Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 12:36, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message
b.com...
On 25/03/2011 09:04, David Looser wrote:
wrote


snipped not necessarily disagree but not the point I'm trying to make


Plenty of people say, as a point of apparent unequivocal fact, that
copyright is good, and I am wrong in my opinion.

Do they? We all have opinions on all sorts of subjects and what is the point
of having an opinion if you don't believe it to be true? In the case of
copyright we can only speculate on what the world would be like without it,
so obviously there cannot be "unequivocal fact".

My view, FWIW, is that without copyright few people, however much they might
want to, could afford to produce the sort of "works" that copyright
currently protects. In the particular case of film making the sheer cost of
the process would, IMO, mean the end of the film industry as we know it.


In a sense, yes, and I don't really have a problem with that (demise of
the industry as it stands). Of course I accept some people 'don't eat'
if there's no copyright - but that's a tiny (if significant) minority.
In much the same way as people who lose their jobs as a result of
bankers' excesses don't eat. Just because it happens don't make it
right. Also, distribution of proceeds is notoriously unfair - this
notion that the sound engineer of the artist get a decent cut is
fanciful. And perhaps 'art' (let's say) is better commissioned not off
the back of copyright revenue, but from what people ask for.

Anyway, my main point is that you can't fix something that is
fundamentally flawed. I've made the point that people shouldn't own
things. That would be difficult to tolerate or even imagine in our
society. But I feel it's this issue that leads to a lot of the problems
we have.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 09:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 25/03/2011 13:20, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com, [big snip]


Yes, I think that's a succinct and considered view. Just not mine. I
don't think 'talent', 'productivity', whatever, should be sold.

I also like the 'free' and 'open' ways of doing things for many purposes.
But I also think it is a matter for the individual author or performer if
they want to only provide their work in return for an income. Up to them to
state their terms, and for others to decide if they want the result enough
to agree, or go without.


Yes well. It all becomes utterly circular at this point. Don't people
have to engage with the industry to produce and distribute music (etc)
in the first place. I like the idea of internet, unfettered,
distribution for example, but it's too disorganised for people like me -
I don't have the time or energy . . .

Once you put monetary value on that type of thing reasoning becomes
perversely skewed.

I don't agree that with a blanket assertion that it is always "perversely
skewed". Some people write or perform as a means to make a living. If they
are good enough for others to pay, why should they not do so?


No, absolutely, I'd have thought many performers etc do what they do
without a thought for money, or perhaps only a distant expectation that
they'll get some return. It's people elsewhere and their shareholders
that I'm concerned about.

Now, 'in the real world', people need to eat. But this discussion isn't
really about people scraping a living, is it? It's /more/ to do with
supporting corporations and wealthy individuals, and helping them
maintain their little lot?

That for me is a key point. It is one thing to have in place a legal
framework that allows the creator or performer to earn a living from their
work. It is something else for businesses to then take control of this for
their own ends.

To me it all has to be judged on the basis of what it serves, and who
benefits in each case. That means I'd wish to see some detailed alterations
to copyright law where I think at present it harms either the
creator/artist and/or the people who would like to use the results. But I
don't expect or wish to see it entirely banished.

Consider Linux. I like this partly because of how it works. But also I like
the free and open approach. I'd love to see more computer users adopt this.
But I don't want to ban Microsoft or Apple or change the law so that anyone
could copy and use their softwareware for free. I'm happy for the two
approaches to compete. My only concern is that people have a fair view of
what is on offer so they can decide on a well-informed basis, and either
contribute/pay and use on the basis they decide suits them best.


I see your point, but don't agree. People use Microsoft because it's
ubiquitous, not because it's especially good or good value. I think
copyright has served to reinforce that position. And it's not a case of
'fair view' - students frequently invest obscene amounts of money (they
don't appear to have) on 'MS computers' because they feel they have to.

