No Hope
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| ColonelPanik Apr 13, 2009 7:36 PM EDT |
First we got a Sec. Of Education that is worse than anything the
previous administration tried. Now we have the IRAA running the
DOJ. I have lost all hope. Open government seems to mean Open to the Corporations. Many of us expected FOSS to make gains in IT departments through out the government. Looks like another "not so much". |
| bigg Apr 13, 2009 7:40 PM EDT |
But at least there's consensus: individuals of all political camps are able to agree that it won't work. (Deleted liberal talking point.) |
| ColonelPanik Apr 13, 2009 7:48 PM EDT |
bigg: What won't work? |
| bigg Apr 13, 2009 7:51 PM EDT |
(Deleted liberal talking point.) |
| caitlyn Apr 13, 2009 8:24 PM EDT |
(Response to political commentary deleted) Also, as someone who has friends who are fairly obscure musicians I will say that RIAA has a point. OK, their tactics (suing downloaders) sucked rocks. However, when a non-famous musician's music is shared without permission they are being denied the ability to make a living in their chosen profession. The fact that a lawyer worked for RIAA doesn't make him incompetent or unqualified to work at DOJ. It also doesn't make him a shill for anyone. |
| herzeleid Apr 13, 2009 8:28 PM EDT |
Quoting: when a non-famous musician's music is shared without permission they are being denied the ability to make a living in their chosen profession.Or so goes the RIAA party line. Is there any evidence of this? |
| caitlyn Apr 13, 2009 8:31 PM EDT |
Well... it is what my musician friends tell me. It's really annoying to them when more copies are downloaded from a music blog or from Pirate Bay than are legitimately sold. Their royalties are based on sales, not theft. Make no mistake, downloading copyrighted material without permission and without paying for it is theft. There is fantastic music that is freely downloadable. I really appreciate what Trent Reznor did with the last two NIN albums (released under the Creative Commons License) or what James McDougal did with about half of the Entia Non albums. I think it's great that Oriol Perucho, Albert Giminez, and Victor Nubla have all released interesting music in the public domain through Hazard Records. I fully support all of this. The point is that these musicians CHOSE to share their work. It should be their choice since it's work they created. |
| Scott_Ruecker Apr 13, 2009 8:49 PM EDT |
I had a bad feeling this would turn into a big TOS violation magnet.. anyone ever heard of magnatune.com? You can stream it and then buy what you like http://magnatune.com/ |
| bigg Apr 13, 2009 8:56 PM EDT |
Apologies to all who were offended. I've removed my liberal talking points. |
| gus3 Apr 13, 2009 9:12 PM EDT |
As an addendum to Scott's comment, Magnatune sends 50% of all purchases directly to the artists. http://www.magnatune.com/about.html |
| tuxchick Apr 13, 2009 9:12 PM EDT |
Caitlyn makes a good point, one that gets overlooked-- copyright infringement is wrong and illegal. It's not cool, it's not striking a blow for freedom, it is theft, and never mind the tricksy arguments how it isn't theft because the copyright holder still has their property. It dodges the fact that they don't have the income they would have gotten from a sale. I know, not all infringements are lost sales. It's still theft, and it has adverse consequences. One example (if news stories can be believed)--China is known for rampant copyright infringement, to the point that musicians have to make their living from touring and live performances. Everyone but the musicians profit from their recordings. Unfortunately, the MAFIAA have done a remarkably skillful job of making themselves loathesome and hateful and insane, and losing the support of reasonable people. Nothing like a bit of jackbooted thuggery to turn allies into enemies. |
| bigg Apr 13, 2009 9:31 PM EDT |
> copyright infringement is wrong and illegal But Herzeleid's question is whether it denies someone a living. We in the free software world can construct examples where you are better off financially when giving away your output. I listen to music all the time for which the artist gets no compensation, and it's legal - I listen to the radio. All examples I've seen of music company revenue declines coincide with other events. The few statistical studies I've seen have not shown that there is harm. My expectation is that those who illegally trade music wouldn't buy much anyway, and companies like Sony have driven away paying customers such as myself. The RIAA's tactics have been a disgrace, whatever legal foundation there might be for going after those breaking the law. I don't agree with music sharing, but if they want to make a claim, they should provide some support. |
| tuxchick Apr 13, 2009 9:48 PM EDT |
Radio stations pay royalties for every song, every time they play them. They don't get a free ride. That's been a big problem for Internet radio, because the various big corporate rights-holders have not been willing to negotiate a reasonable royalty rate. As long as you're asking for evidence, I'd like to see some that supports "those who illegally trade music wouldn't buy much anyway." Fine, then they can live without it. And I'd like to see some evidence for the "it's great free publicity and it actually leads to more sales!" bushwah. Evidence, please, not excuses for poor behavior. Copyright holders have the legal rights to retain certain controls on their material, and all of these other arguments-- whether they hold water or no-- are irrelevant. They could be interesting from a marketing standpoint, but they're really just excuses for abuses. It's just as dishonest as the MAFIAA tactics. |
| herzeleid Apr 13, 2009 9:52 PM EDT |
I agree that one should respect the property of others, but "stealing" copies of digital data is just not the same as stealing a car or a television set. I'll admit to bittorrenting some music from a certain artist, out of curiosity, a few years back, though I never would have bought anything of theirs anyway as I wasn't that familar with them, so it would be a hard case to make that I deprived them of their ability to make a living. On the contrary, when I liked what I heard, I went out and bought a good number of CDs and DVDs from that artist - so if anything, the "theft" resulted in more sales for them. |
| caitlyn Apr 13, 2009 9:54 PM EDT |
I agree with all that tuxchick posted here. My post is not meant as support for RIAA. My objections to illegal sharing of music should not be construed as supporting the DMCA either. @bigg: Artists do get compensation for their music being played on the radio. Every radio station pays royalties, usually as a blanket license. In the U.S. it's an annual fee to ASCAP and to BMI. My information is based on first hand accounts from artists/musicians who believe they are impacted severely in terms of making a living as a professional musician. Some of them have no love for the music industry, the record companies, or the RIAA. Anything but... They still should have a right to decide to do with what they create. It doesn't matter what statistics studies show. It still doesn't give anyone the right to steal. The argument can be made either way. One thing I do know: many musicians depend on royalties. Whether a thief would make a legitimate purchase if they could no longer steal is irrelevant. |
| caitlyn Apr 13, 2009 10:00 PM EDT |
@Scott: I love Magnatune's slogan: "We are not evil." The artists gets only 50% from Magnatune, though. With Tunecore the artist pays a very small fixed fee and the artist keeps 100% of the royalties. @herzeleid: How is stealing the fruits of someone's labor different when it's digital data? Please explain that one to me. You are honest enough to pay for what you like. I get the idea that many of the "music should be free" crowd would not do the same. They just grab what they like and keep it. |
| bigg Apr 13, 2009 10:14 PM EDT |
> Radio stations pay royalties for every song, every time they play them. Unless they've changed the system, those royalties go only to the person who wrote the song. The argument has always been that playing a song on radio is an advertisement. > As long as you're asking for evidence, I'd like to see some that supports "those who illegally trade music wouldn't buy much anyway." But it's the RIAA making the claims. I'm only commenting on their claims. If someone claims to have a cure for cancer, and I point out that his study of six people is not sufficient to draw a conclusion, I don't have to prove that there is problem with the sample. The person making the claim would have to prove that my assertion is incorrect, that his small sample is large enough. Similarly, it is the responsibility of the RIAA to show that they are actually losing money if that is the claim they make. > Copyright holders have the legal rights to retain certain controls on their material, and all of these other arguments-- whether they hold water or no-- are irrelevant. And I clearly agree that it is wrong. The question I will pose to you is this. Why does the RIAA say that artists are losing money if it is irrelevant? |
| herzeleid Apr 13, 2009 10:32 PM EDT |
Quoting:How is stealing the fruits of someone's labor different when it's digital data?That's easy. if I steal your physical property, you are henceforth deprived of the use thereof. If, on the other hand, I make a copy of one of your CDs, you're not aware of any loss, and continue to enjoy the full use of that CD. Are you saying that you really can't distinguish between the two cases? |
| NoDough Apr 13, 2009 10:37 PM EDT |
>> If someone claims to have a cure for cancer, and I point out that his study of six people is not sufficient to draw a conclusion, I don't have to prove that there is problem with the sample. The person making the claim would have to prove that my assertion is incorrect, that his small sample is large enough. It's frightening logic to suggest that a producer should have to answer any random, baseless accusation just because it is asserted. I vehemently disagree. It is the accuser's responsibility to prove his case, not vice versa. Edit: Perhaps you are familiar with the phrase: "Innocent until proven guilty." |
| vainrveenr Apr 13, 2009 10:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:However, when a non-famous musician's music is shared without permission they are being denied the ability to make a living in their chosen profession.OTOH, one could make a strong argument that the premise this is based upon is mostly rubbish. The premise here is of course that HAD that "non-famous musician's music" actually indeed been shared WITH permission, then that artist would have had access "to make a living in their chosen profession". Here are two sources from December of '06 that rather effectively debunk this grievous misconception : 1. Gerry Block's 'RIAA Petitions Judges to Lower Artist Royalties', http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/09/riaa-petitions-to-lower-a... Quoting:In publicly defending its strong arm tactics and stated desire to scare consumers into absolute compliance, the RIAA has long cited the negative repercussions of piracy and lost revenue upon the recording artists that pour their talent into making the music that people like to hear. It's a sympathetic defense, yet in the past week the RIAA has made it quite clear whose profits the group is truly out to defend, and it's certainly not the artists who actually make the music. 2. Darren Murph's 'RIAA petitions to lower artist royalties, weakens piracy arguments', http://www.engadget.com/2006/12/09/riaa-petitions-to-lower-a... Quoting:Sure, the RIAA hasn't exactly been on the good side of the general public since, oh, this century began, but it sure isn't doing itself any favors with this latest hint of persuasion. While the agency has fought grandmothers, children, and cash-strapped citizens quite vigorously to "ensure artists are getting due payment," it has seemingly opened up a chink in its own armor by pleading with judges to "lower artist royalties." While we fully understand the need to keep pirates at bay, leading us on to believe that the RIAA was actually acting in the (gasp) artist's best interest was dodgy to say the least, as its currently petitioning the panel of federal government Copyright Royalty Judges to "lower the rates paid to publishers and songwriters for the use of lyrics and melodies in applications like cellphone ringtones and other digital recordings." The RIAA's executive VP and General Counsel Steven Marks even went so far as to proclaim his hopes that rates would be reevaluated so "record companies can continue to create the sound recordings that drive revenues for music publishers." We're surely not ones to judge a man's character (nor an album by its jacket), but it doesn't seem that the dear ole musicians are really the ones atop the RIAA's list of concerns, now does it? -- So then, one of the above LXer commentators would stalwartly defend the anti-filesharing measures, vigorously claiming without substantive proof that the musicians affected by the violations/theft were the ones most negatively and directly effected by this, and thus due their fair compensation ??? Makes some sense. And yet, that just did not happen. Alex Chasick's 'RIAA Pockets Filesharing Settlement Money, Doesn't Pay Artists Whose Copyrights Were Infringed', http://consumerist.com/368663/riaa-pockets-filesharing-settl... Quoting:None of the estimated $400 million that the RIAA received in settlements with Napster, KaZaA, and Bolt over allegations of copyright infringement has gone to the artists whose copyrights were allegedly infringed. Now the artists are considering suing the RIAA. -- Oh, all this is past history, and "fairly obscure musicians" most certainly have a better chance to legally earn an income from their works at the present time, in view of all the past negotiations and settlements regarding filesharing and copyright violations, is that right ?? Wrong again!! From 'The Sorry State Of Music Startups', http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/37604 Quoting:Online streaming music startups are in one very sorry place. On demand streaming rates range from .4 cents to 1 cent per stream - this is what the startups pay to the labels every time they play a song for a user. Add bandwidth and storage costs on top of that, which arent trivial for services that want to stream music quickly on demand. The result is hundreds of millions of dollars flowing from venture funds to startups to labels. Little of it makes its way to artists, and advertising revenues only cover a tiny portion of the fees. Indeed, it is easily perceived that those "fairly obscure musicians" and startups who somehow become corralled by the RIAA are unduly suffering financially in MUCH GREATER DISPROPORTION to both the music labels themselves, the RIAA Administration, and the RIAA legal team. .... and these very same RIAA lawyers are now sent into the Justice Dept of the Obama Administration; these lawyers may have little or no incentive to change the dismal status quo for both artists and consumers alike!!! |
| caitlyn Apr 13, 2009 11:03 PM EDT |
@herzeleid: Yes, I can distinguish, and no, it's not that clear cut. If you steal my car you are costing me money. If you (generic you, not you personally) steal music and share it with other thieves you are costing the copyright holder (either the record company, the music publisher, the artist, or some combination of those) and anyone under contract to the copyright holder (generally the artist) their income, in other words you are still taking money out of their pocket. I agree with tuxchick: your argument is an excuse for bad behavior and little more. Music blogs that share illegally get shut down every day but two more spring up to replace them. Some file sharing and file spreading sites have also been closed down but there is still no shortage of them out there. Pirate Bay was in court last I head but I still don't know the outcome. All of these services can be used for legitimate, legal purposes but sadly they rarely are. |
