Most recent download and why?

[anonymous0726]

Eloquent prose, BB, but no go. Rather than spend hours disagreeing point by point, fallacy by red herring, I'll just address what seems to be your main point: "The new technology - which means that people can share files with huge amounts of people - will become one of the many factors (along with things like disposable wealth, fashion, alternative forms of entertainment) that will determine the value of music and how much musicians will be paid for their services. It is not just a question of ownership, itself not always a simple matter: it also is a question of what the thing being owned is worth."

Making a better lock-pick doesn't deflate the value of personal belongings.

[Pete OLeary]

Originally posted by Ray Parker
Making a better lock-pick doesn't deflate the value of personal belongings.

I don't read that in bb's post. He brought up yet another component of the issue of intellectual property, that musics may devalue on their own, and didn't seem to rationalize its theft. Trust me, if someone broke into Fort Knox and spilled all the gold onto the open market, the value of everyone else's gold would automatically deflate.
By my last sentence I suppose I'm guilty of doing this, but I don't think it's useful to understanding the vagaries of the music business by applying overly simple analogies.
The fact is that P2P technology simply will not go away but rather will continue to progress.

[anonymous0726]

It's exactly what he said. Nothing to 'read' or not 'read'.

[bassbloke]

With respect, Ray, I don't think that addresses my main point. You say:

"Making a better lock-pick doesn't deflate the value of personal belongings."

But it does. You own a gold watch worth $30,000. A large part of its value lies in the fact that as owner you have reasonably secure possession. Your apartment is secure, there are property laws, they are (albeit imperfectly) enforced, and in this environment you can insure against theft for a reasonable premium.

Let's say a natural disaster leads to a breakdown of law and order. Anyone with enough muscle can take your watch from you. Insurance companies raise their premiums to unaffordable levels to reflect the added risk. It's value would plummet: a criminal could just take it from you without payment; and a law abiding citizen would be prepared to pay less because he could not have secure possession.

You are still the legal owner of the watch. But the environment has changed and much of its value has drained away - even if no-one ever actually steals it.

The value of a copyright in recorded music largely derives from a specific technological situation in which good copies can be mass-marketed but distribution can be restricted to those prepared to pay a fee. If that restriction ceases to be enforceable then the the value of the copyright diminishes.

Please be clear, I am NOT arguing that it is good thing, just that it may be a new world musicians will have to deal with - whatever their personal views of the morality of downloading copyrighted material. Wishing things were otherwise will not help, and I suspect appealing to people's better nature will not do much good either.

[anonymous0726]

Fortunately we don't have anarchy here. The technology is young and it will be sorted out at some point. In the very worst case, the value lost could be attached to the original source -- "I know I'm only going to sell a few thousand of these CDs, so here's the price. Don't want it? Don't buy it." There is only one outcome of your permanent devaluation of my currency, and that is a new dark age for music. But, hell, with fEIldY and the like we're there anyhow.

If the value of a product falls to or below the cost of production, the product ceases to exist. As music labor is not really movable, we'll all be listening to Chinese pop music soon? I wonder what a piano trio from a Beijing sweat shop would sound like?

[bassbloke]

"Fortunately we don't have anarchy here."

I'm not talking about anarchy necessarily, except in this specific area. An analogy might be Prohibition: arguably repealed, not because the law was wrong, but because it was unenforceable. (Whether it WAS wrong is a different argument). But it didn't lead to anarchy.

"The technology is young and it will be sorted out at some point."

Of course the technology is developing and the industry may come up with a way of reimposing copyright fees. Charging a very small fee for downloading might work (most people will prefer to pay a 5 or 10 cent charge an "quality guaranteed" version rather than get a free version of dubious quality for example).

Regarding the rest of your post, I'm not so pessimistic. People will always create. The influx of money into music as a result of the development of recording technology made some musicians (eg Fieldy) very rich but I'm not sure that the average musician was much better off. It led to more music but, thinking of the Western Classical tradition, I did it lead to better music? Beethoven or Britney? So I don't think less money will lead to a "dark age". it might even lead to people who NEED to make music being heard ahead of people who NEED to be stars.

