9622.net

Hello? Did someone forget to invite me to the apocalypse? And I thought the Monkeys in the northeast would be inside today due to the inclement weather...Oh, it's just a shitty post you say? Take a look at yourself anathema before you go looking to hang this on others, you say?

Boy, there's nothing worse than a cranky law student on a rainy weekend. ;-)

Well I liked it!

Miguel likes everything!

(joke! joke!)

law student, did you say? corporate or criminal?

Corporate, but I'm sure he's a criminal too.

* Imagines the commish hard at work over an ebenezer scrooge- style wooden desk, with a woodchiper on one side, and a large mewing basket labeled "droppn' kittens" on the other *

Commish is the lawyer. anathema is the law student. I do know what type of law he practices but I'll let Commish share for himself if he wishes. As for me, copyright/trademark/entertainment. But we're like chameleons and can adapt quickly to new areas if need be. At least this is what I hear...

Okay, I'm tax/corporate, with a little bit of litigation and estate planning thrown in on the side. Like the a-man says, we adapt.

Why, of course I'm an expert in that! See, it says so right here on my card ...

* disclaimer *

Business litigation only, though, so don't anyone use their one email from the jail cell to me. That would be to PardonMe/You.

* second disclaimer *

I don't know that for sure, but he is the other lawyer 'round these parts.

I hope we have at least one expert in the practice of criminal law among us, just in case. I mean, not that we're bad or anything. I'm just sayin'. That's all.

Hey, the Tizzie Family has a new ride! To replace the late van (R.I.P.) we now have a 1991 Chevy Caprice Station Wagon - an absolute land yatch. We have christened it The QE3. God bless all who sail in her!

My mistake.

Saaaaaaaaaaay....
Anathema, what's a copyright lawyer doing swaping evil pirated CDs?
If I knew that was your line, I'd have switched "kittens" for "babies"

Pardon me. Future copyright lawyer.
You've not sacrificed the goat yet, I take it.

Does that read angry?
I miss Napster, is all.

As do we all.

* pats dong *

* regrets the phraseology yet again *

dong_resin! You mean those cds were ... pirated? But, I thought that - after Napster went away - we were all secondary downloading virgins!!

El Kadong does know about WinMX, I hope...

*coughs*, points discreetly.

Ummm, you know, if you walk up to the Customer Service counter at the supermarket with a pained look on your face, drop all your mercahdise instantly and say in tiny coice "bathroom?"...they will let you use it, even if it says "Employees Only".

Just in case you were wondering...

gorilla lullaby: thats one my X
mas list

Jon- I did know that.

Isn't clavdivs pre-christ? Y'know, ancient Rome and all that? That makes xmas irrelevant....you could celebrate Saturnalia, which is a much more debauched affair.

Posted by: readymade on November 17, 2002 09:13 PM

Not pirated. That's a very specific thing ("term of art" shall we say) and not at all what's happening. This little trade is as far as I go (which is almost too far, but I just dig my monkey's so much!). No downloading, no way. And if you like a song...Go Buy The Record!
I know this is not a popular opinion, but file swapping is stealing. None of the arguments people make actually speak directly to this, only to what they think the law should be.
*goes into serious ducking mode and prepares for exile to unpopular monkey island*

monkeys

And who's to say that I will not pull a Cardozo and send pre-recorded store bought disks?

* cough : stav's e-novels : cough *

I am here,,,, and boy are you in trouble,,,,mister.

Never; mind; the apostrophe police;;;this sentence has developed cancer of semi-colon cancer;;;

Never; mind; the apostrophe police;;;this sentence has developed cancer of semi-colon cancer;;;

...and double vision.

Semi-colonoscopy is what you need, my friend.

Posted by: readymade on November 17, 2002 09:53 PM

pre-recorded store bought disks

Oh Natty - you make them sound dirty!

Not at all my friend, not at all. Although I am suspicious that you are also in the legal profession on the side.

Cyril Connolly?

(Also : Administrator! Please hope me! Could one of the kindly deities of 9622 please mail me the details of my login? I seem to have forgotten them, much to my eternal shame.

Gracias.)

Well, my grandfather was a lawyer, anathema. No, unfortunately my involvement with the legal profession (for which many thanks and nary an ill word) is entirely as a defendant.

Stav: your username is "drubkchicken" and your password is "boozepellets". ;)

I have the same guilt feelings about downloading music. Don't know why. I'll jaywalk at the drop of a hat though, so what's the difference?

I have no guilt downloading music from the web. Listening to it, however, sometimes gives me hives.

If you don't nail it down, I'm a-stealin' it. Fair warning.

Of course I meant Cardoso with an "s." Commish and pardonmew will understand how I could have made the mistake of using a "z."

Okay, anathema, we're all friends here, and the monkeyhouse is more likely to have this discussion reasonably Hitler and pancakes free than other blue-themed discussion sites, so, here goes :

I'll never accept that file swapping is stealing, and here's why :
Mp3s are greatly degraded copies. They sound pretty shitty in a pair of earphones. Even high bitrate mp3s are noticeably less in quality than a compression-free .CDA file.
If you download an mp3, you're not getting the actual album material, you're getting something much more akin to a photocopy than a true album track. it's been made less to become compressed. If you doubt this, grab some phones and try it out.

Now, my library has no less that four photocopiers in it, right next to stacks of copyrighted material, yet no one minds when I snag a page of a book. No one bothers to call it "stealing" with all of the moral implications of that word, not because the act is different, but because it doesn't threaten the publisher's business model. it's impractical to photocopy all of a book. They don't worry about it.

Mp3s, on the other hand, are fast and practical for the average "who gives a shit if it sounds like ass" user who is willing to take greatly degraded quality music rather than pay 15-19 bucks for a disc. The music industry perceives this as a threat to kids buying cds, so they started calling it( and encouraging others to call it) "stealing" to make it seem nefarious and immoral because they perceived a threat to the current way they wish to sell their product.

Okay, here's my problem with the logic of the word "stealing" :
I'm either stealing a physical thing, like Sean Connery did so believably in the 1999 masterwork Entrapment, or I'm stealing an intellectual property, like Vanilla Ice did in the equally impressive..... what ever that bullshit song was called.

I'm not stealing any physical thing, and if I'm stealing the intellectual content of the music, the ideas of it, what is it when I get a tune stuck in my head?
If the intellectual property is what's being traded, and is the value of the product, then the intelecual content must itself be a legal entity.
Well, I've got mountains of that shit my head, and I didn't authorize it's placement there. I didn't ask to hear that piece of shit Creed song 20 times a day, yet now it's intellectual content (unfortunate choice of words) is rolling around in my head, like so many cockroaches in my apartment.
Can I sue them for making Creed's intellectual content some sort of concept squatter in my brain real estate? Please? Please say that I can.

Anyway, seems like a shitty argument to me.
Simply getting something without paying for it does not equal stealing. I get "free shit" all day long from advertisers.

I would buy CDs constantly when I'd Napster, because the crappy mp3s were an inducement for me. I bought dozens of discs I'd never have. Now, I haven't bought a cd in 7 months, and hope to hold out past Christmas. I dislike the industry that I'd be doing business with.

Also, sadly, WinMX is to Napster what Florida is to one of them fancy book learn' states... with the functioning local governments, and shit.

I think next time I'll write a long post.

I disagree. I've always thought of music file swapping as stealing, if only for the fact that you are bypassing the, albeit utterly corrupt, system by which artists get paid. It doesn't stop me from doing it, or thinking that Lars Ulrich is a righteous prick. This is because I also think that charging $20 for a cd is also stealing. I'm just helping to even out the system.

Though, that being said, my wife and I own nearly 1000 cds. WinMX just helps me decide what I'm buying this month and what I'm not bothering with. That's what really scares the record companies. At least with Clear Channel, a record company can make a few hundred thousand dollars worth of deals to get the new No Doubt song on the playlist, guaranteeing that every 14 year old girl with low-riding Levi's Jeans and a Gap credit card will purchase it.

With WinMX, they can't direct my listening habits and control the market.

I can't wait until the new J.Lo songs start appearing on the file swapping services. I hope her new album is as good as "On the 6."

I'm just helping to even out the system.

So much wisdom for such a short, simple sentence. I can't wait to use that one on a customer.

"Well, we're giving away plasmas for $2999, so you spending gorges of cash on stupid add-ons that will fill my pockets is just evening out the system. Sign on the dotted line."

BTW, anathema, that was a double post (kinda). But no one pays attention to my sub-par posts, anyhow. *sniff*

Commish and pardonmew will understand how I could have made the mistake of using a "z."

"Now, now, Natty, don't you go patronizing them foreigners, hear?"

If we'd swapped cassette tapes, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Wow, Adam, the Red Cross sure is cutthroat nowadays.

When I sold plasma in college, I only got $30. Sheesh.

Anathema has to make a living too, so give him a break. Until we colonize a monkey island and develop our own swap based economy, we've all got to play by the rules ... more or less.

... and EBK, fookin' Clear Channel truly is the root of all evil. *shudder* Living in the Cincinnati radio market where they got their start, I've seen Randy Micheals and his ilk destroy everything that once was innovative and good about FM radio. It's ugly.

No, not that plasma. This plasma.

I would buy CDs constantly when I'd Napster, because the crappy mp3s were an inducement for me.

Actually, that's true for me too. I have always used downloading as an impetus to buy or to spurn the CD.

Dong: In Canada, libraries pay extra fees on books in order to subsidize some of the funds lost by photocopying of their materials. That's the model on which the Canadian blank-tape levy was based (and, subsequently, our tarrifs on more up-to-date recordable media). If you hold to your analogy, then, do you support a tax on blank CDs/tapes, for the USA?

Well, downloading mp3 files appears to have had zero impact on CD sales. Apart from that, I thought a little fair-use copying for non-commercial purposes had always been legal in the States? Over here, it's still technically illegal, but has been effectively decriminalised in that no-one has ever been prosecuted for non-commercial copying. The things that make me smile about the "hurting sales" arguments are that:

1) There's fuck all evidence to support that kind of statement.

2) There's plenty of evidence to disprove it.

After all, we had these kinds of arguments about C90 cassettes and VHS tapes. Show me the evidence ...

Let's all listen to a little "C30, C60 C90 Go!" to put it all in perspective.

ps having said all that, I buy more CDs than anyone I know, and only download stuff which I either own on tape/vinyl, can't buy, or want to check out before buying. I do believe in supporting artists, and I'd pay for a service which let me download guaranteed quality 320kbps mp3s. But I'm damned if some fucker is going to tell me I can't listen to my music on the medium of my choice. Won't play that game: I'd rather stop buying.

