As I noted before, the GPL is an attempt to use the current copyright system against itself to attack the rise of closed development and distribution that shocked Stallman in the early 1980’s. If copyright and non-disclosure agreements disappeared, the GPL would be unnecessary because the environment of free distribution it creates would become the norm. That’s the future I forsee and hope for.
UnuMondo
I suggest becoming acquainted with Freenet and anonymising services. The later have been to an extent supported by the US government to ensure that people in oppressive regimes may access the information they wish. It appears that one’s network anonimity will only continue to grow.
UnuMondo
Yes. I have seen this. I suggested a book you might want to check out. 
Freenet is one method for providing anonymity. I understand the place anonymity plays in certain situations. However, it does not lessen the argument that unbreakable anonymity is not necessary for internet connections.
The point, of course, being that breaking the back (pun insisted on:)) of music downloaders is a technological problem. And I would argue not an insurmountable one. The issue of “what the artists will do” has to do with how motivated they will become to break this anonymity. Right now Governments are behind the curve trying to regulate internet usage. But this has happened before. Many times. They will catch up.
The danger, UnuMondo, is that arguments like yours will encourage extremists on the other side to over react. The DMCA was not a reaction to people making a couple copies of copyrighted music. It was a reaction to a percieved rampant distribution of these copies.
It would indeed be a pity if inappropriate copying of “Milli Vanilli” tracks lead to a curtailing of more important personal freedoms. 
Without copyright, the GPL wouldn’t fulfill one of its main functions: Fostering open source development.
Anyone would be free to download your source code, make changes, compile it, and only distribute the binaries. You’d be free to redistribute those binaries, of course, but you wouldn’t have access to the modified source code.
The Supreme Court has upheld the right to anonymous communication, so I’m not sure what you’re arguing here. Anonymity may not be “necessary” to have a working internet connection, but the only way to keep certain material from being posted anonymously would be to ban anonymous posting (e.g. shut down every Freenet node), which seems hard to justify in light of that SCOTUS decision and our history of anonymous speech.
That’s why I mentioned that it would be necessary for non-disclosure disagreements to go as well. With copyright and NDAs, any unhappy ex (or even current) employee would be free to distribute the code to the public.
UnuMondo
Err, without copyright and NDA…
UnuMondo
The world UnuMondo advocates scares me. because in that world, the ammount of art would diminish greatly. Currently many artists are able to do what they do, as much as they do, becuase there is money to be made doing it (as such they can feed themselves making art). If art becomes legally free, much of it will be gone.
Movies, music, books, and images would be freely traded with the makers getting little to no compensation. As such, only those hardcore artists, and those who did it as a hobby would continue doing so.
I just don’t understand how intellectual property could be considered something that should be given away free, but not other things. Why should I get paid to fix computers, while some guy slaving over his instrument should give his labor away for free? What if the University system quit paying UnuMondo for his work and research? Surely said research could be freely distributed.
There is so much art out there now that you are not able to enjoy it all, so what does it matter if there was somewhat less of it?
And besides most of the “art” out there today is actually entertainment and popular art which has its origins in the rise of mass culture at the turn of the 20th century. Because of that, the signal-to-noise ratio is so high that it’s hard to find good art among the crap. Boy bands rule the airwaves while better musicians are hard to find, the latest paperback novels are a cinch to pick up at the mall bookstore but real literature open has to be special ordered.
Removing copyright would put support of art back into the hands of the wealthy. I believe that the wealthy are more competent to judge art than the pedestrian. This may seem an abhorrent proposition to some of you, but many of the real artists of 100 years ago wrote about the coming apocalypse of art when the masses would decide what is good and what is not.
Yes, there might be less art, but more of it would be quality, and in a managable quantity.
There’s a difference. If - when I do rise to lecturer as right now I’m just a student - the university refuses to pay me, I can refuse to work. Artists can’t. Their inner muses so drive them to create that the lack of financial remuneration would not hamper them. One cannot compare a 9-to-5 job to the life of many artists, as Joe Bag’O’Donuts can quit and sit on the couch all day, while artists remain enslaved to inspiration.
UnuMondo
:smack: often has to be special-ordered.. Geez, I really wish the Board had an edit function.
UnuMondo
Well, UnoMundo, I agree with you.
This whole thread makes me want to throw up in contemplation of how our national hertitage and our digital future are being trashed as we idly sit by spouting ideas that were created in the seventies by the richest, most powerful entities in the world as if they were written by God himself.
I can’t really contribute too much to this thread. It’s a subject that I feel too strongly about. I just keep hopeing one day people will be able to envisions the better world that awaits us and make it happen, because copyright law is the single most important issue in our times.
UnuMondo, if you want to spend the rest of your life listening to garage band quality recordings, then we can do without copyright. If you ever want to listen to music with good production values, someone will have to pay the piper.
Very few people, regardless of how strongly the muse takes them, are going to shell out the tens of thousands of dollars it takes to record something without the promise of cash in return.
I realize this is a hijack, but I can live with it.
Right. I understand that anonymity is important. And to tell you the truth, I agree with it. I hope it never is lost.
However, market forces are not to be ignored either. Things change. As I mentioned before, the Pirates of the 17th and 18th century felt completly justified in their actions (if they thought about them). And they were certainly able to make the argument that “the ocean is too vast to rule”. In the end they were wrong. The people who used the oceans for comerce decided that they wanted their property rights to apply there as well as on land. Eventually they pressured the governments to defend those rights. And the pirates were crushed without prejudice, as it were.
My only point being that what appears to be difficult to aproaching impossible today may not be so tommorow. And by that I mean that the argument for destruction of Intellectual Property based on the fact that it is not easily defended on the internet is hopelessly flawed. Property rights may not be easily defended today, and we may not even be able to concieve of how they would be effectively defended tomorrow. But that does not mean that this will always be the case.
Let me give a hypothetical so that I am not merely speaking pie in the sky theory.
Supose by law and international treaty, we impose regulations on what sort of equipment is able to serve as Internet routers. Specifically that they have to support some sort of “carnevour” like technology. And, perhaps any IP addresses given out would have to be attached to legally recognized identities. I’m sure we could fashion the law to provide exceptions to support political free speech. And we would want to impose restrictions on wholesale releasing of this information. Meanwhile, we would have a mechanism for law inforcement.
College and high school kids were able buy cds before p2p networks made piracy the norm, so I don’t think that it is unreasonable for them to actually pay money to enjoy their music.
For one thing, the music subsription service could be per household as opposed to per person, (like AOL). This means that the typical student would have access to unlimited computer-only playback files without having to sacrifice any of his/her own money.
Due to the popularity of p2p networks, and the fact that a computer is a staple in the limited space in a student’s room most music is probably played from the computer itself, which makes the computer-only playback restriction nearly moot.
The only time a person would be obligated to pay for an mp3 file is for the purpose of making it portable. Although some people may have thousands of mp3s, they probably only listen to about hundred songs regulary enough to want to take them anywhere.
Only the newest, hottest releases would bear the $1 price. I think a reasonable average price would be 35 cents per song. I just don’t think many people would pay $12+ for a cd if the same tracks could be legally had for less than half of that price, although cd production would eventually have to be phased out or at least greatly reduced.
I don’t think this is a valid argument. More and more major artists are realising the ease of making good, striking recordings from small studios or even homes because now recording and mixing can be done with a personal computer. Someone posted a link in another RIAA thread to an article about how one band recorded their last album for much less than $10,000.
UnuMondo
This is a huge, ignorant, steaming pile of crap. Maybe this works when the artist is footloose and fancy-free straight out of college, but this isn’t how it happens for the vast majority of artists that I know.
How much energy an artist has directly affects how much creative work they produce.
I know many artists who have serious “lags” in their level of creative production, dependent on how much time they have to do it. And if their non-art job is stressful and they come home all wrung out after a hard day, then often the last thing they have energy for is artwork. (Not with all artists I’m sure, but I’m telling you—I think my “muse” is pretty healthy, but it goes into hibernation when I’m exhausted.) I see a lot of my artist friends have to cut back their production because they simply don’t have time, because of their day job obligations.
For instance, I had a job for a few years that required I get up early (and I’m not a morning person). It was also a stressful job. Because of this, I did very little pottery and painting when I got home. I was too tired. I hated that, but that’s how it was.
When I got a different job that had better hours and allowed me to bring my sketchbook to work, (so I could basically draw on the job), my artistic production skyrocketed. My “muse” came out of hiding.
And I am not the only one. You have some dreamy delusion that artists must create, in some sort of Pavlovian frenzy, no matter what other crap is going on in their lives? Think again. If they are too damned tired from their day job, they get a lot less artwork done. A LOT LESS. I’ve lived it, I’ve seen others live it. There’s a huge difference between having full-time to produce art and “whatever time is left after I get home from my energy-sucking office job.”
Notice I did not say all artists, I said many artists. I do, however, calculate those who create to satisfy their drive as superior to those whose creation is entirely based on monetary cupiditas.
If they were the great passionate artists of the ages they would continue to create even if it menaced their day job. That they decide they don’t have time because their day job is too stressful shows they probably have little motivation to begin with.
Many of my favourite artists have compared art to a sort of spiritual channeling or obsessive-compulsive disorder in which it is impossible to refuse to create, no matter what. The best artists can take any wearing thing in life and make it part of their art, instead of bitching about it and creating nothing.
UnuMondo
Nor did I say that all artists won’t slave drive themselves to make art, even after an exhausting day job. Just that being exhausted and having physically less time to do the art (because they’ve been at work all day) and being exhausted, takes its toll. Because they are, well, exhausted.
But I suspect this principle will make sense to everyone else. But not you. I have no hopes that you’ll aknowledge it. :rolleyes:
Another steaming load.
So, you are familiar with the work habits and backgrounds of every artist whose work you enjoy? You know intimately how they get their work done, what their home situation is like, and what their motivations are?
Taking money out of the equation completely, how can you think that an artist who has to go to a 9-5 job, (and deal with the stress and sometimes physical exhaustian that comes with that, including the commute, etc.) is going to have time do remotely the same amount of work as a full-time artist? There’s a big difference between these two scenarios, but once again, I don’t hold any hopes that you’ll acknowledge that.
This is also an insulting steaming pile. They “probably didn’t have too much inspiration to begin with”? This is the best you can do? How the hell would you know what level every artists’ “inspiration” is at, or how being exhausted (and physically having less hours in the day to do their work) might affect that?
Boy, what an arrogant, steaming pile. Why should I be surprised?
Pretty much. As soon as I think I might enjoy an artist’s work, I try to find a biography and critical works as soon as possible. Furthermore, I correspond with my favourite novelist, who describes the process of creation indeed as something that cannot be held back. Don’t most art lovers do the same?
UnuMondo
I find it doubtful that you can actually know about an artist’s life and motivations from a biography, for instance. Unless you see their day-to-day routine, know their history in its entirety, I doubt you’re getting the full story, no matter how much you may think you do.
And none of this responds to my basic premise, which is that working full-time on something is going to produce different results and have a different impact on an artist than to trying to scrape up some “art time” after 8+ hours at exhausting full-time job.
But hey, while I’m here, I thought I might repeat the question I asked before on page one:
Since you think art is to be “shared” so freely, would you want it to be legal for photo labs to make copies of any negatives that came into the lab for processing, so they could distribute copies of these photos online? Would you support a policy which made it legal for framing shops to photograph or scan original artwork that was brought in for framing, and then distribute copies of the artwork online?
As long as no profit was made off of the photos or paintings, would you find this acceptable?
Would you also agree that if someone creates some work and allows others “access” to it, (be having it on display in their home, leaving a sketchbook lying on their desk, showing a copy of a manuscript to a friend, whatever) then that means that they are not legally entitled to object if free copies of these works end up being distributed to the public at large?
Did you even read the posts I made, or did you just decide to make a kneejerk reaction because my sentiment threatens your precious business model?
As for the artists who have to work 8+ hours, fuck 'em. If they aren’t talented enough to find a patron, their contributions to art can disappear for all I care. Most artists who are really, truly, good will find support among the wealthy, and will not have to work some lowlife job but instead can concentrate full time on art.
Yep, that would be acceptable. Information wants to be free. I wouldn’t even oppose making a profit. This is how literature worked in the time before copyright. An author would commission a printer or scribe to copy his works, and the printer or scribe would make extra copies to sell himself. Martial comments on this in his epigrams, and the phenomenon is known in Shakesperian studies. Few writers in the ancient world seemed to have a problem with this system.
Emphatically yes.
UnuMondo