DRM
nospam
the users might want from DRM, as opposed to wat the RIAA (and so on)
members want.
We want musicians to continue to producce music for us. Basically that's
it; we don't need the big middle-men any more, as there are affordable
ways now for all musicians to distribute their music without having to
fulfill the criteria of some demented egomaniac in order to get a
'contract'.
So really all we need in the way of DRM is something that is equally
easy for the artists to implement themselves. What's wrong with Apple's
DRM in this context? Only that it is Apple's, and thus could be abused
by them at some later date if it became the only standard. Artists could
get locked in to whoever owns the most popular DRM scheme.
So rather than opposing any particular one scheme, or just supporting
the least obtrusive one for the end user, we should be opposing ALL of
them and looking for a way (or ways) to enable artists to protect their
work cheaply and reasonably. All the present DRM schemes work to protect
the industry only. Industry only protects a select few artists, and by
its marketing methods and contracts screws everyone else it deals with
and leaves the majority (who can't get contracts) out in the cold.
At present, the best DRM for the vast majority of artists (i.e. those
without a record contract) is none at all. That won't change unless some
free-to-implement, unintrusive and universal system is worked out. The
people (RIAA) who currently control things will never do that; it is in
their interests to keep things as they are.
Movies are a different kettle of fish. They cost vastly more to produce
and can't really be fitted in to the same system. Music is being put
into the same category as movies at the moment and I think they are not
the same business at all.
Andy
Peter Bjørn Perlsø
> The thread "DRMs best buddy is..." was making me wonder what exactly we
> the users might want from DRM, as opposed to wat the RIAA (and so on)
> members want.
>
> We want musicians to continue to producce music for us. Basically that's
> it; we don't need the big middle-men any more,
thats right, so tell the RIAA to go fuck themselves with a chainsaw.
>
> So really all we need in the way of DRM is something that is equally
> easy for the artists to implement themselves. What's wrong with Apple's
> DRM in this context?
It's DRM. thats all you need to know.
> Only that it is Apple's, and thus could be abused
> by them at some later date if it became the only standard. Artists could
> get locked in to whoever owns the most popular DRM scheme.
Let artists wake up to the P2P revolution, and promote themselves there.
Preferably, lets make a P2P system that has a built-in anaonymous
internet banking system, to allow fans to buy music or donate to their
favorite artists. Like paypal, only heavily encrypted and operating by
P2P.
> So rather than opposing any particular one scheme, or just supporting
> the least obtrusive one for the end user, we should be opposing ALL of
> them and looking for a way (or ways) to enable artists to protect their
> work cheaply and reasonably. All the present DRM schemes work to protect
> the industry only. Industry only protects a select few artists,
Yep - their lapdog cashcows. Madonna And Spitney Brears and other fucked
up and knocked up bitches with little or no talent.
> and by
> its marketing methods and contracts screws everyone else it deals with
> and leaves the majority (who can't get contracts) out in the cold.
And throughly fucked over.
> At present, the best DRM for the vast majority of artists (i.e. those
> without a record contract) is none at all.
The man has brains, you gotta give him that...
> That won't change unless some
> free-to-implement, unintrusive and universal system is worked out. The
> people (RIAA) who currently control things will never do that; it is in
> their interests to keep things as they are.
Rich Idiots Abusing Art.
>
> Movies are a different kettle of fish. They cost vastly more to produce
> and can't really be fitted in to the same system. Music is being put
> into the same category as movies at the moment and I think they are not
> the same business at all.
> Andy
We shall see.
--
regards , Peter B. P. - http://titancity.com/blog , http://macplanet.dk
"If guns kill, do pencils cause spelling errors?"
ZnU
And it actually works, i.e. doesn't get cracked. Many smart people
consider this impossible, because the user necessarily has to have
access to the decryption keys in order to legitimately access the
content.
> The people (RIAA) who currently control things will never do that; it
> is in their interests to keep things as they are.
