Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Pei on February 18, 2004, 10:02:22 PM
-
A music recording is only information. In the modern world infomration can be transported around, replicated and stored very rapidly and cheaply. People don't by CDs because they like round pieces of plastic, they buy them for the music (i.e. information on them). The CDs themselves are valueless to the customer if they can get the information in a handier, more portable and cheaper form. The music industry clings to CD sales like a shipwrecked man holding onto a bit of wood which is being slowly pulled out to sea: it's time to let go of the wood and swim for the beach. The RIAA and friends need to give up on them; the future must lie in selling the information directly as raw data over the internet at much reduced prices. The reality is that people will always be able to rip-off CDs and send the data to their friends. If you can read the data (i.e. play the music) you can copy it. Trying to co-opt the hardware and software vendors to preserve the primacy of hardcopy recordings is not going to work: the vendors can make more money selling cheaper, less complex and restrictive devices - why should they limit there own market?
This is the way things are and they aren't going to change. The media vendors need to create cheap and easy ways for people can get the music they want: only then people won't go to the hassle of file swapping and digital piracy (not that it will go away but at least they should be able to make a decent living). The longer they delay and try and cling on to the hardcopy sales the more people will get used to the idea of piracy and the problem will become bigger in the long run.
They can can cut production costs, transport costs and the middle-men (retailers and whole-salers) and sell cheaply to many more people. I'm talking $1-2 per collection (album, coose your own 20 songs etc.), a few cents per song.
Ultimately sueing your own potential customers is a bad business practice. Music piracy is criminal but the fact of the matter is that the way all information is used, transported and stored has changed and left the media vendors behind. It's too late to go back: it's time to go forward.
The music industry is not the only one is this boat:
Books and magazines are just waiting for a handy cheap device to allow you to comfortably and easily read the data anywhere.
Films are just waiting for enough people to have broadband and direct hookup to their (or the amalgamation of the home TV and the home PC).
-
I disagree.
Keep CD's around. They are a decent medium.
However, offer something that downloaders can never have unless they buy the cd.
Be it toughly encoded movies, new songs, music videos.
Remember, industry revolves around trying to sell something that the competitor isn't.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I disagree.
Keep CD's around. They are a decent medium.
However, offer something that downloaders can never have unless they buy the cd.
Be it toughly encoded movies, new songs, music videos.
Remember, industry revolves around trying to sell something that the competitor isn't.
Industry revolves around selling something that people will buy. I'm not saying get rid of CDs but they will become like records: of interest to collectors and specialists like DJs. Given that the vast majority have now or will have soon the ability to download and play the data directly CD recordings provide no value. Nowadays when you buy a steroe it has an mp3 player. Portable mp3 players are cheap and getting cheaper. Most of us have computers and internet access: people don't need CDs any more. They aren't going to pay inflated CD prices when they can just download or rip the music from someone else.
As to "toughly endoded": as I said if you can read the data you can copy it. The only way to limit this (and you can only make it more difficult, not impossible) is to restrict the whole process by having the software and hardware vendors make their products try and enforce your copyright. But why would a software vendor or hardware vendor do this? They have to make more complex (and hence more expensive) products to no value to themselves (unless you are Sony of course adn you have your foot in both camps: and even then the hardware division won't be too happy about it). The software or hardware vendor is also building functionality which the majority of their customers don't want and don't like. So you are asking the software and hardware vendors to piss off thier own customers. How many will go for that do you think.
Copyright abuse is impossible to stamp out: what you can do is try and make it so the majority of people find it easier and more reasonable to not do so.
-
OK the other option for copyright enforcement I didn't mention is massive international government intervention. This will basiclly require some kind of global agency to co-ordinate it and having every aspect of data flow and manipulation subject to massive government regulation and intervention, at tax payer exspense (I'm sure all the free-market conservatives on this board will love this option).
Even then it will be impossible to control as many countries will either not join or join and then exploit the system (or allow it to be exploited): there will be too much money in it for 3rd world countries to resist.
-
i was able to "download" data and listen to music for free in the 50's, i think i used something they called a "radio".
-
Record companies = sleazy middlemen
-
Originally posted by john9001
i was able to "download" data and listen to music for free in the 50's, i think i used something they called a "radio".
But could you record it at indistinguishable quality levels from the original broadcast and play it whenever you wanted?
-
I didn't mean encode the music. I meant encode the extras so that it will only play off of the CD / you can't play it by copying it onto your computer.
-
Anything that can be encoded can and will be decoded.
Selling extras that people do not want to entice them into paying for what they want would not work anyway.
The whole issue with music, etc. revolves around the concept of property - is the so called "intellectual property" a real property or not?
By most definitions intellectual property is not property. It is not "scarce" - there are unlimited amounts of it thta can be had for zero expense.
By taking someone's intellectual property and consuming it, you are not depriving that individual from consuming that property as would be the case with any physical property.
The only reason the concept of intellectual property was invented by the act of government was it's supposed benefit for technological progress or art creation.
That enforcing intellectual property rights is beneficial for progress is far from obvious and there is a good reason to beleive the opposite is true.
Theory and history shows that scientific, technological and artistic creation exist and prospers even without the commertial exploitation of the property rights.
As the information technology develops, the enforcement of the artificial intellectual property concept becomes much harder to enforce and requiting greater expense and violation of the human rights.
It may be more efficient to dump that concept all together and allow the free market to sort out the consequances. Of course the vested interests would not allow that to happen but it would work.
Artists will still create, authors write, inventors invent and scienits discover. Probaby more efficiently.
miko
-
Theory and history shows that scientific, technological and artistic creation exist and prospers even without the commertial exploitation of the property rights.
Theory is BS.
If people want to create artistic and scientific breakthroughs without retaining any rights to their efforts they are free to do so.
Intellectual property rights are a basic necessity of civilization, and it has been so since the invention of the printing press.
ra
-
ra: Theory is BS.
If people want to create artistic and scientific breakthroughs without retaining any rights to their efforts they are free to do so.
You call the "theory" BS and in the next sentense state that same theory and your agreement with it. You are not consistent.
There is no theoretical justification for the view that creative work would stop if there were no retained intellectual property rights.
The historical example provides ample evidence of enormous amount of creative achievement not linked to retained property rights.
Intellectual property rights are a basic necessity of civilization, and it has been so since the invention of the printing press.
Would you care to justify that opinion?
Whatever you mean by 'civilisation", how would it be prevented from existence by the abcense of intellectual property rights?
How did civilisation exist before the patent offices and international patent agreements? It seems to have done OK.
miko
-
Artists will still create, authors write, inventors invent and scienits discover. Probaby more efficiently.
BZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong, but nice try, Miko.
History is filled with evidence of artists that depended on the royalties from their creations to live and give them the freedom to be able to continue to create.
Do you realize how long it takes to compose an opera?
You're arguing that it would be more efficient for a composer to compose his opera in his spare time between going to work at his day job, as opposed to composing full time, and paying the bills with royalties from his previous works.
Nope, you're wrong this time, Miko.
-
You call the "theory" BS and in the next sentense state that same theory and your agreement with it. You are not consistent.
Agree with what? I state the fact that anyone can decline to exercise his own intellectual property rights. You are free to spend your life finding a cure for cancer and then give it away. I don't see a lot of progress coming from such endeavors, though, I'll put my money on medical research funded by the value of intellectual property rights.
There is no theoretical justification for the view that creative work would stop if there were no retained intellectual property rights.
The same can be said of all rights. What does that prove?
The historical example provides ample evidence of enormous amount of creative achievement not linked to retained property rights.
How would these examples negate a right? What rights cannot be said to be unnecessary? The Bill of Rights is a list of things which historical example can easily prove to be utterly unecessary. Ask the typical European if the 2nd amendment is necessary to an advanced culture.
Would you care to justify that opinion?
Fine, I'll modify my statement: Intellectual property rights are a basic necessity of free men.
Property rights are the most fundamental rights of free people, and intellectual property rights are the highest form of property rights. The value of an invention or a poem can only be sustained through intellectual property rights. If a man works a week to build a row boat and another mans destroys it, the builder has lost all the value he put into the boat. If a writer writes a novel which is then digitized and distributed around the world for free, the novelist has lost the value he put into the book. There is no difference, except in some pointy headed theory.
ra
-
Wrong, but nice try, Miko.
History is filled with evidence of artists that depended on the royalties from their creations to live and give them the freedom to be able to continue to create.
Do you realize how long it takes to compose an opera?
How am I wrong?
I never said that there is no evidence in history that people received royalties or depended on them. I never said that not a single person would be affected. Sure - some will not do something or do that something differently if he/she cannot receive royalty.
I said that "Artists will still create, authors write, inventors invent and scienits discover."
Since there are clear examples of many cases when artistic or scientific creation was not driven by pursuit of royalty, I am right when claiming that it is possible.
Throughout most of history and even now to the great degree the creative achievement was driven by the people's need to create and to earn non-monetary rewards and satisfaction or to earn monetary rewards in other ways than royalties.
Throughout most of history and even now to the great degree the people doing creative work were financed by private patrons, by voluntary donations and by their "day jobs".
You're arguing that it would be more efficient for a composer to compose his opera in his spare time between going to work at his day job...
Efficient? Define "efficient" before you use that term. Depending on its meaning, I can make a case that it would be much more efficient if the royalties did not exist.
For beginners, we would have less of the the corrupting and destructive commercial mass culture because no patron would comission such crap. I believe that the destruction of culture and society weights a lot in the calculation of efficiency.
A whole lot of research is not done or discarded because someone has independently discovered the same thing few months's earlier.
A lot of research is not done because it now takes a huge copany with millions of dollars and dozens of patent lawyers to be able to exploit one's own discovery rather than have it legally stolen from you and be prevented from its use for 15 years. How is that efficient?
ra: Agree with what?
You agree that there is research and creative work going on that does not depend on royalties, but you call exactly the same statement of mine "BS".
The same can be said of all rights. What does that prove?
If someone took your right to live, it could not be said that you would continue to live.
If someone took away your property rights, it could not be said you would continue make use of your property.
If someone took away your right to have children, it could not be said you would continue to have children.
But if you were denied the right to charge for your idea or invention, it can be said that you are not denied the right to use the idea or invention. When somebody uses the information that you posess, you do not stop posessing that information. That cannot be said about any material object that you posess.
The concept of property applies only to scarse resources. If you had infinite number of lives rather than one, taking one would not constitute violation.
Taking a picture of yourself or your house or your land does not constitute a property violation because your use of property is not affected no matter how many pictures are taken. Much like with "intellectual property"
How would these examples negate a right?
Not talking about rights here - just about the fact that abcence of inellectual property or royalties does not stop creative process.
What rights cannot be said to be unnecessary?
Property rights. Right to own one's body and product of ones's labor. Nobody shoudl be able to deny you the use of your body or property. However when someone sings your song, he id nod denying you the ability to sing that song.
The bill of rights just confirms the property rights in more expanded form but it does not introduce any new rights.
If a writer writes a novel which is then digitized and distributed around the world for free, the novelist has lost the value he put into the book. There is no difference, except in some pointy headed theory.
There is a huge difference. The writer has not lost his novel - he still has it.
Any right of a person is an obligation on other persons. A right to own property is nothing more than an obligation not to deprive a person from the use of his property and an obligation to help that person to protect his property.
A writer's "right" to royalties means an obligation on me to participate in punishing some people for unothorised reading of his novel.
I am to act as a slave of that writer and finance his income with my taxes and possibly personal perticipation. If I refuse to participate, I will be coerced, arrested or killed if I resist.
If some other country posts his novel on his website, I may be barred from trading with the people of that country or even drafted to attack that country to prevent its theft of our values as if it stole our real property or kidnapped people.
I take coersion seriously - I do not like it a bit to be coerced for frivolous puropses or someone profit.
The profits the autor is getting for the novel come not from his labor but from my taxes and obligations imposed on me to knock heads for him. I believe it's an oppression to make me act as his enforcer.
If he only wrote that novel to make profit from royalties, that means he based his decision on my forced/slave labor.
If he knew he would not be able to rely on my slave labor for his profit, he would not have embarked on writing the novel and would not have lost anything. Most likely he would have chosen a different way to profit from his work.
To you the difference between being a slave or being a free man may be a "pointy headed theory" but for some it is not.
I want to pay my taxes to police to protect people, not make profit for them.
miko
-
Do you like Anerican nusic?
I like Anerican nusic.
-
Miko's right this far:
intellectual property rights and commercial production are relatively new, and their impact on the quality and quantity of production is questionable.
How did artists, researchers, theologians and others survive if they couldn't "bank" their work?
Patronage by wealthy individuals or government.
Capitalism is good for many things, but it's kinda goofy when applied to ideas. You get monstrosities like drug companies spending billions of dollars in research, duplicating each others' work, and then spending billions more in advertising so they can exploit the patent. Charles Dickens was probably the first commercial author, and my God, is his prose ever long and masturbatory.
In the realm of mass-produced art (such as popular music, movies and so on), the emphasis is on producing superficial lighthearted pap that offends the fewest people and rakes in the biggest bugs. "Under the Tuscan Sun"? Give me a break.
SCO is right about one thing, the open-source movement is a serious threat to the current system of intellectual property rights.
Ideas are cheap; implementation is costly. So why are we paying a premium for ideas?
A really old notion of "liberal" are the things that pertain to a free man. In theory, a free man gives others the benefit of his mind without charging for it. An artist who works for royalties is not an artist, but a slave.
-
Slave is the person who works under compulsion.
-
Slave is the person who works under compulsion.
-
Slave is the person who works under compulsion of violence.
A person doing creative work for monetary compensation is not a slave - at least not a slave to any other man. We are all "slaves" to the necessities of nature - have to exert ourselves to ensure our continual survival.
miko
-
Throughout most of history and even now to the great degree the people doing creative work were financed by private patrons, by voluntary donations and by their "day jobs".
And they still can, how does that negate the need for intellectual property rights? If you use this logic then all rights are unnecessary. People can thrive without any rights at all, including property rights.
"If someone took your right to live, it could not be said that you would continue to live....."
Yes it could. Throughout history man had NO rights yet he was able to protect his life and property. He did this through violence or threat of violence. Rights establish a system whereby a man's interests are recognized and protected by society, even if he cannot himself always protect them. But rights are not necessary to life.
The distinction between physical property and intellectual property is purely arbitrary. In both cases the property has value to the owner. Stealing it deprives the owner of that value.
Intellectual property rights do not create value, they protect it. When Stephen King writes a book it is with the understanding that people are willing to pay him for his efforts. If people like the book he will make millions, but only if his ownership of the content is protected by society. But if the book sucks no one will pay him for it, no matter what the law is regarding intellectual property.
There is a huge difference. The writer has not lost his novel - he still has it.
There is no difference. Stealing the content of the novel renders it worthless.
The concept of property applies only to scarse resources.
Says who? Ghengis Khan?
The bill of rights just confirms the property rights in more expanded form but it does not introduce any new rights.
The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, section 8, gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Respective Writings and Discoveries" . You will need to amend the Constitution to fit this pointy headed idea.
ra
-
slave is said in many ways. The Romans considered slaves those who dirtied themselves with labor. That's where we got the notion of liberal arts from.
The constitution states there that the goal is to promote science and art; to secure for authors and inventors; and for a limited time.
Take Mickey Mouse.
Mickey Mouse was developed by Ub Iwerks, but Walt Disney, as his boss, got the rights. Now, to protect Mickey Mouse, the moneymaker for a corporation that has a tenuous relation to the author, we have extended intellectual property rights over him to 100 years, well beyond the natural life of anyone involved.
And you'd be hard-pressed to explain how the current situation with the pharmaceutical companies promotes science; or how the RIAA's now-threatened oligopoly over recorded music promotes art.
-
ra: And they still can, how does that negate the need for intellectual property rights?
That does not negate the need for intellectual property rights. the only issue here is who's need and what those "rights" consist of.
Those rights consist of coercion/opression imposed on me to ensure benefits for certain individuals - some authors of the intellectual creations and some people profiting from their creations.
Sure, there is the need for such people for intellectual property rights - just like there was the need for slave-owners for the need of slave-owning rights. All I am saying those rights are not legitimate.
Throughout history man had NO rights yet he was able to protect his life and property.
Many people - including the writers of teh Declaration of Independence - believe that people inherently posess inalianable rights. Those rights are often violated but that does not change the basic definition.
You do not posess your life because someone does not kill you. You posess your life inherently even though someone may violate it. Same with rights.
There is no difference. Stealing the content of the novel renders it worthless.
Stealing a piece of bread prevents the former owner from sustaining himself. Stealing the content of a novel does not prevent the owner from reading it.
So the "worth" you are referring to is not intrinisc to the novel or it's direct use. The worth is in the mechansm of oppression that makes people pay for whatever is arbitrarily defined as property.
Says who? Ghengis Khan?
Real mature. How about the body of political and philosophical works of the western civilisation for the last 3000 years?
Are you saying there should be no definition of property except the one that you care to invent?
The U.S. Constitution, in Article I, section 8, gives Congress the power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Respective Writings and Discoveries" . You will need to amend the Constitution to fit this pointy headed idea.
You must be confuising the Constitution with the Revealed Word of God. Only the latter one is absolute truth. :) The Consititution is a document writted by a bunch of 18th century politicians.
The founders of the US deemed it necessary to restrict the natural rights of americans by creating the artificial concept of "intellectual property". The fact they did so indicates their full understanding that they are creating a new imposition on the freedoms and rights of the people.
Just like they allowed the government to restrict the natural rights of people to trade their porperty - by allowing the government to control the trade.
They deemed it worth implementing. So what? They made a lot of decisions based on their current state of knowlege. They approved of slavery among other things or restriction of trade to promote country's welfare.
I am not arguing about the content of one declining country's document to which nobody pays any attention nowdays.
I am arguing that:
First, intellectual rights concept is not legitimate because it involves unjust oppression of other people.
And second, that the perceived benefits from such concept are far from obvious and may be causing more harm than good to the creative progress.
miko
-
Not all artists are POP TARTS like Britney you know.
QUEENSRYCHE - Operation Mindcrime 15$ CAN
JIMMY HENDRIX - Smash Hits 15$
DREAM THEATRE - Train of Thought 25$
RUSH - Permanent Waves 15$
FIGHT - War of Words and A Small Deadly Space 15$ each
Last 6 CDs I have bought. 100$ for 4 classics, 1 very good and the other I am not sure yet. I'd do it again anyday. :aok
If you go work in a factory, you expect to be paid.
These guys make music, buying the albums pays their wages.
Looks the same to me.
Protecting intellectual property is pretty much impossible though.
If you don't like it, you don't have to pay for it.
If you like it then you should be willing to pay for it.
If you are not then don't listen, how hard is that?
-
The founders of the US deemed it necessary to restrict the natural rights of americans by creating the artificial concept of "intellectual property".
They did not create the concept, it had been around in law for centuries. They were giving the authority to make laws regarding intellectual property to Congress.
I am not arguing about the content of one declining country's document to which nobody pays any attention nowdays.
Is there a rising country somewhere with no intellectual property rights?
First, intellectual rights concept is not legitimate because it involves unjust oppression of other people.
It prevents people from stealing the fruits of other peoples' labor. That is not unjust oppression.
And second, that the perceived benefits from such concept are far from obvious and may be causing more harm than good to the creative progress.
They are obvious if you open your eyes. If you pay for intellectual property, whether it is entertainment, software, or medicine, you are prooving that the people who created those products created something valuable. The fact that you would rather not have to pay has no bearing on things.
ra
-
I cannot stand the lack of quality of an mp3. Tinny, the dynamics are crushed. Sounds sort of like a poor CD stamping.
I will not waste my time downloading music or film from the Internet.
I have an audiophile grade system at home. I need something better than CD (DVD-Audio looks good right now). Not to say CD is bad, but there are enough bad pressings out there to make it a questionable buy. Of course, that is just the mechanics of the medium being the problem, not the actual music.
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
Not all artists are POP TARTS like Britney you know.
QUEENSRYCHE - Operation Mindcrime 15$ CAN
JIMMY HENDRIX - Smash Hits 15$
DREAM THEATRE - Train of Thought 25$
RUSH - Permanent Waves 15$
FIGHT - War of Words and A Small Deadly Space 15$ each
Last 6 CDs I have bought. 100$ for 4 classics, 1 very good and the other I am not sure yet. I'd do it again anyday. :aok
If you go work in a factory, you expect to be paid.
These guys make music, buying the albums pays their wages.
Looks the same to me.
Protecting intellectual property is pretty much impossible though.
If you don't like it, you don't have to pay for it.
If you like it then you should be willing to pay for it.
If you are not then don't listen, how hard is that?
Hmm Buying a CD pays Jimi Hendrix's wages?!? - I think not.
Seriously, though - most artists get to see precious little of the $14.50 mark up on a $0.50 CD. They get 5%-10% of sales - remember that's 5-10% of prolly $7.50 - $10. Out of that they pay for the recording, publicity, production, design, artwork, printing etc. involved in making & promoting the CD. They usually have to go on tour to see any real cash. CDs are basically a money maker for the record companies.
So if you just want to support them - you can feel fairly sin-free downloading the music: as long as you pay to go see their shows. This also avoids the whole paying dead people for their talent paradox. ;)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
I cannot stand the lack of quality of an mp3. Tinny, the dynamics are crushed. Sounds sort of like a poor CD stamping.
I will not waste my time downloading music or film from the Internet.
I have an audiophile grade system at home. I need something better than CD (DVD-Audio looks good right now). Not to say CD is bad, but there are enough bad pressings out there to make it a questionable buy. Of course, that is just the mechanics of the medium being the problem, not the actual music.
It's just a matter of time until we have a better encoding standard. There is no reason why we can't encode music to the same standard as CDs or higher - it will happen soon. This is in fact one area where the music industry can take the lead.
-
This is one area where hearing loss is a boon. I can't tell the difference between a CD and >192k MP3.
-
That and 128k MP3 is better than FM radio.
-
Artists will still create, authors write, inventors invent and scienits discover. Probaby more efficiently.
woah.. being a musician myself I have to say NAY to that idea.
inspiration/creativity can't be rushed... by technology or otherwise. All the tools in the world don't make ideas come any faster.
and if someone cries the 'techno' age does away with all the necessity for 'real' instruments and can be done with software on the computer.. I say.. so what? it sounds like crap! :)
Skuzzy hit the nail on the head IMO.
I have even put my stuff on the web in MP3 format only to be sadly dissapointed at the quality compared to the original.
CD's still rule for now with regards to digital quality.
(o-course some would argue that vinyl is far superior)
-
I think I have managed to find myself agreeing with Miko and Dinger in the same thread :).
My essential point is given current and soon to be available technology there is no practical means of enforcing copyright. Copyright is an artificail conept anyway - as miko says intellectual property is a shaky concept.
For me there are two ends to the information aspect: Generic and Bespoke. Information tends to one end or the other (there obviously other ways to grade information as well).
Generic information has the same utility for all users (e.g. music, films, books, a software program like a game or an OS). Generic information can be generically copied and distributed with modern technology.
Bespoke information has different value for different users: usually it is useful to only a small set of users (e.g. a letter I write to my Mum, a software program that drives a company's online business - i.e. it's tied to their business model). Bespoke information is made for a specific set of users and there is little utility in copying and distributing it beyond those users.
Copyright is there to protect generic information: to give it an arbitrary status similar to real property. While copyright can be and is used for bespoke information it has little point for most of it (who wants to copy the letter I wrote to my Mum? who is interested in the software business system apart from the company who owns it and potenmtially it's close competitors?). Given that I can copy virtually any piece of information in seconds and send it to any (and multiple) destinations in seconds and given that for generic information to be useful it has to be easily available (ie.e anyone can buy it) copyright is dead. Whether this is good or bad for those who make money out of generic information I will that leave to the econimists, but it is inescapable. While someone might get a greate deal of use from getting hold of someone else's bespoke information (e.g. the business competitor example) bespoke information is rarely easily available and often actively protected: i.e. it doesn't really need copyright.
I think those who make money out of generic information have some options:
1) Sell generic information so cheaply and easily that most people won't bother ripping it.
2) Make there products more bespoke (customization, personalization).
3) Offer some form of value add that copiers can't provide (this probably comes sunder 2).
HTC is an example of 3) the AH game is generic information: it works the same for all clients (more or less). You don't have to pay to use it, and HTC make no attempts to prevent you copying it. They provide a value add: the AH server(s) themselves. I pay $15 a month to use the value add. They do however have information that is bespoke to them - the source code for the AH client and server, and the server setup. This would be of interest to their competitors and to a certain extent their clients but not much interest to, say, my Mum (again :)). Consequently HTC protect this information via firewalls, physical security and don't distribute it. Breaches of all of these things can be covered by laws other than copyright that have a much better grounding in reality: breaking and entering, electronic theft and contract law.
Currently the music and film industries are taking option 4)
Sue your potential customers and try and get the government to enforce an artificial and vague concept: intellectual property.
Microsoft, Intel and the "Trusted Computing" crowd are going one step further than 4: they are forming a cartel to ensure that copyright overrides free market principles: i.e. they are trying to control all aspects of the information market to protect their interests.
The Open Source community has already grasped that generic software will be generically copied, but they are trying to enforce a different but equally flawed form of copy protection: the GPL (i.e. if you include open source software in software you write then that software itself must be open source).
The reason why I am interested in this it that I am a creator of information: I create information that tells other pieces of information and machines how to change information: i.e. I am a software "engineer". I made the choice to stick with bespoke information rather than working on generic products. Companies pay me to write software for there businesses to run some or all of their business processes. The market exists because they can't copy someone else's software to do it: their business processes are specific to them. They have to pay someone (me) to create bespoke information to suite their business.
-
Originally posted by Wlfgng
Skuzzy hit the nail on the head IMO.
I have even put my stuff on the web in MP3 format only to be sadly dissapointed at the quality compared to the original.
CD's still rule for now with regards to digital quality.
You can always just zip a wav or other raw data file, or use some other zero loss compression.
-
WAV's don't zip very well Funk.
I have a fundamental problem with people not getting paid for doing their work.
I have a problem with people not getting compensated for ideas that are implemented.
I have a problem with people stealing. No matter how you dress it, stealing is what it is.
You can talk about all the legal bull all you want. It is unethical to take food from the mouths of people who create the wonderful things we have in our lives.
I know this will get all twisted around by some sort of rationalization, but it does not change a thing.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
WAV's don't zip very well Funk.
I have a fundamental problem with people not getting paid for doing their work.
I have a problem with people not getting compensated for ideas that are implemented.
I have a problem with people stealing. No matter how you dress it, stealing is what it is.
You can talk about all the legal bull all you want. It is unethical to take food from the mouths of people who create the wonderful things we have in our lives.
I know this will get all twisted around by some sort of rationalization, but it does not change a thing.
I agree, but the current technology makes it so easy to abuse copyright (and therefore the steal revenue) that the only thing to do (without massive intervention to reverse or slow the spread of technology) is to price the product at such a level as to make most people not bother with piracy.
Games are interesting example. Most gamers buy games rather than go for priated copies, even though its possible to download and copy "warez" games. Why? Because gamers feel they are getting value for money in what they buy and becuase right now, downloading 1000s of MB is still a hassle for most gamers and finding the ripoffs can be a hassle and invoolves a risk. Once MegaBit connection become common you will see the price of games drop so as to compete with the ripoffs as more people are preapred to take the download (though the hasle and risk remain).
With music in particular at $16 a CD many people feel they are not getting value for money so they turn to alternatives. Would that be the case at $2 or at $6 say?
Producers get paid what the market will pay. With current technology allowing the easy replication and distribution of information many people will take the rip off route. Government will not be able to stamp it out. The only choice is to offer people more value for money. Is this fair for those making money from producing and distributing information? No. Is it right? No. Is there a practical way to go back to the days of not being able to copy and distribute whenever we like? No. Time to bite the bullet. Copyright was designed to protect the information producers and make sure they got fair compensation for their product. Copyright can no longer work. We need to look for something new.
Those of us who are in the information creation business will need to have accept less money per unit, and therefore have to sell more to make the same money. Or we will need to add more value by making the information more "bespoke", or adding something extra.
Is there a way for information producers to make more money from the very things that are killing copyright: i.e. the fact that we can all copy and distribute? That's the next step.
-
i dont think the mp3 thing is any good for artists or anything else
"cds are priced to high" is a myth
first all your ever gonna hear are the "top 50" songs that are played over and over again because mostly people only download what they've heard wich means that most new bands will be 1 hit wonders. with cds you not only get a chart topper but a bunch of other songs and once you get sick of the chart topper you start listening to the other ones wich are pretty good as well
second you get around 16 songs on a cd...at $20 your paying under 2 dollars for each song...wich is exactly the same price as you pay do download stuff off the net.
cds themselves are a LOT handier than a mp3 player heres why
mp3 player- you hear a song you like at your friends house...before you can listen to it yourself you gotta go home get to the music site download it transfer it onto your mp3 player then using the pathetic interface mp3 players use try find the blasted song.
cd- hear a song at a firends house...you can do 2 things...offer the friend a cd swap or go buy the blasted thing from a store...in both cases you get more than you bargained for
not to mention anyone can use a cd player/ buy a cd no matter how little they know about computers...wich isnt the case with mp3s
cd's are entrenched...everyone has a cd player and noone wants to go out and spend $300+ on a new one that you still need to "burn" a cd to listen to your stuff on it (and im not even sure if modern cd players will work on a old amp)...and there not about to put onboard memoru onto them because noone i know of keeps there stereo system in the same room as there computer...
the claim that mp3's quality is "really good" is crap...properly tuned FM radio sounds exactly the same as every mp3 or CD ive ever listen to...the only difference is the FM radio never skips.
overall cds are a better medium and are a lot more convienent than mp3's. (though i can see someone selling all the beatles songs on one mp3 CD sometime soon)
-
CDs would sell if they didn't cost 15 times more than they're worth. Why pay $15 (at least) for something that probably takes under a dollar to manufacture? The case probably takes maybe 1 a dollar or two to make, I don't think that's the reason CDs cost so much.
The RIAA is a bunch of overpaid slugs that want even more money.
-
ra: They did not create the concept, it had been around in law for centuries.
I meat that they created the concept of intellectual property as a legal feature of this country. Before that the government could not enslave a person A to make him enforce payment from user B to artist C. After that it could.
Is there a rising country somewhere with no intellectual property rights?
Are there a country without socialism? Not a single one. Does not mean there were not plenty of them. So is the IP rights - for thousands of years people did fine without them.
Are there no declining countries with intellectual property rights?
It prevents people from stealing the fruits of other peoples' labor. That is not unjust oppression.
If I can be drafted and forced to support enforcement of someone else's supposed rights on someone else, who did not deprive the first one from what he has, that's oppression.
The concept of the intellectual property rights is totally arbitrary - which is the dead giveavay that it's not a natural right.
Start with art. If you hear someone sing in the street, do you have to pay him? What if you memorise and sing his song, do you have to pay him? What if you just sing his song in you mind, do you have to pay him? What if you memorise that song not in your brain but on your piece of paper, do you have to pay him? etc., etc.
Now to science. Let's say Bob discovers a wheel or a molecule of aspirine. Wheel and aspirine exist in nature. Somebody would have discovered them sooner or later. Do we owe Bob for that discovery? How much? For how long? Forever? 100 years? 15? Why not 15 seconds?
Somebody calculated that we get the optimal discovery rate at 15 years? Show me that calculation. Anyway, if Jim makes a wheel that Bob supposedely owns, Bob does not lose his ability to make wheels. Why should I be taxed to shoot Jim so that he does not use wheel?
If you pay for intellectual property, whether it is entertainment, software, or medicine, you are proving that the people who created those products created something valuable.
I hear what you are saying. I sympathise with the discoverer. I just do not see how it can be legitimately implemented.
The fact that you would rather not have to pay has no bearing on things.
The fact that you can enslave people to enforce imaginary concepts only means you have power but has no bearing on legitimacy of such enforcements.
Skuzzy: You can talk about all the legal bull all you want. It is unethical to take food from the mouths of people who create the wonderful things we have in our lives.
If you look up my other threads on this subject, you will see that I strongly defend intellectual property rights. There is a law, however illegitimate, and law-abiding people work in the expectation that the law will be upheld. Breaking the law would be stealing from them.
But if there was no such law, the people would not have expectations that their IP rights would be protected, so they would take different ways to profit from their labor.
I am talking theory here. I uphold law while I believe it to be wrong. Just like a person could condemn stealing slaves while believing slavery to be wrong.
miko
-
Now to science. Let's say Bob discovers a wheel or a molecule of aspirine. Wheel and aspirine exist in nature. Somebody would have discovered them sooner or later. Do we owe Bob for that discovery? How much? For how long? Forever? 100 years? 15? Why not 15 seconds?
so what your saying is if you put a lot of time and energy into building a (oh lets say holographic projector) and someone just started manufacturing them and selling them without your permission you wouldent get upset in the least?
I meat that they created the concept of intellectual property as a legal feature of this country. Before that the government could not enslave a person A to make him enforce payment from user B to artist C. After that it could.
so what your saying is that i should pay steven spielburg directly instead of the person standing in front of the theater...the RIAA is just that...the person standing in front of the theater...the RIAA is just a middle man between store A and artist C...and like anything there goal is to make money...
CDs would sell if they didn't cost 15 times more than they're worth. Why pay $15 (at least) for something that probably takes under a dollar to manufacture? The case probably takes maybe 1 a dollar or two to make, I don't think that's the reason CDs cost so much.
the cd costs about $1 to make...the case costs another dollar...the 16 songs on the cd have been determined by popular demand to be $1 each even though it costs a HUGE amount of money and time to get it recorded...CD's are priced fine.
-
-dead-,
I never said Jimmy Hendrix was still alive now did I.
The CD cost me a little less then 15$ CAN for 12 classics.
I call that a bargain. Compilations like this are less expensive.
The people who put the CD out had to put it on CD and all that stuff and they got paid just like I do for work.
Would you work if they did not pay you? I didn't think so.
But if RUSH decides to stop making music because of this ***** then the music industry looses a great band.
They are still here because they have built a solid fan base through great music.
A music band about music! :eek: The HORROR!!!!!!!!
Britney is there because of her sales figures, once they drop
Britney will be forgotten like all the trendy artists are.
Good sound is the most important thing to me.
And once the shows are over, what have you left?
Memories is all you get for a much higher price then a CD.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
the 16 songs on the cd have been determined by popular demand to be $1 each even though it costs a HUGE amount of money and time to get it recorded...
Yeah, a little bit of encoding on a CD costs a dollar, determined by popular demand. :rofl
-
I'll use some of the ideas/concepts here to demonstrate a point about creative works.
I have created a full white paper and a plan on how to kill 99% of the SPAM on the Internet. It would require no legal bodies, or government entities to be involved and would work world-wide.
I see no way to get any compensation for this, so it sits here and will never see the light of day.
That is what happens when due compensation is not forth coming for creative ideas.
Hey irritant,..I bet you do not own a car either. Ever check to see what it actually costs to build the millionth copy of a car? Rationalization at its finest.
-
Isn't an eternally grateful world enough to persuade you to release it? Such a selfless endeavour may bring unexpected rewards. You could be the Mother Teresa of the IT world! :D
-
I meat that they created the concept of intellectual property as a legal feature of this country. Before that the government could not enslave a person A to make him enforce payment from user B to artist C. After that it could.
Patents and copyrights did exist in America before the Constitution. Enforcing these, or any rights, is not slavery.
So is the IP rights - for thousands of years people did fine without them.
People did fine without any rights for thousands of years. Intellectual property rights were recognized once technology evolved to the point that non-physical endeavors became valuable in a monetary sense.
The concept of the intellectual property rights is totally arbitrary -
What is arbitrary is your distinction between physical property and intellectual property. It can cost $100 million to develop a drug which will save millions of lives. Yet you would argue that the knowledge of how to create that drug is public property.
Start with art. If you hear someone sing in the street, do you have to pay him? What if you memorise and sing his song, do you have to pay him? What if you just sing his song in you mind, do you have to pay him? What if you memorise that song not in your brain but on your piece of paper, do you have to pay him? etc., etc.
No.
I hear what you are saying. I sympathise with the discoverer. I just do not see how it can be legitimately implemented.
What is illegitmate about its implementation? Third parties are often required to enforce rights.
ra
-
vorticon: so what your saying is if you put a lot of time and energy into building a (oh lets say holographic projector) and someone just started manufacturing them and selling them without your permission you wouldent get upset in the least?
I would be upset about being cheated if I had a guarantee in advance that I would have exclusive right to manufacture and sell the stuff and that guarantee was broken after I built it.
If I knew in advance that I would have no exclusive right, I might still be upset but it would have been my responcibility to undertake the project in such a way that it could be easily duplicated.
so what your saying is that i should pay steven spielburg directly instead of the person standing in front of the theater...
I am not saying you do anything. If Steven Spielberg can do something that you are willing to pay for, you two can work out an equitable arrangement without enslaving me.
irritant: Yeah, a little bit of encoding on a CD costs a dollar, determined by popular demand.
If someone voluntariy pays $16 for a CD, it means that person receives better value from the CD than $16 - otherwise the exchange would not take place.
The costs to the manufacturer are totally irrelevant.
miko
-
Originally posted by AVRO1
-dead-,
I never said Jimmy Hendrix was still alive now did I.
Didn't think you had - hence my second para started: "Seriously, though".
I was sort of pointing out that Hendrix's example applied to your initial music industry model (MIM) - "If you go work in a factory, you expect to be paid. These guys make music, buying the albums pays their wages" - makes the comparison fall flat on its face.
I mean Jimi hasn't been to the factory in over 30 years, on account of being dead - but he should still be getting paid? For what?!? What are you - some sort of communist? ;) He was one of the best workers the factory every saw, sure - a regular Stakhanov - but he's dead, dammit. Perhaps you could argue that in the music industry, choking on your on vomit is an industrial accident... but it's a slim case :D
I've not heard of any dead people (or their families) collecting wages in Hong Kong factories 30 years after - maybe the US has different labour laws, though.
OK, comedy rant mode set to "off".
Always remember when thinking up a MIM or trying to argue against someone else's MIM - the best model for the Music Industry is the Music Industry. :)
The CD cost me a little less then 15$ CAN for 12 classics.
I call that a bargain. Compilations like this are less expensive.
The people who put the CD out had to put it on CD and all that stuff and they got paid just like I do for work.
Would you work if they did not pay you? I didn't think so.
Well now here's a thing: the pirates out here seem to make so much profit selling CDs and DVDs for $1.25 that it's all run by organized crime. Which is odd, if - as you seem to imply - $15 is a fair price to cover the sort of costs involved. We should also consider that the economy of scale for a record company pressing CDs, would drop the unit cost much further than a few local pirates could manage. And it would seem from their other activities like extortion, protection, prostitution and drugs, that high profits are a big factor in determining organized crime groups' enterprises.
So in answer to your question - no I wouldn't work for nothing, but I wouldn't expect to get much money off people if I was selling someone else's music at about ten times what the mafia charge for it either. Especially if you can get it for free on the net.
But if RUSH decides to stop making music because of this ***** then the music industry looses a great band.
They are still here because they have built a solid fan base through great music.
A music band about music! :eek: The HORROR!!!!!!!!.
Mention Rush and the phrase "The Horror" certainly springs to my mind. Generally with the delivery of Marlon Brando at the end of Apocalypse Now, but that's music tastes for you - it's all subjective, so I'll not indulge in any more comedy at your bestest band's expense. :D
So - if I'm reading it right - you reckon "they are still here because have built a solid fan base", and following from your first post, "solid fan base" really means (in financial terms) "guaranteed CD sales".
If you read my post, you'll find that all I said was that from a band/artist's perspective, the big earners are tours, not CD sales. So for me a solid fan base means people who pay for the shows and buy CDs. I just place (from a bit of research into the music industry) the CD sales as the lesser of the two revenue streams. Lesser by a large factor.
Britney is there because of her sales figures, once they drop Britney will be forgotten like all the trendy artists are.
Well, we can but hope and dream.
Good sound is the most important thing to me.
And once the shows are over, what have you left?
Memories is all you get for a much higher price then a CD.
Well memories and the chance to pay the band some of those wages you posted about first time round. Remember my original post? - that whole "the CDs don't actually pay their wages, the shows do" scenario? ;) My gist is that the CD's profits go largely to a big company - in the case of Rush, Atlantic Records - while the tour profits usually go mostly to Rush.
Here's the CD breakdown:
Royalties on a CD run at 10-15% of retail price per unit sold. Out of this the band has to pay for the producer (who usually takes 3%) and then with the rest the band has to pay back to the record company: the packaging - another 15-30% of the original royalty rate, studio time, promotions, advances, etc, etc.
Net result: approximately 80% of all albums sold never reach the point where the band gets royalty checks, so most bands do not get any money from CDs ever.
Figures from http://www.music-law.com/contractbasics.html (http://www.music-law.com/contractbasics.html).
Remind me again who's stealing from the musicians? Looks to me like the record companies are doing it much better than the pirates ever could.
-
The simple fact is the genies out of the bag for the music co's. No matter how you view it, eventually I'll bet the price of a CD will come way down to offset downloading. The idea of distributing quality music over the net seems so efficient, it appears inevitable.
If I could spend $10 to put 20 of my favorite tracks from different artists on a CD for a river trip or something and have it sound really good, you bet I'd do it. That being said, I'm not much of an audiophile and don't buy a lot of music. Never have downloaded anything, but I've listened to some download music, wasn't very impressed with the quality.
I do have a problem with the lawsuits going on with the RIAA, it just seems nothing is really secure on the internet, especially that desktop in your house. Too easy for outsiders to deposit stuff on your harddrive. If it's accepted as a pretty much insecure medium, how can you drag people into court over it?