It looks like poor Carol Kaye doesn't understand the internet

[Roy Vogt]

a
I do have one last point though, the part of your statement that says "linked to their hardware." they are offering a digital product that is enhanced by a physical product in order to continue making money... you can get the software alone for free (again, illegally) but it's just not as good or cool as having the physical product that goes along with it and creates a fuller/better product. Y'know, like the difference between a digital music download and the tactile/visual experience of purchasing/listening to a vinyl.

Actually, I forgot one thing-Digidesign and ProTools have some of the most Draconian Copy Protection-either dongle or hardware linked-out there. So, they have made it EXTREMELY difficult to illegally copy their product. That may be why they haven't shut their doors as well.

 

[Honk'n_down-low]

I hear a song on Pandora. I want to know if the album holds up or if just the song is good. I download it. The album sucks, so I delete it after a single listen (if I even listen to the whole thing once). Or, I like it, and I buy it. Believe me -- and I will cop to this -- I've downloaded a decent amount of music, and I buy more new music (as in, legal digital downloads or in-the-shrinkwrap vinyl from mom and pop stores) than almost all of my friends combined. I just bought two new records this week. Should I have paid for all the ones I downloaded and deleted? If I had gone down that road, I would have stopped buying as soon as I discovered that I was buying three or five records for each one I actually wanted to own.

When I was in high school I had no money. Even if I wanted to I could have maybe bought a couple of albums per year. So yeah, I wanted the albums and didn't buy them, and yeah I downloaded some or got mp3s or burned CDs from friends. If I really liked something I would ask my parents to get it for me for my birthday or Christmas. But I couldn't have bought them because I didn't have the money in the first place. No money is no money. You think that 13 year old kid was going to buy those 10 albums? With what trust fund? Was the kid who stole your laptop about to go out and buy a new Dell from Best Buy but just came across the opportunity to rip you off? In your dreams.

Hopefully my karma is evening out as I continue to buy music, but even if I bought two thousand more records I think some guys would still be wanting me to burn in hell.

You are essentially piling on and changing the context of your original statement - under your original statement you said I don't want it so I won't pay for it - but will download for free. You can't go in and take a car off a dealership lot - cause you were curious about how good it may have driven and then decided you did not like it and trash it. Hey - you did not like it after trying it - so taking it for free in the first place was OK is your premise now.

 

[Roy Vogt]

all this assumes that the old business model is the only viable model (which it's not). plus, what you're saying is that even an extremely high dollar program like protools can continue to be a viable product EVEN THOUGH it's readily available for free online by anyone willing to circumvent the law. doesn't that sort of contradict the part about how if Vic's CDs are available online for free that no one will buy them? How do you square these too diametrically opposed ideas WITHIN THE SAME PARAGRAPH? (again, not rhetorical)

I wasn't saying that at all-I was proposing a hypothetical here. If ONE person has the right to that free download through some ethical rule that's foreign to me, then ALL people should, shouldn't they?
Digidesign is not bankrupt because a majority of the people who use their product do the right thing and PAY for it.
If somebody is choosing to "circumvent the law" doesn't that make them one of those "thieves, criminals, and pirates" you seem to think I'm railing against?

 

[mccartneyman]

right, well the person who originally bought the track and uploaded it to the P2P paid for it as well (except most major label releases get uploaded to the private trackers for free download directly by the label, but that's a whole other conversation). What you're saying is that it's ok to read the book or listen to the album without paying the artist as long as you pay SOMEONE for it. I really don't understand your argument at all. Either the artist deserves payment for their work by EVERY PERSON WHO LISTENS TO IT or they don't. If you buy used media you are a pirate, end of story.

I understand and support artists being paid for their work. Strictly speaking, we should not make or have copies of anything we haven't paid for. You shouldn't photocopy sheet music.

But there are questions relating to other media. I borrow a book from the library. Or a friend lends me the book. How does the author see any money from that? I'm a pirate because I read a borrowed copy of "Carrie" and Stephen King's doesn't see any money from it? Are not these facts taken into consideration in the writer's compensation for the rights to the book? And let's say my friend lends "Carrie" and I go out and buy all King's books because I liked the one my friend lent to me. If he hadn't lent me the book, I'd never have known I liked Stephen King, and thus King would have been cheated out of income from my not buying his other books. I can't see any writer sitting down and saying, "What do I get for people who borrow my book? Or who buy it used?"

