Your interpretation is nonsensical. This goes way beyond a 'reach.'

Digital music is nonrivalous independent of what the creator thinks. No diktat can change whether my owning it effects whether someone else can own it.

Then where are those examples? The creators are protected if and when them being protected is a net gain for society, for the consumer. For example if we took away patents for drugs, nobody would produce drugs, so we need to protect the creators' profit. The profit is an incentive to innovate, not an end in and of itself.

Tell that to the Supreme Court. What do you think the idea of IP laws are then? To make sure people make money?

Okay, gang. This is not a completely empty argument. You can disagree, and not disparage. There is hope for us yet.


I see your point, Mr. B.

For those who have missed this, Mr. B is saying that the nature of music in a modern context makes it a product different than others -- that it has become so easy to produce and distribute that there no longer needs to be any meaningful profit-driven protections for it to be created. (And that there are still secondary profits to be gained by those who produce music of sufficient quality) This argument is not wholly without merit, I don't believe.

I happen to disagree with it, as I think it tends to understate the actual investment of time, effort, and commitment to the craft necessary to make music of the quality and quantity that we, the consumers of music, want. The ability to (possibly) sell recordings is an inducement for many talented people to get into and stay in the business -- talented people who need time to create their works, equipment upon which to play and record, and expertise with which to hone the recordings. All these, currenly, depend on a chain that is driven (whether you like it or not) by the market -- and the market is, in large part, a creation of intellectual property protections. Yes, the ultimate purpose of these laws is to spur the creation of these works (to thereby benefit society), and the profit center of that system does this, by most accounts, rather well.

Your argument that music is special and has somehow transcended the profit motive is specious, I think, as it ignores the real costs and trade-offs involved in the industry. Sure, there would be people who would still create and distribute music if there were no way to sell it. There's a guy who made the "We Like The Moon" video and song in his basement, and the commercial deal with QUizno's was a long way away from his mind, right?

But the point is that there would have to be a diminishing - probably a very substantial diminshing -- of the quantity and quality of the works that would then be created. Some of those creative people would just have to keep working at Kroger's, rather than write songs full time... the guy with a recording studio wouldn't get as many paying clients, since there just wouldn't be as much money at the end of the process for people who decide to do this stuff. It's a system of incentive -- even if the costs and difficulties are less than they once were, people would have to react. And I still think the strongest argument is that eliminating the ability to see recorded music is tantamount to gutting the industry of its most vital constituents.


It's not that I quarrel with your logic, I just dispute one of your premises.

That is actually a philosophically reasonable point of view. How do you ensure the progress of the useful arts? Make sure those that are good at it get paid enough to keep doing it.

Well said.

Most scientific advances and useful arts are developed by people who dedicate their lives to their work. Protecting their rights gives them a way to support themselves while granting consumers access to their work.

MrBig, your entire argument (even if we accept all the premises) is based on the assumption that music is easy to create and produce, and other art forms like movies and novels are not. I just don't buy this. I don't buy that it's easy to write a good song, or perform one, and I don't buy that it's easy to create a high-quality recording of one.

Your argument for the good of the consumer assumes that unlike other forms of expression, the quality of music would remain the same if there was no profit motive. I think you're wrong there, and I think it feels like way too much like a happy coincidence that the only art form you believe is easy enough to create that we're justified in taking it is also the one that just happens to already be easy to steal.

Certainly more efficient than mine, and probably more effective.

Question

Is the class of paid musicians (writers, performers, producers) better at making music than the class of amateur musicians? I don't see how you can argue that it isn't - and if it isn't, then Mr. Big's argument fails.

My cat's breath smells like cat food.

I agree with Mr. B that IP law exists to promote the advance of science and the arts. It does so by providing economic incentives for the creation of artistic works. Take away the economic incentives, you have sabotaged purpose of IP laws, haven't you? The argument you're making that it's now cheaper and easier to duplicate music, so it should be free is ridiculous. That has NOTHING to do with the creative process, nor does it have anything to do with why the creators should retain their rights to decide how and when to distribute their work.

When I grrow up I want to be like Maple Leafs.

