A Composer's-Eye View of the Copyright Wars 973
bonch writes "As an experiment, composer Jason Robert Brown logged onto a site illegally offering his sheet music for download and contacted hundreds of users, politely asking them to stop listing the material. Most complied, some were confused, and a few fought back. Brown chronicles a lengthy exchange he had with a teenage girl named Brenna, which provides an interesting insight into the artists' perspective of the copyright debate. He also responds to several points raised in comments to the article and says, 'I don't wish to be the enemy; I'm just a guy trying to make a living.'"
Path of least resistance (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not convinced JRB has addressed one comment that seems to have been explained the best by Eleanor, and only lightly touched on by other comments attached to that blog post (e.g. voideka, clovis lark, george).
Put simply, people choose the path of least resistance, which is usually the path of least cost.
If Eleanor needed some music for an audition, any reasonable music would do. She wouldn't pay money if a popular work were available for free (but might pay a small amount of money for a popular work if it were easy to do that). If the creator of a particular work didn't choose to distribute a one-off version at no cost, Eleanor would probably search elsewhere for a gratis piece of music (possibly by a different creator). People do distribute sheet music for no cost, so this stuff will be around somewhere, even if only legal avenues are chosen.
It reminds me of a discussion about the costs of cellphone plans that I looked at recently. Someone compared costs of different networks, assuming a person sent around 3,000 text messages per month. They ended up with some costs on the order of $300-$500 per month, because their analysis didn't include limited-time plans. The reality is that no one would choose to pay that much for text messages, it just wouldn't make sense given that cheaper plans are available (around $10-$15 per month, maybe a bit less). Often, people in my country will keep two prepay cellphones (or two sim cards), so that they can take advantage of the best offer at a particular time.
Re:Path of least resistance (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not going to argue that point either. If copyright law were reasonable copyrights would expire in a reasonable timeframe. The result would be a huge public domain where Eleanor could take her pick of free popular songs. Her instructors and mentors would point her to the rich public domain and that would not help Mr. Brown at all.
Really, copyright debate boils down to free-loaders demanding free access to everything, and copyright holders demanding restrictions on everything. So long as either side refuses to acknowledge the flaws in their arguments we are not going to see reasonable debate about where copyright ought to be.
Re:Path of least resistance (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, copyright debate boils down to free-loaders demanding free access to everything, and copyright holders demanding restrictions on everything. So long as either side refuses to acknowledge the flaws in their arguments we are not going to see reasonable debate about where copyright ought to be.
Really? How does it boil down to that? I thought there were lots of other parties to the debate, like librarians, archives, artists, etc. Many copyright holders (myself included) also don't like current copyright at all and would much prefer a different kind of copyright.
In fact, most of our copyright issues would vanish if we went back to traditional US copyright laws: 14 years + one 14 years extension if the author is still alive, with a registration requirement. I have yet to see an argument why traditional US copyright isn't the right choice.
Re:Path of least resistance (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, most of our copyright issues would vanish if we went back to traditional US copyright laws: 14 years + one 14 years extension if the author is still alive, with a registration requirement. I have yet to see an argument why traditional US copyright isn't the right choice.
Not even close. For one, if we are to keep copyright I would want compulsory global RAND licensing. No more region codes. No more waiting for the DVD release, or iTunes to ever bother making TV series available here. No more making me pay 30% more because I'm on the wrong side of the atlantic. Have the free market work both ways, you are free to get labor where you want and I'm free to get the product where I want.
What can I say, I have the "service" I want already. I just want someone to offer the same, legally.
Argh, the examples suck (Score:4, Insightful)
This composer clearly believes that when someone downloads a copy of his music, it somehow deprives him of something by the examples he gives.
NEWSFLASH: Not having a screwdriver or a book is not the same as having a copy of your music pirated at all.
To make his example work, here's how you'd have to phrase it:
A friend is building a house. He needs a screwdriver. I know a store with only one left at 80% off. I also need that screwdriver. I face a dilemma:
- Do I let the friend know where he can get that screwdriver for 80% off so he can save the money?
- Do I buy the screwdriver for myself first, then let him know and lead him to believe he "just missed" it?
- Do I lie by omission and tell him he'll just need to buy it at full price at a different store?
You see, that's the problem with suggesting you are deserved future profits. You can't get blood from a stone, and this girl schooled you on that.
That being said, it is your right to deny her your music. I'm certain she'll find a different composer to idolize (one who either gives away their sheet music free, or one from whom she can pirate) and there's only a small likelihood her "career" will take off so you really don't need to worry that in the future you might have just cut yourself off from an even bigger revenue stream. She obviously isn't going to buy your stuff, because she can't.
Of course, if you were a little bit smarter, I think you'd have offered to email her a copy if she sent you $4 in an envelope (or even a money order). But your ego is bruised. So sad. In business (and that's what copyright is therefore) there's absolutely no room for feelings; hell, there's barely even room for MORALS nowadays.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Missing option:
- You buy the screwdriver at 80% off and sell it to your friend at full price making a healthy profit in the process.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For normal physical goods like say cars, money and goods are a reasonable exchange. If I have money and you have a car, after the transaction, I have a car but no money, you have money but no car.
For information the transaction is different. If I have money and you have information, after the transaction, I have information but no money, you have money AND still have the information. It is a fundamentally different sort of transaction. This difference is at the heart of most discussions on information shari
Stealing vs. Cheating (Score:5, Insightful)
While I'm somewhat sympathetic to this composer's viewpoint, like others here I cringed upon reading the bad analogies between copyright infringement and stealing physical objects. It's not surprising if the girl he was talking to didn't find them convincing, because they are fundamentally really bad analogies.
However, reading this really crystallized for me how to express the nature of the error: when someone infringes on your copyright they're not stealing from you but they are cheating you. Copyright infringement doesn't fit neatly into the analogy to stealing, which is a convenient one because it's something everyone understands. Instead, copyright is a sort of social contract between society and creators, which says that we will respect an artificial scarcity on those creative products because we recognize the value in them and want to incentivize creativity (or you could look it as trying to internalize positive externalities). When someone infringes copyright he is violating that social contract, going back on the agreement and cheating the creator.
Although I'm sure it's possible to think of a better analogy, one that comes to mind is if you built a sports stadium and convinced a vendor to spend a bunch of money to build and stock a hotdog stand, on the promise that those would be the only concessions available in the venue. Then the next week you started having free hotdog night, and consequently the vendor ends up loosing out on his investment. While that might not be a particularly moving analogy, I think people arguing against copyright infringement would be much more convincing if they stuck to some such analogy that had a sound connection to the actual problem. Analogies about screwdrivers and the like are never convincing because they are horrible analogies. I suppose a large part of the problem is that while property is a natural right that has been intuitively recognized for ages across many human societies, copyright is more of a pragmatic strategy that our society has adopted, which is not universal and is relatively recent (on the scale of human history); there is no reason to expect that copyright infringement should seem intuitively wrong. Indeed, the notion that spreading the wealth of information is wrong makes little sense if not considered in the context of the particular social contract we have established.
