Balcony music
Today I discovered the wonderful Grooveshark and some thoughts occurred to me that I feel like writing down.
I haven’t spent much time thinking about rights over digital media, downloading, etc. I’ve tended to ignore the whole debate. So the following may all be commonplace observations. I have no idea.
It occurred to me that continued increases in the prevalence and bandwidth of internet access might be going to solve a problem they helped create. That we may simply be in a temporary uncomfortable phase that will soon be over.
The increase of broadband made it possible for people to download large music and video files. People had long been used to the traditional model of owning physical objects that contained their music and video: LPs, 8-track, cassettes, VHS cartridges, CDs, DVDs, etc. It was all physical property. We typically paid for it. I still have about 1,000 CDs, all paid for, sitting uselessly on my shelf.
The default frame of reference was the physical object that you bought in a store, brought home, physically put in a player, physically stored on a shelf, could lend to (and hopefully get back from) a friend. Broadband extended that, allowing us to download what we still thought of as physical objects. And they are physical objects in a real sense: occupying space on our digital hard disk shelves, needing organizational love and care, needing backups, etc.
Because the frame of reference was still physical objects, the media companies, who have their own opinion on the various rights – real and imagined – associated with these objects, had a way to go after the downloaders. They could point to the physical objects and say “hey, you stole that (object)”, or “you didn’t pay for that (object)”. They could even write worms and rootkits to dig into our computers looking for the objects, getting lists of them to hold up in court. And they had a point: where did you get that physical object after all?
But their argument, the frame of reference that shapes the debate, rests on ancient arguments: agreements and conventions regarding physical objects. Much of the law is based on these things.
The frame of reference might be due to change radically, kicking the legs out from under the music industry.
Imagine you’re walking down the street. You pass under a balcony and see open doors leading back into an apartment. There’s great music coming out of the doors, and you can hear it clearly down in the street. You stop to listen. Have you committed a crime? Would anyone even suggest that you had?
Someone comes out onto the balcony to stand in the sun. You call up and ask what the music is. They tell you, and you say how much you like it. They tell you they have other albums – and would you like to hear another song? You say yes, and stand down in the street while they put on another track. No crime there, right?
Suppose this balcony is in the building right next to yours. You go home and open your own balcony doors to be able to hear the music. You do that every day. Once in a while you bump into the neighbor in the street and comment on something else, maybe make a request. In the end the neighbor even suggests running a speaker wire into your apartment so you can hear their music whenever you like, even if it’s raining and everyone has their balcony doors closed. You buy a speaker with a volume control on it. Once in a while you even call your neighbor on the phone to ask them to play something again, or to put on a special track.
There’s no crime there, not even the hint of one. The media companies would probably like to protest. But the frame of reference has totally changed. We’ve gone from the mindset of physical possession of an object of questionable origin to the walking down the street and hearing music.
And so it will go with increasing broadband. I’ve been listening to Clem Snide all day on Grooveshark. It’s streaming into my computer and directly to my speakers without being stored as a physical object on my machine. Entire tracks are not being physically stored: the music coming out my speakers and the data on my machine are just as ephemeral as they would be if I were walking down the street overhearing Clem Snide from someone else’s balcony.
Have I broken a crime? I find it very hard to argue that I have. OTOH, if I download a file and store it on my machine (which I have done many times BTW) it’s very easy to argue that there is a crime of some sort being committed. It’s easy to ignore that feeling too, but that’s not the point.
The reality is, I think, that we don’t actually want to own the physical objects. I don’t want a shelf full of physical CDs, and I don’t want a hard drive that’s 80% full of music files that I worry about and even back up.
How many times do you watch a DVD anyway? For many people it’s silly to buy a DVD because you can rent it much more cheaply, and you’re probably only going to watch it once or maybe twice. Music, for me at least, is different as I’ll sometimes listen to a single track 100-200 times. But I still don’t need or want to own it if I can just pull it up on demand via Grooveshark. I’d rather it was their disk space than mine, and the bandwidth interference with my normal work due to the streaming audio is increasingly hard to detect.
We may just be in a temporary uncomfortable stage that will be solved by the thing that got us here – increasing broadband access.
As bandwidth increases and becomes cheaper it seems like there will be a trend towards just streaming media and not downloading it to have and to hold until the RIAA or MPAA do us part.
At that point the frame of reference will change. It will become very difficult to maintain that a crime has been committed. To do so you’ll have to also argue that walking down the street and overhearing your neighbor’s music is also a crime. Good luck making that argument.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:08 am
yup. totally agree. i’ve been saying this for years. the end of file based media is upon us.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:08 am
yup. totally agree. i’ve been saying this for years. the end of file based media is upon us.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Good points Terry.
Here in Italy if any music is ‘broadcast’ then the broadcaster must pay rights to the copyright holder. The key point is the definition of ‘broadcast’, which in Italy is very wide ranging.
