NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this is my second proposal I am making. Comment on it are welcome. It is currently located near the end of the list, because it is fairly new. All support is also welcome. The proposal is as follows:

Significance: Significant Category: Free Trade
PREAMBLE: This resolution is to remove all copyrights from music, so that they can be shared freely. Music has been shared freely for many years before our time, dating back to pre-history. In more modern times, music has been restricted from free trade by copyright laws. This has limited people from hearing they music the desire.

POINT 1: All music will be submitted to a huge database that will allow everyone to download the music from there.

POINT 2: The musicians will still make money, despite the fact that they will not be selling albums. All profits for musicians shall come from contributions, concerts, the government, and from advertising and movies. This will allow them to make the same amount of money as always, and also keep the public happy and allow them have the songs for free.

POINT 3: With free music, the public will be more motivated and have more money to spend on other things. Thus, this will create a win-win scenario that will stimulate the economy.

CONCLUSION: This resolution is essential for the body of UN nations. It will help all of our nations become more productive, moralized, and utilize time more efficiently.

We see no reason why music should be any different from any other copyrighted material.

Agreed. I'm puzzled as to why this issue keeps popping up when its international standing is dubious and there are so very many more pressing problems the UN should be attending to.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Legal Affairs

Our National Musicians Union doubts that they will earn the same amount of money when a source of income falls away.

Furthermore, the NMU rejects the idea that the ownership of a piece of music is no longer recognised when copyrights are removed. They consider it only fair that they are recognised as the creator and therefor have the right to decide what happens to their music.

The PRoGG government agrees and therefor does not support this resolution. It is up to the individual artist how much they charge for their music and in what way they charge that.

Regards,

UN ambassador of the PRoGG.

i think that it's a great idea...too many beginning artists cannot get there music out there because of problems with getting agents. you can't an agent without getting something out there..but you can't get something out there without an agent......it just keeps going in circles round and round. the only problem that i can see that you will have problems with record execs and agents who are suddenly out jobs....but they can prolly find something else somewhere

The Republic of G Bugles finds despicable the notion that the creator of a work should not retain the right to distribute it as he pleases, under whatever terms he chooses.

The way we see it... unless you want corporate messages in all of your music... you're going to have to pay for it (or just ignore the law). Musicians are professionals who need to earn a living like everyone else. The only feasable way of making music free is to put commercials in the various songs .... so the musicians would get corporate sponsorship for their work. I would hate that personally..... so they may charge whatever the market allows.

The Republic of G Bugles finds despicable any attempt to deny musicians the right to control the distribution of their creative works.

The Republic of G Bugles finds despicable any attempt to deny musicians the right to control the distribution of their creative works.

The Republic of G Bugles finds despicable any attempt to deny musicians the right to control the distribution of their creative works.

The Republic of G Bugles finds despicable any attempt to deny musicians the right to control the distribution of their creative works.

The Republic of G Bugles finds despicable any attempt to deny musicians the right to control the distribution of their creative works.

what sets music apart from everything else???
Engleville supports the banning of all copyright.
What gives an author immediate rights to restrict those who wish to use what they make?
Copyright law was made in the first place to encourage creative works, while trading off freedoms of the consumers.
I feel this is unnecessary in many areas.

Also copyrights can be a very big burden with software. Much more than with music. If all developers were required to release source code and license all buyers with the right to modify it and distribute patches.

but i think any such proposal would not make it very far.
perhaps we should restrict copyrights a bit
or stop the power of patents in software.
software is already covered under copyrights, plus it is much different than what patents were designed for.

and @Gbugules: stop spamming
and where do you get the idea that musicians have an inalienable right to deny freedoms of others?

SUMMARY: It is stupid to remove copyrights from just music. It is highly unlikely that complete repeal of all copyright law will happen anytime soon in the UN (but i would favor it). I do definetely think that some lines should be drawn (such as when copyrights expire, or what patents can be apply) and do have a chance of passing.

The Free Land of Tueber supports the fundamental right to property and will never support any communo-collectivist resolution that seeks to strip that right away.

Tueber urges all freedom-loving nations of the world to stand firm against this assault on liberty and send this proposal back to the poisonous ruin that it slithered up from.

I like the idea of a free database for the public to download as much as they want- but I think banning music copyrights is a little too much, plus we have to guarantee the artists will actually get paid. If the government pays the artist a specified amount every time one of their songs gets downloaded then this system would work. Otherwise, it's doomed.

what sets music apart from everything else???
Engleville supports the banning of all copyright.
What gives an author immediate rights to restrict those who wish to use what they make?
The fact that he created it, for one.

but i think any such proposal would not make it very far.
perhaps we should restrict copyrights a bit
Why? Because you like slavery?

and @Gbugules: stop spamming
I wasn't.
and where do you get the idea that musicians have an inalienable right to deny freedoms of others?

They don't. But there is no such thing as "the freedom to expropriate what belongs to another".

If the government pays the artist a specified amount every time one of their songs gets downloaded then this system would work. Otherwise, it's doomed.

It's doomed. Governments have better things to spend their budgets on than mp3s for the masses.

i think that it's a great idea...too many beginning artists cannot get there music out there because of problems with getting agents. you can't an agent without getting something out there..but you can't get something out there without an agent......it just keeps going in circles round and round.

Might I ask what that has to do with copyrights? Yeah. Nothing. Sorry, but I don't see the relevance.

If the government pays the artist a specified amount every time one of their songs gets downloaded then this system would work. Otherwise, it's doomed.

That's not a bad idea and it does have some merit, but unfortunately leaves the paychecks of artists in the hands of the government, which is a bit more control over media than I think the state should have. And, of course, the minor detail that consumers would then still be paying for music -- regardless of whether or how much of it they listen to -- in the form of taxes.

What gives an author immediate rights to restrict those who wish to use what they make?

Does not an author have the right to profit from their work? If you say no, you're going to find a rather sudden lack of authors in your nation.

Copyright law was made in the first place to encourage creative works, while trading off freedoms of the consumers.

Poor consumers, having to pay money for things. The seller sets the price -- if I don't like the price someone is charging for their car, why does that give me the apparent right to just whack them over the head and steal it? That seems to be the logical conclusion of your argument. If people charge too much, you simply don't buy. That's an important part of how the market works.

So our government should pay musicians to write music for people, and then just assume that people will enjoy their free music? Right. And while we're at it, lets give everyone in every country a form and title it "Better Ways To Waste Your Money."

So our government should pay musicians to write music for people, and then just assume that people will enjoy their free music? Right. And while we're at it, lets give everyone in every country a form and title it "Better Ways To Waste Your Money."

As much as I disagree with the idea, nearly deliberate misunderstanding of the plan isn't conducive to debate. He indicated that artists would be paid on a per-download basis.

If the government pays the artist a specified amount every time one of their songs gets downloaded then this system would work. Otherwise, it's doomed.

That's not a bad idea and it does have some merit, but unfortunately leaves the paychecks of artists in the hands of the government, which is a bit more control over media than I think the state should have. And, of course, the minor detail that consumers would then still be paying for music -- regardless of whether or how much of it they listen to -- in the form of taxes.

True- a government may be hesitant of paying an artist who vehemently rebels against them. However, the scope of downloading has increased to such a point where it's impossible to defeat, and governments do need to realize that. Perhaps instead of having the governments pay for it the UN will. Or set up a private corporation that will handle those fees. Our government is looking into setting something like this up, because of how popular and prevalent downloading has become.

Don't we already have a resolution on the books about copyrights? :?

Yes, Collaboration... but this doesn't directly contradict that resolution. At least, not from my reading.

However, as this proposal offends reason and makes the Baby Jesus cry, Gethamane will not be approving it.

Essentially, this would make achievement in the music industry meaningless. What would prevent people from downloading a song, altering it, and resubmitting it to the database. Every time it gets downloaded, they get paid. Not only would this occur in individual nations, but due to the UCPL Resolution, it would happen in every nation.

It also fails to take into account Gethamane's musicians who own their work, but don't get paid for it due to a stunning absense of public currency. How would their pride get reimbursed?

