a question for David
Michael Thomas
So David, we all know your take on illegal file sharing, but
I would hope that even if you believe that 12 year olds are
wrong in stealing music online, that it is a grotesque
spectacle to have the RIAA's legions of lawyers pursuing
poorly supervised 12 year olds to sue their parents for
their entire net worth.
My take all along has been that as a vehicle for social
change, file sharing may be a reasonable means to express
consumer discontent with a regressive and nasty business
model that enriches just about nobody except the labels
themselves screwing everybody else in their path. You
disagree. Fine.
At this point, however, a more old fashioned and quite legal
means of protest to my mind seems completely in order: a
wide spread boycott of the industry. As in: don't buy
another CD, record, tape, etc until the industry finally
caves in. As in *veritably* hurt them where it counts. I
think it's high time to call their bluff here and tell them
that it is Not Acceptable to treat their entire customer
base as a pool of unconvicted felons that they can strongarm
blood money out of.
So will you join? I'm completely serious.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
It's ironic: these old people are being kept alive by the
organs of the people they run over.
*Chief Wiggums* <-- Hi Alex!
Michael Thomas
> In article <v7d6e2w...@fasolt.mtcc.com>, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> > [BOYCOTT!]
>
> The Apologists do have a valid point in response: the slower
> sales go, regardless of whether the sharing accelerates, the
> more legitimate the industry's claims of irreperable harm are.
> As their claims take on a sheen of truth and legit injury,
> they will only become more persuasive and effective on
> Capitol Hill and at the water cooler.
>
> If anything should be boycotted, it's the audio sharing. I
> personally am confident that the predictable uptick in sales
> would be small and nowhere near compensate the industry for
> the long-term downturn it blames on sharing. Make it clear
> that the beast in question is a dinosaur.
The problem is that -- as always -- file sharing has been
nothing more than an invented spectre and the RIAA would
fully take advantage of the fact that you can't prove a
negative. Part of the point of a real live boycott would
be to put a very public face on customer discontent in a
way that the RIAA can't send lawyers and high $$$ smear
campaigns. For every time they say that it's file sharing
that's cutting into their profits, a counter claim can be
made that it's the boycott, stupid. Even though the truth
will be in the muddled middle, right now the only defense
to their harassment is claimed blissful ignorance which
plays right into their hand. We need something that puts a
more positive spin and makes it perfectly clear that the
problem is in the RIAA's regressive and aggressive
business, not in the lack of prison time for their entire
customer base.
David W. Fenton
<v7d6e2w...@fasolt.mtcc.com>:
>So David, we all know your take on illegal file sharing, but
>I would hope that even if you believe that 12 year olds are
>wrong in stealing music online, that it is a grotesque
>spectacle to have the RIAA's legions of lawyers pursuing
>poorly supervised 12 year olds to sue their parents for
>their entire net worth.
Yes, I've said repeatedly that the RIAA and their minions are vile
bastards.
>My take all along has been that as a vehicle for social
>change, file sharing may be a reasonable means to express
>consumer discontent with a regressive and nasty business
>model that enriches just about nobody except the labels
>themselves screwing everybody else in their path. You
>disagree. Fine.
Yes, I disagree.
>At this point, however, a more old fashioned and quite legal
>means of protest to my mind seems completely in order: a
>wide spread boycott of the industry. As in: don't buy
>another CD, record, tape, etc until the industry finally
>caves in. As in *veritably* hurt them where it counts. I
>think it's high time to call their bluff here and tell them
>that it is Not Acceptable to treat their entire customer
>base as a pool of unconvicted felons that they can strongarm
>blood money out of.
>
>So will you join? I'm completely serious.
No, because the labels I buy aren't evil. I'm grateful that they
are subsidizing the production of recordings of music that is
otherwise not available.
Probably most of the CDs I buy are from print runs well under 5,000
copies, and produced by labels that have well under $1 million in
annual cash flow. So, I don't have anyone to boycott.
But I think for the people who would be buying from the labels who
are involved with the RIAA campaign, a boycott is a fine idea.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David W. Fenton
>So David, we all know your take on illegal file sharing, but
>I would hope that even if you believe that 12 year olds are
>wrong in stealing music online, that it is a grotesque
>spectacle to have the RIAA's legions of lawyers pursuing
>poorly supervised 12 year olds to sue their parents for
>their entire net worth.
Yes, I've said repeatedly that the RIAA and their minions are vile
bastards.
>My take all along has been that as a vehicle for social
>change, file sharing may be a reasonable means to express
>consumer discontent with a regressive and nasty business
>model that enriches just about nobody except the labels
>themselves screwing everybody else in their path. You
>disagree. Fine.
