Subject:
|
Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 9 Feb 2002 07:12:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
558 times
|
| |
|
|
richard marchetti wrote:
>
> More quibbling over the details...
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > I also think that despite the ease of distribution, the middle men will
> > NOT disappear. However, I think they will become more respected. We will
> > subscribe to review web sites which we trust. Those sites will provide
> > links to the artists pages, where we will then download the art under
> > the terms offered by the artist (pay immediately, try it and pay if we
> > like it, join the fan club with annual dues, or whatever).
>
> I disagree with this view -- you are basically asserting that gatekeepers
> are not only here to stay but will somehow increase in their cultural value.
Well, Lugnet is a gatekeeper. I expect the big music publishers to start
to fade away. I see a future with middlemen with a smaller audience and
focus. On the other hand, I also expect some large middlemen to emerge.
I bet bars would much rather funnel payments for the music they play
through one or two clearing houses for the most part. Of course some
bars will specialize in more obscure music and will contract with the
musician directly, or a smaller clearing house.
> The reality is that it takes a lot of work to discover to what degree one
> does or does not agree with a given reviewer -- basically, in a world where
> P2P sharing can occur more quickly than reading a series of reviews to
> figure out where a reviewer stands, no one will read reviews they will
> simply find out what they like for themselves.
P2P sharing works at a small scale but I'm not sure how well it scales.
The problem I see is that we can't evaluate every one of the thousands
of musicians individually. We need some method to find music we are
likely to enjoy. Friends of course are one such means. Concerts are
another. Big music publishers are another. Of course each individual
will use a different method. Some folks are interested in a fairly small
niche of music, and will be best served by sharing with their friends,
or perhaps using one or two web sites they have come to trust.
The web will certainly make it easier to find specific music, and when
the number of hits is small, you can evaluate each hit yourself (for
example [in the distant future when the web knows all], if I wanted to
find a good church organ recording of J. S. Bach's Wachet Auf!, I
probably wouldn't find too many hits, and could listen to each of them,
but if I wanted to find a good symphony recording of Beethoven's 9th
Symphony, I'd need some help finding the one I would like the most,
though I could probably find a good one by limiting the search to the
symphonies from which I already have recordings that I like). Note that
the search engine is another middle man who has to be compensated
somehow.
Again, I assert that middle men will NOT go away. The free market will
create conditions in which they will be able to justify a value for
their services.
> "Hey Rick, check out Le Tigre."
> ::6 minutes later, P2P Mp3s fly::
> "You're right, their stuff rocks!"
>
> When I like it well enough, I will buy the disk. I don't need programmed
> radio, promoters, false hits boosted up the charts with record industry
> money, and I sure don't need reviewers. Let me listen to it and get out of
> my way. I see a future where music artists (as an example) may be their own
> gatekeepers -- releasing lower quality digital recordings for preview, and
> higher quality recordings for a price.
I do expect the artists to run web sites with previews of some sort
(lower quality tracks, snippets, one or two tracks from the latest
album, whatever, each artist will chose what works for them and their
customers). It is clear that there needs to be some relatively low cost
way to preview music. Of course note that it is never really free. If
the artist puts up recordings on a web site, every one who buys a copy
of the music is paying a portion of the cost of that web site so all the
folks who try and don't buy can listen to the music. This suggests that
one model doesn't fit all, and different musicians will seek different
ways to reduce your risk while trying out their music. The previews on
the web site is a very good model. Subscription sites are another model.
Something like radio (whether real, or some web equivalent) which is
funded by adds is another model. A generous refund policy is another
model.
> If I hadn't listened several times to MP3s of Lou Reed's "Metal Machine
> Music" I would never have discovered how great it is and I wouldn't
> therefore have bought it -- which I did!
>
> > I always liked Borland's "like a book" license which said you could have as
> > many copies as you wanted so long as only one person was ever using the
> > software at a time.
>
> Actually, it has all ways been my understanding that this is exactly what
> licenses to use software have always been -- despite whatever MS may think
> to the contrary, and despite whatever is written in their licensing
> agreements. Since you have to open the wrapper to find out what the
> agreement is, there is no REAL opportunity to reject MS-style agreements --
> consequently, the agreement exists under duress and without recourse for the
> user. Basically, such licensing agreements are garbage.
Recently, the license has been on the outside of the media envelope, and
claims you can return the item if you don't unseal the media envelope
(of course the store may not take it back or may charge a re-stocking
fee so it may be a pain, but that isn't Microsoft's problem).
One problem is that copyright law hasn't caught up to the digital age,
which makes the publishers feel they need to dictate a license which
produces what they see as reasonable terms. I think it is reasonable for
a software publisher to want more money from you if you install the
software on more than one machine. Now the best way to do this may be to
charge you for technical support since that is the biggest cost to them
of your installing on multiple machines.
What we really need is a more free market so reasonable schemes can
develop. Clearly the current copyright law and distribution methods
aren't the best for the future. But my feeling is also that the future
will be very bleak if people take the attitude that corporations don't
deserve their support (and I'm not saying you're saying this, but the
general feel I get is that there is an segment of population which
doesn't want to pay for software).
> > I am interested in seeing where Linux really goes. My feeling is that it
> > will never be as successefull as it could have been had it been under a
> > licensing agreement which required compensation.
>
> I can't begin to see why this would be true. Is UNIX somehow a thousand
> times better than the BSD running Lugnet, or some other open source OS flavors?
>
> Meanwhile...
>
> My objection to excessive worrying over copyrights has to do with stuff that
> is just bloody stupid. Case in point: I have heard that there are music CDs
> that will not play in computer drives. If I ever bought such a disk without
> warning that it was thusly limited, I would find a way to defeat the
> protection (thanks Philips!) and return the product as unusable. How are we
> supposed to get rid of TVs, stereos, and telephones and move towards
> convergent hardware if media becomes hardware specific? What ever happened
> to my right to make a backup copy? What ever happened to my right to listen
> to something on the hardware of my choosing?
>
> Frankly, these music/film industry types are just shooting themselves in the
> foot -- nothing motivates crackers like egregiously unfair practices on the
> part of the corporations. Right - give us reasons to work around your
> protections AND your distribution channels. When we are done with our
> "work", we won't much feel like paying the piper or his middleman.
While I can see the point that overbearing copy protections etc. will
induce a certain population to break the protections and steal the
goods, I can not condone the actual theft of goods. How would you feel
if I decided the lock on your front door was offensive and I cracked it
and snuck into your house while you were away? Of course you would point
out that there is a difference between me breaking into your house
(almost anything I do there, even if I don't take anything, will cost
you at least something, even if it's a micro-cent for the wear I put on
your carpet) and someone cracking a copy protection scheme and helping
themselves to an audio track or video.
The question comes down to how should ideas be protected and
compensation assured for their creators? As someone who produces only
ideas and no hard goods (as I suspect almost all of us are), I want to
see a system which assures that I have some ownership of those ideas so
I can be compensated for them. I don't want to rely purely on the good
will of the people using my ideas.
At a quick glance, I see 3 basic types of goods in the world:
- hard goods (food, cars, furniture, houses)
- services (doctors, lawyers, hair stylists)
- ideas (music, videos, pictures)
Clearly using someone else's hard goods without compensating them is
theft. Clearly making someone spend time to do something for you without
compensating them is theft. Now the question is how exactly does an idea
fit in? Obviously your copying a CD that I produced doesn't take
anything away from me, except for my ability to sell it to you.
Now of course if the generators of ideas aren't sufficiently
compensated, they'll go do something else. So the market will assure
that a system of compensation will evolve.
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) What if your idea became the property of The People and The People compensated you for the time it took you to perfect the idea? Since your time is as valuable as anyone else's, if you are developing ideas for the good of The People, you could (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| (...) I happen to enjoy a VERY wide variety of music genres. I doubt that I shall easily find a set of reviewers whose views I respect or understand well enough to rely upon them. Perhaps, others with more boxed-in tastes can be served that way -- I (...) (23 years ago, 9-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Copyright/Fair use question
|
| More quibbling over the details... (...) I disagree with this view -- you are basically asserting that gatekeepers are not only here to stay but will somehow increase in their cultural value. The reality is that it takes a lot of work to discover to (...) (23 years ago, 8-Feb-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
