3 ms·

As a professional software developer, I've given my software work away free of charge, e.g., as a volunteer for Project GNU. I see nothing wrong with that, but

by tjr 16y ago

As a professional software developer, I've given my software work away free of charge, e.g., as a volunteer for Project GNU. I see nothing wrong with that, but I think it ought to be my own choice if I want to spend time working on something and then make it available free of charge, or if I want to sell copies of it. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with musicians giving away copies of music free of charge (and I've done so), but it should be their choice.

gnosis 16y ago
It's very simple. If you don't want the music you created to be available free of charge, don't release it! It's absolutely your choice. If you want to keep control of it, keep it private. But once you (by your own choice) make it available, don't be shocked or surprised if people share it without sending you money for every copy. The system we have for paying artists is clearly broken. It has been for a very long time. The digital revolution is just putting the final nails in the coffin. But even before filesharing on the internet, artists were getting screwed left and right, and very very few could make a living creating art. Now it's clearer than ever that we have to find some other ways to compensate artists for the work they do. Some suggestions that I've heard along these lines are: - Put a PayPal (or choose your favorite non-evil payment system) icon prominently on your home page and ask for donations. - Release your music for free, but ask for money so that you can work on your next album. Don't release your next album until you've gotten enough of a payment to make it worthwhile. If you're good and have developed a large enough fan base, this should be quite a reasonable business model. - Give away the music for free, but charge for live appearances (make money touring). - Make it clear to your fans that you are giving away your music for free, but need them to chip in by buying tangible merchandise like t-shirts. Ok. None of these are perfect. And they all work best when the artist is already well known and has a large fan base. But relatively unknown artists have always struggled to get by, and filesharing does not change that equation. At least with all of the suggested payment methods above, the artist gets to keep a lion's share of the profit, instead of begging for pennies on the dollar when going through the established record company system.
- pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  >It's very simple. If you don't want the music you created to be available free of charge, don't release it! If you don't want your car to be stolen then don't leave it in the street. If you don't want to be run over then don't walk anywhere. ... Seriously, if you one day forget to lock something up do you really think people should be free to help themselves to it? If you don't like the current music regime, don't buy music from those who've established it and maintain it. If you want free music then only get tracks that artists are giving away as free and/or licensing with free-gratis licenses.
  - r0s 16y ago
    > If you don't want your car to be stolen then don't leave it in the street. A car is a locked(presumably) metal box, it would be more apt to say: "If you don't want your cds stolen, don't leave them in the middle of the street"
  - gnosis 16y ago
    "If you don't want your car to be stolen then don't leave it in the street." There are a number of underlying assumption in your analogy. - The first is that, like the car, the music you create is owned by you. - The second is that, like the car, the music you create can be stolen. - The third is that it is as unethical to share music as it is to steal cars. All of these propositions are very debatable. "Seriously, if you one day forget to lock something up do you really think people should be free to help themselves to it?" I think you're missing my point. I wasn't trying to be a moral arbiter regarding the ethics of sharing music. I was merely trying to say that in the world we live in, you'd have to be pretty naive to release your music to the public with the expectation that people wouldn't share it without compensating you for it. If your goal is to keep your music from being shared, your best bet is not to release it at all.
    - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
      I wasn't aiming for a perfect analogy but it stands up better to scrutiny than you assume also. The car is owned by you just as the music is - you can assume that music can not be owned, but the sorts of arguments that work there also work for cars (which is fine by me, I've got a communist streak in me for sure). The important point is that you are in control of the car except for forced use against the law (in most jurisdictions) just as you are in control of the music excepting illegal (OK tortuous) use. I wasn't saying that the music could be stolen, just taken in a way that is against the law. Equally the car can be "borrowed" it can be taken without denying you use - we still find it illegal even if your car is taken against your will when you wouldn't have otherwise be using it (perhaps this is wrong but I wasn't expanding the locus to consider alternate legal/societal structures). This speaks then to your final point. You deliberately scope the use of copyright works without permission as "sharing" because this is almost always used in a positive sense. Well taking your car without asking is also sharing if you wish to spin it that way; I didn't say they damaged the vehicle, you still can have it later when you wish to use it. For sure the analogy breaks down but not as badly as you portrayed. You may have been attempting to withhold moral judgement but your tone conveyed the sense that the onus is with the creator of artistic works, the copyright holder, to hide their work and not with the public to not rip off that work. Note that we as a society (at least those countries that are democratic and signed up to Berne Convention and TRIPS IP provisions) have made a deal that we will protect creators of artistic works from being ripped off and ensure they get paid fairly as long as they will release their works to the public domain after a given period but before that we will enable them to enforce a monopoly on control of those works. This deal has been sullied over time by big business but it's still in place. Yes, if no one can be trusted to keep to their promises or indeed to obey the law then it's naive to assume the law will be obeyed. I'm not at that place where I assume everyone in a democracy is so uncivilised and self-seeking that they care nothing for the rule of law.

