ROTH ARMY FORUMS SHOUTBOX

Nobody rules these streets at night but US!
Empty the chat input field
Loading ...
Users in the chatbox : 3 user(s)
ELVIS, VetteLS5, fraroc
© 1999-2013 The Diamond David Lee Roth Army, In ROTH WE TRUST!
General help
The MGC Chatbox Evo is really easy to use

You can :
  1. Send chats : you just have to enter the text in the dedicated input field and then to validate it by pushing the return key ou by clicking on the OK button.
  2. Format the chats :
  3. once you un-collapse the chatbox formatting toolbar by clicking on the BBCode button, you have access to different formatting options for your chats. You can format a chat by selecting a part (or the totality) of it and then select one of the buttons/list. You can also add empty formatting tags by selecting nothing and clicking one of the buttons/menu thus allowing you to add the chat text afterwards between these tags.*
  4. Access to the different channels : you can have access to different channels restricted to only some usergroupds or for specifics use of the chatbox. The different channels are accessible from the buttons on the left of the chatbox.*
  5. Edit your chats (or others chats) : the edition of a chat can be done by a simple double-click on it.*
  6. Use specific commands : some commands can be accessible in the chatbox depending on the will of the administrator(s) of your forum. These commands let you execute specific actions of formatting, management, etc... You will herebelow the information on the command which are accessible to you. You must notice that you are not forced to use the command prefixes (/command_name) when you use them in the channel they are attached to (except in the general channel).*
* : Depending on the settings chosen by the administrator(s) of the forum, you might not have access to all these features.
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Is piracy is killing art?

  1. #1
    Fear the Elf
    ROTH ARMY SUPREME
    Unchainme's Avatar
    Member No
    12680
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    02-04-2014 @ 02:24 AM
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Age
    25
    Posts
    7,734
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,010
    Thanked 530 Times in 373 Posts


    Chats
    25
    Rep Power
    22

    Is piracy is killing art?

    The Internet has caused a revolution, and in any revolution there are winners and losers. How do you think thatís worked out here? Whoís won and whoís lost, so far?

    I think the revolution is still ongoing. The short-term losers are media companies. The short-term winners are technology companies. The long-term loser is everyone. I donít think anyone wins. The premise of my book is that most online companies rely for their content, and hence for their money, on traditional media companies. If they destroy that business model, itís unclear what theyíre going to have to distribute. If you look at YouTube, eight of the top 10 videos are major-label music videos. If the major labels shrank to the point where they canít make videos, YouTube isnít much of a business. Itís still a great social phenomenon, but itís not much of a business.

    Was this inevitable, or were there policy choices that led to this state of affairs?

    Oh, I think itís all policy choices. Itís inevitable that there would be a problem, but technology creates uncertainty and regulation solves uncertainty. When the car was [created], no one knew how fast you were allowed to drive. We came up with speed limits and that solved some of the uncertainty Ė didnít solve it perfectly, but it made the roads safer. As copying technology evolved, we came up with other copyright laws to regulate it. Media companies thrived. Technology companies thrived. And despite not liking each other, they thrived together. A VCR isnít very valuable if you canít rent any good movies. Movies arenít very valuable if you canít watch them on a VCR. Then [Congress] came up with the DMCA, which I think was sort of the original sin. The idea was we have to say something before you want to take something that infringes on copyright downÖ

    And DMCA is?

    Iím sorry, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The important provision was notice and takedown. You have safe harbor from copyright liability if you follow this notice and takedown procedure. It turns 300 years of copyright law on its head by making it an opt-out system instead of an opt-in system. Dozens of sites will use this interview until you specifically tell them not to. Thatís very different from ďthey canít use it until they ask for permission.Ē What that does is it destroys the market.

    One of the desirable things that copyright laws do is create some kind of market for intellectual property. Weíve had that for 300 years. That should change and it should evolve, but what weíre doing now is weíre dismantling that market. I think thatís really scary, because, first of all, you are going to see a lot of job loss. Secondly, I think youíre going to see the quality of things get affected. You see that happening with newspapers already. Third, I think the whole system suffers. Google News is not as useful if thereís not as much news to Google. I mean, Google is an information search tool, right? Itís not a moral issue. But the problem youíve created, you create a very powerful incentive for somebody to create a better search engine. You eliminate [the] incentive to create better journalism. That is a problem.

