant.<br><br><blockquote class="ip-ubbcode-quote">
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div>
<div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<br>Add on: Modern tech makes it easy to spy on people as well, that doesn't mean that we should just accept that peeping tom's will be able to peep and change the laws to be fine with it. </div>
</blockquote>
<br><br>And your next big strawman retort is comparing people spying to creating music using modern tools. This point has nothing to do with anything said. -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif -- I think your simply trying to disagree because it doesn't fit into your view. Your grasping at straws here.<br><br>Edit - from Wikipedia for your information:<br>This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position. (from definition of a straw man)
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
RDeVoe: wow serendipidous. Couldn't be more perfectly timed. Check out the following ars story just added:<BR><BR>http://meincmagazine.com/media/n...erhaul-to-thrive.ars<BR><BR>This goes over it all.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And your next big strawman retort is comparing people spying to creating music using modern tools. This point has nothing to do with anything said. I think your simply trying to disagree because it doesn't fit into your view. Your grasping at straws here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No I'm not. You clearly stated that modern tech had made things like violating copyright easier. You further suggested that any attempt to fight such tech would fail, so they might as well accept it as the new reality and change their way of doing things.<BR><BR>It's very much like the example of the spy equipment or virus writing programs or any number of ways tech makes breaking a law or somebodies else rights easier.<BR><BR>The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a strawman. Of course if I remember correctly you have a habit of making false logic claims.. so that doesn't surprise me.<BR><BR><BR><BR>As to the person who made the CD on ars, I honestly can't remember her name ((I want to hoppers but I could be completely mistaken)) and I think she said the total was close to 30 grand but that could be off as well. It certainly wasn't cheap or easy.<BR><BR>That said you haven't backed up any of your claims of why it's such a great time, but again, that is pretty typical for you as well.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedGhost:<BR>RDeVoe: wow serendipidous. Couldn't be more perfectly timed. Check out the following ars story just added:<BR><BR>http://meincmagazine.com/media/n...erhaul-to-thrive.ars<BR><BR>This goes over it all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I agree with the first part of suggestions, but not the second. From the article he doesn't really make much use of facts instead it sounds like he's claiming they need to do this for something to happen.. without providing any proof.<BR><BR>I like the idea of having a great deal of flexibility with the music you buy and DL and the like, as well as getting lots of goodies. I don't think the free sharing is going to fly, but if those who control CR want to try it more power to them. <BR><BR>I honestly think the first parts would be enough without free sharing. Tech does change things, it rarely changes things completely.<BR><BR>For example....<BR><BR>Planes didn't kill off cars.<BR><BR>Even though 50 or so years ago people were claiming we'd all have flying cars by now.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I wonder if Forrester ((the producer of the report)) is willing to hold themselves to the same standard as they wish to hold the music industry. Considering they charge $499 for the report, it's sort of amusing.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And your next big strawman retort is comparing people spying to creating music using modern tools. This point has nothing to do with anything said. I think your simply trying to disagree because it doesn't fit into your view. Your grasping at straws here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No I'm not. You clearly stated that modern tech had made things like violating copyright easier. You further suggested that any attempt to fight such tech would fail, so they might as well accept it as the new reality and change their way of doing things.<BR><BR>It's very much like the example of the spy equipment or virus writing programs or any number of ways tech makes breaking a law or somebodies else rights easier.<BR><BR>The fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a strawman. Of course if I remember correctly you have a habit of making false logic claims.. so that doesn't surprise me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Ah, typical attacks. It is by definition one, as I showed. Show me were the definition I gave was false. I present point X, you present point Y, superficially related, and refute to counter point X. Definition: straw man. Further explanation:<BR>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man <BR><BR>I will walk you through by hand:<BR><BR>1. Person A has position X.<BR>-If your in it for the art side more however, it couldn't be a better time to be a musician, with the amount of and efficiency of the tools at hand.<BR>-Welcome to the reality of today's Internet driven businesses. You have to work harder and smarter for your money because the artificial monopolies of the past no longer work.<BR><BR>2. Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents position Y.<BR>Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways<BR><BR>-Add on: Modern tech makes it easy to spy on people as well<BR>-It's very much like the example of the spy equipment or virus writing programs or any number of ways tech makes breaking a law or somebodies else rights easier.<BR><BR>3. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.<BR>-that doesn't mean that we should just accept that peeping tom's will be able to peep and change the laws to be fine with it.