The Pirate’s Dilemma
Written by Ernesto on January 08, 2008Pirates are innovators, they signal market problems and lead the way to new business models. Nevertheless, they are tagged as thieves by many. We invited Matt Mason, author of the book “The Pirate’s Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism”, to write an article on the “pirate’s dilemma” for TorrentFreak.
The Pirate’s Dilemma: The Problem With Information (and how to fix it)
BY MATT MASON
The same way light confuses scientists by existing as particles and waves at the same time, information increasingly seems to confuse us. Information is getting cheaper and more expensive at the same time, and it appears that many of us, especially those of us who own or control a great deal of it, no longer understand how to observe or use it.
We live in a world where it is legal for a company to patent pigs, or any other living thing except for a full birth human being, but copying a CD you bought onto your hard drive is considered an infringement of someone else’s rights. A place where an average law abiding citizen could owe more than $12 million dollars in fines if they were sued every time they accidentally violated copyright law in a single day. A society where it’s ok for each of us to be hit with 5,000 advertising messages every 24 hours, usually without our permission, but creating a piece of art and placing it in public yourself without permission can land you in prison. This isn’t just about the pros and cons of file sharing - this is about an entire species losing its sense of perspective, failing to understand the potential of one of its most precious (and yet most abundant) resources.
Many of us are confused about whether our ideas should count as information, or property. When we have a new idea, there are two opposing forces at work. At the same time as we are thinking “how can I get this out there?” we’re also asking ourselves “how can I benefit from/monetize this idea?” We want to spread ideas as information, but capitalize on them as intellectual property. This problem with information is something I call The Pirate’s Dilemma.
The first thing we need to understand is that the decision as to how we share “our” information isn’t always “ours” to make alone. If a drug company decides it won’t share malaria and anti-retroviral AIDS drugs with a developing nation for a price the suffering citizens of that country can afford, that country may decide to ignore patent protections and manufacture pirate copies of the drugs anyway in order to save lives. If an industry dependent on physical information, distribution bottlenecks and artificial scarcity decides to ignore more efficient ways of distributing the information it considers its property, pirates will step into the breach and highlight the fact that there is a better way for us to do things.
Some of America’s greatest innovators were thought of as pirates. When Thomas Edison invented the phonographic record player, musicians branded him a pirate out to steal their work and destroy the live music business, until a system was established so everyone could be paid royalties, which we today call the record industry. Edison, in turn, went on to invent filmmaking, and demanded a licensing fee from those making movies with his technology. This caused a band of filmmaking pirates, including a man named William, to flee New York for the then still wild West, where they thrived, unlicensed, until Edison’s patents expired. These pirates continue to operate there, albeit legally now, in the town they founded: Hollywood. William’s last name? Fox.
Piracy is the sharp end of innovation, innovation by any means necessary. Large oligopolies control most of our industries and governments. Six companies control most of what we see and hear. According to The World Bank’s 2007 figures, roughly two-thirds the world’s 150 largest economies aren’t nations, but corporations. We all know the system doesn’t work quite the way it’s supposed to, yet continue to think of this inefficient system we have as “the free market”. Pirates upend inefficient systems – they take order and create short-term chaos, but often the long-term result of piracy on a large scale is a better system - a more efficient way of doing things. Pirates created many of our established orders out of chaos, and now that these industries are becoming inefficient in the face of new technologies, chaos is being created once again.
From CEOs to struggling artists, in everything from health care to entertainment to education, many of us are being challenged by the problem of others sharing and using our intellectual property without permission. This challenge requires a change of attitude, because sometimes piracy isn’t the problem, it’s the solution. You see, piracy is really a market signal - an early warning system, a warning that all too often goes ignored by established industries. Whether we consider ourselves pirates or professionals, we’re all competing in the same space.
When pirates enter our market spaces, we have two choices: We can throw lawsuits at them and hope they go away. Sometimes this is the best thing to do. But what if those pirates are adding value to society in some way? If these pirates are really doing something useful, people support them, and the strong arm of the law won’t work. The pirates will keep coming back and multiplying no matter how many people are sued. And the truth is, if lawsuits become a core component of your business model, then you no longer have a business model (unless you’re a lawyer).
Because in these cases, what pirates are actually doing is highlighting a better way for us to do things; they find gaps outside the market – and better ways for society to operate. In these situations the only way to fight piracy is legitimize and legalize new innovations by competing with pirates in the marketplace. Once the new market space is legitimized, more opportunities are created for everyone. This is how cable TV started, it’s why many drugs are now sold at prices people in the third world can afford, it’s how many other new opportunities are being created today. Pirates present us with a choice. We can either fight them in the courts, or match them play for play in the marketplace. To compete or not to compete, that is the question; that is The Pirate’s Dilemma.
Matt’s book: “The Pirate’s Dilemma: How Youth Culture Is Reinventing Capitalism” is out now through Free Press, and probably soon on a BitTorrent tracker near you ;).
Previously: Sweden’s Biggest File-Sharing Case Goes to Retrial
Next: BitTorrent, Uncensoring Independent Filmmakers
105 Responses
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 » Show All
Art(s) & culture(s) know no global boundaries. Corporate intervention is extremely dangerous since:
a) People learn about other ‘foreigners’ through art & entertainment first. Padlocking data produces ignorance. It’s the equivalent of going to the local [free] library and not being to checkout or make copies of any material(s)!
b) consumers choose how/when/where to process content and placing MPAA/RIAA figureheads to filter the handling of bits or bytes compromises future technological innovation(s).
c) P2P helps the circulation of open communication with the rest of the world. If you are lucky enough, you might even be able to travel the world for weeks staying overnight for free with meaningful international penpals. This experience is priceless especially when opening your mind to the unknown(s).
______________________________
Here’s to hoisting a glass when all artists/directors/producers/etc. represent ONLY themselves by standing over the mp**/ri** corpses.
[quote comment="259250"][quote comment="259207"]Although I enjoyed the article I think most people realize this is the “dilemma”. You just stated it more eloquent than most. What I would like hear your thoughts on the solution.[/quote]
I don’t think there is one catch-all solution. Radiohead certainly found one that worked for them, despite 70% of people not paying, there was still a pot of gold at the end of In Rainbows for them, and perhaps the 70 wouldn’t have bought In Rainbows ever, at any price.
But that won’t work for everyone trying to make a living from creative work. If you sell $2,000 women’s shoes, there probably isn’t much value in competing with $25 counterfeit copies, those buying them probably aren’t your target market, the copies are not adding value to the originals(unless you create a bridge line making lower quality versions think Emporio Armani vs Giorgio Armani, but that could damage your flagship brand), so throwing lawsuits at pirates would be advisable.
I think of the solution in terms of game theory because this is a decision people need to make based on how they think others, customers and competitors, will react. If you can see other revenue streams that will grow because you share something, it’s a good idea. If you can’t, hire a lawyer.
In terms of the entertainment industry, I think the answer will be some new royalty-based system that covers all content online, that’s maybe an extra $5 or $10 or $20 a month on a cable bill, divided up among content providers through a mechanism like ASCAP. I would point out that I don’t think this will happen anytime soon, because it’s not in the interests of the powers that be and would require such a monumental shift in so many industries. But it’s not impossible. This is basically what happened with cable TV - for years the networks weren’t getting any money from it. I don’t hear people complaining too much about having to pay for cable or on demand anymore. The problem is these days everyone can be the network, and the cable provider.
We shall see…[/quote]
Thank you for your response. I am really enjoying this conversation. You mention Radiohead’s “pay what you want” system as if it worked. I have never seen any numbers that said it did or didn’t. Maybe they have posted the results and I just missed it somewhere? Numbers I have seen are posted at http://ninblogs.wordpress.com/. Saul William’s cd was also released as “pay what you want” and here are the numbers:
As of 1/2/08,
154,449 people chose to download Saul’s new record.
28,322 of those people chose to pay $5 for it, meaning:
18.3% chose to pay.
Of those paying,
3220 chose 192kbps MP3
19,764 chose 320kbps MP3
5338 chose FLAC
He also mentions that this record was really only marketed through NIN and Saul William’s fan base. Meaning these people were probably already of fan of there music.
To the record-label “Anonymous” guy:
Boohoo.
Being small gives you a bloody advantage, and by not using that advantage you’re not exactly making it easy for us to feel sympathy for you when your work gets “pirated”.
