Prince

For some reason this reminds me oh so much of the lovely Patriot Act - which, naturally, is all about fascism, NOT about patriotism.

My perspective? David Bowie was the first well-known commercial artist to release a single on the Internet, back in '96-'97. He predicted at the time that the digital file-sharing community would grow significantly, and that it would be in the recording industry's best interest to grow with it...and not against it. I agree with this whole-heartedly.

I mean, let's look at the way music is distributed. It's still, for the most part, OFFICIALLY distributed the way it always has been, since "day one". The artist goes into the studio, records an album for the label, the label releases it, distribution companies distribute it and record stores sell it. Musician, producer, engineer, label executive, distributor, store owner. They all want to take their cut, and this is all before the applicable taxes.

I'm sure this distribution method employs a whole bunch of people, but how much of this is really necessary? I've heard record labels claim that the price of a CD is so high because of taxes, and because the artist and all those involved in the production and distribution of it have to eat, too. However, the production costs are nowhere near what they used to be, with today's technology. It is just that the powers that be are used to being able to maintain the high price of their product, even while the production costs continue to drop, thanks to technological advancement.

The way music is distributed is changing. Significantly. It would do record labels good to acknowledge and accept this, and change the way they conduct business accordingly. Music can and will still be sold, but the ways this is done are changing, rapidly. There is a lot of money to be made, I believe, but most labels are missing out on this because of their conservative thinking.

Music itself has changed. Thanks to personal computers and highly advanced software that's made available, any average Joe can record their own music, right there in their own homes, and release it on the Internet, with practically no production costs whatsoever. This is becoming more and more common...and you know what? The record labels and distributors don't like it. They're not making a dime. I am willing to bet that it won't take long for a top selling artist to realize that, hey, I don't really NEED all these executives and yes-men, I can produce my music myself, at a home studio or a professional one, and sell it on the Internet. Even with the original setup costs, this will with very high likelihood be extremely lucrative, as the artist will not have record labels and distributors, not to mention record stores, cutting in. In this case, even though the price of the product would not be as high, the artist's own cut of the proceeds would be significantly higher. To top it all off, record labels typically restrict an artist to make new releases only so often. By selling their music exclusively online, an artist could offer their entirely back catalogue. A consumer could browse the catalogue online, pick the songs they wanted, and pay. A lot of material is not released because the costs of doing so in the traditional way would be too high. On the Internet, an artist could offer even these songs, and this would make a potentially serious dent in bootlegging.

I've been making music for ten years, and releasing it into public use without ever charging for it. I often use file-sharing networks in an effort to do this. I find that even though record labels and distributors are not willing to embrace the new technology, and even though they want to suppress evolution in the music industry and marketing, they should not be in a position to make up laws to help them do this. Instead, just like any business out there, they should realize that their marketting scheme is old, and they need to take a look at the way they produce and market their product.

__________________
Who is John Galt?

HarmlessRabbit

My perspective on this: People downloading music are thieves. Major label artists are greedy bastards.

Now that I've stated my position, let me defend it.

Expensive car prices do not justify car theft. The fact that car dealers are the scum of the earth doesn't mean that their business model is flawed. People who download mp3's from P2P networks are stealing, plain and simple. It doesn't matter that the artist barely sees any money, the artist VOLUNTARILY SIGNED A CONTRACT WITH THE RECORD COMPANY. It doesn't matter that the record companies are full of clueless old guys, they are RUNNING A BUSINESS AND HAVE A RIGHT TO RUN IT HOWEVER THEY WANT. Downloading unlicensed music is stealing, no matter how much the people doing it try to justify their actions.

The artists could fix this problem in a couple of years if they wanted to. They are all under contract, no one is telling them they have to sell their music through record companies or major labels. No one is telling them they have to sign up with ASCAP or BMI to be their heavies on license enforcement. If a critical mass of artists would embrace a new model, they could get it off the ground in a couple of years and realize amazing profits. Of course, during those two years there would be some risk and they wouldn't be making money, so none of the greedy bastards want to even try it.

