Courtney Love does the math
Alec Horgan
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
A very nice piece on the real music pirates.
Alec
Jack A. Zucker
For a real dose of reality, have them practice 6 hours a day for 25 years
and make a living playing 2 nights a week for $50 / night in jazz clubs
while driving a cab and doing bar mitzvahs on the side.
I really feel sorry for Courtney...
--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
"Lutegirl" <lute...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000614222019...@ng-da1.aol.com...
> >http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
> >
> >A very nice piece on the real music pirates.
> >
> >
> >Alec
> >
>
> I think everyone on either side is getting the picture.There's no more
snowing
> us over.
>
> you go girl! you nailed them right between the eyes.
> :)
> The walls are tumbling down.We'll be there to help you brick by brick.
>
> Andrea
Lutegirl
Steve
>snowing
>us over.
No one in the business was snowed. I think it's common knowledge how record
deals work, and they are not to the benefit of the artist without a great deal
of power.
Steve (SEFSTRAT)
webpage: http://members.aol.com/sefstrat/index.html/sefpage.html
Smakutus san..
>
> Oh yeah - Those poor rock stars. How in the world do they manage...
>
> For a real dose of reality, have them practice 6 hours a day for 25 years
> and make a living playing 2 nights a week for $50 / night in jazz clubs
> while driving a cab and doing bar mitzvahs on the side.
>
> I really feel sorry for Courtney...
My favorite part was:
"MP3 files sound cruddy, but a well-made album sounds great. And I don't
care what anyone says about digital recordings. At this point they are
good for dance music, but try listening to a warm guitar tone on them.
They suck for what I do."
Ooooh there's soo many warm guitar tones on a Hole Cd.
Outt..
Jeff.
Richard
> Oh yeah - Those poor rock stars. How in the world do they manage...
>
> For a real dose of reality, have them practice 6 hours a day for 25 years
> and make a living playing 2 nights a week for $50 / night in jazz clubs
> while driving a cab and doing bar mitzvahs on the side.
>
> I really feel sorry for Courtney...
...actually, over the course of the entire article I thought she made a
lot of sense. (All that means is that I thought her argument was self-
consistent. :)
Courtney--who I have never been able to stand until I read this article--
broadly outlines a system where all musicians will be paid what they're
worth. Not a bad idea, IMO.
--
Disclaimer: These are simply some of my personal opinions.
ObURL: http://home.earthlink.net/~huddler
"Cognitive dissonance is your best friend."
Stephane Boucher
> x-no-archive: yes On 14 Jun 2000 16:37:23 -0400, Alec Horgan
> <alexande...@yale.edu> wrote:
>> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
>>
>> A very nice piece on the real music pirates.
> It's been common knowledge for some time that it's the record
> companies - not the artists who really cash in on record sales.
> (That's why it's called the music BUSINESS).
I think businesses based on copyrights or intellectual properties
are now just living on borrowed time. They can't win the battle
against the Internet/digital information era. In the 19th century
I don't believe there where too many making any kind of money
from copyrighted work. That business came about in the 20th century.
And sometimes during the 21th century, it's going to disappear.
I'd suggest the following reading:
http://old.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html
It talks about software, but it could just as well be talking about
music. In fact, one example deals with music:
"...
But the widespread adoption of digital technology for use by
those who do not understand the principles of its operation,
while it apparently licenses the broad metaphoric employment of
"software," does not in fact permit us to ignore the computers
that are now everywhere underneath our social skin. The
movement from analog to digital is more important for the
structure of social and legal relations than the more famous if
less certain movement from status to contract [5]. This is bad
news for those legal thinkers who do not understand it, which
is why so much pretending to understand now goes so floridly
on. Potentially, however, our great transition is very good
news for those who can turn this new-found land into property
for themselves. Which is why the current "owners" of software
so strongly support and encourage the ignorance of everyone
else. Unfortunately for them - for reasons familiar to legal
theorists who haven't yet understood how to apply their
traditional logic in this area - the trick won't work. This
paper explains why [6].
We need to begin by considering the technical essence of the
familiar devices that surround us in the era of "cultural
software." A CD player is a good example. Its primary input is
a bitstream read from an optical storage disk. The bitstream
describes music in terms of measurements, taken 44,000 times
per second, of frequency and amplitude in each of two audio
channels. The player's primary output is analog audio signals
[7]. Like everything else in the digital world, music as seen
by a CD player is mere numeric information; a particular
recording of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony recorded by Arturo
Toscanini and the NBC Symphony Orchestra and Chorale is (to
drop a few insignificant digits) 1276749873424, while Glenn
Gould's peculiarly perverse last recording of the Goldberg
Variations is (similarly rather truncated) 767459083268.
Oddly enough, these two numbers are "copyrighted." This means,
supposedly, that you can't possess another copy of these
numbers, once fixed in any physical form, unless you have
licensed them. And you can't turn 767459083268 into 2347895697
for your friends (thus correcting Gould's ridiculous judgment
about tempi) without making a "derivative work," for which a
license is necessary.
At the same time, a similar optical storage disk contains
another number, let us call it 7537489532. This one is an
algorithm for linear programming of large systems with multiple
constraints, useful for example if you want to make optimal use
of your rolling stock in running a freight railroad. This
number (in the U.S.) is "patented," which means you cannot
derive 7537489532 for yourself, or otherwise "practice the art"
of the patent with respect to solving linear programming
problems no matter how you came by the idea, including finding
it out for yourself, unless you have a license from the
number's owner.
Then there's 9892454959483. This one is the source code for
Microsoft Word. In addition to being "copyrighted," this one is
a trade secret. That means if you take this number from
Microsoft and give it to anyone else you can be punished.
Lastly, there's 588832161316. It doesn't do anything, it's just
the square of 767354. As far as I know, it isn't owned by
anybody under any of these rubrics. Yet.
..."
--
Guitar Bum
in Mpls. blowing junkies for skag.
Richard <hud...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.13b224266...@news.earthlink.net...
Lutegirl
>(That's why it's called the music BUSINESS).
It's more like a pyramid scheme with the executives at the top and the artists
and consumers at the bottom.
>There are quite a lot of things which I think suck about the
>music industry.
This is a reality we all can agree on.
>However, this new .mp3 / Napster et al business seems poised
>to not only take a bite out of the asses of the record companies...but
>the artists as well.
What is, and what seems to be are two different things.
>Today, on the evening news, they were featuring a story on
>this topic. There were two college students who were on camera,
>harvesting "free" music from the internet. One of them said: "Why
>should I have to pay for art?
One agenda uses 2 college kids to strike fear,a powerful agenda motivator.Since
when do 2 college kids represent all consumers?
Who owns the news?
>In reality, these are
>companies - which are made up of people - just like you and me.
Who give retirement and health benefits to all of thier other employees,but
nothing to the artists.They treat them like dogs,and leave them to go off and
lick thier own wounds.
The self medication often has disasterous results...
God help them if they go out on the road and get struck by cancer...or fall to
bad medicine.
>If I was a recording artist, I would be absolutely incensed at
>these goings-on.
Fear of what the record companies are doing, or fear of an uncertain future
that could turn your fortunes either way?
?
Andrea
Lutegirl
> drop a few insignificant digits) 1276749873424, while Glenn
> Gould's peculiarly perverse last recording of the Goldberg
> Variations is (similarly rather truncated) 767459083268.
>Oddly enough, these two numbers are "copyrighted." This means,
> supposedly, that you can't possess another copy of these
> numbers, once fixed in any physical form, unless you have
> licensed them. And you can't turn 767459083268 into 2347895697
I could use those same numbers to make trees,and a place to put the trees,and
the color of the leaves.I could use those numbers to paint a bitmap and use it
as a landscape backdrop for a very unusual world...that bears no resemblance in
sound or form or derrisive in any senseable,reasonable way to thier music
composition.
How would they ever enforce ownership of a number?
It sounds too much like a twisted seasame street nightmare,"this weeks show
brought to you by the letter Z and the number
7537489532..."
this goes too far.
Andrea
Jack A. Zucker
> broadly outlines a system where all musicians will be paid what they're
> worth. Not a bad idea, IMO.
Since she's on food stamps because of her financial situation, one has to
wonder who paid for the liposuction, lip, boob, and nose jobs?
Jaz
Lutegirl
>deals work, and they are not to the benefit of the artist without a great
>deal
>of power.
Yes, in the world of the Puff Thug,all the cars,gold chains,champagne,slinky
poolside bump and grind girls,are all rented,on credit.
Andrea
Steve
Andrea>>
Yup. And in all other situations, the recoupment clauses in artist contracts
are pretty well known now. The only way to avoid them is to have enough
power--meaning you have had a BIG album and been screwed once--to influence the
terms of the next deal.
It's often said that the artist makes money on the second successful recording,
not the first.
Steve
They can't. I believe that the article used the number to symbolize a
bitstream of information.
Matt Seniff
wrote:
>
>http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html
>
>A very nice piece on the real music pirates.
>
>
>Alec
I agree. A surprisingly well thought and written article. matt
Matthew Ivaliotes
>>However, this new .mp3 / Napster et al business seems poised
>>to not only take a bite out of the asses of the record companies...but
>>the artists as well.
>What is, and what seems to be are two different things.
OK, explain how it is that an artist is going to get anyone to front them
money for getting their name out in the first place, not to mention money
to make sure they get a top *quality* recording done, if the person
fronting the money has no way to recover it? And if that money suddenly
starts coming out of touring revenue, then there's your bite out of the
asses of the artists.
>Who give retirement and health benefits to all of thier other employees,but
>nothing to the artists.They treat them like dogs,and leave them to go off and
>lick thier own wounds.
>The self medication often has disasterous results...
>God help them if they go out on the road and get struck by cancer...or fall to
>bad medicine.
And Napster is going to fix this how? How does not paying *anyone* for a
recording of an artist's work suddenyl materialize a health plan for said
artist which his/her agent could have negotiated up front?
>Fear of what the record companies are doing, or fear of an uncertain future
>that could turn your fortunes either way?
Possibly both. Look, I don't think the record industry is blameless, but
the noton that the artists are victims is nonsense. They sign contracts.
I'm tired of people who enter into willful agreements which make them
money being labeled as victims.
Matt I.
speaking only for myself
Daniel R. Haney
to enforce, how will artists see _any_ returns on their works?
This is a separate issue from the utterly feudalist separation
of wealth between record companies and artists and will require
lobbying by artists as a political bloc instead of individual
actions by Metallica & Courtney Love.
-drh
--
howldog
Matthew Ivaliotes <lo...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message
Look, I don't think the record industry is blameless, but
> the noton that the artists are victims is nonsense.
I would sadly agree to both. Courtney Love is great at playing martyrd
monkey. It's what she does best.
That being said, if i was a full time musician, feeding my family, and I
found a couple of college kids
free trading hi quality digital pirate copies of my "art", I'd want to yank
their toes out and stuff them up their arses.
howldog
--
remove NOSPAM in email address to reply
Daniel R. Haney
> Since she's on food stamps because of her financial situation, one has to
> wonder who paid for the liposuction, lip, boob, and nose jobs?
Depends on whether the surgery was before or after her
role as Althea in the movie The People VS. Larry Flint.
-drh
--
howldog
Smakutus san.. <smak...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:39484B12...@earthlink.net...
At this point they are
> good for dance music, but try listening to a warm guitar tone on them.
> They suck for what I do."
hilarious. seeing as how Billy Corgan plays half the guitar on her records.
AND I've heard Hole live in concert.
