Uh, how about this: Paying software engineers to write clients/servers/webpages.
Paying for hardware and bandwidth to host the service (even if you do it P2P, you still need to seed stuff)
Paying people to digitise old songs
Paying for support staff
Paying for advertising, marketing etc.
Nothing in life is truely free.
That’s correct, I expect people who produce what is sometimes called “intellectual property” to expect no financial remuneration from their work. They may ask for money, or course, but they should not limit the right of others to use the work as they like. If artists are unable to gain sufficient funds from the community of fans, they should seek patrons like the artists of the time before the notion of copyright arose. If artists cannot find patrons, they should look for another job. Whatever happens, it should be the artist’s problem, not the public’s.
People may expect the same from me. I produce two kinds of works. Translations for my work as a classics student, and free software as a hobby. The former are under a Creative Commons copyright, the latter under the GNU General Public License. Both are essentially methods of trying to use the copyright system against itself, so that people may use a work as they please. If copyright were to disappear, they would serve no purpose and I’d be fine. Elated in fact. (Note that for the GPL, not only copyright but non-disclosure agreements should go as well).
UnuMondo
UnuMondo?
In the fullness of time, maybe 10 years from now, maybe 15 - when you’ve been ripped off countless times and you’ve had to go to court to get people to pay you for work you’ve done, and you’ve had work stolen from you and other people have made money out of it instead of it yourself - well, as much as you try and deny it right here, right now - you’re gonna look back on this period in time with the excruciating embarassment attached to only the most foolish naievete’s in life.
It doesn’t matter what your opinions are - all I’m reading are the idealistic philosophies of somebody who is incalculably wet behind the ears.
You come across as somebody who knows enough to appear like an authority, and yet lacks so much basic knowledge about human nature that only chaos and anarchy would ensue if you were in a position of power.
Most importantly, every music downloading thread I’ve read here lately has you posting this same sort of inane rubbish. In my considered opinion, you’re getting quite a thrill from seeing people react to it. Maybe not trolling per se - but definitely drift net fishing.
Boo Boo Foo, how can I be ripped off if I’m putting my work out there in a way that people can take it and do whatever they want with it. A person can’t be ripped off if they are giving work away, which I’ve done with five decently-sized free software projects and two book-length translations of classical texts.
Oh, and it’s an ad hominem attack to say that a person’s argument is invalid because he or she shows “naive idealism”. And you’re a way off in your judgement of my life experience. I’m not some 15 year-old who just discovered the board. Obliquely calling me a troll by saying I’m not quite a troll isn’t cool in GD either.
And I’m far from the only person who believes that copyright is a bad idea. In the “RIAA vs. 12-year old girl” thread in the Pit you’ll see many people urging reform of the current system.
UnuMondo
Unumondo?
There are shitloads of ways of getting ripped off. Your position is a positively lame one, and here’s why…
Your arguement that because you have CHOSEN to give away certain parts of your working life for free is a vastly different one to your assertion that a loop hole in technology allows you to rip off other people’s work with zero compensation without getting caught. And let’s not mince words here - you choose to download music because you want it - not because you’re bored and you’ve got nothing else to do with your web access.
But mark my words, if you knew that you were going to get busted for taking that which you wanted, whilst also refusing to pay for it - well, you wouldn’t do it.
You can use whatever disingenuous obfuscation you can drag up. You can say that music shouldn’t be looked upon as work, but rather as art. Whatever, that’s just a weak rationalisation for trying to justify taking something, and enjoying it, and laughing at other people’s expense because you didn’t have to pay for it.
By extension, this means that a whole raft of things in life should also be available to you for free - simply because there’s some sort of intellectual property involved.
Let’s start with movies? Or better yet, consider the computer you’re using to make the posts which you’re writing in these threads. Let’s see how legal your position is if you try to download a pirated version of either a Mac or Windows operating system.
Or try starting up a magazine. Try copying interesting articles from all the other magazines out there and then try selling that magazine without compensating the original copyright holders. Or better yet, try giving that magazine away without trying to make a cent out of it. You’ll go broke AND end up with a lawsuit.
