Pirates Steal Negative $1,400,000,000 from Music Industry

In exciting news this week, the RIAA announced that due to the massive piracy of digital music "ripped" from CD's and made available over the Internet, the music industry lost negative $1,400,000,000 in CD sales in 1999. In fact, the damage was so extreme that the industry shipped negative 90 million fewer CD's than the year before.

Oh, I can't keep up the fake news any more... In fact, the RIAA reports that the music industry - especially non-copy-protected CD's - is booming. Not only did the record industry sell 10.8% more CD's than last year, they raised their income on those disks by 12.3% - so not only are you buying more music, but you're paying more for each disk you buy. Income from CD's alone increased by 1.4 billion dollars last year. So where's the crippling damage from evil music pirates? If they're suffering so badly, why does their profit chart look like Microsoft's?

Comments

Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[Ian the Terrible]

Let's pick up the pace - despite all of our efforts, the RIAA is still firmly in the black.

Re:Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[Weezul]

Let's pick up the pace - despite all of our efforts, the RIAA is still firmly in the black.

Seriously, It would be really nice to think that we could hurt the RIAA by pirating lots of music, but the issue is a lot more complex. Piracy might have the potential to do a little harm to sales, but for the most part piracy is promotion and will only increase sales. We really do not know that piracy will hurt them in the long run. It will definitly change their buisness model and will remove the monopoly on promotion, but we would really like to hurt these companies which have abused their artists and consumers for so long.

I feal that music pirates should feal morally obligated to try and hurt the music industry by (a) improving promotion for internet only bands and (b) helping people who really do not have the money to pirate get the songs for free.

We can achive (a) by giving internet only bands who let us distribut their music space on our sites (and maybe even telling people to check them out). It would als be a good idea for people to run sites specilising in promotion, i.e. pirate sites submit upload instrustions, internet bands upload their own music, and the site uploads the song (maybe with advertising attached) to lots of pirate sites. Generally it would be a relly good idea to help these bands promot themselves.

I do not really know much about (b) but I think that we should make an effort to recrute people in poor countries and high school kids into the pirate scene. People who learn to pirate because they lack the money to buy CDs *may* be less likely to switch to mindlss CD consumers in the future.

We have a moral obligation as consumers to try and fix abusive industry.

Re:Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[DJStealth]

Looks like mp3's are obviously doing some good for the music industry.

They lost NEGATIVE $1.4 billion .. That's a DOUBLE NEGATIVE.. which means they made $1.4 billion dollars from pirating MP3's..

Therefore, pirating MP3's does good for the music industry

Re:Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[Ikari]

Napster won't survive for long if the RIAA has its way in the law suit. And most college campuses are banning it in any case, so the main source of downloading may be eliminated. Before you fight against the RIAA, you may have to fight FOR Napster.

Re:Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[Kaht]

That's the idea. They're still rich, so obviously all this stuff about us evil internet criminals is just propaganda. Pay attention.

Re:Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[kenf]

Here we go again. Back in the early days of microcomputers, one of the most pirated pieces of software was the wordprocessor, Wordstar. This was also the best selling word processor. Why, because everybody got a copy to play with, and then suggested it be purchased by their companies when they needed it for work.

When will they ever learn!

Re:Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[mrfunnypants]

Napster was banned at my school but so many ppl complained that they are going to increase bandwidth so that next year it will be allowed to be used again, who said all schools are evil tyrants, just most I suppose.

Re:Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[talonyx]

My school uses Linux, and were were on ISDN trying to download from Audiofind at a k a second up until a week ago...
now we have 8mb/sec fullrate ADSL.

And I figured out how to get the Qt libs and stuff onto a computer without root, and now we all have Knapster. And lots of MP3s.

I love school!

(Isn't it funny that Knapster and Gnapster both sound the same when pronounced?)

Of course, I love the techno/trance from Raymond Wave much better... Free MP3.Com music.

Fight the RIAA with what is legal... free music only, and set up My.MP3.Com so you can upload the CD's you do have.
--
Talon Karrde

Re:Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[funkywizard]

Obviously we are not. maybe the downloading of mp3s are encouraging people to buy more music by allowing them to try out a band before they buy a cd. now that most music sucks and costs more than 15 bucks a pop, would you just go out and buy a cd you havent heard? radio is a joke for this, even if you like the music, you have no idea who made it, and music videos are lousy because they play the same one 10 times a day or more. i for one know that i wont pay 15+ dollars for a half hour album when i can download 5 hours of music during my lunch period at school. if they dont like it, they can just stop selling cds.

Re:Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[Cyberllama]

Actually, I'd like to make a quick point, even though I've made it before in similar posts.

If anything, mp3s have helped the RIAA and sell more cds than probably anything else. How you ask is that possible? Simple, a lot of people, myself included, enjoy import cds and have musical tastes which aren't quite mainstream. While some people will use radio as a way of finding out what kind of music they like enough to buy, in my case it is nearly impossible to find any good trance, goa, house, jungle, happycore, etc. music on the radio. As a result, my primary, and practicaly only way of deciding what cds to buy is based on whether or not I like the mp3. I've found numerous, numerous groups that I discovered I liked that I would have never even heard of were it not for mp3.

Couple this with the fact that you can't returned opened cd's to the store unless defective (and then only for an exchange on the same one), and you get a very good reason why mp3s (by allowing pepole to listen before they buy) sell more cd's than any other medium. On a side note, I noticed that the article indicated that cd singles didn't sell so hotly. That IS probably mp3s fault. After all, if you only like one song off the cd (you discover after listening to it via mp3), you more likely not to shell out 5 bucks for a single than you are to simply go the mp3 alone.

Re:Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[stalle]

You mean you have stolen my very own patented idea of downloading Mp3:s from school? I can clearly see a lawsuit infront of me ... If amazon can, I can ... note: this was some kind of weird sarcasm...

Re:Clearly, we're not pirating fast enough. :)

[fleagal]

Often times when an album has it's first hit song the majors won't release it on single because they fear it will hurt album sales. That sucks. You can often times still get it on 12", though.

HA

[peelSA]

The RIAA has no idea how to control what could prove to be the biggest thing since CDs.

Re:double negatives

[Pascal Q. Porcupine]

You know that mass of neurons between your ears? Maybe you should try using them to figure out what he means by the double negatives.

The music industry lost negative 1.4 billion. That is, they gained 1.4 billion.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.

figures....

[nirnaeth]

SHEESH. I think the riaa would be damn surprised at what would happen if they actually LOWERED cd prices... maybe people would ..... BUY MORE OF them...??? nahh... cant be... first post? *shrug*

Re:figures....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, that's the only way to stop copying.
Why should I pay Fl 44,95 (that's around $ 22 ) for a CD when I can buy it over the net for $ 11,95..
The problem is, that nobody in the EC follows the law and do something against price fixing.
The prices in all the shops are almost the same because the record industry don't allow competition (price fixing is against the law).

Re:figures....

[um... Lucas]

AFAIK, Record shops can charge whatever they wish for CD's. It's just if they charge less than what the RIAA recommends, they lose out on advertising subsidies. So really, it's more the guts of the store owners that's to blame.

The RIAA is not microsoft. They won't bar a store from selling CD's if they violate their agreements. They just won't give the store extra consideration. If someone out there would start selling CD's for less than what the RIAA says they should go for, they'ed stand a great chance of radically increasing their business, so long as they advertised heavily. I guess the though goes that the money lost by selling music for cheaper isn't made up for with extra volume, after you factor in the expenses of notifying everyone that you're the cheapest.

Re:figures....

[wfberg]

The original poster was talking about the situation in Europe, specifically The Netherlands, where the recording industry has won an exemption to anti-monopoly law, allowing them to fix prices, since they CLAIM to use the monopoly winnings partially or entirely to stimulate the arts, i.e. release things that they know won't sell well.

Which any other entrepeneur would call operating expenses, or normal business risks. In fact, only tiny record companies release music that is really non-mainstream.

The same holds true for books.

(Also, isn't it funny that you won't find books older than 3 months in a bookstore, because the bookstore can't return them as unsold copies to the publisher after that period of time? So, whereas shop-owners and publishers see the economic life-time of a book as 3 months, or if you add a second non-hard-cover edition 6 months, copyright law goes on for years and years after the author's death (and with todays healthcare, any really profitable author need not to die, at least officially))

Dammit, I'm ranting again..

--

They're probably right to some extent

[Troed]

... students on campus don't really buy CDs anymore, which I know many of you can confirm. That we don't like the actions of the RIAA doesn't mean we can't see objectively on the matter.

We need music over the web, micropayable - I'm all for commercial solutions as long as they're not closed standards. If I could buy music for a reasonable amount of money I would - instead of downloading crap quality mp3s (yes, crap quality - people who don't know how to grab without getting click sounds, or mp3-compress with the wrong programs etc)

In fact, I've _stopped_ listening to mp3s - I'm just waiting for the commercial music-over-the-net solutions .. please? Anyone?

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[Anonymous Coward]

we still buy some music on my campus. you are the only person i have ever heard of who refuses to use mp3's. everyone i know loves them. yes there are some crappy quality ones floating around but it's not THAT bad. you get what you pay for. if i find some music i really like, I will still buy it on a disk. even if mp3's had perfect sound quality, i still want that physical representation of the music with the little booklet and the lyrics and all that stuff.

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[Shadow Knight]

... students on campus don't really buy CDs anymore, which I know many of you can confirm. That we don't like the actions of the RIAA doesn't mean we can't see objectively on the matter.

As a student on campus, I can confirm that this is absolutely false! Students around here (Va Tech, where we have ethernet connected to the internet via five T1s and three T3s... it's fast) are buying more CD's than ever. They then rip the CD's for convenience's sake. They do not return them. They keep them. So, I don't know where you get that above statement from... at least at this major university, it simply isn't true.

Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[Optical]

With a twisted enough argument, it could be said that mp3's actually benefit the recording industry. It's like free advertising-- I know I've bought several CDs after grabbing mp3s off the net....CDs i wouldn't have bought otherwise...

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[chialea]

wow. I guess that big huge pile of CD's in my CAMPUS DORM drawer doesn't exist, as well as that Les Mis original cast recording set that's coming in the mail... (just like the large pile of DVD's that I'd like to play under linux doesn't exist either :) ). people buy CDs around here. people buy a LOT of CDs. you should take a look at the dorm mailrooms. or at the two very large music stores (Rasputin and Ameoba) that are a block away from each other, in the heart of student-land.

number 2 -- you SHOULD NOT be downloading those crap quality MP3s. it's illegal, in general. complaining that your pirated MS software is crap is going to get you about the same amount of sympathy from me, or from anyone else. for some odd reason my MP3s sound fine, and I'm sure the ones you rip do too -- and since those are the only ones (besides some that you can buy at mp3.com, etc) you can legally listen to, you really don't have anything to complain about. ripping MP3s for yourself is fair use (anything to not have to crawl under my bed to change the CD!). taking advantage of it is only going to encourage things like SDMI-enabled players, which won't play my HHGTTG original-radio-show MP3s, or anything else I've ripped that the RIAA won't be offering.

now, I do agree with you about micropayable music. these are likely to be high quality as well, even high quality MP3s, so that would take care of your other complaint.
:)

Lea

(oh, and if people know good rippers/encoders for linux... I haven't ripped anything since I switched over a year and some ago, and I've got a lot more stuff to throw on that extra hard drive that used to have windows on it...)

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[kevlar]

I don't find that to be true at all. I buy CDs, although I've never really been a big cd buyer. Now that mp3's have come along, I'm actually buying more of them specificly so that I can rip them to my hard drive and use my computer as a juke box. Granted, many people use mp3's. Their usage however does not mean that they would actually _buy_ the cd for a certain song. All it means is that its increased the quantitiy of music at their disposal. Yes, the RIAA is losing some money. I'm extremely skeptical about that $1.4B estimate however. Its a bit hard to swallow.

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[Hyperion X]

I'd have to disagree with the fact that students don't buy CDs. Since I started listening to MP3s, I've bought far more CDs, and been much happier with the ones I buy. Like it or not, there are audible differences between CDs and MP3s, even well-encoded MP3s. I much prefer listening to my CDs than MP3s, but I can decide if I like a CD before I buy it - it's like those listening stations at record stores. In the stores the tradeoff is that I have to be there to listen to it. With MP3s the tradeoff is that I have lower sound quality.

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[m3000]

I've done the exact same thing. I've bought two different CD's soley based on MP3's. Without mp3's, I would have never gotten a good taste of their music and known that I liked it. Sure, I could have downloaded the entire album and burned it, but I guess I'm too ethical for that, and I just like to show support for bands I like.

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[DogzOfWar]

The new Oasis album comes out tonight at midnight, and even though i have the whole album plus 5 or so b-sides on mp3, i'm going to stand in the rain to be the first one to buy it. I have over 6 gigs of mp3's, and i buy more albums than anybody else i know.

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[lizrd]

Good command line programs for these tasks are CD Paranoia for ripping and blade enc. for encoding. You can get both of these from freshmeat.net and there are graphical front-ends for both avaliable for your favorite WM there too.

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[CokeBear]

i still want that physical representation of the music with the little booklet and the lyrics and all that stuff

Regardless of where the industry goes, the physical booklet with lyrics will eventually make way for artist's web sites, which can hold infinitely more information than the little booklet. A good example of this is Moxy Fruvous

They have the lyrics to all the songs they ever recorded at their web site, as well as tour dates, fan info, and tons of other stuff. If we are still buying physical media (CDs or their descendents) in 10 years, the enclosed booklet will simply contain a URL, with all the info, including lyrics, at the web site.

(BTW, any other Fruvous fans out there? Former Fruvous fans?)

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say about 98% of the time I don't even consider buying a CD from a store. I either download the MP3 or borrow the CD from a friend and dupe it. Maybe I'm immoral, maybe I'm simply apathetic. All I know is as a student, my money is important and scarse, and I demand the best when I spend it. My MP3 train-of-thought is as follows:

1. I love CD-TEXT. But only a small percentage of CD's I purchase in a store have CD-TEXT, the others I have to reburn just to put the text on it, as the text is that important to me. For all the money we pay these music production companies, I don't think it's worth it to get a text CD every once in a while.

2. CD's are a fragile, dated technology. I think it's absurd to pay $12-$17 for a CD now, when SCD's are just around the corner, and will yield my entire collection useless. Then of course there will be something newer and better after that, and then again after that. So why pay now? Perhaps there are subtile differences between the quality of an MP3 and an uncompressed CD, but even the best CD's still suffer from the flaws of the technology, as they cannot compare to a studio quality analog recording. And the fragile nature of the CD means the scratches that pile up no matter how hard I try will someday lead to skips on the CD. Then I can either go to the store and drop another $15, or just use a $0.75 CDR and have the same disc once again, made from my MP3 archives.

Think of this what you will, but these are a few of the reasons I don't pay for music. I'm not trying to say it's the correct way, and I'm not trying to convince myself that this is the moral thing to do. The fact is, when I pay for something, I demand excellence. If the quality is questionable, and an alternative is available, then I will take the alternative route. I could probably be convinced to buying a CD if it was $6, had CD-TEXT, and the artist saw 70% or so of the revenue. .02

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[rcw-work]

oh, and if people know good rippers/encoders for linux... I haven't ripped anything since I switched over a year and some go, and I've got a lot more stuff to throw on that extra hard drive that used to have windows on it..

Best encoder: gogo, or if you're not on x86, try lame.
Best ripper: cdparanoia.

I may be a little bit biased on the frontend market, but as the author of abcde I highly recommend it. :)

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[arasinen]

Regardless of where the industry goes, the physical booklet with lyrics will eventually make way for artist's web sites, which can hold infinitely more information than the little booklet.

I just can't see this happening. There are bands who publish most (or more) of the information available on the booklet also on the Net. However, the only time I use those resources is when I do not own the CD yet.

Web-only lyrics (and other resources) have downsides. First of all, although I listen to music while using my computer, those two aren't so connected. In fact, I try to avoid all distractions (incl. my computing machine) when listening to my new CD's for the first time time.

Somehow it's clumsier too. Having the small booklet on your lap while you're concentrating on the music feels much nicer than staring at the bulky screen... call me a neo-luddite, but I like paper.

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[Julius X]

I completely agree with you--in part!

Many students I know--and I go to VA Tech Also--buy CDs and as you said, rip them for convienience sake. I have several friends who have ripped their entire CD collection.

But on the other hand, I have a few friends, most of them younger Freshman and such, who have swore never to buy a CD or Movie again because they can get it faster by just going on IRC and downloading the MP3s or ASF/MPGs of their selected media.

(sigh) kids today, eh? =)

-Julius X

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[WowTIP]

Well... In the not too far future when we all have cheap colourcapable printers and fair connection speeds, they could post their lyrics, info, etc. as .pdf printables... That way you would have a nice lil "book of the CD" instead of those tiny crappy CD-covers...

Remember the LP-covers? They were cool, cause there were more space for band related art... most CD-covers today are pretty boring... I think the size-variable is the connection...

Re:They're probably right to some extent

[Kyrrin]

> (BTW, any other Fruvous fans out there? Former Fruvous fans?)

Fruhead and proud of it! As a matter of fact, I'm wearing my "Hello 2000 with Moxy Fruvous" tshirt today. ^_~

Fruvous: the only band I know of who would have had a NON Y2K compliant PC on stage at their new year's show, just to see what happened to it at rollover. (To Murray's disappointment, nothing...)

because...

[JustShootMe]

Piracy is just pr. You want to demonize people,accuse them of being pirates or whatever. It's all about perception. As in everything else.

Yeah it disgusts me, but...

If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

Greed

[Trollok]

I think that to be a record company executive you have to never grow out of that "No it's mine and you can't have it stage" of childhood developement. My parents taught me to share so I guess I'll never make the cut. I refuse to support the record industry, I'll never pay for their music and I hope that everyone else wakes up and gets tired of being spoon fed the mediocre overpriced crap that they are trying to push on us.

Re:Greed

[Ixnorp]

Why do I find it humorous that someone who is a troll is posting material rated at 5?

(Actually I have no basis for this other than name and .sig so don't flame me too bad if I'm wrong, I dont keep track of Who's Who of /.)

Re:Greed

[MrResistor]

The problem with piracy is that it hurts the artist, too. As a musician I'm totally in favor of of anything that hurts the RIAA, but it would be nice if there were some other avenue to compensate the artists we like for the time and effort they put into providing us with their music. For example, I have about 30 (I'm at work so i can't check the actual number) Orbital songs in my mp3 collection. I would gladly buy their CD's (if i could find them in my local music store) even knowing that Orbital would only recieve 2 or 3 dollars out of the 17 or 18 i would probably pay. I would much more happily send them 10 or 12 dollars directly, but i know of no way to do that.

I agree that most of the popular music out there is crap, but there are some very talented artists out there laboring under the same yoke. An i deal solution would bypass the corporate controlled radio/mtv outlets and let the consumer decide what is good and let them pay the artists directly. The RIAA is a benefit only to itself, and a barrier between musician and their fans.

Legal action better be swift. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done my part, and I better get sued for -$25,000!

This is very good news for tech.

[AndrewSchaefer]

I'm glad to see that they are doing so well. I actually thought that there may be some impact from audio piracy, but I guess not.

"DVD music video dollar value grew 442 percent from $12.2 million in 1998 to $66.3 million in 1999."

Wow. Now that is great to see. I'm sure that this will mean that we will see more and more titles released for DVD. Looks like VHS sales dropped, I guess that market is moving to DVD.

Gee, I guess that DeCSS didn't have the major impact on the market that it was supposed to have, and that Napster isn't the end of CD audio.

Re:This is very good news for tech.

[um... Lucas]

Considering that DeCSS came out in the way latter part of 1999, plus even now it's not a really workable product, it's too early to say that it won't have an impact on the industry.

Re:This is very good news for tech.

[lunatik17]

Yes, it will have an impact on the industry: more people are going to buy dvds because of it! Dvd piracy tools have been available since 1997, so I'd say it's not unreasonable that DVD piracy is not hurting them.

Oh come on...

[kwsNI]

Hey, like the double negatives there...

I think that the music industry is booming in part because of "pirated" music. Honestly, I've purchased a couple hundred dollars worth of CD's because I really like the MP3s that I've downloaded and I can say that a number of my friends have too.

kwsNI

Re:Oh come on...

[The CrapHead!]

I think that the music industry is booming in part because of "pirated" music. Honestly, I've purchased a couple hundred dollars worth of CD's because I really like the MP3s that I've downloaded and I can say that a number of my friends have too.

Yeah, I've bought several CDs after listening to MP3s.. Even my girlfriend has bought CDs after listening to the MP3s I've downloaded.. :)

Re:Oh come on...

[Munky_v2]

Yeah, I'm one of kwsNI's friends and I can honestly say that he has bought a lot of CDs because he was able to hear the songs first. So have I. The RIAA is just trying to do the exact same thing the MPAA is trying to do. They had a comfy little seat where no one could bother them and it's gone. Well, they don't want to let it go. They'll learn, we'll show them. You cannot control the uncontrollable...DUH!!!


Munky_v2
"Warning: you are logged into reality as root..."

Re:Oh come on...

[TheGeek]

Yeah, that's kind of weird...the double negatives mean they actually profited huge amounts, right? So what are they complaining about? ;-)
TheGeek

So, my questions would be:

[Serf]

1. How much more could this have been if there were no piracy?

2. How much less could this have been if people hadn't bought CD's based on hearing pirated music that they liked?

Re:So, my questions would be:

[limpdawg]

I think that the obvious conclusion is that nearly everyone who could afford to buy cds did, along with downloading music they didn't buy. The argument that it's ok as long as we download something that we wouldn't buy anyway seems to have a financial proof to it now. I know that in the past I have never spent more than $30 a year on cds, even before I knew what an mp3 was, and that I have spent more than that now, that I listen to music that sounds interesting to me from Napster, then buy the cd because I like the songs on it.

Re:So, my questions would be:

[bigchris]

And in reply:
1. How much less could this have been if there were no "piracy"?
2. I think the point here is that people did buy CDs because they heard "pirated" music.

Re:So, my questions would be:

[Serf]

It's possible that my post wasn't clear, but I was asking the same two questions, just in as unweighted a manner as I could. I realize that it's tough (if not impossible) to answer those questions in an objective, quantitative manner.

But to respond to your response, and hopefully clarify my original post:

1. I think my original question #2 is the same.

2. The point of my original two questions was to ask if this has, overall, benefited the RIAA or cost it money.

They've certainly made more money from me than they would have otherwise because of "piracy". I'm just curious if this holds up over the entire music-buying population.

On the other hand, I haven't bought any CD's or listened to much pirated music at all over the past few months.....

(And I happen to not like the RIAA's current actions myself, so, yes, I do agree with the spirit behind your post.)

Re:So, my questions would be:

[Bartmoss]

About a hundred bucks from me less if I hadn't bought those CDs I first noticed by DL'ing them via napster. In fact, before mp3's, I only bought one CD a year, now it's more like one or two a month.

Mucic Industry

[skelly]

Oh woe is us! We only made more profit this last year than when the WWW first came out. What are going to do? Those awful, bad, bad, bad, evil Internet pirates are not going to lest us enjoy our near monopoly on popular music. I know, let's create a new media scare and blame it on those awful hackers. We can say that the Linux OS allows these hackers to copy our cd's with out care or concern in the world for our rights to charge outrageous fees and reap incredible profits with no concern about the quality of the schlock we produce.

Re:subtract a negative = add a positive

[conio]

That's the point.

--

Re:subtract a negative = add a positive

[Glith]

Yes, that's the entire point of the article. Perhaps you should read it.

Re:double negatives

[xee]

Yeah, and they shipped 90 Million more CDs. Or in RIAA-ese, negative 90 million fewer.

Just think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think what kind of income they would have made if the music industry produced more stuff worth listening to, instead of the usual crap they're cranking out.
I'm convinced that the music industry watches the music pirates for valuable info on what kind of music people want. I've noticed several times that old out-of-print vinyl albums I've ripped to mp3 and posted to usenet are suddenly rereleased on CDs. The music pirates are providing free market research on what the studios should resurrect out of the old vaults.

Re:Just think...

[acb]

Just think what kind of income they would have made if the music industry produced more stuff worth listening to, instead of the usual crap they're cranking out.

A much smaller one, I'd say.

You and I and a few others may be into "stuff worth listening to" (though I've no idea how you would define it), but 90% of the public wants Garth Brooks and Britney Spears.

Releasing only high-quality music doesn't scale well beyond the size of a niche label such as, say, 4AD or Mute; a behemoth like Universal or Warner couldn't afford to be so fussy and elitist.

Slashdot == Midvale School for the Gifted

[Anonymous Coward]

And the sheer number of people completely missing the point of the double negative only proves it.

Where do the figures come from?

[Halster]

You always see these figures on piracy. But what I've wanted to know for ages is how they work it out.

Do they assume that every song pirated is a lost CD sale?
Surely noone is stupid enough to suggest that if people didn't pirate it they'd go out and buy it?

Re:Where do the figures come from?

[CFN]

I believe they do exactly what you say. And so does the software industry.
I have always felt that this is totally rediculous. Just cause I dl some warez, it does not mean I would have paid $.50 for that crap.
It is so stupid that companies are allowed to do accounting in this matter, especially because people (running warez sites, for example) can be charged with stealing multi-millions of dollars worth of goods from a company, when the company's actual losses were much much less.

Re:Where do the figures come from?

[Halster]

Exactly.

And it's complete bullshit. I usually use my not-very-legal copies of 3D Studio MAX, and Lightwave 3D as an example. Because sure as hell there's no way I'd ever go and pay in excess of $1000 (AUD) for a piece of software.

As for MP3's. Most of the ones I've downloaded have been the sort of song that was good, but never really good enough to buy.

This is an extremely misleading method.

Re:Where do the figures come from?

[schon]

| Do they assume that every song pirated is a lost CD sale?

Yes.

| Surely noone is stupid enough to suggest that if people didn't pirate it they'd go out and buy it?

You underestimate the stupidity of the RIAA :o)

Seriously though, what the "piracy stats" are based on is this: You have something that belongs to us. You didn't pay for it, therefore it's stolen, and therefore we have lost the amount that it is worth to us if you did buy it.

This is the farthest from logic one can get..

But in all honesty, I think a better question is this:

"How do you count what was stolen? Do you ask the theives to report to you every time they pirate?"

*sigh* - here's me, bored on a Sunday afternoon..

my 2 cents

[bholmberg]

I've stopped listening to mp3s. I've still got quite a few hundred megs of them, but it's just been too much of a hassle for me, especially now that my system is no unreliable, I don't even know if I'll have time to finish this post before I need to administer the three-finger salute!

Because of this, I picked up a few CDs the other day, because I needed background noise for some mind-numbing work. After I picked them up, I started thinking of the price advantage of the CD clubs, and how badly I was just raped by Target©! It ticks me off, and I'm wanting one of those new DVD players with the Sony Memory Stick slot for playing mp3s on my entertainment center. I just need to muster up the extra $.

Hypocricy?

[caetin]

Which is more amazing.. that you people bitch and whine about the "corporate" music and the "spoon-fed" attitude, or the fact that you steal said music. Whether or not they're ethical is a personal decision. If they're really the bad bad people you say they are, why don't you 1) not BUY the music, and 2) not DOWNLOAD the music. Its pretty amazing you blasphemize these companies then justify stealing their goods because they're evil.. indeed...

Re:Hypocricy?

[quonsar]

Which is more amazing.. that you people bitch and whine about the "corporate" music and the "spoon-fed" attitude, or the fact that you steal said music. Whether or not they're ethical is a personal decision. If they're really the bad bad people you say they are, why don't you 1) not BUY the music, and 2) not DOWNLOAD the music. Its pretty amazing you blasphemize these companies then justify stealing their goods because they're evil.. indeed...

Well, y'all mostly missing the point.

Go back to the beginning. The music industry IS evil - musicians basically sell thier souls (and all rights to thier works) for distribution. The industry is the largest legal pimping operation ever created. The whole thing is an upside down pyramid scheme with the creators of what drives it on the bottom rung.

It could ONLY exist for as long as it has because distribution was expensive. All that vinyl to stamp, all that cardboard for jackets (age giveaway!), all those CD's to burn, all that plastic for cases, advertising, shipping, etc etc etc.

Why do people keep claiming that the internet will change the world? Because the internet changes the fundamental paradigms underlying countless industries. Anybody can distribute anything digitally. Musicians (and all other creators of art) will find a way to self-distribute, or cooperatively distribute, thier works at a reasonable profit. Like water flowing downhill, the free market will see to it. Count on it.

Remember, it's still early times. Once the internet is as ubiquitous as television, it is inevitable. It cannot be controlled.

It is also inevitable that as this occurs, the entrenched and very rich interests in the current paradigm will literally flood the world with fear, propoganda, lobbying money, and outright lies. We've only just begun to see the types of inane laws and regulations that this will bring about. But in the end, it's just noise.

The old paradigms are already dead. They aren't going to die quietly, but dead they are. Digital distribution isn't going away.

======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

Re:Hypocricy?

[caetin]

the paradigms may be shifting. the prices may be exorbarant. but how does that justify STEALING the music? even if musicians do sell their souls, they get SOMETHING back. if you download their music, they get nothing. how is that benefitting anyone except the cheapskate who wont put down the scratch for a CD?

Re:Hypocricy?

[richieb]

the paradigms may be shifting. the prices may be exorbarant. but how does that justify STEALING the music?

How is it "stealing" when the person who "owns" it doesn't loose anything? Why do you "steal" music by listening to the radio? You "steal" music by watching MTV and flipping to other channels when the commercials come on.

...richie

RIAA sucks ...

[SuperDuG]

Okay mp3's are evil I'll admit that ... hehehe now that that's off my chest ... Mp3's are illegal and wrong and bad and easy to download just look at napster and open nap ... Music is a pain anymore because of the commercialization of it. You can't hear a certain type of music on the radio unless the commercialized owners want you to hear it. Mp3's give us the choice back and make it so that we can all enjoy whatever it is we want to listen to. On average EVERYONE buys music so I don't know how much it's really hurting the actual industry. I hold the same theory true today ... if I like the band I buy the album ... simple as that.

Re:RIAA sucks ...

[SuperDuG]

but with it being free I've found that it's harder to transport and appreciate ....

?\

Re:RIAA sucks ...

[shepd]

>Mp3's are illegal and wrong and bad

No way man. Pirating music is "bad". MP3s aren't. :-)

Sorry to point that out, but nowadays, EVERYBODY thinks MP3 == pirated music. 'Fraid it ain't so...

1/2 my library of 60 Audio CDs are in MP3 format now, and counting. Much more convenient, to have 5 albums (compressed at something decent, like 192 kbps VBR) on a CD, rather than just one.

I agree with the rest of your points though. The ability to pirate music off of the internet has allowed people to sample music from groups that would have never been considered in the Music Store. The internet and MP3 compression has really opened up the amout of quality music availiable to people, simply by making the "try before you by" scenario reasonably possible.

They need to add more value to the albums!

[browser_war_pow]

Why don't they start doing cool things like putting mpeg copies of the music videos on a separate cd or mail you a cd with the music videos for only the cost of shipping and handling when you buy the album? They need to make the album more than just music, it needs extra content like music videos on it. Eventually the 1.4 billion they announced they lost will look like chicken scratch because no one will buy the albums since they are so bloody expensive. Most of my ska, punk, swing, emo and metal records cost me only around $10-$14.... usually in the $12-$13 range for the more popular ones. However I shudder when I see the prices that people pay for popular rap and rock albums, around $16-$20. I am of the opinion that if they started USING the internet for distribution they could lower the price without lowering their profits. On a side note who does the RIAA think it is kidding by saying that it protects the rights of artists? It only protects the interests of the big labels it represents and their artists. I would be so surprised if they cracked down on a site giving away records from an independent label like epitaph, lookout or moon ska.

Re:They need to add more value to the albums!

[Issue9mm]

Personally, while I agree with you in that there should be more than just music on the cds, I really hate the current implementation of it. My fiancee just got a Natalie Imbruglia CD (Don't ask me which one, I'm not a fan), and wasn't able to view the contents of the CD because they had a video embedded into the contents. I picked up the newest Blink182 on a whim and had the same problem. There's a video on there, and while I was able to play the CD itself in Windows CD Player, I couldn't find anything even resembling the contents of the CD in its directory structure.

I know, I know, why do I need to see the contents??? Well, I wanted to rip em into MP3 format. To pirate?? No. To play in my DVD player. I've got an Apex Digital DVD player(which I like very much), and it also plays MP3s. My current trend has been to take as many of my CDs as possible, and cram them (in MP3 format) onto an ISO9660 formatted CD so that I could listen to them on my DVD player. This saves me the time of changing CDs, and allows me to pick and choose the songs that I wanna listen to, and arrange them into 'moods' I might be in when I want to listen to them in. (One mood for cleaning, one mood for relaxing, etc...)

Unfortunately, I'm not able to do this with at least two CDs currently, and I've heard about others (The only one I can recall is the newest Beastie Boys CD). Yes, this does prevent pirating (I guess, I see Beastie Boys and Blink182 MP3s all over the place), but it also makes me feel more restricted. While I believe that I could rip these things if I really wanted, I don't like Blink that much to take the time. (Haven't even tried it on my Linux box, anybody know?) However, I do feel like I've been forced into a specific path set by the creators of the CD. Almost feel like I somehow agreed to a Microsoftian license agreement without my knowledge, and I fear that the EULAs we are trying to get rid of will be adopted by the RIAA.

And as far as my ska, punk, etc., I usually won't pay more than $10 for a CD. We've got a really good distributor here, and most of the stuff I like (Victim's Family, Kyuss, Guttermouth, Catch22), I can not only find anywhere else, but can't find as cheap.

I'm rambling now... good bye.

Re:They need to add more value to the albums!

[FigWig]

The problems you are having are with multisession discs. You should still be able to rip any of the tracks though. Try cdparanoia on Linux.

I bought a Leftfield CD with a video on it and the only problem I had was that I couldn't rip track 5 so I had to record it in analog.

Personally I don't have a stereo system, so I rely on mp3s as a way to queue a large amount of music with instant access.

Re:They need to add more value to the albums!

[apathetic]

easy to fix that problem, i wanted a song from one of my enhanced cds on my computer but couldn't find the tracks until i accidently loaded windows cd player and suddenly they appeared, this has worked on 2 different computers so i d/n think its a fluke

Reality is irrelevant - Pay to Play is end goal.

[kbonin]

All the whining about MP3's is primarily an attempt to prepare the legal grounds for supression of the format later, when they can force hardware manufacturers to suspend MP3 playback capability in favor of SDMI and/or its latest flavor.

The industry needs to make sure that when digital music is deployed (i.e. when _they_ deploy it), it goes out with the ability to be rented (which they prefer), instead of just bought. They also want the full suite of digital copy protections, such as tying it to the device its stored on so you can't share it. To do this they have to supress MP3.

Since Goebbels was right about telling a big enough lie often enough will eventually make it believable, that is what is happening. The media in this country is pretty much controlled by the same corporations that own the music, so you'll hear numbers like this alot, no matter how absurd they are when you apply basic arithmetic to them.