Gee it didnt even sound like the same band... I wonder why......
Hole is very powerful in concert, in a kind of garage band from hell kinda
way. Love makes a compelling rock star, and she is sort of the spokeswomyn
for a large group of grrrl rockers. So more power to her and I hope she
makes a zillion dollars.
Personally, I heard Celebrity Skin and it didnt move me at all. On the other
hand, I bet Courtney Love never heard of Howldog either.
to hear a guitarist that has made absolutley no impact of Courtney Love
visit
Smakutus san..
> Personally, I heard Celebrity Skin and it didnt move me at all.
I liked that CD.. The song Celebrity Skin was a very cool radio song.
(Not that that's saying much I guess..) but it was amazing at how much
better in tune Courtney sang on it then the CD before this.. (Don't
worry we'll fix IT in the mix too!)
Outt..
Jeff.
Nicholas Delonas
says...
> If we accept that 'Net technology makes copyrights difficult
> to enforce, how will artists see _any_ returns on their works?
Live performances and merchandising. There has always been more money in
that any way.
--
Nick Delonas
My band: http://ironia.net
My cult: http://cultv.com
My day job: http://digitalsg.com
Stephane Boucher
> If we accept that 'Net technology makes copyrights difficult to
> enforce, how will artists see _any_ returns on their works?
You start with the assumption that artists are supposed to have a
return on their work. Why is that?
Also, it's not that the 'net technology makes copyrights difficult to
enforce. It's that the 'net technology highlights how innapropriate or
unrealistic the concept of copyright and IP are. Of course, in
practice it simply translates in difficulty to enforce. And the record
and movie companies push the angle of piracy.
Besides, as it is today, there's only a handful of artists who get a
return, and those are the artists that have been chosen by the big
corporation.
I think most of the revenues for the real world artists who earn
a living with their craft come from teaching and performing rather
than from sales of books, CD, etc.
--
Steve
I'm tired of people who enter into willful agreements which make them
money being labeled as victims.
Matt I.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, I see your point...BUT those contracts are factually, if not legally,
contracts of adhesion. There is no bargaining power on the part of the artist,
and all contracts in the industry (with a couple of notable exceptions in the
folk/acoustic area) are essentially the same.
Steve
<<The song Celebrity Skin was a very cool radio song.
(Not that that's saying much I guess..) but it was amazing at how much
better in tune Courtney sang on it then the CD before this..>>
Wow. What a stunning endorsement of talent. She sang more in tune than on her
prior work.....
Matthew Ivaliotes
>You start with the assumption that artists are supposed to have a
>return on their work. Why is that?
Maybe so they can afford things like food and a mortgage...and maybe even
basic cable? Maybe because they worked to create something, own it, and
have the right to sell it as they see fit?
howldog
Steve <sefs...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000615121011...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
> Wow. What a stunning endorsement of talent. She sang more in tune than
on her
> prior work.....
I have to admit, i dont fully understand what Courtney Love is all about.
Her nipples on her CD covers sure are cute.
I dont think brilliant musicianship or diva-ing is what she's apparently
trying to do. In concert, I didnt think she could sing or play her way out
of a paper bag. But she still sure as hell communicated. she does her own
thing and people respond. She certainly has something going on.
howl
Matthew Ivaliotes
>Well, I see your point...BUT those contracts are factually, if not legally,
>contracts of adhesion. There is no bargaining power on the part of the artist,
>and all contracts in the industry (with a couple of notable exceptions in the
>folk/acoustic area) are essentially the same.
OK, so what would be a superior situation? Wouldn't it behoove someone to
start a company that would draw better talent by giving the musicians a
better deal? Is the gummint somehow to blame? :)
Stephane Boucher
> Maybe so they can afford things like food and a mortgage...and maybe
> even basic cable?
Actually, I don't even have cable TV, nor any feature on my phone, nor
a cellular phone. But that's another story...
> Maybe because they worked to create something,
Well, you see, they don't have to be artists. There are many ways to
earn a living. Some people will say that if you don't pay the
artists, you won't have any art, and that's utter bullshit.
> own it, and have the right to sell it as they see fit?
You are making the assumption that ownership is a given and that it is
the only right way to go about it. But to me it isn't.
If someone comes up with some math formula, it can't be owned, but if
someone comes up with a melody it can be owned? This is nonsense to
me.
--
Stephane Boucher
> Depends on whether the surgery was before or after her role as
> Althea in the movie The People VS. Larry Flint.
And I'll bet you that her accountant wrote those surgeries down
as work related expenses.
--
Ron Thompson
You have both been reported.
--
rct
The opinions above are mine and mine alone.
Daniel R. Haney
> Daniel R. Haney writes:
>> Depends on whether the surgery was before or after her role as
>> Althea in the movie The People VS. Larry Flint.
>
> And I'll bet you that her accountant wrote those surgeries down
> as work related expenses.
Hope so. The implicit assumption is that when you cross over from
one entertainment field into TV or film, the explicit pressure to
increase your visual appeal is substantial when you are less than
a perfect confection. If you don't have your head screwed on right
from the beginning, you'll get stampeded.
-drh
--
Matthew Ivaliotes
>>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Ivaliotes <lo...@uiuc.edu> writes:
>> Maybe so they can afford things like food and a mortgage...and maybe
>> even basic cable?
>Actually, I don't even have cable TV, nor any feature on my phone, nor
>a cellular phone. But that's another story...
Actually, we're just the same, except I have call waiting. I don't even
have a TV in the house.
>> Maybe because they worked to create something,
>Well, you see, they don't have to be artists. There are many ways to
>earn a living. Some people will say that if you don't pay the
>artists, you won't have any art, and that's utter bullshit.
Sure, but no one *has* to be anything. Why should we single out the work
of certain people as being free game for theft?
>> own it, and have the right to sell it as they see fit?
>You are making the assumption that ownership is a given and that it is
>the only right way to go about it. But to me it isn't.
And that's your right. But me, I'd prefer to see an artist get paid for
their work. I think art requires a great deal of dedication to advance
and achieve great depth and richness. If someone has to hold down a job
and do art in their spare time, I think art suffers.
>If someone comes up with some math formula, it can't be owned, but if
>someone comes up with a melody it can be owned? This is nonsense to
>me.
I can see your point, but I'm not sure where this leaves us. If we apply
the same model to music that is applied to mathematics, the only people
making music will be in universities. The Cornell School of Rock, anyone?
Ron Thompson
> Think about this: You work. Why are you supposed to be
> compensated financially for your efforts?
Because of my dedicated committment to persuing a high quality product
that is at once effective for our stakeholders and maintenance-friendly,
ensuring a life-cycle free from unscheduled downtime and obsolesence from
birth, leaving myself and my diverse team plenty of room for brainstorming
more effective ways of utilizing cutting edge hardware and positive growth
software coupled with intelligent interfacing in this, the new millenium.
Stephane Boucher
> Sure, but no one *has* to be anything. Why should we single out the
> work of certain people as being free game for theft?
You are stuck in today's paradigm, and end up talking about theft.
In today's paradigm, it's theft, but I think today's paradigm is wrong.
Also, artsy folks aren't being singled out. If indeed the digital era
puts an end to the strange notion that information can be copyrighted,
then the entire world of software has/will move to a service industry.
This is very slowly happening, actually.
> And that's your right. But me, I'd prefer to see an artist get paid
> for their work.
> Sure. You can attend their performance/exhibits.
> I think art requires a great deal of dedication to
> advance and achieve great depth and richness. If someone has to
> hold down a job and do art in their spare time, I think art suffers.
Well, you see, prior to the massive use of copyright and IP in the
20th century, there was art. Music was being written. Sculptures
being made. Books being written. You are, I think, mistakenly
assuming that copyrights are the way to ensure that artists be able to
put some food on the table. But in the era prior to the digital era,
the copyright served mostly to police a system that was essentially
a bunch of companies competing. The internet has changed that paradigm
and the industry is having a hard time dealing with it and are talking
about piracy/theft/etc.
Also, I think the best work people do is the one being done because
they enjoy doing it, rather than the work they do to get paid.
It is a very capitalistic view to say that you need money to do great
things.
> I can see your point, but I'm not sure where this leaves us. If we
> apply the same model to music that is applied to mathematics, the
> only people making music will be in universities. The Cornell
> School of Rock, anyone?
But, where did blues come from? Where did Classical music come from?
etc. etc. In one way or another, there was always something to drive
someone to write music. Again, how many musicians actually make
a decent living by copyrighting their compositions?
--
Stephane Boucher
> x-no-archive: yes On 15 Jun 2000 11:28:20 -0400, Stephane Boucher
> <s...@cisco.com> wrote:
> There's no guarantee that they will have a return. However
> they have the right to charge money for their creation. They have a
> right to try to make a profit.
I agree with all of the above.
However, I don't see what's with copying a sequence/combination of
frequencies.
> Think about this: You work. Why are you supposed to be
> compensated financially for your efforts?
I work. I'm paid for the hours of work I put in to write software.
I'm not paid royalty on the software I write.
--
Ron Thompson
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:53:36 -0400, Ron Thompson <thom...@tc.faa.gov>
> wrote:
>
> >Because of my dedicated committment to persuing a high quality product
> >that is at once effective for our stakeholders and maintenance-friendly,
> >ensuring a life-cycle free from unscheduled downtime and obsolesence from
> >birth, leaving myself and my diverse team plenty of room for brainstorming
> >more effective ways of utilizing cutting edge hardware and positive growth
> >software coupled with intelligent interfacing in this, the new millenium.
>
No, I didn't. It was composed as I typed. A pentatonic wanking of sorts.
Daniel R. Haney
> Also, I think the best work people do is the one being done because
> they enjoy doing it, rather than the work they do to get paid.
> It is a very capitalistic view to say that you need money to do great
> things.
There is a difference between living marginally and having wages
that afford health care, savings, & retirement funds.
Most artists achieve the former but seldom rise to the latter.
What would you propose to ensure fair recompense?
-drh
--
howldog
Ron Thompson <thom...@tc.faa.gov> wrote in message
news:394926...@tc.faa.gov...
....>and positive growth
> software coupled with intelligent interfacing in this, the new millenium.
yer drooling again. have a napkin.
howl
Ron Thompson
> > software coupled with intelligent interfacing in this, the new millenium.
>
> yer drooling again. have a napkin.
Thanks bro. Got some beer in this amp too...
Matthew Ivaliotes
>>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Ivaliotes <lo...@uiuc.edu> writes:
>> Sure, but no one *has* to be anything. Why should we single out the
>> work of certain people as being free game for theft?
>You are stuck in today's paradigm, and end up talking about theft.
>In today's paradigm, it's theft, but I think today's paradigm is wrong.
So what's the new paradigm? No one is paid for their work?
>Also, artsy folks aren't being singled out. If indeed the digital era
>puts an end to the strange notion that information can be copyrighted,
>then the entire world of software has/will move to a service industry.
>This is very slowly happening, actually.
Yes, but it's happening primarily as a willful act of the
software creators in question. No one stole the Linux code. It was
offered up for free. The option was still with the programmer to give
their work or sell it.
>Well, you see, prior to the massive use of copyright and IP in the
>20th century, there was art. Music was being written. Sculptures
>being made. Books being written.
By a much narrower class of people, too.
>You are, I think, mistakenly
>assuming that copyrights are the way to ensure that artists be able to
>put some food on the table.
Theya re not *the* way, but they are *a* way. They're also a way to allow
an artist to control the use of their work, even if money isn't an issue.