Nope - no other way to call it - this pissweak “all art should be free” arguement is just a pitiful attempt to justify your love of taking and enjoying other people’s work for free - and you choose to do it without said artists permission. Indeed, you’re not giving THEM the right to exercise a choice in the matter - which, by extension means that you are forcing YOUR philosophy onto those artists - regardless of their philosophy on the matter.
Most importantly, you’re doing it because you know you’re not gonna get caught. If you’d just admit that, then people like myself might have more respect for you. But instead, you choose to deny reality, and instead, proudly proclaim that you intend to enjoy other people’s work in future - for free.
I might not do it, but I would still believe that such a law is unjust. Incidentally, downloading copyrighted works doesn’t appear to be prosecutable. The RIAA, for example, is only going after the people who offer files. So, people are going to download away as much as they want, although regrettably they may not share their collection.
You seem to be complaining a lot. So what are you and artists going to do about? Nothing. John Q. Public is already getting used to getting music for free, and with millions of file-sharers, from every part of society, young and old, wealthy and those barely comfortable for enough a computer, Americans and citizens from every other part of the globe. Your idealism here is getting dull. Try looking at the face of the situation.
Yep. I want everything for free. But I’ll settle for just intellectual property for free because it can be endlessly duplicated and taken without the possibility of violence, unlike physical property.
I only use free software. I’m running Linux and typing this in Galeon (licensed under the GPL). GPL software can always be gotten free of charge, so no need to “pirate” Windows or Mac OS.
Assuming I get caught. Until the law is overturned - and it will eventually unless it is reduced to simply not being enforced like laws against soft drugs in the Nederlands - secrecy is essentially, but hopefully that won’t last for long.
Nope, my argument isn’t limited to art, but I also think the same way about more pedestrian forms of entertainment and for good measure all intellectual property in general. The public wants something for nothing, and the drawbacks don’t seem to be anything big, ergo all IP should be free.
UnuMondo
They should, but they won’t.
How else can they sell crap songs to you?
Oops, I forgot to finish a sentence. This:
“John Q. Public is already getting used to getting music for free, and with millions of file-sharers, from every part of society, young and old, wealthy and those barely comfortable for enough a computer, Americans and citizens from every other part of the globe…”
should continue:
“…the trend is only getting bigger and bigger and eventually the current system will not be sustainable.”
UnuMondo
Moderator’s Note: A reminder that accusations of trolling should be made in e-mail to the moderators, and not in public on the boards.
That’s all well and good, but are you going to work at Wendy’s for your whole life while you magnanimously offer up free intellectual property? Do you expect me to? Art for art’s sake is a wonderful thing, but it’s a weekend project, not a lifetime career.
Do you hope that all your favorite writers/artists/musicians live lives as happy, long, and fulfilling as these two?
See my post above. I’m not talking about just art, I’m talking about all forms of intellectual property. In the digital age, the notion of copyright is no longer sustainable. It’s time to move on.
I didn’t write the lines to attributed to be here, and I hope you’ll take care not to misquote me again.
In any event, few artists from antiquity (when patronage was big) were so sad and forlorn as Poe and Van Gogh. Art in ancient Rome flourished without the alien notion of copyright. And artists were that bad off as, for example, Martial enjoyed a pretty comfortable life reciting poetry to the aristocrats. He was perfectly aware that people were jotting down his lines, copying them, and then selling them in the city, but he didn’t mind (all that irked him was lack of attribution). Other Roman poets like Virgil and Ovid were also quite well off. No lack of financial means here. They were smart and could find supporters, not like today’s artists who just want to sit on their asses after creating art and try to get the government involved in what would be a free market.
UnuMondo
Okay, sorry about the misquote, but do you really think that reciting poetry to aristocrats and hustling to find patrons is a more elegant solution than creating inexpensive work that the public can access for a small, affordable fee? Are you serious?
Look, there are dozens of workable ways for artists to be compensated for their effort, time, and skill. People who create art, music, or literature are not the ones sitting on their asses; it’s the people who expect the results of that labor to be brought to them for free.
Come on, not everyone can be a martyr like Thoreau. The threat of being punished can convince a person not to do something, but that doesn’t mean it’s immoral to do anything that could get you punished.