Even bands playing covers for 20 or so friends on a beach a liable for payments, and the checks are quite thorough, I can tell you. Technically, a bunch of kids singing ‘happy birthday’ would also be liable for payments if that song where still in copyright.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Good points Terry.
Here in Italy if any music is ‘broadcast’ then the broadcaster must pay rights to the copyright holder. The key point is the definition of ‘broadcast’, which in Italy is very wide ranging.
Even bands playing covers for 20 or so friends on a beach a liable for payments, and the checks are quite thorough, I can tell you. Technically, a bunch of kids singing ‘happy birthday’ would also be liable for payments if that song where still in copyright.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:24 am
I’m with you on this one, Terry. Have you tried Spotify? Check it out!
May 6th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I’m with you on this one, Terry. Have you tried Spotify? Check it out!
May 6th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Hey Terry,
That leads me to a service that
– supplies the music I want in the moment – sometimes favorites, sometimes new songs based on favorites, sometimes a mood etc.
– is always available (streams into a laptop, iPhone, hifi, car…)
– collects feedback where possible (and saves to FluidDB…)
This has both flexibility and history awareness. There is probably a certain amount of time in a year I want to spend listening to music. I wouldn’t mind paying a yearly music fee for the bulk. It evaporates a lot of unnecessary decision making.
Fil
May 6th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Hey Terry,
That leads me to a service that
– supplies the music I want in the moment – sometimes favorites, sometimes new songs based on favorites, sometimes a mood etc.
– is always available (streams into a laptop, iPhone, hifi, car…)
– collects feedback where possible (and saves to FluidDB…)
This has both flexibility and history awareness. There is probably a certain amount of time in a year I want to spend listening to music. I wouldn’t mind paying a yearly music fee for the bulk. It evaporates a lot of unnecessary decision making.
Fil
May 6th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
You’ve left out the important bit: how do IP creators (musicians, artists,
journalists, inventors, …) make a living? And I don’t mean, “teach” “consult”
I mean as a function of the value of the products they create. You
don’t have to have a physical object to make a product. Objects can
be abstract, and still have value and property rights like physical objects.
Any vision, in my view, which does not imbue abstract objects with
real value is myopic and foolish.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
You’ve left out the important bit: how do IP creators (musicians, artists,
journalists, inventors, …) make a living? And I don’t mean, “teach” “consult”
I mean as a function of the value of the products they create. You
don’t have to have a physical object to make a product. Objects can
be abstract, and still have value and property rights like physical objects.
Any vision, in my view, which does not imbue abstract objects with
real value is myopic and foolish.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Hi hag :-)
I wasn’t addressing value, or being rewarded for creating/delivering value – as you say. And of course I think abstract objects, even abstract non-objects, can have real value. So I hereby duck the myopic & foolish charge – supposing it was even directed at me :-)
I don’t know how those people can/should make a living. I suspect the answer wont become clear until we start losing them as a result, and the pressure on us all to find a solution increases.
BTW, I downloaded lots of “free” Tiger Lillies music. Then I went to their concert here and afterwards went up to one of them (Adrian Stout, I think), explained what I’d done, and gave him 50 euros. He said “go for it” and also thanks. I’ll happily pay for music, as my 1000 CDs demonstrate. And I’ll do it even more happily if more of my money goes to the artists. I confess to feeling very little concern for the music “industry”, especially after repeated convictions for price fixing over the decades and the (seemingly) small margins that end up in the hands of the people making the music, not to mention their ugly machinations over recent years.
Anyway, I don’t claim to have any answers. I hope they’ll emerge.
May 6th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
Hi hag :-)
I wasn’t addressing value, or being rewarded for creating/delivering value – as you say. And of course I think abstract objects, even abstract non-objects, can have real value. So I hereby duck the myopic & foolish charge – supposing it was even directed at me :-)
I don’t know how those people can/should make a living. I suspect the answer wont become clear until we start losing them as a result, and the pressure on us all to find a solution increases.
BTW, I downloaded lots of “free” Tiger Lillies music. Then I went to their concert here and afterwards went up to one of them (Adrian Stout, I think), explained what I’d done, and gave him 50 euros. He said “go for it” and also thanks. I’ll happily pay for music, as my 1000 CDs demonstrate. And I’ll do it even more happily if more of my money goes to the artists. I confess to feeling very little concern for the music “industry”, especially after repeated convictions for price fixing over the decades and the (seemingly) small margins that end up in the hands of the people making the music, not to mention their ugly machinations over recent years.
Anyway, I don’t claim to have any answers. I hope they’ll emerge.
May 6th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Hi Terry, all of this works I agree for the consumer but you miss out the part about how artist get paid!
There is plenty of music published with a CCL but groove shark just put on any content and them wait for the copyright holder to contact them. This of course is rubbish if you are a small artist.Grooveshark they pay royalties but this money ends up in the pocket of lawyers & popstar.