I wouldn't want my songs used in commercials. Copyrights give me the
ability to tell a company no.
>But in the era prior to the digital era,
>the copyright served mostly to police a system that was essentially
>a bunch of companies competing. The internet has changed that paradigm
>and the industry is having a hard time dealing with it and are talking
>about piracy/theft/etc.
Well, piracy/theft is in fact taking place. This whole 'rule of law'
thing that seems to have become 'passe' in the minds of the cyberweenies
(wait - wouldn't that be me?) is still a vital notion in terms of
long-term societal legitimacy.
>Also, I think the best work people do is the one being done because
>they enjoy doing it, rather than the work they do to get paid.
I think you'll find that both are involved. If there's no money in
something you love, sometimes you haven't much *choice8 as to whether or
not you do it.
>It is a very capitalistic view to say that you need money to do great
>things.
No, but you need *time* and *energy*. If I have to work vrey hard some
other way in order to meet my economic needs or goals or even family
needs, there isn't going to be as much time for being a musician.
>But, where did blues come from? Where did Classical music come from?
>etc. etc. In one way or another, there was always something to drive
>someone to write music.
Sure. But why it is that you feel people should not be compensated for
their labor, you've not yet expressed. How is the labor of a musician any
different from your own?
>Again, how many musicians actually make
>a decent living by copyrighting their compositions?
I'd say a pretty decent number. How many bar bands and such make their
whole living that way, and expect to do so for the rest of their lives.
But let's distill this to the essential element. I work to make
something. Why shouldn't I have property right to that thing?
Matthew Ivaliotes
>I work. I'm paid for the hours of work I put in to write software.
>I'm not paid royalty on the software I write.
So you're suggesting that if a company hired musicians and they all got an
hourly wage for writing, then the company got the profit from the sales,
that'd be cool?
Ron Thompson
I think that is called Nashville.
Hope this helps.
Stephane Boucher
> Agreed. However, they ARE artists. Why should they not be
> entitled to be able to earn a living, but say...a garbage man is?
I never said they where not entitled to earn a living. I'm saying
that copyright is not necessary for them to earn a living. And today,
most artists that earn a living with their craft do so without
the use of copyright. (shows, selling paintings, teaching)
> What's utter bullshit is the mind frame that art should be
> free - and that it's wrong for the creator to capitalize on his/her
> creation.
Well, no one said art should be free. I'm more than happy to pay to
attend a live concert, for instance. However, attempting to restrict
information is a strange concept that the digital era is in the process
of destroying.
> If I create something, I own it.
You build a car, you own it. You wistle at 2000Hz, I don't believe you
own the frequency. You draw a tree on a canvas, you own the canvas,
and are free to sell it at the price you want. But I don't see why you
should be able to prevent me from drawing the same tree on my own
canvas so that I can sell that canvas.
> What about software codes? Lets say I write code for a video
> game. Do you think I can't own the code? Do you think I shouldn't
> be able to sell the game for a profit?
You can sell it as much as you want. Ever heard of the Free Software
Foundation? A great deal of software that is used to build the
internet is in fact freely available. The founder of the Free Software
Foundation is in fact against the idea that you can't copy a piece of
software (what people call piracy, he calls it helping his neighbor by
giving him a copy). But for a well written explanation, read what
the man himself says:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html
IMPORTANT NOTE: He uses the term "free" in the sens of "freedom",
rather than "gratis".
> What about a pharmaceutical formula for a wonder drug? Can
> that be owned?
I'm not particularly familiar with the pharmaceutical world. But I
certainly feel that there's nothing wrong with using the formula.
> Perhaps there's a reason why nobody know's Col. Sander's fried
> chicken recipe for 11 herbs and seasonings. Same with the original
> Coca Cola recipe.
Well, I have no doubt that someone who'd try to produce a drink
that is identical to Coke would get sued. But that's because todays
society works that way. That doesn't mean it is correct though.
--
Stephane Boucher
> Most artists achieve the former but seldom rise to the latter.
Actually, you are talking from the perspective of the USA.
In Canada, artists do have health care. And that's true of a lot of
countries. In the USA everything is brought back to a matter of $$$.
> What would you propose to ensure fair recompense?
I don't know. I haven't given any thoughts to this. But I'm saying
that copyright isn't helping the artists now, and won't help
them in the future because it is a broken concept.
--
Matthew Ivaliotes
>I never said they where not entitled to earn a living. I'm saying
>that copyright is not necessary for them to earn a living. And today,
>most artists that earn a living with their craft do so without
>the use of copyright. (shows, selling paintings, teaching)
Many painters make a lot more off of prints than they do paintings.
Eliminating copyright would hit them pretty hard.
>Well, no one said art should be free. I'm more than happy to pay to
>attend a live concert, for instance. However, attempting to restrict
>information is a strange concept that the digital era is in the process
>of destroying.
Why is it a strange concept? Shall we go ahead and eradicate universities
as well? After all, people are paying for information there.
>You build a car, you own it. You wistle at 2000Hz, I don't believe you
>own the frequency. You draw a tree on a canvas, you own the canvas,
>and are free to sell it at the price you want. But I don't see why you
>should be able to prevent me from drawing the same tree on my own
>canvas so that I can sell that canvas.
The concept of property, in and of itself, is arbitrary. You've just
pointed out that intellectual property is also arbitrary. Funny how human
institutions work that way.
>http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html
>IMPORTANT NOTE: He uses the term "free" in the sens of "freedom",
>rather than "gratis".
And that's his right, so long as it is his work in question. But he has
no "freedom" to use my work.
>I'm not particularly familiar with the pharmaceutical world. But I
>certainly feel that there's nothing wrong with using the formula.
So why on earth would any company but the millions into research if anyone
can wait fro themt o do it, buy one pill, and produce the product dirt
cheap, making it impossible for the researcher to recoup their expenses?
>Well, I have no doubt that someone who'd try to produce a drink
>that is identical to Coke would get sued. But that's because todays
>society works that way. That doesn't mean it is correct though.
It's arbitrary. And I for one like it.
Stephane Boucher
> Stephane Boucher <s...@cisco.com> writes:
>> I work. I'm paid for the hours of work I put in to write software.
>> I'm not paid royalty on the software I write.
> So you're suggesting that if a company hired musicians and they all
> got an hourly wage for writing, then the company got the profit from
> the sales, that'd be cool?
Sure, as long as the artists wasn't held at gun point. The hired
musicians, in most parts of the world, has the freedom to choose.
I work for Cisco Systems by choice. If I'm not happy with how they
treat me, I'll just walk. The hired musicians have that same power.
--
Matthew Ivaliotes
>Actually, you are talking from the perspective of the USA.
Home sweet home.
>In Canada, artists do have health care.
Yes, the government owns that chunk of the economy. Of course, no one bad
could ever come to rule in Canada. No totalitarian dictator or
powerful religious, ethnic, or ideological groundswell. Not under any
circumstances. So the government controlling health care is, of coure, a
universally good idea without drawback.
>And that's true of a lot of countries. In the USA everything is brought
>back to a matter of $$$.
We're wacky about that whole self-determination, private property, limited
government thing. Although those feelings seem to be waning.
>I don't know. I haven't given any thoughts to this. But I'm saying
>that copyright isn't helping the artists now, and won't help
>them in the future because it is a broken concept.
And I can list for you many friends who are artists for a living who would
disagree with you.
Matthew Ivaliotes
>Matthew Ivaliotes wrote:
>> So you're suggesting that if a company hired musicians and they all got an
>> hourly wage for writing, then the company got the profit from the sales,
>> that'd be cool?
>I think that is called Nashville.
>Hope this helps.
Indeed it does.
Matthew Ivaliotes
>>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Ivaliotes <lo...@uiuc.edu> writes:
>> So you're suggesting that if a company hired musicians and they all
>> got an hourly wage for writing, then the company got the profit from
>> the sales, that'd be cool?
>Sure, as long as the artists wasn't held at gun point. The hired
>musicians, in most parts of the world, has the freedom to choose.
And since the company you work for owns what you make for it, it works for
them, too. Does Cisco allow anyone to duplicate their hardware and
software freely? If not, how come?
But since an hourly wage is OK, why isn't a contract agreement OK? That's
what is in place now.
>I work for Cisco Systems by choice. If I'm not happy with how they
>treat me, I'll just walk. The hired musicians have that same power.
They have that power now. No one holds a gun to their head now.
Stephane Boucher
> Stephane Boucher <s...@cisco.com> writes:
> So what's the new paradigm? No one is paid for their work?
This has been said many times: Concerts, sales of painting,
teaching. I.e. getting paid for services and goods as oposed to
being paid for information.
> Yes, but it's happening primarily as a willful act of the software
> creators in question. No one stole the Linux code. It was offered
> up for free. The option was still with the programmer to give their
> work or sell it.
Of course it was willful. But there are plenty of folks earning a living
writing free software. It is still marginal because this is a paradigm
that most people aren't confortable with after having been brought up
the way they where.
An artist could still sell his work (sculpture, painting, CDs) in a
world where copying would be allowed.
>> Well, you see, prior to the massive use of copyright and IP in the
>> 20th century, there was art. Music was being written. Sculptures
>> being made. Books being written.
> By a much narrower class of people, too.
Not really. For instance, 'Dark Eyes' is now pretty much the defacto
gypsy anthem. And, I'm sure it got shapped from one camp fire party to
another over the years. Tears (composed by Django and Stephane
Grapelli is based on a traditional song). Son House and Robert
Johnson didn't single handedly create blues. It's just that
historians have put those people in the spotlight.
Art did not come from a narrow class of people. The classic art that
is well known today come from a narrow class of people. Just like the
pop art of Courtney Love and friend comes from a narrow class of
people.
> Theya re not *the* way, but they are *a* way.
They are a way now for corporations. But that way is breaking down.
> Well, piracy/theft is in fact taking place.
Well, yes it is piracy/theft in todays legal paradigm.
> This whole 'rule of
> law' thing that seems to have become 'passe' in the minds of the
> cyberweenies (wait - wouldn't that be me?) is still a vital notion
> in terms of long-term societal legitimacy.
... it's always been the case that people are afraid of changes and
the unknown that change represent. It follows that they feel more
secure with how things are in the present.
> I think you'll find that both are involved. If there's no money in
> something you love, sometimes you haven't much *choice8 as to
> whether or not you do it.
Life if is full of choices you have to make. For instance, I'd like
to travel the world. In my mind, I can't afford it now. But would
you be kind enough to pay it for me?
> No, but you need *time* and *energy*. If I have to work vrey hard
> some other way in order to meet my economic needs or goals or even
> family needs, there isn't going to be as much time for being a
> musician.
But again, I'd point out that a human doesn't need much to have a good
life. It's just that we live in this crazy world where we have to have
a house, a car, 20 guitars, 10 amps, a beautiful lawn, the latest
greatest lawnmower, etc. etc. If your art is important to you, I
have no doubt that you can make things work. However, you'll need
to change your expectations and goals. But those are your choices, not
your rights.
>> But, where did blues come from? Where did Classical music come
>> from? etc. etc. In one way or another, there was always something
>> to drive someone to write music.
> Sure. But why it is that you feel people should not be compensated
> for their labor, you've not yet expressed.
??? I actually have no problem with people being compensated for their
labor. Never said I had a problem. It's because in your mind, copyrights
are how artists get compensated. So when I say that copyrights could
just as well be ditched, you conclude that I'm saying that artists
should be compensated for their labor.
>> Again, how many musicians actually make a decent living by
>> copyrighting their compositions?
