PeterDavid.net

>>If you felt any anger over the kind of mindset that had no problem stealing the latest "Harry Potter" novel and posting it on the net, then you'll want to support this cause.

PAD<<

Already contributed. I am shocked that some anal person, either typed or scanned in a 800+ page book. These people need lives.

stealing is stealing

on a lighter note: Odai and Qusai are still dead.

Yeah right, like anyone who downloaded isn't going to buy the book also.

Copying files ISN'T theft. Maybe "copyright infringement" but please, you cannot steal "Intellectual Property", because there is no such thing...

That ought to generate the messages....

"Intellectual property" is a necessary fiction, if we want artists and writers and musicians and photographers to actually make a living creating things.

The alternatives are, as I see it:

1) put all artists on a pay-roll from the government, allowing them to create at will and distribute their work without fee.

2) distribute works with no restrictions, providing no compensation to artists for their work beyond what they can get voluntarily from those who enjoy it.

Neither of these scenarios give an artist much incentive to create new works, or at least, to release them to the public.

Now Peter, as I understand it, Harlan is sueing AOL over a copy of one of his stories that was posted to a Usenet newsgroup. While that was wrong, going after AOL is just stupid, and despite 7 or so years of being told how stupid it is, he's still taking the same course of action which is absolutely bound to fail.

I believe you can read the WSJ article on-line here:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB105882058352830200,00.html

Eric Akawie: ...despite 7 or so years of being told how stupid it is, he's still taking the same course of action which is absolutely bound to fail.

Luigi Novi: Seven years? In what, dog years?

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

steal (v.): To take (the property of another) without right or permission. (First Definition)

intellectual property (n.): A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.

Since when does stealing require something to be "physical"? There are very few definitions of the word (even beyond the basic one that I noted above) that actually involve the taking of physical property. The most basic one (above) certainly does not, especially when the property in question is "intellectual property".

Here, try this: sneak into a club because you object to the cover charge. Get caught. When the bouncers come to throw you out, claim, "I didn't really sneak in, because I wouldn't have paid your darned charge anyway. Since you wouldn't have gotten my money either way, you should just let me stay." Let us all know how far that got you. (DISCLAIMER - BTW, don't really do that. You'll get in trouble. - DISCLAIMER)

I am a writer who hopes one day to be published and working only on his writing (because it is profitable for me to do so in this fantasy world). If I write something and YOU copy the script and distribute it without giving me a cut, then you have robbed me of my remuneration--you have stolen my paycheck.

There are lots of ways to try to dodge this issue, but the simple fact remains: if I create something, I have a right to control who reads it(1) and I have a right to receive money for my efforts(2). Any other arguments are really like saying, "but the window was open, officer! They wanted me to take their stuff!"

Eric

1 - Control, here would be something like, "there are only so many copies made, and each copy has to be paid for. Loaning THAT copy out to a friend is the reader's business, and not mine [the author's]. Making a copy and giving it to someone IS my [the author's] business."

2 - I can choose to charge for it or not, but if I choose to do so, it's pay to play/read, folks. Also, I'm not saying that I deserve money JUST for writing--obviously it needs to be based somehow on sales of the book, but that's another issue.

Let's agree on a starting point.

First, go read Harlan's introduction to his book

"I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream"

(Pyramid Books Edition).

Then come back, and maybe we can

discuss the difference between

theft of material items (like from

a retail business) and theft of

an intellectual property.

Maybe we can discuss how the losses

that small bookstores can't eat,

result in fewer bookstores.

Those fewer being parts of a chain

where one guy in a room a couple

states over decides what your local store carries. And if that

guy doesn't care for Ellison or

David, well, that's just business.

Right on, Eric! Correct on every point. I, too, hope to make a living smithing words, and find the attitude of the Napster- and Kazaa-addicted thieves troublesome beyond expression.

Interesting how you mention the piracy of Harry Potter here, PAD. What about the piracy of your own comic works? It happens on a regular basis to you and nearly every other creator in the industry.

At a monthly gathering of sci-fi fans near Chicago this weekend, the free library at baen.com was pointed out to me. It looks interesting, what do other people think?

Re: Harry Potter - this is a rather unique mess - people impatient with translations and debating the merits of translations that exist - I think it's kinda cool. She she be proud to have the #1 bestseller, in ENGLISH, in France and Germany. Do I condone it? Not what they did, no, but the debate about translations is interesting. You'll note I've posted about how some of PADs jokes fail to get translated in Germany before.

Also, there were the people who have English language versions but who have also created eBooks for themselves. Great! Isn't that fair use, as long as THEY have bought a copy and don't distribute the eBook any further?

A system I'd like to see, but will likely never happen: I buy a book, hardcover, first printing, and get a key to go to a website, download the eBook and unlock it for my personal use where lugging the hardback isn't practical. For paperbacks, or if you get the eBook first, perhaps you could get a discount on buying the other editions.