I'm gonna have to wait until I get home to rebut the good dong. The big problem I see in the debate is the comingling of the normative and descriptive aspects of the issues. What the law is and how it is interpreted and what the law should be. Everyone has an opinion of what it should be but not of what it actually is and I may unfairly have a few extra rounds in my clip when it comes to this side of things. By the way, Cardozo rocks.

If you hold to your analogy, then, do you support a tax on blank CDs/tapes, for the USA?

I don't support the tariff Canada has, Marquis. it's charging for a perceived loss, not an actual one.

If I buy a blank CD to record my own self-created music, why am I paying a tax to subsidize an industry that I'm not involved with?

That they've managed to get library to pay for photocopying losses is ridiculous. They really think people are going to photocopy a book? When you can buy a paperback at a reasonable price?

That's the other thing...
If music CDs were 10 bucks a pop, I'd never download anything.

I have no problems buying from Matador records, for example, because they charge fairly, (`bout 8 buck a disc) and they don't fuck over their own artists.

I'm looking forward to hearing your reply, anathema, as you're the first legal-type person I've ever had this discussion with.

Oops ... I almost forgot. I'll also download a single track by an artist whose pther tracks I don't like. But that's just my own little effort to subvert the monopoly on music distribution, whereby I would otherwise be forced to buy nine tracks of filler to enjoy just one track. Would I pay for just one track if I could get it? Yes, I believe I would.

ps am a little drubk, hence aggressiveness and foul language towards a music industry which seems to want to control how I listen to music. No offence intended to other monkeys :)

The paper you refer to, walrus, (by Stan Liebowitz), argues that we do not yet have the data to know whether or not mp3s are impacting sales - that the Majors are bluffing when they say they do - but that (obviously) downloading will eventually have an effect on sales. What we do know is that sales are down across the board, particularly in countries where there is a high degree of real (bootleg) piracy (ie Eastern Bloc), but also - noticeably - in countries with high amounts of downloading going on. Canada, for instance - a more wired nation - has had greater losses in CD sales, per capita, than Britain or even the States.

As for the tariffs on blank media, of course not all such media is used for illegal purposes. That is why the tariff is 5 cents or so, not $15. Rather than one group of people (publishers) being the sole victims of a crime the gvmt isn't doing much to prevent, the injustice is spread across everyone (in the form of a tariff).

Don't get me wrong: I have literally thousands of albums downloaded, as well as a massive (paid-for) CD collection. I think the internet is a fabulous tool for promoting music, that the majors are ripping us off in order to pay for their inflated salaries and marketing costs, that most of the songs people download wouldn't have been bought in the first place. On the other hand, most downloading on SoulSeek/Hotline/KaZaA clearly violates Canadian copyright law, people should pay for what they get a lot of satisfaction out of, and arguments to the contrary strike me (as with Anathema) as specious.

Those who have chimed in here - who have represented themselves as major investors in music (live and recorded) - are obviously not the ones who are the problems. The crisis is with those who - regardless of budget - have given up buying music, or vastly reduced their purchases, as a result of P2P.

(Oh, and full disclosure, I've worked two summers doing research for the Sound Recording (Music) division of the Department of Canadian Heritage, where I prepared reports on music-on-the-Net and digital rights management.)

Step away from the keyboard walrus. You're busted!

Actually, if you think about it, The Primitive Radio Gods are a really good argument for being able to download one song only.

Also, I've had a one hit wonder stuck in my head literally for years. It was by a band called Black. The name of the track was "It's a Wonderful Life". Anyone remember that? Maybe I should crank up the WinMX and look for it.

No need to run
And hide
It's a wonderful,
Wonderful life.

Well, first, fair use is not a right. It is a defense. Big difference. And the test (at least one of the factors) is not whether it is for commercial purposes but actually whether the use has an affect on the market for the original. Dongs "quality" argument is flawed. Even if the claim is that it is not the same work, it is absolutely a derivative which is also covered by copyright. More later...

I seem to have interpreted it differently, Marquis. It certainly doesn't appear to have had any effect outside of a standard deviation (without having a good look at the raw stats). I'm not convinced about the "obviously will", with five times as many tracks being downloaded as bought already. If we were going to expect some effect, I would have looked to have seen a measurably significant one by now.

But I'm interested that sales seem to be affected in Canada. I wonder if that can be correlated to high bandwidth penetration, such as say Scandinavian countries? Probably, but I'm not into searching right now. That said, if a tax on blank media was considered reparative, so similarly would be a tax on bandwidth.

well, i'm the one wrecking it for everyone, because i haven't bought a cd since 1999, except for the occasional one picked up at a show on the cheap.

and, uh, so it's easier for me to think of it as stealing, because, well, i used to buy cds, and now i don't.

quick parenthetical comment: i guess my ears are bad enough that the 192+ bit rates that the mp3s which i download usually have don't really bother me. I personally think that many people feel mp3s are bad quality because of the plethora of shitty shitty rips -- usually 128kb -- that populated napster and the still-active file sharing networks, with which most people have familarity. of course, i could be wrong -- it's quite possible folks have way better ears than i do, as i've definitely undergone some hearing loss from concerts, headphones, etc. at 128 i can *definitely* hear degradation, at 192 i can hear a little, above that i don't really notice -- of course, i'm not comparing it to the cd.

And the test (at least one of the factors) is not whether it is for commercial purposes but actually whether the use has an affect on the market for the original.

Sorry to keep chiming in. I'll have to eat soon, so that will stop me. Does that mean that if filesharing does prove not to affect the market, it would constitute fair use? Or is that too big a mallet?

Out of curiousity, Marquis, do you know what is done with the revenue raised by the tarriff? Does the money go to the artists? Music Programs? Labels? Army?

Every thin dime goes to William Shanter.
It's what makes his head that shape.

No, they made a deal with Shatner that they would pay him not to sing. The tax is his payoff.

Ufez Jones - I have a distant recollection that blank tape monies are distributed through SOCAN, with renumeration going to composers/songwriters using a system like the one used to monitor radio, but I'm not 100% sure. CD levies are currently being collected, but they haven't worked out how to distribute them. :) I think they've slowly been accumulating in a bank-account for 4 or 5 years. Not exactly a well-thought-out system!

I saw the Shat on a new PriceLine commercial the other day. I think his old toupee finally gave up the ghost and was laid to rest in a Pet Sematary somewhere (Hopefully it won't reanimate). He seems to have finally figured out that the curly toupee looked a little strange, and gone to straight. Nice to see the Shat catch on after only 20 years or so.

Maybe Vger hipped him to it.

veeeegerrrrr

In an abrupt coincidence, I'm meeting someone at the Shatner Building in half-an-hour.

"Kirk Unit! Your cranial dead protein mass is not like that of the others! Surely you do not think they are fooled!"

Sorry, Sorry Sorry......I should have said potential to affect. No matter how you cut it, I just don't see how anyone could succesfully argue anything close to fair use with file sharing. Fair use is a defense, not a right. Basically you are shaying," yes I copied, but here is why it was okay." No way that the fair use analysis even comes close to working. Aside: The Napster case was about contributory infringement which is entirely different.

It's funny if you do it in the voice.

Nomad! Error! Bad Toupee! Nomad!

Just to be clear anathema, I wasn't arguing fair use, or, if I was, I'm too dumb to know it.
My argument was since it's an approximation and not the thing itself, and since owing the copy induced me to go get the actual thing, I fail to see how it can be "stealing", but I suspect you have a whole perspective to argue against that, which I don't.

VEEEEE-gerrrrRRR!

*pants, trying to catch up to the conversation*

I use more cd's for pirating software than I do for pirating music. I don't think a tax to subsidize the already bloated music industry would be fair.

Okay, so that's a lie. I use blank cd's for data storage and backup copies of software. And, like dong mentioned, my own music.

I saw the new J.Lo video this morning. Ben Affleck is in it. He's so dreamy. I just want to know everything about their relationship. I hope Pat "waste of living tissue" O'Brien does an in depth interview with one of them during Access Hollywood soon. Or maybe a People Magazine centerfold. I'm so giddy with anticipation of their wedding and her coinciding cd release.

as long as ben doesn't break up the band.

Sorry to jump in so late, and I'm not an I.P. lawyer (nor am I a criminal lawyer, yhbc!), but I think it's worth returning to anathema's original (and entirely correct point): "I know this is not a popular opinion, but file swapping is stealing. None of the arguments people make actually speak directly to this, only to what they think the law should be."

In other words, the arguments about bit rates and corrupt industries are red herrings. If you want to download music files, and you want to do it legally, the law will have to be changed. In other words, you'll have to lobby and persuade and cajole until the legislature amends the law. Until that time you can slice it however you want, but you're still breaking "the law." (Of course, as Dickens once said, "The law is a ass.")

That said, I've been known to use WinMX from time to time, and I feel very confident saying that I've purchased more CDs than I would have otherwise. It enables me to overcome the risk of not knowing whether I'm going to like a particular CD -- a risk which prevents me from buying most CDs I'd like to try. I use downloading like I use those headphones at a music store. But I appreciate that I'm breaking the law when I do it. From a business standpoint, I think the recording industry would be wise to do an extensive study to see whether file sharing actually helps or hurts sales. I suspect it's the former.

let's face downloading files is just like those headphones, but without the nastiness factor.

I'll never claim the depth of my consideration of the whole file swapping thing went much further than "hey, cool, free shit for dong."
As someone who is removed from the mecansims of the law up close, to me the law is, at least meant to be, the organic collected will of the populace, rather than a constant imperative removed from our popular experience to which we are bound. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but the law itself is shifted about by non-compliance with it.

What the issue really comes down to for me is not "is it legal", but "is it stealing".

So, yeah, pardon me put the finger right on the distinction between our points of view.
I was arguing whether or not I accepted the term "stealing", not in the legal sense, but as a dim layman might understand the term. I don't.

There's a law against lending your vacuum cleaner to your next door neighbor in Denver. I don't really care if I break that one, either.

Who gives a fig about J-Lo?

I'm too busy laughing at The Bachelor.

as Dickens once said, "The law is a ass."

Or as Simon Templar once said "The law is a stodgy and elephantine institution ..."

That said, I'm pretty much in agreement with anathema and pardon me here. The law--as I understand it--is that copyright is designed to protect the creator/owner, not the consumer/user and that "fair uses" are exceptions to the law where overly strict applications may impede the production and dissemination of said works. In other words, even "fair use" as a concept is ultimately on the side of the copyright holder. Fair Use is supposed to make it easier for the creator to distribute his/her/it's work; not provide the consumer with an excuse to benefit for free. But I'm also one of those whose music purchases doubled or tripled post-P2P

As I see it, part of this whole music P2P problem is that--as a few of us have pointed out--everyone is confusing other judgements with legal ones. The music industry is confusing (barely) legal business practices with wise ones. While music consumers confuse ethical, philosophical, or even wishful propositions with the written law.

For non-lawyers or English majors interested in how libraries approach the problem of fair use, the ALA provides these guidelines.

Comparing the declared filesharing habits of most 9622ers to this chart; they still seem to be arguably fair uses to me.

This is all fascinating, but you know what? I'm out of Pocky. This can't continue.

Jon, your dentist must love you.

I'm out of Pocky.

My dad went to Japan recently and brought us kids back some. The novelty wore off when Karen told me that Pocky is readily available in NYC. Although, the Pocky I got doesn't have that annoying nutritional information on the side. I mean, come on! Do I need a stupid sticker to figure out that it's loaded with sugar and shit?

That's a good Pocky slogan:

Pocky — Loaded with Sugar and Shit.

It'd make me buy it.

Whuffa dentist?

**gums pen**

adam next time yer in the city hit Sunrise Mart on stuyvesant st. I blogged about it a few days ago. If nothing else it's groovy blogfodder.

I'll never claim the depth of my consideration of the whole file swapping thing went much further than "hey, cool, free shit for dong."

Can I just say how much I *heart* dong_resin?!?

Right back at `cha, your tizziness.

Copyright does serve both the rights holder and the public by creating incentive and then injection back into the public domain to make "new" works. As far as the "dim layman" thing goes, basically what you are saying donger is that you do not recognize intellectual property as property. I would argue that some forms of IP are more vital than tangible property. Where is the argument as to why you don't see it as stealing?
Sorry to taint the monkey pages, but this is fun when there isn't so much noise. *points to Big Blue*

I haven't mentioned lately that dong is my dashboard savior. I will remind everyone now.

Somehow I picture him more as a bobble-head doll.

If nothing else it's groovy blogfodder.

And the good lord knows that I need something to talk about these days. Where abouts do you work? Karen (Aw) is down around 19th or so.

*adding noise* and what's up with Affleck's toupee or weave or whatever it is? does he go to Shatner's guy? *done adding noise*

If they would just bring back singles for a buck or less, the music industry would be doing much better... (and i still have my old 45 thingies that go in the middle)

100!

I gots me the 100!

HOO DAWGIES!

Woooo!

Stay out of Room 101.

Who says we can't have intelligent conversations? This was very interesting to read through, but even though on an intellectual level I know anathema's right, and it is "stealing", in my heart I go with the "hey cool, free shit for da commish" mentality. Clearly, something needs to be changed, and I doubt that it will be human nature.

I've said *cough* elsewhere that when I first went to Napster and realized what it could do I called my wife down to show her - her two, immediate, reactions were almost simultaneous: "Oh my god, now I see why the music companies are so worried about this" and "We've got to get as much as we can before they shut it down". That's human nature.

"hey cool, free shit for da commish"

Clearly, you failed to notice that it's free shit for Dong, not da Commish.

Wasn't there some awful sitcom called the Commish?

Free shit for everybody! Merrrrrrrry Christmas!

oh, wait, that ain't right.

I think that's why, in a better world, I'd be a socialist. I'm just so damn giving.

Yep. Good to see it had at least one fan. Thank you Seth Mandel, for proving once again that no matter what it is, or how obscure it is, there's someone somewhere that obsesses about it to the point of doing a web site about it.

Clamato?

tizzie stepped on my line

tizzie stepped on my line

Twice, even - that's why it hurt so much.

I lost my Pocky virginity earlier this summer when I finally found a local Asian grocery that carried the stuff. Strawberry and chocolate. Good stuff, even if chocolate Pocky tastes a little like chocolate chalk and strawberry Pocky a lot like strawberry Quik. The Asian gummies I bought at the same time were even more fun, mostly because of the engrish packaging. I'll bet you didn't know that pineapple gummi is pleased to tower over gummi like the fearsome king of a tropical island? (Or something like that).

*puts his hand out for free shit*

Never, ever, put your hand out for "free shit" near the monkeys, octobersurprise.

Now, I've been following this conversation all afternoon, and first off, let me commend the monkeys for their civility! Yay, monkeys! I always knew we were more highly evolved than some people let on. But by the same token, I thought that I really shouldn't weigh in, you know, 'cause I'm not down with all the legalese and such. It gives me a headache.

But because I can't keep my fat yap shut, I'll throw in my meager two bits just 'cause.

I think that the golden goose was killed when Napster was shut down. The industry has been falling under the Dark Lord Clear Channel and similar ilk for a long time, despite their legal mandate to crawl over the land and lock up music in a dark hole. Whether or not it's legal, for myself, the few songs that I sought out through the Nap were ones that I had already purchased in previous incarnations: punk rock albums, cruddy cassettes of disco tunes, cruddy cassettes of any other thing. Therefore, my money had already been paid to the artists. The ones that I hadn't purchased and liked, I DID buy those cd's. The ones I downloaded and didn't like didn't get my ducats. Fair market economy at work. Now, I'm sure that there are hard drives throughout the world that are filled to bursting with songs that haven't been paid for, but that was true when we all copied each others albums onto cassette, too. I can't tell you how many albums I had dubbed when cassettes were cool. But to continue...

My husband is in the dread music industry, and I've got horrific tales of just how powerful Clear Channel has become: refusing to play a band's music on the radio if they opt to be interviewed by a radio competitor (often independent college stations), manipulation to create a narrow market with no alternatives, etc. Napster was for a brief moment an arena in which access to different music was democratized. I discovered music there that I would have never heard on the radio, and then purchased their cd's. I think most people want to support art, because they know that it enriches their lives. Napster allowed people a method of discovery and exploration which could have facilitated a great deal of growth in the industry as a whole, opening up markets and avenues that had been previously untapped. But fear stopped them, and killed one of the most revolutionary systems we've seen in a long time.

In short, I'm with tizzie. Lefties unite. Rewrite the laws. People who want access to music shouldn't be criminals. Up with people!

Posted by: readymade on November 18, 2002 09:30 PM

(I'd also like some Pocky, please)

Posted by: readymade on November 18, 2002 09:44 PM

Ummm, does that mean you wanna be a Pocky Girl readymade?

Yes! Can I be this one? (what the hell is "Men's Pocky" anyway? Does it have testosterone in it?)

Posted by: readymade on November 18, 2002 10:01 PM

*steals something*

*giggles, scampers*

Dang chickens.

* counts MP3 files *

ready I do understand where you are coming from. Access, of course, is another issue altogether and the DRM battles have barely begun. Further, criminal copyright infringement is rare and wouldn't really apply here. Copyright infringement is mostly civil claims notwithstanding the DMCA. Your argument doesn't really address the whole property/stealing issue. I agree 100% about Clear Channel etc. but that really isn't the issue. I don't download music (self-righteous prick that I am) and I have plenty of access and I buy my music through independents. Good night. Oh, and dong, I'm not through with you yet!

Never, ever, put your hand out for "free shit" near the monkeys

*flings freely*

Never, ever, put your hand out for "free shit" near the monkeys

*flings freely*

Both hands.

This is the whole "legalese gives me a headache" part. I'm sorry I don't understand a lot of it. I feel as though artists should be compensated, there should be free access, and Clear Channel should be dragged to a watery grave. This is about as precise as it gets with me. Do artists own their music? I don't know if I agree with that one hundred percent.

When an artist paints a painting, and someone buys it, the artist has been compensated for it and lets it pass to the ownership of another. That new owner can do whatever he or she likes with it, including but not limited to: painting over it, admiring it, tearing it into pieces, peeing on it, worshipping it, etc. But musicians are compensated in a completely different manner, including album sales, radio royalties, per use payment for movies and television, etc. I don't know which is more fair, or whether there should be different payment plans depending on the art form. I'm just saying I don't know whether or not a musician (or their label) should have total right of control after a certain point. And this from someone who's family has made money from said industry.

Am I stealing when I listen to a song I've downloaded, but hate it, and throw it away? What if I keep it on my hard drive, but never listen to it? Should a penny be deducted out of my bank account every time an MP3 is played out of my computer, even if someone else sent it to me? What about links to songs I don't like but investigate anyway (I'm looking at you, jonmc). What about songs I'm forced to listen to in the elevator? I didn't agree to listen to the muzak version of "Enter Sandman," but there it is, haunting me. At a certain point, our art enters the world and people will do with it what they like. How long should artists profit from their creations? I don't know, but after a period of time, I feel as though it becomes the property of the greater world at large: the greater the contribution to society, the more important that ownership of said work should revert to the public at some point. Eminem should make his money for a while, and then his performance should become a part of the public domain (the argument being that he's made a contribution to society--laugh, but he's molding a bunch of tiny, youthful minds right now). But that's just me, and everyone is certainly welcome to point fingers and throw food. Or poo. Whatever is handy.

I'm sure there are also gaping holes in my arguments, but that's because I'm a dope.

Posted by: readymade on November 18, 2002 11:11 PM

Okay, I am not saying what I think the law should be, I'm not speaking to the law. I am addressing only the original question of whether or not I consider downloading an MP3 stealing that content. What I meant by my "dim layman" comment above. I'm the dim layman. I'm not speaking illegalities. What readymade said.

I am not questioning the intellectual property's legal status as property, I'm questioning the calling of my doing what I like to do with that property immoral, because the whole point of a label releasing music in the first place is to get me to pay them money to hear it.
So, if by hearing the mp3, I then go buy the commercial product, I fail to see the "theft."
The music has served it's commercial purpose.

The industry is not complaining because I heard their intellectual property without paying for it, they're complaining that I was able to hear it how I wanted to, burned to a disc and played in my car or whatever, without me paying for it first. They want to sell me a CD before I can do that.
That argument rests on the idea that mp3s are equal in content to a CD. They equate having an mp3 as having the CD itself. If I play a free MP3, I'm getting the same bang as the commercial product, the CD.

it's not. An mp3 as inferior. I see it as so, and hence will buy the disc if I like the content enough. I'll buy a cd, if I want the proper, right-sounding content, which, more often than not, is the case. I've bought lots and lots of cds that I'd never have bought because of having the MP3s first.

If mp3s were as good to me as cds, and having one meant I didn't go buy the other, then I'd concede theft. I'm getting what they're selling for free.
For me, one does not replace the other, hence, not theft.

Any discussion as to whether or not the intellectual property on the disc, the artistic work, is somehow being violated by my hearing it for free, is, for my purposes, a pointless abstract, albeit a highly interesting one, which is why I'm glad I have you lawyery types about to hash it over with. However, since in a real sense that intellectual property is merely a product, one used to promote the sale of itself, I'll download all the live long day with nary a quibble about fair use.
What the law decides, of course, is a separate issue.

Actually ready, people who buy paintings can't do any of those things without a contract waiving the artists rights under the Visual Artists Rights Act. Some state laws have even stricter provisions. This came about so that the U.S. would come closer to compliance to the Berne Convention. Like in Europe, visual artists in the U.S. actually do have moral rights to prevent just the things you mentioned. It's just that a lot of artists don't even know about this. Without an agreement to the contrary, if I paint a mural etc., in a building and ten years later the building is going to be demolished, the artist can actually stop the destruction until they figure out a reasonable way to preserve the work. And of course when a painter sells a painting they are not selling the copyright to the work. The artist retains the entire bundle of rights that is copyright. Without a writing there can be no transfer of copyright. You can give a nonexclusive license orally, but that's it.

I agree, I think the term is too long. I think life+70 is rediculous, and life+50 is probably too long too. But I think some amount of time after death is probably okay. 95 years for a work-for-hire, well...I'm not sure.

Boy, the word "stealing" is sure makes people uncomfortable. Listen, I think the MPAA/RIAA are a bunch of evil monkeys, but when they say "what would a parent say if their kids came home with 100's of stolen CD's from a store? Downloading is the same thing." Now where is the problem with that? We have collectively decided at the inception of the this country (see Art. I sec. 8 clause 8, which reads: "The Congress shall have 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" yup, right there in the Constitution itself, interestingly it is the only place in Article I that tells how and why Congress needs to do something.) to acknowledge intellectual property and treat it basically as tangible property. I think there is an argument that IP actually deserves more protection (stretching here) because it is more vital to people than tangible property.

Songs do go into the public domain. Many, many songs are recycled and recast which are in the PD. Take tour through the Library of Congress websites. Amazing. Before 1972 there wasn't even statutory federal copyright protection in sound recordings (of course there was copyright in compositions though, and common law copyright in recordings).

I'm a huge fan of Lawrence Lessig (Stanford professor and lead attorney for Eldred, of Eldred v. Ashcroft. His books are incredible. He makes you realize that it doesn't have to be all or nothing. You can be for IP protection, but also recognize it's limitations and act to change things when they become unreasonable.

There is some creative contracting starting to happen with musicians and some labels. Listen, nobody forces anyone to sign a contract (if they do, it is unenforcable).
My advice, of course...Don't sign anything without consulting with a competent entertainment lawyer!

Whoa! dong, didn't expect anyone to be up so early.

*Makes a lossy copy of the thing he stole earlier and replaces it, hoping no one noticed him take it in the first place*

It's about the underlying work, not necessarily the format.

ridiculous

Well, overly dogmatic perhaps, but certainly not ridiculous. ;)

The underlying work (in terms of an mp3) is a commercial product.
That artisitc work is somehow lessened if I hear a copy of it without buying it first?

Maybe I don't understand what the term "intellectual property" means, fully, then.

Question: I had an article published in Salon that was subsequently purchased by another publication and reprinted. It was still under my name, but I didn't get paid again.

When musicians make a record, they get paid once - but they seem to continue to get paid with subsequent sales, which I didn't. What's the difference?

Okay, suppose I punch a pregnant nun hard in the face.
I suppose that'd be "wrong" too, huh, mom.

And of course when a painter sells a painting they are not selling the copyright to the work. The artist retains the entire bundle of rights that is copyright.

Right. I can speak more to text than music, but in books and manuscripts at least, the "intellectual content" is separable from the physical object. You can legally own a letter written by, say, Miguel, without owning the rights to reproduce the text of the letter--or in some cases even to quote from it.

In Tizzie's case (disclaimer: I am not a lawyer), it sounds like either you sold republication rights without knowing it, or Salon wouldn't buy without buying republication rights, or that you still own repub rights, in which case, the second publication is pirating your work.

Arrrrgh!

Shiver me timbers! Make dong walk the plank.

Here's another question for you, anathema: If I buy a book, am I permitted to give it to someone else when I'm done reading it? If so, how does the law draw a distinction between that and file sharing?

Sweet Lard, I wish we could have a serious discussion about something around this site without it degenerating into jokes about "intellectual property" and "ethical dilemmas" and other forms of low-brow humour.

OK, screw it, we're a buncha pirates. Mow, where the hell's my eyepatch and wooden leg? I was supposed to issued them months ago?

how does the law draw a distinction between that and file sharing?

My guess is that the law would suggest that the true analogy here is with buying a book then giving a photocopy to someone else. And that is a violation of copyright. Earlier this year I read that a few publishers of scientific texts are slowly starting to copy software manufactuers by selling licenses to their books, not the books themselves. The licenses forbid transferring the book to another party. Evil! Evil! Evil!

*breaks out rum, buys parrot*

Pardon, this falls under what is called the "first sale doctrine." With some exceptions (like rental rights in certain works--ever wonder why you don't see CD rental stores? They tried a while back.) once you purchase a copy you can sell, give away etc. that copy. You just can't copy it or make derivatives. Or in the case of music, performance and distribution rights are also retained by the author. This is why gray market goods are not illegal per se. Under TRIPS and other treatys, once there is a "sale" those goods can be freely resold anywhere. Arbitrage. And with harmonization this does create many problems...Oh yeah, this is not legal advice. If you have legal questions, consult a lawyer. I'm not even a lawyer quite yet.

The difference between first-sale and file sharing is that it is not the same copy. If I buy a CD, rip it and share the MP3 online, I am not giving away what I bought. I am giving away a copy of what I bought. This is true especially if you retain your original copy. This is all nutshell stuff, there are of course many many details in here.

That makes sense. Thanks.

by the way, I'm reporting you to the ABA for unauthorized practice of law -- just thought you should know

Pretty good analogy october. The whole question of private contracts conflicting with copyright law is huge right now. In some instances private contract law preempts copyright law, but in others it does not.

I was only correcting my spelling with "ridiculous."

treaties

My guess, (Not Legal Advice!) and there is some recent case law to support this (and also an unfortunate case going the other way in the 1st Cir.) those licenses are unenforcable. It depends on a lot of things though, whether the transaction is at "arms-length," whether there is privity between parties, and a host of other considerations. Obviously this starts to go into more detail than anyone here is probably interested in so I will stop boring people.

now we're talking about people's privities again...

such language.

I'm the hopeless idealist who wants to get rid of the concept of intellectual property altogether. The name for a start is a misnomer. It's not about the ownership of ideas, but the ownership of a particular sequence of signs (words, notes, paintmarks etc). I just don't like the idea that language can be owned, or that business delineates the boundaries of individual lots of "expressive property".

We would still pay for hardware, which would need content, so the popular artists and writers would still be compensated. But they would be paid for creating the work, rather than owning it.

This is either a hypocritical view on my part, or a foolish one, as I make my living from copyright. I'm not disagreeing with anathema. I know what I want is a big change in the law. Of course, I also want a world with clean water and Pocky trees.

*yawns*

*rubs eyes*

What? What about the honeydew?

Oh. I see.

Carry on.

Where do you stand on the nun punching, then, liam?

what about Nun Horses?

Where do you stand on the nun punching, then

On their feet, of course.

I know what I want is a big change in the law.

Yeah exactly. Anathema's just defining what the law states and what it means. Everyone else is talking about what should be, not what is.

In other words, we should really gang up on Anathema and beat the tar out of him.

Then we get free shit.

Let's send him all of our AOL discs, see if that accomplishes anything.

Sorry, I used mine to build a spaceship.

This conversation reminds me of one of my favorite threads from the mothership.

Did you get one of those cameras, EBK? Does it vibrate?

Nun-punching is fun-punching, as long as it's set to music.

"The hills are alive with the sound of ultraviolence."

Time to get in the habit - of kicking your ass!

We have cameras.

Okay, here I am to make my apologies, rather sheepishly. If I run off at the mouth (or keyboard) I'm sorry...I've been writing a lot lately, and apparently the "blah blah blah" gene was flipped to the "on" position. Anathema: you're going to be a good lawyer, I can just tell (when did all these lawyers enter my life? Three of my best friends are lawyers, my husband has two different lawyers, and now you people. Weird). You're going to kick contractual ass! Good luck in the trenches. Everyone else, I'm sorry I made all of your eyes bleed. My bad. Do carry on with the nun-punching, though.

Posted by: readymade on November 19, 2002 02:28 PM

No, I got a $20 gift certificate from Amazon instead. DAMN YOU AMAZON! WHERE'S MY $10 CAMERA???

How does that make you any different from those you rail against?

We have cameras.
That IS the funniest thing I've ever seen on Mefi.

It really is. I had forgotten about that thread until I say frykitty's faq.

test

Crap. That was way scarier then when that other place is broken.

ready, no need to disclaim. It was civil, fun and informative.

I'd like to draw all of your attention to the fact that I was the first person to acknowledge NortonDC's camera-laden brilliance, within the thread. *struts up proudly, pompadour bobbing. bows. falls over and chokes to death on his own cravat.*

Very true, Marquis. Very true.
Now someone give him a hand with that cravat, willya?

I think it pretty much goes without saying that if humor gets injected into an otherwise serious MeFi post, someone from 9622ville either started it or was the first to acknowledge it.

and don't worry about Marquis. Turns out it wasn't a cravat -- just a loosely tied ascot. He'll be fine.

*wheezes* thank god!

I just read that a bunch of students at the Naval Academy had their computers confiscated because they had downloaded MP3 files on their harddrives. Listen to this quote from the record industry:
"Students must know that if they pirate copyrighted works they are subject to legal liability," the trade groups wrote. "It is no different from walking into the campus bookstore and in a clandestine manner walking out with a textbook without paying for it."

ASS PONYS.

I *heart* dong resin!!

*doing the happy Ass Ponys dance*

Did anyone else notice the the acronym for Koko's album is FAG? What agenda is she pushing?

I for one have had it with these leftist guerillas gorillas and their liberal agenda. Won't somebody think of the children?

In Ashcroft's America, you can go to jail for thinking of children.

I try to only think of children wearing humiliating outfits.

Thank you, Anne Geddes!

A note about posting images:

We encourage users to post images, especially those hilarous pics of monkeys wearing dresses or programming for Linux. But posting images that reside on someone else's server is considered by many to be bandwidth theft. Our thoughts on the matter, along with some solutions to the problem, can be found here. Thanks.

In an effort to help eliminate spam (and to preserve the sanity of the 9622 Volunteer Simian Spam-Cop Brigade) all threads older than 30 days will now be closed to comments.

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember me?