Shoplifting vs. Downloading [Archive]

Doom9

14th November 2003, 13:31

from a mere physical standpoint the two acts cannot be compared. In the case of shoplifting you are effectively creating a void in the shop's inventory, so they have a very real, quantifiable loss of money, which we don't have in case of copyright infringement.
Be it software, music or film industry, they'd like you to believe that everyone who makes an illegitimate copy (let's forget about the fact that they consider every copy to be illegal) would actually be willing and capable to pay the rightful price. Tell that to someone living in a 2nd or 3rd world country. They might have enough money to pay for Internet, or buy a pirate copy in a local market, but not enough for the real deal. And even if the money is around, you'd probably not get software X or get CD Y if you had to pay for it (maybe because the program/CD isn't worth the money they charge).
But that doesn't make it right, so we have a moral dilemma on our hands.

Now, copyright law was created to encourage people who create something of cultural value (there was no software when copyright law was created), so write a book for instance. With your work protected against unauthorized distribution, the author should get a fair recompensation for his/her efforts. The same idea also goes for copyright for modern things like software. However, in no way did the creators of that law want to create a vehicle to preserve an industry structure, or create a pay per use society. Thus, there were always some limits to the exclusive rights granted to an author of a copyrighted work. Those exclusions pertain to copying parts of a work for your own use, academic use, etc. So let's sum up: to further cultural creation.
However, nowadays those laws are extended with stuff like the DMCA which do not serve that goal anymore. In fact, now we're gearing up towards a creator-exclusive legislation, where all excemptions to the exclusive author rights are abolished (for instance, with CSS an academic institution is no longer allowed to use a part of a video for whatever purpose, which is clearly against the spirit in which copyright law was created), and which serves uniquely to preserve indistries as they are. Music and Movie industry have a distribution monopoly which they want to preserve at all cost. Even more, movie studios were actually forced out from a certain part of the distribution chain (they used to own studios until that practice was declared illegal a long while back) and they've never quite grown over this and still try to control the distribution chain as much as possible. A good example for this drive to control is the DIVX format. With that pay-per-use format they got the holy grail of control. Finally, they were able to know what products were consumed, where, how many times, where and when. Unless the DIVX masterserver okayed it, home movies could not be watched anymore. We know that any recordable medium has always been a problem for the content providers. The music industry was opposed to tapes, recordable CDs, MiniDisc and MP3. It turned out that tapes and CDs were not such bad business for them after all. The movie industry and TV stations were opposed to video cassette recorders and tried to ban them from the market (without success as we know). However, years later they were making more money from VHS sales than from theater tickets. And DVD was not uniquely welcomed, in fact several studios (let's point fingers: Disney (studio now indoctrinating children against P2P tools), Fox and Paramount) were pushing towards the full control (or big brother) DIVX scheme and their DVD offerings were either lackluster or inexistend (Fox was DIVX exclusive for a while, and the last to commit to any digital format). DIVX went belly up in 1999. 4 years later, DVD is definitely the hottest a/v format ever and studios are selling DVDs like crazy.
However, the DIVX scheme might have been scrapped, but the plan for total control remained. Now look at the digital music offering. The music industry was completely opposed to any online distribution and only recently have there been serious online music offerings. However, those, with the help of RIAA and MPAA paid off parlament members, are once again pushing for the total control scheme. What good is downloadable music if you can only play it on your PC. What if it crashes (my primary PC has been broken for 4 weeks now and the replacement hardware is slow to arrive), or you replace a part, or want to listen to the music somewhere else? With CDs and tapes you could simply make a copy for your car, your portable MD player or walkman, your cabin in the mountains, your secondary stereo and whatnot. But no, DRM chains music to your hardware. You can consider yourself lucky if you're even allowed to put music on a portable digital player (of course this only works with a limited number of brands, and while you may be able to connect those players to a PC or another device forget about transferring music), let alone burn something on a CD.

Anyway, I'm getting off topic (I wanted to write a long article about how copyright law is being twisted and no longer serves the goals towards which they were created for a long time, guess I just couldn't hold it in).

I'm wondering though, are there any limits to fines for shoplifting? Fines for copyright infringement have been outrageous ever since I can remember, but maybe that's why the industry is now trying to push the envelope. But if they want to equal shoplifting with downloading, then they should indeed push for similar fines as well or they come off as unreasonable (I guess we all agree they are unreasonable). In terms of damages, sharing can potentially cause more damage, but the flat fee damanges the industry wants is outrageous and blown out of proportions. According to the law, the plaintiff actually has to proove the damages to claim recompensation. Since this isn't exactly easy, the industry is even trying to push for legislation where the burden of proof is no longer up to the plaintiff, but to the accused, which completely goes against the bases of our legal system.

Now, this might be OT a bit again but I do have some examples of models that do work. For software, we know that the software industry is doing rather well despite piracy (but in that area the loss numbers are just as overblown.. not everybody can afford thousands of dollars of software). I know from my school, that collaborators could get licenses for popular software for a price where piracy simply didn't pay anymore. The once those people enter professional life, they will be more inclined to buy because they've a) done it before, and b) can afford it now. Some software manufacturers also have different products, some of which are free for personal and academic use. I think that mode is great. You don't force the poor schmuck to pay money he might not have, but as soon as you start making money with the product you are required to pay (nothing wrong with that, is there?). I believe this to be a very fair model that actually encourages people to buy software in the end. As a student I'm not likely to buy a $1000 software development package for a semester project, but if I use the same tool in professional life, I'll ask my superiors for it and unless I'm being unreasonable I'll get a paid license.
As for the music industry, the SCMS system is a reasonable copy protection imho, that serves both the industry and the user. SCMS allows you to make digital copies from a CD, but you cannot make copies of a copy. As long as you keep your original safely stored away you will not have any problems, and since only one generation of copies is possible, music cannot be simply spread around the globe. Since the system was rather reasonable, there was no big opposition to it, even though I think SCMS busters (yes, circumvention was possible even then) were considered illegal and could not be sold.
Imho, the idea of SCMS should serve as a base for future copy protection systems. I'm not sure if it can be done in the same way, but it's worth some consideration, is it not? But the industry rather dreams up more big brotherish DRM schemes to establish the pay per use society (there were concerns voiced that the DMCA would create a pay per use society and of course the industry assured that this was never going to happen.. look where we are now).

r6d2

14th November 2003, 13:52

Originally posted by Doom9
from a mere physical standpoint the two acts cannot be compared. In the case of shoplifting you are effectively creating a void in the shop's inventory, so they have a very real, quantifiable loss of money, which we don't have in case of copyright infringement.
@Doom9,

I've read your enlightening (as usual) article and even though you have strong arguments to show that the record/movie industry is not following the right actions to solve the problem, I cannot agree with your statement above.

When someone buys pirated software, pirated movies, pirated books and the like, he is effectively giving money to somebody who, in turn, will not pay back to the creator of the piece.

The pirate is stealing the creator's income.

The buyer knows that, and that makes him an accomplice in a felony.

IMHO, It is not different from shoplifting or plain street robbery.

int 21h

14th November 2003, 16:33

The real problem is not in the P2P users. Its just that industry likes to publicize their litigation of P2P users. The criminal litigation is stuff you usually dont read about on the front page of the Times (but its certainly going on).

The real problem and cause of the concern is a very large chunk of the material that is pirated in other countries on large scales (i.e. games, pressed dvds, etc.) are pressed directly from a piracy group's release. Walk down a back alley in HK and you can pick up a Dreamcast game from Kalisto, a PC game from Deviance, a PS2 game from Echelon, and a pressed DVD from CTP or Replica. Now these groups are certainly not intending to supply the piracy industry in these countries (in most cases, however there are exceptions), but it is a side effect of the globalization the internet has brought us. The second collateral effect is P2P. You can ask anyone that is in the 'scene'. Supplying P2P users is the last thing they want to do, its an unintended side effect. So what do you do the curb the problem?

Its a two pronged attack really. You lobby the government to go after the big fish, the US citizens that are suppliers of hardware, software, and cash that keep the piracy groups running. And then the little fish, the ones the government can't or won't persue, you drag through civil litigation.

In my opinion, this will never end in the US because government is run by big business.

Doom9

14th November 2003, 16:48

I've read your enlightening (as usual) article and even though you have strong arguments to show that the record/movie industry is not following the right actions to solve the problem, I cannot agree with your statement above.

When someone buys pirated software, pirated movies, pirated books and the like, he is effectively giving money to somebody who, in turn, will not pay back to the creator of the piece.
The laws we're talking about say nothing about the pirate who sells stuff. I'm all for taking down those people who enrich themselves at the cost of others. But, the guy offering an mp3 on Kazaa isn't getting anything in return, which makes it somewhat different. And, if you go to a country like Malaysia, there's a simply reason why most CDs and DVDs are pirated. The legit product is just too expensive for the average citizen. So you can go after the pirate organizations all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the consumers would need lower prices to be able to afford a legit copy (and keep in mind that we're not talking about rich first world countries here.. in my country you cannot use this argument as an excuse, because we are generally able to afford CDs and DVDs).

BTW, I found this thereg article that says that merely fiddling with your camcorder (you don't have to record anything) in a movie theater can get you locked away for up to 5 years. The bill concerns the "use or attempt to use" and regardless of whether you had the intention or did in fact publish what you recorded. So this is definitely "guilty till proven innocent" at work. Camcorder in the theater = dirty pirate and you're going away. So make sure you drop off your new camera before you go see the latest movie. Here's the link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/33988.html

r6d2

14th November 2003, 20:08

Originally posted by Doom9
The laws we're talking about say nothing about the pirate who sells stuff. I'm all for taking down those people who enrich themselves at the cost of others. But, the guy offering an mp3 on Kazaa isn't getting anything in return, which makes it somewhat different.
Most P2Ps reward you for uploading, giving you more priority and such so you can download more. Certainly, this guy offering an mp3 on Kazaa, I agree, is somewhat different. But how much different, really?

Does fair use allow you to make an unlimited number of copies for "your friends"? By doing that, aren't you also taking away money from the creator's pocket?

It's not a kid's interchange of baseball cards. You are not actually losing that file who somebody downloaded from you, are you? You’re just doing copies (or let others do them, more precisely) of copyrighted material.

If you don’t want to break the law, you should not share your legit copies of songs/movies from your personal library but what then? You can’t get sh*t.

There is only one way to get good download priority with P2P without breaking the law on this respect: download and share fully available material, AKA porn. You let your disk fill with crap and then you can download what you really need easy as a walk in the park.

But then you become a downloader of things you’ve not paid for, again putting your hand in the creator’s pocket.
And, if you go to a country like Malaysia, there's a simply reason why most CDs and DVDs are pirated. The legit product is just too expensive for the average citizen.
The same happens with generic versions of high-tech pharmacy products. If you apply the same logic to armed robbery you might as well justify stealing because you’re hungry, and paid murder because of an insurance policy, or anything imaginable.

I know the reality of third world countries. In my country, for instance, software, book and movie piracy is an emergent industry, and the government does not show strength and decision against that because there is high unemployment and most street sellers “would be stealing should they not have a way of make an honest living”.

You know I’m a writer. My income comes from the books I sell. To a new writer, the best thing that can happen to him is get pirated, so his work gets widespread at low cost, then get famous and charge for TV shows, lectures and that kind of stuff, which pays a lot better than book selling. You can even get a position in the government as an “intellectual” if you are on the right side of the fence.

But that does not change the fact that the editors, the designers and the presses to produce a book need the money to live also. The double standard that some governments apply is very interesting indeed, particularly provided that it does not resist any analysis whatsoever.
So you can go after the pirate organizations all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the consumers would need lower prices to be able to afford a legit copy.
I don’t get this point. Are DVDs produced in some countries more expensive than others? The actual costs are barely the same, so somebody must be applying a huge unreasonable mark up. As “the market works”, you can always buy your legit movie on the net, cheaper if it exists.

If it’s a customs problem, I mean if the local government is too greedy and has high import taxes, then the problem those citizens must resolve first if to fix the government, not thinking of buying pirated material because legit is too expensive. Actually, the copyright defense institutions might better give the battle to greedy governments. ;)

But interesting things happen when you make the economy grounds “relative”:

I had this neighbor who runs a supermarket at a gas station. He always complained about his staff stealing chocolates, cigarettes, and even money from the store. His employees where literally shoplifting from him.

However, he used to have the latest releases of movies even before they were on the market. Very poor quality VCD encodes obtained by P2P. I asked him once if he did not think he was doing the same.

He told me a story about a poor old man who came to his business monthly. The guy only had one arm, and he was touched by that. He said he used to buy the movies from him “in order to help”.

I asked: If you want to help him, why don’t you just give him some money? Why do you only do it if he gives you a stolen piece in return? Why do you like to do charity with other people’s money?

He had difficulty at first noticing that he was doing exactly as his employees who stole from him. But after a while he got it.

Then his answer was even more curious indeed. He said “You know, everybody does it. I’ve learned to assume that employee theft is part of the business.”

What he does, because of this “fact of business”, is to charge more to customers who buy the stuff, so he can “compensate” the losses and remain even. At last, what he is doing is to let his employees rob from his customers. I wonder if that business strategy works in the long term.

You see, shoplifting, P2P and piracy end up related in ways you might not imagine.

Doobie

15th November 2003, 03:37

Doom9 said it. If thoplift a CD from Best Buy, Best Buy is out what they paid for the CD. They are not out what their sticker price is. If you download something, no one is out anything.

The only constitutional purpose of copyright law is to enrich the public by encouraging content creation. Copyright law absolutly is not based on the idea of ownership.

If you make music, you have no natural right to have anyone pay to listen to it. If you don't like that, then don't make music. However, if you want to rent a concert hall, you have every right to charge people to come in and listen to you.

N_F

15th November 2003, 04:08

Originally posted by r6d2
You know I’m a writer. My income comes from the books I sell.
Just curious, what do you write?

r6d2

15th November 2003, 04:55

Originally posted by Doobie
If you download something, no one is out anything.
No harm is done, eh?
The only constitutional purpose of copyright law is to enrich the public by encouraging content creation.
I wonder if not being able to get paid for what you do encourages content creation.
If you make music, you have no natural right to have anyone pay to listen to it. If you don't like that, then don't make music.
If I understand you correctly, your logic applies to every profession or occupation, or you have something personal against musicians? ;)

Susbtitute "music" with "houses" and "listen to it" with "live on them", and tell me if your statement makes any sense.

Actually, it is a very funny statement. Look what happens when you substitute "music" with "love" and "listen to it" with "screw you". You have hereby abolished the oldest profession in history of mankind. :)
However, if you want to rent a concert hall, you have every right to charge people to come in and listen to you.
According to your interesting logic, if I rent a concert hall for 2 cents, or even get it for free, do I still have the right to charge for people coming in to listen?

Does it have to do with costs, as in the Ford era? Or does it have to do with the value a good represents to the people who want it?

If the song you're illegally downloading represents no value to you, why do you download it? Rationale of economics say that it's because the cost of doing it is lower than the value you get.

If the song sucks, you'll probably delete it because the cost of keeping it is higher than the valuable disk space it uses.

But if you keep it, you are at least willing to pay 1-MB of disk space per minute. Wouldn't you feel better if you had paid something to the creator, instead of the hard disk manufacturer? Wouldn't you like the creator feel encouraged to create more?

Or you'd rather say to him "if you don't like that I get your songs without paying you, don't make music"?

Would you keep the money for yourself because you managed to get it for "free"? Or as you said before "no one is out anything"?
Originally posted by N_F
Just curious, what do you write?
I write guides for the Doom9 Forums ;)

Literature in general. I also wrote a book about consumer rights.

syzygytec

15th November 2003, 05:50

One point comes to mind for me, I one read an article, that as a copy for backup purpose is legal, it has to be a exact copy, this pertained to copy protected PC games, although far as I know, most of the games have such stiff copyprotection nowadays that it is not hardly possible to do a 1:1 copy that will work with external support via software, I may be off base, I'm certainly not "in the loop" on such matters, but the point being it was not within the bounds of a legit backup if the backup did not reproduce the original exactly. I wonders if that applies to re-authored DVD backups?
Anyway, yeah it's all about control. I don't think people are losing as much money as they say they are, hell the economy sucks anyway. I would always buy a CD over a downloaded mp3 album if it's something I want. As mentioned, people buy what they want and can afford, being possible to get such things free from P2P, from my persective isn't going to change what I would buy in any way, if anything, it might provide a preview that might make a sale of a CD I would have never even gave a listen to and that's the damn truth! fact actually!
AS far as DRM , Paladin ect. that crap is just overkill communism, I wish they would take total control of us, then publish some real figures and put thier foot in thier mouths when they are forced to show that their control made little differnece on their bottom line. At least this would be my guess.

I think every record company should make thier entire catalog available online at one dollar a song, provided they ripped them the right way using EAC and Lame I would even buy, I think they would make a killing. Well enough rant from this newbie moron

15th November 2003, 11:59

Originally posted by r6d2
If I understand you correctly, your logic applies to every profession or occupation, or you have something personal against musicians? ;)

Susbtitute "music" with "houses" and "listen to it" with "live on them", and tell me if your statement makes any sense.
What is it with your kind of people that you cannot differentiate between material things (houses, candy in a store), and "ethereal" (i'll just call it that cause I can't find a better word to suit the meaning) things (music, knowledge, digital content)? Material things cannot be copied. If you take one, someone loses one. ethereal things can be copied, recorded, multiplied into the millions, without anyone ever losing anything. The "loss in the creator's pocket" is simply in your head. You THINK you lose money, while in reality you would never have gotten money. There are a lot of people (more rather than less) who are only freeloading because they can. They would never actually buy anything like price-overblown software. In a world where they are not able to freeload ethereal things, they will simply live without all those things. These people (from my experience) are more likely to be a majority than a minority.
About creativity: if an individual pirates a copy of 3D Studio MAX, he is able to create wonderful things. The price tag ($1,095.00) is too high for him to ever have bought it. Well, tough luck; if he couldn't pirate it, he couldn't get it. Creative content wouldn't have been made. Even more so for products like Adobe Photoshop, where most of the web's tutorials, beginner guides, etc, come from pirated copies. The people that have image editing as their profession and actually own a legal copy through their company are a minority here. Let's not even consider the "try and buy" approach to pirating, where somebody might be interested in something, but there is no trial version (only limited or none at all), and doesn't want to spend a fortune just to know if he likes to do that which the software package allows (think image editing or something). The same goes for mp3 and DVD-rip downloading, but in that case the CD/DVD is actually higher quality (-> more reason to buy).
You CAN NOT compare ethereal pirating to shoplifting. Never. It requires a totally different way of thinking, and even challenges justice as it is defined in our laws. Think about it.

Doom9

15th November 2003, 13:31

Most P2Ps reward you for uploading, giving you more priority and such so you can download more. Certainly, this guy offering an mp3 on Kazaa, I agree, is somewhat different. But how much different, really?
Such mechanisms are based on one of the oldest human traits: trade. You get something so you give something in return. It is also about fairness and tries to prevent freeloading (many studies on P2P show that freeloading is a problem, so P2P tool creaters came up with ways to counteract the problem). You give something to get something.. that is entirely different from stealing where you only take.

Does fair use allow you to make an unlimited number of copies for "your friends"? By doing that, aren't you also taking away money from the creator's pocket?
Fair use doesn't cover uploading to P2P. Fair use clearly only refers to a closed friend circle. Some judges see that as your blood only, where others see it more relaxed, yet if anybody can access it, it's clearly not within your friend circle anymore. But, you are still not taking anything. I have yet to see a hand of a P2P user reach into a musicians pocket and take out his wallet (well, it is possible that this has happened but then it wasn't about an mp3 but about a wallet and the law has a punishment for that).

again putting your hand in the creator’s pocket.
mf put it more eloquently than I could (there is still a language barrier after all). There is a difference between material things and etherial things. Don't ever tell an engineer (I am one) something that goes against the laws of physics or he'll eat you alive. I haven't used a single P2P tool since Napster but you can be damned sure that you'll never see my hand into a musicians pocket taking out money.

The same happens with generic versions of high-tech pharmacy products. If you apply the same logic to armed robbery you might as well justify stealing because you’re hungry, and paid murder because of an insurance policy, or anything imaginable.
Did I say it was okay to sell pirated goods? I sure as hell didn't. I just gave a reason why it happens. The content industry is too blind to see anything but the effect. They see their product copied. They cry out, pay people off to get tougher laws (against the principles of democracy.. we should have togher laws against lobbyists, putting anybody in for 5 years for taking money from the RIAA/MPAA then passing a law that serves them.. that imho is just as criminal as selling pirated goods). But they are painfully oblivious to the cause. You cannot solve the problem with tougher laws and enforcement. Drugs is probably the best example.. look how painfully the no tolerance policy of certain countries is failing. You have to take a look at the global picture and try to do something about the cause, not only the effect. As the French guy in Matrix 2 said: Cause and Effect. Cause will still lead to effect even if you try to combat the effect.

I don’t get this point. Are DVDs produced in some countries more expensive than others? The actual costs are barely the same, so somebody must be applying a huge unreasonable mark up. As “the market works”, you can always buy your legit movie on the net, cheaper if it exists.
Actually, you are mistaken here. Region codes and laws pushed by the people you're trying to defend make it impossible for many to buy a product elsewhere. It's funny, we have the big corporations pushing for access to a global market without barriers, but because we don't have the same wages everyhwere they sell their product at different prices, then cry bloody murder if the consumer is smart enough to buy it somewhere where it's cheaper. Industries and countries are actively hampering customer rights in that area, while when it comes to them having access to the markets, it can't get liberal enough. Take region codes for example: totally against the idea of a global market, and with the help of paid off politicians they have managed to pass laws in many countries that make it illegal to sell DVDs from other regions.. in many cases even DVDs produced in neighboring countries. Movie and Music industry is dividing the global market into slices that they either keep for themselves or sell to other companies and keep those slices separated by technological measures and laws.

