posted
Personally, I don't have a problem with people copying in some instances and also as a way for consumers to control the market.
For instance. Some music (in my case soundtracks) are no longer produced or replicated. They're out of print. In those cases where there is no way for the consumer to pay the producer for the product they want, I am for copying.
Example: Cocoon Score, Legend of Bagger Vance Score, Fried Green Tomatoes Score (not ST).
These are no longer pressed and so are very hard to come by.
Also, I think that copying puts the "artists" back in line.
Back in the olden days of Beethoven, etc. the artists had to perform to make their money. With the advent of technology that allowed for recordings, the way to make money changed. They could perform (or not) and still sit back and make money.
I am hoping that the future will force the market back to those same type of earnings.
Also, the current price gouging for music is absurd, and hopefully the ability to circumvent the corporate controlled distribution methods will force the market to the consumer's favor.
posted
I think it's stupid for them to sue individuals. It just makes people hate them. Plue it's sort of a waste of money! There are better things they could be doing than suing college students or ordinary people.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think copyright laws, as they are now written, are an artificial means of propping up a business model that need not exist. They are, when applied to data files, a violation of our natural right to share.
Copyright laws exist as a sort of compromise between consumers and artists to give them a special monopoly on selling their works for a time period, that would compensate the artists for the effort of creating their art and allow them to continue their work. It's a special agreement between society and artist for a limited time. However, today that compromise has become wrongly twisted into an idea that artists deserve payment whenever their work is used or attained by someone - an idea that society would be wrong to ever allow the free exchange of ideas and works of art. The result is copyright terms that last far longer than is necessary to help the artist - so long that one smash hit by an artist can encourage them to live off of that hit and stop producing. This needs to be corrected, so that our right to share ideas, information, and art with one another is not infringed, and so that the practice of that right is not wrongly mislabeled as theft.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amen! I have no problem with artists protecting their work as they see fit, and even one renewal of the copyright after their death to benifit their family would be fine with me. But when the copyright is being overextended by a company that makes too much money anyway, it defies the spirit of what copyrights were for to begin with. And when they refuse to allow what I think is well within the bounds of normal use, that's just ridiculous.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without file sharing I would have never have discovered Dir en grey. Do you know Japanese cds cost at least 30 dollars? I have bought several of their cds, singles and their calenders. They make a lot of money, thanks to file sharing. But, at the same time you do have those who will simply magpie a whole CD instead of buying it. I am guilty of that. But, if I ever get a better job I'm buying a CD a week or month. Next thing you know the RIAA will make libraries stop letting people check out cds...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just something that I like to throw out. Stealing music or whatever isn't theft. Theft involves taking a object from someone such that you now have it and they don't. Stealing a CD is theft. When you get an mp3 you didn't pay for, you're stealing a protected pattern of data. This is copyright infringement, but not theft.
Theft is a pretty clear violation of most ethical systems (although those opposed to property rights wouldn't recognize it). Copyright infringement only exists where there is a social consensus that certain types of a patterns can be owned.
As both a programmer and a scientist, I support the concept of intellectual property. However, there is a question of good faith and of utility. The RIAA has achieved a virtual monopoly and has been using that monopoly to do things like price fixing and making upcoming artists sign very one-sided contracts, which in many cases end up with them giving away they IP rights. Also, it's part of our economic system that the reaction to unnaturally high prices due to monopolistic practices involves bootlegging. It has always been thus, and it likely always will be.
IP and the use of force to protect it are theoretically based on the idea that it is both fair to the creator that they make money off of their created pattern and useful in that it fosters innovation and invention. In a system where IP loses these characteristics and where it becomes just a commodity to be traded and utilized, I don't know that it deserves our protection.
However, on the other side, I don't think that it's right to bootleg something just because you can. The optimal solution to the often loathsome practices of the RIAA is boycotting, not bootlegging. Especially in regards to the little people like not insanely popular performing artists, recording engineers, the production staff for a movie, etc. there are people that will lose money and be hurt if people just steal their stuff without consideration.