Thanks for at least understanding what I am trying to say and not trying to argue something totally unrelated. We disagree though. Twenty years ago you had to buy a science journal to get the latest on new discoveries. Now you just have to go to any one of a million blogs where the scientists write about their work for free. And that is going to happen to music as the tech gets better. High tech recording studios will still be in business, because songs still need to be produced for the radio, for TV commercials, and songs for the P2P network to hype their concerts. Their business may go down, but like I said before, there is nothing saying that we have to protect any particular business. The buggie whip makers went out of business when the automobile came around.

My argument does not in any way depend on the quality of music recording being the same or better if P2P was free and legal. Consider making any musical recording available to anyone for free. That is a tremendous benefit to the consumer. If the quality stays the same, that's an obvious net plus for the consumer. But if the quality drops a little, it's still a net benefit for the consumer because of the huge benefit of having any recording ever for free. And the quality will not drop a lot, if at all. Concerts are still a $1 billion business, and being a rockstar still has a huge social incentive to it. The top acts will still be millionaires. So it's not like Britney Spears will suddenly decide to get a job as a waitress instead of being a musician.

I actually think that music choice will go up. The recording industry will not be manufacturing pop bands anymore, and it will be easier to get into the game without having to get in with the RIAA.

If you think that benefits to the consumer are the only thing that matters in a transaction, you don't know a thing about economics, Mr. B. The party supplying the good or service also needs to benefit, or it won't have any incentive to produce the good or service, and there will be no transaction. Your "business" model would drive the arts right into the toilet. It's hard enough for most people to make a living in the arts as it is, but without copyright protection and the right to control distribution, it would be impossible. If your business model was such a great things, why do we see people like Fred Eaglesmith and Steve Wynn, who have cult followings but no recording contract, releasing albums on their labels instead of just giving everything away for free? I'll tell you why - that model doesn't work. The CD sales at concerts are part of their income stream.

I don't think you have delved deep enough into the argument, and I've never said or even hinted at the fact that I believe that the benefit to the consumer is the only thing that matters in an economic transaction.

Yes, but there's no obvious benefit to the artists that I can see from abandoning their copyright protections. I'm a writer, and belong to a writer's forum, and I'll tell you this - writers would never accept the kind of business model you're advocating for the music industry, and with good reason. There's no reason musicians, should, either. If they want to give music away as a marketing strategy, that's one thing. But never, ever, ever, should a third party who has not purchased the right to do so from the artist be legally permitted to set up an alternative distribution channel that the artist did not approve. Copyright is exactly what the name says it is - the right to make copies. No one but the copyright holder and people specifically authorized by the copyright holder have any right to make and distribute copies to anyone else. That's the law, that's what the authors of the Constitution intended, and that's how it should be. If you want free music, there are places on the internet where some artists have permitted concert recordings to be archived and downloaded. Download those, not the stuff they are selling and do not intend to be available free.

For one thing, writers are not musicians. What I say about one group does not neccessarily translate to another, and one's business model does not have to equate the business model of the other. Secondly, I never said that there was any obvious benefit to the artists. But the laws are designed to have the maximum benefit to the consumer. As long as the best benefit to the consumer is gained by having musicians hold the copyright to their songs, then I am for that, but my point (which can be disagreed with, for example Quiksand) is that the consumer is now being hampered by the IP laws.

I realize what the law is, obviously I am talking about changing the law. If you feel that is how the authors of the Constitution felt, and that that is how it should be, then give an argument on how the consumer is benefitted by it. You haven't done that.

The business models are very similar, and translate very well between the two. Both are paid royalties based on sales. Both have opportunities to make additional income from personal appearance (concerts for musicians, speaking appearances and teaching workshops for writers). The main difference between the models is that, for musicians, the publishing channel (record companies) are a lot more abusive and corrupt with respect to the rights they insist on buying.


The consumer benefits by having a greater diversity and quality of music to choose from because musicians have the economic opportunity to actually make a living at their craft if they're good enough. That is EXACTLY the rationale the authors of the Constitution were using when they crafted the clause in the first place. I'm astonished that you so willfully refuse to acknowledge that directly, when you have on several occasions admitted it indirectly.

