Everyday morality - Filesharing?

clark · 2003-03-10 10:29:45

Given the rise of Peer to Peer networking, and the ease of sharing media files like songs, movies, and document, I would like to discuss the views related to this behavior.

What do you think?

Is it wrong to share files of music, videos, or other media content that you do not own with others?

Is it okay, and simply a matter of "fair use"?

I don't really care about the exsisiting laws, or the debates about laws that are being contemplated- I want to understand personal points of view about file sharing.

Do you think file sharing is wrong, or acceptable? Are there conditions?

Pat Galea · 2003-03-10 13:24:56

Do you think file sharing is wrong, or acceptable? Are there conditions?

I don't know.

The reason I don't know is because I haven't decided whether the the concept of intellectual property is truly legitimate or not.

I have read excellent arguments both ways. And I still can't make up my mind.

I normally take such indecision as a signal that I don't really understand the problem enough.

clark · 2003-03-10 13:44:38

Let me help to get this discussion focused, and started.

How do you feel, or think about file sharing. Not abstract positions or arguments, but your *gut* feeling.

Do you think it is the same as stealing, like many contend, or another avenue for the ditribution of media, like others contend?

As it stands now, you can hook up your computer and gain access to just about 90% of all music currently created- the more mainstream the media, the greater the chance for you to receive and enjoy it sans cost.

is that okay? Is it wrong to download music you don't own, or really ever intend to "own" (in the classic tangible sense), eyt use it for your own personal enjoyment?

Or is it a matter of degrees?

Is it wrong to download and watch a movie that is currently in the theater, but acceptable to download Goonies, a movie made in the 80's? Why would one be more acceptable than the other to you?

Is it wrong to download selected songs from particular artists, which can only be obtained from a CD, becuase you don't like all of the songs on the CD? Or is this merely the exercise of an individuals choice in what they want?

Peer to peer networks allow millions of strangers to share their property (assuming someone owns the property at some point) with millions of other strangers- this would be no different than you and I exchanging a tape casseste or a book- yet now we can exchange these things with millions of people at the same time...

is that wrong?

How does the idea of peer to peer square with our concepts of musems, libraries, or radio stations?

Isn't peer to peer just a more efective library system in terms of distribution?

Is it wrong to share something you don't own, but possess?

Byron · 2003-03-10 16:09:35

Interesting thread you've started here, clark...

Let's say I'm of mixed opinion when it comes to the sharing of intellectual property. But if you're asking for my "gut" position, I think file sharing is just another means of media distribution, no different than passing a book or a cd around with your friends and family. Where it crosses the line into what should be considered stealing is when people actually profit from other people's work, such as selling copied software or movies.

The problem with file sharing and the protection of intellectual property is that it is *wrong* to prohibit peer-to-peer networks, as that would violate our fundemental right to share and distribute information. If digitalized intellectual property is to be protected, such as copyrighted songs and movies, I think the onus is upon the owners of that property to ensure that their work cannot be copied and distributed on peer-to-peer networks, such as embedded "bombs" that destroy the file if it's copied or whatever.

The doctrine of "fair use" has always allowed the owner of a book, movie or album to share it with other people, as long as they don't profit from doing so, and there has never been a limit to how many people you can share your material with...whether it's one person or a million...it's all the same. If a law were to be passed that takes away "fair use", I think that would greatly limit our freedom to share information, whether it's copyrighted or not. And besides, you still get what you "pay" for...watching a crappy copy of a new movie release is just not the same as actually seeing it in the theater. People still gladly pay $8 to see a film in the theater, as how can that compare to watching on a computer screen with tinny sound?..it just ain't the same.

As for the right for the creators of copyrighted material to profit from their work...yes, they absolutely have that right, but do the record companies and the publishing companies have the right to profit from their work as well? I think not, as all they are doing is to distribute the author's work at greatly inflated cost. There is no sane reason why a cd should cost $17 or a hardback book $26...that is far, far more than what it actually costs to make those items, and the author gets a pittance as a royalty. So who's really being immoral here?

So if there are changes made to intellectual law, I think it should allow the actual *creator* to hold a copyright and no one else (unless it's passed along in a personal will)...and it is up to that individual to find a way to profit from that work...such as self-publication of printed work, or small-time bands hitting the road and selling custom-made cds of their work. Get the big corporations out of the picture, and 90% of the "problem" of intellectual file sharing would go away, imao.

Clark, you may fire when ready

B

clark · 2003-03-10 16:54:04

I have no intention of firing on anybody, that's not what this thread was intended for.

I want to explore a problamatic and thorny issue, I chose this topic for specific reasons.

I feel most people would fall into the "mixed-use" catagory in determining what is and isn't acceptable file sharing. However, I am inclined to believe that more individuals will slide towards an abusive relationship with file sharing on the whole. That is to say, most people abuse file sharing, but probably don't consider it as such.

We can generally agree that going into a brick and mortar store and walking out with the new M&M CD is simple theft. Yet less would be inclined to belive that stealing is occuring if someone downloads every single song on the CD, and burn it to their CD-R or leave it on their hard drive.

While I can accept to a point that the latter is more acceptable than the former, I must admit that the end result is exactly the same.

You point out that copy rights should only be held by single individuals- leave it to the artists to figure out how to collect. Well, that's what our current system was designed to do- it was designed so that the artist could receive a larger portion of the fruits of their labor. That model is being undermined by the new distribution scheme enabled by the internet.

And considering that P2P systems are going towards greater anominity, how can we conceivably create a system where single individuals would be able to collect revenue from a decentralized system? You end up with the horrible situation where you have the most successful artists spending ever increasing amounts of their time trying to collect on their previous art, instead of creating NEW art.

Isn't that counterproductive to our overall goal?

I also can accept the issue of profit margins, being that a CD shouldn't cost $17. Hwoever, what should it cost? P2P makes the cost zero, yet there is the very real cost of having to find artists, develop them, market them, etc. And remember, that $17 CD is only for a while- in time, the cost is reduced- yet with P2P, the internet itself- we see an explosion of media BEFORE it becomes available in brick and mortar stores.

Before companies and artists even have a chance to sell their product, it is being copied, and distributed to millions.

Is this right?

i also wonder if the quality is really a dividing issue. 8$ for a movie in a movie theater, or pay nothing for a near-DVD quality version of the movie, in your home entertainment theater, with Dolby surround sound.

How about a $17 CD of your favorite band with copy protection, or a near-perfect recording of said CD on a blank media without copy protection, for the cost of the blank CD.

