Had warned she could be fined for singing aloud in a public place without a public performance license.
It’s no secret that royalty collecting groups have been doing all they can to drum up business by hounding restaurants, cafes, gyms, waiting areas, business offices, and just any place they can think of where music would be "performed" publicly for others to hear.
PRS for Music, a UK-based royalty collecting group for music writers, composers, and publishers, is just such a group and managed to go overboard in threatening 56yo Sandra Burt, a supermarket grocery clerk.
She was warned earlier this year that she needed a license if she wanted to play music where customers might be able to hear. Undeterred, she dumped the radio and and began singing aloud.
"I would start to sing to myself when I was stacking the shelves just to keep me happy because it was very quiet without the radio," she told the BBC. "When I heard that the PRS said I would be prosecuted for not having a performance licence, I thought it was a joke and started laughing. I was then told I could be fined thousands of pounds. But I couldn’t stop myself singing."
News of the affair made headlines across the UK and made PRS for Music look more like PRS for "Greed." It eventually led the group to apologize to Mrs Burt and send her flowers to express their regret.
Through it all though, it still maintains the position that singing in public and playing a radio while stacking store shelves require that they be paid a fee. So it’s only when the plight of a 56yo grocery clerk makes the news do they reconsider their efforts.
It ought to do so more often, especially when its own economist said recently that overall music revenue is up some 4.7% since 2007.
Stay tuned.
jared@zeropaid.com
Related Posts
- Swedish Copyright Group Wants $5,000 p/yr Permit for Workplace Music
- Open Rights Group Urges on Fight to Stop Copyright Extension
- Fine unlicensed software users, says BSA
- UK Copyright Holder Getting Creative in Quest for Royalties
- Canadian copyright group wants new taxes to pay for piracy
Loading ...
It should be pointed out though – before we go off the deep end with this ‘nasty nasty PRS’ angle – it is only fair to music creators – if sound systems are used in commercial business places – and their music is used to add to ‘atmosphere’ or whatever .. then that is a product which should be paid for .. morally – that’s fair for the composer – and in general the PRS to a fairly good job at supporting musicians – we all love music lets remember that – so – support musicians – and dont fly off the handle with one silly story !
Maybe if you are looking at it from the perspective of a greedy composer.
The reality is that this law only prohibits employees from listening to music they have purchased to make the day go on. If the main business model of the store revolves around needing music than fine, but if its a minor aspect, such as background music in a store, I see no reason why the store should have to pay a license. This is an example of where copyright has extended itself too far, and sadly people like you have this delusion that its fair. Public performance should only need a license if the public performance is what generates the revenue, not if its a minor value added device.
Forgot to add that the rules are also even more perverted when you realize they also apply to office spaces, mechanic garages, etc where the employee is the one wanting to play the music they paid for while they work. There is no reason to have a performance license in these cases, its just idiotic.
Yah, because its not enough that the person playing it either bought the music (compensation) or plays it on the radio (compensation).
MR has it right in that its a slippery slope in that they truly believe compensation is warranted anytime you play music in front of others….now thats idiotic.
You sir/Madam are an ignorant fool!
If this “silly story” didn’t get out. You know full well that she would have been fined. Moreover, who are the patrons that are listening to her sing? If this woman wanted to wax lyrical about life while she does her work, who the hell is some “profiteering pig” like “PRS” to challenge her free right of speech in all its forms? This woman is helping the music owners by publicly distributing praise and acknowledgement to the song and it’s creator; whereby helping the music industry sell it’s product. “silly story” my ass.
The second that I have to get a permit to “whistle while I work” is the first day of the end of our free society!
I’m shocked you could be so delusional. The radio broadcasting company that is playing the song already paid for the work to be broadcast. Making people pay on the other end of the radio is nothing more than shameless double-dipping. All that is ignoring the fact that broadcast radio is nothing more than an advertisement for the purchase of the music that is being played. It’s really triple-dipping.
I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll give you 200% of all the money I make singing a song and playing the radio in front of others. Does that sound fair to you?