Try http://www.spotify.com if you want a p2p app that actually pays artist and drop the nasty shark people.
Support the creative people that make music and help them earn a living from their trade. If they choose to give away their music they will ad often do on radio station and so on….
May 6th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Hi Terry, all of this works I agree for the consumer but you miss out the part about how artist get paid!
There is plenty of music published with a CCL but groove shark just put on any content and them wait for the copyright holder to contact them. This of course is rubbish if you are a small artist.Grooveshark they pay royalties but this money ends up in the pocket of lawyers & popstar.
Try http://www.spotify.com if you want a p2p app that actually pays artist and drop the nasty shark people.
Support the creative people that make music and help them earn a living from their trade. If they choose to give away their music they will ad often do on radio station and so on….
May 6th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
1) We are already losing artists, journalists, musicians, rapidly.
2) I’ve no love for Big Corp either (hate them, more correctly said), but
am a fan of capitalism and the rule of law. These are not inconsistent
statements, though many confuse the two.
3) “the answer”, I believe, is already well known, it’s in the US Constitution (and
the governing documents of most capitalistic, nominally rule-of-law countries):
the right of creators to exclude others from making, using, or selling the created
thing. The right of exclusion is what creates the value, since if it’s not worth paying for,
it’s not worth having. Music not worth paying for would not be available blaring from
a balcony, since no one would bother. The use of the object proves its utility.
4) For the right to have meaning, it must be possible to enforce it in the Courts.
5) People have been stealing other people’s IP for a very long time. It didn’t start with the internet. The only thing new here is that everybody these days seems to be on the side
of the thieves.
All the above IMHO FWIW BTW WTF and other acronyms.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
1) We are already losing artists, journalists, musicians, rapidly.
2) I’ve no love for Big Corp either (hate them, more correctly said), but
am a fan of capitalism and the rule of law. These are not inconsistent
statements, though many confuse the two.
3) “the answer”, I believe, is already well known, it’s in the US Constitution (and
the governing documents of most capitalistic, nominally rule-of-law countries):
the right of creators to exclude others from making, using, or selling the created
thing. The right of exclusion is what creates the value, since if it’s not worth paying for,
it’s not worth having. Music not worth paying for would not be available blaring from
a balcony, since no one would bother. The use of the object proves its utility.
4) For the right to have meaning, it must be possible to enforce it in the Courts.
5) People have been stealing other people’s IP for a very long time. It didn’t start with the internet. The only thing new here is that everybody these days seems to be on the side
of the thieves.
All the above IMHO FWIW BTW WTF and other acronyms.
May 6th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I don’t know enough to comment on 1. On 2, agree strongly – it’s the rule of law that makes economies work, gives companies and people the confidence to do business with one another.
3 I think is mainly right but a bit not. The right of exclusion is not the only thing creating the value. If I possess something that no-one wants, my right of exclusion doesn’t make it valuable. If things are not worth paying for doesn’t mean they’re not worth having – I have music on right now that I would not pay for. If someone asked me to pay for it, I’d say no and put something else on. I didn’t choose this music, it just popped up in my player, and it’s pleasant enough that I enjoy listening to it. It has some value to me, but I wouldn’t pay even a cent for it. If I turned up the volume it would be audible in the street below. And of course if my neighbor asked me to turn it up even more I might start to see value and be tempted to ask him/her to pay me :-) Your paragraph reminds me of the strictly rational economist arguments that people at SFI railed against – not all behavior is rational, including my music listening now, which has components of inertia, randomness, and non-monetary value, etc.
And I guess my only point in the original posting was to say that 4 is changing. Whereas it used to be an easy matter to point to an object on someone’s machine and say hey, you stole that physical object, it’s now more difficult and seems to me to be heading towards the walking under the balcony scenario. I wasn’t talking about rightness or wrongness, just, I guess, that the current phase of the debate may be about to end/change – at least in a legal sense. The enforceability might be about to go down, in which case a system that’s already broken is going to be more broken. But that might help clear the air and make it simpler to find an alternative model.
5 is interesting too. I think for me there’s some element of being annoyed at the record companies. I have no interest in being a thief and in fact would rather pay for the music – it’s in my interests to pay for it, because it has value to me and I want more of it. It’s perhaps similar to the situation Microsoft is in (at least with some of their consumers) – they have built up a lot of ill will and, I imagine, some part of people willingness to flaunt the law is due to resentment against what’s perceived as monopoly pricing and/or other nastiness. I’m making all this up, so your acronyms apply to my words too :-)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
I don’t know enough to comment on 1. On 2, agree strongly – it’s the rule of law that makes economies work, gives companies and people the confidence to do business with one another.
