File sharing case, and it's implications [Archive]

fumetti

04-01-2005, 09:15 PM

It may not have as much impact as you think. The argument can be made (and it's certainly the music industry's main thrust) not that Kazaa bears responsibility for what its customers do with its software, ala your example of gun companies arguably being held liable for murders or crimes committed by people using their guns, but that the entire purpose of Kazaa's existence is to facilitate and encourage stealing from the record companies and performing artists. That's a bit different. In order for it to apply to gun or liquor companies, if that's the argument being made, one would have to make the claim that guns and rum are specifically manufactured and marketed to be used in crimes. One could argue there are intended authorized, legitimate functions for guns, let's say: hunting, target practice, collecting. The only intended function of Kazaa, it would seem, is to rip off and illegally distribute someone else's property. (From the music companies' POV...)

The gun was invented to commit murder, pure and simple. It was a cannon shrunk down to hand-held size...to make it easier to kill people. It was not invented to hunt animals or competitively shoot targets. Those uses came later. Target practice came from the need to be an accurate killer. Hunting came from soldiers needing food (after a hard day of killing people). People growing up using guns as collectibles or for target competition have done so only because guns were allowed to stay in the public's hands long after they were introduced to society.

You're judging Kazaa by its initial use, but judging guns by their uses developed over time. Over time, P2P software could be found to have a great many uses just like photocopiers, VCRs, and CD burners. (Remember when CD-R burners were characterized as solely for copying music? Now they're mostly non-rewritable floppies, something early critics said was too impractical and expensive to happen.)

P2P technology is not inherently criminal. It allows direct sharing which saves us all the expense of resources required for an intermediary server. The problem the software makers have is that they did not cultivate widespread sharing of non-corporate-owned material. (People sharing their vacation pics are still sharing copyright protected material. There are plenty of examples of sharing copyrighted material that are perfectly legal. The real difference in this case is who owns the copyright...)

And it's not like P2P software invented stealing music. How many of us have made a cassette of a friend's CD or album? How many of us taped our favorite song off the radio? It's been happening for decades. P2P only changed the scale.

Even if one software company has marketed P2P technology as a means to steal, that doesn't mean the technology should be banned. Another company could come along, advertise it as a means to share amateur photography, and redeem this technology with wholly legal uses. What then? Should that be banned? What Constitutional right does the government have to deny people from sharing their family albums?

And not everybody minds P2P sharing. I know musicians who think people sharing their songs is great. It's a way for new people to hear their music, which they think is far more important that hording it hoping for people to buy it on spec.

There are already a number of valid, legal uses for P2P technology, and I'm sure there will be many more as time goes by. We just need for people to have it around with it awhile, handy when the new idea strikes us--like our ancestors did with guns.

Steven Grant

04-01-2005, 09:37 PM

*rubs eyes*

My god am I in the right universe? I... I'm in the evil alternate universe aren't I... Your being sympathetic to a industries argument... I.. I have to go lie down now then figure out how to breach the dimentional gate to go back home!

I presume you're talking about me. I'm not being sympathetic to either side (empathic maybe, but that's what separates me from the human race; most people are all sympathy and no empathy, I'm all empathy and no sympathy), I just understand the industry's point of view. Understand that I think the music industry has built a beautiful con on this filesharing business to explain away years of bad decisions and condescension that drove away their market. That doesn't mean I don't think the "file sharing" community isn't trying to place a little miss innocent con game of their own.

Steven Grant

04-01-2005, 09:42 PM

You're judging Kazaa by its initial use, but judging guns by their uses developed over time.

No, I'm not judging Kazaa in any regard with what I wrote, I'm talking about how a judge might see it, and how it would be fairly easy to concoct an argument that didn't extend any judgment against Kazaa to wider issues. The only thing I was judging was your presumption that the case would have wide-ranging effects. It might, but it might easily not. It depends on what arguments are presented and what the judge thinks and says about it all. That was the issue under discussion, not whether Kazaa is actually evil or not.

fumetti

04-01-2005, 10:00 PM

I said "can" set a huge precedent, not "will" set a huge precedent. Something that "can" happen is not a certainty. So I wasn't being presumptuous at all.

Briareos

04-02-2005, 08:33 AM

I was kinda talking about the thread in general... You and nat though were really the ones who had posted but i was half expecting to read 50 posts about how evil the music industry is for trying to shut p2p sites down.

Also the difference between guns and p2p sites is that there are legit reasons to have to even use a gun to kill someone.. Sometimes you have to defend yourself against someone who wants to do you harm and also target shooting is a very fast growing hobby these days. I don't see file sharing like kazza and such as ever really having any other purpose besides illegal file sharing.

Steven Grant

04-02-2005, 02:31 PM

I target shoot, though I haven't done it in awhile. I wouldn't mind doing it. I find it entertaining and relaxing. (I remember having a conversation with a writer who was doing a one-man-war-against-crime-killer type character a couple years after I did the PUNISHER mini-series, and he was absolutely appalled when I suggested he go to a shooting range and take some gun handling courses so he could get a sense of what guns are really like. He thought going anywhere near a gun was just the most foully criminal thing one could do, and I wondered how he could write a character whose shtick is killing people with guns if he felt that way.)

I tend to agree that Kazaa's main use is and is likely to remain infringement file sharing, though I can see where it could be used to share perfectly legal files. But other ways to do that already exist, so I'm hard-pressed to imagine a rush to Kazaa for that kind of distribution. Unless Fumetti's got statistics that indicate it. (I haven't been paying attention...)

NatGertler

04-02-2005, 03:36 PM

P2P technology is not inherently criminal. It allows direct sharing which saves us all the expense of resources required for an intermediary server.There exist other ways of distributing your files without an intermediary server.
The problem the software makers have is that they did not cultivate widespread sharing of non-corporate-owned material.They did not cultivate it because there's little market for it in that form. These projects were invented specifically for illegal file sharing. Napster basically advertised itself as such, and the things that followed were designed specifically to avoid the prosecution that Napster suffered.
And it's not like P2P software invented stealing music. How many of us have made a cassette of a friend's CD or album?In the US, at least, that has been legal since the (ugly) Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, a law backed heavily by the music industry.
What Constitutional right does the government have to deny people from sharing their family albums?I haven't seen the government denying anyone that right, nor coming anywhere close. However, if they want to do it by printing their family album on the skin of bald eagles, yes, the government would step in on that form of transition.
And not everybody minds P2P sharing. I know musicians who think people sharing their songs is great.If the musician owns the music, he could give much more reliable access to it simply by posting on the web. If he doesn't own his performance, then it really doesn't matter what he thinks.
There are already a number of valid, legal uses for P2P technology,None of which aren't better served by other extant technology.

Steven Grant

04-02-2005, 09:13 PM

I haven't seen the government denying anyone that right, nor coming anywhere close. However, if they want to do it by printing their family album on the skin of bald eagles, yes, the government would step in on that form of transition.
Not this administration...

bartl

04-04-2005, 08:38 AM

(I remember having a conversation with a writer who was doing a one-man-war-against-crime-killer type character a couple years after I did the PUNISHER mini-series, and he was absolutely appalled when I suggested he go to a shooting range and take some gun handling courses so he could get a sense of what guns are really like. He thought going anywhere near a gun was just the most foully criminal thing one could do, and I wondered how he could write a character whose shtick is killing people with guns if he felt that way.)
I used to be an archer (field archery; I considered hunting, but didn't really want to deal with field butchering). When Steve Gerber was doing Hawkeye, I wrote him a letter on various means to make him more authentic without losing the superhero motif. I think that's the only time I ever wrote to him without receiving a reply...

Steven Grant

04-04-2005, 10:21 AM

I used to be an archer (field archery; I considered hunting, but didn't really want to deal with field butchering). When Steve Gerber was doing Hawkeye, I wrote him a letter on various means to make him more authentic without losing the superhero motif. I think that's the only time I ever wrote to him without receiving a reply...
Wow. I used to do target archery myself. I remember being thrilled by Neal Adams' redesign of Green Arrow because he actually wore an archer's glove on his right hand. (You know; the kind of glove with still leather fingertips for the thumb and first two fingers so the bowstring doesn't rip your flesh off...)

bartl

04-04-2005, 02:18 PM

outlander78

04-05-2005, 11:31 AM

As uncomfortable as I am with outlawing technology, I do have to agree that peer-to-peer is basically designed to facilitate infringment and to reduce risk of prosecution (and not by reducing the amount of crime). It's a great method for illegal distribution and a lousy one for legal distribution; the uncertain availability, poor organization, and uncertain quality of files makes it a poor cousin to, say, the original MP3.com concept of an organized web-based library for legit delivery.

File sharing has many legitimate uses. Some are "fringe" by American Corporate standards - sharing Linux and open source software, for example. Others are not. I'm in the mood to buy a new First Person Shooter computer game (see my clever tie-in to the gun debate ;) ) and downloading six computer game demos (Doom, Half Life 2, Far Cry, Unreal 2004 etc) using peer-to-peer torrents linked to from the official sites.

I'd agree that Kazaa has few legitimate uses or users, but not all peer-to-peer applications do.

hamsterdance

04-06-2005, 10:57 AM

It is my understanding from some news reports I read that ID Software was so impressed with Bit Torrent's ability to push large files yet having small bandwith requirements that they selected it as the method for downloading the Doom 3 demo.

Don't know if that ever came to pass since I'm not a shooter fan. But I just remember thinking how economics is making some companies see that some of these P2P technologies can be legitimately used while helping them save money too compared to older style file sharing technologies.

Sabrina_Fried

04-06-2005, 11:35 AM

Wow. I used to do target archery myself. I remember being thrilled by Neal Adams' redesign of Green Arrow because he actually wore an archer's glove on his right hand. (You know; the kind of glove with still leather fingertips for the thumb and first two fingers so the bowstring doesn't rip your flesh off...)

I'm also a target archer (no preference between the tab or the glove, for the record, I'll use whatever I have at hand), though I have to say I've never seen archery depicted well in any comic, but I fully admit I havent read more than three or four issues of Green Arrow. Most comics, and most movies I must add, treat bows like guns that shoot arrows.

Back to the topic at hand, I can understand and even sympathize with both sized in the file sharing case. But at the end of the day I think restricting file sharing technology may actually hurt music producers in the long run because it will hamper their abilities to adapt to the changing needs of their consumers. They should be using file sharing technology as a means to create a global 'test audience' to get an idea of how the public at large will react to a new artist, group, etc before the spend millions of dollars producing CDs and promotional material. If the music is not worth the effort of buying, then it's not worth the effort of stamping out millions of CDs that won't sell.

After all, when the VCR was invented, did Hollywood fall apart? of course not! They just started making more movies to satisfy the demand viewers had for their product because renting/purchasing movies to play in their VCRs made it easier for people who could not go to the theatres becuse of time/travel contraints to still see the movies. Whether or not the movies deserved to be watched on a purchased/rented copy or else recorded off the television (which btw, viewers STILL pay for through their cable fees and allowing those movies to be interrupted by advertising) was determined by Hollywood.

Lets not forget that the idea of producing music recordings for-profit is itself a very young idea. Before that, you either had to hire a group of musicians to play the songs (and I can guarantee you that not all of those musicians had sheet music that was "legally published" by the original composer) or your learned to play the instruments yourself and the song was played from memory, or the musician played directly in front of the people who would appreciate their music, and accepted whatever they would offer for the privilidge.

Sabrina

WatsonGlenn

04-07-2005, 05:07 AM

"Sharing" is not a good thing when you're sharing things that aren't yours to share.

Theres the rub. I buy the comic book or the CD or the movie and then someone passes a law or makes a rule that its not really mine. I don't believe that.

NatGertler

04-07-2005, 07:31 AM

Theres the rub. I buy the comic book or the CD or the movie and then someone passes a law or makes a rule that its not really mine. I don't believe that.
'Scuse me? You've found a way to send a physical CD or comic book over the internet? Because if so, you'll make hundreds of millions off of that patent.

What you seem to be talking about is transmitting copies of the content over the internet, turning yourself into an unlicensed publisher of the material. Now, if you want to actually buy the publication rights, then yes, that those would be yours to share if you so desire. But the laws against unlicensed publishing are not something that came "and then". They predate the existence of CDs, movies, and comic books. You may want to recognize that you're not buying the publication rights simply by buying a copy.l

bartl

04-07-2005, 07:33 AM

Theres the rub. I buy the comic book or the CD or the movie and then someone passes a law or makes a rule that its not really mine. I don't believe that.
To simplify what Nat said, you can sell the comic book, the CD, or the movie. What you can't do is make a copy and sell THAT.

Paul McEnery

04-07-2005, 05:55 PM

To simplify what Nat said, you can sell the comic book, the CD, or the movie. What you can't do is make a copy and sell THAT.
True. But the nice point on file-sharing is you're fundamentally doing no more than amortizing the cost of a CD. Someone along the line owns a copy, presumably legitimately. And who's to say what the bottom line of that amortization is? Nine dollars? Two dollars? One cent?

If I buy a book, and then lend it to many friends, we've amortized the cost. Which is of course what many people do. Obviously, this means that fewer copies get sold, in the long run, but those of us who buy books can't stop the habit anyway. We've just got a bigger bang for our buck.

As David Byrne says, he doesn't care if people file-share his music, because he's never made money off the recordings anyway. They're just calling cards for his performing money, basically.

Steven Grant

04-07-2005, 07:55 PM

Paul, because it's going to be mentioned: the difference between "amortizing" the cost of a book by loaning it around a bunch of friends, and doing the same with a piece of music by copying it over and making sure each friend has a copy is that with the book there still only exists one copy; if your friend reads it and passes it on he has to track down whoever it has been passed on to if he wants to refer back to it. An equivalent situation would be if you bought a book and photocopied it for everyone who you "loaned" it to.

That said, you're right that the music industry, at least at the major label level, exists on a process that pretty much screws any performer that records with them unless those performers become very, very popular. That doesn't necessarily justify filesharing, but it does knock the moral highground out from under the record companies. Filesharing has actually probably made them more money than it has cost them anyway (at least according to a few different studies), and it came along as a time where a series of bad business decisions and rapidly escalating audience disgust with the product they were pushing triggered a massive collapse of sales; filesharing really became the music industry's convenient scapegoat as far as their stockholders were concerned.

NatGertler

04-07-2005, 08:29 PM

Yeah, and smashing someone over the head and stealing their wallet fundamentally does nothing more than amortizing the cost of buying the baseball bat...

badMike

04-08-2005, 07:38 AM

Someone along the line owns a copy, presumably legitimately.For music? I doubt that. Record companies give out tons of free copies to radio stations, review magazines, etc. Did you ever go into a record store and see the used bin stacked with "NOT FOR SALE" CDs? The company I work for gets tons of free crap (CDs and DVDs), of which I'm sure very little of it is electronically "tagged."

Briareos

04-08-2005, 12:01 PM

I'm also a target archer (no preference between the tab or the glove, for the record, I'll use whatever I have at hand), though I have to say I've never seen archery depicted well in any comic, but I fully admit I havent read more than three or four issues of Green Arrow. Most comics, and most movies I must add, treat bows like guns that shoot arrows.

Back to the topic at hand, I can understand and even sympathize with both sized in the file sharing case. But at the end of the day I think restricting file sharing technology may actually hurt music producers in the long run because it will hamper their abilities to adapt to the changing needs of their consumers. They should be using file sharing technology as a means to create a global 'test audience' to get an idea of how the public at large will react to a new artist, group, etc before the spend millions of dollars producing CDs and promotional material. If the music is not worth the effort of buying, then it's not worth the effort of stamping out millions of CDs that won't sell.

After all, when the VCR was invented, did Hollywood fall apart? of course not! They just started making more movies to satisfy the demand viewers had for their product because renting/purchasing movies to play in their VCRs made it easier for people who could not go to the theatres becuse of time/travel contraints to still see the movies. Whether or not the movies deserved to be watched on a purchased/rented copy or else recorded off the television (which btw, viewers STILL pay for through their cable fees and allowing those movies to be interrupted by advertising) was determined by Hollywood.

Lets not forget that the idea of producing music recordings for-profit is itself a very young idea. Before that, you either had to hire a group of musicians to play the songs (and I can guarantee you that not all of those musicians had sheet music that was "legally published" by the original composer) or your learned to play the instruments yourself and the song was played from memory, or the musician played directly in front of the people who would appreciate their music, and accepted whatever they would offer for the privilidge.

Sabrina

The comparison between video tapes and mp3s don't work... Back then it wasn't the studios worying about people not going to the theater to see their movie (if that were true they just wouldn't have support the format and if people bringing camcorders into theaters to make bootlegs became a problem they would have passed laws like we have now banning cameras from theaters). They were worried that people would just rent videos and copy them. The difference is that back then there wasn't a distribution system for sharing copies. The copies were noticably worse every time someone made a copy.

WatsonGlenn

04-08-2005, 06:09 PM

To simplify what Nat said, you can sell the comic book, the CD, or the movie. What you can't do is make a copy and sell THAT.

I can see the logic of not being able to sell it but that is not what we are talking about. I understand what the law says. I happen to disagree with the law.

NatGertler

04-08-2005, 06:43 PM

I can see the logic of not being able to sell it but that is not what we are talking about.And you can't see the logic of forcing people to compete with you giving away their material for free? You can't see the logic that spending $15 for a CD does not buy you the publication rights? Really, what piece of logic do you need to have explained to you?

WatsonGlenn

04-09-2005, 07:22 AM

And you can't see the logic of forcing people to compete with you giving away their material for free? You can't see the logic that spending $15 for a CD does not buy you the publication rights? Really, what piece of logic do you need to have explained to you?

I do not understand the logic of selling a song and telling the person you sell it to that they cannot share it.

I do not undestand the logic of owning sound waves or digital bits of information that are really just ones and zeroes. A person can own a car, a house or a plastic disk. I don't think they can really own an idea or a sound wave. Once its out there its out there.

The idea of owning songs is realitvely new. Its only since the invention of the record and the record player that such a thing was even thought of. I think the whole concept of owning inmaterial ideas is screwed up.

Of course the goverment can use it power to enforce any concept. That does not make it right.

Heck I heard Trump tried convince the govnerment to let him own the phrase "You're fired." I never found out if this was true. There is someone out that that owns the song "Happy Birthday" and gets a sum of money every time its played on TV or maybe even sung in a restaraunt. I think that is wrong. Quoting the law to me will not change my opinion.

badMike

04-09-2005, 11:21 AM

Heck I heard Trump tried convince the govnerment to let him own the phrase "You're fired." I never found out if this was true.It's true. But you make it sound like Trump was doing something sneaky or asking for a personal favor from the White House. Trump filed to trademark the term "You're Fired," so he could be the only person (i.e. his corporation anyway) as a marketing term, like Nike probably has "Just Do It" trademarked.

I don't think they can really own an idea or a sound wave.Yes, a person can own an idea. So, why don't you open a restaurant, put two giant golden arches on top of it and use "I'm Lovin' It" as a marketing campaign? Or how about publishing your own comic book starring your own brand new superhero Spider-Man? Or produce your own cable access TV show and call it "I Love Lucy"? Stealing people's "ideas" is a really shitty thing to do.

My wife directed and produced her own film and is trying to make money off the DVD sales of it. However, according to you this information is just ones and zeroes, so you have no problem just stealing this film over the Internet using BitTorrent or some such technology? I think you would change your tune pretty quickly if you created something, tried to make a living off your creation while other people were taking your creation for free. It's a pretty shitty thing to have happen. This is why I think Nat's so passionate about the subject since he's a publisher.

Yes, in a lot of ways it's great to just get your ideas out there in the world. But people who are creative would like to make money from their creations. That's what the law is for.

NatGertler

04-09-2005, 11:27 AM

You're not buying a song, you're buying a single copy of a recording. If you want to buy the rights to a song, there are many such available. They tend to cost more than $15 a dozen, however.

I realize that you are confused by property rights that are not founded in theft or ownership-by-assumption, which are the base for all physical object ownership. Your valuation of such ownership over the ownership of intellectual property, where the only thing that is owned is original creation, shows a strong lapse in ethical logic.

