Pay for P2P Services?

[Russell]

CNN posted an article today about the possibility of music companies becoming involved in P2P file sharing networks on a pay basis. Sounds like an oxymoron I know, but read the article and see.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/internet/02/03/taming.file.sharing.ap/index.html

[Jason Dunn]

Hmm...interesting concept! It's always nice to see the record labels trying to innovate and think creatively. I can't really see this system working, but who knows...

[Gary Sheynkman]

This view might be contraversial...but why pay for something you can get for free...good carma? :lol:

Sorry...but the only music I will ever buy will be on hard disks....and when I rich on LPs.

Im scared to pay for downloadable music because im afraid that i might loose it if my computer desides to go crazy on me.

[Jason Dunn]

This view might be contraversial...but why pay for something you can get for free...good carma? :lol:

It's called "doing the right thing" - when you get older you'll understand Gary. I hope. ;-)

Im scared to pay for downloadable music because im afraid that i might loose it if my computer desides to go crazy on me.

It's called "backups" - when you get older you'll understand Gary. I hope. ;-)

:lol:

[Gary Sheynkman]

ouch....that hurts Jason.

But some of us live off of tiny funds that go into putting gas into our cars and seeing movies....you'll understand when you get younger....oh wait


:lol:


It is the right thing to do. But look at is THIS way:

I download a..lets say... Linkin' Park song. I like them, in fact i go and download their music videos. Now that i have this collection....i go and see their concert $...buy other merchendise $....and maybe an anthology cd $$

I would not have done so if I didnt download a couple songs from kazaa.

[Suhit Gupta]

But Gary, the point is that you are technically stealing. I know you wouldn't have tried something without a preview, but that is a risk one has to take. There are several sites that offer 10 second previews of songs (cdnow.com used to do that, I don't know whether they still do so), use that instead. Anyways, the point is that by not paying for the song, you are taking money away from the dudes that put a lot of hard work in their craft.

This point comes across most clearly (and I know this is a tangent) when people pirate software, especially games. It is fairly well known that the gaming industry is very harsh towards the coders. They put in a lot of long hours to meet crazy deadlines and aren't paid very well, especially since there is usually no guarantee that a game will do well. So when people make copies of games and distribute them amongst their friends, the coders lose out on money, and often the company goes belly-up. :(

And I believe the analogy holds when it comes to the music industry as well, evil though it may be. It is not only the rich artists and producers that need to make money, but also the hundreds of people whose hard work goes into the making of a song that you just steal off of the web. So Jason is right - Do the right thing.

Suhit

[Jason Dunn]

I have a feeling we'll have some very heated discussions around music piracy on this site. :lol:

[Suhit Gupta]

I have a feeling we'll have some very heated discussions around music piracy on this site. :lol:
No doubt... have you seen some of the crazy flame wars on Slashdot? ;-)

Suhit

[Gary Sheynkman]

well then....let me wip out my protection

http://www.attic.utoledo.edu/att/fire/image/heat_suit.jpg



8) 8)


Is piracy justifiable if one was not going to pay for the good anyway?

[Jason Dunn]

Is piracy justifiable if one was not going to pay for the good anyway?

No. Even if you don't intend to drive my car, if you steal it from me, that's still not cool. ;-)

[Gary Sheynkman]

Steal is such a harsh word....lets say "test drive"

[Janak Parekh]

Is piracy justifiable if one was not going to pay for the good anyway?
No. Even if you don't intend to drive my car, if you steal it from me, that's still not cool. ;-)
While I don't condone music theft, this analogy is invalid. Making a copy of the bits of a song doesn't deprive you of your original bits. Cars, on the other hand, are not yet so easy to duplicate.

That's at the heart of the flamewars that go on amongst members of the technical community, that is, if the marginal cost of duplicating said bits is zero, what does it mean to be "stealing"? How far can someone go to dictate what's "fair" and "not fair" based on a bunch of bits? It's not an easy question to answer.

--janak

[Russell]

But Gary, the point is that you are technically stealing.

You can remove the word technically. Stealing is stealing.



Is piracy justifiable if one was not going to pay for the good anyway?

Intentions are part of the problem. Intention does not give justification. Legality gives JUSTification.

That's at the heart of the flamewars that go on amongst members of the technical community, that is, if the marginal cost of duplicating said bits is zero, what does it mean to be "stealing"? How far can someone go to dictate what's "fair" and "not fair" based on a bunch of bits? It's not an easy question to answer.

--janak
Okay...that makes a point. If we want to define stealing we say... "To take (the property of another) without right or permission." Dictionary.com gets the credit for that. The heart of the P2P discussion tries to whittle away at what it means to steal, which in the mind of the file sharer, shifts the meaning of rights from the Music Co. to the rights that belong the music listener. Doing this blatantly points out the selfishness of the file sharer. Their "right" becomes the focus in this type of argument, and it isn't the right of the file sharer that is at the heart of the legal matter because it isn't about them. It is the right (copyright that is) of the person who created the original work to have the right, ownership, and say about when and where their work gets copied, used, and distributed.

[Janak Parekh]

It is the right (copyright that is) of the person who created the original work to have the right, ownership, and say about when and where their work gets copied, used, and distributed.
I agree in general, but it's not quite so cut-and-dry. For example, there's also a notion of "fair use"; for example, even if I buy a copyrighted work, I'm generally allowed to make a backup copy. If that right is denied, is it still allowable? What if my machine crashes? Do I have to rebuy my music? Is that fair in terms of consumer's rights?

