Immoral and Illegal - YouTube Videos of Copyrighted Material

[Please visit our sponsor:]

[Charles Hill]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3xlakBbBOE&feature=related

Here is a youtube link to Mary Heiny's Aikido video which is uploaded in its entirety. Also by the the same guy are videos by Mitsugi Saotome and Yoshimitsu Yamada. All three are currently available for sale and so these teachers are being ripped off. This bothered me and also the comments posted on the videos bothered me as they are very positive about the teachers even though the commentators are stealing from them.

I posted my opinion in polite terms but the comment was taken down. I wonder what might happen if many many people from Aikiweb were to visit and leave comments as well.

What do you think?

Charles

[DonMagee]

The people who own the rights to these videos need to post DMCA takedown notices to youtube. At that point they will be removed.

[Flintstone]

This bothered me and also the comments posted on the videos bothered me as they are very positive about the teachers even though the commentators are stealing from them.
Commentators, they're not stealing from nobody.

[Aikibu]

Sadly most folks in Aikido are not Media Savvy. As was mentioned, all those Teachers need to do is file a C&D with You Tube. Then they need to develop a media strategy that exploits it and brings in new students...

William Hazen

[Michael Varin]

Great topic!

This is an issue that deserves major thought. We are fortunate, I believe, that digital media and the Internet are pushing it forward.

As a strong advocate of the free-market and property rights, intellectual property presents some interesting dilemmas for me.

You see, ideas are actually improved by their dissemination.

There are strong arguments that IP stifles innovation and raises prices (can anyone say Pharmaceuticals).

IP began as a form of mercantilist privilege, became a part of the individual rights revolution, and now is a tool used by corporations.

If anyone is seriously interested about this issue, I recommend reading Against Intellectual Monopoly (http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm), which the authors, true to form, have made available free online.

I might add, it's quite possible that these sensei benefit far more from the notoriety than they would from the sales of a few more videos.

By the way, that Mary Heiny video was very good.

[Charles Hill]

I have been thinking about this a bit today. The person who uploaded the videos is not profiting financially from this. My guess is that he/she most likely practices Aikido. I also believe that he/she does not fully understand how it is wrong. The commentators likely don't think what they are doing is wrong as well.

With that in mind, I believe that this hurts the producers of the material and that those who do so should be told that it is not right. My interest is in how this can be done effectively. The ATM people are unlikely to have the time/resources to constantly monitor youtube like a big corporation can and those who upload copyrighted material are unlikely to realize that what they are doing is wrong when their plug is pulled.

I would like to comment on the other comments made here, but my daughter just made her first poopy on her own in the bathroom and we are busy celebrating, so later!

Charles

[Linda Eskin]

Sadly most folks in Aikido are not Media Savvy. As was mentioned, all those Teachers need to do is file a C&D with You Tube. Then they need to develop a media strategy that exploits it and brings in new students...

William Hazen

I agree with the OP. It's illegal, wrong, and against YouTube's T&Cs. Whoever posted it didn't even give her credit for appearing in the video.

If people want to make their own work available for free, that's great. Making snippets of one's own videos available can help people decide to buy the whole DVD. In fact, I didn't know Mary Heiny Sensei had a video/videos, and now I might buy this one. But that's not for others to make that business decision (to share videos or not) on her behalf.

Linda

[hapkidoike]

. . . Also by the the same guy are videos by Mitsugi Saotome and Yoshimitsu Yamada. All three are currently available for sale and so these teachers are being ripped off. . .

. . . This bothered me and also the comments posted on the videos bothered me as they are very positive about the teachers even though the commentators are stealing from them.



I don't buy the argument that the teachers are being ripped off. Would any of the people who watched the videos have bought them if they had not had access to them via youtube (or some similar web site)? I am inclined to believe that the vast majority of folks who have watched this video have stumbled upon it while watching aikido videos on youtube, as opposed to looking specifically for this video. As of Friday, June 26 at 5:48 am (GMT) the video had about 7,000 hits. IF all of those hits represented lost income I might agree with you, but I sincerely doubt that is the case, and believe it would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Given that I don't think the argument that 'they are being ripped-off' stands too well.
I also don't buy that the commentators are 'stealing' for these reasons. To steal something, one must have the intent to deprive someone of their rightful property. Given that (at least the majority) of people who watched the video on youtube would never have paid for access to the information in the first place, the 'owners' are not being deprived of anything.

Is it illegal? Probably, I don't know who, if anybody owns the copyright, and I don't really care. Is it immoral? I doubt it. If you think the owners ought to be informed why don't you send them an email about it, so they can decide whether or not they want to have it removed.

Oh yeah, how morally culpable are you Chuck? You DID post a link to copyrighted materials on the message board. How many people do you think watched the video, and ripped off the rightful owners of the information because of an action you took? Just saying the door swings both ways.

peace,
bettis

[Charles Hill]

Hi bettis,

It's Charles, Chuck's my dad. About a year or so ago, Mary Heiny had a hip operation and a collection to help her pay her medical bills was taken up. Certainly not all 7000 hits represent lost buyers, but for the sake of argument, 10% is conceivable, is it not? 700 copies sold from aiki.com for 20 dollars would have brought Heiny Sensei a good hunk of change, right?

How morally culpable am I? How many people watched it for free and have no intention of buying it because of my posting it here? Don't know. Probably not many. How many people might see this thread and think "Yeah! I'm gonna support Heiny, Yamada, and Saotome Sensei by asking the youtuber (Suicideking btw) to take down the clips or at least not upload the whole thing."? I hope a lot!

Then best of all, Linda is now thinking of buying one! (You will not be sorry, Linda. It's pretty awesome!)

Charles

[jss]

Certainly not all 7000 hits represent lost buyers, but for the sake of argument, 10% is conceivable, is it not? 700 copies sold from aiki.com for 20 dollars would have brought Heiny Sensei a good hunk of change, right?
1) One hit does not equal one person.
2) 10% is too much; even 1% would be stretching it. Youtube is a very fleeting medium in which you can keep following links to new videos all too easily. (To invert the argument: how many of the clips you have seen on youtube would you be willing to pay for?)
3) There's no way to tell how many of the 7000 hits did in fact lead to someone buying the dvd.
4) I live in Europe: why would I pay 20$ plus more than half of that in shipping costs for a dvd that's probably region coded and NTSC instead of PAL? (Disclaimer: I didn't check on aiki.com if that's actually the case.)
5) I live in Holland: downloading copyrighted material is not illegal here, only uploading is. (Of course, legal != ethical.)

[MM]

To play Devil's Advocate here -- well, no, not me, but Eric Flint from Baen Publishing.

http://www.baen.com/library/

Baen started a free library with some of their authors and books. The link has the info by Eric Flint and how they view free online material. It's an interesting read.

Personally, no, I don't think the YouTube person should have posted the whole video. A small segment would have done just as nicely. Anyone old enough should remember the shareware revolution. You got a small portion of the game to try out and if you liked it, you could buy the rest. Did wonders for the game world.

The only part I disagree with is the lost sales part, Charles. I have yet to find any research that upholds that theory. Just as people who will go to the library to read the first book, or people that will borrow from a friend, or rent from a video store - those people represent the portion of people who do not buy the offered goods. Lump in the Internet downloaders into that group. There is no lost sale because they are not buying in the first place. (Not arguing right or wrong here)

As others have noted, a very, very small percentage (I think less than 1) of those people might have bought the dvd. I like how Stan Pranin has chosen to advertise. He posts small segments of the videos and to me, it's like what Baen is doing and like the shareware idea. Give the potential buyer a taste because otherwise, most people shy away from purchasing something they know absolutely nothing about.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

/../ I like how Stan Pranin has chosen to advertise. He posts small segments of the videos /../ most people shy away from purchasing something they know absolutely nothing about


I agree: it's like the ability to browse in a bookstore (or touch and feel products at an electronics store) instead of having only shrink-wrapped products to look at. Clearly, more people buy in the first instance than in the latter. It doesn't matter that X number of people don't buy. The number of people Y that do buy is increased. It always strikes me as odd that an enterprise like Yodobashi Camera will have the "touch, test, feel, experience" part on most goods, but shrink-wrap books and various other products. I guess it depends on the marketing, mark-up, cost of replacement, ability to relate via experiencing, etc. With DVDs I expect that the guys who are allowing small sections to go public are on the right track---it just makes sense just like what would happen in a real-life situation to get someone interested in aikido or a particular teacher.

[lbb]

If it bothers you that much, why not just report it to youtube?

[George S. Ledyard]

I have been thinking about this a bit today. The person who uploaded the videos is not profiting financially from this. My guess is that he/she most likely practices Aikido. I also believe that he/she does not fully understand how it is wrong. The commentators likely don't think what they are doing is wrong as well.

With that in mind, I believe that this hurts the producers of the material and that those who do so should be told that it is not right. My interest is in how this can be done effectively. The ATM people are unlikely to have the time/resources to constantly monitor youtube like a big corporation can and those who upload copyrighted material are unlikely to realize that what they are doing is wrong when their plug is pulled.

I would like to comment on the other comments made here, but my daughter just made her first poopy on her own in the bathroom and we are busy celebrating, so later!

Charles

I am a professional teacher of Aikido. The reason I have been able to put so much time into my training, my teaching, and my writing is that I don't work a regular job outside of my Aikido. I know very few people who can do this from a dojo alone. I teach seminars all over the US and Canada and I have developed a video business that brings in as much as my dojo does.

I need that business to be part of the support for my continued focus on my training and teaching.If someone starts putting my material up on the web without permission he is hurting my ability to survive and furthermore is making it less and less likely that I do additional titles. People might feel they benefit in the short run by having free access but in the long run they will not have access to as much material because no one will want to go through the time and expense of creating new titles if they only get ripped off.

This kind of behavior hurts everyone.

[Carsten Möllering]

If it bothers you that much, why not just report it to youtube?

Only the owner of the copyright can report it.

And even than it's a long way. As I know out of experience.

I think how you interprete uploading such material depends on whether you know the teacher who's material is stolen.
Or how near you are to him/her.

When someone systematically uploads o whole DVD this is clearly theft not only to me but also in the eyes of justice.
And as George says it concerns all of us.

I wonder how, if someone who likes the aikido of a certain teacher, he or she can lack the respect for this teacher and upload the material, he or she owns?

Carsten

[jss]

When someone systematically uploads o whole DVD this is clearly theft not only to me but also in the eyes of justice.
My apologies for being a bit nitpickery, but referring to violation of copyright as 'theft' suggests (whether intentional or not) that copyright law and property law are the same thing. They are not. The purpose of copyright law is to give people a limited amount of time to benefit from their creative works. The purpose of property law is to safeguard your rights to your property and has no such limitation in time. (Disclaimer: IANAL, but this much I do know.)

[Carsten Möllering]

Hi
My apologies for being a bit nitpickery, but referring to violation of copyright as 'theft' suggests (whether intentional or not) that copyright law and property law are the same thing.
Well, that's not nitpickery because you are quite right:

There is a big difference between the american unterstanding of "copyright", which is indeed limited in time because of the basic idea to open every idea/creation/.. to the public.

And - in difference - the european, or at least german "Urheberrecht", which has a completely other basic idea:
The creator/author/artist is the owner of his work/creation. It is not and will not become public domain if he doesn't want to.

Like Takeda Sokaku or Ueshiba Morihei who didn't show their arts openly.

I don't know whether the term "intelletuel property" makes sense in english?
So the suggestion you noticed was indeed intended.

Greetings,
Carsten

[oisin bourke]

To me, the issue at stake is less about legality and more about respect. I don't think any reasonable person would have a problem with low quality short clips of one's work being made available on the net. However, most of us on this forum practice traditional Japanese/Asian martial arts. They play a very important role in most of our lives.

William Gleason Sensei told a story about every New Year when Yamaguchi Sensei's students would have a whipround and present the money to Yamaguchi with the request: "Please teach us for another year!"

I think this says a very important thing. If you respect a teacher and the sacrifices they have made to get to the level they have achieved, you should be prepared to pay to learn from them.

The argument that unfettered distribution of DVDs etc is ultimately economically beneficial is spurious. None of the above are millionaires, and I know from personal experience that (well received) videos of Henry Kono knocking around the net have not resulted in huge numbers attending his seminars. He's well into his eighties, is not rich and has a wealth of experience deserving of serious attention.

[MM]

To play Devil's Advocate again, er rather Eric Flint will.

I've posted the link before, but I don't think people have actually read through his articles. Here's a very pertinent one from Prime Palaver #6 (excerpt, not all of it):


Jim Baen and I set up the Free Library about a year and half ago. Leaving aside the various political and philosophical issues, which I've addressed elsewhere, the premise behind the Library had a practical component as well. In brief, that in relative terms an author will gain, not lose, by having titles in the Library.

What I mean by "relative" is simply this: overall, an author is far more likely to increase sales than to lose them. Or, to put it more accurately, exposure in the Library will generate more sales than it will lose.

As a practical proposition, the theory behind the Free Library is that, certainly in the long run, it benefits an author to have a certain number of free or cheap titles of theirs readily available to the public. By far the main enemy any author faces, except a handful of ones who are famous to the public at large, is simply obscurity. Even well-known SF authors are only read by a small percentage of the potential SF audience. Most readers, even ones who have heard of the author, simply pass them up.

Why? In most cases, simply because they don't really know anything about the writer and aren't willing to spend $7 to $28 just to experiment. So, they keep buying those authors they are familiar with.

