Slashdot Mirror

Clearly our greatest enemies are the corporations. I call for Santorum to be tried as a traitor.

Yeah, and there is just as much chance of that happening as there is of the RIAA suing the president.

Support EFF and Downhill Battle. They are fighting for our rights every day.

for those illegal MP3s! He should have known!

there's no excuse for piracy!

It seems likely that the Supreme Court will not overturn the lower Court's decision, and that is good for artists and consumers. Good riddance to the big labels, I say.

But the question of compensating artists has not been addressed. We need to create an environment where downloaders want to support musicians they love rather than simply downloading their stuff for free.

Musicians need to start setting up tipjars and consumers need to ask rigorous question about how much of anything they purchase goes to an intermediary.

I recently went to a concert of Kristin Hersh where she sold no CD's but encouraged people to support her by buying mp3's of demos off her website. I bought $20 of mp3's off her website, of which Hersh received a significant percentage. Is that the future?

Here are some other thoughts about how to reward musicians

Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract

Sites in the US typically sell tracks for 99 cents each. The wholesale price is currently 65 cents per track

The wholesale price of a track is thought to be around 65c, but the success of Apple's iTunes online music store, which to date has sold more than 200m songs and accounts for some 65% of the download market, has raised the eyebrows of music executives

In the United States, online stores typical sell music downloads for about 99c per track. The wholesale cost of these tracks (that the shops pay) is about 65c."

The majors are asking and getting about 65 cents per download from each 99 cent download from Apple

with Apple paying the record companies an average of 65cents per track...[from a FORTUNE article]

Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract

Sites in the US typically sell tracks for 99 cents each. The wholesale price is currently 65 cents per track

The wholesale price of a track is thought to be around 65c, but the success of Apple's iTunes online music store, which to date has sold more than 200m songs and accounts for some 65% of the download market, has raised the eyebrows of music executives

In the United States, online stores typical sell music downloads for about 99c per track. The wholesale cost of these tracks (that the shops pay) is about 65c."

The majors are asking and getting about 65 cents per download from each 99 cent download from Apple

with Apple paying the record companies an average of 65cents per track...[from a FORTUNE article]

Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract

Sites in the US typically sell tracks for 99 cents each. The wholesale price is currently 65 cents per track

The wholesale price of a track is thought to be around 65c, but the success of Apple's iTunes online music store, which to date has sold more than 200m songs and accounts for some 65% of the download market, has raised the eyebrows of music executives

In the United States, online stores typical sell music downloads for about 99c per track. The wholesale cost of these tracks (that the shops pay) is about 65c."

The majors are asking and getting about 65 cents per download from each 99 cent download from Apple

with Apple paying the record companies an average of 65cents per track...[from a FORTUNE article]

Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract

Sites in the US typically sell tracks for 99 cents each. The wholesale price is currently 65 cents per track

The wholesale price of a track is thought to be around 65c, but the success of Apple's iTunes online music store, which to date has sold more than 200m songs and accounts for some 65% of the download market, has raised the eyebrows of music executives

In the United States, online stores typical sell music downloads for about 99c per track. The wholesale cost of these tracks (that the shops pay) is about 65c."

The majors are asking and getting about 65 cents per download from each 99 cent download from Apple

with Apple paying the record companies an average of 65cents per track...[from a FORTUNE article]

btw, I'm a musician too, and I support filesharing. and don't call me moron.

The point is, the rules just changed. Its not interesting what you or I could do with BT or DC++ or whatever. what I'm saying is that the technology allows EVERYONE to do it. and when BT is gone, something will replace it, ad infinitum, forever so that there is going to be a sizeable percentage of people that for the rest of time are going to "steal" your music. either you can reconcile yourself with that and make a living the old fashioned way by gigging, self-promotion (which is gruelling hard work) and actually being talented or you can whine about it. the rest of us will be working to do something about it.

Think of the last 50 years of the record industry as the dotcom boom stretched out over several decades.