But hey, the folks who created that song you like and the people who funded the recording -- how dare they! They must be punished for providing things you like! Steal from 'em!

Trump did apply for trademarks to specifically identify brands of clothing, games, and casino services. That does not give him ownership of the phrase, although it does let him create products without certain sorts of market confusion, just as only one company can call their raisin bran Post Raisin Bran. In fact, there are other folks who have trademarks for the same phrase in different markets. (Bicor Processing Corp. has the decorative pillow rights to "You're Fired", John Lee has it in a certain font for t-shirts, Turn Up The Music, Inc., has it for music cassettes and CDs).

NatGertler

04-09-2005, 01:28 PM

This is why I think Nat's so passionate about the subject since he's a publisher.I had a certain passion for intellectual property even before I was much of a professional in anything. However, it was not weakened by my being a professional computer programmer, where the ability of the company to sell the programs I wrote to more than one customer generated the money to pay me. And then, for many years I was primarily a writer, and the ability to sell or license exclusive rights to my material created the opportunity for me to keep a roof over my head and food on my table.

I look at the effect that intellectual property protection has had -- we live in a culture where a huge amount of creative material is available, much of it for no more than the price of a receiver and a small amount of electricity -- and I would hate to see that wiped out because some folks think they have some inherent right to the work of others. Don't get me wrong -- the availability for cheap digital distribution for those who choose to disseminate their material without direct charge is a boon as well, expanding other parts of the culture. But that doesn't mean it should come at the expense of the rights of those who seek to profit from (or at least cover the expenses of) their own efforts.

WatsonGlenn

04-09-2005, 10:02 PM

It's true. But you make it sound like Trump was doing something sneaky

I believe he was.

Yes, a person can own an idea.

I understand that the law says this. I disagree with the law.

Stealing people's "ideas" is a really shitty thing to do.

Stealing would be. But I do not consider file sharing to be stealing. I consider it sharing. I understand the law and you feel differently.

I think you would change your tune pretty quickly if you created something, tried to make a living off your creation while other people were taking your creation for free.

Maybe. Perspective is important. But I still don't see the logic is stopping others from sharing ideas. I realize it might make some people's lives more difficult if ideas were shared more freely but thats the way life was for most of human history. The recent ability to own ideas, images and sounds is the aberration.

Yes, in a lot of ways it's great to just get your ideas out there in the world. But people who are creative would like to make money from their creations. That's what the law is for.

There are laws that protect creator's rights. There are also laws that protect the public and consumers.

WatsonGlenn

04-09-2005, 10:06 PM

You're not buying a song, you're buying a single copy of a recording.

Again, I understand the law. I just disagree with it.

WatsonGlenn

04-09-2005, 10:16 PM

What do you think is the origin of the right, so many people claim, to make money selling songs? Is it a human right? Is it a god Given right? Is it a right given by the government?

I just don't see this as a right. I don't think baseball players have a right to make a million dollars. I don't think singers have a right to control sound waves once they hit the ether.

If you make money singing or playing thats fine but its not a right. If you can convince the governnment to pass a law saying you own a recorded sound even after a person buys it ok, but that does not make it a right. If Trump can charge anyone a nickle for saying "you're fired," in any context, that sucks. IMO

I think the world has had about a 150 year period in which sounds and images and the like could be controled by companies and individuals. I think that time is coming to an end. I think this is a good thing.

NatGertler

04-09-2005, 11:35 PM

What do you think is the origin of the right, so many people claim, to make money selling songs?I can't say that I've heard anyone claim such a right. Folks have a right to try to sell what they make, but they don't have a given right to customers. Customers must be earned.

Now you seem to be under the delusion that you have some right to reproduce the work of others and to try to deny them the chance to make fair recompense for their efforts. This is a right you seem to claim on the basis "I wanna do it", with little concern for any rights that others may have.

If you can convince the governnment to pass a law saying you own a recorded sound even after a person buys it ok,You seem to be very confused about what it is you are buying. You have the ability to buy the actual rights to recordings; apparently, you choose not to.
but that does not make it a right.Actually, it does. It makes it a legal right.
If Trump can charge anyone a nickle for saying "you're fired," in any context, that sucks. IMOYou seem to be missing what's been said about what rights he has actually applied for. He has not filed against anyone saying anything.
I think the world has had about a 150 year period in which sounds and images and the like could be controled by companies and individuals.Copyright has been around longer than that.
I think that time is coming to an end. I think this is a good thing.I realized that you are laden with access to too much creative media, and are cursed by the thought that people may actually be earning money off of their efforts. However, you might want to consider those who actually enjoy the fact that there is financial incentive to create enjoyable material.

badMike

04-10-2005, 12:22 AM

I realize it might make some people's lives more difficult if ideas were shared more freely but thats the way life was for most of human history. The recent ability to own ideas, images and sounds is the aberration.Well, yeah, DVDs didn't exist 1,000 years ago, so it would kind of make sense that the concept of "ownership" would evolve over time.

Anyway, you keep talking about "the law." The law this, the law that, I disagree with the law. I didn't mention law, I mentioned decency, which hopefully the law will protect. I said stealing ideas was a shitty thing to do, I didn't say it was against the law, which that it is. You also keep equating a movie and a song to an "idea," which I find baffling since they're physical products. But since you're not getting over that, then I gotta end here cuz there's no point.

NatGertler

04-10-2005, 01:08 AM

Yes, a person can own an idea.Actually, what we're talking about here in terms of trademark and copyright aren't ownership of ideas at all. It's ownership of expression. One can create plenty of rap songs singing the praises of amply-seated women without infringing on Baby Got Back.

WatsonGlenn

04-10-2005, 05:48 AM

I can't say that I've heard anyone claim such a right.

Really? I have.

Now you seem to be under the delusion that you have some right to reproduce the work of others.

Thats true. I think have to right to share things I buy or at least I should have that right. I would not call it a delusionn and I would appreciate it if you did not.

WatsonGlenn

04-10-2005, 05:54 AM

I didn't mention law, I mentioned decency,>>>

Really, I thought you did. Well someone did.

I said stealing ideas was a shitty thing to do, I didn't say it was against the law, which that it is. >>>

So is it or is'tn it? The answer: it is.

You also keep equating a movie and a song to an "idea," which I find baffling since they're physical products. >>>

No, the CD or DVD is physical. The song or movie is not. And there is the rub. I don't like the idea of ideas and sound waves being treated the same as a car or an Ipod that you can hold in your hand.

But since you're not getting over that, then I gotta end here cuz there's no point.>>>

Whatever.

NatGertler

04-10-2005, 08:19 AM

I think have to right to share things I buy or at least I should have that right. I would not call it a delusionn and I would appreciate it if you did not.I'm not surprised that you would not call your delusions "delusions". However, no one has stopped you from sharing the actual item you have bought. You can lend that CD to a friend with no hint of legal consequence.

The reproduction rights to music you have not bought. It's not that such things are not available, you've just not chosen to buy them. Really. The thing you are looking to share, these other copies of the music you wish to make, are things which you have not bought.
I don't like the idea of ideas and sound waves being treated the same as a car or an Ipod that you can hold in your hand.Because after all, ownership of a car derives from ownership of the land which held the raw materials, which all derives from someone simply assuming they own something because it's there, or something having been taken from someone by force. But you endorse those forms of ownership over folks owning things that they create because... because you have the tools to rip off those who have the more ethical forms of ownership, apparently.

badMike

04-10-2005, 10:56 AM

Actually, what we're talking about here in terms of trademark and copyright aren't ownership of ideas at all. It's ownership of expression.Yer absolutely right. Again, that's why I don't understand why Watson keeps calling a song or a movie an "idea." They're physical products. And I don't think the comparison of saying a song is the same as a car holds up anyway. You may own the car, but the company that made it owns the design. As you say, that's ownership of expression. I can make and sell my own car and my own MP3 player, but if I make them look like a Ford or an Ipod or start calling my product by those product names that's a no-no.

WatsonGlenn

04-10-2005, 10:58 AM

I'm not surprised that you would not call your delusions "delusions".

Ok well thanks for playing.

The reproduction rights to music you have not bought.

Yes that is the current law. Thanks for explaining it..... again.

The thing you are looking to share, these other copies of the music you wish to make, are things which you have not bought.

Thats true, according to you and US law. I disagree with both positions. I think if you buy a song on a CD you should be able to share it as you please. Quoting the law over and over again won't change that.

because you have the tools to rip off those who have the more ethical forms of ownership, apparently.

The tools to share songs and information are more widespread than ever. This has made me question the notion of ownership of information. When did it begin? Who enforces it. When did the people agree to it? I don"t see it in the Constitution or the Declaration, two documents that are largely copied from Locke and Montesque. I don't equate sharing with being selfish. I don't equate listing to a song to ripping someone off. Of course the music industry wants to you think as you do but I have a broad view based on history. I see many potential problems in the ownership of ephemeral ideas.

I gotta go the park so no time to finish this thought.

badMike

04-10-2005, 11:02 AM

No, the CD or DVD is physical. The song or movie is not. And there is the rub. I don't like the idea of ideas and sound waves being treated the same as a car or an Ipod that you can hold in your hand.You can't have a DVD movie appear in thin air without the vehicle of transmission (unless you're Billy Mumy on The Twilight Zone). A movie is an idea that is recorded on a physical medium, whether it's on film, video or as digital bits. How is that "just" an idea then?

Paul McEnery

04-10-2005, 12:22 PM

You can't have a DVD movie appear in thin air without the vehicle of transmission (unless you're Billy Mumy on The Twilight Zone). A movie is an idea that is recorded on a physical medium, whether it's on film, video or as digital bits. How is that "just" an idea then?
The idea of reproduction rights is a very modern one, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a scam.

I'm tempted to fall back on the old chestnut about trees falling in a forest: what noise to they make if there's nobody there to hear them? After all, a movie doesn't, in fact, exist as a physical medium; it exists when somebody experiences it.

The notion that narrative culture can be commodified and sold as a physical object dates back exactly to the moment that it became reproducible; i.e. the invention of moveable type. (Laying aside the creation of art as a unique object, since clearly what you're paying for is the uniqueness of the object.)

