Quote:
Originally Posted by dzagama
While we're posting examples, here's one that I deleted.
- What if j2x is asked to create a blueprint of a house for a customer.
- He spends 20 hours and charges the customer $100 for the blueprints.
- Satisfied customer uses prints to build house and emails a copy to a friend also interested in constructing a house.
- Interested friend, also satisfied with the blueprints, forgoes j2x's services, and builds house using emailed copy of blueprints.
--
Should j2x have any recourse, or should the laws be purely on the consumer's side?
------------------------------------------
Under your position, is software like Pirates of the Amazon morally acceptable?
(It places a one-click torrent button right under the Purchase button on Amazon pages for CDs and DVDs)
Will all people download the torrent, then come back and Purchase a slightly different MP3 from Amazon after 'sampling' the content? |
what's with your avatar? i thought you were obama.... very confused.
my model is based on artist's intent. so j2x would sign a contract before beginning work. if the builder he gives the blueprint to violates the contract, they are liable for breaking said contract. If he has a 9-5 job drawing up blueprints for a firm then the firm owns the content he produces and it's their responsibility and content to protect.
if he sends his work over to china, he knows it will be used without compensation and he accepts the risk of releasing his content in that way.
pirates of the amazon is really innovative, but in my model it has no increased/decreased moral value. it's simply a means of organizing information differently, the same torrents are available with or without it. it's really just slightly easier than having two tabs open, one with amazon and one with the pirate bay.
the question of satisfaction is a weird one, i know people that could listen to a song off a tin radio and not be able to tell the difference between the same song on a $300,000 sound system, and other people who are only satisfied with vinyl. the vast majority are satisfied with mp3's which sound like shit to me.
an mp3 is not in ANY way close to the quality of the master recording and the experience of listening to one is not in any way comparable to being at a live performance no matter how sophisticated your stereo is. just as a print of georges seurat's - a sunday afternoon on the island of la grande jatte is not in any way comparable to standing in front of the original.
i don't think capitalism is conducive to art, i think it hurts it. some of the best art was produced at a time when it was commissioned.
shakespear
mozart
van gogh
etc etc.
or when done for the love of art like
banksy
YouTube - banksy
in my opinion an artist selling copies of their work is pathetic. and as it pertains to music if you're satisfied just listening to the music you don't care about the art.
art is about conveying an abstract notion, you should understand what the artist is about and the subtleties of what they're saying through their art.
that understanding and connection has an impact on the listener who then wants to support the artist. i think capitalism and greed of record labels has skewed and dictated the use of technology, and i think now that it's free for artists to distribute their work record labels are merely one road to distribution, and the artist has to make a choice:
- do i release the mp3 of my song on the radio, they'll pay me but people will make copies and distribute it on and off the web
- do i release the wav of my song on cd, or the mp3 through itunes/amazon, i'll make a bunch of money but people will make copies and distribute it on and off the web.
- do i release my music online for free and ask people to decide on the price which the reality is, people do anyway, except now when the consumer decides it's worth $0.99 the artist actually gets that 99c, and people will still make copies and distribute it on and off the web.
- do i sign up with a record label who will take my copyrights and most of my royalties for the price of covering the cost of distribution and advertising.
the law should ideally protect the rights of people. people cannot retain rights over the intangible, there should be no copyright laws. when you want to protect the intangible you must create a contract that clearly stipulates and outlines the intangible entity being protected and both parties must agree and honour that contract.
this is the world as i see it, organizations like the riaa are having a knee jerk reaction and attempting to override the rights of people in an attempt to maintain their control and continue to exploit something as fragile as art, and something as stoned as the artist.
this fear campaign is part of that knee jerk reaction to the currently legal and illegal emerging use of technology that threatens cutting out their middle-man-ness and rendering them obsolete. ie: itunes, amazon, pandora, itunes genius, torrents, websites, social media.
the purpose of this thread was to post your itunes collection as a way of telling that maniacal organization to fuck off. to make a farce of their litigation tactics. they just lost a case where they sued someone for illegal downloading and the defence didn't even own a computer at the time of the aligations.
the amount i 'owe' the riaa was calculated including podcasts, my own recordings, scott sigler style audiobooks, sxsw, cc licenced material, etc. as well because those are all dollars that would have 10 years ago gone to record labels, and publishing companies. which i think is just as big a fuck you as the digital copies of music i have that would have been illegal to download in the states. where the riaa defines copyright law via lobbying great sums of money in everyone's direction earned by sueing old ladies who settle out of court out of fear.
if we're all against the riaa, why aren't more people posting their fuck you to the riaa.