3 I think is mainly right but a bit not. The right of exclusion is not the only thing creating the value. If I possess something that no-one wants, my right of exclusion doesn’t make it valuable. If things are not worth paying for doesn’t mean they’re not worth having – I have music on right now that I would not pay for. If someone asked me to pay for it, I’d say no and put something else on. I didn’t choose this music, it just popped up in my player, and it’s pleasant enough that I enjoy listening to it. It has some value to me, but I wouldn’t pay even a cent for it. If I turned up the volume it would be audible in the street below. And of course if my neighbor asked me to turn it up even more I might start to see value and be tempted to ask him/her to pay me :-) Your paragraph reminds me of the strictly rational economist arguments that people at SFI railed against – not all behavior is rational, including my music listening now, which has components of inertia, randomness, and non-monetary value, etc.
And I guess my only point in the original posting was to say that 4 is changing. Whereas it used to be an easy matter to point to an object on someone’s machine and say hey, you stole that physical object, it’s now more difficult and seems to me to be heading towards the walking under the balcony scenario. I wasn’t talking about rightness or wrongness, just, I guess, that the current phase of the debate may be about to end/change – at least in a legal sense. The enforceability might be about to go down, in which case a system that’s already broken is going to be more broken. But that might help clear the air and make it simpler to find an alternative model.
5 is interesting too. I think for me there’s some element of being annoyed at the record companies. I have no interest in being a thief and in fact would rather pay for the music – it’s in my interests to pay for it, because it has value to me and I want more of it. It’s perhaps similar to the situation Microsoft is in (at least with some of their consumers) – they have built up a lot of ill will and, I imagine, some part of people willingness to flaunt the law is due to resentment against what’s perceived as monopoly pricing and/or other nastiness. I’m making all this up, so your acronyms apply to my words too :-)
May 6th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
[caveat: I’m not an IP lawyer, so corrections are welcome]
I agree that your example of listening to music from another person’s balcony is not a crime, but this scenario begins from a different understanding I have of purchasing music. I think the starting point is that we don’t own the music: buying a physical CD, or “physical” MP3 (or stupid AAC), does not mean that the music is mine. Basically, I am purchasing the ability to listen to that music on my terms. In a sense (and here I’m slaughtering a technical term), I’m buying a “license” that permits me to listen to a song when I want: CD player, record player, converting it for digital use. But since the music is, literally, not *mine*, I have no right to mass distribution.
So, internet sites like Pandora, Grooveshark, Pandora, etc., toe a fine line. That is, you may be living next to the balcony and enjoying the tunes, but half the city [or country] is also trying to crowd under the balcony to listen…
Also, most these sites are supported by banner advertising, a format on life support that is currently undergoing emergency surgery from cool new companies like Video Egg [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124156876159389809.html]. As an advertiser, I’m consistently frustrated by the inane nature of these ads… I mean, geez, we have the internet at our fingertips and we decide to copy the print model of advertising and spruce it up with some animation. Yawn.
Even more, the end of file-based media may take longer; the internet has a ceiling. An article in Slate stated that the “amount of traffic generated each month by YouTube is now equivalent to the amount of traffic generated across the entire internet in all of 2000.” [http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6169488.ece] Some tech companies are warning the internet will “break” because of bandwidth concerns. And the quality of these streams? I spent hours upon hours syncing my iTunes library with Lala.com, excited by the prospect of much more access to my music, only to discover the sound quality from that site is so crappy I haven’t been back in months.
Sorry, I’ll stop there…
May 6th, 2009 at 5:28 pm
[caveat: I’m not an IP lawyer, so corrections are welcome]
I agree that your example of listening to music from another person’s balcony is not a crime, but this scenario begins from a different understanding I have of purchasing music. I think the starting point is that we don’t own the music: buying a physical CD, or “physical” MP3 (or stupid AAC), does not mean that the music is mine. Basically, I am purchasing the ability to listen to that music on my terms. In a sense (and here I’m slaughtering a technical term), I’m buying a “license” that permits me to listen to a song when I want: CD player, record player, converting it for digital use. But since the music is, literally, not *mine*, I have no right to mass distribution.
So, internet sites like Pandora, Grooveshark, Pandora, etc., toe a fine line. That is, you may be living next to the balcony and enjoying the tunes, but half the city [or country] is also trying to crowd under the balcony to listen…
Also, most these sites are supported by banner advertising, a format on life support that is currently undergoing emergency surgery from cool new companies like Video Egg [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124156876159389809.html]. As an advertiser, I’m consistently frustrated by the inane nature of these ads… I mean, geez, we have the internet at our fingertips and we decide to copy the print model of advertising and spruce it up with some animation. Yawn.
Even more, the end of file-based media may take longer; the internet has a ceiling. An article in Slate stated that the “amount of traffic generated each month by YouTube is now equivalent to the amount of traffic generated across the entire internet in all of 2000.” [http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6169488.ece] Some tech companies are warning the internet will “break” because of bandwidth concerns. And the quality of these streams? I spent hours upon hours syncing my iTunes library with Lala.com, excited by the prospect of much more access to my music, only to discover the sound quality from that site is so crappy I haven’t been back in months.