Last but not least, have you ever read a copyright law? Nowhere does it mention any financial recompensation for your work. Copyright law was created to encourage content creation and nothing else. It grants the creator certain exclusive rights so that his work is not ripped off. Those rights establish the groundwork that can be used for financial recompensation, but this is not a god or law given right. You won't get paid for content creation! You can get paid if you desire so, but that is up to every content creator. I don't get paid for my website content, do I? Yet you cannot simply copy my content because copyright law says I get so say who can use it and in what ways. Now imagine, someone rips off my guides and puts them on a page with which he makes money thanks to ads (or maybe it's a closed site with an entry fee). You say he's stealing from me. I say that's not the case. He is enriching himself through my creations, but he is not stealing from me. At the end of the month my account balance is the same regardless of this ripoff. But if he came over to my house and took some DVDs, then he would be stealing from me. Now this very real case actually happened, but was resolved without any lawyer involvement. Yet, should such a thing come to trial, I could claim damages because he made money off my creations. Copyright law says that I have to grand the use of my content (and that's usually done in a form of a license contract), and since I didn't, I'm eligible to parts or all of his gains plus other recompensation. Yet, this isn't a case of stealing, it's a case of making money of my work and that is both physically and legally different. The guy won't be sentenced for stealing. Now imagine the same case but without the guy making any money (this has also happened). According to the content industry the guy is once again stealing but I don't see my account balance changing and my DVD collection is still intact. And while I could still sue, I couldn't claim the same amount of damages and it would be up to me to proove damages to the court (in both cases actually.. only that with making money it's a lot easier to make my case) to get a recompensation (and if you follow US law proposals you'll see that the content industry wants to shift the burden of proof to the accused). In both cases, something isn't right but nobody has a hand in my pocket.

15th November 2003, 15:47

Originally posted by Doom9
mf put it more eloquently than I could (there is still a language barrier after all). There is a difference between material things and etherial things.
English is still my second language (Dutch is my first), but even through that barrier you manage to use a word (eloquent) that I have to look up in the dictionary :D. That also caused me to look up etherial (as I was looking up words anyway, so I might as well look that one up too, to be sure), and found out it's actually ethereal (which I should and could've known, I've actually always said "ethereal" before so I don't know where that spelling error even came from). ;)

Kedirekin

15th November 2003, 16:30

You know, this conversation of material versus non-material (concrete versus ethereal) shines some light on this subject for me.

If I could put my refrigerator up on P2P, how would people react to others obtaining a copy of my refrigerator?

I'm sure the refrigerator manufaturers and resalers would react much the same way the music and movie industry is right now; people are copying refrigerators, so they aren't buying them and it's destroying our profits - it isn't fair. More, they'd want to have control of the new refrigerator copying technology to cut down on their production and distribution cost - probably without any decrease in prices (sound familiar).

But how would 3rd parties (you and I and everyone else) react to the industry's stance? I feel sure that the general reaction to the industry would be 'tough'. A new technology exists to make copies of refrigerators. I'm sure most people would agree there's no reason we shouldn't be allowed to use it. I'm also sure most people wouldn't want the industry to have sole legal control of the new technology (DRM = Digital Refrigerator Management ;) ).

On the other hand, most people would agree that we don't want refrigerator manufacturers (or at least the designers) to cease to exist. That would eliminate innovation (I can remember a time when refrigerators didn't have ice cube dispensers in the door).

What do you think? Comments welcome.

fccHandler

15th November 2003, 19:03

Digital music still needs a storage medium for its bits, so I wouldn't really agree that it's "ethereal" (though certainly more so than a refrigerator). :D

15th November 2003, 19:38

Originally posted by fccHandler
Digital music still needs a storage medium for its bits, so I wouldn't really agree that it's "ethereal" (though certainly more so than a refrigerator). :D
If I write ones and zeroes on a piece of paper, I materially have paper with ink on top, but if I actually put some kind of message in these ones and zeroes I have created ethereal content, while materially it would be equal to me writing the same amount of ones and zeroes on paper, but sorting them by putting the zeroes at the top and the ones at the bottom (which would cause the message to be lost). Of course that still leaves the possibility to call myself an artist and sell it as a piece of art, which is when I've rebranded it as something of ethereal value again.

fccHandler

15th November 2003, 19:51

By that reasoning, the refrigerator is also ethereal. In theory I can purchase the materials to build my own copy of Kedirekin's refrigerator, and maybe even build a machine to help automate the process of creating my replica. The question then becomes, does the refrigerator manufacturer suffer because I chose to copy Kedirekin's refrigerator, instead of buying the same model in a store?

15th November 2003, 20:01

Originally posted by fccHandler
By that reasoning, the refrigerator is also ethereal. In theory I can purchase the materials to build my own copy of Kedirekin's refrigerator, and maybe even build a machine to help automate the process of creating my replica. The question then becomes, does the refrigerator manufacturer suffer because I chose to copy Kedirekin's refrigerator, instead of buying the same model in a store?
Here you are talking about refrigerator designs, for which we have laws. Those of patents and consumer confusion. If a product looks very alike the original creator can sue because the imitation confuses the buyer into thinking it is buying a brand. For the technical part of the refrigerator (new high-tech fast icecube maker?) there are patents. Of course, for personal use, you are exempt, because of fair use rights!

Atamido

15th November 2003, 20:09

Originally posted by mf
Of course, for personal use, you are exempt, because of fair use rights! Unless of course the refrigeration system used in the fridge you copied is DRM'd to prevent copies. If so, then you broke the law according to the DMCA.

I think its also a question of where you copied the fridge from. Was it your own and you just wanted a second one? Or was it your friends and you decided you wanted one just like it without paying money for it.

/me goes off to DRM a wooden pencil.

Kedirekin

15th November 2003, 20:12

Good point. A refrigerator is just steel (iron, carbon) and plastic (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.). It's the pattern of assembly of these elements that makes it a refrigerator, so in a way a refrigerator is ethereal.

Part of the question becomes, when nanotechnology makes it possible to copy a refrigerator from elements (commodities) obtained from any wholesaler, will we be expected to compensate the refrigerator manufacturer for the privledge of copying his refrigerator?

If we are expected to compensate the manufacturer (or designer, or whatever you want to call them), will we be expected to compensate them as much as we compensate them for the full construction as we do today? Will it cost the same, even though the manufacturer isn't actually performing any incremental (per item) work.

I suspect you can see the parallels here, so I won't belabor them.

15th November 2003, 20:18

Originally posted by Kedirekin
Good point. A refrigerator is just steel (iron, carbon) and plastic (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc.). It's the pattern of assembly of these elements that makes it a refrigerator, so in a way a refrigerator is ethereal.

Part of the question becomes, when nanotechnology makes it possible to copy a refrigerator from elements (commodities) obtained from any wholesaler, will we be expected to compensate the refrigerator manufacturer for the privledge of copying his refrigerator?

If we are expected to compensate the manufacturer (or designer, or whatever you want to call them), will we be expected to compensate them as much as we compensate them for the full construction as we do today? Will it cost the same, even though the manufacturer isn't actually performing any incremental (per item) work.

I suspect you can see the parallels here, so I won't belabor them.
Of course, here is where it gets interesting. The major companies will first try to combat it all (of course :rolleyes:), after failure take over the nanotechnology market, selling construction kits for refrigerators with inflated prices. The programs for these nanobots, in all their ethereal nature, will of course be copied and pirated, and the rest I will leave to your own imagination to fill in what will happen. :D

cypher_soundz

16th November 2003, 01:27

Downloading Vs shoplifting, can't really be compared as doom9 has said , saying "shoplifting Vs reading/writing down content from a magazine in a shop" would may of been slightly better :D but my title is a little longer :p. I think this issue is so controversial because allot is based on "what ifs..." what if he hadn't of downloaded that album? would he of brought it? or would he of gone to the shop and listened to it? then not brought it? the later traditional method is seen to be ok, yet the same outcome happens (kinda). of course this guy could go back every day and listen to the album in the same shop :p. The view from the RIAA , is that of the evil pirate! who's 1st thought and main objective is for profit and to evade paying for something that SHOULD be paid for. But this is by no means near what your regular joe wants to do. Maybe if the RIAA gave some of their wealth to the artist and were not so greedy they could lower costs of cd's , and no one would mind paying a realistic price for a cd, as some times the goods songs are scarce then everyone would be happy! Of course i like the way of the album, you may not like all the songs, but as a whole it puts you in the mood / emotions of the artist, they wanted you to hear these song is this order to create feeling. Lastly I would like to see artist sharing their own work! just to see what would happen :D, lol I think this would waste allot of the RIAA's time and couldn't sue anyone :D hehehe.
Regards
Cyph

badbert

16th November 2003, 01:31

Why Download? I have Digital Cable with awesome music channels. Audio out to line in on my 'puter. Record in wave, convert to MP3...waa laa!! Perfect mp3s!! So is this shoplifting or filesharing... which punishment should I receive??

cypher_soundz

16th November 2003, 01:40

I record TV to VHS sometimes, and radio to tape (not often ) so in my view you are just creating something to watch/listen to later, of course this might not be the legal view :p.
Regards
Cyph

Prettz

16th November 2003, 03:19

Let's get one thing straight. Offering music, video, or commercial software of any kind on any kind of filesharing network IS, in fact, against the law. There's just no way you can argue around that basic fact.

Whether or not the creators would actually be losing money when someone downloads it off of you is the question. It's really a question that cannot be 100% answered, as the answer depends on who is downloading it and what their current (and future as well) situation is. There are those who are downloading free music just because it's there, who would not have purchased it to begin with (regardless of its price or availability). Then there are those who either would have purchased the material to begin with, or, after downloading the material, liked it enough that they would have then purchased it but didn't because they already had it. For the second group of people, the creators of the material are, in fact, losing money that they would have earned, and there's no way you can argue with that fact.

The music industry's push for ridiculous penalties is fairly easy to explain. They see this as a battle for their survival (or at least the survival of their corporate profits, which they really don't want to see disappear), they see that they're now in the middle of a situation which they have lost control of (when the entirety of the new generation of kids sees nothing wrong with filesharing, it's safe to say the industry has lost control of the situation), and they're implementing these new laws in order to shock everyone into coming to the conclusion that downloading doesn't pay. However, the fact that they would readily leave these new laws in place indefinitely means that they are going to be very bad for everyone, no matter how much you can sympathize with the industry in the current situation.

r6d2

16th November 2003, 05:34

Originally posted by mf
What is it with your kind of people that you cannot differentiate between material things (houses, candy in a store), and "etherial" (i'll just call it that cause I can't find a better word to suit the meaning) things (music, knowledge, digital content)?
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there is indeed “an intrinsic difference in nature” amongst material and ethereal things, as you say. (Which you assume “people like me” cannot differentiate).

According to that logic, which I presume is similar to Dobbie’s, the point then gets: if it’s ethereal, the creator of the good or service has no natural right to charge for it. Right?

Look at the prostitution example above. Sex is pretty ethereal, right? The woman stays the same after having sex, she even had some fun doing it. So why does she dare to charge? Why the customer is willing to pay?

Now you can say: That’s a completely different story, it is actually material, not ethereal! They have a very “material” physical contact!

However... no harm has been done.

If you don't like the example think of a strip show then. No touching. Only ethereally dancing on a stage taking out out her clothes. Can she charge? Can in fact she get paid a commission from the owner depending on how many customers there were watching her performance?

Isn’t it just like the theater hall? Can the musician charge for a presentation on a theater hall? (Still unanswered by Dobbie when the artist got the theater for free.)
About creativity: if an individual pirates a copy of 3D Studio MAX, he is able to create wonderful things. [...]. Well, tough luck; if he couldn't pirate it, he couldn't get it.
Assuming the musician has indeed the right to charge for the show, and with your logic of stimulating creativity, should any potential musician who wants to see the show but cannot afford the ticket be able to get in? We are pretty sure that listening to this other musician will have an impact on his creativity potential, so we should encourage it!

Or slipping into the theater is not considered ethereal like downloading? It surely should: No harm has been done! The artist’s pocket has not been ripped! It was just this poor musician wannabe, watching silently without paying, because he couldn’t afford it.

You creativity thesis is not new, it’s just Robin Hood’s spirit in the XXI Century.
Material things cannot be copied. If you take one, someone loses one. Etherial things can be copied, recorded, multiplied into the millions, without anyone ever losing anything.
But let’s get back to this material-ethereal thing.

Before technology allowed it, if you wanted to have your favorite artist’s record to listen it whenever you wanted you had to buy it. Right? It was a pretty material thing. Now, technology allows you to have an 99.9% quality copy of it, with paying a nickel to that artist.

What has changed? The nature of the good, which used to be material and is now ethereal? But wait... Wasn't that in the very intrinsic nature of the good? How did that possibly change? Had a DNA trasplant, as if it was a living thing? Had a molecular transformation?

What if at some point in the future, with new technology, a houseocopier is invented, and you can reproduce “without harm” any house you like? (or a refrigerator, like Kedirekin pointed out?)

Those guys will not be able to get paid for their jobs anymore? Technology may convert a house in something ethereal, so if you have kids, then don’t let them be musicians or architects or house-builders, or you’ll have to maintain them for life.

Doesn’t the creator of an art piece have the right to decide how to make his money, or not to make money at all? If he sells his distribution rights to a record company instead of providing download for free services, doesn’t that mean he is after some money?
There are a lot of people (more rather than less) who are only freeloading because they can. They would never actually buy anything like price-overblown software. In a world where they are not able to freeload etherial things, they will simply live without all those things.
As syzygytec put it quite interestingly, it seems that there are two classes of people: those who download but wouldn’t buy anyway (they just do it because they can, and cannot afford to buy), and those who download to try and afterwards they go and buy if they liked it, or plainly buy it at first.

What if the author decides to put his pieces on the net in try and buy mode, no record company needed, and he turns out to be good and people love him? Then, in this “two-class of people” world, freeloaders would download just because they can, and “payloaders” will go and pay, self motivated because the quality of the “material”.

Well, welcome to real world, guys. Things don’t work like that. Doom9 knows it. DVD2SVCD know it. People who can get something for free usually don’t like to pay for it afterwards. And I don’t think anybody questions the quality of the contents provided on this site, or the good quality DVD2SVCD software has.

Radio stations are actually paying to the author of every music piece for the right to put it on the air. That exists all over the world, and composers collect worldwide income for that (small, but it adds up at the end). By sharing a legit mp3 rip, you are “airing” something without paying the author.

No harm is done by freeloaders? “Anyone ever losing anything”?
You CAN NOT compare etherial pirating to shoplifting.
Well, excuse my insolence, but I actually could, and I provided you with several examples of why the material-ethereal distinction is superfluous, temporary, and not on the intrinsic nature of things we are discussing.

BTW, one of Einstein's theories stablishes the equivalence of mass and energy, quite material and ethereal stuff, respectively.
Think about it.
Well, I have. Now it’s your turn.

r6d2

16th November 2003, 05:49

Originally posted by Doom9
Such mechanisms are based on one of the oldest human traits: trade. [...] You give something to get something.. that is entirely different from stealing where you only take.
(From Webster’s online dictionary):
Trade: an exchange of property usually without use of money.
What exchange of property is taking place when you P2P? As I said on my previous post, P2P is not like exchanging baseball cards. Are you losing your property when you P2P?

Furthermore, do you actually have the “property” over the good in question?

Sharing, which is what you do in P2P, is quite different from trading. Sharing is distributing. And the author, who is the owner of the distribution rights of his creation, has sold them to a record company, which in turn has provided you a “good” with the created piece. You own that good. And you, by fair use, can copy it for your own personal use. But you have not acquired the right to distribute the piece, or air it on the net, or sharing it beyond fair use.

You can sell your good in the second hand market, if you want. But you are not entitled to sell copies of it, even legit copies. You are not entitled to trade copies either. And much less entitled to share them.

By doing so you are effectively doing something for which you have no right. The owner of the distribution rights, author or record company, has that right.
But, you are still not taking anything.
If you share the legit copy to get somebody else’s legit copy in return, both are trespassing the copyright holder’s right. To me, bypassing someone else’s rights is in a way stealing his potential income. I understand I’ll be not imprisoned for stealing, but I am indeed using something illegitimately obtained, for which I should have paid. That’s quite the definition of stealing:
(From Webster’s online dictionary):
Steal: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully.
There is a difference between material things and etherial things. Don't ever tell an engineer (I am one) something that goes against the laws of physics or he'll eat you alive.
Which physics law did I break, to risk being eaten alive by an engineer? I happen to be an engineer too, but not so good I guess since I did not learn all physics laws. :)
I haven't used a single P2P tool since Napster.
If you endorse it as “trade” and seem to legitimize it, then why don’t you do it anymore?
Did I say it was okay to sell pirated goods? I sure as hell didn't.
Did I say you were in favor of that? Sorry if I made myself misunderstood.
I just gave a reason why it happens.
And I just said that reason is what average citizens use as a way to justify their actions.
(From Webster’s online dictionary):
Justify: to show to have had a sufficient legal reason.
If they don’t justify themselves, they would consider themselves criminals. Just like my neighbor, who justified piracy because “to help the poor single handed old man”, because “everybody does it” and because “employee theft is part of the business”.

Average citizens like to have a “clear conscience”.
But they are painfully oblivious to the cause. You cannot solve the problem with tougher laws and enforcement.
They cannot beat technology. They don’t want to lose their margins. Those are facts. What they are doing, educate users and apply strong laws, is the only thing they can do to accomplish the target.

I don’t like it either. They might be more creative. Like James Bond said: “The world is not enough”. They want more. And they want to keep control, as syzygytec pointed out.

The same thing happened with the advent of the Gutenberg’s press. The Church would no longer control what was written. The same thing then again, when public libraries were formed since the'd "sell less books". The editors complained and lobbied just like the Church did before. And they lost. Then the net came. And they are repeating the agenda. They will lose again against technology.

But that does not change the fact that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to distribute the creations.
Region codes and laws pushed by the people you're trying to defend make it impossible for many to buy a product elsewhere.
I’m not trying to defend the actions they are taking. I find them absurd indeed. But I uphold the right they legitimately have, for which they have paid for, or the author's right, whichever the case.

I'm an author ;)

Sorry for the rant, but as you can see, I also have a passion on the subject.

fccHandler

16th November 2003, 05:50

Back to the refrigerator... mf points out that refrigerator designs are patented, and that I may be sued for building a replica of Kedirekin's fridge, even if it's solely for my own personal use. (And certainly if it's protected by DRM!) My understanding is that music isn't patented, yet people have been sued successfully (George Harrison, for instance) for creating original music which sounds too much like someone else's music. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm confused. What is the difference between patent and copyright?

Prettz

16th November 2003, 05:57

Originally posted by fccHandler
Back to the refrigerator... mf points out that refrigerator designs are patented, and that I may be sued for building a replica of Kedirekin's fridge, even if it's solely for my own personal use. (And certainly if it's protected by DRM!) My understanding is that music isn't patented, yet people have been sued successfully (George Harrison, for instance) for creating original music which sounds too much like someone else's music. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm confused. What is the difference between patent and copyright?
music isn't an idea or design, it's art.

fccHandler

16th November 2003, 06:06

Art it may be (whatever that is), but as mf suggests, the representation of music is also a design, whether it's notes written on a staff, or one's and zero's organized in a memory chip. Anyhow, don't you think the refrigerator was a work of art to it's creator?

Atamido

16th November 2003, 06:49

I think that this thread is suffering from a lack proper word use. Most of the time when you say 'ethereal', you mean 'intellectual property'. When comparing the music to the refrigerator you are comparing two different types of intellectual property. Patents and copyrights.

However, in the context that they are being used, they are almost the same. Patents are there to protect the income of scientists and copyrights are there to protect the income of artists. I wouldn't say that one is more important than the other and they both serve important purposes.

Neither I, nor probably anyone on this board would argue that the systems in place for these protections aren't being abused. Thats not the point of any part of this thread and so I would really hope that people don't get sidetracked into this issue again. There are already threads to discuss that if you use the secret search button.

I would say that the big question in this thread that has not been asked directly is, "What is the difference between using someone's intellectual property illegaly, and stealing someone's physical property?" Then the subtext of this question is, "How should the punishment of these two types of theft differ, if at all?"

fccHandler

16th November 2003, 07:55

Originally posted by Pamel
I would say that the big question in this thread that has not been asked directly is, "What is the difference between using someone's intellectual property illegaly, and stealing someone's physical property?" Then the subtext of this question is, "How should the punishment of these two types of theft differ, if at all?"
Well, obviously if I break into Kedirekin's house and take his refrigerator, he is directly affected (being minus one fridge), but if I make a copy of his refrigerator he doesn't suffer from that.

With the first crime, I have plainly injured Kedirekin by depriving him of his fridge, but there is absolutely no injury to him in the second crime. However, in both crimes there may be some injury to the manufacturer, who might have lost a sale to me because I got my refrigerator for free. But it's way more difficult to prove (unlike poor Kedirekin's fridge-less state), therefore I think the punishment for material theft should be far greater.

