Neutrality of the Internet - Page 4

Shabbaman · 07-02-2013, 09:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socrates

And this has not been done to help the poor musicians, but to help the rich, cultural industry.

That is not true. Of course that is the effect it has, but authors gave away their rights for a lump sum of money. I don't pity them. Digital distribution could be a better way to get the money to the "right people", but only if you value their work a non-zero amount. I've already seen books sold as an indie bundle (you pay whatever you want), that's pretty awesome if you'd ask me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socrates

I say piracy (for music and movies) is not a big deal today.

It's not a big deal, that much is true. It has spread to software. It has spread to books, and it will spread to newspapers as soon as they create a paywall. I doubt the "hype effect" that illegally copied music undoubtly has goes for books and news. I'm not so sure if that's not a big deal. Why do you make the distinction between these products? There's no moral or legal distinction between these products (there is: software is better protected by law).

Socrates · 07-02-2013, 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shabbaman

That is not true.

I am referring to such laws. There is nothing here about helping the new generation of talented musicians or movie makers or authors.

Quote:

Why do you make the distinction between these products? There's no moral or legal distinction between these products (there is: software is better protected by law).

Granted, my claims refers to all kinds of cultural products.

Shabbaman · 07-02-2013, 14:42

The law you quote does not hurt musicians: that law is aimed at the rights of dead musicians.

Socrates · 07-02-2013, 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shabbaman

The law you quote does not hurt musicians: that law is aimed at the rights of dead musicians.

I do not see your point. This law hurts the people, and also artists willing to expand on the work of dead musicians.

Matrix · 12-02-2013, 19:39

I feel oblidged replying to it, as I have been active for the Dutch Pirate Party the last couple of months. (Adios, CDA.) But then again, Shabba and ProPain have pretty much defended their stance as if they were Pirates themselves.

(With a capital, that's how we like to call ourselves.)

It has already been said that the old money makers (record companies, movie procuders) are merely trying to cling on to the way they have always made money. Indeed, 1 out of 20 euros for a cd go to the artist, rented/bought movies have disclaimers, trailers and what more, while a downloaded movie only shows the movie. For that reason I do not feel guilty when downloading that stuff. Even better: I'm not even guilty by law, as downloading is legal in the Netherlands!

Therefore the Pirate Bay and such should not be blocked, especially given the fact that it's not the Pirate Bay itself which is illegal, but rather its users who are actually make the copyrighted material available for others to download. TPB was still forced to be blocked by the major ISP's (Ziggo, XS4ALL, KPN...) based on the fact that it formed a platform, a means for everyone to actually engage in these 'criminal' activities.

But now, what also happens is that people use well-known copyrighted material (movie screenshots for example), edit this for fun and then post it on Facebook for example. Following the same reason as above, Facebook should be blocked too. Even better: everything you post on Facebook is property of Facebook!

YouTube is a different matter as they pro-actively remove copyrighted material from their site, but that brings me to another issue. They have the money to pay people to remove them. Someone with a good idea that allows people to share their creative work, in whatever shape or form that may be - should they be held responsible for how others use that medium?

One example given in a TED video was a company in the US which allowed customers to design an image and have them print it on a t-shirt. That became quite popular, especially among kids. These kids would usually draw pictures of cartoon characters, like Disney characters. Disney became aware of that and threatened to sue this company for printing their copyrighted material. As a result they decided that customers could only have pre-made templates printed on t-shirt. Creativity was destroyed. So this issue is a lot broaded than just internet, yet the thing has started rolling because of the internet.

The pharmaseutical industry was mentioned as well. Well, a lot of medical research is not being executed, because the patent based on which follow-up research is to be done is in the hands of only one company and not for sale or at a rediculously high price. The patent owner, however, is also not too eager to develop it further, because they are already earning wel enough money on what they have already.

But back to copyright. Here's my problem: how should musicians, authors, movie makers be paid fairly? (Even) I also disagree with Socrates here: if artists don't get paid, there will be less art from them to enjoy. For musicians I don't really see an issue. If we pay them for concerts, merchandise and perhaps even cd's for those old-fashioned music lovers, they are better off than they were. Just a fact: since Napster, the average income of artists has increased, while the income for record companies has declined. And I do not care about the latter. The problem I have is with the rest: books, movies, software. How does an author get his money if we download his eBook from a torrent? Movies: sure, they get revenue from the cinema, but there are plenty of (good) movies that don't make it to the cinema. And what about series? I'll be damned if I have to wait until Game of Thrones is broadcast on the Dutch tv and have to endure commercial breaks. But I want to reward them for their creativity and hard work as well. I could buy the dvd's, but that would merely be out of courtesy as I will have seen the series already.