Yes, I disagree.
>At this point, however, a more old fashioned and quite legal
>means of protest to my mind seems completely in order: a
>wide spread boycott of the industry. As in: don't buy
>another CD, record, tape, etc until the industry finally
>caves in. As in *veritably* hurt them where it counts. I
>think it's high time to call their bluff here and tell them
>that it is Not Acceptable to treat their entire customer
>base as a pool of unconvicted felons that they can strongarm
>blood money out of.
>
>So will you join? I'm completely serious.
No, because the labels I buy aren't evil. I'm grateful that they
Michael Thomas
> >means of protest to my mind seems completely in order: a
> >wide spread boycott of the industry. As in: don't buy
> >another CD, record, tape, etc until the industry finally
> >caves in. As in *veritably* hurt them where it counts. I
> >think it's high time to call their bluff here and tell them
> >that it is Not Acceptable to treat their entire customer
> >base as a pool of unconvicted felons that they can strongarm
> >blood money out of.
> >
> >So will you join? I'm completely serious.
>
> No, because the labels I buy aren't evil. I'm grateful that they
> are subsidizing the production of recordings of music that is
> otherwise not available.
But they are part of the overall problem, right? As in, do
any of them have an online presence? Recall that a very
valid point amongst swappers is that a lot of this music
traded is simply *unavailable* at any price. Your
non-online labels are in fact party to that piece of this
problem which is driving people to do things illegally. If
their pain brought about change, would you support it?
Invariably in a boycott innocent people/companies -will-
get hurt. That's part of the process. In fact, real
artists getting really hurt would probably hasten this.
Jack Hamilton
>mi...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote in
><v7d6e2w...@fasolt.mtcc.com>:
>>At this point, however, a more old fashioned and quite legal
>>means of protest to my mind seems completely in order: a
>>wide spread boycott of the industry. As in: don't buy
>>another CD, record, tape, etc until the industry finally
>>caves in. As in *veritably* hurt them where it counts. I
>>think it's high time to call their bluff here and tell them
>>that it is Not Acceptable to treat their entire customer
>>base as a pool of unconvicted felons that they can strongarm
>>blood money out of.
>>
>>So will you join? I'm completely serious.
>
>No, because the labels I buy aren't evil. I'm grateful that they
>are subsidizing the production of recordings of music that is
>otherwise not available.
>
>Probably most of the CDs I buy are from print runs well under 5,000
>copies, and produced by labels that have well under $1 million in
>annual cash flow. So, I don't have anyone to boycott.
If they're members of the RIAA, you do.
You can see a list of members at
<http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp>
David W. Fenton
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>> mi...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote in
>> >At this point, however, a more old fashioned and quite legal
>> >means of protest to my mind seems completely in order: a
>> >wide spread boycott of the industry. As in: don't buy
>> >another CD, record, tape, etc until the industry finally
>> >caves in. As in *veritably* hurt them where it counts. I
>> >think it's high time to call their bluff here and tell them
>> >that it is Not Acceptable to treat their entire customer
>> >base as a pool of unconvicted felons that they can strongarm
>> >blood money out of.
>> >
>> >So will you join? I'm completely serious.
>>
>> No, because the labels I buy aren't evil. I'm grateful that they
>> are subsidizing the production of recordings of music that is
>> otherwise not available.
>
> But they are part of the overall problem, right? . . .
You tell me, Mike. I don't see them as part of a problem.
> . . . As in, do
> any of them have an online presence? . . .
In regard to downloads? Some do, some don't. Remember, we're
talking very small record labels here. Some of the smaller labels
do downloads through sites like eClassical.com and eMusic.com.
> . . . Recall that a very
> valid point amongst swappers is that a lot of this music
> traded is simply *unavailable* at any price. Your
> non-online labels are in fact party to that piece of this
> problem which is driving people to do things illegally. . . .
Well, I'm not sure I get your point. Mostly, the labels I'm talking
about do very small press runs, and when those are gone, I don't
know what they do. I have frequently placed orders on Amazon and
ended up with them being cancelled because the CDs were permanently
out of print.
Is this justification for me to then steal an MP3 of the recording
from someone who was lucky enough to get it before it went out of
print? I don't think so.
> . . . If
> their pain brought about change, would you support it?
Change in *what*?
I just don't have a frigging clue what your context is here and
what the hell you're talking about.
> Invariably in a boycott innocent people/companies -will-
> get hurt. That's part of the process. In fact, real
> artists getting really hurt would probably hasten this.
Then you can boycott all you fucking want.
But that doesn't mean there's any moral or ethical reason why
anyone else should do the same, especially when I don't agree with
the aims of the boycott as it applies to the labels I buy from.
