Napster and you

Alright, a recent post got me curious...

What do you people think about Napster, MP3.com, etc., and just general distribution of copied goods through the net? Do you think that's what congress had in mind when they passed the Audio Home Recording act, allowing people to record tapes for their "private usage"? Is the idea that Napster and co. might have increased music sales to date, or that it might in the future, justify the act if it is illegal? What about if it could actually be definitively determined that it did increase sales, or will? Or are you willing to accept it if the person who uses the service winds up a more avid purchaser because of it?

And let's have no "but this isn't VF-related," because you're always free to move on and not read Besides, it really does relate - if a bit indirectly - most recognizably through mp3's of the soundtrack and such.

Anyone?

 

ontology and you

Warning!!
this text contains thoughts and ideas! People who
like their reality spoon fed to them should take heed
and fuck off. Here there be dragons.

Napster has happened and debating the pros and cons
of it, while philosophically rewarding, does very
little. The fact is that the people that make the
bulk of the laws that govern social and business
practice are as unethical and immoral as the people
they believe they are trying to police and protect.
Moreover they belong to the "30 second culture",
they understand a problem and the impact of their
"answer" only as long as it takes to remove the
problem from their sight.

Napster is (despite itself, I would argue) is changing
the ground on which certain wars have always been
waged. In a very crass and shallow way that simple
program is handing back a curious and near-forgotten
trait to its users. The power of self-direction and
control. And it was surprisingly easy to come across
which is a very good thing for a global culture as
lazy and crippled as our is becoming.

It's no longer a question of what we are willing to
accept or not. Things--not just napster--are evolving
outside of our ability to mandate form and function.
That is scary for some and rewarding for others. The
more something like Napster happens the larger the
hole will be to allow a similar thing through.
The more holes, the more and varied the things are
that infect our public discourse and actions the better
off we will be as people.

For me, the real question becomes when is something like
napster going to hit the social and political arenas
that define the bulk of our lives. I find it such a
shame that we take such a keen interest in the self-
direction of our entertainments and very little else.
More people know about the private lives of public
(celebrities) people than they do about the social
policies that affect their lives.


GE

 

Re: ontology and you

Rage On, GE. Well I am going to sound like a complete moron trying to follow that. Napster steals from artists. It is of no legal consequence if it increases their over all sales. It robs them of their intelectual properties and that is all there is to it.

Under the surface of the most jaded cynic lies a dissappointed idealist- George Carlin

 

Re: ontology and you

Napster steals from artists. It is of no legal consequence if it increases their over all sales. It robs them of their intelectual properties and that is all there is to it.

Nothing moronic about that. It sounds very true.

GE
-as an aside, certain groups (grateful dead) actually
encouraged the trading of tapes and bootlegs. Other
musical groups have followed in their footsteps and
encourage bootlegs. Comic artists such as Dave Sim,
creator of Cerebus has publicly stated that anyone
could make a Cerebus comic. Its an interesting world
out there and it gets more interesting the less people
care for what they "own".

 

Re: ontology and you

Great posts from you guys!

Anyways, GE's latest post brings up a good point, and one which I believe in. The distribution and rights to use a product of creativity or practically anything is defined by those who originally have the rights (inventor, artists, group that created the product). I believe that it is the decision of the creator(s) to define how it is handled because the product came about at their expense of time, effort, and resources.

Of course in most systems (particularly music) the rights are given to a label or commercial company and the management handles the decisions regarding acceptable use. However, those rights were given to the management company/group/individual(s) contractually by the original artist. We could discuss the whole process all day, but altogether, the role is assigned somewhere.

I don't believe that "information is free." All that which is created is created with some effort by some thing. However, the domain which this argument discusses lies in the realm of that which was created with some sort of intelligence, something created intellectually (so we don't mis-guide this argument into treating "people as not free").

