On 10/18/06, Florent THIERY <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To be honest, I believe it is immoral too. (Although I think that I think it is immoral for different reasons than you do.)
In my e-mail, I was trying to "reply" to the original poster -- to Lucas -- in a "neutral point-of-view". (I guess you could say I was just trying to "report".) Without trying to convince anyone of any one side.
See ya
Just curious: is there anybody on this list who thinks that music should
be free, or that information wants to be free? If so, what do you mean?
I do. I do think i should have the ability to get access to a global music network, and listen to what i want. Exactly like going in a library and look at evrerything before buying.
I'm not saying i want to OWN the files, i just want to stream them with good quality. To me, one of the best recent approaches are:
- Jamendo.org: biggest european portal of creative commons licensed artists; uses partial p2p distribution
- Last.fm: no p2p
Both are (basically) free. Both allow artists to get revenues. And neither takes full advantage of P2P.I believe that this usually comes from people who are against (the enforcement of) copyright law.Yup. I'm french, and it's become recently illegal to circumvent anything related to drms. And i don't like that. And i'm not the only one.Some of these people are against it for utilitarian reasons. But some people believe the enforcement of copyright is immoral, and are against it for that reason.
It IS immoral.
To be honest, I believe it is immoral too. (Although I think that I think it is immoral for different reasons than you do.)
In my e-mail, I was trying to "reply" to the original poster -- to Lucas -- in a "neutral point-of-view". (I guess you could say I was just trying to "report".) Without trying to convince anyone of any one side.
See ya
Why would a huge artist be protected only because he sells 10000 albums a week? Who cares about the little artists whose copyright isn't respected? Why do the people get caught downloading latest madonna single? Because the current copyright and revenue system does culture obfuscation, and people listen to SHIT. It's a fact. Only music purists even have a little notion of how vaste, how huge the world of artists is. Isn't there a problem there? And why do huge stars become sooo rich, when all the other artists get poorer?
I'm a fervent believer that jamendo-like models will prove viable, at least for semi-pros. They make money with derived products, concerts (using geo mashups), and donations.
Future is within independant artists, labels and distribution systems. Because self production is everyday easier, because self distribution is too.
Just imagine a P2P system that is transparent to users and to majors, and that uses the monetary value of resources (computing, bwth and HDD) shared by users to pay the copyrights (for RIAA labels) or to give direct ad/resource revenue to the artist/label.
You would get a fair trade music model, intercompatible with the current system.
And i'm pretty sure that the company who would create such a network wouldn't be a commercial one, but a non-profit one. Alexandria's music library. Musicopedia. Who knows?
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
developer weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
Make Television http://maketelevision.com/
___________________________________________________________________________
Cars, Motorcycles, Trucks, and Racing... http://tirebiterz.com/
_______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