Distribution and marketing on the net is not hard - and the ONLY reason your work is getting higher download numbers from the pirate sites than from the public ones, is because they offer better deals than you do. Not just in terms of economic costs - but in terms of practicalities, like method of distribution and ease of use. Stop thinking of new technology as the big bad wolf, and try instead to embrace it as the new and exciting market place that it really is. A good business model will never lose to piracy.
Hey b -
If I ran a store, and 70% of my customers walked off with my inventory, would that be a “runaway success?” Sorry, it seems like there’s entirely too much equivocation going on here - no one in the so-called “pirate community” is willing to face the ethical questions that their actions raise. You just b****h-slapped “Anonymous,” who’s trying to make an honest living with a small label, maybe get some artists heard and put some food on the table at the same time, and all you can think of is your own misguided sense of entitlement - not the fact that the artists whose works you’re downloading won’t see a nickel from you.
If it’s worth downloading, it’s worth paying for - even if it’s just a little bit. Give people their due. But every time someone brings up that argument, all I hear is “the music isn’t that great, the movies aren’t that great…” Doesn’t that smack of self-justification?
Hiro, thank you for pointing me toward the Walter Benjamin essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” - that’s pretty heady stuff.
I must admit, I find it strange for you to ask me “if you are in favour of market capitalism why are you railing against its essential operation?” and then turn around and point me toward a Marxist essay.
I’ll go ahead and put this out there - is this about free-market, or Marxist philosophies? Because if you can reconcile them both together in your own head, you have a much greater capacity for paradox than I do.
Wow I liked that. I might buy your book. Actually nahh, I’ll just download it!
Brett,
First of all, there is a difference between taking an object, which can only be in one place at one time, and copying information, which can be in unlimited places and which billions of people can possess at one time. This is a very very old fallacy caused by conflating the content (music) with the medium (a CD), and you really need to get past it before you can talk about this issue sensibly.
You say “If it’s worth downloading, it’s worth paying for.” That’s not necessarily true. If a person hasn’t listened to Rainbows yet, how does she know if it’s worth paying for?
(Based on Radiohead’s fame and past track record? Maybe, but not everyone was already familiar with them, and good artists’ output has been known to devolve into crap before. Based on reviews? Your taste might not agree with the reviewers’. Why beat around the bush… to know for sure, you have to hear it.)
Now I think I recall seeing reports from Radiohead themselves saying the “70% didn’t pay” statistic was inaccurate, but let’s suppose it was true. The quantity demanded of any good increases as the price gets lower, and the quantity demanded for free is very high. This is basic economics. If Radiohead had set a minimum payment, say pay at least $5 to download the album, far fewer people would have downloaded the album (at least FROM THEM, more on this later).
So, is that good for Radiohead?
I can’t see how it is. Even if the lost listeners weren’t going to pay anything, they still would have talked about and played the album for their friends, who might pay, and they might have gone on to buy tickets to Radiohead shows. More exposure creates more opportunities for the band to make money.
Basically, what I’m saying is this. Suppose for the sake of argument that a million people downloaded the album; 300,000 paid, and 700,000 did not. This means 30% paid. What if, instead, 300,000 paid, and nobody else downloaded the album? That would mean 100% paid. But it wouldn’t mean any more money for the band, and it would mean less exposure. Is that better?
Not at all, and that’s why looking at the percentage and saying, “Clearly, people suck and that was a mistake.” is dishonest.
As an additional point, if Radiohead had released their album by traditional means, “The Scene” would leak it prior to its release, there would be an MP3 download, and 0% of people would pay (it wouldn’t even be possible to). If you read some interviews with Thom Yorke, this kind of leak is exactly what the band wanted to compete with. So this dovetails nicely with Matt Mason’s book, which is about competing with pirates.
[quote comment="259823"]If I ran a store, and 70% of my customers walked off with my inventory, would that be a “runaway success?” Sorry, it seems like there’s entirely too much equivocation going on here - no one in the so-called “pirate community” is willing to face the ethical questions that their actions raise.[quote]
My experience has been the oppositive, and I’ve found that many of the people who share content are quite aware of the moral and ethical dimensions to their actions (and generally seem to be alot more of a self-aware bunch than the average person you meet on the street) and I believe most of them do want to see the content creators earn a fair and equitable living. Certainly there are anarchists and nihilists and teenagers too.. but you’ll find those people just about anywhere.
