THE PAVILION ANNEX

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:24 pm

Just to add a small smidgin of perspective to this argument, I recall back in my profligate and socially amoral teenhood I was one of those who routinely taped albums borrowed from friends. Then along came the little skull-n-crossbones labels on albums declaring "Home Taping Is Killing Music." This turned out to be a bit overstated.

Concerning what this did to potential sales. First, if I really liked the album, I went out and bought it anyway. I wanted the cover art, for one thing, but I don't think it was quite that conscious. I liked it, I wanted to own it, I bought. I subsequently continued to buy albums by that artist until I hit one I didn't care for. I might later tape one to see if they'd improved.

Secondly, if I didn't buy the album, the overwhelming odds are I was never going to buy that album. In my case, taping it didn't lose anybody a sale. After listening to it for a while before tiring of it, I would tape over it.

However, I wasn't making dozens of tapes and handing them out to my friends. That's the chief difference between home taping and streaming without permission. There was no monetarily punitive aftermarket distribution that would, if it were large enough, actually hurt the artist's wallet. The fact is, the technology has advanced sufficiently that homegrown aftermarkets can do a lot of damage. It's not just for personal use, unless personal use includes distribution for no fee to a fairly wide market.

As to the snooping on the internet---didn't that get settled with Harlan v AOL? These are private companies and are responsible for the content they allow up. Clear commercial and copyrighted material is not the difficult to distinguish from some original bit of video, audio, or text put up by a single user---who then can establish copyright. We don't need an American Family Institute watchdog situation.

It's fairly simple to ask permission. I have known a few writers whose work was infringed by fans doing fanfic. Permission was sought and denied, the fan went ahead and did it anyway. Law suit ensued. But if permission is granted, everybody can play happy.

Balance. It's a matter of balance.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Steve Evil » Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:17 pm

The chief difference between home taping and streaming is that taping required you to go out and buy the tapes; blank tapes were cheaper sure, but there was still aphysical and financial restraint on what you distributed. You could also make no more than one tape at a time, possibly more if you had fancy equipment, but no more than a handfull at a time. Alot of people just said "to heck with it!" and bought the album anyway.

Streaming makes material available to the entire world at the press of a button.

Click, presto! Everybody owns it.

The music industry (publishing is a bit different) isn't just collapsing; it has collapsed. We just go through the motions because no one's figured out what will replace it yet.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:27 pm

If you home tape your friends lp, you are costing the artist money, because you didn't also buy the album.

Let's be honest here, information is a different beast of property. There is a social function to intellectual property and even with regular property you have laws and limits, like zoning--you can't just build something without permission. The main question is, is access to information more important than protecting the intellectual monopoly of some corporation? Individual artists can have special laws, we have no truck here. Access to information is necessary in a functioning democracy.

This is why we have libraries. We see a communal, social function to speech that we don't see to someone's house or car. Every time someone checks out a book or dvd they cost the owner money, because they will not be buying the work. Then there is stuff where access is impossible without youtube streaming, like Chomsky interviews. According to you guys CNBC can prevent me from seeing the Donahue, Chomsky interview because they own the copyright to the show? Obviously CNBC cannot make any money from that interview and they will not ever release it, so my only avenue is to see it on youtube. It does not harm CNBC.

I think I have a right to see that interview because there is a higher social function, me being informed by my man Chomskers. Nobody is selling anything, they are providing a service, using technology. You do have fair use laws, so there are sticky legal arguments we are avoiding.

There is also the fact that corporations want to control access to information itself. This is why they have used copyright laws to be intellectual bullies.

The laws have been changed that benefit corporations way too much. If we could kill corporate personhood then maybe sane laws protecting small time artists could make sense.

You also have where record companies radio stations to pay them for every song they play. Right now they play songs for free, since playing the songs promotes the work. According to radio stations, paying every artist would bankrupt most radio stations, especially black owned, who are already struggling.

User avatar
Steve Evil
Posts: 3519
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 3:22 pm
Location: Some Cave in Kanata
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Steve Evil » Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:10 pm

FrankChurch wrote:If you home tape your friends lp, you are costing the artist money, because you didn't also buy the album.


So you see no difference in scale between taping and downloading?