I'm not a fan of Windows or Microsoft. But I don't feel it is my job to
tell others *they* shouldn't like it. Provided they are well informed and
aren't making a choice based on misinformation or ignorance, up to them to
choose for themself.

Yes, and i'm not especially proud of this sentiment, but it really isn't
that simple.

In terms of things like music or film or books the choices are similar. The
point of copyright law should be to set a fair framework people can use as
suits them as people. The difficulty is that the framework we have at
present seems to me to be based on an older and different world, then
morphed by pressure from big companies into what suits *them*. So there are
many detailed changed I'd like to see. But not the removal entirely of all
copyrights.


If I had to pick an expedient transitional arrangement it might be a
lump sum, or a a fixed term contract. But a practically endless stream
of money for something they had the opportunity to be a part of, that
happens to be popular, nope.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
David wrote:
wrote

Yes, I think that's a succinct and considered view. Just not mine. I
don't think 'talent', 'productivity', whatever, should be sold.

Since the dawn of history people have sold their skills and labour for
money (or equivalent). This applies whether your skills are as a farmer,
a warrior, a bureaucrat, a craftsman, a performer or indeed a writer,
composer or film-maker. Do you think that none of these skills or
talents should be "sold", or are you making a distinction between those
who produce physical products and those who produce "intellectual
property"?

Wonder what Rob would think if he wrote a book and sent the manuscript to
a publisher, and it was rejected, and returned.

Then found it was later published and became a best seller with nothing
being paid to him.


Ah well yes, I'd concede I am a hypocrite. Doesn't stop me thinking one
thing and doing something else.

In the example you give, I might expect a 'decent return'. If it
happened to be a best seller, I'd give up the day job, take a few year's
salary equivalent, and give the rest away.

So I'd be a little put out. But, and as I think most could guess, it's
really not likely to happen :-)

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 12:18, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In aweb.com, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 09:47, Eiron wrote:
On 27/03/2011 09:18, Rob wrote:

I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the
recording industry, a single penny.
:

This probably isn't technically correct, having rethought it. But I
don't intend to spend too much more time incriminating myself as a
matter of permanent record :-)

copied the CD, gave the CD away to someone else

No contradiction there, of course.


You'd be quite right there, of course :-)

I look forwards to those who have acted as you describe then telling the
artists and publishers to discover what reactions they get. When they do,
please let us know the outcome. :-)


Well, you don't know how I've acted. If I have copied CDs and then kept
the copies and given them away, you'd need to know the CD's origin, who
I gave them to, and what the recipient then did as a result.

But more seriously, I would like to talk it through with the people who
do the work, and see what they think.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 17:10, David Looser wrote:
wrote in message
b.com...

I don't think I have ever, through act or omission, denied the recording
industry, a single penny. In fact, overall, they've done pretty well out
of me.

Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.

I don't agree. I can only think of Radiohead as a counter to your
reasoning, because I don't know enough about how making music works.

Radiohead is an interesting case. AIUI it Radiohead were a band who, having
made a lot of money from sales of previous releases, decided to offer one on
a "pay what you think it worth" basis. From my memory of news reports at the
time some people paid the recommended price (i.e.. what it would have
normally cost), others paid less than that, whilst a large number paid
nothing. I'm not sure how much less the group got than they might have
expected from a normal release; the publicity given to the case probably
meant that some of those who paid nothing downloaded the album for free just
because they could, and would not have done so at all if they'd had to pay.
Personally I don't think that a rational way to sell anything, I notice that
my local supermarket doesn't offer it's products on a "pay what you think
they are worth" basis. As far as I am aware neither Radiohead nor any other
band has repeated that gimmick since. And how people responded to that case
does not necessarily indicate how they would act if the "pay what you think
it worth" model was the norm. My guess, FWIW, is that it would soon move
into a situation where hardly anybody ever paid for downloads.


