Slashdot Mirror

The site has changed a lot since last time I was there about 3 months ago or so... But here is some of the info. Unfortunately they are trying to change their image to make it appear that they really are "the good guys" which is bs. The site used to say that ripping mp3's was not permitted regardless if you distributed them or not. Essentially they said that a digital copy was not legal. They have of course realized apparently that they can't spread fud like that any more...

No one is requiring you to own multiple copies of a CD for home/office use. If you own the recording at home, then your MP3s are legal for work. Have you no clue regarding intellectual property? Actually you are wrong, according to the riaa they interpret the law to say that you have no right to duplicate a cd at all. The riaa is even trying to take away your right to fair use backup copies! Check out the riaa's page if you don't believe me. The stuff on their page is disgusting!

I suppose copying the other party's product and giving it away for free is 'competition', but I'm not really sure.

You are making the assumption that an MP3 and a physical CD are the same product, they aren't. This is also a serious flaw in all the RIAA's argument. Unless of course, you got hit by the LoveBug and it erased all your CD's, then your argument would hold.

So then you'll say, "Oh, but it's IP." And I'll say yup, it is, and the only way to fully control IP is with thought police.

The largest part of the cost and price of CD's is promotion. Check the RIAA's "Cost of a CD" for a clue source. This is the "value" that the RIAA is trying to protect. Now whether or not you judge the value of the music you listen to by how much you like it, or how much you are told you like it, is an exercise best left for the reader, err, listener.

If you want an honest suggestion on how to resolve parts of this situation, check the link from my .sig
--

I really think it's important to work on winning them over to free distribution.

I think it might be pretty easy. To get the RIAA to promote them, the artists must give up any and all rights to their art FOREVER. To get the people to promote them, all they have to do is say it's o.k. The Law needs to reflect this arrangement and protect the right to sell, or it will be too difficult to enforce as very powerful cartels will try to hijack both the Law and the art in order to sell another's work for profit. If we give the art back to the artists, create good laws, and teach respect for sound laws (pun!), I think the transition might go fairly easy. Altough the more time it takes, the gentler the road will be.

Note: this will also increase competition by a HUGE amount, but who here is against a little friendly competition. Besides these guys, of course.
--

...the price of recorded music to consumers has fallen dramatically since CDs were first introduced in 1983. Between 1983 and 1996, the average price of a CD fell by more than 40%. Over this same period of time, consumer prices (measured by the Consumer Price Index, or CPI) rose nearly 60%. If CD prices had risen at the same rate as consumer prices over this period, the average retail price of a CD in 1996 would have been $33.86 instead of $12.75

The prices that I remember was $12 in 1988. Looking again at the inflation calculator, this tells us that cd's today should cost: $17, and look at that, they do.

So what do we learn from this:

• The costs of CD's probably haven't fallen significantly (despite all that blather in the 80's about paying of the construction of new factories.)
• The RIAA chooses very odd numbers in its calculations, what is special about 96? Why are we talking about prices 4 years ago? This is clearly a dodge to get the number $34 into your head.
• They don't even address the issue of why most cds cost exactly the same across stores and record companies. This smacks of price fixing to me.

Under the section. "Why do CD's cost so much?"

That argument fails when you consider that cassettes of the same material have a lower retail cost and a higher production cost. The same marketing costs applies to both products.

The question should therefore not be "why do CDs cost so much?" but "Why do CDs cost more than cassettes?" Same music, same production and marketing costs.

The price they set is what the market will bear. People are used to paying more for CDs because in the beginning (mid 80s) there was a serious shortage of plants cranking out blanks. That is no longer the case. The cost to manufacture a CD is far less than cassettes.

But the market is not "bearing" the cost obviously. The illegal trading via napster is an example.

There is a deep irony in this, proven through people of my (baby boomer) generation. When I was a teenager in the 70s, I couldn't afford to buy records. I copied stuff off the radio, taped friends' records onto cassette, and listen to the stuff over and over. If I didn't have access to that illegal copying, I'd have never had grown so fond of groups like Led Zepplin, The Who, Rolling Stones, etc, etc...

Now look at the market. Baby Boomers are damn loyal to the groups they grew up with and spend a ton of money buying their CDs, going to their concerts, etc. I blew $150x2 just to see the Rolling Stones at Vet Stadium in Philly in the cold pouring rain in April a few years back. (It was pathetic too, a bunch of old fucks trying to relive their happier younger years... and no, I'm not talking about the band! :)

The point is, did I rip off these bands when I was a teen by copying their stuff? Yeah, technically, but not literally. I could barely afford gas to fill my car at the time. Trust me, I had no money to buy anything like that. If I didn't bootleg it, I would have went without.

But now look, the "Classic Rock" market is a HUGE and very profitable market. Now days, I often buy CDs on impulse and very often never even get around to listening to them. I'm too damn busy to bother hunting down mp3s on the net to copy.

Kind of ironic, no?

If Metallica turns off their young fans now, when their young fans are older and making money like mad, they won't be spending their money going to a Metallica reunion concert in 2010.

The world is changing. Musical artists should almost give away their work to get exposure, then make their money on public performances, marketing of products, endorsements, etc, etc... the kind of stuff you can't digitally copy.

Open Rock baby! :)

Under the section. "Why do CD's cost so much?"

...For example, the most significant cost of a CD today is the marketing and promotion of that music. To learn more about why CDs are a great value -- check out Cost of a CD.

I, for one, am tired of paying for marketing. Why am I paying for someone to tell me what I like?

