Comment by unalone | Hacker News Reader

Comment by unalone | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Nope! "Priceless" means you're incapable of deciding what one ought to pay for something. "Worthless" means you've decided something is not inherently valuable. That's the meaning I wanted to use.

When you think it's okay to use a copyrighted song in its entirety in a video just because you're an amateur, what you're saying is that you're fine with releasing somebody else's work to the world without anybody making a dime. The people complaining about this lawsuit are saying they're mad because using somebody else's work without compensation should be completely fine. That devalues music.

It would be like if I stole the source code to Basecamp to release a free application, then defended myself to 37signals by saying I wasn't making money off it. I'm not more innocent because I was hypothetically releasing my work for free. In fact, in a way it's even worse because I've suddenly devalued Basecamp, which makes money off people who think it's worth something and have no choice but to pay if they want it.

(Actually, looking at Marco's post before this, I think I misinterpreted him: He agrees with my belief that the Vimeo thing is copyright infringement, and simply is saying that Creative Commons will let musicians flourish without breaking laws.)

Nope! "Priceless" means you're incapable of deciding what one ought to pay for something.

What is the Mona Lisa worth? You'd say it's priceless, of course. Yet you can find free images of it--legally--online. Does that mean the Mona Lisa is worthless?

Something can be priceless despite reproductions of it being available for zero cost.

Back when Da Vinci made the Mona Lisa, he sold it. It was preserved in a museum and copied everywhere long after he was dead; originally, he made his money off commissions. So your argument falls instantly flat.

Something can be priceless despite reproductions of it being available for zero cost.

The question you don't ask is: What is being reproduced? If you're talking about just a band playing a song, then maybe I'd agree with you. I don't have an enormous problem with people listening to bootleg recordings of live bands. As you say there, those are recordings that stemmed from a concert that already made its money.

But when the music is recorded, when you hire audio engineers to get as good a sound as possible, when you slave over making an absolutely perfect recording, then you've created an object whose initial worth is determined by the exclusivity of the releases. When you spend lots of effort to release a CD, you're doing it because you expect the deal is going to be: "If you want these high quality recordings, you pay me a little bit of money."

When that gets released for free, all the efforts that went into making that particular sound are rendered valueless because the band's expected return suddenly isn't happening.

Back when Da Vinci made the Mona Lisa, he sold it. It was preserved in a museum and copied everywhere long after he was dead; originally, he made his money off commissions. So your argument falls instantly flat.

But then why are we still selling copies of John Lennon songs now that John Lennon is dead?

"If you want these high quality recordings, you pay me a little bit of money."

So then where do you draw the line? Is it illegal for me to play a CD for a friend, because he hasn't bought it? Is it illegal for me to lend a CD to a friend? Is it illegal for me to listen to my own MP3s ripped from a CD while lending the CD to a friend? Is it illegal to lend that CD to a whole lot of friends at once? Is it illegal for me to do that over Bittorrent?

Your argument says all these are illegal, because the person listening to the music didn't pay for it. Personally, I think the issue needs a slightly more subtle approach. But if you think that you can more easily deal with the problem by making it completely black and white, with everyone in the world a lawbreaker for listening to music they haven't paid for, feel free. Just don't impose such a flawed worldview on everyone else.

But then why are we still selling copies of John Lennon songs now that John Lennon is dead?

Copyright still holds. With him dead, whoever owns the copyright to his music — Yoko? — can do whatever she wants with it, until copyright expires.

Your argument says all these are illegal, because the person listening to the music didn't pay for it. Personally, I think the issue needs a slightly more subtle approach.

Agreed. And record companies have absolutely moved towards the irrational in their defense of copyright. But I can understand why they're being so irrational, and, misguided as I believe they are, I think their heart's trying to be in the right place.

I don't know what the solution is, but the one that blanket approves of piracy isn't the one I approve of. In this particular case with Vimeo, I think that when your lip dub's been viewed two million times, you've passed a point where you can claim you're sharing that song fairly.

I don't know what the solution is, but the one that blanket approves of piracy isn't the one I approve of. In this particular case with Vimeo, I think that when your lip dub's been viewed two million times, you've passed a point where you can claim you're sharing that song fairly.

The question is one of total cultural value. Compared to the value supposedly lost by the original artists by allowing their work to be remixed, how much does society gain from allowing their work to be remixed?

Did the Gray Album devalue the White Album more than it created value?

Did the video of the kid dancing to Dragostei Din Tei (aka Numa Numa) devalue the original song more than it created value? Let us say that it did; what about if we include the additional sales of records that resulted from the popularity of the video? Was value still lost? Could we get into a situation where you claim value was lost, yet the original artists would insist that value was gained?

No, it's not of "total cultural value". That's a bullshit term. It's about the artists first and society second.

The Dragostei Din Tei video didn't use the entire song. It make a lot of people who wanted to hear the rest of the song go out and buy it. The Gray Album is shadier, but it was remixing a much older album, and remixes aren't directly presenting what already existed. They're making some kind of creative alteration. Even then, I don't think it's wrong to assume that perhaps the original artists deserve some compensation. Not a ridiculous compensation that puts the remixer out of a job, but suggesting they have no rights to the final work is similarly silly.

The solution, as Marco writes here, is for more musicians to adapt to Creative Commons, so that people can use their works and contribute to that remix culture. The artists who're fine with that, and I think most of them are, can permit their works to be taken, and the ones that aren't can miss out. But it's their choice, not ours. Suggesting that all those artists only exist to contribute to culture is retarded.

I believe that if you ever find the time to actually look into it, you'll find that most artists do not do what they do because of "compensation", but because they love it, because of the social and cultural value they see it creating, and because of the effects it has on other people. In other words, what you describe as "retarded" is in fact one of the primary motivations of artists.

I speak from my own experience of growing up in a home with a theatre actress / community theatre director mother and songwriter / playwright father, and their wider social network. An intellectually stimulating but extremely frugal existence.

I'm an artist myself. Otherwise I'd have avoided this whole discussion. I like having some idea of what I'm talking about.

I make art primarily because I love the creation, and I absolutely love when my work creates a response in somebody else. But that's my love for my work and for those people, not for a vaguer society.

I could see myself being really pleased over a lip dub of a song of mine. I could also see myself hating that something I'd made had leaked out without my receiving anything for the trouble. I mean, if I'm out to make a living with my work, then having it taken without compensation might not be what I'm looking for. But the point I was trying to make was that it would be my choice either way, that the work I make serves me first and society second.

All "priceless" means is that whoever owns it is unable or unwilling to sell it at any price. This applies to the Mona Lisa, but also to some folks' family photos, and to my lungs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com