Security

Pirate Party to contest next Federal election

74 comments in this discussion

"sorry for many spelling mistakes in that last post."

By mck

Pirate Party reaches critical mass

Sweden's Pirate Party wins seat in European Parliament

Pirate Party on course for election triumph

Sweden dives into eHealth as Australia dallies

Breaking Stories

Australian Government websites blitzed by DDoS attack

Vividwireless reveals five-city expansion plans

Microsoft denies Windows 7 battery problems

Ex-Intel executive owns up to insider trading

Optus to boost HFC network up to 100 Mbps

By Ben Grubb

Sep 29, 2009 6:25 AM

Calls for office bearers and supporters.

The political party that sent European copyright holders into a spin has opened a branch office in Australia and is recruiting office bearers and supporters.

The Pirate Party, which evolved from cultural and legal skirmishes with authorities in Sweden and Germany, last week updated the Australian website it registered last year and advertised for a president, treasurer, secretary and supporting positions.

A party spokesman, Rodney Serkowski, said the group was close to establishing a beachhead in Australia.

He said that with 300 supporters it was on its way to signing the 500 it needed to become an official Australian political party.

"We are currently an online community, working together with the intention of becoming a registered party, and we're coming closer to reaching that goal," Serkowski said.

"If we can get the required 500 members, and be registered by years end, I think it is highly probable that we will contest the next Federal election in Australia."

At the weekend about two percent of Germans voted for the Pirate Party although it needed at least five percent to gain a seat in the German parliament, the Bundestag.

Serkowski said that one of the parties' aims was to counter the online censorship scheme proposed by Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy.

"We hope that their [the German Pirate Party's] success will help us in our push for registration, so that we can actively change the landscape of Australian politics by advocating fairer copyright, freer culture and ensuring the protection of civil liberties, sending a strong message to Mr Conroy that his censorship scheme is not welcome in Australia," Serkowski said.

Serkowski said the party's Australian policies would reflect those positions taken by its affiliates in Sweden and Germany.

He also said that illicit copying and sharing of content on online networks didn't equate to lost income for producers of such works.

"It is not the party's understanding that file sharing affects the artist detrimentally," Serkowski said.

"We believe that file sharing, even though it may be represented as a lost sale - that tired old drum the [music] industry beats, despite a 28 percent leap in profits for digital music last year recorded by the IFPI - it is in fact one of the best means of advertising for artists.

"It is only a matter of time before artists that haven't already made this realisation, do," Serkowski said.

"It allows for entire niche genres and unknown artists to propagate their creative works to fans, without the controls imposed by industry, allowing more vibrant cultural and economic outcomes for artists."

Serkowski also said the Pirate Party supported the legislation of non-commercial file sharing. He also voiced concerns about Senator Conroy vowing to tackle illegal file-sharing by looking at initiatives such as a 'three strikes' law which could see internet users disconected after infringing copyright three times in a row.

"We don't want a three strikes situation to happen in Australia, as is being proposed in the UK, and has been suggested by Senator Conroy and ARIA," he said.

"[It] threatens freedom of expression and due process - especially when socially, culturally and economically we have become dependent on the internet,

"Any attempt to disconnect a citizen and seperate them from these fundamental rights for the purposes of protecting a monopoly is offensive."

Elections will be held online at 8pm on October 7 for the National Council of the Pirate Party of Australia.

Comments: 74

Thoughts on this article? Add a comment below.

