JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum Petition to stop P2P-users abuses

No disagreement with that, Bob. But you seem to be suggesting that we should not discuss this issue. Why not? It is of interest, we have opinions. My attitude toward starving children does not change just because I spent 120 seconds of my day reading a dialong on a subject that interests me.

As I said earlier, we can ALL mulit-task. I am interested in lots of things. This is one of them.

I missed the sixty nine.
but the ton one is .
All mine.
Oh life is fine.
Divine.
Now come on Fellas.
Toe the line.
This post is becoming a field of mines.
Bugger.
To get it to rhyme.
I had to bend that line.
Oh well.
Can't win 'em all.
Even the best of us.
Can make a bum call.
meanwhile Bob.
Off you to to Orlando.
Don't let a jackass mess that tuxedo.
Now the only thing I find a worry.
Is i better end in a hurry.
'Cos if I don't get this done.
Someone will beat me and it will be.
One Hundred and one.
Or two.
So Hoo Roo
Grahan (Hoo roo is goood bye in aussie speak) H




------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Truman..

I didn't mean we shouldn't discuss it..

I meant we shouldn't obsess over it..

there's other stuff that's more worthy of our time...

If I'm all alone in left field on this..well...I'm OK with that..
I don't like to see my meanings twisted into unrecognizable shapes tho..

But...what the heck.....

I'm off to the internet now to swipe some recordings by Madonna...I'll break that bitch !!

Bob

"Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King

You are neithre alone, or left field in this Bob.
I get your drift Cobber.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Bob,

People are having a passionate discussion of a topic here. There are literally hundreds of thousands of posts on this message board on any number of topics. Instead of simply picking your position and supporting it with your viewpoints, you essentially told everyone we shouldn't discuss it anymore because it's not as important as starving children in Africa. So, show me each post you've made out of 2500+ that IS more important than starving kids in Africa? I am guessing you've made more than a couple that might not be too important on anyone's measurement scale. If you have a right to make whatever posts you want without that criteria limiting you.. why do you try to place that limit on everyone else?

I am an advocate for artists and writers getting treated fairly and with people enforcing their rights to their property. If you want to work to change those laws (and many are doing just that) fine. But right now, the laws are on the side of people writing songs and owning their copyrights to those songs. I also advocate using whatever means possible to enforce those rights and collect anything possible from those to choose to violate them. 99% of the time I am at odds with the RIAA. But because I don't have to simply spew out political dogma (like people who ALWAYS take the right wing or left wing side of any issue, regardless of logic) I deal with 1 issue at a time. In this case, the RIAA is correct in taking whatever action possible to slow down and put a chilling effect out on file sharers. It's like people enforcing laws against heroin... people can still get it and still use it.. but at least there's enough enforcement to cut back a bit on the numbers who might be using it if there was zero enforcement or risk involved in using it.

So enjoy your trip to Florida.. and when you come back, I expect you won't be posting anything trivial or less important than starving kids anymore in keeping with your own stated criteria for what is worth being discussed right?

Brian

Brian....

If you can't understand what I'm saying..then you can't understand...

It's OK...

Bob

Thanks..the Florida gig will be fun.... I'm hoping by the time I get back you'll have stopped harping on the starving kids bit.. You seem to be enjoying it a bit too much

Funny, I thought you meant little friend. (reference to a heckler post) Doubt you'd be calling Bob THAT in this context.

But of course - The Water Is Wide...
(Public Domain btw)

No Java. Cobber means friend. About our equivelent to Buddy up there I would think.
If you can stand a bit of. like a big bit of rude stuff. kevin Bloody wilson's Both Barrels site has a good australian slang diksshunairy included.
Just like Kevin, It has a fair bit of bull dust in it to, but about as good as i have seen on the net.
have fun, and close your eyes at the naughty bits.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

I'm right with ya, Bob. I guess, to a reader, it could look like people are obsessing. In my case,...no.

Hold on, there, I'm obsessing about it and I claim a right to obsess about whatever I want. I can redundantly obsess to excess, caring a nat on a nit what the less obsessive world is doing about its problems. But I digress, I obsess to excess the process which the masses eschew to posess that which we carelessly let our laws leave helpless and in distress.

Those defenseless, foodless, adolescent lads and lasses should be our essential task, we can treat this mess with finesse, kindness and consistence will lead to success.

Now I look to egress.

Mike

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

Debate is an art,
Were we pull t*in*s apart.
To ponder, and brin* to some sense.
But often a fart, *as more *eart.
And sure makes a lot more scents.

Editors note. T*e letters of my initials *ave stopped workin*. *ence te *
t*ank *oodness for Copy and paste.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

I haven't read every post in this thread, so maybe someone else has already made this analogy. I find it interesting that the file-sharing vs. copyright debate has grown as personal and passionate with people as religion or politics. Everyone's got their own reasons for why they think their view is the right one, and nobody's going to change their minds.

-Shawn

Shawn,

But there's a big difference. In this case, as opposed to political and religious dogma discussions, there are laws being broken.

Brian

Apparently there are even instances where the publishers themselves will demand "no copying" even if it's within the set of people who have "that" supposed "right" to be utilizing the publishers' published material....point in question....when our church got new hymnbooks about 15 yrs. ago, we were able to obtain a "cassette" of some folks singing each of those songs....this was so all could "learn" the new songs....those cassettes went out like hotcakes and then less then a year later; the ministerial department had to request that all those "cassettes" be erased and simply destroyed...not thrown away, but destroyed literally....Now there is no other body of people or even any number of "individuals" that have sought to make any of these new songs within the "new" book their's by recording them for whatever reason...but the publishers demanded that NO "copying" be done, even if it was within the "church" that had compiled the hymnbook for their own use...it definitely says within the front jacket of the hymnbook "there shall be NO copying of any materials published within this book; whether for private, public or congregational benefit" So this "copyright" law is tedious....BTW, the publishers of this particular hymnbook are in Glasglow, Scotland! So we're talking about international copyright laws! It gets rather tedious when it comes to "published" musical or written works! Just to be safe, I just try to stay honest with my usage of such material...I buy what I want or need and if I can't afford it, then I don't need it! JMHOP! Thanks for the soapbox!

------------------
http://www.songramp.com/homepage.ez?Who=Sharon

This has become the hottest topic of late and I've read every post. I can't think of any spin that hasn't already been put on P2P file sharing in this thread.

Since I'm not Sony or BMG, I'd love to have people stealing my music by the millions. By the time I got so popular to warrant such "unpaid" attention, I'd already be investing my millions in country estates and world cruises, not paying attorneys fees to fight copyright infringement.

P.E. Knudsen

P.E.

The problems aren't as most perceive them. Madonna doesn't lose money from file sharing. She makes it up with higher contracts and concert tickets. The labels also work to make up for the losses by signing fewer acts, spending less on baby acts, and actually putting even more focus on the small number of artists at the very very top. The problems start with all the people who survive at the bottom of the food chain. Beyond just the fact that fewer artits will get signed and fewer songwriters will get cuts at all (because less albums are being released and less acts signed or invested in) it also trickles down to people who work for the industry. Record stores are closing down, which may not bother people who hate corporations, but the ones who are getting hit the hardest are the little mom and pop chains that have always been the biggest supporters of indie artists along the way. You know, those stores that would actually carry local artists and treat them with respect?

Less money spent on marketing small and midlevel acts means less live venues can afford to book those artists to perform and in some cases, can no longer book other acts locally either. You know, those same venues that actually have booked local artists to perform, and who made up for those losses by booking slightly larger acts with a following and a marketing budget to promote the show to put more butts in the seats so the small and midlevel venues can survive long enough to also help other small artists.

Less money pouring in from media companies to support music means less advertising dollars to radio and tv and other media. Of course the Clear Channels of the world will always be the first choice for ad dollars, but small and midlevel local radio stations will be left out. You know, those small local stations that actually play local artists and have affordable ad rates to promote stuff? Well, they can't compete with the market share of Clear Channel and others.. so they end up with no ad dollars.. and since local artists can't pay enough to keep them open.. they sell out to another media conglomerate who don't even program locally, but instead from an office in NYC or Texas somewhere for your local town. No more airplay for local talent.

And of course all these file sharers who are consuming music only really want (as a group) to download stuff they have heard of. After all, indie artists can be legally downloaded now.. but no one wants that. So as more and more people give in to the mentality that we can't stop or slow it down, and we can't charge for it.. what we're really saying is that the only artists who people will ever hear about are those who have marketing budgets.. and we know that fewer and fewer artists will get marketing support because so much music is being given away, only large corporations will be able to get the word out about an artist. So, in this new utopia that some here want to see where no music has value and it's all free.. the corporations will still find ways to make money on peripheral products.. but indie artist will be even MORE shut out than ever before.. no local record stores.. no local radio or media support.. no venues who can afford to pay them to play..

This is the utopia some seem to want. So you can sit and hope people will download and trade your files in the millions so you become rich and famous (from what I am not sure) but that pipe dream is far less likely to be a reality in the future than in the past, as bad as that may have been.

Brian

Brian...

Please listen...I'm not trying to fight..just give me a second..

Your last post lays all those problems at the feet of file sharing..
My opinion is that many other things are involved..

The general vapidity of music being produced..that's not just my opinion..kids are saying the same thing..
They're not interested in buying an artists cd when they know there are only a couple of decent cuts....
As sales drop across the board everybody cuts back..but it's not just because of file sharing..
CDs cost too much..people feel like they are getting ripped off so they don't buy..

The marketing of artists has changed..

I believe that one of the reasons why people don't buy CDs by artists is that they are not emotionally involved with the artist..
A CD shows more of the artist than just a couple of cuts..the consumers aren't as concerned with the artists identity so they're just looking for the "hit" sound...
Something that might not be in heavy rotation but shows another side of the artist is not something they are going to be interested in.