Sorry, I’ll stop there…
May 6th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Hi Adrian
Thanks. I think your point makes sense, and it accords with David’s comments about the system in Italy (which may apply in Spain too for all I know). And I guess this is also what hag is saying: the right of exclusion allows the owner to prohibit (or charge for) broadcast. Then you’re on the slippery slope of what’s a broadcast, but you do at least have a leg to stand on. I certainly agree that in the particular case of me listening to Grooveshark, it’s Grooveshark that are sailing close to the wind. If Michael is right about how they operate (and he should know), then it’s not clear how Grooveshark will be able to continue to operate. I don’t know where they’re physically located though. And I’d even go as far as to agree with Michael that using them is contributing to the problem.
It seems a bit pat to say “thanks everyone”, but I’ll say it anyway :-) As I said at the very top, I haven’t spent much time thinking about this, and I’ve learned things today, so thanks! (I hereby extend free broadcast rights to my blog to each and every one of you.)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Hi Adrian
Thanks. I think your point makes sense, and it accords with David’s comments about the system in Italy (which may apply in Spain too for all I know). And I guess this is also what hag is saying: the right of exclusion allows the owner to prohibit (or charge for) broadcast. Then you’re on the slippery slope of what’s a broadcast, but you do at least have a leg to stand on. I certainly agree that in the particular case of me listening to Grooveshark, it’s Grooveshark that are sailing close to the wind. If Michael is right about how they operate (and he should know), then it’s not clear how Grooveshark will be able to continue to operate. I don’t know where they’re physically located though. And I’d even go as far as to agree with Michael that using them is contributing to the problem.
It seems a bit pat to say “thanks everyone”, but I’ll say it anyway :-) As I said at the very top, I haven’t spent much time thinking about this, and I’ve learned things today, so thanks! (I hereby extend free broadcast rights to my blog to each and every one of you.)
May 6th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Agree on perceived nastiness being part of the fuel for the masses fighting the fight
for information to be free, since that’s what it “wants” (they tell themselves in justification). Same goes for employees stealing from their employers because they think they are not being paid enough or otherwise slighted,
people cheating on their spouses because they think some deal has been broken (and may have been) and so on. People are constantly making social contracts of various sorts and may behave in a vigilante manner when the deal is broken.
But information does not want to be free, and even if it did, as various commentators have pointed out, “who cares?” Rats want to eat fingers off of babies, that doesn’t mean we have to let them, let alone encourage them.
May 6th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Agree on perceived nastiness being part of the fuel for the masses fighting the fight
for information to be free, since that’s what it “wants” (they tell themselves in justification). Same goes for employees stealing from their employers because they think they are not being paid enough or otherwise slighted,
people cheating on their spouses because they think some deal has been broken (and may have been) and so on. People are constantly making social contracts of various sorts and may behave in a vigilante manner when the deal is broken.
But information does not want to be free, and even if it did, as various commentators have pointed out, “who cares?” Rats want to eat fingers off of babies, that doesn’t mean we have to let them, let alone encourage them.
May 6th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
If you listen to music from your neighbor’s balcony, you listen to your neighbor’s choice of music.
If I keep physical copies, it’s because I don’t trust others to continue to make the content available, easily or at all.
It is (relatively) important that musicians don’t starve, to exactly the same extent that it is (relatively) important that non-musicians don’t starve, but it is not important that everyone who listens pays (and I say this as a semi-professional musician). As for money as feedback, there are other channels of at least equal importance.
May 6th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
If you listen to music from your neighbor’s balcony, you listen to your neighbor’s choice of music.
If I keep physical copies, it’s because I don’t trust others to continue to make the content available, easily or at all.
It is (relatively) important that musicians don’t starve, to exactly the same extent that it is (relatively) important that non-musicians don’t starve, but it is not important that everyone who listens pays (and I say this as a semi-professional musician). As for money as feedback, there are other channels of at least equal importance.
May 6th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
ok, I’m make one more comment, re: music on your ipod that is just there and you
do listen to, but if asked to pay for, wouldn’t.
I say, that’s fine, but if somebody comes and asks you to pay for it or delete it, then
you (according to the way things should work, IMHO, etc) either delete or pay for it.
Fine, we’re in agreement up to there, and perhaps well beyond.
But what is happening is people saying “it’s not fair to even ask me to pay.
You’re a troll and a blood sucker and are stiffling innovation (cf. Lessing)
and other attacks in the parade of horribles, including “don’t you understand that
in the modern day Information wants to be FREE!” but all boiling down to the same thing,
trying to retrade the deal between society and original creators, cutting a new one in
favor of consumers of creativity against creators themselves. It’s short-sighted and foolish,
I claim, though I recognize that I am in a decided minority. Nobody, e.g. in Silicon Valley,
the /. crowd, open-source crowd, Big-Co manufacturers, etc sees it that way. And they’ve got the Economics and Law departments of Stanford on their side too, not to mention the US Supreme Court.