What the Free Library provides-as do traditional libraries, or simply the old familiar phenomenon of friends lending each other books-is a way for people to investigate a new author for free, before they plunk down any money.

That was the premise behind the Free Library, when I first set it up. At the time, since I had no experience to go by, I was basing that on common sense as well as Jim Baen's experienced judgement as a longtime publisher.

Now, with a year and a half's experience with the Library actually established and running, our original assessment has been demonstrated in practice. The Library's track record shows clearly that the traditional "encryption/enforcement" policy which has been followed thus far by most of the publishing industry is just plain stupid, as well as unconscionable from the viewpoint of infringing on personal liberties.

The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that, based on FACTS.

Let me begin by posing a simple question. Does anyone have any real evidence that having material available for free online-whether legitimately or through piracy-has actually caused any financial harm to any author?

The entire argument for encryption rests precisely upon this PRESUMPTION. A presumption which has never once been documented or demonstrated-and which, to the contrary, has been cast into question any number of times.

I am about to cast it into question again. Here are a number of facts which you should consider:

1) The first title to go up into the Library was my own novel, Mother of Demons. That was my first published novel, which came out in print in September of 1997. At the time it went into the Free Library, in the fall of 2000, that novel had sold 9,694 copies, with a sell-through of 54%.

As of today, according to Baen Books-a year and a half after being available for free online to anyone who wants it, no restrictions and no questions asked-Mother of Demons has sold about 18,500 copies and now has a sell-through of 65%.

(An aside on publishing terminology. "Sell-through" refers to that percentage of books shipped which are actually sold. Many books are never sold at all, but are returned to the publisher. Sell-through is therefore always expressed as a percentage. "Net sales" essentially refers to the same thing, in absolute numbers.)

I would like someone to explain to me how almost doubling the sales and improving the sell-through by 11% has caused me, as an author, any harm? The opposite is in fact the case. Mother of Demons began its life as a typical first novel, with very modest sales and sell-through. Today, it has better than average sales and much better than average sell-through-a change that took place simultaneously with the book being available for free online.

To be sure, most of that improvement is not due to the Library. It's simply due, I'm quite sure, to the fact that I've become a better known author in the meantime. Still, it is impossible to argue that the Library has hurt me any. To the contrary, I think there is every reason to believe that the added exposure the Library has given me helped the sales of that book-as well as all of my other books.

And the exposure is considerable, by the way. The fact that being in the Library does not seem to have hurt sales of Mother of Demons in the least-to put it mildly!-is not due to the Library's obscurity. Quite the opposite, in fact. There were more than 130,000 visits to the Free Library in the last quarter of 2001-almost 1,500 a day.

Let me reiterate one segment.

"Let me begin by posing a simple question. Does anyone have any real evidence that having material available for free online-whether legitimately or through piracy-has actually caused any financial harm to any author?

The entire argument for encryption rests precisely upon this PRESUMPTION. A presumption which has never once been documented or demonstrated-and which, to the contrary, has been cast into question any number of times."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing right or wrong, moral or immoral at all. I'm posing the question in regards to the presumption that people are losing money. I've already said I don't agree with posting the whole video.

But, if you read the Prime Palaver, you'll read that Eric talks about how the free library generated interest in not-well-known authors. In short, I have yet to see any facts that piracy has hurt revenues. I have seen facts to the opposite as noted by Flint. If I recall correctly I think the RIAA had a very good year in sales either last year or the year before -- all the while screaming about losing billions in online piracy. Presumption, not fact.

[Aikibu]

"Let me begin by posing a simple question. Does anyone have any real evidence that having material available for free online-whether legitimately or through piracy-has actually caused any financial harm to any author?

The entire argument for encryption rests precisely upon this PRESUMPTION. A presumption which has never once been documented or demonstrated-and which, to the contrary, has been cast into question any number of times."

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing right or wrong, moral or immoral at all. I'm posing the question in regards to the presumption that people are losing money. I've already said I don't agree with posting the whole video.

But, if you read the Prime Palaver, you'll read that Eric talks about how the free library generated interest in not-well-known authors. In short, I have yet to see any facts that piracy has hurt revenues. I have seen facts to the opposite as noted by Flint. If I recall correctly I think the RIAA had a very good year in sales either last year or the year before -- all the while screaming about losing billions in online piracy. Presumption, not fact.

This arguement is both relevent and a poor excuse depending on your point of view...

The facts are revenues are declining for MSMC's so litigation and enforcement is cost effective (so far) so...For folks like Sony and Universal if you have the money then you can protect your IP and go after copyright violaters on the Web.

Entirely different if your a small business owner like Stan Pranin who has one millioneth the legal resources of a MSMC...

So the paradigm is adapt or die for SMB's. Either you come up with new web distribution models or you watch your old models get destroyed

Case in point...I'll bet 90% or more of you have not watched a VHS tape in more than a year and more than half of you have not even watched a CD/DVD...With the price of digital storage going down year after year and the rise of broadband in most of the developed world Physical Media like CD/DVD's will (mark my words) go the way of the VHS tape. (Hell I don't even burn CD's anymore I just put stuff on USB Drives, so I also expect CD/DVD burners to go the way of the VHS recorder in short order too And so does Apple by the way)

Sooner rather than later the Big Dogs will figure out a way to protect and monetize thier IP In fact they are very close...

So it comes down to are you willing to continue to steal something that you are used to getting for "free"? LOL and since you're part of the Aikido Community Are you willing to steal from each other?

Personally I would rather not have George Ledyard waiting tables at Chili's :)

William Hazen

[Keith Larman]

Years ago as a teenager I got a speeding ticket. I was angry. There was no way the officer was near enough to see me. No way he could measure my speed. And besides, it was a clear open road in the middle of nowhere I was only going a bit over the limit, nothing unsafe, nothing all that horrible. I thought he pulled me over simply because I was a teenager in my dad's (rather nice) car. And that upset me.

So I go to the judge. I lay out my argument. He asks me "Okay, fine, but were you going over the speed limit?"

"Um, well, um... Yes."

He then told me to pay my ticket on the way out and called the next case... Because the speed limit was the speed limit. And I was going over it. Period.

Currently there are those who assert intellectual property rights to their work. Currently the law protects those rights in many mediums. As such it is illegal to violate those rights *regardless* of arguments about financial harm, gain, whatever. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't apply to you.

Or as a friend's kid said one day to my daughter when she wanted to play with his new toy... "You can't play with it because it's *mine*, okay?!?!?"

Simple as that. He had a point. It was his. Regardless of the fact he wasn't playing with it at the time, he didn't seem to even like it. But it was his to share (or not share).

Change the law if you don't like it. Offer up your work for free if you think it's the way to go -- I have musician friends, artist friends, writer friends, etc. who offer up work all the time for free. And others who go the more conventional route. Most do a bit of both as we're all motivated by a need to do it regardless. Respect however it is that those who create offer up their work. Some don't want their work copied or taken without their consent or compensation or whatever. So be it. We all have to make a living. And it ain't up to the person *taking* the property to decide whether the creator *should* be compensated. You vote on that by whether you buy it.

I.e., it's the creator's to share. Not yours to take on your whim.

The simple fact is that like my ticket there are rules society has made. You may not agree with the rationale, but... Life's a bitch and it ain't fair.

At times I cringe at these discussions. Because at the bottom it's all "But hey, it's all about meeeeeeee. I want to play with his toy. I don't care if he doesn't want to share -- I want it. It won't hurt him to share..."

In other words... It ain't your decision to make. It's all post hoc rationalization for behavior.

Now all that said I think there are very good arguments made for why artists might want to offer up their IP for free. Janis Ian famously wrote on this topic a long time ago and I have nothing but respect for her point of view. But again this is an ancillary argument -- we're talking about why an artist might benefit from sharing their stuff for free. Or why an artist might actually be benefiting in the long run from people illegally downloading their work. But... Regardless of the argument of benefit or harm the simple fact is that they didn't say you could have it. They laid down the conditions for obtaining a copy of their work. And if you're not willing to abide by those conditions you're taking it illegally. Maybe they're the idiots in terms of their own financial gain, but... It is *their* decision to make. Not yours. And the rationalization that in the long run someone violating their IP "helps" them financially is simply not your decision to make.

All posted fwiw as a guy who has a handful of things that pay royalties. And some that don't. The point is that *I* decided what to share freely and what not to share freely... Whether I did it in the best way possible financially is only a small part of how I decide to do things. The bottom line, however, is still the same. It was my decision to make regardless of what anyone else may think.

I do photography, write, do swords, etc. I've had a *lot* of things I've done "borrowed" shamelessly. And I've given permission many more times. I prefer the latter. And there is a *lot* of stuff I've never put out. Simply because I don't want it taken.

[MM]

Note that I agreed with most here. I don't think the video should have been posted. However, rather than leave it at another, me, too, post, I brought up a valuable point on how to take advantage of the "shareware" idea. And, provided real world facts to back it up. All most people hear are the RIAA and MPAA screaming about billions in lost revenue. Most don't hear about real world models that take advantage of showcasing part of their work and how it relates to generating revenue. No, that doesn't mean giving it all away for free. :) But if you're a small business and don't have a lot of money to spend on advertising, then every little bit helps.

Who would have posted "Immoral and Illegal" if the Youtube person had posted 2 minutes of Mary Heiny and then posted a link to where you can buy her video in the description section? Granted, it wouldn't have come from Mary Heiny, but who would want to shut that kind of free publicity down? We already know from this thread that one person is now interested in buying the video. :)

Instead of crying outrage at the heinous act, why not try to educate and illuminate the Youtube poster about how to do it right?

[sorokod]

Certainly not all 7000 hits represent lost buyers, but for the sake of argument, 10% is conceivable, is it not? 700 copies sold from aiki.com for 20 dollars would have brought Heiny Sensei a good hunk of change, right?

So, if we follow this logic through, the OP (Charles Hill) makes the situation much worse because now there are over 7300 hits on that video, many (most?) of them from people browsing this thread. Thats about 300x20$ that Heiny Sensei lost.

[Carsten Möllering]

Who would have posted "Immoral and Illegal" if the Youtube person had posted 2 minutes of Mary Heiny and then posted a link to where you can buy her video in the description section?Indeed that's not what we - or at least me - are talking about.

We are talking about nearly 60 minutes, a complete dvd.

Instead of crying outrage at the heinous act, why not try to educate and illuminate the Youtube poster about how to do it right?
In the cases I experienced people also tried to load up dvds of shihan. Chapter by chapter or technique by technique, so you can easily create dvd-menus after downloaning.

It is done just to save money.
The youtube posters are educated and illuminated how to do this.

But, if you read the Prime Palaver, you'll read that Eric talks about how the free library generated interest in not-well-known authors.What about the well known ones?

I tbink, it is a big difference whether you try to get known or whether you are known and people are activly looking after material of you.

Greetings,
Carsten

[Flintstone]

a) So what if the wheel inventor filled in a copyright form?

b) So what if I lend a book to my friend? Am I (or he) violating the copyright?

c) So what if I post a link to copyrighted material? Am I guilty of anything? Am I "copying" anything? Am I stealing or ripping off the author?

d) Isn't all of this copyright, intellectual property, etc. simply an anachronism coming from the original book press business some centuries in the past?

e) What about evolution and going with the times? You can't stop this. Simply as that. Change your business model.

[Charles Hill]

Instead of crying outrage at the heinous act, why not try to educate and illuminate the Youtube poster about how to do it right?

Yes! Thus my first post. The debate here is interesting, and although I disagree with many of the comments here, I have enjoyed reading them. However, my first post is directed at those who agree that the uploading of the whole video is wrong. I added a polite yet clear comment on Youtube which was taken down. I (again) wonder at what might happen if several/many people who agree that it is at least potentially damaging to the three Sensei even if a bit, were to visit the link at provide comment to the person uploading.

If aiki.com were to get youtube to take the clips down, I doubt the person would really learn anything. If you were to visit the link and leave the comment "Hey I really love XYZ Sensei's work too. Don't you think you're maybe doing something wrong here?" perhaps real change may occur. How 'bout it?

Charles

[Buck]

The philosophy behind great institutions like the public library where revolutionary to society. What a tragedy and loss to society if you had to pay (rent) a book.

If I am not mistaken the internet was about free exchange of information.

What has happened to medicine when they took the priest out and replace him with the businessman.

Does everything have to be measured by the amount of profit margin gained? Isn't there other things valuable then making a profit.

People have to make a living. I don't know to what level of these tapes contributed to Mary making a good living? No doubt the tapes are a copyright issue, but if I am not mistaken Ellis' book is self published for a reason, and that is the cut the publisher takes leaves the author with holding only pennies.

Marketing is how I see it. Mary is on YouTube and it is free publicity. If you like what you see you will want her as a teacher, and probably seek her out. If you like her Aikido and learn from YouTube, not seeking you will respect and have great admiration. You will talk her up to others etc. and maybe those people will visit her dojo. Either way she wins. Many people would like such an opportunity to be well known and respected in Aikido.

As that Hollywood saying goes, something like, there is nothing worst then getting no publicity.

[mathewjgano]

a) So what if the wheel inventor filled in a copyright form?

b) So what if I lend a book to my friend? Am I (or he) violating the copyright?

c) So what if I post a link to copyrighted material? Am I guilty of anything? Am I "copying" anything? Am I stealing or ripping off the author?

d) Isn't all of this copyright, intellectual property, etc. simply an anachronism coming from the original book press business some centuries in the past?

e) What about evolution and going with the times? You can't stop this. Simply as that. Change your business model.

I tend to dislike the copyright concept; I don't like the idea that some forms of information are held as "private;" your example of the wheel seems like a perfect one. Also, if I make something that, unbeknownst to me, was created by another person at an earlier date, I don't see why I shouldn't have just as much claim to the idea, though not the pre-existing product. Also, considering the fact that in some cases copyrights preclude the spread of needed medicines, for example, I think there are times when it does more harm than good. Then add to that the "capital" idea of creating greater competition (which supposedly creates greater innovation), and I really start to wonder if there might be inconsistency to some degree.
Practically speaking though, I don't know how authors and artists could make a living without laws like these so as usual my opinion is dashed with grains of salt.
...wasn't RCA's first TV a case where copyright law prevented the actual inventor from making money off his own design? It still doesn't prevent theft.

[Flintstone]

Well... I make a living from the ammount and quality of the products I manage to manufacture a year, not from having manufactured and sold one product and sitting down waiting for my royalties to cash in. Now THAT will stop production, and not the other way around.

Look at all the so called artists that are no longer producing. Those one hit wonders that just live the dolce far niente and becoming parasites to the society, producing nothing at all.

If I ever shot a video about aikido (let say), I still don't expect to make a living about it. But to make a living on my daily work, teaching at the dojo and, what's more important to progress, working on my day job.

JMHV.

[Aikibu]

The philosophy behind great institutions like the public library where revolutionary to society. What a tragedy and loss to society if you had to pay (rent) a book.

If I am not mistaken the internet was about free exchange of information.

What has happened to medicine when they took the priest out and replace him with the businessman.

Does everything have to be measured by the amount of profit margin gained? Isn't there other things valuable then making a profit.

People have to make a living. I don't know to what level of these tapes contributed to Mary making a good living? No doubt the tapes are a copyright issue, but if I am not mistaken Ellis' book is self published for a reason, and that is the cut the publisher takes leaves the author with holding only pennies.

Marketing is how I see it. Mary is on YouTube and it is free publicity. If you like what you see you will want her as a teacher, and probably seek her out. If you like her Aikido and learn from YouTube, not seeking you will respect and have great admiration. You will talk her up to others etc. and maybe those people will visit her dojo. Either way she wins. Many people would like such an opportunity to be well known and respected in Aikido.

As that Hollywood saying goes, something like, there is nothing worst then getting no publicity.

Actually the saying is "Good Press Bad Press it's all the same and much better than no Press :)

Uummmmm Ahhhhhh You're aware that libraries buy the books they put on the shelves right??? You're aware that most Libraries then lend these books out for a certain period of time and then charge money in the form of late fees right...and eventually sell these very same books to raise more money to buy and loan more books?

You're aware that the internet was about the free exchange of information but that did not mean exploitation...

Again like it or not Profit creates jobs and supports Artists in thier endeavors to create more and better Art.

I have seen folks for years try to gussy up or obfuscate stealing as something else. Make no mistake as far as the internet goes if you use something without the artist's explicit permission or compensation you're stealing. If you read the EULA for You Tube they are keenly aware of this...

Access to the internet is free... Not content

Access to the Library is free too... but you may only borrow the content... ownership is retained by the Library.

William Hazen

[Charles Hill]

There are now two nice remarks on the first section of Mary Heiny's clip asking the person to do the right thing. If they are from any of you people, thanks!

[Ellis Amdur]

Phil mentioned my name, earlier, re self-publishing. I have now published three books - (well, the third is just on its way shortly). EACH has cost me about $10,000 to have laid out and printed. I've made my money back, but in each case, it took years. The books are not best-sellers (it took eight years to sell 2000 copies of Dueling, and four years to sell 1500 of Old School).
I would never have published the 2nd or the 3rd book if I had not recovered the costs of the work to me. I certainly do like the act of writing. I like shaping my thoughts. I like passing on information that I believe might be valuable, enjoyable or enriching to others. But I do not like the entitled sense that my work or my labor is owed to others and I should simply be grateful for the appreciation.

My DVD, which was produced by the estimable Shari Dyer of Keigan Productions, easily cost her hundreds of hours of time. She carefully distilled three days of a seminar down into a little less than 80 minutes. We had no idea, whatsoever, if we would get money back. Once again, I'm very grateful that I have. It would be an outrage, in my opinion, for some entitled selfish individual to take her hundreds of hours of work and post it, gratis. Even if we did not lose a single sale, that is an act of contempt for the work she put into the project. What return does she get for all of those hours - that someone posts a little note on YouTube - "Nice use of color tone on the production values, dude. But I gotta ask, how would that ukemi stuff work in the Octogon, though?" Come to think of it, how could we ask for more?
We would have no problem with a small clip of the DVD being reproduced on YouTube. However, we would have a problem if the uploader did not have the courtesy to ask - and give us the option, therefore, of refusing, or deciding what we would like released for free. Were we so asked, the poster would be requested add something - "This clip is part of a 80 minute DVD produced by Keigan Productions, under copyright. <opinion of the value of the DVD> You can purchase it at: _________________"

And BTW - I self-publish for two reasons. 1) The author of a martial arts book can expect to get about 7.5% of the cover price, and sometimes, much less. 2) A publisher will have you make your book more "sellable. Changing that which is controversial, etc. I don't think the title "of my first book would be Dueling with OSensei, and I'm quite sure that I would have been asked to temper my more forceful opinions -that which makes the book worthwhile.

Best

[Keith Larman]

a) So what if the wheel inventor filled in a copyright form?

Generally you cannot get a copyright for what one could consider obvious. And frankly there is little to be invented anytime soon after thousands of years that is of such importance. But if something like that *is* invented, after all these years shouldn't the inventor be able to profit from that invention? My god, it is as useful as the wheel and that person brought it into being! And you, I, and everybody else couldn't come up with it.

What do you think happens with critical medications? Antibiotics?

How about air bags? Antilock breaks? All things that were covered with patents. Intellectual property.

b) So what if I lend a book to my friend? Am I (or he) violating the copyright?

No. You are if you photocopy the book and give him his own copy. One book, one license.

c) So what if I post a link to copyrighted material? Am I guilty of anything? Am I "copying" anything? Am I stealing or ripping off the author?

Generally no, but it is a gray area. Generally what happens is that the person who is hosting copyrighted info is asked to remove it. Linking to it, however, can be a problem, especially if it is particularly egregious. Sites hosting torrent searches have been shut down for violations of copyright.

d) Isn't all of this copyright, intellectual property, etc. simply an anachronism coming from the original book press business some centuries in the past?

Well, that's more or less a value statement now isn't it. I have been asked to write a book in my area and it is something I've been working on. And quite frankly what that means is that I'm not making nearly as much money as I should right now because of the time spent writing. So no vacation for the family this summer. They are helping pay for this simply by doing without a lot of things. I'm hoping to eventually recover some of what it cost me to do it. But if you and others think it is an anachronism, well, frankly my attitude would become that all those self-centered individuals can take a flying leap. Screw the book. I'll just continue to do what I do and those who are interested can fly out here, come by, visit, and pay for lessons. I worked *very* hard to learn what I learned. And if you think you're entitled to it for free, well, forget it. I'm not going to have my family pay by doing without just because you feel entitled to it and think it is anachronistic.

e) What about evolution and going with the times? You can't stop this. Simply as that. Change your business model.

Maybe you're right. But until the business model is changed it doesn't somehow absolve those who copy without permission. You might get some sympathy from me if you were talking about lifesaving drugs. Or even your example of the wheel. But to be blunt you're not entitled to whatever you want simply because you want it and it is easy to copy.

But you know, the model is already changing. There is a ton of *really* bad information on the internet. Lots of really bad video. And lots of really bad writing. Most quality has been drowned out by all the noise. People who know their stuff in my area have significantly reduced what they share on-line from just a few years ago. All simply because anyone can post. And since there is little way to protect intellectual property many who might have gone to the expense to produce quality simply can no longer do it.

Why bother when people have the attitude you express?

So maybe that is my question... Mary Heiny, Ellis, etc. all put a ton of hours into their work. They will not make much money at all putting this stuff out. They are not working on an economy of scale. They don't sell a million copies. Why should they continue to put anything out at all? Why should *they* pay and why should *they* work so hard for you to simply take it?

Or maybe you can suck it up and spend 20 bucks on a book rather than going to Starbucks a couple times...

[MM]

No. You are if you photocopy the book and give him his own copy. One book, one license.

(snip)

Well, that's more or less a value statement now isn't it. I have been asked to write a book in my area and it is something I've been working on. And quite frankly what that means is that I'm not making nearly as much money as I should right now because of the time spent writing. So no vacation for the family this summer. They are helping pay for this simply by doing without a lot of things. I'm hoping to eventually recover some of what it cost me to do it. But if you and others think it is an anachronism, well, frankly my attitude would become that all those self-centered individuals can take a flying leap. Screw the book. I'll just continue to do what I do and those who are interested can fly out here, come by, visit, and pay for lessons. I worked *very* hard to learn what I learned. And if you think you're entitled to it for free, well, forget it. I'm not going to have my family pay by doing without just because you feel entitled to it and think it is anachronistic.

(snip)

So maybe that is my question... Mary Heiny, Ellis, etc. all put a ton of hours into their work. They will not make much money at all putting this stuff out. They are not working on an economy of scale. They don't sell a million copies. Why should they continue to put anything out at all? Why should *they* pay and why should *they* work so hard for you to simply take it?

Or maybe you can suck it up and spend 20 bucks on a book rather than going to Starbucks a couple times...

As a preface, I agree with you, Charles, Ellis, etc. There is a lot of hard work involved in writing and video. I know, I'm a published writer. And you don't make a whole lot of money from books or videos.

Charles,
I'm one of them ... WVMark on Youtube.

Ellis,
Self Publishing is tough as I'm sure you know in detail. I gave it a try and failed miserably. Glad to hear you had some success at it as I enjoyed your first two books. Course, I'm not holding my breath on seeing the third before September (kidding! I meant December. ;) )

With that said, I'm going to play Devil's Advocate again. :)

Libraries. Where do you draw the line from Internet to Libraries? After all, a library will buy one copy, but tens to thousands of people will read that one copy. Don't writers lose money from that? At times, a whole lot of money? So, if someone on the Internet has bought the video and posts it, how is that different from the Library model (except that more than one person can check it out at the same time)?

Now, multiply that one library by the thousands that are in the U.S. Of course each one buys a copy, but then that copy serves anywhere from ten to hundreds of people. Lots of money lost in sales, no? Why do we attack the Internet with such strength of conviction yet let things like libraries slide? At least with the Internet, we can pretty much say that those people would never buy the product. With libraries, you really can't say the same. I'd bet a larger percentage of people who use the library would purchase the goods as opposed to the percentage from the Internet users.

Mark

[Mike Sigman]

I've made and sold DVD's in the past; there's not a lot of money to it, although I at least recovered my production costs and probably a bit more before I discontinued selling the DVD's (they were making OK money, I guess; I just didn't feel happy with the results).

In the same way, I'm thinking about writing a book that lays things out from A-Z, but I'm sorta lazy about it. It's a lot of trouble and the returns are negligible. But what if there were really good monetary returns for me sharing information that I've accumulated over the last 35 years? Would that motivate me to get to work? Maybe so. For discussion's sake let's say that a goodly return on invested time, knowledge, etc., was sufficient to tip the scale for me to write a book. But there's not much money and some people don't think my knowledge ("Intellectual property") should be something I own or should profit from. So I won't do it any time soon; the incentives are gone.

So who gets hurt when intellectual property is trivialized and ripped off?

Same thing with drug companies and other R&D outfits of many kinds: when there's no profit because intellectual property is sneered at, they will simply quit finding and making the new drugs. Who loses when that happens? Trivializing intellectual property, etc., is something people do at their own peril.... it's called "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs".

FWIW

Mike Sigman

[sorokod]

a) So what if the following is copyrighted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHeK8zRC64A ? In Japana? In US? In China? Do you know? Do you care?
What would be the downside of not having this publicly available?

b) So what if techniques were copyrighted? Would you be allowed to teach a technique to others? Far fetched? Remember, Takeda Sensei used to charge his pupils by technique and got payed for second hand transmission.

c) So what if Aikido was copyrighted? Impossible? Take a look here http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=703, Kondo Sensei registered "Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu" as trademarks. Would you stop calling that thing you practice AikidoTM if you are not affiliated with the Akikaki? Will it even be legal practice MAFKAA (Martial Art Formerly Known As Aikido) without paying the Honbu in Tokyo?

[Keith Larman]

Libraries. Where do you draw the line from Internet to Libraries? After all, a library will buy one copy, but tens to thousands of people will read that one copy. Don't writers lose money from that? At times, a whole lot of money? So, if someone on the Internet has bought the video and posts it, how is that different from the Library model (except that more than one person can check it out at the same time)?

Obviously there is no perfect solution to this sort of problem. The laws have adjusted and morphed over time. Highly popular books might get checked out many times, but at my library you're looking at a 3 week checkout time. And even with popular books they usually only have a single copy per branch. So at least there is some degree of control of the material.

And with small artists, niche books, etc. you're simply not going to see their books in most libraries. I have a library literally across the street from my house and they have a couple Aikido books at best. A few big ones (Art of Peace, Ratti et al, etc.). That's it. Heck, I'd be overjoyed if most libraries carried a book I wrote because that would likely make libraries my biggest customer given the niche areas I work in.

Honestly I do believe that things *will* change. And as Mike has posted, everyone is going to suffer for it in the long run. We will get what we deserve. I have friends in my very small niche area who no longer share information on-line. And so few nowadays can seem to be bothered with actually getting off their flabby butts and going to the source. To me it is like learning koryu arts, or learning an old traditional craft. You have to go find it. And those things are dying out in many places because so few can be bothered any longer to put in any effort to get there. I can't count the e-mails I get on these things. And each one always starts the same -- I live here somewhere where nobody teaches what I want to learn. I can't find any websites that explain it all. And the videos on youtube aren't very good. So, you have an obligation to explain to me in an e-mail how to do what it took you 10 years of hard work to learn...

I had one guy who wanted to come by my workshop and asked if he could videotape me polishing. I told him no.

As I started with this post, I'll end it. There is no perfect solution and it is a complex. There are situations that make this hazy at best. But is posting the entire contents of a commercially available DVD on-line for simultaneous download by anyone right? Doesn't she deserve compensation for her work?

No, the issue isn't going to go away. I'm just saddened that so many take such a cavalier attitude about it. All while hurting the very people who try to share what they know. We will get the world we deserve. And it is happening already.

Art, craft, etc. are dying. We all have to pay our bills. The business model *will* have to change. But that is because so few people have the integrity to support those who put in the effort, instead they hide behind rationalizations and simplifications.

Last time I negotiated royalties we had a very frank discussion. I laid out my conditions. They could accept or decline. If they didn't like the price, they didn't have to sign on the line. If they didn't sign, it would have been due to my terms because we're talking about what it is worth to me to share my work. They signed. Fine. And I may fail if not enough buy it, but it is my work and I should be allowed to receive what I feel is fair. I set the price. No one is twisting anyone's arm into buying it.

[Keith Larman]

a) So what if the following is copyrighted http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHeK8zRC64A ? In Japana? In US? In China? Do you know? Do you care?
What would be the downside of not having this publicly available?

If it were under copyright and the owners of the copyright didn't want it on-line it shouldn't be posted. Downside of not having it publicly available is irrelevant in the case of someone holding a copyright. The very notion is that it is their's to share (or not share). It matters not whether you like it or not.

b) So what if techniques were copyrighted? Would you be allowed to teach a technique to others? Far fetched? Remember, Takeda Sensei used to charge his pupils by technique and got payed for second hand transmission.

That is generally not possible under copyright law - it would be like trying to copyright a jump shot in basketball. But some traditions require a "blood oath" before the "good stuff" is transmitted. And that oath includes stipulations on what can be shared and what cannot be shared. Obviously there will be few legal paths in that sort of instance if someone breaks it. But you will also likely find yourself hamon'ed... Which has happened many times.

In the "real" world there are things called "non-disclosure agreements" that hold up quite well in court. I was and still am under a number of them for work done a long time ago. I signed it. I agreed to it. So I abide by it.

c) So what if Aikido was copyrighted? Impossible? Take a look here http://www.aikidojournal.com/article?articleID=703, Kondo Sensei registered "Daito-ryu Aikijujutsu" as trademarks. Would you stop calling that thing you practice AikidoTM if you are not affiliated with the Akikaki? Will it even be legal practice MAFKAA (Martial Art Formerly Known As Aikido) without paying the Honbu in Tokyo?

A trademark of a name is quite different from copyrighting original work. It has to do with representation and advertising, not content.

[Mike Sigman]

I have friends in my very small niche area who no longer share information on-line. And so few nowadays can seem to be bothered with actually getting off their flabby butts and going to the source. To me it is like learning koryu arts, or learning an old traditional craft. You have to go find it. And those things are dying out in many places because so few can be bothered any longer to put in any effort to get there. I can't count the e-mails I get on these things. And each one always starts the same -- I live here somewhere where nobody teaches what I want to learn. I can't find any websites that explain it all. And the videos on youtube aren't very good. So, you have an obligation to explain to me in an e-mail how to do what it took you 10 years of hard work to learn...

I had one guy who wanted to come by my workshop and asked if he could videotape me polishing. I told him no. Heh. I'm always amazed at the people who come out of the blue, make all sorts of remarks (if you're not a "sensei" in their brand, you obviously don't rate any respect), etc., and who then later expect me to show them something. I figure if they want it badly enough, they'll do like the rest of us serious people have always done and go look for it in a serious manner.

And people whom I sense are offensive time-wasters and/or fantasy-role-players, I try to brusquely tick them off enough so that they'd never stoop to coming to a workshop. ;) It's not all that difficult to spot who is a serious person.

Would I want the non-serious or the people who are out to polish their reputation to get some of the information that I've taken so many years to get? No. Not until all the good-guys have a head-start on them; that way they can't play and get away with the "I've known this stuff for years" crap very well.

It's a shame you didn't allow that guy to videotape you polishing ... you might already be a YouTube icon. :D

Best.

Mike

[MM]

Obviously there is no perfect solution to this sort of problem.


No, there isn't. Although I do know of one software company that stipulated that you weren't buying their software, but leasing it. Therefore, you were only allowed to install it on one machine and you couldn't sell it -- they wouldn't transfer the registration code at all. I don't know if they've kept up with that model or not.

But, a library is the exact same model as the Internet. One person or company buys the product and then lets everyone interested check it out for free. The difference being that there's only one Internet and there's thousands of libraries. Technology sometimes doesn't make life easier, nor offer simpler solutions.


Honestly I do believe that things *will* change. And as Mike has posted, everyone is going to suffer for it in the long run. We will get what we deserve. I have friends in my very small niche area who no longer share information on-line. And so few nowadays can seem to be bothered with actually getting off their flabby butts and going to the source. To me it is like learning koryu arts, or learning an old traditional craft. You have to go find it. And those things are dying out in many places because so few can be bothered any longer to put in any effort to get there. I can't count the e-mails I get on these things. And each one always starts the same -- I live here somewhere where nobody teaches what I want to learn. I can't find any websites that explain it all. And the videos on youtube aren't very good. So, you have an obligation to explain to me in an e-mail how to do what it took you 10 years of hard work to learn...


I can understand the part about "somewhere where nobody teaches". I have to travel 10 hours one way (by car) for one part of my training and that's the short trip. The only other option is to move and well, that's never as easy as it seems.


As I started with this post, I'll end it. There is no perfect solution and it is a complex. There are situations that make this hazy at best. But is posting the entire contents of a commercially available DVD on-line for simultaneous download by anyone right? Doesn't she deserve compensation for her work?


No and Yes, respectively. I agree.


No, the issue isn't going to go away. I'm just saddened that so many take such a cavalier attitude about it. All while hurting the very people who try to share what they know. We will get the world we deserve. And it is happening already.


We have a similar problem in our area with just regular work. A lot of the businesses have complained that the young people just don't want to work but still want paid. The businesses are actively recruiting older people because they work. It seems that cavalier attitude is common in many of the younger generation.

I just don't think it's a world some of us have worked for or deserve.

Mark

[Keith Larman]

On the library thing... I have one directly across the street from my house. I go over there fairly often, especially on hot days like today in the afternoon when I need a break from working in my hot workshop.

I'll check out a book or two. I enjoy reading. Been reading all Malcolm Gladwell's stuff again recently. And I just read a few biographies of Tesla (amazingly interesting guy). Anyway, there are a couple computers that access the card catalog. They're always free. There are about 20 internet connected computers for patrons. They're always taken with a long signup waiting list. Mostly it looks like young people surfing social networking sites and the like. The book stacks? Generally fairly empty of people. Lots of books. Not many people even bothering with the books.

Back when I was working in research I was talking to a young lady who was hired right out of college, degree in psych. Still on probation. She wanted to get into the research department and out of daily operations (data entry basically). I pointed out that her work was slow, she didn't seem to care much, didn't seem to work very hard, etc. She looked at me and said point blank that she wasn't going to try hard until she started getting paid more. I've always wondered if the job hunt she found herself on right after that helped her find a job at a higher rate...

Entitlement... Instant Gratification... When right now isn't fast enough...

[Keith Larman]

No, there isn't. Although I do know of one software company that stipulated that you weren't buying their software, but leasing it. Therefore, you were only allowed to install it on one machine and you couldn't sell it -- they wouldn't transfer the registration code at all. I don't know if they've kept up with that model or not.

Mark

And most software packages are generally "sold" as licenses to use the software. There is no "ownership" per se. Just a license to use the software per the license agreement.

And highly restrictive terms on the license are quite common and especially so on high end or custom software.

And frankly when you buy a book or a video you don't "own" the content per se. You own a copy that you are licensed by the copyright law to view. That's why there are rules of fair use for scholarly quotations. You can only quote so much before it becomes plagiarism. And that's why you're really not supposed to photocopy pages out of books. Again, fair use doctrine does come into play but here are limits to how much you can do.

Ownership is retained by the copyright holder in all cases. But of course non transferability of a book or video would be very hard to enforce in most situations (although there was an attempt on video with specialized DVD's that required authorization for playing distributed by Circuit City years ago). Software, however, frequently has "registration" or "authorization" code that has to function if it finds itself on a new machine. Microsoft rather famously (or infamously depending on your point of view) does that with windows and has for years. All the DRM stuff is all about that.

[Kent Enfield]

But, a library is the exact same model as the Internet. One person or company buys the product and then lets everyone interested check it out for free. The difference being that there's only one Internet and there's thousands of libraries. Technology sometimes doesn't make life easier, nor offer simpler solutions.A library is not the exact same model as the internet.

A library buys a book. It lends it out. When it's returned, the library can lend it again. There's never more than the one book. There's no copying--the important part of copyright--going on. It's not really any different than you buying the book then giving it to your friend who gives it to another friend who gives it to a fourth person and so on.

With YouTube and the like, it's quite different. Someone bought a legitimate copy of the video. They then copied it into digital format (now there's the physical tape/DVD and the digital copy) and posted it to YouTube. When it's on YouTube, there are effectively an infinite number of copies, as anyone who wants to watch it can watch it at the same time in different places.

If creating the digital copy destroyed the original video and if posting it to YouTube destroyed that digital copy and if when someone watched it on YouTube no one else could until the first person decided to free it up again (at which point they couldn't watch it again themselves without queuing up again), then it'd be a similar model to a lending library.

[sorokod]

If it were under copyright and the owners of the copyright didn't want it on-line it shouldn't be posted. Downside of not having it publicly available is irrelevant in the
case of someone holding a copyright. The very notion is that it is their's to share (or not share). It matters not whether you like it or not.


Yet it was posted, if you are serious about the legality of this, should you not investigate and make sure it is OK to watch? As to if it matters if I like it or not, i think it does. Useless and unpopular legislation tends to go away, so saying out loud that it makes no sense, is relevant and important.


That is generally not possible under copyright law - it would be like trying to copyright a jump shot in basketball. But some traditions require a "blood oath" before the "good stuff" is transmitted.
And that oath includes stipulations on what can be shared and what cannot be shared. Obviously there will be few legal paths in that sort of instance if someone breaks it. But you will also likely
find yourself hamon'ed... Which has happened many times.

In the "real" world there are things called "non-disclosure agreements" that hold up quite well in court. I was and still am under a number of them for work done a long time ago. I signed it. I agreed
to it. So I abide by it.


Presumably you are refering to the law in the US, if it was possible in some other country (say Japan or Albania) would you respect that law?


A trademark of a name is quite different from copyrighting original work. It has to do with representation and advertising, not content.

That's right, still in the realm of "intellectual property", should the Ueshiba family (for example) trademark Aikido (the word) will your dojo not be asked to change its name?

[jss]

Libraries. Where do you draw the line from Internet to Libraries? After all, a library will buy one copy, but tens to thousands of people will read that one copy.
Libraries in Holland have to pay the author every time one of their books is lent out.

Why do we attack the Internet with such strength of conviction yet let things like libraries slide?
Because the internet is new. As one can read in Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture" (http://www.free-culture.cc/) (available online through a creative commons license), development of new technologies force us to rethink laws. My favorite example from the book: in the U.S. people used to own all the sky above the land they owned. This implied that flying airplanes was not feasible: you had to get the permission of all the owners of all the pieces of land you were flying over. So they changed the law.
Same thing with the internet and the digitalization of media: it breaks the current business model, since it makes distribution of digital content trivial. Is abolishing copyright the right way to go? I don't think so: people need more incentive than recognition for their work. (And that's assuming people will have the decency to credit the creator of the work they are freely distributing.)

[Charles Hill]

Just a quick jump in and out of this fascinating discussion, libraries are not free, so much so that we are forced to pay via taxes.

And as Mike has posted, everyone is going to suffer for it in the long run.

Speaking of suffering, let me again say that Mary Heiny Sensei had a serious hip operation in the not too distant past. Because of her dedication to the spread of Aikido outside of Japan, she was reportedly left with a massive bill, so much so that a collection was taken up on this very site. So I'm not saying you have to rush off to aiki.com to get her DVD (only 20 bucks!). I'm not even saying you have to go to youtube like Mark and leave a polite comment suggesting that 4 of the 5 segments be taken down and a link to buy the DVD be added. But I will say that when you do, you'll be a proud supporter of a great teacher, an owner of a incredible DVD, as well as having a warm fuzzy feeling in your heart for having done the right thing.

