[gtbuba[_2_]]

I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston $675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

[Steve King]

"gtbuba" wrote in message
...
I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston $675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what I remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free and want to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

[hank alrich]

Steve King wrote:

"gtbuba" wrote in message
...
I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston $675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what I remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free and want to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

I am privileged to have to pay for most of my food. Same for many other
aspects of life support, some necessary at the fundamental level, and
some optional.

There is nothing as inedible as a downloaded tomato.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in ):

Steve wrote:

wrote in message
...
I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston $675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled
upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what I
remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free and want
to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jenn wrote:
In ,
Les wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in ):

Steve wrote:

wrote in message
...
I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston $675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled
upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what I
remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free and want
to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.



I am sure you don't!

--
Les Cargill

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In ,
Les wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in ):

Steve wrote:

wrote in message
..
.
I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston $675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled
upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what I
remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free and
want
to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.



I am sure you don't!

OK.....?

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

hank alrich wrote:
Les wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

I am privileged to have to pay for most of my food. Same for many other
aspects of life support, some necessary at the fundamental level, and
some optional.

There is nothing as inedible as a downloaded tomato.



Copyright is still an explicit legal privilege, in exactly
the same sense as royal land grant was an explicit legal
privilege.

Food is a rival good. That means the stealing of it deprives the owner
of something. There's a clear tort. The historical more-setting for
having stealing a tomato be wrong is older and better
established.

I don't think downloading is *right*, but I don't
think it's particularly theft, either. it's something
else. My niggle is still with the word "theft".

My problem is when they put somebody in jail for
copyright. I don't care for the government, which
represents me, to do that.

I'd make 'em do 30 days karaoke myself... *bad*
karaoke...

--
Les Cargill

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

hank alrich wrote:
Les wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

I am privileged to have to pay for most of my food. Same for many other
aspects of life support, some necessary at the fundamental level, and
some optional.

There is nothing as inedible as a downloaded tomato.



Copyright is still an explicit legal privilege, in exactly
the same sense as royal land grant was an explicit legal
privilege.

Food is a rival good. That means the stealing of it deprives the owner
of something. There's a clear tort. The historical more-setting for
having stealing a tomato be wrong is older and better
established.

I don't think downloading is *right*, but I don't
think it's particularly theft, either. it's something
else. My niggle is still with the word "theft".

We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
permission.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[PStamler]

You want a word with different connotation from "theft"? How about
"exploitation"? As in "giving away the fruit of someone else's labor
without compensation is exploitation."

Peace,
Paul

[david gourley[_2_]]

Jenn said...news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
:

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In ,
Les wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in ):

Steve wrote:

wrote in message
news:f4e2c027-c4db-4a6e-8e3e-7ba5f80c2705
@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com..
.
I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston
$675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's
gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled
upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme
court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what
I
remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free
and
want
to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about
thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.



I am sure you don't!

OK.....?


Honestly, I did not understand it either !

david

[Trevor]

"PStamler" wrote in message
...
You want a word with different connotation from "theft"? How about
"exploitation"? As in "giving away the fruit of someone else's labor
without compensation is exploitation."

That's more like it. Sort of similar to how some companies exploited many of
the artists then?

Trevor.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
david gourley wrote:

Jenn said...news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
:

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In ,
Les wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in ):

Steve wrote:

wrote in message
news:f4e2c027-c4db-4a6e-8e3e-7ba5f80c2705
@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com..
.
I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston
$675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's
gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled
upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme
court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what
I
remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free
and
want
to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about
thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.



I am sure you don't!

OK.....?


Honestly, I did not understand it either !

david

Cool insult though, huh?

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Les Cargill wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In 00,
david wrote:

said...news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
:

In ,
Les wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In ,
Les wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in ):

Steve wrote:

wrote in message
news:f4e2c027-c4db-4a6e-8e3e-7ba5f80c2705
@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com..
.
I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston
$675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's
gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled
upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme
court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what
I
remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free
and
want
to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about
thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.



I am sure you don't!

OK.....?


Honestly, I did not understand it either !

david

Cool insult though, huh?



