On 07/06/2010 02:01 PM, Louigi Verona wrote:
I think in our discussion we are sort of taking the burden of
musicians' living on the public. For some reason, today people should
be figuring out how a musician and record companies should make their
money.
But basically, it is immoral of them to place people in such a
position. Because when a record company (or a musician, father of the
family) says that they are going to earn money by selling copies in
the age of digital technology, it is basically relying all your
livelihood on a business model, proved to be unsuccessful. Yet each
time they do it and expect everyone else to consider themselves bound
by a moral choice to "support the artist".
But it is not the burden of the people, it shouldn't be. In fact, it
is a direct responsibility of the "industry" to figure that out
because this is what they are paid for - its their job to figure out
ways to pay musicians. And there are many nice ways to use Internet to
make money. It has been said a million times - set up a torrent site
with ads that they say bring millions and be okay. Things like the
pirate bay and spotify should have been done by those global
publishers, if they had been doing their job.
So when we are speaking of moral choices and moral arguments one has
to build for himself in order to do what is naturally available today
one click away - I think it should be the other way around, really.
And when a composer goes to a site and starts writing letters, asking
people not to share his music, this strikes me as being pretty
unethical and single-minded. Besides, its like fighting a large wave -
in the end, the person will only get angry with the "corrupt
generation of the Internet".
That's one point. The second is the practical side of things.
No matter what we eventually rule out - whether its good to copy or
bad, copying technology only gets better. And very soon it will be
easy to have a catalogue of Universal, Warner and EMI on one flash
drive. Preventing copying, on the other hand, is getting sloppier and
sloppier - it is becoming more difficult. The diversity of standards
and devices increases, free operating systems come into play, systems
with no Windows registry and no DRM. In order to control copying, they
would have to ban linux, which is unrealistic.
So copying will have to be right. It is part of our lives, whether we
want it or not. And I cannot imagine a society where people could get
any information and works of art for no price, but are trained to
think that it is not good and instead go to online shops and pay, pay,
pay. This just doesn't add up.
L.V.
That seems like a good summary of one side of the argument.
I think Steve and Dave make a good point re musicians who are expecting
to get some money back from the system and Paul on everyone being able
to get their cut however it would appear that this side argument is so
strong because it is simply not possible to stop people from copying
without taking away a very big infrastructure that the people using to
do the copying on are going to defend to the death. Do we really want to
loose that infrastructure just so some people can get paid more money
than others?
It's a hard angle but simply if everyone is doing it then making it
illegal just forces it to be a black market activity with the
consequences that some organisations can and will use to their advantage.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