Ooops, clicked the wrong reply button. That was aimed at Composer 01000110
‘greedy composer’ – yeah funny.
- have you not noticed – composers are really struggling in this environment.
if its not essential and u dont wanna pay for it – dont use it.
im all for a FAIR license fee …
But a license fee none the less.
..and this doesnt even alter the sad reality that the way PRS distribution works – means that the money gained from license fees – are generally not equally and fairly distributed to the composers (and can be a bit pot luck)
- but thanks for the nasty comment – real constructive.
Hey if you can’t deal with reality go live in a box. If you ask the majority of society what they feel is fair, the vast majority will agree with me and think you are greedy. Its not up to society to suffer a loss of liberty and culture for the sake of propping up a failing business model. Maybe if we didn’t give people the expectation of being paid every time their song is played they would find other ways of generating income, rather than demand hand outs from society like a street beggar, only with corporate backing.
Here’s a constructive comment: don’t expect people’s habits to change, and don’t expect a handout.
When people play music in public and they don’t earn any money for playing it then it makes no sense for them to have to pay a licensing fee. if I’m in the park with my guitar and I’m playing a Beatles song I shouldn’t have to give PaulMcC any money for doing so.. because I’ve already paid for that music plenty enough.
If I’ve bought -your- song and I decide to play it for someone else, you should be saying “Play it again, Sam”, and not “Pay me again, Sam”.
“if I’m in the park with my guitar and I’m playing a Beatles song I shouldn’t have to give PaulMcC any money for doing so.. ”
But thats not a place of business.
IF you want to use MY product in YOUR place of business – there is a license fee.
This license fee should be fair – not extortionate.
“Hey if you can’t deal with reality go live in a box.”
Yes, I can deal with reality thank you very much .. and no I’m not a beggar asking for handouts.
I am a professional offering a service. If you do not wish to use that service – dont.
If you do – there is a fair and reasonable license fee.
- all this rest of this drivel is all rhetoric.
Copied from before, since I don’t think you saw it:
I’m shocked you could be so delusional. The radio broadcasting company that is playing the song already paid for the work to be broadcast. Making people pay on the other end of the radio is nothing more than shameless double-dipping. All that is ignoring the fact that broadcast radio is nothing more than an advertisement for the purchase of the music that is being played. It’s really triple-dipping.
I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll give you 200% of all the money I make singing a song and playing the radio in front of others. Does that sound fair to you?
Continuing in response to this post:
And the radio stations pay you for that professional service, not the listeners. They pay you when they like your work and buy your CD. You’re an idiot to think that is drivel. It’s not drivel, it’s utter bullshit.
Yes I read it before Signa & I must say – it’s quite interesting that some of you are unable to make your points without using personal insults.
So I’m a greedy, delusional, Idiot. Thank you very much.
I hope you know as much about me – as you do the topic at hand – when you are dishing out your opinions.
- but the simple point remains – if you wish to use MY product in YOUR place of commercial business – there is a fee.
Of course not in the park, not in the home – but yes, a FAIR fee in a COMMERCIAL business place.
I really don’t see the problem.
{Yes I read it before Signa & I must say – it’s quite interesting that some of you are unable to make your points without using personal insults.}
Ok, fine, no more insults, but you must fully understand that as a producer of a product, you do not set the demand for a product. Only your customers can do that, and because demand drives price, you are at the mercy of the people who will buy your product if you drive your price too high. I’m telling you right now as a consumer that you are asking too much for the demand. Loaves of bread do not go for $100. Gallons of milk do not go for $500. And you certainly do not charge the grocery store AND their customers for the same food products. I know you wouldn’t find it very amusing if you walked into Safeway, bough a gallon of milk, and had to pay twice for it because Dairygold wanted an extra cut. Dairygold sold their milk to Safeway, and you buy it from Safeway, not Dairygold.
I’m am shocked and disgusted that you think that it is OK to charge some one twice for the same product. It is for that very reason that the music industry is in such a sad state. You don’t understand or empathize with your customers, but instead you pressure and pass laws to squeeze every last dime from anyone who hears a tune. That isn’t capitalism, that is Fascism.
{So I’m a greedy, delusional, Idiot. Thank you very much.}
As far as being a greedy, delusional idiot, I take that back. You aren’t an idiot. You obviously has quite a bit of intelligence and talent if you are a composer of any sort. But your posts before don’t help you at all with the other two names. You want money that you didn’t earn, and you think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for. That is the text-book definition of greed and delusion if I ever heard it.
{- but the simple point remains – if you wish to use MY product in YOUR place of commercial business – there is a fee.}
If the point was so simple, then why are we arguing about it? There obviously are other aspects to the situation that can be discussed, and you are completely ignoring them. The simple fact that *I’M* trying to get across is that the radio station paid for the music that the employees are listening to. If they didn’t then everyone who owns a radio would have to pay a fee to own one, just like XM and Sirius radio. The only exception would be if the store was piping in Muzak, which is a subscription music service. Paying for Muzak as an individual is ridiculous, because that is what the radio is for.
{Of course not in the park, not in the home – but yes, a FAIR fee in a COMMERCIAL business place.}
Again you are wrong, at least in the context we are talking here. The stance the copyright industry that you are backing, wants to charge people for “public performance” when their cellphones ring with a musical tone. Never mind that the customer already purchased the ringtone, because by their logic, having the ABILITY to play it is enough reason to charge SOMEONE for it (I think they were aiming at the cell phone providers on that one). And that’s only the most recent issue. I’ve been hearing for years now how people are getting charged with fines anywhere they go because they are using a free public service. Bottom line for them is, if you can hear it, you can be charged for it.
{I hope you know as much about me – as you do the topic at hand – when you are dishing out your opinions.}
I very much do know what I’m talking about, and I ask that you cite sources to prove me wrong. I may not be a composer, but I know what is going on in the world of consumable media, and I am sick to my stomach with all the bullshit going around in it. I’d sooner see the whole industry collapse in on itself and never have a new movie, song, TV show or video game made than to see the trends that are going on now.
I can’t endlessly debate this Sigma, you make some fair enough points – which are your (and no doubt many others) POV.
It is not my need or desire to paint this picture as either entirely black or entirely white.
The PRS For Music – are not a perfect body by any means – but they do fight for the (diminishing) right for composers to be recompensed for their work.
People think that by standing against PRS For Music they are fighting the big guys on behalf of the little guys.
But I see it the other way around. The PRS is a non-profit organization – far from perfect – but the best solution there is right now for composers.
There are a lot of charlatans out there – convincing musicians to give their work away for free – whilst making money off their back.
I stand firmly behind the right for composers & musicians to be recompensed when their hard work is enjoyed and utilized by others.
I also stand for fairness & reason.
Obviously this is a small story where common sense has not been used – and now everyone’s jumping up and down about it.
All I want to do is just represent the other side a little. I dont know why it gets everyone’s backs up so much.
You are all of course most welcome to your own opinion. Our opinions are based on our own situations.
I am a musician and a composer – and I am one of the few – I know (out of many hundreds) – who is able to make a living.
BECAUSE
I have not joined in the rush to give all my work away for free.
- and until you can give me a house for free, food for free, electricity for free .. that will remain.
Peace.
{I have not joined in the rush to give all my work away for free.}
Nor should you. Please keep in mind that none of my ranting has to do with the the money you do earn. I don’t believe that musicians should work for free; that’s not fair at all. It also isn’t fair to them how many bits of their work get thrown around the internet, and for that, I sympathize. I understand that you must be upset, and this is probably a knee-jerk reaction to feeling like you are being stolen from. Really, what it comes down to is the business model that I’m upset about. I doubt I need to outline the process and issues with it, but I see it as a festering pile of corruption and evil, and my knee-jerk reaction to anyone who condones it is written above.
The way I see it, true artists have a lot more to gain by giving their music away for free, and just doing live gigs. Some of the above mentioned artists had done that, and are still rolling in cash. And ultimately, I have so little respect for an artist who does their music for cash, and only cash. I never in a million years would buy a KISS or Metalica album, because they have bluntly said they only care about the cash, and not the music. Free music may not be the answer for you, or everyone, but it makes far more sense to me than the current model.
“All I want to do is just represent the other side a little. I dont know why it gets everyone’s backs up so much.”
If you don’t know why people are defensive about the subject than you clearly don’t understand the arguments being brought forth.
If you purchase music, you want to be able to listen to that music. Its only natural that people will also want to listen to that music at work. They already bought the music and the only reason they can’t listen to it is because of an ill conceived law. No matter how you explain it, by charging a licensing fee, you are automatically double charging someone, because they already paid for your work. Even worse, you are enforcing how people can socialize around music which has always been a social medium. So you are not only charging people, you are telling them how they can live their life, a.k.a suspending some of their rights.
People want to be able to buy music and simply listen to it and socialize around it. This act doesn’t devalue music it generates interest for others to go out and buy the music. In fact I can even argue that peoples willingness to fit in would make them more likely to go out and purchase the music for that reason. The industry, with its licenses, restrictions and demands has undermined itself by trying to destroy the social aspect of music at every turn. Many private torrent sites were not successful purely because the music was free, they were popular because of the efficiency for people to socialize and share their musical experience. The industry has lost this aspect of music.
You can argue that free music is illogical, but that is only if you are purely interested in the financial side of music. Even then, there are some arguments that free music can still be just as profitable even when offered for free. Musicians who play out of love of the craft, the true artists get interested in music out of passion first, the ability to generate an income from music is an afterthought. Viewing music only for its value to generate revenue is a modern cultural crime. Some great artists are coming out lately and denouncing the capitalist model for music. Radiohead, NIN, Moby and others have released music for free. They took a risk and followed their artistic view, rather than economic gains. The results so far has been encouraging, the tracks still ended up selling at least to parity with previous sales, without hampering the social value.
You also have to realize that intellectual property is not a product equal to a material good. It only exists due to artificial restrictions on supply, so it doesn’t follow normal market demands. It is my view, and the view of many others that this legislation has gone too far, and devalued the cultural exchange of ideas in society, hindering the availability of new media. Would a change in the rules affect some peoples livelihood? Of course, but I don’t think that is a valid argument to make for the cost the system has had on cultural heritage.
They’re welcome to make their own. If you really want to understand why the law is the way it is instead of repeating these tired rationalizations, there is five hundred years of legal precedent to study. All of it a reaction to specific technological changes that increased the ability for people to make copies of things that other people made. In every case there were pirates who had all kinds of rationalizations and philisophical arguments, and always the law and the rights of artists prevailed.
So people have been screwed by government for ages. What are you trying to prove with your appeal to tradition, that you like to keep doing things the old way? Also try about 200 years. Either way the length of time people have been trying to enforce copyright is irrelevant to how legitimate it is, in modern viewing and from the past. Furthermore, your argument says nothing of the current distorted copyright law that has been lobbied into power. When people are getting sued for singing songs at work, you know something is not working.
Copyright length needs to be shortened, copyright enforcement needs to be more lenient, rights holders need to learn that the world doesn’t revolve around them. You keep trying to make your points, but they fall flat, copyright is an artificial limitation on a good of limitless supply. The copies have no real monetary value, the skills do. If artist want to generate income they can do it with their skills.
Why? You make all these assumptions, with nothing to back it up. What right do you have to any of it? None, it has nothing to do with you. You didn’t help make it, you contributed nothing, and you don;t even want to pay for any of it. What is your relationship to the work? There is none. You have no say.
If you can’t argue against that then nothing you have nothing to stand on, you are just aping things you’ve heard becuase it justifies your file addiction.
Your assertion that copyright goes back two hundred years betrays a lack of concern on your part for facts.
As for the lady, she got sued for playing the radio, not singing, the rest is FUD. Seeing as how she can get music streamed into her business 24/7 for twenty pounds down and twelve a month, which is probably what she spends on lunch every day, I have absolutely no sympathy. As a business person, she be more willing to pay for something someone else contributes, the same way you tip a waiter, but she probably doesn’t do that either. I bet she pays peanuts too. Greed. Greedy people like to get things and not pay.
Read the article again, she was singing. Even if it was the radio, the radio station already pays a license for public performance, so its double dipping. Either way it would be ridiculous to expect compensation for either act. If I buy music I should be able to listen to it, no matter how many people are around me so long as I don’t profit directly from doing so. It is my right to argue that as a human being since it is the removal of my rights. Also, I’m a big supporter of creative commons work, as such I have all the right to comment on laws that go against the spirit of that movement. Further more I go to concerts and buy merchandise so I an part of the music market.
As for general copyright I buy software, games, and books. In fact I rarely if ever pirate those anymore, and if I do its because I wouldn’t of bought it in the first place. You can argue all you want that I would buy them if I had no choice but that is stupid because I simply don’t have the budget for it, I buy the exceptional products not the sub par. So you might be wondering why I don’t buy music, its simply too expensive in my opinion and there is no market other than creative commons that appeals to me. If I had to pay for music I would exclusively listen to the radio or creative commons music. Its just not logical when movies and video games are cheaper than music, music has far less overhead to produce so the expectations from labels is unrealistic. You can disagree with me all you want, but I’m the consumer you are trying to convince to buy more product. Arguing with me won’t change your situation, listening to me might.
” If I buy music I should be able to listen to it, no matter how many people are around me so long as I don’t profit directly from doing so.”
Why?
What’s the commons got to do with copyrighted stuff? The spirit of the movement is to give people an alternative license. The commercial expectations of copyright are completely irrelevant to the commons, which exists outside of commercial structure – most licenses can’t be commercialized. So supporting the commons, which I do, I’ve GPL’d stuff and also released samples under a CC attribution license, supporting the commons has nothig to do with being against copyright, it’s two different things.
Movies and videogames aren’t cheaper than music, and good msuic has way more replay value than just about any game, if you like music. Dude I just spent fifty bucks on cd’s and got six hours of good music that I will probably listen to over and over again for the rest of my life. To each their own, but games are not cheaper and how many time are you going to watch the average movie?
Anyway, so you don’t value music, just don’t buy it. Either it will get cheaper or it won’t, but at no point are you entitled to something just because you want ti and it costs. Just don’t use the recording. Otherwise you are just ethically challenged. I realize it’s been said over and over but just becuase something is lying around unguarded doesn’t mean you should take it.
Seriously you guys are ruining it for everyone with this self righteous shit. The powers that be are clamping down on the internet globally and it wouldn’t be happening if you guys could control your greed.
Actually, many video games fall into bargain prices. Especially with new digital distribution. Every weekend steam has sales on games, usually biggest hits 1 or 2 years old for anywhere from 10 to 20$. At 10$ its the same price as an album on Itunes. They accomplish this with higher bandwidth overhead, and greater production cost. Nothing similar exists in the music world, music says at the same price almost indefinitely. You almost never see the bargain album sale designed to spur interest in an album. Or simply to generate an extra amount of profit for a dead album.
You also speak as if me downloading a song affects the industry. You equate it to theft. It really isn’t the same thing. Theft removes the value of the product from the creator, they end up with a net loss from my taking their product. WIth digital downloads they are still in possession of the original copy. Since with both agree, I’m not likely to buy the album, me downloading it makes no difference to the market. If it was cheap enough I might buy it, but its never been priced in my price point. Like I said if I had no choice I would exclusively listen to creative commons work. Laws designed to get people like me buying music won’t work, because people like me will find other free sources of music, which I already do, creative commons work. For software I often use open source programs.
Anyway this is off topic, and I already made my point towards the articles topic. So I’ll leave it at that.
Games depresciate becuase the market for old games is basically nonexistent, but the market for old music is huge. There is a really big price spread, you can buy stuff brand new for anywhere from three or four to twenty bucks – but unlike software, it’s not based on age, just demand. Also, with books and music, there are royalties that need to be paid, so that always adds at least two dollars to the price.
It is actually ‘theft’. You are stealing the licensing, and you are stealing the rights. You are using the recording, you have a copy that you didn’t pay for, you didn’t pay the *copy*rights holder or compensate the artist. One copy is the same as the next, by law and ethically. If you don’t want it, don’t take it.
Honestly thay don’t care if you leech much, it’s when you ’share’. bnecause in the legal and very real sense you are publishing the file and making copies available to all takers, and you don’t have the legal or ethical right to do that.
“Games depresciate becuase the market for old games is basically nonexistent, but the market for old music is huge.”
Like all technology, nobody uses deprecated stuff. For console and portable games, I’m referring to the devices, and for computer games, old code. As such, comparing markets is rather meaningless.
“There is a really big price spread, you can buy stuff brand new for anywhere from three or four to twenty bucks – but unlike software, it’s not based on age, just demand.”
Are you certain that you referring to music? Your statement doesn’t fit.
“Also, with books and music, there are royalties that need to be paid, …”
Royalties for books? Ever heard of a library?
“It is actually ‘theft’.”
Nope.
“You are stealing the licensing, and you are stealing the rights.”
You wish. I’ve disproved that several times already.
“You are using the recording, you have a copy that you didn’t pay for, you didn’t pay the *copy*rights holder or compensate the artist.”
Define “use”. Copyright was meant to help prevent unauthorized printing, but as you can plainly tell, no consumer has been reprinting music.
“One copy is the same as the next, by law and ethically. If you don’t want it, don’t take it.”
Which law is that? What ethical principle are you referring to?
Quite frankly, you are trying too hard to make a point.
And what assumptions would those be? Assumptions only appear at the first step of proving something, and as such, there is no purpose in backing up an assumption if it is not used in a proof.
“What right do you have to any of it?”
To the assumptions or something you haven’t referred to yet?
As for the rest of the first paragraph, you basically show how much you don’t want to show off artistic work to the public without payments, which does not follow the artistic spirit. The public can say anything appropriate; there is nothing wrong with that, but if you can’t even stand that, then it is certainly your problem alone.
Again with your P2P mocking. Get over it, you maroon.
“Your assertion that copyright goes back two hundred years betrays a lack of concern on your part for facts.”
He did not assert anything. It was to see if you would go as far back into irrelevant times such as 200 years ago, because you appeal to tradition so frantically.
“As for the lady, she got sued for playing the radio, not singing, the rest is FUD.”
She was sued for playing the radio -and- singing.
“Seeing as how she can get music streamed into her business 24/7 for twenty pounds down and twelve a month, which is probably what she spends on lunch every day, I have absolutely no sympathy.”
Speculation, speculation. There is nothing wrong with listening to radio. You are just assuming a financial status on the clerk and attacking based on that, which is hypocritical, since you started your posting by ranting about assumptions.
“Greedy people like to get things and not pay.”
Actually, greed has more to do with getting things for the sake of getting them. In most contexts it has to do with getting -money-, malgre, as money can be essentially converted into some other material possession. On the contrary, people who don’t spend money would be called cheap, but not necessarily greedy.
The fact is an employee cannot play her own radio to entertain herself at work because the laws of the country say someone else needs to get paid again if someone else overhears that radio. Sounds pretty messed up to me. People arguing that this is ok need to take a reality check. I really do not see how wanting to listen to a radio at work is greedy. I think charging someone for something that has already been paid for is greedy. If she put headphones on the action would be all ok. But as soon as someone overhears that music she is greedy and someone else should be getting paid more money mmmm…. who is greedy now???
It’s a public performance if it’s a place of business. It’s like a DJ or a big seminar, or a concert. There is no differentiation for tiny little businesses or types of businesses in the US or UK.
Regardless, I persoanlly would rather the composer make his nickels so he spends his time composing and not waiting tables or punching a clock.
DJ directly generate revenue from the use of the music. So it makes sense they would have to pay a license. Seminar, the music is used by the company to create an atmosphere, its the company putting it on so they should pay. What we all have exception to is the fact that employees can’t listen to their own music while at work. The company has to pay a license for the employee to play their music. Which is why public license should only apply in areas where there is a direct revenue, or it adds measurable value to the product.
If that were enforcable at all you might have a point. As it is, public performance is a public performance and unless you want to get judges involved (liker they don;t have better things to do) she can pay twenty bucks a month and not be greedy.
“As it is, public performance is a public performance …”
What is a “public performance”? What makes a performance a public one? How does one perform in public?
“… she can pay twenty bucks a month and not be greedy.”
Again, you are just assuming a financial status on the clerk and attacking based on that.
If a rich person doesn’t give a damn about what you make and so does not buy your stuff, but listens to radio, would you consider that person greedy?
Looks like spam to me.
Yes an no, it could be labeled as spam, but it is on topic, and does contribute to the debate. So unless the admins have an issue with advertising of other file sharing sites I say leave it. Very worst case scenario is to delete the links.
Stellar posts there Malcom .. really enjoyed reading them & I couldn’t agree more.
Thanx.
How typical.
Personally I was thinking Malcom and Composer were the same person, still don’t doubt the possibility. Either way, they are both only interested in making as much money as possible from music, exploiting it like a Taiwanese hooker.
You’re the one exploiting something – raping it in fact. At least I don’t lie to myself with warmed over ideas that were hip at MIT in 1983 like you guys do.
Anyway, I’m not the other guy. Not neccessary. I’m just making a case as directly as possible.
“You’re the one exploiting something – raping it in fact. At least I don’t lie to myself with warmed over ideas that were hip at MIT in 1983 like you guys do.
Anyway, I’m not the other guy. Not neccessary. I’m just making a case as directly as possible.”
Note to Mal: If you have any hope of appearing to be even remotely credible, it’s not the best idea to simply sit around and hurl insults to people you can’t seem to defeat logically/intelligently.
Sorry I said it like that, but they are warmed over ideas from MIT c. 1983. That’s not really an insult though – the lineage goes de Sola Pool —> Stallman and GNU —> file sharers. Basically the ideas assume a techno-utopian society where everyone is rich and no one has to work to make a living, because technology will create perpetual abundance that there will be no strife, sickness or inequality.
To me it’s sort of like the guys that said the stock market would go up and up perpetually before the dot bomb.
malgre: blah blah blah blah …
Well actually, if we get to the point where we can turn energy into matter, and find an abundant source of energy, we could in theory have a machine that creates material goods from data and energy. The other possibility would be a machine that takes matter and converts it into other matter in a controlled form. Its not all that far fetched, but not likely to happen for a while yet. If you have a beef with file sharing now, it will only get worse with technology.
Consider how much energy that kind of material reaction takes, and you can figure on a pretty rigid power structure around who controls the energy supply (even if we can figure how to make and control that much energy). So I doubt that’s our Utopia.
The common man will still want to protect his creations from rampant exploitation. I’ve had the equivelant of a printing press on a desktop for a very long time, but making copies of books without the right to do it is still unethical and illegal. I know guys who have had record presses (vinyl records) since the 80’s and all the know how in the world, but making copies of other people’s records without permission is still unethical and illegal. It doesn’t matter how advanced or how simple the technology, the morality and therefore the legality remain unchanged.
“… the morality and therefore the legality remain unchanged.”
How does mere copying exploit a creation? You just claim it to be illegal and unethical, but what actually makes it so? If you can’t even answer those basic questions, then all your points are utterly meaningless.
It matters not if you lie, but you are indeed ignorantly arrogant, so you will only say things that are false.
“I’m just making a case as directly as possible.”
You call using speculations direct? Ha!