Fighting With Teenagers: A Copyright Story

http://www.jasonrobertbrown.com/weblog/2010/06/fighting_with_teenagers_a_copy.php

by soundsop • 16 years ago

63 150 16 years ago

iamdave3• 16 years ago

for the tl;dr crowd- The author writes about an incident in which he discovered a teenager was trading his sheet music, without his permission and approaches her about it, said teenager actually makes several very good points, which get ignored by the author on various occasions in their conversation in lieu of a "lecture" on copyright.

Further tl;dr - the comment section by and large are all pats on the back to the writer. Few worthy of reading, but not many.

While I certainly see the perspective of the author here, wanting to preserve the integrity of his work, invariably he faces the same crisis the mainstream music industry faces: refusal to accept the change in mentality about content distribution and consumption, and an ardent unwillingness to entertain the idea that maybe in order to attract new audiences you have to tickle their senses and find out what they want, and how to give it to them. "Build it and they will come", thing.

jws2• 16 years ago

You let the kid off too easily.

He is already selling artists sheet music that they absolutely need for their profession via instant download for the cost of a coffee and the teenager in question still believes it is her right to misappropriate a copy instead because she doesn't want to pay.

The author isn't trying to preserve his work's integrity, whatever that is, he is trying to preserve his income.

He is a song writer. He genre is not a big recording industry item, mechanical royalties will be minimal. There are no concert tee shirts ,to assuage anyone's guilt here.

megablast2• 16 years ago

If I want a coffee, I take my cash to the corner store and buy it. It is easy. Doing any commerce on the internet is nowhere near as easy as that.

You are clearly someone who has never not had a credit card. These things are almost impossible without one, and certainly not as easy as getting a coffee. And news flash, lots of student and poor people DO NOT HAVE A CREDIT CARD!

And even if you do, you go to some dodgy website that you have never heard of before and just enter in your credit card details? Well, I don't.

mquander4• 16 years ago

Yes, but the author is couching his rhetoric in claims to "fairness" and moral righteousness. I think his stories are most revealing of his position:

I am an author, I tend to believe that I should be able to get paid for doing that work (and it is work, Eleanor, it's really hard work)...You think you're entitled to deny all of those people their rightful share of the work they do. I don't understand why you think that.

That's the core of his argument. He thinks that since he has been making a living this way for a long time, and it has worked out all right for everyone, his way is the right way and anything else is of dubious morals, because why would you want to deprive a good man of good work?

The discussion seems to be about whether the girl has a "right" to download or share his sheet music. In my opinion, she can do it, and that's that; should he have a "right" to stop her? He has not convinced me that there's any reason he should have that right.

kiba11• 16 years ago

The author isn't trying to preserve his work's integrity, whatever that is, he is trying to preserve his income.

She may be rationalizing her actions, but from my ethical perspective as a libertarian, she's actually in the right. She didn't stole anything, nor did she agree to a explicit contract with the author. The author don't actually have the right to any profits, only profits that he endeavorer and successfully earn in the market.

But that doesn't matter much to me, anyway. As long as people like him don't lay their hand on the results of my intellectual labor, I don't care about what happens to the pirates and the copyright mafia.

I will be very happy to eat the lunch of other game developers at the end of this silly cultural war.

chc3• 16 years ago

I think you're dodging the question here. If you can show us credible numbers to indicate that stopping this girl from getting her hands on his music has significantly improved his income, that would be interesting. But I don't think you can, so bringing up his income is a red herring. He's fighting this girl on moral grounds.

(Ironically, he brings up fair use as an excuse for his copying of media, but won't recognize that copying sheet music for a high school project probably falls under the same umbrella.)

SapphireSun• 16 years ago

There's an even more subtle point here that teenagers don't have an easy way to purchase things in the online economy without their parent's permission. Part of the reason she's trading is because she can get it no other way. If I'm an aspiring artist, I'll be damned if some four dollar barrier stands between me achieving my dreams and not at all.

It's pretty clear that she had already tried to convince her parents about this, but failed. Teens can use cash to buy whatever they want, but not online.

chc3• 16 years ago

I'd figured this would be an uncharitable summary, but after reading the article, it's pretty much spot on. He keeps reiterating that he needs to make money, she keeps giving good explanations for why her actions don't impede that goal, and he keeps ignoring everything she says in favor of repeating his thesis.

delackner• 16 years ago

The question that you are dancing around is: do we care enough about creative works to support their creation, or do we really care so little about the food for our soul that we look forward to consuming only the side-project crumbs that people make in their evenings and on weekends for fun?

Some artists have a "live" performance that people enjoy paying for that un-copyable experience. But do we really want our authors to make their entire living from tips at book-signings?

Copyright hasn't caught up to the reality of unlimited instant effortless copying, but artists still need to eat, and paying them for what they do is probably going to remain the simplest way to make sure they eat at all.

iamdave3• 16 years ago

The problem is that the content distributors still have not yet grasped the idea that 'scarcity' is moot in an age where information can easily be produced, reproduced, and disseminated at the speed of thought. Actually, they have grasped it, they just have not extracted a method of controlling it outside of the realms of pay walls, destroying UX by forced advertisement campaigns, and the walled-garden that is the iTunes Music Store.

"Do we care enough about creative works to support their creation?"