Again, this is not to choose a side, but merely to explore the implications of each side.

soph · 2003-03-10 17:07:48

I have no intention of firing on anybody, that's not what this thread was intended for.
I want to explore a problamatic and thorny issue, I chose this topic for specific reasons.
I feel most people would fall into the "mixed-use" catagory in determining what is and isn't acceptable file sharing. However, I am inclined to believe that more individuals will slide towards an abusive relationship with file sharing on the whole. That is to say, most people abuse file sharing, but probably don't consider it as such.
We can generally agree that going into a brick and mortar store and walking out with the new M&M CD is simple theft. Yet less would be inclined to belive that stealing is occuring if someone downloads every single song on the CD, and burn it to their CD-R or leave it on their hard drive.
While I can accept to a point that the latter is more acceptable than the former, I must admit that the end result is exactly the same.
You point out that copy rights should only be held by single individuals- leave it to the artists to figure out how to collect. Well, that's what our current system was designed to do- it was designed so that the artist could receive a larger portion of the fruits of their labor. That model is being undermined by the new distribution scheme enabled by the internet.
And considering that P2P systems are going towards greater anominity, how can we conceivably create a system where single individuals would be able to collect revenue from a decentralized system? You end up with the horrible situation where you have the most successful artists spending ever increasing amounts of their time trying to collect on their previous art, instead of creating NEW art.
Isn't that counterproductive to our overall goal?
I also can accept the issue of profit margins, being that a CD shouldn't cost $17. Hwoever, what should it cost? P2P makes the cost zero, yet there is the very real cost of having to find artists, develop them, market them, etc. And remember, that $17 CD is only for a while- in time, the cost is reduced- yet with P2P, the internet itself- we see an explosion of media BEFORE it becomes available in brick and mortar stores.
Before companies and artists even have a chance to sell their product, it is being copied, and distributed to millions.
Is this right?
i also wonder if the quality is really a dividing issue. 8$ for a movie in a movie theater, or pay nothing for a near-DVD quality version of the movie, in your home entertainment theater, with Dolby surround sound.
How about a $17 CD of your favorite band with copy protection, or a near-perfect recording of said CD on a blank media without copy protection, for the cost of the blank CD.
Again, this is not to choose a side, but merely to explore the implications of each side.

Since a CD costs a good $0.10, I can see the band's time being worth $2 per CD, and the distribution being another $2. Marketing a good $0.50-$1 per CD, so I would say $5-$7 is a fair price for a CD. $10+ is a ripoff, and I would guarantee that if the price were lowered-piracy would drop. Piracy is a reaction to bloated prices. CDs aren't $5 apiece anymore.

The price should reflect this change.

Echus_Chasma · 2003-03-10 22:23:40

Piracy is a reaction to bloated prices.

Yup, I agree with you there.
In the shops at the moment, theres about 5-10 cds that I really really want, but they cost NZ$30-$35 each. Thats insane, you can't expect a normal person to be able to afford all of that. When it comes to burning cds, music and games etc, I ask myself, if it really was illegal, then why are cd-writers sold in the first place? I don't go out and copy lots of cds for my friends or anything. But, like, they sell cd-writers, so what do they expect when people copy cds because they can't afford to buy them all from the shop.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-11 06:07:55

Copying cannot be stealing, this is why we have copyright; so that someone can't take the intangible from you. But back in the old days, when you wrote something, it was yours, and copying was encouraged; Alexandria was a place where everything was painstakingly copied by hand, no one had a right to the copy, information was free! When you copy something, you're not taking away that which is physical. You're creating something else which is equally physical.

If ?disobeying copyright? is immoral, then is it immoral to copy language? I copy my father and mothers language as I learn it, do I not?

Stealing is taking something physical away from someone. If I take a CD from you, you no longer have it, and thus, I am depriving you of it. When you go and buy a CD in the store, you're not buying the music which resides on it, no, you're buying much more. You're buying the media, the case, the cover, and all the labor that went to put it together. And in the end, the artist gets a very small ammount of money out of it. If I download an album you could absolutely argue that I'm taking potential profit from the artist (which is a laughable concept, actually, because it's impossible to prove that I would've bought the album anyway), but you can't really complain until you have a cheaper way for me to access what I'm content with. And, sorry to break it to you, nothing is cheaper than independent nodes which share information used to their full potential.

Last night I downloaded Farscape. The UK airs about two episodes ahead of the US, and I'd been watching via this method for awhile, being too impatient to wait until it began to air here (even though the wait between episodes would still be the same- one week). It was the last episode, BTW, and a very good one, at that. Anyway, I used a program called ?Bittorrent,? which allows people to download files and share them quite effeciently. With the combined weight of everyone sharing, I was drawing a good 300k/s, quite impressive for a bunch of lowly cable and DSL modems. This is my preferred method to view this show. Is this wrong? No, I don't think so. My viewing it this way doesn't affect the content itself, it doesn't affect the actors, or the people working, or anything. There is absolutely no negative impact from me viewing a television show some people took upon the kindness of their hearts to encode and put in a place where I and other people can share it freely. Unless you count those who are truely immoral who threaten people because of this. Then sure, my viewing it would probably have a negative impact.

One must differentiate between sharing and pirating. People who pirate make copies and emulate the same service legitimate companies do (albeit poorly- just look at the subtitles on some bootlegged foreign films for a good example), when they sell their copies, they are taking legitimate business away from the true producers. They are in direct competition with an illegitimate product, and thus, one could rightly argue that they are immoral.

Sharing on the other hand involves people putting in individual effort (even if it means turning on the computer- but it goes further than that, we have to pay for bandwidth, space and electricity somehow), and is arguably not in direct competition at all. People can argue day and night that internet sharing takes away potential profit, but until the internet is more gridlike in nature, and until sharing can actually take the place of media, such arguments are straw men. A majority of internet users are still dialup; the time and effort to compile a whole album is often not worth the quick trip to the store.

clark, you asked, ?Is it wrong to share something you don't own, but possess?? and I say that owning something you don't possess is wrong! How about that?

A real question, for those who try to stay center of the line on these sorts of philosophical issues (ie, information must be free, but we can't ?steal?), is how could DRM be used in negative ways? Just have a clause that non-DRM material can be transmitted freely! Quite simple, really. Of course, unfortunately, anything that can be observed can be copied, and no DRM can prevent this; the only solution to keep people from ?stealing? is to pretty much brainwash entire populations.

I get mix tapes/CDs from my friend. We both are immoral sinners who God hates and will strike down at any momment!

clark · 2003-03-11 10:26:52

Interesting points so far...

Two previous posts make mention of the inflated cost of CD's, which justifies downloading the same media, for free. Apparently, if corporations reduced their profi margin, and cut the cost of CD's, less people would download the media, sine the music would become "affordable".

So my question to those who feel this way, why don't you go into a brick and mortar store and just steal the CD? Why is it okay to download the music, but not "steal" it in the clasical sense?

Also, music, movies, and other media entertainment are usually considered luxaries- you're not going to die if you can't get the new Aerosmith CD, so how can we legitmately say that "well, the price is to high"? After all, you don't need it, do you?

If ?disobeying copyright? is immoral, then is it immoral to copy language? I copy my father and mothers language as I learn it, do I not?

Nice bit of sophistry Josh, but let's keep this on the level. Comparing the act of learning language to downloading copyrighted material like Daredevil is a bit of a stretch.

If I download an album you could absolutely argue that I'm taking potential profit from the artist (which is a laughable concept, actually, because it's impossible to prove that I would've bought the album anyway), but you can't really complain until you have a cheaper way for me to access what I'm content with.

I'm not trying to prove that you would or wouldn't buy the actual CD, after downloading the music. However, most people work on incentive- what incentive, other than altruism for the artist, would you have to buy the actual CD? The quality is nearly identical. For the art cover? Well, perhaps, but do you honestly feel that the vast majority are even concerned with something as trivial as that?

There is absolutely no negative impact from me viewing a television show some people took upon the kindness of their hearts to encode and put in a place where I and other people can share it freely.

Do you honestly think this? I couldn't have picked a better example: Farscape, a cable show, which means you have to pay the cable company to view the show- which pays the company that makes farscape. Farscape is now cancelled due to low viewership. You may think that youhave done nothing wrong, and you're nto hurting anyone, but you are side-steping the distributionmodel and helping to destroy the reimbursement scheme.

How can any shows survive if it only takes ONE person to copy the show, and then millions of others can listen or see for free? Those millions of people, if they had purchased the rights to view Farscape (which is what you do when you BUY cabale), Farscape might have had better ratings, and mademore money.

Perhaps you feel your individual actions have no net effect, but taken in concert with the growing throngs of individuals like yourself, it can have a powerful effect.

clark, you asked, ?Is it wrong to share something you don't own, but possess?? and I say that owning something you don't possess is wrong! How about that?

Gibberish.

I get mix tapes/CDs from my friend.

Yet in this sense you are trading in a limited supply of a good which only one person can posses at any time. With the internet, it becomes possible to have infinitie supply that ANY may posses. It reduces the value of intellectual property becuase supply cannot be controlled, and ideas are infintie in capacity.

Previously we could control supply becuase tangible items had to be created to contain the "ideas". There was supply, there was limit.There was simple control.

Again, good points have been spoken, but there are some serious questions to these viewpoints.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-12 04:11:12

Hah, I thought I'd responded to you, clark...

Man, these days seem to be getting longer. Anyway...

Why is it okay to download the music, but not "steal" it in the clasical sense?

Because the cost of doing that is higher?

you're not going to die if you can't get the new Aerosmith CD, so how can we legitmately say that "well, the price is to high"?

Oh, well, we're just using a supply and demand scenario here. Odds are you're not going to get in trouble for downloading the new Aerosmith CD, so how can we legitimately say that ?oh no, you evil man, that's illegal!??

Sodomy (non-bestiality) in a lot of states is illegal. Does that make it immoral, wrong or an illegitimate practice?

Nice bit of sophistry Josh, but let's keep this on the level. Comparing the act of learning language to downloading copyrighted material like Daredevil is a bit of a stretch.

Oh, well, I was just bringing it down to the basic level. We can apply copying on hundreds of levels. How is copying my friends homework assignment any different from copying a friends music? What if the music itself was the homework assignment?

Computers have several copies of copyrighted things on them at any given momment, browser caches, temporary folders, heck, even in the memory and CPU cache there's a copy. Is it wrong to have those copies, or are we making exceptions because those copies are temporary? What happens when our methods of storage become persistent, and the difference between a cache and a store are non-existant? Then how will we deal with such issues? I download a video from a website, and it streams off the website, but because how my memory storage works, I can now view that video (no matter how much DRM is on it) via the persistent store, as many times and any time I want. Is this wrong? Or is the concept of copyright just getting archiac at this point? Do we in the future make persistent stores illegal, and ban them from being created (even though they're arguably the best way to do things digitally)? Surely we'd have to if we wanted to keep these concepts (copyright) alive, right?

Well, perhaps, but do you honestly feel that the vast majority are even concerned with something as trivial as [the media and presentation]?

Nope, that's exactly why I made the comment about there being issues as the internet became more gridlike in nature. The true reason piracy isn't rampant, is because, like I pointed out, dialup is still the primary way to access the internet. If the internet was gridlike, that is, all access points were relatively similar, and fast, exchanging media would be much easier, and there would be absolutely no way to keep everyone who had an access point from pirating.

Right now there is no evidence that sharing is inherently damaging to the industry (in fact, there is only evidence to the contrary!), but undoubtedly, in the future, that won't be the case, and either the industry will have to adapt via some form of DRM (which won't work, period), or the people themselves will have to begin enjoying... gasp... dare I say... free music. Artists would then have to make their money in live performances and other things like memorabilia (hey, I can see a huge sucess with PGP encrypted messages on media which is distributed right after the show- you'd have the music, and proof that you were there!).

How can any shows survive if it only takes ONE person to copy the show, and then millions of others can listen or see for free?

It can't, unless it adapts to another model. Right now there isn't a majority ?listen[ing] or see[ing] for free.? Right now, there really isn't an impact from a few thousand people downloading an episode for free (there are no more than a few thousand people per week for any given TV show- there isn't enough bandwidth to facilitate more). You have two typical cases, those who download because they don't have access at all (who either don't have cable and wouldn't have been able to view it in the first place, and who aren't cheating out the producer because they were never in the equation), and those who do have access but opt for the other medium for convience, and continue to contribute (by watching the TV ads, paying their cable bill, etc). And in any case, most people are truely desensitized to ads; remember how the media companies were complaining about the mute button and VCR (you could fast forward through the commercials) which ultimately had no impact on the industry? Was it because these methods of circumvention weren't used, or was it because the people were already sufficiently desensitized?

If I can pay my bandwidth bill and electricity, why can't I do what I want with it?

BTW, the reason Farscape was cancelled was because it costed a crapload of money to produce (like a million dollars an episode), not because it got bad ratings. It was one of the most popular scifi shows. Oh, and you know, I think the actors themselves said they would forego any annual payraises if they'd keep the show on, which is something to think about when you pity the poor deprived artist.

Perhaps you feel your individual actions have no net effect, but taken in concert with the growing throngs of individuals like yourself, it can have a powerful effect.

Hey, if you haven't been noticing here, we're in agreement. Right now the effect is non-existant, though. Most people, and I know this from experience; most people who download movies online do it for the whole, ?see it before anyone else does? feeling, but usually wind up going to the theater and seeing it (watching a movie off a camera which resides in someones lap isn't that great, you must realize), in this case, though, they might avoid the crappy movies, which in reality could have a positive impact on the movie industry, since this would compell them to make better, less generic movies. I think the numbers are greatly exaggerated, at least for the time being.

Provide some compelling evidence, and sure, I'll listen and might feel bad about doing these things, but at the momment there really isn't.

And yes, I have cable. And yes, I still watch(ed) Farscape on Friday nights. The quality on the download might be good, but nothing beats seeing the show on my TV.

Gibberish.

Currently not refuted gibberish.

Yet in this sense you are trading in a limited supply of a good which only one person can posses at any time.

It's a copy still, clark. Where is the line drawn? One copy? Two copies? Three? Four? What if I belong to a group of people who like music and we are all friends and share together? How big can that group be before sharing is ?immoral?? 10? 20? 30? And is it wrong to share with people you don't really know? Why?

With the internet, it becomes possible to have infinitie supply that ANY may posses.

Well, not infinite, the internet has a finite storage capacity. But this is an interesting point, and I'm not going to drag the topic off into another tangent, but what happens if physical resources become as plentiful? There's probably enough energy (we hardly use any energy from the sun at all).

It reduces the value of intellectual property becuase supply cannot be controlled, and ideas are infintie in capacity.

You hit the nail on the head, the reason demand restrictions have to exist in the first place. Without it, in a system with plentiful resources, everything would be ?worthless.?

clark · 2003-03-12 11:08:16

Because the cost of doing that [stealing the CD versus downloading the songs] is higher?

It seems you make a small quip, but the implications should be apparant: Rationalization of different behaviors with the same outcome. Nothing wrong with this, we rationalize murder by the state much the same way. However, can we legitmatly accept that there is a difference between these two behaviors?

They both result in the same thing, being that people who have worked to create something are not rewarded for their effort.

Odds are you're not going to get in trouble for downloading the new Aerosmith CD, so how can we legitimately say that ?oh no, you evil man, that's illegal!??

True, but the point I was making is that high cost for a luxary should not determine the morality of our behavior. "A CD costs too much, it is over priced, so therefore I am ALLOWED to download the music for free. It is the companies fault for not pricing it more reasonably."

Would you go to a car delearship and tell them that "they're cars are overpriced, so I'm just going to drive it off the lot."
It is effectively the same logic some have tried to rationalize downloading music or other media.

Sodomy (non-bestiality) in a lot of states is illegal. Does that make it immoral, wrong or an illegitimate practice?

No. But I fail to see the connection you are trying to imply.

How is copying my friends homework assignment any different from copying a friends music? What if the music itself was the homework assignment?

Come now Josh, you are capable of sophistry above this.

Copying your friends homework is immoral, its cheating, and is very different from coyping music they possess. If the music IS the homework, then it is simply cheating.

Computers have several copies of copyrighted things on them at any given momment, browser caches, temporary folders, heck, even in the memory and CPU cache there's a copy. Is it wrong to have those copies, or are we making exceptions because those copies are temporary?

When you invoke these issues, you are dodging the overall issue that we are discussing. Media stored on your computer temporarily, or just on that computer itself, is not wrong. In essence, you just "possess" the media, without actual ownership. It's similar to checking out a book from the library. You read the book, and then you return it for someone else to possess. At no time do you "own" the media, or the content. It resides on a single computer for personal enjoyment- not for mass distribution to all.

Right now, there really isn't an impact from a few thousand people downloading an episode for free (there are no more than a few thousand people per week for any given TV show- there isn't enough bandwidth to facilitate more).

Wrong. You asssume there are onyl a few thousand, but the reality is that there are millions upon millions who are part of P2P networks that share similar media. I also notice that shows sell DVD's of their episodes (like Farscape)- in essence, you are still undermining the artists who created that show becuase you are helping to distribute their media to others without compensating them for their effort. They lose money on DVD's, on cable subscriptions, on TV ad revenue, etc.

What if I belong to a group of people who like music and we are all friends and share together? How big can that group be before sharing is ?immoral?? 10? 20? 30? And is it wrong to share with people you don't really know? Why?

Nothing is wrong with any of this. I am not trying to villify this practice. However, I am looking to discuss the obvious and very real problems associated with mass P2P networks. I hear your reasons, and some make sense, others, well, they are weak or cheap.

Well, not infinite, the internet has a finite storage capacity. But this is an interesting point, and I'm not going to drag the topic off into another tangent, but what happens if physical resources become as plentiful?

If physical resources become as plentiful then we have a whole slew of new problems: primarily though, incentive.
We read that Singularity story, and what happened to the people when they lost incentive to do things? They either invented their own (read the child molestors) or they just quit.

But I agree, another topic for another thread.

You hit the nail on the head, the reason demand restrictions have to exist in the first place. Without it, in a system with plentiful resources, everything would be ?worthless.?

So, in the new age of Ideas, where Ideas are what power our progress, the pinnacle of progress only serves to undermine its own value?

Byron · 2003-03-12 13:36:05

This discussion has got me started on thinking of the fundamental problem of the modern economy...which could very well cause a great deal of hardship for the "first world" nations in the coming decades.

If all information is indeed "free", in that all one has to do is to click a mouse to access an infinate variety of music, movies, and other digitial information (and that day is coming, fast) what happens to the economics of the music and movie industries? What will the world be like without famous singers and movie stars? There will still be music and movies and TV shows of course, but who's going to invest millions on lavish productions and superstars when there is little hope of making that money back, let alone a decent profit?

If the "idea" of ideas is indeed made worthless due to universal and free access, will there be any new ideas coming forth on the scale that has gotten us to where we are today? If there are machines that can duplicate virtually any object one might need or want (like w/ nano technology), gone are the factories, stores and office buildings. Where will the jobs go?

By all means, I am not advocating the prohibition of p-2-p networks...to do so would mean that we would be living in a total police state. Imagine if the doctrine of "fair use" was taken from us at the behest of the record/movie/publishing industries - that would mean the end of free and public libraries, it would be illegal merely to pass a newspaper article to your friends, and the whole internet industry would collapse under the burden of information policing. What would the world be like if the exchange of information was severely limited and controlled, a la Big Brother? Computers as they are mostly used today would be rendered virtually useless.

It's sad to say, but this whole business of information sharing is likely to cause a great deal of pain no matter which road is taken. The one thing we can hope for, however, is that people will find a way to adapt to this new paradigm, and maintain a sense of "value" to the producers of intellectual (and eventually physical) property. Any ideas to how this could be done? I, for one, would love to hear 'em...

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-13 05:27:00

They both result in the same thing, being that people who have worked to create something are not rewarded for their effort.

Sure, I'll give you that, but one must show that the net result is negative. No one has been able to show that. You're not going to have that, at least not with file sharing, for awhile still.

"A CD costs too much, it is over priced, so therefore I am ALLOWED to download the music for free. It is the companies fault for not pricing it more reasonably."

No, you're not being fair with this generalization. A CD costs a lot, resides in a store which would intail me actually leaving my house and browsing through CDs to have a listen, often has songs I don't necessarily want, has a very limited capacity (a dozen or so songs)... the list could go on and on if we included individual annoyances and not the generic ones.

In the end it winds up being, ?It's the companies fault for not being better than the P2P services, using a huge variety of factors.? Yes, better. That's it. To hell with morality.

But, first things first, there isn't any evidence that a majority, or even a huge number of people are downloading files in place of current media. All the numbers are greatly, greatly exaggerated.

Show me wrong.

Would you go to a car delearship and tell them that "they're cars are overpriced, so I'm just going to drive it off the lot."

Ahh, the copyright stealing fallacy yet again. I think this came up before on these forums, because I swear, I heard that exact same scenario before.

If cars were copyable and I had my own resources or whatever, and I went to a car lot and copied a car, then your silly scenario would be remotely comparable. The inital ?work? involved in creating the car was extremely small on the scale of things, especially if that work can be copied over and over limitlessly.

No. But I fail to see the connection you are trying to imply [with regard to sodomy being illegal in some states].

Well, the connection wasn't direct. It was on the societal/law level. Copyright isn't like some natural law of the universe, like all laws it's invented by man. It's just that over time we can show that enforcing copyright can lead to less freedoms with very little benefits (especially since enforcing copyright is impossible).

Copying your friends homework is immoral, its cheating, and is very different from coyping music they possess. If the music IS the homework, then it is simply cheating.

No, no. Looks like we've gotten confused here (probably my fault) Not homework, the homework assignment. Teachers, before the end of class, usually hand out homework assigments, assigning a certain task to the students. If I was sick one day and my homework assignment was to define how I felt about a certain copyrighted music piece (which was also provided), I would need a copy so that I could listen (of course, we'll ignore that the teacher would probably make copies for all the students without paying a silly licensing fee or whatever, but this is just an example).

This may be sophistry to you, but I think it's just a prime example of how mere copying can be seen as a simple tool.

When you invoke these issues, you are dodging the overall issue that we are discussing.

A simple, ?yes, we make exceptions for temporary copies? would suffice.

Of course, that little idea brings about a whole new delimma. Is it okay for me to ?sample? things? Copying is wrong, but it's seemingly okay to copy if I just sample, and delete, right? I mean, temporary storage is just there for a little while and it's deleted.

Back when NES and SNES ROMs and emulators became popular, this was the ?legal? justification for using ROMs. If you downloaded a ROM and kept it for less than 24 hours, you were okay (another magical number, where does the 24 hours come from?). At least I'm not pretending, here. Or trying to justify something with fallacies. No, I'm being honest. There is no discernable impact from these actions.