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This is only a false logic claim on your part.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As to the person who made the CD on ars, I honestly can't remember her name ((I want to hoppers but I could be completely mistaken)) and I think she said the total was close to 30 grand but that could be off as well. It certainly wasn't cheap or easy.<BR><BR>That said you haven't backed up any of your claims of why it's such a great time, but again, that is pretty typical for you as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not even a link? Nothing other than your word? You obviously didn't read anything I said, or purposely ignored it, which is typical of you. You resort to attacks, ignore the huge outline of the problems I wrote, and show no evidence to back up any of your claims. Do I really have to explain of all the free and cheap solutions for musicians (MySpace/Youtube/Facebook/Garage Band/Torrents/Webpages) that exist to make it easier to produce and distribute music than has ever existed. I have explained everything point by point, how the market has changed, how they have tried to react using law, how that has failed, why it has failed and why it continues to fail. <BR><BR>Please at least try to refute at least some of my points without resorting to attacks or made up tangents. If you can even give one direct concrete factual example that copyright can get people to buy copies again, I would like to hear it. Or even explain why you think that copyright will be the answer. You seem to blindly support copyright laws as they stand, even though they aren't working, even with all the extensions etc., but I don't know why or what basis you have to support it. I don't even know what you think would work, why or how.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I agree with the first part of suggestions, but not the second. From the article he doesn't really make much use of facts instead it sounds like he's claiming they need to do this for something to happen.. without providing any proof. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>True, but they need to do something because year after year they lose more money. They have maxed out most aspects of the law and it has done nothing for them. They need to change strategy. They needed to do it years ago.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I like the idea of having a great deal of flexibility with the music you buy and DL and the like, as well as getting lots of goodies. I don't think the free sharing is going to fly, but if those who control CR want to try it more power to them.<BR><BR>I honestly think the first parts would be enough without free sharing. Tech does change things, it rarely changes things completely.<BR><BR>For example....<BR><BR>Planes didn't kill off cars.<BR><BR>Even though 50 or so years ago people were claiming we'd all have flying cars by now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So what parts in the first part convince you that without free sharing it will get people to buy copies?<BR><BR>Of course things are not changed 100%. But they are more often changed irreversibly. There are still some horse buggies around. Some steam engines. But cars, and diesel/electrical engines are the norm. There are still some typewriters but computers are the norm. To use your example, most people fly long distances, instead of driving, trains, boats. I still expect artists to sell some CD's but I don't believe selling copies will ever be the norm again.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Tech does change things, it rarely changes things completely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It's painfully obvious to any but the most biased that this is one of those cases where it *has* changed things (almost) completely, though. Their model is almost completely obsolete now.<BR><BR>You can argue that it doesn't always have to be that way, but it won't change that it is in fact that way now.<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> For example....<BR><BR>Planes didn't kill off cars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR><BR>Planes didn't make cars completely useless and unnecessary.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's painfully obvious to any but the most biased that this is one of those cases where it *has* changed things (almost) completely, though. Their model is almost completely obsolete now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Except that it's not. The RIAA provides artists with several functions.<BR><BR>1. Equipment to record their music. Sure there are cheaper means but just because I can buy a home computer for $400 doesn't mean it's as good as the $50,000 worth of servers. This is an example, the home stuff you record isn't as good as what the the "big boys" have nor does it include sounding rooms and the like.<BR><BR>2. Distribution/Marketing. Marketing is and will be a big deal. Let's say you have 10,000 people all who want to become famous rock stars all flooding the internet with their music. That's going to be REALLY hard to make yourself known out of all of that noise.<BR><BR>3. Ties to places to perform, radio to play your music, access to people that make the neat add ins like high quality cover art and the like.<BR><BR>4. CD's aren't completely gone, some people like having physical media. Is this on the way out? Maybe, maybe not.<BR><BR><BR>Of course I find it funny that when we have trials the people who hate the RIAA are quick to claim that filesharing and the like can't be proven to have damaged the RIAA at all... and when we get into talks like this... the claim is anything but.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
