5 ms·

Unfortunately, some of us consider listening to music to be a big part of who we are, and 10 songs a month is akin to suicide. With newer labels, it's much eas

Unfortunately, some of us consider listening to music to be a big part of who we are, and 10 songs a month is akin to suicide. With newer labels, it's much easier to stream from bandcamp, etc. but with older music it can be hard to find what you want, in the quality and quantity you desire, while staying above piracy. I find it very hard to tell a poor person that they do not get to listen to as much music as me, or of the same quality (streaming is still sub-320kbps) because they were not born into a richer family.

sokoloff 9y ago
Where does that end? Do you expect them to have a right to the same high end speakers/headphones that you have? To the same sound-treated room? I understand piracy more when it's literally impossible to make a legal purchase of something; I get it. When it's merely a matter of spending less money, I have a lot less sympathy for the copyright infringers.
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  Copyright isn't a right. Intellectual property is neither intellectual nor is it property. The only point I concede is nobody should have the right to sell or distribute counterfeit, tampered, malicious items (such as Microsoft Windows) as authentic, genuine, and untampered. We don't need intellectual property for that. We have existing laws outside of intellectual property that covers this use case. I know this can't happen overnight but our goal should be the end of this madness.
  - chrismcb 9y ago
    What existing non ip laws cover this case? Are you talking about counterfeit laws? How do you prevent someone from selling a digital copy then?
    - thanksgiving 9y ago
      I anal but there has to be something for misrepresented goods and services. Under my plan, selling unmodified copies is ok. Selling modified versions as long as they are clearly marked as modified is OK as well.
- ZX82 9y ago
  > Do you expect them to have a right to the same high end speakers/headphones that you have? To the same sound-treated room? If they can make an identical copy of those items, without removing from the marketplace the original that they were never, ever going to buy anyway, sure.
- kakarot 9y ago
  You're comparing physical goods that are expensive to produce well with a piece of encoded information that costs nothing to mass-produce. That's not a good analogy, and you know it.
- gorkonsine 9y ago
  >I understand piracy more when it's literally impossible to make a legal purchase of something; I get it. When it's merely a matter of spending less money, I have a lot less sympathy for the copyright infringers. What if the work is old? Do you think it's wrong to make an unauthorized copy of Shakespeare's works, or Beowulf? So why should I have to pay someone for a copy of, say, a Hitchcock movie like "The Birds"? That movie is over a half-century old now, and if the copyright laws hadn't been changed, it'd have been in the public domain for the last 30 years. So why should I feel guilty if I download a copy of it? Why should I be obligated to spend money to some rights-holder who bought out the rights to a work where everyone involved in its production is now dead?
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    I view copyright as a means to permit society to have more creative works produced. Would Hollywood make a $100MM movie if they couldn't charge for it or could only charge the first person for it? Would drug companies invest billions in research to create effective new drugs for society if they knew they couldn't reap any financial reward for success? I don't love all the corner cases that result from IP law and in particular hate software patents, but I also think that society and individuals therein benefit from there being a commercial payoff for investing in making creative works. I'm periodically surprised at how little value is placed on that by a some software engineers, given that most of what we create is more valuable (or made commercially possible) by virtue of copyright protections. I understand that other people may feel differently.
    - gorkonsine 9y ago
      You're not answering the question. How does it benefit society for the works of Shakespeare to be protected by copyright now, after hundreds of years?
      - sokoloff 9y ago
        The reason you think I'm not answering the question is that I believe you have a faulty premise (that the works of Shakespeare are under copyright protection today). I believe they are not.
interfixus 9y ago
Yes, the recording industry has been mindblowingly succesful creating need, market, and unwitting consumers over the last two or three generations. Silence. I highly recommend it.
- kakarot 9y ago
  The RIAA did not "create" the bands and artists that I enjoy. Some of them chose big labels, many didn't. Many of them are/were independent. Maybe some people find enjoyment in different things than you. What do you think people did before the RIAA and other recording industries? Do you think they sat around in silence? No. Let's be realistic and not conflate the recording industry with a desire for pleasing music that extends as far back as the first musical instrument (the voice). And you are missing my point, which is that there is a way to still get a chance to appreciate the thousands of absolute musical masterpieces out there without becoming an unwitting consumer.
virmundi 9y ago
I use to listen to music often. I use to play guitar, harmonica, drums and bass. Over the past 10 years I stopped caring. The music industry just turned me off. I stopped playing along. Then I stopped listening. I got so tired of the ads and money grabbing that I turned to NPR rather than a local DJ. In the end I found that the music wasn't me. It wasn't necessary.
- kakarot 9y ago
  "The music industry" has nothing to do with artists of previous generations, except that they still try to make money from them. Participating in that scheme in order to appreciate their art is entirely optional. "The music industry" has nothing to do with independent artists of this generation who promote their own stuff or who sign on to small independent labels. It is just not the same thing and you are limiting yourself by conflating them with "the music industry". Of course, that's entirely your choice but it is healthy to keep in mind this is entirely an artificial limitation. It's also important to realize that just because you got burned out on music, doesn't mean other people who live and breathe music should also decide to stop listening to it. There are other, more effective ways of protesting the bad parts of the music industry than not listening to its IP.
- dTal 9y ago
  Isn't that a bit like giving up on reading and writing because you don't like Amazon's eBook DRM? (By which I mean it's an important aspect of the human experience, a powerful method of communication, and certainly something one can participate in without any sort of corporate intermediary - particularly if you play instruments!)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
averagewall 9y ago
You can still listen to the radio for free music, can't you? That's what poor people always used to do and somehow CD buyers didn't feel unfairly privileged. If you really care about what poor people are missing out on, buy it for them. Don't expect someone else to do your charity for you to ease your conscience.
- kakarot 9y ago
  "That's what poor people always used to do" > I find it very hard to tell a poor person that they do not get to listen to as much music as me Also, you're implying that the radio is going to provide even a fraction of the great music out there. "If you really care about what poor people are missing out on, buy it for them. Don't expect someone else to do your charity for you to ease your conscience" What exactly do you even mean by this? Are you taking a stance on piracy?

sokoloff 9y ago

Where does that end? Do you expect them to have a right to the same high end speakers/headphones that you have? To the same sound-treated room? I understand piracy more when it's literally impossible to make a legal purchase of something; I get it. When it's merely a matter of spending less money, I have a lot less sympathy for the copyright infringers.

thanksgiving 9y ago
Copyright isn't a right. Intellectual property is neither intellectual nor is it property. The only point I concede is nobody should have the right to sell or distribute counterfeit, tampered, malicious items (such as Microsoft Windows) as authentic, genuine, and untampered. We don't need intellectual property for that. We have existing laws outside of intellectual property that covers this use case. I know this can't happen overnight but our goal should be the end of this madness.
- chrismcb 9y ago
  What existing non ip laws cover this case? Are you talking about counterfeit laws? How do you prevent someone from selling a digital copy then?
  - thanksgiving 9y ago
    I anal but there has to be something for misrepresented goods and services. Under my plan, selling unmodified copies is ok. Selling modified versions as long as they are clearly marked as modified is OK as well.
ZX82 9y ago
> Do you expect them to have a right to the same high end speakers/headphones that you have? To the same sound-treated room? If they can make an identical copy of those items, without removing from the marketplace the original that they were never, ever going to buy anyway, sure.
kakarot 9y ago
You're comparing physical goods that are expensive to produce well with a piece of encoded information that costs nothing to mass-produce. That's not a good analogy, and you know it.
gorkonsine 9y ago
>I understand piracy more when it's literally impossible to make a legal purchase of something; I get it. When it's merely a matter of spending less money, I have a lot less sympathy for the copyright infringers. What if the work is old? Do you think it's wrong to make an unauthorized copy of Shakespeare's works, or Beowulf? So why should I have to pay someone for a copy of, say, a Hitchcock movie like "The Birds"? That movie is over a half-century old now, and if the copyright laws hadn't been changed, it'd have been in the public domain for the last 30 years. So why should I feel guilty if I download a copy of it? Why should I be obligated to spend money to some rights-holder who bought out the rights to a work where everyone involved in its production is now dead?
- sokoloff 9y ago
  I view copyright as a means to permit society to have more creative works produced. Would Hollywood make a $100MM movie if they couldn't charge for it or could only charge the first person for it? Would drug companies invest billions in research to create effective new drugs for society if they knew they couldn't reap any financial reward for success? I don't love all the corner cases that result from IP law and in particular hate software patents, but I also think that society and individuals therein benefit from there being a commercial payoff for investing in making creative works. I'm periodically surprised at how little value is placed on that by a some software engineers, given that most of what we create is more valuable (or made commercially possible) by virtue of copyright protections. I understand that other people may feel differently.
  - gorkonsine 9y ago
    You're not answering the question. How does it benefit society for the works of Shakespeare to be protected by copyright now, after hundreds of years?
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      The reason you think I'm not answering the question is that I believe you have a faulty premise (that the works of Shakespeare are under copyright protection today). I believe they are not.

