View Full Version : P2P- Stealing?
michaelhigh
11-11-2010, 22:45
Limewire has recently been in the news as it seems they've been served an injunction for allowing p2p filetrading to occur on their site. Question 1- Should p2p trading be illegal? Question 2- If p2p trading is illegal, then, by the same token, shouldn't used record sales (all used media for that matter) be as well? Discuss while I duck back out of the way...
Surely any means of downloading ,without charge, music you should have paid for is theft?
The second hand music media thing is a good point though.
Perhaps it's the sheer accessability of p to p clients such as limewyre that makes the crucial difference....
That said, a friend of mine downloads music via limewire and if he likes it he then buys it on CD.
I believe the point about used record sales is that the original owner forfeits the rights to play the music so it's not quite the same issue as p2p trading. If the music in question was purchased legally originally and when it was traded it was deleted by original owner then maybe it would be legal.
zygote23
11-11-2010, 23:44
I think the whole legal/illegal thing has been done to death. If you aint paying for it then it's theft.....simples.
That said no one will stop the p2p traffic.
No one will stop illegal downloads.
The Geek shall inherit the earth.
If I can buy it I will.
If I cannot buy it I will try to track down the artist and plead with them (this has actually worked)
If I still cannot buy it or it is out of print I have the skills to get pretty much any piece of music I want.
As for illegal downloading destroying the music industry.....don't make me laugh!
magiccarpetride
12-11-2010, 00:25
Limewire has recently been in the news as it seems they've been served an injunction for allowing p2p filetrading to occur on their site. Question 1- Should p2p trading be illegal? Question 2- If p2p trading is illegal, then, by the same token, shouldn't used record sales (all used media for that matter) be as well? Discuss while I duck back out of the way...
It all has to do with how hard/easy it is to make a perfect copy of the content. In the old days, it was unimaginable that anyone would have facilities at home to make a perfect copy of an LP. Same holds true for books and other analog artifacts.
With the dawning of the age of digital, the most dramatic change is that each and every household is now fully equipped to make unlimited amounts of perfect copies of the original material. The copies we can now make in our bedrooms by simply pushing a button are virtually indistinguishable from the originals.
But even worse than that (much worse), we're now all fully equipped to distribute, with a simple click of a button, those perfect copies all around the world.
This situation is unprecedented in human history. This is what's getting all these lawyers to spend sleepless nights, mulling over how to disable us from this phenomenal capability.
My take? All these lawyers are fighting an uphill battle and are destined to lose the war. Sharing cultural artifacts (books, manuscripts, newsprint, music, motion pictures, etc.) is our birthright. We, as humans, are entitled to the free (free as in free speech and free as in free beer) unencumbered access to these treasures.
I think the whole legal/illegal thing has been done to death. If you aint paying for it then it's theft.....simples.
Except that in law it is NOT theft. It's a breach of Copyright! Not very 'simples' then is it?
Might seem a small point but it completely changes the WHOLE argument!
If you aquire something by breach of copyright but you had, do not have and never will have ANY intention to buy it then you can't consider it to be theft in any sense, especially not morally with the implication that there is a victim. Equally, and in the same sense, it is not theft if you download something breaching copyright, but then buy the secondhand item in hardcopy (or does anyone thinking the former example is 'theft' also consider the latter to be 'theft' also?)
It IS however breach of copyright in both cases (assuming it is copyrighted and the owner of that copyright has made the way you aquired it a breach of their license of use).
To use the term 'theft' in this is emotive and tries to appeal to our moral guides that determine our behaviour in society, how we interact as humans, with theft an act that has an evil perpetrator and a poor victim, to envoke an almost childish emotional, black and white reaction. Projecting this scenario on copying music - breaching copyright - is entirely... not sure what the word is but it's disingenuous and serves to influence our opinions to favour the supposed victim.
It's slightly propogandist depending on who it comes from but unfortunately, to say that 'copyright is theft' is also quite catchy, appears susinct and so is often innocently repeated - in reality it is glib.
Now, that's not to say that there aren't victims in breach of copyright, but now we are facing the realities of the situation and moved away from the notion of theft, we can judge each breach of copyright on its own merits. The two examples above are very very common situations that I believe most people would consider to be victimless (the first is hard to prove, that you never intend to purchase the crap music you downloaded). Sometimes that victim is a multi-billion pound company who has shafted the very artist you appreciate out of the rights of their own artistic creations and consigned them to future bankruptcy when they get a bill from the label to pay for all the over the top production fees and managment fees. Sometimes that victim may be a small independant record label who is trying deperately to re-dress the balance and get amazing music some exposure. Sometimes that victim is the artists themselves who are now multi multi millionaires and walk off stage half way through their sets because one member of the crowd threw a bottle, leaving the struggling venue to refund tickets but keeping their 3 million pound appearance fee because the contract only said they had to play for 30 minutes maximum.
Changing illegal downloading from 'theft' to 'breach of copyright' changes the whole ball game doesn't it!
To answer the OPs questions though (and to be a bit pedantic) P2P sharing is not illegal. Even (local?)government use it to distribute large material and Wikileaks also for example. Much original content is also distributed via p2p services.
Limewire were served an injuction because it was deemed that they allowed the distribution of copyrighted material to occur, even though all they do is provide pointers to those who do have it and are willing to distribute it rather than themselves directly.
Your second question though is interesting and is what I mentioned at the top - what if you download and then go and buy the original secondhand? The record label isn't getting any more for your purchase so what's the difference if you don't bother to buy that secondhand record either, especially if the seller of that record instead decides to destroy it and take it out of the loop anyway? What if you don't download it but do buy the secondhand record? Now, again you have it in your posession and the label STILL haven't received the money again from you. What's the difference between any of them other than just a point of law?
Your second question though is interesting and is what I mentioned at the top - what if you download and then go and buy the original secondhand? The record label isn't getting any more for your purchase so what's the difference if you don't bother to buy that secondhand record either, especially if the seller of that record instead decides to destroy it and take it out of the loop anyway? What if you don't download it but do buy the secondhand record? Now, again you have it in your posession and the label STILL haven't received the money again from you. What's the difference between any of them other than just a point of law?
I'm no lawyer but buying physical music media 2nd hand I believe is legal, all that's happening is that the right to play the music is being transferred, rather like the warranty on a car goes with the car to the 2nd purchaser.
I have far to many friends who are struggling musicians Most of them understand bootlegs etc but dislike file sharing
I personally will not get music this way but agree most people still will
Just a point most musicians are struggling only a very few make it I dislike the record industry fat cats and dislike free file sharing but this will not stop either
The advantage the industry loves from digital storage, zero cost, zero defect reproduction (no LP pressing plant, no shipping cost). Is the same thing that allows endless duplication. It it worries them that much, just release on LP only again. Problem goes away :-)
The Vinyl Adventure
12-11-2010, 09:13
I dont really have a solid opinion so instead of one I'd like to share with you a really very funny episode of south park
http://www.xepisodes.com/southpark/episodes/709/Christian-Rock-Hard.html
As far as I know that site is legit, the creators of southpark obviously have an opinion on this (as they do with most things) and although I don't always agree with them, I always agree that they make a valid point, this episode is no exception!
Beware, usual spatterings of casual racism and other such "offensive" stuff... Very very very funny though! I'm a big fan of southpark!
I have far to many friends who are struggling musicians Most of them understand bootlegs etc but dislike file sharing
I personally will not get music this way but agree most people still will
Just a point most musicians are struggling only a very few make it I dislike the record industry fat cats and dislike free file sharing but this will not stop either
Do your musician friends say why the dislike file sharing?
Most musician friends I know swap music and give each other CDs of MP3s and get enthusiastic about some new discovery (to them) of an obscure band and pass it around to their other musician friends. i.e. part of their whole thing of being a musician is being enthusiatic about human culture of music and wanting to share it to as many as will listen! They ostensibly do this by breaching copyright, probably finding the material on p2p networks or swaping whole hard-drives of media. They don't all wait for someone to buy a new copy before discovering and enthusing.
I would say that often musicians who dislike filesharing are seeing the means by which they achieve their unrealistic dreams of being in a band like the Stones eroded and so it threatens their self-image!
I also see those who are doing well as being escalated in popularity by filesharing their songs and so they play more gigs, have a bit of a following, get a lot of friendly support and help to achieve their musical goals but, yes, don't make much money from album sales (probably more from selling CDs at gigs) and so need that job at the cafe. Isn't the way it's pretty much always been?
You don't need big money these days to make great music and be popular, therefore you don't need the record sales either to pay for things because it is so much cheaper and people will help you out.
Modern technology of P2P file sharing is an amazing thing that should be used to musician's advantage if they are really interested in the music and not the life-style image.
Your second question though is interesting and is what I mentioned at the top - what if you download and then go and buy the original secondhand? The record label isn't getting any more for your purchase so what's the difference if you don't bother to buy that secondhand record either, especially if the seller of that record instead decides to destroy it and take it out of the loop anyway? What if you don't download it but do buy the secondhand record? Now, again you have it in your posession and the label STILL haven't received the money again from you. What's the difference between any of them other than just a point of law?
I'm no lawyer but buying physical music media 2nd hand I believe is legal, all that's happening is that the right to play the music is being transferred, rather like the warranty on a car goes with the car to the 2nd purchaser.
I meant the moral difference and the difference in actually financial result - i.e the financial results are the same so why do the labels sue for loss of earnings when there's a breach of copyright and not for when someone dares to buy secondhand? The result is the same for the company - someone else now already has the music and so has no need to buy a new copy from the label.
Do your musician friends say why the dislike file sharing?
Most musician friends I know swap music and give each other CDs of MP3s and get enthusiastic about some new discovery (to them) of an obscure band and pass it around to their other musician friends. i.e. part of their whole thing of being a musician is being enthusiatic about human culture of music and wanting to share it to as many as will listen! They ostensibly do this by breaching copyright, probably finding the material on p2p networks or swaping whole hard-drives of media. They don't all wait for someone to buy a new copy before discovering and enthusing.
I would say that often musicians who dislike filesharing are seeing the means by which they achieve their unrealistic dreams of being in a band like the Stones eroded and so it threatens their self-image!
I also see those who are doing well as being escalated in popularity by filesharing their songs and so they play more gigs, have a bit of a following, get a lot of friendly support and help to achieve their musical goals but, yes, don't make much money from album sales (probably more from selling CDs at gigs) and so need that job at the cafe. Isn't the way it's pretty much always been?
You don't need big money these days to make great music and be popular, therefore you don't need the record sales either to pay for things because it is so much cheaper and people will help you out.
Modern technology of P2P file sharing is an amazing thing that should be used to musician's advantage if they are really interested in the music and not the life-style image.
They accept that they cannot change this but they are not rich just people who love music and need to live life too, nothing unreasonable about that at all
I meant the moral difference and the difference in actually financial result - i.e the financial results are the same so why do the labels sue for loss of earnings when there's a breach of copyright and not for when someone dares to buy secondhand? The result is the same for the company - someone else now already has the music and so has no need to buy a new copy from the label.
The results are not the same. The reality is that when file sharing multiple people are playing the music from one original purchase and even that may have been half inched....
With vinyl the chances are no one will have made a hi res copy of it, though it's possible. If 10 people want to listen to a vinyl album then 10 people have to buy it.
Sure with CD it's different, waaay more likely to be ripped.
Modern technology of P2P file sharing is an amazing thing that should be used to musician's advantage if they are really interested in the music and not the life-style image.
Is that a coded way of saying music is for the people and musicians shouldn't be capitalist sharks trying to make money from it?
Jac Hawk
13-11-2010, 15:04
This very discussion was on the radio not so long back, the record company bloke was mentioning that they are looking at charging for music in a different way, they understand the problem of illegal downloading and know fine well that it can't be stopped. So the idea was or is, that you pay like a subscription as part of your ISP charge or mobile phone bill, this small addition like a tax is then paid to the record companies and the problem of illegal downloading is stopped.
How the hell it would work in practice I shudder to think.
Reid Malenfant
13-11-2010, 15:46
This very discussion was on the radio not so long back, the record company bloke was mentioning that they are looking at charging for music in a different way, they understand the problem of illegal downloading and know fine well that it can't be stopped. So the idea was or is, that you pay like a subscription as part of your ISP charge or mobile phone bill, this small addition like a tax is then paid to the record companies and the problem of illegal downloading is stopped.
How the hell it would work in practice I shudder to think.
:eek: They'll probably do similar to what the BBC do with the TV licensing fee, they'll assume that all homes have a TV & hassle them for the fee (i had this problem myself earlier in the year, just because i bought a new TV to just watch DVDs, videos & blu rays :doh:).
My guess is they'd assume anyone on broadband was doing it & thus your broadband charges would be taxed :mental: I mean you try convincing someone you don't download music for free, it'd be impossible..
Pete The Cat
14-11-2010, 19:18
I agree that it's not acceptable with one exception - free sharing of non commercially available material, ie bootlegs. The people losing out to file sharing in that situation are bootleggers who would otherwise profit from real fans.
Of course, this opens up the debate over legitimacy of bootlegging. I'm in the camp that if you've got everything that's commercially available by an artist then why not have the recording of that KCRW acoustic set which you couldn't have heard for yourself...
Pete
Reid Malenfant
14-11-2010, 20:13
You know that none of this would go on, or very little if they didn't charge frankly ridiculous prices for CDs, DVDs & Blu Rays :doh:
They cost next to naff all to produce, less than £1 & yet they charge i don't know what (long time since i bought a CD from a shop :eyebrows:) but i guess about £10 - £13 :scratch: :mental:
It's not like it's a new thing, CDs have been around since the 80s :lolsign:
The funny thing is i have been picking up quite a few Blu Rays for £4.99 brand new & sealed on By It Now auctions on fleabay, there really isn't any excuse for the prices shops charge :steam:
magiccarpetride
15-11-2010, 19:20
Surely any means of downloading ,without charge, music you should have paid for is theft?
The second hand music media thing is a good point though.
Perhaps it's the sheer accessability of p to p clients such as limewyre that makes the crucial difference....
That said, a friend of mine downloads music via limewire and if he likes it he then buys it on CD.
There are basically three things that are involved here:
1. Physical container (i.e. an LP, an audio cassette, a CD, a DVD, a blu ray disc, a downloaded mp3, WAV, AIFF or FLAC file, etc.)
2. Streaming content (i.e. mp3 or FLAC streaming from some location into your player)
3. Actual content playing in real time (pushing the airwaves)
Copyright laws have been put in place only to address the physical container, because at the time these laws have been put in practice, there was no such thing as streaming.