    Music was one of the first businesses to get hit hard. What happened there? Was it all piracy?

    This is one of those questions that is hard to answer. Itís very hard to say exactly what caused what, and I would argue that separating those things out is impossible. Right now, the single biggest problem with CD sales is all the stores where you used to buy CDs are closed. Well, what caused that? Well, people started buying songs online. That became a problem because people were only buying singles instead of albums and they werenít spending a lot. Well, why did that happen? Because piracy put so much downward pressure on prices that you have to take any deal, whether itís a good deal or a bad deal. Itís very hard to separate these things. Any study where people say this has nothing to do with piracy is a bunch of bullshit.

    When the Internet emerged, we thought we would be dropping the middleman out of this, that musicians and artists would connect directly with their fans.

    The middleman hasnít been eliminated. Thereís a new middleman. YouTube is the new middleman. YouTube, just now, was giving professional content creators advances against future royalties. Is it a good middleman? I donít know. YouTube has a lot of good technology. They obviously have other advantages. It could be a smart deal. It depends on the advance; it depends on what you want. But I would say that the idea that YouTube is fundamentally different from a record company is silly. YouTube probably has a higher percentage of the market for online video than all four major labels combined have of recorded music. Whoís stopping their market power? No one, and everyone is saying itís a progressive thing.

    Europe has responded a little differently to piracy and assaults on copyright. What effect has it had?

    Well, I think itís two things. One is, in continental European law, thereís a different tradition of copyright. One of my problems with the ďcopyleftĒ is that you donít hear that. If you read Lawrence Lessig and Tim Wu and all those sort of copyleft books, and there are 25 or 30 of them, youíll see copyright is a limited monopoly and a balance between the author and the public interest, if you will. That is very true. Itís the roots of Anglo-American copyright law. What you rarely hear is that the French tradition Ė and this applies, to varying degrees, to a lot of other countries in Europe Ė copyright is a fundamental right. It is your work and you have a fundamental right to it. Whatís interesting is you have a lot of people talking about the right to remix. In Europe, not only is there very little legal support for a right to remix, thereís a decent amount of support for a right not to be remixed. You have a right to the paternity and the integrity of your work. Itís a moral right. So someone says, ďI want to remix Rob Levineís book so that every 10 words itís going to say: Rob Levine eats stinky pooĒ Ė by the way, Iím fairly certain that somebody would call this an art project Ė I can say, ďNo. I have a right to my work.Ē I think a lot of people would find that very reasonable.

    The idea that the Internet is somehow immune from law or regulation or the protection of peopleís rights has been seen as a progressive idea. Itís the ďfree and open Internet.Ē But if you really think about that for a second, thatís not a progressive argument. Itís a libertarian argument, because the same regulations that annoy you might be the regulations that protect me.

    From the beginning, hasnít the Internet been framed as the second coming of the Wild West?

    I think itís been framed as the second coming of Jesus H. Christ in full 3-D Cinerama Smell-O-Vision. Look, a lot of very smart people believe the Internet will change things that wonít change because they come out of human nature. Like people look at Wikipedia and they say, ďSee. People will all work together. We donít need regulations.Ē I think that Wikipedia is a great thing but I wouldnít want to change my system of government based on the 10-year track record of Wikipedia. Right? It gets a little wacky. People like to cooperate; people like to give things away. Yes, but people also like to violate the rights of other people. I want certain kinds of protections.

    Your book is about several industries. You talk about the music industry, the movie industry, publishing, etc. I wonder if there is a common mistake that you saw most or all of these industries make along the way?

    Yes. Listening to people who donít have your interest in mind Ė they have their own interest in mind. When Google says newspapers should be free on the Internet, they may really believe that, but you also have to keep in mind that itís a huge help to them. Right? I was on a panel a couple of weeks ago and this guy from Creative Commons said: ďYou should concentrate on art; you shouldnít worry so much about these contracts.Ē Thatís exactly what any artist should never do. The record company guy does not want to make you money; he wants to make him money. Same with your concert promoter. Same with Google. They are not on your side. Theyíre on their side. I donít think thatís a bad thing, because Googleís greed and self-interest has led to the creation of a valuable company, and many jobs, and some really remarkable technology, but itís the governmentís job to make sure they donít trample the rights of other people.