The small business person, in this case the independent artist, has to look at the market the same way a small business does in a town where a new Walmart is moving in.
You have to provide a service the Walmart does not..otherwise people will shop the walmart for the lower prices and you will be gone.
There's no arguing that, it happensd every day.
The independednt artist has to make the consumer want to know them..
Whether it's thru some marketingh device or simply writing and putting more good songs on a CD than say..Madonna..or whoever.
That's the way we compete..

I repeat what I said before because I honestly believe it..

File sharing is not a big financial problem for the smaller or independent artist.

My record label makes available cuts by all the artists including the Buckinghams a classic rock act with several million sellers to their credit.

None of us on the label feel that the downloading of music has hurt us..we all believe that making ourselves available in this fashion has opened us up to more people.

About a week ago my label got a call from ebay saying that my cd had sold 50 copies intwo day.
I know that doesn't sound like alot but for an independent artist doing no promo it is a nice little bump.
We couldn't figure out what would cause this little bump in sales until yesterday..
I am doing Ron Santos charity walk for Juvenile Diabetes on Oct 9 i9n Chicago.
There's been a bit of publicity about the event and my name has been mentioned.
That appears to be the reason for the little bump in sales.
We did another 70 units so far this week..again..noty a big deal but most independent artists would be happy with this news...
So that's one way to get sales...
There are many others....

I don't think we should get in the habit of blaming file sharing for all that's wrong..
I just don't think it's the problem..

I honestly believe that for every dollar you lose due to file sharing you get another dollar from people who say "Hey..this guy is OK..let's get the whole CD"

That appears to be working for me....

As far as breaking the law...
That's what Americans do !

Change that mind set...let's see you do that...let's see the friggin' pope do that !
I'm not holding my breath !

Bob Young

Brian:

My cousin - no need to mention him by name - is a Senior VP at Tower Records. He doesn't see a bright future for Tower so he is now planning an early retirement.

Though P2P file sharing is an issue he deals with every day, that is not what is knocking the Tower down. Rather, it is an industry that thinks little CD boxes with microscopic pictures will be "collected" by fans like the nice big albums used to be. It hasn't happened and never will.

Then there is the issue that Bob mentioned regarding the desire by the consumer to have only the prime cuts, not the scraps. In the old "album" days, we really had no choice. It was buy the album or forget about it. Now with the internet and P2P there is a way, though dishonest, to solve the problem.

Has the industry gotten the message that CD's with multiple "losers" on them may be a thing of the past? Have they considered making CD's available with only the songs on them that will be promoted to "hit status," thus sparing the consumer the effort of having to weed out the crap? The answer is no to both scenarios.

Rather than making it harder for kids to be dishonest, maybe the industry should consider ways to make it easier for kids to be honest.

P.E. Knudsen

[This message has been edited by Knute (edited 09-25-2003).]

New keyboard in and working so editing all the lost letters in to make life easier.
Any thing wrong now is a genuine typo, or ditto in spelling mistake.
Ya know. I see the day when it will be possible to tell the record shop bloke what mix we want and pick it up at our convienience with his puter tallying up what the cost is governed by what price each track owner sets on that track.
Probaly be even able to get it in mp3 or whatever is being used by then to make long playing stuff for the party mix.
And people will buy it same as they buy convienience food. We are a lazy lot.
Shop is open so off to buy a new keybaord.
What is your bank card number Bob? I need it for the invoice.
It will be $24.95 Aus. Lessee. About $14 US. Hope that Orlando gig pays better than the ones I do Cobber.
Or ya royalty checks are not to white anted by P2P.
Graham



------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

[This message has been edited by Graham (edited 09-25-2003).]

I thought at first that Graham's * was code for the letter h. Usually that is the case but not always. Even with the h's and other letters I figured out, it's still Aussie to me.

P.E. Knudsen

Bob,

Thanks for actually arguing your point. You made a lot of good arguments, but your post can be correct, and mine at the same time. Just as you suggest that file sharing isn't the sole reason for the problems, (which I agree with fully) you need to also acknowledge that file sharing has taken a situation in peril and made it terminal. A point I didn't make was that not only do all the issues exist as I have described them (and you as well) we have also successfully trained/taught and shown by example, that music has no financial value, even though it's actual value to society has probably never been higher. File sharing engrains that idea deeper and deeper into the societal fabric. To not defend and work to prove this thought process wrong is similar to someone who doesn't defend their trademark.. the law is that if you do not attempt to defend and protect your trademark when people violate it, you have, in essense, given up your right to it. I feel the same is true with protecting the value of copyrights. If we don't even attempt to protect it, we forfeit the rights to them.