Before his recent bit of infamy Ersan was working on (and presumably still is, I can’t reach him for comment at the moment) an alternate payment structure for artists who distribute content via p2p. I would post some details or the link to the wiki entry, but my google-fu is tired…
[quote comment="259823"]If it’s worth downloading, it’s worth paying for - even if it’s just a little bit.[/quote]
Here I must disagree with you again. I do not believe an mp3 has either intrinsic or real worth, and is in no way a true reproduction of the commerical product it promotes. Even a high quality (320k) MP3 displays noticable audible differences when compared with an original lossless recording as played on my stereo. MP3s are the digital equivilent of AM radio. They are NOT a commodity or something anyone should be paying for in my opinion, and as such I don’t.
One thing I do, however, is put a large percentage of my disposable income into supporting the artists and musicians I love. That means I pay to see them when they come to my town, I buy vinyl, cd, or lossless direct from their personal websites or equitably-fair distributor, and most of all I share my music with others in the hope that they will enjoy it, purchase it, and encourage and support those same artists I love in their lives and future creations. Oh, I also repeatedly post every Metallica album to Usenet, just to ensure everyone never has to give those stupid twats another dime again.
You seem like a reasonable and intelligent fellow Brett, so I do hope you get my moments of sarcasm, such as they are.. :P
But seriously, most of the music I like, listen to, and purchase is released in relatively small quantities by independant artists and labels, and were it not for the MP3s I download I would have never purchased 90% of the music in my collection. I download all kinds of music and alot of it I listen to once and delete, and I don’t think I should have to pay any more than my internet access fee to do so.
[quote comment="259823"]Hiro, thank you for pointing me toward the Walter Benjamin essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” - that’s pretty heady stuff.
I must admit, I find it strange for you to ask me “if you are in favour of market capitalism why are you railing against its essential operation?” and then turn around and point me toward a Marxist essay.
I’ll go ahead and put this out there - is this about free-market, or Marxist philosophies? Because if you can reconcile them both together in your own head, you have a much greater capacity for paradox than I do.[/quote]
To quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in the Beatles, I just believe in me.”
Which is to say I don’t like -isms, and tend to believe they distort our view of reality through their claims of a total and definitive plan for the ideal society. To me, the ideal society is one in which everyone is free to seek their own pleasure and live in any way they choose so long as it doesn’t infringe upon upon the freedom and pleasure of others. You
could call it a societal embodiment of the Golden Rule; and I don’t mean the one about he who holds the gold making the rules, as is our current state of affairs in the western democracies.
As I live in a market capitalist society I am oblidged to participate in certain elements of this exchange if I wish to enjoy the benefits and distractions of the technological society. However this does not preclude me from entertaining my own ideals and political conceptions or living them.
In America the taxes of the citizens are directed into corporate coffers and then used by the MAFiAA to sue the citizens who freely share something of no real worth. Those who speak against this corruption of democracy are called pirates and face criminal prosecution, emprisonment, and their life’s ruin. 150 years ago in America people faced the same risks in opposing slavery, a corrupt economic device that reduced a fellow human being to a complete tool of industry and stripped them of their essential rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While obviously the essentials of the two experiences are worlds apart, the vigorousness of their defense by those who benefit from the systems is the same.
Take a step back, then take another, and think about the history of impediment to free communication in the world. It was only 60 odd years ago the largest countries in the world were at war with one another over the right to control property and the economic exchange of the world. Millions of young men were convinced to fight one another in the name of God and Country. They were convinced the enemy were ungodly, “Dirty Japs” or the like, and this was possible because people were largely afraid and knew little of each other. Where-as today I know that I am not much different from anyone else in the world, and I live in age of amazing communication that promotes the global spread of ideas between cultures and races. The longer this continues the greater our understanding of one another must become, and it will be ever less likely that the people of the planet Earth will war upon one another, will poison and destroy one region of the planet for the bounty and comfort of another, and inch by inch the top-down grip of those who have benefited from all of this strife and inhumanity will lessen and eventual cede.
So what does all that have to do with sharing some music? It’s a stretch, I know, but for me this is the foreground in the fight for freedom and the rights of man in the digital age, and I intend to do my best to represent and defend the side of freedom and liberty.
Glad you enjoyed the Walter Benjamin essay. He totally rocked my perception of film. :D
[quote comment="259823"]If I ran a store, and 70% of my customers walked off with my inventory, would that be a “runaway success?” Sorry, it seems like there’s entirely too much equivocation going on here - no one in the so-called “pirate community” is willing to face the ethical questions that their actions raise.[/quote]
My experience has been the oppositive, and I’ve found that many of the people who share content are quite aware of the moral and ethical dimensions to their actions (and generally seem to be alot more of a self-aware bunch than the average person you meet on the street) and I believe most of them do want to see the content creators earn a fair and equitable living. Certainly there are anarchists and nihilists and teenagers too.. but you’ll find those people just about anywhere.
Before his recent bit of infamy Ersan was working on (and presumably still is, I can’t reach him for comment at the moment) an alternate payment structure for artists who distribute content via p2p. I would post some details or the link to the wiki entry, but my google-fu is tired…
[quote comment="259823"]If it’s worth downloading, it’s worth paying for - even if it’s just a little bit.[/quote]
Here I must disagree with you again. I do not believe an mp3 has either intrinsic or real worth, and is in no way a true reproduction of the commerical product it promotes. Even a high quality (320k) MP3 displays noticable audible differences when compared with an original lossless recording as played on my stereo. MP3s are the digital equivilent of AM radio. They are NOT a commodity or something anyone should be paying for in my opinion, and as such I don’t.
One thing I do, however, is put a large percentage of my disposable income into supporting the artists and musicians I love. That means I pay to see them when they come to my town, I buy vinyl, cd, or lossless direct from their personal websites or equitably-fair distributor, and most of all I share my music with others in the hope that they will enjoy it, purchase it, and encourage and support those same artists I love in their lives and future creations. Oh, I also repeatedly post every Metallica album to Usenet, just to ensure everyone never has to give those stupid twats another dime again.
You seem like a reasonable and intelligent fellow Brett, so I do hope you get my moments of sarcasm, such as they are.. :P
But seriously, most of the music I like, listen to, and purchase is released in relatively small quantities by independant artists and labels, and were it not for the MP3s I download I would have never purchased 90% of the music in my collection. I download all kinds of music and alot of it I listen to once and delete, and I don’t think I should have to pay any more than my internet access fee to do so.
[quote comment="259823"]Hiro, thank you for pointing me toward the Walter Benjamin essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” - that’s pretty heady stuff.
I must admit, I find it strange for you to ask me “if you are in favour of market capitalism why are you railing against its essential operation?” and then turn around and point me toward a Marxist essay.
I’ll go ahead and put this out there - is this about free-market, or Marxist philosophies? Because if you can reconcile them both together in your own head, you have a much greater capacity for paradox than I do.[/quote]
To quote John Lennon, “I don’t believe in the Beatles, I just believe in me.”
Which is to say I don’t like -isms, and tend to believe they distort our view of reality through their claims of a total and definitive plan for the ideal society. To me, the ideal society is one in which everyone is free to seek their own pleasure and live in any way they choose so long as it doesn’t infringe upon upon the freedom and pleasure of others. You
could call it a societal embodiment of the Golden Rule; and I don’t mean the one about he who holds the gold making the rules, as is our current state of affairs in the western democracies.
As I live in a market capitalist society I am oblidged to participate in certain elements of this exchange if I wish to enjoy the benefits and distractions of the technological society. However this does not preclude me from entertaining my own ideals and political conceptions or living them.
In America the taxes of the citizens are directed into corporate coffers and then used by the MAFiAA to sue the citizens who freely share something of no real worth. Those who speak against this corruption of democracy are called pirates and face criminal prosecution, emprisonment, and their life’s ruin. 150 years ago in America people faced the same risks in opposing slavery, a corrupt economic device that reduced a fellow human being to a complete tool of industry and stripped them of their essential rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. While obviously the essentials of the two experiences are worlds apart, the vigorousness of their defense by those who benefit from the systems is the same.
Take a step back, then take another, and think about the history of impediment to free communication in the world. It was only 60 odd years ago the largest countries in the world were at war with one another over the right to control property and the economic exchange of the world. Millions of young men were convinced to fight one another in the name of God and Country. They were convinced the enemy were ungodly, “Dirty Japs” or the like, and this was possible because people were largely afraid and knew little of each other. Where-as today I know that I am not much different from anyone else in the world, and I live in age of amazing communication that promotes the global spread of ideas between cultures and races. The longer this continues the greater our understanding of one another must become, and it will be ever less likely that the people of the planet Earth will war upon one another, will poison and destroy one region of the planet for the bounty and comfort of another, and inch by inch the top-down grip of those who have benefited from all of this strife and inhumanity will lessen and eventual cede.
So what does all that have to do with sharing some music? It’s a stretch, I know, but for me this is the foreground in the fight for freedom and the rights of man in the digital age, and I intend to do my best to represent and defend the side of freedom and liberty.
Glad you enjoyed the Walter Benjamin essay. He totally rocked my perception of film. :D
Mods: feel free to nuke my previous comment, I slipped a /quote, but felt what I had to say here was worth reposting so it was actually legible. Excuse the stone-y fingers… :rolleyes:
I’m expecting to see RIAA/MPAA/IFPI/whatever to open a private tracker ;-)
Oh, they could collect so much information. RIAA/MPAA/IFPI themselves wouldn’t do it; they or their member companies would hire an anti-piracy group such as MediaDefender, MediaSentry, or BayTSP to do it.
However, I don’t know if any anti-piracy groups understand the culture well enough to fool most of us.
I’ve been proven wrong before, though. People need to remember that private trackers are more dangerous than public trackers. Better content, better seed:leech ratio, fewer fakes and stronger community may be good reasons to join a private tracker, but security is absolutely not.
…What does this have to do with this article?
The bible is the most pervasive thing, it is written by corrupt men who sought to corrupt the mindsofmany and they have done a splendid job
I’m the savior you guysorgals have been looking for since ancient time
I’m a virgin, i am aloner, i am in touch with nature, and have done much to help everyone since my birth.
I know all, see all, hear all, and a perfectionist. I am never satisfied until perfect.
believing is seeing
I am here to offer my help to humanity who are on the path to destruction
I am the the solution to world peace
I will bring world peace through love, co-operation, and understanding of the world we live in.
I’m not running up a pirate flag here but I do think that the urge to narrow the use of content we purchase rights too is not rooted in fairness, but rather in greed.
For example, the music industry embraced CD technology inthe 80’s so they could re-sell everyone their old albums again, of course the CD helped open the door to digial music - so goes unintended consequences.
My pirate flag? Right here:
http://buyflagshere.com/catalog/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=33
Arrgh!
Interesting that you mention Edison who himself pirated the credit for the invention of the light bulb. Nor did he hold the first patent for it!
to SantaBJ
You are in part right; because we are small we have the advantage of being able to adjust our release plans without months of meetings, and we can choose to release music that isnt an obvious “hit single”. We can focus on offering unique product and maintain personal relationships with the best distributors and stores for the genres we deal in.
On the other hand, being small we dont have a marketing department or even a marketing budget to speak of. Marketing for us mostly consists of sending out promo copies, photos and translated text to relevant stores and websites. Oddly enough, even in the age of the Internet, most of these people want a physical copy of the record, rather than MP3 files or a CDR, to review or even reprint the press release. That means we could end up paying for a 10% manufacturing over run just for promo copies which we have to then pay to ship out.
Also we dont have the budget or time to maintain our own digital sales infrastructure; we contract with iTunes, Emusic and others for worldwide digital sales as well as with mobile phone carriers music sales departments here in Japan. Those companies actually pay us as opposed to the freeloaders, the russians and mixtape people.
Technology isnt the big bad wolf, in many ways it enables us to do business, but our lack of efforts on sales and distribution has nothing to do with us and our artists getting ripped off. If you have some great ideas for helping us with distribution and marketing post back here with contact information and we’ll get in touch with you about contract work. It would be a plus if you and can speak, read & write in English, French, German and Japanese (that covers our major sales areas).
Maybe it is time for some of the manufacturers to go after the studios - like the guitar companies, etc. They can claim that they sold their guitars for personal use. The sound their instrument produced was for the person’s enjoyment only and not to be shared with others - so any derivative commercial proceeds will need royalties ;-)
nice to see a nice debate & argument for the other side of the fence!
[quote comment="259238"]weiufhwrigrgher
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
rr
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
rrrr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
rrrrr
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
rrr
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
rr
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
rr
r fergver ev ve eer[/quote]
8 references to this post
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 » Show All
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.