Pirating, us and the future.

Here's how I feel:
I support smaller emerging artists, and more often than not, I'll buy music.

I saw an interview with Dave Grohl on Dennis Miller's show a few years ago where they were talking about the music industry and napster and Dave Grohl said something like, "I think music should be accessible to anyone who wants to hear it, there should be no such thing as a price tag on music. Maybe the packaging, you pay $14 to get the cd, the artwork, the booklet, and that's fine, but I don't wanna have to turn on my radio and put in a nickel to hear Metallica. I understand if it's some people, where they don't have food because napsters got their songs all over the internet, fine. But if it's someone who's sold 50,000,000 records and have $50,000,000, xxxxxx, man."

That's pretty much how I feel. I buy cds and demos from local bands left and right, but I download Metallica.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then what are those people who pirated music?...not criminals.

If they didn't exceed the 506 thresholds they would be civil copyright infringers



...people who pirate any kind of intellectual property aren't necassarily bad people...


and that's one problem with "RIP!" as a source of info, it's a manifesto and it uses techniques to specifically forward an opinion, not explore an issue -- the filmmaker, for instance,r confuses the issues of transformative use (remixing, etc - that's preparation of derivative work) with infringing "uploading/downloading" (distribution and reproduction respectively)

Even Lessig, whom he used in the film and called "the coolest lawyer in the world" (I doubt the filmmaker knows many) makes the distinction in his Library of Congress "Copyright Law in Cyberspace" talk [which is primarilly about the problems involved in transformative use]



...so screws to what copyright law says, I never had a say in it


it is a justification NAMBLA could also use
or we could use it for vigilante killing
or really any law we disagree with and wish to circumvent - it basically allows for negation of laws in wholesale fashion

this goes back to the sub-conversation about "politically aware" -- does it require one to be informed, what about those who opine that they are disenfranchised.



if I want to learn something money shouldn't be barrier

there are areas in copyright law that address some of these issues - part of the classic 4 part test for fair use is nature of use for instance, lending library law also has special provisions in USA

but "shouldn't" - again brings us back to the political thought, not the jurisprudential thought


...and if you want to see what I mean, see the last part in A Remix Manifesto about Brazil...do you think they have the financial capacity to pay royalties to have permission to legally remix?


already seen it -
I think the filmmaker's entire approach was manipulative for instance, in the US he shows Time's Square, but for Brasil he showed a beach, not, say, Sao Paulo, IIRC the largest city in the Western Hemisphere
As to if they have financial means to pay royalties...depends on the person, the nature of use, and if the creator is requiring royalties, etc


...and a question. In the current US law system, if someone does patent a cure to cancer, is someone else doing something illegal if they make a copy of that cure and say sell it at a cheaper price?


Yes, if it were within the patent term and were restricted by the patent claims, it would be patent infringement [An interesting legal question arises in a more general sense that I don't believe has ever been put to test - can eminent domain..I believe they call it "compulsory acquisition" in your country -- be applied to intellectual property].

As we look to incite emotions by playing to altruism (similar to a rallying cry of "for the children") we can ask ourselves why the second company would charge any money at all, or why DJ girltalk would like to quit his job as a medical researcher (remixing ain't going to cure cancer) and why he accepts payment, or why we drum when there are children to be fed.
This goes back to Article I, Section 8 of the US constitution (the outlining of the power to legislate IP laws)
Angiogenesis Inhibition
TNF-a promotion
telomerase re-expression
etc, etc

all these are therapies in which there is ongoing research, expensive research that takes man-lives of work without any assurance it's even going to work.

If it's the the evil of cancer we are battling, drop the sticks and pick up the test tube and do it for free -- these are the sorts of positions we get when we use self-righteous altruism as an emotional manipulation tool as Rip! does.
The filmmaker started with a position and built a film around it, it isn't an exploration of the issue and it's properly labeled a manifesto
 
Last edited:
I understand the confusion between remixing and infringement

So a transformative work is not illegal, why should I pay royalties then if I am making something new?