EDIT: I just realized that in the second case, I didn't get the refrigerator for free, because I had to invest some money in the materials to build it. Therefore I have already paid a price to have this thing, and perhaps my punishment should be even less because of that?

ChristianHJW

16th November 2003, 08:35

Interesting discussion. When asking myself why i have spent so many hours learning video compression, there is a simple answer :

Its the exorbitant price of DVDs that made me do it. If DVDs were cheaper, and i am totally convinced about that, only a very small number of digital freaks would bother to learn those technologies.

One might argue that in these exorbitant prices, like > 25,- US$/€ for a DVD, the industry receives payment already for at least 30 'pirated' copies of the very same DVD. And the music industry is simply killing itself with charging only a little less for their stuff.

I havent bought a single CD since at least 4 years ... can you believe that ? I am just not willing to pay anymore, after buying more than 600 music CDs legally and for a full price during my youth and twen time, when having the latest in music was the coolest thing for me, spending all of my available money as a student for that ( about 8000,- € if you take an average of 12,- € for a CD at that time, the price of a nice used car !! ).

Today's young people, thats what i learned from another thread here, cant spend the money on music CDs any longer, because they pay most of it to the mobile phone companies, phoning and sending SMS ;) ....

Doom9

16th November 2003, 11:54

I think Pamel made a really good point.. a lot of this discussion is somewhat beside the real question at hand. There's no need to argue whether or not P2P tools (and what you can do with them) are okay or not as copyright law is quite clear insofar as sharing music is not allowed. As for downloading music, that is a debatable point but its legality depends on your countries legislation (in most downloading is somewhere in the gray area, tending towards the illegal area).

What exchange of property is taking place when you P2P? As I said on my previous post, P2P is not like exchanging baseball cards. Are you losing your property when you P2P?
Maybe Webster needs to be adapted to the net. If you upload something, you offer part of your bandwidth (for which you paid, you can even quantify it to a dollar value, by dividing the monthly charge to charge per minute and multiply with the bandwidth use factor). Thus, in a way you are giving away a little part of your monthly fee. So there you have your property.

If you endorse it as “trade” and seem to legitimize it, then why don’t you do it anymore?
You are again misrepresenting my words. I don't endorse the use of P2P tools, I know that uploading is illegal and downloading is borderline illegal (and you know our forum policy regarding downloaded files.. do you think it could exist if I didn't agree with it?), but I'm not going to take out the BFG9000 and start shooting those people (that is the Doom version of taking a cannon to shoot on birds, or completely inappropriate sentences).
Why don't I use such tools anymore? Too slow, too much crap, and too time consuming. The time it takes to find an entire album in good quality that isn't in the top 20, to properly catalogue and tag it was just too much for me. So if I really wanted the album I went back to the store to pick it up.. at least there I didn't have to go through all the pain I had to go when getting it online. Yet, with all the audio copy protection around, if I can't break it (I have a portable MP3 player and a MiniDisc player.. MD was touted as CD compagnion for the road but now that they are blocking the digital output with the SCMS flag I was effectively cheated out of my money by the industry, was I not?) I'm not quite sure what to do with it. If I try to make use of my tools they sold me to have a CD with me on the road (discmans are bulky and not an option), according to them I am breaking the law. If I try to get it legally via the net, I'm restricted with DRM crap and cannot take the music with me either unless I buy another device that supports DRM. What do you suggest I do? How can I stay on the right side of the law yet make proper use of what I'm trying to buy? The RIAA and MPAA say that by going around any copy protection I should be locked away for 3-5 years and be fined a quarter million because I'm shoplifting. But we're once again back to where my hand goes into their pocket and takes out something from their shop.

Which physics law did I break, to risk being eaten alive by an engineer?You say if I download an MP3 from Kazaa I'm putting my hand into the artist's pocket. Since my hand stays right here on keyboard and mouse that is breaking the laws of physics. My hands cannot be at two places at the same time.

But that does not change the fact that the copyright holder has the exclusive right to distribute the creations.
No, that is not correct. There are exceptions, thus by my definition of exclusive, the distribution rights are actually not exclusive. I know the law says exclusive, but there are exceptions in it as well. Plus, when you sell a creation, you effectively loose control over it and the legit buyer can now decide what to do with it (within limits set by the law). For instance, there is the right for re-sale and you as creator will get neither a percentage from that sale, nor do you get to say anything in that sale.

But I uphold the right they legitimately have, for which they have paid for, or the author's right, whichever the case.
Do they have the right to techologies like region codes? As far as I know the WTO regulations, they are in voilation, it's just that since consumers don't have a lobby, they have a hard time fighting such injustice.

@r6d2: I think out of respect to our female members we should not make examples like prostitution and stripping.

Oh and another thing: The industry has also been pushing for flat fee compensation (taxes on CDs and DVDs). Effective since a few months, if you buy a DVD±R/W in my country, a considerable part of the price is that tag. If you buy 15 DVDs, you have effectively given the content industry about 1 movie DVD worth of money. So if you haven't used those blanks to copy any of their content, should you not a) get your money back or b) be allowed to do something for the money you paid (e.g. copy one movie without paying to equalize the score). While I don't like the idea of flat fees, I prefer it over DRM schemes. But then, since you do pay for a certain amount of copies, should you not be allowed to make them (starting with making a copy of a movie you own so the industry is not loosing a sale (but they want us to believe they are as the equalize private copying with what is being done on the black market)).

16th November 2003, 13:04

Originally posted by r6d2
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that there is indeed “an intrinsic difference in nature” amongst material and ethereal things, as you say. (Which you assume “people like me” cannot differentiate).

According to that logic, which I presume is similar to Dobbie’s, the point then gets: if it’s ethereal, the creator of the good or service has no natural right to charge for it. Right?
No. Not right. Read it over, you didn't get the point.
Originally posted by Pamel
However, in the context that they are being used, they are almost the same. Patents are there to protect the income of scientists and copyrights are there to protect the income of artists.
Nope, not the income. As Doom9 said earlier:
Originally posted by doom9
Last but not least, have you ever read a copyright law? Nowhere does it mention any financial recompensation for your work. Copyright law was created to encourage content creation and nothing else. It grants the creator certain exclusive rights so that his work is not ripped off. Those rights establish the groundwork that can be used for financial recompensation, but this is not a god or law given right. You won't get paid for content creation! You can get paid if you desire so, but that is up to every content creator.

Doom9

16th November 2003, 13:32

BTW, one of Einstein's theories stablishes the equivalence of mass and energy, quite material and ethereal stuff, respectively.
You are talking about Einstein's special relativity theory and its most important formula: E=mc^2. But energy is material as well. If not, how can you explain the bruise you get when I throw a tennis ball at your face? By throwing the ball, I increase its kinetic energy, which is transferred to your face upon impact. The pain you feel from that energy transfer is quite material, with electrons shooting through your nerve system to stimulate the feeling of pain (for more details you have to ask somebody who studies medicine.. it's not my field of expertise). And while the ball is flying, you can see the energy as well, because you see the ball moving from point A to B (which takes energy).

r6d2

16th November 2003, 17:19

Originally posted by mf
No. Not right. Read it over, you didn't get the point.
No, you did not make any point whatsoever, you just based your first post in Dobbie’s and then in Doom9’s, and failed to provide any arguments to support you ethereal-material theory. You also favored the use of piracy for humanitarian reasons using Robin Hood's ideas.

I guess I just hoped you might use some ideas of your own, and support them afterwards too.
Nope, not the income. As Doom9 said earlier:
Well, I cannot read German so I cannot read the copyright law that applies there, but all copyright laws are similar. For instance, the U.S. law states that the owner of the copyright has the exclusive right “to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending”. (See here (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html).)

(I hope Doom9 won’t say that the Cornell University site needs "adaption to the net" too) :)

The law in my country says something quite in the same line of that one.

As you can see, the copyright law indeed grants the author a way to get money in exchange of his creation. He can sell, rent or lease. He can also, of course, use “other transfer of ownership”: he can donate it, he can leave it to his inheritors, or he can even decide not to distribute them at all, like the great Franz Kafka intended to. But it’s the author/owner who decides, not you.

And this is not god given or natural right (I never said it was). It is just the law.
Originally posted by Doom9
copyright law is quite clear insofar as sharing music is not allowed.
Great to hear you agree with that!
Maybe Webster needs to be adapted to the net. If you upload something, you offer part of your bandwidth (for which you paid).
And if you are on a hot spot and are not paying for the bandwidth? :). Come on, Doom9. It’s the song’s property we are talking about here. Not the bandwidth, CPU time or the electricity bill. That’s not what you are “trading”.
You are again misrepresenting my words.
Did I? Did I do it before, since I’m doing it again?
I don't endorse the use of P2P tools, I know that uploading is illegal and downloading is borderline illegal (and you know our forum policy regarding downloaded files.. do you think it could exist if I didn't agree with it?)
Sometimes well-intentioned citizens forget the law. As far as I can tell, I'm pretty sure you are a well-intentioned citizen, so you are not an exception. And what you said before can easily be considered like that:
In the case of shoplifting you are effectively creating a void in the shop's inventory, so they have a very real, quantifiable loss of money, which we don't have in case of copyright infringement.”
You seem to minimize the economic impact of downloading, which was the question LNielsen76 made and I presume you were answering in your post.

I’m glad you clarified your position, since, you know, what leaders like you say publicly is usually taken as facts by people who follow them, sometimes with no analysis whatsoever.
but I'm not going to take out the BFG9000 and start shooting those people
Me neither. They probably don’t even know the damage they are making.
Why don't I use such tools anymore? Too slow, too much crap, and too time consuming.
So, if I understand you correctly, if there was a tool that could locate “best quality shared copies”, auto tag them, and download them for you in one click... (kinda "GetAlbumFast4U" ;)) Would you use it?

Is it just the hindrance what refrains you? Or you just don’t because you know you’d be breaking the copyright law?
What do you suggest I do? How can I stay on the right side of the law yet make proper use of what I'm trying to buy?
You can always justify yourself to go against the law, as my neighbor. (Whether the law is stupid or not). When the critical mass of people understands the law is stupid, it won't be applicable.
You say if I download an MP3 from Kazaa I'm putting my hand into the artist's pocket. Since my hand stays right here on keyboard and mouse that is breaking the laws of physics. My hands cannot be at two places at the same time.
Ok, I get it. I should be eaten alive then. :)

However, Doom9, I’m pretty sure you understand that I was using a metaphor. We all do it. You, for instance, do it a lot. If you force me to take you literally, I ought to conclude that some German engineers are anthropophagus, which I think is not the case. ;)

Metaphor and analogies are good to communicating a point so it gets understood by other people.
No, that is not correct. There are exceptions, thus by my definition of exclusive, the distribution rights are actually not exclusive. I know the law says exclusive, but there are exceptions in it as well.
The law does not have to do with “my definition of exclusive”. The law says exclusive, you know that and just said it. “Exclusive” means it that belongs to the author and not to anyone else. And there are not limitations I know of which may grant anyone the right to upload their legitimately made copies.
Do they have the right to techologies like region codes?
No, I never said that. They have the right for which they paid for: exclusive distribution. They are the copyright holders. You insist on making me look as if I’m defending their actions. Again, I’m not. But the fact that they act stupidly, does not mean they don’t have the rights they have bought.
@r6d2: I think out of respect to our female members we should not make examples like prostitution and stripping.
I actually preferred the one of the houses, but then mf came out with the ethereal-material thing. I won’t use it anymore, but I don’t think it is disrespect to females more than to males. Gigolos also exist, male strippers also, and everything I said can be gender-inverted.
Originally posted by Doom9
You are talking about Einstein's special relativity theory and its most important formula: E=mc^2. But energy is material as well.
Well, that’s the whole point of Einstein’s theory, isn’t it? Matter and energy are equivalent. But before that, people thought that there were “intrinsic differences in nature” amongst the two. Energy was quite an ethereal thing.

Remember “The Universal Aether”, the Quintessence? They had this dilemma: The greek had “aer”, which humans breath, and “aether”, which gods breathe. Aether was pure. It filled the whole sky above Earth.
Then it came “the luminiferous ether” which was required in order to have light as a wave to propagate in space. The problem was whether ether had a mass or not. It required a mass and high density to support the high speed of light. However, this high density was incompatible with the movement of planets.

The existence of ether was ultimately discarded, as it was shown that electromagnetic waves, full-energy made, did not need a medium of transport.

Einstein showed how energy, having no mass at all, is indeed potentially transformable into matter. And vice-versa.
If not, how can you explain the bruise you get when I throw a tennis ball at your face? By throwing the ball, I increase its kinetic energy, which is transferred to your face upon impact.
Hmmm... Just to make a precision, the tennis ball hurts because it has mass and energy. We are being bombarded by thousands of photons every day, which have the highest kinetic energy known in nature, but have no mass whatsoever, and they don’t produce pain when bumping into your body.

Mass alone without energy can hurt too. Just put your hand under one of the refrigerator’s support points for a while and you’ll notice it. Energy alone can hurt too. Heat, for instance.

After all, mass and energy are equivalent.

Atamido

16th November 2003, 17:38

Originally posted by mf
Nope, not the income. As Doom9 said earlier: Errrr..... whatever. Its a government action to try and help the economy. The 'purpose' of intellectual property laws is to stimulate creativity and invention. The reasoning behind it is that artists and inventors had a hard time making money because anyone could just copy and sell whatever they made. If you can't make any money with it, you are far less likely to do it. So, if you protect someones 'works' and ensure that they can make money from a useful 'work', then they are far more likely to make that work.

So no, the goal is not to protect the income, but that was the method being tried to obtain the goal.

16th November 2003, 18:18

Originally posted by r6d2
No, you did not make any point whatsoever, you just based your first post in Dobbie’s and then in Doom9’s, and failed to provide any arguments to support you ethereal-material theory. You also favored the use of piracy for humanitarian reasons using Robin Hood's ideas.

I guess I just hoped you might use some ideas of your own, and support them afterwards too.
Oh, so because I read and replied to this thread later than doom9 what I say is not my own anymore? I was actually just glad to see someone saw it the same way as me. I always annoy my nails off when I read comparisons with shoplifting by official spokespeople. It's just so ignorant imho. What I meant with that you didn't get my post, is that I never mentioned anything about what is justiceful, or about how I "favor" any use of piracy. I just mentioned things that happen, and how they are in my eyes. When I mention creativity based on piracy, you immediately conclude that I think people should not make money out of etherial things, while I never said that. I will mention "your type of people" again (you seem to like it ;)): your type of people always seem to find unspoken (and 90% of the time unmeant) meanings out of people's words. You are doing the same with doom9. It seems I have to mention everything twice with an extra explanation until you see how I really think about it. Now this time I will actually even mention what I find justiceful. I find it okay that people pirate products which are not meant for individuals (serversoftware, corporate software like Maya/3DSMax/Photoshop), and have an according pricetag, as the creators of these products get enough money from the companies buying these products, and it is highly unlikely that these individuals would ever be prepared or even be able to bring out the needed cash to actually buy these products. Let me repeat again, this is the first time I bring my opinion on justice into this, and what I say here only applies to THIS statement, and it does not imply any other things I might find justiceful. Please do not speculate further on this. I hope I have made myself clear enough.

Doom9

16th November 2003, 18:24

The law in my country says something quite in the same line of that one.

As you can see, the copyright law indeed grants the author a way to get money in exchange of his creation. He can sell, rent or lease. He can also, of course, use “other transfer of ownership”: he can donate it, he can leave it to his inheritors, or he can even decide not to distribute them at all, like the great Franz Kafka intended to. But it’s the author/owner who decides, not you.
Here's a rough translation of the applicable law that applies to me:
use of the work
The author has the exclusive right to decide, if, when and how the work is used.
The authors specifically has the right to
a) to create copies in form of print, audio audiovisual or data containers
b) to offer copies, to sell or otherwise distribute
c) etc.
So you are right, it says sell. But that's one of the options and not the main reason why the law was created (see pamel's point). The idea of copyright law is still to further creation, not enrich people (you'll argue the two go togehter and I can't object to that, but it's the spirit in which the law was created that should ultimately decide how it should be adapted to modern times, now how the people who make financial advantages thanks to that law want to see it adapted).
But now as for exclusive, I said there were exceptions and there are
Limits of copyright
Personal use
Published works may only be used for personal use. Personal use includes:
a) the use of the work in a personal circle and in a circle of friends who are closely connected together like friends and relatives
b) the use of the work for academic purposes by a teacher
c) copying of works in companies, public institutions, commisions and similar institutions for internal information or documentation.
2) Those who are eligible for personal use as defined in 1) may use a 3rd party to create a copy. This includes libraries who offer their users a copying machine
So there you have your exclusivity. And to those who like you to believe there is no fair use right in copyright law. Personal use is in my countries copyright act so I can make as many copies as I want as long as I don't give them away to non friends (per definition upload to a P2P network is not included in the friends circle).

And since you were so nice to link me to the proper page, I found several sections of the US copyright act, all starting with the title "Limitations on exclusive rights: ". We have Sections 106 - 112 all covering limitations on exclusivity. So while it is arguing over semantics, if there's a an exception it is no longer exclusive. Heck, Sectoin 107 even mentions Fair use.. it is so written in the law.

And if you are on a hot spot and are not paying for the bandwidth? . Come on, Doom9. It’s the song’s property we are talking about here. Not the bandwidth, CPU time or the electricity bill. That’s not what you are “trading”.
Maybe you live somewhere where upload bandwith is unlimited, but where I'm from, it would take me days to upload a movie, and during that time my internet connection would be largely useless (for some wicked reason my incoming DSL bandwith goes down to almost zero if I use the outgoing bandwith). Thus, allowing somebody to download a movie for me has a very real adverse affect on my internet connectivity and so I'd only let people slow me down if I get something in return for that slowing down.

You seem to minimize the economic impact of downloading, which was the question LNielsen76 made and I presume you were answering in your post.
I still believe that. If the downloader has no intention of buying your product, if he didn't have the possibility to download for free, he'd not get your product, period. He might buy some product but definitely get less than if he can get things for free. thus, I cannot stand the hypocrites who cry about losses that are 90% made up. If you count every MP3 downloaded as a $1 loss for the music industry, you are getting to loss numbers that are simply not realistic.

Oh, and you haven't responed to my real example yet. As a copyright owner I have experienced what you call "hand in my pocket", so maybe you'd care to elaborate how much money they took out of my pocket, and if all those people should rot in jail for the next 5 years.

So, if I understand you correctly, if there was a tool that could locate “best quality shared copies”, auto tag them, and download them for you in one click... (kinda "GetAlbumFast4U" ) Would you use it?

Is it just the hindrance what refrains you? Or you just don’t because you know you’d be breaking the copyright law?
Oh I'd probably use it, but I'd still buy the product if I consider it worth buying. You know, I'm one of the people who've actually downloaded an MP3, liked the artist, went to the store the next day to buy the entire album. But according to the RIAA I should not rot in prison for the next 3-5 years despite having bought the entire album, not just for the song I downloaded. That just doesn't make any sense to me and I cannot imagine how it can make sense to anyone.
But say I downloaded a song that I didn't like and ended up deleting again after listening to it once. Now I'm a dirty pirate, am I not? Yet, have I stolen from the artist? I say no, because there's no way the author would've gotten money from me for that work. I could've gone to the music store, listened to the album and decided that I didn't like it and return empty handed. Where is the difference? The music industry wants you put away for 3-5 years for doing that, yet in the end they most certainly didn't loose a sale. Should anyone who goes to a store, listening to an album and deciding not to buy it go to prison as well? Doesn't the act of downloading something just turn wrong if the downloader decides to keep the song, yet refuses to pay for it? That is essentially why I'm so much against equalizing shoplifting and downloading. The moment I have downloaded a song, the loss counter at the RIAA HQ doesn't go up by $X. It only goes up if I keep their product without paying. Yet, at a store, the store is out one CD the moment I walk out of there (and even then.. imagine you getting away with the CD, the store owner not even noticing until he makes the next inventory. Then the next day you have a bad conscience and you go back to apologize and you pay the CD, plus maybe a little extra. A reasonable shop owner would not call the cops but let you get a way with a "make sure it doesn't happen again". That is what I call reasonable. But the industry doesn't even know how to spell that word, let alone pronounce it.

But if you want, lets assume for a sec both things are the same. Then I expect any filesharers to get the same punishment as for shoplifting. No more 3-5 years and a quarter million in damages.. now we're talking a hundred bucks and a slap on the wrist in most of the cases. And obviously it is entirely up to the shop owner to proove his damages in case the case actually goes to trial. The RIAA tries to bypass that with law proposals, subpoenas to bypass due process of law, and scaring tactics. I'd love to see them proove the exact a mount of each file of a 1000 file song collection was downloaded where, when and to whom.

r6d2

16th November 2003, 19:31

Originally posted by mf
Oh, so because I read and replied to this thread later than doom9 what I say is not my own anymore?
You replied to my answer to Doobie, and came out with the ethereal thing. Yet you failed to support that idea. And still do.
I was actually just glad to see someone saw it the same way as me. I always annoy my nails off when I read comparisons with shoplifting by official spokespeople.
Well, I’m not any official spokespeople. Just an author who believes he has the right to do whatever he wants with his creations, as well as any other author. Including making money from them.
It's just so ignorant imho.
Excuse my ignorance. I have a motto in my signature: "There is not much you can do about being an idiot, but about being an ignorant you have an option". That’s why I always try to learn from educated people like you, who declare themselves non ignorant.
When I mention creativity based on piracy, you immediately conclude that I think people should not make money out of etherial things, while I never said that.
Trying to be careful now, so you don’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth, which I certainly did not attempt to do:

Do you think people could make money from ethereal things then?

If you think no, then my guess was right, since you replied to my post to Doobie with the distinction of material and ethereal, which I cannot understand until I see some logical reasoning behind.

If you think yes, then I don’t see any point on doing a distinction. Can you explain that to an ignorant person?
I will mention "your type of people" again (you seem to like it ;))
Well, I don’t think it is educated to call anybody “your kind of people”. It sounds quite discriminatory. You did not even bother to use a smiley or a wink. But I’m nobody to teach you manners. I’m just an ignorant.

But actually, I found it quite funny, since I don’t think all people are so ignorant as I am and they should get the difference at once indeed. It makes me happy to know I’m not the only one unable to spot that. And I would really like to hear arguments towards it. I’m trying to be less ignorant.
It seems I have to mention everything twice with an extra explanation until you see how I really think about it.
Communication is a two way road. If I fail to get your point, it may be because I’m unable to. Also it may be because you failed to communicate it. Of course you have all rights not to put things in a way I can understand, but since you are trying to communicate, I guess you are interested in making your point clear.
Now this time I will actually even mention what I find justiceful. I find it okay that people pirate products which are not meant for individuals […] as the creators of these products get enough money from the companies buying these products, and it is highly unlikely that these individuals would ever be prepared or even be able to bring out the needed cash to actually buy these products.
This time you don’t just “mentioned things that happen”, you even find it “just”. It is pretty easy to find fair something like that when it is about somebody else’s money.

So it seems my guess of you favoring piracy was not a wild guess after all. You have fully shown everybody that “my kind of people” was able to find unspoken meanings (but truly meant) in your post, even before you recognized it.

16th November 2003, 20:44

Originally posted by r6d2
You replied to my answer to Doobie, and came out with the ethereal thing. Yet you failed to support that idea. And still do.

Could you tell me exactly what I should be supporting? Cause I think I am.

Well, I’m not any official spokespeople. Just an author who believes he has the right to do whatever he wants with his creations, as well as any other author. Including making money from them.

I never said you were.

Excuse my ignorance. I have a motto in my signature: "There is not much you can do about being an idiot, but about being an ignorant you have an option". That’s why I always try to learn from educated people like you, who declare themselves non ignorant.

Well first off, I find [comparing pirating ethereal content to shoplifting] ignorant, not the entire person who is doing it. Not to be nitpicking, I'd like to note (I'm not using this against you, purely informative) that "ignorant" is an adjective, not a noun. So you can be an ignorant person, you can be ignorant, but not an ignorant. Allow me to note also that I have never called you ignorant, just the comparison you make.

Trying to be careful now, so you don’t accuse me of putting words in your mouth, which I certainly did not attempt to do:

Do you think people could make money from ethereal things then?

Yes, and they have. It is just unrealistic (not unjusticeful) to expect everyone to do so. And it is just insane to punish it with such high fines.

If you think no, then my guess was right, since you replied to my post to Doobie with the distinction of material and ethereal, which I cannot understand until I see some logical reasoning behind.

If you think yes, then I don’t see any point on doing a distinction. Can you explain that to an ignorant person?

Nope, not to an ignorant person, but I think I'll be able to explain it to you. The answer is to be found throughout this thread. The distinction serves the purpose of weighing punishments in proportion to actual (meaning non-made up, as doom9 said: not $1 per pirated song) losses, if any.

Well, I don’t think it is educated to call anybody “your kind of people”. It sounds quite discriminatory. You did not even bother to use a smiley or a wink. But I’m nobody to teach you manners. I’m just an ignorant.

I did bother to use a smiley. You even quoted it. Anyway, am I discriminating for having a negative (yet non-aggressive or humiliating) opinion on people that have a certain view? I don't think many people will call me discriminating for not liking the views neo-nazis have, as I will not hunt them down or call them foul names. As long as they do not commit crimes because of their views, they have just as much right to have and share their views as people that support world peace, or democracy.

But actually, I found it quite funny, since I don’t think all people are so ignorant as I am and they should get the difference at once indeed. It makes me happy to know I’m not the only one unable to spot that. And I would really like to hear arguments towards it. I’m trying to be less ignorant.

Well, let's just say generalising can be good and bad. Comparing shoplifting to downloading is a form of generalisation, and it is bad in the fact that it is simply an incorrect comparison, but it can be good if it would cause downloading to have an equally low punishment as shoplifting. Usually it is better to just find the correct precise judgement instead. In my opinion that is the one that doesn't involve the big media industry to get what it wants, and rather places the artists on a higher shelf in the priority-rack. I think you, as a writer, would appreciate that too.

Communication is a two way road. If I fail to get your point, it may be because I’m unable to. Also it may be because you failed to communicate it. Of course you have all rights not to put things in a way I can understand, but since you are trying to communicate, I guess you are interested in making your point clear.

I am indeed trying to be as clear and elaborate as possible. Sorry if that is not so effective to you.

This time you don’t just “mentioned things that happen”, you even find it “just”. It is pretty easy to find fair something like that when it is about somebody else’s money.

It is easy to find fair something like that when the money distribution is more biased to the big rich companies that don't really need it instead of the actual artists. With this I of course mean the commercial music industry.

So it seems my guess of you favoring piracy was not a wild guess after all. You have fully shown everybody that “my kind of people” was able to find unspoken meanings (but truly meant) in your post, even before you recognized it.
I did not at any point before my previous reply give any identifiable indication of my favoring, so I'd still say it was a pretty wild guess. And I still have not revealed any of my opinions regarding the remainder of the types of piracy, as I have only mentioned one. After all, you still have a 50/50 chance of being right. So you might as well ask a blindfolded monkey to point at a paper with "FOR PIRACY" or one with "AGAINST PIRACY" on it, and you'd have just as much chance to be right. Feel very proud.

r6d2

16th November 2003, 21:08

Originally posted by Doom9
So you are right, it says sell. But that's one of the options and not the main reason why the law was created (see pamel's point).
You mean this point?
Originally posted by Pamel
The 'purpose' of intellectual property laws is to stimulate creativity and invention. The reasoning behind it is that artists and inventors had a hard time making money because anyone could just copy and sell whatever they made. If you can't make any money with it, you are far less likely to do it. […] So no, the goal is not to protect the income, but that was the method being tried to obtain the goal.
You’re probably right; it’s not about enriching people. I actually don’t know the exact and ultimate idea behind the copyright law. But I know, for sure, that it’s the author to decide how to distribute, not any user with uploading capabilities.
And since you were so nice to link me to the proper page, I found several sections of the US copyright act, all starting with the title "Limitations on exclusive rights: ". […] Heck, Sectoin 107 even mentions Fair use.. it is so written in the law.
I’m sure you noticed already, but just to make sure, I’m pretty aware of fair use (I’ve mentioned it in my previous posts), as well as the other limitations. Still, I’ve not found any limitation of exclusive rights who allows uploading legit copies. Have you?
I still believe that. If the downloader has no intention of buying your product, if he didn't have the possibility to download for free, he'd not get your product, period.
I know that. The RIAA knows that too. Maybe that’s why they don’t encourage and make war to P2P. But the point remains. Do you have the right to do that because technology allows it? I think we have already agreed that you don’t. Unless you back up mf’s theory of charity with someone else’s goods.
Oh, and you haven't responed to my real example yet. As a copyright owner I have experienced what you call "hand in my pocket", so maybe you'd care to elaborate how much money they took out of my pocket, and if all those people should rot in jail for the next 5 years.
How could I possibly? I have already made my position clear in other threads. You should charge a membership after the first 30 days of registering. You decided not to do so, and you have your reasons.

If you have not initiated legal actions against those using your contents as theirs, it is your decision too. But you should be able to make a case if you want to. Unlike us engineers, lawyers always manage to set up cases and get lucrative settlements. Stories of guys getting good cash for receiving spam are not unique anymore. It has actually worked.

And yet spam is increasing. Maybe anti-spam lawsuits are a new emerging industry of the century.

In a case like yours, I’d not send the guys to jail. I’d better have their money.
Oh I'd probably use it, but I'd still buy the product if I consider it worth buying. You know, I'm one of the people who've actually downloaded an MP3, liked the artist, went to the store the next day to buy the entire album.
Well, my guess was right. You are a well-intentioned citizen from the second class of people, the “payloaders”. It is an interesting model. It’s like if the artist at the theater hall charged on exit and not on entrance. You only pay the ticket if you stay till the end and you enjoyed the show.
That just doesn't make any sense to me and I cannot imagine how it can make sense to anyone.
It does not make sense to me either. But you didn’t think it did, did you?
I could've gone to the music store, listened to the album and decided that I didn't like it and return empty handed. Where is the difference?
The difference is the copyright holder decides how to distribute, not you. In fact, in your store example, he decided to let you hear the music in a controlled environment, where he made reasonably sure you did not took the song with you if you don’t pay for it.

What you’re saying makes a lot of sense, but that’s not the way it works now. If you got it through P2P the guy airing that had not rights to do so. And the owner of the rights cannot make sure you deleted the song afterwards if not willing to pay for it. That’s not a controlled environment, and as we haven seen, it’s all about control.
Doesn't the act of downloading something just turn wrong if the downloader decides to keep the song, yet refuses to pay for it? […] That is what I call reasonable. But the industry doesn't even know how to spell that word, let alone pronounce it.
It’s indeed an interesting idea. I wonder why the RIAA has not seen the possibilities of that. Even control-oriented industries should know better about what is good for their future.

But if you want, lets assume for a sec both things are the same. Then I expect any filesharers to get the same punishment as for shoplifting. […] Now we're talking a hundred bucks and a slap on the wrist in most of the cases.
Looks reasonable to me. However, collecting those bucks is likely to be more expensive than the bucks themselves, so they may have thought of “set an example” and scare hell out of people. The point is that if people are going to let that happen, or if a boycott will prove them it makes no sense. Only time will tell them if their tactics work or not. As in the past, they may very well not.

16th November 2003, 21:28

Originally posted by r6d2
Well, my guess was right. You are a well-intentioned citizen from the second class of people, the “payloaders”. It is an interesting model. It’s like if the artist at the theater hall charged on exit and not on entrance. You only pay the ticket if you stay till the end and you enjoyed the show.

Wrong comparison. If you insist on comparing to a concert, it would be more correct to say that you'd be able to listen to the starting song of the concert, and if you didn't like it, walk away without paying. My point is, there is alot more to a concert than just the first song, and there is alot more to an album than listening to it once.
Looks reasonable to me. However, collecting those bucks is likely to be more expensive than the bucks themselves, so they may have thought of “set an example” and scare hell out of people.
Only to cause the whole business to go underground, with the usernames of p2p users constantly changing in a random fashion, making tracking much harder and putting proof on the ISP's side for identifying offenders by their IP address alone, and making going court a lot harder, and even blocking "lawcrawler" IP-addresses completely (this is already happening).

Beastie Boy

16th November 2003, 22:12

When we hand cash over to the music store owner in axchange for a music CD, what is it we are actually paying for? It is one copy of the music and, more importantly, the right to listen to it whenever we wish. If I download that same music via P2P I haven't paid for the right to hear it and so if I play it, I have done so against the wishes of the content creator (or rights holder). This part is I think, is fairly straight foreward.

What is yet to be proven is whether or not P2P has actually caused financial loss to any party. Sure, profits are down but todays youth has so many more things to spend his money on, eg.games, mobile phones, Ecstacy tablets.
20 Years ago, buying music was the in thing. Every Sunday evening, kids everywhere would slip a blank cassete into their stereo ready to record the Top 40 hits. Now the music industry had little or no objection to this Why? Because they knew that this only fuelled peoples interest in the music scene, and that they would go and buy the singles that they liked the following week, even though they already had a copy on cassette.

As I see it, todays youth are doing the same thing, but instead of a radio and a cassette recorder, they have P2P and hard drives. But they still serve the same purpose, they fuel interest in music. Would half of these people be listening to 500 songs per month if they weren't able to download them? Granted, they don't always go and buy the songs, but as I said, there are so many other competing products. And it only takes a fraction of P2P users to go and buy an album after playing a few tracks for the Companies to make money.

So why are the RIAA jumping up and down over P2P? It's because they can easily sell the argument to the shareholders when they complain about profits. Then they throw money at it, make bold threats and sue people so that they can show they are taking action.
When a new song is released, its all aver the net in no time. No amount of advertising can buy that kind of exposure. If the artist releases enough good songs, it follows that people will buy the album.

Cheers, Beastie.

Just one last point. Can we all please respect each others opinion, even if we don't agree. Some arguments are in danger of getting a bit too personal.

Doom9

16th November 2003, 22:15

You mean this point?

Exactly.
Still, I’ve not found any limitation of exclusive rights who allows uploading legit copies.There is none, neither in US copyright law nor in any other I'm aware of. The exceptions to the exclusive distribution right have never gone as far and never will.

In a case like yours, I’d not send the guys to jail. I’d better have their money.
It's funny that you should mention that, because my copyright law teacher actually told us not to sue under penal law, but go claim damages in a civil law process, because the latter is more likely to succeed (and you do actually get something, whereas if you send a guy away to prison .. and it will take ages because judges don't care about copyright law penal cases and rather go for murderers, rapists, etc.). Yet, I don't see the sense in going after the guy who didn't try to make any money of my work. If we can come to an agreement, I'll leave it with a slap on the wrist and a "make sure it doesn't happen again", like the imaginary store owner I mentioned. In case of somebody making money off my work, it depends on the likelyhood of success in case of a ligitation, and the amount of money I could expect. It doesn't pay to get $2000 if you have to pay 10 grand in lawyers fees.

The difference is the copyright holder decides how to distribute, not you. In fact, in your store example, he decided to let you hear the music in a controlled environment, where he made reasonably sure you did not took the song with you if you don’t pay for it.
On the other hand, if you try to shop online, you cannot even listen to the entire song, or every song of the album. What is wrong with that? Basically the industry won't let you do anything with content that comes without physical support. I know this ain't gonna work. I much rather buy a CD, circumvent whichever copy protection there may be and then use the content the way I like. Note that the industry would probably still call me a shoplifter for that.

It does not make sense to me either. But you didn’t think it did, did you?
Well, for a moment there I was a bit concerned it might.

However, collecting those bucks is likely to be more expensive than the bucks themselves, so they may have thought of “set an example” and scare hell out of people.Talking about setting an example, it should go both ways (so the RIAA and studio honchos would have to go to prison for 10 years (at least.. damages are a shitload higher than for uploading a couple of MP3s) for pricefixing.

r6d2

16th November 2003, 22:21

Originally posted by mf
Could you tell me exactly what I should be supporting? Cause I think I am.
Just one thing: The reasoning for making a difference amongst ethereal and material stuff, which as you pointed out before, I don’t understand easily. And in fact I’ve given you some info on why it’s not easy to grasp.
I never said you were.
I never said you said I were. ;) mf, please, don’t get into that. We are not playing traps in semantics here.
"ignorant" is an adjective, not a noun. So you can be an ignorant person, you can be ignorant, but not an ignorant.
Didn’t I tell you? I’m a very ignorant person! Thanks to you, a little less now. English is not my native language, but in Spanish it’s not unusual to use adjectives as nouns in common conversation.
Allow me to note also that I have never called you ignorant.
You don’t need to. I’m pretty much aware. And I still think you are not.
I did bother to use a smiley. You even quoted it.
No, you did not. I was referring to the first time you used it (unless you are editing your first post as of now ;)).

On the second post, you showed a little more respect since you included a wink, but you still used it somewhat sarcastically “you seem to like it”). Even though I already explained to you that I found it funny, so I did not interpret that as sarcasm.
Anyway, am I discriminating for having a negative (yet non-aggressive or humiliating) opinion on people that have a certain view?
I don’t feel discriminated. I just think it was not educated from your part. You’re not an ignorant person. As such, you may choose your words from a wider variety, and since you chose those words, it may be concluded that you did not want to choose others. That reveals an attitude. But you know better. Don't take my word for it.

I don’t know if you read my posts thoroughly (I know you did not thoroughly read yours ;)), but I already understood why you want to make a distinction. Now I’m really interested in understanding why ethereal and material are so different in nature. To me, they are not.
Well, let's just say generalising can be good and bad. […] I think you, as a writer, would appreciate that too.
As a writer, I only care people to like my work and get paid for doing it according to my success. I can decide to write a “industry standard” best seller wannabe, or I can stick to what I like to write, people’s life intricacies, the use and abuse of power in modern society and what is our generation leaving to the newcomers.

In my country you cannot live from writing, unless you are politically connected, which I am not. As a consequence, I have a second job as an engineer.

I’d never be after imprisoning people by downloading a creation of mine. But I’d like them to pay for it if they like it. Provided such an ideal world does not exist, I have to resort to normal distribution channels, like editorial houses, who have heavy structures, are inefficient and whose purpose is to make money, not to spread the culture.
It is easy to find fair something like that when the money distribution is more biased to the big rich companies that don't really need it instead of the actual artists. With this I of course mean the commercial music industry.
Well, there are big fish in all industries you may think of. With the course of life you end up discovering that governments and legislators are actually driven by corporate or personal interests, and the ones who vote don’t get the expected promises delivered. By the time you get to know this, you are too worried about how to make a life and raise your kids, and don’t have time to battle or to go for revolutionary ideas like in university days.

When you get to finish you homework and your kids don’t need you as a provider anymore, you don’t have the strength to fight. You deserve to live the handful of life left hopefully enjoying it. You leave the task to the young.

And it ends up being a vicious circle. Well, too off topic now, so that’s it.
So you might as well ask a blindfolded monkey to point at a paper with "FOR PIRACY" or one with "AGAINST PIRACY" on it, and you'd have just as much chance to be right. Feel very proud.
Well, I don’t have a monkey at hand but my dog is pretty smart. I showed him your posts and waited to see if he growled or moved the tail.

Guess what he did. You have a 50/50 chance :)

16th November 2003, 23:26

Originally posted by r6d2
Just one thing: The reasoning for making a difference amongst ethereal and material stuff, which as you pointed out before, I don’t understand easily. And in fact I’ve given you some info on why it’s not easy to grasp.

I never said you said I were. ;) mf, please, don’t get into that. We are not playing traps in semantics here.

Just making sure. We all have a language barrier here, and assumption is the mother of all screwups.

Didn’t I tell you? I’m a very ignorant person! Thanks to you, a little less now. English is not my native language, but in Spanish it’s not unusual to use adjectives as nouns in common conversation.

You don’t need to. I’m pretty much aware. And I still think you are not.

No, you did not. I was referring to the first time you used it (unless you are editing your first post as of now ;)).

On the second post, you showed a little more respect since you included a wink, but you still used it somewhat sarcastically “you seem to like it”). Even though I already explained to you that I found it funny, so I did not interpret that as sarcasm.

Ah. Well, I was more hostile when I entered this thread. Through the replies we have interchanged I have gained more understanding and respect for you. So, that's why you didn't get the smiley the first time and did get it the second time :p.

I don’t feel discriminated. I just think it was not educated from your part. You’re not an ignorant person. As such, you may choose your words from a wider variety, and since you chose those words, it may be concluded that you did not want to choose others. That reveals an attitude. But you know better. Don't take my word for it.

Actually, I have some very extreme attitudes, to people as well as to life. I'm usually also very reckless. I try not to show that here now, though (because whenever I don't hide my attitude in an argument, people call me childish).

I don’t know if you read my posts thoroughly (I know you did not thoroughly read yours ;)), but I already understood why you want to make a distinction. Now I’m really interested in understanding why ethereal and material are so different in nature. To me, they are not.

I at least re-read my replies always once. But I guess as I also have other things to do (I've been very interested in this thread though, I really like it), it doesn't really qualify as thoroughly. I also read the posts I reply to twice, once to read it, and once to answer to it.

As a writer, I only care people to like my work and get paid for doing it according to my success. I can decide to write a “industry standard” best seller wannabe, or I can stick to what I like to write, people’s life intricacies, the use and abuse of power in modern society and what is our generation leaving to the newcomers.

In my country you cannot live from writing, unless you are politically connected, which I am not. As a consequence, I have a second job as an engineer.

I’d never be after imprisoning people by downloading a creation of mine. But I’d like them to pay for it if they like it. Provided such an ideal world does not exist, I have to resort to normal distribution channels, like editorial houses, who have heavy structures, are inefficient and whose purpose is to make money, not to spread the culture.

Actually, I've once considered downloading an album and then compensate for it by sending money through the mail. At least you can be sure the artist gets the money :rolleyes:, but it's too inconvenient when living overseas.

Well, there are big fish in all industries you may think of. With the course of life you end up discovering that governments and legislators are actually driven by corporate or personal interests, and the ones who vote don’t get the expected promises delivered. By the time you get to know this, you are too worried about how to make a life and raise your kids, and don’t have time to battle or to go for revolutionary ideas like in university days.

When you get to finish you homework and your kids don’t need you as a provider anymore, you don’t have the strength to fight. You deserve to live the handful of life left hopefully enjoying it. You leave the task to the young.

And it ends up being a vicious circle. Well, too off topic now, so that’s it.

Well, I don’t have a monkey at hand but my dog is pretty smart. I showed him your posts and waited to see if he growled or moved the tail.

