Who created the catagories, and decided that they should be mutually exclusive?
In other words, is your quibble "descriptive" (in that you're discussing how the majority of people use the two words) or "prescriptive", in that you believe that the two mutually-exclusive categories *designated* by such words, have some sort of empirical merit?
It's "hard to tell the difference" between the two, because ultimately there *is* no difference. Under the old (dying) RIAA-style corporate paradigm, the *sole* source of revenue for even so-called "professional" musicians was never *solely* the music. Everything from T-shirts and memorabilia, to product endorsements represented a "stream of income".
So the claim that the status of "professional" ever required that one's "profession" was *ever* the sole revenue-stream, has always been specious.
Funny, with all the negative connotations that the corporate megaliths/their apologists tie to the idea of "patronage" (whatever form it takes), at base, their business-model was *all* about acting as their contractees "patrons" -- and taking the lion's share of any potential financial returns.
My point was, that if the mark of a "professional" is that one's *sole* source of income be related to a single activity -- or class of activities -- then there have *never* been "professionals", of any kind.
There may have been *primary* areas of relative specialization, but to the extent that, for example, Doctors dealt in real-estate, or any other income-generating actitvity (even "on the side"), it neccesarily follows that the practice of medicine was *never* their SOLE source of income.
So why do *some* musicians/authors scoff at the notion that multiple streams of income should be unneccesary for *them*? Is it because their present patrons (the multi-national corporate media megaliths) have spent decades training them to implicitly *or explicitly* view themselves as an "elite" group? I'm pretty sure that has *something* to do with it.
This is what happens when creativity is allowed to become a specialist "profession", separate from the culture surrounding it (and making it possible.)
We've just gone through nearly a century where the model was:
1. A small elite of super-rich "celebrities" about whom you couldn't help but know.
2. A much larger non-elite of artists/creative folks who wwere not motivated *exclusively* by the financial or "fame" attendant to #1 above.
3. A small sub-set of non-"Celebrities" who nonetheless aspired to/lusted after the "celebrity" lifestyle relentlessly pimped by the beneficiaries of #1 above.
4. The rest of the populace, who were relegated to the status of mere "consumers" -- as opposed to PARTICIPANTS --- in the culture which surrounded them.
The "consumer" was merely required to pay whatever the Elite could gouge price-wise, and passively accept any/all restrictions the Elite could manage to buy/bribe from their cronies -- whether they took the form of ever-longer copy"right" terms, more draconian abrogations of "fair use", etc.
The *real* danger posed by the Internet, Creative commons, remix culture, etc. -- is that in an environment of ubiquitous creativity ("User-generated content", remixes, mashups, etc.) the specious distinction between "professional" artists and "amateurs" doesn't make any sense, and the only way they can retain such a specious dichotomy is by defining it all in terms of whether you get "paid" or not. (Can't really claim that "professional" musicians draw *all* of their income from music, either, since they sell T-shirts and fan memorabilia and such.)
Interestingly, with the advent of micro-payment or any of the other business-models Masnick and others have been highlighting, it will become *much* easier to "get paid" for participating in culture -- with all that such mass participation implies. (The "new paradigm" won't really *have* the "big megaphone"-type celebrities, so the mindless levels of opulence -- the "celebrity lifestyle" -- probably won't be possible.
But, personally, If 100 artists can manage to get 20,000/yr. where 1 "mega-star" got 2 million -- I'd consider the culture *and* creators -- to be far "richer".
Awaiting TAM's predictable defense of the "celebrity lifestyle", or denunciation of "remix culture" as uncreative, or some other specious nonsense...
(Maybe we'll be lucky, and find out he spilled his "morning coffee" on his computer....)
No, Copy"right" needs to be understood as the *expressly limited monopoly PRIVILEGE* that it IS. Until, and unless, you start from that basis, you inevitably the situation in which we find ourselves today: ever-lengthening terms, ever more draconian efforts at "enforcement", and --- MOST importantly -- increasing damage to the culture at large.
The *Public Domain* is the only thing in need of "protection". Copyright monopolies are, at absolute most charitable assessment, a "neccesary evil" (and even *that* is debatable.)
If any of those basic truths "offends" any monopolist or fellow-traveler, then ultimately, that's just too goddamn bad.
Personally, I find runaway IP "law" bought by corporate lobbyists, via extremely-secretive "treaties" to be really, REALLY "offensive".
But hey, ultimately, we *deserve* the sort of legal system we permit, runaway corporate misconduct included.
Sam's "interests" actually lie squarely with the copyright-reform/abolition side of the equation, as I've said repeatedly.
See, "Sam" is some kind of fashion-designer/lighting guy (I've never quite figured out which -- wouldn't even give a shit except for the fact that he had a tantrum over on p2pnet about how he and I are both from Pennsylvania, but he "made it out of there", or some elitist bullshit. This was also during various exchanges where he couldn't resist taking pissy little pot-shots at my wife, my cats, his presumption that the only reason I give a shit about copyright reform is because I'm some sort of un-creative boob. (Or, "shop-lifting pottymouth" -- which is also why I tend to insert the phrase "two liquidy shits" into anything directed anywhere near him).
Anyway, in among his maudlin tantrum, was a bunch of crap about how, even though he wholeheartedly supported anything and everything the RIAA and other corporate lobbying organizations did, he was "no friend" of them, because every time he wanted to use music in his fashion-shows, they would "extort" him for the privilege.
Well, any halfway honest or sane person would realize that a drastically shorter Copyright term would put more current music out of reach of the RIAA, providing "Sam" a larger pool of "cultural content", which they wouldn't be able to "extort him", whenever he used it.
Unfortunately, as I've learned from repeatedly having the same discussion with "Sam" (and watching *others* on various sites debunk his jabbering repeatedly), "Sam" is neither honest *or* sane.
Great refutations, by the way -- too bad that -- as always -- they were wasted.
1. Multiple sock-puppet accounts
2. Relentless taunting of Masnick, both about the content of his articles *and* about the aforementioned sock-puppetry?
3. Repeated tendency to be *first* to reply to an article, even when It's only to regurgitate RIAA talking-points.
4. Freely admits to fraudulently posting as other users, simply because they "don't log in".
5. Has actually used the phrase "just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is right" --- while acting as an (unpaid) shill for the multinational corporate megaliths who are busily turning IP "law" into the basis for digital feudalism.
Sometimes, "harshness" is justified. If the whiny little bitch can't deal with a truthful assessment of It's (total lack of) character -- as evidenced by It's OWN ADMITTED CONDUCT -- then It can simply cease posting here. One less (unpaid) corporate shilll/troll/jerkoff.
Don't waste the time. "Sam I am" is every bit as much of a mindless corporate shill as TAM.
History of copyright? "Sam" simply ignores it.
Original justification for copyright: "Sam" just mumbles some nonsense about how "civil libertarians" (IE. those who actually give a shit about stuff like privacy, the Public domain, etc.) are ruining "the free and open network we all share" (and which "Sam" is supposedly, busily trying to lobby out of existence -- if his jabberings about how "Lammy" (the British culture minister) are to be believed.
So don't waste the time. "Sam" has been debated -- and successfully refuted -- on more blogs and sites than I can be bothered to count. The truly sad part is that he comes back for more.
Personally, I simply scroll past anything TAM posts, on the general principle that the dishonest, sock-puppeting little twat is just going to reiterate one of a fairly-predictable set of mistaken/discredited big-media lobbyist slogans, or simply completely "misunderstand" the article/anything said ti It, in an equally predictable fashion.
We *all* know TAM is a congenitally-dishonest little worm who's gleefully admitted to spamming Techdirt with an indeterminate number of BOTH registered and un-registered ID's, as well as fraudulently impersonating others ID's/nicknames, and attempting to justify such conduct by saying it's perfectly fine, because "they don't log in."
Personally, I've become bored treating the sad little shit-stain the way It so richly deserves, and don't even bother to read it's drivel anymore. (My personal "point of no return" was It's failed attempts to justify "clawing" *anything* back from the Public Domain -- FOR ANY REASON, much less, in response to a fillibuster.
"It was funny as heck posting as some of the people here who don't log in (like yourself) and having the morons like RD nodding their virtual heads along with me. That is when I realized that it wasn't about the ideas, it was about who was bringing them."
Was this before, or after you started using the TAM-puppet?
You really *are* a sociopathic little twat, aren't you?
"Oh, I considered changing my name to Anti-RD, but everyone here is anti-moron, so I wouldn't really stand out. :)"
We're obviously "anti-moron": we don't like YOU very much, do we, TAM?
Jesus....not only can't you form coherent industry-apologist arguments, you can't even formulate a snappy comeback. (That's why the "Grandma's coat-hanger" thing made you mad -- because you didn't think of it FIRST!) :)
We're NOT the powerhouse we think we are, folks. We can't even get Iraq done.
2. "Developing" nations see how the U.S. "superpower" status has treated them, and they don't like it. Given the fact that the looser IP regimes many of them advocate are not only staggeringly popular with millions of so-called "pirates" everywhere, are much closer to the sort of "copyright bargain" was originally intended (shorter copyright terms neccesarily mean a more vibrant public domain, for example), AND are a relatively low-risk way to make the U.S. look like the corporate fiefdom it really is....well, let's just say that other nations are -- justifiably -- justifiably tired of U.S. hegemony (especially after the last decade of Bush & Pals.)
Doubltess, Anti-Mike will probably pop up and start accusing me of being insufficiently "patriotic" for these statements, but that's okay, because given the fact that Iraq has turned out to be exactly the sort of pointless quagmire anti-war protesters said it was going to be, maybe the yellow ribbon & Flag crowd who rallied behind Bush & Co. were wrong, after all.
No wonder I basically hate everything at this point:
1. If OkGo is supposedly so "fan-friendly" and actually understands how to leverage the Internet to their advantage, then if they were stupid/gullible/greedy enough to actually 'sign' with any label -- much less a "major" label like EMI -- then they have exactly *zero* reason to be bitching.
Sell your soul to Satan, and then complain when he comes to collect.....brilliant.
The only reason I can actually think of for them signing at all, is that despite all their supposed fan-friendliness and anti-DRM stance, and pro-Internet babbling, they *still* harbor some notion of cashing in on the archtypical "celebrity lifestyle" the major labels made possible.
Maybe it's time for artists --- REAL artists, I mean -- to realize that the Internet has basically kicked the shit out of the whole IDEA of "celebrity", and people should stop trying to resurrect it.
(OF course, if they *really* wanted to leverage the Internet, they wouldn't have simply uploaded this thing to centralized setups like Youtube or Vimeo -- they'd also dump it into every torrent tracker they could find, and/or urge their own fans to host it, a la "Grey Tuesday".
But no, instead they'd rather just bitch about it.
Serve's 'em right for "signing" in the first place.
Even if they somehow *did* supposedly enact a "law"
"banning" people from the Internet...it won't work.
Kevin Mitnick was ONE guy. Let's say they attempt to "ban" ten thousand pretty tech-savvy "pirates". You think that will actually work? You think they won't just "war-drive" the fuck around, doing destructive (and pretty much untraceable) shit with whatever open Wifi connections they find?
How *would* you even "ban" someone from the Internet, anyway? IP addresses aren't like people's names. The only thing they *might* be able to do is ban people from purchasing Internet connectivity *IN THEIR OWN NAME*, from an ISP. No way to "ban" somebody from using a cracked smart-hone. No way to "ban" somebody whose name you don't know, on the basis of the quality of evidence that leads "anti-piracy" organizations to issue cease and desist warrants to computer printers. The whole notion of "kicking somebody off the Internet" rests on a total misunderstanding of what the Internet is (a series of common protocols -- not even a "thing" in the sense of a single unified network).
The only thing an attempt at "banning" someone -- ANYONE -- from the Internet will do, is piss of a lot of really tech-savvy folks who -- already -- don't give two liquidy shits about what "the law" says in relation to copyright, etc.
This isn't about whether it's a "right" (but that works as a really nice straw-man, btw). It's about what people *will do*. People are *still* doing 'illegal' drugs. Prohibition doesn't work.
Penalizing somebody who understands the ubiquitous -- and necessary -- tools upon which our entire civilization runs (computers and digital networking and such), is simply a recipe for creating an entire new crop of Kevin Mitnick clones. It won't work, because it CAN'T work.
So whether it's "fair" or not is also totally irrelevant. It's not particularly "fair" that if you bring a knife to a gun-fight, you probably get shot. What happened to the MesoAmerican tribes (Aztecs, etc) wasn't particularly "fair" either, but as we all know by now, superior firepower wins.
All the rest of it -- including Drama-troll's dramatic little re-enactment of "Sunset Boulevard" -- is bullshit.
1. Google is nothing but a bunch of gutless, money-mad cowards (just like pretty much every other corporation BY DESIGN. Legal "personhood", anyone?) To expect Google to be anything but "slightly less evil" than *some* other corporations *some* of the time (when doing so doesn't cut into their profit-margins, or actually cost them anything), is wishful thinking, or worse.
This won't "cost" Google anything -- IF they actually follow through with it, the positive PR about how Google "stood up" to dictatorship by essentially "taking it's toys and going home" will more than counter-balance their efforts in China (which were hampered by the Chinese government being up their ass, anyway -- AND cost them big, because they were RIGHTLY seen to be collaborating with the worst aspects of government power.)
This makes Google look "less evil", when in fact, keeping their Chinese search, but doing a half-assed job with the censorship would *in fact* be far more beneficial to dissidents within China itself.
Funny how that works -- Google gets to look good by *failing* to actually do anything against Chinese censorship. Brilliant.
Considering that the vast majority of groups *with* record deals ALREADY get "lost in the noise" (or rather, never actually get that "promotion" aspect that's so supposedly valuable to being "signed"....well, you get the idea.
Really, the arguments against your position are unassailable:
1. Copyright *IS* a limited-term monopoly privilege which, FROM THE BEGINNING was riddled with exceptions because even it's biggest champions understood how dangerously damaging such monopoly privileges could be.
However, thanks to a few multinational corporations various front groups which they control, copyright has metastasized into *exactly* the sort of thing the exceptions and strictly-limited term were intended to prevent.
2. Record labels routinely screw over those stupid enough to actually "sign" with them.
3. "Collection agencies" likewise routinely fail to actually pay the artists.
4. The multinational corporate megaliths routinely attempt to suppress potentially-disruptive technology via hyperolic comparisons to Serial-killers, and apocalyptic predictions that if such technology is "permitted", their victims (oops, I mean "clients") are doomed.
Did I miss anything there, Anti-Mike?
Ps: He's trying as hard as he can -- it's pretty hard to formulate coherent apologia for corporate tyranny with a tumor the size of a lemon rapidly destroying what passes for It's brain.
(Sadly enough, Kevorkian is unavailable, of Anti-Mike would doubtless already have partaken of his services, thus depriving us of such scintillating grandeur as "But....And....Plus".
Your arguments aren't all that coherent or persuasive under the best of circumstances, but *this* takes it to a new level:
1. But WHAT?
Oh, I see:
Can't actually refute any of the quotes OR accuse Mike of "hyping an agenda" (of course he is -- just like you maximalist-types), so you resort to something that's even more nonsequitur than usual.
Or have you suddenly decided to go all "Zen" on us, and this is some kind of weird new "koan" around which you expect us to wrap our minds, at which time we'll experience "Satori"? Didn't know you had a Bodhi tree in your backyard.
But hey, thanks Anti-Mike: you've successfully created the ultimate "contrarian template" --- just plug in the caveats as needed.
"Having disruptive technologies banned" should probably read either "attempting to have potentially-disruptive technologies banned" (Valenti Vs. the VCR, for example), or "attempting to hamper potentially-disruptive *uses* of existing technologies) -- pretty much every effort to have torrent sites suppressed, etc.
(There: that should head of "Anti-Mike" from saying something like "So just which technologies have they banned, then?")
1. Why exactly is Novoselic thinking exclusively in terms of "financial" compensation, here? The fact is, whether Youtube explicitly "pays" him (or anyone, for that matter), they are being "compensated" by way of free -- gratis -- access to the platform itself. It's extremely short-sighted of him not to understand that fact.
For example: I know that if people come here to read Mike's posts, they're at least somewhat likely to see my comments. "Anti-Mike" knows exactly the same thing. So does "Sam I Am". We *all* know that one of the biggest ways to both get *our* viewpoints out there AND possibly impact the prevaling worldview in regard to stuff like copyright, the public domain, corporate influence in the political process, etc. -- is by commenting here, discussing stuff with with one another, suggesting stories, etc.
Same goes for *all* bloggers -- at least half of the "brand-identity" (and resulting "value") comes from the audience/fans. Does this mean that Mike -- or any other blogger -- should "compensate" those who comment on his blog/suggest stories, etc. by PAYING us?
The *real* question is whether Krist agrees with Bono's notion that ISP's should be compelled to spy on their own users, simply so already-wealthy corporate-owned "celebrities" can squeeze a few dollars more.
Anti-Mike tries to defend itself, by stating:
As for my posts, I find that there is much of what Mike posts that is sensationalized or twisted to meet an agenda or belief set that he works from. More often than not, there is missing facts, overlooked angles, and outright misrepresentation of "facts" by only highlighting certain things and ignoring other things that would go against the premise. A lot of people do it, even the mainstream media is guilty sometimes of giving a 30,000 foot view because a closer look might screw up a good story."
Gee, like, say, how *you* consistently ignore the history and original purpose of copyright law? How you relentlessly defend the corporate-owned status quo? No thanks. Your "agenda" isn't about "taking a closer look", and you know it. Your agenda isn't about "injecting balance", either. Your agenda is -- and always has been -- defending whatever Mike happens to dislike, and misunderstanding whatever Mike is trying to say.
"I also tend to object to bootstrapping and posts that can lead people to think that opinions are facts. I tend to point that out, because it often changes the way things play out. DRM tax, anyone?"
What, like major-label "artists" opinion that they *deserve* to be paid for any and all uses of "their" content, such that there's effectively no such thing as "fair use?
Like the specious "opinion" expressed by corporate shills that there is a 1 to 1 relationship between "illegal" downloads and lost sales? Or maybe you mean the "opinion" expressed by many anti-p2p/IP-apologist trolls, that copyright skepticism is simply about "not wanting to pay for stuff."
Get over yourself, anti-mike. As I told Jon Newton back when he became BFF's with Billy Bragg and Lily Allen over on A2f2a: the corporate media oligarchs don't NEED -- or DESERVE -- help in what they're trying to do. THEIR "agenda" is blindingly obvious, simply because the keep having copyright terms extended, and disruptive technologies banned. Sorry if realizing that "screws up a good story" about "poor, hardworking artists getting screwed by evil pirates."
And the fact is, advocating police-state tactics JUST to preserve what was only originally intended to be an extremely short-lived commercial monopoly privilege is INDEFENSIBLE.
Get that through your thick skulls, stop apologizing for draconian bullshit, or at LEAST acknowledge that existing IP law is *drastically* out of control, instead of actively advocating that it be made worse.
Then maybe some of us will stop thinking you're a troll.