It's a case like so many others where because at least one side is intent on there being an adversarial relationship, neither side is doing the best thing. There is no clear solution in the current setup. For there to be a reasonable and equitable solution to these problems, we'd need to go outside the current system, which is really not going to happen.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, today that compromise has become wrongly twisted into an idea that artists deserve payment whenever their work is used or attained by someone - an idea that society would be wrong to ever allow the free exchange of ideas and works of art.
It's interesting to note that though this is only recently the case in the US, in most European countries this idea was the principle on which copyright--or, as it is often called, "author's rights"--was founded.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeh, I think that, if an IP owner deliberately takes their IP out of circulation (ala Disney's "We're only going to sell this movie until x. Then you'll have to wait another 10 years to buy it.) or possibly even if it is just no longer available, the copyright should automatically expire.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Back in the olden days of Beethoven, etc. the artists had to perform to make their money. With the advent of technology that allowed for recordings, the way to make money changed. They could perform (or not) and still sit back and make money.
I am hoping that the future will force the market back to those same type of earnings.
By this reasoning, why would artists record at all? Studio recordings take time and money... why not move entirely to performing instead? Then the only way consumers would have to hear the music would be to go to the concerts, or listen to a crappy bootleg from someone who did.
While I agree that the current system is broken, I like being able to pick up a recording of a group and listen to it repeatedly at my convinance, so I would not support trying to force the market back to artists making the majority of their income from performances. We still need incentive to record, and that means money.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the simple answer is shorter copyright terms. Life plus 50 years is just ridiculous. And how does that even work when the copyright holder is a corporation?
Unfortunately there's no way that the publishing companies will allow copyright terms to come back down. Nor will other countries look favorably on the US backing out of the Berne Convention (as it would need to do if it wanted to reduce copyright terms).
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The RIAA and its component idustries got lazy. They are lawyer dependent, seeking to wrangle every penny they can from both performers and the public with small print and legal tricks. When you are in that legality mind frame, its almost impossible to get into a sales/marketing mind frame and realize that your industries need to innovate or perish.
Its easier to sick lawyers on people than it is to actually work with the marketplace, and the lawyers have no problem encouraging that policy as its is money in their pockets.
posted
So -- and let me clear I'm not being snarky, I'm really curious -- what should copyright laws be like? Leave the RIAA and their heavy-handed practices aside for a moment and talk about simply copyright law, and how it should be amended in a time of near-perfect, near-instant reproduction.
Should copyright laws exist at all? Should the duration be reduced? Extended? Set at the life of the creator? Set for a certain amount of time, regardless?
Should creators be reimbursed every time their work is sold? Performed? Copied? Should they get flat fees instead? Should they make their money off ancillary sales (t-shirts, concert tickets, signed copies, etc) and not the work itself? Should they retain control over how the work is presented? Should they just create for the joy of creating and not expect reimbursement?
What about reducing the level of infringement protection at a gradual rate? Say, the copyright holder has full control for 50 years, control over commercial distribution (but not public performance) for 25 more, and artistic control (can't stop anybody from republishing or distributing, but the republisher can't make changes without the OK of the copyright holder)? A suggestion, thought up while I was typing this. There are many more possibilities.
I'm seriously interested in hearing what people think copyrights should be like, and I think we need arguments that don't come down to "you might as well change the law, you can't stop us anyway" or "the RIAA is evil, they deserve it." How do we fix it?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as far as length goes... it should be however long it takes for the work to go from being an innovation to being a classic.
For music, the copyright probably only need last about 10 years. For books and movies, more like 20-25.
And as far as the scope of the copyrights, they should be limited to the public marketplace (selling the work, publicly performing the work, etc.) - not private sharing, like libraries, borrowing CDs from friends, or sending files from person to person.
posted
Would "sending files from person to person" include peer-group sharing? Or do you mean one person sending a file to another person?
I would argue that there's a big difference between me sending you a copy of an mp3 and me placing it in a directory on my computer that a few billion people have access to. I'm not dismissing that right out of hand, I just want to make sure where, if anywhere, you draw the line.
There are already provisions in copyright law for library copies. Loaning a copy to your friend isn't illegal, but your friend making a copy for themselves and keeping it is. I assume that's what you'd allow.
[ October 20, 2004, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually pretty ok with copyright laws as they stand, except for instances like I mentioned above where the copyrighted material is no longer available from legitimate channels. The issue as I see it is more with the virtual monopoly the RIAA has. If we anti-trusted them and stopped the indentured servitude contracts with new artists, I think most of my complaints in this case would be resolved.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
The RIAA should be embracing the new technologies, such as mp3 forms. Right now, you can pay to download mp3's at several sites. From what I hear, each song can cost up to 99 cents. 99 cents!! Think about it: Many CDs cost about $16, with about 16 songs on them. (And that's being generous, many CDs cots a lot more with fewer songs.) So, that averages to about $1/song. AND you get a physical CD, a case, pretty liner notes, and something like a license for owning the music. But if I download the same CD, it'll end up costing me practically the SAME thing, without the CD, case, or liner notes. Something is WRONG there. It costs them nothing, absolutely nothing, to reproduce the mp3 for me to download. The only costs involve server space and bandwidth. That's it!
And people actually pay to download songs... so they can make custom CDs I suppose and not feel guilty about it.
The RIAA should embrace mp3s. If I could go to a site and pay a smaller fee to download music (something that takes into account that I'm not getting an actual CD, etc.) then I'd be more likely to do that. And there are plenty of people, I think, who would probably pay more than I would.
Also, I suspect the record companies divide up the artists' good songs to several CDs and fill up the rest of the space with crappy songs. But, if you're unhappy and feel duped by your purchase, it's not as if you can take the product back for a refund. There's absolutely no accountability until file sharing came along. If I love a CD and an artist, you can bet I'll buy every CD I can by that artist. (Once I get a job this will be more true.)
posted
I feel I should study more about the issue before I express my opinion. Thank you for asking for it, however.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would argue that there's a big difference between me sending you a copy of an mp3 and me placing it in a directory on my computer that a few billion people have access to. I'm not dismissing that right out of hand, I just want to make sure where, if anywhere, you draw the line.
I would say there is no ethically important difference between giving access to one friend and giving access to billions - if it is within your rights to do it for one person, it is within your rights to do it for many many people. The line should be drawn not by the number of people you are sharing with but the reason you are sharing. If you are out to sell it or to make a profit somehow, even if it's to a single person, then you are engaged in public commerce. But if you are giving it out with nothing expected in return then you are simply sharing, whether it is with one or millions of people.
posted
There's a huge difference if you consider it from a utility/social contract standpoint as opposed to the rights based one that you are using. As I said above, the theoretical basis for providing protection to some forms of intellectual property is based at least partially on the expectation that this is a useful thing for a society to do. In terms of the effects or expected utility of privately sharing a song with a friend versus putting it on a public resource for however many people take it are completely different things. Saying that the rights are the same in either case is only addressing one (and in my opinion the much weaker) of the aspects of the situation.
And that's ignoring that there's a case to be made for the rights situation being changed in regards to sharing the song in private versus public context.
quote: But if you are giving it out with nothing expected in return then you are simply sharing, whether it is with one or millions of people.
Are you really giving it out with nothing expected in return? Do you expect at least some of the people who download it to put out music that you may be interested in downloading? If not, what's your motivation for putting it out there? If so, isn't it file trading, not file sharing, and isn't that a return on your "investment" of making your music available?
And isn't there a difference between saying to someone you know "hey, I think you'll like this, give it a listen" and going out searching for someone to "give" you a free copy of a particular song or album you want to have but don't want to pay for?
Again, not saying the current system is right. But I am saying if you believe what I quoted above I think you're lying to yourself.
quote:There's a huge difference if you consider it from a utility/social contract standpoint as opposed to the rights based one that you are using.
But isn't this an issue of rights? Copyrights?
I don't believe you can say you have a right to do X, but you can't do Y, when Y is simply doing X a whole bunch of times - even if Y will harm society while an individual X will not.
You can sacrifice your right to do Y, yes, but that entails sacrificing your right to do X too.
quote:Are you really giving it out with nothing expected in return? Do you expect at least some of the people who download it to put out music that you may be interested in downloading? If not, what's your motivation for putting it out there? If so, isn't it file trading, not file sharing, and isn't that a return on your "investment" of making your music available?