If you have an answer to this, I'm eager to hear it. I'm still very much in favour of the Pirate Party as I don't see any other political party even thinking about this issue. To design a new profit model is not an easy task. But if we would at least leave downloading legal and allow access to the Pirate Bay, we would put those archaïc profiteers with their backs against the wall. Perhaps then they would even be willing to think along!

ProPain · 12-02-2013, 21:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matrix

I feel oblidged replying to it, as I have been active for the Dutch Pirate Party the last couple of months. (Adios, CDA.) But then again, Shabba and ProPain have pretty much defended their stance as if they were Pirates themselves.

(With a capital, that's how we like to call ourselves.)

But back to copyright. Here's my problem: how should musicians, authors, movie makers be paid fairly? (Even) I also disagree with Socrates here: if artists don't get paid, there will be less art from them to enjoy. For musicians I don't really see an issue. If we pay them for concerts, merchandise and perhaps even cd's for those old-fashioned music lovers, they are better off than they were. Just a fact: since Napster, the average income of artists has increased, while the income for record companies has declined. And I do not care about the latter. The problem I have is with the rest: books, movies, software. How does an author get his money if we download his eBook from a torrent? Movies: sure, they get revenue from the cinema, but there are plenty of (good) movies that don't make it to the cinema. And what about series? I'll be damned if I have to wait until Game of Thrones is broadcast on the Dutch tv and have to endure commercial breaks. But I want to reward them for their creativity and hard work as well. I could buy the dvd's, but that would merely be out of courtesy as I will have seen the series already.

I've seriously considered voting for the Pirate Party. One of the reasons I didnt vote VVD last time is their stance on the download issue and even worse the 'download charge' they support on writeable CD's, MP3 players. Especially that charge I find ridiculous. What;'s next, pay 15 euros a month when you get your driovers license? Cause people are speeding and we don't always catch them.

furthermore I totally agree with you.

Socrates · 13-02-2013, 00:04

Ooh, debate dug!

I also voted for the Pirate Party last year, in the elections for our Assemblée Nationale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matrix

I also disagree with Socrates here: if artists don't get paid, there will be less art from them to enjoy.

Maybe you could quote me?
But then: who are the artists? A caste of cultural goods producers? Or just anyone willing to express himself/herself in a non-rational or indirect way?
I have already started to wonder about the necessity of having a caste of people for that purpose. But I guess it is way off-topic, and surely too soon for this to change (regarding the evolution of society, especially its welfare).

But back to your disagreement with me.
I have proposed many solutions in this debate, none of which have been commented (and now back with links):
- global license
- global patronage
- donations
Just some ideas worth thinking of, instead of debating about if it is good to download/steal/share/whatever.

Shabbaman · 13-02-2013, 08:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matrix

But back to copyright. Here's my problem: how should musicians, authors, movie makers be paid fairly?

I don't think the "humble bundle" system I mentioned is a bad system. It's a proven mechanic. Apparently people will simply pay if you ask them to: there's a willingness to pay.

ProPain · 13-02-2013, 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shabbaman

Apparently people will simply pay if you ask them to: there's a willingness to pay.

I agree. I don't think the problem is that people are unwilling to pay (except for the rare few that believe digital products have no value) but more that people find that price and service are not in balance.

Weird DRM methods, the annoying commercials before a movie on a bought DVD, different release time for TV series across the globe, these are all things that basically punish the paying customer. I'm convinced that adressing those issues will help a lot.

Socrates · 13-02-2013, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProPain

(except for the rare few that believe digital products have no value)

I do not know if you misunderstand me on purpose or not, or if you just do not get it. So here I am, trying to make my point again.

You have value as in "how much work it takes to produce/distribute something" and value as in "how much it costs to buy/get something". My claim that "digital products have no value" refers to the latter, because it costs about nothing to copy/reproduce a digital good. I guess it is simple to get?

Besides the cost in work to produce something, if this something is stolen (material good), then some value as in work will be taken away by the thief, because it costs to reproduce this material good in any case. If the something is immaterial and is copied, then no value as in work is taken away, and there is no influence on business.

Also, another point of view is this. When you steal a TV in a shop, you can use it for yourself or sell it to some other dude, and no longer use it. When you copy an mp3 file, you can use it for yourself, copy it again for another dude while still using it for yourself. At no cost.

And it is great that we are currently talking about donations, because it fuels my point. What is the value (precise definition to be specified) of something that you can legally acquire for free but for which you can donate some money? Whatever the reason behind this possibility.

07-02-2013, 14:42	#33
Shabbaman Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Costa La Haya Posts: 8,493	The law you quote does not hurt musicians: that law is aimed at the rights of dead musicians. __________________ "Our spam is backed with COMETS!"

12-02-2013, 19:39	#35
Matrix Administrator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Tampere, Finland Posts: 4,828	I feel oblidged replying to it, as I have been active for the Dutch Pirate Party the last couple of months. (Adios, CDA.) But then again, Shabba and ProPain have pretty much defended their stance as if they were Pirates themselves. (With a capital, that's how we like to call ourselves.) It has already been said that the old money makers (record companies, movie procuders) are merely trying to cling on to the way they have always made money. Indeed, 1 out of 20 euros for a cd go to the artist, rented/bought movies have disclaimers, trailers and what more, while a downloaded movie only shows the movie. For that reason I do not feel guilty when downloading that stuff. Even better: I'm not even guilty by law, as downloading is legal in the Netherlands! Therefore the Pirate Bay and such should not be blocked, especially given the fact that it's not the Pirate Bay itself which is illegal, but rather its users who are actually make the copyrighted material available for others to download. TPB was still forced to be blocked by the major ISP's (Ziggo, XS4ALL, KPN...) based on the fact that it formed a platform, a means for everyone to actually engage in these 'criminal' activities. But now, what also happens is that people use well-known copyrighted material (movie screenshots for example), edit this for fun and then post it on Facebook for example. Following the same reason as above, Facebook should be blocked too. Even better: everything you post on Facebook is property of Facebook! YouTube is a different matter as they pro-actively remove copyrighted material from their site, but that brings me to another issue. They have the money to pay people to remove them. Someone with a good idea that allows people to share their creative work, in whatever shape or form that may be - should they be held responsible for how others use that medium? One example given in a TED video was a company in the US which allowed customers to design an image and have them print it on a t-shirt. That became quite popular, especially among kids. These kids would usually draw pictures of cartoon characters, like Disney characters. Disney became aware of that and threatened to sue this company for printing their copyrighted material. As a result they decided that customers could only have pre-made templates printed on t-shirt. Creativity was destroyed. So this issue is a lot broaded than just internet, yet the thing has started rolling because of the internet. The pharmaseutical industry was mentioned as well. Well, a lot of medical research is not being executed, because the patent based on which follow-up research is to be done is in the hands of only one company and not for sale or at a rediculously high price. The patent owner, however, is also not too eager to develop it further, because they are already earning wel enough money on what they have already. But back to copyright. Here's my problem: how should musicians, authors, movie makers be paid fairly? (Even) I also disagree with Socrates here: if artists don't get paid, there will be less art from them to enjoy. For musicians I don't really see an issue. If we pay them for concerts, merchandise and perhaps even cd's for those old-fashioned music lovers, they are better off than they were. Just a fact: since Napster, the average income of artists has increased, while the income for record companies has declined. And I do not care about the latter. The problem I have is with the rest: books, movies, software. How does an author get his money if we download his eBook from a torrent? Movies: sure, they get revenue from the cinema, but there are plenty of (good) movies that don't make it to the cinema. And what about series? I'll be damned if I have to wait until Game of Thrones is broadcast on the Dutch tv and have to endure commercial breaks. But I want to reward them for their creativity and hard work as well. I could buy the dvd's, but that would merely be out of courtesy as I will have seen the series already. If you have an answer to this, I'm eager to hear it. I'm still very much in favour of the Pirate Party as I don't see any other political party even thinking about this issue. To design a new profit model is not an easy task. But if we would at least leave downloading legal and allow access to the Pirate Bay, we would put those archaïc profiteers with their backs against the wall. Perhaps then they would even be willing to think along! __________________ Last edited by Matrix; 12-02-2013 at 19:43.