179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes
Search · subject · body · from · to
Advanced search
reset

← archive index

Re: [idm] Indie Ethics

5 messages · 4 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
2003-03-12 19:42John Reading RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
├─ 2003-03-12 19:51EggyToast RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
├─ 2003-03-12 20:10pixilated RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
└─ 2003-03-12 20:19Josh Steiner Re: [idm] Indie Ethics
└─ 2003-03-12 20:29EggyToast Re: [idm] Indie Ethics
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
2003-03-12 19:42John ReadingThat's not what he said. It's a legit discussion, but whether or not it's "Ok" to download
From:
John Reading
To:
Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:42:19 -0500
Subject:
RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
permalink · <5C7C936BF3522E448C5F0A0BF6E300C553BE59@usispex00001.na.didata.local>
That's not what he said. It's a legit discussion, but whether or not it's "Ok" to download music for free, regardless of copyright laws, is another matter. I don't think copyright laws have anything to do with ripping off labels. Copyright or not, they still should get paid. Besides, copyrights aren't meant for distribution issues as much as they are for plagarism issues.
quoted 8 lines -----Original Message-----> -----Original Message----- > From: Josh Steiner [mailto:joschi@eds.org] > > > wait, you seriously think that understanding the roots and > meanings of > copyright law has *nothing* to do with a discussion on the > legality/morality of mp3 sharing?
Quote:
quoted 2 lines The legitimacy of the present copyright structure is integral> The legitimacy of the present copyright structure is integral > to the issue of whether it's okay to download music for free or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2003-03-12 19:51EggyToastJohn Reading said: > That's not what he said. > > It's a legit discussion, but whether or
From:
EggyToast
To:
Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:51:21 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
Reply to:
RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
permalink · <2908.128.220.50.51.1047498681.squirrel@www.eggtastic.com>
John Reading said:
quoted 7 lines That's not what he said.> That's not what he said. > > It's a legit discussion, but whether or not it's "Ok" to download music > for free, regardless of copyright laws, is another matter. > > I don't think copyright laws have anything to do with ripping off > labels. Copyright or not, they still should get paid.
That made me think of something. Other media that exist on a "free" idea that still make money are TV and radio. They're supported through either advertisement (usually "for profit" stations) and "listener support" (usually public stations). Would a model like that be workable for a music label? At the end of each CD, put a 1 minute track that's a "pitch" to the listener, along the lines of "If you liked what you heard, and would like to hear more, feel free to donate to our cause. Every donation goes towards producing more quality music" etc. etc. The CD's could be sold for cheap directly from the label, or through some distribution companies for a low price. Web labels could have donation pages similar to webcomics, and there are certainly a few webcomics that have been moderately successful (penny-arcade springs to mind). It sounds sort of cheesy, sure, but I wonder if it could work. Music supported by the listeners before it comes out, rather than after. Then again, it would probably lead to a lot of listeners accusing the artists of 'selling out' :P -- eggytoast.com - eggtastic.com ------ catchy signature coming soon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2003-03-12 20:10pixilatedDo you understand the meaning of legitimacy? The issue of downloading music for free is on
From:
pixilated
To:
Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:10:38 -0500
Subject:
RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
Reply to:
RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
permalink · <01b401c2e8d3$7341a2a0$f74eaa81@pocketfig>
Do you understand the meaning of legitimacy? The issue of downloading music for free is only an issue because of the construction of ownership of that music. It seems to me that you are using "okay" in terms of some transcendent moral standard from which it would follow that if someone produces a musical work, he should get paid for it if he wants to be paid for its use since it's his. This begs the question of *ownership* of that music in whatever form. (This is an example of petitio principii.) -----Original Message----- From: John Reading [mailto:john.reading@us.didata.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 2:42 PM To: idm@hyperreal.org Subject: RE: [idm] Indie Ethics That's not what he said. It's a legit discussion, but whether or not it's "Ok" to download music for free, regardless of copyright laws, is another matter. I don't think copyright laws have anything to do with ripping off labels. Copyright or not, they still should get paid. Besides, copyrights aren't meant for distribution issues as much as they are for plagarism issues. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2003-03-12 20:19Josh SteinerJohn Reading wrote: >That's not what he said. > >It's a legit discussion, but whether or n
From:
Josh Steiner
To:
John Reading
Cc:
Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:19:59 -0800
Subject:
Re: [idm] Indie Ethics
Reply to:
RE: [idm] Indie Ethics
permalink · <3E6F966F.4050107@eds.org>
John Reading wrote:
quoted 5 lines That's not what he said.>That's not what he said. > >It's a legit discussion, but whether or not it's "Ok" to download music >for free, regardless of copyright laws, is another matter. >
absolutely. i agree, laws dont define morality. what i am arguing is that i find the current laws A) unenforcable in the face of new technology without severerly restricting our rights of free expression. B) immoral in that they provide near endless monopolies on ideas, whereas copyright was grudginly added (not as a right, mind you) to america's laws as a "nessesary evil". copyright is a restriction on other peoples rights of expression and hence i am extremely scepticle of them. there better be a very compelling defense for them, and believe me (i can dig up citations when i have more time) the reason copyright law was inacted was not so that artists could make money, but to encourage information sharing and hence enrich the public domain. this has been bastardized over time into what we now know. C) as the tools of expression merge with other media and technology more and more the enforcement of IP law becomes ever more orwelian. you have to look on the long term to see the full implications of the precendents we are setting now really mean, its not all about checking out the new britanney spears song, this stuff really impacts the future of free expression and thought.
quoted 3 lines I don't think copyright laws have anything to do with ripping off>I don't think copyright laws have anything to do with ripping off >labels. Copyright or not, they still should get paid. >
as do i, i support the artist i listen to. i would *much* rather be able to directly donate money to the artist/label i like for mp3s i get off of slsk, as i have no use for cd's, unfortunately few people seem to have embraced this idea yet. but indeed my desire for artists to get funded has little bearing on the morality of file sharing.
quoted 3 lines Besides, copyrights aren't meant for distribution issues as much as they>Besides, copyrights aren't meant for distribution issues as much as they >are for plagarism issues. >
i dont agree, they were very much put in place to prevent one publishing house from putting out another companies material without paying them. -- ____________________________________________________ independent u.s. drum'n'bass -- http://vitriolix.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
2003-03-12 20:29EggyToast>>Besides, copyrights aren't meant for distribution issues as much as >>they are for plaga
From:
EggyToast
To:
Date:
Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:29:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [idm] Indie Ethics
Reply to:
Re: [idm] Indie Ethics
permalink · <3036.128.220.50.51.1047500989.squirrel@www.eggtastic.com>
quoted 6 lines Besides, copyrights aren't meant for distribution issues as much as>>Besides, copyrights aren't meant for distribution issues as much as >>they are for plagarism issues. >> > i dont agree, they were very much put in place to prevent one > publishing house from putting out another companies material without > paying them.
A few of the journals I put online have discussed this recently, and it's basically true. American publishing houses were publishing works of british authors (that were published originally by british publishing houses). They were not paying for the works; they were simply running off copies and selling them with no change to indicate that they were "unauthorized" or that the author wasn't getting anything from their sale. There are memoirs of some of the better-known british authors complaining about american publishers, but complained that there was "little they could do without copyright laws in america." Ironically, America now has some of the most stringent copyright laws, and has pushed for the most recent expansions of copyright law. How the tables have turned, eh? :) There are no laws against plagiarism, per se. The laws of copyright include plagiarism only because of the reproduction of other people's work. -- eggytoast.com - eggtastic.com ------ catchy signature coming soon --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org