Would it be considered piracy...

[geoschmo]

Baron, you ever notice how we always seem to start out on opposite sides of any discussion, and then over time our stongly held beliefs and compelling debate techniques draw us closer to a middle ground that is emminently resonable and practical?

What say you and I appoint ourselves Co-Emporers of the Earth. I think between the two of us we could do a pretty damn good job of running things.

Geo

[Suicide Junkie]

I'm curious as to how much "bread & butter" Napster actually made.
They certainly didn't charge people to get the program or even use it, and I don't recall anything about ad sponsoring either.

[Baron Munchausen]

Yes, people can abuse freedoms to do Bad Things. Lots of universities still print 'resource booklets' for their courses by photocopying chapters out of copyrighted textbooks and binding them together. Publishers have been trying to stop this, or extract a fee, for decades. It's not working. Should we put all photocopy machines under lock & key and have lawyers watch what everyone is copying to prevent this? Don't they have other important uses that make our open and productive society what it is?

Yes, people trade brand new songs in MP3s as well as older songs. In some cases it leads to new CD sales. In many cases the new songs are deleted because they aren't interesting enough. In a few cases people keep them. The odds are good that those people would not have bought the CD anyway.

What the RIAA and MPAA are trying to do is equivalent to locking up all photocopy machines to stop a fraction of the population from accessing a fraction of their 'intellectual property' with an unknown and unknowable effect on their revenues. Remember, the justification for legal action is loss of revenue. Can they prove that MP3 trading is not increasing their revenue through wider exposure? No.

Can it be proven that absolute copyright has had bad effects on the economy in general? Yes. Copyright is costing ALL OF US now. Time to reform it.

An article about the Limits of Copyright by Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law Professoer and an author of the petition:
http://www.thestandard.com/article/d...,16071,00.html

The 'home' site of the Eldred v. Ashcroft petition:
http://eon.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/e...legaldocs.html

LOOK at the list of co-signers! This is not a ground-swell of kids who want to copy music. This is rebellion from the established academic and scientific world.

[ June 27, 2002, 17:25: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
I'm curious as to how much "bread & butter" Napster actually made.
They certainly didn't charge people to get the program or even use it, and I don't recall anything about ad sponsoring either.

Well, no. I don't think they did ever pull it off to the extent he wanted to. But that was the "business plan" and the idea that he was pushing. I think the lawsuit pretty much brought it to a halt before his dream was realized. You don't think he was just doing it for the fun of it do you? Napster was a corporation at one point, and had some assets. I don't know what the source of the revenues were. Possibly investors looking towards possible future returns? If he had won the suit and had retained the right to do what he wanted, it would not have been long before you started seeing "subscription fees" and ads. In fact that is likely to be the end result of the idea anyway. But the issue over whether the content providor deserves any compenastion was the foundation of the whole disagreement.

Geo

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:
I'm curious as to how much "bread & butter" Napster actually made.
They certainly didn't charge people to get the program or even use it, and I don't recall anything about ad sponsoring either.

I don't think Napster was ever making money. I think the reason they weren't making money is that their expected source of income sued them. They believed they were creating a new business model, and that the music industry would pay them to distribute their product. They hadn't counted on the fear of the new. Now the Peer-to-peer networks have taken up the slack while the Napster fight and general corporate klutziness kept large distributors out of the growing new 'culture' of music listening. They've cut their own throats now. There's no going back to central distribution.

Ideally, bands would now go Online and distribute their own samples. AND sell their own CDs direct, cutting out the exploiting suits. But 'artists' are not known for business sense, or even interest. That's how they got into their current situation with the recording industry. I guess a new 'middle-man' will appear or the old middle-man will adapt to the new situation and exploit them in new ways.

[ June 27, 2002, 17:23: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Jmenschenfresser]

IIRC, wasn't Napster sold for something like 50 million. I know it was quite a bit, but I don't know who the money went to.

There is an ultimate limit on printed copyright, even though there exist extensions beyond the 70 years after the author's death. I think beyond that you can extend it another 30 or 40...not sure. Read it once when trying to figure out if a GK Chesterton book was still copyrighted.

I am completely on Baron's side in this, and I think the fundamental philosophy of this issue can be found in many a college lit class--when they discuss interpretations of works. Does it matter what the author thought when he wrote work X, or is the only real interpretation the one we create, not knowing what he was thinking. The fundamental question, beyond that, consists of ownership of ideas and how they are presented. Some authors get profoundly offended when critics or professors interpret a book to mean something he/she never meant it to mean.