| tuxchick Apr 13, 2009 11:08 PM EDT |
Bigg, when you make a counter-claim it is reasonable to expect something to support it.Quoting: The question I will pose to you is this. Why does the RIAA say that artists are losing money if it is irrelevant?Arguments used to justify copyright infringement are irrelevant. The point that seems to get lost is it's not up to anyone but the copyright holders to decide what to do with their copyrighted works. (Which leads down the fascinating tangent road of the evil and moronic business practices of the entertainment industry, which is a fun topic for another time.) Googles saves the day and reveals that radio royalties go to performers. Sort of: http://www.bmi.com/career/entry/C1519 Herzeleid, are you confusing the purchaser of a CD with the seller of a CD? Sure, you can copy a friend's CD and they'll never know the difference. But all of the parties who receive revenues from CD sales-- retailer, artist, publisher, whoever-- get nothing, while you get the CD. I don't see how that can be spun as anything but theft. **edit** I keep forgetting to say "Ewww RIAA lawyers, ew ew ew!" |
| caitlyn Apr 13, 2009 11:19 PM EDT |
@vainrveenr: You are making the assumption that all of the lesser known artists release with major labels who, in turn, are RIAA members. Nothing could be further from the truth. The big labels want commercial success and often ignore whole genres of music that they don't see as money makers. The artists I am referring may or may not have had a major label release at some point but the bulk of their work is on small, independent labels. Some of those labels are owned by the artists, either cooperatively or individually. In cases like this the system you refer to is bypassed completely. Anything that is stolen DOES come out of the artists' pockets. For example: the last album in downloadable format I purchased from Amazon.com was the latest by Adelbert Von Deyen, Roseg@rden. It was released on Von Deyen's own label on CD as well. No RIAA, no major label, none of that. If I turn around and share it only the artist gets hurt. I agree that the system currently in place is of, for, and by the big corporate labels who in turn make up the RIAA needs to be changed. That still, as tuxchick points out, does not justify theft. It justifies changing the system so that artists are fairly compensated. |
| gus3 Apr 13, 2009 11:38 PM EDT |
(Prefix: As I was typing this, caitlyn's comment appeared. She hits one nail on the head. This comment is slightly redundant, but also somewhat contradictory, to hers.) It all comes down to tangible vs. intangible. In the early days of the recording industry (wax cylinders), a musical ensemble had to perform every single recording. There might have been multiple microphones set up for capture, thus providing multiple cylinders from every performance, but they were not identical cylinders. What's more, after that performance was finished, the ensemble would perform again, providing more recordings, but it would be a different performance. There were no master recordings from which to make manufactured products. The net result was that every recording was unique, and each cylinder was the tangible product. Its value was established easily, because the material, the performance, and the power for the equipment each had clear cost figures to put in an accounting ledger. It was under these conditions that the basic rules of music royalties were established. With vinyl records, the conditions changed; every album with the same production ID was identical. A single performance could be transferred to thousands, or millions, of identical physical products. Bulk manufacturing introduced variability to the production cost. The appearance of home tape recording made available easy third-party duplication, in which the person doing the duplication absorbed the cost of the process. CD's took duplication to the next level; I can transfer a bit-identical audio CD of any song in my CD collection, yet that mass-produced CD remains unaltered, in both content and ownership. And what of those who do not wish to impede third-party duplication of their works? The Grateful Dead take no issue with unauthorized duplication, asking only that people come to their concerts, the source of their real revenue. To quote the inestimable Tom Smith: "I want my music on Napster, I want the world to say 'Wow!' Some say I'm losing money, Like I making it now. I want my music on Napster. Metallica, leave us alone! You want your bloated profits, I just want to be known." The problem isn't that the reality has changed. The problem is that the RIAA and ASCAP have turned their own associations into a business model. Within this model, the entire channel is under their control, from production to release and publicity. (It's a parallel situation with the print media discussion on another thread.) To be visible, a band must sign on with (kowtow to) the Big Corporation, or be relegated to the dust-bin of obscurity. No matter how good they may be, they'll get zero air time on a commercial radio station if they aren't signed with the RIAA/ASCAP. How can it be legal for the MafiAA to dictate to a radio station what they are and are not allowed to play? Isn't that on par with Microsoft ordering software bundling and price-fixing? ...whew... |
| herzeleid Apr 13, 2009 11:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:Sure, you can copy a friend's CD and they'll never know the difference. But all of the parties who receive revenues from CD sales-- retailer, artist, publisher, whoever-- get nothing, while you get the CD. I don't see how that can be spun as anything but theft.You assume that (#1) I have the wherewithal to purchase a CD and (#2) that I actually want to exchange some of the hard won fruit of my labor to see if I like it. My suspicion is that 90% of the "theft" is committed by people who would have never bought the retail product anyway, so the assertion that anyone who listens to an "unauthorized copy" of an artists music is ripping them off is a real rush to judgement based on faulty assumptions. Like I say, I buy the works of artists I like, and artistic product has real value - but the evils of file sharing have been hyped all out of proportion to reality IMHO. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 14, 2009 3:05 AM EDT |
There's one point that I haven't seen made yet (but maybe I read too fast): How much music is being bought *because* it was available online somewhere? Especially for smaller artists. I have occasionally downloaded music, discovered I really liked it and then bought the CD or bought tickets to a show (usually both). I'm not condoning copyright infringement here (I don't call it piracy. Piracy is robbery on the high seas by guys wearing eye patches and wooden legs) but copyright infringement does lead to exposure. And I think many smaller artists actually profit from the additional exposure that filesharing provides. I am a big supporter on simply putting $5/month or so on every broadband connection and legalise filesharing. Andrew Orloski wrote a brilliant article on The Register a few years back and calculated that at $27/year (that's $0.51/week) artists would be adequately compensated, people would be free to share and the music business would be richer that it has ever been before. $0.51 a week! Read it here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/23/orlowski_interactive... |
| tuxtom Apr 14, 2009 3:22 AM EDT |
Their is a big difference between taking money out of someone's pocket and not putting money in it. You can't lose what you never had. The burden of proof is on the RIAA that a "music pirate" would have purchased music if they had not pirated it and that it caused a loss of an existing asset. I, for one, don't buy any music (or software)...haven't for years, even before I learned to sail...Arrrr. I have donated to software developers and musicians have my moral support. My advice to them would be don't quit your day job...your line of work is like playing the lottery. I vehemently disagree that a sale not made is a loss. That notion nothing more than an arrogant sense of entitlement. Why doesn't the RIAA ask for a bailout? |
| jacog Apr 14, 2009 4:14 AM EDT |
Only loosely related... here's the purchase/downloads page from musician Jonathan Coulton http://www.jonathancoulton.com/store/downloads/ He makes a living off the music, but pretty much assumes people will be downloading and distributing it also. |
| gus3 Apr 14, 2009 4:26 AM EDT |
@Sander, I touch on that in my earlier comment. The Grateful Dead understand that their music becomes popular through sharing. @jacog: Someone who writes a song about Lady Aberlin's Muumuu can't be all bad. ;-) |
| bigg Apr 14, 2009 7:17 AM EDT |
@TC: I don't see anything in your link that says the performer gets royalties when they are played on the radio (the type you listen to in your car). Here is a BusinessWeek article from less than a year ago: http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2008/tc200... Specifically Quoting:Nancy Sinatra took her walking boots down the corridors of Congress June 11. The singer took up a cause her father Frank Sinatra had championed 20 years earlier—getting radio stations to pay artists royalties on the songs they play. Satellite and Internet radio stations do it, so it's only fair that terrestrial radio stations should have to pay up also, Sinatra told legislators. Quoting:Under current rules, radio stations pay fees to songwriters but not to performers or copyright owners such as record labels. Quoting:The National Association of Broadcasters cites research from economist James Dertouzos, formerly affiliated with Stanford University, who says free radio airplay contributes $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion in annual music sales. That argument has persuaded Congress not to impose fees when the issue has come up for a vote three times in the past, in 1975, 1979, and 1981. > Bigg, when you make a counter-claim it is reasonable to expect something to support it. I'm not making a counter-claim. I'm not saying that 100% of all illegal music downloads would not have resulted in sales. I'm saying that the RIAA is not providing support for their claim that anything downloaded is a lost sale. Common sense dictates that when something has a price tag of zero you will consume more of it. Take Caitlyn's statement, "If you (generic you, not you personally) steal music and share it with other thieves you are costing the copyright holder (either the record company, the music publisher, the artist, or some combination of those) and anyone under contract to the copyright holder (generally the artist) their income, in other words you are still taking money out of their pocket." I do not have to prove that statement is wrong. Caitlyn has to prove that every illegal download cost them a sale. I will not in a million years believe that, and anyone who makes such a claim is obligated to support the claim. Statements are not assumed to be true until proven wrong. |
| tuxtom Apr 14, 2009 9:18 AM EDT |
The RIAA didn't come after us this hard when we didn't fulfill our obligations to Columbia House when we received all those free CD's. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 14, 2009 10:36 AM EDT |
Tom, >I vehemently disagree that a sale not made is a loss. That notion nothing more than an arrogant sense of entitlement. I couldn't agree more. There is a whole bunch of "entitlement" attitude to go around. There are plenty of artists who think their work has "value" simply because they produced it. "Labor theory of value" time: If it took you 80 sweaty hours of hard labor to create, it is still worth nothing if no one is interested in buying it. > Why doesn't the RIAA ask for a bailout? That is EXACTLY what "a fee for every broadband connection" is: A tax, redistributing money from many people without any evidence of wrongdoing, into the hands of a few politically well connected corporations. |
| ColonelPanik Apr 14, 2009 11:08 AM EDT |
Please see: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/28827/ The historical model will not work here, find something new. |
| tuxchick Apr 14, 2009 2:07 PM EDT |
Ok y'all went completely off the rails here. I think most of us agree that "a sale not made is not a loss, that's just the RIAA being evil and stupid as usual." But you're using that to justify copyright infringement, a lame excuse for justifying illegal copying and sharing. That is stealing no matter how many clever spins are put on it. Oh yeah, trot out the Grateful Dead example. It worked for them, and they gave permission for fans to record concerts and share their recordings. They gave consent. Other performers do not give that consent, and they have both the moral and legal right to control distribution of their work. We do not have the right to say "I can violate your copyrights because it means more sales for you!" That's up to the rights holders, not the freeloaders. We have a history of fair use that has worked pretty well for many years, and which has been trashed both by the MAFIAA and the "everything I want must be free" crowd. **edit** It might be good to remember that FOSS depends on copyrights, and it's a tad hypocritical to expect software copyrights to be respected, but to trample on other people's copyrights. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 14, 2009 2:19 PM EDT |
Rating++ for tuxchick. |
| jdixon Apr 14, 2009 2:24 PM EDT |
> We have a history of fair use that has worked pretty well for many years, Which should really include the "try before you buy" option for digital products. I suspect that at least 50% of those "illegal" downloads were people simply checking the music out to see if they liked it or not, then deleting it from their hard drives when they found out they didn't. I know that's the case with most of the shareware/freeware I've tried over the years. While that's still technically a violation of copyright, it's definitely not a lost sale. |
| gus3 Apr 14, 2009 2:45 PM EDT |
tc, I agree that the composers and performers should have say over the distribution of their intangibles, but that puts you at direct odds with the MafiAA. The big problem I have with letting them mandate file-sharing/P2P restrictions, is that such restrictions put control of the channels back into their hands, and those who won't succumb to their extortion are once again locked out. The Grateful Dead aren't the only ones who shared. How about Woody Guthrie? "If you sing it, you don't have to ask our permission. After all, we wrote it to be sung." (In so many words...) |
| jezuch Apr 14, 2009 2:55 PM EDT |
Quoting:And I'd like to see some evidence for the "it's great free publicity and it actually leads to more sales!" bushwah Here's one: Me. Maybe if I was a fan of mainstream crap, I wouldn't be forced to be a pirate, but unfortunately in my musical explorations I drifted a little too far away from the currents. It's a sad state of things for me that BitTorrent is the **only** way to check out some name I found in a music magazine I read or on a list of similar artists of someone I know. Radio? Don't make me laugh! TV? Now that's a killing joke! So I download and then buy many of the records I like, even though unproportionally high CD prices are a lonstanding issue in my country (they say they have to keep them at the EU average, despite our significantly lower earnings, so that Germans don't flock en masse across the border to haul truckloads of dirt-cheap CD's. Bastards. And they wonder why the recording industry here is in a constant state of deep depression.). I'm such a good citizen, you see? And here's the kicker: about half of thing's I'd like to buy cannot be legally bought in my country - or can be, but for outrageously high prices. In those cases I say "stick it up your...." and stay a pirate. Now RIAA wants me in jail even though I'm a faithful source of their revenue. Now excuse me while I go and pay for five CD's that my store tells me are available to ship any moment. [BTW: And I'm not talking about some ultra-obscure things you have to dig hard to find; three of those bands, exactly the top 3 of my favourites, wandered close enough to me that I could go to their shows - and by the end of april that would be top 4 :)] |