Nah, wasn't an insult. I've just noticed that people who derive
income from the arts tend to have certain biases. No offense
intended. if it was my rice bowl, I might be the same way.

--
Les Cargill

Thanks for that, Les. But yes, I have a bias: being paid for my work.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jenn wrote:
In 00,
david wrote:

said...news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
:

In ,
Les wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In ,
Les wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in ):

Steve wrote:

wrote in message
news:f4e2c027-c4db-4a6e-8e3e-7ba5f80c2705
@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com..
.
I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston
$675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's
gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled
upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme
court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what
I
remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free
and
want
to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about
thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.



I am sure you don't!

OK.....?


Honestly, I did not understand it either !

david

Cool insult though, huh?



Nah, wasn't an insult. I've just noticed that people who derive
income from the arts tend to have certain biases. No offense
intended. if it was my rice bowl, I might be the same way.

--
Les Cargill

[Don Y]

Hi Jennifer,

On 5/22/2012 3:57 PM, Jenn wrote:

We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
permission.

IMO, the problem (with all IP -- not just copyright) is the
term (time) involved. And, how it has been systematically
manipulated by "owners" with deep pockets (e.g., a certain
round-eared mouse).

Nowhere has this *hurt* the public (IMO) more than with patent
protection on *software* (in a field where everything changes
at 18 *month* intervals, why give an invention 17 *years* of
"protected monopoly"??) Consider, patents were originally of
shorter term (14 years) in an economy where an individual's
lifetime and the time required to *fabricate* that "anything"
was considerably *longer* (relatively speaking).

Note that these monopolies (whether from copyright or patent)
haven't really benefitted the "public" but, rather, have
helped keep prices inflated. Witness how the price of
generic drugs drops precipitously once the ethical
(name brand) version goes off patent. Or, how a $4 LP in
the late 70's became a $15 CD 15 years later -- despite the
fact that the production, shipping and warranty costs
dropped significantly in that same period.

It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
"middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/

[gtbuba[_2_]]

On May 22, 8:46*pm, Don Y wrote:
Hi Jennifer,

On 5/22/2012 3:57 PM, Jenn wrote:

We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
tomato. *If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
permission.

IMO, the problem (with all IP -- not just copyright) is the
term (time) involved. *And, how it has been systematically
manipulated by "owners" with deep pockets (e.g., a certain
round-eared mouse).

Nowhere has this *hurt* the public (IMO) more than with patent
protection on *software* (in a field where everything changes
at 18 *month* intervals, why give an invention 17 *years* of
"protected monopoly"??) *Consider, patents were originally of
shorter term (14 years) in an economy where an individual's
lifetime and the time required to *fabricate* that "anything"
was considerably *longer* (relatively speaking).

Note that these monopolies (whether from copyright or patent)
haven't really benefitted the "public" but, rather, have
helped keep prices inflated. *Witness how the price of
generic drugs drops precipitously once the ethical
(name brand) version goes off patent. *Or, how a $4 LP in
the late 70's became a $15 CD 15 years later -- despite the
fact that the production, shipping and warranty costs
dropped significantly in that same period.

It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
"middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
time justifying their roles in the future economy *:-/

I don't understand why they didn't do it sooner. Of course it's
impossible to predict what the file sharing was going to do to this
business. I remember in the 1980's and the DAT came out and the
record companies were worried about someone with a Dat could make
perfect copies bootleg cd's. Ended up the Dat never sold in the
consumer market, but we engineers used it to mix to. GT.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article , Don Y
wrote:

Hi Jennifer,

On 5/22/2012 3:57 PM, Jenn wrote:

We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
permission.

IMO, the problem (with all IP -- not just copyright) is the
term (time) involved. And, how it has been systematically
manipulated by "owners" with deep pockets (e.g., a certain
round-eared mouse).

Nowhere has this *hurt* the public (IMO) more than with patent
protection on *software* (in a field where everything changes
at 18 *month* intervals, why give an invention 17 *years* of
"protected monopoly"??) Consider, patents were originally of
shorter term (14 years) in an economy where an individual's
lifetime and the time required to *fabricate* that "anything"
was considerably *longer* (relatively speaking).

I don't understand this. Am I to cease getting paid for my work once a
certain time has passed?


Note that these monopolies (whether from copyright or patent)
haven't really benefitted the "public" but, rather, have
helped keep prices inflated. Witness how the price of
generic drugs drops precipitously once the ethical
(name brand) version goes off patent. Or, how a $4 LP in
the late 70's became a $15 CD 15 years later -- despite the
fact that the production, shipping and warranty costs
dropped significantly in that same period.

Seems like a case of demand determining price.


It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
"middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/

OK, you're entitled. I just want my work to be given away without my
permission. You probably feel the same way.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jenn wrote:
In ,
Les wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In 00,
david wrote:

said...news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
:

In ,
Les wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In ,
Les wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in ):

Steve wrote:

wrote in message
news:f4e2c027-c4db-4a6e-8e3e-7ba5f80c2705
@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com..
.
I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston
$675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man that's
gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court ruled
upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The supreme
court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's what
I
remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free
and
want
to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about
thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.



I am sure you don't!

OK.....?


Honestly, I did not understand it either !

david

Cool insult though, huh?



Nah, wasn't an insult. I've just noticed that people who derive
income from the arts tend to have certain biases. No offense
intended. if it was my rice bowl, I might be the same way.

--
Les Cargill

Thanks for that, Les. But yes, I have a bias: being paid for my work.


Get the money up front


but it remains something that you and a randomly chosen person
could remain perfectly divided about for all time. It's
One of Those.

--
Les Cargill

[MarkK]

regarding the word "theft"

From a __legal__ definition point of view, "copyright infringment' is NOT
the same as "theft"

You can decide your own personal __moral__ defintion.

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

"Copyright infringement is often associated with the terms piracy and theft.
Although piracy connotes brazen high-seas robbery and kidnapping, it has a
long history of use as a synonym for certain acts which were later codified
as types of copyright infringement. Theft is more strongly hyperbolic,
emphasizing or exaggerating the perceived harm of infringement to copyright
holders who choose to utilize their copyrights for profit; it connotes a
kind of loss which infringement may not actually effect, and the U.S.
Supreme Court has even ruled that infringement does not "easily" equate with
theft.["

Mark

[PStamler]

On May 22, 7:15*pm, "Trevor" wrote:
"PStamler" wrote in message

...

You want a word with different connotation from "theft"? How about
"exploitation"? As in "giving away the fruit of someone else's labor
without compensation is exploitation."

That's more like it. Sort of similar to how some companies exploited many of
the artists then?

Yes, very similar. The techniques are different but the result is the
same.

Peace,
Paul

[PStamler]

Er, make that "fixed by STATUTE".

Peace,
Paul

[Mxsmanic]

Don Y writes:

IMO, the problem (with all IP -- not just copyright) is the
term (time) involved. And, how it has been systematically
manipulated by "owners" with deep pockets (e.g., a certain
round-eared mouse).

Agreed. That's the real problem with copyright today.

Originally copyright was just fourteen years. Long enough for the creator of a
work to make some money with it, but not a bottomless pit of revenue for his
life and the lives of his descendants. After fourteen years, he had to create
something new if he wanted to continue making money. Which is reasonable,
since a house painter or an accountant only makes money for the work when he
does it, not for a lifetime thereafter.

But corporate interests have changed that. Copyright would be perpetual today
if it weren't for the fact that the U.S. Constitution says that it must be for
"a limited time." Unfortunately, the Constitution didn't put any upper limit
on that limited time, and it keeps getting extended.

It's fair to let an artist profit from his work for fourteen years. It's not
fair to give him or his assigns a free ride for his lifetime, plus the
lifetimes of his descendants. Nobody else gets to work once and profit
forever, why should artists be allowed to?

Nowhere has this *hurt* the public (IMO) more than with patent
protection on *software* (in a field where everything changes
at 18 *month* intervals, why give an invention 17 *years* of
"protected monopoly"??) Consider, patents were originally of
shorter term (14 years) in an economy where an individual's
lifetime and the time required to *fabricate* that "anything"
was considerably *longer* (relatively speaking).

At least patents expire in 17 years. That's ten times faster than copyrights.

However, software patents are a perversion of the whole notion of patents. So
are genetic patents.

Note that these monopolies (whether from copyright or patent)
haven't really benefitted the "public" but, rather, have
helped keep prices inflated.

They don't even benefit inventors or artists in many cases. The patents and
copyrights end up being held by corporations, and benefit shareholders who
have never done anything more in life than buy a few shares of stock.

The abuse of musicians is particularly flagrant, but others are abused as
well.

It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
"middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/

The middlemen are making all the money. A copyright doesn't bring anything to
an artist who is dead, but it remains in force.

[Mxsmanic]

Jenn writes:

I don't understand this. Am I to cease getting paid for my work once a
certain time has passed?

Yes, and you're still getting a very generous deal.

Most people cease getting paid as soon as their work is finished. Artists can
continue to get paid for a lifetime after working just once. So it's best not
to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Seems like a case of demand determining price.

The demand for CDs has dropped dramatically.

OK, you're entitled. I just want my work to be given away without my
permission.

For a limited time. Not forever.

[Mxsmanic]

Les Cargill writes:

Nah, wasn't an insult. I've just noticed that people who derive
income from the arts tend to have certain biases. No offense
intended. if it was my rice bowl, I might be the same way.

Anyone who can work once and get paid forever is going to cling mightily to
the legislation that permits it.

[Mxsmanic]

Jenn writes:

Thanks for that, Les. But yes, I have a bias: being paid for my work.

Would you accept paying a monthly fee to keep your car, instead of buying it
once?

[Mike Rivers]

On 5/23/2012 5:15 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:

Would you accept paying a monthly fee to keep your car, instead of buying it
once?

Ever hear of people leasing cars?

--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[William Sommerwerck]

Originally copyright was just fourteen years. Long enough for the creator
of a
work to make some money with it, but not a bottomless pit of revenue for
his
life and the lives of his descendants. After fourteen years, he had to
create
something new if he wanted to continue making money. Which is reasonable,
since a house painter or an accountant only makes money for the work when
he
does it, not for a lifetime thereafter.

I think you're confusing copyrights with patents.

It used to be that copyrights had to be RENEWED every 14 years. This is why
many motion pictures -- including "It's a Wonderful Life" -- fell into
public domain, because they weren't renewed. Currently, copyrights do not
have to be renewed. They extend at least 50 years after the creator's death
and can be willed to third parties.

This essentially "unlimited" copyright violates the Consitution's
specification of "a limited time".

[Steve King]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Jenn wrote:
In ,
Les wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In 00,
david wrote:


said...news:jennconductsREMOVETHIS-
:

In ,
Les wrote:

Jenn wrote:
In ,
Les wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote
(in ):

Steve wrote:

wrote in message
news:f4e2c027-c4db-4a6e-8e3e-7ba5f80c2705
@w10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com..
.
I heard today that The RIAA sued a college student in Boston
$675,000
for illegally download and sharing 30 songs. ........Man
that's
gonna
leave a mark. Do you think this will save the recording
industry?
That's $22500.00 per song. I hope they were good tunes.

The suit has been going on for a long time. A higher court
ruled
upholding
the lower court's ruling and imposition of the fine. The
supreme
court
refused without comment to hear the appeal. At least that's
what
I
remember
from the radio news report I heard today. So, you want it free
and
want
to
pass it around to your friends? Maybe not such a good idea.

Steve KIng

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking
about
thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available
for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.


Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

Sorry, I don't understand your statement.



I am sure you don't!

OK.....?


Honestly, I did not understand it either !

david

Cool insult though, huh?



Nah, wasn't an insult. I've just noticed that people who derive
income from the arts tend to have certain biases. No offense
intended. if it was my rice bowl, I might be the same way.

--
Les Cargill

Thanks for that, Les. But yes, I have a bias: being paid for my work.


Get the money up front


but it remains something that you and a randomly chosen person
could remain perfectly divided about for all time. It's
One of Those.

--
Les Cargill

Hey everybody. I've written a song. It's a mega-hit, and will be played on
the radio for a hundred years. Millions of people will want to download it
without paying. So, everybody send me a dollar. When I get a million
bucks, I'll let you hear it. Post here if you want my mailing address, and
I'll send it right along.

Steve King

[Mxsmanic]

William Sommerwerck writes:

It used to be that copyrights had to be RENEWED every 14 years.

The original copyright term was fourteen years, renewable once, not
indefinitely.

This essentially "unlimited" copyright violates the Consitution's
specification of "a limited time".

It still expires ... eventually.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

I think the question is for how long should an artist's work be protectd
from theft, exploitation, or whatever you want to call it?

Fourteen years is plenty. How many people in other professions can work once,
then earn money for nothing for fourteen years?

If he needs more money, he should write another song.

Exactly.

[Mxsmanic]

mcp6453 writes:

Patents and copyrights are personal property, like microphones. Since I like
collecting microphones, what's a reasonable time for someone to be able to own a
microphone?

Copyright, as the name implies controls the right to copy something, not the
right to take it.

John McBride has some really nice microphones. If it's okay to limit the amount
of time we can own private property, I need to move closer to Blackbird Studios
so that I can be the first in line when he's owned his U47s long enough.

Owning a microphone doesn't prevent others from building or owning identical
or similar microphones.

All joking aside, it seems to me that the argument is being made that copyrights
and patents should not be personal property. Under the law, they are considered
to be private property. I seriously doubt that anyone here is advocating that
private property should be taken from its owner after an arbitrary period of time.

Nobody is advocating that. Expiration of copyright just allows people to make
copies.

[Mxsmanic]

Mike Rivers writes:

Ever hear of people leasing cars?

Ever heard of people being forbidden to have a car because somebody else has
already built one?

[Steve Hawkins[_2_]]

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Mike Rivers writes:

Ever hear of people leasing cars?

Ever heard of people being forbidden to have a car because somebody
else has already built one?

Who is being forbidden access to music?

Steve Hawkins

[Mxsmanic]

Steve Hawkins writes:

Who is being forbidden access to music?

Anyone who doesn't have a license.

[Ron Capik[_3_]]

On 5/23/2012 6:28 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
Ty Ford wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 18:52:03 -0400, Les Cargill wrote
(in ):

hank alrich wrote:
Les wrote:

Ty Ford wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:54:06 -0400, hank alrich wrote

It's easy to see the "thirty songs" and think we're talking about
thirty
units. What's actually in play is making thirty songs available for
others to download by the millions.

Theft by any other name is still theft.

Privilege by any other name is still privilege.

I am privileged to have to pay for most of my food. Same for many other
aspects of life support, some necessary at the fundamental level, and
some optional.

There is nothing as inedible as a downloaded tomato.


Copyright is still an explicit legal privilege, in exactly
the same sense as royal land grant was an explicit legal
privilege.

Food is a rival good. That means the stealing of it deprives the owner
of something. There's a clear tort. The historical more-setting for
having stealing a tomato be wrong is older and better
established.

I don't think downloading is *right*, but I don't
think it's particularly theft, either. it's something
else. My niggle is still with the word "theft".

My problem is when they put somebody in jail for
copyright. I don't care for the government, which
represents me, to do that.

I'd make 'em do 30 days karaoke myself... *bad*
karaoke...

--
Les Cargill


Tell you what Les,
**** the government (as they have truly ****ed many of us)

That is because they work for us, and we're idiots.

But keep the government and the spirit of the law separate.

*Somebody is going to jail over this*. I still
have a problem with that, regardless of how you slice it.
It's out of proportion, but it's called for by the
law.

It's called for by the law because this is one example of
how somebody with deep pockets has spent a lot of money
to get the law in that shape.

Same for some kid who happened to forget about the roach snubbed
out in the ashtray of his car at the wrong time.

Keep living in some previous century (or so) if you want.

I think you got a diode in backwards there - this *is* a 21st
century sort of problem...

The 21st century people couldn't care less about IP
in general.

Also, the iPod, ear-bud, MP3 generation (for the most part)
couldn't care less about quality studio productions.

...snip...
WTF,

Ty Ford
--
Les Cargill
==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Don Y]

Hi Jennifer,

On 5/22/2012 6:22 PM, Jenn wrote:
In , Don
wrote:

On 5/22/2012 3:57 PM, Jenn wrote:

We either value the artist's/producer's/engineer's/composer's/truck
driver's/retail clerk's/et al's product, or we don't, just as in the
tomato. If it has value, it is theft to take it without the owner's
permission.

IMO, the problem (with all IP -- not just copyright) is the
term (time) involved. And, how it has been systematically
manipulated by "owners" with deep pockets (e.g., a certain
round-eared mouse).

Nowhere has this *hurt* the public (IMO) more than with patent
protection on *software* (in a field where everything changes
at 18 *month* intervals, why give an invention 17 *years* of
"protected monopoly"??) Consider, patents were originally of
shorter term (14 years) in an economy where an individual's
lifetime and the time required to *fabricate* that "anything"
was considerably *longer* (relatively speaking).

I don't understand this. Am I to cease getting paid for my work once a
certain time has passed?

That is the very nature of copyright/patent protections!
Should we still be paying Bach's estate royalties??
Should we still be paying monopolistic prices for
penicillin? What incentive is there for better products
to come along?

The State grants you those *limited* protections in the
expectation that the works will eventually benefit *all*.

Note that these monopolies (whether from copyright or patent)
haven't really benefitted the "public" but, rather, have
helped keep prices inflated. Witness how the price of
generic drugs drops precipitously once the ethical
(name brand) version goes off patent. Or, how a $4 LP in
the late 70's became a $15 CD 15 years later -- despite the
fact that the production, shipping and warranty costs
dropped significantly in that same period.

Seems like a case of demand determining price.

Every record company magically had the same cost structure
(evidenced by the consistency of pricing across record
labels)? And, when they moved to a radically different
technology (CD's), they *still* had identical cost
structures?

*Really*???

And cigarettes *don't* cause cancer (as the heads of the tobacco
companies all testified, under oath, to Congress...)

It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
"middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/

OK, you're entitled. I just want my work to be given away without my
permission. You probably feel the same way.

I write software and design hardware for a living. Ever
hear of "software piracy"? Ever hear of "counterfeit
products"?

In the 80's, I was involved in the gaming industry (think:
arcades). Counterfeit products were commonplace! You
would *literally* find a product with *your* hardware
inside it running *your* software -- except the counterfeiter
had excised your copyright (if it appeared in plain text)
and had replaced the code fragment that displayed the name of
the game with some OTHER "name" (can't be THAT blatant with the
counterfeit lest it be REALLY EASY to identify).

"Kits" that would allow an owner/operator (the guy who owns
or is responsible for operating the games in an arcade or on
a "vending route") to easily convert an existing video
game to another (without having to deal with shipping
a large wooden cabinet full of mechanism/electronics).

But, many games were "90 day wonders" (even those independently
authored). How do you get an injunction in place *that* fast?
By the time you have identified the counterfeiter and filed
paperwork to stop him (which might eventually lead to
seizing shipments at ports -- if you knew *which* shipments
and which ports!), the game had fallen from the public's
interest and the counterfeiter had moved on to some other
game. Or, changed the name of his company. etc.

Note that my comments (especially wrt patent protections) go
directly *against* my financial interests! Someone can
"steal" my software just as easily as your music. That
could even be a "respected" domestic corporation! Someone
can even do so semi-LEGALLY by making subtle changes to it
that render it unrecognizable (without my expenditure of
significant resources to reverse engineer *their* "product";
and every other similar product that *might* have some
aspect of my IP hiding deep within).

A judge/jury can more readily "hear" the similarities between
"your music" and a counterfeit of it -- whether a literal
copy or a "tweaked" copy... same music, different lyrics;
same lyrics, different music; slightly different lyrics,
etc. By contrast, AFTER investing money to reverse engineer
the counterfeit copy, I have to find expert witnesses to
argue that the product "clearly" is a copy of my work while
the defense will just as readily argue that it was an
"independent creation" that COINCIDENTALLY seems similar.

And, *I* can infringe on a patent that I don't even know
exists! Imagine someone copyrighting a particular *chord*!
Suddenly, no one can use that chord in their music? (How
many times have you heard those four distinctive Twilight
Zone notes played... does someone get royalties each time?
I suspect it is a more recognizable abstract concept than
the "Ford" logo!!)

If I write a piece of code, put it on a CD/DVD/whatever
and sell it, the only warranty I have to offer is for
"defective media". If, OTOH, I put that code into a *device*
I now have to warranty the behavior of that *code*
(effectively). Why can't I just warranty the actual *hardware*
(which is very easy to prove is functional regardless of
the number of BUGS in the NON-WARRANTIED code!)

Nor do I have an industry-wide organization policing
the market on my behalf and litigating for me. Inspecting
cargo crates, monitoring downloads, etc. *I* have to
bear the costs of identifying thieves and prosecuting them.

Yes, I **surely** "feel the same way"! :-/ Can't you see
me exuberance??!

So, while I share your concerns, I'm still convinced that
the current approach is broken/wrong. But, I haven't been able
to come up with an alternative that makes sense, either! In
_The Price of Everything_, Eduardo Porter pokes a stick at
this (and many other issues) -- with some "egg head" insights
(that may or may NOT be true -- but are worth thinking about).
I figure if people who actually *think* about these things
"for a living" haven't come up with a solution, I shouldn't
feel bad for being in the same boat! :

Ideas, "expressions", etc. deserve *limited* protections. Yet,
I am far more inclined to come up with The Next Great Thing if
I know I can't live off The Last Great Thing, indefinitely!
In a society where things change as rapidly as they do,
presently, *shorter* timeframes would seem to be more correct
than *longer*!

[Don Y]

On 5/22/2012 6:10 PM, gtbuba wrote:
On May 22, 8:46 pm, Don wrote:

It seems the folks complaining most about piracy are the
"middle men" -- folks who will have an increasingly difficult
time justifying their roles in the future economy :-/

I don't understand why they didn't do it sooner. Of course it's
impossible to predict what the file sharing was going to do to this
business. I remember in the 1980's and the DAT came out and the
record companies were worried about someone with a Dat could make
perfect copies bootleg cd's. Ended up the Dat never sold in the
consumer market, but we engineers used it to mix to. GT.

Why didn't the (desktop) software industry react to the
potential of copying/counterfeiting their products sooner?
I mean if *anyone* could understand how easy it would be to
copy "bits on a medium", it would be these folks!

I think the software industry has started to come to grips
with this problem. Firms that offer products requiring
good support can rely on the availability of that support
conditioned on a "registered sale". Folks who previously
overpriced their products (and found consumers looking for
"gray area" purchases) have repriced them to more reasonable
levels. Folks who had outrageously high support costs
simply went out of business (or left those markets).

Years ago (70's), you'd buy software simply to save the
cost of photocopying the manual! "Heck, we get a genuine
manual *and* the name of a person we can call when something
doesn't work quite right! And, we can write it off..."

Most of the problems with software started appearing when
The Masses entered the market and when vendors started
charging "high" prices for their products (even if those
prices accurately reflected their costs!). That's when
we saw efforts to cut those prices by reducing costs
(i.e., you no longer got 20 pounds of manuals with
your compiler purchase; telephone support was no longer
"limitless" -- nor free; etc.)

Now, people are much more comfortable *without* having
printed manuals. And, with "user forums" where they
can get their questions answered "for free".

The market *adjusted*. Recording companies seem to want to
keep their market on *their* terms.

You will see similar trends becoming more evident with
other media. I.e., television, print media, "news" (in
general), etc. as consumers move the price points of
these goods -- which had previously been controlled
by the *suppliers*!

Interesting times!

[Mxsmanic]

Don Y writes:

Firms that offer products requiring
good support can rely on the availability of that support
conditioned on a "registered sale".

Any product that requires good support is defective. My washing machine
doesn't require good support, because it doesn't break down to begin with.

[Mxsmanic]

PStamler writes:

That doesn't mean it's okay to exploit a musician or composer by
publishing their (recently created) work without compensation. The
copyright laws could use reforming, for sure; I'd like to see a
provision, for example, where a copyright purchased by, say, a label,
reverts to the author or artist after a certain period if the label
doesn't publish the material. That's a reform that makes sense to me,
as would shortening the term of copyright.

I can think of two good ideas: (1) make the term of copyright 14 years again,
non-renewable; and (2) make it illegal to transfer any copyrights to
anyone--the author keeps the copyrights until they expire (this is already
true for "moral rights," where they exist, but not commercial rights).