RIAA loses suit to make mother pay for 13 year old's file sharing..

[Masked]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Do you have evidence that that would be the case?

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

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Masked

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.

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.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by clintl

You still have to pay if you want to buy a Mark Twain novel at the bookstore.

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.

Originally Posted by Mugatu

Blue Steel? Ferrari? Le Tigra? They're the same face! Doesn't anybody notice this? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!

[MrBigglesworth]

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.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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?

[Joe]

Originally Posted by clintl

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

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

[Airhog]

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by clintl

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.

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

Originally Posted by clintl

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?

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?

[SirFozzie]

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

[SirFozzie]

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.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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

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]

My premises:
1) IP laws are in place to help innovation (i.e., for the consumer's benefit)

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.

2) The consumer is better off with free file trading

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

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?[/quote]

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

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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.

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

[wade moore]

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

[Gallifrey]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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 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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Gallifrey

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by wade moore

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

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!

[MrBigglesworth]

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."

[Ksyrup]

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.

[Airhog]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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.

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.

[WVUFAN]

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.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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.