David W. Fenton
<6uucmvgrhr4pbdekm...@4ax.com>:
That page is not coming up, so I'll have to wait and see.
But I'm not certain even then that it justifies a boycott, because
the economics of Classical recordings are simply not the same as
for non-Classical -- nobody expects to make any money off of their
recordings, they are just greatful to be heard.
OK, the page came up now, and just going through the CDs I've
bought in the last few months:
RIAA Members Not Members
Nimbus Adagio (used)
?Teldec (spelled Harmonia Mundi
Teledec, used) Chandos
Virgin Classics Musica Omnia
Virgin Veritas (not Auvidis/Astrée
actually listed) Accord
London
Deutsche Grammophon
Of course, I purchased a lot of Mendelssohn, which is pretty
mainstream stuff, so that's part of the reason I had some pretty
mainstream labels in there.
The Virgin Classics recording was the only one of the repertory
(Mendelssohn's Piano Quartets) that I could find anywhere (and I
looked *very* hard), and I absolutely had to have a recording to be
able to teach the music at the California Music Festival. I also
had substantial difficulty getting scores of the Piano Quartets (it
had to be special ordered!).
The Virgin Veritas recording is an absolutely fabulous recording
with Monica Hugget that includes the Mendelssohn Octet, but I did
have choices on that, but I bought this particular recording
because it was a two-CD set at the price of a budget single CD. I
had plenty of other choices that were more expensive, and I didn't
realize I was getting such a great recording.
I won't say that I'll boycott RIAA members, but one thing I will do
is make it a part of my buying decision, and where I have a
reasonable alternative from a non-RIAA member, I'll buy that one.
Not a very strong principle, no, but I'm not sure why I'm being
expected to have a bright line principle here. Well, I guess I do,
since I have made a moral/legal argument against illegal file
sharing and also made a guilt-by-association argument about
Republicans and Episcopalians.
I'm thinking about it.
Michael Thomas
> mi...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote in
> >dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
> >> No, because the labels I buy aren't evil. I'm grateful that they
> >> are subsidizing the production of recordings of music that is
> >> otherwise not available.
> >
> > But they are part of the overall problem, right? . . .
>
> You tell me, Mike. I don't see them as part of a problem.
Actually, I'm just testing the water. A blanket boycott is
certain simpler, though properly targeted ones also send a
good message too. In another post, you were surprised at
how much money you've already shipped the RIAA even in the
last month. That to my mind says that targeting might be
difficult, especially if the scum suckers permute their
label names, etc.
> > . . . Recall that a very
> > valid point amongst swappers is that a lot of this music
> > traded is simply *unavailable* at any price. Your
> > non-online labels are in fact party to that piece of this
> > problem which is driving people to do things illegally. . . .
>
> Well, I'm not sure I get your point. Mostly, the labels I'm talking
> about do very small press runs, and when those are gone, I don't
> know what they do. I have frequently placed orders on Amazon and
> ended up with them being cancelled because the CDs were permanently
> out of print.
Well, that's *exactly* the point! A lot of people "share"
their ripped CD's because that particular recording is
absolutely and completely unavailable for any price
because it's out of print. The cost of delivery online,
however, is minuscule -- the cost of some disk space --
and if the labels made their entire libraries available it
would breath new life into recordings that they currently
collect $0 from now.
> Is this justification for me to then steal an MP3 of the recording
> from someone who was lucky enough to get it before it went out of
> print? I don't think so.
I'd say that it's a pretty tough argument to make that
you're taking away somebody's livelihood for something
which they collect $0 from. Even though it's technically
illegal, it's pretty much a victimless crime at that
point. But the larger point is that I doubt that people by
and large would bother to bend the law if it were
available through legal means if it were convenient.
> > . . . If
> > their pain brought about change, would you support it?
>
> Change in *what*?
The current business model. The industry has no incentive
to move here. A boycott may in fact help move that along.
> > Invariably in a boycott innocent people/companies -will-
> > get hurt. That's part of the process. In fact, real
> > artists getting really hurt would probably hasten this.
>
> Then you can boycott all you fucking want.
>
> But that doesn't mean there's any moral or ethical reason why
> anyone else should do the same, especially when I don't agree with
> the aims of the boycott as it applies to the labels I buy from.
But you've said that you think that the RIAA is scum
sucking shit, but on the other hand you don't even know
that you're supporting them by buying their
product. Sounds like you're trying to have it both
ways. What other means do you propose to bring about a
change? You hate civil disobedience and you're cold on the
idea of boycotts. Got a better idea?
