Public library and piracy

[richwhite9]

I really didn't take your original post to be pro-piracy, only that you do pirate music, and think that the Dutch government thinks making information public domain is more important than protecting authors' rights. I don't know anything about Dutch government or politics, so I can't answer to that one way or another. I do know the European (especially in Italy) thinking on copyright protection and its value is quite a bit different than my own, but that's not what's being discussed.

 

Microsoft is under the gun again over Open Source and its something of a problem.

 

Should a company be penalized for shipping a product that is more 'complete' than another? IBM and Oracle of course are saying Open Source since it benefits the software service indusry like IBM who wants to customize everything they can at $400 an hour. This obviously benefits Euro progammers too if companies need to ship OK but incomplete software as building blocks rather than purchase proprietary prebuilt software. Individual software developers can create value added widgets to market as part of the live onsite performance.

 

This is akin to saying Native Instruments Kontakt and Encryption will be protected but finished product is free to pirate unless its in the context of live performance.

 

That's a little stretch but not among the Open Source Left so to speak.

[zephonic]

intellectual property protection versus making knowledge available to the people who can't afford it.

Really?

 

I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.

 

What do you mean? Is it not okay to have a discussion about this?

 

If your argument then becomes the artists I want to hear aren't available through those sources, then I might say you should be spending money on those lesser artists and not ripping them off.

 

If you can afford a computer to make copies of CDs, you can afford to buy the album.

 

How does this relate to any of my previous posts?

 

 

It was your subsequent posts that have me (and I'm presuming others as well) perplexed.

 

But what exactly has you perplexed? I'd appreciate it if you could quote the offending posts (or parts thereof), so that I understand what it is that I'm not getting across.

 

[Tonysounds]

Actually, your chronology is off, I never "attacked" you until you insinuated that as I am not a musician who makes his sole living from composing, performing or producing, that my P.O.V. is without merit. My previous post just that your yawn response indicated you werent really interested in a debate. Thats hardly a personal attack.

 

Your first post directed to me reads:

 

 

That's the response of someone who obviously doesn't have product to sell. Way to see the other side Z.

 

You weren't really interested in the debate, were you?

 

This sounded like a personal attack to me.

 

 

I also think youre rationalizing your original post and its intent. If not, you might want to think about how you compose these posts to inspire real debate.

 

Perhaps. However, I see others did understand its intent and have responded in a thoughtful manner.

 

But please tell me which passages in my OP you find offensive. I say this without mockery, I really do not care for the unpleasant vibes this thread is giving me.

 

As I have said, it wasnt your ORIGINAL POST that irked me. What did and does irk me:

#1- your snotty response to iLaw who drew a nice, easy-to-follow anecdote that very clearly outlined and defined his P.O.V. (something your O.P. did not do, if we are to believe your latest rationale);

#2- your insinuation that since you solely support yourself through composition, recording and production, your P.O.V. carries more weight and legitimacy (fail), and your ending salvo what about you, indicating some false sense of superiority (I have plenty of that for both of us, thank you);

#3- your rewrite of this threads history, and its intent. You state your case (I tape things from my library, Dutch law advocates dissemination of information over author protection, your thoughts), then you take issue when somebody puts their thoughts out there (as you asked), belittle their clear and defined example (something you can take a lesson in apparently) as it apparently bristled your rationale for stealing music, then take further umbrage when others agree with THAT poster.

 

If you felt personally attacked by the quote you show above (That's the response of someone who obviously doesn't have product to sell.), then I advise you to grow a thicker skin and fast: criticism of your views on music piracy are nothing; wait until someone actually tells you your music sucks, or you read a hostile review of your music or performance. I dont care who you are or what you do, someone somewhere will not like what you do and will be brazen enough to tell you: thats a by-product of going public with your art.whether or not you value yours higher than you apparently value anyone elses.

 

[Sven Golly]

Hello Sven. The way it works with corporate clients is that they pay a flat fee for production costs and renew license of use every 2 years. In fairness, I was on a salary and as such do not derive income from those licenses (which belong to the company, not me personally).