MP3.com was an attempt at a community like you mention. Frankly, the problem with MP3.com was that 99% of the music there was crap. The fact that the average person can make music in their home with home equipment doesn't mean that the music is good. It really needed better rating and filtering systems to create a community.

Music companies are selling a lifestyle, not just music. How much music is played on MTV these days? People are buying into the Britney lifestyle, or the Snoop Dogg lifestyle, not just the music itself. It's hard to sell that through a free distribution model.

The iTunes model is pretty close to solving the distribution problem for the established labels, I think. It's too bad a software company had to solve the problem after several really bad starts by the record labels. The creation of a whole new distribution model for unrestricted music, on the other hand is far from a solved problem. I can't think of anyone still left from the .com boom that is even trying to solve that problem.

It will be interesting to see how the next few years play out. If a few major artists got fed up with the system and had the balls to try and change things, I think things could change really quickly. But the consumer needs to change too. For every "OH MY GOD THE DMCA IS EVIL" post on Slashdot, there are two "OH MY GOD, THE MATRIX/LORD OF THE RINGS/SOME OTHER MOVIE IS OUT, GO SEE IT!" posts. People vote with their wallets, and based on movie revenue, I'd say people are voting strongly for the DMCA.

KnifeMissile

No one is disputing that copyright infringement (which, legally, is not theft, that's a different offense) isn't illegal, because it is, plain and simple. However, I should probably say, right now, that unlike theft, copyright infringment is not a crime. In case you aren't aware, something can be illegal but not a crime. For instance, marjiuana is illegal in Canada but not a crime. Okay, that's not a good example, I just thought I'd add that one in for humour's sake 'cause that situation is pretty funny. Anyway, you can tell copyright infringment is not a crime 'cause no one is going to jail. Instead, they are being sued. You don't sue someone who is stealing, you prosecute them and they go to jail because it is a crime. You don't prosecute copyright infringers (pirates are something different) because what they're doing is not a crime. It is illegal, so you can sue them and they can be forced to pay a settlement (money).
Anyway, this isn't the point, just something interesting.

The point is whether P2P should be legal or not. It can be used to do illegal things, but so can many other things. A knife can kill someone, a much serious offense than mere copyright infringement, but we don't outlaw it. So, why would anyone outlaw P2P, where the worst thing you can do is infringe on someone's copyright? It has a perfectly legal and legitimate use: the sharing of files. How can you make this illegal? Yet, this is exactly what the RIAA are trying to do and everything else they're doing is only them trying to compensate for their inability to do so...

bonbonbox

A CD is not a MP3. There are so many differences I will not expound on them. When a "record" company puts out MP3's for sale of an artists work, and I download that MP3, then I'm a thief. For now they are manufacturing CD's and charging more than the market will bear, which is why sales have gone down. I have never stolen a CD online. That would be hard to do, stealing a CC # first and all. That technology allows CD's to be converted to MP3, quite well I add, does not make that MP3 a CD. "Record" companies lost the reel to reel, 8 track, and cassette recording cases. The only difference is that MP3 does a better job and can be distributed quicker. When automobiles came out the horse and buggy people didn't take the position that autos were moving in on thier business so therefore the imperial federal government had to restrict autos. Autos were a different way of getting form A to B, and MP3's are a different way of recording. That the quality of MP3 is better than tape does not negate the logic applied in the tape case. Call me not a thief, sir/maam. Call me up to date.

HarmlessRabbit

I have heard many people (not in this thread) make that exact claim, usually following up by saying they wouldn't download music if it was less expensive or if the record companies weren't such bastards.

Agreed on your technical point. However, I would still call it stealing. You are taking someone else's artistic work, which they gave a single company the exclusive right to distribution, and you are bypassing the intent of the artist and their distribution company.

P2P is not the same as making a buddy a mix tape. It's more akin to professional DVD piracy. You are distributing complete copies of copyrighted works to potentially hundreds of anonymous strangers, not distributing mix tapes to friends or personal backups to a videotape.