Guess what he did. You have a 50/50 chance :)
I'll guess for wagging. :D

r6d2

16th November 2003, 23:51

Originally posted by mf
Ah. Well, I was more hostile when I entered this thread.
Then my dog was right two out of two trys. Didn’t I tell you he was smart? :)
Through the replies we have interchanged I have gained more understanding and respect for you.
Respecting people in advance pays better, IMHO. And it’s free and you are not taking anyone's copyrights! :D

The bad thing is that you cannot download respectfullness from anywhere.
Actually, I have some very extreme attitudes, to people as well as to life. [...] (because whenever I don't hide my attitude in an argument, people call me childish).
Well, wash your mouth with soap and go to your room. :D
I also read the posts I reply to twice, once to read it, and once to answer to it.
And I still don’t have a clue on the ethereal thing ;)
I'll guess for wagging. :D
Nope. You should get a smart dog too. ;)

Kedirekin

17th November 2003, 01:56

I think the main distinction between material and ethereal things in this context is that material things have a significant incremental cost of production. There is a cost of labor and materials to make one more item.

For ethereal things (i.e. information), the incremental cost of production is negligible.

I think this distinction breaks all the existing rules.

As a consumer, I can understand paying for a material thing because it has an incremental cost of production. And yes, I understand that a portion of the price pays for the up-front cost of research and development, but I also expect that prices will go down once this up-front cost is realized (due to competition if nothing else).

But, as a consumer, I don't understand why I have to continue to pay for something that has no cost of production once the up-front costs (and a reasonable profit) have been realized. Why should I have to pay for a Doors song from the 60's? Surely the cost of producing that song have long since been repaid, and then some.

r6d2

17th November 2003, 02:43

Originally posted by Kedirekin
I think the main distinction between material and ethereal things in this context is that material things have a significant incremental cost of production.
You see, that cost is not always significant. For instance, a book priced US$10 can have a marginal cost of production of only $1. Then you have to add the costs of marketing, distribution, comercialization, and taxes.

A music CD can get as low as US$0.5 to produce, and they still charge you US$10.
As a consumer, I can understand paying for a material thing because it has an incremental cost of production. And yes, I understand that a portion of the price pays for the up-front cost of research and development, but I also expect that prices will go down once this up-front cost is realized (due to competition if nothing else).
Well, this actually happens with material things like processors, video graphic cards, refrigerators, TVs, standalone players, etc. Costs go down with volume of sales since the marginal cost usually decreases. But OTOH, prices go down not because the good producer already made his fortune. It's because there's competition. Otherwise he'd keep the price high and just make more money.

Monopolies are bad for consumers because they fix the prices and you cannot enter the market on your own and compete.
But, as a consumer, I don't understand why I have to continue to pay for something that has no cost of production once the up-front costs (and a reasonable profit) have been realized. Why should I have to pay for a Doors song from the 60's? Surely the cost of producing that song have long since been repaid, and then some.
Well, that's an interesing question. The point is that every industry of goods and services, whichever you name, are not driven by the costs anymore. That was so in the beginning of the industrial era. Ford company being the typical case study.

It's said that Henry Ford once said: you can have a car any color you like, but only if it is black.

The competition came in and monopolies had a hard time. As of now, if the entry barreers for a market are low, anyone can enter the arena and compete, providing the same or even better goods at better prices.

But price is not based only in costs. Price is set according to what consumers think is the value for a good. The typical case of "what is the value of a bottle of water in the desert after several days of not having any food or drink". The cost of producing it is the same as in normal conditions, but the price can get very high.

This means that the producer will want to maximize the difference between price and cost and make more money. But, where there is competition, that does not happen easily. Many guys are trying to sell the product, so price is not always something you set yourself, it is driven by the market.

When there's a monopoly, they'll charge you as much as you are willing to pay, balancing the demmand and supply. They study the elasticity of the demand curve to price. If they can sell enough more copies by decreasing the price as to compensate the price tag loss, they lower the price. Else they keep it.

If we use the download and buy approach, and record companies are out of the way, the author is free to charge anything he wants, regardless of the marginal cost of production, which is barely zero.

He can increase the price to buy a new house, to pay for a trip, whatever. He also balances demand and supply, and he competes with other authors, but price has nothing to do with costs.

Kedirekin

17th November 2003, 04:05

I understand everything you're saying, but I think it is wrong. Not inaccurate, but a violation of common decency.

Under the circumstances, I don't believe in charging as much as the market will bear. It's just a polite phrase for profiteering. If I'm in the desert and someone charges me $100 for a bottle of water, I might pay it under duress (to save my life) but I'm not going to be happy about it. And I might just get together with others that were overcharged under duress and try to balance the scales, maybe by downloading some water.

There is a special problem with art - it can never be commoditized. In effect, every artist is a tiny monopoly, charging whatever they want and saying 'if you don't like the price, you don't have to buy it'. Free market presures don't really work under these circumstances, as I think the example in the desert clearly shows.

Which brings me to a point. Copyright laws weren't only created to protect content creators from society, they're also there to protect society from content creators. They're a contract between society and content creators, and at the moment I think technology has broken that contract (in several ways).

Doom9

17th November 2003, 08:52

As far as prices go, I think the industry should consider some radical changes. What do they claim they're loosing? When Napster was shut down in 2001, it was to be relaunched again months thereafter, with a two tiered price model. There was a $19.95 pricetag for unlimited access, and about 10 bucks for limited access (I don't recall the actual limitations). At that time, Napster was clearly the place to download music, so if the service suddenly charged for access, you could either pay up, or go someplace else where the offer is a lot worse (let alone not legal). Nowadays we have what, 60 million Americans who have downloaded music? We have probably the same number of people in Europe, and let's say 30 Million from the rest of the world (maybe I'm completely wrong now, it's just a guess). That's 150 million people. Assume that 50% would pay those 20 bucks. That makes 75mio * 20 = 1.5 billion dollars per Month. How does that compare to the RIAA's made up losses? Now imagine a more differentiated price model. Say the RIAA members inject digitally signed signs and you can only get those for a premium (the signature is a quality guarantee, so some extra value). Plus, you can get access for a low fee, and buy tickets that give you the right to download a certain number of songs (and if you want more, just buy another ticket). Since it's a P2P network, infrastructure and distribution cost is minimal, and you can save on advertising as well because popularity can spread by word of mouth. Now, while the industry hates the thought of not charging for every song, the flatfee model is not uncommon at all. Look at ISPs today.. many charge a flat fee no matter how much you use the service. Or look at all you can eat offers in a restaurant. They're all based on a mix calculation where the ones that consume more than the average are compensated by the ones who consume less than average. I could even imagine a higher price, say 30 or 40 bucks and I'd still pay it in a heartbeat even if I wouldn't use the service a lot at times.
Now let's not forget what Napster was.. it was MP3, so there is no DRM crap and you're free to share with anyone using Napster (since access is for paying members only that's no problem).
Maybe I'm completely off track, but I think people would be willing to pay a certain service fee to have access to the huge music collection available in P2P services, and the music industry would have to do nothing than to cash the check at the end of the month, and instead of loosing money off such services they'd actually make money. I know it's tough to break with an established business model, but modern times sometimes require radical solutions.
I believe that right now the industry's biggest problem is that they are unwilling to move from the established model. They want to charge just as much for a song online as for one on a CD, despite the lower cost, and while you pay as much as for a song on a CD, you don't even have the same rights.. you're restricted to listening to the music on your computer and all the other disadvantages DRM has. It is thus not surprising that many people refuse to go for that model. But if you go for something that they like (MP3 sharing over P2P) networks, chances of success are that much higher. After all, the industry has always been against new technology, and in the end they have embraced it and it turned out that by doing that they could vastly increase their income.

17th November 2003, 10:11

Originally posted by r6d2
Then my dog was right two out of two trys. Didn’t I tell you he was smart? :)

Respecting people in advance pays better, IMHO. And it’s free and you are not taking anyone's copyrights! :D

The bad thing is that you cannot download respectfullness from anywhere.

Well, wash your mouth with soap and go to your room. :D

And I still don’t have a clue on the ethereal thing ;)

Nope. You should get a smart dog too. ;)
You have a bad dog. :p
I did respect in advance. You just messed that up in your first post, and had to clean it up later. Not my fault. ;)
About the ethereal thing: I can only put it like this. Let's say I like your arm. I could ask to buy your arm (and you'd decline), I could rip your arm off with a chainsaw and put it behind glass in my house. (Material theft) I could also cast a plaster copy of your arm, and put that behind glass, or make a picture and hang that on the wall. (Etherial "theft")
In the material example, you would definitely mind my liking of your arm. In the etherial example, you couldn't really care less (I think). You'd probably more likely feel honored than a victim of theft.
If this doesn't make any sense, it's 10 o'clock in the morning, and I haven't had my coffee yet.

Atamido

17th November 2003, 11:13

Originally posted by mf
About the ethereal thing: I can only put it like this. Let's say I like your arm.... I like talking about refrigerators more. :p

fccHandler

17th November 2003, 18:16

Originally posted by Pamel
I like talking about refrigerators more. :p
Yes, and strippers. :p

Originally posted by Doom9
I could even imagine a higher price, say 30 or 40 bucks and I'd still pay it in a heartbeat even if I wouldn't use the service a lot at times ... I think people would be willing to pay a certain service fee to have access to the huge music collection available in P2P services
As an addict, I have about 500 CDs in my collection, and I'm probably the only one here who doesn't think the price of CDs is too high (call me brainwashed by the RIAA). Anyhow I can't imagine paying any amount of money for lossy compressed MP3 or WMA music tracks. To me, this is no way to distribute music. If it were distributed in a lossless format, that would be better, but I'm still going to miss the little booklet with the pictures and lyrics. Many of my CDs are rare and/or out of print, and their personal and sentimental value to me is far and above their material value.

I'm sad about the idea of a world without CDs, but I fear that this is where the battle between the RIAA and P2P will ultimately lead us. :(

Doom9

17th November 2003, 21:09

I'm sad about the idea of a world without CDs, but I fear that this is where the battle between the RIAA and P2P will ultimately lead us. I wasn't suggesting to abandon CDs, but rather to capitalize on a "market" where the music industry currently is not making any money from. There will always be those who prefer a physical support and better quality, but if the downloadable offer is fair and consumer friendly, I think a lot of people might go for it, even the ones who are not particularly keen on paying.

Beastie Boy

17th November 2003, 21:18

There is still the problem of tempting people away from the free P2P networks and onto the 'pay per use' networks. It's one thing to have a good idea and sound business model, but it's quite another to get people (consumers) to agree with your ideas.

If there is still the choice of a free download, a large number (most) people would take it.

Cheers, Beastie.

fccHandler

17th November 2003, 22:27

Originally posted by Beastie Boy
There is still the problem of tempting people away from the free P2P networks
Easy; you just terrorize them with outrageous fines and jail time. ;)

Kedirekin

18th November 2003, 00:16

Or better, you add value, and there's a lot of room for added value.

Doom9 said it earlier - just making it easier to find what you are looking for with some assurance of quality is a huge value add.

They could also make available electronic versions of cover art and liner notes. I believe there are extensions to ID3 that let you embed that sort of stuff right in an MP3.

They could add artist interviews or track commentaries, or any number of things. Consider it extras for music.

r6d2

18th November 2003, 04:35

Originally posted by Kedirekin
I understand everything you're saying, but I think it is […] a violation of common decency.
In the course of life I’ve been amazed by the number of times I have lost my capacity of be amazed by things. You loose your innocence almost an infinite number of times. And yet you still keep a little more. It’s, in a way, like the famous Zeno’s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradox#Achilles_and_the_tortoise) paradox.
I don't believe in charging as much as the market will bear. It's just a polite phrase for profiteering.
Well, you seem to have a bad concept of profit. Or about high profits at least. But profits are the plain and simple engine of the economy as we know it. Profits are not necessarily a bad thing. Profits pay taxes, and taxes are used (or should be used) by the State to provide you with education, health, freedom, crime control, and all the other stuff that fills almost every democratic constitution and allows us to live in a world (hopefully) free from barbarism.

Of course you can claim a profit is too high, since as consumers we always want to pay the minimum possible. But do you know why we consumers act like that? Because we are trying to maximize our own personal profit! Think about it and you'll see that other people have the same right as you do to get as much profit as they can.

But when a industry’s profit is indeed too high? Is there a quantifiable measure of that? Is for instance a 10% sales margin low? On some industries, thanks to volume sales, it is a lot of money. Is 90% margin too high? In others, it doesn’t add as much.

On a free market, profit ends up being the result of supply and demand.
If I'm in the desert and someone charges me $100 for a bottle of water, I might pay it under duress (to save my life) but I'm not going to be happy about it.
Really? Isn’t you life worth US$100 to you? In fact, wouldn’t you be willing to give away all your assets to continue living even if you have to start from zero again? What are assets good for when you are six feet under?

I have had not one, but three car accidents that might have costed my life and which ended up as being total loss of the vehicle in question. My car was only insured in the first 2 of them. On the third one, I just lost it and I was unlucky enough to be the one case in which it was my fault, so I could not even sue for damages.

Personally, after that last accident, I could not care less about putting the debris of my car in the trashcan. I was quite more concerned about the stupid mistake that could cost my life (which in the example could be, for instance, go to the desert without enough water) than about the cost of buying a new car (and have it insured this time:)).
There is a special problem with art - it can never be commoditized. In effect, every artist is a tiny monopoly, charging whatever they want and saying 'if you don't like the price, you don't have to buy it'.
Painting is an art where this is best shown. When a famous painter dies, all his originals get automatically a substantial price increase, since there will be no more of them. But that is supply and demand again. ;)
Free market presures don't really work under these circumstances, as I think the example in the desert clearly shows.
“Pure” free market only works when some absolutely surreal conditions are met: when market is infinite, and when all information is available. You see these two requirements are mutually exclusive. But yet free market quite works, to a general extent.
Originally posted by Doom9
Now, while the industry hates the thought of not charging for every song, the flatfee model is not uncommon at all. […] They're all based on a mix calculation where the ones that consume more than the average are compensated by the ones who consume less than average.
Well, actually the fee has to be higher than the average cost. Otherwise the provider would stay even. ;)

I personally love flat fees. I always think I’m winning :D:D:D. In fact, I’d love to live in an area where Netflix was available. They claim to have 1,000,000 “satisfied customers” (they don’t mention the unsatisfied ones though ;)).

But there’s a catch with currently available flat fees. They have a physical limit. You cannot eat more than your stomach capacity, unless you like the roman orgy style. Netflix also has a limit on the revolving library, so you don’t drain their 15 thousand movie library in a week.

With the downloadable music all-you-can-eat flat fee model, for instance, what you can eat can be really a lot. Roman users would not be the minority anymore and they would increase the average cost, perhaps even beyond the point a flat fee can be appealing to normal users.
Originally posted by mf
You have a bad dog.
I showed him your new post. He is barking real loud now ;)
I did respect in advance.
Well, you said you were hostile when coming to the thread. Hostility is in general not very compatible with respect in advance, according to my dog (3 out of 3?). ;)
Not my fault.
Blaming your faults to third parties is consistent with the go to your room stuff. :D:D:D

Just kidding, I really like your style.
About the ethereal thing: [arm-(aka refrigerator) stuff] and I haven't had my coffee yet.
Quite a good example indeed, but it has a quirk. You’d have to get my permission for the plaster copy, or it would be very rude from your part. Applying to freeloading, you should get the song’s owner permission. Have more coffee ;)
Originally posted by fccHandler
Anyhow I can't imagine paying any amount of money for lossy compressed MP3 or WMA music tracks. To me, this is no way to distribute music.
Would you believe I only learnt in this forum, few months ago, that MP3s are lossy (MPEG-2 in general, actually)? And I still cannot notice it. Well, I’m the kind of guy who buys Chivas Regal but really can’t tell the difference on a blind test. Same thing with Coke and Pepsi. My skills are just good enough to differentiate light-coke form straight coke.
I'm still going to miss the little booklet with the pictures and lyrics. Many of my CDs are rare and/or out of print, and their personal and sentimental value to me is far and above their material value.
Well, you are a collector. Same happens to me with game software. I like those well-designed and appealing boxes in my bookshelf as much as I like to play the games. I have even bought games after having completely played them at a friend's home, just for the boxes.

For music, however, I prefer a slim storage cabinet. (I actually have somewhere a box full of brand new deluxe CD cases with booklets and lyrics and my wife is going to dump them any minute. If you pay for the S&H, you can have them ;))

The good thing of lossy codecs is that you get to decide which quality you are actually able to enjoy best, and avoiding the use of more than needed is a saving, which leaves more free resources for other material. We engineers just can’t avoid optimize anything than comes to our hands. ;)

fccHandler

18th November 2003, 06:25

Originally posted by r6d2
Would you believe I only learnt in this forum, few months ago, that MP3s are lossy (MPEG-2 in general, actually)? And I still cannot notice it.
Yes, I guess I'm a collector though my ears are not the best. I agree with you here, and I usually can't hear any artifacts in good MP3s. But to me it's more of a disgust with the principle of it. I.e., they expect me to pay for music which has been deliberately damaged (solely to conserve their bandwidth)? No thanks. I think the only way I could be persuaded to do that is if there was no other way to obtain the music. Otherwise I'd rather purchase the CD, assuming they'll still be making them.

Arkay

18th November 2003, 06:50

As Neo said in the Matrix Reloaded :

"The problem is choice"..

The RIAA don't want you to have one, the internet gives you one.

When all is said and done in the discussions above regarding copyright law, patents, ethereal "non tangible assets" vs tangible ones, laws from country to country it really doesn't make any difference.

I believe the problem to be far more basic.

It is simply about choice. We all weigh up the pro's and con's in our mind and then we make a choice. Now you need to understand why we made it.

Thinking about this I realise that I make choices based on perceptions. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant. They are all I have to go on.

<Takes off Matrix cap>

My perception of the RIAA and in fact any "Media" industry is that they are arrogant money hungry unrelenting bullies who will stop at nothing to maintain the luxury that they have experienced for so long.

I believe that the majority of people are descent and have common values in their beliefs of fair pay for fair value.

I don't think many in the world would not give what they believed to be of equal worth to the author of a piece of art for the priviledge of experiencing it.

The question for me has always been:

"How much of the money will go to the artist if I fork out 10-15US?"

Knowing that the answer is < $1 (maybe an incorrect perception), coupled with the perception above about the entire industry, leads me to the choice that I will download music (not that I can generally be bothered).

I justify this by realising that yes, it is stealing from the artist (in the case where I would buy the music), and also in the knowledge that I cannot pay the artist directly. But also that I am not stealing from the artist nearly as much as I perceive that the record industry is.

Option 1: As a consumer I have the right to support an industry that I perceive as dishonent and counterproductive with regard to content creation. This by definition of the law is "legal".

Option 2: I also have the right to download my rear off and experience and enjoy as much music as I like for nothing more than my ISP fees.

Morally I believe that the second option is actually better for the artists and myself even if it is illegal, in that eventually the record companies will have to change their ways or better still, be gone forever.

Large fines, jail time and a general heavy handed "we'll stomp on you from a great height" treatment will only continue to exacerbate an already poor perception of the industry and the world will react by abusing it even further.

Breaking the law has consequences, but in all of history I doubt you'll find a society that tolerated a perceived immoral law or a law that was designed to support immoral practices that was instituted by the "powers that be".

Prohibition springs to mind as an example. What we are seeing is a revolt against simple common unfairness and when it all comes out in the wash, although some will pay dearly, the people will win outright, or via a suitable compromise.

Regards,
Arkay.

oddball

18th November 2003, 08:09

It all comes down to one thing in the end. The value of a thing. Whether it be material or ethereal. A rug or an idea. The worth of a thing is determined by it's cost to make in either labour, materials or both.

In ancient times before money was invented you traded. 2 pigs and a goat for a horse etc. The idea of money made it easier for anyone to trade.

Digital makes the value of a thing drop to the point at which anyone can manufacture ethereal goods for next to nothing. Is it's value any less? Good question. Those that created the goods in the first place are expecting to charge the same for something as before the internet became what it is today when anyone can copy the thing for nearly nothing. Trying to keep market control on such things is ludicrous. 99c or in the UK 99p (Everything US is always converted to the numertical equivalent when sold in the UK even though it does not reflect the actual actual exchange rate) for a DRM protected music file is just too damned expensive. Especially when I can go elsewhere and get it for nothing unprotected and probably in better quality too.
These industries got bitten on the backside while they weren't looking and are now in the process of trying to put the genie back in the bottle. Never gonna happen. They put all their eggs in one basket (Cliches galore here) without even comprehending that the world was changing around them. They were too busy mass marketing the Britney's and Aguilera's to check out what was happening. And now they have they are bitching about it and lashing out like a spoilt child in all directions like it's everyone's fault but theirs.

The truth is that the only people being hurt are the little people. Those who work in the lower echelons of these coroporations. As profits fall then job cuts will occur. I feel sorry for them. The people at the top will be less affected. Sure they may have to take a pay cut out of their vast fortunes this year. Might not be able to buy that new home in the sun they wanted. Well boo bloody hoo.

This is a social problem more than anything. People have realised that they don't have to pay out for stuff anymore. They can spend their paycheck on other more important things like the kids clothes etc.

Plus there is a wealth of other entertainment product to choose from now.

I don't think taking everyone to court is going to solve this one. It's rather like speed cameras. People get caught speeding everyday. But has that stopped people from speeding? I don't think so.