>
> Movies are a different kettle of fish. They cost vastly more to
> produce and can't really be fitted in to the same system. Music is
> being put into the same category as movies at the moment and I think
> they are not the same business at all.
But since DRM doesn't actually work anyway, "no DRM" seems like the
best option there as well.
--
"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing
about him is that I read three--three or four books about him last year. Isn't
that interesting?"
- George W. Bush to reporter Kai Diekmann, May 5, 2006
C Lund
> The thread "DRMs best buddy is..." was making me wonder what exactly we
> the users might want from DRM, as opposed to wat the RIAA (and so on)
> members want.
As a user, I don't want DRM at all. I have no problem paying the
artists for their music. But I refuse to pay for DRM'd music.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Invid Fan
Perlsø <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote:
> Let artists wake up to the P2P revolution, and promote themselves there.
>
Giving artists only the option of either giving their music away for
free, or not making any pre-recorded music available to the public,
seems a bit limiting...
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
nospam
> nospam <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
<snip>
>> We want musicians to continue to producce music for us. Basically that's
>> it; we don't need the big middle-men any more,
>
> thats right, so tell the RIAA to go fuck themselves with a chainsaw.
That would make a good movie.
I pretty much agree with what you're saying, except I don't feel
reassured by the current whispers of the scumbags abandoning DRM
altogether. They can put off most people from copying just by making it
a bit difficult. They don't need a bulletproof DRM, if such a thing is
possible.
If they do abandon it, it will solely be for the purpose of breaking
Apple's hold over them (the only hold possible apart from a film of
their perverted private lives, money). Once they have achieved that, and
all their good buddies like MS have got a grip on the market, they will
re-introduce it and it won't be like Fairplay, you can be sure. Either
that or they will find a way to get a cut of the car fuel tax because
people play music in their cars.
Imagine how it would be now if MS had gotten hold of the DRM like they
wanted to. All the zombies would go ahead and buy the crap because there
would be nothing better.
At the moment, the only way to be sure a fair return is going to the
artists is to download via P2P and send them a few dollars. That or use
independent sources like CDBaby.com
Andy
nospam
ourselves of the parasites altogether.
Andy
nospam
> In article <1hrx9no.izcw1m6yg5igN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk>, Peter Bjørn
> Perlsø <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote:
>
>> Let artists wake up to the P2P revolution, and promote themselves there.
>>
> Giving artists only the option of either giving their music away for
> free, or not making any pre-recorded music available to the public,
> seems a bit limiting...
>
some artists. e.g:
http://downhillbattle.org/interviews/mia.php
there are also a lot of other possibilities, among them:
http://www.cdbaby.net/index.htm
"For a simple $35 setup, CD Baby can get your music selling worldwide on
cdbaby.com, Apple iTunes, Yahoo Music, Best Buy, Rhapsody, Napster, MSN
Music and more."
https://shop.mp3tunes.com/cafe/
http://www.lulu.com/author/create.php
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <140120071224185417%in...@localnet.com>):
> In article <1hrx9no.izcw1m6yg5igN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk>, Peter Bjørn
> Perlsø <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote:
>
>> Let artists wake up to the P2P revolution, and promote themselves there.
>>
> Giving artists only the option of either giving their music away for
> free, or not making any pre-recorded music available to the public,
> seems a bit limiting...
That's not the only options available.
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
ZnU
Invid Fan <in...@localnet.com> wrote:
> In article <1hrx9no.izcw1m6yg5igN%pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk>, Peter Bjørn
> Perlsø <pe...@DIESPAMMERDIE.dk> wrote:
>
> > Let artists wake up to the P2P revolution, and promote themselves there.
> >
> Giving artists only the option of either giving their music away for
> free, or not making any pre-recorded music available to the public,
> seems a bit limiting...
The question is whether, despite what anyone would like, there are
actually other options. It seems to be the case that if you make your
music available to the public, no mater how much you try to protect it,
it *will* show up on the P2P networks, and people will be able to get it
for free.
