winter wrote: 
Well, if it must known, I have always prized your intellect and writing ability. It has made me shake my head both ways; and this is a good thing... a chance to see outside the box. I am not without fault, it's true. I miss and misunderstand a great deal... it's a BIG world out there. You may laugh, but I very much think of myself like a Wolf in the way I see this world. In the natural world we can only protect so much... we have to focus on protecting what we care most about, and then hope Nature smiles on us and doesn't frown. Apology is kind of new to Nature and so are insults.

 islander wrote: 


Good point.

 islander wrote: 
If the music isn't released in a particular region, I think you should find a way to buy it from the region it's released in. Granted, they've chosen to forego the revenue from your region (at least for now). I still think that's their choice and we don't get to circumvent it.

It's a little less clear when it comes to stuff no longer in print. I guess I would still say that if the owners of the material aren't making it available any more, what right do the consumers have to sneak it out? I don't know.

And you're right, the industry's doing itself no favors with publicity like that. I read recently about a woman who's been ordered to pay millions in damages for file-sharing. If you want to go after Napster or whoever for millions, fair enough. But it's hard to believe one person downloaded anything like enough to do millions in damages.

 winter wrote: 
Save your words for people who will hear them... and for those who are counting them.

 Umberdog wrote: 
You addressed me directly with your remarks. Perhaps your self-professed ignorance extends to the operations of the English language? Clearly it already encompasses logic and basic courtesy. An apology expresses sincere regret for having given offense. It is a cornerstone of anyone's efforts to create and preserve relationships with other people. Perhaps you find your joy in relationships of another kind where apologies are unknown?

 winter wrote: 
We are in agreement (except about the theft thing). It should be the artists choice in how to distribute... or at least the license holders choice.  And it is wrong to simply download the latest Lady GaGa CD just because you can't be bothered to get to the mall and buy the plastic copy.  But there are other circumstances (Music not released in a region, Music or books no longer in print for a few examples) where there isn't another option. Yes, it's still copyright infringement, but here there is absolutely no lost revenue because the license holder isn't making the material available anywhere.

And what of the RP CDs that I hand out?  I'm pretty sure that is beyond fair use, but I don't feel any guilt in doing so. 

And again, the industry doesn't do itself any favors when you need an article with this headline:   http://www.eff.org/pages/customer-always-wrong-users-guide-drm-online-music

 kurtster wrote: 
Brilliant.

I like Scott's analogy.  In music the argument about copying has always been about quality.  The Industry always tried to keep the best quality away from the consumer in an effort to prevent high quality duplication, protecting their original copy and keeping its value. 

Look at the Beatles.  We had vinyl, then half speed virgin vinyl masters , then CD's, then remastered CD's, then 24 bit CD's and now 5.1 CD's.  How many times has the same product been resold ?

There have been attempts to regulate the resale of used CD's and even books.

It is clear that the burden falls on the copyright holder to protect their investment.  Once a piece is created and sold and enters into the public domain, then all bets are off.  It is up to the creator to get the best deal in the beginning and move on.  The investor uses technology to sell their product and is also victim of the same technology.

The music Industry has traditionally screwed the Artist and now is getting what they have given.  Now we have HD Radio.  If you want a decent copy of a tune you can now get it from the radio.  You can go to a library and get the CD and copy it for free.  Why the libraries and not Napster ?

Now books are digitalized.  Oops, ready for ganking.  Should have stuck to old fashioned paper if you are worried about pirating.  And close the libraries too.  Make em pay for everything.  But on the other hand you sell more stuff when its in wide circulation and there is a buzz, creating curiosity and discussion.

Back to my main point, the only real opportunity to make money for creative activities is at the point the creator sells it to the distibutor and depending on format, the distributor will only make the most upon initial release.  If the music Industry wanted to keep making an unlimited amount of money on a release, they would only sell vinyl records that get scratched and wear out and need replacing.  We would be ripping vinyl to CD's instead of cassettes like we used to.  The Industry chose to release on digital formats, they took their chances.  They created the monster.  Hello Dr. Frankenstein.  You can no longer control your creation.

 islander wrote: 


Not so much, no.

 winter wrote:
Dude, I knew it!  In real life, you are John Mayer aren't you?

 
oh,  I guess you're not John.

 winter wrote: 
Dear sir, perhaps I was not talking about you. Yeah, one could assume so, because I answered your post, but mine were rather more generic ramblings. Again, the interpretation was yours. No personal insult was intended. There are likely no enlightened men... although the sage's words are easy to understand and practice, no man under heaven is able to live by them. Therein lies our fault; a universal ignorance of wisdom. If you want my apology, then I freely give it. I apologize for speaking what I see, so that other's might have an opportunity to present there seeing as well. But do such apologies serve anything?

 islander wrote:  If an artist chooses to make copies of her work available for free, that's her choice. Nothing wrong with that, or with the "pay what you think it's worth" plan used by RP and Radiohead. I've considered doing something similar.

The point is that's the artist's choice, not the audience's. If an artist would rather set a fixed price for her work and not give any way for publicity, that's her choice too. We can debate the business wisdom of her choice, but it's her work and her call to make. Discussions about the music companies' methods and the way they treat their customers are certainly valid (and I'm not denying there's lots of room for improvement there), but at the end of the day they're entitled to run their business badly and treat their customers like crap if they think that's a workable business model. We can vote with our business by taking it elsewhere, not by ripping them off.

You may be right about it not meeting the legal standard for "theft". I don't know. Morally, I consider it a form of theft: someone took what was offered for sale without paying for it.