Laws need to change for the benefit of the public. Not for corporations own pockets.

mpucoder

18th November 2003, 08:18

Well said, Arkay. It is also interesting to note that the RIAA represents the recording industry, and not the artists. The artists are represented by ASCAP (The American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers), BMI (Broadcast Music, Inc.), and NMPA (The National Music Publishers' Association). These are the organizations that collect royalties for the artists from broadcasters, legally operating nightclub DJ's, and record sales. Although they've been in bed with the RIAA for a long time, they do have a different view of the future of internet music, as evident in their joint statement (http://www.ascap.com/legislation/jointstatement.html) .

I also know many unsigned artists wouldn't mind the demise of the studio system. It worked for a time, but that was a time when it took huge amounts of money to produce and market a song. That's how the studios got their hooks into the artists, because the studios had resources, and (as any investor would) chose their artists carefully. The industry is also full of corruption, although "payola" (the direct payment of money to radio stations for more air-play) and "Cash Box" (a C&W publication that manipulated numbers) are history, there is still an ugly dark side.

Conditions are changing, though, to where it is not beyond the reach of many unsigned, but working, musicians to produce their own recordings, and the internet is the best distribution media for this.

Doom9

18th November 2003, 08:41

But there’s a catch with currently available flat fees. They have a physical limit. You cannot eat more than your stomach capacity, unless you like the roman orgy style. Netflix also has a limit on the revolving library, so you don’t drain their 15 thousand movie library in a week.

With the downloadable music all-you-can-eat flat fee model, for instance, what you can eat can be really a lot. Roman users would not be the minority anymore and they would increase the average cost, perhaps even beyond the point a flat fee can be appealing to normal users.
I don't see that problem. Who cares if you download then thousand songs a month? You cannot possibly comsume them all, can you? So when you download from a P2P network, the music industry has zero cost, and they should calculate their gains by the number of songs people download to listen to.. the rest is irrelevant. In fact, it is even good if you download 10'000 songs but only listen to 10 of them.. the other 9'990 help other people to get faster downloads. Or would you say that if somebody downloads a song but never listens to, he is stealing from the industry? Where is the loss if you never listen to the song? As I've previously said, the loss happens in the moment when you consume something but have no intention of paying the price for it. Downloads itself are not the problem, it's the fact that music is consumed without anybody getting any money for it.
The only one loosing out with the 10'000 songs is your ISP who has to pay for the bandwidth you're consuming. But they could be using P2P caches that have been tried out by certain ISPs earlier this year (and then been shut down again due to pressure from the RIAA).

There is still the problem of tempting people away from the free P2P networks and onto the 'pay per use' networks. It's one thing to have a good idea and sound business model, but it's quite another to get people (consumers) to agree with your ideas.
Well, when Napster was the only usable P2P network, the industry had a huge opening. It took time for alternative networks like Kazaa or edonkey to make an impact. You don't start up a P2P network with millions of songs overnight. So if Napster had suddenly turned payware in the best days, with a reasonable flat fee price, there would've been no alternative, so your "I won't pay anything" user would have had no equivalent alternative. He would either have to cough up the dough, go to an alternative network that has almost no songs, or start buying CDs again. If the price is right, the 2nd option is no real option, and people would pay for the convenience of being able to download as they used to.

To get back at the comparison.. why does the RIAA want us to think downloading = shoplifting? Because they believe that Joe Average considers downloading okay and shoplifting not okay. But I believe that this perception is wrong. I doubt that there are many people who think downloading music is perfectly legal. But because it does not incurr a very physical measurable loss (as I said.. if you have no intention of paying it, the industry only incurrs a virtual loss, they'd never get to see any money), it isn't as evil. But, who hasn't taken something from a store without paying when he was little? We all knew it was wrong, and it was more like a test of courage without the intention of hurting anyone (even though it does). Yet, if you get caught, you'll get away with the slap on the wrist and a call to your parents (and obviously you return the goods or you pay up). The law does make the difference between the two actions. Not only are there entirely different punishments, it is not the same law governing the infraction and it is about different types of goods, so you really cannot equalize it. Lets not forget that the industry knows it cannot be prepared, otherwise they'd try to put it into the same law with the same kind of punishment.. but they are pushing for ridicoulously high fees whereas a shiplifter gets off easy. But because they think the public's perception of shoplifting is "wronger" than of downloading music, they'd like to equalize the concepts, but only w.r.t. the public's perception.

r6d2

19th November 2003, 02:44

Originally posted by fccHandler
they expect me to pay for music which has been deliberately damaged (solely to conserve their bandwidth)? No thanks.
Remember that MPEG-2 video is lossy, so you might be refraining yourself from buying a DVD too. Actually, I’m amazed about the amount of information that can be taken out from a DVD source while converting it to SVCD and still being unable to tell the difference on a typical 4:3 analog TV.

I had this music teacher that used to tell us, students, that the final quality you get from a music system (turntable, needle, amplifier, equalizer, speakers, room characteristics, ears, brain ;)) was equal to that of the worst quality component. You could perfectly screw up a perfect recording with lousy speakers, for instance.

It’s like when you scan an image at 4800 dpi for output on a 600 dpi printer. It makes little sense.
Originally posted by Arkay
Knowing that the answer is < $1 (maybe an incorrect perception)
I don’t know for sure, but in the book publishing industry you are lucky to get 10% of net price tag on your first book. When you are more widely known, you can negotiate 15% and also 20%, but it takes a while to get there. You also get to collect only twice a year, and you cannot audit the figures you are presented. I mean, you could, but it’s too much work for the amount involved.

You just have to trust them. Some editors are widely known for ripping authors and not declaring all sales, so you better stay away from them.

OTOH, really famous authors get a payment in advance and collect for life afterwards, since new editions typically follow up. They also get to choose their publisher and negotiate being “the big fish” this time. I guess the music industry must be similar.
But also that I am not stealing from the artist nearly as much as I perceive that the record industry is.
Perceptions are realities, you are indeed correct, no matter how wrong those perceptions are, and your decisions are based always on what you are. Free translation from Ortega y Gasset, a notorious Spanish philosopher: “I am me and my circumstances”. It means something like “you are what you are, but also with your whole surrounding environment and past experiences.”

But wrong perceptions don’t excuse wrong behavior. Try telling the cop that you perceived the traffic light as green when it was in fact red, and see if you get away from the fine.

I’d rather not say what I’m about to say next without forewarning that I am not on the RIAA’s payroll and that I do not endorse monopolist activities (I’ve said that several times but better safe than sorry) ;)

Suppose the author, a computer illiterate, wants to make a record. He goes to the record company. He is presented with the terms of the deal. He is offered, let’s say, that 10% share. He knows the actual unit cost is much lower than the price tag, but he also perceives the value the publisher adds by promoting, distributing, and commercializing.

He is free to accept or not. The alternative is to promote, distribute and sell himself. He estimates that he can indeed get more than 10% if he does it. But it costs money. He does not know for sure if the album will sell enough copies to get the invested money back. There is a risk involved.

He balances all that and let’s say he chooses for the record company because he probably calculated that he’d spend lots of money and also didn’t want to take the risk. Nobody forced him to that choice.

Would you still say he is being robbed by the publisher? If so, would explain why is he?
Option 2: I also have the right
Do you, really? Would you elaborate who gave you that right? Technology? There used to be a fortune cookie in Unix systems that read: “You would if you could, but you can’t so you won’t, and perhaps you shouldn’t” ;)

The fact that you can do something does not mean you have the right to do so. Someone might be able to kill you, but he has no right to take your life. Has he?
Morally I believe that the second option is actually better [...] even if it is illegal
You may morally pass a red light then if you are in a hurry?

(What if an artist of your sympathies is about to cross the street?) :D
Originally posted by oddball
The worth of a thing is determined by it's cost to make in either labour, materials or both.
What something is worth is not an intrinsic property. Cost is. But value (or worth, assuming we mean the same by that) is completely subjective. To me, a Britney’s record is worthless. An Abba greatest hits is something has a value I’m willing to pay for.

If things were sold at its costs, no profit would be made. Then they sell the stuff at what they think it’s worth, what people is willing to pay. Would you work for less than you think you’re worth? Would you sacrifice the potential profit you might get?
Trying to keep market control on such things is ludicrous.
(I had to look it up since I did not know the exact meaning.)
From Webster’s:
ludicrous: amusing or laughable through obvious absurdity, incongruity, exaggeration, or eccentricity
I cannot agree with you more here. A paradigm shift must be made.
As profits fall then job cuts will occur.
Yes, and this is already happening in several industries. Globalization, fusions, acquisitions and mergers have generated lots of unemployment. It seems that the world is not enough for all of us anymore. We have to create new worlds, or we may have no future.
Originally posted by mpucoder
I also know many unsigned artists wouldn't mind the demise of the studio system. It worked for a time,
That’s the paradigm shift that is about to occur! The net has eliminated the need of many intermediaries, in lots of industries. But Godzilla-like RIAA refuses to get the point, as oddball pointed out so neatly. They just don’t add much value anymore, and they stick to the monopoly stuff.

Thanks to technology, promoting is a lot easier and cheaper. Distributing too. Commercializing is ridiculously cheaper. S&H does not even exist. Now that’s what artists must get to know in order to get rid of parasites that add no value anymore. And the record industry better find a way to add new value instead of harassing citizens.

But that does not change the fact that you have no right to upload a legit copy. ;)
Originally posted by Doom9
I don't see that problem. Who cares if you download then thousand songs a month? You cannot possibly comsume them all, can you?
Well, my friend, I made the analogy understanding you meant that the all-you-can-eat flat fee really meant all you can eat, as those restaurants really are.

In that model, applied to downloading, authors get paid whether you hear the song or not. You just bought the right to be served any number of food-filled dishes to your table, and eat them. You can leave some leftovers, of course, but it would not be educated if you serve yourself several dishes that you do not intend to eat.

Also, you cannot enter a flat fee restaurant, pay for one buffet and ask for an X-large doggy bag to go and feed you up at home for a week. You can use the roman orgy technique while inside, but if you get caught you’d likely not be allowed in that restaurant anymore.

If flat fee restaurants had spitting baskets so you could puke all you have eaten at regular intervals, and a sign outside calling for roman orgy customers (those who eat just for the pleasure of flavors and texture of foods). Since delivering a dish has a cost for the restaurant (paying the author), I guess the flat fee in question would be substantially higher than in normal ones. Don’t you think?

That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry if I did not express it clearly enough.

Also, you cannot enter the flat fee restaurant and pay for 1 buffet, leaving the gang outside, then sit down, open the window and give them their share.

The rules are the rules ;), or the restaurant would go chapter 11.

It’s like happy hours at pubs. You cannot take your girlfriend and ask for 1 drink, second one free (immediately) so you get one for each one at the same time. That is not the idea (and it would be very cheap from you) :)
Or would you say that if somebody downloads a song but never listens to, he is stealing from the industry?
Nope, I already told you that model was a great idea. I still don't see a way to put it into practice though.
The only one loosing out with the 10'000 songs is your ISP who has to pay for the bandwidth you're consuming.
In the all-you-can-eat-and-puke model, the ISP would be like the waiter at the restaurant, who brings you the several dishes you’ll swallow and puke afterwards. He’d allocate to you much more time than needed and other customers he is assigned to would receive a worse service.

Disgusting subject, isn't it? :) May I go back to strippers? :D:D:D

Kedirekin

19th November 2003, 03:03

Saw an interesting interview on TechTV tonight with the creator of magnatunes.com.

At last it looks like someone's trying to do it right.
try before you buy
previews are all 128kbps MP3
no DRM
purchase gives you access to various higher quality formats, including full WAVs
looks like you can pay what you think is fair (I'm not sure all artists/albums let you choose what you pay)
suggested price looks to be $8 (but again, not sure if all artists/album have the same $8 suggested price)
50% of payment goes directly to the artist

Personally, I'd like the suggested price to be a little lower (wouldn't we all) and I'd like to see the artist percentage at 75% or 80%, but at least this is a move in the right direction.

And unlike other sites (MP3.com for example) they don't just carry any artist that submits, so the quality should be higher - like you'd find wandering through a record store.

Of course, the big down side is you almost certainly won't find any big names here, and the selection is pretty limited (due to the small list of artists).

The creator had some interesting things to say.

He mentioned an artist that used to be with a label that sold 20,000 of his CDs, and the artist never got a cent (thanks to a drakonian contract). The artist sued and managed to get the rights to his music back, but still never got a penny. Tell me labels aren't evil.

He also gave some statistics so far
ratio of people that visit site that end up buying - 1 in 53 (about the same as a brick-and-mortar)
ratio of people that download previews that end up buying - 1 in 20
their adding about 20 new artists a month

[Edit] On re-reading this, it sounds like I'm making an endorsement. Just want to say I'm not affiliated in any way with magnatunes.com. I saw the interview and wanted to let people know there's some rays shining at the end of the tunnel.

fccHandler

19th November 2003, 03:20

Originally posted by r6d2
Remember that MPEG-2 video is lossy, so you might be refraining yourself from buying a DVD too.
Good point, but there is a big difference. I'm not sure it's feasible with today's technology to distribute uncompressed digital movies, so we're kind of stuck with MPEG-2 at the moment. (If it weren't for MPEG, I guess we'd still be buying analog laserdiscs.) However, CDs have always been uncompressed PCM, and I hope they stay that way. I just don't want to see them go the way of the LD, to be replaced by a distribution model using lossy compression, because I think it's uncalled for.

On the other hand, I'm the same guy who argued with my roommate a long time ago when my 256MB hard drive was filling up, and he suggested I convert all my beautiful Targa scans to JPEGs. (I came around eventually.) :p

Arkay

19th November 2003, 05:23

r6d2,

Suppose the author, [...] perceives the value the publisher adds by promoting, distributing, and commercializing.

He is free to accept or not. The alternative is to promote, distribute and sell himself. [...] There is a risk involved.

He balances all that and let’s say he chooses for the record company because he probably calculated that he’d spend lots of money and also didn’t want to take the risk. Nobody forced him to that choice

Would you still say he is being robbed by the publisher? If so, would explain why is he?.

Well. Maybe he was forced to that choice because in his circumstance the only option available to him was to go via the marketing and distribution channels of a label. The argument has merit, but in the reverse we also have to look at the fact that 95 percent of artists NEVER get heard because they are rejected by such companies and these companies have such a stonghold on what we as consumers are allowed to see and hear that "self distribution" is almost suicidal in terms or "tangible" assets. i.e. Pressing your own CD's. You can do it but you risk everything. Marketing "etherealy" (is that a word?) however is substancially more cost effective. Maybe that is why the RIAA and the labels are so reluctant to go this way. It's very perceivable that some internet site could come along with a great electronic distribution model and suddenly the labels begin losing what they require most, the artists.

I'm sorry but your argument really makes it sound like the RIAA and labels are really there to help out the little battling artist with no money to produce and market his material. Maybe one day it did work that way. These days the only CD you'll see on a shelf is going to be one that can make the Label money. Not the artist.
The artist is nothing more to them than "product".

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option 2: I also have the right
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you, really? Would you elaborate who gave you that right?

Certainly. I live in a democratic society, by the very nature of it I have the right to choose for myself to take any action I desire whether it be legal, moral or not. I am also the one held accountable for those actions but the right exists none the less.

The fact that you can do something does not mean you have the right to do so. Someone might be able to kill you, but he has no right to take your life. Has he?

Rights just don't seem to make any sense in this debate. What exactly is a right? Sure, I could see my family saying "That guy had no right to kill our son/husband/father". Someone in his family might say he had every right cause I'm a white Caucasian. Rights are also purely based on perceptions and are only applicable when used in conjunction with majority beliefs within a like minded community or society. Try telling Bin Laden he had no right even though I'm sure "we" all believe he didn't.
At any rate, the point was choice, not rights and I do have the right to make a choice, as we all hopefully do.

If the majority of the people within a like minded community are breaking a law because they believe it to be unjust is the law still correct?

You may morally pass a red light then if you are in a hurry?

Well, in Australia any time you are pulled over for a traffic infringment the officer will ask you if you have a valid reason for that infringment. Getting your wife to hospital to have a baby is certainly one that would justify running a red light.

So, yes, there are moral reasons why one might circumvent the law.

Whether you choose to do so or not is a personal choice, one that has consequences. Either way it doesn't change the fact that people will always do what they believe is right for them, legal or not.

My point is, if the labels and the RIAA really want to re-invent themselves and continue to be the worlds supplier of music then they have to change the worlds perception of them. Fining and jailing people isn't going to do that. Let the world see them spend some of those billion dollar profits on pleasing the artists and the consumers, it's the only way we'll ever even begin to think they are worth buying from again.

Cheers,
Arkay

Doom9

19th November 2003, 08:42

Well, my friend, I made the analogy understanding you meant that the all-you-can-eat flat fee really meant all you can eat, as those restaurants really are.

In that model, applied to downloading, authors get paid whether you hear the song or not. You just bought the right to be served any number of food-filled dishes to your table, and eat them. You can leave some leftovers, of course, but it would not be educated if you serve yourself several dishes that you do not intend to eat.

Maybe we should stick to the ISP, where you can actually download stuff for your entire block (or share your connection with the entire block, unless the contract forbids this).
However, in the music model, downloads != percentage. It's like with radio stations. Imagine radio station X broadcasting song Y. The music industry gets a percentage in function of the length of the song, the times they broadcast but also their market share (and not primarily the area they can cover... that would be like counting the number of downloads in a flat fee P2P model). In a flat fee music model, the actual consumption would somehow have to be estimated, and your access fee be distributed to the studios in function of that consumption. Going by downloads only would not be fair because a download could mean a preview in the sense of going to the store. Perhaps you could participate in a feedback program where the music industry gets your top ten songs each month in return for certain special offers (I'm sure they'd like to spy on you without you knowing though). But dividing the fee by downloads is just as wrong as Microsoft considering every PC that is sold without a copy of Windows to be a computer on which an illegal copy of windows is going to be installed.
Downloading a song you won't listen to will neither cost nor should it get the industry something (bandwidth in a P2P network is essentially paid by the people participating), so it's not like in a restaurant where your dish actually has to be prepared. In a flat fee P2P model, the industry could actually take of the advantage that technology has made reproduction both easy and cheap. I believe that the money distribution mechanism could be worked out in a way to reasonably satisfy most participants.

19th November 2003, 09:37

Originally posted by r6d2
There used to be a fortune cookie in Unix systems that read: “You would if you could, but you can’t so you won’t, and perhaps you shouldn’t” ;)
mf@Infernoz:~$ fortune -m would\ if\ you\ could
(fortunes)
%
You would if you could but you can't so you won't.
:D

r6d2

19th November 2003, 16:18

Originally posted by Arkay
Well. Maybe he was forced to that choice
No, he was not forced, that was a fact of the enunciate. Ho chose to go that way because it was cheaper and less risk for him, just like you pointed out in the following paragraph.

He negotiated under unequal conditions, that's correct, but that happens in many other industries as well. See the job market, for instance, when you have been out of a job for a while and there is high unemployment. Or see the small furniture manufacturer when he tries to put his products in a Keymart. It's always about power differences, not about the RIAA alone, and that is a "feature" of mankind, not a "privilege" of the labels.

Labels are after money. They filter out most of authors, but believe me, if they were sure a new author is going to be a hit, they'd sign him immediately. It's the risk what they are trying to control there, not discriminating or censoring author because they consider themselves a superior being when it comes to music. They actually may consider an artists sucks as a musician, but if he sells, they'd sign him.

If they don't clearly see their investment may be returned, they don't finance it. Banks do the same. If you have no good credit, they lend you no money. A new artist does not have a credit history, it is a high risk operation.
The artist is nothing more to them than "product".
Even worse than that. It's an item on the bill of materials. But I think it always was that way, and the old model worked for many years, it is not a recent attitude. Now that is about to change.
Certainly. I live in a democratic society, by the very nature of it I have the right to choose for myself to take any action I desire whether it be legal, moral or not.
In a democratic societey, your rights end where other people's rights begin. You are mixing "ability to" or "possibility of" with "right to", and they are very different things.
I am also the one held accountable for those actions but the right exists none the less.
No, you cannot be held acountable for exercising correctly your rights.
Rights just don't seem to make any sense in this debate.
This debate has a lot to do with rights. Copyrights in particular.
Someone in his family might say he had every right cause I'm a white Caucasian.
You are now mixing rights with reasons or motivations.
Rights are also purely based on perceptions and are only applicable when used in conjunction with majority beliefs within a like minded community or society.
Every society has his own bill of rights. The wars on the past century convinced humanity to make a statement about Human Rights, for instance, and it took mankind several millena to do that.

Now most part of the world agrees on that and if a State does not respect them he gets sanctions (which range from moral to more practical). For one, you're are not invited to parties no more.
Try telling Bin Laden he had no right even though I'm sure "we" all believe he didn't.
He had no right to violate those people's right to live. He had his reasons, and maybe he thought he had the right to avenge or take justice by his own hands. But that is the sort of things that happen when people does that. That's why we have international courts. To preserve everybody's rights.
At any rate, the point was choice, not rights and I do have the right to make a choice, as we all hopefully do.
You have the right to make a choice, correct, but not to bypass other people's rights whith your choice. You're not omnipotent.

Your statement makes "right" everything imaginable, and that's not the way it works. I already gave you the murder example and could give you others, but I think that if you think every other one has the right to murder you for whatever reason, it would be pointless.
If the majority of the people within a like minded community are breaking a law because they believe it to be unjust is the law still correct?
Nope, but it's still the law. What citizens do in a democratic society is to have that law changed. If they don't have the power to make the government to work for them, they vote another government.

And the majorities, even when they are right about something, have to respect the minorities. Otherwise society resents it very much.
Well, in Australia any time you are pulled over for a traffic infringment the officer will ask you if you have a valid reason for that infringment.
Glad to hear that. I hope our cops would be that considered. Maybe this is a little off-topic, but it is a good one:

A guy speeding was being chased by a cop in another car. He run and run, but was finally caught. The officer said:
-You know, you gave me a good fight, and it's almost the end of my shift, so I'll give you a chance. If you give me a reason I had never heard before, I'll let you go.
The guy thought of it for a while and said:
-My wife run away with a cop last week. I thought it was him, who was trying to give her back.
The cop let him go.
So, yes, there are moral reasons why one might circumvent the law.
Yes, eventually, but not sistematically. If laws were "morally optional" all the time, they would not have a reason to exist. They would be just like good manners.
Fining and jailing people isn't going to do that.
I quite agree.

DDogg

19th November 2003, 17:32

This may have been mentioned before. If so, pardon, but something like this is what the publishers are terrified of and seems to me the answer anyway:

"The difference between Mercora (founded by former president and CEO of McAfee.com) and existing for-pay online music services is subtle. With iTunes and Rhapsody, the operators license songs from record labels and independent artists and then sell those songs to individual users. Mercora, by contrast, will simply provide the technological means by which labels and artists can themselves sell digital songs to individual Internet users."

r6d2

20th November 2003, 01:04

Originally posted by Doom9
Going by downloads only would not be fair because a download could mean a preview in the sense of going to the store.
Not exactly. It would be more like you going to the store, take the CD home, and retuning it after trying it or else send the check by mail.

In most disk shops you can actually buy CDs for a gift, for instance, and have the guy who received it change it for another one, no questions asked (didn't like the band, already had it, wanted another one badly, etc.). But it has to be returned sealed as shipped.

I really like your model though, so I'd like to suggest some ideas that come to mind to see if it can get more feasible.

What if trial downloads are encoded with radio quality? Industry would not suffer much, because users can also record from live sources and they don't get a penny. Drawback: trial downloads would be crippled, as would also be the case with short song clips or watermarks.

What if trial downloads are "perfect" 160kbps quality? To emulate the store listening mode, a "Mission Impossible" encoding could be made (self-destruct after 5 seconds). Or an encrypted version playable by a custom player, which can be decrypted by registration.

They might even have a WAV alternative, to satisfy customers like fccHandler, and with ready to print TGA or PNG lossless booklets and lyrics. ;) Gee, that would even create a market for my deluxe CD cases. :D

What do you think?
as wrong as Microsoft considering every PC that is sold without a copy of Windows to be a computer on which an illegal copy of windows is going to be installed.
Yes, you're right about that. You made me wonder why the automobile industry has not considered selling engineless cars so you can buy the one you like best.

kaosphere

20th November 2003, 05:45

Downloading V.S Shoplifting.

Shoplifting:
You are physically there, and under the watchful eye of the store clerk/security camera, you know if you get caught you are screwed. Possible permanent police record(18+) and court date.

Downloading:
You are not physically present, it's done through computer/internet, and you know you "most likely" won't get cought since nobody is policing newsgroups, p2p that closely(yes RIAA is lurking around p2p networks, but think it as a huge department store with only 1 loss prevention officer).

In reality, even a store with security camera, clerks/staff stil lose quite a bit of mechandise due to shoplifting annually. Of course even more people will download since it's like a unattended store.

Ridgeback

20th November 2003, 05:46

Apparently Paul McCartney is sitting on a personal fortune of £600 million.

Well i for one don't give a rats arse how much pleasure he's brought to peoples lives. It doesn't warrant a personal fortune of £600 million,(theres people starving in the world)and I'll bet he gets his personal army of clever little accountants to help him wriggle out of paying the taxes he ought to.

fccHandler

20th November 2003, 06:26

Why the sudden attack on Paul McCartney? Everyone else here was complaining that artists make too little from their work. I don't blame Paul for being rich; the man has been making music for forty years. Just think of how much money the record companies made from Paul's music!

Neo Neko

20th November 2003, 08:23

Originally posted by r6d2
Yes, you're right about that. You made me wonder why the automobile industry has not considered selling engineless cars so you can buy the one you like best.

It's quite simple really. There are several car manufacturers just as there are several PC manufacturers. But where as several car manufacturers actually build their own engines or have them made by external affiliates(IE no one cental engine manufacturer with 95% market share) in the PC market one company does have 95+% controll of the OS used on those machines. In the auto industry there is a healthy balance and competition. In the PC industry it is very unhealthy. Oh and the reason no one sells cars without engines is the reason that basically no one sells PC without OS. There is not much market for such a thing. Sure you have guys like myself building computers from components. Then again you have guys doing the same thing with cars. Which means we can pick and choose exactly what goes into them. But where you can go to a physical dealership and actually pick out a vehicle including engine type(Would you like a hemmi with that dodge?) there are no major computer shops that sell IBM PC computers installed with anything but windows. And do you know why? If any one of these snotty little Major PC retailers get to cocky thinking they can sell computers with something other than Windows. Microsoft will give them a quick kick in the pants by increasing their licensing costs for each windows install to a point where the company struggles to stay afloat. I know of only one other real world group that behaves consistantly in such a fashion. Mafia inc. Microsoft is the software Mafia complete with hired goons. The RIAA is the hired goons for the Music Mafia. The MPAA is the hired muscle for the Movie Mafia.

for a fun read http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/joke/crash.htm and http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/article09-015

Sirber

20th November 2003, 15:25

I *love* the crash link :D

Funnylink

21st November 2003, 00:01

If you download the music you wouldn't of payed for the 14 doller cds in the first place because a music cd isnt worth that much. If I really wanted a song and its on this 14 doller cd im not going to buy it in the first place!

21st November 2003, 11:11

Originally posted by Neo Neko
But where you can go to a physical dealership and actually pick out a vehicle including engine type(Would you like a hemmi with that dodge?) there are no major computer shops that sell IBM PC computers installed with anything but windows. And do you know why? If any one of these snotty little Major PC retailers get to cocky thinking they can sell computers with something other than Windows. Microsoft will give them a quick kick in the pants by increasing their licensing costs for each windows install to a point where the company struggles to stay afloat. I know of only one other real world group that behaves consistantly in such a fashion. Mafia inc. Microsoft is the software Mafia complete with hired goons. The RIAA is the hired goons for the Music Mafia. The MPAA is the hired muscle for the Movie Mafia.
A friend of mine who works in a pretty big PC Retailer chain (they provide PCs for schools and companies as well as have multiple stores in NL) says they solved it very easily. They signed a contract with Microsoft saying that all sold Paradigit (the name of the store) Computers are shipped with windows. What's not in the contract is that they also sell Flex PCs (Note that the name is different), which are not mentioned in the contract, which are identical computers (with the same technical support and warranty), but, guess what; without an OS on them. :D

WanHunLo

22nd November 2003, 21:02

Hi,

I dont agree with kazza sharing being as bad as shoplifting. No way is it. Kazza sharing is no worse than taking a CD round to your mates and leaving it with him. He could then copy it just like a kazza user could. What is the difference?

But actually going into a high street shop and lifting something of the shelf and putting it in your pocket. Evading cameras and looking around for the right moment when no one is looking. Leaving the shop without paying. Come on guys lets be real, there not the same.

Lots of these users on kazza are kids. Some of them probably not 100% sure what there doing. I've noticed people sharing there entire hard drive.

To me kazza is like a trial. I hate mp3's, I dont like the sound. I'm a vinyl junkie at heart and cds are second. If I download a mp3 of kazza and i like it, i will go out and buy the lp or cd. But if its crap then it just gets deleted. To me kazza is a useful tool to search for good music.

fccHandler

23rd November 2003, 05:55

Originally posted by WanHunLo
Kazza sharing is no worse than taking a CD round to your mates and leaving it with him. He could then copy it just like a kazza user could. What is the difference?
If you leave your CD at your mate's, then he can make a free copy (or two) for himself. But if you share your music on Kazaa, then millions of people can make free copies.

Mug Funky

23rd November 2003, 17:42

(disclaimer: i've not read the last 2 pages or so)

a question about physical and "ethereal" (oh, and by the way, Einstein discovered the equivalence of matter and energy, both very PHYSICAL quantities. he certainly did not discover a relationship between physical and ethereal)

is a 2nd hand dealership now a dirty pirate? it occurs to me that one can buy a 2nd hand fridge and the manufacturuer doesn't get a cent (well, unless the fridge was sent back to be fixed). same with cars, and houses. the builders don't get paid each time a new tenant comes in, nor the architect. and what a world it would be if everytime you moved you had to build a brand new house. there'd be an abundance of empty houses and not much land left anywhere.

so why aren't builders and architects up in arms about their lost income? why hasn't the master builder's association paid off MPs and the like, and made rediculous pantomomies to show school kids about the evils of renting?

society long ago learnt to deal with this kind of trade, but we've yet to catch up on "ethereal" goods. i confess i don't have the solution, but i think it's irresponsible and unreasonable to punish file sharing so harshly until we know what impact it really has.

i realised the other day that for some of the penalties for filesharing ($150,000 per song?) you could in fact buy the rights to use that song as a sample and release your own music.

Originally posted by fccHandler
If you leave your CD at your mate's, then he can make a free copy (or two) for himself. But if you share your music on Kazaa, then millions of people can make free copies.

hmm... do all p2p users really have millions of people downloading off them?

23rd November 2003, 19:32

Originally posted by Mug Funky
hmm... do all p2p users really have millions of people downloading off them?
No, but that's the whole thing with multiplication.

you
|
_____|____
/ \
user 1 user 2
___|___ ___|___
/ \ / \
user 3 user 4 user 5 user 6
Etc. With a popular song this usually happens with the person that gets his hands on it and puts it out for download first. For quite some time only a few versions of a song are available, shared by hundreds.

r6d2

24th November 2003, 01:41

Originally posted by Mug Funky
(disclaimer: i've not read the last 2 pages or so)
Mmm... IMHO, It would be in the best interest of the subject at hand that you read everything on this thread in order not to repeat stuff that has been left behind.
Einstein discovered the equivalence of matter and energy, both very PHYSICAL quantities. he certainly did not discover a relationship between physical and ethereal)
Of course both matter and energy are physical things, otherwise they would not be equivalent, would they?

But the point is that the equivalence amonsgt them was not known to mankind, was it? They were considered quite different things before his discoveries.

I don't want to dig further into the topic, but this (http://www.physicsweb.org/article/world/15/7/2) page, very interesting reading, tells how the concept of enegy has evolved. Just to get the point straight, energy was considered equivalent to force and power, and "obscure and uncertain". Kepler considered it something similar to a soul (pretty ethereal, eh?) ;)

Which I sustain, and have tried to support with analogies and examples, is that there is no such a "natural intrinsic property" which is different amongst ethereal and material things when it comes to music. Things that are indeed ethereal, like rights, also need to be protected.

As a person, you have several rights. Freedom of speech, for instance, you probably would not fall into poverty if taken away from you, but you certainly'd be less rich, in a sense, to provide mankind with your wits.

Something similar happend with the copyright, which protects the owner's right to distribute his creation at will.

Maybe a new Einstein will come up and provide us with a theory to support the equivalence of CDs and MP3. For the sake of argument, and for the time being, I'd just ask to consider them equivalent, and respect the author's decision on how to distribute his creations. In other words, respect his rights.

dsfdsaonlynameleftphuck

24th November 2003, 09:52

like the thread, good read, and excellent points by all.

as far as what's going to ultimatly happen to the music industry, im just waiting for the whole cd vs p2p thing to just blow over. when the dust settles, i'd like to see the fall of most major record lables as they are today. in their place a couple sites/p2p that have a flat monthly fee. to make them more appealing than free p2p, add more content: high bitrate/quality, pictures, good deals on concert tickets or merchendising, "good" id3 tags. Also, put a customer number in an id3 tag to prevent casual sharing (by the stupid) artists' get about 60% of total revenue (more dl's = more $). the rest is used as capital for marketing, setting up concerts. allow (almost) any artist to post their albumns or songs for download.

The eutopia of fair artist comensation coupled with free/cheap music does not exist yet. so in the meantime here is what i do:

download from p2p, buy cd's(very rare), go to shows (rarer than i'd like), buy merchendising of artists

Each method of music delivery has its own pros and cons, which should be obvoious. Eventhough i <deleted>, i feel justified and i feel the artists get paid fairly in the end. (and will be paid very fairly by everyone within 5 years or so, if i get my way above:) )

-And now movies

I'll start by saying the movie industry is in a lot better shape than the music industry. I think little will(needs to) change, at least for a while. They will always make their huge profits at the box office, and then make even more with dvd/ppv/hbo/cable/network tv releases. I also like how dvd prices actually come down somewhat (at least for bad movies). What i dont like is the exorbinate prices of series/season dvd's (but i guess thats not the movie industry so i'll leave it at that.)

Something i dont like is that movies are way too over-marketed, ticket prices are too high, A-list actors are way over paid, and A-list actors are over-idolized.

Mostly these shortcomings are the fault of the consumer. Don't buy into marketing hype, don't tune into any awards shows, cancel your subscribtion to "people", see less movies in the theater (you can't wait 6 months, come on:D ) and buy/sell used dvd's.

also, same priciples can be used on recording industry.
</rant about stupid consumers

thanks for reading, and listen to me too:D :devil: :sly:

edited for rules (thanks wilbert)

Wilbert

25th November 2003, 15:54

download from p2p, buy cd's(very rare), go to shows (rarer than i'd like), buy merchendising of artists

Each method of music delivery has its own pros and cons, which should be obvoious. Eventhough i download mp3's, i feel justified and i feel the artists get paid fairly in the end.
Have a look at the forum rules (rule 6). Since you are new here I only give a warning, but this is not the right place to discuss that here.

Doom9

26th November 2003, 12:27

I've been thinking about the analogy a little longer.
As you know by now, I'm more than convinced that there's no analogy to be made, and that those who want to made it aren't playing straight because they want you to feel as a criminal, yet the punishment is completely different for a shoplifter and a P2P user.

Now, following the RIAA partyline, let's consider this scenario: Take a music store that just happens to be closed today. Now we have some person taking a crowbar and break into the store (assume there's no alarm system). The person then puts out a sign saying free CDs for everyone. Now let's also assume there's no involvement of concerned citizens and no cops. Thus, the guy with the crowbar is similar to a guy offering downloads from his extended music archive via a P2P service (let's forget that while you can endlessly duplicate MP3s, you can't do the same with the CDs in the store).
Now, the people coming in taking CDs are like downloaders (according to the industry's definition of course).
Now, the day after, the store owner returns and reports the whole thing to the police. Let's assume we can ID whoever broke into the store and who took which CD(s). Now, how are you going to distribute the blame and which person gets which sentence? Does the guy breaking in have to pay for the entire loss because he opened the door? In that case, do the ones who took the CDs walk? That is what the industry is trying to do now.. have the one with the large P2P archive pay the bill for whatever downloads they figure were made (and they try to get around having to proove the actual damages). Or, will the guy breaking in sentenced for breaking and entering and soliciting criminal actions (by putting up the sign) and will the people taking CDs be sentenced for theft (they'd probably get away with a fine)? Since the ones taking CDs have been shoplifting and the law defines a punishment for this kind of action, obviously the guy breaking into the store should not be sentenced for what others did, right? So, in the end everybody would have to go to court. But, in the virtual world, the guy breaking into the store has to pay for everything, and since damages cannot reliably be established, he might be fined a lot more than the actual damage he created.
So, you have yet another example why the two things cannot be compared. We have once again a situation where the law handles shoplifting completely differently than downloading or offering of songs on a P2P network.

mpucoder

26th November 2003, 14:59

In this analogy the people taking the CDs made available by someone else breaking and entering the store would be receiving stolen property.

fccHandler

26th November 2003, 17:04

Instead, let's say the guy carefully gains entrance to the store without breaking anything, and sets up a whole bunch of CD burners. He spends the day making thousands of copies for everyone in the neighborhood. At the end of the day, he carefully sneaks out again. When the store owner comes back, he doesn't know a break-in occured, but his business falls off dramatically because his customers all got free copies from the thief.

Later, the owner hears about what happened from his buddy next door. The police are able to track down the thief from his fingerprints, and they make him pay for all the potential business the owner lost, even though he lost no physical merchandise.

Doom9

26th November 2003, 17:24

In this analogy the people taking the CDs made available by someone else breaking and entering the store would be receiving stolen property.I don't think so. After all.. the guy who broke in didn't hand out anything.. he put up a sign, then left. People going in and taking without paying had to know they're doing something illegal.. since kids we know that you can't just take something in a store unless you're being offered something (or unless there's a big sign saying "get your free cookie here").

@fccHandler: that's a good twist. Here we are in a situation very similar to P2P with no physical loss. But imho the lost business would have to be calculated taking into account the likelyhood of the people receiving free CDs to actually pay for them. Because if everybody has to return his or her CD, not all those will go to the store to buy a legit copy. Leaving the loss calculations aside for a minute, it's pretty much how the music industry has been handling these kind of things until now. Sue the users with thousands of songs. So, by doing that they've pretty much cemented the fact that no shoplifting has been done, because the people who got their free CDs were at best guilty of receiving stolen goods. It just remains to be seen whether those people accepted the stolen goods knowing that they were stolen (in which case there's going to be a fine) or unknowingly (in which case they might get off with a slap on their wrist). Clearly, we here could not claim we didn't know those gifts were legit because we know better (and I'm not sure if I would believe anyone claiming that by downloading the latest top ten for free the downloader doesn't have a clue that those songs shouldn't be free, they'd have to be darned convincing).

Kedirekin

26th November 2003, 18:25

I've been seeing this "# of downloads does not equal revenue loss" argument more and more in the popular media, and I've always completely agreed.

There's a ton of music out there I'd like to have, but I've never been willing to pay $16, or even $10, for it. So if I copy a CD that I'd never purchase at their price, how much money has the record label lost? By my estimate, that would be none.

And I'd like to go on record - I'm not a downloader. Like Doom9, I find it too much of a hassle (especially considering I'm on dial-up). Except for a brief couple of days trying Napster when it was a 'new thing', I'm just not interested.

I also don't buy CDs and haven't for about 15 years - ever since the median price went above $10. I've been boycotting for 15 years and it hasn't done squat - I'm overjoyed that all of this is happening. Hopefull it will result in a change, preferably the complete abolishment of license-grabbing record labels. I think a lot of the problems we're having wouldn't exist if artist kept the license to their music, and licensed it to multiple labels thereby forcing a little competition.

I'm anxiously waiting to see how the courts respond to the revenue loss arguments.

fccHandler

27th November 2003, 05:58

That brings up a really gray area: motive. A shoplifter who steals a CD from a music store has a very clear motive, to get the CD without paying for it. No one would argue that this person should be punished for his actions.

But I suspect that a lot of people who download music do it simpy out of curiosity, or the perceived thrill of getting something for nothing. They might listen once or twice, then delete the songs later. But are they still buying CDs, or just buying less?

Suppose P2P suddenly ceased to exist. As I see it, the P2P users now have three mutually exclusive options (depending on their real motive):

- Start buying CDs
- Start shoplifting
- Stop listening to new music

jarthel

27th November 2003, 06:04

how is p2p any different from a bank employee wire transfiring money to his Swiss bank acct? There are no actual material theft. just 0s and 1s moving across the wire. Also when this person buys stuff, he doesn't go to an ATM and withdraw money. He uses a card where again 0s and 1s from his bank acct move to the bank acct of the shop.

The 0s and 1s when he did the wire transfer has value to the bank where he work. I assume that the in the case of music, the 0s and 1s has value to the artist who made the music.

any difference?

Doom9

27th November 2003, 08:21

@jarthel: there are worlds of differences: If somebody transfers money from my account when I get my monthly statement (which I can only get on paper if I pay extra by the way.. banks really want to go all virtual), I'm out some money. It doesn't matter that this money was transferred to me from my employer via online banking, nor that it was transfered out electronically. If your balance is positive, you can at all times go to the bank and get your statement's worth in good old fashioned dollar bills (or Euros, Yen, Swiss Franks, Pounds, etc.).
Now if I download a song on a P2P network, the artist's account balance has not decreased, has it? In fact, chances are that nobody would ever find out and if it's a song that I'd never buy in my life (say from the latest Britney Spears album... btw if you're concerned now.. I'd never buy or download such music), I certainly didn't lower Britney's account balance.
The difference between bank accounts and music is that you cannot duplicate the account balance. The money is taken somewhere and goes somewhere.. you cannot create it (unless you're really good at hacking). But you can make a thousand copies of an MP3. You are neither creating nor destroying value by doing that, nor are you moving the value from point A to B (as done by the wire transfer).

@fccHandler: I'd guess we'd have people in all three categories despite the music industry wanting the public to believe that all people are in category 1. Everybody I know using P2P tools would never buy all the stuff they download (that doesn't make it right but shows that not everybody is in category 1).

r6d2

28th November 2003, 01:38

Originally posted by Doom9
I don't think so. After all.. the guy who broke in didn't hand out anything.. he put up a sign, then left. People going in and taking without paying had to know they're doing something illegal.. since kids we know that you can't just take something in a store unless you're being offered something (or unless there's a big sign saying "get your free cookie here").
And since grownups we know that P2P is violating the copyright, unless the author has decided to give away the material for free.

You know, Doom9, I always get surprised by your comments. You are indeed aware of the authors right to exclusive distribution (with no limitations allowing uploading of legit copies), and you insist in sort of legitimize P2P under the concept of “no one is out anything”.

You have even said you'd do P2P yourself if there was a Fast4U tool.

You are right to an extent, since not all potential losses can be charged to the uploader, but money is not the only important thing.
@fccHandler: that's a good twist. Here we are in a situation very similar to P2P with no physical loss. But imho the lost business would have to be calculated taking into account the likelyhood of the people receiving free CDs to actually pay for them.
I like the new analogy twist. There is not actual physical loss.

Let’s have another twist. Suppose it is not about getting burned “trial” versions. Suppose there are no CDs whatsoever. Suppose it is not a store but a theatre, and that the artist is doing a live show. The interested potential customers manage to enter without paying the ticket, and stay till the end. Did they produce a money loss to the artist? Or there is not actual physical loss either?

You may say no, since they wouldn’t have paid to see that show anyway. But then why did they managed to get it for free, if they did not want it? Did they even have the right to do that? If the artist could not collect his money, doesn’t he have the right to collect afterwards by tracking the ID tags?

IMHO, he has. The problem is that it is probably not worth the expense. Go to each guy’s home, insist if he refuses, sue them for just the ticket value...

Isn’t P2P just like getting a fake ticket to the show and pass as a good citizen?

The alternative the author has is to use tougher security in the next live show, by hiring some gorillas to stop the “showlifters”. That would be a greater cost, and he would probably increase the ticket value next time, “to stay even”.

So, well-behaved citizens will pay the cost for those ill-behaved. And the artist pays the political cost of projecting the image of a greedy, brute-force oriented and probably mafia-like guy.

Why should they pay those costs? If people respect other people’s rights, then indeed, no one would be out anything.
As you know by now, I'm more than convinced that there's no analogy to be made, and that those who want to made it aren't playing straight because they want you to feel as a criminal
I seem to be one of those who like to make analogies, and I think I am playing straight. According to Webster's online dictionary:
criminal: relating to, involving, or being a crime.
crime: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law
If you know you are breaking the law, what is the definition of criminal that relieves you from being one?
yet the punishment is completely different for a shoplifter and a P2P user.
Is the punishement what needs to be changed to match better the ofense and be more realistic or is it the definition of crime?

jarthel

28th November 2003, 02:30

Originally posted by Doom9
You are neither creating nor destroying value by doing that, nor are you moving the value from point A to B (as done by the wire transfer).

Let say Metallica is my favorite band and I see their old album on P2P. If I download the album, I'm moving/creating something valuable to my HDD. As I said, I like Metallica.

fccHandler

28th November 2003, 07:46

Originally posted by jarthel
Let say Metallica is my favorite band and I see their old album on P2P. If I download the album, I'm moving/creating something valuable to my HDD. As I said, I like Metallica.
In principle, your are simply arranging some existing bits on your HDD to duplicate a pattern you viewed from afar. Nothing was moved, created, nor destroyed (just transformed). But the value of this new bit pattern is a tangible thing to you because you are a Metallica fan.

@Doom9: At the risk of losing my last shred of credibility, I happen to love Britney Spears. Let's go back to picking on Paul McCartney. ;)

spuddog

28th November 2003, 23:55

I have been reading this thread for several days and there have been many good points on both perspectives.
But, there is one in-escapable fact p2p and file sharing exsists and is not going away. there record and movie industry is trying to use laws passed before the techknowlegy was developed to convince the general public that file shareres are criminals.

I am older (50 +) so I have purchased the same music in records, 8 Track, cassette, and cd.

I am not opposed to paying, but some the cd's cost more that the records when they were releasd 30 yrs ago.

also, you cannot obtain some of the music from legit sources at any price. I recently tried to find traveling wilbury 1. it is out of print

the music industry must give the customer a better product or they will lose out.

DickSpeed

18th May 2004, 17:04

Originally posted by Prettz
Let's get one thing straight. Offering music, video, or commercial software of any kind on any kind of filesharing network IS, in fact, against the law. There's just no way you can argue around that basic fact.

Not true. I make music, but not the way the recording industry would like to sell it, so I offer it on filesharing networks and websites for free in the hopes that someone somewhere will listen to it, and enjoy it. It would really be awesome if someone told me they liked it. If they paid me for it too, then even better. So far though, the most I've gotten is 'worth the download' (from an pro) which I'm still rather proud of. When I made my own work available, was that against the law? It may reduce the value of the content they're charging for, so maybe I am in their pockets - you think?!

Or maybe they're in my pockets for charging $18 per cheap-to-make CD for 20 years or so in a (proven) price-fixing scheme. Which of us is more wrong? The one without all the lawyers, of course. And don't take at face value the argument about compensating the artists who create what we enjoy. The industry already has them under control, and pays them around $1 per copy, usually. That's for the whole group. At $11-$18 a disc, someone's making a lot more than the artists are. Artist Compensation = Red Herring? You decide - I'm just trying to make you think.

Regarding Jack Valenti's recent rebuke of HR107, his arguments are (1) circular (backing up should be illegal because it is illegal), (2) wrong (backups are not necessary) despite his further arguments that discs are so-o-o indestructible, but scratches happen. Is he offering to replace any damaged discs free or cheap? No, we need to buy replacements at 'ever-decreasing prices' in the market. The only place I've heard of decreasing disc prices is for blanks. Or if you're in Russia they'll be no more than $10 soon for DVD's from at least one studio, in response to piracy they say. So is it really impossible to compete with piracy on price, or is that just what us 'wealthy' americans are supposed to think? Don't they know we have a big government to support thanks to lobbyists like them, and we can't afford to spend all our money on a complete new media library every ten years when cable or satellite, rentals, and an improving internet will fill the need for entertainment more economically, with somewhat different dynamics of pricing and choice? Especially if you have a TiVo. (3) His argument that 'hacking' creative material imperils the future home video market, really is saying it imperils their existing standard of distribution, which relies on killing trees and refining oil to make the physical aspect of their delivery system, compared to the efficiency of digital distribution online. But if this argument is valid, then 3D and gaming should also be illegal, if they imperil the future home video market right?

And what is the future of home video? Will it include better audio, more features/angles/choices, or even full interactivity in the case of a game, or will it continue to be a passive experience at current quality? Will it evolve if Jack and Cary have their way, or will they keep charging price-fixed rates (oops, they quit that after they got caught, right) for plastic discs once the rest of the world has already evolved to gaming or 3D? Are we wrong to hope that they will lead the industry to something new and better like the rest of us have to do in our jobs, or do we owe them wealth for entertaining us? Historically, wealthy artists are a 20th century phenomenon. Like inflation, deficit spending, terrorism (foreign only, governmental terrorism is classic), teenage pop stars, cold wars, and communism. :devil: I'm not saying artists shoudn't get paid for their work, but if it's their job, and if they like making music, then make music, and keep doing it. No artist is guaranteed lifelong income based on one work of art. Artistic taste and perceived value as well as many other factors affect the market they must deal with, like the rest of us, in order to earn money. Anyone can P-Diddy a bunch of beats together and make a CD, today. It's no guarantee anyone will like it, unless you have the backing of a monopolistic industry association and favorable legislation to protect that monopoly.

Shouldn't an industry with that much power and foresight be able to anticipate the digital revolution and adapt to it, like the rest of us? Are they somehow above the laws of basic economics?

r6d2

18th May 2004, 17:47

Originally posted by DickSpeed
Not true. I make music, [...] When I made my own work available, was that against the law?Of course not. You, as the author, decided to give away your work for free. You chose your method of distribution, exactly as the copyright law grants you the exclusive right to do so.

If all artists decide to give away their work for free, there would not be a place in the market for the record industry. It is arguable if that altruistic attitude from the artists would preclude or enforce the creation of new good content. Some say it would, others say no way.
Are they somehow above the laws of basic economics? No, they are not, and they probably lack the ability to adapt and create a new form of add value in their portion of the chain.

DickSpeed

18th May 2004, 19:26

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Prettz
Let's get one thing straight. Offering music, video, or commercial software of any kind on any kind of filesharing network IS, in fact, against the law. There's just no way you can argue around that basic fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not true. I make music, [...] When I made my own work available, was that against the law?

r6d2 - Thanks for the response - but I want to reiterate the context of my argument - that there is indeed a very valid 'way I can argue around the basic fact' prettz purveys that offering music on a filesharing network is 'illegal'. As I have shown, and you have agreed, there is legal use for P2P file sharing, despite what even the greatest supporters of forced maintenance of the industry's status quo (as opposed to progress in a free market) may want the rest of us to believe.

The rest of us are obviously voting with our dollars against $18 one-hit wonders.

Our government seems to think more highly of saving this outdated industry than the 3 modernizing ones I was laid off from due to restructuring as a natural course of economic correction. The recording industry is not more valuable to America than the Air Force, other service industries, or banks, is it? Those organizations had to go through changes, and because of it, I have a broader base of experience that helps me adapt more successfully each time. If we artificially support an outdated mode of doing business, we only hurt ourselves. Since copyright is designed to allow the creative producers enough rights and time to be reasonably compensated, providing the artist the incentive to produce, then it has done it's job. Just because the industry had an easy time in the 20th century (much of it due to questionable business practices) does not guarantee them future success. If it did, none of us would ever get poorer, only richer, without ever having to learn anything new or having to change. Unless someone can support the idea that the music or movie industry is somehow more worthy than the rest of us, somehow above basic economic law of supply and demand.

I used to like Metallica when I thought they were cool (80's). When I heard they relied so heavily on 'the system' and spoke out on Napster, they became fearful wusses in my opinion. Maybe their sales are dropping because I'm not the only one who thinks this, but we shouldn't have to argue it with anything but our spending dollars, and definitely not with increased government intervention. The industry never publishes studies on how much alienating their customers has hurt their sales. And even the studies they show still show revenue gains, just lower than projections. So it's not that they're losing money. They're just not getting wealthier as fast as they projected.

Doom9 has made the argument well enough that file sharing does not benefit the real pirates who copy discs, and likely results in as many additional sales as it prevents, since most who download would not have paid for the CD anyway, opting for some other method of consumption. Since you stated you also feel that the industry should do more to adapt, do you feel that the damages they seek are fair and just, or just legal right now? Would they be legal without the DMCA, a questionable piece of legislation? Do you have a financial interest in copyright compensation or pay-per-use? Are you an attorney enjoying the side benefit of increased litigation? Just curious, since most of your posts seem to support the industry in some way. I write on my websites too, but would consider it an honor to be copied. If I create something truly worthwhile, my reward will be in its effects, as well as the ad revenue.

I won't argue about what the law is, that is a fool's argument. But I will argue what I think it should be, and Doom's opinions closely mirror my own. What do you think it should be? Does the current law go too far? Not far enough? Is it just right as it is?

Anyone see the Simpson's last week? When a commercial came on their TV, they all went to do something, but Homer said 'If we don't watch the commercials, it's like we're stealing TV!' Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Thank the Simpson's to sweeten the wisdom with some ironic humor.

r6d2

19th May 2004, 01:51

Originally posted by DickSpeed
I want to reiterate the context of my argument - that there is indeed a very valid 'way I can argue around the basic fact' prettz purveys that offering music on a filesharing network is 'illegal'.I understand the context of your point, don’t worry. But prettz’s argument context is also regarding sharing over P2P content for which you don’t have distribution rights. I don't think it is a general statement.
As I have shown, and you have agreed, there is legal use for P2P file sharingI agree there is a legal use for P2P, but keep in mind that I don’t endorse file sharing of copyrighted material.
despite what even the greatest supporters of forced maintenance of the industry's status quo (as opposed to progress in a free market) may want the rest of us to believe.IMHO, P2P is mainly used to distribute porno pictures, then copyrighted music and movies, and in a very small percentage for legitimate use. At least that’s what I’ve seen over P2P network clients in the past. You may have had a different experience, but I don't think mine is uncommon.
Our government seems to think more highly of saving this outdated industry than the 3 modernizing ones […] If we artificially support an outdated mode of doing business, we only hurt ourselves.You have made a very good point here, and I agree of course. Several other industries have had to adapt, with high social costs.

I also think the RIAA should adapt, but as you can see, they haven’t. So you may ask: why not? Are they plain stupid? If they are stupid, can’t they just hire a good consulting group to come up with a reasonable proposal?

I don’t think that the music industry, on average, has less clever people than other industries. So my conclusion is that they have given it quite a thought, and they have not found a way. It must be a difficult target. Maybe they won’t ever find it and just disappear. You know, that survival of the fittest stuff.
So it's not that they're losing money. They're just not getting wealthier as fast as they projected.You are probably right, but IMHO being greedy is anyone’s right too. As I've also shown on this thread, a consumer is also being "greedy" (maximizing its personalk profit) by expecting always lower prices. Supply and demand defines the price for "greed equilibrium". :) And S&D works for consumer and providers at the same time.
Since you stated you also feel that the industry should do more to adapt, do you feel that the damages they seek are fair and just, or just legal right now?No, I don’t think it is fair or just. I think it is just FUD spreading. About the legality, I think it is up to the courts to decide.
Do you have a financial interest in copyright compensation or pay-per-use? Are you an attorney enjoying the side benefit of increased litigation? Just curious, since most of your posts seem to support the industry in some way. I’m sorry to hear you feel it that way, since I stated it many times, like in this post (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=400985&highlight=payroll#post400985). But perceptions are realities, so if you got the wrong message, it’s probably because I did not express it correctly. Anyway, and sorry for repeating myself, I don’t endorse the RIAA’s actions on the matter.
What do you think it should be? Does the current law go too far?I think the copyright law in its current form gives the author full rights over his creations. Adequate rights. This even involves the right to make the “questionable” decision of continuing to support the music industry by selling their copyrights to them.

But authors are not forced to do so. If composers and performers, writers and actors find a different way to make money from their jobs, I think they will succeed. I’m a writer myself so that would be a nice to have for me too.

But blaming the RIAA for defending the rights for which they have already paid for makes little sense to me. You can question (and fight) the tools they are using, the methods, the modus operandi, the corruption that lobby usually produces, but you don’t do so by questioning the rights they have bought, or by saying they are making too much money anyway, or that they have been ripping artists for decades.

Why not? Because any industry tries to maximize its profit, that is the basis of the economy. All industries might be found “guilty as charged” for overpricing, for exploiting workers, or for seizing the rights of the consumers. And the RIAA is no exception.

And in those industries where this has been evident, where they don’t add value anymore, the market has worked. That’s the RIAA’s lack of vision, or inability to deliver a new vision.

You know, “The end justify the means” the RIAA is using is a double edged sword. There are some occasions where it surely applies, others where it definitely does not. It is an old question of mankind and it will probably never get a proper, definitive answer applicable to any general case. Are the RIAA’s means correct? I don’t think so.

But, IMHO, it does not change the fact that you do not have any right whatsoever to share over P2P copyrighted content.

DickSpeed

19th May 2004, 04:09

Excellent reference, r6d2. Thanks for the link, and sorry for the harshly phrased question. You make good, intelligent arguments in almost all cases, if not all. If you'd like me to edit the post to reduce it's caustic tone for future readers, I'd be glad to.

In regards to your reference to studios having bought the copyrights legally in return for recording, distribution, and promotion of an artist's work (that being one of the norms of 20th century music industry), I have this to add: If an industry used unfair (but typical) practices to take advantage of one artist (offering much less than they're worth, feeding an artist's addictions to weaken their negotiation, or using the intimidation of monopoly power), then it's that one artist's loss more than anyone's. But the rest of the world loses too, because instead of dealing with an artist, we deal with an industry proven (in courts) to cheat artists and customers alike. While immoral, this is still legal and protected.

Due to the inflationary trend (maintained by federal administrations to prevent normal market corrections, hence slowing the onset of corrective recession and improving their re-election chances) we have come to expect prices to continue to fall at a steady pace based solely on inflation, even though commodity prices (like food, gas, etc.) have actually risen. Since we have more dollars, we feel like we're making more, even though the dollars are actually worth less. Despite what government officials might tell us, inflation is a result of government manipulation, not the other way around. But the government spent those inflationary dollars, which then trickle from their contractors into the free market, giving the impression of free-market economic growth, while in reality, it's just created a bubble, or lag, in the market correcting for the lower valued dollar - so the price does eventually fall for new technology as productivity improves and compensates, but it's the government that's already spent that productivity, not the worker or the business owner. The only one who really benefits in any way is the government contractor that received the deficit dollars. In this way, old money has successfully lobbied to increase their own prices (inflation in a relatively static commodity market), while artificially inflating the dollar results in decreased value of everything else that's improving to compete in the free market. In effect, the improvements of the rest of the economy are used to subsidize the old ways. Instead, the industry has created a circle where everyone pays in (to the government) but only a few receive these payments. This is redistribution of wealth, not a free market exchange, which would benefit all involved parties by its very nature.

Phew, OK. I told that story to tell this one. Since all it takes is enough money to lobby successfully in favor of maintaining the status quo in the face of market changes that would otherwise revolutionize their industry, they have succeeded in legally inflating the value of their services. But no matter what they do, they can't deny the truth forever, especially in the information society we have today. So if we accept that they have made the most of their assets and power in the window of opportunity they had in the 20th century, then ok. It is not our right to tell those artists what to do, just like they shouldn't be able to tell us what to do. Even though they have forced it on us through price-fixing, gouging deals with artists that make it nearly impossible to make any money from CD sales below platinum status, and direct market manipulation (remember payola?) through airplay and other influences. But are they responsible for radio's effect of making music feel like it should be free, or did we expect music to be free all along, and free radio was just their concession to us to help sell records, then tapes and CDs? Somewhere along the way, the industry leaders began to think they were owed the wealth they were accumulating from the 'innovation' they had of selling recordings when musicians used to have to play to make money. Most people don't buy music, they hear it on TV, radio, at restaurants and clubs, festivals, etc. Most of these places compensate the artist in some way, or else they wouldn't play. Some enthusiasts buy recordings, but just because the industry is able to manipulate and hype the market to support bubble gum pop and fanaticism for music and popular artists doesn't mean they've earned the adoration the fans show their favorite artists. They would surely try to wield that power as well, thinking it is tied to their copyright, and not the artist. This is one misconception that may lead to their downfall.

If we compare this to the drug market - the war on drugs has had the perverse effect of increasing the potency and reducing the price of most illegal drugs, while most legal ones remain expensive. The artificial inflation of the value of illegal drugs has built a more profitable market for them. This is due to the innovation that can take place in a free market to meet demand, compared to exhautive research by a company trying to find something new to sell. Even the black market is free enough to demonstrate the power of a free market. But if drugs were not illegal, would there be as much demand for more powerful and cheaper variations? Since these 'improvements' were more the result of distribution and risk management than meeting customer demands, then we can deduce that if trafficking was legal, they would sell the same old stuff as long as there was demand, and there would probably be less refinement, but with less money involved, there would be less corruption and violence.

And any improvements would be made by enthusiasts, not opportunists. Who makes a better product?

If we compare this to music industry manipulation, they have managed to keep prices relatively high, while reducing their costs as expected. Sure, they pay artists, engineers, technicians, etc. But if they manage to take control of an artist's copyright in exchange for distribution, it's probably because they've artificially inflated the perceived value of their distribution system, not because they've improved the system. In reality, only the most active, most talented, hardest working, and most popular musicians really make any money, but most artists will take the risk and gamble because of the perceived payoff - rock stardom!

In the real world outside the existing industry, one could record their music and publish it on the internet (as I have) and charge what they want (I chose to give mine away for now) without sacrificing their copyrights to an overpowerful monopoly known to gouge every cent they can from every pocket they can without regard to what's right, only what they can actually get away with. I'm not condemning it all, that's their right to try, but it's our responsibility as consumers (or artists) not to be gouged, and as citizens to demand the same accountability of the industry leaders as we do of other individuals. The internet now allows us to trade whatever we want, but because those who influence the media already have much of the content that's in demand today, then it is certainly going to be traded on there as well. It is their responsibility to protect their business and investments, but not at the expense of the innovation the rest of us are working for.

If someone invents a way to transport (like in Star Trek, for example) boxes, will UPS and FedEx sue to suppress it? Maybe. Would they be right? Certainly not. And no amount of legislation can stop the world from turning. Relying on legislation is the weak position, and I would prefer a strong economy to one propped up on unenforceable laws. Perhaps the industry is just trying to buy time. But they are buying it with our dollars. So it is up to us to make a change. Because the time they are buying (or perhaps stealing, depending on your philosophy) is ours.

I hope other artists continue to opt for distribution and marketing that provides competition to the establishment, like I do. History shows that a smaller number of people ever actually pay for music compared to those who hear it free. Maybe the magic of music (and movies) is not the money they can make, but the ideas they can communicate? If we had a module that almost anyone could plugin to their site, upload their content and charge whatever price they want, then we would have a strong basis for competition that could lead to serious reform of the existing system. If the industry came up with new ideas to improve their own system, they wouldn't need legislation to support their weak position: they would be strong.

As you said, they may not have the foresight to do this. Or perhaps they had the legal foresight to see that they could destroy the likes of Napster, then buy the technology cheap and not have to pay Mr. Fanning ongoing fees for the use of his distribution system? They have effectively used the monopoly power of one market to exercise control of another, through legislation. Its a strategy worthy of Microsoft. Except Microsoft would have bought the technology and incorporated it free into their next release, instead of wasting all these years in court, and alienating their customers. Hey, this is rare - let's all give a small cheer for Microsoft. (yay)