Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Morpheus Mac

Correct, however.

Yes. Selling out DOES make intellectual property a product but you are incorrect in your example of Venture Capital.

Capitalization of a business would be a product for money transaction but for the fact that the VC is not buying the whole Idea, merely investing in it's success. VC is better described with the Open Source analogy: I have an Idea, the Idea has "x" value. I then share the idea with a limited number of people who legally agree not to exploit the Idea without cutting me in. At this point an improvement is made by the Capitalist in the form of investment, increasing the value of "x". Note that the Capitalist is not buying the idea but investing/partnering (speculating) in the future returns of the idea.Nor is the idea literally defined as "x+investment=value" after this point as the idea has NO value until it is applied. After the idea is applied it only has value as a formula, all the real assets lie in the business separate from the concept. Without the person who defined the idea it loses value because in someone elses head it isn't the same idea. Steve Jobs is a brilliant example of this.

Selling out is the ONLY example of intellectual property becoming a tangeable product.
 
There will be many sophistical reasons given on why it should be ok to fileshare, and support can be found within the *bloatware* legal system, but the fact is, the one who creates someone intended for sale and then finds people are downloading it for free is getting screwed.

As fas as cd's go, I feel the satisfaction of owning the original, complete with artwork, etc., --instead-- of having some thrown together piece of compressed audio blippy inkjet crap... that by the way obviates the need for me to spend my money on the cd (=artist getting screwed). I like ambient and experimental music, and some of the original pressings are limited to as few as 100 copies, so if I have to I download stuff like that- then when I find the original I buy it. For out of print music, there's no other way to get it sometimes, and obviously the artist doesn't get anything for it (like the brilliant Orb/Fripp "FFWD")...

I wonder how folks from Steinberg, Native Instruments, Adobe, Connectix, etc. Feel about filesharing? What sort of feelings do they have when they look at Limewire and see 30 matches returned fo "Photoshop 6.0" or "Cubase VST32 full + dongle"? I wonder how well the arguments of the proponents of Filesharing work on them...

Anyway, I've downloaded my share (ha) of stuff but I feel pretty guilty about! If I had the kind of money some of you cats have I think I would consider figuring out what it is you've downloaded that is worth using, and then paying up and becoming a registered user- Even OxYgEn and Zone 'crackers' advocate paying for stuff~
 
i beg to differ

i appreciate your admission but you're incorrect about the venture funding.

here's why: you have an idea that's worth $100.00. you then bring in venture funding and lets say they buy half-now you each own $50.00 (or 50%) of the idea. the idea has not increased in value at all. estimated future revenues have been previously included in it's value. thats the way the market works. the tech bubble showed time and again that all the $$ in the world won't increase the value of a bad idea. as far as the idea suddenly becoming a "zero value" when the company begins-you couldn't be more wrong. all of your assets are bought with your cash-its a zero sum on your balance sheet-once again, its the idea that has the value. the only time the value of the idea will change is if and when the idea proves to generate more or less revenue than expected.
 
whoops!

the one who creates someone intended for sale and then finds people are downloading it for free is getting screwed.

Concerning my previous post of a few minutes ago, it should read:

the one who creates something intended for sale and then finds people are downloading it for free is getting screwed.


If you are indeed capable of creating some*one* intended for sale, let me know, as I have many contacts on the street/ white slave trade~

:p
 
No value?

Mischief states:

the idea has NO value until it is applied.
Click to expand...

If the idea has "NO value" as you assert here, then please don't delay, post it so that we may all benefit from this valueless idea...

The only reason I can think for you not posting it is that it "must have value" to you.
 
we're argueing the same point.

That is: It is still a PARTNERSHIP. I haven't lost my rights to the idea and the investor hasn't taken them. The idea has no intrinsic value except that which is agreed upon to create the business and it usually does not contribute to the value of the business in it's literal form unless the business creates ideas as it's product, in which case things get complicated.

The overall point is that some intellectual property bennefits from being shared. Other intellectual property is too closely tied to the literal value it may contribute to creating. The existing system of laws does not adequately take the nature of digital information being reproduced, not exchanged into account.
 
-Timothy

It would be a good arguement if I was not applying the idea. Just because the idea has not created a business with cash flow yet does not mean that I am not actively utilizing it. If I was of the position that ALL data should be distributed without compensation to ANYONE I would already have Hacked your machine and spred it's contents over the whole Net, girlie pics and all.