As for the regular comments made that albums today only have a couple good songs and the rest suck.. that has ALWAYS been the case.. what music have you guys been listening to for the last 40 years? Sure, in every generation there are albums good start to finish.. but if you pull all the top singles from each of the last 40 years and find the corresponding albums they match up to.. in most cases, there are horrendously bad songs on them to fill the album out. This isn't a new phenomena. The reason it SEEMS new is that we ONLY are exposed to the hits today.. so we think if something hasn't gotten airplay on the album, it must suck. I think that entire believe is weak and misplaced.. the quality of albums from start to finish across all genres is no better or worse today than it ever was.

I do want to say I appreciate an argument for once that is on topic and not a political or personal attack.

Brian

Yes Brian..

Some valid points...some not so...

Regarding the quality of albums today as opposed to yesterday..well..you're certainly entitled to your opinion, wrong tho it may be.
We bought lots and lots of albums that had no hits on them at all..but....it was a different time

Thanks for the tone of your reply

It is nice to see a response worded in adult language for a change.

Bob

[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 09-26-2003).]

There are so very many issues in life to which there seems to be no nice, tidy, black or white answer. It's interesting, though, to note that many of these issues have to do with the question of "Ownership". What exactly IS ownership? What is personal property? What do or can we truly "own"?

There is a saying: "You can't take it with you". Right! You can't. So if you can't take it with you how can you be "It's" owner? As best, it seems to me, we can be temporary custodians of "things" or ideas. We can utilise them in many ways - to help others, or to boast of our talent or wealth, to bring joy to others, or to give us some shallow sense of self-worth. But, in the end, we must give them up. "Ownership", truly, is an illusion.

But I am speaking with fellow musicians so I must ask you this: How many of you have experienced those musical moments when you cease to exist and somehow the music simply plays "through" you with a life, truly, of it's own? How many of you have looked back afterwards in sheer humble awe and totally known that "You" were simply not capable of that performance? I have known many such moments in my life - and not just in music.

It's funny, when I reflect on some of the creative things I have done that I am happiest with I feel little sense of "Ownership". In fact I would go further than that and say that I feel an awesome sense of humility that I have somehow been a "Channel" through which some kind of creation has become manifest.

Now I KNOW this is all probably sounding kinda "New Age.. airy fairy" stuff LOL. But I'm just trying to be as honest as I can about it while not seeming too "Off the planet"

You may have noticed that I have not, so far, "taken sides" in this discussion. I have been watching this debate and many similar ones with a great deal of interest but have come to no nice, tidy, clearcut view on it. This is partly because, as I started out trying to explain, I don't believe that "Ownership" is a nice, tidy, clearcut concept. If it was we wouldn't have had such a history of conflicts about who owns what!

Dare I throw in a wild card here? Who "Owns" the West Bank? The Palestinians? The Israelis? WHICH Palestinians? WHICH Israelis? Who in particular? What about Jews or Palestinians of foreign citizenship? It is, after all, just a space on our planet. How can anyone "Own" it???

But I digress (I tend to do that - it's an ADD thing )

I have been known to tape music from records. I have been known to download the occasional commercial song online. In all such cases it has been for one or more of the following reasons:

- I have been unable to source the particular piece of music in any other way
- I have needed to learn a song to play in a covers band (Or sequence a backing track for my kids to sing along with)
- I wanted to check out an artist that someone else had recommended. (and yes, if I enjoyed it enough I have bought the CD)

I do NOT download the music that I listen to for pleasure and entertainment. For one thing the quality simply isn't good enough. For another I still like the concept of a well-concieved "Album" of music where everything fits together in context. But, mostly, because it simply doesn't "feel" right. Just as I remember those few shop-lifted sweets of my childhood giving me no pleasure. I cannot "justify" those downloads. But neither can I feel "guilty" about them

I feel that, ultimately, we pay for everything we take and are paid for everything we give. I know this doesn't fit too well within the paradigm of structured society as we know it, but I honestly feel it is a far more profound truth than any of our "human" laws. And this, perhaps, is why the question of who is "right" or who is "wrong" in this debate doesn't concern me too much. The issues that confound us in our "Human condition" will NEVER be resolved by laws, nor by debates, by reasoning and logic, by punishment or reward.. they will not be resolved by wars or conflicts, by political systems or religious dogma. Nothing in this world can truly be "righted" on a national, societal or institutional level.

This is part of the paradoxical beauty/ugliness of the possibilties of the anarchy or the internet to me - it truly puts the onus of CHOICE on the individual! It is a place which brings out the absolute best and the ugliest worst in people.. and all with few rules and/or constraints. In a sense it allows us each to follow nothing but our own consciences in how we treat it. It is "Free Will" in a very real sense. Any one of us could be downloading other people's music, films or literature at the click of a button. Any one of us could choose to download child pornography, instructions on how to build bombs or write viruses or burgle homes. Any one of of could create a site such as Brian has here which reaches out and shares, which provides a place for us all to help and support one another. Any one of us could visit chatrooms, not with the desire to seduce or flirt with another, but simply to provide an ear and some support to those who are lonely.

Opps... did I digress again?

I'll shaddup now

Simon

The concept of "property" in philosophical terms stems from John Locke, who stated that whatever man takes from nature and shapes into something else using his mind and ingenuity belongs to him. From this definition, widely accepted today in western thought, ownership of everything by kings and the nobility was halted, and our middle classes emerged and human ingenuity was fueled to create much wealth.


Legally, property used to belong to the strong until laws were passed against theft.


Morally, property belongs to those who buy it or create it, however, if not sharing it causes harm to the community, the community has a more fundamental right to it, but society may not simply confiscate it.


These three concepts are fundamental underpinnings to our "just" society. Sure there is always "friction" at the margins, (and making music that you do not own available to the world is a form of this friction) but actions should be measured against these concepts.


So however you shape your arguments, however you try to justify actions, however you paint the "adversary", the inescapable bottom line is that those who widely "broadcast" copyright material without permission violate "natural", man made, and moral laws.


The simple way to get on side is for KAZAA and its clones to seek permission to facilitate sharing, and to enter into a commercial arrangement with copyright owners. This is the new internet model. It IS BEING DONE AS WE DEBATE THE ISSUE, which is why I said in an earlier thread that we are behind the times here in our discussion.


Now people can LEGALLY download only those songs you want without "the crap", using the "new technology"


What's left is to educate the masses about property rights. And again, you can construct clever arguments ad nauseum, about how it harms people, about the big bad record companies etc, but I prefer to keep things simple....

....it is against the law, and it is a good law worth upholding because it safeguards MY property as well as that of others.

As stated earlier, I downloaded Kazaa the othern day and have used it to good effect to find long since gone songs, and their copyright owners so I cqan pursue some of them to both aquire a legal copy, and in some cases, toward permition to have a version of them done by re-mix artists etc, I feel can do an effective take of them.
Today, I recieved an e-mail which included an atachment which the body of then e-mail stated to be the link to a shared file to a song title.
I don't know the song by name and have not checked it out. To open the file would in efect make me a p2p vandal. In my book at least.
I was not aware, I would get files sent like this. I thought I would have to activly go chase anything I wanted.
Little wonder this thing is a worry to all involved in the creationn of music.
Was funny i a way.
Yestreday I was going to delete Kazaa because of the piddling size of myn computer, and always being strapped for work space.
If I had, I would still have been ignorant of this aspect of p2p.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

"It is nice to see a response worded in adult language for a change.

Bob"

Bob,

Nice to see you can't go 2 posts in a row without a slam.

Brian

John and Simon,

Both of you made great posts! Thanks.. I really enjoyed reading them.

I think my response to Simon is that if we had a Utopian society where people were honest and all people worked as hard as they personally could to do their fair share, then the idea of property would be far less relevant. I just don't expect we'll ever have that scenario. And without it, unless you're willing to give up rights to any possessions (your house, car.. families food.. everything) you have to have some type of protections for the things that productive people create and earn. So though I like what you have to say, I still don't know that it can apply in today's society.

And John, thanks for the most simple and straight forward explanation of ownership I've read!

Brian

Brian, by definition a "Utopian" society is not possible, I agree. The concept borders on being an oxymoron or, at least, a paradox. But I'm not speaking of such a state. Forgive me if I quote the Bible (especially since I am not affiliated with the Christian or any other religion) but I don't believe Jesus was being hypothetical when he was reported to have said, "Love your enemies and do good to those who hurt you". I don't believe he was some kind of idealist speaking of some kind of "Utopia" but simply speaking of how we might best be in tune with the way things actually are.

The point I was trying to make is that "ownership" is, truly, an illusion.

Now let me be the first to admit that if someone was to take away "my" studio equipment while I sleep tonight I would find it incredibly hard to deal with. I'm sure I would go through many emotions and I'm sure that anger would be one of those emotions. In that sense I am being hypocritical in what I'm saying. I am as "attached" to my "Possessions" as the next guy. The dichotomy for me is that, as attached as I am to "things" I am equally aware - on another level - of the illusion of that attachment. Buddhism teaches us that all suffering stems from attachment. Christ said pretty much the same thing. Were they both some kind of "starry-eyed" individuals with no roots in "reality"?

I admit, here and now, my hypocracy (sp). I'm a zillion light years away from the second-closest universe to enlightenment. But I know there is such a thing. And, in my idiotic and misguided way, I seek it

I just realised that I'm not sure what point I'm trying to make. I'm not really trying to take one side or another in this debate. Perhaps I'm just not a very "Practical" person? Maybe it's just that I'm tired and have had a few beers? (there... let THAT prejudice your perspective of my words LOL)

The universe is a BIG place. Eternity is a LONG time. I think sometimes we tend to get hung up on the small stuff. Human laws come and go. "Possessions" come and go. Wars, nations, tribes, political systems, religious dogma come and go. The songs I write come and go in a blink. My shiny new car (that I feel so "cool" driving in with the sunroof open and George Benson comping in) has come and will go.