I really believe you'd be surprised. If the money went straight to the
artist I think a lot of people would pay what they think it's worth.


afraid your argument won't change my behaviour. For example:

I went to watch some live music on Saturday. Bit left field for me (jazz)
but thoroughly enjoyed the experience, bought a CD at the venue, copied
the CD, gave the CD away to someone else I thought might enjoy the music.
I just don't see who gets hurt in that type of process. Perhaps you're
saying I should have asked for money, and then tracked down the performer
and passed on whatever fee I'd managed to negotiate? And relied on the
performer to ensure everything went to the people it should go to? Or lent
the CD, and made clear that it must be returned after a period (3 weeks?).
Or I should simply have put the CD away in the cellar, and carried it with
me for the rest of my time, or until I securely deleted the stored copy?


As current law applies clearly the last option is the legally correct
approach. As for "who gets hurt" that would depend on whether you cost the
band a sale. Had you, rather than giving your copy to your friend,
recommended he went out and bought his own (and he had done so) the band
would have gained a sale, so you potentially cost them one by your action.
The loss of one sale may not be the end of the world, but if everbody who
buys a CD costs the band one further sale by acting as you did then their
income from that CD has been cut by 50%.

Suppose, if copyright did not exist, you went to the concert with your
laptop and a pile of blank CD-Rs. Then you bought one CD, ran off a load of
copies on your laptop, and offered the audience the chance to buy a copy
from you, rather than an 'official' copy. Without copyright that would be
legal, but do you think it ethical?


No I don't and I wouldn't do that. I've made a call. I could be wrong,
but I don't think I am. I think the musicians and a few other people
will do pretty well out of my actions. I did do it for me in the first
instance, I'm not going to squirm out of that one.

I accept Arny's (and your) point that it could be illegal, depending on
the origin/nature of the CD. But as I've tried to maintain, I'm more
interested in the morality and 'hurt' arguments.

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

On 27/03/2011 18:28, Keith G wrote:

"Rob" wrote


I went to watch some live music on Saturday. Bit left field for me
(jazz) but thoroughly enjoyed the experience, bought a CD at the
venue, copied the CD, gave the CD away to someone else I thought might
enjoy the music. I just don't see who gets hurt in that type of
process. Perhaps you're saying I should have asked for money, and then
tracked down the performer and passed on whatever fee I'd managed to
negotiate? And relied on the performer to ensure everything went to
the people it should go to? Or lent the CD, and made clear that it
must be returned after a period (3 weeks?). Or I should simply have
put the CD away in the cellar, and carried it with me for the rest of
my time, or until I securely deleted the stored copy?

Can you give me a practical steer here? I don't know quite what you're
saying.


I think one thing that comes out of all this is that if you do rip a CD
and give the original away (to anybody or any organisation) you had
better not mention it here - as it seems to me it might be 'unsafe' so
to do! ;-)


Yes - getting a bit bored with self-incrimination! Not that I have
distributed copyrighted material etc etc.

Makes the question 'Have you finished with that newspaper?' look like
someone intends to diminish Mr Murdock's personal fortune by his share
of the price of that paper, does it not? How many times could that paper
be passed along for free before it was considered a problem? How many
times could that paper be passed along for say 'half price' before it
was considered a problem?

Quite!

Rob

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote

I've made the point that people shouldn't own things.

When you say "things" do you mean just intellectual property, or all
property?

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

"Rob" wrote

In the example you give, I might expect a 'decent return'. If it happened
to be a best seller, I'd give up the day job, take a few year's salary
equivalent, and give the rest away.

There probably would not be any "rest". The likes of J.K.Rowling are few and
far between, most "best sellers" do not make more than a few year's salary
equivalent.

I was sorry, BTW, that you didn't answer my question as to whether you felt
that it was always wrong to put a monetary value on talent, or if that only
applied to certain sorts of talent.

David.