> I'd say a pretty decent number. How many bar bands and such make
> their whole living that way, and expect to do so for the rest of
> their lives.
Copyright has little to do with it. They get their money from people
who pay a cover charge to attend the live show...
> But let's distill this to the essential element. I work to make
> something. Why shouldn't I have property right to that thing?
If you build a car. It's yours. If you wistle at 2000Hz, you
don't own that frequency. If you paint a tree on a canvas, the canvas
is yours. But I can paint the same tree on my canvas.
Anyways, I have to bail out of this thread because it is too time
consuming, and experience tells me from watching similar threads in
software newsgroup that it quickly becomes an endless circular debate.
--
Stephane Boucher
> Many painters make a lot more off of prints than they do paintings.
> Eliminating copyright would hit them pretty hard.
But that painter is not the equivalent of the bar band. It's the equivalent
of the corporate artists. Again, this represents just a handful of artists.
> Why is it a strange concept? Shall we go ahead and eradicate
> universities as well? After all, people are paying for information
> there.
Actually, when I went to university, I attended class which had teachers
that gave some of their time in exchange of money. However, it was
always ok to copy and use mathematical formula without having to pay
royalties.
> The concept of property, in and of itself, is arbitrary. You've
> just pointed out that intellectual property is also arbitrary.
> Funny how human institutions work that way.
The thing is, if I take your bed away, you have to sleep on the
floor. If I build a bed like yours, you can still sleep on yours.
So why can't I wistle at 2000Hz like you did?
> And that's his right, so long as it is his work in question. But he
> has no "freedom" to use my work.
He doesn't have the freedom todays society, unless he doesn't mind
being sued. But he's arguing that the way it works today is broken.
> So why on earth would any company but the millions into research if
> anyone can wait fro themt o do it, buy one pill, and produce the
> product dirt cheap, making it impossible for the researcher to
> recoup their expenses?
Ever heard of time to market? It's the name of the came in
telecommunication.
> It's arbitrary. And I for one like it.
Sure. But that doesn't mean it is moraly correct. Carl likes to be
very obscenely visual in his insults. He likes it this way. That
doesn't mean it's the best way to socialize.
--
Edward A. Oates
Stephane Boucher wrote:
>
>
> You build a car, you own it. You wistle at 2000Hz, I don't believe you
> own the frequency. You draw a tree on a canvas, you own the canvas,
> and are free to sell it at the price you want. But I don't see why you
> should be able to prevent me from drawing the same tree on my own
> canvas so that I can sell that canvas.
Note that under existing copyright law, anyone can draw the same tree,
but it is a violation of copyright to take a photo of your painting, and
then to sell that photo. I believe it is even a violation to hand copy
your painting, and then to sell it, especially if it is represented as
your original work.
>
> > What about software codes? Lets say I write code for a video
> > game. Do you think I can't own the code? Do you think I shouldn't
> > be able to sell the game for a profit?
>
> You can sell it as much as you want. Ever heard of the Free Software
> Foundation? A great deal of software that is used to build the
> internet is in fact freely available. The founder of the Free Software
> Foundation is in fact against the idea that you can't copy a piece of
> software (what people call piracy, he calls it helping his neighbor by
> giving him a copy). But for a well written explanation, read what
> the man himself says:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/why-free.html
>
> IMPORTANT NOTE: He uses the term "free" in the sens of "freedom",
> rather than "gratis".
>
I happen to disagree with the free soft folks. But they are free to give
their software away. They are not free to give mine away. The argument
that CD's, software, etc. are too expensive so it is OK to take it, is
just silly. Ferraris are expensive, too, and priced well above their
costs of production, but almost no one thinks it should be legal to take
one you happen to see parked on the street.
If I happen to create software, music, a painting, or a photo, it is up
to me to determine how that work is distributed and at what cost. Most
musicians wind up hiring a record company to do the distribution and
pricing,but they are free to make their own CD's if they want. Get your
protools and master list CD, hire discmakers et al, and advertise them
on the internet. Is that too much work? Then hire Capital Records if
they will have you. They'll do that bothersome business work. Don't be
surprised if they get annoyed (and you'll get annoyed, too) if someone
starts distributing your work for free, and even building a potentially
profitable business out of it (Napster!).
Ed, the capitalist.
> --
--
Edweirdo
!!! Remove the adventurous magic word from the
!!! reply to address to send me mail. Sigh...
Edward A. Oates
Stephane Boucher wrote:
>
> An artist could still sell his work (sculpture, painting, CDs) in a
> world where copying would be allowed.
>
> >> Well, you see, prior to the massive use of copyright and IP in the
> >> 20th century, there was art. Music was being written. Sculptures
> >> being made. Books being written.
>
> > By a much narrower class of people, too.
>
> Not really. For instance, 'Dark Eyes' is now pretty much the defacto
> gypsy anthem. And, I'm sure it got shapped from one camp fire party to
> another over the years. Tears (composed by Django and Stephane
> Grapelli is based on a traditional song). Son House and Robert
> Johnson didn't single handedly create blues. It's just that
> historians have put those people in the spotlight.
>
Note that much of the great music of the world was written by court
composers, such as Mozart, Hayden, et al. They got PAID to write the
music,and it was owned by the court. Since there was no such thing as
recording technology, people paid to see each performance. The court
chose not to regulate the use of its property (symphonies, opera, etc.)
by others.
Stephane Boucher
> And since the company you work for owns what you make for it, it
> works for them, too. Does Cisco allow anyone to duplicate their
> hardware and software freely? If not, how come?
You'll have to ask an official cisco spokesperson. I'm not.
> But since an hourly wage is OK, why isn't a contract agreement OK?
> That's what is in place now.
I don't understand where you are going with this.
> They have that power now. No one holds a gun to their head now.
Good. Glad to hear that.
--
Stephane Boucher
> Stephane Boucher <s...@cisco.com> writes:
>> Actually, you are talking from the perspective of the USA.
> Home sweet home.
Sure it is. But the point being that this is not everyone's situation.
> Yes, the government owns that chunk of the economy. Of course, no
> one bad could ever come to rule in Canada. No totalitarian dictator
> or powerful religious, ethnic, or ideological groundswell. Not
> under any circumstances. So the government controlling health care
> is, of coure, a universally good idea without drawback.
You have a strange way to extrapolate things. I simply pointed out
that musicians do have access to healthcare in Canada when someone said
that musicians don't generally have access to health care. I wanted
to point out that this was a narrow minded view coming from the belief
that USA==TheWorld. Someone was arguing that Copyright would allow
more revenue to the artists, and thus would allow them to have something
they don't have such as health care. As it turns out, there are many places
in the world where artists have health care, and this so even though
they are poor.
As for the dictator stuff, there's as much chance the a dictator ends
up running the USA than Canada. It's just that people in the state
think that the USA is as good as it gets... "We are the
world"... Remember that tune? How funny the choice of title was.
> We're wacky about that whole self-determination, private property,
> limited government thing. Although those feelings seem to be
> waning.
What does "waning" mean?
> And I can list for you many friends who are artists for a living who
> would disagree with you.
Sure. I'll even concede that most artists will disagree with me.
However, would they disagree with me that only a handful of artists
get any benefit from the copyright laws?
--
Stephane Boucher
> I happen to disagree with the free soft folks. But they are free to
> give their software away. They are not free to give mine away.
> The
> argument that CD's, software, etc. are too expensive so it is OK to
> take it, is just silly.
I don't think I've been making this argument in this thread.
> Ferraris are expensive, too, and priced well
> above their costs of production, but almost no one thinks it should
> be legal to take one you happen to see parked on the street.
Sigh! If I take your Ferrari, you don't have one to sit in anymore.
If I whistle at 2000hz, you can still whistle at 2000hz.
> If I happen to create software, music, a painting, or a photo, it is
> up to me to determine how that work is distributed and at what
> cost.
In TODAY's legal system it is. Geeze guys, please take time to read.
I haven't been saying that in TODAY's legal system I can legally copy
Courtney's CD. I'm suggesting copyright is a broken concept. And as a
response you guys tell me something that amount to "I disagree. In
today's legal system you can't copy Courtney's CD without her
permission". I.e. I'm saying "The system is broken". And you are
responding "I disagree. The system works as follow".
Cheers,
--
Stephane Boucher
> Note that much of the great music of the world was written by court
> composers, such as Mozart, Hayden, et al.
Says who?
--
Alec Horgan
> Possibly both. Look, I don't think the record industry is blameless, but
> the noton that the artists are victims is nonsense. They sign contracts.
> I'm tired of people who enter into willful agreements which make them
> money being labeled as victims.
Matt, do you know what a deal memo is? You
might want to find out.
Alec
Matthew Ivaliotes
>This has been said many times: Concerts, sales of painting,
>teaching. I.e. getting paid for services and goods as oposed to
>being paid for information.
Well then Cisco will have no problem with people making duplicates of
their hardware, since the plans for that hardware are information, and as
such should be free.
>An artist could still sell his work (sculpture, painting, CDs) in a
>world where copying would be allowed.
Yes. And get a lot less net income. I'll mention to painter friends how
irrelevant print revenue is to them. What about graphic artists, whose
work is *very* easily reporduced? Why would their pape be any more
valuable than someone else's?
>> By a much narrower class of people, too.
>Not really. For instance, 'Dark Eyes' is now pretty much the defacto
>gypsy anthem. And, I'm sure it got shapped from one camp fire party to
>another over the years. Tears (composed by Django and Stephane
>Grapelli is based on a traditional song). Son House and Robert
>Johnson didn't single handedly create blues. It's just that
>historians have put those people in the spotlight.
Sure. But you're now saying that them poor people will be allowed their
folk music, but only the rich will be allowed to make anything else.
>Art did not come from a narrow class of people. The classic art that
>is well known today come from a narrow class of people. Just like the
>pop art of Courtney Love and friend comes from a narrow class of
>people.
I re-phrase it this way: If the majority of the artists themselves choose
what you're talking about, then great. I doubt it will happen, because it
will hurt them on the whole to do so.
>They are a way now for corporations. But that way is breaking down.
No, not for corporations. For anyone. I write. I can write a book, send
it to a publisher for review, and they can't just print it without paying
me. How, in the 'new' paradigm, will that be mediated?
>Well, yes it is piracy/theft in todays legal paradigm.
Sure is. And as such, it is crime.
>... it's always been the case that people are afraid of changes and
>the unknown that change represent. It follows that they feel more
>secure with how things are in the present.
Yes, but if the changes happen outside the concept of rule of law, then
legitimacy is threatened.
>Life if is full of choices you have to make. For instance, I'd like
>to travel the world. In my mind, I can't afford it now. But would
>you be kind enough to pay it for me?
No. So what's your point? Your travel is not work. Your travel provides
no value to me. But if you write a song and I record it an sell copies
and make some money, and people don't buy tickets for a show, you're
screwed. Many rap artists are hurt by Napster and angry because they
*can't* draw people to shows in large enough numbers to make a big tour
possible, so they're better off making money form recordings.
>But again, I'd point out that a human doesn't need much to have a good
>life. It's just that we live in this crazy world where we have to have
>a house, a car, 20 guitars, 10 amps, a beautiful lawn, the latest
>greatest lawnmower, etc. etc. If your art is important to you, I
>have no doubt that you can make things work. However, you'll need
>to change your expectations and goals. But those are your choices, not
>your rights.
All I can say in response is that youc an say the exact same thing about
any number of labors of love. You're just trying to economically devalue
on in particular.