I have ticket stubs from twelve Dave Matthews Band concerts that say yes, in my case.

kiba11• 16 years ago

If people don't feel like paying for musicians and the like, than it's a signal to the market to stop supporting musicians and force them to work other jobs that people are willing to pay for.

If that what it meant to be, than it will be. Copyright will merely submerge the will of individuals into the underground illegal music scene and not solve any problems for musicians at all.

They can keep busting pirate networks all they want, it won't change a thing in the long run. Musicians will die off and soon we will be left with a frozen archive of musics, though a very large library.

It doesn't matter that much to me anyway. I'll never be able to get all the favorite songs in the world. I'll never be able to remember enough in my lifetime. I am pretty content with this scenarios.

I don't think what artists fear will come true. Instead, many of them will probably find ways to make a living.

For me, it's the same cognitively. There are still tons of artists and songs to discover, too much for a lifetime, and too much for the limited memory capacity of my brain.

noonespecial4• 16 years ago

Whoa there. Some of the most awesome things I've ever come across have been "side-project crumbs". I'll take art made for fun over art made for money any day.

kiba11• 16 years ago

Let Jason Robert Brown feel mighty and righteous about his sheet musics being copied.....I mean...err..stolen.

For the rest of everybody else who actually have some common sense about business, this is a dream come true. It's market inefficiencies ripe for exploitation. Exploit it and don't let the illegal pirates take it away from you, especially when your competitors decide to stick his head into the sand and give you a free lunch. The more Jason Robert Brown type people, the better.

noonespecial4• 16 years ago

The author's "screwdriver" example fairly clearly shows that he's still a little foggy on the distinction between physical property and "intellectual property". He goes on to cement that notion with examples about a show and a book. All of which argue from a base of scarcity which doesn't exist in the venue he's suddenly found himself. Its easy to see how the girl could continually miss his point.

This is likely his first encounter with a gift economy, its logic and its denizens (who are mostly, but not exclusively) teenagers. It would seem that the qualities he wants to attribute to the "teenage mind" are really traits of the gift economy that sprung up around trading digital sheet music.

Its easy to sympathize with him however. It may turn out that only a handful of generations found themselves in the peculiar circumstances that allowed them to cast elements of culture into items of physical property that could be mass produced but were not easily duplicated. It must be quite disorienting to find oneself at either edge of that transition.

JacobAldridge• 16 years ago

Could one draw the link between the printing press, the availability of printed Bibles rather than the laboriously hand-written copies, the subsequent larger availability of Bibles in the vernacular, and several Reformation ideals, particularly the German Protestantism notion of a direct connection with God rather than one that had to pass through the Pope?

pmccool3• 16 years ago

As I understood his argument, it had nothing to do with ease of duplication. Instead, it was about ownership. His contention that the creators (who are by implication the owners) of intangible things have rights too is not invalidated by technology.

noonespecial4• 16 years ago

Hmm. I should stop using "ease" and especially "duplication" when writing about this particular issue. Its too easy to get stuck on.

You are right. It has nothing at all to do with duplication or how easy it is. One of technology's greatest and most subtle tricks is the elimination of scarcity. Its not that I can take one for myself (no matter how easy or hard it might be), its that when I do, I don't take yours. It up-ends the economic apple cart in a way that is very non-intuitive and difficult for the human mind to grasp via "common sense".

Its easy to comprehend a lower and lower marginal cost per unit but once that cost reaches the zero limit, it seems that the formulas that our current economy depend on become undefined.

Technology doesn't invalidate the rights of owners/creators, it forces us to completely reevaluate what ownership means. How to "pay" the author might not even be a meaningful question in the economy that results.

We are fortunate that we get a long trial run on things as frivolous as music and moving picture stories before rep/raps bulldoze us on their way through to Star Trek replicators.

mkramlich16• 16 years ago

And I agree with his contention. It seems pretty clear cut to me. For the pro-Eleanor folks, I want to break down here what are the elements in my pro-Jason stance, just to be real clear:

1. just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should do a thing [this nulls out the whole "b-b-but technology makes this possible now!" argument; for bonus points think of the implications of your stance regarding the availability of nuclear weapons]

2. you don't have a right to other people's work, automatically, by default, for free

3. if they make it available for free and/or say copy all you want -- that's fine, do it

4. ... but if they do not, you should honor their wishes regarding their own creation

5. ... if despite that, you do not, then you are unethical

mkramlich16• 16 years ago

there's nothing foggy about the distinction between getting paid for your work versus not getting paid. worrying about your ability to pay bills each month has a wonderful de-fogging effect.

Tichy5• 16 years ago

There is no fundamental right to being paid for your work. If you want to be paid, you have to do work that people are willing to pay for. Otherwise I could just dig a hole in front of your front door and ask you to pay me for it.

lookACamel2• 16 years ago

You mean a wonderful biasing effect. Once you start worrying about something as important as paying your bills, your opinions will be strongly biased towards a world-model that make it easier for you to do so.

ErrantX6• 16 years ago

I think they both had bad (and wrong) examples.

cschwarm5• 16 years ago

> All of which argue from a base of scarcity which doesn't exist in the venue he's suddenly found himself.

Sure, his analogies fail at some point, just like most analogies. But that doesn't make his point invalid. Or yours valid, for that matter.

