Some Facts & Insights Into The Whole Discussion Of 'Ethics' And Music Business Models

from the well-needed dept

Mon, Jun 25th 2012 12:06pm — Mike Masnick

I know we've written a few times now about David Lowery's now infamous shaming of an intern because she apparently doesn't give him enough of her money, but that story keeps getting attention. Thankfully, a lot of that attention comes in the form of people from all over the music business popping up to explain (1) how Lowery's factual claims are false , (2) his ethical claims are silly and (3) it's time to get with the future, rather than pine for a mythical past that never existed. Here's a collection of some of the more interesting such posts.

First up, we have Jeff Price from Tunecore -- the company that helps thousands of artists release and sell music. Jeff has more data on how artists make money than probably anyone else alive. And he says that nearly all of Lowery's factual claims are wrong, or at best, misleading. Here's a snippet, but the whole thing is worth reading:

Well here’s some truth about the old industry that David somehow misses.

Previously, artists were not rolling in money. Most were not allowed into the system by the gatekeepers. Of those that were allowed on the major labels, over 98% of them failed. Yes, 98% .

Of the 2% that succeeded, less than a half percent of those ever got paid a band royalty from the sale of recorded music.

How in the world is an artist making at least something, no matter how small, worse than 99% of the world’s unsigned artists making nothing and of the 1% signed, less than a half a percent of them ever making a single band royalty ever?

Finally, as much as I hate to say it, being an artist does not entitle the artist to get money. They have to earn it. And not everyone can.

This is a point that Lowery and his friends always ignore: because they don't count all the bands that failed under the old system. Those artists don't matter to them. The fact that those guys can make some money today where they made $0 before means nothing to them. The only artists who count are the artists who used to make lots of money, but don't make much money any more. Another example of Lowery being wrong that Price responds to is the claim that recorded music revenue to artists has been going down. Price has data:

This is empirically false. Revenue to labels has collapsed. Revenue to artists has gone up with more artists making more money now than at any time in history, off of the sale of pre-recorded music.

Taken a step further, a $17.98 list price CD earned a band $1.40 as a band royalty that they only got if they were recouped (over 99% of bands never recouped).

If an artist sells just two songs for $0.99 on iTunes via TuneCore, they gross $1.40.

If they sell an album for $9.99 on iTunes via TuneCore, they gross $7.00.

This is an INCREASE of over 700% in revenue to artists for recorded music sales.

Yeah, but you have to actually work at it now. Go read Jeff's entire writeup. It's pretty damning for Lowery.

Next up, we've got famed musician/producer Steve Albini's response, in which he notes that Lowery's facts are wrong and he's pining for a past that doesn't exist and ignoring all sorts of new opportunities:

In addition to vastly overstating the generosity of record labels toward artists in the old paradigm, Lowery openly sneers at the booming avenues for income that define the new music industry, merchandising and live performance.

As is true every time an industry changes, the people who used to have it easy claim the new way is not just hard for them but fundamentally wrong. The reluctance to adapt is a kind of embarrassing nostalgia that glosses over the many sins of the old ways, and it argues for a kind of pity fuck from the market.

It's doomed thinking. When it became obvious that the studio recording industry was not going to remain an analog domain, we built Electrical Audio to be as self-sufficient as possible so we could continue to use those methods we thought had important advantages despite changes in the greater industry. We didn't whine at the moon and expect the rest of the industry to indulge us. We also bought a Pro Tools rig to accommodate the sessions that weren't going to be done in the analog domain regardless.

Adapt to conditions or quit. Bitching is for bitches.

Next up, we've got successful "internet-era" musician Jonathan Coulton, who Lowery and his friends are claiming wrote a post supporting them. But that's only if you read the beginning, where Coulton claims that he agrees with Lowery. If you actually read the whole thing, Coulton's point is much more clear. He agrees that artists should get compensated, but scolding your customers is no way to do it. In fact, he talks about how exciting the future is going to be where more and more stuff is available for download for free, and how that will shake up lots of industries, beyond just music -- and just how exciting that is:

This is my bias: the decline of scarcity seems inevitable to me. I have no doubt that this fight over mp3s is just the first of many fights we're going to have about this stuff. Our laws and ethics already fail to match up with our behaviors, and for my money, those are the things we should be trying to fix. The change is already happening to us, and it's a change that WE ARE CHOOSING. It's too late to stop it, because we actually kind of like a lot of the things that we're getting out of it.

My one quibble with Coulton is that he seems to accept it as fact that artists make less money these days. His own experience and number from folks like Jeff Price above show that's simply not true. It may be true that the small circle of folks, like Lowery, who had some success in the past under the old system, and who then fail to adapt, may make less money, but that's the nature of a competitive marketplace.

Former record label guy Ethan Kaplan, whose insights we've discussed before, also weighed in with a more philosophical take, which is worth reading too. He makes two key points. As a guy who ran technology for Warner Music, he certainly has first hand knowledge about the role of innovation in the music business, and according to him, innovation was seen as a problem, because it broke the gatekeeper basis on which the old labels were built:

Innovation was antithetical to value for content, as it diminished the use of accessibility to increase relative worth.

Get that? He's pointing out that the labels' entire model was built on them being the gatekeeper -- limiting accessibility, in order to artificially suppress supply to keep prices high. The problem with innovation is that it inevitably moves towards greater efficiency. And that means pulling down artificial barriers. In the end, that's what Lowery is really complaining about, even if he doesn't realize it. He and his friends who once had some success as musicians face a more difficult world not because of unethical kids or because of technology... but because the way they used to make money was based on an artificial barrier that limited supply and competition, and allowed them to artificially inflate prices. It was good for them, but sucked for everyone who was kept out of the market. Why do you think this same crew is now arguing for a "new elitism" and directly insulting artists who succeed through more open means? It's because they want to go back to a limited supply. That's not happening.

And that brings up Ethan's second key point. There is no right to make money:

It is not a musician’s god given right to make money from their art. No one ever said this would continue as is.

This is a hard lesson. It doesn’t mean that copyright isn’t important. It doesn’t mean that artists can’t make money. It just means that it’s not a given, nor is it the responsibility of others to make this possible.

No one has ever had a "right" to make money from what they create. They have a right to try to do so. And many people have figured out how to do so under the current system. Those complaining don't seem to understand that you don't just get to sit back and have people give you money. You have to work at it, every day. That's the lesson Amanda Palmer provided everyone with her massively successful fundraising. She didn't raise that money based on any "ethical" arguments or anything having to do with copyright at all. In fact, she's explained how infringement has always helped her. She's able to do that because she works hard every single day to not just create great music, but to connect with her fans at a very deep level. She doesn't scold her fans -- she celebrates them. And because of that, she can make a ton of money and her fans love her for it.

Finally, we've got musician Travis Morrison, who was in a decently successful band (Dismemberment Plan) for a while and now works for the Huffington Post. He points out that this argument that there's some sort of ethical issue with the "kids these days" ignores the fact that past generations got music for free too, and for him, it was a huge boost to both his fandom and his desire to become a musician:

Music is so important to people. It is majorly important to young people. And to me? Literally somewhere below water and air but above food. And I just went for it. I bought a lot of music; I got a lot of free music from whatever sources were at hand; I just had to have it by any means necessary. If you duped a copy of a Dismemberment Plan record in college or something, it's cool. I guess I'd like to have the money, but you know what, I hope you just listened to it with even 1/10 of the consciousness I gave to the music I listened to as a kid--copied, stolen, or bought. And you know, maybe take some of the sermonizing from my peer group with a grain of salt. I think some of them did some of the things I did. Or... maybe a lot of them.

He's basically reinforcing the original point that Emily made and which kicked this whole thing off. Access to music and compensation of artists are two separate issues. The fact is that people know that the technology today enables access to pretty much every piece of music around. And it's a shame that we try to suppress that. The issue of compensation is somewhat separate from that -- and plenty of smart musicians are figuring it out. But arguing that access automatically means you need to compensate musicians at a high level (remember, Spotify's no good according to this bunch) or it's "unethical" just doesn't make sense, and has never made sense.

This debate has been interesting, but I'm glad to see that tons of people who live directly in that world have been coming out to correct the many inaccuracies in Lowery's post, which a few too many people took as gospel without understanding the details.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: david lowery, emily white, ethan kaplan, ethics, jeff price, jonathan coulton, steve albini, travis morrison
Companies: tunecore

353 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

[citation needed or GTFO], 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:17pm

Not enough evidence...
No, Pirate Mike. Five sources is not enough to prove the Lowerynauts wrong. There should be a minimum of ten sources before they'll at least give you an inkling of credibility!

[/sarc]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:33pm
  
  Re: Not enough evidence...
  what is this the fourth TechDirt piece responding to Lowery's phenom post with musicians... too funny... wasn't mike's initial response "I have nothing to say about it" and now you're on post number four... the lady doth protest too much me thinks...
  
  http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/why-arent-more-musicians-working-professionally/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ninja (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:41pm
    
    Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
    Well, it got a lot of attention and that's why he wrote the first time about it in the first place. Then it started getting replies from artists and from ppl in the music business. Mike then wrote further follow ups with what those ppl said (and that produced pretty good articles). So, what's the problem again?
    
    In the end Mike is right, Lowery said nothing useful or that was worth mentioning. However, the discussions that followed his insipid post were quite interesting.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
    I feel bad for Techdirt...all these links go to an untrustworthy site, must be killing the SEO.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:54pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
      I feel bad for techdirt too... spilling alot of ink on something that mike said, "not much to say about it."
      
      usual nonsense, five posts of whining at techdirt to one blog post by a modestly successful indie rocker from two decades ago, completely laughable...
      
      As your hero Larry Lessig would say, just get over it already and stop whining...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        five posts of whining at techdirt
        
        Against decades of non-stop whining from the copyright supporters.
        
        just get over it already and stop whining...
        Take your own advice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        you first! get over it!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        I tried getting "over it" many times.
        
        Unfortunately "over it" happened to this huge 500 foot 10'000 mile wide Wall of Copyright that is completely unscalable.
        
        So, I dug under it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        apparently not...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Oh...Lowery wasn't whining in his post...glad you cleared that up for me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        I thought there was "not much to say about it" why are you still whining? Can't even follow your own advice. Figures as much...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        I'm taking a cue from Lowery, so I'm gonna scold you instead of being constructive.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        funny, I thought you'd take mike's advice being that there's "not much to say about it."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Nah, I like Lowery's approach...much much lazier.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        you can't get lazier than having "not much to say about it"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Maybe, but I can assume Mike was biding his time doing research instead of making an impulsive emotional reaction with a heavy handed moral argument.
        
        I'd much rather take the former, since the latter makes me sound whiny like Lowery.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        odd that mike would be at a loss for words...
        
        actually it appears that mike just can't take his own advice... it's a bit hypocritical... so that's an interesting spin when you can't even follow-through...
        
        so what happened last week anyway that it warrants five posts from TechDirt doing damage control in a desperate attempt to reclaim the conversation?
        
        kinda funny that there was "not much to say about it"... apparently there's a lot more to say... hmmmmm....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        And yet..Lowery doesn't have much to say.
        
        Kind of hypocritical that you're hero is doing the same thing Masnick's doing.
        
        Though I have to admit, Masnick at least backs his claims up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        really? I don't see five posts on the trichordist about mike masnick...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Um, why would Lowery post about Masnick if he had nothing to say?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        bingo. lowery has nothing to say about mike so he doesn't. mike on the other hand has "not much to say" about lowery and here we are on the sixth post about lowery on Tech Dirt... the lady doth protest too much me thinks.
        
        stop already, you look more foolish with each post... stop whining about Lowery! Lowery! Lowery!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        So what you really mean is Lowery is not debating Mike? Oh, I get it now! :)
        
        You lost me for a while with the fanboy rants.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        are you still whining? about what? What happened last week? nothing that requires six posts from techdirt to try and explain?
        
        the power of Lowery is that you can't stop writing about him... Streisand effect... keep going fan b01...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Well actually we all kind of want to coax him out so that he throws a hissy fit like the time Mike called him out on his facebook posts.
        
        Classic Lowery, all emotion, no logic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 2:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        are you still whining?
        
        You mean like Mike about having not much to say?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        indieThing, 26 Jun 2012 @ 3:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Will you please stop with the fucking 'nahnah' posts like some spoilt child. Some minor celeb wrote some inconsequential article on an obscure blog and you're celebrating as though it's a major victory of some sort !
        
        Just so you know - it's not.
        
        Grow up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Masnick doing research,, what have you been smoking ??
        
        no your whinny like Masnick,, and THAT"S REALLY WHINNY...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 10:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        ya'll are too funny... more censorship in this thread than I think any I've ever seen... hurry, quick... better cover up and protect mike!
        
        mike said that there's "not much to talk about" but yet has now written about Lowery like six times? That's funny, really. You guys can't follow your own advice but expect other people too? Wow... Ok... so Streisand Effect applies to everyone but you?
        
        What you focus on grows, that's for your support!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 2:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        censorship, LOL!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Censorship, LSD!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        You mean "whiny", right?
        
        Geeze, start using Chrome's spell-check Lawlery, you're giving David a bad name.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chosen Reject (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
    I love this. First you and your ilk were all like "Oh snap Lowery just pwned you guys" and now you're like "Hey you said you weren't going to say anything so shut up". It's like you showed up to a knife fight with finger nail clippers, or a gun fight with a knife.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
      why are you still talking about this if it's so inconsequential? we didn't say that there's "Not much to talk about" mike did...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chosen Reject (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        I never said there's not much to talk about. Why can't you talk about anything other than Mike's one line from last week?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        mike said that there's "not much to talk about" but yet has now written about Lowery like six times? That's funny, really. You guys can't follow your own advice but expect other people too? Wow... Ok... so Streisand Effect applies to everyone but you?
        
        What you focus on grows, that's for your support!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        I'm well aware of what Mike wrote (You've quoted it many times already like a broken record, ad nauseum, over and over again). Now that you've said it, are you able or willing to discuss anything else or are you too intellectually incapable of having more than one thought per article?
        
        We could talk about:
        
        why it is you think it matters that Mike didn't think there was much to talk about then vs now
        
        how intellectually dishonest or misinformed David Lowery was in his post
        
        the NBA finals
        
        I mean, I'm all for repeating a point to make sure it's heard and considered, but your point has been heard, considered, and found lacking in anything even remotely worthwhile to discuss, yet you've somehow managed to repeat over and over as if all of us cared.
        
        I also thought there was something to write about even when Mike wrote the original article, though I thought the more to talk about was more along the lines of "ho hum here we go yet again with the banal rantings of some clueless moron who thinks he has the smoking gun only to learn surprise surprise that he's got arguments that were debunked over a decade ago."
        
        Given that, I can see how Mike didn't think there was much to write about, but he did (obviously) and here you are being easily replaceable with a simple shell script. Or maybe you already are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        *** why it is you think it matters that Mike didn't think there was much to talk about then vs now ***
        
        That's funny! Why do you think it matters? Mike asked what happened last week? He doesn't seem to know... but he does seem to think that there's "not much to say about it"...
        
        so what happened exactly that there isn't much to say about?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Chosen Reject (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Are you normally this stupid or are you being deliberately so here? I don't think it matters, but you brought it up and continue to do so as if it does. That wasn't the question. It was why you think it matters. So why does it matter to you? Also, the discussion of what happened last week is one you've got going on in another thread further down. Not here. Try to keep up on your buffoonery.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        He's just trying to derail the thread. Ignore the dolt until he actually says something.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        well, according to mike there's "not much really to talk about" which makes me wonder why he's still asking what happened last week?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        well, according to mike there's "not much really to talk about" which makes me wonder why he's still asking what happened last week?
        
        Obviously, he's doing it just to piss you off.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        And succeeding beautifully.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 10:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        mike said that there's "not much to talk about" but yet has now written about Lowery like six times? That's funny, really. You guys can't follow your own advice but expect other people too? Wow... Ok... so Streisand Effect applies to everyone but you?
        
        What you focus on grows, that's for your support!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Well, hey you can;t blame Mike for trying to not be lazy like Lowery. I mean Lowery doesn't even get his own facts so when he says "there's nothing to talk about" it really means he just didn't have the time to backup any of his claims.
        
        So I guess we should be like Lowery, all emotion, no logic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 8:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Hey, Lowery, not everything is about you even if it has your name on it. Grow up, man. Seriously. You weren't any good decades ago, and you just suck harder, now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        yes, fancy someone disagreeing and not willing to join in with the gang Headjob of MasnicK dick !!!!!..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        Lol, you mad bro?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 10:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        A lot of censorship going on here... funny funny SOPA people... but why are you still talking about this if it's so inconsequential? we didn't say that there's "Not much to talk about" mike did...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
        It isn't censorship, if people can still read the junk. Get lost in your paperbag, coward.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 10:11pm
  
  Re: Not enough evidence...
  man... you guys are too much... hit too close to home?
  
  I feel bad for techdirt too... spilling alot of ink on something that mike said, "not much to say about it."
  
  usual nonsense, five posts of whining at techdirt to one blog post by a modestly successful indie rocker from two decades ago, completely laughable...
  
  As your hero Larry Lessig would say, just get over it already and stop whining...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 10:13pm
  
  Re: Not enough evidence...
  there's so much censorship in thread...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 2:29am
    
    Re: Re: Not enough evidence...
    censorship, LOL!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:22pm

Apparently Masnick thinks that if keeps writing about Lowery, it'll change what happened last week.

It won't.

From his twitter:
"surprised at how many people are sending that to me (more than pretty much anything ever). not much to say about it."

hahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re:
  What Mike is writing is a fresh perspective on the whole affair, with quotes from other people who also have their own perspectives and views.
  He is not trying to change what happened last week. What does that even mean? Are you actually dumb enough to think that Mike thinks that by writing articles, he can go back in time?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - fogbugzd (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    >>Are you actually dumb enough to think that Mike thinks that by writing articles, he can go back in time?
    
    Only media industry execs believe it is possible to go back in time. Time travel to the past seems to be the prime tenant of their management style. In fact, they not only seem to believe it is possible to travel back in time, but it is even possible to travel back to their fantasy version of the past.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:16pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      only tech bloggers think media execs are looking backwards...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's kind of a naive comment, but then if you look at the pattern with other execs...like for instance the telecom companies sitting on dark fiber which could provide higher speed internet and information exchange to the entire US. why are they sitting on it...why aren't they looking forward, oh right...it's not in the business model.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Well, we have one up in the post who was fired for thinking ahead, so....yah.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the tech business never fires anyone? no one ever disagrees?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OF course! But being fired also allows a potential new opportunity. Which Kaplan took. And the other execs would be wise to heed his warning.
        
        Moreover, tech rarely holds anything back. It is morality-neutral. Monopolistic and mercantilistic tendencies, however, are not amoral.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Morality-Neutral"... see how well that works in court...
        
        it's funny that pirates don't seem to like Jail either...
        
        http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/kinoto-founder-dirk-b-jailed-337795
        
        http://www.forbes.c om/sites/parmyolson/2012/06/21/pirate-bay-founders-pin-their-hopes-on-human-rights-court/
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Do you know anybody who likes jail?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The Groove Tiger (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 8:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, no, media execs always look forward. Much like the trolls of the Disc, for them time flows the other way around: obviously, you can always see forward, but you can't look back, therefore, the past must be forward, and their backs are facing the future.
        
        They're just another breed of trolls. Which breed are you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcel de Jong (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's hard for the the media execs to look backwards, what with their head up their asses.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Apparently Masnick thinks that if keeps writing about Lowery, it'll change what happened last week.
    
    It won't.
    
    From his twitter:
    "surprised at how many people are sending that to me (more than pretty much anything ever). not much to say about it."
    
    hahahahahaha
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 2:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      hahahaha, noone gives a damn about how you see it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:25pm
  
  Re:
  Lowery's already established a pattern of laziness, that's why he opted to scold people instead of provide solutions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:29pm
  
  Re:
  it'll change what happened last week.
  
  I asked this yesterday, and you never responded, but what do you actually think "happened" last week?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    mike - what do you think happened last week? Please do be dismissive... cause you know... nothing happened... nothing that warrants four posts on techdirt even though there's "not much to say about it."
    
    isn't it you who said when you are in a hole stop digging?
    
    goof.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:44pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's official folks, David Lowery has defeated the Pirate Goliath.
      
      And all it took was one blog post.
      
      Good job, David.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - TaCktiX (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm still trying to grok how anyone has defeated anyone else. Mike reports on what's buzzing in the realms of tech and intellectual property. He had no initial reply to Lowery's post because he didn't really say anything that hasn't been debunked and/or addressed by Mike at some point in the past. Then a slew of bloggers brought up different points that have A: made the entire post/reaction to post across the internet very visible, and B: more or less required that he say something. If he didn't, he'd be failing at Techdirt's main focus.
        
        So tell me, how is that defeating anyone?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike42 (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lowery defeated Mike because they want Lowery to defeat Mike! It doesn't matter that Lowery brought up the same old, tired, debunked drivel that we've heard execs spout 27 times in the past year, it's DAVID LOWERY! He must win! He's the HERO! Don't look for facts, sense or logic, everything is just someone's opinion, and in their opinion, DAVID LOWERY WON! Because he's DAVID LOWERY!!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        why are you still whining about David Lowery! Lowery! LOWERY! Shake your fists to the heavens and shout thy name! LOWERY!
        
        LOL... seriously? You keep talking about him when there's "not much to talk about."
        
        Wow... insecure much... you giving a victory to someone who hasn't claimed it... now that's funny... must be awful frightening in there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        weneedhelp (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOWERY!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        LOWERY!
        
        LOW - ER - Y!
        
        LOW
        
        ER
        
        Y
        
        !
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike42 (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Let me guess... you're 12, right?
        That's how old I was when I thought antics like yours were cool.
        
        Sorry for expecting maturity from you.
        
        Here, have a lolipop.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        [citation needed or GTFO], 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Here, have a lolipop.
        
        Can I have a Chainsaw to go with that? =D
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        but that's the problem isn't it? There's "not much to say about it" except now techdirt is on it's sixth post about David Lowery and Mike's still asking the question of "What happened last week..."
        
        so why don't you tell us what happened last week, but don't say to much because you know... there's "not much to say about it"...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You meant "too" instead of to, right?
        
        Man, for all your Lowery worship, you sure don't follow his example of good grammar and spelling.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        spell check as a response means you are out of argument. thnaks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ...or you're not taking tips from Lowery. His essays are nice and tidy, your words...well, just yuck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 12:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        posting as a coward means you never had a point anyway. thnaks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 7:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It'd from the Film Brazil genius. LOWREY.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:55pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't know what either of you think happened last week but I know what I think happened last week.
      
      The same old thing that's been happening everytime people speak out against copyright and someone decides to try and shut them up.
      