I did some hunting and I found it. <BR><BR>The person who recorded was Hopers.<BR><BR><BR>It cost them almost $10,000 for a mostly internet only release and they called in a bunch of favors, got discounts most people wouldn't and the like.<BR><BR>Link.<BR><BR>Making music even today for distribution isn't cheap.<BR><BR><BR>The album probably won't break even.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's painfully obvious to any but the most biased that this is one of those cases where it *has* changed things (almost) completely, though. Their model is almost completely obsolete now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Except that it's not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It is when the model is focused on selling CDs as their main source of revenue. That is literally the main revenue for the recording industry.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The RIAA provides artists with several functions.<BR><BR>1. Equipment to record their music. Sure there are cheaper means but just because I can buy a home computer for $400 doesn't mean it's as good as the $50,000 worth of servers. This is an example, the home stuff you record isn't as good as what the the "big boys" have nor does it include sounding rooms and the like. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>The big labels are not the only sound recording studios. There are tons of smaller ones as well.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2. Distribution/Marketing. Marketing is and will be a big deal. Let's say you have 10,000 people all who want to become famous rock stars all flooding the internet with their music. That's going to be REALLY hard to make yourself known out of all of that noise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>This I mostly agree with. The record labels have amazing marketing contacts.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3. Ties to places to perform, radio to play your music, access to people that make the neat add ins like high quality cover art and the like. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Same as above.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">4. CD's aren't completely gone, some people like having physical media. Is this on the way out? Maybe, maybe not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I like having physical media. But they are definitely on the way out, but won't die like vinyl didn't die. Just not the main way of distribution. Tower records is gone (failed to adapt). The recording industry revenues are almost half of what they were 10 years ago and continue to drop. Evidence points the CD's being another niche market like vinyl. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>Of course I find it funny that when we have trials the people who hate the RIAA are quick to claim that filesharing and the like can't be proven to have damaged the RIAA at all... and when we get into talks like this... the claim is anything but. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>It is not hard to see how an individual had little overall effect, while the phenomenon in general would. One person trading 1000 files is a small percentage ,considering tens of millions of people are sharing billions of files. It is all about scale.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is not hard to see how an individual had little overall effect, while the phenomenon in general would. One person trading 1000 files is a small percentage ,considering tens of millions of people are sharing billions of files. It is all about scale. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>I agree with this actually. It's clear to me that filesharing as a whole has really hurt the RIAA. On a per person basis, it's impossible to tell and probably is very small.<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It is when the model is focused on selling CDs as their main source of revenue. That is literally the main revenue for the recording industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I guess we have some disagreements on what the model is. I feel the model is more "Selling music". The media is less important then what's on it.<BR><BR>I don't consider the switch from 8-tracks to for example CDs ((and the steps between)) as the RIAA chaning their model each time the media that the music was on changed.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The big labels are not the only sound recording studios. There are tons of smaller ones as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There are and they cost money. Somebody will have to pay it.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It is not hard to see how an individual had little overall effect, while the phenomenon in general would. One person trading 1000 files is a small percentage ,considering tens of millions of people are sharing billions of files. It is all about scale. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I agree with this actually. It's clear to me that filesharing as a whole has really hurt the RIAA. On a per person basis, it's impossible to tell and probably is very small. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think that is why the statutory damages in the cases so far seem unreasonable. Although it is impossible to tell in detail their exact effect, the reality is they are a drop in the ocean in terms of overall effect. The fines don't seem representative of that, but that is how the law is, and part of the reason why I think it is a bad law as it stands. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> It is when the model is focused on selling CDs as their main source of revenue. That is literally the main revenue for the recording industry. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I guess we have some disagreements on what the model is. I feel the model is more "Selling music". The media is less important then what's on it.<BR><BR>I don't consider the switch from 8-tracks to for example CDs ((and the steps between)) as the RIAA chaning their model each time the media that the music was on changed.<BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Any real and successful business model requires a source of revenue at its core, that is created as a value proposition. The labels main source of revenue is CD unit sales by far. That is why it is important. If this was the 80's, it would be selling tapes. If if was 60/70's it would be vinyl. Every time the element you sell changes (value proposition), your model has to change as well. Without limited scarcity of the past, their model will have to change again.