Essentially, the end of "fair use" as it's been known in copyright law for the last century or so is approaching - UCITA and DMCO are other aspects of this erosion of rights.

We have a DVX

[Anonymous Coward]

Buy yourself a DVX player. Give them your CC number and micro-pay away.

Re:We have a DVX

[shepd]

What's a DVX player? Is this new, or did you mean the dead DIVX standard?

(I'm not trying to point out a typo, but I am not sure... :-)

Re:nice grammar

[Paradise_Pete]

Perhaps articles such as these should be posted once in a while to ferret out people who can't comprehend them so that they can be banned from reading slashdot.

Re:double negatives

[Reno]

According to this article, the RIAA/music industry, should be in favor of mp3's. They made $1.4 billion last year in CD sales.

Re:negative amount stolen

[Glith]

Yes, that's how businesses work. You pay for things.

The RIAA could help itself

[overcode]

I believe the RIAA should stop whining and fix the problem itself. I for one would pay a small fee for each MP3 that I have a copy of, if that were possible. I hate CD's (a hassle to play compared to MP3's), so I rarely buy them except to support groups I really like. I immediately rip CD's I own so I can play them on my Rio. If the RIAA would institute a fair and reasonably priced system of music vending, I would respect it. Is anyone else with me on this?

Re:The RIAA could help itself

[bludstone]

The RIAA has the ability to do a napster-like service, without any of napsters problems. (Incomplete files, people disconnecting you mid-download, poor organization.. etc (no offence napster guys, you know i love you (hi hatter!)))


They could set up an mp3 ftp that you pay a monthy fee for. Or how about just streaming? that makes piracy more difficult.

Seriously, if the RIAA is reading this, It is time to grow up! Embrace the new technology.. regardless of what you do, you cannot control internet content.. this has been repeatedly proven, your best bet is to set up your own service.. then you would be the hero of the music industry rather then the evil villian.

I know you can do it

Ill give you a cookie

mmm chocolate chip..

Re:The RIAA could help itself

[Rick_T]

| I hate CD's (a hassle to play compared to
| MP3's), so I rarely buy them except to support
| groups I really like. I immediately rip CD's I
| own so I can play them on my
| Rio. If the RIAA would institute a fair and
| reasonably priced system of music vending, I
| would respect it. Is anyone else with me on
| this?

Only if it were in addition to CDs. For me, the opposite is true. CDs are more convenient that MP3s. I don't have a Rio and the computer's not in the same room with the good stereo equipment.

Then there's the other issue of sound quality. We don't have cable modem or DSL service here. I'd hate to download an entire album's worth of CD-quality music (which most MP3s on the net aren't) over a 56K modem.

I agree with some of the other posters - I'd be happy if CD prices were lower. I'd probably end up spending a good deal money overall on CDs if the price was lower. Guess I can stick to used in the meantime. :)

Maybe the RIAA should

[vluther]

reduce the price of CD's.. why would anyone want to pay $18.99 for a new CD at Sam Goody's, when they know they can get the same quality for free or even if I pay $3.99 or whatever some of those new mp3 selling sites charge you. Most of the CD's I've bought over the past 5 years, I only like 4 out of 12 songs.. paying $18.99 or even $15.99 is a rip-off. These people need to realize that MP3 is their competition, and their enemy...fight it on it's merits or lack there of, not because it's costing you money.. thats like AT&T saying everyone who uses Sprint or MCI is a pirate because when the customers switched from AT&T to MCI AT&T lost money, so obviously they're bad.

The RIAA could use all the money they spent on calculating how much they lost to MP3s on finding a format better than MP3 or in making the price of CD's a lot cheaper.. CD's still have their advantages right now.. but if I can find a song for free and download it and burn it on to my own CD, why should I even bother to go to a overpriced store ? This old mentality by the MPAA and the RIAA sickens me.. they are like little chidlren refusing to put on a sweater or wear warm clothes when it's -25 celsius outside, just because they liked the summer and hope they winter will go away because they don't like Winter, and because they want it that way.

PS: Sorry for the run-ons..

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[Billings]

Quick question, but where does the price of a CD come from?

I know the media is pretty cheap (anybody who has a CD burner knows that it's not the cost of the media... and that's commercial, even), but some of that $18.99 has to be justified somewhere down the line. Maybe I'm not cynical enough, but perhaps they aren't just pulling that price out of...

Out of thin air. :)

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[jesser]

Maybe the RIAA should ... reduce the price of CD's

Why? They're obviously making more profit that way; otherwise they would lower their prices. And, to kill two birds with one stone, they come out more evil and sinister that way :)

--

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[ozbird]

In Australia, most CDs retail for A$30.99. This is almost exactly US$18.99 at current exchange rates - coincidence, or price fixing?

The computer game industry also squawks about piracy eating into their profits, but I have no sympathy for them. New release game prices are A$80 or so - I'm not going to pay that much for a game unless I know it's *good* (like Thief.) If the initial release price was A$50, more people would be inclined to buy it without a detailed cost/benefit analysis.

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[DLeary]

They should reduce their prices, though I'm in the understanding that they've had to raise their prices to make enough money to pay everyone (and of course the artests a whole heap as well) because of loss of sales due to piracy.
I would say it is proberbly more likely that they will increase their prices rather than reduce.

-D_Leary

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[Andrew Cady]

CD's are cheaper than tapes to manufacture. Tapes have moving parts and are relatively complex.

You're paying that $$ for royalties. But as everyone knows, artists receive very little royalty for their music and make most of their money from performances. Unfortunately for the buyer, the musicians actually still do get payed royalties, in a capitalist sort of way, as in they have to sign away their rights before they can get a record deal in the first place (and thus, they spend their royalties on the record deal). So where's the money go? Investors in the music industry who don't actually record any music or manufacture any discs.

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[eomir]

thats like AT&T saying everyone who uses Sprint or MCI is a pirate because when the customers switched from AT&T to MCI AT&T lost money

I would say its more like AT&T saying you should not be allowed to use boxes. This music is not in the public domain you know. It would be nice if we could download all this music for free, but be realistic.

if I can find a song for free and download it and burn it on to my own CD, why should I even bother to go to a overpriced store ?

CD's may be overpriced, but you should bother to go to the store because you are stealing the CD if you download it.

I don't know where people get the idea that if something costs more than they want to pay, its OK to steal it. Downloading copyrighted CD's is generally stealing. Do not say something its OK to do something because it is convenient for you. That is the easy way out, and we all know that the easy way out is not usually the best way.

Moderate me down. I have morals!

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[Catch22RG]

If you're tired of expensive CDs, check out Amazing Bargains. They have a bunch of coupons in their music section, some of which are $10 off a $10 order. That should get you a CD for about $6 after shipping.

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[gyc]

Well CD prices are well below $18-$19 online at places such as 800.com or chead-cds.com. Even with shipping they come out to like $14 a CD, while not a lot cheaper, will still save you money. Or join one of the CD clubs such as BMG and wait for one of their sales of unlimited $2.99/CD.

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[Wah]

your morals are based on following the letter of the law of the land. That's important when deciding what is right and wrong. Some of us, however, feel that sometimes the law is wrong. And when breaking it is the only way to show that, well, go visit here and hopefully we can show how silly many of these laws are and you won't have to condemn us for listening to a wide variety of music in an ultimately convenient way.

--

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[eomir]

My morals are based on my own thoughts. I don't know how you came to a conclusion by hearing one of my opinions, but I guess your pretty quick. Don't even pretend that you are _stealing_ this music for an act of civil disobedience. You are stealing this because you don't want to pay for it. It is a noble thing to break a law because you don't agree with it, but this is just simply not the case for the extremely vast majority of the people who steal this music.

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[Trepidity]

You could always support some smaller record labels and pay only $10-$12 or per CD (this often includes shipping). Unless your taste in music consists of "whatever MTV plays," there's lots of good stuff that's not as well-known. I personally know mostly about the indie punk labels (epitaph.com, nitrorecords.com, etc.), but there are plenty of good indie labels in lots of other genres of music as well.

There's also some suprisingly good stuff on mp3.com. Sure, there's a lot of crap, but there's also a lot of genuinely talented artists there. Find some you like and buy their $8 CD. As an additional plus, they get half the profits, which is doing a hell of a lot more to support the artist than buying an $18 CD at the record store is.

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[Wah]

Sorry jumped the gun a bit there.

My morals are based on my own thoughts.

and my interpretation was based on your post.

I don't know where people get the idea that if something costs more than they want to pay, its OK to steal it. Downloading copyrighted CD's is generally stealing.

coupled with

Moderate me down. I have morals!

leads me to believe that your objection to the..promiscuity of online music is based on a moral belief that because it is illegal, it is wrong.

What I would like to do is have these laws changed in ways such that we can both be happy. I don't have to pay for marketing and distrubution and production costs (because I already pay for bandwidth and storage space) and you would be happy because it would be legal.

I see the best way to remove these laws is to break them on such a massive scale that their "silly" nature is revealed to all. You disagree that this is best way to go about it, but my other point of attack is public debate, so there ya go.

Oh, and I'm also "stealing" music because I REALLY like to listen to it and am more than happy to pay to hear it live, which is the best way to appreciate most brands of luscious vibrations.

(and don't read too much into my .sig, "free" means all sorts of stuff and I felt I have to my part to combat M$'s billion dollar marketing effort that buys time during the Simpsons )-: )

--

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[Another MacHack]

The day I physically remove a master reel from the record studio, such that nobody else can listen to the song, is the day I "steal" music.

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[No One]

>I don't know where people get the idea that if
>something costs more than they want to pay, its
>OK to steal it. Downloading copyrighted CD's is
>generally stealing.

And I don't know where people get the idea that copyright infringement is theft. First off, in terms of relative unethicalitiy, if I steal something from you, you no longer have it. I have deprived you of something you previously owned. If I infringe on your copyright, I haven't taken anything from you. You still have ownership of the material; you have suffered no real loss. I just haven't given you anything of mine. Not recieving potential earnings != loss. Or did I steal from Chevrolet by buying a Ford? Would I be stealing from Chevrolet by stealing a Ford? Either way, Chevrolet is losing potential earnings. This is why copyright infringement is not currently a criminal offence.

Second, the legal aspect. Legally, theft IS a criminal offence, while historically copyright infringement has been a civil offence. (UCITA and the DMCA, among other recent laws, are trying to change that, though.) Again, they're two different things.

Note that I didn't say copyright infringement was right in any way right, I'm just getting really sick of that "piracy," "stealing," etc. histrionics that the RIAA, the MPAA, the SPA, etc. like to engage in. It's copyright infringement, not a high crime here.

--

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[eomir]

Let's heckle each other about the definition of stealing. What I am trying to say is this:
If someone makes/creates something physical or not physical, then they should have the right to do whatever they want with it. If they don't want you to use it, then that is their choice. If they want to charge you for it, that is their choice. If they want to have marketing campaigns which in turn inflate the price of their good, that is their choice. If you want to make a competing product and give it away, that is your choice, but it is not you choice to determine how someone elses products should be distributed.

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[eomir]

leads me to believe that your objection to the..promiscuity of online music is based on a moral belief that because it is illegal, it is wrong.

Well, I don't know how you jumped to that conclusion, but I bet you can dunk from the 3-point line.

This music is not yours. If whoever creates the music wants you to be able to download it, they will put it on a website or soemthing. If they want to sell it as CD's that is what they will do. The bottom line is that the music is theirs. They should be able to decide how it is distributed, not you. I really do not care whether something is illegal or not. It's just that distributing music without the consent of the creator just seems wrong to me. Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't seem wrong to you?

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[Wah]

Can you honestly tell me that it doesn't seem wrong to you?

Yes.

My objection to the music industries business practices are long and wide. Now I see a system where they are no longer needed. Why? The multi-billion dollar distribution networks they have built up, and which used to be necessary to gain widespread play, are no longer needed. Paying for media on which the music is played, is no longer needed. The multi-million dollar promotions and advertising, are no longer needed.

I know you might not agree, but I would think (and although I don't make music, per se) that an artist would like to get the most widespread use of their art as possible. That used to be possible by signing on with a major label and using their incredible market power to spread the music. Now those major labels, instead of promoting the use of music, are fighting against it. An artist can achieve *worldwide* distribution just by saying it's o.k. But most won't, at least not yet. Why? Because they signed all their rights over to the record companies in hopes of widespread distribution and mad cash. Well, the mad cash motive (from the artist's perspective) is a pipe dream, even AFTER getting signed. Widespread distribution is very possible, all the music OWNERS (which are NOT the artists) have to do is not sue.

They should be able to decide how it is distributed, not you.

So you are saying that it is morally wrong for me to have some music and then tell my friends that I like it, would they like to listen to it? Then i can transfer it straight to them, with NO cost in any form whatsoever for the creator. They have NO loss and one more person gets to hear the music, with a positive spin. I still buy music, I still pay to see live shows, now I just have more music to choose from. Unless you think what's on the radio and MTV constitutes the entire spectrum of worthwhile music. For what it's worth I rarely traffic in Top40 music. Why? Because it sucks. My music needs are not being served by the record industry and I don't have the time to physically check small, indy stores to find cool tunes. I have the Internet and I'm gonna use it.

Sorry but (as an example) if all the guns in a place are declared illegal because of lobbying efforts by the knife people. Does that make using guns morally wrong? They are better technology that accomplish the same main purpose (in this case killing). Probably shouldn't have picked such a loaded example, but just because those defending the status quo ignore new technology,new opportunities, and new options, doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

--

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[eomir]

Well, I have to say that what you are saying now mostly coincides with what I am thinking. I have no problem if the artist wants his music distributed freely, and naturally that would be a good thing for everybody(except the record companies, and possibly the artist). Of course I would agree that most artists would want the most widespread use of their music, but it is most likely that they would also want something in reward for this. All I am saying is that it is the artists choice. If (s)he says its ok to pass it on to your friends, then thats great, but if not then you shouldn't do it.

The difference in our opinion seems to be that you think no matter what the artist wants you should be able to give it to your friends(or anyone else). I fail to see the logic in that opinion. These people need to make a living somehow, and giving away music usually is not gonna do it.

For what its worth, I also tend not to listen to mtv/top40 music for the same reason you do ;).

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[Sloppy]

if I can find a song for free and download it and burn it on to my own CD, why should I even bother to go to a overpriced store ?

So that the musicians will get paid something. That way, when they get home from the day jobs that they have to keep just in order to eat, they will feel appreciated enough to go out to the garage and practice their guitar/drums -- instead of collapsing in front of the TV with a beer. Maybe if the royalty check is enough, they'll even dream of someday quitting that day job, or at least taking a couple months off so they can tour.

In other words, the reason to go to the overpriced store instead of downloading it for free, is to increase the chances that there will be more music later, and a chance to see 'em live. Until the musicians wake up and start selling the music w/out middlemen, going to the overpriced store is the best thing to do. For now.

---

Re:Maybe the RIAA should

[Wah]

Hmm, it looks like we're at an impasse.

I don't see the harm in listening to music online and sharing it. I feel personally that this is a good thing for all parties involved. While the artist isn't directly compensated for my listening, they are not deprived of anything in any way. I realize that my depth of gratitude will not feed their children, but do know that if I like a band, and listen to it, they will get monetary compensation at some point.

Some would bring up lost potential profits at this point, but I don't see that as an issue. I prefer to think of it as promotion, marketing. A try before you buy, if you will.

I don't see any reason at this point to have large recording companies. I won't continue to support them.(period) They have already shown that the music is not important to them, the money is. If it was the artists making all the money we would be in a different situation.

I think the music should be more important and will continue to act in such a way that I feel will most likely lead to a future where thats the way it is.

I just hate to see artificial barriers to such an important part of our culture, and especially hate to see amazing technology wasted and limited for the profit of a few. I also think sharing the stuff you enjoy is a good thing. I'm not, in any way, for profiteering off of pirated goods, which, to be honest, is what I feel most of the recording industry is doing.

And to be completely honest I don't think the artist or owner should have ANY say whatsoever in who listens to their music. I do think they should be able to control who PROFITS from it, and should defend that right to the utmost, but simple distrubtion, no, I don't think that making a song gives you ultimate control over who gets to hear it.

I wouldn't feel so strongly about it if I didn't feel the popular music scene in this country was so desolate. I listened to crappy music for 15 years before I was even aware I had a choice, I've also studied the creation of and current power that media companies wield in this country and it scares me, so I fight.

You've gotten me thinking about a number of these things, and I could go on for some times, but I'll leave it here, thanks for a stimulating debate.

--

Just a side note...

[Catch22RG]

The proper spelling is "disc," not "disk." Disk is a shortened form of diskette, whereas disc is a round, flat object.

What the?

[Aphelion]

Perhaps I'm the only one reading slashdot who didn't quite get this, but it actually appeared to me that the RIAA incurred a loss in 1999-- until I read the title for the article. I think that the satire, in this case, was grossly uncalled for.

My confusion was aided by the fact that loss is often reported as negative numbers. Check out some public companies' financial results, and you'll see this.

That's interesting.

[Dast]

I know my rate of cd purchase has almost gone to 0.00. CD's are just to expensive these days, and most of the stuff pushed on us by the record industry is crap.

My school put these strange TV's everywhere that play nothing but the crappy music videos the industry thinks appeals to college students. As a result I've gotten so tired of hearing the same old crap that you couldn't *pay* me to buy a cd. I guess they had the reverse effect intended.

Re:That's interesting.

[Zan Thrax]

That sounds similar to the way that I have little to no interest in buying the music that I hear over and over and over on the radio...

Re:That's interesting.

[MrEfficient]

It looks like you live in Evans Hall. I used to live in that dorm. I haven't been to the campus in a while. Where are these TV's. The only ones I remember are the ones in the lobbys of the dorms and the one in the union.

Re:That's interesting.

[Dast]

They're all over the union now, and (although I think they have shut it off due to complaints) there was even one in the cafeteria. I'm sure they're other places as well.

You should come back and check it out.

Re:negative amount stolen

[canadiankris]

paying for things wouldn't be stealing then though

The ultimate piracy -- radio

[nickm]

Good grief! How are they supposed to be making money on CDs when people are playing this music for free on the radio!?
I mean, this technology could ruin the recording industry, even if it does help the music industry!
--
I noticed

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[zeck]

I realize you were being sarcastic to make a point, but nevertheless keep in mind that radio is not free (except for pirate radio). When you listen to the radio, you listen to advertisements. Advertisers pay radio stations to play their advertisements. And radio stations pay artists and record companies and organisations like ASCAP and BMI for the songs they play. With MP3, on the other hand, nobody gets paid.

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[kblix]

It is free to an extent...I mean, even though I do hear advertisments on the radio, that doesn't mean the advertisers make any money; even if I do go to a store that's advertising a sale on the radio, I don't always buy anything. And, since I'm not the only one that does that, radio stations do sometimes play music to a bunch of non-paying listeners.

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[wfberg]

The reason no-one gets paid like in radio with MP3 is that there are no sites where you can download MP3s with commercials either as banners or as in-band audio clips.

With radio you can download (i.e. receive) music 24 hours a day, with commercials interrupting every once in a while, but not enough to prevent you from actually enjoying and taping songs.

Just like those websites with banner-advertising make money somehow. Strange isn't it.

If the RIAA woke up and got it for a change, you could download all the music you'd want, and at some sites pay $1 a song, at others look at a zillion banners...

BTW what does "with MP3 no one gets paid" mean anyway? The people peddling their music at mp3.com seem to get paid? MP3.com itself seems to get paid.. If I shell out $50 a month to the Dutch music licensing people I can put up as many MP3s as I like (as long as their 56kbps.. so I guess you'd have to post the left and right stereo channels seperate) and that money would go towards people getting paid, in the same way the money that radio stations pay does (i.e. it's distributed in some grossly unfair way, since they don't actually know exaclty which songs were listened to). To recap: MP3 is a format, not behaviour.

Now I'm ranting! Look what you did to me! ;-)


--

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[jallen02]

Good Point. I can snarf as much music over airwaves Wav Mp3 Not even a little hard. Point is pirating can and will happen no matter. Radio has been a viable way and I have seen it used in that manner for a long time for close to CD quality sounding track if it takes you 3 or 4 listenings to pick out the difference does it matter?? Okay no not for most people altho I know some people complain about Mp3 being for the tone deaf and what not. Bleh to them

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[Lemmy Caution]

That isn't correct - the original analogy holds.

The radio station pays a fee to play that song, and income from advertisers covers their costs, but when they broadcast they do *not* pay for each person who hears it. We can listen for free, and are (technologically, not legally - this is important to note for the mp3 issue) completely free to record that broadcast. Once I record it, I have no need to purchase the CD.

While the recording industry gets a nominal reward for each time the music is broadcast, the real motivation for them - the reason why they send hookers and drugs to the hotel rooms of DJ's - is to promote the music and sell more CD's, even though theoretically the broadcast should cost them sales, according to the logic with which they are attacking mp3s.

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[Dan B.]

Like I said, here

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[zeck]

This argument has been beaten into the ground, but I will rehash it once more since you must not have heard it.

We can listen for free, and are (technologically, not legally - this is important to note for the mp3 issue) completely free to record that broadcast. Once I record it, I have no need to purchase the CD.

Most obviously, the quality of a recorded broadcast is not so great. A lot of people pay to get the (plainly noticable) quality. And even if you record it, you had to listen to it the first time to do so, meaning you heard the advertisements and the music industry got paid.

Slightly less obvious is the difference in control the music industry has over radio, as opposed to MP3. Since radio is a passive media (not on-demand, like MP3), it is the DJs who decide what is played, rather than the listeners. By getting the DJs to play only selected songs, often called "singles" from an album far more often than the other songs on the album, record companies can encourage people to buy the album to hear the rest of the songs. While they can do this with MP3s in a limited capacity by releasing and promoting certain MP3s, it is ultimately the consumers who decide which MP3s they will listen to. All it takes is for one person to buy the album and digitize it, and all the songs become instantly available to anyone, free of charge.

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[thogard]

In case you haven't noticed the radio station may pay for rights to broadcast some things but in general they don't. If they do pay it gets put in the "promotion" side of the budget which means no roylaties for the artist. Its just like the cutouts, once that happens the only ones to make any cash are the distributers. The artist only make some money on some CDs sold at normal prices.

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[Dan B.]

"When you listen to the radio, you listen to advertisements"

See, that's where your wrong. Some station do not advertise. Take for example government funded ABC (that's AUSTRALIAN broadcasting corp.) and their youth network, Triple J. No ads, great music. They pay a play license to the record label but to you or me, it's free to air.

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[iso]

"the reason why they send hookers and drugs to the hotel rooms of DJ's"

woah woah woah, hookers AND drugs? i've been a dj for almost two years, but i've never reaped any of these benefits. who do i need to talk to for this? :)

- j

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[zeck]

You're right, it's free. Unless you're an Australian and you pay taxes. Which are used by the government to pay for ABC, which needs the money to pay the record industry for the songs they play. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make exactly, but my point was that the artist is getting paid for airplay one way or another, regardless of where the money comes from.

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[zeck]

If you could go to a website and download MP3s with banner ads which paid the record industry, would you? What would be the incentive to download seperate 56k stereo channels and watch advertising over just using Napster? Have you really thought this through?

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[zeck]

In case you haven't noticed the radio station may pay for rights to broadcast some things but in general they don't. If they do pay it gets put in the "promotion" side of the budget which means no roylaties for the artist.

And yet somehow a lot of songwriters and musicians get a substantial portion of their incomes from airplay royalties collected by ASCAP, BMI, and their affiliates worldwide.

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[Jamie Zawinski]

Good grief! How are they supposed to be making money on CDs when people are playing this music for free on the radio!?

Funny, but not true.

Let's say you walk into a clothing store. Let's say they have the radio on. How many times do you think someone was charged for that?

Three times.

1. The company that presses the CD has to pay the publisher of the music (ASCAP or BMI). This cost is passed on to the store that sells the CD, and eventually to the consumer who bought it, in this case the radio station.

2. The radio station has to pay ASCAP/BMI again, because the playing of the CD is considered a performance.

3. And the store that just happens to have the radio on has to pay yet a third time, because the act of turning on the radio within earshot of customers is also considered a performance.

In theory, ASCAP/BMI pass this money on to the record label and thence the artist. In practice, only the top-grossing fraction of a percent of any artists ever see any of this money. Almost all artists never see a dime from this racket.

Here's a great article on this topic: ASCAP and BMI: Protectors of Artists or Shadowy Thieves?

(And I can't pass up an opportunity to link to this one again: Some of your friends are probably already this fucked. )

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[jred]

>With MP3, on the other hand, nobody gets paid.

Although I've ripped all my CDs, I don't download MP3s. I have checked out a couple of sites, and seen the ad/producct ratio is astounding. Do web sites not get paid for ads anymore??

Maybe I'm missing something.

Re:The ultimate piracy -- radio

[zeck]

Maybe I'm missing something.

You certainly are. There is more to the internet than the world wide web. MP3s are traded via a number of non-web methods, the most popular being Napster. Napster has no advertising and is simultaneously the dream of people who like getting things without paying and the nightmare of the music industry.

What kind of journalism is that?

[zeck]

Couldn't you guys just report things that happen rather than your opinions on them? Honestly, Michael, if you're going to comment on the article, do it in the thread rather than turning the headlines into a confusing sarcastic rant.

Re:What kind of journalism is that?

[ilkahn]

I guess I am curious as to when and who said that slashdot was journalism in the first place?

Re:What kind of journalism is that?

[Habanero]

But there used to be the pretense of unbiased reporting. It is slipping away, though. Slashdot probably gets better ratings when it's viewed as biased hacker anti-establishment spout. Not that I care, because I know that slashdot is biased hacker anti-establishment spout.

Here's a question, though. Does "full length CD dollar value grew 12.3 percent" really mean that CD prices rose 12.3 percent, or just that there was a 12.3 percent increase in profits per disc, maybe from reduced costs or lower royalties or something other than higher price? Any ideas.

Re:What kind of journalism is that?

[zeck]

Didn't somebody in "Geeks in Space" say they were journalists? Maybe I'm mistaken. In any case, "News for Nerds" is not the same as "Biased Opinions for Nerds".

Re:What kind of journalism is that?

[osu-neko]

But there used to be the pretense of unbiased reporting.

Err, I'm going to have to chalk this up to "The Good Old Days Syndrome", where people remember the past as being better than it actually was. I've been reading /. more or less forever, and I don't recall there ever being a pretense of unbiased reporting. It's just gone from being Rob's-slant-on-the-news to Rob-and-his-appointed-fellow-nerds slant on the news. If it had been a straight news site, I probably wouldn't read it, there are plenty of those out there. It is, and always has been, the slant that makes this site interesting...

--

Re:What kind of journalism is that?

[anonymous cowerd]

> ...Thus no conclusion can be drawn.

I see income is up twelve point three percent, I conclude that, contrary to Mr. Valenti's assertions, MP3s have not begun to drive the music business into bankruptcy.

Sir, this article is news with numbers. Highest-quality nerdish numbers with three active decimal places; numbers which are inarguable because they were supplied by the opposition. It is the kind of news that you can cite in debate if you are the sort who uses numbers in debate.

And these RIAA bastards have got so much pull that they have managed to get a hacker in Norway thrown in jail for distributing a few bits of source code, yet you're going to look me in the eye and tell me an editorial doesn't belong on the front page of this publication?

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Re:negative loss?

[Pascal Q. Porcupine]

That was the point.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.

hmm - my thoughts

[rswinford]

I think the music industry is ethically right in the assumption that the music is there and we shouldn't be trading mp3s. What ethically gets me is that the music industry doesnt seem to get is that it is charging exhorbiant prices for the good they offer, and they have a pseudo monopoly. for instance, if im out to buy a dave matthews cd I can only buy that cd from RCA/BMG. thats right, i could go buy another cd from another company but I want that dave matthews cd, and they are free to charge what they wish on the fans; that is what isnt fair and drives me to trade mp3s.

Re:hmm - my thoughts

[_Swank]

...they have a pseudo monopoly. for instance, if im out to buy a dave matthews cd I can only buy that cd from RCA/BMG. thats right, i could go buy another cd from another company but I want that dave matthews cd, and they are free to charge what they wish on the fans...

While I agree that CD prices are generally unreasonable, the argument and example you present are a bit off the mark. This is like saying that the automobile industry has a "psuedo monopoly" on cars because if I wan't a BMW Z3 Roadster I have to pay whatever the dealer is charging me. I can get a Ford Escort for less if I want to, but since I want a BMW I am stuck paying what they charge me. Expecting something else is just ludicrous.

Music companies are going to charge a price the market will bare. Obviously the more popular products are going to cost more than their less popular counterparts. In other words, the music industry charges $15+ dollars for CDs because people will buy them for $15+ dollars. Supply...demand...

Re:hmm - my thoughts

[rswinford]

supply and demand dont work here, im not picking between a dodge and a camry[brand loyalty here?, ever heard of dodge fans?]. I don't have a choice, its not dave or guster, its just dave. I want dave, and no one else can offer me the dave matthews disk. hard to explain unless you are a fan or anything really. rob

Perhaps this would work with other things?

[cbustapeck]

If what people are suggesting is true, that as more music is pirated, more money will be made by the people who sell the music, this could change commerce as we know it.

Cars, for instance. People would copy cars (using 3d scanners and AutoCatalyst) and post them on ftp sites. Users would get most of the value of the car, without all the space that they normally take up. Along with solving parking problems in many major cities, this would also cause car sales and profit per car to rise.

WinAuto, anyone?

Well, duh.

[spaceorb]

Of _course_ they are experiencing an increase of CD sales despite MP3. But consider what is fashionable in music nowadays: Boy Bands and teeny boppers. It has been said before, but fanatical teenaged girls spend more than any other group when it comes to music and movies. Because of the current music trends, there are more sales and higher prices. Fortunately for the music industry, the same group (teenaged girls) that is making all of these purchases know little or nothing about MP3.

However, when these teeny boppers go out of style (as we all know they will), expect the music industry to get hit hard.

Re:Well, duh.

[raibeart]

I'm trying to think of a time period since records were first recorded that didn't have girls buying "Boy Bands and teeny boppers."

Whether it's Ricky Martin, David Cassidy, Ricky Nelson, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby ... etc. I think that "Cute" guy singer's albums will be bought by teenaged girls.

Re:Reality is irrelevant - Pay to Play is end goal

[kwsNI]

I think also that it has something to do with the MPAA's lawsuit over DeCSS.

The RIAA is screaming bloody hell over CD pirating. Then the MPAA comes in and says "hey, look at all the problems we've had over people ripping CD's. This is why we need to protect DVD's: So that we don't get the same problem". This is especially true since many of the companies have a vested intrest in both the RIAA and the MPAA (Like Sony).

kwsNI

They lost how much?

[llzackll]

How can they lose money if they never had it in the first place? It's not like people are stealing CD's off the shelf. If they lowered the average CD price to, say, $4.99 each, I bet sales would boom. Most people would rather buy a CD for a low price than spend time looking for it on the Internet, downloading it, and then finding out that it was a poor quality cd rip or mp3 encoding. Time also has a value. Maybe my opinion will change when everyone has high speed Internet access. Wouldn't take much time then

Re:They lost how much?

[DoppleCBM]

Way back when I used to work for a software duplication company, I learned about how much it actually costs to manufacture a CD.

To injection mold, silk-screen, package in a jewel case that has all the fancy booklets, shrink wrap, and look all pretty for sale, it costs $1.00 US.

That was back in 1994. I'm sure it actually costs less now. Just think how much cheaper CR-R's are now... they were $15 each back then, now u can pick them up for $.50 in bulk (albeit, for cheap ones).

Add a little on to this price (mebbe $.10-$.25) for shipping, packaging, etc, and then they could triple the pre-shipping price when they sell it to stores ($3.00 - $4.00 here) and then the stores could still make a nice profit selling it for $8.99 - $9.99. That's a LOT better looking than $13.99 - $16.99 for a CD. And, ya know, I'd probly buy more.

Hell, if Garth Brooks can put out a $9.99 DOUBLE CD at Wal-Mart, why can't everyone else put out a single for the same price??

-Jay

Re:They lost how much?

[elint]

Maybe because somewhere you have to figure in the cost of paying the recording studio, the artist, etc ... Or should they all create CDs for very little profit as Garth Brooks did on that one Double CD set? I do believe he can afford to do that a little more than some other artists can ...

not hypocricy, justification

[god_of_the_machine]

It's the same reason that people pirate MS applications. They say "they can afford to lose me as a customer, look how big there are".

It's justification, a silly excuse that helps people sleep at night. But the end is the same, whether its software piracy or music piracy, content producers lose out. I know I'm biased because I'm a software producer... but why shouldn't I expect that people pay for my products if they want to use them? It's my right to expect that in a free-market system such as ours. Oh damn, I'm ranting again aren't I? =)

Last point -- if you can't afford something that you want, that doesn't mean you should steal it no matter how big or evil the company may be.

Re:not hypocricy, justification

[caetin]

I totally agree with you mate.. i do software production too, for windows and linux.. although most of my linux stuff is actually for php3 and i let almost anyone who asks have my code.. the justification is a moot argument.. they're bad so i'll be bad too. great reasoning there.. i had always expected the readers of this page to have better arguments and hell, ethics, than what i'm hearing. It sounds like an AOL rant.. guess thats whats happening with the commercialization of linux.. they asked for it :)

Re:not hypocricy, justification

[jjoyce]

I think you are correct; a lot of people justify their piracy with arguments about corporate greed. This justification is wrong. However, there is also a number of people who, like myself, believe that the RIAA deserves to be stigmatized because its methods of targeting pirates also target legitimate owners. Also, when the RIAA makes sweeping arguments like "we are losing x amount of money to pirates each year" and attempts to characterize people who listen to mp3s as thieves, it demonstrates to the public that it does not care much about legality either, since these are exaggerated figures and slander against legitimate users.

So, yes, there are pirates and they are wrong, but the RIAA has chosen to ignore consumer rights just as much as pirates choose to ignore the law. It would be nice if no one stole mp3s; the bullshit arguments of the RIAA against mp3s would really come to light then.

Mankind has always dreamed of destroying the sun.

Re:not hypocricy, justification

[iCEBaLM]

Last point -- if you can't afford something that you want, that doesn't mean you should steal it no matter how big or evil the company may be.

If I cant afford a $500 program you're selling, then I won't buy it, so how does it hurt you if I warez a copy? I wouldnt buy it anyways cause I can't afford it. So in the end I get to use it, even though I can't afford it. No one is losing anything, I am just gaining.

-- iCEBaLM

Re:not hypocricy, justification

[caetin]

ok now, if you can't afford it then you don't need it. There are plenty of affordable options out there. Photoshop compared to Paintshop? unless you're a professional artist (or filter-happy i guess) paintshop works very well. 3d modeling? you dont need maya when rhino does what you need. Its a matter of "oh i'm never gonna use it but i dont want someone else to have what i don't". i see the same thing happening with pda's. "oh this feature is cool i'm never going to use it but it provides bragging rights" etc. now i'm getting a bit off topic.. the truth: the artists signed the contract, they knew what they were getting into. the record companies are selling the cd's. both parties are happy. then in our wonderful world of cheapskates and theieves, who justify stealing because someone has enough money already (microsoft) or they are big and evil (record companies), we have to really wonder. mp3 is not an issue about free speech. it never has been and it never will be. its not about "the man" tryin to keep you down. its not about your "rights to throw off the corportate shackles." its about intellectual copyright infringement. Maybe if there were some high profile mp3 busts like there have been in the 'warez' world (ie, wired news or /. or someone reports on it and makes a big deal about it) people will start to realize that hey, who's been brainwashing me? the record company execs or the people online who justify stealing by claiming the record co's are big evil money machines that have an omnipotent power. they have the right to defend their property.

Re:not hypocricy, justification

[MEXBoy]

If I cant afford a $500 program you're selling, then I won't buy it, so how does it hurt you if I warez a copy? I wouldnt buy it anyways cause I can't afford it. So in the end I get to use it, even though I can't afford it. No one is losing anything, I am just gaining.

Hmmm, that's a nicely self-serving argument, wouldn't you say? All you have to do is declare that "you can't afford" X, and poof! it's now legal for you to steal X. So $500 is too much? How about $20 for a CD? is that still too much? $6.00 for a paperback? Nope, sorry, "can't afford it", I'll just photocopy it and return the original. Hmmm, now that I think about it, maybe somebody else "can't afford" that book either, I guess I should post the text to my web site, for those poor, unfortunate souls.

Get real. Theft is theft. Just because you made a copy of the original property doesn't mean you have legal or moral rights to it.

Re:not hypocricy, justification

[CmdrPinkTaco]

Im going to play the "victim of circumstance" card on this issue:

Also, I am not directly replying to the post above, I just think that my comments fit somewhere in this thread and this spot looks as good as any. While I agree with both sides' arguments in the "stealing vs big industry" argument, I for one download MP3s because I cannot hear the music that I like on the radio. I live in Las Vegas where the commercial radio market consists of Classic Rock, Hard Rock / Metal, top 40 or stuff that my parents listen to. Of these choices none appeal to me.

I listen to trance/house/D&B and there is one station here in town that plays it. It is the college station. It plays it on Fridays from 10 until sometime early in the mornings. I am not going to comprimise my weekend festivities of drinking and raving simply to hear the music that I enjoy. It is not convenient for me. So I go to sites where I know that they have DJs that I enjoy listening to. When that DJ plays a mix that I like, I search for their MP3s (if they have any). When I listen to their MP3s and I like what I hear I go buy the CD. If their music is not that great I may burn it to a CD so I can determine if I like it after a few more listens. If it sux, then I usually get rid of said burned CD. If I like it then I go to my local record store and support that artist.

MP3s have become my substitute for comercial radio. I am not able to stomach much of what is played on commercial radio so I don't listen to it. I rely mostly on MP3s and recommendations from people who listen to the same type of music that I do. I dont' consider myself immoral for supporting artists that I like, and not giving my money to artists that I don't like.

ESR has said that we all vote daily, with our money. I consider downloading MP3s my way of becoming an informed voter. I vote for those that I like because I know that I like them. It is just simple common sense.

If you find an artist that you enjoy but don't have any desire to buy their CD, write them a letter. Most musicians that care are more delighted to hear how their music has touched a fan, not that they are the most prophitable band in history (yes this is a generalization, but it is not false - I know from experience).
--------------------------------------------

Re:not hypocricy, justification

[iCEBaLM]

Hmmm, that's a nicely self-serving argument, wouldn't you say? All you have to do is declare that "you can't afford" X, and poof! it's now legal for you to steal X. So $500 is too much? How about $20 for a CD? is that still too much? $6.00 for a paperback? Nope, sorry, "can't afford it", I'll just photocopy it and return the original. Hmmm, now that I think about it, maybe somebody else "can't afford" that book either, I guess I should post the text to my web site, for those poor, unfortunate souls.

You're taking it a bit far, a $6 paperback is a little different then a $500 collection of bits and bytes on $2 media. Lets be realistic here, software is way overpriced, as is music. Books aren't overpriced at all because they know they have to keep the price down or else consumers just wont buy it. Software companies KNOW their software is going to get pirated, so they price for businesses, except for gaming companies, who charge upwards of $70 canadian for titles, which is rediculous as most of them are so damn buggy. And as for music, well, there's no shortage of teenage girls in the world to keep that industry going, even at its more then double inflated prices.

I say, if they don't want their "intellectual property" pirated, lower the prices to what it should be.

-- iCEBaLM

Re:not hypocricy, justification

[god_of_the_machine]

If you find an artist that you enjoy but don't have any desire to buy their CD, write them a letter. Most musicians that care are more delighted to hear how their music has touched a fan, not that they are the most prophitable band in history (yes this is a generalization, but it is not false - I know from experience).

If a musician wants that -- great! But I know for a fact that most established ones do want money for their efforts. How do I know??? Because they don't release their music on MP3 except as a promotion. If they did that themselves, then of course it would be okay. But just because its your impression that "musicians don't want money" because of your college station bands don't... that gives you no right to steal from those who do.

Re:not hypocricy, justification

[god_of_the_machine]

I know what you are saying... and it makes sense. Of course, the RIAA is in a bad spot as well because it is their job to try to raise piracy awareness. Since MP3s obviously cut into their clients business (I know they are growing -- but it still cuts from what the total would be) they have to equate MP3 with piracy. It's just so easy to pirate MP3s, and if you download Napster you can't argue with that.

So you're right -- MP3s have a good legal right if used properly (I'm listening to legal MP3s as I'm writing this). But the RIAA is right to pursue more secure music formats. What else can they do?? Give up and say "well, that's the end of the music business"? Nope, that's not good enough.

Re:not hypocricy, justification

[caetin]

you're applying the same principle here.. >>I say, if they don't want their "intellectual property" pirated, lower the prices to what it should be. what "should" it be? your damn milk money? have YOU ever tried to program anything? Have you poured countless hours into a program, only to spend countless more debugging it and perfecting it? What is a "fair price?" its all relative. If you spend a whole 2 hours programming something and release it for sale online, sure you'll charge anywhere from 5-15, if you charge for it. And that is for dinky little programs. nobody seems to bitch about those prices. but multiply the hours spent by 1000 (being very conservative) and the cost of production by 100,000, why is it not fair the price is about 5-6x as much? do you want it 1000x as much? to make it proportional? you have to look at this as though its all relative. 70 cdn may be a lot of money. but a car is a lot of money. that doesnt justify stealing them. what ever happened to people saving up for something they wanted? the whole instant-gratification society i tell yah ..

mp3 a blessing in disguise for RIAA?

[Lucretius]

For quite some time the RIAA has been telling us that mp3 is destroying its revenue base due to illegal pirating... this data could possibly throw a kink into that argument, but I'm not going to be so compulsive as to say that for sure (though I would like to).

Now we must admit that this really does bring up some of the philosophical debates of .mp3's and piracy. I mean, if in an age where piracy is rampant and no user who has access to use an mp3 would ever go out and buy a CD (at least according to the worst rhetoric of the RIAA), then this data is apparently an anomoly and we should just ignore it.

Personally, I think this is a great way to point out that mp3's do not actually stop the purchasing of CD's, but rather promote them in the sample-before-you-buy theory. Technically we could sit around in music shops, listening to each and every CD we can get our hands on (if you happen to have one of those nice CD shops around) to see what we like, or perhaps we can just go online in the comfort of our own home and check out some stuff that other people have recommended to us, or that we have found by happenstance (the same thing that we would do in the record shop, except we can do this at 2:00am, when insomnia rears its ugly head). While the record company will obviously lose some money from people having nothing but pirated music, the overall purchasing of the music could be stimulated by the existance of mp3s.

There is, however, the other point to bring up. Music sales have increased because the economy is booming and people are just out there spending more money, most of whom have no idea what an mp3 actually is and wouldn't know how to operate a computer in order to use them in the first place.

Then again, there is the thought that they are using Britany Spears to spread subliminal messages hidden in her artificial bustline to get more adolescent kids to buy stuff... ;-)

But, back to the subject, I don't know what the numbers were from last year, at least I don't remember them being mentioned in the article), so I can't completely compare these ideas (and then again, how can someone truly proove an idea such as this.... but I digress). However, the data leads me to beleive that mp3 isn't the evil that the RIAA makes it out to be (NB - I didn't beleive them in the first place), or so the numbers would have us beleive...

Re:mp3 a blessing in disguise for RIAA?

[VB]

First and foremost, I wouldn't be a linux-er to begin with if the CD-Writing format I originally chose to deploy my personal creations had proven to be seemless on a MicroSoft platform.

The process was:

• Use Cakewalk to put the musical pieces together {reboot a bunch of times due to timing anomalies}
  
• Once finished {8 to 16+ hours later}
  
• Fire up the 4-track yamaha recorder {8 to 16+ hours later}
  
• Song is done, you've laid the guitar, piano, vocals, bounced tracks, onto tape; now plug the tape out to the sound recorder in of your soundcard, and, fire up Corel CDWriter on NT to burn the song
  
• BSOD
  

I wrote so many more songs more difficultly, but, more successfully using Dr T.'s Sequencing software for Commodore 128 and Cakewalk 2.0 on Win 3.1.

End of story. That fatal event 3 years ago marked the end of an era. Every time I'd sit down on Win95 to do the MIDI my MPU-401 would change it's mind and become a joystick for 2 hours, and, by the time I got it all sorted out, the musique had died. Maybe tomorrow night.

Now, I burn MP3's of my own copyrighted content. Music I write that is critically important to my soul to write. This is the me I've always wanted to produce. This is where I sing! literally.

Now, I'm not allowed to distribute MP3's?

Wake up RIAA, if I couldn't distribute my musical ideas via this medium, I'd have no outlet. Just some mad songwriter without a place to distribute; like we had before the Internet, unless someone randomly selected us from a sea of others.

Some people like my stuff; some people don't. But, for now, I can, at least offer it. I hope this doesn't disappear as an option.

Van
================================================ =========================
Linux rocks!!! www.dedserius.com
================================================ =========================

Re:mp3 a blessing in disguise for RIAA?

[Ixnorp]

It's hard call a 1.4 billion dollar increase in profits an anomoly.
(Yes, this is blatantly obvious, I just felt like wasting your bandwidth ;)

Re:stuff em.....

[helix_r]

A CD in oz costs $30.

No way! Is that true? What a rip-off!

Re:Massive theft: This is not funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fooled? I understand relativity and am pretty sure you don't. Was Einstein trying to fool you too?

Theft? I think the term "theft" can be defined by those who have the most dollars to manipulate/bypass the law. In a purely legal sense(pre-trial) Amazon.com can claim the entire world is stealing from them. But is this actually the case? Who is doing the stealing in this case?

Come now, you are using a commercial perspective to preach morality and ethics. Is this really a proper location for you to be placing a soapbox for such things? You aren't fooling me. The executive perspective likes people who are stupid and are in shock that lo and behold they are finally getting their long leashes pulled in.

come on people

[lexiconbt]

so i'm sitting here, at work, relolading slashdot, when i see one of the best headlines in a long while. yeah, i laughed out loud in my office. then i read the article, then i read the comments.

i might have guessed that maybe one id10t would post...... "um... i dont get the obvious joke embedded in this headline", but come on people, there are too many comments destroying my illusion that slashdot readers are a bit smater than the average person.

how about we think before we get that first post. slashdot is about sharing knowledge and fun... not about having the most karma, or complaining over bad posts, or repeat posts, or pretending that were more important than posters, linus, or god.

lets try to respect slashdot... and congrats michael for a great post.

//end rant

lexicon

Re:come on people

[delysid-x]

The people posting the "double negatives are evil!" threads are probably the same ones who were posting all the "millennium doesn't start till 2001!" threads a couple months ago. The same ones that will post a reply to correct your spelling.

Re:come on people

[unitron]

Actually those fortunate enough to be smart enough and educated enough to spell correctly and interpret the calendar correctly are more likely to be the ones able to appreciate the sarcasm of the "double negatives".

What about the artists?

[Jerad]

I just thought I'd throw in some discussion not related to music distributors and publicists. What about the artists who we all so enjoy listening to? What happens if they cease to be payed for their efforts and no longer produce the music? While I realize and agree with the opposition to forking over hard-earned to big conglomerate corporations, it is those companies who provide artists with a label and a means by which to earn profit through notoriety.

I don't think music should have to be stolen to prevent our money from getting to the conglomerates. However, the artists must still be payed to continue their great work. Devotion to the art is fine, but it doesn't pay the bills.

With the inexpense of advertising on the internet, as well as the tremendous and diverse audience out there, doesn't it make sense that artists should begin to promote themselves and sell their own music? If artists could somehow distribute their own music via the internet at rates considerably lower than those of major labels, I would not be adverse to purchasing music. Just a thought.

Re:What about the artists?

[CFN]

This is exactly why we need to support mp3 and other easy to produce formats, to eliminate the RI execs, A and R men, managers, and shiest lawyers from taking loads of profits.
The recording companies take a tremendous cut of the profits, the artists are the ones being shafted. In addition record execs. seem to only want to produce crap Nsync and Britny Spears type shit.
If artists could produce and distribute their work directly, more of them would be heard, and could reach their niche audiances. It would increase artistic diversity. Assuming the cost for this new media would be much cheaper then a current CS, if a system was in place so that the artists could earn the money directly, they would earn even more money then they do now, because no shiesty middle men would take a big cut.
Internet music is a way to increase diversity, and to ensure that quality voices are not lost amongst the crap pop music. This is the real reason the RIAA is opposed to mp3 and the like, and the real reason we have to fight them.

Re:What about the artists?

[chez69]

you would have to sell quite a few $14 cds to pay for a tour...

they need the music compoanies to pay for touring, production, equipment, and other things. not everyone has huge amounts of $$$ when they start off in the music business.

Re:What about the artists?

[Habanero]

Or, does the tour itself generate income from ticket sales; generate interest in the music and so generate CD sales?

Re:What about the artists?

[Jerad]

Interesting thought. Of course I realize not everyone has capital to start off with. That's why digital music is so important. If an artist could use digital music to become known, receive endorsement from adoring fans for said music, then begin to market in other formats and/or tour, it could all work out. I might have too much faith in people, but I think people will support products that they think are worth it.

Re:What about the artists?

[richieb]

What about the artists who we all so enjoy listening to? What happens if they cease to be payed for their efforts and no longer produce the music?

Musicians can make money the same way we all do, by working (i.e. performing). Most musicians who make great music are hardly know to a lot of people. Think of some of the best jazz musicians and how they made a living.

There are tons of performers out there who will never sell a million CDs and so big record companies are not interested in them.

Here are some of my favorites: Debbie Davies, Anson Fundenburg, or Ani Difranco. Have you heard of any of these people?

With Internet and MP3 these artist can reach a much wider audience of people who like their music. This is great, I don't need some stupid record executive picking my music for me.

...richie

Yes, it does.

[jorbettis]

That was the whole point of the article.

The MPAA had a net Profit of $1,400,000,000.

I thought that that was a clever but simple and straight forward joke on Micheal's part. It is interesting that so many people appeared to be misled by it.

I, as part of the minority, agree.

[shepd]

Double negatives were neither necessary for impact, nor added to the readability of the story.

The story should have read: "Pirates cause $1.4 billion gain in CD Sales. Also, 90 million more CDs are shipped.".

Or, better yet, (but without the intended effect, yet more accurate):

"Despite pirates, the RIAA sees a $1.4 billion gain in CD Sales with 90 million more CDs shipped".

I wouldn't have posted this, but there are _way_ too many people bitching on slashdot, supporting the use of double negatives in english language for "impact" in this story. Readability adds impact, double negatives detract from it. That is why "Yo English teecha neva told ya's to use da sentence 'I ain't never gonna come back'". :-)

Flame me on the fact that double negatives are wrong, and I'll /prove/ I'm right.

Flame me for bad grammar, and you will be ignored.

Re:I, as part of the minority, agree.

[dead_penguin]

I agree that double negatives in the headline (and story) are kind of silly, but as some other people have pointed out, the real problem was that this story seemed somewhat biased. Sure, this is slashdot, and most people here agree that the RIAA is evil, but shouldn't news stories and editorials stay separate if slashdot is to keep any integrity that it has (assuming it has some)? Putting that much opinion into a headline and article is essentially preaching to the converted, and doesn't really do anything for us.
That aside, I still thought it was pretty funny, though.

Re:I, as part of the minority, agree.

[shepd]

Yep... that type of story (with so much opinion in it) should be separated from the rest.

I was infact confused when I read the real artile the poster linked too... I could understand what was meant, but it just seemed a little silly to me, also.

Who knows, maybe sometime CmdrTaco will get around to making a soapbox category... :-)

Re:I, as part of the minority, agree.

[osu-neko]

Flame me on the fact that double negatives are wrong, and I'll /prove/ I'm right.

Flame me for bad grammar, and you will be ignored.

How about we just flame you for being clueless? Ever notice the "News for Nerds" thing at the top of the page?

Understand who the articles here are targetted at, and you'll understand that there's nothing wrong with, nor ambiguous about, the use of double negatives.

Does the expression "a == !!a" evaluate to true or false (assuming "a" contains a canonical true or false for the language in question to begin with)? If you can't answer this question correctly, you're not one of the people this website is designed for, and are therefore not qualified to commment on what's appropriate. If you can answer this question correctly, you've just proven your previous post to be wrong.

No actual nerds or geeks were confused by the story. If a bunch of wannabees were, who cares?

--

Re:I, as part of the minority, agree.

[shepd]

I wonder if you wanted me to type this, or if you assumed that because I can speak english properly, I cannot program. If you thought the latter, that is quite stereotypical of you. Stereotypes belittle the average man.

Well, here you are, and it compiles without errors on GCC:

#include

int main()
{
int a = 2;
a == !!a;
printf("The value of a, which was 2, is now: %d", a);
return(0);
}

Or, if you prefer, some "generic" intel assembly (actually, this is easier to read!):

MOV A, 2
CMP A
CMP A

And, yes, a == !!a is, of course, 2.

>How about we just flame you for being clueless? Ever notice the "News for Nerds" thing at the top of the page?

>Does the expression "a == !!a" evaluate to true or false (assuming "a" contains a canonical true or false for the language in question to begin with)? If you can't answer this question correctly, you're not one of the people this website is designed for, and are therefore not qualified to commment on what's appropriate.

Now, what does that have to do with "News for nerds"? I don't see a "No english students" sign. Maybe slashdot should have a "No Blacks" or "No Jews" sign as well? Of course not. We are over this silly bickering in today's society, we are all equals regardless of race, profession, or virtually anything else (barring criminal or unethical activities). Because this has been hashed out so many times in the past, I will not even give any examples of why what you said was so offensive.

What qualifies me to comment on the double negatives present article is my high school level english.

Now, back on topic, these articles are targeted at the high tech industry in general, not just you. This includes Programmers, HARDWARE ENGINEERS (you missed this), NETWORK ENGINEERS (you missed this too), COMPUTER REPAIRMEN (you missed this also), STUDENTS (another miss), COMPUTER STOCKHOLDERS (again, you missed this), and MUCH MUCH MORE.

>No actual nerds or geeks were confused by the story. If a bunch of wannabees were, who cares?

Did I ever say anyone was confused? I reminded everyone what proper english looks like. I reminded people not to use double negatves, only because a lot of posters don't understand how poor they make your grammar look. The poster of this article made himself look like a grade four student. I certainly wouldn't take second notice of the ideas of a fourth grader on an issue like this, because fourth granders simply don't have the necessary experience to understand the issues behind piracy.

Your words are very important when they are all you have to convey your message. If your words are written as a four year old would have them, then you simply are a four year old, virtually.

Tell me what you understood first:

#1. I am not not going to not buy nothing not tomorrow.

#2. !(!(!buy(!tomorrow)

#3. I may buy something tomorrow, but never at any other time.

If you didn't say 3, then you need to go back to high school, or take english courses.

>If you can answer this question correctly, you've just proven your previous post to be wrong.

That's where you are most incorrect - I was only able to comment on the article because I understand English. C and C++ programming simply isn't English. Infact, it isn't even slightly close.

Re:I, as part of the minority, agree.

[shepd]

Okay, yes, you are quite right, I wasn't too nice in the original posting. And I was too overbearing. Sorry for any bruised feelings. I'll lower my attitude a little. :-)

And, I do need to allow more leeway in the use of grammar in articles. I can be a little down the the letter sometimes when it comes to the quality of articles, but that is only because slashdot has progressed from being a "club/hangout" to, by internet standards, a well known news service.

I also agree that the use of double negatives can have impact, especially the (unfortunately overused) phrase "You ain't seen nothing yet". But I suspect that negating negative numbers doesn't count for impact. I finished English in Grade 13 so I am by no means an expert. I am simply going by the standard I was taught (and double negatives were something I was strongly cautioned to aviod).

But what I was trying to do was to show that double negatives are not a good use of English, in most instances. I wouldn't have said anything, if it wasn't for the outcry of many other slashdot users that there was nothing wrong with the article's wording, with the implicit suggestion that double negatives are just fine. Modern slang is already redefining English at an alarming pace, slashdot doesn't need to add to it. Now please, don't take this as a reason to label me as someone who wants to stop the growth of English, though, because that isn't what I meant by the above.

The article needs work (IMHO) - it is awkwardly worded to me. Now, I have no problem with replies to articles/stories being badly worded; they are from the general public and just a quick expression of how that person feels, or a repetition of what someone knows. I don't flame people about their spelling/grammar unless they are trolls (in which case they get what they deserve).

But, in my opinion, if you are going to post an article, try to make it well polished. You should consider each article you post as a jewel of your intelligence. Craft it as you would anything else you might put on public display. If you feel there is a slight ambiguity, somebody else will notice that as a major problem. And those that noticed the ugliness in the wording of the article spoke out, and were squashed by the rantings of people thinking that there was no problem whatsoever with the article. Any decent English teacher would agree that there was a problem (or, would at least have pointed out that general use of multiple negatives in sentences is a sign of a poorly structured sentence).

I'm being too anal, I suppose. Oh well. I just hope I haven't trodden on too many toes.

I really didn't expect this many replies to my post. Wow! Good conversation, minus the trolls. As a long time -1 level surfer, I'd say this has to be a first in a while for slashdot. In this thread, I'm impressed with the quality of the arguments presented to keep the double negatives, although I might be a bit vehement in my responses.

I do realise this post is getting too long, but I don't think I've fully addressed your post yet. It was funny to think of piracy as benefiting the RIAA, but I feel that idea could have been presented more clearly. And, of course, the intention of the article writer was to add rhetorical effect to their article with the double negatives. I just don't think he was too successful.

>You can feel free to state your opinions, but stating afterwards "and if anyone disagrees, I'll prove you wrong" sounds belligerent and is unnecessary.

Quite right. I have no problem with this. I should have just stuck with telling others that comments about my grammar/spelling would be ignored. My emphasis obviously wasn't well received. "You gotta be so careful what ya type these days." Sorry. :-(

Re:I, as part of the minority, agree.

[shepd]

>#3. I may buy something tomorrow, but never at any other time.

Ohoh, I even confused myself.

That should have read:

"I may not buy something tomorrow, but perhaps another day I will."

Ooops. Number 2 wasn't what I wanted to say, either. Try this, instead:

"!(!(!buy nothing(!tomorrow)"

C'est la vie.

Re:I, as part of the minority, agree.

[F0XFIRE]

For heavens sake, it was a _joke_, people. And it was funny.

Half of the beauty of Slashdot is that it is not a normal news site. It can be biased and full of bad grammar. And nobody cares, because it is a great place to have a discussion of ideas and information related to news items. If somebody read the article and misunderstood it (what am I saying, apparently there are plenty of people who did just that), there is no help for it (or them). We shouldn't need to dumb down jokes just to keep everyone happy.

Yes, gramatically, double negatives are wrong. I'm just absolutely certain this could be /proven/. Jolly. Nobody doesn't not give a crap.

Foxfire

If it's stupid and it works, it isn't stupid.

Re:I, as part of the minority, agree.

[shepd]

>Anyway, if you had such a problem with it, you could have just skipped reading it to show your disgust.

Here's something you can quote me on:

"No matter how badly you express yourself, your ideas are still valid."

I wouldn't want to skip over the article just because of (what I view as) grammatical mistakes, for the same reason I browse slashdot at -1... :-)

Re:I, as part of the minority, agree.

[shepd]

Those are all valid points, and I do understand the reasons behind people thinking like that.

But - as long as slashdot wants to be the "best and only" news service on the net, they need to seriously work on the grammar of postings (1). Editors do have the right to "rewrite" articles so they are more pleasing to read. Newspapers do this all the time.

But, as you say, if slashdot wants to remain a less "professional", more "freindly" news service, then there is no reason for them to change.

I'm always for the more professional look in some things, witness the fact that I can't stand folk/country art :-) But I do understand that some people prefer a more freindly look to things, and I have no problem with that. I just wish people would do it without violating major grammar rules.

I just wish there could be some common ground on a topic like this. Well, if I come up with any, I'll mail off the suggestion to CmdrTaco.

>For heavens sake, it was a _joke_, people. And it was funny.

Yeah, I got the joke too. And it was funny, but I have a feeling that my rewording of the original sentences not only conveyed the joke, but would have been a more satisfying read.

>Nobody doesn't not give a crap

Well, yes and no. I got a lot of replies to my post, which was buried within another post about the grammar on slashdot, so someone must have read it. But I do think you are right, the general consensus on slashdot doesn't care too much.

Just my $0.02...

(1). I don't know if "best and only" is slashdot's goal, but it certainly is the goal of all the other businesses out there. If not, I apoligize for lumping slashdot in with all the other bad apples.

This all reminds me of an SNL sketch...

[Anonymous Coward]

Way, way back (maybe even when SNL was good), SNL did a sketch with Scott Bakula playing the part of fictious country singer Mack Reardon in a biographical series about his life. Unfortunately, bad things kept happening when he tried to put out new records. In this case, it started a riot, where people lootted record stores, and the following happend:

"...People would steal my records, and then after the riot was over, they would go back to the store to return them for store credit. So, at the end of that month, instead of a royalty check, I got a bill."

(I'm not sure if that's an exact quote, but the idea is the same)

Well I would just like to say

[DLeary]

Well maybe I'm one of the few people who do this but I actually buy the audio cd/game if I like it enough, how ever I will get an MP3 if there is only one song on the cd I actually want/like. Dunno I spose thats just me. -D_Leary

Frightening, isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I always ignored those "I'm leaving Slashdot, I'm sick of all the stupid people / the trolls / etc." posts... but damn, it looks like almost all the intelligent, insightful people really have ditched Slashdot.

I need my geek fix too frequently to give up on slashdot, but you miss so much reading at Score=2, and you see so much garbage reading any lower. And now that the trolls have figured out that they can get accounts just like anyone else for the +1 bonus, and they can post often enough to waste moderator points on marking them down rather than marking insightful stuff, so the Score=3 posts get scarcer and scarcer.

Fuck, I probably need to post this anonymously, too, since the decay of Slashdot (and Western-fucking-Civilization) is "off topic", and will be marked down just like the dozens of legitimate "put software release 2.3.48ac4 in it's own section" complaints in other threads.

Of course, we're stuck with clueless moderators, since the 33% of people who visit slashdot most often make themselves ineligible to become moderators; that way we get "the average reader". Yay, average people.

Re:Frightening, isn't it?

[delysid-x]

The moderation system is stupid and breeds trolls. They get off on making people waste moderation points.

I read at -1.

Re:Frightening, isn't it?

[GhostCoder]

Good points. I find, on the whole, Slashdot to be an ok source of some interesting news articles. I generally browse at 3, but I very rarely do that anymore. The only reason I started looking at the comments on this one is that I felt like posting. The number of good comments is rare (I wouldn't even consider what I'm writing a good comment).

What I wanted to write about, and it sort of goes along with your comment, is my disgust at the wording of this post: michael took a legitimate news story, that most people probably wouldn't care that much about, and put a massively biased spin on it. So the music industry made money...that in no way justifies mp3's nor reflects the impact of mp3s. There are way too many variables at stake, like the fact that just about everyone I know bought the South Park album. That's probably $14 mil right there. Between South Park and Bewitched it probably accounted for most of the album sales.

Mp3s may or may not have had an affect on the music industry, positive or negative, but that's not the point of the news article, and it was very unjournalistic of michael to put the mp3 spin on it, considering the article itself doesn't mention mp3s.

I think slashdot is losing it's audience, losing it's integrity, and losing it's appeal (at least to me). I know a lot of people have been saying this, but slashdot needs to re-evaluate who it is. Are the "News for Nerds?" Or are they "Editorials for Counter-Culture Geeks?"

To be a good journalist you have to present things unbiasedly. You can be biased all to hell, I don't give a shit, but don't inject your bias into my news. It happens all the time on Network News and in the papers. Just by the wording reporters can skew the feel of the message.

The day that slashdot can post a derogatory story about Linux alongside a praiseworthy story about Windows WITHOUT adding bias into either one is the day that I start respecting Slashdot again.

Cheers,
Joe

Re:Frightening, isn't it?

[aozilla]

ya know, this post was completely off topic, and should have been marked down, but of course, it wasn't, because you mentioned that it would probably be marked down for being off topic, which somehow makes people think that they should ignore the fact that it is, indeed, off topic. Of course, that sort of proves your point, doesn't it? (yep, this should be marked off topic too, but i really don't care)

Re:Frightening, isn't it?

[Tr011Thr4$h3r]

I still like to come here and read the top rated 15 or so posts (varies from level 2-5). I don't care if I miss the gems, I just can't stand the trolls. It's not like I have all the time in the world to read every intelligent comment anyways.

I like the rating system. Trolls suck, but they're dealt with pretty effectively given the circumstances.

Re:Frightening, isn't it?

[Perdo]

This may seem crazy to long time slashdoters but I think it could work:

Make it so moderators cannot mark anything down. All posts start at one and can only go up from there. This would prevent the majority rule suppression of good ideas. If you don't want to read trolls and flamebait set your threshold higher.

Why put a limit of +5 on a post? A +50 post might be a good story unto itself. If for instance if Linus, Carmack, Drexler or Gates wanted to use the forum to speak their minds it would probably warrant it's own story.

Since obviously trolls are seeking attention it might be good to give each post a counter. The only way you know someone has read your opinion is if it gets replied to or moderation. I have twenty posts without moderation or replies. Do I live in a vacuum? has anyone really read any of them? If there was a counter I might at least have the instant gratification of knowing someone read my work. Perhaps trolls would attempt to expand their audience by not trolling. If the average "1" gets 1000 page views and the average "5" gets 100,000 page views the quality of posts would rise simply because people looking for attention would write quality posts instead of trolls.

Perhaps start all anonymous coward posts at 0, registered users at 1 and the ability to spend karma to shout.

I would like to know what percentage of people on slashdot are moderators at any given time. if there is one moderator for each 100 posts how can you expect good moderation? who has time to critique and research 100 posts? if you had one moderator per 25 posts the moderators would actually have time to check the facts in a post instead of arbitrarily marking something up just because it was long or used 10 dollar words.

With a few of these Ideas implemented we might actually see GOOD ideas not just popular ideas float to the top.

Democracies say 1000 people have more wisdom than one person.
Dictatorships say 1 person has more wisdom than 1000 people.
Both are false.

Re:Frightening, isn't it?

[jellicle]

Personally, I don't think there's a lot of bias in pointing out that, on the one hand, Ms. Rosen, is claiming the record industry loses billions of dollars per year to "piracy", and, on the other hand, that they have posted record profits and sales for the last several years running. That's not bias - it's called opening your eyes. Most news sources will not present those two facts side by side, because they don't see them side by side - one journalist writes a story about music piracy, a story where 90% of the wording came from the RIAA's press department, and then a week later another journalist from the same organization gets a press release from the RIAA about their record profits, and that gets published nearly verbatim, and no connection is ever made. That sort of "journalism" is a kind of doublethink, holding two contradictory ideas in one's head simultaneously. I'm trying to pierce that. If you don't like it, by all means enjoy your diet of press releases.
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org

Re:Frightening, isn't it?

[Tarnar]

The only 'frightening' trend I'm noticing on /. are posts like the above. 3 or 4 times a week, someone comes into a thread that's a little warmer then the rest. YRO's or Katz's come to mind quickly. These people do like the above, they rant about /., they whine about how they're gonna get moderated down, and what not other shit.

It's not irony that gets these posts modded up, it's idiocy. Simply tack on 'I know I'll be modded down for this but such and such..' and 'We really should do something about all those Trolls like this and that..' and watch your post hit an easy 3. Even as an AC.

Look, this is NOT where to complain. Try the sid=moderation thread or SOMETHING. All you add is noise, not signal with a post like that. I'm not helping myself, but at least I'll put my name to it and not post AC.

Incidently, on the topic of browsing, it goes like this: -1: Trolls. 0: Blather and Trolls about to be modded down. 1: The 'average' poster. 2: Karma whores with a +1. 3+: Generally good posts. Of which there will be about a 1/30 ratio on.

And any moderator who mods this BLATANTLY offtopic post up is a moron. Just how the above was modded up too.

(posted without Score+1 for the protection of those surfing at 2 for content)

Re:Frightening, isn't it?

[GhostCoder]

You are right, there is nothing wrong with pointing out the connection...but it depends on how you create the connection. The last half of the post (the one buried under "more...") is more or less fine ("So where's the crippling damage from evil music pirates?" slightly exaggerated wording, but a very fair question), but the heavily sarcastic intro was very unjournalistic.

BTW, I didn't even NOTICE that this article fell under "Your Rights Online". Sigh...don't even get me started.

Basically my point it Slashdot needs to figure out if it's www.msnbc.com or www.slate.com (very abstract analogy...one's a news site, the other's an editorial site...please don't go into a site bashing war about them).

Again and again...

[tilleyrw]

This is simply another re-iteration that the MPAA/RIAA/xxAA is slowly coming to realize that "times they are a-changin'". They will have to be slapped in the face by the economy for a bit longer to realize that our old and dated distribution methods will have to change when digital media is concerned.

I have nothing more to add.

People are being more Cautious?

[james_moriarty]

I hit three record stores in Toronto this weekend. An HMV, a Sam's, and small second-hand store on Bloor street. You know what was interesting? They *all* have listening posts where you can ask to listen to an album before buying it.

We all know that if we buy an album, chances are most of it will be crap (except for the song you bought it for.) Of course, there are exceptions.. so could it be mp3s are letting people be more confidant in their purchases?

Re:People are being more Cautious?

[Ckid]

Exactly. I spent (checking quicken) bout $400 on cd's last year... bout $200 more then normal. Only because of mp3's.
<P>
It's so cool when you can use a program like <a href="http://www.napster.com">napster</a> and download your favorite songs to listen to them. I still use my cd player, because I haven't come across an mp3 player I like... and the fact I can turn my computer into a 4000+ song jukebox, why the hell not? If anything these mp3's are doing thier dirty work for them.
<P>
Though I suppose if they laid of on the fear mongering, people wouldn't geel quite the need to go out and but cd's. Not like the majority of us believe in supporting what we like.
<P>
God, I hate being a cheapskate.

Re:Oh come on...shareware?

[Zurk]

its the try before you buy shareware concept thingy which kicks in - if those stoopid studios allowed poeple to download a few songs legally from each cd as mp3's more people would like those songs and buy cds.
oddly enough, for music & videos (think movie trailers or even poor quality ripped movies) it does work. for shareware software i dunno tho...shareware seems to have pretty much died in favour of payware or freeware.

Re:New Colors

[shepd]

Other than the fact that the links aren't my browser's default colour, I find the newly coloured slashdot perfectly useable.

Just my 2 cents...

Did anyone READ this report?

[Kythorn]

I can't mention a sign of the "industry" losing any money at all in the link that was posted. In fact, as far as I can tell, they're reporting growth in cd/dvd product sales from the previous year. To quote:

"According to the RIAA, manufacturers saw a 3.2 percent net unit increase in audio and video product shipped to domestic markets (from 1.12 billion units in 1998 to 1.16 billion units in 1999). The corresponding dollar value of those shipments at suggested list price increased 6.3 percent from $13.7 billion in 1998 to $14.6 billion last year. "

Here's another paragraph

"Despite the maturity of the format, in 1999 full-length CD shipments grew nearly 11 percent over the previous year. On the other hand, while shipments of CD singles remained flat at 56 million units, this was a significant improvement over 1998. Growth within the CD singles format is being driven by CD maxi singles, which increased from $35.7 million in 1998 to $65.3 million in 1999. Full-length CD unit shipments grew 10.8 percent from 847 million in 1998 to 939 million in 1999; full-length CD dollar value grew 12.3 percent from $11.4 billion in 1998 to $12.8 billion in 1999."

In fact, the subtitle of this article itself clearly states

"RIAA Reports Recorded Music Market Enjoyed Solid Growth In 1999 DVD Growth Explosive, CDs Solid, Cassettes And Music Videos In Decline"

So I ask you again, does anyone actually read these articles, or do people merely read what other people CLAIM the article says and their OPINIONS on it, and then start a discussion based on that? I mean, if slashdot has degraded that far, thats fine and I'll shut up, but I wasn't aware we had descended that far at this point in time.

Re:Did anyone READ this report?

[David D]

You flaming fucking idiot. "lost NEGATIVE $1,400,000,000" that means they made money.

Are you really that stupid?

Re:Did anyone READ this report?

[HerrNewton]

"They lost negative $n." By losing a negative, you're actually gaining money. It's like saying, "Hey, I just lost -1 shoe! I had one shoe before, now I have two!" It's an easy enough mistake unless you read Michael's leader carefully, asking yourself what it is really saying.

----

Funny, but true.

[HerrNewton]

Really like the sarcasm, Michael, but doesn't it sound like the bullshit the RIAA is using in its own propaganda? "MP3s hurt music sales... we're selling more music! People place 'intrinsic value' in music!"

What they've been spoon-feeding the media (it's kinda incestual in a way... they've been media-fucking their keepers; e.g., Time-Warner, etc. who have interests in music and news media) is exactly that: a huge contradiction. I'm going to assume that their sales statistics are based on fact. This means that their entire crusade against MP3s is based on non-existant evidence. The RIAA wants us to believe that MP3s are hurting music distribution, when in fact their monetary sales and unit sales are both substantially up? Doesn't make sense.

Of course the few odd pirates will impact the bottom line, but I'm guessing there are a lot of people who get an MP3 from a friend, off the net, etc. and then go buy the album. A friend just turned me on to Neutral Milk Hotel via 200MBs of MP3s that she had up on restricted FTP server. Guess what CDs are going to be in my mail box on Monday? Two Neutral Milk Hotel albums.

----

Re:Funny, but true.

[DLeary]

I would have to agree with the statement

>Of course the few odd pirates will impact the bottom line, but I'm guessing there are a lot of people who get an MP3 from a friend, off the net, etc. and then go buy the album.

As I myself do actually find most of the cd's I want by downloading the mp3 first, and then deciding I like it so grab the cd.

I'm a fairly big CD owner, just on 300 odd, and most have been chosen because of an mp3.

-D_Leary

Re:Yes, Einstein was a con artist.

[JustShootMe]

Actually, that is COMPLETELY incorrect.

Einstein's theories are among the move widely and conclusively experimentally verified theories in history, right up there with gravity. And I'm a musician... so I can make music for myself. :)

Yes, I know you're a troll. But that is ridiculous even for a troll.

If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

Re:stuff em.....

[shepd]

>No way! Is that true? What a rip-off!

30.00 Australia Dollars = 18.4500 US Dollars

At today's exchange rates, that is...

I made -$100 because of deCSS

[heroine]

Yes, I'm -$100 richer because deCSS allowed me to play DVDs on a Linux box and I'm unemployed.

Re:I made -$100 because of deCSS

[anonymous cowerd]

I'm totally confused.

> 1 Yes, I'm -$100 richer
> 2 because
> 3 deCSS allowed me to play DVDs on a Linux box
> 4 and
> 5 I'm unemployed.

Is (1) a consequence of both (3) and (5) either separately ((3) -> (1) AND (5) -> (1)) or in concert (perhaps neither ((3) -> (1)) nor ((5 -> (1)) but (((3) + (5)) -> (1))? Does (3) imply (5) and thus lead to (1)? and if so, why and how? Is (3) -> (1) sort of a humorous non-sequitur, which is then combined with (5) as two stand-alone assertions in ironic juxtaposition, kind of like one of Mark Leyner's thingies?

Let's not get into the double negative. In all computer languages the double negative is interpreted in the most tediously literal way, but when we speak at least, and that's what we're up to here, we're free from all the constricting logic, no no no don't never want to go that way nohow.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Oz?

[ahaning]

A CD in oz

Oz? I'm sorry, but where exactly is Oz? I thought that was all a dream.

Also. Does the Lollipop Guild sell the MiniDiscs?

(if you're confused, these are in reference to The Wizard of Oz. That's what I thought of when I read that. Ha..ha..)


Welcome to Slashdot. Please do not feed the trolls.

something to hold onto

[oy]

One simple reason why selling digital music will never be finacially succesful and why porn is finaccially successfull is that people want to get something they can hold in their hand when they give someone money.

Assumption, assumption.. & their own fault

[Drashcan]

The calculations of the RIAA are just rough estimates and assumptions. They think they would sell everything what is being copied which is a serious exaggeration. Most pirates would not buy what they are copying. Forget it. And more importantly the record industry folks mistake their estimates for quiet exact calculations. Which is another mistake. And by their negative actions -all those lawsuits against MP3 and likes- they are just causing netizens to buy less of their products. They are a classic example of how not to deal with piracy.

stop posting fake news

[criticalrealist]

This is fake news. /. has a time honored tradition of not posting fake news on April Fool's Day, so why isn't the policy extended to posting any fake news? In fact the article says nothing about piracy. The double negatives were funny, but not informative.

Re:stop posting fake news

[Wiwi Jumbo]

Um... I'm not completely sure, but I think it was just a interesting/weird way of saying that "Hey! Even with Napster CD sales are doing just fine! Screw you RIAA!"

But I could be wrong...

Wiwi
--
"I trust in my abilities,
but I want more then they offer"

Yay, more lawyers

[xant]

So how many lawyers will $US1.4 billion buy for stomping on open source authors?

Funny?

[xant]

Why is this moderated "funny"? I think he should be taken literally. If we pirate 100% of their sales out from under them, they won't be able to pay their lawyers.

Re:Funny?

[jesser]

If we pirate 100% of their sales out from under them, they won't be able to pay their lawyers.

"We" can pirate all we want, but that doesn't mean they won't sell anything. It just means we will have wasted all of our bandwidth.

--

Re:Funny?

[osu-neko]

If we pirate 100% of their sales out from under them, they won't be able to pay their lawyers.

Won't work. If lawyers think they can win a case, they're willing to work on it with no money up front. ("You can pay us by giving us 50% of the settlement.")

--

Re:Funny?

[Pxtl]

That practice is illegal in some countries though... Implemented to stem the tide of frivolous lawsuits.

Re:Funny?

[osu-neko]

That practice is illegal in some countries though... Implemented to stem the tide of frivolous lawsuits.

Heh! There are governments that attempt to reduce the number of lawsuits? That's an extremely alien concept to Americans. What would we do with all our time if we weren't kept busy suing one another?

--

Re:Funny?

[Yardley]

It means that people without money cannot go to court to enforce their rights. Sad state, but most governments could give two shits about individuals' rights. U.S. a not perfect, but most of the trouble is via corps & police statesmen (ie, the religious fractions of Christianity mostly). Individuals rights in the U.S. are amazing. You often will have to go to court to get them. Silly, huh? Poor people sometimes get to have rights too here cause we're allowed to litigate on contingency. Oh no, too many cases in the courts. That's horrible. What a sad corrupt sorry state of affairs. Not good at all.

Re:Funny?

[Justin Time]

Yeah, not being able to sue someone deserving is a big problem in Canada. We don't have the same type of contingency lawyers you guys have. It's always a flat rate, 200+ per hour, whether you can afford it or not. There have been times I thought a lawsuit was necessary but can't cough up 2000 bones just to sit in the office. You Americans may be suing everything that moves in your way, but at least the ones that get stomped have some recourse.

Re:Funny?

[barleyguy]

Would this mean that lawyers suck ass?

I think Cartman said they do, in the "Sexual Harrassment Panda" episode of South Park. I think you've proven he's right.

We need -5 krama or lower *account filters

[Mongoose]

We need to filter out certian users like the account trolls - so why not make it so that you can filter posts by the user's krama rating?

Then after 5 mark downs, they can't be seen.

Also we could get /. crew to report abuse on the board to the ISPs. You can have the kids kicked off the net - that would be funny. =)

please

[frantzdb]

Will someone please steal negative $1,400,000,000 from me? While you'r at it take negative 90 million CD's. I'd be $1,400,000,000 ritcher and have more CDs than I'd know what to do with :-)

Re:Everything should be Free

[um... Lucas]

Go away, troll. Or at least speak seriously.

CD prices are artifically inflated..

[bludstone]

When CDs first came out, they were a little more pricy then most people had hoped. The recording industry stated that the price jump was because the media format was so new, and they needed to up production before they could drop the price without losing money.

Rather then drop the price like they had promised, they saw that people were willing to pay the inflated prices (due to the monopoly by the RIAA.) Hence, they never dropped the prices like they had said they would.

If you look at the prices on mp3.com, thats the price a CD truly should be, $8.99 or so. I dont know about you, but if Music CDs only cost 8 bucks a peice, I would be buying them all the freaking time.

As it is, I am a poor college student, and I pirate most all of my music. That combined with my bitterness towards the Media industry as a whole, I can justify myself.

On a similar note, does anyone know how much the artist gets from a CD sale through the RIAA? I bet its under 1$ per CD. I truly belive that a real artist would prefer my appreciation of their music over my money. And with my complete lack of funds, mp3s have allowed me to appreciate a wide variety of different music.

If i could send squarepusher a cheque for 15$, I would. That would probably be more money then he would get if i bought all of his CDs...

I still dont understand why the RIAA is fighting mp3. They are going to lose.. thats all there is to it. Their best bet is to embrace the mp3 format and figure out a way to make money off of it.. I dont know about you guys, but I would gladly pay a monthly fee for access to an RIAA mp3 ftp with every peice of music ever released on it.

Re:CD prices are artifically inflated..

[skip277]

As a former poor college student myself, I highly recommend used record shops. Most CD's there are in the $3-$5 dollar range (although newer ones may run you more like $8-$9). And the newer CD's are there. Lots of kids with bigger bank accounts than I buy that brand new CD for one song then decide they don't want it and sell it. I pick it up a week after it's out for $9 and save myself nearly that much. Most larger college towns have at least one or two. Happy cheap CD buying.

Skippy

Re:CD prices are artifically inflated..

[bludstone]

Too bad im in one of the smaller college towns.. :) the nearest good used cd shop is a 40 min drive, i dont have a car. and my lack of funds is really shocking.. i have -no- money. right now my bank account has a shocking $4.30 and im in debt well over 100 dollars.. I can barely afford to buy a blank cd for 50 cents let alone a commercial one for 5$

I graduate in a few months, so this will all change.. Job market here i come.. i cant wait to be a mindless drone! :D

Re:CD prices are artifically inflated..

[Zan Thrax]

Lots of kids with bigger bank accounts than I buy that brand new CD for one song then decide they don't want it and sell it

Sure, it's the rich kids supplying those stores. Even the Disc's that still have the shrink-wrap from the original store...

Re:CD prices are artifically inflated..

[romco]

Artists make about .06 a CD after expenses. (expenses would depend on the deal they made). Most artists don't see any real money till after there 2nd gold cd.

Re:nice grammar

[bigchris]

*sigh*

"why don't you go and buy a fucking holt handbook" - does anyone find this even slightly ironic?

If that's what they are teaching you in English 098 (whatever that is) then you're not getting your money's worth!

Sign o' the times

[The1Genius]

Maybe this should be taken to say that the "big money" recoding industry is putting out so much garbage that no one is buying it. How convenient to have a "pirate" scapegoat to defend the junk that commercial artists are producing these days - long live the underground!

Lets start pirtating more.

[www.sorehands.com]

Lets all buy stock in the RIAA and then pirate more negative amounts.

Re:Lets start pirtating more.

[quonsar]

Lets all buy stock in the RIAA and then pirate more negative amounts.

Put me down for negative 2000 shares!

======
"Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

RIAA needs pirate attack

[Greyfox]

I'd like to see a pirate attack on the RIAA offices, right out of Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life."

Arrrr

I'm never buying another CD again.

[delysid-x]

Since I got my CD burner 6 months ago I've downloaded and burned over 11,000 MP3's, any CD I've ever wanted by any band I can think of I can now obtain easily for free. Has the record industry lost thousands of dollars due to my piracy? Hardly, they've lost the $200 or so I would have spend at the USED record store. Heh, so I guess they didn't lose anything because they've already made their profit off the used CD's.

Collapse of the Music Industry as we know it.

[justharv]

Mp3s and Napster will cause the collapse of the music industry as we know it. It will not go away, but it will really change. There will be no way for the recording industry to copyprotect their CDs.

Some suggestions that they'd think of possibly:

1) encrypt the CD.
Effect: Then you'd need an encrypted CD player.
Workaround: cross connect another stereo as the speakers and record it into a wav.

2) encrypt the speakers
Effect: Wouldn't take off.

Face it, the recording industry is in a jam and they're going to grasp at straws by suing companies like mp3.com and Napster. Their lawsuits are unjustified. Is Microsoft suing AbsoluteFTP and wu-ftpd because those pieces of software enable people to download their applications from sites without buying them? No.

Why buy a CD when you can get the mp3 (or next-gen format) within 2 weeks from the net?

Groups will have to add more value to buying a CD. Maybe there is more they can put on there, like video or a website on the making of the CD, hell I dunno. Artists may have to just give up getting paid what they're getting now for the sake of music. Concerts will bigger money makers and you can bet we'll have to pay $100+ to see someone like U2.

Yuck yuck...

[Graymalkin]

but more to the point. My friend and I had a discussion about this yesterday, it's easy to find all the new singles from different bands since thats what people hear on the radio and go download. What you don't find a good deal of is B-sides, smaller bands (even "big" punk bands), and the tracks from the middle of the CD. Look for a full album of Pink Floyd or The Addicts, they are HARD to find as mp3s. Maybe the piracy crap was just reverse psychology...

Re:We need -5 karma or lower account filters

[chialea]

something that Rob and crew have tried very hard to preserve is that you can see EVERY post -- even those modded down all the way. so losing their +1 bonus, yes. even having them start out at -1 (like the +2 bonus for high karma the other way around), yes. however, just erasing their posts seems to go against the intentions so far.

and having them kicked off is inappropriate -- not to mention that no ISP would probably do it, except perhaps for NetZero, Frewwweb, etc... however, how would you report them? if you (for example) track IPs, then the whole /. crew (and Andover) open themselves up for all sorts of legal action. common carrier status is a precious thing.

perhaps we could just slap em around a bit... :)

Lea

Re:Oz?-- Okay, I'll bite...

[ahaning]

Thanks. I honestly didn't know what it meant. Although, later on in this thread, someone mentioned something about Australia's money compared to America's money. So, I would have understood had I waited a little while.

Oh well. Thank you for your explanation.


Welcome to Slashdot. Please do not feed the trolls.

not just control over their content

[jetson123]

In addition, I think it's not just control over their own content that comes with SDMI or other proprietary formats. By controlling the format, the industry consortium also controls access to the market by other companies and not-for-profit efforts.

And they control upgrade paths: every ten or so years, you will get a new, "enhanced" format that requires you to repurchase your entire collection of media.

Contrast that with MP3. Because MP3 is open and media independent, it's archival: if you have paid for some piece of music once, you and your heirs can access it in perpetuity.

Furthermore, with an open format like MP3, you'd get more and more free content, from people who perform music and theater for fun. Much of that isn't going to be very good, but some can be excellent. With the kind of format the RIAA is pushing for, they'd get their cut even from such productions, through license fees and inflated production costs.

Technology promises to bring us, finally, the ability to share artistic content freely, and the established media companies are trying to thwart this. I think, ultimately, the RIAA and MPAA efforts are doomed to failure. But if we don't watch out, we may be in for a very unpleasant few decades where content remains unnecessarily expensive and limited.

Re:not just control over their content

[Darth Null]

Controlling the format is the essential thing, because technology like MP3 and the Internet allows artists to market directly to consumers. Suddenly, the recording industry becomes a middleman that offers no value-added service except to increase the price by a factor of five or ten. The real danger with MP3 is not piracy, but that people will start paying artists directly for MP3 recordings.

I think that the use of the term piracy is incredibly hyporcitical, since it is the organizations like the RIAA and MPAA who are the pirates: they control the choke points on the trade routes, and so can exact a toll from caravans passing through. They're really afraid that a new route of getting goods from producers to consumers will open up, one that they can't sit on at some stragegic point to plunder all that passes through.

The argument that piracy will cause industry X to collapse because if everything can be pirated, nobody will pay for anything and the industry will go broke is getting tired. In a free market, capitalist society, any time you have a group of people willing to pay for something and another group of people willing to produce that thing, someone will find a way to exchange money for goods and services, with or without copyright, CSS or outlawed file formats. It may require a totally new business model, and that's what scares the RIAA: that someone else will figure out that model before they do.

Bullsh*t

[N1KO]

I really don't think that all the people who downloaded the latest single off some obscure ftp server would have bought the CD in a parallel universe.

Re:"Gravity" is a myth.

[Serf]

And you said you were done with trolling!

I knew it wouldn't last.

Thanks for returning to make my days just a little more amusing.

No matter how evil they are...

[nadador]

the music still belongs to them. No matter how justified you are in doing whatever the hell you want in your mind, it still belongs to them.

No matter how self-righteously indignant you can make yourself, its still belongs to them.

How you justify the idea that pirating music really isn't pirating music, and that you somehow have a "right" to download it without ever making any pretense of purchasing it, is really amusing.


Andrew Gardner

Re:No matter how evil they are...

[Sadfsdaf]

How silly, so you think that the ARTIST that MADE the music should get compensated? well me too! guess what, every CD you buy, a MINIMAL amount goes to them, sometimes they get screwed in their contract and they get BILLED money instead of getting paid for each CD sold. the music companies don't give a care about protecting the artists rights, they want to protect their cash cow.

The artists are getting peanuts compared to what the record companies get, sometimes they get screwed too.

Is pirating the lesser of two evils?

Re:No matter how evil they are...

[pb]

That's right. But there *are* laws against monopolies, price fixing collusion, etc., etc. And CDs are most definitely above market value because there's no source of fair competition.

Think gas prices are a little high lately? Well, that's because not enough oil was produced. I wonder why anyone would want to control production like that, since we're all using roughly the same fixed amount...

Of course, no matter how evil OPEC is, it's still *their* oil, so they can shaft^H^H^H^H^Hcharge whatever they like for it and whatnot... :P

Basically, what I'm saying is that people have a right to any good or service at a fair, market value price. And that price isn't $20 for CDs, and it isn't $1.60 for gas (in the US).

Only paying what you're willing to pay and the other party is willing to accept is what this is based on. Well, the other party obviously isn't listening. Let's take a look at a typical bargaining session between me and the record industry.

Me:Wow, that CD has two songs I like on it. I'm willing to pay $3 for it.

Record Industry:How about $20? We worked really hard to make this CD, and you might pirate it.

Me:Well, I don't know how hard you had to work. Don't you make tons of those? How about $5.

Record Industry:Sorry, it costs $20.

Me:Okay. $8. But I don't want to go much higher than that, for just two songs! That's $4/song!

Record Indsustry:$12 more and we might even sell you a CD!

Me:Aaaarrgh!!!!

See the problem yet?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

Re:No matter how evil they are...

[caetin]

monopolies? no fair source of competition.. the ones who try to slap some sense into you i'm-using-linux-because-its-fashionable-now-but-i' ll-go-back-to-aol-as-soon-as-its-not people should be the ones saying AAAAAARGGH! ok.. one step further again.. car industry yeap, they charge.. get this.. from 8,000 up PER CAR! can you believe that?! thats for ONE CAR! some of the nice ones they charge 40,000 and UP! well the car industry has no real competition, so lets say we are justified stealing cars because theres no competition in the car industry. Does it sound stupid to anyone else?

Re:No matter how evil they are...

[Mihtjel]

You're right. In some ways. BUT, they do make an awful lot of money, last year, an increase of 1,400,000,000$! That IS quite an amount, if they say their sales are decreasing, due to pirating.

I would suggest a decrease in the price of cd's, perhaps just a few dollars - I would go buy more cd's that way.

I usually have a pre-set amount of money, I want to use each month on things like cd's. But if they are that expensive, I don't want to buy them, if I can get the music for free. I would instead buy other things, like new hardware. I still have a sense of what is right and wrong, but the price of cd's outweighs that. A decrease in cd pricing, would make that sense stronger, thus, make me use more money on cd's.

--
Spook .sig for Echelon:
KGB CIA Bomb Microsoft Linux

Re:No matter how evil they are...

[pb]

Well, with the "car" argument as with the "CD" argument, they both break down somewhere.

A good point someone else raised before was most CD's only end up costing a fair ("market value") price, if you shop at used CD stores. The same is true for cars. And in both cases, the first person to buy it gets ripped off, horribly.

Because there is some kind of strange "status" attached to owning a new car or CD first, once it's used (however slightly) it immediately drops in value by a large amount (or percentage)...

If I had to buy a car, it'd probably be a really cheap, pretty decent station wagon / tank. Not like those plastic disposable cars they have today. (The Aspire: It aspires to be a car!)

...and I didn't really get the rest of your argument. Could you use some carriage returns in there, next time?
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.

Re:No matter how evil they are...

[Steeltoe]

It's an interesting argument which looks strong. Somehow you manage to distance yourself to the whole problem, and just calmly and coldly make a verdict based on cold and short-sighted values which looks okay on paper.

>the music still belongs to them. No matter how justified you are in doing whatever the hell you want in your mind, it still belongs to them.

As in: All music belongs to them, thus they should control every possible use of it?

What planet are you from?

>No matter how self-righteously indignant you can make yourself, its still belongs to them.

So there's no reason to fight back at anything, because the authorities and big companies are always right? Why do you want to give up so easily?

>How you justify the idea that pirating music really isn't pirating music, and that you somehow have a "right" to download it without ever making any pretense of purchasing it, is really amusing.

Who decides what is right and wrong? Who decides our rights? Who have the "right" to enforce the law. There are no definite answers to these questions, they're illusions of our minds. We all submit to whatever powers we choose, mainly those our parents brings us up to. It sounds like you have given up all your individuality there is.

So basically, your argument isn't an argument at all. It's a verdict from a cold judge that resistance is useless, submit all your rights and powers now and become drones of the New Society.

Luckily for you, not everyone buys such crap.

- Steeltoe

Re:No matter how evil they are...

[The Cookie Monster]

Others have replied to you and pointed out that:

• it belongs to them is arguable, legal does not equate to moral (slavery being the extreme example posted). Contracts and Copyright law can be dodgy in some areas.
• The Recording industry are not the artists, they are middle-men making a fortune off the backs of artists and ripping them off to the point where the artists hate them (see Prince and George Micheal etc)

So I'll concentrate on other points:

• I'm trying to propogate a neat idea someone else posted on slashdot so... copy CDs instead of buying them and mail the artist $5 directly, that way the artist makes 5 to 10 times what they would normally make, and the RIAA can't complain because you didn't take advantage of any of their services. (Might not be the best idea for unknown bands as it might stop shops from carrying their CDs)
• The whole piracy thing is bollox, sod-all people who pirate an album would have bought it and it aids marketting of songs. I started to suspect that the piracy thing was bollox when it was pointed out all the crap the RIAA is pulling on us in the name of the piracy bogeyman. We get regional coded DVDs to stop piracy not because it allows the MPAA to run an international pricing scam, we pay tax on blank media to subsidise the RIAA for piracy, they encrypt the content of DVDs (presumably audio DVD will be the same) to stop piracy not to give them monopoly control on the player market and certainly not to remove our rights such as fair use and other restrictions placed on them by copyright law (which is weird because the encryption doesn't actually prevent piracy). I don't even want to think what laws for the internet benifiting corporations at the expense of everyone else are being drafted as we speak in the name of piracy. Now we find out that rabid piracy bogeyman has just cost the industry negative 1.6 billion dollars.

Wake up, piracy is laymens terms is the wool the RIAA is pulling over your eyes.

Next time you see someone pushing something in the name of piracy, open your eyes and have a think about it - what is it really doing? Is it stopping piracy or lineing pockets?

new music samples

[morbid]

How many of you have made for, or recieved from, your friends tapes containing songs of bands you have not heard before, and as a result gone out and bought albums?

This is surely of benefit to the music industry when radio stations will only play safe, conformist, boring, commercial music.

Call me old-fashioned if you like...

Re:Oh come on...shareware?

[drudd]

That's what the recording studios consider radio for, plus there they have much more control over the music.

Doug

Re:Mp3s have no effect on CD sales

[jaysonbyrne]

I totally agree. If you are going to pirate something you probably would never have bought it in the first place or you want to see if it is any good before you buy it. I don't have to buy cds to hear music(I can just download mp3s) but I want to be able to listen to cds when I'm not at my computer-so I Buy them.
Jayson Byrne

It's called economics

[cheese_wallet]

It's been years since I have taken an economics course...but I think that the fact that the number of cd sales increased so much implies that the price of a cd is below the market equilibrium and they aren't making the most total amount of money based on market conditions.

I could be way off based here... if I am I apologize. I'm an engineer, not an economist :)

cheese

Laplace transforms destroy subliminal messages!

[Brecker]

Ever since the comment about artificial bustlines and subliminal messages, things are becoming much clearer. It is now clear to me that the compression inherent in the MP3 format likely thwarts the record industry's attempts to hide subliminal messages in the songs of artists.

No longer can the major record companies sell subliminal advertising, or use subliminal techniques to raise revenue. They will be limited to including the AOL 5.0 software on the unused portion of their discs.

From the business mind ...

[KennyG]

You know, just parading this fact about the growths of sales and profits doesn't strike me as the most thoughtful use of statistics I've ever seen.

What's really important from the business mind of RIAA is, how does that growth compare to last year's growth? How did we compare to Wall Street's estimates? In fact, their rate of growth could be slowing, due to the expanding use of mp3's.

So, this isolated fact really tells me nothing, and in the larger scheme of things, this fact could be used to boost the RIAA's case in court.

Re:Napster

[juicerman]

Speaking of the RIAA, they currently have a lawsuit against Napster alleging they are facilitating in the illegal distribution of music.

It is just another example of the RIAA trying to use their power to control the use of music through the internet.

Good question

[connor_macleod]

Thats a good question - it would be interesting to compare this with the last few years increases to determine if it is normal market increase or less/more.
-

the nerve

[jdlynam]

if they are making so much money where do they get off selling a half-hour cd for $18

Just how MP3s benefit

[Hangtime]

Up until about 3 months ago, I did not listen to Trance genre music. I didn't even know what Trance was! However, after downloading an extended set of Paul Oakenfold, I got hooked. Now, I have bought at least $300 worth of CDs containing Oakenfold, Sasha, Nick Warren, Paul van Dyk, as well as many others. Digital downloads like VHS cassesettes before them, EXPAND the pie for companies and industries, it doesnt shrink it. The problem is new business models have to be adopted and used to receive gain from these new opportunities. Scary for record executives approaching 50 and the head of MPAA, a WWII vetetran, Jack Valenti.

Hangtime

Re:Just how MP3s benefit

[caetin]

ok now imagine this. You payed say 1 dollar per song.. or even 50cents per song. But you have the guarantee that if you buy the album, online or in a store, you could get that much money off the purchase price? Would you work with that system? it mutually benefits everyone. the artist gets a percentage, the record co gets a percentage, and you get money off the album, or a 50cent preview of the album. I bet people would be LIVID if something like this happend.. it infringes on their "right" to steal..

karma's not the way to solve it

[mikemulvaney]

One way to improve things would be to allocate a different set of negative and positive points. When I have points, I try to use them all to mark posts up. Occasionally I have to mark something down, but I try to use them positively since most people probably only read 3's anyway.

It would be nice to have a big bag of negative points, because its usually really clear which posts should be moderated down. Finding the good posts is the real trick.

Personally, I think Karma is a bad idea. Why should someone get a 2 just because they posted something interesting in the past? Give out more moderation points, and you won't have to give anyone a head start. The good stuff will filter up quickly.

Re: Price of CD's

[Nagash]

I took a music production/business course from Sept 1994 to April 1996, so hopefully my info is not too out of date.

The cost of a producing a CD is cheap. This includes CD, jewel case, ink, paper, etc. Probably $1.50 US max. Unless the artist is a multi-million album seller, the artist makes very little in royalties from CD's (more on this later). My figures were about $1.00 US a sale. Maybe $1.50. We'll be generous - $2.00. If the artist is big, this can vary wildly, because the artist has real negotiating power when making up a recording contract.

As for the rest (~$15.00 US), that's due to the record company and middlemen. Maybe you should ask record stores how much they pay for CD's from the manufacturer. From my music course days, the record company makes at least $5.00 a sale (more on this in a sec).

Sounds pretty crappy huh? Well, get this...

Say I'm a "starving artist" and a major record company wishes to sign me to their label. Cool. I'm in the big time. Let's even say you have your own studio. Now, what will the record company offer in a standard contract?

• creation of masters (what all the CDs/tapes/albums) are stamped from
• distribution of material

You know what the best part is? They own your copyright. Thus, if you become successful, to have control of your songs, you have to buy them back from the record company. That basically sucks and is the same as the software industry. The difference is you are writing the music for yourself and others, whereas you write software for other people. It's similar, but much more personal with music...

Anyway, sparing some gory contract details that I don't recall exactly, it breaks down to this: you pay back the record company out of your royalties. This is the part that really blows.

Let's say I got a loan from the record company for $200,000 US to create and distribute my album that I recorded. I hand over the master recordings to them so they can make the CDs. I now no longer own copyright on them but I get $2 from each sale. After 100,000 CD sales I still have nothing in royalties because that $200,000 in royalty money goes back to pay the record company. I only get money after the 100,000th sale. I don't think it's hard to image that 100,000 sales is tough for a nobody artist and $200,000 is a low estimate on the creation/distribution of records. Note that the record company makes $7 a CD for the first 100,000 sales.

It gets worse: standard contracts have you signed for a few albums - not one. So you can get really in debt if you aren't successful. Add in the cost of a producer, engineer, studio, incremental royalties and it just goes to shit.

There are ways around this, but it's not real easy (hint: proven self-distribution). This is probably not all that far from reality now-a-days. Btw, the artists can make good money via live performances, I believe.

Just a little FYI. (if this is way different now, please fill me/us in)

Woz
gzw@home.com

Re:Reality is irrelevant - Pay to Play is end goal

[Salsaman]

Why should I care, I've got my Rio, I've got mpg123. 'They' cannot 'suppress' anything.

It's a shame

[uebernewby]

extensive pirating hasn't hurt the majors (small, decent indie labels tend not to be members of RIAA), for, as we all know, major labels suck (most of the time). However, it is hardly surprising.

99% of the population tend to view computers as scary grey boxes. Probably around 50% of the population listens to music. That means a large part of the music-buying audience is afraid of computers. These people probably do not stuff their harddisks with illegal MP3's. I don't know why the majors even bother to complain about MP3's at all. Probably just to open their mouth.

Another reason why this isn't surprising is that CD's and records (food for the enlightened) tend to be seen more as collectible items than as carriers of music. Most people buy CD's/Records because they want something tangible, something they can cuddle and sniff, and something that has liner notes they can read. This also explains why Audio-CD pirating never took off that much (except in Russia and the Far East, where people simply can't afford to buy a CD at the official price). If you like a CD, you want to have an original. Cheap copies are not collectibles. If you just want to hear a certain song, you'll tape it from someone. Nowadays, you'll have someone copy the CD for you or you'll get an MP3 (if you're a member of the digerati). There is no indication, however, that there are more people now ripping and copying cd's than there were people taping records before. It's just that the MP3 "revolution" has made hometaping a little more visible. And just like hometaping never "killed music", MP3 will not either.

Which is a shame, though, because the only "music" MP3 would kill would be major label music (try to find illegal Pan Sonic MP3's. You can't. It's all Britney Spears). And, as we all know, the majors are evil.

Music is public property

[Anonymous Coward]

Music is public property. All musicians should be patronized by the government. (In my culture all the artists were patronized by the (king not queen!)). Music is integral part of people lives (like water).I would say it is essential for my surivival. So instead letting the greedy(music industry) to interfere with this we should nationalize all the music. What would it be like if we copyrighted all the works of Bible, Shakespeare, etc..?

But...

[Necroleptic]

I leave the settings on 2 for most of the good posts, or ones that make any relevance. But how does one score the 2+ points?

Fuck, I probably need to post this anonymously, too, since the decay of Slashdot (and Western-fucking-Civilization) is "off topic", and will be marked down just like the dozens of legitimate "put software release 2.3.48ac4 in it's own section" complaints in other threads. Of course, we're stuck with clueless moderators, since the 33% of people who visit slashdot most often make themselves ineligible to become moderators; that way we get "the average reader". Yay, average people.

And what is wrong with so-called "average people"? It is not like we are not allowed to have our own opinion on the subject as well. If Slashdot was only exclusive to the elite (or 31337) of the sysadmins, it probably would not have as large base of loyal readers as it does now (yes including people who use Windows, we count , too!).

And this open forum is just icing on the cake.

Re:But...