Do the top writers make 7.5 more money through appearances than through sales of their content? In 2002, the top musicians did. The industries are not alike. What is good for one is not neccessarily good for another. If you want an example of how tech has changed writing, look at punditry: thousands of political writers have their work available free on the Internet now.

I've written several times that I believe that the diversity and quality would not drastically change, and may in fact increase, because:

1) There are still vast income streams available for musicians besides record sales (and there would still be record sales)
2) The social incentives of being a 'rock star' would still be in place
3) Lessening the RIAA's role removes a major roadblock to bands

Clearly, Britney Spears, the Rolling Stones, etc, would not be waiting on tables tomorrow if "The Bigglesworth Law" went into effect today. Certainly, musicians on the margins could be hurt, and may not be able to make a living off music anymore. That doesn't mean they will stop making music though. Like you say, writing is in some way similar, in the fact that many, many people write for hours on end for free. Similarly, there will still be people that play music for free, and get their music out there. The top bands will still be making tons of cash through concerts, endorsements, etc, so people will still be looking for the next big thing.

I accept that I am not going to change your mind ... but don't you notice a massive difference in the quality of writing on the part of professionals and amateurs? Sure, there are exceptions, but for the most part nobody wants to read 99% of the joe bloggers out there.



I think you know you're wrong there. I can hardly believe you said it with a straight face. Will music completely cease? No. But ... I mean, did you see 8 Mile? Would Eminem have pursued his art with the same zeal if it hadn't also been his ticket out of hell? Of course not, he would have become a stockbroker.

My point was that professionals are now blogging. A great example is the authors of Freakonomics. They write for free on their blog, and earn money from their book sales, as a musicians would earn money from concerts and endorsements. The best political writers also have blogs, such as Matthew Yglesias and Hugh Hewitt.

So you think that Eminem would not have pursued his art if instead of becoming an insanely rich rap icon, the best he could look forward to was being a slightly less insanely rich rap icon? His clothing line alone earned him $1.5 million last year. That's hardly a good example to use when talking about how the lack of CD sales will bankrupt musicians.

Umm.. so.. where in that line does it say "music should not be protected but other forms of art should be because that is what is good for art"?

YOU are making a HUGE jump in logic here... YOU are making MAJOR assumptions that "free music" "promotes progress of science and the useful arts". YOU are saying that what is "good" for "art" is "good" for the "consumer". This line from the consititution states NONE of this.

You have argued that it is not possible to argue that free music is not "good" for the consumer. Well duh, you could say anything made free is "good for the consumer" and say there's no argueing it. I have yet to see an argument that says that free music is good for the ARTS.

And you dismissed several of my arguments above WAY to easy. You in your ivory tower have WAY overestimated the accessability to computers and the internet.

You make a HUGE jump in logic about what forms of art people will be willing to make for no money. There is this assumption and jump in your head that writing a novel is insane to do for no money but people will make music? That is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I would argue that writing is more likely to happen for free than music is. You say "it doesn't take any time to write a song". How many good songs have you written? How do you know? What about the time to perfect it? What about the time for your band mates to perfect it?

Your arguments are just absolute CRAP meant to justify your illegal activities.

So... you guys can ignore my rant because Maple Leafs and QS said it much better and with much less emotion...

I just think Mr. B is making some major jumps in logic and oversimplifying what creators of music will do when there is no chance to make money from sales of music. The way big concerts happen is on the heals of major sales in records for instance.

MrB -

I do see your point as it applies to large-scale acts. But let's back up a bit and talk about the up-and-comers; and by this I don't mean the new guys who are making it on the radio. I'm talking about the bands that are playing on Friday/Saturday nights at Eddie's Attic, Jammin' Java, or any of the other thousands of coffee houses/smallish music areas in the world.

These groups tour, charge some money for their concerts, and sell CDs. Some of these groups are very, very good; and some of them will break out into the rock-star motif and make that kind of money. But if their music is free for distribution, that takes away what at this point is the only reliable moneymaker for these groups. Sure, Jennifer Nettles makes a good chunk of money from concerts while touring now with Sugarland. But without the CD sales, could she have kept (or started!) touring with Soul Miner's Daughter and the Jennifer Nettles Band? There's a large number of groups that have the potential - The Alternate Routes is one I like, Judd and Maggie one my wife does - but neither have that critical mass. Neither at this point could survive as a band without the income from CD sales.