[anonymous0726]

Originally posted by bassbloke
"Fortunately we don't have anarchy here."

I'm not talking about anarchy necessarily, except in this specific area. An analogy might be Prohibition: arguably repealed, not because the law was wrong, but because it was unenforceable. (Whether it WAS wrong is a different argument). But it didn't lead to anarchy.

"The technology is young and it will be sorted out at some point."

Of course the technology is developing and the industry may come up with a way of reimposing copyright fees. Charging a very small fee for downloading might work (most people will prefer to pay a 5 or 10 cent charge an "quality guaranteed" version rather than get a free version of dubious quality for example).

Prohibition did lead to certain levels of anarchy. Read up on some Chicago gangland history, which I suggest as it's very well documented, as one example.

As for speculation on how to enforce copyright laws, and being close to technology, I can come up with a schlew of ideas. The nickle 'n dime thing would be a low-tech, but perhaps do-able one. You'd have to have to math-heads run some numbers on that one.

Originally posted by bassbloke
...So I don't think less money will lead to a "dark age". it might even lead to people who NEED to make music being heard ahead of people who NEED to be stars.

As the spawn of a professional musician, and a professional musician myself for all but a scant bit of my life, you're really pushing some buttons with that university/socialist/philosophical 'rationalization of thievery' crap. Music is work. Period. Work has value. Period. Music aquired illegally is thievery. Period. People stealing music are stealing from my plate.

Period.

[bassbloke]

Ray,

1 At no point do I justify or rationalise theft.

2 Nothing in my posts could be construed as "socialism" (or "philosophy", come to that). On the other hand the work theory of value you imply is explicitly Marxist. Which, ok, maybe I only know because I had a decent education; which is not something I feel any need to apologise for.

My views are derived the market theory of value (*)which is absolutely not socialist. So you seem to be the one with a socialist opinions here.

(*) The point being that it is incorrect to say "Work has value": it only has the economic value the market places on it. You can be the greatest musical genius the world has known and work your a** off , but if the market doesn't want to pay for what you produce you earn nothing.

All I did was observe that file-sharing technology may reduce the value the market put on copyright and that this may be a new situation musicians will need to adapt to whether they like it or not. It's bad news for some musicians, which I regret, but it wasn't my idea and it's not my fault.

[anonymous0726]

Originally posted by bassbloke
Ray,

1 At no point do I justify or rationalise theft.

"All I did was observe that file-sharing technology may reduce the value the market put on copyright and that this may be a new situation musicians will need to adapt to whether they like it or not."

Legalize pot. Heroin too, while we're at it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right?

I make a car. You steal the car because you can get away with it. Screw you. You dig?

Originally posted by bassbloke
Ray,
2 Nothing in my posts could be construed as "socialism" (or "philosophy", come to that).

"...So I don't think less money will lead to a "dark age". it might even lead to people who NEED to make music being heard ahead of people who NEED to be stars. "

Need, schmede. I need to eat, and people taking food from my plate can not be explained away with diversions like this. People are stealing.

This was what I was making my 'commie' comment about. There is some theoretical beauty in those that have 'something to say' in music rising to the top purley because of their intrinsic value to society, a society where no one goes unfed because we all share from the same pool of wealth. But, we all know that this is crap. Unless you happen to be a commie -- and I'm surrounded by these bastards in New York.

Originally posted by bassbloke
On the other hand the work theory of value you imply is explicitly Marxist. Which, ok, maybe I only know because I had a decent education; which is not something I feel any need to apologise for.

--

My views are derived the market theory of value (*)which is absolutely not socialist. So you seem to be the one with a socialist opinions here.

I don't agree that because something is 'stealable' that is a reasonable position to accept devaluation. There is no Marxist background in the perspective that a product has certain value. The market dictates that value, for certain, but widespread stealing can not be accepted as 'part of the market'. Any argument that this stealing 'has to be lived with' is anarchal jibberish.

By the same position that if you are caught in my house against my wishes that you are in physical peril, and if you are 'sharing' intellectual property of Uncle Sam with the Rooskies you will fry, stealing someone's product should be met with legal ramifications. The fact that it hasn't happened on a larger scale than Napster has me a bit surprised.

