4 ms·

Short summery of his conclusion: People would use permissively licensed content and commercial content publishers would die if they wouldn't adopt. Well, I wou

Short summery of his conclusion: People would use permissively licensed content and commercial content publishers would die if they wouldn't adopt. Well, I wouldn't be bet on that. Maybe, the author of this piece would do so, and maybe quite a few others. But some would switch to something completely different while the majority would simply pay for the content -- just like they did before it was possible to make illegal copies. Free (whether in beer or speech) is not the only criterion for making buying decisions.

unalone 17y ago
Absolutely agreed. I wrote a series of posts regarding Capitol Records's suing Vimeo yesterday that says something similar. (http://marinich.tumblr.com/post/286389590/vimeo-sued-by-capitol-records-over-lip-dubs http://marinich.tumblr.com/post/286389590/vimeo-sued-by-capi... and http://marinich.tumblr.com/post/286413219/amanda-lyn-ferri-star-of-the-original-lip-sync http://marinich.tumblr.com/post/286413219/amanda-lyn-ferri-s...) It's not even that people are sheep who're getting screwed over by record companies. It's that, much as we may dislike them, record companies are providing quite a lot of value, and they're doing their best to preserve the value of the content they're providing, however flawed their approach may be. While I don't think they're doing a service to musicians, the strategy espoused here and by others — make music valueless and profit by other methods — doesn't sit well with me at all. Even if it is inevitable, and I'm still not entirely certain that it is, I think it would be a great loss if people started seeing music as intrinsically worthless.
- DarkShikari 17y ago
  intrinsically worthless I think the term you're looking for is priceless, not worthless.
  - unalone 17y ago
    Nope! "Priceless" means you're incapable of deciding what one ought to pay for something. "Worthless" means you've decided something is not inherently valuable. That's the meaning I wanted to use. When you think it's okay to use a copyrighted song in its entirety in a video just because you're an amateur, what you're saying is that you're fine with releasing somebody else's work to the world without anybody making a dime. The people complaining about this lawsuit are saying they're mad because using somebody else's work without compensation should be completely fine. That devalues music. It would be like if I stole the source code to Basecamp to release a free application, then defended myself to 37signals by saying I wasn't making money off it. I'm not more innocent because I was hypothetically releasing my work for free. In fact, in a way it's even worse because I've suddenly devalued Basecamp, which makes money off people who think it's worth something and have no choice but to pay if they want it. (Actually, looking at Marco's post before this, I think I misinterpreted him: He agrees with my belief that the Vimeo thing is copyright infringement, and simply is saying that Creative Commons will let musicians flourish without breaking laws.)
    - DarkShikari 17y ago
      Nope! "Priceless" means you're incapable of deciding what one ought to pay for something. What is the Mona Lisa worth? You'd say it's priceless, of course. Yet you can find free images of it--legally--online. Does that mean the Mona Lisa is worthless? Something can be priceless despite reproductions of it being available for zero cost.
      - unalone 17y ago
        Back when Da Vinci made the Mona Lisa, he sold it. It was preserved in a museum and copied everywhere long after he was dead; originally, he made his money off commissions. So your argument falls instantly flat. Something can be priceless despite reproductions of it being available for zero cost. The question you don't ask is: What is being reproduced? If you're talking about just a band playing a song, then maybe I'd agree with you. I don't have an enormous problem with people listening to bootleg recordings of live bands. As you say there, those are recordings that stemmed from a concert that already made its money. But when the music is recorded, when you hire audio engineers to get as good a sound as possible, when you slave over making an absolutely perfect recording, then you've created an object whose initial worth is determined by the exclusivity of the releases. When you spend lots of effort to release a CD, you're doing it because you expect the deal is going to be: "If you want these high quality recordings, you pay me a little bit of money." When that gets released for free, all the efforts that went into making that particular sound are rendered valueless because the band's expected return suddenly isn't happening.
        DarkShikari 17y ago