So while the point may apply for the top-level acts, it becomes a serious barrier to entry for the low- to mid- level acts. Producing and creating music, despite any advances in technology is not free. Touring is not necessarily a money-maker.

Celeval made my argument much better than I did.

Like I said, some on the margins may be hurt. However, if "The Bigglesworth Law" passes, it wouldn't entirely get rid of CD sales. There may not even be that much of a change. Virtually everyone I know with a computer downloads songs right now, and almost all of them are still happy to purchase CD's of their favorite artists. Especially if CD's costs go down, with the reduced role of the RIAA.

No doubt about it, some may not be able to get by. But that will happen more often than not to the 'worst' of those musicians. And the loss of those musicians will be more than outweighed by the good of the free available music. It would also be offset by the increase in 'garage bands', bands that don't tour but will put out a good song or two, that will be able to get their song 'out there' easier because of the increase in technology due to the free, legal file trading.

The Bigglesworth Law kicks serious ass for affluent consumers.

Other folks...not so much.

Dude, I spend like 50 posts in this post alone putting forth my arguments. I didn't make any 'assumptions' like what you are stating. If you want to disagree, fine, but don't just ignore that I ever typed anything.

Have you read the thread? Because I talked at least twice about how the arts could be benefitted by it, but that there would probably be a drop, but not a large enough drop to counter the increase in benefit to the consumer.

So who that has access to recording equipment and the money to tour does not have access to a computer? It's a very small minority. The points were dismissed easily because they were entered into the discussion way too easily.

Have you read the thread? I've mentioned how much money there is still in music even if you took record sales completely out of it.

Novel writers get 99% (about, I made that number up) of their money from selling their novels, while musicians do not.

I'll take you up on that bet. You really think there are more amatuer novel writers out there than amatuer musicians??

wade moore, I try to respond to everyone that disagrees with me, but everything you have written has been brought up and answered multiple times and you add nothing to it, and it gets old after a while.

Because of not having computers? Computers are getting cheaper and cheaper. Broadband as well will get cheaper and cheaper. It won't be long before every household that has a TV also has a computer. If they still can't afford a computer, they aren't the type of household that is spending hundreds of dollars on CD's anyway.

I've seen this argued before. Isn't it possible that it's the opposite? That everyone will be so busy downloading the free music from the big names that the indy guy won't be able to use p2p to get a foot in the door?

And you're dead wrong. And you want to know why you're wrong? Because there would be nobody left to invest money on development and promotion of the bands. Bands, when they're starting out, don't have the money to do that themselves, unless one of the members comes from a wealthy family. Your model might be OK for bands that are already big, but few new bands would ever have the opportunity to get big again. The p2p network on the Internet would just be a huge, completely disorganized collection of stuff of most people didn't even know existed. And if they did know it existed, the content would be so unreliably variable in quality that sorting through it wouldn't be worth the effort. It wouldn't be worth the hassle to radio stations, either, and there's a very good chance that the one income-producing channel that served as a promotional opportunity for bands would find other things to program instead.

By the way, I've rethought your contention that the Founding Fathers granted IP rights primarily to benefit consumers, and I don't agree with that anymore, either. I believe they granted IP rights to give incentives for the technological and cultural growth of the nation as a whole.

I'll tell you something that I know for sure. If your model was such a great economic model for artists, some cult artist putting out music on his or her own label would already be giving away their entire catalog for free on their website. I don't see anyone doing it. I see some of them giving away unreleased freebies, or putting a song or two for free download on their websites, or letting people post bootlegs of their concerts on places like Live Music Archive. But that's it.

game, set, match

I disagree. Free music isn't illegal now - what's to stop the garage bands from putting out music for free now to get out there? There isn't anything - so I don't see where this increase comes from.

Music would still be a multi-billion dollar business. Taking away most of the record sales would not eliminate all money from the industry. There will always be money for promotions. Technology has made promoting that much easier. You think radio stations and MTV will shut down if they don't have somebody tell them what to play? Most radio stations would love to play their own lists. You think p2p technology won't progress to where it will be easy to search? Ares for one already rates the files on its system, in terms of popularity and also sound quality.

It's like I haven't even been posting for people like you and st.cronin. How many times do I have to repeat myself: THIS IS NOT THE BEST ECONOMIC MODEL FOR ARTISTS. I have no desire whatsoever to look for the way to get artists the most money possible, same as I am against the restrictions of the free market put on prescription drugs in this country.

Are there more small time band songs on p2p networks now than there was 10 years ago? More than 5 years ago? The trend is upwards. As techonology gets better, there will be more and more.

Well, yeah, given that there are more p2p networks and more songs then there were 5 or 10 years ago.

Fantastic, then we are in agreement that better technology means more songs!

The more songs are not the result of the distribution technology, but other technology in making songs. It's a non-sequitor to say there are more *quality* songs because of P2P, tho ("because I had cereal this morning, Kansas will beat Texas Tech").

SI

Here's the bottom line - people who create new works should have a fundamental, exclusive, absolute right to market their works as they see fit. The consumer has no right at all, and should have not any right at all, to free stuff that interferes with the creators' rights to decide how those works are distributed. And the fact that technology makes copyright infringement easier does not change the fact that it is still copyright infringement.

I disagree with the RIAA's tactics, and I hate the big record companies. If they were book publishers, everyone in the professional writing business would consider them scammers who should be shamed out of business.

But the fact remains that essentially what you are arguing is a certain narrow class of people should not have the right to benefit financially from their creative works. And when you get called on it, you'll say it's a better system for the creators in one post, and when someone criticizes you for that, you'll admit that in a backhanded indirect way that it's not better and you don't actually give a shit about the artists. You're about your own selfish desire to not have to pay for what you want.

Well, guess what - we all like to get free stuff. But we're not entitled to free stuff, and we're especially not entitled to free stuff belonging to someone else who doesn't want to give it away for free.

Celeval's point though was that 'garage bands' would be putting their stuff online now if we were to assume that they would do it later, and my point was that they are.

98% of music these days is shit anyways. And what isn't shit i have no problem paying for. I think the last CD I bought was Green Day, and the last before that was the latest Counting Crows disc. Bottom line...I'm not buying a lot of CD's these days, because 98-99% of stuff isn't even worth LISTENING to, let alone paying for. so i don't even download anything anymore, cuz there's nothing i'm interested in that i don't already have.

Please, get off your high horse. You already get the works of people for free. Ever read a report by a psychologist who did a six month study that said, say, that reading to your kids makes them smarter? Do you then pay royalties to the scientist every time you read to your kids? Ever get a classical music CD? Know why they are so cheap? Because they don't have to pay royalties. Ever get a generic drug? Or aspirin? The patents ran out, so you are benefitting from someone else's work for free. And why are patents limited by time? Because it is designed to give an incentive to innovate, not to maximize the companies profits.

That paragraph is mostly BS, except for saying that I am selfish, which I am. But let's take those statements one at a time:
Incorrect. Musicians would be able to benefit through live shows, endorsements, spinoffs (Eminem's clothesline, for example), the record sales that they would still have, etc.

Hmmm...where did I say that? I think I said multiple times that I don't care about the pocket books of musicians anymore than I care about the pocketbooks of Exxon.

I'm not sure what you think backhanded means, but I actually admitted it several times quite freely and haven't hid for a second from that fact that the repeal of IP rights for song filetrading would have a negative effect on the pocketbooks of musicians.

First, don't compare academic research to commercial arts. The conventions for disseminating information and the methods of compensation are completely different models. Second, what does the act of reading have to do with the actual copyright protections on a report someone wrote? Absolutely nothing.

Not really. It's mostly because classical music doesn't sell as well, so the record companies can't charge the same price for it. If they could, rest assured the record companies would. And, in fact, the artists DO get royalties for the performance, which is protected under copyright. It's just the compositions themselves that have expired copyrights, which just means the composers don't get royalties.


Where are you getting free aspirin? I sure don't know any place around here to get it.

Yes, the patents have expired. But until the patents expired, those companies had the exclusive right to make and/or license the drugs. And they can still profit from making them after the patents expire.

The copyrights you have so lustfully wish to infringe have not expired. So we're not talking about aspirin.


