Re online community: Might as well start a conversation, what do you mean?

Here's whats going on over at Indaba Music:
http://blog.indabamusic.com/2012/01/oh-danny-this-isnt-china-is-this-china-this-isnt-china-ty-webb-2012/

This bill is much less about piracy than it is the federal government trying to control our freedom. Just thinking about it makes me angry. I believe there is a revolution coming, at least in this country, so instead of arguing I'm just going to try and prepare for myself. Look at all the signs... endless wars.. diminishing economy.. socialist tendencies.. controlled media.. a corrupt and ever-growing government.. and now censorship. It's straight out of the book 1984.

Recently it seems that many people don't mind waiving their freedoms, 4th amendment (well I'M not doing anything wrong), 2nd amendment (well I don't need a gun!). But now that it is going to affect something that their daily lives revolve around, people are ready to wake up. I truly believe that the day is coming when we will be reminded why all of those amendments were put there in the first place.

GAH! Now I'm angry again. I'm going to sell some more things on ebay so I can buy some bullets.

Fortunately, it looks like people are backing off on this. This was a very bad bill at the start and it has only gotten marginally better as the protests have mounted. Congress has been lazy on this from the start and let Hollywood (fronted by sleazebag excongresscritter Chris Dodd) write the bill. (Congresscritters can't even be bothered to learn what DNS means.) In the bill, the government is given huge power to shut down web sites with little or no due process - at one point complaints from industry compelled them to shut down sites. SOPA and PIPA are terrible bills. Drive a stake through their hearts and start from scratch.

BobRogers, post: 382960 wrote: Fortunately, it looks like people are backing off on this. This was a very bad bill at the start and it has only gotten marginally better as the protests have mounted. Congress has been lazy on this from the start and let Hollywood (fronted by sleazebag excongresscritter Chris Dodd) write the bill. (Congresscritters can't even be bothered to learn what DNS means.) In the bill, the government is given huge power to shut down web sites with little or no due process - at one point complaints from industry compelled them to shut down sites. SOPA and PIPA are terrible bills. Drive a stake through their hearts and start from scratch.

AMEN!!!

Well, certainly there's reason to oppose the bill but wouldn't it be great if there was some way to hold into account web sites that encourage piracy? Piracy specifically. Why can't they treat it like any other crime? Make an arrest, hold a trial and decide based on the evidence. It seems simple enough but I imagine, difficult to implement. There's also the fact that most of these pirates are far more tech saavy than the people who want to enforce rules.

On another note, I think it would be great if people would just learn to appreciate and respect the artists and content creators. It's a terrible shame that we live in world of instant gratification. Even more shameful that conscience is in so short of supply. If only people thought about the efforts of one sharing their talent.

If American government can police the Internet, what does that mean?

Space, post: 382976 wrote: If American government can police the Internet, what does that mean?

Very good point. Let's just step back from that one.

I think most would agree something needs to be done to protect copyrighted material from blatant theft, but nobody wants to be bothered to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

No law is going to make everyone happy, but I think I'd rather have no law than either of these two laws being proposed. I agree with Bob, as it stands it's way too heavy-handed and gives too broad a power to a few to judge without due process. But again, nobody will want to foot the bill for due process.

Unfortunately, crooks will find a loophole or workaround. (Everybody else on the "Do Not Call List"? - Everybody else still getting 20 illegal robocalls/month from telemarketers?)

The fact of the matter is that if we weren't currently slaves to a monetary-based system and we all worked for the good of mankind, all services, products and intellectual property would be free.

Our world is drunk on profit and we are slaves to it's peddlers.

Cheers :)

fascism state is very near....
it has nothing to do with piracy fight,
it's simply another law act to take your freedom,
Internet is working against ruling cabal and they don't like people being informed
I expected it time ago

dvdhawk, post: 382978 wrote: ... But again, nobody will want to foot the bill for due process...

And if the due process is necessary because of a failed business model we shouldn't have to. If I decide to open a store with no cashiers that depends on the honor system to have everyone pay I should not be able to deputize the police force to stop people from stealing. We shouldn't have to foot the bill for bringing the "good old days" back to the film and recording industry no matter how many politicians they bribe.

In the last 40 sessions, or so, of congress, we have seen more legislation that attacks human rights and gives those rights to the government and to corporations. Some on purpose, some through misguided ineptitude. This piece of legislation is purely another assault.

I do not advocate theft, unfair use or non-compensation for use of copyrighted/intellectual property. No one likes a thief, and there must be accountability for said theft. But HR 3261 is NOT a viable solution from the way I read it.

When legislation removes any due process, and confiscates personal property under the pretense of suspicion, it's not a good law. It is actually a means of suppression of free speech.

As written, the law is so absolutely vague and poorly written, that no proof of violation is actually needed to trigger the government into action to protect a copyright claimant.

Literally, if I, as an artist, am signed to a label or other distribution contract, put my music on my own website, and the music is detected as being "owned", even in part, by a distributor, they could simply inform the government that there is illegal use - wrongly obviously, and the government has "no choice" but to block my website and confiscate all the materials, block access to it, and I, the legal copyright holder, have absolutely no recourse in getting my website, my own copyrighted material, nor any intellectual property I may own on that domain, back. There is recourse provisioning in the bill. However, this recourse has severely limited windows and no defined actual due process procedure. Effectively holding the claimant of violation in the driver seat indefinitely... thereby reversing innocence until proved guilty.

The same holds true for any critics, reviewer, media outlet, etc, that may actually promote music, media or other copyrighted material. - e.g. If a band has a fan, former band member, disgruntled/ex-spouse... all they have to do is complain of illegal use and BAM... you're out of business. The payed providers are held accountable under whistle blower laws already on the books.

If you accidentally sign a poorly written distribution contract that limits your distribution, said limiting distributor can shut you down, and your other legally authorized distributors.

It's a worthless piece of documentation as far as the business of media and copyright/intellectual property right use is concerned.... However, it's a very handy piece of legislation for the controlling of free speech and general quashing of the public education of what it's government and corporations (who have more rights than people) are doing.

Due process and presumption of innocence are founding principles of the constitution of the United States. Removing these rights is an unacceptable turn for the government of this country and must be stopped.

There is a way to legislate the wrongful use of copyrighted/IP, but it's far too tricky to do without completely reexamining/rewriting the existing legislation... and that won't happen given the power of corporations and their influence peddling minions.

The public education system is one place to start. We teach children the basic principles of law in the primary and secondary levels. Why are we not simply including the fact that theft is wrong? Our social indoctrination program in the public education system is the perfect place to start.

MadMax, post: 382996 wrote: The public education system is one place to start. We teach children the basic principles of law in the primary and secondary levels. Why are we not simply including the fact that theft is wrong? Our social indoctrination program in the public education system is the perfect place to start.

I would agree in principle, but that education starts at home. I wouldn't want to rely on the school to teach my kids morality any more than I want Washington to legislate common sense. My kids learned right from wrong at home. They got their values here and whatever information they learned at school was all bonus.

Online or in the real world, people young and old, fail to see it as theft. They think, "if I can find it for free without ever leaving my house - why shouldn't I take it?"

One sign we knew we'd achieved a certain level of success was the day we're sitting at a bar that has some of our CDs on display for sale - and while Dude#1 is holding a CD in his hand considering the purchase, Dude#2 assures Dude#1 "it's good" and then 2 seconds later says, "I'll burn you a copy." - right in front of us. I'm sure in his mind before he opened his mouth he's thinking, 'the guys in the band will surely appreciate my favorable review'. But before he could shut his mouth again, he'd finished the sentence the way he probably had a hundred times 'sharing' other people's music too - if it even occurred to him at all that he'd just picked our pocket.

And I certainly agree that lobbyists that represent big money will always stack the deck in their favor with the full cooperation of the elected officials. Only solution come November - No Incumbent Left Behind - none - zero.

dvdhawk, post: 383009 wrote: Online or in the real world, people young and old, fail to see it as theft. They think, "if I can find it for free without ever leaving my house - why shouldn't I take it?" ...

Megan Mcardle has a [[url=http://[/URL]="http://www.theatlan…"]good post on file sharing as stealing[/]="http://www.theatlan…"]good post on file sharing as stealing[/]. She brings up a point that I had not thought of: comparing file sharing to stealing books from a book store (the book store is going to return some of the books, so they aren't hurt by the theft, etc.) She also bring up another point that I've been harping on for a long time: file sharing is more like trespassing than theft. The problem with that comparison is that a lot of people trespass without any feeling of guilt.

David,

My comment was half made with tongue firmly planted in cheek... in that, the education system does not allow/approve of children to perpetrate acts of violence on other students or teachers, nor does it approve of cheating... and while yes, I agree that morality starts at home, the essential basics of society's norms are indeed taught within the confines of the classroom. Maybe it should include the basic review of civility and the laws which govern it.

There used to be a subject that was taught in all the public schools... it was called civics. In these classes, you learned of the reasoning of the courts and the works of the judiciary, the role of parliamentary procedure, the role of laws and the common sense approach to living in a society based upon trust. The primary focus on business revolved around civic responsibility before profit. Often, individual state legislation was reviewed and how the process of government was set forth for each state, and the federal government.

To that end, I fail to see a conflict where teaching common law is concerned. It's not like this would be akin to mandating a state recognized religion. It's just a reinforcement of each citizen knowing that there are laws which exist for the common good of society.

Wow, Thanks for sharing this Hue, I understand it a lot more now. This is very complicated. I'm torn between so much here. We all know why the music industry has changed so much. Is it a bad thing or good that still remains to be seen. Right now its still cripled but its also because its in a transition.

I know I'm sick of the few controlling the mass. Thats really criminal isn't it or is it? I mean, controlling people but we always go to far don't we. But what about all our creative rights being transmitted and out of control. But I do believe the way we made money in this business is only being reshaped.

If we kill the interenet, the world will go definitely nuts and deeper underground. And we will find another path to travel in it.
It makes me wonder what the real reason is behind all this.

Very interesting times indeed.

Here's something more to give perspective. Via: Bob Lefsetz

There is a new Rennaisance occurring as we live. I don't know how we can take advantage of it but I want to find the way. The person and persons who unlock this will change the game for everyone. I don't think anyone will be making fortunes from this. It may very well even the playing ground though. That is something I could look forward to.

Hue,

Like David, in principle I understand the correlation between exposure to a marketplace and the propensity of that exposure leading to increased sales. However, it seems that this is directly related to the type of material, and within the different types of materials/products of IP, there are subcategories that fall within that model, but also drastically do not correlate.

For products such as written publications and artwork, the content is not as valuable as the physical product. For music and video types of media, the content is more valuable than any physical medium that it is delivered on, except for things like vinyl. Although, for most people, a cartoon is just a valuable in digital media and printed on a laser printer as owning the original from the newspaper, which is less valuable than the actual original created by the cartoonist... and is but one example of subcategory exceptions.

So, the argument is not as cut and dried as most people want to make it.

Its very complicated. The question is what do each one of us consider valuable. Where is the line of whats mine and whats yours? We live in a time where we feel entitlement and this is what needs to be put into perspective. We're like kids in a candy store, all of us. Just because its there doesn't mean its ours.

We're all guilty and we're all entitled to what? That is the question.

Very complicated...

For fun and as an experiment, lets think tank here with our forum. Notice I say "our forum". But what if someone copies our material and posts it on another forum, which has happened more than once. You all share your information here. Where is the line between yours , mine and everyones?

This is very much like music don't you think? The community = a band, song, symphony, tutorials, book etc

My head hurts thinking about this.

MadMax, post: 383072 wrote: Hue,

Like David, in principle I understand the correlation between exposure to a marketplace and the propensity of that exposure leading to increased sales. However, it seems that this is directly related to the type of material, and within the different types of materials/products of IP, there are subcategories that fall within that model, but also drastically do not correlate.

For products such as written publications and artwork, the content is not as valuable as the physical product. For music and video types of media, the content is more valuable than any physical medium that it is delivered on, except for things like vinyl. Although, for most people, a cartoon is just a valuable in digital media and printed on a laser printer as owning the original from the newspaper, which is less valuable than the actual original created by the cartoonist... and is but one example of subcategory exceptions.

So, the argument is not as cut and dried as most people want to make it.

And to continue that train of thought - I think it's comparing apples to oranges when it comes to comparing an up-and-coming band trying to find an audience to an author trying to find an audience. The shelf-life of a good band that does everything right - makes a name for themselves - and can muster a hit or two is awfully short. Your Aerosmiths and Rolling Stoneseseses are few and far between. There aren't a lot of bands who can be productive long enough to not need a new career for the second half of their lives. (lots of them just don't live long enough) Most pop/rock bands can ill-afford to wait for the long-term payoff in exposure. What's left of the 'music industry' is geared toward one-hit-wonders. Ever since the early 80's the labels have not cared about building a band's catalog (most people don't even know what that means anymore). They wanted one megahit from you, because they make more money that way.

Satellite-fed radio stations put the final nail in the coffin for an indie band to emerge the old-fashioned way, so the interweb is a godsend for a good band. But...musical styles come and go, the window of opportunity closes on what you do best, and the you can go from center-stage to insurance-salesman-who-used-to-be-in-some-band pretty quickly. So as a musician I would like to have control over what music I give away and what I can count on to offset the expenses associated with creating the material.

Whereas an author like Mr. Gaiman doesn't have to deal with the rigors of constant touring, the fickled finger of fashion, the egos - or the personal needs of several other co-creators and their families. It's you versus the blank page every day - which would be a monumental, but different, struggle. Obviously, writing as a career has it's own set of pressures and destructive lifestyle pitfalls, etc. - but once you achieve a certain level of success you have a much better chance at a long writing career than a long music career.

It's still a very relevant video as it pertains to SOPA/PIPA, but I think this illustrates part of the problem - there is no one solution that is going to be perfect for everybody. So rather than consult anybody that knows anything about anything, they (Congress) would rather do chainsaw surgery.

dvdhawk, great perspective!
What I have witnessed (and you have alluded to) is a huge number of new and independent artists who have used the web to develop huge followings. These people have literally generated their career (however short-lived!) through use of the web to get their name and their music known. These are artists who depend largely on touring/performing to support themselves, as opposed to sales of their music product. The ability to find audience & create a fan base is crucial to their success and survival.
On the other side of that coin, consumers also receive a much greater choice & variety of music content, being exposed to artists and music that given the pre-web paradigm, they would have never experienced. This can only be a good thing!
On the edge of that same coin we have independent producers/engineers/studios like myself who benefit from an overall democratization of the music business. Perhaps one of the few areas of our (U.S.) economy where the movement of power is actually away from the corporations (read: Record Labels) and towards the working class musicians, engineers, etc. This SOPA bill would attempt to stop that flow and reverse it.
As a holder of four patents and the composer/lyricist of hundreds of songs and compositions, I am against Piracy of Intellectual Property. But when the protections that are proposed would serve to stifle the further and future creation of such content by placing it under the thumb of corporate interests, I cannot support it.
Great topic, I love this forum!

Jeff

I was only posting those videos as a point of perspective. Music and software are things that are entirely as valuable as or moreso than the media it's stored on. I would compare it more to identity theft. People should be able to comprehend that. If I use your identity and get a credit card in your name, you're not going to like it. Or an even better comparison would be stolen credit card or banking account numbers. No physical money is being transferred. Everything is virtual, but you sure feel it when this happens. I know. It has happened to me.

As far as the educational system teaching our kids morals. I don't trust them with that. The educational system in North America condones many things that I abhore. My son came home the other day with a letter informing us of how many of the teachers do not agree with "Foundation Skillls Assessment" tests which are standard in the schools here. They are not mandatory but you must give a valid reason why you don't want your children to participate. The teachers urge us that we should not allow our children to participate.

The options for reasons were, sickness, family emergency or other extenuating circumstances. Well none of these apply to us. There are no extenuating circumstances. But, the teachers want us to opt out. Well, I asked my son " isn't that lying?". He agreed that it is. I don't think it's ok to lie. And, I don't think it's a good idea to teach my kids to lie to the government.

The truth is that the only people who may be adversely affected by the test are the teachers because it's them that the tests are grading, not the students.

End of tirade.

At any rate, the problem does not reside in the industry. It resides in consumers, because conscience is optional and accountability is non existent. That's not because their is no one to hold them to account but because they don't believe they should be held accountable. Every thief thinks it's ok to steal until they are the victim.

I'm not trying to beat the dead horse... but I didn't know that getting teachers to review such things as law would qualify as teaching children morality.

In the US, we have laws that we teach children must be obeyed, such as hitting, biting, and kicking (fighting/physical harm), cheating, speeding, and to at least a lesser degree; stealing. Any citizen can (and should) expect to be dealt with by some authority (either within the education system or by law enforcement) for violating any of these basic tenents of society. What is so wrong with reinforcing the fact that I/P and copyrights are inclusive in those barriers? I mean... that IS the law.

Otherwise, lets go the full measure and not have any punishment for either students or anyone else for violating these principles of conduct which have helped maintain society as a whole, for so many centuries.

MadMax, post: 383101 wrote: I'm not trying to beat the dead horse... but I didn't know that getting teachers to review such things as law would qualify as teaching children morality.

It's not the reviewing of the document. It was that they are encouraging the parents to falsely state that they have circumstances that prevent their child from taking the test.

At any rate, I'm not disagreeing with you. I agree that there has to be education but it has to start with the parents. We generally imitate the people who raise us, whether that's our intention or not. Teachers may influence us but our parents shape us. I'm not anti punishment, but discipline begins at home.