    How often is free speech used as a cudgel against copyright that claims free speech?

    Several times a minute. Free speech is very important in the U.S. Itís a more important value than copyright. In most countries it is. But thereís an argument on the other side. Thereís a great quote by Justice Sandra Day OíConnor that says: ďThe Framers intended copyright itself to be the engine of free expression. By establishing the marketable right to the use of oneís expression, copyright supplies an economic incentive to create and disseminate.Ē Thatís a pretty powerful argument on the other side.

    Her argument, which I think is yours, is that copyright doesnít inhibit free speech, but encourages free speech.

    I think it does both to different degrees. Itís not that simple. Let me be clear, I hammer on that Justice OíConnor quote because itís not something youíll see in a lot of other books. But this is a complicated issue. Copyright often encourages free speech. It sometimes inhibits free speech. The idea that copyright is the be-all and end-all of free expression is simplistic. The idea that it inhibits free speech is simplistic. I think this is true of politics in general, but everyone argues about stuff like a 4-year-old.

    Entertainment companies talk about digital theft. In my mind, thatís not a useful way to talk about a problem. The problem is copyright infringement. If you download my book illegally, Iím not angry. I hope you donít. If a lot of people do it, Iíll be angry. The idea that someone is going to download my book illegally doesnít bother me. The idea that someone is selling advertising against that transaction and profiting from it really does upset me. Thereís just a lot more nuance there. You have one side calling it digital theft and saying that downloading things is a moral wrong. Youíd have to ask a philosopher. Then you have another side saying you have the right to see movies. Well, thatís even dumber. I donít think anyone is going to go to hell for downloading ďIron Man 2.Ē But saying you have the right to download it is also pretty silly.

    We need to look at what copyright was meant to do. It was not meant to inhibit the copying you do at home. It was meant to give you monopoly thatís limited in scope and thatís limited in time to profit from your own work. Thatís what I want. I want to have a monopoly on profiting from my own work. So, if you lend my book to a friend, God bless you. If you put it on the Internet and distribute it to 100 people, even if you are not benefiting from it directly, that goes against what weíre talking about on a very basic level. You can hire expensive lawyers to parse this in all sorts of ways, but letís get real here. Mass distribution of stuff like this is really a problem. Thatís what Iíd like to see: a nuanced legal solution to solving and a nuanced discussion of whatís going on.

    If you look at countries with functioning copyright systems and countries without functioning copyright systems, who creates more culture? Thatís not a question. Cory Doctorow gave a speech at the New America Foundation about how copyright endangers democracy. Thatís not a responsible comment. Thatís just a bunch of bloviating. Democracies tend to have copyright. Countries with copyright tend to be democracies. Iím not suggesting a causal relationship, but to suggest that copyright endangers democracies Ė it doesnít even meet the laugh test.

    Letís look to the future. You say in your last chapter: ďOver the next decade, we will choose between two competing visions for the online world: media companies want the Internet to work more like cable television, while technology companies want cable to run more like the Internet.Ē Tell us what you mean by this.

    If you think about the cable system, itís closed. You canít publish or broadcast without permission; you canít receive or consume without paying. On the Internet itís the opposite. Anyone can publish or broadcast; just about anyone can consume without paying. And again, sorry to keep hammering on this, I would say that those are two absolutes. Thereís a lot of problems with the cable system. It leads to monopolization. The prices keep going up and thereís a lack of diversity of points of view. But thereís also good things about it. Television has never been better. We enjoy better TV. If you say, ďOh my God. Look how my cable bill rose in the last 10 years,Ē what you get is completely different. Itís a revolution of quality. Now letís look at the Internet. It does a lot of things as well. Youíve got free expression. Itís a great thing. The Internet is very valuable. You get an incredible diversity of opinion. Itís very cheap. Thereís a lot of good things about it. Thereís also some bad things about it. It resists regulation in a very fundamental way. You have some people saying the Internet must be cable-ized; you have other people saying that cable must be Internet-ized. Is that really the best we can do? My argument is that we deserve better. I donít want to choose between ďBreaking BadĒ and the skateboarding bulldog.

    I would like to see the advantages of both. I would like to think the technology would allow that. And Iíd like to think we can regulate smartly to encourage that.

    What would you like to see happen? Whatís the best-case scenario for the situation weíre in now? Because some things arenít coming back totally. Newspapers, publishing, probably not coming back.

    Iíd like to see enough law applied in a smart way that we can bring back a market. U.S. publishing is never coming back, but I think we can enforce enough law to create a market, and thatís what we need. Thereís obviously problems with the market. Iím not one of these ďworshiping at the altar of the marketĒ kind of dudes. But the market for intellectual property has served us very well both in terms of job creation and in terms of art. And I think that that is very important.
    http://www.salon.com/2011/11/01/does...ree/singleton/
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  2. #2
    Fear the Elf
    ROTH ARMY SUPREME
    Unchainme's Avatar
    Member No
    12680
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Last Online
    02-04-2014 @ 02:24 AM
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Age
    25
    Posts
    7,734
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    2,010
    Thanked 530 Times in 373 Posts


    Chats
    25
    Rep Power
    22
    I found this interesting because I really disagree truly disagree with him.

    At the moment the internet is the best the way it is. To make it more like a Cable sort of system that has been proposed and to manage it, to me kills off free speech.

    You get rid of the web, and what are we stuck with? Fox News, Clear Channel run radio stations playing garbage rock music, MTV showing programs playing down to the lowest common denominator.


  3. #3
    Rock God
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Hardrock69's Avatar
    Member No
    11017
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Last Online
    04-21-2014 @ 12:21 PM
    Location
    A Small Dive in a trashy neighborhood somewhere on Fornax 9
    Posts
    21,136
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,404
    Thanked 2,410 Times in 1,525 Posts


    Chats
    1634
    Rep Power
    55
    True dat. While author-dude is correctly pointing out how corporate conglomerates are self-serving monoliths whose only goal is to earn cash, and the consumer be damned, that is the very thing that ruins art.

    You know.....art meets commerce = death of art. Or at the very least, baby pabulum for the masses.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  4. Thanked Hardrock69 for this KICKASS post:

    Diamondjimi (12-19-2011)


  5. #4
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Nitro Express's Avatar
    Member No
    7682
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:07 PM
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    24,561
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    568
    Thanked 2,339 Times in 1,885 Posts


    Chats
    4
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Hardrock69 View Post
    True dat. While author-dude is correctly pointing out how corporate conglomerates are self-serving monoliths whose only goal is to earn cash, and the consumer be damned, that is the very thing that ruins art.

    You know.....art meets commerce = death of art. Or at the very least, baby pabulum for the masses.
    It used to be the problem was only caring about the next quarter, the stock price, and short-term thinking. Now when you have top management that get paid well to fail the problem becomes even worse. We are way passed making a better product. It's all about being connected and buying influence. When the taxpayer bails you out in the end, they don't care about quality. They just care about keeping the politicians on their payroll.

    There isn't any competition in the corporate world. They have their asses covered so where is the incentive to excel? That only happens when you can fail and your competitors can fairly beat you in the market place.
    Last edited by Nitro Express; 12-19-2011 at 01:28 AM.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  6. #5
    I am A Root Vegetable
    Crazy Ass Mofo
    clarathecarrot's Avatar
    Member No
    25307
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Online
    11-30-2013 @ 12:04 PM
    Location
    the vegetable crisper
    Posts
    2,983
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 331 Times in 280 Posts


    Chats
    90
    Rep Power
    10
    I am putting this in here because after a 25 min search using search tools and a thread title search thru all forums related to music I cannot find the thread where Sarge was buying new home theater gear and I found something in a magazine today that had never occured to me and I am usually capable of guessing things, but this just made sense to me,.... but wasn't worth a new thread title.

    I found a turntable that has computer hardware inside it and a USB out to your computer,... that will convert your, 33, 45 or 78 LP's to MP3,.. without a bunch of computer sotware trouble.

    I am suspecting it loads to your computer as MP3 the you burn it with burnware..simple.

    This is new to me, maybe it hads been around awhile, but I like the idea of it all done at the needle / no pirate if you already own it and are not selling it.

    That is all just thought that sounded cool if you were going to buy a turntable (500$ pretty high ) and collect new vynil, or play your old stuff convert for your car....?

    http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...%3Disch&itbs=1
    Last edited by clarathecarrot; 04-11-2012 at 10:26 AM.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  7. #6
    Feeding My Addiction
    DIAMOND STATUS
    binnie's Avatar
    Member No
    20165
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Online
    04-21-2014 @ 03:54 PM
    Location
    Here, there, every fucking where
    Age
    32
    Posts
    18,391
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    1,577
    Thanked 1,475 Times in 1,050 Posts


    Chats
    0
    Rep Power
    41
    It should not be an issue of technology, it should be one of choice.

    If the artist in question wants to provide their art via the internet - whether freely or through payment - then that should be the deciding factor.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  8. #7
    I fucking hate you.
    ROTH ARMY ELITE
    Kristy's Avatar
    Member No
    7609
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Today @ 01:20 AM
    Location
    Denver, Colo
    Posts
    6,903
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    903
    Thanked 1,264 Times in 877 Posts


    Chats
    1980
    Rep Power
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Unchainme View Post
    I found this interesting because I really disagree truly disagree with him.
    I met him - sort of. He was doing one of his spoken word record whatevers at Wax Trax in Denver years ago when I was in college. Not only was I shocked on how fat he became, but how rude he was to most people who came to see him. If he's that angry then reform the Dead Kennedy's
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  9. #8
    DIAMOND STATUS
    Nitro Express's Avatar
    Member No
    7682
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 11:07 PM
    Location
    Jackson Hole, Wyoming
    Posts
    24,561
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    568
    Thanked 2,339 Times in 1,885 Posts


    Chats
    4
    Rep Power
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by binnie View Post
    It should not be an issue of technology, it should be one of choice.

    If the artist in question wants to provide their art via the internet - whether freely or through payment - then that should be the deciding factor.
    I think in a lot of ways we need to get off the internet. It's a fine communications medium and a convenient way to buy and sell things, but it also can become a place separate from reality. You have people who have gobs of so called on-line friends but they really have non in the physical world. You have people who are legends in their own minds and arm chair experts but really don't amount to anything in the real world.

    Sometimes you just need to shut all the electronic shit off, pack up your car and get out there. Go to shows, talk with real people face to face, and get dirty. Now that is where you will find the art or it will inspire you to make some.

    You can whack off to porn on the internet or you can leave the computer at home, get out there, and get laid for real. That's the difference.

  10. #9
    FUTUE TE IPSUM
    Full Member Status

    Mr Badguy's Avatar
    Member No
    77
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    10-31-2013 @ 07:41 PM
    Location
    A real Pervert on the run from Glasgow
    Age
    84
    Posts
    3,554
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    253
    Thanked 117 Times in 87 Posts


    Chats
    0
    Rep Power
    15
    I use the web as a "try-before-you-buy".

    If I like something, I will buy it.

    I know not everyone is the same, but I still think it is a good shop window.

    Besides, it made all these lazy rock stars get off their arses and play some shows.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  11. Thanked Mr Badguy for this KICKASS post:

    Unchainme (04-13-2012)


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Stop Online Piracy Bill
    By Unchainme in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 01-22-2012, 12:23 PM
  2. General Accounting Office Finds That Online Piracy Can Have Positive Impact
    By Hardrock69 in forum Max's Non VH/DLR Related Stuff
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2010, 09:29 AM
  3. Everyone's guilty of piracy now & may BE ARRESTED JUST BECAUSE!
    By Imapus Sylicker in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 03-25-2010, 11:24 PM
  4. Piracy losses fabricated - Aussie study
    By Hardrock69 in forum House of Music
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-09-2006, 02:15 PM
  5. MPAA finds itself accused of piracy at Sundance Film Festival
    By Hardrock69 in forum Max's Non VH/DLR Related Stuff
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-26-2006, 06:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •