"Transferring your analogy back to the subject of the post and you would have Richard Prince accidentally painting a picture that resembled the photograph vs deliberately copying it."
"If your intent is clearly to rip off someone else's material, then how is that not infringement?"
Because it shouldn't matter what the intent is if the use of a work is fair. In law I understand there is the concept of a guilty mind, but it usually applies to crimes where it matters whether you were aware of the consequences of your actions. In copyright the consequences of your actions aren't in question, as if you claim fair use then the consequences of your actions are the same as if you claimed you were trying to rip the copyright holder off.
What would happen if you copied something but were ignorant of copyright law and could neither claim fair use nor intent to infringe? It would seem that the court would to have to judge whether ignorance of the law is a valid defence, despite the fact that if you weren't ignorant of the law then you might have claimed fair use.
On the whole, I cannot see the point of applying the concept of a guilty mind to this case. I would be interested if someone could point me to another law that uses the concept in the same way.
"I truly think you are just trying hard not to understand."
I don't know, I think you've taught me not to confuse music with golf.
'You might have 1 or two reasonable talented people in the mix, but for the most part, you didn't get "quality", you got "quantity"'
Your premise seems to be that although more people may be making music, they are not adding to the quality. I've allowed your premise for the sake of argument and asked why that matters. You've decided to show us through clumsy poker and golf analogies what your premise looks like, while ignoring my questions.
In your golf analogy, you have at least 100% of the quality that you had at the start, just diluted. Is the point of your analogy that musicians will have to play more games of golf to determine who gets to win?
"You need to learn what sarcasm is"
Ignoring my point and replying to something irrelevant is sarcasm? You're right, I do need to learn what sarcasm is.
"When you pass from "talented professionals" to "talented amateurs" to "the masses", you get more and more people involved who aren't very good at something, but still end up with the same "standing" because there is nothing that weeded them out."
How does that support your statement that "as people make more music, they are making quantity and nothing else"? I'm not inclined to comment on your 'logic' if you can't even be consistent in your position without acknowledging the shift.
"Fail. Everyone it pirating. There is no money. Please try again."
I asked you to explain your own speculation and then did some of my own to show how silly such a thing is. You then respond to that, not even with the necessary questions of 'why?', but to dismiss it based on your own obviously incompatible premises. I get that you're being wilfully ignorant and don't actually want a debate, but could you at least have some pride and try not to look so pitifully stupid?
"But look at you! Aren't you clever! Your catty comment made me forget that you didn't come up with a logical retort, or even a well-formed sentence. Oh, yeah ... You're mean!"
Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure there's more meanness in your four comments on this thread than in my 1,400+ on this site. I'll let others judge who's cleverer.
"I, on the other other hand, do appreciate how much great music was lost to the world due to the lowest common denominator"
Thank you for bringing that up. If, as the anon supposes, we will be flooded with crap music because people aren't having to pay for it then that music will be competing with the crap music the labels push. If anything I imagine it would be easier to find quality music without labels promoting crap music to make a quick buck.
"My argument on that is that as more people make more music, they are making quantity, and nothing else."
Which is backed up by only your opinion. As opposed to this study, which while not an authoritative answer on the issue, offers a lot more substance than your opinion.
Even assuming your argument, all it suggests is that there isn't as much demand for quality music as you'd like.
That's still being generous to you, because frankly your assertion that 'people making more music are making quantity and nothing else' is simply tragic.
"What it does suggest is that we will have a whole lot more semi-talented amateurs flooding us with lower quality musicianship, song writing, recording, etc."
Why does it suggest that? Show your working. If it does suggest that, then why should that matter? You don't have to listen to them.
As you seem to like speculation so much I'll try some too. If the market gets flooded with semi-talented amateurs then people will end up paying less for low quality music, leaving more money for talented professionals to produce high quality music. Hey, it's not perfect but it sounds more plausible than yours.
"Economic interest and public safety are both valid government concerns. Should they ignore one or the other to make your life easier?"
Should they need to? That seems like a false dichotomy. Scrapping copyright would have no effect on public safety and the arguments used to scrap copyright wouldn't apply to scrapping speeding laws. You seem intent on tying the issues together when the only thing they seem to have in common are that they're both laws people tend to ignore.
"but the music track over the dialog was too distracting for me to parse the voices. Any way to can the music? I want to enjoy this!"
You might want to try the subtitles I made too. I can't get rid of the music, but at least you'll know what they're saying. I think I did a pretty good job of keeping the narrative flow, though being up against automated voices hardly proved a challenge there.
'Subjective valuation has little to do with "quality", just if we like it or not.'
While this is far beyond pointless semantics already I shall endeavour to explain.
From the OED entry on quality: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
The entry on value: the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
So, to measure the value of something against other things of a similar kind could be said to assess it's quality. It may not be the only indicator of quality, but it's certainly a valid one.
'So music sales go down (10% and possibly more) and the music they do download they value less. It seems that is that "value" is some sort of measure of quality, they don't think of it that way.'
I'm sorry, I'm don't understand what you're getting at there.
"So claiming that copyright should go because it is a "bad law" or "many people are breaking law" just isn't a very good argument."
It also isn't an argument anyone made here. I mean, I'm all for scrapping the vast majority of copyright law, but that wasn't what we were talking about.
As you bring it up though, there's a key difference between speeding laws and copyright laws. One's aim is to save lives and the other is to create an economic incentive (American and British copyright, anyway). The simple idea that we shouldn't scrap copyright because we shouldn't scrap speeding laws doesn't even glance at the difference between the two.
'That is a question, but it is related more to how the "value" the product as opposed to quality. There is absolutely no discussion of quality.'
I guess whoever wrote the abstract at the National Bureau of Economics are confused too then, as they used the word quality in that abstract.
Are you seriously saying that it's wrong to use quality instead of subjective valuation? Maybe the headline should be changed to 'Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Subjective Valuation Of New Music' then.
On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Would you be OK with this piece if proper attribution were given? If not, then how does it effect the issue at all and why bring it up?
On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Re: Re:
I wish I could have summed it up so simply.
On the post: Do We Really Want Judges Determining What Art 'Says'?
Re: Re: Re:
Because it shouldn't matter what the intent is if the use of a work is fair. In law I understand there is the concept of a guilty mind, but it usually applies to crimes where it matters whether you were aware of the consequences of your actions. In copyright the consequences of your actions aren't in question, as if you claim fair use then the consequences of your actions are the same as if you claimed you were trying to rip the copyright holder off.
What would happen if you copied something but were ignorant of copyright law and could neither claim fair use nor intent to infringe? It would seem that the court would to have to judge whether ignorance of the law is a valid defence, despite the fact that if you weren't ignorant of the law then you might have claimed fair use.
On the whole, I cannot see the point of applying the concept of a guilty mind to this case. I would be interested if someone could point me to another law that uses the concept in the same way.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You could measure and compare it. Then you'd have facts about people's opinions. Like in this study.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't know, I think you've taught me not to confuse music with golf.
'You might have 1 or two reasonable talented people in the mix, but for the most part, you didn't get "quality", you got "quantity"'
Your premise seems to be that although more people may be making music, they are not adding to the quality. I've allowed your premise for the sake of argument and asked why that matters. You've decided to show us through clumsy poker and golf analogies what your premise looks like, while ignoring my questions.
In your golf analogy, you have at least 100% of the quality that you had at the start, just diluted. Is the point of your analogy that musicians will have to play more games of golf to determine who gets to win?
"You need to learn what sarcasm is"
Ignoring my point and replying to something irrelevant is sarcasm? You're right, I do need to learn what sarcasm is.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does that support your statement that "as people make more music, they are making quantity and nothing else"? I'm not inclined to comment on your 'logic' if you can't even be consistent in your position without acknowledging the shift.
"Fail. Everyone it pirating. There is no money. Please try again."
I asked you to explain your own speculation and then did some of my own to show how silly such a thing is. You then respond to that, not even with the necessary questions of 'why?', but to dismiss it based on your own obviously incompatible premises. I get that you're being wilfully ignorant and don't actually want a debate, but could you at least have some pride and try not to look so pitifully stupid?
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hear, hear. If someone asked me what music I liked, you'd struggle to stop me.
On the post: But... But... Piracy...
Re:
Why not?
On the post: Nick Dynice's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Put some more effort into it. The only replies you're likely to get to that one are comments on how much your trolling sucks. Like this one.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless they were being really random then it would seem the joke was also about the economist's academic credentials.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re:
Don't sell yourself short. I'm sure there's more meanness in your four comments on this thread than in my 1,400+ on this site. I'll let others judge who's cleverer.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thank you for bringing that up. If, as the anon supposes, we will be flooded with crap music because people aren't having to pay for it then that music will be competing with the crap music the labels push. If anything I imagine it would be easier to find quality music without labels promoting crap music to make a quick buck.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is backed up by only your opinion. As opposed to this study, which while not an authoritative answer on the issue, offers a lot more substance than your opinion.
Even assuming your argument, all it suggests is that there isn't as much demand for quality music as you'd like.
That's still being generous to you, because frankly your assertion that 'people making more music are making quantity and nothing else' is simply tragic.
"What it does suggest is that we will have a whole lot more semi-talented amateurs flooding us with lower quality musicianship, song writing, recording, etc."
Why does it suggest that? Show your working. If it does suggest that, then why should that matter? You don't have to listen to them.
As you seem to like speculation so much I'll try some too. If the market gets flooded with semi-talented amateurs then people will end up paying less for low quality music, leaving more money for talented professionals to produce high quality music. Hey, it's not perfect but it sounds more plausible than yours.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're so helpful. It's no wonder people are queueing up to answer you.
On the post: Nick Dynice's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should they need to? That seems like a false dichotomy. Scrapping copyright would have no effect on public safety and the arguments used to scrap copyright wouldn't apply to scrapping speeding laws. You seem intent on tying the issues together when the only thing they seem to have in common are that they're both laws people tend to ignore.
On the post: But... But... Piracy...
Re: I want to hear "but but piracy"
You might want to try the subtitles I made too. I can't get rid of the music, but at least you'll know what they're saying. I think I did a pretty good job of keeping the narrative flow, though being up against automated voices hardly proved a challenge there.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, because I want language lessons from someone who has an obvious disdain for academia.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While this is far beyond pointless semantics already I shall endeavour to explain.
From the OED entry on quality: the standard of something as measured against other things of a similar kind; the degree of excellence of something.
The entry on value: the regard that something is held to deserve; the importance, worth, or usefulness of something.
So, to measure the value of something against other things of a similar kind could be said to assess it's quality. It may not be the only indicator of quality, but it's certainly a valid one.
'So music sales go down (10% and possibly more) and the music they do download they value less. It seems that is that "value" is some sort of measure of quality, they don't think of it that way.'
I'm sorry, I'm don't understand what you're getting at there.
On the post: Nick Dynice's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re:
It also isn't an argument anyone made here. I mean, I'm all for scrapping the vast majority of copyright law, but that wasn't what we were talking about.
As you bring it up though, there's a key difference between speeding laws and copyright laws. One's aim is to save lives and the other is to create an economic incentive (American and British copyright, anyway). The simple idea that we shouldn't scrap copyright because we shouldn't scrap speeding laws doesn't even glance at the difference between the two.
On the post: Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Quality New Music
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess whoever wrote the abstract at the National Bureau of Economics are confused too then, as they used the word quality in that abstract.
Are you seriously saying that it's wrong to use quality instead of subjective valuation? Maybe the headline should be changed to 'Study Shows That Piracy Has Not Resulted In A Decrease Of Subjective Valuation Of New Music' then.
Next >>