What's the best way to ensure privacy while file sharing? Ken, I'm interested in your take on this. My views on file-sahring, if you care to discuss them: The writing is on the wall. Copyrights will become less important as data transfer becomes faster. The ability to police such massive movements of data will become impossible. The ability to share between individuals via wireless will also make this task impossible. Its time to look at art, creativity, and ingenuity from a different perspective. The days of fat cat middle-men and media monopolies are coming to an end. Greasball no-talent snake-oil salemen will be cut out of the artistic loop and revenues will be divided more equally among true artists. The RIAA is just being ridiculous. They're in denial and looking more pathetic with every teenager they sue.
to ensure privacy while running a file sharing program the easiest way is to turn off your super node option, and your file share. you cant catch a leech unless you use a honey pot, and even then you only catch them for 1 song. AFIC the gnutella network is dead. All thats there now is kiddie porn and songs you can find pretty easily. Torrents are where its at, but unfortunately the torrent system was developed with an intentional lack of privacy. Your IP address is left completely undisguised to anybody downloading/uploading on the same torrent. That said, you wont get caught by a basic search of who's got what, because thats not how its done. My views: Copyrights will become more important as technology increases. Speed has nothing to do with it, you can catch a whole database of people transferring in 1/10th of a second just as easily as you can in 10 minutes. Music services like iTunes, Napster, and others allow you to download music but only with DRM protection. Despite my hatred for the RIAA's fight against file sharing i understand why they have to go after everyone equally, its simply part of copyright protection. If you don't defend your copyright, it becomes useless and weak. Let a kid go with 10 songs, and it becomes a precedent when the guy sharing 500,000 songs gets sued. About your hope for an internet music renaissance i say: not bloody likely. I don't enjoy the music industry myself, but for the big names management would be nearly impossible without one. When you cut an album, they have the production/distribution already secured and ready to go. When you go on tour they have the connections to get you set up at big venues, and the revenue to back up such a venture as securing Madison Square Garden for a 3 night stand, the set, the tickets, the roadies, everything. More importantly, they have the ability to let people know who you are, and announce your album and your show and where you like to go to the bathroom. Big music requires big business, as much as it sucks to say. i do agree that the music industry will get more creative in how they deal with music, but they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
I use Winamp too, but didn't know much about stream ripping. I'll have to check it out. Gnutella still has most any music you might want, but it doesn't provide enough privacy. But then what are you going to do with them? This is about the flow of ideas ...not objects. This is why I believe copyrights were a misguided concept to begin with. The concept of "intellectual property rights" in the digital age is archaic. There is no "property" to be protected. As the speed of ideas via digital media increases, and enforcement of these so-called "rights" becomes impossible, this point becomes glaringly apparent. Watching the RIAA trying to bail out their sinking ship in vain is just comical. Trying to enforce such "rights to ideas" is immoral to me, so I have no compunction at all about sharing ideas ...call it internet piracy or whatever. I don't think people want "Big Music". They've always just wanted GOOD music ...and that's why the days of "Big Music" are numbered. Good music doesn't need management, it will always find an audience. The days of some record company making superstars from one-time smash hits are over. In the future, if someone wants the privilege of earning a living in art, they're going to need real talent. The kind that churns out popular tunes everyday. Ken, regarding the small local artists, the faster "big management" starts losing their grip on the music scene, the better for music lovers everywhere. At last Gansta Polka will finally be able to take its respected place at the top. :wink:
Josey.. one question. Do I understand your take on these things that ANY music you can find on the internet is fair to download and use? You have no idea how many times I've had to take these peer sharing things off my kids computers and explain that just becasue the neighbor does it, does not make it right! I had a small niche program that I sold in the late 90's (sold a few since). Being small (like an independent artist), I could not afford at that time the needed security in my program to be able to provide a functioning demo that would time out. I finally came up with something and it worked fine until someone who did not care about the number of hours I had put into the development of it, cracked it. That did not matter to them, so they shared it with others. Now this is a very small example, but if I understand the way you are thinking, these are things that we should expect and not be upset about. Downloading music that is has not been provided by the artist free or is not at a legal site is wrong, plain and simple. Don't care how you explain it, it's just wrong.
That's the thinking about art that has prevailed for centuries, so I don't fault you for disagreeing with me. You can be upset if you want, but I don't see how that's going to change the fate of "intellectual property" rights in the digital age. I expect a lot of people are going to be upset when they realize they've been duped into thinking that ideas can be locked away in a box. There is already tons of really good free software out there. How much will there be in five years? I'm not a programmer so I don't know exactly why, but I'm guessing there are talented people out there who love combating viruses, or Microsoft, or spam, or just love helping people, or love bragging to their nerdy friends that their program was the most popular on download.com last week. All I know is that the days of me paying $300 for some under-developed, buggy software are over ...thank God. Man, what a sad testament to modern "artists". If copyrights ended tomorrow, I guarantee you there would still be great new music next year. There are plenty of people who got rich under this flawed system and they're fighting tooth and nail to keep it together. I can't blame them, but I think its coming unraveled just the same.
That's the problem. It is art for Pete's sake ...a leisure activity. Something that humans have traditionally done after their needs for food and shelter are met. That's why most hardcore artists, who love their craft more than food and shelter, have starved. I'm not saying I think all artists should starve. I'm just saying the model is all wrong and that is becoming more and more apparent as technology improves. Money is made on CDs but not the live performance? Seems backwards to me. Its the live experience that can't be duplicated. Maybe more time and money should be spent on stage and less in the studio. Maybe there will be more bootlegs than albums in the future, forcing us to pay more for tickets, I don't know. All I know is that art will continue and as long as a society prospers, the best artists will still be rich. "Stealing music" - now there's a hard concept to define. We're talking about reproducing soundwaves. As technology improves there is NO WAY this will be enforceable, it doesn't matter how many times you write it in a law book. It will be like chasing the wind and trying to sue everyone who farts. :lol: Imagine that you buy an expensive painting. I go over to your house one night (invited of course), take a picture of it with my camera, and make my very own excellent reproduction to hang on my wall. The painter then comes to my door with police and has me arrested for "stealing" his work. This kind of "ownership" of light waves is completely Orwellian and immoral. When you grant "rights" for ideas, you create a need for thought police. As more ideas move around, you need more thought police. Not a good thing. I feel bad for the artists who are caught in this system, but I think the flaws that were once hidden are going to sink the ship. I think good music will replace expensive music the same way programs like Open Office will replace MS Office ...or at least cause the price to fall near zero.
TRY THAT SAME THING WITH A DOLLAR BILL. THE GOVERNMENT CALLS IT COUNTEREIT AND WILL ARREST YOU FOR IT. :roll: YOU ARE PLACING NO VALUE ON THE LIGHT WAVES BEING EXPERTLY ARRANGED INTO A PATTERN WHICH HAS VALUE. SAME GOES FOR MUSIC. NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY IT IS STEALING.
Josey, it's people with opinions about music like yours that make it VERY HARD to convince our kids that it's outright stealing! Not to single you out, I know many others with the same thoughts. But it still is just wrong, no matter how you try to make it sound OK.
I'm not sure what that means. There are some darn good hobbyists out there. Some are even better than "professionals" being groomed and molded by the music industry, and they may never be discovered because we're too distracted by this other fluff. Stevie Ray Vaughan dropped out of school, ate, slept, and breathed the blues in small clubs ...so if that's considered hobbyist level, then I'll take it. With the coming information age we'll be able to find that small club in Texas where this awesome guitarist plays without the help of some multi-million dollar music conglomerate. There was a time when that wasn't possible without driving to Austin, but those days are over. Imagine every little club with a webcam. I don't buy this view that artists (or producers) will starve. I don't believe you will out of a job either Ken. The market will work itself out. We all have agreed to use this as a currency and nobody wants a copy of a $10 bill. Currency that's easily reproduced doesn't work very well, but art is a different story. While the original Mona Lisa may be worth a lot of money, it was created to be hung on a wall and admired ..and for that purpose, most people would be perfectly happy with a good copy. Once you've experienced its beauty with your own eyes, its purpose has been fulfilled. That's because I don't believe it IS outright stealing! :wink: I'm not saying people should break the law, but I believe the law is wrong in this case. Good laws promote the common good and I don't believe hoarding art (beauty) does that. I believe art and ideas were meant to be freely shared among all people rich or poor, and any attempt to prevent this will ultimately fail. Laws are just agreements among people, and as data becomes more unwieldy I don't see copyright law as something people are going to respect ...quite the contrary. Art is meant to be free expression with beauty its own reward ...and that's where it will always return.
But if nobody is willing to pay for their music, because it's so easy to steal it off the internet, where do they go from there? Are we all entitled to enjoy the music free? This gives true meaning to the phrase "starving artist."
No I don't think Stevie Ray would have continued to play in small bars if he wasn't getting paid. But if there was GOOD information on the national club scene via the internet, how could we miss hearing about him? Why wouldn't people pay to see him? After a few weeks of packing clubs to capacity, he'd move on to larger venues and make more money. Eventually he'd have enough fans to support a large tour. Maybe he'd do pay-per-view events where he jams in the studio with someone like Albert Collins. I'm sure he could find sponsors too. I just don't believe he'd starve. How much money would induce him to play guitar full time? I suspect its an amount MUCH lower than what he actually got. And that's one of the main problems with the industry today. They hype an artist and inflate their pay scale WAY out of proportion to what it would actually take to make them stay in the profession. I just don't believe these artificial monopolies can be sustained in a free society and as the internet becomes more accessible, the free flow of information will grow exponentially, leveling the playing field for all artists.
Most of those things you listed after local clubs involve a huge staff of people, I.E. the record industry. You think someone just said "HEY! LETS MAKE A RECORD INDUSTRY, WE CAN SCREW ALOT OF PEOPLE OVER WITH IT AND MAKE SOME QUICK CASH?" What you just described is a pretty good guess at how the record industry became what it is today, and what it would be after the dust settles on your starry-eyed internet music renaissance.
Ken, I never said it was okay to steal the original source of the art. You'd be paying your service provider. Once you start stealing access to live data , then I'd have objections. Uh ...yea ...pretty much. A rapper with an 8th grade education making $1 mil a year? What do you think? I think something's a little off balance somewhere. Its not that I object to anyone making tons of money, but how much would this same rapper REALLY accept? Everything above that creates an inefficient market, and I believe free markets will always correct themselves. Of course if you hire a slew of lawyers, create lifetime copyrights, and sue the crap out of everyone, then you don't have to worry much about free market economics. But if that's the model you're banking on when tons of data starts moving lightning fast, you're going to be up sh!t creek without a paddle. The RIAA ship is loaded with naive passengers and headed upstream as hard as they can go. I don't have all the answers, the market will decide. All I know is that people are going to share music. The artists who learn to accept this will be successful.
not to hikack your thread Stevie Ray Vaughn would still be playing the blues wherever he was and for whatever money. That cat did not play the blues for the money.
So their model is based on how effectively they can prosecute and intimidate their fans? That's not a sustainable model. As more and better anonymous P2P software becomes available, the legal system won't be able to keep up. If someone can't earn enough money from music, then they weren't meant to be a full-time musician. If we're talking about Stevie Ray Vaughan, I think he'd have the food and shelter part pretty well covered ...and then some. Then its up to him if he wants to continue full time ...which he would have done. He didn't need $10 mil. 9 of that 10 that we paid him could have gone to support 9 other musicians who quit and did get a day job. Here's a Wiki article on Anti-Copyright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-copyright Click the link at the bottom: "Abandoning Copyright: A Blessing for Artists, Art, and Society"
I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm just trying to understand how the current system can possibly keep going. Eventually people won't be trading individual songs. They'll be trading entire libraries. Imagine downloading every rock song that has ever been recorded in 10 seconds flat with really good anonymous software. This will eventually be reality. How then will the legal system keep up? The same way its keeping up in the war on drugs? Oh ...you cut me to the quick. :wink: You should know me better than that. I don't care how much someone makes as long as its determined by the free market. And if any musician is deserving of fame and fortune it was Stevie Ray. But at some point he began making more than what would have persuaded him to stay in music full time. All this extra money would have otherwise gone where? Copyrights were wrong to begin with. They are an artificial hindrance to free markets that will eventually be corrected. As data exchange becomes faster and more free, this will become abundantly clear. Any money artists lose as a result is not stealing, because it was never theirs to begin with.
Okay, I'll let it rest. I'm not trying to make anyone mad. I was hoping someone who agreed with me could go into more detail about anonymity, but I guess there's no one here who shares my views on copyrights. I think you're right, and that's just sad. We're moving towards a more Orwellian future. However, I think there will always be people out there trying to circumvent the actions of governments to keep the internet free. I don't think places like China can keep such a tight reign on their citizens forever. I sure do, but I don't have any moral problem whatsoever with using radar detectors, radar jammers, laser diffusers, or any other stealth technology ..."legal" or not. Keeping traffic artificially slow so government can control our freedom of movement and generate revenue is wrong, so any method short of bodily harm is justifiable to me. The only question then, is how much of a risk am I personally willing to take, to stand against this injustice.