 

So you really have had no horse in the IP race, which again makes your assertion that you've earned your income from the creation of music to be disingenuous within the context of this thread. To be clear, after you wrote a jingle for Coke, you derived the same amount of money regardless of the actions of the general public, because the general public wasn't the purchasing agent of said work.

 

My album (why the quotes, btw?) is a labour of love, and I do not expect to see much of a return on the investment.

 

As for the quotes, I apologize, I was merely trying to highlight that this album seems to be your first work that will derive its revenue from the actions of the buying/pirating public. That, I feel, is an important point to make, as it goes a long way to forming your opinion in this debate.

 

 

[Eric Iverson]

As a younger man, I admit that I taped albums and cassettes and CDs from the library for my personal collection, and sometimes even duplicated one of those tapes for a friend, or more often, I made collages of different tracks, some from material I had purchased but included a track or two from library material.

I never felt guilty about it, because I spent PLENTY of money on albums, tapes and CDs.

Nowadays, I am much less likely to do so, in part because I don't have as much free time as I did as a kid, but also because the music industry is in trouble these days.... major record stores like Tower Records closing, etc.

And if it's an independent musician, that's another factor, too. We're not talking about a mega-millionaire rock star... the price of a CD that I copied rather than purchased a second copy for a friend might mean they weren't able to make their mortgage that month.

[Sven Golly]

Making copies of copyrighted material becomes a crime once it is redistributed and/or sold for profit.

 

Incorrect; it's a crime immediately upon the act of copying, it's just not a realistically enforceable crime.

 

When you write a song and/or compose music, get it copyrighted. Think of it like car insurance.

 

Actually, copyright is in place upon the writing of the music. The "get it copyrighted" stuff is merely to have supportive evidence in the event that someone rips you off. So in that regard, those actions are like getting insurance.

 

Piracy has always been around but it hasn't crippled the recording industry. Hot songs have been leaked to the internet and still have not adversely affected sales of that record.

 

Well, a large number of factors have definitely affected the music industry, but I find it very hard to agree with your assertion that piracy "hasn't crippled the recording industry." I have dozens of friends that are no longer gainfully employed by major labels, from A&R people to producers to promotions folks, who may strongly disagree with you as well.

 

Folks buy art their feel is worthy of the price. After all, many of us have bought the same music several times i.e. vinyl, tape, CD and downloads.

 

Hard to compare our actions as musicians who (generally) understand and appreciate the value of what we do to those of the general public.

 

IMO, that will never change. If you write and compose a hot song, folks will buy it. Period.

 

I'd suggest that if you do that (write a hot song), more folks will buy it than if it were a mediocre song... at the same time, more folks will also obtain it for free.

 

What has changed over the last decade is how many people have the tools/ability to obtain your music for zilch, as well as the prevailing attitudes of the general populace.

[Cygnus64]

And if it's an independent musician, that's another factor, too. We're not talking about a mega-millionaire rock star...

Sorry, but this makes me cringe.

 

It's far too simplistic and overall extrememly inaccurate. The mega-millioniare rocks stars are maybe %00001 of musicians. Mick Jagger is one, I doubt that Keith Emerson is. Peter Frampton isn't for sure. A lot of respected musicians like Adrian Belew are probably not. John Fogerty has made it extremely clear that he is not.

 

Mick Jagger has done lots of cover tunes over the years. Not all the writers are rich. We've all heard the TAXI story of the two guys who wrote a Kenny Rogers song. Kenny Rogers is extremely rich, the guys who wrote that song might not have a pot to piss in.

 

Sygnus sez: a song for sale is a song for sale. If one shoplifts from Walmart or the local Mom and Pop, it's the same crime.

[kanker.]

So Kid Ory, Walt Disney, and James Hetfield walk into a bar.....

[Tonysounds]

You mean Lars Ulrich.

[kanker.]

You mean Lars Ulrich.