So it's OK to take away a source of income from people (for the vast majority) who don't make much money at it, anyway, as long as you leave them other ways to make money that already exist. How's a 25% or a 50% pay cut sound to you for doing the same work?


What's your occupation? What if a law was passed that took away your right to be paid for your work? That's what you're advocating.


Good. I'm glad you're admitting it openly, so that we can recognize you as an enemy of creative artists everywhere.

Eminem wouldn't have a clothing line if he wasn't a big star. He wouldn't be a big star without the music industry marketing machine behind him, and they're only behind him because he makes them a ton of money through his record sales. Take that away, and he doesn't get promoted -- and suddenly those concerts he's supposed to rely on for his income get an awful lot smaller.

And they still depend on the CD income to make it big. So, uh, I don't see how free music will change that in the slightest.

I'm arguing that the systems are different but should be the same. Your counter-argument is that the systems are different. Yes, I know the systems are different, but there isn't a basic principle that makes them different. What makes them different is the different incentives that the government decided on to create innovation. Academic research can thrive without pantenting their findings, and I believe that music has reached that point as well.

No. It's because nobody holds a patent on the music. If someone charges $20 for a classical music CD, someone else will just record the same CD with the same music and sell it for $15. Then someone else will do the same for $10. That's a fact. It's not because classical is not popular.

Free aspirin? I didn't say anything about free aspirin, and I don't even know why I am bothering to explain this to you, but obviously aspirin and other generic drugs are cheap because there is no monopoly on the sales. The money for the drugs does not go to the creator, as such the creator has NO CONTROL over who produces those drugs. And by your own words, "people who create new works should have a fundamental, exclusive, absolute right to market their works as they see fit", so if you purchase generic drugs you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of. What I am illustrating is that the absolute point that you are trying to make is bogus. There are no laws that say that creators have the absolute right of control over their works, they only have control for a certain number of years, and that is because the laws are designed as an incentive to innovate, not as a means for people to profit.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but this happens all the time in this country. A law was passed creating the National Weather Service, which gives away the same information as weather.com, only for free. Environmental laws are passed to protect owls and loggers are out of work. When universal healthcare finally passes, all the HMO's are out of work. If a streamlined tax code is passed, CPA's are out of work. And that is all done for the greater good. I could go on and on. I may not like it if it were my job that was cut, but if it is for the greater good you have to do what you have to do.

:rolleyes:

Eminem also made over $5 million in live performances this year. But, if your point is that Eminem doesn't earn his money because of talent but rather because of a huge marketing machine, then isn't that even more of a reason to get rid of the huge marketing machines, so that talent is what earns you the money?

Do you have evidence that that would be the case? Rockonomics, a paper by Alan Krueger, the Princeton labor economist, goes into some detail of this. He summarizes several studies on the effect of file-sharing starting on around page 60. Among his points:

• Smaller labels and unknown artists benefit, while big labels and stars suffer
• The overall effect of social welfare is positive
• An artist's revenues are better under file sharing, while publisher revenues shrink
• An alternative could be blanket licenses similar to what radios get

Another interesting note from the paper, of the top 35 highest earning musicians in 2002, the average made $12.7 million in live performances and $1.7 million in record sales.

Researchers at academic researchers patent their work all time. The patents are always owned by the university and the proceeds are split between the researchers, university, and the department. Universities have offices that are involved in licensing their research and they strongly encourage researchers to patent whatever they can.

Copyrights are treated differently in academic environments. They are owned by the creators of the copyrighted works.

Simply anecdotal, knowing a few people who have gone through it, both making it and not.



Fine and dandy, but I don't think we're talking about the top 35.

The bolded part is the operative phrase. There is a lot that cannot be patented, and while actual papers can be copyrighted, the theories can not be.

Nobody reads academic papers for pleasure. That's a huge difference.


This argument ignores two very important facts. One is that each orchestra brings its own personality to a piece of classical music. A recording by the London Symphony Orchestra is not the same as one by the New York Philharmonic. For the casual listener, it may not make much difference, I guarantee you that it does for many, many people.