Thoughts?

There are forms of copyright violation and other forms of piracy I most definitely don`t accept, there are others that are a grey area but there are also some where I wonder, what IS the problem?

Counterfeiting music, movies, games etc. and sell them for profit is definitely unacceptable. The same applies to the example given here, posting the contents of books on the Internet when they are still in print and authors get money for the sales.

But I already start to wonder, what about books that are no longer in print, that are also not offered in ebook form (as it is the case with some older Star Trek books)? In Germany many fans are more and more unhappy because so few ST books are translated and a few people are toying with the idea to put up websites with translations as a service to fans who don`t speak English well enough. I wonder, if NF books that Heyne doesn`t translate appear in German on the net, how would you, PAD feel about it? Heyne already skipped "Once Burned" and "Double or Nothing". I don`t think they will ever be officially translated.

I am living in Britain and therefore DVD region 2. Strictly speaking I should not be allowed to get region 1 DVDs and play them here. Well, we do it all the time and they are freely available on the Internet. We also have a world player. And, no, I certainly don`t feel guilty about it. The contrary, I find this regulation very annoying.

The area becomes IMO grey when it is about downloading from the Net. I have no problem with downloading TV episodes. The contrary, this is the best means of advertising possible, especially for people who don`t live in the USA. Many Germans do it also because episodes are often cut and translations are sometimes annoying. I have watched original downloads of Buffy and Buffy on TV - and again and again I get annoyed at the cuts. Also, people tend to buy what they enjoyed watching. We have a complete collection of ST episodes (minus TOS and the last three movies) and as soon as Enterprise is available on DVD, they will be next. We also have the Buffy box sets and LOTS of others.

Movies is a different matter. But even that can be seen two ways: People also download movies they are not sure about if they should spend the money for it and if they like it, they go and maybe also buy a DVD they wouldn`t have bought otherwise. Also, most people who download a movie because they want to watch it early go later when it is available to watch in cinemas where they live, especially when they liked it. The quality is better and of course, there is the experience of sitting in a cinema.

Downloading music is not so grey any more and downloading full songs for free is not something I support. Especially with music, on the one hand it is a big chance for more unknown musicians to get attention but more of a menace to established artists. The solution is IMO to offer websites that offer access with a subscription fee so that artists get their money.

With the Internet and growing globalization people are less and less willing to stick to old established rules. I agree, there have to be boundaries but on the other hand, instead of swimming against the current providers of entertainment should wonder, how can we actually make the Internet and new technology work for us?

"Right on, Eric! Correct on every point. I, too, hope to make a living smithing words, and find the attitude of the Napster- and Kazaa-addicted thieves troublesome beyond expression. "

-Richard K. McPike

This is so freaking ludicrous. Most people aren't going to burn their eyeballs out reading entire novels on a computer screen. Those that do probably are so cheap they wouldn't buy the book in the first place. You do realize that it's a lot cheaper to buy the book at a store than print it out?

I'm sorry I read the WSJ article. I didn't realize Harlan Ellison was such a vindictive creep. Should I ever fancy reading an Ellison book again, I'll go to the library.

Peter,

I was wondering what you think of file-sharing as it pertains to music. Less defensible? More defensible? No distinction?

One distinction that I would draw between the two is that anyone who downloads a novel like Harry Potter is going to be downloading the entire thing, whereas it's fairly common for file-sharers to only download popular songs or singles by artists (which are already available for public consumption through other free outlets like radio or MTV.)

I don't have a problem with the latter---in fact, with the major labels releasing fewer and fewer retail singles each year without having compensated for that from the get-go with an affordable online alternative (and no, the $2.99 per song download system from Sony doesn't count----no b-sides, no cover art, inferior sound quality---nor does the PressPlay setup, where users are effectively renting songs), they've really brought these hardships upon themselves.

I used to work in a chain record store, and the biggest complaint from customers was 'Why isn't this available as a single? I don't want to buy the whole album'. The major labels never took complaints like these seriously, and now they're paying for that mistake.

I don't really have a problem with downloading full albums, either, if done in moderation and for an artist whose catalog items you would regularly buy. Out-of-print albums would seem to be fair game, as would oft-delayed releases (that was another common complaint: "Why do they keep pushing back the release dates on so-and-so's new record?"). As an ongoing habit, though, it strikes me as unethical (and incovenient---my downloads get interrupted most of the time, anyway.)

As for the former, if you live anywhere near a Border's bookstore, you really have no excuse. Just sit down and read that damn Potter book. Spread it out over two or three visits if you have to. But if the novel is no longer in print, or very difficult to obtain, and if it's not in your local library, then I don't see how morality would enter into the discussion.

At any rate, there should be more to the file-sharing debate than just saying 'stealing is wrong' and leaving it at that. There's culpability on both ends.