If I take a boom box and go sit in a park and play some Beatles on it, people around me will get free enjoyment of the copyrighted Beatles music. Am I at that point breaking the copyright law? Are they breaking it for unauthorized listening? Are they expected to report me to the authorities, or to at least plug their ears so as to not illegally listen to the copyrighted material?
If I go to my local public library, I can borrow a truckload of CDs, which I then get to keep in my house for 4 weeks. While I listen to these CDs, am I violating the copyright laws?
A friend of mine has legally purchased a lot of HD tracks which he is hosting on his server. If I access the URL of one of those tracks, and I stream the FLAC to my Logitech Squeezebox Touch, am I violating the copyright laws? Keep in mind that I'm not downloading the file, I'm merely streaming it on demand. After the playback is finished, there are no traces of that file on my computer.
There are basically three things that are involved here:
1. Physical container (i.e. an LP, an audio cassette, a CD, a DVD, a blu ray disc, a downloaded mp3, WAV, AIFF or FLAC file, etc.)
2. Streaming content (i.e. mp3 or FLAC streaming from some location into your player)
3. Actual content playing in real time (pushing the airwaves)
Copyright laws have been put in place only to address the physical container, because at the time these laws have been put in practice, there was no such thing as streaming.
If I take a boom box and go sit in a park and play some Beatles on it, people around me will get free enjoyment of the copyrighted Beatles music. Am I at that point breaking the copyright law? Are they breaking it for unauthorized listening? Are they expected to report me to the authorities, or to at least plug their ears so as to not illegally listen to the copyrighted material?
If I go to my local public library, I can borrow a truckload of CDs, which I then get to keep in my house for 4 weeks. While I listen to these CDs, am I violating the copyright laws?
A friend of mine has legally purchased a lot of HD tracks which he is hosting on his server. If I access the URL of one of those tracks, and I stream the FLAC to my Logitech Squeezebox Touch, am I violating the copyright laws? Keep in mind that I'm not downloading the file, I'm merely streaming it on demand. After the playback is finished, there are no traces of that file on my computer.
You are most likely breaching the copyright relating to that music (or your friend is) in tow of those those points except the library one and in that sense you should be prosecuted!
Imagine if the record companies were actively selling the music in that park (much like people selling drinks on a hot beach) and when they approached people who want to listen to the beatles at that point (and willing to pay) they decline to buy the copy because they could hear your boombox for free! This is an illegal action by you by current law and the ONLY reason you're not being prosecuted is because there is no-one policing it seriously. They could if they wanted by current law. It would however, for some unknown reason, be considered quite unreasonable to start handing out law suits at the park..
Compare that to p2p networks. Not much different, especially if the people in the park took their own recorder along and could, by good fortune, get an accurate recording of your boombox to take home and use when they liked.
So is one situation more reprehensible than the other? Through a kind of herd mentality, social pressure, repetition of what other's say way you may immediately, instictively say no, that the park situation is rediculous and downloading is much worse - but distance yourself from that and take a fully objective, dispasionate view and they are fairly similar.
That's were the problems lie - the laws are outdated, the reasons for imposing copyright has moved from protection of the method of distribution (to allow human culture to flurish and grow) to the protection of profits for business (and as many industries grow and grow in a capitalist society, they become closer and closer to monopolistic and further distanced from human culture and the enrichment thereof).
There is currently a desire around the world, I believe, to bring enrichment to human culture and the masses rather than financial riches to the few and downloading and p2p networks have become a large part of that. Probably has always been there but now people are more connected to express it ever more loudly.
Musically there has to be a balance though as it is just a fact of life that some musical projects simply need capital of some kind to even exist and that is normally put up up front on the basis of a return from album sales. And those current capital providers aren't interested in just breaking even for the sake of the music - perhaps there needs to be an alternative funding method, and in some ways, in the same vein as p2p networks, this can happen in the future by spreading costs over many many people via networking (PirateMyFilm.com is a good example of what could happen).
They accept that they cannot change this but they are not rich just people who love music and need to live life too, nothing unreasonable about that at all
So I imagine they can have a job and play and enjoy the music still?
The possiblity of immediate access to pretty much any music they wish must be greatly enriching to their lives - money that in a sense they don't have to now earn, allbeit by breaking the law.
Many friend musicians of mine have persevered and have either found self-employed work with very flexible hours (decorating, stage/event crew work that is fairly well paid) or have found support from their friends/fans and live rent free, have recorded free via friends/fans with extra money coming from part time work like pubs and cafes etc AND whip-round gigs (where there's a whip-round at the end). Now, they are getting paid for upfront for gigs which also keeps them going.
One in particular who does electonica gigs around the Europe all the time, fits it all in with his main freelance job that he's always had - a well paid job that's flexible - and succeeded in getting some commercial airplay, ads and the like, that has paid a lot.
There are others who, for whatever reason, remain on the dole despite playing in the exact same bands as others who aren't - it often comes down to choice and self-image and the image of "being a musician". I'm sure that some people just wouldn't be comfortable without being a struggling musician - it's all part of it. It's an interesting area of phsychology..
We have to also be honest and realise that not every-one can be a musician or successful who want to be and many are very very average despite their strong belief that the life of a musician (whatever that means) is the only one that they fit into. Again, it's the phsychology of self-image.
I think the idea of making it as a musician envolves earning money from record sales is again part of an image. Unfortunately that image really belongs to a transitory era that is on its way out. Let's face it, the current way of doing things with the large record labels and multimillionaire musicians is a blip! In the whole grand scheme of things of thousands apon thousands of years of human musical culture, it is a transitory blip that grew from a particular set of technologies arriving in a certain order that have now become outdated.
Had an easily copy-able media been invented first before the phonograph the whole situation could not have existed in the first place.
The results are not the same. The reality is that when file sharing multiple people are playing the music from one original purchase and even that may have been half inched....
With vinyl the chances are no one will have made a hi res copy of it, though it's possible. If 10 people want to listen to a vinyl album then 10 people have to buy it.
Sure with CD it's different, waaay more likely to be ripped.
Never 'half-inched' - we need to make that destinction - as it's not theft by any law. It is Breach of Copyright and Loss of Earnings from that. Very important to keep that in the fore-front of discussion as it makes a big big difference to attitudes, both emotive and objective.
oops, replying to the wrong post, didn't mean this one..
Is that a coded way of saying music is for the people and musicians shouldn't be capitalist sharks trying to make money from it?
This one I meant to quote..
Not coded and I don't think it's capitalist either.. capitalism allows a no-longer profitable business model to die and be replaced with something new. The desperate acts of large labels to survive (getting new laws passed in the US through mega-buck political pressure and silly en-mass show-case law suits) is very non-capitalist. Musicians making money from their music is fine and when the 'business model' becomes no longer valid, they either need to change or make the decision as to whether it was the business model that was important or the music. Some will very likely show us all that it was the business model that was important to them.. Kind of like when the tide goes out, you will see who are really wearing the musical trunks and who was hiding their naked credentials behind the sea of money. (haha - pleased with that phrase!)
I think that if you approach something with a pre-conceived, concreate idea of how to do things it's more likely to go wrong and therefore people get angry with others who are changing the system that they were mentally prepared for.. If you see what I mean.
If you love making music then make music - it's very cheap to do.
If you want to make albums and have something physical so show for your work then burn some CDs and create your own packaging - it's cheap and easy to do. The recording gear is also cheap now.
If you want recognition by a section of society then do the leg work and networking yourself - it's very easy these days via the internet and enthusiatic people around the world.
If you want to live some dream of living and breathing music all day while living in comfort as money roles in and lots of screaming fans through megabuck promotion then perhaps that was only ever available to the lucky, well connected or super talented, super self-confident few anyway and it was never really going to happen. Now it's less likely to happen, not just because of a lack of record sales but because the music lovers are doing the above points themselves and diluting peoples attention and therefore money away from the labels anyway. They shouldn't get angry with whom they believe are scuppering their plans, like a baby, they need to re-address their own perspectives and attitudes and find what is really important to them. If it's still the music then they will find way to be fullfilled.
Times are changing and flexibilty is one good route to success (in whatever form that takes). True creativity and human culture always flourish when money becomes scarce so I'm looking forward (culturally, not financially at least - every cloud... ) to recession and death of the record industry.
Please note though that although I do think the current laws are outdated to the realities of the situation and I personally don't care for laws NOR the moral arguments that pander to protecting the right to make profits (I feel that if the situation changes that takes away the profit, you need to just move on - no protectionism please! (well, anti-monopolistic protectionism is ok, I guess it depends on the situation)) I don't think that everyone should go breaking the law regardless. With laws you don't agree with, there are always situations you've not been mindful of that in breaking those laws may create victims who you wouldn't want to make victims of. It's up to you though, I don't make moral judgement on those wanting to download for free.
magiccarpetride
16-11-2010, 17:46
You are most likely breaching the copyright relating to that music (or your friend is) in tow of those those points except the library one and in that sense you should be prosecuted!
What if I sit in the park and sing some Beatles tunes to amuse myself? Other passers by can hear me, they can enjoy these tunes. Am I violating the copyright laws at that point, because I'm not paying royalties to Michael Jackson's estate (or to whomever else is holding the copyrights to the Lennon-McCartney catalog)?
Imagine if the copyright police starts fining all those who hum and sing and whistle popular tunes. If you envision that to be a well ordered society, you are out of your fucking little mind!
Or, what about me legitimately purchasing a DVD and watching it at home, but somehow forgetting to draw the curtains? All of a sudden, my next door neighbor can watch that movie for free, just by leaning on his kitchen window and peering into my living room window. Who must be prosecuted in this case? Me, for being negligent and forgetting to draw the curtains before starting the movie projection? My neighbor, for callously taking advantage of my negligence? Both of us?
Am I expected under the current laws to turn around, give my pesky neighbor a finger, and yell at him: "Buy your own fucking DVD!"
Yeah, prosecuting people for doing things such as these is the best way to ensure we live in a just society. Give me a fucking break!
Techno Commander
16-11-2010, 18:08
Its wrong.
http://asset.soup.io/asset/1109/7135_ca89_400.jpeg
But I still want to. :)
So I imagine they can have a job and play and enjoy the music still?
The possiblity of immediate access to pretty much any music they wish must be greatly enriching to their lives - money that in a sense they don't have to now earn, allbeit by breaking the law.
Many friend musicians of mine have persevered and have either found self-employed work with very flexible hours (decorating, stage/event crew work that is fairly well paid) or have found support from their friends/fans and live rent free, have recorded free via friends/fans with extra money coming from part time work like pubs and cafes etc AND whip-round gigs (where there's a whip-round at the end). Now, they are getting paid for upfront for gigs which also keeps them going.
One in particular who does electonica gigs around the Europe all the time, fits it all in with his main freelance job that he's always had - a well paid job that's flexible - and succeeded in getting some commercial airplay, ads and the like, that has paid a lot.
There are others who, for whatever reason, remain on the dole despite playing in the exact same bands as others who aren't - it often comes down to choice and self-image and the image of "being a musician". I'm sure that some people just wouldn't be comfortable without being a struggling musician - it's all part of it. It's an interesting area of phsychology..
We have to also be honest and realise that not every-one can be a musician or successful who want to be and many are very very average despite their strong belief that the life of a musician (whatever that means) is the only one that they fit into. Again, it's the phsychology of self-image.
I think the idea of making it as a musician envolves earning money from record sales is again part of an image. Unfortunately that image really belongs to a transitory era that is on its way out. Let's face it, the current way of doing things with the large record labels and multimillionaire musicians is a blip! In the whole grand scheme of things of thousands apon thousands of years of human musical culture, it is a transitory blip that grew from a particular set of technologies arriving in a certain order that have now become outdated.
Had an easily copy-able media been invented first before the phonograph the whole situation could not have existed in the first place.
You making a lot of judgements based on people you never met All of my friends do everything they can do to share their music and all have other jobs
ZebuTheOxen
16-11-2010, 20:50
P2P is stealing. No bones about it, if you're using a good or service that you should be paying for, that is theft.
Copyright law was not written with current technology in mind, and as such is not really appropriate in this situation. When 'P2P' was copying tapes reel-to-reel, the scope for piracy was significantly reduced due to costs.
Downloading / uploading music is practically cost-free, which not only increases prevalency, but also increases the number of casual pirates.
Rather than addressing the issue at source by rewriting the copyright act, they've spent untold amounts of money on 'preventing piracy'. Suing hundreds of thousands / millions of would-be customers is not going to produce optimal outcomes in the long term.
Not to mention the fact that there isn't a good (no, iTunes is not good), legal distribution system for music just exacerbates the problem.
I think a system much like Valve Software's Steam (popular Computer Game distribution platform) is the way forward. It offers the consumer considerable benefits, while also acting as DRM.
Ideally this would be developed by a not-for-profit organisation so the artists / studios will get as large a slice of the profit back as possible.
I am a firm believer that most pirates are just under served customers.
Beechwoods
16-11-2010, 22:24
What if I sit in the park and sing some Beatles tunes to amuse myself? Other passers by can hear me, they can enjoy these tunes. Am I violating the copyright laws at that point, because I'm not paying royalties to Michael Jackson's estate (or to whomever else is holding the copyrights to the Lennon-McCartney catalog)?
I love the old story about "Happy Birthday" and the fact it's still covered by copyright... sad for the two old sisters who wrote it, they never got a penny...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Birthday_to_You
Just watch your back. If you can hum it, they can charge you for it ;)
Its wrong.
http://asset.soup.io/asset/1109/7135_ca89_400.jpeg
But I still want to. :)
Would I have sex with this woman? Without Paying? Of course I would, she's MY WIFE! Where the F*** did you get that picture from, and more importantly, where has she been stashing all that extra cash she's been making - I need new speakers!
I've stayed out of this debate (I think!) so far, because I am very much against illegal downloading or pirating of any kind. I know that record companies are to a degree seen as fair game, but to my mind, if I enjoy it, I should buy it legitimately - don't forget that a lot of new music is still "sponsored" by the record company, (or at least they take a gamble) and a lot of releases don't make back what was invested - and in any case, how much has a CD increased in price in the last 20 years, if at all.
magiccarpetride
17-11-2010, 00:02
Would I have sex with this woman? Without Paying? Of course I would, she's MY WIFE!
How much did you pay for her boobs job? (btw, nice job;)
Techno Commander
17-11-2010, 12:42
Of course I would, she's MY WIFE! Where the F*** did you get that picture from, and more importantly, where has she been stashing all that extra cash she's been making - I need new speakers!
