Slashdot Mirror

Many Zoroastrians claimed that you could only be Zoroastrian if your father was, although some have always been open to conversion by outsiders. The religion as a whole generally prohibits proselytizing, or at least strongly discourages it.

And on the far end of the continuum are, or were, the Shakers, where you couldn't be a Shaker if your parents were, because, well, it was a celibate religion. Which is why there are only about 3 Shakers left and within 20 years it'll be a dead religion.

You do know that 'The Dead' are still touring, right? So if you want to boycott those responsible you still can. But then you'd be missing out on Warren Haynes!

Interesting that the article mentions Dave Matthews and Radiohead since they both have always been in support of file-sharing...

Mike

His ego might have increased, but his band's size decreased by about 25%. Whisper reasoning for the decision seems to focus on a little thing called artistic integrity, but that's mostly hearsay from people close to the departed.
--

TVT Records has sued Napster. According to their website they are one of the largest independent record labels in the U.S.

TVT Records has sued Napster. According to their website they are one of the largest independent record labels in the U.S.

Not to the RIAA.

Nope, it doesn't convince me. The law only makes is possible for record companies to sign their artists on a work for hire basis. It's up to the individual artist to agree to those provisions. I don't see anything wrong with that. No one could force them to sign such a contract. Here's a quote:

Billboard reported that the change in the law was requested by the Recording Industry Association of America, a record industry group that defends the interests of the major record labels. RIAA president Hilary Rosen claimed that the amendment merely makes a recording "eligible" for work-for-hire status, and the artist and label must still sign a contract that either explicitly makes the recording a work-for-hire or leaves rights with the artist.

or try this one, if that didn't convince you.

Again, this doesn't mean anything. PAC contributions are an unfortunate consequence of our existing government, but the RIAA would be remiss to not make them. Also, $5,000 dollars is chump change to a representative, and would not cause someone to embrace a policy that they don't believe in. However, if you start paying people $2 million (Napster to Limp Bisket), you might start making believers out of just about anyone.

So artists rights mean nothing?

Not to the RIAA.

or try this one, if that didn't convice you.


--

...the other day I wrote a rebuttal to a recent interview on Salon.com...here it is again. Hilary, are you listening?

--

To Hilary Rosen. A Retort. v1.1

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in greater detail if you like. So can a bunch of others around here. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problem. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, we like it. How much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessary complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like "works for hire"? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, those costs must be absorbed. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you, and that distrubution part for you, and that reproction part for you. You just sell CDs. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' roll thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again? What do you guys do?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a. Wah

--

If the RIAA was so concerned about the artists, they wouldn't be making them sign their work over for 35-40 years, or now even forever.

Here's an article about it -- a little more informative than the RIAA FAQ ;)

http: //www.livedaily.com/archive/2000/2k01/wk3/Amendmen tToCopyrightActCo.html

Here's what to expect if you click the link:

A deeply controversial amendment to the 1976 Copyright Act--added without congressional debate or input from artists--now allows record companies to treat musicians' recordings as "works for hire." Tacked onto an omnibus appropriations bill by a congressional staffer and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on Nov. 29, the new amendment could prevent artists from reclaiming the rights to their work after 35 years, the current legal waiting period.

Just another one of those little laws that got passed without anyone knowing about it. Must be nice to have that kind of clout in Washington. Most of us have to make a lot of noise to get laws passed. The RIAA on the other hand manages to have laws passed quietly when no one is looking.

numb

over at Salon

The crew have rejected it twice, so I'll burn more karma.
--
To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.

--

Speaking of April Fools....Did anyone see this? Here's my retort

--

To Hilary Rosen. A Retort.

This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.

Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.

While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,

Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.

I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.

Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.

There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.

Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.

Clearly I understand all that.

For some reason I don't believe you.

But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?

Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."

It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.

Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?

That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!

Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?

As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.

Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.

But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,

Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.

established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.

BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in great detail if you like. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the .5b

I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.

I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).

The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?

If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.

Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.

Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.

Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?

It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads ...

I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.

I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.

What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"

There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.

Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.

It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.

That's the big problems. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, how much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?