I read someone else's newspaper or magazine. Am I cheating The Washington Post and Time?

Am I pirating "Starry Night" because I look at it when it hangs in a museum instead of buying my own copy?

What if I borrow my friend's Precision bass instead of buying one of my own? Am I cheating Fender?

I have no answers. Just asking.

 

[baalroo]

I wasn't saying that at all-I was proposing a hypothetical here. If ONE person has the right to that free download through some ethical rule that's foreign to me, then ALL people should, shouldn't they?
Digidesign is not bankrupt because a majority of the people who use their product do the right thing and PAY for it.
If somebody is choosing to "circumvent the law" doesn't that make them one of those "thieves, criminals, and pirates" you seem to think I'm railing against?

that last point is a good one, there is really no argument that can be given against the statement that anyone who downloads illegally is committing a criminal act, but I think the debate we've fallen into here is whether or not the law being broken could now be considered draconian in nature based on the obvious widespread disregard for it within the general populace. what I'm asking you to do is move beyond "because the law says so" argument and discuss the actual ethical and practical implications of the realities of the situation.

let's take for granted for a moment the assumption that filesharing automatically leads to less revenue from those who operate with the old recording industry business model (which is actually a completely unsubstantiated claim IMO):

the proposal then is that filesharing really tends to hurt those who fight against it the hardest, because they refuse to use it to their advantage. At the same time, those who take the time to understand it and build their business model around the fact that it is a hard reality can make a lot of money by using it to their advantage. Since you can either fight them or join them (the "pirates" being them), and fighting apparently hurts your bottom line (as you are all so quick to point out) while using it to your advantage can help you make money and promote your business (IE: your band), then it makes sense to me that the people in the wrong at this point are the ones who refuse to keep up with the paradigm shift and demand an outdated business model to be adhered to. Quite frankly, it's p***ing in the wind, IMO.

finally, if one business model leads to all the trouble that you guys are talking about, and the other models lead to profit... why is this even an argument? you yourselves keep stating how bad filesharing is for the old business model, yet instead of deciding the business model should change you come to the bizarre conclusion that the cats should be herded back up and put back in the bag so that those who are behind the curve don't get left behind.

 

[Roy Vogt]

I understand and support artists being paid for their work. Strictly speaking, we should not make or have copies of anything we haven't paid for. You shouldn't photocopy sheet music.

But there are questions relating to other media. I borrow a book from the library. Or a friend lends me the book. How does the author see any money from that? I'm a pirate because I read a borrowed copy of "Carrie" and Stephen King's doesn't see any money from it? Are not these facts taken into consideration in the writer's compensation for the rights to the book? And let's say my friend lends "Carrie" and I go out and buy all King's books because I liked the one my friend lent to me. If he hadn't lent me the book, I'd never have known I liked Stephen King, and thus King would have been cheated out of income from my not buying his other books. I can't see any writer sitting down and saying, "What do I get for people who borrow my book? Or who buy it used?"

I read someone else's newspaper or magazine. Am I cheating The Washington Post and Time?

Am I pirating "Starry Night" because I look at it when it hangs in a museum instead of buying my own copy?

What if I borrow my friend's Precision bass instead of buying one of my own? Am I cheating Fender?

I have no answers. Just asking.

The answer is that you're BORROWING something, not claiming any ownership. If you steal Time from the newstand that's one thing-if you pick it up and read it in the Dr.'s office (who has bought it for his patients to read, perhaps) that's another. The difference is LOANING or BORROWING rather than taking a copy for your own use and keeping it.
Looking at, borrowing , and lending are not the same here, IMO.

 

[mister-o]

You are essentially piling on and changing the context of your original statement - under your original statement you said I don't want it so I won't pay for it - but will download for free. You can't go in and take a car off a dealership lot - cause you were curious about how good it may have driven and then decided you did not like it and trash it. Hey - you did not like it after trying it - so taking it for free in the first place was OK is your premise now.

No, what I was saying was "I don't know if I want it, so why don't I take it for a test drive to see if I do". It's much more like taking the dealership car for a test drive and then returning it to the lot. The dealer can still sell the car to someone else. The musician can still sell the album to someone else. As far as the musician is concerned, I might as well have borrowed the CD from a friend for a day or checked it out of the library (you could still do that when I was a kid, I don't know if you still can). You can't equate physical property with digital property for this reason.