Cash??:scratch:
She said she didnt want any and would I like to be "entertained" whilst I downloaded your spotify account.:lol:
What if I sit in the park and sing some Beatles tunes to amuse myself? Other passers by can hear me, they can enjoy these tunes. Am I violating the copyright laws at that point, because I'm not paying royalties to Michael Jackson's estate (or to whomever else is holding the copyrights to the Lennon-McCartney catalog)?
That would be like doing a cover version and most likely they wouldn't bother till they thought you were getting money for it - you can perform cover versions live in concert without fear of a law suit ( I think).
Imagine if the copyright police starts fining all those who hum and sing and whistle popular tunes. If you envision that to be a well ordered society, you are out of your fucking little mind!
Err, who are you shouting at here? Me? My "fucking little mind"? That's nice but forgiven - think you may have got the wrong end of the stick but please to have provoked a strong reaction. I wasn't saying that it was my opinion that you should be. I was saying that you can be and if it threatens profits of the copyright holders they WILL think you should be. This is the reality of the situation with downloading stuff for free. The biggest point is the threat to profits and many many ordinary people around the world are currently being taken to the cleaners by group law suits from big labels for doing what they felt was just engrossing themselves in human culture - sharing music.
Or, what about me legitimately purchasing a DVD and watching it at home, but somehow forgetting to draw the curtains? All of a sudden, my next door neighbor can watch that movie for free, just by leaning on his kitchen window and peering into my living room window. Who must be prosecuted in this case? Me, for being negligent and forgetting to draw the curtains before starting the movie projection? My neighbor, for callously taking advantage of my negligence? Both of us?
Yep! You could be prosecuted for putting on a public showing of the DVD! I have heard of cautions been given or at least threats of prosecusion for such things like big parties or projecting films onto walls in back gardens for private viewing that others can see - I think though that is normally acted on by councils because THEY are then loosing out on fees from giving out licenses. I'm sure the copyright holder would like to curb such things too and would sue if they were there and could be bothered.
Am I expected under the current laws to turn around, give my pesky neighbor a finger, and yell at him: "Buy your own fucking DVD!"
That's exactly what most big business copyright holders would like you to do! An artist, if they were the copyright holder would probably be fine with it but if it's big business and they're interested in profits then its a different story.
Yeah, prosecuting people for doing things such as these is the best way to ensure we live in a just society. Give me a fucking break!
Exactly, which is why all this "p2p downloading should be stopped" and the emotive "downloading is stealing" is bad for society. It is more complicated and subtle than that and handling it with an iron fist damages human culture and society. It needs deeper discusion.
Copyright as it stands and corporate attitudes to it are out-dated and can't handle current technology and their actions could risk a lot of things we as humans hold dear.
Its wrong.
http://asset.soup.io/asset/1109/7135_ca89_400.jpeg
But I still want to. :)
You mean that she doesn't have sex with anyone unless there's money involved? She has no desire for human intimacy?
I guess this is saying that the music industry is a prostitute and only does things for money.
Music is and should be about enrichment of life, human culture, intimacy and not just revolve around money. Much like sex.
"Music is and should be about enrichment of life, human culture, intimacy and not just revolve around money. Much like sex."
F**k it, been doing it wrong :doh:
Reid Malenfant
17-11-2010, 19:33
"Music is and should be about enrichment of life, human culture, intimacy and not just revolve around money. Much like sex."
F**k it, been doing it wrong :doh:
3038
You making a lot of judgements based on people you never met All of my friends do everything they can do to share their music and all have other jobs
Huh? The only thing where I referenced your friends is here:
So I imagine they can have a job and play and enjoy the music still?
You said before they were "struggling musicians" and implied that they were against sharing music because it meant they continued to struggle rather than get paid for their music.. Now you say they have jobs and I guess that means they're not struggling or at least no more than any other.
I could have got it wrong in that you meant they were struggling to get anywhere with their music rather than struggling financially? In which case that depends on where they want to go with it. Becoming financially rewarded for their music isn't always the most fulfilling thing, especially if the music is the passion.
Everything else was about my own friends and how they are musically making it without any need to rely on album sales or anything that would be destroyed by file sharing. File sharing increases their fan base and so they are doing better for it. Grassroots music I think on the whole benefits greatly from filesharing and getting grid of it would suffocate much new music whilst favouring big money and creating more X-Factor style music.
"Music is and should be about enrichment of life, human culture, intimacy and not just revolve around money. Much like sex."
F**k it, been doing it wrong :doh:
Don't be so hard on yourself - think of the money you've made.
Huh? The only thing where I referenced your friends is here:
You said before they were "struggling musicians" and implied that they were against sharing music because it meant they continued to struggle rather than get paid for their music.. Now you say they have jobs and I guess that means they're not struggling or at least no more than any other.
I could have got it wrong in that you meant they were struggling to get anywhere with their music rather than struggling financially? In which case that depends on where they want to go with it. Becoming financially rewarded for their music isn't always the most fulfilling thing, especially if the music is the passion.
Everything else was about my own friends and how they are musically making it without any need to rely on album sales or anything that would be destroyed by file sharing. File sharing increases their fan base and so they are doing better for it. Grassroots music I think on the whole benefits greatly from filesharing and getting grid of it would suffocate much new music whilst favouring big money and creating more X-Factor style music.
I just think we misunderstand each other Lets just leave at that Thanks
P2P is stealing. No bones about it, if you're using a good or service that you should be paying for, that is theft.
How so? If that was the case then why is no-one ever prosecuted for theft? It is not theft in the eyes of the law so why should it be theft in the eyes of ordinary folk?
It is breach of copyright which is effectively a protection of business, not an emotive thing such as theft from a poor individual. Of course, disrupting a business can affect poor individuals too - it has to be judged on a case by case basis.
Can I ask then who you think is being stolen from? And is your answer true in every case, most cases, a minority of cases?
Firstly, whom you think are being stolen from (I'm pre-empting the answer here!) are merely the "copyright holder" (not the originator of the creation) and often that Copyright is aquired through deception or underhand business practices or take-overs etc etc etc many of which would be deemed illegal - or at least morally abhorant - if the original artist could actually afford to take the multi-billion pound cartel to court.
So if you are 'stealing' from someone who abtained the copyright through morally dodgy means then should there be any sympathy for proventing their subsequent profit making? Again, judged on a case by case basis.
Secondly, what is it that is being 'stolen'? If you copy something then the original is still there, the copyright holder can also make as many copies as they wish in a soft copy for free. Stealing a hard copy, a CD from a shop involves real theft that incurs costs to replace. The only thing being 'stolen' here is the copyright holder's POTENTIAL ability to make profits through sales. Potential is the important thing here as it's not even guaranteed that they would have made a sale otherwise..
Perhaps they should equally sue for bad reviews as that would impact sales too (I'm sure I've heard of such law suits in the US of people suing reviewers!).
Don't be taken in by the loud shouts from the big labels about downloading being theft. It is far more complicated and subtle than that. Repeating that propoganda only serves business interests at the general expense of grassroots and niche music where profits are hard to make (so are dumped).
Copyright law was not written with current technology in mind, and as such is not really appropriate in this situation. When 'P2P' was copying tapes reel-to-reel, the scope for piracy was significantly reduced due to costs.
Downloading / uploading music is practically cost-free, which not only increases prevalency, but also increases the number of casual pirates.
Rather than addressing the issue at source by rewriting the copyright act, they've spent untold amounts of money on 'preventing piracy'. Suing hundreds of thousands / millions of would-be customers is not going to produce optimal outcomes in the long term.
Not to mention the fact that there isn't a good (no, iTunes is not good), legal distribution system for music just exacerbates the problem.
I think a system much like Valve Software's Steam (popular Computer Game distribution platform) is the way forward. It offers the consumer considerable benefits, while also acting as DRM.
Ideally this would be developed by a not-for-profit organisation so the artists / studios will get as large a slice of the profit back as possible.
I am a firm believer that most pirates are just under served customers.
I think you're right about the under served customers. There should, in an ideal world, be some sense of pride in having paid for the material shouldn't there?
I just think we misunderstand each other Lets just leave at that Thanks
Think you're right. :grouphug:
What I don't get is why music is for the people, not for profit.....but why is computer software not also for the people (some think it is), likewise the design and production of cars etc. All these require creativity, just as good music not only requires creativity but technical skills too.
Or is everything for free in this proposed world?
magiccarpetride
17-11-2010, 20:47
What I don't get is why music is for the people, not for profit.....but why is computer software not also for the people (some think it is), likewise the design and production of cars etc. All these require creativity, just as good music not only requires creativity but technical skills too.
Or is everything for free in this proposed world?
No one is disputing that a person selling his/her ideas or skills or efforts must be compensated. What we are questioning here is the concept of residual income.
Let me try to break it to you in this way: I am a guitar player, and I may hire a reputable luthier to build me a guitar. When the luthier delivers the guitar he had built for me, I pay him the agreed upon fee. He's happy, I'm happy, life is good.
But imagine now if, each and every time I pick up that guitar and play it, I am expected to pay the luthier a copyright fee (say, $5.00). Would that make any sense? No? Why not? After all, the guitar is his/her intellectual property, the luthier can copyright it, and can demand his/her legal rights to collect residual income for the next 70 years.
Same goes for anything else -- a cabinet maker creating chairs, tables, cabinets, a potter making coffee mugs, etc.
See how ridiculous the residual income bullies are? They refuse to accept the commonly practiced and time tested ways of being compensated for their time and efforts once, and only once. That's the only fair model in any economy. But no, they want their cake and eat it to. They want a model where they make one sale, and then keep collecting the money till the cows come home.
In my opinion, residual income, hiding behind the lofty, but completely fabricated concept of 'intellectual property', is a societal disease that needs to be cured if we are to get out of today's economic doldrums.
Alex, let me try to break it to you this way.....rather that the world moving away from pay per use we are moving rapidly towards it. Microsoft dearly want to have you pay to use Word are a service every time you use it. The whole IT world is being pushed to move to SaaS (Software as a Service).
This is all way to guarantee long term revenue streams. The reason we aren't moving faster is there has to be a balanced changeover from perpetual fees to pay per use fees. Pay per use ends up being very similar to copyright fees.
Next I'll hear that patents are unfair.
Also.... ultimately with P2P sharing an album only every needs to be purchased once worldwide. So what price is that one album going to be? £100,000?
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/760a5033397a4d69aabab0ae17351621681bf85f65e5146548 f4c0bce54452b72g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=4o1b6tapuhazt81&thumb=5)
Okay, she doesn’t quite have the COR!! factor of the RIAA lass but as the poster says, she’s free and willing :eyebrows:
(am I still doing it wrong? :scratch:)
Open source is great...but it's just another business model. If you want support on the s/w then you have to pay for it. It's a loss leader to trap you into paying a long term support revenue stream. How about if the music you download doesn't play, you then have pay £10 for support to make it work.
Ah, I see.
I’ll just go and adjust my sense of humour to the gravity of the debate……….laterz :doh:
Techno Commander
17-11-2010, 22:47
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/760a5033397a4d69aabab0ae17351621681bf85f65e5146548 f4c0bce54452b72g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=4o1b6tapuhazt81&thumb=5)
Okay, she doesn’t quite have the COR!! factor of the RIAA lass but as the poster says, she’s free and willing :eyebrows:
(am I still doing it wrong? :scratch:)
I'd do her wrong all right. :eyebrows:
Reid Malenfant
17-11-2010, 22:54
http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/760a5033397a4d69aabab0ae17351621681bf85f65e5146548 f4c0bce54452b72g.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=4o1b6tapuhazt81&thumb=5)
Okay, she doesn’t quite have the COR!! factor of the RIAA lass but as the poster says, she’s free and willing :eyebrows:
(am I still doing it wrong? :scratch:)
I prefer the pert chested fem to the over inflated one to :eyebrows:
No doubt you can't win them all :doh: Each to their own ;)
Pic seems to have gone AWOL? :scratch:
No one is disputing that a person selling his/her ideas or skills or efforts must be compensated. What we are questioning here is the concept of residual income.
Let me try to break it to you in this way: I am a guitar player, and I may hire a reputable luthier to build me a guitar. When the luthier delivers the guitar he had built for me, I pay him the agreed upon fee. He's happy, I'm happy, life is good.
But imagine now if, each and every time I pick up that guitar and play it, I am expected to pay the luthier a copyright fee (say, $5.00). Would that make any sense? No? Why not? After all, the guitar is his/her intellectual property, the luthier can copyright it, and can demand his/her legal rights to collect residual income for the next 70 years.
Same goes for anything else -- a cabinet maker creating chairs, tables, cabinets, a potter making coffee mugs, etc.
See how ridiculous the residual income bullies are? They refuse to accept the commonly practiced and time tested ways of being compensated for their time and efforts once, and only once. That's the only fair model in any economy. But no, they want their cake and eat it to. They want a model where they make one sale, and then keep collecting the money till the cows come home.
In my opinion, residual income, hiding behind the lofty, but completely fabricated concept of 'intellectual property', is a societal disease that needs to be cured if we are to get out of today's economic doldrums.
Sorry, I may have missed the point, but if you buy your guitar, and then decide to sell it, you no longer can play your guitar. If you buy a CD, copy it and sell it, you can still (illegally) play the music, assuming you copied it. I don't think anyone is arguing that record companies should get a second slice of the pie if a CD is sold on the second-hand market, but I feel it is entirely reasonable for them to expect you to no longer have any rights to listen to the music you have sold the CD on.
I'm also totally unsure how you think forfeiting the rights to intellectual property is going to solve the World's recession, how would that work? :scratch:
Oh look, she’s back again. That’s linux for you :lol:
magiccarpetride
18-11-2010, 00:04
I'm also totally unsure how you think forfeiting the rights to intellectual property is going to solve the World's recession, how would that work? :scratch:
Oh, it's just one of my pet peeves. When I look at the world economy today, I see more and more businesses wanting to jump on the residual income bandwagon, because, hey, super easy money, right? No one seems to want to engage in an honest work anymore, it's all about pulling some far fetched idea/patent out of someone's ass, copyrighting it, and then expecting to sit back and collect royalties. Not only that, but people nowadays expect to pull a fast one like that and then arrange things so that even their grandchildren will be able to live comfortably off the juicy royalty cheques (I'm sure McCartney's offspring and their offspring are rubbing the palms of their hands together as we speak; the stream of residual revenue never stops trickling in).
So just because Paul McCartney one day fell out of his bed and penned a tune called "Yesterday", we're now all obliged to keep giving him and whoever else holds the patent to that song endless stream of money. Cha-ching, Cha-ching, Cha-ching! Whence does that madness end?
That's called getting 'something for nothing.' That being so (and getting even more so with each passing day), no wonder that the economy is in the toilet. No one wants to produce anything anymore. They all want to patent some weird shit such as twitter.com or facebook.com etc. and then inflate the valuation and sit back and live off the residual income till Kingdom comes.
Now, I wouldn't be that surprised if some folks don't see any connection between this snake oil sales business and the world recession, but some of us are getting slightly worried over this 'something for nothing' model.
In the end, who gives a shit.
magiccarpetride
18-11-2010, 00:09
Sorry, I may have missed the point, but if you buy your guitar, and then decide to sell it, you no longer can play your guitar.
Still, I am free to make a copy of that guitar before I sell it. So, once I buy that guitar, I also buy the intellectual property with it, and now it's mine to use it any way I see fit (fore example, I could use it as a fuel in my fireplace). So if the luthier had some brilliant idea on how to go about engineering that particular guitar, I, the paying customer, am now free to exploit that idea in all my future endeavors. Why? Because I bloody paid for it!
Same applies to CDs. Once I buy a CD, it's my property, and I'm free to do whatever I want with it. Why? Because I bloody paid for it!
Ah, I see.
I’ll just go and adjust my sense of humour to the gravity of the debate……….laterz :doh:
haha - bye! (I enjoyed the photo - looks like she's had to paint her face on just as much as the clothes.. and all just to play a game of darts!)
Alex, let me try to break it to you this way.....rather that the world moving away from pay per use we are moving rapidly towards it. Microsoft dearly want to have you pay to use Word are a service every time you use it. The whole IT world is being pushed to move to SaaS (Software as a Service).
They can show us to that clifftop but they can't make us jump.
This is all way to guarantee long term revenue streams.
So they don't think they can create anything new that people will want to pay for? Or is it too expensive or are they too lazy to develop new things or is it a cynical move away from innovation and invention directly into finance and services simply because it's less effort and potentially more profitable? Essentially it is turning a population slowly into farm animals, slowly milking our money whilst we're kept in a kind of human developmental stasis.
The reason we aren't moving faster is there has to be a balanced changeover from perpetual fees to pay per use fees. Pay per use ends up being very similar to copyright fees.
Or people don't want it?
Next I'll hear that patents are unfair.
It's not about fairness, it's about benefit to mankind. There are many patents out there that are never acted apon but no-one else can either without that patent holder's permission. Thankfully they run out after a number of years unless more money is paid to keep it so some things get freed up eventually.
In the pharmaceutical world there is a definate limit, intended so that the R&D can be recouped at least but short enough that the drug then becomes available and of benefit to all. What happens though in reality is that the drug companies restrict access and keep prices very very high and make billions in profit whilst restricting the drug to rich nations (because of cost) whilst thousands suffer and die. When the patent is released, all of a sudden allbeit many years later and too late for thousands, it becomes a revolution to the heath of the poor. Sure, there needs to be some way of paying for the R&D and incentive for that R&D in the first place but it's not ideal is it?
Then look at companies like Apple. Their patents are notoriously vague. Their patent for the original iMac practically outlawed people putting a lamp in a cardboard box - I think it was challenged in court and had to be changed (or wasn't allowed from the off). Why are they vague? So that they can stifle and challenge any innovation that looks like competition and a threat and the technological development of mankind be damned.
I'm not saying patents are bad, just that they can be used in a way that is a hinderance to innovation and therefore economic groth at best and responsible for the unneccesary deaths of thousands at worst.
Also.... ultimately with P2P sharing an album only every needs to be purchased once worldwide. So what price is that one album going to be? £100,000?
If we want to support the copyright holder then I'm sure we will make the payment. If that copyright holder is a multi-billion pound company and the artist (who we do want to support) gets hardly anything and remains in debt with the label until their 3 millionth sale then I'm sure people will stop caring about making that payment and try to get it for free if they can.
What if the artist is dead and the copyright has changed hands over and over again, perhaps aquired as part of a hostile takeover and asset stripping exercise? Why should some new copyright holder be demanding money for something that a) they never contributed to or helped create in the first place and b) haven't lifted a finger to release except as an MP3 or on a terrible compilation? Yet that new copyright holder can legally sue you for thousands for sharing this dead guy's music and for the next 70 years!
If music be the food of love then copyright is a tax on love. Or something :scratch:
Taking the lead from Ghandi, to protest this tax on love we should all go on a march and make love ourselves... :eek:
Oh, it's just one of my pet peeves. When I look at the world economy today, I see more and more businesses wanting to jump on the residual income bandwagon, because, hey, super easy money, right? No one seems to want to engage in an honest work anymore, it's all about pulling some far fetched idea/patent out of someone's ass, copyrighting it, and then expecting to sit back and collect royalties. Not only that, but people nowadays expect to pull a fast one like that and then arrange things so that even their grandchildren will be able to live comfortably off the juicy royalty cheques (I'm sure McCartney's offspring and their offspring are rubbing the palms of their hands together as we speak; the stream of residual revenue never stops trickling in).
So just because Paul McCartney one day fell out of his bed and penned a tune called "Yesterday", we're now all obliged to keep giving him and whoever else holds the patent to that song endless stream of money. Cha-ching, Cha-ching, Cha-ching! Whence does that madness end?
That's called getting 'something for nothing.' That being so (and getting even more so with each passing day), no wonder that the economy is in the toilet. No one wants to produce anything anymore. They all want to patent some weird shit such as twitter.com or facebook.com etc. and then inflate the valuation and sit back and live off the residual income till Kingdom comes.
Now, I wouldn't be that surprised if some folks don't see any connection between this snake oil sales business and the world recession, but some of us are getting slightly worried over this 'something for nothing' model.
In the end, who gives a shit.
It is exactly that that has caused this recession, as you say!
Not happy with getting a small percentage in interest for lending money, banks charge a fee for the privilege. Next, they package up all the mortgages and sell these same mortgages as investments to pension companies and again charge a fee and as they get traded etc, they get another fee each time it passes under their nose. If they can encourage even more unnecessary transactions they get a fee again each time. Essentially it becomes a residual income for just being in the way whilst companies trade their investments with each other.
This isn't good enough so they chop up the investments and sneak in high risk investments into the original pools so they water them down and can sell more and so there is even more to trade and so more fees!
Next the ratings agencies get in on the game and get paid a fee for giving a rating to these investment pools every single time one passes under their noses. Higher rated investments get traded more often and so earn them more fees so the tend to rate things quite highly without much scrutiny.
Then banks want something for nothing so they encourage and actively promote smaller banks to sell mortgages to people who can't afford it, getting a fee for each one and then making more investment pools of mortgages to sell, getting a fee for each one and then getting yet more fees as this higher volume of Mortgage Backed Securities are traded. The Ratings Agencies get more fees for rating these MBSs highly and so it continues..
Still not happy, these MBS pools are watered down yet more with high risk investments (yet still AAA rated by the agencies) and even are deliberatly constructed by the investment banks to be high risk so that they can then short (make bets against) those very investments and profit when they fail (the accusation of a couple of SEC cases).
Yet still not happy, these very risky investments are insured against failing for much more than their value (many many times their value in fact, which is legal) in the form of Credit-Default Swaps so that when they DO fail (and they are very likely to fail) they make much much more! Then the government steps in to save the providers of the insurance (other banks insuring each other) and, instead of allowing the insurance provider to fail and leave the banks shafted of their insurance, they instead pay out 100% on those insurance payments and take the money from the tax payer instead..
All about residual income and getting more and more from nothing at the expense of the general population of the whole world!
I think it is the ultimate conclusion of a copyright style, residual income world.
And I hope it stops after I myself have created my residual income that I can live on, such is it's appeal..
Jac Hawk
18-11-2010, 02:02
lets just keep it simple cos my head is starting to hurt, it's wrong we know it's wrong, no one admits to it, but we still do it anyway.
Like a good w*nk............
I think its not the idea and implementation of copyright that is the problem but the duration of the copyright. The original idea of copyright was to ensure the creator of the art was able to receive payment for the work, such that he/her would be encouraged to create more work and so enhance the public domain. But inherent in that was the idea that eventually the creator would have been paid enough times so the work would then enter the public domain. What we have now is every time steam boat willy reaches the end of its copyright period the duration is extended. How many times do we have to pay the rights holders to "yesterday" (not even the creator any more) until we (the public) get to own it.
If you want support on the s/w then you have to pay for it. It's a loss leader to trap you into paying a long term support revenue stream.
Well with respect thats very much a view from within the closed source community, and is only one view of many. One thing it misses, is that open source by nature enables anyone with the knowledge and ability to provide support for the software, that can be free (as in beer) or paid, so there is room for competition on the supply of support. Unlike closed source where the owner of the source is the only one who can provide fixes and updates. Most if not all open source have folk who will provide free support, and they have people who will offer paid support. The user has the choice.
magiccarpetride
18-11-2010, 17:14
It is exactly that that has caused this recession, as you say!
Not happy with getting a small percentage in interest for lending money, banks charge a fee for the privilege. Next, they package up all the mortgages and sell these same mortgages as investments to pension companies and again charge a fee and as they get traded etc, they get another fee each time it passes under their nose. If they can encourage even more unnecessary transactions they get a fee again each time. Essentially it becomes a residual income for just being in the way whilst companies trade their investments with each other.
This isn't good enough so they chop up the investments and sneak in high risk investments into the original pools so they water them down and can sell more and so there is even more to trade and so more fees!
Next the ratings agencies get in on the game and get paid a fee for giving a rating to these investment pools every single time one passes under their noses. Higher rated investments get traded more often and so earn them more fees so the tend to rate things quite highly without much scrutiny.
Then banks want something for nothing so they encourage and actively promote smaller banks to sell mortgages to people who can't afford it, getting a fee for each one and then making more investment pools of mortgages to sell, getting a fee for each one and then getting yet more fees as this higher volume of Mortgage Backed Securities are traded. The Ratings Agencies get more fees for rating these MBSs highly and so it continues..
Still not happy, these MBS pools are watered down yet more with high risk investments (yet still AAA rated by the agencies) and even are deliberatly constructed by the investment banks to be high risk so that they can then short (make bets against) those very investments and profit when they fail (the accusation of a couple of SEC cases).
Yet still not happy, these very risky investments are insured against failing for much more than their value (many many times their value in fact, which is legal) in the form of Credit-Default Swaps so that when they DO fail (and they are very likely to fail) they make much much more! Then the government steps in to save the providers of the insurance (other banks insuring each other) and, instead of allowing the insurance provider to fail and leave the banks shafted of their insurance, they instead pay out 100% on those insurance payments and take the money from the tax payer instead..
All about residual income and getting more and more from nothing at the expense of the general population of the whole world!
I think it is the ultimate conclusion of a copyright style, residual income world.
And I hope it stops after I myself have created my residual income that I can live on, such is it's appeal..
Brilliant analysis! You've said it all, right there. To reiterate: the trouble today is that we all (meaning, pretty much every grown human being on the planet) feel fully entitled to get into the privileged position of not only not working, but also not being accountable for anything, while raking in huge sums of money. A world ordered in this fashion is doomed for extinction, simply because no one will be left to work and pay all these royalties. Humanity at large is hoping that we'll all end up being fat cats.
Brilliant analysis! You've said it all, right there. To reiterate: the trouble today is that we all (meaning, pretty much every grown human being on the planet) feel fully entitled to get into the privileged position of not only not working, but also not being accountable for anything, while raking in huge sums of money. A world ordered in this fashion is doomed for extinction, simply because no one will be left to work and pay all these royalties. Humanity at large is hoping that we'll all end up being fat cats.
I have to deflect the complement as it's mostly parroting from listening to the right people but some has sunk its way into my brain over the last couple of years!
Unfortunately it same idea is the basis for our whole world-wide economics!
The basis of the system is economic growth and only works if something else is shrinking or there is an ever expanding population and ever-increasing consumption with limitless resources. Unless we enslave the majority so this growth can still occur to the few, it will quickly hit other limits.
Just the way money is created through the fractional reserve system is doomed to failure in the same way and relies on ever increasing people to be in debt and paying interest.
Anyway, perhaps this is moving the thread away from p2p downloads - can someone bring it back on course?
lets just keep it simple cos my head is starting to hurt, it's wrong we know it's wrong, no one admits to it, but we still do it anyway.
Like a good w*nk............
We only "know" it's wrong because someone else (with vested interests no-doubt) said so and we suck it up.
Same way that a good (or bad?) w*nk is wrong because the Pastor told us, whilst he busily "shuffles" himself thinking of choir boys..
Some people "know" it's wrong because it's against the law, just like women voting was against the law or being gay or critising a regime is against the law in some countries etc etc
Times change, laws change, morals change, idiologies change ... Just that some change quicker than others so become out of step.
magiccarpetride
19-11-2010, 18:06
We only "know" it's wrong because someone else (with vested interests no-doubt) said so and we suck it up.
Same way that a good (or bad?) w*nk is wrong because the Pastor told us, whilst he busily "shuffles" himself thinking of choir boys..
Some people "know" it's wrong because it's against the law, just like women voting was against the law or being gay or critising a regime is against the law in some countries etc etc
Times change, laws change, morals change, idiologies change ... Just that some change quicker than others so become out of step.
Hey, I'm starting to like your way of thinking! We need more insights like these... Don't be shy, bring them on! This is the art of sound, the art of living. Far fetched? I don't think so.
Here's another thing to think about:
"A study by the Library of Congress has found that many audio recordings are being lost due to copyright restrictions and temporary media. Old audio recordings are protected by a various US state copyrights, so it's hard for preservationists to get and copy material. Recent data is threatened by being put on writable CDs, because CD-Rs begin to lose data after a few years, so recordings from as recently as 9/11 and the 2008 elections are already at risk."
Copyright actually helping to destroy the very thing that is copyrighted and so lost forever.. the ultimate in a stupid situation! However, if someone has illegally copied and distrubuted it, it may well have been saved!
magiccarpetride
29-11-2010, 17:45
Here's another thing to think about:
"A study by the Library of Congress has found that many audio recordings are being lost due to copyright restrictions and temporary media. Old audio recordings are protected by a various US state copyrights, so it's hard for preservationists to get and copy material. Recent data is threatened by being put on writable CDs, because CD-Rs begin to lose data after a few years, so recordings from as recently as 9/11 and the 2008 elections are already at risk."
Copyright actually helping to destroy the very thing that is copyrighted and so lost forever.. the ultimate in a stupid situation! However, if someone has illegally copied and distrubuted it, it may well have been saved!
So publishing houses are actually cutting off their own dicks by copyrighting their 'intellectual property'. Hilarious, and not a bit surprising.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.