        Back when Da Vinci made the Mona Lisa, he sold it. It was preserved in a museum and copied everywhere long after he was dead; originally, he made his money off commissions. So your argument falls instantly flat. But then why are we still selling copies of John Lennon songs now that John Lennon is dead? "If you want these high quality recordings, you pay me a little bit of money." So then where do you draw the line? Is it illegal for me to play a CD for a friend, because he hasn't bought it? Is it illegal for me to lend a CD to a friend? Is it illegal for me to listen to my own MP3s ripped from a CD while lending the CD to a friend? Is it illegal to lend that CD to a whole lot of friends at once? Is it illegal for me to do that over Bittorrent? Your argument says all these are illegal, because the person listening to the music didn't pay for it. Personally, I think the issue needs a slightly more subtle approach. But if you think that you can more easily deal with the problem by making it completely black and white, with everyone in the world a lawbreaker for listening to music they haven't paid for, feel free. Just don't impose such a flawed worldview on everyone else.
- Retric 17y ago
  I view music as worthless. I don't download music off the net or listen to the radio and I have never payed for music. If music cost a million dollars a song or zero it would have no effect on my life at all. So where is the loss? Do I miss out on bad poetry or meaningless instrumentals? Simple patterns of sound? What? PS: No I am not deaf, I just find music to be boring.
  - bioweek 17y ago
    That's funny, I feel that exact same way. No one has ever understood this view point. I'm glad to know there's another like me out there. I always figured it was just me. I can appreciate music sometimes but I just can't imagine sitting down to listen to music as a pastime... or paying for it.
    - unalone 17y ago
      Can you imagine people reading as a pastime? Or watching movies? Or watching sports? Music is a technical display wherein people each create something and, woven together, it becomes a song. You can't imagine being riveted by five instruments each weaving around one another, by the various techniques each one employs, by the editing process required to create each sound? It's just like watching fourteen people run a ball around on a field, but the movements are planned ahead of time and the execution is key. Maybe it's not your thing, but I'd hope you can at least understand the appeal to other people.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
    - Daishiman 17y ago
      You must be fun at parties.
  - unalone 17y ago
    I don't see your point. If you're not paying for music and you're not consuming music, you're a zero who's not detracting and not contributing. I mean, I think it's pathetic that you don't like music, but that's an argument not worth having on Hacker News. We're not exactly bright musically.
- cschwarm 17y ago
  I sort of agree, but I also think you're over-reacting. Here's why: Determine value is incredibly hard, thus many people use other attributes as a signal of value: Sometimes it's appearance, sometimes scarcity, sometimes hearsay, and rather often price. Therefore, if a product category had a price of zero, it will be considered less valuable when looking at the market as a whole. However, that doesn't hold for every individual. For example, I still use quite a lot of Open Source software and it's free as in beer. That doesn't mean it has no value to me. If it had no value, I simply wouldn't use it. By analogy, most music is already valueless to most people and has ever been. They wouldn't listen to it whatever the price. Nevertheless, some music will remain valuable to some people, whatever the price.
  - unalone 17y ago
    Well, yeah. But that doesn't change what I was saying, which is simply that I sympathize with people who're attempting to charge money for their music, and I can understand the lawsuits against those who'd violate those rights, even as I find them a bit extreme.
ErrantX 17y ago
Your right; the writer is making the crucial mistake of assuming that the majority want free stuff because of an ideology they hold. When really they are just after a free lunch :) I'm sure most would just go onto pay content. And those currently on pay content anyway wouldn't see a difference.
- roc 17y ago
  The writer was talking about the people who produce original content. He's asking: what if the guy making a youtube video of unboxing his new laptop couldn't use The Final Countdown as his soundtrack? He still wants to upload his unboxing video. He still wants a soundtrack. What does he do? And what effect will that have? There's no for-pay alternative unboxing video with a properly licensed The Final Countdown. And there's no for-pay system for him to acquire a license to The Final Countdown. The song isn't even the point at all. If there's any hassle involved in using it, he just won't. Not when he can just grab some JoCo and be done with it. And if the creators do find and use permissive-license content, doesn't that necessarily erode the value of strictly-licensed content?