The problem still remains that his time is scarce -- no matter how easy it is to copy the media he uses to distribute his work. And that's what copyright is about: Not the scarcity of the media, but the scarcity of the time needed to create the master.

Or can you snap your fingers and have beautifully designed, perfectly written, and bug free software appear on your hard drive?

noonespecial4• 16 years ago

Wasn't arguing that his time wasn't scarce, that he shouldn't be paid, or that the "teenager" was the one in the right. Just pointing out how their cultures misaligned and that their arguments missed each others minds most cleanly.

zaphar• 16 years ago

I'm actually genuinely curious how the whole "art industry" will turn out eventually. On the one hand I sympathize with an artists desire to eat and provide for their family. On the other hand I don't quite buy into the idea that intellectual property is entitled to the same protections as physical property.

In some ways the medieval and renaissance periods had a more valid model with patronage for the arts. That limited the market to a much smaller pool of career artists though. I wonder what will replace the current state of affairs since a lot of signs point to it being unsustainable. And I do enjoy the results of having a larger pool of artists.

andresmh• 16 years ago

Technology is allowing the pool to get larger. Amateur creativity is going to become increasingly more important and partially replace art that comes from the industry.

billswift2• 16 years ago

The reason it limited the pool of artists was the much higher cost of doing art back then. Not just the cost of materials either; most people spent their entire lives doing backbreaking labor effectively all the time they were awake. They couldn't have created art even if they had been gifted with the materials. Artists had to be supported by "gifts" of food and shelter and all the other basics we almost take for granted today.

sliverstorm4• 16 years ago

Frankly, I'm kind of shocked by HN's collective opinion on this subject- and I am not a conservative.

In my opinion, it is really very simple. I don't care so much about the nebulous question of whether it's right or wrong to infringe on IP, and all these other new questions that come about when you remove the physical aspect and introduce CTRL+C/CTRL+V. What matters to me, is that books and music and movies continue to exist.

That won't happen if we insist we deserve it all for free. Who the fuck will spend their life writing music or books or movies if we don't leave them a way to monetize it? Artists are rarely driven by greed (and if they are, disillusioned quickly) but in nearly every human being, the desire to NOT DIE usurps the desire to express yourself creatively, so artists will be forced to abandon their works to continue living.

iamdave3• 16 years ago

Potboilers aren't anything new, my friend.

"so artists will be forced to abandon their works to continue living."

Exactly how is this bad? What do music artists contribute other than catchy tunes to the grand sphere of what our nation defines?

And for that matter, have you seen the statistics of professional athletes who fall face first into the realm of poverty once they retire from their respective sports? It is shocking and frankly, a bit depressing. It's one of those things that invariably happens during the course of man that the lifestyles some of these people live are not going to last forever, and if they build their entire means of existence around "royalties" thinking they'll become the next Mick Jagger or Axl Rose floating comfortably on the sales of platinum albums decades after their last chart topping hit...

well...I don't even need to say it.

sliverstorm4• 16 years ago

> Exactly how is this bad? What do music artists contribute other than catchy tunes to the grand sphere of what our nation defines?

I'm not an arts person, so I will not present an argument about how art is good or bad for humanity. My point is:

1: I want music artists to stay about, because I like their catchy tunes.

2: Presumably, people who download their music do too, or they wouldn't care about it enough to want to listen in the first place.

Ok, so being a pro athlete is not a good long-term plan, but how about if they didn't make a dime when they were still playing? Can you see professional football continuing to exist if the only livable model was for players to work graveyards to support their addiction to oblong leather balls? Kids would still play, high schoolers would still play, but we would have no NFL.

P.S. You don't think music plays a role in defining a nation? Then why is it the 2 biggest cues a movie uses to clue you in on setting is dress and music?

loewenskind8• 16 years ago

What a disgusting response. I suppose what you contribute is so much more "worthy" of success?

Personally I find life a lot less stressful when I don't get worked up about if people are getting "what they deserve" or not (especially since I don't have any right to decide what they deserve).

petercooper• 16 years ago

What matters to me, is that books and music and movies continue to exist. That won't happen if we insist we deserve it all for free.

This guy is a composer, lyricist, and arranger, not a "sheet music producer."

Plenty of software developers wouldn't give away their core assets for free or like them to be stolen, but many give away/open source byproducts of their work (libraries and documentation, say). Opening up byproducts is a good way to increase your exposure and increase the value of your core products.

On the other hand, he totally has the right to defend his intellectual property. I just think it's misguided in the short term to do so at this level.

scarlson• 16 years ago

Similarly, should artists who sample works from public content have to pay royalties?

Musicians and artists can claim IP when their works are shared, but what about mathematicians, architects?

Do I owe Pythagoras' estate every time I compute A^2 + B^2 = C^2? I want to put French doors in my pantry, who do I make the check out to in order to legally use the design?

This man lives comfortably, I'm sure he's not living paycheck to paycheck. He deserves credit for creating the work, but the implication is that he's somehow suffering based on the 'trading'. Life sucks, I'd be pissed too but it's the way things work.

Grayson Chance was an internet sensation not too long ago for performing Lady Gaga's music. She didn't try to burn him for most likely stealing the sheet music, she applauded the kid and wished him luck.