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
A thrombosis after a sphincterotomy -- DRS explaining what colors his worldview
John Whiteside
<dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
> Well, I'm not sure I get your point. Mostly, the labels I'm talking
> about do very small press runs, and when those are gone, I don't
> know what they do. I have frequently placed orders on Amazon and
> ended up with them being cancelled because the CDs were permanently
> out of print.
I think if you are talking about out of print music, it does change
things. If someone rips MP3s of somebody else's copy of an out of print
CD, there is no loss incurred by the record label, the artist, or
anyone - there is no revenue that they did not get, because there was
no way for anyone to buy the CD from them.
David W. Fenton
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>> mi...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote in
>> >dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>> >> No, because the labels I buy aren't evil. I'm grateful that
>> >> they are subsidizing the production of recordings of music
>> >> that is otherwise not available.
>> >
>> > But they are part of the overall problem, right? . . .
>>
>> You tell me, Mike. I don't see them as part of a problem.
>
> Actually, I'm just testing the water. A blanket boycott is
> certain simpler, though properly targeted ones also send a
> good message too. In another post, you were surprised at
> how much money you've already shipped the RIAA even in the
> last month. . .
Uh, I was surprised at no such thing. I was surprised at how many
CDs I'd bought from mainstream labels that are RIAA members.
> . . . That to my mind says that targeting might be
> difficult, especially if the scum suckers permute their
> label names, etc.
Well, you've gotten me to thinking about it. I've bookmarked the
RIAA members page and next time I'm doing major shopping on Amazon
for a batch of CDs, RIAA membership will be a factor in eliminating
certain CDs from consideration. When there's more than one
available recording of a decent level of performance, that's pretty
painless.
>> > . . . Recall that a very
>> > valid point amongst swappers is that a lot of this music
>> > traded is simply *unavailable* at any price. Your
>> > non-online labels are in fact party to that piece of this
>> > problem which is driving people to do things illegally. . . .
>>
>> Well, I'm not sure I get your point. Mostly, the labels I'm
>> talking about do very small press runs, and when those are gone,
>> I don't know what they do. I have frequently placed orders on
>> Amazon and ended up with them being cancelled because the CDs
>> were permanently out of print.
>
> Well, that's *exactly* the point! A lot of people "share"
> their ripped CD's because that particular recording is
> absolutely and completely unavailable for any price
> because it's out of print. The cost of delivery online,
> however, is minuscule -- the cost of some disk space --
> and if the labels made their entire libraries available it
> would breath new life into recordings that they currently
> collect $0 from now.
I think that's true, but it's not my job to force them to change
their business model, however stupid I may think that busines model
happens to be..
>> Is this justification for me to then steal an MP3 of the
>> recording from someone who was lucky enough to get it before it
>> went out of print? I don't think so.
>
> I'd say that it's a pretty tough argument to make that
> you're taking away somebody's livelihood for something
> which they collect $0 from. . . .
I wouldn't make that argument in that case -- I'd simply not do it
because my gut tells me it's the wrong thing to do.
> . . . Even though it's technically
> illegal, . . .
"Technically?" It's either legal or it's not legal -- determination
of legality is always a technical question.
> . . . it's pretty much a victimless crime at that
> point. But the larger point is that I doubt that people by
> and large would bother to bend the law if it were
> available through legal means if it were convenient.
Well, I agree with that. When it's not available at all, I still
won't steal it.
>> > . . . If
>> > their pain brought about change, would you support it?
>>
>> Change in *what*?
>
> The current business model. The industry has no incentive
> to move here. A boycott may in fact help move that along.
It's happening anyway, not least because they'll run out of marks
to sign unfair contracts with as more and more performers realize
they can do it themselves and make a helluva lot more money.
>> > Invariably in a boycott innocent people/companies -will-
>> > get hurt. That's part of the process. In fact, real
>> > artists getting really hurt would probably hasten this.
>>
>> Then you can boycott all you fucking want.
>>
>> But that doesn't mean there's any moral or ethical reason why
>> anyone else should do the same, especially when I don't agree
>> with the aims of the boycott as it applies to the labels I buy
>> from.
>
> But you've said that you think that the RIAA is scum
> sucking shit, but on the other hand you don't even know
> that you're supporting them by buying their
> product. . . .
Am I supporting the RIAA? I don't think so, any more than working
for Republican fund raisers translates into supporting Republican
candidates.
> . . . Sounds like you're trying to have it both
> ways. What other means do you propose to bring about a
> change? You hate civil disobedience and you're cold on the
> idea of boycotts. Got a better idea?
The lesson that the big labels will take from boycotts of classical
CDs is that classical CDs aren't worth producing in the first
place.