Oh, BTW, their closing argument for this defense.

By all measures, when you consider how long people have the music and how often they can go back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an incredible value for the money.

Thanks for your opinion, RIAA, now I'll go form my own.

--

Under the section. "Why do CD's cost so much?"

...For example, the most significant cost of a CD today is the marketing and promotion of that music. To learn more about why CDs are a great value -- check out Cost of a CD.

I, for one, am tired of paying for marketing. Why am I paying for someone to tell me what I like?

Oh, BTW, their closing argument for this defense.

By all measures, when you consider how long people have the music and how often they can go back and get "re-entertained" CDs truly are an incredible value for the money.

Thanks for your opinion, RIAA, now I'll go form my own.

--

> If you choose to take your own CDs and make
> copies for yourself on your computer or
> portable music player, that's great. It's your
> music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at
> work, in the car and on the jogging trail.

Read it yourself if you want.

Apparently, it is bad if you want to have someone else give you that copy of music that you paid for. RIAA shows their hypocracy.
-Wintermute

I beleive your thinking of the SDMI and DMAT. (WARNING: That second link goes straight into the belly of the beast!) Read up there if you want to find out more of what the Music Industry has planned for us consumers.

While the suit over the Rio may have determined that MP3 playback devices are not illegal, it is still the opinion of RIAA that under the current law you cannot legally rip copies of your CDs yourself.

Me, you and the EFF may think that is BS, but as far as I know this still hasn't been settled in court.

...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

--

You're right. There are people on the RIAA's side that firmly believe that they are right. They will also do everything in their power to see to it that their view of what is right is enforced on everyone.(as they've done for years and succeeded for the most part)

Given that, I think my opinion is just as valid as their opinion. I firmly believe I'm right. I must also do everything in my power to make sure that my view is enforced. Otherwise I'm allowing the RIAA to decide what is right and wrong.

You see the dilemma? If we're both convinced we're right, we end up with a fight. That's where we're at right now. The fight has been joined in the courts. Maybe it will be decided there, maybe not. I don't think the courts are where it will ultimately be decided. I think the fans are sick of getting screwed. They want to support the artists they like. They just don't like the current system where they have to get screwed over in order to support them.

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. If the RIAA was so concerned about the artists, they would have been devising new methods of distributing music that wouldn't require as much overhead cost so that the fans pay less and the artists get more. But, it all makes sense when you realize that the RIAA doesn't give a rat's ass about the artists as long as they can exploit them and keep raking in the cash.

Apparantly, you don't understand fair use at all if you really think it applies here.

The fair use statute:

Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified in that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

And from the RIAA website:

Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own.

Here's the thing. Anyone who is trading (or according to the RIAA anyone making) mp3's without the permision of the copyright holder is commiting copyright infrigement. Napster has maintained since the beginning (and in their own TOS) that they will not permit copyright infrigement "if they know about it". Now that they legally know about it they have no excuse. They will have to remove those users and those files.

Additionally Napster should put in place filters that block files based on artist/title strings at the request of the copyright holders. Others have pointed out that you could simply rename thefile, but this has limited usefulness since it would make them much more difficult to find.

Napster has claimed all along that they are unwitting participants in this "piracy" and many here have defended them. There is no defence if they continue to knowing allow anyine to engage in illegal activity.

According to the RIAA, you have still violated the Audio Home Recording Act. According to United States Code, Title 17 - Copyrights, they might be right. The EFF says otherwise, but Sec. 107 does not specifically identify home copies as fair use.

As near as I can tell, fair use for home users has not been defined by current law. For more information try the Stanford University Library Copyright and Fair Use Site.

IANAL. My advice is that you hire one if you intend to take on Lars Ulrich.

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.
--

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.
--

Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own. The same holds true for copying music off the Internet. [Emphasis is mine]

I'd imagine that lawsuits will follow for all of these companies, since according to RIAA the only way you can have a legit mp3 is if that was the original format that it was distributed in, or if it is the public domain.

Of course, RIAA may or may not have heard of something called fair use.

particularly in that you're at least willing to pay for some fraction of the music you listen to.

Thanks!

I actually like the try-before-buying aspect of MP3s. But, unfortunately, it looks less and less like any significant number of people "try" instead of simply failing to "buy".

Internet becomes popular in 1995, it's now 2000. Number of homes with broadband, 1995:Ha-ha, 1999: 3.25x10^6

Talk to your friends with 24-hour high-speed Net connections about "try" and "buy" musical consumption behaviour. It might be interesting..when it will be able to be studied in a few years. This whole market is just getting started.

Further, I really am starting to wonder if the freeloader culture that seems dominant on places like Slashdot leaves any room for more than a few rare people to make any money by distributing MP3s of their work.

O.k., this one set me off a bit. First off, let me make this clear, you will not find my name anywhere in the Linux kernel, nor the GNU Utils, or on much of any publicly (or privately) distributed software for that matter. However, I've only known about it for a year or so (one of the busiest of my life), so be patient.. That being said, I hardly see how you can call this culture freeloading. Unless you mean the most recent influx of /. folks who don't understand Free Software as a concept, or you mean Free Loading, as in introducing software into your life that is Free (Libre).

However, the vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their creating artists.

You might think this rebuttal a technicality, I think it's the whole fuckin' point (hey, it's 4:24 a.m...). The vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their copyright owners.

They've been stolen.

Now THAT, I'll agree with.

And before you argue this one, I suggest you read this.