Before Caxton and Gutenburg, nobody owned the reproduction rights to, say, the Iliad or Beowulf. The whole point of writing poetry was to make it memorable, so every person's brain became the physical medium on which the poem was written, and speaking the poem was the Napster of the day.

Up to that point, the original poet/musician would make his living by performing (so, not that different from today's big label musicians, then), or by actually working for a living and picking up beer money or status for their talents.

A useful comparison is to shamans, who weren't given the professional status of today's priesthood, but still had to go out and work the fields and the forests like everyone else.

As with organized religion, reproducible narrative culture opens up the option for economic exploitation by middlemen (who reasonably have no business making any cash whatsoever off the deal). It's in their interest -- and in their interest only -- to regard reproducible narrative culture as a thing that can be sold as if it were, say, an icon made by Andrei Rublev.

But this goes beyond disdain for capitalist parasitism. The music (and film) industry, by asserting property rights, insists that culture is an object. But when we think the word "property", we're talking about something so close to an individual person (or thing) that it's indivisible: the property of water is, it's wet; the property of fire is, it's hot; and so on. Saying this hammer is my property is to say that to deprive me of this hammer is like tearing off my arm. I believe an artist can say that about his/her work; I believe nobody else at all can say that (hence the blurb in recently published books: "the author asserts moral ownership...")

I can't, for the life of me, understand how reproduction rights can be considered anybody's property. And in any case, it falls back on the philosophical mistake that the fetish object of the book/CD/DVD is what you're buying (which is what you'd expect a capitalist parasite to want you to believe, since all they're capable of imagining is the buying and selling of objects -- not to mention treating people in the same way).

When I pay for a book, I'm paying for the labour of the author, the manufacturers, the editors (where they still exist), the distributors, the book sellers, and so on. That cost is amortized amongst all the people who buy that book (and all the other books), especially if you buy them used. (It's worth mentioning that books used to include a legal warning that you weren't allowed to resell them, under penalty of prosecution.)

That goes double for movies, where again, I'm not paying the full price of production of the movie -- the cost is amortized. Am I stealing two dollars when I go to a matinee? Am I stealing six dollars when I rent the movie instead of going to a theater? Am I stealing an extra one and a half dollars when I watch the movie with a friend? Am I stealing nine dollars when I watch the movie at a friends house?

No in all cases, I'm amortizing the cost. And since object producers feel they can achieve their best deal by the free market in labour, I feel I can do likewise with my purchasing power.

The argument of the music/film industry is all about protecting the rights of middlemen to profit by other people's labour -- and that's all it is. Their assertion of reproduction rights depends entirely on the historical fact of scarcity, but now the means of reproduction belong to everyone, and they themselves constitute the means of distribution and exchange.

In other words, reproduction rights are now everybody's property. I have an inalienable right to reproduce Bill Hicks's jokes in conversation. I have an inalienable right to reproduce thoughts I learned from Descartes. I have an inalienable right to whistle a tune I heard on a Miles Davis record. And at this point, that goes for anything I write to my computer, too.

If we take McLuhan's point -- that language is not only humanity's earliest tool but is an active prosthetic -- we have to work with the idea that our computers are now an active extension of our own selves. It's Socrates's nightmare, of course -- writing as the aide-memoire of inauthentic lives -- but at this point in history, we're leaving Socrates's nightmare. Writing is now a communal exercise in communication; it's becoming oral culture at the next level.

Part of making that leap to the next level is abandoning the notion of writing as an object, or of culture as commodity rather than communication. And soon enough, we'll have direct feed through a mind/machine interface, at which point the distinction between me memorizing a tune (or a poem) and me writing one to my hard drive will become meaningless.

Reproduction rights are a detour in history, just as much as feudal ownership of serfs. It was once necessary to enslave the greater part of Europe -- and thereafter the world -- in order to create the preconditions of a democratic society. But now we have the democratic society, holding onto slavery is understood to be morally abhorrent (not to mention untenable). The same has to be true for artistic feudalism -- and in fact already is.

bartl

04-10-2005, 12:39 PM

Before Caxton and Gutenburg, nobody owned the reproduction rights to, say, the Iliad or Beowulf. The whole point of writing poetry was to make it memorable, so every person's brain became the physical medium on which the poem was written, and speaking the poem was the Napster of the day.

Except that if Homer could recite the Illiad a single time, and everybody in Greece would hear it within a matter of days, exactly as he recited it, he would have starved to death.

Essentially, before modern times, art was almost entirely commissioned by the rich and powerful. When reproduction techniques became common, reproduction rights became important. If you remove copyright, much of the incentive to create will disappear, and that which is left will be put aside for earning a living.

The problem that has come up is the ability to cheaply produce an exact copy of a work. Even the free software movement is heavily funded by patronage. Now, of course, you may desire seeing the arts go back to patronage, where what is created is decided by the wealthy rather than the marketplace. But if you address removing copyright, then you need to cover all the implications, not just a couple that suit your own personal interests.

NatGertler

04-10-2005, 12:45 PM

Thats true, according to you and US law. I disagree with both positions.So you feel you should be able to force someone into selling you something that they do not choose to sell you and that you are not willing to pony up the money for -- the reproduction rights? What a thuglike belief!
The tools to share songs and information are more widespread than ever.So are guns, a tool which is markedly useful in forcing people to share their physical property. It doesn't mean that using it to do so is right, however.
This has made me question the notion of ownership of information. When did it begin? Who enforces it. When did the people agree to it? I don"t see it in the Constitution or the Declaration, two documents that are largely copied from Locke and Montesque.Really? You don't see the copyright concept in section 8 of the Constitution, where Congress is empowered to secure for authors exclusive rights with regards to their writings? You may want to look at that document again.
I don't equate sharing with being selfish.Ahhh, but once you redefined "sharing" to include swiping from others, you really let go of any opportunity to fall back on reasonable definitions.
Of course the music industry wants to you think as you do but I have a broad view based on history.Seemingly, you have a view based on your own false assumptions about history.
I see many potential problems in the ownership of ephemeral ideas.And yet, you've yet to put forth an example of an owned idea (as opposed to an expression), much less any related problems.

NatGertler

04-10-2005, 12:52 PM

Up to that point, the original poet/musician would make his living by performing (so, not that different from today's big label musicians, then), or by actually working for a living and picking up beer money or status for their talents.I'm not sure what is so offensive about the concept of a professional creator (as opposed to performer) that some people feel the need to eliminate it. If you want only culture that is created by the very rich and those who are sucking up to them for patronage, then you would seem to be calling for creatively dark ages indeed.

I much prefer living in the culture made possible by the current rights structure, where there is incentive for professional creators to create material for a wide array of audiences. And I believed that long before I could be accused of being a "middleman".

badMike

04-10-2005, 06:22 PM

After all, a movie doesn't, in fact, exist as a physical medium; it exists when somebody experiences it.Bullshit. You can make a film and even if nobody sees it, it still exists as a film. You can't have a movie WITHOUT a physical medium. How you people can argue that is beyond me.

Before Caxton and Gutenburg, nobody owned the reproduction rights to, say, the Iliad or Beowulf.Your defense is Homer and Gutenburg. Watson's is the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. When are you guys going to whip out the "painting on cave walls" defense? Yeah, humans and society evolve. I know that's a tough subject to deal with, but it happens.

In other words, reproduction rights are now everybody's property. I have an inalienable right to reproduce Bill Hicks's jokes in conversation.This is idiotic, too, since nobody's telling you you can't repeat Bill Hicks jokes in conversation. (Tho' if you do that and try to pass them off as your own, people who already know the jokes will probably think you're a pretentious ass. Anyway, comedians steal each other's jokes all the time and most of them will probably tell you it's a pretty shitty thing to do.)

Also, just because most of the music and publishing industries are corrupt and abuses creators financially doesn't advocate throwing the entire system out the window because the law protects the corporations as much as it protects the individual creator, if the creator sells his own work personally. So, your anti-capitalism rant doesn't work here.

WatsonGlenn

04-10-2005, 06:47 PM

A movie is an idea that is recorded on a physical medium, whether it's on film, video or as digital bits.

Thats right. A movie is recorded on a physical medium. The movie itself is not physical.

WatsonGlenn

04-10-2005, 06:49 PM

The idea of reproduction rights is a very modern one, and as far as I'm concerned, it's a scam.

Great post Mr. McEnery. Well written.

WatsonGlenn

04-10-2005, 06:56 PM

If you remove copyright, much of the incentive to create will disappear.

Is that true? I mean, is it really? Do you think the incentive to create will disappear just because it is no longer as profitable. I don't think so. I think humanity is better than that. I think it might hinder a lot of the dross out there that passes for music but real art will endure.

WatsonGlenn

04-10-2005, 06:59 PM

So you feel you should be able to force someone into selling you something that >>>

No. neither do I want anyone telling me I cannot share.

You don't see the copyright concept in section 8 of the Constitution, where Congress is empowered to secure for authors exclusive rights with regards to their writings?

Books on paper are a differant matter.

Ahhh, but once you redefined "sharing" to include swiping from others, you really let go of any opportunity to fall back on reasonable definitions.>>>

Sorry Nat but you don't get to define the terms. Sharing is sharing.

NatGertler

04-10-2005, 08:38 PM

"Sharing is sharing."

Sharing things that don't belong to you without the permission of the folks they belong to is called "stealing". Really.

Now please tell me where the things you own are, so I can "share" them without your permission.

(And yes, much incentive to create does go away when you remove the financial incentive. The artist both doesn't have that part of the drive to get through the tough times, and has to spend time and energy doing other things to put the roof over folks head. However, if you want to restrict yourself to amateur creators, there is plenty of material online for you to enjoy, many of whom would be happy to have you redistribute their work.)

WatsonGlenn

04-10-2005, 09:25 PM

Sharing things that don't belong to you without the permission of the folks they belong to is called "stealing". Really.

Thats true, when you are talking about "things." We are not

And yes, much incentive to create does go away when you remove the financial incentive.

I think the incentive to create art remains. The cream will rise to the top. Art will still be made. I think those that cry about the end of art if files are shared overreact. To use an overused phrase, the Internet has created a new paradigm. Get used to it or be left behind just like the Old Regime and the fuedal lords of the past. Its a new world.

Paul McEnery

04-10-2005, 10:52 PM

Paul McEnery

04-10-2005, 11:10 PM

Except that if Homer could recite the Illiad a single time, and everybody in Greece would hear it within a matter of days, exactly as he recited it, he would have starved to death.

Assuming there actually was an original Homer. In any case, what we have now was not only designed to be held in people's memories, it actually was. Ditto the Bible, and so on. What we have, on the whole, of pre-Gutenburg poetry is what was transmitted by oral tradition and written down later, as I understand it.

Essentially, before modern times, art was almost entirely commissioned by the rich and powerful. When reproduction techniques became common, reproduction rights became important. If you remove copyright, much of the incentive to create will disappear, and that which is left will be put aside for earning a living.

Exactly my point is that this is only true to the extent that it's still true. There has always been art made by people for each other -- folk tunes being an obvious example (take the work of that other great blind artist Carolan, for example) which may have relied on patronage, but just as likely was made for the hell of it, and passed along amongst the people. Look at the only 20th Century poets worth a damn. Yeats wrote on patronage. Berryman and Lowell on academic work. Plath on fumes. And so on.

And if you think there's any difference between working for the King, or working for MGM, take it up with John Sayles. I'm sure he'll have interesting things to say about it. Or with Robert Rodriguez, who uses whatever funding he can lay hands on.

The problem that has come up is the ability to cheaply produce an exact copy of a work. Even the free software movement is heavily funded by patronage. Now, of course, you may desire seeing the arts go back to patronage, where what is created is decided by the wealthy rather than the marketplace. But if you address removing copyright, then you need to cover all the implications, not just a couple that suit your own personal interests.
Again, my point is that just such a paradigm shift as the invention of movable type has just happened, and it changes everything. We will have to be creative in response (fortunately, unlike industry people, creators are actually creative).

Personally, I will lose exactly nothing if no publishers exist any more to hand out million dollar advances -- and nor will anyone else except for Martin Amis and Salman Rushdie (neither of whom wrote anything worthwhile once they started to receive the largesse of Random House or whoever).

But it won't be the patronage of wealthy people. And indeed, it already isn't. It'll be the democratic patronage of enthusiasts using this year's version of paypal. As indeed, it already is.

I'm not sure what is so offensive about the concept of a professional creator (as opposed to performer) that some people feel the need to eliminate it. If you want only culture that is created by the very rich and those who are sucking up to them for patronage, then you would seem to be calling for creatively dark ages indeed.

I much prefer living in the culture made possible by the current rights structure, where there is incentive for professional creators to create material for a wide array of audiences. And I believed that long before I could be accused of being a "middleman".
Nat --

Obviously we've both been here before, so let's try to cover some new ground here (apart from once again waving my hands in the air as a professional creator -- and indeed, one who only gets real money from the very rich, i.e. whoring myself out as a copywriter so I can pay to get my real work done, for which I don't expect to be paid a great deal -- as you know, a novelist who makes as much as 5K is a rarity).

Far from accusing you of being a middleman, I honour you as a fellow creator. But the fact of the matter is, the playing field has dramatically changed. The new technologies of reproduction (and the monopolization of mainstream culture) mean we have to find new ways to make cash.

Again, I hear the bugbear of patronage, and what I think I might be hearing behind that is the fear of having to make less of a living than the current system allows, or having to work harder for it.

Well, honestly, I don't much care. There's a lot of shoddy work out there by lousy fake creators who are only doing it for the money. If we were left with nobody but people who feel compelled to make art for the love of it, the human race would be a sight better off.

Steven Grant

04-10-2005, 11:29 PM

I notice you're still avoiding the issue of amortizing the cost.
This concept of "amortizing the cost" of entertainment is kind of interesting to me. Y'know, when I was a kid we'd pool together our money and send someone in to buy a ticket, then as soon as the house lights went down they'd open one of the side doors to the theater and let the rest of us in. That seems to me to be along the lines of what you're talking about, Paul.

The question that I'm surprised Nat hasn't asked is: why do you feel you have the right to "amortize" the cost of an item by sharing its use among as many people as possible? (I'm not arguing the issue one way or the other, I'm just asking for clarifications.) Is it permissible to, say, buy one movie or concert ticket and "amortize" it among as many people as possible? Does everything carry with it the innate right to amortize?

(I meant to mention much earlier, by the way, that when lending libraries started up, book publishers attempted to shut them down because it enabled many, many people to read a book without buying their own copies. But libraries still thrived, book publishers now often depend on sales to libraries for much of their income, and libraries now carry CDs and DVDs and many other types of materials; in fact, I almost never go to videostores for my DVD rentals anymore, I borrow them free from the library. And DVD publishers cater to library sales as well. Then again, when I borrow a DVD from the library, that doesn't permanently give me my own copy to watch over and over at will...)

WatsonGlenn

04-11-2005, 05:20 AM

[QUOTE=Steven Grant] Is it permissible to, say, buy one movie or concert ticket and "amortize" it among as many people as possible? Does everything carry with it the innate right to amortize?

I know you asked Paul and not me but for me this issue is covered by trespassing laws.

NatGertler

04-11-2005, 05:27 AM

I notice you're still avoiding the issue of amortizing the cost.Because I find it a non-issue, because claiming that one is amortizing the cost by making copies avoids that one has not purchased the right to make copies and thus does not have that cost to amortize. As such, it's like buying one VW Beetle and stealing three more for friends to "amortize the cost". I realize you confess to a blind spot in understanding reproduction rights, yet they are a functional fact.

Now, if you want to buy the reproduction rights and amortize the cost by sharing the song with a lot of people who pay for a share of it, that's your right -- but hey, then you're the music industry. Or if you want to buy a single CD and then share it with 100 people, each getting it for three or four days a year and not creating copies so that a dozen of you might be listening it in different locations and with different start times, then there's no problem with that, either. There may be times when organizing payment around the purchase of a physical copy seems inelegant or unoptimized, but it is a system that has provided for a rich culture.

There seems to be some thought that the existence of the ability to create copies should be the death of copyright, when quite the opposite was true; it was only because the ability to make copies existed that the need for copyright became apparent.

Far from accusing you of being a middleman, I honour you as a fellow creator.Ah, but I am a middleman as well. I didn't write Superfolks, I just saw to it that this work that others had built their careers borrowing from was available, actually generating some money for the writer. I didn't write Stewart The Rat, I just saw to it that creator's rights champion Steve Gerber actually got money from getting his creator-owned work reprinted by another publisher for the first time. I didn't draw It's Only A Game, I just saw to it that the aging and infirm Jim Sasseville got money for his cartooning and recognition that his original ghosting situation denied him.
But the fact of the matter is, the playing field has dramatically changed. The new technologies of reproduction (and the monopolization of mainstream culture) mean we have to find new ways to make cash.No, they create opportunities, they do not create requirement. The vast bulk of the monies in creative work still come from methods that are quite recognizable from the pre-web days. The digital tools we have make it all the more possible for the small player to play in the media field -- and I say that as someone who, from his spare bedroom, publishes books that outsell some of the books that I wrote for a division of Viacom.

Are there other routes to making money now? Sure, and we're seeing some of them exercised, but the ones that seem the most effective are also ones that are deleterious to the art. Watching a TV show like American Dreams go from something which is framed by commercials to something which is simply a commercial, with the actors in the scene discussing Oreo-eating strategies or singing the praises of Kraft Singles, points far too well the shape of things to come. I fully expect David Bowie to release an album free on the Internet... and have it be nothing but songs that sing the praises of Pepsi and the new Ford Exploder.

We can let the market decide whether they want the pay-per-set-of-copies system of iTunes or the pass-around-the-MP3-and-the-hat system; I have little doubt that the bulk of money will go to the former even if somehow the bulk of listeners goes to the latter. The glorious thing is that they may both have viable parts in the marketplace, with the low overhead required by the latter allowing for some folks to exist on less remuneration. If a couple decades back the world could support the Grateful Dead on the share-the-tapes-and-come-to-the-concert model at the same time as The Alan Parsons Project was doing well on the buy-the-album-we-don't-have-concerts model, then we should have room for multiple models now.

I haven't heard anyone call for the elimination of patronage, so we would still have the system that brought us Yeats and the functioning opera companies. But I really don't have the desire to see the system that brought us Buffy The Vampire Slayer done away with.

bartl

04-11-2005, 09:21 AM

You don't see the copyright concept in section 8 of the Constitution, where Congress is empowered to secure for authors exclusive rights with regards to their writings? You may want to look at that document again.
Thanks for bringing it up; I've been too lazy to look it up myself.

bartl

04-11-2005, 09:36 AM

Anyway, comedians steal each other's jokes all the time and most of them will probably tell you it's a pretty shitty thing to do.
Of couse, if you have permission, it's not stealing. Pat Cooper said that he had a routine about a man who gets no respect. Rodney Dangerfield asked him if he could use it, and Pat Cooper gave permission. Then Rodney Dangerfield improved it by moving it into the 1st person. Pat Cooper claims that he has no bad feelings about it, because he would never have come up with the alteration on his own.

I have had a few concepts that were missing a vital piece, and seen others become rich off the idea, with the vital piece in place. For example, back in 1995, I figured out that you could come up with a dedicated Internet machine, very cheaply. The only sticking point was the monitor. Someone else came up with WebTV. I came up with an idea for generalized webmail (where you could use the web to access email on your own server). Someone else came up with Hotmail, where the mail account was included. After Magic: The Gathering came out, I came up with a concept for a collectible miniatures game. But Wiz Kids came out with the "dial base", which was the piece missing from my concept.

In all the cases, I had a great idea, which had potential for making a lot of money, but I failed in the expression of that idea. Others had the same idea, but were able to follow through with it. I have great respect for that talent, and would not begrudge any of them the fruits of their skills and labors.

I think that far too many people think that, once the idea comes, the rest is easy. But those who have tried see that the devil is in the details. That is part of what I see Grant as doing in his series on writing; to show that the idea is only the first step, and that it is real work to put the idea into something solid. I suspect that those who wish to eliminate copyright have no idea of the level of work it takes to create.

bartl

04-11-2005, 09:45 AM

Books on paper are a differant matter.

Ahhh, but once you redefined "sharing" to include swiping from others, you really let go of any opportunity to fall back on reasonable definitions.>>>

Sorry Nat but you don't get to define the terms. Sharing is sharing.

U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Clause 8 (enumerating the powers of Congress):
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

What part of the phrase, "exclusive Right" don't you understand?

bartl

04-11-2005, 09:51 AM

I think the incentive to create art remains. The cream will rise to the top.
How do you define "cream"? The already wealthy, who have the time to create without having to worry about their next meal? Those who have to make art to order for the wealthy?

Actually, there is a branch of the arts which is currently supported almost entirely in this manner: poetry. Where is the cream of poetry, these days?

bartl

04-11-2005, 09:53 AM

I notice you're still avoiding the issue of amortizing the cost.
Can you please give an operational definition of "amortize" in this situation, and show how it fits? I am NOT being sarcastic here; I just want to be sure we're all talking about the same thing.

bartl

04-11-2005, 09:59 AM

And if you think there's any difference between working for the King, or working for MGM, take it up with John Sayles. I'm sure he'll have interesting things to say about it. Or with Robert Rodriguez, who uses whatever funding he can lay hands on.
Do you think that Robert Rodriguez would have gone through the trouble he went through had there not been a possibility of commercial success? Do you think that he would have gotten funding for future projects had his first project not been a commercial success?
Well, honestly, I don't much care. There's a lot of shoddy work out there by lousy fake creators who are only doing it for the money. If we were left with nobody but people who feel compelled to make art for the love of it, the human race would be a sight better off.
Nice words. Can you give any kind of evidence for this opinion, or is it just the way you would like it to be?

badMike

04-11-2005, 10:02 AM

Where is the cream of poetry, these days?Manhattan's Lower East Side.

Steven Grant

04-11-2005, 10:55 AM

I know you asked Paul and not me but for me this issue is covered by trespassing laws.
So? Your own argument is that which laws we should live by are a matter of personal taste. There's no such thing as innate property rights, and, in fact, many groups and tribes throughout history never even acknowledged such a concept as personal property. In many societies before bourgeoise times only the nobility were allowed to own property.

So why should trespassing laws be any more sacrosanct than any others?

Steven Grant

04-11-2005, 10:58 AM

Where is the cream of poetry, these days?
I got your "cream of poetry" right here, pal...

Paul McEnery

04-11-2005, 11:08 AM

Do you think that Robert Rodriguez would have gone through the trouble he went through had there not been a possibility of commercial success? Do you think that he would have gotten funding for future projects had his first project not been a commercial success?

Nice words. Can you give any kind of evidence for this opinion, or is it just the way you would like it to be?
Okay, that was a little grumpy. But actually, yeah, I do think Rodriguez would have done it anyway. A helluva lot of people do, and never get their films picked up for distribution. The last year I was worked as a film critic, of the ten best movies I saw that year, one got art house release (three years later) and one got DVD release (four years later). The rest got one time only showings at film festivals. Meanwhile, a ton of really crap movies clutter up the screens week in week out. They certainly weren't made for love.

In order to watch good movies, I'm compelled to buy VCDs from Chinatown on spec -- one in three is really good, and the rest are at least entertaining. Which beats hell out of watching Blade 2. In order to watch good TV, I either have to bootleg through bittorrent myself, or rely on a local video store that bootlegs for me. Otherwise, I'd never have seen or heard of Chris Morris, or Black Books (soon to have it's concept brought to you without credit behind the fabulous breasts of Pamela Anderson by Steve Levitan).

And it's just as bad with books. Big piles of weak crap, when Ian McDonald and Steve Aylett can't get published. Same deal for M. John Harrison and Iain Sinclair. Robert Silverberg and Karen Haber are driven to self-publish (at least, I think that's what the I books imprint is all about).

And of course it's the same thing with music.

In any case, when it comes to mainstream movies, there's nothing but patronage, and even then, the studios try to screw the creators out of their share of the profits, just as they try to gouge the customers with an inflated profit margin on items which may well become corrupt within five years, if the scare story is to be believed.

It's a corrupt system, and giving it more power is scarcely going to improve it.

Paul McEnery

04-11-2005, 11:12 AM

Can you please give an operational definition of "amortize" in this situation, and show how it fits? I am NOT being sarcastic here; I just want to be sure we're all talking about the same thing.
If I remember correctly, last time we were talking about this, somebody referred us to a techie article that used the word to describe a library scheme he was cooking up. Unthinkingly, I repeated it. Reaching for the dictionary:

TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: am·or·tized, am·or·tiz·ing, am·or·tiz·es
1. To liquidate (a debt, such as a mortgage) by installment payments or payment into a sinking fund. 2. To write off an expenditure for (office equipment, for example) by prorating over a certain period.

So yeah, the application of the word is argumentative, working on the principle that a work costs a certain amount, and that people can collectively pay it off.

badMike

04-11-2005, 11:42 AM

A helluva lot of people do, and never get their films picked up for distribution.Just because somebody made a film that didn't make money doesn't mean they didn't make it without the intention to make money from the outset. Most feature filmmakers hope to at least make some of their money back somehow, in part to finance future films.

Steven Grant

04-11-2005, 11:48 AM

Again, just getting things straight, Paul.

Does that mean when you buy something you first put together a small collective of people to chip in for it? Or do you, say, charge your friends a small fee for that copy of the new Britny Spears album that you loan them? I'm not certain how handing something out gratis collectively pays off its cost. Unless you're making some kind of income off it you're not recouping your expenses in any way...

bartl

04-11-2005, 01:43 PM

Manhattan's Lower East Side.
Is Copernicus still alive?

bartl

04-11-2005, 01:58 PM

Okay, that was a little grumpy. But actually, yeah, I do think Rodriguez would have done it anyway. A helluva lot of people do, and never get their films picked up for distribution. The last year I was worked as a film critic, of the ten best movies I saw that year, one got art house release (three years later) and one got DVD release (four years later). The rest got one time only showings at film festivals. Meanwhile, a ton of really crap movies clutter up the screens week in week out. They certainly weren't made for love.
But the ones you did see; do you think they would have been made if there wasn't even a possibility of commercial release (if you reread my post, you will see that I was referring to the possibility being the inducement, not the actuality).
In order to watch good movies, I'm compelled to buy VCDs from Chinatown on spec -- one in three is really good, and the rest are at least entertaining. Which beats hell out of watching Blade 2. In order to watch good TV, I either have to bootleg through bittorrent myself, or rely on a local video store that bootlegs for me. Otherwise, I'd never have seen or heard of Chris Morris, or Black Books (soon to have it's concept brought to you without credit behind the fabulous breasts of Pamela Anderson by Steve Levitan).
Would these have been made in the first place if there weren't commercial potential?
And it's just as bad with books. Big piles of weak crap, when Ian McDonald and Steve Aylett can't get published. Same deal for M. John Harrison and Iain Sinclair. Robert Silverberg and Karen Haber are driven to self-publish (at least, I think that's what the I books imprint is all about).
A few years back, I started to make plans to start an ebook publishing service (sudden unemployment required that I use my investment capital to live on, unfortunately) with the idea of specializing in small, specialized markets. In the research I did, I came across this site:

http://www.sfwa.org/Beware/epublishers.html

In any case, when it comes to mainstream movies, there's nothing but patronage, and even then, the studios try to screw the creators out of their share of the profits,
So the solution is for YOU to screw the creators out of their share of the profits?

Paul McEnery

04-11-2005, 02:08 PM

Just because somebody made a film that didn't make money doesn't mean they didn't make it without the intention to make money from the outset. Most feature filmmakers hope to at least make some of their money back somehow, in part to finance future films.
Not all works of art recoup their expenses. At a rough guess, I'd say most of them don't.

Again, just getting things straight, Paul.

Does that mean when you buy something you first put together a small collective of people to chip in for it? Or do you, say, charge your friends a small fee for that copy of the new Britny Spears album that you loan them? I'm not certain how handing something out gratis collectively pays off its cost. Unless you're making some kind of income off it you're not recouping your expenses in any way...
The internet filesharing library guy was suggesting exploiting loopholes by saying that everyone owned a share in the library. What I'm suggesting is that that's de facto the case in all circumstances already.

I buy a CD, you buy a CD, we both rip the CDs, we each now have twice as much data for the buck. That sounds like amortization to me. If the principle is admitted for two people doing that, then it's admitted even if I'm spreading the wealth over the entire population of the planet.

What Nat's saying is that this is an infringement on the legal concept of reproduction rights. I don't think so. I think it's a devaluation of the economic value of reproduction rights.

Capitalism thrives on creating an artificial pinch in the chain of supply and demand in order to drive up price. All File-sharing does is remove that pinch for digital media.

Effectively, as a member of the audience, I'm the employer of the performer. File-sharing simply drives down the price I have to pay for that performance (while also cutting my costs on distribution, etc).

Think of it as a market correction.

bartl

04-11-2005, 02:14 PM

If I remember correctly, last time we were talking about this, somebody referred us to a techie article that used the word to describe a library scheme he was cooking up. Unthinkingly, I repeated it. Reaching for the dictionary:

TRANSITIVE VERB: Inflected forms: am·or·tized, am·or·tiz·ing, am·or·tiz·es
1. To liquidate (a debt, such as a mortgage) by installment payments or payment into a sinking fund. 2. To write off an expenditure for (office equipment, for example) by prorating over a certain period.

So yeah, the application of the word is argumentative, working on the principle that a work costs a certain amount, and that people can collectively pay it off.
OK, I can certainly work with that.

In the videotape industry, prices have generally settled on two levels: "priced to rent", and "priced to sell". The idea is that if the video is expected to not generate a lot of sales, it will be given a higher price, to amortize it over a smaller buying audience. If it is expected to sell, it is given a price where the profit per unit is much less, as is the percentage of the price that contains the fixed costs.

In pricing, there are two costs to consider: the initial cost of selling the first unit, and the delta cost of producing each additional unit. For exmaple, let's take a look at air fares. The cost of getting the plane off the ground to the destination is very high. But, once it's flying, the additional cost of each passenger is relatively low (which is why fares are so chaotic, and why things like standby fares are so cheap).

With today's electronic copying and high-speed transmission, the delta cost of producing the next unit is extremely low; often small enough that it isn't even noticeable. But that ignores the fact that the price of producing the first copy needs to be covered.

In addition, our economy is based on risk/reward. In order to create incentive for people to take risks, rewards are made proportionately greater for greater risks. That is why capitalist economies tend to do much better than communist economies; remove the reward, and people are much less inclined to take the risks.

bartl

04-11-2005, 02:17 PM

I buy a CD, you buy a CD, we both rip the CDs, we each now have twice as much data for the buck. That sounds like amortization to me. If the principle is admitted for two people doing that, then it's admitted even if I'm spreading the wealth over the entire population of the planet.
In other words, one guy does the work, and everybody else reaps the benefit. Can you say, "slavery"?

Paul McEnery

04-11-2005, 02:36 PM

So? Your own argument is that which laws we should live by are a matter of personal taste. There's no such thing as innate property rights, and, in fact, many groups and tribes throughout history never even acknowledged such a concept as personal property. In many societies before bourgeoise times only the nobility were allowed to own property.

So why should trespassing laws be any more sacrosanct than any others?
Well here's the crunch, isn't it.

6th Century: The Vatican asserts rights over the contents of your mind when it creates the confessional.

6th - 11th Centuries: Feudal lords assert land rights by violence over serfs.
11th Century (and forward):
Copyright owners begin to assert the right to cream off a profit from ideas.
The invention of heavy armour allows feudal lords to assert even heavier land rights and create kingdoms, enslaving people still further (which leads us into the crusades).
The Vatican asserts marriage rights over priests (insisting on celibacy, so individual priests can't pass on wealth to sons) and over feudal lords, creating laws about marrying even your eight cousin in order to break secular power.

11th-16th Centuries: The Vatican joins power with the kings, asserting rights over people's minds rather forcibly through the Inquisition (leading to the modern nation state).

16th Century (I think): Henry VIII asserts his own rights of succession against the Vatican. The English regain the right to think for themselves.

18th Century: America revolts against being considered property of the King of England.

19th Century: Blacks are liberated from being considered property of Americans.

20th Century:
Women are liberated from being considered property of men.
1967: We all get to assert our rights to marry whom we choose (unless we're gay).
1973: Women assert rights over their own wombs (unless they're still property of the Vatican).
Late 70's: GM crops arrive; corporations begin to assert ownership rights of what you grow on your land.
1994: Consumers begin assert reproduction rights of digital media, not to mention distribution rights.
Late 20th Century: Corporations being to assert property rights over genes of crops, people, animals, and anything else they can think of.

2030: The Planck length problem is cracked; Corporations begin to assert property rights over sub-subatomic particles, planets, galaxies, powers, principalities, and therefore pretty much everything in reality.

The key to all of this is reproduction rights, whether you're talking about reproducing genes, people, plants, or ideas. Property rights all, in the end, amount to landlordship that is stained with ancient blood and repression, and is never satisfied with what it's got, but wants more. Reality has to be packaged for ownership, from the smallest biological unit to the largest cosmology, with people somewhere in the middle. Ownership trickles up to whichever class of people consider themselves to be King God at the moment (whether it's Popes, Queens, Presidents, CEOs, or Jimmy Hoffa).

Which means that essentially, property rights are at base simply reified power over other people; at this point, control of their food, their land, their ideas, and even their genes (if they can get away with it). The key to this is reproduction rights -- since it's in the nature of the universe to reproduce.

Art is simply symbolic forms reproducing using humans as a medium. It's bad enough when you alienate people from their own land, their own people, their own labour, and their own political power. Alienating them from their own culture is unspeakable.

To paraphrase Orwell, the corporations want to stamp a trademark on the human soul forever, as Popes and Kings have been doing for a good thousand years. Bourgeois concerns about making a living from this culture of death seem rather beside the point.

NatGertler

04-11-2005, 03:54 PM

What Nat's saying is that this is an infringement on the legal concept of reproduction rights. I don't think so.It's all nice and easy to say that you don't think so, but absent any present logic and given your expressed problems in understanding the logic of reproduction rights, it's hard to place any particular value on that statement.

Capitalism thrives on creating an artificial pinch in the chain of supply and demand in order to drive up price. All File-sharing does is remove that pinch for digital media.Which is like saying that all a gun does is exert a bit of pressure behind a small piece of metal. It's hardly descriptive of the effect, and the intent of use, and is a rather poor use of the term "all".
Effectively, as a member of the audience, I'm the employer of the performer. File-sharing simply drives down the price I have to pay for that performance (while also cutting my costs on distribution, etc).

Now, I know that being able to set an "employees" wage as low as you want, even to zero, and to do so after the work has already been done may be the wet dream of some capital-worshipping folk. It is, however, ethically empty. If you don't want to pay the price that the employee sets for his efforts, then you are free to do without. Of all the things to divest folks of by force, music is so low on the necessity scale and so high on the otherwise-freely-available scale that it seems utterly inane to start there.
By that logic, you should treat the burglars who rob you nicely, because they're your customers! No, the people who find their prices "driven down" by file sharing aren't employers. You have to pay someone money to be that.
Think of it as a market correction.Yeah, like when you smash someone over the head with a baseball bat and steal their iPod because you don't feel like using your own money to buy one...

If you want to correct the market, feel free to partake heavily in the musicians who offer their work more cheaply or for free. They are plentiful, and that is the way one creates a market correction.

WatsonGlenn

04-11-2005, 05:51 PM

U.S. Constitution, Section 8, Clause 8 (enumerating the powers of Congress):Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; What part of the phrase, "exclusive Right" don't you understand?

Well I guess you're right. And you made you point in such a classy and polite manner too.

WatsonGlenn

04-11-2005, 05:52 PM

How do you define "cream"?

The truely talented.

WatsonGlenn

04-11-2005, 05:57 PM

So? Your own argument is that which laws we should live by are a matter of personal taste.>>>>

I tell you what. I'll make my case and you make yours. I don't need you to tell me what I am REALLY saying.

There's no such thing as innate property rights, and, in fact, many groups and tribes throughout history never even acknowledged such a concept as personal property. In many societies before bourgeoise times only the nobility were allowed to own property.>>>

I believe in the Enlightenment idea of property rights as championed by Locke.

Why should trespassing laws be any more sacrosanct than any others?>>>

Because trspassing is a law that addresses real tangable property.

Paul McEnery

04-11-2005, 09:07 PM

It's all nice and easy to say that you don't think so, but absent any present logic and given your expressed problems in understanding the logic of reproduction rights, it's hard to place any particular value on that statement.

Which is like saying that all a gun does is exert a bit of pressure behind a small piece of metal. It's hardly descriptive of the effect, and the intent of use, and is a rather poor use of the term "all".
By that logic, you should treat the burglars who rob you nicely, because they're your customers! No, the people who find their prices "driven down" by file sharing aren't employers. You have to pay someone money to be that.
Yeah, like when you smash someone over the head with a baseball bat and steal their iPod because you don't feel like using your own money to buy one...

If you want to correct the market, feel free to partake heavily in the musicians who offer their work more cheaply or for free. They are plentiful, and that is the way one creates a market correction.
Nice try, Nat. But creating one analogy after another that equates filesharing with violent crime doesn't make it so.

It isn't that I don't follow the logic of reproduction rights, it's that I don't accept it. Instead, I see it as part and parcel of larger political issues, all of which involve minority control of a majority.

The music/film industry isn't in the least interested in artists's rights -- and indeed, they screw artists over constantly, treating them as exploitable properties in themselves. What the industry is interested -- and this is true in publishing also -- is the bottom line. They achieve that bottom line by restricting supply, and artificially inflating price. It is in that sense that file sharing is a market correction.

Meanwhile, copyright owners continue to abuse their authority.

Films are left to rot -- we've lost them, because their was no profit in them. Well excuse me, I don't care about the studios' profits, I care about somebody's work being destroyed through neglect.

ASCAP is sending agents round to bars to demand money from open mike or bar singers for doing cover versions. This does the same damage to live culture as the lawsuits about sampling.

The publishing industry, at this point, won't let you quote material without permission. If you want to use an epigraph to make a point, you have to pay for it -- and heaven help you if permission isn't forthcoming. What the hell?

I was talking to a friend last night whose grandfather was a composer. His work isn't being played because the copyright holders charge an arm and a leg for the scores to play it. In what way does that fulfil the artist's intention?

Treating culture like real estate is dehumanizing.

dancj

04-12-2005, 05:41 AM

Because I find it a non-issue, because claiming that one is amortizing the cost by making copies avoids that one has not purchased the right to make copies and thus does not have that cost to amortize. As such, it's like buying one VW Beetle and stealing three more for friends to "amortize the cost".

In all fairness it's like buying a VW Beetle and somehow cloning that Beetle a couple of times. No-one has had anything physically taken from them, but VW may or may not have lost a couple of sales because people now have free Beetles.

Even that's not perfect though, because if I had a good car I wouldn't buy another one. If I had a CD free, I'd still buy another one so I'd have spent the same money and have more CDs. I'm still unsure where I stand on file-sharing, but in that latter example I find it hard to see who is losing out.

WatsonGlenn

04-12-2005, 06:16 AM

Do you think that Robert Rodriguez would have gone through the trouble he went through had there not been a possibility of commercial success?

I don't know. But if he would'nt have then to heck with him.

WatsonGlenn

04-12-2005, 06:20 AM

In all fairness it's like buying a VW Beetle and somehow cloning that Beetle a couple of times.

And if that unlikely science fiction future ever comes to pass it would be a good thing.