Yes, Collaboration... but this doesn't directly contradict that resolution. At least, not from my reading.

it does when I read it....the idea of removing copyrights would appear to go against the need to create a global copyright.....

okay here's a favorite example of mine supporting my radical ideas:
say i make a sandwich, right? well then someone coimes along and steals it. i can be considered losing property because i need to make another sandwich in order to sell it to someone else.
say i write a piece of software. someone illegally copies it. i don't need to make another piece of software in order to sell it so someone else.

i know this iisn't perfect, but it at least shows why i dislike the use of the term "stealing" to describe copyright violation.
(i also dislike "piracy" because it compares the violent attack and pillage of a ship with harmlessly copying something)

i'm not totally crazy though. i beleive people who break fair copyright law for profit or try to decieve people into thinking something is an authorized copy when it isn't.

oh yeah and about my restrictions on copyright.
by that i mean laws that require copyright protection in everything or outlaw publishing the way a copyright protection method works


i would recomend reading free software free society by RMS. you can download it from a bunch of places (legally) or buy it from GNU Press (which supports free (aka open source) software development)
oh yeah don't let the title fool you. it's about all kinds of so called IP-laws

say i write a piece of software. someone illegally copies it. i don't need to make another piece of software in order to sell it so someone else.

Say I write a book. I'm about to sell it to a publishing company. Another guy copies my book and sells it to the same publisher before I do, and for a lower price at that. I lose my contract with the company and get a total of $0 for my endless months of hard work. In your version of the world, this is apparently perfectly okay and could not in any way be considered theft.

People have the right to profit from their efforts if they so choose and others are willing to pay them. That is the purpose of copyright law.

i am saying copyright law is near-unnecessary
that way the other guy wouldn't get paid either
and also i am just saying (in that example) that copyright violation cannot be considered theft (i personnally think the use of stealing and theft is the result of subliminal propoganda from the mainstream media, but i can't prove that)
but if some guy did that today, he is doing something that i would find ummm immoral

i am saying copyright law is near-unnecessary
that way the other guy wouldn't get paid either
and also i am just saying (in that example) that copyright violation cannot be considered theft (i personnally think the use of stealing and theft is the result of subliminal propoganda from the mainstream media, but i can't prove that)
but if some guy did that today, he is doing something that i would find ummm immoral

So you never worked in a creative field I assume ?

We consider copyrights a necessary recognition of creative integrity. We assume it to end at its creator's death, however.

I think artists should be protected from having their works bastardised by someone else. Imagine if you wrote a book, only to have someone come along and keep it almost identical but give all the characters obscene names and change the ending to something meaningless, then had it published. Copyright is important insomuch as it allows artists creative control over what they create.

It's down to the economic model of each nation. Sure, selling data that is easily copied seems nonsensical to the less capitalistic of nations; imagine if you had to pay for each site you viewed on the internet. However, this is an aspect that is best applied to each nation internally, since the economic models therein will have different restraints; in a capitalist nation, it only really works to have an artist earn money per sale / per use of their work.

Any unauthorised reproduction or distribution of a creative work (regardless of media) outside the bounds of reasonable use will be deemed illegal by the Commonwealth of Pablovorsk regardless of the success of this proposal. The Commonwealth regards the suggestion that free, or nearly-free, distribution of music through the internet (other medium) should be funded by the government and not be a free and fair market as a broadly mistaken endeavour for the following reasons.

1: Any original porduct created by an authority is regarded as the property of that authority. The proposed resolution would undermine this, and needs to outline why eligable authorities should waive their property rights in this instance, when they should not be expected to in other instances (such as the use of architectural plans, home renovations, or the like).

2: It is extremely unreasonable to expect producing authorities to produce work for a potentially lower rate, open to uncontrolled distribution, while there are market economies extant in the world. A market economy is driven by the transactions of product. Until such time as the market economy ceases to exist, it would be unfair to expect a certain class of producing authorities to waive their entitlement to profit from their original product in such markets.

3: The involvement of a regulatory, or funding, government authority in all areas of productive enterprise runs against the principles of democratic society. Undue influence, or the appearance of undue influence, will exist on producing authorities from the funding governmental agencies. This may limit the scope of original expression, and may impinge upon the principles of free speech, underlying democratic government.

The Commonwealth of Pablovorsk does not support this proposed resolution in any shape or form for these above reasons, but would be interested to hear other proposals addressing the problems of unauthorised distribution of copyrighted material.

So you never worked in a creative field I assume ?
yes i have
open source software developer (there IS such a thing as a paid OSS developer, but i'm not one of them. i don't even have a formal job.)

open source software is proof that at least one field needs no copyright law

and i am agianst the "freedom" of authors/artists to take rights of "consumers"
if they don't want people to copy it, noone is making them release it

ok yeah my views are radical, and an "intellectual property" free world is not coming anytime soon (unless i become dictator of much more than just engleville), but i think that definetely some things must be stopped. especially stuff that impedes privacy in the name of copyright protection

His Holiness the Governor-General seeks to give voice to his objections.

The first object His Holiness would raise is simple. This issue strikes at the very heart and core of sovereignty. It has no place within the United Nations.

His Holiness next questions if the respected envoy from The Federation of Seewoknip even sought the input from his own artist population. The Federation of Seewoknip is a capitalist nation, yet this proposed legislation is entirely socialist. Such a contradiction certainly may not go unnoticed.

[signed]
The Bishop Fred al-Rubei of The Directorate of Foreign Relations of The Dominion of North East Cathanistan

"Hello, my name is President Herschel, and I would like to say I completely agree with this resolution. In fact, I think we must take it a step further! Screw all copywriting! If you want to apply it to music, why not apply to anything else? That way, every artist in the world can starve and we will be left with only the good g-dfearing unimaginative accountants.

there is good legally free music out there
like dmusic

open source software is proof that at least one field needs no copyright law

Two points against that. First, the market share, so to speak, of open source software is still quite, quite, quite tiny and insignificant compared to other software. Second, open source programs are still copyrighted and are protected under copyright law -- I can't repackage and rename Mozilla and start advertising to sell it at a profit for myself because the Mozilla Organization would sue me if I did so.

You seem to misunderstand the purposes of copyright law. People do have a right to profit from their labor if they so desire and if people are willing to pay them for it. None of your rhetoric can change that.

and i am agianst the "freedom" of authors/artists to take rights of "consumers"

What right or rights, exactly, have consumers lost to copyright law? Is not the right to control one's own property an obvious right? Your ideas appear quite dualistic to me -- as I understand it, in your skewed view of the world, the model plane I built the other day would be my property, but the 400 page book I wrote would not be. Why?

if they don't want people to copy it, noone is making them release it

You said yourself that you don't think it's a crime to take intellectual property without consent; are you now reversing your opinion to support copyrights? Would you say the same to a car factory owner? "If you don't want people to steal your cars, no one is making you build them."

especially stuff that impedes privacy in the name of copyright protection

"Stuff," eh?

there is good legally free music out there
like dmusic

I've never heard of it, but I'll take your word for it. A good many quality products are given away for free; I'm using Mozilla and Winamp right now, just to name the obvious. However, I'm not convinced that this point is relevant; if an author wishes to distribute his or her product free of charge, that is their decision to make. Consumers do not set the price of goods.

Two points against that. First, the market share, so to speak, of open source software is still quite, quite, quite tiny and insignificant compared to other software. Second, open source programs are still copyrighted and are protected under copyright law -- I can't repackage and rename Mozilla and start advertising to sell it at a profit for myself because the Mozilla Organization would sue me if I did so.
just cause most ppl don't realize how great open source software is, doesn't mean that average joe can't use it. look at germany. i recently read a story aboytut a library system in maryland. what about my GRANDMOTHER? just cause most ppl are ignorant of it doesn't mean it's the best thing EVER.