<BR><BR>You can't just "sell music". I think this is a major misconception. Music is a nebulous thing. The labels sell discs, not music and they have received most of their money from that. They market those disks using the music (it sounds weird but follow me). Rephrased, they sell disks by artificially limiting the music to those disks (which is the marketing). People won't buy the physical copy without the music obviously. <BR><BR>However, if people can get the music elsewhere (whether legal or not) easier, cheaper, and the way they want, why buy the disk. You have just lost the potency of your marketing, and you are left only with the benefits of selling physical media. The musical copy was the marketing for the disk sale, but if you remove the artificial limitation of the copy, there is little reason to buy the disk. That is why they are so focused on copyrights, and the "selling music" misconception. They believe they can get the laws to force people to buy again, by increasing their rights and forcing the artificial limitations. <BR><BR>But people increasingly don't want to purchase disks, because the marketing for the disk can be had for free, which is why they were in it in the first place. Especially when the music itself, once created, can be freely and easily distributed. The limitations of artificial copies seem dumb. And the labels are slowly finding it out now that it doesn't work, and is not a business model. The have lost the incentive for customers to purchase disks, which is why it is a failing business model. They were never selling music. The law cannot get people to buy.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The big labels are not the only sound recording studios. There are tons of smaller ones as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There are and they cost money. Somebody will have to pay it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Of course. You will have to buy a musical instrument. You will have to buy the mics. You will have to buy a mac book if you don't want use another studio. Any artist will of course have the buy the scarcities. No different from painters still have to buy art supplies. That doesn't mean there aren't many free alternatives that artists have never had access to that technology has created that can reach an unheard of number of people.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR>I did some hunting and I found it. <BR><BR>The person who recorded was Hopers.<BR><BR><BR>It cost them almost $10,000 for a mostly internet only release and they called in a bunch of favors, got discounts most people wouldn't and the like.<BR><BR>Link.<BR><BR>Making music even today for distribution isn't cheap.<BR><BR><BR>The album probably won't break even. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There are a lot of problems with her statements. First, she recorded her EP 9 years ago! Things have changed greatly. She is claiming that spending the money to produce a record is a lot (in 2000), and the album might not break even. But as if she is in it for the art, would close to breaking even be great? And your saying distribution, but what she really is doing printing CDs. But at the same time, if she has no business plan to make that money back, why should we expect people to pay, or her to get the money back? What value would they find in the music to make it valuable and get people to pay. How do you get new people (grow audience) to listen to her music outside the few that go to her live shows? Is she even good? Why did she bother to spend the money and complain it was expensive? <BR><BR>I would recommend she read this: <BR>http://www.techdirt.com/articl...929/0315336348.shtml And<BR>http://www.topspinmedia.com/20...=bookmarklet-twitter<BR><BR>Her quotes:<BR>"I think that you misunderstood what I wrote. I'm saying that, if people could circulate my music for free, I wouldn't bother recording it." Well, sorry but that is too bad because people already can do it for free, and nothing can change it. If you want to create music you will have square with this fact yourself. It is a reality of today, whether or not it sucks.<BR><BR>"I was trying to not be so black and white, which is why I said that it is somewhat a labor of love. Music is not a business to me, it's part of who I am." Cool, she is into creating music as art. But wouldn't an artist, who is not into it for the money, want as many people to see their art if they are releasing it? Why would she complain she spent $10K recording her music if she is an artist, when any artist must pay to get their supplies. And If she is going to be close to breaking even, an artist who is in it for the art would love to break even on their supplies.<BR><BR>"But, there's no incentive to record anything if you're just going to be losing massive amounts of money on it."<BR>But if that is your concern, isn't it hypocritical. If she has no plan to get the money back, why should we care she is complaining spent 10K? You can't say your in it for the art, and complain you spent a ton doing your art a certain way. There are many other ways to record music then pressing CDs if your in it for the art.<BR><BR>"Recording is expensive. I worked on the cheap, got lots of discounts, called in some favors and I still spent almost $10k putting my album together."<BR><BR>In 2000! (From her website - Discography: Orange EP recorded at Zippah in February, 2000.) As well creating anything physical will incur costs. If she wants to create a printed CD professionally it will cost her. But there are many free tools today, and others quite cheap, to avoid the large costs of recording music the old school way.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Any real and successful business model requires a source of revenue at its core, that is created as a value proposition. The labels main source of revenue is CD unit sales by far. That is why it is important. If this was the 80's, it would be selling tapes. If if was 60/70's it would be vinyl. Every time the element you sell changes (value proposition), your model has to change as well. Without limited scarcity of the past, their model will have to change again.<BR><BR>You can't just "sell music". I think this is a major misconception. Music is a nebulous thing. The labels sell discs, not music and they have received most of their money from that. They market those disks using the music (it sounds weird but follow me). Rephrased, they sell disks by artificially limiting the music to those disks (which is the marketing). People won't buy the physical copy without the music obviously. <BR><BR>However, if people can get the music elsewhere (whether legal or not) easier, cheaper, and the way they want, why buy the disk. You have just lost the potency of your marketing, and you are left only with the benefits of selling physical media. The musical copy was the marketing for the disk sale, but if you remove the artificial limitation of the copy, there is little reason to buy the disk. That is why they are so focused on copyrights, and the "selling music" misconception. They believe they can get the laws to force people to buy again, by increasing their rights and forcing the artificial limitations. <BR><BR>But people increasingly don't want to purchase disks, because the marketing for the disk can be had for free, which is why they were in it in the first place. Especially when the music itself, once created, can be freely and easily distributed. The limitations of artificial copies seem dumb. And the labels are slowly finding it out now that it doesn't work, and is not a business model. The have lost the incentive for customers to purchase disks, which is why it is a failing business model. They were never selling music. The law cannot get people to buy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>You have an interesting view on what the music industry is selling, but I have to disagree. The Disk is the medium by which the music gets to you. The music is the product that's being sold. Same thing when they sell via a download via itunes and the like. No media but somebody is paying for the music.<BR><BR>I do think the source of money will change in some part ((maybe a large part)) from CD's to iTune like sales, but they are still selling music not a physical media as iTunes sells a rather large amount of product while offering no physical media.<BR><BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Of course. You will have to buy a musical instrument. You will have to buy the mics. You will have to buy a mac book if you don't want use another studio. Any artist will of course have the buy the scarcities. No different from painters still have to buy art supplies. That doesn't mean there aren't many free alternatives that artists have never had access to that technology has created that can reach an unheard of number of people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There is a difference in the cost ((by a huge amount)) between the instrument and what you need to do to distribute.<BR><BR>One can make music without distribution. It's pretty common in most business's/transactions for the consumer to pay for the distribution of the item ((in some way)).
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RedGhost:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR>I did some hunting and I found it. <BR><BR>The person who recorded was Hopers.<BR><BR><BR>It cost them almost $10,000 for a mostly internet only release and they called in a bunch of favors, got discounts most people wouldn't and the like.<BR><BR>Link.<BR><BR>Making music even today for distribution isn't cheap.<BR><BR><BR>The album probably won't break even. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>There are a lot of problems with her statements. First, she recorded her EP 9 years ago! Things have changed greatly. She is claiming that spending the money to produce a record is a lot (in 2000), and the album might not break even. But as if she is in it for the art, would close to breaking even be great? And your saying distribution, but what she really is doing printing CDs. But at the same time, if she has no business plan to make that money back, why should we expect people to pay, or her to get the money back? What value would they find in the music to make it valuable and get people to pay. How do you get new people (grow audience) to listen to her music outside the few that go to her live shows? Is she even good? Why did she bother to spend the money and complain it was expensive? <BR><BR>I would recommend she read this: <BR>http://www.techdirt.com/articl...929/0315336348.shtml And<BR>http://www.topspinmedia.com/20...=bookmarklet-twitter<BR><BR>Her quotes:<BR>"I think that you misunderstood what I wrote. I'm saying that, if people could circulate my music for free, I wouldn't bother recording it." Well, sorry but that is too bad because people already can do it for free, and nothing can change it. If you want to create music you will have square with this fact yourself. It is a reality of today, whether or not it sucks.<BR><BR>"I was trying to not be so black and white, which is why I said that it is somewhat a labor of love. Music is not a business to me, it's part of who I am." Cool, she is into creating music as art. But wouldn't an artist, who is not into it for the money, want as many people to see their art if they are releasing it? Why would she complain she spent $10K recording her music if she is an artist, when any artist must pay to get their supplies. And If she is going to be close to breaking even, an artist who is in it for the art would love to break even on their supplies.<BR><BR>"But, there's no incentive to record anything if you're just going to be losing massive amounts of money on it."<BR>But if that is your concern, isn't it hypocritical. If she has no plan to get the money back, why should we care she is complaining spent 10K? You can't say your in it for the art, and complain you spent a ton doing your art a certain way. There are many other ways to record music then pressing CDs if your in it for the art.<BR><BR>"Recording is expensive. I worked on the cheap, got lots of discounts, called in some favors and I still spent almost $10k putting my album together."<BR><BR>In 2000! (From her website - Discography: Orange EP recorded at Zippah in February, 2000.) As well creating anything physical will incur costs. If she wants to create a printed CD professionally it will cost her. But there are many free tools today, and others quite cheap, to avoid the large costs of recording music the old school way. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think you misunderstood what you were reading.<BR><BR>From this thread...<BR><BR>The Album wasn't mastered until 2008.<BR><BR>This wasn't something that was done in 2000, as in 2008 we pretty much got several posts from her as it all came together.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR>You have an interesting view on what the music industry is selling, but I have to disagree. The Disk is the medium by which the music gets to you. The music is the product that's being sold. Same thing when they sell via a download via itunes and the like. No media but somebody is paying for the music. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The disk is what is sold, the music is the marketing. The iTunes convenience is what is sold, the music is the marketing. They use artificially scarce copies of music to push the sales of disks, or the conveniences of iTunes.<BR><BR>The labels thinking that they are selling music and not discs is the reason for their problems right now, and their inability to adapt to the changes in the market. It is why they have lobbied their asses off trying to build back artificial scarcity and protection through increases in the copyright laws, because they honestly believe they are selling music, as you do. <BR><BR>The numbers though tell an entirely different reality, and the last ten years have not been kind to this view. How can they think they can "sell music", like when they had the artificial scarcity, in a market that no longer supports the artificial scarcity. The entire view of "selling music" must be based on a scarcity, period, otherwise you can't add value. Before it was artificial, and now and for the past ten years technology has overcome that misconception and showed how false it is. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I do think the source of money will change in some part ((maybe a large part)) from CD's to iTune like sales, but they are still selling music not a physical media as iTunes sells a rather large amount of product while offering no physical media. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>But they have lost revenue on the order of close to 50%. iTunes is not going to pick up that slack. iTunes sales account for only about 8-10 songs per iPod sold right now! (~200 million iPod sold I believe). Not to mention all the cellphones, and other players.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BR>There is a difference in the cost ((by a huge amount)) between the instrument and what you need to do to distribute.<BR><BR>One can make music without distribution. It's pretty common in most business's/transactions for the consumer to pay for the distribution of the item ((in some way)). </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>But the distribution can also be free! P2P, Youtube, Facebook etc for the artists.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the distribution can also be free! P2P, Youtube, Facebook etc for the artists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Only if you ignore what it takes to get the product into a form that you can distrube and make money off of. Nobody pays for Youtube quality videos.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I can accept that.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But the distribution can also be free! P2P, Youtube, Facebook etc for the artists. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Only if you ignore what it takes to get the product into a form that you can distrube and make money off of. Nobody pays for Youtube quality videos. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I am thinking more about the marketing side for distribution, making more money on the live shows, creating value with limited products that sort of thing. Building an audience with that distribution etc., to sell other things. Using that free distribution as a tool for other things than directly make money from it. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I can accept that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Okay cool. So here is something else. Since their current model is continually losing revenue year after year, what do you think is way forward using your view of "selling the music" when artificial scarcity no longer exists? How do you foresee this view being viable? What I am looking to gauge is how you think labels can sell the music successfully in this era when file sharing is heavily used. How will they compete?
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RDeVoe:<BR><BR>I think you misunderstood what you were reading.<BR><BR>From this thread...<BR><BR>The Album wasn't mastered until 2008.<BR><BR>This wasn't something that was done in 2000, as in 2008 we pretty much got several posts from her as it all came together. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Weird that was not in her discography from her website. But that only highlights more the lack of interest she has in actually promoting her art, and how little I think of her claims of it being expensive. Here is the quote directly:<BR><BR>"Discography: Orange EP recorded at Zippah in February, 2000. Engineered by Pete Weiss. Featuring Blake Girndt on guitar, James Apt on Bass and Matt Burke on Drums. "<BR><BR>That is all there is, I didn't misread. If she has more it would be nice to actually put it on her home page.
Upvote
0
(0
/
0)
- Status