I think they were both there...

 

[video:youtube]

[Tonysounds]

Sorrydidnt mean to hijack the joke: I hear Hetfield in a conversation about copyright protection, and I immediately go all Rorschach and think ULRICH!.

[zephonic]

As I have said, it wasnt your ORIGINAL POST that irked me. What did and does irk me:

#1- your snotty response to iLaw who drew a nice, easy-to-follow anecdote that very clearly outlined and defined his P.O.V. (something your O.P. did not do, if we are to believe your latest rationale);

#2- your insinuation that since you solely support yourself through composition, recording and production, your P.O.V. carries more weight and legitimacy (fail), and your ending salvo what about you, indicating some false sense of superiority (I have plenty of that for both of us, thank you);

#3- your rewrite of this threads history, and its intent. You state your case (I tape things from my library, Dutch law advocates dissemination of information over author protection, your thoughts), then you take issue when somebody puts their thoughts out there (as you asked), belittle their clear and defined example (something you can take a lesson in apparently) as it apparently bristled your rationale for stealing music, then take further umbrage when others agree with THAT poster.

 

If you felt personally attacked by the quote you show above (That's the response of someone who obviously doesn't have product to sell.), then I advise you to grow a thicker skin and fast: criticism of your views on music piracy are nothing; wait until someone actually tells you your music sucks, or you read a hostile review of your music or performance. I dont care who you are or what you do, someone somewhere will not like what you do and will be brazen enough to tell you: thats a by-product of going public with your art.whether or not you value yours higher than you apparently value anyone elses.

 

So if I understand you correctly I should grow a thicker skin and not feel insulted by your jibe yet you are outraged over an emoticon that was not even directed at you?

 

Whatever, man. What really happened is here in this thread for all to read.

 

I will walk away from this diatribe now, but not without saying that it seems as if you are out to discredit me in order to justify your unprovoked attack. So be it. No hard feelings.

Ciao.

 

 

 

 

[Tonysounds]

 

:wave:Attack: Imagined.

 

Outrage: Imagined.

 

Discrediting: Your own words suffice.

 

 

You asked me not once, but twice, to point out what bothered me when I told you your original post made no difference to me. You are the one on the offensive, and yet you seem to be whining loudest when your questions are answered.

[zephonic]

Hello Sven. The way it works with corporate clients is that they pay a flat fee for production costs and renew license of use every 2 years. In fairness, I was on a salary and as such do not derive income from those licenses (which belong to the company, not me personally).

 

So you really have had no horse in the IP race, which again makes your assertion that you've earned your income from the creation of music to be disingenuous within the context of this thread. To be clear, after you wrote a jingle for Coke, you derived the same amount of money regardless of the actions of the general public, because the general public wasn't the purchasing agent of said work.

 

My album (why the quotes, btw?) is a labour of love, and I do not expect to see much of a return on the investment.

 

As for the quotes, I apologize, I was merely trying to highlight that this album seems to be your first work that will derive its revenue from the actions of the buying/pirating public. That, I feel, is an important point to make, as it goes a long way to forming your opinion in this debate.

 

 

Fair enough. However, if you look at my website again, you will see the discography section. Not very impressive, I admit, but I do have records out, so to say that I don't have a horse in this race is not entirely correct. Granted, my last release was from 2008 and it was a minor release only, but it brings in royalties and is not selling all that badly considering that it is a Dutch jazz album. And like I said before, my older (pop) releases still bring in modest amounts of money every year.

 

 

[Joe Muscara]

intellectual property protection versus making knowledge available to the people who can't afford it.

If your argument then becomes the artists I want to hear aren't available through those sources, then I might say you should be spending money on those lesser artists and not ripping them off.

 

If you can afford a computer to make copies of CDs, you can afford to buy the album.

 

How does this relate to any of my previous posts?

C'mon dude, see what you said that I quoted and have now emphasized.

 

Anyway...

:wave:Attack: Imagined.

 

Outrage: Imagined.

 

Discrediting: Your own words suffice.

 

 

You asked me not once, but twice, to point out what bothered me when I told you your original post made no difference to me. You are the one on the offensive, and yet you seem to be whining loudest when your questions are answered.

QFE

 

I was about to post much the same. zeph, I feel that any time someone doesn't agree with you here (note those words, they were chosen for a reason), you act petulant and offended. I don't think you're looking for a discussion so much as for people to agree with you.

 

In the end you have to let your own morals be your guide. Tip: "Everybody does it" is not the way to go.

 

Have a nice thread.

[richwhite9]

A couple good recent articles on plagiarism at the NYT.

 

Guess what? Intellectual theft is rampant and is now pretty much accepted in academia.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html?_r=1

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/plagiarism-is-not-a-big-moral-deal/?hp

 

Students view papers as "mash ups" and borrow freely with only 29% having a clue as to what plagiarims is or thinking it is wrong.

 

Yes, downloaded music and 'copy and paste' has changed the ethical view on intellectual rights.

 

The scary thing: academia is agreeing with the little goniffs.

 

 

[Michelle ggurl]

When you write a song and/or compose music, get it copyrighted. Think of it like car insurance.

 

For many folks, copyrighting material is an exercise in futility. Especially if that song/music is never released commercially.

 

OTOH, with copyright protection, if your song or music generates a considerable amount of money, having proof of ownership helps if you decide to pursue legal action.

 

Good point ... even if you don't do anything with your music, someone else might try. I've had 2 bandmates in 2 separate bands use a song I wrote (not even collaborated on, in one instance, just brought it in, finished and copyrighted) without my permission. In a small-potatoes scale, I don't even think there is anything I can enforce because I don't think sales resulted (and I don't know how to check if there were).

 

But if anything did happen so that they leveraged my work into wider recognition, I have the registered copyright to prove ownership ... whether the time/money/any ruling would be worth the hassle to pursue is another matter.

 

Folks buy art their feel is worthy of the price. After all, many of us have bought the same music several times i.e. vinyl, tape, CD and downloads.

 

IMO, that will never change. If you write and compose a hot song, folks will buy it. Period.

 

 

I once read a quote that "people buy music they can't live without." And it's cool some of that is surviving, but there should be more ...

 

Sadly, I think our mass-media culture devalues the arts ... I know that is not news, but I am trying to convey thoughts that it has deep implications. "Culture" by and large has been reduced to lowest common denominator, a commodity ... it no longer seems to have the importance as the voice of the "philosopher" or "sacred" class that balances out the "warrior class" (I hope you are all OK with my use of those archetypes). Instead it is a tool for the captains of industry (warriors) to win at the game of gaining market share. The work created is not considered vital to a collective soul is no longer the end, it is a product and it is the means. The market does not put a value on it, and it is not sufficiently separate from the market to realize "patronage" to sufficient degree. Not that I am not opposed to capitalism, in either theory or in much of its practice ...

 

I would like to be able to take a longview and then give specifics of what I think needs to happen before music can be a more sustaining way of life for dedicated practitioners. But it seems to me that unless there is some kind of cultural shift that takes place in every society that now has a mass media so that the arts genuinely regain importance -- and become something we "can't live without" -- it's looking like continual decline. Personally I think individuals DO value art to a degree, but the scarcity of it or scarcity of quality hasn't become severe enough for any shifts in perspective to occur.

 

If you didn't think I was crazy or full of sh!t I'm sure you all do now, LOL. *sigh*

[Cliffk]

A couple good recent articles on plagiarism at the NYT.

 

Guess what? Intellectual theft is rampant and is now pretty much accepted in academia.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html?_r=1

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/plagiarism-is-not-a-big-moral-deal/?hp

 

Students view papers as "mash ups" and borrow freely with only 29% having a clue as to what plagiarims is or thinking it is wrong.

 

Yes, downloaded music and 'copy and paste' has changed the ethical view on intellectual rights.

