A new ridiculous EU law - for whom it may concern

[Amn]

European Union (EU) has proposed a law which forbids any form of transferring music and other digital information bought on CDs for private use to other mediums, including MP3, CD, and DVD so far. This means, if you bought a music CD, you could face charges if you as little as burned a copy of it to listen to in your car stereo. How is that for a democracy ?

I personally think, this is an example on our hands, which tells how delusive and abusive word like "democracy" can be, and that in reality only thing that seems to matter to many is cashflow and power. Sad thought indeed. If this law should be accepted, I am afraid piracy will accelerate to skyhigh levels, at least because of people's bitterness over such a braindead, unweighted and ignorant and egoistic proposal for a law. Such a law will be hard to maintain.

In Denmark the law is stepping into power on December the 22th. Who's next ? Norway is most likely to obey this political failure as well - upcoming summer. How are things in U.S ? Or Asia ? Or Australia ?

Please, make yourself useful - vote...vote here, and vote wherever you live...

Rephrasing a popular quote:
"Never underestimate stupid corrupted politicians in large groups".

[Garrett Headley]

First of all, you need a checkbox for "Politicians really are that stupid".

Anyways, it sounds like one of those laws that will be impossible to enforce, since everyone does it. In the US, it is already illegal to make casette copies of albums/CDs, but I doubt any home user has ever been prosecuted for doing so.

[Amn]

"Politicians really are that stupid" is incorporated as the poll option "Again, Amn, that's life" :D

Besides, i cannot edit my own poll :confused:
But hey, moderators here are known for editing polls :)

[dimm_coder]

And why are U so surprised?

I think, that if some music group or single performer does what he does for creation, not for money, he can let to get his music even over Internet for download ("open source" :) ). And he or they can get money from their concerts for example.

This is world of money.

Pink Floyd - Money
___________________________

Money, get away.
Get a good job with good pay and you're okay.
Money, it's a gas.
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash.
New car, caviar, four star daydream,
Think I'll buy me a football team.

Money, get back.
I'm all right Jack keep your hands off of my stack.
Money, it's a hit.
Don't give me that do goody good bullshit.
I'm in the high-fidelity first class traveling set
And I think I need a Lear jet.

Money, it's a crime.
Share it fairly but don't take a slice of my pie.
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today.
But if you ask for a raise it's no surprise that they're
giving none away.

[Simon666]

In Belgium one party is planning even worse : you would be allowed to copy it. Now I hear you shout : Yippieeee!!!!! :D :rolleyes:

But wait, here comes the clue: the artists rights (read : music business CEO's fat paycheck) would still be paid and this would be done by raising taxes upon the sale of information barers such as cd's, hard disks, possibly the computer itself, ...

This means that everybody who doesn't download music from the net (read : me) who have to pay for these bosos through paying a fat tax surplus upon the purchase of cd-rw's and computers (through hard-disk or entirety). Also note that there are already taxes on cd-rw who are then send to the organisations managing these rights.

Luckily, it's still just a proposition. Just to let you know that even if you do not have to pay for this or if this will not be forbidden, people will beat the money out of your pockets. :mad: That is also why I voted I don't care.

[Elrond]

Originally posted by Simon666
But wait, here comes the clue: the artists rights (read : music business CEO's fat paycheck) would still be paid and this would be done by raising taxes upon the sale of information barers such as cd's, hard disks, possibly the computer itself, ...


Belgium are small players ;)

In France, they are planning to do both. In fact, I think the tax on CDs already exists (it has to be confirmed), and this EU law may be accepted as well, helped by som new technologies that would prevent copyrighted product to be copied. It means that you will not be able to do private copies any more, but will pay taxes when you buy CDs (even if not to record or copy music) and that this money will end up in the pocket of the artists. Isn't that wonderful :D:D

The end result is that the price of insurance will increase for cars, because when your car is broken in, people will steal original copies instead of private copies of your CDs. I don't have a CD car radio anymore. Insurance:"We don't care! Pay!".

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Elrond
In France, they are planning to do both. In fact, I think the tax on CDs already exists (it has to be confirmed),...
I already said it exists in Belgium for some time. Maybe it is in the entire EU, don't know. Anyway, I don't buy that many CD's any more - expensive and good metal is hard to find on the radio - so I am rather angry I have to pay extra on my backup CD's and stuff for people that do download music. Not that I am angry at them. I'm wondering : why can't music just be free for download, and artists make there money out of concerts, selling T-shirts and other goodies with their name on it. If they really or in it for the art (hahahahahahahahahaha...:D ;) ) they shouldn't object.

What's that noise overhead? Hey look, a black helicopter. What the...? Aaaaarrrggghhh....

[Elrond]

Originally posted by Simon666
I already said it exists in Belgium for some time.

Sorry, I misunderstood. "the artists rights would still be paid and this would be done by raising taxes" sounds like it's not done yet.

Maybe it is in the entire EU, don't know. Anyway, I don't buy that many CD's any more - expensive and good metal is hard to find on the radio - so I am rather angry I have to pay extra on my backup CD's and stuff for people that do download music. Not that I am angry at them. I'm wondering : why can't music just be free for download, and artists make there money out of concerts, selling T-shirts and other goodies with their name on it. If they really or in it for the art (hahahahahahahahahaha...:D ;) ) they shouldn't object.

There's a few very good reasons for that. The first is that registering a CD is a hard and expensive work.

The other, even more appropriate is that some people do music that no one will go see in a concert for one of the two following reasons:
- This is music made to be listened at home, or in Dance clubs, ...
- The artists are just crap in live music.

I've seen a few group that I loved to listen on my stereo, and that have disappointing me a lot in live concert. I still continue to buy their CDs, and I agree to pay for the pleasure they give me, but I will not go to see them again in concert.

And (almost) only teenagers buy T-shirt from their favorite groups. It's not relevant for all kind of music.

On the other, this would make concert MUCH more expensive, as the artists would still have to live, and people would not go.

Piracy is a real problem, that should be solved, but I don't know how. Sure it's a problem when people not concerned by it have to pay for it.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Elrond
Sorry, I misunderstood. "the artists rights would still be paid and this would be done by raising taxes" sounds like it's not done yet.
Sorry, should have added "even further". But this is only the case for cd-rw's, I don't know if this is already the case for hard disks.

About the rest, you are right. But they will never be able to make it impossible to copy although they are still trying, as you can always record the played music analog and convert it back to digital, albeit quality loss. So they try to make it illegal. It's been tried with alcohol, but given up, it's still "working" for cannabis, but people are slowing given that one up also, so for music it will certainly also be impossible, in my opinion.

Anyway, I'll guess we'll have to wait a few years and see what happens.

[irona20]

Originally posted by Elrond
Piracy is a real problem, that should be solved, but I don't know how. Sure it's a problem when people not concerned by it have to pay for it.

Piracy is good for musicians too. I have bought many CDs of groups that had not known if before other CDs had not copied.
And I have gone to concerts for the same reason.

I do not buy less CDs than before, on the contrary, with piracy I buy more CDs because I can listen to more music.

[Amn]

I don't object artists making money, that would be totally out of line. I respect their art, and I am willing to pay for it. However this law has nothing to do with it.

I object the record industry, ruthlessly "going over dead bodies" to get their will, no matter what it will cost, no matter the freedom, no matter the opinions of others. They are basically like a flock of wild animals running over prairies. Horrible. This will hit us from behind, i am telling you. They are so desperate, and so desperately broke. They are broke, because of their unwillingness to move their lazy butts and start thinking creatively about what new mediums to invest to, and how does P2P work, and why is it so successful. If they had been a yota smarter, they would have figured out even how to make P2P work for them. But as long as the arena is dominated by fat, old, greedy businessmen, there is no room for free thought, but merely for enslavement for own purpose.

[John E]

Originally posted by Amn
the arena is dominated by fat, old, greedy businessmen This has been a personal hobby horse of mine for a LONG time - and I have to say that nobody could have put that statement better! For years, the music industry has blamed every new technology for the fact that it's losing revenue. They're currently blaming MP3 and the internet but this nonsense goes right back to the earliest days of the personal cassette.

The REAL reason why the industry is losing money is because it consistently fails to invest in the talent it needs to sell records. Back in the 60's and 70's (I don't want to sound like an old fuddy duddy) artistes were nurtured by YOUNG record company executives for their talent and originality. From the Beatles and the Stones, right through to Pink Floyd (via Motown and Reggae, Bubblegum, Rock, Punk, New Wave and Heavy Metal et al) the record industry was bursting with diverse and ORIGINAL artistes - and the result was a large and varied audience aged between 14 and 30 (i.e. an average age of 22).

Nowadays BUSINESSMEN manufacture bands from kids who have some (though often little) talent and even less originality. The result is that modern artistes sound professional enough but their songs are often unsophisticated and unsophisticated songs only appeal to people with unsophisticated tastes (i.e. SCHOOLKIDS). It's a fact that the average record-buying age at the moment is about 12 - nearly half of what it was 20 years ago.

Now it stands to reason that 12 year olds don't have as much money as 22 year olds. Therefore music revenues are falling. But this isn't because of piracy - it's because music today is bland and samey. It has to be like that because it's meant to appeal to 12 year olds. BUT (and it keeps coming back to this) 12 year olds DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY - and THAT is why the music business is in the doldrums.....:mad: :mad:

[Yves M]

Complicated topic...