Back to my disbelief that information is free... Yes, on the level of money, Linux is free (an example which has a movement which cries: "information is free"). Its creator put all of his time and effort into Linux and I'm guessing that he figures the community acceptance and support of Linux alone would bring about the growth and stronger satisfaction of Linux and whatever it brings. A noble mindset and one which I do greatly respect and admire. However, the decision for it to not cost by currency was set by him because it was his right as the creator and designated decision maker on acceptable use.

So is purchasing power a bad result of the system? I don't think so. Universal currency (universal within domain) has allowed individuals to be satsified with a role they have given themselves as well as provide a somewhat universal means for trade. Where there is effort into something, more likely than not, there is some gratification expected. People don't always do things for money (I would argue that most people generally don't do things specifcally for money), but compensation or satisfaction is desired and at least money provides a means to support and supply the effort which gives some compensation back. The use of trade/money for information is naturally human and productive. Within small to moderate size circles, "information is free" as a movement can survive and work. On a global or even national scale, it could most likely create many problems (as well as starving artists and lack of incentive to learn a field of expertise). I believe that the strongest contributors to the movement have the skills necessary to contribute and the resources brought about because information is not free.

Anyways, this goes on and on... But I saw a few of many tying issues and just thought I would lay down a quick 5 minute argument. Thanks for reading this far/images/icons/smile.gif

-Chanchai

-P.S. Of course I acknowledge that much of this argument is nurtured in a capitalist system. I also acknowledge the lack of argument regarding taxes on these efforts (but there's also exemptions as a result, and other benefits--in the US system anyways). But did you really want me to write another five paragraphs?

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

Perfect…just the kind of intelligent response I was hoping for

Hmm…even if we can't effect outright change to something, that doesn't mean discussing it is relegated to "mere" philosophy. Goodness knows it's that too, but it's also a legal issue for the rest of us (even if we decide to ignore it), and a life-or-death issue for napster. And we certainly can effect changes in some sense; the law had to change for industrialization and mass production of goods (think strict liability), the automobile, etc. Basically, every big change has required the law to change with it…typically, through new interpretations of older statutes (judge-made law), in addition to congress-made law. That's the whole point of our common law system. No, people in government certainly don't have a better sense of ethics than the rest of us on the whole …same goes for the length of their attention spans. But that doesn't mean they don't pass reasonable, ethical laws, or give us a free pass to break them.

Napster did give people something, but I think that something was "easy access" or "free lunch" more than "self-direction." And, that being the case, I'm not sure it's a great thing for our "global culture," as it would seem to just perpetuate the "lazy and crippled" nature of it. Well, I'm being a bit too harsh…you're right, it really is a wonderful, groundbreaking thing. I don't even try to persuade anyone to stop swapping things they technically (i.e., legally) shouldn't. I just tend to get kinda tired of people saying that what they're doing is alright because so many others are doing it, and because it's easy. I think that's dangerous.

Anyway, I guess I agree with much of what you said, except I don't think that it's so out of control we have no choice but to let it happen. I think the law can find a way to regulate it, and if it chooses to, it'll cause people to think about the potential ramifications a bit. And there are long-term downsides to mass intellectual property crimes…less stimulation for creativity in the first place. It may not be a big problem now, but if music swapping keeps getting more and more common, it could be in the not-too-distant future…

Whereas patents typically have short lifetimes (7-10 or less, depending on the invention, if I recall), copyrights usually last over fifty years from the author's death. Perhaps part of the problem could be solved if the length was cut down to 5 or so years. People could trade anything older than that freely, as well as anything artists chose to put up. And those artists who depended on the income from their music would be more willing to actually prosecute.

*sigh* Wouldn't work, but just a thought.

It is a shame that people care so little about it many of the things which are heavily impacting their lives…or maybe it's just a shame that I care so little about who's dating whom in the celeb world. *shrug*

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't saying don't debate this
because it's pointless I just find that most debates
begin and end in theory because the debators are
(typically) outside of any sphere of influence.
Given the particular vagaries of the current system
of politics where lobby groups and corporations with
single interests take precedence over the people who
must contend with laws and bills designed to erode
equality and safety in the course of chasing down
fatter profits....well....