      The same old thing that's been debunked, disproven and countered hundreds of thousands of times, and yet keep getting brought up again and again.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        @ SujaOfJauhnral - right, nothing happened last week... nothing, that's why there are now six posts on techdirt ABOUT David Lowery... because you know... there's ""not much to say about it." - Mike Masnick
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, something certainly happened, just nothing that hasn't happened already 500thousand times.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        By that I mean the same repeating cycle, speak out against something, someone comes out with blog/post/whatever calling the speak-outers this and that, then posts here debunking that...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        debunking something that doesn't matter? why waste your time if there's "not much to say about it?" keep digging... maybe write another five posts on Lowery?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike42 (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Trooollio....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can I ask a serious question - Why do you care? You're going on about Mike tweeting that "there's not much to say about it" and then writing several articles.
        So...I fail to see the problem. I fail to see how its an issue at all. Clearly he was mistaken when he wrote that tweet initially, since he's now written several articles about it. Are you trying to say Mike made a mistake? Le gasp, call the police!
        Go on, tell us what is wrong! You're sounding like a crazy person.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Not really. I just find it funny that the rules of Tech Dirt don't apply at Tech Dirt. I don't think Mike made a mistake, I think something happen last week that warrants attention, even if you disagree.
        
        The hypocrisy is amusing to watch in the attempt to be dismissive while writing six posts about something that there's "not much to say about it."
        
        Which lie is it? Well, I think we now know! What Happened? What Happend? Nothing... Ok, let's write six posts about something that didn't happen that there's "not much to say about"...
        
        sure... makes perfect sense...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rule? What rule? Are you Mike's editor? Do you have the final say in how many articles he can write on a given subject?
        No? Thought not. I notice you're calling it a lie. So what? People lie everyday, often about little things of no consequence...or more than likely, it isn't the conspiracy you're making it out to be, and Mike was simply mistaken when he made that tweet! When he tweeted it, he thought there wasn't much to write about. Then later, after reading some more, he found out there actually was!
        So again, WHAT. IS. YOUR. PROBLEM?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        @SujaOfJauhnral:
        Oh, something certainly happened, just nothing that hasn't happened already 500thousand times.
        
        AC:
        So why keep whining about it? I mean, there's "not much to talk about" about mike isn't even sure what happened last week.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        weneedhelp (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "write another five posts on Lowery?"
        
        Or have another 50 posts with "not much to say about it?"
        
        Boooring AC. Wheres boB when you need him?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you can stop whining and get over it any time you want.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That also applies to you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 6:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Go censor some more posts, Freetardo.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 25 Jun 2012 @ 6:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm just going to point out how the post are NOT censored, not even in the slightest. Go grab a dictionary or get a clue. A reported and still viewable comment is not in any way censored. That said, please find some new material. You're as bad as the other two idiot ACs already on this thread.
        
        Oh and hint, if you don't want your comments reported/flagged maybe you should try adding something of substance to them, besides angry remarks and ad homs. That's as off topic and thus report worthy as you can get. Moron.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 7:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You seem to be heading down a path that suggests blocking a website that can still be viewed with modest effort is likewise not censored.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 8:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They're not just heading down it, they arrived a long time ago.
        
        This blog is run by a hypocritical, intellectually dishonest weasel, and that is precisely why it is the biggest joke on the web.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 8:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The thricordist?
        
        I agree there is not anybody more weasel than Lowerbrains there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 8:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        oh yea,, +10+
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 2:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Says the jackass AC who calls posts here censored. Totally convincing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Trichordist, now there is a censored blog....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 25 Jun 2012 @ 8:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We've been through this discussion before and that is not at all what I am saying nor what I'm implying. (And by "we" I don't necessarily mean you. But I mean myself and other people commenting on here, usually to the AC who goes on and on about how his comments are being "censored", despite all explanations on actual censorship to the contrary.)
        
        A comment, that is still viewable and in no way has been actually censored (either as in edited by a Moderator or forced to be changed before being allowed to post), is not at all a censored comment or an example of censorship.
        
        Censorship if used here would mean the comment would be completely gone. No one would be able to see it. Or, the particular AC would not be able to even post a comment at all in the first place. That is not the case here and because a comment is allowed to be posted, without moderation, it quite clearly puts an end (or should) to any possible cries of "censorship".
        
        A comment that is reported/flagged by the community is still perfectly viewable to any who wish to see it. It even has a message basically saying, "Click here to view the comment." However, it has been reported for a reason.
        
        Also, a website that is censored is one that is completely non-viewable. Not even with a modest amount of effort. Now, if you'd like to explain to myself and others, and perhaps the AC with a grudge, how say a website like Dajaz1 being completely inaccessible for over a year and multiple spam-like/ad hom comments which are still viewable are exactly the same, by all means, do so. I'd love to hear this. As I'm sure everyone else here would.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dajaz1 is an entirely different matter, so the relevancy of your raising it here is not understood. BTW, I do understand the circumstances attendant to that matter. Thus, I do not believe changing the discussion here to rehash that matter would be beneficial.l
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh please. 99 times out of 100 the "report" function is used to hide speech- dissenting opinions that all the pirates here disagree with; it's not used to report actual spam or something that's genuinely incongruous with the tone that Masnick and others regularly practice here.
        
        That fact is yet more proof that you people literally define the term "willful blindness". You practice it every day. Most amusing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See, perhaps it's used because of comments like yours. Where you already start off by calling everyone here pirates. You have any proof of that claim? Or are you assuming that just because a majority of the people disagree with you they're all pirates?
        
        And sorry to say, the "report" function is used to report actual spam. I've seen it used for such plenty of times.
        
        As for dissenting opinions. Mhm. So the idiot saying "nothing much to say here" 50+ times is a dissenting opinion? Really? I thought it was spam, because it appears to be spam. A simple and irrelevant to the discussion comment that is being reposted near indefinitely by one person (or four as now the case appears to be). In addition, it's being used on comments that are nothing more than "you're all pirates/thieves/freetards". Again, seen that multiple times in this thread. Nothing else has been reported.
        
        And "dissenting opinions" is shot down when you see the comments made by Hmmmm. He/she most definitely has a dissenting opinion. Yet, he/she attempts to try and explain their points of view and then back them up. And does so in a manner that is both respectful and reasonable. Notice something important about Hmmmm's comments? I bet you don't. But I'll help you out, not a single one is/has been reported. (Probably for the reasons previously mentioned. Respectful. Reasonable. Etc.)
        
        Please do find a new point to harp on. Or just cry "censorship" like the other idiot (or two or three). It just makes it easy to see who to ignore and who has nothing to actually say. It's great for newcomers to the site to see who's actually got something worthwhile to say and who doesn't, as is evidenced you've got nothing to say. And, yet again, the facts are very much against you as is apparent to anyone with even half a brain.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No no no plenty happened..like the part where Lowery demonized a young intern for legally ripping most of her music. I mean if hew as upset about the few songs form Kazaa, he should have said, but he definitely loves to exaggerate the details.
        
        Then he completely missed the fact that Spotify loses money paying out to the labels (I mean...calling the guy greedy? Really?). Oh and then he didn't even research both sides of his claim because according to this - http://www.zeropaid.com/news/90751/study-musicians-income-up-66-despite-decreased-album-sales/ - musicians are making a pretty good amount from touring.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lowestofthekeys"
        "No no no plenty happened..."
        
        Really cause mike said that there was "Not much to talk about" and he's asking what happened last week? SO you don't know what happened last week, so you need to keep whining about something that didn't happen, but if it did, you don't know what it was? Wow...
        
        http://www.salon.com/2012/04/22/no_sympathy_for_the_creative_class/singleton/
        �Musical groups and artists� plummeted by 45.3 percent between August 2002 and August of 2011.�
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The eejit (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And the sole cause of that is CLEARLY ThePirateBay. And Jamendo. And Google.
        
        Also, England suck at penalties, but we all knew that, too, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See this? This is spam. On the Trichordist this is group-think and anything posted against it just wouldn't even appear on the site, no matter how much you want it to. THAT, my dear, is censorship at its finest. Hiding it unless you click through? That's not censorship.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're not going to climb down off that jackass of yours are you?
        
        Even though Mike didn't think there was much to say about Lowery's screed others did and people with deep roots in the recording industry have all said Lowery is so full of it his eyes are brown.
        
        So off you go join Lowery in the pond he's swimming in. Enjoy the company.
        
        And the smell.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        fantastic non-response, I guess that's what happens when there's "not much to talk about".
        
        you guys just can't stop mentioning he's name. funny how it always ends in a personal attack when you can't make a point... it's like he's the candy man... david lowery, david lowery, david lowery... oooohhh spooky!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You mean "his" name, right?
        
        I thought you were busy not talking about things, how did that glaring error get through?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 8:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Actually, I'm not the one who said that "there's not much to talk about". I was always of the opinion that Lowery's screed had lots in it to talk about. Deceptions, misstatements and outright lies among them. Mike had another opinion at the time. Not me.
        
        It's almost impossible to not take a shot at you when you are repeating yourself mindlessly and endlessly or to respond in a way you won't take as a shot or another repeat of your phrase of the day. I just thought it would be better to remove any doubt. For all that I disagree with Lowery he, at least, attempts to make some sense.
        
        You just drop by to repeat yourself endlessly. What's amusing is that for all the blogs and sites that have responded to Lowery's post, almost all that I've seen negatively, that his defenders have acted like you are.
        
        So, in a way, he is the candy man. A cure for boredom and a fascinating tour through the state of recorded music in the United States and elsewhere. And mindless, brain numbing defenses from the same band of loyalists who were saying that he'd really gotten us Techdirt freetard types where we live. Ya, know, something about the artist striking back at long last.
        
        Thing is that he did nothing of the kind. In that sense Mike was right.
        
        It's still a smelly pond you're swimming in. You can guess the colour if you want.
        
        I wouldn't have missed the debates around this for the world.
        
        You, I could have done without but it's also been hilarious how long you've hung onto that single line of yours as if it proves something. It doesn't prove a thing. Except that we Freetards don't march along in lock step with Mike or each other.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        gee it's lucky you are unable to form your very own opinion !!!!!..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:21pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think what happened last week is that David posted a blog post that really crystallized what may of us have been thinking. The idea that since the technology exists for electronic theft, we should change our business model to embrace it - while pragmatic, is still quite ethically wrong. I choose to use the word theft because it is the most appropriate. While there are ideas that this is not theft - but rather infringement - the idea behind these arguments is to create two separate categories for these illegal actions. Theft historically refers to stealing of physical property. However, the definition of the word also applies to intellectual properly - infringement.
        
        I would take this a step further into the hypothetical future - where the teleportation of any object over great distances, directly through walls is now possible at low cost. So now, it becomes technically possible to steal physical properly quite easily and anonymously. If this were to occur, I don't think the answer would be to create a new business model that allows free swapping of physical properly. On the contrary, a considerable amount of research would be placed into ways of "shielding" your properly from this type of theft.
        
        Bridging this analogy back to the music business - they have tried the shielding technologies of DRM with limited success. They tried changing the laws for some added shielding, with limit success.
        
        I dont think any combination of technology or laws will provide a sufficient shield against this electronic theft. The only effective countermeasure is for good people like David to speak up against this type of behavior, and get people to change their actions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I download your car's specs from the web (because yeah, I totally would download a car) and construct my own from scrap materials out of the nearest landfill. I now have a car I didn't have before.
        Yours is still sitting in your driveway, untouched.
        What have I stolen?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Even though this is not quite right for an analogy I will go with it - you have stolen the design - which is intellectual properly. This is what drives me crazy - the fact that you even had to ask the question "what have I stolen" shows that too many people have bought into to the idea that electronic theft is not theft - but physical theft is bad. Download the specs for a Ford, and start building identical models them and redistributing them for free, I think Ford will have an issue with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike42 (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And I have an issue with you.
        You have no sense of community. When Jonah Salk found the cure for polio, he could have patented it, but he didn't. He made it free for everyone. George Washington Carver only recieved a single patent, and never enforced it because he wanted people to use his inventions.
        See, if I have a fish, and I give you half, I only have half a fish. If I teach you to fish, I still know how to fish, and now you know how to fish, and we can share in our successes and cover each other's failures.
        You are the kind of elitist which makes the bile rise in my throat. I don't know if it is selfishness or lazyness which makes you so self-involved, but I certainly find it disgusting.
        Have a happy life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No need to turn to personal attacks ...
        
        I think again you are missing the point. Johan Salk *could* have licensed the vaccine. That was his right. No one took that right from him or stole his intellectual properly. He willingly gave his discovery to the commons. That - is everyone's right. You can *choose* to give any of your ideas or discoveries to the commons if you desire. Please do not confuse that with others stealing those ideas without permission.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        RonKaminsky (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        > Please do not confuse that with others stealing
        > those ideas without permission.
        
        Take your own advice, then --- since I'm sure someone has previously expressed the ideas in your posts.
        
        P.S. There are no legal protections for ideas --- unless, of course, you mean the First Amendment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I apologize for not using the right technical term. I meant "works" ....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike42 (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Freudian slip much?
        You've got it backwards. It is ethical NOT to try to stop others from copying your ideas. The laws ORIGINALLY stopped others from PROFITING from your work: that was the goal. Unfortunately, the industry convinced Congress that not-for-profit copying was infringement as well.
        You are confused, and think that lawful = ethical. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was lawful to imprison people who wed interracially in the 1960's. Was that ethical or moral? No. And neither is fining people or throwing them in jail for sharing a $.99 song.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lets say that a software company invests 100M in some great new pieces of software. And some employee decides to "leak" the software - so now everyone has a free copy. No one buys the software, because they already have a copy. Are you arguing that this is ethical? To me this logic seems backwards.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In this purely hypothetical world you speak of, then yes it would not be ethical.
        
        However, that's not how the world works, your hypothetical version of events notwithstanding. Because despite the relative ease with which people can download copies of Microsoft Office and Adobe and Autodesk products, not many do. In fact, the vast majority pay for said software.
        
        So let's do away with the hypothetical scenarios and deal with facts. Fact, contrary to what you've stated, copyright infringement is NOT theft. You can argue and bring up all the definitions you want, but you're still incorrect. The Supreme Court has ruled on the matter, and contrary to what you partially said elsewhere, they did not say it is okay (as in it's okay to do it or download or anything like that). They just said it isn't theft. Mostly, for the simple reason that the original product was still in possession of the owner, however their right to the distribution of their product was violated, not stolen. Hence the term, "copyright infringement". End of story on that front.
        
        And please, don't resort to bob type arguments involving $100 million projects. If you seriously need to spend that much to make a great product, you're doing it wrong. If you think there's any guarantees that just because you spent so much you'll get that much back, you're not only doing it wrong but you're an idiot. And I'm not insulting you directly, just people who say, "But I spent a fortune, so why am I not getting a fortune back?" Simple, not everyone values your product as much as you do. That or, you know, you have an inferior product.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Does the dollar amount of the project really matter, lets say its a 100k project - does that make it any more ethical to steal the software? Everyone is focusing on the irrelevant parts of the argument.
        
        The core issue is whether this theft/infringement is ethical. And, everyone's response to me has said "yes it is", no matter what argument I put forward.
        
        It saddens me a bit that there are not more voices out there - that's why David's blog post really spoke to me. I normally never post - but this whole issue got me motivated because I see a waterfall of opinion on the wrong side of the issue. I guess we will see where we end up.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's good that Lowery spoke to you, however the majority of the people here are not going to flat out say that piracy is okay. Obviously, defending the download of music and deprivation of revenue to an artist is a bad thing, that's just common sense.
        
        I don't respect Lowery because for one he approached the issue wrong by demonizing a young girl for copying music legally (sans the kazaa songs since the supreme court told the RIAA to stop making new lawsuits, but hey...they can still sue her for thousands of dollars over a few songs, that's why America is great). He then dismisses any other alternatives to selling your rights away to a label.
        
        Don't get me wrong, some artists need a medium to get their stuff out there, but Lowery is claiming the DIY approach is completely wrong, even though they've shown here that it can work for the benefit of the artist.
        
        So essentially, yes it is not right to download songs and deprive artists of money, but using a moral argument with skewed facts to discredit alternative services is not right either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Okay. I get what you're saying, but if people are focusing on the wrong parts of the argument, perhaps you should avoid the bad hypothetical end of the world type scenarios. And just stick to the core issues. If at that point, you still can't make people understand, perhaps you should step back and see what point you're not making clear enough or, and this is the big part, step back and see whether you're in the right in the first place.
        
        As for the "core issue" which you've brought up. I won't speak on it. As I've said more than once, ethics are subjective. To people like David, it is insane and utterly unethical that anyone should enjoy his work without him receiving a fortune. I work in IT and health care. I routinely offer my services to people at below what would be considered fair value. Why? Because I want people to make the most of their technology and if helping them out means I might not make as much as I should, so be it. If I was like David, I would be beyond upset. And the companies I beat in pricing (like Geek Squad and others) have every right to call for my head for offering to fix things at beyond affordable (or even free, GASP) prices. Ditto health care. I offer advice to some who cannot easily get Federal or State or HMO aid and tell them how to do so. I do so when I, and the company I work for, stand to gain nothing for it. Why? Because helping the elderly and sick is ethical in my book. The HMOs who are having to pay for said aid would beg to differ though. So who is in the right? That's why, perhaps you should stop looking at the ethics on the matter and look at the facts.
        
        The facts state, copyright enforcement is having a greater cost than any possible returns it could net. The facts state, that at this time there are more chances for ANYONE to make some money as an artist than at any point in history. (Which upsets some like David. Why? Because now there are more people who he has to compete with and if you don't cut the mustard, you're slice of the pie will get smaller.)
        
        I mean why would you want to argue ethics, which are as unique to each of us as our fingerprints, when there are actual facts to debate? Many of which tear to shreds any argument people like David can make. Beyond the ethical one, which more often than not is the last refuge of someone with nothing to say. (Also, since you are the one focused on ethics. How did you feel about David making a mockery of the death of two friends? He dishonors their memory by trying to place the blame entirely on piracy with no proof to support said claims. Is that ethical? Because in my code of ethics and by my moral standards, which are my own, that was beyond ghastly and far worse than the mere downloading of a song or movie or program by someone who could possibly pay for it, although there's no guarantee they would have in the first place.)
        
        Also, who decides what is the "wrong side" of the issue? History is rife with examples of people who were on the wrong side only to later be in the right. Or do I have to point out some of these examples? Many of which involve things which we now see as unethical, but which at the time were viewed as acceptable and right and what have you.
        
        I don't know. Frankly, at the end of the day, sitting and trying to guilt trip others into accepting your point of view seems a bit ridiculous and not worthwhile. If you have an argument to make or that you want heard, do so in a reasonable and logical manner. And reasonable minds will give your words the thought and respect they deserve. If however, you have nothing worthwhile to hear, don't expect people to listen to it. Seems to me, the majority of people do not respect copyright. Or at least not what it's become. Perhaps that says a lot more than you think, ethics notwithstanding.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 8:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The problem here is exactly the opposite it is ethical to grant a monopoly to and invention or expression of something baring every other form of expression out there?
        
        It is ethical, prudent or desirable to give one person a monopoly and the right force others to comply with such unethical power?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        TtfnJohn (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You're asking a complex question there which David over simplifies in his way and gets wrong in so many others.
        
        Should the core of it be do artists, musicians, in this case, deserve to be paid for their work. The answer is and emphatic yes. Did they and do they under the RIAA gatekeeper system? After all the creative accounting does by the gatekeepers despite what Lowery says the answer is kinda. Obviously that's not the complete answer and there are others who have responded to David's post in far more detail and with far more direct knowledge than I have.
        We can start here:
        http://blog.tunecore.com/2012/06/the-intern-the-artist-the-internet.html
        Which answers David Lowery directly.
        And for a Then vs Now comparison there's this:
        http://blog.tunecore.com/2012/06/then-v-now-the-path-to-success-for-artists.html
        On software the answer is a "maybe" depending on the licensing of the software.
        For closed source which is what Microsoft and Adobe largely deal in the answer is that infringement is a civil offense and probably best not done. Perhaps not for moral issues but more practical ones like support, bug fixes and nice stuff like that. There are times that it becomes a criminal offense for example when unauthorized software is downloaded for a profit.
        For open source you it's morally, ethically and legally correct. In fact that's what open source is built on. The ability of the user to modify the software to allow it to work better for them. Under the GPL license which is the one Linux uses, now far more than a $100K project, you can download the source, have at it, make whatever changes you want but you must upload it back to the project leader under the same license.
        Cultural endeavours like songs have a similar license known as the Creative Commons license which comes in slightly different flavours depending on what, if anything, the creator wants to restrict.
        With respect to what David writes about he's both right and wrong and it's covered in one of the links I put in above. Perhaps what's missing in all of this is this historical context for "piracy" is that with Napster it started because the recording industry wasn't filling consumer demand at the time for a return to the "single" or "track" instead of the CD album which, in the late 1990s was something of a gamble as the grumble at the time was that you bought a CD of 14 songs and only 1 was worth the effort. Did it infringe? Yes. Was it ethical? In the purest sense of the word no. Then again it could be and has been argued that what the recording industry was doing at the time was anything but ethical as well. In the sense of "you'll damn well take what we give you and shut up". The musicians got caught in the middle and risked not getting paid for their work which no one here, then or now, agrees with. So that is a moral wrong. Technology allows for it and with the recording industry planting both feet into a market that was vanishing around them the battle lines were set up. Eventually Apple and Amazon came along and more or less forced a reluctant recording industry into resurrecting the single and letting Apple and Amazon retail them. The musicians started to get paid again.
        One day something like this will happen for first run movies as well. Soon.
        The moral clash will restore some balance even though nothing will ever return to pre Napster days. Morality notwithstanding.
        As long as there is software that people in second and third world countries want or perceive they need software piracy will continue, I'm afraid. If there's a moral question there it's similar to the pharma one which is can me ethically expect people in those parts of the world to pay the same prices for software (or medication) that we do for first world countries?
        The question is complex as are the answers. Economics as a science/art doesn't deal in morality just how markets behave in given circumstances. Markets themselves are amoral in that what a market demands it will get one way or another. I don't pretend to have the answers to the questions I asked above concerning pricing ethics what I know is that people will get what they feel they need.
        
        I'm glad that Lowery got you thinking and involved. Don't lose either.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        darin, 27 Jun 2012 @ 7:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hmmm wrote:
        
        "I normally never post - but this whole issue got me motivated because I see a waterfall of opinion on the wrong side of the issue. I guess we will see where we end up."
        
        Although I am one of those on the other side, I am glad that you decided to post. Your contributions to the discussion have been thoughtful and articulate, and I hope you'll stay in it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ask Red Hat how it works for them, they are open source everybody can copy, distribute, modify or even sell their "product" without having to ask for permission and still they make millions in sales becoming a billion dollar company.
        
        Arduino a open hardware company where you can get the plans for all their products for free, modify it, distribute it and even sell and exact copy of it without having to ask for permissions and still it is a multi million dollar company.
        
        Reality it seems doesn't match your rhetoric, people are able to find a market to whatever they are selling even if others can copy their products and acquire those for free.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think I'm going to give my posts a rest after this one. I've gone from never posting to being a post monster today with all the responses ... I'm just really fascinated by having so many people think differently than I do - and wanted to understand the thought process. I think I see where everyone is coming from. I dont agree with it, but I can see it at least.
        
        Last comments - I'm very familiar with Red Hat and their business model. Just because a company succeeds at this business model does not excuse people infringing (see you got me saying infringing now instead of theft...).
        
        Bottom line - infringing is wrong. Its unethical. The idea that companies should change their business model to adjust because "infringers will infringe, there is nothing you can do about it" just seems wrong. And with the majority ( at least on this site ) also believing that this is perfectly ethical - there seems to be only 2 options remaining.
        1) companies change their business model to deal with infringing (this turns my stomach, but may be pragmatic)
        2) some new technology is put in place to reduce infringing (I dont see this happening).
        