I do think like Simon that it is unfair practice and even coercion that the RIAA (ok, we should really say the gang of 5 music giants) is making money off the CDs I use to backup my computer every now and then. It is unfair that they should get a dime when a company buys 100 new PCs for their running business. A computer is NOT a cassette deck and has many more uses for non-MP3 or music piracy related activities than otherwise.

Like John said, one of the big problems in the music biz is the fact that it is too consolidated. There are 5 record companies, that's all. There is ONE radio station operator in the US. Think about that... With consolidation comes power and they are using it to coerce these kind of laws.

But, I think the problem will get better. Why is everyone downloading MP3s instead of going to a record shop, listen and maybe buy one or two CDs ? Simply put, because
a) You have a larger choice. The number of bands that your local shop stocks might not include the ones you are actually looking for.
B) Fine-grained choice. You like a certain track. Why do you have to shell out 20ˆ for a CD where you only like one track ?
C) Easy to access. You are at home, relaxed, no traffic and can just browse to see if you like something.
D) Playlists. CDs hold 12 songs. My computer holds 1000 songs or even more. I have methodically ripped all my CDs to MP3s, just so that I can make nice playlists and don't have to worry about changing CDs anymore.
E) Cost. I put this as the last reason, since IMHO it's not the most important one. It is important for the schoolkids that John mentions, but for many people, the reasons above are already compelling enough.

So the day that you will be able to do all this from a music company's website, without hassle, even paying for the songs, then illegal MP3 will be less of a problem.

Anyways, the day we have to use Palladium, we even won't be able to listen to our own ripped MP3s anymore :/

[galathaea]

It is definitely a problem with the industry. Artists who publish their work independently on their own label can make up to 4 or 5 dollars U.S. per CD sold, whereas major labels will give them a couple of dimes. Most major artists make most of their money on tours, and even there it is only a small fraction of the money available. It is the cash-hog industry execs who, instead of trying to understand the dynamics of their industry, are pushing to sterilize it from any innovation (including artistic and distribution model) to hold on to their big pieces of property. And the only way that pops through their narrow little minds is by the gunpoint of law...

[Amn]

It's very refreshing to hear opinions of such great thinkers as you guys ;)

Because for a moment i thought I am surrounded by greed. Of course everyone has to put food on table, but amounts of food execs can buy far excceeds reasonable human needs :D
This all also proves that smart people don't rule dumb people - dumb people, elected by other dumb people, rule both the dumb and the smart. Smart don't like it though.

Yves, I also agree with you on the definite advantage of new digital media. CD's are history - they are big, bulky, easily distorted and scratched (as much as they are praised for their long lifetime), while MP3's are usually stored on modern harddisks, which are much more crash proof than CD's, and virtually can each hold half of the average music store database. Only a lunatic would choose CD's over MP3's. Or only where its REALLY necessary, like with a legacy car CD player. All other cases, I am afraid, are not favoured.

While i am not afraid of any protection technique in use today, simply because they suffer the same lack of creativity and/or decency, Palladium will be the first thing to REALLY affect piract. It is simply completely another approach to the matter. It is one thing to encode a DVD stream with a public key, sell (note the word SELL) the public key to DVD player manufacturers under oath of silence, and then claim DVD is copy protected, but its another thing to hide whole strategy in hardware. It will make it MUCH more difficult to crack, cimply because another level of skills is needed, which not many 16 year old hackers posess, and even if they do, the whole computer runs Palladium circuits, and it will be like complicated surgery to perform such a cracking task. Personally i welcome Palladium system, but I fear it will bring with it more than we really want. It not only contributes to functioning copy-protection, but also to semi-legal person surveillance, data monitoring and a whole bunch of doubtfull benefits. We will have to live with it at least a year, before details will start to show up.

[galathaea]

Unfortunately, I work in security and know to well the weaknesses of all of the new schemes. Even Palladium can't stop a simple output hack of the line and steering the signal back into some cassette recorder or computer audio in. And these type of physical hacks are done by 16 year olds (there has always been some type of phreaking going in that age range for years... I'd even put Farnsworth and the TV there). Plus there's always the microphone-recording problem when you play the music...

The big thing, howevere, is that music is, and always has been, something that can be done by a small creative entity (the band, or even often these days, an individual). But the record industry has attempted to make album production akin to movie production, with many positions like sound engineering, marketing, and, of course, executives sucking on the money line. And for many years, these entities that grew off of the creative artists have even taken control, and continue to decide these days who should be given the advantages of this leviathan machine.

But it is changing. With the a computer and the net, it is now quite possible for a band to do all of their production, engineering, marketing, and manufacture, and even printing, without getting up before noon. This is making the entire industry slowly obsolete. The same is happening for the movie industry too, but they haven't realized that yet. Also the animation industry is getting more and more power for rapid development now that well established object libraries are available with standard vector algorithms for all sorts of movements. It really looks like it is a return to the artist as creator which had diverged in these technical arts because of the sheer complexity of the process. But as the process simplifies, more and more these industries crumble. And they look more and more like the gasping railroad tycoons of the late 1800's, sending their buddies off to make laws and point guns at anyone who dare make a move towards their money...

[Amn]

Sad but truth.

[Yves M]

Hum, galathaea I don't really agree with your point about bands doing all their work and movies becoming more of a commodity.

A friend of mine studied sound-engineering. Before he started, he had been a musician all his life, having his own studio at home and recording music which sounded kind of nice. As the final project for his studies, he made an album. Now, comparing the kind of stufff he made before and his album, there was a *huge* difference in quality and depth of the music (just from the sound engineering point of view). It may not be obvious that some recording is bad, but when you start comparing the same recording mixed by someone who knows how to do it and mixed by a hobbyist, you can tell there is a big difference. There are quite a few professions like that in the music biz that do contribute a lot to music and I'd hate it if every band were recording in their basement.

Movies are never going to become a commodity and cheap to produce. A movie is a highly complex thing which requires a lot of different people. If you look at the credits of major movies today, the number of people has grown quite a bit since movies of say the sixties. I'd hate it if movies were all done with CG (computer graphics, not codeguru :p) and I don't think this will happen. There will be more of course, but that doesn't necessarily mean they get cheaper to make. Who would go watch a movie that looks just like in-game graphics from some game ? So if movies are not done in CG, then you require props, locations, actors, cameramen, lighting, sound etc... And all of that is a big expense.

[TheCPUWizard]

Having been the Chief Software Architect for Otari's first all digital console (Advanta), as well as having worked on their automated analog consoles (Priemer and Elite with Eagle Automation), as well as having been involved as a stage-tech for many years, I feel qualified to join in on this.

Both Yves and Galathea have valid points that do not need to conflict.

Prior to 10 years ago (the exact time is debatable but this is safe for illustrating my point), it was virtually impossible to produce high quality recordings without significant financial backing (recording company, university, rich daddy). This technonogy is not available for less than the average (small professional) band has spent on their instruments and amps. So the door is opened up to alot more people.

Equipment does not replace talent however (I know, I can get a decent mix, prevent feedback, etc, but other than that I have NO skill for producing music). When commercial sound was coming from the recording comanies, there were many bad Sound Engineers. Fortunately for the general publec, they were fired (or more likely never even hired) before we heard their work.

With the increased availabiliy of equipment and distribution channels we are sure to hear more. Some of it will be quality and some will be "less" [and I am NOT referring to musical styles here]. How all of the equations (currently with unknown coefficients) will balance is anyones guess. And that is all it will be a guess.

[SolarFlare]

Amn, it is clear that you're not a supporter of intellectual property. The whole point of the law is that it tries to promote democracy, not inhibit it. It's protecting the rights of the person who created the material. If someone worked for years on something that could be copied, such as decoding the human genome, composing a masterful piece of music, writing a world-class novel, etc. then it's not fair for you to take it from them for free just because you can. They put man-hours into their work, and that translates to money. If you pay enough for it, fine, you can have it, but otherwise it's their property because they put effort into making it. This is the idea behind intellectual property.

In this country (not sure about internationally, but it's likely to be the same), the most frequently broken law - by far - is copying copyrighted materials. Of course there aren't going to be policemen patrolling your home for copied stuff and throwing you in prison for it because it's so common. But I know some people who won't even listen to a burned CD because it's not "fair" to the person who originally made the songs.

Let me give you an example. Look at the computer you're using right now. To create the hardware and software, to make factories creating these, to market it, the years and years of research and theory in the field of computers, the millions of man-hours spent creating these items, and the meticulous refinement of every aspect must be worth a lot. That's a no-brainer. Now, imagine you could copy this computer. You can have a completely identical computer - in fact, you can have as many as you want - for only a ten cents ($.10) each. Do you want another one? Sure you do. Go on, nobody will know. Now let's say the computer companies have put all these billions of dollars into creating these machines we have today, but they get no profit. Big deal, right? You already have all you want from them? Well, they'll be discouraged from continuing research, etc. because costs are high and income is in the basement. They go out of business. 10 years from now, think of all the great stuff we will have - but wait a sec, the companies all went out of business, right? We're stuck here. It's simply too dangerous for a company to risk itself and millions of dollars to create a computer, have it sell about a dozen times and then no more, because people are copying it endlessly. It's all about money. You can't expect the companies to exist without them making a profit somehow. The same thing exists for intellectual property - and the profit comes from your wallet.

You have to get the creator's consent. If they say it's free, then you've committed no crime at all. But if they say their work is worth $100, even if you think this price is outrageous, it's a crime to own it for $99 or less. Because you've stolen money from the owner of the property.

As for my opinion - go for it, you can't stop the masses from copying this stuff. But morally it's wrong. As long as you keep this in mind, then whatever you do will fall on your own conscience alone. But if you get caught, you've never met me ;)

[galathaea]

Using Logic Audio Platinum with proper VST plug-ins for noise reduction and sound manipulation along with proper miking of instruments (and use of digital instruments with direct lines in), I and friends have been able to produce fully composed pieces with editing and mixing of a quality far superior to the recordings of the seventies (where line levels are often hideous, there is clipping everywhere, and whoever was on EQ was drugged so hideously that they must have been perceiving some completely different reality)... And that is today, where most of the music I listen to has been done by one or at most four or five people completely throughout the process. The stuff that remains done in other projects by others can easily be conceived to be done by programs in the very near future, as they are often the rote stuff where artisitic direction is masked by minutiae of engineering.

The same really is happening in movies, but as I mentioned, most of the movie industry hasn't realized this yet. It is so easy now with the a digital camera and, say, Final Cut Pro, to do all of the organizing, producing, directing, editing, etc. You just need actors and actresses for this media, as you would a play. Take a look at the decreases happening in staffs because of these technologies, like that in the recently released Tape, Chelsea Walls, etc. In fact you have things like Run Lola Run where the guys coming up with the movie and filming it are also the ones making the music for it. It is really becoming the artists direction because of the technological advances happening. I really stick by this. I may not think we are there now, or will be there in five years, but I think this is the process that is happening evolutionarily in these fields, and why we see so many legal responses occurring.

In fact, SolarFlare, I think its perfectly compatible with intellectual rights to be upset at these laws. Because the intellect creating these pieces are not the ones benefiting today from the legal actions. It is the fat, rich, old money that hasn't created anything but contracts and money sucking industries...

[TheCPUWizard]

and whoever was on EQ was drugged so hideously that they must have been perceiving some completely different reality


Personally, I dont remember this being a problem, in fact it was often the point... :D

Of course it was a totally different culture back then....

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by galathaea
In fact, SolarFlare, I think its perfectly compatible with intellectual rights to be upset at these laws. Because the intellect creating these pieces are not the ones benefiting today from the legal actions. It is the fat, rich, old money that hasn't created anything but contracts and money sucking industries...
That's true, but you're distorting the truth and being very biased.

First of all, it's clear that you're not impartial to the situation as you have generalized all the people in question as fat, rich, and old.

Second, these people are the ones that work for the musicians (or other type of intellectual artist). The reason they get money from it is because they help "market" the product so the artist can get some money, too!

I'm a bit tired so it may not be entirely clear but you get the point.

[galathaea]

I think its actually too simplistic of an interpretation of the economics to assume that the industry works for the musicians. When I was younger, I was a libertarian, and this was precisely the same type of response I would have given based on my readings of Hayek, vonMises, and Friedman. But as I've interacted, more, with the economy, I have found these notions to be incorrect. Here is why I make the claim...

It has always been a struggle for independent artists to make breakthroughs in music. The major corporations, through payola, distribution deals, and simple ownership of airwaves and outlet chains, had built themselves a great exclusionary industry through which they and only they could choose who would get popular airing. It was purely a control relationship they had over the artists. I am thinking of the well known suppression of certain black artists back in the first half of last century here. As rapcointelpro.com says, "If you don't own your s#!t, your just a sharecropper..." That, sharecropping, I think is the better economic model for the relationship between the industry (the land owners, since their relationship with the government in the backrooms has prevented increasing the bandwidth of radio for years now) and the musicians.

You see, an up and coming artist for years could not compete with the monolithic structure of control that the industry had constructed. Copying has been a problem since the age of personal cassette recorders, as other have pointed out. But I find it very telling that such a massive effort by the industry was not undertaken to suppress these new distribution channels until the internet came along and subverted all of their built up control mechanisms. The internet provides open bandwidth that the music industry cannot control. Marketing is suddenly available to those without connections.

I am not impartial, since I consider myself one of the artists thus affected. And I really think it is a new age now...

[SolarFlare]

In no way did I say the economy works for the intellectual artist. I'm sorry if I was misinterpreted this way. For simplicity's sake, I will simplify my statement and refer to the intellectual artist as the musician.

As any intelligent being has realized by now, the economy does not work for the individual, regardless of profession. The economy works to promote the society, but let's not go there; it's too tangential for now.

The point is that the musician does benefit, even if by some miniscule amount, when you pay for their music, and they do not when you copy it.

[galathaea]

Yes and the industry used to give out promos to stations to play the music to entice the buying of the records. The artists received no money for these promos. Yet, there were people enticed to buy the music. Now, the promos are in a different format. But that is still what happens. As others have pointed out, many of us still go out and buy CDs (quite many, I believe). We just have a much broader selection of promos that is finally under our (not the industries) control...

[SolarFlare]

So you're saying that if only half the population burns a CD and the other half goes out and buys it, the musician still has sufficient motivation to continue production.

Here's the problem with that (aside from the "one person doesn't make a difference" theory): the companies will increase the price of CDs to make up for lost sales. More and more people will be encouraged, against their good nature, to burn the CD instead of buy it. It's a positive feedback cycle, and soon only a third or a quarter of people will be buying it. As you see, it's downhill for the musician...

[galathaea]

Then why didn't that happen when cassettes were made available?

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by galathaea
Then why didn't that happen when cassettes were made available?
If you mean make it illegal to copy them, then the answer is that my country did make it illegal to copy them.

[galathaea]

The US only made it illegal to copy for redistribution, which is the same law that applies to all intellectual property. In the US it has always been legal to copy for backup and self-use or fair-use.

But my question is: why didn't the spiral of prices you are afraid of occur, since there has been home media-copying abilities since the sixties?

[galathaea]

You see, there is always copy. There is always theft. There is always violation of rights. And the law has always done its best to minimize abuse of rights (as they are currently defined by a particular society). But working in the security has shown me something important, that there is not much to be scared about. I think often the mainstream media feeds a sense of doomsday into popular culture, but much of these types of claims are false. MP3s are no worse of a threat than cassettes. You can buy a thousand dollar (even 500 dolloar, these days) computer and download mp3s and pass them to your friends or burn CDs. I knew many friends in the 80s that did the same with cassettes, with a 50 dollar tape recorder and cassettes costs that would keep total price competitive with computer costs of today. There is always a particular population of society that is involved in this form of activity. The purpose of security is to provide as much exposure of these illegal activities as possible so as to discourage this segment of society as much as possible. This is why security has always seemed to have struggles with privacy. But really, there are some quite comfortable ways of making security continue to make the field of music profitable. Not much more than is currently available is actually needed, because that segment of the population that pirates has always been less than would be required to make music profitable. Its just a normal ebb and flow of a subpopulation.

Perhaps, however, it is time the music industry needs to realize that certain of their desires in a rights model are not possibly enforceable without major privacy breaking. And perhaps, just maybe, they need to realize that giving up some of these preferences for direct control of the circumstances of particular digital copy procedures in the name of privacy rights will not do them much harm. Since they have not been in control of that particular right of copy for years, and have managed to make quite a lot of money. And I do not have fears on the horizon of sudden collapse of the industry, though such fears seem quite common. I think the industry will change slowly into a more artist-centred paradigm, but I fear that many of the big companies today won't survive the transition. Because they seem to appear to be of the Homo neophobic variety, and not able to recognize the new proftable distribution models available to them with the new technologies...

[John E]

Originally posted by galathaea
Copying has been a problem since the age of personal cassette recorders, as other have pointed out. But I find it very telling that such a massive effort by the industry was not undertaken to suppress these new distribution channels until the internet came along.I think you're mistaken about that Galathaea. You rightly pointed out that the relationship between record company and musician is purely one of control. Record companies have no interest in their artistes except for how much money they can make from them. What is less known is that the industry has been trying to control its audience for just as long. Ownership of the distribution channel is one such method but you might not know that in many countries, the record industry raises a levy (tax) on blank recording media. Whenever you buy a blank cassette - or a blank CD ROM - or a blank DAT cassette, you're paying this levy because the industry argues that you'll probably be using it to make illegal music copies. That's why they don't complain too loudly when you do this - because you're paying for it when you buy the blank media. When it comes to the internet though, they haven't yet found a way to tax it. That's why they get so upset with Napster and the like.
Originally posted by solarflare
If someone worked for years on something that could be copied, such as decoding the human genome, composing a masterful piece of music, writing a world-class novel, etc. then it's not fair for you to take it from them for free just because you can.Originally posted by solarflare
So you're saying that if only half the population burns a CD and the other half goes out and buys it, the musician still has sufficient motivation to continue production.You have to remember that there's a world of difference between decoding the human genome (or writing a masterful piece of music) and the 25 minutes or so that it takes to compile a typical pop song. Regarding the finished work, the artiste's contribution is usually minimal. Also, most artistes are in the business (mainly) for self publicity. It's fame, not money that motivates them to perform and they definitely don't care a **** about who owns their work - until, that is, they suddenly want it back.

One famous example of this is Paul McCartney, whose work with the Beatles is owned by Michael Jackson. The Beatles sold it for peanuts to EMI who then sold it for a fortune to Jackson, who now wants to charge an even bigger fortune to sell it back to McCartney, now that he's older and wiser.

An even better example is George Michael, who sold his soul to Sony and has been in a bitter battle with them ever since. This perfectly illustrates the destructive relationship between record company and artiste. Ever since Sony dropped George Michael in the 80's, he can't even sell his own work to another record company - because he doesn't own the rights to his own talent!

A complex subject indeed - but it's difficult to feel any sympathy for anyone who's stupid enough to get sucked into it.

[Amn]

Originally posted by solarflare
Amn, it is clear that you're not a supporter of intellectual property. The whole point of the law is that it tries to promote democracy, not inhibit it.


Oh yes I am. I am not 15 anymore. I AM willing to pay for music i want to listen to.

It's protecting the rights of the person who created the material. If someone worked for years on something that could be copied, such as decoding the human genome, composing a masterful piece of music, writing a world-class novel, etc. then it's not fair for you to take it from them for free just because you can. They put man-hours into their work, and that translates to money. If you pay enough for it, fine, you can have it, but otherwise it's their property because they put effort into making it. This is the idea behind intellectual property.


I dont take it from them, i buy it and want to not to bother with big ugly CDs, when there is so much more compact MP3s. What is it I own ? Do I own the right to distribute that CD for my own private use, after all I payed for it ?! Or i only have the right to listen to that single CD i bought ? What do i do when it will have scratches on it ? Buy a new copy ? Or ASK for a new copy ? Isn't it obvious that the industry simply tries to make money on us ? What is it they sell goddamn it ?!??!?!?!?!?! SHOW ME WHAT YOU ARE SELLING ?! CAN YOU SHOW ME IT IN DAYLIGHT ?
<- There is the core of the problem. When you buy an apple, it is obvious. When you quote a line from a book to your friends at a party, noone asks you for royalties, although you are reproducing copyrighted information verbally. Do you see, it is all balancing an a razor edge!


In this country (not sure about internationally, but it's likely to be the same), the most frequently broken law - by far - is copying copyrighted materials. Of course there aren't going to be policemen patrolling your home for copied stuff and throwing you in prison for it because it's so common. But I know some people who won't even listen to a burned CD because it's not "fair" to the person who originally made the songs.


I am one of the persons who would never play a pirated game. All my own are bought. Same goes to music I listen to. I have my morals.


Let me give you an example. Look at the computer you're using right now. To create the hardware and software, to make factories creating these, to market it, the years and years of research and theory in the field of computers, the millions of man-hours spent creating these items, and the meticulous refinement of every aspect must be worth a lot. That's a no-brainer. Now, imagine you could copy this computer. You can have a completely identical computer - in fact, you can have as many as you want - for only a ten cents ($.10) each. Do you want another one? Sure you do. Go on, nobody will know. Now let's say the computer companies have put all these billions of dollars into creating these machines we have today, but they get no profit. Big deal, right? You already have all you want from them? Well, they'll be discouraged from continuing research, etc. because costs are high and income is in the basement. They go out of business. 10 years from now, think of all the great stuff we will have - but wait a sec, the companies all went out of business, right? We're stuck here. It's simply too dangerous for a company to risk itself and millions of dollars to create a computer, have it sell about a dozen times and then no more, because people are copying it endlessly. It's all about money. You can't expect the companies to exist without them making a profit somehow. The same thing exists for intellectual property - and the profit comes from your wallet.


Like i said, until they themselves dont state what is it they sell, they can't expect us to give up our rights based on lack of knowledge. Simpler put, if they say they sell information with a single person license and distribute it one a medium because its the only way to distribute it, then what we buy is information for a single person. Then we do what we want with it, except for selling it or giving to our friends. Is this what they sell ? If so, do I have the right to play the track from a CD at a party to my friends at my place ? or should they pay money, for me to let them listen the song I bought ? Can this get anymore ridiculous ?


You have to get the creator's consent. If they say it's free, then you've committed no crime at all. But if they say their work is worth $100, even if you think this price is outrageous, it's a crime to own it for $99 or less. Because you've stolen money from the owner of the property.


Yes, i agree.


As for my opinion - go for it, you can't stop the masses from copying this stuff. But morally it's wrong. As long as you keep this in mind, then whatever you do will fall on your own conscience alone. But if you get caught, you've never met me ;)

Yes, to an extent you can stop the masses. But dont go over bodies, because then you are fighting with the same gun you are being shot at with.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by galathaea
The US only made it illegal to copy for redistribution, which is the same law that applies to all intellectual property. In the US it has always been legal to copy for backup and self-use or fair-use.

No, any copying at all is illegal. What you are thinking of is that some computer software says that multiple users may use the software on one computer or one user may use it on multiple computers. Backups are okay too.

But my question is: why didn't the spiral of prices you are afraid of occur, since there has been home media-copying abilities since the sixties?
But it has! Prices have been rising faster than inflation. Some of the media types that have been around that long have ceased to increase in cost, and here's why. The same media is now more popular in other forms, such as CD and DVD instead of cassette tape and video cassette. Since these old types are not selling as well, the prices are holding steady. People don't buy them because they have reasons to buy other media types; therefore their prices hold steady.

[galathaea]

Fair use is an important doctrine in copyright law. You can check your facts here (http://www.digitalproducer.com/2001/09_sep/features/09_24/cdlaw6.htm) and many related sites.

[galathaea]

And this site (http://radio.weblogs.com/0105455/2002/04/15.html) answers your second point quite well...

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by John E You have to remember that there's a world of difference between decoding the human genome (or writing a masterful piece of music) and the 25 minutes or so that it takes to compile a typical pop song. Regarding the finished work, the artiste's contribution is usually minimal. Also, most artistes are in the business (mainly) for self publicity. It's fame, not money that motivates them to perform and they definitely don't care a **** about who owns their work - until, that is, they suddenly want it back.
That's a bit of an unfair generalization. I'll leave it at that.
Originally posted by Amn
Oh yes I am. I am not 15 anymore. I AM willing to pay for music i want to listen to.
But your original post said you opposed the law! Make up your mind.
If you want MP3s, and they don't sell it in that format, then you're forced to download it simply because they can't accomodate you as a customer. But don't use that as an excuse for not paying. Many places do have places where you can buy the MP3s. As for a broken CD, if you paid for it originally then it's ok to download music to replace it because the artist got what they wanted from you. It's different to do this than to download in the first place because you want to avoid payment.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by galathaea
And this site (http://radio.weblogs.com/0105455/2002/04/15.html) answers your second point quite well...
Hmmm... a disclaimer... you know we don't like those here at CodeGuru. ;)

Now, if I was mistaken before, I'm sorry. If the CD prices go down, it's because production costs are way down, because it's much more of a mass market now than it was ten years ago.

[John E]

Originally posted by solarflare
That's a bit of an unfair generalization. I'll leave it at that.It’s a generalization I agree but I don’t think it’s unfair – and I’m saying that as someone who’s spent most of his working life in the music, film and broadcasting industries. If we assume that most of today’s pirated music is ‘pop’ music (as opposed to classical music) then you have to look at how much effort goes into the original work and what the artiste’s motivation is. Okay, 25 minutes is an exaggeration but I’ll bet that most pop songs are written in under two hours and I know for certain that they’re usually recorded in less than a day. Most artistes would expect to record a whole album in under a fortnight. This kind of effort isn’t comparable to the human genome project as you tried to suggest.

It’s a fact that young artistes prostitute themselves for the sake of fame. It’s only when they get older that they realize they’ve been exploited - so, although I’m not in favour of copyright abuse, there’s a good argument for saying that the only ones getting exploited are the exploiters themselves – the record companies!

What I don’t understand is why recorded sound (as an art form) is regarded by so many as "fair game" for copyright abuse. When I worked in post-production (which, for the uninitiated, is the process of editing sound and pictures - for film dramas and the like) it really astonished me how many producers and directors would ask for copies of the sound track at the end of a session. And these were professional people. They would have been horrified if someone asked them for a VHS of the finished film so they could make illegal copies for their mates – and yet they would readily ask for (end expect) illegal copies of music, effects and other sound elements. Even among professionals, sound seems to be regarded as fair game for copying. But why??

It might be partly because the amount of effort that goes into a sound track is often small compared to the overall project. Plus, by its nature, the sound track itself is produced by copying other people’s work (those effects and various bits of music all belong to someone else). Then there’s the ‘levy’. People feel that, if they’re being taxed on the basis that they’re an illegal copier, they might as well be one. Finally, as others have pointed out, it’s much too easy to produce high quality copies of sound. None of this makes it right, of course but I’ve yet to hear anyone come up with an explanation of why copyright abuse of sound is considered to be fair by so many people.

[Amn]

Originally posted by solarflare
But your original post said you opposed the law! Make up your mind.


Yes I do oppose the law. My posts do not contradict - as I oppose the silly law which denies me the right to copy my own bought CDs for my own private use, I do not oppose the old established copyrights, and I respect them. These are two different things, as the new law actually goes even farther from simply stating artists copyright and actually forbids us some really basic freedom regarding the CD music. And that is ridiculous.