Thanks,
Charles

[thisisnotreal]

> Priced to sell < (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo_books_gladwell)

> Linking to © material < (http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/06/28/1619211/Judge-Thinks-Linking-To-Copyrighted-Material-Should-Be-Illegal)

> 80,000 $ mp3 files < (http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/18/woman-fined-1-9-million-for-illegal-downloads/)

this issue will change the world.

[Shadowfax]

There is a little button under all videos on U-tube that says flag. Anyone can report a video for being inappropriate including copyrighted materiel.;) Just click the button.

Has anyone visited Heiney Sensei's website and perhaps sent a contact email to her site admin letting her know it is there? I get the impression on this thread that something that really has a simple solution is being made far more complicated than it needs to be.

As an aside I am looking forward to meeting her as she will be visiting and doing a seminar at our Dojo in the near future.:D

[Keith Larman]

Yet it was posted, if you are serious about the legality of this, should you not investigate and make sure it is OK to watch? As to if it matters if I like it or not, i think it does. Useless and unpopular legislation tends to go away, so saying out loud that it makes no sense, is relevant and important.

Obviously it can be difficult to tell if something is covered by copyright, especially if someone trims out identifying information (which is done quite often). But how on earth is that relevant to whether a person should post it in the first place?

The question also isn't one of popularity of a law. The question is one of rights and ownership. And saying it is useless is most certainly an opinion and not a fact. If you happen to have worked very hard for years to create something having someone else say that a copyright you have to protect your creation is useless takes some rather large cajones. It does protect and it gives those who create a legal avenue to prevent a lot of things.

The problem outlined in this thread has to do with certain technology on the internet primarily. Basically large scale video sharing. Copyright is tremendously important for content creators. For a writer it starts right at the first moment of printing. Without copyright some other bookmaker could copy the entire book as is and provide it without paying a cent. If MGM decides they want to make a movie out of a best selling novel they could just go make it along with any other studio, author be damned. Is that useless? Outdated?

Obviously things need to change with new technology. But in this case we're talking about uploading entire copies of copyrighted work. And if the owner of the copyright doesn't agree to it then it should be taken down. And people should know better than to do it in the first place. But apparently they don't or else they feel entitled to it because "information should be free!".

Presumably you are refering to the law in the US, if it was possible in some other country (say Japan or Albania) would you respect that law?

There is some degree of consistency through international agreement on many aspects of copyright law especially among the major developed nations. But again this is a straw man argument. The issue for me is respecting the wishes of the person who creates the intellectual property and the conditions under which that work was released to the public. Those conditions are usually laid out, validated (so ludicrous examples like claiming a copyright to a jump shot in basketball are tossed out), asserted and protected by copyright. *If* they assert some claim to copyright then I think you should try to respect the wishes of the person who created the content. It is like me saying "You can borrow my bokken as long as you promise to give it back".

That's right, still in the realm of "intellectual property", should the Ueshiba family (for example) trademark Aikido (the word) will your dojo not be asked to change its name?

It is not likely they could given the history of the organization and the name. Which is what trademark law is all about. Both protecting valid intellectual property and preventing people from taking out inappropriate trademarks. There have been many posts about the history of the name "aikido". It is actually a good example of how something like that most likely couldn't be trademarked by any individual group.

Look... I think the music and film industry in particular have been complete idiots in how they've addressed issues of file sharing. Their ham fisted approach did them only harm and IMHO was way over the top with certain actions taken. Those things need to be addressed. The popularity of itunes is I think a marvelous thing. And I fully understand the notion that file sharing does encourage some to buy. I don't disagree. The issue is whether anyone should have the right to distribute other peoples' work regardless of the creator's intent. Yes, there is variation in international law although in most developed nations it is fairly consistent. Yes, it is unpopular among those who are used to getting everything for free. It is really easy to say "information should be free!" unless you're the one who put in thousands of hours to create it, your life savings to make it happen and then put that information out in a form for others to read or watch.

I respect musicians who freely share their music on-line. No problem. Put your songs on a website and allow people to download them as unprotected MP3's. Cool. I also respect musicians who don't want their work freely shared. The point for me is to respect the wishes of the creator. Same is true of video. Same is true of books.

[Flintstone]

I don't know in USA, but in Spain we have "the right to make a private copy". And for that right we pay a canon for every CD-ROM, DVD, USB stick, Hard Disk, ADSL connection, computer, xerox machine... EVERYTHING susceptible to be a media support or a mean to copy copyrightted material. That private copy right entitles me to download and/or copy anything in that media, since that canon is meant to compensate for the income loss we are producing.

That canon makes all these products a lot more expensive than they were before. A ticket for the movies will cost me 1% of my monthly income. Well, I don't know the cost of it in the USA, but that's way too abusive for us poor spaniards. Wonder why people download the movies over the net?

I'm a compulsive shopper for all things Aikido. I won't buy any more than what I buy now if didn't have access to youtube copyrighted material. And I don't buy any less just because I have that access. Youtube (or whatever media you tell) won't prevent me from buying what I want/need, but will help me to watch other people work and, more likely than not, publicite and buy it.

Just my views.

[Carsten Möllering]

There is a little button under all videos on U-tube that says flag. Anyone can report a video for being inappropriate including copyrighted materiel.;) Just click the button.
Again:
It's not that easy as I know from experience.

Only the owner of the rights can report a copyright violation.
And he has to proove his or her rights in a long process.
Filling in the form youtube requires if you report a violation of copyrights is just the first step.

Carsten

[sorokod]

Obviously it can be difficult to tell if something is covered by copyright, especially if someone trims out identifying information (which is done quite often). But how on earth is that relevant to whether a person should post it in the first place?

It does not, however it takes two to tango. You stress you respect to the copyright owner and I was wondering if it extends to verifying that the content you are viewing is "legal".


The question also isn't one of popularity of a law. The question is one of rights and ownership. And saying it is useless is most certainly an opinion and not a fact. If you happen to have worked very hard for years to create something having someone else say that a copyright you have to protect your creation is useless takes some rather large cajones. It does protect and it gives those who create a legal avenue to prevent a lot of things.


When I say that the law is useless, it is not due to the nature of the content it is supposed to protect. It is simply because it is not capable of doing that.
Others have posted links with suggestions on how content creators might survive in this brave new world.


It is not likely they could given the history of the organization and the name. Which is what trademark law is all about. Both protecting valid intellectual property and preventing people from taking out inappropriate trademarks. There have been many posts about the history of the name "aikido". It is actually a good example of how something like that most likely couldn't be trademarked by any individual group.


Not sure I like those odds :-) Daito Ryu example is very real.


The issue is whether anyone should have the right to distribute other peoples' work regardless of the creator's intent.

While there is a moral and emotional aspect to this, it is irrelevant. When something can be duplicated at zero cost and can be distributed at zero cost, it will be.
So while you (and me) may choose to respect the content creator's wishes, it is of no consequence in the larger scheme of things.

[Keith Larman]

It does not, however it takes two to tango. You stress you respect to the copyright owner and I was wondering if it extends to verifying that the content you are viewing is "legal".

If you're asking about me, personally, yes, I've been burned enough times on having work copied to try to avoid copyrighted material. I rarely visit youtube because apart from water skiing squirrels there's precious little content there worth viewing. I do occasionally view material there where the creator uploaded their own stuff, however. Friends in other dojo uploading their own videos, etc. No problem there. The rest is not that much different than the various torrent sites "sharing" software, music, video, etc., mostly in violation of copyright. I have an Amazon Kindle, I buy books, I buy CD's, and I buy songs (albeit rarely) from itunes for my ipod.

When I say that the law is useless, it is not due to the nature of the content it is supposed to protect. It is simply because it is not capable of doing that.
Others have posted links with suggestions on how content creators might survive in this brave new world.

Again, I'm not arguing that the laws won't have to change. I am arguing that people should abide by them, however. That it is increasingly easy to violate copyrights doesn't somehow absolve those who do from responsibility. Arguments from either side about financial harm or gain is totally irrelevant to this aspect and frankly I find them insulting. It is simply not anyone else's decision to make with respect to an individual's intellectual property.

Not sure I like those odds :-) Daito Ryu example is very real.

As is Suio Ryu. However there are issues underlying those things. Part of the reason I have an opinion on this is that I have looked into those issues on behalf of people who were considering similar things. They are not done on behalf of things that are for all intents and purposes descriptive (Aikido, Aikijutsu, etc.), but some of those styles that have been around a long time have become concerned with "McDojo" popping up with zero authority claiming to represent them. And in some cases the trademarking is done to prevent someone else who really has no relation to the line doing it first.

In other words, there is a ton of abuse going on out there from a lot of corners. And people are starting to get concerned about the perceived disregard for intellectual property including deluded wanna-be's trademarking style names, etc. So some are getting downright fanatical in protecting their perceived property (often to their own detriment) because the perceived disregard for intellectual property rights in the general public. So some are casually ripping it off left and right with a sort of "hey, it's free, it's easy, it's inevitable, so I'm going to do it too..." attitude.

and it just gets increasingly ugly...

While there is a moral and emotional aspect to this, it is irrelevant. When something can be duplicated at zero cost and can be distributed at zero cost, it will be.
So while you (and me) may choose to respect the content creator's wishes, it is of no consequence in the larger scheme of things.

I couldn't disagree more. It is not irrelevant. The moral aspect is the biggest shame of it all. And I think you are correct on the long term view, however. It will be next to impossible for the small author or content creator to ever get compensated. Only the large groups with corporate backing will prosper. All the very type of content we've been talking about will be relegated to whatever someone casually decides to upload to youtube. Fewer books from guys like Ellis et al. Fewer videos from people like Mary Heiny. Why produce when you can't even begin to recover even the costs? But more importantly... Why produce material for people who overwhelmingly don't respect the work itself.

It won't hurt the big players -- they'll figure it out. It's the small players that will vanish.

We are looking forward to a brave new world of corporate produced content... Because they're the only ones who'll be able to make it worth their while to create and sell it. I've been struggling on a book myself *knowing* I will lose money on this project. I've stopped posting on forums on many of my areas. I've stopped answering questions because frankly few want to learn -- they just want a fast answer which really isn't possible. I had decided instead to focus on writing a book or two on my areas. But the interesting thing is that your arguments are increasingly convincing me of what some friends have already told me -- that I shouldn't even bother. And that really is sad.

[Ron Tisdale]

While there is a moral and emotional aspect to this, it is irrelevant.

What! An aikidoka saying that morals are irrelevent!?!?!? :D

Will wonders never cease? ;)
Best,
Ron :eek:

ps Good posts Keith.

[MM]

It does not, however it takes two to tango. You stress you respect to the copyright owner and I was wondering if it extends to verifying that the content you are viewing is "legal".


For the U.S., it's not always simple to figure out the law, but generally, if it's newer work, then it's mostly protected in some form or another.

http://www.llrx.com/features/digitization2.htm#Expiration


Not sure I like those odds :-) Daito Ryu example is very real.


Maybe not, but in the U.S., you'd never be able to trademark "aikido". From the inception, that name was meant as a general catch-all to various arts. From usage, many groups, including Daito ryu have used "aikido" to describe their art. Quite a lot of Ueshiba's students who struck out on their own use "aikido" to describe their art.

I don't like wiki pages all that much, but for a quick overview, they're sometimes okay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark

Mark

[jss]

It won't hurt the big players -- they'll figure it out. It's the small players that will vanish.
I don't think all the small players will vanish, but they will be limited to low-cost creations that are easily distributable through the internet. Prices will have to be low. Perhaps creators will even have to give away their stuff for free and ask for voluntary contributions. And unfortunately DRM will be too expensive to implement, so you're really at the mercy of the public.
I really believe/hope that people are willing to support this.

[MM]

I've been struggling on a book myself *knowing* I will lose money on this project. I've stopped posting on forums on many of my areas. I've stopped answering questions because frankly few want to learn -- they just want a fast answer which really isn't possible. I had decided instead to focus on writing a book or two on my areas. But the interesting thing is that your arguments are increasingly convincing me of what some friends have already told me -- that I shouldn't even bother. And that really is sad.

By now, I think most people know that Ellis was the one who got Dan to get out and meet people. I don't know how Ellis managed to do that, but what I do know is that he convinced Dan to do something that, A)had no financial gain, B)could possibly cause major disruptions in his training, and C)could negatively impact his life outside training. So, really, why should Dan bother?

I guess each of us has to cross that bridge at some point. I don't know what Ellis said to convince Dan, but I do know that I'll never forget what Ellis did. Or what Dan is doing. I was the single someone out there looking for exactly that opportunity created by Ellis and Dan.

Is it worth the bother? I'm glad they decided it was. I hope somewhere down the line, someone says the same to you. :)

[Keith Larman]

I don't think all the small players will vanish, but they will be limited to low-cost creations that are easily distributable through the internet. Prices will have to be low. Perhaps creators will even have to give away their stuff for free and ask for voluntary contributions. And unfortunately DRM will be too expensive to implement, so you're really at the mercy of the public.
I really believe/hope that people are willing to support this.

I sincerely hope people do, but the track record so far ain't all that great. Most just don't realize how much work goes into writing. Especially a polished book. We're not talking a weekend here (unless you're Stephen King) but months if not years of work.

I was asked to write one particular book a while back. Unfortunately while they thought I could just rip it out in my spare time my opinion was quite different. I estimated at least 4-6 months of concentrated work to pull it off to be what I thought it should be (which is the only way I was going to do it). Now considering they wanted to advance me only enough to pay my mortgage for a month or two... And that was an advance, not just "free money". Which in today's market likely would never even be recovered. So that book will never be written, at least not by me. Because I can't feed my family on good intentions.

[Keith Larman]

By now, I think most people know that Ellis was the one who got Dan to get out and meet people. I don't know how Ellis managed to do that, but what I do know is that he convinced Dan to do something that, A)had no financial gain, B)could possibly cause major disruptions in his training, and C)could negatively impact his life outside training. So, really, why should Dan bother?

I guess each of us has to cross that bridge at some point. I don't know what Ellis said to convince Dan, but I do know that I'll never forget what Ellis did. Or what Dan is doing. I was the single someone out there looking for exactly that opportunity created by Ellis and Dan.

Is it worth the bother? I'm glad they decided it was. I hope somewhere down the line, someone says the same to you. :)

My issue is that if I don't work on swords I don't get paid. And people aren't exactly rushing out to support crafts people today either. Cheap swords from China are good enough for most -- understandable -- money is tight for everyone. I appreciate those who do support the craft, but they are few and far between now. And most craftspeople are failing over the last few years due to lack of support/bad business. I'm watching the horizon wondering if I'm going to have to put on a suit again someday and leave my love behind relegating it to a part-time hobby. Heck, I spent a few hours in the bar with Jimmy Hayashi last year at a token kai. Jimmy was traditionally trained in polishing in Japan. He is *the* top guy in the US. We talked about deshi, etc. He said he can't afford to have students -- no time. The struggle to survive is all that is left. And once this last generation of those who took the time and devote the energy to learn moves on there is going to be precious little left.

And you'll hear the same complaints in Japan. Traditional craft is dying out with only a very few struggling mightily to keep it going. But without more support it *will* eventually die. And we will all be poorer for it.

So for me the books are now so far on the backburner I can't even see them anymore. I'm just worrying about surviving.

A craftsman from Japan (no longer with us) once told me to just tell the world to take a flying leap (actually he used a much more colorful phrase). If you can do the work for a living, great. If not, fine, do it for yourself only. He told me the world isn't entitled to what someone creates and maybe it needs to die for the world to truly appreciate what it had. Pursue it for the love of the art for yourself and let the world figure it out for themselves. That still resonates with me. There is no need for me to continue doing what I do full time and professionally. I can rejoin the work force, have a respectable career that engages me, and still do what I want when I want. And I'd be better off financially doing so. Heck, I could afford to get over to Japan more often if I did that.

To me that is the real future. Sad to see these things die, but maybe it is simply time.

And on that happy note I'm turning off the computer. Stones are soaked, polishing station is clean, caffeine has kicked in and I have a window of time to get some polishing done.

[thisisnotreal]

By now, I think most people know that Ellis was the one who got Dan to get out and meet people. I don't know how Ellis managed to do that, but what I do know is that he convinced Dan to do something that, A)had no financial gain, B)could possibly cause major disruptions in his training, and C)could negatively impact his life outside training. So, really, why should Dan bother?

I guess each of us has to cross that bridge at some point. I don't know what Ellis said to convince Dan, but I do know that I'll never forget what Ellis did. Or what Dan is doing. I was the single someone out there looking for exactly that opportunity created by Ellis and Dan.

Is it worth the bother? I'm glad they decided it was. I hope somewhere down the line, someone says the same to you. :)

Hear, hear.

[thisisnotreal]

To me that is the real future. Sad to see these things die, but maybe it is simply time.


that is the saddest thing i read in quite a while.

643

[Rennis Buchner]

I don't think all the small players will vanish, but they will be limited to low-cost creations that are easily distributable through the internet. Prices will have to be low. Perhaps creators will even have to give away their stuff for free and ask for voluntary contributions. And unfortunately DRM will be too expensive to implement, so you're really at the mercy of the public.
I really believe/hope that people are willing to support this.

They aren't. For the past few years a friend and I have run a sale record label to originally support newer artists in a fairly minor genre of music we were involved in. All of our releases got very positive reviews, a couple ranked very highly on release of the year reader's polls. That said, or best selling releases where the first two (neither of which recovered their costs) and as time has gone by, with each release sales plummeted further, while illegal downloads of each release soared. In the music scene several places are "trouble" locations, but Russia is by far the biggest problem due to their stance that they are not part of international copyright law. With in days of each release, these mp3 sites in Russia were selling our work, which we will never see a penny of, and they were being spread online everywhere. Things came to a head with our third release, which had the most advertising hype yet, and the worst sales (see the cases and cases of the cd in my closet).

People online were constantly saying that they'd buy more if they could listen to the whole product first, they'd pay if the money was directly going to the artists, etc. We listened and decided to release our whole catalog and future releases as free downloads with the option to buy cds if people wanted to (we charge less that $10 a cd, generally $8, including free international shipping anywhere, so the price was better than just about anywhere else too). The result? We've had tens of thousands of tracked free downloads, but as far as actual sales and voluntary contributions go it has been almost nothing (I'd say the average is about 1 sale in every 5,000 downloads, which in talking to other label owners I know seems to be about average) and every release we have made has lost money, progressively getting worse and worse. Even my last album, which we knocked down to a bare minimum on costs by using a print on demand service, which means no real back-stock has ended up losing money because I ordered 50 copies of it for stock for our online shop and we have only sold about 20 copies, despite about 50,000 downloads, overwhelmingly positive reviews and placing on the top ten albums of the year in 2008. Online music sales are so low that most labels now consider them a waste of time and money and probably 85% percent of the label owners I know have or are closing shop now, including many of the well established "big guns" in the scene.

Basically these days the small players are forced to give it away for free and pray that you hit the jackpot to even recoup your losses, which is causing most people I know to quit. Everyone will try it for a bit since start up costs are so low now, but almost everyoe fades away with in 2 years now.

My two cents from the trenches,
Rennis Buchner

[Aikibu]

Thanks for the front line report Rennis It shows the great desparity between theory and practice in regard to monetizing creative content on the Web...

William Hazen

[thisisnotreal]

In the same way, I'm thinking about writing a book that lays things out from A-Z


Do it, man! I'm in for 5 at least.


For discussion's sake let's say that a goodly return on invested time, knowledge, etc., was sufficient to tip the scale for me to write a book.

Accountant or artist?
Don't artists suffer for their work? ;)
Sorry; that may not be funny. There are different models for publishing these days. Even liasing with custom courseware publishers on campus; and some publish-on-demand houses that do nice hardcovers and small batch sizes. But you probably know more about that than me.


But there's not much money and some people don't think my knowledge ("Intellectual property") should be something I own or should profit from.

F* 'em. What do you think?
Personally, It seems to me we are all passers by. Walking thru this life for a short time. We come in naked with nothing, and leave the same.
Some people pick up driftwood and clean it and sell it. Others pick up swords. Others learn about electrons and photons and make a living.
We make a living by our minds and bodies and wits.
By hook or by crook.
The idea of 'owning' things is a bit funny though, in this context.
Even buying a beer at a pub is really only more or less renting it.


So I won't do it any time soon; the incentives are gone.

crap. nevermind, then.


So who gets hurt when intellectual property is trivialized and ripped off?

understood. but it is not so simple. IP is not a cure all.
it is abused as well. people patent to stop innovation. Engineering companies do it. There are whole holding-companies that do nothing but buy patents speculating that they may have future licensing value. These people create nothing directly. You heard of the RIM debacle last year with the crackBerry?
Drug companies innovate; but they also stop innovation.
It is one reason these big companies don't like uptake on old, proven cheap remedies either. like anything that works from chinese medicine, or other stuff that grandma shows that works and is cheap or easy. no profit. Did you know you can stop the itch of a mosquito (/any bug) bite almost instantly with scotch tape? Seriously. Try it for 2 min and it's gone. Nerdy but works.
don't you love those drug commercials that are on TV and you don't even know what they're for; but you're supposed to ask your doctor?

Sometimes people suck. this is another facet of that 'jewel'

FWIW

Josh

[Buck]

Today's and tomorrow's technology makes it and will make copyright issue more difficult to find a balance for those who make a living from creative and intellectual property. And because of digital technology and its ability to be mass produced very easily, yes, hurts financially those wanting to make a living from it.

But what it also has done is created the demand for products to be sampled in part or whole that in the past never could be sampled. It is also changing how we handle and look at creative and intellectual property and copyright laws.

This has divided people into basically two groups that is clearly evident in this thread. That isn't the real problem discussed here. I see the real problem technology. If you are going to point a finger at who isn't making a living in this field it technology. Why should I pay for an aikido video when there are hundreds on YouTube? And the future holds new technology greater then what is today. Therefore, I do you fight technology and its advancement by protecting your interests, your work, your livelihood?

I guess you have to be creative and find other ways.

[gdandscompserv]

The idea of 'owning' things is a bit funny though, in this context.
Owning things is an interesting concept, especially owning things like pieces of dirt. It's all really just a time lease isn't it?

Who owns the rights to Aikido?

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Maybe there is an environment where marketing and mass production do not work. Advertising and marketing work to try and bring producers and (perhaps newly-created) consumers together more quickly and easily; on the other hand, the level of consumer "desire" may not be high enough to make the product sell at any apprciable price. That does not mean the product costs nothing to produce, it simply means it has almost not market value.

In that case, as Keith Larman said, instead of "pushing" a product to make a living, value it for itself and use judgment of character as a proxy for passing it (or parts of it) on to someone else. After all, buying and selling is an agreement between two parties, there is no benefit in the deal if one party feels entitled to the product without giving something that has equivalent value in the estimation of the other party.

[MM]

Books and music are different.

As Baen and Eric Flint noted, not from estimates but from reality, putting some content online for free produced more sales for authors. How they did it was very critical. I'd encourage those that are interested to really read through those articles by Flint.

Music. The RIAA's biggest cash cow was the CD. When the Internet hit, that cash cow started to become obsolete. Instead of changing with the times, the RIAA stuck to old models and tried to force the world to do the same. It didn't work. In fact, it backfired as they continued to sue someone's old grandmother. When they changed their business model, wow, lo and behold, they started making money again.


The digital music business internationally saw a sixth year of expansion in 2008, growing by an estimated 25 per cent to US$3.7 billion in trade value. Digital platforms now account for around 20 per cent of recorded music sales, up from 15 per cent in 2007. Recorded music is at the forefront of the online and mobile revolution, generating more revenue in percentage terms through digital platforms than the newspaper (4%), magazine (1%) and film industries (4%) combined.

But in the same breath, they still cry about piracy.


Collating separate studies in 16 countries over a three-year period, IFPI estimates over 40 billion files were illegally file-shared in 2008, giving a piracy rate of around 95 per cent.

You'll note two very distinct differences. The first is real hard numbers. Reality. The second is studies and estimates. Anyone who has actually researched things knows how flimsy studies and estimates can be.

In fact, here's an article showing how wrong one report was and how the correction was downplayed in the news world:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/05/ben-goldacre-bad-science-music-downloads

When you actually dig into the numbers, you find a completely different story than what the RIAA is screaming and crying about. Once they changed their business model, digital sales started shooting through the ceiling for the RIAA and bringing in more money each year.


Digital music sales, meanwhile, continue to explode, rising 43 percent by value from 2006 to $1.25 billion — and up from $183 million in 2004.

Mobile music sales, including ringtones, ringbacks, and music videos, reached $880 million in 2007, a more than 100 percent increase from $420 million in 2005, the first year the R.I.A.A. started tracking mobile sales.

Does that mean that the RIAA is making more money than before? No. In fact, they haven't as "projected". The articles I quote even show the loss. But attributing it all to piracy is just the RIAA's way of complaining about not making the same amount of money, rather than addressing the whole problem.

As I said initially, CD sales was a huge cash cow. The only way to get the song you liked was to buy the CD. Once digital hit, individual songs were offered and people had a choice to buy what they liked and discard what they didn't. It wasn't a matter of piracy affecting profits, but a matter of quality and choice. Talk to anyone and you'll see that people rarely liked all the songs on a whole album (er, CD). Given the choice of paying $12-$20 for a CD and buying just those songs you like at $1/each, everyone chose buying just the songs they liked.

Add in the fact that the RIAA companies aren't putting out as much in quality artists as they used to (ask yourself who the record companies will promote -- person A who can really really sing but doesn't have the looks, or person B who can sing okay but not nearly as well but looks great) because computers can make up the difference in sound.

In the end you find a whole different reality than what the RIAA, MPAA, etc are trying their best to get you to believe.

Piracy? Yeah, it's a problem. There is no doubt about it. However, is it as big a problem as people are led to believe? No.

And as I've said before, is it right for someone to post the whole video online? I don't believe so, No.

But, let's leave this with being a Devil's Advocate: IF the sales of Mary Heiny's video had dwindled or dropped completely since it is an older video (2000), and IF the posting added sales (at least two people were interested) of that DVD, then how did it hurt Mary Heiny? The digital age certainly creates tons of grey areas when before they were black and white. Morally wrong, but financially could be a boon.

Interesting article about how game sales have really hurt the music industry rather than piracy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/jun/09/games-dvd-music-downloads-piracy

Links:

http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_resources/dmr2009.html

http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/daily-brief/2008/04/28/music-sales-grow-music-industry-shrinks

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10130206-93.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/01/arts/music/01indu.html

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10498664

http://www.ifpi.org/content/section_resources/rin/rin.html

http://www.forbes.com/2008/12/14/media-2009-predictions-sneakpeek_snkpk09_24_davidrandall_media.html

http://mp3.about.com/b/2009/01/02/digital-download-sales-gives-music-industry-a-boost.htm

[Keith Larman]

Mark:

One problem I've long had with the entire argument is that it simplifies the population of artists into a single monolithic entity. All statistics is simplification. All statistics involves trying to reduce complexity to reveal the underlying trend. The problem is that it also tends to ignore outliers and often you lose really important information simply because it wasn't being looked for to begin with. So how does the music industry (or even the large, corporate movie DVD industry for that matter) really relate to the type of content as involved in this post, Mary Heiny's DVD?

Is the point of all the statistics that Mary Heiny could be losing market share to video games? No, that's absurd. We're not talking about the latest Britney Spears album or the latest X-Men movie. We're talking about a technical DVD for a very small, specialized area.

Are you saying that her sales will benefit from having the video on-line?

Reread Rennis' post. Overall I'm sure the digitalization of music distribution has been a boon for many people. And I'm sure many large established acts have benefited. But we're talking about economies of a massive scale -- the mass market of music. The problem arises for those small guys working in niche areas. The areas that aren't mainstream, corporate, easily packaged and sold to huge audiences. If you're not Metallica or the Black Eyed Peas the road is a lot harder now. Sure, you can get exposure more easily for your music. But the small guy always had a hard time breaking even and now the odds are vastly worse.

The discussion here may have brought more attention to Ms. Heiny's DVD and may have resulted in sales for her. But that's simply a result of some guilt, some support in the community, some advertising (no such thing as bad press), but is still no justification for the initial piracy. Heck, Michael Jackson's album sales are soaring right now but I'm pretty sure the reason isn't one Jackson would have approved of had he been asked beforehand. And that is the major point.

And what that creates is a environment where the small, niche producer is a relic of the past. I think the attitude of "free sharing" has destroyed the ability of most people working in niche areas to ever be able to release well produced content. It was never easy before to write books or create video for a small, niche area such as Aikido. Rarely does anything done every recover the real costs of production. And while books are probably the least susceptible *at this time* due to the time it takes for the average computer geek to copy an entire book, that will come too (Google's project to digitize entire libraries for instance).

Basically the landscape is changing. And no, we can't stop it. Just realize that in 50 years from now the most recent polished Aikido video might still be Mary Heiny's video... Because no one in small niche areas will be able to afford to spend the money, the time and the energy to create content when they simply cannot recover any of the costs of doing so. It still takes the same amount of time to write. It still takes the same amount of time to plan. But copies can be made in seconds now and distributed globally virtually instantly.

A brave new world where you can still choose. Unfortunately the only choice is between Hostess Twinkies or Ding Dongs. Eat up! Enjoy!

[Mike Sigman]

Basically the landscape is changing. And no, we can't stop it. Just realize that in 50 years from now the most recent polished Aikido video might still be Mary Heiny's video... Because no one in small niche areas will be able to afford to spend the money, the time and the energy to create content when they simply cannot recover any of the costs of doing so. It still takes the same amount of time to write. It still takes the same amount of time to plan. But copies can be made in seconds now and distributed globally virtually instantly.

A brave new world where you can still choose. Unfortunately the only choice is between Hostess Twinkies or Ding Dongs. Eat up! Enjoy! Absolutely. I'm always bemused by how many in the last couple of spoiled generations actually think it's someone's duty to lay down and show them what they want to know. I saw a recent (maybe within the last year) study where a bunch of college kids were unclear why ripping off music was wrong. The idea that they couldn't get instant gratification when they wanted it was something they apparently had trouble comprehending. ;)

FWIW

Mike

[MM]

Mark:

One problem I've long had with the entire argument is that it simplifies the population of artists into a single monolithic entity. All statistics is simplification. All statistics involves trying to reduce complexity to reveal the underlying trend. The problem is that it also tends to ignore outliers and often you lose really important information simply because it wasn't being looked for to begin with. So how does the music industry (or even the large, corporate movie DVD industry for that matter) really relate to the type of content as involved in this post, Mary Heiny's DVD?

Is the point of all the statistics that Mary Heiny could be losing market share to video games? No, that's absurd. We're not talking about the latest Britney Spears album or the latest X-Men movie. We're talking about a technical DVD for a very small, specialized area.

Are you saying that her sales will benefit from having the video on-line?

Reread Rennis' post. Overall I'm sure the digitalization of music distribution has been a boon for many people. And I'm sure many large established acts have benefited. But we're talking about economies of a massive scale -- the mass market of music. The problem arises for those small guys working in niche areas. The areas that aren't mainstream, corporate, easily packaged and sold to huge audiences. If you're not Metallica or the Black Eyed Peas the road is a lot harder now. Sure, you can get exposure more easily for your music. But the small guy always had a hard time breaking even and now the odds are vastly worse.

The discussion here may have brought more attention to Ms. Heiny's DVD and may have resulted in sales for her. But that's simply a result of some guilt, some support in the community, some advertising (no such thing as bad press), but is still no justification for the initial piracy. Heck, Michael Jackson's album sales are soaring right now but I'm pretty sure the reason isn't one Jackson would have approved of had he been asked beforehand. And that is the major point.

And what that creates is a environment where the small, niche producer is a relic of the past. I think the attitude of "free sharing" has destroyed the ability of most people working in niche areas to ever be able to release well produced content. It was never easy before to write books or create video for a small, niche area such as Aikido. Rarely does anything done every recover the real costs of production. And while books are probably the least susceptible *at this time* due to the time it takes for the average computer geek to copy an entire book, that will come too (Google's project to digitize entire libraries for instance).

Basically the landscape is changing. And no, we can't stop it. Just realize that in 50 years from now the most recent polished Aikido video might still be Mary Heiny's video... Because no one in small niche areas will be able to afford to spend the money, the time and the energy to create content when they simply cannot recover any of the costs of doing so. It still takes the same amount of time to write. It still takes the same amount of time to plan. But copies can be made in seconds now and distributed globally virtually instantly.

A brave new world where you can still choose. Unfortunately the only choice is between Hostess Twinkies or Ding Dongs. Eat up! Enjoy!

I quoted the whole thing because I liked your post. :)

I don't disagree with it. One of the points I'm making is similar to yours. Tech has changed the way people have had to look at business models. If we, as small business and niche markets, follow the larger corporations route and try to keep to the old model, we're more than likely going to see the same results. Once the larger corporations realized that by changing their business model, they started making profits again, well, the screaming and shouting about piracy sort of died down.

Which is another point. Piracy is wrong, I agree. No justification, I agree. But, it isn't the *main* loss of income as we have all been led to believe by the large corporations. As we can see by profits lately, the large corporations are again making money and are on track (in a recession no less) to build up to the once large profits they made before. And in a small, niche market, piracy is hard pressed to take away the major profits. In a large scale world market, where major songs are distributed, yeah, piracy could possibly impact that large market in some way. I say could. But in a small, niche market that doesn't reach most of the world? How many customers of that market are going to search online (let alone find something) to download it for free? I never even knew about that Mary Heiny video until this thread.

So, what do the small businesses do? How do they change their model to fit in with tech? I really don't have those answers. I know they must change, but not how. We can't rely upon the old business models. I do know from watching the large corporations that if all we do is scream that piracy is the culprit, we'll get nowhere. This thread is a great place for people to talk about getting some answers.

Am I "saying that her sales will benefit from having the video on-line"? As a Devil's Advocate, I'm asking exactly that question. I have no clue. Did they? And if they did, can she capitalize on that? And how? As a business model, can you employ those who post full videos? Say, pay them 1% out of profit from all sales that can be attributed from their posting? I don't know. I don't have answers, only questions. How do you change the business model for small markets to make money in this changing tech world?

It seems that RIAA has chosen to mostly ignore piracy and concentrate on other paying business models, like ringtones. So what can we do as business owners in small, niche markets to start making money?

[Rennis Buchner]

Music. The RIAA's biggest cash cow was the CD. When the Internet hit, that cash cow started to become obsolete.

When it comes to RIAA and the major record labels I must admit I have a hard time feeling sorry for them as they have been burning the candle at both ends for years and years, basically ripping off the consumer on one end and the artists who make the music they release on the other. Back when I was in music school we had to go through all the details of the standard record contracts at the time and it most people who hear what really goes on with the money for cd sales are usually fairly shocked from nearly all angles reanging from for cost of production, to the retail prices and the actual cuts that most artists get. It is quite interesting and infuriating at the same time, but at the risk of massive thread drift I'll drop the subject here. With all that said, it still doesn't make ignoring copyright law as it is written today OK, even if I think the major labels and RIAA are also kind of getting what they deserve for years of lying and ripping damn near everyone off.

Rennis

[Keith Larman]

And in a small, niche market, piracy is hard pressed to take away the major profits. In a large scale world market, where major songs are distributed, yeah, piracy could possibly impact that large market in some way. I say could. But in a small, niche market that doesn't reach most of the world? How many customers of that market are going to search online (let alone find something) to download it for free? I never even knew about that Mary Heiny video until this thread.

There are no major profits in a small, niche market. There is only a trickle that comes in that will hopefully over time cover some of your costs. So *every* lost sale is significant.

BTW, I just typed in a search that included the words aikido, torrent and the name of a famous aikido researcher and got 5 pages of hits on Google. How do you suppose he feels about that? Do you think he's saying "Great -- how nice to get so much free advertising and distribution!"?

Yes, small niche market producers will have to get better at advertising. They'll have to post their own snippets to youtube and pray to god that no self-entitled geek posts major chunks of the video.

Sure, there are things to try and things to hope for. But... Reread Rennis' post. That's a great analogy for this sort of thing. Niche market. Oh, yes, people say they'd happily pay as long as they can download it first. But many don't. The smaller number who do pay and do so to ensure quality and support are in the minority. But when it is 100 million people with a .5% purchase rate... Well, that can work. But getting even a 1% buy rate after 1000 downloads on the other hand... Doesn't exactly pay the bills... And that 1000 downloads may be the entire interested community...

Even a few lost sales makes a huge difference to a niche market. It doesn't even fall into the range of accounting error for corporate stuff.

I similarly have no sympathy for the RIAA et al. They are also partly responsible for the problems faced by the small guy today due to their knee jerk reactions and absurd prosecutions. But the bottom line is still that millions of instances of copy rights are violated daily now due to new technology such as youtube and P2P nets. It is easy and the culture for the most part seems to think it is okay and now so many cite the "because it doesn't really hurt anyone" chestnut. No, the big guys like Metallica probably aren't hurting. Neither is Sony or the big labels.

But drop down the food chain a bit and things are very different. And no, we can't stop it. And likely there will be little we can do about it. So enjoy quality content while you can. Because pretty soon the only new video will be another squirrel water skiing...

And... The bottom line is the same. The biggest shame is the loss of respect for intellectual property and the accompanying attitude of entitlement.

Argh, I've spent way too much time on this thread and lord knows I really don't have the time to spend.

[MM]

With all that said, it still doesn't make ignoring copyright law as it is written today OK
Rennis

No, I agree. Never did argue that point. :) But, part of my long, horribly worded posts is the idea of looking at the RIAA, etc and saying, hey, look at what they did wrong and then look at how they changed to suit the newer technology to start making money again. And then ask the question, how can small business take advantage of their mistakes (in other words, to not make the same ones) to the newer technological world to make money?

We all (or most of us) agree posting the whole video from Mary Heiny was wrong. So let's step beyond that and figure out how to fix it in a way that not only helps Mary Heiny but the rest of us caught in a similar situation.

As large corporations evolved to once again make profits, is there anything we can take from their adaptations to suit us in our much, much smaller world?

[Carsten Möllering]

We all (or most of us) agree posting the whole video from Mary Heiny was wrong.
Was it really "most of us"?

Wasn't there a big "it can't be helped" - fraction?
The words Tissier used.

We are not talking about big corporations or new technologies or how the world should or could be.

We are talking here about individuals violating copyrights by avoiding / hacking the copy protection and thus offending teachers of a MA called aikido.

And we are talking about paying 90 $ o not. Don't know whether the shihan would earn them if there was no youtube.
But the spectators save them. That's unoppoesed?

bah
Don't want to practice with those people.

Carsten

[Buck]

The advancement of modern technology as always threaten livelihood. A popular folklore of John Henry illustrates that. At first people where concerned that machine would take their jobs as in the folklore of John Henry. Then it was computers, and robotics. All of which marginalizes labor. All of which is a junction of change and adjustment.

Those who are making a living from doing things like digital recorded medias must adapt to the change brought about by new technology. They must find a new way to profit from their efforts, efforts which are being affected by new technology almost regularly. This also means the laws that govern these types of thing like copyright should also change with new technology.

We have to accept that technology at this point is still rapidly changing, so anything that was protected will for only until the newest technology arrives. That means the luxuries of long protected copyright material such as DVDs are no longer. This means those who create something and of intellectual property must know it will be violated very quickly and the current copyright laws lack the teeth they once had to protect their work.

They also must know they need to be creative to profit from their work. They must be creative in how the produce and market their work. They must be equally savvy marketers to make it.

I see a old problem in a new bottle. Technology and a person's livelihood matched against each other. How people who make their living in connection with the digital world will need to be very creative to make a living. Those who are not creative and savvy will not survive.

Mary has a right to make a living by selling her experience and knowledge, and no one else should profit from her work - experience and knowledge. We know Mary's DVD's have been compromised on YouTube. Does it violate copyright laws to do so?If so, does the copyright law have teeth to rectify it, does Mary have the money and time to see her rights protected come to fruition? What does she have to turn the situation into her advantage and to continue to profit from her work?

The real piracy is rapidly changing technology. Unlike the steam power hammer which John Henry raced against, technology is winning and taking some people's ability to make a living away from them. Those who have not adapted to the change where technology is making information more readily accessible with the touch of a mouse button, instead of a ring of a cash register.

[Charles Hill]

Don't want to practice with those people.

But you may have to, Carsten. There are people right now uploading Seishiro Endo's videos and some of them have been asked directly not to do so by the producers of the DVDs. It is possible that they may attend a seminar and turn to practice with you, is it not? They are doing the wrong thing and they do not know it, at least not at a level that motivates them to action.

What are some things that you, Carsten, can do to help them grow? Post them here and maybe I, Mark, or others will join you.

Thanks,
Charles

[Shany]

Isn't Aikido free? Aikido is Love and Love is free! How can one copyright Love? Spreading Love, isn't it what the founder wished for?

Our laws premits us from spreading love through the content of media, so according to law, this video should be taken down. But according to the law of universe, it should remain. Who than is right?

[Carsten Möllering]

Hi

But you may have to, Carsten. There are people right now uploading Seishiro Endo's videos and some of them have been asked directly not to do so by the producers of the DVDs.
Well that was one of the examples I had in mind.
It was about two month ago I think?
They stopped uploading after the post of the producers. It worked.

Same with a dvd of Tissier. I posted a comment. They finally stopped uploading his dvd after a comment.

It worked in both cases.

... They are doing the wrong thing and they do not know it ...
Interesting to me:
They break down the copy protection but then stop after one comment?
So what dothey know?

It is possible that they may attend a seminar and turn to practice with you, is it not?
Yes, I can't choose.

But - as I know me being in real life not as harsh as sometimes in a forum - I would train and would talk, if I knew it was "the uploader".

And well, I think I mean this in a broader sense:
To do Aikido has some "moral dimensions" (same with Karate or Katori Shinto Ryu or ... other MA.) To be honest is one of them, I think.
And I could not take a partner seriously who refuses to accept this relation.

What are some things that you, Carsten, can do to help them grow? Post them here and maybe I, Mark, or others will join you.Well I posted it:
I called uploading a copy righted and copy protected dvd theft.
Whether something is moral or immoral is not a question of technology or of possibility.
To me it's such easy.

I think posting - friendly - comments is a possibility to help to creat or reinforce the awareness of ethical values.

I am quite sure: No one I practiced with at a Seminar of Endo would intentionally do something, knowing to offend him.

I myself have no technical problems to copy Endos dvds and give them to my students. Or to upload them for them.
Instead of that we bought copies for our dojo which can be lent. Or the students by their own copy. It's possible to do so.

Even in times of USB-Sticks.

Thank you for your comment.
As I said: I'm sometimes harsh online which I am not in real life. Part of my misuse of technology.

Carsten

[jss]

Was it really "most of us"?
Wasn't there a big "it can't be helped" - fraction?
Can't I agree with both: uploading the video is wrong, but it can't be helped?

The problem (imho) is that there is a huge disparity between the laws that are being enforced and what people believe and do. Think about the huge fines demanded, the crippling of content through DRM, game publishers trying to prevent selling games on the second-hand market, the attempts to make copying for personal use (keep the original DVD safe and let the kids use a copy) illegal, the high prices of Windows 7 and Photoshop, etc. on the one hand and on the other hand how easy it is to download it all, how everyone seems to be doing it, the idea that "everything is crap, so I'll only watch it if it's free", that downloading seems like a victimless crime, because the creator is an abstract entity, etc.

The solution lays in more reasonable laws AND more reasonable people. When it is possible to purchase content online easily, at a low cost, without DRM and with the creator clearly benefiting from it, wouldn't that become the normal way to access content, because most people would agree it's the right thing to do?

Although some education might be necessary. Mike mentions a bunch of college kids that were unclear why ripping off music was wrong. Today there was an article in a Dutch newspaper: the number of people that don't know that milk comes from cows seems to be growing and one parent was telling his children that "Those apples are not safe to eat, since they grow on trees." :freaky:
So perhaps I'm being overly optimistic.

[Buck]

I think anyone currently or in the future who is thinking of selling their knowledge and or experience as a digital product should be aware of the difficulty in protecting their copyright-traditionally. They should adapt to the power of the current and future technology. They have to understand if they don't it can result to the loss of money The must realize that the drive of new information technology and its ease of piracy i.e. Mary's video on YouTube is due to society that is increasingly demanding free, and easily accessible information. This movement toward free and accessible info isn't even making piracy a profitable venture. It also is re-defining ethic and morals in this area.

Is this a thing that is killing off an art or craft that sells instruction like Aikido DVDs. No. It is a change on how we buy and sell that instruction. What is dying is the traditional idea of how we can make a living of an art and craft- like Aikido DVDs.

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

I think anyone currently or in the future who is thinking of selling their knowledge and or experience as a digital product should be aware of the difficulty in protecting their copyright-traditionally.

While digital media provide a lot of entertainment, that is really all they give: they are by nature shallow media. For any depth at all, people really need to experience something in the environment which is depicted on the DVD, and put in the resources to do so (both in terms of getting there, and in terms of actually learning something when there).

While it is of course nice to monetize such products, especially from the point of view of offering something cheaper and/or more accessible than seminars, the reality is that from the point of view of a great many people getting something for free, they just do not see things from that perspective. A business model that allows viewers to get something out of the DVD if they satisfy other non-media-related requirements (such as training with an instructor somewhere) would be more successful perhaps, or at least avoid giving the creator the feeling of being a sucker; and those people that are in it for a free ride would get nothing but worthless entertainment.

Regards, Gernot

[Flintstone]

bah
Don't want to practice with those people.
Really?

[Michael Varin]

Question:

Is monopoly a good or bad thing? (Not the board game wise guys!)

[sorokod]

Question:

Is monopoly a good or bad thing? (Not the board game wise guys!)

It is very, very good for the monopoly holder.

[Carsten Möllering]

Hi
It is very, very good for the monopoly holder.
sensei is a "monopoly holder".
shihan is a "monopoly holder".
iemoto / doshu is a "monopoly holder".

?

[Michael Varin]

Regarding monopoly:
It is very, very good for the monopoly holder.
Correct.

And at who's expense does a monopoly holder benefit?

[Charles Hill]

Question:

Is monopoly a good or bad thing? (Not the board game wise guys!)

Hi Michael,

I have a couple of guesses where you are headed with this, but it behooves me to add (as this is a website about Aikido) that the monopoly is the core, fundamental structure of an Aikido dojo which follows the Japanese format.

[MM]

Interesting article:

Online Radio Stations Strike Big Deal on Royalties

Wednesday, July 08, 2009

WASHINGTON — The future of Internet radio appears more secure after a handful of online stations reached an agreement Tuesday to head off a potentially crippling increase in copyright royalty rates.

The deal is the product of two years of negotiations between webcasters and copyright holders. In March 2007, a ruling by the federal Copyright Royalty Board dramatically raised the rates that Internet radio stations must pay artists and recording labels — leading many online radio stations to warn that the new rates would put them out of business by eating up as much as 70 percent of revenue.

(... more at link below)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530642,00.html?test=latestnews

Relevant part, though, is this.

Traditional AM and FM broadcasters are exempt from copyright royalty rates for over-the-air radio play, because that airplay is thought to provide free promotion for artists and labels.


I think that's just hilarious.

[Suru]

I tried to get the Metallica "Unforgiven [1]" video from YouTube. The link was there, but it was a no-go. Metallica has been all over this stuff since the Napster days, and although I'd like to see the video for the hundredth time, I'm glad artists are able to remove anything copyright-sensitive to them.

Drew

[Rennis Buchner]

Relevant part, though, is this.

"Traditional AM and FM broadcasters are exempt from copyright royalty rates for over-the-air radio play, because that airplay is thought to provide free promotion for artists and labels."

I think that's just hilarious.

Club DJs have been informally exempt by the industry for years for the same reasons.

Actually there are two different copyrights involved on any piece of recorded music, one is for the sound recording and the second is for the actual written piece of music (this means that a piece by say Mozart is in the public domain regarding the later copyright and any musician can perform the piece, but the recording of said piece by the Aikiweb orchestra is covered under copyright and said recording can not be broadcast on television, etc without royality payments being made).

As usual the industry is using some tricky language here when they argue that the "artists and labels" aren't getting paid by no copyright royalty payments from traditional radio. One is that they are not separating the two kinds of copyright and the later copyright which covers the actual authors (composers / songwriters) of the music DO receive royalties from play on the radio. This is an important point because under the typical artist contract at any given big label, the label more or less keeps the recording copyrights and the artists generally get nothing to a couple of cents per CD (if they are a major artist with the power the demand a beter contract) from that particular copyright. In most cases the sound recording copyright is a major cash cow for the label and does nothing for the artist at all. On the other hand it has been more common for the artists to be able to keep the songwriting copyrights and this is about the only area of the model of the traditional music industry that can be profitable to the artist at all if they become popular enough. To be sure, many labels still try and get a hold of these copyrights too and in the old days it was the norm for the labels to own it all, hence you see situations where Paul McCartney has to pay other people to play his own music, because others own the copyrights.

Anyways, my point here is that the music industry pretty much does everything it can to screw artists out of every cent they can and most artists make very little to nothing for the whole process of writing recording and releasing music (touring is where most of the money comes from). However the industry typically talks out of both sides of its mouth. When talking to the artists they will argue the extreme costs of recording and printing a cd coupled, and, these days, with declining sales as the reason they need to pay the artists less (in reality the majority of artists have to pay back all of their recording costs which are "advanced" to them out of sales of the resulting cd. Considering the avergae artists makes between 4, if you are new, to 10, if you are a serious artist, CENTS (not dollars) per CD, the label never has to pay the artist a cent because "your advance hasn't been covered yet". And a large scale printing of a CD really costs significantly less than one dollar for the entire deal, cd, case, artwork, I know this from personal experience).

On the other hand, when talking to the general public they will argue that CD prices can't be reduced any further and more needs to be done to make more from royalties and such because "we and the poor artists aren't making enough". Well I suppose it is true that the artists aren't making enough, but that is because they are basically stealing it from them with abusive contracts most artists aren't willing to try and negotiate as they might lose their one big chance at a major label.

Anyways, my original point was that one way the industry "plays" the public is by talking in such a way where it appears that there is only one almighty copyright at play here in an issue such as the radio. They say "Look, we get no money from AM/FM radio and they are getting rich while us labels and artists get nothing", and everyone instantly thinks of their favorite artist and "Oh it's such a shame, how can the Aikiweb orchestra get no money from all those radio plays, this is an outrage and needs to be changed." when actually their favorite artist IS getting paid (provided they write their own music) and the industryis really fighting to make more for themselves on the other copyright where most artists don't make anything anyways. They are simply "forgetting" to mention that other copyright and pretending it doesn't exist to make people feel bad for the artists and push public opinion in a direction where they can change they laws to something that just gives the labels more money.

When dealing with the record industry it is just best to assume they are lying to anyone they are talking to. A quote supposedly by Hunter S. Thompson is a favorite among many as a true reflection of the business.

"The music industry is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where theives and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side"

Random thoughts,
Rennis Buchner

[Rennis Buchner]

I tried to get the Metallica "Unforgiven [1]" video from YouTube. The link was there, but it was a no-go. Metallica has been all over this stuff since the Napster days, and although I'd like to see the video for the hundredth time, I'm glad artists are able to remove anything copyright-sensitive to them.

Drew

Often the people getting the items "removed" at the labels and not the artists. While I agree that artists should have the right to control what happens with their music, I know of a couple of situations where artists have been completely ok with people uploading their material, but the labels have stepped in and had it taken down regardless. One recent example I can think of is a video clip someone made showing the "mis-heard" lyrics to a section of song that was quite funny. They showed this to the artist who thought it was great and recommended they put it up on YouTube for further exposure (you could probably also argue that this might fall under parody and was completely legal as well, but it may be a borderline case). Regardless, the label simply noticed the track name on the title (they almost never actually look at the content of these) and had it taken down, without looking at the context at all and here the artist had completely approved of and even encouraged the video clip.

Rennis

[Shadowfax]

Heiney Sensei is visiting our dojo this week. I have told sensei Garth about this so he can let her know about it.

[Charles Hill]

It's kind of disappointing that practically no one has responded at the link. (My comment was taken down, maybe others have commented but had the comment taken down? Somehow doubt it.)Also, Mark's comment has gotten a thumb down.

With so many Saotome and Yamada students here, I thought there would be a bigger response. Maybe, I am making too big of a deal about it. In fact, I have only bought Saotome's Principles of Aikido and the one on henka waza and was thinking of buying some more. I think I will save a few of my hard earned bucks and request the guy to put more up. Any recommendations on what I should ask for?

[gdandscompserv]

It's kind of disappointing that practically no one has responded at the link. (My comment was taken down, maybe others have commented but had the comment taken down? Somehow doubt it.)Also, Mark's comment has gotten a thumb down.

With so many Saotome and Yamada students here, I thought there would be a bigger response. Maybe, I am making too big of a deal about it. In fact, I have only bought Saotome's Principles of Aikido and the one on henka waza and was thinking of buying some more. I think I will save a few of my hard earned bucks and request the guy to put more up. Any recommendations on what I should ask for?
A video of Dan H. would be nice.;)