Relevant, NSFW audio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvq3Pf3j61c

shrikant• 16 years ago

OT: Thanks for making me re-visit The Wire. I've uploaded a clip from it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BxRDmu6NBM - the chess scene) - which was flagged by ContentID, incidentally - that puts forth some killer ideas. That show was awesome, and totally deserves every penny it gets from folks buying the box-set :)

jexe• 16 years ago

You know what else is interesting - the means to produce music and movies is moving down market, fast. My friggin phone records HD, and my Mac comes with some basic music production software, I can self-publish my own books on amazon or just host them electronically myself.. and this trend is only accelerating.

So will we see less art in the future? Absolutely not - we'll be seeing huge amounts more, and from people who may not have had access to, say, a recording studio in the past. The economics are changing on both ends of the "business," which I think is a net positive.

chokma• 16 years ago

I think it is great that one can take an off-the-shelf video camera and make a movie. And this sparks a whole world of creativity. Each day a 100 years of video are uploaded to Youtube.

What we need is a way to compensate professional artists and performers in a world where the cost to distribute is effectively zero. Some stuff (for example a "Michael Moore"-style documentary on the oil spill) is complex enough that it is difficult to produce it without having a way to cover your costs. Does Cory Doctorow's way of doing this scale to movie production?

Oh, and we need camcorders and the like to integrate free codecs - the ones currently available by default often produce H.264-movies which need a license if you want to profit from your work in any way...

ErrantX6• 16 years ago

Writing good sheet music is very very definitely an art. Even the vast majority of music graduates are unable to do it. Technology will not help with that.

Writing a good book is a serious time commitment. If no one is putting in that time and effort then the quality will decline (it has already, sadly).

The ease of producing media is great and a mark of a better society. But making stuff easy does not make creating quality easy.

mkramlich16• 16 years ago

Now if only every Mac also comes with talent pre-installed. And hard work and focus. And years of experience. Oh wait.

semanticist• 16 years ago

We're going to see a lot more writers, but probably less editors and publishers.

While writing a good novel is difficult, writing a good novel without editing is incredibly so. Anyone can publish their work on the internet, but without a framework to pay for professional editing, it's mostly going to be a bit rubbish.

moe2• 16 years ago

Who the fuck will spend their life writing music or books or movies if we don't leave them a way to monetize it?

That's a very narrow, brainwashed view. Many people will continue to spend their lives on it. Remember music has been around long before there were ways to "monetize" it.

Moreover please realize that your HipHop millionaire and Britney Spears are anomalies in first place. For every Britney Spears you'll find ten thousands of underdog musicians who stay (often barely) afloat not by having their videos on TRL, but by playing small gigs in front of people.

That kind of making a living with music is not going anywhere and will, in fact, greatly benefit when the "Great wall of EMI" (or Universal, or Sony, or what not..) comes down.

seertaak2• 16 years ago

> Remember music has been around long before there were ways to "monetize" it.

No halfway sane person will pursue music fulltime if he cannot earn a living off it. This is true and has been true throughout history. Where there previously was no revenue through the sale of recorded or sheet music, there was patronage. If the patronage system had not existed, do you really think Leopold Mozart would have devoted his efforts at training Wolfgang Amadeus from the age of 3 to pursue music, as opposed to a (fee-earning) trade or craft?

I don't deny that there will always be hobbyists. But the world will be a much poorer place, musically, if we don't allow music as a fulltime career.

> That kind of making a living with music is not going anywhere and will, in fact, greatly benefit when the "Great wall of EMI" (or Universal, or Sony, or what not..) comes down.

First, let me point out that I am one of the "underdog musicians" you speak of. You can see my band at http://www.thesignalsofficial.com, and you can hear my music at http://www.myspace.com/thesignalsproject . I'm not signed to a label, let alone a major label. I finance everything related to band out of my own pocket, and my girlfriend takes our band pictures. However, I will quit my efforts making music, at least with a band, if I don't manage to get some kind revenue off of it. To not do so would be idiotic.

Second, it appears to me that you, as many others in the Hacker News community, are imbued with an inflated sense of romanticism of the small gig as opposed to financing via recorded music or proxies thereof. I understand that there is something intimate, raw, and beautiful in witnessing a musician play one of those shows, and I can assure that as I musician, those kind of gigs are really fun to play. But what's so wrong about putting vast hours of work into lovingly recording a record, so that anyone (who pays for it) can have the benefit of enjoying well composed, arranged, produced, mixed, and mastered music from, say, his car? Why should that be valued at zero, even if the product can be copied at virtually zero cost? Why do you see it as obvious that one should pay for small gigs (and, by the way, in many cases one doesn't pay for small gigs, the best the musician has to hope for is to make a cut of the bar draw), and yet not for recorded music? Scarcity, I presume you'll say. But that argument doesn't really hold water. Consider a music festival: my ability to enjoy the music at the festival doesn't (unless massive amounts of people are involved) deprive another person of the ability to enjoy the music. So by the scarcity argument, it should be morally ok to just jump over the fence without paying. (You wouldn't have paid for the gig otherwise, right? So no harm done.) But, of course, if everyone were to do that, the musician wouldn't be left with any money to get paid with. Nobody argues that bouncers, the "authority" that forces you to pay, are repressive, anti free-speech and authoritarian. And yet if they weren't there, do you really think people would pay to see gigs? And the functional equivalent of the bouncer in the digital domain is copyright law and enforcement thereof.

I'd like to make this last point more explicit. One method that is very effective in determining whether an argument boils down to sophistry is reductio ad absurdum. In the context filesharing, it goes like this: if filesharing is a good thing, then surely more of it is an even better thing. And the limit of that process is that all music is obtained through filesharing, and in this situation, no musician will ever obtain money from recorded music. Fine, you say: make money through other means -- play gigs! But if the same free-for-all mentality you seem to espouse is valid in the digital domain, why not in the physical? Why not loudly demand an end to bouncers at clubs? After all, as I've pointed out, if it is an injustice to limit the digital distribution of music, then surely it is equally an injustice to limit physical presence at a gig by the imposition of entry fee. And if the end-the-bouncer-movement ever did manage to get political traction, then there can be no doubt that no one would pay for gigs either.

pyre3• 16 years ago

The Library of Alexandria didn't have a copyright division.

goodside• 16 years ago

The immorality of copyright infringement is not contingent on whether the industry can survive in spite of it any more than the immorality of traditional theft is contingent on whether the victim can afford to suffer the loss. The fact I have an Ikea-style ball pit in my basement filled with money doesn't entitle you to come in and grab a handful. Even if you're only just borrowing it, even if you do actually give it back later, and even if I don't even notice you took it, it's wrong.

loup-vaillant5• 16 years ago

And may I know why copyright infringement is bad? Don't say "because it's illegal", that would be begging the question.

What I mean is, copyrighted work is an abundant good. I just can't steal it from you. I can just make a copy. Is that bad? Why?

tomjen33• 16 years ago

There is more book on project Gutenberg than you can read in the rest of your life.

You can't even read the entire _catalog_ of the library of congress, because they add books faster than you can read them.

So what if no new books were created from now on? No new music, video, anything?

You still wouldn't run out of books, music, etc. Ever.

frossie• 16 years ago

I realise I wasn't meant to, and it doesn't say anything about my position on the issue, but from reading the exchange I formed an immediate liking for the girl.

If every teenage girl was this expressive and self-assertive, I personally would feel better about the world.

cough I now return you to your "Illegal downloading bad, m'kay?" programming

gwern2• 16 years ago

> If every teenage girl was this expressive and self-assertive, I personally would feel better about the world.

She's not your usual girl, it seems to me - how many collect and use sheet music? Just following her musical/theatrical passion that far is unusual enough, and I was a little impressed that she understood copyright law enough to think she was getting around it by emailing stuff off-site. (She's wrong, of course; contributory infringement could be used to nail her.)

seertaak2• 16 years ago

> expressive

cough she mistook "defiantly" for "definitely".

russellallen3• 16 years ago

You know if we all stopped pirating stuff and obeyed the very letter of copyright law, open source and free entertainment, software, etc would have a huge renaissance.

You know those bands that make their money from touring that are always put forward as the future? Their mp3s compete for mindshare with pirated Lady Gaga stuff.

Maybe if we all obeyed copyright then Elanor would have looked around for some other composer who gives their stuff away for free. Win-win. Composers who want money get money, composers who want fame get it instead.

The biggest competitor to Gimp is pirated Photoshop.

Etc.

kiba11• 16 years ago

That's why some entrepreneurs in the "free entertainment and open source business" are just begging for the copyright people to do what they wanted in secret, while trying to convince everyone that a post-copyright world is a good idea.

Some of us are just convinced that it's good money, but some of us can't help but trying to tell people about the truth while being happy that they don't believe it. It's a weird situation.

kuahyeow2• 16 years ago

I'm mildly surprised to see the classic FSF lend-a-book argument in there:

"Would it be wrong for me to make a copy of some sheet music and give it to a close friend of mine for an audition? Of course not. In fact, it would be considered nasty of me to refuse. But to trade sheet music online is bad? "

kiba11• 16 years ago

From the author's final post update.

I have also heard from a continuing stream of extraordinarily hostile young men (always men) who insist on "educating" me on the ins and outs of cybermorality, the definition of "stealing," and why I deserve to choke on my own obsolescence.

What he interpret as hostility is a bunch of young men who can't help but try tell you the truth as they see it.

It's about watching people oblivious to the fact of life getting chop to bits by pirates and free markets because they refuse to recognize something crucial.

And when they can't help you, they will buy other people stuff just to spite you. If they're in the same business, they will manically laugh at you. Then they will try to help you, knowing that you will just dismiss them like last time.

Admittedly, they describe me. I am one of those young men who would do this on and off. I wanna crush them, and then tell them the good news.

ErrantX6• 16 years ago

Unfortunately I suspect I know the type he is referring too; I've had my fair share of attacks from them over the years.

And they (you?) are not doing very well at "educating" us. Mostly it verges from amusingly incoherent to downright disturbing :)

kiba11• 16 years ago

Unfortunately I suspect I know the type he is referring too;

I've had my fair share of attacks from them over the years. And they (you?) are not doing very well at "educating" +us. Mostly it verges from amusingly incoherent to downright disturbing :)

You can call these people "amusingly incoherent" to "downright disturbing" if you want. It doesn't mean anything about the truth that these people try to explain to you, with everything and anything they have.

Every single examples, and every business models big, small, and in between, they will throw out at you. Every single moral, ethical, and economic arguments they employ in their arsenal, thrown out at you. Every single historical evidences, they will dig up.

Meanwhile, musicians and record labels and criticize and rationalize away anything and everything. They rather not give out anything and earn a million dollars in return.

What these people have for you, is good news. It's very frustrating to see people not take it. These young men might have been your biggest fans, fellow musicians and artists, successful entrepreneurs or just a person well versed in economics dealing with non-scarcity.

kuahyeow2• 16 years ago

Somehow, the more I read it, the more it seems like a case of "Sorry, I don't want you [the entire tech-literate demographic] as a customer". These guy makes a good point : http://www.jasonrobertbrown.com/weblog/2010/06/fighting_with...

nkurz2• 16 years ago

It's a good exchange, and worth reading particularly if you are one of those "extraordinarily hostile young men" who are likely disagree to with him. I left the article feeling that Eleanor (the defiant teenager) was particularly well-spoken, and that Jason Robert Brown would love for me to get off his lawn. I don't know him, but now I'm prejudiced against him and his works. But he does a great job of explaining his thought process, whether one agrees with it or not. And better understanding those with whom one disagrees is a good thing.

I thought the weakest part was his attempt to make it a clear-cut case of right and wrong, and then go on to give some very muddy examples that really haven't been clearly decided: "I then ripped that CD on to my hard drive so I can listen to it on my iPod in my car. Well, that's not FAIR, right? I should have to buy two copies? No. There is in fact a part of the copyright law that allows exactly this; it's called the doctrine of fair use."

Logical, I'd agree, but he might want to discuss this with the RIAA, who argue that it's not fair-use, and merely an example of their forbearance not to sue for such petty infringement: 'there’s no legal "right" to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns...' (http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=pira...)

But his moral argument seems almost reasonable: I created this music, so I get to control who uses it. He trades fair-use under copyright for exclusive rights to distribution. Inevitability aside, 'hostile young men' of HN, what's the flaw with this reasoning? Does one need to resort to the fairly weak position that 'sharing' with strangers falls under fair-use, or is there something stronger that can be said?

peterwwillis3• 16 years ago

I thought his moral argument was "please pay me for the sheet music so my kids won't starve." Which I agree is ridiculous; he'd just quit writing music and find another job before they died of starvation. I mean, hellooo, soup kitchens are free...

mkramlich16• 16 years ago

plus obviously if he has multiple kids, he can afford to let one starve to death because he'll have the other as backup. Cruel man, tormenting poor wittle Eleanor, denying her the free music for her theatre classikins.

scotty792• 16 years ago

I think "please pay me for the sheet music so my kids won't starve" argument is much better than "pay me because it's immoral not to pay me and you'll go to jail"

Begging better reflects position in which technology puts artists today. It is same situation that was throughout all history but last hundred years. You quickly get used to good things so now people think that they are morally entitled to being paid for what they created. As a programmer who had bad experiences with salespeople it's hard for me to say this but creating stuff does not bring money, selling does, and selling became much harder if the only thing you know how to sell is service of providing copy of some (your) work and value of such service to your potential consumer thanks to recent developments dropped to zero.

pyre3• 16 years ago

  "Before we leave this matter I wish to comment on the theory implied by you,
  Mr. Weems, when you claimed damage to your client. There has grown up in the
  minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or
  corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the
  government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit
  in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public
  interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law.
  Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask
  that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private
  benefit. That is all"
     - from "Life-Line" by Robert Heinlein (1938)

mkramlich16• 16 years ago

i couldn't believe you sided with the girl and not Jason!

Did you miss out on the point that making music is how that guy makes a living? And part of that making a living is from the sale of his music, in all it's forms? If he chose to give something away for free, that would be a different matter. But that wasn't the case here. She was really arrogant and showed an unbelievable sense of entitlement and the "perpetrator is victim" mentality. Dude, you think his argument is "almost reasonable"?!?!?! Who made that music?

I also love how she sounds like this modern suburban American teenager with Internet access and she's studying theatre of all things, and yet cannot afford $4 to buy sheet music?! Probably needs it to buy a cool case for her iPhone, or buy the latest clothing fashion, etc. Here's the sound of the world's smallest violin playing a sad song just for her...

loewenskind8• 16 years ago

>and she's studying theatre of all things

I hope she makes it huge and goes into films. I'll send her an email asking for a copy of each of her movies for free so I can post them on torrent.

nkurz2• 16 years ago

Yes, I definitely came out with a better opinion of Eleanor. I don't see the arrogance or entitlement--- I see someone passionate about an art form that most of her cohort couldn't care less about. Legally, Mr. Brown is on solid ground, and Eleanor is at best treading water. I appreciate that he's contacting people directly rather than suing through a proxy. But despite this, I think he's shooting himself in the foot.

Be cautious with your generalizations about 'modern suburban American teenagers' and her spending habits. Having spent my youth working minimum wage jobs, one of my largest regrets is not being able to afford buy more and better books. I was able to take advantage of public libraries and university libraries, which remain one of my favorite features of American society. But I'll forgive Eleanor a lot for trying to follow her passion.

Anechoic4• 16 years ago

Well it seems that many (if not most) of the posters here side with the girl's explanation. So be it, but don't get pissed at me when I take your GPL product, incorporate it into my closed-source set top box and refuse to release the source. After all, it's not like I've stolen anything or deprived you of revenue.