Doing the Math:

Average payout: $2/CD
12 Songs * $0.12 = 1.44

RIAA: $11/CD - $2.50 (Artist+Publication) = $8.50/CD (Same source as above)
12 Songs * ($0.64-$0.12) = $6.24/CD

BUT, for iTunes distribution, they don't have to pay Shipping & Recieving personnel, warehouses, purchasing managers... All those are replaced with 1-2 accountants per download company. Obviously I didn't figure in marketing and such, but I would assume costs would be similar for online and physical distribution.

for those who don't know, the grey album is a remix record using beats from the beatle's white album with vocals from jay-z's black album it's available at http://www.bannedmusic.org/ and is hosted by http://www.downhillbattle.org/. DJ Dangermouse was the DJ who made this mix.

single-world wide release dates for DVD's (I know there is an argument about stagering cinema releases to get the stars to all the premiers around the world, but no excuse why you can download US DVD rips while it's in UK cinemas)

A movie will often have several underlying works owned by several different owners, such as a story, soundtrack songs, etc. Sometimes, different holding companies own exclusive licenses to a given underlying work. It takes time to negotiate with each owner. For an example of a particularly bad case, look at Eyes on the Prize .

In addition, digital projection isn't ubiquitous yet. It takes time and money to make thousands of prints of a film for thousands of screens, which is why a movie opens in different countries at different times.

It also takes time to dub the film into foreign languages, especially for G and PG films (where small children can't easily read subtitles) and for films shown in countries that prefer dubbing over subtitling.

Really, good ideas. Considered tossing those gems up to the activists of Downhill Battle?

thats the general princaple behind blog torrent, atleast thats what the developer explained to me when he was starting. ideally it could be coded into a plug in for firefox in addition to the specialized self extracting exe they use now. http://www.blogtorrent.com/ is the site, its an offshoot of http://downhillbattle.org/.

That's pretty specious logic. Buying an iPod--or for that matter a Powerbook--doesn't enter one into some kind of desperate codependency where you have to take care of Apple. It's a business transaction, not a Vegas marriage. ;-)

You need to understand this because there are several good reasons to think seriously about the ethics of shopping through iTunes.

Apple makes less than $0.10 per song sold on the iTunes music store, quite a bit less than the $0.35 estimated by http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/. Check out this article instead: http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5088849.html. The key quote being:

Still, even those optimistic about the market don't see Apple getting a major boost to the bottom line.

"At a profit of less than 10 cents per song, the music store does not represent a major income opportunity for Apple," [analyst Charles] Wolf wrote in the July report. Still, the company could benefit from increased iPod sales, he said.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/

I also read that music bought from the Apple Music Store gives even LESS money to the artist. $16 cds only give $1 or less to the artist, and many times it is worse than that.

So here is my situation. I have been reading about the RIAA and how it screws over artists, and hey, I don't want to support that! Instead of paying them my money, I get music for free until they go under. Then a better system can take over.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/ is what really pushed me over. Check out their posters, I have them all over my walls. http://www.downhillbattle.org/flyers/?PHPSESSID=72 5ad2c3bab3c780a7721fc58a54177c

I also read that music bought from the Apple Music Store gives even LESS money to the artist. $16 cds only give $1 or less to the artist, and many times it is worse than that.

So here is my situation. I have been reading about the RIAA and how it screws over artists, and hey, I don't want to support that! Instead of paying them my money, I get music for free until they go under. Then a better system can take over.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/ is what really pushed me over. Check out their posters, I have them all over my walls. http://www.downhillbattle.org/flyers/?PHPSESSID=72 5ad2c3bab3c780a7721fc58a54177c

The guys over at India's department of Space, National Remote Sensing Agency posted a link to an 8MB powerpoint slide of satellite images of the affected areas which effectively crippled their server due to the demand. Some of us readers over at Tsunamihelp.blogspot.com mananged to get some mirrors up here and here. I also created a .torrent which includes the images(in a PowerPoint presentation) as well as a bunch of footage of the tsunami that has been going around bringing down servers. Grab the .Torrent. Please grab the .torrent unless you're really lazy, the other mirrors will probably be tried first by those who really need the data. More seeders needed for that .torrent, leave your BT clients running please.

I am not a pirate, I purchase all of my own songs, online or on CD, and the assumption on your behalf that I am a pirate is a good example of what the RIAA and the MPAA are using in their justification to sue people.

Herea good article by the guy responsible for putting out the Nirvana: In Utero album, you just might want to read it to find out who truly are the thieves in the industry, the people who steal the songs are just as likely to buy their CD's, all you are paying for is the CD, not the music

A person who expects compensation for their art regardless of the quality of the art is a business person, not an artist, and in my mind they are subject to whatever marketplace competition is due to them, and if they can't bring their product to market in a reasonable amount of time with reasonable expectation of consumer interest, then they should get out of the business all together.

To paraphrase what Ian MacKay states in this article with downhillbattle.org, "I may have written the song, so I think, 'I authored that song' but it's not property, it's not property for anybody!"
Interview with Ian MacKay of the Fugazi record label and Dischord

I am sorry to say my friend, but you accuse me of being a pirate, when I download the song to listen to see if I want to buy it, exactly like if it were playing on the radio, I don't keep the file download, because that would be truly stupid. If the music industry wouldn't have essentially "bribed" radio broadcasters into playing their "hit" songs over and over again, we might actually have a place that we could be exposed to decent music from new bands.

Don't assume that someone is a pirate just because they are defending their fair-use rights under copyright law, yes I rip songs from my CD's and place them on my hard drive for future musical compilations, (notice I didn't say MY songs because I don't own the songs), but I don't give them to someone else.


When the United States were still just British colonies, there taxes placed on various normal items, such a paper, and tea. These were placed by a corrupt Pariliament who wanted to bail out the East India Company from bankruptcy by removing most of the taxes on tea, and stifling smuggling of tea into the US, which was one of the few ways that the American colonies could make any money due to the oppressive taxes already in place for other goods.

Because of this repeal of the taxes on tea, the East India Company could sell the tea at a cheaper price, but none of proceeds would benefit the colonists, and furthermore it would allow Parliament to raise the overall prices of goods and services through the enactment of port controls and further taxation.

When the governor of the region met with some 5000 people, from Boston and surrounding towns, to send the ships carrying the "cheaper" tea back to England due to popular discontent with the situation, the governor refused to allow this to happen.

On December 16, 1773, 60 men from Boston dressed as mohawk indians raided the ships carrying the tea and dumped the tea into the boston harbor.
The Encyclopedia Americana (Connecticut; Grolier Incorporated, 1988)

The colonists back then were considered thieves, due to the fact that they rose up against a company that was colluding with a corrupt government, to dilute the value of a good used by other persons to maintain their livelihoods, as well as provide their families with food on the table.

But truly is this theivery? These were great men in history, men who stood up for their human right to provide for their families and make sure that their struggling societies survived, this among other things, is what formed the ideal to separate from the British empire, and become our own country.


The music industry is taxing those persons who wish to listen to music, through exhorbita

ummm....The FBI doesn't kick in doors of legitimate businesses. I'm all for free change of ideas and works...as long as the people creating those ideas and works are alright with it. Sites like http://www.downhillbattle.org/ and http://www.craigslist.org/ have the right idea. Sites like http://www.suprnova.org/(rest it's soul) do not.

The fact that sites are being shutdown is nothing major. The system that the **AA is using is antiquated. They're dead, but they don't know it. Donate to the EFF
and Down Hill Battle
Let the **AA know how outdated they are.

(To both the PP and GPP)

Then again, there's the route of not buying the DVD, and applying something similar to the RIAA sticker to the cases in the store. Less punishement, more of a logical link, and it actually serves the useful cause of informing others through your civil disobedience.

Send coal to the MPAA/RIAA.
http://www.downhillbattle.org/coal/

Sorry, hate to be a N*zi.

Heh, don't apologize. I had that one downhillbattle.org on the mind.

I think this previous post covers our thinking on the subject pretty well.

When it comes to really large files, uploading them from a home computer to a webserver is no picnic. Most people don't have more than 500MB on their web hosting account. And uploading really large files in a web form is really flakey--there's no status bar, etc. Also, if your original file is on a home computer with a cable modem, just getting the file uploaded could take a couple days. In the meantime, Bittorrent would have spread a large part of that file around to several peers, and people could have begun downloading it.

For a large organization with a large server, Dijjer could be a better bet. But for a blogger with not-much-web-space and a cable modem, we think Blogtorrent will be easier to use.

Holmes Wilson

Downhill Battle

I think this previous post covers our thinking on the subject pretty well.

When it comes to really large files, uploading them from a home computer to a webserver is no picnic. Most people don't have more than 500MB on their web hosting account. And uploading really large files in a web form is really flakey--there's no status bar, etc. Also, if your original file is on a home computer with a cable modem, just getting the file uploaded could take a couple days. In the meantime, Bittorrent would have spread a large part of that file around to several peers, and people could have begun downloading it.

For a large organization with a large server, Dijjer could be a better bet. But for a blogger with not-much-web-space and a cable modem, we think Blogtorrent will be easier to use.

Holmes Wilson

Downhill Battle

Well, it was originally named Battletorrent, which was less buzzwordy, but obviously more confrontational. We decided to rename it Blogtorrent not because it *was* a blog (although you could use it to have an all-video blog), but rather because it was *built for* blogs.

A site like waxy.org has waxy.org/bt. But that's too complicated for most people to set up on their own.

Holmes
DB

Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:58:45 -0800 (PST)
From: spatch3
Subject: Opposition to bill HR4077
To: feinstein, boxer

Dear Senators,

I realize it is an ongoing, uphill, losing battle to
continually oppose more egregious and draconian
copyright bills that keep cropping up in both the
house and senate. I believe, as do the courts, that
the DMCA of 1998 has many un-constitutional provisions
in it and bill HR4077, presently going to the Senate,
is no different than the DMCA in this respect.
I strongly encourage you to vote against the bill referred to here:

To enhance criminal enforcement of the copyright laws, to educate the public about the application of copyright law to the Internet, and for other purposes.

Please see the following sites for dissenting voices
about this legislation:

Senate May Ram Copyright Bill

Your Rights Online: Senate May Rush Copyright Legislation

Bad: HR4077 Passed the House


Thank you for your consideration.

Chris


PS: Links to court cases that have struck down or
clarified significant portions of the 1998 DMCA:

Court strikes a good balance in file swapping case

Lexmark loses printer toner cartridges lawsuit; DMCA dives, consumers win big

Lexmark Loss Good for Consumers

United States: Circumvention Provision Of The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Is Not A New Property Right

because iTunes iSbogus. The artist still gets fucked by their record label when you buy from iTunes. You should probably read a little about what Downhill Battle is about.

because iTunes iSbogus. The artist still gets fucked by their record label when you buy from iTunes. You should probably read a little about what Downhill Battle is about.

They appear to be contradicting themselves. On the page announcing the project they wrote:

The lawsuits aren't enough. The major record labels are literally trying to send people to prison for sharing music, and a new bill in Congress right now would let them.

Makes sense - but on the response page you linked to, they write:

Above all, and this is something we mention on our description page, it is crucial to support and protect filesharing against the current onslaught of the RIAA and MPAA-- not because we want people to get Hollywood's stuff for free, but because the real promise of the technology is to let people create and share their own music and movies.

Which is it? Is this GAIM project about providing a way for people to trade copyrighted files without going to jail, or for people to create and share their own music and movies?

For what it's worth, the bill they referenced would not make it a jailable offense for sharing your own music and movies.

What is downhillbattle's intent with this project? If it's to create a platform for people to share the stuff they've created, that's great, but why lead the project description with the horrors of the latest potential threat to people who share other's copyrighted work? It should be completely irrelevant.

And -- and this has been raised before -- if I have my own movies and music, why would I need yet another platform to distribute it? The web and the existing P2P platforms work remarkably well for people to distribute their stuff. The benefit of the GAIM project seems to be a platform for protection from prying eyes... but why on earth would I worry about that if I'm distributing my own stuff?

Downhill Battle has responded to some of the questions raised in this thread. This question and forum session proves that discussion makes things clearer.

It seems to me that those for the gaim filesharing project agree to some extent about reforming the music industry and those who write extremely rhetorical questions against the project do not share the proactive sentiments of Downhill Battle's activism, which is totally fine. On a fundamental level though, there will be small-scale sharing as well as large-scale sharing and the two do not conflict, while the small-scale could chip away at the major labels in a different way than the large-scale sharing.

If you don't get to the end of their post about this, their plug for their new slashdot site is actually worthwhile, go to The Regular.

A response has shown up on downhillbattle, it covers some of the points people have talked about in this thread.

has anyone else looked at the complaint

hmmm michael jackson... I knew he needed money but man this is a new low

You may not have caught this, but the courts have changed their opinion on the matter, at least as it relates to using the music in new commercial works.

After De La Sould was sued by The Turtles in 1989 all recognizable samples had to be cleared (ie rights to use them had to be obtained).
This year, Sept. 7, there was a new ruling regarding NWA's use of a two second Funkadelic clip in the song "100 Miles and Running".

A lower court said that the sampling "did not rise to the level of legally cognizable appropriation." The federal appeals court, however, has this to say, "If you cannot pirate the whole sound recording, can you `lift' or `sample' something less than the whole? Our answer is negative,"..."Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way."

To help point out the extreme absurdity of the notion that this is not stifling creativity, someone put up a website and requested submissions of songs made entirely of the two-second sample. There are currently 177 examples . But of course, that's not creativity...

You may not have caught this, but the courts have changed their opinion on the matter, at least as it relates to using the music in new commercial works.

After De La Sould was sued by The Turtles in 1989 all recognizable samples had to be cleared (ie rights to use them had to be obtained).
This year, Sept. 7, there was a new ruling regarding NWA's use of a two second Funkadelic clip in the song "100 Miles and Running".

A lower court said that the sampling "did not rise to the level of legally cognizable appropriation." The federal appeals court, however, has this to say, "If you cannot pirate the whole sound recording, can you `lift' or `sample' something less than the whole? Our answer is negative,"..."Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way."

To help point out the extreme absurdity of the notion that this is not stifling creativity, someone put up a website and requested submissions of songs made entirely of the two-second sample. There are currently 177 examples . But of course, that's not creativity...

If you are new to this topic, check out Downhill Battle or EFF or my website. By the way, the Xmas season is almost upon us. Time to remind people that CDs make crappy presents.

One of the very positive aspects of music sharing which was often touted in the early days by pro-sharers (much of slashdot) is that it gives may people an avenue to obtain music which is no longer available via 'legal' means, and serves as a way to introduce lesser known artists to a wide range of people.

Producers of top 40 artists may balk at the idea that their millions are being eroded by people downloading from P2P rather than buying the latest $15 CD. To a much lesser extent the artists themselves, don't forget the vast majority of artists make peanuts, despite the image projected by those successful enough to outlive a 3-year contract. Artists that are not "top 40" material have a much harder time getting the message out, as they are constantly bumped off playlists by the RIAA - Clearchannel consortium of special interests.

So 'unauthorised' filesharing of copyrighted material DOES, in many artists view, serve a great purpose.

Like shareware... where would you programmers be if the only way to buy your software was to pay full price before downloading? For artists the problem is much deeper, since if someone likes one song by an artist the chances are he will search for more songs by the same artist, maybe buy CDs, and even go to concerts (the real earner).

Go see here for some interesting information.

Personally, I have very little 'illegal' music on my iRiver player. Most of what I *did* download I have actually bought the CD or deleted since. Some of it was music I have owned in various formats and lost but refuse to purchase again.

Tell me what's morally wrong with *my* actions

Copyright collective as a solution to the music p2p problem is not a new idea. Downhillbattle.org and the EFF have been saying that Voluntary Collective Licensing is the ideal solution for quite some time already. Even The Recording Industry Ass. Of America could get a piece of that money, even though it should go mostly to the artists.

http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/
It's a good article on artist's takes from online stores.
Apple says iTunes is "better than free" because it's "fair to the artists and record labels." That's simply not true. First of all, Apple gets 3 times as much money as musicians from each sale. Apple takes a 35% cut from every song and every album sold, a huge amount considering how little they have to do. Record labels receive the other 65% of each sale. Of this, major label artists will end up with only 8 to 14 cents per song, depending on their contract...

Apple gets $.35/track - since when is 1/3 of the asking price a 'Tiny profit' for a middle man?

...I'm never buying another CD again...

There's nothing wrong with buying CD's in and of itself. Just don't buy from the RIAA members. There are lots of indie's out there who sell CD's. Using the irate client, I've found a couple that aren't bad, and I haven't used the client very much (mostly due to the fact I run KDE and it uses gtk, which doesn't like being a child of artsdsp).

For the more militant among us, there are always the sticker campaign (see http://www.downhillbattle.org/riaa/index.html ) too.

What about the fact that it doesn't work with the iTunes Music Store?

Well, it makes up for that with the fact that it plays WMA, meaning it works with all the other online music stores that the iPod *DOESN'T* work with. So, you can buy your music cheaper from Walmart or Napster.

Of course, you may as well just use eDonkey to get the songs. The iTunes Music Store (and Napster, Walmart, etc) are still screwing the artists.

Or they'll do what most iPod owners do and get their music for free. You might find this interesting, and this. I should also say that I own an iPod, and not only have I never used the iTMS, but I don't even have iTunes installed.

...for this. Look at the caption on the second and the last pictures. If you're going to throw moral/ethical stones at the RIAA, get out of the glass house.

Fuck the Itunes music store altogether, it's bad for musicians: http://downhillbattle.org/itunes/

Good on them - a lot of publicity for not much cash. Nice.

You're right about the publicity. I just went to downhillbattle.org and learned about their interesting (and rather illegal) stickering program. I'd be interested in buying a pack myself, but I would have to consider:

* How many laws would I break if I went to Wally World and added some "decoration" to the CDs?

* Who would like to throw my bail at the Kaufman County Jail?

* Barring that, there's always the Poor Farm

* Can I really trust an outfit that thinks that a side-scrolling website design is a Good Thing?

It's called the "Golden DVD", and our friends at Downhill Battle have already come up with that. Which means that the odds of the major labels doing it are slim to none. ;-)