 

[Roy Vogt]

what I'm asking you to do is move beyond "because the law says so" argument and discuss the actual ethical and practical implications of the realities of the situation.

At one point the "realities of the situation" in Germany in 1933 went horribly, horribly wrong even though a large amount of the populace agreed and supported it.

 

[mister-o]

At one point the "realities of the situation" in Germany in 1933 went horribly, horribly wrong even though a large amount of the populace agreed and supported it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I think we're done here.

 

[YL_Bass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I think we're done here.

I love when this happens.

 

[baalroo]

The answer is that you're BORROWING something, not claiming any ownership. If you steal Time from the newstand that's one thing-if you pick it up and read it in the Dr.'s office (who has bought it for his patients to read, perhaps) that's another. The difference is LOANING or BORROWING rather than taking a copy for your own use and keeping it.
Looking at, borrowing , and lending are not the same here, IMO.

so, does that mean that it's ok to download a copy of an album as long as you delete it after you are done with it? you are no longer "keeping" the copy you made and thus is the exact equivilant of borrowing the CD from a friend and returning it after you are done listening to it right? and if so, then what's the difference if I leave it on my harddrive or not after I'm done listening to it, assuming I never listen to it again? and hey, if I did end up listening to it again, isn't it just like borrowing the CD from my friend again?

all I'm doing here is using YOUR definitions of these terms, so if I got it wrong please feel free to correct me.

 

[baalroo]

The operative phrase is "by each person that reads/listens to it".

Short answer; no.

Medium answer; no, because the artist gets paid buy copies printed/sold.

Long answer; if you can't understand the short and medium answers, I can't help you.

I'm sorry, but from where I'm sitting, you seem to be the one who's incapable of understanding the implications of your answers.

let me demonstrate:

if the artist should be paid by copies printed/sold, then by your own definition there is no reason that the artist should be paid for any copies that they did not print/sell themselves. I'm not stretching your terms in any way, this is exactly what you just said spit right back at you. an artist should not be paid for each reading/listening of their work, only the copies that THEY PRINT/SELL. the end result is that since a digital copy was neither printed or sold by the artist themselves then there is no reason they should be paid for them. again, your definition, NOT MINE. So, care to explain to me exactly where your stated definition/opinion and mine differ?

 

[mister-o]

so, does that mean that it's ok to download a copy of an album as long as you delete it after you are done with it? you are no longer "keeping" the copy you made and thus is the exact equivilant of borrowing the CD from a friend and returning it after you are done listening to it right? and if so, then what's the difference if I leave it on my harddrive or not after I'm done listening to it, assuming I never listen to it again? and hey, if I did end up listening to it again, isn't it just like borrowing the CD from my friend again.

It's not the same, because borrowing a CD from a friend is premised on a consensual word-of-mouth relationship using a product that was actually purchased, a relationship that is limited in both space and time. If you download it, you don't know the person, they may not have bought it, and they have no idea that you're even downloading it. Besides, if you borrow the CD from your friend, they can't listen to it while you have it!

 

[adammazza]

I hear a song on Pandora. I want to know if the album holds up or if just the song is good. I download it. The album sucks, so I delete it after a single listen (if I even listen to the whole thing once). Or, I like it, and I buy it. Believe me -- and I will cop to this -- I've downloaded a decent amount of music, and I buy more new music (as in, legal digital downloads or in-the-shrinkwrap vinyl from mom and pop stores) than almost all of my friends combined. I just bought two new records this week. Should I have paid for all the ones I downloaded and deleted? If I had gone down that road, I would have stopped buying as soon as I discovered that I was buying three or five records for each one I actually wanted to own.

When I was in high school I had no money. Even if I wanted to I could have maybe bought a couple of albums per year. So yeah, I wanted the albums and didn't buy them, and yeah I downloaded some or got mp3s or burned CDs from friends. If I really liked something I would ask my parents to get it for me for my birthday or Christmas. But I couldn't have bought them because I didn't have the money in the first place. No money is no money. You think that 13 year old kid was going to buy those 10 albums? With what trust fund? Was the kid who stole your laptop about to go out and buy a new Dell from Best Buy but just came across the opportunity to rip you off? In your dreams.

Hopefully my karma is evening out as I continue to buy music, but even if I bought two thousand more records I think some guys would still be wanting me to burn in hell.

