" where the contention enters the picture is what happens when the artist(or more often their label) doesn't feel like they are being 'monetarily rewarded' enough, and decide to break out the lawyers/laws to 'fix' it."
I am not sure what being monetarily rewarded enough means. Lawyers get involved when someone breaks the law. I have not heard often "that business is getting paid 'enough' so I will break the law and acquire their product." A label is nothing more than a business that sells music. The monetary liability for breaking said law can be quite excessive and I believe should be adjusted. However,generally businesses exist to provide a service or sell a product in order to turn a profit, so it is only logical they would take action when something interferes with that.
I think the underlying issue Bono is addressing is, obviously, piracy. In that regard, I agree. The value of the artist in society is that they create art with intrinsic qualities that differentiate it from the creation of another. So much so that people desire to experience it and realize they themselves have neither the time nor talent to make this creation. To the artist maybe the art is spiritual or cathartic in nature. I believe we should monetarily reward the artist if we enjoy their art and to foster the creation of more art. If you truly enjoy an artist support them. Some approach art is if the artist is only "hocking their wares." However, many artist spend hours and years practicing their art and that has, in my eyes, a monetary value that society tends to devalue, especially in this digital age.
"YouTube is a major resource for video sharing in this country and it is wrong for YouTube to censor a video that has public value and news value."
No it is not. Youtube is a private entity, a company whose purpose is to make $$. They are not a government actor and have no duty to attempt to be one. They can refuse to host whatever they like. If the argument is they should lose ad revenue to play videos counter to their content policy because they have public or news value, I'm sure youtube would tell you go start up your own video hosting channel and stop trying to dictate their content. In addition, they might exclaim "we are trying to run a business here."
"It really doesn't matter how much YOU value your work, what really matters how much your customer is willing to pay for it."
Here is the crux of the issue. How much is the customer willing to pay for it by LEGAL means. I think to gloss over that the behavior as ILLEGAL is not intellectually honest and places the behavior in some neutral category. An article asking if what the guy did( break the law multiple times )is punished too severely based on morality? just the same as asking the question if infringement is morally wrong. Is that how we evaluate crime and punishment? No. My whole line of reasoning was to show we obey many laws that do not have a moral connection. In addition I outlined most people pay for intellectual goods. They don't have debates on how netflix or having cable effects the public domain.
"If that number happens to be zero for infinitely reproducible items, so be it."
Not if The number Zero is achieved by illegal activity. I am not bemoaning anything, especially not a price point conditioned by someone breaking the law. Why should anyone have to compete against someone breaking the law. Is that fair? Should we discuss in terms of equity or legality or morals? A justification for why they are breaking the law is a justification for ILLEGAL activity.
"If you really wanted to begin to restore my respect of copyright, you could start by lowering copyright length to reasonable time frames."
I totally agree but I am not willing to throw out the entire construct. I see it having way too many, real world commercial benefits to do so. Again, my ideas are not to persuade you to obey the law, like the law, agree with the law or be pro copyright. I before gave the caveat I express views of how the law operates now and how I deal with it on behalf of creators wishing to financially gain from their creations. I don't think obeying only the laws we like is how it's supposed to go. We all can agree that intellectual property isn't really property....that isn't really important to me. and it's not really that important to me whether you call copyright infringement "stealing" because I have already separated morality the argument. It's just breaking the law.
"Are you mixing up value and price? Because if they thought it had no value, why would they even click on it?"
We live in a capitalist so let us assume that they are related. I will leave it to you to give me examples. In a capitalist society, items of value generally have a cost associated with them.( and please don't give me examples of sunsets and kind words are things that are valuable, or a lover's touch, YOU KNOW what I mean :)
"Technology does not make ideas or expression any less valuable but many would make that argument.
Do you really see people arguing this? Because I don't recall ever hearing anyone say that."
If you get works for free isn't that what you are saying? The justification for pirating is that they are not loosing any money because it's just a digital copy that costs nothing. That is the justification, that is the argument.
"Creators have never been entitled to monetary gain."
Nope but under the law they are entitled to a fair shake at doing so. The person in this case was selling someone else's product for his own profit. Doesn't sound like they were getting a fair shake to me. Please understand, the views I express are not how I think things should be, these are the laws on the books. I see them as the means business is conducted on an everyday basis in the realm of media.
No. I believe most of society is not a good barometer for what we should do or behave in many instances. It would seem that you imply most of society thinks deeply about the function of copyright. I do not believe they do. To assume most of society knows what or how to pirate software or music or movies is a falsehood. Most people pay for downloads and don't even think "is it right that I could find a way to get movies and music for free, should I?" Or that they think "what would the world be like without copyright...." They just have cable or netflix or some other way to enjoy content. The thought that people on sites like these are representative of the general public is quite odd. I comment on these topics because it's what I deal with for a living so I am not representative of the general public either.
I believe most of society doesn't think art or creative works have value because they can click on a link on the internet and get it for free. The law says otherwise. Which begs the question if they had value before, ie a vinyl record, because the format has changed does it mean it has less value? No. That would imply that the value of a vinyl record lay in the vinyl itself, which we both know is not true. Technology does not make ideas or expression any less valuable but many would make that argument. Is that yours? Is your argument against copyright the creator is not entitled to monetarily gain from his/her creation because technology has made it less expensive to distribute? If that is the case then should all computer programs be free? Copyright does benefit a select few, generally the creator or someone who has PAID the creator to own the expression of the idea. Should you or anyone else have it for nothing? If it has no value why do you want it? if you want it why are you not willing to pay for it?
It is not a problem. If you wish to separate the two, it becomes very simple. If you don't wish to face the penalties associated with breaking a law, or bemoaning the punishment, don't break it. A law is meant regulate certain behavior so to dissuade certain behavior has a negative consequence. Whether breaking the law is moral or not is a misnomer. We obey laws because we as a society have deemed it necessary to regulate certain behavior. Breaking the law needs no moral component so punishment for it needs no moral justification. If you break the law there are penalties.
I have been lambasted for using the morality argument in copyright infringement before. How fitting it is brought up by the author. IS it immoral to break the law? Is it immoral to break the law after breaking the law, getting caught, punished and breaking the same law again? Is it immoral to sell something that belongs to someone else for your own profit? Are speed limits moral? Is printing counterfeit currency immoral? Is not paying your taxes immoral? Is it immoral to default on a loan? I have no idea but you can spend significant time in jail for breaking the law.
I found this site a few years ago and generally read I.P. related articles. I often compare the coverage on this site to others and comment hoping to add to the discussion. I have learned to appreciate many issues in I.P. from a non-practitioner perspective and that is incredibly important to me.
Thanks I was familiar with the the majority of the articles you sited. My point was, it is not an industry is trying to destroy another. These are negotiated licensing rates and they are trying to make the most money. If Pandora and Spotify are at the mercy of simple supply and demand economics. To be more profitable they will have to generate more money ( I think it rather obviously, charge more for subscriptions or create more ad revenue).
My comment was to be posted after being viewed by a moderator. That was hours ago and it never was posted. I didn't think this site did that. Has that ever happened to anyone else? Is this new? I don't even say that stupid "Mike just hate's it when blah, blah, blah, nonsense"
If terrestrial radio found a way to be profitable I am sure internet music services will figure out how to do the same. The licensing amounts paid per play by pandora and spotify are fractions of a cent and to suggest the "industry" is trying to destroy internet radio and the like is confusing. What happens when it is not the "Legacy" holders but the independent artist that is paid this extremely low rate? Is the argument the independent artist is trying to destroy internet radio by negotiating royalty rates? Lastly, what is a speaker without anything coming out of it? Silent. The argument content is not important to a internet music provider is strange at best. If any internet music provider thinks they are paying to much for content they don't have to carry it. They can use content that is less expensive.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You're out of your element, Mike
This logic assumes there is nothing negative with breaking the law or getting something others are paying for free or not monetarily supporting art you enjoy. In addition, it ignores the fact, if it had no value you would not watch, listen, or read it. There is a reason millions of people would never consider stealing something from someone fileshare, they see it as a crime that has no victim and often they are screwing over "the man." These are personal philosophies. There many things millions of people do and believe and have done throughout history, that I would not and regardless of how they rationalize it, know it is not right. However, when they are prosecuted for breaking a known law they cry foul and state it is not fair. The copyright holder is being deprived of the rights associated with their content and if one cannot understand why it is illegal, nor the money expended in creation and production, then they are making a concerted effort not to understand.
Well....what does the average person call acquiring something without paying for it, without permission? If it is not a gift and I know other people have to pay for it and I'm not, my Mom would call it stealing. Is it right or wrong? Not emotionally charged, no victim, not "serious" by your very admonition when called "copyright infringement." Semantics, the very definition of the word. As I stated earlier, what to call it is not the real issue. Here, websites that were involved in distributing paid apps, for free, were confiscated by the government. The author takes issue with this citing Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana, a 1st amendment/obscenity case filed in civil court. It was found the government should not have confiscated property. Here, an investigation of criminal copyright infringement and the government CAN confiscate property because it is a criminal investigation of a business enterprise involved in illegal activity.