In other words, I think the situation is simply different for
classical music as compared to other kinds of music. The audience
is already shrinking so quickly that no boycott is going to get the
intended message across to them. And then all I would have done
would be deny myself access to some decent performances available
nowhere else.
David W. Fenton
<160920031918144433%logan_SKIPTHIS_john@mac_THISTOO_.com>:
John, you've missed a lot of discussion on this subject. My
opposition to illegal file trading is based as much in
ethical/legal/moral feelings on my part as it is on the question of
taking something without paying.
Jack Hamilton
>Mostly, the labels I'm talking
>about do very small press runs, and when those are gone, I don't
>know what they do. I have frequently placed orders on Amazon and
>ended up with them being cancelled because the CDs were permanently
>out of print.
>
>Is this justification for me to then steal an MP3 of the recording
I assume you mean "download a shared copy" here, not break into their
apartment and steal their only copy.
>from someone who was lucky enough to get it before it went out of
>print? I don't think so.
I do think so. The purpose of copyrights and patents is to promote the
progress of arts and sciences by securing for limited times to authors
and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and
discoveries.
It does not promote the progress of the arts to make a recording
unavailable.
If a bootleg copy of Ned Rorem's "An American Oratorio" were available,
I would not hesitate to download (or buy) it at a reasonable cost. And
if a commercial recording later became available, I would buy that also.
Michael Thomas
> > certain simpler, though properly targeted ones also send a
> > good message too. In another post, you were surprised at
> > how much money you've already shipped the RIAA even in the
> > last month. . .
>
> Uh, I was surprised at no such thing. I was surprised at how many
> CDs I'd bought from mainstream labels that are RIAA members.
Uh, we're saying the same thing.
> > Well, that's *exactly* the point! A lot of people "share"
> > their ripped CD's because that particular recording is
> > absolutely and completely unavailable for any price
> > because it's out of print. The cost of delivery online,
> > however, is minuscule -- the cost of some disk space --
> > and if the labels made their entire libraries available it
> > would breath new life into recordings that they currently
> > collect $0 from now.
>
> I think that's true, but it's not my job to force them to change
> their business model, however stupid I may think that busines model
> happens to be..
Well, it's not your "job" to be a proud queer warrior
either. But you -- certainly more than me -- have some
investment in the outcome of all of this, and as such some
amount of activism to force their hand seems like a pretty
reasonable thing to consider. And this is time tested and
completely legal. They're acting like complete jerks on
top of stonewalling a business model change that will
clearly be pro-consumer and possibly pro-artist. It's time
to tell them to Just Fuck Off.
> >> Is this justification for me to then steal an MP3 of the
> >> recording from someone who was lucky enough to get it before it
> >> went out of print? I don't think so.
> >
> > I'd say that it's a pretty tough argument to make that
> > you're taking away somebody's livelihood for something
> > which they collect $0 from. . . .
>
> I wouldn't make that argument in that case -- I'd simply not do it
> because my gut tells me it's the wrong thing to do.
Whatever. I'm not asking to go against your conscience,
but only to make a point that the RIAA's campaign against
sharing is a tissue of lies, by and large. There is
*significant* downside to them having their way with
congress here, after all. They would in a second fuck the
internet over if they thought it would save their sorry
asses. And that makes them dangerous, not merely a
nuisance for upstanding citizens. All of this DRM shit
has the promise of being *extremely* evil.
> > . . . it's pretty much a victimless crime at that
> > point. But the larger point is that I doubt that people by
> > and large would bother to bend the law if it were
> > available through legal means if it were convenient.
>
> Well, I agree with that. When it's not available at all, I still
> won't steal it.
Fine, but a lot of people will find this situation about
on the same level of moral depravity as, oh say,
jaywalking and not driving fifty-five. Sew them.
> > The current business model. The industry has no incentive
> > to move here. A boycott may in fact help move that along.
>
> It's happening anyway, not least because they'll run out of marks
> to sign unfair contracts with as more and more performers realize
> they can do it themselves and make a helluva lot more money.
Great. Let's hasten the end then. The sooner they're out
of their misery, the sooner we can all get on with life.
A serious in-the-pocket unequivocal backlash at this
point pretty much guarantees that, I'd think.
> > But you've said that you think that the RIAA is scum
> > sucking shit, but on the other hand you don't even know
> > that you're supporting them by buying their
> > product. . . .
>
> Am I supporting the RIAA? I don't think so, any more than working
> for Republican fund raisers translates into supporting Republican
> candidates.
Sure you do. You're buying the products that fund both the
literal RIAA and their constituent companies. They could
give a rat's ass about where your heart is so long as you
give them the bux.