...and if someone patents a cure to cancer, I don't think that would be fair as the patent owner has rights to give the price they want on the product as there is no other competition.
 
I understand the confusion between remixing and infringement

But the filmmaker of "Rip!" apparently didn't - he bounces from one to the other, which, in a "REMIX MANIFESTO" as the piece is called, confuses the issue


So a transformative work is not illegal

No, not always, not in the US - transformative use is just a TYPE of use, a preparation of a derivative work ,in USA that falls under 17US106(2)

transformative use MAY, in some situations (such as parodic use) be done non-permissively, this is generally a fair use defense which is an affirmative defense (the onus is on the defendant). and the type of use is considered in the analysis.

Depending on the type of use, there is also the chance of a de minimis use defense (for instance, the US 6th circuit opined that there isn't de minimis use for audio samples, but the 9th circuit opined there is de minimis use of compositional elements)

why should I pay royalties then if I am making something new?

YOU wouldn't necessarilly have to in any case - as you reasoned, any laws you weren't directly involved in the creation of you'll simply ignore..
Later you may have to pay damages though.




...and if someone patents a cure to cancer, I don't think that would be fair as the patent owner has rights to give the price they want on the product as there is no other competition.

that doesn't necessarilly have to be the case (it's common misconception that patent grants monopoly, it's actually a negative right of control -- there are even patent abuse laws that forbid some types of monopolistic behavior) there can still be competition, as there can be more than one cure and variations on cures, etc (such as latanoprost, bimatoprost, and travoprost in glaucoma medication)
 
you're the best dude in this thread drummer-ish.
 
What if you are a student? Just refuse to learn about new bands? If I haven't got any money I can still support the bands by telling everyone how great they are and then _they_ can buy the albums too if they have got the money. I think it'll be better for the bands in the long run than me not doing anything because of poor economic situation.

Nah...at some point you have to support your favorite artist.

You'd find a way to pay for school tuition if you'd have to...so you have to treat lessons/dvds/cds as "I can improve my drumming" expense...
 
Last edited:
While the "pantented cure for cancer" -argument is silly and ignorant about how many different types of cancer are out there, there's some similar examples that have actually happened (this is more my field outside drumming, I'm actually holding a test tube in the lab! =) ). Our professor told us about a treatment for some hereditary iron overload disorder which had a treatment ready for patients all along but it couldn't be used until 20 years later after the patent had ended. Now that's greedy! But it happens. Luckily they have been rather rare conditions, but it doesn't lessen the suffering of those individuals who are affected by it.

I don't know how patents in medicine make world a better place. In some other fields I guess they are necessary evil.

On topic: who gets money if I buy Stick Control and does he/she earn it? (I have bought it of course)
 
I don't know how patents in medicine make world a better place. In some other fields I guess they are necessary evil.

where they help is promoting the research in the first place and it isn't just the pharma corporations and such, universities get millions and millions from it.
It's kind of like the question you had about the vids "did they earn it"


Couldn't tell ya about the happening your prof mentioned (doesn't even seem like greed - I mean if they just sat on a patent til expiration without any therapy being released...)

any idea abt the patent number?
 
where they help is promoting the research in the first place and it isn't just the pharma corporations and such, universities get millions and millions from it.
It's kind of like the question you had about the vids "did they earn it"


Couldn't tell ya about the happening your prof mentioned (doesn't even seem like greed - I mean if they just sat on a patent til expiration without any therapy being released...)

any idea abt the patent number?

I understand that patents are sort of nice way of giving the ability to financially benefit from your invention. But I just think medical research should be financed with other types of income. I dunno, but the thing is that it's the sick people who are forced to buy the expensive medicine. It's not at all the same thing as with music. You don't need music to stay alive (physiologically). But I guess this debate turns in to politics too very fast.

Sadly I don't know the patent number, I tried to dig it somewhere. Our prof just mentioned it on a bioinorganic chemistry lecture when we talked about iron metabolism and chelates.

I think you missed my point about the Stick Control though. It's a book and it's writer has been dead for decades. So who's getting the money? =P
 
I understand that patents are sort of nice way of giving the ability to financially benefit from your invention. But I just think medical research should be financed with other types of income.

They partially are - it's not a pure system l, but there isn't enough money (it kind of comes down to what income) and then, if it's all just grants, you have to decide where the research dollars go and the other lines of research just get underfunded (patents allow for the cash to get partially assigned meritocratically)



I dunno, but the thing is that it's the sick people who are forced to buy the expensive medicine.

A lot of it is insurance (or socialized depending on where you are) and a lot of pharma companies have assistance programs.
one cool thing, some of those pharma companies would just give the wife's lab some juice that was hugely expensive to make and had no commercial market, research stuff -it ain't all wine and roses but it's not just "greedy guys in suits -- stuff rarely is

the research is hugely expensive and some lines are dead ends even though they can be someone's whole career

It's one of the talking points in the pharma community right now with the health care stuff here in America -- that it could affect what gets researched (stick with the higher mass earners. like stuff to make your dick hard)


Sadly I don't know the patent number, I tried to dig it somewhere. Our prof just mentioned it on a bioinorganic chemistry lecture when we talked about iron metabolism and chelates
.

Yeah, pull it if you can, I'd appreciate it
my wife's PhD is in psychoneuroimmunology - she studied AIDs related dementia (and some other stuff, basically how the nervous system and immune system interact and make you stupid and depressed) and is now a biomedical patent attorney --she teaches IP law at unis sometimes, so it'd be a neat case for her to look at

you can probably guess she's like 3 times smarter than me

I think you missed my point about the Stick Control though. It's a book and it's writer has been dead for decades. So who's getting the money? =P


who ever owns the copyright - that's one thing about copyrights, is you can sell em! (so you can get the money up front if you sell them to a publishing company or some such ) or you can will the rights to your heirs.
 
Last edited:
I really don't get this, last week i couldn't stand illegal downloaders but now the UK government looks like they're going to introduce a bill that monitors internet access and will supposedly be able to cut off the access of those who repetadely fileshare, i find myself siding with the downloaders here. What the hell? Maybe it's just the fact that i don't like the idea of the UK government monitoring my internet access like big brother in 1984 or maybe it's because it sets a dangerous precident through clause 17 which could one day lead to chineese style blocking of "bad" websites that they don't want us to see. Maybe in a few years we in the UK will be saying "oh yeah the internet here is just like in china, except in china it's faster and you're allowed to smoke in the computer building!"
 
I really don't get this, last week i couldn't stand illegal downloaders but now the UK government looks like they're going to introduce a bill that monitors internet access and will supposedly be able to cut off the access of those who repetadely fileshare, i find myself siding with the downloaders here. What the hell? Maybe it's just the fact that i don't like the idea of the UK government monitoring my internet access like big brother in 1984 or maybe it's because it sets a dangerous precident through clause 17 which could one day lead to chineese style blocking of "bad" websites that they don't want us to see. Maybe in a few years we in the UK will be saying "oh yeah the internet here is just like in china, except in china it's faster and you're allowed to smoke in the computer building!"

That's exactly what I'm worried about. Are we ready to give up our freedom for the sake of not copying music? Are we ready for the big brother system to fall in to the wrong hands? And how do we stop this before it's too late?
 
I really don't get this, last week i couldn't stand illegal downloaders but now the UK government looks like they're going to introduce a bill that monitors internet access and will supposedly be able to cut off the access of those who repetadely fileshare, i find myself siding with the downloaders here. What the hell?

Are you siding with the "downloaders" ( material should be distributable regardless of the copyrights) or is it more you are concerned with privacy rights, due process, and other civil protections?


The two aren't one-and-the-same and it's important to keep the distinctions.
One can, for instance, be anti-piracy and pro-privacy just as one can be evenly rabidly anti-terrorism, but still be very much for the protection of civil rights (like 4th amendment rights in the USA)
Muddling the two is a kind of thinking that allows for more extreme views by attaching the hazards or benefits of one issue directly to another issue.


Lawrence Lessig ( "the world's coolest Lawyer" according to RIP!) had an interesting view on that "and I think Piracy is bad. I think people who use or abuse other people's intellectual property rights without the permission of the intellectual property rights holder are not only acting immorally and acting illegally, they are exciting an extraordinary regulatory response in our culture to try to stifle this form of piracy. So that's Number 1, for IP, against piracy"
US Library of congress "Digital Future" lecture -- Mar 3, 2005
 
I read page one of this thread and then realised there were another 6! i havent read them all, so excuse me if i repeat whats already been said...

I'm 17, and have a huge collection of illegally downloaded music, and morally i'm not sure where i see myself.

If i hadn't downloaded this music, i probably wouldn't be a drummer, i would probably have no interest in music, because i couldn't possibly afford all the music i have listened to over the years. Therefore i would never have bought most of the stuff i downloaded anyway, although i do admit that i would have paid for MORE music had the other option not been available...

The internet has blurred the rules and morality of copyright though... I can go on spotify or youtube and listen to a song LEGALLY, but if i download it to make a cd and listen to it in another part of the house, that would become illegal.

However, that's only because i have a desktop computer... If i had a laptop with wireless internet i could plug my laptop into a stereo and play spotify anywhere in the house! And with spotify going to mobile phone platforms I could now listen to any music anywhere! with a few adverts here and there...

Which interestingly enough is a lot like that old invention - the radio. Just we get to choose what we hear...

Actually, thinking about it, the future of music may well be that artists put product placements and advertising into song lyrics! The greater the downloads, the more advertisers pay for the plug. The mind wanders...

Culturally, i believe this free sharing of art forms is interesting if not beneficial. I'v been reading a book called 'the long tail' which explains how the ease of accessing music and media out of the mainstream has led many more people to establish their own tastes rather than just following hits. And as many people flock towards one style, this BECOMES the hit. We're telling the media what we like, instead of being told what to like. Anyway, interesting discussion...
 
RdL

I think you put you finger on a couple of interesting issues.

First is that illegal downloading does allow people to be exposed to so much more music, more than they would have been if they had to buy all if it.

Secondly, is that you now need to illegally download to be competitive amongst your peers who are doing the same. Otherwise you will not have been exposed to the same amount of music and may fall behind. It's a vicious cycle in that regard.
 
Do you think all music and instructional material should be free?
No, not unless the artist chooses to make the material available for free. I believe the artists should get paid for their work. However, I have downloaded music from blogspot, for example, if the particular material was out of print or a rare, fan recorded live gig.

Do you download music from iTunes?
Very rarely do I purchase from iTunes. I have done more so in the last while, oddly enough, for single songs to drum along to for artists whom I don’t necessarily care to get their whole album (my teacher had assigned some songs I did not like, but I still saw the value in learning to play them for specific techniques. Just because I don’t like the work does not mean they should not get paid, but I digress!). Also, my preferred format for recorded music is vinyl.

Do you know about and use torrents?
No I do not use torrents. I am still a bit of a luddite and get a bit paranoid about using them.

Do you think movies should be free?
No, not unless the artist chooses to make the material available for free.

Also, does anyone see positive solutions for the future?
When a company puts out a quality product, people will usually pay. I am impressed with the vinyl pressings nowadays, for example. Many come with a free coupon to download mp3 versions from the record company’s site as ripping it would be a huge pain in the butt. I good package with multi-media options would be nice. Also, iTunes should stop the crap quality mp3s and put out lossless files, like flac, for example. My friend recently purchased a Madge album from iTunes that was at 128 killiblips (or whatev the heck they are called). That is shockingly crap quality. Also, loyalty counts for something. Labels like Dischord that have a quality product at an affordable price have a loyal fan base.

Does any one know of technology that prevents torrent sharing?
No.

Do you project yourself into the future and put yourself in the position of artists now?
Or do you consider it a compliment if someone downloads your material.

I have no material to download. If someone wants a free mp3 of my amateur drumming I’ll send it to them for a laugh!
 
Last edited:
Don't mean to troll or incite anything, and I could care less if I get banned, but I'm 'fing curious.

Drummer-ish, do you have a position on this issue? Your posts are very educational, don't get me wrong, but where's your moral compass point? I mean, screw (and I mean screw with an F in a very emotionally loaded way) exploriong the issue, I like to see people forward positions. (To me) You seem to have a kind of Randian view of altruism and "eliciting emotional response" that reads like you could care less if the cancer kid got cured as long as peoples' rights to "intellectual property" were protected. I know we're not talking cancer here, but I'm looking for a moral worldview, and nevermind the detail oriented. If you see fit to reply to this, It'd be cool if you could try to de-jargon as much as possible.

About the piracy, I'm all about it, and I don't pirate shit, I'm way too dumb when it comes to computers, and it's a sentimental thing for me to have the physical product with the art and everything. Also, I buy a ton of local and indie stuff from artists I know and love, like many of our fellow "pirates" on this thread do. You just would not want to download that without giving back to THOSE artists, it's a two-way relationship. But the artists around here I really care about are fine, we're in this together. However, they/we don't feel entitled. Otherwise, when it comes to the major label people, or really anyone that feels entitled, screw it. I want to see the whole thing come down anyway. There are enough awesome creative people right here in my little town that we can inspire each other without this supposedly indispensable Machine.
 
Don't mean to troll or incite anything, and I could care less if I get banned, but I'm 'fing curious.

Drummer-ish, do you have a position on this issue? Your posts are very educational, don't get me wrong, but where's your moral compass point? I mean, screw (and I mean screw with an F in a very emotionally loaded way) exploriong the issue, I like to see people forward positions. (To me) You seem to have a kind of Randian view of altruism and "eliciting emotional response" that reads like you could care less if the cancer kid got cured as long as peoples' rights to "intellectual property" were protected. I know we're not talking cancer here, but I'm looking for a moral worldview, and nevermind the detail oriented. If you see fit to reply to this, It'd be cool if you could try to de-jargon as much as possible.

About the piracy, I'm all about it, and I don't pirate shit, I'm way too dumb when it comes to computers, and it's a sentimental thing for me to have the physical product with the art and everything. Also, I buy a ton of local and indie stuff from artists I know and love, like many of our fellow "pirates" on this thread do. You just would not want to download that without giving back to THOSE artists, it's a two-way relationship. But the artists around here I really care about are fine, we're in this together. However, they/we don't feel entitled. Otherwise, when it comes to the major label people, or really anyone that feels entitled, screw it. I want to see the whole thing come down anyway. There are enough awesome creative people right here in my little town that we can inspire each other without this supposedly indispensable Machine.

Yes, sometimes I too feel that talking to someone who knows a lot about the legal side of things (on a lawyer level) it's like talking to a moral philosopher about ethics. You get lots and lots of descriptions how things are and how they can be and how everything can be interpreted but it all is just descriptive in nature, failing to take a stand or actually say how things SHOULD be. It's like arguing: it's bad because it's illegal because it's bad.

rhydianjlewis rised a really really good point. I too couldn't have know this much music to download if it wasn't the downloaded music that hinted me to these new areas of music. Also it's entirely possible that I wouldn't be drumming without it and also I would be far worse as a drummer without it. Now you all can say that it's a matter of priorities where we put our money, but do you honestly think I could have ever been able to buy all of the 3-4 thousand albums I have heard in the past 10 years or so. And another good point is that when others (drummers and musicians) are doing it, how would you stay competetive and current without doing it yourself too. Even the Business doesn't work that way. I guess you could hold on to an illusion that culture is born from pure creativity but in truth it's all about copying and influences (which is actually just a nicer way of saying "copying". =P).
 
How else can you build an informed position on an issue without analysing, as objectively as possible, the facts?

There is a moral, ethical side to this discussion, but that does not mean that we should use knee-jerk, emotive responses to something that should be clearly and rationally analysed.
 
Back
Top