  - cschwarm 17y ago
    No, I don't think so. The reason why there's no system to license 'The Final Countdown' is probably that it wouldn't pay. I mean, come on! How many people would really watch a guys video unboxing his laptop? This is a nice for his handful of friends but the majority doesn't care, at all. Even if you combine all the long-tail stuff, it's probably not worth the effort. IIRC Youtube is even unable to find advertisers for all this low-value long-tail stuff. So, what will happen if this laptop guy uses some CC music? Nothing, I'd say. His friends will have forgotten it in a minute unless the track is really exceptional. And even if it's exceptional, that's one track in a few thousand. Thus, the impact on stricly-licensed content will be very close to zero.
  - Shorel 17y ago
    You mean... rap singers would have to learn to compose their own melodies? They would have to stop raping great songs with their ugly voiceovers? I'm all for banning copyright infringement!!
rimantas 17y ago
I am pretty sure that many do choose "free"/pirated/whatever becaus it is simply more convenient to get and manage content this way. Consider all the hops you need to jump buying physical DVD and torrenting the movie. Or think about this scenario: you here a song you like somewhere and you want to get it. Digital world: launch your Shazam/Sound hound, let it identify the song, press "buy". Physical world… I will let you to work out this one yourself. And you may end up buying 10 more songs you don't like just because they were on the same album. There is the reason why ITMS is #1 music seller in US. Alas, producers are stuck in their world of physical copies. They do have a problem there—in the digital world they are pretty much unneeded middlemen. Let's remember that if one got illegal copy of some piece this does not directly translates to lost sale — if there was no way to get it for free our hero could just as well decide "to the hell with it". However, illegal copies and copyrated material on youtube, etc. can sometimes work as an advertisement for an artist and mean more ticket sales for the next gig. So, unbeatable DRM would probably mean slightly more sales, but less revenue for the artists.
- cschwarm 17y ago
  Yes, convenience is a big plus for illegally downloaded music. But I believe, some sort of middleman will remain in the digital world. Their value proposition is reducing transaction costs -- the costs associated with finding content that's worth to be produced, promoting it, distributing it to a place near you, and managing all monetary transactions. Yes, distribution is a no-brainer in the digital world. All other points, however, remain valid. And as far as I know, concerts and tours are expenses for lesser known bands, not money makers. In general, planning a tour is a very risky business. Today, a band may recoup some of the expense by selling physical stuff (CDs or merchandising). In the digital world, only merchandising remains. On a side note, producers are currently struck in the world of physical copies because there's no reliable copyright enforcement method. Otherwise, they would have embraced it years ago. It's simply less expensive to make digital copies (and therefore generates higher profit if prices stay the same). Under the premise of the OP, buying music would be as convenient as getting a illegal copy, I'd say.
dejb 17y ago
It would end up being an interesting battle to see who starved first out of the copyright holders and the music/video sites. The day after this perfect enforcement came into effect users would still flock to Youtube/etc hoping to find the latest content. So if the a copyright holder decided to block all their content they would lose a lot of attention in the initial stages. However would the users continue to flock to youtube/etc without all that copyright content? No doubt the copyright holders would soon revamp the 'official sources' of their content. These would most likely still be restrictive/costly/sucky but as the only source of that content they might stand a chance of drawing the audience back from the 'free' sources. I'm not sure who I'd bet on in an 'all out war' but it most likely wouldn't come to that with copyright holders forced to allow a least some of their material on the sites with the existing audience. I do believe however that it would shift the balance of power back towards the copyright holders.
halostatue 17y ago
This isn't just about reuse and embedding. Permissive licensing would include the ability to format shift; technically, it's illegal to rip a DVD and convert it for play on your iPod or other video player. What's interesting is that Disney does seem to be getting it on recent DVD releases—by including a iTunes digital copy for use by the purchaser on the release. At Costco the other week, I saw something even more interesting: a combination digital, Blu-Ray, and DVD release of a number of Disney's recent films.

