I am endlessly fascinated by the fact that there are always people who heartily approve of, and will defend, copyrights and patents which only serve to exploit.
How can any piece of art which can be copied "belong" to one person or another? I just don't get it.
A painting is one thing - there exists an original on which you can get up close and see the brush strokes. Fine - whilst a copy will look like the original, there is a malicious element which means that an attempt has been made to mislead us, so this fits a definition of "counterfeit".
Digital media copies, however - and this could mean an mp3 song or a computer game - are identical clones of the original. (ok, the mp3 is not an exact image of the original masters but it's good enough for most ears) - and I am most definitely against rigid licensing of these.
Internet filesharing has become a legal battleground as corporations frantically try and stem the avalanche - but they are dealing with a medium that not only do they not fully understand, but one that was built in the first place to avoid any form of censorship or damage.
So let me pose a few questions to any of you who still stick your noses up at what you view as theft by people you view as pirates :
1) New and fast PCs are capable of running programs called emulators which mean that, for example, you can play 1000s of arcade games by downloading an image (copy) of the original game ROM. But to do so is technically illegal, because the rights to the game are owned by the original company (someone like NAMCO or TAITO). Why on earth shouldn't people be allowed to play old arcade games without feeling they have done something wrong?
2) Old games again. Obsolete systems like the Sinclair Spectrum or the BBC Micro had games on cassette - most of which are now long gone. Is the act of preserving these games for future generations not one which should be applauded, not derided? This is a real example, as the company Superior Software (who used to make games for the BBC) will actively shut down websites which host copies of their old games.
3) MP3. I can see the point of a record company prosecuting someone for downloading a Madonna cd, even if I passionately disagree with them. But should copyright also apply to music which is on a record company's books but has been deleted? Why should fans of this or that band have to wait for a re-issue when they can just download it? Also, bootleg recordings of concerts are an amazing thing for a fan to hear if they weren't at the gig - but why should these be illegal as well?
There was a recent ruling in the States :
http://www.mndaily.com/article.php?id=3590
which meant that everyone who bought a cd during a certain time period was actually due back $20 because of a national price fixing racket. So who exactly is stealing from whom ?
All art should be free - copyright is wrong
Can't say I've agreed with many of your (recent) posts Dadaist, but TOTALLY in agreement with this.
The laws at present only exist to protect the (often obscene) profits of corporations. Many musicians, who are not just in it for the money, happily agree that there music should be available for sharing on the internet. They know they, as good musicians, will make more than enough money to keep them and just want as many people as possible to hear their music.
The laws at present only exist to protect the (often obscene) profits of corporations. Many musicians, who are not just in it for the money, happily agree that there music should be available for sharing on the internet. They know they, as good musicians, will make more than enough money to keep them and just want as many people as possible to hear their music.
Re: All art should be free - copyright is wrong
because they paid for that copy of it - it's hardly rocket science.Dadaist wrote:I am endlessly fascinated by the fact that there are always people who heartily approve of, and will defend, copyrights and patents which only serve to exploit.
How can any piece of art which can be copied "belong" to one person or another? I just don't get it.
I think people realise when they are buying a print or copy - prints of art aren't pretending to be the original!A painting is one thing - there exists an original on which you can get up close and see the brush strokes. Fine - whilst a copy will look like the original, there is a malicious element which means that an attempt has been made to mislead us, so this fits a definition of "counterfeit".
Quite frankly, this is simply wrong. People make music to earn money, its their job - if I had the talent required to be a succesful music artist than thats great, but I don't so I don't moan. Record companies 'understand' mp3's quite clearly - you'd have to be pretty dumb not to. MP3 encoding was NOT developed to get past copyright issues, its simply the result of work on the existing mpeg compression standard - all that people wanted to achieve was to be able get more information into a smaller file. MP3's were designed to include Id3 tags so they can specifically carry copyright information (if applicable) so what you're suggesting is nonsense.Digital media copies, however - and this could mean an mp3 song or a computer game - are identical clones of the original. (ok, the mp3 is not an exact image of the original masters but it's good enough for most ears) - and I am most definitely against rigid licensing of these.