deags Sep 29, 2009 10:48 AM	So have they decided if they are giving their votes to Socialist Alliance ALP, The Greens ALP or ALP ALP?
Slatts Sep 29, 2009 1:56 PM	Votes deags? You mean preferences? Probably one of those you mentioned. I don't imagine Conroy's bunch would interest them though. I doubt they'd want to get in bed with that disorganised rabble that's left over from the last federal election either.
Maxxi Sep 29, 2009 3:23 PM	Yo Slatts.... I did not know that the Pirate Party had contested the last federal election in any form, but if you insist that the Pirate Party are a disorganised rabble, then I will accept your word on that one. Gettin sumthin for nuttin that other folks have worked to make is my idea of a good and fair deal though...? Heck, people should just grab the IP I have developed and take if for free as well... lol. This is the iNternet! Nuttin costs anythin! yoohOo... Now how can I convince Blizzard to go along with that...? Pirate Party gonna campain aginst Blizz??? That would be great!
Slatts Sep 29, 2009 10:21 PM	I'm on your side Maxxi, theft is theft. Oh! I see what you did. The "they" in the last paragraph was in reference to the pirate party. I take it you've re-read what I wrote. Slatts does not condone piracy. argh!
mck Sep 30, 2009 3:40 AM	Theft is theft if something is taken from the owner. File sharing is distribution, distribution leads to popularity, which leads to success. Downloading something illegally is the opposite to theft because nothing is taken but you have given the author additional popularity. The ethics supporting file sharing are there, and it's an activity which is impossible to stop. The youth see this and the tide is turning. The whole attitude that it's "stealing" doesn't come to grasp with reality and doesn't help artists because, as Andrew Dubber explains a whole lot better than i can: Quote: 1) Copying, as I’ve mentioned before, just happens online. You can’t legislate against it, prevent it by technical means nor force people to behave in ways that you would like them to. If you’re going to make recorded music, you have to be aware that you live in a world where this is what goes on. Refusing to accept that on principled grounds will only lead to stress and illness, and the unhelpful belief that every music consumer is a criminal. 2) The fluidity with which your music can pass from hand to hand is not an impediment to your success, but a technological advantage that you can leverage to your own ends. The overwhelming cry from the independent musician twenty years ago was ‘How can I just get my music out there?’ Problem solved. Now what are you going to do? 3) There are several phases to music that I characterise as Composition, Production, Distribution, Promotion and Consumption. All of those links in the chain are very important. I would suggest that if a technology is not cutting it for you in one part of the chain, it’s sensible to move it to another part of that same chain. That is to say, if you want mp3s to be the way that you profitably distribute music but the results are unsatisfying because of unauthorised copying, then redeploy mp3s to be the way that you profitably promote your music instead. I also like these three points from the same text from Andrew Dubber: Quote: 1) People who share your music are recommending you to people who respect their taste and opinion; 2) The vast majority of people who have unauthorised copies of your music would not have ordinarily paid for it anyway; 3) Do you really want for people who cannot afford your music to be prevented from ever hearing it?
Slatts Sep 30, 2009 8:52 AM	What ever helps you sleep nights mck. Quote, man is not a thinking animal, he is a rationalising animal. If you were to spend weeks of your time creating music and someone came along and copied it and gave it away to anyone who wanted it, with not even a by your leave, I spose you'd thank them? Just because everyone does it doesn't make it ethical. No amount of copying and pasting of quoted sophistry is going to change that. If you're a thief, at least have the honesty to admit it to yourself.
NumbNuts2009 Sep 30, 2009 9:48 AM	Ownership of physical objects is a reasonable concept. Ownership of abstractions is absurd. When a musician sells his music, what is he actually selling. A disk, some sound or the right to listen to some sound. If he's selling a disk, well there isn't much demand for such disks these days what with the internet and all. If he's selling some sound, well that's not smart because anyone can replicate this sound creating infinite supply. If he's selling the right to listen to a sound, does that mean that if i buy a cd and let my friends listen to it at a party, then all my friends have stolen music? The concept of IP is an absurdity, which is why we have a bunch of ridiculous laws trying to make property out of an abstraction. Ideas are free.
PaulfromBris Sep 30, 2009 9:59 AM	Slatts, what if I recorded a movie from the TV and watched it later? Am I a criminal? Should I not be sleeping at night over this ethical dilemma?
markerr Sep 30, 2009 11:23 AM	Slatts says: "If you were to spend weeks of your time creating music and someone came along and copied it and gave it away to anyone who wanted it, with not even a by your leave, I spose you'd thank them?" So amongst (presumably) other direct sales, someone comes along and copies my work and gives it away to someone else who wanted it? If I sincerely believed it could increase my sales through word of mouth advertising (the best you can get), then yes, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it. Sure, I'd be a little disappointed, maybe even frustrated at first, but the logical conclusion of what _could_ happen through increased sales would settle in and I'd just shrug my shoulders and work on more direct sales. I am a software developer, author, composer and musician, so yes, I do have a legitimate interest in the above.
Sams Sep 30, 2009 3:41 PM	Software is considered to be a 'work' under the Copyright Act, along with music, literature, etc. As a person who continually writes software that I actively encourage others to "steal", I find it irritating that so many people just don't get the nature of a fair modern service-based industry. I am happily putting food on the table for my family based on my open source IT consultancy, and at the same time giving away everything I create. The similarities with music are there for anyone who cares to see them: any musician who is worth their salt can make money from live performances, both public and private, exclusive access to early releases, bespoke works, autographed works, merchandising, donations, and so on. What IP laws are trying to prop up is not the ability of artists and other creators to make a crust, but the ability of spoilt business people, who probably never created a work in their life, to own someone else's hard work and make money for nothing from it until the day they die.
alexdelarge Sep 30, 2009 6:28 PM	What you geeky, nadmenny bratchnies don't appreciate is that artistes cannot provide "open source services" that underwrite the creation of their artist works. The old chestnut of "give away your music, make money from performance" works nicely-wicely for Radiohead, but not for a struggling musician who get paid $20 plus drinks for a night's work and will never be able to afford to make a record because they can't recoup anything from the Internet. Go apply your bezoomny ideas to something you know about. We can't have a society with everybody behaving in your manner of the night.
Sams Sep 30, 2009 7:43 PM	Struggling musicians should probably not give up their day job, so to speak.
Slatts Sep 30, 2009 8:44 PM	Sams, if you choose to give away your work, that's your desision. You've made that choice and more power to you. A musician or coder who puts weeks of their time into producing a piece of music or software to sell for profit shouldn't have to put up with some no talent rationalising bludger on the interwebs steeling their work because they're too tight to fork out a fair price for it. How would you feel if after getting you in for a consultation on your software, a customer told you to "bugger off, I'm not paying, I've got what I want from you so why should I give you money?"
Maxxi Sep 30, 2009 9:10 PM	Right on the money Slatts, you nailed it in one.
Sams Sep 30, 2009 9:17 PM	Slatts wrote: "A musician or coder who puts weeks of their time into producing a piece of music or software to sell for profit" "to sell for profit" - you are putting the conclusion of your argument as the premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question). The point was that if you are good at music you can make money in other ways, other than holding on to IP for profit. You start with the assumption that it is always OK to hold IP for profit. A pity you missed the point.
Sams Sep 30, 2009 9:23 PM	Slatts: "How would you feel if after getting you in for a consultation on your software, a customer told you to "bugger off, I'm not paying, I've got what I want from you so why should I give you money?" This is analogous to the live performance or bespoke composition examples I gave for musicians by the way. It nothing to do, for example, with a talentless business holding the IP rights to a song they never composed or performed and making money out of it for x number of decades.
Sams Sep 30, 2009 9:28 PM	Slatts: "I'm on your side Maxxi, theft is theft." ... " If you're a thief, at least have the honesty to admit it to yourself." The act of "theft" is stealing. To steal means to "take possession of something by surreptitiously taking or carrying it away". Whatever your stance on IP rights, copyright infringement is not theft.
anonymous Oct 1, 2009 7:36 AM	There seem to be good points on both sides here. It's just that for some reason I have a feeling that the confected outrage from Big Music may have more to do with corporate profits, and denial of consumers' rights, than any desire to contribute to struggling bezoomny musos. (New word for today?)
alexdelarge Oct 1, 2009 8:59 AM	"Struggling musicians" - how gloopy my droog. You've demonstrated you know nothing about artistic endeavour or the purpose of copyright law for creative bratties. 99.99999% of artistes are struggling. They always have. They always will. Many of these artistes produce - against the odds - fabulous work. They have the choice to give some of their art away, and to sell some. They have always done this. And then you crarking bratchnies come along and take away their choice - take the bread from their mouth - and ruin their future, and then claim some unworkable moral high ground. Sounds like a religious-style crusade to me. Shame on you.
Sams Oct 1, 2009 10:17 AM	"how gloopy my droog" Sounds like you should get off the absinthe. "Shame on you." Ad hominem argument on you too.
