Excellent article.

http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/02/01/file_trading_manifesto/index.html

discuss.
:)

Could you be a karma whore and paste the text of the article here? :)

Considering it's 5 pages.... do you really want me to do that?

Josh, this isn't /. or plastic. We don't have karma, per se. ;-)

I haven't read the entire article, so forgive me if this does not discuss the specifics. The problem with file sharing is how to secure the rights of those artists who do not wish the product of their labor to be taken without compensation.

Now, first, I despise what the recording industry has become. Labels and record companies do deserve some profit due to the marketing they provide, but the current industry does so to the detriment of the artists involved.

On the other hand, a those who wish to have their work freely available (to increase their exposure or whatever) should not be prohibited from doing so.

The technology exists, and it will be used. I agree with both the artist who wishes to be compensated for his work and those who wish to share freely, both according to their volitional choice.

I'm curious though, I wonder if there are benefits to the technology that are not being quantified? How many people who download music end up buying the music when they are able? How many people go to the concerts as a result of hearing the music? I've never seen a study done. I know personally, that if I hear music I like, I'm much more inclined to buy it.

I'm curious though, I wonder if there are benefits to the technology that are not being quantified? How many people who download music end up buying the music when they are able? How many people go to the concerts as a result of hearing the music? I've never seen a study done. I know personally, that if I hear music I like, I'm much more inclined to buy it.

Continue reading the article, it's discussed in much more detail.

But, I agree.... and it's the case for many of my friends.... we download/share mp3s to be introduced to music.... if we like it, we buy the album.
*shrugs*
There are a lot of bands I wouldn't have found out about without file sharing.

Cool article. Thanks for posting it.

Yah, I have a problem with corporations turning to the force of government to stifle what is essentially a free market innovation. They should be pouring money into figuring out how to restructure a business model around it.

Intellectual property has never been about indefinite control by the creator. Look at patents. Patent law plainly states that we will let you reap the benefits of an idea, but only for a limited idea, and you have to tell everyone how you do it.

I don't know what the answer is, but I do think the RIAA is going too far and seeking to control and limit the marketplace, which is just stupid. You don't control, you adapt, you change, you flow with it.

Intellectual property has never been about indefinite control by the creator. Look at patents. Patent law plainly states that we will let you reap the benefits of an idea, but only for a limited idea, and you have to tell everyone how you do it.


Yeah, unless you're the Disney corporation and have tons of money... then you can just buy legislators and have them rewrite the law for you.
:P

This isn't really related to the article but it's kinda on topic. Just saw this on the wall today and had some thoughts about it that I thought were relevant to the whole piracy discussion.

<lawrence "p" solomon> can they still afford their mansions? yes. a few tracks pirated isn't going to cut into jack shit. (Feb 04 2003 @ 13:04)
<Dancin' EFO Fan> Oh yeah. My Beatles collection is almost all burned. And why? They don't need the money. (Feb 04 2003 @ 13:04)
<Dancin' EFO Fan> Meanwhile, I'm more than happy to buy the latest EFO record. (Feb 04 2003 @ 13:04)


I just think it's rather weird to fight a lopsided and unfair industry by being lopsided and unfair. I think people should be able to download MP3s. And I think they should purchase what they end up liking. I do not draw a line there between indie vs. record company artists. No one or the other is more deserving of my money inherently. Their talent or lack thereof determines if they're worthy of my money. I'm just as likely to not buy an indie CD I found I didn't like than with a non-indie. What I mean is, whether I shill out money or not would depend on the quality of what I heard from my MP3 and whether I think it's worth buying. I'm not going to listen to MP3s, decide I like it, but then say "well it's an indie artist so I'll buy it" or "I like it but it's a big label artist so they don't deserve my money." Just because the industry is corrupt should not mean we are justified in applying our standards corruptly. If we support free trading of MP3s, fine. But at least be consistent about it.

Who am I to say if Joe BigMusic deserves or needs my money? That's not my call. If his talent and product is something I think is worthy of purchase on its own merits then it's worthy. That's my role as a consumer. Not to make deeper judgements.