4 ms·

It's worth pointing out that a significant part of the software industry has adapted to providing services instead of licences to their software. The argument

It's worth pointing out that a significant part of the software industry has adapted to providing services instead of licences to their software. The argument isn't as much about what's morally right, but what's economically practical. It's really hard to control the flow of information, including music and software.

vibrunazo 15y ago
Exactly, we have evolved and adapted to the internet. Which is exactly what we're asking the entertainment industry to do. It would only be an hypocrisy if hackers were trying to push laws to protect software from being pirated. But you don't, quite the opposite actually, I'd guess most of us would rather see less IP enforcement, than otherwise. Personally, I'd invite you to share my creation as much as you can, please do so.
- saraid216 15y ago
  Not hackers; their musical counterparts wouldn't be the RIAA and such, but rather the people noodling on music in the spare time for the fun of it. Look to large corporations: Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, &c using patents offensively and defensively, instead.
mc32 15y ago
What would an analogous solution form Music look like? Labels which only offer their music (song catalogs) as a service, thus requiring a listener to subscribe to their service (and multiple services if one enjoyed music from artists belonging to different labels)? Maybe someone could offer a platform for musicians to undercut (cut-out) the label middle-person. One would still likely see multiple direct to consumer music platforms --many requiring some kind of subscription service? There could be a free service which would be subsidized or supported via advertising. The solutions above could all be undermined by people recording the music and saving them locally. One can't easily "save" Google services locally and get the same benefit out of them. I mean, one could make a good effort, but the result would require much effort that is beyond the tolerance of most people, I think.
- parfe 15y ago
  You make these suggestions with the assumption that recordings provide an necessary component of the music industry. Recordings have only existed for barely more than a century. Musical performers survived long before and will survive long after. Profiting from recordings is an aberration rather than the norm. The industry can reorient itself back to live performances. Movies, as well, make substantial revenue via theaters. Home video is not required to sustain the industry, but they would have you believe the movie industry prior to the VCR could not exist again. (even though at the time they claimed the VCR itself would destroy the movie industry).
  - HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
    You are assuming that it's possible to turn back the clock; I seriously doubt that. Profiting from recording has become the norm. The industry is simply not going back to live performances as the primary means of enjoying music. People will not be dragged kicking and screaming from their iPods & iPhones. Likewise, I suspect that attempting to make money solely from movie theaters would end up with a crippled industry. There's a reason that DVDs were the fastest growing recording media in history: when you can get all the benefits of a theater experience (many of us don't need a 100' screen to be happy) at home without any of the drawbacks, well, it's gonna be hard to keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree.
    - parfe 15y ago
      Just because something is the norm doesn't mean it can't change. It changed before. It will change again. Either we will give up freedom to protect media distribution in an effort to subsidize the media industry, or the media industry will change. Theaters in the US took in $10 billion[1] in 2011. Theaters are hardly on their last leg. If studios can't survive on 16 million in revenue (on average) we really shouldn't be modifying laws in the US and internationally at the cost of freedom to help those inefficient studios stay in business. [1] http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011 http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011
gaius 15y ago
Yes, SaaS is an end-run around the GPL, Google were the first to really exploit this on a grand scale.

vibrunazo 15y ago

Exactly, we have evolved and adapted to the internet. Which is exactly what we're asking the entertainment industry to do. It would only be an hypocrisy if hackers were trying to push laws to protect software from being pirated. But you don't, quite the opposite actually, I'd guess most of us would rather see less IP enforcement, than otherwise. Personally, I'd invite you to share my creation as much as you can, please do so.

saraid216 15y ago
Not hackers; their musical counterparts wouldn't be the RIAA and such, but rather the people noodling on music in the spare time for the fun of it. Look to large corporations: Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, &c using patents offensively and defensively, instead.

mc32 15y ago

What would an analogous solution form Music look like? Labels which only offer their music (song catalogs) as a service, thus requiring a listener to subscribe to their service (and multiple services if one enjoyed music from artists belonging to different labels)? Maybe someone could offer a platform for musicians to undercut (cut-out) the label middle-person. One would still likely see multiple direct to consumer music platforms --many requiring some kind of subscription service? There could be a free service which would be subsidized or supported via advertising. The solutions above could all be undermined by people recording the music and saving them locally. One can't easily "save" Google services locally and get the same benefit out of them. I mean, one could make a good effort, but the result would require much effort that is beyond the tolerance of most people, I think.

parfe 15y ago
You make these suggestions with the assumption that recordings provide an necessary component of the music industry. Recordings have only existed for barely more than a century. Musical performers survived long before and will survive long after. Profiting from recordings is an aberration rather than the norm. The industry can reorient itself back to live performances. Movies, as well, make substantial revenue via theaters. Home video is not required to sustain the industry, but they would have you believe the movie industry prior to the VCR could not exist again. (even though at the time they claimed the VCR itself would destroy the movie industry).
- HeyLaughingBoy 15y ago
  You are assuming that it's possible to turn back the clock; I seriously doubt that. Profiting from recording has become the norm. The industry is simply not going back to live performances as the primary means of enjoying music. People will not be dragged kicking and screaming from their iPods & iPhones. Likewise, I suspect that attempting to make money solely from movie theaters would end up with a crippled industry. There's a reason that DVDs were the fastest growing recording media in history: when you can get all the benefits of a theater experience (many of us don't need a 100' screen to be happy) at home without any of the drawbacks, well, it's gonna be hard to keep 'em down on the farm after they've seen Paree.
  - parfe 15y ago
    Just because something is the norm doesn't mean it can't change. It changed before. It will change again. Either we will give up freedom to protect media distribution in an effort to subsidize the media industry, or the media industry will change. Theaters in the US took in $10 billion[1] in 2011. Theaters are hardly on their last leg. If studios can't survive on 16 million in revenue (on average) we really shouldn't be modifying laws in the US and internationally at the cost of freedom to help those inefficient studios stay in business. [1] http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011 http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2011

gaius 15y ago

Yes, SaaS is an end-run around the GPL, Google were the first to really exploit this on a grand scale.