Jimmy Wales can be as obsessed with free information all he likes, as long as that doesn't impinge on my freedom to control my own information. And I'm guessing that's where the conflict lies, because his personal belief powers him to fight my point of view. I'm not fighting his rights, he's fighting mine.
One can maintain complete control over one's information so long as one keeps one's information private. Upon publication, however, one relinquishes that freedom: the work, from that point onward, belongs eternally to the public. Under our system of copyright law, the public grants back to the creator a temporary exclusive monopoly on the distribution of that work based on the economic theory that the creator may benefit from this distribution as an incentive to publish future works. We should all know this, of course; I make mention of these obvious truths only to give context to the discussion of what control a creator has over the content of their publishings: it is a public matter up for public debate, because the public owns all works ever published, and it is so that Jimmy Wales and anyone else has a right to advocate for however they believe these works should be treated.
An individual who disagrees with the public consensus on the treatment of these works, as embodied in the form of democratic law, is not entitled to therefore subvert it, but the laws themselves, if they are just, must always balance the dual competing public interests of allowance for the access of a work against the incentives which promote further creation and publication.
These are simply thoughts and facts on the subject, as raised, of controlling information; it is a tricky (but fascinating) topic, and is always worth contextualizing.
An individual who disagrees with the public consensus on the treatment of these works, as embodied in the form of democratic law, is not entitled to therefore subvert it,
So that goes for all the downloaders and copiers then?
Because at the moment, under current democratically legislated copyright law, I can control the price I sell my work for, where and when I sell it, and it even gives me the right to withdraw it.
So you seem to be more hardcore about copyright than I am, but never miss an opportunity to argue with me on this forum.
So you seem to be more hardcore about copyright than I am
Out of curiosity, which of my my remarks would you say describes a position "more hardcore" than you would hold?
(To your following comment left out of the quote above: if I disagree with something you write, I can tell you that it isn't out of spite [as indeed I have told you via private message some time ago, following a similar expression of concern]; don't take it personally, for I would not likely intend it so.)
An individual who disagrees with the public consensus on the treatment of these works, as embodied in the form of democratic law, is not entitled to therefore subvert it
What we have is millions of individuals who (supposedly) disagree with the law and who are subverting it.
The democratic consensus is to uphold current copyright law. I'm not a copyright evangelist and wouldn't have written what you wrote, but I do strongly think if people aren't happy with the way entertainment is delivered, or it's price, they should act to change copyright democratically, not 'subvert' the law based on their own situation (often financial).
So I give you The Pirate Party Australia. I applaud their desire to amend copyright through democratic means. However, they can't get enough support (minimum 100 voters) to even register as a legitimate party for a bi-election in one of our major cities. We are pretty sure that more than 100 people in a city of several million have in all likelihood infringed copyright, right?
So it's sort of ironic that you feel strongly that 'individuals should not subvert' copyright laws, and yet we are almost always on opposite sides of this debate.
An individual who disagrees with the public consensus on the treatment of these works, as embodied in the form of democratic law, is not entitled to therefore subvert it...
What we have is millions of individuals who (supposedly) disagree with the law and who are subverting it.
The democratic consensus is to uphold current copyright law. I'm not a copyright evangelist and wouldn't have written what you wrote, but I do strongly think if people aren't happy with the way entertainment is delivered, or it's price, they should act to change copyright democratically, not 'subvert' the law based on their own situation (often financial).
Isn't the position that you describe entirely in line with my own remarks? As in change the law, don't break the law? When I say subvert in the quote above, it is the breaking of the law that I speak toward -- I can only make sense of a difference between the position I express and the one that you do if subvert is somehow taken in a different context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso
So it's sort of ironic that you feel strongly that 'individuals should not subvert' copyright laws, and yet we are almost always on opposite sides of this debate.
I don't necessarily see an irony here -- we can agree on this principle but still reasonably disagree on implications (such as the details and plausibilities of enforcement) that result from it. The subject is anything but simple, and contrary to the story presented by shallow ideologues, copyright is not simply a matter of "artist's rights;" it is a complex economic theory that can be rationally judged and debated on that basis. I, obviously, support the theory of copyright, but that doesn't mean I think that the balance (as described here) between public access and publishing incentivization is presently weighted appropriately. But it is perfectly reasonable to debate and to disagree on these matters without reducing the conversation to a caricature of either loving or hating artists and creators (note that I am not accusing you, chrisso, of engaging in this rhetoric), and thus it's not an irony that we can agree on certain facets and disagree on others.
A particularly whiney and rich musician says you can't make money off music and you guys vomit 61 pages of this shit?
Do any of you actually have any real power because if you do I would be both shocked and appalled.
You conduct yourselves like a pack of rabid dogs chewing on each others faces with toothless gums... It's like a foamy slobber fest full of ugly... Damn it... I'm ranting...