> The lesson that the big labels will take from boycotts of classical
> CDs is that classical CDs aren't worth producing in the first
> place.
>
> In other words, I think the situation is simply different for
> classical music as compared to other kinds of music. The audience
> is already shrinking so quickly that no boycott is going to get the
> intended message across to them. And then all I would have done
> would be deny myself access to some decent performances available
> nowhere else.
Uh, if it's an across the board boycott, I don't think
they'll be looking for any lessons in microscopic
classical lesions as they're hemorrhaging out of their
Brittney Aorta.
> > Got a better idea?
Redux.
David W. Fenton
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>> mi...@mtcc.com (Michael Thomas) wrote in
>> > Actually, I'm just testing the water. A blanket boycott is
>> > certain simpler, though properly targeted ones also send a
>> > good message too. In another post, you were surprised at
>> > how much money you've already shipped the RIAA even in the
>> > last month. . .
>>
>> Uh, I was surprised at no such thing. I was surprised at how
>> many CDs I'd bought from mainstream labels that are RIAA
>> members.
>
> Uh, we're saying the same thing.
No, you were skipping the part about me actually not giving any
money whatsoever to the RIAA.
>> > Well, that's *exactly* the point! A lot of people "share"
>> > their ripped CD's because that particular recording is
>> > absolutely and completely unavailable for any price
>> > because it's out of print. The cost of delivery online,
>> > however, is minuscule -- the cost of some disk space --
>> > and if the labels made their entire libraries available it
>> > would breath new life into recordings that they currently
>> > collect $0 from now.
>>
>> I think that's true, but it's not my job to force them to change
>> their business model, however stupid I may think that busines
>> model happens to be..
>
> Well, it's not your "job" to be a proud queer warrior
> either. But you -- certainly more than me -- have some
> investment in the outcome of all of this, and as such some
> amount of activism to force their hand seems like a pretty
> reasonable thing to consider. And this is time tested and
> completely legal. They're acting like complete jerks on
> top of stonewalling a business model change that will
> clearly be pro-consumer and possibly pro-artist. It's time
> to tell them to Just Fuck Off.
I'm not telling *you* not to do so.
I'm also telling you to fuck off if that's what you're telling *me*
to do.
>> >> Is this justification for me to then steal an MP3 of the
>> >> recording from someone who was lucky enough to get it before
>> >> it went out of print? I don't think so.
>> >
>> > I'd say that it's a pretty tough argument to make that
>> > you're taking away somebody's livelihood for something
>> > which they collect $0 from. . . .
>>
>> I wouldn't make that argument in that case -- I'd simply not do
>> it because my gut tells me it's the wrong thing to do.
>
> Whatever. I'm not asking to go against your conscience,
> but only to make a point that the RIAA's campaign against
> sharing is a tissue of lies, by and large. . . .
This is something I've never disputed -- the RIAA is right on the
issue of copyright. On everything else, they're craven liars. To
me, it seems that too many people discount the fact that they are
right on one thing because they so bloody annoyingly wrong on
everything else.
> . . . There is
> *significant* downside to them having their way with
> congress here, after all. . . .
I think the DMCA is a far more dangerous thing than anything the
RIAA is proposing. Without the DMCA, the RIAA's threats wouldn't
have any teeth at all.
> . . . They would in a second fuck the
> internet over if they thought it would save their sorry
> asses. And that makes them dangerous, not merely a
> nuisance for upstanding citizens. All of this DRM shit
> has the promise of being *extremely* evil.
But that's a different issue from the RIAA on illegal file sharing.
>> > . . . it's pretty much a victimless crime at that
>> > point. But the larger point is that I doubt that people by
>> > and large would bother to bend the law if it were
>> > available through legal means if it were convenient.
>>
>> Well, I agree with that. When it's not available at all, I still
>> won't steal it.
>
> Fine, but a lot of people will find this situation about
> on the same level of moral depravity as, oh say,
> jaywalking and not driving fifty-five. Sew them.
Well, I *don't* see it on that level.
>> > The current business model. The industry has no incentive
>> > to move here. A boycott may in fact help move that along.
>>
>> It's happening anyway, not least because they'll run out of
>> marks to sign unfair contracts with as more and more performers
>> realize they can do it themselves and make a helluva lot more
>> money.
>
> Great. Let's hasten the end then. The sooner they're out
> of their misery, the sooner we can all get on with life.
> A serious in-the-pocket unequivocal backlash at this
> point pretty much guarantees that, I'd think.
It's not going to happen the same way in the classical world, so I
don't think the same tactics will have the same effect.
>> > But you've said that you think that the RIAA is scum
>> > sucking shit, but on the other hand you don't even know
>> > that you're supporting them by buying their
>> > product. . . .
>>
>> Am I supporting the RIAA? I don't think so, any more than
>> working for Republican fund raisers translates into supporting
>> Republican candidates.
>
> Sure you do. You're buying the products that fund both the
> literal RIAA and their constituent companies. They could
> give a rat's ass about where your heart is so long as you
> give them the bux.
But that's not the same thing as supporting the RIAA.
>> The lesson that the big labels will take from boycotts of
>> classical CDs is that classical CDs aren't worth producing in
>> the first place.
>>
>> In other words, I think the situation is simply different for
>> classical music as compared to other kinds of music. The
>> audience is already shrinking so quickly that no boycott is
>> going to get the intended message across to them. And then all I
>> would have done would be deny myself access to some decent
>> performances available nowhere else.
>
> Uh, if it's an across the board boycott, I don't think
> they'll be looking for any lessons in microscopic
> classical lesions as they're hemorrhaging out of their
> Brittney Aorta.
They already treat classical recordings completely differently from
other kinds of music, precisely because it's such a specialized
market.
>> > Got a better idea?
>
> Redux.
I don't think classical music fans really have the same options as
those who like popular music. I don't think the circumstances are
directly comparable.
David W. Fenton
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) wrote:
>
>>Mostly, the labels I'm talking
>>about do very small press runs, and when those are gone, I don't
>>know what they do. I have frequently placed orders on Amazon and
>>ended up with them being cancelled because the CDs were
>>permanently out of print.
>>
>>Is this justification for me to then steal an MP3 of the
>>recording
>
>I assume you mean "download a shared copy" here, not break into
>their apartment and steal their only copy.
If it's a copy made outside the terms of the copyright, then it's
stealing. Copies that are made with the permission of the copyright
holders are legal copies, and can't be stolen.
I've consistently used the term "illegal file sharing" to
distinguish the act from the legal kind of file sharing.
>>from someone who was lucky enough to get it before it went out of
>>print? I don't think so.
>
>I do think so. The purpose of copyrights and patents is to
>promote the progress of arts and sciences by securing for limited
>times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
>respective writings and discoveries.
>
>It does not promote the progress of the arts to make a recording
>unavailable.
Copyright holders are not required to make the works on which they
hold the copyright available to the public, so far as I can tell.
They get the benefit of copyright law whether they distribute it or
not.
>If a bootleg copy of Ned Rorem's "An American Oratorio" were
>available, I would not hesitate to download (or buy) it at a
>reasonable cost. And if a commercial recording later became
>available, I would buy that also.
I'm very happy for you.
Does this mean I must agree with you on that?
Charlie Fulton
:>> > . . . it's pretty much a victimless crime at that
:>> > point. But the larger point is that I doubt that people by
:>> > and large would bother to bend the law if it were
:>> > available through legal means if it were convenient.
:>>
:>> Well, I agree with that. When it's not available at all, I still
:>> won't steal it.
:>
:> Fine, but a lot of people will find this situation about
:> on the same level of moral depravity as, oh say,
:> jaywalking and not driving fifty-five. Sew them.
: Well, I *don't* see it on that level.
At such point that Virgin-Whore Complex CDs go out of print, if
"stealing" is then the only means by which new listeners can be
exposed to the product, then steal away. From my point of view as a
Recorded Artiste, expanding the potential demand for new product
easily trumps protecting the copyright of an out-of-print CD.
Charlie, recipient of just over *300 DOLLARS* of VWC royalties. Who
*sez* artists aren't paid?
--
Charlie Fulton--foultone@mtcc.com--http://www.mtcc.com/~foultone/
"You wouldn't recognize your own reflection in a mirror."
Steven Levine
Michael Thomas
> to do.
When did "asking" morph into "telling"?
> > Whatever. I'm not asking to go against your conscience,
> > but only to make a point that the RIAA's campaign against
> > sharing is a tissue of lies, by and large. . . .
>
> This is something I've never disputed -- the RIAA is right on the
> issue of copyright. On everything else, they're craven liars. To
> me, it seems that too many people discount the fact that they are
> right on one thing because they so bloody annoyingly wrong on
> everything else.
But the point here is to actually do something about them
rather than yet again pat them on the back for their one
non-lie.
> > . . . They would in a second fuck the
> > internet over if they thought it would save their sorry
> > asses. And that makes them dangerous, not merely a
> > nuisance for upstanding citizens. All of this DRM shit
> > has the promise of being *extremely* evil.
>
> But that's a different issue from the RIAA on illegal file sharing.
But the point of this thread is not about illegal file
sharing, though you're trying really hard to turn it
back into that hobby horse. It's about doing something
proactive about an evil cartel.
