Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » The "Other Thread"

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
The "Other Thread"
bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Kitty Cat said:

Just so nobody else can do it, too.

Explain to me how pricing something so high that nobody will buy it prevents everybody else from doing it* too? :-/

* Also clarify what it is in this context.

Kitty Cat
Member #2,815
October 2002
avatar

Quote:

Explain to me how pricing something so high that nobody will buy it prevents everybody else from doing it too? :-/

Simple, because if you create something, and someone else attempts to use something that looks-sorta-like-it-but-kinda-different, you can always claim they copied your work and changed it and givememoneynowpleasekthx. And as long as your work was publicly available before they made their version (not copy), there's almost no way they can fully clear their name.

Quote:

Also clarify what it is in this context.

Any copyrighted work or patented idea.

--
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will pee on your computer." -- Bruce Graham

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Kitty Cat said:

Simple, because if you create something, and someone else attempts to use something that looks-sorta-like-it-but-kinda-different, you can always claim they copied your work and changed it and givememoneynowpleasekthx. And as long as your work was publicly available before they made their version (not copy), there's almost no way they can fully clear their name.

That has nothing to do with pricing... :-/ And you'd have to demonstrate that they copied your work before a court would actually side in your favor. If you could prove their work was a derivative then you might have a case, but if it's just similar then copyright won't cover you. Moreso, if your product was priced so high that nobody was buying it you'd have an even more difficult case because the other party could defend that nobody has purchased your product so it can't be a copy. :P

Kevin S. Brady, Attorney at Law - Copyright Myths and Misconceptions FAQ

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

Unfortunately, more and more the copyright industries have so much court clout and so much money that a court will side their way, and anyway the cost of defending such a case is prohibitively high for the average person.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

alethiophile said:

Unfortunately, more and more the copyright industries have so much court clout and so much money that a court will side their way, and anyway the cost of defending such a case is prohibitively high for the average person.

The courts are unbiased. If they weren't they wouldn't be worth anything and law wouldn't matter, would it.

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

Quote:

The courts are unbiased. If they weren't they wouldn't be worth anything and law wouldn't matter, would it.

For the sake of argument, let's grant that courts are unbiased. But I would contend that they are impressionable, especially juries. And even judges must adhere to the letter of the law; a technicality could very well change their ruling even if they know it to be "incorrect."

Fact: Lawyers and their kin are not equal.

Fact: The better the lawyer, the more expensive he or she is.

Fact: The better job the person does presenting the case, the better chance his or her client has of winning.

Conclusion: the more money you have to spend on your defense, the better chance you have of winning. To believe otherwise is so naive that you should volunteer to drop out of this discussion.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
avatar

You're playing with words.

The more money you have, the better chance you have of winning. That's all that matters here. And that's all the original quote meant.

Could you afford to pay an attorney $150/hour or more to defend you in a case that drags on for months? You might ultimately know you are right, but do you have the resources to prove that? A two year long court battle might be a drop in the bucket for a big corporation, but it's an impossibility for you.

And don't take my word for it. Do some research. There are countless cases of people giving up because they ran out of money or of rich celebrities getting out clean despite contrary evidence.

X-G
Member #856
December 2000
avatar

Quote:

Firstly, it isn't just American artists that rely on their IP to make a living. People from all over the world do. Secondly, many or most artists enjoy producing the art they do, but they can't continue to do it without being paid for it. The cost of living is [almost?] never free.

First, the person I was responding to explicitly said "America", so I was responding in kind. Secondly, you're missing the point entirely. I'm on board with the whole "creators should be paid" thing. But I absolutely refuse to buy the "money is the only incentive we have" argument; creators will create, regardless of whether they're being paid or not. To suggest that they won't is to severely underestimate creative drive.

--
Since 2008-Jun-18, democracy in Sweden is dead. | 悪霊退散!悪霊退散!怨霊、物の怪、困った時は ドーマン!セーマン!ドーマン!セーマン! 直ぐに呼びましょう陰陽師レッツゴー!

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Matthew Leverton said:

The more money you have, the better chance you have of winning. That's all that matters here. And that's all the original quote meant.

How do you know what he originally meant? He said the court will side their way, which doesn't imply that their defense attorney's will drag it on forever; rather it implies that the court will agree with their claim. At least, that's how I would interpret it. It stands to reason that better lawyers will charge more for their services and be more effective in court.

X-G said:

First, the person I was responding to explicitly said "America", so I was responding in kind.

I apologize. I see that he led you down that path, but I still think that you should have made it more generic instead of targeting Americans specifically.

X-G said:

I'm on board with the whole "creators should be paid" thing. But I absolutely refuse to buy the "money is the only incentive we have" argument; creators will create, regardless of whether they're being paid or not. To suggest that they won't is to severely underestimate creative drive.

I'm suggesting that many won't be able to create if they have to first work full-time on top of other responsibilities... How many of us would love to quit our jobs and develop open source games instead? How many of us do?

Quote:

[Copyright was originally intended to promote the progress of science and the useful arts and was not intended to protect the creator.]

One of my favorite artists has written a particular song that she said was very personal to her. IIRC, the song was intended for herself and perhaps family only, but was leaked and spread across p2p networks. She requested that people don't listen to it and destroy all copies and even requested that sites like azlyrics.com remove the lyrics from their site (azlyrics.com, at least, complied). Are you guys saying that artists like her shouldn't express themselves in art unless they are prepared to share it with the rest of the world? That won't help creativity; only hinder it.

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

Quote:

That won't help creativity; only hinder it.

::) If this person wrote and performed the song, made an mp3 of it, and made it public enough that it could get out across p2p networks, than yes, she shouldn't complain.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Gr4|\|f
Member #9,499
February 2008
avatar

Quote:

The courts are unbiased. If they weren't they wouldn't be worth anything and law wouldn't matter, would it.

The juries are biased. I'd say 8/10 of the people selected for the jury would take the side of the poor, lone man with a family to feed over the side of the big, mean corporation, hence the number of lawsuits that go through these days.

Helpless Consumer: "How was i supposed to know i had to pull the cord earlier when skydiving? I didn't know there was a possibility of injury!"

Corporation's Lawyer: "Yes, but it was clearly stated in the disclaimer"

Helpless Consumer: "Yeah, but who actually reads those things? I've got a broken arm now, and a family to take care of!"

Corporation's Lawyer: sigh...

But that's yet another thread.

Ping me @ 127.0.0.1

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

alethiophile said:

::) If this person wrote and performed the song,...

So you're saying that artists shouldn't write songs and record them in recording studios unless they're prepared to share those songs with the rest of the world?

alethiophile said:

...made an mp3 of it,...

I didn't say what format the song was in. It could have been in any format. I don't know. Are you saying that artists shouldn't convert their songs to accessible formats unless they're prepared to share those songs with the rest of the world?

alethiophile said:

...and made it public enough that it could get out across p2p networks,...

All it takes is somebody with access to the studio or perhaps finding a CD at the artist's home, in their car, in the studio, or anywhere else with the track on it to rip it and spread it. That could have been a friend, perhaps studio staff, a business associate, or anybody else that came in contact with her. The same thing could happen if a hacker breaks into your own personal computer with songs on it. Are you saying artists shouldn't let copies of songs out of their sight unless they're prepared to share those songs with the rest of the world?

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

Quote:

So you're saying that artists shouldn't write songs and record them in recording studios unless they're prepared to share those songs with the world?

Yes. Artists shouldn't use recording studios for songs that are not at all meant to be shared. (Unless they own the studio.)

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

The courts are unbiased.

Except the ones in a town in Texas that almost always rule on the side of the plaintiff, which is almost always companies trying to extort money out of people using the Patent and IP/Copyright laws.

And once something is ruled on, its used as an example in further cases, so many of the wrongly ruled cases in one jurisdiction will effect the rest of the country.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Vanneto
Member #8,643
May 2007

Don't be foolish. Songs can be stolen and published. How do you think movies get leaked on the internet before they arrive in cinemas? Bad employees. :) So its not the creators fault.

In capitalist America bank robs you.

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

On which planet are courts unbiased?

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

alethiophile said:

Yes. Artists shouldn't use recording studios for songs that are not at all meant to be shared. (Unless they own the studio.)

I wonder what the musicians of Allegro.cc have to say about that...

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

Quote:

I wonder what the musicians of Allegro.cc have to say about that...

::)
Come on. You're arguing that a musician should be able to use a recording studio owned by the record label to record songs that are not going to be sold, just for their own personal use?

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

alethiophile said:

::)
Come on. You're arguing that a musician should be able to use a recording studio owned by the record label to record songs that are not going to be sold, just for their own personal use?

You don't have to be signed to a record label to use a recording studio. I think most, if not all, recording studios are independent from the recording labels. Users pay to rent the studio out for a given amount of time. Anybody can use them. That includes you and me.