If you want MP3s, and they don't sell it in that format, then you're forced to download it simply because they can't accomodate you as a customer.

Thats ok, read on: :)


As for a broken CD, if you paid for it originally then it's ok to download music to replace it because the artist got what they wanted from you.


Oh, solarflare, THATS EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW FORBIDS. E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. I repeat: You cannot copy the CD you have bought to any other media, including CDR, harddisk, MP3 player or any other form so mentioned, even if all you do that for is own private use, for example make backups. Do you understand now ? All you have the right to is listen to the single CD piece. Basta. Thats why i think you misunderstood me when you said that my posts contradict, which they dont. Because this law is going the silly route, and far into it as well.

Artist have little or no rights in this situation. In fact you can disregard him, and pay all your attention to the record company he is represented through. And they always wnat more, hence the statement "they got what they wanted from you" does not apply here AFAIK. Otherwise, why forbid us to make backups ?!

[John E]

Originally posted by Amn
You cannot copy the CD you have bought to any other media, including CDR, harddisk, MP3 player or any other form so mentioned, even if all you do that for is own private use, for example make backups.That is definitely the case in most countries as far as I know. All unauthorised copying of an artistic work (unauthorised being the operative word) is illegal in most countries.

However, to bring a damages claim against you, the owner of the work would have to show that they suffered loss and/or you deprived them of profits which they would otherwise have been entitled to expect. That's why making a backup is generally accepted as reasonable - because if you paid for an artistic work, it's unreasonable that you should have to pay for it again, just to keep it safe from harm. In theory, you should insure it - but nobody is going to claim against you for making a backup copy since the onus would be on the claimant to prove that you would otherwise have paid for another full copy. It's only when you copy for gain or redistribution that the owner has a realistic chance of proving they suffered a loss and therefore only then, do they have a sustainable claim against you.

[John E]

BTW, has everyone forgotten by now that this was supposed to be a poll? - hardly anyone has voted ! :)

[Simon666]

Originally posted by John E
However, to bring a damages claim against you, the owner of the work would have to show that they suffered loss and/or you deprived them of profits which they would otherwise have been entitled to expect. That's why making a backup is generally accepted as reasonable - because if you paid for an artistic work, it's unreasonable that you should have to pay for it again, just to keep it safe from harm. In theory, you should insure it - but nobody is going to claim against you for making a backup copy since the onus would be on the claimant to prove that you would otherwise have paid for another full copy. It's only when you copy for gain or redistribution that the owner has a realistic chance of proving they suffered a loss and therefore only then, do they have a sustainable claim against you.
To talk about claims : read this one (http://www.hardwaretech.info/pages/copy_protection.php). One of the reasons why I have something against the music industry is that they can sue you for a large amount of money for damage of profits but you can't sue them for damage to valuable hardware and the data on it, even if you bought the cd rightfully.

[Amn]

Originally posted by Simon666

To talk about claims : read this one (http://www.hardwaretech.info/pages/copy_protection.php). One of the reasons why I have something against the music industry is that they can sue you for a large amount of money for damage of profits but you can't sue them for damage to valuable hardware and the data on it, even if you bought the cd rightfully.

Speaking of damages music industry brings to their own customers:

Beware, there has arrived a new brand of distributed music CDs from major record labels, that feature an undisclosed outer track at the edge of the CD, which is deliberately placed there to identify and distinguish car and home hifi stereo players from computer CD- and DVD- ROMs. Thousands of people have already reported an abrupt malfunction and irreversible failure of their drives upon or after inserting such CDs (as they tried to play them on PC). The drive usually stops functioning, and hardware repair is needed, on own bill, as noone accepts the case to be under warranty service. In Norway, the police department already has opened a hotline for reporting such cases of drive failures, as they collect a plea now to file the case against whoever manufactures such CDs. And whoever her would be the record industry giants, who cover themselves up and defend the malicious action by stating that customers ought to be aware of the specific nature of such CDs as noted on the their back cover (which usually sports a warning text about consequences of putting those in the CD-ROMs f.e.)

An obvious solution to the problem although illegal has been found in Germany by some domestic hacking crew - they found out that if you black-marker paint the outer track, voila ! - the CD plays as usual on all drives, because the drive cannot read the dummy outer track, physical features of which obviously result in some sort of abnormal light refraction which, in turn, causes serious damage to the unit. ANyway, so that you know ;)

One of the CDs I KNOW TO FEATURE THIS is the "System Of A Down - Steal This Album". Ironically, on the back of the CD it goes something like this:

"Beware, this CD may not be played on computer CD-ROMs blablabola". (little font ;) )

[John E]

I'm not sure about the situation in Europe generally, but in the UK it is illegal to sell items that are (a) Deliberately designed to stop functioning after a preset time period, or (b) Deliberately designed to damage an item to which they might be connected. Fair wear and tear is excepted, of course.

There is a famous story here about a guy who installed burglar alarms which he deliberately programmed to break down, a few months after the warranty ended - requiring an expensive callout fee from him to "fix the fault". Our government has a Trading Standards department which prosecuted him and he was sent to prison.

On a more personal note, I once bought a CD containing telephone numbers for the whole UK. The CD stopped functioning exactly 1 year after I first installed it. The vendors (I-CD) tried to claim that they hadn't "sold" the CD to me - they had simply sold me a license to use it. However, I successfully got my money back from them under the above law.

[TheCPUWizard]

License to use for a period of time is quite legal and common here in the USA.

I am curious how trail versions of software are treated there in the UK based on what you have posted....

[John E]

Originally posted by TheCPUWizard
License to use for a period of time is quite legal and common here in the USA.

I am curious how trail versions of software are treated there in the UK based on what you have posted.... Sorry, I should qualify that...

It's illegal to mislead a buyer into assuming that something will carry on working when in fact, it will stop working after a preset time. As long as the buyer knows that it's time limited, that's legal. My argument with I-CD was that they didn't tell me that their CD was a time-limited product. I was led to believe that I was buying it outright.

[TheCPUWizard]

That makes more sense...

Here in the USA, any of the following would be acceptable notification:

1) printed information, VISIBLE prior to purchase or commitment [small type is ok, minimal generally accepted is 6pt]

2) License agreement that you must agree to prior to using the program [privoded there is a return method is license has not been agreed to AND item #1 was not in effect.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by John E
If we assume that most of today’s pirated music is ‘pop’ music (as opposed to classical music) then you have to look at how much effort goes into the original work and what the artiste’s motivation is.
A valid point. I will accept this as an exception to the rule, but in previous posts people had failed to distinguish between this and real (money-deserving) effort.
Originally posted by Amn
Oh, solarflare, THATS EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW FORBIDS. E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. I repeat: You cannot copy the CD you have bought to any other media, including CDR, harddisk, MP3 player or any other form so mentioned

Right, but that's not what I meant. When the circumstances require that you break the law - any law - then it's okay to do it. This is one of those circumstances (replacing a broken CD because you already paid for the music that was on it). The purpose of a law is to give security and unity to the people it was made for (a bit Locke-ish, i suppose). If you are fulfilling the purpose of the law, then it is as if you are following it. The purpose of the law around which this thread is focused is to prevent artists from losing money to copying devices. In the situation you mentioned before, they have already received their share of the cash. So it's okay to break some laws (why follow a 100kph speed limit sign when traffic is doing 120? It's dangerous)

[Amn]

Thanx solarflare ;) - I think the two endpoints of our opinions have joined together, and we for once agree with eachother ?! :D

Anyway, ANY CHIKOS AND NENAS WHO DIDN'T VOTE YET ?

Vote now !!! :mad:




:p

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Amn
Thanx solarflare ;) - I think the two endpoints of our opinions have joined together, and we for once agree with eachother ?! :D

Okay then I think it's fair to summarize the conclusion we've come to. (unless you have any objections...?)

The law is in place for a reason - many valid reasons, in fact. There are times when it is necessary to break that law, however.

Would you still say that it's a bad law?

[Amn]

Originally posted by solarflare

Would you still say that it's a bad law?

Yes, i am still of opinion that it is horrible and childish, for the reasons that are summarised in many previous posts.

Still i agree with you that part of it is forwarded of 'pure' human reasons, and that artists will benefit from it. Also, i have to admit, I am gonna have to consequently break this law, simply because it is impractical in its current form, and leaves me little choice. I will ensure however, that I still stick to my moral values, which dont go well together with stealing artist's bread ;) So, in short, the law is stupid in its proposed form, but in situations where the copyrights are abused, it will help to bring criminals to justice, when otherwise left free because of lack of legal action base.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Amn
i have to admit, I am gonna have to consequently break this law
Quick! Where are our undercover FBI agents? :D

[galathaea]

The law is in place for a reason - many valid reasons, in fact. There are times when it is necessary to break that law, however.

Would you still say that it's a bad law?


Well, to rehash old issues of mine...

Drug laws have a very good reason behind them. Abuse of drugs is a serious health issue. However, many cultures have sacraments that are also banned in many cultures, making practice of their religion impossible except through breaking the law. Even Tabernanthe iboga, an african sacrament that has never been a drug of abuse in the states is banned in the US. The major sacrament that is not banned is (surprise?) wine. I never think that pointing a gun at someone (which is what a law does) is ever necessary when no one elses rights are being violated (on drugs, health issues should be dealt with as health issues). And the point of this thread exemplifies that in a non-controversial realm.