Its too late to try profiting directly from selling music online. An entire generation has grown up with the ability to casually pirate music at no risk and the concept of paying for it is obscene to them. Eventually, musicians will have to earn money through outlets other than direct sales of music; perhaps using digital songs as promotional devices to sell merchandise, tour tickets, or some form of advertising sponsorship.
The cat’s out of the bag, and there is no way we’re going back to the old model, even in digital form. Despite the moderate success of Apple’s ITMS, its a tiny percent of the music traveling on the internet’s pipes. And I have read that the majority of its users are 25 and older. The younger people are conditioned to believe music is free and I doubt that will change.
Mr2001 - I agree entirely with you there. You’re absolutely right. And further, I really respect you too - because you’re reasonable and insightful.
As for UnuMondo’s position? That’s not an acceptable one. His position is that all art should be free - regardless of whether the original artist wished to be paid for his services or products. By extension, let us consider the plight of an actor say? A fine, magnificent actor fully trained in theatre. Let’s say he trains for a part. And the play runs for 6 months. Let’s say that the director of the play decides to pull UnuMondo’s little trick of choosing not to pay that actor because (a) all art should be free and (b) he can get away with not paying him and nobody’s gonna do anything about it.
I ask you this… how long are fully trained actors gonna hang around doing acting? Especially if the “rip him off” attitude extends into movie making as well?
Ergo, I should like to point out the gaping double standards of UnuMondo’s position. Earlier, he conceded that an artist should be allowed to ask for money for his or her services or products. But UnuMondo also stated that “Intellectual Property” should not exist and once something is in the public domain, anyon should be able to use it anyway they want. Well, the gaping double standard is this - music, by definition, is intangible. It’s a listening experience. It’s not like a book, or a car, or an actor’s arrival on the set. The music itself is the service. And mp3’s are merely the delivery device. What counts is that the sheer pleasure of listening to someone’s music means that the artist has performed THEIR side of the transaction - namely, they provided a service which the listener chose to enjoy.
UnuMondo agrees that an artist can (and should) ask for money for producing their art - but he also reserves the right to enjoy such services without paying for it. And that’s a double standard. Further, he then tries to validate such a double standard by hiding by offering lame copyright arguements as a means of camoflaging the real issue - namely, “I’m getting away with this and I don’t feel bad about it…”
In short, who gives a shit about the RIAA? They’ve been sitting on a gold shitting moneky for years. The real losers are the artists themselves. UnuMondo argues that the he should be able to enjoy the services of those artists - for free - and that the artists should not complain because all “intellectual property” should be free. But here’s the catch - people like UnuMondo are making the decision of such a choice on BEHALF of the original artist - they’re expoiting the loop hole which exists in PC’s equipped with CD-ROM players to liase with other such PC’s via P2P services, and therein get away with enjoying an artist’s services without ever having a moment’s conscience about rewarding said artist therein.
And that’s the arrogant part. It smacks of “Hey, if I can get away with it, what’s the problem?”
This is an extension of a discussion going on in a Pit thread discussion on a related topic. It was alluded that perhaps some of you here might find this an interesting or pertinent question since it involves intellectual property.
Would it be acceptable to you if the photo lab that develops your photopraphs were to copy them all, possibly to “share” them with the world? And if you were to get a something that you painted framed at a framing shop, (but the painting was just for you—you didn’t want it displayed in public) would you be OK if the framing shop scanned it and published a copy of the painting online? Just as long as they didn’t make any money off of the work, do you think that such actions should be legal?
There are a variety of other layers to this question, but I’ll keep it at that for now.
Would you support the law being changed in such a way as to make this an acceptable thing for photo labs or framing shops (or pretty much anyone else who has access to your creative work) to do?
That is a complete misrepresentation of my argument. Just because I said intellectual property should be free does not extend to making spectacles free. A video recording of play should, of course, be freely distributable, but people attend plays because they like going to the theatre. That would remain even without copyright.
Shakespeare lived in a time before copyright. Indeed, one of the first scripts available for Hamlet is a low-quality copy jotted down by a spectator for sale later. But Shakespeare and his acting troupe managed to survive. Doing away with copyright would not do away with theatre. What an absurd proposition.
