Are authors paid for books purchased at the library? The library does not provide the public with a free personal copy of any book they want.
I do not doubt that artists may be compensated in the long run. But the compensation my come through higher ticket prices. I paid $32 to see Molotov, Eminem, The Black Eyed Peas, and Suicidal Tendencies in New York City back in 1999. Those days are long gone. To see those artists now, maybe $120.
Saying "will" seems speculative since the examples are not comparable to piracy. Museums dont give free copies and have collections which are sometimes donated. In radio there is a cooperation between radio stations and the record companies.
The artist will only release if a certain threshold is reached.. Then the released music is completely "free" to share as people please. The artist is compensated as they see fit - they set the price in the first place, and also can use it to justify part of the price (to compensate for recording, hosting etc.).
"Piracy" then serves to generate rep to prove that they can deliver on future releases, there can still be people who make money in the middle - generating PR for the project etc.
The platform could take a small share of the cost, a slightly larger share for hosting, slightly more for promotion on the front page..
It would probably work pretty well, if the artist can prove himself in a short video, and then ask for money so he can make a music video and do it all with more professional equipment.
Why would they want to do music videos? A music video is just an add, which just happens to cost more than the product to produce, and is entertaining enough that people actually watch them. People watch informercials too.
Nobody buys their favorite music video (unless it's The Wall). They buy the CD, because all they really care about is the music.
Because it's fun, creative, connects with fans on a different level to just music.. not to mention some acts have built careers just on self-made youtube videos.
Thousand Foot Krutch made this project which was easily funded it seems. Although they are an established band already, and I'm not sure if 100k is "good" for them or not. But then again, that's only really pre-orders.
That might work for established artists like Pearl Jam, but consider Pearl Jam in the early 90s.
They made enough money to retire off their first album. Under the kickstarter model, they wouldn't have been able to earn anywhere near that much money as no one had heard of them outside of Seattle before their first album release.
Was making enough to retire their goal? Making enough to keep making music as much as they can seems like enough for a lot of musicians. If it could reach that level, I think it would be a "success".
Yes, the limits are different, that's why I wrote this:
"Uncompensated sharing in the digital age has been unmoored from some of the traditional limits on sharing, moving it well outside the comfort zone for a lot of people and causing a lot of backlash against the phenomenon."
You say radio, museums, and libraries aren't comparable to file sharing. Do you have data to back that up or merely prejudice?
As for your anecdote above, it's rare for the price of a show for a given artist to remain the same over time. The Black Eyed Peas especially are very much more popular today than they were in 1999.
Radio and Record Companies work in conjunction
Music-formatted radio stations both commercial and non-commercial get their music for free from record labels.
Ticket price, true they(BEP) were not that popular then but $28+tax in 1999 compared to $45 now is still higher than inflation. The inflation increase is 29%[3], the ticket increase is 60%[4].
So what? The industry has changed. It's no longer possible to make outrageous profits by selling copies with tremendous markups. So people increase the price for live events. Other people pay them. The world changes. Life goes on.
I mean, what do you want? Time to stop? Progress to end? Change to be abolished? This isn't actually a joke. Lots of people with a vested interest in the current extent of intellectual property rights are going to absolutly insane lengths to ensure that a changing society isn't allowed to roll back the extent of IP rights to make them more harmonious with the needs and reality of the present day.
But those people can all go to hell. They're the same backwards looking people who said "but what about property rights" when it came to freeing slaves. "Property rights" were also applied to wives and daughters, and you can just imagine how much consternation was caused when (horrors!) wives and daughters were given the vote.
Property rights are ultimately about controlling others. They're good and necessary in limited circumstances, like keeping unwelcome individuals away from our bedrooms and out of our bank accounts. They're absolutely horrifying when extended to the theoretical maximum. Indeed, the very definition of a totalarian state is one in which all people are the property of the State. At some point, between this and anarchy, there's an optimum. As life changes, this optimum point will move. Some will fight these moves and make life miserable for others rather than suffer change themselves, but if the change is big and clear and beneficial enough, most will peacefully adapt.
I recognize that rapidly evolving ideas about what should and should not be considered property aren't easy for those whose careers are caught in the flux. Believe me, I'm one of them. At the same time, I see Change as being - on balance - a very healthy thing, even if it makes my own life harder than it might has been in a more static environment. Others aren't so sanguine. They really hate Change. But there's some good news for them too; one day, they'll die, and Change will no longer be a problem for them.
Uh, the point was that the definition of "property" not only changes over time, but that it can change quite radically.
The idea seemingly lost on you is that while property in some sense has always been fundamental to civilized orders, it has encompassed very different things in different times and places. Indeed, this remarkable flexibility may be the key to its endurance. And this vital flexibility is EXACTLY what anti-reformists try to obscure, deny, ignore, or otherwise wish away when discussing IP.
In their conception the invention of the Internet is irrelevant. They portray the current scope of property rights as rigid, fixed, ever-lasting, and absolutely supreme. And this particular stalling tactic is nothing new. In fact it's appeared time and time again - really, any time that society has evolved in a way that demands a fundamental reconsideration of what is and is not going to be viewed as private property, with its protection provided by the full force of the state.
Of course, the people who take the absolutist view don't like to discuss this history in detail. And why would they? Saying that the current configuration of rights - which evolved over time - cannot be allowed to evolve any further is a conspicuously indefensible position. So when absolutists raise the issue of "property rights" they are not trying to add anything to the conversation. To the contrary, they are attempting to shut it down. The hope is that residual deference to the once-sensible bounds will kick in reflexively, and people will suddenly stop talking about things that are certain to harm their economic interests and / or social standing if discussed openly.
And that pattern has been a consistent problem every time society has felt the need to redefine property rights. When confronted by the kinds of dishonest and self-serving assholes who would try to shut down or derail conversations of this nature, it's important for people to recognize who and what they're dealing with, and what kinds of tactics will be used against them. It's equally important for them to remember just how threatening and powerful open conversation really is, and why it's protected by the 1st Amendment.
I maintain that the conversation surrounding property rights in America circa 1850 is likely to contain an enormous number of parallels with the conversations surrounding IP today. For people looking for a roadmap on how to handle the recurrent problem of inflexible absolutists, it's a fine source. And it's not the only place where they can find echoes of the same losing arguments about maintaining outdated but profitable arrangements. Indeed, I strongly suspect that close variants of the same arguments will appear in every case where the scope of "property" has become a bone of contention.
Regardless, if you still think there is anything "unserious" or even "dishonest" about this perspective, please elaborate.
> Regardless, if you still think there is anything "unserious" or even "dishonest" about this perspective, please elaborate.
Yes, what you wrote here:
> They're the same backwards looking people who said "but what about property rights" when it came to freeing slaves.
To me the comparison is too direct and is therefore inflamatory and distracts from your point. It takes the conversation in a Godwinish direction. Oh, also, it's factually incorrect given that the slavery people were mostly white southerners who have been dead over 100 years, and many of the IP people are wealthy coastal types who probably are fairly "progressive" in their politics in other ways, if you look at Hollywood as an example, superficial though they may be in their outlook.
The whole "intellectual property" thing, in any case, really derives from two things: 1) the "moral rights" to control something you brought into being, and 2) that artificial property is a good solution to the public goods problem in certain cases, if the needs of consumers and producers are properly balanced (currently I do not deem that to be the case): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good
And calling people "intellectually dishonest" isn't inflammatory?
More to the point, I was asking you if you saw anything unserious and dishonest about my perspective as a whole. And that perspective is not summed up in the single line you extracted. Nevertheless, you felt you could justify a personal attack on the integrity of another by citing this one line in isolation, as though it were a complete summation of the broader argument.
I think you need to be careful with this "intellectually dishonest" tag, my friend. This may be a case of what Peter says about Paul says more about Peter than it does about Paul.
In the meantime, I maintain my position: the Civil War era remains a rich source of examples showing how humans respond when changing norms about what can and cannot be considered property threaten the economic interests of those who are likely to lose their status. Even if the bone of contention is different, the point (which you seem hell-bent on missing) is that the reactions are very much the same.
Indeed, being able to see those reactions in a very different context is essential to recognizing their underlying patterns, and the unifying elements. You, on the other hand, seem to be saying "No! Regardless of the parallels, they CANNOT BE DISCUSSED! No No No No! This is OFF LIMITS!!!!
I didn't call you as a person dishonest, I called one portion of your comment dishonest, and I stand by that.
There's no way I could judge you or your character via one offhand comment on a web site, but I can certainly say that I find comparing intellectual property to slavery ridiculous.
Most of your comment was pretty well reasoned, which made the inflammatory bit irritating as it, IMO, dragged the rest down.
Perhaps a more neutral approach: "what has been considered property through the ages has changed" would have worked better than directly comparing supporters of IP to slave owners.
Exactly where did I say that "people who support IP are just like those slave owners"? (Hint: nowhere)
For the record, I happen to be quite a strong supporter of IP in general (and no, I don't support slavery). However, I also know that IP needs to evolve if it's to retain its value, and that this evolution demands a change in the underlying concept of property itself (a concept which, obviously, extends waaay past IP).
That puts me in direct conflict with people who don't want to make changes in this broader concept a part of the conversation regarding IP, and who back up this resistance by advancing a notion of property rights in general as being inflexible, absolute, and beyond question.
Obviously, this absolutist position has a dramatic narrowing effect on any IP-specific discussion, which is the whole point of taking that position in the first place. It is a suppressive tactic. In THIS regard, what we're seeing now is very similar to what happened in America in the 18th Century; SOME people who were in favor of slavery attempted to steer the conversation about it by advancing an inflexible, absolutist idea of property in general, promoting it as a socially necessary good. Then, like now, the assumption was that the status quo could be protected if property as an evolving concept were kept off the table, and property as a non-evolving concept were kept on it.
And THAT is what I'm talking about. I'm not making ridiculous claims that IP and slavery themselves are commensurate, or that people who support one are like people who support the other. And frankly, you'd have to be very careless or dishonest in your reading to assert that I am.
No, what I am (and have been) talking about are very specific tactics surrounding the rhetorical treatment of the idea of property in general. I'm noting that these tactics appeared when slavery was still seen as defensible, and I'm noting that remarkably similar tactics and treatments are appearing in IP debates today - especially ones in which people are trying to justify increasingly extreme measures to protect an outdated status quo.
These people - who can come from Malibu as easily as they come from Mississippi - aren't simply scared of change. After all, lots of people scared of change don't resort to falsifying the historic flexibility of property as a concept before using it to frame a debate. Only a vociferous and dangerous subset choose to employ this particular strategy.
Fortunately, the historic record contains many examples of this very aggressive response. And because there's a clear pattern to it, this record can be mined for counter examples that show how it was eventually defeated. Of course, it helps to have specific points of reference. Vague and neutral generalities help no one except those who are on the wrong side of this in the first place.
And yes, this is a partisan view. That's because the absolutist idea of inflexible property is also a partisan view. The moment you hear it, you should know that you're dealing with a person conducting their own non-neutral and highly offensive attack, and you should respond accordingly.
I do not doubt that artists may be compensated in the long run. But the compensation my come through higher ticket prices. I paid $32 to see Molotov, Eminem, The Black Eyed Peas, and Suicidal Tendencies in New York City back in 1999. Those days are long gone. To see those artists now, maybe $120.
Saying "will" seems speculative since the examples are not comparable to piracy. Museums dont give free copies and have collections which are sometimes donated. In radio there is a cooperation between radio stations and the record companies.