[Amn]

Originally posted by solarflare

Quick! Where are our undercover FBI agents? :D

Neo, wake up... ;)
















I am Morpheus. This is The Matrix. The reality is an illusion induced by machines. Swallow the red pill, and I will show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by galathaea
I never think that pointing a gun at someone (which is what a law does) is ever necessary when no one elses rights are being violated (on drugs, health issues should be dealt with as health issues). And the point of this thread exemplifies that in a non-controversial realm.
I don't think we should get into this, but the idea behind making some drugs illegal is that people who possess and intend to sell them are destroying kids' lives (or whomever they sell to) by making them available.

[galathaea]

... and fast food, too?

Should non-conforming religions just disappear?

What about adults? Its perfectly possible to protect children. What about prohibition = black market?

Quick. Don't hurt yourself or we'll shoot!

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by galathaea
... and fast food, too?

Should non-conforming religions just disappear?

What about adults? Its perfectly possible to protect children. What about prohibition = black market?

Quick. Don't hurt yourself or we'll shoot!
A point raised by many. Government should be about protecting freedoms, and some go way too far.

It's unfortunate that some governments try to impose laws on others as well, even though they may be detrimental in a different society.

[Amn]

Eh, Yves, if you are here, we are going off topic, so if you had a good day can you please move us starting from here to some thread ? :) Or if you had a bad day, please * Morpheus voice * Disconnect Us ! :D

I actually find the whole drug issue very fascinating. For many reasons really. I was interested in all this for quite some time now.

You know, how people have accepted the general attitude towards drugs, as something ultimately negative, as something that should not have existed in the first place. I think this is very subjective and limiting point of view. Indeed, the consume of drugs in its current manner and scale produces a whole underclass of society that are mislead in their senses, misunderstood by their fellowmen, destroyed physically, mentally and morally. This is horrible indeed. It is in our human physical nature however to CREATE HABITS. Without habits our own psychology and adaptation to the environment simply does not work. So, we DO need habits. But drugs are so immensely powerful into twisting our brain and body to believe we need them, they so brutely and carefully at the same time, make us believe in the better condition under their influence, we become drug addicts, just like we become coffee addicts, porno addicts, and money addicts. Ancient religions all speak of paradise, and it is also natural for every human to desire paradise or whatever feels like it for you. Buddhism teaches people eternal happines through radical physical and mental methods. The bottomline is, it is the most profound human need and desire - to be happy, as long and as deep and much possible. That's why drug affect us. Anyone who has been on drugs and has quite knows how pleasant he feels under thier influence, and how horrible it is to be without them. You see, once you have climbed the seventh sky, falling down makes you cry like a newborn.

So what is it we have laws against ? Against falling down and realising how painful, ordinary, sucky life is without drugs, or against trying to be happy by choosing the more destructive road ? And how do we deal with people that are so morally and physically strong that they are able to withstand long lasting drug-induced experience without actually getting hooked. The sort of drug-control people. Indian shamans are known to constantly be under some sort of drugs, and so are other minorities, and can we say with a good deal of confidence that it is of no benefit to them , and so indirectly to us ?

One good example of drugs helping is, of course, medicine. How many people BEG for them when surgery is needed.

What I wanted to say is, let's not look at drugs through blacknwhite filter, lets be objective. I have not tried any drugs, but that is only because I am afraid to get hooked. So, basically, i am not opposing usage of drugs, but their control over my psyche.
But I really want to try all drugs in the world, because i believe they open unrealised portions of self. They are like a very big but fragile door to unknown, where if you make a wrong step the whole door and the whole surrounding base collapses burying you with it.

[SolarFlare]

Okay, since you asked, here's one reason that governments ban drug usage.

The government is (theoretically) made so that the society can be more productive and orderly. The people who do drugs, on average, are much less productive (many addicts don't have jobs) and orderly (in their distorted reality it is easier for them to get in a fight or destroy something, etc.). It is intuitively clear that to improve the average you must eliminate something below the average. People on drugs are not being the best they can be. If they didn't do drugs they would be more productive, leading to a "better" society. The emphasis is on the whole here, not the individual, because government is meant to improve the whole. Therefore, they ban drugs.

[galathaea]

Solarflare not wanting to get off topic... Hilarious! (This is the discussion forum, if anyone hasn't peeked over at the "Where are we from" thread...) And I don't really think it is off topic. It is, in my opinion, a good example of where laws may be good intentioned but fail miserably in their goal. The great philosophers Trey Parker and Matt Stone recently gave a great commentary about this in one of their televised shows...

My point about drugs is not that they do not often hurt our society. But that there are numerous drugs nearly everyone uses (caffeine, aspirin), some drugs that are useful in medical contexts, and some drugs that are useful in religious contexts. Nearly every chemical is a poison in large quantities and useful in smaller quantities. This is the foundation of pharmacokinetics. Drugs, by definition, alter our metabolism, and finding uses for a particular alteration is the realm of pharmacology.

I personally have been on anti-depressants at one point in my life. This is a class of drugs that alters one's thought patterns, and is related to many sacramental drugs (Banisteriopsis caapi comes to mind). The real analagous point is, should self-medication be legal? Or should it be controlled (the prescription paradigm)? Or outlawed completely? I see this as completely analagous to CD copying for personal fair-use (controlled = copied through legal copy channels after verification of use). These same options have been presented in the context of CD copying in the past. The problem that arises from the final two options is the one I alluded to earlier: privacy issues.

All I am asking for is a consistent position. If there are specific distinctions, they are valid points, but it is my position that the specifics in these cases do not warrant differences in response.

[SolarFlare]

Well, with a foundation from my last post, here's how I will respond to that:

The lawmakers must determine, then, whether a given drug will be more detrimental to the society (and often, in turn, the indivicual) or helpful (such as aspirin). Some drugs are helpful but must be used correctly; that is why they're prescription. There has always been a controversy over whether marijuana should be legal. This stems from the issue stated three sentences ago. Do its medicinal properties outweigh its problems? The answer is questionable (no pun intended, honest, I swear).

[galathaea]

Just as the question of whether to allow copy for personal use is a valid critique of a law?

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by galathaea
Just as the question of whether to allow copy for personal use is a valid critique of a law?
Not even close to the same thing! "Personal use" is so darn vague. If you want to have music to listen to, isn't that personal use? But don't companies sell CDs for precisely that purpose? By your logic they shouldn't even sell CDs at all! You see, if a million people use aspirin, no harm done. But if a million people download a song or an album, then you're robbing (see previous posts) someone. Very different.

[galathaea]

Clarification: personal fair-use. I thought we were on the same page here from my previous posts. The original post is concerned not with the old laws (which already protect against copy for a new user), but a law against fair-use copy of already owned media to CDs for one's car, etc.

[ImanX]

Here's an interesting link for those of you who think the RIAA are fat, old, and greedy businessmen.

http://www.azoz.com/music/features/0008.html

And The Register story that led me there...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/28588.html

[Amn]

Originally posted by solarflare
Okay, since you asked, here's one reason that governments ban drug usage.

The government is (theoretically) made so that the society can be more productive and orderly. The people who do drugs, on average, are much less productive (many addicts don't have jobs) and orderly (in their distorted reality it is easier for them to get in a fight or destroy something, etc.). It is intuitively clear that to improve the average you must eliminate something below the average. People on drugs are not being the best they can be. If they didn't do drugs they would be more productive, leading to a "better" society. The emphasis is on the whole here, not the individual, because government is meant to improve the whole. Therefore, they ban drugs.

Tastes a bit totalitarism aint it ? I didn't involve The Matrix for no reason it seems, somehow you give me the idea that actually the purpose of life is to be productive ? Remember the sequence when Morpheus tells Neo that the whole purpose of human existence has been put into...and he shows a Duracell battery...Can I be anymore informative ? :)

And now you too are saying that society needs to be productive. But i think you got it the wrong way around. Government WANTS society to be productive, but society wants to be happy. THats all there is to it. I know, i am not arguing with you, because you yourself said that it is the governements will not society's , but you are saying this like it HAS to be that way, and I strongly disagree with that.

'Government' is a tricky word - it implies we need or want or do get 'governed'. This of course implies that government decides why people live and what should they do with their lives.

Thanks but, no thanks. The whole purpose of existence is to be happy, and let others be happy. THe goal is utopical, but keeping it in sight helps to work towards it, and not towards being productive. Productive for what ? I understand being productive towards happiness of others, poor, enslaved and tortured f.e. But i am sure it is not what it means in this context.

P.S. Just wanted to say as well, that it is extremely interesting to continue this discussion with you guys! I haven't had so many contradictive and dynamic thoughts in my head for a while.

[galathaea]

Amn, there has been much research on the types of societies associated with various recreational drugs. Its no coincidence that societies that use exclusively caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco tend to be agressive, industrial societies (or populations controlled by such)...

And to keep this point going, I have known several older Indian men (from India) that used marijuana regularly as a part of their meditations. These were professional men (mathematicians -- well, one physicist) who hurt no one (not even themselves). But implicitly, the state was holding a gun to their head their entire lives here in the US. They were adults trying to enjoy their life the way they saw fit. This is not some theoretical notion here that philosophers only should contemplate, this is real life, and we, as adults, need to make real life decisions as to the use of force in our society...

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Amn
Government WANTS society to be productive, but society wants to be happy. THats all there is to it. I know, i am not arguing with you, because you yourself said that it is the governements will not society's
Good, you saved me the hassle of pointing this out ;)

but you are saying this like it HAS to be that way, and I strongly disagree with that.

No, what I mean is it tends to become that way.

'Government' is a tricky word - it implies we need or want or do get 'governed'. This of course implies that government decides why people live and what should they do with their lives.

If you want to get into government, it's a bit more philosophical than copying CDs and the like. If you want to, fine; but I assure you I can argue this point too.

Thanks but, no thanks. The whole purpose of existence is to be happy, and let others be happy. THe goal is utopical, but keeping it in sight helps to work towards it, and not towards being productive. Productive for what ? I understand being productive towards happiness of others, poor, enslaved and tortured f.e. But i am sure it is not what it means in this context.

The group and the individual have different needs. The group needs to be "productive" so that it can claim itself to be better than some other group. This of course is the natural competitiveness tendency. The idea that the goal of life for the individual is happiness has been played with quite a lot by famous philosophists. While I'm not quite sure (if I knew I'd tell you;)) what the goal of life is, this one seems to be a possibility. Note that happiness is one type of productivity.

P.S. Just wanted to say as well, that it is extremely interesting to continue this discussion with you guys! I haven't had so many contradictive and dynamic thoughts in my head for a while.
Sorry, or you're welcome... not sure which! :D:cool:

Now, I might as well get a jump start on where I think this conversation is headed.:eek:

Keep in mind what I said before, the needs of the individual are not the same as the needs of the group. What is good for one is often good for the other, although this is not always the case. Governments are originally established to give the majority safety and security, and in doing so they strengthen the group. All governments are theoretically supposed to do this - otherwise they would not have originally be set up. If it is a government installed by a minority of people, it is essentially a vigilante and not a true government regardless of what services it renders. Some leaders abuse the government installed before their time. They lead for power, not for the good of the people. In some instances, where not ruling in favor of the majority is harmless, leaders continue to gain power in a positive feedback manner. This is when the abilities and purposes of government get distorted. All of a sudden, when this happens, the government can do whatever it want without being stopped. This is how World War II started, being the most (in)famous example. There are many examples of this, however, throughout Africa, the Middle East, and other third-world areas.

[Amn]

I cannott post :|
It logs me in on each page i visit, and I cannot go past that point ?!

P.S. I ll edit this post with something meaningful later when i fix the bizarre login problem .... Until then, enjoy the discussion.

Milk and cookies anyone ? :p

[Simon666]

I have been away just one day and this thread has gone off topic without me causing it. This may be ironic, but I do request you pay me copy-rights for violating this method patented by me.
Originally posted by Amn
Tastes a bit totalitarism aint it ? I didn't involve The Matrix for no reason it seems, somehow you give me the idea that actually the purpose of life is to be productive ? Remember the sequence when Morpheus tells Neo that the whole purpose of human existence has been put into...and he shows a Duracell battery...Can I be anymore informative ? :)
You really seem to take that movie seriously now do you? For some it's Star Wars, for others Star Trek or Lord of the Rings, but I never thought this movie also. Some wisdom from a young fool : reality may suck, but it's real. And the meaning of life is the meaning you give to it, because it has no inherent meaning.
Originally posted by Amn
And now you too are saying that society needs to be productive.
So?
Originally posted by Amn
But i think you got it the wrong way around. Government WANTS society to be productive, but society wants to be happy.
I don't see any contradiction : of course governments want society to be productive, society needs to be productive otherwise mankind would never have progressed out of the Stone Age and societies want to be happy as every individual in it wants too. Oh and by the way, according to some (very wicked evil) people (sent from hell) like Margareth Tatcher, society doesn't exist.
Originally posted by Amn
'Government' is a tricky word - it implies we need or want or do get 'governed'. This of course implies that government decides why people live and what should they do with their lives.
You conclude that having a government implies that the government decides why people live and what to do with their lives? No wonder you accuse people of totalitarism out of the blue. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Amn
Thanks but, no thanks. The whole purpose of existence is to be happy, and let others be happy. THe goal is utopical, but keeping it in sight helps to work towards it, and not towards being productive. Productive for what ? I understand being productive towards happiness of others, poor, enslaved and tortured f.e. But i am sure it is not what it means in this context.
Let me doubt that one. As stated before, my opinion is that existence has no purpose other than the one we give to it. If you think that is being happy (as most people, others want to get rich or think its synomymous), fine, than that's the purpose of your life. As for the rest of your sentence : it is rather fuzzy and unclear.

Reporting from my Belgian citizen pod (http://zapatopi.net/belgium.html) underneath Eurodisney, yours truly, Simon666.

[Amn]

I dont consider myself paranoid, Simon, nor should you (consider me one).

I never explicitly express that there is some predefined objective or subjective opinionated meaning of life. I agree with you - there is none, life is what you make of it.

You should open your eyes to the true meaning of government. While, we may like to be fooled into believing our government is us, and our goals and desires, it is seldom so. Throughout the history, nation governments and parlaments have only fractionally supported its people, while the power of dictators or alike had arisen and mislead the public to believe that it (public) actually NEEDS to to something with their lifes. Like i said, there is no meaning of life, but to be happy, while we are led to believe there is some sort of meaning. How about all the ideologies that have been written into histroy books - communism, totalitarism, nationalism, fascism - all they are merely an attempt to give a meaning of life. All of them promote a way of living, while any INDIVIDUAL ALONE will realize only after matter of minutes that it is of pure boredom and unknowingness that we 'write' our own history.


One more thing: Whatever stands behind wanting to get rich, wanting to kill, wanting to steal, wanting to create terror - the groundbreaking truth is, desire to be happy is behind THEM ALL. Happiness is the ultimate goal of concious beings IMHO. THats why I put it as a cornerstone here. HOW you want to get happy, is anotehr thing however, and is the reason of the whole told above.


So ?


So what ? Somehow i got the impresion that solarflare thinks society needs to be productive, and I stated so. If I am wrong he will correct me. I am not enforcing this thought upon you nor him :-) Besides, as I think that society itself THINKS it needs to be productive by collective thought, it strengthes my opinion even more. After all, we all hear the "When i grow up...", "I am tired of doing nothing..." and "My son doesn't do anything in his spare time..." - This is all the historically-enforced delusion that we are or supposed to be heading somewhere, that there is this thing called "progress"..All it led to is increased awareness, increased fear, increased risk and increased complication of life. Who said people in stone age lived badly ? Yes they were more vulnerable and more frequently assimilated, but on the other hand, they didn't have to wake up 0700 to go to work to get food to eat to get to work to get food to eat to be able to work more towards the delusive light at the end of the tunnel which says "The meaning of life, the end of progress". You and I , Simon, are in fact sharing the same idea that there is no meaning with life, yet you cant understand why i object the society needing to be productive ? For the same reason as you - there is no meaning with life, for individual or any given group of individuals.

[Amn]

Reporting from my Belgian citizen pod underneath Eurodisney, yours truly, Simon666.


LOL !

dAMNIT, I am not a Matrix paranoid.. It was just for fun, and it got farther than i thought OK ?! :rolleyes:

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Amn
I dont consider myself paranoid, Simon, nor should you (consider me one).
dAMNIT, I am not a Matrix paranoid.. It was just for fun, and it got farther than i thought OK ?!
I was just joking. I tend to make fun of people that take movies more serious than I do. :D Belgians are not actually encapsulated underneath Eurodisney, everybody (who's not in the conspiracy) knows its underneath the Eiffeltower. :D
Originally posted by Amn
I never explicitly express that there is some predefined objective or subjective opinionated meaning of life. I agree with you - there is none, life is what you make of it.
Glad. :)
Originally posted by Amn
You should open your eyes to the true meaning of government. While, we may like to be fooled into believing our government is us, and our goals and desires, it is seldom so.
Well? :rolleyes: I've figured that one out long before and apparently long before you did. Every grown up (and even a lot of people who are not considered so) knows that governments rarely "represent the people", even in democracies. I do not need to "open my eyes".
Originally posted by Amn
So what ? Somehow i got the impresion that solarflare thinks society needs to be productive, and I stated so.
I think I urgently need to make something clear to you : A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THAT WAY. Not just solarflare and me.
Originally posted by Amn
Who said people in stone age lived badly ?
Me.
Originally posted by Amn
Yes they were more vulnerable and more frequently assimilated, but on the other hand, they didn't have to wake up 0700 to go to work to get food to eat to get to work to get food to eat to be able to work more towards the delusive light at the end of the tunnel which says "The meaning of life, the end of progress".
They got to die at 21, so I'm three years behind my "Stone Age Expiration Date".
Originally posted by Amn
You and I , Simon, are in fact sharing the same idea that there is no meaning with life, yet you cant understand why i object the society needing to be productive ? For the same reason as you - there is no meaning with life, for individual or any given group of individuals.
If you think most people believe that society does not need to be productive, you're free to open a poll on that one. I think the results would surprise you.

[Amn]

Stone age was too far of a comparision, ahem. What I meant is we dont need to go blind for the end of the progress line, stopping somewhere in the golden balance point is best. That was the point - to note that its not necesserarly better in the future than it was in the past. Millions of people dies of wars fought for some sick idea that helped not a single soul.

Ok, since you think that society needs to be productive, just, as you state, the rest thinks so too I should clear that we are talking about two kinds of being productive. As being productive is abstract, we should clarify what is it we should be productive towards ? What i mean is that productive in nowadays is misused to mislead public into taking the goals of some elected government sickos to reach their goals. Such forms include, communist party forcing people to produce weapons, propaganda literature, and rewriting history in school books to favour the advances of communistic structure and culture. Being productive yes, but NOT being productive for oneself. Being productive as I DESIRE it, is being a productive individual, reach ones goals in life, dont be ambitious, as you never know when death comes for you, help others, for not all are so fortunate as you are in some aspects of existence. That is being productive if you ask me.
Not being productive to promote your land. That is nationalism. And it goes farther to being faschism, and even furtther to holocaust. Fascists wanted to be more productive in their assimilation of jews, so they built a couple more concentration camps. Can you with great deal of confidence say, that they didn't do it for their own best ? No. Because they thought they did.

So both you and me think we all need to be productive. We just put different meaning into our expressions. I cant be productive for my government, if I with open heart know that I dont serve majority in my being productive, and that I serve someones hidden agenda. No thanks. Do you think you would ? I am sure you will say no, and then I ask you, how can you justify your response to the government ? When they ask you to join armed forces, would you comply ? What if they are preparing an invasion, and not peacekeeping mission. Then you are part of it, part of someone elses sick interest. You are sure being productive, but in the wrong direction.

So if I make a poll, it wont have two options. Then I can as well make a poll "Do you want to be happy?" - equally meaningless, since deeper meaning is "Through what actions?".

Eh, I get too confrontal on this, so I just shut up until I cool down... :) No offense meant to anyone. Important discussions are a drug. :p

[galathaea]

Throughout history there have been three different goals of government. The first governments were tribal leaderships, and their goal was the well being of the tribe. These were survival governments, and the codifying of traditions that maintained the survivability of the tribe included the rudiments of property and territory protection, just like many other animals practice nonverbally. As well, they promoted tribal practices of horticulture and hunting work distribution. Then, with the advent of agriculture, governments began to focus on a slightly different character of law. Early agricultural societies began focusing their law on the preservation of power of the leaders. Property was abstracted to money because it implied a wealth associated to the leaders that they had not previously had: the wealth of power and control. Assuming ownership of the resource gluttony produced in agriculture and the urbanization that accompanied it, the new aristocracy was able to develop a class division that maintained their wealth. Finally, with the brilliance that humans often show, democratic governments were born in a (somewhat subversive) effort to remove the established hegemonies as the basis for government and instead replace it with a popular will basis for law. In many ways, this effort changed the direction that governments were taking as their goal, but it has never (even after various millenia of practice) changed the power structure associated with the non-tribal populations. Urbanized societies still have a distinction between resource ownership and the class that works to maintain the resource ownership structure through labor. Even those political ideologies that wished to remove the power structure (such as communism) only transferred the resource ownership around (often back to the state, as in the aristocracies).

So now, the actions of government are often split in democracies. First, the majority of the people believe it is the goal of government to protect them from the actions of others, and this is a major part of what government does. However, there is still a large effort by the resource "owners" to get governments to protect their positions of power, suitably wrapped in words such as "job providers". Unfortunately, this too has been a major part of what government does.

However, there is an evolutionary trend that has been occuring in society which has made the power structures much more fluid than they were in the past. And as technology progresses, the amount of resources (here defined as the tools necessary to accomplish a job) available to any individual is skyrocketing.

Today, the power structures still exist. Artists mostly must still approach major labels to get their work available to the public. Most individuals cannot start their own companies because of various resource lacks. Even today, it is difficult for all children to get the appropriate education to become power brokers in society (particularly in the US -- not to mention the "undeveloped" areas of the world -- where not only is higher education often too expensive for the poor, but lower education gives less in poor areas, though many European countries have done much work in this effort). However, with the advent of the internet and the increases in affordable computing power, education is easier and easier to obtain.

And this has been the direction technology has always taken. A technological advance is almost defined by its ability to make a particular task easier to accomplish. And it is clear that as technology advances over the next few centuries, lifespans and health will continue to increase, abilities of the individual to accomplish their desires in art and other creative enterprises will grow, and generally individual resources will continue to accumulate.

So in many ways, what Amn and Simon666 are saying amount to the same thing. The emotion of happiness will continue to increase for individuals, because they will have more access to their desires (excepting of course pathological desires). And this is a vital part of what the human experience has been striving for since we first picked up stones. Which is also explained by another facte of the human experience -- obsession. Humans are the most obsessive creatures on this planet. Our babies stare at objects much longer than any other animal. We have developed language and art and technology. Productivity is the consequence of our obsession which has justified itself evolutionarily. They are pretty much two sides of the same coin, our desires are chosen by our obsessions these days far greater than they are by biological signals (like hunger).

I just think that we need to separate what the goals of government may be (I think they don't have one, they are merely the result of a battle of goals) from the actual direction we are moving because or in spite of government. I think we are naturally moving to a happier society, and I think our obsessiveness will maintain our productivity to accomplishing new desires as they become possible.

Of course, all that I just said depends on whether or not we blow ourselves up or in some other way refuse to enter adulthood and destroy our world in the meanwhile...

[Amn]

Our babies stare at objects much longer than any other animal


You made my day man. Brilliant!

I think I will start a serious and dedicated website dealing with more philosophical human questions some time from now (when I decide upon the structure and ISP). You are all welcome, although the opportunity to say the welcome words has not yet bid itself ;) Until, then, wish me luck; I really had the idea of such a discussion forum for a long time, I am sure there are plenty, but i am still going for my own. We will see how it all develops....

Gonna go read The Modern History now, have an exam in January ;)

[SolarFlare]

Originally posted by Amn
Somehow i got the impresion that solarflare thinks society needs to be productive, and I stated so. If I am wrong he will correct me.

Consider this the correction: what I said was the gov't wants society to be productive. For fear of being hit with the same comment again, I will refrain from issuing an opinion in favor of or against the necessity of productivity.

With that aside, there's not much I can say... the problem with many people in a debate is that they rehash the same points over and over again. I refuse to do that.

What I will say is that life was not easier in the stone age, nor was it more difficult; it was different. We would not be where we are today without productivity and without government.

[Amn]

So you corrected me ;)

Discussions like this enrich the participants, because we share our opinions and open ourselves for the opinions of others. I don't see a problem with rehashing old points over and over. It is not that critical IMHO.

Of course we would not, but I could have lived quite well without the A-bomb and H-bomb, and without the missile defense program, without communist party, and without so many other gadgets... But reality is, we had to go through that i guess, the trouble is, history often repeats itself :D

[SolarFlare]

True, true Amn.

But I'd like to add one thing to what you said: History often repeats itself.

[Amn]

well............................thats what i said too at the end of the post didnt I ? :D

[SolarFlare]

It's what I said at the end of my post. History repeats itself. And it's true, too. History does repeat itself. It is often redundant and repetitive. In summary, history frequently repeats itself.

[VTT]

Most of the EU countries aren't democracies as we know it here in the good ole USA, and furthermore it isn't illegal to copy music (or any copyrighted material for that matter) for personal use - not for distribution or resale. It is perfectly legal to reproduce music if your intention is to use it personally it's referred to as a “back-up”. If on the other hand, you copy music and then sell the copy, that is an infringement on the copyright law for that particular piece. If you copy the music and give it to your friend, that too is an infringement of the copyright law as it circumvents the need for your friend to go out and "purchase" the music him or herself, the same goes for borrowing music from someone else and copying it for yourself (it’s the transference that makes it illegal). However, there is a technical glitch to the law that doesn't cover online digital media i.e. it is legal to copy music to a digital format and post it to the Internet if your intentions are NOT to distribute or sell it (yeah, like that's going to happen). It doesn't become a crime until you or someone else downloads the music and actually listens to it (this listening part is crucial to the loop-hole) then it becomes piracy. However, the listen part cannot be proven nor monitored, that is how these sites stay alive, at least for the time being. The sites claim that they are there for the user to listen to (sample) the music to determine if they want to "purchase" it. Which is perfectly legal, and oops, the fact that you can simply download it and have it is what is being legislated out of existence. But, trust me on this one, no matter what they figure out to prohibit this behavior, someone will figure out a way around it. Remember, locks are for keeping your friends out. If someone wants it, they'll get it, the law not withstanding. The only thing that we've learned from history is that we've learned nothing from history.

VTT:) :( :o :D ;)

[SolarFlare]

Speaking of copyright infringement, VTT, you should know how stingent FOX is with their legalities. They have crews that search the internet endlessly solely to destroy sights that have copyrighted sounds or pictures. They're pretty good at it. Add that to the fact that a request has been made many times here at CodeGuru to have no copyrighted pictures, and you have a bit of a problem with your avatar. So basically what you've just said applies equally well to yourself, and I'm sure that sooner or later someone will come by and ask you to remove that picture as your avatar.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by VTT
Most of the EU countries aren't democracies as we know it here in the good ole USA, ...
At least our presidents are elected by the people. :D Now seriously, be careful with that kind of remarks, it easily provokes flame wars.