I read the first post of this thread, then maybe skimmed the rest, but this post stood out..

This is the typical "woah is me, I can't afford "XYZ" so therefore it's ok that I steal it, because the world is so unfair.

Guess what, whether you agree with the laws or not, they are what they are, and you are breaking them.

If you disagree with them, well email/call/write your elected officials and get them changed. Your wisea** justifications do not make your actions right.

Of course at this point, you'll respond with some pithy remark about how you are still entitled to download/steal/etc any music you like.

Adam

 

[Roy Vogt]

I for one am getting WAY Off Topic on this. So:
Here's how I feel about this Topic-
Carol Kaye doesn't want her copyrighted books and educational materials that she sells herself taken and distributed for free via BitTorrent. She may have been advised to send out a wholesale warning to all parties involved to cease and desist. I for one support her efforts to try to protect her work that she has created to sell for a profit. Carol is a good friend, a mentor and one of my teachers, I have her back on this.
As far as I am concerned, I have nothing more to add here. See you all on another TB thread ( I personally recommend Jeff Berlin Discussing Music Education).
Peace and Blessings

 

[baalroo]

It's not the same, because borrowing a CD from a friend is premised on a consensual word-of-mouth relationship using a product that was actually purchased, a relationship that is limited in both space and time. If you download it, you don't know the person, they may not have bought it, and they have no idea that you're even downloading it. Besides, if you borrow the CD from your friend, they can't listen to it while you have it!

this is true, and I actually agree that I was overreaching on that one. what i was attempting to do was point out all the seemingly arbitrary factors that go into determining when you CAN listen to an artist's music without paying for the intellectual property, and when you CAN'T. honestly, how different the scenarios are isn't as important to my point as how similar they are. In each there is a judgment call that must be made as to whether the particular instance in which an intellectual property is being consumed is one in which payment is due, and we often take these judgments for granted and don't actually even process the fact that a judgment call is being made. what I'm trying to shed light on is the fact that these things are NOT set in stone and are not absolutes, there are shades of gray, and as technology changes how we interact with these ideas we may need to periodically review our stances on them. I feel like a lot of people here simply dismiss these ideas out of hand and I'm attempting to approach them from as many different angles as possible in hopes of rekindling their interest in an actual debate of the issues rather than simply throwing opinions at one another.

 

[mccartneyman]

Sooo ... flats or rounds?

 

[YL_Bass]

Flats on my dj. Semis on my pbass.

 

[Pablo Fanque]

Legally, I agree with you and that much of the argument is obvious, but laws can be changed and are (supposed to be) based on the will of the people whom the laws govern. Laws however don't automatically line up with ethics (there are so many examples of this in even the US history that I don't think I need to point to any specifics) and the ETHICS of it are what I'm talking about here. We decided long ago that not ALWAYS paying an artist what they deem their work is worth is OK when in regards to used Books and CDs. As a culture we looked at the difficulty of trying to criminalize the reselling of intellectual property and decided that it wasn't a realistic goal and we legalized the reselling of artists intellectual property without paying them for their work.

The "ethics" of file sharing and buying used are not the same. I buy one CD. I listen to it, get tired of it and sell it. I no longer have that one CD but I've put it into the stream out there. Someone else now has one CD.

Contrast that with I buy one CD and decided to allow an unlimited amount of people -- or maybe just one other person to share it. I STILL have one CD and another person has one CD. In extreme p2p sharing, I still have my 1 cd and maybe thousands of others now have it.

That's factually, ethically and legally different than me selling my CD to someone else. Why? Well, because I no longer have whatever benefit came from having that CD.

 

[baalroo]

The "ethics" of file sharing and buying used are not the same. I buy one CD. I listen to it, get tired of it and sell it. I no longer have that one CD but I've put it into the stream out there. Someone else now has one CD.

Contrast that with I buy one CD and decided to allow an unlimited amount of people -- or maybe just one other person to share it. I STILL have one CD and another person has one CD. In extreme p2p sharing, I still have my 1 cd and maybe thousands of others now have it.

That's factually, ethically and legally different than me selling my CD to someone else. Why? Well, because I no longer have whatever benefit came from having that CD.

none of that changes the fact that each subsequent purchaser of the CD is listening to the intellectual property without paying the artist for it. IMO the scale is irrelevant to the ethics, either you pay the artist for their work or you do not.