 

The scary thing: academia is agreeing with the little goniffs.

 

Amazing how things change so quickly. I distinctly recall that at varsity about 20 years ago, as a student and/or academic, plagiarism was the most despicable offence you could commit; just the shame of being exposed as a fraud was enough to keep things (mostly) honest in that environment. Now it's almost de rigueur for students who, on being busted, can never quite believe that the Google which led them to other people's essays they subsequently submitted as their own work is the very same Google which, just as conveniently, helps me confirm their plagiarism.

And am I the only one whose views on plagiarism, piracy etc. are considered by many friends and colleagues as naively 'quaint'? Like I'm the freak? The mind boggles, man.

[Cliffk]

"Culture" by and large has been reduced to lowest common denominator, a commodity ... it seems to me that unless there is some kind of cultural shift that takes place in every society that now has a mass media so that the arts genuinely regain importance -- and become something we "can't live without" -- it's looking like continual decline.

Scarily, the other day a colleague who I respected( ) very much and I were chatting about the same thing, and I asked him that age-old question: what is art? His answer: 'Anything that anyone produces creatively'. Really? Anything created by anyone is art? Is that what we've come to?

[SK]

Well, I'm not surprised academia now considers plagiarism acceptable. It's just their academic way of making a moral judgement.

 

Geekgurl, I relate and agree with every word you said, except for the last sentence.

 

Anything created by anyone is art? Is that what we've come to?

If anything/everything that anybody creates is 'art', then nothing is.

[longfuse]

A couple good recent articles on plagiarism at the NYT.

 

Guess what? Intellectual theft is rampant and is now pretty much accepted in academia.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/education/02cheat.html?_r=1

 

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/plagiarism-is-not-a-big-moral-deal/?hp

 

Students view papers as "mash ups" and borrow freely with only 29% having a clue as to what plagiarims is or thinking it is wrong.

 

Yes, downloaded music and 'copy and paste' has changed the ethical view on intellectual rights.

 

The scary thing: academia is agreeing with the little goniffs.

 

 

I recently wrote a couple of in-depth articles for a website I run. Google book searches proved invaluable as they directed me towards publications that I was totally unaware of. However, in Google's results pages the same text would crop up in different publications.

 

Often, it was authors quoting from the same works, but on a number of occasions - a suprising amount! - I saw plagiarism in the 'legitimate' publishing world: authors simply copying huge chunks of someone else's work and barely changing a word. And a lot of these books were 15 - 20 years old...before the internet took off.

 

It annoyed me as it doesn't take much to form an opinion on what you've read and then put it into your own words. Either that or just quote the damn text and attribute it to the author.

 

So plagiarism is nothing new, it's just easier to do and more people do it...although it is easier to detect thanks to internet searches, so a double-edged sword really.

[richwhite9]

I definitely have a 20th century view of plagiarism and did my grad school papers using MLA attibutons, etc.

 

I understand the logic to some: many inventors, writers and artists sell their wares anyway as corporate intellectual property and oft times either don't get credited (ghost work) or the credits are collaborative and attributed to a team--including the office staff. Regardless of credit the corporation gets the profits.

 

Knowing whether John or Paul wrote a song is so 20th Century and was never the norm. OK. I'm not buying it. But there it is.

[ProfD]

Personally I think individuals DO value art to a degree, but the scarcity of it or scarcity of quality hasn't become severe enough for any shifts in perspective to occur.

I would hope that folks will seek out the quality of art they desire. Along similar lines, I believe cream will always rise to the top.

 

Anything created by anyone is art? Is that what we've come to?

If anything/everything that anybody creates is 'art', then nothing is.

Of course, defining art is a slippery slope.

 

Then, there is the matter of who should be the gatekeepers of taste.

 

But, technology has definitely provided crayons, coloring books and an outlet to more people.

 

Had it not been for technology certain styles of music wouldn't exist. Sure, that's just find for those who hate Hip-Hop, Electronica, Death Metal, etc. But, IMO, it would be wrong to throw away or deny all of that music.

 

There has always been varying degrees of quality in all styles of music. The difference today is, more folks have access to the same tools and there are competing forms of entertainment.

 

The bottom line is, artists and musicians have to work harder to promote their work. They have to become better businesspeople in protecting it.

[Joe Muscara]

We saw this in graphic design 20 years ago. One used to have to learn all these specialized tools (and I mean real, physical tools) to do it, then the personal computer came along, and it made the process available to almost anyone. But just because one owns a copy of Photoshop (or god forbid, Word) doesn't make one a graphic designer, at least not a good one. Have you seen that flyer the lady from accounting put up and emailed to everyone announcing the company party? It was all caps, italics, and multiple colors.

 

(There are a couple of companies that advertise in Keyboard whom I'm sure aren't using real designers for their ads. It's a little more subtle than the lady from accounting, but it's still pretty bad.)

 

Personally, I'm all for anyone trying to create art that wants to. If it sucks, they won't go far. Usually.

[johnchop]

I have nothing to add except to say that the soft jazz Metallica video was the funniest thing I've seen in months. I must be late to the party. Damn... still wiping away tears.

[Michelle ggurl]

SK, I didn't say that. I think that was CliffK paraphrasing a statement HE didn't like made by a friend of his.

[Michelle ggurl]

ProfD, I do agree with what you are saying. Somehow my post was construed to somehow read that I am saying all creation should be considered high art, but I think that was a misunderstanding of conversation thread.

 

To extend your analogy, people have access to technology ... but they need more access to education/a mindset that values arts more. I do believe that. I have been saying that if music were taught in schools and treated as a necessary subject, my guess is the lowest common denominator of output would be a lot more interesting that it is. I think if more people had access to "coloring books and crayons," ie, art and music taught in schools, there would be more overall appreciation for what goes into to creating something of great skill or spiritual/emotional depth (and what qualifies as "good" is something I think will always be up for debate). Music, movies, et al is so removed from the actual performance ... people just take it for granted that all this entertainment is piped in around them for free (the appearance of free; they forget about the cable/satellite subscriptions they pay for, the electricity they pay for, the commercials in the programming) and take it for granted. People go to movies all the time, but when was the last time most went to a theatrical play?

[Eric Iverson]

Yes, and I think parents should at least EXPOSE their kids to art, drama, music etc. that is of excellent quality. It's sort of counterproductive to try and FORCE them to like something!

And it doesn't have to be super-expensive. It doesn't cost much to take them to a museum or a play, and not all concerts are as expensive as the Blue Note or the NY Philharmonic. Unfortunately, a lot of places kids aren't allowed into because of the alcohol served.

[SK]

Geekgurl, I wasn't quoting you. I fully agreed with your post, then I quoted CliffK's "quote" of his friend.

 

I was responding to 3 different posts there, so the sentence order of my post was confusing.

[ProfD]

Somehow my post was construed to somehow read that I am saying all creation should be considered high art, but I think that was a misunderstanding of conversation thread.

 

I didn't ready your very fine post that way.

 

To extend your analogy, people have access to technology ... but they need more access to education/a mindset that values arts more. I do believe that. I have been saying that if music were taught in schools and treated as a necessary subject, my guess is the lowest common denominator of output would be a lot more interesting that it is. I think if more people had access to "coloring books and crayons," ie, art and music taught in schools, there would be more overall appreciation for what goes into to creating something of great skill or spiritual/emotional depth (and what qualifies as "good" is something I think will always be up for debate). Music, movies, et al is so removed from the actual performance ... people just take it for granted that all this entertainment is piped in around them for free (the appearance of free; they forget about the cable/satellite subscriptions they pay for, the electricity they pay for, the commercials in the programming) and take it for granted. People go to movies all the time, but when was the last time most went to a theatrical play?

I agree that exposure to music education and higher art would be beneficial to society.

 

Still, entertainment and junk food have a lot in common.