If payment for music is going to basically work on the honor system
anyway, why not acknowledge that fact? Try to get your stuff distributed
as widely as possible, and make it easy for people who are so inclined
to voluntarily give you money.
Or else set up some kind of tax-funded blanket licensing system, as some
European countries are considering.
Invid Fan
> At the moment, the only way to be sure a fair return is going to the
> artists is to download via P2P and send them a few dollars. That or use
> independent sources like CDBaby.com
>
In a perfect world, individual artists could put their work up at
iTunes. I've bought from CDBaby once or twice, when that was the only
way to get a cd, but given I don't mind DRM as I have no desire to copy
music iTunes works just as well.
nospam
> If payment for music is going to basically work on the honor system
> anyway, why not acknowledge that fact? Try to get your stuff distributed
> as widely as possible, and make it easy for people who are so inclined
> to voluntarily give you money.
>
> Or else set up some kind of tax-funded blanket licensing system, as some
> European countries are considering.
>
I think that is absolutely bad. Why should everyone pay a tax, even if
they don't use the 'product'? The only people who want a tax are the
record industry, because they can finance the huge advertising budgets
that would bring the majority of the money to them through higher sales
of their vassal artists.
Like most other things, there is no free market in music. Until those
few giant corporations who presently dominate it are gone, there is no
solution. Unless of course the majority of people become immune to
advertising and start thinking for themselves, which is even less likely.
Andy
nospam
> In a perfect world, individual artists could put their work up at
> iTunes. I've bought from CDBaby once or twice, when that was the only
> way to get a cd, but given I don't mind DRM as I have no desire to copy
> music iTunes works just as well.
>
I wonder if you can have mp3s in iTunes store?
Invid Fan
> Invid Fan wrote:
>
> > In a perfect world, individual artists could put their work up at
> > iTunes. I've bought from CDBaby once or twice, when that was the only
> > way to get a cd, but given I don't mind DRM as I have no desire to copy
> > music iTunes works just as well.
> >
> http://cdbaby.net/dd
>
Interesting, but as I said I don't have a problem with DRM. If CDBaby
had artists I cared about I'd buy from them more.
nospam
> In article <eofg26$u5a$2...@aioe.org>, nospam <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> Invid Fan wrote:
>>
>>> In a perfect world, individual artists could put their work up at
>>> iTunes. I've bought from CDBaby once or twice, when that was the only
>>> way to get a cd, but given I don't mind DRM as I have no desire to copy
>>> music iTunes works just as well.
>>>
>> http://cdbaby.net/dd
>>
> Interesting, but as I said I don't have a problem with DRM. If CDBaby
> had artists I cared about I'd buy from them more.
>
Well that will happen if the record companies go under. Then the artists
you care about will be able to use whatever distributor they like and
get a fair return on their efforts.
If you care then it is worth making the effort to not give the big
companies any money. That's the only way to get rid of them.
Andy
Invid Fan
No, the only way is for artists not to sign with them. As a fan I never
look at what label someone is with, so it's not up to me to boycott. I
follow the artist, and assume they're where they want to be.
ZnU
> ZnU wrote:
>
> > If payment for music is going to basically work on the honor system
> > anyway, why not acknowledge that fact? Try to get your stuff
> > distributed as widely as possible, and make it easy for people who
> > are so inclined to voluntarily give you money.
> >
> > Or else set up some kind of tax-funded blanket licensing system, as
> > some European countries are considering.
> >
>
> I think that is absolutely bad. Why should everyone pay a tax, even
> if they don't use the 'product'?
Because there are cases where the overhead of figuring out exaclty who
should pay and making sure they actually do is too large to be
justifiable. This could be such a case.
> The only people who want a tax are the record industry, because they
> can finance the huge advertising budgets that would bring the
> majority of the money to them through higher sales of their vassal
> artists.
Believe me, the record industry does *not* want blanket licensing. They
want a tax *without* legalization of music sharing... that is, they
want to be paid twice.