It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.

You just keep on digging into the unnecessy complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.

It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.

Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)

Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.

You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?

It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.

And your business would be built where?

Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.

*COUGH*

No one is arguing Chicken Little here;

Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.

what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.

No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.

It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.

Do artists also like works for hire? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.

You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.

i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.

And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.

Yes, they do. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)

Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.

Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.

Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.

I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.

What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?

I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.

I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?

I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.

Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' rock thing for him to do.

There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.

No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.

I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.

Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again?

I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.

Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.

There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.

The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.

The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.

So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.

I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?

Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!

We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.

The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.

But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.

Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.

When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.

Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)

When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.

A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.

I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.

Thanks,

Roy M. Taylor

a.k.a Wah on /.
--

They've already managed to extend the length of copyright to an unreasonable amount of time, now they're trying to remove the limits on the monopoly they have. This is wrong and should be stopped.

They are currently trying to take away any hope an artist might EVER have of controlling their own work.

It's the first link on their homepage, they're proud of it. Any of you artists out there who really need an ass-reaming, come on over

BTW, they lobbied pretty hard for this. That's your $.02 from every album purchase, hard at work keeping music scarce.
--

I love them because I am _smack_ in the middle of the topic: I'm a musician, working hard and putting out a lot of innovative, professional, well-produced music, all on mp3 and in fact on mp3.com.

I hate them because no matter how strident I get, no matter how I rant and make people sick of hearing from me like a guitar toting RMS ( ;) ) there is always another person sounding off the same old lines: "mp3 is illegal because", "mp3 hurts artists", and now there's some "it won't last because eventually they'll just make mp3 illegal" and people are giving up on it, saying "we'll just use mp4 or something!"

No no nooooo! It may not be all that great a format, but the reason we have digital music so ubitiquously is that CD audio (also not that great a format) proliferated and was not constantly being 'upgraded'! Data formats are not _fashion_. There's an archival value to them and the last thing you want is to be churning them like fscking Excel binaryformats. Yes, CD Audio is lame, yes mp3 is lamer and lossy, but it's all relative- many Philips cassettes are lamer still, and those were an accepted format! mp3 needs to look forward to a life as long as CD audio. It's right at the quality point where it's a good general purpose format- and we've not even begun to see its potential. I have a fancy JPEG plugin I use on images- cost me a fair bit but it optimises Huffman coding and does other tricky hacks and the quality of its output rivals the average JPEG encoder at _half_ the file size. It's that good- and the same thing can be done with mp3, I'm sure of it. 128K will end up sounding a lot like 256K in a couple years... if the format is not killed through neglect.

I'm going to ask something from my fellow slashdotters (yah, you knew this was coming, hear me out): please go grab all the songs of mine that you can, at www.mp3.com/ChrisJ , and put them on Napster. OK? Please, as many of you as possible, do this. I do get a few nano-cents from each download but they do not charge _you_, and of course I get nothing from napster exchanges. But I have the capacity as the copyright holder and owner of my songs _and_ the mechanical recordings of them, to _permit_ such exchanges- and I think this is important, because all this noise is how mp3s and napster are all illegal and piracy and theft and a lot of bullshit like that, and I would really like to be able to prove beyond a doubt that the format and even Napster serve _some_ valid purpose, and again I OWN my music and I AM ALLOWED to permit people to trade it on napster! Dammit, it makes me angry to see corporate whores 'protecting my interests as an artist' by stomping on MY listeners or potential listeners and also cutting off MY access to media! It just really makes me angry, OK? They are NOT helping me by doing this, don't be confused about that. I am outright saying I _want_ my music distributed freely over the net and Napster, that I _want_ it to be like instant radio which is entirely promotional in nature and has no relation to micropayments and 'security' and crap like that, that I see tremendous utility in this and that I also have personal feelings of wanting to be ALLOWED to give my music to a person I haven't even met who happens to not have money for it right at the moment (I can sympathise- I myself am living on ramen and spaghettios this week), and... I don't have a RIGHT to take that position?

It's my damn music, not theirs. They have no right to restrict what I may do with it! _I_ am the creator here and owe them nothing.

I don't appreciate this 'to protect the artists' slant, especially when people unwittingly buy into it... the fact is, I am dead serious about trying to build a music/sound engineering career based on these new modes of distribution. I have done my homework, huge amounts of it, and frankly the existing industry is the most horribly harmful thing you could imagine- pretend it's like all software companies are divisions of Microsoft, and they control all commercial software of all types so you can't program unless you cut a deal with them on their terms. They own basically everything and have controlling interest in everything else and are very prone to stuff like looking at your work and then cutting you dead and paying somebody to knock off your program and saying 'see you in court'. It's like a music version of that, and keeps getting worse, until if you don't know the score you wouldn't believe it. I just can't go along with this at all- and it is these people who are trying to kill the new distribution model that _I_ could use to not need them!

Links:
Steve Albini: Some Of Your Friends Are Probably Already This Fucked
Bobby S. Fred: How The Game Works (Scam Indies)

This is serious.

So... when I say go grab all the songs at www.mp3.com/ChrisJ and put them on napster, when I point at the CDs I have up there (which are produced via some neat press-to-order tech mp3.com's invented) and beg people to buy them in support of what I am trying to do here... that is coming from someone who feels, very deeply, that all that could be TAKEN AWAY. Maybe sooner than you think! And maybe you won't give a rat's ass about some bozo musician in Vermont no longer having access to a format (mp3) and a dotcom (mp3.com) that will print up his CDs on an as-needed basis for only nonexclusive rights to the music... but I have to take it more seriously. If this was happening to programmers, slashdot would be up in arms- why does it seem debatable if it happens to musicians? It's the equivalent of programmers having to go to say Microsoft to be 'authorised' to practice their craft professionally. "Oh, you must not be a _real_ programmer, otherwise Microsoft would want to hire you, so therefore it's OK to get rid of gzip- only criminals use it and I heard there are viruses that are transported in gzipped form! Better get rid of tar too while we're at it. Then we can license RPM so that only authorised people are allowed to use it..."

furrfu, another huge rant. I'm sorry :) I swear, I meant to only write a bit. Please, while I still have an mp3.com that will press up CDs for me and give me half, BUY one- please, while I still have an mp3 format that I'm allowed to distribute my own music over the net with, USE it and listen to my stuff and (I hope!) enjoy it and share it with your friends? If that doesn't seem like enough you are _free_ to go buy another CD of mine to make up for the napsterring, I wouldn't dream of stopping you. But I simply cannot go along with coercion, so the end result might be that I am just plain silenced, the format I use stifled or co-opted, the site I distribute from killed through lawsuits (some of which are arguably valid- but they have every right to redistribute _my_ music and in fact they pay me small amounts to do so).

Please? Help me out. www.mp3.com/ChrisJ

And of course I never spam- I am incredibly hesitant to even use email to try to set up a relationship with a person related to what I'm doing with music or sound engineering. I wrote CmdrTaco- once- asking if he wanted me to record some special Geeks In Space music and sounds to _give_ him in hopes I might get a mention. Never heard back, never tried again- I'm deathly afraid of being thought of as spamming.

Yet you HAVE to market- you HAVE to network, or you're dead- and my awareness of how bad spam is tends to have a profound effect on the way I network. It's like it is forcing me to evolve laborious ways of dealing with it- ways that might be the only good ways of coping with needing to market in a world where connectivity is so vast that 'spam' can mean almost anything.

You, reading this (whoever you are) did not 'ask' to hear from me. Nobody solicited my comment on the slashdot comments page. Yet, the purpose of the thing is for me to cover Natalie Portman with hot gr^H^H^H^H^H^H to make insightful comments ;)

As such, I find that I wait eagerly, hoping to see mp3 related Slashdot articles- because when there is one, I become relevant to the discussion, and I'm telling you, Slashdot is a powerful resource- anybody would want to have their product or service 'slashdotted' (even a free one) but the thing is, Slashdotters are so aware and even touchy about being exploited that you can't bullshit- when I get a chance, I take an _hour_ to type up the best statement of where I'm at on the subject. I put more effort into it than some article authors- I have _been_ a Slashdot article authors- I basically show my respect for the community by proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that I am listening, am part of the community, am in a two-way communication rather than just blathering at people. Sometimes I try to sneak in geek creds and screw up- I mistook "In The Beginning Was The Command Line" for "Cryptonomicon" :)

Because of paying attention to this, I can even make a post that says "BUY MY ALBUM!" all over it in boldface all caps as an intentional parody of desperate hype- because the post _was_ a plea for help getting more respect and credibility for indie mp3-reliant artists, and thus it was on topic. (Yes, that link is real and so is the plea- see how this works? Meta-hype, but honestly I am not fooling about wishing people to buy my nice $5.99 CDs, but here I am talking _about_ the approaches I have to take to be certain I am not doing any variation on spamming)

And because I am willing to be part of the discussion and talk about what I've needed to do in order to take responsibility, I can finish up my comment by just saying a little about where I'm at today- in a way it is on a personal note, but the comment is not ONLY about the personal note, it is entering the discussion about 'legitimate spam' and then allowing my 'legitimate' needs/concerns to be mentioned. Those needs are as follows- BUY MY ALBUM! AHAHAHAHAHAH! *g* No, seriously... well, sure I'd like to see that happen but that's not where I put my priorities. I put giving people free downloads higher on the priority list because I am trying to prove that you _can_ succeed by applying the opensource model to music- and so, there is this specific song that I desperately want to kick ass on the mp3.com charts. That song is "Fire Dragon", which you can download directly from that link without even having to log into anything or leave the slashdot page, and it's 4.7 megs, techno with an extremely high quality production (geek cred again- I physically built equipment to get the drums equalised so that the bassdrum is heavily subsonic and the snare barks really loud :) ) and is actually in 7/4 time, sort of geek techno that is slightly too intellectually demanding for the mainstream music industry :) I'm currently downloading another mp3.com artist friend's entire page for a second time because I like his music and am trying to help him in the charts- he is corruptdata .

Exposure is life- and spam is worthy of the most horrible punishments, so somebody like me has a lot of work to do in order to promote. Basically I have to _be_ part of the community and be actively a part of the discussion while still trying to stand up for the things I do that I am passionate about and desperately want to tell people about :) it can feel like revolution, this being-a-mp3-artist, what with the incredible forces trying to destroy my best hope of distribution for my ART. What if they get mp3s themselves banned or made illegal somewhere? That would be restraint of trade against me, and nobody really considers that! So I keep trying to push it, trying to do this 'popularity', 'promotion' thing _knowing_ that if I manage to get that 5 minutes of fame, I will have a lot to say about the RIAA and the industry and lots of links to raise people's awareness about the abuses of the industry, and that not every mp3-using musician will be so motivated to make such statements.

And at the same time I work just as hard to avoid even the appearance of spam, and have put a lot of effort into trying to educate other net-musicians about why spam is bad and why it makes you vulnerable to losing your account clicky clicky ;) So it's not so much a 'balance' in the sense of 'doing the right amount of spam': it's a question of finding out "When is promotion NOT spam?", realising the answer is "When it is part of a desirable dialogue", and taking the EFFORT, far more effort than it takes to talk and not listen, to be in such a dialogue and include the things that I care so much about, instead of spamming them.

I could have posted just URLS to my stuff here and it would have taken a lot less time, and still to some extent met _my_ needs- but that to my mind would have been spam, because I would not have been listening or being part of the discussion at all. Maybe the fact that I put promo links alone will make some people feel this is still spam- I don't know. I only know that this post of mine is the best analysis I can do of what is spam and what is legitimate- and to me, it's all about whether the communication is two-way. I'll of course be reading all the followups if any, because I _do_ read Slashdot, it's not a pose or drive-by spamming of mp3 links. I think that's key- if every spammer took half an hour to talk with you about what _you_ were talking about and open a dialogue in which they could also mention their wares- there would be no spammers.