We can all get righteous about laws and rights and possessions and all that.. as people have done since the lost depths of history.. or we can, simply, let go and give thanks for the wonderful process we call "life". The pleasures and the pains - the losses and the gains.. it's all about perspective

Soooo.. ummm.. about file sharing and all that (since that was the original context of the thread, I think?) It can't be fixed through laws or technology.. anarchy has crept in and all that remains to be seen is whether that anarchy will prove, ultimately, to be benelovent or malignant. Perhaps the answer to that starts, and ends, with our Selves?

Maybe I am old fashion but I just can't "take" someone elses property without paying for it or asking for it.If someone offers something for free with no strings attached,then I feel that I may insult them if I refuse to take it.If everyone took this attitude,what a great world we would live in.

I don't mean to sound holier than thou,as a youth I "took" my share of things(small things)without permission.I regret that now but then I was thinking as a child.Now,as an adult,I know that I have no right to "take" other peoples property without paying for it and at the price that they are willing to sell it for,that applies to music or a car or house.I will try to get the best deal I can but that does not include the five finger discount.

If someone writes and records a song that I like well enough to want to own a copy of it,
then I should be willing to pay for it.You don't steal from your friends or people that do nice things for you that please you.Heck, you shouldn't steal period,even from your enemies.

Read, and read, and read your post Everett, and I go along with that, with that, with that all the way.
Same as if I want to sing someone's song in public for money, I put the song on my public performance play list.
Got absolutly nothing to do with if they need the money or not. It is their stuff I am using to make a buck and is their due.
Kids are amoral and the getting of morals comes with maturity. Probably the reason parents should be resposable for the wrongs of their kids until they are of legal age.
If your kid is downloading on your puter without your knowledge, you gotta wear the flack.
If they are downloading with your knowledge, you got a lotta growing up to do yourself.
And should be thourouly ashamed of your self.
Well said Everett.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Kids will be kids... We as adults should know that only too well since, as ECA has illustrated, kids do things that as adults they will probably regret. Stealing is stealing we say as adults and kids respond with "whatever!"

Consider this for its paradoxical implications if nothing else. Record companies "steal" from artists all the time using clever accounting practices to put more of the artist's earnings on the company's side of the ledger ala Courtney Love et al. That's legal until a judge slam dunks a record company for such practices. Accounting can do so much.

Now the kids just need to find an accountant who can convince the industry execs that P2P is simply helping the company reduce inventory and thereby justify further downsizing. Makes sense...lol...

P.E. Knudsen

May



[This message has been edited by Knute (edited 09-27-2003).]

As in most casaes it would be the parents of said kids doing the find and hire the accountant, this goes back to parents being resposable for the actions of their kids, and surely no resposable parent would show a kid it is alright to use any means to screw somebody out of their rights.
As I understand it it was the record companies wore the flack for their creative book keeping, while the artist was just reclaiming that which was hers.
Should be more of it if this thing is ramant as folk lore suggests.
I believe it was Bonnie Raitt who was resposable for Laverne Baker getting back some of the stuff she was due form the companies from her wonderful stuff.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

It was interesting in the California gov debate when the Green Party candidate said that 2/3rds of the corporations in the fortune 500 have been convicted of breaking the law in the last year. But just because corporations are screwing over the little guys, people seem to think it's okay if THEY screw over the little guys too.. all that ends up happening is everyone screws the little guy.. Perhaps with all this philosophical discussion here that's just an example of "survival of the fitest." After all, the slow Antelope gets eaten.. the disease ridden species goes extinct.. if we buy into things like "ownership is a myth" which may be true, then perhaps we should go all the way and say survival of the fitest is nature's true law.

Brian

And the solitary living slow Cheeta starves.
While in the lion pride, the major male who is not worth a rap as a hunter and would startve using his own hunting talents, gets to eat first and longest simply because he is bigger and meaner than the others.
Now that sounds like the industry we all know and would love to be left some scaps of.
The two thirds is only the ones convicted I notice. Bet the rest are covering tracks so they aren't next.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

Wow..this thread has really taken a life of its own.
I truly found the urge to jump upon the suggestion of "ownership" being an illusion.
All I can say is give me your car and all your money, because in the end "all we are is dust in the wind"! Right?????
If I create a product designed to sell in order to provide myself sustenance, then by God that product is MINE until you purchase it or I choose to give it away.
I don't care what goes on in the minds of every spoiled-rotten little booger-eater who thinks he/she is entitled to something he/she is not, and I don't care how many goods songs a CD has, (by the way, I have tons of old cut-out records suffering from the same problem...but I PAID for them), the problem begins and ends with people who have seriously bent perceptions of entitlements, not to mention the basic concepts of right and wrong. Isn't our society truly brimming-over with this type of thing?
The biggest problem I see here is that of trying to defend, support, and legitimize an act of wrong-doing.
Such is precisely why people can get so heated in such a debate, because it truly does strike a chord within all of us...or at least most of us, exactly as it should.