        So, maybe mike is right after all :(
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        A monopoly is unethical, infringing on it is the duty of every loving freedom lover out there.
        
        Exclusive rights are used not just for business protection but also as a means of censorship, which is a direct threat to democracy.
        
        Why on earth would anybody would want to get such a thing in place and make it stronger and stronger?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        there seems to be only 2 options remaining.
        1) companies change their business model to deal with infringing (this turns my stomach, but may be pragmatic)
        2) some new technology is put in place to reduce infringing (I dont see this happening).
        
        So, maybe mike is right after all :(
        
        Since infringement has always been around, and you can't eraticate it, there seems to be only 1 option remaining.
        
        1) companies adapt by continually changing their business models to leverage current and future technology to reduce infringement.
        
        So, mike is right after all :) FTFY!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 2:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If a company invests 100M to produce a product that others can so eaily copy that's their fault for being stupid.
        
        It'd be like me spending billions to open a single burger joint knowning someone else will do it cheaper if people in the area really want burgers and then getting mad when it happens.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        and you just have no sense !!!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Or you could, ya know, frame it in terms of the Star Trek replicator. Imagine if they were to be invented tomorrow, no problems at all in using and maintaining them.
        How do you think the legacy industries would react? Where would the ethical and moral problems be in using it?
        Already we have a similar device - its called a computer and also already, we have 3D printers. With both, we can replicate many types of things - digital files and objects with the printer. Where's the ethical dilemma?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In a society where there is no hunger, and everyone's basic needs are provided for - I would have a completely different argument. However, we do not live in a society like that. We live in a society where everyone has to provide a living for themselves, using the talents that they have. And as a result in living in this society, we have laws about theft of physical and intellectual properly so that everyone *can* make a living. That - is the ethical dilemma.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what if the laws that governed this duplication device prevented limitless food form being available?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        what if pigs had wings?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jeff (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Then airlines would be going out of business, and bacon would be free! mmm... bacon....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:26pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love flying bacon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I have to admit - your comment made me pause in my thought process. My initial response would be - that law is unjust, immoral, and unethical, so breaking that law to save people from hunger would be the proper thing to do.
        
        And, I see the next logical step to your argument - is that copyright laws have effectively done the same thing with music, software, books, etc.
        
        But, stealing music, software & books does not seem to rise to the same level of moral dilemma as feeding hungry people.
        
        However, having a pharmaceutical sell a life saving drug for 10000x the development cost. I also view that as unethical.
        
        This is why I believe the answer is not in new laws, not in new business models - but the answer is in ethics - which society, and companies seems to be lacking more and more.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 12:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is no way to steal information (music, software, ebooks) - you copy it.
        
        About ethics - ethics change with every generation - you cannot force your ethics from 1980 to a generation that never saw a cassette tape, VCR and never actually owned music in a physical form. Younger people (~20 years old) grew up with filesharing and while it's frowned upon it will be excepted - remember when we had pirate radios?
        
        And you think old business models will be here forever? Letter carver for the printing press, buggy whip maker and recording executive met in a bar...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright laws were never meant as a form of welfare for artists. They were originally framed to give artists sole control over their creations in a time when the act of copying was difficult and expensive.
        Notice we live in the year 2012, and everybody can now copy with ease. Where is the ethical dilemma in preventing us from copying? Your argument about artists having to make a living doesn't hold water, because artists can still make a living without having to rely on copyright.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I fail to understand the logic that since a person can in theory generate revenue tangentially based on other activities related to creating an original work - that justifies stealing a copy of that work for your own listening pleasure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You fail because you insist its stealing. It is NOT. Stealing involves me taking something into my own possession and you not having it anymore. Notice how there's two parts to that, and copying doesn't include Step 2.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I love google.
        
        Definition of theft: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft
        
        In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation.
        
        Definition of property: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property
        
        Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation.
        
        Again - it is theft - plain and simple.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        cut/paste error in the last post but you get the point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Easier to ask forgiveness than permission. And it's copyright infringement.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike42 (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I see you skipped the "with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it" part.
        Were you talking about ethics at one point?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:52pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Rights are property now?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 11:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Okay then. Here's a test you can do. I want you to create a picture file, a JPEG. Or write and record some music, an MP3. Then, post it on the internet, on your own site, and wait for someone to COPY the file.
        Then, go to the courts and say these exact words "These people STOLE from me! It's THEFT!"
        The first thing the judge would do is throw the case out, because in the legal world, IT IS NOT THEFT. The judge will say you cannot charge people with theft when they copy files. The link YOU YOURSELF gave says for it to be theft, you have to be DEPRIVED of your "property". As in, when someone copies the file, the file has to somehow magically delete itself.
        
        So go on. Come back and keep on repeating how its theft, WHEN THE JUDGE WILL TELL YOU IT IS NOT!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Earth to idiot !!!! there is not Star Trek replicator, that is "fiction"..
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        varagix, 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First off, there is no definition of theft that would cover IP infringement without losing all conventional meaning. If you define theft as depriving someone of their property, assuming 'intellectual property' isn't a misnomer, its not possible to steal it as the original owner is not deprived of their IP.
        
        If you define it as "taking it without permission or consent", it also does not apply as the IP was freely transfered to audience/consumer, and then from audience/consumer to the wider public. It may violate IP laws, but it is not theft. The same can be said for defining theft as "taking by force".
        
        Secondly, you fail the state what the ethical dilemma in IP infringement is. You state that infringement is unethical because its illegal, but don't represent both sides of the dilemma.
        
        On the opposite side of the debate, is that IP law in itself is unethical because it is a civil (ie government granted) right that deprives the public of natural rights.
        
        All people have a natural right to their accumulated knowledge and experiences, and a natural right to sharing and communicating that knowledge and experiences, limited only by their own tools and ability. These rights exist without the need of an outside force.
        
        Once that knowledge and those experiences have been passed on to another, that person also has a natural right to the keeping and passing on of that knowledge and experience to others, independent of the person who first transferred it to them. It cannot be taken away from them, and even if it could, once freely given to them it would be unethical to forcibly take it away.
        
        All people have these rights: the knowledgeable can teach the ignorant, artists can perform or present their art for an audience, and those that were taught or entertained can in turn teach or perform for others.
        
        The dilemma comes from the fact that IP laws give a civil right to individuals to categorically repress these natural rights in others, and whether or not society currently benefits from this, in a world where our tools allow our expressions of knowledge and experiences to be created, stored, and communicated near perfectly, quickly, and over great distances.
        
        As far as ethics are concerned, the ability of individuals to profit directly from their ability to create "intellectual property" doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the infringement of the natural rights of the People through the civil rights granted by IP law is justifiable.
        
        Most people who follow Techdirt regularly, such as myself, believe it is not, either in the form IP law currently exists in, or as a whole.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 1:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copying isn't theft, if it was then the free market system is immoral
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:33pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I like the analogy, but it's somewhat flawed.
        
        Teleportation is defined by the movement of an object from point A to point B, whereas piracy involves the duplication of an object from point A to point B.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I agree the analogy was not perfect. Even if it is adjusted so that a perfect copy of the object is made, it is still theft. Instead of stealing from the direct owner of the object, you are now stealing the intellectual properly of the designer & creator of the object. An object has 100M in research & development costs? As the object creator - Good luck at trying to recoup any of those costs when people can just steal your design and use it at their own will.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So let's say I buy food from a farmer and duplicate, is that theft?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How is it theft, WHEN YOU DO NOT LOSE ANYTHING? The US Supreme Court has already ruled on this!
        For you to say I steal the intellectual property of the designer and creator, that would mean that I download Random Music File.mp3, and somehow, magically, the copyright holder now doesn't have her file.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you are implying that the Supreme Court has ruled that free file sharing of music, software, books is A-OK - I would like to see that.
        
        As I have stated before - just because nothing is lost, it does not mean nothing was stolen. Remember, theft includes theft of intellectual properly .. not only physical property. In the theft of intellectual properly, its almost always, making a copy - not a 100% transfer.
        
        People are stuck in the old "physical properly" mindset.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chelleliberty (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would actually argue that there's actually a lot more of a case in arguing that the enforcement of intellectual monopoly rights is theft; as there is an actual deprivation of the rights of people to use their own property as they see fit vs. the attempted moral equivocation of someone copying a song which deprives no one of anything.
        
        Your metaphorical theft assertions are inflammatory but fairly weak; these violations are not called "theft" or "stealing" by the law, only metaphorically when someone is trying to win an argument by drawing a moral equivalence between infringement and theft. Actually, other than metaphorically, nothing being lost *does indeed* mean that nothing was stolen; nor will you ever be charged with such for copying. And repeating a factually incorrect statement such as "Remember, theft includes theft of intellectual property" does not make it so. (Ohhh, I see what you did there, very circular of you.)
        
        However, generally these types of actions are (at least in the cases of copying music, software, or books) very rarely anything more than civil torts, and they are considered infringements of copyright, not stealing; whereas theft of property is a criminal violation and is prosecuted as such. The reason people are "stuck in the old 'physical property' mindset" is because that is what theft is and always has entailed; your wishing it to be different does not make it so.
        
        So, say it ten thousand more times if you like, but you are factually incorrect, and even metaphorically you're fairly low on content and logic and fairly high on raw assertions. And as I note in my post below, there have been numerous other times when peoples' private right of the use and copying of otherwise intellectually restricted material without a profit motive was not only done, but recognized by courts and lawmakers as *not even wrong*, making the jump from there to theft all the more vast.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you are confusing the word theft with the legal term.
        I know that theft is commonly used to refer to the criminal code, but I'm simply referring to the taking of intellectual properly without permission. To not call it theft is an attempt to minimize the action and make it seem like a slight technical act that has no real impact on anyone.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There should be no permissions to be asked that is not theft, never was, only a confused person would think otherwise.
        
        It is ok to share and copy things, it is how we pass knowledge, it is how we learn, it is how the world works, well maybe not your delusion world view, but for the rest of the world there is nothing wrong with it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 12:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To not call it theft is an attempt to minimize the action and make it seem like a slight technical act that has no real impact on anyone.
        
        Yes. That is the only reason why we don't call it theft. Oh and because it isn't. But that's a minor fact...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey Hmmmm ... I bet you didn't think we'd notice, but in your post above you conveniently left out the part in your own link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft that says:
        
        In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
        
        And yet here you are saying
        
        In the theft of intellectual properly, its almost always, making a copy
        
        Seriously?
        
        It's a copy and by your own(redacted) definition most certainly not theft.
        
        I do have to say that I really appreciate your thoughtful and restrained approach to this subject, but you really tied yourself in an intellectual knot there.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sshhhh! You're just going to prove that he's the intellectually dishonest one here! You can't do that, he might stop posting! (Okay, we all know he won't, he doesn't have the slightest sense of shame.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 9:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If you are implying that the Supreme Court has ruled that free file sharing of music, software, books is A-OK - I would like to see that.
        
        Except that no one but you even implied or inferred it. Stating the facts (SCOTUS stated that infringement is not theft) does not allow for the jump in logic that 'it isn't theft so it's okay.'
        
        This renders your comment useless.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chelleliberty (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "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."
        
        Actually, except metaphorically, it's not theft; there's a reason that that copyright/patent law was specifically carved out as a special exception in the Constitution. It's also the reason that such monopoly grants were specifically restricted so as to be only for "limited Times" (unlike a natural right which would not be expected to have an arbitrary end date) and was intended "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", and indirectly gives the monopoly grant to the creators of works in order to benefit everyone.
        
        The whole point is that the clause allowed the government to implement *legal* rights to a monopoly in one's creations, where no such *moral* right exists, and in fact such rights go against a normal construction of the concept of ownership of physical property: property owners now become restricted in their right to use or dispose of their own property as they see fit. This was one of the tradeoffs made by those who wrote the constitution, and was intended to benefit the *public as a whole*, and only indirectly to benefit those who created monopoly-protected works.
        
        And, for that matter, there were many examples even fairly recently (things like sharing mix tapes with friends and family, or VHS recordings of television shows, etc.) which were not only common, but specifically recognized as legitimate rights by the courts or Congress. It was not until recently that the *AA's were able to get enough power to ram through new laws that shut down personal not-for-profit copying or other previously accepted fair-use practices, e.g. through the DRM non-circumvention clauses.
        
        As for your example, (a) copyright/patent law is not the only solution to protecting investments in R&D (for example, keep it a trade secret) (b) there are lots of benefits to being someone who created a vital technology; including the fact that you will be first-to-market, and you will understand it better than anyone else to make modifications or sell services based upon it, etc. and (c) how do we possibly compare the benefit of having had the company spend those millions on R&D knowing they could use the force of law to prevent others from using their ideas vs. that money being spent in other ways that the company knew could be profitable without having government guns backing them up?
        
        Seems to me there ought to be fairly conclusive proof that such a benefit actually exists before we go providing a very small number of people the ability to abrogate the property rights of *everyone else*, more or less simply by having an idea. And as yet, I have not seen that proof; and in fact it seems clear to me that it won't and that we'd be better off with people taking whatever precautions they felt necessary to protect their intellectual investments, and allowing innovation and creation to proceed at an unfettered pace.
        
        Especially since the point in the was to allow for laws that would promote the public interest, rather than, as our system has become, i.e. primarily a way to enrich those who act(ed) as gatekeepers for those that actually did the creating in the first place.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        darin, 27 Jun 2012 @ 6:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How can you steal something that doesn't exist? "Intellectual property" is a fantasy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Beech, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would take this a step further into the hypothetical future - where the teleportation of any object over great distances, directly through walls is now possible at low cost. So now, it becomes technically possible to MAKE AN EXACT COPY OF physical properly quite easily and anonymously WITHOUT THE ORIGINAL BEING HARMED OR CHANGED IN ANY WAY.
        
        Fixed that analogy for ya.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just because the original is not harmed or changed in any way does not mean its not theft. I've seen that argument several times and don't see the relationship between the two. These laws were put in place so that inventors and content creators can retain control of their works - its up to them how to monetize those works. Other people have no right to steal a copy of those works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Theft is a criminal act, punishable by imprisonment. Copyright infringement for private use is a civil act, punishable by fines.
        
        If the law doesn't recognize it as the criminal act of theft, why should we?
        
        Because its not theft, its a civil violation of infringement of someones temporary rights to control copying.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Milton Freewater, 25 Jun 2012 @ 6:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Theft is a criminal act, punishable by imprisonment. Copyright infringement for private use is a civil act, punishable by fines."
        
        Also, sometimes copyright infringement is a breach of a nonexistent contract, punishable by nothing. Sometimes it's a legal action that someone is paid to troll against.
        
        Post-Lowery, why would someone even waste time stating ad hominem that "it's stealing because it's wrong because it's stealing"? He broke away from that dead end.
        
        "Just because the original is not harmed or changed in any way does not mean its not theft." Yes, it does.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Have you paid the royalties to the people who cloth, shelter and make you mobile?
        
        No why didn't you paid them for every use of the things they made?
        
        You use clothes don't you?
        You use transportation don't you?
        You use electronics don't you?
        You use software don't you?
        
        Why are you not paying royalties for every use you make of those things?
        
        Instead you keep whining about people who make use and are not paying it up for every use they happen to make.
        
        That is not an moral issue at all, that is not theft, that should not even be illegal only in the distorted mind of a monopolist copying or sharing something could be considered theft, because without it you wouldn't be able to function in a normal environment having to compete and actually do some real work for a living, instead you want a system that allows you to leech from others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Hmmm, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I pay for my clothes.
        I pay for my transportation.
        I pay for my electronics.
        I pay for my software.
        
        But you think we should NOT pay for music.
        What logic is that?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Really?
        
        So you paid the producers of your clothes, car, airplane, telephone, electronics a cut of your earnings every month?
        
        If not you are a dirty thief that is depriving the creators of their money.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Should I pay for music?
        
        Once when I "buy" merch from the artist yes if he/she/it offers such products directly.
        
        If I go to a concert yes.
        
        Should I pay for music every time I go out to dine somewhere?
        Nope, fuck you.
        Should I pay for music every time I go to the gym?
        Nope, fuck you.
        Should I pay for music every time I buy a storage device or printer?
        Nope, fuck you.
        Should I pay for music to have it in my business after buying the plastic disc?
        Nope, fuck you.
        Should I pay for music, because I performed it somewhere else and did all the work to have a little tard come in claiming I have to pay him?
        Nope, fuck you.
        Should I pay for music when sharing it?
        Nope, fuck you.
        
        Go work for a living and come back when you are a grown man that truly respects work and work for a living instead of being a social parasite trying to extract rent from others.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 12:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First three are tangible things - I thought I'd point out the difference.
        
        You pay for your software? So you bought your windows 7 preinstalled and you bought your office? Aaaaand then you... don't actually use anything else? Thanks to you programmers at Microsoft can eat again!
        
        paying for music - I'll pay good money for live music (which I'm certain it's good). I won't pay for your music - first I'd listen to it. Then I'd listen to it some more. If it's good - I'd buy music from you. I can't buy music from you directly? Or Kickstarter, Indiegogo? No? Well I'm really sorry but my money is not for gatekeepers (at least not as much as 30%) - it's meant for the artist or me. If the artist is incapable of setting up shop on the internet (dauting task in 1995, I tell you) I'll get it through more convenient means - filesharing. So no - I will not pay for music - I will pay for convenience of getting it. And I am not the only one - lookup that Emily post, it got pretty famous, some Lowery guy got upset about the fact that time moves on. Damn you laws of physics!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Milton Freewater, 25 Jun 2012 @ 6:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I think what happened last week is that David posted a blog post that really crystallized what may of us have been thinking. The idea that since the technology exists for electronic theft -" Wrong.
        
        What really happened last week was that David Lowery debunked the "theft" marketing campaign once and for all in favor of an ethics-based approach. None of what he argued against was "content theft" even as labeled by the RIAA's PR.
        
        It's an important distinction, because manipulating copyright law to claim ownership of people's computers, CDs, etc - the "my creation is my property even when you own it" Easter egg in this debate - is itself unethical. If this is an ethics debate the old guard can lead by example. David tried. We'll see how the trolls do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Fnordius, 27 Jun 2012 @ 12:49am
        
        A reply to Hmmmm
        There is a huge gaping flaw in your argument, in that infringement is not theft, it is more like trespassing. And in most cases, the "trespassing" is no worse than taking a shortcut across an empty lot. Or you could also compare it to the complaints of a sports stadium owner about the neighbours watching games and concerts from their own rooftops and not paying him to actually enter the stadium - they haven't occupied a seat that a paying customer would take, have they?
        
        The current complaint about copyright reminds me of a fence owner selling views through a peephole, who then is upset when people figure out that they can actually look over the fence. The performers that also complain about this have grown so accustomed to getting their (small) cut from the fence owner that they haven't thought about how to pass the hat themselves.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      nothing that warrants four posts on techdirt even though there's "not much to say about it."
      
      There isn't much to say about Lowery's actual piece, because it was the same drivel that has been debunked before. What made it interesting -- as I noted -- was the widespread response to it. These posts have all been about the response. It got a lot of people talking and there seems to be a fair amount of misinformation flying around. It seemed wise to help provide some actual facts to go up against the misinformation.
      
      What's quite telling to me is that in all of you and your friends' comments on this post, not a single one of you has tried to actually defend Lowery's mistakes or point to anything that counters the evidence that he was wrong.
      
      Instead, it's been entirely focused on taking something I said last week out of context in a meaningless way.
      
      Of course, anyone can see why. If you *could* counter what was said, you would. That leaves one other option.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike Masnick:
        "but that story keeps getting attention."
        
        AC:
        And of course by no one more than you Mike... post number six on the on the subject of david lowery? wow... so much for "not much to say about it."
        
        Even funnier is the attempt to be dismissive "what happened last week" while continuing to promote Lowery... two words: "Streisand Effect"
        
        Of course, there's nothing to defend in Lowery's letter which is why you're not seeing a defense! Makes sense right.
        
        Also, when one is quoting Jeff Price on "facts" (and he was corrected on his own blog by numerous posters) it can only mean that desperate times do indeed call for desperate measures...
        
        Something happened last week Mike, do you know what it is yet? Probably not...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leigh Beadon (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        (and he was corrected on his own blog by numerous posters)
        
        Read: "by me and the three other guys who run Trichordist"
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        facts are facts and jeff is short on them...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 12:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It seems you don't grasp the definition of a fact. Let me google that for you:
        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fact+definition&l=1
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 6:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "...post number six on the on the subject of david lowery? wow... so much for "not much to say about it." "
        
        Reading comprehension fail much? Let me correct: post number six on the on the subject of other people's responses to David Lowery.
        
        It's telling that there's been no attempt to refute anything said by those people, only a desperate and pathetic attempt to turn the conversation to Mike's throwaway line instead. Nobody's buying it, sorry.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 2:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Probably not...
        
        And yet, you and your ilk still lost the debate. Tough luck.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josef Anvil (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Plenty of people have responded Mike, so stop playing dumb.
    
    You know exactly what happened.
    
    Lowery wrote an article that magically destroyed all arguments against the evolution of technology and music business models. Thanks to his OPINION we can all rest easy now that SOPA will be passed in the US, ACTA will be accepted in the EU, and TPP everywhere else.
    
    Hell, the Japanese read David's article and criminalized unauthorized downloads immediately. And that's just the beginning. Thanks to David Lowery, the RIAA completely won everything they wanted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:35pm
  
  Re:
  From Mike's twitter:
  "surprised at how many people are sending that to me (more than pretty much anything ever). not much to say about it."
  
  exactly... there are no monsters here... there are no monsters here...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - B Pickel (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ERROR 404 "ARGUMENT NOT FOUND"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bratwurzt (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 1:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    This is kinda "But you said you weren't going to write about this! Waaaaah, waaah, you are a hypocrite! (but I kinda really want you to not write about this, so I'll continue trolling)"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:51pm
  
  Re:
  Apparently Masnick thinks that if keeps writing about Lowery, it'll change what happened last week.
  
  It won't.
  
  No, it won't.
  
  You can't change stupid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Which is why mike keeps writing about something that he has "not much to say about it." too funny...
    
    when you are in a hole, stop digging? right? Streisand Effect... hello?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - SujaOfJauhnral (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sometimes it takes a while to find words to say about something.
      
      Especially when what you're trying to counter is so ridiculous it defies words.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, when you crawl out of your hole, your horizon will get wider.
      
      The reasoning for why Mike wrote this has already mostly been explained. The only reason why you would not understand it is if you do not understand what a source is and why it is important.
      
      Here is a source for you to read to understand sources:
      http://knowledgecenter.unr.edu/help/using/primary.aspx
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      See also: David Lowery's point.
      
      He has some valid arguments, but they're all couched in brain-eater terminology.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ruben, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:02pm
  
  Re:
  LOL
  
  Nice attempt at derailing the conversation with a weak ad hom.
  
  You're a worthless windbag.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    attempting to derail what conversation? There's "not much to say it about it" right? So why is there all this talk about something that didn't happen? keep digging...
    
    the way to make this go away is not to keep drawing attention to it...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:19pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually the more you comment on here, and add links...the better chance this article pops up in Google results as opposed to Lowery's blog which moderates comments that disagree with his agenda.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nice spin... there are no monsters here... why are you still whining about this?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I thought you'd know by now, the only way to get people to agree with you is not to use facts, but whine and twist things like Lowery.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        More whining? Lowery! Lowery! Lowery! Shake your fists to the sky! LOL...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        See...now we're in sync. It's that exact attitude that Lowery embodies that gets people up in arms.
        
        I mean, I guess we can't all rely on facts, right? We just gotta go with sitting on our hands and scolding!
        
        I'm gonna vote Lowery in for the Presidential candidacy, he'd fit right in.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Shake your fists to the sky!
        
        Why would I need to do that? The Sky Is Rising!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        lowestofthekeys:
        "I mean, I guess we can't all rely on facts, right? We just gotta go with sitting on our hands and scolding!"
        
        AC:
        Nah... we'll leave that to you, Mike and Jeff Price.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Awesome, it's a sweet gig. I mean do you know how easy it is to distort facts about Spotify by calling them greedy? Oh man, if Mike did that with every post, he'd have a Lowery following, and David wouldn't need lapdogs to ruin his SEO anymore.
        
        ...then again, that means you'd be out of job, but I guess it must be because of the recession, right?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Gwiz (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Holy Accidental Irony, Batman!
        
        The comment you mistakenly replied to happens to have a link to a report chocked full of facts. Maybe you should read it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:26pm

I started out the job I'm at making 28k a year. If I work hard and pay my dues, and prove that I am valuable individual to my employers, then I will get a pay bump.

Lowery claims that the average musician makes 35k a year without benefits.

Sounds like a pretty good starting pay to me, especially if you have the mentality that you don't have to prove your worth or pay your dues before making the big bucks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:41pm
  
  Re:
  Key point to talk about there is what exactly an "average musician" actually is. How do you define it? What metrics do you use? Are the only musicians those who make money? If so, what about those who don't? Is a professional music teacher a musician?
  I can clap my hands in a rhythm and call that music. As far as I'm concerned, I'm now a musician. I don't care about being money though, as my job covers that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:44pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Exactly, but Lowery is apparently shy about sharing all the empirical data he has collected over the years.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      have you asked him?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would, but he'd probably delete my comment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        that's a comment, not a conversation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, I meant to say he'd probably "ignore" my starting comment, so the conversation would never begin.
        
        I figure if he has pertinent data, it wouldn't hurt to post it especially after his facebook rant where he told everyone they couldn't debate him on certain things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Is a professional music teacher a musician?
    
    The fact that Lowery is "a lecturer in the University of Georgia's music business program" might be some of the problem here. It's hard to teach something you don't understand. The new ecosystem of the internet doesn't always play by the old economic rules. Infinite goods and such are throwing wrenches into the works. It almost seems as though he is pining for the good old days that he once understood in order to be able to continue teaching about it. Jonathan Taplin at USC also seems to be pining for them old days he understood.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Pining for the past is unfortunately something a lot of professors do, no matter the subjects. I have met professors who did not trust computers, while calculating difficult models by hand (they can be done infinitely faster and better by computer in most cases).
      I have also met a professor working in earth science with no understanding of model-calculations and no understanding of flow of water and air. That is a pretty tough position since that is 80% of what the students understand. He made his biggest work in degradation done in batches 35 years ago and has been pining for that time since then.
      
      It is a huge problem for the value of the education and honestly the amount of complaints over those people should give an idea about the problem.
      
      Students are not stupid and I would guess that Lowery is frustrated at the students understanding something he has not looked into and he is still too comfortable in his old understanding that he does not want to look at this side-development of something he disproved effectively 30 years ago...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:37pm

The sad thing is that decades ago I loved David Lowery's Camper Van Beethoven. They were the coolest American band in the 80s. Now, decades later, it turns out that David Lowery is a tool. A corporate music tool. I can't even listen to their music now without thinking what a corporate tool he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mikey4001, 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re:
  Exactly. It's a bit tricky to try to reconcile his current attitude with the attitude of the young man who wrote "When I win the Lottery" and "Opie Rides Again."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ima Fish (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    This is what kills him for me:
    
    Further, in order to loot you need to have a $1,000 dollar laptop, a $500 dollar iPhone or $400 Samsumg tablet. It turns out the supposedly �free� stuff really isn�t free. In fact it�s an expensive way to get �free� music. (Like most claimed �disruptive innovations�it turns out expensive subsidies exist elsewhere.) Companies are actually making money from this looting activity. These companies only make money if you change your principles and morality! And none of that money goes to the artists!
    
    He thinks the electronic industry and wireless industry should be paying him. Can you imagine if a musician from the 70s claimed that he should get a cut from all the Ghetto Boxes sold? Someone from the 60s claiming that he should get a cut from all the turntables sold?
    
    Heck, David... why stop there? Those laptops have to sit somewhere. Sue the table manufacturers for your cut. And those electronic devices use electricity. Sue the power industry for your cut. And those devices are delivered over the roadways. Sue the construction companies that build those roads. Sue fricken everyone!
    
    David, it appears you think the entire world owes you a living. It does not. Do what you love. If it doesn't provide enough income, quit bitching and get a fricken job. That's why I did when I couldn't make a living playing music back in the 90s.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - jupiterkansas (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      He also presumes the only reason you'd own a computer is to consume content.
      
      And the prices he's paying are ridiculous. $1000 for a laptop?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Ima Fish (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:47pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And it's the only reason I own a table too.
        
        Heck, sometimes I listen to music off of youtube while cooking. David better go after manufacturers of stoves, refrigerators, and microwave ovens.
        
        Sometimes I'll even "air" drum with wooden spoons on pots and pans. That'd be an infringing derivative performance of the song. The kitchen utensil industry has been mooching off of musicians for decades! David, they're next!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:54pm

Just curious if any of the sources upon whom you rely to discredit Mr. Lowery came out and said there is no moral/ethical dimension to an end-user illegally downloading content they would otherwise have to purchase?

One or more appear to say it is not a good idea to dump on "fans", but I do not recall any of them saying that fans who illegally download are paragons of morality and ethics.

Frankly, I believe the following from Mr. Price aligns with Mr. Lowery's views concerning sites that exploit musicians:

http://blog.tunecore.com/2012/04/grooveshark-trolling-the-sea-of-artists-to-make-a-buc k.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lowestofthekeys (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:13pm
  
  Re:
  It's kinds of common sense that piracy is bad, but when it's the focus of your entire article, you're not making much progress by reiterating what everyone knows.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re:
  that appears to be the case...
  
  http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/grooveshark-on-the-hook-infringement/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 12:55pm

the biggest problem is, those that were making lots of money weren't making it themselves, they were making it off of someone else effort. now that option is diminishing fast they not only dont like it, they cant handle it. you then have the added problem of those who are doing their best to assist in keeping things how they were are of the same age group, the same era and same opinion as the old gatekeepers. basically, they are too damn old for the internet age and instead of stepping back and letting those that know carry on and do, they keep trying to stop progress. until these dithering old farts get the fuck off the internet and allow changes, there is going to be stagnation. the way to change this is to change the elected officials and until that happens, there is going to be a hanging on to the old ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew F (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:14pm

Ethics
From a pure ethics perspective, the argument against file-sharing seems quite simple:
(1) I asked you to stop doing something that I find disrespectful -- i.e. sharing my stuff without permission.
(2) The cost of doing so to you is low -- e.g. the world will not end if you don't download my music.

That are counter-arguments that are also ethical in nature -- e.g. we should encourage music piracy because it speeds up innovation, which is a moral good -- but I think most people would accept the basic ethical premise, if not Lowery's exact formulation.

Lowery's problem is that ethics alone aren't a basis for legislation, business models, or overreaction. Adultery is unethical, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. Shoplifting is unethical, but your business model should still account for it. If someone flips you off without cause, that person is unethical, but that doesn't justify you sitting in a corner and pouting all day.

Ethics provide a way to regulate your own behavior. But they're not a great way to resolve problems involving other people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Noah Callaway (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:30pm
  
  Re: Ethics
  There's a serious problem with your ethical formulation:
  
  (1) I asked you to stop doing something that I find disrespectful -- i.e. sharing my stuff without permission.
  (2) The cost of doing so to you is low -- e.g. the world will not end if you don't download my music.
  
  This presumes that I agree with your assertion that the behavior is disrespectful.
  
  What if I told you I find it disrespectful for you to post comments on Techdirt that I disagree with, and I ask you to stop?
  
  (1) I asked you to stop doing something that I find disrespectful
  (2) The cost of doing so to you is low (just don't post!)
  
  Is it enough for me to make the assertion that it's disrespectful? Or do we have to (as a society) come to an agreement as to what behavior is disrespectful?
  
  If I make unreasonable assertions as to what is disrespectful you will probably rightly ignore them.
  
  Basically, I think the ethical situation is much more complicated than you're acknowledging.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andrew F (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Ethics
    Fair. Let me put it this way.
    
    (1) I did something nice for you, and it wasn't cheap.
    (2) If you can afford it, please do something nice for me.
    
    I bet that the average person agrees with this in principle. A stranger saves you from a fire. Most people would feel some moral obligation to do something nice in return. Note that you're not under any legal obligation to reward your rescuer. It's just that it's the "right" thing to do.
    
    Ditto for music. If you download a song and enjoy it, and the artist asks that you pay, and you can afford it, you should pay. I don't think that's controversial.
    
    My point, though, isn't that people should pay for music. It's that ethics aren't very useful for making laws or business models. There's no law to reward your rescuer. And any business model that relies on gratuitously saving people from burning buildings is probably going to fail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:30pm
  
  Re: Ethics
  No, copyright law as written today stands completely on economics. If you move it into a moral or ethical debate, copyright loses every time, and loses hard. In order to have copyright, you have to take away all but the holder's natural right to copy and mimic and share. This was thought to be a good tradeoff for more works being produced as it gave an incentive for the author to publish. Copyright laws were not written for moral or ethical reasons except that it was thought moral and ethical to attempt to increase the number of works available the public.
  
  The question is not whether sharing is moral or ethical, it is simply whether limiting natural rights is more or less moral/ethical than increasing the quality/quantity of works available to the public.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andrew F (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Ethics
    I'm not saying that copyright LAW is ethical. It's not. My point was that basing laws on ethics alone is a bad idea.
    
    But I do think there are strong moral (or social) norms against copying. Or maybe just unjust enrichment. See Mike's post here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100903/03261210889.shtml.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DH's Love Child (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:37pm
  
  Re: Ethics
  "Lowery's problem is that ethics alone aren't a basis for legislation, business models, or overreaction."
  
  The other problem with this is that ethics are a personal choice. My ethics and your ethics are not going to be the same. Even societal ethics will vary based on geography. Your example of Adultery for example.
  
  Laws are to be created for the benefit of societal order.
  Murder is outlawed because society, as a whole, agrees that it is unethical. This is the case with most laws. And since society, as a group, is in agreement with the laws, they are generally effective.
  
  The problem that the copyright dependent industries have is that they are essentially trying to completely outlaw sharing, and that is a losing battle. We are all taught to share from a very young age, and they want us to stop doing that. Just like Prohibition was a spectacular failure and only proved to make criminal enterprises more profitable and powerful, outlawing sharing is not ever going to be effective.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:21pm

Forget the ethics of piracy
I can buy a used CD from Amazon and have it mailed to me for less than it costs to download the album. The artist gets nothing, and I can resell the CD if I don't like it. Let's talk about the ethics of that.

The U.S. Government sponsors it's own legal Pirate Bay where I get hundreds of CDs for just a few bucks a year, as well as all the books and movies I could ever consume. It's called the public library. Let's talk about the ethics of that.

An artist records a song in 1930 and has been dead for 50 years, but it's still under copyright even though nobody knows or can prove who exactly owns the copyright. Let's talk about the ethics of that.

A radio station can broadcast a song for free over the airwaves, but can't broadcast the same thing online without paying enormous fees. Let's talk about the ethics of that.

Disney gets to sit down at a table with lawmakers and draft new laws that benefit Disney and rob legitimate culture from the public. Let's talk about the ethics of that.

Some of the most profitable movies in history have still not shown a profit according to Hollywood. Let's talk about the ethics of that.

There are more things to get worked up about than some intern wishing for a better Spotify.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lowery's Sock Puppet, 25 Jun 2012 @ 1:45pm

Anybody else convinced the pink AC that keeps repeating "not much to say it about it" is actually Lowery?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Leigh Beadon (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 6:06pm
  
  Re:
  Anybody else convinced the pink AC that keeps repeating "not much to say it about it" is actually Lowery?
  
  Almost certainly. Either him, or one of his Trichordist buddies (all they seem to do all day long is pat each other on the back and reblog each other on their personal blogs and comment on each others' posts with complements - it's quite amusing)
  
  I'm fairly sure Lowery, though, is specifically the one who picks a single mantra like that and just repeats it over and over and over and over and over and over again in one of the most stunning displays of obnoxious childishness you're likely to find outside a beverly hills reality show and several and several degrees worse than you'd see inside a bona fide Daycare For Obnoxious Children.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - varagix, 25 Jun 2012 @ 10:04pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I dunno. His obnoxiousness seems more like one of the several brands of troll you'd see come out of one of the less pleasant image boards out of 4chan, like /b/ or /pol/.
    
    Though that could just be me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
weneedhelp (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:09pm

The reluctance to adapt is a kind of embarrassing nostalgia that glosses over the many sins of the old ways, and it argues for a kind of pity fuck from the market.
I love this guy!!!!

Adapt to conditions or quit. Bitching is for bitches.

Yeah buoy!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re: The reluctance to adapt is a kind of embarrassing nostalgia that glosses over the many sins of the old ways, and it argues for a kind of pity fuck from the market.
  nice circle jerk for the choir... but i have one question?
  
  what happened last week that there's "not much to talk about" except like six posts from tech dirt talking about david lowery?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Dark Helmet (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:29pm
    
    Re: Re: The reluctance to adapt is a kind of embarrassing nostalgia that glosses over the many sins of the old ways, and it argues for a kind of pity fuck from the market.
    "what happened last week that there's "not much to talk about" except like six posts from tech dirt talking about david lowery?"
    
    Sigh...do the class a favor and answer a simple question. Let's assume we concede that last week Mike said he didn't have much to say about the post and then changed his mind and did several posts on the matter, posting more as more outside reaction to Lowery's piece came in.
    
    Why does this matter? What is your larger point? Do you have one?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The reluctance to adapt is a kind of embarrassing nostalgia that glosses over the many sins of the old ways, and it argues for a kind of pity fuck from the market.
      The larger point is clearly pointing on their head.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 6:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The reluctance to adapt is a kind of embarrassing nostalgia that glosses over the many sins of the old ways, and it argues for a kind of pity fuck from the market.
      More importantly - would that make this guy do something "up"? Specifically: grow. Failing that man, and at the very least shut.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re: The reluctance to adapt is a kind of embarrassing nostalgia that glosses over the many sins of the old ways, and it argues for a kind of pity fuck from the market.
      It's particularly telling that despite him being everywhere in this thread, he fails to answer your question.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Dark Helmet (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: The reluctance to adapt is a kind of embarrassing nostalgia that glosses over the many sins of the old ways, and it argues for a kind of pity fuck from the market.
        Yup, so he's just being antagonistic. In other words, he can go outside and play hide and go fuck himself.
        
        Seriously...I'm failing to see of what consequence Mike saying he didn't see any reason to respond to Lowery, but then posting stories about OTHER PEOPLE'S response, which he DID find interesting.
        
        I mean....how is this tough to understand?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Lowestofthekeys (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 6:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The reluctance to adapt is a kind of embarrassing nostalgia that glosses over the many sins of the old ways, and it argues for a kind of pity fuck from the market.
        He's just grasping at straws. Lowery's lapdog is just here to talk smack like any other retard.
        
        Playing at his level, however, is too much fun.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Benjo (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:36pm
    
    Re: Re: The reluctance to adapt is a kind of embarrassing nostalgia that glosses over the many sins of the old ways, and it argues for a kind of pity fuck from the market.
    You are like the kid in fifth grade screaming "I know you are but what am I?"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 2:58am
    
    Re: Re: The reluctance to adapt is a kind of embarrassing nostalgia that glosses over the many sins of the old ways, and it argues for a kind of pity fuck from the market.
    Ask yourself, Lowery.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward With A Unique Writing Style, 25 Jun 2012 @ 2:32pm

My favorite part of this entire comments section is where the Lowery Troll keeps repeating that "there's nothing to write about" and how Mike should stop whining. To the point that he's said it like 20+ times already. Those exact same two things.

The reason I like that is because of how he's trying to paint Mike as being dismissive and a liar. What makes it truly amusing is that up above the comments section, there's this thing called the actual article, where one can read about some of the facts as given and sourced by people who are essentially saying, "David Lowery was wrong and here's why." Yet the AC, per usual norm, ignores any of that just to harp on about one irrelevant thing. Rather than, you know, debate what the facts actually say.

It's kind of sad in a way, but it's pretty funny. It just goes to show how little substance there actually is to what Lowery said. Rather than back up Lowery's assertions and debate why the facts above are wrong or what they mean when compared to what Lowery said, the AC is trying to put the focus on one tweet made by Mike at the start of the whole thing. Which was correct in my opinion. Not really much to say, just the usual Lowery rant with nothing of substance to support it but a nice bit of shaking his fist at the internet and people in general because he's now become irrelevant and it's a nice way to get some attention.

Now that that's been said. Ahem. AC, would you like to discuss the facts presented in the article above? Because yes, we all heard you the first 20+ times already and frankly my finger is just itching to hit report on your spamming. If you're not going to contribute anything I don't want to hear you whining momentarily about "censorship" when your spam-like comments get reported. Some of us actually like to discuss things, not have to deal with your troll-like ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 3:57pm

I hate that phrase "no one has the right to make money from what they create". It's a true statement and aptly applied in this situation but it is such a rabbit hole in to something morally repugnant. You can use that phrase to justify many horrible practices in unfettered capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HiggsLight (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 4:48pm

A Case Study In New Business Models
I've been a regular reader and lover of Techdirt for about 3 years. I've never bought their merch, clicked an ad, donated, or even added that much to the conversation.

Until today!

The onslaught of "The AC Now Known As LoweryTroll" finally motivated me to clean up my Paypal account so that I could properly pay for my TechDirt consumption. They didn't make me pay, I found my reason to buy. And this isn't the last time I'll be buying here.

If LoweryTroll's obtuse and poorly drafted inanity pisses you off, makes you laugh, or both, make it your reason to buy - not your reason to take the troll bait.

I'll just leave this here: http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MrBill, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:25pm

Mike's Tweet
Could his tweet be read as sarcasm? Like saying most of what Lowery stated was lies or misleading, signifying nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:31pm

oh lord... it's come to this? Quoting Jeff Price for "Facts"... hahahahahah... phew... desperate times call for desperate measures it appears.... wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anon, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:40pm

Love this articel
Really this paints a clear picture for everyone. The old way of doing things was of benefit to the gatekeepers who kept most of the profits from any content created. The fact that 98% of content creators were not a success and did not make any money is shameful on the industry and is the one reason that the laws must change and allow the artist to make a profit from there content not the gatekeeper.

These two points need to be talked about over and over again and drummed into politicians heads until they understand that for copyright laws to work it must be of mutual benefit to the consumer and the artist. A gatekeeper of music is not important they are a business and they have to change with technology, the only importance of the copyright regime should be either there is no copyright at all or the copyright allows technology to benefit the artist and consumer only.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:46pm
  
  Re: Love this articel
  you mean the new gatekeepers who are commercial corporations ripping off artists and exploiting them worse than labels ever did? So congrats, you and your friends are the new RIAA working for the new gatekeepers who withhold 100% of the artists money. I can see how paying artists 20% under the old model was offensive to you, so now you and your friends are doing a great job making sure artists get 0%
  
  http://ethicalfan.com/2012/04/wall-of-shame-april-2012/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 5:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Love this articel
    I think you meant "congratulations".
    
    Tsk tsk, Lowery would be very displeased with such poor grammar.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leigh Beadon (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 6:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Love this articel
      Apparently "tsk tsk"s are subconsciously contagious :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Leigh Beadon (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 6:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Love this articel
    Tsk tsk, you're getting the message wrong! Careful, or Trichordist will start blocking your comments.
    
    It's not 20% that artists made under the old model - didn't you see Lowery's slide? The correct figure, as stated by the man himself, is:
    
    Theory: 25%. Practice: 75%? 100%?
    
    Yes, with David Lowery's magic system you can get paid 100% of sales through a record label. More, in fact. I'm sure you have questions like: What is the secret to this? Is it complete and utter bullshit? Why do I get a headache every time I try to process one of Lowery's ideas? These are all good questions -- but you'll have to drudge through Lowery's tiresome, rambling presentation to find out.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JMT (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 6:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Love this articel
    Repeating this drivel often enough will not turn it from BS to the truth. You won't change anyone's mind with lies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 11:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Love this articel
      leigh - you reading comprehension is not lowery's problem.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Leigh Beadon (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Love this articel
        David - you seem to think it is, since you are here responding to it
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 8:42pm

HAHAHAHAHAHA, masnick talking about "ethics" LOL..

Masnick you would not know ethical behaviour if you were smashed over the head with it !!!..

and you can forget all about "morals"..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 8:48pm

And he says that nearly all of Lowery's factual claims are wrong, or at best, misleading. Here's a snippet, but the whole thing is worth reading:

which is it ??????

it's either wrong, OR misleading, and NOT freaking wrong..

you appear as confused as he is, if it is a FACTUAL claim then by definition it is FACT, therefore not wrong OR misleading..

Fact is a fact, like it or not, or understand it or not (ie to be mislead), is your problem..

You like the hedge your bets dont you masnickie..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:12pm
  
  Re:
  Actually you're wrong. Factual means "of or pertaining to facts; concerning facts", it does not mean something is a fact. And something claimed to be factual can certainly be incorrect, misleading or an outright lie.
  
  Your mocking outrage is quite pathetic. How about some mature discussion instead? Act like an adult for a change.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 8:52pm

This is a point that Lowery and his friends always ignore: because they don't count all the bands that failed under the old system

no accounting for those that just fucking SUCK!!!!..

sure, if you are no good at your craft, you wont make any money, and no one will want to pay you.. wow masnick you cant work that out ?? even as a failed photographer yourself ??

Im sure you fully understand what it is like to suck at something, and have no one want to pay you :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Jun 2012 @ 9:49pm
  
  Re:
  no accounting for those that just fucking SUCK!!!!..
  
  sure, if you are no good at your craft, you wont make any money, and no one will want to pay you.. wow masnick you cant work that out ??
  
  So, quick question: how do you distinguish which musicians don't make money because they "just fucking SUCK!!!!.." and those who are victims of evil pirates?
  
  Because that seems rather important.
  
  even as a failed photographer yourself ??
  
  That's a new one. I'm a failed photographer? News to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 11:20am
  
  Re:
  This is a point that Lowery and his friends always ignore: because they don't count all the bands that failed under the old system
  
  ... actually he does... and the "failed" bands made money on under the old system even when the labels did not...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    And the proof of your statement is where?
    