interfixus 9y ago

Yes, the recording industry has been mindblowingly succesful creating need, market, and unwitting consumers over the last two or three generations. Silence. I highly recommend it.

kakarot 9y ago
The RIAA did not "create" the bands and artists that I enjoy. Some of them chose big labels, many didn't. Many of them are/were independent. Maybe some people find enjoyment in different things than you. What do you think people did before the RIAA and other recording industries? Do you think they sat around in silence? No. Let's be realistic and not conflate the recording industry with a desire for pleasing music that extends as far back as the first musical instrument (the voice). And you are missing my point, which is that there is a way to still get a chance to appreciate the thousands of absolute musical masterpieces out there without becoming an unwitting consumer.

virmundi 9y ago

I use to listen to music often. I use to play guitar, harmonica, drums and bass. Over the past 10 years I stopped caring. The music industry just turned me off. I stopped playing along. Then I stopped listening. I got so tired of the ads and money grabbing that I turned to NPR rather than a local DJ. In the end I found that the music wasn't me. It wasn't necessary.

kakarot 9y ago
"The music industry" has nothing to do with artists of previous generations, except that they still try to make money from them. Participating in that scheme in order to appreciate their art is entirely optional. "The music industry" has nothing to do with independent artists of this generation who promote their own stuff or who sign on to small independent labels. It is just not the same thing and you are limiting yourself by conflating them with "the music industry". Of course, that's entirely your choice but it is healthy to keep in mind this is entirely an artificial limitation. It's also important to realize that just because you got burned out on music, doesn't mean other people who live and breathe music should also decide to stop listening to it. There are other, more effective ways of protesting the bad parts of the music industry than not listening to its IP.
dTal 9y ago
Isn't that a bit like giving up on reading and writing because you don't like Amazon's eBook DRM? (By which I mean it's an important aspect of the human experience, a powerful method of communication, and certainly something one can participate in without any sort of corporate intermediary - particularly if you play instruments!)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

averagewall 9y ago

You can still listen to the radio for free music, can't you? That's what poor people always used to do and somehow CD buyers didn't feel unfairly privileged. If you really care about what poor people are missing out on, buy it for them. Don't expect someone else to do your charity for you to ease your conscience.

kakarot 9y ago
"That's what poor people always used to do" > I find it very hard to tell a poor person that they do not get to listen to as much music as me Also, you're implying that the radio is going to provide even a fraction of the great music out there. "If you really care about what poor people are missing out on, buy it for them. Don't expect someone else to do your charity for you to ease your conscience" What exactly do you even mean by this? Are you taking a stance on piracy?