Slatts Oct 1, 2009 11:04 AM	What I'm getting here is that by stealing the output of others we're somehow doing them a favour. What a load of crap. Did I mention rationalising (see definition 3)? If you're stealing from others, you're a thief. If you don't like to be called a thief, don't steal. If you don't care if you're called a thief then go ahead. Just be aware that there are legal and moral ramification to your decision. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If you think that stealing from others is OK, don't complain if others steal from you. That said, the movie and music industries need to get their collective heads out of their.. er.. out of the sand and join us in the 21st century and devise an equitable online distribution system. There, that should be pretty clear.
alexdelarge Oct 1, 2009 12:24 PM	"Ad hominem". Nice work brattie. Wake up - you are advocating breaking laws that protect the livelihood of the poorest people. You are arguing in a closed, unworkable moral vacuum, an inconsistent form of libertarianism characteristic of IT people, that does not have room for the real world. When you get over this, we can have a real debate about rights, and maybe you'll get the Clockwork Orange reference. Meanwhile, stay in IT and get out of arts/law my droog.
Sams Oct 1, 2009 1:44 PM	And you are repeating dogmatic arguments that have already been dealt with, so there is no point in continuing. As they say: never argue with a pig, you'll just get dirty and they will enjoy it.
Sams Oct 1, 2009 1:48 PM	Slatts: "What I'm getting here is that by stealing the output of others we're somehow doing them a favour." Circular argument: it is not stealing. Slatts: "There, that should be pretty clear." It is pretty clear that you are too bigoted to consider alternative points of view, or that you don't understand the arguments that proceeded your last post, or that you don't realise that just repeating your point doesn't make it true, or all of the above.
Slatts Oct 1, 2009 3:58 PM	Sams wrote: Slatts: "What I'm getting here is that by stealing the output of others we're somehow doing them a favour." Circular argument: it is not stealing. Well that was a waste of time then. If the act of taking the work of another without their consent and with no intention of recompense doesn't equate to theft in your lexicon Sams, then I guess there's nothing more to discuss with you. Hopefully most in the forum don't share your strange mind set. What's mine is mine. What's yours is mine to.
Sams Oct 1, 2009 7:06 PM	Slatt: "Hopefully most in the forum don't share your strange mind set." I suspect most in the forum understand the difference between copying and taking. Slatts: "What's mine is mine. What's yours is mine to." [sic] You can find what is mine (or more accurately, what is created by me) on SourceForge. It can be yours too. When you copy it, you wont be taking it away from me, or other people. I get paid for the hours of work I do, not the licenses I hold (or withhold). To me, that is a fairer revenue model. To the various charities and non-profits who comprise most of my clients, it is a blessing to their shoestring budgets.
Maxxi Oct 1, 2009 7:08 PM	Sams, stealing is simple to define, as it has been for 10,000 years: "Take something without the permission or consent of the owner in some form..." That means "take" in any format. That means "copying" is far too often "taking" today. You decide if you go open source and that is great, congrats. You cannot decide if someone else goes open source, or if their license model does not apply to you because you think it is unfair... That becomes stealing via copying... You can try and spin the meaning of words all you like mate, thievery is thievery is thievery. All the examples I have seen here are stealing, thievery, robbery etc. If the "something" is IP and copyright, then contravening the legal or ethical terms of that copyright or IP is thievery. If you do not like the terms associated with any product that is for sale, then don't buy that product. Otherwise it is thievery if you contravene. There are examples where contravention is justified: Life threatening situations, self-protection, passive consent has been given to you previously (that does not mean he did not proscecute previously, or scream, or complain...)etc. Taking the output of someone without their express consent is stealing, as clear as daylight mate... The emergence of the Internet did not herald a whole new set of common law principles, but it did herald a whole new set of possibilities and challenges. If the internet industry does not self control, then annoying and pedantic governments come in an start getting involved, which is often a pain. I do not want it, but it is going to happen cause too many folks got lazy and greedy, and were quite happy to move from the grey area of tolerated personal sharing into blatant stealing. So mate, don't blame the gov, blame all those who did know when to get their hands out of someone else's cookie jar...
Sams Oct 1, 2009 8:11 PM	Maxxi: "thievery is thievery is thievery" Repetition is not proof. Next.
mick09 Oct 2, 2009 4:10 AM	Great discussion - but: a) Has anyone read what the Pirates are proposing? b) Has anyone followed AFACT's legal bluffing and blackmailing of iiNet? c) Has anyone followed Microsoft's manipulations of the patent system - I mean can anyone remember File Allocation algorithms that existed long before Microsoft bought QDOS?
mick09 Oct 2, 2009 4:23 AM	Finally, as for the music debate - W A Mozart was arrested by the Vatican Police for memorizing and replaying the Vatican's "Miserere". Not much has changed since then - the creators create, the philistines hire lawyers.
MerariSchroeder Oct 2, 2009 8:09 AM	[What you geeky, nadmenny bratchnies don't appreciate is that artistes cannot provide "open source services" that underwrite the creation of their artist works] How about the radio? That's practically open source. Many musicians air their hits on the radio and people then buy the CD or whatever. I still think "with today's business models", that piracy is practically stealing. If you photocopy a book to resell to others, that's illegal. Yes, it would be great if it was free, but you have to protect the authors financial security so they can continue to do what they do. On the flip side, the record companies are only looking out for themselves. They continue to take huge margins from artists, because they have a monopoly on production resources. Artists have to go to the record companies, because those companies have created a system where it's very difficult for an artist to run as an independent business. They have no choice but to sign give away big chunks of their royalties, to use their sound studios, producers, editors etc... I'm a believer in a model where you can let everyone hear your music equally with the popular music. How can an upstarting artist approach a radio station with what-would-be a hit? In the software industry there are anti-trust laws against such exclusive access and monopolies. As for the pirate party, they're on the right track. Don't create a system around penalising the innovative P2P distribution systems and users. And their policy against software patents is exactly what we need, they're not advocating software piracy, they want to stop people doing things like patenting "the save button" or "the embedded web object" - it's ridiculous!
Sams Oct 2, 2009 8:14 AM	"a) Has anyone read what the Pirates are proposing?" Yes. However, I would prefer to try to see more Greens in the senate next election. I don't vote for parties with such a narrow policy platform. "b) Has anyone followed AFACT's legal bluffing and blackmailing of iiNet?" Yes. Classic a scapegoat approach designed to at least cause iiNet as much pain as possible even if the case doesn't succeed, as a deterrent for other ISPs. "c) Has anyone followed Microsoft's manipulations of the patent system" Yes. Patent reform is at least one area where you would think there would be broad agreement in IT.
MerariSchroeder Oct 2, 2009 8:21 AM	How would you feel if after getting you in for a consultation on your software, a customer told you to "bugger off, I'm not paying, I've got what I want from you so why should I give you money?" You are twisting the debate somewhat. Your referring to employed services there, not copying previous work. How about this, you get paid for that work, then you (the coder) sell copies of the software for even more profit. Anyway, there are always going to be pirates. You'll never stop them. What you need to do is use strategies which can maximise your (a programmers) profits. A popular way to do this is to release free stripped down versions. And target businesses with the full featured versions.
MerariSchroeder Oct 2, 2009 8:31 AM	"Has anyone followed Microsoft's manipulations of the patent system?" Well I don't think you can really blame the industry for taking out software patents. The system is there and everyone will use it, if you don't your business will fail. I do believe that the software patent system is flawed. The world could have progressed so much further and faster if patents weren't there. It would be up to the industry to stay ahead and continue innovating. You never saw anyone patent the "Choose your own adventure style of books" or the "blue green colour scheme in painting" or a particular chord progressing in music!
Sams Oct 2, 2009 11:51 AM	Let me finish by saying that it is a historical fact that laws lag the changing morals of a society. Saying that something is "illegal" doesn't necessarily means that it is immoral - so arguing that something is wrong because it is illegal is bunk. History shows that a change in an unjust law (eg. decency laws that once banned bikinis; laws against homosexuality; or slavery laws) requires a few good people to fight against a wall of unthinking prejudice and bigotry - the sheep of society that argue from so-called 'common sense' - the ones that say "it just IS bad 'cos it is". Open your minds people. If musos have always been struggling, then how is that evidence that the current laws are working in their favour? There are new revenue models o be explored and discovered (e.g don't release your album until a certain level of donations is reached). I leave you with this Blackadder quote: """ Blackadder: What do you think? Try to have a thought of your own, Baldrick, thinking is so important. What do you think? Baldric: I think thinking is so important my Lord. """
Slatts Oct 2, 2009 7:55 PM	Hi Sams, how would you define the words steal, thief and theft in your new world order? I leave you with this Slatts quote: "Stealing is immoral"
Sams Oct 2, 2009 11:49 PM	Slatts: "Stealing is immoral" So if a rogue state was building a nuclear weapon and I crept in an stole their all of their uranium, that would be immoral?
mck Oct 3, 2009 5:40 AM	It's quite embarrassing that people really don't know what the definition of "steal" is. Maxxi: it is to take away. Stealing requires asportation. And this is very clear in every dictionary i looked at. And the legal precedence to this definition was set in 1996 US Supreme Court with the case Dowling v US. It's not theft, its copyright infringement. If the anti-piracy supporters can use the correct terminology, terminology that is very clear and not debatable, it might be a little easier to take you seriously. Getting people to think of file-sharing as "stealing" rather than copyright infringement or fraud has been an intentional, and clever, propaganda trick by RIAA and the Big Four. http://nimmo.freeservers.com/redefining.html RIAA did this to introduce a moral issue that is otherwise missing with copyright infringement. Copyright is not a natural right, like ownership. Even Thomas Jefferson raised this distinction with his opposition to patent in america's constitution. Or do you just believe everything that comes from RIAA and AFACT? I mean why bother calling us thieves? Because now you can call us terrorists?
mck Oct 3, 2009 5:57 AM	The United Kingdom's definition of theft, from the 'Theft Act 1968': A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. From Australia's Crime Act 1958 §72: Basic definition of theft 72. Basic definition of theft (1) A person steals if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. (2) A person who steals is guilty of theft; and "thief" shall be construed accordingly. Note "depriving the other of it". Theft isn't just the appropriation of someone's belonging, but the act of depriving someone of that belonging.
Sams Oct 3, 2009 8:19 AM	Slatts is playing a simplistic word game: he thinks that if he can label copyright infringement as "stealing" then, in his narrow view, all stealing is immoral, and therefore copyright infringement is immoral. However, even if you could achieve this relabelling, not all stealing is immoral, as I pointed out with the uranium example. Here is another example: a builder is going around hitting babies with his hammer. I steal the hammer from him, which in turn prevents him from earning money as a builder (but also saves the lives of babies). Does the fact that it is "stealing" make my actions immoral? Some totalitarian states label criticism of the government as terrorism. Is it then correct to label all "terrorism" as immoral, thus 'deduce' that criticising the government is immoral. The issue is much more subtle than a word/labelling game.
Slatts Oct 3, 2009 8:41 AM	Sams wrote: So if a rogue state was building a nuclear weapon and I crept in an stole their all of their uranium, that would be immoral? So now you're comparing your nefarious activities to stopping a nuclear holocaust? How noble of you Sams. Search Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law wrote: theft (n) [Old English thiefth] :larceny broadly :a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes. steal (vt) stolestolenstealing [Old English stelan] :to take or appropriate without right or consent and with intent to keep or make use of There you go people, the law, keeping up with technology. I noticed in the first definition Identity theft. By the definitions quoted by mck it wouldn't qualify as theft either. Here's another one for you: Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary wrote: theft The generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale). How's that for word games Sams? Just read your latest missive. Oh My God. Now you're saving babies lives by depriving starving carpenters of their livelihoods. I don't suppose you go out in public with your Reg Grundies on the outside and a towel hanging from your neck do you?
Sams Oct 3, 2009 9:17 AM	"How's that for word games Sams" Yes, those are just word games. "So now you're comparing your nefarious activities to stopping a nuclear holocaust?" No, I didn't say that this was an analogy with copyright infringement - you missed the point completely. I'm just pointing out that your narrow view that all stealing is immoral is naive and wrong. "taking of the property or services" Downloading a copy a file is neither of these, so copyright infringement fails your own tests. Copyright infringement is illega under current law yes, but it is not theft - have you ever looked at the copyright act? Since you are getting less coherent and more abusive as time goes on, and you can't seem to follow any course that I offer that might free you from your prejudices and get you thinking for yourself, I see little point in continuing.
Slatts Oct 3, 2009 9:20 AM	LOL what ever lets you sleep nights cobber
Tom Grimshaw Oct 3, 2009 10:31 AM	Chiming in late to add my 2 cents worth. I think Slatts has it 100% correct. There are several issues here. Agreements, Morals, Ethics AGREEMENTS One of them is what is the agreement between the parties. Let's say I was talented enough to write music that others wished to hear and I made that available for sale under the condition that the purchaser not copy and distribute my work. That is the agreement that governs my work. One could argue with my choice of distribution method and agreement but those who purchase my work are ethically, morally and legally bound to honour their agreement with me regarding the copying and distribution of my work. The violation of that agreement is immoral, unethical and illegal. Anybody who breaks that agreement is, by definition, committing an act that is immoral, unethical and illegal. Because they do not want to think of them self as a criminal they will attempt to justify their action by all sorts of spurious reasoning. IP is not really property, ideas are free, it's not stealing, it's only copyright infringement, etc. etc. etc. All of this is an attempt to reduce their own perception of the harm that they have done. This does not stop another artist from making any other form of agreement he likes. If he thinks he will attract more followers to his concerts from where he plans to make his income and wants to distribute his work for free then he is perfectly entitled to do so. That will not suit all artists. Some play to a tiny niche market that will never viably support a concert. In that case their only viable distribution method may well be the conventional one. Society changes because people think outside the dots and change the paradigm. If too many people are dishonest and there is too little money to be made from the conventional distribution system, creative minds will invent alternatives. If they succeed, more power to them. The fact that alternative distribution methods are proposed or exist does not alter the requirement to keep to an agreement one has made when purchasing another artist's work. MORALS Tend to be laid down in codes. Society has a moral code enacted into legislation that is supposed to be the moral code to which we all subscribe, Violations can incur penalties. Various sub-groups within society have their own moral codes. These may or may not coincide with the moral code of the whole group. To the degree that they don't, disagreement and conflict occur. ETHICS Over the years I have heard ethics defined variously. To me, the law is one thing and ethics is another. To the degree that the law is sane, just and appropriate it approximates a high level of ethics. As we all know, not all laws do this. Some are oppressive and unjust. Some are applied inappropriately. Many are enacted to protect the status quo, vested interests of the powers that be. If a person was at the top of a bell tower, shooting passers by, it might be illegal to tip them over the parapet but as a last course of action I would consider it my ethical obligation to do so, regardless of the personal danger or legal ramifications. I think one would be drawing too long a bow to describe illegally copying a song in violation of the terms of purchase and distributing it to others without recompense to the artist as in any way ethical. If you think someone without money deserves to listen to the song, buy another copy from the artist! Bottom line, keep your agreements once made. If you don't wish to keep the agreement, don't make it.
Sams Oct 3, 2009 11:15 AM	Agreements "The violation of that agreement is immoral, unethical and illegal." If you are saying that the violation of any agreement is immoral then you are wrong - even in the letter of the law - see unconscionable clauses in law for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscionable If that's not what you are saying, then your argument is circular (it is immoral because it is immoral). "I think one would be drawing too long a bow to describe illegally copying a song in violation of the terms of purchase and distributing it to others without recompense to the artist as in any way ethical." One way to view ethics is that it is carrying out the law/policy as it is written. Again, it is not morality. See here for example: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-ethics-and-morals.htm [eg. "Abortion is legal and therefore medically ethical, while many people find it personally immoral."]
Sams Oct 3, 2009 11:32 AM	If you are worried about musos themselves, rather than the exploitative, filthy-rich recording companies, then read the results of the 2004 survey by Pew Internet and avail yourselves of information such as: "Assessing the impact of free downloading on their careers as musicians, 37% of those in our sample say free downloading has not really made a difference, 35% say it has helped, and 8% say it has both helped and hurt their career. Only 5% say free downloading has exclusively hurt their career and 15% of the respondents say they don’t know. Not surprisingly, Starving Musicians are more likely to say free downloading has helped and Success Stories are less likely to say it has helped their careers. Still just 13% of Success Stories say that free downloading has only hurt their career and 16% say it has both helped and hurt."
Slatts Oct 3, 2009 11:42 AM	That straw you keep grasping at is looking pretty warn Sams.