HarmlessRabbit

Hey Knifemissile, I guess you have to take your "No one is disputing that copyright infringement (which, legally, is not theft, that's a different offense) isn't illegal, because it is, plain and simple." comment back now.

Your position, bonbonbox, is indefensible. Downloading copyrighted MP3's is morally theft, even if, as KnifeMissile said, it isn't legally the crime of theft. Just because a CD isn't in the format you want is not an excuse for stealing. Just because a CD is, in your opinion, too expensive is not an excuse for stealing.

Let's look at it this way: say U2 is coming through town on a concert tour and the tickets are $100.00. You think the tickets should be $10.00, so you make nine illegal copies of the tickets and give them out to strangers outside the show. Is that right or wrong? Does that help or hurt U2? Does that make society a better place or a worse place?

ubertuber

Maybe so, but file-SHARING isn't a business model - no money changes hands. Maybe you personally aren't claiming this, but I am tired of people saying stuff like this implying that Kazaa and Napster arose naturally to occupy the place of a digital distribution system and are therefore justified. They're not. I agree that record labels should have aggressively pursued online distribution at an earlier date - they'd probably be having fewer pr problems now. What will be interesting is to see if all of these people who claim that high prices or having to buy a whole album for one track justified file-sharing start paying for music online now that there are a few decent alternatives.

Also, Prince, no offense, but I am sure that the recording studio that U2 uses to record an album is more expensive than a home user setup. And although digital recording has simplified (and in some cases cheapened) the recording process, buying all new equipment every 4 or 5 years as technology changes isn't easy on smaller studios...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

KnifeMissile

Well, I suppose I can't stop you from using the term colloquially but consider this. If I steal a chair from you, I've deprived you of the ability to enjoy that chair. But if I look at your chair, and then copy your chair, I can enjoy my chair and you can enjoy yours and everyone is happy. This is obviously not "theft," yet it is exactly what people are doing with P2P, so you can see my reluctance in calling it "theft." That's just a PR ploy by the RIAA (and the like) that I refuse to take part in.
Now, of course, the artists (or whomever) have a copyright to that chair so it is illegal for me to do the simple (and innocent) task of even looking at your chair to make my own. This would be copyright infringement. There are those who suggest that this doesn't sound as bad as theft? To those people, I would contend that it isn't as bad as theft. Again, company PR...

Here is the crux of the problem. Please read what you have just said. "You are distributing complete copies of copyrighted works..." Says who? You are only assuming that they're copyrighted? They needn't be and, if they are not, then there is no crime.

Trying to ban P2P is like trying to ban knives. Are you going to assume that someone with a knife will go out to knife someone? No, you arrest the criminal after he (rarely she) commits the crime. In other words, you arrest the criminal and not the tool the criminal used.
By that same token, it's perfectly legal and useful to distribute a file using P2P, but some people may distribute copyrighted files with it. Sue the violators and not the tool!

Incidentally, this is what the RIAA is currently doing, along with a rather big PR campaign, but they are doing so only because they were unable to legislate Kazaa (I forget the actual company name) out of existence, which is reprehensible, in my opinion...

Prince

I see no reason to justify the existence of Napster and KaZaA. Not all material shared over these networks is illegal. The technology and services weren't created specifically for sharing illegal material. Almost any technology or tool can be used to commit a crime. That does not mean it does not have other legit uses and purposes.

I don't know where you came up with U2, I never mentioned them...but really, they can record anywhere they please. That is beside the point. I mentioned the studios as part of my example of how recording new music has become less expensive, and more people are able to bypass ridiculously high recording expenses. The same goes for distribution...but the RIAA is battling against the very technology that provides these inexpensive yet effective distribution channels.

I do understand why the RIAA is attacking individuals that they have caught sharing illegal material. However I do not agree with the way they are doing it. They are able to force Internet Service Providers to fork over personal information before they even have to prove their case in a court of law. In doing so, they get the equivalent of a search warrant and search & seizure without any kind of due process.