And for authors, your solution is perfectly inadequate. If an author
can't protect a book, there will be absolutel zero money paid to that
author, whether they write a book that a million read or not.
>> Sure. But why it is that you feel people should not be compensated
>> for their labor, you've not yet expressed.
>??? I actually have no problem with people being compensated for their
>labor. Never said I had a problem.
So long as their labor is not represented by 'information.' I write
abook. You feel you should be able to copy and sell that book without
paying me.
>It's because in your mind, copyrights
>are how artists get compensated. So when I say that copyrights could
>just as well be ditched, you conclude that I'm saying that artists
>should be compensated for their labor.
Oh, you;re just devaluating their compensation. "Sure, you can sell that
one painting. But any old Joe with a camera and a printing press can make
millions selling prints of it, and you don't get a dime."
>Copyright has little to do with it. They get their money from people
>who pay a cover charge to attend the live show...
Not all artists. I know plenty of counterexamples, people who's sales
revenue was quite significant to their income.
>If you build a car. It's yours. If you wistle at 2000Hz, you
>don't own that frequency. If you paint a tree on a canvas, the canvas
>is yours. But I can paint the same tree on my canvas.
And you can xerox copy my novel onto your paper and sell it. Fantastic.
>Anyways, I have to bail out of this thread because it is too time
>consuming, and experience tells me from watching similar threads in
>software newsgroup that it quickly becomes an endless circular debate.
Fine. When you come from an idealized perspective, that happens.
Matthew Ivaliotes
>But that painter is not the equivalent of the bar band. It's the equivalent
>of the corporate artists. Again, this represents just a handful of artists.
Ever been to a local crafts sale? I've seen *many* artists selling their
own prints. It's not that difficult to make a decent print any more. And
once again, you're tossing the principle aside because as far as you're
concerned, it doesn't matter who has the right to the property, it's what
you think is convenient that matters.
>Actually, when I went to university, I attended class which had teachers
>that gave some of their time in exchange of money. However, it was
>always ok to copy and use mathematical formula without having to pay
>royalties.
No one owned it. :) But there have been many controversies which are as
yet unresolved about selling a professor's tecahing notes, for instance,
without permission.
>The thing is, if I take your bed away, you have to sleep on the
>floor. If I build a bed like yours, you can still sleep on yours.
>So why can't I wistle at 2000Hz like you did?
You're using an extremely simplistic example, and I'll counter with a
complex one: you can't write the exact same novel I write, verbatim,
either. How would you compensate novelists?
>He doesn't have the freedom todays society, unless he doesn't mind
>being sued. But he's arguing that the way it works today is broken.
And I think he's wrong. I think there's room for creators who *wish* to
give their intellectual property away as well as those tho do not wish to
do so. The intent toward an exclusive system is not mine.
>> So why on earth would any company but the millions into research if
>> anyone can wait fro themt o do it, buy one pill, and produce the
>> product dirt cheap, making it impossible for the researcher to
>> recoup their expenses?
>Ever heard of time to market? It's the name of the came in
>telecommunication.
And wouldn't mean a damn thing by comparison in pharmaceuticals. If I
create a cure for some sort of heart condition, are people going to stop
coming down with it after the two months (more like weeks) it takes for
another company (one which pays for no research, but sits back with a
ready factory and waits for others to come up with stuff) to start up
production. Sorry, doesn't fly.
>> It's arbitrary. And I for one like it.
>Sure. But that doesn't mean it is moraly correct.
And you fell it's morally correct to see a great novel, copy it a thousand
times, and sell the copies without giving the author a dime.
>Carl likes to be
>very obscenely visual in his insults. He likes it this way. That
>doesn't mean it's the best way to socialize.
But it also doesn't mean that the law should take away his right to do it.
Matthew Ivaliotes
>>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Ivaliotes <lo...@uiuc.edu> writes:
>> And since the company you work for owns what you make for it, it
>> works for them, too. Does Cisco allow anyone to duplicate their
>> hardware and software freely? If not, how come?
>You'll have to ask an official cisco spokesperson. I'm not.
I cna answer for them without being a spokesperson. They'd sue any
company blind for copying their hardware designs.
>> But since an hourly wage is OK, why isn't a contract agreement OK?
>> That's what is in place now.
>I don't understand where you are going with this.
Never mind.
>> They have that power now. No one holds a gun to their head now.
>Good. Glad to hear that.
So it's a non-issue. People who want to give away their work can. People
who don't aren't forced to. Done deal.
Matthew Ivaliotes
>Sure it is. But the point being that this is not everyone's situation.
Explain to me for whom it is a bad thing that novelists can't have their
work duplicated a million times without getting paid for it.
>You have a strange way to extrapolate things. I simply pointed out
>that musicians do have access to healthcare in Canada when someone said
>that musicians don't generally have access to health care. I wanted
>to point out that this was a narrow minded view coming from the belief
>that USA==TheWorld.
And in doing so, you blew right past the point of the assertion that
musicians don't have health care. The issue was that they could not
*afford* health care. Canada socializing the health care system (a bad
idea, IMO) is tangential to the fact that the musiicans about which that
person was speaking weren't making a lot of money.
>Someone was arguing that Copyright would allow
>more revenue to the artists, and thus would allow them to have something
>they don't have such as health care. As it turns out, there are many places
>in the world where artists have health care, and this so even though
>they are poor.
Which is irrelevant to whether or not the artist has a right to be
compensated for their work. Again, the health care issue was brought up
in order to point out that there are needs which can go unmet if a person
isn't given fair value for their work.
>As for the dictator stuff, there's as much chance the a dictator ends
>up running the USA than Canada.
Right. But the less the government controls, the less power it can
wield in the hands of a despot. And the more controlthe government has
over people, the more control it can seize without military action by
using one area of control to leverage others.
>It's just that people in the state
>think that the USA is as good as it gets... "We are the
>world"... Remember that tune? How funny the choice of title was.
>What does "waning" mean?
Reducing in intensity. Fading.
>Sure. I'll even concede that most artists will disagree with me.
>However, would they disagree with me that only a handful of artists
>get any benefit from the copyright laws?
Who cares? And yes, I think they would. I've known artists whose work
was stolen, and the only way they could put a stop to it was invoking
copyright law. Some were even compensated for the theft. So they're not
all making millions. So what?
Matthew Ivaliotes
>>>>>> "Edward" == Edward A Oates <eoa...@mindspring.com> writes:
>> up to me to determine how that work is distributed and at what
>> cost.
>In TODAY's legal system it is. Geeze guys, please take time to read.
No, he's stating an absolute feeling.
>I haven't been saying that in TODAY's legal system I can legally copy
>Courtney's CD. I'm suggesting copyright is a broken concept.
And we're arguing that this is a wrong-headed notion.
>And as a
>response you guys tell me something that amount to "I disagree. In
>today's legal system you can't copy Courtney's CD without her
>permission". I.e. I'm saying "The system is broken". And you are
>responding "I disagree. The system works as follow".
No, we're saying "No, it isn't broken. I have a *right* to the benefits
of my work, and the current system protects that right. Your proposed new
paradigm is based on a *wrong* notion."
Matthew Ivaliotes
>Matt, do you know what a deal memo is? You
>might want to find out.
How's about explaining it, and how someone has a gun held to their head as
part of the process.
Stephane Boucher
> Well then Cisco will have no problem with people making duplicates
> of their hardware, since the plans for that hardware are
> information, and as such should be free.
I'm talking about how I think things SHOULD be. And you are asking me
how things are. It would be useful if we actually talked about the
same thing.
As to your question, I'm not a Cisco spokesperson, so I cannot comment
on your affirmation.
> Yes. And get a lot less net income. I'll mention to painter
> friends how irrelevant print revenue is to them.
Where did I say it was irrelevant?
> What about graphic
> artists, whose work is *very* easily reporduced? Why would their
> pape be any more valuable than someone else's?
You see, you focus on how things are today, and what would be lost
if things changed. When you change a system, there are losses and gains.
However, when you change a system you weigh the pros and cons, and
try to find something that is moraly correct. In a world without
copyright, it's obvious that people would have to adjust. But there
wasn't always copyright in our world, and people still lived.
> Sure. But you're now saying that them poor people will be allowed
> their folk music, but only the rich will be allowed to make anything
> else.
Eh??? How do you come up with those?
> I re-phrase it this way: If the majority of the artists themselves
> choose what you're talking about, then great. I doubt it will
> happen, because it will hurt them on the whole to do so.
Which artists are you talking about? You have yet to disagree with me
that copyright laws benefit only a handful of artists. So, thus far
I've been assuming that you agree with this statement.
> No, not for corporations. For anyone. I write. I can write a
> book, send it to a publisher for review, and they can't just print
> it without paying me. How, in the 'new' paradigm, will that be
> mediated?
In theory, in todays world, that's how it work. But again, how many
artists get to benefit from the copyright laws?
>> Well, yes it is piracy/theft in todays legal paradigm.
> Sure is. And as such, it is crime.
Yes. What's your point?
> Yes, but if the changes happen outside the concept of rule of law,
> then legitimacy is threatened.
The law isn't the end in itself. The law is there to help make society
better. From times to times laws need to be changed. Of course, laws
are also shapped by interest groups, sometimes in good ways, sometimes
in bad ways. But laws are tools, not an end in itself.
Also, I haven't been suggesting that we should disregard unlawful
actions. I'm just saying that I think the copyright law is bogus.
The wave of copying being seen on the net just outlines, IMO, that
the copyright law is bogus.
> No. So what's your point? Your travel is not work. Your travel
> provides no value to me. But if you write a song and I record it an
> sell copies and make some money, and people don't buy tickets for a
> show, you're screwed. Many rap artists are hurt by Napster and
> angry because they *can't* draw people to shows in large enough
> numbers to make a big tour possible, so they're better off making
> money form recordings.
Why do you keep throwing at me that copying changes the landscape of
revenues? It does. So what? I'm fully aware of this. And it's with
that knowledge that I still believe the copyright law is bogus.
Your premiss is that people expect and are entitled to have royalties,
and thus a system precludes this is hurtfull. Given those expectation,
yes it would be hurtful. But I don't believe people should expect
or believe it is their rights to get royalties. So, in that context,
it is not hurtfull to change how the revenues are obtained.
> All I can say in response is that youc an say the exact same thing
> about any number of labors of love. You're just trying to
> economically devalue on in particular.
What are those labors? And which one in particular am I devaluating?
> And for authors, your solution is perfectly inadequate.
Which authors?
> If an
> author can't protect a book, there will be absolutel zero money paid
> to that author, whether they write a book that a million read or
> not.
So?
> So long as their labor is not represented by 'information.' I write
> abook. You feel you should be able to copy and sell that book
> without paying me.
Sure. But in order to copy it, I'll need access to the original. You
have control over the original, and you can negotiate proper
compensation for the hours you worked on it.
> Oh, you;re just devaluating their compensation. "Sure, you can sell
> that one painting. But any old Joe with a camera and a printing
> press can make millions selling prints of it, and you don't get a
> dime."
So? How many people feel sorry for using Einstein's work? With all due
respect, he worked more than you'll ever do to accomplish what he did.
> Not all artists. I know plenty of counterexamples, people who's
> sales revenue was quite significant to their income.
If you say so. I know 20 times more examples to counter your examples.
>> If you build a car. It's yours. If you wistle at 2000Hz, you don't
>> own that frequency. If you paint a tree on a canvas, the canvas is
>> yours. But I can paint the same tree on my canvas.
> And you can xerox copy my novel onto your paper and sell it.
> Fantastic.
Of course, but I'll need your novel in the first place to do it. So
you do have enough control to at least ensure that you can negotiate
compensation for the hours you spent working on it before the world
gets it.
--
Stephane Boucher
> Explain to me for whom it is a bad thing that novelists can't have
> their work duplicated a million times without getting paid for it.
I can't, because from your perspective and how you see the world it is
bad.
> And in doing so, you blew right past the point of the assertion that
> musicians don't have health care.
Not really. I said musicians do have health care. They really do in
Canada and most of europe. (although in the USA they don't, and this
is dispite the existence of copyright which you say is supposed to
help them get it)
> Which is irrelevant to whether or not the artist has a right to be
> compensated for their work. Again, the health care issue was
> brought up in order to point out that there are needs which can go
> unmet if a person isn't given fair value for their work.
Tough world. But why single out artists as individuals who need
enough revenue to "meet all needs". There are lots of people in
this world who are worst off than the average artist.
> Right. But the less the government controls, the less power it can
> wield in the hands of a despot. And the more controlthe government
> has over people, the more control it can seize without military
> action by using one area of control to leverage others.
While I don't have an in depth knowledge of the constitutions of every
country (nor do you), I'm quite sure that the apocaliptic scenario you
describe is not less likely to happen in the USA than in Canada.
--
Stephane Boucher
> No, he's stating an absolute feeling.
"Absolute" to mean its the truth? "Absolute" to mean everyon thinks that?
> And we're arguing that this is a wrong-headed notion.
Yes, I figured that part Matt. It's just that you are then stating
the current situation as an explanation.
> No, we're saying "No, it isn't broken. I have a *right* to the
> benefits of my work, and the current system protects that right.
> Your proposed new paradigm is based on a *wrong* notion."
Ironically, the system you say is working is in fact not. The movie
and music industry is going nuts over various things, and while they'll
win battles they're losing the war. So it appears that the "good guys"
are losing. So how is the system working?
Cheers,
--
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[...]
[] Today, on the evening news, they were featuring a story on
[] this topic. There were two college students who were on camera,
[] harvesting "free" music from the internet. One of them said: "Why
[] should I have to pay for art? Art should be free for the people".
Yeah. I'm getting sick of the family photographs on my wall at home. I
think I'll just go down to the art gallery and grab a few oils. I sure
hope the don't think about asking money from me, 'cause I got'a few
things to tell'em about THAT stupid idea. Those galleries are asking
way too much money for those paintings. The cheapest one was $750
(though the one I liked was $2,500). Why should I have to pay that
much for a painting?!?
[] If I was a recording artist, I would be absolutely incensed at
[] these goings-on.
Hey, that's illegal, ain't it?
--
"You haven't lived until you've sucked brown liquor
from the spit valve on a real man's tuba, bro."
-- Stevie Dan Stanley
Remove X's from my email address above to reply
[These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[...why should artists earn anything from their artistry...]
[] > Maybe because they worked to create something,
[]
[] Well, you see, they don't have to be artists. There are many ways to
[] earn a living.
Why should other professions be different then? How about the
insurance agent, the short order cook and the guy who runs the plastic
extruder machine creating plastic cases for boom-boxes -- are you
assuming that these people should be paid?
[] Some people will say that if you don't pay the
[] artists, you won't have any art, and that's utter bullshit.
I'll tell you one thing, I know a lot of artists with families that
would give up art. So then the only artists would be those who would
be okay with living in noble poverty. People who must have another
career to have a family will find little energy for their art.
[] You are making the assumption that ownership is a given and that it is
[] the only right way to go about it. But to me it isn't.
You know, there are very few artists who will go along with you here.
Basically, your position is a political one, not a question of common
artist philosophy.
[] If someone comes up with some math formula, it can't be owned, but if
[] someone comes up with a melody it can be owned? This is nonsense to
[] me.
A math formula can certainly be owned if it meets certain patent
criteria. The same is true with melody.
Chris
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] Also, I think the best work people do is the one being done because
[] they enjoy doing it, rather than the work they do to get paid.
[] It is a very capitalistic view to say that you need money to do great
[] things.
That's overly idealist The reality is probably more that the artist
will not be able to function well as they artist, won't be able to
focus on the art that they love so much if they have too much stress
from the strife of poverty. There are artists that thrive in that sort
of environment, but that is their choice, not one foisted upon them by
a paradigm
[] But, where did blues come from? Where did Classical music come from?
[] etc. etc. In one way or another, there was always something to drive
[] someone to write music.
The blues artists were used and abuse, which is why we have the
copyright laws that we have today (as flawed as they are). Some of the
great classical music came from composers who were sponsored by the
court. While you can make a good point that many in both genres
continued to do so without support, it really doesn't follow that this
makes sense in today's world, or tomorrow's.
[] Again, how many musicians actually make
[] a decent living by copyrighting their compositions?
That's a good point, but that's the fault of the copyright laws *as*
they exist now, not *because* they exist. I think that they should be
better written to compensate the artists much more fairly.
When that happens, who knows--perhaps concert tickets won't cost 150
freakin' dollars as it's getting to now.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] Keyser Soze wrote:
[] > On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:53:36 -0400, Ron Thompson <thom...@tc.faa.gov>
[] >
[] > >Because of my dedicated committment to persuing a high quality product
[] > >that is at once effective for our stakeholders and maintenance-friendly,
[] > >ensuring a life-cycle free from unscheduled downtime and obsolesence from
[] > >birth, leaving myself and my diverse team plenty of room for brainstorming
[] > >more effective ways of utilizing cutting edge hardware and positive growth
[] > >software coupled with intelligent interfacing in this, the new millenium.
[] >
[] > Admit it. You stole that from Dilbert.
[]
[] No, I didn't. It was composed as I typed. A pentatonic wanking of sorts.
Ohmygod yer a natural. But don't worry, we have procedures to help
save you from that. It has something to do with beer, amps and
hibachis...
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] In article <3948DD38...@mindspring.com>, salv...@mindspring.com
[] says...
[] > If we accept that 'Net technology makes copyrights difficult
[] > to enforce, how will artists see _any_ returns on their works?
[]
[] Live performances and merchandising. There has always been more money in
[] that any way.
Man, this is so contrary to the what I've been led to believe. Yeah,
there are big ticket tours now that earn millions for a select few,
but the guys playing the zoo for $8 a head, man, they ain't gonna
clear anything if they bring the band along.
If you read Cortney Loves article quoted at the beginning of this
thread, you'll see that a lot of new artists on big labels have a lot
of cash to recoup before they have anything called income.
So who's making great dough on tours (because the very few elite such
as the Stones)? And if you can come up with examples, can you really
say that it's the norm?
Chris
S. Hart
<salv...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Stephane Boucher wrote:
>
>> Also, I think the best work people do is the one being done because
>> they enjoy doing it, rather than the work they do to get paid.
>> It is a very capitalistic view to say that you need money to do great
>> things.
>
>There is a difference between living marginally and having wages
>that afford health care, savings, & retirement funds.
>
>Most artists achieve the former but seldom rise to the latter.
That's not much of an argument for the current system.
>What would you propose to ensure fair recompense?
It will have to be a system based almost entirely on pay for
performance, as it was before mechanical recordings were
possible, and as it currently is for the 99.9% of musicians
who haven't escaped indentured servant status.
Or, the record companies could redirect the millions they're
spending on legal representation into buying a controlling
stake in Napster, change the interface slightly to include
some form of commercial advertisement, pay the artists their
fraction of a penny for each download (the loss of which all
these whiners are claiming is some sign of impending doom),
and let the downloaders legally do what they're going to do
anyway.
S. Hart
Ivaliotes) wrote:
>Stephane Boucher <s...@cisco.com> writes:
[snip]
>>As for the dictator stuff, there's as much chance the a dictator ends
>>up running the USA than Canada.
>
>Right. But the less the government controls, the less power it can
>wield in the hands of a despot. And the more controlthe government has
>over people, the more control it can seize without military action by
>using one area of control to leverage others.
Yet, change the word "government" to "corporations" in the
above, and your nonchalant response is, "So? Nobody's
putting a gun to their head."
S. Hart
>
> Keyser Soze wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:53:36 -0400, Ron Thompson <thom...@tc.faa.gov>
> >
> >>Because of my dedicated committment to persuing a high quality product
> >>that is at once effective for our stakeholders and maintenance-friendly,
> >>ensuring a life-cycle free from unscheduled downtime and obsolesence from
> >>birth, leaving myself and my diverse team plenty of room for brainstorming
> >>more effective ways of utilizing cutting edge hardware and positive growth
> >>software coupled with intelligent interfacing in this, the new millenium.
>
> > Admit it. You stole that from Dilbert.
>
> No, I didn't. It was composed as I typed. A pentatonic wanking of sorts.
The tone on that was *SCHWEET*, bro. Is that the new
"Custom" Vintage *Noiseless* Keyboard you're using?
Edward A. Oates
But it is a fact that Mozart, Hayden, and many other composers of the
Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods wrote for various sponsors,
including nobility. Much of today's music is written for sponsors, too:
record companies. The compensation scheme has changed somewhat, in that
the artists now "own" their works if that's the deal they worked out.
Ed.
Stephane Boucher wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Edward" == Edward A Oates <eoa...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> > Note that much of the great music of the world was written by court
> > composers, such as Mozart, Hayden, et al.
>
> Says who?
>
> --
--
S. Hart
<Xchr...@microsoft.comX> wrote:
>So Nicholas Delonas <del...@cultv.com> wuz saying::
>[] In article <3948DD38...@mindspring.com>, salv...@mindspring.com
>[] says...
>[] > If we accept that 'Net technology makes copyrights difficult
>[] > to enforce, how will artists see _any_ returns on their works?
>[]
>[] Live performances and merchandising. There has always been more money in
>[] that any way.
>
>Man, this is so contrary to the what I've been led to believe. Yeah,
>there are big ticket tours now that earn millions for a select few,
>but the guys playing the zoo for $8 a head, man, they ain't gonna
>clear anything if they bring the band along.
So how are they surviving right now? Are you telling me the
little guys have a better record deal than the megatour
people and are living off income derived from the
recordings? Get real.
>If you read Cortney Loves article quoted at the beginning of this
>thread, you'll see that a lot of new artists on big labels have a lot
>of cash to recoup before they have anything called income.
But that money's all in the (bogus, inflated) mechanical
recording, distribution, and promotional costs charged by
the record companies, none of which are going to matter or
exist if widespread "piracy" prevails.
>So who's making great dough on tours (because the very few elite such
>as the Stones)?
There are more people than I can name playing smaller venues
nationwide and making a living at it.
Les Cargill
Richard wrote:
>
> According to my newsreader, Jack A. Zucker (j...@gwis.com) said:
> > Oh yeah - Those poor rock stars. How in the world do they manage...
> >
> > For a real dose of reality, have them practice 6 hours a day for 25 years
> > and make a living playing 2 nights a week for $50 / night in jazz clubs
> > while driving a cab and doing bar mitzvahs on the side.
> >
> > I really feel sorry for Courtney...
>
> ...actually, over the course of the entire article I thought she made a
> lot of sense. (All that means is that I thought her argument was self-
> consistent. :)
>
> Courtney--who I have never been able to stand until I read this article--
> broadly outlines a system where all musicians will be paid what they're
> worth. Not a bad idea, IMO.
It's pretty much a rehash of an article written by Steve Albini.
>
> --
> Disclaimer: These are simply some of my personal opinions.
