Poll: Music Sharing or Stealing

[Fett101]

Wow. this thread is just chock full of metaphors!
Let's make more!

Let's add on to that door thing. What if the carpenter was not paid when he put up the door, but instead charged people a small fee each time they use it in order to pay for it's original cost. That's a bit more correct.

I can spout out more metaphors if the thread needs more, but basically if people copy the music, that generally means less purchases of the CD, which cost a sum of money for it's production.

Claiming your copy cost nothing from the artist is absurd. It cost to produce the music that is cobtained in the file. You may as well sell CD's on ebay, that happen to contain digital 1's and 0's, that happen to produce audio when played. Obviously people would bid wanting some CD's. Maybe to use as a mirror or something.

[Laukev7]

quote: Just as someone who installs a door in a building doesn't implicitly have the right to be paid everytime someone walks through it.

Wrong analogy. This example would be better compared to being charged each time you listen to a song, which of course is absurd (though some may try that approach). Even this example is not adequate. You are trying to compare a totally new concept with old stuff. Music isn't a door you install.

Besides, you are using the road analogy again, which, I have explained, does not apply for this situation.

[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

 

quote: Exactly. And in the case of copying music, the artist hasn't provided a service. They produced the work in the first place but they have had no part in the copying transaction.

No, but the artist participates in giving the right to copy it once the customer paid.

[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[Fett101]

quote:Originally posted by Laukev7:
[QB]
No, but the artist participates in giving the right to copy it once the customer paid.
QB]

It's like a tollbooth. And Flap is driving his SUV past it, on the grass behind the attendant's back.  

[Laukev7]

I love metaphors.

- Watching Superbowl from the top of a building with binoculars;

- A restaurant invents a new secret recipe that saves it from bankrupcy, only to be put out of business the day after when flap scatters the recipe around;

- Communism, blah blah blah.

- Last, but not least, et caetera.

[ June 17, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[emh]

quote:Originally posted by HibbeeBoy:
quote:
Why should Napster (or who ever) make millions of dollars (or even a dime) distributing (copying) music when the artist who actually produced the music receives nothing ?

Actually they don't. Those services only facilitate the sharing of files between private individuals. They're not actually doing the distribution themselves. As I said earlier, I don't think allowing commercial redistribution would be a good idea.

As far as I could tell and the courts agreed with me, Napster was facilitating the mass distribution of music and it's this part of it which does not sit well with me. It's one thing to share/borrow music within your circle of friends but to mass distribute music across the globe without the consent of the artist or their publisher is something else, I don't know what but it isn't lending/borrowing. It's something more commercial for which Napster made millions and the artists received nowt until the courts forced them to cough up. Surely you must agree there is something morally wrong here ?

Just a quick correction.  Napster never actually made any money.  Napster was not a paid subscription service.

This is a good discussion.  Great points are being made on both sides.  But I just wanted to point out that Napster never made any money during its time.

[flap]

quote:Let's add on to that door thing. What if the carpenter was not paid when he put up the door, but instead charged people a small fee each time they use it in order to pay for it's original cost. That's a bit more correct.

Well with a road that may be the case; a toll is charged to pay for its being built or for its maintenance. It's not charged due to a notion that the road builders should be paid every time someone drives along it. In the case of music, that's not true. It wouldn't be such a problem if the copyright on music was relinquished once the production had been paid for, and the artist had made a reasonable amount of money.

 

quote:Wrong analogy. This example would be better compared to being charged each time you listen to a song, which of course is absurd (though some may try that approach). Even this example is not adequate. You are trying to compare a totally new concept with old stuff. Music isn't a door you install.

No, the only difference between the two situations is that people each pay multiple times in the road/door scenario. Ok, let's change it so an individual only pays once, then they can use the road or the door as many times as they like. The situation is exactly analagous, as with this situation the carpenter still doesn't have the right to be paid for every person who walks through the door. Putting aside for a second the practical arguments of how artists would actually be paid under the system I'm proposing, surely you must agree that if someone provides a one-off service, such as installing a door or recording some music, while they have a right to be paid for that service, the amount of effort that went into it is constant and so there is no reason why they should be paid more if more people use the resultant product?

 

quote:A restaurant invents a new secret recipe that saves it from bankrupcy, only to be put out of business the day after when flap scatters the recipe around;

Now you're getting closer to free software. If this situation happens, and the restaurant goes out of business, but other restaurants and society in general benefits from the free availability of a recipe that yields better food, then tough shit to the original restaurant I'm afraid. A business not making any money is not an excuse to give them a monopoly on a useful idea.

 

quote:Communism, blah blah blah

What about it?

[Laukev7]

quote: the amount of effort that went into it is constant and so there is no reason why they should be paid more if more people use the resultant product?

Well, the number of people available is constant, so, as I explained, if they pay only once (as I think they should), then the total revenue is constant. Of course, they could be regrouped by affinities with RMS' polling system. We can use an equation (example):

# of people * rating of song * price = total revenue

This is the price the artiste gets paid to release his song to the public. So, one price is being paid to the artiste, and each person pays once for a song.

Remember that some artistes can sell their paintings for millions.

Oh, and the three other metaphores I gave were not meant to be taken seriously. I was just fooling around.

[HibbeeBoy]

quote:Originally posted by emh:


Just a quick correction.  Napster never actually made any money.  Napster was not a paid subscription service.

This is a good discussion.  Great points are being made on both sides.  But I just wanted to point out that Napster never made any money during its time.

Their revenue was coming from advertising, not subscription. Their business model was built around the work, talent and efforts of recording artists who they had no intention of paying. They did make money, they just spent it quicker than they made it.

[Laukev7]

quote: give them a monopoly on a useful idea.

Exclusivity, or differenciation, not monopoly. This is an essential factor in competition, and its lack is a fundamental weakness in your business model.

 

quote: What about it?

That was a JOKE. You should have noticed this from the tone I took in that post.

[flap]

quote:This is the price the artiste gets paid to release his song to the public. So, one price is being paid to the artiste, and each person pays once for a song.

So why shouldn't a carpenter be paid for the number of people who are going to walk through his door?

Surely the equation should be

Price_per_person = constant_reasonable_revenue / #_of_people

 

quote:That was a JOKE. You should have noticed this from the tone I took in that post.

How was it a joke? Are you suggesting that what I'm suggesting is not a socialistic/communist system?

[Laukev7]

quote: So why shouldn't a carpenter be paid for the number of people who are going to walk through his door?

Why not?

 

quote: Price_per_person = constant_reasonable_revenue / #_of_people

What's the difference? Do the math, and you'll see that you're just turning the equation around.

 

quote: Are you suggesting that what I'm suggesting is not a socialistic/communist system?

How should I know? I wasn't being serious. And I thought that most FSF proponents (like Richard Stallman) denied that. But if you are going to start debating capitalism versus communism, then I suggest you start another topic.

[flap]

quote:Why not?

So you think he should? I think this argument is suffering from our differing grasps on reality, then.

 

quote:What's the difference? Do the math, and you'll see that you're just turning the equation around.

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the constant revenue stays the same. Someone whose music is listened to be 100,000 people shouldn't earn any more than someone who has 10,000 listeners.

 

quote:And I thought that most FSF proponents (like Richard Stallman) denied that.

They avoid using the term "socialism" because there is such a strong anti-left attitude in the states. But obviously Free Software is a perfect example of practical socialism in action, in a way that is massively benefitting society. If Stallman used the term "communism" to describe what his movement has achieved, the reaction would be people's hysterical antipathy to the concepts of equality, co-operation and freedom, as they're so inherently contrary to The American Dream they've learned to worship.

It's so difficult to convince people of their right to share because they're so lost in the current system of greed and self interest, that they can't see a way to living in a society based on co-operation rather than competition.

[Laukev7]

quote: So you think he should?

I never said anything of the sort. You're the one who suggested that a carpenter shouldn't be paid that way, not me.

And unless your tastes incline you to consider a generic wooden door a piece of art, then don't compare it to an art. A door is not replicable. And I have already said that it is OK to listen to someone else's CD without copying it.

   

quote: No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the constant revenue stays the same. Someone whose music is listened to be 100,000 people shouldn't earn any more than someone who has 10,000 listeners.

This is ridiculous. How about the ratings? If a song is more appreciated, it should have a higher value. If not, then any singer can make crap and get paid as much as a talented singer who put effort in his songs.

[ June 18, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[ June 18, 2003: Message edited by: Laukev7 ]

[Laukev7]

quote: It's so difficult to convince people of their right to share because they're so lost in the current system of greed and self interest, that they can't see a way to living in a society based on co-operation rather than competition.

If you are going to discuss this, then start another topic, and I will be glad to debate this with you. But this is getting off-topic.

[Fett101]

quote:Originally posted by flap:
[QB]No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that the constant revenue stays the same. Someone whose music is listened to be 100,000 people shouldn't earn any more than someone who has 10,000 listeners.[QB]

Communismin the music industry. Heh.