Posted on 06/05/2002 4:09:50 AM PDT by Skooz
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:37 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I wonder how many people that support free downloads have ever had to run a business, or even share some of the responsibility of keeping the business alive. I'm sure when faced with the reality of what it takes to run a successful company, most would see the folly in demands that a business must meet all of the demands of the market.
You are a struggling musician.You and your "band mates" have worked-3to4 hours practice a day, every day-for years to get this far. You've played for nothing most of the time; and, when you have gotten paid, you've gotten peanuts out of it-and sometimes had to cut your fee, because the producer claimed he couldn't pay the full amount.
You still work at a full-time, non-music related job; and, from your earnings, you scrape together enough cash ( thousands, always payable up-front ) to cut your first CD. It's a big investment, but it's YOUR future you're investing in.
Remember: YOU are the musician who did all this. How would you feel NOW about somebody with an internet connection downloading your work-product, and forwarding it to numerous friends ( who will also forward it to numerous friends )-without paying you a nickel ?
What is the essential moral difference between downloading and distributing someone else's work product, and "hacking" into his credit/bank accounts ? Does " I want to, and I can." excuse your conduct if you steal someone else's work ?
If you still feel justified in doing so, I'm sure you won't mind if someone steals your wallet, or your credit card numbers, or charges telephone calls to Sierra Leone on your cell phone number. They obviously can, and apparently want to; so what's the problem ??
The 'artists' should want the cost of access to music to come down while the Industrial Age distribution systems of 'music' need to change to a world that will not invest huge resources to protect a right that simply cannot be protected --(thus is copy'right' even relevant anymore?)
Yes, and for the ump-teenth time, I'm trying to get you off that narrow point and have a deeper discussion.
Because, as I have said over and over and over, I, and most people, agree.
The artist should be paid for his music.
I wonder why you just can't seem to hear that?
I'm curious, do you not admit to any 'gatekeeper' monopolistic controls in the music biz? Do you believe that the criticisms and complaints against them are completely unfounded? Do you see the RIAA members as 'innocent victims' here?
Because if you do, then I suppose that our conversation is at an end. We can't really have a discussion analyzing the topic if you're not willing to see the flaws on all sides, I suppose.
Because you're attempting to 'shame' people by calling them criminals by downloading music. But if your definition of 'criminal' encompases just about everyone, then there's not much shame in it.
Like someone calling speeders 'criminals'. Yes, technically, it's true.
But somehow seems like hyperbole . . .
And yes, I think it's very wierd for you to use the name of a pirate to condemn pirates.
Then the company goes out of business.
That's capitalism.
That's what is going on here. You're not defending the 'creators'. The labels don't create anything. They use their middleman status to 'tax' both sides.
And technology has just bypassed them. They have to either change with the market, or go out of business.
That is capitalism.
And you're arguing against it.
This is not about people wanting free music. I'm not defending that. I'm not discussing that at all. I agree that the artists deserve to be paid.
We're discussing if an 'old' industry should be allowed to use it's power to prevent a new, upstart industry from putting it out of business.
I say the proper response of the labels is to innovate, and try different online models to see what makes money.
The fellow who is the RIAA member consultant has a very different opinion. He wants litigation, laws, govt protection of the old order.
And I disagree. And you agree with him?
I do feel the artist should be paid for his/her work.
In fact, my entire point is that 'intellectual property' laws should in fact be 'wage scale' laws that guarantee payment to artists, instead of 'property' laws that give 'ownership' of information.
It's a very deep core point that requires an open mind and an understanding of the law and economics. If you lack any of these, you won't be able to discuss my point. I'm discussing and actual solution to 'IP' problems, because it is clear that current laws do not work anymore. If you can't think beyond current laws, then this conversation is beyond you.
Now, if anyone else feels the need to misrepresent my position, I'm going to have to conclude that you're not interested in serious conversation, and are here for other reasons. In which case I don't mind if you have your fun in whatever manner tickles your fancy, but don't be surprised if I don't respond.
Where do you guys get this stuff!?
You'll make up anything, I suppose?
I never said that, don't think it, in fact said the exact opposite.
It's starting to look like the conversation part of this is over, and ya'll are about to turn this into yet another flame-fest, like you've done to every single tech thread you've touched. Man, making up something that obviously untrue?
I'm saying exactly the opposite, in fact!!!
I should never be surprised at what you're willing to say. But then again, it's so hard to believe people act like that . . .
I think our conversation is at an end because with everything I say, you're determined to exaggerate and misconstrue it to come up with some interpretation that I didn't say. For instance, I didn't say your views of the record labels was completely without merit, although your snide retort would suggest I did. I merely suggested that maybe your view of the labels is distorted by a lack of familiarity with them and an unfounded credence you give to anecdotes about the industry.
You also seem to take this conversation back to ground that's already been tread. Fair use, such as your example of the Don McLean song, has been covered already and I thought we'd moved on. But you want to keep beating that dead horse. I'm tired of it.
Fair use doesn't cover that. I do not own the 8 track, album or cassette any more. My downloading of that song was a crime.
Even tho I've paid for it 3 times.
Because of the laws you refuse to discuss beyond blanket endorsement. The laws that are so flawed they don't work, so flawed they've become unenforcable.
You're the one being very, very disingenuous. You know that isn't 'fair use'.
And I've not been able to get one person on your side of the issue to discuss or even consider any possible changes to the law. Ya'll stand fast that this is the law and it will not change, and you will not discuss any changes.
Ah, well, take care. Just look back at this conversation and consider -- my entire point here was to discuss the law itself, and discuss the possibility that changing the law could save the problem.
And there was not one single post from any of ya'll addressing the idea of 'minimum wage' type laws in this case. Not one single post from you discussing the differences between 'ip' and 'property'.
For me, this conversation was a waste, I'm afraid. I had a radical and possibly effective method for solving the problem, and wasn't able to even get someone to respond about hte solution.
Well good luck with all. I think your industry is going to need it. I think it's very instructive that the only people who came down on your side of this here are the group who are famous here on FR for defending a convicted monopolist.
Certain people seem to have no problem with monoplization of a market. Real capitalists who believe in free markets are few and far between in America today. We've created laws to favor 'collectively-owned, collectively-managed' corporations over old-fashioned 'sole-proprietor' entrepeneurs. We publicly fund our Airlines when they get in trouble.
Monopolization of the market by a collectively-owned corp has become the norm, I'm afraid. And the internet threatens that, in many industries.
You're going to have to either find a way to 'monopolize' the internet, or else go out of business as 'gatekeepers'.
In my opinion.
I can download an anti-virus and have to pay for it, because they have figured out how to do that.
I can download a song for free because the RIAA refuses to adapt to progress. Can you imagine how nice it would be to have a stable database to download from? One that's not drifting in and out with the whims of the file sharers. It would be worth a dollar to be able to get a song uninterupted. And that would be a dollar per song! No more buying ,and ligitimizing the copywrites on 9 other tracks of garbage, songs you don't want.
I think fairly soon they're going to be sitting in their big offices trying to explain to these 'artist consultants' why the bottom fell out of their 'monopoly'.
The internet is here NOW, they need to get on board, get out of the way or get run over.
Artists/consultants to Labels: I guess we didn't spend enough on lawsuits and copywrite protection to get ahead of this internet thing.
Artists/consultants to Labels: So what now?
Labels to Artists/consultants: I guess it's back to selling time-shares, used cars, and insurance.
Labels to Artists/consultants: What about you? What are you going to do now?
Artists/Consultants to Labels: I don't know. I/we didn't anticipate any changes to the status quo.
Exactly so. Software, music, movies, all content.
The stores that makes a living selling you content on CDs and DVDs better be making plans. They are the 'buggy whip' industry of the tech generation.
I agree, I'm willing to pay for good music over the net. I'm anxious to, in fact. Can you believe there is not one major label out there offering a service out there that offers, "pay a flat fee per month, download all you want of our music".
Not one. The industry has completely ignored the point that technology just completely changed the distribution market. Not one company 'competing' in the new market.
Instead, they seek more and harsher laws against the new market.
The 'Atlas Shrugged' angle is palpable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.