I think my holiday is over.
yes it is, and now you're contributing to advancing the conversation to page 62, well done.
I understand the point you're making, and I agree with you; but, the point I'm trying to make is that it's implications are potentially damaging other aspects of the internet...
the can be potential "unintended consequences" in just about anything, but we do the best we can to balance the rights of all citizens for a fair and just society. online, artists and creators have been denied all rights, and compensation is completely optional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision
I don't think Wikipedia would have backed the anti-SOPA thing so much if it was just legislation protecting artists rights...
I think that's naive. It's about money. Wikipedia broke it's own principle of neutrality during the black out. I can never look at it as an objective source of information ever again. Every internet company has an agenda to allow the illegal exploitation of artists work, because it's just about the only thing that generates enough traffic to make advertising make sense online.
If the internet were completely legal the valuations of ad rates (and some of the largest online companies with it) would plummet like a rock. That is the truth.
I think it's great that in the days before the internet people were able to make millions apon millions of dollars for their music. Most of the music I listen to are artists who arent trying to make money anyway...they just make music for the love of creating. Thats what it's all about for me nowadays.
einstein (emilision), i meant doing research on the topics that are actually important to the thread.
those being: 1) the decline in music sales as it relates to the internet 2) copyright (subjects of which you clearly only know what you've read on a web page somewhere, or watched a youtube video about.)
googling bits of information you want to use to derail the discussion with your childish gotcha routine does not constitute "research".
it's pretty embarrassing you think it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision
People like you undermine a discussion...
that's funny, i was about to say people like you undermine discussions with straw-man arguments and childish gotcha tactics. (or naive, if you prefer. )
Quote:
Originally Posted by emilision
...you can't discuss what's actually written.
i've lost all interest in discussing what you write. (i'm totally interested in what a lot of others are writing.)
at first you seemed interesting (or at least interested), then you were kind of amusing (but it was all in good fun, honest!), and now it's clear you're just a waste of time.
(i had over 30 hours of stems to print this week: a lot of sitting around bored out of my skull. and that's over now.
so this is the part where i press the mute button: ____________)
[...] 1) the decline in music sales as it relates to the internet 2) copyright (subjects of which you clearly only know what you've read on a web page somewhere, or watched a youtube video about.) [...]
1) This is a thread discussing Billy Corgan's rant in a Youtube video. Since when did the piracy forum re-open under your prescribed "topics"?
2) Like I said, bullshitter and sore-loser; can you just mute yourself now please?
P.S. So, the internet doesn't constitute research? OK Einstein, are you a college professor? You do realise that websites are even used in theses now? Don't you? Why don't you send me the title to your recent paper in copyright? I should be able to order it into the college library here. You did study music law in college, right?
googling bits of information you want to use to derail the discussion with your childish gotcha routine does not constitute "research".
it's pretty embarrassing you think it is.
that's funny, i was about to say people like you undermine discussions with straw-man arguments and childish gotcha tactics.
As an observer of this sub-thread, I find it amusing how someone so drawn to pedantryandcondescension (reference links merely representative rather than comprehensive) can decry the use of so-called "gotcha" corrections in response to his own misstatements. It is when one is shown to be both incorrect and lacking in a suitable excuse for the inaccuracy that a "gotcha" is claimed to minimize the impact of the error.
"Gotchas" are the rhetorical embodiment of the state of being technically correct (the best kind of correct!) and those who denounce them do so only as a shield for the weakness of their own position. Consider yourself vindicated by the forfeit, emilision.
"Gotchas" are the rhetorical embodiment of the state of being technically correct (the best kind of correct!) and those who denounce them do so only as a shield for the weakness of their own position. Consider yourself vindicated by the forfeit, emilision.
Gotchas are a form of diminishing the opposing viewpoint when ideas can't.
Gotchas are a form of diminishing the opposing viewpoint when ideas can't.
When it comes to the traditional definition of a "gotcha", I would generally agree with the sentiment above. But the "gotchas" that seem to so-wound sound_music are not cut from that cloth; they appear to be corrections to misstatements and misrepresentations, and so I laud them as technical corrections, which I would have imagined that one so pedantic and condescending would have appreciated.
Isn't the position that you describe entirely in line with my own remarks? As in change the law, don't break the law? When I say subvert in the quote above, it is the breaking of the law that I speak toward -- I can only make sense of a difference between the position I express and the one that you do if subvert is somehow taken in a different context.
The difference is your strong view that no one should subvert copyright to suit their own agenda. My reality is I accept people will infringe on copyright ('subvert' the law), just like they fiddle the odd tax receipt, and drive over the speed limit. I'm just pointing out it becomes damaging when the scale of 'subversion' gets out of control, threatens to become the new norm.
I'm trying to persuade consumers that a short term gain (free and ubiquitous entertainment) is a negative for them in the longer run. At the same time I will criticise business leaders in entertainment for price gouging and region locking for profit alone. I am also happy to negotiate on changes to copyright to reflect new technology. I wont go as far as to make all content free and ubiquitous, for the reasons I just stated.
I see you as more hardcore because you post things like "An individual who disagrees with the public consensus on the treatment of these works, as embodied in the form of democratic law, is not entitled to therefore subvert it" and seem to believe that's what musicians are trying to do.... 'subvert' the 'public consensus'.
No, musicians are speaking up in support of hard won rights in the workplace. 'Reasonable' is embodied by musicians debating in places like this, and going ahead and giving away free music to some degree. 'Unreasonable' is downloading for free all the entertainment you want, just because it's possible, and by persuading oneself you are a freedom fighter, struggling against some Orwellian dictatorship.
The difference is your strong view that no one should subvert copyright to suit their own agenda. My reality is I accept people will infringe on copyright ('subvert' the law), just like they fiddle the odd tax receipt, and drive over the speed limit.
I can understand this distinction as a answer to the clarity that I asked for in a previous post. In response, I would say that the nature of the general acceptance for minor violations that you reference above (and of their equivalent in terms of copyright) strays into the realm of enforcement (or lack thereof when inappropriate for minor trespass), which I purposefully avoided addressing (partially in adherence to the forum guidelines). When pressed, however, I will say that I do not take so uncompromising a view in that regard; rest assured that I was only outlining the general theory of and justification for copyright, rather than prescribing the extent to which it must be enforced in order to have functional value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso
I see you as more hardcore because you post things like "An individual who disagrees with the public consensus on the treatment of these works, as embodied in the form of democratic law, is not entitled to therefore subvert it" and seems to assume that's what musicians are trying to do.... 'subvert' the 'public consensus'.
I am happy to in turn clarify, then, that you are quite surely inferring far too much from the post in which the quote originates. I can tell you without hesitation that I make no such assumption (nor intend to convey such assumption) as you describe here.
As an observer of this sub-thread, I find it amusing how...
and i find it amusing you write like the nerdy cousin from the fresh prince of bell air talks. so i guess we all find different things amusing...
(do you actually talk like that in real life, or just pretend to on the internet because it sounds so classy?!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aroundtheworld
"Gotchas" are the rhetorical embodiment of the state of being technically correct ....
gotchas are nothing more than a poor substitute for a real argument, or actual knowledge.
regarding "pedantry": i think you've confused my (oft criticized) sense of humour with that impressive big word, carlton.
taking the piss is the way i amuse myself when interesting discussion fails here. i admit that. (but i think it always comes across a lot harder in writing than the live show... dunno.) anyway, it's one of the only things i find fun about the internet anymore... don't take that away from me too! it's kind of a guilty pleasure...
There really wasn't. Officially, there was 13 of them.
Plus, the writers, arrangers and performers were all the same people.
It would be more if you included the vocalists who sang on the tracks, but it still wouldn't be anywhere near 50-60.
And those 13 played on all the number ones? What were the number ones?
Wiki lists about 60 musicians (that's not even all of them) who played from '59-'72, plus 14 arrangers, and by performers I meant all the acts, the singers, which is probably another 20 or 30 people.
The Beatles were (mostly) 4 guys doing everything, writing, performing, singing, arranging, with George Martin doing almost all the (string) arranging if and when needed.
They are those monsters of rock and pop. Many of them are found on Facebook reminising about their former glory days. I was just arguing politics with Mahogany Rush's great guitarist Frank Marino. Most on that site didn't know who he was.
There are so many of these guys out there, none of them get any attention anymore and some are still monsters of rock!
Dave Mason is up in Santa Barbara recording new stuff. He said it's only for him and his friends, a nice hobby. You probably will never hear any of it.
Music can be a personal experience. Not every personal experience is meant to be shared with the public.
They are those monsters of rock and pop. Many of them are found on Facebook reminising about their former glory days. I was just arguing politics with Mahogany Rush's great guitarist Frank Marino. Most on that site didn't know who he was.
There are so many of these guys out there, none of them get any attention anymore and some are still monsters of rock!
Dave Mason is up in Santa Barbara recording new stuff. He said it's only for him and his friends, a nice hobby. You probably will never hear any of it.
Music can be a personal experience. Not every personal experience is meant to be shared with the public.
These are very interesting observations.. Fortunately, these people, and everybody else, buy sex.. thus, "the business plan of my record label is to sell sex." Not music...
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
)
gotchas are nothing more than a poor substitute for a real argument, or actual knowledge. 
dunno.) anyway, it's one of the only things i find fun about the internet anymore... don't take that away from me too! it's kind of a guilty pleasure...