mck Oct 4, 2009 3:05 AM	Tom: it's posts like yours which move the discussion forward in a meaningful way, thanks. It's interesting and educational regardless whether you agree or not. It's a shame that the “emotional cries” and “ridiculing attempts”, a la the outbursts from the mob, could not be moved outside or to the side, or just deleted. Slatts: The Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law takes the context from larceny. There is no dispute that this type of theft requires asportation. In fact Merriam-Webster's Dictionary has a definition that includes “taking and removing with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it”. To include services is interesting but music is not a service, nothing about copyright infringement is theft of a service. The Nolo definition includes “to convert it to the taker's use”. It's quite clear that illegal file sharing does not convert, or alter, it it any way. The context of the sentence takes “it” as the original, any copy would be referenced as such. It seems what you posted better supports me than it does you. In addition I think taking the legal definitions (eg Crimes Act 1958 and Theft Act 1968) comfortably overrides any ambiguous dictionary definition you may find. Identity theft: is a phrase or definition by itself, because the original definition of “theft” did not apply. IANAL but it's my understanding the same thing happened with theft of land, the original definition of theft, that came from larceny, required that a physical object be moved. It's my understanding that Australia made this change to include fraud of land ownership as “theft” earlier than other countries, and i'm not even sure if all countries refer to it today as theft. Robin Hood: as Sams pointed out, something that is illegal isn't always immoral, and can be at times moral and ethical. Robin Hood is a classic example of this, that's clear enough that we are willing to give it to our children. But beyond raising the possibility it doesn't actually address the question of file sharing ethics. Illegal but ethical: So how, if illegal in many countries, can file sharing when it breaches the copyright be ethical? There are different opinions amongst file sharing advocates: - that copyright is invalid in the first place because the practices carried out by the music industry are unfair to the artist or that the industry is breaking fair competition principles. Which other industry do artists have their own copyright stolen from them upon any initial contract signed with the distribution agents? Should private citizens really need to honour a copyright agreement that has nothing to do with the artist or the distribution model that was used to obtain the artists work? It's fascinating how RIAA and MPAA label file sharing as stealing while they have been stealing the ownership of the work from the artists for decades. This theft correlates more accurately to today's legal definition, and to see it coming from the artists mouths read Steve Albini's “The problem with Music” http://www.negativland.com/albini.html or Courtney Love's speech to the Digital Hollywood online entertainment conference http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html - that copyright collides with natural rights of physical ownership. Copyright was intended to prevent plagiarism not to prevent a private citizen's ownership. That is copyright is about authorship, not ownership. This is explored in-depth with “Filesharing and Copyright” by Felix Oberholzer-Gee and Koleman Strumpf http://wever.org/java/space/start/2009-06-26/1/filesharing-and-copyright.pdf . Something that spins off the natural right of ownership, is one's natural right to share. This natural right is so ingrained into our society that we actively teach children from a young age both at home and in our education institutions of the benefits to all from sharing. It is a fundamental morale in our communities, and when it collides with copyright infringement that tries to tell us something different... well not everybody ends up agreeing with multinational corporations despite the propaganda budget they have. If you are willing to admit that you are a criminal but that it's ethical behaviour please join http://filesharer.org/ History repeats itself: Is copyright applicable today, or just out of date? What was copyright originally and is it time to return to it? Read up on the Statute of Anne and you'll quickly see that copyright has undergone a number of changes in recent history due to changing conditions in distribution. Up until 1709 a monopoly the Stationer's Company , much like the music and movie industry today, held complete dominance over distribution and publishing rights. Queen Anne was forced to step in and change this and she did with what is know as the first Copyright law, the Statute of Anne. This original Copyright law ensured that distribution and publishing rights always, forever, belonged to the author. It introduced the limit term of 21 years after which everything went into the free domain, and it forced that every print require free copies be sent to every library so that the general public could benefit without purchase obligations, much like having a free copy available on the internet today. How did Copyright law go from this to what people think of it today? Well read up on what happened when Disney's copyright on Mickey Mouse was about to expire. But what can be seen evidently here is that Copyright law is something very plastic and quickly inappropriate when a new distribution model arises. The tide is turning: Crowds are gathering around the legal proceedings against file sharers, or ISPs, opposing what RIAA, MPAA, and each country's counterpart like AFACT are doing. The music industry knows it is it losing public opinion en-masse by suing children (or their mothers) and is having to give that strategy up. People are starting to understand that the amount of money the music industry thinks it is losing due to absurd claims that every download would have otherwise been a purchase is comparable to the amount of money is it spending on legal costs and propaganda fighting file sharing in the first place. People are starting to understand that it will cost the public more if ISPs are (or taxpayers if the government is) forced to become the music industry's private police. Not to talk about wiping out the principle that we are innocent until proven guitly how the hell does it make sense that any ISP should incur costs from such private policing that are higher than the “supposed” value lost in the first place. And now Pirate Parties are establishing with alarming success with their appeal to liberalism (typically right-wing) and progressism (typically left-wing) and an understanding to a modern digital world. They are quickly becoming the largest or second largest “outside” political party. In the EU election last year they received 13% of the votes of people under 30 becoming the second largest party favoured. That's not 13% of them that agreed with the issue, but 13% that believed recognising file sharing as ethical is an issue more important than any other in the spotlight. For as passionate as I am for the argument I would still have trouble saying it's more important that the need to address climate change, or stronger regulations to prevent another global financial crisis, etc, yet 13% in this demographic did. Once you go down to the under-20 demographic, where most are digital natives, this percentage dramatically increases. Our children simply do not agree with our outdated, pre-digital, laws and morals, and they have plenty of justification not to.
mick09 Oct 4, 2009 8:38 AM	Wow, and amen to that, mck.
Slatts Oct 4, 2009 12:55 PM	mck wrote: Which other industry do artists have their own copyright stolen from them upon any initial contract signed with the distribution agents? Er.. the software industry? The news media? Any industry where the employee outputs intellectual property where he has agreed to receive recompense from his employer for it? If an artist doesn't want to sign with big music they can go indy. Either way, when music / content is released for dissemination under a license that precludes its being freely shared to all and sundry, you have a choice of either abiding by that agreement or not using the content. To do otherwise just because you don't agree with the terms of the licence is to take under false pretences. To then share that content with all comers is in no way moral or equitable. It just adds insult to injury. If a content provider chooses to make their content freely available to anyone, that's their choice and more power to them. By posting on the forums we are giving away any copyright to the content we create. Anything we write here is open to being copied, quoted, plagiarised taken out of context or totally ignored. That's a choice we all made. The fact that some people do give away their intellectual property does not make it right to take the content of others who do not make their content freely available without paying for it. You can play word games to make yourself feel better, "Oh it's not really stealing because look! the file is still there! The one on my iPod just happens to look, sound and feel exactly like it. If I'd had to pay money for it I wouldn't have got it so the author didn't loose a thing. Everyone else on the interwebs does it. so I'm no thief!" Morals and ethics are about doing the right thing. If you enter into an agreement, don't break it. If you disagree with the agreement don't enter into it. If intellectual property is made available under an agreed licence that you don't like, don't use the property. To do otherwise would be neither ethical nor moral nor the right thing. If you're listening to music / watching movies / using software that wasn't made freely available or sold to you by the owner of the copyright you've stolen it. That doesn't make you Robin Hood. It makes you a thief. If you can live with that, fine. But let's stop kidding ourselves.
mck Oct 4, 2009 8:23 PM	You give me outdated, pre-digital, laws and morals. I'll give you justification.
Slatts Oct 4, 2009 9:54 PM	mck wrote: You give me outdated, pre-digital, laws and morals. I'll give you justification. erhem, mck wrote: In addition I think taking the legal definitions (eg Crimes Act 1958 and Theft Act 1968) comfortably overrides any ambiguous dictionary definition you may find. Sorry, what was that again? LOL It was a lovely big post you did mck, and I found it terribly entertaining, but it doesn't nullify the fact that if your stealing content your a thief. Bludging off the work of others. Hope you have a nice evening.
mck Oct 4, 2009 11:24 PM	You say the real definition of “stealing” is just a word game. Slatts this is not an argument. Dictionary definitions support my argument. The legal definitions supports my argument. And I give you legal precedence from a US Federal Court judge who states very clearly illegal file sharing can not be referred to as stealing. Who the f@*k do you think you are? That your opinion without rational argument is more important, more valid, than a US Federal judge? For one old fart you sure are a brain dead pidgin. > if your stealing content your a thief If it is the "content" that is being appropriated by illegal means (let me repeat the law does not entitle one to use the word "stolen") for it to be a crime wouldn't the owner (not author) of this content need to file criminal charges before it can be deemed illegal activity? If the owner of the content is willing to share it then exactly what are you referring to that is being appropriated inappropriately?