> ObURL: http://home.earthlink.net/~huddler
>
> "Cognitive dissonance is your best friend."
Les Cargill
Stephane Boucher wrote:
<snip>
> I think businesses based on copyrights or intellectual properties
> are now just living on borrowed time.
I think things will change, but as usual, not very much.
> They can't win the battle
> against the Internet/digital information era.
I don't think there is a battle. Just a bunch of opinions.
> In the 19th century
> I don't believe there where too many making any kind of money
> from copyrighted work.
There were from patents. And don't kid yourself, there were
powerful publishers around within their domain. Hearst alone was
one of the most powerful men in history. Granted, he operated
in the 20th century too, but newspapers are a 19th century thing.
> That business came about in the 20th century.
> And sometimes during the 21th century, it's going to disappear.
>
We'll see. IMO, intellectual property is very hard to justify ethically
in terms of other ethical constructs. It's sorta posulated. But
now it's part of the furniture. It'll be painful going back.
> I'd suggest the following reading:
>
> http://old.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/anarchism.html
>
> It talks about software, but it could just as well be talking about
> music. In fact, one example deals with music:
>
> "...
> But the widespread adoption of digital technology for use by
> those who do not understand the principles of its operation,
> while it apparently licenses the broad metaphoric employment of
> "software," does not in fact permit us to ignore the computers
> that are now everywhere underneath our social skin. The
> movement from analog to digital is more important for the
> structure of social and legal relations than the more famous if
> less certain movement from status to contract [5]. This is bad
> news for those legal thinkers who do not understand it, which
> is why so much pretending to understand now goes so floridly
> on. Potentially, however, our great transition is very good
> news for those who can turn this new-found land into property
> for themselves. Which is why the current "owners" of software
> so strongly support and encourage the ignorance of everyone
> else. Unfortunately for them - for reasons familiar to legal
> theorists who haven't yet understood how to apply their
> traditional logic in this area - the trick won't work. This
> paper explains why [6].
>
> We need to begin by considering the technical essence of the
> familiar devices that surround us in the era of "cultural
> software." A CD player is a good example. Its primary input is
> a bitstream read from an optical storage disk. The bitstream
> describes music in terms of measurements, taken 44,000 times
> per second, of frequency and amplitude in each of two audio
> channels. The player's primary output is analog audio signals
> [7]. Like everything else in the digital world, music as seen
> by a CD player is mere numeric information; a particular
> recording of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony recorded by Arturo
> Toscanini and the NBC Symphony Orchestra and Chorale is (to
> drop a few insignificant digits) 1276749873424, while Glenn
> Gould's peculiarly perverse last recording of the Goldberg
> Variations is (similarly rather truncated) 767459083268.
>
> Oddly enough, these two numbers are "copyrighted."
Huh? The whole 5.2 billion-odd-bit number ( meaning the bitstream representing
the whole CD) is copyrighted. Not just the last few digits. The copyright
also applies to an analog version of the same recording. These are also
copyrighted as sound recordings, so the number is meaningless outside
that context.
> This means,
> supposedly, that you can't possess another copy of these
> numbers, once fixed in any physical form, unless you have
> licensed them. And you can't turn 767459083268 into 2347895697
> for your friends (thus correcting Gould's ridiculous judgment
> about tempi) without making a "derivative work," for which a
> license is necessary.
>
> At the same time, a similar optical storage disk contains
> another number, let us call it 7537489532. This one is an
> algorithm for linear programming of large systems with multiple
> constraints, useful for example if you want to make optimal use
> of your rolling stock in running a freight railroad. This
> number (in the U.S.) is "patented," which means you cannot
> derive 7537489532 for yourself, or otherwise "practice the art"
> of the patent with respect to solving linear programming
> problems no matter how you came by the idea, including finding
> it out for yourself, unless you have a license from the
> number's owner.
>
> Then there's 9892454959483. This one is the source code for
> Microsoft Word. In addition to being "copyrighted," this one is
> a trade secret. That means if you take this number from
> Microsoft and give it to anyone else you can be punished.
>
> Lastly, there's 588832161316. It doesn't do anything, it's just
> the square of 767354. As far as I know, it isn't owned by
> anybody under any of these rubrics. Yet.
>
> ..."
> --
As generally happens with the law, those who put their money where their mouth
is will make the decision for us.
--
http://home.att.net/~lcargill
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] I'm not paid royalty on the software I write.
Not a valid comparison. You get regular guaranteed paychecks.
A artist on contract may get an advance, but there's a completely
different future cost and pay structure layin' in their future.
Dan Stanley
"Keyser Soze" <back...@netexpress.net> wrote in message
news:E10A98370D0B9D6E.549C14AC...@lp.airnews.net...
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> On 15 Jun 2000 16:18:27 -0400, Stephane Boucher <s...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> >But again, I'd point out that a human doesn't need much to have a good
> >life. It's just that we live in this crazy world where we have to have
> >a house, a car, 20 guitars, 10 amps, a beautiful lawn, the latest
> >greatest lawnmower, etc. etc. If your art is important to you, I
> >have no doubt that you can make things work. However, you'll need
> >to change your expectations and goals. But those are your choices, not
> >your rights.
>
> go beyond those items on your list? Are they to be allowed to pursue
> them? Is this a right? I certainly think it is.
>
> If I feel that I absolutely "need" a Ferrari, than I may work
> as hard as I can in pursuit of that goal.
Nonononononono! All wrong! If you feel that you absolutely NEED a Ferrari,
you should pule and whinge until the world GIVES you one. Man, I am
surprised...nay, SHOCKED! SHOCKED and SADDENED!...that I have to explain
this to you!
Kids these days...
SDan
Stephane Boucher
> a. You're comparing apples to sandpaper.
> b. Canada has socialized, rationed healthcare.
> c. The U.S. is a capitalistic society. Thus, if somebody
> wants healthcare, they must pay for it. (For the most
> part). There's no big-brother to "help out".
Hmmm. Someone said Artists usually can't get health care. I pointed
out that they do in many parts of the world.
I leave it up to you to decide which country you think has a better
health care system.
But just out of curiosity, where does big brother gets the money to
pay for health care?
--
Stephane Boucher
> You know, there are very few artists who will go along with you
> here.
Yep. I do know. Ditching copyrights wouldn't give them
anything. Keeping it, gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling that they
might someday get something out of it.
> Basically, your position is a political one, not a question
> of common artist philosophy.
Not really. I look at what is happening today in the world. I see an
increasing amount of lawsuit related to the circulation of material on
the net. The DeCSS is one example of a frivolous lawsuit used as a
scare tactic by the movie industry. And while the music industry and
movie industry are and will be winning battles, they will loose the
war.
Both in any event, I personnally play by todays rules simply to
stay out of trouble. If nothing else, I can't trust lawyers.
> A math formula can certainly be owned if it meets certain patent
> criteria. The same is true with melody.
Are you sure you want to bring up patents? :-)
--
Dan Stanley
"Stephane Boucher" <s...@cisco.com> wrote in message
news:1fsd7li...@ott-view1.cisco.com...
> >>>>> "Keyser" == Keyser Soze <back...@netexpress.net> writes:
>
> > a. You're comparing apples to sandpaper.
> > b. Canada has socialized, rationed healthcare.
> > c. The U.S. is a capitalistic society. Thus, if somebody
> > wants healthcare, they must pay for it. (For the most
> > part). There's no big-brother to "help out".
>
> Hmmm. Someone said Artists usually can't get health care. I pointed
> out that they do in many parts of the world.
Serious question: Who gets to decide if someone is an artist? Can someone
just claim to be an artist, and then get all these benefits? Or do you have
to produce something? Or do you have to produce something someone wants? Or
do you have to produce something the people who decide you ARE an artist
like?
Stephane Boucher
> [] Again, how many musicians actually make [] a decent living by
> copyrighting their compositions?
> That's a good point, but that's the fault of the copyright laws *as*
> they exist now, not *because* they exist. I think that they should
> be better written to compensate the artists much more fairly.
Ignoring the ever increasing circulation of movies/music on the net
for a moment, what more do you want to put in the hands of artists?
The copyright laws are already supposed to give them control over the
distribution of their "work" already.
Are you suggesting that Uncle Sam pass laws to minimze the abuse that
the "poor" musicians have to face? I mean on one hand its horrible to
have this "health care big brother" in Canada but it is ok to have an
"Artists' big brother" to ensure they get enough revenue?
I find this really amusing. "If you want health care, pay for it, or else
screw you. But if you are an artist, then we're going to find
something for you. It's just to hard for me to live with the tought
that you might not be able to pay for health care".
> When that happens, who knows--perhaps concert tickets won't cost 150
> freakin' dollars as it's getting to now.
Most - actually ALL - of the concerts I attend are small venues or
Festivals. I'm am EXTREMELY happy to pay the price they are asking
because I know it helps those artists. Yet, it never comes close to
the price you mention. Although I have been in the past to "Intl'
artists" show, I don't anymore.
My next scheduled gig is Angelo Debarre in Montreal (I knew I'd be
able to bring up gypsy jazz in this thread :-)). It's 25$Can.
I'm glad to pay for this. Then, that same week I'm driving to
Quebec city for some more Angelo, and some Romane, Stochelo Rosenberg
and a few others I'm sure I'll discover.
I'm all for paying the artists that I like, and I do spend money. But
I don't buy the argument that the copyright law is noticeably helping
a significant number of artists.
--
Stephane Boucher
> x-no-archive: yes On 15 Jun 2000 16:46:03 -0400, Stephane Boucher
> <s...@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> Note that much of the great music of the world was written by
>>> court composers, such as Mozart, Hayden, et al.
>> Says who?
> Well me for one. I'll take Mozart, Hayden et al over the
> popular music of today anytime. (IMO), of course.
Well, me too. But I think I'll take gypsy music over those classic
composers. My point being that there is great music in this world
that was written by non court composers. Such music lent itself well
to not be forgotten over time. If nothing else, they had to be written
down so that it could be played by the orchestra. If you write it
down, it stands more chance of being preserved hundreds of years.
But that doesn't mean that the music that might have been forgotten
was not as good.
--
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[]
[] So how are they surviving right now? Are you telling me the
[] little guys have a better record deal than the megatour
[] people and are living off income derived from the
[] recordings? Get real.
No, I ain't saying that. I'm just saying that (I thought that) touring
bands (I mean nationally touring) supporting a new CD release are not
making a lot of money on the net tour+merch proceeds.
[] But that money's all in the (bogus, inflated) mechanical
[] recording, distribution, and promotional costs charged by
[] the record companies, none of which are going to matter or
[] exist if widespread "piracy" prevails.
So you advocate piracy? ;^)
[] >So who's making great dough on tours (because the very few elite such
[] >as the Stones)?
[]
[] There are more people than I can name playing smaller venues
[] nationwide and making a living at it.
Then I guess things have changed.
What kind of living, anyways? Could you buy a home, have 2 kids on
that?
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] howldog wrote:
[] >
[] > That being said, if i was a full time musician, feeding my family, and I
[] > found a couple of college kids
[] > free trading hi quality digital pirate copies of my "art", I'd want to yank
[] > their toes out and stuff them up their arses.
[]
[] You never ran an LP off on cassette?
C'mon Les,
LP to cassette transfer isn't anything like High-quality digital
copies (especially if it's a full, non-compressed rip from the CD).
When I used cassettes, I recorded records that I bought, so that I
could listen to them in the car, office, boombox at beach, but I
bought the record. I knew people who would borrow records and record
them, then never buy the record, but I didn't see very much of this.