[lcrawford]

&ltrant&gt whats wrong with normal people? normal people are fscking morons. I lost count of the number of times I was canned/beaten in jr.high/highschool because I was a geek. Now that I have become fairly skilled in the science of inflicting pain, (and now that I'm out of highschool) the normal people have formed an unspoken truce: you stay away from me, and I stay away from you. By showing up here, in a geek form, you are violateing that truce. I hate you, now leave Luser. I had to deal with you in my years of tech support. I've paid my dues. The only terminally stupid (average) person I have to deal with on a day-to day basis is my boss, and the pizza delivery guy. and dont call me 31337. I gave up that script kiddie shit when I gave up basic, when i was 13.

all you normal people are always whineing about how the "technocrats" are elitest bastards. Well I am, and unlike most elitest bastarts, I'm actually better than you, 'cause I'm smarter. It has almost nothing to do with economic class, and everything to do with brains an passion. My best friend grew up in a trailer park. He is almost as big of a geek as me, although he took the mac-windows route, and I went the bsd- linux path. For a short while, during the tail end of highschool, he even had a better job than me, him working at MS while I was still a helpdesk grunt.

Besides, I have worked hard to get where i'm at. Sure, I'm makeing more at 19 than the average american family, by a good %30 or so, but I sacrificed my childhood to this. Instead of getting drunk on weekends, like my classmates, I stayed home and read tech books that ate up most of my meager income.

Yes, I think I'm better than you. I am.

It's not so much the inteligence level of normal people that bothers me so much as the fact that they refuse to even try to help themselves when it comes to a computer problem. The other day, my boss made me setup outlook express on his laptop, for a vacation. I'm a unix programmer. fscking moron. &gt

I have always read at -1, (I started reading slashdot 'round the time moderation started) and it used to be pretty good... lately the trolls have been acting up, mostly because of stupid moderators. Trolls used to be funny, at least some of the time. Now they have started this flooding crap.

While I dont agree with the methods of the trolls, I agree with their ideas. The moderators are morons. However, before the trolls started flooding, I could just speed read at -1, and I got all of the good stuff, and spent minimal time on the crap. Lately, though, that stratigy isn't working as well, but even browseing at 0 or 1 won't help anymore, being as the trolls have destroyed the moderation system. I could browse at 2 or 3, but then I would miss nearly all the decent posts.

Note to the moderators: Dont moderate anything down 'cept trolls/floods.

Note to trolls: slashdot has started down the path of moderation, and nothing can stop that. You have the power to make slashdot unuseable, but not the power to end moderation.

Ridiculous

[Andrew Cady]

RIAA *IS* making less money due to mp3s, just not much money because most people have 56k modems that can't get that much music anyway (and that's just counting the minority who know how and where to get mp3s). But personally, I haven't bought an album since I got my cable modem. The same is true of pretty much everyone I know with decent bandwidth and a clue.

Personally, I think this is a great way to point out that mp3's do not actually stop the purchasing of CD's, but rather promote them in the sample-before-you-buy theory.

Oh gawd. You're in denial. Do you really need to make excuses in order to forgive yourself for "pirating"? If you have a problem with causing the RIAA to profit less, you really shouldn't be supporting mp3, because as little effect as it has, the effect certainly isn't good for them. And it'll only get worse for them when broadband gets popular.

Re:Ridiculous

[evil_one]

I am in a university on the end of a T3 from chicago, in dorm, with this very computer linked into the lan. I have downloaded more songs in the last 6 months than I have ever taped before in my life - and I've bought SIX TIMES as many CDs in this time period than ANY given time in my life. I'm also 19 and single. I am the RIAA target audience. What more do you need that MP3s are helping the RIAA?

Time For A Change

[NeverSayNever]

Maybe the record companies should consider two things. Instead of trying to watermark or secure a CD, why not make a compelling reason to buy one? How about good cover art, neat inserts and reasonable priced CD's?

$12.99 - $16.99 is an unreasonable price to pay considering a DVD is not much more. As well tapes and other media have plunged in price but stamped CD's seem to be the only thing that goes up in price as quantity increases.

MP3 has caught on like crazy. There is nothing record companies can do about this. All they can try to do is offer the music legally on MP3 if a legal buyer desires it.

If record companies want to curb piracy, make music affordable, the liner notes worth getting and offer the music in multiple formats.

Free to air, or free to market

[Dan B.]

This is my first post in ages, but this is an issue most people fell pretty strongly about.

Pirating CD's is not the answer.

The villans of the music world are, as stated, the record giants. They have more money than any artist, and have the marketing budgets similar to the GDP of a small nation. They have the power to buy their way up the chart for a "number one" single.

And where do they advertise their wares? On free to air radio. Let's face it, without FTA radio, no artist would ever get anywhere. You have to want the music to go and buy it. To promote the MP3, or net only, scene, we need - MP3 radio.

Australia's youth network, Triple J has an MP3 of the week section where artists can send their tracks and hopefully score some free airplay.

If we had a radio station that operated soley on this, there would be a number of pros and cons.

+ There would be no licensing issues
+ There would be no CD library, just a data vault
+ Songs are able to be called from the library without leaving the chair
+ The songs (or samples of) could me made available to the listeners

- You would haave to pay for some real bandwidth
- Someone would have to go through the deluge of crap to find the gems.
- You have to get people to listen...
- ...and to do that you need $

So when someone starts a MP3 broadcast radio station, that'll be the day the RIAA will actually take out more than a piracy legal suit, and the masses will rejoice.

Re:Free to air, or free to market

[Larry L]

Good idea, but i think as of the tech we have now, freenet is probably the best chance.

Go work on it guys. =)

If you dont already know, check it out =)
sorry, dont remember the url

Re:Free to air, or free to market

[Yardley]

Kind of scanned over what you said, but I'm here listening to streamed MP3 free. None of commercial on this station (afaik). F the radio. Chuck it out the window (smash those windows too). http://129.174.182.219/ is where my program says it's coming from. Ice & shout cast. It works. Me bed now apology. http://www.icecast.org/ equals open source streaming audio, so says the title... Boycott (corporate) radio! So'ze in generally boycott radio (got to figure out the car thing -- maybe da wireless Internet will help d'ere) Who the hell wants to be an audiophile? I just want to listen to music.

Re:Free to air, or free to market

[Anonymous Coward]

The villans of the music world are, as stated, the record giants. They have more money than any artist, and have the marketing budgets similar to the GDP of a small nation.

There was recently a rather large imporopriety on the part of some major program directors at New York City's largest (or close to it) radio station, I think it's WKTU, or mayb WHTZ, but this is coming from memory. Anyway, Ricky Martin and his labels paid for a number of weekend junkets to Bermuda, hotels, planes, etc, for the people who decide what songs to play. All of this of course is an effort to "get to know" the artist.

For more details pick up a copy of Inside Radio (a daily Radio news rag), 10 minutes of googling and other didn't turn it up.

Anonymous, just 'cause.

Re:Free to air, or free to market

[FunkyChild]

Re. sorting signal from noise... Why not a /. style setup? Moderate up the good stuff in each category. If an artist gets lots of votes, it might even give him/her some bargaining power for a decent contract with a record company if they feel the need to publish CDs widely...

Re:Free to air, or free to market

[Dan B.]

Funny you should say that.

I ended up in an Email conversation on just that after posting!

"> Mind you, I just had an idea...
>
> Imagine a site, something like slashdot, where people could post comments -
> reviews if you will - on songs. Replace topics with genres of music, and
> list the artists from each. Moderation would sort out the good ones from the
> bad and the hard part of finding good songs would be no problem. All you
> need is a server, some bandwidth, and a copy of slash, linux, modperl and
> mySQL which would be relatively cheap and it would be worldwide. Then, all
> you'd need is a couple of licensed broadcast centres in a few major cities
> and your away. Data storage can be distributed or centrally located with
> mirror sites, and the music (singles) could be free to download.
>
> Then all that's left is a source of income to pay for it all... Sponsors and
> donations only go so far. You would then have to have a commercial source.
> Selling the whole album for download is the immediate response but then that
> destroys the whole point of starting an open music site/forum. It's kind of
> a double edge sword when you think about it. Any further ideas? I'm out.

I suggest that you start with a static website that you or I could put up in a few days. We'd get
a domain name, posiible from www.nic.cx/. Second we put a link to message board. Then we get a
server and run something like www.squishdot.org which runs on zope. The reason I'm suggesting
using a zope / python base rather than slashdot is because I hear it's easier to modify then the
slashdot code, to the same aim though. Indeed the forum you want is what I've been looking for and
I believe it is doable."

Re:Free to air, or free to market

[SteveSmith]

Its freenet.sourceforge.net. (Assuming this is the same FreeNet)

Parallels

[Necroleptic]

What about parallels between the software industry and the music industry? Case in point: people who use MP3s but refuse to use warez/cracks or other illegal pirated software? Obviously, in this case of software, it is not try before you buy, that's what demos are for. Some people view it as a smaller crime when it really is not. There are many arguements to support when they are both illegal, like Photoshop is $600, NT Server is overvalued etc. (GIMP and Linux or BSD are fine solutions, but that is not the point, as the open source community/market isn't exactly dominating the paid software industry.)

Re:Parallels

[caetin]

And yet, you don't see a huge bunch of people whining and claiming "free speech" when people are arrested for pirating software. Hmm...

Re:Everything should be Free

[cnflctd]

Boy, those books must really suck if you won't pay even one cent for them. :o)

O'Reilly has made this particular newbie's life better, especially for programs I really use, . So far I've got Running Linux, Linux in a Nutshell, Learning the vi Editor, and Learning Python. All have been mind expanding.

I hope O'Reilly continues to task their famously talented editors to organize and make readable open source books like Learning Debian so cheapskates like you can download the text if you like. I'm buying it myself once Potato becomes the new stable version. I have zero problem shelling out for the convenience of the pre-printed work, and heck, those animal pictures on the covers are so cute! Well, except for the stupid looking bronco buster on the front of Learning Debian.

The RIAA is a leglized mob enforcement unit

[Understudy]

When an organization can go into a barber shop and threaten the owner with shutting down his business because he plays his radio during business hours and can tell girl scouts they can't sing their song at a summer camp because they haven't paid a licensing fee. And threaten these people and countless others with harm to to their livleyhood. And be allow to do it in the name of artistic licensing(protecting musicians from the 12 cents they might not be getting)it is racketerring and no body will persue it in a court of law because they are to afraid there is something very wrong here. I agree with copywrite laws as a means of protection from someone taking your image or idea and using as their own and selling it. That is wrong but as a photrographer, I don't have the urge to go after someone because they took a photo of their son and had a copy made and gave it to the grandparents what kind of jerk would that make me. I will not swim in the same swill as the pigs who are the RIAA>

Pirating is Good for the RIAA

[Davidge]

It's plainly obvious that pirating is a healthy earner for record companies. They don't like to admit it, but without pirates, sales would drop. Now, I can hear you all saying, "What is this fool on about?" but just stop to think for a second.

You pirate a few tracks and play them for a friend. That friend may not for various reasons have use for mp3's but decides that (s)he likes the music, so (s)he goes out and buys it.

Alternatively, you could download a track of the net by an unknown artist and decide you like it enough to buy the whole album.

These are but two of the many scenerios where pirating helps the industry through exposure.

Of course, the RIAA and similar organisations will fight this because a) they are clueless and b) by fighting it, they give more focus to the act of pirating, making it more attractive to the "pirates" and thus perpetuating the piracy ;)

Well, that's my little say on the matter...

Dave.

Re:Pirating is Good for the RIAA

[heff]

I must say that I agree, I know in many scenarios mp3's act as sort of a preview to see if you'll like all the tracks. Would you ever buy a car without test driving it first? I believe everyone has had the experience of hearing some trendy song on the radio and rushing out to buy it only to realize that the entire cd is absolute crap. If the music is good and they want to support the artist people will buy the cd, so will the computer illiterate who cant find mp3's :)
Just remember, there is no spoon.

Re:Pirating is Good for the RIAA

[caetin]

yeah.. and software pirates are good for the software industry.. dude, you are so full of s**t i almost didnt dignify your comment with a response.. have you heard of a little thing called the radio? sure, for the unknown artist great, you got the track and you bought the album. now imagine this. You can get their entire album right there.. its for the taking. But no.. lets go out and buy it! Sadly, that just doesn't happen. the only reason most people who are into the mp3 thing buy cd's is if they can't download them online. want proof? read the posts on this forum. It reads like a collective AOL rant with a few antecdotes and slap-in-the-face-by-reality (a few delivered by me:) If you want mp3 to gain any credibility, you can't use it for illegal purposes. i'll repeat what i said in an earlier thread. mp3 is not, was not, and will never, be about free speech. Nor freedom of music. Its not about "the man" keepin you down, and its not about you throwing off the shackles of corporate greed. Its about intellectual copyright infringement. The musician and record company both entered into a legal contract. Both sides are happy, and if the music was just pre-chewed and tasteless, people would stop buying it. Whatever happened to the good old days of boycotts instead of justify stealing by "its a big evil corporate money machine! they have enough money" It just doesn't work that way..

Artists don't make any money on recordings.

[VT_hawkeye]

Recordings are a gold mine, as any collegiate a cappella group could tell you. Releasing a CD for even $10 is in effect a license to print money.

Conversely, commercial artists signed to record deals don't make any money on their recordings -- it goes to the massive overhead (and massive pockets) of the record company itself. Signing a record deal is in effect an insurance policy for an artist -- it guarantees a consistent, if minimal for most non-superstars, revenue stream. A profitable album works the same way as [name your favorite insurance company here]'s investments in stocks and bonds -- it's what keeps the record company in business, not the artist.

Artists make all their money on tours. There's a reason that ticket costs you $45 and the T-shirt $28, and it isn't necessarily because the artist wants to screw you.

Re:Artists don't make any money on recordings.

[The Man]

and it isn't necessarily because the artist wants to screw you.

Of course not; that's what the groupies are for. (g,d&r)

Here is another solution: finditnow.8m.com

[Dast]

(I hate giving plugs to websites, but if you must have the music, this is the cheapest solution I've been able to find for new cd's.)

Back when I was buying more cd's, the best place to check was http://www.finditnow.8m.com/ for discounts.

They have links to all kinds of "coupons" at CDNOW. Go for the ones that are $10 off purchases of $14.99 or more (for any cd).

Be careful, some of them are marked for first time customers only, and a lot of them are $10 off purchases of $19.99 or more.

But you can just keep using the $10 off $14.99 until they expire. Use them over and over (last I checked anyway, which was quite a while ago). That drops the price of a cd down to $4.99. So with about $4 for shipping, that is $8.99, and it is delivered to your door.

Hope that helps some.

Or you can do like I do. Don't buy any. :)

Sarah McLachlin and you

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not an employee of Nettwerk, but I run a family law firm (I don't do entertainment law or intellectual property, in other words), hence I am indeed a lawyer.

For nearly seven years, Nettwerk in Vancouver kept Sarah McLachlin afloat, taking her from a teenager who'd never written an album to profitability and an international market. She had the benefit of their money, Canadian Content regulations and a corporation that believed in her. A few years after she turned the corner and started making more money than if she'd taught music in an elementary school, she was able to use her marketing credibility to start up Lilith Fair. Regardless of whether you like her music or not ( I do, but I believe people should develop their own tastes ), Sarah McLachlin would never have been able to go on to such success without Nettwerk backing her, and she's said so again and again. As far as I'm concerned, they both took the risk and so she's entitled to the money, and so is Nettwerk. Don't pirate what someone else has developed privately: you have no right to steal.
Piracy is theft, pure and simple.

If you object to some scumbag trying to circumvent the GPL, you should definately object to piracy.

On the other hand, this DeCSS fiasco is morally repugnant: if I've paid for the damned DVD, fair use allows me to play it on Linux, BeOS and any other damned box I can get it to run on. Someone needs to sue the Norwegian government for malicious prosecution and hit Jack Valenti with a clue stick.

non-paying listeners

[zeck]

Two ways to look at this:
First, you are paying to listen to the radio even if no one is making any money from it. I don't know how much your time is worth to you, but if I have to hear a 30 second advertisement to listen to a 4 minute song, that song cost me 30 seconds.
Second, advertisers are not paying based solely on how many people their advertisement will reach. They are paying based on statistics they've gathered on how advertising will affect their sales. If only 1% of the people who hear an advertisement go out and buy from the advertiser as a result, the advertiser will take that into account when deciding whether or not to buy advertising time and at what price. In other words, if you ignore every advertisement you hear, you're right: you haven't paid the advertisers. On the other hand, they're still getting their money's worth, because they counted on you.

Re:Napster is the key baby.

[caetin]

you're just the kind of person that nullifies 120 honest people's argument. what are you? 12? 13? you cant keep more'n 20 bucks in your pocket but you have ideas on how a whole industry should be run? figures. And i'm sure you'll reply (if you see this) saying you're some affluent person in your mid 20's in the computer/it industry pullin in over 100k/yr etc. so you're whining about the relativly abismal $ the artists get from record co's. how much do they get when you download mp3's and make music cd's? didnt think about that? someday when you go to apply for a patent for the end-all invention, and they say "sorry.. uhm.. we dont do that anymore, because people think its the man tryin to keep them down. so we're gonna take it anyway.. and give it away for free." What would you say to that? that they took your money? that you should have right to the profits from it since you worked to get it where it was? I'd like to see your response..

Re:!

[unitron]

"...together we will destroy the moderation system here on slash dot"
And when you do that and the threads are overrun by trolls and flames, everybody else will give up on this place and the advertisers will notice there's no one worth advertising to anymore and then there will be no Slashdot for either you or us. No doubt you'll consider that a great accomplishment on your part.

The Evil of Used CD sales

[OaITw]

I would imagine that revenues have been much more impacted by used CD sales then by online piracy. I mean I have been around long enough to remember pre-CD days and I have to say that CDs have created a much more robust used market than every existed in the days of tapes and lps. Now if I think to myself, hmm I won't mind hearing a old stones album for example. I can almost surely find it for six bucks. And you know what none of that six bucks goes to the music industry. There aught to be a law, my god. Now if the could somehow prevert our economic system so that sailing used CDs was illegal, I eventually would brake down and pay fifteen dollars to hear that Stones album. Maybe I would'nt buy as many or as often, maybe about a third as may CD's but the industry would be getting there cut again. As for online music. Bootlegged concerts are much more common in my estimation and a lot of bands are generous about allowing the reproduction of these things. Real "stolen" music requires dealing with annoying warez sites full of popups to finaly usually get top 40 singles that the radio is giving away for free anyway. Finally going over the internet loop results in some ( or a lot depending ) loss of quality. Used CDs retain the original quality. Does your senetor know about this?

CD's are insanely cheap to make

[BenZoate]

What is really bunk about the entire music industry is the fact that tapes are 5-6 dollars cheaper, when the tapes are more expensive to produce, have worse sound quality, and are much easier to copy. Before I got rid of all my tapes, I would have to say 90% of them were dubbed. I mean what was really the purpose of "high speed dubbing" on dual tape decks. Yeah we are really going to use it only to copy tapes of "baby's first words" or "little jhonny singing new kids on the block" to mail out to family........NO.
The music industry is still using tapes which are a)more expensive media b)more time consuming to make and c)have poor sound quality.
The tape must be dubbed from a master where as the cd is pressd. one takes 5 minutes the other takes oh 4-5 seconds. Is it just me or is somehting wrong here.
I am aware that people will buy new tapes to replace their old worn out tapes, hat is assuming they want to replace the tapes.
So I guess that my over all point is exactly how much different is a tape from a .mp3? Aside from the obvious technological difference, but from a "pirating" standpoint they are not that much different.

Is that the only reason the RIAA can come up with?

[Rotten168]

Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Rap-Metal clones...

There just isn't alot of good music being released these days. Many people, including me, have basically saturated their appetite for having "oldies" and classic rock on CD's. I've bought everything I've basically ever wanted to own on CD's, the rest I've gotten off Napster.

If the music industry releases a CD I feel is worth 19$, then I'll shell over the money. But that's a lot of money to waste on teeny-bopper junk and white-boy rap...

I have helped them...

[{R00T}]

I actually think that I have help the music industry. I download a lot of MP3s, and if I like a few song from the new record, I go out and buy the record. If I don't like the song, or songs, I won't go out and buy that record, and I can spend that money on another record. Granted, now I don't buy as many records as I used to, because I don't buy the new one, because I liked the old one, and i am hoping the new one is as good. I think that there is no way to stop the piracy, and any thing that they do will just be circumvented, be it, encryption, or whatever.

Who will buy a song for $0.30?

[ngaihua]

Just a survey, if you are given the option to buy a song for lets say $0.30 to $0.50 range in digital format, would you rather 1) Pirate it Digitally 2) Buy it Digitally 3) Buy the CD Slashdot, why not make this a survey?

Re:Who will buy a song for $0.30?

[Legion303]

Given a choice between pirating or buying electronically, I would buy if I knew that the money was going to the artist. I would spend up to a buck a song, depending on how much I liked the song in question. This is less costly than your typical CD, which has around 10 songs and retails for $16.00, most of which goes into corporate accounts.

Or, to put it another way, the artists are already making less than $0.30 per song under the current system. I'm surprised more bands aren't going into business for themselves.

-Legion

MP3 encoders

[cduffy]

I personally use LAME (well, not LAME technically, but rather the sample MP3 implimentation with LAME's patch applied); It's slower than most others, but the quality's good (and it supports VBR). And until this whole legal fuss got started, I did indeed buy the CDs corresponding to my MP3s. Probably still would, but I don't like feeding lawyers.

Re:MP3 encoders

[Rushuru]

If you're looking for a fast mp3 encoder, use gogo no coda

http://homepage1.nifty.com/herumi/gogo_e.html

It's an optimized version of LAMe for pentium class cpus. Quality remains high, and it also supports VBR

If you're looking for a cd ripper, get cdparanoia

The real reason the RIAA fear .mp3's ...

[Gricey]

It may be obvious, but companies like the RIAA are in effect huge megalithic middle men. They know this. They have a monopoly to blackmail the artist into accepting their manufacturing / pressing / advertising contracts. They realise that artists can now record their music at CD quality, make their own CDs at budget prices. They can advertise for free on the internet. They can give away samples of their albums to a fan base. They can give chatroom interviews, all of this sickens the RIAA, it's cutting out the middle man, ie, them. Even though they are gaining sales, they are trying to stamp this fledgling threat to their entire existance before it really catches on. Just imagine it, they'd be out of a job if everyone did it that way.

And, no, I rarely pirate mp3s, I have a lot, but they're almost all mine. I buy the CD of the ones I listen to the most. That's the way it should be.

IMHO, anyway. :o)

Mike.

Oh... now we know how much they are making each CD

[ngaihua]

Lets put some math in use. If 1.4 billion is divided by 90 million, the average profit/loss for each CD is $15.44

Are they admitting that they are making about 90% to 110% (???) of the CDs at counter price? As in the real CD's production actually cost is actually 10% to -10% (???)

This is assuming they never produced the CD the did not ship. On the other hand if they claim the loss is due to CDs produced which is not sold, then they are admitting each CD cost them $15.44 to produce. Think, if you are really making all the money from factory to storefront, anyone is gonna distribute their products for $15.00 - $18.00 ? What I am suggesting is RIAA really is loosing only about 20-30% if the stated $1.4 billion (if the amount of CDs not shipped is true in any sense which I really doubt).

Either way, the figures seem too extreme and I believe it is a lousy lie exgerated.

Gary

The 1860's version of this argument

[Anonymous Coward]

No matter how evil the slaveowners are, the slaves still belong to them. No matter how justified you are in trying to free them, they still belong to the slaveowners.

No matter how self-righteously indignant you can make yourself, the slaves still belong to them.

How you justify the idea that freeing slaves isn't really stealing, and that they somehow have "rights" without purchasing their freedom from their owners, is really amusing.

The laws on the books aren't the definitave guide as to what is right and wrong. There are many people who believe that the music industry is using laws to corrupt, rather than noble, ends, and that by encouraging things like MP3 is a fight to break their monopoly on distributed music.

Re:The 1860's version of this argument

[rm -rf /etc/*]

Slaves: basic human rights violation
CD's: you don't want to pay a corporation who has every right to charge what they see fit.

Are you not capable of seeing the difference here? I am so sick of whiners who justify their actions by some higher moral crusade. You may not like they way they do business, but that does not mean you can do something illegal. Rather than pirate the music, start lobbying for labels to sell individual mp3's. Do something useful other than just bitch about how you're the victim. I mean hey, if I don't like the way car dealers operate, does that make it ok to go steal a car? Of course not. If I don't like the way record companies operate, does that make it ok to pirate their music. Of course not.

Unless, of course, you have some special reason why you get to choose which laws to obey.

Re:The 1860's version of this argument

[provolt]

Trying to compare owning slaves to pirating CD absolutely ludicrous. It is not our moral obligation to pirate music. Slaves were human beings who had been forced into serving others. Music is not human.

If you really would like to push the slave issue, think abou this: Slavery was wrong because people put other people into service without permission or compensation. By pirating CD's you are using someone elses work without their permisson and without compensating the artist for it.

Abolitionists also worked through the system to change it. (At least until they were forced not to). They elected abolitionist senators and representatives, and then an abolitionist president. It was only when the slave oweners decided to go out side the system, did we have real problems.

provolt
Go Geek. Rule the World. gogeek.org

Re:The 1860's version of this argument

[Coda]

Rather than pirate the music, start lobbying for labels to sell individual mp3's. Do something useful other than just bitch about how you're the victim.
Civil disobedience is a valid and moral response to unjust laws. How else can a disenfranchised group fight a huge power?

Unless, of course, you have some special reason why you get to choose which laws to obey.
I choose which laws I obey based on whether or not I think those laws are just. I will not cede my moral judgement to someone I do not trust, nor will I blindly follow a government with a dubious (at best) moral standing.

There is a higher law than the law of the state.

Re:The 1860's version of this argument

[Commie]

Civil disobedience is a valid and moral response to unjust laws. How else can a disenfranchised group fight a huge power?

I think the answer was in the quote you were responding to. Pirating music (It's amusing to call this Civil Disobedience) isn't pushing companies to do anything other than attempt to find new ways to burden us all in some new way or another. However, that doesn't seem to be your concern.

I choose which laws I obey based on whether or not I think those laws are just. I will not cede my moral judgement to someone I do not trust, nor will I blindly follow a government with a dubious (at best) moral standing.

I don't have a problem with this posistion. It is unfortunate it drags into these issues. If can copy = not property, there is no way for a musician (or a wide variety of artists, writers, etc) to make any money off their work other than do such things as try and whore themselves writing advertising jingles or what have you. This is not good. More fundamentally, I see that position as an attack on personal freedom. If I make a CD and sell it for $10 saying no copies allowed, I consider it my freedom to do so. You are free to accept these terms or not. If you violate it, then you're violating my freedom. You're saying I have no economic control, freedom, or choice about what I've created -- simply because (relatively current) technology allows you to copy it cheaply.

You might say, as many do, "but if I copy it, I'm not taking IT away from you, you still have the music!". The problem is in the IT. As far as I'm concerned, part of my freedom is the ability to put a monetary value (which includes 0) on something I create, whether it's easy to copy or not.

It boils down to - your thinking takes away my freedom/choice over my creation. My thinking takes nothing away from you - I've presented another choice (to buy the CD under my terms), but I haven't taken anything away.

It's unfortunate there's really no real middle ground.

Re:The 1860's version of this argument

[Fred Ferrigno]

Slaves: basic human rights violation
CD's: you don't want to pay a corporation who has every right to charge what they see fit.</i>

What are you talking about? Slaves aren't human, so no one's rights are violated! Even those the most opposed to slavery didn't really think of blacks as humans, which isn't all that surprising given the lack of education and the squalor most slaves were forced to lived in. The tone of the abolitionist movement was more like the ASPCA then any human rights movement I've ever heard of.

The relationship has little to do with the actual corruption involved. You've got a corrupt establishment protected under the law and an illegal, but (in your eyes) morally justified method of fighting it. Sure, slavery is a lot worse than being profit-hungry, but a slave cost a lot more than a CD does now.

Would you help free a slave? It would be very much a theft. The slave owner paid for the slave, expected work from the slave, and is now denied the money he invested. To free a slave would be most definately a theft, but it could be morally justified by most people today.

Re:The 1860's version of this argument

[Fred Ferrigno]

Not to mention that we had a series of presidents who decided to Seriously Fuck Things Up (tm) by ignoring the problem.

Keep in mind that the civil war wasn't about slavery but the rights of the states.

Re:The 1860's version of this argument

[SteveSmith]

The big difference, of course, being that the slaves were sentient and could understand what it meant to be slaves. Songs can't. Its quite a serious exageration to try and say the RIAA is as bad as the slave traders were.

I agree with the sentiment, though. But anyone that does pirate music in protest is going to be painted as the bad guys by the media, so you'd have to be quite careful.

Music industry pirates $10 billion, still whines

[jflynn]

I am getting more than just a little pissed off at the music racket. And it's not much better than that, I wouldn't dignify it with the term "industry."

First they make 15 billion in revenue by overcharging 3 or 4 times for a CD. But thats not good enough. They also have to screw the musicians out of royalties. You would think that would be evil enough for one institution, but no, these guys also want to enact and enforce repressive copyright law internationally, and are big forces behind UCITA and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

Now on top of this they want to whine that someone *else* is stealing from their patch? Hoo boy, the higher they are the harder they fall, and the music industry is really asking for one...

The problem with Holland schools

[briancarnell]

This is the problem with Holland schools -- nobody teaches critical thinking.

It is logically fallacious to assume that because record sales increased that therefore the record industry is not harmed by pirating.

Suppose I swiped SlashDot pages and put them up on my site attracing 20 or 30 page views a month. At the end of the month Slashdot lawyers contact me and ask me to cease and desist. I point out that Slashdot page views actually increased over the month, so therefore Slashdot suffered no losses.

Yeah, I bet that would get far (if unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted works is so great, how about removing all of the "© 1997-2000 Andover.Net." message at the bottom of each screen.)

Re:The problem with Holland schools

[Mike Buddha]

It is logically fallacious to assume that because record sales increased that therefore the record industry is not harmed by pirating.

And it is equally fallacious to say that that because of pirating, the record industry is harmed, which is the obvious insinuation of your original statement. You can't lose what you never had. Therefore, an increase in CD sales of $1.4 Billion US does show that the record industry is still a viable industry in the world and therefore the paranoia surrounding the illicit trafficking of MP3's is unwarranted.

Suppose I swiped SlashDot pages and put them up on my site attracing 20 or 30 page views a month. At the end of the month Slashdot lawyers contact me and ask me to cease and desist. I point out that Slashdot page views actually increased over the month, so therefore Slashdot suffered no losses.

You know, I could set up hypothetical situations all day to more aptly "prove" my points, but we all know how illogical and inconsequential that is.

Re:The problem with Holland schools

[Steve B]

OK, let's cut to the chase and consult "Illegal Copying" under the "Losses" section of the various RIAA members' Annual Reports.

What? You can't find it?

Of course, his doesn't prove that there are no losses from illegal duplication. What it does prove is that the industry's claims are junk statistics which they dare not palm off to shareholders as real economic data. (The SEC in the US takes a dim view of that sort of thing, and wherever you're reading this probably has a local equivalent.)

In short, the problem is real to some unknown extent, but so nebulously defined that any attempt to impose particular solutions is premature at best.
/.

Re:We need -5 karma or lower account filters

[Mongoose]

I wan't clear... by "not been seen" I implied at level 1. =)

I sent a letter to the ask /. address right after posting this where I was more explict. ;)

well, if you have users flooding your system you have the right. Ask some of the guys at telefragged.com about this problem. The bot epidemic bot had this problem, and we got a few ISPs to kick some users. If someone is just going to abuse, then put them away.

Are we off topic yet?

Re:Reality is irrelevant - Pay to Play is end goal

[Wah]

just make sure all your friends do the same and we'll have nothing to worry about. Every time I wear my anti-dvd shirt I talk to another person. Markets follow a certain pattern (and the adoption of new technology follows this curve) with the first people to use something being the "early adopters", that's us for MP3, and a bunch of other stuff. This crowd then helps refine the product which eventually moves on to the mass market. I'm sure many of you have taken some marketing classes (unless you avoided them for religious reasons) and know most of this so I'll skip the details.

My point is that as early adopters, we get to define, or at least help guide, what products come out for the mass market (and get mass marketing budgets). Knowing this, make your opinion known, especially to those that make these decisions. Vote with your wallet, express your fears to your peers, write poems about it, whatever. Bitching' about it is fun on /., but when talking about it "at large" try and keep the sarcasm and cynicism to a low level and the facts (your version of them will do fine) as the main points.

--

Won't stop them from trying...

[acb]

If the MPAA's (so far massively successful) campaign against DeCSS is anything to go by, unprotected systems such as MP3 could be in for a major battle. As soon as anything like SDMI is in place, the RIAA will probably sue makers of unprotected players/encoders for violations of the DMCA and the like. Given recent interpretations of copyright as an absolute zero-sum property right, they could well win and MP3 could be outlawed.

As for the menace of unprotected CDs, DVD-Audio will remedy that, and introduce geographic zoning and other nasties. All they'd need to do once it's on the horizon is start manufacturing their ordinary CDs to deteriorate in a few years, all the while shipping them with a voucher redeemable for a new "enhanced" DVD Audio version. It would make them look generous and aggressively forward-looking and help phase out the fundamentally insecure CD format.

Re:Reality is irrelevant - Pay to Play is end goal

[divec]

Why should I care, I've got my Rio, I've got my mpg123. 'They' cannot 'suppress' anything.

What about when they start releasing music in a secure format? One where you have to buy their special player? And where every copy of the music has its own individual signature hidden in the sound, so they can track piracy? And where they make you "pay per listen"? And where you no longer have the right to be an anonymous listener, because their special player uploads your listening details along with your credit card details? What about if they start charging heavy listeners increasingly more per listen? And this would all be perfectly legal under DCMA and UCITA, or whatever European equivalents we fail to lobby against hard enough.
That's just what my twisted little mind could cook up in five minutes. Imagine what the music industry can cook up in a decade.

Re:Everything should be Free

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? The only reason O'Reilly holds such a "stronghold" in the technical publishing market is that they consistantly publish quality books about a vast range of technical topics. The books are generally easy to understand, and written in a friendly if not humorous manner. While not all of their books are useful for everybody (and some are not good for anybody), it is more than likely that if you are looking for a good book on a technical topic O'Reilly has one. It is this basic trust on the part of the consumer that gives them power in the publishing market, not some weird quest for "world domination." Publishing books requires an enormous amount of money. If O'Reilly suddenly began giving their books away, they would most likely be out of business in under a year.

I for one, prefer to pay the $30 for my book and help ensure that they will continue to publish quality tecnical books.

Re:Reality is irrelevant - Pay to Play is end goal

[Anonymous Coward]

All the whining about MP3's is primarily an attempt to prepare the legal grounds for supression of the format later, when they can force hardware manufacturers to suspend MP3 playback capability in favor of SDMI and/or its latest flavor.

The industry needs to make sure that when digital music is deployed (i.e. when _they_ deploy it), it goes out with the ability to be rented (which they prefer), instead of just bought. They also want the full suite of digital copy protections, such as tying it to the device its stored on so you can't share it. To do this they have to supress MP3.

The clear answer to this is to make sure that MP3 is widely used to distribute the other thing that the recording industry doesn't want available: the music of artists who aren't under contract with record companies. The MP3s that I have downloaded have been music that was not available to me anywhere else, mostly live recordings of talented amateurs. They aren't going to get recording contracts because their music doesn't have mass appeal. But now they have a way to get heard. Let's make sure that when they finally succeed in getting MP3 outlawed that there is grounds for a countersuit for restraint of trade.

Re:We need -5 karma or lower account filters

[Mister Attack]

You could still see all posts, just drop the filter...

But I agree, a different solution is needed. More mod points, for example. There aren't enough to go around right now.

And I don't see how this would be any different than USENET abuse, in terms of ISPs' AUPs. Most ISPs prohibit spamming, and trolling == spamming. That way, at least the logged in users will be held accountable for their actions. And the AC's can stay at 0, where they don't bother anyone. Good AC posts will be modded up, as always, and bad AC posts can be safely ignored or modded down. I really don't see why the /. crew shouldn't report abuse of /....
--

Is it ethical to steal IP?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

The slaves thing goes overboard. The RI people are likely shafting the artists, but does that make it any more ethical to have MP3s of CDs you don't own? While morality, ethics and legality are not always the same, this issue is different from those in the 1860's. Sorry.

Personally I believe it there is a right to intellectual property, but the way big money owners are trying to hoard it isn't good. It's kind of like crap, the more you try to sit on, the more squishes away.

Tell that to your DVD Audio drive

[acb]

That works for CDs, but won't work for DVD Audio. And as soon as they can, they will phase out CDs as a medium in favour of DVDs, much as they did with vinyl. And DVD Audio will be unrippable. (And playing it in through your soundcard doesn't count; for one, the quality on consumer gear is crap.)

Re:Tell that to your DVD Audio drive

[GregWebb]

Did they phase out Vinyl or did we, though? Pressing vinyl really isn't easy. You need some specialist equipment that can be easily controlled. Ideal for the paranoid execs. But, by the time CDs were beginning to seriously challenge the market rather than just being a toy for people like us :) recorders were available. Expensive, sure, but they knew the price would come down over time. If they were that powerful, we'd still be using vinyl as they'd have starved CDs back then, when they still could. Yes, they were that paranoid then - remember how DAT got killed and the home videotaping suits. The thing is, the format only changes if the customer wants it to. They aren't so powerful and stupid as to try and force this sort of thing - they'd lose sales if the stopped doing CDs, probably to people like us buying the DVD audio discs and then burning the CDs... I mean, it's not going to stay unrippable for that long :) The public moves a format when it perceives an advantage at a fair price. You can stop a format from taking off, but once it's there it's pretty difficult to take back down again. Personally, I don't see what they're so worried about unless they're a lot sillier than they look. I've got some recordings I've made myself - tape and CD - but I also buy a lot of CDs as I like having the proper disc and artwork. I make tapes so I can listen to music in the car, I burn CDs as I like an album but haven't found it at a reasonable price, and I'm NOT paying £15 for a single CD. But do either stay as my only copy for very long? No way - I want the proper CD. home copying only serves to help them by keeping my interest in an artist alive and fed until I can afford the CD. Greg

Re:Tell that to your DVD Audio drive

[GregWebb]

Very sorry, slash killed every tag in that between preview and submission, I PROMISE. All nicely taggged up, that was :(

Oh well...

Greg

Re:DJs don't decide

[unitron]

Half the radio station DJs in America are probably working for minimum wage or thereabouts. Management isn't going to trust them to decide what to play. Or even what to say.
They're going to pay some consultant to tell them. That's why they're going to sound the same as all the other stations of that same format, 'cause all the other stations are getting advice from the same consultants.
Believe it or not, what radio stations want to do is play the songs that their audience wants to hear, or, rather, the songs that those who the stations want to have as their audience (the same people that advertisers will pay lots of money to reach) want to hear. The record companies do more to keep the stations happy than the other way around. (that doesn't mean that it isn't a strange, symbiotic, relationship all the same.)

Stations do pay

[unitron]

Try telling ASCAP ,BMI, and SEASAC that you're not going to pay any performance fees to play recorded music on your large commercial radio station and see how fast you learn how many lawyers they can throw at you.

No no no....

[Mr. Flibble]

this is propaganda.
No it isn't. Propaganda is a really cool set of tiled wallpaper!

I wonder what Kennedy has to say on the topic of MP3's (I know I am way offtopic! :)

...who said that slashdot was journalism ...?

[unitron]

-insert obligatory anti-Katz snide remark here-

Piracy is where you get on a ship and kill people

[argoff]

Now look. If I board a ship, kill and mame people, deprive them of their stuff then you may call it piracy. Otherwise call it what it is. Copying!!!! OK Get it. PS. what makes you so sure that copyrights are a basic right anyhow??

Renember the later days of the cotton plantations

[argoff]

yes it's true. the most profitable years of the slave industry were the years just before the civil war. All this did was reassure them that slavery was a basic right, and galvinize them into fighting and getting massacared for it later on. Now today they assume that copyrights are a basic right. With over a trillion dollars bet on copyrights being a basic right in the US economeny alone, don't be suprised if violent consequences break out when our society refuses to sustain it anymore.

The sadness of our state of society today

[Cyno]

When you go to the store to buy a cd or a movie you believe that you will actually own that movie or the music that is on your new cd. You bring it home and rip a few of your favorite mp3s onto your computer, and a few weeks later you put up an ftp site or get on napster to share with you friends. And a few days later when you're browsing slashdot you find out that what you are doing is illegal, immoral and unethical. But what did you do wrong?

You simply shared some of your favorite media with friends. But the RIAA doesn't want you to do this. They want you to pay for this media along with your friends and everyone else. They don't want you to copy it, it isn't yours, you can't distribute it or change it in any way, because the RIAA owns it. If they could have things their way they would probably rent it to you, everytime you played a song they'd charge you a dollar for usage of their kewl hip media.

I think people need to learn and reallize that this is wrong. They need to think for themselves and look at the bigger picture. If you continue to buy CDs and movies and support he RIAA and MPAA you will continue to be found by them. They will make movies so they can sell you more junk, action figures, soundtracks, taco bell toys, etc. They don't care about the media they create, but only how much money you give them. And they only want more. These type of organizations are created so the founders and owners get rich, but they never give anything back to the community.

We need people to start creating free media. Music, art, movies and software all under licenses similar to the GPL. Where anyone can share this media with their friends or family or whomever they want. If the people like the music they will still go to the store to buy your CD (which you can sell for a lot less, btw), and you will still make lots of $$, look at Redhat. :)

We need more open-source companies!

The real tragedy is the passing of the audiophile.

[Transition Cat]

The CD. The MP3. Crappy computer speakers. "Good" component computer speakers for $50. It's sad that an entire generation is missing out on the rich sound that a good set of speakers can give you. Yes, I believe in the magic of vinyl - laugh if you must. I would pay good money for brand new vinyl records. Perhaps there are enough people like me for the music industry to tap to counter their loss (if indeed it exists) due to mp3 piracy. Until then, I'll continue to download mp3s, but I'll feel bad about it, and I'll covet Magneplanar speakers, and hope that the college students of today, be they fans of Korn, or Mozart, or the Meaty Cheesy Boys, do likewise.

Is it ethical to steal^h^h^h^h copy IP? Yes

[argoff]

The slave argument is a valid one, not because slavery had anything to do with copyrights, but because the logical arguments they use are the same. :
I have no incentive without it..., america grew because of it..., I put my money into it ..., without it society would fall apart..., if you don't like it don't own it ..., those who believe and those who don't can find an even middle ground ..., it's the law - deal with it ... ad nasuim

Another thing you ought to consider - people have invested over a trillion dollars on the assumption that copyrights (and patnets for that matter) are a basic right. If you don't think people will resort to violence when (and not if) it becomes unsustainable. think again.

the moral and historical foundation of property derives from physical realities, not from reward to the end artist, or from control over distributions

Re:Napster is the key baby.

[delong]

Thank you, caetin. Saved me a rant.

Re:Greed, dont judge others before we ourselves

[argoff]

Before we judge them. I think it's only fair to point out that they are just taking the philosophy of copyrights to it's logical conclusion. After all, if you have a right it's only natural and decent to want to secure that right. It's true that these people are being unethical, but they are using an unethical philosophy that millions of people are upholding.

think of it like the slavery issue in the mid 1800's. The problem wasn't just the plantation masters, but also the millions of people who believed that slavery could peacfully and morally exist in a free society.

Re:DJs don't decide

[Dan B.]

If only there were a Triple J in America, I wouldn't have to hear the same whiges over and over.

CD's in Australia

[Xenex]

Actully, the CD's in Australia has dropped alot in the last 12 months, with the opening for stores to import CD's. Now we can get most CD's at around $20.

Of course, before this legislation was passed, the Australian music industry said the price would rise (lies), and now, they say the import CD's music quaility is lower (again, lies). And they say that piracy would increase (lies AGAIN, 3 out of 3 :).

Anyway, CD's are around $20 in Australia, not $30 anymore (even the "offical" Australian CD's price has dropped to about $25).

But then, I just order online because it's cheaper (and we don't have cool stuff like the Neon Genesis Evangelion soundtracks in stores, but that's another story :)

Now all we need is this woeful (and completly uninforced, all my porn sites still work ;) internet laws gone....

(BTW, I hate the abbrivation OZ, and Down Under.... you Yanks :)

No problem, just let 'em die.

[Artemis3]

So, who needs the Recording Industry these days? True Artists may earn a lot more by producing and selling their discs themselves, even if they reach a much smaller group; many will reach their real public directly and feel much better, no need to lower away your quality work in the name of commerce; if you see it clearly, the Recording Industry are parasites eating almost all the revenue earned by the artists; so it quite ironic that some "other parasites" are eating "their" revenue as well. Sayounara RIAA, we will NOT miss you :)

Artists vs. the RIAA

[dr. claw]

Five years ago, U2 was the artist with the best record deal: they received $2.50 per CD while most signed artists received $1 or less per CD. Today, Ani DiFranco makes the most money per album: about $7. She is in this position because she runs her own record label. Any artist who's ever tried to run a label knows it's a lot of work and takes a lot of time away from actually producing art.

I am surprised that CD sales are continuing to grow despite the fact that artists receive progressively smaller percentages of the price tag consumers pay (which is typically about $14 these days--an amount I consider outrageous given how little of that money goes to the artists).

Labels, for the service of distribution and promotion, typically get about half of the price tag you pay in the store. The retail stores mark up music about 100%. On-line music retail companies like CD Now, Music Boulevard, Amazon, etc. are no better in this regard, charging prices similar to or at best pennies less than "traditional" retail music outlets.

The MP3 phenomenon makes a loud statement: something is fundamentally wrong with the manner in which the music industry conducts business. Hopefully some reform to the system will eventually come forth.

Traditional economic analysis is not entirely applicable here because CD's are not indistinguishable and art is not a commodity. But when the music industry gets the message that sales of CD's keep increasing, they will interpret that to mean the industry can and should continue to charge more for CD's.

Is there any doubt that if this system is allowed to continue further the average artist will continue to receive progressively less than 7% of the gross price of the retail price of a CD for doing the great majority of the work?

i'd be scared too

[small_dick]

if i worked for riaa/mpaa/whatever. their palace is crumbling around them.

they might be kicking ass this year, and for a few more, but unless something drastic happens sales will start to drop radically as average bandwidth-to-consumer increases.

when it gets as easy (and fast) to send entire songs or videos as it does to attach a jpeg, they're completely screwed.

i maintained a small sheet music archive for a choir for a short time, and one of my responsibilities was maintaining 75 legal copies of sheet music for the chorale.

It was just a little paperwork -- find the publisher, call them, get the cost, get the check cut/signed and send it in.

While waiting for the order to come in, we did rehearsals with photocopies. Of course, this was a legit org that did things the "right way". I bet a lot of sheet music gets copied all over the place, with no fees paid whatsoever.

Realistally, in the future, i don't see a lot of people paying $1.25 or whatever per song, regardless of format or distribution vehicle. There's a fat ghost in the machine that's getting ready to drop on the music industry.

maybe artists will make their money off touring, or merchandise? dunno. but i think mutimedia (audio/video/whatever) will eventually be free. i don't see a way to stop it.

Maybe they can sell the things through industry websites. $1.00 a song or whatever, and be harsh with unauthorized servers. That seems realistic. They can use the same search tools, and nab the piraters/illegal napsters. Friends sharing mp3's quietly will be something they have to live with.

after all, when the last time you saw a site allowing public downloads of win95, that is easily found by the average surfer?

Re:Reality is irrelevant - Pay to Play is end goal

[locust]

What about when they start releasing music in a secure format? One where you have to buy their special player? And where every copy of the music has its own individual signature hidden in the sound, so they can track piracy? And where they make you "pay per listen"?

As long as the music has to be transformed from its encrypted format to something audible for us to hear it, it will be possible to copy it. It will also be able to filter out audible watermarks. Further, as was shown to be the case with cable television people are willing to pay what they think is a fair price for an item or a service. When they are presented with no choice or all choices that are rip-offs they then feel no compunction about pirating that service or stealing that item. Nobody likes to get ripped off. When a sufficiently large portion of the population are doing something that is technically illegal, what are they going to do arrest everyone?

--locust

What will make RIAA more money next year?

[baby_head_rush]

Ricky Martin will be old. Christina Agularumpus won the "kiss of death" best new artist grammy. Who will scam all the 13 year olds from their money? I say it'll be Brave Combo
Bring on the accordians!

The real problem

[cameldrv]

The fundamental problem here is that now that Slashdot is owned by a major corporation, its purpose is to generate advertising impressions. To do that, you must dumb down the content. Slashdot used to (like 2 years ago or so) be aimed at somewhere near the 95th percentile. Now, however it's around 75 or 80. People who like to see more thought provoking material, and more informative material are a smaller audience than those who want to see a Linux version of News.com, which is what Slashdot has essentally become. Slashdot (and Linux) has degenerated into mindless dogma and herd mentality, each person desparately wanting to belong to this movement that all logic and temperance disappears in favor of spouting idiotic platitudes.

Listen to people like John Katz talk about how geek culture is defined by pop culture, and Eric Raymond say that all geeks are libertarians, and you see the kernel of truth. Although many geeks think that they're rebels and free-thinkers, most of them are really just subscribers to a set of dogma that is already laid out before them ready for them to hitch a ride onto.

You are no better than anyone else for subscribing to this ideology. You still can't think for yourself any more than "mainstream" people do. You are just parroting what a different segment of society thinks. Just because you read Slashdot or use Linux doesn't mean that you are smarter than anyone else.

This will be my last transmission.

Re: Price of CD's

[J4]

Yup. Yup. What you say is true. And yes artists can make money off live performance but it depends on one thing. People need to get _out_ and go to shows. There's a very narrow segment of the population that will go see a small time act or indeed even seek out live entertainment on a regular basis.
The way it stands now, when people go out they're more concerned with A)getting hammered or B)getting laid neither of which is necessrily a bad thing.
Also too, lotta people have similar views WRT music that they do to software. That is to say if they don't know it and nobody told them otherwise, it's gotta suck.

And lets face, it as far as putting a financial hurtin' on either of these organizations, who by the way get their money from _dues_ not royalties, it's like trying to prevent your money from going to AOL or Microsoft, it's just not gonna happen, they're too pervasive.

So remember kiddies, as long as you swallow the pap that gets shoved at you as entertainment, you're part of the problem.
And as for you artiste's out there, stop being dumb-asses, don't piss your money away recording demo's so you can get signed and be a millionaire. You might as well play lotto instead. Put your time/effort/money into building a following (and not sucking BTW), then maybe you can have a real career, you know, like that nameless 3rd chair musician that you think is so lame, with the house in the 'burbs and the 2 cars.

--Bring back Vaudeville!--

Money vrs Happiness

[MikeFM]

I'll say first off that I never buy a CD without first having it as MP3's. The reason I usually buy the CD is because I want to make a better rip of my favorite songs and then I pretty much throw the CD away as it's useless to me. Since getting into MP3's my CD buying has gone up about 500%. I highly resent the high price of CD's and the fact that I'm forced to buy a CD that has songs I don't even like on it. CD's tend to get scratched, cracked, lost, stollen, etc. By ripping the discs I can listen to a huge playlist without switching discs or replacing broken discs and if I decide to I can write my favorite songs in any order I choose to a CD-R. I'd have to agree that I'd rather buy tshirts or concert tickets to fund the artists I like than pay for some shitty CD. Also as a programmer, artist, and inventor I hope the day does come when patents and copyrights no longer exist. I don't care if other people want to keep their copyrighted stuff to themself but patents are just wrong. At least the copyrighted stuff can just be replaced for the most part by others. I'd hope more artists would realize that money is not the end but a means. Do you really want to profit from your work or do you want to be happy because of it? Myself I choose to look for my own happiness and making others happy as much as possible.

freenet is lame

[delmoi]

Reall, you can get anything you could ever want on IRC, and freenet really dosn't solve the problem of finding information... so whats the point?

[ c h a d &nbsp o k e r e ]

Moo

[Legion303]

The RIAA reported a $1.4 billion increase in revenue last year; you people aren't pirating enough, dammit!

Go get a cheapo $150.00 CD burner and hit those MP3 sites. If your conscience bothers you, send a few bucks to the artists directly. They only make change on every CD sold anyway. If you want to support the bands, go see them when they tour, buy t-shirts at their concerts, and so on. If you want to finance the RIAA, then by all means keep buying those CDs.

-Legion

-1.4 "Bills" Sure

[cgarrity]

It's probably more like, "Well, we coulda made $1 Trillion, but instead we had to settle for $.9986 Trillion, poor us." Maybe all those Evil Hackers[tm] should flood the market with local music, promoting the local scenes, and break another monoply. Nevermind, that's all ready happened.

oh, bullshit.

[Pope]

I highly resent... the fact that I'm forced to buy a CD that has songs I don't even like on it.
Why do people keep saying that, as if this argument holds water? Just get the damn single and screw the whole album then. I like getting all the songs that aren't singles, there are many hidden gems to be found. And how do you know you don't like all the songs unless you buy the whole album?
Oh, right, you get the whole thing on MP3 then go buy a CD full of songs you don't like, which you then throw away because you can't take care of them. You are an idiot then.

Pope

Re:oh, bullshit.

[F0XFIRE]

Um, OK.

First, you can tell if there are some songs you like and some you don't by going to a normal music store and listening to the album. Then, you will determine (at least in my experience) that there are 4-5 songs on it that you like, and 4-5 that you can do without. Options? Well, maybe one of the songs you like is available on CD single. But probably not any of them, and almost certainly not all of them. But for the sake of argument, say the songs you like are all available on CD singles. As far as I can tell from CDNOW (which does not make searching for singles easy...), a CD single costs about $3, as opposed to about $12 for a normal CD. So you get about four singles for the price of one normal CD. Oooh, the savings. You just get gouged harder for buying just the songs you like.

As far as buying CDs, ripping them, and then ignoring the physical media, it makes perfect sense if your main music player is your computer. MP3s are a heck of a lot more convenient than physical CDs.

So, the argument that buying a whole CD to get a few songs is annoying does hold water, and it is perfectly reasonable not to restrict oneself to the physical CD media.

Foxfire

Friendly fire - Isn't.

only half the cost is distribution

[joshy]

only half of the cost of producing an album, and hence justifing the huge revenue slice the label gets, is the distribution. the other half is actually recording the record. time in a good studio with good engineers can cost as much as 1000$/hr. if you are The Beatles and already famous then you can afford to spend 8 weeks in the studio to cut an album, but if you are joe schmoe band then you may have to save up for a month to get just one hour in the studio.

in order to make producing records profitable in the long run, the labels have to charge quite a lot just to break even. 9 out of 10 bands don't make it big so the label needs to cover their costs with the one hit. once you add in the market and distribution costs, you see why it costs so much. only people with deep pockets can afford to be in this business. it used to be like this in the movie industry as well, but things changed. and the music industry will change as well for the same reasons: the distribution is easier and the production costs are lower.

the distribution changed because specialty theaters opened up to take independent films. also the multiplexs are so huge now that mainstream theaters often devote one or two screens to small films.

the production costs have changed because they have simply gotten cheaper. a movie company used to spend 10s of thousands of dollars just on the film when they made a movie. today cheap filmstock, cheap video equipment, and cheap computer systems have drastically reduced the cost of making a small film. now anyone can do it.

eventually technology will help out the music makers too. the internet promises to cut out the middle man for small musicians and cheap recording and editing equipment (usually in the form of computers) are reducing the cost of producing the actual album. two guys in a bedroom can record something that sounds better than a $100k studio from 30 years ago. (remember, The Beatles started out on cheap 4 track tape because they didn't have any money).

the music industry is changing, but of course the incumbent players don't like it. they never do. but eventually, just like the dinosaurs, they will adapt or die. if i were a record studio, i would rather slim down and become a bird than die and turn to oil for someone else to burn.

joshy

Re:only half the cost is distribution

[richieb]

only half of the cost of producing an album, and hence justifing the huge revenue slice the label gets, is the distribution. the other half is actually recording the record. time in a good studio with good engineers can cost as much as 1000$/hr.

Except that label do not pay for for the cost of recording. Typically they lend money to the artist and they are paid back from the CD sales.

That's why many "one-hit-wonders" artists wind up in serious debt. For example, TLC the group that won the "best-new-artist" grammy few years ago had to declare bankrupcy. Even though their CD sold several millions of copies, the artists made about $50K each that same year.

...richie

Re:only half the cost is distribution

[stang]

time in a good studio with good engineers can cost as much as 1000$/hr. if you are The Beatles and already famous then you can afford to spend 8 weeks in the studio to cut an album, but if you are joe schmoe band then you may have to save up for a month to get just one hour in the studio

Bunk.

I have a good friend of mine who does solo stuff -- just him and an acoustic guitar. He's got plenty of originals, and wanted to record a CD to share with his friends. He called up a local studio, went down and recorded his entire disk in an hour and a half.

Total cost? About $150, and he got two CD's from them. Now, they did give him the second hour free (mainly because it was a slow day, and the engineers were thrilled to have cut an entire album in this time frame), but still, we're not talking $1000+.

A decent studio -- Deep Purple recorded a couple of albums there in the '80's. Maybe it's not the best, but it's definitely good enough for major-label work.

fruvous

[Pope]

Went to school with Jean (he was student President at York one year), and his sister was my Linguistics TA. I hate the band though.
Does this count?

Pope

Triple J - best 8c I ever spent

[khiron]

Actually now I live in New York, I don't pay AUD Taxes, but Triple J is still my background programming noise. Listen to it now Non commercial, full of quality programming, sounds like an OS we all know.

Behind the RIAA Scene: Microsoft

[Dark Coder]

An Operating System giant would have a reason, motive and need to generate the anti-Linux firestorm.

MP3 rippers and DVD player is just another soon-to-be-backfired, MS-generated but RIAA-originated FUD.

MS, you didn't get your money's worth from RIAA.

Copying will become very difficult.

[divec]

As long as the music has to be transformed from its encrypted format to something audible for us to hear it, it will be possible to copy it.

Possible, yes. Feasible, useful, perhaps not. You may only be able to get a redigitised analogue copy of the music, which most people find unacceptably inferior today. It may not be possible to filter out audible watermarks if the protocol for generating them is unknown, and a few high-profile imprisonments/fines would probably put most people off risking it.

When a sufficiently large portion of the population are doing something [...] illegal, [how can they] arrest everyone?

They can wipe out wide-scale piracy (e.g. internet distribution) by court action. Then they could impose sanctions on casual pirates. If you're on their "blacklist", they won't sell you any music until you've paid your "fines", or perhaps ever. Since pirate copies will be quite hard to come by, people will be too scared of "excommunication" to dare to pirate.
You can withstand public discontent if you have the power to scare people.

Re:Copying will become very difficult.

[Fjandr]

I disagree. I see it as being completely feasible. Unless players have no audio-out capability, it will be easily possible to make a digital replica in a non-restrictive format. Even if there is no audio-out, you can take one of those special players, remove the speaker leads, and attach an audio patch, and then plug it into a souncard's digital input. There are always ways around restrictions on hardware and software. Take sattelite subscribers for example. Viewing is restricted in a manner much similar to your description. However, there are people who have broken the hardware locks and now distribute this tech to others. It's the same for every other pay service of a non-physical nature in existence. Those who want access are almost always close to par with those striving to restrict that same access. I don't see that changing in the near future. To attempt to squelch something so many believe in doing is an exercise in futility, and invariably backfire. Just examine such examples as Christianity, bacteria, and the DeCSS fiasco.

Re:Copying will become very difficult.

[divec]

You can take one of those special players, remove the speaker leads, and attach an audio patch [...]

Yes, but that means you're redigitising sound which has gone through your hi-fi. Most people don't consider this to be very close to CD quality.

satellite subscribers [... are] restricted in a manner similar to your description. However there are people who have broken the hardware locks

Yes, but that system was comparatively insecure. If you have secure encryption, and decoding which happens inside a single chip, nobody will manage to break it.

To attempt to squelch something so many believe in doing is an exercise in futility

I don't think that's *necessarily* true. The DeCSS issue may yet turn out to be won by the music industry. As another example, take the US government managing to stamp out polygamy from Mormonism, even though it was universally accepted by Mormons. Squelching is only an exercise in futility if the opposition is well-organised and puts up a strong resistance. Most people who copy music do it for selfish reasons, not because they believe it is "right", and so they are easy to "disorganise" (just find some disincentive for them, and they'll stop). Unless we can persuade most people that restrictive licenses are *wrong* and not just annoying, they won't put up much of a fight when the record industry gets them to swallow this pill, maybe with some "sugar coating" initially.

Re:Copying will become very difficult.

[locust]

It may not be possible to filter out audible watermarks if the protocol for generating them is unknown

How long did it take to take appart CSS when a couple of people put thier minds to it?

They can wipe out wide-scale piracy (e.g. internet distribution) by court action. Then they could impose sanctions on casual pirates. If you're on their "blacklist", they won't sell you any music until you've paid your "fines", or perhaps ever.

Do you really think that you can wipe out piracy by decree? Does the pope saying that you should must not have premarital sex stop a large number of people?... Does he prevent the existence of condoms by saying that birth control is an a front to God?... Does video game priacy being illegal stop warez?... Do laws that say people under 18 are not allowed to buy smokes prevent them from smoking? "Nobody sold them to me. Honest officer, the pack just fell out of the sky". Do liquor laws prevent people under 18 (or 21 in the US) stop people below those ages from drinking?...

No such luck. Why? Because really people don't see these as dangerous/problematic activites. As long as you don't bother anybody else, nobody asks what you're doing, or points out that its technically illegal. Its when a bunch of underage drunks start causing trouble (or any drunks for that matter) that they have problems.

--locust

Re:Copying will become very difficult.

[Chandon Seldon]

• Yes, but that means you're redigitising sound which has gone through your hi-fi. Most people don't consider this to be very close to CD quality.

As always, you can make a digital copy of the same quality as the audio that a user will hear. If this is too crappy sounding, the company making the device will have to up the output quality, thus upping the quality of possible copies.

Re:Copying will become very difficult.

[divec]

Does the pope saying [...] you must not have premarital sex stop [...] people? [...] Does video game piracy being illegal stop warez?

• The pope doesn't punish you if you do have premarital sex. In countries where there is punishment for this, extramarital birth rates are much lower (even though abortions are illegal).
• [Casual] warez trading usually goes unpunished today. Piracy by businesses, which does get punished, is less endemic and less blatant. This doesn't apply in developing countries; punishment for piracy doesn't happen there.

Do liquor laws prevent people under 18 [...] from drinking?

No, these laws are about sale of alcohol and aren't *meant* to stop underage drinking. In countries where drinking alcohol gets you punished, alcohol consumption is far lower.

You've shown that people don't obey rules just because they exist. But I am saying that the music industry will be able to *punish* people for casual piracy. If they can do that effectively then people will capitulate. I believe the techology to do it effectively is available; the DCMA and UCITA seem to make such "punishments" legal.

Re:Copying will become very difficult.

[divec]

How long did it take to take apart CSS when a couple of people put their minds to it?

CSS is very flawed in many ways. Lots of parallel encryption keys, just to pick on one thing, is a really stupid idea which almost guarantees that CSS would get cracked at some point. I don't know if the film industry was just stupid, or if they wanted this to happen so they could force the lawsuit, or what. However, I'm sure that if they are trying to make a secure format, they won't repeat this again. Given enough research investment, they could probably manage to invent a bullet-proof watermarking scheme.

Re:Copying will become very difficult.

[locust]

You've shown that people don't obey rules just because they exist. But I am saying that the music industry will be able to *punish* people for casual piracy.

So lets take a look at something entirely different: Speeding. Everybody does it. It is possible to punish people for it, and if you get right down to it you can catch everybody. You just need to use something automated like photoradar. Here in Ontario they used it for a while, causing much public grumbling. As a matter of fact one of the promises of the current governement was to chuck the stuff (which they did). With this in mind consider that the government controls a pieced of toll highway (the 407) where ingress and egress are monitored by cameras and radio transponders. They mark where you enter and leave and charge you for distance traveled. They could very easily montior your speed, and using the mean value theorem nail you[1] for some pretty large fines. But the highway is still police patrolled.

Might point here is that even if you could punish everybody that pirated it would be counter productive... even if I stipulate that it can be done (which I'm not willing to do).

--locust

[1]You entered at time A you left at time B the distance is C so at some point in your trip you must have been going at least D for that to be phyiscally possible so here is your ticket for $E.

Re:Copying will become very difficult.

[Fjandr]

The legal issue may be won, but do you really see the proliferation of copies on the internet decreasing?
As for polygamy, you have to look at the entire issue. The US govt did not stamp it out by force. It was more an issue of extortion. They would not make Utah a state unless the proctice was given up. The choice was up to the Mormons to make, and they chose that which was believed to be more important to the group. The Mormons are (and historically have been) well organised, and strongly support that which they believe in (for the most part). However, this is one issue in which they would not likely have been resolved any other way.
Also, I didn't say that people who copy music think they are "right," merely that they believe in doing it because of the convenience (which I didn't actually state clearly. :)
As for encrypting digital signals, such as sattelite, you're right that it is insecure. However, my point about signals still stands. If it can be perceived, it can be copied. My example of copying music was a fairly quick and dirty hack job. With a little time and effort, putting together a digital-out directly off of the decoder would be no problem. Since you're making an exact digital duplicate, you're going to have an output of exactly the same quality as you hear audibly. If you have decent equipment, nobody is going to know the difference except those with much higher-quality equipment. For people who spend the money for equipment of high enough quality to detect the difference, I doubt that copying music will become much of an issue except maybe for personal mixes of music they already own. Mileage will vary, of course. Consider that only audio/videophiles tend to care about such a miniscule difference in quality, and someone like that will be forced by their very nature to buy retail to ensure top quality. If you look at reproductions in all of the current writeable media (VHS cassettes, tapes, CDs, MDs, etc.), this becomes evident. Such copying is common, and will likely continue to be, because, back to a previous point, as long as a signal can be perceived, it can be copied by some means. Encryption only protects until it is decrypted to be viewed, and after that it is no problem to copy.

Re:double negatives

[Clan Hanna]

Okay, so, let me see if I have this right:

The RIAA is highly opposed to the MP3 file format, and against programs/databases like Napster because these alternative forms of music recording technology cost them great amounts of income. Now, the RIAA reports that, in fact, they made an additional $1.4 billion (losing a negative amount is, in essence, gaining the opposite of that amount), which they are attributing to these same organizations and technologies that they are protesting.

Do I have that about right? Am I missing somethig vital? Either a reporter should be shot for not understanding basic 4th/5th-grade math, or the RIAA owes a REALLY big apology/butt-kissing to those who did them such a huge favor.

I am so frustrated. Why doesn't piracy work?

[lanner]

Dang it! I pirate these songs from CDs onto MP3s, give them away to my friends, and what do they do? The idiots like the artists and actually go to buy the CDs for themselves! What is with these morons? Do not they get it? I have been trying to hurt the music industry by doing this! I am so frustrated right now. Whatever am I doing wrong? I am going to have to step up my piracy efforts.

Re:No matter how evil they are - come to Germany

[Airon]

Everybody with German language skills might want to check out this link to the German computer mag CT :

http://www.heise.de/ct/00/05/112/

The meat is that copies for private use are permitted because nobody can real stop you anyway, and recrod company people cannot be permitted to enter your home and check if you have any copies.

Therefore mp3 downloads are legal in Germany and making copies of CDs off your buddy or for your buddy or from CD rented or lent from the library are legal.

It is however illegal to offer unlicenced material to the general public. Libraries buy their CDs, as well as renting shops. And mp3 download sites that carry stuff ripped from CDs and are available to all are illegal too.

Check the article for more info. It's pretty damn good.

Tony

Idea

[AntiNorm]

Here's an idea that would please both sides...RIAA and company would get their $$$ while John Q. Internetuser would be able to *legally* download any mp3 of his choice without having to worry if he already owns the CD or has paid the royalties...

It involves setting up an internet site and coming up with a large collection of mp3s (using legal means). Internet users would be able to connect to the site and download mp3s of their choice with no per-mp3 charge - the royalties would be compensated for with banner ad revenue. Of course, this would take up a fairly large amount of bandwidth, so it may be some sort of subscription-based service, but even then this could be a fair way to give both sides what they want.
=================================

Face on Mars Has Hillary Clinton's Love-Child!

[kuro5hin]

Next week, on slashdot...

Seriously, I just got back from long checkout lines at the grocery store, staring at the Star and the Enquirer, and Weekly World News. And here's this headline, right on the front page of /. How tragically similar...

Personally, I think the satire's better at segfault.

--

Re:sneaky code.

[shepd]

Yeah, slashdot does that (stripping less than signs) in "plain old text mode".

You're right - I simply made a pointless assertion in my code there. Whoops. I'm sorta tired, so bear with me. Ok, here is the "patch":

a == !!a;

should be replaced with these two lines:
a = -a;
a = -a;

Good point - fortunately, the output still worked. Now why did gcc not even give a warning about my pointless code? (I'm not a professional in C by any measure, but shouldn't wasted code be a warning?)

Back in the days of old...

[PerlGeek]

"This record has been engineered in accordance with standards developed by the recording industry association of america, inc., a non-profit organization dedicated to the betterment of recorded music and literature."

-- Frank Mills & His Orchestra, Music Box Dancer, 1979

A Mathematician's Response

[assonfire]

ummmmm...has no one picked up on the fact that "stealing negative 1,400,000,000" amounts to taking on $1,400,000,000 of the industry's debt? if i was mr. geffen, i'd be pretty cheery about this. the pirates are just giving back to the industry.

you know what? mp3 quality is an issue.

[funkywizard]

you mention mp3 quality with clicks and stuff. well the main problem is people with cruddy cd roms and stuff trying to rip albums on a 486. with a decent computer with a digital audio ripping cdrom drive, it can sound great, yes great. also a problem is when people try to copy tapes, which suck anyway. i agree that if people want to make mp3's, make them right.

True. True.

[eXoXe]

I find the increase in sales proper. When I get to listen to new music via mp3s, I have the urge to buy the actual CD. You cannot expect people to buy music they haven't heard of or only one track off the whole cd and have them buy it. Having the ability to listen to a lot of the tracks on a certain CD gives a buyer more enticement and lures them in to buy it.

Re: Price of CD's

[bcilfone]

From the brief description of the contracts, it seems that an artist would have to be a moron to actually sign with a major record company.

Perhaps this is why there is ZERO quality music currently being pumped out of the major music studios. I mean, is there any human being with a slight bit of individuality that thinks Britney Spears or 98 Degrees deserve anything more than a swift backhand?

With a couple exceptions of some bands that have been around for eons, any worthwhile music coming out today is either produced directly by the band or on a label you've never heard of.

The only money of mine that the RIAA gets is when I buy a copy of something made in the 60s for a whopping price of $15 or whatever.

I thought CDs were supposed to be cheaper to make that records?

Forget Microsoft. At least I have the choice of linux or a mac. What choice do I have when I want to buy a CD?

Jesus may love you, but I think you're garbage wrapped in skin.

mp3 drives demand for CDs

[dannyman]

CDs are inconvenient and archaic. Jewel cases get broken, things get wet, discs get scratched ... I never used to bother much.

Then I got on mp3s, and started listening to music more avidly. Well, mp3s are annoying to obtain - searching for obscure pirate sites, getting things in line with your naming scheme, seperating good encodings from poorer and broken ones ... ARGH!

So, I find some songs I like, I search out the appropriate CDs on Amazon, then head to a nice local music store and load up, bring 'm back to the ranch, rip'n'encode. Mighty handy.

Why would I want to bother with CDs in the first place, if they weren't a delivery vehicle for getting good tunes in to my computer? :)

You're not "forced" to like shitty bands.

[eskimonkey]

Get into some bands who release worthwhile albums as opposed to single/filler albums. Hint: you're not likely to find them on the radio.

Re:You're not "forced" to like shitty bands.

[Wah]

Hing2: or MTV or anyplace else, and that's exactly how the RIAA wants to keep it. A big reason why I support MP3 and "pirating" (or as I call it, "Listening to Music")

--

Re:You're not "forced" to like shitty bands.

[Rakarra]

Get into some bands who release worthwhile albums as opposed to single/filler albums. Hint: you're not likely to find them on the radio.

Exactly. Shitty bands release albums with maybe a few good songs and filler. I like listening to good bands, and all the CDs I've bought from them have been worth (almost) every penny (then again, I don't go to Tower or the Wherehouse, so I don't get that gouged on price either).

Re:You're not "forced" to like shitty bands.

[MikeFM]

I don't know of any bands who don't usually have one or two songs at least per CD that I don't care for. Even if the song is good, it doesn't mean I'll like it. Other than those couple bands probably the other 99% of music I like is by bands who aren't quite as good overall but do have a song here and there that I like and I have every right to listen to the songs I like without paying for 10 other songs on the CD that all suck and being forced to listen to those songs every time I play the CD. If you only buy CD's who have only good songs on them then you must have a collection of about three discs.

what you need is a session selector

[funkywizard]

i had the same problem with weird al's new cd. the answer was easy cd creator deluxe's session selector (pirated of course). a beautiful thing, it has helped me many times. you just choose the session with the music instead of the data, and bravo, you got rip!

Re:Reality is irrelevant - Pay to Play is end goal

[Baki]

All the whining about MP3's is primarily an attempt to prepare the legal grounds for supression of the format later, when they can force hardware manufacturers to suspend MP3 playback capability in favor of SDMI and/or its latest flavor.

Luckily, they won't succeed. Control of hardware playback doesn't work anymore, since you no longer need special purpose hardware nowadays. MP3 can be played back on almost anything, lately too on PDA's. On PDA's for which anyone can write software. So even if the RIO etc. would get forbidden somehow, it wouldn't make a difference.

I can only laugh about their pathetic attempts to avoid the unavoidable.

Re: Price of CD's

[Tycho]

The middle men and the brick and mortar store also tack on to the cost too. For instance if you have ever tried to buy computer equipment or anything else in an electronics "superstore" and compare it to the cost at a store online, you might notice that the brick and mortar store charges much more. For instance I was pricing a null modem cable from the local Best Buy and comparing the cost to a similar item from Buy.com. The cable at Best Buy was $20 and $4 at Buy.com. Now I imagine that most new CD's are sold at brick and mortar stores and the mark ups for a CD aren't extreme as for cables. Much of the cost of a CD is in markups along the way though. I mean how many items not on clearance do you think you could find for less $5 at a Best Buy or a similar store? For that matter without rebates how many things are there at a Best Buy that have the same cost as a store online?
Getting back to CDs though, what amazes me is that supposedly the record labels can still lose money on an album. Don't ask me how though.

Re: Price of CD's

[Nagash]

From the brief description of the contracts, it seems that an artist would have to be a moron to actually sign with a major record company.

Yes and no. (love those kinda answers, huh? :)

It is pretty crazy to agree to such terms as we outlined (they are really awful if you read the whole contract). However, the Catch-22 here is that it is almost impossible to effectively distribute an album without a major label. The only semi-effective way to do it is to sell CDs at your live shows yourself (after printing them yourself). If you can sell something like 10,000 CDs from playing relatively small venues, you might be able to bring some bargining power to the table with a record company.

Again, I could go on forever here. I think you can see where this is headed (hint: monopoly...).

This is why I think mp3's kick ass. All out distribution without a record company (or even a record company website). Why do you think record companies are mad when their artists release mp3's? It's no wonder they want to stop/control mp3's - loss of distribution stranglehold.

Woz
gzw@home.com

The record industry needs to change dsitribution.

[maxm]

I do believe it is generally fair that the record industry try to protect their investment.

It is also fair that they have a lot of money. I want professional musicians spending all their time making great music. Not just amateurs.

The problem right now is that we are paying for the production and distribution af plastic platters that we no longer need.

We are paying for the salary of shop clerks handing the CD's over the counter. Which is also unnessecary.

We are paying for trucking.

We are paying for a lot of stuff that we don't want or need.

A record company today needs no more than a website, record studio and a marketing dept.

Why do we have to pay for all this unnessecary old time infrastructure when it is not nessecary? This is what is really annoying me.

The recording industry could make the same profit by having lower prices, higher sales and less expenses!!!!

I would LOVE to pay for MP3 if it meant always having a site to go to for downloading the songs I want at a fair price. ($1-$2 an album)

I would even pay for all my old Vinyl albums one more time, so that I wouldn't have to rip them myself.

Artists make money from concerts not album sales!

[cheeseguy]

Unless an artist consistently has gold or platinum selling albums they make no real profits from the album sales. But many make near $100,000 for a good concert show. Even a small show will get them about $40,000. When you consider that you pay $30 to see them for 3 hours in person that is how you really support them. Buying a CD for $16 bucks only benefits the company that sells the CD(ie: Sam Goody) or the Record company(ie:BMG). So if you get mp3s you really don't take anything from the artist. So from the artists point of view they most likely could care less whether you buy the CD or not as long as you go to the shows.

How much artists get from a CD.

[RAZOR]

I've got a friend who hangs out with KORN (pretty successful band, huh?).

He said to me that Korn had to sign up for 5!!! almbums to get the first one out (it means that they cannot change the terms of agreement and obligated to make more albums).

After making 4 very successful albums they still getting under a $1 for every cd sold (and were making $0 during first 2). They were living in a small apartment during the success of the first album.
He said that the concerts were the only way of profit. But that's KORN, others less successful ones, getting even less than that.

So here u go, if artists are not getting any money from it, why should I pay >$16 for it?
I would buy many more Cds if they would cost less, but I'm just a student with no extra money.

flaw in logic

[monstar]

surely if the sold NEGATIVE 90 million FEWER then that means they sold 90 million MORE

Re: Price of CD's

[greggman]

Think about what you just said before you pass so much judgement. In your example the record company spent $200,000. What did you spend? As far as they are concerned you spent $0. That is why you sign over the rights and it is also why you have to pay them back. You had to risk nothing. If your CD doesn't sell you haven't lost a penny. They on the otherhand they are out $200,000.

The truth is that MOST CD's LOSE MONEY! From the publisher's point of view, until you have a hit (most CD's don't) you are a huge risk. They are risking $200,000 on you. Turn it around, if you had $200,000 in the bank would you be willing to risk it all on the next band that asked you for it?

Sure, the industry as a whole posted record profits and I'm NOT arguing that CD's aren't too expensive. They are. The point is those profits were generated by a few big hit CDs. Garth Brooks, Backstreet Boys, etc.

The same is true in the PC game industry. Everybody sees companies like Id with John Carmack in his Ferrari from which people belive there's lots of money to be made and they assume that all publishers are evil and stealing from the developers since developers tell the same stories as above (repaying advances against royalies, signing over rights etc.) The truth is that most developers are stealing from the publishers. The publisher risks $500,000 to $2 million on development and the developer either fails to actually make a product or the product doesn't sell. In this case it's even worse for the publisher. Devleoper loses nothing. In fact they got a $500,000 to $2 million advances. The publisher lost all the money.

The problem is, is that every music artist assumes their CD is going to be a huge hit just as every game developer assumes they are going to write the next Quake or next Half Life or next C&C. From that point of view, it appears that you are getting ripped off. The problem is more likely than not your product/CD is not going to be a hit in which case only the publisher lost money. Only about 10 development groups manage to make huge hits a year. Another 20 make games that just barely make their money back and the other 4000 lose the publisher's money.

Note: 4000 is not an exaggeration. Entertainment titles shipped in 97 were around 5000. I'm going to guess that they are the same or more this year.

-gregg

Re:DJs don't decide

[MrDelSarto]

triple j rules.
of course everyone can listen to it : here. if you're into jazz a bit then wbgo is a free streaming radio station from new york i think .. member supported so no ads.
between these two i don't really listen to much else

If you can't beat them....

[alex.wright]

Then join them!

If enough artists got together, they could create their own label (Open Source?!) that did not blackmail artists as much as the others do.

So those profits would actually get back to the artists.

And pigs might fly!

Re:double negatives

[bjorky]

Do I have that about right? Am I missing somethig vital? Either a reporter should be shot for not understanding basic 4th/5th-grade math, or the RIAA owes a REALLY big apology/butt-kissing to those who did them such a huge favor.

Just becasue the RIAA made a heap of cash in the last year, that doesn't mean that the promotion came from mp3's and internet music sources. You can't create a causal relationship just because two things happened simultaneously. This is akin to saying, "I've been riding public transportation for a while, and gas prices have gone up in the interim, so it must be because of gas stations not getting revenue from me buying gas" or something silly like the same.

-----

Here we go again...

[Dervak]

No, it does not.

Information cannot be owned. If any law says it can then the law is evil, and it is not only your right to disregard it, but it is your duty to do so. Moral right takes precedent over legal.

The very term "Intellectual property" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing, and the insistence of some that there is is an abomination.

And dont come dragging half-witted comparisons with stealing cars or whatever. Ill take it slowly, so you might understand:

If you steal a car you are depriving the original owner of its use.

In contrast, when you copy something the original owner still keeps his copy, with no degradation of its performance whatsoever.

And yes, the artist (or the programmer when it comes to software) of course has a right to be paid for his/her work. I would be glad to pay the artist directly for the use of their music if I like it; perhaps $5 for a CD:s worth of MP3s or so (which is far more than they are getting from the record companies), but I will not have my $ contributing to the wealth and bloat of these truly evil corporations. In fact, I will copy MP3s of their CDs for myself and my friends for the express reason of hurting them and hastening their downfall.

And BTW, I use the term "copying", not "pirating" since the latter is a Newspeak-word designed to bring about associations of murder and pillaging, something bearing no relation whatsoever to copying.

"Piracy" and "pirating" is the act of attacking ships at sea, with the intent to steal, including threats and/or violence, no matter what newer Newspeak-influenced dictionaries might say.

Keep on copying!

/Dervak

Re:(off-topid) Quotation

[Anonymous Coward]

George W. Bush's speach at Bob Jones university should be very threatening to Catholics and racial minorities since it shows how much he really panders up to extreamist concervatives (like the ones who recently kill that Catholic priest's chances of becoming house chaplin).

Which is more threatening, a simple and honest pandering for votes (GW) or attacking the panderer after you voted to grant tax-exempt status to Bob Jones U (Gore)?

The real flaw in this analogy

[Commie]

Is twofold

-- Slaveowners didn't create their slaves (Well, they did some of the time, didn't they Mr. Jefferson).

-- Musicians create their music

and,

-- Slaves were humans. Most people agree these days, humans aren't property.

-- Music is not a living entity (unless you've taken an enormous amount of LSD), much less human. The property issue is stickier

These are really, really fundamental differences. This analogy is totally bogus.

You see, it's not about the record companies owning the music, it's about the musicians who created the music owning it.

That's the real issue. Do musicians have the freedom to control what they create? Including economic control? In my view, the musician who created the music is the person that gets to decide that, not you. This includes the freedom to decide what monetary value a copy of their CD (or song) has, and the terms they give you that copy under (Or, give that control to a record company). You've got the freedom to accept the terms and buy the CD, or not.

Re: Price of CD's

[zerocool^]

Heh, i work at best buy, and our CD's are very competatively priced. I know for a fact that we only make $1 on average on a CD. And that's nothing... That means for every CD that gets stolen from our store, we have to sell 12 before we even _break even_! The money is there, it all goes to the reccord companys, the stores see jack.

Re:Everything should be Free

[Octet-Stream]

Funny thing is, that even in an enlightened and open environment, like the U of M, you still can't express your opinions about anything, namely the RIAA ripping the authors and all of us off. Up with the CD ripping!

Stop bitchin'...

[Justin Wake]

... and do something about it!

Seriously, is there anybody who would like to perhaps donate a server and some bandwidth to set up a pay-per-mp3 site? Sure, mp3.com already sells mp3s over the 'net, but there's nothing wrong with a little competition (something the RIAA would most likely disagree with).

I see plenty of people saying "I'd buy the song for $x", but nobody saying "I'll sell the song for $x". This is something that is almost certainly within our power as a community to correct. mp3.slashdot.org anyone?

Perhaps selling mp3s simultaneously at 128kbps (for use with Rio etc) and 256kbps (for PC use), or maybe even do audio burns onto CD or MiniDisc for the neato factor? This would allow for the "mix-n-match" CD's that so many people seem to be wishing for.

I realize that many people would be turned off somewhat working for free on a project designed to make other people money, but that could perhaps be rectified by a *modest* percentage of sales (2.5%? 5? It'd add up eventually :p) going towards paying for bandwidth (initially) and the people working on it.

Getting groups to participate would most likely be dead easy - Triple J (as an example) has their yearly "Unearthed" feature where they call for tapes or CDs from local bands in certain areas, then take the best tracks, rerecord them professionally and put them on a CD. According to their web site they have received over 4000 entries since they started.

You have to admit, it'd look good to be able to have a headline reading something along the lines of "Evil DeCSS and MP3 hackers outsell RIAA", wouldn't it?

I know that I'd certainly be willing to help out if it meant paying less for the music I like, whilst at the same time paying the artist more for their work..

Ah well, that's just my thoughts on the issue. Perhaps here we have a chance to wipe out their intended image of "hackers" and beat them at their own game.

CD sales down for other reasons

[maroberts]

For one thing, I suspect CD sales may be down due to other diversions. I bought a lot less music last year, probably because I spent more time on the Internet and on computer related stuff. As 1999 marked a huge explosion in terms of computer/ internet growth, I wonder whether this is at least partially responsible.

OTOH, maybe I'm a bit more picky nowadays about how I spend $25 on something that costs 50c to make. [UK prices]!!

Shiver me timbers

[evilempire]

Pirates. It just sounds like a bad word/action/person doesn't it? Aaarrrrggghhh Billy! If you yank someone, in random, off the street and ask them if they know how to burn a CD, they don't have a clue. They think it has something to do with programming or even worse "hacking". These people have difficulty setting up their email account in MS Outlook. So, I think they're exaggerating just a wee bit. Not as many people are doing this as they wish you to believe. The RIAA wants us to think that the majority of music listeners are smart, devious people. They do this to show that they're working for their money. Doing their job. Seriously, what do the RIAA do? The only time I read/hear anything about them is when they're blowing some steam, complaining about people trying to pull a fast one on them. Whatever. The RIAA is like the typical businessman, using keywords or phrases to make you think they are the good guys.
Lastly:
RIAA ---> Oven

I'm the great, cynic, I'm the indifferent gaze

Re: Price of CD's -- buy punk music

[panck]

This was printed on a leaflet insert to a cd by a punk band from Albuquerque called Scared of Chaka. They were on 702 records (PO BOX 204 RENO NV 89504 U$A) when I bought this album....there's an alternative to the Industry: live punk, die punk.

------------------------------------------------
EVER GET A FUNNY FEELING inside as you forked out $14.98 for a CD? Like something was being shoved up into your asshole? That's probably because you're getting SCREWED!

Cost breakdown for this compact disc:
Pressing: .92 per disc
Covers: .30 each
Stickers: .08 each
Inserts: .01 each
Recording: .25 each*
_____________________
Total: $1.56 each

*/We spent $1000 on recording, and I expect to sell at least 4000 copies of this album between LP and CD, so we'll say the recording cost is .25 per CD./

There are other costs, such as advertising and promotion, but those vary so I'll just say that the total cost of each CD will be $1.75 and that should cover everything.

Now, at $1.75 per CD, how do you justify selling a CD for $14.98?

This CD will be sold wholesale for $4 to stores and distributors. That means that there is $2.75 left over after costs. I give %50 of profits to the band, so Scared of Chaka is getting $1.38 per CD. If you want the band to get the most money, buy it direct from them at show. (They'll get $3-4). If you order it by mail direct from 702, they'll get $1.62 per CD.

SHIT the vinyl's much cooler anyways.

Fuck the "Industry" standard! Buy 702!
------------------------------------

I say we should not only pirate mp3's but do some propaganda of our own...Maybe post "before you buy, get it free, www.napster.com" stickers on record store windows.

Negitive?

[generic]

How do you loose a negitive amount of money? Hey I am going to take -$20.00 dollars from you then do I give you $20.00? Or is this more of that accountant language I dont understand.

Round and round

[Commie]

Information cannot be owned.

The only problem - the definition of information. Do you consider music "information"?

In contrast, when you copy something the original owner still keeps his copy, with no degradation of its performance whatsoever.

True true. However, that's not the problem. The issue is does the creator have the freedom to control their creation. Do you have the right to say how much a copy of my music is worth, or do I? If I say you can buy a copy for $10, but you can't copy it, this takes nothing away from you - you have as many choices as before my CD existed and one more. If you break my terms, it takes something away from me in many ways, including the presentation/art on the CD/cover, a political message I stuck in the insert, and (most importantly) my ability to assign economic value to a copy and benefit. So yeah, I may still have a copy of my music that's perfect, but that's not the problem.

And yes, the artist (or the programmer when it comes to software) of course has a right to be paid for his/her work

Little lost on this given your preceeding statements.

. I would be glad to pay the artist directly for the use of their music

Well, that'd certainly be nice. All the principles aside, the Recording Industry as it stands right now is a nightmare. Having been involved in the music scene for many years, there is no one out there that despises it's current state more than I do.

In fact, I will copy MP3s of their CDs for myself and my friends for the express reason of hurting them and hastening their downfall.

Unfortunately, copying mp3s or CDs freely isn't going to make the recording industry go away. It just encourages them to fight harder, and they have vast resources. It allows them to justify hiking CD prices, push new copy protection, blah. I don't think they're quite convinced people copying music are willing to pay anything other than $0 for it.

MP3 does present a new distribution method for bands outside the clutches of labels, but unfortunately no band distributing free mp3s on the net is going to topple the system. Unless pay-for-mp3 becomes wildly more popular, bands getting any sort of attention will always jump ship to major labels (if given the opportunity) in hopes of making any money. Will micropay for mp3 get that popular? I don't know - but I imagine it will be difficult to convince John Q Public to pay $5 to download a CDs worth of mp3s when his friend already has them all waiting in a windows shared directory just across the cablemodem network.

Re:Round and round

[The Cookie Monster]

The only problem - the definition of information. Do you consider music "information"?

How is the defintion a problem? Of course music is information.

'Something you can store in your mind' is a nice broad idea of information for a start.

How about "Something with no mass which someone wants to preserve" as a definition for information. The no mass part cuts it down to data or weird physics phenomina, the wanting to preserve it cuts out the weird physics phenoma as preservation makes no semantic sense with something that is not physical unless it is information, the 'wanting' parts differentiates between information and noise

A short explaination for the short sighted person who can't grok that information has no mass - there's always one:

A storage medium always has mass, but the data 'in' the storage medium doesn't. For instance, a peice of paper with some ink thrown on it contains no information, another piece of paper with the ink arranged into words weighs no more yet 'contains' information. Another common example is take three atoms, divide the distance between atom1 and atom2 by the distance between atom2 and atom3, you'll get a fraction, write the number down as a decimal (eg 0.65077) and split those digits into groups of 3 digits (eg 65, 77) and read those groups as ascii values, you now have a string that doesn't mean anything. Change the distance of the two atoms so the fraction produces the string of the contents of encyclopedia britanica. Congratulations, you just stored the contents of Encyclopedia Britannica on 3 atoms (those three atoms are your storage medium). No, we don't have the technology to 'read' your three atoms yet, and the nature of the universe (it might be decrete and we currently are told it is limited in size) might put a limit on the amount of data you can store this way, but it illustrates that information is stored by arranging matter meaningfully and is not itself matter.

Anyway, that was a long diversion. back to the topic at hand

The issue is does the creator have the freedom to control their creation

The issue is not whether they have the freedom to control their creation, they do, unconditionally. The issue you are are confusing this with is whether they have the right to control someone elses copy of their information.

Do you have the right to say how much a copy of my music is worth, or do I?

Both of us are perfectly free to make claims about how much a copy of your music is worth, those claims are meaninless however. I assume you mean 'Do you have the right to determine how much a copy of my music will cost' - how much it is worth is independant of how much it costs, how much you claim it is worth or even how much you think it is worth. I think the worth of you music is individual to the person seeking the copy.

People will pretty much pay for a CD what it is worth to them, so your belief in your fundamental human right to charge what you think the CD is worth, is going to be sidelined by what the CD is worth to the purchaser anyway. mp3's haven't stoped me buying music I thought was worthwhile (so given this statistical study of 1 I naturally assume most people are like that :))

I'm not for ripping off artists either, but many people seem to be stuck in the flawed mindset of "copyright law defines what is fair" and I was trying to point out soem of the status-quo assumptions you were making.

Re:Round and round

[Commie]

How is the defintion a problem? Of course music is information. 'Something you can store in your mind' is a nice broad idea of information for a start.

I doubt you have any musical pieces, specific recording nuances and all, perfectly stored in your mind. I'll digress.

A short explaination for the short sighted person who can't grok that information has no mass - there's always one:

For the short sighted person? Thanks, but I've given the topic quite a bit of thought (as have many others) and it seems we disagree on some fundamental points, as many do.

Yes, information can be stored in a variety of ways. That's not the issue. The issue is whether property = matter. For instance, do you own the information to your genome? Should you allow a hospital to copy the information one day in the future, do you believe you no longer have control over whether they make further copies of it and pass it along, to say, insurance companies?

The issue is not whether they have the freedom to control their creation, they do, unconditionally. The issue you are are confusing this with is whether they have the right to control someone elses copy of their information.

How can someone have the freedom to control their creations if they can NOT control the copies of it? In that case you only have freedom as long as you never allow a copy to be made. That is a highly restricted choice, incompatible with the word freedom.

Say I freely distribute an mp3. Pepsi gets a copy and decides to play it as the background music for a commercial. Going by what you've said (and you may just haven't stated this clearly), I have no control over whether they use it or not - I allowed the music to be copied, and I don't have control over a copy of my "information". Now my intensly personal love ballad is being used in a Pepsi commercial played 20 times a day involving two ducks. Do you really find this posistion fair?

Let's examine a little further. Say I make the most amazing movie ever made. Everyone wants to see it. The only way I allow people to view it (once) is if they pay me X dollars, in which I will go wherever they are and play it for them. I stand right by the projector to make sure no one attempts to steal the physical media, and use armed thugs and metal detectors to make sure no one brings in recording devices.

So here I do have *unconditional* control over my creation, although I've got to go to ridiculous extremes to retain it. As long as I protect the physical media it's on like a caveman, everythings fine. People who feel the viewing price is worth it, pay it, those who don't, don't. I'm happy because the revenue this generates allows me to make more movies.

Now given that we're living in an age where I can make very high quality copies of the movie cheaply (unlike say, the 1930s) and many people have the means to view these copies, I want to dump this traveling movie gig and simply provide people copies while retaining the same freedom to control my movie. However, in your view, this is impossible. Heck, I can't even sell a single copy to a movie theater because once that's done, they're free to copy my movie and do whatever they please with it - such as converting it to DVD and selling copies for barely-over-cost profit. Does this seem logical?

Finally, let's say I take a large piece of your GPL'ed product and stick it into my commercial, closed source binary only, product. My view: You don't have the right to define the terms in which I can use your a copy of your information, period. If you find out, you scream bloody murder and sue the crap out of me, saying it's your creation, your terms (Note here your code is still out there, I'm not taking your proverbial car away). Now lets say I make my closed source program without your GPL'ed code. You buy a copy and redistribute it freely. Your view: Information is free, you can do whatever you like with your copy of it. If I find out, I scream bloody murder, and sue the crap out of you, saying its my creation, my terms.

So who's right? In my view, we both are. Respecting one means respecting the other. We both should have the freedom to control our creations, uncondtionally, however we see fit. The problem is when someone asserts they're free to break the creators terms if they don't agree with them.

I assume you mean 'Do you have the right to determine how much a copy of my music will cost' - how much it is worth is independant of how much it costs, how much you claim it is worth or even how much you think it is worth. I think the worth of you music is individual to the person seeking the copy.

Obviously in this instance I meant worth as in monetary worth. Certainly it's an individual choice as to what the monetary value of anything is. However, if you feel somethings overpriced, it doesn't mean you are allowed to steal it.

People will pretty much pay for a CD what it is worth to them, so your belief in your fundamental human right to charge what you think the CD is worth, is going to be sidelined by what the CD is worth to the purchaser anyway.

Since you've made an implicit insinuation here, let's make something clear. The idea of property in ALL forms is a completely artificial construct. Whether that's the right to individual ownership, whether you can own a piece of land, whether I can own information, whatever. There is no fundamental human right to property in any form, period.

As far as the CD's worth, yes, as before, if someone is selling you something, you make the choice whether you're willing to pay that or not.

mp3's haven't stoped me buying music I thought was worthwhile (so given this statistical study of 1 I naturally assume most people are like that :))

Yeah, I often wonder what effect it's really had. Among my friends, mp3 trading is rampant, but how much that affects what they buy is a little shaky. Right now I don't think it's having much effect. As broadband continues to roll out, super cheap HDs and DVD-RW/RAM cost very little, I think there will be a more profound impact, negatively.

I'm not for ripping off artists either.

Sure sure. I'm curious though how you reconcile your views as not ripping off artists? Having played in various bands for close to 10 years now, it istrue that it's very close to impossible to make a living off selling CDs of (and playing) original music (and so as the FSF would say, who cares if the privileged few that do are screwed). However selling CDs did a whole bunch to pay for recording costs, practice space,support mini-tours, etc.

but many people seem to be stuck in the flawed mindset of "copyright law defines what is fair" and I was trying to point out soem of the status-quo assumptions you were making.

Well given the new abilities technology has allowed over time, why copyright law and intellectual property evolved (and their continued existence) seems quite logical to me. This is not to say I agree with every aspect of copyright law, but I do believe in the principle behind it.

Re:Round and round

[The Cookie Monster]

I doubt you have any musical pieces, specific recording nuances and all, perfectly stored in your mind. I'll digress.

I doubt you have any musical pieces, specific recording nuances and all, perfectly stored on CD.

For the short sighted person? Thanks, but I've given the topic quite a bit of thought (as have many others) and it seems we disagree on some fundamental points, as many do.

You've misread what I said, it is short sighted people who claim information has mass. I make no claims regarding the sightedness of people with differing opinions on ownership of information :).

You also appear to have missed why I mentioned that information has no mass, I was not claiming 'you can't own information because it has no mass'. You asked me to define information, and I did, however the definition pivoted on the fact that information has no mass (and because there is always one person who hasn't thought it through who pipes up and claims information has mass, I put in an explaination)

do you own the information to your genome? Should you allow a hospital to copy the information one day in the future, do you believe you no longer have control over whether they make further copies of it and pass it along, to say, insurance companies?

You are confusing two issues here, namely intellectual rights and privacy. I don't have any intellectual rights (and I don't mean the legal sense of the term) to my name or unlisted phone number, that doesn't stop it from being a breach of my privacy for you to give that information to someone who I don't want to be able to call me. I don't have to own the information (or have created it myself) for it to be able to breach my privacy, because of this (and the complexity of privacy) I'm just going to conclude that privacy isn't very relevant to this argument of whether or not someone can 'own' information, and drop it. (No, I do not 'own' the information in my genome)

How can someone have the freedom to control their creations if they can NOT control the copies of it? In that case you only have freedom as long as you never allow a copy to be made. That is a highly restricted choice, incompatible with the word freedom.

We are on different wavelengths here, I wasn't clear enough. I am saying you have complete freedom to control your actual creation (eg taking that high note and making it higher), you are talking about freedom to control how other people use or distribute a copy of something once you've created it. This ambiguity is why there is a distinction between "freedom to control your creation" and "freedom to control copies of your creation"

Now my intensly personal love ballad is being used in a Pepsi commercial played 20 times a day solving two ducks. Do you really find this posistion fair?

:)
You've just dived back into the privacy issue again. Allow me to edit your text to avoid this. (We can get into privacy issues later if you like)

Now my impersonal instrumental that I put blood sweat and tears into is being used by Pepsi to make them money. Do you really find this posistion fair?

• Lets imagine you weren't going to see a cent out of Pepsi whether they used your song or not - in the no ownership of information world they use your song without paying you (making them assholes), in the copyrighted world you tell them you want $5000 and they tell you where to stick your $5000 and use another song (making them cheap assholes). How much did you really lose out in the no ownsership of information world? You gained exposure for a start.
• No I do not find this position fair, but the world is not fair. That sentence is not the cop-out you think it is, I will elaborate. In a NOIW (no ownership of information world), you can get ripped off by assholes. I'm not going to deny that, but you seem to think that this is all the justification required to say a NOIW is silly - the news is you don't live in a NOIW yet you still get ripped off by assholes (I don't just mean people pirating your stuff either). You're now thinking 'yeah but I'll get ripped off even more in the NOIW', which might be true but I wonder if you've really thought about what you would gain in such a world? Instead of focusing on what you lose in a NOIW, focus on whether you are currently losing more than you gain. The humans I've met seem to have a fundamental 'credit where credit is due', 'support what they like or believe in' thing going. Granted this wont carry over into the 'it might have been immoral but it was was my job' businesses, but with a total overhaul of the patent system, they might work (note that patents aren't about owning information, they were originally invented to reward people for disclosing information, because disclosing information is benifical to innovation, anyway, like privacy, that is another thread)

With regard to your GPL example, we don't live in a NOIW world so we don't have any of it's benifits. Because of this the GPL is needed to make NOI viable, the GPL is essentually using ownership of information to wall off ownership of information (hense the term copyleft). When a company takes my GPL code and breaks the GPL, what they have done is taken free information and made it no longer free. So I see no conflict of interest with someone who supports free information screaming bloody murder when the GPL is broken.

However, if you feel somethings overpriced, it doesn't mean you are allowed to steal it.

Agreed, but it might well mean it's ok to copy it (morally).

Among my friends, mp3 trading is rampant, but how much that affects what they buy is a little shaky. Right now I don't think it's having much effect. As broadband continues to roll out, super cheap HDs and DVD-RW/RAM cost very little, I think there will be a more profound impact, negatively.

Yes, the future will be interesting.

I'm curious though how you reconcile your views as not ripping off artists?

Well, many of my views (like copy a CD and mail the artist money directly) are more for ripping out the middleman than ripping off artists.

Incidently, I'm not convinced that intellectual rights are bad. I have a paid job programming and havn't yet released anything under the GPL (it's the 'if everyone else is taking advantage of the few benifits of this screwed up system, why shouldn't I' mentality), but have a few opensrc projects in mind that I'd like to do. I wasn't playing devils advocate, I find the NOIW intreiging, and people like nadador (who can't see the big picture beyond the square and so condemn those who can) irritate me

Re:Round and round

[Commie]

I doubt you have any musical pieces, specific recording nuances and all, perfectly stored on CD.

Err, actually - the recording nuances are part of the recording. A particular recording is often an entity of its own. The conditions, mics, mastering, etc, are all quite unique to the specific recording. Heck, artifacts of the recording sound are sometimes quite pleasing. That's why all kinds of studios/bands still keep recording their stuff analog rather than to a bunch of ADATs or a HD. Saturating that 2" tape sure does warm up the guitar sound and fatten up the drums.

You are confusing two issues here, namely intellectual rights and privacy

I don't think I'm completely confused about the issue, although point taken, I probably crossed the boundaries a bit. I'll blame sleep deprevation. I do have a problem with making one delimter on a type of information and saying "Okay, you can control that", and then calling other types of control bogus.

You've misread what I said, it is short sighted people who claim information has mass. I make no claims regarding the sightedness of people with differing opinions on ownership of information :).

Ahh! Well, if you really want to nit pick, without mass, there is no information. So if a tree falls in the woods, and no one is around...

This ambiguity is why there is a distinction between "freedom to control your creation" and "freedom to control copies of your creation"

The real sticker there is, the creation is independent of the media it's on or how many instances of it are floating around. Freedom to control my information means the ability to control all instances of it.

Lets imagine you weren't going to see a cent out of Pepsi whether they used your song or not - in the no ownership of information world they use your song without paying you (making them assholes), in the copyrighted world you tell them you want $5000 and they tell you where to stick your $5000 and use another song (making them cheap assholes). How much did you really lose out in the no ownsership of information world? You gained exposure for a start.

The money issue was not the motivating factor here, rather that I'd find it highly repugnant to find my song used in idiotic commerical advertisement without needing to have my consent (Now, if Pepsi would pay me $5 million instead of 5 grand, I might sell out, just once =)). Yeah, maybe I'd get exposure - but I don't want exposure associated with pepsi advertising, agh. If that example is not solid enough for you, let's say the Neo-Nazi party of America begins putting out political radio and tv ads with my song as the background.

My music is far more important, personal, and valuable in every sense of the word than any physical possesion I have. I would rather have someone steal my car than steal my songs for Nazi radio ads.

No I do not find this position fair, but the world is not fair

Well, that is a cop out. Under copyright law, Pepsi can't bastardize my song unless I allow it, nor can the Nazi's, nor can Jerry Springer. That's fair. I'll drop this though and hit your points.

You're now thinking 'yeah but I'll get ripped off even more in the NOIW', which might be true but I wonder if you've really thought about what you would gain in such a world?

I've thought quite a bit about a NOIW world. I do not particularly like it, because I see it as restricting individual freedom. I am not a communitarian in most regards. I don't have a problem with some information being seen as universal, but I do not see all "information" that way. When "all code becomes GPL", "all music is free to copy", and we're in a NOIW, we'll find a huge sector of our society attempting to find ways to live. The FSF's brief answer to this, at least as far as supporting software goes, is to institute some sort of tax on hardware which would then get allocated to projects ala the NSF. Of course, dealing with software is just the tip of the iceberg - Tim O'Reilly needs money to write linux books, Puff Daddy needs money to write music, Maplethorpe needs money to take pictures. Disregarding the very problematic logistics of this, we're slowly talking about giving money to a entity's that encompass and "everything" and we have no choice in the matter. I do not like it when my choices are restricted. I also see plenty of negative effects arising (Is it more valuable to make music free, and allow more people to hear it, or to allow musicians to own their music, and by doing so making money, allowing them to create more?), but I'll cut short. Allowing people to choose the terms they share their creations under (Such as being able to between GPL/BSD) is the only choice compatible with personal freedom.

Granted this wont carry over into the 'it might have been immoral but it was was my job' businesses, but with a total overhaul of the patent system, they might work

Well, I do believe there's a need to overhaul the patent system, not abolish it... but as you said, this is a different beast.

When a company takes my GPL code and breaks the GPL, what they have done is taken free information and made it no longer free.

Well, since your code is still freely availible, it is still free, isn't it? Like I said, I'm not taking your car - I've taken a copy of what you've made, but you still have your copy. I've just used in under terms you've explicitly forbidden. We'll say my moral code allows this, since I'm not taking something from you. If your morality overides mine on copying my closed source program, I guess my morality overrides yours here too. We have problems.

As I tried to point out in my last point, although the fundamental viewpoints are different, it's really about the right to control information. Saying you can't control information is controlling information! One point says you must keep my creation open(and yours too!). The other says you must keep my information closed. Telling me I can't sell a copy of my CD under "no copy" terms is crazy to me. Telling you I can use your CD for whatever "non-free" purpose I feel like is crazy to you. The only way we can co-exist is to respect each others terms.

If I were to sit down with you right now with DVD recording of my true alien abduction to the planet Zybol and say, "Okay Mr. Cookie Monster, here's this long contract I've drawn up which says I'll give this to you, but you can't copy it under any circumstances or tell anyone about it". An NDA of sorts. You sign the contract, you make the choice to agree to my terms and take the DVD. What's the problem with this? Now we move it to "you just can't copy it", ala, the terms you agree to when you buy a DVD right now. Are you saying two humans can not make a contract regarding "information"?

Agreed, but it might well mean it's ok to copy it (morally).

This is what bothers me the most. As far as I'm concerned, you can have whatever morality you want as long as you don't impose it on me, but here you do. MY morality says if you copy my CD under sonso terms, you're stealing it, period. Lots of problems arise when people feel their personal morality allows them to step onto the morality of others. You might say "Oh my no, you're imposing your morality on ME", in which case I say, I friggin CREATED it, thanks. Without me, it wouldn't exist! You take the freedom to choose how I control my creation. My terms take nothing from you - you, in fact, have another choice!

Well, many of my views (like copy a CD and mail the artist money directly) are more for ripping out the middleman than ripping off artists

Self-distribution becoming a viable reality for a variety of media would be very nice. However, your "I'll pay the artist directly" idea is a bit unclear. Do the artists get to dictate this price, or do you? Is it purely a volunteer effort on your part?

I have a paid job programming and havn't yet released anything under the GPL (it's the 'if everyone else is taking advantage of the few benifits of this screwed up system, why shouldn't I' mentality)

The GPL is great. Open source is great. I'm glad it exists and it's thriving. At the same time, the closed source model provides plenty of its own benefits. Not the least of which is that you can make living off your work directly! This includes music, software (many, many types of software do not fall into an open source buisness model), writing, you name it. This is a good thing.

Finally, I do wish you hadn't skipped my movie anecdote from my prior post. It's probably the most substantive argument I made on why IP is logical.

I wasn't playing devils advocate, I find the NOIW intreiging, and people like nadador (who can't see the big picture beyond the square and so condemn those who can) irritate me

Sure sure. I've found our discussion quite pleasant. I've attempted to stick my noise in these kinds of issues a few times with people, but it almost always immediately degrades into bashing/name-calling. Your viewpoints have made me think about things in new ways, and that's always good.

An indirect comment from an artist

[richieb]

You have to realize that very small number of artists actually make any money from CD sales. And some of these can only do it while they're at the top of their popularity curve (eg. "Spice Girls").

One of my favorite blues guitar players is a guy named Anson Fundenburgh (he's from Texas) and here is what he said in an interview:

QUESTION: What advice can you give up coming wanna be's to the business?

ANSON FUNDERBURGH: Be true to the music that you like to play and not to be in the business for the money. You have to be in for the music itself.

For the artists that are not interested in the current pop-fashions the Internet gives them a means to easily reach a wider audience at a minimal cost.

...richie

P.S. Click here for the entire interview.

PPS. I first heard this guy on public radio.

offtopic: napster

[TheCarp]

Here at the university I work for napster has
been blocked at the boarder routers for a while.

There has been talk about reactivating it...and
putting a bandwidth cap on the studtent segment
:)

I said they should just put 2 28.8 modems back to
back and route the dorms through them...but I
think they will be more generous than that :)

I find it amusing that people are out there
calling schools evil tyrants when I hear the
network admins talking about what they need to
do so they can turn napster back on without
negativly impacting the network.

Re: Price of CD's

[Commie]

I was originally going to point out to the original poster that very rarely do bands go in debt because (as you mentioned) the labels eat the cost. However...

The truth is that MOST CD's LOSE MONEY! From the publisher's point of view, until you have a hit (most CD's don't) you are a huge risk. They are risking $200,000 on you. Turn it around, if you had $200,000 in the bank would you be willing to risk it all on the next band that asked you for it?

"Failed" CDs that majors put out generally do not lose MUCH money, break even, or make so little profit/impact the band is just dropped.

Either way, majors do not lose significant dough to failed CDs. The $200,000 figure being thrown around here is way, way, way high for a band that hasn't already proven it has an bigtime audience except in weird, rare cases. Studio costs/tour support(if any)/etc aren't going to add up anywhere near that amount for a fledgling major band.

Of all the bands I've known anything about (or knew people in) who signed with majors (That'd be 311, Stick, Paw, Frogpond, Molly McGuire, and a couple I'm forgetting by now) ALL got jack didly on their first albums/ contracts. Enough for a pro-sounding album, some minimal help for touring, even some really crappy videos. The record companies weren't sweating too hard about breaking even. After all, most of these bands had some sort of decent following before being signed in the first place. This equals guaranteed CD sales. I'd be willing to bet most of those bands broke even or thereabouts given their local/regional support.

Anyway, there are bands that hang around on labels forever selling OK amounts of records per year and continuing on. Sonic Youth is a prime example. They don't make tons of money, but they do make money. Of course the focus is on creating the next one or two hit sensation to make gazillions off in a hurry, but there are some lurkers.

Your figures in the game industry are also a little off. There are way more than 20 games a year that make money! This is not to say there aren't a ton of losers, but sheesh. No one would be in the games industry if it was that tough. I've got an old friend who works at Legend Entertainment, who most recently put out Wheel of Time. However, Legend has been around for awhile longer than that putting out all kinds of stuff you've never heard of. They haven't made megabucks, and probably won't off WoT either, but they've expanded significantly and manage to pay everyones salaries and the bills. There are many companies out there like this (Interactive Magic, UbiSoft, etc), you just don't hear about them like you do with places like id.

Regards

Free music online

[Yousef]

I guess it gives a whole new meaning to the term "Free Market"! ;-)

Re:I say good!

[grubby]

They aren't shipping less cd's. Read the article it clearly states that all of the sales from riaa related music are up $1.4B. The only category that declined was cassettes.

Re:Piracy is where you get on a ship and kill peop

[Tironis]

Do you believe everything you read? The original meaning/definition of piracy was used for what the old pirates did...At SEA...Its definition has been warped to include such things as

The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material

To me the two definitions for piracy are not even related.

Listen to what you believe, don't believe in what you read.

Suggestion

[Lofwyr]

I used to have the same problem, but I think the trick is simply mass-market flooding.

Not only do you have to give your friends full albums for free, you have to make sure that they get every album from that artist, search for the cover of the album online, download it and print it out so that the CDs you give them are a near-exact replica of what they'd get at a store (dont forget to do all this at work, off of the company t3, using the company laser-printer and company CDrs).

Also, don't introduce people to new kinds of music...now you're just creating needless consumers. Only give your friends the CDs they were going to buy anyway, otherwise their tastes might expand and they'll start being so damn open-minded that they start liking a wider range of bands, suddenly it's much harder for you to stop them from actually purchasing a CD.

Hope this helps

Today's quote from Karl Marx

[anonymous cowerd]

Karl versus the "Young Hegelians," from the preface to The German Ideology:

...Once upon a time a valiant fellow had the idea that men were drowned in water only because they were possessed with the idea of gravity. If they were to knock this notion out of their heads, say by stating it to be a superstition, a religious concept, they would be sublimely proof against any danger from water. His whole life long he fought against the illusion of gravity, of whose harmful results all statistics brought him new and manifold evidence. This honest fellow was the type of the new revolutionary philosophers in Germany.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

you call that fast

[lubricated]

my university (u of washington) has an ocx where x is some really big number. We have individual building which are recieving internet through 3 T3s themselves. Believe me much faster than any T1 and T3 combination. Any way if you were in some way trying to show off or something I felt that I needed to bring you down a little. If not then on you way.

Can't trust 'em--they're Irish!

[ccchips]

I ought to know--I am too! ;)

O'Reilly's draining my bank account. Next theing you know, they're gonna hook up to my credit card, and that will be it. Nothing but O'Reilly books everywhere!

I'll know this has happend when all my cookbooks start sprouting fir and feathers.

Ahh---I just figured it out. PETA must have figured that if they can't free the animals, they might as well have their pictures on all the books in the world. Tim, you shouldn't engage in such comspiracies!

Some people say

[Error 404]

that pirates steal,
and should be feared and hated.
I say we're victims of bad press,
it's all exaggerated...

Dr. Frank N. Furter as Long John Silver in the Muppet Treasure Island.
Our secret is gamma-irradiated cow manure
Mitsubishi ad

Re:Piracy is where you get on a ship and kill peop

[anonymous cowerd]

Yeah, sure, whoop-de-doo, so the intellectual property crowd have managed to get that bullshit redefinition into a dictionary somewhere. It's still a load of crap and I refuse to buy it.

Argoff's original post was correct. A guy who copies a computer program or a pop songs is guilty, at worst, of a materially insignificant tort against a property owner. To label such a guy a "pirate" is like calling someone who jaywalks across a city street a "child-molester" or "rapist" or "murderer".

Go read or reread Orwell's Politics and the English Language. It dulls your wits and degrades our language to let common words be misused by these money-hungry propagandists this way.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

Re:Reality is irrelevant - Pay to Play is end goal

[anonymous cowerd]

If you're into computer programming, you can also write new original software on PCs, which are available everywhere, using GNU development tools, which are free, all the way up to the point where the RIAA dispatches a goon squad to your house to kick your door down, seize your PC and your cell phone, and drag you off to jail. For that matter, you could also, technically speaking, grow a big crop of marijuana in your own back yard.

This isn't a technical problem. It's a legal problem.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

What about OUR losses at the hands of the RIAA?

[Moses P. Lester]

That dollar amount is miniscule compared to the loss of freedom and information and enjoyment the world has suffered at the hands of the RIAA.

By this I mean things like lyrics.ch and olga.net.

The RIAA and Sony and Time-Life-Warner-EMI-AOL are quite obviously not floundering from the "loss" of all that money, but the people of the world are no longer legally able to look up the lyrics or the guitar tabs of a song they PAID the music industry for. We've all been screwed a lot more than the RIAA has.

Re: Price of CD's

[Fishstick]

>The cable at Best Buy was $20 and $4 at Buy.com.

This is a bit OT, but I have a theory why this happens. I've seen this quite a bit where I'm used to ordering things like cables, connectors and the like online and then I need one in a hurry so I go over to BestBuy or (gag) CompUSA and find that something I need is over $20 when I would expect to pay less than $5.

So, my theory is that they do this to make up on discounts on related hardware. They run a sale on a printer, some schmuck comes in a buys one, the saleman points out that he'll need a printer cable. The customer has no idea a 3' printer cable should be $4 so Best Buy gets back $15 dollars of the sale discount of the printer.

I miss Elek Tek. When I run out of RJ45 connectors or need to replace a bad cable, I hate running out to the store 'cause I know I'm gonna get ripped. Elek Tek always had all this stuff at good prices and had good selection. Go to freaking CompUSA looking for a printer cable and they have 500 boxes of 3' DB25 to centronics and nothing else, all for $25 each. (end of off-topic rant)

Re:Reality is irrelevant - Pay to Play is end goal

[MrResistor]

I'm sure the RIAA would love to have things as you describe, but it can't happen. Why? Because mp3 is already part of the HDTV standard which all TV broadcasters in the US are required to adopt by 2006 and have already spent billions on (I work for a company that makes digital video equipment, including mpeg encoders/decoders. We did $5.5 million in sales last week).

So I say unto you, Rejoice!

HDTV == MPEG -1, -2, & -3

mp3 cannot be killed.

The point is that law != morality

[David Jao]

The point which the poster was trying to make, which you seem to have missed, is that just because an act is illegal does not mean in and of itself that you should refrain from committing it. At one point freeing slaves without permission from the owner was illegal, yet I would certainly have no moral qualms about breaking the law in this way. The situation with current copyright law is the same.

If you want to give a lucid, reasoned argument why this or any law deserves to be obeyed, I'll be happy to listen to you. But saying that I should obey a law just because it's the law is a slap in the face to the brave people (e.g. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks) who are admired today for breaking laws that they thought were wrong.

No one is saying that current copyright law is a fundamental human rights violation on the same order of magnitude as slavery. Indeed, I think we should all be thankful that the laws of this nation have improved to the point where people are quibbling over money instead of over fundamental human rights.

Although it sounds like I'm advocating piracy, I actually haven't pirated anything for years. In fact, for the past few years I have been protesting the RIAA's tactics by boycotting their products. I've spent well over a thousand dollars on CDs in the last 3 years, and every single one of them was foreign-made. None of them was produced by any record label in North America. The issue for me is not money, it's freedom and attitude. I want to be able to enjoy fair use of my CDs. I want to be able to play them on my Rio and to mix and match favorite tracks on CD-R, and I cannot bring myself to support an organization (RIAA) that wants to deny us those freedoms.

losing negative $1,400,000,000??

[Dandre]

I wish I could LOSE -1.4 Billion. Last I checked, that would mean I made money.....

-da

LOST NEGATIVE == GAIN; NEGATIVE FEWER==MORE

[cfish]

Wow.

"Lost Negative." "Ship negative fewer."

I'm trying to imagine micheal trying to find logical bugs in his code...

I can't believe they care about mp3

[Tweezer]

I can't believe that mp3 will ever replace CDs. Not to say something else wont do it, but it wont be mp3. I can't stand to listen to them. Why would anyone want any sort of lossey compression screwing up their favorite song? I might listen to an mp3 of music I wasn't about to purchase, but if it's music I'm really interested in, I'll want it in of its 44,100 Hz, 16 Bit Stereo glory.

MP3's a Scapegoat for the evolution of music

[peterk]

I am 100% sure that MP3's are affecting the RIAA's bottom line, but 1.4 billion??

As the world has become more of a global community, with people communicating between each other so easily via the internet, peoples taste in music has been affected. I do not have to listen to the 3 local radio stations that all play crap anymore and then from that decide what to buy (Well that's the way it is where I live). I can search the internet for music. I am not even talking pirated MP3's, just streaming audio from a legit radio station somewhere else around the world or MP3's from MP3.com and other such sites. I am not saying that everyone has stopped listening to the radio and "mainstream" stuff, I am just saying now there are alternative sources of music now, which are expanding peoples tastes in music, and in turn their purchasing habits.

Artists themselves are now being influenced in the same way. One style of music is being mixed with another to create a new style of music, and then that style is mixed with another and so on. This happened in the past, but now the evolution of music is much quicker not only because of the amount and speed of information available, but now even making a home studio is not impossible for many, and so more music can be made independently and distrubuted online or independently.

And last, a little attack on the music I hate.

If the RIAA would just come to terms with the reality that the Spice Girls and Backstreet boys and all their little clone groups have no artistic ability and that we don't like groups that were created by some marketing genius, maybe they would notice one of the reasons that they are losing money. I heard the RIAA bitching about sales drops when U2 was out touring last, saying that there are no more "big bands" like them, and that even U2 now has problems selling records. The demise of the RIAA didn't start with the MP3, but I am glad to say it has made a dent :)

Fruvous albums

[Zatar]

I have bought a few Fruvous albums.

And how did I find out about them? I downloaded some pirate songs... (How else? I don't know of any stations around here - Seattle - that are likely to play them.)

So there are couple of sales that were caused by pirate MP3s rather than lost to them. Heavens.

Re:Fruvous albums

[CokeBear]

Excellent point...

Fruvous would be the next Beatles if people would just listen to their stuff!

The problem is that an unknown band doesn't get any radio play, and without radio play they remain an unknown band.

Re: Price of CD's

[boojumsnark]

More than that, there are labels that manage to put out multiple albums every year, pay the artists higher royalties, and still make a buck. Touch & Go's royalty rate is around 50%; I believe that of DeSoto and Dischord sits at around 40%. The entire feast-famine business model of the major labels is essentially flawed; a band on an independent label--or making professional-quality music themselves, a la the Poster Children--and touring frequently (but without putting out a video or sinking hundreds of thousands of dollars into studio time) can make a living where most bands playing the majors' game can't. It's that simple. Steve Albini broke down the numbers in an essay for The Baffler, and for all his personality issues, I'm inclined to trust his numbers.
--

Re:From the business mindless, more like ...

[KennyG]

Dude, I saw the various numbers etc. from the story. But what you're saying, and what those numbers said, really doesn't speak at all to what I was talking about.

You ever listen to the business news? Have you ever heard one of these stories? Company X's stock price was down today, they issued a report saying profits grew n% since last year. Wall Street analysts were expecting (n+4)%.

Re:why pirate? go with the free stuff...

[Weezul]

If the artist or owner gives full license to distribute (hey, free promotion.) then how is it illegal?

Yes, it is legal. If you had read my post you would have noticed that I was suggesting that pirates put in a little bit of effort to distribute the "intentional promotional material" of these artists, i.e. the songs they want to make the rounds of the pirate sites. If the artists wants songs to be downloaded from their homepage (some do some don't then you can always place a "check these guys out" link in the message file) of an FTP site.

The point I was making is that pirates need to consider what they are doing and try to make their activities hurt the music industry while helping independant artists.

I do not expect people to stop pirating and support only independant music, but I would like to "guilt trip" the pirates into helping the independant music scene by turning lots of kids who download their warez onto independant music. If dorm was wired I would have an FTP site up, but the message file would contain a lot of URLs of legitimate free music.

Doesn't piracy imply the illegal distribution of copyrighted material?

This is a compleatly diffrent issue. Technically, I think we should try to make pirate a good word. I would like to see independant musicians compeating for penetration (of their promotional material) into the pirate scene. Spreading the meme "many pirates are nice friendly people who help the underdog" would go a long way towards helping us cut the insane time durations of our current copyright laws.

Re:not pirating fast enough: On the other hand

[maastrictian]

While beating down big industry (in the persona of the music industry) is a good thing, keep in mind that there are artists who are hurt by piracy. Ignoring the short term losses (which as you say are negligable) in the long term if everyone is able to get all music for free, what is the incentive to make music. Sure, some people are going to keep doing it because they love it, but how many bands started in someones garage because people wanted to be rich and famous. Lets adress both those points.

Rich -- If an artist makes an MP3 and gives it away, or it is pirated, they loose profits from however many CDs that would have been sold. If everyone has internet access and pirated music is easy to get to (because funadmentally there is no way the government can really crack down) then guess what. Nobody buys CDs. Artists go hungry. Good, I supose, for all those starving artists, but bad in general.

Famous -- With out money who will pay for radio stations (the MP3 station brought up in another post would involve a lot of bandwidth and capital)? Or basically any coherent form of distribution. The internet money maker, adds, doesn't work as companies paying for addes leave paper trails and the government will kill any company it finds suporting piracy. So distribution becomes fractured. Think about looking up Quake at Yahoo. Lots of sites huh? Which one is best. Well, with some trial and error you wade through the crappy ones (90%) and find a decent one or two. Now imagine that in a month the government forces half the sites to go into hiding or change there addresses (because Quake is outlawed? you get my analogy). Becoming famous not a meaningful term as it relies on what site you are able to put your stuff on and how long it stays up etc. A lot of randomness in the proccess of achieving renown. Hey, that's a lot like it is now!

Ok, I'm finishing up, I just want to address what good can be done with MP3s. As the last post said, they are a great way for new artists to get there stuff out there. By releasing some of their tracks on to public boards volentarily they give people a chance to try them and then buy their music from the artist, not the music company. If you want to stick it to The Man, listen to indie music, don't pirate, that hurts everybody.

Re:not pirating fast enough: On the other hand

[Weezul]

Clearly, you do not understand the options in the process of making, promoting, and profiting music. I will attempt to spell out a few of the problems with todays music and a few of the millions of options for a musician on the internet.

Music is not a product it is a service. Music lissening today is being degraded by the mass repitions that this product mentality implies. This creats those nasty one-hit-wonders and forces artists to force their fans to lissen to them sing the same song over and ver and over and over on CD. This is a really dumb way to sell music.

The truth is we would be better off lissening to less pollished, but more varied music. Artists *almost* produce a LOT of this less polished music in the form of practicing, jaming, goofing arround with the mixes, and live preformances. I'm talking about a whole wave of "disposable music" that could be produced allongside the more serious studio mixes.

Now, why would an artistgo to the extra work to prouce al lthis disposable music? One reason is that there will be too much of it to pirate. If people want this stuff they will need to pay for it because the pirates can not keep up (and a pirate who can keep up is big enough to sue). An even better reason is: it keeps people comming back for more!

A good way to sell all this stuff is to put some of it up for free download for a limited period of time, but allow fan club members to download any past song at anytime.. and charge like $20 for a yerly fan club membership. This is money directly into the artists pocket just for giving their true fans access to all this stuff.

The musicians don't just need to sell mp3s. Just look at the internet commics like sluggy.com. They appear to do fine by (a) making people come back to their site every day and (b) pushing merchandise on their viewers. An internet musician could do the same thing on a weakly basis. They could sell things like CDs, hats, shirts, etc. Actually, they could make a killing by selling lots of shorter production run CDs (say let people vote on the best of the disposable music) or mp3 CDs of a large amount of the disposable music.

We have all seen how crazy people get about some bands. I don't think there is any question the bands would make a killing off this shit. Especially, if they get things printed themselves.

The catch to all of this is you need to give away enough music to get people interested. There are all kinds of oppertunities for people to charge bands to upload the bands music to large numbers of pirate mp3s site as promotion.

There is one last opertunity for a band to make money by giving away music. Advertising! I would not be surprised to find equipment manufacturs giving good bands equipment just to say "mixed on a Sony BlaBla" at the end of the promotional songs.

If you really think abot the buisness oppertunities you will se that there is plenty of room for an internet savey artist to do MUCH better then an industry artist. The only real problem with the internet is that the small artists will need to know how to build a web site since web work could be very expencive. Especially, for someone who has no idea if they will make it or not. Conversly, an artist who is web savey could make themselves a big name with essentially no outlay of capitol.. just a lot of time.

note: I distinguish between promotional songs which are intended to float arround the internet and get people to visit the artists site and regular songs which are intended to be downloaded from the artists site.

Re:negative loss?

[W. Justice Black]

--42

I forget. Does this evaluate to 42 and then decrement, or the other way around?

:-)

Re:not pirating fast enough: On the other hand

[maastrictian]

Music is not a product it is a service. Music lissening today is being degraded by the mass repitions that this product mentality implies. This creats those nasty one-hit-wonders and forces artists to force their fans to lissen to them sing the same song over and ver and over and over on CD. This is a really dumb way to sell music.

I agree

The truth is we would be better off lissening to less pollished, but more varied music. Artists *almost* produce a LOT of this less polished music in the form of practicing, jaming, goofing arround with the mixes, and live preformances. I'm talking about a whole wave of "disposable music" that could be produced allongside the more serious studio mixes.

Now, why would an artistgo to the extra work to prouce al lthis disposable music? One reason is that there will be too much of it to pirate. If people want this stuff they will need to pay for it because the pirates can not keep up (and a pirate who can keep up is big enough to sue). An even better reason is: it keeps people comming back for more!

Now, you are correct that if artists released all their music (jams, etc) at once that would be too much for a pirate site to keep up with. But why would a pirate site want to do so? The pirate site only needs to keep the 3 or 4 (or for a really good group say 10) tracks that are actually worth listening too. I don't care how much you love a band, except for a few special CDs, *no one* loves every track on a CD.

A good way to sell all this stuff is to put some of it up for free download for a limited period of time

I'm sure you realize once its free once its free forever on pirate sites.

, but allow fan club members to download any past song at anytime.. and charge like $20 for a yerly fan club membership. This is money directly into the artists pocket just for giving their true fans access to all this stuff.

So one fan pays the $20 and the rest copy it from him. Not to mention the problems of server security, the book keeping of running the club. The record companies will be running this fan club, this doesn't break their evil grasp.

The musicians don't just need to sell mp3s. Just look at the internet commics like sluggy.com. They appear to do fine by (a) making people come back to their site every day and (b) pushing merchandise on their viewers. An internet musician could do the same thing on a weakly basis. They could sell things like CDs, hats, shirts, etc. Actually, they could make a killing by selling lots of shorter production run CDs (say let people vote on the best of the disposable music) or mp3 CDs of a large amount of the disposable music.

Pete (author of sluggy freelance (worship the comic)) is a very unique individual. He's been workin' on that thing for two and a half years and is currently barely making a profit. And this is (acording to Web 100 (??? a listing of the most popular 100 foo. Sluggy's been number one more than any other comic on their list (User Friendly is the runner up))) Making a comic that appears daily is also a bit different from having new music on daily (as you sugest). The problem is that if piracy grows (which you've stated you want it to do) then there will be no need to buy any music made publicly avalible. It will all be on line for the taking.

We have all seen how crazy people get about some bands. I don't think there is any question the bands would make a killing off this shit. Especially, if they get things printed themselves.

You previously argued against the "one hit wonders" that the music industry creates but now you are infavor of hype bands. You can't have it both ways. The industry creates mass infatuation with artists.

The catch to all of this is you need to give away enough music to get people interested. There are all kinds of oppertunities for people to charge bands to upload the bands music to large numbers of pirate mp3s site as promotion.

Ok, I'm confused. A pirate site takes music with out asking. A site that is taking money from artists for their music is lawful (and a very natural progression of the free sites we have now). I am infavor of this. What I am against is third parties stealing from the artists and placing music on web sites with out the artist's permission.

There is one last opertunity for a band to make money by giving away music. Advertising! I would not be surprised to find equipment manufacturs giving good bands equipment just to say "mixed on a Sony BlaBla" at the end of the promotional songs.

If you really think abot the buisness oppertunities you will se that there is plenty of room for an internet savey artist to do MUCH better then an industry artist.

Consider the success of internet companies that have tried to duplicate pre-existing services. Even if they do it for free and use Adds for revenue, they generally are not very successful. I'm talking about the difference between Pete Abrams (Sluggy) and Scott Adams (Dilbert). Scott is making a heck of a lot more money from his profession, I can assure you. Main reason, because people buy dilbert books, its the only way to get a comilation. Sluggy is avalible online, there is no need to buy Pete's books.

The only real problem with the internet is that the small artists will need to know how to build a web site since web work could be very expencive. Especially, for someone who has no idea if they will make it or not. Conversly, an artist who is web savey could make themselves a big name with essentially no outlay of capitol.. just a lot of time.

see above.

note: I distinguish between promotional songs which are intended to float arround the internet and get people to visit the artists site and regular songs which are intended to be downloaded from the artists site.

With piracy there is no difference. In your previous post you talked about the community needing to work harder, "more piracy." If that is really what you want then there is no difference between a promotional song and a regular song. The artist's wishes are ignored.

Re:I, as part of the majority, disagree.

[Rares Marian]

1). Editors do have the right to "rewrite" articles so they are more pleasing to read. Newspapers do this all the time.

Didn't you see all the flap about VA taking over Andover and /. suffering. I for one would jump ship if they ever edited my comment to soothe someone's implacably sensitive ego. Just reject the comment if you think it sucks. Don't get soft one me. I don't like that.

Yeah, I got the joke too. And it was funny, but I have a feeling that my rewording of the original sentences not only conveyed the joke, but would have been a more satisfying read.

Wrong joke. The part about the gain is no surprise. In fact I'm basing my future businesses on it. There's no other useful content but the double negative.

>Well, yes and no. I got a lot of replies to my post, which was buried within another post about the grammar on slashdot, so someone must have read it. But I do think you are right, the general consensus on slashdot doesn't care too much.

Well, duh. :) You're talking about civilizing the one place people feel at home. They don't care about the grammar. They do care when ppl start trying to sterilize the place. With over a million readrs that is not going to happen.

Re:not pirating fast enough: Why make music?

[maastrictian]

Real artists are unmotivated by profits and only real artists are worth listening too. First of all, I'd rather make my own music choices thank you! If the "real artists" want to give their music away I'm certainly not going to stop them, nor is the law. But the non-real artists are still real people, and they have a right not to have their work stolen from them.

if people want to make copies of music, movies, books and software and give them away, then fine and good, but when you start selling it then you've crossed the line

Do play or know any one who plays Quake3? Pretty nifty game. If the people who wrote it didn't think they were going to get paid do you think they would have? Sure, there are good games out there for free, but if you want to play Quake3 you've got to pay for it. If you don't nobody's going to make Quake4. What it comes down to is what we all learned in kindegarden. Treat others as you want to be treated. If everyone stole Quake3 then everyone would loose. So its not ok for you to steal it.

but when you start selling it then you've crossed the line

A question (not an arguement). What counts as selling? Does getting money from banner adds? (and an arguement) Just because you are not making money does not mean you are turning a profit. You are gaining the benifit of the service. If you think that service is worth the cost of an $18 CD buy it. If you don't then don't buy it. It is no ok to steal it.

Re:We need -5 karma or lower account filters

[seebs]

There is no, and has been no, common carrier status for ISP's or anything like 'em.

Insofar as a couple of the backbone companies are also phone companies, *THAT PART OF THEIR BUSINESS* is a common carrier.

That's it. The rest of us are just normal private businesses, large and small, and own our own networks.

Re:not pirating fast enough: On the other hand

[Weezul]

With piracy there is no difference [between promotional and regular music].

You could not be more wrong about this. The truth is that the artist can influence the pirate scene quite effectivly by uploading their promotional material to the pirate sites. This promotional material should be closer to be the music which iscloser to one-hit-wonders anyway so its what people will pirate. Statistically this should increase the percentage of hits for the promotional material vs. total material which is what the band wants. Also, if we have a large total ammount of music we can assume that very very few people would want to pirate it all. the pirates will have their one-hit-wonders, but the real fans who the pirates turn on to the band will want more.

Now, you are correct that if artists released all their music (jams, etc) at once that would be too much for a pirate site to keep up with. But why would a pirate site want to do so? The pirate site only needs to keep the 3 or 4 (or for a really good group say 10) tracks that are actually worth listening too.

You are thinking about this from the product based mentality. Currently people only want to lissen to the best 3 or 4 songs because that is all they have the option of lissening to. Once people realise that they can have a true variety they will want to lissen to it instead. Hence the term "disposable music." It would probable be a good idea to have mp3 players for the fans which could fandom play from the fan club directories I wass proposing.

Also, It is a lot of work to figure out which of a bands songs are good without having the fan club acess I was suggessting. Remember, part of the survice of the fan club access is to see what other people think of difrent songs. This is just more work then most pirates are willing to do.

I'm talking about the difference between Pete Abrams (Sluggy) and Scott Adams (Dilbert). Scott is making a heck of a lot more money from his profession, I can assure you. Main reason, because people buy dilbert books, its the only way to get a comilation.

This is exactly what I was suggesting artists do, i.e. sell compilation CDs and fan club access. The advertising is very helpful, but not the total solution. I was never proposing that advertising or any one income source would deal with the problem.. just that when combined you could make a better living at it then the industry currently allows. You made a comment about how Pete Abrams is just scrapping by with Sluggy, but most artists are so poorly paid now that they could stand to just scrape by with a good bit less money then Pete. (Realisticaly, most artists will not be as good a buisness man as I suspect Pete is, but that is another discussion)

Ultimatly, we are both taling out of our asses and we wont know the answer untill someone like Pete ABrams to prove a system like what I am talking about is workable. It's a little more ambisious then what the current internet bands are doing, but I expect we will see it happen soon.

Re:I, as part of the majority, disagree.

[shepd]

> They do care when ppl start trying to sterilize the place. With over a million readrs that is not going to happen.

Hey, no harm no foul. It isn't like I would have said anything, but, as I said, there are a LOT of posts here suggesting that double negatives are a good use of english grammar. That isn't true - someone needed to tell everyone that (in a clear and concise manner), if not just for the public "re-education".

:-)

I'm almost glad this thread is old. I'm getting mighty tired now of speaking about grammar. Heck, I'm a Technical student, not an English student!

Phasing out CDs

[acb]

At present, four companies (BMG, Seagram, AOL/TW and Sony) control about 90% of the music market. They constitute the RIAA and are committed to absolute intellectual property control, by all means necessary. They have monopolies on most of the artists whose CDs people want to buy (the only exceptions are those on small labels, and as soon as they get big they cross over to labels which offer them better marketing, as Nirvana and Sarah McLachlan did, for example).

If the Big Four talk amongst themselves (and they have plenty of opportunities to do so under the auspices of the RIAA), they could collude to phase out Red Book CDs over a period of time (say, 5-10 years to be cautious). They could hype DVD Audio, all the while cutting back CD manufacturing until it's easier to buy a DVD Audio player than to find a record shop that sells CDs. (Other than dance music, not much is sold on vinyl these days, and even that you have to go to specialist shops to find.) Ultimately, CD would be reduced to a legacy format and they'd be able to pull the plug without much protest.

What about the smaller labels? What about them. The "minnows" don't have much weight in the market, and will follow eventually. Once DVD Audio players are common, releasing CDs wouldn't offer them much advantage (other than saving on licensing fees or what have you). The discs would still play in the new players, but would lack DVD features.

Umm.. that makes no sense..

[TheZ]

I noticed the topic on the site, the topic makes no sense. "Pirates Steal Negative $1,400,000,000 from Music Industry" If pirates steal a negative amount, aren't they giving? So pirates gave $1,400,000,000 to the music industry? (yes I know how it really is)

Dues to pay in life...

[s0ci0ph0be]

Amen...freedom.