> Like most other things, there is no free market in music. Until those
> few giant corporations who presently dominate it are gone, there is
> no solution. Unless of course the majority of people become immune to
> advertising and start thinking for themselves, which is even less
> likely.
--
Mitch
> Well that will happen if the record companies go under. Then the artists
> you care about will be able to use whatever distributor they like and
> get a fair return on their efforts.
Well, no, because distribution is the point. They develop, they
promote, they distribute.
If the companies go away, there will be no one significant doing the
last two. Development will go to individuals who are skilled, but
promotion takes investment and a very broad network; something that you
can't have in small-scale efforts.
What I'm saying is that we'd get a lot of work discovering who to
listen to and who to get reccommendations from. It becomes a
wildnerness, not a free market. You'd have hundreds of people spouting
loud opinions about tne garage bands, and no one has any money to
invest in touring or promoting or even recording a song several times
in studio to get it right.
> If you care then it is worth making the effort to not give the big
> companies any money. That's the only way to get rid of them.
I agree about caring; people should do whatever they say they care
about.
nospam
> In article <eoffsk$u5a$1...@aioe.org>, nospam <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>
>>> If payment for music is going to basically work on the honor system
>>> anyway, why not acknowledge that fact? Try to get your stuff
>>> distributed as widely as possible, and make it easy for people who
>>> are so inclined to voluntarily give you money.
>>>
>>> Or else set up some kind of tax-funded blanket licensing system, as
>>> some European countries are considering.
>>>
>> I think that is absolutely bad. Why should everyone pay a tax, even
>> if they don't use the 'product'?
>
> Because there are cases where the overhead of figuring out exaclty who
> should pay and making sure they actually do is too large to be
> justifiable. This could be such a case.
That still doesn't explain why everyone should pay the tax, surely it is
the problem of those who avail of the product, not those who do not?
Sure, it's easy money for the record execs, but there is no
justification for it.
>> The only people who want a tax are the record industry, because they
>> can finance the huge advertising budgets that would bring the
>> majority of the money to them through higher sales of their vassal
>> artists.
That too. No doubt, if they could get away with it they would probably
want a tax on the alcohol that often accompanies the music being
listened to, and the air we breathe. Why anyone who is not benefitting
financially from these companies would give them any credibility
whatsoever, or consider any kind of compromise with them is beyond me.
The time has come for them to go, and like any parasite, that requires
persistance and determination. We now have the means to get rid of them,
so let's do it. Stop giving them money and starve them out.
nospam
>> If you care then it is worth making the effort to not give the big
>> companies any money. That's the only way to get rid of them.
>>
> No, the only way is for artists not to sign with them. As a fan I never
> look at what label someone is with, so it's not up to me to boycott. I
> follow the artist, and assume they're where they want to be.
>
Presently everything is skewed because it suits the big labels for
everyone to be buying large numbers of albums from a small selection, a
small subset of the whole spectrum that is available. To this end they
advertise hugely their few chosen titles and swamp everythig else. If
you want a chance to sell a lot of music and make a living you have to
get a contract with one of the big labels.
If you assume the artists are where they want to be you really should
ask some the artists themselves. Usually they are not happy with their
labels' treatment of them and are only there because they either are
under contract or they see no other way to have a chance to earn enough
to not have to do other work. More often than not even having the
contract doesn't pay enough to live on.
http://negativland.com/albini.html
is a good essay on contracts and the like. We can't just leave it up to
artists, they depend on us for their income and to allow that to be
diverted through the hands of greedy record industry execs is not in the
interests of the artists.
Andy
PS here's some good reading for you:
http://www.cdbaby.net/articles/courtney_love.html
Courtney Love's speech
This is an unedited transcript of Courtney Love's speech to the Digital
Hollywood online entertainment conference, given in New York on May 16,
2000.
ZnU
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article <eoffsk$u5a$1...@aioe.org>, nospam <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
> >
> >> ZnU wrote:
> >>
> >>> If payment for music is going to basically work on the honor system
> >>> anyway, why not acknowledge that fact? Try to get your stuff
> >>> distributed as widely as possible, and make it easy for people who
> >>> are so inclined to voluntarily give you money.
> >>>
> >>> Or else set up some kind of tax-funded blanket licensing system, as
> >>> some European countries are considering.
> >>>
> >> I think that is absolutely bad. Why should everyone pay a tax, even
> >> if they don't use the 'product'?
> >
> > Because there are cases where the overhead of figuring out exaclty who
> > should pay and making sure they actually do is too large to be
> > justifiable. This could be such a case.
>
> That still doesn't explain why everyone should pay the tax, surely it is
> the problem of those who avail of the product, not those who do not?
Um... did you not understand what I just wrote?
> Sure, it's easy money for the record execs, but there is no
> justification for it.
Once again, the record industry does *not* want blanket licensing.
[snip]
Mayor of R'lyeh
bless us with the following wisdom:
>In article <eoio7s$6jh$1...@aioe.org>, nospam <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>> > In article <eoffsk$u5a$1...@aioe.org>, nospam <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
>> >
>> >> ZnU wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> If payment for music is going to basically work on the honor system
>> >>> anyway, why not acknowledge that fact? Try to get your stuff
>> >>> distributed as widely as possible, and make it easy for people who
>> >>> are so inclined to voluntarily give you money.
>> >>>
>> >>> Or else set up some kind of tax-funded blanket licensing system, as
>> >>> some European countries are considering.
>> >>>
>> >> I think that is absolutely bad. Why should everyone pay a tax, even
>> >> if they don't use the 'product'?
>> >
>> > Because there are cases where the overhead of figuring out exaclty who
>> > should pay and making sure they actually do is too large to be
>> > justifiable. This could be such a case.
>>
>> That still doesn't explain why everyone should pay the tax, surely it is
>> the problem of those who avail of the product, not those who do not?
>
>Um... did you not understand what I just wrote?
The problems is he's talking justice and you're talking economics. Yes
it would cost more than its worth to figure out who should pay but
that doesn't make it right to force it on everyone.
There is no societal benefit to putting the music industry on the
public rolls. Its not something like a road or a park that wouldn't
get done without government action.
All that is going on is the need to find a new business model for the
industry. If that means all of the old ways and the old companies fade
away then so be it. But let the industry figure it out. There's no
need to pick my pocket just so the record company execs can carry on
without adapting to the new reality.
>
>> Sure, it's easy money for the record execs, but there is no
>> justification for it.
>
>Once again, the record industry does *not* want blanket licensing.
The record company doesn't care what happens so long as their gravy
train continues. If that includes blanket licensing they'll go with
it. It would be more accurate to say that they can't figure out how to
make money with blanket licensing.
>
>[snip]
--
"A president who breaks the law is a threat to the
very structure of our government."
Al Gore
Bill Clinton became eligible for reinstatement to the
bar on January 19,2006 after losing his law license
in 2001 for comitting perjury.
ZnU
The problem is, the current system is already maintained through
government services which everyone has to pay for -- law enforcement and
the court system. Trying to prevent music sharing through those
mechanisms would probably be far more expensive and intrusive than
adopting blanket licensing.
We could, of course, simply maintain the status quo... but the industry
is going to be pushing very hard for enhanced enforcement. Those people
who think the measures they call for are unacceptable (which is pretty
much everyone who's paying attention) need some alternative proposal.
The status quo, in which illegal sharing is rampant, is hard to defend
as a long-term solution.
> >> Sure, it's easy money for the record execs, but there is no
> >> justification for it.
> >
> >Once again, the record industry does *not* want blanket licensing.
>
> The record company doesn't care what happens so long as their gravy
> train continues. If that includes blanket licensing they'll go with
> it. It would be more accurate to say that they can't figure out how to
> make money with blanket licensing.
--
nospam
> In article <eoio7s$6jh$1...@aioe.org>, nospam <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>>> In article <eoffsk$u5a$1...@aioe.org>, nospam <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
>>>
>>>> ZnU wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If payment for music is going to basically work on the honor system
>>>>> anyway, why not acknowledge that fact? Try to get your stuff
>>>>> distributed as widely as possible, and make it easy for people who
>>>>> are so inclined to voluntarily give you money.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or else set up some kind of tax-funded blanket licensing system, as
>>>>> some European countries are considering.
>>>>>
>>>> I think that is absolutely bad. Why should everyone pay a tax, even
>>>> if they don't use the 'product'?
>>> Because there are cases where the overhead of figuring out exaclty who
>>> should pay and making sure they actually do is too large to be
>>> justifiable. This could be such a case.
>> That still doesn't explain why everyone should pay the tax, surely it is
>> the problem of those who avail of the product, not those who do not?
>
> Um... did you not understand what I just wrote?
Yes, you said the overhead of figuring out exactly who should pay might
be too high. I don't give a fuck how high it is, it's not my problem so
they can stuff their tax idea up their bums.
nospam
Excuse me, but since when did it become my responsibility to figure out
how to make money for other people who are nothing to do with me? Why
should I or anyone else oppsed to being taxed by a bunch of parasites
who no longer provide any useful function (if they ever did) have to
come up with a solution for them to justify opposing them?
Maybe they should get me a better job? Supply all of us with
money-making suggestions? Let the lazy bums go on honest welfare until
they can think of a way to earn themselves a living.
> The status quo, in which illegal sharing is rampant, is hard to defend
> as a long-term solution.
I know of no-one who is advocating it as a long-term solution. That is a
straw man. If I advocate use of a de-lousing powder it's obvious I'm not
advocating its use daily forever, just till the lice have gone.
Andy
ZnU
> ZnU wrote:
> > The problem is, the current system is already maintained through
> > government services which everyone has to pay for -- law
> > enforcement and the court system. Trying to prevent music sharing
> > through those mechanisms would probably be far more expensive and
> > intrusive than adopting blanket licensing.
> >
> > We could, of course, simply maintain the status quo... but the
> > industry is going to be pushing very hard for enhanced enforcement.
> > Those people who think the measures they call for are unacceptable
> > (which is pretty much everyone who's paying attention) need some
> > alternative proposal.
>
> Excuse me, but since when did it become my responsibility to figure
> out how to make money for other people who are nothing to do with me?
> Why should I or anyone else oppsed to being taxed by a bunch of
> parasites who no longer provide any useful function (if they ever
> did) have to come up with a solution for them to justify opposing
> them?
It's widely understood that it is a legitimate role of government to
create a system which allows those who produce creative works to
recieve compensation for the use of those works. The government
currently does this though copyright law and associated enforcement.
Blanket licensing might be a better approach.
The arguments you seem to be making would seem to preclude either
approach, something I don't think you'll find widespread support for.
> Maybe they should get me a better job? Supply all of us with
> money-making suggestions? Let the lazy bums go on honest welfare
> until they can think of a way to earn themselves a living.
>
> > The status quo, in which illegal sharing is rampant, is hard to
> > defend as a long-term solution.
>
> I know of no-one who is advocating it as a long-term solution. That
> is a straw man.
I think you'll find I'm not actually attributing it to anyone.
> If I advocate use of a de-lousing powder it's obvious I'm not
> advocating its use daily forever, just till the lice have gone.
--
nospam
> In article <eoji8t$9g3$1...@aioe.org>, nospam <nospa...@iol.ie> wrote:
>
>> ZnU wrote:
>
>>> The problem is, the current system is already maintained through
>>> government services which everyone has to pay for -- law
>>> enforcement and the court system. Trying to prevent music sharing
>>> through those mechanisms would probably be far more expensive and
>>> intrusive than adopting blanket licensing.
>>>
>>> We could, of course, simply maintain the status quo... but the
>>> industry is going to be pushing very hard for enhanced enforcement.
>>> Those people who think the measures they call for are unacceptable
>>> (which is pretty much everyone who's paying attention) need some
>>> alternative proposal.