__________________
Who is John Galt?

HarmlessRabbit

I don't know where you're getting the idea that I want P2P software/networks/protocols banned. I don't. I'm just saying that those who choose to trade copyrighted files over those networks (which, you have to admit, is 99.999999% of P2P traffic) are breaking copyright law.

This argument doesn't hold up at all. Let's say I'm the furniture designer Herman Miller, a well-known furninture designer, and I've spent a lot of time designing this new chair. You're a janitor in their building and you take pictures and copy designs for that chair and share them with Herman Miller's competitors. Did you damage Herman Miller? Yes. Is it illegal or a civil action? Frankly, I don't know, I just know it is wrong.

Intellectual Property is real property. Without intellectual property laws research and development in the USA would grind to a halt.

You're basically arguing that copyright law has no basis in american society, and that it is perfectly OK to go and make perfect digital copies of any books, magazines, websites, or anything else you please, and distribute them to whomever you want, as long as the original source document isn't taken from the owner in the process.

ubertuber

Prince, sorry - I should have said justify file-sharing of copyrighted materials on Napster and Kazaa. You are absolutely right about the ability of these networks to be used for all kinds of cool stuff other than this.

I was just using U2 as an example to say that the music that is being shared illegally is often of artists that won't be using the cheaper home setups that you mentioned.

I think that your third paragraph is exactly the way that I feel about the RIAA. There should be more emphasis on due process...

I guess it turns out that I agree with just about everything you said...

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

KnifeMissile

Sorry, you're right. It's too tempting to use this opportunity at the soap box...

My argument holds plenty of water. In fact, my argument is a perfect analogy. It's how you interpret the actions that's different.

I can understand that if Herman Miller tried hard to keep something a secret and people in sensitive positions leaked that information, then that should result in a perfectly legitimate lawsuit. However, once Herman Miller displayed their chair to the public, it's public knowledge how that chair works!

Of course, this is my opinion. How the actual law works is quite uncertain when it comes to IP. These days, everything's up to interpretation and anything can happen...

Intellecual property is not real property, in my opinion, and I'm not alone in thinking this. You can't put a fence around it and you can't take it from someone. Unlike property, if I have an idea, you can't take that idea from me. To treat intellectual property as physical property (until recently, it was simply "property," for obvious reasons) is folly and we're experiencing the limits to this analogy. Something's gonna give in the next hundred years or so, I just don't know what.

Oh, and innovation has been going on for millenia. To think that research and development in the US would suddenly halt is proposterous. It's like how the RIAA are saying that all art would stop without copyright law enforcement, despite the fact that art has existed long before copyright!

Almost, yes.
While I do understand the need for copyright under certain circumstances, I think it has been perverted too far to be useful. I think current IP laws do more harm than good.

Big corporations have way too much power and the Sonny Bono Act is a good example of it. What's currently happening is that copyright technically has an expiry date but we know it doesn't because these big corporations (Disney in particular) will just turn around and say "we need to extend copyright," and the US government will say "yeah, okay!" ad infinitum.

Consider this. Why was there ever an expiry date on copyright?

HarmlessRabbit

Arguing that copyright terms are too long doesn't justify the abolishment of copyright. The technology exists to make perfect digital copies of any released movie or DVD immediately after the copyright owner makes the product available. Are you honestly saying that you think it's perfectly ok for anyone that wishes to should be able to buy the current release from, say, Bruce Springsteen, make perfect digital copies, and make them available freely for download? You really think that this should be legal, and that it is morally ok, and that it is fair to Bruce Springsteen and his contractually bound agents and distributors?

If so, we're so far apart on our interpretation of what the law should be that I don't know that we can even have a discussion about it.

redravin40

I have no problem with dowloading anything I already own on CD, Tape or vinyl.
I'ts not my fault that the industry keeps changing mediums.
I am not going to keep buying new versions of The White Album.
I also will gladly download music that is impossible to get in the US and local bands who want the exposure.
But other wise I will buy my music which is why I work in a book/music store so I can get a discount.

Macheath

This idea of intellectual property is remarkable when you think of it. Consider this.