Because what defines a spammer, in some way, is that they completely are not interested in YOU at all and are not listening at all and are entering no sort of dialogue at all. In a way, though I tolerate the ones who spend their _own_ money to do that (like flyer-printers, postal mail promo), even those are not the wave of the future, because it is meaningless- you can't distinguish yourself from anybody else that way, and there's so much noise that it all becomes meaningless. That is not only pollution, it is also _useless_...

I really hope I do better than that. Slashdotters know me, periodically get tired of me ranting about mp3 and moderate me down to make me shut up for a bit, they can get my personal email and look at my user page and go to airwindows.com and download all the XPMs and tiles they want to prove that I make stuff for Linux- or look at the GPLed software I wrote to prove that I am a free software author (if not a good one :) ) and basically, I don't need to work too hard to seem like not an intruder. I "live here" as much as any slashdot reader.

So if people like the idea of that kind of community or _want_ to have one of their own kicking ass on mp3.com and giving press conferences slamming hell out of the abuses of the RIAA and the industry- they can stop buying Metallica CDs for a minute, and come up with $5.99 to buy one of my albums or simply take some of their time to download my latest song. You wouldn't believe how helpful that can be- even a mere download, like what you would do on Napster that arguably hurts an artist, is a huge help to an independent mp3.com artist, and even if the album is only $5.99 I see more from it than the major label artists get per album (I get half) and the system for making them is really cool! You get the CD in like two-three days- it's completely press-to-order, they are geared to printing one copy of a CD and its cover to order, something that was never technically possible before! Plus I do cool covers ;) so really, you have no idea just how helpful this support would be _and_ it's damn competitive with major label ripoff! :)

Whoa, got a little enthusiastic there ;) I'll stop before I go farther offtopic. The topic _is_ 'spam vs. promotion'. I think I just got carried away in the direction of promotion... if I only talked about that it _would_ be sort of 'essence of spam'. Thankfully, mostly I didn't :)

What about the rest of us?

There's this assumption that only major label acts count, that the rest of us are geeky guitar player or ReBirth-diddling dirtbags who don't _deserve_ to be popular. This, in the face of legis lation that rapes musician's interests even worse than usual- now musicians will be pressured into contracts that sign away their music FOREVER to the label. Is that fair? Is that right? If Metallica are part of that system do they deserve sympathy? Certainly. Do they deserve for people to support it just because Metallica are associated with it? Well....

Meanwhile, I for one am feeling much like the Linux camp in "Cryptonomicon"- the guys with the free tanks that get 60 mpg and go 120 mph with air conditioning and cruise control and fuzzy dice. I go "Please, download my music! I've been playing and composing for more than fifteen years and my heart and soul is in the work, plus I build my own equipment and share my information and ideas freely with others and offer to help people get samples off my tapes if they want any!" and then what?

I'll tell you what- then I post in Slashdot threads, because I love Slashdot and this musician is user #580... there are lots of musicians who read Slashdot. There are lots of _listeners_ who read Slashdot. Yet, I won't bother even asking if I can get a feature on the way I am trying to bring free-software principles into music, because it'd be 'promotion'- but Lars Ulrich GETS THE FEATURE on Slashdot, and the 'Pay Lars' site GETS the hits- why? Because they are 'newsworthy'! Because they are MAINSTREAM and joking about how some website wants to pay them is considered more important than my sweat and blood and heart and soul. It's a question of numbers. How are you going to stop the mainstream industry from smothering you if you just feed it every chance you get? Even bad attention is attention!

TO HELL WITH THAT. I may not be able to get a Slashdot feature- I _wrote_ a Slashdot feature and am friendly with roblimo, but I am just too close to this one- maybe the mainstream media still makes a sick joke of journalistic objectivity but _I_ take it seriously enough that I won't try to 'sneak in' promotion in the guise of an article, even a good passionate persuasive one. Somebody should write that article, though. How many Slashdot articles have given hits to Metallica, the RIAA and their supporters, and how many have supported the musical equivalent of free software and Linux- the artists out there trying to use mp3 for good, inventing a whole new marketplace dynamic based on what free _software_ has taught us? Are we to be totally ignored, do you _really_ want to just only support the major labels here?

And meanwhile- heck with being shy, Metallica is not shy, the RIAA are not shy, and I for one am getting steamrollered. BUY MY ALBUM . Yes, I know that every song on it (actually I have _five_ albums up at mp3.com) is downloadable at no cost- I'm doing that on purpose, dammit! It's important to me that I give freely- I also share my production tips and technical tricks with musicians on the mp3.com boards quite freely. BUY MY ALBUM anyway. There are several to choose from, my favorite is 'anima' a set of rock instrumentals based on animal themes, some are really damn good music. You can hear them all you want, totally free, with my blessing- download them from that page and there's no strings attached and I'm not _forcing_ you to do anything. I'm asking, like someone who has just seen yet another Metallica publicity-boosting article even here on Slashdot where I go to get away from that crap, to BUY MY ALBUM . The Metallica is what, $14? $17? MY ALBUMS are all $5.99- if they'd let me set the price lower, I would! And I'm _still_ getting 50% of that, more per album than Metallica will ever see. Buy the damn things! Argh! *g*

Not only that, if you go here like I am piteously begging you to do- you can download, again free with my total blessing, the first track on another killer album I'm putting together- a groundbreaking techno album so new I don't even have a cover for it or a CD of it yet! The sound rivals or kicks the ass of any major label release in this genre, especially bass-wise, and the music is TOO INNOVATIVE for the labels to cope with- the whole album is techno in unusual time signatures! "Fire Dragon" , the first track to be created (not 'released'- when I do 'em you get 'em that day!) is in 7/4 time! It still dances, but this stuff is too innovative for anything but FREE MUSIC as we indie artists are doing it. You'll never see anything this fresh on a major label! They're even kicking Clive Davis out of Arista so they can get safer and more corporate!

You can even get "Fire Dragon" direct from here and not even visit the page- here is a link to download the mp3 file without even leaving Slashdot. It's only 4.7 megs, even if you're not into fierce innovative techno please give me just the seconds or minutes to download the song anyhow? You might like it, and as an indie musician I really could use the support. :)

And _while_ I'm at it, I want to mention some really nice people- a sort of coalition of artists (of which I'm one) gathering together to try and promote their work in the face of this horrible indifference and in spite of how much more power the major labels have- Liquid Dreams Records . I am just one of _lots_ of neat independent bands working together on this, and we deserve the page-visit and listen! Trust me that there's a lot of wonderful stuff... one of my favorites was corruptdata , who does neat fierce electronica that I kept listening to over and over and over :) please, go hunt down the free indie artists and talk about us and support us! Do you _want_ to be listening to nothing but re-releases of Metallica for the rest of your lives? (besides which, depending on their contract they might not even own their music at all)

They said "I ain't gonna play Sun City"- now it's time to say "I ain't gonna waste my time talking about major labels!" To hell with 'em! Please help us real artists- and not 'help us to get signed' either, hell with that, it's too horribly corrupt, help us establish a new industry, one that is decentralised like Linux! Because you know what?

WE OWN OUR MUSIC. We are _allowed_ to use mp3. And we're doing just that- HELP us.

-chris

I think somebody needs to ask Metallica to review their contract. Do the words "work for hire" appear in it? Read this: http://www.livedaily.com/archive/2000/2k01/wk3/Ame ndmentToCopyrightActCo.html

Basically, it is possible that Metallica does not own its own songs- making their pleas for respect for their artistic work kind of ironic. I realise it might come as a bit of a shock to consider that record industry contracts are being changed to alter them so that, rather than the company owning your artistic creations for thirty-five years outright, the company owns your artistic creations FOREVER. That's exclusive ownership, you don't get a say. Did you know of this? Does Metallica know of this? Does Metallica have a provision in their contract stating their albums are work for hire due to the involvement of engineers and producers and such? If so, and this law-change would appear to be retroactive and apply to existing 'work-for-hire' contracts, Metallica does not own any of their music- they'd own nothing and are also probably barred from producing work other than for the company that will wholly own anything they produce. If anyone can check on this it would be very interesting...

I own my mp3.com stuff. Their contract gives them nonexclusive rights, so they also get carte blanche to do what they wish with the stuff I give them, which I'm happy with, but it does not sign over ownership of the music or the mechanical recordings to the company- which I am still more happy about. Try that with a record company contract. There is a very good chance that Metallica are goddamn slaves and don't even realise it. Ask them about their contract! But don't be too hard on them as they had damn-all chance to negotiate even a word of it, with 20 million other bands clamoring to be exploited.

I'm not at all sure there is morality to be had in defending the record companies the way things are going. The concept of civil disobedience seems more and more relevant...

Salon had article based on the RIAA's Napster "FAQs" page. Go read both, remove the direct quotes, and read it again. Then remove all the agents and managers comments, and read it again.

Playing music for money ain't easy, anyone throughout history would tell you that. Unfortunately we've progessed into an industrial corporate based nation where people only "make it" if they are millionaires at 20. The really sick thing is looking at all those people who "made it" at 20, and are dead broke by 30. Not only dead broke but unable to play thier own songs (because they would kill for some major label support. , giving up their live's work is less than killing)

The musicians DO get paid for their work, right when they sell it as works for hire to the record companies, it's the new owners who get pissed that people are bypassing their billion dollar (and a bit o'profit) distrubution and promotion schemes. Artists also get paid royalties, but at a much lesser rate than the companies, not to mention the companies are now *legally entitled* to their works for life +75.

Does any of this smell fishy to you? I think it sucks, sucks for musicians, sucks for fans, and sucks for pretty much everyone except the people who are sueing.

So along comes technology that instantly replaces 50 years of infrastructure, and you're going to tell me it's "stealing", if it wasn't for the fact that music has been so expensive for such a long time, most people would call it "sharing".

(sorry, not a flame, but I have to go off on this subject at least once a (G)Napsterstory, call it a moral imperative)

.and here's clue #2, change that little box under the post comments box from Extrans to Plain Old Text, you'll look like less of a clueless idiot. (that's a flame) OHMYGOD, I just realized I'm replying to an AOLer and trying to help, I feel dirty.

--

http://www.livedaily.com/archive/2000/2k01/wk3/Ame ndmentToCopyrightActCo.html

"By treating the artist as a person hired to make the recording, the record company would own the recordings and have the right to control their distribution and use them indefinitely. For artists, this radical change would mean that they are, in fact, selling the rights to their work forever, rather than allowing a record company to use it for a limited period of time to market, distribute and earn profits from it.
Billboard reported that the change in the law was requested by the Recording Industry Association of America, a record industry group that defends the interests of the major record labels. RIAA president Hilary Rosen claimed that the amendment merely makes a recording "eligible" for work-for-hire status, and the artist and label must still sign a contract that either explicitly makes the recording a work-for-hire or leaves rights with the artist.
Rosen also stated that the amendment is simply a provision that legally nails down the recording industry's view that the artist is just one of many participants, along with backup musicians, arrangers and engineers, who jointly create an album. In the RIAA's eyes, if the album is not treated as a collective work, then record labels cannot easily determine who owns the rights. Calling an album a collective work allows them to simplify the situation, they say. It would also allow them to assume ownership of the music."

I see no particularly feasible way to get around this corrupt, evil system other than mp3s. I personally am putting lots of totally legitimate mp3s out there, but I can't muster up even the smallest condemnation for the biggest most blatant copyrighted-music pirate in the world (currently, mp3.com itself ;) ). If that means musicians generally are not paid, fine: that's the way it is NOW, plus you sign away your life's work to the labels- formerly for 35 years, now FOREVER. Who can justify that, or participate in it even passively? Did you know that the labels and the RIAA are changing the rules as we speak so that musicians can only sign away their own ARTWORK to their corporate masters forever? Is this retroactive, do you suppose, as it is a reclassification of existing contract terms? Is it right for musicians to lose the rights to their music forever? What are you, the music consumer, going to do about this?

I am doing this: mp3.com/ChrisJ. Whatever you do, please do _something_: at this point, not only is it the unsigned artists needing a chance, the _signed_ artists are starting to be abused worse than you would possibly imagine. Please spread the word and do something, anything, to resist. Maybe you'd prefer to ignore the indie guys and send mainstream chart-topping musicians $10 in the mail. God knows they could probably use it. It will soothe their feelings some tiny amount as they consider the way in which they have just lost ownership of their own music forever (and are likely forbidden from doing any music other than for the label in their contract).

if this is such a "GREAT" model for revenue, then why are all the artists against it?????

first off, it's not all, second off, because the artists don't own the copyrights, third off, most people are scared of what they don't understand, the vast majority of music artists I know are barely familar with the Internet, half of them even have AOL accounts....

Did you read this?.

--

People use Napster to break the laws.

Some laws need to broken. Some need to be smashed so hard their teeth rattle. And please spare me the little kiddy not wantin' to pay for CDs spiel, I've heard it, it doesn't apply here. Please explain to me how having 600,000 songs at my fingertips is wrong when I'm paying for bandwidth, diskspace, and promotion. (equivelent to reproduction, distrubution, and promotion in the old world)

let's not paint to bright a picture of copyright violations, eh emmett?

How bright is this?

Keep the music flowing.

--

This is again where your personal notion of theft gets confusing again.

That's exactly what I wanted to address first. This word you keep using, "stealing". Everywhere you put that I would probably use sharing. I am not stealing songs from Napster, I'm sharing them. This is a big part of my argument. Not stealing, sharing. (to steal is not only to take, but also to deprive, IMO)

Contributing my personal resources, I become the equivalent of a radio station. Except my listeners get to pick their own music and listen to it on their own time. Like right now, there are 609,193 pieces of music that I could be listening to in less than 5 minutes. Many of them are duplicates, but that's why the RIAA has to go after Napster and not the individuals. That, of course, is a moot point already, as folks have taken the idea of distributed file storage networks, and run with it. THAT is the reality of the situation. Our laws need to reflect that reality rather than try and dictate a different one.

NOW, given that, you still need to be able to "promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

This Right is what needs better defining. The wrong people are writing the laws.

But what scares the RIAA (and their (tense) clueless friends in Radio(the *worst* industry at moving to the Net, worse than newspapers.)) is those 609,084 songs. The Choice destroys their control. The availability destroys their marketing. And the digital transfer and reproduction destroys their usefulness.

You've admitted a couple of times that you don't like our current establishment, yet you defend the tactics they have used the establish that position. I understand the need to profit as an incentive to work, I hope somewhere you can see how some of the things I have mentioned would work, if not, be patient, wait until eveyone in your neighborhood has brodband and a home website (~10 years). Where / (v3.2), Shoutcast, and G27, are plug and play. Nanomedia, it's coming.

If you think overthrowing corporate popular culture is simply a matter of throwing out copyright laws (for certain things - anyway) alright!

Eh? Copyright is the only relevant major change needed to fix everything?! Whew

Yep, and they know it. Wouldn't that make you nervous and hostile? But it's not even throwing out copyright laws, we just need to bring them back to reality (which I outlined above for you, so argue that). I think we need them to stick with the Constitution, but I don't think they are even close now.

The RIAA has an easy time laughing someone like you off because you make such ridiculous statements.

The RIAA has an easy time laughing off someone like me, since they've been laughing off the COnstitution for over 20 years. Laughing all the way to the bank, as it were.

I want you to read this before replying. And then tell me which side of this battle you want to be one.

Read that story, read that part of the Constitution, and then tell me what that Right should be, given the Internet. We'll go from there.

--

With such insanely prolific commenting on slashdot (I originally tried to track your old replies via your user info -- so many comments they scrolled off the last 50 list in less than a week!) you'd think by now you'd gotten over the joy of weak personal attacks.

Two things about this. In less that two weeks of "insanely prolific posting", I have had over 600 individuals in 42 different countries visit my website (no other promotional effort on my part). The "weak personal attacks", are exactly that, jabs, just to see who I'm talking to. I've argued with fools on /. before and it usually comes out with a bit of prodding. That being said, this has been a fun debate, you are no fool.

--

Check out this page for the details (as provided by Ticketbastard).