The second place where you're assertion falls apart is that many artists of popular music record cover songs. Some artists, in fact, make whole albums of cover songs. If your premise were correct, then these albums with cover songs (all of which are still under copyright protection) should cost significantly more than albums with no cover songs. But they don't.

Price is determined by mostly by supply and demand. The royalties rates are a very small factor. A typical royalty rate on a creative work is around 10% of the retail price, nowhere near enough to be the kind of factor you imagine it to be in the price.


You're the one comparing unexpired copyrights to expired patents, not me. I'm fine with free distribution by anyone after the copyrights expire, but that won't be for a while yet on the music you think you should have the right to not pay for. And, in any case, none of these things are free to the consumer even after entering the public domain. You still have to pay for aspirin. You still have to pay if you want to buy a Mark Twain novel at the bookstore.


The National Weather Service not only predates weather.com by decades, it is the source of most of weather.com's information, not the other way around. The US Government is not a good example to use for copyright purposes, because it routinely makes the information it publishes freely available, and much of what it publishes is automatically considered to be in the public domain.


What you're advocating is not in the interest of the greater good. You're advocating cheating people out of their proceeds of their labor, for no better reason than you don't want to pay for something that has value. That is not the same thing as restricting work before it has been done, which is the case with all of your examples above.

Your position is one of the most absurd, unethical stands that I've ever encountered. You can roll your eyes all you want, but I'm right. You are the enemy of anyone who creates copyrighted material.

This is all I have to say about your entire post:

http://www.online-literature.com/twain/

Every single Twain thing ever written, for free, and searchable, on the web. Game, set, match. The rest of your post is more of the same illogical conclusions and misinformation, so easy to combat that I'm not even going to try because I think you are just messing with me at this point.

Btw, if someone wants to talk about how musicians would be effected I'd be more than happy to respond or discuss things. It's my belief that it would be good overall, but I could be wrong. I'm just tired of the, "It's a fundamental principle of life as we know it that musicians should hold the sole and undying copyright of their works to defend against all comers...but just for some arbitrary time period" logical fallacy.

I never said they weren't available at all for free, but few people download them compared to buying the books because all current e-book formats are ergonomically inferior to ink on paper. Most people who want to read Twain find it worth the money to buy the paper format. And you have to pay the bookstore for that.

It's not a fallacy. It's a Constitutional right, and the time period is not arbitrary, it was negotiated to conform to an international agreement (the Berne Convention) that serves to protect the nation's collective economic interests.

I think we've discussed how it affects musicians already. You've admitted it's a raw deal for them. What's left to discuss?

Theres a large group of people that read academic papers for pleasure, myself included.

You may not be able to patent a theory, but if that theory produces a new product, you could patent that if you invented it.

It's not arbitrary? How could you possibly argue that?

After all this, you still don't understand the basic argument?

My premises:
1) IP laws are in place to help innovation (i.e., for the consumer's benefit)
2) The consumer is better off with free file trading

My conclusion:
2) IP laws should be changed to allow the free trade of music

The government's job is to strike a balance. For some IP, they can supplement it with grants (such as the NEA). For some, they can give copyrights and allow the free market to work it's magic (such as films). For some, they can just let the system be (such as some academic work). There is no set rules of the game, the government does what they think will create the most innovation for the greater good of the consumer. I think music has reached the point where it doesn't need to be given government assistence in the form of copyrights.

So the question is not whether musicians will be negatively impacted, the question is to what extent? Will there still be a large amount of quality music created?

Actually, one of things the Supereme Court mentioned in the Grokster case (but never followed through with) is if the RIAA's monoply rights extended to the net/electronic form. They weren't sure it did.

Maybe somewhere down the line, there's some blanket tax ($20/$30 a year, maybe?) that would entitle one to this kind of file sharing.

Designing a suitable system would be the hard part though

I also think, within 10-15 years, as the Net continues to grow, (if not at the same rate), the movie theatre will go the way of the drive in. If the Movie studios see that they can sell a base movie to folks electronically at $10 bucks at the time of release of the movie.. they don't need the theatre and its overhead and percentages. The money is all for the studios.

They can even do the special edition DVD types (with all the bells and whistles) as normal afterwards.

It's only really about a decade away I'd think.