>> Excuse me, but since when did it become my responsibility to figure
>> out how to make money for other people who are nothing to do with me?
>> Why should I or anyone else oppsed to being taxed by a bunch of
>> parasites who no longer provide any useful function (if they ever
>> did) have to come up with a solution for them to justify opposing
>> them?
>
> It's widely understood that it is a legitimate role of government to
> create a system which allows those who produce creative works to
> recieve compensation for the use of those works. The government
> currently does this though copyright law and associated enforcement.
> Blanket licensing might be a better approach.
By that logic you might as well apply it to everything and just take
everyone's money away and give them free access to everything. See it
just doesn't make sense. Some people 'consume' (!) more recorded music
than others. A blanket tax is unfair to everyone. Your line of reasoning
amounts to "we must do something... this is something, therefore we must
do this".
The problem here is not musiciand, or getting the money to musicians,
this is about the middle men, and preserving their huge income after
they have become powerless due to changes in distribution. They are
trying to take control of the means of distribution, to re-create their
previous situation. They are obsolete, and in a genuinely free market
other opportunities, like CDBaby.com could emerge unfettered. Presently
the industry keeps them down as small players. Why are you defending the
parasites and their proposals?
> The arguments you seem to be making would seem to preclude either
> approach, something I don't think you'll find widespread support for.
My arguments don't preclude anything that would be of benefit to
musicians. I do not even oppose DRM (though I think it has too many
flaws to work) except when it is used to preserve outdated and
obstructive institutions.
>> Maybe they should get me a better job? Supply all of us with
>> money-making suggestions? Let the lazy bums go on honest welfare
>> until they can think of a way to earn themselves a living.
>>
>>> The status quo, in which illegal sharing is rampant, is hard to
>>> defend as a long-term solution.
>> I know of no-one who is advocating it as a long-term solution. That
>> is a straw man.
>
> I think you'll find I'm not actually attributing it to anyone.
Then why introduce it into the argument?
Mayor of R'lyeh
So? That's what its for.
> Trying to prevent music sharing through those
>mechanisms would probably be far more expensive and intrusive than
>adopting blanket licensing.
It would be a lot cheaper if we got rid of those pesky investigations
and prosecutions altogether. We could just send the first guy the cops
saw when they showed up at the scene to jail.
But there's something more important than than the dollar and cents in
play. Its called justice.
Justice demands that only those guilty of something pay for it. Just
like we don;'t lock up everyone in a town when a crime is comitted in
it we shouldn't make everybody pay a tax because some industry is
crying that its losing money.
Let them do what numerous other industries have done when the times
change - adapt or die. The music industry isn't some critical national
resource. Let them fade away if that's their fate. Something will
arise to take their place.
>We could, of course, simply maintain the status quo... but the industry
>is going to be pushing very hard for enhanced enforcement. Those people
>who think the measures they call for are unacceptable (which is pretty
>much everyone who's paying attention) need some alternative proposal.
Why? I don't need an alternative proposal to tell a guy to bug off
when he tries to pick my pocket. Its up to the music companies to
adapt. I don't need to have any ideas on how they could do that to
know that them stealing from me because someone else stole from them
is unacceptable
>The status quo, in which illegal sharing is rampant, is hard to defend
>as a long-term solution.
>
>> >> Sure, it's easy money for the record execs, but there is no
>> >> justification for it.
Just like you shouldn't go to jail because of a crime you didn't
commit, you shouldn't be forced to pay a tax over one either.
>> >
>> >Once again, the record industry does *not* want blanket licensing.
>>
>> The record company doesn't care what happens so long as their gravy
>> train continues. If that includes blanket licensing they'll go with
>> it. It would be more accurate to say that they can't figure out how to
>> make money with blanket licensing.
--
ZnU
Yes, and if this would produce better outcomes than the current system,
it might be worth considering. But it wouldn't, of course.
[snip]
> Let them do what numerous other industries have done when the times
> change - adapt or die. The music industry isn't some critical national
> resource. Let them fade away if that's their fate. Something will
> arise to take their place.