David O'Connell

P.S. Just as a footnote: one could argue that getting free CDs from record clubs is "stealing", since the artists receive no royalties from those orders. Consumers pay taxes and shipping, but all that goes to the record club. True, it's probably legal according to the artist's contract, but if you're arguing along the lines of ethics or morality, legal considerations don't hold much water, anyway. See how tricky these debates can be?

A couple of thoughts:

1. I agree that copying a work without the permission of the copyright hold is a form of theft. I apply the same standards to books and other written work as to CDs and DVDs.

2. Harlan suing AOL, however, seems silly. Why not sue every ISP for not policing the Usenet better? (I doubt anyone can police the Internet anyway.) This is not a good way to make things better for copyright holders. Sounds, alas, like Harlan Ellison to me. (I know he is beloved in the SF and comics communities, but his public persona - the one he used when he tore a letter I wrote to shreds in Amazing Heroes in 1987 - makes me think he is not someone I want anything to do with, even when he has a point.)

3. The Wall Street Journal charges for its online version. Isn't it unethical to read it for free online because there's a loophole in how they set up their links and pages? This is a very slippery slope here, and no one has come up with a good answer yet.

Part of the problem here is that some people assume they are naturally entitled to the work of others, and thus are morally permitted to filch to their heart's content. You don't have the 'right' to music, or films, or art, any more than you have the right to Peter David's car. It's amazing how many people will make noble and lorldy arguments in defense of file-sharing, when the truth would be a lot more respectable: it's cool to get stuff for free.

I read yesterday's WSJ article in the paper edition :), so at least I'm somewhat qualified to comment on it.

There's not much question in my mind that AOL shouldn't be liable for content posted by a user in violation of copyright, assuming that they remove the copyrighted material in a timely fashion once they are made aware of it's existence. The whole point in this lawsuit is, if I understand correctly, that AOL failed to act in a timely fashion, which is certainly one of those things that's arguable in court.

That said, the current state of copyright law is an abysmal mess (partly due to the finest legislators that money can buy) and isn't going to get much better, given the recent Supreme Court decision that upheld the most recent retroactive extension of existing copyrights.

Authors' rights need to be protected to incent them to create, but material still needs to pass into the public domain in a shorter period of time than current law provides for. As things stand now, there are existing works which are out of print and unavailable because no one knows who actually owns the rights, which is an absurd situation.

(If anyone wants to read some of the material on the subject above, Google on "Lessig copyright" and I'm sure you'll find some good references.)

Then there's parody law, which is in an even more absurd state. I refer to the most recent Supreme Court decision on the subject as "The Lawyers Full Employment Act", since it's very hard to find a bright line test that separates legal parody from illegal copyright infringement.

s/it's/its

Drat! I hate that error.

"since it's very hard to find a bright line "

"s/it's/its

Drat! I hate that error. "

But in that sentence, it's IS correct... "...it is very hard..."

The law is the law and theft is theft. Sure. Only ...

"they've really brought these hardships upon themselves ...The major labels never took complaints like these seriously, and now they're paying for that mistake"

Quite so.

When some nice little old lady gets roughed up by muggers who take her pension cheque, we all cheer for the bad guys to get their hides nailed to the wall. But when some megacorp which specializes in annoying, irritating and frustrating its customers (and sometimes shortchanging their artists?) has problems, it's harder to feel sorry.

One minor example. I have friends overseas. We trade tapes with [current] tv shows on them. Once in a while they will ask for some new Hokeywood production that's been in the theatres here, but not there. Go to a video shop and ask to BUY a copy of the film. "Uh, sorry, we can't sell it. it's 'rental only' for the next six months." Or one is advised by the people behind the counter to "Rent it and make a copy like everyone else."

Intellectually, I can understand that those owning the copyright are perfectly entitled to keep the product to themselves and not make it available on the market. I can also understand why people who are willing to spend money getting it legitimately might decide "Screw that" and get it in a less legitimate fashion.

Yes, theft if still theft. But, as in the case of the idiot who walks alone down dark back alleys with thousand-dollar bills hanging out of his pockets, it is sometimes hard to feel sorry for the victim who really should have known better.

" and find the attitude of the Napster- and Kazaa-addicted thieves troublesome beyond expression."

As I do those self-righteous sorts who can't be bothered to consider there just might be LEGITIMATE reasons for this.

Case in point: I do use those systems.

- to get MP3 versions of music I already legitimately own. This saves me the trouble of doing the conversion on my own machine. Why would I want to? Well, would you really rather carry 30 CDs, each with maybe one or two really good tunes, or ONE CD with the pick of your collection?