The other half of the battle (at least among those who are aware of the issues) is that copyright, as a social contract, is a two-way street. While it was once a contract between the creators and the people at large that was limited, reasonable, and clearly mutually beneficial, copyright has grown and changed and is now the product of laws that are bought by corporate money with little input by (or, indeed, even knowledge of among) the public. In effect, first the artists broke their side of the deal (or, at least, the organizations purporting to represent them did), and now the people have ceased to honor their side. Each party feels wronged, and there is a lot of bad blood. It would seem to me that the best way forward would be new alliance between moderate, pragmatic groups on both sides that seeks to establish a new compact that will again be limited, reasonable, and one both parties can recognize as mutually beneficial. Unfortunately, I think the popular but fallacious of "intellectual property" only hinders this goal.
GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
It's shocking how much people here bash this composer, as this is a site which always has taken the stance against GPL violation.
If a person X writes a piece of code and licenses it under the GPL, it's X' decision. If I take that code and embed it in my own code, not giving credits to X nor open my own code, I thus 'stole' X' work. It's the same thing as with this sheetmusic: the composer asks money for his work, that's HIS choice, not anybody's elses. If someone else wants to use / have the sheetmusic, that person has to pay: obey the rules the creator of the work has stated.
It's strange that on a site where every GPL violation is big news and a lot of people show their support for the GPL etc. etc. it's apparently 'ok' to violate the rules some composer has stated for HIS work. It's not YOUR work, it's HIS work. Don't want to pay? don't download it.
Re:Argh, the examples suck (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not discussing "his property".
He is discussing his copyrighted work. The two concepts are not the same, infact they are not even similar in any sense I can think of. So meaning one, and naming the other, serves no purpose other than to muddle the waters.
This particular muddle, pretending that an expression or an idea can be "property" is particularily popular among those who would like the law to extend the same rights as it does for property.
Unlike property - ideas and expressions can be copied effortlessly. Unlike property, control of an idea or expression EXPIRES, after a certain (currently way too long) time. Unlike property, I can take your idea, without depriving you of it.
He is -not- discussing his "property". He *is* discussing his copyrigthed work.
A Little Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that small time composers/musicians/artists want to play both sides. They align with the large distribution channels when it suits them. They don't speak out when the RIAA sues everyone and their brother. They don't stop licensing their music through ASCAP. They don't get involved when their historical distributors fail to adapt to changes in technology. They continue to feel they "own" their creation (vs. actually owning a very specific, limited, license granted voluntarily by governments). They don't stand up against DRM. They don't stand up for consumer's rights.
So, essentially, I don't believe for a second, that he is "just a guy trying to make a living." He is manipulative; he is self-centred, and, now that is suits him, he is trying to play the role of the innocent bystander.
You made your bed, now lie in it. You had a chance, back when Napster was new, to change things. You failed to act then. Now, you are reaping the rewards -- or lack thereof -- of you short-sightedness. You (in collaboration with your fellow musicians) could have made easy, legal, inexpensive, distribution of music the standard. Instead, you chose to split it between expensive, legal, and restrictive and cheap, illegal, and easy.
So, in summary, fuck off; where were you 10 years ago, when you could have *actually* changed things.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, essentially, I don't believe for a second, that he is "just a guy trying to make a living." He is manipulative; he is self-centred, and, now that is suits him, he is trying to play the role of the innocent bystander.
Heh... I'm doing a show by JRB right now (The Last 5 Years), which is an autobiographical sketch of his failed marriage. It was, in fact, so autobiographical that his ex-wife sued over it. Interestingly, the male character in the show is completely manipulative and self-centred.
So, at least he knows it! :)
short story: (Score:5, Interesting)
Amazing. slashdot is of course a tough crowd for proprietary IP advocates. Here's my own story. My ten year old got a CD from a friend who is a record producer in Hollywood. He liked it and wanted to make copies to give a few friends. I advised that he ask the producer for permission to do so. The producer, bein' from Hollywood an' all, of course said no. If they wanted a copy they could go to the music store and buy one. So my son, disappointed, did not share it with his friends, stopped listening to it, and no additional copies were ever made. OR SOLD! The fallacy seemed to be the belief that the kids would rush out and buy the CD if they couldn't get it for free. Of course they didn't. They went home and played with their Wii. The album died on the junk heap of history, as most do. And without at least a half a dozen potential ardent young fans.
Re:short story: (Score:5, Insightful)
the producer lives or dies from his choices, however they are his choices not yours or anyone elses.
trying to sugar coat the behavior as "helping the creator" of a work
is just that sugar coating. it is still shit you are doing.
Re:short story: (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you read the whole post, even? He had his son ask the producer's permission, and then they respected the foolish choice the producer made. So what shit was done?
The moral of the anecdote, in case you missed it, is this: There's no denying that those who choose to disobey the law will hurt the artist in the short term, but the really bad news is that those who choose to obey the law may hurt the artist more in the long term.
I just wrote this guy an email: (Score:5, Interesting)
Hello there Jason.
Let me explain a few things to you, since you seem to have wrong information regarding "copyright" and other fictitious concepts.
Copyright isn't an inalienable right. It isn't real property. It is imaginary property. Copyright is a recent concept. As recent as the Renaissance. Before that, you could own physical property, but Ideas were free. If you created a magnanimous work of art, that work of art belonged to the human kind. Then, you could earn a living by performing live, doing work for hire, etc. During the Renaissance, the catholic church, in their unstoppable hunger for power, tried to control the output of printers. They already had a very tight control on scribes, and they wanted to extend that control over to the modern press. The motive: To ban unwanted books. In a word: Censorship. This concept of owning ideas and controlling what you did with them was nothing but lies, just like the rest of christianity.
Later, governments jumped in on the boat, trying to control the press, for mostly the same reasons. Many, many years later, with the church mostly obsolete, and government under the control of corporations, our beloved corporate overlords wanted to hold the almighty power over free speech. So they were the ones that wrote the modern copyright laws.
Nobody owns ideas. Nobody owns art. They belong to the human kind. Period. Any attempt to control ideas is nothing but another fascist atempt at control of this Orwellian society.
But I do understand the POV of the creator. I do, because I am a creator too. And yes, we need to make a living just like anyone else. Now, there is a hugI de difference between the NEED to make a living, and some stupid god-given right to be given money just because we create. That won't work because a) there is no god and b) we have no such right. We decided that we wanted to create. Great. That doesn't allow us to control ideas. I do believe, like many other creators, that our creations are like our childs. You don't own your children. You have to feed them, care for them, and protect them until they are mature enough to have a life on their own. And then they are gone. They are as free as you are. Our need for food and shelter (read: money) doesn't change that basic principle.
You CAN profit from what you do, but always remember, you DON'T own your creations.
P.S: Regarding your screwdriver analogy, it doesn't work. It's been debunked several times before. Basically, your screwdriver is a physical object. A more valid analogy here would be if you made a house that was a replica of the house your friend was building. And it would be totally ok.
Sincerely,
Sebastian.
Re:I just wrote this guy an email: (Score:5, Interesting)
Copyright isn't an inalienable right.
There are very few inalienable rights. I do not see why this is relevant
Copyright is a recent concept. As recent as the Renaissance.
For someone trying to cite history in your argument, you sure know little about it. All of the inalienable rights as we know them today derived from the Enlightenment which was centuries after the Renaissance. The term "inalienable right" was coined in the 1600s.
Before that, you could own physical property, but Ideas were free. If you created a magnanimous work of art, that work of art belonged to the human kind. Then, you could earn a living by performing live, doing work for hire, etc.
Yes, and the playwrights were dirt-poor.
The motive: To ban unwanted books. In a word: Censorship. This concept of owning ideas and controlling what you did with them was nothing but lies, just like the rest of christianity.
Yes, the Catholic Church wanted censorship. But copyright has nothing to do with censorship. The Catholic Church was trying to stop the spread of new ideas, ideas that might threaten them. Copyright law allows the spread of new ideas, but does not allow the unauthorized replication of old ideas.
Nobody owns ideas. Nobody owns art. They belong to the human kind. Period. Any attempt to control ideas is nothing but another fascist atempt at control of this Orwellian society.
It is true that no one can own ideas like they can own a screwdriver. That is why copyright law was invented. The idea is to give incentive to create. If no one paid for ideas, then no one could make a living off coming up with those ideas. The only composers would be rich people who could live off of their savings. The music industry would be tiny. Etc.
Now, there is a hugI de difference between the NEED to make a living, and some stupid god-given right to be given money just because we create.
Wow. I don't even have a response to that. Just wow...
I do believe, like many other creators, that our creations are like our childs. You don't own your children. You have to feed them, care for them, and protect them until they are mature enough to have a life on their own. And then they are gone. They are as free as you are.
Yes, you are right. And that is why copyrights expire, just like children grow up.
A more valid analogy here would be if you made a house that was a replica of the house your friend was building. And it would be totally ok.
Your friend put so much work into making that design for the house. He spent hours and hours. Time that he could have spent building houses and making more money. Now you come along and take his design without compensation. You didn't have to spend all of those hours creating the design. It doesn't cost you a penny, but it cost him a lot (remember, time is money). Now is that fair?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are very few inalienable rights. I do not see why this is relevant
Because you have the right to thought, speech, life, liberty, etc. those are inalienable, the right to have a monopoly on your work is not natural in the least. It is artificial, in short, it is propped up not by nature but by government.
For someone trying to cite history in your argument, you sure know little about it. All of the inalienable rights as we know them today derived from the Enlightenment which was centuries after the Renaissance. The term "inalienable right" was coined in the 1600s.
A) Before the enlightenment, the majority of the world had to keep on working just to eat. The rest of the world that had time to think and experiment would be better off if they didn't think about the legitimacy of tyranny becau
Re:I just wrote this guy an email: (Score:5, Interesting)
You just "composed" the above comment. FOR FREE. Why?
Here's the part where you're supposed to explain why that's a bad thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I am not a Nazi. I am not racist either. I hate no one on any racial basis. Of course, I do have the right to oppose any particular political agenda. I reject the Nazi agenda. I also reject the jewish one. I don't reject either of them on any racial basis, I just oppose their worldview and their ideas. Nobody would call me a racist because I don't agree with Republicans or with Democrats. So, why should it be any different regarding Jews? I don't oppose their race. I only oppose the political ideas of t
Re:I just wrote this guy an email: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the idea of property itself isn't unnatural.
The idea that Native Americans didn't believe in ownership is a myth. They did believe in ownership of everything they could actually use. Of course, nobody thought they could own the wind, because it was just there, they just breath the air and let it go, there was no purpose in owning air. In the same way, the myth comes from hunters-gatherers that had no use for land beyond sitting there. They were semi-nomads, and therefore, land wasn't important. No, th
Self Justification (Score:4, Interesting)
Eleanor is justifying her own behavior, clearly. I enjoyed the "I'm not saying you're not right but you're totally wrong" line. I actually though his "photocopy my book" argument was quite compelling.
I will say, I understand Eleanor a bit. Sheet music seems amazingly expensive to me. Why does it cost $4 to download and print sheet music?
I can buy a large orchestration of a song, made with 100 musicians and a 50 person choir, for $1. But the sheet music, which is reduced to be played on one or two instruments, costs $4? That just seems off. The only good argument I could see would be to make up for people performing the music, but that requires a separate license payment (doesn't it?), so that can't be it. Actually, a song for Rock Band often costs ~$3. That's a full, high quality 5.1 sound, in 5 tracks, translated into 4 note custom note charts in 4 difficulty levels. That's a ton more work than went into the sheet music, but it's still 25% less money.
Then there's the fact that the sheet music is a byproduct of the process of making music. To make the "easy piano" version of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" takes extra work, but the full version of the guitar part was already written for the song. By the same token, do you think Elton John never would have produced sheet music for "Candle in the Wind" if he didn't want to sell the sheet music? He would have made it either way.
I like tinkering around on my keyboard, and playing simple songs. But sheet music is expensive, when you can find it. Can you even find piano arrangements of video game themes/music in stores?
He certainly deserves to be paid, I'm just not sure the price is in line with the relative value... which is why I don't buy much sheet music (and when I do, it's usually large collections).
Re:Self Justification (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't believe Eleanor is even real..
No teenagers talk like that. Ever. The guy wrote it himself look at the writing style between his responses and hers, they're practically the same. He made it up.
Re:Self Justification (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe you are correct, sir. Either he is filtering what she actually said through his own words, or he made her up out of whole cloth. My little sister is in the same age range, and although she tries to mimic the way I type when we e-mail or chat (you know, with real capitalization and grammar and suchlike), she always ends up making at least some mistakes.
Throughout the whole exchange, this girl makes almost no errors - an intentional "u" instead of "you" in the first e-mail (which is quite odd when juxtaposed with the proper capitalization, but that happens in some clients), a couple of missed caps in the fourth e-mail (which is again odd when contrasted with the first e-mail; different clients, perhaps?), and that's about it.
No homonym mixups, no further abbreviations that I can see, no Internet talk at all. Hell, her writing is even stylistically sound - no doubled punctuation (which is quite common), no overuse of ellipses (which I know I was guilty of until college, even), relatively simple and to the point, doesn't get lost in her own verbiage when trying to make a point.
She's a far better writer than I was at that age, which is possible - however, I was pretty good at it according to all those standardized tests, and he randomly picked her out of a sample of 400 users on one sheet music trading website? That's kind of odd, but I guess a sheet music trading website would self-select for higher literacy. On the other hand, she does kiss his ass to an absolutely astonishing degree, calling him a "genius" no less than three times while heaping other praise on him. You'd think that if she was grumpy about him contacting her personally she might tone it down a little, especially if she didn't recognize his name right off (see her first e-mail).