Tichy5• 16 years ago

Fair point, but people tend to feel differently about the issue once somebody is making money from the IP theft. Eleanore apparently is a teenager trying to become an artist, not a scammer who repackages that artists compositions for ad jingles and becomes a millionaire from it. No matter what the law says or what you think about it, aspects like that will factor into what people FEEL is right.

mkramlich16• 16 years ago

The problem is that Eleanor is not a special and unique butterfly floating inside her own private quantum singularity. Instead, she's just one person among millions out there who could use the same frickin excuse she's using. "I'm special. I can't afford it. (Well, not that AND my iPod AND my cool clothes AND..."

Also, technically Jason's reason for contacting her originally was not to accuse her of taking a free copy for herself. It was to ask her to stop making it free for others. Because strictly speaking, if she only took a single free copy for herself, and if the only alternative to that if a free copy was not available was that she would have to buy -- and if she literally could not afford it or would not buy it -- then yes in that circumstance she could argue reasonably that she did not deny him revenue. But that's not the argument. The argument is that she's making free copies further available to others, some of whom would have otherwise bought copies. Whether there is or is not a stimulative effect leading to more copies bought from him is not for her to reason about it -- it's literally none of her business, and not her right to decide -- only his. He created that frickin music. Let him decide, and honor his wishes. Not much to ask, really.

kiba11• 16 years ago

Some people do BSD because they actually want corporations to actively use their instead of "shitty version that corporations wrote from scratch".

Some people, like me, just don't feel like we have anything to lose, but we also accept the fact that somebody might make a million bucks off my work and be totally fine with it.

In fact, I mostly evolved a sort of indifference as I diverge from the BSD and GPL hardliner positions to "hey, let just share!"

I live most of my formative years immersed in open source software. It just feel icky not to give anything back for so much of the free education that they enabled and provided for me in addition to all the great tools that I have the privilege to use.

The author obviously come from a very different culture, a culture that doesn't automatically share its capitals and works, that of which is clearly alien to me, if not to hackers in general.

For me, money and sharing isn't something that belong to the exclusively of one side or another, like charity and jobs. Money and sharing isn't in conflict at all. In fact, I like to think more sharing lead to more cash.

It's a clash of cultures really, but it doesn't mean each culture is equally good, just with a different perspective. What's really happening is a conquest and battle of ideologies, heart and minds, and which make more money. If one culture is clearly better than the other at this, then they are truly the superior culture.

Anechoic4• 16 years ago

Some people do BSD because they actually want corporations to actively use their instead of "shitty version that corporations wrote from scratch".

Yes, and some people make their artistic works available via Creative Commons or public domain. But others enforce their copyrights, just like some software authors provide their works under the GPL. The BSD license or a "clash of cultures" isn't an excuse to ignore the GPL.

john_453• 16 years ago

the FSF would go after closed boxes containing GPL software, and not releasing sources.

mukyu• 16 years ago

The FSF does not randomly go off and fight for GPL software projects. They only fight for those that they own the copyrights for (been specifically assigned the copyrights by the authors).

tome2• 16 years ago

Your reasoning is fallacious. You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both illegal.

This is not the basis under which they should be compared. The correct comparison proceeds by thinking about which of the two actions is ethically justifiable.

You might as well have said "You want to break the speed limit to get your pregnant wife to hospital. So be it, but don't get pissed at me when I break the speed limit to get to the sports game."

Anechoic4• 16 years ago

You've equated coping copyrighted works with witholding changes to a GPL program based on the observation that they're both illegal.

No, I've compared people offering products under a set of conditions and then people breaking those conditions to use those products. JB offered his products under the conditions that people pay him for the privilege and GPL authors offer their products under the condition that people abide by the GPL. Why do we get to ignore JB's conditions and yet have to abide by the GPL?

grrr56• 16 years ago

Well, hopefully there are people in this world that write free and open software so people can build startups and earn money. If these open source people had his mentality, a lot of recent startups wouldn't even have been born.

Greedy, disgusting artist.

russellallen3• 16 years ago

He's greedy and disgusting because he's not giving his work away for free so that other people can build startups and earn money?

Huh?

john_453• 16 years ago

I think you clearly misunderstood.

The guy is a selfish and greedy person, trying to get these $4 out of this poor girl. Read the comment mentioning the creative common license potential usage, that's the right way to share to people and earn a decent living.

alextingle3• 16 years ago

Absolutely hilarious that he blithely violates Eleanor's copyright as part of his programme to "educate" her about copyright law.

(He has reproduced her copyrighted e-mails, against her clear wishes. She should educate him back by slapping a DMCA notice on him.)

mkramlich16• 16 years ago

I'm pretty sure it was mentioned a couple times in there that he asked her and she gave permission. The fact that you would criticize that element and not on her attitude about not paying for his work frankly blows my mind a little.

alextingle3• 16 years ago

She clearly stipulated that he only had permission to reproduce some parts of her work, and he goes out of his way to mention that he breached that license. Why on earth do you think that copyright law should protect him and not her?

mkramlich16• 16 years ago

he was classy and accurate. I couldn't believe the attitude of that girl. unbelievable sense of entitlement to the fruits of someone else's labor.

lena• 16 years ago

In one of the comments someone asks the author if he himself never infringes on copyright. I thought his response to that was disappointing: while the majority of the imagery on my site is co-owned by me I can't vouch for all of it nor can I promise that it's all legally sound; none of that should prevent me from asking people not to trade my music illegally

mkramlich16• 16 years ago

this is the type of story that's going to bring out in clear distinction the line between the HN readers who are in their teens or college and the HN readers who are working adults, especially those with families of their own to feed, and/or pre-Internet memories

ErrantX6• 16 years ago

They both fall for the common fallacies and null arguments common to this sort of dispute.

It is still an interesting read though; and I think they both come off well (less so the "obnoxious young men" :)).

Who is right though? It's a morally difficult question because this is not like, say, a big film producer or an indie game developer (representing the two main extremes). This is a girl who (supposedly) wants sheet music for her school production. On the other hand Jason arranges music exactly for those sorts of scenarios; and at what point do you say "this person is now deserving of having the music for free".

Thinking this through there is a fairly easy solution; Jason should offer his music through schools and other youth organisations for free (or free loan). Thus allowing teenagers such as this to put on their shows and practice their art. Then there will be no need for such people to trade the music.

Solution, no?

cschwarm5• 16 years ago

> It's a morally difficult question...

Hardly, in my opinion.

Just use the rather common approach of the Golden Rule: 'Treat others like you want to be treated'. If you want others to keep their promises to you, you should keep your promise to others. Likewise, if you want others to fulfill the contracts they agreed to, you should fulfill the contracts you agreed to.

The author offered a contract: "Pay 4 dollars and promise not to copy and redistribute the media, and I promise to give you a copy". Nobody who accepted this contract, has the moral right to violate it. Otherwise, everybody would have the right to violate contracts, in general.

Everything else is just a matter of organization: If teenagers need sheet music for school production, their parents should pay for it. Or the parents can create a club, hire somebody to write music, and share the resulting work.

ErrantX6• 16 years ago

Sorry yes, you are dead right. There is no moral obligation for Elanor to expect to get the music for free. Or feel she has a right to distribute music etc.

I mean't in the larger sense.

noibl• 16 years ago

The author links to his wife's blog post of a year ago in which she says a major part of the problem is the lack of an easy, legal way to access the material in question. He later links to a site where he says his work is available for instant purchase.

When you visit that site, the first thing you see in Chrome is a giant 'missing plugin' block and an invitation to download the 'Scorch' sheet music plugin, which it turns out is available for IE, Firefox or (on Macs) Safari. JOY.

Further down, you get the following message: "We advise you to check your printer setup now before you buy. You will only get one chance to print your music after you have purchased it. If you have difficulty printing, please see our print problems help page."

WTF? OK...let's have a look at the print problems help page:

"=== It says Printing To File Not Allowed ===

"Copyright law prohibits us from allowing customers to store image files of the scores on their computers. Therefore, when you buy from us, we only allow printing to paper."

No. Seriously?

The takeaway for me: not only do these people not get filesharing, they don't get computers and their attitude to those who do is one of xenophobia.

nikz• 16 years ago

Try getting a refund when their crappy plugin crashes your browser...

How about the printed copy that's now unusable (because it's, you know, paper, and paper has a habit of getting crumpled or ripped or wet or binned...)

Even iTunes doesn't make me pay for an mp3 again if my HDD dies...

TerminalDummy• 16 years ago

Art. Only for people with money.

timinman• 16 years ago

I'm impressed with the length of dialogue between the two, and disappointed that it got condescending on both accounts. As far as I can tell, Mr. Brown is legally correct and yet Elanor had some wisdom to offer him. I still haven't heard his work, but I'm thinking about it on her recommendation.

loewenskind8• 16 years ago

I think he made a mistake posting this on his site. He was technically in the right but he came off as a total asshole. The girl was offering to basically advertise his work. Plus she stopped trading his music when he asked. She could have put it all on torrent to spite him (and something like that is very likely to happen if certain groups like 4chan see this).

Hell, if his site wasn't so miserable I would just pay the $4 or whatever for her (i.e. I would but it doesn't look like there is a way for me to pay it for her). Sheesh.

drewcrawford• 16 years ago

I have a tiny bit of domain knowledge that I'd like to impart:

1) To be fair, real scores are hard to find. Most of the published stuff is simplified, has parts removed, or is otherwise substantively altered from what is actually performed by professionals (code for this: "Vocal selections from..." "Adapted from..." etc.) I can't speak to this particularly to JRB, who may very well publish real scores, but there is a perception in the industry that in general the good stuff is unavailable.

2) There is no iTunes for sheet music. If you click through his links, get ready to install ActiveX DRMey plugins to preview the music. On mac? Too bad. So there's no way to confirm, i.e., that this is the "real stuff" as opposed to simplified sheet music.

3) If you study the industry in any detail, you'll discover that it's set up like a "Good ol' Boys" system. You can't get a part until you join the union, but you can't join the union until you get a part. New actors are placed on secret lists that are passed around to other directors either to promote or defame them. This may be totally valid and even necessary for Broadway to function--but it does breed resentment among those trying to "break in" to the system.

These three factors spell the perfect storm for piracy. There are multiple roadblocks to acquiring the music legally, and there's a huge resentment factor on the part of the consumers.

Fighting With Teenagers: A Copyright Story

Related Stories