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article m, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 09:48, Jim Lesurf wrote:
In raweb.com,

I also like the 'free' and 'open' ways of doing things for many
purposes. But I also think it is a matter for the individual author or
performer if they want to only provide their work in return for an
income. Up to them to state their terms, and for others to decide if
they want the result enough to agree, or go without.


Yes well. It all becomes utterly circular at this point. Don't people
have to engage with the industry to produce and distribute music (etc)
in the first place.

Nope. At present people can and do:

Go and perform for friends or in clubs or bars or other places. Either as
amateurs of for a whip around or for some payment.

Produce music and put it on the net and invite people to try it - either
for free or in exchange for some money.

etc.

As I said, we have a 'mixed' situation where people have options.

I like the idea of internet, unfettered, distribution for example, but
it's too disorganised for people like me - I don't have the time or
energy . . .

Your legal and moral choice to not use. Not (legally) your choice to simply
make a pirate copy of material *without* permission. If you interest is so
weak that you can't be bothered then don't bother. No-one else is
compelling you so far as I know.


Consider Linux. I like this partly because of how it works. But also I
like the free and open approach. I'd love to see more computer users
adopt this. But I don't want to ban Microsoft or Apple or change the
law so that anyone could copy and use their softwareware for free. I'm
happy for the two approaches to compete. My only concern is that
people have a fair view of what is on offer so they can decide on a
well-informed basis, and either contribute/pay and use on the basis
they decide suits them best.


I see your point, but don't agree. People use Microsoft because it's
ubiquitous, not because it's especially good or good value.

I agree. However what seems "wrong" about that to me is the situation where
they either don't know they have any choice, or are mislead, or are forced
by circumstances that remove their choice - e.g. by working in a place
where it is dictated to them that they can't choose anything else. It is
these factors that control or limit their ability to make a free and
well-informed choice that are the problem in my view. You can't have a
meaningful 'choice' if you are denied the relevant info, mislead, or forced
which option to take.

I have no doubt that Microsoft exploit this situation. I'd expect that as
their interest is making money. So to deal with it we require others to
change how these free market distortions, etc, arise.


I think
copyright has served to reinforce that position. And it's not a case of
'fair view' - students frequently invest obscene amounts of money (they
don't appear to have) on 'MS computers' because they feel they have to.

And I (and many others) keep having to pay a 'Microsoft Tax' since when we
buy a new set of hardware it comes 'bundled' with an operating system and
apps I don't want and don't use. Again, this lack of the simple option of
being able to always choose *not* to have that seems unreasonable.

In theory you can reclaim what you paid for the unwanted pre-installed OS,
etc. But try this and see how you get on. Has anyone *ever* succeeded? And
why should you have to be put thought this for something you didn't want in
the first place when they could easily be a choice at the start?

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Another 'self-censoring' post! :-)
 

In article om, Rob
wrote:
On 27/03/2011 13:48, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Wonder what Rob would think if he wrote a book and sent the manuscript
to a publisher, and it was rejected, and returned.

Then found it was later published and became a best seller with
nothing being paid to him.


Ah well yes, I'd concede I am a hypocrite. Doesn't stop me thinking one
thing and doing something else.

I can't resist adding into this discussion an 'interesting case' I've just
encountered.

I went into a local bookshop and found a newly published book by... John
Wyndham. Who died about 40 years ago!

He wrote it at the same time as he wrote "The Day of the Triffids", but it
wasn't published whilst he was alive. Now it has appeared. It was initially
published by Liverpool Uni, and now by Penguin Books. I presume at present
the copyright is between the Uni and his 'estate'. This raises the
question, should they not be paid for the work in bringing this to
publication?

Hard cases make bad law. :-)

BTW Only read part of it so far, but it seems quite enjoyable. Did make me
reflect that - on cover price - it cost me over 50 times as much as the
copy I have of Triffids. In fact I bought that second hand in Angel Lane
for 6d (old pence) so the ratio I paid is even bigger! :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html