In 1898, China leased Hong Kong to the British for a period of 99 years. In 1997, Britain held to the terms of this original agreement and relinquished all claims to Hong Kong. In comparison, many copyrighted works from the 1930s will not enter the public domain until 2072.

In 1928, Disney released the cartoon Steamboat Willie, based on Buster Keaton's "Steamboat Bill". The script for "Steamboat Willie" in fact begins with this instruction:

Orchestra starts playing opening verses of 'Steamboat Bill.'

Maybe the estate of Buster Keaton should try to sue Disney.

The intellectual property rights to Steamboat Willie were slated to expire in 2004, this date was extended to 2024 and is likely to be extended indefinitely. Since 1962 copyright terms have been extended 11 times.

Why is a whole country with a GDP of $186 billion and a population of 7,394,170 easier to let go of than a cartoon mouse?

I don't advocate the abolition of copyright, but this public domain extension issue is a good way of contemplating what intellectual property actually is and why it exists. That question IS important to this discussion.

btw, HarmlessRabbit's expensive car analogy reminded me of this thread:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...threadid=30847

HarmlessRabbit

Because Hong Kong had a country with a rather large army that wanted it back.

But seriously, I agree, the copyright law situation is silly. O'Reilly books and a few others have declared "founder's copyrights" on their books, although since they sell technical books it seems like a bit of a publicity stunt for them. (A 14-year old Linux book is hardly going have a lot of value. ) I applaud the idea of copyright rollback, but it still doesn't justify theft.

What I hope is that the copyright law becomes so annoying that people actually start making their own music again, in small groups. We are such a consumer culture. We don't dare sing, dance, or make art ourselves, that's for the artist! Personally, I would love to go to a bar and stand around a piano singing drinking songs, but I don't know anywhere around here that would let me.

KnifeMissile

First of all, the mere fact that we're not accusing the other of being an ignorant/naive left wing "liberal" extremist is a good start towards a healthy debate. I sense that this isn't hopeless. However, I do get the sense that you're not really reading my posts...

I didn't quite say that I advocate the abolishment of copyright law and it's ilk (the latter I dislike more than the former). I'm still undecided whether they are needed or not and would settle for copyright of a limited time. The original length of 15 years (or something like that) wasn't bad.

The technology does exist to make perfect copies of artists work but this is generally not what's being distributed. What's being distributed, mp3's and DivX movies, are approximations of the original work. Good approximations, to be sure, but only approximations. Of course, these approximations can be copied, perfectly...
I suspect that it's these approximations that you mostly speak of when you complain about mass "piracy" (again, I hate that term). After all, this started with internet downloading and, I assure you, no one downloads music CD's (data CD's are a different story...) or original MPEG2 movies.

As to your Bruce Springsteen example, I'm tempted to say yes (remember, I'm undecided?). I mean, there are two ways of thinking about this.
Does Bruce really own music? The way some words are strung together or the length and tone of some tunes. Should it be illegal for me to hum Born in the USA while walking down the street? Should it be illegal for me to sing this song to my friends, or family, or my friends' families? Does Bruce really own all this? Not just a piece of plastic that can make these sounds but the ability to make these sounds at all? Doesn't that seem kind of weird and scary?
What about freedom of speech? I have the right to communicate anything I like to anyone, don't I? I have data and I wish to share this data with someone and, yet, Bruce thinks he can censor me?

Perhaps you'd be surprised to learn that it is perfectly legal in Canada to copy my CD's, even if it's not for personal use? If you're interested, I can tell you why. It's actually pretty funny, much like a lot of Canadian law...

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't answer my question about why there was an expiry date on copyright. Is that because you don't know? Or that you don't think it's relevant? Or that it's uninteresting? I bring it up because a lot of how I feel on the subject can found in this aspect of copyright law. There is a reason why copyright law was supposed to expire. Why didn't they just say "It's unfair to Bruce Springsteen, and others like him, to let just anyone copy his work so we're giving him the copyright to it for now and til the end of time!" Why not, indeed...

Macheath

In a sense what you're advocating here is the same idea of a community approach that people have been suggesting as a possible application of peer to peer, websites and streaming radio/video. The question is whether you try to build the community around the technology or use the technology to enhance the community.

The difficulty I've always acknowledged with something like mp3.com is there is no consistent model for mass promotion of good artists as familiar to us as the corporate mass advertising model. True, mp3.com "insiders" might know whose judgement to trust, but an outsider has no good way of separating the wheat from the chaff.

Imagine if the TFP created a digital community based model of musical collaboration - Tilted Musicians; in which ideas were exchaged and final tracks were eventually released to the rest of the forum. To protect the sites bandwidth though, users would quickly have to resort to peer to peer much as www.redvsblue.com uses Bittorrent to protect its bandwidth from www.fark.com.

Imagine that bar where people stand around the piano drinking and singing songs because of those annoying copyright laws.

Now imagine two bars, one in the southern US and the other in Ireland. The bars ship exotics to each other like kegs of Guinness and cases of fine Bourbon respectively. Then they set up a two way streaming video webcast. The cooks use this to teach each other how to make each other's traditional dishes in the afternoon. That evening, the musicians use the connection for a virtual jam session, perhaps pitting the Irish fiddle against the banjo in a furious contest.

These things would enrich both digital and real life communities. Why not use the internet to exchange musical ideas or enhance that community pub singalong? - Because a company zealously protecting its copyright has crushed the technologies that would allow you to do so. Screw that.

Sorry for drifting away from the topic a bit, but I want to think about HOW people listen to their music.

Ustwo

Reading Hyperion several years back, something struck me as amusing.

The author of a book of poetry found out the computer AI's loved it. He wanted to know how many copies they bought, and the answer was '1'. It was implied of course that they all shared the 'book'. Needless to say this didn't help the author any.

I am not a artist, but I understand the desire to get paid for what you produce. Most file 'sharers' look for excuses for why its ok to download, blaming either the industry for being to slow to adapt, to expensive, to hard to find a kind of music, whatever. This is but mere sophistry. You are stealing, you are thieves, and yes I am a thief too. I am not an audiophile but there are some songs I like, I downloaded them, I didn't pay for them, I play them at work, at home and in my cd walkman. I am a thief. I could use the excuse that if I couldn’t download them I would have never have bought it anyways, and the RIAA isn’t losing any money from my theft, this is true, it is also besides the point. If you don't like the RIAA, that’s fine and worthy, but not liking someone doesn't give you any right to steal from them.

Quit making excuses. If you download copywritten material outside of the terms of use, you are a thief. Revel in it, but don't make excuses for it.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

HarmlessRabbit

Huh? Last I checked, Kazaa, eDonkey, and a million Bittorrent sites were still running, and almost all the traffic is in copyrighted material, not copyright-free material. I don't get your "crushed" comment.

What I see, frankly, and I'm not accusing you of this personally, is a lot of people saying "LOOK LOOK, P2P NETWORKS HAVE A LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR TRADING COPYRIGHT-FREE MUSIC" while they merrily download copyrighted music.

I think a community augmented with technology like you describe would be neat, but I don't see how technology really augments the experience, it could happen just as easily on a local level. Heck, I've probably got 20 different nationalities of people within a mile of me, I don't need some complex videoconference to meet people from different cultures.

Praising P2P for helping people create is like praising the postal system for the content of the letters they deliver. P2P has potential as an interesting tool, but other than extremely isolated cases, I have yet to see P2P networks used for anything other than taking copyrighted works without permission.

Macheath

And where is Audiogalaxy and Napster? How much longer is Internet radio going to be around? What of the elected representatives who think that the Government should be able to legally destroy your computer if you're suspected to copyright infringement? What of the idea of legally denying you root access to your own computer? That WOULD crush the technology.

That's wonderful. There is one American family living in our street. I talk to them occasionally and they did put on a nice Halloween party. I don't know them that well though, and I don't know their politics. I DO know a bit about your politics though, despite the fact that I'm a bit further than a mile from San Jose, California.

I know a few Vietnamese families. Maybe I could ask "what exotic things do you eat?" answer - "meat pies." Well "what's Vietnam like now" answer - "I dunno, I haven't been there since 1975".

We used to have a whole lot of great pubs in Sydney until the gambling industry came along. Now there's barely any singalongs at the pub piano. Just rows and rows of poker machines and dead eyed gamblers.

But this internet thing gives you a fighting chance of talking to an American living in America or a Russian living in Russia, so at what point do you enjoy it as something more than a neat gimmick?

But by the same token, people don't curse the postal system if the letter contains bad news. And the only reason people don't praise or curse the postal system is because they take it's existence for granted. Go back in history and find Wells Fargo praised for getting that gold back to San Francisco or the runner for getting those dispatches back from the front. And these guys were just glorified postal workers.
I don't want you to think I'm being spurious here, but we might as well remember what the idea of a widely available postal system originally represented.

HarmlessRabbit

They were shut down since effectively ALL of their traffic was illegal. Show me a single p2p service that isn't primarily used for piracy. Freenet is the closest one, and the only reason people don't use freenet a lot for piracy is because freenet sucks and it's hard to get files across.

I am unaware of a single legal restriction on an internet radio station which broadcasts music or talk without copyright. The restrictions I have heard of involve the compulsory charges that the legal copyright holders will charge the radio stations without an established license agreement to play the music that the copyright holders own. How many internet radio stations are out there playing uncopyrighted music? I did some searching and couldn't find a single one. I remember the debian linux project was running one at one point, but I can't find it now.

That legislation didn't pass.

I haven't heard any credible proposal for this. Even the DRM-enable BIOS that microsoft has proposed would only restrict the use of licensed music. If you make your own mp3, or you download an mp3 from a band that makes them available for free, you can still play them anywhere.

I don't think P2P networks should be shut down. But, on the other hand, I think most people are using the POTENTIAL legitimate uses as an excuse to use the networks to steal copyrighted files.

I'm sorry that my previous post had a bit of a confrontational tone. I'll try to dial down the rhetoric a bit. I'm honestly interested in discussing this with you and getting your opinions.

bonbonbox

Attention Harmless, concerning your post:

Your position, bonbonbox, is indefensible. Downloading copyrighted MP3's is morally theft, even if, as KnifeMissile said, it isn't legally the crime of theft. Just because a CD isn't in the format you want is not an excuse for stealing. Just because a CD is, in your opinion, too expensive is not an excuse for stealing.


My position is in fact defensible. It has been defended in our wonderful court system. I am not so sure that you understand my opinion. I come to that conclusion because of your statement that in my opinion CDs are too expensive. My statement; "For now they are manufacturing CD's and charging more than the market will bear, which is why sales have gone down.", means just that. I do not give my opinion, I merely stated a fact. If CDs were priced what the market would bear, more CDs would be sold. I need no excuse for stealing because I am not stealing. Again, a CD is not a MP3. In my opinion, and this is my opinion, a CD is superior to a MP3.
As far as morals go, your morals do not hold any weight over me, another great thing about this fine country in which I live. That you can not tell the difference between an apple (CD) and an orange (MP3) should not and does not effect my actions.
As to your "Let's look at it this way: say U2 is coming through town on a concert tour and the tickets are $100.00. You think the tickets should be $10.00, so you make nine illegal copies of the tickets and give them out to strangers outside the show. Is that right or wrong? Does that help or hurt U2? Does that make society a better place or a worse place?" analogy, once again you are making the case that $ is the motivating factor for my personal downloading habits, and you have again mixed the apples and the oranges. I will spell it out for you. A ticket to a concert is a document that admits one to a show. To duplicate that ticket is in fact a crime. No one has been to court to defend thier personal right to copy a ticket and give it to a friend. MP3's on the other hand are reproductions of records or tapes or CDs and people have been to court to defend the right to copy said media. As I said before, the technology is better now, faster and more easily distributed. That does not change the logic behind the tape case. I am curious, are you against the taping of media? Is that stealing in your humble opinion? Just because you dont have a CD player in the car and want a cassette tape to use, so you tape the U2 and listen in the car are you a criminal, morally corrupt and helping America lose the war? Say a freind wants to hear the U2 you listen to and you loan them the tape, have you committed a crime? Say you bought a painting and have a few friends over to view it, and you don't send the artist any compensation for the extra eyes seeing it, is that a crime? Yes, I have been a bit ridiculous, but only to illustrate the point. Sharing is not criminally or morally wrong. Duplicating goods and selling them is. So far no one has charged me a cent for anything I have downloaded.

samremy

Isn't the internet one big file sharing community? Isn't that what makes it work? I'm sure most images on the internet are copyrighted. Would that mean if I should choose to post a thread on the 'Titty Board', that I am risking being sued for copyright infringement. Or if I should post a link to several .mpg files, that I'd be breaking the law? Must I ask for permission from the New York Times to link to their site so that I may 'share' an interesting article?

__________________
"...to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government .. " -- The US Declaration of Independence

JumpinJesus

Whenever an artist creates something, it is their right to decide whether or not to sell their creation. Some artists freely distribute files on their websites involving rare tracks or demos. Other artists wish to be compensated for anything they produce.

A band came to town that I thoroughly enjoy. When they switched record labels a few years ago, they lost the publishing rights (not the copyright) to their material. Their old record label pulled all their albums and refused to sell them or allow the band to sell them. The record label was angry at the band for leaving their label. Their argument to not handing over the publishing rights was, "we paid for those records, we decide when to sell them." Their music, however, is widely available on Kazaa. Naturally, being a fan, I downloaded their old material seeing as how I was unable to obtain it any other way. Recently, the band won back the publishing rights and I immediately bought the albums I have been listening to on Winamp for the past 2 years.

I spoke with a few of the band members after their show and talk turned to Kazaa and file-swapping. I was told that they were all in favor of it, as long as you actually bought the albums if you liked them. They are not on a major label and so they do actually receive a good portion of their record sales. When you are a band that only sells about 50,000 albums, every penny counts.

Not every artist is a millionaire on Sony records. Most of them make very little money at what they do. They sell records because they want to make money. If they want to give something away for free, that is their perogative, but I am a firm believer in supporting the bands I like with my dollars so they can continue to afford making music I like.

Not a legal argument, but my moral two cents.

__________________
"I can normally tell how intelligent a man is by how stupid he thinks I am" - Cormac McCarthy, All The Pretty Horses

Macheath

HarmlessRabbit, we might have been arguing at cross-purposes here. The internet radio issue is a contentious and complex one. Web broadcasters were already paying ASCAP and BMI fees about equivalent to small college radio stations. The Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel (CARP) proposal was to add additional royalties that would have bankrupted the small broadcasters.

I talk about bad laws that were proposed and you talk about how those laws were rejected but neither of us can be certain why they were rejected. Perhaps online activist like the www.eff.org actually have a small voice that is being heard in Congress. I mean, Jesse frikkin Helms of all people came out against the CARP royalities because of the Christian Internet broadcasters.

Clearly the lawyers and money people are having this same difficult argument about intellectual property and technology that we here are having.

Society at large does need to have this argument too if the future IP model is to be viable, but how the hell do you get people into such a dry subject?

Well, that's where it gets interesting. Think of a guns or marijuana analogy. Some guy works at 7-11 and smokes the ganja. At 3am, he fills a paper cup with 7-11 candy and puts it in the microwave. The next day he goes to a rally for medical marijuana. Here we have an absolute twit lobbying for an honourable cause.

Another guy likes guns, he gets drunk and puts a propane cylinder in the middle of a field - pulls the trigger. Then he goes home and waves a pistol in his wife's face. The next day he goes to a second amendment rally and hands out flyers about the original intent of the founding fathers.

In both cases you have morons being politically active for selfish and stupid motives. Do their motives invalidate the arguments? In other words can the P2P networks ACTUALLY have legitimate uses regardless of whether some infringer uses this line as an mere excuse?