Sam I Am and the Statute of Anne
p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- “Tanya got her legal fees just as she should. Jammie gets her second chance.”
That’s p2pnet poster Sam I Am, a vociferous critic of file sharing and file sharers.
Posting a comment in Guns ‘N Roses, the RIAA and Chinese Democracy, he neglects to mention Tanya, Tanya Andersen, triumphed only after a long long and bitter fight with Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony BMG’s RIAA, or that her daughter, Kylee, who was only about seven when it all began, also came under attack. Nor does he say Tanya and her lawyers will now have to quite literally force the RIAA to compensate her for all the pain and anguish they’ve caused her and the people who care for her.
He also doesn’t bother to say Jammie is Jammie Thomas, another single mom put through the mill by the Big 4 and their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) hit organization. Yes, she’ll get her second day in court; but only after being publicly slandered and held up in the eyes of the world as a criminal, and only after being told she’d have to pay the major labels close to a quarter of a million dollars.
Sam I Am’s Reader’s Write comes in the story about how FBI agents raided the Los Angeles home of 27-year-old blogger Kevin Cogill, aka Skwerl, and arrested him —- while he was stil in his jammies, as his girl-friend Britney pointed out.
It took five Feebs to nail this wicked criminal who’d viciously streamed tunes from Guns ‘N Roses online.
Oh! The Horror!
As Dan Tynan, who wrote the article, noted, “If someone can explain to me how streaming music cuts out legitimate sales, I’d like to hear it.
“Don’t we have an invention that does something very similar called – radio? Hasn’t that been the prime marketing vehicle for the recording industry for the past 50 years?”
The ‘Statute of Anne’
Henry Ermich is someone else who hasn’t had much (anything?) good to say about file sharers. Or p2pnet, for that matter. 
But as I’ve mentioned before, at least he has the courage to sign his name to his criticisms.
But this time, Henry makes my day. heh. (Cheers, Henry! 
)
Sam I Am posts »»»
»»»
All this speculation, while it makes for hyperbolic reading, is essentially beside the point. The artist or creator has a basic human right to the control of their creations. The release (or not) the sale, the duplication, the distribution. These creator rights are inherent, and copyright law basically codifies these fundamental human rights. These rights can be legally transferred or sold outright and often are. As a rights holder, you have and enjoy certain influences and uses that a non-rights holder does not legally or ethically enjoy. If you want to see the laws changed, lobby to change them, just as the industry does. If “the people” care enough and can bring down a standing American president as we did in 1973, we can influence copyright law, too. But every instance of trespass, legal, moral, ethical, should and will be identified and prosecuted and punished. Tanya got her legal fees just as she should. Jammie gets her second chance. This door swings both ways. Work within the law or be treated as someone who elects to work outside the law with all the potential consequences. We all have choices to make and Cogill mades his. It was illegal and he’ll be held accountable.
Here’s what Henry says in response to Sam’s whingeing »»»
Sam:
First, no. Historically, there WAS no such thing as “copyright” in the conventional sense of the term. That began with something called the “Statute of Anne” in England. Ironically enough, it was a compromise between the printing-houses of the time (which had previously been granted perpetual monopoly over printing “rights” even to works whose authors were long dead), and the general public.
The idea that State-backed monopoly power is a “fundamental human right” is actually horrifying. Look into copyright “law” some time, and you’ll notice that the DISTRIBUTORS of “content” have historically had far more control than the actual creators of said content — Just one example, is John Fogerty (Of Creedence Clearwater Revival fame) being barred from “legally” performing HIS OWN SONGS because he changed labels.
“We, the people” don’t have multi-million dollar lobbyists, and “we” did NOT change copyright “law”: legislators did.
Honestly, if you’re really interested in the “fundamental human rights” of creators to the control of their own works, then you should regard the RIAA-member record labels as the worst offenders against it in history.
And, just to head off whatever specious “objections” you might have: I am a musician myself. As such, I genuinely resent a system which penalizes REAL ARTISTS — people who actually give a damn about what they’re doing — in favor of shit like Amy Winehouse; a system which screws people out of their “fundamental human right to control their own works” by classifying them as a “work for hire”; a system which has routinely failed to actually come through on delivering royalty payments to vast numbers of their own major label “workforce”.
Look back at the original version of Copyright the Founding Fathers created: 11 years. NO “life plus infinity” bullshit.
To be honest, I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that the only way out of this bullshit is to release my stuff gratis online with a little note to a paypal account or something, so that people can throw me a few bucks if they want to. Barring “Major Label” support, that’s about the only way (other than woefully infrequent gigs) that it’ll ever actually be heard.
Trust me, Sam — I used to be just like you, parroting off all of the same rhetoric — but then I actually looked at what the “copyright” regime had done — served as just another way to screw people over. Do you have a VCR or TIVO? If so, according to a former RIAA spokes-drone, you’re the equivalent of the “Boston Strangler”.
Unless you’ve NEVER used blank video-tape to tape something off air, you very literally have NOTHING to say, here.
This is, after all, an “all or nothing” deal: if you’ve violated “fundamental human rights”, then ‘fess up to it, man!
Why am I even bothering?
Good one Henry, although I disagree with you about Amy Winehouse. IMHO, she’s already a pretty good blues singer and will get to be a lot better —- but only if she survives drugs and alcohol. And the corporate music industry. Not a lot to choose between them.
And Oh Yeh – the Statute of Anne. If you’d like to read more, what better than William Patry in England and the Statute of Anne?
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
August 31st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
What i have i will share with others -Humanity
September 1st, 2008 at 8:26 am
@ Henry
Hi Henry — When I was cleaning out today’s batch of spam-mail (seems to get worse, not better) I inadvertently deleted a comment from you. I hope you kept a copy (it was a fairly long post with a useful url in it) and if you did, could you re-post it?
Sorry again and Cheers!
Jon
September 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Hey Jon, I hope things went well in Vancouver. As a professional creator of digital design content for sale, I still have the instinctive feeling that the control, duplication, the distribution and sale of my digital product should be mine for a significant period of time, and protected this way under the law. We’ll see if legislators eventually agree with me. Those who do not create these products but try to possess them without cost will apparently take them at will and rejoice in their ability to dare anyone to try and stop them. We’ll also see over time if this evolves into a position worthy of respect and protection. One thing is clear: if taking without paying and infringing on others work while hiding behind our proud privacy laws is fair, then anything is fair. I’ve never been a supporter of the RIAA/MPAA nor their tactics, and I’ve been very plain about this on Jon’s site for years. I don’t work for either organization. But I’m less likely to hold copyright holders to account of their methods as long as online pirates see everything and every method of taking-for-free as fair game, and then when they get caught, split hairs on outdated law as defense of infringement. Obviously, there is a lot to legally sort out in the years ahead.
Henry Ermich reveals a great deal about himself when he opines “the only way out of this bullshit is to release my stuff gratis online with a little note to a paypal account or something, so that people can throw me a few bucks if they want to.”
This is Henry’s right and I support his right to subsist on a few bucks thrown by people “if they want to”. But most working professionals view things quite differently, and don’t regard their decision to embrace the future and work in a digital medium as an inherent capitulation to theft and nonpayment. We don’t view piracy as the future, we view piracy as the last serious impediment to the low-cost, inherently democratic miracle of digital distribution. We will lobby the FCC and the ISP’s and our legislators to fight for us on both principle as well as our very real dependence on proper payment for work we’ve done well.
