When our brain ("a quantum computer" as I said in my previous posts) connects us to the world, that experience of connection is the same source from which artists and even scientists draw inspiration and creativity. The quantum connection of our brain can serve us as a subtle but trustworthy compass -- one long known to traditional peoples and cultures but largely ignored in the modern world.
The experience of connection is also a source of spirituality. The great teachers entered a deeply altered state, had a spiritual experience, and when they returned to their waking state, they endeavored to capture it in words. Their words became the scriptures venerated by their followers.
The spiritual/religious experience has been basically the same in all epochs and cultures. It has always been an experience of oneness and belonging. William James described it as the sense of entering into union with something deeper and larger than oneself. The experience of people in all epochs and walks of life confirms that James was right: we are like islands on the sea, separate on the surface but connected in the deep.
Although the basic substance of the spiritual experience has always been the same, teachers expressed it in different ways because they were only able to approximate their experience through the words and symbols of their time and place. In each time, and in each place, these symbols and expressions were unique and different.
Over the centuries these differences intensified. Groups and communities of followers, intent on maintaining their identity and ensuring their coherence, froze the original pronouncements into sacred doctrines, and made the doctrines into holy dogmas, sometimes further honed to serve their followers' social and political aims and ambitions.
In the final count the differences between the doctrines, religions, and the insights of spiritual traditions are not differences in the substance of the experience that inspired them. They are only the differences in the way that substance has been expressed and communicated.
But how does the spiritual experience itself come about? Today we have a better answer to this question than we ever had before. A spiritual/religious experience can happen at any time and in any place, but it usually occurs in an altered state of consciousness. In that state, as psychiatrist Stanislav Grof notes, we can apprehend anything that exists in the universe. We can even apprehend universal archetypes and mythical beings.
The altered states that give rise to the spiritual experience can be purposefully induced. As traditional cultures have known and practiced for millennia, the experience can be triggered by dancing, drumming, rhythmic breathing, and also by the use of psychedelic substances (although these can be dangerous to health). Prayer and meditation is the royal road, and their depth and efficacy can be enhanced when practiced on altered-state-conducive "sacred" sites.
Churches, temples, mosques, and synagogues were built to facilitate the spiritual experience of the faithful. Traditional people have often gone further: they have sought spiritual transformation even through "temple sleep." This meant spending a night in a venerated location, trying to incubate dreams for initiation, divination, or healing. Dynastic Egypt had special temples for suppliants who would fast and recite prayers immediately before going to sleep, and Jewish seers would spend the night in a grave or sepulchral vault, hoping that the spirit of the deceased would appear in their dream and offer guidance. In Greece there were over 300 dream temples dedicated to Aesculapius, the god of healing, and in China the temples where state officials sought guidance were active until the 16th century.
The spiritual experience usually comes about in altered states, but what does the recurring substance of the experience signify? What is that "something deeper and larger than ourselves" to which the experience seems to connect us?
An answer to this question is given by every religion, and today it can also be given by science, if only hypothetically. Science suggests that the spiritual experience opens the brain, with which our consciousness is associated, to an extended range of information. This information is real, but it's not always received. Here by "information" I don't mean the information we produce when we talk, write, or act. I mean the kind of information that scientists now discover underlies everything in the universe.
Information is entirely basic in the universe. In the latest conception the universe doesn't consist of matter and space; it consists of energy and information. Energy exists in the form of wave-patterns and wave-propagations in the quantum vacuum that fills space; in its various forms, energy is the "hardware" of the universe. The "software" is information. The universe is not an assemblage of bits of inert matter moving passively in empty space: it's a dynamic and coherent whole. The energy that constitutes its hardware is always and everywhere "in-formed." It's in-formed by what David Bohm called the implicate order and physicists now regard as the quantum vacuum or zero-point field (also called physical spacetime, universal field, or nuether). This is the "in-formation" that structures the physical world, the information we grasp as the laws of nature. Without information the energy-waves and patterns of the universe would be as random and unstructured as the behavior of a computer without its software. But the universe is not random and unstructured; it's precisely "in-formed." Would it be any the less precisely informed, complex systems could not have emerged in it, and we would not be here to ask how this on first sight highly improbable development could have come about.
Science's answer to the "what" question refers to an entangled, holographic, non-locally connecting in-formation field in the cosmos. In my books, in greatest detail in Science and the Akashic Field, I discuss the evidence for this field and note that the Hindu seers referred to it as Akasha, the fundamental element of the cosmos. In recognition of this feat of insight, I am now calling the information field of the universe the Akashic Field.
But how does science's answer to the question regarding the fundamental significance of the spiritual experience relate to the answer given by religion?
For the world's religions the larger and deeper reality to which the spiritual experience connects us is a numinous, divine reality. It's either a spirit or consciousness that infuses the natural world (the "immanentist" view), or a spirit or consciousness that's above and beyond it (the "transcendentalist" claim). Traditional polytheistic religions were leaning toward the former, while the Abrahamic monotheistic religions (with some exceptions) embraced the latter.
The difference between a divine intelligence immanent in the world and one that transcends it is not negligible, but it is still only a difference in interpretation. The "raw data" for both positions is the same: it's the spiritual experience, a quantum communion with universal oneness. In the Western religious perspective this is communion with the spirit that infuses the cosmos, identified as God. Deepak Chopra writes, "Spirituality is the experience of that domain of awareness where we experience our universality. This domain of awareness is a core consciousness that is beyond our mind, intellect, and ego. In religious traditions this core consciousness is referred to as the soul which is part of a collective soul or collective consciousness, which in turn is part of a more universal domain of consciousness referred to in religions as God."
Our experience of the core consciousness of the world is ultimately an experience of the universal domain of consciousness Western religions call God. The experience itself, if not its interpretation, is the same in all religions, and in all religions it inspires a sense of oneness and belonging. Michael Beckwith affirms that "when you strip away the culture, history, and dogma of every religion, the teachers of those religions were teaching very similar principles and practices that led to a sense of oneness, that ended a sense of separation from the Whole."
Science's answer to the question of what the spiritual experience connects us to is immanentist. The information that underlies the universe, the Akashic Field, is part of the universe. This doesn't mean that the immanentist position necessarily states the ultimate truth; it only means that science can only take an immanentist position. Scientists are limited to speaking about the natural world; they must leave speculation about transcendent realities to poets, philosophers, and spiritual masters.
It's time to conclude. If the substance of the spiritual experience is always and everywhere the same, differences in its expression and interpretation are secondary and not a valid cause for conflict and intolerance. The world to which our quantum brain connects us is fundamentally one, whether its oneness is due to an information field within the natural world or the work of a divine transcendent intelligence. To enter into communion with this oneness has been the quest of all the great teachers and spiritual masters. And to understand the nature of this oneness has been, and is, the ultimate quest of all great scientists. Still today, physicists seek the one equation that would anchor their famous "Theory of Everything," the theory that would account for all the laws of nature and explain everything that ever happened in our integrally whole universe. Einstein said that knowing this equation would be reading the mind of God.
Follow Ervin Laszlo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ErvinLaszlo
It puts a different spin on "intellectual rights" to ideas, inventions and media production, doesn't it? If a person simply "hears" music in his head and then reproduces it ... the right to that music doesn't truly belong to HIM; it should belong to the entire "community" that the guy belongs to.
I think about easily-reproduced digital media as falling into the same category. Why should a very small group make a huge amount of money from something that really costs them very little by comparison? If someone copies and uses a CD/DVD or downloads something and manages to make a copy of it ... who knows or "loses" anything? Is that really theft in a traditional understanding of theft?
I mean, if someone steals some possession of mine ... I LOSE that item and suffer my loss and inconvenience for quite a long time and with quite a bit of emotional hurt as well. On the other hand, if someone takes some "thing" of mine and I never miss it or even KNOW that it's gone ... how am I harmed by that? Have I even been robbed of anything?
Now I know the counter-argument ... that if some piece of media isn't somehow protected, then EVERYONE will simply copy and use it for free. The vendor will then "LOSE sales." I'd like to see some hard evidence for the validity of that claim though. There are a LOT of people who never feel "right" unless they can purchase something and then OWN it outright. Those who like to "borrow" things instead of buying and owning ... are STILL going to avoid buying something simply because law forbids them from borrowing without consent.
If a plumber comes to your house and cleans your drains and you don't pay him ... he has actually lost his time and material and you've stolen from him but ... if someone has performed a concert and the concert was recorded and duplicated and then others listen to the recordings for free later ...
The artist hasn't lost anything at all ... has he? The plumber would probably be highly flattered if you video-recorded him at his work and then watched it later for your personal enjoyment/entertainment. He wouldn't sour-puss confuse you of "stealing" his work.
There are a number of things that fall into the same kind of category ...
For example, the management of a company is generally paid a disproportionate amount of money for their "labor" as compared to the labor provided by the actual production workers. They believe that a higher wage for them is justified by the fact that they're so much more valuable in procuring sales or contracts.
Are they REALLY more valuable? Is their special talent of being able to deal with sales/management, the result of their own hard work ... or is it more of a "gift" they got from "somewhere" else? They seem to think that their companies couldn't do anything without them but ... the same thing is true of a company trying to succeed without any production workers!~
We all seem to have our own special talents to bring to the table -some more than others. We are all DIFFERENT as well! If we were to view diversity as a true asset instead of getting mad about people who don't understand, see and/or believe as we do -and then harness those different "talents"- we'd have a much more relaxed and happy society.
If I examine a Lamborghini and have the know-how to reproduce it in every detail, did I steal a Lamborghini from the Lamborghini Company? No, I reproduced my own.
Ideas do seem to be coming from somewhere, other then the individual.
I can testify to this.
I imagined Microwave turn tables 7 years before they were available, but I didn't have the financial backing.
I imagined and designed wheel chairs that stood people up 2 years before they were available.
I imagined and designed about 300 successful things at Sci-Med Life Systems to produce heart catheters and stents.
And did I get compensated for my creative understanding and know-how? No.
I would say there are people hogging the system, greedy people, who have no understanding of producing a good product. They are just people users.
But you know what? If the producing people who do the work all quite, the high payed hogs wouldn't be able to make a penny. Ya, that's what I did!!!! and they begged me to come back, and I said "no thanks"
It's just another money-making scheme really, "justified" by the term 'intellectual property', which, of course, is utter nonsense - how can something "intellectual"; something that stems from the brain or 'mind', be "property"?
the human brain can only comprehend 3 categories to put information in
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -
someone making money on an idea or ideas ... because I see idea people as having their own special niche in the societal/working structure, but ... I don't think that idea people should be overly compensated simply because they offer something unique that no one else has ever done. A garbage man collects trash every week and his personal position is totally expendable since any person can do it ... but does that make him any less valuable as a service ... than an inventor? I say no.
If I invent something and either build and sell it or make a deal with some company to build and sell it ... I am really in no different position than a carpenter who builds special furniture and then finds others building knock-offs of his furniture a year or two later. It's tough ... but that's life. As long as they don't put MY NAME on their product ... THEY put in the same amount of work as I do in producing the device or furniture and then it's just a matter of competition to see who can build it more economically.
I'm hardly ever against something (carrying a negative connotation), rather, I'm usually for something else (carrying a positive connotation).
It's a mind-set thing really.
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -
A musician/actor/dancer/performing-artist earns money by performing their craft, just like a plumber. If the artist loses the ability to earn money by performing their craft because someone recorded their performance for others to listen to and/or watch without paying the performer, that artist has been "stolen from".
In general, I don't agree with the general line of thinking in much of what is in this thread. But I tend to think differently than the norm on most things.... Seems to be my talent... Along with making people mad.
of musicians "losing" money if their sessions are recorded and heard for free...
In the early days, before recording technology existed, minstrels would travel around and put on shows for pay ... and that's how they earned their living.
When recording technology came along, radio stations PLAYED the minstrel's compositions (repeatedly) ... for free (to the public).
As a result ... when the minstrels arrived at some new location -(think Elvis or the Beetles)- they were often SHOCKED to see the massive adoring crowds at their paid shows ... who had NEVER seen them in person before!
So their recordings served as advanced advertising.
Any dedicated fans of any musician ... are going to go to their idol's live performances. That's a fact. And ... by putting out their canned music for free ... these musicians are actually getting incredible amounts of advertising for virtually nothing.
The "problem" for musicians arises from -essential- laziness. They now want to make a fortune without ever "leaving home"!~
Well, if they want to make a living entirely from selling recordings ... that's not much different from a plumber fixing artificially created problems on a set and then selling the DVD's as instruction videos for home owners to fix their own plumbing problems ... so that the plumbers never ACTUALLY have to leave home or get their hands dirty.
That's not real work in a real sense of real commerce.
There's a difference between A)studio recordings meant for mass-consumption post-performance and B) artists being paid for their actual performances.
My point is around B - Anyone that records (audio/video) of a live performance of a musician, dancer, actor, poet, et. al.; and shares that recording with others so they can get some idea of what a live performance is like without actually going in person(including paying the performers); is stealing. That was, is, and will remain my point.
You're free to disagree all you like... Posing "strawmans" and/or misrepresenting the point being made isn't disagreeing, though... Those are artifacts of not understanding.
But, I admit to downloading music. I delete the vast majority after giving it a listen. I have tried previewing on Amazon, but 30 seconds at the beginning of a track doesn't give you a good idea of the actual track. I have gone to Youtube increasingly.
That said. I downloaded Stick to Your Guns "Diamond". Loved it. Ordered it. Chances are had I not been able to download, I would not have purchased (read mainly bad reviews).
Are simply facsimiles of the actual event. If someone is selling facsimiles of his work ... it's just as valid to pay for the facsimile with a reasonable facsimile of money. Scan the appropriate amount of money and send the originator your scanned facsimile as payment. You enjoyed hearing his facsimile and he can enjoy looking at your payment facsimile. It's just that simple, really.
Now, I'm not against anyone selling facsimiles of their work ... but then it's up to THEM to protect their work from being reproduced (in the same way that THEY reproduced it) ... if they can. The law has no place in protecting certain types of reproduced product that other people can NOT reproduce and therefore cannot enjoy the advantage of selling. By that, I mean that a plumber does some actual work and can't get paid over and over again for that same work. So he's at a virtual disadvantage. The musician or program writer CAN electronically reproduce his work and get paid phenomenal amounts of remuneration for relatively little sweat equity.
To have the law ENFORCE payment for facsimiles is like a perfume company being able to have enforced payment -by law- from anyone who SMELLS their product!
It's gotten so bad now with digital rights management that people who play music at a wedding reception, have to buy a PERMIT for the music they play and have a number of listeners included ... so that every listener has to pay his share for ... hearing the facsimile!
It's nuts. The law has no place in this stuff. If someone wants to protect their own product reproduction, it needs to fall on their own shoulders to find a way of doing it.
comparing different professions in the manner being done to somehow think an argument is made the way things done is insane....IS insane.....it is like trying to compare a pro athlete's wage structure and contract application to....say.... an auto worker....ridiculous.....apples and oranges.
the ignorance on this issue is amazing imv.
this statement is completely errant and bogus.
'It's gotten so bad now with digital rights management that people who play music at a wedding reception, have to buy a PERMIT for the music they play and have a number of listeners included ... so that every listener has to pay his share for ... hearing the facsimile! '
just untrue.
This message has been edited by seekingsoftly on Jun 24, 2012 12:05 AM
Copyrights have been confounded with modern technology.
June 24 2012, 7:16 PM
In the era of radio, everyone was free to make their own recordings of what they could pick up on their radio for their own use. It was never legal to distribute it. And since the fidelity was so terrible, enforcement wasn't an issue. With digital reproductions, fidelity is no longer an issue. And with the Internet, things are being distributed without artists being paid. When songs are played on the radio, the artists are paid.
And to your point, in the modern era it is much easier to sample things before buying. "Back in the day", radio play was a form of sampling. Also, people would head to record stores where your could listen to some stuff before buying.
Digital technology has certainly changed the dynamics of distribution. It doesn't change the morality or ethics regarding compensating people for their creative works, though.
That indeed is a modern problem. But if we want to talk about artists getting ripped off .. take a look at the music industry, period.
Today, maybe, things are better for some. Big artists especially.
I read and have heard about a lot of bands getting totally ripped of by producers, and labels. Black musicians back in the day made hardly anything, white guys recorded their tunes and made it big.
Seems like the "history" of musicians in the modern era has been bleak.
Parallels are hard to draw. But I think of painters who have their works displayed in galleries. People get to see them for free. You can buy reproductions. Posters of famous paintings.
Again, another case of artists getting ripped.
I'm digressing a bit. I don't see it as black and white as you do.
I think most of us have been in positions where we have not been credited, or have been falsely blamed, or faced injustice.
I agree people should be compensated for their efforts.
What I would like to see is a money back guarantee, perhaps. I can pay for and listen to an artist's music on a certain replayable format, and if I don't like it, I can return it and I get my money back. Or. I can listen to an artist's music on a certain replayable format, and if I like it I pay for it. Which is what I do. I've bought CD's after listening to samples, and found I didn't like them. They end up getting tossed and I'm out $10 or $15. Buyer beware maybe ..
It all ties together and can all be defined and handled under the same legal status: theft is the causing of personal loss and/or personal property by taking something tangible from another person without their consent and/or without paying them for the tangibles you take. Unless they are aware of that loss ... no theft has ever occurred. ( A huge landowner having property he never visits, can't have theft charges leveled retroactively at someone who used his land for squatting on when the owner wasn't watching. He COULD however, legally require them to pay for any damages they incurred to his property if they didn't clean up after themselves).
If someone puts out a recording and someone else COPIES that recording and sells it ... the original owner of the recording could legally require the copier to share his profits or maybe even demand most of those profits ... because it would constitute a loss of the original owner's sales of that item. The loss through "theft" in such a case would be ... the real tangible provable losses because there's something tangible to point to -the sales of the rip-off product.
The "problem" with rights occurs when it involves POTENTIAL loss instead of real loss. Laws are shifting more and more towards what COULD happen ... instead of dealing with things that have already happened. Do you see that? "Guilty until proven innocent." Instead of enforcing law, it's changing fast and furiously towards prevention of any potential crime. If you THINK of killing someone and there's a machine somewhere nearby that can read thoughts ... are you automatically guilty of murder?
Since people have been known to copy music and because such copying COULD reduce sales of the original facsimile -and it's assumed that it will- does it necessarily and logically follow that we have to make a crime out of copying music for personal listening? No one has actually PROVED that personal copying will reduce sales of the original facsimile; it's merely ASSUMED that this would be the case.
And then there's the repeat aspect too ...
You wouldn't buy an artist's work unless you had first seen or heard the product. Yet ... by even seeing it or hearing it ONCE ... you have the MEMORY of it in your brain already! If you didn't pay for the first encounter ... are you immediately a thief?
Any future listening to the same product will give you nothing tangible; it will only be a repeated emotional experience. And so ... it would be logical to pay for a repeatable emotional experience with a facsimile of payment too ... which the artist could then look at repeatedly and be "warmed" by the thought of how much that piece has been appreciated.
our EXPECTATION of remuneration. It hasn't changed the facts though.
The distribution of records in the early days ... suddenly allowed minstrels to become artificially wealthy by selling facsimiles of their work. There's nothing wrong with doing that, if people are willing to buy a facsimile work. However ... there is also nothing wrong with someone finding a way to obtain a facsimile for "nothing" ... because the artist suffers no personal loss from such an unpaid acquisition. He doesn't know that it happened ... unless he's told. It isn't theft because the artist suffers no personal loss of a tangible possession when he doesn't receive money for a reproduction of his facsimile.
But ... once artists start to EXPECT that they should make a lot of money from facsimile sales -(because that's just the way things are "done" today)- they'll resent any and all who manage to get those facsimiles for free. Well ok ... then it's up to THEM to find a way to PREVENT the reproduction of their original facsimiles. It's NOT the government's business to pass laws which prohibit reproduction ... enforced by fines or other forms of punishment.
If we keep accepting digital rights laws, it will come around and severely bite us back. It will restrict freedom of expression because no one will be able to "repeat" anything they've seen or heard without permission or payment ... because it will be classified as theft of those expressions.
The principle of this kind of restrictive policy has already been proved in Argentina when the country went bankrupt, was taken over by the IMF and utilities were sold to a U.S. management firm. Since this private company controlled water and electricity ... and since the country was under heavy austerity, needing to "pay back" their massive debt ... it became illegal for people to collect rainwater or any other water which didn't come through utility pipes and got paid for to the last drop.
Since rainwater falls freely from the sky ... is it "theft" to take something that you haven't paid for ... simply because by doing that ... you are "defrauding" a utility company of its potential to make money on something it provides for sale?
If I'm a real good looking guy or a real famous fellow whom people long to look at ... and I have photos taken of me and I sell them ...
And then someone happens to snap me with his camera ... or even snaps a picture of my picture and sells that ...
What type of law would you propose to "protect" me from "theft" of my visage?
Should the guy pay me royalties for selling pictures of my picture?
Should he pay me for selling his own picture of me in person?
-Vince
(Have you ever found yourself feeling sorry for an artist singing his heart out on some pukey radio or TV station at some ungodly hour and thinking how tired they must be from singing so endlessly in so many horrible conditions ... and then caught yourself by remembering that it's JUST A RECORDING for pete's sake!? I have. It's crazy. Yep, they suffer NO wear and tear on their vocal chords, their guitars and fingers ... or their clothes ... and never even know that they "WERE" there!~~)
I get it... You don't believe the notion of "intellectual property".
June 25 2012, 1:21 AM
I do... People can own their ideas, their creative thought, and copyrights. The precedent is 100's of years of copyright laws... People even own their own "images". Digital technology shouldn't change the notion of ownership and property rights simply because it's easier to copy and distribute things. In your view, you believe that media and distribution technology changes the definition of ownership.
We will never agree on that... Probably because you more of a consumer than a producer of art... And consumers will always press to get what they want for free; to the point that they will destroy the art-form and artists to get what they want.
"change the notion of ownership". Only our (or your) perception of expectation changes ... the understanding of it.
If "God" gives you a song and you write it down and perform it for others to hear ... you may intellectually "own" that song.
Does that give you legal right to prevent anyone else from singing your song without paying for it?
I'm not against intellectual property rights laws when they're logically, reasonably and properly applied. The big dividing line rests on PROFITING from the property.
If I take your song ... record it and sell it for profit ... then I'm stealing your property unless I make arrangements with you for distribution and pay you a royalty.
The same thing used to be true for taxes: as long as a person received money for labor, it was tax free. Only when a PROFIT was realized from the sale of goods/service ... was a tax applied.
So the bottom line distinction for right to use is ....
If it's for personal and free-of-fee use ... no payment is required.
If it's for exploitation, reproduction and profiting ... remuneration must be paid.
You're posing that my perception or ownership has changed; and I'm posing that you're position is changing the idea of ownership. This is a digression from the original point regarding paying performers for their work, but it appears that you're wanting to focus on distribution rights of digital material. My position is that copyright laws (and associated compensation and legal status) have been in place for a long time; and that digital media (although more convenient and efficient) doesn't change the principles associated with copyrights. Your position seems to be that technology has changed things to the point where the rules should be re-written. I simply don't agree because the principles behind copyrights and intellectual property are valid irrespective of distribution and format.
But, regardless of sound principles... There will always be "cheaters" on all sides. Electronic distribution has helped the cheaters, exposed the downsides of the "industry", and in the end it's the artists that suffer. Those who are not artists will struggle to understand because they don't know the experience.
The "majority" is winning, and the majority are ignorant, and they know not what they do. "Rights" are there to protect the minorities from the majority... And in this case, it is failing... Because so many believe and advocate what you are advocating... And it is not right, imho.
Noob-> [My position is that copyright laws (and associated compensation and legal status) have been in place for a long time; and that digital media (although more convenient and efficient) doesn't change the principles associated with copyrights. Your position seems to be that technology has changed things to the point where the rules should be re-written.]
No, I'm not saying anything should be rewritten; I'm saying that ADDITIONAL "digital rights" should be halted.
40 years ago, artists put their recordings on plastic disks and sold those disks through stores. It was illegal to copy and distribute that material ... but ... no one made any deal about people copying the material to tape for personal use. They knew of course, that a certain amount of "pirating" WOULD occur ... but they didn't mind that because it was just a form of advertising. Real fans would ALWAYS buy the albums anyway because they wanted to OWN what the artist was selling. (The album jackets had their own unique look and descriptions and often ... the words for the lyrics, since so many artists don't enunciate clearly enough to understand what they're "saying" ... LOL).
Certainly, there were no laws in place, preventing the copying of radio station broadcasts or ... of people using mikes to record anything they wanted to.
But ... things have CHANGED so that TODAY ... that old form of distribution has essentially disappeared. If artists still used that old distribution system, there still wouldn't be any problem for them in any way ... of losing sales via reproduction. They can (and do) encrypt DVD's today ... which makes the media very difficult to reproduce ... creating enough of an impediment that most people will NOT bother trying to pirate the stuff but go buy their own legitimate copies.
Today ... they want to distribute EASILY ... with virtually no cost to themselves, cutting out all middle men. They put their material up on the internet for downloading and so today ... they've created themselves a problem: their material is easily pirated.
So now today ... they want ADDITIONAL protection FROM/BY LAW ... to (supposedly) protect their material from being consumed without payment.
(The truth of the matter is more like ... artists themselves aren't making a stink but ... they BELIEVE that the people who ARE making a stink ... are trying to help and protect them. The real motivation for protectionist laws is to shut down all forms of free speech and information distribution on the internet under the guise of violating copyright laws because permissions haven't been obtained in advance of posting things like Youtube presentations which contain media material).
the last question is relevant so i will answer it.
Yes, very legal on two fronts.
1. The casino pays a royal fee to one of the music industry elements that handle it...i think in Canada it is called 'SOCAN' and they in turn return those fees ...
2. I use what are called midi files....so my computer plays the parts i do not....drums, bass etc....and when i purchase the file i pay a royalty performabce fee included in the cost of the file so i can legally play them.
the rest compares to comparing apples to oranges....you want to hear a michael jackson song so bad....buy it. anything else is robbing those who created it.
why do you think people record and SELL music Tim? so that 5 people can buy it and 2,000,000 can copy it?
as resting in profit. This was the old tax law as well.
If you profit from copying another man's invention and reproducing/selling it ...
You are stealing from him unless you get his permission and offer remuneration.
Whatever you can copy and reproduce for yourself ... is not stealing since the inventor has lost nothing tangible by you doing that. You could say that he's lost a potential customer -you- but ... that's PROJECTING into "potential" and not dealing with what is at present.
If an inventor or patent-right producer puts a product out for sale ... the onus is on HIM to protect his own work so that it can't be copied or copied easily. If he can't do that ... too bad for him.
Even the patent laws are explicit in this: if you have an idea for a device and you tell others about it -describe how it works- but don't produce it yourself ... they have every right to go and produce that idea for their own profit. So ... you have to apply for a patent on it before you go and tell others about it and how it works. Once you've applied for a patent, that idea is locked up but until you've applied, the idea is free for anyone to use ... if they know about the idea and can figure out what it is and how it works. (This is why Bill Gates felt so good about telling others NOT to tell him their ideas because he would instantly grab and use those ideas himself if they weren't locked up in a patent.)
So it's pretty cut and dried if you reduce it to making a profit.
Singing someone elses songs for pay ... is probably "stealing" under this defining line but ...
If the artist doesn't know about it ... he hasn't lost anything tangible.
If you produce a record and he does as well ... and your record is better and outsells his ... he HAS lost something tangible. In that case you have stolen something tangible from him because if you hadn't gone and produced your own record, he might have made a lot more on the sales of his own record. That's where royalty laws kick into place.
Singing another's creation is really more like advertising than it is of stealing potential ... so you've done him a favor.
amazing how vince tries to express opinions as if they are factual.....and so many fallacies.......soooo many.....