| caitlyn Apr 14, 2009 4:19 PM EDT |
You know, I don't have to prove anything. I never claimed that every single download equates to one lost sale. What I said was that I know musicians who equate the unauthorized sharing of their music with some lost sales. I have no clue what the ratio is. I just know these artists are pissed off and pretty darned vocal about it. I have real doubts about jdixon's 50% "just checking it out" claim. In any case the numbers can't be proven one way or another. Maybe he's right and maybe I'm right. It really doesn't matter. Yes, the Grateful Dead chose to allow music sharing. Tangerine Dream did the same for the Tangerine Tree and Tangerine Leaves series. The two Bootleg Box volumes sold reasonably well despite being previously shared. Tangerine Dream have chosen not to do the same with the rest of their catalog. The point here is that it should be the artists' choice. Nobody has a right to share somebody else's work without permission. Like tuxchick has explained very patiently: it's copyright infringement and it's illegal. Bad behavior by RIAA doesn't change that. Neither does the fact that the major label distribution system is flawed. Right now I'm listening to "Landform" by Terje Paulsen. It's freely downloadable and released under the Create Commons Share-Alike license. That is his choice as an artist and I appreciate it. The point remains that it's his choice and nobody else's. tuxchick's use of the term freeloaders is apt when it comes to illegal sharing. Yes, CDs can be expensive. Yes, some artists could potentially be shutting out part of their potential audience by not sharing. (This assumes most people are law abiding and honest. I have my doubts about that too.) None of that justifies stealing. Oh, and tuxchick, I agree with Sander. This is an outstanding point: It might be good to remember that FOSS depends on copyrights, and it's a tad hypocritical to expect software copyrights to be respected, but to trample on other people's copyrights. |
| jdixon Apr 14, 2009 4:48 PM EDT |
> This assumes most people are law abiding and honest. I have my doubts about that too It's been a long time since law abiding and honest had much to do with each other, Caitlyn. :( > None of that justifies stealing. Agreed. |
| bigg Apr 14, 2009 4:59 PM EDT |
> But you're using that to justify copyright infringement, a lame excuse for justifying illegal copying and sharing. Definitely not. I've never downloaded music except a few songs from Apple and WalMart for my wife. Copyright infringement is wrong. I'm not excusing it, and don't really even care much one way or the other. But it's also wrong to make false claims about the damages. "Musician can't feed his family due to file sharing." "Musician loses the ability to prevent others from listening to his music." The first is much more serious than the second. Which is true? We don't know, but according to the RIAA, the first statement is true. Why does it matter? They want to get sympathy. They want to change the laws and the judicial system. They want to dig on my computer to make sure there is no illegal music there. How about the costs they are trying to impose on colleges? Have you heard about the proposal that ALL college students would pay a fee and be allowed to download all the music they want? That's repulsive. I know college students who don't even have the ability to play downloaded music - with the possible exception of a school computer lab - and they can't even afford to buy the books for their classes. How about the single mother with three kids taking a class at a community college? To me, the difference matters. It's a lot more than just a matter of a few middle class college kids downloading music for free. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 15, 2009 9:07 AM EDT |
May I request an intellectual exercise? I've seen lots of argument that it is enough to justify what "is", by saying "it works". Yes, what "is" works, since we're still alive. Copyright exists, it is possible to work within it, industries have been built within its legal framework. I think it is necessary to realize that "copyright" is created by law. Without those statutes, if it is possible to imagine such a situation, what changes? Let's say there is no copyright/patent law. Doom and gloom spring to mind, of course, because the industries built upon those statutes cannot exist as they are now. Seriously, what would you do differently? Would you do anything differently? I disagree with TC on the point that F/OSS "depends" upon copyright. F/OSS exists now within the framework of copyright, true, because copyright exists. We are all working within the framework of copyright BECAUSE copyright exists, but I'm not going to say F/OSS cannot exist without copyright because it hasn't been tried. I believe that copyright/patent only retards innovation. The bald assertions that "something" wouldn't exist without copyright cannot be proven, because (other than proving a negative) we do not have the copyright-less frame of reference to work with. ...or do we? I bought a book last week, St. Augustine's "City Of God". I had several choices of translation, publishers, cover-colors. Yet I could buy a copy of something so far out of copyright that copyright might as well not exist. Exactly. Same for Chaucer, Shakespeare, Plato, Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Mozart, Beethovan, the entire collection of Project Gutenberg, etc etc etc. I am not trying to rationalize stealing. I'm trying to get people thinking about the subject of copyright from "outside the box". Rather than bickering about violating or not violating copyright, the time as come to re-think the reason for having copyright at all. I may be wrong, I fully accept that an argument for copyright law might be made that is irrefutable. But considering what people accomplish through voluntary interaction, as compared to the mess created by statute laws, I'm not holding my breath. |
| ColonelPanik Apr 15, 2009 11:50 AM EDT |
Take a look at how Cory Doctorow is selling his books. All his work is
up for free download. And sold via brick/mortar stores, online book sellers.
Any of us would be happy to make the $$$$ he is. Very happy.
Is he the only one doing this with success? What about the library? One book can be read by hundreds of patrons. Do libraries pay a lot more for their books? Why don't we hear the call for closing the libraries? We just need a new system, that rewards the makers. Those who create should reap the rewards. Those who live off the creators should be out looking for work. |
| bigg Apr 15, 2009 12:04 PM EDT |
> What about the library? One book can be read by hundreds of
patrons. Do libraries pay a lot more for their books?
Why don't we hear the call for closing the libraries? Colonel, that's an important point that has been brought up before many times. Let me expand a little bit. The argument is often made that you could not start libraries today, solely on the basis that individuals would be reading the books but not compensating others for their work. As it turns out, many books would probably not even be published without a library system. The cost of many of those books, particularly expensive research monographs, can be shared by multiple individuals. In addition, you take a chance when purchasing a book because it might be bad, so new authors in particular would have greater difficulty getting published. One such link: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/if-public-l... |
| tuxchick Apr 15, 2009 12:07 PM EDT |
Colonel, you can't easily and cheaply make perfect copies of books, like you can do with music and movies. A library loan is like passing around a single copy of music CD to your friends to share. Rather than making mass copies and distributing them to the world. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 15, 2009 12:36 PM EDT |
> you can't easily and cheaply make perfect copies of books, like you can do with music and movies. Yes, you can with electronic books. Yet people still sell books that are available in electronic form. I would like to know the principled basis of copyright enforcement, not an argument from utility. From utility, it's easy to argue for absolute totalitarian authority over everything. Because then the trains would run on time. |
| ColonelPanik Apr 15, 2009 12:36 PM EDT |
tuxchick, You can print any book at home on your laser printer cheaper
than buying it in the store!
With POD (Print On Demand) systems you can print/bind a book
for less than the publishers do now, that is thinking of the distribution
costs added in. Its a new world, enjoy. If I can borrow a CD and listen to it or go to the library and listen to it, thats the same as owning it, well, almost. I can go to my friends house and watch a movie, two movies and listen to some music. Thats breaking the law, I don't know. If you go to the store and buy some food and then share it is that fair use? I mean the farmer isn't getting more money because he isn't selling to more people? Trains B_R ? Please don't go there, cause the trains sure don't. |
| tuxchick Apr 15, 2009 12:52 PM EDT |
It is a new world, and so far none of you happy-copy-n-share folks are making any suggestions for how artists, musicians, and writers are going to get paid. Or perhaps you think it is OK to sit back and enjoy the fruits of other people's hard work and talent for free? What do you do to deserve to such generosity? Even a copy of a very old text that is centuries out of copyright cost something to produce and distribute; someone else invested significant time and money to make that available to you. And I'm still bugged at your blithe disrespect for both the moral and legal rights of creators to exercise some control over the distribution of their own creations. "Oh it's for their own good!" Bleh. It's not up to you. Creators have been taking it in the shorts since the beginning of humanity, and in this brave new digital era they're getting it both from the business world and their own audiences. That's progress, I guess. Yeah I know, you're all honorable and every time you glom an illegal copy of something you make sure to send some money to the creator. Come on Colonel, you can tell the difference between one copy and many copies. |
| DiBosco Apr 15, 2009 1:53 PM EDT |
Quoting:On the contrary, when I liked what I heard, I went out and bought a good number of CDs and DVDs from that artist - so if anything, the "theft" resulted in more sales for them. Couldn't agree more - and this is coming from a musician. Someone who has released an album in the past in fact. The other guitarist in the erstwhile band now runs a small record company and he agrees with herzeleid's point too. I was chatting to him the other day and he has similar discussions with the BPI which I think is our equivalent to the RIAA. The old method of selling music is dead whether musicians and record companies like it or not. I have absolutely zero sympathy with big record companies they are clueless, out of date fools who have next to no understanding about what the public actually want and too often foist rubbish on the public. They rubbed their hands in glee when CDs came out because it meant people went out and bought albums they already had on the false premise they got their music in a superior format. Now when people want music on an even more inferior format (compressed digital music like MP3 or Ogg) they are wringing their hands in self-pity. All this ties in with the complete tosh that's played on the radio which is in the grips of these clueless record companies. They have them [the radio stations] play the same rubbish over and over again so they can sell the latest throw-away bilge they can churn out for next to nothing with no need to develop and nurture over the years. This is also so short sighted as the biggest selling bands like U2 and REM took years and years before they started selling the big, big volumes that lined the pockets of clueless record companies. I have no sympathy whatsoever for record companies and this has nothing to do with the actual artists because until artists start selling in massive volumes they are still poor. I remember All About Eve saying that even after their seemingly big success with their eponymous debut album they were still broke even though they more than a quarter of a millions copies! Don't confuse artists being broke with record company success and an old fashioned method of selling music. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 15, 2009 2:11 PM EDT |
> and so far none of you happy-copy-n-share folks are making any suggestions for how artists, musicians, and writers are going to get paid. Yes, I have. Serialization. You want the next chapter, buy this magazine. Swag. "Official, authorized merchandise" Commission. Just like the greatest of fine art was done for as far back in history as there has been art. Music is the easiest of all: People PAY GOOD MONEY for live performance. "Recoding" was supposed to make performance obsolete, all the nay-sayers were proclaiming how one "perfect" performance of a piece would be made, and no one would ever want to hear another. But that's not what happened at all. Just like anyone else that doesn't get government monopoly protection, in order to make a living "artists" are going to have to innovate. And if they can't, if they cannot find a market for their production without the force of the state to back them up, was it any good to start with? TC, I don't have any problem with your disagreement, it's easy for people to disagree. What I object to is you portraying this as if no alternatives have been presented. Alternatives to coercive monopoly have been presented at ever turn, and existed prior to the invention of coercive monopoly in art (which is a very recent development). Please stop telling falsehoods about those who disagree with you. |
| azerthoth Apr 15, 2009 2:31 PM EDT |
What falsehood would that be? |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 15, 2009 2:52 PM EDT |
> What falsehood would that be? Since you missed it the other two times: "so far none of you happy-copy-n-share folks are making any suggestions for how artists, musicians, and writers are going to get paid." I'm also quite put off by the accusations that wanting to eliminate copyright is ONLY a rationalization for wanting to steal other peoples works with impunity. Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium [Better freedom with danger than peace with slavery]. (I really should not have made it two posts, else there wouldn't have been a non-intended skip) |
| caitlyn Apr 15, 2009 2:57 PM EDT |
What azeroth said. I don't see anything false in any of tuxchick's posts. I also believe in the rule of law. I don't see having a society governed by laws as authoritarian. I see it as a necessity if I want my rights protected. So long as the society is representative, has protections for minorities, and means of redressing grievances through the legal and legislative systems then I see laws as a good thing. I also see copyright protections as a good thing for precisely the reasons that tuxchick stated. You don't like the law as it stands? Work to change it. However, until it is changed there are consequences for ignoring it and those of us who believe that certain laws are good, including copyright protections, will work to see that those consequences are applied to you if you choose to violate those laws. If that makes me evil in some people's eyes then so be it. |
| caitlyn Apr 15, 2009 3:00 PM EDT |
I'm also quite put off by the accusations that wanting to eliminate copyright is ONLY a rationalization for wanting to steal other peoples works with impunity. What is the reason for eliminating copyright then? I'm afraid I do see it precisely in the way you find off-putting. It's a desire to get something (or many things) for nothing. I find many of the music sharing advocates (not in this thread but online in general) have a real sense of entitlement. What on earth entitles you to someone else's work product without compensation? |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 15, 2009 3:01 PM EDT |
> What is the reason for eliminating copyright then? I thought this had been covered many times, but here we go again. Copyright/patent is a legislated monopoly grant. It is a creation of statute law, just like a "corporation". At its best, it limits the use of unique ideas to their "creators" for a limited time. It does this by allowing the prosecution of people for using those ideas without permission of the original "creator". At its worst, it takes away the ability of others to built upon the "original" idea and thereby create new ideas. There is also the prosecution (under patent) of ideas that just happen to be similar to the first, but arose out of independent thought. When copyright was first established, it was for a limited time and had to be both deliberately sought, and deliberately extended to the limits of legal duration. Now, it's not just automatic it has been extended to absurd lengths due to political machinations of powerful special interests to the point where the "public domain" is being killed by neglect. It is my contention that, from a utility standpoint, the abuses of copyright outweigh its benefits. You might find this interesting: Against Intellectual Monopoly: http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.h... |
| caitlyn Apr 15, 2009 3:04 PM EDT |
You see modern Western society as slavery? I don't think I live on the same planet you do. |
| jezuch Apr 15, 2009 3:04 PM EDT |
What I'd like to see is ability to easily buy directly from the artists. Cut out the middlemen! Distribution would be a problem, and the fact that artists aren't known for being good businessmen, but I think that's the right direction. |
| caitlyn Apr 15, 2009 3:07 PM EDT |
@jezuch: I certainly agree with you and I have been able to do that online from some artists. Come up with a good system for doing that on a large scale and I am sure you'll find a very supportive artist community and user community. Another problem, of course, is how do you promote the music outside of the current large record label and broadcaster system. |
| azerthoth Apr 15, 2009 3:18 PM EDT |
Sorry Bob, she nailed it, how do you guarantee that a creator gets compensated for their work. As much as there have been a few positive added sale from what is otherwise known as the free as in free loader crowd, I have seen you propose nothing that would guarantee it. We can discuss all we want about how we think the world should work, but never loose sight of how the world actually does work. Also on the other part, just as the FreeBSD networking stack landing in Windows, a total removal of copyright protection will send people less morally centered than yourself chasing after everything with glee. |
| DiBosco Apr 15, 2009 3:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:Another problem, of course, is how do you promote the music outside of the current large record label and broadcaster system. The Internet and gigs. In a way the Internet is what has caused this "problem" and is what can also solve it. Sites like Pandora and Last FM are brilliant for promoting bands you might not have heard of. It's not a big leap to create a small band and small record label equivalent. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 15, 2009 3:25 PM EDT |
Guys (and gals), drop it will you. This is the fifth or so thread to de-evolve into a pro/anti libertarian political discussion. I'm growing tired of them. |
| azerthoth Apr 15, 2009 3:26 PM EDT |
@Bob, to garner a closer understanding of how my mind works on these subjects "Nothing which causes no harm, either physically or financially, to any other person can be illegal." This leaves me with the conclusion that copyright is a personal protection, safeguarding my work and labor from other financial predations. |
| azerthoth Apr 15, 2009 3:28 PM EDT |
@sander, while I agree with the overtones, this one has stayed on topic(ish) copyright. Which is the heart of F/OSS, or not as pieces of the debate have posited. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 15, 2009 3:35 PM EDT |
@azerthoth: I suggest to go back on topic to copyrights in music and copyrights in FOSS and drop the whole "abolish copyright all together" libertarian utopia angle that got squeezed in during the last 20 or so messages. |
| jdixon Apr 15, 2009 3:47 PM EDT |
> ...how do you guarantee that a creator gets compensated for their work. I feel forced to point out that it's not like the current system does a very good job of that either. Most creators get little to nothing for their work under the current system. |
| azerthoth Apr 15, 2009 4:36 PM EDT |
Sorry Sander, removing that angle can not happen in any discussion where copyright and free software are concerned, as the abolition of copyright is something that RMS himself espouses, and for many of the same reasons that Bob is advocating. This falls into one of those categories of "I may not like what your saying, but I will defend your right to say it to the death." Bobs viewpoint may be opposite of all of ours, it is not however any less valid. |
| caitlyn Apr 15, 2009 4:47 PM EDT |
I am going to disagree with azerthoth and agree with sander in one respect. A website owner (or editor) has the right to control content on their site. I've had comments deleted from articles I wrote for O'Reilly which I didn't object to even if they vehemently disagreed with me. One was removed because I was called a "bitch". I left it in place because I felt the troglodyte who posted did a very good job of hanging himself and insuring nobody would take anything he had written up to that point seriously. An editor removed it. O'Reilly doesn't tolerate foul language. Similarly, Sander and Scott and Tracyanne do have the right to limit the scope of discussions here. It isn't censorship since nobody prevents Bob from posting his opinions on the net. The website owner has the right to control their site, period. Having said all of that I agree with azerthoth that I don't see a TOS violation here and I see this as almost an entirely on-topic discussion. Why nobody has deleted the pro-gun ownership rant in another thread is beyond me. That's far more objectionable than this is. |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 15, 2009 5:19 PM EDT |
caitlyn, if I had the power to delete I would have deleted it the minute I spotted it. Or at least close it (except for spam I usually oppose deleting threads).Quoting:Having said all of that I agree with azerthoth that I don't see a TOS violation here It's a slippery slope from Quoting:Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium [Better freedom with danger than peace with slavery]. and Quoting:You see modern Western society as slavery? to what happened in e.g. http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/28802/. Don't get me wrong, I find the entire discussion about possible business models for music, books, newspapers and free software interesting. The first guy (or gal) to come up with a working model is going to be a millionaire. I would like to continue that discussion instead of watching people argue whether copyright equates to slavery. There have been too many threads like that of late. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 15, 2009 5:23 PM EDT |
Az, > how do you guarantee that a creator gets compensated for their work. First, something that you really should have learned on you momma's knee, "In life there are no guarantees." If copyright were still something that had to be deliberately sought, that lasted for a limited time and could only be renewed by deliberately doing so (thus proving both the desire and the expected usefulness of having copyright on a work), my only objection would be the falsely-labeled "libertarian utopia" argument. (ps: Utopia was a PLANNED perfect society. Copyright is a planned benefit to a select group, so copyright is what is Utopian. "Libertarian" and "utopian", especially in the context of the abolition of such planning, cannot be used together. They are mutually exclusive.) You may very well call abolition of copyright "idealist", and I won't argue with that at all. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 15, 2009 5:25 PM EDT |
Sander, "It's a slippery slope from..." Which is why I ignored that comment. :^) Even I can smell troll-bait sometimes. Wait, did someone say guns? |
| Sander_Marechal Apr 15, 2009 5:27 PM EDT |
Ah yes. And you never bait yourself eh? ;-) |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 15, 2009 5:42 PM EDT |
I have had postings, and even a thread, deleted. I fully accept that it's the perview of the owner to do that, I respect the decision. Bait myself? That would be silly, like trying to throw my foot across a ditch. I'm also glad to have a vigorous discussion on copyright, even if it does occasionally wander into the area personal invective. That means people are getting heated up! That means we're getting down to basic beliefs and basic instincts on the matter. This is very VERY good, in my opinion, because (like a hostile courtroom) such a contentious environment can burn away irrelevancies and get down to what really matters to people. For instance, the one single "principled" position I've seen here in favor of copyright is one which falls back on utility: Authors want to get paid. In contrast to that, I'm trying to get beyond mere utility and try to find if there is any rational principle behind copyright to support it. I do that by trying very hard to present a principled stand against copyright. I'm sorry that such a principled stand tends to bring out the worst sometimes. The amateur psychologist in me tells me that when people start making irrational and hateful statements, I'm getting past their reasoning on an issue and hitting the "grasping at straws" emotional efforts to not have to give up a cherished position on an issue which they have no reasoned basis to hold. |
| jdixon Apr 15, 2009 8:00 PM EDT |
> Similarly, Sander and Scott and Tracyanne do have the right to limit the scope of discussions here. It isn't censorship... Absolutely. As the authorized agents of the owner, they have the perfect right to do so. > Wait, did someone say guns? Yes, but in another thread, soon to go the way of the Dodo, I expect. > I'm trying to get beyond mere utility and try to find if there is any rational principle behind copyright to support it. I believe that the theory behind the establishment of copyright (I'll leave patents, et. al., out for now) was to encourage people to produce original works in the hope of compensation. It was believed that without the protection of that limited monopoly, creative works would be much less likely to be produced. Whether it achieves this goal is debatable. I think a number of copyright's flaws could be remedied by the simple matter of disallowing the ownership of copyrights by corporations. Sort of by definition, corporations are incapable of producing creative works, only people can do that. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 15, 2009 8:29 PM EDT |
> I find the entire discussion about possible business models for music, books, newspapers and free software interesting. The first guy (or gal) to come up with a working model is going to be a millionaire. I think the Grateful Dead qualify for that. They made no attempt to "protect" their copyright, as has been mentioned before, relying upon ticket sales for their income. That's the one absolutely un-duplicatable thing: Personal service. Live theater, music, lectures. One-of-a-kind artists productions, paintings, sculpture. The very things people were doing to make money before copyright. |
| azerthoth Apr 15, 2009 8:54 PM EDT |
sander, caitlyn, having helped run a few large forums/herd of cats, I fully agree in moderator/editorial control. And sander I hadnt parsed the lines that were your concern, so allow me to remove my feet from my mouth please. Bob, of course there arent any guarantees, I can however do my best to minimize collateral loss or damage, and removing copyright and tossing it out there with a "I hope everyone is honest" wish for the best ... that doesn't do much to minimize loss. I have yet to see anything proposed, that will protect my work, other than the "I hope people are honest" from the abolitionists. Give me something other than good wishes, and I'll re-evaluate my stance on copyright. I may not change but I am willing to keep an open mind and evaluate something that is functional, and by functional I mean something that has some teeth to it. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 16, 2009 12:48 PM EDT |
> I have yet to see anything proposed, that will protect my work What is your work? |
| azerthoth Apr 16, 2009 5:19 PM EDT |
Bob, it makes no difference if my work is the occasional opinion piece, technical documentation, or sappy christmas card platitude. The skull sweat all comes from the same place, be it Asimov, Torvalds, TC, or me. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 16, 2009 7:43 PM EDT |
Az, Well, since you've dismissed out of hand the various methods of making money on the production of code and words that have been presented, I thought you had some particular work that you know somehow cannot be profitted by using those methods that were used before copyright and since by such people as musicians (Grateful Dead) that rely upon those things that are outside of copyright to profit. I realize you're "sick of the debate", as so many are, but I'm wondering about this. TC has accused me of not supplying any particulars, even though I have repeatedly supplied particulars, about how things can continue to function without copyright. Yet when asked why your particular production cannot function without copyright, you hide behind generalities and merely claim that "nothing works" except violent, coercive and overwhelming copyright monopoly. As much as I would like to not sound like a whining brat here, I am left on the short end of a double-standard. No requirement to show particulars are being demanded of those in favor of copyright, while those against copyright are continually picked to death for not solving every tiny possible problem that might occur in human interaction. Oh, but of course I have no right to be offended when people lie about my position, after all I'm in the minority here. |
| hkwint Apr 16, 2009 8:28 PM EDT |
Quoting:It is a new world, and so far none of you happy-copy-n-share folks are making any suggestions for how artists, musicians, and writers are going to get paid. There are several models which have been both successful and existing for years. The one from the radio, where the artist is paid for every time ones song is played, without the artist having much control over their copyright. Probably the more listeners a radio station has, the more it has to pay. At least that's the way it should work IMO. That way, if I listen a song 10 times on the radio the artist receives more money than if I listen to it 1 time. CD's are not like that, and that's one of the main reasons I don't buy them that much anymore. My harddrive is full of songs I downloaded - most of them back in time when it was believed to be legal - and most of them I hardly ever listen. So logically I don't want to pay (much) for them either. The ones I do listen to a lot; I might pay for. In my opinion, a solution to the 'copyright violation' problem should contain some kind of way to measure how much time some 'work' is used and reward the copyright holder accordingly. I don't pay for my mobile phone €60 a day "because in theory I could call for 16 hours per day" either. Also there's the system from public broadcasting, where those broadcasting companies are paid by taxes. In the Dutch system (which - on a worldwide scale seems to be rather unique), the more 'members' a public broadcasting company has, the more time on TV it will have and the more tax money it receives to make new programs AFAIK. Then you have 'pay per use' for mobile services such as GPRS in the past; where I payed per MB. I already touched upon that subject. We should combine all that with what Sander said about adding "copyright-violation" costs to internet connections. At this moment, Internet Service Providers (ISP's) selling broadband connections are largely making their money because of copyright violation. Therefore, I should say it would an idea to assign them the task to offer copyrighted material and collect royalties from it. It's not much else from what they're doing now, because people who 'download more / faster' usually 'pay more' to the ISP's. I would have no objection against some apparatus on my computer measuring what copyrighted content I consume for what period, of course if I can be sure my privacy is respected (ISP's have been required to log all my stuff already, so what else is new?). Then, ISP's could charge me according to my 'use' - much the same way as for telephone conversations today - and because they logged what I consumed they could distribute the royalties accordingly. In the ideal situation, costs for those contents would be the same as for content in newspapers / on the radio. I don't believe that's the situation of today: When I listen to a song on the radio twenty times probably much less money is going to the artist and record company than if I buy the same song on CD. For example: -Adds are about €30/second for a certain radio station, -I assume 500k people are listening to that certain station, -I assume all income of that station is through adds, -I assume 20% of the income of the station goes to copyright, -I assume there's one hour adds per day on that station, -I assume they play 10 songs per hour Then we can calculate how much money is going to the copyright when I listen to some song. 3600 seconds / hour * 1 hour * €30 / second * 20% = €21600 copyright costs for that station per day, (€21600 / day) / (10 songs / hour ) / (24 hours / day) = €240 per song, €240 per song / 500k person = €0,00048 per person per song. Let's say I listen to that song 200 times on the radio, then the artist would receive 1 cent. Even if I'm really wrong in my assumptions, let's say by a factor of ten, the artist would only receive 10 cent, and a lot of it would go to the recording company; let that be the correction for possible mistakes I may have made. Then, let's say on average 15 songs go on an album, then a 'radio-album' should cost no more than €1,50 (and only €0,15 if my assumptions are correct!); and I would be entitled to listen to all those songs 200 times. With that difference in mind, it's not problematic to see why some people don't want to pay for CD's I guess; and at this moment there's no alternative to pay a reasonable amount of money to an artist to listen to a song 200 times. |
| azerthoth Apr 16, 2009 8:47 PM EDT |
Bob, I'll hand you some cheese for that. I have not lied, nor has anyone else lied about what we perceive as your stated position. If we mis perceive it, you have not clearly defined yourself. As to your supplied proofs, you have supplied examples of "gee I hope this works" but nothing defined as a solid alternative. Dont accuse me of hiding behind generalities when the medium or form of my work has absolutely no bearing on how some undefined solid alternative will protect anything that I could possibly release under a copyright today. Your propping up your argument with the grateful dead as a prime example, oh goodie, it worked once or twice, yay. Supposedly there was a man who could walk on water once too. I asked for for something solid and functional from you, and you went on the defensive and poor pitiful me. I have not said that violence was in order (as you have just accused me of), nor coercion, I asked you to supply a functional alternative. Write it out, something solid and workable that does not rely on 'I hope this works' as an alternative. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 17, 2009 7:36 AM EDT |
> nor has anyone else lied about what we perceive as your stated position. "You see modern Western society as slavery?" "so far none of you happy-copy-n-share folks are making any suggestions for how artists, musicians, and writers are going to get paid." "And I'm still bugged at your blithe disrespect for both the moral and legal rights of creators to exercise some control over the distribution of their own creations." "Or perhaps you think it is OK to sit back and enjoy the fruits of other people's hard work and talent for free?" I'm still quite stunned at the cognative dissonance of that last one, considering that this is a LINUX forum, where one of the major talking points is that "it's both libre and gratis". And before you write that LINUX developers choose to distribute their work for free, and others may not, I deliberately included the "exercise some control" quote as a distortion of my stated opinion. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 17, 2009 8:58 AM EDT |
> I have not said that violence was in order (as you have just accused me of), nor coercion Yet that is exactly what copyright law is. Arbitrary rules backed up by violence. > I asked you to supply a functional alternative. ... Write it out, something solid and workable that does not rely on 'I hope this works' as an alternative. Again? But then, if you hadn't been reading this thread, I can understand why you didn't notice I've already pointed out that methods suggested of making money without copyright laws seem to get ignored in favor of demanding one perfect Utopian way to Make It All Work Right This Time. You locked onto one example given of musicians making money by performance, and ignore everything else. Then you try to tell me that is the only example given, that "oh goodie, it worked once or twice, yay." It works, every day. Not so much for walking on water. > Dont accuse me of hiding behind generalities when the medium or form of my work has absolutely no bearing on how some undefined solid alternative will protect anything that I could possibly release under a copyright today. And you expect me to deliver to you one specific Utopian plan that will solve a problem you refuse to define? But then, you state that you have seen no alternative methods of making money on what you call "skull sweat" other than arbitrary copyright presented in this thread or, as Sander has addressed, all the OTHER threads on copyright. I guess it's fair, in a strange sort of way. My request for a principled argument in favor of copyright has been ignored, so I guess your request for me to write out, again, ways of making money on "skull sweat" without copyright can be ignored. ----- I find interesting the assertion that people get broadband connections solely for the purpose of copyright violation. Isn't that the same argument Microsoft uses to say that people only buy computers without Windows so they can avoid paying the license fee, only to turn around and install a pirated copy of Windows on it? So having every computer sold have a tax sending money to Microsoft is justified, just as every broadband connection has a tax sending money to the RIAA/MPAA. For some reason, I don't see that idea gaining acceptance in a Linux forum. But I also don't see how one can think one of them is just fine, but not the other one. |
| hkwint Apr 17, 2009 4:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:So having every computer sold have a tax sending money to Microsoft is justified, just as every broadband connection has a tax sending money to the RIAA/MPAA. Didn't I repeat 'measuring how much content is used' multiple times? You forgot to read that? Having every computer sold have a tax sending money to Microsoft is justified if it is measured that the user uses Microsoft, isn't it? For your philosophical discussion: Quoting:Yet that is exactly what copyright law is. Arbitrary rules backed up by violence. The same goes for property. You should consider this: Some people choose they want to earn money from their work, Some don't. To me that seems like a principled argument in favour of copyright. Whether their work is physical and touchable or not shouldn't matter. |
| gus3 Apr 17, 2009 8:02 PM EDT |
The difference is that the choice of defending, or not defending, my property rests with me. But when it comes to artistic works, the MafiAA are doing everything in their power to remove that choice from the creators and performers, and move it to themselves. To that end, they are using their lobbyists in Washington to write the rules as they want them (play their game, or good-bye fame), not as the artists and performers want. In that sense, they are totally arbitrary. Once those arbitrary rules are in place, go ahead and disobey them. Tell off the police who show up at your door, and you'll see just how coercive these tools for the MafiAA can be. There are already plenty of people who can tell you about it first-hand. The worst part? Some of them wouldn't know how to share a file if their lives depended on it. But that makes no difference to a judge who doesn't know a USB plug from an RJ-45. He'll be happy to sign the search warrant, rather than expose his own ignorance. |
| bigg Apr 17, 2009 8:57 PM EDT |
> The worst part? Some of them wouldn't know how to share a file if their lives depended on it. And then we're back to my point many, many posts ago. The mythical poor musician who can't even feed his family because of file sharing. The poor musician is far more important than the retiree who can barely even turn on the computer, and it's justified and has public support because every download represents a lost sale. |
| azerthoth Apr 17, 2009 10:20 PM EDT |
Gus, as simple as this, as TC pointed out. Did you purchase your copy legitimatly? Is it under copyright? If so, your fine ... if not you are breaking the law, you are stealing (it does not matter from who, you are). In which case you have earned a trip to see how the court system works first hand. Saying that its not the musicians ... psst, the musicians sold themselves to the productions companies, and if they didn't know they were going to get screwed in the process then they were living under a rock before they were magically talented. You can stop using them as an excuse to justify illegal actions now, kthxbye. *edit, that last line should have been edited prior to posting, which is why the above paragraph ends as it does, */edit* |
| gus3 Apr 18, 2009 1:21 AM EDT |
@bigg: I'm not seeing the connection between the quote and what you said. Yes, maybe I'm being dense... @az, I won't dispute what you said; actually, I agree with it, as far as it goes. My comment was specifically concerned with the tactics of the MafiAA, who intend to be the maker of the rules, with all three branches of the government as their proxy. The net result of it would be to make the MafiAA the arbiters of culture. Do you really want Britney Spears held up as a paragon of high art? |
| bigg Apr 18, 2009 8:14 AM EDT |
@gus: I messed up the quote. Nonetheless, you stated it better in your last post: "My comment was specifically concerned with the tactics of the MafiAA, who intend to be the maker of the rules, with all three branches of the government as their proxy." My point was that as long as anyone challenging their claimed damages is written off as a parasite who wants music for free, they will be allowed to write the rules. I was not challenging what you said, I was pointing out that they are able to do so because of the incredible damages being inflicted on the starving musicians. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 18, 2009 4:13 PM EDT |
Hk, > Didn't I repeat 'measuring how much content is used' multiple times? You forgot to read that? How much of my BitTorrent and Gnutella internet traffic is Debian install disks, unlicensed fan-subtitled anime, legal audio books, articles, Mises economics videos? All of it. Why should money, based upon my usage volume, be sent to the RIAA? > The same goes for property. If you take my car, I no longer have use of my car. If you record me singing, I can still use my voice. Therefore, a recording is not theft. Taking my car didn't require a law to make it theft. Without any written laws, it's still theft. Recording/copying was made INTO theft by a law. Now please, don't mistake me: I'm very happy if an artist makes money from their art. Just as I'm happy that a buggy-whip mater makes money making buggy-whips. I am not going to advocate requiring ever car sold send money to the buggy-whip makers union, just as I am not going to advocate that every copy of a recording send money to the RIAA. Technology is passing these industries by. They are trying to maintain their business models (just like Microsoft) because they cannot imagine any other way to live. Why punish one group of people because some other group of people lacks imagination? And if a starving musician is so bad they cannot make money performing their work, I'm not going to put great confidence into them selling all that many CDs either. The flip side, if their work is in great demand in file sharing, that's a fan base for their performances. To starving musicians: The same advice you've always gotten: Don't give up your day jobs. |
| rijelkentaurus Apr 18, 2009 6:20 PM EDT |
Quoting: If you record me singing, I can still use my voice. Does my time count for nothing? You violate my copyright, you violate my ability to use my time to make money. If I use a snippet of my time to make a lot or little of the green, I am still using my time to make a living the way a lawyer or a plumber or an IT worker or a burger flipper does...time counts for money. And laws are indeed required to make taking your car theft. Without the laws, it's really a matter of you being too slow, weak or stupid to stop me. There is no infraction without law (either of the human kind or of a higher order), and the law can be either written or silently understood. But no law, no crime. |
| caitlyn Apr 18, 2009 8:34 PM EDT |
Ditto what rijelkentaurus said. Illegal downloading of music is stealing because you are, directly or indirectly, taking money out of the artists' pocket. I am also going to put myself in the odd position of defending the RIAA a little. I've already made clear that I think their tactics are abominable and that the current system unfairly disadvantages the artists. OTOH, I watched a Pink Floyd documentary the other night and the members give credit for the incredible success of "Dark Side of the Moon", the best selling rock album of all time to date, with the promotional work their record company (Columbia) did. David Gilmour put it this way: "The record company did their job." I dare say the record companies that make up the RIAA, including Sony Music, which now owns Columbia, are very often the reason some musician isn't starving or obscure but is instead rich and famous. So, yes, record companies deserve to get paid too. They deserve a return on their investment which is often considerable. Whether they get too much and artists get too little, as I believe, is a fair topic of discussion. Denying them revenue by infringing their copyright entirely is, once again, theft. Most unknown musicians or musicians in other than popular genres often rely on small record companies that are not part of RIAA as I noted before. The freeloading downloader rarely if ever makes a distinction between those that treat their artists fairly and those that don't. "Don't quit your day job" is lousy advice. Many musicians, including some I know, do make a very middle class living from their work. Their living comes from a variety of sources, including live gigs, royalties, session work (generally salaried) and sometimes less than glamorous work such as writing or performing music for commercial advertising or for "library records", nearly anonymous releases which then become part of TV programs and films that either don't have dedicated sountrack composers or want to supplement what their composers come up with. This is how smaller and indie films that can't afford full time musicians often get their music. Taking royalties out of the equation, which is what removing copyright protections effectively does, would take many, many musicians out of the category of being able to make a living by their chosen work. So, yeah, Bob, it's definitely stealing and as far as I am concerned there is no way you can sugar coat that or excuse it with ideological arguments. If you believe your ideology should be the basis of copyright law (or lack thereof) you can work through the legal and legislative systems to change things. In the meanwhile it's still stealing and I have no problem with the prosecution of thieves so long as it is done properly with due process and appropriate recourse. My complaint with RIAA is that they have been able to get legislators to do away with the ability of the accused to mount a proper defense. |
| jezuch Apr 19, 2009 6:46 AM EDT |
Quoting:You violate my copyright, you violate my ability to use my time to make money. I'd like to point out that for copyright it's kind of different work. Artists don't get paid for the time they spend doing their job; they're paid for selling copies of their works (and tickets). So, an artist spends some time creating and then gets paid for the rest of their life, even if doing absolutely nothing. For those not lucky enough to achieve this copyright nirvana, the real work is not creating copyrighted works, but to keep those sales up, and much of that is actually the job of record companies (for musicians at least). Meanwhile I'm working my a** off at a day job creating copyrighted works (sofware) which will bring me no good if my employer decides to fire me. No royalties for me! So copyright distorts somewhat this notion of compensation for work. I'm not sayin this justifies violating copyright, though. Just my 0,03 PLN (trzy grosze, as we say here). Quoting:So, yes, record companies deserve to get paid too. Yes, *IF* they do their job. Maye Ping Floyd got lucky, or maybe someone in the recording company took their job very seriously, or maybe this was in times when recording companies weren't greedy behemoths just like today. But it doesn't matter. This is just a reminder that it's high time they (recording companies) realised what their job *really* is, because it's pretty apparent they forgot that. |
| rijelkentaurus Apr 19, 2009 9:47 AM EDT |
Quoting: So, an artist spends some time creating and then gets paid for the rest of their life, even if doing absolutely nothing. Kind of like an ongoing service contract that us consultants always like to have clients sign? There really isn't a lot of work going on for the time that they're paying for. And there is work going on after the fact...lots of promotional stuff, live performances to promote the CDs, interviews, personal appearances, autographs. It's not like they get to spend a week in the studio and magically get paid for no more effort ever again. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 19, 2009 12:01 PM EDT |
> So copyright distorts somewhat this notion of compensation for work. Exactly. > Illegal downloading of music is stealing because you are, directly or indirectly, taking money out of the artists' pocket. That assumes a prior claim to money that has not been spent. It assumes that a download is a "lost sale", while providing not a single proof. I grant that it is illegal, but I will not call it theft or wrong. Which would logically lead me to a catalog of things that have been both legal AND wrong, or illegal AND right. I've already gone into the fact that changes in technology always put marginal labor out of work, it will be interesting to see how long the Luddite knee-jerk reaction that things must remain always the same will last in this particular instance. It is clear that no logical argument can be made to overcome the emotional ties to copyright, nor that any principled stand in favor of copyright will be presented. Thank you for the discussion. |
| caitlyn Apr 19, 2009 12:38 PM EDT |
It is clear that no logical argument can be made to overcome the emotional ties to copyright, nor that any principled stand in favor of copyright will be presented. Pardon me! Many of us gave principled stands on why copyright is important. If you don't understand them as such that is YOUR problem. Similarly I see you as the one who has taken an emotional or perhaps ideological stand and no argument will sway you. I grant that it is illegal, but I will not call it theft or wrong. I believe your position is wrong. It also doesn't matter what you call it. In a society governed by the rule of law it will be defined as theft, as wrong, and you can be prosecuted. I still believe that is a good thing. Nobody is having a Luddite knee-jerk reaction that I can see. That's name-calling on your part. I, and others, have said the system needs to change. We just don't believe it has to change in the way you want, which, IMHO amounts to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. That assumes a prior claim to money that has not been spent. If I do work I expect to be paid, either a salary or a fee negotiated with my client. To say that I have no claim on that money because I haven't spent it yet is ludicrous. Are you saying money I put away for retirement isn't mine until I spend it? Record companies enter into a contract to do work for a client, in this case an artist. If they don't do their job they can be sued for breach of contract. Some artists have done this and won their cases and had contracts voided, damages paid, etc... In any case everyone who rails against the record companies talks about "giant behemoths" completely ignoring the fact that small and independent labels release a huge amount of music as well. Today we have microlabels and netlabels as well. Indie and small labels, as I pointed out before, are often owned individually or collectively by artists who wanted their music released and had the ability to make it happen for themselves and some of their peers. To lump them in with the big corporate labels is ridiculous. It's apples and oranges. It's the little labels and the lesser known artists who are hurt the most by copyright infringement, a fact that the anti-copyright crowd here continues to ignore. I guess the consequences of infringement on anyone but the hated major labels doesn't matter to them or doesn't suit their ideological crusade so they ignore it. |
| azerthoth Apr 19, 2009 1:06 PM EDT |
> So copyright distorts somewhat this notion of compensation for work. Except you were hired to write that software for your employer, which means you A: agreed to those terms and B: have been compensated for the sale of all your rights to that software when you received your pay check. Like the artist to the record company you sold it to them wholesale and cheap, your call, and you knew it going in. False argument. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 19, 2009 1:12 PM EDT |
> If I do work I expect to be paid, either a salary or a fee negotiated with my client. Exactly. Money negotiated ahead of time, before you do the work. The theory that "a download is a lost sale" is that some money is owed by the person who did the download on the theory that they would have otherwise bought the song. No proof, just theory, and a theory demonstrably false if one examines CD sales rates. (napster=increased sales) This is not something negotiated ahead of time, it's not an agreement between the author and the buyer, nothing has been contracted. It may very well be a contract violation on someone's part, and I consider that entirely correct to be prosecuted. But what contract did the downloader sign? > To say that I have no claim on that money because I haven't spent it yet is ludicrous. You've got it backwards, no wonder you're confused. If I walk up to you and tell you that you owe me money because I worked hard yesterday, do you owe me? No, because you and I have no contract for such a payment, agreed to in advance. > Are you saying money I put away for retirement isn't mine until I spend it? No, because you have already earned it. But I'm not going to pay you for you doing work just because you think I owe you money or because you worked really, really hard yesterday. Taking other people's money on the assumption that they are criminals is insane. Prove harm, collect damages, and you and I have nothing to argue about. |
| azerthoth Apr 19, 2009 1:40 PM EDT |
However if I walk up to you and tell me that you owe me money for something that I created that you are in possession of, for which I have never recieved compensation for, then your a thief. If your going to use an argument use the whole argument. It does not matter whether its RIAA or the artist directly, theft is theft regardless of victim. |
| caitlyn Apr 19, 2009 1:44 PM EDT |
Many of the small labels I refer to show dismal drops in sales since downloading became popular. Nobody knows what percentage of downloads equate to lost sales. We've been through that already. None of your arguments change the fact that if I create something then I own it. I should have a right to determine who I give it to or sell it to. Anyone who takes it without my blessing is stealing, period. That's the part of copyright you don't seem to get. I've downloaded a ton of music lately and paid for none of it. It wasn't stealing because it was music the artists chose to release under a Creative Commons license, into the public domain, or in a place where they gave expressed permission while retaining future rights if they decide to limit the duration of the free downloads. However, if an artist decides not to give away his or her music that decision is his or hers, not yours. What gives you the right to take his or her work without permission? |
| jezuch Apr 19, 2009 2:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:In any case everyone who rails against the record companies talks about "giant behemoths" completely ignoring the fact that small and independent labels release a huge amount of music as well. Yes, and they're called "independent" for a reason :) [In fact most, if not all, of the bands I listen to have contracts with those "independent" labels. Not that it makes any real difference, only that it's harder to buy their records in the second world...] |
| Borax_Man Apr 22, 2009 4:43 AM EDT |
If I may weigh into this debate. I think a subtle, but important distinction has been missed. Copyright in this example exists not to protect the artist, or any particular company, but to protect a system. The system by which recorded works are distributed. When an artist records a song, it is generally considered reasonable that they are the ones who profit from its distribution. Now the artist might sign with a record label to distribute, but the basic fact remains the same. Copyright enables the copyright holder (the creator/owner of the work) to payment for distribution of those works and protects this right from actions others may take to remove this ability. Illegal copying takes away this right . Copyright law exists not to ensure that every man and his dog can earn a living with their guitar, but to ensure that they are able to reap the benefits from the distribution of their work. If I grow tomatos and sell them at the market, it is reasonable for me to demand payment for sales. Likewise, if I write a song and wish to sell copies, it is reasonable that I am paid for copies sold and that I, not someone else or some other random opportunist, benefit from the work. I may not sell any copies, and the state has no obligation to support me, but the state does have in place a mechanism which protects my ability to make money selling copies if I can and prevents others from taking that ability away from me. This is the crux of copyright law. It is NOT about paying the artist for the 'right' to listen, or allowing the artist to demand payment for works enjoyed. Now if I buy a CD off someone, and copy it, and sell copies, or give away copies, either hard copies or soft copies, I am distributing the work and depriving the artist of the ability to earn money on the distribution of THEIR work. This isn't technically theft, but it is still a transgression against the artist. So if I download an album that I was never intending to buy, have I robbed the artist? The answer is obviously NO. The artist should also have no right to dictate how the music is enjoyed, and by who, how often, etc. After all, if I go to a friends place, and he is playing Metallica's new album, I do not owe Metallica anything for hearing it. Copyright law does not give the artist licence to demand compensation from you for being exposed to their work. People experiencing copyrighted work have no obligations to the copyright holder for compensation based on their experience, and likewise, the copyright holder has no recourse to demand anything at all from the listener if they have not trangressed against their right to charge and make money from distribution. If I downloaded an album instead of purchasing, have I robbed the artist? Then yes, as I have chosed an illegal method of distribution and denied the artist payment for distribution. You could argue that this is true if I was not intending on buying the work anyway, which would be correct, but in this instance it would have resulted in no financial loss to the artist. In the first case, you have chosen to listen to music through an illegal distribution method, in the latter, you have chosed to listen to music through an illegal distrubution method AND without payment. I've been following this thread, and think you've got the basics wrong, arguing based on false premises. Copyright law essentially is a compromise of freedom and control between the copyright owner and the consumer which enables the copyright owner recourse to financial gain, or other form of gain from their work, and enables the consumer to use that work as they see fit, with the limitation that they do not use it in a manner which takes away the copyright owners ability to benefit from their work. I don't like the idea proposed of 'pay per use', as it introduces a whole new paradigm. Currently, when I buy a work of art, I am entitled to use it as I wish. This is a basic right of any consumer, to use any product they have purchased as they see fit., for whatever purpose they desire. If I buy a work, I can use it anyway I want for whatever purpose I wish. I think the 'pay to use' arguments are dangerous and represent a significant impingement on the freedom that the general public have to use products they have purchased. In fact, I think the idea is downright evil, as I find the idea that a company who sells me a product can dictate details on how that product is used is detestable and a dangerous precedent. Remember, copyright places EXCEPTIONS on how a product can be used, it does not dictate the rules as to how. What the RIAA would like, is to state that any use of their products except xxx and yyy, are forbidden. Again, it's a subtle difference, but very important. Once we accept the fact that the copyright holder, or distributor or company manufacturing a product has a right to dictate use of the product after sale, then we have accepted a very frightening precedent. The Internet has simply made it very easy for people to distribute works without compensating the copyright owner as they wish to be compensated for their work. It is NOT anything new. You could copy CD's for years, and copy tapes for decades. The Internet has made it easier, thats about it, and I think arguments that this has brought about a new a paradigm which should force us to rethink copyright law are misguided. Certainaly, there are many arguments against the RIAA and the like which are very valid, but to suggest that artists show forgo the ability to dictate the terms on which their work is distributed, well, I think that sucks. There is no absolute argument one way or the other, it is in the end, a subjective valuation and down to opinion, but in my opinion laws that enforce restrictions on the right for people to redistrubute copies of other peoples works of art to others is an acceptable comprimise to protect the ability of others to distribute the fruits of their labour on terms which they have chosen which usually (but not always, such as with the GPL) allow the artist to charge the customer, or to at least recieve a royalty in exchange for their work. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 22, 2009 11:35 AM EDT |
