Should Music Be FREE????

[Vonbrucken]

my point was better silly childrens

[Vonbrucken]

hum just to say i didn't vote cause the question and the answers you put in your poll are useless

[Lord Snarebottom]

Just a quick reply since I'm on my way out:
You don't think people would value and find a way for car models to be developed commercially even if it was free to make more intsances of said model?

Hmm...in any case, I don't think anyone should pay you for your efforts. Synthmaker should be FREE!!!!

Hypocritical Wanker.

[Lord Snarebottom]

...I am quite convinced that the market still would value game and software development, even if they didn't value the invidual copies that can be made at no cost. Just as one can value music works and artists, even though one does not necessarily value the invidual copies that can be made of their works...

This prompts the question: If there is no monetary return for the individual copies, whence will come the compensation for the developers? "Free music" advocates have stated their appreciation for artists in every forum in which I have encountered this discussion, but I have yet to have ANY of them explain to me exactly HOW I would get paid for the effort I put into creating and recording my music.

That is because they are a bunch of selfish c**ts and they don't really care if you get paid, as long as they get paid for flippin' burgers.

[bagginz]

The current system is kindof unnatural and made up, we put material values to non material stuff.

I work in a major corporation as a database analyst. As such, I produce nothing material. But I receive a salary for my time, effort and creative thought. Yet by your logic, I should not get paid. This idea that electronic media is not material, and thus, has no monetary value is total crap. The "unnatural" quality you're referring to is essentially the idea that work, effort and creative thought are valuless since they produce nothing material. I've seen several people on KVR claim that no one can own a thought, therefore the idea of "intellectual property" is bogus. That's so patently wrong. If I have a thought and I choose not to express it, write it down, or use it to create something, then that thought is withheld from everyone else in the world--I have control over it. That is the essense of ownership: possession, the ability to choose what to do or not to do with something. I agree that the current business model for music distribution is hopelessly antiquated and flawed, but the facts remains, people want to consume music, they value it. And making music takes skill, time, effort and economic resources. As such, those who create it deserve to be paid for their work.

I graduated from college with an art degree. When people at work found that out, they started asking me to do art for work projects. I said, "Fine. How much are you going to pay me?" They looked at me like I was nuts, then told me they weren't going to pay me anything for it. So I told them, "Well, since the art obviously isn't worth anything to you, I see no reason to spend my time doing it." I feel the same way about music. If you aren't willing to pay for music, then I hope you get what you pay for.

Nail on head.

This essence of this thread/debate is really about the nature and legitimacy of copyright.

i.e

What are the reasons that it came to exist?

Cheers,
Bill

[whyterabbyt]

Interesting and unsubstantiated, or...? Where do you get the idea of open source developers are living under "patronage"?

I said 'similar to patronage'. But it is the predominant successful arrangement in place, honestly. F
However I would ask you this : which major open source projects are you aware of which are funded entirely by revenue for 'services' surrounding that software?

There are very few Im aware of, and Ive been using this stuff for a very long time.
Alan Cox works under the patronage of RedHat. Linus Torvalds worked under the patronage of Transmeta and now does under OSDL. Larry Wall worked/works under the patronage of O'Reilly. Guido van Rossum now works under the patronage of Google. Andrew Tridgell is paid by OSDL. Netscape supported the original Mozilla development core. It goes on and on.

The open source movement is a very interesting example of a market based development based on abandoning the damaging idea of "intellectual property".

Absolutely and completely a misunderstanding of the actual situation, in my opinion. Without a complete embracement of intellectual property law, open source would never have existed, or be able to exist. It is only the right to set and enforce conditions of use which allows protection from those people who would misuse GPL'd software, for example. The concepts of Open Source/ Free Software cannot exist without IP law.

And with players such as IBM, Sun etc. backing open source it looks like a serious change in the way the software world works.

I consider a very large part of that backing to be that 'patronage' I was talking about.

[john1954]

funny topic.
thieves always have an excuse for what they do.

[bagginz]

But a stolen copy is only stolen if the physical media is stolen (like a CD from a store). A digital copy isn't a stolen copy, since no-one lost any property. There's a huge difference between copyright infringement and theft, since theft is when you actually steal something.

Totally agreed. When you remove its physical presence (and more importantly) when you deprive the original owner of it's use then that, properly speaking, is theft.

Having the rights to say what people are allowed to do and not with something they buy, or something you actually decide to share with the world, is kindof made up and forced to resemble the rights we have to physical property, eventhough the two are very much unlike in their nature.

Yes it is made up.

But I see nothing wrong with creating rules and standards of conduct.

For example: the idea of idea of Human Rights is a human creation. It doesn't exist outside of our agreement.

Democracy? Ethics? Laws? Marriage, you name it. Same.

Humans create "unnatural" edifices in language. We are good at it. It's a cornerstone of civilization.

Also I think that there is nothing unnatural about it at all because humans as a species naturally build institutions (agreements) in language just as birds build nests. It's in our nature.

What we do with our current copyright system is that we force a made up value upon such things

Again, what is wrong with that?

Yes, copyright is a human invention.

It allows people to get paid for their work and therefore encourages more of us to spend time engaged in artistic and creative ( i.e non survival-based activities) without which our world would be a poorer place.

Personally I see it as a cultural refinement.

It empowers artists and persons endowed with creative skills to create and share their gifts with the rest of humanity.

Nothing wrong with that IMO.

However the advent of the internet and file sharing has pulled the rug on the whole copyright system and the clearly needs an update on how to make it work/more appropriate in today's world.

Cheers,
Bill

[laputa_sync]

Is "copyright" in the public domain?

[whyterabbyt]

Is "copyright" in the public domain?

What on earth do you mean?

[laputa_sync]

its a joke i think.

copyright in the public domain...

or maybe i dont understand (normally the case.)

[Vonbrucken]

again it is totaly ridiculous
stop it please, please have a little dignity close this thread

[herodotus]

If you want me to scrap the current business model, you damn well better be able to provide me a NEW one, something a bit more specific and detailed than "the developer will be valued".

But some might say that the current business model is already scrapped by ineluctable historical developments.

It is up, not to Stefan, but to everyone, to find a new one.

What makes 'the industry' so frustrating to many people is that it is trying to 'stand athwart history hollering STOP!'

And as such, it is doomed.

[whyterabbyt]

again it is totaly ridiculous
stop it please, please have a little dignity close this thread

Why? Im having a perfectly reasonable conversation with two intelligent people (stefancrs and respirator) who's opinions and thoughts on the matter are interesting and thought-provoking. Why should I stop? Because you say so?

[Vonbrucken]