(I could be whoosed here, but in case you’re actually sincere…)
Pop music tends to come and go, but classical music has attained immortality. Sure, Elvis, Pink Floyd, the Beatles, etc., will stick around, but most of what’s on the radio disappears in a couple of years. If classical music was really bad, I don’t think it would still be steadily selling well and appreciated.
By the way, classical music has a lot to say. You should get an introductory book. “Classical Music For Dummies” by David Pogue is a good one. Most classical pieces are very connected to their historical context, and tend to communicate the composer’s ideas well without necessarily having to use words. Shostakovich’s 7th symphony, the “Leningrad”, is a tribute to Russian defence against the invading Germans. You’d know it was about a war on the first listen. Ligeti’s early piano work is a diatribe against Stalin’s influence on Hungary. If you want to believe classical music has nothing to say and generally sucks, start a Pit thread and game on.
Classical music lacks a connection to my world. If I have to dig through a couple of books to find out what the composer’s mind frame was before I can begin to enjoy it, then no thanks. As a way to study the times the composer lived in - when you already know some the dry facts and want to see its effects on the people of the times - fine. You still have to contend with the fact that it was written to meet the expectations of the patron(s.)
I’ll stop the hijack now. Sorry.
It’s a mix of both. They are working to make a swift buck, but if you were to approach them and ask if they have moral issues, they may just tell you that they don’t believe in intellectual property rights. I don’t make a habit of interviewing street vendors, but I was told this by two street software vendors in Ukraine on my visits there.
**
In order to use the file-sharing network Direct Connect, one normally needs to have at least 50GB of shared files. Some exclusive hubs require even more. A lot of people rip their CD collection to approach that requirement and download a lot of large files they don’t like to meet the limit. I am not saying that this covers every bit of the hundreds of gigabytes you cite, but Direct Connect at least requires one to amass a lot, even if you don’t want to listen to any of it.
**
Should an artist approach me or his fans in general discussing his need for funds, I would be more than willing to see if I can help me his request. This has indeed happened before with a musician whose work I admire.
**
Show me where I advocated all artists living in poverty? I’d like nothing more than to see the artists I admire financially comfortable. However, they should attempt to do so by patronage rather than attempt to supress free flow of information.
**
Bullcrap. Artistic and scientific progress predated the concept of copyright. We didn’t all live in caves until the signing of the Constitution.
I hate to break it to you, but distributing something you paid for when you have no right to do so in order to enable you to steal something else is not a very good justification. You may want to think this one through again.
Yeah, let’s have some sort of system; they could produce some work, and then put it in something we’ll call a “shop”. They can respectfully submit that if you think their “album” is good, you can donate a certain amount of money (let’s call it a “price”) to their cause. If you don’t think it’s good, don’t “donate”.
I think you could be on to something here.
Yes, you’ve postulated your utopian vision before. You haven’t demonstrated why you think it would work though. If such an honesty system would work for music, why isn’t it the de facto standard for all goods? Because, as amply demonstrated all over the world, people are not all honest. And when people can get away with not being honest, people who are honest begin to wonder why they bother, thankyouverymuch.
As for scientific progress, I think I may not be alone in having noticed a sort of … acceleration, if you will, in this sort of advancement just recently. It’s odd. You could almost call it a revolution of sorts.
Face it, the RIAA has their heads up their collective asses. Instead of embracing technology, they try to suppress it. Instead of supporting their artists to try to sell more records, they handcuff them by refusing to cooperate with other record companies.
Had the record producers cooperated with EACH OTHER these last few years and HIRED people like these college students they just prosecuted, we might already have a decent “file sharing & purchasing” system (e.g. a paid Napster) in place. We don’t. Instead we are offered pitiful alternatives, such as the site that wants me to pay $9.95 to “rent” music (from one record company only, of course) on a month-to-month basis. If I don’t pay, the song won’t play anymore. Great concept, fellas! Who sold it to you and do they have some Nigerian funds they want you to help release?
So, here we sit, years later and still NO decent “legitimate” alternative to Napster. Instead of focusing on these college students, you’d THINK they’d be working on the FUTURE.
Why are the record producers relying on Steve Jobs to create something they could have created on their own? Why don’t we have a system that allows a user to preview a song for a minute or two before paying for it? Why don’t we have one massive, kick-ass library with ALL labels on it backed by a great search engine available to be downloaded, for a fee. Why don’t we have Nero-like partners who will make burning cd’s as easy as clicking a button? Why don’t we have companies which will charge $20 to burn a self-created c.d. with a list of songs you’ve requested, for people who don’t have burners? Why don’t we have computers that have the capability of having MP3 players plugged into it and have music downloaded into it?
The technology is there! Why aren’t the record companies embracing it? Because the record producers have their collective heads up their asses, that’s why.
Instead of being visionaries, they will be playing the whore to Steve Jobs for years to come. Because he listened to the consumer and is creating something that will make everyone happy.
Intellectual property is not a natural or obvious right. It- like most forms of ownership- is a construct. Most would argue that it is a good construct. However, people in different times and different places have different ideas about this construct. There are many paths to follow. The writers of the constitution, for example, chose a path that was designed to maximize the public domain (which they deemed of great value to society) while maintaining a financial motivation for artists. This was a conscious choice, and a situation where they looked to make intellectual property serve the most public good. They were not reflecting on some “rights” held by the artist. They were looking at utility. So if even the founders of our country could conceive of copyright in a different way, why is it suddenly so unthinkable to start looking at different copyright paradigms?
There are many many models for creating and distributing art. Our current idea of intellectual property is not by any means the natural order of things.
Right, okay. Firstly, I’d like to say I entirely agree with PunditLisa. Yup yup. The OP details the first even relatively sane reaction they have taken to filesharing, and it still doesn’t even deal with creating a competitor. One has to wonder how they breathed these last few years with all that sand over their heads.
Next, to all those arguing against property laws, be they intellectual or otherwise. Apparently you hold some sort of socialist or communist aspirations. Let me be very clear that I’m not trying to use these words in the usual commie-socialist-leftie bashing way. I simply mean that it appears to me that there are some, UnuMondo and even sven in particular, who seem to think that some types of individual property are in some sense naughty. Now, I’m not going to get into the whys and wherefores of that. I disagree, but I sense that this is not an argument that will resolve itself. I will simply ask this:
We live in a society where property law, both intellectual and physical, is an accepted and normal part of life. Do you think it is an acceptable method of registering your disapproval of these laws to simply start taking other peoples’ property?
HAHAHAHA. I’ll tell you. Since I’ve read your posts in this thing I’ve laughed harder then I have in some time. It’s just so non-factual, so delusionary.
Anyway, all that’s beside the point. I’m just happy to watch ilk paying up, and relishing in the knowledge that many more are soon to come. Squash those bugs!
even sven wrote
Maybe not to you, but to any elementary school aged child, the concept of plagiarism is pretty dang obvious. You may wish to sign up for some tutorage.
The concept of intellectual property is as natural and obvious as the concept of property. As long as there’s been writing, there’s been interest that credit for those writings was not stolen. Copyright law dates back to the 1600’s (for England at least).
And you may want to research the difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement. May I suggest a dictionary?
P2P users don’t take credit for others’ work. They distribute others’ work, without the artists’ permission, while still giving credit to the artist. What would be the point of taking credit for it? No one wants to hear joe_kazaalite_user sing “Hit Me Baby One More Time”; they want to hear Britney Spears sing it.
I believe Bill H.'s point was that the concept of intellectual property was indeed an intuitive one, not that file-sharing was equivalent to plagiarism.
As an example of intellectual property theft, plagiarism is perfectly fine. The point is that one takes something that belongs to someone else, and by doing so profits in some manner. The only difference between plagiarism and copyright infringement is the manner in which one profits, which doesn’t change the point that they have an intuitive and natural basis. To a lot of people, anyway.
Silly man. who said a word about distribution or usage or credit? even sven was discussing intellectual property. He said it’s not a “natural or obvious right”. You did read that, right? That one short sentence didn’t boggle you, did it? Here; for your benefit, I’ll repeat it so you can absorb it. Take it one word at a time, friend:
He was mistaken, and I’ll repeat again for your benefit: even a third grader understands the concept of owning an idea. Even a third-grader gets that stealing another’s idea is wrong. It’s not difficult, it’s not unnatural, and it’s not un-obvious. Intellectual property has been well entrenched into morality and law for centuries.
What the third-grader understands is giving credit where credit is due. If you take someone else’s essay, put your name on it, and hand it in, that’s plagiarism - i.e., lying about the origin of the essay.
Third-graders also understand stealing. If you take a piece of candy from the shelf at 7-Eleven, and you don’t pay for it, you have stolen that candy. That is, you have taken it away from the store without their permission.
“Intellectual property” is different: it’s the concept that if you’re the first one to put a certain sequence of words on paper, then you get to decide who else can put the same sequence of words on paper. If you’re the first person to whistle a certain tune, you get to decide who else can whistle the same tune. That’s unnatural, and it has nothing to do with lying or stealing.
If you say to a third grader, “did you steal Johnny’s essay?” they fully understand the concept. They fully appreciate that it is theft, as much as stealing that candy you talked about.
So you keep saying. Over and over and over. Just hoping against hope the words twist reality from black to white. Fortunately, the rest of the civilized world disagrees with you and has disagreed with you for a long long time. Laws protecting the ownership of intellectual property have been in place since the 1600’s that I can prove, and likely centuries before that as well.
I know it’s a little late, but I had to hijack this thread a bit and address Mort Furd about something: When I read your first post regarding Mozart, Beethoven (and your somewhat scathing contempt for their work), I naturally assumed you were kidding. I thought, “Surely, this is bullshit. Surely. I’m being whooshed. Of course! How clever! How wickedly sarcastic!” But then you wrote your follow-up:
Oh. My. Gosh. I can’t believe it.
First off, I don’t want you to think that you ought to like Classical music. I don’t care if you like it, it’s no skin off my nose. But seriously—do you think that those of us who love it have to wade through books before we can enjoy it? If you don’t get any “meaning” from such music, it’s your thing, but I hope you don’t think that’s how it is for everyone.
I grew up with Classical music, and at age 10 I had favorite composers, who “spoke” to my 10-year-old mind. I didn’t read the liner notes of the album; my little brain wasn’t filled with the history of the music. It just spoke to me. Ask a lot of Classical fans, they’ll tell you the same thing.
The people who fill concert halls are not all great Classical scholars who have studied the works in their History of Music texts, they just love the music. I’m one of those people—certainly no scholar, just a fan. We just love it. It’s in our blood. It speaks to us more profoundly than any pop song ever could.
Just FYI. Feel free to not like Classical, that’s fine. But if you share the same sentiments about Classical music IRL that you did in this thread, expect to eventually have someone look at you, mouth agape, like you are from Mars. Seriously. I’m not trying to be mean, I’m just telling you. If you don’t want some people to think you are…well, I won’t say what they’ll think of you, but it’ll be something very unflattering…just don’t share your opinions about Classical with them. Just stick with, “It’s not my thing” and leave it at that. Trust me on this one.
Very clever rebuttal! I bet you thought long and hard over that one, and then tittered to yourself afterwards.
On a more serious note:
I can think of at least 30 people I know closely or am acquainted with who download music and snicker constantly about the money they’re saving.
I actually have much more respect for a person that says “I download music because I don’t want to pay for it” than a person who twists their logic to unreal extremes in order to justify it…well, the record industry charges too much for CD’s…music should not be copyrighted anyway…free music is actually the liberation of the artist, not his fucking…
Wrong. I was an undergrad at an American university in Europe. My school was unable to implement a policy in which plagiarists would automatically fail because many locals attended. Much of what Americans consider plagiarism is academically acceptable in Europe. You seem to want to think everything is black and white, but many, many ethical matters differ from culture to culture.
“Wrong”? The entire concept of plagiarism is “wrong” because one university, according to you, didn’t have a plagiarism policy while you were there? D’you have a cite for that? It sounds pretty bizarre to me. I attended university in “Europe” and you can be damn sure plagiarism wasn’t allowed where I was, nor is it considered acceptable by anyone I know. Frankly, you telling us one university “couldn’t” ban plagiarism because of the locals is stretching credibility to breaking point, particularly when you then go on to generalise this to Europeans in general.
Anyhoo; since you’ve ignored it, my question again: do you think it is an acceptable method of registering disapproval of property laws to simply start taking other people’s stuff?
I think you make it appear a lot harder than it actually is here. I was recently talking to a friend at a technical school and he has recorded a few songs that sound very good I’d say.
There is also the problem of advertising, but one thing I have noticed people doing is songs for popular websites. For example if someone made a song specifically for the SDMB how much attention do you think it would get?
Gee, and what do you think that 3rd grader would have in mind? Photocopying Johnny’s essay, keeping a copy for his own personal use, and giving the original back? Or perhaps, turning in Johnny’s paper as his own, that is, stealing the credit for it?
I’ll concede that plagiarism can be called “stealing”–in fact, it’s about the only way to “steal” someone’s intellectual output–but again, plagiarism and copyright violation are very different.