--janak

[Russell]

It is the right (copyright that is) of the person who created the original work to have the right, ownership, and say about when and where their work gets copied, used, and distributed.
I agree in general, but it's not quite so cut-and-dry. For example, there's also a notion of "fair use"; for example, even if I buy a copyrighted work, I'm generally allowed to make a backup copy. If that right is denied, is it still allowable? What if my machine crashes? Do I have to rebuy my music? Is that fair in terms of consumer's rights?

--janak

Sure you have all of those rights. But, fair use is likely very misunderstood in terms of copyright law. And fair use (as far as I understand it) does not grant you any sort of right to distribution of an original work that you have no legal interest in.

[Janak Parekh]

Sure you have all of those rights. But, fair use is likely very misunderstood in terms of copyright law.
Agreed. Jason, it would be nice to see if there's a lawyer in the community who could write an article for DMT spelling out a precise definition of "fair use" from a legal standpoint. I remain wary of the major record labels' intentions, long-term.

And fair use (as far as I understand it) does not grant you any sort of right to distribution of an original work that you have no legal interest in.
Without question. P2P networks, as currently situated, are wonderful pieces of technology from a technical standpoint, but most are horribly abused from a legal standpoint.

--janak

[Russell]

Agreed. Jason, it would be nice to see if there's a lawyer in the community who could write an article for DMT spelling out a precise definition of "fair use" from a legal standpoint. I remain wary of the major record labels' intentions, long-term.

I am not a lawyer, but I would actually be interested in putting together an article for DMT spelling out a precise def. of "fair use."

[Gary Sheynkman]

Ive taken business law


Fair use is something teachers use all the time. A teacher can make a copy of copyrighted materials for non-profit educational use...etc



Legally: its debatable
Socially: its wrong

Why do people do it? :roll: do i have to answer that?

[Suhit Gupta]

Ive taken business law
And you still download music off of the web? ;-)

Fair use is something teachers use all the time. A teacher can make a copy of copyrighted materials for non-profit educational use...etc
Actually this is not unconditional. There are rules on how much a teacher can copy, even if it is for non-profit educational use. For example, a teacher cannot just buy one text book and make 50 copies of it for all his/her students...

Why do people do it? :roll: do i have to answer that?
Luckily not, but I recommend strongly that you avoid it. You should pay for what you use. Seriously!

Suhit

[Jason Dunn]

I am not a lawyer, but I would actually be interested in putting together an article for DMT spelling out a precise def. of "fair use."

Ok, start working on it. ;-)

[ale_ers]

I probably posted my rant on the wrong thread...but see my thoughts on the subjet:

http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=35457#35457

[Gary Sheynkman]

I probably posted my rant on the wrong thread...but see my thoughts on the subjet:

http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=35457#35457
that WAS a long rant :lol: 8O :shocked!:

Ill reply to it here... lots of things you say make perfect sense, but in the end (for me) If I dont steel I'd rather buy a CD. And I think that a buck a song is still to much for some people and they would rather steal. (think 3rd world country salary)

[Suhit Gupta]

Recommendation - listen to the radio ;-)

Suhit

[ale_ers]

Recommendation - listen to the radio ;-)

Suhit

Well you are lucky enough to live in NYC with as many stations as there are frequencies. :o

[Gary Sheynkman]

Recommendation - listen to the radio ;-)

Suhit

werent you the one complaining about the abdundance of commercials on the radio?? :lol:

[Suhit Gupta]

Recommendation - listen to the radio ;-)

Suhit

Well you are lucky enough to live in NYC with as many stations as there are frequencies. :o
Actually I was complaining about the lack of quality of NYC stations earlier. ;-)

Suhit

[Suhit Gupta]

Recommendation - listen to the radio ;-)

Suhit

werent you the one complaining about the abdundance of commercials on the radio?? :lol:
Yes I was :P . But I would rather deal with the annoying radio stations than copy music off of the web. And that is what I would recommend to all others.

Suhit

[claren44]

Bottom Line...music isn't an Entitlement. If you've got choices,you're lucky. Believe me,there are thousands of Band sites/indie Label sites/'mini-portals' (like garageband.com,adifferentdrum.com,etc.) with free music. And,their tracks are Legal.
Love & Peace,claren44

[Littleshmee]

in the end (for me) If I dont steel I'd rather buy a CD.

I agree. I'll admit to stealing music occasionally, and I have my reasons (although not justifications). First off, not all music download sites are available to Canada, and secondly, they don't have everything (try searching for "modest mouse" on napster.ca, for example). Ever since I moved into a basement, the only radio station I've been able to hear is "The best of the 80's, 90's, and today" :x Finally, while I hesitate to say it... I'd be a bit more inclined to pay more for music if I knew that the majority of the profit was actually going to the artist.

I'm probably just making excuses, because for the most part, I'm just cheap. I'm already paying Rogers $45 a month for internet service... hmm... maybe ISP's should start paying dues to the music industry...

[ale_ers]

(try searching for "modest mouse" on napster.ca, for example)... I'd be a bit more inclined to pay more for music if I knew that the majority of the profit was actually going to the artist.


That is sad that they don't offer you Canadians more choices...I got a Modest Mouse song from regular Napster about 2 months ago. As for your second thought...there is a site that sells music and gives the majority to the artist. I can't remember the name, but I know they had a limited offering.

[sbrown23]

I am not a lawyer, but I would actually be interested in putting together an article for DMT spelling out a precise def. of "fair use."

Was this ever written? Or did I just miss it? I would be interested in reading an article like this. If it never was done, then oh well, time to Google.