Internet filesharing has become a legal battleground as corporations frantically try and stem the avalanche - but they are dealing with a medium that not only do they not fully understand, but one that was built in the first place to avoid any form of censorship or damage.
There are no current cases against people for downloading old computer games, but just because they're old it doesn't make it any less ilegal. If you suggest we remove copyright protection on some things, where does it end?So let me pose a few questions to any of you who still stick your noses up at what you view as theft by people you view as pirates :
1) New and fast PCs are capable of running programs called emulators which mean that, for example, you can play 1000s of arcade games by downloading an image (copy) of the original game ROM. But to do so is technically illegal, because the rights to the game are owned by the original company (someone like NAMCO or TAITO). Why on earth shouldn't people be allowed to play old arcade games without feeling they have done something wrong?
2) Old games again. Obsolete systems like the Sinclair Spectrum or the BBC Micro had games on cassette - most of which are now long gone. Is the act of preserving these games for future generations not one which should be applauded, not derided? This is a real example, as the company Superior Software (who used to make games for the BBC) will actively shut down websites which host copies of their old games.
Is that you're ONLY argument for free mp3 distribution? There are several companies that now sell mp3's - if that's your audio format of choice (I wouldn't pay for an mp3 personally) then you have the ability to purchase it.3) MP3. I can see the point of a record company prosecuting someone for downloading a Madonna cd, even if I passionately disagree with them. But should copyright also apply to music which is on a record company's books but has been deleted? Why should fans of this or that band have to wait for a re-issue when they can just download it? Also, bootleg recordings of concerts are an amazing thing for a fan to hear if they weren't at the gig - but why should these be illegal as well?
I think you need to get real and realise the world you're living in. For every 'big company' thats out there 'exploiting' us by providing music (
) there are just as many smaller artists who genuinly rely on copyright and royalty rules to earn their living. There is no possibility of a 'no copyright for some, but yes for others' system - you could never clarify it.Ugh, this really bugs me - just because something has suddenly because easy to do (ie steal music) doesnt make it any less wrong than when it wasn't easy to do.
Re: All art should be free - copyright is wrong
Do record companies charge people for listenng to their music?MrSpoon wrote:Ugh, this really bugs me - just because something has suddenly because easy to do (ie steal music) doesnt make it any less wrong than when it wasn't easy to do.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
Mr Spoon. Thanks for your reply, which I will attempt to address chronologically. My apologies in advance if you get upset, it's not my intention but you are most certainly boxing from the opposite corner in terms of where my viewpoint is. Anyways, it *is* just the internet....
Your answer is troubling, though, as I suspect you *did* understand the initial question but had found a clever answer to it. You answered the literal question as opposed to the philosophical one - a bit like if somebody shot someone and the question was "How could you do that?" - your answer would be "you just pull the trigger". So if you don't mind, I would like to invite you to answer the question again. You're welcome to use rhetorical devices like "it's hardly rocket science" or "you'd have to be dumb" but they are of limited value.
--------------------
-----------------------
----------------------
------------------------
When I said that corporations do not understand the medium they are dealing with, I didn't mean MP3, I meant the mechanism of the internet itself. And by not understanding I mean philosophically, not literally. The net started off as a military exercise (ARPANET), following that it was adopted as an academic network (JANET). The commercial element is a late arrival. When it comes to the flow of information over the net, I am not on the side of the carpetbaggers. Just as there is commercial exploitation of art, so there is commercial exploitation of science. To my mind, a digital "license" for a piece of art is the worst of both worlds.
Again I invite you to re-read and re-answer my original point. At no point did I say that the MP3 format was invented to circumvent copyright - but I'm very glad it does. It's very existence has forced record companies to step into the 21st century - albeit with some very well paid lawyers. They have realised that their precious scam might be about to end as millions of people take what they feel to be theirs and refuse to be extorted.
----------------------------------
You fail completely to answer any of the specific questions I posed on the very real issue of "Abandonware" - old computer games and ROM images.
You state "there are no current cases against people for downloading old computer games". Oops!! Do you even know who ELSPA and the IDSA are? Let alone the RIAA fighting the corner for the suits and their coffers over in the US.
----------------------------------
I respect your opinion that "stealing" music is "wrong". My own viewpoint is that it wasn't theft in the firstplace and that the much greater wrong is being committed by the record industry. But there's plenty of time to thrash that one out. I would like to see all of those with talent and potential see that fulfilled, and genuinely believe that copyright laws and the current system of A&R at the increasingly small number of entertainment corporations is stifling creativity as opposed to nurturing it, as the bland corporate entertainment pumped out at us is drowning out the voices of the "many smaller artists" you claim to support.
When I posed the question of how can a copy of a piece of art "belong" to somebody, I wasn't confining myself to your understanding of "ownership", which obviously means that if there is a pricetag on something you respect it, and that becomes its "value" in your mind. Fine. What I really meant was that it is crass to attempt to profit from something beautiful like art. I guess I made it overly complicated by starting to talk about copies as opposed to the original - but in the realm of digital media where these distinctions are starting to blur it's less important.because they paid for that copy of it - it's hardly rocket science.
Your answer is troubling, though, as I suspect you *did* understand the initial question but had found a clever answer to it. You answered the literal question as opposed to the philosophical one - a bit like if somebody shot someone and the question was "How could you do that?" - your answer would be "you just pull the trigger". So if you don't mind, I would like to invite you to answer the question again. You're welcome to use rhetorical devices like "it's hardly rocket science" or "you'd have to be dumb" but they are of limited value.
--------------------
I agree - I was just attempting to discount the malicious element when people in museums think they have been looking at the original, which then turns out to be a copy. I make this point because I think that ownership of language is important in this issue - and it's very easy to start using words like "theft" and "counterfeit". It's funny though that Trading Standards are forced to drop the argument that they used to use about "pirate" videos when it comes to computer game copies - they *are* identical to the original!I think people realise when they are buying a print or copy - prints of art aren't pretending to be the original!
-----------------------
Oh dear. Must we put a pricetag on everything? I'm sure you must get artists who are happy to create art and share it, or at least whose primary motivation isn't payola. Admittedly there are legions of managers/gallery owners who are very interested in exploiting art, but I think you might find that there are still artists with integrity out there. Maybe you should have started your statement with "I think that people make music to earn money", as opposed to making it look like fact. I'm not saying artists are altruistic souls - narcissistic more likely, but I don't think they are all profiteers either.People make music to earn money, its their job
----------------------
Much shakier ground here. Do you honestly believe that talent equals success? But that would mean that no talented people would ever go without, and that no talentless opportunists would ever become successful. I'm afraid that Charlie does not always get the golden ticket, and that there is no altruist running the chocolate factory.if I had the talent required to be a succesful music artist than thats great, but I don't so I don't moan.
------------------------
When I said that corporations do not understand the medium they are dealing with, I didn't mean MP3, I meant the mechanism of the internet itself. And by not understanding I mean philosophically, not literally. The net started off as a military exercise (ARPANET), following that it was adopted as an academic network (JANET). The commercial element is a late arrival. When it comes to the flow of information over the net, I am not on the side of the carpetbaggers. Just as there is commercial exploitation of art, so there is commercial exploitation of science. To my mind, a digital "license" for a piece of art is the worst of both worlds.
Again I invite you to re-read and re-answer my original point. At no point did I say that the MP3 format was invented to circumvent copyright - but I'm very glad it does. It's very existence has forced record companies to step into the 21st century - albeit with some very well paid lawyers. They have realised that their precious scam might be about to end as millions of people take what they feel to be theirs and refuse to be extorted.
----------------------------------
You fail completely to answer any of the specific questions I posed on the very real issue of "Abandonware" - old computer games and ROM images.
You state "there are no current cases against people for downloading old computer games". Oops!! Do you even know who ELSPA and the IDSA are? Let alone the RIAA fighting the corner for the suits and their coffers over in the US.
----------------------------------
I respect your opinion that "stealing" music is "wrong". My own viewpoint is that it wasn't theft in the firstplace and that the much greater wrong is being committed by the record industry. But there's plenty of time to thrash that one out. I would like to see all of those with talent and potential see that fulfilled, and genuinely believe that copyright laws and the current system of A&R at the increasingly small number of entertainment corporations is stifling creativity as opposed to nurturing it, as the bland corporate entertainment pumped out at us is drowning out the voices of the "many smaller artists" you claim to support.
There's a big gap between someone porting dig dug for the P800 and someone maintaining rom images of every snes game there ever was. Whilst that does mean that dig dug survives in some shape or form, the case of the emulator just makes the phone another compilation target for the emulator of your choice - the legal status of the rom archive is a completely different matter.wangi wrote:Dada, the thing is these old games aren't forgotten... many are being brought back to life on mobile phones - therefore they are very much valuable.
Eeek!Dadaist wrote:lots and lots of writing
I deal with 'philosophy' all day at university, and I'm not really inclined to continue it here. I'm afraid that when I look at the issue of copyright protection, I see an entirely literal problem - mental exercise is all very well, but it hardly deals with problems in the 'real world'. Asking 'who REALLY owns something' isn't going to achieve anything anyway - why not use our time and efforts in a productive, legal, protest rather than engage in the ilegal activity and moan about it - that's hardly going to convince record companies to change.
Forgive me if I don't continue this hypothetical conversation. It looks like it is more likely to turn into a 'geek war' - who can post the most techy terms or abrieviations(!!) - I'm afraid I'm past that since my computer science days
-
ColinMcFadyen
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 08 Jun 2003, 17:00
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
What can you say, MP3s are fun, easy to get and very convenient.
The horse is out of the barn and he is very fast and he likes the room. There is no way that he's going back in.
Most of the MP3s that I have downloaded are actually replacements for the tons of vinyl stored in boxes in my basement. I often purchase the CD if I really like something that I have downloaded.
As you know, there are several legal sites that will let you download for a fee. The problem I have with this is that most songs are 99cents (usd). If an album has 12 tracks, that's $12 for an inferior copy of a CD that probably costs the same in a discount CD store. Most of these MP3s are 128-192K, where you need at least 320K to approach CD quality. Listening to bad MP3s on a good stereo is not enjoyable.
Anyway, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down a ruling to make downloading MP3s illegal. The Canadian Recording Industry is currently appealing the decision. So, until the hammer falls, it's pretty much a free-for-all over here
The horse is out of the barn and he is very fast and he likes the room. There is no way that he's going back in.
Most of the MP3s that I have downloaded are actually replacements for the tons of vinyl stored in boxes in my basement. I often purchase the CD if I really like something that I have downloaded.
As you know, there are several legal sites that will let you download for a fee. The problem I have with this is that most songs are 99cents (usd). If an album has 12 tracks, that's $12 for an inferior copy of a CD that probably costs the same in a discount CD store. Most of these MP3s are 128-192K, where you need at least 320K to approach CD quality. Listening to bad MP3s on a good stereo is not enjoyable.
Anyway, the Canadian Supreme Court struck down a ruling to make downloading MP3s illegal. The Canadian Recording Industry is currently appealing the decision. So, until the hammer falls, it's pretty much a free-for-all over here
Dadiast, When it comes to games.... I agree the big names are trying to squeeze the last penny out of their copyrights..(No shock there) but I’ve found plenty of Amiga and Spectrum games where the copyright has been surrendered (all the good games, I can remember at least) Most first generation home computer companies seem to have put their software into the public domain category (apart from Ultimate "play the game"....those B'stards....lol) I’ve attached a couple of links J.I.C. although I’m sure you already know about them!
Amiga http://www.back2roots.org/
Spectrum http://www.worldofspectrum.org/
Thousands of games All copyright free
...Hope it helps!
Mame Arcade Roms on the other hand!!!...
Amiga http://www.back2roots.org/
Spectrum http://www.worldofspectrum.org/
Thousands of games All copyright free
...Hope it helps!Mame Arcade Roms on the other hand!!!...
Is Man The Dream Of The Dolphin??
Nice one. They belong in the public domain. Maybe the MAME stuff will follow one day! Check this out :CatzVP wrote:Dadiast, When it comes to games.... I agree the big names are trying to squeeze the last penny out of their copyrights..(No shock there) but I’ve found plenty of Amiga and Spectrum games where the copyright has been surrendered (all the good games, I can remember at least) Most first generation home computer companies seem to have put their software into the public domain category (apart from Ultimate "play the game"....those B'stards....lol) I’ve attached a couple of links J.I.C. although I’m sure you already know about them!
Amiga http://www.back2roots.org/
Spectrum http://www.worldofspectrum.org/
Thousands of games All copyright free
Mame Arcade Roms on the other hand!!!...
http://www.edinburgh-east-ssp.org/dadaist/mame/
You are forgiven - even if there is a glaring contradiction as your stated reasons for quitting vary between not wanting to carry on a hypothetical conversation because it's not literal enough, and not wanting to get technical or geeky because it's too literal - in the same sentence !!MrSpoon wrote:Eeek!Dadaist wrote:lots and lots of writing
I deal with 'philosophy' all day at university, and I'm not really inclined to continue it here. I'm afraid that when I look at the issue of copyright protection, I see an entirely literal problem - mental exercise is all very well, but it hardly deals with problems in the 'real world'. Asking 'who REALLY owns something' isn't going to achieve anything anyway - why not use our time and efforts in a productive, legal, protest rather than engage in the ilegal activity and moan about it - that's hardly going to convince record companies to change.
Forgive me if I don't continue this hypothetical conversation. It looks like it is more likely to turn into a 'geek war' - who can post the most techy terms or abrieviations(!!) - I'm afraid I'm past that since my computer science days
-
Pal of Porty
- Posts: 2136
- Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
- Location: Old Folks Home
- Contact:
Lots of really interesting thoughts on this thread but on a similar theme, it does not get me going as much as extreme cases of profiteering by major Brands. Fundamentally I recognise a company's right to protect a brand thay have invested heavily in but not with regard to artificially inflating the cost and reducing competitiveness in the maket place. For examples:
1. CD WOW getting ordered by the Court to pay a levy of over £1 per CD to the BPI because they were selling CD's too cheaply.
2. Car dealership monolopies eg BMW limiting the number of franchises they distribute in an area so that they can keep the price artificially high. If you try and sell them cheaper you lose your franchise.
3. Levis winning a court battle to retain control over where their jeans are sold and hence the control of the price.
It sucks man
1. CD WOW getting ordered by the Court to pay a levy of over £1 per CD to the BPI because they were selling CD's too cheaply.
2. Car dealership monolopies eg BMW limiting the number of franchises they distribute in an area so that they can keep the price artificially high. If you try and sell them cheaper you lose your franchise.
3. Levis winning a court battle to retain control over where their jeans are sold and hence the control of the price.
It sucks man
Justice delayed is justice denied.
-
Guest
I was emailed the following communication on this topic recently by someone who does not want to be identified:
I am an occasional 'lurker' on the forum, and was a bit gobsmacked to read the thread title "All art should be free - copyright is wrong". Maybe it's a bit tongue in cheek, but as someone in the biz who hardly earns a fortune (not even the minimum wage) and has their copyright abused on a regular basis, the title's a bit close to the bone, (and the argument almost assumes that artists should work for nothing).
ALL art should be free - copyright is wrong? The title (however it's meant) implies that ALL people who produce creative work that has multiple copies, rich or poor, are being greedy by asking for a wee bit of cash for each copy of their work that they sell.
Most (obviously, with a few exceptions) musicians, photographers, illustrators, authors, poets, web designers, digital painters, printmakers, graphic designers (people who produce 'art' which has multiple copies) work long/unsociable hours, work freelance, earn not much in the scheme of things, and have no job security. Most give away work on a regular basis, but that's their decision - not to be taken for granted. Most artists are financially dependant on copyright, and sadly, that's just the way it is. No one 'patron' is going to stump up for all the technology/mega-hours spent on a piece of work, so multiple copies and a little from everyone who benefits is the obvious way forward.
Its outrageous how much money big companies make from 'copyright' law in all of the arts. And we all infringe copyright from time to time, which for most creative types is OK, as long as it's not directly ripping off some underpaid 'artist' (for want of a better word). But it's a long process to take ideas into the big-money mainstream, and it rips off many people along the way - so how does anyone know who or how much they are or aren't ripping off by infringing any copyright?
Copyright law isn't wrong per se, it's just skewed in favour of the wrong people. A wee bit like the title of the thread!
What a gracious response dada. I may use it in another thread or board.Dadaist wrote:Well argued - and I respect the author's right to privacy. If possible, please thank them for their contribution - as is usually the case with these things, nice people do usually chip in with some more coherent and balanced views than I am capable of!
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
The Grinches from tRaiding Standards have stolen christmas!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4058241.stm
It wisnae me, honest. And anyone who comes back with the old "but the culprits are criminals who would spend the money on drugs" shouldn't be so rude about the entertainment industry - they can't *all* be coke-snorting tax-dodging dysfunctional hooligans.....can they?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4058241.stm
It wisnae me, honest. And anyone who comes back with the old "but the culprits are criminals who would spend the money on drugs" shouldn't be so rude about the entertainment industry - they can't *all* be coke-snorting tax-dodging dysfunctional hooligans.....can they?
"Twenty-eight people have been arrested in raids on houses and markets in Falkirk, Stirling, Tullibody and Grangemouth over the past five days. "
I can never recall seeing Tullibody in the news . What an auspicious start! Is that where the Police training college is?
I can never recall seeing Tullibody in the news . What an auspicious start! Is that where the Police training college is?
Last edited by Porty on 01 Dec 2004, 20:56, edited 1 time in total.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
Are you calling Sir Cliff a "coke-snorting tax-dodging dysfunctional hooligan" ?Dadaist wrote:The Grinches from tRaiding Standards have stolen christmas!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4058241.stm
It wisnae me, honest. And anyone who comes back with the old "but the culprits are criminals who would spend the money on drugs" shouldn't be so rude about the entertainment industry - they can't *all* be coke-snorting tax-dodging dysfunctional hooligans.....can they?
PS: Commas, dear boy.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly
It would be a crying shame if all the goodies got destroyed. Even if they were auctioned, raffled, handed out to Trading Standards staff as xmas bonuses or to trainee rozzers for having shiny boots or something it doesn't matter. Games need to be played and movies need to be watched.
Do TS have an annual sale of all the stuff they've nabbed during the year? They could even set up a stall somewhere - Ingliston is a good place or maybe the Barras - they would be able to catch all the xmas shoppers and they could give the proceeds to charity or give Gordon Brown his cut.
Do TS have an annual sale of all the stuff they've nabbed during the year? They could even set up a stall somewhere - Ingliston is a good place or maybe the Barras - they would be able to catch all the xmas shoppers and they could give the proceeds to charity or give Gordon Brown his cut.