I think it is glaringly obvious that the readers, hearers, viewers, etc own the content. Not the artists. Society owns the content. Because such things define us...we use them to communicate and relate. The only wrench is the money, and god, if that isn't a massive wrench.

I say the copyright laws should resemble a car warenty. 10 years or 1 million copies. I mean come on, after 1 million copies, you don't need the money any more, and after 10 years, for music at least, tastes change...you are part of history, not business.

Only thing I can say about the future of copywrite is, god forbid the human race creates another religion in the western world. As god would have to pay some "suit" everytime he came to earth and quoted what he once said or wrote on a tablet.

[geoschmo]

I will agree that the system as a whole has become horribly skewed. It used to be that the author of a work was viewed as the "producer" and the publisher was just distribution. The publisher "worked for" the author in effect. That has got turned around now and the publisher is producing and the author has become in effect merely a raw material. The publsiher controls the access to the market and so the author becomes dependant on them and thus sells their rights for a bowl of porridge.

The internet offers the possibility of once again allowing the author direct access to the market. This is a good thing. No doubt is scares the crud out of the current publishing power structure.

What needs to happen is for forward thinking artists to deal directly with Napster, or Napster like technology and regain control over what they do. But the technology needs responsible limits as well so that it cannot be used to distribute works of artists that do not wish them to.

And yes, copyrights need to be limited. But violation of those copyrights cannot be tolerated or excused.

I read that link Baron. Pretty good article actually. It made me think, although I can't say he convinced me on everyhting. It always amuses me when people in a disagreement over constitutional issues talk of the intent of the founding fathers. As if the founding fathers were a single entity that was consistant and unanimous in every opinion. For every belief that one can find the support of Jefferson for, I can find an equally elloquent and contrary opinion among another founder, usually Hamilton. (History buffs are chuckling now. I am such a nerd. ) The fact is they were men from all walks of life like us. And they disagreed, sometimes very strongly over issues. Almost every sentance in the constitution and bill of rights was disagreed with by at least one of the founding fathers. But they debated, and compromised, and came up with a document that was at once general and specific, both rigid and flexible, both fixed and changeable. Quite an accomplishment actually.

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Jmenschenfresser:
I think it is glaringly obvious that the readers, hearers, viewers, etc own the content. Not the artists. Society owns the content. Because such things define us...we use them to communicate and relate. The only wrench is the money, and god, if that isn't a massive wrench.

That is all well and good for high minded philisophical discussions such as this. We are all in effect "authors" on this fourm with Shrapnel as our "publisher". The free exchange of beliefs and ideas is another of our founding principles. Technology makes this exchange easier, great. But when your livelehood depends on selling this content you produce, it changes your perspective.

It's fine for a professor of literature, who has a job teaching at the university to pay the bills, to publish a sholarly work and say it "belongs" to the reader. Or for someone like Jefferson who didn't have to work to put food on the table because he had labor of human slaves to do it for him to decry the ownership of "intellectual property". But when you can't exercise your talent at writing because you aren't getting paid for it and you have to work at a diner, you don't have the luxury of such lofty principles. For those people their right of ownership to the work they produce is just as obvious.

Geoschmo

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by Jmenschenfresser:
IIRC, wasn't Napster sold for something like 50 million. I know it was quite a bit, but I don't know who the money went to.

$50 million is chicken feed. A single 'blockbuster' album can make more than this. So really, Napster was sold for a song.

Originally posted by Jmenschenfresser:

There is an ultimate limit on printed copyright, even though there exist extensions beyond the 70 years after the author's death. I think beyond that you can extend it another 30 or 40...not sure. Read it once when trying to figure out if a GK Chesterton book was still copyrighted.

I am completely on Baron's side in this, and I think the fundamental philosophy of this issue can be found in many a college lit class--when they discuss interpretations of works. Does it matter what the author thought when he wrote work X, or is the only real interpretation the one we create, not knowing what he was thinking. The fundamental question, beyond that, consists of ownership of ideas and how they are presented. Some authors get profoundly offended when critics or professors interpret a book to mean something he/she never meant it to mean.