Let me know when Scotland starts handing out free automobiles.

[bassbloke]

1 If I work for an insurance company and note that there will be some murders in the US next year we will have to pay out on, I am not advocating murder or tolerance of murder, merely noting its inevitability. Ditto theft. I can't understand why you can't grasp this important difference.

2 "I need to eat".

An entitlement to eat based on need is pretty much a socialist idea. In a market economy you earn the right to eat by supplying the market with something it values in exchange for food. If the market stops placing as high a value on what you have to sell, sorry, but that's the name of the game.

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs." seems to be close to your philosophy. And Marx's of course.


3 I don't agree that because something is 'stealable' that is a reasonable position to accept devaluation.

Just because some thug blows my brains out with a gun doesn't mean that I am under a moral obligation to accept my death. But I might not have a lot of choice in the matter.

4 "stealing someone's product should be met with legal ramifications."

I agree, but it's a question of practicality. The Chinese government's human rights record is no better than Saddam's and it's threat to the West is bigger by a very large multiple. But in the real world there are some problems you can solve and others you just have to live with.

5 "The fact that it hasn't happened on a larger scale than Napster has me a bit surprised"

Well it has actually. For some reason subsequent closures have not attracted the same attention as Napster. But Audiogalaxy was arguably a bigger threat to the music industry than Napster, and other smaller systems like Xolox have been closed down or neutered by the courts. The problem is that just about any computer whizz with a pc and an internet connection, located anywhere in the world, can develop a new system tomorrow.

[anonymous0726]

"From each according to his ability. To each according to his needs." seems to be close to your philosophy. And Marx's of course.

-- Not my position at all. That point I can't seem to get across to you. I am entitled to only that which is mine. The product of my labor is mine and no one else's, as yours is yours. The attempt to commandier my belongings should, and will, be met with force.

Just because some thug blows my brains out with a gun doesn't mean that I am under a moral obligation to accept my death. But I might not have a lot of choice in the matter.

-- You kill the perps, without fanfare, diligently and one at a time. It dissuades the next. The message does get through eventually. We do have this to some degree in this country, the problem being that our laws are so weighted to protect the guilty that severe penalties are not often enough seen to be considered a real threat.

I agree, but it's a question of practicality. The Chinese government's human rights record is no better than Saddam's and it's threat to the West is bigger by a very large multiple. But in the real world there are some problems you can solve and others you just have to live with.

-- This is a matter of a tolerable level of pain. As soon as one of these folks is a big enough pain in the ass, you get rid of them. I think Saddam is just about to learn how far you can push, at least with us. Neither China nor Iraq has to be tolerated. I'm in strong disagreement with the US's policy toward China.

The problem is that just about any computer whizz with a pc and an internet connection, located anywhere in the world, can develop a new system tomorrow.

-- As the technology stands, this is the case. The same beast that has made piracy simple can also be used to make it difficult enough to not want to do. Add this with some freakin' stiff penalties for those that participate and the problem diminishes to a low hum. The technology part is pretty easy, although it would take years to implement what it would take to do it. There is also the snag of personal liberty and privacy that needs to be addressed, but where there is a will there is a way, eh? I'm certain that the solution is possible.

As a country we have no authority to impose our copyright laws on a case by case basis overseas, but we do have other ways of bargaining with our neighbors. Within our borders we need to snag a few of these folks, add up what stolen material they have, multiply it by ISP records of outgoing material, slap a very public grand larceny case on these boys and let the courts do their work.

[tsolo]

I just hate having to shrug while looking at your brains all over the sidewalk.

[lermgalieu]

to get to the - ahem - point, last thing I downloaded was some stuff by a local Portland band, Captain Easy. They've got some good stuff happenin.

[lermgalieu]

Ahem, it was free.

[anonymous0726]

Originally posted by tsolo
I just hate having to shrug while looking at your brains all over the sidewalk.

I fear it would be a depressingly small stain.

[babecker]

Thin Lizzy's "Emerald"