and your other point is a MAJOR misconception. a really really big one and unfortunately extremely common. i'll point you to the official Open Source Definition (http://opensource.org/docs/definition.php) and also the Free Software Definition (http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html)
(stricter (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html)).
summarry of why you are gravely wrong (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html)
yes much of it is copyrighted (all of it is except public domain stuff)
but for example:
i don't release my stuff public domain because i don't want people to make modifications and not make their changes open source.
that is the purpose of the copyleft (GPL) (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html), to use copyright law against being copyrighted under a restrictive licesnse

okay so the MPL (http://opensource.org/licenses/mozilla1.1.php) is a bit different than the GPL (it's not fully compatible either), but it seems to me you can still sell stuff
mozilla is one of the few programs that use it anyway



You seem to misunderstand the purposes of copyright law. People do have a right to profit from their labor if they so desire and if people are willing to pay them for it. None of your rhetoric can change that.
where does this "right" come from then
What right or rights, exactly, have consumers lost to copyright law? Is not the right to control one's own property an obvious right? Your ideas appear quite dualistic to me -- as I understand it, in your skewed view of the world, the model plane I built the other day would be my property, but the 400 page book I wrote would not be. Why?
i am questioning the definition of "property"
yes i know i am a bit radical
part of the difference to me is that if someone steals your plane, you will have to do all of that work all over again in order to sell one to someone else.
if someone illegall copies your book, it will not be any extra work on your part to sell another legal copy to someone else.
You said yourself that you don't think it's a crime to take intellectual property without consent; are you now reversing your opinion to support copyrights? Would you say the same to a car factory owner? "If you don't want people to steal your cars, no one is making you build them."
i disagree with the use of the word steal to mean illegally copy'
it's just not the same IMO
"Stuff," eh?
just about anything from my good friend BillyG in redmond, WA
among other things
I've never heard of it, but I'll take your word for it. A good many quality products are given away for free; I'm using Mozilla and Winamp right now, just to name the obvious. However, I'm not convinced that this point is relevant; if an author wishes to distribute his or her product free of charge, that is their decision to make. Consumers do not set the price of goods.
i was mostly saying that in respnse to the popular view of "w/o copyright there will be no more music/software/etc"
consumers do have a say in a way on price of goods. if i try to sell a banana for $10, noone will buy it so in order for me to be profitable i would need to lower my pricing

TO CLOSE, read this http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html
so yeah i am an RMS fan. maybe i'm a bit biased because a ton of the software i am using is made by his organization.

please keep responding....i enjoy discussing stuff like this....leads me to questioning my views (if i never questioned my views i'd still be in love with microsoft). when i first read the guy's book i was thinking "wow this guy is crazy." but it's making more and more sense. i don't completely agree with him on everything though.

ban on music copyright should not be implemented as there are countless chances someone out there could profit from their actions of alteration and/or unauthorised distribution of the creation without the owner's consent, also the fact that someone could copy and alter the music to make it sound like something bad against society, and instead of the copyright-breaching person copping complaints about the content and material, the original owner would get all the crap on them instead and not have a clue on what the bloody hell has happened.

If copyright was out of the way, it would also be like this scenario as an example: (note: S1 is the owner of the song, O1 is the outsider person who is to breach the copyright when seen realistically):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S1: ey mate! i just wrote and recorded a song thats already on CD, wanna copy it?

O1: sure!

S1: wanna also alter it to ways that you wont have to tell me of such actions?

O1: yeah thatll be easy mate!

S1: wanna make a larger profit than i would using the original? maybe say i earn 10 dollars per CD sold for my original copy and you receive about 80 dollars for your version?

O1: cool mate, and i can steal your contract off you and make you go broke AND out of business from your band, sure mate, not a problem!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
see how pathetic it is?

basically as for I being the Emperor of Zortroth, i take no notice of this resolution as it would bring nothing but stupidity and needless complaints.


Tytrox Throx
2000th Generation Emperor
Imperial Empire of Zortroth
Commander General Zortrothian Army

Everyone should be entitled to the fruits of his or her labor. If that means making a chair, then the maker gets paid a fair price. Intellectual property is more difficult to control and track, but the result should be the same. The creator should reap the profits.

just cause most ppl don't realize how great open source software is, doesn't mean that average joe can't use it. look at germany. i recently read a story aboytut a library system in maryland. what about my GRANDMOTHER? just cause most ppl are ignorant of it doesn't mean it's the best thing EVER.

Yes, open source programs can have good results. That doesn't mean they have to be the only playing field or that you have to destroy some of the rights of authors.

and your other point is a MAJOR misconception. a really really big one and unfortunately extremely common. i'll point you to the official Open Source Definition and also the Free Software Definition
(stricter).
summarry of why you are gravely wrong
yes much of it is copyrighted (all of it is except public domain stuff)
but for example:
i don't release my stuff public domain because i don't want people to make modifications and not make their changes open source.
that is the purpose of the copyleft (GPL), to use copyright law against being copyrighted under a restrictive licesnse

I think you misunderstood my point, although, admittedly, I didn't exactly phrase it correctly. The GNU license is protected under copyright law in that software distributed under it can only be re-distributed under it. A company which charges money for GNU software cannot stop another company from distributing that software, be it for free or at some price -- when a company attempts to become the sole provider of GNU software, they may be sued under copyright law. Nor can an author of GNU software use copyrighted material of non-GNU origin in their work without the consent of the original author. So GNU licensing, as great as it can be, is both subject to and protected by copyright law.

I also have the impression that software authors who produce under GNU have to release their source code, but I'm prepared to be incorrect on that point; it's not central to my point, anyway.

You seem to misunderstand the purposes of copyright law. People do have a right to profit from their labor if they so desire and if people are willing to pay them for it. None of your rhetoric can change that.where does this "right" come from then

Ah, that's right. Slavery is good, holy, and, in fact, could be considered the paragon of morality. I forgot. Why should people be paid for their labor? It really would solve all of society's problems if no one was paid for anything and the only thing that determined your success or failure was how big of a stick you could carry.

What right or rights, exactly, have consumers lost to copyright law? Is not the right to control one's own property an obvious right? Your ideas appear quite dualistic to me -- as I understand it, in your skewed view of the world, the model plane I built the other day would be my property, but the 400 page book I wrote would not be. Why?i am questioning the definition of "property"
yes i know i am a bit radical
part of the difference to me is that if someone steals your plane, you will have to do all of that work all over again in order to sell one to someone else.
if someone illegall copies your book, it will not be any extra work on your part to sell another legal copy to someone else.

Let me repeat, first: What right or rights, exactly, have consumers lost to copyright law?

Right. So, now, let's take a look at another scenario. Suppose I have my plane and the first-draft and second-draft writings of my book, which I will redraft and edit further in anticipation of submitting it for publishing. If someone steals my plane, I have obviously lost both property (the plane) and labor (the work to assemble the plane). If someone steals the one copy of drafts and leaves the other, I have obviously lost both property (the paper) and labor (the work to write the drafts); if the thief then submits the story to a publisher in my name and is rewarded, say, $10,000 for my work, you apparently think that he need only compensate me for the theft of my paper, costing him perhaps $10 at most. Copyright law protects my right as an author to profit from the sale of my intellectual property.

Economically speaking, eliminating the gain of authoring information is a very effective way to halt the authoring of said information. If the income from selling a particular information is shared equally between five firms and the cost of developing that information for sale is paid for by only one of those firms, the firm which produced the information is at an inherent and unavoidable disadvantage -- not only are its costs of operation necessarily higher than those of the other firms, the other firms may charge a lower price and gain market share. Eliminating incentive for an action will always reduce the number of firms willing to engage in that action. I think it can be agreed that greatly reducing the incentives for innovation is probably not the best idea.

i disagree with the use of the word steal to mean illegally copy'
it's just not the same IMO

So, the illegal taking of property without right or permission is no longer to be considered "theft" or "stealing." Authors do not own their labor; consumers do. Would you rather I compare it to slavery? A bit extreme. In all fairness, I think you take "steal" to mean something more along the lines of actually carrying someone's TV right out of their living room.

