4 ms·

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.

by 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.
    - unalone 17y ago
      But then why are we still selling copies of John Lennon songs now that John Lennon is dead? Copyright still holds. With him dead, whoever owns the copyright to his music — Yoko? — can do whatever she wants with it, until copyright expires. 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. Agreed. And record companies have absolutely moved towards the irrational in their defense of copyright. But I can understand why they're being so irrational, and, misguided as I believe they are, I think their heart's trying to be in the right place. I don't know what the solution is, but the one that blanket approves of piracy isn't the one I approve of. In this particular case with Vimeo, I think that when your lip dub's been viewed two million times, you've passed a point where you can claim you're sharing that song fairly.
      - DarkShikari 17y ago
        I don't know what the solution is, but the one that blanket approves of piracy isn't the one I approve of. In this particular case with Vimeo, I think that when your lip dub's been viewed two million times, you've passed a point where you can claim you're sharing that song fairly. The question is one of total cultural value. Compared to the value supposedly lost by the original artists by allowing their work to be remixed, how much does society gain from allowing their work to be remixed? Did the Gray Album devalue the White Album more than it created value? Did the video of the kid dancing to Dragostei Din Tei (aka Numa Numa) devalue the original song more than it created value? Let us say that it did; what about if we include the additional sales of records that resulted from the popularity of the video? Was value still lost? Could we get into a situation where you claim value was lost, yet the original artists would insist that value was gained?

by unalone 17y ago

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.
  - unalone 17y ago
    But then why are we still selling copies of John Lennon songs now that John Lennon is dead? Copyright still holds. With him dead, whoever owns the copyright to his music — Yoko? — can do whatever she wants with it, until copyright expires. 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. Agreed. And record companies have absolutely moved towards the irrational in their defense of copyright. But I can understand why they're being so irrational, and, misguided as I believe they are, I think their heart's trying to be in the right place. I don't know what the solution is, but the one that blanket approves of piracy isn't the one I approve of. In this particular case with Vimeo, I think that when your lip dub's been viewed two million times, you've passed a point where you can claim you're sharing that song fairly.
    - DarkShikari 17y ago
      I don't know what the solution is, but the one that blanket approves of piracy isn't the one I approve of. In this particular case with Vimeo, I think that when your lip dub's been viewed two million times, you've passed a point where you can claim you're sharing that song fairly. The question is one of total cultural value. Compared to the value supposedly lost by the original artists by allowing their work to be remixed, how much does society gain from allowing their work to be remixed? Did the Gray Album devalue the White Album more than it created value? Did the video of the kid dancing to Dragostei Din Tei (aka Numa Numa) devalue the original song more than it created value? Let us say that it did; what about if we include the additional sales of records that resulted from the popularity of the video? Was value still lost? Could we get into a situation where you claim value was lost, yet the original artists would insist that value was gained?