NatGertler

04-12-2005, 11:29 AM

Nice try, Nat. But creating one analogy after another that equates filesharing with violent crime doesn't make it so.And yet, the concept that you are taking something from someone against their will for your own benefit still sticks. That the damage you do is economic makes it no less real; to devalue economic damage means that you're buying into the same sort of concept that gives folks who push over someone and steals their wallets shorter sentences than those who pillage millions from the pension fund.
It isn't that I don't follow the logic of reproduction rightsI've just been going by your statement, "I can't, for the life of me, understand how reproduction rights can be considered anybody's property."
They achieve that bottom line by restricting supply, and artificially inflating price.[Which seems to suggest there is some "natural" price for a song, an odd concept.
It is in that sense that file sharing is a market correction.Oh, bull. Downloaders aren't doing it because the prices are "artificial". They're doing it because "free" is always cheaper than a price, and when you're ethically impaired, there's little else to worry about.
Films are left to rot -- we've lost them, because their was no profit in them. Well excuse me, I don't care about the studios' profits, I care about somebody's work being destroyed through neglect.Well then, hey, you should recognize thta public domain films also rot through neglect... and that a major portion of the maintenance and restoration is done because there is the financial motive.
ASCAP is sending agents round to bars to demand money from open mike or bar singers for doing cover versions. This does the same damage to live culture as the lawsuits about sampling.Yeah, and laws against car thievery put a clampdown hinder street racing culture. I haven't seen any shortage of bar singing or sampled music in this world, and I think it's ludicrous to say that we should be encouraging derivative works by removing the incentive to do original works.
The publishing industry, at this point, won't let you quote material without permission.I'm not even sure what this statement means. If you ask whether you need permission to quote something, then you are in effect acting permission anyway. And if you don't ask, then you're left with the legal situation, which does allow for fair use.
If you want to use an epigraph to make a point, you have to pay for itYou're talking to "the publishing industry". I've allowed quoting from my work without being paid for it. So much for that...
I was talking to a friend last night whose grandfather was a composer. His work isn't being played because the copyright holders charge an arm and a leg for the scores to play it. In what way does that fulfil the artist's intention?It created financial incentive for the composer who sold the rights, which seems likely to be part of his intention. If he wanted everyone to have unrestrained access, then he should have held onto the rights and given permission openly. Quite simple, that.
Treating culture like real estate is dehumanizing.Excuse me? You're the one that wants to treat creative individuals as slaves, set to work for the wages that you want to set for them or none if you choose, and shorn of any right to control the thing they've created. If you want to worry about "dehumanizing", you may want to take a look at that.

Steven Grant

04-12-2005, 12:29 PM

And yet, the concept that you are taking something from someone against their will for your own benefit still sticks. That the damage you do is economic makes it no less real; to devalue economic damage means that you're buying into the same sort of concept that gives folks who push over someone and steals their wallets shorter sentences than those who pillage millions from the pension fund.

Errr... I thought if you pillaged millions from the pension fund you got a job with the White House...

Steven Grant

04-12-2005, 12:43 PM

I tell you what. I'll make my case and you make yours. I don't need you to tell me what I am REALLY saying.
I'm not telling you what you're saying, I'm telling you what you said. You said in several different messages that, yeah, well, the law may say reproduction rights (nobody's getting these confused with reproductive rights, right?) exist but you don't think so so you don't care what the law says. That's not my interpretation, you said it several times as your main argument. You can go back and read it.

I believe in the Enlightenment idea of property rights as championed by Locke.

Well, that's nice, but believing in Locke is still just your personal taste. You've decided property rights, yeah, they're cool, but reproduction rights, eh. Know what the confluence of those two translate into? (And here I am telling you what you're saying.)

You want stuff!

Because trespassing is a law that addresses real tangable property.

Yeah, but the argument could just as easily be made that "real tangible property" is a nonsense concept. The earth existed long before humanity did; it's ridiculous, on one level, to think any single person has any more "right" to any parcel of land than anyone else does. The whole idea of "real tangible property" is just a construct of law, handed down from the concept of force-of-arms: "It's mine because I say it is and I've got the clubs/swords/guns/atom bombs to back up my opinion." You can quote Locke until you're blue in the face but "real tangible property" is still just an invention of the law. Just like reproducting rights, or intellectual rights. Ideas have had far more of an effect on the world than your bathroom has, so which is more real? If tactile sensation is your criterion for reality, we have to throw out three-quarters of human existence...

Paul McEnery

04-12-2005, 12:59 PM

Yeah, but the argument could just as easily be made that "real tangible property" is a nonsense concept. The earth existed long before humanity did; it's ridiculous, on one level, to think any single person has any more "right" to any parcel of land than anyone else does. The whole idea of "real tangible property" is just a construct of law, handed down from the concept of force-of-arms: "It's mine because I say it is and I've got the clubs/swords/guns/atom bombs to back up my opinion." You can quote Locke until you're blue in the face but "real tangible property" is still just an invention of the law. Just like reproducting rights, or intellectual rights. Ideas have had far more of an effect on the world than your bathroom has, so which is more real? If tactile sensation is your criterion for reality, we have to throw out three-quarters of human existence...

Well, Locke does rest on Hobbes, who rests on the idea that an authoritarian power is the least worst idea. Which may well have been the case at the time. It was certainly inevitable at the time, and a sensible point of view to hold publicly if you don't want to get on the wrong side of said authoritarian state.

Paul McEnery

04-12-2005, 02:03 PM

I'm beginning to think I'm going to have to read Walter Benjamin after all (damn you Nat!) to get a full handle on this, but for me, the bottom line is that the invention of movable type innately devalued the trades of the scriptoria (including the value of their individually produced objects) and innately destabilized power bases.

That would be the real reason Tyndall was burnt at the stake for translating the Bible into English and getting it printed up -- it gave power back to the English speaking population that was taken away from them by the Normans.

The introduction of new technologies of digital reproduction are doing the same thing. Napster prosecutions are the modern equivalent of burning Tyndall (if we're going to indulge in the hyperbole of violent analogy).

I've just been going by your statement, "I can't, for the life of me, understand how reproduction rights can be considered anybody's property."

Yup. And I stick by it. I don't see how "rights" can be traded as if they were commodities -- or how that should be respected.

Which seems to suggest there is some "natural" price for a song, an odd concept.
Oh, bull. Downloaders aren't doing it because the prices are "artificial". They're doing it because "free" is always cheaper than a price, and when you're ethically impaired, there's little else to worry about.

Nonsense. I'm saying that restrictions in supply and demand inflate price beyond the value that would be found in a free market. What I'm not saying is that people shouldn't pay a fair price for the labour of others. What I am saying is that consumers haven't been able to fairly negotiate that price with the actual producers. Again, filesharing is a market correction in this area which will force a change in the way people do business. And indeed is.

Your assertion that ethics enter into it is bogus. If I can get a better price on something, I do. If that better price is "free", that seems like a good price to me.

Well then, hey, you should recognize thta public domain films also rot through neglect... and that a major portion of the maintenance and restoration is done because there is the financial motive.

What I recognize far more is that copyright extensions -- created at the industry's behest -- prevented films from coming into the public domain, which have been left to rot anyway. Public domain means common property. That means the industry has stolen common property, and destroyed it. A crime that's far larger than any notional fluff about filesharing being theft -- which in any case, it isn't.

Yeah, and laws against car thievery put a clampdown hinder street racing culture. I haven't seen any shortage of bar singing or sampled music in this world, and I think it's ludicrous to say that we should be encouraging derivative works by removing the incentive to do original works.

Again with the obfuscating hyperbole. You haven't seen the shortage, because you haven't looked. One example, just up on BoingBoing, is the rights holders on the Internationale charging a filmmaker $1300 because a character in the movie whistles the tune (France, too, has a ridiculously long copyright extension). Other example include the demise of Public Enemy as a band, because copyright holders prevented them from using sampling. Hip hop in general lost its main drive because of this, and has since degenerated. And, as I say, ASCAP has deliberately shut down bar singers performing copyright material. The inevitable upshot of that is that poor people can't play covers. If you want music in your bar, you're going to have to pay the corporations. Bollocks to them.

I'm not even sure what this statement means. If you ask whether you need permission to quote something, then you are in effect acting permission anyway. And if you don't ask, then you're left with the legal situation, which does allow for fair use.
You're talking to "the publishing industry". I've allowed quoting from my work without being paid for it. So much for that...

What I mean is, you shouldn't have to ask permission for an epigraph. It ought to fall under fair use. But the publishing industry insists on you asking permission, and suing you if you don't. Same deal as with Public Enemy, really.

It created financial incentive for the composer who sold the rights, which seems likely to be part of his intention. If he wanted everyone to have unrestrained access, then he should have held onto the rights and given permission openly. Quite simple, that.

Not really. The way classical music works, you're really forced to use a publisher. In an ideal world, that would be an equal partnership, and the publisher would be working as an agent (they way you worked with Steve Gerber). However, ethical publishers are few and far between, and copyright extension gives them the opportunity to charge extortionate rates far beyond the lifetime of the author.

Excuse me? You're the one that wants to treat creative individuals as slaves, set to work for the wages that you want to set for them or none if you choose, and shorn of any right to control the thing they've created. If you want to worry about "dehumanizing", you may want to take a look at that.
Ah, more hyperbole.

Most big name musicians get nobbled by the corporations. Where they make their money is in performance, which has a natural supply and demand pinch. Me, I've got budget limitations, so I know how much I'm able to pay to see a show, and choose accordingly.

If the Rolling Stones were unable to play $50 venues, they'd have to scale down and play $30 dollar venues. That's the natural free market for you. And again, me, I prefer to see bands in the $10-20 range. I like those bands better, and those venues.

So with live music, there's a free market, in which the paying customers have a collective negotiating opportunity.

Equally, in the $10-20 range, you find bands making a living -- or enough money anyways to cover the tour and the lifestyle -- by selling directly to the fanbase (usually at about $10 a CD). You buy the CD direct to support the band. And the band can do without the label, the publisher, and all the rest of that overhead, passing along the savings to the fans.

Or, alternatively, a band can, as I said before, choose between making art objects out of the CD, increasing the value of the object, or use a service like E-Music which has now gone through it's own market correction, going from unlimited downloads for $15 to the more reasonable $4 a record. You may remember that I posited earlier that 4 bucks is what I consider to be a fair price. Shockingly, that's where it settled.

(But regrettably, they're using the i-tunes model of giving you 90 songs for 20 bucks, a model which makes less sense if you're choosing an album that has filler tracks of 30 seconds that are integral to the concept but kind of bugger up the model, like the Swans' Soundtracks for the Blind; hopefully, that will have a market correction too).

Essentially, this changes the ethical landscape dramatically. You move away from price point coercion (where the bulk of the money you pay goes to retailers, distributors, and corporate shareholders) to free market negotiation, where you choose to send money to the people you support (the artist