Slashdot Mirror

And that is the exact reason we setup something called Fairtunes that allows you to voluntarily pay for copyrighted music that you may (or may not have) 'stolen'/downloaded.

Matt
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com

I meant fairtunes.com

I'll agree with the first statement.. But I ended up doing research on the TLC issue because of the nature of the website (www.fairtunes.com) I run. And the fact of the matter is that one of the TLC girls burned down a million dollar house and the insurance wouldn't cover... So yes they may be getting screwed by their label but at the end of the day TLC mis-managed their money and should not have burnt that house down. Google TLC and bankruptcy you might be able to find the real story.

Matt
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com

I'll agree with the first statement.. But I ended up doing research on the TLC issue because of the nature of the website (www.fairtunes.com) I run. And the fact of the matter is that one of the TLC girls burned down a million dollar house and the insurance wouldn't cover... So yes they may be getting screwed by their label but at the end of the day TLC mis-managed their money and should not have burnt that house down. Google TLC and bankruptcy you might be able to find the real story.

Matt
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com

A compressed version of a song cannot ever be clearer than the original from which it was created. At best, it can only be equally clear.

For just one idea of how creativity can be rewarded in a society without copyright, check out www.fairtunes.com (or its half-serious predecessor, paylars).

I will start out paying CDs once fairtunes.com (or whoever else) impliment a good system,

Could you elaborate a bit? What improvements would you like to see?

John Cormie
Co-founder
fairtunes.com

Forget the labels. Send your money to your artist directly. You can get out the checkbook and write them a check and drop it in the mail. Of course finding the right address isn't as easy as many think it is. But we are working on developing a list so that you don't have to get trapped in voice mail hell. It should be up in a few weeks.

Or you can go to www.fairtunes.com and send money directly to any artist with your credit card. We'll sit on the phone and get the addresses and ensure your money gets there. Lots of people have been concerned about us actually sending the money. Check out our FAQ. It should now cover everyone's concerns.

Of course can we the music consumers turn this protest of the moment into a future payment model? That is the big question. Can we be trusted and responsible enough to voluntarily give what is fair?

I really hope we can because the record label is screwing us the listeners and it's screwing the artists.

Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes

Forget the labels. Send your money to your artist directly. You can get out the checkbook and write them a check and drop it in the mail. Of course finding the right address isn't as easy as many think it is. But we are working on developing a list so that you don't have to get trapped in voice mail hell. It should be up in a few weeks.

Or you can go to www.fairtunes.com and send money directly to any artist with your credit card. We'll sit on the phone and get the addresses and ensure your money gets there. Lots of people have been concerned about us actually sending the money. Check out our FAQ. It should now cover everyone's concerns.

Of course can we the music consumers turn this protest of the moment into a future payment model? That is the big question. Can we be trusted and responsible enough to voluntarily give what is fair?

I really hope we can because the record label is screwing us the listeners and it's screwing the artists.

Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes

Forget the labels. Send your money to your artist directly. You can get out the checkbook and write them a check and drop it in the mail. Of course finding the right address isn't as easy as many think it is. But we are working on developing a list so that you don't have to get trapped in voice mail hell. It should be up in a few weeks.

Or you can go to www.fairtunes.com and send money directly to any artist with your credit card. We'll sit on the phone and get the addresses and ensure your money gets there. Lots of people have been concerned about us actually sending the money. Check out our FAQ. It should now cover everyone's concerns.

Of course can we the music consumers turn this protest of the moment into a future payment model? That is the big question. Can we be trusted and responsible enough to voluntarily give what is fair?

I really hope we can because the record label is screwing us the listeners and it's screwing the artists.

Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes

Matt.

Matt.

www.fairtunes.com is spitting out a Content-Type: text/html;charset=8859_1 header. Lynx (at least 2.8rel.2 which is what I'm typing on) doesn't seem to like that at all. (It asks whether I'd like to download the page, or cancel.)

I must confess to being too lazy to read that monstrous HTTP/1.1 protocol doc right now, so I'm not sure if this is a lynx bug, or a protocol violation on fairtunes' part. But either way, it's something that needs to be investigated. Hope this helps.

We've just released a draft of our Music Payment Protocol so any ambitious soul can integrate the Fairtunes voluntary payment model into something like opennap or XMMS or WinAmp..

Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes Inc.

We've just released a draft of our Music Payment Protocol so any ambitious soul can integrate the Fairtunes voluntary payment model into something like opennap or XMMS or WinAmp..

Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes Inc.

People are usually sending between $5-$20US. Since there is no minimum limit a few people have put through transactions as low as $0.15. But usually people are being very generous. And I guess it's interesting to note that more money is being sent to "no-name" artists than the big name top 40 bunch.

Matt.
co-founder
Fairtunes

People are usually sending between $5-$20US. Since there is no minimum limit a few people have put through transactions as low as $0.15. But usually people are being very generous. And I guess it's interesting to note that more money is being sent to "no-name" artists than the big name top 40 bunch.

Matt.
co-founder
Fairtunes

People are usually sending between $5-$20US. Since there is no minimum limit a few people have put through transactions as low as $0.15. But usually people are being very generous. And I guess it's interesting to note that more money is being sent to "no-name" artists than the big name top 40 bunch.