'Singing another's creation is really more like advertising than it is of stealing potential ... so you've done him a favor.'
incredible....the fact that is a fallacy period is one thing....the fact that it is completely illogical too is another....
how are you doing someone a favor to advertise a song if they are not going to buy it and steal it anyhow.
sheesh.... amusing.
comparing patents to copyrights is again apples and oranges with an ENTIRELY different standard and criteria and well....so much other differentials.
ahh.....why can't people just disagree with a given process....and not need to act like it is corrupted or completely ridiculous or some other silly position....arrrrrrogance.
On the other hand, do cover bands pay each time they play a song?
June 29 2012, 8:48 AM
I think there are some gray areas here.
I am not aware that so-called "cover bands" (bands that do not write their own music) - pay the actual writers each time they play a song, often for profit.
Although, the bands really are the responsible entity; and $.06 per minute, per song performed, is the going rate that I remember. So 3 hours of music (a typical night in a bar gig) would be $10.80. Since that isn't much, and would be ridiculously difficult to enforce, the "industry" places the burden on the venue. The venues that host cover bands pay a fee to some branch of BMI; which is around $50-$100 a week. That's how I understand things in the US, anyway.
For venues that choose not to pay that fee, they can legally only host originals bands, or bands that can demonstrate that they are "legit". Again enforcement of either of these is "tricky".
I understand your point perfectly but I disagree with it.
Who stays home to wait for a recording when their favorite artist is in town playing live at a local venue?
Now, I might watch a freebie myself ... but if I didn't have such a freebie to watch, I still wouldn't have gone to see the live performance. I also wouldn't BUY a recording of a live performance. If I like someone well enough to want to see them perform live ... I'll GO to that performance so that I can "see for myself" and get the experience first hand.
Now, unless other people are completely different from myself ... the artists gain or lose absolutely nothing by having someone record them and distribute those recordings for free.
If an author writes a great novel, you're certainly free to photocopy it and distribute it to your friends to save them a buck or two... Because the author is just "lazy" and doesn't deserve being paid for their creation.
If a director makes a great movie, your certainly free to make a digital copy to use and distribute as you see fit and return the DVD because the actors, writers, and others are all "lazy" and don't deserve to be paid for their creation.
If some "big name musician" hears a great song written by some unknown person, they're certainly within their right to re-produce the song for their own profit and not pass any thing on to the person that created it... And you're free to buy, listen to, and copy that song for free to further avoid compensating people that actually did the work... Because they are all just "lazy".
Copyright laws, intellectual property-rights, and the FBI all disagree with your view. Because, at their core, they are not morally or ethically sound.
So again, you're free to disagree and do as you as wish; as everyone is. Some people live more ethical lives than others... And in the end; everyone will reap the consequences of how they "cheated the system" and other people.
'everyone will reap the consequences of how they "cheated the system" '
June 24 2012, 10:18 PM
The system.
I am thinking of the system that has taken trillions in wealth from the average joe over the past 5 years. The system that allows Wall Street to rip us off, and then we bail them out.
The system is a cheat.
I hope the system too faces the consequences. Because in the big scheme of things, the system has screwed us over infinitely worse than any of us have "cheated the system".
Just sayin'. The system is corrupt.
There's gotta be a better way ..
This message has been edited by Oscar50 on Jun 24, 2012 10:33 PM
All of our internet transactions and activity is being collected -for free, with no consideration for our rights to ownership or permission.
Bill Gates was the great advocate for PAYING for computer programs and programming. It really frosted his balls to see people freely exchanging their software creations. He argued that if the stuff wasn't protected and PAID for ... development would suffer.
But ...
Was Microsoft true to Bill's heartfelt convictions? No. They stole anything and everything they possibly could. Bill once told a friend that if she had a good idea she better not tell him because once he knew about that idea, he would be COMPELLED by his conscience ... to steal it and use it!
Ethics to corporations ... is simply what they can get written into law and get enforced by law.
Everyone will also face the consequences of "the system" that they choose to support (whether it be explicitly or implicitly).
Pay performers what they are due, because they provided the performance to the "customer"... All the "middle men" screw things up... To the point where people don't even realize that they are cheating and stealing from the artists and performers.
Kinda what happens when the arts turn into commodities... Arts are never commodities, really. The masses are trained to treat them that way because they know no better.
This message has been edited by ever-a-newbie on Jun 25, 2012 1:24 AM
... puts a lot of people out of work. Of course, this increases profits and helps people get rich faster (at least they hope so) ... but ... it also puts the product at risk for "rip-off."
Music could easily be protected if it was put onto encrypted DVD's with a little usb key provided in the package for decryption. To play the DVD, consumers would need to insert the little key and be able to listen to the product they bought. Anyone could copy the DVD but it wouldn't do them any good without the decryption key. Since the key itself would be read-only ... it couldn't be copied or reverse-engineered. Bottom line: it would be SUCH a deterrent that even if someone cracked a single key ... it would only allow a very few people to get the product copied and useful.
But ... that would make distribution more costly. Putting it up on the internet for free copying is extremely more profitable (providing the LAW enforces punishment for people copying and listening for free) ... but why should one particular group of people get legal protection to become rich at virtually no cost ... when other people simply CAN'T use the same paradigm to distribute their own goods and services?
decryption keys are always made through mathematical algorithmic constructs and
June 26 2012, 7:37 PM
therefore if you crack the mathematic process used to create the keys....you crack the codes. using just random out of the air codes would never be practical.
a music program call Cubase uses a dongle usb hard key required to be plugged in to have to program work. It's been cracked....and people can now emulate the hard key with code to fool the program.
why do you think you have all the answers? this amuses me to no end.
Anyone that has had their ideas stolen... Or had someone else take credit for their work... Or have lost out due to people "cheating the system"... understands the issue at some level.
It is unfortunate that the graceful & wonderful thing that is "music performed by people, for people" is being slowly eroded away by the music business and music consumers.
Even so... I won't give up, or give in, because to do so would be even more immoral and unethical than those that cheat, steal, and take advantage of artists and performers.
There is much truth to that and people have been 'dumbed down' imv...
June 25 2012, 1:07 AM
by karaoke nation....
people seem so use to hearing unprofessional singing wannabes...and i know this sounds very judgemental and unfair....but why not go out and listen to profession seasoned musicians instead?
anyhow....i digress...
hope you are well. I am playing quite a bit these days luckily.
If the substance of the spiritual experience is always and everywhere the same, differences in its expression and interpretation are secondary and not a valid cause for conflict and intolerance.
Humans are not in conflict, their ideas are. The conflict of ideas and information is naturally present in all forms of communication all the time. By understanding this very simple concept we can all learn to benefit from conflict instead of identifying with it. If you identify yourself with an idea, then you set yourself up to be 'destroyed' when a dominant idea presents itself. We happen to confuse who we are with what our idea is. We create a false map of ourselves when we identify ourselves with an idea. We do this all the time. This is important to understand. the map is not the terrain and the menu is not the meal.
All ideas conflict. This is the very nature of the universe. All ideas, all information, is in an eternal state of conflict and war. This is the battle between good and bad, light and dark, right and wrong. This side VS that side. All ideas are one or the other. They can be true or they can be false. They are on this side or they are on that side. This is an important thing to observe. All the time. Just because ideas conflict does not mean we do. Yet, for thousands and thousands of years this was the only way to go. But humans are not in conflict, their ideas are.
Ideas spread. Inside of us and outside of us. All actions, creations and advancements within civilization throughout all history are due to one thing and one thing only. Ideas. Ideas that work and effectively solve problems or create opportunity have slowly developed an ever increasingly functioning society. Our ideas of the world shape the world. Ideas that have been contributed by people like you and me. Ideas spread all the time. The nature of an idea is to go. Ideas are nouns that are the potential of verbs. Ideas contain the seed of all action. All the time.
Ideas are Memes. They are units of organized ideas or a sole idea. Memes perform in a similar fashion to genes, they replicate. Exponentially. They increase in number. Ideas follow the laws of nature. The laws of nature can be expressed in math. Math is certainty, not faith. By applying math to problem solving we can have certainty instead of uncertainty. The laws of nature insure the survival of the smartest. Only the smartest of ideas survive. All the time.
The nature of conflict and idea is quite a powerful formula and concpet to comprehend. Feelings do not think, thoughts do not feel and the human brain can only comprehend three categories to put information in. All the time. Meme 012
Ideas replicate, inside of us - outside of us. There's no stopping them. The dominant idea will always prevail, inevitably. It will defeat all ideas in conflict with it. This is the law of all conflict.
Do not confuse yourself with this Meme! This Meme is only the menu, it is not the meal. It is a map - not the terrain - to understand how ideas perform and function. When you confuse yourself with this meme, you create dis-harmony. When you understand you are not this Meme, you create synergy. Synergy is created when all sides contribute and all sides win. Synergy is synchronicity. Synergy is created by the laws of nature. This Meme creates synergy when there is disagreement or agreement. This Meme is a communications tool that creates synergy in dialogue on all sides. This Meme is a dominant Meme. A dominant Meme will eventually 'destroy' all ideas in conflict with it. All the time.
- A King Meme is an idea that has become strategically dominant - it can no longer be defeated in the realm of rational and honest discussion. - A Master Meme is a supreme idea that will challenge and destroy all ideas in conflict with it - whether we agree with it or not. - A Master Meme is a Meta King idea that comprises more King ideas operating as necessary truth' inside a memetic environment - performing in complete and precise synthesis/synergy with all other Master Memes. - All the time.
Realize you just have been exposed to, and infected by, a Meme about Memes - a Master Meme.
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -
and they begged me to come back, and I said "no thanks"
![[linked image]](http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc319/8-DJ/truth-it-works.jpg)