Further, and somewhat more damning in my mind, are the timestamps. His mail client has to be one of the retarded ones that doesn't translate sender time zones to your local time, because otherwise this Brenna not only pirates sheet music but is also capable of time-travel. This makes getting an accurate idea of how long it took them to write their various e-mails more of a pain in the butt.
However, according to his blog, Jason would have most likely been writing from either LA or Italy; it's pretty obvious from the first exchange that he's not writing from GMT+2 to the USA, so I'm going to assume that he was writing from Pacific Standard Time. Given that, the only reasonable place for Brenna to be is Hawaii, after the aforementioned time-traveling; just look at the timestamp on her fourth e-mail compared to the one she's responding to. So we have a highly literate, sheet-music trading teenager who lives in Hawaii (of all places), with its teeny tiny population, who just happened to be part of a random sample of 400 people on a sheet music trading site. This is getting less likely by the minute, though that's not saying much from a statistical perspective.
This brings up another problem, though: her great big "Bill" example, with perfect grammar and spelling and reasonable style, was written over the course of (at most) twelve minutes! Maybe I'm just weird, but that seems like a ridiculously short amount of time to write an example like that, especially when you're writing to someone who actually matters to you (she called him a "genius", remember?). She has to see the e-mail, compose her thoughts, write it up, maybe check it, and send the reply, all in the course of twelve minutes - and then she comes up with that cogent and well-written argument? Hmm.
And as she mentions before, it's her iPod that puts the name "Eleanor" on her outgoing e-mails. Clearly at least some of the e-mails were written from it, as the guy refers to her as Eleanor once or twice (unless this intelligent teenager doesn't know the difference between an iPod and a mac, which would make Steve Jobs cry). However, this does mean that she's managed to type pretty quickly on that thing; if she wrote the Bill e-mail on it, she maintained at least 20 WPM
he talks abtou a site that has sheet music (Score:4, Interesting)
And then there's these composers who are TOTAL PRICKS, like (cough) Philip Glass (cough) whose work is simply not for sale. You have to RENT the score to his work with the assumption of public performance, and renting a score of his is like $4000. No. shit.
so if I want to sit down and learn that crazy keyboard part from Einstein on the Beach, I have to fork over $4k! What a bunch of bullshit.
I would LOVE to find a sheet music sharing site. If anyone knows of some good ones, please let me know.
RS
Re:he talks abtou a site that has sheet music (Score:5, Informative)
The best solution for individuals wanting to learn new music, inefficient in the short term but invaluable in the long run, is to learn how to play by ear and transcribe the music yourself. But I'm sure you've heard that before. Anyway here are some sheet music sites I know of, primarily piano.
In case anyone does not already know, IMSLP [imslp.org] is a great site for public domain sheet music.
Shows how stupid "IP" really is (Score:5, Insightful)
Friend of mine is building a house. He drew up the plans, he chopped down all the trees, he's got it all together. He doesn't have a screwdriver. He calls me up, says, "Dude, I need a screwdriver." I happen to have a screwdriver, so I give it to him, but I say, "Hey, I need that back later today, I have some work to do." He looks incredulous. "I have to build a house, my man. I'm not going to be done in a day. And what if someone likes my house and wants me to build one for them? I'll need the screwdriver to build their house too, yo." So I suggest he get his own screwdriver. "Why can't I just use yours?" he says. I tell him he can use mine, but then I need it back, it's my screwdriver, after all. He insists that he has the right to take my screwdriver, build his house, then keep that screwdriver forever so he can build other people's houses with it. This seems unfair to me.
But when I copy something, I'm not depriving someone of an original. If someone said "Hey, can I take your screwdriver for a few seconds, scan it in my computer and have my 3-D printer make me a replica?" I'd say sure. That is the closest thing to "piracy" in the physical world.
The screwdriver he wants is a tool that he is using to further his own aims. I went out, I bought a screwdriver, now I should just give it away to someone? Now let's say I wrote a song - it took a lot for me to write it, and it has been my full-time job for over twenty years to make sure that the songs I write go out into the world to be heard and sung. The way I support myself and my family is through the sale of those songs, on CD's, in sheet music, in tickets. Sheet music represents almost half of my yearly income. You seem to be saying that you should be able to take that song, that screwdriver, just take it for free, and go build your career and your happiness without ever compensating me.
If you don't want people using your stuff, don't release it. Don't write it down, don't publish it.
I collect first edition copies of the works of Thornton Wilder. I've been doing so for a long time, he's my favorite author in the world. Friend of mine comes over to the house, sees my collection, and says, "Wow, I've never read any of this stuff. This one looks cool." He takes down "The Bridge of San Luis Rey." "Can I read this?" Sure, I say. It would be rude of me not to let him borrow my book to read, after all. You might even say it would be "nasty." Two months go by; there's a big hole on my bookshelf where "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" is supposed to go. I call my friend, ask him for my book back. He comes over and says, "I love this book, yo. Make me a copy!" I look at him strangely. Why would I do that? He can just go to the bookstore and get a copy of his own. "No, dude, I love THIS book, you should just make me a copy of it." But the publishing company won't be able to survive if people just make copies of the book, I say, and the Thornton Wilder estate certainly deserves its share of the income it earns when people buy the book. He says I'm a jerk because I won't make him a copy of this genius book that I shared with him. I tell him he's a prick and he should get out of my house, and that's the last time I see him for years.
First off the guy is wrong in saying that the estate "deserves" to get a share of the profits. The book in question was published in 1927 just a decade or so shy of 100 years old. You don't "deserv
context of use not considered? (Score:5, Interesting)
I make my living writing software that retails for approx $1000 per license... and done fairly well at it... recently I was directed to a hacker site that had cracked copies of my code... I lurked for a few days to get a sense of the place and give myself time to think about how to react. The site's users were in two camps... those who use the software in an educational (usually self education) and those who are using it as a tool in their professional arsenal. Once I revealed myself I found that neither group said they would be willing to pay or stop using, even when edu discounts were offered... but the students were really cool about it and asked lots of informed questions and pointed out that when they moved to professional life they would recommend the tool... the others were really abusive.
In the end I decided to give the students my blessing as long as they didn't come seeking support... no lost sale, no money changing hands, no big deal and a potential for future sales. The love-wave that came back from those guys felt almost as good as actual sales.
The so-called professionals were anything but, their attitude was that in business it's all fair and if using cracked software gave the a competitive edge then it was crazy to do otherwise... no love-wave.
Yeah, anecdotal I know but this composer chappy has got the wrong end of the equation and 'elenor' is on the right track... I for one will be telling my musical friends how much of an a-hole this guy is and hopefully he will have more lost real sales.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thomas Macaulay, as always (Score:5, Insightful)
At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
- Thomas Macaulay, 1841 [baens-universe.com]
This fine composer is the victim of the theft of the commons. He seems a reasonable guy. Unfortunately for him copyright is no longer a square deal and since people are now ignoring all copyrights, they're ignoring his too. That's not fair, but what is there to do? We as individuals have no power to make copyright back into a square deal again and to research every author and contributor to a work for each use to determine if there's net sanity there is just too high a burden. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. His loss is no greater than ours: he's lost some potential income; we've lost our culture.
Ahhh... I Finally Get It! (Score:3, Insightful)
1. If you want to make a living creating works that exist in a data format (music, books, video) just accept the fact that nobody owes you a dime for your time. If some people choose to drop some money in your hat, that's awesome - but don't count on it.
2. If your music is so great, tour and make money that way. If you get moderately successful locally, each band member might be able to clear $80 a night! Of course you'll need a huge cash infusion (i.e. debt) to start touring big, but I'm sure the banks will be happy to help you with loans for such a riskless endeavour.
3. Always remember - costs like studio time, special effects, actors, musicians, props, sets, insurance, essentially every cost involved in the production of your work magically disconnect from the work itself at the moment it is finalized. A ripped copy of that work has absolutely no moral, legal, or implied connection to any of those costs.
As the entity "Slashdot" I hereby decree that the whole idea of "Professional Artist" is forever banned. You have been demoted to busker.
Re:Ahhh... I Finally Get It! (Score:5, Insightful)
If I could mod him down as "troll", I would. Anti-Slashdot-groupthink has been done better before, and cynicism for cynicism's sake can become its own form of groupthink, of a sort tired and whiny, not insightful.
There is no single "Slashdot-approved" stance, as is evidenced from the back and forth in this thread. What's more, even among Slashdot's anti-status quo group, there's considerable divergence in opinion, from the more extreme idea of abolishing all copyrights on principle to the "accept reality and change your business model" crowd to those in favor of lessening the period for copyrights to pre-Berne convention levels, or those who simply don't want that period to be extended any further than it already has. (Technically I suppose that last would be pro-status quo, except that they're against the prevailing status-quo legal framework of extend ad infinitum.)
Re:Ahhh... I Finally Get It! (Score:4, Interesting)
No, you disagree with my point and the easiest way to destroy it is to twist my words into something logical.
What I said is that creating something via the use of money does not give it an intrinsic value. The value is decided by the market, well it is in most markets, in the entertainment industry it's given an arbitrary value that does not reflect the real cost of production. When a market decides your product is worthless or not worth the asking price, you are not entitled to a cent, you are entitled to make something worthwhile/adjust prices or go out of business. The real straw man was created by the GP.
Once again you do not understand. No they are not entitled to get paid, they may get paid if the market decides it is worth their asking price.
Now this is a real straw man. You've create a fictional scenario where the artist is actually paid for CD sales. This is not true, the artist earns money by touring, now this is something that cannot be re-created thus has an intrinsic and measurable value. Have a read of this [negativland.com] and try to tell me that the artist will starve, you are repeating stale and inaccurate propaganda as their true income source, the live shows and merchandise will not disappear even if copyright ceases to exist.
Author's basic misunderstanding of reality (Score:3, Insightful)
"And I say to you that just because technology makes doing a bad thing easier doesn't mean it's suddenly not a bad thing"
To me this quote embodies the disconnect between "pro" copyright individuals and reality.
Copyright came into existence *because* of technology and is an artificial means of creating what is meant to be a temporary monopoly on an idea. Copyright infringement is not a "bad" thing, it's just a violation of current law which happens to be outdated. The law is outdated because technology has continued progressing to the point that everyone, including Mr. Brown himself I'm willing to bet, is in violation of the law. When a law makes everyone a criminal, it's not a practical law.
Copyright came into existence because of technology and will continue to be shaped by technology over the long term. All the moralistic nonsense is myopic bombast.
Brown does not represent all composers. (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering how many great composers lived and wrote before copyright was even invented or could affect them (*cough* J.S. Bach *cough*), it would make more sense to call this "one composer's view of copyright". Especially given how much every composer -- Brown included -- is indebted to other composers.
http://questioncopyright.org/minute_memes/all_creative_work_is_derivative [questioncopyright.org]
(See the embedded video there.)
Problem's in the pricing (Score:5, Insightful)
I stopped reading early (Score:3, Interesting)
When the girl wrote that she was an aspiring actress/singer who wanted his work but could not afford it, I thought he should have sent her a copy gratis, not snarked that if she wanted to see a Broadway show it is $140 or you don't get in.
The link in my sig goes to a book for sale on Amazon. $20. If someone emails me and says they like the book but can't afford it, I will send them a pdf, no charge.
At least until I am as famous as this guy who I never heard of before.
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:4, Insightful)
You are allowed to share, as long as it is the original copy. That's how libraries work. You are allowed to buy a piece of sheet music and give it to a friend. But you are not allowed to buy a piece of sheet music and give your friend a replica. Then there are 2 copies and you only paid for one. Without DRM, it is nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally on the internet. To share it legally would mean deleting your copy when you send it to a friend.
With DRM, its nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally amongst your own friends/family, original or not.
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:4, Insightful)
With DRM, its nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally amongst your own friends/family, original or not.
Quite so. And your point would be, what? That this inconvenience justifies the theft of IP? That's just stupid. Not quite as stupid as punishing people who have legally paid for a DRM encumbered work, but stupid nonetheless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With DRM, its nearly impossible to share music or sheet music legally amongst your own friends/family, original or not.
Quite so. And your point would be, what? That this inconvenience justifies the theft of IP? That's just stupid. Not quite as stupid as punishing people who have legally paid for a DRM encumbered work, but stupid nonetheless.
My point would be that it's not justifiable to purposefully cripple a product just because someone can do something wrong with it. It would be like making sure no car can go over 10mph because someone could get drunk and kill someone if allowed to go faster, you can't allow a knife to be sharp because someone can kill with it...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like we already have: top speed limiters, safety scissors, plastic butter knives....
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Insightful)
DRM usually works on a license. You can copy the file as many times as you want, but you can only authorize a finite number of copies. If that number was 1, you can give a copy to your friend and then deauthorize your own. Then it is legal.
Thats DRM on paper, but it rarely if ever works out that way. My friend has games on Steam and last thing I knew, he couldn't transfer one to me and deauthorize his own. Same issue with anything bought from iTunes. Greed mixed with DRM typically turns out to be a bad combination. This also doesn't take into consideration of DRM issues with server checks. Servers are shut down (or in the case of the newer Ubisoft DRMs, servers can have connection issues) and then it doesn't matter how well care you give your purchase/'investment', it can and will be taken away from you regardless if it was legally purchased and your the original purchaser, all without your consent.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, so now I have to lobotomize my friend after he gives me the sheet music back to prevent him from retaining a copy, in his mind </Izzard>.
Public Performance (Score:5, Interesting)
"Rental or purchase of sheet music or the purchase of a record does not authorize its public performance."
Not saying I agree with that, but there are a lot of intricacies to public performance. See also: NFL threatening suit against bars that have Superbowl[tm] parties and show the game to their clientele. They also tend to sue (or threaten to) people who use the word "Superbowl," which is why all the radio stations promote their "BIG GAME PARTY!" in January, and not any sort of party having to do with bowls that may be super. But that is trademark law and outside the scope of what we're talking about here.
The point is whether he has the right to control what is done with his work. Whether people can make copies of it. Generally, I think the answer is yes. However, I think the real question is: do we want to live in a society where money is what motivates art? The true genius filmmakers, composers, they aren't doing it for the money, and if they are, well, I'll be disenchanted with their work when I find that out. Make art for art's sake. Artists and doctors, two professions that should be about sharing with your fellow humans, about the common good, not about profit. (*imho, of course — and my money is where my mouth is, I'm a filmmaker and people openly pirate my films. Huge pieces of them are on YouTube. I'm okay with it.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
do we want to live in a society where money is what motivates art?
I want to live in a society where the artist decides whether he/she is motivated to make art. I also want to live in a society where there are many different ways in which to motivate artists, since that results in more art. If the only art that's left is art motivated by non-financial reasons, there will be less art. And since great art != non-financially-motivated art, in the end less art is less good.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Insightful)
You fail to grasp what the word "copyright" is: The right to copy. The capability to copy something easily does not automatically grant you the legal right to do so.
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Insightful)
Copying is a right. Just one that is restricted by law.
Copyright law is a misnomer, it would be more appropriate to call it copy restriction law.
A right is something you can do without the hindrance or the requirement of assistance from another. Copying information available to you is such an act.
Copyright restriction is not a right of the creator, but an entitlement bestowed temporarily in exchange for publishing creative work. Once information has been handed to another, only physical force can stop that person from making copies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A right is something you can do without the hindrance or the requirement of assistance from another.
I'd disagree with that. First, the right to socialized systems like military protection and even civil systems like due process definitely requires the assistance of another. A right is an agreement among society that a behavior will be allowed, or a service will be available/performed. And just because you can do something without repercussion doesn't mean that you have a bona fide right to it. Financial burden can prevent you from doing many things you'd otherwise do without hindrance, and you cannot
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights are established by governments
Epic misunderstanding...on the Fourth of July no less.
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Insightful)
Rights of one individual can conflict with rights of another. That does not mean that they are not rights.
My right to shoot my gun conflicts with your right to live in some cases.
My right to have property conflicts with your right to have the same property.
A just society will have a set of laws that establishes the precedence of rights to deal with those conflicts.
By law the right to life trumps the right to kill in (almost) all circumstances.
By law prior possession trumps possession after theft in (almost) all circumstances.
Rights can not be granted and can only be taken away by physical force. The law effectively limits the free expression of rights by the threat of just punishment (when one right conflicts with the rights of another). Thugs can limit the free expression of rights by the threat of unjust punishment.
Copying is a right. Restriction of that right by the people is an entitlement for the author.
Many think your view is wrong.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply dismissing "innate/natural rights" [as] the realm of philosophy and theology... may sound good to you, but when you think that way you come up with thoughts like A right is an agreement among society and Rights are established by governments...
Which leads to where it would be OK if society and government start taking away your "theoretical rights". Some cultures suck. The trick is to maintain a culture that only metes out punishment fit for a crime, lest it become one of the cultures that suck too.
Re:Many think your view is wrong.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to admit, though, that sticking in that bit about "We hold these truths to be self evident" was the best marketing move ever.
Indeed. If those rights really were laws of nature as some claim then it seems strange that through the majority of known history the majority of people have not had them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. According to the law as I understand it, your right to free speech/expression ends in cases of slander, libel, national security, copyright violation, threats, child pornography, and others. Just as your right to freedom ends where your jail term starts, your right to pursue happiness ends when that pursuit involves illegal acts, etc. Freedom is something that's relative and defined for particular cases; "absolute freedom" is an undefinable term.
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry, I have to disagree with this. My personal thoughts and beliefs on the matter run counter to the general population on /., but here goes.
Copying is a right. Just one that is restricted by law.
First, you are completely, absolutely wrong. Copyright is, (quoting Wikipedia which has is right): "Copyright is the set of exclusive rights granted to the author or creator of an original work, including the right to copy, distribute and adapt the work. These rights can be licensed, transferred and/or assigned. Copyright lasts for a certain time period after which the work is said to enter the public domain. Copyright applies to a wide range of works that are substantive and fixed in a medium. Some jurisdictions also recognize "moral rights" of the creator of a work, such as the right to be credited for the work."
Copying someone else's work is not a right. period. While I disagree strenuously with the *AAs and other assorted fuckery surrounding this issue, your position is one of hey, you can't stop me so I can do it. This is wrong. I especially support the copyrights of individuals like Brown, and myself. I work my ass off creating applications for companies and I absolutely prohibit them from selling my works or distributing copies, and I will sue anyone that violates that agreement. They do not have the right to copy my work, because I did not grant them that right. End of story.
When you get right down to it, while not exactly the same as stealing or shoplifting, copying someone else's work without permission is still a bad thing, but of course there are degrees. If I download a song to listen to, that is one thing. If I'm doing it because I don't like it enough to pay for it, that's one thing, as arguably I haven't cost the owner anything since I wasn't going to pay for it anyway. If I download it, burn discs and sell it for a profit that is the other end of the scale. Both are wrong, but the latter is much, much worse. This is where I get really pissed off at the *AAs, because they apply the law meant for the latter to the former, which IMO is an abuse of the civil law system, but I digress.
only physical force can stop that person from making copies
So what? This is a lame ass excuse for poor behavior on your part and nothing more. To carry your analogy to it's ludicrous extreme, the only way you can stop me from dragging someone into an alley and slicing their throat is by physical force. Is copying something as bad as killing someone? No, of course it isn't, but excusing behaviors because they can only be prevented by physical force is just fucking stupid.
In general I support the rights of an individual or a company to protect the copyrights of their works. Creating software, writing books, making music and movies is, in realty, a lot of work, and the people involved should enjoy the fruits of their labors, and if you don't want to pay the price, then don't. This does not change my position on the *AAs - they can fuck off and die in a fire.
In short I find your position self-centered, childish and utterly incorrect.
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:4, Insightful)
I lose nothing when someone copies something I have made, whether it is a chair, a text or a piece of music.
There ya have, in a nutshell, the problem the "creators" have in the internet age. This chair (or text or piece of music) you have made, may I ask why you made it? Is it a hobby or is it how you earn a crust to feed yourself and your family? If you sell these chairs for a living and someone copies them and gives them away in the market downtown you are going to be less well off. No one stole any of your chairs, but they did steal your business!