Oh, I understand your basic argument, all right. It's just that your argument is based on a gross misunderstanding of the relationship between economic incentives and production, and creates a discriminatory system in which musicians do not have the same IP rights as other creative artists. [/quote]


The part in parentheses is not true. The reason for promoting innovation through IP rights is not primarily for the consumers' benefit, but rather to ensure the technological and cultural advancement of the nation so that it can compete effectively with the rest of the world.


So what? That is not the primary purpose of IP rights.


The government's job is to strike a balance. For some IP, they can supplement it with grants (such as the NEA). For some, they can give copyrights and allow the free market to work it's magic (such as films). For some, they can just let the system be (such as some academic work). There is no set rules of the game, the government does what they think will create the most innovation for the greater good of the consumer. I think music has reached the point where it doesn't need to be given government assistence in the form of copyrights.

So the question is not whether musicians will be negatively impacted, the question is to what extent? Will there still be a large amount of quality music created?[/quote]

IP rights are not government assistance. IP rights are property rights. That seems to be a point you don't get.

I think that may be a good compromise down the line. Some kind of 'blanket license' similar to what radios have.

clintl is stating his argument very well. What Mr. B still doesn't get is that his premise #1 is WRONG.

I am not sure of the total history of this thread...

As a musician who has had my music published on record and TV for over 20 years, I feel affected by anything where someone believes that what I create and help create can be used without me getting paid for it.
When a song is used in a TV show and it is in reruns...I still get paid. If a rapper uses one of my songs to rap to (which is so common), I want my points.
Fighting for publishing rights is battle #1 in the business. The only battle the labels/publishing arms will not easily give ground on.

And the other post I read was about how much money is made on tour vs record sales. Back before I signed my first contract I was told that 75% of all the money I ever make will be from touring, so be ready to go out there. It was mostly true.

Nobody agrees with someone else making money off your work. If songs are used on TV or by someone else that makes money from it, the artist should be entitled to a cut at market rates.

No, you're wrong! Double stamped it, no erasies!

Part of clintl's argument is that supply and demand effect classical music prices, but that the infinite supply has no effect whatsoever. I only wish I could argue that well.

/You can't triple stamp a double stamp!

http://www.thefactz.org/ideas/archives/53

A review of the literature out on P2P file transfers had concluded:

- File-sharing causes overall album sales to decline.

- Sales go down for the top quarter of artists in popularity, and up for the other three quarters.

- "File-sharing on average yields a gain to society three times the loss to the music industry in lost sales."

Makes perfect sense to me. Especially the sales for the least popular artists. I'm one of those who downloads fringe artists and ends up buying entire catalogs.

I'm not convinced. I looks to me like they would have to sell significantly more movies if they wanted to get rid of the box offices. I think the only thing I could see overtaking this, would be streaming movies, maybe. But I still think a large number of people will continue to want to see movies in the theatre for that experience. I rarely go to the movies, but I do go because some movies are best enjoyed on a huge screen. Movies like LOTR, Pirates of the Carribean, and Star wars.

Question
 

In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc, the Supreme Court ruled that wholesale coping of television shows for personal consumption (and not for resale) is considered FAIR USE, and is not copyright infringement.

Wouldn't the same be held for radio copies, and because of it being available for "copy" on radio, also apply to online copies? The idea is that is the song is broadcast over radio waves, makes copies of that song fair use? I think it's a given that a great majority of people who download songs do so not as a monetary gain but for personal use.

The difference is, when you record a song off the radio, the radio station is still paying the copyright holder a royalty every time they play that song, and you presumably aren't turning around and distributing that copy to dozens, hundreds, or thousands of other people without paying the requisite royalty.

The way the law is written, the radio station has to pay royalties for distributing that music, and you are allowed to make a fair use copy.

On the other hand, filesharing networks tend not to work that way. Joe Blow downloads a song from Jim Smith, but now Joe Blow is acting as a distribution point for that song so that Jane Doe can download it from him, and the copyright holder isn't getting the royalties to which they're entitled.

Frankly, it's the same idea with TV shows. You can tape "House" off of Fox, but if you try to distribute that on a file-sharing network, you've gone beyond fair use and you're in the realm of copyright violation.