|
Arts & Entertainment Give meaning to your life or distract you from it for a while |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-23-2001, 01:34 AM | #16 | ||
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
I believe you are misreading what I posted. Clearly stated is that the creator has a right to profit. Also that it is critical to the society / economy for innovations to be shared - to the advantage of all AND to the profit of its creator. The problem is one of people who stifle the new creations. This is but another problem, another example, of copyright and patent laws that require serious, pro-active legislation.
Xerox had every right to sue Apple for stealing their technology - legally. And legally Xerox had every right to stifle the GUI interface, mouse type devices, etc. IOW if the creator's bosses chose to stifle technology, then why is this not reason enough for the bosses to surrender the innovation to the creator? McPherson suspension is a classic example of an idea patented in 1946 and kept out of America until 1980. In the meantime, the creator McPherson was forced to leave America to continue work on his baby. However the fumdamental point I made was that the creator also must be able to profit from his creation - as muscians should be able to profit from their's. The problem with music is that for all practical purposes, it is all but public domain after five years - and the industry's non-innovators don't like it. Quote:
In some other points: the internet's first major function was to share Grateful Dead concert --- in the 1970s. The internet is that old - just was mostly in the acemdemic community. Even in we fear to innovate Aydinin early 1980s, I was running an internet connected VAX. But the facts known from all that technology should have been sufficient warning for even Congressmen and music industry executives to see the future. No they sat on their asses almost another 10 years after the Internet became more ubiquitious - intentionally ignoring everything about the Internet even before Napster existed. When is it illegal to copy something if you don't sell it? Also this special exemption for entertainment is new to me - as is the interesting lawyer's twist of claiming the CD's are for music study. Napster's loss in court was not that they were infriging on copyright but that they were doing damage to the industry. Napster was not selling anything. Indeed most of the music exchanges were not even on their machines. But it was Napsters action's that hurt the industry. Limiting law only to it myopic perspectives, then OK, that is correct. Lawyers are only interested in the letter of the law - not its purpose. But I agrue that the Napster case ignored the bigger picture - that people and music creator both are denied rights to freely exchange (and profit) from new technologies because, like McPherson, the big industry leaders have conspired to ignore new market demands, needs, and possibilities. Indeed Bertlemann is not being openly blackballed - just like the American auto industry was not blackballing Honda and Volvo - even though the industry kept shutting down trade associations so that Honda and Volvo would be excluded again. Actually Bertlemann is getting a very cold shoulder from it industry peer only because they endorsed the new markets. Bertlesmann has chosen to confront and do business with the internet. The others still sit on their asses - they don't even have a good plan to deal with China after how many decades? The concepts of the Internet were learned first in the 1970s. To say the industry could not have known in the late 1990 is to prove the industry is guilty of being an ostrich. From PBS's Trimuph of the Nerds - the major internet function was music exchange. That should have been well known to the music industry by the late 1980s. Instead they ignored same. BTW the same problems in music will also be in movies as technology marches on. Without better internet music solutions, then the same piracy problems will expand to all other electronic entertainment industries. I am not saying that stealing is supported or legal. Indeed the little people (ie. Metallica) are always the first to suffer when the industry big wigs fear innovation. I share Metallica's pain. But I must first worry about America. Any industry that is more worried about their profits than about their products - is no different than the mafia. Only the enemies of a free market system would say that the purpose of a company is to earn profits. That is corruption. The purpose of a company is to provide society with new products and services. If said company serves its purpose, then it deserves the REWARD - profits. If said company is only worried about profits, then it is to society's advantage that it have none. Napster indicates that the industry may have more profits than it deserves - not necessarily legally but economically and socially. |
||
01-23-2001, 10:03 AM | #17 | |||||||||||
Simulated Simulacrum
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pennsylvannia
Posts: 39
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You suggest that the bigger picture is that artists and consumers are supposed to be have access to free exchange - while at the same time allowing the creator to profit. If it is free than there is no renumeration, and no one can profit. The really insulting irony is that the only one who profits from the Napster debacle was the greedy bottom feeders who started it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If the marketplace provides demand, then someone is going to provide supply, and they'll play with the price point until they find their maximum return on investment. That's called free market capitalism. You want to get really angry? Do a little research and find out how much it costs to produce a compact disc recording. Include the costs of A&R, recording, mastering, publicity, etc, and I think you'll still be quite surprised. Yet we still buy them, even though we are being taken to the cleaners every time. I believe that is called an inelastic demand<G>! As far as Napster goes, the bottom line is that a couple of greedy folks (the kind that pander to Wall Street, probably East Coast MBA's) figured out a way to let people share files on their computers and get paid. They didn't need servers, they didn't need content, all they needed was a hacked up copy of NFS, and something to display banners. They don't share all the income from banner advertising with the artists from whom they effect the theft of intellectual property, or their "customers", the people who think that the world owes them a large music collection. They keep it for themselves, all the while hoping to make the really big kill through venture capital and eventually an IPO. From a purely pragmatic point of view, it is a very clever business plan. Sadly, if you consider it ethically, it sucks! Yes, they have provided a glimpse of some of the innovations that are necessary in this new internetworked world, but they've done so at great cost to the artistic community that we need to provide us with content. That is as short-sighted as managing for quarterly profits. The music industry as a whole has a long history of taking advantage of the artistic community! Their ranks include some of the most ruthless, unethical business people ever. But they aren't stupid! They have been looking at ways to profit from the internet for several years. The first time I heard it discussed was at an Audio Engineering Society meeting in (I think) 1994. The problems are great. Once you open that door you open it to both honest consumers and piratess, and one thing Napster has demonstrated is that many of the former are quite willing to become the later. All the more reason to be cautious. If you think that is an exageration, the first circuit to unset the SCMS bit in the SP/DIF data stream was available on the net within a couple of months of the release of the first consumer DAT recorder. The entertainment industry as a whole needs to figure out how to manage the internet before broadband connections become commonplace. This is not up for debate. Stealing music from artists is wrong, no matter what the rationale, and I still don't see how this can be debated either. Two wrongs still don't make a right! |
|||||||||||
01-24-2001, 03:03 PM | #18 |
Enemy Combatant/Evildoer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 263
|
Fair Use Question
I have a question, concerning fair use....I'm thoroughly obfuscated on the subject. Between my father and I, we have hundreds of vynils (for those of you under the age of 25, I mean the big, black, plastic records). Do I have the legal right to download these songs from napster, even though the songs I'm downloading are remastered and taken from CDs? Technically, I'm downloading a higher quality copy of the song than the one I bought, and I'm not sure if that falls under fair use.
Later Steve
__________________
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. ---Friedrich Nietzsche |
01-24-2001, 03:30 PM | #19 |
Simulated Simulacrum
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pennsylvannia
Posts: 39
|
now that's a tricky question!
On the one hand, copyrights cover the song, and mechanical rights cover the performance, so one would think that if either changed it would require re-licensing. On the other hand, you do have a licensed copy, and (by my understanding, and I am not a lawyer) that entitles you to make copies. On the third hand, the copies you make are supposed to be from your original. From a practical point of view, unless your turntable, cartridge, stylus, and records are all in bad shape I'm not sure that an MP3 copy of a CD would actually sound better. Bill |
01-28-2001, 08:37 AM | #20 | |||
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
Quote:
The NY Times publishes a news report today. Should one wish to republish the report, the NY Times owns the copyright and must be consulted. However we all routinely photocopy and use those articles even when we don't buy the newspaper. Of course, the NY Times, et al have adjusted to these new technologies (Xerox machines) which make the articles all but public domain rather quickly. The problems with music dissemination was made obvious with Dead Head concert exchanges twenty years ago. IOW music, like newspaper stories, were to become all but public domain just as quickly. Any responsible music industry executive should have seen the writing on the wall a generation ago. They either did not see, or (more likely)they just played ostrich. Either way, they now have the Napster and China problems they deserve. Again, the victims of this mismanagement are artists. The little people always suffer first when top management is anti-innovation. That is unfortunate but it is a symptom - is not the problem to be solved. The problem is that technology moves on. Not only are new standards for copyright, just conpensation, etc necessay for music BUT the same problem looms for movies and books. The same problem will only fester and reappear in all other media industries. Old copyright laws worked because the hardware protected the software. Good records could not easily be reproduced. Books were too difficult to pirate. Decent movie copies were difficult to create and replay at home. All this is changing. We even have copy machine technology at home. Good music was reproducible in DAT and now on the internet. DVD movies will soon be easy to reproduce. And yes, even digital paper (discussed in Cellar Mark II) will be here soon. You download a book into your digial paper - something akin to bubble paper. How will the industry address open book exchanges? IOW the old copyright laws have been subverted by innovation. How can we demand new 'horse and carriage' laws when everyone has automobiles. That is the problem with current copyright laws. They assume the old hardware (vinyl records, printing press, large heavy movie projectors and 8mm movie cameras) will remain the current technology. Top industry leaders fear to face the innovation music (a bad pun). Recently this got more interesting. The EU has decided that the music industry conspires to keep prices high. The EU will either sue the music industry like the Feds went after IBM and Microsoft - or penalize with their new EU laws. None of what I say claims that the artists are getting too much. On the contrary. The artists receive so little for their creations - much like the farmer now earns so little from a loaf of bread even though bread prices remain high. There is a problem with the middle men who have not addressed their China, et al problems, who have ignored how new technologies require new business models, who think they will encrypt their problems away and who now run to the government for protection - only demanding protection for their artists when it was convenient. Napster is but a small example of serious copyright problems not just with music, but coming to all media. China type problems are far more serious. Both Napster and China are indicative of a music industry now, and other medias later, that have refused to address new copyright requirements. Current and future technology make current copyright laws and current business models obsolete. If we don't address copyright and patent laws, then who will suffer. Not the big industry leaders who created the problem. Unfortunately the first victims will always be the little guys - the artists, writers, etc. You already see such people suffering in the commmercial actors strike (call Jaime Lee Curtis a scum bag for crossing picket lines). The upcoming actors strike again will be necessary to protect the actors. But none of this addresses the problems. These strikes protect the little people from the sypmtoms of a bigger problem. That bigger problem is myopia in the top media corporate offices - myopia which exists because not enough people have been hurt yet. That last sentence should be scary for everyone because, as noted earlier, those who will be hurt most are innocent victims - the artists. |
|||
01-29-2001, 11:12 AM | #21 | |||||||
Simulated Simulacrum
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pennsylvannia
Posts: 39
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
Quote:
And just for the record... the fact that I can photocopy an article does not place it in the public domain! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The industry does not fear innovation... they simply want to maximize the profit they make from innovation. That is greedy, shortsighted even, but the only fear is that someone else will make more money than they do. Just as soon as they figure out how to leverage the net they will. History demonstrates this. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It does not, however, address the fact that if we don't protect intellectual property then there will be no motivation to create something new because the reward will be gone. What we really need to do is educate people that they are not entitled to everything for nothing. |
|||||||
01-30-2001, 12:10 PM | #22 | |
King Of Wishful Thinking
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Posts: 6,669
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
[quote]Originally posted by wst3
Quote:
And just for the record... the fact that I can photocopy an article does not place it in the public domain! No but there is the concept of "fair use", which was an attempt by the court to prevent abuses by copyright holders. If you copy a part (not the entire) of an article for commentary, you are protected. This does not mean that lawyers cannot threaten you, but it does mean that they have a very poor foundation for their case. (disclaimer-I AM NOT A LAYWER). The past few years has seen content providers in all media attempt to weaken this concept, using the Internet as an excuse. I say excuse because these issues have always existed and were addressed. It is just recent legislation which in many peoples opinions gives too much power to the holder of the copyright. Remember, there is right and wrong on both sides of this issue. Piracy is wrong, but so is the use of trademarks and copyrights in a predatory manner or to establish a trust (remember that trusts are also illegal). The record industry holds up artists as the losers, but the reality is that most rights are held by corporations. Read Courtney Love's dissection of anti-artist financial practices, or the recent successful (only recently recinded) attempt to define all creative works under contract as "works for hire", which would strip the artist of any rights to work developed while under a contract to a record company, even though they do not work for a salary and through creative financing might never actually get paid. An interesting example is the sales tax intiatives by states against online purchases. Sears and Roebuck started mail order 100 years ago, and 800 number catalogues have been a major industry for at least 20 years, yet it took the Internet to provide the excuse states needed to assert their sales tax rights.
__________________
Exercise your rights and remember your obligations - VOTE!I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting. -- Barack Hussein Obama |
|
01-30-2001, 01:05 PM | #23 | |||||||
Simulated Simulacrum
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pennsylvannia
Posts: 39
|
Re: What do you think about Napster?
Quote:
Fair Use provisions were provided to encourage research and discourse... not free use. Quote:
As a "Content Provider", Napster lacks the authorization from the holder of the intellectual property to distribute the intellectual property. They provide the means for these illegal transfers, and they whine that it isn't their fault. They've gone on record, however, stating that their software is their intellectual property, and that they will prosecute anyone who violates their rights. Quote:
My point is that even if Napster hurt the record companies, it hurts the artists more! If an artist does not wish to have their material distributed over Napster then Napster, and the public should respect that. Quote:
As far as Ms. Love's infamous article... very little was news to anyone who has been around for a while... the record companies have a great scam going, of course they want to keep it that way. A friend recently pointed out that the current state of affairs is not what bothers most of the executives. While Napster is a problem, it isn't what many thing. The real issues are more likely two-fold: first, Napster seems to make stealing more acceptable to some who might not otherwise steal, and two, stolen or not, a new channel will cut into their overall control. The later is probably what keeps them awake at night. Funny thing is, new distribution channels are already here. Anyone who has the stamina can establish a publishing company, label, whatever, and distribute their material, for a profit. They don't necessarilly need the web, but it is convenient. Quote:
I've done work as both a writer for trade journals, and as a composer, and I am quite familiar with the work-for-hire statute. It bugged me a little that the articles I wrote belonged to someone else, but I would never stand for that when it comes to compositions... which is one of the reasons I don't make a living as a composer. Quote:
|
|||||||
02-01-2001, 10:20 AM | #24 | |||||
Professor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,788
|
Re: Re: What do you think about Napster?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|