Chris
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] > prior work.....
[]
[] Prolly Antares Autotune....
Polly Antares Autotune would make a good ghost writer name, no?
Stephane Boucher
> In the last 100 years, technology has improved exponentially.
> It's becomes easier and easier to duplicate something (be it in
> print, or via a recorded medium) - often with perfect results. Thus,
> those artists who earn their living by selling recorded art need
> this type of protection.
See, those artists you are talking about are a handful in the grand
scheme of thing.
>> However, attempting to restrict information is a strange concept
>> that the digital era is in the process of destroying.
> It is not a strange concept at all. Go into any large
> bookstore. See if they get pissed at you for wanting to walk away
> with some "information" (in the printed form), without paying for
> it.
You see, your confusing information with storage medium. If you walk
out with a book you are walking out with the information AND the
storage medium.
> Information is highly profitable.
Sure it is. That's what the present legal system tries to do. That
doesn't necessarily make it right.
> Just because somebody has a
> great idea doesn't mean that it's free domain for all else.
Why not?
> Jay Abraham is the most expensive marketing consultant on the planet. He
> charges $5,000 per hour (and that's on the phone). Obviously what he
> has to say (the information) is very valuble.
Do you mean that if I pay a lawyer to get a legal advise I must refrain
from sharing that information with others?
> I compose a symphony, I own it. Can you perceive the
> difference between that and whistling one pitch?
The only difference is the complexity of the signal. Why is it
that a more complex signal should be copyrightable? Are you suggesting
that a number significantly longer and harder to memorize than, say 25,
should be copyrighteable?
> You create an engineering design for a supertrain. It took you
> 20 years of R&D to fully conceptualize this design. It's your goal
> to sell my design to the highest bidder. Along comes Backcrkr and
> wishes to xerox your design. How would you feel?
Why did you let Backcrkr see your design in the first place?
>> You can sell it as much as you want. Ever heard of the Free
>> Software Foundation? <snip>
> No.
I invite you to check out:
Go in the philosophy section. There are many things written by
Richard Stallman. They are usually well written. Of course,
it is not uncommon that people are shocked by what he proposes.
> It takes 10 years and $300 million dollars to introduce one
> new drug into the marketplace. I don't think the brass at Eli Lilly
> or Proctor & Gamble would want somebody copying their formulas after
> that much of an investment.
I'm sure they don't want. But that doesn't make it right. Although
I've said this many times :-).
> Oh, I think it's very correct. Coca Cola came out with the
> design. They own it. It's theirs. I have no right to steal their
> design and copy-cat it. I look at that as theft.
Ok, then explain to me how it is ok to prevent copying of the Coca
Cola formula, but not the water formula? Or are you suggesting that
it would be ok for someone to own the water formula? Or better yet,
that the Coca Cola is more complex than water much like the symphony
vs 2000hz?
And just to save some time in anticipation that you'll plead complexity,
I'll ask you to tell me at what point a formula starts to be complex
enough to be eligible to copyrighting.
Cheers,
--
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[]
[] Serious question: Who gets to decide if someone is an artist? Can someone
[] just claim to be an artist, and then get all these benefits? Or do you have
[] to produce something? Or do you have to produce something someone wants? Or
[] do you have to produce something the people who decide you ARE an artist
[] like?
<tangent?>
There's this high-falootin' espresso joint here in Seattle (Tony Levin
wrote about it on his web page awhile back) that makes these wonderful
images with the foam on the cappuccino. They do it by reaching down to
the rich espresso with a spoon and pulling it up through the virgin
foam, making several strikes until a leaf appears, or a bird, or
something else. They've taken pictures of several an' put 'em on the
wall, with descriptions.. date, the artist.
But what REALLY pissed me off was when the guy on the other side of
the counter said "That'll be $2.25". Feh. I told him straight off that
art is for the people and should be free! He was not amused.
</>
Chris
Stephane Boucher
>> However, I don't see what's with copying a sequence/combination of
>> frequencies.
> There are 12 subdivisions of the octave in the western system
> of music.
> There are 26 letters in the English language.
> Nobody owns the 12 semitones. Nor do they own the 26 letters.
> It's the creation (based on the 12 semitones or 26 letters) that has
> value.
Hmmm, the difference between a song and the octave is simply complexity.
Does a complex number deserves copy protection?
> Have you seen the movie "A Murder of Crows"? An excellent
> film for sure. And it's relevent to this discussion.
Sorry. I haven't.
>> I work. I'm paid for the hours of work I put in to write software.
>> I'm not paid royalty on the software I write.
> Okay. That's the structure of your compensation. Other people
> are compensated differently. Not everybody needs to be paid by the
> hour. A recording artist gets paid per every unit sold (be it a CD,
> a concert ticket, or a T-shirt).
Again. WHAT PORTION OF ARTISTS actually get any benefit from
the copyright laws?
Also, to go along with your reasonning, a snipper doesn't need to be
paid by the hour. He/She probably wants to be paid by the head count,
and how difficult the mission is. But that does not necessarily make
it right.
--
Stephane Boucher
> If I feel that I absolutely "need" a Ferrari, than I may work
> as hard as I can in pursuit of that goal.
It is your right to chose where you put your money. If you are willing
to sell your house and skip health care to get your dream car, that's
your choice. But don't come back to me whinning that you need more
money for health care.
--
Stephane Boucher
> x-no-archive: yes On 15 Jun 2000 16:53:18 -0400, Stephane Boucher
> <s...@cisco.com> wrote:
>> Sigh! If I take your Ferrari, you don't have one to sit in anymore.
>> If I whistle at 2000hz, you can still whistle at 2000hz.
> That's an inaccurate comparison.
> The one frequency at 200 hz is akin to one bolt.
> The Ferrari is akin to Beethoven's 9th symphony.
> The whole is often greater than the sum of the parts.
What does complexity have to do with it?
--
Stephane Boucher
> Not a valid comparison. You get regular guaranteed paychecks.
Not really guaranteed. If I don't do my job, they fire me, and I no
longer get a paycheck until I find myself another job.
--
Stephane Boucher
> Stephane Boucher wrote: <snip>
>> I think businesses based on copyrights or intellectual properties
>> are now just living on borrowed time.
> I think things will change, but as usual, not very much.
>> They can't win the battle against the Internet/digital information
>> era.
> I don't think there is a battle. Just a bunch of opinions.
I view the lawsuits and lobbying going on as battle.
--
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[]
[] > [] Again, how many musicians actually make [] a decent living by
[] > copyrighting their compositions?
[]
[] > That's a good point, but that's the fault of the copyright laws *as*
[] > they exist now, not *because* they exist. I think that they should
[] > be better written to compensate the artists much more fairly.
[]
[] Ignoring the ever increasing circulation of movies/music on the net
[] for a moment, what more do you want to put in the hands of artists?
[] The copyright laws are already supposed to give them control over the
[] distribution of their "work" already.
For one thing, the royalty rates have only been updated, if I remember
what I read last year, something like ONCE since they were brought
into law early last century.
[] Are you suggesting that Uncle Sam pass laws to minimze the abuse that
[] the "poor" musicians have to face?
Mechanical royalty laws have been around for decades, but the rates
are antiquated.
[] I mean on one hand its horrible to
[] have this "health care big brother" in Canada but it is ok to have an
[] "Artists' big brother" to ensure they get enough revenue?
[]
[] I find this really amusing. "If you want health care, pay for it, or else
[] screw you. But if you are an artist, then we're going to find
[] something for you. It's just to hard for me to live with the tought
[] that you might not be able to pay for health care".
Obtain perspective. There are already many regulations that protect
the people, such as minimum wage and other fair practices at work to
keep people from being taken advantage of to laws that dictate how
regulate the insurance agencies that one has when they do have health
benefits.
[] > When that happens, who knows--perhaps concert tickets won't cost 150
[] > freakin' dollars as it's getting to now.
[]
[] Most - actually ALL - of the concerts I attend are small venues or
[] Festivals. I'm am EXTREMELY happy to pay the price they are asking
[] because I know it helps those artists. Yet, it never comes close to
[] the price you mention. Although I have been in the past to "Intl'
[] artists" show, I don't anymore.
When I was a teen in the '70s, we were outraged by $6 concert
tickets.of big names in arenas. We can still get $10-12 tickets for
known acts doing the bar/club circuit (even national tours). But
anyone with a bigger draw will pull in $15-20 a head for a zoo "on the
lawn" concert, $30-40 for the winery concert series, $50-60 for the
down-town medium-sized venue, $60/85/100 for festivals of big names,
and even more for arena size concerts
[] My next scheduled gig is Angelo Debarre in Montreal (I knew I'd be
[] able to bring up gypsy jazz in this thread :-)). It's 25$Can.
[] I'm glad to pay for this. Then, that same week I'm driving to
[] Quebec city for some more Angelo, and some Romane, Stochelo Rosenberg
[] and a few others I'm sure I'll discover.
I would definitely pay $25CAN to see those acts. But the $30US Gypsy
Kings concerts (I know, not the same as Romane, but an intl act) moved
to another venue and doubled their price to a full $60 general
admission.
[] I'm all for paying the artists that I like, and I do spend money. But
[] I don't buy the argument that the copyright law is noticeably helping
[] a significant number of artists.
It allows a VERY BROAD usage of the materials to be protected. The
artist (or owner of the copyright) will get paid for it's use in all
broadcast mediums. The idealist may think that the art belongs to the
people, but we're talking the art being used by for-profit
organizations, such as radio stations, TV stations, advertisers, DJs,
musak, other people recording the song you own, live performances, and
the list just goes on. And you SHOULD get a little take from everyone
else using your music for their own capitalistic purposes. That's just
part of what these copyright laws protect. The only trouble is that
the rate is just pennies per minute. But if you keep working and
producing more copyright protected material, it ads up. Many years
later, you can reap what you've sown and continue to create the art
that you love without bitterness.
I think that Courtney's tale is a worst-case scenario (tho I don't
doubt that many suffered that fate); that many people (a significant
number) get a contract attorney and do better. Copyright law keeps the
labels from pressuring the artists to sign lesser contracts.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
[] >>>>> "Not" == Not A Speck Of Cereal <Xchr...@microsoft.comX> writes:
[]
[] > here.
[]
[] Yep. I do know. Ditching copyrights wouldn't give them
[] anything. Keeping it, gives them a warm and fuzzy feeling that they
[] might someday get something out of it.
If this is their career and they kept ownership of their materials,
those copyright laws support the contracts.
[] > Basically, your position is a political one, not a question
[] > of common artist philosophy.
[]
[] Not really. I look at what is happening today in the world. I see an
[] increasing amount of lawsuit related to the circulation of material on
[] the net. The DeCSS is one example of a frivolous lawsuit used as a
[] scare tactic by the movie industry.
I dunno what that is.
[] And while the music industry and
[] movie industry are and will be winning battles, they will loose the
[] war.
The artists as well as the big labels? Hm...
[] Both in any event, I personnally play by todays rules simply to
[] stay out of trouble. If nothing else, I can't trust lawyers.
[]
[] > A math formula can certainly be owned if it meets certain patent
[] > criteria. The same is true with melody.
[]
[] Are you sure you want to bring up patents? :-)
Errr,,, uh, never mind.
Stephane Boucher
> Anybody can get health care in the U.S. They simply either
> have to:
> a. Pay for it. b. Go on welfare (and thus, suck on the
> government tit).
So, if its that simple, then why is it that there are plenty of people
who don't have health care? Or are you saying there aren't anyone
without health care in the US?
--