All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
Windows Geniune Pain in the Arse
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: Calum on 17 June 2010, 13:09 ---don't be such a self righteous wanker.
--- End quote ---
I stopped reading after that.
The fact that you've resorted to petty name calling just reinforces what I was saying before - there's no point in trying to discuss this with you any further.
piratePenguin:
That was hilarious.
Anyways, back to my discussion with Calum. We are simply coming from two different points of view: you believe that it's an artists inalienable right to set the terms of distribution for their artwork, including disallowing sharing. Imo it is a persons inalienable right to share whatever they have: the ability to share digital media, a million times in one second, should be a massive advancement for human society, not something that is culled and discouraged. We don't know where this attitude will take us - that's something I'd love to look into one day. The effects in my mind clearly extend beyond everyone having access to all public artwork for free (notice that if someone wants to keep artwork private they can only keep it to themselves, or distribute it only to trusted individuals who agree not to use their right to share).
I know you have a liken towards free media - as long it's the artists choice, as it is today. And maybe one day we'll see majority free media even with current legislation (I see things moving that way, slightly, and it's heartening and if it were to work, it would definitely be the most satisfying way to a free media world). However, I will continue to hold an artists right to use terms such as "can create copies for personal use, cannot distribute to others on a commercial or a non-commercial basis" in question. As I've said, I want to study this more, and (food for thought) in doing so I think it will be interesting to refer to the luddites of the industrial revolution. The digital revolution hasn't even been nearly embraced yet, the way I see it.
edit:
Consider finally that all artwork (essentially) is based off of other artwork. If you lived 1,000 years ago would you be playing the same way you play today? I don't think so. This means that in a (limited) sense, "your" music came from around you.
Calum:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez on 17 June 2010, 15:10 ---
--- Quote from: Calum on 17 June 2010, 13:09 ---don't be such a self righteous wanker.
--- End quote ---
I stopped reading after that.
The fact that you've resorted to petty name calling just reinforces what I was saying before - there's no point in trying to discuss this with you any further.
--- End quote ---
bullshit, you just can't stand the heat, and now you're resorting to a complete strawman tactic, essentially saying that because you're self righteous, that means i must be wrong.
Grow up, read my full post and formulate a reply. i'll be waiting.
Calum:
--- Quote from: piratePenguin on 17 June 2010, 17:00 ---That was hilarious.
... I will continue to hold an artists right to use terms such as "can create copies for personal use, cannot distribute to others on a commercial or a non-commercial basis" in question. As I've said, I want to study this more, and (food for thought) in doing so I think it will be interesting to refer to the luddites of the industrial revolution. The digital revolution hasn't even been nearly embraced yet, the way I see it....
--- End quote ---
well, as i said, my mind's open about this because it's early days yet, and nobody knows what's going to happen, but you've now pointed out that this discussion is currently about ownership, does the service user own the music they "bought"? Actually no, they own the rights to listen to it privately, this is why more rights money is collected if the song's played publicly even from a record that has been paid for in the shop. So, you may be saying that given that a digital copy costs nothing in physical terms, compared with a real record, that this very precept should be challenged.
I'm not so sure. Whether it was made 1000 years ago or now, my music took a long time and some money to get into its current state. Say for example, i become mega successful in the future (ha!), for the sake of argument, should somebody who bought a copy of "Honesty And Thorns" be able to just distribute copies willy nilly, for their own financial gain? Should that guy actually own the music just because he paid me £6.50 at some point (or more likely got it for free dodgily off the internet somehow). I've already found my songs on illegal download sites, and i have heard all the "you should be grateful your music's out there for people to hear" stuff, i'm just not convinced, yet. A lot of musicians say if people like your music they want to pay you for doing a good job, i have yet to really experience this to any great extent. Time, of course, will clarify these issues within the community at large of course.
This is a similar argument to the software one, GPL, BSD licences and all that, but i'm not sure the answers are the same, because of the totally different mechanisms that lead people to create music (and physical art etc). Anyway...
PS - it's really hard for me to ignore that the only person in this thread who's thrown all their toys out of the pram and behaved in an irrational insecure manner is the guy who's english. this is the sort of thing that creates nationalist feeling, the fact that no matter how hard one tries not to be nationalist in one's opinions, there's always somebody willing to confirm their own national stereotype. Don't let your country down Alun, you're better than this. You can do it, restore my belief that everyone's an individual and isn't influenced unduly by their perceived national characteristics!
oh yeah, and kintaro said this earlier:
--- Quote ---You basically want to turn artists into rightless slaves who perform like beggars for that de-facto pittance of goodwill. I believe artists just like any other provider of a service should be entitled to the implied agreement of copyright. That those enjoying the artists work are expected to uphold certain contractual obligations. Everyone else gets this benefit in a civilized society with courts and the law. It seems you are trying to promote the slavery of artists for the so called greater good of your consumption of art, and personally I think it is disgusting and will have no more of this pointless conversation with a rotter.
--- End quote ---
oops! watch that language kintaro! wouldn't want this thread binned now, would we? Nevertheless, i basically agree with kintaro, if i were to go by my own experience. i have tried the "free CD, pay what you can afford" model, and found that the CDs are a lot more popular than usual, while handing over the money is almost as unpopular as ever.
It's my view that if relinquishing some control over your copyright didn't mean people taking advantage of you financially then it would sweeten the pill considerably, so to speak.
piratePenguin:
--- Quote from: Calum on 17 June 2010, 19:18 ---well, as i said, my mind's open about this because it's early days yet, and nobody knows what's going to happen, but you've now pointed out that this discussion is currently about ownership, does the service user own the music they "bought"? Actually no, they own the rights to listen to it privately, this is why more rights money is collected if the song's played publicly even from a record that has been paid for in the shop. So, you may be saying that given that a digital copy costs nothing in physical terms, compared with a real record, that this very precept should be challenged.
--- End quote ---
Huh? This discussion is not about ownership (which seems like a meaningless idea when discussing music, if you think about it from a perspective outside this world we grew up in (and getting into that perspective is the key thing for this discussion)), it is about rights. We either allow artists the right to set terms that limit sharing (imo, a theoretical cap on society), or we allow people - everyone, the right to share with their friends, or anyone, the music and digital art that they enjoy.
Currently (clearly), the former is the case. But additionally currently people think they understand that this is necessary to result in the volume of artists we have. But I think all of this is so unfounded, even unthought out. People (e.g. we had Kintaro's views earlier) grew up in a digital world where sharing was prohibited mostly, and they can't understand a civilized world where everyone is allowed to share. (how funny is that, actually?)
I'm interested in a statistic for the average $ spent on music per household per year to continue this discussion further (which I don't see), but I'll probably come back to this again instead.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version