- As someone else suggested, what about material which is out of print? I spent frustrating MONTHS trying to locate a CD of one of my parents' favourite French comedians. No go. Not even going through friends in France. One afternoon on Napster and I had CD full. So, who am I 'stealing' from? If anything, the artists should be screaming at the record companies for keeping their stuff off the shelves.

- I have recently bought several CDs which I would probably WOULD NOT HAVE save for exposure to the artists through such file-sharing. "Here, try these, you'll like them!" I did, and I did, and I went out and got a legitimate version. Please tell me where this is hurting the artist? Quite the contrary, I should think. You can't BUY free advertising such as that.

"if I create something, I have a right to control who reads it(1) and I have a right to receive money for my efforts"

Quite reasonable. But ... beyond the grave? Intellectual property rights have gotten completely insane in North America where computer code is now protected for a period extending FIFTY YEARS AFTER THE DEATH of the author. Is anyone deluded enough to think ANYBODY will still be using today's code in twenty years ... never mind fifty years after their authors' deaths??? Lunacy!

" At a monthly gathering of sci-fi fans near Chicago this weekend, the free library at baen.com was pointed out to me."

So long as authors are volunteering for this, I concur. At today's ridiculous prices for paperbacks (never mind hardcovers) I will NOT go around buying from unknown writers just because I like the cover blurb, which I USED to do, twenty years back, when prices were not so relatively astronomical(1). Nor, I admit, will I go to Napster for it as I still prefer a 'real' book in my hands to reading off a computer screen. At worst, I may wait until it hits the second-hand shops.

"The Wall Street Journal charges for its online version. Isn't it unethical to read it for free online because there's a loophole in how they set up their links and pages?"

I wouldn't know. I'd rather go to other legitimate sources which are still free, of which there are plenty. So why go to a pay site instead?

Having said this, I do agree that people who blatantly use those 'services' just because - as one person put it - "it's 'cool' to get stuff without paying for it" deserve the contempt they get - at the very least.

(1) When I started collecting books in earnest - during high school, one hour or minimum wage work would get me two or three paperback books. Now, it would take me at least two hours of minimum wage to cover the $10+ cover price (in Canada), not including the hated tax the government decided we needed to pay on reading material ten years ago - another reason why I'm fed up with spending.

True, some people think that they can filch to their heart's content and that's not a good attitude to have. (In moderation, I don't think file sharing is a whole lot different than home taping.) But I think this whole thing has more to do with bad decisions by the Recording Industry Association of America like phasing out the single, reacting to home taping, used CD sales, and---to a certain extent---file sharing with a hysteria out of proportion to the dangers posed, not getting their act together and unifying behind new formats (like the MiniDisc, which was supposed to have replaced the now ailing cassette, but instead is merely a niche format due to the MiniDisc vs. Digital Compact Cassette battles---I suspect the same thing will happen with the DVD-Audio/Super Audio CD dueling formats we have now) and online distribution systems (PressPlay? iTunes? Just pick one and throw the weight of all the major labels behind it) and abusing of consumer goodwill through endless repackagings, remasterings, reremasterings, and release date delays and cancellations. Which is to say...

The RIAA can whine about morality all it wants, but it's no substitute for good business sense and an ability to adapt to change. Aside from the recent trend of issuing limited edition DVDs with certain CD releases, I haven't seen its member labels do a whole lot but complain.

-David O'Connell

I love having the chance to find stuff online that I'm having trouble finding in the real world. I've have found so much stuff that I didn't even know existed because of Napster like sites.

Also I have found some fun home made cuts that would never make out in the real world.

Mostly I use the internet to get and share things that just don't or would not exist on CD without help.

The reocrd companies really missed the boat here, they should use these services to promote their artist.

I won't argue for a second that the record companies, especially, have shot themselves in the foot in their handling of music. Nor will I argue that they are all morally upstanding citizens who want nothing but the best for their artists.

What I will argue is this: there is a HUGE difference between doing something that is wrong and doing something that is wrong and CLAIMING that it is right.

I have downloaded music for free on Morpheus (when it was still good). I totally agree with the sentiment that, "it's not available legally and hasn't been for 10 years, so I'm just going to take it." That doesn't make it right for me to do so, but I see it as going 5 miles over the speed limit--the letter of the law is, sometimes, less important than the spirit of the law.

I own pirate copies of the first five seasons of Buffy: TVS, too. I bought them when they were not in reruns on FX or anything; I also wanted copies that would not get eaten by my crappy VCRs. However, I believe that Fox needs to make some money on Buffy in order to encourage the making of similarly high-quality shows in the future. Therefore, despite the fact that I own pirate copies on VCD, I have been legitimately buying the DVDs as soon as they come out.

Eric

That the record companies have for decades behaved like greed-crazed bullies is absolutely true, but being a dissatisfied customer doesn't release an individual from the obligation of behaving in a moral and ethical manner. "Corporations won't supply me with product in a way which satisifies me so I'll just take what I want for nothing" is not an ethical manifesto - it's self-righteous bullcrap.

