From: "Phonopsia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Craig Stodolenak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [313] Re: IP issues [LONG]
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 05:59:11 -0400
Cyclone, Craig, Scott and RC all make some excellent points on this issue
and I am sooooooooo thankful this hasn't been reduced to the usual
arguments. If there is one argument I am completely fed up with, it is
this.
No other issue can turn normally thoughtful people into mindless
automatons - simply because they're offered something for free. The one
thing that pisses me off the most is that most people do not give one sh*t
about what it means to an artist when they download from Napster, and if
pressed on this point cite rhetoric from artists who are fighting against
major labels. My question is what does this mean to techno? No one ever
seems to be talking about that.
To Craig's well thought out and clearly articulated points, I don't see
that
you can draw the parallel from software to music while invoking the George
Washington paradigm. Which is it? Do we honor the historical spirit of
copyright, or do we evaluate things in a modern context? If we're looking
at
the modern world, these issues are new and unique, so the only standard we
should be worried about is fairness - the principal on which these
privileges were initially granted. In what other field of art or science is
work routinely stolen with so many normal consumers jumping on the
bandwagon
simply because they can? There is no comparison. We can envision that film
piracy may reach these levels in a few years, but I think the same
arguments
apply. Does an artist ever implicitly consent to having their work
distributed through Napster? No. If they explicitly consent is it OK?
Absolutely. I agree 100% that the power of the internet should be harnessed
to distribute music in a more expeditious way. Napster is not that way.
I think what troubles me most about Craig's post is that it invokes an
array
of principles in the name of justifying a network that operates with none.
If we're really trying to be principled about this, shouldn't we say that
artists should retain control of which content is distributed, what amount
of compensation they feel is fair for their work and where it can be found?
Isn't that fair? Why can't this be accomplished with the internet? Absent
Napster, aren't people making a go at it already?
Aside from all of the principled talk (which I think is most important),
there are two pragmatic issues that seem to divide people who have really
delved into this issue. The first is whether or not we should evaluate it
from the perspective of the major label "victims", or the small label
"benefactors". We can probably all agree that Napster will help straighten
out the major labels. What has yet to be seen is what effect it has on
smaller labels. For instance, Transmat has earned $2100+ from mp3.com
between Derrick May's site and the Transmat Time Space Tour site. They have
earned nothing from Napster. Additionally, they can offer a limited number
of tracks at mp3.com (to get people curious without revealing the whole
thing), determine if they want the track to be downloadable or streaming
only, they earn payback for playback and they have a means of distributing
CDs all in one. How many people sidestepped all of this effort to embrace
the power of the internet by downloading an entire work from Napster? How
can we measure the economic loss to those artists when Napster exists? How
many of those potential music buyers became music thieves simply because
the
free option was there? How many of those potential buyers would have bought
a CD or record after hearing three songs from mp3.com, but opted not to
because they could download the whole thing for free from Napster? We will
never know, but I think the ambiguity illustrates my point. So what matters
most to you? I would rather see Transmat get what they are due than worry
about if a major label makes 50% of the money it made last year.
The second issue is the application of the same copyright principles to
software and music. However, I fail to see how this analogy relates to
Napster. Is there a Napster for cracked software online? Aren't software
cracks routinely hunted down at present, and is there not a federal task
force to eliminate software piracy? Is there any doubt in anyone's mind
that
such a site would be shut down with not a moment's pause? I think this
comparison is tempting because the means of piracy are so similar, but I
don't see that there is an analog to music piracy problems in the world of
software piracy. The world of software is still just contending with people
"dubbing a tape" as it were. If that was the level of piracy we were seeing
with Napster, I wouldn't be having such a fit.
Craig also raised the issue of 3rd-world nations falling victim to American
business through enforcement of *international* copyright law in those
countries. Craig questions why American business should be able to impose
these standards on those who have nothing to gain from them. If this is the
standard of how fair application of law is normally applied, I would be
very
surprised. My question: what do those citizens lose when 1st world artists
are protected from piracy in those countries. I don't see how this is
relevant, or why a different standard should apply in those countries. What
harm is done to those citizens? Perhaps I haven't thought this through -
it's an interesting perspective, but at present it makes no sense to me.
Before I get flamed for having unlicensed mixes online, I will say one last
thing. Most of us come to this argument with varying degrees of music
piracy
under our belt. We all chose what degree of hipocracy we can live with on
this issue. I have opted to give artists full credit with a tracklisting, I
only encode in the lowest quality Real Audio, and I believe there is a slim
distinction between the originality of a DJ mix in Real Audio versus a full
song pirated in mp3. This is how I rationalize it. The entire issue for me
amounts to degrees of abuse. How much do artists lose from a loudmouth
internet DJ posting their songs in his mixes? Probly not enough that I
should worry about it. Chances are, they gain if anything. How much does an
artist lose from people downloading their songs from Napster online? We
don't really know if they would have bought that music without Napster or
if
the download is what made them buy it. But given that other music content
providers exist online, and Napster directly limits their listenership and
the effectiveness of those providers to compensate their artists, I think
it
sucks. It should be destroyed. Gnutella and the rest should be punished
promptly. Don't get me started on mp3.com. Final Scratch is cool.
Tristan the artist loving fascist
----------
http://ampcast.com/phonopsia <- My music
http://phonopsia.tripod.com <- Mixes, pics, thought, travelogue & info
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <- email
<FrogboyMCI> <- AOL Instant Messenger
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