Wrong. You asssume there are onyl a few thousand, but the reality is that there are millions upon millions who are part of P2P networks that share similar media.

clark, think for a second here. A single episode of Farscape is about 400MB. For a million people to download a single episode of Farscape in one week, would require 400 terabytes of bandwidth! I know from experience that the ammount of bittorrent seeders never exceed 30 or so, but let's play evil devils advocate and say that we have 300 seeders, and let's even exaggerate it some more (like the media industry likes to do), and say that they all send at something like 40k/s (twice my upbound speed). In one week, all these people could only send 7.2 terabytes. Not nearly enough to satasify those million people who need their hookup. Even using those highly exaggerated and ludicrous numbers, we could only distribute to a little over 18 thousand people. And this is assuming all nodes are up 100% of the time, and people are downloading 100% of the time (which, again, just shows how stupid the numbers are).

Okay, so, what was the point of all that? I know you're talking about P2P in general, and not specifically that example, but it does go to show you how many people can be hooked up with something. Smaller files like MP3s are easier to get, indeed, but that's still not the point.

I think you should try to explain why nothing bad happened to the media industry when the mute button was invented. Or because the VCR was invented, and so on. Heck, these days TV Guide provides you with VCR Plus codes, so that you can actually avoid the commercials. No need to fast forward through 'em, just ignore them!

Is it immoral to record a show you weren't able to watch at a given time? I record shows from national TV, I never watch the commercials. Am I immoral? Or is it only immoral when I couldn't have had access to that show (or luxury) in the first place? For instance, I don't have an antenna, but I borrow my neighbors.

Nothing is wrong with any of this. I am not trying to villify this practice.

You were suggesting that one or two copies is okay, but more than that is bad, I was just wondering where the line is drawn. I personally enjoy the latest artists who license their music under the open audio license. Now they are some radical thinkers, I tell you what.

I am looking to discuss the obvious and very real problems associated with mass P2P networks.

I accept that there could be problems. As a practice in formal logic, it's a no brainer. ?If everyone can get luxuries for free with little effort, they will.? But right now this is not the case, so any argument about the immorality of file sharing is pretty lame. There are what, hundreds of millions of people online, but only a fraction of that actually participate in file sharing.

We can sit here and discuss the immorality of certain practices related to file sharing in particular if you want. For example, some smaller universities (who aren't hooked up to Internet2) are paying some major bandwidth bills beacuse of it (lax security is to blame in some instances, of course, but we'll leave that alone). Certainly it's wrong, in this case, and there are legimit solutions to the issue, like caps and so on.

But I agree, another topic for another thread.

Agreed.

(But just so you know, you're wrong. :;):)

So, in the new age of Ideas, where Ideas are what power our progress, the pinnacle of progress only serves to undermine its own value?

Ahh, societal and economic progress, maybe. But since societies are better off not weighing the value of the society in monetary terms, but rather experiences within that society, it shouldn't matter. But again, the thread is digressing.

To bring it back on topic a bit; people give away lots of their own music for free. Does that mean their music is worthless? Or is ?worth? in this context just a monetary construct? That music means a lot to a lot of people...

clark · 2003-03-13 10:06:09

In the end it winds up being, ?It's the companies fault for not being better than the P2P services, using a huge variety of factors.? Yes, better. That's it. To hell with morality.

You have just commited the first act of rationaliztion of negative behavior towards another based on blaming them for your behavior.

The companies are innocent in this matter. They have a product they are trying to sell. You are an interested party in their product. You circumvent them, thereby denying them their just reward and rationalize their victimization as being caused by their own actions (or inaction in this case).

Many people have said the same thing about rape victims: "They had it coming", "they deserved it for wearing that", "it's their fault for walking alone".

"Those compaines deserve to lose money becuase they don't offer their products in an easily accessible manner similar to P2P."

So companies deserve to get ripped off?

The inital ?work? involved in creating the car was extremely small on the scale of things, especially if that work can be copied over and over limitlessly.

I'll tell you what we haven't mentioned here, effort. Yes, the car example is weak, and as you point out, if you wanted to put in the effort, you could do what you suggest, and it would be acceptable. Becuase of the effort involved.

This is not true for P2P media. There is NO effort for the vat majority of people. Point and click. Point and click. Almost no effort is expended- how exactly does a company compete with that?

This may be sophistry to you, but I think it's just a prime example of how mere copying can be seen as a simple tool.

Josh, let's drop this point- you are merely distracting the discussion by mentioning legitmate forms of use of copy-right material. That's not what we are disccusing. This thread is about the abuse of copy-right by P2P networks and the morality of sharing media you possess but do not own.

When you make a tape recording a friends CD, you own the tape, so you can legitmately share that tape with others. However, when all you have is th media, then you do not own anything, so how can you legitmately allow another to possess it?

I can't trade my friends car, even if I happen to be driving it that day. i posses the car, buit I do not own it. I could allow someone else to drive the car, but I couldn't give it to them.

clark, think for a second here. A single episode of Farscape is about 400MB. For a million people to download a single episode of Farscape in one week, would require 400 terabytes of bandwidth!

I will defer to your judgement here, but I would imagine that 400 terabytes isn't all that much- the internet is 24/7. Bandwidth is underutilized at the moment.

Let's say someone can dowload 1 gig a day- very easy, at least from my experience. 1 gig is the equivilent to 2.5 farscape episodes. 1000 people = 1 Terabyte. So, 400,000 people = 400 Terabytes.

Last time I looked at Kazaa, there was something like 4 million users. Even if a vast majority are on dial-up, you only need 10% of the P2P users to be high-bandwidth DSL. And this is just ONE P2P service. There are others, just as popular.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-13 10:43:38

The companies are innocent in this matter.

Hah, so wait, we embrace the free market or whatever, and we say that companies should adapt to fullfill demand, innovation, and the consumer and so on, but in this case we make an exception? In this case, when the consumer finds a better way to be provided a service, it's wrong of that consumer? It's not their fault the companies have failed to adapt!

They have a product they are trying to sell. You are an interested party in their product.

Well, no, I'm not getting the product they're selling. Sure, I'm getting the music, part of the product, but like I pointed out, I'm not getting all the other things. I'm getting the variety, the low cost, the convenience. They don't give me that, otherwise I would probably be interested in their product.

You circumvent them, thereby denying them their just reward and rationalize their victimization as being caused by their own actions (or inaction in this case).

Weren't the record companies which lost business when the tape mediums came out at fault for not adapting and accepting this new medium? This isn't victimization, this is the free market (pun intended, hah).

Many people have said the same thing about rape victims: "They had it coming", "they deserved it for wearing that", "it's their fault for walking alone".

Funny that that's how the business world works, huh? Wal-Mart comes to the mom and pops and offers to buy them out, they hold their ground and say no, but Wal-Mart builds on a plot of land further away, but still in direct competition. The mom and pop is completely out of business now. They deserved it, right? They had the opportunity to sell out but they didn't. They were stupid. They had it coming.

We're playing the exact same game they play! Muwha.

So companies deserve to get ripped off?

No damnit, but do the consumers? Does anyone? Do you really want this to turn into another one of Josh's utopian threads where everyone is nice to each other? Because it's being vaguely implied here by me, and I can't help it, because it's just so obvious.

Either both sides are at fault, or neither side is at fault. You can't have it one way or another when both sides play the game the same way. It's just a supply and demand scenario.

There is NO effort for the vat majority of people. Point and click. Point and click. Almost no effort is expended- how exactly does a company compete with that?

Are you crazy? My internet bill is $60 a month! My electric bill is $160 a month! Keeping my computer maintained is about $100 a year (I need parts ocassionally). Now, I might not be able to say how much of my electric bill goes into running my router, modem, monitor, and computer, but I can wager that a good bit of it does.