 Umberdog wrote: 
And yet you presumed, from your self-professed position of ignorance, to assume to know my motivations and moral character. Now you say the offense lies within me, as if I were a thief denouncing the police for catching him. It must be a great comfort to be in a position of such unassailable virtue as yours.

An honorable man would apologize, and an enlightened man would keep silent on matters of which he is ignorant. Your actions here reveal you are neither.

 winter wrote: 
But a lot of artists don't get the publicity from the publishers so they make some available for free. Sometimes people may infringe on the copyright and download an unauthorized copy. But what the original story misses is that every download does not equate to a missed sale. Many of those will seek out other works from artists that they heard from the unlicensed copies (I've done this a lot). What about the streams I've ripped from RP? I cut them to CD's or put them on an MP3 player and listen over and over, and yes, I've given them to others (w/ https://www.radioparadise.com/content.php?name=Support printed on them and as an html page on the disk) who liked the music.

I don't condone just downloading stuff because it's there and you don't feel like paying for it. But there are occasions where I do think it is justifiable. I also think that the industries refusal to look at new distribution methods and outright contempt for their customers is no small part of the problem. And although there is a large overlap in Piracy and peer to peer downloads, they are not interchangeable terms - once again, the industries old school stance makes their position unsympathetic.

And once again, it's not theft it is copyright infringement. It is still a crime, but it's not theft. 

 winter wrote: 
I do not know you, nor can I know every artist. Therefore, if there is insult in my honest observations of our world, world-ignorant as they are, then the insult must come from within yourself. I'm sorry to have rubbed your nose in it. Good luck to you, fellow sufferer, may your muse delight in the freedom of herself... and may your boss find enlightenment in you, as well.

P.S. What's wrong with masturbation once in a while? Feels good, no?

 Umberdog wrote: 
How thoughtful of you, a complete stranger, to insult my honesty and artistic integrity. Perhaps for dessert you could throw in something about my mother? And thanks for the career advice - I would return the favor if I thought it was one.

There is no external force that compels an artist to choose the almighty dollar over their art. No one makes hacks hack. Non-artists don't get off the hook for phoning in their work at the textile mill or the kettle-blackery: they made a choice to do less than their best, to suck up to the boss and count that in lieu of a job well done. Certainly there are artists who compromise their integrity, but this "selling out" criticism of those who (gasp!) actually succeed at their life's work is ridiculous. Why wish anything but success for artists whose work brings you joy?

Really great art is no more rare than it ever has been - which is to say it is exactly as common as eyes to see and ears to hear. You mean art that you personally consider great is something you personally don't see often. Fair enough. That could mean that you're not exposing yourself to a wide enough world, or it could mean that your personal standards are somewhat narrow (NTTAWWT). But to condemn the world for a lack of creativity, talent, and passion is silly. Think of all the artists whose talent went misunderstood and unappreciated until they were long dead. Now think of their heirs, whom you just insulted.

For the record, since you so kindly brought it up - I do create for the joy of creating. I can only hope those who read my work have half the fun reading it I had writing it. As a writer, I consider my audience - but not as a guiding force, nor as a necessary evil. It does no one the least good to write a masterpiece that no one appreciates. (Are you listening, Joyce's ghost?) Art that speaks only to the artist is just a more elegant form of masturbation, IMO.

Now if you will excuse me, I have a novel that needs work. Enjoy your snobbery.

 winter wrote: 
In a fair world, but I'm afraid that this is no longer possible. Greed is winning. Really great art is a very rare thing. The willingness for one person to respect and help another, becoming even rarer. I suggest you keep your day job and create for the joy of creating... then what you do will be honest and on course.

I should add that every human-made law is an attempt to subvert Nature. Nature is a master carpenter. Her wood is her creation. Lao Tzu said that trying to carve wood like a master carpenter will only hurt your hand.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
If memory serves, the music publishers get paid every time one of their songs are played.

So when I write a novel, I should shrug it off when everyone photocopies it or turns it into a PDF without my permission and sends it to everyone on their contacts list? That's not lost revenue, because those people felt I charged too much for my work and a lot of it went to bad people and irresponsible business practices in the publishing industry? I don't see a lot of logic there. I had something I was selling, and someone who wanted it took it without paying. Yes, I still have the novel - but I was trying to get people to pay me for the damn thing, and now they won't because someone got scan-happy and gave it to all their friends.

If I think a house I like is overpriced, I don't get to take it over for free. I can't demand the grocery store slash bread prices on pain of my shoplifting. And home and food are things people actually need. I could at least conceive of someone justifying stealing food for their starving family. But stealing a book/movie/album because they really want it but not enough to pay for it? In what moral universe is that not theft?

Artists make a living by selling their art. It's what they do for a living (or try to). It's a way of selling their time/labor/skill, just like any other job. You wouldn't like it if your boss said, "I like your work yesterday, but not enough to pay you for it." If it's crap work, don't buy it. If it's not crap work, fork over the cash. Simple as that.

Yes, some of them have gajillions of dollars. (They got that by creating art that people liked enough to pay for.) But for every Metallica or Michael Bay there are thousands of artists who scrape by. Setting up this "art should be free because music companies are greedy and who needs to buy Lars Ulrich more nose candy" paradigm hurts them, too.

I'm sorry, but I have no patience for piracy. If you like an artists' work enough to want it, why would you disrespect them by taking it just because it's made of ones and zeros instead of paint and canvas or paper and cloth? If you enjoy what they do, if it brings you pleasure, shouldn't you be willing to give something in exchange? Or would you rather they spent their time slogging away at day jobs instead?

You get paid for what you do for a living. So should they.

 Beaker wrote: 
The Nile used to be a beautiful place. Forgive me for living in the past. *place cute awkward-moment defying emoticon here.*