I take your point about interviews, and access to information. I feel no moral quams about watching old interviews because I know the interviewer has either been paid for for the work or done it voluntarily at times. Creative output is a different beast, and I think scale most definately matters.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Fri Mar 25, 2011 3:54 pm

I think scale most definately matters.
yes, in a practical sense, but only in the amount of reward gained or saved in the pursuit .
corps. are targets mainly as a concentration of capital (on paper).
the individual is mainly seen as a target collectively, by government and producers .
a herd of sheep.
ask HE why he incorporated.
the individual that produces can need protection from the herd.
information is an important resource, the most difficult to control.

art, while life affirming and worthy, is most difficult to quantify, or to defend "to the death".

frank,
much of your post would only be considered "libertarian" if read dripping with sarcasm.
my eys are all sticky from reading it. :D
follow your bliss,mike

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:03 pm

picture if you will a medieval scene;

a traveling band of poets, minstrels and jesters ; bringing news and entertainment from far away. :D

now picture them being eaten by the starving locals. :shock:
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:07 pm

Sorry Frank, you keep trying to insist the corporation is the sole victim of your theft, and they are not. The artist (songwriter, screenwriter, actor, singer, etc) are just as much a victim as the corporation. If the information were vital -- instructions for surviving hurricanes or tsunami -- I'd say the general public is entitled to the information. Libraries pay for the books. Yeah, they ARE operated as a community benefit, but they DO have to pay for their copies AND they do not duplicate them for distribution. If you want to loan a movie you bought to a friend that's one thing. Copying it and sending to a bunch of friends for free is something entirely different.

Again, back to my analogy: If you shoplift from Target are you asserting it's not really a crime because Target is a big corporation? Does Target not have the right to protect themselves and prosecute people who shoplift?

A little kid steals a packet of gum, it's a slap on the wrist but they're gonna scare the kid and get his parents involved. If that kid becomes a teenager and steals a lot of packets of gum and hands it out to his friends, they're gonna prosecute.

"But it's only gum, and it's stealing from Target who can afford to lose a few sticks of gum. Prosecuting me because I'm the shoplifter is just being a mean and evil corporation" is an absurd argument.

(And we won't even mention the people fired because the corporation isn't profitable enough and has to slash jobs.)
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FinderDoug » Fri Mar 25, 2011 9:23 pm

Then there is stuff where access is impossible without youtube streaming, like Chomsky interviews. According to you guys CNBC can prevent me from seeing the Donahue, Chomsky interview because they own the copyright to the show? Obviously CNBC cannot make any money from that interview and they will not ever release it, so my only avenue is to see it on youtube. It does not harm CNBC.


It may be true that CNBC cannot make any money from an 18 year old interview. Or it may not be. There may be documentary value, there may not. But really, Frank - the fact that it's still out on YouTube after almost three years might indicate that CNBC doesn't care, and probably leads back around to their choice to not enforce a copyright protection because it's an informational program, and not a creative one. But it does not either way negate the fundamental argument: that it's CNBC's, or Donahue's, or Chomsky's, or someone's intellectual property, and THEY GET TO CHOOSE if they enforce it or not. That you WANT it or feel you have a right to it is immaterial. I suspect you've never actually investigated to see if CNBC offers transcription of older programming for a fee.

There is also the fact that corporations want to control access to information itself. This is why they have used copyright laws to be intellectual bullies.


Can you cite a specific instance of this applicable to information? Not creative content, but information as you cite in the Chomsky interview example? No generalities - an actual, factual instance. Not ball-busting you, Frank - I just haven't such a case that immediately springs to mind.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Sat Mar 26, 2011 12:48 pm

Maybe I should have said 'fact to me,' not fact alone. It was a flippant thing to say and I did give zero evidence--I forgot you guys are so clued out. Jus kidding...hhehe.

That is a complex subject, a subject you obviously will not see mentioned on corporate media. You obviously have to know what shadowy cul-de-sac to find this stuff.

There's Alex Carey's book about corporate propaganda, how they use propaganda to control ideas. Neil Postman, who showed how television makes people see the world in odd ways. Edward Bernays, his views about how pr firms control ideas and how there is a secret government. Noam's book Manufacturing Consent, the work FAIR does.

It's a complex subject. Under the received evidence, it is a fact, under MY OPINION.

I just think it is a kick in the head that Doug is talking to me again.

----------

Barber, admit this, if Harlan wasn't your friend would you have this much skin in this game?

Just don't punish people who stream content. Punish the people who sell the stuff. You still have access to information and protection for copyrights.

User avatar
Moderator
Site Admin
Posts: 10607
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:17 pm
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Moderator » Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:56 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Maybe I should have said 'fact to me,' not fact alone. It was a flippant thing to say and I did give zero evidence--I forgot you guys are so clued out. Jus kidding...hhehe.


Aw, dammit, Frank. You were *this* close to a terrific observation. Then you had to continue the sentence...I've added italics where you just destroyed any sense you displayed in the first half.

FrankChurch wrote: Barber, admit this, if Harlan wasn't your friend would you have this much skin in this game?


Um.

Have I been talking to the ether? Cris had an entire album stolen and put up for free downloads from China. And yes, her label was in negotiations for a distribution deal there. The instant the free downloads started, they walked away (and may have been associated with the theft for all we know). We've had to go after domestic users who put her stuff on their sites (thinking, as you do, that it's somehow a tribute).

I've had plenty of my pictures used without permission or payment, fortunately only having one real bastard response about giving me credit and/or a dime or two. (He soon found out who I work for and the methods I have available to enforce my copyright).

So the simple answer is "I have considerable skin in this game, regardless of anyone else's viewpoint".

FrankChurch wrote:Just don't punish people who stream content. Punish the people who sell the stuff. You still have access to information and protection for copyrights.


That's...just an amazingly narrow response. It's okay if people give away copyrighted content for free, as long as they don't sell it? That's even more ridiculous and devaluing of the artist's work. It essentially states that the artists ought to work for free, because that's the message you're sending by giving it away.

Musicians...professional musicians...have watched their livelihoods go bye-bye as a result of teenage garage bands who are willing to work for free. Our culture is telling artists of every kind that art isn't worth anything -- this message is being sent by the downloader/streamer, it's being sent by the club owners who book free bands instead of paying the professionals, it's being sent by Republicans who want to defund NPR and Public Broadcasting.

Recently Cris turned down a gig opening for Billy Vera and the Beaters when the club essentially said "yeah we're paying them, but if your band sells enough tickets you can keep a percentage of the money from your own ticket sales" instead of paying Cris what she's worth. For the resume credit she doesn't need.

So, yeah, Frank. Not only do we have skin in the game, it's the fuckers who believe the artist's work should be distributed for free who are making artist's lives miserable. It's not just pay the writer, it's pay ALL of the artists and stop asking for a free handout and thinking it's a compliment to be doing so.

Plaudits from thieves aren't really something the artist can eat when they get a little hungry.
- I love to find adventure. All I need is a change of clothes, my Nikon, an open mind and a strong cup of coffee.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:26 pm

I will sound like a right winger here, but nobody has a right to make profit. You take chances in a free society when your stuff goes out into the ether. You can have laws to protect it, but there will always be ways some smart aleck can get the stuff for free. Best to find alternative ways to make bank from creativity and realize that there is no failsafe way to keep every dollar in your side of the court.

These toxic laws just give corporations more rights to control the flow of information.

http://movingtofreedom.org/2006/10/06/t ... -of-ideas/

We do know that touring is the way most artists make money nowadays. Cris will do fine as long as she understands that doing it live is how she will continue to make a living. Records just promote the live show.

Limits to information are just that.

How about this for writers:

Publishing houses could pool resources--best selling books would put their money in a pool with low selling books, they would all share equally, each getting the same amount every year.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:51 pm

wow, there it goes again.
efing amazing.
infinite entitlement to, and righteous indignation at, any accomplishment of others.
all at the same time, from the same source.
utterly amazing.
follow your bliss,mike

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:56 pm

You saying that James Patterson has 'accomplished' more than Harlan or Adam Troy-Castro? Has Steve King accomplised more than Hubert Selby? Has Lady Gaga accomplished more than Cris?

It's not about who is better, it is about what the gullible masses will buy. Mike, come home.

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:11 pm

FrankChurch wrote:You saying that James Patterson has 'accomplished' more than Harlan or Adam Troy-Castro? Has Steve King accomplised more than Hubert Selby? Has Lady Gaga accomplished more than Cris?

It's not about who is better, it is about what the gullible masses will buy. Mike, come home.
uh, no frank,
you are hallucinating again .
i said:
"wow, there it goes again.
efing amazing.
infinite entitlement to, and righteous indignation at, any accomplishment of others.
all at the same time, from the same source.
utterly amazing."


or perhaps it was a dream?
did you fall asleep?
follow your bliss,mike

cynic
Posts: 2684
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 3:55 am
Location: chicago

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby cynic » Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:50 pm

wakey, wakey
time to get up frank :)
FrankChurch wrote: You saying that James Patterson has 'accomplished' more than Harlan or Adam Troy-Castro? Has Steve King accomplised more than Hubert Selby? Has Lady Gaga accomplished more than Cris?
no frank;
what you said implies that even one who can't perform worth a damn (one not worthy of shining Chris's pumps, or moses' sandals) should get the same reward as the best in the buisness:
FrankChurch wrote: Publishing houses could pool resources--best selling books would put their money in a pool with low selling books, they would all share equally, each getting the same amount every year.
by that warped, entitlement, "rights" logic you would gain every reward due and available to Chomsky.

after all, you deserve it. you wave your arms and flap your jaw so devotedly.
FrankChurch wrote:It's not about who is better, it is about what the gullible masses will buy.
are you frank, one of those in "the gullible masses" who apparently believe you are worthy of the respect and rewards that the best of men have earned? :?

apparently. :lol:
follow your bliss,mike


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests