Content producers of the world unite!
By focusing on consumption, both sides in the debate over illegal file-sharing ignore the value of creative labour.
Jason Walsh

"Everyone and their dog knows that the media is being torn asunder by the forces unleashed by the internet. Almost every movie ever made is available on BitTorrent, half of television's history is easily accessible worldwide courtesy of copyright-flouting Chinese video websites and, despite the success of legitimate services such as iTunes and Spotify, illegal downloads continue to dwarf online music sales. Then there are newspapers, almost all of which appear to be unprofitable - a situation that, by all accounts, is only going to get worse for producers."

More:

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:45 AM, akmbirch <akmbirch@...> wrote:

Content producers of the world unite!
By focusing on consumption, both sides in the debate over illegal
file-sharing ignore the value of creative labour.
Jason Walsh

"Everyone and their dog knows that the media is being torn asunder by the
forces unleashed by the internet. Almost every movie ever made is available
on BitTorrent, half of television's history is easily accessible worldwide
courtesy of copyright-flouting Chinese video websites and, despite the
success of legitimate services such as iTunes and Spotify, illegal downloads
continue to dwarf online music sales. Then there are newspapers, almost all
of which appear to be unprofitable - a situation that, by all accounts, is
only going to get worse for producers."

More:

From the article linked below:
"In 2008, the US Chamber of Commerce claimed that 750,000 Americans had been
put out of work by illegal file-sharing (2). *Wired* magazine crunched the
numbers and discovered that, were the Chamber of Commerce抯 claims correct,
the number put out of work by illegal file-sharing would account for eight
per cent of the unemployed workforce in the US (3). To call the US Chamber
of Commerce抯 claims hyperbole would be an understatement. Meanwhile the
legal crusade against individuals continues full speed-ahead: Joel
Tenenbaum, a American student convicted of illegal file-sharing, has been
ordered to pay damages of $675,000 which amounts to a staggering $22,500 per
song (4)."


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In jazz_guitar@..., Angelo <angelo.nyc@...> wrote:

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 3:45 AM, akmbirch <akmbirch@...> wrote:

Content producers of the world unite!
By focusing on consumption, both sides in the debate over illegal
file-sharing ignore the value of creative labour.
Jason Walsh

"Everyone and their dog knows that the media is being torn asunder by the
forces unleashed by the internet. Almost every movie ever made is available
on BitTorrent, half of television's history is easily accessible worldwide
courtesy of copyright-flouting Chinese video websites and, despite the
success of legitimate services such as iTunes and Spotify, illegal downloads
continue to dwarf online music sales. Then there are newspapers, almost all
of which appear to be unprofitable - a situation that, by all accounts, is
only going to get worse for producers."

More:

From the article linked below:
"In 2008, the US Chamber of Commerce claimed that 750,000 Americans had been
put out of work by illegal file-sharing (2). *Wired* magazine crunched the
numbers and discovered that, were the Chamber of Commerce's claims correct,
the number put out of work by illegal file-sharing would account for eight
per cent of the unemployed workforce in the US (3). To call the US Chamber
of Commerce's claims hyperbole would be an understatement. Meanwhile the
legal crusade against individuals continues full speed-ahead: Joel
Tenenbaum, a American student convicted of illegal file-sharing, has been
ordered to pay damages of $675,000 which amounts to a staggering $22,500 per
song (4)."

"still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

I think this is a great article that Alisdair has pointed us to.

Angelo I suggest keep reading the rest of the article. Some more quotes:

"Set against this is a growing movement of internet users who thumb their noses at the media industry, often using the rhetoric of anti-corporation activists. It is not uncommon to read on internet forums populated by the technorati such as Slashdot that cultural production - music, books, visual art, journalism - should be a hobby, not a job. A typical analogy is that media companies are like `buggy whip' manufacturers - that is, they are about to be put out of business by a new technology, just as the makers of horse-and-trap accessories were ruined by the motor car.

What theories like this miss is that, seductive as it is, such technological determinism underestimates social factors and individual volition. This simple fact hasn't stopped it from being raised to the status of a homespun ideology with its own gurus in the form of journalists Jeff Jarvis, Chris Anderson and others (only in journalism would practitioners be paid to celebrate the decline of their means of making a living).

While there's little doubt that the distribution systems for culture are in the process of changing, this does not mean that the activities themselves are outmoded. In fact, there has always been tremendous pressure on artists to quit and find something else to do. Philip Glass worked as a plumber before he started to profit from being a composer. Art is hard and market economies aren't renowned for being fair. The question today is, will a young composer stick to the pipes and forget about the symphonies? If the chance of getting paid is effectively zero then many undoubtedly will."

"Richard Stallman, the de facto leader of the free software movement that has swept the world of information technology argues that while sharing is inevitable and to be encouraged, this doesn't mean artists should necessarily go unpaid. Stallman, a committed anti-copyright activist who insists the term `intellectual property' is fundamentally misleading, makes an exception for works of art: `The purpose of copyright - on musical recordings, or anything else - is simple: to encourage writing and art.'"

"What all of these varying theses conveniently ignore is that money is not actually produced from thin air. Money, capital if you like, is rooted in actual social relationships between people. Simply wishing that things should be free or that money can be produced out of thin air doesn't mean they should be - and only a culture that has no real understanding of work would ever argue otherwise.

In a very real sense copyright is used as a tool to manage - and create - artificial scarcity. But simply demanding it is abolished won't create a socialist - or capitalist - utopia on the net. In fact, all it will do is devalue labour even further."