None of us really knows where this will end up but certain signs are growing clearer. Surely, given the freedom and the privacy of years past we will all look back in dismay on what we’ve lost but once enjoyed in the “years before piracy”. Unlimited will give way to caps just like speed limits, or water metering, or electrical usage bills and flat access fees and advertising will be ratcheted up and up until all artists and their agents— not just blockbusters— are being paid for their work consistently to pre-infringement levels. It’s a big world and we were all raised differently and we all have widely diverging values. Jon and I couldn’t have a more disparate outlook of our shared digital future.
But metering seems the only fair solution when an “all you can eat food buffet” implies to some that they can walk in without paying, set down their napkins, plates and forks, ethically back up a truck to the buffet table while a crew feverishly shovels the food in, and the driver of the truck hires Ray Beckerman to complain to the media about the tactics of law enforcement—– called to the scene by the owner of the diner.
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:37 am
Jon:
Unfortunately, I didn’t keep a copy of the post (just entered it directly into your comment thingy here.)
The Gist of it boiled down to the following:
1. Apologizing for having taken cheap-shots at you in the past (which was just unfriendly no matter which side of a dispute you’re on — trying not to be like that.)
2. Rethinking my position on the reasons why people use p2p software. I genuinely don’t think that many of them ARE the sort of “freeloaders” that the RIAA wants to portray them as. However, that still needs to be demonstrated in many cases — I really think that the RIAA could have figured something out when Napster was developed, but for all intents and purposes, there’s no way for that to happen now — p2pers are mostly too pissed off to really want to “deal” with the RIAA, and the RIAA has pretty well succeeded in making people think it’s all about “getting stuff for free” (making p2pers look like leeches, in other words.)
Sam I am seems to genuinelybelieve that he has the “best interests” of content creators etc. at heart: the only problem is, he believes thatthrottling is a “fair” solution. Tell us, Sam: should the bandwidth-caps apply to EVERYTHING, or just to p2p traffic? Voip? Streaming video? Streaming audio?
That’s hardly a sensible solution (much less “fair”). To be honest, he seems to be advocating some kind of European style “metered” internet instead of the (for want of a better term) “Buffet-style” net connectivity we’re used to here in the US (and canada, presumably.
The truly ironic part of this is that a lot of the companies doing the “throttling” specifically hype the speed of their services and specifically mention “downloading” in their ads. Same with the computer manufacturer’s ads: Look at the Intel Centrino II commercials — many of them make references to “dowloading a movie”. So, let’s put it bluntly: the “mixed messages” are problematic to say the least.
Also, what happened to all that hype a few years ago about how once the telephone companies/cable companies implimented fiber-optics, we’d have faster than T1? That never happened, obviously, and fiber is much easier to deply — “last-mile” issues negligible at best. So what happened to all of the projected upgrades?
Anyway, the link that I provided was: http://www.p2pfoundation.net/The Foundation for P2P Alternatives
They examine the “p2p phenomenon” and everything related to it from just about any angle you could possibly want to know about: how p2p works, the rationale behind copyright, the”sociology” of p2p — how non-hierarchical forms of organization work, etc.
Out of all of the p2p discussions around, THEY seem to be the most thorough, and — to be honest — to make the most convincing case.
Additionally, there’s no celebrity twaddle (smirk!)
Anyway, please try not to delete this one
cheers (as you would say!)
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:55 am
I “reveal a great deal about myself”, hmm, Sam?
What does this “reveal” about you?
1.You state your belief that both creation AND DISTRIBUTION of your “product” should be under your control “for a significant amount of time, and protected by law”. This is, quite simply, completely unlike what any of the media-distribution corporations have actually done historically, and completely unlike what they are doing now. Y’ever heard of “works for hire?” That’s one of the clauses routinely put into record deals when people get “signed”: the primary thing which you seem to want so desperately to control at ANY COST — and apperently by ANY MEANS (sole right to distribution and use) is ceded to the label. Look into how vanishingly few of the artists during the early portion of the 20th century — especially those producing so-called “race Records” — blues and such — to actually get paid anything for “their”
Now, I’m not usually one for these sorts of comparisons, but since you stated that my increasing sketpcism about copyright “law”/refusal to oreflexively condemn any and all forms of p2p “reveals quite a bit” about me, let’s consider what your viewpoint reveals about YOU:
Who was it who stated that stated the belief that copyright should rightfully be enforced “forever minus one day”??
I believe that was Sonny Bono (for whom the fairly recent copyright extension act is nicknamed).
Interesting how you didn’t actually reply to any of my points. Also interesting how you continue to hide behind a Dr. Seuss reference (for which you undoubtedly didn’t get the proper copyright clearance.) Interesting how you use terms like “creation of digital content for sale”. “Digital content?” What does that even MEAN, other than that it’s not analog?
Are we talking html templates here, music? Video?
I also love the paranoia about how “We don’t view piracy as the future”.
Perhaps this is meant as a “Royal” we?
You failed to actually answer any of my points (which is pretty typical.)
You insist on confusing “copyright infringement” with “piracy” (which is also typical.)
You resorted thinly-veiled insults against me (which is — dare I say, ALSO typical?)
Your “response” consisted of nothing but the same old braggadocio, grandstanding, and misrepresentation “we” always get from apologists for the current copyright regime/opponents of p2p. (And yes, the “we” was meant facetiously.)
Hmm….mayhap “we” will henceforth designate you as “SPAM I am?”
Keep up the good work, Jon — obviously some people don’t “get it.”
.
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:13 am
Sam:
So pray tell us what constitutes a “significant” amount of time?
Probably not the “mere” 11 years originally GRANTED by Congress/the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.
Also remember that the ONLY reason they even gave THAT much monopoly-power was in order to promote “the Useful Arts and Sciences.”
No high-minded bromides about how your Great-great-grandchildren should STILL have exclusive, coercive monopoly power over something you created, simply because it’s a “fundamental human right”.
Y’know the way to keep “control”, Sam? DON’T PUBLISH.
The “remedies” (lawsuits etc.) don’t “undo” the original “misuse” of your product.
Also, the State already recognizes HUGE, GLARING EXCEPTIONS to your supposed “fundamental human rights” in this regard: “fair use” (which is rapidly vanishing specifically because of views such as yours). More fundamentally, parody and satire are specifically protected even though they often require use of “the heart” of a given work (for example, see any of the numerous parodies of “The Real Slim Shady” by Eminem.)
Your right, Spam: this issue DOES “reveal quite a bit” about people: you claim not to be a defender of the RIAA, yet blithely parrot off their exact propaganda about copyright being a “fundament human right” — a notion which is contradicted by the evidence. You resort to backhanded assertions that because I actually bother to THINK about this issue rationally I must be some kind of no-talent hack who doesn’t think his stuff “deserving” of life-plus-infinity “protection”.
You even resort to using the “royal we”.
Sam I am, I’ll ask you again: if you believe that copyright is a “fundamental human right”, then have you ever recorded anything off the radio/television/TIVO, and — most importantly — how can you sleep at night, knowing that every comment you post here infringes on the “fundamental human rights” of the estate of Theodore Geisel (”Dr. Seuss”)???
