 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
66.30.248.240
In Reply to: It was NOT fair use posted by J on March 23, 2007 at 10:05:17:
So do I. Changes nothing.The notion that moral standards are determined on a case-by-case basis is fascinating and, well, convenient.
Follow Ups:
.
The problem of leisure, what to do for pleasure. Ideal love a new purchase, a market of the senses. Dream of the perfect life.
Then you wouldn't dismiss my links as rationalizations, and you might've chosen to respond to one or two of them, which you haven't.This link falls halfway into a discussion of a case where a teenager has countersued the RIAA. It's an entry point at the first post in the thread by a music industry lawyer, who has been described by Dave Marsh as 'the industry's ethicist-in-chief if the industry had ethics, which it doesn't.'
He runs up against some feisty opposition who refuse to accept his assertion that downloaders are NOT thieves, and referring to them in that fashion makes the entire situation worse, especially in a situation where none of this has been decided in a court of law.
Which is pretty much what I've been saying in this thread. Either you're misinterpreting what I've been saying, or baiting me. This is not only insulting but puts you squarely on the wrong side of the discussion as I see it. Yes, that discussion that you can't believe you're having.
I fail to see how a paper like the Wall Street Journal calling for a clear rewriting of copyright law amounts to situational ethics, rationalizations, or the refusal to judge one as either being willing to steal, or not. When I recorded albums onto cassettes 25 years ago so I could listen to them on my Walkman, according to you, I was stealing. I reject this, mostly on the basis that it was copyright infringement. Did you ever do anything like that?
Seems silly now, doesn't it? Well, if you ever did anything of the sort, then you were, as you've been putting it, stealing as well, just like the PhD who sees nothing wrong with whatever infringement you discussed earlier.
My original post in this thread wasn't directed at you. You're the one to step in and take arrows for that fella, so don't blame me for "insults" or whatever. You associate yourself with his remarks, fine, but I never asked for a confrontation with you. You've taken it upon yourself to justify and rationalize that guy's attitude.I see and comprehend your points just fine, in triplicate, at incredible time consuming length, through multiple posts and links--and I've told you so. You don't see mine, so what? What more do you want from me?
I have to travel to work this weekend, so I'm outta here. I gotta pay for the braces on my kid's teeth--while I still can.
I didn't associate myself with his remarks, only part of them. Yes, I find it insulting that not only have you refused to acknowledge that yr premise is not on the correct side of the law, but that it's irrelevant, because only the moral of whether or not someone is willing to steal is important, thereby by implication you are suggesting that this is my stance when it is not, not by a long shot. I do not justify Sordidman's remarks that the only 'theft' going on is what the industry does to artists & consumers; I don't entirely disagree, but I would never put it in those terms, and my claim that what he is referring to, when enumerated specifically, points to the lack of credibility of the RIAA in the discussion, and nothing else. This to you amounts to a rationalization of his attitude? I think not, because I am fully behind, as I also have stated previously, the appropriate punishment and/or fines to be sanctioned against those engaged in illegal file-sharing.When someone feels that way, and someone else comes along & suggests that they are engaging in 'rationalization' and using terms like 'theft' when legal experts strongly claim this to be inaccurate, especially since this has never been found to be the case in a court of law, you're darned tootin' it's insulting. No less than the brouhaha of a few years ago that I mentioned. And no, I'm not looking for a confrontation with you, either, Mark, but you're the one telling me I'm on the side of thieves even as you agree with most of what I've said here. Well, if I am, then so is the Wall St. Journal, the University of Nebraska, and major label executives.
None of which speaks to yr point, but I can't understand why you refuse to see that morality is difficult to define when the law has not done so.
Did you ever make a cassette recording of a work that you did not own the copyright for? By yr standard, that's theft too. I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I don't care. Either you condone theft, or you don't, right? Well, Home Taping Is Killing Music, remember?
Theft, or copyright infringement? Still theft? Then unless you are going to seriously tell me you never made a cassette of an album or ever taped off the radio, then you're a thief too, and on that basis, you have no right to judge. And I figure you probably find this line of reasoning to be annoying, but I defy you to come up with a basis as to why it should be considered incorrect.
Do you have a wireless network in your house? Have you encrypted it since the time you first turned it on? Hey, here's another point that I'm sure you'll be willing to dismiss since you've turned a deaf ear to what it is I'm saying here, because yr point about morality must trump any other regarding legalities: what if it was YR IP address that was spoofed & YOU got a subpoena? How would you feel then?
Think maybe you'd feel sorta like the guy who lives in Florida but was served with a subpoena in Michigan?
I'm not a computer expert, but I'm not exactly a novice, either. When I first got my router, I didn't know enough to have it locked down. Then I opened iTunes one day & there was "**** ********'s Music" on the left hand side. The name was that of my next-door neighbor.
Had he been a downloader--and I wouldn't put it past him--then I might have found myself on the wrong side of a lawsuit, in spite of my never having had file-sharing software on any of my computers hooked up to the network. Fortunately, at this point in time, I believe I would've been notified if my IP address had been the source of illegal uploading, resulting in RIAA operatives downloading music from whatever computers were illegally accessing MY network.
This is why the deposition given by the expert witness from Iowa is important. Because people are being sued whose computers were found to have never contained file-sharing software--by the same expert who offered this deposition, no less!--let alone the infringing files. And even so, the RIAA is refusing to even compensate the wronged parties with compensation for legal fees.
So because I stand up & say this is wrong, you maintain that I am offering up rationalizations. No, I'm afraid, I don't see your point here. Because it's entirely separate from this discussion. It wouldn't be if the RIAA had a more efficient method of pinpointing exactly who is engaging in all of this illegal file-sharing, but they don't. They could've invested money in manpower and technology to keep from disrupting the lives of innocent people, but they didn't. Instead of throwing a few million dollars at the hacker community to try to come up with a more efficient solution, they have invested in releases by people like Paris Hilton, Kevin Federline, Lindsay Lohan, and on and on.
It's not difficult to cast blame on the downloaders themselves, but it's an obvious exercise, which is why I won't engage in rationalizations about THEIR behavior, though you've accused me of exactly that. My problem lies with the means employed to correct the problem, the vagueness of the laws involved, and the tactics employed by the plaintiffs, especially regard to their refusal to compensate wronged parties.
Separate issue from downloading, whether you want to erroneously call it theft, or whether you're willing to call it what it actually is.
Would that you'd see that it doesn't take a genius to understand that the concept of instilling values in children relative to rationalizing illegal activities, or, by itself the mere rationalization of illegal activities, is the part of the discussion that I agree with you on, even as you are trying to claim otherwise because I disagree with methods resulting in legal action taken against innocent people.
I don't think what you said is what you meant. Perhaps you meant to say "legality is difficult to define"?
__________________
I wasn't specific enough, I was referring specifically to the moralist argument 'theft is theft' being applied to an issue that the law says it's not specifically applicable to. You're right, though, I lost sight of how that might've been interpreted in the the discussion. Quite possibly not the only such mistake I made, but this is a complicated issue that deserves mention of the nuances, without which, the discussion is reduced to a level where...'theft is theft.' My position is that the discussion is worthy of being discussed on a level where this sort of moralising is shown to be inaccurate & not helpful.Part of the reason why the law hasn't caught up to the technology, is because the law likely doesn't completely understand the technology. Why else would Viacom sue Google/YouTube for copyright infringement when their own online IFilm hosts images that infringe on the copyrights of others...seemingly without having to even consider that their own actions could provide damning evidence against them?
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070319-infringing-videos-on-ifilm-could-cause-problems-for-viacom.html
When they forced YouTube to pull content on the basis of their copyrights being infringed...even though the material in question was not, in fact, owned by Viacom?
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/22/ap3542388.html
When one of the people responsible for the DMCA states that that the blame for the lack of respect afforded copyrights among illegal file-shareres belongs more to the RIAA than to the illegal file-sharers?
Perhaps the finger pointed at me for rationlizing theft, when I have done no such thing, should be pointed in his direction, as well.
I pretty much entirely agree with you, - including your remarks about my post...Which is somewhat extreme and over-exaggerated, to make a point.
Our CD is now over. Tom and I have been paid. Capricorn has been paid. If our CD sells used, - or there's some new sales revenue that comes to me, fine: icing on the cake.
But if someone wants to disseminate it, it's only going to be a benefit to get our name back out there, - publicity....
If we were to re-release, (maybe SACD)?, - then, I probably would be changing my tune, but maybe not.
At the very least, sales revenue losses, - (even by illegal downloads), - are greatly over-exaggerated. And sales gains by "sharing" of "samples" from an album or recording are also never talked about, as these "sue happy" penny pinchers have decided to attack bands and consumers instead of embracing new technology which would have benefitted everyone.
Some members of the recording industry have defied the majority of the record companies and have modernized their business practices, - these companies have little problems, few illegal download issues, and they, and their artists end up doing a lot better....
The problem of leisure, what to do for pleasure. Ideal love a new purchase, a market of the senses. Dream of the perfect life.
Thank you, Sordid, and also for complimenting other posts of mine where I might not respond directly to yr posts. I'd like to make it clear that I think that there's probably a lot more agreement here than disagreement. However, being nuanced, even if it's to the point where someone might consider it to be anal, and being specific about semantics is absolutely crucial to this discussion.I like Mark a lot & respect him probably as much as anyone else on this site--although, on this one issue, I have to take issue with the one-dimensional view of considering this issue to be about whether or not one is willing to 'steal,' and little, or nothing, else. And that if anything else is mentioned, that it's a rationalization that puts you on the side of those engaged in illegal file-sharing. To wit: 'if you bring the conduct of the RIAA's members or the music industry at large into this debate, then you're just rationalizing theft.' Well, no, not if that conduct is brought in the debate merely for context. Tom is very wrong, there IS a big picture, and to reject the idea that it deserves mention is not something I'm going to accept when the 'fuckee,' as he puts it, the person who takes responsibility for signing the bad deal, is not the only one who gets f*cked.
Something else that deserves to be mentioned is that those who engage in this discussion and do offer the rationalizations about the conduct of the record labels always seem to dance around the issue of whether or not sales have actually been affected. Uh, it's time for those protesting the figures trotted out by the RIAA--and I sure never trusted them--to admit that sales have been affected. BIG time. The issue of whether or not illegal file-sharing spurs sales is a very secondary matter, more like tertiary. There is truth in the idea that there is an entire generation of youngsters for whom music has been devalued. The idea that 'you can't compete with free' is valid, and anyone denying that is being...dishonest. Period. I do believe there are a few different things going on here--a relatively productive use of file-sharing, illegal as it may be, where music consumers preview tracks that they're actually going to buy, or are going to spur them to purchase a ticket to see an act in live performance. It is on the behalf of that type of person that I used to assign more validity to the rationalizations, because they were logical. They were never logical when it came to kids downloading teen pop singles. But then there were those who were busy downloading tracks they would never have paid money for. And so, a few years ago, I remember a newspaper piece written by Jerry Lieber (or Stoller, I can't recall exactly) that complained of lost sales, and therefore lost income. None other than Thomas Sowell responded that this was, economically speaking, a fallacy, since you cannot assume sales, and, as a matter of fact, data was emerging that showed that those engaged in illegal file-sharing were a group that included quite a few folks who did state that they did download tracks that they never would have paid for.
This is about 5 years ago at this point.
Obviously things have changed to an extent. Sales ARE down, and they're down dramatically, and you can point to how the nature of the business has changed as it's leaned towards the blockbuster and so forth, but if you deny that illegal file-sharing has had an impact...sorry. Wrong.
Now, Mark, if you're reading this, I know that you're sick of this whole thing, but you know what? I don't care. Just so you know, I happen to run a business where I purchase used CDs for resale. My bottom line has decreased sharply over the past couple of years. So it's just as valid for me to say that illegal file-sharing impacts negatively on me. And when you're in that position, being moralized to is, yes, insulting. Because I choose to try to take a measured view of this instead of dismissing anything other than whether or not people are willing, or programmed, to 'steal?' That's unfair, sir.
For that reason, I continue this discussion, because I think it's worthy. Even though you've chosen to seemingly put little stock in any of what's discussed in the links I've provided, I'm going to introduce a new issue, whether you want to expand this any further or not, and, of course, you are free to not read, not respond, ignore as you wish. But I would appeal to you as a gentleman and a player to consider what I have to say, a little more than you have in this thread.
I am not an expert, and I don't present myself as one. I'm merely an interested party, though my interest is perhaps more significant than a layman, particularly since I do occupy a remote, tiny--microscopic--corner of the business, as anyone still reading this probably does as well. Or, depending on circustances, perhaps it's more than just a corner for you, but that's how I describe myself so that I don't present my involvement in any more of a self-important fashion than it needs to be. On this board, I never want to be anything more than a fan of music, and I do not speak of my own accomplishments when it comes to playing, because it has no bearing on the discussions I participate in on this board. I know how to play--big deal. Don't mean squat, and if I have to lean on how I'm a player, then most of the time I'm probably on the wrong side of the discussion, so I just don't do it.
Now, Mark, I asked you a post or two ago if you had a router, a wireless network in your home. Do you? How serious are you about security?
I got serious about security after the Sony BMG rootkit issue. Not long after that, I saw that my neighbor was on my home network, and I prioritized securing my system. However, in the months that my network was not secured, I unknowingly ran the risk of having a neighbor utilize file-sharing programs to illegally download music files. As time has passed, and wireless networks have become more common over the past few years, we are seeing, more and more, what appears to be an increasing volume of problems in the RIAA lawsuits. Three and a half years on, they're starting to hit people who have never had file-sharing software on their computers. And, like each and every day brings more interest, more articles, more blog entries, each and every day is leading towards a significantly higher volume of RIAA lawsuits directed at people who are simply not guilty of what they're being sued for.
(We can forget about the inconvenient detail that the RIAA is doing everything they can in such cases to resist compensating wrongly accused parties for their legal fees. Mark might call that a rationalization.)
Microsoft hired a Windows expert nearly a year ago, a fellow named Mark Russinovich. It's been said that he knows more about Windows than anyone else on the planet. Prior to his employment with Microsoft, he was probably best known for his software, designed to detect rootkits, and his blog, Sysinternals. Again, if you're reading this, you probably know that in late October of 2005, he ran his software on his computer after he saw something that didn't seem quite right. And he uncovered the presence of the rootkit in all CDs sold with XCP copy protection, and other issues in CDs that were copy-protected with MediaMax. As I previously mentioned, I had fouled my own box with a MediaMax disc (if you're reading this, Tom, that's an exception to yr response to Sordid about how you have no gripe with the music industry because you pay for recordings...and you get them). As it happens, I came pretty close to putting an XCP CD on my computer--the XCP with the rootkit, that is. I had actually had a disc with an earlier version of XCP that planted no rootkit. It did not, however, play in my computer--or ANY of my devices that play CDs, including a discman, a DVD player, and a dedicated, one-disc, reliable, 10-year-old CD player. It played only in an alternate CD player.
When I pay for a redbook CD that's DRM'd up the wazoo to the point where I cannot use it, then right there I feel I have the right to examine aspects of the discussion that are dismissed by others as 'rationalizations.' If I'm wrong on this, please let me know why.
There was an aspect of the Sony rootkit issue that I only saw discussed on a couple of blogs & message boards. Again, I'm no expert, but the way it was explained, it seems that Mr. Russinovich was in violation of certain provisions in the DMCA. Specifically, it was illegal for him to search his computer for a rootkit. It was illegal to identify it. It was illegal to try to remove it. So I ask a ridiculous question: why was Mr. Russinovich not prosecuted for violating provisions of the DMCA?
Now I ask a far more reasonable one: why the hell is it so difficult, Mark, to admit that the law has not caught up with the technology, and that, until this horribly constructed law undergoes a sorely-needed overhaul, that the attorney I linked to earlier is correct in floating the proposition that until all this is sorted out, that the use of terms like 'theft,' and its legally inaccurate usage in such discussions, is not only counterproductive, but foolish?
I do not think I'm making such an unreasonable observation here, Mark. And I don't think it helps when you put up posts such as the ones in this thread. And it's not about some PC nonsense that says we shouldn't call a thief a thief. It's more like, if we take just a second to approach this more rationally, that we'll benefit from having a law better than the one that now exists. Perhaps it will classify those illegally infringing copyright as thieves, in which case I will be content to call them exactly that. This is not currently the case. I want to see a balanced law, but, within limits, I am hoping that technology will soon provide us with the ability to be more precise about identifying those engaged in illegal file-sharing. It's probably too much to hope for that the RIAA hires some hackers to work to achieve this end, because, after all, there will be another Britney Spears or Lisa Marie Presley or Ashlee Simpson album that will need to be promoted. Let them continue to file suits against an increasing number of people whose only crime was not securing their wireless network--or people whose IP addresses were in fact spoofed. I think this all trumps yr view on the subject, Mark, and I think it's sad that you don't see it that way. And I know you're a busy guy, but I am hopeful that you can spend a few minutes & sit down & tell me exactly why I'm wrong about this, and why I should see it your way.
In return, I think I have a photo of a teenaged Michael Portnoy floating around here somewhere that I'd be happy to post, if yr youngster would have any interest in seeing it (I do think you recently said Portnoy had become a fave?). I think it might be a pic of him in a marching band uniform with a bass drum strapped on, but I can't recall, I'll have to look. Hopefully I can dig it up. In any case, I do look forward to a reply.
I still want to digest more of what you said...I also believe that based on that, that I've contributed to the inflammatory nature of this discussion, and overall issue.
Further, - yes, - although I've been somewhat out of touch, - my most egregious statement was probably that (illegal) downloading only helps the artists/label. When in fact, - teh escalation in the war, - however it escalated, - and whomever is responsible, has CURRENTLY, NOW, TODAY, - and maybe even for a few years; has really hurt the labels bottom line.
Part of that war, has also caused a lot of homogenization, - which has resulted in a lower quality product, - (but that's an arguable, more subjective opinion), - which, exacerbates the fact that the consumer doesn't want pay for an inferior product.
Again, excellently reasoned post, and your points are well taken...
Cheers,
The problem of leisure, what to do for pleasure. Ideal love a new purchase, a market of the senses. Dream of the perfect life.
We agree far more than we disagree. I just think that the DMCA has severe problems that need to be addressed, and a constructive debate furthers that goal. Illegal file-sharing, any benefits aside, does not, and far more than any other factor. However, it is valid to also take into consideration how the industry has mismanaged digital distribution. Once we get to the point of bringing in various other industry foibles...it opens the discussion wider than it should be, and the natural consequence is that someone is going to feel as though rationalizations for theft are being employed...vicious circle.I have to say that I would not be shocked if copyright law loses much of its clout in the near future. I mean, it's hard to imagine illegal file-sharing becoming legal, but at one time taping off the radio was illegal, too. Lots of things that were once illegal are now legal, and we take that for granted. Most comparisons don't make sense, but society changes, and the law tends to change with it. I've seen it suggested that not only is the album, or the CD, 'dead,' so to speak, but that more and more people are getting used to the idea that the only way to make money in the music business is through...ringtones. And live performance/merchandising, and to a lesser extent paid downloads. The 'the old model is dead' line of reasoning. I have no crystal ball, so all I can offer is that the nature of the business will have changed more between 2000 and 2010 than it probably did in the previous 50. But that's true for many aspects of contemporary life, as technological gains have exploded to an extent I don't think anyone thought possible.
Unfortunately, for the sake of this discussion, we are stuck in a time where a one-two punch has dealt the industry a serious blow: one, parents are not instilling in their offspring the sense of right and wrong, in the sense that Mark refers to. Two, getting across to an entire generation of youngsters, a lesson that they did not learn from their parents, the issue of illegal file-sharing, why it was wrong, and why it was something that did great damage to an industry, did not happen. Because it was handled clumsily, because they did not care, because people started spending money on cheap DVDs & stopped spending money on expensive CDs, because it was another miracle brought to us by technology. From my point of view, Lars Ulrich's testimony & a few commercials wasn't the way to go, not when cooler heads might've found a way to negotiate with Napster, might've chosen not to sue the Rio.
Were you aware of the legal discussion I linked to on that message board? Did you read it? I'm curious to know what you think of that. A few years ago, I think it was the same guy, there was a great discussion on that board, now probably gone, where he said that he was itching to be sued by the RIAA. Because he used file-sharing networks on a daily basis to share software, legally, as well as files that he created that were specifically named after hit songs. But, they were not actually song files, can't remember if he said they were in MP3 format or not, but the point was that they were not infringing on anyone's copyright. However, it was said at the time that the process the RIAA was using to identify infringing files did not include the people involved actually playing the files to see if they were indeed, actually, infringing song files. He admitted to creating files in the hope they would become ensnared in the RIAA's net, because it could potentially expose the RIAA's methods as being so weak, that they would likely sue an alleged uploader without checking to see what it was that was actually being uploaded & downloaded. This was only half-serious, and of course that's a real troublemaker mentality, but he was quite serious in considering it important to hold the RIAA to standards when it came to how they were identifying infringers.
Like I said, if only they'd canceled the budgets on a few stupid recs, they could've enticed hackers to devise a way where they could definitively identify infringers properly. But then, if only they'd negotiated with Napster, if only they hadn't sued the Rio...and if only millions of people didn't choose to create, and take, something that does not belong to them.
That last sentence always meant theft, pretty much, until the advent of file-sharing. And so technology has so outpaced the law that the idea of the law being able to address this properly is a sad joke.
And that sucks. It needs to be dealt with. Soon.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
