|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6 [Next] | ||||||||||
Cristobal Loyal user Malaga (Spain) 288 Posts 
|
Quote:
On 2009-07-14 05:02, Tony Iacoviello wrote: For me it's morally correct to share. I don't think that hurts anybody. In the case of above I see that clearly. I'll prefer the author of the material was ok with that, because of that I never share it. Tony, don't you think it's morally correct to lend a commercial DVD to a friend? Respectfully, |
|||||||||
FocusYourMAYND Regular user 174 Posts
|
Christobal what you have just said is so asinine that its hardly worthy of rebuttal. Never mind the obvious result which is robbing my father of the little profit he makes from these products - the fruits of over 30 years of professional experience. The case against COPYING AND GIVING AWAY (not "sharing") a copyrighted product should be self-evident - ESPECIALLY in regards to magic/mentalism materials where the control of information is paramount. Understand that through these torrents, the information contained on those DVDs and books are now openly available to the public. Not only performers now but THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Let's just upload them to YouTube and pass them around while we're at it!
Does the Magician's Code really mean so little today? I am not a performer. Yet, all of my life I have been privy to the secrets of magic. I have never, NOT ONCE, broken that code - even under extreme pressure from my curious peers - because I understand what it means to do so. Yet here we have folks who DO fancy themselves as magicians/mentalists who seem all too eager to share anything they can get their hands on with the entire internet. John's product page is kept secret from the public for a reason: its secret material! My father does not need new customers or even the ones he has now. He makes these products out of his lifelong love for creating magic for audiences - magic which these torrents endanger. IMO when someone takes his work, copies it, and makes it available for all to see they not only betray him but betray the entire magic/mentalism community. "I EAT EXPOSERS" -Gods With Feet of Clay vol. 5 (currently NOT available via bittorrent) |
|||||||||
Mr. Mindbender Inner circle 1568 Posts
|
In the every changing world of technology, a study conducted in 2004 regarding the economic impact of file sharing on the music industry -- we'll it might as well have been published in 1884.
One of my friends was a top exec at Capitol Records for over 15 years. He's about as connected in the music business as they come. I even got a chance to meet Bono at my friend's house once (had to throw that it because it was really cool!). My friend can bend your ear for hours on end, detailing exactly how the current music business has been devastated by file sharing -- he lives and has to struggle with the consequences every day. BUT, forget about the economic implications of file sharing. No matter how you justify it, it's still stealing. Most people I run in to who share Cristobal's attitude are a) 25 years old or younger, and b) have never spent any serious time creating anything they (or others) see as valuable. Spend three years creating something -- a mental effect, a piece of music, a story, a screenplay -- toil over it, pour your heart and soul in to it. Next, overcome all the odds and have whatever you created actually be wanted by the public. Reach that point, then tell me how this isn't stealing. Writers, musicians, creators -- all bring great value, not just to their product, but to society. Stealing their material harms more than just the fiscal bottom line. One last thought. One of my favorite quotes about the film industry is "Movie critics come in after the battle has been fought and shoot the wounded." The same could be said for file sharers. |
|||||||||
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts
|
Much as I have sympathy for John Riggs if his work is being pirated, his 'solution' is one of the dumbest I've encountered. A great mind in mentalism only perhaps
I don't think it right to share things you aren't authorized to share. However, I agree that the the fact that sharing happens via an electronic medium as largely irrelevant. I know a lot of people share physical manuscripts and people generally don't have a problem with magic libraries. I have a problem with them all. I believe I've mentioned it before in a similar discussion, but if someone coded an electronic magic library that contained ebooks, but it implemented a ticketing system whereby only one person could view each book at a time... and a method of presenting the data that made it more difficult than pressing file -> save page to keep a copy - I see very, very little difference between that and the way that some magic libraries are run. They are both wrong in my book... as is reselling books and DVDs after you've read/watched them. Mr Mindbender... I disagree with almost everything you have posted. The findings from that 2003 study are still pretty relevant, there are artists implementing business models, successfully using the exact same findings. I have zero sympathy for your friend at Capitol Records. If I knew more about him, I suspect I'd have zero respect. The big labels had a strangle hold one a massive element of the culture that we all share. I'm glad that they aren't in the same powerful position they once were and I hope that their power continues to diminish.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
Greg Arce Inner circle 6732 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-07-14 10:28, Mr. Mindbender wrote: Love that line, Mindbender. it's going to go up there with one of my favorites: A critic is a legless man who teaches running. Greg
One of my favorite quotes: "A critic is a legless man who teaches running."
|
|||||||||
|
pearljamjeff Inner circle Ann Arbor 1249 Posts
|
Davit... I see where you are coming from with regard to the record labels, but I disagree. My disagreement is strongly based on an emotional stance toward the state of the music industry, but still embedded in decent logic in my opinion.
Without a barrier to entry in place (the labels have served this purpose) anyone who knows two guitar chords can get on youtube and try to become famous. I agree that the decline of labels has been beneficial for indie bands. It has been a stabling force on the industry, sure; but now the problem is that I have to wade through tons of piles of crap to find one band that I like... and this will get worse if record labels continue to decline. I don't want to do my own A&R scouting... I don't know many people who have the time to do so. The findings from that study in 2003 actually are pretty irrelevant. We actually studied that study (ugh, that sounds boring when you say it like that) in a sociology course a few years back when we looked at combating the problem of "social desirability" in surveys. Our evidence found that the study you quoted implied in its questions that file-sharing was wrong, illegal, and immoral... which it is. However, because these associations were derived from the questions themselves, the results were tainted by social desirability. In fact, respondents tended to say that they "wouldn't have bought it anyway" as a simple means to alleviate their cognitive dissonance between their view of themselves as a good person and the implied definition of file-sharing as stealing. Rawk, Jeff
Jeff Travilla - I own an advertising agency to help finance my magic addiction.
|
|||||||||
|
Mr. Mindbender Inner circle 1568 Posts
|
My bringing up Capital Records kind of threw the thread off -- because this isn't about "Big Business monopolizing an industry", at its heart, it's about the artist/creator of material.
For me, this is the bottom line -- downloading music or DVD material you do not pay for is theft. You can justify it all you want ("no really, it benefits the artist in the long run"), but no matter the end result, you are still taking something you didn't pay for. You wouldn't think of strolling in to Walmart (since there are very few record stores around anymore), take your favorite CD and walk out the front door without paying for it. You'd be arrested. Yet you'll do it digitally. When you copy a friend's file of Elliott's Switchcraft for free - you are walking into his home and taking what is his, without paying for it. When you download an illegal copy of a Riggs DVD without paying for it, you're walking in to his home, taking his property, and not paying for it. I'm a writer, for the past 12 years I've made my living on my ideas. I've been on strike to make sure others don't take them without rightfully paying me for them. My guess is that if you see no problem with this type of theft, chances are it's because you have nothing to lose. Sure, it all sounds cool when you are the one taking, but create something people want, then have it taken from you -- THEN, tell me it's okay. |
|||||||||
|
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts
|
It depends on whether you want to discover and compile your own taste of music or prefer to be a more passive recipient of music. I happen to love music, search out a lot of my own stuff and am constantly finding new funk, soul, hip-hop, jazz from the last 50 years - virtually none of it is well known, much is obscure, and much of the modern stuff is on small independent labels. I'm saying that not to boast, but just to point out that there is no need to wade through junk if you leverage the technological developments. Niche digital download stores, blogs of favorite labels and artists, pod casts by DJs in your genre, resources like discogs all in addition to just ploughing through the junk to find the gems....
I spend a lot of time discovering music that is new to me. I consider the cream of my collection a piece of art, as personal to me as any other endeavor. I realise not everyone can, or wants to do that. My point however is that if you want to be a passive consumer of music it's still easy to be that even if all the A&R guys dropped dead tomorrow. What's more, it's only going to get easier, with music, we will ALL be increasing our enjoyment:effort ratio. As for the study... it was a long time since I read it. My point however is that 2004 is not 1884 for the purposes of this discussion and my reference to it in the last post was in regards to artists that make their money through their live performances. I know personally several DJs, who are big names in niche genres who do remixes for other artists for free because the publicity is a great way to build your reputation and get paid DJ bookings. As it happens, when it comes to the big labels and pop music, I have a serious problem with the level upon which pop songs as an item of private intellectual property pervade our mass culture. Since legal reform in the area seems unlikely, I can only look forward to the further deterioration of mass culture music. As for critics... it depends on your critic. In terms of criticising the value of a specific piece of work, one can be inclined to ignore them and shout 'go make a movie' when they lambast you work. (Strangely this correlates well with my mentalism philosophy of performing for oneself, rather than to entertain.) However, to the public, a critic can be a valuable consultant when deciding on what films to spend your life watching. If you want to be completely passive and consult a mass-culture critic, you get what you deserve, but if you take a more active role, seek out critics that share some similar opinions, leverage the web... then suddenly critics are fulfilling a valuable role. Quote:
For me, this is the bottom line -- downloading music or DVD material you do not pay for is theft. You can justify it all you want ("no really, it benefits the artist in the long run"), but no matter the end result, you are still taking something you didn't pay for. I'm speaking as someone who doesn't support this type of behavior... but your argument and understanding of the issues at play - and reality is not doing your good intentions the service they deserve. What you're describing is an infringement, not a theft. At least in English law, IP is infringed, theft requires that you permanently deprive another of their property. Although I'm not terribly familiar with the US situation, I believe the same holds true. To equate the two requires some very slippery logic and speaking about it in such simplistic terms is not recognized by the criminal or the civil law, and in many circumstances not my notion of moral law either - especially if taken in context with other forms of physical sharing.
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
IAIN Eternal Order england 18807 Posts
|
As a dj for a few years, running my own clubs, promoting and so forth, I've found, actually - quite a lot like mentalism - it boiled down to finding your own path...
I used to run psychedelic soul clubs in carnaby street, northern soul nights in essex, indie nights too... tracing the steps of musicians, listening to their influences, and (sic)seek-ing out who they joined up with along the way..fascinating, I learnt a lot and expanded my horizons... as a very base example, I loved the band, small faces - read up on them, they said they wanted to be just like booker t and the mg's... I love derren's work, he mentioned chan canasta, so I dug into him...and so on and so on and so on... ian rowland recommended lewis jones' seventh heaven...i listened... sometimes its interesting to listen to peoples views who are the oppposite to yours, sometimes you learn something, sometimes you just want to pull a shotgun on them and explode their stupid faces in a shower of head-jam... E.D.E.N - beauty and the beats - best modern hip hop album in the past decade, easy...uses lots of clever 60s samples (even a david bowie interview!)...
I've asked to be banned
|
|||||||||
|
marty.sasaki Inner circle 1117 Posts
|
It wouldn't be too hard to automate adding the buyers credit card number as a watermark, perhaps darker than usual, all over the pages of the ebook. This would be cumbersome enough that it might limit distribution.
Alternatively, using the CCN as a password might do similar things.
Marty Sasaki
Arlington, Massachusetts, USA Standard disclaimer: I'm just a hobbyist who enjoys occasionally mystifying friends and family, so my opinions should be viewed with this in mind. |
|||||||||
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24315 Posts
|
I own 1/3 of the royalties to nearly 800 copyrighted works that my father wrote. My brother and sister own the other 2/3. It gives me a comfortable income.
I also own the royalties to about 2 dozen other items that I wrote, myself, in addition the outright ownership of several published items. Even with this, I'm small potatoes on the publishing scale. The estimates from the company that publishes my father's material are that we lose nearly half our income to pirates. None of the material is expensive. But I have actually seen people at copiers in Office Depot stealing what belongs to me. Do I tolerate it. No. It's theft. It doesn't help the business when someone steals the material. It doesn't spread knowledge about it. The rationale behind statements that say that the unpaid knockoffs increase business for recording artists is the same rationale that says that stealing the wheel covers off a Mercedes advertises their automobiles. BULLPUCKEY! And to the person who thinks that John Riggs' method of protecting his material is asinine -- you don't know what you are talking about. John has no obligation whatsoever to release any of his material to the rest of us. I have a lot of his work. It's work that most of us couldn't do in a decade. Does anyone remember the last release John Cornelius put out? He still invents, but he doesn't sell anything. Why? I think most of you know.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
gaddy Inner circle Agent of Chaos 3531 Posts
|
My god this is a depressing thread...
*due to the editorial policies here, words on this site attributed to me cannot necessarily be held to be my own.*
|
|||||||||
|
marty.sasaki Inner circle 1117 Posts
|
I don't know the details, but for years the UNIX operating system was sold with a contract that bound the custermers to keep the code secret with "trade secret". The penalties were pretty severe, and this was long ago when people were more honest.
I don't think you can do anything about it besides not publish. The technology has created a generation of folks who feel entitled to receive many things for free. There is that expectation that you can find almost anything for free on the net. There are also some folks who feel that they are doing the world a favor by exposing magic to be what it is, trickery, and fakes. Some areas can and do benefit from free distribution, but magic isn't one of those areas. The market is too small and the assets too valuable to the creators. The only way is to make sure that the folks who receive the information can be trusted and are worthy. There are still "guild secrets" that are only passed on after apprentiships or long training. I have to admit that I treasure things that I've had to work for and have earned. A friend of a friend (no really, a friend of a good friend of mine) decided to become a Japanese "Zen" gardener, and after long petitioning went to school, and lead an almost monastic life. She spent the first 6 months learning to comb moss before being allowed to learn more.
Marty Sasaki
Arlington, Massachusetts, USA Standard disclaimer: I'm just a hobbyist who enjoys occasionally mystifying friends and family, so my opinions should be viewed with this in mind. |
|||||||||
|
Cristobal Loyal user Malaga (Spain) 288 Posts
|
Quote:
On 2009-07-14 23:51, Bill Palmer wrote: Sorry, but I'm not saying what Mr. Riggs must do! If he don't want to release it's his decision. What I'm saying it's that the reason it's wrong from my point of view. In the other hand, if he is doing that for stop the exposure I think that is the best and only solution. Quote:
On 2009-07-14 07:20, FocusYourMAYND wrote: I'm too jealous of the mentalist secrets and I agree with you in this part. Quote:
On 2009-07-14 10:16, Mr. Mindbender wrote: "My friend can bend your ear for hours on end, detailing exactly how the current music business has been devastated by file sharing" I agree with that, because the actual music business model is obsolete. It's logic that is been devastating. Because of that, this model is changing. You don't have to believe me, just watch what modern and famous musician do. People like NIN, Radiohead,... are releasing their work for free. Also, forbid Torrent it's like forbid email because is devastating the postal service business. "No matter how you justify it, it's still stealing. Most people I run in to who share Cristobal's attitude are a) 25 years old or younger, and b) have never spent any serious time creating anything they (or others) see as valuable. Spend three years creating something -- a mental effect, a piece of music, a story, a screenplay -- toil over it, pour your heart and soul in to it. Next, overcome all the odds and have whatever you created actually be wanted by the public. Reach that point, then tell me how this isn't stealing. " I'm older than 25 (actually, not much). I'm an author: magic (tricks, technique, theory,...), computing programming, music,... And I always have released my work for free. Of course, my work haven't as much value as your father one, but for me is precious. Also, I'm going to release something to the mentalism community and it will be for free. Quote:
On 2009-07-14 18:58, Mr. Mindbender wrote: It's not the same. If you take property, the owner lost his property. If you copy a file, the owner keep his copy. What is theft for you? Apart from all this, I agree that it's necessary a fair compensation to the owner of the copyright for the file sharing. |
|||||||||
|
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts
|
A depressing thread indeed. People are still talking about watermarking in one way or another individual magic releases... and I've posted time and time again about why that is not a solution. Do people simply read, forget and then post the same idea they opened the thread with???
Quote:
Seriously who in the hell has the time for that crap? You are an idiot. Everything you just said is ploughing through the junk to find gems. Your posts are horrible. I prefer to let the crowd judge who is the idiot... and on occasion they can can go to @#$$ as well, in this instance however, I think mob wisdom will be on my side. My point, that you missed, was that providing one knows a bunch of artists they already like, it's very easy and quick to find more of the same. Go to the Pandora website, type in the name of your favorite song and it will provide you a personalised 'radio station' around that tune. Just one example that takes almost no time at all. My point was that as a music enthusiast I use a number of 'intelligent' ways to discover music that is new to me, as well as the traditional ploughing through junk to find the gems. Combine both approaches and it's like looking for gems in a gold mine. Bill Palmer: Quote:
The rationale behind statements that say that the unpaid knockoffs increase business for recording artists is the same rationale that says that stealing the wheel covers off a Mercedes advertises their automobiles. Read this back Bill. I think that if you try even moderately hard you will see why this claim is absolute nonsense. As for my position that Riggs methods are asinine, I'm happy to defend it. Just to clarify, he monitoring torrent sites for copies of his work, and he is noting the apparent nationality of the initial uploader - then refusing to sell to that country in the future. Again, one doesn't need to try very hard to realize that this is a very dumb approach. How does he know the nationality of the original uploader? Profile information can be incorrect. If he managed to catch the torrent at the moment of initial upload he could identify the IP address of the initial seeder - but this doesn't prove the uploaders nationality, nor does it prove that they were the initial purchaser. The product could have been traded privately or in a medium Riggs doesn't monitor. Even if these problems didn't exist... (and they do), and he could identify the nationality of the original purchaser who is illegally sharing his work - on what logic is it desirable to punish that entire nation for the actions of one? While I agree with the sentiment of a lot of your post, you are still confusing infringement with theft which is not a helpful approach if you are looking to influence public thinking, or god forbid, develop models that really will help to reward creators for their efforts. Anyone else got ideas that will actually help reward creators and encourage them to drive the art forward by publishing their ideas?
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
|
pearljamjeff Inner circle Ann Arbor 1249 Posts
|
Here's an adage that I came up with that I absolutely live by:
A customer: Someone who purchases something from you. A TRUE customer: Someone who cares about your success. A TRUE customer RELATIONSHIP: Someone who cares about your success as much as you care about theirs. Granted, this is more talking about B2B relationships, not B2C... but there might be something in there worth consideration.
Jeff Travilla - I own an advertising agency to help finance my magic addiction.
|
|||||||||
|
FocusYourMAYND Regular user 174 Posts
|
I am pleased to report that, utilizing what I can only describe as pure strength of will and personality, John was able to have the offending torrents removed!
|
|||||||||
|
Bill Palmer Eternal Order Only Jonathan Townsend has more than 24315 Posts
|
Let me point out that John Riggs' products are made in extremely small quantities, by hand, and often take a very long time to reach the customer. Most people today don't have the patience to wait for his material.
He has plenty of business without even having to use a web site. There are many makers in magic who do such limited business that only those who are professionals need ever speak to them. They really don't want any new business. Carl Williams is one. Bill Gusias is another. Davit -- your knowledge of infringement vs. theft is not based upon personal experience. Mine is.
"The Swatter"
Founder of CODBAMMC My Chickasaw name is "Throws Money at Cups." www.cupsandballsmuseum.com |
|||||||||
|
Davit Sicseek Inner circle 1818 Posts
|
Quote:
Let me point out that John Riggs' products are made in extremely small quantities, by hand, and often take a very long time to reach the customer. Most people today don't have the patience to wait for his material. All good and well. I don't see the relevance to this thread however. I think selling to fellow trusted professionals one knows personally is a partial solution for some products published by some people. I also know people have been sharing in that manner for a long time before the internet - and probably the printing press. Quote:
Davit -- your knowledge of infringement vs. theft is not based upon personal experience. Mine is. I'd be embarassed to suggest I base my knowldge only on personal experience. You should be too. I base my knowledge on the law, after all this is a legal issue. From a moral stantpoint, we aren't in disagreement, I find both theft and infrimgement to be immoral. I simply have the knowledge to differentiate between the two concepts and see crazed shouts of "IT IS THEFT!!!!1!!" to only demean the argument of well meaning (if a little excitable) people. I'm not overly savvy with US law, but this might be a good spot for you to start your reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._......the_case
Send me the truth: davitsicseek@gmail.com
|
|||||||||
MikeClay Special user Atlanta GA 761 Posts
|
http://www.protectedpdf.com/
its simple use a system they cant break...(YET) for Ebooks.. on another note.. not ALL torrents are bad.. this wasnt designed for pirating but has been misused for it.. a group of web developers (I'm in the group) use torrents to share wordpress templates and custom plugins that we help each other develope
its ok.. balloon dogs don't bite
|
|||||||||
Posted: Jul 14, 2009 10:01 am 