Everybody thought that you could eat eyeballs too, back in the day.
I see the argument as orthogonal to network effects,. path dependence and so on. I just don’t see the relationship. Networks effects are a mechanism to unpack the value in a creation, not to create the value.
ok, enough.
May 6th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
ok, I’m make one more comment, re: music on your ipod that is just there and you
do listen to, but if asked to pay for, wouldn’t.
I say, that’s fine, but if somebody comes and asks you to pay for it or delete it, then
you (according to the way things should work, IMHO, etc) either delete or pay for it.
Fine, we’re in agreement up to there, and perhaps well beyond.
But what is happening is people saying “it’s not fair to even ask me to pay.
You’re a troll and a blood sucker and are stiffling innovation (cf. Lessing)
and other attacks in the parade of horribles, including “don’t you understand that
in the modern day Information wants to be FREE!” but all boiling down to the same thing,
trying to retrade the deal between society and original creators, cutting a new one in
favor of consumers of creativity against creators themselves. It’s short-sighted and foolish,
I claim, though I recognize that I am in a decided minority. Nobody, e.g. in Silicon Valley,
the /. crowd, open-source crowd, Big-Co manufacturers, etc sees it that way. And they’ve got the Economics and Law departments of Stanford on their side too, not to mention the US Supreme Court.
Everybody thought that you could eat eyeballs too, back in the day.
I see the argument as orthogonal to network effects,. path dependence and so on. I just don’t see the relationship. Networks effects are a mechanism to unpack the value in a creation, not to create the value.
ok, enough.
May 7th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Ever since I transitionsed from vinyl to CD’s I dreamed of unified fat AV digital pipe to the door where I would pay for what I consumed in much the same way as I pay for the water that flows from my tap the electricity that zaps out of the socket. One strand of glass delivering radio, music, video, email, phone, games etc. on demand.
As I age, I want physical objects less and less. Things get broken, wear out, go missing and take up space. When we invest so much in our things, we become vulnerable to the prospect of loosing those things too.
But a fair rate for a fair bit rate (one where a portion is repatriated to content creator) seems the way to go.
That said, my teenage son has just received his belated birthday present of a record deck and phono pre-amp. His quest, to delve into the collection of Jazz and Blues black vinyl bequeathed to him by his grand father. Tonight, from ebay at a cost of £17, he took delivery of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Onions_(album) An album cut when I was born. I’m looking at the spinning vinyl, the label in the middle of the record, the design, the colours, the font just seem from an era that is right on the edge of my personal event horizon. He could have downloaded it from iTunes, saved himself £8 and foregone the pleasure of all the cracks and pops, or even taken a peek on Spotify. But no, apparently sacrilegious of me even to suggest. Funny, he’s so bloody happy with his monaural black vinyl early offering from Stax records. I doubt that he could handle a new born with more tenderness and care. He doesn’t care much for my fat digital pipe, and in my head I am hearing “Nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all, The needle returns to the start of the song, And we all sing along like before” I think I might have that on vinyl somewhere, buried deep in the garage.
As for playing requests from your balcony, let alone running speaker cables to all your neighbours, well, I think that is currently covered under the fine print “All Rights of the producer and of the owner of the recorded work reserved. Unauthorised copying,public performance, broadcasting, hiring
or rental of this recording prohibited.”
May 8th, 2009 at 12:20 am
Ever since I transitionsed from vinyl to CD’s I dreamed of unified fat AV digital pipe to the door where I would pay for what I consumed in much the same way as I pay for the water that flows from my tap the electricity that zaps out of the socket. One strand of glass delivering radio, music, video, email, phone, games etc. on demand.
As I age, I want physical objects less and less. Things get broken, wear out, go missing and take up space. When we invest so much in our things, we become vulnerable to the prospect of loosing those things too.
But a fair rate for a fair bit rate (one where a portion is repatriated to content creator) seems the way to go.
That said, my teenage son has just received his belated birthday present of a record deck and phono pre-amp. His quest, to delve into the collection of Jazz and Blues black vinyl bequeathed to him by his grand father. Tonight, from ebay at a cost of £17, he took delivery of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Onions_(album) An album cut when I was born. I’m looking at the spinning vinyl, the label in the middle of the record, the design, the colours, the font just seem from an era that is right on the edge of my personal event horizon. He could have downloaded it from iTunes, saved himself £8 and foregone the pleasure of all the cracks and pops, or even taken a peek on Spotify. But no, apparently sacrilegious of me even to suggest. Funny, he’s so bloody happy with his monaural black vinyl early offering from Stax records. I doubt that he could handle a new born with more tenderness and care. He doesn’t care much for my fat digital pipe, and in my head I am hearing “Nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all, The needle returns to the start of the song, And we all sing along like before” I think I might have that on vinyl somewhere, buried deep in the garage.