This is not the case. I am of the position that Data distribution systems should not be suppressed because businesses haven't figured out how to use them yet.
 
Besides I HAVE posted the idea.

Several times and in many carefully obfuscated pieces over many months. Good luck figuring it out though. Just because I support freedom of information does not mean I don't believe in good encryption practices or security protocols.
 
Perhaps we agree...

Mischief...I don't mean to belabor the points. In essence, I think we agree. You have clearly expressed that:

1) ideas have value to creator of the idea
2) Intellectual property rights do exist
3) You have a right to control your own Intellectual property
4) Intellectual property should be paid for when used for business
5) Software should be paid for

The only issues I take with your ideas above are that I believe that there is value, even beyond the narrow confines of "business" in which the creator of an idea can rightly expect to be paid directly for that property. You seem to agree in that you earlier agreed that artists should be paid. This, btw, is very different than the position that Ambitious Lemmon is taking; he is arguing, by way of his "article" that there is no such thing as Intellectual Property, and that all software should be given away for free. I don't see the connection between his ideas and yours, but as soon as he responds to the questions I posed to him earlier, we'll explore that further.

I think the "corruption" of the entertainment industry has been overstated by many on this thread in an attempt to justify their actions; the rightful response, in a semi-capitalist society, if you don't like a business, is to spend your money with a competitor to that business, not to "steal" the property of that business.

Earlier, you stated that you think it falls to Artists to come up with new means of distribution/compensation. I agree. That has been my point all along. I am actively engaged in this process now. However, I want to ask one final question to clarify your position:

My wife is an independent musician. She has chosen to build her music career separate from the major labels. We have developed new, and unique ways of marketing her music. Still, CD sales are the #1 source of income for her. She has chosen to release a few songs for free via her web site; this choice is hers.

If you buy her album, do you think you should have the right to post the remaining songs of her album on a P2P network, without her permission? Again, she is not party to the business practices of the major labels.
 
Yes. As the Data is at reduced quality and is no longer on a CD.

Remember I talked about P2P banking? This would be an excellent application.

I feel that until I choose to move the data to a non-volatile media that can be played in a conventional CD player the data is just data. My HD could go down at any moment, a CD however is an actual reproduction of the original work and as such should involve a royalty. That royalty I would freely pay.......... to the Artist. I feel that P2P should be used in concert with movement toward on-the-fly compensation at the point the data either goes to a burner or is played in public.

Clarification: If P2P was set up so that my player pays out to (the regulatory agency that keeps track of radio play) when I write a track to CD I would be cool with that....Once per track. If P2P was used to provide a database of on-the-fly streamable MP3 to radio stations and each access of a track paid out automatically compensation would be directly proportionate to play. Both of these solutions are NOT the attitude or tactic currently being used but they would conform to where tech has gone.

I have no interest in paying Virgin Records for every MP3 when I acquire it if I may already own the CD. Likewise I have no interest in paying $15.00-$60.00 for an "encrypted" CD that will not play on any of my CD players (I've already experienced this). I like supporting Artists. I HATE supporting publishers. Besides, I feel that Live Performance is worth far more and THAT should be the major revinue for an artist, like it used to be.
 
One final question...

Hmmm....it appears that we yet disagree.

Imagine that I create a "private" subscription only back-end to my wife's web site. To gain access to this site, you have to pay a yearly subscription (one of the possible new revenue streams that we've discussed). On this private web site, my wife posts previously unreleased songs in a digital format. The primary benefit to joining this site is that you will have access to this material.

If given access to this material as a paying member of the site, do you yet think you have the right to post this material to a P2P network?
 
Yeesh! You gotta thick skull there boy.

If yer silly enough to post a real MP3 and not a streaming iRadio station?

Yes, absolutely.

A lot of the problem is that publishers are trying to keep using the same techniques for Data as they did for LP's. If you want to make $$ with a website for up and comers don't post any MP3's of any real quality and don't try to sell subscriptions. Subscriptions only work for MUD games. If you want better revinue sell CDs burn-by-burn. Allow people to construct playlists of the songs they like then charge them for either a CD you then ship out to them or a compressed playlist of higher quality MP3's (too big for 56K).
 
Thanks for the replies...

Mischief...thanks for the conversation.

I find your logic mystifying, and your stance dangerous. On this issue, I guess we find ourselves on opposite ends of the spectrum.

You obviously care not for the independent artist as you have tried to claim previously; that you would willfully deny the artist the ability to dictate the usage of their Intellectual property, and yet claim that right for yourself, is contradictory. For example, you wanted me to sign a confidentiality agreement before you would share your ideas with me. According to your theory, it appears that the decision to uphold my end of this agreement is entirely a matter of choice for me. As you would clearly violate a "private" agreement with any "subscription" based music service.

So, while you may call me "thick headed" I'll merely end the conversation by stating that I think your moniker is well-chosen.
 
Hooboy......step awaaaaay from the issue!

Dude, all I was saying is that if you actually expect people to PAY to get into a site with MP3's on it they're gonna P2P them, guarenteed. People act under the presumption of fair use: Once I've paid for it it's mine. Whether this is legally true or not it is how people behave. If you actually expect people to subscribe and NOT P2P you are in for a suprise. If you put out good quality product in a format people know is easy to share, they will.......every time. There's no way to force people to do it your way.....the digital cat exists outside the bag. In fact the Digital Cat exists in EVERY bag in town.
 
you can't have it both ways

mischief, you've only dug yourself one large hole.

you argue one way but when it comes time to walk the walk-you won't.

it seems the basic consensus of this thread is that if you create shareable information you want to protect it. if you don't, then you think the info should be free. ( and you jump from side to side as it suits you...)

quote "If you put out good quality product in a format people know is easy to share, they will.......every time."

not true. never was. never will be.
 
okay boyo.......you asked for it.

There is no "one side or the other" as there are no sides. The technology to share is free and available. MP3 ripping is free and available. Human nature is (like any predator) to expend as little as possible to acquire ANYTHING. If you post a whole file, not a streaming file but a whole file IT WILL BE SHARED. This has nothing to do with my position, it has everything to do with human nature.

If an artist has a website and wants to control the contents DON'T USE A PORTABLE FILE TYPE!!!!!

The point is: DON'T EXPECT PEOPLE TO PLAY FAIR.

Given the oppertunity, you WILL get ripped off. However, there is a middle ground. I have outlined it and been ignored. If you fools can't see the fact that the world ain't fair Darwin will shut you up for me. If I leave my wallet on my front porch am I an idiot? YES. Control your damn data and stop whining.
 
You're absolutely right..

I mean, if you are giving the opportunity to the world to listen
to your music in a portable format as mischief said.. Be sure that file will be shared all around the world. I guess, the solution is to put them online is a streaming format, whatever it is...

But by the way, this is my tought but i'm also enjoying the Peer-to-peer system ( morpheus, limewire )... I know, this is probably not the best way to stop that illegal sharing, but all of my favorites songs are available there.... and i'm a human being.... and if it's free...
 
My 2 cents

I have been reading all of your posts and am going to throw in my opinion. I am watching the grammys and the egos are so big in that room. I heard that guy in charge of the academy bitch and moan about fileshareing and I tried to keep a straight face when he just about kissed the ass of the riaa. As he said the artists are losing money, some how i dont think Britney Spears would notice as she bought a 2 milllion dollar house and the average person trying to make a living as he put it cant afford a mansion. So i dont by it when the artists complain that they are losing money when most of them have so much that they dont even know what to do with it . Maybe if i had all that money i could pay the $20 for a cd and not have to worry about gas money.
 
Reject the Copyright Arbitration Royalty Panel webcasting recommendations. A friend sent me this message.

On February 20th, the U.S. Copyright Office received a royalty rate
recommendation by their Copyright and Arbitration panel (CARP). The
recommendation was in the form of a per-song-streamed fee ($.0014 per
song per listener, or about 2¢ an hour for a 15-song hour).

Let's just say that if a webcaster had 1,000 people listening to their
stream simultaneously for a year, then they would owe approximately
$175,200 in royalty rates.for that year. This royalty rate would be
retroactive to 1998. If you can find me an independent webcaster that is
making enough revenue to cover that type of expense, then I'll eat my
hat.

The RIAA initially asked that webcasters pay 15% of their gross revenues
for licensing. Although that is still quite a bit to ask for, it's a
hell of a lot better than the CARP recommendation. It is my belief that
if this royalty rate is adopted, there won't be any more Internet radio.

Here's where you come in... Just the other day I took the liberty of
putting together a petition to send to the U.S. Copyright Office. It
basically states that the U.S. Copyright Office reject the CARP royalty
recommendation and hopefully consider a more reasonable royalty rate.

Please sign it and pass along the word if you are of like mind.

The Librarian of Congress must accept or reject the CARP report by May
21st. You can email the Librarian at: lcweb@loc.gov

Visit these websites for more information:
http://www.kurthanson.com
http://www.digmedia.org
http://www.anti-DMCA.org
http://www.loc.gov/copyright



http://www.petitiononline.com/carp/petition.html


now who's defending the RIAA here?
 
This Thread...

Wasn't this thread originally about Morpheus coming to mac? If you want to rant about filesharing and its legality then go start a new thread. I think that morpheus is going to be great because i use it on my PC all the time. I just hope that KaZaA will realize that it should go to mac also.:)
 
My two cents....

$0.01: Fair use. Even the DMCA has a contingency for fair use.

$0.02: Tax. There's a tax built into the cost of a blank CD-R to cover the POSSIBILITY of piracy. So all fair use users that purchase a CD-R are paying a fine for the intent to commit piracy even though they haven't yet committed a crime or may never intend to commit a crime.

Sorry if either of these issues were covered, but I couldn't read every post out of these six pages....
 
I quote Timothy:

A major label, on average, spends about $750k recording and producing an album for one of their bands. The label nets approximately $4 of each album sold, meaning that just for the label to break even, the band has to sell 187,500 albums at full retail cost. Now, factor in that somewhere less than 10% of all bands sell anywhere near that many CD's (and even fewer sell significantly more than that), and you begin to see where the economics of the situation come into play. The labels lose money on most bands, and contrary to one post earlier in this thread, the risk is entirely upon the shoulders of the label; the bands are not responsible for the money that is put into them by the label, except that some of the costs are recoupable out of sales.
-------------------------------------

Okay, I know this is from an older post, but i just got here and this whole debate started to bother me. I am an "independent" music(which basically means i have no money). Now, I'm not going to get into the whole "is it right to steal" thing, cause i don't care. I buy a lot of music, and I also download a lot of music. My problem is this: you say a record label spends about $750k to record one of their bands. So I pose this question: Why would you spend that much money to produce CRAP like Britney Spears, Nsync, Backstreet Boys, and so on and so on. The way those CD's sound isn't worth $7.50 let alone $750k. Many bands that are A LOT better than 95% of the crap you hear on the radio(which the labels pay to play their bands) record their own music in their own houses, studios, garages, etc. Take the Foo Fighters for example. They recorded one of their latest CD's in their own basement and it sounds better than ANY of the pop stars' CD's. So why not spend less on producing that crap, and get some bands with real talent who can make a CD for cheaper and then the record label could lower the prices on CD's. I am almost finished with my first CD and it has only cost me about $800 so far, and sounds better than Britney will ever sound(not to toot my own horn, it's just a fact). So the record labels can go cry about their losses and really lose in the end or they can start giving the people what they really want.

The only reason that Britney and the rest sell so many CD's is that the record labels pay the radio stations to play only certain stuff. And many of the radio stations are owned by the same people(ex. Clear Channel owns, i think, 4 of the 7 or 8 main stations in Cincinnati. The bands that I listen to and buy CD's from don't get any airplay in Cincy or Louisville(they may get some in other places, but i don't know, those are the only two cities i've lived in so far). If the record labels are worried about not getting their money back on their bands, why don't they promote the really good bands more, instead of filling up the radio waves with worthless, soulless noise. And the stations don't play that stuff cause the people want to hear it. It has been my experience that the majority of people(the masses) will listen and buy anything the media tells them is cool. If they hear it enough times on the radio, they'll think it's great. That's why the record labels like to promote musicians they can just throw away after a while(not really MUSICIANS), with, of course, the exception of some bands who really are great and become very successful.

And one final note:
If I'm not mistaken(which I am, sometimes), RECORD SALES ACTUALLY WENT UP WHEN NAPSTER WAS UP AND RUNNING....

thanks for letting me vent.........
 
I guess you need $749,200 to pay the radio stations to play your CD now.
Seriously though, there are a lot more expenses when a label makes a CD, like paying engineers, studio techs, marketing people, coffee runners, utilities, payola, etc. Just like in Hollywood when an actor or writer signs on to a movie for a backend percentage and never makes a dime when the movie becomes a billion dollar blockbuster because of how they do the accounting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back