I know many people who write (and perform) music as a hobby and they are (mostly) pretty happy if people copy it because it widens their audience and part of why anyone creates things is to share them with the world at large. ... but if no one pays (a fair price) for creative works, be they films, music, chairs, whatever, then people will stop making them, or at least stop making the good ones. So, do you want a world without chairs? Once they're all gone it will too late to stand up and be counted, 'cos everyone will already be standing and no one will notice you!
If, on the other hand, you have been successful in your hobby and it has become your work, ie remuneration from your creative talents is how you put bread on the table, then while you are still happy for people to enjoy your work you are also hoping people will be willing to pay a fair price to do so. If they don't, if nobody does then you have to give up the creative work and go back to whatever it was you did before.
It become the death of a thousand cuts. Oh it doesn't matter if I make a copy
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Insightful)
And it is easy to sympathise with her point of view as a teenager without a credit card and without family supportive of her theatre. But nonetheless, the composer has a perfectly valid point - in fact, several.
One area where he could have made his case a bit better is that the teenager was apparently offering his work for "trade" (whatever that might mean), which actually does not fit quite so conveniently with the image of a struggling artist in need of sheet music.
Legal true, but what about moral? (Score:5, Insightful)
The capability to copy something easily does not automatically grant you the legal right to do so.
Clearly not the legal right but what about the moral right to do so? Creative works used to be funded by either patronage or live performances so clearly copyright is not required for composers, singers etc. to make a living. So is it morally right to prevent people from sharing simply because creators want to earn more money or be supported in a particular way? Perhaps a case can be made if the current copyright system could be shown to produce a larger variety of higher quality material than its predecessor but I've yet to see that argument made, or at least made convincingly.
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Insightful)
No biggie. I didn't make the sandwich with the intention of being a gigantic twat and keeping it to myself or gouging people for copies of it, I was just hungry.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(I'm OP)
No, instead, you didn't even MAKE a goodamn sammich. You don't even know how.
You just talk about it as if you could, and take other people's sandwiches because you're too lazy to make your own.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright is necessitated by technology. Once technology finds a way around it, historically, copyright has been changed to accommodate technology, not combat it. Otherwise, all copyright ends up being is legislated regress of technology.
If someone doesn't see enough value in a non-tangible creation, no law is going to cause them to pay for it. Merely creating good
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Funny)
If you can make a 1:1 copy of my sammich without degrading the original, then please, share away.
I'd say you have a patent but Prior art has been claimed by Jesus Christ
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Insightful)
Nearly all the value of nearly all copyrighted works comes from ideas that the author learned from people who came before and who the author didn't pay. If you got the ingredients to your sandwich from a charity, and you begged for someone else to assemble it for you, and somebody else invented the methods of producing the ingredients, and some volunteer soldier protected you from having your sandwich stolen by invaders, and all you did was specify the layout of the ingredients between the the bread, I still wouldn't steal it from you. But if I did I would feel a lot less guilty about it. I support copymonopoly, but only for the minimum length of time needed to incentivise people to produce it. Fifteen years, like our first congress authorized, is plenty for the vast majority of works. Even less would be appropriate for most works. To let copymonopoly extend for 150 years like current law is a violation of the constitution's requirement that copymonopoly not go on forever. More than 100 years is forever for all practical purposes and is totally unnecessary to incentivise production. It's very damaging to humanity to restrict access to all that old information.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting, but you seem to have assumed something HUGE in your first sentence of which _needs_ a citation provided.
"Nearly all the value of nearly all copyrighted works comes from ideas that the author learned from people who came before and who the author didn't pay."
How in the world can you make that claim?
15 Years - is it enough? or too much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Insightful)
Nearly all the value of nearly all copyrighted works comes from ideas that the author learned from people who came before and who the author didn't pay.
I don't know where you are from, but 'round here teachers don't work for free. My wife is a musician and she paid a hell of a lot of money for her education. She payed for the knowledge she acquired (as I feel it is safe to assume the composer in question did as well). However, even if you are from this magical land where teachers work for free he is not trying to be payed for the work of his instructors. He took the knowledge he acquired and then CREATED something with it. The musical compositions that he wrote did not exist before he created them, which is what's important. It is very rare that any creative endevour is achieved without some outside influence. If your reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion, then no creative person should ever expect to be paid for their arts, no matter how popular they become, unless they created their art in a vaccume.
/. because my wife had just finished reading some of TFA to me 5 min before. It is rare that her interests and mine intersect like this.
The fact is, if a composer had taken previously published work (maybe something in a text book from a college class he took, so he therefore owns a copywright to limited use of it) changed a handful of notes, and then sold it as a new work he could be sued for copywright violations. However, he can take a small portion of a copywrighted work and design an entirely new piece that is influenced by the original and then copywright that. The fair-use provisions of copywright law allow for some LIMITED use of others work as long as the later composers chages are sufficiently transformational that the new piece is truely novel.
Ultimately you are confusing two different issues. I too agree that the duration of copyright is excessive now. But excessive duration does not make violation of copyright legally or, as some above have suggested, morally acceptable.
P.S. I got a real thrill out of seeing this on
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Insightful)
Nearly all the value of nearly all copyrighted works comes from ideas that the author learned from people who came before and who the author didn't pay.
I wonder why you think this is the case. This guy is a famous broadway composer. I would expect that he went to school to learn composing. That was very far from free. I would also suspect that he's gone to lots of live musical theater. That certainly wasn't free. I would also guess that he has bought lots of music and paid for it. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised if he, like many music fans, had spent a huge quantity of money during his life just buying records/cds/etc. So please explain exactly what ideas has he failed to pay for?
Now he's out there in the world trying to make a living writing music that has added value to the lives of countless people and all he wants is a lousy $3.99 for a copy of the sheet music of an original piece of music that he wrote. If he sells three or four copies, he can go buy a CD to listen to. If he sells 20 copies (and assuming he gets 100% of that $3.99) then he can buy a matinee ticket to go see a broadway show. A few thousand copies and he can pay his rent and bills for a whole month during which he can write a few more songs that you might like so much that you want a copy of the sheet music for them. It seems like a totally reasonable request to me.
I agree, and he probably would also, that the 150 year copyright duration is crazy, that was done essentially at the request of Disney because Mickey Mouse was about to enter the public domain. But hell this poor guy is alive right now and trying to make a living writing music. Cough up the lousy $3.99.
Re:It's not "trade" (Score:5, Funny)
If you can make unlimited copies of my sandwich without in diminishing the original then you, by all means may.
In fact I'm particularly hungry today so could you make me a copy of said sandwich.
OK, Sudo make me a copy of the sandwich.
Re:Indeed (Score:5, Informative)
Hell, from strictly a security standpoint that would be the best way to purchase anything from the web.
Lack of a credit card is not an excuse, you can get prepaid ones.
Re:Indeed (Score:4, Informative)
The contract you enter into when using those requires an adult. Minors cannot enter into a binding legal contract in the US.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You most likely had your parent's or other guardian's authority to have one.