Especially this quoted part (in light of this thread)

How does work made for hire treatment benefit artists and consumers?

Work made for hire treatment allows for the effective promotion and distribution of a recording so that payments can be made according to contractual agreements. If the termination right could be exercised by all collaborators on a sound recording, all of the collaborators would be in competition with each other and commercial exploitation (especially the offering of exclusive rights to the sound recording) would be impossible without the agreement of all of the collaborators, to the detriment of both artists and consumers.

If that's not excessive hubris............


--

particularly in that you're at least willing to pay for some fraction of the music you listen to.

Thanks!

I actually like the try-before-buying aspect of MP3s. But, unfortunately, it looks less and less like any significant number of people "try" instead of simply failing to "buy".

Internet becomes popular in 1995, it's now 2000. Number of homes with broadband, 1995:Ha-ha, 1999: 3.25x10^6

Talk to your friends with 24-hour high-speed Net connections about "try" and "buy" musical consumption behaviour. It might be interesting..when it will be able to be studied in a few years. This whole market is just getting started.

Further, I really am starting to wonder if the freeloader culture that seems dominant on places like Slashdot leaves any room for more than a few rare people to make any money by distributing MP3s of their work.

O.k., this one set me off a bit. First off, let me make this clear, you will not find my name anywhere in the Linux kernel, nor the GNU Utils, or on much of any publicly (or privately) distributed software for that matter. However, I've only known about it for a year or so (one of the busiest of my life), so be patient.. That being said, I hardly see how you can call this culture freeloading. Unless you mean the most recent influx of /. folks who don't understand Free Software as a concept, or you mean Free Loading, as in introducing software into your life that is Free (Libre).

However, the vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their creating artists.

You might think this rebuttal a technicality, I think it's the whole fuckin' point (hey, it's 4:24 a.m...). The vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their copyright owners.

They've been stolen.

Now THAT, I'll agree with.

And before you argue this one, I suggest you read this.

Especially this quoted part (in light of this thread)

How does work made for hire treatment benefit artists and consumers?

Work made for hire treatment allows for the effective promotion and distribution of a recording so that payments can be made according to contractual agreements. If the termination right could be exercised by all collaborators on a sound recording, all of the collaborators would be in competition with each other and commercial exploitation (especially the offering of exclusive rights to the sound recording) would be impossible without the agreement of all of the collaborators, to the detriment of both artists and consumers.

If that's not excessive hubris............


--

I'm in fact encouraging the judge to do this, or another "compromise" solution like mp3.com handing over a portion of its advertising revenue for the site. The judge can be contacted here:
Hon. Jed S. RAKOFF
United States District Judge
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1340
New York, New York 10007-1312
(212) 805-0401
Deputy (212) 805-0129
Courtroom 14B

I'm not sure if it will do any good, of course, but they say it never hurt to snail mail Congress... By the way, the RIAA can also be written to here:
The Recording Industry Association of America, Inc.
1330 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20036

It's not a case over whether or not you have a right to listen to MP3's of your own CD's. You *do* have a right to do that.

Well, you certainly should have the right to. Whether you can do it legally is another matter.

The RIAA is a lobbying group, protecting a huge, monied, entrenched interest. It would be totally unfair and completely irrational to argue that someone shouldn't be able to make digital copies of music that they bought to listen to by themselves, but that is what they claim.

If you don't believe me, read their claim:
Second, again for your personal use, you can make some digital copies of music, depending on the type of digital recorder used. For example, digitally copying music is generally allowed with mini-disc recorders, digital audio tape (DAT) recorders, digital cassette tape recorders and some (but not all) compact disc recorders (or CD-R recorders). As a general rule for CD-Rs, if the CD-R recorder is a stand-alone machine designed to copy primarily audio, rather than data or video, then the copying is allowed. If the CD-R recorder is a computer component, or a computer peripheral device designed to be a multi-purpose recorder (in other words, if it will record data and video as well as audio), then copying is not allowed.

And if you don't believe they actually said that, here's where you can find it.


OoO

Their argument is that they get a cut from each digital recording device sold to address piracy, and computers don't count as digital recording devices. Thus, since they don't get money when you buy a computer, it's illegal to copy digital music to your computer.

*shrug* I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.

Have you even read this story yet?!

Yep, try comment #262 moderated +5, Insightful.

Just read the article and shut the fuck up.

Thanks, Jack, but I'd rather form my own opinions.

There's a lot of stuff in there most geeks (and even a lot of amateur musicians) don't really understand that this sheds some light on.

And there's a lot of stuff in there straight (and I mean word for word) from here.

I'll spare you my opinions on the whole copyright/MP3 thing for now, because doing so would probably confuse you.

Thanks, I have to deal with enough ignorant opinions on /. already.
--

...straight from here. Not that I'd call out Salon for pandering or anything, you do need two sides to have a debate.

I can tell you exactly which artists will be most against napster, and that Creed guy is a perfect example. They are in a class affectionately known as One-Hit-Wonders. There is no doubt they would be against, or at least their agents would be against, Napster, since their entire body of useful work consists of about 3 minutes of music (coupled with 15 of fame).

Now before I get into long, winding arguments again, let me make this clear, I think we do need some form of intellectual copyright protection. HOWEVER, given the nature of the Internet and the nature of digital media, our current model for IP is laughable. The only way to enforce it would be to make what I do about once a week, (surf Napster for bands I just heard of), illegal. I am not a big fan of making ridiculously simple and common actions illegal. You shouldn't be forced to limit your choices in a "free" country.

The RIAA is running scared, expect FUD in large helpings, be prepared to see the word pirate thrown around like it's assumed to be the correct word. . It's not. I am not a pirate. Pirates steal things. Listening is not stealing. This is what happens in a capitalistic society when a billion dollar industry is made obsolete overnight. They don't wanna believe it, they don't wanna change, and dammit all the people that are taking their money are "evil pirates" (since they have a *right* to that money, since they convinced a generation of artists to sign over their life's work (for life+50 years, no less))

Copyright should protect the authors of original works to profit from them. If you want to look at it realisticaly, Napster TOTALLY DESTROYS the *real* pirates, those that SELL other artists works. Laws won't be enough to convince people that having 982,345 songs at your fingertips is somehow wrong. But what we can do, if we can keep this argument objective, is create an environment where people respect the copyrights of another because of the willingness of the original author to share. By enforcing these types of values, we can make it a moral decision that the only person who should be paid for a CD is the artist, not some pirater (be they corporate or independant). Personally I prefer a society that uses values to protect the rights or artists, rather than a government that enforces the rights of corporations at the point of a gun.

We are not immoral pirates, dammit, we like music!!

--

Aha. Actually the quotes do come via the RIAA: More than a week ago they posted a FAQ on their lawsuit against napster, containing some of the same quotes from the same people.

After Federal laws with such impressive titles as the Sonny Bono Term Extension Act get passed and signed into law, the good folk in our benign and wondrous government reconcile and merge the new law with the body of the existing old law, which is divided up into . The civil law related to copyright is all of a section called Title 17. (The criminal bits of copyright law are off in a seperate section, over in the criminal code). When a new law gets reconciled and merged with the old, it can be much like the application of a diff patch, lots of little changes all over to hell and gone. However, in the case of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA), it resulted in a new chapter 10 of Title 17 (PDF), so you can read it for yourself (or try).

In a nutshell, the AHRA:

• defines a bunch of terms, primarily a class of "digital audio recording devices" (section 1001)
• mandates that any device in that class incorporate a Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) or similar copy management technology and prohibits "inaccurately" setting the bits of any SCMS-managed recording (section 1002),
• that anyone manufacturing such a device or media for such a device pay a royalty (section 1003),
• the mechanism for the big copyright owners to divide up their new revenue stream (sections 1004-1007),
• most important!! "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings." (entire text of section 1008)
• and finally, what people can sue for, what the damage limits are, and how certain disputes can be arbitrated (sections 1009 and 1010).

In examining the AHRA in RIAA vs. Diamond, the court states:

The district court concluded that the exemption of hard drives from the definition of digital music recording, and the exemption of computers generally from the Act's ambit, "would effectively eviscerate the [Act] " because "[a]ny recording device could evade [ ] regulation simply by passing the music through a computer and ensuring that the MP3 file resided momentarily on the hard drive." RIAA I, 29 F. Supp. 2d at 630. While this may be true, the Act seems to have been expressly designed to create this loophole.

There's a lot of stuff in the rest of copyright law, but basically the law gives the copyright owner exclusive control of the copyrighted work with several exceptions. The AHRA in chapter 10 above defines one exception, the other exceptions significant for our puposes are:

• Chapter 1 (PDF): section 107: Fair Use
• Chapter 1: section 108: reproduction by libraries and archives

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teach-ing (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copy-righted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The other significant exception to the copyright owner's exclusive use is section 108. It's a bit convoluted, but the meat is that public libraries and archives can make backup and replacement copies of stuff for themselves under certain circumstances, can make copies of small sections of works in print for patrons, and can make whole copies of out-of-print works for patrons to take home and keep, under the condition that "the library or archives has first determined, on the basis of a reasonable investigation, that a copy or phonorecord of the copyrighted work cannot be obtained at a fair price". And while someone claiming to be a Real Lawyer® in Usenet has said otherwise, I have always thought that if it's legal for a library to do it for you, it's just got to be "fair use" for you to do it for yourself. (But then again, IANAL.)

In summation, when the RIAA writes:

"The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act."

Did you see that the RIAA has an MP3 for free.... Here

• To whom it may concern:
  
  I was recently made aware of the text of your website at the address:
  
  http://www.riaa.com/tech/tech_ht.htm
  
  In it, you make some statements and recommendations to consumers about the legality of copying analog and digital music, telling us what we can and can't copy, in reference to the Audio Home Recording Act:
  
  Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own. The same holds true for copying music off the Internet. While MP3s may be popular, if the artist and record company have not specifically authorized the music to be freely traded on the Net, then posting MP3s to an Internet site or downloading them to your computer hard drive is copyright infringement.
  
  The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act.

  This information is misleading at best, and seems to me to be blatantly fallacious and intentional untruthful. Text from the actual act indicates that any personal or non-commercial use of digital or analog recording technologies are explicitly exempted from the act:

  Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

  No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
  
  Also, the general interpretation of US law indicates that only those things specifically placed under the jurisdiction of law are subject to its consequences, and those not (for example, computers/hard drives/MP3s in the Audio Home Recording Act) are not affected. The old "implied powers" argument has been defeated for centuries in court, and your attempt to resurrect it in an "informational" web page for the public seems to me an intentionally underhanded method to deter the proliferation of digital copies of music that individuals own without paying royalties to record companies. US courts have echoed the consumer's right to make digital copies in recent court cases, including the one the RIAA brought against Diamond Multimedia. The resulting decision stated that consumers have a right to space-shift and time-shift their content--consumers can make copiesof music thy own to hard drives/MP3s/etc all they like.