by tjr 16y ago

gnosis 16y ago

It's very simple. If you don't want the music you created to be available free of charge, don't release it! It's absolutely your choice. If you want to keep control of it, keep it private. But once you (by your own choice) make it available, don't be shocked or surprised if people share it without sending you money for every copy. The system we have for paying artists is clearly broken. It has been for a very long time. The digital revolution is just putting the final nails in the coffin. But even before filesharing on the internet, artists were getting screwed left and right, and very very few could make a living creating art. Now it's clearer than ever that we have to find some other ways to compensate artists for the work they do. Some suggestions that I've heard along these lines are: - Put a PayPal (or choose your favorite non-evil payment system) icon prominently on your home page and ask for donations. - Release your music for free, but ask for money so that you can work on your next album. Don't release your next album until you've gotten enough of a payment to make it worthwhile. If you're good and have developed a large enough fan base, this should be quite a reasonable business model. - Give away the music for free, but charge for live appearances (make money touring). - Make it clear to your fans that you are giving away your music for free, but need them to chip in by buying tangible merchandise like t-shirts. Ok. None of these are perfect. And they all work best when the artist is already well known and has a large fan base. But relatively unknown artists have always struggled to get by, and filesharing does not change that equation. At least with all of the suggested payment methods above, the artist gets to keep a lion's share of the profit, instead of begging for pennies on the dollar when going through the established record company system.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
>It's very simple. If you don't want the music you created to be available free of charge, don't release it! If you don't want your car to be stolen then don't leave it in the street. If you don't want to be run over then don't walk anywhere. ... Seriously, if you one day forget to lock something up do you really think people should be free to help themselves to it? If you don't like the current music regime, don't buy music from those who've established it and maintain it. If you want free music then only get tracks that artists are giving away as free and/or licensing with free-gratis licenses.
- r0s 16y ago
  > If you don't want your car to be stolen then don't leave it in the street. A car is a locked(presumably) metal box, it would be more apt to say: "If you don't want your cds stolen, don't leave them in the middle of the street"
- gnosis 16y ago
  "If you don't want your car to be stolen then don't leave it in the street." There are a number of underlying assumption in your analogy. - The first is that, like the car, the music you create is owned by you. - The second is that, like the car, the music you create can be stolen. - The third is that it is as unethical to share music as it is to steal cars. All of these propositions are very debatable. "Seriously, if you one day forget to lock something up do you really think people should be free to help themselves to it?" I think you're missing my point. I wasn't trying to be a moral arbiter regarding the ethics of sharing music. I was merely trying to say that in the world we live in, you'd have to be pretty naive to release your music to the public with the expectation that people wouldn't share it without compensating you for it. If your goal is to keep your music from being shared, your best bet is not to release it at all.
  - pbhjpbhj 16y ago
    I wasn't aiming for a perfect analogy but it stands up better to scrutiny than you assume also. The car is owned by you just as the music is - you can assume that music can not be owned, but the sorts of arguments that work there also work for cars (which is fine by me, I've got a communist streak in me for sure). The important point is that you are in control of the car except for forced use against the law (in most jurisdictions) just as you are in control of the music excepting illegal (OK tortuous) use. I wasn't saying that the music could be stolen, just taken in a way that is against the law. Equally the car can be "borrowed" it can be taken without denying you use - we still find it illegal even if your car is taken against your will when you wouldn't have otherwise be using it (perhaps this is wrong but I wasn't expanding the locus to consider alternate legal/societal structures). This speaks then to your final point. You deliberately scope the use of copyright works without permission as "sharing" because this is almost always used in a positive sense. Well taking your car without asking is also sharing if you wish to spin it that way; I didn't say they damaged the vehicle, you still can have it later when you wish to use it. For sure the analogy breaks down but not as badly as you portrayed. You may have been attempting to withhold moral judgement but your tone conveyed the sense that the onus is with the creator of artistic works, the copyright holder, to hide their work and not with the public to not rip off that work. Note that we as a society (at least those countries that are democratic and signed up to Berne Convention and TRIPS IP provisions) have made a deal that we will protect creators of artistic works from being ripped off and ensure they get paid fairly as long as they will release their works to the public domain after a given period but before that we will enable them to enforce a monopoly on control of those works. This deal has been sullied over time by big business but it's still in place. Yes, if no one can be trusted to keep to their promises or indeed to obey the law then it's naive to assume the law will be obeyed. I'm not at that place where I assume everyone in a democracy is so uncivilised and self-seeking that they care nothing for the rule of law.