Law, Relativism, Nietzsche, Ethics--and absolutely nothing about music

["Andy Gough, x4-2906, pager 513, CH2-59" <AGOUGH%FAB6@sc.intel.com>]

>> 
>> >  I'd think it be more likely
>> >that an artist would be hostile to fans (i.e., fanatics)--after all, it's
>> >they who prevent the artist from going to the supermarket to buy a loaf of
>> >bread.
>> 
>> Do people still believe this myth?  It is not a few fans making copies
>> of albums, CDs, or live concerts that rip the artist off.  Artists
>> get ripped off by "creative accounting practices" by the large record
>> companies,...
>
>First, I assumed that the reference to shopping was about lack of
>privacy, not theft of profits.  The devil ambiguity strikes again! :-)

Correct.  Lack of privacy.

>It's not the people who make tapes of radio shows, obscure B-sides,
>and demos and trade them with their friends or members of some
>(possibly indistinct) fan club.  It is a well-orchestrated
>professional bootleg armada that charges an arm and a leg and creates
>artificial demand for its own products using the same tactics that the
>big record companies use to keep their prices high (which stimulates
>the normal person to want to get a copy from his or her friend).

The industry estimates it lost $1 billion in revenue last year due to
illegal copying.

>All these copyright laws are well intentioned: they are
>(theoretically) designed to make sure the artist continues to derive
>revenue from her or his hard work.  However, with regard to the record
>industry, the RIAA and other associations that are supposedly policing
>copyright laws for the benefit of the artists that they represent are
>really only protecting the record companies' profit margins.

Except the artists' get a $1.00 royalty per song on each album sold.  So
you can't steal from the record companies without stealing from the
artists' as well.

>  It's the RECORD COMPANIES that stand to lose money:
>"instead of making millions and millions and millions of dollars,
>they're making millions and millions..."

What's wrong with making a profit?  By each company in the economy maximizing
it's profits, the standard of living for everyone increases.

>So how am I, with my lowly tape trading non-profit exercise, going to
>steal money from those artists?

$1.00 a song for each song you copy is stolen from the artists.

>Here's another scenario: suppose Artist X made some radio
>performances, interviews, etc.  Now I happen to be a big fan of Artist
>X, but they didn't some to my town.  Why should it be illegal for me
>to get tapes of the appearances of Artist X at the radio stations in
>the other cities?  If the "Artist X Fan Club" wants to collect tapes
>of these appearances and make them available to fans, non-profit of
>course, why is that illegal?

It doesn't matter if the person making the copies is making a profit or
not.  The important thing is that that Artist X isn't getting paid for
his work.  You have stolen from Artist X.

Here's a scenario for you:  Let's say you have a machine that can make
copies of Mercedes-Benz automobiles.  So you buy a Mercedes-Benz and
make copies for 100 people.  Would that be OK?  Have you stolen anything
from Mercedes-Benz?

Tape decks, VCRs, and computers are great for making copies of products.
Intangible products.  Intangible products, though, have owners just like
tangible products.  So when you copy an intangible product, you are stealing
from its' owner.  Intangible products get stolen more often because it's 
easier to copy them.  But it's still a crime.

>IED continues to say that the moral issues are not simple, but when
>someone jumps on the self-righteous moral bandwagon, and proceeds to
>beat someone over the head with their own moral decisions, something
>is not right.
>
>Welcome to the New Conservatism.
>
>	-- John

" . . .their own moral decisions."  Ah, Relativism rears its ugly head
again in America.  Morals and ethics are not a matter of individual
opinion.  There are ABSOLUTE standards of Right and Wrong, which individuals
can discover and know.  In this case, it is "It is wrong to steal."  Somehow
today (in our state of ethical decay), that has been perverted to, "It is
all right to steal as long as you don't hurt the victim that much (and
especially if you don't get caught), otherwise it is bad."

Of course, it does get complicated.  For instance:  Is it wrong to steal
food when you're hungry?  It is wrong to steal medicine to keep your wife
alive?  This has been debated by philosophers for centuries (literally) and
I don't want to go into it here.  Our system of laws, though, regonizes
this problem.  That is why Justice is not simply the application of a Rule.
Our laws and a series of rules and exceptions.  For example, the defense
of "extreme necessity" that allows you to murder someone and eat him to
preserve your own life.

>P.S.  Read Frank Zappa's book, it'll give you something to think
>about, too.

Maybe I will.  Frank Zappa is an intelligent person.  

Read _The_Closing_Of_The_American_Mind_ by Allan Bloom.  It shows how
Relativism (and, as a result, nihilism) have taken over Western thought.
The theme is that eveyone accepts as fact that "everyone should come up
with their own value system and decide for themselves what is right and
wrong."  It is, in fact, the only idea that most Westerners accept as an
absolute right--and that is why their mind is closed, since they cannot
even accept some other system of thought (why bother--it is known absolutely
that everyone has the right to decide their own value system).

-andy