I'm not sure if this is regulated at the state or federal level, but kids under 18 need either the primary cardholder's approval or in the case of a youth checking/savings account, the parent's.
The girl in the article (Eleanor) didn't have her parents' approval for her musical activities and probably restricted her spending for the purpose.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You can buy a prepaid credit card at the local drug store. They cost $5 plus the face value, though I think you can recharge them.
You need a credit card number to buy from steam, but AFAIK, they don't require that you have an actual line of credit..
The books you described are priced inline, I'm sorry to say, with your typical college text book. Which, as a side note, I suggest that you do not sell back to the school bookstore at the end of the semester. If you have a good professor, the books are chosen
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you deserve it if you can not pay for it? If you were to get a job and do work for someone, you would expect him to pay you right? What would you do if he refused to pay you saying he couldn't afford it?
Basically, that is what you are doing every time you make an unauthorized copy. You are telling the person that did the work that he does not deserve to get paid because you can't afford to pay him.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How many people does it take to make sheet music? One, maybe two. How many people does it take to make an MP3? About 5 or more. With sheet music do you need to hire a bassist/keyboard/vocalist/guitarist/etc. along with an editor and producer? No. Does making sheet music take days of editing to get it to sound just right? No.
Sheet music is basically a one or two person affair, it takes a lot more people (and a lot more equipment) to make an MP3 even for "i
Re:simple math (Score:4, Insightful)
Sheet music is basically a one or two person affair, it takes a lot more people (and a lot more equipment) to make an MP3 even for "indie" bands.
Economies of scale. Far, far more people will buy the mp3 than will buy the sheet music.
Re:simple math (Score:4, Insightful)
... but surely the transcription process is quite easy for any talented musician.
If you play a song in a band, and are a decent musician, the sheet music is just a minor inconvenience, a bit like writing out the steps to a math problem that you've done in your head. Why would a by-product be 400% higher than the finished product? Does it make any sense that the nails, boards, etc. in a shed would cost 400% more than the finished product?
Spoken like someone who has probably never gotten very far in music. Try finding a "talented musician" to transcribe all the parts of a symphony for a full orchestra. In a reasonable amount of time.
And comparing nails of a shed to sheet music is ridiculous. More realistic would be comparing the assembly instructions for the shed to sheet music. To someone who has no idea how to build a shed, the instructions are VERY valuable. Your shed instructions analogy is appropriate to compare to beginner's music. For more complex music, simply pick assembly instructions to a more complex structure.
Re:simple math (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? Have you ever written staff notation, or plotted it out in cakewalk, rosegarden, etc? Sure you can use a MIDI keyboard for some of the work but you're not going to use the generated MIDI file for the final product; you will be tweaking the notation by hand - quite a bit. It does take days to weeks of editing. Some musical works have taken much longer.
It's not even just the "editing" - it's composing. That's what composers do. Take Beethoven's 9th symphony; that work is the result of six years' worth of "editing" as you put it.
You are a programmer/developer, right? So, can I say all you do is "edit code?" Even better, I could say all you do is "push buttons" in the right order and don't deserve more than minimum wage for your unskilled labor. That of course ignores all of the architecting/engineering you have to put into it, and it belittles your talent, just as you belittle the composers.
Does that put it in perspective?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does making sheet music take days of editing to get it to sound just right? No.
It really does. In fact, it can take weeks or even months before the artist is satisfied with their composition. During that time, the composer doesn't get nearly as much money as the people who are just recording, (as they can output faster) with about the same amount of effort (providing the artist isn't procrastina
Sheet music only personal entertainment too (Score:5, Informative)
One is for personal entertainment and the other is for providing a performance tool.
Except that the sheet music you buy does not allow you to perform the piece in public [yahoo.com] - you also need to purchase the right to perform it as well. So the only legal use purchasing the sheet music gives is personal entertainment as well.
Re:No. (Score:4, Insightful)
-Securityemo, paraphrased
Re:Glynn Moody commented on this days ago (Score:4, Insightful)
For those who don't want to click the link to Glynn Moody's reply, the gist of it is this: the young girl in question argues that:
1. Yes, she downloads the sheet music (illegally).
2. But she then performs the song, exposing it to a lot of other people.
3. These other people then go out and buy the albums, or other sheet music by Mr. Brown, or buy tickets to Mr. Brown's shows.
Therefore, the argument is made that Mr. Brown should just ignore the trading/sharing (whatever you want to call it), because he comes out ahead in the long run. "Spot on," says Ms. Moody.
What she misses is that Mr. Brown owns the copyright, and it is HIS CHOICE whether to permit it or not. If he chooses to miss these sales, then maybe he's worse off for it, but that's his decision.
Copyright is copyright. The *reason* why the GPL has standing in court is because someone has copyrighted that code, and chooses to permit usage and distribution under the GPL. Copyright is copyright, and if I choose to distribute under some free and unencumbered license, or if I choose to make it so restrictive that only one copy will ever be sold at auction to the highest bidder, it's MY choice as the copyright holder.
One cannot consistently argue for one, but not the other. (And I say that as a full-fledged supporter of open standards, open software, and the elimination of so-called software "patents.")
Re:Glynn Moody commented on this days ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the media industry in general need to change? Yep. But I'm getting kind of tired of pirates that get on their high horse as if they were protesting the god damn Vietnam war.
And it's what, 4 bucks for that sheet music? She couldn't compromise with him, scrounge up some couch change and mail it to him? It's not going to kill you all to actually pay for some of the stuff out there.
Debatable (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright law exists for the advancement of society
Copyright law was created for the advancement of society. It currently exists because of a historical precedence. Whether copyright law still benefits society is a debatable point.
Sorry? (Score:5, Insightful)
I write software for a living. I have worked for 2 years full time on a new version and I sell that version for money. I can do so because copyright law exists: I _own_ the work I created.
I therefore fail to see why this is a bad thing. Who are you to say what *I* should do with the software I worked on for over 2 years full time? (mind you: I payed my bills from my own pocket) Copyright is a right given to people who create stuff to make THEM decide what they do with it, instead of the people who want to USE it. You for example are not in charge what should happen with my work, I am. And I think that's fair, as I wrote it, spend all my time on it and payed for it from my own pocket, you didn't do a thing for it, so why should you be entitled to use it freely? How am I then going to pay the bills?
Re:Sorry? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Debatable (Score:5, Insightful)
People can't live without 150 year copyrights?
Re:Glynn Moody commented on this days ago (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:"I'm just a guy trying to make a living." (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Many people actually tried doing that, but were forcibly stopped.
Where would you find the land to start your own country? All land on earth is currently claimed by some existing country, and they won't sell it to anybody trying to make a new country.
Not to say that I agree at all with the racist GP, but your counter argument is flawed too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Looks like you are wrong already (Score:5, Interesting)
What, exactly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think all those photocopiers in libraries are for?