I think it is glaringly obvious that the readers, hearers, viewers, etc own the content. Not the artists. Society owns the content. Because such things define us...we use them to communicate and relate. The only wrench is the money, and god, if that isn't a massive wrench.

I say the copyright laws should resemble a car warenty. 10 years or 1 million copies. I mean come on, after 1 million copies, you don't need the money any more, and after 10 years, for music at least, tastes change...you are part of history, not business.

In this case, though, the current 'interpretation' has been dictated by the corporations who want to setup a free ride for themselves. The 'rebels' trying to over-thrown absolute copyright are the ones who are interpreting it as originally written! The constitution clearly states that copyrights and patents are there to provide an incentive for people to contribute to the public domain, NOT to guard 'intellectual property'!

In Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, Congress is granted the power:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

How that relates to copyright in other countries, I don't know. I suppose if this challenge succeeds they will try to lock us into a treaty that forces their interpretation since that method has been so successful in other areas. Since there is a clause allowing for provisions in the Constitution to be over-ridden by international treaties this is going to be the route that everyone goes to get their way now.

[ June 27, 2002, 19:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
I will agree that the system as a whole has become horribly skewed. It used to be that the author of a work was viewed as the "producer" and the publisher was just distribution. The publisher "worked for" the author in effect. That has got turned around now and the publisher is producing and the author has become in effect merely a raw material. The publsiher controls the access to the market and so the author becomes dependant on them and thus sells their rights for a bowl of porridge.

The internet offers the possibility of once again allowing the author direct access to the market. This is a good thing. No doubt is scares the crud out of the current publishing power structure.

What needs to happen is for forward thinking artists to deal directly with Napster, or Napster like technology and regain control over what they do. But the technology needs responsible limits as well so that it cannot be used to distribute works of artists that do not wish them to.

And yes, copyrights need to be limited. But violation of those copyrights cannot be tolerated or excused.

I read that link Baron. Pretty good article actually. It made me think, although I can't say he convinced me on everyhting. It always amuses me when people in a disagreement over constitutional issues talk of the intent of the founding fathers. As if the founding fathers were a single entity that was consistant and unanimous in every opinion. For every belief that one can find the support of Jefferson for, I can find an equally elloquent and contrary opinion among another founder, usually Hamilton. (History buffs are chuckling now. I am such a nerd. ) The fact is they were men from all walks of life like us. And they disagreed, sometimes very strongly over issues. Almost every sentance in the constitution and bill of rights was disagreed with by at least one of the founding fathers. But they debated, and compromised, and came up with a document that was at once general and specific, both rigid and flexible, both fixed and changeable. Quite an accomplishment actually.

Geoschmo

The problem is that the reach of copyright has been extended with every advance in technology. It's now possible to argue that mere possession of information 'damages' someone's ability to make profits. It used to be that you had to try to exploit copyrighted material to violate a copyright, not merely possess it.

The current system has proven the classic proverb of grasping a handful of sand. The harder you grasp it, the more you lose. Yes, artists need to get fair compensation for their work. But corporations should not be able to stand over us and bill is for living our lives in the common culture. Because of this over-reaching, extremist position the respect of the general public for copyright has been badly eroded.

I think the worst of the problem could be addressed through an extension/expansion of 'fair use' rights. If I happen to have a copy of a favorite song from 20+ years ago it's not a threat to anybody's income. If I was going to buy a copy I'd have done so long before. I think this holds true for most people. If we really like something we DO buy it. If we find an MP3 of a song we haven't heard for a decade or more and download it that doesn't mean we would have bought the CD if we ran across it in a store.

Similarly, if I scan a favorite SciFi novel into my PC and keep it for re-reading/reference I am violating copyright. Sure, if some website scans in a novel & Posts it without permission that is violating copyright. They are 'exploiting' someone else's work, at the very least to generate attention and 'hits' for their site even if they don't charge money for it. But I can't change the form of the information I purchased? This is ridiculous.

So, I propose that if we allow mere possession of a work to count as 'fair use' after a reasonable length of time we could possibly allow copyright on exploitation to continue for the author's lifetime with no problems. You wouldn't be able to lift 'Satisfaction' by the Stones and use it in a movie soundtrack, or perform a cover Version with your own band. Just have a copy in your possession. 10 years, 20 years. I dunno. Something like that. Allowing people to experience their own culture without being taxed/fined/persecuted would go a long way towards restoring respect for copyright law.

[ June 27, 2002, 19:47: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]