They're not going to put up with the status quo and quietly fade away,
though. They're already demanding extreme measures to try to control
sharing, like insane penalties, monitoring of Internet traffic, and
legally mandated DRM.
> >> >> Sure, it's easy money for the record execs, but there is no
> >> >> justification for it.
>
> Just like you shouldn't go to jail because of a crime you didn't
> commit, you shouldn't be forced to pay a tax over one either.
You wouldn't be paying a tax for a crime you didn't commit. You would be
paying a tax to cover the cost of music production, which would give you
a legal right to download music.
True, some people wouldn't want and wouldn't take advantage of that
right. But with the exception of a few nutty libertarians, there are not
many people who believe it is prima faca illegitimate for government to
tax people for services which they could in principle use but choose not
to.
ZnU
Ahh, but nothing is actually consumed. Money is, when you get right
down to it, a way of keeping track of the allocation of scarce
resources. Current intellectual property law is intended to make this
system applicable to intangible property by creating artificial
scarcity. But with some types of intellectual property, the fiction is
wearing thin.
> A blanket tax is unfair to everyone. Your line of reasoning amounts
> to "we must do something... this is something, therefore we must do
> this".
Nonsense. My logic, which I've been fairly explicit about, is that music
sharing is probably impossible to stop, but artists still deserve to be
paid for the use of their creations, therefore it might be smart to come
up with a system which allows the former while still providing for the
latter.
> The problem here is not musiciand, or getting the money to musicians,
> this is about the middle men, and preserving their huge income after
> they have become powerless due to changes in distribution. They are
> trying to take control of the means of distribution, to re-create
> their previous situation. They are obsolete, and in a genuinely free
> market other opportunities, like CDBaby.com could emerge unfettered.
> Presently the industry keeps them down as small players. Why are you
> defending the parasites and their proposals?
I'm actually not. Previously when discussion this proposal, I've said
the record companies should simply be cut out of the loop in a blanket
licensing system, and money should be paid directly to artists.
[snip]
nospam
The tax proposal might well achieve this, so regardless of its demerits,
let's accept it for the sake of argument. We still have to get rid of
the big record labels first, otherwise we have NOT helped the musicians
at all, only the RIAA members, who will continue to rip off the
musicians, because that's what they do.
Before we choose what to do to facilitate musicians' payment for their
wirk we have to get rid of the major obstacle to that payment.
>> The problem here is not musiciand, or getting the money to musicians,
>> this is about the middle men, and preserving their huge income after
>> they have become powerless due to changes in distribution. They are
>> trying to take control of the means of distribution, to re-create
>> their previous situation. They are obsolete, and in a genuinely free
>> market other opportunities, like CDBaby.com could emerge unfettered.
>> Presently the industry keeps them down as small players. Why are you
>> defending the parasites and their proposals?
>
> I'm actually not. Previously when discussion this proposal, I've said
> the record companies should simply be cut out of the loop in a blanket
> licensing system, and money should be paid directly to artists.
But as long as those companies continue to exist and have influence,
they will dominate any system because of the contracts they already
hold. It's not possible to implement anything legally while they still
hold the majority of music sales under contract. They have to die before
anything fair can be worked out. Apply the stinging stuff, and let
nature take its course.
Did you read those 2 articles I posted? Musicians are very creative
people. They do not need dull bureaucrats to work out how to make money
for them! Sheesh, maybe we'd start to see a lot more live music, not
just expensive mega-concerts dominated by a few dinosaurs!
Andy
Mitch
> Music is being put
> into the same category as movies at the moment and I think they are not
> the same business at all.
Sure, but the issue isn't how the product is produced, not at all. It's
how it is distributed to the end-user. Since these three (music, TV,
movies) are enjoying the same distribution method in broadband, they
suffer the same mass-piracy problems.
Lots of people want to pretend that the manipulation of artists is the
issue, and that what they really want is to change the system, and I'm
sure they really do. But part of it, certainly, is that in the
meantime, they wish to get free music.