Slashdot Mirror

There are a lot of other interesting articles about intellectual property issues, especially those relating to music, at Negativland's intellectual property page. I don't know if you know the story of Negativland, but it's really long, fsck'd up, and reprinted in more detail than you'd ever want at their site. That's where I originally found the albini piece.

jeb.

The CD "upgrade" was, in its own way, a big swindle.

Negativland wrote an excellent article covering CDs: Shiny, Aluminum, Plastic, and Digital.

The short version is: instead of letting the market decide, the record companies muscled distributors into going to CDs.

The CD "upgrade" was, in its own way, a big swindle.

Negativland wrote an excellent article covering CDs: Shiny, Aluminum, Plastic, and Digital.

The short version is: instead of letting the market decide, the record companies muscled distributors into going to CDs.

My disagreement with the article is as follows. Most people interested in the indie scene are interested in the indie scene including sich things as high-fidelity, lo-fidelity, vinyl, and other such esoteric aspects of recorded music. MP3's and the internet will never stop a fan of an indie band from picking up every CD, 7" and bootleg tape they can find. This will of course mean they will want to use Napster to find live and rare recordings, but never as an excuse for legitimate releases.

In case you are looking for an article to read from an insider in the industry, Steve Albini of such fantastic indie bands as Shellac and Big Black has written an article that sums up what a newly signed bands has done to their collective anus by a major label. And he should know, having produced (his real job is a professional recording engineer) bands like Nirvana, Page/Plant, the Breeders, the Pixies, and (ugh)Bush. Take a look.

Chris

While you're there you should really check out Negativland's page on Intellectual Property Issues.

While you're there you should really check out Negativland's page on Intellectual Property Issues.

While you're there you should really check out Negativland's page on Intellectual Property Issues.

the difference is that with the chineese government getting pissed off at it, CFInet loses $1800 and 15 days of revenue. Quick but painful slap on the wrist, and the whole thing is more or less over 15 days later, however long the damage to the psychological state of the employees lasts.

if it had been an american corporation pissed off at a small american website, meanwhile, it would be a lot more drawn out. The small website would have had to deal with either a crippling "settlement", or legal bills costing thousands and thousands of dollars stretching years into the future with no determinate end to the hassle, except that it will more than likely end with the small website running out of money to pay for the legal bills because the corporation is doing nothing but stall tactics for the sole purpose of making the small website run out of money to pay for the legal bills, finally giving up and entering a crippling "settlement", and probably quietly going out of business a month later.

On the other hand, there's a good chance the people running the small american website would become instant celebrities, getting posted on Slashdot [meaning they get some pretty huge exposure from the whole thing, and probably a lot of banner ad hits as they get slashdotted]. If they get lucky, they may even get an offer to have the legal bills handled by the ACLU, and if they get really really lucky (or if the small website is really impressive and the large corporation is really hypocritical) they may even get a benefit album or hundreds of people mirroring their information.
At any rate, unless the small american website slips underneath everyone's radar (which does happen, a LOT, and in which case the small website is simply fucked over) the information the corporation doesn't want to let out will get a LOT of attention that it wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

Meanwhile in China if you say something to piss off the government you have nothing protecting you. No one will help you, no one will organize massive campaigns in your name, slashdot will not notice your existence unless there is some kind of major vote in the american congress that day or your company uses linux or something, and you will simply become another victim of the government very, very quietly, with no outcry or notice because, hey, these things happen every day, no one is paying attention, and what's the use of protest anyway? it's not like you're going to change anything.

You decide who's better off.

You know what, that first point of yours is exactly what I am saying. It is not such a ridiculous viewpoint if you consider that:

1.) Only pennies from your over-priced purchase will go to the artist.

2.) The sell-out artist has contracted himself to a money-hungry industry which is interested in music only as a commodity, not as an art form. The major labels will step on other artists, and other smaller labels to pimp their music. They will take creative control over said artist, and try to keep them from being experimental or doing anything risky.

Major labels answer only to their shareholders. They don't care about music, so why should I support them or their artists?

Here is what chicago producer Steve Albini has to say about major labels. He is known for producing the first Pixies album and Nirvana's In Utero. Read it and get a clue yourself.

-ali

yes, they were in there, but not in the manner they're used today.

The Congress shall have power.. 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;

In other words, the constitution only includes patents and copyright to a reasonable, non-unlimited extent, and "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". This isn't what we're complaining about. This is a good thing. What we're complaining about is patents and copyrights used as weapons for corporations to silence individuals, something that was added much, much later, far after the first amendment bits.

What was originally there is more or less to _protect_ people-- i.e. to stop someone from taking the work of others at the expense of the original creator, such as burning 3000 copies of "Dre 2001" and selling them on the street, in which case Dre is in a very real way failing to recieve money that was his due, because 3000 people who would otherwise have bought the album from Dre bought them from the guy on the street. Making the case that the patent/copyright stuff in the constitution was intended to prevent people from taking ideas and concepts from a work and using those ideas and concepts to create a new, independent work, as is done in the case of a parody or the music of Negativland.. well, that doesn't seem to use the same spirit as the parts of the U.S. constitution, seeing as a new work as such would be progress of useful art, and the original creator suffers no loss.

You'll also notice the bits in the original constitution do not contradict free speech, really, and i see NOTHING in there to support the idea of preventing the spread of information-- i.e. preventing information about a technology from being spread. The idea behind the patents was originally to encourage the spread of information-- that in order to convince someone to allow science to progress, they would tell the world how their process worked, and in return would be granted a limited-time monopoly on that process. The idea that something like the DMCA could prevent someone from spreading information they found independantly about a process-- say, cyberpatrol's encryption scheme-- is completely antithetical to the original idea of a patent and what the constitution says, even if the information about said process is in a language other than English (say, C++..)

You'll also note the "for limited times" bit. Current copyright/patent laws extend far, far past the useful lifespan of the ideas they encompass, and the lifespan of a copyright seems to get longer every time that the date of the expiration of Mickey Mouse's copyright comes within the forseeable future. You think it will _ever_ be legal for me to distribute a Legend of Zelda 1 ROM, no matter how long i live and no matter how many years have passed since Nintendo has gotten a penny from that game? Ha.

So yeh, copyrights and patents do predate free speech in U.S. law to an extent, but not in any manner that is antithetical to the idea of free speech.

That sure is a cute and trendy thing for Bono to say. Does he remember a band named "Negativland"?

Well, American CD prices are among the cheapest in the world, so I'm not sure where you're from, but it ain't Europe or Japan. Besides the cost of the media isn't what you're paying for. You're paying the musicians, the engineer, the producer, the studio time, the mastering, the packaging, the marketing, etc. The real crime of the music industry is that these costs are huge, and they all come out of the artist's royalties. See this article by Steve Albini to understand how screwed up things are.

They are obviously breaking UK trademarks by creating a web presence that suggests it would represent Sting's old band the 'police' in the MP3 format.

If I were the RIAA, I would be suing NetPD's ass quicker than Bono sued Negativeland over their U2 record.

** That link I sent was a linkless page, so here is the rest of the site... ** Negativland

Mindless drones don't like people who are different. People who like to control mindless drones certainly don't want any fish swimming upstream. And perhaps you (not you personally, but all of us who think) are not so immune as you might think.. Mind Control and Indoctrination is a science. Why would it affect us any differently than anyone else? Check out The Ad And the Ego

Besides, there's a little thing known as Fair Use. Ask Negativland . . . they've been fighting this battle longer than anyone I personally know. Don't get me wrong, I've nothing against suing the Big Evil Corporation(tm), but I DO have something against frivolous lawsuits.

oh yeah, vote for me for best dressed ;-)

Calling all Karma Whores: will someone please post the links for "Courtney Does the Math" and the Steve Albini rant that's based on?

Here ya go:

Steve Albini's rant

Courtney Love Does the Math