How DARE you!
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:28 am
What’s your view of the “First Sale Doctrine?”
Garth Brooks (boundless font of talent that he is) has stated that he resents the fact that he only gets “payment” the first time one of his albums is sold. That’s right, Sam: if you’ve ever bought an album/videotape/dvd “used” (like for example from Amazon.com) then — according to Mr. Brooks at least — you’ve “cheated” it’s creator/publisher out of the “rightful” payment they would have recieved had you purchased it “new”.
Now, obviously, every “used”/”secondhand” purchase is itself a form of “piracy”. Why? Well, according to your thinking, the creators (publishers) of content should be paid for that content, and — a la copyright — should also have exclusive control over it’s distribution.
But — under the current system (which, ironically enough, PREDATES digital distribution) if I purchase something “used” the original creator/distributor DOESN’T GET PAID. Not only that, but the creator/publisher has ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL over the circumstances under which such transactions take place and NO CONTROL OVER THE PRICE (if any.)
The vast majority of my books on computer programming, electronics, and recording technology have been acquired in just this nefarious manner: I’ve bought stacks of computer books with list prices of 35 dollars for 5 bucks or less.
Have I, in so doing, “deprived O’Reilly publishing of a sale?”
THEY got paid exactly ONCE: when the original buyer purchased it.
In summation: stop Kvetching about the threats posed to content-creators by “media piracy” and start lobbying your congressman/the FCC/the publishing companies/etc. for repeal of the “First sale doctrine”, because that represents a far more credible threat to the financial well-being of authors/musicians/creative geniuses such as yourself than any mere p2p.
Oh, and remember — always make sure to buy new, and ALWAYS pay full price — “used books are killing the publishing industry.”
Now please do “us” a favor and actually respond to “our” points, M’kay???
September 2nd, 2008 at 7:02 am
Interesting link for “Our” friend “Sam” here:
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2007/06/20/abc_s_sam_i_am_tv_show_changes_name_afte
In the interest of not violating “fundamental human rights”, I’m not going to quote (”Sample without clearance) the article even thought such could arguably be considered by some to be “fair use”.
This is fascinating on several levels:
“Sam” aggressively seeks to defend the current “intellectual property” regime at whatever cost and by whatever means. He claims not to “condone” the RIAA’s tactics, but just to be watching out for the interests of “content creators”.
However, he also views copyright as a “fundamental human right” — a view which is not even embraced by the most aggressive “copyright Cops”, much less those who originally allowed “copyright protection” in the first place: “fundamental human rights” don’t expire after 11 years, and they’re not justified in order to “promote the Useful Arts and Sciences”. However, I digress.
ABC (one of the aggressive corporate behemoths assisting the RIAA’s “sue ‘em all” campaign) was bludgeoned into changing the name of one of it’s programs because the “rightful holders” of copyright/trademark on that name had “concerns”.
As I say, this is interesting: I sincerely doubt that “our” esteemed opponent sought out (much less paid for) clearance for the use of “Intellectual property” of the estate of Theorore Geisel, prior to his blatant usurpation of same for use as an Internet “Handle”.
I’m pretty sure he has also taken advantage of the First-sale “Loophole” in order to willfully deprive content-creators/publishers of sales just so he could get the stuff “cheaper”.
He may even have recorded TV shows with a VCR at one point!
My point with this post (and yes, Jon, this is the last one tonight) — is that the existing “intellectual proiperty” regulations are already fraught with exceptions, contradictions, and outright nonsense. Further, in no sense can any of the monopoly powers enforced by government gun-power in the name of IP be considered a “fundamental human right”.
Various software companies have attempted to use EULA provisions to circumvent the “First sale” doctrine by claiming that software is “licensed, not sold”. (In essence, according to them, you “buy” nothing — you merely pay for the license.)
The courts have ruled in several instances, however, that “buying” software does indeed constitute “a sale” in terms of the law — so even here, the “fundamental human rights” of content-creators/distributors are brazenly flouted.
Oh, the horror!
Further, Jon, I humbly suggest that He-who-shall-not-be-named (for fear of trademark infringement) be asked to provide evidence that he has cleared the use of his Internet “Handle” with those holding the copyright/trademark to same. Otherwise, he’s a hypocrite.
Put up or shut up, “Sam”.
September 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
No matter how you look at the situtation, there is one thing that has brought this on. The public’s lack of acceptance of status quo or that it should continue. The pendulum has swung far to far in favor of the copyright protection side. Hay has been made while the atmosphere was in favor of making it. Like everything else that too will change sometime in the future. This is an old scenario that has been played out before and is back with us once again, in a different time. The ultimate solution did not go in favor of the protectionists and it won’t go this time either. No matter how many laws, no matter how much money is thrown at it.
You see, if the public deems it a bad law, they will ignore it and continue to do whatever it is they have in mind is right. Making it illegal will have no force with them. You only wind up with more problems than you can deal with trying to fight it. The copyright industry has not been truthful about matters. Movies have done better than ever for the past two years at the box office, yet to hear them poor mouth, piracy is just terrible to their bottom line. It’s not a sign of truthfulness, it’s a sign of greed.
The music industry is it’s own worst enemy. I want nothing to do with them. I don’t want their products, I won’t buy their goods, and they have lost me as a customer. The only thing I see of interest at all, is reissues of old artists whose groups long ago disbanded. All wrapped up as new offerings, with little if anything actually new in them. I won’t buy an album for a single song. Those days are long gone and will never return. That is the same reason why the day of the single has returned. Everyone and their bother who used to be a paying customer wants only the good song, not the rest of the filler. Why pay for trash?
The industry has no one to blame for this but themselves. They are the ones that killed the single in favor of the album. They are the ones that decided this trash as opposed to that quality. Has anyone noticed that the life expectancy of the hit is no longer deemed in terms of a 1/2 year but rather in the term of a few months at best? It’s because the lack of quality, the lack of being able to hear new tunes off the album, and the corresponding lack of interest by not generating that interest. You can not deny that the day of people lining up around the block for the first day the hit is sold means that there are less that are interested it in. Most see music as a poor money value, compared to games or to movies. Lack of value, seen by the customer means lack of sales.
Extending copyright has done nothing to help the industry. Most look at it as a PNA. It has earned the protectionist side more of a publicly black eye. Face it, if they haven’t made their money back in the first 10 years, they are not going to do it with the long tail. All that move did was create more animosity towards those industries.
September 3rd, 2008 at 6:32 pm
An Open letter to the victims of copyright “law”:
There, I said it — it’s out in the open: The notion of “copyright” victimizes everyone, not least those involved in the “creative” pursuits/careers whose interests it is claimed to protect.
I’m writing this as response and clarification: response to the misrepresentations and thinly-veiled insults directed toward me by someone calling him/herself “Sam I Am”, and clarification of just exactly why I can no longer in good conscience be an unthinking apologist for copyright or “intellectual property” in general.
Apologists for copyright “law” typically begin with the claim that creators have a “fundamental human right” to coercive monopoly control over “their” product, and that the State should enforce such monopoly-power, essentially, at the barrel of a gun.
This notion is downright appealing on some level: we all like to believe that we are somehow “special” and that our efforts/social status/beliefs are somehow entitlted to privilieged treatment. It’s very easy to succumb to the notion that “there oughta be a law” — that the coercive mechinery of Government should be used to “jackboot” our particular whims upside everyone else’s head.
Naked self-interest and short-sightedness can also make it difficult — if not impossible — for us to make a rational appraisal of how our partiucular “law-topia” actually play out on the real world. Copyrights, patents, and “Intellectual property” in general are a good example of this.
First, just what IS copyright, anyway?
Well, as the name implies, it has to do with the “right to copy”: during the period in which the monopoly is in force, the State can — and supposedly SHOULD — act coercively to prevent “illigitimate” (unauthorized) duplication of the copyrighted material by anyone other than the copyright-holder.
The most obvious question to ask here would seem to be: WHY is the issue of “copying” deemed to be of such vital importance as to merit a law?
The naked truth here is: money. Copyright — like patents — was created by Government as an ‘incentive” which, supposedly, makes creativity more attractive by preventing “unauthorized” competition: put bluntly, monopoly at gunpoint ensures that the holders of such monopolies get to “squeeze the nickel ’till the buffalo shits.”
Far from being a “fundamental human right”, copyrights and Patents attempt to harness the naked acquisitiveness and aversion to a “level playing field” mplicit in genuinely free competition. Pure and simple, they’re subsidies targeted at various “works of the mind”.
Copyright is a “Faustian Bargain” in which the State supposedly balances the interests of creators and consumers by placing it’s thumb on the scales.
Historically, there WAS no such thing as “copyright” — no belief that the State had any business stipulatng the who would be permitted to use songs, stories, plays, ideas or “ways of doing stuff” in general. The closest thing was the idea of “guild secrecy”, echoes of which are still preserved in such things as Freemasonry’s “secret handshakes” etc.: “Operative Masons” — as well as the members of other such “guilds” — took great pains to stack the economic “deck” in their favor by ensuring that only “authorized” individuals learned the “secrets of the Craft”.
But in general, there WAS no widespread notion of State-backed coercive monopoly on “creative works”: not only was there no restriction of “copying” (so that, for example, anyone else could freely perform a song they had heard without fear of reprisal), but “derivative works” were also seen as a matter of course — see, for example, the proliferation of different “versions” of so-called “folk ballads”.
This vibrant and coercion-free state of affairs began to break down (or more accurately, was deliberately destroyed) in response to the widespread availability of the printing press.
Gutenberg’s “infernal machine” threatened a great many then-powerful interests: previously, literacy was restricted to a small class of the elite — scribes, some nobles, and the clergy. These elites posessed an inestimable advantage over their illiterate subjects: most notably in the case of the Church, exclusive access to Scripture — and legal sanction to punish unauthorized copying or “derivative works” based upon it (for example, John Wycliffe’s unauthorized handwritten versions of the Bible, which were rounded up and destroyed by Roman Catholic authorities on order from the Pope after his death.)
The Printing press changed all that: printed matter became much easier to produce and could be disseminated much more quickly. As such, ideas which the “Authorities” of the time considered to be “heretical” were much harder to suppress. The widespread use of the printing press was — arguably — one of the catalysts for the period of religious and political upheaval later known as the “Rennaisance”, beginning with the Protestant Reformation.
No church today would think of launching an inquisition in order to punish “heresy”, and nowadays, Freedom of speech, Freedom of the Press, and freedom of thought in general are seen to be among the incontrovertible, fundamental, unalienable human rights respected by any genuinely civilized regime.
That — in a nutshell — is testament to the genuinely revolutionary power of new technology as catalyst for social and political liberation.
We’re at another crossroads today: the “digital revolution” has provided us with the Internet — the fastest communications channel humanity has ever known, with the lowest “barriers to entry”. Predictably, this vast new technological “toolset” threatens a great many entrenched political and economic interests, who — since they can’t hope to stop the technology itself, seek to SLOW the course of change by their standard methods: propaganda, misinformation, and State Jackbooting:
Copyright law was NEVER about “creators”: most of the music the RIAA claims to be “protecting” was created as “work for hire” and the rights are owned NOT by the actual creator/performers, but by the corporations themselves.
“Work for hire” has a different (longer) copyright term, by the way.
The Roman Catholic church sought to demonize the emerging Protestant movement by declaring it to be “heresy”; in the same vein — and for the same reason — the RIAA’s lobbyists (ideological heirs to the “Worshipful Company of Stationers” that they are) promote the term “piracy” in relation to p2p (Peer-to-peer) file-sharing, and seem intent to trample as many people as possible in order to squeeze a few more cents from their collapsing monopolies.
As a musician who isn’t signed to one of the “major labels”, I have nothing to gain by helping to propagandize in favor of their crumbling empires: no airplay on their corporate-owned radio and certainly no physical sales in their music stores.
“Sam I Am” says that my failure to be an unthinking apologist for coercive monopoly as a “fundamental human right” “reveals quite a bit about me”: I hope it does — I hope it reveals what shareware/open-source software developers and “indie” musicians have known all along — that I gain nothing by hoarding “my” works in the vain hope of squeezing every possible cent out of potential buyers.
This point is really vivid to me because the group I’ve been in since 1991 tends to do what “Sam I Am” would undoubtedly deem to be an extremely stupid thing: sometimes we don’t charge a set price for gigs. That’s right: on occasion we’ve been known to trust our existing (and potential) fanbase enough to metaphorically “pass the hat”, and y’know the strange thing? People who (for whatever reason) wouldn’t book us/come to see us if we charged them for the “privilege” tend to become downright generous on a regular basis:
Our “usual” rate: $150/hr. Thus, on a 3 hour gig, we bring home $450.
Several times we’ve done at least that well monetarily “passing the hat”. AND, when you factor in that the groups for which we do such “freebies” tend not to be in a position to afford our “usual” price, the picture gets more interesting.
“Sam I Am” insinuates that I somehow don’t value my music (and by extention that shareware or open-source software developers don’t value their own works, either.) I find that insulting and downright shortsighted.
I really can’t explain any of this better than I have already. For a far more thorough and lucid presentation, you can go to the following sites and (like me) hopefully come away from it with your mind at least SOMEWHAT more open to the emerging possibilities of p2p/the dark-side of “Intellectual property” law.)
http://www.questioncopyright.org
http://www.p2pfoundation.net
September 4th, 2008 at 2:03 am
“the only way out of this bullshit is to release my stuff gratis online with a little note to a paypal account or something, so that people can throw me a few bucks if they want to.”
That’s Henry Ermich verbatim, but now he backpedals out of his woe-is-me Eeyore impression pretending he’s proud to have a few bucks perhaps thrown his way now and then. Have it your way, Henry. I quoted you but I never once said the creator should not have the express right to give their works away if they wish to. You may be just fine with your passed hat. Good for you. I’m all for it. At the moment, my team is designing in support of a large fashion show mounting soon in Mumbai, all pro bono. That’s right Henry, totally free. This will wind up costing us twice the value of a new hi end luxury car by the time that show strikes, but the Indians need the help and we want them to succeed. They’ll buy our stuff the next time. That’s how business works, Henry. Your passed hat might lead to albums sales and that’s your choice. For you, I hope they do. But I didn’t build this firm or my life on the hope that maybe someone might throw me a few bucks now and then. Nobody tells me or any other valid business model that they have some right to take and use our work without paying. Nobody. We decide what they pay or they can shop somewhere else or they do without it entirely. Those are the choices we offer, and you can offer any choices you want for YOUR stuff. A fair days pay for a fair days work is never going out of style no matter how much “I’m a victim”/Communism/anarchy you enjoy wallowing in here.
Industry is people. Just people, Henry. People with kids to raise and educate, people with car loans and mortgages to keep current, people who work long, hard days and nights and bleed when you cut them, just like everybody here. The first mistake you make is demonizing an industry, ANY industry, failing to accept that they are us. Human nature is what it is, Henry. It’s not changing anytime soon. Industry is just a lot more dedicated to excellence and a lot more organized than you are. It’s hard to build a business, Henry. It doesn’t take much to hide behind privacy laws and pilfer through a Gateway. Grow a pair and compete.
The second mistake is bragging that piracy cannot be stopped. Of course it can’t be stopped. People speed, don’t they? And cheat on taxes? And leave crappy tips? People do wonderful things in this world and they do shitty things everyday, too, because they are people and it is all in our nature. And when tips get too small they are rolled into the check by the management. You’ll be “tipping” one way or the other. When speeding gets out of hand enforcement steps in like Henry’s jackboot. Ever been audited by the IRS, Henry? They took PHOTOS inside my home once. It was cause for real concern at the time. “They” can’t stop you?!? Oh really? LOL Online piracy will eventually be technically hamstrung because it can be, but we’ll lose the essential qualities of our wonderful shared network as a result. “They” don’t want to but they’ll do it if you force them to. Keep stealing and watch how this sorts out in the years ahead. Illegal piracy is hell bent on destruction and our clean, shared network—not the entertainment industry—is what we are going to lose.
The third biggest misconception is that anything digital must inherently be treated differently than tangible goods, or must now be free because of low cost duplication. That’s rubbish. Tangible goods can also be stolen, duplicated, illegally distributed and we don’t accept that shit either. Don’t try to convince a digital artist that they are somehow second class to a tangible artist, Henry, or that their product or their effort is somehow less worthy of sale or protection. Pirates never did get this one right. Product is product and personally? I’m not living on ad revenue. I hate advertising. Let’s watch how this sorts out, too.
But the biggest mistake— the fatal mistake— is stealing instead of not buying. Not buying would have changed everything. Not buying put Detroit on it’s knees. Do you think any government would stay silent if we were stealing the cars instead of not buying them? Bullshit. Stealing has given the high cards back to the industry, Henry, and stealing will eventually institutionalize the very payments you are trying to avoid. Access fees, music and movie taxes, interactive advertising. Metered downloads. Watch how this sorts out, too, Henry. Online theft will compel whatever it takes to protect the future of digital distribution. Watch. You are forcing your own worst nightmare and just like the RIAA, you are too greedy (and too stupid) to stop now.
A few years back I won a national design award here in the states for a big, famous museum, and I heard from 103 museums around the world with job offers right after that. One was from the Canadian National Gallery. The Canadian government paid me a sweet licensing fee to fly me and an assistant to Ottawa, putting us up in one of the most beautiful hotels in the world, the Fairmont Château Laurier at 1 Rideau Street. For three days we assessed their displays, the lighting, the color, the signage. The wanted a “written report” of the problems we saw and the solutions we suggested. I rewrote the contract to oblige me to a “written report of the problems” as they asked but only “licensed solutions expressed in an artistic manner.” They signed it and we did the work. But only the problems were organized and written/digitized as PDF’s for submittal. I spent several hours on the phone with their curators and registrars talking, ONLY talking about our solutions. This went on for days. They took their notes and by all accounts, the implementation went smoothly and the galleries were greatly improved as a result. I hear they won an award a few months later. But here’s the point: they have no digital record of anything. They have their notes, sure, and they can pass them on to their friends at other museums and I can’t stop them even though their agreement licenses my work for a “one time use in a single designated venue.” But they DON’T have a digital file of the program, my ideas, nor my solutions and my signature effects or even how they were achieved. They have no shop drawings, no equipment lists, no installation documents, no wiring diagrams, they have nothing but a few notes that really only make sense to the one person I explained them to. And nothing to send over the internet. Nothing. Why? Guess. This is business, Henry. Getting paid “over and over and over” for the same copyrighted work is what keeps creative firms like mine IN business in the first place. You truly may not understand this but legislators, business leaders, practically ANYone with any understanding at all about how IP supports the creation of jobs and new IP for the greater good supports this paradigm because they understand that without IP and copyright protection and many, many repeat payments we’d never survive. This is INSANELY competitive and with no disrespect, I don’t think you have a fucking clue. And yes, I license the same solutions to other venues, over and over, for the same very large fees everytime. How can I do this? BECAUSE I STILL OWN IT ALL, Henry, and I always will until copyright limitation pry’s it from my hands.
Henry, your mention of “poor John Fogarty who can’t even perform the songs he wrote” reveals how little you know or understand about any of this. The Beatles final year was 1969 and Fogarty made more money than the Beatles that year. Look it up. He SOLD his catalog, Henry. HE TOOK THE MONEY and made a bad deal, Henry. When he left the label the money went with him but not the songs because HE SOLD THEM. They belong to someone else now. Even Fogarty’s own brother Tom famously sided with the label, because sold is sold and fair is fair. This is not all that complicated.
And your sour little aside……. “Garth Brooks (boundless font of talent that he is)”…….. just shows how petty and classless you are when confronted with someone clearly more effective than you at your own game. I don’t listen to Garth but it might be an improvement for you to keep your smarmy jealousies hidden and focus instead on getting a little better at what you do.
My use of “SAM I AM” is a fine example of Fair Use and you know that. I have no right to reuse one of Theodore Geisel’s books and I know that. But anyone who can’t distinguish between using “Sam I Am” as a blog moniker and “three mouseclicks to the entire Dr. Suess collection at no cost on my harddrive” doesn’t deserve a pass to the internet in the first place. Much of the EU has already figured this out.
We all get into the arts because we love it, Henry. Lennon and McCartney didn’t play rockabilly together at 16 years old demanding big money for it. I landed in Manhattan at 22 because a Billy Joel tour I was working on ended here. I had no place to live, a Theatre degree, about 75 bucks and a grimy backpack. I worked for free or for food for a long LONG time, to get experience just as kids in the arts are often exploited. I stayed away from shady people, drugs, time wasters and dead ends. I worked long hours for years (and still do) in ways you may not even be able to comprehend. I’ve been self employed my entire adult life, Henry. And today my firm licenses design support and touring consultation to entertainment, exhibit and special theatrical events the world over, and we pay a LOT of taxes, Henry, believe me. You can bet MY political contributions are going to the folks who respect my right to control my work for as long as legally possible, because I’ve got rents to pay, insurances to keep current, salaries to meet each week and a daughter to educate. And you can make your contributions to YOUR representative or whomever you see fit and give your stuff away for the handouts, because that’s fair, too.
And Henry? One last thought. Go to Amazon or iTUNES or one of the other legal and paid-for music sites. Legally purchase and download a few MP3’s, then make perfect replica’s on your hardrive. Then recontact the seller and demand they take the never-played/never once used perfect MP3’s back and refund all your money. And when they refuse, hire Ray Beckerman to demand not only the return of your money but threaten to sue them to make them publicly acknowledge that “no harm has been done because no sale has actually been lost”.
LOL
You keep drinking the KoolAid Henry, and spouting your pointless history lessons to the pilfering fanbois here. Ransack an industry until the law catches up and see where it gets you. I’ve got better things—-people to pay and design work to do and licensing agreements to write and sign and enforce. And we’ll see where we are in a few more years, okay pal?. Thanks for the forum, Jon.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:35 am
You Sad, silly little man:
“the only way out of this bullshit is to release my stuff gratis online with a little note to a paypal account or something, so that people can throw me a few bucks if they want to.”
That’s Henry Ermich verbatim, but now he backpedals out of his woe-is-me Eeyore impression pretending he’s proud to have a few bucks perhaps thrown his way now and then.”
Sam, can you not read, or did you eat some lead-based paint chips?
How exactly am I “backpeddling”, and when exactly did I do a “woe is me Eeyore impersonation”?
(Yet again with the unlicensed literary references! — I’m impressed by how Mr. “Copyright-Is-A-Fundamental-Human-RIght” seems to find “Fair Use” exceptions uncontroversial. Why is that interesting? Primarily because “Fair Use” exceptions are predicated on the notion that the Copyright-holder NOT have exclusive or total control over any uses to which his/her “properties” are put — not even over quotation of small snippets thereof.
We’ll leave the hypocrisy of that aside for the moment, however.
“A fair days pay for a fair days work is never going out of style no matter how much “I’m a victim”/Communism/anarchy you enjoy wallowing in here”
Umm….since when was Lifetime-plus-seventy years “A fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work?”
Applause on your firm and your life. I understand that you’ve been fed a bunch of misinformation and outright bullshit which makes you believe that you are safeguarding your “firm and your life” by supporting the notion of copyright as it now exists. HOwever, you’re not. You’re supporting the “Fundamental human right” of the great-great-grandchildren of corporate CEO’s to continue to be paid for the efforts/creations of people who in many cases were “legally” prohibited from performing their own compositions or were screwed out of royalty payments etc. because their efforts were classed as “works for hire”.
But “We” can let those irksome little facts slide as well….
Now, as to the accusation of “anarchy/Communism” I’ll merely say that it’s really easy to bandy terms about as a way to shut down further debate. Tarring your opposition with terms like “communist”, “Anarchist”, “Fascist” etc. serves ONE purpose — to demonize your opposition so that their viewpoints can safely be ignored.
Okay, I get it:
1. Pointing out the real history and legal “reasoning” behind copyright law is “anarchsm”.
2. Pointing out that the Founding Father’s didn’t view copyright as a “fundamental human right” and only initially permitted a term of 11 years is “communism”.
3. Failure to blind myself to the ever more evident “downsides” of copyright law as it now exists is “doing a woe is me eeyore impersonation”. Fascinating.
I’m still trying to wrap my tiny little mind around this, “Sam”: “failure to support a coercive monopoly == Communism”.
I guess the “Public Domain” is a nefarious Commie plot then, hmmm?
Please try to actually have SOME substance to your argumentation, M’Kay?
“.. Human nature is what it is, Henry. It’s not changing anytime soon. Industry is just a lot more dedicated to excellence and a lot more organized than you are. It’s hard to build a business, Henry. It doesn’t take much to hide behind privacy laws and pilfer through a Gateway. Grow a pair and compete.”
Now, that’s fascinating, Sam.
1. Because I dared question the historical roots of copyright law I’m disorganized and not-dedicated to excellence.
2. I should “Grow a pair and compete”. Suuure — just like the Media companies which have a guaranteed monopoly on the Beatles catalog for life-plus-75 (soon to be 95) years are “competing”.
That’s brilliant, Sam.
I get it: “competition” involves using lobbyists, misinformation, and the ignorance of the general public to change an 11-year subsidy “to advance the useful Arts and Sciences” into a potential 140-year-long passive cashflow machine! Oh yeah — we know how arduous the lives of “hard-working” folk like Jack Vallenti were. Between the all-night coke parties and comparing VCR’s to the “Boston Strangler”.
You: RIAA apologist hiding behind “fair use” exemption and invoking heartwarming mom-and-apple-pie imagery so as to defend multinatonal corporations.
Me: disorganized, balls-less “Anarcho-Commie” doing a “woe-is-me Eeyore impersonation.”
“It’s hard to build a business, Henry. It doesn’t take much to hide behind privacy laws and pilfer through a Gateway. Grow a pair and compete.”
Oh yeah — it WAS “hard” for the RIAA et. al to take a mere 11 years and turn it into over a century.
So, p2pers are “hiding behind” privacy laws, but Big Media’s soon to be perpetual monopoly on works THEY DIDN’T EVEN CREATE is based on a “fundamental human right”?
Oh, and let’s not forget that anybody who asks questions is a balls-less, disorganized Commie-anarchist.
What’s really fascinating to me is how you’re entire “response” to me consists of nothing but insults and random invective, and all I did was post a link.
Frankly, this is getting boring.
“Industry is people. Just people, Henry. People with kids to raise and educate, people with car loans and mortgages to keep current, people who work long, hard days and nights and bleed when you cut them, just like everybody here.”
No, “industries” — especially corporations — are “legal persons” whose assets and liabilities are treated as seperate from those who nominally work for (or run) such entities. More to the point, the fact that those individuals may have “car payments” and “kids to educate” has absolutely nothing to do with whether they — or the organizations they run/are employed by have manipulated governments in their favor, so as to guarantee their own profits and insulate themselves from competition. I’d say turning 11 years into a subsidy for their great-great-grandchildren would count as manipulation, but hey, I’m just an anarcho-commie Eunuch who “can’t compete”.
Funny how the guy defending coercive monopoly invokes “competition”, but hey…..
Now, let’s move on before Sammy-boy invokes “Mom and Apple Pie”
“The second mistake is bragging that piracy cannot be stopped. Of course it can’t be stopped. People speed, don’t they? And cheat on taxes? And leave crappy tips? People do wonderful things in this world and they do shitty things everyday, too, because they are people and it is all in our nature.”
It’s also “in our nature” not to be able to look at facts if those facts challenge our preconcieved beliefs:
It’s obviously in your “nature” to ignore the fact that copyright is a relatively recent invention, not a “fundamental human right”.
And it’s definitely “human nature” for the RIAA/MPAA and other such lobbying groups to manipulate Government to their advantage. The “Worshipful Order of British Stationers” was only acting “naturally” in that regard when it acted to secure coercive monopoly over the publication of works written centuries before.
It’s all very “natural”, undoubtedly.
It’s was all very “natural” that record companies producing “race records” neglect to pay the musicians and composers. It’s “natural” that the RIAA member companies routinely sign new acts as “works for hire”.
Nobody ever said that manipulating the machinery of Government to your own advantage wasn’t “human nature”, Sam — but that’s one of the things Government is supposed to attempt to curb.
What you see as a “fundamental human right” began (at least in this country) as a mere 11 years and has now ballooned into somewhere between 80-140 years (depending on the lifetime of the copyright holder.)
But hey, it’s all very “natural”.
“Online piracy will eventually be technically hamstrung because it can be, but we’ll lose the essential qualities of our wonderful shared network as a result. “They” don’t want to but they’ll do it if you force them to. Keep stealing and watch how this sorts out in the years ahead. Illegal piracy is hell bent on destruction and our clean, shared network—not the entertainment industry—is what we are going to lose.”
Oh of course, Sam:
1. This assumes that every methodology of what you persist in misnaming “online piracy” uses the same protocols, ports, or technical specifications. (Does anybody else here think this reads like a press release for “Clouseau?”)
2. The “Great FIrewall of China” is working out swimmingly for the Chinese, Sam (take it from a “Commie” like myself.) Extoling the virtues of our “wonderful shared network” rings a tad bit hollow to the extent that a few messages back you were whimpering about how “We’d” lobby the FCC and congress.
Brilliant.
If you’d bother to actually read anything on this subject, you wouldn’t be able to parrot the RIAA’s lingo about “online piracy” so blithely. But then, if you actually bothered to read this site or any of the links I provided, you might actually understand that the issues are bigger than your “fundamental human right” to a guaranteed monopoly at any cost.
(Lawrence Lessig fucked up badly with the “Eldred” decision, but that doesn’t negate the fact that his book “Free culture” actually makes some really good points.) I’d suggest you read it — it’s available free — but we wouldn’t want you to have to bother about actually SAYING something meaningful on this topic.
“But the biggest mistake— the fatal mistake— is stealing instead of not buying. Not buying would have changed everything. Not buying put Detroit on it’s knees. Do you think any government would stay silent if we were stealing the cars instead of not buying them?”
Uh, Detroit sought to stop people from “not buying” it’s “product” by way of increased taxes on Japanese cars — by way of lobbying, so your “example” isn’t particularly valid, but we’ll let that pass.
1. NONE of what goes on via p2p would be “stealing” if the copyright term hadn’t been drastically inflated by way of aggressive lobbying. Or are we to believe that all of the works which entered the “public domain” as a result of far shorter copyright terms did so unjustly? After all, if copyright is a “fundamental human right”, then the Founding Fathers’ original 11-year term was an atrocity. Your entire “argument” — or rather, mindless, drool-spattered invective — hinges on the notion that the content being disseminated via p2p is “property” which CAN be “stolen”.
Let’s examine this, shall we?
Under the original “Founder’s copyright” term, the works “protected” under it CEASED TO BE “PROPERTY” AT IT’S EXPIRATION. That’s how the “public domain” works, Sam — but the RIAA/MPAA/Lobbyists (who are, after all, “just people”) have “naturally” sought — and been granted — ever longer copyright terms. That’s right, Sam: barring the actions of said lobbyists, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE CONTENT AVAILABLE ON P2P NETWORKS WOULD NO LONGER BE CLASSED AS ‘PROPERTY’, AND THUS, WOULD NOT BE ‘STOLEN’.
The ONLY reason the vast majority of it is still classified as “property” is because powerful organizations have lobbied tor that result.
So let me see if I understand the substance of your argument here, Sam:
1. Copyright is “a fundament human right” — historical evidence notwithstanding.
2. “Industry is people” — and it’s only “human nature” for such industries (oops, I mean “groups of people like you and me” — to lobby Governments into granting them ever longer and more advantageous monopoly powers.
3. No-one should dare complain about this state of affairs (or even QUESTION it’s legitimacy), because the aforementioned “people” of which such industries are made have “kids to educate and car loans”. (Some of them probably like fuzzy little kitty-cats too, but I digress.)
4. Furthermore, anyone who DOES raise questions about whether a 140-year monopoly is a “fundamental human right” can safely be ignored because he/she is just a dirty, disorganized anarcho-commie.
5. Such people should “Grow a pair and learn to compete” (such “competition” involving “OUR lobbyists are better than YOUR lobbyists!” a la the RIAA.)
6. “Sam” is awesome! He’s a super-duper ultra-creative innovative genius, who even got an award for how super-awesome of a job he did for a “big, famous museum!”
7. Copyright infringement == “piracy” == violation of the “fundamental human right” to more than a century of monopoly power. However, such “pirates” are “forcing [their[ own worst nightmare” (since we all know that totalitarian control of the Net — and MUST be done so as to protect the aforementioned “fundamental human right” to perpetual monopoly.
8. The RIAA and other such organizations are just “acting naturally”. Business is “hard”, so it’s only “natural” that the State should continually increase copyright terms ad infinitum. Anybody who goes against that trend is “stupid and greedy”..
10. Even though he believes in a “fundamental right” to 140 years of “total control” by copyright holders, it’s perfectly fine for him to excerpt someone else’s work as his nickname, because that’s “fair use”.
Sam, I apologize: you’re probably not an RIAA “troll”: their arguments are usually much better than this. Sorry, Riaa — even YOU guys can do better!
Don’t bother to reply to this, “Sam” — I refuse to continue this pathetic excuse for a “debate”. You assume that the current Status Quo reflects “Fundamental rights” rather than behind the scenes chicanery, you refuse to even EXAMINE evidence contrary to your assertions, you claim to not support the RIAA’s “tactics” while bleating like a scalded sheep when you’re challenged, and you resort to calling your opponents the equivalent of “damn dirty hippies”.
Sam, “Grow a pair”, and stop apologizing for the RIAA’s bullshit.
Getting government to turn 11 years into 140 isn’t “learning how to compete”.
(And to think, all I did was supply a single link!)
September 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“mindless, drool-spattered invective “ Blah blah.
Computer controlled servo-motor moving lights had DRM added to their software so the licensee’s of our written and burnt-to-cd lightshows can’t ignore the EULA and run them again and again without paying us each time for a “key”. There’s not a single intelligent light out there today with open source code because the software writers want to get paid for their work, too. Is it hackable? Sure. Fifty years ago it was called safe-cracking. There are low-life’s everywhere, Henry. Welcome to the digital future.
Every bit of creative design work done by my employees while on my payroll belongs to me, Henry, every pencil line and keystroke. They “work for hire”. It’s in their employment agreement. I control it, I license it, I own it. Get used to it, Henry. You can license our products and use them according to the EULA if you wish. You can also do without, or write your own or look for other deals. But if we ever catch you taking and using our copyrighted works without license we’ll tie your life up in legal actions with so little mercy that you’ll cry yourself to sleep each night. I’ve enjoyed Lessig for years. You’re an amateur and you make me laugh. I won’t be pirating anything, Henry, but I’d be just as properly subject to the same legal actions if I ever stooped so low.
My employees can take the cash and benefits I guarantee or they can speculatively move out on their own and see how well they do without the umbrella of my protection. Then everything they create on their own is THEIR own to license, just as it should be. In a few rare cases, their talent over the years has been so inspiring and so enormous I’ve helped a few stars set up their own shops.
Some folks are “haves” Henry, and some are “have-not’s”, and it is no accident that this issue is largely settling out along these lines. Some of us create and believe we own it. Folks who believe in entitlement-for-their-mere-existence will sometimes just take it until they are stopped and punished. This is all very familiar and we’ve seen it all before. When you encourage civil infraction, you have some degree of their punishment on your hands. As I said earlier, we’ll see how all this pans out.
I wish you luck with your songwriting, too, and the handouts you seem resigned to accept …… “if they want to.” (chuckle, You poor guy) I’m glad you’ve finally recognized I’m not RIAA/MPAA. I’m not. Never was. Everything we do here is scrupulously legal too, Henry, and I take beautiful care of my excellent employees. And like any effective business? We manipulate political/legal/financial conditions to our own best interests at every opportunity. You might consider it yourself. But if your music is on par with the way you represent yourself here— in the real world of business, Henry–you have a long, hard road ahead. Good luck.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Sam:
Good luck with attempting to be a “small-scale” version of the RIAA.
Also, good luck with profiting off of others efforts because of a law originally put forward ostensibly to help “creators”.
I can see how you wouldn’t feel any qualms about this state of affairs: Thomas Edison turned it into an art-form at his Menlo Park “Invention factory”.
I love how you assume that the rest of civilization should be “locked down” simply so you can preserve your own privileged place in the current scheme of things.
Some folks ARE indeed “haves”, Sam: but such structures are very often enforced at the barrel of a gun (Ie, through Governmental largesse).
It’s understandable why you — and the RIAA — would support the current system; after all, you’ve both been able to extract maximum financial advantage by manipulating the legal system in your favor.
Unfortunately for you, “Sam”, people are beginning to question the status quo.
People are becoming increasingly skeptical about the neccesity, utility, and even the justification behind copyrights, patents, and “Intellectual property” in general. There’s no way to stop that, “Sam”.
People are also becoming very aware of just how much those of your ilk have managed to “stack the deck” in their favor.
Did you ever read Thoreau’s essay “On The Duty of Civil Disobedience” Sam? It’s literally impossible to prosecute or imprison hundreds of millions, scattered across the entire planet. High-sounding bromides about how “Industry is people” simply cannot disguise the fact that a mere 11 years has been turned into just short of infinity. Quite simply, your financial well-being cannot — and WILL NOT — be allowed to trump the privacy laws you so blithely assert p2pers “hide behind”.
Your last response showed your true colors, “Sam”. I admire that, I really do. The only trouble is, the tide IS turning.
People like you can no longer build “business models” by “behind the scenes” legal chicanery (which is all the copyright extensions etc. ever really were.)
But then again, maybe you’re right: maybe all of the “have nots” should simply “grow a pair and learn to compete” via the same techniques your ilk have perfected: lobbying and misinformation.
Milk it while you can, “Sam”.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Oh, and “encouraging civil infraction incurs a measure of their punishment?”
Tell that to the guys who instigated the “Boston Tea Party” over a piddlingly small tax on tea.
Tell that to members of the “Underground Railroad” who “willfully infringed” the “rights” of Slaveholders by helping their “property” escape.
Tell that to the “Civil Rights” marchers who braved fire-hoses and attack-dogs for the “privilege” of eating at formerly “whites only” lunch counters.
I ‘encourage” nothing here, Sam. I merely point out the fact that the current laws are a travesty, and have been manipulated to the point of absurdity to the advantage of a smattering of “haves” like the RIAA (and yourself.)
As to the “cold, hard realities of business”: ask the “British East India Company” sometime. Ask those brave “businessmen” who operated slave-ships. Ask the British Stationers.
And btw, thanks for yet another backhanded “compliment” toward my art.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
What’s fascinating to my vanishingly-small, Anarcho-commie Pea-sized brain is that it would seem that you benefit IMMENSELY from having “your” stuff “pirated” under the current system. Why? Well, the statutory damages alone could potentially net you several years of revenue at one shot.
Do you make sure in advance that every design “you” (or more exactly, your employees) produce doesn’t infringe any patents? Just curious.
The point I’ve been trying to make (which you conveniently refused to answer) is that the only reason you are ABLE to gain the type of leverage you — and the RIAA — have, is by manipulating “Intellectual Property” laws in your favor. Whether you’ve personally engaged in such lobbying efforts is irrelevant; you’ve been their beneficiary in any case.
We UNDERSTAND why you’d be an uncritical apologist for the status quo. What “we” don’t understand is: why you’d give your “Gordon Gecko” speeches from the shelter of an alias (much less one that depends on “fair use’ — an EXEPTION to the very IP “laws” you so aggressively defend.)
But hey, “We’re” just stupid, scruffy, commie anarcho-hippies who don’t understand the “cold hard realities” of business-models solely dependent on lobbying and misinformation.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:47 am
There’s no hypocrisy in supporting copyright law as it currently stands and as it is evolving, Henry, and my “Fair Use” of Sam I Am is part of that support. The key element I focus upon is that in a just system, my digital property must enjoy similar protections to someone else’s tangible property. I have every right to make a case here for my belief in a system that rewards legal behavior and punishes civil infraction just as Ottawa Gal and most others here build cases for their own beliefs. There is no “barrel of a gun” needed, I assure you. Everyday we receive resume’s and inquiries from talented and energetic young people who would just love to join our “slave ship”.
We are all in this together, Henry. The evenhandedness of copyright is that you too can become a “have” if your talent and your work ethic earns it. You should not be allowed to take it. You can remain an independent and succeed licensing your work, or you can choose to contribute your work for hire to a larger firm that licenses the collective effort around the world and furnishes for you in exchange a safe haven of income and benefits regardless of market condition. All your choice. No guns were used in the creation of my business, Henry. It’s actually your pirating brethren here who boast of guns and assassinations, their small-minded angst primed to climb a clock tower with a rifle to “prove” the so-called righteousness of their thieving.
You display real ignorance when you call Fair Use hypocrisy. You reveal enormous insecurity in the realization that your own work doesn’t sell and you may have to give it away for handouts. For all I know you may have a day job, too, not actually working in song writing at all. And your mention of professional jealousy for Garth Brooks is a revelation. Any psychologist would have a field day with that one.
I’m just a designer and small business owner Henry, and as I mentioned earlier I’ve worked my way up from the street. You can too. The house I built may be intangible, but it is no less valid and it is no less my house. You, on the other hand, have acknowledged that your work isn’t selling and so you demand the right to take mine. Most revealing of all, you place yourself with Thoreau, the Boston tea party, the underground railroad and incredibly, civil rights.
Henry Ermich, the Rosa Parks of online shoplifting. You can’t make this stuff up. Maybe just a wee bit deluded?
There’s a screenplay in there somewhere, pal. Why don’t you gather some self-respect and write it/copyright it— actually create something of value to call your own– maybe even make a few bucks in the process. And explain to me why my illustration of the legal music download returned for refund doesn’t make crystal clear the outright lie of “no harm, no loss.”
We “milk it” everyday, Henry, while your condescension from high moral ground is amusing. We run a very successful, strictly legal creative enterprise here, a tiny part of a culturally influential entertainment industry that is the envy of the modern world. I doubt very seriously if over time, shoplifting will be permitted to bring it down. In that, I guess we’ll have to see. But Daniel Dove just lost a year and half of his young life to prison, with probation and fines. Why not contact him while he ponders this behind bars and explain to him that his online institution of theft was morally correct, and that what he was doing–distributing (among other things) “Revenge of the Sith” before its official release while making money on advertising— is as noble as the fight for civil rights. I think that argument is hilarious, of course, but he may find some comfort in it.