Music is not a human need, while food certainly is, but the slipshod, customer-insensitive practices of your local Safeway do not morally permit you to run up and down their aisles stealing bread. (Though if it could be done online plenty of harrumphing indignants would.)

The corporations can prove that they can operate in a moral and ethical manner before they deserve similar treatment.

They've price-fixed for years, bribed Congress for ridiculous copyright laws, and shown they don't give a damn about the artists or the consumers.

They want to play tin-pot despot? Then they better be prepared to battle all the guerilla's they created...

Baerbel Haddrell posted about DVD regions. Blame the MPAA. Just about everywhere in the world EXCEPT North America, region free or all region players, and even multi-standard (PAL AND NTSC) players are easy to come by. Not so in the States. They exist, but the MPAA keeps trying to make them illegal. I got a DVD ROM before they started cracking down on region codes, and have no problem with virtually all of the Region 0 and Region 2 discs I've imported from amazon.co.uk. There was an article about this recently in the US print edition of Wired. In fact, if you type 'dvd regions' into wired.com's search field, you can see how the issue has proceeded over the last 3+ years.

"The corporations can prove that they can operate in a moral and ethical manner before they deserve similar treatment."

It's not a matter of how corporations should be treated; it's a matter of the obligation of individuals to behave ethically regardless of how others behave.

"Therefore, despite the fact that I own pirate copies on VCD, I have been legitimately buying the DVDs as soon as they come out."

I had most of the early BABYLON 5 episodes on tape, and all the latter ones. I've still been buying the season sets as they come out, if only to encourage them to continue turning out quality shows such as this. I know, I'm probably wasting my time trying, but ... Ditto the SPIDERMAN and X-MEN films of which someone offered to GIVE me a version grabbed off the net. But I declined to accept. The DVDs were reasonably priced and lots of extras and the films were very nicely done, so I wish to support such endeavours with my cash. Now, if the greedy idiots running the entertainment industry could wrap their teeny-tiny little brains around this concept...

I'd do so with JAG, too, if only to be able to see what they've been up to recently. Those thrice-damned 'branding logos' stations put on the corner of the tv screen have annoyed me enough that I leave my set off more often than not, now. Unfortunately, once again, something I'm willing and ready to pay for isn't made available by the owners. Their right, of course. But don't expect any loyalty from me in return.

Sorry JohnE, but no.

They have the "power", therefore they must earn our respect and prove that they deserve to be treated the way they wish.

Sorry "Bladestar", but yes.

Your theory sounds awfully nifty as long as someone doesn't use it against you, doesn't it?

If he is indeed suing over something posted on Usenet, then, indeed, he is barking up the wrong tree. There is no way, short of blocking access to specific groups altogether, for an ISP to control Usenet content. Is is the original distributed network. Anything posted to Usenet is replicated on every server in the world that carries that group, and the ENOURMOUS quantity of data that flows across the newsgroups (terabytes a day, I'm sure) make it impossible for anyone to police its content.

Blaming AOL for the content of Usenet is like blaming the store where you bought your TV for all the crappy reality shows.

which are already available for public consumption through other free outlets like radio or MTV.

Just to be clear, radio and MTV are not "free". The networks pay significant fees to the music publishers to secure the rights to broadcast the music, and these fees are proportional to the number of people who are likely to be listening. The AUDIENCE may not be paying for the music, but the rights-holders are getting paid.

JohnE, I don't care if anyone copies files on P2P, so your argument is invalid. Anything I don't want to share, I don't make availble where it can be copied and shared.

Jack Collins, Doesn't matter. It's free to the end user, so it's free.

The revolution os progressing slowly, but it is progressing. Each new generation is getting more and more used to video tape copying, Cd-copying, P2P file sharing. It'll become the norm alot quicker than RIAA dinosaurs think.

My mistake on the MTV thing. It's on cable, and of course you have to pay for it. Although if you're sneaky enough....

-David O'Connell

"At a monthly gathering of sci-fi fans near Chicago this weekend, the free library at baen.com was pointed out to me. It looks interesting, what do other people think?"

The free library at Baen is part of the deal you make when selling to that publisher: he explicitly purchases (limited) e-rights and then uses them. (When he announced the libary, he indicated that he was unlikely to buy manuscripts from authors who wouldn't sell those rights.)

In otherwords, it's contractually authorized and not really the kind of thing Ellison is concerned about.

i feel like an idiot cos i've barely heard of harlan ellison. my friends are actually laughing in disbelief at me right now for it. where's a good place to start if i want to catch up on some of his work?

i feel like an idiot cos i've barely heard of harlan ellison. my friends are actually laughing in disbelief at me right now for it. where's a good place to start if i want to catch up on some of his work?

-ronani

Good question. Kazaa is a pretty good source for Harlan Ellison. Also try some of the Usenet newsgroups. Hope this helps.

Yes Pierce, but what do you THINK about the idea? Are limited e-publishing rights (such as first book out of a series) a good idea? I heard it was justified to them because they give away so many promotional copies anyway, why not give a way a few eBooks? And apparently sales on some of them have gone UP for their 'dead tree' editions. So what do YOU think?

Jack Collins says:

If he is indeed suing over something posted on Usenet, then, indeed, he is barking up the wrong tree. There is no way, short of blocking access to specific groups altogether, for an ISP to control Usenet content.

I'd guess that's the action that AOL took - chop off the entire newsgroup in which Ellison's book was posted (probably a group devoted to e-books or such). Similar to the manner in which many ISPs and organisations refuse to carry the pornographic and other type newsgroups which they deem aren't 'suitable' for their clientele.

Which in some cases is unjustifiable censorship, in my view, but in this scenario may be justified, if that is all the newsgroup was used for.

P.S. Tyler S - you are an evil man! :-)

I second that: Tyler S is evil (but it was still funny).

In regards to the "they have to give honesty/morality before they should be given/shown honesty/morality" line: Are you serious?

I could give a big, long explanation here for why this idea is dangerous to the extreme, but I'll resort to cliche: An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

When you stoop to someone else's level, you effectively become that person, morally speaking. If you think that music companies are behaving immorally, then one of the best ways to combat that is to behave morally yourself. Be fair. If everyone were to do this, imagine all the problems that would just disappear.

Eric

The first thing I want to say about this is STOP, THIEF!

And obviously, from all the posts I've seen here, that should be THIEVES.

What a country we've become. We think we have the "right" to own everything we want, and dammit, we want it now. The Hell with waiting for it to be issued. Find a bootleg copy and pass it around. Claim that it is in the "public domain." Say that the owner of the property has so much money that he doesn't need your $5. Claim that everybody should get it for free.

We have a capitalistic society. People get paid for what they do. What kind of twisted logic is it that says that artistic people should not get paid for what they do?

My uninformed opinion is that there is little profit in selling singles. Haven't we all noticed that toilet paper is now in giant, double-roll 12-packs and bigger?

I'm betting that the direct profit on a four-pack is one-third of the direct profit on a 12-pack. Where the additional profit of the 12-pack comes from is in the handling costs saved and the paperwork saved.

The same must be true for music.

"The networks pay significant fees to the music publishers to secure the rights to broadcast the music, and these fees are proportional to the number of people who are likely to be listening. The AUDIENCE may not be paying for the music"

They are then marginal radio stations go broke because of these added costs.

And I've yet to have someone explain something to me.

When radio first came along, record companies bitched and whined that this would drive them under.

It didn't.

When television came, they (and the film industry) bitched and whined this would drive them under.

It didn't.

When tape recorders came along, they bitched and whined that this would drive them under.

It didn't.

And so on ...

So far, they've been wrong each and every time. Yet, when a new technology comes along, instead of embracing it and making it work to their advantage, they still try to kill it because "it will drive them under." They are simply incapable of learning from their past mistakes.

Now, they bitch and whine because stores play their music without paying a fee. What? Do these cretins think people actually gather at the corner CD shop to do their music listening?

If I have a product and wish to let people know about it, I need to ADVERTISE. This usually costs MONEY. Radio stations and music shops give these imbeciles FREE ADVERTISING. But, no, that's not good enough, not only should they not pay for this advertising, they should RECEIVE MONEY for it! Please explain this to me.

"Haven't we all noticed that toilet paper is now in giant, double-roll 12-packs and bigger?"

Irrelevant. The comparison doesn't work. People will probably need another roll of toilet paper after the first two are used up. So it makes sense to buy a whole batch at once, saving one from the nuisance of going back for more every couple of weeks. How is it better for the music-buyer to pay more only to get songs he really doesn't want in the first place?

And besides, if singles are such a bad idea, why are so many of them still produced in Japan? Look at their tv ads, or go into the music shops there and you'll see many idols release songs as singles. They've got it right. So, when will our corporate genuises learn from this?

Answer? Probably never, if history is any indication. it is, after all, easier to ignore one's customers, especially when they don't have an alternative source for the product.

Oh, wait, they do now!

>An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Either that, or (as Colin Quinn once pointed out on Saturday Night Live) it leaves everyone with just one eye.

As for the post about the profit margin of singles, yes, it is very low when it's not venturing into loss-leader territory. Still, the music industry didn't really have a problem with them until the early 90s, when they decided they pretty much just wanted to sell CD albums, box sets, and remasters. Which I understand (that's where the big money is at, after all), but I think they shot themselves in the foot with younger (and less wealthy) consumers by marginalizing that format and its low price-point.