Matt.
co-founder
Fairtunes

Matt.
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com

Matt.
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com

Matt.
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com

Sorry about my combative tone in the previous post. I was fed up with seeing the same misconceptions repeated over and over as fact, and I decided to pick on you. And I got a bit carried away, in that while most of what I said is undebatable fact, there is certainly some leeway in the way the AHRA can be interpreted. That is, it explicitly makes all non-commercial copying of recorded music legal, but elsewhere in the Act it places an automatic "RIAA-tax" royalty on blank recordable media--DAT at that time, and some CD-R's now.

The implicit assumption was that this way, at least the RIAA wouldn't lose any money on non-commercial copying. (It does, however, blow away any argument you and Lars may have that copyright entitles you to know and control exactly what happens to your music at all times.) The "problem" is that in the digital world, all media are created equal. That is, we no longer need a special medium built just to carry recorded music--anything which accepts 1's and 0's works equally well. Thus, since the RIAA couldn't possibly ask for royalties on hard drive sales, since hard drives can be used to hold anything, including music, then the tradeoff they thought they engineered into the law goes away. IMO, this in no way negates the fact that the law explicitly states that all non-commercial copying of recorded music is fair use, but there are those who would disagree.

So, to answer your question, the law at issue is the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act. ( 1008 is particularly relevant.) If you asked any Constitutional copyright law expert, they would probably tell you that was not a "change" but in fact a codification of existing copyright law--that if anything, the AHRA was a setback for consumer fair use rights, because of the assuption that non-commercial copying could only be "bought" in exchange for a tariff on blank media, and that it was only legal for recorded music and not all copyrighted materials. Of course, if you asked a corporate copyright attorney they'd probably tell you the opposite.

the fact remains that distribution of someone's art without their permission is wrong. If you believe otherwise, you truly belong in Stallman's academic socialist cults.

Ever been to a public library? Do you think they're morally "wrong"??

You do realize that a public library redistributes the work of thousands of authors without their permission and without compensating them, don't you??

Yes, there is one inherent difference between a library and Napster: when you take a book out of a library, you only get to read it once before you have to return it; with MP3s, you get to choose to keep the recording on your computer for as long as you want. Of course, the way people use books is totally different from the way they use songs--they usually read a book only once; if they do reread a book, they only do so after many years (and you can always check a book out of the library again and reread it later).

The end point is that a library performs exactly the same function as Napster--it allows one person who has purchased a copyrighted work of art to non-commercially donate it so that many people can use it for free in the way that such works of art are traditionally used by those who buy them. For all the same reasons as why libraries have not hurt sales of books, Napster will not and has not hurt sales of CD's. And for all the same reasons as why donating your books to your local library is an good deed and a benefit to your community, ripping CD's and sharing the MP3's on Napster is a good deed and a benefit to the worldwide community of Internet users. (Or is donating a book to the library only a good deal to those of us in "socialist cults"?? Hee hee hee.)

I damn well better have a way of making sure that I'm not losing CD sales to kids on fucking Napster. You may care less if the artists whose work you steal starve,

As I'm sure you've read, numerous studies (here's one) confirm that Napster use has the effect of increasing CD sales. Images of musicians starving in the streets due to MP3 trading really have no place in this discussion.

ask any professional musician what they think of the idea, and they won't like it.

Why don't you ask the Smashing Pumpkins what they think of it? Or Limp Bizkit? Or Chuck D? Or the Offspring? Or Courtney Love? Or Ben Folds Five? Or Eve 6?

I suppose Neil Young and Radiohead aren't professional musicians??? Nor the Greatful Dead??

All these musicians and more are on the record pledging support for Napster. Of course, many musicians are on the record as being against Napster as well. (Metallica, Dr. Dre, Eminem, Alanis Morrisette, etc.) The point is, just as none of these professional musicians can pretend to speak for each other, you or the RIAA very most certainly cannot. If you ask me, it matters much more what the Constitution and the Supreme Court record say, and it chooses my side over yours; but the point that even professional musicians (who, I might add, might be very reluctant to publically go against the RIAA even if they do support Naptser) are split on the issue ought to tell you something about the recording industry you're so desperately trying to ply as a moral good.

[If you rip a CD and share it on Napster]...you're just a lowly pickpocket.

Well, no. If your analogy made any sense, then to be correct it would be "you're just like Robin Hood"--that is, you're "stealing" something for the purposes of selflessly giving it to others.

Disregarding that, I have trouble believing that you cannot understand the difference between true theft, which involves taking a scarce good which cannot be replaced, and "unauthorized" copying, which involves making more of a non-scarce good without taking anything from anyone. (As for the argument that it takes away "sales", see above.)

To anyone who makes a living from the music industry, Napster is the digital equivalent of the LA riots.

Come on. If by "anyone who makes a living from the music industry" you mean a recording label executive, then I'd say it's the digital equivalent of the Boston Tea Party, if not the Montgomery Bus Boycott. If by "anyone who makes a living from the music industry" you mean a musician, then the suggestion that having your art spread to thousands more people than was otherwise possible is equivalent to having the corner market in which you have invested all your savings and decades of your life looted and burned is patently ridiculous and extremely insulting.

In the meantime, I'm going to go investigate the validity of your statements, and if what you say is true, today is a grim day for The_Messenger.

This is what really bothers me about your approach to this issue: you truly believe that creating something gives you the right to control every possible way that thing is ever used. Luckily, our intellectual property laws are not founded on such a ludicrous and unworkable premise.

And so I ask you: why on earth would such a day be so horribly grim??

From what you've told us about yourself, you're a musician; I'm going to assume, then, that you're also a music lover. Taking each position in turn, then...

As a musician, whose songs might be traded on Napster: Are you signed by a recording label?? If so, my sincere congratulations--only a small fraction of professional musicians are. Even if you are, though, I'm assuming that you're not one of the several-dozen-artists-per-year who is actively promoted to the mainstream public through label-directed radio play. Thus, by having your songs traded via Napster, you gain an incredible free promotional service which was never before available. Indeed, before Napster many up-and-coming artists had to buy copies of their own CD's to give them away in promotional record "clubs" like BMG and Columbia House (yes, the artist, not the label, pays for those copies)--now with Napster many more signed artists can reach many times more people for free! Plus, unlike a record club, someone who downloads your song from Napster and likes it is very likely to buy your entire CD; with a record club, they already have the CD, and usually have no idea that they are taking money from the artist's pocket instead of the other way around.

If you're not signed, then (should your recordings somehow find their way to Napster without your permission) you obviously have nothing to lose. You probably won't make any money off the deal, but you will have the satisfaction of spreading your art to thousands and potentially even more people, which ought to be the main goal of any real artist. Incidentally, in this case you ought to look into putting your music on something like mp3.com--it probably won't make you too much money, but it'll get you some income, expose your music to a huge listener base, and do so without putting you in debt for life to a recording label, which a record contract would most likely do.

As a music lover: Suddenly, you have access to Napster, the world's largest collection of music--perhaps the world's largest collection of art in history. Why don't you try it out? Download the software, fire it up...search for an artist you particularly love. Maybe you'll find live recordings you'd never have heard otherwise. Maybe you'll find out about an album they did that you'd never heard, or find remixes they'd done to others' music/had done to theirs.

Now, click on a user who has one of their songs and add them to your hotlist; then go to your hotlist and browse their shared library. Maybe you'll find songs you'd heard before and maybe even wanted to purchase but had forgotten to. Almost certainly you'll see lots of songs and artists you've never heard of. Download a couple. Try them out. Maybe you'll like them, maybe not.

Maybe you'll discover a new band that will speak to you. Given a few attempts at this, you probably will. Search for more of their stuff. Maybe you'll want to buy their CD, so you can listen to it on a real stereo. If you're a musician and appreciate sound quality, you probably will. Either way, if the music is really good you should ensure that the artist earns some money off of your enjoyment (no, buying the CD does **NOT** do ensure anyone gets any money except the label): donate $5 or $10 to them at fairtunes.com.

Suddenly you'll realize that today wasn't a grim day after all: you'll realize that it maybe changed the way you listen to music, maybe opened some new doors. Maybe slightly changed your life for the better.

And then that's when you'll start sharing the music you love with other people on Napster, so that they might search through your music library and find something that speaks to them like it speaks to you. That's when you'll realize that using Napster isn't about greed or whining or rationalizing, but is about sharing art, about finding new artistic experiences.

Let's face it: stealing is easy. If they wanted to, anyone with half a brain could steal (say) a Porsche a lot more easily than they could earn even a portion of the money it costs. The point is, most people don't steal if there's an alternative.

On the other hand, people don't like being taken advantage of. But that's what they are under both the current music-obtaining model, in which they are forced to pay $18 for an album, without getting the chance to listen to it first, even if they only want one song off it (if they want a digital copy of it so they can listen to it in their Rio, or upload it to their computer at work, they have to rip it themselves or they're out of luck), or under any new model which will pass the RIAA's SDMI requirements.

People like to reward things which impact their lives, which is why I think sales of unfettered MP3's for fair prices would take off if they were as convenient and centralized as Napster. And which is why I think fairtunes.com will grow tremendously in the meantime. I know I've already remunerated several artists whose MP3's I've had for a while and really enjoyed, and I plan on giving more soon.

Given the horriffic way artists are treated by the current system, I have a hard time imagining why anyone cognizent of the proven positive impact Napster has on people's willingness to pay for recorded music could view it as anything but a boon to music lovers everywhere. So why don't you explain to me why you're so against it?

Sorry about my combative tone in the previous post. I was fed up with seeing the same misconceptions repeated over and over as fact, and I decided to pick on you. And I got a bit carried away, in that while most of what I said is undebatable fact, there is certainly some leeway in the way the AHRA can be interpreted. That is, it explicitly makes all non-commercial copying of recorded music legal, but elsewhere in the Act it places an automatic "RIAA-tax" royalty on blank recordable media--DAT at that time, and some CD-R's now.

The implicit assumption was that this way, at least the RIAA wouldn't lose any money on non-commercial copying. (It does, however, blow away any argument you and Lars may have that copyright entitles you to know and control exactly what happens to your music at all times.) The "problem" is that in the digital world, all media are created equal. That is, we no longer need a special medium built just to carry recorded music--anything which accepts 1's and 0's works equally well. Thus, since the RIAA couldn't possibly ask for royalties on hard drive sales, since hard drives can be used to hold anything, including music, then the tradeoff they thought they engineered into the law goes away. IMO, this in no way negates the fact that the law explicitly states that all non-commercial copying of recorded music is fair use, but there are those who would disagree.

So, to answer your question, the law at issue is the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act. ( 1008 is particularly relevant.) If you asked any Constitutional copyright law expert, they would probably tell you that was not a "change" but in fact a codification of existing copyright law--that if anything, the AHRA was a setback for consumer fair use rights, because of the assuption that non-commercial copying could only be "bought" in exchange for a tariff on blank media, and that it was only legal for recorded music and not all copyrighted materials. Of course, if you asked a corporate copyright attorney they'd probably tell you the opposite.

the fact remains that distribution of someone's art without their permission is wrong. If you believe otherwise, you truly belong in Stallman's academic socialist cults.

Ever been to a public library? Do you think they're morally "wrong"??

You do realize that a public library redistributes the work of thousands of authors without their permission and without compensating them, don't you??

Yes, there is one inherent difference between a library and Napster: when you take a book out of a library, you only get to read it once before you have to return it; with MP3s, you get to choose to keep the recording on your computer for as long as you want. Of course, the way people use books is totally different from the way they use songs--they usually read a book only once; if they do reread a book, they only do so after many years (and you can always check a book out of the library again and reread it later).

The end point is that a library performs exactly the same function as Napster--it allows one person who has purchased a copyrighted work of art to non-commercially donate it so that many people can use it for free in the way that such works of art are traditionally used by those who buy them. For all the same reasons as why libraries have not hurt sales of books, Napster will not and has not hurt sales of CD's. And for all the same reasons as why donating your books to your local library is an good deed and a benefit to your community, ripping CD's and sharing the MP3's on Napster is a good deed and a benefit to the worldwide community of Internet users. (Or is donating a book to the library only a good deal to those of us in "socialist cults"?? Hee hee hee.)

I damn well better have a way of making sure that I'm not losing CD sales to kids on fucking Napster. You may care less if the artists whose work you steal starve,

As I'm sure you've read, numerous studies (here's one) confirm that Napster use has the effect of increasing CD sales. Images of musicians starving in the streets due to MP3 trading really have no place in this discussion.

ask any professional musician what they think of the idea, and they won't like it.

Why don't you ask the Smashing Pumpkins what they think of it? Or Limp Bizkit? Or Chuck D? Or the Offspring? Or Courtney Love? Or Ben Folds Five? Or Eve 6?

I suppose Neil Young and Radiohead aren't professional musicians??? Nor the Greatful Dead??

All these musicians and more are on the record pledging support for Napster. Of course, many musicians are on the record as being against Napster as well. (Metallica, Dr. Dre, Eminem, Alanis Morrisette, etc.) The point is, just as none of these professional musicians can pretend to speak for each other, you or the RIAA very most certainly cannot. If you ask me, it matters much more what the Constitution and the Supreme Court record say, and it chooses my side over yours; but the point that even professional musicians (who, I might add, might be very reluctant to publically go against the RIAA even if they do support Naptser) are split on the issue ought to tell you something about the recording industry you're so desperately trying to ply as a moral good.

[If you rip a CD and share it on Napster]...you're just a lowly pickpocket.

Well, no. If your analogy made any sense, then to be correct it would be "you're just like Robin Hood"--that is, you're "stealing" something for the purposes of selflessly giving it to others.

Disregarding that, I have trouble believing that you cannot understand the difference between true theft, which involves taking a scarce good which cannot be replaced, and "unauthorized" copying, which involves making more of a non-scarce good without taking anything from anyone. (As for the argument that it takes away "sales", see above.)

To anyone who makes a living from the music industry, Napster is the digital equivalent of the LA riots.

Come on. If by "anyone who makes a living from the music industry" you mean a recording label executive, then I'd say it's the digital equivalent of the Boston Tea Party, if not the Montgomery Bus Boycott. If by "anyone who makes a living from the music industry" you mean a musician, then the suggestion that having your art spread to thousands more people than was otherwise possible is equivalent to having the corner market in which you have invested all your savings and decades of your life looted and burned is patently ridiculous and extremely insulting.

In the meantime, I'm going to go investigate the validity of your statements, and if what you say is true, today is a grim day for The_Messenger.

This is what really bothers me about your approach to this issue: you truly believe that creating something gives you the right to control every possible way that thing is ever used. Luckily, our intellectual property laws are not founded on such a ludicrous and unworkable premise.

And so I ask you: why on earth would such a day be so horribly grim??

From what you've told us about yourself, you're a musician; I'm going to assume, then, that you're also a music lover. Taking each position in turn, then...

As a musician, whose songs might be traded on Napster: Are you signed by a recording label?? If so, my sincere congratulations--only a small fraction of professional musicians are. Even if you are, though, I'm assuming that you're not one of the several-dozen-artists-per-year who is actively promoted to the mainstream public through label-directed radio play. Thus, by having your songs traded via Napster, you gain an incredible free promotional service which was never before available. Indeed, before Napster many up-and-coming artists had to buy copies of their own CD's to give them away in promotional record "clubs" like BMG and Columbia House (yes, the artist, not the label, pays for those copies)--now with Napster many more signed artists can reach many times more people for free! Plus, unlike a record club, someone who downloads your song from Napster and likes it is very likely to buy your entire CD; with a record club, they already have the CD, and usually have no idea that they are taking money from the artist's pocket instead of the other way around.

If you're not signed, then (should your recordings somehow find their way to Napster without your permission) you obviously have nothing to lose. You probably won't make any money off the deal, but you will have the satisfaction of spreading your art to thousands and potentially even more people, which ought to be the main goal of any real artist. Incidentally, in this case you ought to look into putting your music on something like mp3.com--it probably won't make you too much money, but it'll get you some income, expose your music to a huge listener base, and do so without putting you in debt for life to a recording label, which a record contract would most likely do.

As a music lover: Suddenly, you have access to Napster, the world's largest collection of music--perhaps the world's largest collection of art in history. Why don't you try it out? Download the software, fire it up...search for an artist you particularly love. Maybe you'll find live recordings you'd never have heard otherwise. Maybe you'll find out about an album they did that you'd never heard, or find remixes they'd done to others' music/had done to theirs.

Now, click on a user who has one of their songs and add them to your hotlist; then go to your hotlist and browse their shared library. Maybe you'll find songs you'd heard before and maybe even wanted to purchase but had forgotten to. Almost certainly you'll see lots of songs and artists you've never heard of. Download a couple. Try them out. Maybe you'll like them, maybe not.

Maybe you'll discover a new band that will speak to you. Given a few attempts at this, you probably will. Search for more of their stuff. Maybe you'll want to buy their CD, so you can listen to it on a real stereo. If you're a musician and appreciate sound quality, you probably will. Either way, if the music is really good you should ensure that the artist earns some money off of your enjoyment (no, buying the CD does **NOT** do ensure anyone gets any money except the label): donate $5 or $10 to them at fairtunes.com.

Suddenly you'll realize that today wasn't a grim day after all: you'll realize that it maybe changed the way you listen to music, maybe opened some new doors. Maybe slightly changed your life for the better.

And then that's when you'll start sharing the music you love with other people on Napster, so that they might search through your music library and find something that speaks to them like it speaks to you. That's when you'll realize that using Napster isn't about greed or whining or rationalizing, but is about sharing art, about finding new artistic experiences.

Let's face it: stealing is easy. If they wanted to, anyone with half a brain could steal (say) a Porsche a lot more easily than they could earn even a portion of the money it costs. The point is, most people don't steal if there's an alternative.

On the other hand, people don't like being taken advantage of. But that's what they are under both the current music-obtaining model, in which they are forced to pay $18 for an album, without getting the chance to listen to it first, even if they only want one song off it (if they want a digital copy of it so they can listen to it in their Rio, or upload it to their computer at work, they have to rip it themselves or they're out of luck), or under any new model which will pass the RIAA's SDMI requirements.

People like to reward things which impact their lives, which is why I think sales of unfettered MP3's for fair prices would take off if they were as convenient and centralized as Napster. And which is why I think fairtunes.com will grow tremendously in the meantime. I know I've already remunerated several artists whose MP3's I've had for a while and really enjoyed, and I plan on giving more soon.

Given the horriffic way artists are treated by the current system, I have a hard time imagining why anyone cognizent of the proven positive impact Napster has on people's willingness to pay for recorded music could view it as anything but a boon to music lovers everywhere. So why don't you explain to me why you're so against it?

the legal, ethical, "right" thing to do, which is to jump through the music management industry's hoops and use controlled distribution, management, and playback mechanisms.

Huh??? The ethical thing to do is to get your music from Napster (or copy the CD if you need higher quality), and then directly pay those artists whose music you really enjoy via something like fairtunes.com. That way, you get to exercise your fair use right to try-before-you-buy, and a $5 donation via fairtunes is over 5 times as much as the artist would get in royalties had you spent $18 for the CD. Plus, you can do your part by sharing the music which is important to you with the rest of the world.

Happily, because of the AHRA this is every bit as legal as doing what the RIAA would have you do: buy all new devices to pay-per-listen to lower quality music which denies you your Constitutional fair use rights, all in the name of perpetuating the RIAA's obscene profits and stranglehold over the distribution of music they had no part in creating. I think it's pretty obvious which approach is the more ethical one.

Hey, that's a pretty coll way to make a bootleg.

I'd really love to see the RIAA get a PR smack down for attacking the federal disabilities act, but I think they oftin tollerate bootlegs with small distribution, so I would not expect to see them try to stop this bootleging.

Also, I would not expect Slashdot to post this story unless the RIAA did something. It's not really Slashdt's job to keep up with the latest ways of making concert bootlegs.

The thing I don't understand is why Slashdot ran that story about Mojo, but did not run a story about Fairtunes. Fairtunes and it's cousins have much more potential for really creating the tipping based system of music distribution we all want, but Slashdot posts a story about a system which probable pays off the RIAA.

The whole idea of Fairtunes is that you get to cut the middle man (the RIAA/the label) out and send money to your favorite artist direcly.

But of course will consumers be responsible enough to send money to artists whose music they've "downloaded"? This remains to be seen.

Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes

The whole idea of Fairtunes is that you get to cut the middle man (the RIAA/the label) out and send money to your favorite artist direcly.

But of course will consumers be responsible enough to send money to artists whose music they've "downloaded"? This remains to be seen.

Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes

Matt
co-founder.
www.fairtunes.com

Matt
co-founder.
www.fairtunes.com

To a musician, making their recorded, copyrighted work available to others at no charge is tanamount to theft of their livlihood and art.

So if I make a musician's recorded, copyrighted work available to others at no charge by playing my new CD for a room of my friends, that's theft?

Or if I make a musician's recorded, copyrighted work available to others at no charge by making a mix tape (or mix CD-R) out of CD's I own, that's theft?

Well, so maybe that wasn't meant to say. But I bet you think what you meant to say was something like, if I make a musician's recorded, copyrighted work available to others by offering my computer's services to send them a copy of it at no charge, monetary or otherwise, then that's theft. Right? Cause then you said:

And yes, it's illegal.

Well no, it's not.

All three of the above activities were explicitly made legal by Congress with the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act. The last was specifically reaffirmed in the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which had the opportunity to change the rules regarding non-commercial copying of (copyrighted) musical recordings, but instead just chose to redefine "non-commercial" to include any explicit quid pro quo exchange. Notice that that means the sort of activity which goes on on Napster--that is, "making a recorded, copyrighted work available to others at no charge--is explicitly protected by the law.

I think the difference between the Napster debacle and something like alcohol prohibition is that prohibtion took a legal product (alcohol) and made it illegal.

Is that what you think. The actual fact is that the Napster case...err, "debacle" is precisely akin to suing someone for serving alchohol in the years prior to prohibition. Indeed, just a few weeks ago Congress took what would be the first step towards making the trading which takes place on Napster--which, again, is currently legal pursuant to the AHRA--and making it illegal. They held hearings on the matter, thus giving the RIAA the opportunity to try to buy their 4th (by my count) major anti-constitutional extension of copyright law in the last decade. Happily, current indications are that Congress has decided 3 laws bought and paid for was enough for now. Maybe it's just that even today 20 million constituants are worth more than 20 million dollars.

So, nice try, but no cigar. Of course, your insistance on emphasizing that these aren't just any recordings, but *COPYRIGHTED!!* recordings, should have been the first tipoff that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Guess what: copyright means a great deal less than you must think. And thank god it does, because *every* recorded utterance--whether it's the Post-It note I jot down, my answering machine message, or (heh heh) the playlist I just made in Winamp--is automatically copyrighted. That's right: that time I recorded myself farting into my computer's microphone is afforded exactly the same precious copyright protections as Lars and James' latest post-structuralist masterwork. Even though Metallica's may be a creation of perfect beauty, symmetry, strangeness, originality and moral truth and mine might just be loud repetitive ass-noise.

To wit: no one is allowed to **sell** (this means for a charge) either of our recordings without our express permission. That's about the extent of it.

Well, ok, so there's more: but it's all bad for you. So it turns out people actually *can* sell derivatives of Lars' new magnum opus (or of recorded flatulence)--provided the derivations fall within the various allowed "fair uses" of copyrighted material. That means Dr. Dre can sell a record which samples Lars' new drum solo without his permission, so long as the resulting work is more than just a simple repackaging of Lars' peerless musical artistry. It also means academians the world over can include as much of the original as they need to support their insights as they rush out their breathless analyses of James Hatfield's latest lyrical and historical tour-de-force.

Whether you go out and buy the CD the next day is completely irrelevant if you were never given permission to copy the work in the first place. Think of it this way: if you steal $50 from someone, and send them a check for $500 the next day, you're still guilty of theft.

Oh please. The difference, obviously, is that in your ridiculous analogy, the person a) cannot use those $50 until they get a check several days later and b) knows they were stolen from and thus feels less secure in their person/bank account/however the $50 was stolen in the first place. (Well, the difference is that taking money is theft and sharing music isn't, but I digress.) If there were a way to guarantee that the person who got the money "stolen" from them would always have at least their original amount of money any time they checked and/or wanted to buy something, then it's actively doubtful whether such a practice would be illegal or not. Incidentally, the normal operations of both our banking system and stock markets are predicated upon exactly such a system...

In any case, it is established fair use that you can listen to/watch/read/whatever a copyrighted product before you purchase it to see if you want to spend your money on it, so you're entirely wrong in yet another way!!

The law doesn't care if the victim is better off in the end. The law is the law.

Sorry kiddo--you're 0 for...well, how ever many this is. Amazingly, you got this one DOUBLE wrong!!

1) In order to bring a suit in this country you must have some claim of demonstrable harm. This is one of the most basic principles of law.

2) It turns out that copyright law cares even more if the "victim" is better off in the end. Indeed, the copyright law on the books makes a special point of exempting apparent infringements of copyright as fair use if they end up causing no harm to the "victim". So whereas for most "harmless" civil crimes, the law would technically be broken but the "victim" just couldn't legally sue over it, in the case of copyright law, "harmless" infringement is a legal non sequiter.

If you don't like the law, stop whining and do something about it. Organize, demonstrate, and vote.

ROFL!! So I guess you and all the top-level RIAA executives are going to stage your own little 36-man-and-one-woman-march on Washington???

No, I'm betting you'll all just keep whining. Although at least they're spending millions on lobbyists and bribes, which is more than you can say for yourself.

I agree with Lars wholeheartedly, and I think it is the duty of mega-bands to take a stand, because while Metallica won't feel the pinch of lost CD revenue, less successful musicians will.

I'd be rolling on the floor laughing again if the real situation weren't so tragically pitiful. The fact is that "less successful musicians"--by which I mean the bottom 90% of the lucky perhaps 2% who even get signed by a major label in the first place--never ever see a penny in album royalties. The only money they ever make to live on (from their music jobs at least) comes from pre-album advances.

Unfortunately for them, in the extraordinary event that their measly 5% or so royalty is enough to pay off what they "owe" the record label for studio time, producer time, studio supplies, promotion, marketing, "promotional CD's" like those at Columbia House etc. (yep--those come directly out of the artist's pockets. Hope you feel good about yourself for buying from music clubs now...), tour scheduling, tour equipment, tour promotion, etc. (they "owe" the record companies for all this stuff even though the record company gets to divvy up the remaining 95% of the money)...they even need to pay off the amount of their advance before the band can finally make a cent in royalties. And all the debt from previous, less successful albums follows them until they get out of their contract or go bankrupt (a not uncommon occurance).

Metallica, in rather sharp contrast, keeps something like 80% of the profit from their album sales, because they essentially have their own record label. Now guess who's the ones standing up for the $18-for-a-$1-CD and locked-down-monopolistic-distribution-model way of doing things? Err...I mean, uh, standing up for the, um, for the little bands...

In the end, Napster users are just whining because they want something for nothing, at the expense of artists.

No, Napster users aren't whining at all. They're busy sharing perhaps the largest collection of art ever indexed in one place. They're busy using the Internet up to its true promise--to spread art and ideas effortlessly throughout society, against the wishes of those who have profited by keeping ideas bottled up.

In case you hadn't noticed, it's the RIAA which is bitching to the media, suing everyone in sight, lobbying Congress for unreasonable extension of copyright privileges beyond anything envisioned in the Constitution for the 4th time in 9 years, raising the price of CD's even in the face of a free and superior distribution channel, and dragging their feet on providing a way for fans to both get music in a reasonable digital format (which almost certainly will not include support for fair use rights) while still compensating their favorite artists.

And it's you who's whining (quite ignorantly, I might add).

Which, as a musician, I find absolutely disgusting.

Which, as a /. participant interested in the truth, a citizen interested in my fair use rights and right to non-commercial sharing of recorded music, and a music lover interested in sampling as much new and worthwhile musical art as possible, I find...rather annoying to say the least.

Meanwhile, for everyone who wants to help break musicians free of a monopolistic model which steals artistic, promotional and distributional control of their art and steals the profits of their labor, you might want to check out fairtunes.com, which will forward your money directly to artists whose work has moved you, rather than lining the pockets of RIAA executives who have done nothing but sue Napster in an effort to stop you from exercising your Constitutional fair use rights. Even if you only contribute $5 for that CD you burned/downloaded, that's approximately 5-7 times as much as the artist would get had you paid $17 for the CD in the store--and plus it's money they can use today, not once their record label "debts" are paid off, if ever.

Didn't you even look into this? It's a payment service!

I typed before checking :). I'm talking to them and we're working it.

In terms of the trust issue we're going to apply to join the Better Business Bureau and then apply to join BBOnline first thing Monday morning. We'll keep you updated as to the status of it on our website.

Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes.com

At any rate, paying through e-gold is simpler than the forms you have to fill out at Fairtunes.

We would welcome any comments and suggestions you have on making our website more user friendly and trustworthy.

Also how would we integrate the e-gold system into our site? We'd have to have a person manully verifiying everything. Or write some pretty crazy scripts to interface with their website as it currently stands. There is no nice server to integrate into like I can with visa cards.

they are audited by a very well-respected 3rd party.

Who?

why should we trust them?

Why shouldn't you trust us? If I wanted to steal money I think there would be a lot better ways of defrauding the public than through our looney scheme of depending on YOUR goodwill. If you really think we are scamming everyone, we now prominently display how much has been scammed (i mean sent), on our homepage. As you can see we are now filthy rich and will close our doors tomorrow and skip the country :).

Matt - mgoyer@fairtunes.com
co-founder
Fairtunes.com

At any rate, paying through e-gold is simpler than the forms you have to fill out at Fairtunes.

We would welcome any comments and suggestions you have on making our website more user friendly and trustworthy.

Also how would we integrate the e-gold system into our site? We'd have to have a person manully verifiying everything. Or write some pretty crazy scripts to interface with their website as it currently stands. There is no nice server to integrate into like I can with visa cards.

they are audited by a very well-respected 3rd party.

Who?

why should we trust them?

Why shouldn't you trust us? If I wanted to steal money I think there would be a lot better ways of defrauding the public than through our looney scheme of depending on YOUR goodwill. If you really think we are scamming everyone, we now prominently display how much has been scammed (i mean sent), on our homepage. As you can see we are now filthy rich and will close our doors tomorrow and skip the country :).

Matt - mgoyer@fairtunes.com
co-founder
Fairtunes.com

But is every musician on the web? How do I send money to someone who isn't on the web? Fairtunes on the other hand can work independently of the web. No web prescence, no problem. We'll still find that artist and get them the money.

If you can use PayPal (i.e. if you're American and the music group is American), you can send money for no transfer cost.

Big IF there. :)

If they were really serious about providing a service, they'd also list other means by which you can pay the artists directly, instead of insisting that all the money go through their own hands

We are currently working on this. We can only do so much at once! :)

Besides, the musicians have not said that they are willing to be paid this way.

We will be sure to post the first time someone actually refuses money. Would you refuse a check that came in the mail? As a musician would you care if your money came via a royalty or via a tip? Money is money is it not?

Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes.com

The question remains, what are the solutions to this? We've looked at online auditing by someone like PriceWaterhouseCoopers. The answer was $15,000us. Or we could use CPA Webtrust but that is $65,000CA for the first year. We don't have that kind of cash. If we did we'd use it.

We're looking into trust accounts but again there are a lot of hurdles involved.

In terms of e-gold. We looked into it, sure it's cheaper, but how many people have e-gold accounts? Currently there are 58,885 accounts (I have one). How many web users have credit cards? A lot more than 50,000. It just isn't worth our time to implement e-gold. Maybe once it takes off, but till then it just isn't worth it.

We are working on verification and authentification protocols but it won't be something we can implement over night. But hopefully will be available shortly.

Matt
co-founder
Fairtunes.com

We are working on these problems around the clock and should have feasible solutions online shortly.

In terms of trusting us:

1. The money is worth more to us in the hands of an artist than it is in our pockets. We'd much rather have famous artist X proclaim they got a $100, than for us to have an extra $100 with which to go buy some more pizza.
2. If we were stealing your money then why would why charge you a service fee?? Wouldn't we get more money without a service fee?

We're working the problems out and are still looking for alternatives. Speak up if you have suggestions on the trust issue.

In terms of aggregation of donations we'll have an "open" solution up and online within 24hours for you guys to have some fun with.

Matt
co-founder
www.fairtunes.com
(is my sig broken?)

There's a new organization called Fairtunes.com where you can send a mini-payment ($1, $5, etc.) to the musical artist of your choice. It's an attempt at the "tipping jar" model of artist remuneration.

I think it's worth checking out.

Schwab

When there's a way to confirm that your cash is headed for the artist, however, I guarantee this service will get LOTS of use.

We could provide online auditing of our practices by CPA Webtrust but the cost would be $65,000 for the first year! We have no venture capital (but we're looking! :) ). There is no way we can afford this.

If someone knows of an alternative trust model we are very open to suggestions.

We are cutting the first batch of checks to artists Monday. Hopefully once the checks arrive we can get them to send us confirmation back which we will post to our site. Or alternatively we will get them to post something on their site or get them to speak out to the media about our service.

Remember $2 is worth more to Fairtunes in the hands of the artist then in our pocket. ($2 doesn't even begin to cover server fees!)

Matt
www.fairtunes.com

--

What do people think about voluntarily paying your artist online for music you've downloaded?

We believe this is one answer to the MP3 situation and have started a website at www.fairtunes.com that allows you to do exactly that. It is the Stephen King model implemented for music. We allow you to securely send any amount of money using your credit to ANY artist.

But do we live in a society that can adjust to a voluntary system when we've lived so long in a system that has always set the price for us? Can we handle the freedom that Napster gives us? Can we be trusted to use Napster responsibly? Young kids might always pirate music, and we accept that, but is voluntary payment an option for everyone else?

Matt.

We believe one answer to this is our website at www.fairtunes.com which enables you to send money directly to ANY artist thereby bypassing the record industry.

Support your favorite artist not the middle man.
Matt

Exactly! And that is the beauty of the Fairtunes model. Fairtunes in a sense the middle man but we are completely controlled by you the music listener. What do I mean by this? You the listener gets to set how much money you want to send to the artist.

Matt
www.fairtunes.com

:) We actually provide this already. With every donation you can send a brief message to your artist. If you register as a user then we will optionally include your name on a list that we send to the artists.

Check it out!

Matt
www.fairtunes.com

Matt
www.fairtunes.com

...1% of Napster users is still a lot of pepole.

Matt.

They differ a lot actually.. I read an article somewhere (I read some many these days) that talked about what if Napster was Canadian. In summary it was that Napster would have been protected and the RIAA/Government would have to go after individual users. I may be wrong, but that's what I remember.

Any news on when PayPal will work in the North?

Nope.. Our market here is relatively small compared to the US. Read: It'll be a while. We've actually toyed with the idea of setting it up ourselves... But Fairtunes is keeping us very busy.

I'm kinda hoping that Canadian legislators are taking a wait-and-see attitude to what is happening in the States.

That's usually what happens. Hopefully we (I mean the Canadian government) can learn from their (The Americians) mistakes.

I'm sure I'll be using it in the future!

Sounds good! You can even pay in Canadian dollars, because we hate websites that only accept US dollars.

Matt
www.fairtunes.com

To hell with the record labels, RIAA or otherwise. Download what you want, or copy it from a friend, then go to FairTunes and send some money to the artist.

Quite so. That's why sites like FairTunes are the best way to go. These sites let you send money directly to the artist, so you can use file-sharing in good conscience.

We believe this is one answer to the MP3 situation and have started a website at www.fairtunes.com that allows you to do exactly that. It is the Stephen King model implemented for music. We allow you to securely send any amount of money using your credit to ANY artist.

But do we live in a society that can adjust to a voluntary system when we've lived so long in a system that has always set the price for us? Can we handle the freedom that Napster gives us? Can we be trusted to use Napster responsibly? Young kids will always pirate music, and we accept that, but is voluntary payment an option for everyone else?

Matt.

You can even send a note with your "donation"/contribution!

Matt

What is Fairtunes? Fairtunes is a website that allows you to send money to ANY artist directly. It is completely voluntary. You set the amount you want to send and we ensure it gets there. The artist is then free to distribute it as they choose.

Check it out!
Matt.
www.fairtunes.com

What is Fairtunes? Fairtunes is a website that allows you to send money to ANY artist directly. It is completely voluntary. You set the amount you want to send and we ensure it gets there. The artist is then free to distribute it as they choose.

Check it out!
Matt.
www.fairtunes.com