unalone 17y ago

Absolutely agreed. I wrote a series of posts regarding Capitol Records's suing Vimeo yesterday that says something similar. (http://marinich.tumblr.com/post/286389590/vimeo-sued-by-capitol-records-over-lip-dubs http://marinich.tumblr.com/post/286389590/vimeo-sued-by-capi... and http://marinich.tumblr.com/post/286413219/amanda-lyn-ferri-star-of-the-original-lip-sync http://marinich.tumblr.com/post/286413219/amanda-lyn-ferri-s...) It's not even that people are sheep who're getting screwed over by record companies. It's that, much as we may dislike them, record companies are providing quite a lot of value, and they're doing their best to preserve the value of the content they're providing, however flawed their approach may be. While I don't think they're doing a service to musicians, the strategy espoused here and by others — make music valueless and profit by other methods — doesn't sit well with me at all. Even if it is inevitable, and I'm still not entirely certain that it is, I think it would be a great loss if people started seeing music as intrinsically worthless.

DarkShikari 17y ago
intrinsically worthless I think the term you're looking for is priceless, not worthless.
- unalone 17y ago
  Nope! "Priceless" means you're incapable of deciding what one ought to pay for something. "Worthless" means you've decided something is not inherently valuable. That's the meaning I wanted to use. When you think it's okay to use a copyrighted song in its entirety in a video just because you're an amateur, what you're saying is that you're fine with releasing somebody else's work to the world without anybody making a dime. The people complaining about this lawsuit are saying they're mad because using somebody else's work without compensation should be completely fine. That devalues music. It would be like if I stole the source code to Basecamp to release a free application, then defended myself to 37signals by saying I wasn't making money off it. I'm not more innocent because I was hypothetically releasing my work for free. In fact, in a way it's even worse because I've suddenly devalued Basecamp, which makes money off people who think it's worth something and have no choice but to pay if they want it. (Actually, looking at Marco's post before this, I think I misinterpreted him: He agrees with my belief that the Vimeo thing is copyright infringement, and simply is saying that Creative Commons will let musicians flourish without breaking laws.)
  - DarkShikari 17y ago
    Nope! "Priceless" means you're incapable of deciding what one ought to pay for something. What is the Mona Lisa worth? You'd say it's priceless, of course. Yet you can find free images of it--legally--online. Does that mean the Mona Lisa is worthless? Something can be priceless despite reproductions of it being available for zero cost.
    - unalone 17y ago
      Back when Da Vinci made the Mona Lisa, he sold it. It was preserved in a museum and copied everywhere long after he was dead; originally, he made his money off commissions. So your argument falls instantly flat. Something can be priceless despite reproductions of it being available for zero cost. The question you don't ask is: What is being reproduced? If you're talking about just a band playing a song, then maybe I'd agree with you. I don't have an enormous problem with people listening to bootleg recordings of live bands. As you say there, those are recordings that stemmed from a concert that already made its money. But when the music is recorded, when you hire audio engineers to get as good a sound as possible, when you slave over making an absolutely perfect recording, then you've created an object whose initial worth is determined by the exclusivity of the releases. When you spend lots of effort to release a CD, you're doing it because you expect the deal is going to be: "If you want these high quality recordings, you pay me a little bit of money." When that gets released for free, all the efforts that went into making that particular sound are rendered valueless because the band's expected return suddenly isn't happening.
      - DarkShikari 17y ago
        Back when Da Vinci made the Mona Lisa, he sold it. It was preserved in a museum and copied everywhere long after he was dead; originally, he made his money off commissions. So your argument falls instantly flat. But then why are we still selling copies of John Lennon songs now that John Lennon is dead? "If you want these high quality recordings, you pay me a little bit of money." So then where do you draw the line? Is it illegal for me to play a CD for a friend, because he hasn't bought it? Is it illegal for me to lend a CD to a friend? Is it illegal for me to listen to my own MP3s ripped from a CD while lending the CD to a friend? Is it illegal to lend that CD to a whole lot of friends at once? Is it illegal for me to do that over Bittorrent? Your argument says all these are illegal, because the person listening to the music didn't pay for it. Personally, I think the issue needs a slightly more subtle approach. But if you think that you can more easily deal with the problem by making it completely black and white, with everyone in the world a lawbreaker for listening to music they haven't paid for, feel free. Just don't impose such a flawed worldview on everyone else.
Retric 17y ago
I view music as worthless. I don't download music off the net or listen to the radio and I have never payed for music. If music cost a million dollars a song or zero it would have no effect on my life at all. So where is the loss? Do I miss out on bad poetry or meaningless instrumentals? Simple patterns of sound? What? PS: No I am not deaf, I just find music to be boring.
- bioweek 17y ago
  That's funny, I feel that exact same way. No one has ever understood this view point. I'm glad to know there's another like me out there. I always figured it was just me. I can appreciate music sometimes but I just can't imagine sitting down to listen to music as a pastime... or paying for it.
  - unalone 17y ago
    Can you imagine people reading as a pastime? Or watching movies? Or watching sports? Music is a technical display wherein people each create something and, woven together, it becomes a song. You can't imagine being riveted by five instruments each weaving around one another, by the various techniques each one employs, by the editing process required to create each sound? It's just like watching fourteen people run a ball around on a field, but the movements are planned ahead of time and the execution is key. Maybe it's not your thing, but I'd hope you can at least understand the appeal to other people.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - Daishiman 17y ago
    You must be fun at parties.
- unalone 17y ago
  I don't see your point. If you're not paying for music and you're not consuming music, you're a zero who's not detracting and not contributing. I mean, I think it's pathetic that you don't like music, but that's an argument not worth having on Hacker News. We're not exactly bright musically.
cschwarm 17y ago
I sort of agree, but I also think you're over-reacting. Here's why: Determine value is incredibly hard, thus many people use other attributes as a signal of value: Sometimes it's appearance, sometimes scarcity, sometimes hearsay, and rather often price. Therefore, if a product category had a price of zero, it will be considered less valuable when looking at the market as a whole. However, that doesn't hold for every individual. For example, I still use quite a lot of Open Source software and it's free as in beer. That doesn't mean it has no value to me. If it had no value, I simply wouldn't use it. By analogy, most music is already valueless to most people and has ever been. They wouldn't listen to it whatever the price. Nevertheless, some music will remain valuable to some people, whatever the price.
- unalone 17y ago
  Well, yeah. But that doesn't change what I was saying, which is simply that I sympathize with people who're attempting to charge money for their music, and I can understand the lawsuits against those who'd violate those rights, even as I find them a bit extreme.

ErrantX 17y ago

Your right; the writer is making the crucial mistake of assuming that the majority want free stuff because of an ideology they hold. When really they are just after a free lunch :) I'm sure most would just go onto pay content. And those currently on pay content anyway wouldn't see a difference.

roc 17y ago
The writer was talking about the people who produce original content. He's asking: what if the guy making a youtube video of unboxing his new laptop couldn't use The Final Countdown as his soundtrack? He still wants to upload his unboxing video. He still wants a soundtrack. What does he do? And what effect will that have? There's no for-pay alternative unboxing video with a properly licensed The Final Countdown. And there's no for-pay system for him to acquire a license to The Final Countdown. The song isn't even the point at all. If there's any hassle involved in using it, he just won't. Not when he can just grab some JoCo and be done with it. And if the creators do find and use permissive-license content, doesn't that necessarily erode the value of strictly-licensed content?
- cschwarm 17y ago
  No, I don't think so. The reason why there's no system to license 'The Final Countdown' is probably that it wouldn't pay. I mean, come on! How many people would really watch a guys video unboxing his laptop? This is a nice for his handful of friends but the majority doesn't care, at all. Even if you combine all the long-tail stuff, it's probably not worth the effort. IIRC Youtube is even unable to find advertisers for all this low-value long-tail stuff. So, what will happen if this laptop guy uses some CC music? Nothing, I'd say. His friends will have forgotten it in a minute unless the track is really exceptional. And even if it's exceptional, that's one track in a few thousand. Thus, the impact on stricly-licensed content will be very close to zero.
- Shorel 17y ago
  You mean... rap singers would have to learn to compose their own melodies? They would have to stop raping great songs with their ugly voiceovers? I'm all for banning copyright infringement!!

rimantas 17y ago

I am pretty sure that many do choose "free"/pirated/whatever becaus it is simply more convenient to get and manage content this way. Consider all the hops you need to jump buying physical DVD and torrenting the movie. Or think about this scenario: you here a song you like somewhere and you want to get it. Digital world: launch your Shazam/Sound hound, let it identify the song, press "buy". Physical world… I will let you to work out this one yourself. And you may end up buying 10 more songs you don't like just because they were on the same album. There is the reason why ITMS is #1 music seller in US. Alas, producers are stuck in their world of physical copies. They do have a problem there—in the digital world they are pretty much unneeded middlemen. Let's remember that if one got illegal copy of some piece this does not directly translates to lost sale — if there was no way to get it for free our hero could just as well decide "to the hell with it". However, illegal copies and copyrated material on youtube, etc. can sometimes work as an advertisement for an artist and mean more ticket sales for the next gig. So, unbeatable DRM would probably mean slightly more sales, but less revenue for the artists.

cschwarm 17y ago
Yes, convenience is a big plus for illegally downloaded music. But I believe, some sort of middleman will remain in the digital world. Their value proposition is reducing transaction costs -- the costs associated with finding content that's worth to be produced, promoting it, distributing it to a place near you, and managing all monetary transactions. Yes, distribution is a no-brainer in the digital world. All other points, however, remain valid. And as far as I know, concerts and tours are expenses for lesser known bands, not money makers. In general, planning a tour is a very risky business. Today, a band may recoup some of the expense by selling physical stuff (CDs or merchandising). In the digital world, only merchandising remains. On a side note, producers are currently struck in the world of physical copies because there's no reliable copyright enforcement method. Otherwise, they would have embraced it years ago. It's simply less expensive to make digital copies (and therefore generates higher profit if prices stay the same). Under the premise of the OP, buying music would be as convenient as getting a illegal copy, I'd say.

dejb 17y ago

It would end up being an interesting battle to see who starved first out of the copyright holders and the music/video sites. The day after this perfect enforcement came into effect users would still flock to Youtube/etc hoping to find the latest content. So if the a copyright holder decided to block all their content they would lose a lot of attention in the initial stages. However would the users continue to flock to youtube/etc without all that copyright content? No doubt the copyright holders would soon revamp the 'official sources' of their content. These would most likely still be restrictive/costly/sucky but as the only source of that content they might stand a chance of drawing the audience back from the 'free' sources. I'm not sure who I'd bet on in an 'all out war' but it most likely wouldn't come to that with copyright holders forced to allow a least some of their material on the sites with the existing audience. I do believe however that it would shift the balance of power back towards the copyright holders.

halostatue 17y ago

This isn't just about reuse and embedding. Permissive licensing would include the ability to format shift; technically, it's illegal to rip a DVD and convert it for play on your iPod or other video player. What's interesting is that Disney does seem to be getting it on recent DVD releases—by including a iTunes digital copy for use by the purchaser on the release. At Costco the other week, I saw something even more interesting: a combination digital, Blu-Ray, and DVD release of a number of Disney's recent films.