In a way, it would sort of be like if the book publishing industry phased out mass-market paperbacks (although not in the strictest sense, since mass-market editions tend to cost twice as much as a regular, non-discounted single.) They would be squandering that opportunity to get youngsters into the habit of buying books. I know I never bought any hardcover editions when I was a kid, and had that been pretty much the only retail option available, I probably would've just lived off the fat of my local libraries (i.e. a free source, sort of like the younger music file sharers of today are doing) for a good long while.

-Dave O'Connell

A few thoughts about this.

1) Harlan Ellison pulled the tacky "40 years old and still lives with his parents" thing. Why does that matter? Maybe his parents are older and he lives with them to help them out. Great lack of class there.

2) Eric, while I appreciate your position, it will do you well to differentiate "stealing" from "copyright infringement." Legally, they are two entirely different critters, and you should start thinking of them as so. Why? You may find yourself having to litigate over one of your works, and you're not going to be able to say, "But judge, he stole from me." In the court of law, legal definitions are more important than the common American Heritage Dictionary definition.

3) "An eye for an eye makes the world blind" is a bit morally simplistic as far as copyrights go. It isn't just that corporations own the rights, so I should respect that and behave well no matter how they treat me. If corporations get their way, and things continue as they do now (see "Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act"), no work copyrighted after 1923 will enter the public domain. This is against the will of the founding fathers, who decided that, yes, a creator should have a set period of time to profit from his/her work, but then it is to be used by the public at large for the greater good. Corporations are abusing copyrights to the detriment of consumers, artists, and society. They are "stealing" in a way that, in the long run, is much more damaging than an individual downloading some songs. Yet it's legal, so they get away with it. Times come when "legality" has to be ignored because it's become corrupted (the American Revolution wasn't exactly legal, but it was warrented). This isn't an excuse to pirate to your heart's content (I don't, and I don't encourage others to), but I don't have the money to fight the corporations to protect my rights in the legal arena. Sometimes the fight has to be fought in other ways, even if they aren't "moral" on the surface.

Legal/Illegal

DOES NOT EQUAL

Moral/Immoral

OR

Right/Wrong

This entire discussion was started in reference to Ellison's case against AOL. Ellison's potential income was being affected by the illegal AND immoral online posting. Ellison and his work is a corporation. So is PAD and his works. This is a neccessity in this day and age. Are some of you guys saying it's okay to steal their works just because they are a corporation?

Go back and review these postings. A lot of the postings are simply justifications for stealing.

Have you no morals? Is this what you would want your children to learn, that it's okay to steal as long as you can justify it?

How base, how common, how vulgar.

While it's no doubt a lotta fun to come up with ludicrous notions of "Revolution" and grand notions of "surface" morality, the real bottom line continues to be that GETTING SHIT FOR FREE IS MOST EXCELLENT, DUDE.

"Bladestar" seems to want to make the evil corporations pay for what they've done, but I notice he didn't once mention why the artists deserve punishment as well ("collaborators", maybe?). Also, BS, my last reply to you went zingn' right over your head: when you set certain moral standards, especially ones which don't have a leg to stand on, you have to sorta be prepared to accept it when those same standards are imposed on you. If the world operated on your mini-manifesto, you wouldn't want to live in it for long, believe me.

Better than listening to corporate tools like yourself who want to let the corporate dollars control the laws and make sure nothing ever becomes public domian again.

I'll fight on the side of right, thank you very much.

Yeah, that's EXACTLY what I think and what I've said here. Excellent reading skills there, BS.

You're very welcome. Keep up the fight!

You're funny. You've bought into it all. The last line of my first post was very accurate it seems...

Jack Collins, Doesn't matter. It's free to the end user, so it's free.

But the rights holders are getting PAID, so it isn't the same as file sharing. If Kazaa (or whatever) paid the publishers and producers for the songs that were transferred, and covered these fees through subscritons or advertizing, there wouldn't be an issue

So far, they've been wrong each and every time. Yet, when a new technology comes along, instead of embracing it and making it work to their advantage, they still try to kill it because "it will drive them under."

The difference here is one of scale, speed, quality and access. Making analog copies of something reduces the quality, and the only way they are going to get distributed is by physical media. Imagine dubbing 20 casettes with home equipment and mailing them out to your friends.

With the advent of digital media, it is now possible to make infinite perfect (or imperfect but better-than-analog, in the case of MP3's) copies of a work, AND to give anybody with a net connection access to it. You don't have to know someone who has a copy and is willing to dub it for you, and you don't have to sacrifice quality.

On the other hand, the primary service performed by the record companies was production and distribution. If musicians can distribute their music without pressing CD's or getting shelf-space in stores, the record companies have a lot less power.

So, yeah, the record companies did shoot themselves in the foot by not embracing the technology quick enough, BUT the danger posed by the technology is much greater than that of the analog past.