mck Oct 5, 2009 12:40 AM	I wrote that last paragraph ever so clumsy! We are all but human. ... wouldn't the owner (not author) of this content need to file criminal charges (or at least indicate it was taken inappropriately) before it can be deemed stolen? If the owner of the content is willing to share it then exactly what are you referring to that is being stolen? A third party is involved, the author (or representative like the music industry) of the work, and this helps clarify that the crime committed is copyright infringement not theft.
Sams Oct 5, 2009 12:42 PM	mck: "as Sams pointed out, something that is illegal isn't always immoral, and can be at times moral and ethical. Robin Hood is a classic example of this, that's clear enough that we are willing to give it to our children. But beyond raising the possibility it doesn't actually address the question of file sharing ethics." Yep. My aim was to try to get people to realize that the concepts of legality and morality are two different things. It is probably a waste of time debating file sharing without at least establishing that first. However after several tries, I have given up - which is a shame because it would be an interesting discussion.
Slatts Oct 5, 2009 7:30 PM	Wow mck, are you OK? You're sounding kind of stressed mate. Maybe you should download some soothing music and have a lie down. Wouldn't want you doing your self (or your cred) an injury. LOL cheers, Slatts AKA the old fart
mck Oct 5, 2009 7:50 PM	I'm not stressed pidgin :-) just slightly irritated at you inability to come up with anything remotely constructive to the issue. I do value your opinion, but you could do such a better job at expressing yourself. You know what pidgins do - they sit around in public places making stupid sounds all day shitting all over everything.
mck Oct 6, 2009 4:16 AM	Are the following artists? > the software industry? The news media? > Any industry where the employee outputs intellectual property > where he has agreed to receive recompense from his employer for it? There comes a point where an organisation or company is better suited to hold the copyright where the work is a collaborative work of many. It's my understanding that the Statute of Anne held an exception to allow for such collaborative works, or such an exception came shortly after? Anybody that knows the details here? It's a very valid point for the movie industry where it is difficult for any one artist to really be claiming authorship of the film. The director maybe? And you know that's not what the music industry is doing, they are squeezing the artists for their copyright and never returning it. Film and TV shows are a different facet as well. I pay for a TV (cable) subscription, but i rarely actually watch it except for news. Any movies or tv series that i know are available through my subscription i find it more convenient to download it from the pirate bay and watch in my own time. I've paid for it so feel it's morally ok to download it illegally. But this is a whole separate argument to what's been discussed so far - a whole new category of file sharing advocates. > If an artist doesn't want to sign with big music they can go > indy. Right, and they should :-) And then i agree with you - you should question whether it's appropriate to illegally download their material - especially if it is an indie artist that is trying to be part of a new digital age! Thing is more and more indy artists make their stuff free to download because they understand popularity comes first. They also understand in a world where the technological cost of distribution has become zero then if you wish to keep control of distribution you must be the best free distribution provider. If you search pirate bay you find torrents where the comments point people back to the authors website because you can get everything there in better quality - for free. Control of distribution is still very possible. > If you disagree with the agreement don't enter into it. For people in the latter category of file sharing advocates they probably whole heartedly agree with you. Society itself requires you to enter an agreement to share. Just one example is that you are required to pay taxes. Taxes are a form of sharing for money or resources (education, health, etc) that the society has deemed a government must 'forcibly share' because natural or self-governing processes, eg capitalism, can't. Sharing within one's community is a similar example scaled down. Would you find it moral, despite it being legal, to dodge (without just reason) turning up to a working bee at your child's school? Or like a friend asking me "hey mate that's a great album - can i get a copy?" am i going to reply "yeah well actually there's this thing about copyright infringement (and a music industry whom i've never met and for that matter who knows nothing about me)". Forget that, the answer will always be "of course take a copy my friend!" Why should this principle change online? Here it's a question about which agreement you value most. Or of course, as you may be suggesting, you could never listen to music in the first place, but honestly who are you helping then? That's an elitist argument that certainly is out of date. More importantly you are not helping us support the need for copyright law change. We need dissidents to move the law forward.
alexdelarge Oct 6, 2009 10:02 AM	Morning Bratchnies. You still at it? Saved the world from evil copyright yet? One song at a time eh. "of course take a copy my friend!": My, you are so generous with other peoples' things. Hey, why not scan and print cash - it's sharing? Digital scanning, that is, not some old analogue photocopy that can't be transmitted over the Internet. You and your friends are not dissidents, you just think you are "entitled". Classic delusion of people who spend too much time online and not in the real world. "How about the radio? That's practically open source.": Oh, peeleeeez. Learn something about copyright before advocating its destruction. "more and more indy artists make their stuff free to download": Bzzzt. Wrong again. I work in the industry. It's much more sophisticated than that. Some stuff is free, some is for fee, but it's tactical. The CHOICE - note the word - is up to the artist. You are advocating taking away this choice. You are also undermining your argument that this is "us against the big bad record companies". The record companies have been dead for some time. Learn something about the industry you are trashing: sound recording copyright, song copyright, collection agencies, mechanical royalties and the new moral rights clauses in the amended Copyright Act that protect authors and performers (26 July 2007). Start your arguments with artists' rights, and NOT YOUR OWN. "Pew Internet": Nice (old, pre-digital??? ;-) report that makes the argument about protecting artist's copyright. Ta ra.
alexdelarge Oct 6, 2009 10:02 AM	Morning Bratchnies. You still at it? Saved the world from evil copyright yet? One song at a time eh. "of course take a copy my friend!": My, you are so generous with other peoples' things. Hey, why not scan and print cash - it's sharing? Digital scanning, that is, not some old analogue photocopy that can't be transmitted over the Internet. You and your friends are not dissidents, you just think you are "entitled". Classic delusion of people who spend too much time online and not in the real world. "How about the radio? That's practically open source.": Oh, peeleeeez. Learn something about copyright before advocating its destruction. "more and more indy artists make their stuff free to download": Bzzzt. Wrong again. I work in the industry. It's much more sophisticated than that. Some stuff is free, some is for fee, but it's tactical. The CHOICE - note the word - is up to the artist. You are advocating taking away this choice. You are also undermining your argument that this is "us against the big bad record companies". The record companies have been dead for some time. Learn something about the industry you are trashing: sound recording copyright, song copyright, collection agencies, mechanical royalties and the new moral rights clauses in the amended Copyright Act that protect authors and performers (26 July 2007). Start your arguments with artists' rights, and NOT YOUR OWN. "Pew Internet": Nice (old, pre-digital??? ;-) report that makes the argument about protecting artist's copyright. Ta ra.
mck Oct 6, 2009 7:18 PM	> you are so generous with other peoples' things. No alexdelarge. I own the music, and therefore should have a natural right to share it. The artists made the music, owns the authorship, and (should) own the copyright. I'm not sharing the author's rights or the copyright. They both remain singletons in existence. > Hey, why not scan and print cash - it's sharing? Money does not increase in value with popularity. Music does. This really isn't a valid argument, it's apples and oranges. Maybe you could come up with some better? > Classic delusion of people who spend too much time online and > not in the real world. Well tough for you. because that's the way the world is going. quickly. You've only identified yourself as outdated. > "more and more indy artists make their stuff free to download" Give me empirical proof that more indy artists last year released their music free than this year? The trend is that more and more artists (especially indy artists) every year release songs and albums for free. Prove that wrong, otherwise the statement is correct. The trend is also that more and more artists acknowledge that there's nothing wrong (or no point in worrying about it) in breaking their copyright agreement. > The record companies have been dead for some time. Really? What the f*@k is happening with iiNet? The money you spend on buying CD from one of the big four goes more towards supporting this crap than it ends in the artists hands. But alexdelarge, all this concern for the artists is nonsense. More music than ever before is being produced every year. The music industry last year made record profits despite using millions on anti-file-sharing propaganda. There is no just grounds that the artists are loosing money. The only people that have the artists bent over is the music industry (and generally a lack of innovation in dealing with distribution). This big injustice you think we're doing to the artists by trashing the current copyright laws isn't real, and there's no real proof (apart from what the music industry itself gives) that artists are struggling anymore than they normally do.
anonymous Oct 6, 2009 8:01 PM	So is all the current (very) expensive legal confrontation of one of the lesser ISPs simply a device by some of the Big Content Corporations to use their financial and legal muscle to stand over a network operator and try to move the goalposts in their favour?
mck Oct 6, 2009 9:37 PM	Yes. It's a coordinated legal attack in many countries orchestrated from RIAA and MPAA. There's an ISP being targeted in every country it seems. But it does also introduce the discussion of net neutrality.
mck Oct 6, 2009 9:41 PM	"Coordinated" may be a little overloaded, but it's the latest strategy it seems rather than suing children and their mothers.
Sams Oct 7, 2009 9:38 AM	"the new moral rights clauses in the amended Copyright Act that protect authors and performers (26 July 2007)" Moral rights have been in Oz copyright law since the late 1990s, but have been amended to cover more scenarios. """ * the right of attribution of authorship or performership — to be named in connection with one’s work, film or performance * the right against false attribution of authorship or performership of a work, film or performance, and * the right of integrity of authorship or performership — the right of an author or performer to object to treatment of a work, film or performance that demeans their reputation. """ http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Copyright_IssuesandReviews_Moralrights I don't think anyone here would have a problem with them in principle.
Sams Oct 7, 2009 9:44 AM	"Pew Internet: Nice (old, pre-digital??? ;-)" 2004 is not old in the context of this discussion. If you prefer, there is this 2007 study by the Harvard School of Law: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=961830 "Downloads have an effect on sales that is statistically indistinguishable from zero. Our estimates are inconsistent with claims that file sharing is the primary reason for the decline in music sales during our study period."
alexdelarge Oct 7, 2009 8:02 PM	"I own the music, and therefore should have a natural right to share it.": WTF??? You own the physical CD or the file that you have purchased. You don't "own the music". Did you come up with the notes and lyrics that make up the songs? Did you record it? If you did, then you can share it with the world any way you want. If not, then take some responsibility, be an adult, and respect the rights of the actual owner. "I'm not sharing the author's rights or the copyright. They both remain singletons in existence.": You are breaking Copyright Law by copying it. You are infringing on the rights of the owner of the sound recording and the author of the works. Copyright - and decisions about reproduction (free or not) - rests with the owner of the sound recording and the author, not with you. "What's yours is mine" is the cry of a 4 year old with entitlement issues, not the response of a thoughtful, respectful, trustworthy citizen. "Moral rights have been in Oz copyright law since the late 1990s, but have been amended to cover more scenarios.": Yes. To protect artists, as I said. You Google it. I've lived it. "I don't think anyone here would have a problem with them in principle.": Riiight. Your argument goes: "Everyone is copying, get with the program, copyright is unenforceable." Let's say you break the law by kindly sending your friend a copied song over the Internet. He rips off a drum loop, releases the rip-off and makes money. But wait, your friend didn't attribute the loop to the original artist, nor did he pass on any of the money he made back to the original artist. So how do you enforce the moral rights you said you support? You can't because this is the responsibility-free virtual world you have promoted. So you and your friend have royally scr@wed the artist - abusing the sound recording copyright, mechanical copyright and moral rights of the artist. They get nothing. Nice work. "The money you spend on buying CD from one of the big four": Don't presume to know anything about my music buying habits. I spend my time making records for artists, giving them a lot of free time for no return, and caring about how the artist can afford to make excellent recordings. You should care too. That's how great music is made. "Really? What the f*@k is happening with iiNet?": As your Harvard reference states, the music market is shrinking. Once again you make my case. You guys created the iiNet debacle with your unworkable, "I'm entitled" ideas about killing copyright. You will get the typical unworkable, idiot response from policy and law makers - they will demand ISPs regulate P2P streams though - I know - filtering! This is insane, but you started it. You get what you (don't) pay for. And the public will pay for it (hence my Kubrick reference). Nice work again. "All this concern for the artists is nonsense": Riiiight. Nice work. I'll pass that on to the Aussie artists I work with. F@ck you too - love from them xo. See above point. Oh, and don't presume to think you know anything about the music industry by using Google to search for random references. Really. Grow up. "Give me empirical proof that more indy artists last year released their music free than this year?": Woah, steady on. Re-read the post. I'm not saying that. The point is that the CHOICE - note the word - is up to the artist. You know, the person who makes the music that you copy illegally. "You've only identified yourself as outdated.": Oooh, have I hit a little nerve, my droog? How petty and ageist of you. What I've learned is that an obsessive "virtual" life in front of a screen is at the expense of a real human life full of direct interaction, experience and sharing. Whether you like it or not, music comes from real interactions, the very same music you are copying illegally in your oh-so-modern virtual world. Your attitudes are symptomatic of a generational psychological and socio-ethical malaise (hence my Kubrick reference), not your imagined triumphant digital libertarianism. [BTW I was working with pro digital studio gear 15 years before Napster, and I was writing UNIX IP stack code around the same time for my Comp Sci MSc thesis. Bzzt, wrong again, bratchny.] "Downloads have an effect on sales that is statistically indistinguishable from zero.": You quoted just the abstract. Did you pay for and download the whole article? If you had, you would realise that their empirical studies were carried out in 2004 and the authors admit that the world has changed significantly since then. We could throw articles at each other for a long time, such as "Times May Have Changed, but the Song is Still the Same - Why the Supreme Court was Incorrect to Stray from Sony's Reasoning in Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.", Wooten 2007, 5 Nw. J. of Tech. & Intell. Prop. 351 at http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v5/n2/6/#137. Quote: "Some may argue that unauthorized copying depletes industry revenue, yet it is unclear by how much. Researchers attempting to estimate just what level of difference the peer-to-peer revolution has made on the industry range from claiming that the effect is minimal, with little or no effect on album purchases, to the opposite end of the spectrum, with record executives declaring losses in the billions. The effect on production levels remains equally uncertain." But the reality in the real world is that a top artist, engineer or producer in this country makes less money now than 5, 10 or 20 years ago, and that is not a lot of money. As the Harvard article says: the music market is shrinking. Yet illegal copying is increasing. You work it out. So do the right thing, respect the artist's rights, pay for what you consume.
Sams Oct 7, 2009 8:24 PM	alexdelarge: [re: moral rights] "You Google it. I've lived it." A chip on your shoulder about your own failures, perhaps? In fact, I deal with copyright and moral rights issues all the time, which you'd know if you had tried to have an actual conversation. Maybe you'll want to pull you head in and re-examine your assumptions - but I doubt it.
trodelphin Oct 8, 2009 2:03 PM	"I don't think anyone here would have a problem with them in principle.": Riiight. Your argument goes: "Everyone is copying, get with the program, copyright is unenforceable." Let's say you break the law by kindly sending your friend a copied song over the Internet. He rips off a drum loop, releases the rip-off and makes money. But wait, your friend didn't attribute the loop to the original artist, nor did he pass on any of the money he made back to the original artist. So how do you enforce the moral rights you said you support? You can't because this is the responsibility-free virtual world you have promoted. So you and your friend have royally scr@wed the artist - abusing the sound recording copyright, mechanical copyright and moral rights of the artist. They get nothing. Nice work." lol quite amusing as if that hasnt been happening commercially anyway ie Vanilla Ice and others ripping off riffs etc and whos gonna pay $50 to see joe blog play "Enter Sandman" at Big day out ?
trodelphin Oct 8, 2009 2:17 PM	and to all those on your high horse i would be incredibly suprised if i couldnnt walk into your house and not find an old tape of a football game or vhs movie or peice of copied software of yours or family member you are responsible for on a computer. you paid for and registered WinRar ?(common one).... always respect the 30 day trial limit and purchase not just reinstall ?
trodelphin Oct 8, 2009 2:18 PM	even sony and microsoft cant manage that as shown in several court cases of thier own "stealing" software
Sams Oct 8, 2009 3:54 PM	"Let's say you break the law by kindly sending your friend a copied song over the Internet. He rips off a drum loop" Yeah this one shows he is not thinking straight: Said friend might just as well have ripped off the drum loop from hearing the song on the radio, or a live performance, or from a CD from a library, or maybe from a CD he purchased even.