From the article linked below:
"In 2008, the US Chamber of Commerce claimed that 750,000 Americans had

been

put out of work by illegal file-sharing (2). *Wired* magazine crunched

the

numbers and discovered that, were the Chamber of Commerce's claims

correct,

the number put out of work by illegal file-sharing would account for

eight

per cent of the unemployed workforce in the US (3). To call the US

Chamber

of Commerce's claims hyperbole would be an understatement. Meanwhile the
legal crusade against individuals continues full speed-ahead: Joel
Tenenbaum, a American student convicted of illegal file-sharing, has been
ordered to pay damages of $675,000 which amounts to a staggering $22,500

per

song (4)."

"still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

I referred to that passage because I felt that it helped clarify some of the
"facts" floating around this thread.
The rest is theory and opinion. Never once does the idea of the schlok
"quality" of the content ever enter into the possible reasons as to why
these industries are "suffering". One has only to look at the coverage of
news on the networks.. It's more important how these airheads look than
whether they have any knowledge concerning the matters whereof they speak...

I seriously wonder how many here who are defending the record companies vs.
the internet have lost great fortunes (or even .30垄) due to piracy on the
intertubes...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 11/2/2010 1:07 PM, Angelo wrote:

I seriously wonder how many here who are defending the record companies vs.
the internet have lost great fortunes (or even .30) due to piracy on the
intertubes...

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

On 11/2/2010 12:20 PM, Angelo wrote:

Joel
Tenenbaum, a American student convicted of illegal file-sharing, has been
ordered to pay damages of $675,000 which amounts to a staggering $22,500 per
song (4)."

Good. This should be front page news. I hope the son-uv-a-bitch gets charged interest and penalties, too, and that if he's underage (whatever that is), his parents are held responsible.

Funny - just today a woman was telling me how "smart" her son is in that he's managed to wire up his IPhone to steal everything from games, to movies, to music, to... well, everything. She was proud of the little bastard. Question - if she didn't bother to teach the little prick right from wrong, then why shouldn't she be held responsible? If a parent teaches their kid it's ok to rob a person at knife point, sh that parent be held responsible?

Those who have been robbed out of their livelihoods and homes by Internet thieves are supposed to "get over it", as Mark so rightly pointed out, but the thieves are not to be held accountable. I think that if they really are that young, then they should be tried as adults.


Angelo, among others, thinks that the extension of copyright protection is a bad thing. That protection, just like income averaging, was put in place to acknowledge and allow for the fact that there are some professions in which it becomes increasingly difficult to generate an income.

The corporations that Angelo (and to be fair, others as well) feels should be allowed to get away with piracy are bigger than the record companies ever were, and growing every day. This, to my mind, is a cognitive dissonance.

best,
Bobby

Bobby

On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Bob Hansmann <bobbybmusic@...>wrote:

On 11/2/2010 12:20 PM, Angelo wrote:

Joel
Tenenbaum, a American student convicted of illegal file-sharing, has been
ordered to pay damages of $675,000 which amounts to a staggering $22,500

per

song (4)."

Good. This should be front page news. I hope the son-uv-a-bitch gets
charged interest and penalties, too, and that if he's underage (whatever
that is), his parents are held responsible.

Funny - just today a woman was telling me how "smart" her son is in that
he's managed to wire up his IPhone to steal everything from games, to
movies, to music, to... well, everything. She was proud of the little
bastard. Question - if she didn't bother to teach the little prick right
from wrong, then why shouldn't she be held responsible? If a parent
teaches their kid it's ok to rob a person at knife point, sh that parent
be held responsible?

Those who have been robbed out of their livelihoods and homes by
Internet thieves are supposed to "get over it", as Mark so rightly
pointed out, but the thieves are not to be held accountable. I think
that if they really are that young, then they should be tried as adults.


Angelo, among others, thinks that the extension of copyright protection
is a bad thing. That protection, just like income averaging, was put in
place to acknowledge and allow for the fact that there are some
professions in which it becomes increasingly difficult to generate an
income.

The corporations that Angelo (and to be fair, others as well) feels
should be allowed to get away with piracy are bigger than the record
companies ever were, and growing every day. This, to my mind, is a
cognitive dissonance.

Ther's no need for me to reply. My "opinion" is repeatedly stated by you,
whether it's true or not. It reminds me of the Lenny Bruce bit where he
offered to do his act in the courtroom, but was not allowed. Instead, one of
the arresting officers "explained" Bruce's act and Lenny was convicted...
haha

Hi Angelo,

Ther's no need for me to reply. My "opinion" is repeatedly stated by you,
whether it's true or not. It reminds me of the Lenny Bruce bit where he
offered to do his act in the courtroom, but was not allowed. Instead, one of
the arresting officers "explained" Bruce's act and Lenny was convicted...
haha

OK. I pronounce you "convicted".
I'm off for a few days on family matters. I wish you and all on the list the best.

Bobby

On 11/02/2010 02:24 PM, Bob Hansmann wrote:

On 11/2/2010 1:07 PM, Angelo wrote:

I seriously wonder how many here who are defending the record
companies vs.
the internet have lost great fortunes (or even .30) due to piracy on the
intertubes...

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Great quote, Bob!

On 1/3/2011 3:57 AM, BluesRenegade wrote:

Great quote, Bob!

Thanks. We haven't heard from Angelo since pretty much around the time I posted that. I hope my argument with him didn't chase him away (he claimed to have a pretty thick skin). I fall into the category of those musicians who are not directly losing royalties, but who feel the pain of those who are, and who are hit by the "pin action" of the whole situation. I'm sure that, in spite of my rant at the time, John Hall is sleeping just fine, and hasn't missed any meals lately.

Anyway I hope Angelo is doing well.

best,
Bobby

开云体育