Radio stations and music shops give these imbeciles FREE ADVERTISING.

Radio broadcasts of music are not advertising, so much as samples. If a car dealership gives away stea knives to get you to come in for a test drive, they are paying for those steak knives. Radio stations pay for music to get you to listen to commercials. The music you hear is a product in itself, not an advertisement for the album.

Now, there was a day when radio stations DID get paid to play records. Do a Google search on "Payola".

Kenny:

1) I couldn't agree more on the technicalities of the American legal system and the general inadmissability of the American Heritage Dictionary. Stealing is legally different from copyright infringement just the same as burglary is different from robbery. However, when trying to explain the simple concept of "Illegal file-sharing is immoral" to someone who hides in a web of half-truths and faulty logic (not you, necessarily, but others on this board), it sometimes becomes necessary to show how, from one point of view, file-sharing really can take money out of someone's pocket, which is pretty close to stealing, which is something that many people can understand.

2) As far as morally simplistic arguments go, it seems quite the leap to me to equate the American Revolution and KaZaa. Again, couldn't agree with you more on the Sonny Bono act, and the obvious puppetry being performed on our government sickens me. I would argue, however, that much of that problem comes from the legal concept of corporate citizenship rather than who's taking what illegally from whom.

3) Regardless of who thinks I am or others are "corporate tools," there is a rather enormous difference between supporting corporate bribery and arguing that citizens should obey relatively moral laws. People who argue for file-sharing on the basis of "evil corporate record companies" are also arguing against individuals like Harlan Ellison and PAD, neither of whom are people I would deem "corporate tools." Illegal file-sharing is, by and large, immoral on a fundamental level. Just because you don't care that you're hurting entity A doesn't make it right to hurt entity B.

4) All illegal file-sharing really does is give the record companies more ammo to whine for more and more restrictive and foolish legislation. It keeps ebooks from being the force they could be because people are worried that (gasp!) the books might be pirated! Instead, find legal ways to avoid the record companies. Find bands that produce their own albums and support them. It's all money, in the end, folks.

I don't know. I'm pretty much done with this topic. When people resort to calling names (like "corporate tool"), the topic becomes uninteresting to me. Just remember, when you create something and have a legal and moral right to profit from it, and someone steals your creation, that file-sharing was doing the same to someone else.

Eric

Napster offered to pay thr RIAA members, but they wouldn't accept.

The RIAA must be defeated.

Oh Eric, please don't go, I find your words of wisdom SOOOOOOO convincing.... /patronizing mode off

Since the tone on copyright extension in the US seems to be uniformly negative, I thought I should share this quote from Neil Gaiman (also not a corporate tool) for a more balanced perspective:

Yes, I'm pleased that the Supreme Court upheld the copyright extension stuff. It doesn't bother me personally whether my own work goes into the public domain 50 years or 70 after I die, but a world in which stuff went into the public domain in the USA 20 years before the rest of the world (which has a 70 year expiration) would have been deeply problematic for authors and their estates.

\\i feel like an idiot cos i've barely heard of harlan ellison. my friends are actually laughing in disbelief at me right now for it. where's a good place to start if i want to catch up on some of his work?

Posted by ronani\\

...have you tried your local library? You'll find him listed in the Dewey Decimal System there.

Bladestar,

I am so sorry for having an opinion different than yours. I am also terribly sorry for trying to explain my side of things. What was I thinking, that people might view things differently? Obviously, that is not why PAD allows comments even from those who don't agree with him.

I will endeavor to be a better person in the future. Goodbye, cruel thread!

Eric

// Better than listening to corporate tools like yourself who want to let the corporate dollars control the laws and make sure nothing ever becomes public domian again.

I'll fight on the side of right, thank you very much. //

How is protecting the creator's copyrights being a 'corporate tool'? How is cheating an artist or a writer of -their- share of the profits being 'on the side of right'?

Because, more primarily in the case of music, the artist doesn't own the rights to the music, the music publisher does...

The first thing I want to say about this is STOP, THIEF!

And obviously, from all the posts I've seen here, that should be THIEVES.

Not of books, though. Harlan Ellison is stressing out over nothing.

"Radio stations and music shops give these imbeciles FREE ADVERTISING.

Radio broadcasts of music are not advertising, so much as samples."

Not unless someone has a tape recorder running off their radio 24 hours a day. They certainly don't at music shops.

In any case, I'd like to see how many albums the music industry would sell each year if radio stations and music shops stopped playing ANY of their stuff.

Chuck Melville: //How is protecting the creator's copyrights being a 'corporate tool'? How is cheating an artist or a writer of -their- share of the profits being 'on the side of right'?//

Bladestar: //Because, more primarily in the case of music, the artist doesn't own the rights to the music, the music publisher does...//

So, then, theft is all right so long as it involves an unpopular third party.