"Stuff," eh?

just about anything from my good friend BillyG in redmond, WA
among other things

Debate is always easier without a need for specifics. That said, particular companies have done some unsavory things with copyright laws. There are two defenses there, the first being the option of consumers to avoid those products which have excessive limitations placed on them. This defense is inadequate for some situations, usually in cases where the author has long been the sole or near-sole provider of a particular category of good (as with Microsoft in the case of home-user computer operating systems), because the consumer is, in some ways, forced to agree to any terms the authoring firm stipulates. Such cases could be considered a monopoly, and while there are certainly cases where monopolies are desirable, most monopolies ultimately fall under the second line of defense: government regulation to protect the interests of consumers.

All that said, some abuses of copyright law don't necessarily scrap the whole idea, even if they do call for adjustment.

consumers do have a say in a way on price of goods. if i try to sell a banana for $10, noone will buy it so in order for me to be profitable i would need to lower my pricing

Yes, so you've got some understanding of market economics, but apparently you missed the part where it is generally considered to be the producer's prerogative to set the price, just as it is the choice of the consumer whether or not to purchase a good at that price; while the two choices can and regularly do influence each other, they are seperate choices.

i enjoy discussing stuff like this....leads me to questioning my views (if i never questioned my views i'd still be in love with microsoft).

Agreed. I always think one important sign of intellectual maturity is the willingness to solicit other views. Obviously, I don't agree with you, but you've put thought into your views and are willing to stand up for them. Kudos.

Being in a band myself, I would hate for that to happen. We treasure our songs, and without Copyrights, our songs could easily be stolen.

EngleVille said "i am agianst the freedom of authors/artists to take rights of consumers"

when the HELL was it the consumers' right to steal the hard work of someone else, and to therefore take away thier livelyhood?

I know that once I get some of my music published (I'm going to be a composer), that I am going to want some money for my work. I don't want only one copy to be purchased, and I get the few penies, and then have that person make copies and give them all out. I work hard on the music I write, and hope to one day make a living of it, and I don't intend for it to be passed around for free. I want as many people as possible to enjoy it, yes, but I need to feed my kids somehow.

Also, mp3s were brought up. Do you realize how much it costs to get a song professoinally recorded?

Let's make an under-estimation of 10 studio workers, and 30 bucks an hour (these are very modest estimates).

One song usually takes 1 1/2 12 hour days. 480 bucks for the studio staff.

The musician also has an expensive agent.

The equipment and building have to be payed for. The building probably cost about 300+ thousand, and the equipment about 200,000 per recording studio.

This cost has to be passed along to someone: the musician.

The musician can probably expect to pay about 5 or 6 thousand a song, at the least. (notice: this is in reference to the high quality recordings of professional musicians)

Let's guess 10 songs a CD.

That's an easy 60,000 dollars.

But let's think of millions of songs (each worth 6 thousand dollars) on the internet for download. That's BILLIONS of dollars that the government then has to get for the artists. Depending on the size of the country (which the bigger the country, the more artists), each citizen would have to pay somewhere between 500 and 1000 dollars for this, if not more.

I don't spend that much on music each year, no matter how many more drum sticks, or guitar strings, or even guitars I buy added together PLUS the music I buy to listen to.

It's not a good idea at all.

Also, my numbers were quick estimations, so please just see the big picture, and NOT just the numbers. In the long term, such a stupid plan would cost me a whole lot of money.

Also, just remember that the artists are't the only ones in the industry.

There are also the studio musicians, and studio workers, and the studio janators, and the concet security workers, and sound workers, etc...

You're just going to hurt your economy this way.

Whenever people are no longer payed for something they were once payed for, it's bad for the economy. Duh.

well i'm not exactly FOR having the gvt run the so called "music industry"
but your example has some flaws
agent for instance, wouldn't be necessary if gvt works face to face w/ artists
also no RIAA or filthy rich recording company execs would need to be involved
and as far as the staff for actually doing the recording, if the gvt ran a central consolidated location for all of this i would think it could be at least a bit more efficient

so bottom line, if it became 100% gvt run, i think it would be far more efficient money-wise. but i personally don't think the gvt really needs to get involved there, although in communist countries i wouldn't be suprised if something along those lines were to happen.

also musicians have one form of income unique to them: concerts. people pay to see concerts today and i don't see why they wouldn't even without any copyright law whatsoever.

