4 ms·

Absolutely agreed. I wrote a series of posts regarding Capitol Records's suing Vimeo yesterday that says something similar. (http://marinich.tumblr.com/post/286

by 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.

by unalone 17y ago

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.