  Pleaseeither remove the fallacious information from this website or clarify that it reflects the wishes of the RIAA, and not US law. Also, I would appreciate a response indicating the plan of action regarding the website.
  

• To whom it may concern:
  
  I was recently made aware of the text of your website at the address:
  
  http://www.riaa.com/tech/tech_ht.htm
  
  In it, you make some statements and recommendations to consumers about the legality of copying analog and digital music, telling us what we can and can't copy, in reference to the Audio Home Recording Act:
  
  Computers and general-purpose computer peripheral devices are not covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. This means they do not pay royalties and they do not incorporate technology to prevent serial copying. As a result, this also means that copying music onto a computer hard drive is not permitted. It is copyright infringement, and a violation of federal law. This is true whether the source being copied is analog or digital; whether you are copying an entire album or just one song or even part of a song; or whether you are making a compilation of songs from albums you already own. The same holds true for copying music off the Internet. While MP3s may be popular, if the artist and record company have not specifically authorized the music to be freely traded on the Net, then posting MP3s to an Internet site or downloading them to your computer hard drive is copyright infringement.
  
  The bottom line: the only digital copying of music that is allowed is with digital recorders that are covered by and comply with the Audio Home Recording Act.

  This information is misleading at best, and seems to me to be blatantly fallacious and intentional untruthful. Text from the actual act indicates that any personal or non-commercial use of digital or analog recording technologies are explicitly exempted from the act:

  Sec. 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

  No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
  
  Also, the general interpretation of US law indicates that only those things specifically placed under the jurisdiction of law are subject to its consequences, and those not (for example, computers/hard drives/MP3s in the Audio Home Recording Act) are not affected. The old "implied powers" argument has been defeated for centuries in court, and your attempt to resurrect it in an "informational" web page for the public seems to me an intentionally underhanded method to deter the proliferation of digital copies of music that individuals own without paying royalties to record companies. US courts have echoed the consumer's right to make digital copies in recent court cases, including the one the RIAA brought against Diamond Multimedia. The resulting decision stated that consumers have a right to space-shift and time-shift their content--consumers can make copiesof music thy own to hard drives/MP3s/etc all they like.

  Pleaseeither remove the fallacious information from this website or clarify that it reflects the wishes of the RIAA, and not US law. Also, I would appreciate a response indicating the plan of action regarding the website.
  

Hilary Rosen's bio notes that she is a "veteran lobbyist on Capitol Hill." Interesting that the RIAA is based in Washington DC and not in L.A. where most of the labels are.

Of course, the RIAA will probably send its goons to seize your hard drive if you send them email. But, hey, nobody misses democracy, right?

Hilary Rosen's bio notes that she is a "veteran lobbyist on Capitol Hill." Interesting that the RIAA is based in Washington DC and not in L.A. where most of the labels are.

Of course, the RIAA will probably send its goons to seize your hard drive if you send them email. But, hey, nobody misses democracy, right?

I can't believe that no one has mentioned this: the RIAA lawsuit has nothing to do with the Beam-It technology, its security, or MP3 encoding. Nothing.

To provide the music stream, MP3.com has to have ripped versions of every CD. They claim that they've got a database of 40,000 CDs available to be "beamed".

The RIAA claims that MP3.com didn't BUY these 40,000 CDs; that they made unauthorized copies to create their database.

Here is the relevant information from this CNN story:

But the RIAA is accusing MP3.com of creating an unauthorized digital music catalog of up to 45,000 CDs, claiming many of the copyrighted works are the property of its members.

"Simply put, it is not legal to compile a vast database of our members' sound recordings with no permission and no license," Hilary Rosen, CEO of the RIAA, stated in the letter. "Obviously, you are not free to take protected works simply because you want them."

[snip]

But legal experts say that by creating a catalog of digital music without an explicit license, MP3.com has overstepped copyright laws.

"I don't know what MP3.com is thinking," said Lon Sobel, editor of the Entertaiment Law Reporter and a former Loyola University Law School professor. "Under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, consumers get the right to make copies of material for their own non-commercial uses. It does not give others the right to do it on consumers' behalf."

This RIAA statement reiterates:

The lawsuit against MP3.com has nothing to do with MP3 technology. It has to do with MP3.com, the company, taking music they don't own and haven't licensed to offer new services to make money for themselves.

While all these discussions are fascinating and relevant to many outstanding legal issues, they somewhat miss the point of this particular lawsuit.

Companies like UBL, IUMA, Farm Club and MP3.com prove that there are many creative ways to promote new artists online without infringing on the rights of artists and copyright owners.

--

"Companies like UBL, IUMA, Farm Club and MP3.com prove that there are many creative ways to promote new artists online without infringing on the rights of artists and copyright owners"

--

--

Take a look at the MPEG-4 Structured Audio: Developer Tools for info on MP-4.

RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix

Before one can know if SDMI does the right thing, one must have a clear picture of what the right thing is. One thing the recorded music publishers have neglected for years is that they were only incidentally selling atoms. Really, they were always selling licenses.

I have here a brand-new shrink wrapped CD. Copyright mark and one warning on the outside - "unauthorized duplication is violation of applicable laws". Pop the wrap. Disc itself has the same print. Liner notes have copyright statements, same warning.

So here's an odd thing - I've bought some atoms and a license, but I haven't got a clear picture of that license.

I took a quick pass at smdi.org and wasn't too informed by it. So I buzzed over to riaa.org where this item is a pointer on The Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 I should run over and read the acts, but I haven't yet. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse..."

Music licensing is fiercely complex anyway - many organizations can "own" an aspect of the same performance. Making rights visible would go a long way towards making SDMI restrictions comprehensible - and maybe getting rid of some restrictions.

Henry Troup

hwt@igs.net

yeah, that's satire i ghuess. it's just to bad that it's off the mark. i encourage everyone to try to be fully informed about this issue. There are headlines at c|net and my.yahoo. And you could always check out riaa.com where there are two articles posted justifiing this lawsuit.

In the past riaa has brought some absurd lawsuits, but please get past your gut reaction and view this lawsuit on its merits.

I posted this on superspecialquestions.com, the web BBS that M. Doughty (of the band Soul Coughing) runs.

legislating the number OR i'll chew my audio, thanks.

The 5% nation has switched from offering an mp3-encoded Soul Coughing recording each month in favor of releasing a greater volume of material in the Liquid Audio format -- the catch being that these Liquid Audio files are only playable for 30 days.

The deal, as I understand it, is that more music can be released in the Liquid Audio format, since the 30-day timeout makes a future commercial release of the music more lucrative.

Let me explain why I feel this is a Bad Thing. The issue is complicated, but I'll be as breif as I can.

Liquid Audio is very different from mp3.

First, it's a "secure format". That means that (either by patent or trade secret) only Liquid Audio (the company) and its licensees can make players for these files. It also means that you can't easily convert a Liquid Audio track into another format.

Second, that 30-day time limit is more than just an inconvenience. It raises questions. Clearly I'm not supposed to be able to get around that 30-day limit. But is it a legal restriction, or just a technological one? What's the legal status of a program I might write to to convert a Liquid Audio file into a .wav or .mp3 file? Such programs exist, and they get called "cracks", and talked about as if they're seriously under the table. They're hard to find. Are they illegal? What about the simple solution -- if I get a headphone-plug-to-headphone-plug cable, put one end in the "out" jack on my sound card, put the other end in the "in" jack, and play the Liquid Audio track while I record to a regular wave file? Is that legal? Wave files are easy to encode as mp3s. Am I allowed to redistribute the resulting file?

If we don't ask questions like these, they're going to be answered the way record companies want rather than the way we (as either fans or musicians) might want. Explaining why those answers aren't likely to be the same is a little bit of a task. I'll do the best I can, and provide links. If you're interested, they'll cover the topic much more thoroughly than I'm going to here.

About Mp3:
There is a political battle being fought over the mp3 format. Mp3, like many formats to come (trust me here), makes it possible to store and transfer high-quality audio recordings digitally within reasonable a size range and with reasonable transfer speed. This is becomes increasingly true as storage and network technologies allow for larger and larger files to be reasonable for storage and transfer. Suddenly, it's physically possible to receive and entire albums in digital format over the internet. No one needs to manufacture a CD. No one needs to ship CDs to stores. No one needs to run stores, and no one needs to go out to stores to get music. Record companies are terrified. That's because the business of physically distributing music media is very profitable, and in the near future, it will probably be very outdated -- unless record companies get their way and are able to create an artificial demand for the distribution of music. They've banded together as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) to fight mp3. One of the most effective arguments they're using to convince people that such a system needs to be put in place deals with artist compensation and copyright protection. But before I get into that, here are some links for information on mp3 and what record companies are doing about it:

http://www.riaa.com/
http://slashdot.org/ (search for "RIAA")
http://david.weekly.org/writings/sdmi.php3

About Copyright:
There was a time when Copyright made perfect sense. When printing presses were the only way to copy a publishable work, the trade-off was universally beneficial. Printing presses were expensive. Copyright made it possible for people with printing presses to profit from publishing a peice of writing, and didn't limit the rights of people who didn't have printing presses, since they had no reasonable way to copy printed works anyway. People with printing presses were happy, people without printing presses lost nothing of value, and authors could be rewarded for their efforts. When we stretch copyright to cover digital media, however, things get a lot more complicated. Anyone can copy a computer file. In fact, copying digital media is implicit in doing a lot of things that we have other metaphors for as well. To view this web page, for example, you've got to copy it from a server on the Internet. In its journey from that server to your computer, it is copyied between many other computers on the internet that you never have to pay attention to. When it arrives at your computer, it is copied around several times in RAM to get it into a format that will make sense to you, and it is probably copied from the RAM onto your disk for temporary storage to speed things up if you want to view it again in the near future. Then it's copied to a special place in the RAM, which is read by your video card, which then transforms it into the light you're seeing. Then it gets copied about in very similar ways in your eyes, your optic nerves, and in your brain. Worse, the whole web page, like any Liquid Audio track, image, or computer program, is represented within your computer as a number. What are the consequenses of legislating the rights people have over numbers and how they chose to interpret them? Copyright in the present day has become a very complicated issue. It's obviously still important to reward artists and authors for their work, but it's not at all clear how we should do it. Here are some links to pages which talk about what's wrong with the kind of Copyright that many record companies (and software companies before them) are in favor of:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyrig ht.html
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/dat.html
http://www.public-domain.org/old.html

Because of the mp3s released via the 5% nation, I used to count Soul Coughing amoungst the most politically progressive bands in terms of digital media policy. Such venerable (and notably non-major-record-label-affiliated) musicians as Frank Black and They Might Be Giants have released entire albums in the mp3 format. While I'm not sure it's really up to musicians to keep tabs on issues like these, it's certainly nice to see.

and this is an exerpt from a later post in the thread:

// I enjoy it when people like my music, but it's MY music. I did it. I put myself into it, and it's mine. I have a right to be compensated for it if you want to use it. The free distribution of mp3's takes away that right//

I can go out on the street right now and start selling fire. I can make the fire by banging some rocks together near some dry leaves, and I can sell it on sticks. If you've ever actually tried to start a fire by banging rocks together, you know that it's pretty difficult. So it would take a lot of hard work to make that fire. But if someone bought my fire from me, they could just turn around and start spreading it onto other sticks, and giving it away! Shouldn't I have some kind of right to profit from the fire I worked so hard to make? I don't think so. It was just a bad investment. Anyone can make fire cheap, and once fire is made, anyone can spread it cheap. What right do I have to stop them?

It comes back to the issue of how we're goinging to make music something someone can reasonably do for a living. I don't know how we should do that, but I know that a situation in which musicians get paid because people aren't allowed to do something which is essentially very easy to do will never work out. Getting controlled substances is considerably harder than copying digital media, and look how well the War on Drugs is doing. So why don't we drop that idea and start thinking very hard about what we can do instead?

After a while, of free reign, where anybody can pirate music, some people are starting to look around and asking questions... and one major question is if anything is happening to prevent mp3 distribution.

Well, there isn't much people can do. There have been a few attempt to prevent people from pirating music, but not many succesful ones. It seems that this person was to set an example, to show that people aren't allowed to pirate music. And, it didn't work either.

here's where i start to go off-topic
But, the RIAA has also tried to prevent people from pirating music. So far, they've just tried to sue companies, such as Diamond, for releasing the Diamond Rio. They also have attempted to sue napster, since they have a client which "created a forum that lets online users trade unauthorized music files directly from their PCs".

Of course, if you haven't heard, there is then SDMI, which is promoted by the RIAA. SDMI stands for Secure Digital Music Initiative. It is an attempt to prevent piracy of music altogether.

I'm working on a project right now to stream .mp3s while remaining in RIAA guidelines (quite a steaming pile of some nasty-ass legalese... I've been on the phone with them and my contractor's lawyer more than a few times trying to get it all straight).

What appears to be the RIAA's biggest worry (as evidenced by thier legal stuffies) is not that people have .mp3s, or even that they're broadcasting them over the net (or at a party or dance or whatever), but that their use is allowing people to bypass buying CDs. Take, for example, this snippit from the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (one of the documents one must adhere to for compliance), which states:

Sound recording performance complement. A Webcaster may not play in any three-hour period (1) more than three songs from a particular album, including no more than two consecutively, or (2) four songs by a particular artist or from a boxed set, including no more than three consecutively.

This is designed so that people can't simply set up a recording device of some sort and 'recreate' an album just by tuning in an pushing the button with the red dot. Other entries in there also seem geared towards non-copying things (some outright, others more hidden).

Under the circumstances, it seems pretty unlikely that DJs using mp3s in the field are going to be doing so for copying/trading purposes, so the RIAA probably wouldn't really give much of a care... and even if they did, the ability to police every kegger, rave and school dance is an impracticality of enormous proportions.

BTW - The site is at www.quicktracks.com. Please note that in its current incarnation we're *not* compliant. I'm working on that software right now, so the beastie will be up and down a bit over the next week or so as I poke at it.

--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)

Your take is in error. In ~18 months, Phase 2 of SDMI will begin, and your [insert PMP here] will stop playing any SDMI-secured files that have not been legitimately distributed. All your favorite old MP3's will still work just fine. You might want to check out the SDMI FAQ for more information.

RIAA does not get any royalties directly. The royalties go to the recording company of a particular artist. It is the recording companies who are members of the RIAA, which is a trade association.

Congress got involved by passing the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995. The Library of Congress, through the Copyright Office, is federally authorized to set royalty rates for cable and satellite transmission of music. The RIAA immediately started squealing. Evidently the LOC originally determined that 5% was a fair royalty, but the RIAA believed that digital subscription music services (like MUZAK, in its cable/satellite form) should pony up 40% or more, on the same model as cable television networks, who pay handsome royalties for the license to broadcast motion pictures.

The RIAA, BTW, does not mention this recent court decision on their web page. Imagine that.

THIS is the actual RIAA press release regarding consumer statistics for 1998. Half way down the document, it says, and I cut/paste:

Configuration: Accounting for 74.8% of the total market, full-length CDs were consumed at a greater rate in 1998 than in the past four years.

This, ofcourse is purely demographic information. Demographics are only useful for marketing.

What that article says is that the 14-24 year old range accounts for 4% less of the total 100% of sales than the previous year. This can be interpreted as meaning that 14-24 year olds are buying less music than they used to be, in comparison to other age groups.

Therein lies the beauty of statistics. They say whatever you want them to say, depending on how you look at them.

However, if you look at the PDF of the actual numeric data, HERE , you will see that the total dollar value of the record industry is up 1.5 Billion dollars over 1997, up to 13.7 billion total. (12.2 billion in 1997)

That still doesn't say anything at all about the total number of recordings sold to consumers, but 1.5 billion more in business sure sounds better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, doesn't it? I mean, I wouldn't turn THAT away at the door. Would you?

The RIAA has never been able to produce any evidence that MP3 distribution hurts record sales, other than the simplistic logic that a song downloaded for free is a song not paid for.

On the other hand, as the PDF illustrates (badly, but still readably), record sales have been increasing. They increased rapidly from 1989 to 1996, dropped almost insignifigantly in 1997, and then increased again in 1998. The drop in 1997 was entirely within the margin of error for the statistics, and could be taken as a leveling off of the sales.

If anything, mp3 distribution probably helps record sales, for a number of reasons.

First, quality. According to the standards set out by the MPC folks, yes, the people who put stupid logos on boxes and certified cdrom drives all those years ago, "CD Quality Sound" means "12-bits 22 khz Stereo".

A 128-kbit MP3 is at best, roughly the same quality as a near-by FM radio station. This, for many people who are not taken with the geek value of MP3, is simply not enough.

Second, the sense of artistic value and permanance that comes with an actual distributed media. a CD, with it's packaging and artwork, is something much less likely to disappear, in many peoples minds, than a file on their harddrive. And for some, the artwork on the CD and on the casing and in the insert can give the owner a sense that they own something that gives them some connection to the artist beyond the music alone.

Even if i could download every Twilight Circus album in existance, I would still buy them. I would buy them because I've met Ryan Moore and talked to him, and i think he's a great guy. And I know that he individually numbers all the CD's that ever ship out, stamping them with his own rubber stamp and red ink, and that he often signs them too. From time to time, he even does the artwork by hand, on each and every one of a particular release.

Third, and most importantly, mindshare. People are today buying music they would have never heard of before, because the record companies pick and choose who's albums they will promote and who's albums they will ignore. This probably accounts for the steady decrease in "rock" sales as detailed in the press release.

MP3 distribution is free advertisment for the band. Aside from the top 100 or so artists or bands in the world, most musicians make the bulk of their money off touring, and the sales of merchandise at the shows. For decades, the record industry has given the artists a raw deal on the profits from record sales, with the argument that without distribution channels, nobody would hear of them, and nobody would come to see them play, and nobody would buy anything. The artist no longer needs the distribution channel for advertisment. Only for the actual act of distributing their artistic creation in the form of an album, which is something many musicians will always cherish, regardless of electronic distribution.

THIS is the actual RIAA press release regarding consumer statistics for 1998. Half way down the document, it says, and I cut/paste:

Configuration: Accounting for 74.8% of the total market, full-length CDs were consumed at a greater rate in 1998 than in the past four years.

This, ofcourse is purely demographic information. Demographics are only useful for marketing.

What that article says is that the 14-24 year old range accounts for 4% less of the total 100% of sales than the previous year. This can be interpreted as meaning that 14-24 year olds are buying less music than they used to be, in comparison to other age groups.

Therein lies the beauty of statistics. They say whatever you want them to say, depending on how you look at them.

However, if you look at the PDF of the actual numeric data, HERE , you will see that the total dollar value of the record industry is up 1.5 Billion dollars over 1997, up to 13.7 billion total. (12.2 billion in 1997)

That still doesn't say anything at all about the total number of recordings sold to consumers, but 1.5 billion more in business sure sounds better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, doesn't it? I mean, I wouldn't turn THAT away at the door. Would you?

The RIAA has never been able to produce any evidence that MP3 distribution hurts record sales, other than the simplistic logic that a song downloaded for free is a song not paid for.

On the other hand, as the PDF illustrates (badly, but still readably), record sales have been increasing. They increased rapidly from 1989 to 1996, dropped almost insignifigantly in 1997, and then increased again in 1998. The drop in 1997 was entirely within the margin of error for the statistics, and could be taken as a leveling off of the sales.

If anything, mp3 distribution probably helps record sales, for a number of reasons.

First, quality. According to the standards set out by the MPC folks, yes, the people who put stupid logos on boxes and certified cdrom drives all those years ago, "CD Quality Sound" means "12-bits 22 khz Stereo".

A 128-kbit MP3 is at best, roughly the same quality as a near-by FM radio station. This, for many people who are not taken with the geek value of MP3, is simply not enough.

Second, the sense of artistic value and permanance that comes with an actual distributed media. a CD, with it's packaging and artwork, is something much less likely to disappear, in many peoples minds, than a file on their harddrive. And for some, the artwork on the CD and on the casing and in the insert can give the owner a sense that they own something that gives them some connection to the artist beyond the music alone.

Even if i could download every Twilight Circus album in existance, I would still buy them. I would buy them because I've met Ryan Moore and talked to him, and i think he's a great guy. And I know that he individually numbers all the CD's that ever ship out, stamping them with his own rubber stamp and red ink, and that he often signs them too. From time to time, he even does the artwork by hand, on each and every one of a particular release.

Third, and most importantly, mindshare. People are today buying music they would have never heard of before, because the record companies pick and choose who's albums they will promote and who's albums they will ignore. This probably accounts for the steady decrease in "rock" sales as detailed in the press release.

MP3 distribution is free advertisment for the band. Aside from the top 100 or so artists or bands in the world, most musicians make the bulk of their money off touring, and the sales of merchandise at the shows. For decades, the record industry has given the artists a raw deal on the profits from record sales, with the argument that without distribution channels, nobody would hear of them, and nobody would come to see them play, and nobody would buy anything. The artist no longer needs the distribution channel for advertisment. Only for the actual act of distributing their artistic creation in the form of an album, which is something many musicians will always cherish, regardless of electronic distribution.