Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ? - Linux-audio-user

14 Feb 2013

-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Ralf Mardorf &lt;ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net&gt;
To: linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
Subject: Re: [LAU] So what do you think sucks about Linux audio ?
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 22:21:37 +0100

On Wed, 2013-02-13 at 14:26 -0500, drew Roberts wrote:
...
  On Wednesday 13 February 2013 14:04:33 Al Thompson
wrote:
  On 02/13/2013 09:37 AM, drew Roberts wrote:
   It's
hardly easy to make money by SELLING what is available for FREE.
 Sure, it happens.  There are a few places on the internet where you can
 pay to download something (like an owner's manual) that is available FOR
 FREE on the manufacturer's website.  Since the manufacturer in this case
 makes it available for free, they aren't really ripping off the
 manufacturer, but I'd say they are ripping off the consumer. 
 So, those Penguin folks are ripping off the consumer? I mean, you could
 download the books from Project Gutenberg right? Should someone alert the
 authorities that they are ripping off the consumers?

 Here is a point you are ignoring. If you can't make money selling things
 that are legal to copy and that can be obtained for free. How can you
 make money selling things that are illegal to copy but are also available
 for free via download however illegally? How do people sell knokcoff CDs
 and DVDs when they are available as free downloads? 
 Well, the Pengiun folks are breaking a law, since the things they copy
 are public domain.  
 Is it safe to assume that that is a typo and you meant they are not breaking 
 the law since those works are in the public domain?

  They are not infringing any copyrights, and are
not 
 making use of someone's property illegally.  
 When did the book go from being the property of Dickens or his heirs to being 
 the property of the public? Does a bit of land work that way? Or a sofa?

 So, why the claim that an artist could not make money if their published works 
 immediately went into the public domain?

 How can the Penguin folks make money printing and selling these books when any 
 other company anywhere in the world can do the same without paying them a 
 fee?

  Are they "ripping people 
 off?"  I don't know.  Go ask their customers if they knew they could
 have gotten all of that legally for free.

 From what I've seen, people buy pirated DVDs because they either don't
 have a DVD burner, or they believe that it is safer to buy it for cash
 at some flea market where there is no paper trail leading to them.  
 So, why do they buy from the people who do not support the artists they like 
 rather then from the people who do support the artists they like? What drives 
 them to do this to bands they love? 
If people like a band, they will find a way to give them money, so that
this band can record more songs for the fans. Real musicians have fans
that like to pay for the music. Piracy only is an issue for the most
worse and hyped music from the top 40, since it's an artificial
situation, no fan expect that one of those day flies will stay for very
long, soon or later there will be the next fashion. I won't imagine what
will come next, after this loudness and auto-tune fashion. Without heavy
rotation nobody would like the crap they call music.

I for sure had nearly all Beatles recordings as illegal copies on tapes,
but I also bought all of this recordings, without expecting that the
Beatles ever will record a new song.

I never owned music from The Black Eyed Peas as illegal copy or bought
recording. They sell an entertainment product, that has less to do with
an intellectual property. It's based on an exhausted fashion.

The current copyright is a dying concept, because it's completely
outdated, it's from another time. Major record labels, computer
companies search for new ways to rip off customers by getting as much
monopolies as possible. The idea of the outdated copyright was not to
protect monopolies. Monopolies aren't allowed.

The artist from the neighborhood still has some advantages by IP laws,
but the complete package of laws is a pack of disadvantages and only
good for a few big moneymakers.

Unfortunately most humans can't share, most humans need enemy images
etc..

All the 80s European DIY movement Punks, such as Crass didn't become
rich, but they still are able to live. There's no need to be rich.

I feel bad for people who are unable to walk in shoes with wholes in the
sole. There's nothing bad with having money, but it's no problem to live
with less money.

I've got the impression this discussion about IP, copyright is about
money, money, money. What's about freedom, sharing knowledge etc.?