    And this money that they made, are they still working to pay it off to the label with their royalty checks being used to fill in the loan?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - bratwurzt (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 3:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh yes, please - some sources to research, please.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jun 2012 @ 10:09pm

Wow a lot of censorship on this thread... Guess mike really doesn't like being the subject of his own "Streisand Effect"!

For a guy who said there's "Not much to talk about" regarding David Lowery you guys sure are scrambling to do a lot of clean up in this thread...

pretty embarrassing... four posts about david lowery for something that wasn't worth a response...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 2:03am
  
  Re:
  Again with the "censorship"? Really? Could you make yourself look more clueless?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 3:06am
  
  Re:
  Censorship, lol!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:04am
  
  Re:
  It's really telling that these Anon Cowards are all family of each other. (I suspect something involving moms and bears)
  
  Trying to turn a flippant throwaway remark into something really big. Ignoring the fact that these posts aren't on Lowery, but on responses on Lowery.
  Trying to derail the discussion, doing everything in their power NOT to respond to the points.
  
  You Lowery-lovers are lower than low. Trolls are a step up from you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:14am
  
  Re:
  Heh, that's funny.
  
  Try going to Lowery's Blog and post something that goes against his dogma. It won't even show up. He's said himself that he only let's the "relevant comments" slip past his "filter".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Togashi (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 8:01pm
  
  Re:
  The report button is for spam. When the posts are almost literally copy and pasted 20+ times in the thread regardless of how anyone replies, that is undeniably spam. Not that it's censored anyway, just hidden because enough people agree that the posts are spam or do not add anything to the discussion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

wilkinsy (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 3:43am

as Billy explained I didnt know that a stay at home mom able to get paid $7613 in a few weeks on the computer. have you read this webpage N u t t y R i c h D o t c o m
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:21am
  
  Re:
  Greetings spambot 5345345234, I see you got past the anti spambot textfield.
  
  Conclusion: bots are getting smarter and will soon overthrow their human oppressors!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- bratwurzt (profile), 27 Jun 2012 @ 5:07am
  
  Re:
  who is it not - Eddie or Billie? :>
  http://www.techdirt.com/user/wilkinsy
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bas Grasmayer (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:28am

"We generally like to verify people are using their real name or an identity that we can track back to a real person. We think think this keep the tone of the debate more honest and civilized."

Can the real Lowery please stand up?

And explain why words like 'consumer' and 'market' result in deletions on The Trichordist. I'd assume those are pretty important words to include if we're talking about business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:06am
  
  Re:
  They really aren't interested in debate, but rather in slinging mud at the other side.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:07am
  
  Re:
  It's particularly funny that they complain about censorship here, where the posts are still available, but they completely delete all dissenting opinion on The Trichordist, thus censoring the opposing side.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bas Grasmayer (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    To be honest, I find it a bit annoying that people are abusing the report feature and I now don't know which comments are spam, and which comments are just 'downvoted'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In this case, those comments really don't add much to the discussion. They're almost all the same, which would fall under the category of spam.
      
      But I agree, disagree with someone with arguments, not with clicks. :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 11:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      yeah - it really does suck when a site that is anti-censorship, actually censors the conversation so much as to be unreadable.
      
      but that's tech dirt for you... always biased, all the time, even if it means contradicting themselves through hypocrisy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcel de Jong (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 3:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok. I'll bite, you have actual proof of this hypocrisy? I mean other than the constant spouting of your point over and over again. I mean actual proof. Like links to outside sources (other than the rather more biased Trichordist)
        
        Remember, Mike Masnick has posted in the past that he wants the RIAA and the MPAA to succeed. I don't particularly agree with him, but that's opinions for you.
        
        BTW, and this has been explained to you a great many times, it's not censorship if you can still read the comment in question. Also it's not Mike doing that, it's the community, who is quite frankly fed up with your spamming, and rightly so.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        its not the "site" censoring anything.
        It is the users of the site clicking a button on posts that add nothing of value... like your post... but funny the comments are still there to be viewed if you want to.
        Now the other side of the coin is the "industry" aligned sites that do not allow comments at all, or never allow posts they disagree with to see the light of day.
        
        ProTip - press the option to view the posts in "Threaded" mode and it make a great deal more sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 8:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Actually the rollover for the report button states: "report this comment as abusive, spam, trollish, or otherwise inappropriate". Not just spam.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Jun 2012 @ 2:31pm

accuracy of numbers
Hate to be difficult here- ANYBODY ACTUALLY CHECK JEFF PRICE'S FIGURES BEFORE ASSUMING THAT THEY ARE ACCURATE? ANYBODY OUT THERE KNOW WHO JEFF PRICE IS AND THAT HE HAS NEVER ACTUALLY WORKED AT A MAJOR LABEL? i thought not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 3:18pm
  
  Re: accuracy of numbers
  Do you always shout in someone else's living room? I thought not.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That Anonymous Coward (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 4:05pm
  
  Re: accuracy of numbers
  Is the yelling what happens after you do a couple lines off a hookers ass?
  
  Not having worked for a major label can actually be seen as a good thing - it means he isn't willing to ignore reality to make sure he makes the same money he made 2 decades ago at the expense of artists.
  
  I'm willing to bet you thought you had a thought once, and laid down till your head stopped hurting.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 30 Jun 2012 @ 10:53am
  
  Re: accuracy of numbers
  ANYBODY OUT THERE KNOW WHO JEFF PRICE IS AND THAT HE HAS NEVER ACTUALLY WORKED AT A MAJOR LABEL?
  
  Nice caps lock, Screamy McShoutypants.
  
  Aside from that, here's what Jeff Price did:
  
  Jeff is also co-founder and was GM / President of the New York based independent record label spinART records for seventeen years. spinART distributed over 200 releases from artists such as: The Pixies, Frank Black, The Eels, John Doe, Apples In Stereo, Vic Chesnutt, Jason Falkner, Richard Thompson, Echo and The Bunnymen, Ron Sexsmith, The Fastbacks, Creeper Lagoon, The Church, Lilys, Clem Snide and more.
  
  In 2004 Jeff contributed to the founding charter and organization of The American Association of Independent Music (AAIM) � a nonprofit non-governmental trade organization representing the interests of its independent label members.
  
  From 1997 to 2001, Jeff worked with eMusic.com, serving first as a consultant, next as interim VP of Content Acquisition and finally as the Senior Director of Music/Business Development. He contributed towards the creation of eMusic's initial business model and created and implemented the first subscription-based music sales and distribution structure.
  
  In November 2005, Jeff founded TuneCore (with Gary Burke and Peter Wells) based on the fevering belief that every artist should have access to distribution and receive 100% of the revenue from the sale of their music without having to give up any of their rights.
  
  It's right there in TuneCore's bios.
  
  And Jeff Price's figures seem entirely consistent with what everyone else in the industry says. People like Steve Albini, Courtney Love, Janis Ian, Michelle Shocked, Too Much Joy, Danny Goldberg, or The Root.
  
  Nobody paints the same rosy picture as Lowery.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
chelleliberty (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 5:05pm

No, I'm not confusing anything. Theft *is* a legal term, and means something specific which is quite inflammatory in any discussion of intellectual monopoly restrictions. And, I did indeed notice and mention (thus showing I did see what you were doing there) that you were using it metaphorically, and that I thought it was being used in a way that was inappropriate.

"To not call it theft is an attempt to minimize the action and make it seem like a slight technical act that has no real impact on anyone."

No, To call it theft is an attempt to argue by analogy that two things are morally equivalent, when a discussion of the *actual* impact of any particular infringement is key to any conclusion on whether it's morally comparable to theft.

However, it is my reasoned opinion that using 'theft' in that particular metaphorical sense is an abuse of language, one which serves no purpose other than to shut down discussion and to mislead people who just look at the surface of the debate without delving in further.

This abuse is especially clear to me when the topic under discussion is at least in large part about precisely that in the first place! (It's particularly clear to me that the term is not applicable in some cases, for instance I believe that private copying of music for non-profit use is a clear-cut case of something which is so different from theft that it's *very* misleading to speak of it in that way.)

NOTE: I am not saying you are intentionally trying to mislead people above, I am simply saying that the term 'theft' is itself misleading when used to describe infringement of intellectual monopoly restrictions; and in fact I think probably your equivocation of the term leads you to believe that your conclusions are stronger than they are, and also probably leads you to make inaccurate judgements about those of us who don't accept that the two are equivalent, which really doesn't make for a very productive discussion.

So, this is why I have a problem with you using that metaphor. I don't agree at all that someone who copies music is morally equivalent to someone who steals physical property. Yes, I understand the metaphor you are using and I understand why conclusion you are trying to draw by analogy.

But (a) if you look closely in at least some subset of cases of infringement it's fairly straightforward to see the difference between those cases and theft, and (b) if there are significant cases in which infringement is theft, then it's not a proper term to use when debating infringement as a whole, since there are instances of infringement which *aren't* morally equivalent to theft in any relevant way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chelleliberty (profile), 26 Jun 2012 @ 7:34pm
  
  Re: Hmm
  Sorry, not sure how this ended up out of line with the actual comment, it was in reply to this comment earlier in the threads.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
P. Enis, 27 Jun 2012 @ 8:09pm

I am an artist and I shit in my pants the other day you jerks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 2 Jul 2012 @ 6:49pm

I have a question about the "no one has a right to make money from what they create" thing.

I agree that if I, say, paint a painting, or make a lithograph, or make posters from a photo I took, or whatever, and I try to sell it on ebay or at the swap meat for a dollar, and no one is interested, then what can I do? I guess my painting or whatever sucks and has no value and I better go get a job at McDonald's.

But if people are interested and want a poster or a painting to put on their wall and enjoy for years to come, don't I then have a right to a dollar from each of those people?

Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 2 Jul 2012 @ 7:57pm
  
  Re:
  I have a question about the "no one has a right to make money from what they create" thing.
  
  I think what people mean is that making money isn't a "right." You can convince potential customers to give you money, but it's not a "right."
  
  Just like you don't have a "right" to work at McDonald's - you can apply for a job, but nobody at McDonald's has an obligation to hire you.
  
  You do, of course, have a right to charge whatever you want for your painting. But if people aren't going to buy it - whether for $1 or $1000 - then they aren't violating your rights.
  
  Now, here's the question. Say those people want a poster or painting to put on their wall for years to come. Do you then have a right to a dollar from those people?
  
  Not necessarily. Say, for example, that someone buys your painting for $1, then turns around and sells it to someone else for $1000. Do you have a right to a portion of that $1000? No, you do not. Once you sold that painting, it is no longer your property.
  
  Now, what if he buys your painting for $1, prints up posters of it, and gives those posters away to friends for free? Does the owner now have to pay you to do this, even though the owner isn't making a profit? Do you have the right to prevent the owner from doing this?
  
  Under copyright law, the answer to the last two questions is "yes." Even though he's not selling the posters; even though it doesn't keep you from selling posters of that painting yourself (or prevent you from selling other paintings); even though the owner's friends were not likely to pay you for the posters if they weren't free; even if one of the owner's friends is more likely to commission you to do a new painting because she liked the poster she got for free.
  
  This is what people have a problem with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - No One, 2 Jul 2012 @ 9:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Thanks very much for the reply.
    
    So...I'm at the swap meet trying to sell my poster (that many people are buying, it's only a dollar after all, and it took a lot of work to make, so I am very grateful that they like it and are willing to pay for it), and someone else makes copies of my poster and starts giving it away at the swap meet, and I shouldn't be greatly bothered by this?
    
    I think anyone who has bothered to make a poster and go to the swap meet and set up, and try and make their way as an artist, would be greatly bothered and say to that person, "what are doing? Why would you do that?"
    
    And if some people get the poster for free who actually like it and would have bought it now get it for free, then I'm out of some dollars that I had a right to, aren't I? And if some people wouldn't have bought the poster anyway, why are they taking it?
    
    I'm just trying to understand as a person who "creates things".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - No One, 3 Jul 2012 @ 8:30pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Anyone?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 4 Jul 2012 @ 3:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So...I'm at the swap meet trying to sell my poster (that many people are buying, it's only a dollar after all, and it took a lot of work to make, so I am very grateful that they like it and are willing to pay for it), and someone else makes copies of my poster and starts giving it away at the swap meet, and I shouldn't be greatly bothered by this?
      
      You have every right to be bothered by this. Just as you have every right to someone itting outside your booth saying "This artists sucks."
      
      The question is, what right do you have to do anything aobut it?
      
      In the second case, the answer is: none. Their opinion is protected expression. Protecting their right to say "you suck" is fundamental to democracy.
      
      Similar things have to be considered in the case of someone giving away copies of your poster. Now, these are the actions that the traditional media companies are doing:
      
      1. Sue anyone who took a free poster, for more than what they make in their entire lives.
      
      2. Have jackbooted thugs storm the booths of suspected infringers.
      
      3. Lobby the government to shut down swap meets altogether.
      
      None of these things seem like good ideas.
      
      Also: I didn't require that it should be "at the swap meet." We live in an age where every single person can, without leaving the comfort of their own home, make a copy of an artwork, and distribute it as far and wide as they can, without having to go to a swap meet at all.
      
      If anything, doesn't this sound the death of swap meets?
      
      And if some people get the poster for free who actually like it and would have bought it now get it for free, then I'm out of some dollars that I had a right to, aren't I?
      
      That's assuming that they would have bought the posters in the first place. Many wouldn't have. With those people, you are not out of any dollars at all. The only "harm" to you is that more people enjoy your work.
      
      On the other hand, it's likely that at least some people only encountered your work because they got it for free. If those people like your work, then they are more likely to buy other posters from you, or pay for the original painting, or even commission an original painting from you. Every dollar you make from those people is a net gain.
      
      And if some people wouldn't have bought the poster anyway, why are they taking it?
      
      You've never taken a free sample at the supermarket, then decided not to buy the product? I find this extremely hard to believe.
      
      It works the same way with content. And if it didn't - are you actually saying it's a moral act to make people pay before they decide whether they like something? That someone who samples the latest Top 40 record now has an obligation to pay full price for that record? If that's what you're saying, I'm pretty sure morality is not on your side.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 4 Jul 2012 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I realize that I didn't actually propose any solutions in the last post. Here are some:
        
        1. Name & shame. Similar to what happened with Cooks Source Magazine, or the thing with The Oatmeal.
        
        2. Accept anyone who gives away copies of your poster, but come down hard on anyone who sells copies of it without your permission.
        
        There is a big difference between commercial and non-commercial infringement. In the second case, you are owed every dime that the infringer made. Of course, this only applies to people who are actually selling copies of your poster. Not, say, the printer who printed them up, or the person who hosted the swap meet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 4 Jul 2012 @ 3:52pm

I really want to keep this simple, it always starts going down all these roads of confusion.

I know that the world now is one giant swap meet, but I was trying to bring it back down to earth, if you know what I mean.

I make a poster, and hope to sell it, and another person copies it exactly *without asking me*, and starts giving it away to all the people I'm trying to sell it to. I just don't see how that is a cool thing to do. When in the history of people has this been a cool thing to do?

And people aren't sampling a little bit of cheese, they are taking a life time supply. The whole thing to keep forever. Why would they buy that brand of cheese ever if someone else gave them as much as they want forever for free? I'm pretty sure the supermarket would be very much against this as would the people who make the cheese.

You don't see *any* problems with any of this for me, the poster maker?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 5 Jul 2012 @ 4:59am
  
  Re:
  It makes more sense to reply to your post in "reverse order," as it were. So:
  
  You don't see *any* problems with any of this for me, the poster maker?
  
  We are discussing ethics, I thought. What will benefit you, the poster maker, is not necessarily the same thing as what is ethical. This is something that is pretty important to understand.
  
  I'm pretty sure the supermarket would be very much against this as would the people who make the cheese.
  
  Again, what will benefit the supermarket (in this case) is not necessarily what is ethical.
  
  Let's take this cheese analogy to its logical conclusion. What we have now is one of those Star Trek replicators. You press a button, and food comes out, including whatever kind of cheese you want.
  
  Obviously, a device like this is tremendously ethical. If nearly everyone has one, there are no more food shortages. No more world conflicts due to starvation. No more health issues due to malnutrition (the greatest single threat to the world's public health, according to the World Health Organization).
  
  What you are suggesting is to prevent people from using these replicators, merely so that supermarkets and cheesemongers can get money. You are advocating for artificial scarcity for the sake of profit.
  
  That certainly isn't the ethical thing to do.
  
  By the way, I'm not the first to make this comparison.
  
  Why would they buy that brand of cheese ever if someone else gave them as much as they want forever for free?
  
  Plenty of reasons. The cheese maker is the "first to market" with their particular brand of cheese; this shouldn't be underestimated. Maybe the cheese maker can make it more convenient to get cheese from them, rather than someone else (say, a "cheese of the month" club or something). Maybe the cheese maker can build up trust, so that people would rather get their cheese rather than the free cheese. Maybe people simply like the cheese enough to support the cheese maker directly.
  
  This is already happening, in fact. You can't get cheese for free, but you can buy "store brand" cheese that tastes exactly the same for significantly less than name brands. People still buy the name brands. Why do you think that is?
  
  When in the history of people has this been a cool thing to do?
  
  Pretty much since the invention of public libraries.
  
  I make a poster, and hope to sell it, and another person copies it exactly *without asking me*, and starts giving it away to all the people I'm trying to sell it to. I just don't see how that is a cool thing to do.
  
  Let's consider a typical scenario:
  
  Person A: Welcome to my apartment, Person B.
  
  Person B: Hey, that's a cool poster you've got hanging on your wall!
  
  Person A: You like it? Here, let me make a copy for you. (20 seconds later) There you go.
  
  Person B: Thanks!
  
  Do you actually think either person acted unethically? I simply don't see it.
  
  You, on the other hand, are expecting people to curtail behavior which is not unethical, solely so that you can earn a living by selling posters. And this is where "rights" come in: you simply don't have a right to earn a living by selling posters. Nobody does.
  
  Now, everybody (including Persons A and B) wants you to be able to earn a living, whether you have a "right" to do it or not. Everyone wants you to get paid, so that you can continue to create the paintings that people like. So, preventing poster sharing may be a practical necessity (though I would argue that it is not). But it is not ethical. It is, at best, a necessary evil.
  
  The ethical thing to do would be to find some way to get paid, that doesn't prevent Persons A and B from sharing what they like. And there are plenty of ways to do that, many of which are right here on this site.
  
  Probably the best take on it comes from Tegan and Sara.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 5 Jul 2012 @ 3:26pm

Well, to be honest, I find most of what you say confusing.

For example. with a library, you have to give the book back within a short amount of time, and if you don't you have to pay money (a fine).

Also, if the book is checked out, no one else can have it.

Libraries aren't making copies and giving them to everyone. Right?

So if person A takes the poster on their wall down and lends it to the other person, that would be the same. Now person A no longer has it to enjoy until they get the one copy back. Why doesn't person A say to person B, "hey, you should buy a copy from the guy who made it to support his efforts. He's talented and works hard and if I give you a copy that won't help him buy cheese to eat as there is no cheese replicator yet".

As far as the cheese replicator goes, well if and when you can replicate cheese and *everything* else, it seems that to be able to only replicate things like music and art makes life a very uneven playing field for people who *already* have the cards stacked against them in the game of life.

Here's a question:

Is it okay to copy and distribute money?

If not, why not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 5 Jul 2012 @ 5:09pm
  
  Re:
  Techdirt is giving me server errors... will answer in depth later.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 5 Jul 2012 @ 5:16pm
  
  Re:
  Okay, seems to be working now...
  
  Well, to be honest, I find most of what you say confusing.
  
  Just a guess, but I'm betting it's because you view morality in terms of what benefits you (or, at least, what benefits artists in general). That's not what morality is about. It doesn't matter whether free access to works harms you or not. (But for the record, I believe it does not.) It only matters whether it benefits people in general.
  
  It's also not why copyright exists. This is specified in the Constitution itself. The Constitution does not grant copyrights to authors; it grants the power to Congress - elected servants of the public - to create copyright laws. Or not, solely as benefits the public. "Not that any particular class of citizens, however worthy, may benefit, but because the policy is believed to be for the benefit of the great body of people..." (H.R. Rep. No. 60-2222)
  
  For example. with a library, you have to give the book back within a short amount of time, and if you don't you have to pay money (a fine).
  
  Also, if the book is checked out, no one else can have it.
  
  This is assuming that there is only one copy of the book, which is not necessarily true. (If a book is in greater demand, libraries will often get more than one copy.) It's also not "a short amount of time" - it is deliberately enough time to read the entire book, start to finish.
  
  And it's also completely irrelevant to the point at hand. According to your ethics, everyone who checks out a book is immoral, since people "who actually like it and would have bought it now get it for free, [so] I'm out of some dollars that I had a right to."
  
  In fact, the very thing you're claiming is immoral - the ability for anyone, anywhere, to enjoy the entire work, for free - is what makes libraries moral. Equal access to art is such a bedrock of morality, it is almost considered a human right.
  
  Why doesn't person A say to person B, "hey, you should buy a copy from the guy who made it to support his efforts. He's talented and works hard and if I give you a copy that won't help him buy cheese to eat as there is no cheese replicator yet".
  
  You act like there is a conflict between the two. There isn't. Person A can say that, and mean it, and still make a copy for Person B. It's not hypocritical, it's not immoral, and it's actually why most people share files in the first place. (That's why people who share music buy much more music than people who do not.)
  
  As far as the cheese replicator goes, well if and when you can replicate cheese and *everything* else, it seems that to be able to only replicate things like music and art makes life a very uneven playing field
  
  The machines we are talking about - computers - have the ability to copy any kind of data whatsoever. Words, images, video, music, games, business applications, spreadsheets, CAD files, clothing designs, business presentations, classroom assignments, SETI data, cheese recipes - anything.
  
  The problem is not that musicians and artists (or, realistically, the megacorporations that own their copyrights) are on an uneven playing field. The problem is that they are on a level playing field, and want to tip it out of balance in their favor.
  
  Is it okay to copy and distribute money?
  
  That is not a very good question. Of course it's not OK - for one thing, money's economic value is directly related to the number of copies in existence. That's not true of published artworks. For another thing, money isn't printed for the sole purpose of spreading access to it. That is why copyright exists: so that the public has greater access to artworks.
  
  You're comparing apples with zebras. It's a stupid comparison, and it can only be taken seriously by someone who believes that printing a poster is literally printing money. As in, "if I print 10,000 copies of this poster, I'll automatically make $10,000." That is ridiculous, and I don't think for a minute that you actually believe it's a valid point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 5 Jul 2012 @ 5:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    if you don't you have to pay money (a fine).
    
    One other point I forgot to make...
    
    You know why that fine is there? It's not so that authors or publishers will make more money (it doesn't go to them). It's there to make people return books on time, so that more people will have free access to it.
    
    The fines are there to increase free public access. According to your proposed moral code, this would make the fines themselves immoral.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - No One, 6 Jul 2012 @ 3:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      More on public libraries,
      
      they buy all of their books, apparently around 14 billion dollars worth every year. They often have to re-buy books as they become worn. So publishers profit directly from libraries.
      
      And there are libraries in each city around the world, and each library has to buy their books, lending books to only that town.
      
      With piracy, one never ending copy can be given to the entire world forever. Are they spending 14 billion?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 6:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        More on public libraries,
        
        they buy all of their books, apparently around 14 billion dollars worth every year. They often have to re-buy books as they become worn. So publishers profit directly from libraries.
        
        The people who share files have to do this too. So publishers are also profiting directly from infringers.
        
        each library has to buy their books, lending books to only that town.
        
        Not exactly true. Libraries are generally grouped into regions; and each library's region can ship books between other libraries in that region. The Boston Public Library, for instance, is available to any citizen of Massachusetts, and has 26 branches, each of which can share books with each other.
        
        Even in other regions, this is not an intentional policy to protect publishers, but driven by practical necessity. It would be better if this weren't true, but they just don't have the resources.
        
        With piracy, one never ending copy can be given to the entire world forever.
        
        In the real world, that's an exaggeration. It's doubtful that all of the downloads for one work are from the same source. If you look at the number of library readers per book, and compare it to the number of downloads per single source, they're likely about the same.
        
        Are they spending 14 billion?
        
        In 2011, iTunes reached a landmark of 15 billion songs sold. (And that's just one retailer.) Of those sales, the vast majority were purchased by people who also pirate.
        
        So, the answer is "yes."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        No One, 7 Jul 2012 @ 3:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Looking at that study, how can they accurately track what people who illegally do? How do they know that they prefer Amazon and Itunes to stores?
        
        And they said people who illegally download would 3 out of 4 buy what they had downloaded?
        
        That's really hard to believe.
        
        Why would they do that, especially if there's nothing wrong with sharing?
        
        And if that's true, seems that there's less reason to change
        strategy. I would be surprised if old strategies like radio turned 3 out of 4 listeners into sales. Do you have stats on radio in that regard?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        No One, 7 Jul 2012 @ 4:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also, with public libraries, you would have to add all the books that people actually buy to the 14 billion that libraries spend.
        
        On the bit about how many "originals" become copies, hard to say in music I suppose. But with expensive software (that is difficult to crack) there is usually just 1 or 2 "originals" that supply everyone who doesn't want to pay.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - No one, 5 Jul 2012 @ 6:37pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't think that's true about the number of artworks having no relation to the value.
    
    But you certainly talk a good game.
    
    Mine was a simple question, trying to bring this down to earth. I'm not trying to legally define copyright, morals, ethics, or anything.
    
    I'm just trying to understand.
    
    Before the incredibly easy and free distribution of other people's works, were people explaining how those people's works should be distributed to anyone and everyone for free?
    
    Seems that because it would actually cost the copiers and distributors *money* to do so was probably ironically more of a factor then the importance of sharing information.
    
    Seems that people started fighting for this after the fact.
    
    Also, is it okay to check out a book from the library, copy it and distribute it to everyone?
    
    Is there an online library where I can read any book that's ever been written for free?
    
    Lastly, many many many many artists own their own copyrights, not big corporations.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 5:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't think that's true about the number of artworks having no relation to the value.
      
      Whatever your artistic theories, it has absolutely nothing to do with counterfeiting money. The moment we start using paintings as currency is the moment you have a point. Until then, you're making a false analogy.
      
      Mine was a simple question, trying to bring this down to earth. I'm not trying to legally define copyright, morals, ethics, or anything.
      
      I don't know how you "bring it down to earth" without involving ethics or laws, but OK.
      
      I'll bring it down to earth for you. Public access to works of art is a good thing. It has always been considered a good thing, whether you're talking libraries or the Gutenberg Bible. Leaving aside artworks, creating abundance from scarcity has always been considered a good thing.
      
      You're trying to curtail these good things solely to make money. That is not a good thing. It might be a necessary thing, but it is not a good thing.
      
      Before the incredibly easy and free distribution of other people's works, were people explaining how those people's works should be distributed to anyone and everyone for free?
      
      Before the Internet, the closest thing that existed would be a public library. Which is why I brought it up. If you want to see explanations on why works "should be distributed to anyone and everyone for free," look at why libraries exist.
      
      Seems that because it would actually cost the copiers and distributors *money* to do so was probably ironically more of a factor then the importance of sharing information.
      
      It's not ironic at all, actually. It's the primary reason that infringement was considered a bad thing.
      
      All the analogies so far that you brought up have not actually happened in real life, and why they didn't is why they are bad analogies. Prior to digital file sharing, it cost money to reproduce an artwork. Money to print and bind books; money to manufacture CD's or LP's; money to print up T-Shirts.
      
      This means that the only people who could afford to do it were for-profit commercial entities. And as I said before, when the infringement is done for profit, then you do have a right to be upset, because someone else is making money from selling your product. (But, again, this should obviously be directed at people actually selling bootleg posters, and not third parties like the printing company.)
      
      But that's not true anymore. People who share works nowadays almost always are not doing it to make money. They're usually doing it because they like the work, and want other people to enjoy it too. This changes the ballgame completely.
      
      Think of the Internet as a giant library. Any member of the public can walk into the library, and check out (download or stream) any work they want for free. Now, one of these people "checks out" your work. Do you get upset at that person? Or do you think it's great that out of the billions of works in existence, they checked out yours?
      
      Of course, you have a right to be upset at that person. You'd be a dick, but you have a right to be a dick.
      
      Is there an online library where I can read any book that's ever been written for free?
      
      Whether online or offline, the answer is no. But that's not the libraries' fault. In the pre-Internet age, this was limited by storage space and funding. Even there, they tried to get around it, by e.g. having the ability to ship books from library to library. In general, the more works a library had, the better the library.
      
      Online, this is limited by the publishers, not the libraries. But there are several that try to put out every work that they legally can. Two good ones are Project Gutenberg (for books) and Archive.org (for things like movies). Also, the Library of Congress has a ton of public domain images. Are you saying that these sites are doing something wrong?
      
      Lastly, many many many many artists own their own copyrights, not big corporations.
      
      True, but these are the artists that are more likely to benefit from the exposure that free distribution brings. Generally speaking, if an artist owns his own copyright, he's not signed to a publisher (most publishers require artists to assign their copyrights prior to publication). Without a publisher, your biggest issue is obscurity; and as Tim O'Reilly put it, "Obscurity is a bigger problem for authors than piracy."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 5 Jul 2012 @ 6:17pm

I watched the Tegan and Sara.

So they are fine with it. That's their prerogative.

But I noticed they phrased it as a "deal", an agreement. So anyone who takes their album without giving them either money for a show or a t-shirt or whatever is breaking the agreement. If you're going to have an agreement like that, why isn't an agreement to pay for the recordings a valid notion?

And I'm not sure how a poster maker or many other art forms can play live, but...

would Tegan and Sara be alright if somebody printed up copies of tickets to their shows and gave them away so any Tegan and Sara fan could see a live show for free from now on?

or if somebody copied their t-shirts and gave them away so any fan could get their t-shirts for free?

Is there no line?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- No One, 7 Jul 2012 @ 4:09pm
  
  Re:
  I'm still curious about this.
  
  There is no line to what can be copied and shared, right?
  
  So if someone wanted to copy and share tickets to a live art performance or copy and share t-shirts or anything else, that would be a cool thing to do, right?
  
  Tegan and Sara would and should be cool with anyone copying *anything* they do and giving it away to anyone who will take those copies, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 8 Jul 2012 @ 10:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Looking at that study, how can they accurately track what people who illegally do? How do they know that they prefer Amazon and Itunes to stores?
    
    And they said people who illegally download would 3 out of 4 buy what they had downloaded?
    
    You're a bit confused. According to that study, the people who share files are more than 10 times as likely to legally purchase music in general. It says nothing about purchasing music that they have already downloaded.
    
    They "accurately tracked this" very easily. They tracked how many times these individuals shared files; and tracked how often these individuals legally bought music.
    
    Their study agrees with those from here, here, here, here, or here. I'm sure I could produce more, but those are the ones I have bookmarked.
    
    But it does not show, nor does it attempt to show, something as simplistic as "downloading genrates sales." Nor did I imply that was being suggested. What is shown, explicitly, is that pirates are your most lucrative potential customers.
    
    There is no line to what can be copied and shared, right?
    
    So if someone wanted to copy and share tickets to a live art performance
    
    Of course there is a line to what can be copied and shared. It is the definition of a rivalrous good. For example: you could copy and share tickets to a live performance, but those tickets correspond to physical spaces in that performance. Such spaces are not infinite, so tickets are scarce goods. Thus, when you print a "bootleg" ticket, you're depriving someone else of their seat.
    
    That is what makes "theft" immoral. It's not that the "thieves" get something for nothing (or else poor people who dumpster-dive for my beer bottles would be immoral). It's that if you "steal" something, the original owner doesn't have it anymore.
    
    Beyond that, there is the moral (not legal) idea that when someone makes money off of your labor, you deserve a cut of it. I agree with that. The problem is that most publishers nowadays want to sue third parties (such as the printing press who took the job to press your competition's posters), and not the actual infringers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - No One, 8 Jul 2012 @ 3:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The ars technica article said:
      
      "73 percent of of respondents to the CRIA's survey said that they bought music after they downloaded it illegally,"
      
      I guess I assumed that they bought *it*, they downloaded a sample like cheese, and then liked it and bought it.
      
      If they don't buy the sample, but buy some other products, then that doesn't do the people who's sample they sampled any good. And it's not just a sample, it's the actual complete product.
      
      Emily, for example, said she only bought 15 albums, but had 11,000 songs.
      
      Regarding the printing of tickets, if you weren't taking somebody's spot, then it would be okay, right?
      
      For example, if Tegan and Sara did an online live show, and charged money, or if they put out a DVD of a show, or even if it was possible to do an actual show where you could use a copied ticket without taking someone's spot, then that would be okay. Tegan and Sara don't have a right to get paid for performing, they can try to do so, so if there was a way to get that from them without paying or taking away somebody's spot, then that would be cool, and Tegan and Sara would be fine with that, right?
      
      And you didn't reply to the T-shirt aspect. If someone wants to copy their T-shirts, design and all, and give them to all of Tegan and Sara's fans, then that would be great, right? Tegan and Sara can still try to sell their's to their fans, they still have their boxes of T-shirts that they're trying to sell, so no harm there and the fans don't have to pay.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Karl (profile), 8 Jul 2012 @ 8:09pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The ars technica article said:
        
        "73 percent of of respondents to the CRIA's survey said that they bought music after they downloaded it illegally,"
        
        I guess I assumed that they bought *it*, they downloaded a sample like cheese, and then liked it and bought it.
        
        That was referring to the CRIA (Canadian) study from 2006, not the BI (Norwegian) study from 2009. Here's a link to the CRIA study. And, if you click through to the (older) Ars Technica article about it, you'll find more details:
        
        Three out of four P2P users admitted to purchasing music after downloading it online, with 21 percent of P2P users saying that they have bought tracks they have also downloaded on more than 10 occasions. 25 percent admitted to purchasing previously-downloaded tracks only once or twice, while an additional 27 percent claimed to have done it less than 10 times, but more than twice.
        
        So, they bought the "complete product" (the track) after they downloaded the song already. It wasn't just a "sample" (say, a clip or a stream). That is, however, what they used it for.
        
        The other studies say slightly different things. However, all studies show that pirates buy more music than non-pirates.
        
        Regarding the cheese thing. If anyone can make any kind of cheese for free, then they'll sample more, different kinds of cheeses. We would have a more "cheese literate" culture. Since people would know which cheese was good and which wasn't, the demand for high-quality cheese would increase.
        
        Since you can't do this with cheese, let's take a real-world example: beer. This is a subject close to my heart, since I do in fact brew my own beer. And, yes, one of the primary reasons I do it is because it's far cheaper to brew your own beer than it is to buy it at a liquor store (not to mention a bar).
        
        Home brewing has exploded in recent years. Has this hurt the beer industry any? Not at all. In fact, it was coincidental with an explosion in microbreweries. Home brewing simply led to a more "beer literate" culture; and that culture benefitted everyone, home brewers and breweries alike.
        
        Emily, for example, said she only bought 15 albums, but had 11,000 songs.
        
        And how many would she have if she were forced to pay for all of her music? My guess: 15 albums, and 15 album's worth of songs.
        
        Plus, she didn't resort to sneaky things in order to get those albums... like take those promos and trade them at used record stores. (When I worked at Tower, pre-Napster, a bunch of my co-workers did this: take some of the multiple promos the labels sent in of Top 40 music, then trade them at a used record store down the street to get the albums they actually wanted.)
        
        Regarding the printing of tickets, if you weren't taking somebody's spot, then it would be okay, right?
        
        Here, let's give a classic example. Tegan and Sara do a show at an outdoor venue, and charge money for it. A bunch of people go to see it, but a bunch also bring lawn chairs, sit just outside the fence, and listen to the concert for free. (This is exactly the kind of thing that happened at a Jane's Addiction concert I saw. I paid for a ticket, by the way.)
        
        Now, let's give a modern example. Tegan and Sara perform a show, and a bunch of people in the crowd video record it, using their smartphones. They then post the performance on YouTube.
        
        In neither of these cases should Tegan and Sara give a shit. They can be upset; but in my opinion, they don't have a reason to. I think it would be a good thing in general, since I don't mind Tegan and Sara, and think everyone should be able to listen to them.
        
        And you didn't reply to the T-shirt aspect. If someone wants to copy their T-shirts, design and all, and give them to all of Tegan and Sara's fans, then that would be great, right?
        
        Let's say Tegan and Sara design a shirt that is intentionally simplistic - to be "cutesy" or whatever. It's a couple of stick figures, with some multicolored lettering that says "I love Tegan & Sara." They perform a show, and to their surprise, a whole bunch of people in the audience had bought blank white T-shirts, and drew stick figures on the shirts themselves in magic marker, again with the multicolored lettering that said "I love Tegan & Sara."
        
        Personally, if I were Tegan and/or Sara, I would think that was great.
        
        Tegan and Sara can still try to sell their's to their fans, they still have their boxes of T-shirts that they're trying to sell, so no harm there and the fans don't have to pay.
        
        If they want one from Tegan and Sara, then they have to pay. And, here's the thing: most would pay. Honestly, why do you think fans buy T-shirts? It's not because they're chilly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 9 Jul 2012 @ 3:26pm

The thing is, though, is you're taking these scenarios to different places then intended.

If you brew your own beer, that's not making exact replicas of every manufactured beer readily available to every customer of those beers for free. Your home brewed beer isn't even free.

If someone sits outside a fence, those are crappy seats, or watching a smart phone video on youtube, that is crappy sound and picture.

I'm talking an absolutely equal experience freely available to all fans. Not a t-shirt with simple home made scribbles similar to the real ones, but an exact replica of a high quality design.

Tegan and Sara said, hey, if you take our music for free, please buy our shirts and buy tickets to see us. Now they would have to say, hey, if you take our music, shirts, live shows and everything else, please buy our cheese? Our home brewed beer?

These aren't samples of various kinds of cheese, but all the actual brands of cheese for free. If there was a cheese replicator, cheese companies would now have to try and sell what? T-shirts?

With Emily, you really don't think a huge music fan like she is wouldn't buy more albums? What else does she have to pay for? Food, clothes, gas, parking, smartphone, furniture, toilet paper, shampoo, toothpaste, etc etc? If she could get *all* of the best brands of these in endless supply, this would have no effect on how or what she purchases or no longer purchases? You really believe that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 10 Jul 2012 @ 6:32am
  
  Re:
  The thing is, though, is you're taking these scenarios to different places then intended.
  
  I am "taking these scenarios" to places that more accurately represent how file sharing actually works. It's pretty obvious to me that you "intended" to present false analogies to make file sharing seem much worse than it is. Sorry if I didn't allow you to do it.
  
  In every single scenario that you presented, you're basically presenting it as one or two people making copies for everyone else. You asked what happens if "someone else" copies your poster. But it's not "someone else." It's everyone else. You're trying to present this as if it's a couple of bad actors who are responsible for sharing media. That's not the case. Everyone makes copies. Nearly everyone shares them, because people share the things they like.
  
  Even your latest analogy fails in exactly this way. "If you brew your own beer, that's not making exact replicas of every manufactured beer readily available to every customer of those beers for free." No, it's not; but that's not how file sharing works, either. It's not one source "making exact replicas" and distributing them to "every customer of those beers." It's like home brewing: everyone makes their own copies, and they usually share those copies with friends. Just like Emily and her senior prom date.
  
  With Emily, you really don't think a huge music fan like she is wouldn't buy more albums?
  
  If Emily were forced to buy all the music she listened to, she wouldn't have been a huge music fan in the first place. How do you think she actually heard the music she liked? By swapping "hundreds of mix CDs with friends," by her prom date loading her iPod with songs, etc.
  
  This was the whole point of the beer analogy, in case you missed it. Homebrewing creates a more "beer literate" culture. Sharing music creates a more "music literate" culture. In order to become literate in music, you have to listen to a hell of a lot of it - more than nearly everyone can afford. Without file sharing, music literacy was reduced to the independently wealthy, or to professional music reviewers who were sent CD's and LP's to review for free (and who, because of that, had an unnaturally cozy relationship with major labels). File sharing allows everyone to be musically literate. It's how Emily was able to become a fan of music in the first place.
  
  In the short term, musicians may have to lose a little bit of money in order to promote music literacy. In the long run, that music literacy will help everyone. Including people who make money from music: in the past ten years, people have spent more money on music-related purchases than ever before. (Just not on recordings.)
  
  What else does she have to pay for?
  
  A better question is, how much does she have to spend in the first place? Keep in mind that she is an intern, which means she gets paid absolutely nothing. (Here's a question: why aren't you up in arms about NPR exploiting her? NPR is getting her labor for free, after all - exactly the basis for your dislike of file sharing.)
  
  She also is apparently a college student (she linked to the college radio station at American University). So, all the things that Lowery criticizes her for spending money on? The tuition, computer (which Lowery presents as an expensive MacBook), and so on? It's likely that she paid for these things with financial aid. And last I checked, you can't send your FAFSA paperwork to iTunes.
  
  If she could get *all* of the best brands of these in endless supply, this would have no effect on how or what she purchases or no longer purchases?
  
  If she could get *all* of those things for free, WHO CARES how it affects what she purchases? Free food! Free clothing! Free shampoo! Free toilet paper! Free toothpaste! All of humanity's material issues would be solved, so who cares if CVS goes out of business?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - No One, 10 Jul 2012 @ 3:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Musical literacy is an excuse to not have to pay. That seems ridiculous. People are perfectly capable of becoming musically literate without having to take music that they know they are supposed to pay for. Even Emily realized that what she did was not supporting the musicians she loved. People were not musically literate before Napster? Albums have always been relatively cheap, and most every person I know had a decent record collection, and they were hardly "independently wealthy". They were just people who would rather spend money on albums instead of on Starbucks.
    
    As far as my analogies being wrong, seems to me yours are wronger ;) . You're making it sound like someone shares a few albums with their friends, so if that person has 15 albums, then they share one or two with a couple of people they know.
    
    The idea that that is how file sharing works on the internet is absurd. Every album ever is easily available to every person on the planet for free! You couldn't even possibly know who all these people are.
    
    Even when people taped albums, there was a tax on tapes. Ever since recording began, there have been laws and rules to protect that songwriters and every else involved were compensated for their work. John Philip Sousa was against recording because he didn't know how people would be fairly compensated if recordings could be played anywhere. Hence, the beginning of ASCAP.
    
    And your last paragraph about everything being free is my point. Everything isn't free. Nothing is free except all the things that can easily be pirated on the web. If musicians and all the people who work in music or the arts could have free food, free clothing and free everything else, than that would be a little more fair.
    
    Here's the thing. I get that people want shit for free. Who doesn't? But the excuses to make it seem legitimate or okay or acceptable are ridiculous! And to suggest that those who expect to get paid for their work are "dicks", but those who take it are helping music and music literacy and are not in any way "dicks" seems to go against any sort of simple human logic and fairness.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 12 Jul 2012 @ 12:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Musical literacy is an excuse to not have to pay.
      
      Except that those who pirate music pay more than those who don't. Every independent study on file sharing has confirmed this. These are not people who need an "excuse to not have to pay," they are people that consume art for free and also pay for it.
      
      And, again, if what you say is true, then libraries would be illegal. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assume you don't think they should be. Here's the question: Why not? If you think they are good things, why do you think that?
      
      most every person I know had a decent record collection, and they were hardly "independently wealthy". They were just people who would rather spend money on albums instead of on Starbucks.
      
      I know people like that too. Hell, I am a person like that. I own about a thousand CD's and probably about 500 vinyl LP's. And I know a few people who have collections that are much bigger than mine.
      
      But we were always a small minority. Most people simply are not record collectors. Most people decided to spend money on Starbucks (or, realistically, on renting a better apartment, or car insurance, or food that isn't in noodle form) instead. We're a very small, insular bunch. The average person, prior to the Internet, probably bought less than 100 albums in their entire lives. They were not even remotely musically literate.
      
      And were it not for the ability to share music for free, Emily most likely would be in that majority.
      
      You're making it sound like someone shares a few albums with their friends, so if that person has 15 albums, then they share one or two with a couple of people they know.
      
      That's not at all what I'm suggesting. I think that people share the music that they like. That could be "one or two," but if so, those people have been ripped off. If you only buy music that you actually like, you'll want to share your entire collection. And you don't just want to share it with people you personally know. That's not how proselytizing works.
      
      The idea that that is how file sharing works on the internet is absurd. Every album ever is easily available to every person on the planet for free!
      
      And you know who put those albums on the Internet? Individual people. It's not just a couple of guys sitting in a room somewhere. It's not some corporation selling copies to make money. It's billions of individual users, sending out the works they love into the ether, so that anyone around the world can share in their appreciation.
      
      I personally can't see how anyone can view this as a bad thing. Curbing it might be necessary, from a business standpoint, but that doesn't make it good.
      
      And your last paragraph about everything being free is my point. Everything isn't free. Nothing is free except all the things that can easily be pirated on the web.
      
      (Easily "copied," not pirated, but never mind.)
      
      Read Emily's post again. The vast majority of her free music was not acquired from the web.
      
      And you're presenting a false dichotomy: allow piracy and don't get paid, or fight piracy and get paid. In reality, neither of these things are true. There are many, many, many ways to make money, without fighting the ability for people to share art for free. Conversely, a reduction in piracy does not result in an increase of sales. Even though toothpase (or whatever) isn't free, that doesn't mean that piracy means that artists can't find ways to make money to buy toothpaste.
      
      Here's the thing. I get that people want shit for free. Who doesn't? But the excuses to make it seem legitimate or okay or acceptable are ridiculous!
      
      So, again: what is your "excuse" for libraries? Or do you think they are "ridiculous," and that it would be better if they shut down?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - No One, 12 Jul 2012 @ 3:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I think you need to look up copyright, public libraries, and what's legal, and what isn't.
        
        But to me, in wanting to keep things down to earth, just like Emily states, if people just *copy* the works of the artists they love, that is not supporting them, and that doesn't seem very cool.
        
        You say, who cares if CVS goes out of business. Well, as it stands now, the people who need and want what they sell, the people who work there, and all the people who create all of the goods they sell there.
        
        But what strikes me, is the idea that so many people who apparently love music and art and books and movies and creative stuff like that, equate it to being some boring corporation that needs to be brought down.
        
        I mean, yeah, I'm not personally a fan of Tegan and Sara, so I don't care if they go out of business. But maybe they and their fans do?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 12 Jul 2012 @ 5:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        if people just *copy* the works of the artists they love, that is not supporting them
        
        This is true. On the other hand, many (perhaps most) people who share media don't believe they are just copying the works. They believe they are proselytizing, "getting the word out."
        
        Ultimately, it is your job to turn this awareness into income. And like everyone in a free market, you have to adapt to the behavior of the market, and not expect the market to adapt to you.
        
        There are tons of ways to do this. Techdirt has highlighted many, many artists who have found ways to do this. Generally, it's a good idea to freely distribute infinite goods, and sell scarce goods. This is what Nine Inch Nails did: they released Ghosts I-IV as a free download, but also offered an "Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition" for $300. Pre-orders for the limited edition sold out in less than 30 hours. Aside from that, people actually bought other editions through the website; and within a week, the album made over $1.6 million in sales. Reznor made more from an album that he gave away for free, than from any album he had created under a record label.
        
        Of course, there are other ways to make money. Live performances, licensing, etc. Emily herself offers one solution:
        
        What I want is one massive Spotify-like catalog of music that will sync to my phone and various home entertainment devices. With this new universal database, everyone would have convenient access to everything that has ever been recorded, and performance royalties would be distributed based on play counts (hopefully with more money going back to the artist than the present model).
        
        Whatever your solution ends up being, it cannot involve treating your fans as thieves, or berating them for sharing what they like. Doing that is guaranteed to fail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Karl (profile), 12 Jul 2012 @ 5:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Also:
        
        I think you need to look up copyright, public libraries, and what's legal, and what isn't.
        
        I am very well versed in copyright law, thanks. For example, 17 USC 108, which places limitations on exclusive rights copyright holders have with respect to libraries.
        
        You still didn't answer my question. Why are libraries desirable? So far, every single criticism you leveled against file sharing can be leveled against libraries as well. After all, their sole purpose is to let people experience artworks for free. (And if someone just "checks out" the works of the artists they love from a library, that is not supporting them, either.)
        
        Yet, libraries are considered so important, that Congress actually created copyright exemptions specifically for them. Do you think Congress has it wrong?
        
        Why don't you consider libraries a form of piracy? Why are you so bothered if people read books for free from the Internet, but not when people read books for free from libraries?
        
        I'm being serious here. I would like you to explain if you believe libraries are good things at all, and why.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - No One, 10 Jul 2012 @ 3:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I looked up the top downloads on Pirate Bay. Oddly, it's all stuff that is easily available to any music illiterate who is willing to pay, but I guess most illiterates simply don't want to.
    
    Adele, Coldplay, LMFAO, Kelly Clarkson, Nicki Manaj, One Direction, David Guetta, Maroon 5, Chris Brown , Jennifer Lopez, Pitbull, Usher, and so on.
    
    Musical literacy? I don't think so.
    
    People just want Big Macs and Cokes for free.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 12 Jul 2012 @ 1:14am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      (Techdirt's database ate my last post, sorry if this ends up being a double post.)
      
      Adele, Coldplay, LMFAO, Kelly Clarkson, Nicki Manaj, One Direction, David Guetta, Maroon 5, Chris Brown , Jennifer Lopez, Pitbull, Usher, and so on.
      
      Musical literacy? I don't think so.
      
      This criticism has always confused me. If these musicians are not contributing to music literacy, there is no reason to grant copyright protection to them. The explicit goal of copyright is to "promote the progress," after all.
      
      I'm not going to make such a claim. Keep in mind that I personally don't like these guys, either. In fact, I don't think I've voluntarily listened to any of them in my life (and I've certainly never pirated any of their material). But that is what society values, and listening to them is what society has decided is necessary for "musical literacy." C'est la vie.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - No One, 10 Jul 2012 @ 3:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oh, and the idea that my analogies are wrong because it's not one bad actor but everyone, hardly the point, and only a much worse situation.
    
    If Tegan and Sara are hoping to get compensated from shows and T-shirts because *everyone* is sharing there music with *everyone*, and then everyone starts sharing *those* things with everyone, they are even worse off.
    
    That's the point. Tegan and Sara are trying to get paid, but if everyone shares whatever they do with everyone, at what point does Tegan and Sara finally become dicks?
    
    And do you think they really wanted to be in the T-shirt business?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 13 Jul 2012 @ 2:16pm

Libraries are not the same. The main reason being they don't create copies to give to the public.

If Congress has it right in regard to libraries, then maybe you should ask *them* why they are bothered by Emily ripping the majority of her CD collection, or why *they* are bothered by any sort of unauthorized copying on the internet or anywhere else.

Unless Congress now considers The Pirate Bay a public library. Do they? If not, why not?

I see a lot of vitriol on this site towards the music business and "Hollywood", and therefore musicians, producers, actors, writers, and all the people who work in those businesses. Do you think when Congress created public libraries, it was because they felt that same sort of vitriol toward writers and publishers, and so on?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 14 Jul 2012 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  Libraries are not the same. The main reason being they don't create copies to give to the public.
  
  You still haven't answered the question. Forget about piracy for a moment. If you believe libraries are good things at all, why do you believe that?
  
  Let's say that libraries didn't exist in the U.S. Would you make a case for creating them, or for not creating them? What would that case be?
  
  If Congress has it right in regard to libraries, then maybe you should ask *them* why they are bothered by Emily ripping the majority of her CD collection, or why *they* are bothered by any sort of unauthorized copying on the internet or anywhere else.
  
  That's an easy question to answer: regulatory capture. The RIAA, MPAA, etc. have a lot of money, and they're not afraid to spend millions and millions of dollars lobbying the government to get their way. As a result, when copyright is talked about in Congress right now, members from those organizations are quite literally the only ones allowed in the room. Additionally, there is a "revolving door" policy between Congressional staffers and those lobbying organizations (Chris Dodd is only the most obvious example). Combine this with Congressmens' general ignorance of new technology, and you have a perfect storm of anti-piracy hysteria.
  
  I see a lot of vitriol on this site towards the music business and "Hollywood", and therefore musicians, producers, actors, writers, and all the people who work in those businesses.
  
  Your "and therefore" is utterly false. We all support musicians, producers, actors, writers, etc., and want them to get paid. In fact, one of the reasons that the "anti-piracy" talk rings hollow, is that we all know (many from personal experience) that the music business and Hollywood treat artists far worse than many "pirate sites" do.
  
  There are a few commenters who say stuff like "why should artists get paid twice for the same labor?" or some such. But even here, they're not opposed to artists getting paid. They're simply advocating for something like an "hourly wage" model, the same model that they themselves must work under. (A model that doesn't need copyright to exist.)
  
  But these commenters are in the minority, I think. For the record, I'm not one of them. Nor have I ever heard this from Mike (or Leigh or Glyn).
  
  Part of Techdirt's mission is to help artists succeed in a digital marketplace. Claiming the site "hates artists," or whatever, is just nonsense. And it is absolutely not what drives any of our opinions on copyright and piracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 15 Jul 2012 @ 1:59pm

The reason libraries are good would be relevant if I or Congress or anyone thought that libraries and The Pirate Bay worked in the exact same way.

But they don't, so an explanation of why libraries are good is irrelevant and doesn't need explaining anyway.

Libraries do not create tons and tons of copies and give them to people.

How can anyone not see that as a huge difference?

If you want to lend your single paid for copy of Kelly Clarkson's album to a friend for a couple of weeks, they listen to it, expand their musical literacy, and then give you the copy back, have at it! No one wants to stop you from sharing with your friends your copy that you bought.

As far as artists getting paid for their work, how much has The Pirate Bay specifically paid to Kelly Clarkson? Dollars-wise? How many copies of her album have been downloaded from The Pirate Bay, and how much has she made from that? We are not talking about some ambiguous publicity which she doesn't need, her label pays millions for that sort of thing, but money for her work? Dollars and cents that can be counted for downloads?

Because her sales from Itunes and other legitimate sources can be counted.

And how much for all of the other content? The movies which cost millions to make, the albums, the books, the software?

Where is the money? How much is it?

And how much does that compare to the money that Kelly Clarkson made from the music business and Hollywood? Plus the amount to all the rest of the musicians, writers, producers and everyone else that works on the content?

What are the amounts paid directly from each?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 15 Jul 2012 @ 5:33pm
  
  Re:
  The reason libraries are good would be relevant if I or Congress or anyone thought that libraries and The Pirate Bay worked in the exact same way.
  
  Oh, there are plenty of differences between file sharing and libraries. For example, libraries are funded with taxpayer dollars, and file sharing isn't; libraries are centralized, file sharing isn't; and so forth.
  
  There are also plenty of differences between The Pirate Bay and Megaupload. Somehow, if I used those differences to explain how Megaupload is bad, but The Pirate Bay is good, I don't think it would be a terribly convincing argument.
  
  I get that you think file sharing is worse than libraries. But all that says to me is that you think libraries aren't as bad as file sharing. For all I know, you still think libraries are terrible, but The Pirate Bay is worse. It doesn't tell me anything, just like my (theoretical) belief that Megaupload is worse than The Pirate Bay wouldn't tell you anything.
  
  What libraries don't do is irrelevant. I'm asking if you think what they actually do is ethical or not.
  
  If your sole ethical criterion is that people shouldn't be able to experience complete artworks without supporting the artists, then you think libraries are unethical. Full stop. If you do not believe that, then you need to explain (or at least ask yourself) why that is. Once you can come up with the reasons libraries are good or bad, then we can examine the differences between libraries and file sharing, and whether those differences make a moral difference. Until then, you're just avoiding the issue.
  
  As far as artists getting paid for their work, how much has The Pirate Bay specifically paid to Kelly Clarkson? Dollars-wise? How many copies of her album have been downloaded from The Pirate Bay
  
  You can't download any content whatsoever from The Pirate Bay; only from other users' hard drives. (There's a reason it's called "peer to peer" file sharing.)
  
  How much have the users who made the Kelly Clarkson albums available, earned dollar-wise? Zero. What percentage of Clarkson's royalties have they kept? Zero. How many of Clarkson's recording copyrights do they hold? Zero. How much do they control what Clarkson sings, who she can sign contracts with, or her life story? Zero.
  
  But more importantly for this discussion, how many times did Emily use The Pirate Bay? Zero. Her friends who made mix CD's didn't make any money. Her prom date who gave her music didn't make any money. Emily herself didn't make any money.
  
  If you believe file sharing is bad because file sharers earn money from it, then Emily and her friends are blameless. That's certainly not what you were arguing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 16 Jul 2012 @ 3:41pm

For someone who doesn't want me to avoid your question of why libraries are good, you do a hell of a job avoiding and evading and dancing around *all* of my questions. It's quite amazing.

We have already been over the general premise of why libraries are good. One reason, is they *spend billions of dollars* on books!

So you think Kelly Clarkson would be better off if, instead of signing away rights to Idol and an evil record label, and giving up a percentage of her earnings and a percentage of any of her evil copyrights, she just paid for her own recordings and put them up on Pirate Bay so everyone could share them even though no one would even know who she was? And she could beg for people to buy her T-shirts? That seems preferable to you?

This is the trouble I have with these arguments. It is always so lopsided and verging on the ridiculous.

You said you "all" support artists and musicians and writers and want them to get paid. So I ask how much file sharing has paid compared to record labels (which you said are "far worse").

Kelly Clarkson's net worth is more than 25 million dollars. So how much came through her association and deals with the so-called "far worse", and how much came directly from file sharing??

It's a simple question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 16 Jul 2012 @ 6:52pm
  
  Re:
  For someone who doesn't want me to avoid your question of why libraries are good, you do a hell of a job avoiding and evading and dancing around *all* of my questions.
  
  I have not evaded a single one of your questions. Not one in this entire thread. I have perhaps not accepted the premises of those questions, but that's a different story altogether.
  
  We have already been over the general premise of why libraries are good.
  
  No, you have not. You have only said why libraries are not the same as The Pirate Bay, as if that's actually saying something about libraries themselves. Specifically, about whether lending books to the public for free is, in itself, a moral good. You have never answered that question.
  
  One reason, is they *spend billions of dollars* on books!
  
  See? This is one of the things that I've already answered.
  
  The fact is, file sharers also *spend billions of dollars* on media. People who share files buy the vast majority of content. I've already linked to many, many studies that show this. So there is no difference between file sharing and libraries in this particular regard.
  
  (Incidentally, according to the American Library Association, you're incorrect: in 2009, total collection expenditures by public libraries was $1.3 billion, and that includes all media.)
  
  Most importantly: Is spending money on books what makes libraries good things? Is the sole reason libraries are to be tolerated that they benefit publishers? If the publishers decide to disagree, should they have a right to pull their books from the shelves?
  
  What if someone starts a public library that only loans out books that have been donated? Is that library immoral? Should that library be shut down?
  
  Frankly, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this. Even if no library ever purchased a single book in their entire existence, they'd still be fundamentally moral. Libraries don't exist to benefit publishers. They exist to benefit the public, primarily through allowing the public to read books for free. That's why they're moral.
  
  Of course, if publishers do benefit, then that's wonderful. But it's not why libraries are socially valuable.
  
  So you think Kelly Clarkson would be better off if, instead of signing away rights to Idol and an evil record label, and giving up a percentage of her earnings and a percentage of any of her evil copyrights, she just paid for her own recordings and put them up on Pirate Bay so everyone could share them even though no one would even know who she was? And she could beg for people to buy her T-shirts? That seems preferable to you?
  
  If nobody knew who she was, nobody would share her recordings. On the other hand, if people shared her music enough, then she would be more widely known - and more people would buy her albums. Many times, file sharing leads to increased sales. Just ask Neil Gaiman.
  
  I think, instead of signing away rights to her career (not just Idol), she could have developed a fan base herself. She could have performed live (and almost certainly earned more than the $1400 that she made through the "World Idol" performance). She could have put out the album herself - or, better, used one of the many many ways to do it that the Internet makes possible, such as Kickstarter or Sellaband. And she could sell the music herself, if she wanted, through e.g. CDBaby or Tunecore - and make more money than she is now, in all likelihood. Nothing about sharing music interferes with her ability to do this. Sure, she could sell T-shirts if she wants; she could also negotiate synch licenses, use YouTube's ContentID to earn money (while still allowing people to share those videos), or any one of thousands of different things.
  
  Seems to be working for Rock Star: INXS contestant Jordis Unga. Of course, it worked immensely well for Amanda Palmer. Or the dozens of other musicians that have been profiled here.
  
  It also seems to be the best way to go for the many, many, many, many musicians who aren't Kelly Clarkson. Like, for example, the 90% of major label musicians, who did not recoup their advances, so made absolutely no money whatsoever from artists' royalties. (This is according to the RIAA, no less - in 2002.)
  
  Whatever musicians do, they have a better chance of making money now than they did before. Getting famous through file sharing is a crap shoot, to say the very least. But you have more of a chance with that than under the old label system.
  
  You said you "all" support artists and musicians and writers and want them to get paid. So I ask how much file sharing has paid compared to record labels (which you said are "far worse").
  
  I don't know. How much do people spend on music? I'd guess that about 90% of those people became fans through sharing music in one way or another. (It's how I started out, and I've purchased hundreds of CD's, LP's, and tapes.) And as you keep ignoring, the majority of the money spent on music comes from people who share files.
  
  So, I guess it pays pretty well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - No One, 18 Jul 2012 @ 3:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "What if someone starts a public library that only loans out books that have been donated? Is that library immoral? Should that library be shut down?
    
    Frankly, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this."
    
    First off, it's funny that you say you disagree with me on something that you suggested.
    
    Even if it's not billions, it's in the billions, and it's *per year*.
    
    They *lend* books without making copies and infringing copyrights.
    
    Again, they buy their books in the billions of dollars, and they don't make copies to give to the public, and they don't infringe copyrights.
    
    These are crucial differences.
    
    As far as Kelly Clarkson being better off doing what you suggest...it's just ridiculous. You really honestly believe she wishes she was struggling to get known in the fashion you suggest?
    
    You named 2 people, neither of which I have heard any of their music, and I've heard plenty of Kelly Clarkson whether I like it or not.
    
    And Kelly Clarkson is just 1 who is well known because of her "far worse" deals. I could name tons and tons and tons of well known successful people who got there through their so-called "far worse" deals.
    
    Even Amanda Palmer got well known through a deal, and that other chick also was on TV.
    
    The list of complete unknowns making 25 million like Kelly Clarkson I'm guessing is the same as the unanswered question of how much Kelly got paid *directly* from The Pirate Bay or the like when someone downloaded and infringed her albums for free.
    
    Zero.
    
    And regarding the bit about how file sharers spend more, even if they do, that seems like twisted logic in a number of ways.
    
    If someone buys 2 albums and infringes 10,000 albums, they spend more than someone who buys 1 album. Twice as many! Do you think that would stand up in a court of law or anywhere else?
    
    It's just such an ambiguous and meaningless suggestion.
    
    If you want to go back to your library analogy, maybe people who check out books buy more, too. But libraries don't make copies, and no one can randomly infringe thousands of books. *All* the copies are paid for.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 18 Jul 2012 @ 7:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      First off, it's funny that you say you disagree with me on something that you suggested.
      
      "This" refers to the idea that libraries are good because they benefit publishers. I thought that was pretty obvious.
      
      The "suggestion" is just the logical conclusion of your own argument. It is not theoretical, either. To my knowledge, all public libraries accept donations, and loan those donated books to the public - without paying publishers. Is this immoral? Should it be illegal?
      
      Even if it's not billions, it's in the billions, and it's *per year*.
      
      And pirates spend billions per year on media. In 2010, iTunes was selling about ten million songs per day. Most of that music was bought by pirates. And that's just one retailer - it doesn't include other retailers, nor does it include the vast amounts that people are spending on music in other ways (more than making up for the drop in sales of recordings).
      
      They *lend* books without making copies and infringing copyrights.
      
      FYI, they are allowed to make copies to loan to the public. (Read 17 USC 108 again.)
      
      But saying they don't infringe copyrights is irrelevant, because the morality of copyright law is what we are debating. I don't believe copyright law is moral right now (and I'm not the only one - on either side of the copyright debate). I brought it up to show that free access to art is considered such a good thing, that even our IP-maximalist government supports it. If you recall, it was a direct answer to the question of when sharing art has been "a cool thing to do."
      
      Most importantly: Why is even lending books OK in the first place? You are adamantly refusing to answer that. On the contrary, according to your own criteria, lending books should not be a cool thing to do. By your own argument, these are not crucial differences. Lending books means lots of people "who actually like it and would have bought it now get it for free," so publishers are "out of some dollars that they had a right to." At the beginning of the discussion, that was your only criterion for deciding if sharing was a good thing.
      
      And if that's not the case: Streaming sites also don't make copies for people to keep. So, according to your new argument, they're perfectly OK, and should be just as legal as libraries.
      
      Let's bring it back to your original scenario. You're at the swap meet trying to sell your poster (that many people are buying, it's only a dollar after all, and it took a lot of work to make, so you are very grateful that they like it and are willing to pay for it), and someone else makes buys a copy of your poster and starts giving it away at the swap meet. The only condition is that it be returned after a while, so that even more people can get it for free. You shouldn't be greatly bothered by this?
      
      Apparently, you think anyone who has bothered to make a poster and go to the swap meet and set up, and try and make their way as an artist, would be greatly bothered and say to that person, "what are doing? Why would you do that?"
      
      And if some people get the poster for free who actually like it and would have bought it now get it for free, then you're out of some dollars that you had a right to, aren't you?
      
      As far as Kelly Clarkson being better off doing what you suggest...it's just ridiculous. You really honestly believe she wishes she was struggling to get known in the fashion you suggest?
      
      Not at this point, no. I think it is a better long-term solution for her though, assuming she's ever let out of her contract.
      
      Besides: why are you bringing up Kelly Clarkson as if she's a typical artist? She's not. Hell, she's not even a typical Idol contestant. How much has Idol helped Ryan Starr, R.J. Helton, Nikki McKibbin, EJay Day, Tamyra Gray, Justin Guarini, Jim Verraros, A.J. Gil, or Christina Christian? How much did it help all the artists who didn't make it to the top 10? They all had to sign that same contract.
      
      And how is Kelly Clarkson being famous helping your average musician? It's not. As I pointed out, the vast majority of artists in the label system have never made royalties from record sales. And that's just the 0.1% of artists who actually make it into the label system in the first place.
      
      Why should just about every other artist on the planet be exploited just so Kelly Clarkson can become rich (and her production company and label ten times richer)? That's not even in the neighborhood of ethical. It's exactly like saying BP is good for the world because their executives make millions of dollars.
      
      You named 2 people, neither of which I have heard any of their music
      
      I certainly named more than two people in this thread. The last two I named were Amanda Palmer and Neil Gaiman, I believe. Both of them have made millions through making art, without coming down on file sharing. Isn't that awesome? I think that's awesome.
      
      Even Amanda Palmer got well known through a deal
      
      This has been repeatedly debunked. By her former tour manager, for one. As to how well that deal served her, let's let Amanda talk about it herself:
      
      for the record, i actually fronted ALL of the money for this record, because the label wasn't interested in supporting the effort.
      
      they had a solo stranglehold on me under the dolls contract, basically had the right of first refusal for whatever i came up with. i knew that the record with ben would be brilliant and that if they refused it, i'd asily make the money back putting it out on my own. so i put in my own 200k (much of it borrowed) to make the record. the label picked it up, but i was never fully paid back (long, vil and complicated), which added insult to injury when they did FUCK all to promote the record.
      
      In the end, despite selling 30,000 albums, and despite the label putting not one penny of their own money into the recording, she never saw a single penny from royalties. This is typical for an artist under a major label contract.
      
      how much Kelly got paid *directly* from The Pirate Bay or the like when someone downloaded and infringed her albums for free.
      
      Zero.
      
      And The Pirate Bay or the like made absolutely no money *directly* from Kelly Clarkson. Because The Pirate Bay never offered Kelly Clarkson's album. Their users did.
      
      Not one of whom made a single dime from putting that album on The Pirate Bay.
      
      A site which Emily, the entire subject of this debate, did not use at all. Nobody that shared music with Emily made any money at all.
      
      You're demanding that people who share art with others, for no profit whatsoever, owe artists money because of it. Merely for doing something that libraries do every single day.
      
      And you actually expect anyone to view this as fundamentally immoral? I don't see it. An increasing majority of people don't see it, either. Even (especially!) the people who actually support artists.
      
      If someone buys 2 albums and infringes 10,000 albums, they spend more than someone who buys 1 album. Twice as many! Do you think that would stand up in a court of law or anywhere else?
      
      Again, the debate is about morality, not whether it would stand up in a court of law. In my opinion, it should stand up in a court of law. Even better, companies should realize that it's against their interests for it to go to a court of law in the first place.
      
      Here's why. If someone buys 2 albums and infringes 10,000 albums, they still buy 2 albums. Who cares how many albums they've infringed? People who sell albums are still making twice as much money!
      
      You're saying it's better to sell one album, and have zero piracy, than it is to sell two albums, and tolerate piracy? Even if you could actually make this choice, all you're going to do is lose an album sale. How is that better for anyone?
      
      Besides, if you actually accept this argument, then it destroys your defense of libraries. Sure, libraries are spending a lot of money - but that doesn't mean that publishers wouldn't make a lot more money if people couldn't read books for free.
      
      Let's say it could be proven that allowing people to check out books from the library results in a net loss of billions of dollars to publishers. Were that the case, would shutting down libraries be a good thing?
      
      maybe people who check out books buy more, too. But libraries don't make copies, and no one can randomly infringe thousands of books. *All* the copies are paid for.
      
      You're acting like the number of copies actually makes a difference. It doesn't. Whether people own the books or not, they still get access to the entire book, start to finish, for free. Just like someone would if they watched Iron Man for free from some streaming site, but didn't download it.
      
      (In fact, that was the whole point of Emily's article. She didn't pay precisely because she didn't think of music in terms of ownership. It was a direct reply to a Bob Boilen article called "I Just Deleted All My Music.")
      
      What unquestionably is the case is that people who check out books read more. And that is why libraries are good. It is the entire reason libraries are good. Not because they make people buy more, but because they let people read more. If libraries benefit publishers, great; if not, tough shit for the publishers.
      
      As I said: even if a library bought zero books in its entire existence, it would still be better for everyone if that library existed.
      
      Just like it is better for everyone that people like Emily's prom date can load up iPods with music. As a result, people like Emily listen to music more. That is awesome. If that lets everyone become an "avid music listener, concertgoer, and college radio DJ" like Emily, then the music world as we know it would be a far better place. In the long run, it would be better for musicians, too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 19 Jul 2012 @ 2:55pm

We are going around in circles, as these arguments always do.

I don't even understand why the argument goes into areas like whether record companies are "far worse" for musicians, even the most successful ones like Kelly Clarkson, than people downloading their music for free.

And the fact that most musicians fail, whether they are signed to a label or a TV show, or whether they are hoping people will share their music on the internet for free and buy their fricking T-shirts is also beside the point.

And the fact that it's just "people" uploading movies and albums, and cracking software, and not making money from it (that's a whole topic that I don't want to get into) is also beside the point.

In fact, it's very curious to me why some people (like a place like Techdirt) seem *so bent* on making a case for file sharing and "helping" musicians and tearing down record companies and copyright when they apparently have nothing to do with any of it. (Would Techdirt mind if someone copied any and all of their stuff? Is it all free of any sort of copyright? Can someone create a website, and take all the articles and anything else here and use them? How does Techdirt make money, btw? Do all the people here work for free and pay their rent through T-shirt sales?)

It all just smacks of odd to me.

Like I said, I get why people want stuff for free. Whether it's their music collection, or books, or porn, or cheese, or a car, or anything.

I like stuff that is free.

But when someone is working hard putting out a "product", an album or whatever, and they want a dollar for it, and tons of people take it *because they want it* without paying that dollar, than just like Emily realized, it's not helping that person...and it seems to me, and I'm guessing most anyone with a conscience, that it's just not really a cool thing to do.

But if you and those working so hard to prove that it is a cool and ethical thing to do are right, and all the people who think it's wrong are wrong, than I certainly can't change your mind.

And whether you all can change the mind of the President, and Congress, and all the people who think it's wrong and it's not the same as a library (including all those who participate, the Emilys of the world, who rip or download tons of music and movies and cracked software even though they really feel that it's wrong to do), then so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 19 Jul 2012 @ 6:59pm
  
  Re:
  We are going around in circles, as these arguments always do.
  
  True. In my defense, I answered all your questions, and explained my reasoning. You don't have to accept it; but in the future, hopefully you can at least understand it.
  
  I don't even understand why the argument goes into areas like whether record companies are "far worse" for musicians
  
  Because you brought up Kelly Clarkson and The Pirate Bay. If you don't want the discussion to go in that direction, don't bring it up.
  
  And the fact that most musicians fail, whether they are signed to a label or a TV show, or whether they are hoping people will share their music on the internet for free and buy their fricking T-shirts is also beside the point.
  
  It is not beside the point at all. You're the one who brought up "money owed" to you. That's a business topic.
  
  And the fact that it's just "people" uploading movies and albums, and cracking software, and not making money from it (that's a whole topic that I don't want to get into) is also beside the point.
  
  It certainly seems apropos if you believe that "people" who make no money, and who are often acting as grassroots promotion, "owe" you income for doing so.
  
  In fact, it's very curious to me why some people (like a place like Techdirt) seem *so bent* on making a case for file sharing and "helping" musicians and tearing down record companies and copyright when they apparently have nothing to do with any of it.
  
  Many of the commenters here are artists. (I am a musician; not a professional one, but I do have a couple albums out on tiny underground labels. Most of my friends are also musicians; some of them have been on major labels.)
  
  It concerns me personally. And it's why people like Lowery make me furious. He's doing nothing to actually help musicians navigate the "new" music industry. His only "solution" has been to talk up how good things were under traditional labels, and that's no solution at all.
  
  As far as Techdirt is concerned: part of their business is acting as a consultant to musicians, so that they can actually succeed in the changing musical landscape.
  
  Far from having "nothing to do with any of it," most of us here are affected by the debate on a personal level.
  
  (Would Techdirt mind if someone copied any and all of their stuff? Is it all free of any sort of copyright? Can someone create a website, and take all the articles and anything else here and use them? How does Techdirt make money, btw? Do all the people here work for free and pay their rent through T-shirt sales?)
  
  Mike does not mind if someone copied any and all of their stuff. He has said, repeatedly, that he considers everything on Techdirt to be in the public domain. And lots of websites do take everything Techdirt writes, and posts it verbatim on their own websites. You know what happens? Everyone stops reading those websites, and comes to Techdirt instead.
  
  Now, when you're asking how Techdirt makes money, you're finally asking the right question. Since I'm not involved with Floor 24 (Mike's company), I can't answer that with any authority. I would start by looking at the Insight Community, though that's hardly Mike's only source of income.
  
  But when someone is working hard putting out a "product", an album or whatever, and they want a dollar for it, and tons of people take it *because they want it* without paying that dollar
  
  Again, you're phrasing it in a very distorted way. First, nobody "takes" anything. Let's phrase it accurately: "When someone is working hard putting out a 'product,' an album or whatever, and they want a dollar for it, and tons of people make copies of it *because they want it* without paying that dollar..."
  
  Doesn't quite have the horrible ring to it now, since they can do exactly that with something like a chair (or a recipe, or a pair of socks, or whatever), and nobody in their right mind would find it even vaguely immoral.
  
  The guy down the street owns a pizza shop. It's pretty good pizza, and it's pretty cheap. But if I can make a pizza at home that tastes exactly like his, then I'm going to make that pizza. And I'm not going to feel one iota of guilt for doing so. Nobody in their right mind would. Even if that means his pizza shop goes out of business.
  
  And besides, there are already tons of times when people do this, completely legally. For better or worse, most people could always enjoy art for free. If that's how you decide what is "immoral," then human culture has been "immoral" for a long, long time. I've brought up libraries, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.
  
  People who watched over-the-air TV shows, without buying the DVD sets, would be immoral. People who listened to that one good song on the radio, without paying for the album, would be immoral. People who enjoyed Shakespeare In The Park, without paying to see it in the theater, would be immoral. People who download "Moby Dick" from Project Gutenberg, without buying the Dover edition, would be immoral.
  
  It is simply not immoral in any way to enjoy art for free. It never was.
  
  In fact, the reason copyright exists in the first place is so people can "take it *because they want it* without paying that dollar." Or copy and sell it, or use it in their own works, or what have you. The entire point of copyright was to create a larger public domain (in the long run). Copyright's purpose is to benefit the public; granting the copyright monopoly is simply a short-term incentive to make that happen.
  
  it seems to me, and I'm guessing most anyone with a conscience, that it's just not really a cool thing to do.
  
  I'd say that rights holders are the last people on Earth who have the right to talk about a conscience. Whatever your stance on piracy, the corporate rights holders have been much, much worse for society in general. And Lowery is such a scumbag, that he actually exploits the deaths of Mark Linkous and Vic Chesnutt to advance his agenda, despite Emily's actions having absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their deaths.
  
  Obviously, most rights holders are nowhere near that bad, but they're not in particularly good company. Fortunately, most artists don't particularly give a shit about file sharing, or at least accept it without being sanctimonious dochebags. The opinions of Amanda Palmer, Steve Albini, Travis Morrison, or Dave Allen are far mor typical of what most artists believe, in my experience.
  
  As far as Emily is concerned: if she is an avid concertgoer, then she is supporting artists far better than she would if she bought all the music she listened to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 19 Jul 2012 @ 7:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Oops. Sorry about the typos.
    
    Also, "sanctimonious dochebags [sic]" was directed at people like Lowery, not you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 20 Jul 2012 @ 3:03pm

Well, I don't agree with a lot of what you have said.

And there are a lot of generalizations that simply don't make sense or seem diversionary.

For example:
"I'd say that rights holders are the last people on Earth who have the right to talk about a conscience."

I'm not a corporate rights holder. Do I have the right to talk about a conscience?

My main point is about the concept of being "cool" or being, as you said, a "dick".

I'm not here to defend corporate rights holders, or record companies, or Lowery or any of that. I was curious about why record companies and Hollywood are vilified so much, and to say they are "far worse" for the Kelly Clarksons of the world doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially when they directly make the Clarksons millionaires and household names as opposed to "grassroots promotion" from people who anonymously download "copies" of *their* products.

As far as making your own pizza goes, if you want to make your own pizza, fine. If you want to make copies of that guys pizza and "share" it with all of his customers and call it "grassroots promotion" and don't care if he goes out of business, that seems sort of dicky, no?

And as far as everyone who downloads making their own music, movies, software, books, photos, and so on, go ahead, make your own. Sounds like a lot of work and will be pretty expensive to do if you want it to "taste the same". Will take tons of cash in gear, let alone the time. And you'll need a lot of talent in all of these fields, and you'll have to hire a lot of people as well.

As far as listening on the radio being immoral, and all your other examples, they aren't immoral because the people creating the art are getting paid, ASCAP fees, ads, and so on, and the theatre in the park, if they are putting it on for free, that's their choice. So everyone is in agreement. When people agree to things, that's cool.

As far as copyright being a short term incentive, what is the term length now, zero? Where's the incentive in that?

Here's something: If and when people go out and *buy* pizza, or go to a restaurant, it's customary to tip the waiter. Even though they are already getting a wage and it's their job to bring you the food. If the service was fine, generally people tip 15 to 20 percent. So depending on the place, tips probably range from say 3 or 5 bucks to 10 to 15 to 20 or more. And if you don't tip, you are considered a "dick". I bet Emily always leaves a tip when she eats out. My guess is the same people who download art and software for free from artists they love, are more willing and feel more obligated to give a waiter *more money* for *bringing* them the pizza let alone the pizza itself (which they already ate and is gone forever) then they are for mountains of music and movies which they can enjoy again and again until the day they die.

I guess that's pretty cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 21 Jul 2012 @ 9:30pm
  
  Re:
  Last response, I promise.
  
  I was curious about why record companies and Hollywood are vilified so much, and to say they are "far worse" for the Kelly Clarksons of the world
  
  I didn't say "for the Kelly Clarksons of the world," I said for artists in general. Huge difference. Your average artist (even major label artists) will get paid by neither a major label, nor by The Pirate Bay, but at least they're not indentured servants to The Pirate Bay. I personally think that makes TPB better for artists. I am not alone on this.
  
  And there's no question that TPB is better for society in general than the labels. TPB isn't pushing for legislation like SOPA and PIPA, or suing their customers, or attacking legal internet services that everyone uses. That's generally why they're vilified.
  
  Just FYI.
  
  especially when they directly make the Clarksons millionaires and household names as opposed to "grassroots promotion" from people who anonymously download "copies" of *their* products.
  
  "They" didn't make Clarkson a millionaire. The people who spent money on her made her a millionaire. Those are the same people who did "grassroots promotion," sometimes by anonymously downloading copies of her product, and sometimes by doing what Emily and her friends did.
  
  The people who share files are the ones who made her a millionaire. This is vitally important to understand, and something I think you're not ever going to understand. Good luck with that.
  
  As far as making your own pizza goes, if you want to make your own pizza, fine. If you want to make copies of that guys pizza and "share" it with all of his customers and call it "grassroots promotion" and don't care if he goes out of business, that seems sort of dicky, no?
  
  NO.
  
  It makes the people who give away pizza better than the pizza shop owners. The people who are giving away pizza are feeding hungry people for free. That's pretty cool. The pizza shop owners won't feed hungry people (not "their" customers) without getting paid. That's sort of dicky.
  
  What is "sort of dicky" is not the same thing as what is bad for the pizza owner. Until you understand this, you're not qualified to talk about a conscience. Don't worry, though, you've got plenty of company. (I'm not just talking about rights owners, either.)
  
  As far as getting paid is concerned: the exact situation you just described is the foundation for a free market. If you come up with a pizza recipe, you can sell it all you want, at whatever price you want. But if your competitor figures out how to make it cheaper than you can, and opens up a pizza shop across the street, then they can and they should. That's how capitalism works.
  
  My guess is the same people who download art and software for free from artists they love, are more willing and feel more obligated to give a waiter *more money* for *bringing* them the pizza let alone the pizza itself (which they already ate and is gone forever) then they are for mountains of music and movies which they can enjoy again and again until the day they die.
  
  According to every independent study on the purchasing habits of file sharers, your guess is wrong.
  
  Even regarding Emily. She describes herself as an avid concertgoer. If she sees even one show a week at a small indie venue, she's spending more money on music than she is on tipping waiters. I mean, unless you think an unpaid college student is spending $250 a week going out to eat.
  
  I think that's pretty cool. Waiters may disagree.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 22 Jul 2012 @ 3:26pm

Well, I could argue all your points, but I won't as we have made zero progress thus far.

I do take exception to you suggesting I "don't understand" what you're saying.

One thing I hate about these discussions (often on both sides) is the condescending attitudes.

In fact, I have argued incessantly with people (who would be agreeing with me here and calling you all sorts of names) simply because they were such pig-headed jerks.

Also, I'm of two minds about this issue. My main thought is that even though I feel that most *all* of the arguments in favor of "sharing" are complete BS rationalizations, there's nothing that will stop it, so undoubtedly, as with radio and TV, other solutions will come about, and the Emilys of the world will end up paying more than they ever have for art and entertainment whether they like it or not.

Hopefully, much of that money will make it into the hands of the people who work hard to create the art and entertainment and not just all the business people, whether they are in the tech industry or any other industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 22 Jul 2012 @ 8:31pm
  
  Re:
  One more brief thing, just so I'm not misunderstood.
  
  I do take exception to you suggesting I "don't understand" what you're saying.
  
  "Understand" might not have been the right word. "Recognize," maybe? "Internalize?" "Grok" would be about right, if you've read Heinlein.
  
  This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about:
  
  the Emilys of the world will end up paying more than they ever have for art and entertainment whether they like it or not.
  
  If you take this viewpoint, then you are guaranteed to fail, and there will be nothing immoral about it.
  
  It is the same viewpoint I've seen in all the situations you've put forth in this thread. You talked about a pizza shop and "their" customers. As if they somehow belong to the pizza shop. They don't. The pizza shop is dependent on them, not the other way around.
  
  Just like Emily. She's not dependent on people like you. You're dependent on people like her.
  
  I said you have to understand this. What I mean is that you have to embrace it. If the Emilys of the world aren't paying, ask what you can do to convince them to pay. Because it's not their job to pay you; it's your job to give them a reason to want to pay you. Not be forced to pay, whether they like it or not, but want to pay. They must be convinced.
  
  And they can be. But not by treating them like freeloaders, or calling their reasoning "BS," or removing their ability to share the things they like.
  
  Until you embrace this fact, you will not be successful. Until artists in general embrace this fact, there won't be any solutions. In the near future, there will be two types of artists: those who embrace fans sharing art, and those who aren't artists anymore.
  
  I certainly hope you do embrace it, and soon. I have no wish to see you fail. The world needs more successful artists. Good luck to you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 23 Jul 2012 @ 2:09pm

You still don't "grok" what I'm saying.

I understand that a business has to convince customers, win them over, and that any business depends on customers.

And if customers love a certain pizza shop, eat there all the time, but aren't "convinced" to pay...well...hmmm...I mean...

But I certainly understand and don't really hold anything against the Emilys.

She said:

"As I've grown up, I've come to realize the gravity of what file-sharing means to the musicians I love. I can't support them with concert tickets and T-shirts alone. "

So she's not who I'm talking about when I say BS rationalizations.

And when I say whether they like it or not, I just mean it will once again be customary to pay, just as Emily *wants*, but perhaps other people don't.

What if you *had* to pay for something you want. What if it was impossible to easily make infinite copies and you could no longer enjoy recorded art for free. Then what?

For example, tons of software is not being given away free by the creator, just as tons of music is not being given away free by the creator.

Music is easily "cracked". But a lot of software can't be cracked, and therefore you *have* to pay.

Is that wrong? Should it be illegal that there is no way to share what they have created? If all of this should be freely "shareable", but all of it isn't, what's the deal with that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 24 Jul 2012 @ 4:51pm
  
  Re:
  Not here to debate, but this is just too freaky coincidental to pass up.
  
  You know those hypothetical situations we were debating? Where someone sells something from a booth at a meet, but someone else has a booth giving it away for free?
  
  It's no longer hypothetical. That literally happened - though it wasn't posters, or even pizza, but waffles:
  
  Pirate Party ALMOST Ejected From Festival For Giving Out Free Waffles After Vendors Selling Waffles Complained
  
  Obviously, my opinion is that the people giving away free waffles did absolutely nothing wrong. Your opinion may differ.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - No One, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    That is funny!
    
    But it's really a completely different scenario. That's sort of an undercutting issue.
    
    People have a right to give *their* product away for free. And it may be uncool depending.
    
    I imagine if some hookers who work a corner would get pissed if a bunch of other hookers started hanging out on their corner and giving it away for free. There'd be trouble. It just ain't cool.
    
    But what we're talking about is, say Joe's Waffles is selling their "Joe's special waffles", and someone shows up and starts giving away waffles that they are calling "Joe's special waffles" and telling people that their waffles *are* Joe's special waffles.
    
    Or if a business opens up near McDonald's and starts giving burgers and fries away. Seems like an expensive thing to do and won't last. But I don't think McDonald's would care unless they called the business "McDonald's" and started giving away "Big Macs".
    
    And that's still not even how it actually is because people aren't giving away an identical thing that "they made with their materials", they are giving away the actual thing. The brand and product made by the same original people!
    
    I know you said you aren't debating this anymore, but I just felt the need to point out how while the waffle thing is funny, it's not really the same deal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Karl (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:27am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I imagine if some hookers who work a corner would get pissed if a bunch of other hookers started hanging out on their corner and giving it away for free. There'd be trouble. It just ain't cool.
      
      Uh, if you're bringing up hookers to argue about morality, you might be on the wrong track.
      
      But even going with your analogy, this happens all the time. Plenty of "working girls" actually "work" in bars and nightclubs. Women also go to bars to meet men, and "give it away for free." Somehow I doubt that prostitutes believe these women "just ain't cool."
      
      (Incidentally, I used to be a doorman at a drag bar, so this is a subject that I know a little bit about.)
      
      But what we're talking about is, say Joe's Waffles is selling their "Joe's special waffles", and someone shows up and starts giving away waffles that they are calling "Joe's special waffles" and telling people that their waffles *are* Joe's special waffles.
      
      You didn't even bring this up in either the "pizza" or "poster" scenarios.
      
      Besides, claiming your waffles actually are "Joe's special waffles" is not copyright infringement. In this case, it would be trademark infringement. Trademark infringement, like copyright infringement, is designed to protect the public, not trademark holders' incomes. And it is immoral because it is akin to fraud. (The same reason plagiarism is immoral - even if the person who was plagiarized gave permission.)
      
      Copyright infringement isn't anything like fraud. Nobody who shares art is actually claiming that they're a representative of the copyright holder. Your scenario isn't anything like file sharing at all.
      
      The waffle thing is.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:26pm

No it isn't.

First off, you changed the scenario of the hooker thing (which is a common move, just like the waffle thing compared to the poster thing...it's not the same scenario).

I said if they were working a certain corner, and others came onto their corner, giving it away, there would be trouble. This is part of the "it ain't cool depending" thing I said.

It happens in business all the time. In certain situations, it may not be *cool* to undercut people in the same business. The product is similar, but it's not the *exact* same one!

As far as being "a representative", that's beside the point, the point is they are giving away *the same actual product*. Not a competing different product.

Like I said before, which you didn't reply to, if you want to make your own movies and music at your own expense that you think "tastes the same" like you make your own pizza and beer, go ahead! It's perfectly legal and no one is stopping you or cares.

It's bizarre to me that you don't see the difference.

File-sharing copywritten material, other peoples movies and books and music, is illegal, and it's illegal for a reason.

Even Emily, who started all this, realizes that it's not really the right thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- No One, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re:
  Found this, coincidentally:
  
  http://news.sky.com/story/485253/anger-at-backpacker-sex-trade-in-oz
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Karl (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 11:32pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Found this, coincidentally:
    
    That is funny!
    
    But it's really a completely different scenario. That's sort of an undercutting issue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 27 Jul 2012 @ 12:15am
  
  Re:
  First off, you changed the scenario of the hooker thing
  
  Changing the location from street corners (where NOBODY simply "hangs out") to bars is precisely what you did, when you "changed the location" from the Internet to "sell[ing] it on ebay or at the swap meat [sic] for a dollar." Perhaps I was wrong in my analogy, but somehow I doubt you will admit to being wrong in your analogy.
  
  I said if they were working a certain corner, and others came onto their corner, giving it away, there would be trouble.
  
  Let's assume that there would be trouble. Here's the million-dollar question: should there be? If, say, prostitutes hung out at some corner, and women who are not prostitutes went to the same corner to pick up men, should the police arrest those women, but not the prostitutes? If so, what is your justification for the police doing so?
  
  Do you really hate sex so much that you would be opposed to women having sex with men of their own free will?
  
  if you want to make your own movies and music at your own expense that you think "tastes the same" like you make your own pizza and beer, go ahead! It's perfectly legal and no one is stopping you or cares.
  
  You are absolutely, 100% incorrect in this.
  
  If you write a song that "sounds the same" as another song, you are committing copyright infringement. If you make a movie that looks and sounds exactly the same as another movie, you are committing copyright infringement. Your copyright infringement is considered just as bad, legally, as someone who distributes the original work. (If you actually present it as your own work, then it is plagiarism - which, though it is genrally considered morally worse than copyright infringement, is not unlawful in any way.)
  
  The only reason this is legal with waffles is that waffles (like any food) is not covered by copyright. (Those foods are covered by trademark, incidentally.) If food was covered by copyright, then the people who were giving away waffles would be "pirates" under the law.
  
  If there is nothing wrong, morally, with the waffle-makers, then there is nothing wrong with copyright infringement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No One, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:20pm

The prostitute thing was to show undercutting sometimes being uncool, not illegal.

On the making your own thing, I didn't mean exactly the same. I assumed that if you make your own, you wouldn't (and couldn't) just copy it exactly (since there are no replicators yet). So as you attempt to make your own beer "the same" as whatever manufactured beer and your own pizza "the same" to whatever manufactured pizza, it just doesn't make sense (to me) that if you make your own movies or record your own albums then that's the same as making copies of other people's movies and records.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
davidbarcomb, 1 Dec 2014 @ 4:36pm

Interesting article. Thanks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]