That's a tricky question, but when I shared files it was never expecting to get something in return. I just wanted to share something I liked - the same reason I let friends borrow things.
quote:And isn't there a difference between saying to someone you know "hey, I think you'll like this, give it a listen" and going out searching for someone to "give" you a free copy of a particular song or album you want to have but don't want to pay for?
There is a difference in motivation, but I don't think that difference is relevant to whether it is right or wrong. I say this because I go to the library all the time to read books for free when I don't want to buy them - and nobody seems to find that wrong.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't believe you can say you have a right to do X, but you can't do Y, when Y is simply doing X a whole bunch of times - even if Y will harm society while an individual X will not.
Y is not doing X a whole bunch of times. If you were sending the file to each individual person out of those billions, you could make that argument. Instead you are setting up a situation where those billions can do X from you without any effort on your part. Dealing with individuals keeps the sharing on a manageable, harmless level. Peer-sharing allows you to become, in effect, the world's largest distributor. Oddly enough I see a difference there.
The library example is disingenuous. You don't keep the book or movie you get from the library. There is a finite amount of materials available there -- if someone has already checked out the book you want, you have to wait.
There is a certain level of free sharing that is beneficial to sales of creative works. There is also a level where free sharing begins to hurt sales of creative works. I don't think the RIAA is looking in the right place, but you don't seem to even acknowledge it.
But, we've had this argument before and ended up in the same place, so I'll move on...
[ October 20, 2004, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On something like Napster, you send out your file individually many times. It takes effort on your part - computer time - although that effort is minimal.
And even if it were no effort, consider... X = letting one friend share a song via a network from my computer without any effort on my part. Are you prepared to say this X is wrong? Because letting millions of people share a song without any effort on my part is just many instances of this X.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I think the RIAA is the modern day equivalent of the old robber barons. They screw the artist, the public and anyone else that gets in the way of their cash flow.
I could climb on my soapbox and b*tch for awhile but I think that an article from Janis Ian is more lucid and informative than my rantings would be.
The RIAA has had it made for years and they are holding on to their oligopoly with a death grip. Many labels actually require artists to sign a contract that, in essence, makes them an employee of the label. That allows the label to apply for the extended copyright which can last for up to 120 years.
I find actions like this disgusting and I haven't purchased a mainstream cd for several years. I would love to see more artists make their works available for purchase online. Supporting those that do this (free of RIAA's money grubbing paws) will hopefully help send a message.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xaposert - what I'm (apparently ineffectively) trying to get across is the concept of negligible wrong. What one person does might be wrong in essence but of negligible harm, like one person throwing a burger wrapper into a lake. It's still pollution, but the impact is minimal. Were a few million people to start doing it, the lake would be gone.
Same action, much bigger impact. And no, it's not a fair analogy for this situation for any number of reasons, I'm just using it to point out the concept.
But, he said brightly, I don't want to get into the much-traveled argument over the morality or usefulness of easy downloading or it's dangers/usefulness, I'm interested in copyright evolution.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres, I'm sorry, your argument is that the word copyrights has the word rights in it? And you're happy with that? I mean, that's what you're going to go with, while ignoring both the utilitarian basis for intellectual property and the issue I brought up about rights being different in private versus public contexts? If so then good luck to you then.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The public at large isn't as stupid or as immoral as the large entertainment companies would lead you to believe. What's happened here, especially in the music industry is an enforced overpricing.
The public has indicated their displeasure with the pricing by downloading. While some of these downloaders may be criminally inclined, the majority probably aren't.
Your regular Joe from Kokomo isn't out to just get free stuff. Joe Public is looking for value for his dollar. He's not getting that in regard to music cd's. So, many have elected to download. I know many of you will be righeous in your claim that this is a crime. I'm not going to dispute that it is illegal, I'm suggesting that the public is registering their displeasure with the value being offered in the most effective way.
How many people do you know that forego cable or satellite tv when they have those options? I would guess not many. We all can have free television but we elect to pay for a service that offers value.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
