From: Brian D Williams (talon57@well.com)
Date: Wed Jul 17 2002 - 14:43:40 MDT
>From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com>
>> (Brian D Williams <talon57@well.com>):
>
>> People are buying fewer albums, record companies business was
>> down over 10% last year.
>Even if that's true, and even if it can be attributed to
>downloading (neither of which I concede--though I'm quite willing
>to believe the former), that would only affect artists if, in
>fact, artists made money from album sales. The vast majority
>don't. Most musicians make money from performing, and /lose/
>money on album sales, with the exception of a few mega-stars who
>are in no danger of going hungry regardless of what technology
>throws at them.
I'd like to see hard numbers regarding this, but I don't see what
this has to do with people infringing on copyrighted material.
>> Now you justify the "actual musicians, whose incomes will
>>increase tenfold". If this were true you think most musicians
>>would be in favor of the idea...
>Only the smart ones. It's no accident that the most financially
>successful musical group in history is one that didn't sell many
>albums through the normal industry channels, and explicity allowed
>their fans to make bootleg tapes. It's because Barlow was a
>visionary who saw beyond the tripe that the industry was feeding
>them, and did things his way.
The Greatfull Dead were unique in many ways, including their
marketing, this doesn't mean this should be the norm for everybody.
Why haven't other bands imitated this model?
>Groups like Metallica and authors like Harlan Ellison are shooting
>themselves in the foot by fighting for stricter copyright law,
>because they are too short-sighted and indoctrinated into the
>status quo to really see how things could be different. The press
>tends to cover their side of the argument more than that of folks
>like Barlow, Ian, and the authors at Baen, because they too tend
>to favor the status quo and blindy accept the given pretexts for
>laws such as copyright without bothering to find out if they hold
>water.
The Greatfull Dead model has been around a long time, I don't see
anyone in particular copying it.
>>>A good, well-reasoned article on the issue from a good source:
>>>http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html
>
>> This article justifies the position of a single individual,
>> nothing more. Because they are making more money, they reason
>> without evidence every artist will. Album sales indicate
>> otherwise.
>The article contains 10 times the amount of real information,
>examples, experience, reason, and thought than anything I've seen
>from the other side. The other side just keeps parroting the
>tired old pretexts for the present law as if the fact that things
>are currently illegal makes them inherently wrong, or as if laws
>actually have the effects the were intended to have just because
>legislators say so. Well I demand more from an argument.
I read the article, it indicated that a few people were making
money again as a result of the re-exposure the Internet gave them,
I think that's good. I saw nothing in it that justifies copyright
infringement.
>> Misuse technology, using technology to commit theft. Using force
>> if necessary against those who break societies laws is part of
>> the social contract.
>It is a basic moral duty of every human being to defy, expose, and
>help change laws that are unjust and stupid.
I agree, We just disagree on whether copyright law is unjust or
stupid, I say no.
Brian
Member:
Extropy Institute, www.extropy.org
National Rifle Association, www.nra.org, 1.800.672.3888
SBC/Ameritech Data Center Chicago, IL, Local 134 I.B.E.W
Currently listening to: David Bowie, The Singles collection.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:31 MST