@Santin: i'll have a response for you in about 24 hours or so

well i'm not exactly FOR having the gvt run the so called "music industry"
...
so bottom line, if it became 100% gvt run, i think it would be far more efficient money-wise.


Wow...

also musicians have one form of income unique to them: concerts. people pay to see concerts today and i don't see why they wouldn't even without any copyright law whatsoever.


Why do we say "concert" and assume the problem magically goes away. I have PLENTY of CDs of bands that I'll probably never go to see live. I might not like the other bands that they're playing with. Maybe I don't like them live as much. Maybe I'm antisocial, and would rather sit around in my room all day downloading copyrighted music.

Do I need to mention how expensive concerts can be?

The pro sound engineers at the concerts are the freakin' best in the world. That's expensive. From a reasonably small concert I've seen, there were no less that 8 sound workers. There's also the guys who are in the band, and the other band, and any other employees they have, such as agents, or managers, or set up/tear down crews, or security, or merchandise salespeople, or drivers(if the band is big enough), etc.

Then the place they're playing wants it's cut.

Musicians make the majority of their money from CDs, such as those they sell at their concerts.

How about we stop trying to justify our illegal activities to try to make ourselves feel good, and start making responsible decisions, because if we're mature enough to debate, then we should be mature enough to know that people deserve pay for their work.

@aeolian: yeah i no there's a discrepency in what i said. (my fault, wasn't clear enough) i am mostly capitalistic, which is why i don't think the government should do that stuff. i'm just saying that on paper, it sounds more efficient to me. i'm not an economicist.

sry santin, i haven't had much time to just think recently. my school ends earlier than most and the last weeks are hardest. so i kinda forgot. i'll be back though, don't worry.

Musicians make the majority of their money from CDs, such as those they sell at their concerts.
u sure?

and yes i know concerts are expensive, but it is still a non-copyrighted way to make money.

How about we stop trying to justify our illegal activities to try to make ourselves feel good,
in my eyes, illegal activity needs no justification (of course there are many many illegal things that i definetely beleive are wrong, like murder and lots of other stuff). the law definetely has an influence on my decisions. it can present a different perspective for me to think about on certian issues. also, even beyond that the threat of prosecution from doing something that i think is OK can deter me.
what needs justification is laws. there's stuff that i strongly disagree with in law that has nothing to do with copyright (capital punishment for instance. innocent people have been killed. massive killers who serve life in jail have turned away from their evil ways. and it's also very hypocritical.)

distant connection to "innocent until proven guilty here." until someone convinces me that copyright law is really necessary, those who violate it are innocent.


ok i'm sure someone can find a flaw in what i jsut said cause i'm kind of in a rush.

Not to pile on, but...


Musicians make the majority of their money from CDs, such as those they sell at their concerts.
u sure?

and yes i know concerts are expensive, but it is still a non-copyrighted way to make money.

You think so? Try taking a tape recorder into a concert...

in my eyes, illegal activity needs no justification (of course there are many many illegal things that i definetely beleive are wrong, like murder and lots of other stuff).

Wrong, but require no justification? Wow...

there's stuff that i strongly disagree with in law that has nothing to do with copyright (capital punishment for instance. innocent people have been killed. massive killers who serve life in jail have turned away from their evil ways. and it's also very hypocritical.)

Irrelevant.

distant connection to "innocent until proven guilty here." until someone convinces me that copyright law is really necessary, those who violate it are innocent.

Er... burden of proof is on you in this case, I'm afraid. Also, you seem to be solidly dead-set against Copyright Law, despite excellent arguements by Aeolian. This looks more like you're closing your eyes and covering your ears, calling out "I can't hear you!"

Furthermore, your views that the law isn't "necessary", does not negate said law. This is sounding more and more of ethical relitavism. That, or the desperate protestations of someone with a massive collection of illegally downloaded movies and music who is trying to mitigate their guilt.

So this is what the UN does with all its dead horses. Hey, wait a minute, why are you beating them over and over and over again?