Sure, it may not be possible to compete with this, since I'm getting more than just the ablity to tun P2P services, and in the future it may not be possible for companies to compete with free sharing. But which would you have? Which is more immoral? A society where companies control the media, or a society where the people control it?

This thread is about the abuse of copy-right by P2P networks and the morality of sharing media you possess but do not own.

Yes, but I don't quite see where the line is where copying goes from being fine to being abusive. Ownership is a vague concept, especially in this context. When I buy a CD, what do I buy? The listening rights? Or the rights to the media itself? If it's the rights to the media, why can't I make a copy ofthat media and share that copy with a friend? If I can do that, why can't my friend make a copy and share it with their friend? Clearly you're suggesting that when I buy a CD I only have the right to listen to that CD, no more. It's my ?moral obligation? to not allow anyone access to a copyable form of that media. They can listen all they want, they just can't observe it with a copying device.

I could allow someone else to drive the car, but I couldn't give it to them.

Would you feel morally corrupt if you could copy that car, and gave someone a copy?

Let's say someone can dowload 1 gig a day- very easy, at least from my experience.

P2P is limited by the sending end, not the recieving end. Most connections have capped outbound speeds. The math I was using was based on a liberal capped outbound speed, using a very exaggerated number of people who were sharing files in a given time period (at least in the example I gave it was exaggerated). It would take ten times the number of seeders to reach the kinds of bandwidth you're talking about.

Last time I looked at Kazaa, there was something like 4 million users.

Yes, but look for any popular movie. You're limited to what, no more than 100 sources? Many of which only have outbound speeds of 1k/s or so. C'mon. The number of people existing in a P2P network is not a signifigant representation of how much stuff is actively being shared.

clark · 2003-03-14 09:25:24

In this case, when the consumer finds a better way to be provided a service, it's wrong of that consumer? It's not their fault the companies have failed to adapt!

A better way to be provided the same service? You mean stealing it with no repercussions to self? When you speak of "service being provided" you are masking the reality. There is no service being offered- it is a mass distribution scheme with no means of reimbursement to the primary copy-right holder.

When we hear that free music on the radio- the artist is being paid by the radio station. This is not true for P2P. There is no means, nor is there even an attempt, to reimburse the artist for their effort. No, the response is, "Well, I enjoy P2P, so let the artist figure out how to get paid." In other words, you are taking no responsibility for the repercussions of a behavior you enjoy. You like the conveniance of P2P- and you see no reason why you should change how you enjoy P2P networks. You feel that all the effort that must be expended must be done by business or the artists- "it's not your problem".

This is in effect the sum of your argument in your previous posts. Does this seem legitmate to you?

Sure, I'm getting the music, part of the product, but like I pointed out, I'm not getting all the other things. I'm getting the variety, the low cost, the convenience. They don't give me that, otherwise I would probably be interested in their product.

But the music IS the product! You have simply found a way to bypass the controlled distribution model that was designed, and evolved, to compensate and promote artists for their work.

Weren't the record companies which lost business when the tape mediums came out at fault for not adapting and accepting this new medium?

There is a difference between the two experiences- changing tape mediums is a matter of changing the delivery vehicle for the product- P2P undermines the entitire distribution and compensation structure.

A society where companies control the media, or a society where the people control it?

P2P dosen't allow the people to control the media- it allows NO ONE to control the media. If there is no measn to control the media, then it becomes nearly impossible to compensate others for their effort. You end up undermining the drive for people to create becuase you destroy the reward system that is used to encourage the behavior.

When I buy a CD, what do I buy? The listening rights? Or the rights to the media itself?

You are buying the right to view, use, and do whatever you wish with that media, whenever you want, as long as it does not infringe upon the copy-rights holder *inherent* right to be rewarded for their effort.

So you get the right to listen to the CD whenever you want- but not to make a billion copies to give to the planet (unless you have permission from the copy right holder) becuase that infringes on the copy-rights holders right to be compensated for their effort.
When is undermines the ability of the artists to be rewarded for effort, then it is wrong.

Josh Cryer · 2003-03-15 08:11:47

P2P is a mass distribution scheme with no means of reimbursement to the primary copy-right holder.

So I guess when sales of CDs went up during Napster's reign artists or copyright holders weren't getting paid, huh?

Yes, granted P2P doesn't reimburse the primary copyright holder directly, any positive effects to the copyright holder stem from true fandom, and not the generic consumer fad thing we have going on with all these new artists. Is this immoral, though? I'd rather call blind consumerism immoral, or at least, lacking anything resembling individual culture.

The response is, "Well, I enjoy P2P, so let the artist figure out how to get paid."

That's the general consumer mindset, clark. If we are to say that's wrong, then we have to say things like people chosing only Fords is wrong, too. ?Well, I enjoy Fords, so let GM or anyone else who isn't getting my business figure out how to get paid.?

Never, ever, have I heard this concept that the consumer should bend themselves for the producer. Consumers are always forced down a certain path because they have no other choice. They never chose the tough path because it's the ?moral thing to do.?

Let's make the converse of your argument and see how utterly stupid it sounds. ?Well, I dislike Ford Explorers that like to roll over and blow up randomly, so let me buy one anyway. The producer has absolutely no obligation to meet my needs, and even though my needs don't involve getting blown up in a Ford Explorer that decided to randomly rollover, it's my moral obligation.?

Is it immoral to dislike a distribution medium? Was it immoral of people who road the horseless carriages to stop riding horses, because that was putting the carriage people out of business?

Does this seem legitmate to you?

Does transition seem legit to me? I see no reason why not. I find the concept that the consumer should yeild to the producer nauseating, to be quite honest. And boring. I mean, how fun would things like, say, Linux be if the users were happy with what they had, and didn't provide input as to how things might better be?

This really does seem like the conservative position to take, here. If something better comes up, it's immoral to follow along.

You have simply found a way to bypass the controlled distribution model that was designed, and evolved, to compensate and promote artists for their work.

Yes, and the car industry found a way to bypass the controlled distribution that was designed, and evolved, to compensate and promote a whole industry of trained individuals from drivers, to blacksmiths, to from whips and reins, to spokes and wheels!

Those bastards!

There is a difference between the two experiences- changing tape mediums is a matter of changing the delivery vehicle for the product- P2P undermines the entitire distribution and compensation structure.

Yes, industries, over time, as technology advances, tend to undermine one another, we see that all the time as things develop. Going from 16 bit to 32 bit undermined memory companies, since they had to create modules with much larger address spaces. Going from ISA to PCI undermined all the technologies that were created in ISA, especially when motherboards threw away the ISA slot completely.

Does P2P, irrevocably, mean that artists can't get paid? Nope. As of now, there really is no issue here. P2P isn't big enough to have an impact. In the future maybe it would be more of a problem, but if the artists are smart enough to adapt, that is, move their income over to a more progressive system; you know, live shows other sorts of physical products and so on, they will be fine. (That is, until things start to become utopian, and people can copy physical stuff or whatever. Hah.)

Funny how P2P may lead to people going back to their roots, though.

P2P dosen't allow the people to control the media- it allows NO ONE to control the media.

Well, the clients control what they have, but yes, this is true to an extent. This isn't a bad thing, though. If anything, it's good. Humanity needs to get out of this cycle of controlling everyone.

If there is no measn to control the media, then it becomes nearly impossible to compensate others for their effort.

Sure, but controlling something like digital media was never really realistic in the first place. People just didn't think about the overall implications. Being unable to control a certain media doesn't mean you can't control, or still possess a certain product or service. Artists will just have to start doing things more personal than silly recordings in studios as the producer looks over your shoulder, telling the mix guy to put in certain fasionable special effects; which you, the artist, find degrading- isn't your voice good enough? Why can't you decide how it sounds?!

You end up undermining the drive for people to create becuase you destroy the reward system that is used to encourage the behavior.

There are more rewards to living and doing things than becoming rich. This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard, really. I mean, what drive is there for people to play golf, when other people get paid for it and they don't? The reward of playing golf has nothing to do with monetary gain. But I'm digressing.

The ?reward system? is still there, it's just that it doesn't reward crappy artists, who are only able to sell records because a record company sells this certain vision of them. And it doesn't reward people who sit in a cool studio for a couple of hours out of the week making a record, with a fanbase of MTV Teens who will probably never see them in a live show because there are only a few a year in only the big cities and the artist is notorious for cancelling.

Is that wrong?

You are buying the right to view, use, and do whatever you wish with that media, whenever you want, as long as it does not infringe upon the copy-rights holder *inherent* right to be rewarded for their effort.

Thank god this is wrong. Otherwise there would have never been any advancements which didn't inherently reward those in the industry who were unable to adapt when a sufficiently different technology came along. It would be a interesting world, where no one went out of business because someone created a competing product or service which was better, though. Can't say I'd enjoy it, though.

When is undermines the ability of the artists to be rewarded for effort, then it is wrong.

Agreed. So eventually maybe we're going to get back artists which actually have a pasion for their music. Artists who create themselves and are not created by some no good record company because it's extremely profitable.

falkor · 2005-02-16 18:14:16

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Downloading music</span>
CBC News Online | Updated June 30, 2004

In a unanimous 9-0 decision on June 30, 2004, the Supreme Count of Canada ruled that internet service providers are not responsible for paying royalties on music downloaded by users.

The court said although ISPs provide the hardware and technology, they are only "intermediaries" who are not responsible for what people download and are not bound by federal copyright legislation.

The decision is the latest legal blow to the music recording industry, which is trying to stop the unauthorized downloading of millions of songs over the internet. Musicians, composers and artists are not usually paid royalties when songs are downloaded to a computer over file-sharing networks.

Court rules ISPs don't have to identify music sharers

Federal Court of Canada Justice Konrad von Finckenstien's March 31, 2004, ruling on downloading music from the internet was seen as a major setback by the music industry and a victory by internet service providers.

The Canadian Recording Industry Association wanted a court order to identify 29 uploaders that CRIA claims illegally posted hundreds of songs on the internet. Finckenstein refused and without the names, CRIA cannot take legal action for damages.

"No evidence was presented that the alleged infringers either distributed or authorized the reproduction of sound recordings," von Finckenstein wrote in his 28-page ruling. "They merely placed personal copies into their shared directories which were accessible by other computer users via a P2P service."

The ruling stipulates that:
Downloading a song for personal use is not an infringement.

Placing a song in an on-line music-sharing directory such as Kazaa is not considered distribution.
The music industry claims the rising practice of sharing music on the internet is the reason CD sales are dropping. But a study released in March 2004 by Harvard Business School claims that swapping had no impact on sales.

Other surveys show the opposite result, claiming Internet sharing of music does hurt sales. The Harvard study claims that the people surveyed - who were file-swapping users - did not answer truthfully when asked if they buy copies of the music they download. The authors of the Harvard study got permission to track the files being downloaded and then tracked the U.S. sales of the same music and found that an increase in downloading didn't correlate with a decrease in sales.

In May 2004, the standing committee on Canadian heritage released its recommendations on strengthening copyright law. They include signing two World Intellectual Property Organization treaties that would:

Clarify the definition of distribution to include putting copyrighted material on a peer-to-peer file-sharing network. Allow music companies to use software to limit the number of copies that can be made from a recording. Make it illegal to sell software that cracks through the copy-protection coding.

The committee also asked for changes in the Copyright Act to make internet service providers (ISPs) subject to liability for copyrighted information.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/inter … sic.html]> last year's report from Canada here <

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>Is downloading copyrighted music tantamount to stealing?</span>
Lawrence Lessig, an expert on Internet law from Stanford University's Law School, and Matt Oppenheim, senior vice president of business and legal affairs for the Recording Industry Association of America, answer your questions about this heated debate]

A. Eric from Duluth, Minn. asks:

I ask this question from the standpoint of a musician. My question is: how much money will the artists receive from the alleged online 'pirates' whom the RIAA is prosecuting and suing for billions in damages?

How much of any money gained from lawsuits will go back to the original artists for the violation/theft of their copyrighted works? How are funds gained from settlements and/or lawsuits distributed among the record companies, the RIAA, and the musicians? Thank you for your time.

B. Brian Boyko from Allendale, N.J. asks:

The RIAA claims that Internet users who download free of charge deprive artists, producers and companies a major portion of their revenue, which, the RIAA claim, is having devastating effects on the industry. However, artists are being cheated out of their revenue -- royalties on sold CDs - by the record companies, not Internet downloaders. Please comment.

Lawrence Lessig from Stanford Law School responds to both questions:

The RIAA is the Recording Industry Association of America. It is not the Recording Industry and Artists Association of America. It says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.

Many, including I, doubt that the RIAA's actions actually benefit artists. They clearly benefit the relatively concentrated recording industry, which is fighting like hell to protect itself against new forms of competition. But there are many who believe that these new forms of competition -- if allowed to develop and mature -- would directly benefit artists.

Maybe not Madonna -- but it would certainly help the vast majority of artists who can barely scrape by under the existing system.

Matt Oppenheim from the Recording Industry Association of America responds:

A. When record companies file infringement suits, we frequently are trying to stop the piracy and deter others from engaging in that same form of piracy. Indeed, more often than not, our litigations are attempting to establish a legal precedent or make clear that we are prepared to sue music thieves if they do not stop. Unfortunately, the vast majority of music thieves that are sued are not well enough off to pay a large judgment that would cover the costs of enforcement and pay the copyright owners and artists for their losses.

In those instances in which there have been recoveries, such as the case against MP3.com, each individual record company pays their artists according to the individual contract that they have with the artist. There is no single industry rate or manner of dealing with this.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/june0 … ht6.html]> the Q + A session continues <

but what do YOU think? Do YOU download music off the internet? Or do you prefer to get your music from HMV?

Trebuchet · 2005-02-16 22:31:25

NECROMANCY! NECROMANCY! You revived this thread from the dead...

If I might hijack the dead topic, and steer it onto a slightly different course, imagine that nanomolecular assemblers are invented and perfected in ten years, and pretty much anything you want can be manufactured from the appropriate feedstock. What sort of piracy problems would this create for, say, General Motors if anybody with a pile of old parts can magically turn them into a copy of a brand new Chevrolet, with the design for the assemblers to follow downloaded by P2P onto a DVD? Or would all those factories just be obsolete, and GM should change from worrying about an army of factories to just designing cars?

I'm no socialist, and, in fact, I'm a pro-business Republican. But I really think that capitalist economics (any traditional economics) is going to start breaking down simply because production will become progressively more automated, distributed, and cheap. IMHO the music industry is just the first one to get run down by that steamroller - the music industry's sole purpose in the economy is to take music created by artists and then distribute it to its consumers. That entire reason for existing has basically been vaporized by technology, although what relationship will develop between music creators and consumers to replace it is unknown and at this stage unformed. It won't be P2P, because that doesn't reward content creators, but it sure as heck won't be the traditional model.

Rxke · 2005-02-17 01:37:32

this necromancy had me puzzled for a sec, heehee. i clicked the thread, started reading, then went: "wow, Soph is back, woohoo!," before i noticed the date...

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-17 06:30:56

I'm no socialist, and, in fact, I'm a pro-business Republican. But I really think that capitalist economics (any traditional economics) is going to start breaking down simply because production will become progressively more automated, distributed, and cheap.

The model will change certainly, but not break down. If everyone has a fab machine it needs data to work from, you want to make car parts you need CAD models for it to work from. Someone has to design that. For example, the company I work for has an engineering department and a machine shop on site, if it suddenly became possible to "print" parts the shop guys would get pink slips before lunch, the engineering staff would continue to labor under the sickly glow of flourescent lights like nothing had changed. Well, except that we wouldn't have to wait months to find out someone screwed up.

Then assuming you could make your own Corvette parts, how many people would actually know how to assemble them?

Intellectual property rights will be the foundation, and whatever the music/film industry comes up with will set precedent. Large and complex manufactured goods will still be handled much the same way though their production will be much simpler. Even in the case of simple items, mugs or forks for example, mass-produced goods will still likely dominate over home-fabbed items due to cheaper per-unit costs. A set of Wal-Mart dishes will still be cheaper than making your own because they'll have big mass-fabbing machines that you can't afford.

Increased automation leading to increased productivity, following recent trends rather than breaking from them.

Trebuchet · 2005-02-17 18:18:08

Then assuming you could make your own Corvette parts, how many people would actually know how to assemble them?

I was actually thinking of a larger fab unit that builds the unit complete and ready to go (just add gas), probably.

Even in the case of simple items, mugs or forks for example, mass-produced goods will still likely dominate over home-fabbed items due to cheaper per-unit costs. A set of Wal-Mart dishes will still be cheaper than making your own because they'll have big mass-fabbing machines that you can't afford

I completely disagree here. The reason isn't that Wal-Mart couldn't produce items less expensively, but that the margin would probably be lower than the cost of the gas to drive there and back - and, also, most of the 'small stuff' would be impulse-buy (impulse-build?) stuff or to fill an immediate need. If you drop a glass on the floor (whoops) you wouldn't drive out to Wal-Mart to replace the thing, you'd simply flip on the fab and spit out a new one.

I believe that you conceptually can't make the leap to a society where manufacturing is so distributed, automated, and cheap. Right now, there is a serious barrier to entry for designing a car. You have to go through lots of engineering school, get a degree, get hired by a car manufacturer, and work like a slave in a cube farm, etc. The car design must meet a reasonably broad slice of the car-driving population, because of the fixed costs involved in building a car, to ensure a reasonable profit margin.

Now, imagine the nanofab society: the barrier to entry is going to be almost completely gone. All you need is a copy of CAD and DOT rules on what the car must contain, and an idea for a car. You will have a much larger segment than you think build the cars even if they have to assemble them - look at the percentage of kit airplanes built - and if larger nanofabs that can build the whole unit are included, the 'normal' car companies are going to have to radically reinvent themselves, because you will have loads of auto lovers who will distribute their own plans for free or some nominal charge. Their main payment will be the idea that people are actually driving their vehicle.

Capitalism, as traditionally construed, requires specialization, and specialization requires barriers to entry. The barriers are starting to disintegrate, and I expect that process to continue into the future.

Cobra Commander · 2005-02-17 22:20:43

If you drop a glass on the floor (whoops) you wouldn't drive out to Wal-Mart to replace the thing, you'd simply flip on the fab and spit out a new one.

But you might if you needed a whole set of glasses. If you need one copy of a five sheet document you print it yourself, if you need one hundred copies it's cheaper to have Kinkos do it. The same applies here.

Now, imagine the nanofab society: the barrier to entry is going to be almost completely gone. All you need is a copy of CAD and DOT rules on what the car must contain, and an idea for a car. You will have a much larger segment than you think build the cars even if they have to assemble them - look at the percentage of kit airplanes built - and if larger nanofabs that can build the whole unit are included, the 'normal' car companies are going to have to radically reinvent themselves, because you will have loads of auto lovers who will distribute their own plans for free or some nominal charge. Their main payment will be the idea that people are actually driving their vehicle.

Only to a point. If people could load data and fab an entire car, ready to drive you'd be completely right, but a machine that makes parts (which we have to a degree already) is very different from one that makes complex machines comprising multiple materials fully assembled.

Most people buy a car, they don't want a hobby out of it. The average Cadillac owner isn't going to build their own. There's one way the car companies can still make money, charge for design, parts and assembly; it would have to be much cheaper than current prices but plenty of people will pay it because they just don't want to assemble their own transmission on their livingroom floor. People pay to have their oil changed, they will pay for assembly.

But we may be talking about very different technologies here. I'm referring to essentially 3D printers, a technology that already exists in some forms and isn't all that different from a CNC machine for practical purposes, just cheaper and cleaner to operate. But if we're talking about nanobot uber-fabbers that rebuild on a molecular level and work in an essentially magical fashion then anything goes and you're absolutely right.

Trebuchet · 2005-02-17 22:40:40

But we may be talking about very different technologies here. I'm referring to essentially 3D printers, a technology that already exists in some forms and isn't all that different from a CNC machine for practical purposes, just cheaper and cleaner to operate. But if we're talking about nanobot uber-fabbers that rebuild on a molecular level and work in an essentially magical fashion then anything goes and you're absolutely right.

Actually, those 3-D printers might amaze you after a few generations of technology; I wouldn't be surprised if large units capable of printing the majority of the car as a single unit show up reasonably soon.

As for magical uber-fabbers, I expect them to come around sometime during my lifetime. Hey, if nothing else, they'll make getting to space easier. ("Hello, police... I'd like to register a complaint against my neighbor... yeah, he's fabbing missiles or something in his backyard.") :laugh:

Euler · 2005-02-17 23:17:43

I think that magical uber-fabbers are still a long way away. However, with our transition into an information economy, we are already seeing threats to the traditional capitalist models. The simple fact is that it is not very efficient to try to buy and sell packets of information, as the marginal cost of the information is essentially zero. It would be much more efficient if all information were free and open-source, but that runs into another major problem: there needs to be a way for the people who created the information to be compensated. One way to solve this would be for people to give donations for information they find useful, but it seems doubtful that people would be altruistic enough for this system to work well. Another option would be for the government to employ people who create the information, but that does not seem like an optimal solution either. Can anyone think up a good solution to this problem?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-03-10 10:29:45

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#2 2003-03-10 13:24:56

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#3 2003-03-10 13:44:38

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#4 2003-03-10 16:09:35

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#5 2003-03-10 16:54:04

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#6 2003-03-10 17:07:48

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#7 2003-03-10 22:23:40

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#8 2003-03-11 06:07:55

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#9 2003-03-11 10:26:52

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#10 2003-03-12 04:11:12

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#11 2003-03-12 11:08:16

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#12 2003-03-12 13:36:05

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#13 2003-03-13 05:27:00

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#14 2003-03-13 10:06:09

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#15 2003-03-13 10:43:38

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#16 2003-03-14 09:25:24

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#17 2003-03-15 08:11:47

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#18 2005-02-16 18:14:16

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#19 2005-02-16 22:31:25

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#20 2005-02-17 01:37:32

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#21 2005-02-17 06:30:56

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#22 2005-02-17 18:18:08

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#23 2005-02-17 22:20:43

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#24 2005-02-17 22:40:40

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

#25 2005-02-17 23:17:43

Re: Everyday morality - Filesharing?

Board footer