When I'm speaking of Napster I'm never looking at
napster directly. When I speak of self-direction and
control I mean that some very basic tools have been
missing from our discourses and actions for a very
long time. Why do you think people keep trying to
blow buildings up? Its not psychopathic behavior so
much as it is liberation. It only appears abberant
because we have been taught that the only people
who are allowed to blow things up and kill
indiscrimiately are the people "in control".

These tools are slowly being re-introduced back
into our language. And Language, well it makes
the world. Leary said that speed was addictive
(not speaking about drugs) and so is freedom.
the more people who find that these tools fit
their hands and grow accustomed the more they'll
realize its not a shovel that they're holding but
a backhoe. Expect fireworks.

ahem.

And I do believe that it is out of our
control. We are our own by-product. Until that
basic premise is recognized every other future
trending or attempt at control is pretty much
moot.

And creativity existed and exists in cultures
for whom compensation is not a relevant factor.
The decimation of copyright will really only
weed out the whores. All that will be left
standing will be the men and women who have no
choice but to create.

...tired....

GE

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

If this country has problems with equality and safety (well, not really "if," I guess), it's not for want of laws, but a societal problem. Laws are always increasing safety, just think of the strict liability I mentioned previously; 100 years ago, a kid chokes on a toy and it's just considered a) lack of parental supervision, and b) darwin. Nowadays, laws of strict liability mean that any child who eats a pointy toy can potentially collect damages, even if it's obviously unreasonable that they stuck the thing in their mouth. Ditto for finding new and creative ways cut and scrape yourself. The result? Fewer pointy toys. Toys which one would have to actually be quite creative in finding a way to damage themselves with. Any idea how much the law is protecting us from automobiles? The only way a manufacturer is going to make it safer is if they figure they'll shell out less money making it safer than they would in the future through liability claims. Laws increase the claims, thereby making things safer. And it's like that in other fields as well. Not really sure what you mean by laws designed to take away equality…I can think of laws which endeavor to increase equality, which may or may not be successful, but none that go against it. Do you mean that law and politics can't fix the inequality that society creates? I'd certainly go with that…same for safety, really. You can have all the speed limits, road signs, and other traffic regulations you want…if somebody decides to break them and aren't caught quick enough, they don't do much good.

Freedom is a wonderful thing. The trouble is finding the level of personal freedom that doesn't impinge on the freedoms of others (if I were free to take something without paying for it, that would take away the seller's right to get the compensation they're owed - generally, the price they set). I'd say that napster is giving additional freedoms to some at the expense of others. Even if it's the majority who's gaining something, it still doesn't seem very appropriate. But it's not like the idea of mass, petty theft is a new thing. Nor is the ability to commit it. Walk into your local grocery or book store and see how difficult you think it would be to simply walk off with something without paying (don't do it! ). Some people do just that. But they get caught more often than illegal mp3 swappers, and our society views it a more serious crime. We were "in control" enough before, even with the law, to steal, but I wouldn't call that a freedom, just as I wouldn't call this new-found ability freedom.

Being a linguistics minor, I'd certainly agree on the importance of language. Not sure what you mean in this case, though…

I still say people are in control, it's just a matter of who. If everyone decides to continue swapping free music, then that's probably what will happen. If people change their minds, and those who wish it to continue become the minority, then I'd bet it will be controlled. Either way, I'm not saying that a tiny few are going to "control" what the vast majority of people do or don't do, unless they agree to it. And you're probably right; I'll bet that even if people do change their minds eventually, the "freedom" this appears to be giving them will be too appealing for them to give up any time soon.

Oh, one last thing: people do not invent in absence of need. Not nearly as much, anyway. The thing is, nobody says that need has to be money. Fire wasn't discovered by our ancestors because they were out of work and looking for some fast cash, but they sure as heck needed the warmth. No doubt, there will always be some great musicians who will create for the love of it - their own, personal need - but how many do you think that is? How many would even be able to survive working at it full time, thereby making their music all it could be? I'd rather pay the price of admission and be given all the options…even if some of them are whores

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

safety was obviously a poor word choice on my part.
Equality was not. Ask yourself why Napster and its
detractors got to play ball in court immediately
where murder and rape cases find themselves
waiting and waiting. The future earnings of pop music
artists take precedence over the citizens who buy that
music? And these laws that make the victim less accountable
for their actions and even able to earn a buck in the
process only tie up court time. In Canada the Egg Board
is considering putting warning stickers that state you
shouldn't microwave a whole egg. Strict liability got
Cesna a bankruptcy case when some idiot didn't put gas
in his plane. Strict liability earned the manufacturers
of Pepsi machines out of court settlements because a
man encouraged his son to stick his hand up and snake a
pop while he tipped and shook the machine.

Meanwhile people who want to run for high profile
government positions must cater and bow to the lobbyists
and corporations with vested interest in order to gain
the money necessary to be seen and heard. In Ontario
1 in 5 children live in poverty, over half of all Toronto
renters pay more than 50% of their yearly wage on rent but
the biggest concern right now is the olympic bid. Equality
is slipping from the hands of the people who are slowly
becoming used to impotence. Their lives are constantly
eroded by structures that are inescapable and irrefutable;
these structures exist soley for maintaining a
certain distance from the particles that support them.
There is no equality and where that is lacking there is
no safety.

freedom: ignore napster. it is no longer the main
issue. A springboard mainly. Think of the changing
attitude, how paradigms, once thought solid and
un-yeilding have the the potential to melt like a
Dali watch. Think change in how we operate on local
and non-local levels, how we express these changes
to ourselves and others and how these expressions
in turn create new operating states.

A very wise man once said you can only change the
world by changing the words we use to describe the
world. If you can't grok that check out huxley,
Orwell, Leary, Joyce, Pynchon. Language is more than
just important, without it you wouldn't be able to
articulate important.

Control is really impossible. We can only constrain
certain aspects of a thing. and when we constrain we
are no longer working freely anymore but we are in the
service of that thing. We are working actively to
constrain it. Don't think of a white horse. Don't
think of a white horse for a complete half hour. Let
me know when you've accomplished that.

you've externalized need. Need is internally realized.
Also you've confused artistic creation with survival.
The two are really incompatible. Anything that does
not rise out of basic needs to survive, is surpurfluous
to the act of maintaining life is art. People don't
need compensation to create. There are poets everywhere
who don't realize a dime for their works. And if the
whores were cleaned out and only people with vision
and clarity of voice to express that vision remained
how much richer would this world be?

GE

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

I think Napster...and other such "sharing" devices have been given the environment in which they can thrive by the attituted of today's consumer. There is the "I must have it now" attituted that seems to permiate throughout Western society. We justify bootlegging and illegal copies of music by saying "I don't have enough money" or "the label rips off the artist." Well, think these are part truths.
You may not have enough money...but if I do not have enough money, I don't jack a car dealership for a BMW. It's true that the plant workers may get jiped, but if not enough people buy the product, than the plant goes out of buisness forever. I think this can be applied to all information.
With file sharing programs and music, I would say they can be a double bladed sword. I generally have only downloaded music from artists whom I can not obtain their records because they simply were not avaible by any viable means of regular purchase...and have always bought them once they have been made commercially availble. If I do not buy a artist that i have downloaded, more often than not, I have deleted the music. I do not want to waste hard drive space with something that is not providing me with pleasure.
As for music making it out and onto the open market - I place the 90% of the blaime on the studios. We see most of this happening in the rap industry. I work at a recording studio and I have been able to bare witness to the many areas in which music COULD leak out. If you have a bunch of people who are high and/or drunk, the engineer is goofing off, and the producer is messed up along with them, or is to cheap to have security devices/ keep a watchful eye -- then it is those group of people's fault for not caring enough about their music to keep it guarded. It is not that hard to make sure that music does not get leaked out to the public before it should. You just make sure only those that need to be in the studio are there, and people that are not needed are not.
Well, that is my 2 cents on that area.

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

Great thread so far - been an enjoyable read.

". Ask yourself why Napster and its
detractors got to play ball in court immediately
where murder and rape cases find themselves
waiting and waiting. "

But I have to know the basis for your statement GE. How do you know this? Which cases? Do you *when* Napster was subpeoned (is that how you spell it?)? How do you know they didn't wait either? I think the reason we knew so much about it in the media is because it was something new and exciting. Rape cases, blah, old news for papers and TV coverage.

cheers,

<font color=white> Llanfair the prized <font color=green>cabbage</font color=green></font color=white>

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

consider how long Napster has been active. It is
still in its infancy. But Metallica and the RIAA
were able to make huge steps in the courts almost
immediately. the first (that I can recall) suit
was launched against Napster on December 7 of 1999.
That's not so long ago. Metallica began making
moves on Napster and its users in early may of
2000. Things got wrapped up incredibly quick I
would say.

As for certain cases of rape and murder. I am
not at home right now so I don't access to my
clippings for dates but give me a day and I can
supply mass data.

Just the fact that copyright infringement can
be deemed new and exciting whereas the taking of
a life or assault of another is old news is more
than a little troublesome.

GE

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

nah....
I don't think it's a case of the new n exciting case for the media jumping ahead of the queue over the old 'boring' case suhc as rape, murder...

As long as it's news...the media will flock to it.

What I do think caused the 'jump over the queue' is due to the fact the ramification it can cause over society n the music industry as a whole...
Take it this way, since discovering napster....I DON'T even buy a CD (unless it's a gp since I followed as a child)

I'll say this much, I haven't bought a CD since last yr....and I only usually only buy one CD per yr.

<font color=red>SummErs' 'PSO '

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cfjs9701.pdf

Second page to the last...and some other miscellaneous places are interesting, actually. Just some useful info from our friends at the department of justice

In 1997 (the most recent data i could find online), da's who decided to prosecute violent crimes (rape, murder, etc.) did so within a month on average (median time). Even including the extremes (statistical mean), it took less than three months. Not sure exactly how long it took for the Napster case to go to squeeze into court, but i know it wasn't that fast compared to those numbers.

Anyways, after a plaintiff (we're talking civil now, not criminal) files, it's up to finding a court date, which depends on when the court and parties are available. And of course, the vast majority of cases settle. For those that don't, the parties are the ones that draw it out, not the law...the more complex the case (or the more complex you make it), the more time and effort you're willing to spend, the less willing or able to negotiate or find an alternative solution, the longer it'll take.

And now for more fun: http://news.cnet.com/News/Pages/Special/Napster/napster_patel.html

This is the actual ruling made by justice Marilyn Patel in the district court case. Just scanned it (though, seeing as how I'm currently in a law & tech. course, i'm sure i'll be seeing it again). Yup, Napster was sued on December 6, 1999. It took until July 26 for the injunction to be ordered.

Gotta run...hope this thing keeps up >

An interesting little tidbit in endnote 8

"Just the fact that copyright infringement can
be deemed new and exciting whereas the taking of
a life or assault of another is old news is more
than a little troublesome."

Amen to that

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

Wow. Excellent stuff.

I have 4 specific examples that run outside of those
time frames given in the PDF but I am having trouble
locating them. I'm in the middle of preparing for
moving and most papers and non-essentials are packed
away but I scan in and archive stuff that interests me
so its really just a matter of tracking down the proper
CD. This would just be to give you an indicator that
I'm not "raging" through intuition or intangibles but
documented specifics. I'll get 'em!

Can't argue with hard data and I won't argue against
sound logic (that of the individual party's dragging
out proceedings). So I'll close that end of the
argument with a bow to MNAoi.

GE

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

Clippings? Good idea...when i get a scanner some day, i should start doing that. I know you're not raging, by any means; goodness knows if the median is one third of the mean, there's a chunk of cases which are taking several times longer. And it's probably better in some districts than others. I think i just tend to defend the law more than most, especially since it's the field i'm going into.

Actually, i took a class last semester in criminal law, taught by the district attorney for suffolk county (Boston and surrounding areas). The idea of him and his office being anything less than fair with the cases they prosecute is something i just couldn't envision. I have nothing but respect for him. But then, he's only one of many da's in the country, i suppose...

Anyway, no need to bow, and i hope the rest is still open >

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

"Just the fact that copyright infringement can
be deemed new and exciting whereas the taking of
a life or assault of another is old news is more
than a little troublesome."

I couldn't agree more, actually. What I wrote was in context of the media - and they're not usually one for being considered compassionate to anyone's needs besides what sells.

Reminds of a preview for a film with Kelsey Grammar I saw recently actually...

GE's moving? Coolio - where to?

cheers,

<font color=white> Llanfair the prized <font color=green>cabbage</font color=green></font color=white>

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

"…melt like a Dali watch"

I like that

Heh heh…no doubt, liability can protect people for doing some truly stupid things. But if it prevents injuries, I'd say it's a small price to pay. Need to make product-improvement fiscally worthwhile to companies. And the liability laws don't call for $20 million for a hangnail, they just ensure that, depending on the circumstances, a person injured by something can get fair compensation. It's juries that decide to award millions in punitive damages, which is obviously more than the vast majority of these big cases are worth. But hey, who needs more help than somebody who would fly (or try to fly) a plane without gas?

You're right, there certainly would be a benefit to weeding out the money-grubbers from the arts. The best don't do it for the money, is my guess. But then, the money-grubbers get the money they seek because people buy their stuff. I suppose many people will just buy whatever the current trend is…anyway, even if money isn't their prime motivation, I wonder how many artists - good ones - we'd be losing if they wouldn't have the glorious potential to strike it rich. At least it'd be easier to find what are now the diamonds in the rough…

Freedom is definitely expanding…especially with the advances in transportation and communication. Kinda freaky to think about the differences between now and a century ago. And of course, language is the basis of communication.

I think artistic expression is somewhat different from invention of other sorts, even though we tend to group them together (they're both "intellectual property," "creation," etc.), which seems to be what you're saying. Of course need is internal…it wouldn't be need otherwise. That being said, I think there are different types of need. Just because something isn't needed for survival in the strictest sense doesn't mean that we don't need it. Well, maybe it does. I'd still include more than just food, water, and shelter as things we need. Invention, whether it's fire to keep warm, or a new defibrillator model, is either to directly help you survive (the former) or, if not that, probably to get you or your company money. Which in turn allows you to survive (with some perks if you're lucky). Somebody who has a "need" to write poetry (this is, of course, a total outsider's opinion), does so because it makes them happy, and because it makes them feel complete. It's something they need to do which does not depend on the outside world. It's internal. But though they may not need to be paid externally for this, I'm willing to bet that other inventors do, be it through money or some other sort of survival.

Hmm, let's see…how does this relate to the matter at hand? I suppose there are both types in the music biz; those who do it for the love of creating music, and those who do it for other reasons. Most likely, the majority are the latter, but the crème de la crème are the former. I still say we keep them both, especially since I don't think supreme talent requires the desire to put it into effect.

Oh, forgot to say this on the last post; good luck with the move!

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

lol...everybody loves the quote!

Movie with Kelsey Grammar? Don't think I've ever seen him in any movies...accept for one a while back about a defective tank...

 

Re: Napster, ontology, dragons, free lunch...

Yeah - I saw a preview for a movie he's in. I'm sure there was someone else famous in a more prevalent starring role, I just can't remember who...Grammer kinda stood out. From what I gathered, the movie's about a couple serial type killers who film their attacks, etc and sell them to Grammer who plays an evening newscaster.

Ecch - a quick search yielded the movie's title: Fifteen Minutes. It also stars Robert DeNiro, Ed Burns, and Vera Farmiga.

cheers,

<font color=white> Llanfair the prized <font color=green>cabbage</font color=green></font color=white>