> However if I walk up to you and tell {you} that you owe me money for something that I created that you are in possession of, for which I have never recieved compensation for, then your a thief. No, I _MIGHT_ be a thief. To assume it without proof is insane. I may very well have received the item as a gift from someone else, and thereby be no thief at all. Demonstrate harm, collect damages. I've already stated (over and over) that if that were the process, I would have no argument with it. The problem with what copyright has done is that it makes a "crime" out of what is no crime at all: Sharing. |
| rijelkentaurus Apr 22, 2009 12:16 PM EDT |
OMG, Sander, kill this f****** thread, please. |
| jdixon Apr 22, 2009 12:23 PM EDT |
> ...nor that any principled stand in favor of copyright will be presented. The original decisions to create copyright and patent were pragmatic, not principled, so I would have to agree. |
| hkwint Apr 22, 2009 1:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:Therefore, a recording is not theft. Taking my car didn't require a law to make it theft. Bollocks. You asked for a philosophical discussion, so here's it is: Why is it _your_ car? That's just as arbitrary man-made-up-stuff as copyright. If you take my car, I can't use it. If you freely distribute the work I wanted to earn from, you deprive me of my money I might have earned with it. I might have bought a car with the money earned by copyright, but because you distributed my work I cannot buy a car; the same result as if you would have stolen my car I bought with the money I earned from copyright. Is it that hard? |
| theboomboomcars Apr 22, 2009 1:40 PM EDT |
Quoting:I might have bought a car with the money earned by copyright, but because you distributed my work I cannot buy a car Does that mean you get his car? |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 22, 2009 1:41 PM EDT |
> If you take my car, I can't use it. A simple, demonstrable fact. A = A. > you deprive me of my money I might have earned with it. "might". A != B. > Is it that hard? Not for me. For lots of people, it seems very difficult. |
| hkwint Apr 22, 2009 1:55 PM EDT |
Again: Why is it yours? That is not a simple, demonstrable fact at all. It is only because other humans accept it to be yours. Just like with copyright. If you say A=A | A being "Your car", then A is your premise, but your premise is wrong, and wrong=wrong while logically being correct is not useful in any way. So you should have written !A = !A; which again is useless. I agree fully to 'might' being not sure, but it's a multiplication of A * B (earnings times chance) and because A>0 & B>0 the result will also be, and the conclusion is you deprived me from a certain amount of money >0. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 22, 2009 2:28 PM EDT |
> Why is it _your_ car? That's just as arbitrary man-made-up-stuff as copyright. Anyone with a 2-year-old knows that the concept of private property is very well ingrained into basic human nature. "MINE!" A car is a scarce resource. An "economic good", due to the fact that it has inherent limitations that make it valuable in of itself. There is, in fact there can only be, one that is _this_ car. Take that car, I no longer have it. A taking is a specific event, which benefits one at the cost to another, which is why "we" have evolved the social mechanisms of trade and gift to deal with the transfer of scarce resources. Make a copy of that car, nothing has been stolen. My use of the car is in no way diminished, it remains my car. I'm flattered that you like my car so much that you want one just like it. Copyright isn't a "social" construction, it is a legal one. Copyright only exists because a law says it exists. Repeal the law, the crime evaporates because it is impossible to prove damages as a direct result of the simple act of making a copy. I can just as easily theorize about all the benefits to my life and others that "might" come from making a copy of something for free, as it is to theorize about all the benefits to someone's life and others that "might" come from charging for copying. That's the problem with arguing from utility: The absurd lengths to which copyright has been extended are demonstrating the problems inherent in copyright itself by making them impossible to ignore. The few, who first decried how the many benefitted from their creations for less than those creations were "worth", are now harming everyone by keeping proprietary that which would otherwise have been added to the common knowledge pool which we all benefit and build from. So we both have our "utilities" which we believe to be important. Yet if we let them "cancel out", I win. If we "compromise", I lose. This is exactly the kind of "winner take all" problem that occurs because GOVERNMENT is involved. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 22, 2009 2:38 PM EDT |
> and the conclusion is you deprived me from a certain amount of money So, prove it. As I've said many, many, many times, all you have to do is prove that I deprived you of something and you can claim restitution. |
| azerthoth Apr 22, 2009 3:59 PM EDT |
Isnt that what RIAA is doing with their over the top strong arm tactics in court right now Bob? Not to defend their actions, but they are in essence proving that people have received various items that they had no rights to and must now pay damages for intentionally depriving those who hold the rights to compensation to what should have been theirs had the product been obtained in a legally acceptable manner. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 22, 2009 4:54 PM EDT |
Yes, Az, that is _exactly_ what they are doing. "obtained in a legally acceptable manner." In their enforcement of the law they are demonstrating, as nothing else can, that the law itself is what is destructive and must be changed. Edit: I'm sorry, let me rephrase that just a little bit. Right now, the RIAA and etc. are (at best) merely showing that the statute "law" has been broken. A file copied without their permission. They are NOT proving harm. They are making no effort to show that they have "lost" anything, or that the accused has in any way deliberately damaged them, defrauded them, or violated any contract. |
| hkwint Apr 22, 2009 5:23 PM EDT |
Quoting:Anyone with a 2-year-old knows that the concept of private property is very well ingrained into basic human nature. "MINE!" And in my country, everybody with age over four believes in SantaClaus. Quoting:So, prove it I just did: The chance that I could earn some amount of money is greater than zero. If not, I will be happy if you bought 100.000 lots from the lottery and let me take them; because in you opinion if I took them from you, you are deprived of nothing. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 22, 2009 7:19 PM EDT |
> everybody with age over four believes in SantaClaus. There are many myths in America, too. It doesn't make them true. > The chance that I could earn some amount of money is greater than zero. I've already given you my two cents worth. > because in you opinion if I took them from you, you are deprived of nothing. Again you have mistaken my position. A lottery ticket is a physical, object. Taking it from me deprives me of it. Having your own lottery ticket does not deprive me of the use of mine, just as my having a recording of a song deprives no one of their use of their copy of that same song. |
| hkwint Apr 22, 2009 7:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:> everybody with age over four believes in SantaClaus. Ineed, I was referring to the myth of property being integrated into 'human nature'. Quoting:A lottery ticket is a physical, object. Bollocks again, because the lot doesn't have to be on paper but could be digital too. The physical object doesn't doesn't matter, I could print fake lots for the same cost; the chance to convert it to money does. If I copy your lot and claim some price you would have won before you do, do you still believe I didn't deprive you of any rights? After all you still have your lot. |
| theboomboomcars Apr 22, 2009 9:25 PM EDT |
Bob if we base our property rights off of what 2 year olds believe of property rights then in order for me to take your car all I will have to do is borrow it and then call it mine, because all the 2 year olds that I have encountered believe that if they have used an item and want it it is theirs. Any property rights that we have, have to be agreed upon by the community. In our current society that is enforced by government instead of clubs. And unfortunately the only frontiers left on earth are Antarctica and the ocean, though I do believe if you wanted to move to Antarctica some government will try to control what you do there. |
| caitlyn Apr 23, 2009 12:19 AM EDT |
Bob_Robertson has probably done more to convince me that RIAA really does have a point than anything else I've read. He's probably done more to convince me that copyright law is a VERY GOOD THING than anything else I've read. |
| azerthoth Apr 23, 2009 2:11 AM EDT |
Bob, by that same logic, my having a dollar does not deprive you of using one you have, but this isnt a dollar. Take one down to kinko's and run it through the copy machine and see how far it gets you. *OK corrected the inversion of the last two words. * |
| tuxtom Apr 23, 2009 3:20 AM EDT |
Azerthoth, I've never heard it put more eloquently. Thank you. |
| hkwint Apr 23, 2009 9:01 AM EDT |
Also, in Bob's opinion, if mr. Bernanke & friends were to create ten times the amount of money currently in roulation resulting in his dollars becoming worthless due to inflation, they don't deprive him of any property since he still has his dollars / physical paper. That's really curious because the Mises.org site states something entirely else on this subject (Yes, I did read some of the articles over there!) Anyway, back to the original topic (No hope): From what I understood, the corporate banks - in the person of Henry Paulson - were running the Department of Finance, but Henry Paulson is gone now. Maybe there is some little hope. In the meantime, in my country the lobbyist (who doesn't want to be called lobbyist) of Lockheed Martin is running as secretary of the minister of defense to buy the JSF. In Brussels, members of companies lobbying for Microsoft decide about software patents. So it's not any better over here. |
| jdixon Apr 23, 2009 9:42 AM EDT |
> ...they don't deprive him of any property since he still has his dollars / physical paper. Since Bob probably knows the dollar is pretty much worthless anyway, and only expects more of the same, you're more correct than you realize. |
| caitlyn Apr 23, 2009 10:49 AM EDT |
The dollar is worthless? Funny, I went to the local market the other day and bought groceries with my dollars. The folks in the store still seemed to think it has value. Since I got some good food in exchange for my dollars I think it has value too. |
| jdixon Apr 23, 2009 11:24 AM EDT |
> The dollar is worthless? What I said was "...the dollar is pretty much worthless". You do seem to have a problem comprehending what's written on occasion, Caitlyn. > The folks in the store still seemed to think it has value. Since I got some good food in exchange for my dollars I think it has value too. In comparison to what? In comparison to the dollar of 1930, it's worth less than 10 cents. In comparison to gold one ounce cost $35 in 1930, while it's right around $900 today, which is a drop of over 96%. And yes, I would call something which is worth less than 4% of what it was only 79 years ago "pretty much worthless". |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 23, 2009 12:24 PM EDT |
Hk, > Also, in Bob's opinion, if mr. Bernanke & friends were to create ten times the amount of money currently in roulation resulting in his dollars becoming worthless due to inflation, they don't deprive him of any property since he still has his dollars / physical paper. I'm amazed, actually, at the lengths folks are going. Please stop telling me what my opinion is, I will gladly give it if asked. Bernanke and friends have one thing I do not have: A government granted monopoly on the printing of "money". Legal Tender laws. Now please take a moment and guess what I think of that, considering my opinion of other government grants of legal monopoly which have already been discussed. Without those laws, their running their printers day and night does, in fact, not effect me unless I choose to utilize their funny-money. So you're half right. But then, just running the copy machine is exactly what they're doing now. I don't think they're up to 10x yet, but don't worry, they'll get there. I have some 100 Trillion Zimbabwe dollar bills which I bought to frame, which is a wonderful way to memorialize the insanity of fiat currency. They are robbing me, and you, by LAW. I would love to get into a discussion of economics, but I don't know that Sander et. al. would let that get going. > but Henry Paulson is gone now. Maybe there is some little hope. Nope, he was replaced by someone from exactly the same mold, demonstrating very effectively the old saw, "Meet the new Boss, same as the old Boss." Caitlyn, I'm glad I've inspired you to reconsider your position. We may disagree, but I'm flattered that I've helped you refine your beliefs. |
| jdixon Apr 23, 2009 12:31 PM EDT |
> Nope, he was replaced by someone from exactly the same mold, Except the new one can't even be bothered to obey the tax laws they impose on the rest of us. :( |
| caitlyn Apr 23, 2009 12:55 PM EDT |
@jdixon: No, I understood perfectly. I wasn't alive in 1930. While I understand the effects of inflation I think the idea that the dollar is "pretty much worthless" is silly at best. Right now the dollar is still the currency which most investors outside the US choose to invest in. It's still considered the safest and strongest currency in the world. Of course, I am not a foreign investor. I am someone who buys groceries. My point was to say that the dollars have value assigned to them that is significant and accepted by most people in the world. Bernanke and friends have one thing I do not have: A government granted monopoly on the printing of "money". Legal Tender laws. Now please take a moment and guess what I think of that, considering my opinion of other government grants of legal monopoly which have already been discussed. Could you imagine the chaos if that wasn't a monopoly? I, for one, am very glad that the issuance of currency is a government monopoly. May it always be so. Also, Mr. Bernanke doesn't own that monopoly. He was appointed to that position by someone who was elected (albeit somewhat indirectly through the electoral college) by the people of this country. In the U.S. we choose our leaders. If they do a lousy job we choose different leaders. It isn't an unchecked monopoly. They are robbing me, and you, by LAW. I completely disagree. In addition, as theft and robbery are defined in a society by the law, a legal act cannot be defined as robbery in any case. You are already discussing economics. I could get into a long discussion about why Keynesian economics is necessary to prevent the current recession/depression from worsening. I would prefer, though, at this point, that Sander & Co. pull this thread that won't seem to die. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 23, 2009 1:09 PM EDT |
> Could you imagine the chaos if that {money} wasn't a monopoly? Hahahahaha! Really, I have to ask, what isn't chaotic now? When government had no such monopoly, specifically in the US before 1913, chaos was the opposite of what existed. People have traditionally used commodities for money (the "gold" standard) in preference to fiat currencies, because fiat currencies collapse due to inflation. "Not worth a Continental", people wallpapering with Confederate dollars, wheelbarrows of cash to buy a loaf of bread in Germany 1923, etc. Without that monopoly, people are attracted to commodity money because it is stable. Silver, gold, copper, cannot just be printed. Some time I'll bookmark the graph that shows prices over time in the US, which shows a nearly flat line, slowly declining (from efficiencies in transportation, production, etc) prices throughout the 19th century up to 1913. Even the war between the states, the various supposedly terrible depressions and bank runs, show up as barely ripples in the general price level. But once 1913 hits, the line does the Global Warming hockey-stick thing. Prices skyrocket, overwhelming anything seen before, with slow-downs and dips during the Great Depression that dwarf anything seen before, then right back to rising prices which has never stopped. And getting government OUT of money is supposed to be a cause for chaos? > I could get into a long discussion about why Keynesian economics is necessary to prevent the current recession/depression from worsening. Keynesian economic policies are why this recession/depression is occurring, so what hope is there that you can convince me that more of the same will somehow help? > I would prefer, though, at this point, that Sander & Co. pull this thread that won't seem to die. There is a simpler answer: The button at the top of this very page that reads, "Unwatch Thread." |
| jdixon Apr 23, 2009 2:47 PM EDT |
> No, I understood perfectly. Then why did you restate it as something I didn't say? The dollar will always have some value as long as it's the legal currency of the land. It's comparative value is another matter. Now, let me post a question for you. You don't need to answer it here (in fact, given your opinion of the thread, you shouldn't), but your answer may cause you to reevaluate your position. Which would you rather have: three thousand five hundred of those "valuable" dollars, or the 100 ounces of gold those dollars would have gotten you in 1930? Your answer should firmly establish just how valuable you think those dollars are, and how valuable you think they'll be in the future. > ...a legal act cannot be defined as robbery in any case. Times and laws change, and legality is not morality. If your definition of anything is based on whatever the current legal definition is, I feel sorry for you. |
| dinotrac Apr 23, 2009 9:44 PM EDT |
TUXCHICK --- I know I'm late to this thread, but... just wanted to know if you could hear me clapping way out there in the wilds. Needless to say, I agree. |
| hkwint Apr 23, 2009 10:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:I'm amazed, actually, at the lengths folks are going. Please stop telling me what my opinion is, I will gladly give it if asked. You already have given your opinion long before, I just combined and introduced a new element in your opinion in a new innovative way. Quoting:But then, just running the copy machine is exactly what they're doing now. I don't think they're up to 10x yet, but don't worry, they'll get there. I have some 100 Trillion Zimbabwe dollar bills which I bought to frame, which is a wonderful way to memorialize the insanity of fiat currency. Aha, there you have it. If you and me are the copyrightholders (to money), than copying stuff which is copyrighted is all the suddenly robbery! When it comes to copying CD's, it isn't. That's the point I'm making. Money and lottery lots are not much different than copyright (things which might be exchanged for other goods with certain chances); so why treat them differently? And property doesn't have to be physical to be something someone can be deprived of; because property is something cultural just as much as copyright is. When you take away culture and law and only leave 'natural' property, the 2 year old children you were talking about have the same property laws as dogs and nations at war: Which is if I'm stronger than you are then all your property is mine and all the suddenly it looks like your property never really existed in first place. Here in my country, to resolve this unwanted natural behaviour, people made laws and the state uses coercion to protect property. Other people - I believe Libertarians but I might be wrong - use coercion themselves to protect their property. It doesn't matter, it only shows property just as much as copyright only exists if you successfully protect it in some way. |
| dinotrac Apr 24, 2009 6:58 AM EDT |
Hans - Good observation. Great, in fact. Too many self-described libertarians actually espouse something that is different from the libertarianism I studied in graduate school. I learned about a libertarianism that would describe government's role as, more or less, "Get the heck out of my way and let me prosper." Too many self-describe libertarians leave out the "and let me prosper" part -- and that's a pretty important part of the whole equation. It provides a philosophical basis for legitimate government functions - things like police and armies, as it is hard to prosper with a gun at your head. It also provides a basis for legal recognition of property rights as it is hard to prosper when people are stealing everything you have. |
| gus3 Apr 24, 2009 7:57 AM EDT |
"Get the heck out of my way and let me prosper *or fail on my own*" is probably more complete. As for the rest, I'm still caffeine-deprived, and I'll likely mis-state what I'm trying to say. |
| dinotrac Apr 24, 2009 8:56 AM EDT |
gus3 - "or fail on my own" is, unfortunately, a loaded phrase. It is accurate -- people deserve the right to succeed or to fail, and a society that understands failure is an artifact of trying something that didn't work, which is a necessary action for finding which things do work. But -- the "on my own" is often stretched beyond reason, as if the covenants we make for society to function (don't steal from me, don't kill me, etc) don't exist and don't matter. |
| Bob_Robertson Apr 24, 2009 1:06 PM EDT |
> You already have given your opinion long before, I find myself completely befuddled, then, as to why you decided to misrepresent it. > I just combined and introduced a new element in your opinion in a new innovative way. That's called lying. > If you and me are the copyrightholders (to money), than copying stuff which is copyrighted is all the suddenly robbery! When it comes to copying CD's, it isn't. We're not copyright holders to money. Your premise is false, your conclusion is void. Money is a tool, the medium of exchange. The more of it in circulation, the less each is worth. By dumping huge quantities of money into circulation, the exchange value of pre-existing money decreases, and that exchange value is the one and only use of money. The use of my dollar is impaired by their action. My use of a music file is not decreased because anyone else, or everyone else, has none, one, or infinite copies of that same music file. > And property doesn't have to be physical to be something someone can be deprived of Again, my having a copy of something deprives you of NOTHING. It is a copy, it is not the one and only. I took nothing from you. By making a copy I might have violated a contract. Your false example of a lottery ticket is an example of contract violation, since the contract that goes with the lottery ticket states that there is to be one and only one ticket presented for each one purchased, the original. What Caitlyn has never understood is that I am not trying to say that the act of copying, or the simple fact of posessing a copy, is never illegal. Merely that it is not by itself wrong. > Which is if I'm stronger than you are then all your property is mine and all the suddenly it looks like your property never really existed in first place. The Hobbsian war of All against All. Yes, I know about that. However, you have failed to prove that that is the result of eliminating the government monopoly on coercion. What I see around me every day is not a war of all against all. I see people cooperating, creating, providing for each other and prospering there by. The few and obnoxious intrusions by government coercion do nothing but interrupt that natural cooperation. > Here in my country, to resolve this unwanted natural behaviour, people made laws At least you have the order of operations correct. People created rules in order for cooperation to be facilitated. People who violate those rules are shunned, people who prove they cannot fulfill their contracts lose their "credit rating", etc. > and the state uses coercion to protect property. And if that is all they did, it would be difficult to argue against it. But it doesn't, it also is the largest violator of property rights and gets to define its own predation as "lawful". Now back to the original argument: If copyright were still of limited duration, and had to be deliberately sought, then the destructive nature of copyright would be difficult to leverage against the benefits to a few that such "protection" affords. > Other people - I believe Libertarians but I might be wrong - use coercion themselves to protect their property. A false conflation of defense with coercion. What you are trying to assert is that people defend themselves with force, so the problem is not force itself. I couldn't agree more. Coercion can be forceful, it can be merely threats. But coercion is not defensive. The false equality in your assertion makes your conclusion false: Libertarians do not advocate coercion, even when they agree with the ends. The ends do not justify the means. > it only shows property just as much as copyright only exists if you successfully protect it in some way. Copyright only exists because a law says it exists. There is no law saying my pocket watch is mine. That is why copyright is a government monopoly grant. Dino, > Too many self-describe libertarians leave out the "and let me prosper" part -- and that's a pretty important part of the whole equation. I'd be very interested to know how you've reached that conclusion. There are a lot of people who seem to think that it's a legitimate role of government to save them from the folly of their own choices. Certainly, anyone who believes in such a role for government cannot be libertarian, since it requires taxing others for the benefit of a few. > It provides a philosophical basis for legitimate government functions - things like police and armies Neither of which are legitimate government functions. You are welcome to try to support your assertion that these are "legitimate" government functions, I would very much look forward to it. What I expect is that it will come down to one of "because they always have been", "because those are the ones I like", or "because I say they are." I also expect that the usual folks will agree with you and the usual disparaging remarks about my "radical" idiocy will be made, due to my minority opinion. How wonderful it would be if it stopped there. What were people doing 150 years ago before standing government police, I wonder? Oh well. This is the argument that defines the difference between an anarchist and a minarchist, and has nothing to do with the destructive nature of copyright. > as it is hard to prosper with a gun at your head. Very hard, in my opinion, which is why I oppose regulation. It's hard to prosper with a gun at your head, even if that gun happens to be held by the state instead of a private thug. At least it's not illegal to defend one's self from a private thug. > It also provides a basis for legal recognition of property rights as it is hard to prosper when people are stealing everything you have. Very hard, in my opinion, which is why I oppose taxation. It's hard to prosper when people are stealing everything you have, even if they happen to have badges. At least it's not illegal to defend one's self from a private thief. > But -- the "on my own" is often stretched beyond reason, as if the covenants we make for society to function (don't steal from me, don't kill me, etc) don't exist and don't matter. That's why people who act that way are called "sociopaths" and universally shunned. Yes, even by me, and it has nothing to do with the existence of the state. Well, almost universally shunned. Sadly, people who will do sociopathic things, like herding people into gas chambers, dropping bombs, murdering children, taking the homes of little old ladies, are actively sought by one institution: The State. |
| caitlyn Apr 24, 2009 4:05 PM EDT |
What Caitlyn has never understood is that I am not trying to say that the act of copying, or the simple fact of posessing a copy, is never illegal. Merely that it is not by itself wrong. I understood perfectly and responded accordingly. I even explained why I believe it IS wrong and that it IS theft. It seems to me you are being very selective in understanding what I write. |
| dinotrac Apr 24, 2009 5:48 PM EDT |
Caitlyn - Welcome to the club. The nice thing about being a libertarian seems to be that you can define it as you wish, so long as nobody else has the liberty to inconvenience you. It's a philosophy doomed to be like communism: sounds nice, but never works. When pressed, true believers are left only to say, 'Well, REAL /communism|libertarianism/ has never been tried." |
| jdixon Apr 24, 2009 7:10 PM EDT |
> It's a philosophy doomed to be like communism: sounds nice, but never works. With one essential difference, Dino. History indicates that the more libertarian a government is, the more it's people prosper; while the more communist it is, the worse they do. No, true libertarianism has never been tried, but it doesn't need to be. All the available evidence indicates that mere movement in that direction is enough to benefit both society as a whole and individuals. Yes, I will admit that there may be a point of diminishing or even negative returns, but we've never found it, as we never come close to that point. Almost all the movement of established governments has been in the opposite direction. |
| dinotrac Apr 24, 2009 7:33 PM EDT |
jdixon - No. History indicates nothing of the sort. There have been no libertarian governments. If history demonstrates anyting, it's that individual choice combined with free markets make for prosperity. That is compatible with my understanding of libertarianism, but it is not libertarianism. |
| jdixon Apr 24, 2009 10:35 PM EDT |
> There have been no libertarian governments. No, but there have been governments which have been more libertarian than others. > That is compatible with my understanding of libertarianism, but it is not libertarianism. OK. Remember that conversation we had a while ago where you questioned whether I was being "reasonable". I think this qualifies in the reverse. Individual choice and free markets ARE libertarian. Arguing otherwise distorts the definition of libertarianism so much that it becomes meaningless. |
| dinotrac Apr 24, 2009 11:05 PM EDT |
>I think this qualifies in the reverse. Individual choice and free markets ARE libertarian. The People's Republic of China, then, by those criteria, may be the most libertarian country on earth. Over the last I don't know how many years, they have enjoyed the fastest economic growth of any major nation. They are so free-market, they don't even keep people from putting poison in toothpaste. They've also come a long way on the individual liberties thing. They certainly have no problem granting the freedom to fail. Except that, I don't think China fits anybody's idea of a libertarian regime. |
| jdixon Apr 24, 2009 11:27 PM EDT |
> They've also come a long way on the individual liberties thing. Unless it crosses a party line, yes. Somehow I doubt the Falun Gong or the house Christians in China would agree that China is particularly open to individual choice. As to being free market, most companies in China have some connection to the political apparatus, either at the local or national level. And I don't consider fraud to be a particularly free market phenomena. However, I will grant that China has become more libertarian than it used to be, and that is at least part of the reason for their economic growth. As I said, the more libertarian a government becomes, the more it's people prosper. You haven't disproved my position. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!