mck Oct 9, 2009 6:25 AM	alexdelarge: Great post, even if a little aggressive, but you gets points for a vivid imagination and encouraging engagement. I can appreciate your concern for the artists but from what i see as some fundamentals flaws in your perspective i hope to show that you are really doing more harm to the artists than the harm you falsely presume i am. From there i can only hope that a constructive discussion can come to play. I'll start with the emotional stuff that really isn't helpful to the conversation but got my attention. I deal with the real stuff further down. "by using Google to search for random references.": This is a wild presumption on your behalf. Most of my references i'd already read and am familar with. If i used google it was only provide accurate hyperlinked references to what i knew already existed. Over my posts I have referred to 9 external sources, while you have referred only to 3 (including Clockwork Orange), and yet you attempt to criticise me on referencing skills. Nothing is provided here but an emotional plea. "What's yours is mine" is the cry of a 4 year old": A clever anology and it works because you're representing an outdated establishment arguing against a younger free-willed generation. It is flawed because "what's mine can be yours" is not equal to "What's yours is mine" and I never said, or insinuated, anywhere that people should be forced into sharing. Furthermore the insinuation that i'm justifying my actions is wrong. It wasn't until i relised something was drastically wrong with the whole picture: went to read all the research and papers, to question how i felt on the issue, and what i believed to be right and wrong; that my illegal file-sharing increased. In short i've tried very hard to have my actions follow my principles, rather than the other way around. "Don't presume to know anything about my music buying habits": My apologies if it read that i meant you in particular. If you've made a habit of avoiding purchases from the Big 4 then respect. "I've lived it.": So far the only proof i can see is that you've been part of an established music industry's mind set that has done nothing more than rape artists of their real rights the past two decades. It may have been ok before but i think everybody agrees now the lubricant has run dry. "an obsessive "virtual" life in front of a screen is at the expense of a real human life full of direct interaction, experience and sharing": Yeah i agree, how you came up with this and thought it was at all relevant to the discussion is disturbing. As far as digital natives go, if that's what you were referring to, the amount of time spent in front of a computer is not the definition. What defines a digital native is someone confident enough online that they can see themself online and offline as the one identity. They don't see their activity online as something separate in their life. For example i use skype to video call family members regularly -- according to you this is just part of a virtual life in front of the screen that is at expense of real human blah blah blah. What you have to say here is a blatant sterotype that an older generation too often places on the younger digital natives. And onto the real stuff... "You own the physical CD or the file that you have purchased. You don't “own the music” ....... your friend didn't attribute the loop": The whole friend-ripping-off-drum-loop paragraph demostrates the worst flaw in what underlines all your arguments. You've completely failed to separate the issue of ownership and authorship. Making a copy, or a mixed tape, for a friend is one's entitlement of ownership and has nothing at all related to failing to credit authorship or for that matter any form of plagurism. Failing to honour and protect commercial interests around authorship (not ownership) is exactly and solely what copyright is for. I'll cross reference your false "what's yours is mine" argument and apply it to authorship. Using your own language what the artists “owns” no matter how much the music is distributed, the artist will always “own”. This is true as long as every copy is credited to be a work of that artist. There simply is no "what's yours is mine" anywhere in the context of authorship unless you are referring to plagurism. And the internet can greatly help us now with music databases that can quickly identify from just a few seconds of a song which artist it comes from. It won't be long before you can take a song that has been remixed many times and automatically list all the authors involved in each remix back to the original song. If the remix is a commercial product whether financial support must also follow crediting the original author is entirely a separate discussion which i have no strong opinion about but which i know countries like brazil and nigeria have decided is not neccessary. "This is insane, but you started it. You get what you (don't) pay for. And the public will pay for it": Interesting you bring this up, and i appreciate your sentiments. I'd kinda hoped that i could stick to a purely principled argument about the ethics of file sharing but here we step into the practical again. In a way you are correct. Billy Bragg, a file-sharing opponent, just last week said: “This is a war that no one can win. As the pirates always manage to stay one step ahead of the latest clampdown, the recording industry will continue to ask legislators for ever tighter sanctions, leading ultimately to an internet controlled by and for big business, which can only be accessed by those willing to pay.” Yes file sharing is absolutely impossible to stop, we will continue to thrive enjoying our freedoms using darknets when neccessary, which only proves that if there was ever a war it was won a long time ago when the internet was first invented. When it comes to illegal file sharing most of us just do it today, but some will take the courage to stand up and express natural freedoms so that the law can be updated and the darknets not neccessary. And it should be evident that they've lost already, and they're bringing the public down with them because it is the complete lack of innovation on the internet with coming up with new distribution models that started it all. They are not the first victim of the technological change due to the internet. Where are all the photo-print shops today? I don't see them suing anybody because now you can buy your own photo printer and do everything at home. What's happening in the newspaper media industry? Despite seriously struggling to sell newspapers i don't see them suing people because now that can read their news in a de-centralised manner online. I appreciate that you think i started it. but i can assure you it wasn't i that invent the internet. "I'll pass that on to the Aussie artists I work with": Hilarious. You opinion already clearly puts you in no position for any F2A2F communication. Here you have identified yourself as an outdated hang-on to the artists. It is only a minority of income for artists that come from music distribution, the majority comes from concert for performing artists and licenses for composers - both of which illegal file sharing can promote. But the internet is hurting the income of those hanging on to the artists. The sound engineers are faced with technology drastically dropping the cost involved in producing the music, what i presume what remains is the experience they bring in ensuring the recording sounds good anywhere on any medium in any space - but this is only a faction of what production costs used to cover. The distributors are faced with a reality of zero-cost distribution: the output from the sound engineer can reach the audience today without cost. Unfortunately i can't see how all this can be blamed on the fans. The world changes and we must change with it. Change can be painful and we should all participate in reducing this pain, yet it is more important that the outcome remains the natural result the world needs - not some subsided or big-business control internet. "The point is that the CHOICE": I whole heartedly agree with you! Choice is largely the same thing as Freedom and so it seems we are arguing for the same thing from different perspectives. All the more important that we find a constructive tone - that is if you can agree it is in principle possible for two freedoms to co-exist peacefully. If the artists do not wish to have their fans share their creation freely then they shouldn't sell it. Put simply if the artist does not wish to loose ownership rights of their work they should not release it in the first place. This might sound funny but there's common sense here for performing artists. If an artist keeps the b-side of each album private, never releasing it, and only ever plays it at concerts they create a huge pull to raise concert attendence. It's basically what good musicians that jam on stage are already doing. Nothing beats a live performance like this. It really shouldn't be my responsibility to re-invent existing business ideas for you but if i can come up with this in a few minutes someone who claims to be representing the artists should be able to come up with good ideas for composers and performers alike too. Maybe you just need to redirect that vivid imagination to something more constructive. And to think that illegal file sharers are not pay fans is nonsense. It's well established in research now that there's a general correlation between the fans that download the most are the fans that financially support the artist the most. This recent study http://www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/musikk/article3034488.ece quotes "someone who downloads music illegally is, at the same time, ten times more likely to buy it". I believe the artists freedoms should not have to enroach on the fans freedoms. The rights of ownership and authorship should co-exist peacefully side by side and that's why copyright law needs to be updated. I'm fighting for a peaceful solution, and you are just pissing off the same people that are ultimately paying for ten-times-majority of your income. These people that put themselves on a pedestal because they don't illegally file-share thinking that somehow they are contributing more to the artists success are just wankers living in their own disillusioned world. "Researchers attempting to estimate ... has made on the industry ... claiming that the effect is minimal": Interesting you post this. Considering that there is been plenty of research published every year for almost a decade now suggesting that the peer-to-peer revolution has infact a positive effect for artists it shows that you're willing to accept that the industry is not about the artist but about the middle man's salary. If you are a sound engineer of alternative music then you have a lot to gain by promoting illegal file sharing and a new age of distribution - where popularity of music returns to an underground peer to peer word of mouth like jazz clubs used to be and where the listener samples many varieties of sounds and acquires truly individual tastes. But you've fallen for RIAA's propaganda already, one truth is "the RIAA doesn't want you to become this discriminating buyer. It makes it too hard to market to you. They want you to only hear what they can sell to millions of others." -Mr Moto http://consumerist.com/161558/study-finds-file-sharing-is-good-for-music-industry (that's a random google quote to appease you). Alexdelarge, i have no problem agreeing to disagree. Largely because i already have the freedoms i am seeking: I'm free to easily download all the music and films i want to in an anonymous manner free of the eyes of the authorities. I have no qualms about it what so ever, and i don't feel responsible for the current disarray that exists in how music should be distributed. I am willing to support artists in moving forward to find new solutions and i will certainly spend money on innovative new music distribution solutions, for example Spotify. But for now i cannot accept you are a real represent of artists interests, or of any part of the F2A2F conversation. I hope the artists you say you represent find somebody a little more in touch with the times knowing where the current business possibilities lie. For the artists sake and their fans.
mck Oct 9, 2009 6:39 AM	sorry for many spelling mistakes in that last post.