> > Great. Let's hasten the end then. The sooner they're out
> > of their misery, the sooner we can all get on with life.
> > A serious in-the-pocket unequivocal backlash at this
> > point pretty much guarantees that, I'd think.
>
> It's not going to happen the same way in the classical world, so I
> don't think the same tactics will have the same effect.
The classical world will follow whatever happens in the
larger picture, I'd think. (distributionwise, that is).
> > Sure you do. You're buying the products that fund both the
> > literal RIAA and their constituent companies. They could
> > give a rat's ass about where your heart is so long as you
> > give them the bux.
>
> But that's not the same thing as supporting the RIAA.
You're buying product which supports their egregiousness.
Would you buy boy scout cookies because the kid is cute
and probably needs his entrepreneur badge really bad? Or
would you give it a pass because of the odious policies
his cookie money is fueling?
> > Uh, if it's an across the board boycott, I don't think
> > they'll be looking for any lessons in microscopic
> > classical lesions as they're hemorrhaging out of their
> > Brittney Aorta.
>
> They already treat classical recordings completely differently from
> other kinds of music, precisely because it's such a specialized
> market.
But it's by and large the same blood sucking scum buckets
who run the whole show. Buying anything from them is de
facto support of the status quo and thus their policies.
You've said repeatedly that you find them to be odious,
reprehensible, etc, etc, yet you don't want to put your
money where your mouth is. Why? Is the need to buy a new
recording from them *really* more important than being
part of a historic cross roads to release their
stranglehold? It's just hard for me to believe that your
disdain is particularly deep if you can't take this
seemingly small step.
WontParse
@fasolt.mtcc.com:
> At such point that Virgin-Whore Complex CDs go out of print, if
> "stealing" is then the only means by which new listeners can be
> exposed to the product, then steal away. From my point of view as a
> Recorded Artiste, expanding the potential demand for new product
> easily trumps protecting the copyright of an out-of-print CD.
>
> Charlie, recipient of just over *300 DOLLARS* of VWC royalties. Who
> *sez* artists aren't paid?
Perhaps you should title your next release "Rip this CD".
--
Will
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Homepage http://www.geocities.com/parsonswont
"You are the only one who cares about the Jeep."
- Mike McKinley
Michael Palmer
(David W. Fenton) wrote:
>j...@acm.org (Jack Hamilton) wrote in
><hstfmv0k0mb8cavh1...@4ax.com>:
>
>>I do think so. The purpose of copyrights and patents is to
>>promote the progress of arts and sciences by securing for limited
>>times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
>>respective writings and discoveries.
>>
>>It does not promote the progress of the arts to make a recording
>>unavailable.
>
>Copyright holders are not required to make the works on which they
>hold the copyright available to the public, so far as I can tell.
>They get the benefit of copyright law whether they distribute it or
>not.
One of the perversities of current US copyright law is that while the
law is intended to "promote the progress ..." etc., etc., there is no
requirement whatsoever that the copyright holder make copyrighted
materials available to the public. Indeed, the right of publication
also carries with it the right *not* to publish.
There is usually a way around the out-of-print issue if the item in
question is print or manuscript, since libraries and archives can
provide individuals with copies of a complete print/manuscript work
provided that (1) the work in question cannot be obtained at a fair
price and (2) the copy is for private study, scholarship, or research
only. Unfortunately, this doesn't apply either to musical scores or to
musical recordings.
(Another perversity of the current copyright situation is that musical
recordings are going out of print. One of the arguments advanced by
by proponents of both copyright term extension and the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act was that digital technology would enable
reproductions to be made effortlessly and on demand, so nothing would
ever go out of print.)
--
Michael Palmer
Claremont, California
mpa...@panix.com
Polycarp of Smirnoff
<DROPTHIS...@bellsouth.net> wrote this:
>Charlie Fulton <foul...@fasolt.mtcc.com> wrote in news:bkabdp$q99$1
>@fasolt.mtcc.com:
>> At such point that Virgin-Whore Complex CDs go out of print, if
>> "stealing" is then the only means by which new listeners can be
>> exposed to the product, then steal away. From my point of view as a
>> Recorded Artiste, expanding the potential demand for new product
>> easily trumps protecting the copyright of an out-of-print CD.
>>
>> Charlie, recipient of just over *300 DOLLARS* of VWC royalties. Who
>> *sez* artists aren't paid?
>
>Perhaps you should title your next release "Rip this CD".
Ever wanted to modify a Microshaft CD-Rom so it reads, "Make Illegal
Copies Of This Disc"?
--
Bess, back after four whole days starved of broadband. Whimper.