As for playing requests from your balcony, let alone running speaker cables to all your neighbours, well, I think that is currently covered under the fine print “All Rights of the producer and of the owner of the recorded work reserved. Unauthorised copying,public performance, broadcasting, hiring
or rental of this recording prohibited.”
May 8th, 2009 at 4:47 am
HI Michael
That’s pretty interesting, and nice, and I guess not surprising. A friend told me the other day that vinyl is making a bit of a comeback. I also like the pops and squeaks and the whole analog experience. And things go in phases, of course, with retro stuff coming strongly back into style. That’s running counter to the general direction of increasing technology, but it’s nice when it happens. I also love books, especially used ones, and can’t imagine ever even wanting to own a Kindle (let alone buying one). OK, I’m just blabbing now (early morning, pre-coffee).
Thanks for the comment. I wonder if my owns kids will one day go retro like this too. I guess so, for a while at least. And thanks for the comment on broadcast – before this posting I hadn’t looked at things from this “right” angle.
May 8th, 2009 at 5:47 am
HI Michael
That’s pretty interesting, and nice, and I guess not surprising. A friend told me the other day that vinyl is making a bit of a comeback. I also like the pops and squeaks and the whole analog experience. And things go in phases, of course, with retro stuff coming strongly back into style. That’s running counter to the general direction of increasing technology, but it’s nice when it happens. I also love books, especially used ones, and can’t imagine ever even wanting to own a Kindle (let alone buying one). OK, I’m just blabbing now (early morning, pre-coffee).
Thanks for the comment. I wonder if my owns kids will one day go retro like this too. I guess so, for a while at least. And thanks for the comment on broadcast – before this posting I hadn’t looked at things from this “right” angle.
May 8th, 2009 at 8:11 am
And whilst we are on the subject of owning objects, what is it with personal computers? They have spread like a virus. Not only highly contagious but unpleasantly virulent. They’ve popped up in every home and they are more demanding that new borns. The trouble with PC’s is unlike us they are far too fragile and have no ability to self repair. How much global time is poured down the drain sorting out “It wont print any more”, “I can’t read email” etc. etc. Missing system files, incompatible drivers, file system corruption. PCs are just so fragile. A single bit out of place in a system file and it’s all tools down. By comparison, most life forms can sustain huge amounts of damage and keep going with only a minor loss in performance AND they often self repair. PC’s should NEVER have been recommended for home use!
Back in the 90’s I thought X-Windows might be the solution. A light weight, solid state terminal on the desk (and more importantly in the home) and the crunch power and storage being held off site by a service provider could take care of the business, professionally. It fits the model of pay for what you use very well. Alas X-Windows was probably ahead of its time or at least ahead of bandwidth. We couldn’t deliver rich media content at 2400 baud. Later on, I though Sun’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Ray might at least provide a solution for the large corporate. I mean how many tech monkeys do they need running around our local hospital solving PC configuration faults in various labs and clinics?
Add to that AV digital fat pipe, a nice solid state thin client please. If the thin client does ever fail, switch off and then switch on again. If that fails you peel it off the wall, throw it in the recycling bin, and pick up a replacement. But never never again will I have to deal with that ‘phone call whilst I am eating dinner that goes “Hi, Mike, It’s Alan, we’re having a problem with our computer and we thought we’d try you as you know all about computers”… I don’t even use PCs. There sense of disappointment in me is palpable
Hah, I’m still singing “?Nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all, The needle returns to the start of the song, And we all sing along like before?, clearly I am advocating a return to the mainframe and the sandal and socks wearing Unix guru. Oh gawd!
May 8th, 2009 at 9:11 am
And whilst we are on the subject of owning objects, what is it with personal computers? They have spread like a virus. Not only highly contagious but unpleasantly virulent. They’ve popped up in every home and they are more demanding that new borns. The trouble with PC’s is unlike us they are far too fragile and have no ability to self repair. How much global time is poured down the drain sorting out “It wont print any more”, “I can’t read email” etc. etc. Missing system files, incompatible drivers, file system corruption. PCs are just so fragile. A single bit out of place in a system file and it’s all tools down. By comparison, most life forms can sustain huge amounts of damage and keep going with only a minor loss in performance AND they often self repair. PC’s should NEVER have been recommended for home use!
Back in the 90’s I thought X-Windows might be the solution. A light weight, solid state terminal on the desk (and more importantly in the home) and the crunch power and storage being held off site by a service provider could take care of the business, professionally. It fits the model of pay for what you use very well. Alas X-Windows was probably ahead of its time or at least ahead of bandwidth. We couldn’t deliver rich media content at 2400 baud. Later on, I though Sun’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Ray might at least provide a solution for the large corporate. I mean how many tech monkeys do they need running around our local hospital solving PC configuration faults in various labs and clinics?
Add to that AV digital fat pipe, a nice solid state thin client please. If the thin client does ever fail, switch off and then switch on again. If that fails you peel it off the wall, throw it in the recycling bin, and pick up a replacement. But never never again will I have to deal with that ‘phone call whilst I am eating dinner that goes “Hi, Mike, It’s Alan, we’re having a problem with our computer and we thought we’d try you as you know all about computers”… I don’t even use PCs. There sense of disappointment in me is palpable
Hah, I’m still singing “?Nothing ever happens, nothing happens at all, The needle returns to the start of the song, And we all sing along like before?, clearly I am advocating a return to the mainframe and the sandal and socks wearing Unix guru. Oh gawd!
May 8th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Michael
Right… Fixing Microsoft windows problems is like a tax on my life. I spend much more time fixing other people’s windows problems than I do fixing my own non-windows problems. I have some resentment towards MS over this – they release shoddy products and support and the burden falls on the computer literate of the world. I often feel like asking my windows using friends why they bought this fantastically complex device when they have absolutely no idea how to use it properly, how it works, how to fix it, etc. What were they expecting? The easy-to-use illusion that sells millions of these objects to people who shouldn’t have them has resulted in people who don’t-even-use having to help maintain the bloody things. Not even being a user of Windows because it is too horribly painful to live with makes this particularly galling. I know quite a lot about Windows, and every single bit of that knowledge comes from helping others to keep their machines running. I’ve never used Windows myself, and don’t intend to. Yet I get to pay a tax to MS. I don’t have to, but if I don’t then my friends get to pay an even bigger penalty for having made the mistake of buying an object they don’t understand. Maybe if we all refused to help the poor Windows users…..
OK, another rant.
May 8th, 2009 at 11:25 am
Michael
Right… Fixing Microsoft windows problems is like a tax on my life. I spend much more time fixing other people’s windows problems than I do fixing my own non-windows problems. I have some resentment towards MS over this – they release shoddy products and support and the burden falls on the computer literate of the world. I often feel like asking my windows using friends why they bought this fantastically complex device when they have absolutely no idea how to use it properly, how it works, how to fix it, etc. What were they expecting? The easy-to-use illusion that sells millions of these objects to people who shouldn’t have them has resulted in people who don’t-even-use having to help maintain the bloody things. Not even being a user of Windows because it is too horribly painful to live with makes this particularly galling. I know quite a lot about Windows, and every single bit of that knowledge comes from helping others to keep their machines running. I’ve never used Windows myself, and don’t intend to. Yet I get to pay a tax to MS. I don’t have to, but if I don’t then my friends get to pay an even bigger penalty for having made the mistake of buying an object they don’t understand. Maybe if we all refused to help the poor Windows users…..
OK, another rant.
May 9th, 2009 at 3:00 am
ok. so I shouldn’t own a car that I can not repair, and may not drive to everyone’s liking? perhaps I should give up air transportation as I certainly can not pilot a commercial airliner, let alone tune those jet engines.
Of course if Boeing took the same attitude as Microsoft in building the things — lets let it fly and when it crashes we’ll fix the bugs — I would be more than reluctant to step on board.
What’s going on here?
I never use windows — strictly an apple biter — and when things don’t happen the way I want I call my son, who, following some sighing that seems to register a an understanding of the impenetrable depth of my ignorance, informs me of a few key strokes that solve my problem.
May 9th, 2009 at 4:00 am
ok. so I shouldn’t own a car that I can not repair, and may not drive to everyone’s liking? perhaps I should give up air transportation as I certainly can not pilot a commercial airliner, let alone tune those jet engines.
Of course if Boeing took the same attitude as Microsoft in building the things — lets let it fly and when it crashes we’ll fix the bugs — I would be more than reluctant to step on board.
What’s going on here?
I never use windows — strictly an apple biter — and when things don’t happen the way I want I call my son, who, following some sighing that seems to register a an understanding of the impenetrable depth of my ignorance, informs me of a few key strokes that solve my problem.
June 25th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
[…] music – http://bit.ly/JfeVS lovely meditation on what it means to share music #music […]
July 7th, 2009 at 6:07 am
So many people now are streaming their information as opposed to even downloading so as you said being able to keep up with this as a crime will be a very difficult task.
I particularly like your comment about walking and hearing the neighbors conversation, no doubt there will be some who will try this as a form of defense, if they haven’t already.
It will be very interesting to see how all of this is handled in the future that is for sure.
Regards
Adirec
July 7th, 2009 at 7:07 am
So many people now are streaming their information as opposed to even downloading so as you said being able to keep up with this as a crime will be a very difficult task.
I particularly like your comment about walking and hearing the neighbors conversation, no doubt there will be some who will try this as a form of defense, if they haven’t already.
It will be very interesting to see how all of this is handled in the future that is for sure.
Regards
Adirec