You still haven’t answered my question, namely, what are artists going to do about it? You can complain all you want about how I’m unfair or selfish, or whatever, but the actual situation is that copyright violation is growing too great to stop. Millions of people from every walk of life use P2P services. Selling copied music and movies has moved from Eastern Europe to the streets of several cities of Western Europe. People don’t feel guilty copying a CD to give to their friends. Stop your complaining about how my argument is a double standard and admit that the death of “artist’s rights” is inevitable.
UnuMondo
Oh hogwash. What simple rubbish.
Just because a technology has come along which expedites (albeit temporarily) an unprosecutorial form of counterfeiting - well, this doesn’t, in itself, mean that such a situation will last forever. The people at SONY and Phillips who invented the Compact Disc in the late 1970’s could never have foreseen that one day PC’s could play those compact discs and rip the data streams. Such a technological loop hole is merely an aberration, and a temporary one.
But we here on the SDMB do owe you a debt of thanks however UnuMondo. You’ve reminded us - all of us - that deep down, we all have a bit of thief in us. We all have the capacity for ignoble greed - and the desire to take something without paying for it if we can get away with it. Some of us, like yourself, embrace this failing within the human spirit with gleeful abandon. Some of us, like yourself, take great joy in smugly showing off how smart you are - how it’s up to us to catch you if we can.
Well, the reality is you won’t ever get caught. But one day, the ability for you to do what you’re doing right now will die in the arse. The ability to pirate and rip data streams is merely a temporary technological aberration - brought about due to the unforeseen timelines of how things were invented. But it’ll change.
And the best part? For me? Is that Artists Rights won’t ever go away. Eventually, little brats who like to take things for free are gonna have to start paying again - maybe 10 years - who knows - but when such little brats have to start paying again, that’s when people like me will smile inwardly to ourselves.
I hope I am not repeating earlier posts 
I agree with you Boo Boo Foo. The current ability of people to get away with copying music is temporary. I am reading a book, Ruling the Waves: From the Compass to the Internet, a History of Business and Politics along the Technical Frontier by Debora L. Spar, which some of you might find relevant. Also another thread in Gread Debates call Morality of Downloading has some interesting arguments.
The author makes the argument that there are parallels between the current internet “chaos” and many other technological developments. For instance, the opening of the Atlantic ocean during the late 15th and early 16 centuries. Specifically, for this OP, the pirates which infested the waters of the world’s ocean up intil the 19th century. And eventually the actions of governments individually and in concert to root them out.
I don’t want to hijack this thread, but I noticed that UnuMondo asked what the artists are going to do about downloading. I would suggest that the internet is not based on, nor does it require to function, the anonymity that allows downloaders to get away with what they do. Imagine, for instance, changes to online identities which would allow only a specific individual to pose as particular identities. Just as a P.O. box cannot guarantee anonymity, very soon an internet identiy also will not.
I don’t agree with all of the RIAA’s actions. And I think that the DMCA went too far is several areas. But, to suggest that IP is dead because it is no longer enforceable is shortsighted and morally irrellevant.
No offense. 
BTW, UnuMondo, you do realize that the entire enforcement mechanism of the GPL is based on the primacy of Intellectual Property. Specifically, you are not allowed to do “anything you want” with source code covered under the GPL. You cannot, for instance get code, use it to create a software package, and then distribute that package without also distributing the source code and the changes you have made to it.
Copying of musical recordings did not begin with the compact disc. Much of the rock music available in, for example, India in the 50’s and 60’s was copied and distributed by people other than the copyright holder. Every format is copyable. EMI started this year to distribute all its discs with copy protection, but it’s actually a cinch to get around the copy protection and rip the discs. Radiohead and Massive Attack tracks from their latest albums, the first to use copy protection, can be easily gotten from P2P services.
Besides, my argument isn’t limited to musical recordings. Books can be copied. How many software developers have actually bought all their reference books? Downloading technical books from the Internet has grown quite common, even insisted on by some budget-minded managers. And if the Internet wasn’t there, people could still photocopy books borrowed from friends or the library.
Even if the ability to copy musical recordings would die, the music itself could be memorised over repeated listens by competent musicians and transcribed, allowing for distribution so that other musicians could perform the piece. This was extremely common before copyright, and for some time afterwards as well.
UnuMondo