-GaryP

Brian...

"I do want to say I appreciate an argument for once that is on topic and not a polirical or personal attack"

"Thanks for actually arguing your point"

So....when you say stuff like that it's not a "slam"....

What would you call it exactly ?

I'm curious..

Do you honestly think my remark was out of character with yours..?

Bob

PS just got back from Fla...
It was great..we were at the Country club in Windmere ( I think that's right) where Tiger
Woods lives..

Our guset list included the Ceos of Kodak..Gerber..Skilsaw...it was amazing..
40 guests and us....Wow !!!!!
Some bachelor party..
Guest of honor was Frank Sargusa..
he, among other things, just turned down the offer to become the new commisioner of Baseball..

I do love show business !

Bob

Well said Gary.
A debate only becomes an argument when it stops going anywhere.
No matter how heated it may become.
Regards.
Graham

------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm

A few myths disspelled:

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-5081098-1.html?tag=fs

Michael


------------------
Michael Leahy
The Accidental Lyricist
http://michael-leahy.indiegroup.com

Yes Bob.. there's a huge difference. My comment was a fact. Points weren't being argued.. slams were being made. In the case your point, you claimed those making arguments (myself included based on your comment) were posting on the level of children. I haven't read a lot of children's posts on these topics.. apparently you have and they're similar to all of ours eh?

Brian

Michael,

The guy's book who authored that story is about how to download and burn CD's from the net. Gosh.. no bias there.

His point #2 is particularly weak. The guy from Harvard who had been illegally uploading 100's of thousands of songs a week no long is interested in getting his music from the net. And that's supposed to be a BAD thing? HA! We can only hope he's telling the truth.

It's also odd that he claims it's not theft, but acknowledges it's illegal... so what's the crime according to him?

Reading his viewpoint is as skewed as readin the RIAA's viewpoint.. it's propaganda from someone with a vested interest in what he says about the topic.

Brian

Brian..

My goodness..Brian..you say "Bob' you're full of crap"..but...that's not a personal attack..or a "slam"..it's fact....hmmmmm that's a bit beyond a double standard

that's pathetic..

When you can engage in adult exchanges I will consider a dialogue..
Until then...I would suggest some therapy..

Adieu

Bob

[This message has been edited by bob young (edited 09-28-2003).]

Sounds like that judge that said copyright infrigement is not theft was splitting hairs.
If you take someones property,tangible or not,without permission or paying for it,it IS theft.
Steal a CD from a store,the store loses money but the artist,songwriters,publishers and record labels still get paid,but all these lose money if the music is stolen by down loading,even the store loses the potential profit from that CD sale.That is what is wrong with our society today,there are no more black and white choices,all things are gray.If it feels good,do it, regardless of who gets hurt or what moral laws get broken.This applies to stealing,sex,music,taxes,etc.Not only the small guy does it but the big companies and governments are doing it too.That is what happens when we turn our backs on God and His word.We become a ME FIRST people and to hell with others.We are falling right into the devils trap.Do unto others before they do it to you.That is ugly,it becomes a survival of the fittest society or the strongest or the crookedest(if that's a word),no more looking out for your neighbour or helping the weak.Not a society I want to live in.That's my sermon for today.LOL

Blackmun did NOT say it wasn't theft. He merely pointed out that the nature of the theft of intellectual property is different from the theft of tangible property. That article worded it so people would draw the wrong conclusion. It worked, obviously.

Greetings,

We are with Just Plain Folks Galactic ESP-Inter-ether Networking organization in the year you would call 3014, in what you would refer to as the "future" We are broadcasting on the ESP-Inter-ether band to the mind of your member known as Mike Dunbar. Within the ESP-Inter-ether there is no phenomenon which is referred to as "time", but an agreement by the Galactic Supreme Court has made it illegal to broadcast to the past.

Recently technologies have been used by inter-ether hackers to send viruses into the minds of people in the past. Some of these viruses have been sent to people in the American Congress to relax laws, and to journalists, college students, and retirees to begin the moral relaxation of what you refer to as "file-sharing".

These viruses have worked, the Galactic Supreme Court has now ruled that we can enter the minds of others, searching for interesting and emotional ideas for our songs. Since the human mind in your time was finite, the court has ruled you have no "ownership" of your experiences. Do not worry, there are only a few side-effects such as loss of memory, inability to type the letter "m", loss of hair, and certain sexual dysfunctions that occur when your experiences have been uploaded to the Kazaa program of the ESP-Inter-ether. These are rather inconsequential to your era, so pay no attention to them.

We know you are curious about our time. "Life", as you used to call it, has changed dramatically with the technological manipulation of ESP and with the hyper light drive (discovered by a light ship captain Graham Henderson the 74th, who noticed that while travelling at the speed of light, the headlights still shot a beam ahead). The galaxy of Palestine has sent a suicide solar system to the galaxy of Israel, killing three old stars, one very young star, and injuring a black hole. The Whitney/Young family feud has cost eight lives this year, the Public Mind Broadcasting system will be sending special thought presentations tonight speculating on the origins of this, the longest family feud in the history of mankind. It is believed this feud can be traced all the way back to Earth.

We will now return control to the person you know as Mike Dunbar. Don't worry about the side-effects, they are minor and you don't own your lives anyway.

Signed,
Kloyd and Gidney

What happened! I don't re*e*ber typing that last post! What's going on?

All the Best,
*ike Dunbar

------------------
Mike Dunbar Music

Made my day Mike. Great chuckle. Glad they're friends who simply like to bicker every now and again

what the fellow who wrote the book, C-NET editor van Buskirk, as well as Justice Blackmun and everyone else chanting this 'not theft' mantra are getting wrong IS:

the copy made produces an 'on-demand' listening opportunity (and indeed MULTIPLE opportunities!), previously not available to the copy-maker-taker (CMT), that satisfies the CMT's desire to experience that intellectual property without having paid the copyright-holder (CRH) for that opportunity.

So what that no physical object was taken or anybody deprived of their own usage of that object??? It is the experience opportunity that is taken, along with the right of the CRH to receive payment for providing that experience. Whether the CMT chooses to experience it or not, matters not. If you stole a record, it isn't really theft if you never listened to it?

You step up to a jukebox and kick it or lick it until it plays the song you want (if that were possible), because you have a bought-and-paid-for copy AT HOME? You walk up to a box-office window to see a show and expect to get in free because you have it on DVD AT HOME?

NO, you PAY for the ON-DEMAND experience. If you don't have THAT SPECIFIC COPY IN YOUR POSSESSION WHEN YOU WANT TO EXPERIENCE IT, YOU MUST THEN BUY THAT EXPERIENCE THERE FROM WHOEVER CAN PROVIDE IT, or do without. People DLing songs for free that they otherwise would have to buy to hear is NOT "FAIR USE". CMT deprives the CRH an opportunity to satisfy CMT's desire and receive payment from CMT. To copy and not pay CRH IS THEFT. Justice Blackmun, and all the whiners are SIMPLY MISTAKEN in their assumptions.

CMT, like sneaking under the canvas at the circus to see the freakshow that this battle has brought back from the darkest jungles of Brazil and the sewers of Paris, without paying the barker.
------------------
edx.iuma.com www.soundclick.com/40LOVE www.soundclick.com/EdX


[This message has been edited by ed323 (edited 09-29-2003).]

LOL Mike. Often thought you were possesed, but never knew by.
Me the 74th eh?
Gee. That made my day knowing the name did in fact live on.
Was worried aboput that.
Recently I went down to the welfare office to apply for the aged pension, and the girl there took one look at my flowing mane of golden hair highlighted in all it's glory by the sun shining though thwm indow that looked out across the pristine island punctuated waters and silver sands that is the beautiful and beloved natural phenominom we know as Esperance, and asked for proof of age.
I apologised and told her I had not brouaght my birth certificate becaus it was too fragile due to aging to handle and was kept in a hermetically sealed glass case at the local musium of fine arts, and I had forgotten to grab my driver's licience.
Once the girl dragged her gaze away from my flowing mane of golden hair highlighted in all it's glory by the sun shining though thwm indow that looked out across the pristine island punctuated waters and silver sands that is the beautiful and beloved natural phenominom we know as Esperance, and then past the deep pools of mystery and delight that are my eyes, she asked me to unbutton my shirt.
Confued but obedient as always, I complied withb her request.
She, for her part let her eyes play across the expase of my sun rippened chest and with newfound adoration bringing an inner glow bubbling unfettered into her own, she lifted her gaze once again to mine, and said, unbridled pasion weeping with ever word," No sweat Cobber. That grey matt on the chest and guts is all the proof I need Sport." and with that she stamped my application Approved, and said, "Next!"
Stunned, I somehow managed to drive the Blues Mobile home while listening to Bob Young's soulful renditions of Older Than Me, and The Bitch Is Dead.
On arriving home, I told my wife about the happenings of the day and she said, " Struth Love. Ya know if yoiu had of known that is how it was done, you could have gone down there, dropped you pants, and you would have got the disability pension years ago.
Yep. Nice to know the name lives on.
As a side note.
I delewted Kazaa yesterday.
Not for any moral issue, but because it took up just enough space on my little hard drive to prevent me burning a full disk of music.
While doing the get rid of it thing, I noticed some song files by known artist going threough the shedder, I know I have never put on my puter, so can only presume they were placed there in the initial install program.
That my puter log would show I had never accesed them would I am sure make them redundat as a suen the bugger evidence, but it does suggest it pays to check and see just what any program we download put on the puter.
Reading the page suggested says that was most unlikely to happen I realise. Butn any unwated or needed files do take room maybe better used by other stuff.
Graham
A find all mp3 search would do that easy.
Graham


------------------
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/2/grahamhendersonmusic.htm