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

In that case, it's fine. And yes, if a bad employee puts it out on the web, that's not good either. But that is not the fault of p2p software, or a reason for tighter copyright controls.

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

X-G
Member #856
December 2000
avatar

First of all, let's keep private and public works apart.

Private data is such that was never meant to be distributed outside a very small circle, or not at all. This includes things like personal information, private habits, sexual orientation, and private works that you never intended to spread at all. Now, spreading those against the wishes of the creator is malicious; but I don't think this should be a copyright issue. That's a completely different issue, namely that of privacy. Copyright, at least as far as we are concerned today, should solely be about public data.

Now, public data is such that was meant to be distributed widely, whether for a fee or not. It is to this kind of data that we should apply the copyright debate, okay? It is for these works that we can hold a constructive debate.

Now, if this woman only performed this song privately, and someone in her close circle spread it onto the internet, then that's not very nice--but that ought to be an issue of privacy, not copyright. If she did intend it for widespread distribution, well... then the whole "it was personal to me" thing kind of loses its weight, don't you think?

Quote:

I'm suggesting that many won't be able to create if they have to first work full-time on top of other responsibilities... How many of us would love to quit our jobs and develop open source games instead? How many of us do?

Ah, see, here's the thing. You're no longer arguing incentive, but means to support oneself. They are very different things. Incentive is what makes you want to do it in the first place; means of support is what you need to survive.

This isn't just some academic difference. It's a huge difference, and we need to have our terms straight, okay? I know a lot of people are hearing the "incentive" angle and having it pounded into their heads by the lobby, but it's a red herring and it needs to be kept separate from the real issue, which is whether creators can support themselves on their works or not.

Now, first off, let it be said that there's no such thing as a universal right to be able to support oneself on the creation of works of art. No one gets that as a guarantee. Your works might fail, for a variety of different reasons, including impopularity or improper pricing levels or anything else. This is slightly tangential, but it needs to be said. And you certainly don't have some kind of inherent right to get rich off it. I'm not even sure that the majority of people--average people who make average things, rather than excellent things--ought to be able to support themselves solely on their creations. It is possible to both have a job and do this, and I think that way too many people are deceiving themselves thinking that just because they're musicians they should be able to make a living solely off of their music. Most just aren't that good, filesharing or no.

Now, can artists support themselves on their works? I think a lot of people actually could, filesharing or no; especially if they dropped thieving middlemen like the RIAA and MPAA. I remind you again that this is not an issue of incentive, but of means of support. People who want to create will create; they'll just do it as amateurs rather than as professionals.

One thing is for sure though, and that is that most people who have something of quality to offer will profit, regardless of filesharing. Look at Sins of a Solar Empire, for instance; it has absolutely no copy protection and has been fileshared just as much if not more than many other games. Yet, it's the best-selling game of 2008 so far, with over a million copies sold. Does it seem like filesharing has been a problem for these guys?

Are some of the big names losing sales? Probably. But the first person who dares to say that these big names--Madonna, Metallica, etc--somehow are now incapable of making a living off of their works should have some sense slapped into him. They're more than able to support themselves on their works. It's not about incentive for them, and it's not about means of support either; it's greed, pure and simple. The desire to squeeze every last penny out of the audience, regardless of what that would mean.

And we haven't even touched on other issues of all this, including privacy, the lack of a link between downloads and lost sales, the fact that "lost sales" is a vacuous argument to begin with, etc. That's for some other time when I'm not capped to 5 posts per thread. :P

--
Since 2008-Jun-18, democracy in Sweden is dead. | 悪霊退散!悪霊退散!怨霊、物の怪、困った時は ドーマン!セーマン!ドーマン!セーマン! 直ぐに呼びましょう陰陽師レッツゴー!

alethiophile
Member #9,349
December 2007
avatar

[/book] ;D

--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
C++: An octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog.
I am the Lightning-Struck Penguin of Doom.

Kibiz0r
Member #6,203
September 2005
avatar

http://torrentfreak.com/isp-will-protect-file-sharers-from-music-industry-disconnection-threat-080404/

Quote:

“The music industry has consistently failed to adapt to changes in technology and now seeks to foist their problems on someone else,” said Dunstone. “Rather than threatening us, the BPI’s time would be better spent facing up to the reality of our times and adapting its business model accordingly.”

:D

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

That's for some other time when I'm not capped to 5 posts per thread. :P

Need to stop bringing that up, its likely to get your cap time lengthened. Though I'm completely surprised its still in effect :o How long has it been a couple years?

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730



Go to: