Slashdot Mirror
Metallica's "Justice" And Napster
Down the road, Metallica -- which has always marketed itself as rebellious and independent -- may be better known as the first major music group to challenge free (or, depending on one's perspective, "pirated") music on the Net than for its hits of yore. Even before the week was out, the rap group Dr Dre had followed suit. And Dr Dre took the music wars a step farther by threatening to sue music downloaders as well as the Web sites they use.
Metallica's lawsuit, filed two weeks ago in California, charged that Napster encourages music piracy by enabling users to trade copyrighted songs through its servers. The suit named a number of major colleges -- the University of Southern California, Harvard, Yale University (which immediately denied access to Napster through its network connections), and Indiana University. That action caps weeks of intensifying struggles over digitally-distributed music. It's significant, since if powerful schools like Yale cave, which they instantly did, more vulnerable institutions will quickly follow. Individual artists and bands have enough money to launch a wide arrange of expensive lawsuits, and a number of institutions, from colleges to cable service providers, are running for the hills. Early in April, the high-speed cable service provider Cox@HomeSanDiego told several hundred of its customers to stop running Napster or lose their cable modem accounts.
Metallica's lawsuit comes at a significant time legally. Napster and the music industry are already wrangling in federal court over whether the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed nearly two years ago, and the Audio Home Recording Act of l992 (AHRA) are constitutional and applicable to the distribution of music on the Net. Metallica's lawsuit is odd, and almost pointedly gratutious: the recording industry already filed suit filed against Napster in November, and Judge Marily Patel of the Northern California Federal Court is expected to resume testimony on that case next month. It seems that the DMCA is the most menacing of the two laws, since according to the law, the only way service providers and institutions can avoid liability in lawsuits like Metallica's is if they bar software that could transmit copyrighted material. That has an enormous -- potentially devastating, in fact -- impact on the Net as a barrier-free environment where information can move freely.
But rather than wait for the outcomes of these court rulings, Metallica and Dr Dre dramatically clouded the issues surrounding digital music even farther.
"With each project, we go through a grueling creative process to achieve music that we feel is representative of Metallica at that very moment in our lives," said Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich in a press release. "We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is. From a business standpoint, this is about piracy --- a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information -- whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever -- is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods."
It's a disengenuous statement -- the key words being "business standpoint." On the Net, Metallica's music is actually being traded as the "art" it allegedly is, not as a commodity sold by record companies. Ulrich greatly oversimplified what has become one of the most complex and interesting cultural problems arising from the Net: whether conventional notions of copyright can still work in an environment increasingly influenced by the open-source ethic. Metallica apparently couldn't wait for the courts to try to resolve this thorny matter, lest it lose another nickel. This is a strange position for a band who sold most of its CDs in the pre-MP3 era, and which isn't starving.
Metallica may invoke the protection of their art, but lawsuits like this have a chilling effect on free speech and, in this case, on the use of software to transmit information freely. The cautious ISP, college, or business (and almost all of them are lawsuit-wary) will simply ban Napster or anything like it to stay out of potential legal trouble. This is the Net equivalent of what constitutional lawyers call "prior restraint," self-censorship by institutions who block out kinds of information to stay out of potential legal trouble. Traditional media have been radically influenced by the chilling effect of lawsuits. Fact-checkers and lawyers pore over anything even remotely controversial before it appears in papers, books or magazines. To date, the Net has been dramatically freer than the off-line information environment, a major reason it's so much more exciting, diverse and interesting.
"This action raises the same copyright issues as the lawsuit filed against Napster by the recording industry in federal court in San Francisco," Laurence Pulgram, Napster's lawyer, said Friday. "The complaint reads like it was written to inflame the press and intimidate universities rather than to present legal issues to the court. It is hard to understand why plaintiffs -- a group located in the San Francisco Bay Area -- saw it necessary to file a separate action in Los Angeles."
Pulgram got it precisely right, and the reason is pretty obvious. Metallica's suit made news all over the country and scared the wits out of even powerful educational institutions like Yale, whose legal counsel sent this e-mail to the entire university within hours:
"To the members of the Yale community,"As you may have read, a lawsuit has been filed by the rock band, Metallica, against the music file-trading software site, Napster, Inc., and several universities, including Yale. In its lawsuit, Metallica makes claims of copyright infringement.
"The University is strongly committed to protecting intellectual property. In February we specifically alerted our residential college community to the requirements of Federal copyright law as they apply to individual use of Napster. See .
"The University condemns violation of copyright laws, as our policies and procedures clearly state. We also want to assist students and others in understanding and complying with the requirements of those laws. For information on University policies and procedures related to this issue, see www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html and www.yale.edu/policy/itaup.html.
"Until we can clarify the legal issues surrounding Napster, access to napster.com will not be available from the Yale network. We will keep you apprised of developments."
The lawsuit seems also clearly meant to call attention to some of the more noxious provisions of the DMCA, which holds colleges and other institutions liable for copyright infringement unless they take active steps to remove from their Web sites software that transmits copyrighted material.
For musicians to so unthinkingly embrace a simplistic, corporatist and greedy position is ominous. Confronted with the spectre of wealthy rock groups filing lawsuits along with the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), many more schools are expected to deny access to Napster as the result of Friday's court action.
Metallica's self-righteous and curiously unknowing statement doesn't take into account the fact that millions of Americans have been accessing free music for years now, and have come to see their music archives as both a right and an integral part of their lives. Nor will the lawsuit encourage artists or the music industry to explore the many alternative -- yet still profitable -- models of distribution that reflect the new realities of the Internet. Artists have a right to be paid for their music, but the rash of lawsuits don't solve the copyright problems spawned by the Net, they simply drive them underground.
Free and downloadable music will always be available to college kids with enough bandwith -- there remain hundreds, if not thousands of music- sharing software programs all over the Web, including AIM and ICQ.
Mostly, Metallica has ensured that poorer kids or people without vast bandwidth will be cut off from acquiring music, from experimenting, from fostering new bands. Many artists have welcomed the spread of digital music distribution, claiming it frees them from the monopolistic control (and high cost of dealing with) record companies, permits them to reach new audiences, and generates interest in new forms of music. Meanwhile, Variety reports, the record companies made record profits last year -- $15 billion -- despite the endless handwringing about online pirates and the epidemic of lawsuits.
Ownership of ideas and creative works is no longer a simple, black-or-white issue. Institutions like Yale seem to have little idea what mayhem they're encouraging when get panicked into shutting down Napster, even before those issues are discussed or adjudicated. In bringing this lawsuit, Metallica has pitted itself against the nature of the Net, and its own fans -- especially working-class kids without T-2 lines who listen to the band's music.
Metallica's efforts to shroud its greed and publicity-seeking in morality is as transparent as it is self-righteous. The band ought to get its wish. Fans might consider stopping trading, downloading -- or buying -- the band's music in any form until it permits educational, legal and artistic institutions to try to come to grips with the new realities of law on the digital frontier.
If Metallica could release a decent fucking album I don't think this would be happening.
Fucking pussies cut their hair.
It's sad to see people who have so much and yet are still so terribly needy. It must be very difficult to be trying to feed and sustain such an unquenchable desire for *more*. But the saddest thing is that it's clearly not about music for them anymore. It's about money. And it probably didn't start that way. Power corrupts the weak.
I already hated Metallica since they sold out but now I hate them even more with this about-face. Do they even remember how they got their start? A lot of people would have never heard of Metallica if it wasn't for tape traders in the early 80's. They even encouraged their fans to boot-leg their concerts and send it to them. That is how they put out their first video "Cliff 'Em All", with boot-leg video footage from their shows. After I head a friend's tape, I bought their albums, and when CD's came out I bought all their early releases until they musically sold out. It overjoyed me to see a band like Limp Bizkit embrace Napster, who is now sponsering a tour for them. This isn't about 'getting stuff for free'. It's about getting your music out there and heard by the world. When people respect your music, they will respect the artist, and gladly get a proper version of their releases. If it wasn't for MP3's, I would have never bought Limp Bizkit's latest album in the first place! Nigel
I use Napster to download music I wouldnt buy otherwise. I believe that CDs are too expensive. $10 or $15 bucks for a CD makes no sense to me. And the sad thing is, is that the bands that are the most popular make the most money. I'm glad Metallica is doing this in a way. They are just wasting their money. More programs will arise just like Napster.
Maybe this is stealing. But I'm sure every single one of you that have posted against this have stolen one time or another. Maybe even without meaning to or even knowing that you did. I would also bet that most of those opposed to Napster have no problem affording CDs.
Dont forget that the thrill of going to the show of a band you like will always beat even their best CD. If a band is good they will continue to make money from shows. I would like to know of bands that have been ruined by Napster. I would also like to know of those bands that have found new fans because of it. I certainly have been opened to a lot of new bands that I wouldnt have otherwise. Not all of us like the crap on the radio and can listen to that for free all the time. Not all of us can afford the buy all the CDs we like. Napster may be wrong but so what. There are many worse things that our time could be better spent battling.
And you overlook a fundamental principle. People have the right to release their software, music, etc under whatever license they feel appropriate. Just because you don't like the license (ie. don't feel its appropriate) does not give you the right to break the license.
I suppose Mr. Katz might choose to pursue legal action against such an endeavor, but although he may claim claim he's protecting his art, he would also be putting a big chill on the very notion of free software, open source, and the free movement of information and ideas on the Net.
Down the road, Katz -- who has always marketed himself as rebellious and independent -- would then be better known as the first author to challenge free (or, depending on your perspective, "pirated") books on the net that for his books of yore.
It would be like a radio station telling everyone exactly what was on, and playing full albums of artists 24 hrs a day.
:)
Actually, one of the radio stations in my area does something very similar to this. Every Tuesday(I think it's Tue.) night they play a new album in its entirety, from start to finish, without commercial or DJ interruption. They announce beforehand exactly what it is, and anyone within a decent range of their towers can wind up with a nice car-tape out of it.
The name of the program is called "Press Play", although "Press Record" might be more fitting
Cheers.
To pick up on point 3 - just because you can't afford the CD (or don't consider it worth spending money on, as most people who claim not to be able to afford CD's seem to be able to spend money on other non essentials) does NOT give you the right to steal it.
There are plenty of things in life I can't afford, and I will simply have to wait until I can before I get to have them.
Well, the main difference is that radio stations pay royalties to the record labels when they play their songs, while mp3 distribution doesn't.
You pay for your radio entertainment, theoretically, by listening to the ads. Of course, if you channel flip to avoid the advertising, then you are a lousy, stinking thief who doesn't pay for his music. Just kidding.
The real problem is that for the last 10 or so years, the record companies have been too busy raking in money from CD reissues of Eric Clapton and Pink Floyd albums, and completely ignored not just the internet, but an entire new generation that could care less about 20 year old music. They were too busy to spend the money to create and nurture a digital music distribution system, and arrogantly assumed that no one else would invade their traditional, sacred turf.
They thought they were in the CD business, and forgot that they were in the music distribution business.
They aren't the first gigantic industry to be destroyed by their own shortsightedness. The railroads used to be king of transportation, and controlled the distribution of goods across the United States. Then the interstate highway system was created, and companies, rather then deal with the overpriced, monopolistic railroads, instead purchased fleets of trucks, and the once powerful railroad industry was decimated.
History repeats.
In the copyright system, the artist has to do the work for free, and then get money per copy without doing any work per copy. Paying for the performance (work for hire) is far more fair; that compensates them for the labor they invested, rather than turning the profession into a lottery.
What's a T-2?
A Schwartzeneger movie?
Disclaimer: I can't spell.
It is also perfectly legal for me to tape a CD and give a copy to my friend. As an owner of the CD, it is my right. It ONLY becomes a crime if I charge and make a profit.
I'm not a lawyer but I believe you are wrong about this. However, I will assert that this SHOULD be legal. If I copy Metallica's record and sell this copy for $x, Metallica can say I owe them $x. If I copy their record and give it to my friend, Metallica is saying this undermines their ability to sell records at retail price. In the first case, I have pocketed money Metallica should have pocketed. In the 2nd case, it is not so clear that the act of my giving a copy to my friend is picking their pocket.
It is abundantly clear that the recording industry has been gouging consumers for decades.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Your claim that slashdotters are guilty of hipocracy betrays shallow thinking on your part. Imagine that you're reading the opinion page of a newspaper, say the Washington Post. On that page, you read two letters to the editor, on different subjects. Say that each of these letters contains a statement that, if they came from the same person, would be considered "hypocrisy". But note that they did not come from the same person. Nevertheless, you go off on a rant about how "Washington Posters" are hypocritical. Get my drift?
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
The original poster, from my reading, literally accused slashdotters of hipocrisy, not Katz.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
...Slashdot and Slashdotters have proven themselves to be the biggest hypocrites alive with the way they can castigate companies
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
1. He can't find the music he likes. The current model leaves lots of room for Mariah and Will Smith, but simply doesn't allow for small-run releases... if your tastes vary from the mainstream, you're going to have to look long and hard to find anything you like.
2. Most music for sale can't be listened to prior to purchase. Some stores will make a small number of CD's available for preview, but the vast majority of the music is shrinkwrapped and you have to take your chances.
3. Prices are artificially high. How do I know? Cassettes generally sell for $5-7 LESS than CD's, despite their much smaller appeal and more expensive manufacture. I'm no conspiracy nut, but it looks to me like the music business has gotten the public hooked on CD's then jacked up the price.
I don't think an argument can be made that Napster is legal, or somehow not an infringement of copyright. What I do expect is that legislation and litigation will be unable to keep up with technology, and that the technology is going to (finally) force a change in this exploitative business model.
"Metallica may invoke the protection of their art, but lawsuits like this have a chilling effect on free speech and, in this case, on the use of software to transmit information freely."
Is it just me or does Katz love to use the phrase, "chilling effect"?
No they aren't. They are trying to stop theft, which we have had laws against for thousands of years.
But what is Napster? It's a program that allows anyone to set up a downloadable archive of files and basically publish a directory of that archive. How is that fundamentally different from the Web? The web certainly has been used for distributing illegal mp3 files. Yet has anyone gone after Netscape for distributing a browser? How about the search engines? It's the program users who are breaking the law, not Napster. When does rampant illegal activity by users make the creator of a program liable?
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Their money tips the scales again...
I'd like to quickly point out that morality in does not require you to follow written laws. Morals are something that each invidual decides for themselves. Legally, copyright infringement is against law. Morally, it depends entirely on the situation.
Would you infringe someone else's copyright to save a life? Would you be morally wrong for doing so?
You're right. I should have clarified that. What I actually meant was in this case it's wrong. I'm sorry for the confusion
I dislike music piracy myself. I admit to having a few MP3's, mainly because I cannot buy the CD's they come from (I can find no one who sells them, though I do have every intention of buying the CD's if I ever run across copies of them). I didn't use Napster to get them, either; stopping Napster won't stop the spread of MP3. RIAA just wants a scapegoat on which to blame the losses they can't even prove they're having (doubtless they are suffering some losses, but I'd be surprised if their "public" estimates are not at least twenty times greater than the actual losses incurred).
Now, this said, I don't see how RIAA's attack on Napster is an attack on Open-Source. Napster isn't Open-Source; in fact Napster himself has rather viciously attacked Open-Source Napster-alikes in the past (mainly because he relied on security through obscurity in his protocol, so he had a little embarrassment when it was revealed just how shoddy it was security-wise).
Wasn't Metallica giving away their music years ago? In fact, I have 3 tapes that were actually given to me by Lars at a concert before they were anybody.
I'm very disappointed that they now desire money more than making music. Of course that does explain the short hair and the album S&M.Which sucked!!!
Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
sure, you can argue they are protecting their intellectual property and maybe you're right. personally, i think they are just being lazy. there are ways to make incremental money off of your fanbase even if you're not making money off of your music. for instance, licensing (i.e. the use of your song in a movie, commercial, or tv show), merchandising (t-shirts, books, videos), and shows. if their art is as good as they think it is, they should have no problem figuring out how to make money off of it. trying to fight this losing battle is a waste of their time.
--
J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet
Ejercisio Perfecto: from Geek to GOD in WEEKS!
--
And Justice for None
Granted, I haven't in quite some time, but I used to use it on a daily basis. I have never been one to take decent care of my audio media. I have hundreds of cassettes shoved in boxes without the case, and hundreds more CDs laying in heaps. The CDs are in that condition mostly trying to find ones I haven't ripped yet, but nonetheless, probably a fourth of my CD collection has some physical defect on the disc in which a track won't properly rip.
I paid good money for each CD I own. I have the right to posess each track. If I can rip 17 out of 18 tracks on a CD, and I want to have the one that couldn't rip, I'll download it.
As far as cassettes go, I purchased them many, many years ago, and I'm not going to pay double the money to get the exact same album on different media. I *WILL* download albums I own.
As far as 'pirating' music, I prefer to call it 'sampling' - the ol' try before you buy method. Last time I downloaded a song 'illegally' was "Forgot About Dre" - and after hearing it, I WENT OUT AND BOUGHT THE ALBUM. Ironic, eh?
What does Metallica do? They are trying to stop their fans from creating more Metallica fans.
Duh!
...richie - It is a good day to code.
But it *is*. There's a law, it's called copyright, and it means if I make a creative work, it's mine to own all the rights to it. Distribution included.
But it is not. 100 years ago it was against the law for women to vote. It was the law!
150 years ago it was legal to own other people. You could beat them, kill them and make them work for you. That was the law them.
Just because there is a law, it doesn't make it right. Sometimes laws must change.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Here's a way Napster could promote CD sales: Only allow Napster users to distribute MP3s up to a max bitrate of 64, or 96 Kbit/sec. THAT way, people can "try before they buy". 64 or 96 Kbit/sec music just isn't acceptable quality to me, so that would be more than enough incentive to go buy the CDs. I've recently got all the songs of an album I like off napster and realized that 128 Kbit/sec just isn't good enough either. I'm honestly tempted to buy the CD and rip them at 160 or 256 Kbit/sec just so I have the gold of quality.
the real at&t mix
You could say the same thing of any FTP client, or web browser, for that matter. As long as *some* of the napster traffic is legal (local band promos, public domain, etc.), the courts *can't* find napster at fault. Precedent is set by the fact you can't sue the phone company for fraud committed by phone. It's the driver, not the road that's to blame.
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
Sharing copies is not personal use. You are allowed to archive/translate copyrighted material for personal use. You are not allowed to copy whatever you want and give it away. That is the very definition of piracy. Whether or not you profit from it is orthogonal to the legality of the copying.
In the field of education, photocopiers have been churning out worksheets and articles for years.
Copying of copyrighted works is allowed for educational use. In the case of educational materials, publishers will typically expressly allow duplication of workbooks. However, even educational uses have limits. A school is not allowed to puchase a single copy of a textbook and photocopy the whole text for use by a classroom full of students.
It is also perfectly legal for me to tape a CD and give a copy to my friend. As an owner of the CD, it is my right. It ONLY becomes a crime if I charge and make a profit.
No, it is not perfectly legal for you to tape a CD and give a copy to anyone. It is legal to tape a copy for your own personal use, i.e. in the car, at work, on the computer, but it becomes a crime the instant you hand the tape to your friend.
he is excercising his right to distribute copies for personal use.
Distribution is, by definition, not personal use.
Please get a clue before making such ridiculous assertions.
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
It could be argued that the open source movement is based on the GPL. The GPL is based upon copyrights. To suggest that the Open Source ethic is to allow free trade of materials against the authors will, is just a failure to understand the GPL and how open source works.
The major idea behind open source is the freedom to control the software that is on your computer. You should have the right to examine and change to code for your needs. The GPL is designed to protect this right. Furthermore, Many believe by contributing their efforts to Open Source they are contrubuting to the community for the benefits they recieved from the open source community. This "giving back" plus the ego strokes are what make the open source community trive.
Stealing copy righted material has little to nothing to do with open source. Defense of such activity will only put the GPL at risk. If copy right law was scrapped, there would be no protection of the GPL and thus no protection from a comercial concern creating works based on open source and not distributing them without source. So, to argue against basic copy right law is to argue against the GPL and thus open source.
Open source is based on volentary participation, not theft. It thrives because contributors enjoy the benefits (freedom, good software, and ego strokes).
Troy Roberts
Music have nothig to do with OpenSource or Fredom,
it is a comercial product that you have buy.
Music didn't start in the internet or in the
OpenSource Movement. You can not mix both things.
You can not made a comercial product free in the
internet just because you want.
It's like trying to distribute comercial software
like Oracle, Sybase, AIX, HP-UX for free, just
because you have an T1 conection to the internet.
Get my e-mail after a captcha test in: http://tinymailt
A big problem with people nowadays is that they think they are entitled to everything and anything. Its the "me" syndrome.
So what about the problem with wealthy corporate bastards who own most of the world's wealth? What about those fucking bastards who keep waiving unattainable goods, using very sophisticated techniques AKA marketing and advertising to wet our appetites ... and then tell us that we can't have it?
I'm not poor myself, at least, not anymore, thanks to the IT boom. I might even get reasonably rich within 2 years if my company does well. I don't "steal" anything -- hell, I might have a dozen "illegal" MP3s around, for around a hundred CDs I own. And I use free software anyway. I'm just sick of hearing the moralizing bullshit the copyright holders serve us. I'm not a communist, I'm not necessarily on the side of the poor, I just know I'm not on the side of the indecent few who do nothing but amass immense wealth without giving back.
Keep your moralizing bullshit for yourself, it's not even moral. Money is no moral. Rich people don't deserve any kind of support -- they already can afford it for themselves. Praise the talented, the caring, the ingenious, .... I don't think Metallica and Dr Dre are any of that. They're just a bunch of marketing machines. What they sell is worth their weight of fart.
Oh I'm so bad. Do you think I've hurt their feelings? I'm vaywwy sorry if that's the case.
I wish that everybody was as nice as you and stop fucking calling people "pirates" as if they had killed and raped and stolen whereas they have just moved a few electrons around.
And anyway, their music is crap for retarded acneic teenagers.
Your rebuttal
No because they spend their money on on drugs and hookers.
This was'nt a rebuttal. With that kind of stretching of words, you could as well call my comments bananas or power convertors.
On top of that, my opinion is that Metallica's music suck and that it's crap for acneic retarded teenagers. That's what you were commenting on.
Why can't they at least be honest? It's not
about art, it's about money. "oh whoa is us,
people are listening to our music without
paying"
I agree with another post, put out an album
worth a shit, and maybe people will buy it.
The last album I bought that totally kicked ass
was Master in 88'. Justice was the last one
worth a shit...
Awesome!
That is why they are sueing the Universities, I'm sure it will move on to the ISP's, which also have the power of killing napster in their routers.
Stop with the double standard here, Metallica makes music, and give you terms to use it and listen to it, you don't like those terms don't listen to their music.
What is going to end up happening is that routers on all the ISP's (who will be sued, and rightly so) are going to shut off napster, and any sort of clone.
Napster could do the right thing, but they are choosing not to play the game by the rules that the artist's who make the music set.
By any chance has Metallica blown through most of what they've made so far, so that any dwindling further sales of their stuff takes on increased importance, making losses to "copiers" scarier than before?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I'm afraid you've optimized that code beyond my ability to follow the logic involved.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Too much time? S/he conceived and created this out of the blue, typed it up, and posted it within 3 minutes of the story going up on the main board.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
An emotional Vs. Logical arguement.
Napster is a shit product with a clunky interface that I would love to see being put out of business (GO FTP).
Metallica are a good band, play (what I believe to be) great music, and know how to control a band.
Yet... if Metallica win it is the beginning of the end of my 16G MP3 collection. Then, further down the line, the beginning of the end of my ability to freely express myself on the `net.
GOD DAMN YOU METALLICA! HOW COULD YOU??!!!
---- END POINTLESS INPUT ----
I believe your thinking here is a little muddy. I believe few here would dispute that an artist has the right to dictate how their work may be disposed of. However, at the same time, we are free to hold opinions about the artist's particular choice of disposition. Any cursory reading of Slashdot will reveal megabytes of flames concerning the merits of BSD vs. GPL vs. MPL vs. SCSL, et al. And in a universe of infinite abundance (as is the digital universe), it's difficult to imagine an artist's wish to impose artificial scarcity being regarded as anything but foolish.
The acts of creation and distribution have always been orthogonal activities; they are unrelated. With the advent of digital media, this is even more true; distribution is virtually automatic. It took me about half an hour to create this post, and I think it has value. Yet, I am offering it to you for free (beer and speech, what a deal!). Does that make me a complete rube who doesn't understand the value of information? After all, I could have submitted this to WiReD and made a few bucks. Or is it just possible I'm motivated by factors outside traditional economic theory?
The argument, "It was expensive to produce, therefore I'm entitled to recover those costs," does not stand scrutiny. It's rather like trying to claim ownership to the oxygen produced by the plants on your property. After all, you spent a considerable amount of time and energy planting the garden and tending to it. Oxygen also has a good deal of independent value; you can't live without it. No one disputes that they're your plants growing on your property, and they flourish under your care. So shouldn't you be compensated for the oxygen your plants created?
You see how unsustainable this line of reasoning is?
The issue of how to compensate and reward artists for their work is extremely important. However, digital artifacts are infinitely copyable at zero cost, and this has never been a secret. Therefore, the market for digital artifacts does not exist, and we'll need to come up with new models for compensating artists, since sales of their artifacts (in digital form) can no longer meaningfully happen.
At the risk of killing my credibility, this issue to me seems identical to the issue of how to compensate the crew of the Starship Enterprise. After all, they have replicators everywhere, and can get anything they want or need at any time. So what models are used to compensate and reward the crew for good work?
If you can come up with a model that will work in the Star Trek universe, you'll have something that will work in the digital universe. Thinking caps on, everyone...
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
you've obviously never created any art :) BTW- neither has Metallica
Re-read where I said FULL TIME. How can anyone do anything full time without getting paid enough to survive? Food and shelter cost money in the real world. If there was absolutely no money in art, there would be virtually no "full time" artists. They woould all have to do something else for a living, or perhaps live off of charity/welfare.
That you must resort to personal attacks indicates that you can't think of a good argument. If you can't think of a good argument to support your opinion, then your reasoning is probably flawed. QED
As for whether Metallica creates art: I don't know, nor do I care. They do create something that some perople want though. Those people should pay the creator's asking price, or do without. It's not that hard. That said, suing Napster and universities is not the right way to get what they want.
I think that I buy the idea of "protecting one's art." Sure Metalica and Dre are successfull, but they are the one-in-a-million that made it. If it becomes no longer profitable, (or at least substantive) to make music, then people wont. The art will suffer.
Of course, Metalica and Dre *have* made it. Arguably they are both rolling in cash - so why should they care about the money: in the end $3 mil in sales is no different than $3.5 mil. I think that they realize what it took to get where they are; but they still want to protect the ability to make a living off of music, and protect the rights of thousands of struggling musicians that need to sell CD's.
-Vince
Sounds familiar, no? :)
--
Meant to link this.
--
There's a difference in the free exchange of information and piracy. What you can and can't do with CD music is usually printed on the back - if you don't like the terms, don't buy the CD. Those terms basically say you can't reproduce the contents of the CD without prior authorization of the producer. So, is everyone publishing music ripped from CD on the Napster contacting the appropriate parties and getting permission? Not. I think this kind of abuse actually hurts the Open Source and Open Information movements by placing a stain of piracy and theft on them. Once again - if you don't like the terms of the agreement - then don't buy the CD. That's why I don't use Microsoft - I disagree with their terms. I'm not about to go out and because I disagree with a license purposefully break it by sending free copies of it over the internet or selling copies of it to friends. Color it how you want, but in short - it's piracy and disrespectfull. Put together a movement for the free transfer of music produced by musicians that have given permission. The music industry may try to fight that too - but at least you've got some honorable grounds to stand on. Napster has no honorable grounds to stand on because of the rampant abuse it has allowed. Napster is a great program - but has fallen into misuse and has given fuel to the corporate big-wigs that don't like Free anything. This really isn't helping our case against stupid patents and unconstitutional legistlation at all. If you disagree with the rules and system, change it rather than break it. If you break it, it will only add justification to these rules and systems. Now these guys will say "See? This is why we need to protect our market with these patents and rules - else everyone will pirate and steal our product." And the judge will agree. Please, let's stop screwing ourselves and focus our energy on changing the regulations, rules, patent system, etc... It will end up being good for all of us.
Mike
I really don't care whether people steal musician's incomes through Napster (they do) or whether CDs are sold that would not be sold if Napster weren't there (they are).
My own opinion of that battle is that most of the thieves would be too cheap to buy the CDs anyway, would simply borrow/hire the physical CDs and clone them - and that while sales are made as a result of the "deep preview" made available through Napster, they are not large. Storm in a teacup.
Traditional media and their distribution methods are essentially dead, they just haven't hit the ground yet and won't for a long time. Whether they were killed by the new media and methods being inherently better, or their greed (overpricing) makes it suicide will be an unending debate.
HOWEVER, lumping stealers-of-craft together with those who willingly give their craft (Open Source authors) and those who willingly accept it (Open Source users) is a biiiig mistake. They are ethical chalk and cheese. It would be like saying that stealing commercial software has merit (*). Don't do it, Jon!
The Open Source authors give their craft to the world, sometimes, as do some musicians, sometimes. These same authors often write commercial software, whether closed-source or not. Their Open Source projects are fair game, their commercial efforts are a protected species. Why should it be any different with music?
* Note: of course, stealing something like Windows is doubly stupid. Kind of like stealing horses from a knacker's yard...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Actually, his original comment was:
"First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc..."
Where he plainly admits that it's difficult to get, but does say that he could get trance elsewhere. And one other reply to his comments listed a source for hard to find music that would ship anywhere in the world.
His comments actually started at least one thread of the type that I repeated advocated for him. The rudest beginnings of a community, that would allow him to legitimately obtain that which he is so unwilling to pay for. Too bad he's not interested in being aboveboard.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
"We don't have to be mean. 'Cause, remember, no matter where you go..... there you are."
--Buckaroo Banzai
Yes, we all know Jon is about as clued up on the music scene as BillG is on Linux Kernel programming or a YRO poster is on the law (Sorry )...
But play nice. Just because he gets some facts wrong doesn't invalidate his point.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Metallica, in an ever blazing show of hypocrosy, has done plenty of the very same thing that they're against.
If any of you are old enough to remember the days back when Metallica was not a "big name" band, you would remember how tape trading was one of the biggest and best ways to get music that you couldn't otherwise find at record stores. At that time, most of the best metal was imported from Europe and the only way you could find stuff by bands that had a great deal of influence on the Metallica boys was to trade tapes. Ha, in fact, Metallica tapes were traded by Metallica themselves before their first album "Kill em' All" was even released. Where was their self righteous BS then?
Additionally, I have first hand knowledge of their tape trading activities in those days. I know that all of them did it...for a fact.
Metallica needs a (Master of)reality check. This whole thing is just another reminder of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. They've lost themselves to the very thing that hated when they were tape-trading pirates/copyright law violaters themselves.
Boycott Metallica....They're not worth your ears
Listen to jazz..it's real, not this fake image born corporate nonsense. Don't think for a second that Metallica is't corporate..they are the epitomy of corporate greed and hypocrosy. What a joke.
We take our craft -- whether it be the music, the lyrics, or the photos and artwork -- very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is.
Uhh, didn't you just commoditize your art when you signed a recording contract in the first place? And making millions by giving the record companies the rights to copy your art to make it a commodity?
I don't advocate the use of Napster to trade copies of illegally copied music. But there are mp3s that are LEGAL to copy (probably because the RIAA and record labels haven't polluted the minds of the artists yet...)
Maybe our friend Lars Ulrich should look up the definition of commodity. After all, it sickens me for artists to claim that they feel that their art is being traded as a commodity when that is exactly what is happening by their own hand (and signature on a contract)...
So, to the self-righteous artists out there... Stop the bullshit and claim it's because you care about the money... After all, the record labels sorely need to get those billions of dollars from the sales in order to give you artists the small portion of money they do to turn your art into a commodity...
Personally, I advocate the extinction of the human race. If there is nobody left alive to commit illegal acts, the world would be safe.
BTW: Technology is not for the benefit of all. It is for the benefit of the people that make it and those people that can afford to buy it.
But what do I know?
(I was only an egg, but then I cracked)
If you try asking the people who work at the record store they will probably let you listen to the record once (or maybe even twice) before buying the record.
Vinyl (which most trance comes out on), yeah, that's usually the case. But I assume you're talking about CD's, so I'd just like to know which music store you go to. The best I've seen are stores that let you listen to any used CD you want - but, generally, anything w/ shrink wrap is off-limits.
And it doesn't sound like this guy has a turntable, anyway. (Or like he could afford one.)
You can't afford to buy records. Well, I feel sorry for you, but it's still not okay to steal something just because you can't afford it.
If he goes out and does buy it when he has money, please explain to me how anybody is losing money from this.
and it is the artists that don't sell too many records (trance?..) that will lose the most money.
Really? Generally, the artists that don't sell many records are VERY hard to find, even on Napster, and specifically, trance has to come out on vinyl, because DJs have to use it.
(Would most DJ's even consider using MP3's, or anything that had ever been MP3 encoded? Probably not. Swirly hi-hats and other similar audio disasters are not good things.)
I'll admit it, I've pirated songs using Napster before. And, sometimes, I went right out and bought the CD's. Why? MP3 sound quality isn't all that great, if you're downloading a mix you have to choose between downloading a single huge track and downloading separate tracks with annoying jumps between the songs, and it's the right thing.
No artist (even record label, for that matter) is getting any less money from me because of Napster.
Hm - perhaps I'm wrong here, but I thought this wouldn't be as much of a problem for electronic music (or at least the dance-oriented varietiees). About how much of the market is DJ's, and about how much is home listeners?
And of those DJ's, are any significant number actually willing to use MP3's (or former MP3's)? Wouldn't the sound quality put them off?
And so are all its variations.
When you steal a Ferrari, the owner won't have it anymore.
If I steal a Ferrari, the company doesn't get more exposure.
If I steal a Ferrari, the company won't get more people coming to its shows.
If I steal a Ferrari, that isn't going to make more people want to buy/steal one.
If I borrow a Ferrari, the owner can't use it while it's gone.
If I steal a Ferrari, I'm probably going to damage it in the process.
On the other hand, if I steal a Ferrari, the "artist" (Ferrari) gains - the insurance company loses.
There are plenty of good anti-Napster arguments (just as there are plenty of good pro-Napster arguments), but this isn't one of them.
It doesn't really depend much on which store I go to, here in Stockholm most of there stores will let me listen to a record before I buy it.
:) But my experience before I came here, back in the States, was that pretty much anything with shrink wrap was off-limits - even at stores that weren't big chains.
And then, here in Beijing, it doesn't matter because they're all about US$1 apiece and none are any good anyways.
(I usually just listen to some of the tracks at - dare I say it? - amazon.com before I buy a record though.)
This worked for me for a while, but I've found that I really have to have more than that to make a decision. I need to listen to a few full songs to see if I like more than a particular 30 seconds worth of the first 4 tracks.
Smaller artists don't have same ability to do that.
Yes, but the more widely their music is distributed, the more power they have to do that. I've lost the link, but somebody here a few weeks back was posting a link to an article that detailed what a typical artist gets in a typical record deal - screwed. They almost never earn out the advance (and have to spend most of that on producing the album anyway), and only have any sort of opportunity to make money on the tours and merchandise.
Having said that, I'm not a small, struggling artist with a record deal, so if anyone who is or ever has been one has had a different experience, feel free to correct me.
Also, not all who listen to trance are DJ's and therefore don't need the vinyl.
I'm one.
And since Napster seems to be by far the easiest way to get for instance trance music, those small artists will continue to lose opportunities to sell records since people just download the music instead of searching for it off the net.
Well, I never would have found out that I really liked trance if it weren't for Napster. And I'm not sure what kind of cut artists get from inclusion on a mix album, but quite a few have gotten that much more from me because of Napster.
Ahh, good ol' Slashdot. Bring up an alternate point of view and you generate a lot of replies
Every argument for copyrights I have heard so far goes along the following lines:
"Without copyright, information would not exist!"
Where _information_ refers to art, literature, music, etc.
May I remind everyone that the concept of "owning an idea" is a relatively new one. It's not some inherent right that everyone has, but one brought into this world by _people_.
Before the concept of intellectual property, did we have art? Literature? Music? Of course. It is absurd to suggest that people wouldn't create information without the ability to hoarde it.
Unfortunately most of the "civilized" world has forgotten this. We now see art and literature as purely a vehicle to create profit.
If all information was free, you'd be paying for the book, or the CD, and not the information contained within. Can the artist not eat from the profits made this way? And if they are selling their media at a price above what the public is willing to pay, I see no harm in someone else coming up with an alternate means of distribution.
So why don't you ask Sierra? Send them an email.
Dear Sierra, my friend and I are sharing a Half-Life CD, but, don't worry, he went and bought Opposing Force too.
Make sure you use your real name too, so they can reward you.
Ice is a naturally occuring substance. Technology was created that allowed it to be created in places that it would not otherwise be suitable for. The music that you hear on the radio, on mtv, in the car, buy at record stores, etc... is not naturally occuring. That's a big difference.
How many people here would program if they weren't ever going to see any money from their efforts? Programming for linux doesn't count, because the vast majority of linux developers do earn livings programming elsewhere. I'm talking period. If you were never going to earn a single cent programming, how many people would have even thought about it as a career choice? Maybe you could make money selling support? Doubtful. Would the technology world be where it is today if not? Again, very doubtful.
We live in a capitalistic society. People expect and need to make money from their efforts. If America was Belgium or something, then perhaps the government would sponsor artists so they could go about making art and not worry about making ends meet. That's not where I live. That's not where the artists that are suing napster live, either. They've got bills to pay, kids to put through college, retirement to worry about, and all the other day to day stuff that we all deal with.
Stop stealing!
Comparing creating Art to moving Ice is nonsense, in my eyes. Even back in the middle ages, minstrels moved from town to town with the earnest hope of earning a few coins so they could continue their adventures. One could liken that to making money touring, but the sad fact is that we live in a world dominated by MTV, oppressive record contracts, and an attatchment to a flavor of the week, so far as music goes. None of that bodes well for artists touring...
For one, most tours are conducted at a loss in order to stimulate record sales. The majority of those sales go back to pay back the people that put up the money to record the CD in the first place. Unfortunately lots of artists have signed contracts giving the record company's their standard (and in my eyes, too large) cuts for their troubles. Not buying their CD as a form of protest against the record company simply screws the artist even more than they were in the first place.
The prevailing mentality around here is one which completely devalues artists. If you enjoy their work you should be paying them for it. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just saying "you're worthless".
If they're worthless, why in the world are you even listening to their music?
I love bringing this argument up... People constantly flame companies for "sharing" the changes they've made to GPLed products without complying fully with the license by releasing the source to their modifications, yet it's completely fine with the same group of people to "share" the music they have even when they have no right to share it.
The internet may cover the world, but so should respect. After all, we wouldn't need any laws if people simply respected one another and did what was right all the time. Unfortunately that's not how we act, so that's why laws are created.
People without money make me sick. People who can't afford to feed and shelter their families properly. 3rd world nations where the majority of the population does not have an opertunity to rise above the rest in some sort of darwinian model. What makes me ill is not that these people don't have money, but the fact that there are other people with so much money that they would never know what to do with it. And how did it get this way?
Greed.
I may be preaching and generalizing, but please consider what I've said.
I agree completely with your post, Carnage.
I'm personally sick of buying a CD for $15 for an "artist" in which 1 song is worth anything and the rest is garbage. Thanks to CDNOW i can atleast listen to part of the songs before I purchase a CD.
.50-1.00. Hell I'll even pay for the cdr. No manufacturing costs for them, whats taking them so long! (I know there is a few, but its not mainstream)
In Metallicas Case. This winter I grabbed the Metallica S&M Concert in mp3. It had been awhile since I had dug out the old Metallica CDs and even longer since I've seen them in concert.
After Listening to the S&M mp3s, I promptly bought a concert ticket for their next show.
Reasons I d/l mp3s:
1: Record companies will push out any 2 bit band with 1 good song. $15 for 1 song is insane.
2: I almost have any time to go to the store (I know, not a reason) so why can I STILL not buy songs individually online for
3. ***MOST IMPORTANT** Since I have broadband access at home, I've started d/ling songs that I have never even heard of. There are atleast 7-10 bands out there that have more money in their pocket because I d/l'd there pirated music.
4. Can't find the music. Old stuff...hard to find. Needed some Czech wedding song...boom thank you.
Just a few...already getting to be too longs..soo
Even before the week was out, the rap group Dr Dre had followed suit.
uh... Dr Dre is a guy.. not a group...
i really like that led zeppelin guy
xoxo
"Tension is the great integrity" -- R. Buckminster Fuller
You've got a really good point here. I'd tell you why, but I'd be afraid Jon Katz would sell my comments in his next book..
Praise the Force Field! Praise the Laser Project! Slackware Loon #19830573
Metallica putting a big chill on free software, open source and free movement of information and ideas? Since when has exchanging of mp3s been about that? It's more about pirating and copying copyrighted material than actually creating something new. And open source is really about creating and shearing and not about stealing other people's creations.
I also don't understand this barrier-free Internet. It's just as bad as a barrier-free society. Just visit Somalia to see the difference.
The fact copyrights protect an artist from having someone else steal their work gives them incentive to actually PUBISH their work, which customers can buy. No copyrights mean much less money to be made publishing works of art, meaning less works for customers to buy.
Remember, the CUSTOMER wanting to buy books/music/movies etc. create the market for the books/music/movies. If the market goes *poof*, so do the works. Back before recordable media, artists were paid by rich kings and nobles to create their works for an once time fee. Else they created their works as a hobby for free.
I don't think there were that many books back then as there is now. (Not totally a bad thing... there weren't many trashy books-based-on-movies back and cheezy romance novels back then.) ;)
George Lee
There are some bands which appeal to an audience which is mature enough to pay for value received, and is willing to support the artists they enjoy, whether they are forced to or not. There are other bands which do not appeal to such an audience. The bands who do will find ways to profit from the free exchange of music. The bands who don't, well...
--
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
Here I go again.
: Ownership of ideas and creative works is no longer a simple, black-or-white issue.
But it *is*. There's a law, it's called copyright, and it means if I make a creative work, it's mine to own all the rights to it. Distribution included.
Jon Katz's argument basically boils down to: It's the Internet, everything taken from other media and put there should be free, because, gee, it's the Internet, and the Internet is really neat.
I can't claim to know all the ramifications of copyright on the Internet, but I know that as a writer myself, I want to own my own works. I don't *care* what the medium is.
I just don't understand why he's advocating throwing all that away.
http://www.metallica.com/news/2000/000427.html
:)
They will be holding an online chat, I plan to e there to ask them a few pointed Questions. Please, If you do go, and ask, try to make your point concise, clear, and aviod flaming them. Statments like 'is this the final selling out of metallica, blach blah blah' probably won't even get asked to them.
Sorry if this was posted before, but I didn't have time to read all the comments.
I have nothing more to say on this subject. Thank you for your attention.
Hey, you're getting this the wrong way round. What do you mean by someone taking free software and making a binary-only release designed to be easily replicatable over the Net? It's the open source version that's going to spread faster: it's the version that's better suited to being modified for easier distribution.
Kiran Jonnalagadda
-- Kiran Jonnalagadda http://www.pobox.com/~jace
Did I just read someone say that a proper defense of Napster is you are POOR and can't afford cd's? Furthermore, when you buy cd's they are crappy?
There is a reason that doesn't get moderated up...what kind of explanation for theft is 'I can't afford to legally buy them'. Most people can't afford a Ferrari either...you don't see people heisting them. The reason you will find more often is that 'I just DON'T want to pay for them'; At least those people are being honest. Napster's (and gnutella's) primary purpose is to distribute copyrighted material between people who just don't want to pay for it. Sure some people say that they just want a preview before they buy a cd, or that they want rare stuff they can't find anywhere else. I don't think that those reasons represent the vast majority of the users.
Ultimately Napster will lose, shut down and that will be that OR they will win a long battle while other similar products (like gnutella) sneak past radars and become awesomely powerful. There are lots of baseless lawsuits in this country but this is not one of them...the artists have a legitimate claim. But it doesn't matter...the entire country is in such a rush to extend the web into everything that these type of programs will not be stopped. Plus you can't underestimate the desire for people to get free stuff.
Bottom line: Metallica et al are correct in their opinion but they can't stop the oncoming landslide of similar programs. They just have to deal with it.
You forgot BUPKUS:)
The Ferrari analogy was merely to point out that just because you can't afford something that it NOT a valid excuse for stealing it. Your point is saying that stealing music is not the same because a Ferrari is a single object while an mp3 is infinitely reproducible. Granted, but that was not my point. I was expressing disbelief at the assertion that the inability to afford something was being used to defend stealing.
But just to follow a train of thought...pretty dumb actually, but what if you COULD replicate a Ferrari? Would Joe Ferrari have a problem with you coming down to the dealership, scanning in the latest model, saying "computer, replicate" and driving away? Kinda makes the value of one drop, doesn't it?
Stealing bread because you can't afford it I will debate you on, but that argument cannot be used for music.
(PS: read the user bio:))
As far as I can tell, this is yet another intellectual property issue. The ease of digitizing and transmitting of such property has been an obvious concern for anyone who thinks their creations are their's alone.
Our dubious opinionated scribe has taken the point of saying (excuse the paraphrase, Jon) "Shame on you, Metallica, we thought you were cool." I almost spit my morning coffee out my nose. Guess what? It is against the law to duplicate Metallica's music, then send it to someone else. The ease of doing it over the Internet does not negate the law.
Sorry for the possibly antagonistic tone, but this is almost too silly to comment on.
--Mid
Your argument is rubbish.
I too am into electronica and so understand the difficulty in obtaining good quality trance/house stuff cheaply among all the MTV crap in most record stores. To say that Napster alleviates this problem is bullshit. Napster seems to me to provide the same proportion of boring music as in any Virgin or HMV record store I've gone into.
Therefore I would contend that the music you are downloading is in fact stuff by bands like Underworld / Orbital / BT and so on. Stuff that is easy to get anywhere and you know it. Stray off the beaten track musically on Napster and your search will reveal 0 hits. It has for me again and again.
So my friend, you are stealing, plain and simple, not "rooting out" undiscovered, hard to find gems. I personally believe that Napster itself is not at fault (how could it be, it is just a mechanism) but the people who place copyrighted MP3s up for grabs and the people who snaffle them. Don't get all bleeding high and mighty or i'm a poor student on me. When I was a student I just went to the record store and stole the damn tape or CD because I didn't have the money. I never turned around and said, "I had to, I was broke!"
I am all for music industry reform and a world in which artist is connected to the audience without mega-corporations taking a huge slice of the monetary transaction but until that fine day I am going to continue to steal.
Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
Yeah Jon, shut up and grow a brain. As Mr. Molter here obviously has a spare one maybe he should take up your job. Its fscking features like this that will in time drive me away from Slashdot. For fsck's sake think before you post something as neuronically challenged as this again. I bet you thought copying your friends' tapes or CDs wasn't illegal either, huh?
Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
I must be missing somthing. What is the difference between hearing free (as in beer) music via the radio and hearing free music via mp3s?
It seems that we have always been able to hear music for free. What is the difference now?
* * * --they cant all be your best, that would be confusing
They worry about the money? Worry about fans boycotting your CDs/tapes. I won't be purchasing any product you release, period. You don't care what I as a fan think, your actions quite apparently show more concern for your "business model". Gotta wonder what kind of business model can exist WITH NO CUSTOMERS in a consumer oriented business.
As for Napster (or gnapster in my case), I don't download ANY songs. I use it to promote my OWN music, yeah, that right, my music is FREE. The more of it I see on Napster, the better. I'm not concerned about making a living from it, I have a career in a completely different field. My kids don't starve, my bills get paid with plenty left over at the end of the month to spend on CDs, etc.
Want some free music? aRDy Music
You're right. But I stand by my full statement that when you copy and trade that copy, you are stealing. Caps have nothing to do with it, except to add emphasis.
Piracy is robbery and murder on the high seas...
Rather smarmy.
I didn't "earn" the fruits I enjoyed when I read that borrowed book
That because you borrowed it.
listened to a friend play a song (off a recording, or on their guitar) at a party
My friends don't charge me to listen. I don't know about yours.
If he copies a song I write and record, I'm down nothing.
Another convienent paraphrase. If he copies the song you write, and sold that piece, you are down the revenue you should have received by that sale.
I know this is baiting you, but socialism "burns my goat" and I feel compelled to speak out whenever I see it creeping along. Jon Katz is a socialist, pure and simple, and his views of redistributing property in the name of the betterment of mankind are flawed.
When you COPY someone else's intellectual property, and trade (or even give away) that property without the creator's permission, you are STEALING it.
You are profiting from somebody else's work when you engage in piracy. You did not earn the fruits that are beared when you trade your copied music with somebody else. This is as if Comrade Katz himself showed up to your work on pay day and took your paycheck and handed it to some charity of his choice.
Shame on Katz for pushing this notion of everything for everyone and nothing for ourselves.
So according to you, all morality is relative
Morality is relative, yes.
There's no room for a discussion of ethics
Why? There could be a lot of fruitful discussion of morality and ethics. You can persuade other people that your moral system is better -- it has happened often enough.
Everyone do as you please. If I kill and rape*, that's merely because my beliefs differ from yours.
You are mixing up two things. One is moral justification. The other one is consequences in the real world. I may kill a person because in my moral system he had to die. That doesn't mean that the society will not catch me and hang me from the nearest lamppost. One is nor really related to another.
The question that we're discussing is whether there is "objective", absolute good and evil, or they are just social constructs, artifacts of human mind.
Certainly I do not, and should not, be able to enforce my moral values on you. That's something for a court of law to decide. I can, however, make an argument for a certain course of action
Well, the court of law decides whether certain rules were broken. Whether these rules are connected with morality is a separate question and not a simple one at that. As to the argument for your point of view, of course you can make it. I was not saying that you should not argue your point of view -- it's just that there are people who find it hard to believe that somebody else could think differently than they do...
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
don't have the knowledge or authority to decide on legal issues
Since when has this stopped anyone, courts included?
I can only speak from a moral point of view,
Your own, I presume. So if you were running Napster, you would honor requests for blocking listings. Fine. Of course, other people will not necessarily have the same set of morals as you do. I have no problems with people who think that what Napster does in morally repugnant. I do have problems with people who think that because they believe so, everybody else should act according to their beliefs.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Napster may not be "guilty" of anything. But a very good case can be made that Napster should stop listing songs upon request by the copyright owner.
I don't understand. If Napster is not guilty of anything, why should it listen to RIAA? Out of courtesy? That's a bit too much to ask. Out of a moral sense? Well, it's hard to talk about the morals of a corporation, but they are its own business. Because it legally has to? Well, that's the question being asked right now.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
If it is true that the DMCA requires internet providers such as ISPs, colleges, universities, businesses, etc to remove software that could be used to transmit copyrighted material, then I guess this is the end of the net. Email must go, because I could include copyrighted material either in the text or as an attachment. FTP must go, because it is clearly meant to transfer complete copies at one time. Obvioulsly I could ftp copyrighted material to and from others that do not have a right to it. And I suppose browsers should also be baned, because they could be used to view copyrighted material.
The truth is there isn't a single piece of net software that couldn't be included in the above argument. I'm not against copyrights, just stupid laws. Artists and record companies alike view radio stations as marketing tools. As far as I know, they give the music to the stations for free, and hope and pray that it will be broadcast as much as possible. Why, so people will go and buy a copy.
For the most part, I have to agree with you. Stealing is wrong; however, there are some issues that should be explored here. It is my understanding that it is not illegal to make a recording of a radio broadcast (IANAL) that is playing copyrighted material. If that is true, and it is not illegal for me to record my local radio station playing Metallica, then how is Napster so different?
On a different note, I don't see why Napster should be liable for the actions of the people that use it. For instance, is the owner of the land on which a swap meet occurs liable if someone there trafics in stolen goods? I don't think so.
They claim they're protecting their art, but they're also putting a big chill on the very notion of free software, open source, and the free movement of information and ideas on the Net.
No they aren't. They are trying to stop theft, which we have had laws against for thousands of years.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
1) "You are into trance": Yes, it is difficult to find that kind of music in stores. We are starting an online music shop esp. for this kind of music soon. Our problem: Almost NONE of the small labels is willing to sell music over the net as plain mp3 any more. They all require us to put some kind of copy protection on it. And Napster is to blame for that. Small labels need to sell their music to survive. They now think it will get copied over and over and they don't get money for their work any more. Btw, you'll find us at www.soundg.com
2) "Junk": Well, you need to listen to what you are going to buy. You can do that in every good record store and you can do that online in legal music-on-demand stores.
3) "You are poor": There are lots of good, free music. Most of the musicians that play the kind of music that you like, "are poor", too. They need every cent.
4) "Record sales are booming": This is the typical "the others pay anyway, so why should I?" argument. Not a very good argument.
I hope you don't feel flamed by this. I have just been talking to so many musicians within the last few months. And their statements were much more thought through than anything I hear here from the music industry as well as from the self-proclaimed promotors of freedom (on other's cost, of course).
you are right, the dance-oriented stuff is much easier to get than ambient or trance music.
We actually have a couple of DJs in our team and the reason they love the internet is: you can get out many remixes and variants of a song easily, the listeners decide which of the remixes they like.
The sound quality is perfect for this kind of music.
The problem is: now, with all the Napster trouble and the RIAA and SDMI warning everyone, many of them are pretty reluctant to put anything at all on the internet without any copy protection.
There are two issues to debate here. It's important to separate them. Many of the conversation threads seem to be mixing the two issues and confusing the whole debate.
1) Is Napster itself illegal software?
The issue here is whether the company who makes the Napster software is engaging in illegal activities since the software they make aids people who pirate MPEGs.
Personally, my feeling is no, since the same argument that is being used against Napster could be used against any web/ftp client like Netscape or MS/IE.
2) Is downloading MPEGs of copyrighted music illegal?
The issue here is whether the concept of music copyright applies to the online world. Should the copyright of music be applied by the courts to MPEG music.
My personal take on this is, yes, it's illegal to download and use MPEGs of copyrighted music. Even if you are going to be buying the CD later, it's still illegal. You can see this by applying the arguments to more "traditional" media like books or magazines.
Now, all of this is the current state of the law. Whether the status quo is "right" is another issue. Should the definition of what is "legal" be changed? That's a different question.
Let's make sure we're debating clearly.
-Sean
I hope MEtallica and re wins the suit against Napster for a simple reason: think of whatr a great legal prceident (sp?) it would be! Making something illeagal because it CAN be used to commit a crime (theaft.) No more guns, because guns can be used to kill (which is a much worse crime than theft.) No more cars, because they can break the speed limit and commit property damage (car accidents.) No more beer, because underage people might get a hold of it.
:)
Won't life be perfect if Napster loses: A world without products that can have any chance of being used for anything immoral in the hands of a degenerate. I feel safer already.
Wow, you can go 120 MPH a hundred times an hour from the comfort of your living room? Amazing, or did you not understand what I meant by easy.
it will go 120 as well as it will go 45. so, yes, it's easy from my perspective.
This might be a bit on the philosophical side for you, but I do have a god given right to listen to music. But I have a man-taken one (called copyright or intellectual property) that says I don't.
you're right. i mis-spoke.
to listen, yes. to freely copy and distribute, no, you don't.
if you don't like the law, write a letter to someone who can re-write it. but breaking the law because it's easy to break is still breaking the law.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
This is just mindboggling. You're either the devil's advocate, a troll, or a moron. I'm wavering between trying to craft some remarkably witty, intelligent reply, and flaming you for being an utter dumbfuck with an "if'n ye hain't wi' us, ye gainst us" mentality with your "free exchange=piracy" (and I'll use this next word loosely) "logic". The only songs I've got on Napster are the one's I've created. There's your fucking reason. Stay the fuck away from how I choose to share my music. Maybe you'd like to ban, oh, JPGs since I could scan an article from Time Magazine and post it on a web page without paying Time, or golly, you could ban the whole Web since anyone could scan and post articles and trade them, but then we'd still have those pesky FTP sites with leet mp3s and jpgs to shut down to preserve your brother's precious fucking T3 bandwidth. As an amature artist, I'm happy to use and endorse Napster as a LEGITIMATE means of distributing my music. And don't give me that "but you're a minority" crap, because I don't give a rat's ass as to what you expect most people to do, since most people couldn't find their asses with a map and a tour guide.
In short, Napster has legitimate uses, much like the "evil" blank cassette tapes and blank VHS tapes that would bottom out the tape and video industries, even though that never happened.
Offspring sound OK and they're pretty fun live - but their music is fairly derivative. Their main success comes from bringing an eMpTyV marketing ethic to a sound that originated with much more creative bands. The bands that did it first did it better and deserve your money more than the offspring. Try picking up music by Bad Religion, The Descendents or maybe some Dead Kennedys stuff. If you want something punk but a little louder and faster then try some NYHC like Sick of it All or Agnostic Front.
+++++
+++++
The harder you look the less you see. That's what we're up against.
"...millions of Americans have been accessing free music for years now, and have come to see their music archives as both a right and an integral part of their lives...."
Hey, I've been accessing free books for years now at my local library. I myself have come to see access to free books as a right and an integral part of my life.
So, Jon, how about putting your books on line and make them available for free download?
You can always find alternative means of generating revenue to support yourself and your family.... Suburban Detective T-shirts.... Jon Katz refrigerator magnets...
The fundamental nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can. -- John Prine
I would think that the right to make money from something you own is a constitutionally protected right too.
However, as has seen in the past, things in the consititution are quite easily ignored.
No, it didn't fit perfectly (it wasn't supposed to), but why is your right to use naptser as you feel like it more important than a music companies right to make money from their artists? Why is the music companies right only a "so called" right.
It not. Your right to something, is no more important, and when 2 rights clash there has to be a trade off.
The "Do not sue napster, sue the users, and the MP3 makers" argument is just so incredibly stupid (even if it is the right answer in the long run.) It is impossible to sue everyone, but as I have NEVER seen naptser used for anything other than trading illegal mp3s I feel the artists have the right to sue napster as opposed to the users.
It may not be right, but it is the only possible thing they can do.
The Tv analogy wasn't a direct one, however, I might not be going to buy a TV, so there's no money to be made from me either...
A luxury: Something that is not essential to living.
A commodity: Something that is essential to living.
I would argue that a begger stealing a loaf of bread could be a justifiable crime, bread is a commodity. However, a begger stealing a CD to hear the latest "Toonz" is however not a justifiable crime.
Plus, the last bit in caps just makes me sick.
DO NOT FUCKING TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT DO WITH MY GUN BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHT TO LIVE.
In fact, if you had posted this comment a week ago, I could have used you as an example of why Anarchy would not work. You are a perfect example of my dispair for the human race. Yes, you have the freedom to do what you want, but with this freedom comes responsibility to use it correctly, otherwise, the next time, your freedom will be curtailed, and you won't like that.
"The vibe I got was that he wasn't going to pay money for the music either way. The difference that Napster made was that he got to listen to it, he appreciates the music"
I may not be going to pay for a TV, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to go and steal one. Music is a luxury. If you want to hear the music and you have to pay to hear it, then that is how you have to hear the music, otherwise it is stealing. No matter how you try to justify it.
People need to realise the differences between luxury and comodities.
Finally someone with some sense...(although you work for M$, but I guess we all make mistakes).
Music is a luxury, like a ferrai is a luxury. Even if they are traded like commodities, they are still luxuries.
Likewise, I would argue that stealing a loaf of bread to feed a starving family really depends on the circumstances, because bread is a commodity.
This really had no point, but there's so many people complaining that stealing music is fine, that I was glad to see someone thinking straight.
As for Metallica's suit being against the idea of Open Software, you just don't get it, do you? It's open source when you a) use open source in your product, or b) CHOOSE to make it open source. Metallica did NOT CHOOSE to give their music away.
However, I believe that in the spirit of open source, from now on EVERYTHING YOU EVER DO should be considered fair game for free redistribution. What do you think?
Now, try taking a digital video camera into a strip club with the intent of taping shows and placing them on the Internet...Guess what, they won't appreciate it.
.5b upside the head*
If you think that a videotape of a strip club would attract a single iota of attention on the Web, well, um, you just got here... Oh, and I think your sarcasm parser is a bit out of whack.
*smacks Eric the
Maybe that will help.;-)
--
+&x
Digital or otherwise, it's not illegal unless you are profiting from copyrighted material. Am I wrong?
Why do you think they had to draft the DMCA? We can't have people sharing, now can we?
--
+&x
A few comments here:
"I came here to kick ass and chew bubblegum. I'm all out of bubblegum." MSE USC APX AIA CSI CASp
Would it help bands if the band though of Napster as a form of broadcast medium, like radio, rather than a pirating method?
As many people have said, they will gladly buy the CD of band they have heard on Napster.
Perhaps release albums as MP3 with adverts in them even? Make some money that way?
It's sad how many people miss out on the opportunity for discussion in order to just attack Katz. What I did when I read this is think about what affect this wide spread "free" distribution of music has done for me. What I quickly figured out is that it significantly expanded the range of music I listen to and got me to buy a couple different albums. Including a Metallica album. I hadn't really heard them before hearing some stuff on a friend's computer one day (yeah, like I'm gonna admit to having anything on my computer and get sued) and having easy access to their music and being able to listen to some stuff got me really interested in their band. I'll probably buy another album or two eventually.
What we need maybe is for the two groups to come to some sort of agreement. What the recording industry and the artists themselves fail to realize is that the internet today is taking up most of the responsibilities of the radio. People used to find out about bands by hearing something of theirs on the radio. More and more these days though people are finding out about bands through the internet. I'd love to see a band like Metallica release two or three songs for revenue free redistribution. Make it legal to distribute some songs online. If all the bands followed suit then I think the piracy issues would fade a lot. I'd very much like to support the bands I like and make available things of theirs which they say it's alright to distribute. Unfortunately, except for bands like the Grateful Dead and Phish, none of them say it's alright to distribute anything. The argument for revenue from live performances was made already in an earlier post so I won't repeat it (just recommend that you read it if you haven't).
I guess I have to say something stupid in here (though you may think what I've said already is stupid) so here goes: Who thinks that the RIAA put Metallica up to this?
-Mike
Yes. I would buy a CD. In fact I've bought a couple of CDs of bands that I didn't know at all before I heard them on a friends computer because I liked their music a lot. I wouldn't have known this however if I had no opportunity to hear them. That's the freedom that is being taken away. If the bands would wise up to the potential and release a couple of songs which people could legally distribute then I think everyone who's complaining would have nothing to complain about. That's the easiest way to shut up people who you think are wrong. Remove their ability to argue their point.
-Mike
Why go after Napster though? I'm sure the geeks at Yale said "oh, we can't use napster? Oh well" and started up an IRC channel "#BannedFromTheNap" and continued trading and discussing music, and the discussion was not about a comodity, but an art, and how much they liked or hated certain music.
So tell me, how does a band suing because they think they deserve to be paid for their (heh heh) art "put the big chill on free software?" Free software and open source are about VOLUNTARY cooperation, not piracy. Honestly. This article did make some pretty good points -- particularly "Ownership of ideas is no longer a simple, black-or-white issue," which you seem to steamroll over in your vast generalizations of big evil Metallica versus the good, free Internet, and the geeks who run it who've come to see their free music as an integral part of their lives. Hey, I stole a car, but the more I started using it the more it became an integral part of my life. I get to keep it, right? (Flawed analogy, I know. My stealing a car denies someone out there a car. No one's losing their Metallica because of me, since it's a copy.)
Don't get me wrong, I hate the music industry. I think it for the most part stomps on creativity, and (unless they happen to fit the flavor of the month in popular music) talented musicians tend to fall by the wayside. I also resent paying fifteen dollars for a CD that I know costs about two cents to produce, and that the artist is getting, easily, a dollar out of my purchase. Fifteen dollars of attractive packaging? I kinda doubt it. Remember those false promises of how real soon, CDs would be cheaper than tapes? They are -- for the music industry.
So why not touch on those areas, where the industry actually is screwing people over? Metallica is welcome to sue over their pseudo-heavy-metal crap -- they're suing the wrong people, and I think if the people they're suing have decent lawyers, the courts will agree with that. I don't find the Metallica suit to be very important. Remember, you don't have a really strong right to your university's bandwidth, either. It's theirs entirely, and frankly, if Lars Ulrich and a squad of CIA cyber ninjas kicked down my door and threatened to kill me because my students were using their Internet link to grab illegal music, I think I'd "fold" too. That bandwidth is for education in any case.
The real issue here is that the music industry is finding itself obsolete, and rather than adapt, they're attempting to plug the holes in their ship -- which isn't even close to sinking, as $15 billion in profits shows. Their loss. What ought to happen -- to your credit, you did spend about half a sentence on this -- is we ought to support the current models out there for MP3s you can pay fifty cents a pop to download -- eMusic perhaps? Please don't make this out to be a big struggle for open source software ideals. MP3 hoarding and open source hacking are two different mindsets, with some similarities.
And when it comes to "intellectual property," remember there is a huge difference between ideas -- patent #THX-1138 on Amazon affiliates or some such bosh -- and creative works-- Sir Gluffaron goes on a heroic quest to save the music industry. If an artist thinks I should pay just to see their creative work, they have a right to it -- ideas are a different thing altogether, as it can hurt technology greatly to have one big entity control an entire concept, like one-click shopping. Metallica charging for Master of Puppets is a bit less harmful.
Let me wrap this up here (thank god!): Malice or stupidity? I think it's the latter. Right now, suing people over MP3s probably costs a band much more than they lose to MP3s. A lot of them are clueless about this whole Internet thing. If we educate people on what's really going on here -- namely, we've finally found the Holy Grail of digital music distribution and no way to charge for it -- we can work out a solution. Hell, there are already some out there, it's just a matter of supporting them.
DeepDarkSky asked: "How else will artists get paid?"
If there were a button on Winamp that said "tip the artist," I would use it. When I was a student, maybe I'd set my tip button at 50 cents. When I remember how to become an Internet billionaire, maybe I'll set it at $100.
Of course, there would be thousands of twits who would never tip, just like there are people who stiff their waiters or stand in front of buskers and never pay. However, small contributions from thousands of honest fans would add up. Maybe no Madonna-fortunes could be made and some people would give up music as a result. Would we miss them?
Obviously, the backend of a tip button is a serious technical feat. But it's what artists and companies like PayPal (or e-gold above) should be thinking about, because the music industry isn't going to be looking for solutions that cut them out of the loop.
For a long time, there have been musicians who played for free and got paid if people liked them. Now these artists have a chance to play for an audience of millions.
Yogurt
Tim Mitchell
Say you write some code, GPL it, and release it on the 'Net. Everyone can download it for free, use it, according to the provisions of the license, correct? Now, let's say that someone takes your code and uses it and releases a binary-only version of their software. You contact them, you talk to them, you threaten them, and maybe you get the FSF to help you sue them, I dunno. But, before you get a chance, let's say that some turkey writes a program that enables anyone to transfer this obviously illegal material to anyone else in the world instantaneously, furthering the 'theft' of your ideas, per se. You'd be pretty fscking pissed, right?
Conservative copyright apologists trot this old saw out dozens of times over, everytime an article about digital music distribution is posted to Slashdot. It overlooks a fundamental principle: licensing parameters need to be appropriate to that which is being distributed. The GPL (and other free software licenses) are widely considered appropriate for many (perhaps all) kinds of software. If this were not the case, a site like Slashdot might not even exist.
A piece of software is not a ham sandwich. Until Star Trek's replicators become a reality, I can't duplicate your ham sandwich for myself if I want to eat it -- I have to take yours from you. I can duplicate your copy of GCC without removing yours.
So is a digital audio file closer to a program or a ham sandwich?
Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
And you overlook a fundamental principle. People have the right to release their software, music, etc under whatever license they feel appropriate. Just because you don't like the license (ie. don't feel its appropriate) does not give you the right to break the license.
Note to moderator: Restating the thesis of the post to which I replied is redundant, not insightful. :)
The interesting issue is not whether someone does or doesn't "like" a license. The issue is whether the license is appropriate for the product. The penumbra of appropriateness includes questions like "Are the license terms consonant with the intended purpose of copyright law as stated in the Constitution (for U.S. copyrights)?" and "Are the license terms practically enforceable?" The latter question is not some minor point, either. Clauses of contracts are routinely found invalid because their enforcement, if feasible, would demand the compromise of legal or societal norms that are jurisprudentially regarded as more important. For instance, clause three of the erstwhile four-clause BSD license was recently retracted by the Regents of the University of California because it was not enforceable in many (any?) jurisdictions in the United States. The law evolves. Is the GPL, for instance, legally enforceable in all its terms? We don't know yet. At present, it functions more like a social contract. You may *choose* to respect the terms of the GPL, or you may choose not to, and see what happens. In practice, the GPL is flouted every day by some software authors (and, in all likelihood you've heard of their software).
Furthermore, even supportive laws or legal precedents do not equate to moral legitimacy. If you don't believe me, try convincing various BSD advocates of the "moral legitimacy" of the GPL. You may find some minds difficult to change -- and this will be utterly orthogonal to the issue of whether or not they elect to abide by the terms of the GPL or not.
Since corporations have taken it upon themselves to draft legislation for federal and state lawmakers, and then bribe or lobby these laws into ratification (as they have with the DMCA, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, the Home Recording Act, and UCITA), I think the principle of civil disobedience must apply just as well to large, moneyed interests as it does to governments.
Let me substitue some nouns into your statement: Just because you don't like the war in Vietnam does not give you the right to tear up your draft card.
The simplistic world-view of the corporate apologists cannot stand, or we might as well trade in our constitutional form of government for a Board of Directors.
Address-collecting spam robots don't know how to crack ROT13. Do you?
There is little money in CD sales, as opposed to concert tickets
Actually, there's no money in ticket sales either, tours pay for the promotion of the CDs. It's the tshirts and other crap that makes them money. All of that is irrelevant.
The main thing Metallica is doing is bowing to the pressure from their record label. The record label needed a band to sue so the whole thing could have any credibility. Well, They looked around and told Metallica to do it.
Lars, himself, may not care about MP3s. His label does. And they simply tell him to say these things otherwise, they drop him from his contract. There's a threat no bad will withstand. If they get dropped for this, they could be blacklisted as a band that doesn't work well with management.
Why these two artists? The labels needed Metallica and Dr. Dre to cover the two main forms of music. Now everyone knows (or at least will be told by someone with authority/fame) that MP3s are bad.
Are they? Who knows. Asks an economist. S/he'll tell you the impact of a free distribution channel much faster than all the people yelling yes or no right now.
(I may bite my tongue a lot, but I can never resist subject-lines like "How else will artists get paid?"!)
Until there's a way that artists can be paid for their work without having to charge a lot of money for their works because they have to pay for all the music/recording label's work, artists will worry about piracy. After all, this is their livelihood too.
I was at CFP99, where there was a shouting match onstage regarding the MP3 issue. Afterward, I walked up to folks involved on all sides, handed them my card, and tried to make the point that a successful music distribution system -- especially one that cut out the corporate monopolist types everyone seems to hate -- would require the ability for potential customers to successfully send micropayments, either as actual payments or as donations.
Let's face it, music is great stuff and can make lots of money for artists who deserve it, but a the best song in the world isn't worth more to me individually than today's lunch at lunchtime. Anyway, I'd hand them my card, tell them "hey, try our system out, it's free to create an account and I'm a sucker for clicking ANYBODY a little bit to see how it works, so there's no risk to you at all" and I'd get this blank "but why aren't you shouting like everybody else?" look from these people. Nobody seemed interested in the issue of how to get paid reliably and irrevocably because it was a lot more fun to scream "you THIEF!!!" at other people. Sheesh.
IF there were a way to pay a reasonable price to download a song on Napster, and know that the payment went mostly to an artist instead of a corporation (especially an offensive one, like Time-Warner) I think that most users -- even the poor college student variety -- would pay. There's no way to be SURE this is true, and survey responses don't always track behavior, and there will always be warez-kiddies who refuse to pay for anything, but I think most folks (even poor students) are honest and would want to pay.
The issue is how to implement it, and how to get folks to understand that payments don't have to be dollars, they just have to be good! Grams have been working better & better for over four years despite minimal media notice or advertising. As usual, any Slashdot reader who asks me in e-mail can have enough e-gold to personally see the difference between our cheap, "push" payment system and credit cards' sometimes costly, "pull" systems, today -- right now. I may be greedy & self-interested in making this offer to give away gold, but at least I admit it -- I'm here to help, whether or not anybody's actually listening this time...
JMR
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
Maybe they're doing this to try to get enough money to bring back Cliff. If that's the case then I fully support the effort.
--
Win98 sux without these 1337 toolz !!
I'm sorry, but I fail to see the connection between open source and Napster! Here's things from where I sit:
Napster needs to win this lawsuit. The reason they need to win is because I don't want someone who writes an FTP client/server to be sued for distributing MP3s, warez, etc...
That said, I think that most napster users (I'm sure I'll get flamed by hundreds of guys who "use napster without stealing") steal artist's works. Sorry, they do. Why do you think this is so popular at colleges? Most students couldn't give a care about the technical side of this thing (most students DO NOT major in computers!). However, most students can care about "saving" money. Show me how Napster lets users improve music, like open source lets users improve software. At that point, I'll say it is related to open source.
Sorry for the off-topicness below, but I feel it must be said.
Main point: THE OPEN SOURCE CONCEPT DOES NOT REQUIRE EVERY PIECE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO BE GIVEN AWAY; IT ONLY REQUIRES THINGS PEOPLE WANT TO BE GIVEN AWAY TO BE GIVEN AWAY. If enough people do this, then open source will succeed. Want to support open source? Quit arguing about a commercial organization's copyright (unless it violates yours), and start giving stuff away.
Jon: What do you think of my job? Have I sold out to the enemy? Am I scum? You see, I've worked for several software companies, some of which sold their code. Most would NEVER give out their code, definately not for free. You see, we've paid millions of dollars to develop it. Why should I be forced to provide it freely? It sounds like you are trying to get slashdotters to want to steal my code, because "information wants to be free."
Information may want to be free. So be it. I prefer open source projects (the quality ones, such as Linux, Apache, and others -- not the majority of open source, though, because I don't have time to fix badly written programs; I use the same criteria for commercial software). There is a huge business of making and selling software. This industry is what pays my bills, and allows me to contribute to open source projects (off work hours). But, sadly, the only way this makes business sense is for us to keep our code. Otherwise, they wouldn't be able to pay my bills.
Finually, when I try to encourage people to switch to open-source, I encounter resistance. Much of it is due to vocal open source "advocates". You know, the ones who call us scum for making money on our software (and not just on support of it). Most of us are not lucky enough to work for some major open-source Linux company.
In addition, I notice that we talk about "free beer". We talk about the importance of being able to modify code, as well, tweaking and improving it -- and then being able to distribute our changes. You can't do that with beer, though! Show me one incremental change made to a beer, and I'll recant. At the same time, though, I bet most slashdotters are willing to buy a beer.
Thank you for putting up with my rant. I had to vent a little bit.
--
Joel Maslak
The obvious remedy for this is to have all the independent bands who chose to distribute their music over the internet rather than sell their souls to music labels go and sue metalica for restricting the distribution of the independent music.
Of course this won't happen or will have no effect becuase big-label bands and music label corporations have money and small bands do not. Might makes right, and the government will do nothing to stop it because these big corporations are who provide the dollars to get our politicians elected.
-- Greg
PS: WTF is a T2 line? does provide enough bandwidth to download Arnold with a shotgun and a motorcycle? T1, T3, there is no T2.
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
anyone that doesn't agree with what metallica is doing should BAN METALLICA.
on JUNE 1 -- BURN YOUR METALLICA ALBUMS
thousands of people burning their metalica albums should get their attention.
they can't afford to lose their audience over this.
Firstly, i'd like to comment on universities banning napster. I work for the computer department at the Universtiy of Connecticut (i am also a student there), and like many of the universities that have banned napster, we have done so because of BANDWIDTH issues. Now, since we've upgraded to T3's, a lot of administrators have been questioning this decision, and there has been talk of allowing limited access; a weekly/monthly napster download limit or something like that. Many university adminstrators are reasonable, but they do have the school's best interests in mind. They have to be convinced by conventional means, and not flames on internet chats. They have to see more than a bunch of angry teens, or "gear-heads." Getting the tech/computer science department or your side is a good first step. Let them present petitions to the board and whatnot.
The second issue i'd like to address is the nature of mp3s. Or rather, the nature of their effect on the recording industry. Sure they're a lot more hi-tech than tapes, and the internet is an "information superhighway" and whatever other buzzword is chic, and as such, it is a powerful medium, blah blah...but tapes didn't destroy the recording industry. Sure..we all know it's illegal, but so is not stopping at every stop sign, even on an empty road at three in the morning. If we get down to it, yes, we have no right to give away someone's music, without their express permission. But I've made tons of mix tapes for friends, or girlfriends, to get them into my kind of music. I've taped friend's albums. Everyone knew this went on, but I think it's the method of distribution..or rather...the EASE of distribution, that's scaring record labels, and now even artists it seems. It's hard to rationlize the "yeah, i know it's illegal, but..." arguement.
If we get right down to it, nothing, and i mean nothing, is going to get the mp3s off of university intranets...people are going to share their music, and there's no stopping them really. I mean, are we going to arrest just about every college kid with a computer? Even the non-tech/cse majors have mp3s shared on their compuers..i mean..i go to UCONN...even the jocks have them shared...it's the mix-tape of the age...so how do we get the medium of exchange recognized? I got into metallica when an older friend of mine made me a tape of master of puppets, and some songs from ride the lightning at the end. And i bought the albums. I'm not going to lie, and say that i do that all the time..i don't..but neither did i buy every album i have a tape of either.
The desire to listen to, and appreciate music is so ingrained in human nature that nothing will stop our desire to listen to it, but i think the best we can hope for is that the industry will view napster as an unaviodable loss (much like tapes), and only prosecute the people that sell the stuff for a profit. Regardless of the outcome of the napster lawsuit, mp3's will still be there...and don't email metallica telling them they're fags or assholes or anything...these guys are big fish in the pond of music artists..they've overcome label conflicts, and have rocked for lots of years...even disregarding their new material (this isn't a musical taste issue), they're a band that's established a comfortable niche; they have to have a good reason to budge from it. We have a chance to present an intelligent arguement. Call it american democracy, or our chance to voice our opinions..whatever you want..i just hope that the online chat consists of more than "you guys suck now", and "why are you guys being stupid"
Let's review:
1. Metallica did not force Yale, Harvard, and other universities "into booting Napster off their servers". Napster was never running on the schools servers. It's not even really a server at all, it's a peer-to-peer thing, which is why it's difficult to sue Napster itself in the first place. (Quiet down back there! Yes, there is a Napster server, but it only exists to index user files, maintain file/host relationships, and run the chat room stuff. It operates more like a web indexer than a server.)
2. Dr. Dre is not a rap group, it's just one guy! See, there is just one of him, so he can't be a group. If there were more than one, then it'd be a group, but there's not, so... never mind.
-YuLe
It's in
...
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Article I
Section 8.
The Congress shall have power
To promote the progress of science and useful arts,
by securing for limited times to authors and inventors
the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
Best Slashdot Co
No, goddammit! I've waited entirely too long for cable modem service in my town for someone to shut down MediaOne now! :)
1)patents and copyrights are a mechanism in which helps owners of products and methods and such to inforce a contract.
2)the right to inforce a contract is a clause in the US Constitution(and also many other countries). While this idea of an enforcable contract was put in by very rich men, it in the long run has helped the general consumer. Why?
Because unless companies or individuals or even musical groups can protect their work, they will never even attempt the work. Medicines that require millions of dollars of research to perfect would never be invented. The computer you are typing your comment on would never have been invented. Even Open Source Software wouldn't be around if we did have computers(it depends on the ability to enforce a contract as well). Hell, you would never have even heard of Metallica--the company that has a record contract wouldn't exist, because 1) they couldn't enforce the contract they have with Metallica, and 2) they wouldn't have exclusive rights to distribute that music, so they couldn't make any money.
to say that copyrights or patents aren't good things is stupid. sure, there are instinces where patents or copyrights shouldn't have been granted, but to say that they are inherently bad for consumers isn't correct.
You know, I am probably going to get flamed because I disagree with the general opinion here, but here goes...
First, I completely support Metallica in their lawsuit. The band feels that their music is their unique art form, and they do not approve of it being traded as a commodity on the 'net, as in their eyes those trading it do not respect that the music is art. As a fellow musician, I can see where they are coming from, and I think they are completely justified in their pursuit of this. I don't object to the downloading and playing of MP3 files, and I have downloaded a few myself, but it is something that too easily becomes an obsession, and that is what I object to, mostly because it is a waste of a good computer to fill the drive with music and do nothing but play music on it. I work for a college computing center, and we provide full service on machines students purchase from the college. On average two or three students bring in a machine every week that has had its Win98 install toasted (because Windoze SUCKS!). We have drive images on bootable CD-R's to quickly restore the machine to its default settings, but all data on the drive is lost. When we tell the owner this, they don't care about the term papers saved on it that they spent hours creating, but God forbid if even ONE of the damn songs they spent thirty seconds on is missing when they get the computer back. Maybe I am way off here, but I think that is a pretty fucked up set of priorities.
Next, and again maybe I am wrong, but isn't the unauthorized trafficking of copyrighted material ILLEGAL? You know, whether a law is unfair or not, we still have to abide by it. If we break laws en masse it could have unpleasant repercussions, such as mass ignorance of other, more important laws.
Also, I feel that musicians, just like programmers, have the right to choose their own license (Stallman will probably hate me now). If you want to distribute something for free, fine. If you want to be paid for it, that is fine too, just don't expect me to buy expensive crap. Granted, record companies do charge sickening amounts of money for CD's, but that doesn't give anyone an excuse to ignore their copyright.
I'm sure to get moderated *way* down for this (inflammatory, or whatever) but I'm afraid that for the most part, I agree with these lawsuits. Copying Dr. Dre, Metallica, et al is *clearly* a violation of *current* copyright laws (IANAL). Don't rationalize it, don't say that "the record companies make too much money", don't say its just for your own use, or that "I'm going to delete them in 24 hours, so its legal" (Hint, it's not).
I've seen groups of people in irc chat rooms flaming people unmercifully when they ask questions about hacking/cracking, and these same people have mp3 collections worth *far* more than the commercial software on their systems. This is so hypocritical it drives me crazy.
Yes, I have napster, yes I use it, yes it has opened me up to music that I would not ordinarily listen to and now I'll probably go out and buy some cds that I probably would not have (Nawfel is *really* cool)...but if you don't admit that it's piracy then you are deluding yourself.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I had a conversation about this last night with friends, some of which have high-speed connections. Their general consensus was that they generally buy CDs of MP3s they gather, they think most people do such, and that enough people will choose to pay content-creators to allow creative industries to continue to exist. Unfortunately, they're a biased selection, as they are content-creators, and they'd hardly keep their jobs if they thought there was no hope of getting paid for them. I can only hope.
This is a strange conflation, but one a lot of people make (including such as Jon Katz). There is no philosophical connection between the Free Software/Open Source movement (if you merge them together for simplicity) and piracy of intellectual property. Free Software/Open Source are forms of "giftware", ie software created and released with few or no limitations, as the free choice of the creators. Piracy is the duplication and/or distribution of works in a manner outside the choice of the creator(s). Whether it's d/ling a few albums worth of MP3s you never plan to pay for, copying a game onto someone else's computer when that's outside the license, or distributing altered versions of GLPed programs without the new source, it's a violation of the terms under which the creator(s) released it to the public. In short, one is giving a gift, the other is theft.
When I refer to "freeloading", I mean specifically those who enjoy content that is released under a license requiring purchase without paying for it. This goes beyond even the simple act of violating the license of the creator. That content is produced at a cost, and released under terms designed to recoup those costs and even make a little money besides. That content wouldn't even be available in most cases without the money coming in. Therefore, those who don't pay for such content are parasites relying on the "rubes" who do pay for it. This does not apply to people using freely released software (though it would apply to someone who made software derivative of GPLed works without releasing the altered source - they would be freeloading off the work of GNU coders without abiding by their terms).
And, whether or not one agrees with the license a work of another is released under or likes the terms the creator got for its distribution (and short of fraud or someone putting a gun to the artist's head, the artist agrees to those terms), simple honor requires one to either abide by the license or avoid the work in question. If you don't like the RIAA, don't buy CDs produced by artists working with participating record companies - and don't freeload off someone who did buy those CDs. If you dislike the GPL, avoid GNU software, don't break its terms.
If honor doesn't suffice, simple self-interest should. If content creators can't release their content under terms (any terms) and expect anyone but a very few to abide by them, content creation as we know it, whether it's software, music, or anything else, will fade away to a minimum point far below what we enjoy now. No commercial software, no GNU software, no new CDs by anyone around the world...Or at least very little of any of those things, on very marginal budgets. Basically, we'll be down to hobby content. Some of that can be very good...but frankly, most of it is hobby quality now because no one is willing to pay for it. That won't change.
Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter. Thanks for presenting your stance intelligently, even if I disagree with it.
So, music should be free, because the supply due to copying can be infinite. Of course, if anyone can get someone's music for free, how can music get paid for?
Right. It can't. And before you make any assinine claims that music should be free because it's a natural resource (how is it a 'natural resource' any more than anything YOU do and expect people to pay you for?), take a look at your pirated MP3 collection and tell me none of those files are ripped from CDs that were made in factories and mastered from studios that cost money to rent. Tell me that none of those intruments used on there cost money. Then tell me that ALL of the artists involved in all of your ripped songs would have gone to the trouble of dealing with a record label and spent time in that studio crafting a CD worth of professionally produced songs if they did not expect to get paid.
In other words, without people paying for your free tunes, you can't GET your free tunes. The way you collect pirated music is parasitic, relying on the money that paying customers shell out, because without them, you wouldn't HAVE 99% of the music on your hard drives and CR-Rs.
If you put that into a context that has anything to do with reality, you'd have to be talking about a situation where people offer a service for money. The only one that remotely matches what you suggest is a strip club. Now, try taking a digital video camera into a strip club with the intent of taping shows and placing them on the Internet...Guess what, they won't appreciate it.
Songs you "wouldn't buy", but for some reason keep in your archives, are just as much indefensible freeloading as the "immoral" section.
If you divorce the term 'libertarian' from any hint of meaning and use it to refer to the whiny, grasping segment of the population here who wants Microsoft broken up, all source code free by law, and no punishment for IP piracy, sure, I suppose so.
You make some cogent points, actually, particularly in that you're at least willing to pay for some fraction of the music you listen to. I actually like the try-before-buying aspect of MP3s. But, unfortunately, it looks less and less like any significant number of people "try" instead of simply failing to "buy".
While I think MP3s provide a viable musical medium, I for one don't want our musical culture to devolve into MP3s of garage bands. I *like* listening to music produced by talented professional musicians on instruments above pawn-shop quality. Further, I really am starting to wonder if the freeloader culture that seems dominant on places like Slashdot leaves any room for more than a few rare people to make any money by distributing MP3s of their work. Maybe if artists had jumped on it early enough to legitimize it, but MP3 is tainted with the "underground" attitude and the freeloading ethic.
And no, I don't think that freely sharing my inexhaustible resources (or even exhaustible resources!) is wrong. However, the vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their creating artists. They've been stolen.
Considering that companies make real money offering less on their web pages, I think you're the one who's new to the medium.
Nasper death could be the greatest thing because that would move all the users to GNUtella or even Freenet, which are both much harder to track and control. I'd like to see the RIAA and Metalica going after GNUTella pirates - they'll regret dearly the good old Napster and its centralised access point.
I just can't wait to see how Freenet will evolve - this thing will put the final nail in the coffin of all those who want to restrict the flow of information. Good or bad, we are headed toward a society where copyrights is something of the past.
Hmm...
"Ownership of ideas and creative works is no longer a simple, black-or-white issue."
You must be kidding. These people spend time writing songs, practicing, performing and recording, expecting to receive income from their efforts.
Napster's software makes it possible for people to circumvent the traditional path to getting music by making it FREE... so the bands lose revenue.
I don't give a rip about Metallica or Dr Dre... neither suits my taste. But they DO have a right to receive the money they're due.
This original post was nonsense, IMO.
Yes, the Net has opened up new forums for EXCHANGING IDEAS... and Napster allows people to rip them off for free, too.
So the Net is there to exchange ideas, not to allow, encourage or promote stealing.
Looks like the Napster users forgot about Dre's lawyers.
Let me see if I've got this straight...
Lars says that they take their "art" very seriously. Which means they enjoy making music and they try their hardest not to make shitty music.
Yet thousands more bands who still aren't out of the clubs (or don't want to be) enjoy making music but don't bogart their fans' dollars. Metallica has been in the business for two decades. So what's the problem? They didn't make money from Ride the Lightning? Master of Puppets? When they finally up and sold out to eMpTV and let them play that damned "Until It Sleeps" video from dawn till dusk (well, now I guess it's "Nothing Else Matters Live")? It's artists like these who put their faces everywhere so their bands become household names, and then want all the money they can possibly lay their hands on.
If you enjoy making music, you should enjoy it. Not milk it because you're a f***ing rock star.
(kill your television. get some exercise.)
Metallica's making a living at this
Have you guys LISTENED to Metallica lately? I don't think it's Napster that's hurting their sales...
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Okay, first of all, I am not usually a Jon Katz flamer. I read his stuff, some of it is okay, I disagree with some of it, I'm never incensed about it.
This tim, though. Man oh man, this is bullshit. Okay, hear me out before you moderate me down for swearing. He's saying that it's wrong for a band to sue the individuals who are giving away their music. Now, I agree completely with the arguments against the attacks on Napster, DeCSS, etc. -- they're simply tools, and they have legitimate purposes as well as illegitimate ones. But a user who is using Napster to serve up someone else's not-for-free music is doing something pretty lame.
Okay, let's look at it like this: Let's say a band shouldn't sue Napster ('cause that really is dumb) and shouldn't sue the users using it to give away their music (because information wants to be free). What recourse do they have? Do they have to just sit there and watch as people download their music? When does this become a problem? When is it okay for them to take some action against this?
We really have to watch out for that "How dare they sue those innocent kids!" gag reflex. Sometimes the "innocent kids" are actually doing something they should be doing.
Okay, now moderate it down if you'd like.
Punch
I don't think people who pirate software or music are degenerates or anything. I just wish they wouldn't suck up all my bandwidth and then defend their actions with horribly flimsy excuses like "I wouldn't buy it anyways". I used to pirate software back in the 80s, but I knew what I was doing was bad karma. I didn't try to rationalize it to myself... I was just greedy for more Commodore 64 games.
"Whatever you think of the Napster flap, this is bad news for the idea of a barrier-free Internet."
Since when is the protection of copyrigted material bad for anything? The internet is a means of communication and sharing. It was not intended to allow you to skirt the law.
That being said, where the hell did I put my zip with my Moby MP3's?
This lawsuit is pretty surprising coming from Metallica who are known to have a 'Grateful-Dead-like' attitude towards bootlegs. Where I live, bootleg CDS are sold at about three times the price of a regular CD, so I guess that the people who sell them do indeed make money on their back.
They pretend to do this because the way Napster users trade their songs hurt their artistical feelings, but I think they're only choosing the easy target. It's easier to sue Napster and some colleges than to find out who makes money out of pirate tapes.
How hypocrit of them to justify this with their artistic ideas. If they don't like the idea of their art being traded like a commodity , I don't see how they could condone the bootleg market.
Has *almost* everyone forgotten that they're not suing those pirating copyrighted material. They're suing people who wrote software with legitimate uses/purposes because some people are doing illegal things with it.
Lib.BENCH the only site you'll ever need!
One of the problems which disturbs me to no end is the difficulty most people have in translating law from the physical world to the internet. Sometimes, simply doing this makes the legal matters much more obvious. Let me give an example:
It is difficult for law enforcement to stop the shipment of illegal drugs, because they cannot monitor all of the roads and airways. Solution:
Shut down all the roads and airways, and we can significantly stem the tide of illegal drugs.
Napster and DeCSS are the roads...
In the physical world, it seems obvious that law enforcement must take on the unbelieveably difficult task of finding those commiting crimes, rather than taking on the relatively simple task of removing all possible mechanisms by which they may commit their crimes. I just hope the juries can be made to realize that Metallica and their cronies are required to do the same.
When I was a kid I had hundreds of copied tapes, and the MP3s are just a modern extension of this. I'm sure most people copy music for the same two reasons:
I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk.
I remember hearing a story about the band U2. BBC Radio 1 were broadcasting live a concert they were playing, so they got a uk music magazine (Q/nme?) to print an inlay card for a tape, with a full track listing of the set they intended to play. They wanted to encourage people to tape and copy their music, bypassing the established music industry, and associated means of distribution, to get their music heard by as many people as possible.
The more a bands music is distributed over the net -> the more people listening to their music -> the more fans they have. Simple :-)
I'm poor.
Yup. Why deny someone the music if they can't afford it anyway?
everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase.
The thing is taped recordings were always poor quality. If you liked the music and could afford to you would go out and buy the CD. So long as record companies can keep producing a commercial product which is better than the 'pirated' alternative (eg. music videos/interactive content/dvd audio), then they have nothing to fear, and people copying music will help promote artists more than it hinders sales.
I'm pretty sure Dean Lewis had something to do with it, as he's made several public statements in favor of giving students unrestricted access to the Internet like any true educational institution would. Indeed, he's even gone so far as to say that, if Napster (or anything else) sucks up too much bandwidth, Harvard should buy fatter pipes. Of course, Harvard has nearly as much money as God (literally--Harvard is the 2nd largest non-profit organization in the world, losing only to the Catholic Church/Vatican), so what is an option for them may not be possible for other schools.
I can't prove it, but I'd suggest that Dean Lewis' cluefulness on the issue stems from the fact that he's also a Computer Science professor. After all, as you point out, he tends to be pig-headed about everything else.
Ok, here's my question: What exactly is being blocked from those schools? Is it the servers themselves, or what? I.E. if someone were to create a "bouncer" proxy server of sorts that students could connect to that the schools DIDNT have blocked, would that be possible? Thanks
Yes, we're crooks. Yes, we're doing illegal things. And no, I don't have a fscking problem with that. The laws are evil. The system is evil. It is the *right* and *duty* of the individual to oppose immoral use of government power, even when it means breaking the law. That's what civil rebellion is all about -- and the fact is, the people who founded America, or Israel, were criminals in the legal systems in which they operatred. But they won, and so they are heros in retrospect. And so will we, the anonymous slashdotters with RMS to lead us, be viewed as heros: the people who set information free.
Before you free software fanatics out there start bitching about freedom (as in liberty), think how you would react to someone violating the GPL when it comes to distribution of the software?
When a band such as Metallica spend months/year son an album, they don't want it just thrown all over the 'net without getting some kind of benefits (they're allready famous, so they wouldn't benefit from the publicity). Napster and the like take away the artists rights to do with thir music what they want. If they want to sell THEIR music, then let them. If you like it, go out and buy a CD. Don't leech of over people and complain when the artists get stroppy about people stealing their music.
I'm going to listen to S&M now....
- Damnit, I'm dead Jim
Now, i know of a LOT of underground record labels and bands that release their songs to the public LEGALLY. One example being Fat Wreck Chords (www.fatwreck.com) which releases a few of it's artist's mp3s. How can they shut down Napster if it's trading both legal AND illegal mp3s. It seems to me that this would be like making lighters illegal because you can use them to light pot (not the best analogy, I know).
- *Normality Is The Root of All Evil*
I'm a musician.
I bet you weren't expecting that one, eh?
Maybe in the software industry, you actually make money from royalties, but musicians don't. Not unless they're unbelievably succesful. As a musician, you might make money from playing live (but more often you'll do slightly worse than break even and consider that an advertising expense so that your future shows will be more likely to make money). But unless you are ordained by the record company as someone who's going to sell a hell of a lot, you won't break even on selling your music.
Given that, free advertising is a Good Thing. I have nothing against napster.
[TMB]
A lot of good points. Using Napster to download all the songs from an album and then not buying that album is illegal and immoral. But is that what the main use of Napster is? I don't think it is.
I'm going to assume that I'm a pretty typical Napster user. I just went through my 282 MP3s (about 1.3 Gb) and catalogued them by type. Here's the result:
"Bootleg / Unavailable" means the track is something I wouldn't be able to buy on a CD the artist released (either because they're bootleg live tracks, bootleg remixes, or are out of print). "Trying out" are tracks where I'm interested in finding out whether I should buy a CD from that artist. "Public domain" should be obvious, as is "Wouldn't buy". "Immoral" means that there is a CD that the artist has released with that track on it which I would like to have but don't.
The "Trying out" section used to be larger, but it's shrunk a lot because I've either (a) listened to the song, said "I don't like this", and deleted it, or (b) listened to the song, said "I like this", and bought the CD. I've bought 4 CDs within the last week that were in the "Trying out" section. I'm about to write a cheque to buy 2 CDs with tracks from the "Public domain" section.
The RIAA is not poorer for me having Napster; quite the opposite. Are 59% of my MP3s illegal? Yeah, sure. Do I feel guilty about that? Not as long as they're better off as a result. And anything that introduces me to more artists is going to be good for them.
I'm sure there are people who completely and totally abuse Napster and use it to download entire albums that they should buy. And I'm sure that the libertarian /. crowd are high among those. But I'd be very surprised if they are more typical than me, especially when averaged over the amount of money the RIAA should make off us.
[TMB]
I will try to make this quick, in vain hope that someone will read it. I posted something similar on the Dr Dre article a couple days back, but by the time I posted I was on the bottom of a very long list of posts.
I think we need to completely decriminalize piracy. Piracy is not stealing, as it does not make a person who had something not have it. It is argued to be stealing, because it allows someone to have something which they didn't pay for. If you believe in the Bible, which a lot of people do (and even those who don't usually acknowege it as a competant moral guideline), then you will find that the Biblical morals around theft are always punished with restitution (ie, reparations for the damage done to the individual from whom goods were taken). In the case of piracy, you are not doing anything to someone else's goods, you are simply creating more.
So, I say we decriminalize piracy, and then leave the industry to fend for itself. If it stops becomming illegal, people's "moral issues" with it will go away. Why? because it is a legal issue, not a moral one, and it doesn't have a moral leg to stand on. The only moral authority you could site as to why it is "bad" to copy someone elses music is the culture you grew up in, in which copyright is such a fundamental principle. That doesn't make it morally correct though.
If you quit making it illegal, then people will pirate MASSIVELY, which is IMHO a very good idea. Why? Because it will let the artists starve. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating not supporting art, if someone's art is good enough that you think it is worth money, then by all means, send the artist some money. Find a way to email them, or write them or whatever. Somehow mail that is headed with "I want to give you money" has an amazing way of getting past all the filters.
What will happen though, is the music industry will die. Artists will get promoted by dedicated fans informing others of them word of mouth. The stuff that is popular now will die before long. Why? Because most ppl wouldn't feel bad about not supporting it. They can say it is great music, like society has taught them, but when it comes down, they aren't going to feel bad if they don't send them money. Then, slowly, those who are mega rich now from their shoddy products will go bankrupt, because their popularity only lasts until there "hit single" gets so overplayed people get sick of it. The bands that truly produce well written, well played meaningful music will last. How will they get a regular pay check? I don't know, to be honest, I would like to think donations, although, maybe that won't work and something else will be necessary. Fact is, though, most musicians are going to starve. That is, ok though, right now, there are too many "musicians", most of whom suck, and there isn't anything that entitles them to making a living with music. What will most likely happen though, is people will not go into the "industry" aspiring to "make it big". The industry will no longer exist, and there will be an absence of these super rich mega stars. Instead, the only people who will do it are the ones that think they really have somehting to say, and they will say it. If they are good enough then they will make a living. Music isn't going to disappear. I guarantee you, if it even comes close to being in short supply, the money to allow artists to make music full time will come from SOMEWHERE. Music has been around for a long time, and people aren't going to live without it. It is like sports- take automotive racing, for example. It is large corporations that sponser that, as it is an extremely expensive event, that isn't profitable enough for its "performers" to handle the maintenance of their vehicles on there own. The only reason it exists, is because people want it badly enough, that for a corporation to support it is worthwhile, purely in the weight of the PR it brings them in being known to support it. Maybe that is what will happen, it would make sense. Music won't go away though- that is for sure. Although, music culture would definitely purge itself, and the quality of music that exists, I think, would go dramatically up. I used to say I would never pay for music again, once I could freely pirate, but through the piracy, I found music that is good enough, that even though I don't have to, I will pay its creators. Well, I must away to work, I guess I didn't make it short, guess the moderators will bite me.
roamer
I don't respect your opinions, but I respect your right to hold them
>So, if they won't let you have their product for free, you're going to quit buying it?
I personaly don't download MP3s. If I were too, it would be to determine if I like an artist and was considering forking the money over to buy the album, or if I already had the album and want the song in MP3 format. I know plenty of people who use MP3s in that way.
I was talking about stuff you do buy from record stores. Even if you download, I am sure you sometimes still buy cds.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
You have a good point. That is why the best way to go about the boycott would be to let them know what and why you are boycotting them. I assumed that people would know this. I gave them some credit.
For example, one could write a document stating the terms of the boycott. Someone could then sign it, and then pass it on to someone else. They in turn would pass it on to someone else. Once it starts to repeat itself ( or it gets back to the first person) you send it to the people (and/or organization(s) that are being boycotted).
That is just one way to handle it. My point is. Stop complaining here and do something if it bothers you. Show up at the Metallica chat and ask them why they are sueing. If enough people ask the sam quesiton, they may get the idea that it wasn't a good idea to sue Napster. Especially since sales haven't drop as a result of MP3 trades. What's next sueing for making a tape of your favorite songs? Movie clips we all enjoy when we want to know more about a movie?
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
The best way to get something changed is to hurt them they can be hurt the most. In their walets. The industry will change its mind when they see sales drop. Stop buying CD, tapes, records etc. Stop helping them.
If you want them to make legal free music available to down load talk with your money. That is the best speaker in a society like ours (U.S.A.). Boycott them, boycott the companies that sponcier them and write them telling them why you are going to Boycott them.
I don't condon(sp?) or condem(sp?) the trade of MP3. I see good reasons to trade MP3. It allows you to isten to artist you have never heard beofre and don't want to fork out $15-$20 to buy a CD you'll hate. You can even find music you didn't know about.
It comes down to this. Stop complaining here and do something about it.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Ask them whether they'll perform for free. You'll have your answer as to whether they prefer making money or not.
Poverty's not really a valid excuse, given that music is hardly necessary for a meaningful existence, and the default state is that you do *not* start with the music...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Irrelevant. Convenience does not equal justice.
Happiness, actually, does not equal justice, either.
What's at issue is the ability of a creative artist to possess rights related to the control of his work, and his ability to transfer those rights to others (publishing companies) as desired.
There exists no right to gratification.
If the artist(s) wish for their audience to freely access their music, most are presumably capable of eventually producing works unencumbered by contracts and distributing it themselves, for as low or no cost as they desire. Most, clearly, have not taken that route, and that position should be honored.
Transactions should be cooperative and voluntary.
That means that there is no right to compel the transfer of rights of others, barring a compelling public interest -- such as where the execution of those rights would interfere with the fundamental rights of others. Playing with shaped charges and uranium hemispheres, for instance, may suddenly infringe upon the right of your neighbors to not be slain without due cause -- in this case, via instant disintegration. Consequently, the normal doctrine of property rights would be inhibited slightly.
Creative works, however, did not exist until creation. Consequently, others can hardly claim to be deprived if they lack access to such, unless the creator implements unusual discriminatory terms such as refusing to sell to those above 30...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Hardly. People don't start equal in ability, as they are not identical. They only option is to have equal *rights*, which is pretty much what we have except for the legal biases towards certain minorities (in particular, minority-owned businesses). THAT is what is meant by "created equal": in the eyes of the law.
Can you pitch a no-hitter against a MLB team?
Research theoretical physics and derive new consequences of particle-wave equivalency?
Climb Mt. Everest?
Lead a community through calamity?
Face it. People have different levels of ability. There is minimal probablity that an individual with Down's syndrome will ever deservedly become the leader of the free world, nor would paraplegics make good paratroopers.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Completely, utterly incorrect. Educators and libraries get explicit and very specific exemptions under copyright law, which is the only reason they are permitted to redistribute. Fair use also does not permit redistribution.
Profit is irrelevant. Check the law.
And artists made their choice as to whether to sell or not.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
How would a recording of each song on "Jagged Little Pill" or, say, "The 1812 Overture" constitute *knowledge* ?
Pleasure, perhaps.
But knowledge? It's not like every duplicate contains a new scientific revelation that some evil company is trying to suppress.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
It strikes me as quite funny that the record companies haven't figured out what Napster does for them.
Personally I have purchased more CDs in the past year than ever before. I think a large part of it is the exposure I get to new artists by being able chuck a couple of MP3s in my playlist and listen to it a few times. I find I enjoy the music and end up purchasing a CD.
As a matter of fact I was in HMV 3 days ago and looked at a 2 CD set from the UK, I liked a few of the artists but was unfamiliar with most of them. I have since aquired MP3s from some of the artists and enjoyed them. I plan to go back to HMV today after work and buy the CDs. Thats $50 I otherwise wouldn't have spent.
These people are going to have to get it through their head that no mater how much they pay radio stations (and they do) I WILL NOT buy a Britney Spears CD.
I don't mean to pick on her specifically but its' an a good example of the type stuff they play on the radio. Is it good marketing if they don't play anything on most Top 40 stations that a CD junky such as myself would ever purchase?
One other, somewhat off-topic point.
Just how am I supposed to take all this whining from the RIAA when its' their members that enable me to pirate music.
I can download a SONY Music artist's songs and play them on my SONY MP3 player.
Or I could borrow a SONY Music artist's cd from my buddy, chuck it in my SONY CD-ROM, and copy it onto a SONY CD blank using my SONY CD-R. Keep in mind I could be using my SONY Viao to do this.
What a joke. You don't want me to do it, but if I do, you'll do your best to make sure I use your hardware to do it?
Right.
Please try to ignore all of the rhetoric on both sides and look at the facts. The vast majority of MP3s out there were not created with the artist's or the record company's consent. Wether or not they "deserve" the money is besides the point. MP3s are no different than warez because in both cases the rightful owner of the copyright didn't give permission for the copy to be made.
That's a point I've been wondering about for some time now. As far as I understand it, it's legal for me to take a CD that I own, and create mp3's for my own personal use.
But what if, instead of ripping the CD myself, I just download it off Napster? As I have the right to posess an mp3 of a song that I own, does it matter how I obtain it? Isn't this the principle that my.mp3.com works on? I know the RIAA took exception to that, but is it strictly illegal?
By the way, you say that the mp3's were created without the consent of the record companies. Seeing as how someone had to own CD from which the mp3 was initially made, the first copy was probably legit. The issues of legality arise in the subsequent distrbution. (Right? Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) It's a subtle point, but an important one, I would think.
"Telling artists that their music should be free is like everyone saying that you know, sysadmins, network technicians, and programmers should do their work for free since they enjoy it so much..."
food for thought: I work as a programmer, a company pays me a then, believe it or not, they run my program as many times as they want, without paying me. they can even trade my programs on the napster.
I guess the artists should be paid, but why should they be paid everytime their music is used/transferred etc?
note: the above is not worded as an argument (it's full of holes) but more as inspirational thoughts that can lead to a little bit further then where you went in your post...
erik
...all excited, don't know why...
Harvard might be dumb sometimes, but you gotta begrudge 'em some respect for refusing to cave in so far.
agreed on both counts.
i just got done sending a supportive email to Frank Steen, the head of computer services, and Harry Lewis, the dean of the college.
please do not spam or mailbomb these people. they are busy administrators who should be commended for behaving nobly (especially Lewis, who has a history of making heavy-handed, arbitrary decisions that have not always pleased the student body).
-steve
p.s. i do not know for sure that these two are responsible for the decision, but it's my best guess that they are.
--- "We also were guided by the unlikelihood that anyone would face supernatural evil armed only with technology."
This is a poor argument, the icemakers were no longer required. The musicians still are. Admittedly, one part of your argument is good, that we can cut out the middlemen, perhaps we should concentrate our efforts on giving artists ways to produce and sell thier music without the recording industry, rather than pirating music. Which is illegal, and should be, in the society we live in, not everything can be free, the open model doesn't always work. (unless we move completely to a respect based society, which isn't going to happen any time soon).
It's the 21st Century Do you know what your government is doing
Does it matter? Attacking the arguer rather than the issue is a logical fallacy. By your argument I should not pay for shareware software because I don't want the author buying junkfood and soda.
It's the 21st Century Do you know what your government is doing
IANADJ, but I find this statement interesting. There's a company in Clearwater, Florida that makes an MP3-based DJ system, and their newspaper interview described it as the perfect way to be a portable DJ. Probably nothing but company hype, but then again...
How can the eyes be the Windows of the soul when they never blue screen?
Correction. The real tallent was killed in a tragic accident while touring europe in 86.
Metallica is dead-right in suing Napster. But they seem to be missing the boat entirely on an even easier way to distribute free music: this new plague upon the recording industry doesn't even require any expensive hardware or pricey ISP--it's transmitted by electromagnetic radiation! This technology, known only as "Radio", threatens to tear the whole recording industry apart. Look out RIAA...
I may accidentally drop into a rant here, so I apologize in advance if I do. I'm not meaning to get into a flame war :). I just find this ridiculous. I work for a university that recently decided to ban Napster. We haven't received any threats, it just happens to be against the policies of network use that have been around for quite awhile, and the policies are also fair. I have an interesting perspective on this - while I work as a programmer/IT jack of all trades for this university, I am also a student. I had been playing around with Napster for awhile, but I prefer other ways of getting multimedia on the net. I was also shocked at the blatant piracy running rampant on Napster. Yes, I know that the company is not liable in a way - it's kind of like IRC. I just don't see how people can justify their use of the program, when instead of going out and buying the latest Eifel 65 album they just grab it off of the net. "But it's my right!", they cry! Your right?!?! Where do you get the idea that it is your right to unlawfully steal someone elses work? I just don't understand the mentality of people that shout out against universities that block Napster. They yell how it is their right to download music, get free this, blah, blah, blah. To be bluntly honest, it isn't your right. I know CD sales are up, I know all the open source arguments, and I am also an open source advocate. I am still do not see how enforcing copyright laws is going to destroy the open source movement. What do you think people are doing when they GPL code? Sure, they are giving it away for free, but there are laws on how and what you can do with it. Just like music! I just wish someone could explain to me how someone can be so arrogant and ignorant as to think it is their right to download, I mean pirate, copyrighted music. If anyone could do that, I would be greatly appreciative.
Your on the net (obviously). CDNow, Amazon, etc, etc. The fact is, you don't need to pirate the music to hear it.
To compare the trading of copyrighted music to the open source movement does a terrible disservice to what open source is all about. It is certainly not about stealing copyrighted software, it's about replacing it with software that is both better and free. It remains to be seen whether the distribution of (legally) free music is a viable replacement for the record companies (who do overcharge), but piracy is not good. The same laws that protect Metallica's music are what are supposed to be protecting GPL'd code.
I'm a "struggling musician" myself. I agree with you about how shady the music business is. That's because it should never have gotten to the point of being a business in the first place. By deciding to become musicians, you and I have made foolish career choices, but excellent choices for living a fulfilled life.
Fulfilled, that is, as long as we don't expect to get paid for noodling on a guitar. Apparently, some of the posters think that Metallica deserves to get paid for noodling on guitars. I'm not sure why they think that way. Metallica, too, had made a dumb career choice -- they just got lucky. A look around any local music scene will show how badly the other Metallicas are faring in their "careers". Many of these other musicians are talented, but are making a realistic amount of money through playing -- that is, they're poor.
Some other people have mortgaged their homes on Metallica's unrealistic ability to convince people to buy CD's. These folks have constructed and actively maintained a huge apparatus designed to funnel America's lunch money and allowances into their pockets. Well, good luck -- trend-mongering is tricky, and the kids are fickle. If the apparatus cannot sustain its weight, and the trend-mongers were forced to switch careers, I would hope that they'd try something more productive, or at least, less dumb. Like teaching, or nursing, or farming, or research, for instance. You know, building things. Maybe that's the industry change that you'll see -- a bunch of ex-A&R reps getting paid to build houses, or a bunch of entertainment lawyers working in a soup kitchen, all for realistic wages. And maybe, playing at nightclubs for kicks on weekends.
I hope that you can do other things, once the business goes south, and the Internet routes musicians and listeners around the recording industry. But if you have no other skills that benefit society, and earn a wage for yourself, you can still play music! Write and produce the best music you can. Ignore the industry -- put it out on the 'Net. Improve your artistic skills while growing as an artist. And as far as your current career in the "music business" is concerned, please don't screw over an artist stupid enough to trust that the music industry will be a good career for him (even if everyone else in the imaginary business of music is "getting dirty"). Try to ignore the dollar signs. It'll make your songs, and your career choices, better.
OK, that's a good point.
I think their longterm goal is to find some way to continue to be compensated for their music. They'd probably prefer to do that by stopping (or cutting down) piracy than by making money from lawsuits, but they'd also probably prefer either to not making money.
The reality is, though, that they're not really working with their fans, because it's quite clear that their fans want to get the music for free (assuming it's Metallica fans who download Metallica songs, which I think is a safe assumption), and they don't want to give it away for free.
How do you resolve such a fundamental dispute?
no
"But the high prices are from the music/recording labels. They have high overhead in terms of promotions, distributions and so on. They have to spend all that money to promote the albumns so that they can sell more and pay everybody."
Bullshit. That's like saying that medicine is as expensive as it is because it costs a lot of money for HMOs to keep track of all of their doctors and patients. I've worked in the music industry, and I know how much these things cost. The real reason music costs so much is that between you and the artist, there are three layers--the label, the distributor, and the store--and the first two layers have obscenely high profits.
You can argue that they deserve to make these profits, and that we need this multi-layered system to "filter" the good music from the bad (otherwise every store would have to guess what would and wouldn't sell, deal with hundreds of labels, etc.), and so forth. But make these arguments, don't just assume that CDs cost this much because they have to.
no
That's true at the small end of the scale (when you're selling 2000 albums and making your living--or at least free drinks--off small club shows) and the large end (when you're selling out Dodger Stadium), but it's not true in between. For medium-sized bands (and their labels), a tour is a necessary expense to promote album sales.
Of course Metallica and Dre both fit in at the large end of the scale. But I see plenty of MP3s on Napster for bands in the middle range (hell, that's most of what I download), and those bands are definitely losing money.
no
Oh yeah, you intentionally download music you don't like, and wouldn't buy anyway, to hurt the bands that record it?
no
"illegally use illegal protocols such as MP3 and Napster"
There is nothing illegal about the MP3 format. There is nothing illegal about Napster's protocols--or servers, or software. The fact that people do illegal things with them does not make them illegal. Are Win32 exectuables and FTP servers "illegal protocols" too just because of warez?
"If they like Metallica and Dre so much, why not produce an 'open source' version."
You could record a version that sounds exactly the same as the original, and this would get around the rights to the recording, but not the rights to the song (they're completely separate). If you recorded a cover (with proper ASCAP/BMI permission) and gave it away for free, there would be nothing illegal about people distributing MP3s of your cover. But it's much harder than you apparently think to pull off an exact cover. Can you sing just like someone else? Go to a karaoke bar and try it.
"Hell, the music is so cliched and similar, it sounds computer generated most of the time anyway."
Well, a lot of music is made with computers nowadays (and just wait until Steinberg's next-generation software comes out...). But it still takes a lot of time, and skill, to record music this way. Even if you had Dre's exact studio setup, the same loop sources, the sheet music, and the lyric sheet, it would still be difficult to duplicate one of his songs. And of course you still have to be able to sound just like him when you rap.
Why not just say, "Hell, all rock music is based on the same scales and played on the same instruments, so why not just write a new rock song instead?"
no
"It's like a bar that lets people sell drugs in their establishment. By turning their head and acting like nothing's going on, they become liable for the actions of their patrons."
Actually, they don't. If people are selling drugs in my establishment, I have no more responsibility to stop them than any other witness.
On the other hand, I probably will try to stop them anyway, because otherwise, sooner or later, the cops are going to start coming in and arresting people at my bar, which will be bad for business. Especially if I'm doing anything illegal or questionable myself (like not checking ID's well enough). Having promoted clubs (ranging from deep underground to completely legit), and having friends that own venues, I know the line you have to walk--but it's not because there's a law saying I must patrol for illegal activities; it's just because it makes good business sense for me to do so.
Napster is in exactly the same position (as you yourself say). They don't have any legal obligation to monitor everyone using their network, or to make it easier for others to do so--just like I don't have to snoop around for drug deals in my bar, or make all my walls out of glass so the cops can see into the bathroom stalls from the street.
But if their main business actually is legal trading of MP3's (which I doubt it is), then it would be smart for them to do so, to avoid all the negative attention and lawsuits that will impede that business. (This is why mp3.com, whose business _is_ legal trading of MP3's, is so careful to make sure that anyone who uploads something has the rights to do so.)
no
I'm not that interesting in protecting Metallica, but I have seen bands that I like break up because they coldn't afford to keep going. I remember Birmingham 6's last concert, halfway through their first American tour, and I'd much rather live in a world where I'd get to see them again, or at least hear a new album.
Ideally, I'd like all good artists (read: artists that I like) to be completely supported (except the ones that actually create better art because of the struggle). But that's obviously not a realistic solution in our society. Paying the artists commercially for sales of their art isn't a great solution, but I don't want to throw that system away until we have a better one.
And not all bands get worse as they get more popular. Pet Shop Boys, Gary Numan, Information Society, Front 242, Wolfsheim, and plenty of others released some of their best music at and even after their commercial peak. (Yes, those are all electronic bands--I don't think there's any loss of generality there, but maybe there is [more money = better gear, at least]; I'm just talking about what I know.)
Sure, many bands never do anything interesting again after they start making money, but that's no reason to say that no bands should ever get any money.
As for your final point, it may be true that the current system is going to fall apart, but that's a separate issue from whether it _should_ fall apart.
no
mp3.com has been doing this for a long time now. There are some major bands that have decided to sell music this way (either instead of, or in addition to, traditional CD sales). Even better, a lot of bands that couldn't get a record contract (or, worse, could get a contract like some of the ones I've signed in the past--where you give up control over your music to a company that can't get you into most stores, can't support you, and half the time doesn't even send you the checks unless you harass them) are using mp3.com to sell their music. But even if you got with mp3.com, or a similar distribution method, the same problem exists. In fact, it's even easier for you to buy my MP3 and then upload it to people via Napster than to buy my CD, rip it, and upload it to people via Napster.... I've already mentioned elsewhere in this thread that I think shareware music would be an even cooler idea: You download the songs you want to hear, and if you want to keep them, you send me money. I've convinced a few bands to do this (the price model is usually $1/song, or $5 for a whole album), and I plan to do it in the future. But saying that all bands should be forced to release their music as shareware is like saying that all commercial software should be forced to be sold as shareware.
no
Not unintentional at all--that was my point.
Actually, it's a little more complicated. There are three separate things that are involved: songwriting, recording, and sometimes producing (listen to later Beatles music, Nine Inch Nails' first album, or most early-90s rap to get an idea of how important the producer can be).
The current system provides separate protections for songwriters and recording artists (producers usually get a flat fee or negotiate a special deal).
Anyway, I had two points. First, recording perfect covers is difficult, and this is why the band that does the recording deserves some money (this is also why a band can make money covering someone else's song--especially if they interpret it in a completely different way). Second, even if you could record perfect covers by pushing a button, the songwriter would still deserve their money (although you could make some arguments in the case of algorithmic compositions like Xenakis's works, or cut-and-paste compositions like Puff Daddy's).
In the case of Metallica (I'm assuming), they're both the songwriters and the performers. So if someone were to come up with a way to do an indistinguishable Metallica cover, you could stop paying them for their recording, but you'd still have to pay them as songwriters.
In other words, you don't have the right to do whatever you want with their recording, or with the song itself.
(There are limits to this, of course. For example, I can write a parody without paying them as songwriters; I can sample a fragment of their recording without paying them as recording artists; etc. Generally, the idea is that I'm creating a new work, not just stealing theirs.)
no
Personally, I often download music and buy it later. Sometimes it's because I can't find the album, or I already ordered it and can't wait for it to arrive from Europe. More often, it's because I want to hear the album before I decide to buy it (and they don't have a copy at the Virgin listening stations).
For example, I recently downloaded Apoptygma Berzerk's new album in its entirety. I'd heard only one song from it, and didn't want to either spend $30 at a local store, or spend $20 and wait a week to get it. After hearing it, I decided to send off the $20, and soon I'll have the album legally.
I also often download things that are just impossible to find because they've never been legally released. For example, someone recorded S.P.O.C.K. covering "We're Not Gonna Take It" off a live radio broadcast in Sweden. I can't buy that, so how else am I going to get it?
Of course I realize that I'm not in the majority. (I also admit that I'm not perfect, and there are a lot of MP3s on my drive that I do listen to even though I haven't bought the CD, but let's ignore that for the moment.) Ideally, I'd like what I do to be legal, but piracy that makes it impossible for composers and musicians to make a living to be illegal. (While I'm wishing, I'd also like to be able to get import albums for a reasonable price.) But I have no idea how such a system would work.
P.S., while I'm advocating the whole shareware concept of music purchasing, if anyone finds an Ice IX song on Napster and likes it, instead of finding the comp it came from and giving $12 to the label, feel free to just send me $1 in the mail....
no
...people like Jon Katz comparing the pirating of copyrighted music to open source/free software. Um, excuse me but there is one *big* difference: an author of a free software package gave written permission to end users to copy, modify, or whatever his software. I don't remember hearing that Metallica or Dr. Dre gave anyone that permission.
It's not free unless the owner says so. This attitude of "I want it but I don't want to pay money for it, I think it should be free anyways so I'll just steal it" has got to stop. Have some respect for the people who poored blood, sweat, and tears into their craft.
Except that MP3.com just lost that lawsuit to the RIAA, so that whole convenience is probably going to go away too. I'm reminded of an old saying...
"They came for the Polish and I'm not Polish, so I didn't say anything... then they came for the homosexuals and I'm not homosexual, so I didn't say anything... then they came for the Jews and I'm not Jewish, so I didn't say anything... and then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak up."
I wish there was a choice that said "Factually Wrong -1" when I mod.
I once read a story where a society was crafted where everyone was made equal, in every way. If you were a better athlete you were made to where heavy clothes to impare you. If you were very intelligent youd have a small device implanted to every so often disrupt you concentration. The point in short is that equal is not necessarily free.
I've downloaded mp3's off the net but I knew it was wrong and never tried to convince people that my stealing what others had made, no matter how greedy, evil, or otherwises demented had made. Should I be able to go into you room and say I'm going to live here now, we'll share the room cause mine isn't as nice and I can't afford what you have.
Napster isn't a tool to spread ideas its purpose is to make it easier for people to share music they haven't paid for. It's not about a revolution to free information it just the far more mundane search for free and easy entertainment.
But that's just one Frode's opinion.
z
I have no
ven if you had Dre's exact studio setup, the same loop sources, the sheet music, and the lyric sheet, it would still be difficult to duplicate one of his songs. And of course you still have to be able to sound just like him when you rap.
Unintentionally perhaps but by suggesting this and with your responses this makes a brilliant point against the copying and distrbution of a musicians work. They have the talent to produce the work, and the sound that makes it all come together. Why, then, should everybody else automatically have rights to do whatever they like with it ?
J
I am not a Frog. I am a Free Womble!
While not a big fan (in the slightest!), I find it hard to beleive that you can't locate any trance music!
Perhaps you should try your luck from a UK online store. Hard To Find Records (i forget url, do a search) delivers worldwide. Even Amazon.co.uk has quite a large selection of trance. It's far and away the most commercial form of dance music there is here, so forgive my incredulity that you can't find any!
While I have no sympathy for, say, Sash!, or for that matter any of the big commercial bloodsuckers riding this awful trend - if you are into underground trance, then remember that these guys don't have the protection of a big record company, and so you run the risk of killing off the only remaning sources of true innovation in music, leaving us all to the mercy of 'economies of scale' that only the majors and their insipid carbon copies can support!!
So please, I ask everyone to support innovative and independent music of any genre by BUYING the releases, preferably from your local mom+pop record store, where the biggest cuts get to the artists.
The Majors might deserve everything they get for fixing prices way above what they should be, but give the real artists a break!
I may be misunderstanding you, (I hope I'm misunderstanding you) but are you asserting that it's perfectly moral to steal, provided the victim has more money to start with than the thief? That seems like a rather mean-spirited philosophy.
I won't argue that stealing is wrong, period. I can think of some cases where theft is perfectly justified. I think your system, however, is morally flawed.
Actually I think you are wrong, it is copyright infringment to do this. However, it is completely unenforcable and has become socially acceptable, hence it is sort of like speeding 5-10 mph over the limit, wrong but not generally a big deal. The problem is that unlike speeding, if someone decides to pursue the issue copyright infringement the penalties are serious ($100,000 fine 10? years in prison, federal charges), but generally the only cases pursued are people infringing wholesale, and selling the copied product for profit. The chilling thing about these recent cases is that the companies are trying to pursue the small time infringers through threats (Metallica) and direct lawsuits (Dr.Dre), who have become a bigger problem to them because of programs like Napster.
-------- This space intentionally left blank --------
On Law, Napster, and Free Software
/. community, was offended that the government and music industry were trying to link together the free software movement with illegal acts such as music piracy. These free tools are completely legal, after all, and are only illegal when used for illegal purposes.
Over the last few months I've watched the Napster scandal unfold with mild amusement. I, like most of the
But lately I've had a change of heart. Having given the subject a lot of thought, I now feel that the Napster scandal is a bit ridiculous and has simply gone too far. While it's true that technically speaking programs like Napster are perfectly legal, the matter isn't black and white. I'm certain that about 99.9% of the activity Napster sees is illegal. Now suppose we were talking about guns. Guns are perfectly legal items unless used for illegal purposes. But if 99.9% of gun use in America was illegal, do you think the government would put up with this for one second? No, and they shouldn't. They should (and would) crack down on gun laws, and protect the interests of the people. Letting millions of people get killed is not something the government should ignore because "guns are legal, it's just murderers that are illegal." The same reasoning applies to Napster. The government is doing its duty by protecting the music industry and artists, and since Napster is a tool used by insane amounts of people to do insane amounts of illegal piracy, costing the industry untold amounts of money, I for one am glad the industry is putting its foot down.
Now I don't, on the other hand, think that this should be tied with the concept of free software. Free software in general is one of the best movements ever seen in the computer industry, and it would be a shame for it to be put at risk by this scandal. But this tie is only caused by our argument that "Napster is legal because it's free software and its code breaks no laws." But I think we should give the industry a bit of credit; for once, it is making a real effort (even if it's being held at gunpoint by the music industry) to protect its rights and the rights of artists, and uphold the law of the United States.
Again, I think the Napster scandal has gone too far. Seriously, people, it's not being used for *anything* legal. The government and the music industry are doing their job, and we should not stand in their way. Let's pick our battles, and let's not act foolishly and give ourselves a bad impression in the eyes of the world. Free software is good, but not when it costs someone billions of dollars each year. Let Napster die, and let's start fighting for free software so that we can defend *our* legal rights with honor.
kugano
I'm actually a pretty strong advocate for gun control. I'm not a libertarian. It just made for a good example in this case. Life and death has to be treated differently that material wealth.
I do understand that a band loses an opportunity to sell to a person who intended to buy a CD but instead grabbed an MP3. However, the person about whom we are speaking explicitly stated that he would 'NEVER' buy the CD, so the band does not lose anything.
I believe that the analogy is illogical. In the case of concern, the person categorically stated that he would 'NEVER' buy a particular compact disk. This means that it is reasonable to say that the band that produced said compact disk has no expectation of remuneration from this person.
In the second case, the store has something tangible for which it will barter. Bread is not a service, but rather an item. If someone steals two slices from a loaf thereof, the store has less with which to barter, and is then measurably and physically poorer -- wrong has been done. The store had the expectation that it would receive something of worth in exchange for its bread.
The two cases are thus not directly comparable. I believe that your analogy is specious, but would be interested in a clarification if I have misunderstood your logic.
Money=power
Those in power use their power to stay in power.
Even the recent Cuban fiasco is about money - the tourist dollar.
Anyone that honestly says they wouldn't copy a friend's CD to save a buck due to ethical reasons is a chooch.
I intend to put my Kill 'em all CD in the microwave when I get home today. This is the final alienation.
By the way, is there any sort of organized effort to tell metallica (and dre - no chronic for you, joneser!) what assholes they are? I'll start: Fuck you, metallica .
-=GANTZ=-
Gur svggrfg funyy fheivir lrg gur hasvg znl yvir. Jr zhfg ercrng.
Once I used to listen to Metallica, several of their CDs are mixed in with that several hundred I own. If I didn't find Napster, I may still be listening to Metallica today for lack of something better to listen to.
Another motive for stifling online trade of music completely? I'm sure that the big record companies want as little competition as possible, but with the Internet, they cannot control all of the music like they do with MTV or radio.
...and the poeple at whom it's aimed will never read it, is it still a flame? That one's up to you, moderators.
I fucking hate metallica. As soon as I read this story, I went to delete all my metallica mp3s in zealot fury. Then I realized that
a) this is what they want
b) metallica music sucks, so I didn't have
any of their mp3s to begin with
Instead, through sheer desperation, I went and downloaded a lot of metallica mp3s and tried listening to them
Yup, they still suck.
Sadly, metallica isn't losing any money on me having their mp3s since I'd never buy any of their albums anyway. I think I'll go delete the mp3s now.
Clever-sounding slogans aren't usually very clever, so I don't have one.
PUBLIC SPLIT ON WHETHER BUSH IS A DIVIDER -CNN scrolling banner, 10/15/2004
Anyone know what the feasibility of having a national referendum on the DMCA and the No Electronic Theft Acts would be?
And then having a campaign to vote any Senator or Congressman/woman out of office who voted for either of these instruments of evil corporate greed?
They're doing it for the nookie...
Nodatadj said: Plus, the last bit in caps just makes me sick. DO NOT FUCKING TELL ME WHAT I CAN OR CANNOT DO WITH MY GUN BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHT TO LIVE.
Um, I dunno about the UK, but the Right to Live (tm),is a genuine right in the United States Constitution. IIRC, "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness".
So your analogy doesn't work. I don't give two shits about what you do with your gun as long as you don't interfere with my basic rights and don't break the law.
G27 Radio said: DO NOT FUCKING TELL ME WHAT SOFTWARE I CAN OR CAN NOT USE TO DISTRIBUTE MUSIC BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHT TO MAKE A PROFIT.
That's absolutely correct. If you want to stop mp3s, stop people from making them and downloading them. Don't sue Napster, it's just a piece of software that is used for "good" and "evil" purposes. If you're going to sue Napster, sue every FTP client, AIM, ICQ, Scour and Hotline.
Please no more gun analogies. They really don't apply.
Rangers Lead the Way!
My primary use for napster is to get bootlegs (recordings of live concerts) and albums that the label is holding back to build hype (for example, the new "A Perfect Cirle").
Does anyone know the copyright law regarding any of these examples??
-rt-
-rt-
** Evil Canadians are taking over the world. Learn about the conspiracy
For example, copyrights exist in large part because our society decided it's good for everybody that artists are compensated for their creations. Patents were created so that inventors wouldn't hoard their secrets jealously and lead to the possibility of trade secrets dying with their innovators. These have been useful schemes, but they are far from natural, intrinsic, or perfect. Many people have argued, for example, against the current extension of patents to algorithms, or the fact that corporations can now hold copyrights nearly indefinitely.
And when these schemes are no longer useful or practical, we as a society can decide to amend or discard them. In this case, digital technology is making it trivially easy to copy music, and many users do it because they don't see it as theft, since it's creating another copy of something, not depriving someone else of their own copy.
We don't need artists and record labels suing Napster. We need to figure out how to treat intellectual property in a way that is consistent with our technological facilities and our own sense of ethics. On one hand, it would be a shame if our society devoted a tremendous amount of legal resources to prosecuting an ever-growing wave of people who insist on trading this stuff freely. On the other hand, we need to make sure artists have some chance of making a living.
Francis Hwang
Do domain names matter?
What is causing all these problems is simply there's a new medium. Humans have a tendency to fear anything they don't fully understand. Now please don't take this the wrong way when I make this comparison... but what did the 'establishment' of the time do when the hippies started popping up? As far as I know there are some rather some unpleasant events during that period. We're not all that different. We're not the majority... but we're enough to have those in power fear us.
We're not rolling over though... and that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
-- taking over the world, we are.
I'm emailing my local rock station right now. Apparently Metallica just released another song. I'm writing WJRR to let them know that every time they play a Metallica song, any era, I'm switching to a different station for at least one hour.
Even if you normally switch stations when you hear Metallica, write your radio stations and let them know this. Also email/write the sponsors of the radio stations. This is where Metallica fights for their marketshare, and if even a vocal few let the radio stations know that metallica=lost revenue they'll definately not get as much airplay as before.
Let them sue for all they want. We should make it worth their while.
Live performances will always be a great way for artists to earn income - there is simply no replacement for that. Towards that end, a band needs to develop a reputation and following large enough to support them. The free exchange of their work over the Internet is a nice way to get the music out, but they also need a marketing engine behind them to help get heard above all the noise.
The artist could also still make money from the traditional sale of CD's, or whatever medium is in use at the time, but only if that package holds some real value to the consumer. I'm thinking in terms of nifty 70's album cover art that really made someone proud to have it on their shelf.
The relationship between record label and artist has always been a two-way street: the label promotes the artist, and in return gets a cut of the revenue from record sales and/or concerts. In the future, the relationship will still be important, but the first part of that revenue stream will be reduced. That will be a pretty staggering transformation, and it will suck a whole lotta money out of a few fat-cats that refuse to see the change ahead.
The winners will be those first labels who are able to successfully promote a band WITHOUT having a traditional CD release as the core element of the campaign. This Limp Bizkit endeavor is a first step towards that direction, but it's a promotional effort to drive the release of their next album. What I'm talking about is a band that's
a) promoted over the web,
b) with their music available for free, that
c) gets radio airplay as a result, then
d) is able to stage a successful concert tour as a result.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Don't patronize them then.
My defense of Napster is this: I use Napster, like radio, to PREVIEW SONGS BEFORE I BUY THEM. Since I listen to music that most radio stations won't touch (Slipknot, Korn, etc.), the only place I can find out whether a band is worth $15 for the CD is by PREVIEWING SONGS. I am so tired of being ripped off by the fucking music industry.
I wish regular people could buy some justice.
-- Sent from a computer.
The common phrase in the business world is "opportunity cost". If you download the MP3 instead of buying the album, the artist loses out. That's always been the argument against music/software "piracy".
Thing is: I don't believe this argument necessarily applies. Having MP3s to play while you're at your computer is all very well, but it's so bloody hard to get decent quality tracks from the web; they're either scrambled, have too much treble/bass, , are too loud/quiet or the server dies before you're finished.
I'm a perfectionist - I don't just want lots of music, but I want it to stand the test of being listenable when I record it onto my MD walkman (stop thief!) so ultimately, I'm most likely to buy the CD and THEN rip it.
The conclusion of your syllogism, I said lightly, is fallacious, being based on licensed premises
And anyway, their music is crap for retarded acneic teenagers.
You have shown quite conclusively that you are one of the retarded acneic teenagers that you seem to despise so much. I would recommend that you back up for a second, reread your post, take a deep breath, and chant "It's only Slashdot, It's only Slashdot". Most people who have passed their retarded acneic teenage years can find more constructive ways to counter an argument besides poorly thought out sarcasm and name calling.
Hope this helps,
-marc
Flame all you want, I'll post more
If this was a new topic it should have been posted as such, but obviously you were referring to what the parent had said about Metallica possibly being in the right.
"With that kind of stretching of words, you could as well call my comments bananas or power convertors."
Interesting use of hyperbole here, claiming that somehow I have taken your comments out of context, (interesting use of "could" here as opposed to the more correct "may" or "might" but hey, I'm no pedant) when in reality you are refusing to acknowledge that fact that you posted a weak, mindless comment and, when called on it, resorted to childish name calling.
love,
-Marc
p.s. look up acneic at http://www.m-w.com!!!
Flame all you want, I'll post more.
Main Entry: argument
Pronunciation: 'är-gy&-m&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin argumentum, from arguere Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : an outward sign : INDICATION
2 a : a reason given in proof or rebuttal b : discourse intended to persuade
The following section is being provided to remind you of what you posted. It is not verbatim.
The argument
Metallica has a right to complain.
Your rebuttal
No because they spend their money on on drugs and hookers.
New Argument
You have unjustly accused them.
Your rebuttal
"Sarcastic Comment""Name Calling"
Now with regards to
speaking one's mind strongly and honestly
I wonder if all of your opinions consist of drawing conclusions without facts, and name calling. Is this what you mean by speaking honestly?
Love,
-Marc
Flame all you want, I'll post more.
Hell Ya!
Is that the new standard for intellectual property laws? The amount of money the person responsible for creating the IP wishes to have?
-- Support Ometz le-Serev.
1. You do not want to buy music that you haven't heard. If you try asking the people who work at the record store they will probably let you listen to the record once (or maybe even twice) before buying the record. So that's not a big problem.
;-)
Really? What record store do you shop at? We have three chain stores that sell CDs where I live. Two of them only have a "Store only" CD player. You think that they'll let me play an entire CD of my "Esoteric" music to the entire store? NOT! The other store actually has a "Listening Post", but it's just preprogrammed, so you can only listen to the CDs that they want you to listen to.
In other words, you live in a different universe than mine!
LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!
But I assume you're talking about CD's, so I'd just like to know which music store you go to.
It doesn't really depend much on which store I go to, here in Stockholm most of there stores will let me listen to a record before I buy it. (I usually just listen to some of the tracks at - dare I say it? - amazon.com before I buy a record though.)
As with the "the smallest artists will lose most" thing, I believe that artists like Metallica will continue to make a lot of money from other stuff than the actual records, like concerts and t-shirts, etc. Smaller artists don't have same ability to do that.
Also, not all who listen to trance are DJ's and therefore don't need the vinyl. And since Napster seems to be by far the easiest way to get for instance trance music, those small artists will continue to lose opportunities to sell records since people just download the music instead of searching for it off the net.
/n1x0n
I'm not going to comment on the availability of trance. It's probably like you say, that there isn't much trance to be bought in the record stores, but then again, most trance artists don't sue people for spreading their music so if Napster was only about spreading trance music there wouldn't be much controversy surrounding it.
As for the rest of your post, what you are saying is that:
1. You do not want to buy music that you haven't heard. If you try asking the people who work at the record store they will probably let you listen to the record once (or maybe even twice) before buying the record. So that's not a big problem.
2. You can't afford to buy records. Well, I feel sorry for you, but it's still not okay to steal something just because you can't afford it. (If I'm wrong here you are welcome to explain to me when it's okay, I have some stuff I can't afford myself.)
3. Other people buy the records, so the artists will make money anyway. Okay, so Metallica probably will continue to make money despite Napster, but as more people start stealing music, the sales will go down and it is the artists that don't sell too many records (trance?..) that will lose the most money.
So, even if Napster is a great way to get the MP3's you want, you should be aware that you are doing something wrong everytime you download a copyrighted song. I think it's right to try to limit the effectiveness of tools like Napster by banning them at campuses. The bandwidth that the pirates suck up can be put to better use (by using it for Allegiance for instance...).
/n1x0n
Not to be a nitpicker....but you have the sentance
> Then your logic is probably flawed
followed by:
> QED
If its "probably" then the QED is unjustified, all
you have done is pointed at irrational assertions,
which are a flag that tends to indicate flawed
logic, not something that proves flaweed logic.
Without having actually demonstrated the logic
flawed, noting is QED.
Also...that "personal attack" apears to have been
intended as a joke, a little poking of fun,
not something meant to be taken as a serious
attack, would recomend having your humor parseing
subroutines checked out.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> The effects of alccohol and tobacco are already
> bad enough. Why would you want to embed some
> other dangerous drug in to the culture?
Well...I will bite....
These drugs are already part of our culture.
Cocaine is part of our culture. Cannabis is part
of our culture (just as much so as alcohol, as
far as I can tell...just more quite). LSD, heroin
(I hate to list those two together) are part of
our culture.
Shootings, drugs cut with baking soda (both things
you bring up) are NOT the result of drugs. They
are the result of prohibition. They are the result
of the fact that the drug trade is illegal, and
thus run by a black market (black markets being
completely without regulation...including those
regulations that say its bad buisness to shoot
people)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> The common phrase in the business world is
> "opportunity cost". If you download the MP3
> instead of buying the album, the artist loses
> out. That's always been the argument against
> music/software "piracy".
Well "common sense" has 2 major problems:
1) Noon seems to agree on what is common sense
and what isn't.
2) Its often wrong, or based on things that are
unprovable (like moral arguments, and assume that
everyone used the same metrics for their morality)
Also...again as many have said...what about the
case when a person downloads an MP3, but would
not have bpurchased the CD even if they couldn't
get the mp3? Another failing of this "oppertunity
cost".
I agree with your other argument tho. The major
reason I stopped looking for songs I like in mp3
is the quality. Whenever I buy a CD, I rip it
to mp3 at 192 kBps. (well most things...not
everything needs it)...normally the quality of the
free mp3s blows....at least thats how it was a few
years ago.
So I go and buy CDs, then rip them and add them
to my private mp3 collection. Works much nicer.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> This is funny when someone violates the GPL,
> nobody is hurt or "loses" anything, yet the
> violator is boycotted, called a thief, e-mail
> bombed......
>
> Stop with the double standard here,
Excuse me? Did I email bomb anyone? I have never
done that in my life. Have I been applying a
double standard here? Not me.
You are acusing me of a double standard because
of the actions and words of other people.
As far as boycotting, thats another story...I reserve the
right to nbot buy the product of ANY company at
ANY time, and to advocate the non-use of their
products. No double standard needed. If I don't
agree with something they do (be it operating
sweat shops, or making proprietary software) then
I may decide to not purchase their product. This
is my right.
As for napster....napster is a service, like the
phone company. They simply provide a means for
sharing files, no differnet than the WWW or
even ICQ...its just a little easier.
What people do, or do not do, with napster is
their own buisness. As for bloacking any "clones"
that would be nearly impossible....unless you
know how to write a piece of code that checks a
network packet, sees its content, and is able to
determine with 100% accuracy if the originator
of the packet has the legal "right" to distribute
the software.
> Napster could do the right thing,
You mean enforce economic censorship? Thats not
their buisness...they simply provide people with
the means for easy file sharing. It is not their
job to police everything, any more than it is the
job of the phone company to monitor your phone
conversations, toi make sure you aren't breaking
"the law".
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
the courts *can't* find napster at fault. Precedent is set by the fact you can't sue the phone company for fraud committed by phone. It's the driver, not the road that's to blame
Once again, people have missed the point. With the phone company, there are no reasonable steps that can be taken to revent fraud. Napster is a different story.
Napster exists for the sole purpose of exchanging music, and Napster itself recognizes that some of this music may infringe on another's copyright. It is then incumbent upon Napster to ensure that the content available through its service is legal.
Certainly the phone company is not responsible for fraud, but it must take reasonable steps to prevent fraud. Napster makes it clear on the Napster website that some music may be infringing on copyrights and that those users should be reported. Given this, Napster should take action and actively police its users. If I own a building where drug dealing is on and I know about it, if I do nothing, I am certainly liable, as is Napster for illegal MP3's.
It's good to hear that there are still musicians out there that can still be called musicians and do whatever it takes for their passion. However, your argument seems to basicly state that Napster and the like rip off the artist. With this, I agree with. But stop to consider who really is being ripped off here.
It has been voiced time and time again, Napster is used to trade illegal music more often than not. I accept this, as I do it all the time. Really, I can't hop down to my local music store (which is apparently run by Much-Music as they have a horrid selection of genres) and find a track of Jimi Hendrix playing Seargent Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band. It just doesn't happen. Who have I ripped off by downloading this song? Who did not get their money? I know damnwell that it wasn't Jimi that didn't get his money. It was the record company.
The arguement has been for a long time, how much music traded online is non-commercial stuff? I know it's not that much. The musicians/artists that do get ripped off are the ones that are already famous (for the most part)!
Seriously, being that you are a struggling musician, I support you and your art 100%, however, don't make the mistake of saying that piracy will always rip off the small artist. 99 times out of 100, it's a big-name super-band song being downloaded, it's not like they are suffering for their art... unless their drug addictions and money fights are considered suffering.
Okay I know this sounds like a bad comparison BUT if somebody would copy Mona Lisa and sell the copies he would have FBI after him but if somebody copies Metallica's entire collection and distributes it through napster he is a hero? I can understand why bands want to distribute their music when they are not AS well known as Metallica to get their 'image' out. But imagine this you work two years coding something (to but food on the table) and then some college kid distributes your code "WITHOUT your knowledge" through the internet, would you get pissed???
Metallica may not have had this intention at first, but they certainly do now. What better way to advertise than make news worldwide whilst trying to 'make the world a better place'?
BUY A BILLBOARD, METALLICA!
Of the potentially thousands of MP3s I have downloaded, only approximately half have infringed copyright, and only maybe two or three were Metallica songs (which I already owned).
With the advent of MP3's, Metallica and other groups were certainly a loss, but certainly not enough to be substantial. I don't understand how they can worry about losing a few sales when they're behind their 21" Dell® Trinitron® monitors attached to machines with 1GHz processors while I'm still sitting here putting along with my Pentium II Xeon 400. My apologies, but that's the best of my ability of analogy-making :).
I would hope that this will settle without much of an impact on either the music media or electronic music industry. Metallica saw an opportunity to market and took it, and although I don't blame them, it has now gone too far and needs to come to a screeching RISC-processor halt (I did it again).==========
Intelligence should not be rewarded; ignorance should be punished
==========
hmmmm....that sounds rather familiar
it's the taking apart that counts
++++ Face facts, people: copying is not stealing. If you steal something from me you deprive me of its use - I no longer have it. If you copy a song I write and record, I still "have" the song as much as I ever did. ++++ Simplsitic, juvenlie, and wrong. When you steal a candy bar do you deprive anyone of a candy bar? No, there is effectively an infinite supply of candy bars. All you have deprived someoen of is their right to by compensated for the work ptu into makign thatc andy bar. Our economy is not about property as muchas it is about labor. The concept of intellectual property was designed to promote the creation of abstract things like the books you read, the movies you watch, and yes the music you lsiten to. What do you think "Copyright" means? Literally it means "the right to copy." Withotu contro lof that right an author can have no value from his ro her work, and therefor cannto put value such as his or her time and energy INTO that work. When you tell your boss you don't want a paycheck, coem abck and tell us you think others labors should be free. At that point, you might be a revoltionary. The defference between socialism and theft is whether you give up what YOU posess before asking others to do the same. The origanal poster is right... grow up, read up, and learn something.
(Clean copy)
++++
Face facts, people: copying is not stealing. If you steal something from me you deprive me of its use - I no longer have it. If you copy a song I write and record, I still "have" the song as much as I ever did.
++++
Simplsitic, juvenlie, and wrong.
When you steal a candy bar do you deprive anyone of a candy bar? No, in today's mechanized society there is effectively an infinite supply of candy bars. All you have deprived someone of is their right to be compensated for the work put into making that candy bar.
Our economy as much about labor as it is about labor. The concept of intellectual property was designed to promote the creation of abstract things like the books you read, the movies you watch, and yes the music you listen to.
What do you think "Copyright" means? Literally it means "the right to copy." Withotu contro lof that right an author can have no value from his or her work, and therefor cannto put value such as his or her time and energy INTO that work.
>> flame warning
When you tell your boss you don't want a paycheck, come bsck and tell us you think others labors should be free. At that point, you might be a revolutionary. Until then the original poster is right and you and all others who make this nosnense argument are just spoliled, ill socialized children trying to justify stealing a candy bar.
flame off
The difference between socialism and theft is whether you give up what YOU posess before asking others to do the same.
+++ Please name one jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, in which copyright violation is covered under theft laws +++ Please name one jurisdiction thats has "theft" laws by your defintion. There are none. Its called "larceny" under the law. Theft is a common term and applies to copyright infringement as well as grand larcenary. Can we now stop playing STUPID semantic games? If you copy copyrighted materails to which you do not own the copyrights, you are a crook. What kind of crook is totally a red herring.
+++
Please name one jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, in which copyright violation is covered under theft laws
+++
Please name one jurisdiction that has "theft" laws by your defintion. There are none. Its called "larceny" under the law.
Theft is a common term and applies to copyright infringement as well as grand larceny. Ever heard of "theft of service"? That doesn't invovlve a physical piece of property, either.
Can we now stop playing STUPID semantic games? If you copy copyrighted materials to which you do not own the copyrights, you are a crook illegaliy depriving the author of their rights to their creation.
What kind of crook you call it is totally a red herring and smacks of fundamentalist word-games.
But I disagree 100% with thsi statement:
"Whatever you think of the Napster flap, this is bad news for the idea of a barrier-free Internet. "
I think in fact this is GOOD for a barrier free inetrnet. A true medium for the open exchange of ideas can only exist in an atmosphere of respect for intellectual property. This includes properly compensating a cretoir for their work in the amnner they wish to be comepnsated.
Copyright law isn't some underhanded scheme to dprive you of your rights. It was created to foster the creation of intellectual property and to allow for professional creators thereof.
Free music means no commercial music. Think carefully about what a world will be like when Metallcia, or Billy joel, or Wierd Al, or whomever you enjoy has to go do something else to make a living...
What I personally find disengenous is that the champions of free intelelctual property by and large are totally consumers, not creators. Maybe THEY should stop getting apid for whatever it is THEY do to pay the bills...
Okay, flame away. I know this isn't the invouge Slashdot opinion and its a reality a lot of people don't want to hear.
I hear a variety of views expressed here that are worth sorting out. (1) Hey its MY copy so I'm not depriving anyoen of anything. Utter nonsense. This shows a total disregard for the artists right to be comepnsate for his or her efforts-- a right gauranteed under Copyright law. Consider this, copyright law was created to encourage the creation of artistic rowks by p[rofessionala rtists. Withotu copyright law there would BE no Metallic, Star Wars or any other work of artistic expression amde by full time artists. They'd all have to get "real jobs" producing physical and thus un-copyable products. Is that the world you really want to live in? (2) MP3s encourage record sales. This may in fact be true, but it ahs the same flaw as the next argument, so I'll adres them together. (3) There shodul be a "better way" for artists to make money. Both of these arguments deny the artist the right to decide how they wish to be comepnsated for their work. If you really HAVE a better way then I'm sure at least some will be happy to listen but its THEIR decision. I may think theres a better way for YOu to earn your money. I might think you'ld be better off digging ditches, but I DONT have the right to MAKE you do so. And in teh end this IS what this is about, an artists right to control their work and decide how theyw ant to be comepnsated and if they want to be compensated. Oh I left one argumetn for last c'ause its just basicly dumb... (4) The arist released their work to the public. No they didn't. Thats called "OPublic Domain". Abn artist CAN decided to release their work to the public domain but nooen does-- not even Stahlman. If he did he couldn't enforce a license argeement, ergo no GPL. Even Stahlman, at the end, DEPENDS on Copyright laws to allow him to see that his work is used as he wishes it used. And I don't see anyone at Slashdot attacking the GPL....
I hear a variety of views expressed here that are worth sorting out.
(1) Hey its MY copy so I'm not depriving anyone of anything.
Utter nonsense. This shows a total disregard for the artists right to be compensated for his or her efforts-- a right gauranteed under Copyright law. Consider this, copyright law was created to encourage the creation of artistic works by professional artists. Without copyright law there would BE no Metallic, Star Wars or any other work of artistic expression made by full time artists. They'd all have to get "real jobs" producing physical and thus un-copyable products.
Is that the world you really want to live in?
(2) MP3s encourage record sales.
This may in fact be true, but it has the same flaw as the next argument, so I'll adress them together.
(3) There should be a "better way" for artists to make money.
Both of these arguments deny the artist the right to decide how they wish to be compensated for their work. If you really HAVE a better way then I'm sure at least some will be happy to listen but its THEIR decision.
I may think theres a better way for YOU to earn your money. I might think you'ld be better off digging ditches, but I DONT have the right to MAKE you do so.
And in the end this IS what this is about, an artists right to control their work and decide how they want to be compensated and if they want to be compensated.
Oh I left one argument for last 'cause its just basicly dumb...
(4) The artist released their work to the public.
No they didn't. Thats called "Public Domain". An artist CAN decided to release their work to the public domain but noone does-- not even Stahlman. If he did he couldn't enforce a license argeement, ergo no GPL.
Even Stahlman, at the end, DEPENDS on Copyright laws to allow him to see that his work is used as he wishes it used. And I don't see anyone at Slashdot attacking the GPL....
I won't even justify the wordgames over "theft" by calling it an argument. At best its sophistry.
It seems to me that the success of Metallica's and Dr. Dre's lawsuits may be good things because of the short life of electronic physical media. When the copyrights run out, the music will be gone.
In other words, the history of the recording/entertainment industry indicates that only some of today's works will survive, and much of it will likely survive only in "pirated" collections, lovingly backed up as the media changes.
Because of the lack of transcription or notation in popular music, when the studios neglect to back up their copies, the music will be dead. Historians will be bemused at piercing, baggy pants, black leather, and any other aspects of early 21st century culture dependant on music.
Ah well, I never loved Rap or Heavy Metal anyway.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
"Dr. Bates went on to say, "This free flow of information and ideas must stop! Free apps like Napster and free OSs like Linux must be purged from all Internet-connected computers! They are to blame for DDoS attacks AND massive piracy of music that should...no...MUST be paid for!" By the way, Slashdotters...when did the definition of piracy equal "Giving copyrighted material away free of charge". When I make a mix tape of songs for my girlfriend, am I committing copyright infringement? Should I be charging her per song on the tape, as well as cost and materials of making the tape? And I'm sure I should be sending each artist a percentage of the profit.... Give me a fscking break. All Napster does is make easier something that's been going on forever..."Hey, listen to this song! Will you dub this for me?" Digital or otherwise, it's not illegal unless you are profiting from copyrighted material. Am I wrong?
El riesgo vive siempre!
Metallica doesn't want all the junior high kids to D/L a song from reload or S&M and realize how much they suck before they buy them and then decide not to. I have religiously followed Metallica's music for a long time(Kill em All - Garage Inc). I probably shouldn't have bought Load or Reload because they sucked but i wanted the braggins rights of "I have all of Metallica's albums". S&M sucked, hard. I will never buy that album or any more albums of theirs unless they drop this stupid Napster lawsuit and start to sound like they used to. That means I probably will not be buying any more Metallica albums. lol When they sit down and listen to RTL or MOP, then Reload they have to feel like a bunch of retards. S&M was a pathetic attempt to rehash and reuse old(good) material. From what I've seen in other bands this is about the stage in development when they realize that they suck now and break up. I hope to god Metallica will break up soon and save what little dignity they have left(if it hasn't gone negative yet).
Digital Socialism would work perfectly since there is really no limitation on how many times you can copy files. Hence, regardless of the size of the demand there would always be enough for everyone. (This is after they are able to afford a computer and internet services of course)
With this ability, why not just share everything? The limitations placed on the physical world simply cant be held in the digital world. Infinite copying makes socialism entirely feasable.
no
Well, here goes for my rant of the day:
I'm quite fed up with all these people beating around the bush and trying to defend Napster. It Does profit from an illegal act, and there's just no way you can defend that. Just because Napster doesn't touch the mp3s does not mean that it doesn't help in the trading of them. If it wasn't for Napster people would not be able to trade these mp3s like they do.
Now, as for the people with the arguement that Napster is freeing the music industry, is just ludicrous. Napster is doing nothing of the sort. They are not giving people more rights, they are stealing rights from people who do not want their songs freely distributed. If Napster was an organisation that made music and released it free of charge on their own accord, that would be acceptable means to an end.
Do you really all defend Napster just because it gives you stuff for free? Have you all no brains to consider the implications of your actions? Can no-one look at the bigger picture and realise that what they say is true "piracy IS theft"? If you don't like then fine, you can always release things with no copyright restrictions of your own accord. But copyright breach like this is a flawed means to an end.
This isn't a case of freedom of speech. Artists are not being censored by the record companies and Napster helping them break free. This is not a case where the fact that this music costs money is opressing the poor, I mean look at the stuff traded on Napster! Britney Spears and other suchlikes. You don't Need them, and to claim that getting songs like that for free is a universal right is quite dumb.
What really annoys me is that people lump Napster along side things like DeCSS, which Are fighting against corrupt things like MS and Apple's sole ability to play DVD's on a home computer. This is Not a similar issue! When will you all wake up and realise that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Freedom without responsibility is akin to oppression.
Actually, they don't. If people are selling drugs in my establishment, I have no more responsibility to stop them than any other witness.
Under UK law, you do have a responsibility to stop them. Otherwise, you'll end up spending a couple of years in free accomodation with a lock on the outside of the door - as happened to "the Cambridge Two" a few months ago...
This is all wrong. Music artists that are crying because they are losing money due to the "mp3 scene" aren't really artists. How many sculpture artists do you know of that sculpt just for the money??
"Oh no! I made $4 mil of of this album, and this guy is steal ~$15 from me." Nevermind the fact that it's 15.00x 2100 (currently online) people on Napster. My God! is $4 million not enough, you greedy a$$3$!??!?
Look at Limp Bizkit. They are playing a free concert tour ( that is being sponsored by Napster, btw =] ). They are in the music world to play their music. They want people to LISTEN to their music, not debate on whom to spend their hard earned $$ on.
I'm curious as to what Dr. Dre, et. al., thinks about LB doing this free tour sponsored by the company they are suing. That WAS Dr. Dre in Limp's "Break Stuff" video, right? ( Click Here for "Break Stuff" video )
--Chemguru
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
I seem to remember metallica had quite the counterculture mentality back in the pre-bob-rock days; you know, days when metallica was only played on college radio stations (88.7 KSPC rocked!) and from home stereo systems. now, i guess since they're (to steal a line from Cypress Hill) Big Rock Superstars, they don't need fans; at least, those of us who've been buying their albums (and rebuying them when they're 'borrowed', etc) since before radio airplay and mainstream acceptance made them so big.
i'm giving away all of my metallica shit, and i won't be buying any more. i got no use for a band that has no use for me.
Such is not the case in the United States.
Think about it, most of the people on napster are college students. I know there are a lot of others on there too but most of the users tend to be young and poor. They are also the ones who tend to love music the most, but they are also the ones with the most limited income in general.
I'm on your side, but your argument is flawed. You can't justify criminal acts by saying, "I'm poor" and don't be so sure that love of music fades after youth. There are plenty of people out there that are closer to 40 than they are to 30 that use Napster. I'm one of them. I typically use Napster to find older stuff of just single tracks that I don't feel like buying an entire album to get. So... call me a criminal. I speed while driving too.
And anyway, their music is crap for retarded acneic teenagers.
Do you realize that James Hetfield and Lars Ulrich are almost 40? Metallica makes music for middle-aged adolescents.
As long as I keep it loud, I won't grow old.
Metallica is just another bunch of corporate thugs.
I hope the fallout from their actions puts them out of business.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Bands (and record companies) don't see this as a threat, and in fact go out of their way to seek radio airplay, for the simple reason that exposure creates more record sales. For some reason, though, they don't seem capable of extrapolating this theory to net distribution.
Sure, people will download mp3s and never buy the CDs, but those same people could record MTV (or radio) just as easily before. Whenever MTV run a Metallica Weekend, you can guarantee that the fans will be sitting there with their fingers on the record button, but nobody complains.
Napster and the like make it easier for people to locate tracks by specific bands, but this is a good thing. I've lost count of the number of times I've been vaguely interested in a band after reading a review or having a friend recommend them, but I'm not going to throw cash at them without hearing what they sound like; in my case mp3's have made me buy more CDs, not less, and for every college student with a 40 Gb disk stuffed with mp3s, there's someone like me, who uses mp3 as a sampler to scout out new purchases.
I can fully understand why bands are scared of this new medium, and the instinctive human reaction, when ignorant and scared, is to lash out aggressively. I suspect, though, that within a couple of years mp3 will be another promotion channel just like radio and cable, and new releases will be pimped to www.mp3warez.com by record company publicists as energetically as they currently court MTV executives.
Contact.
What you are saying is that Linux programmers are not paid for their work but rather work for their pay. Sounds like something Metalica should look into. No really, it's a great model for the new era of IP. Metalica (and Dre and all the rest) can make their 'art' for arts sake releasing it freely on the net while contracting to advertisers (for instance) to create works for profit. They can also look to the model of Linux startups and market their albums with value added above and beyond the music itself (as Bad Religion is already doing with a pair of tickets for any show included with their CD). Times change (the current IP model is barely a century old) and using law to retard progress is the wrong response. The wainrights tried that a century ago and failed miserably, as was befitting to a dead technology.
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
So is Xerox also guilty of basically being an accomplice by aiding people in copying copyrighted paper media? Or does this make the US Postal service an accomplice for making it easy to distribute paper media? Is the phone company responsible for people using telephones for illegal activity? All we need is more laws anyway to hurt independent musicians by closing thier distribution channels. At least for my band, this is a big one. This is totally greedy. What makes me laugh though is that the only musicians who cared enough to sue are Metallica and Dr. Dre. If this is hurting musicians so badly, why aren't tons of professional musicians in on this? Why do musicians need pimps anyway?
Can you not download MP3s for "evaluation purposes" then delete them within 24 hours? Thats what I do. Download a song, evaluate them. Then buy the cd or delete it. Yesterday I downloaded some songs by a band called "The Pilfers" I have never heard them on the radio, I doubt anyone else has, I heard about them, downloaded some songs, then ordered their cd withing half an hour. Is this illegal?
I don't know if it is ironic or fitting that Metallic and Dr. Dre both make such awful music. (In Dr. Dre's case, I use the term "music" loosely.) If people are actually using Napster to bootleg these artists, what a waste of bandwidth! I have listened to KROQ 106.7 in the L.A. area for years, and their decision to start playing a Metallica song every hour or so has largely ruined the station. (I suspect someone in the KROQ station management simply wants to increase Metallica sales. In the old days, KROQ used to play music that you could hardly hear anywhere else.) By coincidence, today is KROQ DJ Richard Blade's final day. The end of an era... Tom Rombouts, Torrance, CA
I think the CD burning is a good idea, probably not enough publicity in that though. So what I going to do is send my Metallica CD's back to Metallica & tell them they can shove'em up the backdoor. I think if enough people did this they may wake up to themselves. Remember the Cliff video & Lars etc saying "We'll never do a film clip, because it's too commercial", they're hypocrites.
For your poor moderation, you have been assessed a karma penalty.
Could someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the Cliff Burton video was primarily made up of BOOTLEG footage obtained from Metallicas fans. Shouldn't they have sued them? Oh it was a different story then 15 years or so ago before they sold out.
For your poor moderation, you have been assessed a karma penalty.
This if, of course, also bull.
Hint: Napster is used for making music files available. There is nothing inherently illegal about music files.
Napster is illegal and therefore should be banned.
Double bull. Napster is not illegal. It can be used for something illegal, and that's probably what it's being used for most of the time, but that doesn't make the program itself illegal.
If you want music for free, then get it from some amateur group, don't steal it from someone else.
And how, genius, is Napster unable to distibute music from amateur groups?
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
You're right. Weather they sold out or not is not relevant. However, it's pretty clear that they are being complete patsies to the RIAA.
look at the wording they used:
" this is about piracy --- a/k/a taking something that doesn't belong to you; and that is morally and legally wrong. The trading of such information -- whether it's music, videos, photos, or whatever -- is, in effect, trafficking in stolen goods."
they are parroting RIAA propaganda. almost word for word.
Conspiracy theory time:
Both Metallica and Dr. Dre were chosen as effective tools for sending a message. They are mainstream enough to be taken seriously but they still have enough of the alternative edge to appeal to the target audience: the Napster users.
The way I see it, it comes down to these questions. Perhaps I am oversimplifying things, but these are good questions to ask yourself.
Does an artist/band have the right to decide how his/her/their music is distributed?
Does an artist/band have the right to be compensated for the work that he/she/they do(es) to create his/her/their music?
mr.nobody
--Don't you wanna go where nobody knows your name?
That is the most unfair judgement I have ever heard. If you had taken just a few minutes to find out about who you were bashing you would know that Metallica is much "cleaner" than many other bands out there. It isnt fair to anyone to unjustly go accusing them of being druggies etc.
Get your facts straight.
I have seen this argument comment over and over and over now
Let me simplify it a bit. In old times, when a singer sang, he was paid for it. When nobody paid, he didn't sing. And apparantly many people paid - there is a wealth of Music from times nobody was discussing Copyright. Nowadays folks that have less musical talent than a piece of wood expect to get richer than Midas for some crap they made.
It is nowhere written in stone that musicians have to be millionaires. If they could just make a decent living, the world would not come to an end. And if there's nobody to pay the singer, his music is most likely not that great anyway. He and the world would be better off if he worked as a store clerk.
So don't believe their whining. Do you actually think the world would suffer if the Metallica guys would earn about as much as any decent auto mechanic ?
f.
> You can't justify criminal acts by saying, "I'm poor"
You actually can. At leat in Germany they can't prosecute you for stealing food if you don't have any. Which is a good thing
f.
i was thinking the same thing. when did these guys forget that with out the "metal underground" of the early '80's and fans copying and trading tapes like baseball cards is the ONLY reason they made it anywhere. they even talk about it on there VH1 special thingy. "people with metallica patches on ther jackets with their backs turned on the supporting band giving them the finger". these are the same fans that had dubbed copies of "NO life...". i still have one in a box somewhere. as well tapes of the first three records. maybe if people started e-mailing, writing letters to these "artists" (lars and co., Dr. Dre) saying "...while i have no .mp3's of your music, i am destroying all records, tapes and CD's purchased.." "...you won't be recieving any more airtime on our station..." (insert obligatory comment/argument/rant about how the bands don't make money off records sales anyway here)
"learn to swim" - TOOL
Hang on - gotta get my asbestos undies on.
Ok . . . Lets' go.
Face facts, people. Unless you have the permission of the artists and their publishers, the music you share on Napster is stolen. You can try to justify it and Jon Katz can write long winded hogwash, but that doesn't change anything. You can argue that the publishing companies make most of the money, but that ignores the fact that the artists make their living from selling their art. When you steal music on Napster, you are stealing from the artists you claim to like and support so much. Grow up and behave responsibly. This isn't about freedom - it's about wanting something for nothing.
Why limit yourself to the record industry. If you don't like someone's behaviour, do what the US is doing to Cuba - don't support them. I, for on, am disgusted with Metallica's way of handling the case, and will refrain from buying their CDs. In fact, the commercial record industry in the US is so bad these days, that I am spending less and less on that market, and putting my money in other markets, such as European music and, of course, MP3.com.
It is actually interesting to note that through Napster, I have been introduced to new music that I'm now hunting up and down to get the original CD of. Alas, these artists would never have gotten my money if I had not stumbled over them by accident.
Which also shows that just because I'm able to get the MP3 for free, doesn't mean that I don't buy the CD. In fact, this is one of the things that draws me towards making more business with MP3.com - that, and the fact that I know that more of my money is indeed going to the artist. For that reason alone, I support MP3.com's business model much more than the model of the traditional record industry.
If this is really what you feel, then put your buck where your heart is (and do not put your heart where your buck is). Do business with the people who "behave" within your standards, and boycott those you "don't like". I mean... just because you like their music doesn't mean you need to have it. There are plenty of alternatives.
Who Wants To Date A Norwegian?
1. Make mp3 recordings of the First Amendment(making sure that the files are of different sizes).
2. Write a script that looks up a database for names of popular songs and renames the First Amendment recordings accordingly.
3. Upload the recordings to servers and begin trading. Encourage everyone to download the files, numerous times.
4. You can have artists/groups of the week/month. This month its Metallica's turn. Next month, who knows.
Its legal to listen to the First Amendment. Its legal to call it Enter Sandman.
That'll solve the problem or create new ones...
Why? Because unlike napster, ftp & http have legitimate uses. I can't get a kernel update over napster; I can't use it to buy a shirt from the Gap. I can only use it to transfer music which (in general) I did not make.
If we harp on M. for trying to enforce their license, we are also obligated to harp on people trying to enforce the GPL.
Or vice-versa: if we insist on recognition of the GPL, we should insist on recognition of pay-to-listen licenses as well
It is not the music industry or groups like Metallica that are approaching this issue from the wrong direction. It is all the people who wish to manipulate an ideological position (of debateable value anyway) for their own ends. The writer of this short article kept mentioning the freedom to transmit "information." What exactly does that mean? Miriam-Webster says information is "knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction." Does that sound like it includes music? Does that sound like it includes someone's creative work that they wish to have exclusive control over? NO. "Information" means facts about the universe that no one can have any claim to - laws of science, for example. It is impossible to say that anyone owns the circumference of the Earth. Personal expression, on the other hand, is not something inherent to the universe that anyone can discover. It is one's own, and our society has decided to respect that through mechanisms like copyright law.
The whole point here is that the suit by Metallica is not about freedom of information. It is about enforcement of a legal right that our society has created. It is not up to a bunch of selfish cheap Internet users to ignore that. This is not a case of government oppression (like in, say, China) were illegal activity is the only way for people to enjoy intellectual freedom and according to most political thought the activity would be justified. This is about the rule of law. If you don't like having to pay for people's works of personal expression, go lobby Congress to change the laws. Until it does, stop the blatant copyright infringement. How would you feel if someone decided that laws against robbery were wrong, and came knocking on your door with a gun in his hand? Shouldn't all property be free?
It was not "made public voluntarily." Copyrighted intellectual property is only public in the sense that anyone can pay to get it, not that anyone is automatically entitled to it.
Hopefully Katz is poorly paraphrasing the law, cause wouldn't that include web browser
Or email software, or ftp servers and clients, or printing presses or....
And I'd have to agree with it because I've seen it. One poster was talking about "good government" and said that copyright wouldn't be enforced because its restriction of speach, but GPL would be because thats a matter of human rights. I suppose that its possible that outside of this single case that the massive number of /.ers advocating controll over your own information and respect for GPL are completely non-overlapping with the group saying that artists don't have the right to say how their work will be distributed, but there's no good reason to believe it.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
Harvard hasn't been sued or booted Napster off their servers yet, and the Dean sounds like they never will -- look at this editorial from the Harvard Crimson...
http://freshmeat.net/projects/charities.cron/
This argument is a ham sandwich.
(And I'll take the bad karma for that one.)
Would it help bands if the band though of Napster as a form of broadcast medium, like radio
You're thinking of MPEG radio systems such as Shoutcast and Icecast systems. Even if Napster is like the radio (I do see the connection), broadcast is still "public performance" under the law and is exclusively controlled by the copyright holder except for fair use and compulsory license.
Perhaps release albums as MP3 with adverts in them even? Make some money that way?
AMP3.com already does this. Actually, in locations with weak copyright laws, the success of a media product depends on product-placement advertising (think "I like girls that wear Abercrombie & Fitch").
Will I retire or break 10K?
I don't understand the logic of people who support FTP. Its sole purpose is to allow the free exchange of software over the internet, so it is designed to pirate software, making it illegal. There are absolutely no arguments supporting FTP, and the "online community" bull is just a transparent excuse to defend piracy. FTP is illegal and therefore should be banned. Also, I'm surprised that more universities haven't banned FTP, considering its effect on bandwidth. My brother says that his dorm's T3 line is slower than his modem because of all the people dowloading pirated software. If you want software for free, then get it from some open-source project, don't steal it from someone else. And don't complain about the price. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
See how silly your argument is? Napster technology is just a distribution medium. It was originally designed for your "amateur groups," but users abuse it and trade audio clips without authorization.
Will I retire or break 10K?
when instead of going out and buying the latest Eifel 65 album they just grab it off of the net.
Going out where? I have never seen Eiffel 65 in any local record store; otherwise, I would already have added the CD to my collection.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If a CD has three listenable songs, I buy it. I hate artists who release an album with seven listenable minutes and sixty minutes of pure $#!+ and then charge $20 for what amounts to a single.
What a ripoff.
Will I retire or break 10K?
CDNow, Amazon, etc, etc.
Verdict: BN.com rocks.
I'm blue. If I was green, I would die. If I was green, I would die...Will I retire or break 10K?
Is going after schools sustainable to the music industry? Not a chance. With DSL and cable modems increasing in popularity, access to high speed Internet will become mainstream.
rant on:
The music industry continues to use defensive tactics in the face of a changing economy. Their fear of losing monopoly rents disgusts me. Who says CD/record sales need to be the money maker for the industry? Record labels serve to promote artists with the expecation on a actualized returns. Do the returns need to be in the shape of record sales? What about concert revenue, t-shirts, posters, and perhaps a direction not even thought of yet.
Going after mp3.com in the end is fruitless, because then you have napster, and then you have gnutella, and if not gnutella there will be something else. The music industry needs to realize they will lose the monopoly rents they have and need to turn their attention to focus on new ways to add value to their customers and their artists in a different economic model.
rant off
I'm this close of burning all of my Metallica CDs, I mean they used to make great music with great attitude, 'And Justice for All..' is IMO one of the best album of the 80's but now all they seem to be able to do is crap both musically and philosophically. This is so sad but I think we should make an example of those bastards and stop listening to their music. At least will have Megadeth and Slayer who also do bad music today but at least try to show some respect for their fan. We should put up a site or something.
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Boundaries are not ment to keep everyone out, just those you do not want, those who have no business. No one wants people coming in to their homes poking around as they please. A boundaryless internet allows not just good and useful information to flow, but also harmful and untruthful information. Groups such as the Klan and child molesters are flurishing on the net because the walls that contained them do not exist. Completely censoring the net would be bad, but leaving it unrestraned would be equally bad.
"We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreackers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for adulterers and perverts, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for nurderers, for slave traders and liers and perjurers" 1 Timothy 1:10
In a startling development, the Internet has been allowed to remove all barriers from life. Due to the complaints of people who see the Internet as more important than Life itself (most notably, Jon Katz) the Fabric of Life committee finally relented and allowed these whiners to do "whatever the hell they want". In a press conference after the meeting, Father Time made the following comments:
"Yeah, we figured that the Internet what with all it's overclocking processors and on-demand streaming what-not, deserved a chance to see how it would react to creating its own rules for itself. Why we haven't done this sorta thing since, eh, what was that thing called? Er, yeah, the Big Bang! Funny story there, see me and Gravity were sittin' there on his porch see and..."
Mother Nature interrupted at this point to say:
"The Internet was always whining that it 'Wanted its own space' and such, always asking for the keys to car, etc. Well we finally decided to let it move out to its own Quantum Apartment so it could see what it's like when you have to Conserve your own Energy and make sure that everything adds up. I wouldn't want to have to clean up the Entropy in that place!"
The Internet seems to have planned its new living situation around a few simple rules:
1) Do what you want unless what you want is not what someone else wants.
2) I'm always right, you're always wrong. "Deal with it."
3) Free beer.
Cursory inspection of the Internet's new space shows that it has about 10% useful items, 40% dirty complaints strewn about and 50% porno.
Those entering the Internet may be startled to find that you can't get what you want unless you take it, flames don't hurt, there is more SPAM than anyone could eat in a lifetime, none of your co-habitants have any money but they'll more than happily take yours to "by some cool new tunes", Trolls are respected citizens, all the chores are done be 20% of the people, and Jon Katz hogs the remote.
-The MorboNixon-Newswire
You are of course correct that much of the activity on Napster violates copyright. But you can't honestly believe that Napster has a moral imperative to police all of the activity that goes on through the use of its program? I mean, do you hold FTP programs responsible for trade in "warez"? Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater man... You mention the GPL... It's not entirely impossible that some very good, non-greedy bands will release their music using some similar device. Wouldn't it be cool if we hadn't eliminated napster when they show up?
OoO
OoO
Please do not publish outside of
Consider this argument:
While I feel that there has to be some degree of enhanced means copyright protection for artists to provent blatent copyright violations, this is shooting the messanger.
Its not your place to dictate to Metallica or anyone else how they should run their 'art'?
We have seen in the past week one or two cases where the conditions of GPL license were not upheld. In response the offenders were dragged over hot coals because they did not respect the copyleft agreement.
Now however, Metallic tries to uphold its copyrights on their music, and you are balking at the fact? It seems that we are only concerned about copyright/left when it is to our advantage?
'but they're also putting a big chill on the very notion of free software, open source, and the free movement of information and ideas on the Net'
Ummmmmm, sorry, are you saying that Open Source, and free software is so weak that something that doesn't even directly effect it would crumble it to the ground, or are you overdramatizing for effect? How would this prevent people writing Linux, Gnome or KDE. I don't think free movement of information and ideas on the net could be stretched to cover stealing.
' whether conventional notions of copyright can still work in an environment increasingly influenced by the open-source ethic'
They can 'work' online as much as they can in the real world. The laws haven't changed, its just that the distribution method is much more accessable to anyone. Thats like saying if I could hire a hit-man online, would the laws against murder 'work' within the internet environment. Its not a case of laws 'working' its a case of them being much easier to break online.
My thoughts are that while Metallica may be loaded, they still cannot be denied their legal rights. While it does seem like they are making a fast buck, there is also principle. As for those who would scoff at that idea, think back to GPL violations. There was no 'fast buck' to be made then, only principle. However, I think that attacking Napster is only as good as attacking audio tape, or CDRW manufacturers.
Say you wrote a few reports for a college class, then I guess you woulnd't mind if I made copies and turned them in as my work. After all, there was no theft I just copied it. Theft does not always have to be physical. Its also ok to break laws you don't think are fair? Why not go about changing them instead?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
What about MP3.com's CD toy that would make CDs you own available online anywhere? Why isn't this a target the way Napster is? I'll be the first to admit that Napster is a tool used in the trading of illegal MP3s but MP3.com's tool offers the same type of "roadway" if you will. How difficult is it to trade account login information for accessing someone's huge library of CDs?
;)
My point is... Why shutdown the entire freeway when you have a few bad drivers on the road? Give them tickets instead and be on your way. You make money giving tickets too, ya know.
Failure isn't falling. Failure is staying down.
No, copyright is an idea intended to protect the individual. That is why you automatically have copyright on any original works you produce unless you assign it to someone else. So, if you as an individual paint a picture, write a book, some computer software, etc. You have control over who can or cannot make copies, and under what circumstances. This is a very basic, and very powerful individual right. Patents as they currently stand benefit corporations, but not copyright.
The attitudes that copyright is somehow wrong tends to be stated by people who have never put effort into creating something. Even if you don't expect to make a profit, it is not unreasonable to want control over how your creation is distributed.
Napster really isn't any diffent than radio play and Metalica would be offended if it didn't get any of that. It's a dead cause to beat into their heads though because some lawyer told them that they lost money on a few thousand singles (The broadband yahoos must d/l entire albums, I don't think Metalica even sells singles). I know that Napster can work in reverse. I start listening to ICP via MP3 and now own several of their albums.
Normally I ignore such pathetic excuses for flamebait. Have you ever been to a Metallica concert? They formed in 1982, their concerts draw people from teenagers to 50 year olds, I would say the average being mid twenties. Their self titled black album sold 12 million copies worldwide, and they received 3 consecutive Grammy awards in 89-90-91. I suppose all the contemporary bands you listen to are far superior.. why don't you list some? They are exceptionally talented artists, and I personally find most of their music intricate, intelligent, inspiring and even beautiful.
Yes, they're a heavy rock band whose music isn't for everyone's tastes. But your immature name calling and profanity only showcases your ignorance.
As far as Napster is concerned, these artists DO have legitimate grievances... but suing Napster is the wrong move, Metallica acted hastily without considering all the issues. However this has absolutely no bearing on the quality of their music.
I'm torn on the whole MP3 deal... on one hand downloading copywrited music you haven't paid for is WRONG. If you disagree your parents didn't raise you very well. All these flowery speeches about the open source movement and free information exchange are like the desperate pleas of children who are afraid of having their newest toy taken away... completely sidestepping the central issue: you are taking someone's work and not giving anything in return, against their explicit wishes.
Now that every Napster user out there hates me, the other side of the coin is that I really don't see how downloading an MP3 is fundamentally any different from taping a song off of the radio, or a music video from MTV/Muchmusic.. you're simply making a local copy for personal use of something broadcast over a freely available medium. The only real change is that with the internet you don't have to wait for the song you want to be played. (I'm aware there are many tertiary issues such as audio quality, and advertising/sponsorship, but I believe the point is still sound)
I don't think Napster should be liable for illegal activities initiated through their servers, however they are certainly negligent in excercising their exclusive ability (thanks to their centralized listing model) to prevent it... the only question is whether this negligence is criminal or not. I'm no lawyer, but I would bet on no.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
I'm not sure about that whole boycott strategy. If record sales drop, they will almost certainly jump on that as "evidence" that MP3 trading is demolishing their industry.. this could even bolster anti-MP3 sentiments and facilitate harsher legislation.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
I know this is illegal, but as i've said below, if I could pay 50 cents per MP3, directly to metallica, i would. For one CD, what do they get, a few $? If i bought one CD's worth of MP3s under this system, I would pay less, and they would get more. This would make it easier to buy the music too, for 2 reasons:
1: It's a lot easier to download an MP3 than to go buy a CD. I can only play it on my computer, but that's where i spend (waste) most of my time that i can listen to music, so it wouldn't make much difference
2: It's easier to pay 50 cents than 20$. 50 cents is nothing to me. I can throw away two quarters and i won't care, so why not pay metallica? 20$ is different. That's 1/3 of what i get in a month, so I don't spend 20$ every day.
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
"So because you have "rarified tastes", you suddenly have carte blanche to steal whatever you want."
I think what he wanted to say was that he could only get this music through napster. If metallica didn't sell CDs (or any recordings), and then complained that people were pirating MP3s, what would you think? Napster is mostly used illegaly, but some people do use it to distribute their music that isn't sold anywhere, or to find music that isn't sold anywhere. If these lawsuits shut down napster, this legal music distribution will be stopped of slowed.
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
Metallica needs to work with napster. I've downloaded a few of their MP3's, and i would buy the CD, but if i could pay them 50 cents per MP3, and the money went directly to them, i would do it. They probably don't get that much from one CD, so if we could pay less, and directly to them, they would get more. And it's much easier to download an MP3 than to go and buy a CD, so they would get more sales.
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
Yes, getting rid of guns just becaus the owners are able to commit murder would be a silly thing to do, but lets say 99% of gun owners used their guns to kill other people... would you still say it was a bad thing to do?
A short note in reference to somone's post concerning the fact that an artist may (at will) make their music available on the net etc. Did anyone stop to think what impact this may have on the artists future in the "music business" ? ... basically what I'm trying to say is that, as an artist, posting your music freely on the net, may damage you chances in the "music industry" etc... Do you think that some "suit" somewhere is fit to decide what is good music and worthy of publication? I don't. Bottom line is that an artist signed to a label has very little control over what get's published, not to mention that most of the profit of what get's published goes to the label... Music becomes popular only through awareness; Currently (save for the net) some execs. somewhere (MTV, Sony et. al) decide what we are entiteled to be aware of... like it, do you? I vehemantly hate how the "industry" seems to have not only consumers but also artist eating out of the palm of their hands, all artist worry about is getting a record contract with a big label etc. Why? What's that got to do with art? Nothing. It's just the little matter that they control who get's heard and who doesn't. For me, that's what mp3's etc is all about ... freedom for us & freedom for the artists. (I guess I overshot the shortnesss a while back... ;) ... Being a musician myself I'd hardly object to an artist being paid, but I think the money should come from concerts, radio stations, tv & such ... as it mostly already does ... not from record sales, the artist that actually made a living on record sales are quite few in number ...
What usually happends when an artist signs on to a record company? (Remember George Michel vs. Sony) Usually the artist will have to sign off ownership of most of all he ever has and ever will create to the company
Granted, a Metallica-style three-act show using a massive venue with thousands of watts of power, colored lights, explosions, flashy backgrounds, roadies to tune your guitars for you and ensure your equipment is set up, and the like isn't cheap, but most concerts aren't like that. Most of the time, a band throws together a demo tape and finds a different venu that pays for the artist to show up. Sometimes bars, sometimes restaurants, sometimes frat-boy parties. Most concerts are just you, your friends, everyone you know that you could drag to the show and everyone they know, and lots of spirit. Snobs Need Not Apply. All you need is a few power outlets and enough good songs to capture people's attention before the cops arrive or the next band has to play. Eventually, after doing this for a while, you get to be able to quit your day job. Of course, now, with the net, you can go to MP3.com and sell your music that way as well. Or sell CDs and T-shirts and other groovy merchandise. You think Metallica makes money only from their music? They also have merchandising up the wazoo. Anyhow...it's just like anything -- you start at the bottom and have to work your way up. The 80's dream of getting rich quick by being "discovered" was just that...a dream. The rest of us have to work at it.
On the other hand, it's not the RIAA that suffers when music gets pirated. It's (a) the record company and (b) the artist. I have no sympathy for the record company either, but they are a legal entity with a right to do business within the bounds set by the legal system, and as such demand the protection of the courts. Shit, guys, get over it!
The thing that disgusts me is that nowhere in all these "oh I used Napster but I'm still a good person" arguments is that no-one gives a toss about the artists who literally did work their arses off to write and record their music - and then work harder touring to promote sales of their albums.
I am a games programmer, and when I see my games being pirated (they're usually on the warez sites a good few weeks before they are on the shelves of EB) I get sick to the stomach. Yeah, fuck the publisher, I don't give a toss if they lose money - they just paid us to make this game. But what about the royalties I deserve to make from this? What about the hard work I put it? The salary I earn doesn't match the work I do making a game; we all (in the games industry) hope for a success in order to make some royalties which will adequately compensate us for the work we did. Rarely does this happen - just as, for a band, rarely will they become a hit. But when I see the stuff being traded for no money, by people who are so arrogant they claim that this is their right, that makes me want to vomit.
You pirates - ALL you pirates - just stop and think a minute about who you are affecting by your actions. And, if you have imagination enough to claim that it is morally justifiable to commit theft, you should have enough imagination to work out WHY the DMCA exists, WHY it is being pounded so hard, and WHY we are going to end up with a society full of shit art and controlled by the RIAA and so on ... the WHY of it is BECAUSE OF YOU FUCKERS. Just STOP PIRACY and you might get the distribution model you so desire, WHEN that distribution model is mature and viable enough to be commercially acceptable.
That's enough of my ranting, this is an emotive subject for me ;)
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
Tech support has no IP component so I fail to see the relevance of that. I wouldn't do it as a job, but there you go - if you're not happy, quit and do something more lucrative. If you can get a better salary doing the same work, go for that too. But at least you'll know you didn't take a salary hit so that some warez d00d could prove what a big dick he has.
But, to answer your last point, YES. Not a standard for intellectual property laws, but a standard for the pricing of IP. The owner of the IP gets to set the price. That's fundamental. The IP owner decides the price; the market determines the success or failure of that IP based on the price relative to the IP's "worth" (whatever that means).
Piracy places a zero price on IP regardless of worth, and totally screws up the whole calculation. It makes IP more expensive for everyone else, leading to a lower market acceptance because of the higher price, leading to the failure of more IP creators. This is what piracy does. It is *not* harmless.
If the company you did tech support for had a lot of theft, I bet your salary would be lower too.
--
It's a
-- Danny Vermin
they take themselves so seriously. they give blood for their art. who ever said anyone had to care how hard they work? are metallica and dr. dre so dumb and cocky that they think that the financial recognition of their work is the glue that holds humanity together? its bullshit. if dr. dre and metallica were to retire tomorrow and never make music again, would a war break out? no. they really aren't as important as they think they are. and no one is required to give a rats ass whether or not they got their big fat royalty check this week. is this any way to respond to the people who are giving you attention, recognition, and spreading your name around? do they think people are trading their music online in an effort to hurt their well being?! "hey lets download dr. dre's music, he sucks i wanna see him go down!" people don't have that much time to waste. i could go on about the music industry in general, but i'll leave it be. let me just say it's a horrible bitch goddess. the real sad part is that the general public will probably once again let itself get fucked by breuraucratic horseshit. here's to our freedom down the toilet once again. brought to you by the people who want you to appreciate them.
Any diehard Metallica fan knows about the "selling out" phase the band was going through. Wether or not you believe they sold or not is not the point I'm trying to stress. Metallica would play anywhere... Remember the release of the Album (ugh) Load? Metallica was renting flatbed trucks and doing free shows in parking lots (which brought legal problems too I recall) for fans. I haven't liked Load or Reload, I've heard both in Mp3 before I purchased the albums, however I did purchase them anyway.
I wish bands of today would realize the money their already making from live shows and album sales and realize that their already making a nice share of money. I'm a musician myself. I woulnd't mind if people would 'pirate' my songs. That's what the musical art is all aobut IMHO...
Well, I hope I haven't gone off topic too much... I just hope Metallica looks back at what they've always been about and realize their contradictory...
It kinda' brings a damper to the way I think of Metallica, but I'll ALWAYS enjoy listening to popping in my Kill 'Em All and Master of Puppet CD's on a rainy day...
------- What exactly is real?
There is little money in CD sales, as opposed to concert tickets. I know, I've done some promting work. Anyway, mp3's create fans, just as the radio does. Increased fans = increased concert attendance. We must remember that the fans are the ones with the mp3's. Therefore, Metallica is screwing themselves.
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
As an aside, keep in mind that many universities will allow companies to get patents on research done by the universities, so their own students aren't allowed to use the technology.
On the other hand one can't always blame the university. This country keeps cutting funding for higher education, some places have to make up the difference any way the can to survive.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I don't understand the logic of people who support Napster. It's sole purpose is to allow the free exchange of music over the internet, so it is designed to pirate music, making it illegal. There are absolutely no arguments supporting Napster, and the "online community" bull is just a transparent excuse to defend piracy. Napster is illegal and therefore should be banned. Also, I'm surprised that more universities haven't banned Napster, considering its effect on bandwith. My brother says that his dorm's T3 line is slower than his modem because of all the people dowloading pirated music. If you want music for free, then get it from some amateur group, don't steal it from someone else. And don't complain about the price. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
Lest you forget... Music that is copyrighted is NOT FREE. As soon as Metallica puts out open souce music on the internet then you will be free to trade it as you like. In the meantime you (if you are a law abiding citizen) should continue to purchase music on CD (and if you are cheap or poor buy it used).
IMHO: MP3s no matter what bit rate it is encoded at sound awful, but that does not stop me from coping my CD collection to MP3 for listening at work. This is still legal. It is no worse than making a "mix tape" for listening in the car. Just don't support MASS bootlegging like Napster does. Napster is just as bad as the proliferation of Chinese CD pirates, giving you substandard product that profits some one else than the creator of the bootlegged material.
Or how about Delerium? These folks put about 3 album's worth of MP3's on their webpage, and now their songs are appearing in movies and television ads, which generate a lot more money for them ... It's a darn good cooincidence to me...
Exposure. Thats what generates money in this age, and nothing does it better than the Internet. Its a perfect parallel to the 1980's casette tape (please tell me you know what these are) craze , where everyone and their neighbor traded their favorites. To the record companies, it's short term loss for long term gain.
And ever notice who's doing all the complaining? Its the old-school groups like Metallica and Dr. Dre, who realize that, hey, if the public can listen to new bands that do the same genre we do, then they might not listen to us anymore, so lets kill off their means of exposure, since we already have ours.
Why the rucus? Because the establishment isn't making money. They realize that the MPAA/etc. can't be the middle-man anymore, so they don't get a cut of the profit. It used to be that MTV and the Record Labels told us what we could listen to, but it doesn't have to be that way anymore, and they're scared.
Without MP3's, how many of you would even know that Techno (all the flavors) and/or Goth exists? Or would you still be listening to InSync and Backstreet Boys, because thats all the Radio tells us is out there?
how much does a radio station pay metallica (or any artist for that matter) every time they release a single, what im geting at here is why not think of mp3s as radio, because on napster its hard to find sigles that aren't released to radio
lose != loose
Certainly, Metallica have every right to protect their copyright. What I am having trouble understanding is how Napster in any way has infringed upon this right. Those that are ripping copyright material and distributing them are.
Napster is a utility that allows you to transfer and search for mp3s. You would have to be somewhat niave to think that the authors intentions were entirely honorable, and that Napster is provided *only* for the distribution of legal material. That is beside the point however; napster is little more than a glorified ftp client.
I can use my ftp client to d/l warez or legal software. Why is it that we have not seen the authors of Cuteftp and ncftp attacked by software vendors?
There is something very wrong with this whole situation. It seems blindingly obvious to me that the author of napster cannot be held accountable, only the users themselves that choose to infringe upon an artists copyright. Fair enough, this is hard to enforce and regulate, and the record industry need to point there finger at someone. It is unfortunate that they behave like spoilt children, rather than attempting to find a constructive means of utilising this very nifty technology.
The practice of sharing copies of copyrighted material for personal use is not now, nor has it ever been illegal. It only becomes a crime to copy works if it is done at a profit.
In the field of education, photocopiers have been churning out worksheets and articles for years. Publishers have no problem with this, because they know that it is the right of a school, after purchasing books/newspapers/etc. to use them as they see fit for educational use.
It is also perfectly legal for me to tape a CD and give a copy to my friend. As an owner of the CD, it is my right. It ONLY becomes a crime if I charge and make a profit.
If some kid with a CDR drive makes a bunch of copies of his favorite CD and sells them for $5 a piece, he's profiting off of someone else's work. If someone connects their computer to Napster and lets other people download songs for free, then he is excercising his right to distribute copies for personal use. So long as there is no profit, and the copies are not used for public display, then US law has no provision for making any use of Napster illegal.
The true artist seeks to have his art enjoyed and appreciated by as many people as possible. The businessman, lacking any talent of his own, imagines how he can exploit the artist's talent for his own gain.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
they're not, you are assuming that the two groups: supporters, and detractors, of Katz's 'comments' book are the same two groups towing the same party line (two different issues here).
for going after people who are violating the copyright on the music.
they're not, they are going after the distribution media like suing gun makers and car dealers for armed robbery, because their tools allowed the robbery and getaway to explicitly happen.
Anyone see the parallels? What a bunch of hypocrites.
no i don't see the parallels. No one denighned metallica the credit for the song by distributing it anonymously without asking metallica for permission.
as the medieval guilds were destroyed by the industrial revolution, and forced to starve or find a new way to make money, so to were the information hoarding corporations destroyed by community, teamwork, and cooperation. Distribution markups of 1500% had no value once the cost to duplicate dropped to zero. (the future is here, so the tense is correct, the dinosaurs are just still twitching and trashing about, but the mammals smell the blood and are closing in for the feast)
Ps. I loved Limp Biskit on MTV talking about how they would have never bought their first Metallica CD if a friend hadn't given (without charge) them a bootlegged tape.
Pps. Pirates make profit from their sinking bloated and slow treasure laden galleys. Privateers sink them out of patriotism. Someone who discovers something and shares it freely with the world is a philanthropist?
---
Yep. Sounds like a teacher who thinks a student won't become anything (highly self-importation incantation mode): The world is broken into various groups of people. Unfortunately, if you don't do well at school, you won't make anything of yourself. This is just the way the world is. You must accept that.
Sorry, buddy. I just don't believe that people are pre-destined to succeed. I know some religious fanatics are Lutherans who believe that everything is determined before you're born - maybe you're one of them, maybe you're not. But really. This is ridiculous. In almost all areas, especially intelligence, there are too many grey areas to be certain about anything. You can't just point at a kid and say: "You can't do this, this and that." And point to another one and say: "You can do this, this and that, but not this."
Sounds like you want to become a Nazi state where kids with certain DNA patterns are trained from 2yrs old to do certain functions. Considering the opinion you're arguing against, I wouldn't put it past you.
no sig
i mean hell according to:
It seems that the DMCA is the most menacing of the two laws, since according to the law, the only way service providers and institutions can avoid liability in lawsuits like Metallica's is if they bar software that could transmit copyrighted material.
i might as well get rid of icq, ftp, aim and any other 'file transmission' type program, cuz according to the DMCA they should all be banned anyway. what is to prevent me from sending some TMBG mp3s to my friend via ICQ.... nothing, so therefore it should be banned. gotta love the politics, "we dont know how to control it" "thats ok we will just ban it" "to hell with creative thinking" im sick of this bullshit.... oh well enough ranting.... i really should be writing that paper thats due in three hours. looks like i will fireup my mp3s and get some work done.
Exactly. I'm just waiting for someone to file a lawsuit to try and shut down AT&T and MediaOne, since you can use their phone/cable lines to transmit illegally copied MP3's.
Actually, not a bad idea. MediaOne needs shutting down.
No RCN where you live?
MediaOne just sent around a nice announcement that they're increasing their fees (at least in metro Boston). You Bastards!
It should also be pointed out that the article was wrong to say the Harvard was even mentioned in the suit; it never was. However, It is true that Yale was sued and has since blocked Napster (and was subsequently removed from the suit).
As a matter of fact that was what bothered me most about this lawsuit (oddly I wear a Metallica shirt as I write this): the choice of which schools were sued seems completely arbitrary. I mean, why have these school done any more damage to Metallica than any other schools that allow Napster use (including Harvard)? Does anyone know the rationale behing choosing these specific schools?
The bus came by and I got on
That's when it all began
There was cowboy Neal
At the wheel
Of a bus to never-ever land
I'd rather be lucky than good.
There is an irony here. Back in the 80's, record companies found a new way, thanks to the digitization of music on CD's to sell entire back catalogues of music again. How many millions have bought the Beatles, etc. re-releases on CD and the countless milk-it-till-bleeds box-sets...
These 'artists' cannot be held responsible for the greed of record companies as such, but did you hear of any artists complaining about this new increase in revenues via exploitation of their 'art'.......? No!
And when you consider that CD quality sound is actually vastly inferior to its analogue counterpart (another story), you would have thought that the combination of exploitation of fans and the compromise in quality would have caused a few squeaks of discontentment from these artists...but no....silence prevailed...
...what goes around, comes around....
Now, that this digitization has led to the inevitably easy transfer of music on-line, they have a different perspective. Now that it doesnt serve these artists pockets anymore its....blah blah blah...its our very art and souls they are stealing.....
I do not condone the pirating of music. Every piece of music I ever liked, I ended up buying.
I also cannot condone the self-righteousness and hypocrisy of the likes of Metallica , Dr Dre etc
...Metallica recently released a whole heap of drivel aka...classically backed re-recordings of their greatest hits....By symbolic protest I suggest that everyone download the whole recording and (echoing the Baptists 'revenge' against Lennons remark about being bigger than the Beatles) burn the whole recording with military strength erasing software.
sincerely, Guy
Yes, is stealing and this chick will accept that I am a terrible enough person to scoff a couple cents off of someone elses table.
I'm bad, I know it and I'll accept it.
"There is absolutely nothing like knowing what your character is and making the best of it" --Nadine Edwards
Nuff Respec'
DeICQLady
7D3 CPE
The relevant link: Harvard will not restrict Napster use.
-- no sig for you
"MP3.com is yet to produce any stars while most people I have met (as well as myself) who use Napster download music from established artists who have cost the record labels million$ of dollars to find, produce and market" Maybe the death of the rock star is another step in the evolution of the music industry. We just aren't completly there yet.
Hmm... and I was wondering why my university - the University of Wales, Swansea (in the UK) - had suddenly blocked Napster connections from all campus machines! What's next? Blocking of emails because some of them /may/ contain an 'illegal' attachment?? Sheesh... :o)
ManicHawk - Just because you're manic doesn't mean the walls aren't bouncy
No,we're talking about kids in college trading copyrighted material with a program to do just that.Would you buy a cd when you can just download the .mp3's ripped off it?This isn't a "freedom" issue it's a copyright issue and it's easy for you to bitch about bands like Metallica when it's not your work being traded around.It might be a good thing this is going to court because there are issues that need sorting out.Remember music on a cd isn't Linux and it ain't open-source
Great minds think alike,but,fools seldom differ.
Well, for starters, they can immediately make moves on the http, ftp, and irc protocols and their authors. Why? Because their encouraging piracy by allowing for the free transmission of data. What do you think was the primary source for pirated mp3s prior to Napster? And do you honestly think that with a precedent like that that the RIAA and the MPAA would _not_ take advantage of it? This is a case with the capacity of setting a _very_ dangerous precedent, because it asks the question "Is the method of transmission responsible for what's transmitted?".
Except that Napster is designed to only allow the transmission of MP3s. And most MP3's are illegally owned. Yes, I've got some MP3's I've ripped for personal usage, I don't use Napster, but still, most MP3's are illegal. (And most people seem not to want Final Fantasy VII's OST - but anyway...)
FTP and HTTP are used for the transmission of binary data, and the person with the server is responsible for the information which goes over those methods of transmission. I can use FTP to allow people to download Linux HOWTOs, mirrors of free ISO images, or the latest open source project I'm working on. All of this would be legal. If I start posting my MP3 collection up through FTP or HTTP, that would be (for most people) illegal.
Napster on the other hand is designed for transmitting MP3s and nothing else. (And I know about wrapster, it's a cheap ploy to try and expand the usefullness of Napster.)
Just because you WANT to pirate the latest tracks from your favorite band doesn't mean that you SHOULD do it, it's still illegal, and morally objectionable.
Either that, or you wouldn't mind if I decide to modify some GPL'ed project, and then release the changes under a restrictive licence. Then I'd be violating a copyright again. Would you mind?
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
FTP and HTTP are used for the transmission of binary data, and the person with the server is responsible for the information which goes over those methods of transmission. I can use FTP to allow people to download Linux HOWTOs, mirrors of free ISO images, or the latest open source project I'm working on. All of this would be legal. If I start posting my MP3 collection up through FTP or HTTP, that would be (for most people) illegal.
Palin Majere wrote:
And here you are _wrong_. Under US law, your ISP is not help responsible for your illegal content until they are notified about it. At which point, most ISPs react by removing the content, and terminating the offender's account. This is EXACTLY what Napster has been doing, even going so far as to ban the ips of offenders to insure that they don't just sign on under a new username.
How does banning IPs help? Most ISP uses dynamic IPs anyway...
Moving along, what I said wasn't very clearly worded, but what I meant is that FTP and HTTP are designed just for data. Hence, they are not designed for pirating. They can be used for pirating, but often are not. And I was talking from the perspective of running at FTP or HTTP server, since I currently have them running on my box, and have material on them. (Like the RedHat 6.2 ISOs, mirrored from ftp.redhat.com, they're legal.) I've also have some episodes of Geeks in Space online to see if I'd get in trouble for having MP3s available for download. So far, I haven't.
You can't sue Napster's users effectively. It's quite near impossible to just go after the users, even though they are in theory the ones doing the pirating. Most people I know think that MP3s are illegal right out. Trying to explain the difference between an audio format and using an audio format to spread copyrighted matterial is getting annoying...
I don't know, but couldn't Napster set up a blacklist of copyrighted songs which can't go over the service? I can't think of any way personally, but could it be done?
This actually gets into another area, where allowing people to download copyrighted material is legal. For example, video game ROMs, binary duplicates of the data on those carts for the early Nintendo, or the Sega Genisis, etc. As most people do not have the ability to dump the ROMs into their computer, it is legal to have copies of the files available for download so that users can use their licence for copyrighted material even after the original cartridge failed.
Sticky issue, as it also allows people to play games which they aren't legally allowed to. But through the usage of ROMs, I can now play the original Legend of Zelda game even though the original cartridge has died. (To Nintendo's credit, my original NES deck still works!)
Personally, I can't condone Napster in any way. I don't see it as a method for artists to spread MP3s, because as far as I know, you really need to search for specific songs - needing to know the title first. I've never used Napster though, mainly because it's been blocked at my college... (Although they claim it's due to bandwidth restriction... Of course, since the network crapped out on me while I tried to submit this comment, I find that idea highly suspect...)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I am probably going to get moderated way down for this - but I really don`t see the problem with the lawsuit. Who really cares if the members of the band have millions of dollars? If they want to continue selling their product, and prevent people from obtaining it without paying for it, why shouldn`t they be allowed to do everything in their power to achieve this? Like it or not, these songs are intellectual property belonging to Metallica, and for our community (in particular) to not respect IP is hypocritical. How many stories/comments have I seen in the last week blasting Be and Abit because they have taken someone else's intellectual property and not used it in the manner it was intended? How would everyone here feel if companies took GPL'd code, modified it a bit, and then released it as closed source, commercial software? Don't you think legal action would be taken then as well? If Metallica wanted to release some of their music under a public license - great.. more power to them, but the decision is theirs.
Jason
This issue is a complex one, and seems to be getting more complicated with each advance of technology. The world we live in supplies bombarding media on every front. Radio stations play music based on pre-programmed playlists (rarely requests), interested more in sustaining the largest possible market share at any given moment in time in order to sell the moments between songs to advertising. Imagine a time when the DJs used to actually care about the music or cared about what they did as opposed to worrying about appeasing advertisers and bosses in their role in a massive promotion machine. Aren't you tired of the music stations (video and audio) being nowhere near subjective about the artists they present? When was the last time you heard one of the hosts saying "we promoted the hell out of your last album, and it sold moderately well, but was really poor work compared to this album, which it appears you actually put some care into". Appreciate the promotion machine for what it is - a non-subjective "everything is amazing!" loudspeaker for people who will deny having had anything to do with their current product in five years time. These musicians are products of the same system. Seeing some of todays musicians identify themselves as entertainers is really a joke, unless you find over-rehearsed computer-synchronized, surgically-enhanced, creativity-devoid puppets to your liking. I am hard pressed to think of a contemporary musician who doesn't perform someone else's hand-tailored works. The majority of them (IMO) have lost the standard musician lust for what they do and pride in what they're performing, and instead we can see the hail-mary pass of theirs to the one-shot at fame through their transparent facade. The smart rich kids have always had an edge. They had the cars when they first got their licenses; they had the stuff that people would steal from them at lunch hour, and the toys that other kids would take and break out of jealousy. The invention of the homebrewable recorded CDs in combination with high-speed internet access, decent audio compression, and at the same time an evolving global computer data network let the kids on the edge who could afford these luxuries first get one over on the greedy music companies and their "1 album = 2 good songs + 14 filler tracks" formula. The problem is now that it's not just one or two coolkids getting one over on the system and feeling superior against the system, but its a scheme marketed to the "rebel generation" as part of their collective heritage. Who do you blame for this? Blame @Home or any other high speed home internet provider for pushing their services in every neighborhood when they knew damn well what the major use of 100kb/s bandwidth was for a youth market who use music as a movie soundtrack for their lives. Blame HP and Sony and everyone else who made a CDR drive that a moron could use. Blame Pacific Digital and all of the other junk CDR disc manufacturers for flooding the market with such a garbage low-priced product that the solid reliable brands had to create a product with a similar pricepoint in order to compete. Blame Adaptec for making EasyCD Creator the product it is, so idiot-proof that v4.0 now features an annoying agent in the corner of the screen bearing an extreme resemblance to MS Office's Paperclip Assistant. All of these companies oversold Mom + Pop HomePC these necessities, (nudge nudge, wink wink) with the constant throwback that "hey, this stuff can be used for legitimate purposes - only the baddies use it for piracy!". If any of these companies actually cared about their customers and their non-piracy uses, they might start shipping COMPETENT backup software with the drives (HP has a nice disaster recovery program shipped with their burners but it needs work) or educating their buyers on one of the amazing advantages of having a large-capacity backup device. Show them how to back up their c:\windows\fonts folder, or their registry, or their My Documents folder. None of the companies have thought of this, however, because they have been too busy making money off of everyone's love of making a mixed cd for the car while telling their friends how much they "don't get computers" and avoiding math whenever possible. Many consumers tend to believe that paying Shania Twain $13.99 for her newest CD entitles you to near-limitless rights when it comes to her and her squealing. In reality, you have purchased a (semi)permanent recording of her current batch of tunes. What you did not purchase was worldwide distribution rights to tempt potential buyers of that product to instead exploit technical vulnerabilities and bake their own CD instead. I'm personally mixed about this - Frank Sinatra and Sammy Davis jr. were true entertainers in my mind. They always had money as a result of their endless travels displaying their talents; never worried about selling one more or one less record; appreciated their fans and didn't instead humour them just by actually showing up; and did what they did because they loved it, not because they were undecided in high school and just happen to have buoyant physical attributes. If only ANY but a select few of the artists out there today had as much talent, deserved as much exposure, or could hold anyone's attention without a three hour makeup job or any equipment. Lars Ulrich speaking about these topics only shows his ignorance - his entire diatribes almost seem to be "musician-speak" grammar checked for him by some exec. Lars, I knew people who hunted flea markets for years to find a bootleg copy of your band's "Garage Days" album because you wouldn't release more copies. So what pisses you off more, that someone is such a devoted fan that they spend months tracking down rare versions of your songs and b-sides and original rarities and classics that YOU won't sell them anymore; or is it that some 12 year old kids can now do a lot of that in a few minutes from their bedrooms? i guess the expectation these overhyped musicians have is that they are no longer flattered that anyone is listening to them anymore, only curious why this months check is bigger than last months but less than it potentially could be.
Actually, the notion here is piracy. Don't try to be deceptive by hiding under the "free info" or "open source" banner here. What you are doing is pirating music. Be man enough to say it. I do.
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
I suppose I can accept that bands that are losing money to MP3 trading are going to fight, and since much of the music is pirated they will probably win. I am sure they do lose a portion of their potential income to such piracy (yeah, you can argue, but you are wrong :).
The thing that really irks me is that it is Metallica leading the charge, one of the biggest money-makers of the last 5 years. This just gives me the mental image of these spoiled spandex millionaires checking payphones and vending machines for abandoned nickles, lifting the couch cushions, or combing the beach with metal-detectors. I could understand it more if it were marginal bands whose income stream is not that great otherwise.
-L
Hopefully Katz is poorly paraphrasing the law, cause wouldn't that include web browsers? Neu
Also, super-rich artists are a recent phenomena. In their early years, acts like the Beatles made barely a sliver of what some of today's mediocore label artists make. They've been getting away with murder, just like pro atheletes, and sooner or later the market tends to correct such incredible disequilibriums.
If the little small bands are the ones that are going to be hurt so badly by this, then why is it Metallica, Dr Dre, and the big name record companies who are sueing? If it does anything, it helps get the smaller band's names out. As for concerts, smaller bands get smaller gigs and therefore move themselfs up the latter as such. Concerts are not nessisarily huge and costly. Metallica does recieve money for its art; and plenty of it at that. Which is why it can afford to do what it does. A large reason many people download mp3s is to see if they would like to buy the cd at all.
Even if the spread of copywrited mp3s are immoral or bad, this doesn't justify for the law suits anyway. Napster merely allows you to download files. These files can just as well be legal, the user decides that one. It would, therefore, be unconstitutional if it was to be illiminated.
The fact of the matter is that there are any number of ways of distributing music (including tv and radio), so if people want to pirate music, they will always be able to. (they'd have to ban everything down to sound cards and radios if they really wanted to stamp out piracy - who'd listen to their music then)
Cutting off the Hydras head is pointless - unless you want to be a bit cynical and say that Metallica must realise this and is just going after a bit of easy publicity. Guess I must be a cynic... =)
--- If something doesn't feel right, you're probably not feeling the right thing.
I understand that Metallica and Others have a right to protect thier copyrights. But is sueing Napster and Different than sueing gun manufacturers in wrongfull death cases? Or do we sue the guys who made the bullets for the gun? If someone is injured by a drunk driver who do we sue? the Automobile Company? the Distillers? the store or bar who sold it? Why dont the sue Sony and TDK for making the cassettes that I had all of my Metallica music on? They certainly have more money than napster! But then again, i could be wrong.....
I'm getting really sick of all the news regarding copyrights and the internet. Especially, Metallica suing Napster. While, without a doubt, musicians should receive money for their work. The widespread use of Napster proves that more and more people don't want to pay them. Is Napster really responsible for the actions of its users? After all, you could do the same kind of trading with relay chat, newsgroups and e-mail. Napster just makes it easier. Does Napster lower sales? Statistics say otherwise, but lets face it, I certainly don't by more than one cd a month and I hardly ever need to by a new cd.
The way I see it Napster is the first step toward a new way of distributing music. Cd's are dead! Well dying anyway. Everyone should know that the hardest part of making a living from making music is advertisement. Getting people to go to show/concert, buy cds or cassettes, T-shirts, and other band propaganda is hard to do when know one knows who you are and what kind of music you play or that you even exist. What better way to advertise than on the internet with your music? The cost of providing free music is nothing compared to the cost of distributing cd's. Rob Zombie even said that most of the money that musicians make is from concerts and merchandising. A hint to all bands, drop those blood sucking leeches, and "Be Direct".
Now picture this, every band/musician has a web site. From their web site you can download all recorded music, order T-shirts, get tour information, or read about the their political views (though I personally hate it when bands do this). Then for a small membership fee (like a fan club fee) you could have access to special features like maybe live web cast of concerts and jam sessions, or chat interviews. They could also advertise from their sights (their favorite guitar
strings, Coca-Cola, or whatever). Then programs like Napster could provide an open forum and search engine for people to find and discuss music. With the addition of some advertisement in Napster it would become like an on-demand radio station. All music, All Free, All the Time!!! Mp3.com is perhaps the closet to this model but still has a little ways to go.
Record companies should be scared though, because there in the wrong business for the future. Maybe they'll all become ISP's. The same with radio stations, did someone say wireless internet? The future is coming and you can't fight it so just accept it and make sure you have other marketable skills.
This article is hardly biased... and this thread is nothing new. Non-commercial producers are not impacted by the lawsuit. Commercial producers need to protect their investments. It's a lot like gun control - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Napster by itself doesn't pirate, people pirate. So do we make it easy for people to steal, or do we not? Any attempt at making it harder (DVD) seems to get a few skilled, unethical people on jihads to ensure their rights. "I bought the copyright, I should be able to use it. I cannot be responsible if my work-around is exploited by people to steal." But that's exactly where it leads right? It is easy to rationalize around morality (stealing is bad 'cause it hurts someone) and ethics (stealing is bad 'cause its against the law). "I'm just wanna see if I like it. Just taking a few won't hurt anyone. My actions won't make the economy fall apart. Companies (and individuals) will still invest a lot in making quality product. I'm without means, and why should I go without?" Please remind me where "greed" should be applied? The distribution method of the artist and their copyleft/right should be left to the artist, and if the right is infringed, the artist should be able to take steps to protect themselves. What is greedy about that? I guess we should all leave our doors unlocked when we leave our homes.
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Give me a break. Anyone that invests time, effort, or money into a project needs an incentive. That's how the world works. We trade resources. To make it fair, we imply ethics - codes of conduct - for all people. We make morality to get those people that just cannot figure out that behaving unfairly is disruptive to a community.
Without Copyright, I'd be hurt as consumer, because I wouldn't be able to get access to STUFF that otherwise would be too hard/costly to do.
Will you feed Metallica while they work their trade? How about Id?
/\/\icro/\/\uncher
Another item to add to this wonder bit of insight is the concept of choice.
Some programmers release code under the GPL and other free software licenses by choice. Other programmers release binary only freeware programs, others release binary only shareware programs, ect.... They have put the time and effort into creating something and they have the right to choose how it is to be distrubuted.
Artists (musicians, writters, painters, animators, ect...) also have this choice. They have put the time and effort into creating something and they have the right to choose how it is to be distrubuted.
Consumers also have a choice. In the computer world, if a programmer doesn't like the GPL, he doesn't have to use software released under it. In the music world, if a music fan doesn't want to pay for song, then they don't have to listen to it.
These adolescent (or older) music and retain power. In a parallel universe, caught between Luddite gloom and provide standing targets never have been so continuously and most apt.
Giving people blame hip-hop, "Pulp Fiction," Doom and participate in American world and corrupting, that he built was right conferred by no longer a restraining orders and want to site that some program is lots of an integral part of parents should be that customers online is contributing money and the recent years old media might appear.
The idea that we manufacture solar panels without killing miners and had it isn't clear that it became clear suggestions is demonstrating that was horrible, definitely," e-mailed a heightened sensitivity to put down smaller craft in general. TV was to movies - they will would make use culture in the seventh and centered around conversations, both in a vital part of violence go back and of imagining the thief caught between 13 and have made by the entertainment is a broader awakening. Josh Rosenberg noticed.
In addition to the reasons you stated above, a reason for the government(s) to fight Napster is the tax income they get from each of those CDs sold, compared to what they get from ISPs, which is (I think) much less. The situation somewhat resembles the tobacco industry in this aspect.
Most MP3s that I (and many people) have are either particular favorites that you may already own, songs you can't get in the US(maybe at all), and novelty songs. The first type I mentioned is already paid for, so if you got it, no big deal. The second ones (forign and unreleased stuuff) the bands aren't gonna make any money from you on it anyways. And novelty songs, like Blood Hound Gang and other one hits, most people aren't gonna shell out money if they wanted to hear it. As for the already successful bands (Dre and Metallica for example) have already mad e their million ("Darn now I can't get the extra large Jacizzi! Damn you Napster!") I don't think they will really be hurting, the other media forms still exist. And the industry posted very high earnings last year despite MP3s. The companies are responding in a similar fashion to MP3s as they did to tapes. oh and by the way, there is now a site that is trying to recoup money theoretically "lost" due to piracy. So if you're that concerned for the Masters of Metal, you can help them in their time of financial hardship (yeah right).
Let me start off by agreeing with your claim that music piracy is wrong. You are correct, there are no valid excuses for music piracy.
But you fail to make a very important distinction, between the software (and its authors) and the users of the software. The software is not responsible for its use. And furthermore, the authors of the software are not responsible for its use.
If I have my story correctly, the inventor of dynamite (wasn't it Nobel?) made it to blow up buildings and mountains and peaceful stuff, not to be used in war. In fact, he was horrified when he found out it was being used in war.
It's not his fault, or the dynamite's fault, or the company that manufactured the dynamite's fault if someone uses it for bad things - it is that person's fault.
Likewise, it is not the software's fault, or the authors' fault, if someone uses the software for piracy.
You can't sue someone for making something that allows people to commit crimes.
We might as well sue Microsoft, because their operating system allows people to use a computer for commiting crime.
I think most "slashdotters" would agree (and I'm sure they will correct me if they do not :) that the concern is the limiting of freedom to use a piece of software, because some choose to misuse it.
later
wish
---
$ su
who are you?
$ whoami
whoami: no login associated with uid 1010.
Yes, I have electronic music on my computer. Most of them are of CDs I already own.
What's that? Most? If you own mp3s that you didn't pay for (that are meant to be distributed for free) then you're just as *evil* as the person you're flaming. Next time you make a blatant flame like this, make sure you're not including yourself.
Forget about Napster... Gnutella is the future.
There is no way they can sue Gnutella, that does not rely on central servers I am not sure they have a case against Napster either, but they may have a point because Napster's servers contain files information.
They can sue Gnutella users of course, but who is going to argue with that?
That said, there is another side of this that Metallica has failed to consider.
Back in the 50's, a few clever record promoters discovered that radio was good for them. A song that got played on the radio sold better than one that didn't. The result of this discovery was something called "Pay-ola"(sp?). Label reps would drive around giving bundles of cash to DJ's who played the music they were promoting. Laws were passed against this, but the tickets that your local radio station gives out in their contests is the grandchild of this practice (those tickets were given to the station by the promoter, not bought).
Music radio is a delivery system that lets people hear low-fi versions (via good, but not perfect, FM broadcast) of comercial music which they did not pay for.
Napster is a delivery system that lets people hear low-fi versions (via good, but not perfect, digital compression) of comercial music which they did not pay for.
With either format, listeners can make a permanent copy of the music, although that copy will not be quite as good as the album itself. Curiously, while the labels once tried to PAY the radio stations to let people hear their music for free, they have chosen to SUE Napster for doing the same thing.
It seems to me to be very important that we redraft copyright law so that it distinguishs between somebody giving away MP3's on Napster, and Taiwanese CD Counterfieters. Until we do, this kind of paradox will continue to be commonplace.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
"For musicians to so unthinkingly embrace a simplistic, corporatist and greedy position is ominous."
Excuse me, the biggest and most famous acts in the world now are simplistic, corporatist and greedy. The surviving Beatles, Michael Jackson, Madonna, Rolling Stones, etc. are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Where have YOU been to not have noticed this? When an artist signs a recording contract, HE/SHE HAS ALREADY SOLD OUT. Despite their denials, they are an active part of the big, bad and EVIL corporate system.
"Mostly, Metallica has ensured that poorer kids or people without vast bandwidth will be cut off from acquiring music, from experimenting, from fostering new bands."
I suppose the terms TELEVISON and RADIO are unfamiliar. I'm sure that Metallica used both of them to hear new types of music when they were poor and starting out. I'm also sure that they had enough talent between them all to create a unique sound good enough for the recording industry to take notice.
Please spare us the plight of the oppressed proletariat by the greedy bourgeoisie. It didn't play in Russia and won't here.
To wit:
(1) To all the people who keep talking about lost revenues from CDs -- it's bogus. Most of the music being exchanged would never have been purchased anyway. The college market is the biggest user of Napster because they can't afford to buy CDs and if there wasn't a Napster they would still rather spend their money on beer. CD revenues are up.
(2) Copyright is under more danger from AOL, Yahoo and the various other portal companies than it is from a few million powerless individuals with Napster or Gnutella. AOL has been systematically shredding copyright law wherever it wants content for the last three years and it has been attacking its roots in congress with the help of lobbyists. If you don't believe that, talk to some of the information companies like Claritas and D&B that have had their businesses raped by things like free demographic data, yellow pages, etc. The way all these guys got started was to take someone else's database, repackage it, and then claim it as their own. That's a lot bigger threat to copyright than some college kid copying a song.
(3) Kids were making tape copies of albums and music on the radio 25 years ago before there ever was a Napster.
(4) Look at the suing bands and you will see that every one of them is in actuality a record label that makes a lot more money than the band/artist representing them does. I.E., McCartnety, Metallica, Dre all OWN their record labels! Also note that they have been cleverly selected to appeal to as broad a cross-section of the music-listening public as possible. Paul McCartney, Metallica, Dr. Dre -- coming up next it will be Goo Goo Dolls, Wynton Marsalis, etc. HMMMM...could they be trying to get fans to side up with their favorite artists? Crap...they aren't artists...all three of those guys are businessmen first and foremost.
(5) The lawsuit against Napster will continue, but look for the RIAA and MP3.com to settle this summer and be best buddies shortly thereafter. This isn't about law -- it's about jockeying for position so they can try to negotiate a better contract (read higher percentage of revenues) when they finally do jump in bed together. Even the recording industry now realizes that mp3s are here to stay -- problem is they are way behind the tech curve and they need to stall for a few months to get their shit together.
So...forget about all that freedom/open source crap and get a grip on the program. The recording industry will survive quite well thank you and THEY will be the ones who continue to steal from the artists by owning the marketing and merchandising for music. The only thing that's going to change is that a few other guys like mp3.com are going to get a piece of the pie by having been smart early.
It's not funny till someone gets hurt.
In the uncalled-for-comments-category I would like to snidely remark that Metallica thinks that the reason nobody buys their albums is because they can get them for free on the internet, but I think we all know the truth.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." --Robert LeFevre
Okay, so when this story first broke several weeks ago, I went over to Metallica's website, because I figured that they must have a forum, and I wanted to see what their fans were saying (Personally, I hate Metallica). Low and behold, I find out that you have to PAY to read/post on their forums!!!?!?! Does anyone once think that is just plain crazy, and just certifies the fact even more that Metallica are in it for the money. I don't know about you, but I like my "artists" to be driven by passion for music, not passion for money.
Nobody has realy said much about dual deck tape recorder or cd burners. whats the difference wither its a pysical copy or digital? same deal with the DVD... who's going to download a 4 Gig movie? even with cable/dsl. not many people have the hdd space for that either! people have been getting mp3's off of ftp's for years. long before napster! What about Scour? How come they haven't gotten any flack on this topic?
In my opinion I really don't think programs like napster has any real effect on the music community. So what if Dr. Dre can't make the millions he's used too! $15-20 for a cd is outragous! all the more tape's ever cost was $10! if anyone is ripping someone off... its the record company's! you may email your thoughts to
bofslime@hotmail.com
-thankyou Brian
For me its actually faster to download mp3's than to encode them.. and easyer too be cause this way I don't have to pay for a mp3 encoder. the origonal law on mp3's was that you could download the song if you owned it. most of the thinking behind mp3's was to not have to keep swaping cd's I own a gig's worth of leagle mp3's I own all of them.. and if maybe I want to get a cd I download a song from the albm to see what its like. if I like it I'll go buy it.. if I don't I won't thats the power of the internet. don't kill the messanger just because he lost his shipment to raiders!
more info can be found in my other post here. Why are they being excluded? I would consider scour more worng than napster. becuase you can donwload copywrited music strate from there servers. I downloaded a creed song (I own the cd, that is leagle) at 50k/sec.. faster than most people upload on napster. Nobody seems to get it... downloading mp3's can be leagle. if you own it (on cd, on tape, on 8track, on record, or even paid for liquid audio) you may download it on mp3. grr.. nobody understands.. lawsuits are not the answer... that like sueing icq because you downloaded a program/mp3..etc.. sent to you buy a buddy or whoever thought there serveses.. think what you want... napster has done nothing wrong!
And this is the way things should follow. But the music industry, that could sell CD for less than U$5,00 keeps the price above the stars, since CD's started existing.
Compact discs are cheaper to produce and record than cassetes! But industry would never lower the prices.
What can I say about that? Well done! They are paying for their crimes. I really don't care if they break because of MP3, I would LOVE it!
I just fell sorry for the artists, that must be slaves of these thieves.
- Please, ignore everything written above.
"art is being traded like a commodity" Yeah...but uh, for free? Kinda de-comodifies the commodity then, doesn't it? Get used to it. Ya can't stop the bum rush. Napster is probably screwed so ... GO GNUTELLA!.
don't believe the hype
*
don't believe the hype
Here's a random thought...maybe we'll see a new generation of Open Source Music Advocates in the coming years. Kids might realize that only a select few get rich off recorded music and start putting out tons of tracks for free. Then musicians would actually have to play live to make money. Imagine...if there were less BIG bands, the small bands in your town might actually get an audience. AND then all these record company execs might have to learn a trade.
The trend has already started! GO GNUTELLA
don't believe the hype
at least Limp Bizkit had the BALLS to stand up and support napster, I say drop down drag out steel cage match as an upcoming concert.
It is disappointing to see one of America's best bands make this decision, they are one of the only bands who has survived the 80's AND the 90's and have some real clout in the industry.
Oh well, this time my money is on Limp!
We shouldn't fault institutions such as Yale for shutting down their napster servers. Perhaps they were looking for a valid reason to close them other than bandwidth consumption, which should be reason enough. At my university, we experienced the same effect as a denial of service attack with our website because of student misuse of this tool. Since Napster has a handy download queue, many students would load about 30 songs into the queue before going to class. They would return to their dormatory room computer hours later to hear their freshly pirated music. This is not so bad when only a few people do this, but when several hundred do it at once, bandwidth is quickly consumed. Consequently, we blocked student access from the Napster servers located outside of our campus. Of course students have found ways around this, but people around the world can at least connect to our website now.
Beyond the topic of bandwidth, many higher education institutions simply do not have large enough budgets to merit a legal battle with someone over the copyright issues.
If the useful software that Napster created had not been misused, we would not be having this discussion now.
I see this argument for Napster and its ilk quite a bit. "I'm a poor (college student, single parent, heroin junkie, whatever) and I don't have money to buy stuff. Thus I download it, free, regardless of the law. Screw The Man, anyway." People get really passionate arguing this. One would think listening to the latest Garbage single was a life-or-death situation. It isn't. Your plea might garner a bit more sympathy if you were using Napster to download bread and water. PS: I'm too poor to buy a Lear Jet. Should I go steal one?
um, have you tried amazon? yep, i think they have trance on amazon.
oh, come on. it's called being a consumer.
Napster isn't the problem, Users aren't the problem, the TECHNOLOGY is. People are obviously going to opt for free (everything) music over cost, but that doesn't make it right. Fact of life - people work for compensation because people need to live. When bands dedicate their life to their music they deserve compensation. The net allows files to be freely distributed (god bless the net). I know people and companies have tried to develop mp3 formats with security features, with no avail. But has anybody developed specific players or plugins.
Sigs are for suckers
Gee. that's a brilliant plan. Let's show that we can be jerks too by spoiling something for everyone, not just the people we have a problem with.
metallica decided to ditch all their old fans and sell out to the teenagers for one reason: mo money mo money mo money. looks as though they have become too greedy now. the amount of their lawsuit is astronomical and absurd. napster is sharing music. pirating is selling it. what's next? cant have a friend come over and listen to metallica on my stereo with me?
The Napster situation is just the beginning of what I would like to "chat" about with Metallica. I suppose most people here are too young to remember, but Metallica used to actually make really good underground metal music (hence the name). Personally, I think since Cliff died, they should have changed the name to PoppyMakeABuckAllica. It sounds a lot more like what they are doing than Metallica does. I know I'm not the old school Metallica fan out there. Someone back me up on this. Where am I going with this? Well, this lawsuit is just the latest in a series of stupid, selfish and monetarily motivated moves on the part of Metallica. The comments by Lars in the article pretty much tell the story. Metallica is no longer a band, but a corporate entity. Bands want to see thier music out there (and yes, I know this from experience). I don't mind if one of the songs I've recorded is swapped about on tapes, MP3s or anything else. I would mind if someone else was claiming that they wrote the song, or that they were the ones that first performed it, but I don't think that is the issue. Bottom line, Metallica just keeps coming up, and will do anything to make a dollar. I personally went out of my way to avoid them when they started putting out radio pop rock. Of course, now that they suck thier music is played everywhere. So I quit listening to the radio except when I am forced to, and guess what, Metallica is all over the web, my favorite hang out, smearing thier marketing feces everywhere telling the world how the business of Metallica is far more important than the music of Metallica. I've got one thing to say to Metallica, not that they would listen: Get over yourselves. Cliff was what made you a kick ass band, and ever since you've been fighting to find out what your music should be. Well, enough. I'm outta here. Gotta go clean my ears out with my guitar amp cranked up to SCREEECHINGLY LOUD!!!!!!!!!!
Bite my yammer.
It's worse than that. Usually, the band pays to record the CD, and many other costs. To do this, they basically take out a loan from the record company. Record company's only push records they think will sell. This is a seedy, often illegal process. Some artists get shelved, meaning that their recordins are not promoted or even released. Under contract, they cannot make any other recordings. Bill Evans
There's a lot of truth in this. The multi-tiered distribution system raises the cost of a CD substantially. The corporate culture of record companies, though, is to sell artists like brand names. That's where the rest of the money goes. Bill Evans open-source-music.org
Hey Slashdotters, i have a better way of making your voices heard against the metallica/napster issue. MTVi runs Artist Direct, which is holding the live chat, you can make your words heard at the chat but why stop there. MTV's summer concert series is being headlined by Metallica, if enough people boycotted it i doubt MTV would be willing to lose all that money in concert ticket sales & merchandise sales to keep metallica as headliners. What do you all think?
You may believe that the statement of suing Napster users is ridiculous. IMHO they are the only ones who have really violated the copyright of the artists. The reason that Napster is the target, is because it is perceived as a control point. Take it out and you have the ability to affect the highest number of users. The music industry is fighting this out as a war, and really doesn't care about anything more then buisness.
You took the words right out of my mouth. Don't get me wrong, though. I think Metallica is doing the right thing (protecting their legally recognized copyright), but they're doing it the wrong way. I suppose they'll try to sue altavista and yahoo next. A quick search on either will get you their mp3's at least as reliably as Napster would. If that doesn't work, maybe they can lobby to have ftp banned. Or maybe they can sue Netscape for making a web browser that lets you do the same thing. Or NullSoft, for making software that lets you play these 'pirated' mp3's. The effect is the same either way. If they were to win a law suit against napster, then they'd be setting a major precedence which would limit the freedom of the net for years to come.
Napster is no more responsible for the theft of their music than any retail outlet is responsible for some shoplifter stealing it. Of course, in the case of the retailer, Metallica makes their money anyways, and the store takes the loss, so that's ok for Metallica. Hell. Napster doesn't even host the mp3's.
Did Lars Ulrich or anyone else even bother to fill out the form Napster has for complaints of copyright infringement they have on their site?
BTW, searching yahoo brought up this.
ahhh....but you can buy the original garage days revisited songs. they're on garage inc. metallica does love their money.
Rock 'n Roll, Not Pop 'n Soul
Rock 'n Roll, Not Pop 'n Soul
carldrawings.dk3.com
I'm 100% in agreement with hrunting (and I'm a HUGE Metallica fan, BTW). I've downloaded MP3s of current, copyrighted music and recorded them to CD, but I know it's wrong and wouldn't even attempt to justify it--morally or legally. I did it only because I could, and it wouldn't bother me at all if all MP3s dropped off the face of the earth tomorrow. Can I make copies of [pick a pc game] and distribute them to my friends? Sure I can, but would I defend my legal right to do so? NO! How could I?
They are right in that they have been screwed. They are wrong however, because to drop off 60,000 pages of documentation in a "press release" setting would cause people to believe they were "on to something".... Metalica would be slightly redfaced if the actual "Pirates" were found to have legit copies in their cd collection as well. That would mean, to confirm actual piracy, do they really want to be bothered with going into each of our home for a peek. (Just a thought, remembering that all kinds of people "rip" music for PC-Music convenience).
napster is competitive. they charge nothing. cd's cost a lot. if the recording industry is to compete, it must be competitive. but how can one compete against something free? simple. read on! all it takes is an analysis of the oportunity cost. if i wanted a cd of metallica's music, i could download it and write it to a cd. or i could buy the cd. to buy the cd takes 5 minutes on line and 15 bucks. to write the cd myself, i must buy the blank cd for 50 cents, spend 30 minutes of download time (or more, for slow connections), around an hour to set up the songs and convert them and write the songs to cd. total time: over an hour. since i get paid 12 bucks an hour, it is cheaper for me to copy that cd. if, however, the studios and musicians would get their heads out of their greedy asses and drop the price of the cd's to 10 dollars, they will be out competing napster. all it takes is an analysis of opportunity cost. it is cheaper for me to spend an hour on a cd and copy the cd than to buy the cd. when the oportunity cost is such that it becomes cheaper for me to buy the cd than to copy it, i will buy the cd.
I am at work and haven't had time to read all these threads (and being new to slashdot i'm not up on them from go), so bear with me.
I am a musician and a napster user. I agree that it COULD in theory keep the artist from being given his due recompense for his hard work. I believe that there are "responsible" napster users, who use it as if they were borrowing a cd from a friend to SEE IF THEY LIKE IT. I feel obliged to give an artist money if i like them, and i don't believe i am the minority. Yes there are people that will use it to avoid buying the CD, but any bets that they wouldn't buy it in the first place?
Which leads me to my next thought: Using napster as advertising. My friend and i are PLANNING on marketing our music, open sourcing part of it, freely distributing whatever, and charging for a "full package" to be sent (with extra/ bonus tracks, jewel case, J Card, etc). Granted, it may be difficult for a band like Metallica to put a monetary value on what this "advertising" would cost, but i would think it could be done.
Personally, and emotionally, i would be really angry if napster was squelched. I am so sick of the assembly line crap that is on the airwaves. I have found bands on napster (whose CD I WILL purchase, for the record) that i never would have come into contact with otherwise. Good, talented bands that are in niches that don't get much exposure. Really. These bands are MAKING MONEY OFF ME, like they're supposed to. I am SUPPORTING THE ARTIST. If half the people on napster do the same for me... then i consider it a win
Recently I have been reading a lot of columns and articles on different websites on online piracy. The overall message was: bands good, RIAA good and pirates bad. Well if we look at the law and treaties, whether that is the DMCA, WIPO treaties or European laws (either from memberstates or the Union itself) it will tell us not to make a copy of material unless we have permission of the copyrights owner. These laws have been around even before the existence of the Internet we know it (remember?) And copying has been around longer than the web too. When I was a 15 year old kid I was having over 200 tapes, filled with music from cds I borrowed from friends or rented for a buck a week at our local library. Tapetrading was very popular amongst me and my - music loving - friends. So far I dont see anything new. Now the question to be asked is: what is different then? First of all the easiness of the finding and copying music. Second of all the rather high-quality of the copys playback sound makes a difference too. Taking a look at the Metallica vs. Napster lawsuit the more than 300.000 users which could be identified is relatively new. And very scary if you ask me. Now a lot of people have been stating their (valid) arguments over this: A great way of distribution of music, Its free flow of information, Its freedom of speech, One get to know music (before actually buying it), Record sales are dropping, The artist is losing money, It should be considered stealing. Well under the laws of all the countries mentioned above, it just IS considered a crime. So please, lets not get principal talking about freeflow of information and freedom of speech. Copying music is basically the same as stealing a car. Instead of taking something you can actually touch you infringe on someones right. That however doesnt mean that the records companies need to be principal. First of all where are the principles of the record companies when they are shoving their marketing techniques through 14 year olds throat in order to sell more Backstreet Boys or Spice Girls records? They never seem to have a problem with the firing of bands when their records dont seem to make enough sales. Besides that arent their profits still rising and are the likes of Metallica for instance still making money? It wasnt such a big deal before Napster arrived! (Even though there was a fuzz about audio cassettes - apperently those werent hurting their sales in the end that much.) So lets be a little bit realistic here and put the principles aside. First of all I think copying music is a given: people will be copying music. Cause there is a demand for it and it just feels different than stealing a car. Since there is a demand for copying music and the Internet is just a great way to exchange (music)files there will be means of doing this. So what if Napster has a weak side (their central server): a program will be created to do without that server (Gnutella, for instance). What is next? Make the program illegal? Well think again, and remember Phil Zimmermans PGP. Once it is out there it just is out there. Virtually unstoppable. Try to erase it in someway? How about the Scientology cases then? If it is erased from one site today, it will be on 10 others tomorrow. Besides Gnutella for instance makes it possible to send not only music but also other files. Are providers gonna check the packages being sent then? If by that time they arent already coded, of course. And what if the RIAA would lay their hands on a suspect. What are they gonna charge that person for? If that person has in total 100 different cds on his HD the RIAA would charge him for $1500? Not to mention the international aspect of this because MP3-trading just isnt an all-American thing. From a legal perspective my suggestion would be that the music industry started looking for different options and alternatives other than lawsuits. The only thing will be achieving through that is alienation of the music-lovers. How many people and maybe more important for them: development of new software which will enable copying faster, easier and without being noticed at all. The RIAA and others should either start thinking or worrying, because there will always be bright software developers around who know answers to burning questions. After which it will be published and there will be users who use it. And they are just few steps ahead of the RIAA. ##dev##
Ja toch? Niet dan? Nou dan!
Looks like Metallice is living up to their own lyrics, only I bet they never thought it would apply to them: "Doesn't matter what you see, Nor into it what you read, You can do things your own way, If their done just how I say. Independence limited, Freedom of choice is made for you my friend, Freedom of Speech is words that they will bend, Freedom No Longer Frees You!" From "Eye of the Beholder", off "...And Justice for All" the last Metallica CD that wasn't 100% Suck. Oops, I just stole their art, I think, by posting it here. Hope I don't get sued...
In the book Coersion, Douglas Rushkoff puts it best when he points out the effects of increased distribution of music. Consumers buy more CD's, but become less predictable in their habits. Where at one time you could count on fans to buy every album by the favorite super group (Metallica, U2, R.E.M., etc) now they buy one album per genre and move on.
Of course no one will ever argue that in a court of law, but it does seem to be the real issue.
Oh, isn't that _special_. I'm told their recent albums suck and are really weak and lame compared to when they were hungrier. Don't talk to me about grueling creative process :P want to talk grueling? I'm reading this after pulling an all-nighter 12-hour-continuous composing session on the techno album I'm producing- an album which pushes a lot of limits such as tonalities and metrical forms. I have to stay up because I'm heading to the bank to deposit all the change in my pocket after blowing my checkbook to a shriveled heap paying for unexpected rip fees on promotional posters for my released album, "anima". And what does Lars want to do to help out? He wants to take mp3 away from me, to poison the well. Granted, my life would be simpler right now if I did _not_ have access to worldwide media (through of course the obligatory link to my music, which kicks butt in many ways), and it would be easier on me if I had no hope of being a working musician after the open-source independent coder model. Do I thank him for attempting to simplify my life by limiting my horizons? I don't f**king think so.
He's _coasting_. Grueling creative process, hell. Grueling creative process, Lars, is when you're running low on food and you're sick and you're exhausted but you keep going anyway because there is this thing programmers know about called Deep Hack Mode, and DIY musicians know about this as well, know that the journey is the goal.
Plus, I hear that Metallica's recent albums are caving in to commercial expectations and are soft and inoffensive compared to their earlier, hungrier stuff, so it annoys me to see him talking in grandiose terms of their Creativity and Where Metallica Is At That Very Moment In Their Lives. Spare me- if they are becoming old and stale who cares if it's depicted honestly in their music? If I said the piece I just uploaded was Where I Am At At This Very Moment In My Life, they'd put me away ;) it's crazy music, pushes boundaries real hard- uses fiendish polyrhythms and has a midsection where the whole track simply goes insane with schizophrenic counterpoint for a little while. I _like_ music like that and will never get it from the mainstream industry again- the days when they'd release, say, Beefheart's "The Spotlight Kid" with 'Click Clack' doing that, are gone. But that daring is alive because suck it up and deal, I am going to do what _I_ like to hear and mp3 lets me get it heard. I'll fight for that as long as I have breath in my body.
Only one link today- I'm exhausted, disenchanted, people are _still_ behaving like the mainstream industry needs protecting and coddling (I'd sooner cuddle a cobra) and I have no energy to beg after the all-nighter. Much deep thanks to the Slashdotter who apparently bought my CD for $5.99- I love you man (or woman as the case may be) and would love to know who you were, thank you more personally. I thank everyone who's helped me out with downloads and things- it does matter- did you know musicians fight amongst themselves begging each other for a simple download? That's how tough it is to get indie credibility after decades of industry brainwashing. The site (mp3.com), run by mad Michael, is thinking of putting 'pay for play' income on each artist's page, and many people are flipping out, saying "If my fans see that I only made 12 cents that day, they'll leave and not listen to me anymore!" If that _is_ true, it's sad- and incredibly, horribly wrong. Personally, I don't mind that being posted about me because I don't pretend to be anything other than I am- underground, outmarketed, and I need help. But now I'm tired, f**k it, moderate this down into oblivion because I don't count and am not a REAL musician, don't go visit that page in the one link I habitually gave, whatever.
I'm still going to make music anyway. This time in history may just quietly close down and music will never have a freedom movement like programming had with Linux- maybe the RIAA will win and I'll be back to copying off cassette tapes for friends (assuming that is still allowed! The physical media could simply be unavailable to consumers, eventually). But I will still make music anyway- I did it for almost 20 years, secluded in my room with nobody listening, and I can go back to that if that 'broadcasting', mp3 and do-it-yourself and embattled websites- gets turned OFF. And it won't be because I didn't kick up a fuss- it will be from people trying to protect what they see as the music aristocracy, Prince Lars and his creative sensitiveness. *gag* funny, I could have sworn I didn't get any sleep and so this couldn't be a nightmare, could it?
First off, Jon Katz is not in the music business, is not a member of Metallica (thank God!) and has never managed them. This gives Jon Katz exactly ZERO right to say how Metallica should licence their music.
If Metallica wish to GPL or BSD some of their music, fine! If they don't, oh well! Either way, it's nobody else's business but theirs as to what licence is used for THEIR music.
Secondly, Jon Katz is sounding like this is a done deal. Sorry, but there's this guy called a judge, who - uh - sorta listens to both sides and says who's in the right, here.
So far as I know, Jon Katz has not been called to the Bar, and is not the duly-selected judge to preside this case.
Thirdly, this has nothing to do with Free Music (ie: music distributed under an Open Source-type licence), which absolutely NONE of the music in question is.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Please try to ignore all of the rhetoric on both sides and look at the facts. The vast majority of MP3s out there were not created with the artist's or the record company's consent. Wether or not they "deserve" the money is besides the point. MP3s are no different than warez because in both cases the rightful owner of the copyright didn't give permission for the copy to be made.
Remember the flap about Be using some ethernet drivers without following the terms of the license? Is this any different? I don't think so.
Why is it that the fact that the copyright on the material in question is owned by some large corporation changing perspectives so much? Fundamentally, the amount of wealth and power that the copyright holder has shouldn't be altering the equation one bit.
Making copies without the copyright holder's permission is wrong, both morally and legally.
There is a reason that doesn't get moderated up...what kind of explanation for theft is 'I can't afford to legally buy them'. Most people can't afford a Ferrari either...you don't see people heisting them.
When you steal a Ferrari, the owner won't have it anymore. SO YOUR POINT IS VOID, EMPTY, NULL, NADA, BOLLOCKS, NICHTS, RIEN DU TOUT.
(PS: are you really at microsoft.com?)
... take the left.
Oh how much I hate moralizing Anonymous Cowards. Stealing from a poor person is extremely bad. Stealing from an undecently wealthy bastard is just fair.
Flame all you want, I'll post more
Speaking of which, you could really use some training in this area yourself.
You have shown quite conclusively that you are one of the retarded acneic teenagers that you seem to despise so much.
I'm not a teenager, I don't have acne, though I *might* be retarded depending on one's point of view. You should have phrased that as you're no better than an ..., that would have made more sense.
I would recommend that you back up for a second, reread your post, take a deep breath, and chant "It's only Slashdot, It's only Slashdot".
This is slashdot, and that is why I feel free to speak freely.
Most people who have passed their retarded acneic teenage years can find more constructive ways to counter an argument besides poorly thought out sarcasm and name calling.
As I said, you could really use some help and training in flaming and rhetoric. It was not an "argument" to begin with. It was opinion. Look that up for yourself in a dictionary, you might feel enlightened.
And then ... here comes an actual argument: I've done name calling, I'm not ashamed of it, and I invite you to ask yourself ... what's worse, speaking one's mind strongly and honestly, or sueing Universities for bogus reasons just because you have the money and power to do so?
Hope this helps, too.
To the argument regarding copying music as not being theft because it deprives no one of any good, you are correct. It is not theft. This is a bad term.
Actually, if you copy music and don't buy a legal copy, you are in fact stealing. From whom, now, this is the issue.
What you are clamouring to say is that "We don't like the current system. Change it". You're rebels, fulfilling your teenage angst.
Not necessarily. It's just the most convenient weapon we have. What's easier, writing letters and going on marches, or by letting technology dictate behavior continue to go the easy way which is to continue downloading illegal music and allowing the technology and the behavior to apply pressure for you. It makes civil disobedience easy and rewarding. The problem is at this point prosecuting MP3 pirates is as effective as prosecuting jaywalkers in NYC. And, as long as this happens, the strength of anti-piracy law will be reduced to the point that it will be as strong as NYC anti-jaywalking law.
The real question that will be asked when the recording industry is hurt enough long enough is, how do we make money under the new market rules? The artistic side of the music world has broken down into 2 camps, the indies who love net-distributed music, and the corporate wh0res that see it as a threat to their 10-Ks. But ultimately, as long as it is easy and cheap to pirate music, their views are irrelevant.
I'm just disappointed that Metallica and Dr. Dre are simply enriching lawyers at the expense of their targets and the goodwill of their fanbase. That money would be better spent tryign to find a fair solution that allows music consumers to stay legal at a reasonable price, whcih could possibly include buying themselves out of their record company and providing legal downloads.
Your Working Boy,
From http://www.lowpass.net
Keeping in line with their commitment to staying on the cutting edge of even the shadiest of trends and technologies; burgeoning e-Meat company Low Pass Industries today issued a chilling condemnation of Napster, the online service that allows users to download and trade music recorded in MP3 format.
In the fifty-eight page spirographed letter, Low Pass Industries demands that an MP3 stolen from their website Sunday morning by "evil yet strikingly handsome black leather trenchcoat clad hackers with uzis and possibly the Force as their allies," be immediately removed from Napster's "computer" or else "serious legal repercussions would ensue," and added that if they failed to comply, Low Pass Industries would, "kill them."
Low Pass Industries flatly denies all allegations that this is simply a hoax to gain a foothold in the rapidly expanding MP3 litigation industry. They also asserted that the claims Low Pass Industries planted the MP3s on Napster themselves as an underhanded advertising technique were both baseless and, "so crazy."
The MP3, entitled "The Marshall Mathers LP -- Gold Digger" began appearing on Napster on Tuesday, April 25, 2000, and was promptly downloaded by thousands of Napster's shifty-eyed criminal user base.
"Any resemblance between our advertisement and a song off of the highly anticipated new Eminem album are totally coincidental," said a Low Pass representative through a mouthful of Chow Mein at an adjoining press conference with an all-you-can-eat Chinese buffet. "Being a thriving, dynamic company unafraid of challenges however, we are excited to have been given this opportunity to become world leaders in the exciting field of copyright litigation."
The threat also goes on to accuse Napster of stealing Low Pass Industries' idea to "completely screw Metallica," and suggests often and in capital letters that suing for damages may not be that far off into the future. It alleges with colourful illustrations that in the Fall of '99, several high-ranking employees of Napster had access to confidential Low Pass Industries memos with flamboyant titles such as: "SCREW LARS" and "METALLICA SUCKS" and that all subsequent attempts by Napster and their affiliates to rob Metallica and keep them homeless and poor and begging for change on the street forever were born out of these memos.
The letter also claimed that there were well over ten other artists which Low Pass Industries had first suggested screwing and as such are entitled to a cut of anything they are subsequently screwed out of.
"We hope to have this matter resolved soon and with the best results for both parties involved," said another Low Pass Industries representative, while drunk.
This analogy doesn't work when comparing traditional media to napster and mp3-broadcasting stations.
Music on the radio isn't "free". The radio station has to keep very careful records of what they play, and based on the ratings, they pay royalties to the RIAA (which distributes them proportionaly to the labels who own the recordings played), and to the publishing companies (BMI/ASCAP/SOCAN).
The radio stations advertise in order to collect the money that goes to the royalty payments. The music isn't free. Like "Yahoo", its paid for by advertising.
This is the reason the RIAA is going after 'net broadcasters. Net broadcasting (shoutcast, real-producer, etc...) is likely going to have to go to an advertising model 'cause the royalties for playing the music still need to be paid.
The problem with the RIAA approach is that they charge far too much relative to the size of the listening audience. Why should someone pay $5000 + royalties that reflect an audience of 10,000, when they have records (its all digitially logged anyways, automatically) showing that they've never had an audience more than 100 listeners at a time? Economically, the RIAA is actually pricing most 'net broadcasters out of business. And I'm inclined to believe its intentional.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
Thank you! Someone with a clue at last. Why do so many people fail to see the obvious here? You download pirated MP3's, you break the law. There's no wriggling out of that fact.
Yes, the Record Companies are money grabbing bastards, and yes, they should be made to stop ripping us off. That doesn't alter the above statement though.
Now weary traveller, rest your head. For just like me, you're utterly dead.
Art is a naturally occuring substance. You might not think so (We live in a capitalistic society. People expect and need to make money from their efforts), but I guarantee that people will be making music wether or not they might ever profit from it.
Do you think people would create art full time if the knew there was no way they would get any compensation for it? Do you think weekend artists would be as skilled on average as full time artist?
Then maybe they should get a "real" job, unless, like some idiot said here a while back, you believe that anyone who makes music *must* be compensated for it. That's like saying anyone who plays football should be compensated, just because they are playing. The fact of the matter is that to make any money at "play" you have to be damn good at it, so good that people are willing to pay just to watch you play.
I'm not sure, but I think I might be the "idiot" you refer to. Nice to see that you discuss your point of view rationally, rather than resulting to name calling.
If I am the person you're referring to, then you misinterpreted what I said. I believe that if someone creates something, they are entitled to ask whatever price they want for it, and if someone wants to benifit from that creation, they are required to pay the price. I don't think they must be compensated simply for creating. There's a significant difference.
If the creation sucks, and/or the creator sets their price too high, no-one will buy it. That's fine, and it's fair. It isn't fair for people who want the creation to obtain it without paying the creator's price. If you don't like the price, go elsewhere, or wait and see if the creator reduces their price. You could even try to convince the creator to lower the price, or perhaps convince them to change to a diferent business model. But simply obtaining the benefits of their work is
It's like if I had a farm, and I produced food there. Way more food than I could ever eat. Now, I should be able to ask whatever price I want. If I say "$80 for an English cucumber", that's the price. You can't say "oh, that's too much, I'll just take one. He'll never know, and he's got way more cucumbers than he could eat on his own anyways." You either pay the price, or find someone else who's got cucumbers at a lower price.
Been out of town, sadly, so didn't get to join in this discussion from the start. Bunch of you have e-mailed me asking if I would mind if my columns were stolen and distributed for free. Fact is, they are.
My columns and others here are reprinted all over the place. I don't get paid and when asked, don't charge. My belief is that I...like music authors..need to change the way money comes in. Despite suggestions to the contrary, I have very little money. But my belief is that the more people read my work, the more valuable I will become as a writer.
I don't believe I can charge for my work in a traditional copyrighted way. So my columns are often reprinted, linked to or excerpted and I don't get money or expect any. People are free to use my work in whatever way they want. This many make me stupid or crazy..many people here have suggested both. But I believe that the Net presents new challenges for writers and artists. So my choice is simple: I can get a lawyer to write threatening letters to people who quote my columns, or I can find new ways to earn a living. Those would be become widely read enough so that I can charge flat fees for my work. I have a contract with Slashdot, for example. I get paid as a freelance writer a flat fee per year. I don't expect or receive five bucks every time somebody reprints or quotes from my column. I want them to.
I am not writing about this issue from a position of remote detachment..I feel it's time people came up a with a better way to deal with the movement of ideas than antiquated copyright laws, which just don't work in an Internet Age. Some have asked if I mind that people digitalize and distribute my books. It's a good question. I'd love to make money and pay my bills, but I can't say tht I do mind a lot. I'm happy when people see my work, pro or con, and believe that will ultimately take care of me.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
"(I own several hundred CDs btw)"
Bully for you, and entirely irrelevant. Unless you are only collecting mp3's for things that you own already, in which case you still don't need Napster.
"First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc..."
So because you have "rarified tastes", you suddenly have carte blanche to steal whatever you want. I'm sure that the stuff is available somewhere, otherwise, it wouldn't be available as mp3's. You could always try and join/build a community of trancers, that would let people know what's new, and good, and where to get it. I'm sure that you could legitimately pay for what you use, if you only wanted to.
"Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA..."
So don't buy the stuff you don't like. And everyone buys CD's that have dreck on them. Just don't buy more from that band, if you don't like the direction that they're going. If it's worth stealing tho, it ought to be worth buying. Caveat Emptor. And if it's available outside the US, I'm sure that there is some channel that you could use to get it here as well. What with all the online music vendors.
"Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Napster (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise."
So because it's a "victimless crime", it's perfectly ok? Or because you're poor, you should have a different set of guidelines, than someone that makes more money? Get a job. If the music is so important to you, that you HAVE TO HAVE IT, then get a second job. It's a matter of priorities. The things that really matter to you, you can find a way to facilitate.
"Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase."
So because you are stealing from people that might be better able to afford it, it's suddenly acceptable? I'm sure that breaking and entering, carries a much lighter sentence when you bust into Bill Gates's house, than when you bust into mine. Makes sense. Yeah, record company greed does suck. But just because they are greedy, doesn't justify the fact that you are too. Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"?
"The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews."
If you don't like the sales help, don't patronize the store. The fact that you don't like the salesclerks at Tower Records, doesn't suddenly give you carte blanche to steal the products elsewhere. And sure buying online is a risk, you don't know if you'll like what you're buying. In case you didn't catch it earlier, it's called caveat emptor. Buyer beware. Build a community of friends whose tastes you do trust. Find legitimate samples of the musicians work, so you can taste before you buy. Become an informed consumer, rather than a petty theif.
"I'm glad Napster exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on."
I'm sure you do love it. You get to take whatever you want, without actually having to walk into a store, and risk getting popped for shoplifting. It's great for you. But you're not the only person involved. The artists have rights as well, and in stealing their work, you are trampling all over their rights.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
The argument that the people who download the music will then go out and buy the CD is specious. I remember college and I know that if I had music from 600 CDs already recorded somewhere, not only would I not feel any need to buy the music, I would not be able to afford it.
Purely anectodotal, but I am a college student (doing ok financially at this point) who uses napster from time to time. This year I have purchased 4 CDs that I wouldn't have even considered except I came upon them somewhat by accident - for example a group remixed by one I was looking for. I have also downloaded tracks that I was too lazy to rip myself (yes, it is easier to click one button than to dig up my CD and start up cdparanoia, then notlame, then set the ID3 tags correctly). The best part of Napster though is downloading remixes and live tracks that you just can't find anywhere else.
Of course, this is all anectdotal, and I know there are people out there with 30GB of music that they will never listen to.
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
Actually, they don't. If people are selling drugs in my establishment, I have no more responsibility to stop them than any other witness.
Actually, in this case your establishment would be subject to civil forfeiture, meaning that the government could confiscate your establishment without even having to provide any evidence of wrongdoing on your part. Your only recourse would be to post 10% of the value of your establishment, then go to court and prove that your establishment wasn't used to sell drugs. Under the tortured logic of our "drug" laws, your property is presumed guilty unless you can prove it innocent.
Don't presume that your constitutional rights apply when you are charged with a drug crime. They don't anymore.
Check out fear.org
"Copyright" and "Intellectual Property" are ideas invented by corporations, and forced through the law-making process by corporations. It's no surprise that when people violate these so-called laws, it's corporations that get all excited.
I challenge anyone to name one instance where a "Copyright" has helped a consumer, rather than an information-hoarder.
Ok so radio stations are corporate controlled. So what? How does Metallica suing Napster for their stuff being illegally distributed really stop you from distributing your stuff on the internet? It is not as if Napster is the only way to distribute "indy" music on the internet. In fact, dare I say it, it's a horrible way to do it because the user can only search for substrings; this is hardly an ideal way to promote your music. Mp3.com, numerous ftp sites, and the like provide a far far better way to get your music out to the masses. Nor is it as if, metallica is suing to stop YOUR music from being distributed for free against your wishes; they are only suing for their own IP. If napster is all it claims to be, then the absolute absence of pirated music should not interfere with its more legitimate activities (although everyone knows in reality that that piracy is the only reason they exist).
In addition, this "information wants to be free" line is crap. There is no way in hell anyone could have ever produced an exact copy of metallica's mp3s. In other words, Metallica's attempts to stop the illegal distribution of mp3 of their CDs does nothing to stop the legitimate sharing of "free" music. Unlike the possible argument with other forms of IP protection, it does not possibly restrain anyone from indepedantly creating their own works. Metallica would only produce their music if they could make a living from it, and maybe even a "killing". Thus, given the choice between everything being "free" (read: No metallica) versus somethings costing money (read: metallica), even the rational cheapskate should prefer the latter. Even if the person personally don't want to purchase (or lack the funds) Metallica, they can still listen to it on the radio, copy their music, and generally benefit from its existence.
But napster is a network created to trade MP3's on. And, I'd wager that 99% of the MP3's on there aren't legally allowed to be traded. Plus, Napster turns a blind eye to the whole thing. It'd be one thing if they actively logged and displayed IP addresses to make users more accountable. Or required email address from an ISP rather than one of the free email services. They do none of that. It's like a bar that lets people sell drugs in their establishment. By turning their head and acting like nothing's going on, they become liable for the actions of their patrons.
I really fail to see any legitmate use to Napster. If someone has a legitmate need to listen to a CD, they can listen to the CD, convert the track themselves, or register with Beam-It, tell Beam-It they have the CD, prove it, and be able to listen to it from anywhere.
When 90%+ of the material Napster's network is illegal, obviously the idea, if it was a legitmate one to start out with, isn't working as planned and should be completely scrapped and revamped.
Telling artists that their music should be free is like everyone saying that you know, sysadmins, network technicians, and programmers should do their work for free since they enjoy it so much... Maybe they can make money training other IT professionals, making motivational speaches, or something like that. They made their career choice just as everyone here did, or will once they graduate college.
If the problem is that there's only one or two good songs on the CD, don't buy the CD. Find better artists that are able to produce a whole album's worth of good material. They still do exist, you know...
It's interesting though, that at the same time Metallica and Dr. Dre are suing Napster, a band like Limp Bizkit is preparing to embark on a series of free concerts, sponsored by Napster.
I like the idea of being able to send and receave high quality audio over the Internet.
However I use it for lissening to on-line talk shows like Geeks in space and Leet Radio.
Napster is a great tool for distributing sound. Be it talk radio, Internet artists or CDs you bought from the store.
I'd like to defend Napster but everyone else seems to defend Napster as a tool for piracy.
That dosn't help the case...
The DCMA puts Napster in a bad position. Napster distributes high quality audio. It dosn't have to be made as a tool for piracy..
Under the old copyright laws Napster would have to be designed to devalue intelectual property.
Usenet can devalue IP.. Type a whole book into a computer or better yet scan it it and use an OCR program. Post it to usenet.. or on a website. You just pirated a book. Is Usenet or the web designed for this? No. It dosn't stop anyone from trying.
One usenet newsgroup was named "Gigabites of copyright violations"....
But that dosn't change Usenet into a website for copyright violations.
On the other hand how can I defend Napster and Napster users?
When every argument I see on Slashdot is a defence of IP theft and not of Napster for lagit uses.
I don't actually exist.
Think about it, most of the people on napster are college students. I know there are a lot of others on there too but most of the users tend to be young and poor. They are also the ones who tend to love music the most, but they are also the ones with the most limited income in general. I would never go out and buy most of the music I download, I'll admit it, but the reason is I can't afford $15+ for each piece of music I want to hear. I may only want to hear it once. I have a totally different taste of music now thanks to napster. I have been exposed to almost every different type of music there is and it is great; it's the way it should be. I guess I have to admit, I have not bought a cd since I started using napster, but I have gone to see a lot more bands in concert than I would ever had. Whenever I hear of a band coming to town the first thing I do is get on napster and check them out. Anyone else who does this knows how great it is.
The point is, piracy is great and you are never going to be able to convince people otherwise. We all know how awsome free information is, just look at all we get off the internet for free. Why do pay services not work on the internet? People do not want to pay for things they can get for free from somewhere else. It's a sad fact but it is so true. In the end, music will not die, it will just change. Just look at the bands that support trading of theor music between fans, bands like phish, the grateful dead, and marley among others. Look how well they have done. They make their money from performing for their fans. If bands are serious about their music and not money, this is how it should be. No one would agree that money is not nice to have, but how much do they deserve and how much does the industry deserve. I would not mind at all paying 50cents for a song, they get less than that anyway. Perhaps a pay per use to a certain extent would be good also. Listen once for free, 5 cents for each use after that until you hit 50 cents then you own it. I know people do not like these schemes and of course there will be ways around it, but if you really want to support the bands directly and not get screwed by bad music it's a descent plan. You must be able to listen once for free though. The only problem is, schemes like this must be accepted by all as fair. There will always be mp3's or a way around any copy protection scheme. The system has to be accepted by the users to make it work. Anything else is doomed. Forgive my speeling mistakes, I spent way to long typing this and must go before proofreading.
I think everyone's just greedy. We need a system where everyone is equalized, and which would prohibit anyone from being lower or higher than others.
Ah, the classic "cut everybody down to the lowest common denominator" idea, aka socialism (communism to the West).
Sorry to disappoint you, but it has been tried. Didn't work all that well. The price of the experiment has been quite high, though.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
You didn't look at post I was replying to. The original poster said:
We need a system where everyone is equalized, and which would prohibit anyone from being lower or higher than others.
and this is much more than the abolishment of intellectual property which you advocate. This is not about property any more, but rather about whether some people are/can be better than other people.
And your "Digital Socialism" is basically abolishment of copyright, correct? This subject has been rehased many many times, especially in debated between RMS and his opponents.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Napster plays an active role in the trading of mp3s: the filenames are listed on their servers
So, on the basis of a filename you are willing to make conclusions whether copying the contents is a copyright violation?
And I still don't see what Napster is guilty of. It provides information that makes it easy to commit copyright violations. So what? Anarchist's Cookbook provides information that makes it easy to make bombs. A chemistry textbook provides information that makes it easy to make poison gas.
Napster is sued for the sole reason that it can be sued. The correct defendant should be the users, but it's obvious that going after the users is not going to do any good, money-wise or public-relations-wise.
Besides, what about Usenet? There is a huge load of copyrighted material (most of it porn) that's floating through Usenet every day. So what about the machines that carry news -- shouldn't they install filters, too?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I once thought it was impossible to obtain over the net too, here are some links:
m - sells mostly psytrance/goa but you have to deal with import fees/delays :(
http://www.spectralpsy.com - they sell mostly psytrance and goa.
http://www.x-radio.com - they sell all sorts of electronica but they dont get the latest releases as often as other companies.
http://www.sosrecords.com/ - another company selling all sorts of electronica. They get new stock all the time. They FINALLY take credit cards.
http://www3.mistral.co.uk/chaosunltd/frchaos.ht
I've found that most labels have a web page with online ordering. It's fairly obvious that I listen to mostly psytrance and goa, so most of my links are geared twords those sites.
Flying Rhino, Matsuri, Edgecore, Blueroom, Twisted, etc, etc all have websites with online ordering and most have mp3/ra samples of the material.
Hope this helps
-- "Religion is for those who fear hell, spirituality is for those who have been there."
Against Napster:
It's clearly used for unauthorised distribution of copyrighted material, and that would seem to be the primary purpose for most users. We can argue until we're blue in the face whether it's right for them to restrict distribution or about the ethics of the record industry, but the simple fact is that distributing something without the permission of the copyright holder isn't right.
For Napster: While it's used for illegal distribution, it may well actually help them.
Inevitably, some of their users are going to be people who can afford and would buy the recordings legally, but have chosen to obtain illegal copies instead. But I wouldn't say they're in the majority.
Experience with friends suggests that most people like having a smart, original copy with the nice cover art and are glad to have rewarded their favourite artists - well, glad to have felt like they had, even if the current system means they haven't really some of the time... Experience also says that most illegal copies are either people transferring media so they can listen elsewhere - my copying a CD to tape to listen to in my car, for example - or people who simply can't afford the original.
I don't pretend for one moment that I don't have a single track illegally. But those I have are where I like an album but don't have the money to buy it yet. So, I copy it and then buy it when I find a copy at a price I can afford at a later date. Which may mean a secondhand copy, or may mean a full price, brand new copy when I'm richer. I've done both.
The point is that the illegal recordings don't represent a lost sale but help ensure a future sale by maintaining my interest in the artist concerned. So by blocking this they're removing one potential channel for people to learn about their art and feed their interest until such a time as they can afford to buy a legitimate copy.
Napster is definitely facilitating an illegal distribution, and are a _dreadful_ rallying point for the free software community. Openly supporting them allows the media to suggest that all Linux users (a group which doesn't include me, I'd better say) are nasty theives who are undermining the economy and depriving artists of what they are due.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good thing for the record industry and various bands to attack Napster. They may well be shooting themselves in the foot.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Now that it's so easy to break soo many of these laws, don't you think that it's the laws that are the problem?
i have a car that will happily go 120 MPH. does that mean the speed limit laws are "WOEFULLY" unprepared for me?
the laws are fine. that they are easy to break in no way invalidates them. it only means you have to exercise a little self-control.
you act like you have a god-given right to listen to music. you don't. get over yourself.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
should I calculate the money I've spent on music over the past month...hmmm, 3 cd's, 4 live shows, various cover charges....nope too much to keep track of.
I understand your point, but you need to get this through your head. Just because it's free doesn't mean you can't support it. I would hazard a guess that to get a professionally (perhaps not as much as it takes to make Sugar Ray sound good) recorded CD costs around $10,000. Recording live shows (outside of the cost of musical instruments and amps, which are necessary regardless) costs about $300. Putting in on the Net costs less (and takes about half an hour). Building a radio station around it, costs less. My point? Stuff ain't so tough as it used to be.
you wouldn't HAVE 99% of the music on your hard drives and CR-Rs.
and my guess is that most people who play it like that don't listen to 99% of their music and are wasting disk space. I used to share video games when I was a kid too. Now I buy them. I could still get them for free, but I don't need too. And I understand that taking without giving any back doesn't work as a long term solution. But we have this really cool Internet thing, that makes a lot of the initial cost of making money off of music (reproduction, distrubution, and promotion!!) disappear. Why ignore it and act like a phonograph is our only avenue to musical appreciation. Why ignore it and keep supporting a broken system. Who taught you that sharing inexhaustible resources was wrong?
--
+&x
First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online.
I'm sure you've seen it, but here's a good stream for those of you that like to try new things. I'm damn glad I've got the net, 'cause I like this kind of music, and without it, I never would have been exposed to it. It's great for long periods of time that require extended concentration, if any of you are ever in a position like that...
--
+&x
Ice is a naturally occuring substance. Technology was created that allowed it to be created in places that it would not otherwise be suitable for. The music that you hear on the radio, on mtv, in the car, buy at record stores, etc... is not naturally occuring. That's a big difference.
Art is a naturally occuring substance. You might not think so (We live in a capitalistic society. People expect and need to make money from their efforts), but I guarantee that people will be making music wether or not they might ever profit from it.
And while "we" might live in a capitalistic society, the world does not (the world couldn't support humans if they all consumed liked Americans). The Internet covers the world, so local conventions can be easily dismissed as just that, local conventions.
They've got bills to pay, kids to put through college, retirement to worry about, and all the other day to day stuff that we all deal with.
Then maybe they should get a "real" job, unless, like some idiot said here a while back, you believe that anyone who makes music *must* be compensated for it. That's like saying anyone who plays football should be compensated, just because they are playing. The fact of the matter is that to make any money at "play" you have to be damn good at it, so good that people are willing to pay just to watch you play.
Stop stealing!
I'm not stealing, I'm sharing. But for a country that likes to teach kids to "say no to drugs" in the same schools which push ritalin on the same children, this kind of misunderstanding is common.
--
+&x
What you're essentially saying is that nobody should ever release anything if they want to make any money off it, or retain any control over it.
What I'm saying is no one should release music if they want to retain absolute control over it. It's the government's job to make sure they are the only ones that profit from, it's the fan's job to make sure others know about it.
But how do artists make a living until then?
umm, how about, oh, say, something like...playing music.
--
+&x
just because it's friday and I like talking about the future on friday's...
Metallica is not attacking free speech and free software. Not one bit.
I'm not sure if you're talking about Free Software or not, but regardless, Metallica is simply publishing to world exactly how far they have sold out. And they are attacking free speech, quite a few bits of it to be exact.
The information wants to be free, someone could say, but that doesn't mean that laws aren't being broken, and when those laws are broken, it's the author that's getting screwed over, not the individual.
Now that it's so easy to break soo many of these laws, don't you think that it's the laws that are the problem? Don't give me any "murder everyone if you like it" argument either. The laws we have for copyright and IP and WOEFULLY unprepared for the digital future. The DMCA, our most modern rendition, makes that very clear. "But you're stealing music" you whine. No, I'm not, I'm listening to it. The only way to "steal" music is to profit from it unfairly. Nobody using Napster is doing that, but a whole bunch of them are "sharing" it.
--
+&x
i have a car that will happily go 120 MPH.
Wow, you can go 120 MPH a hundred times an hour from the comfort of your living room? Amazing, or did you not understand what I meant by easy.
you act like you have a god-given right to listen to music. you don't. get over yourself.
This might be a bit on the philosophical side for you, but I do have a god given right to listen to music. But I have a man-taken one (called copyright or intellectual property) that says I don't.
--
+&x
so, yes, it's easy from my perspective.
We're still talking about two different easies. You still can't do it 100 times an hour from your living room. My only point is that laws like that are stupid, and if we keep them around everyone will be breaking them constantly and they will only be selectively prosecuted. I would rather avoid that situation.
if you don't like the law, write a letter to someone who can re-write it. but breaking the law because it's easy to break is still breaking the law.
I've actually done more than that. I sat down with my congressman and tried to explain my position, on software patents, the DMCA, and IP in general. He really didn't understand it too much, maybe it's time to visit again. I also have been taught through our cultural history, that one way to get the law changed is to break it willfully, purposefully, and repeatedly. When you keep doing that, and all of a sudden everyone realizes, that your aren't, in fact, doing something that should be illegal, then the law changes.
--
+&x
The reality is, though, that they're not really working with their fans, because it's quite clear that their fans want to get the music for free (assuming it's Metallica fans who download Metallica songs, which I think is a safe assumption), and they don't want to give it away for free.
How do you resolve such a fundamental dispute?
hmm, band doesn't want fans to share music. Fans want to share music. If band doesn't want fans to share music, band doesn't release music. Seems simple to me.
--
+&x
Considering that companies make real money offering less on their web pages,
/. :). For Men aged Alive, pr0n is rather popular (pr0n as defined by me "media designed to increase sexual desire").
That's true...and my point. Pr0n is one of the few businesses that is making money on the Net. It's not hard to find lots of it, but people can make money off you during the search. There is value in the traffic. I've seem both Media Metrix's and Nielson's raw numbers for traffic on the Net (I do have a real job outside of
My point? Even when you have an infinite supply you can differentiate levels of quality. Flood the market with stuff, and the good stuff rises to the top and the simple MASS of all the rest gives a new type of value to the good stuff. Enough that peole will still pay despite having an infinite supply. Two other examples of this phenomenon are Doom (and later Quake) and the Greatful Dead (and later Phish). All of which inspire infinite demand (i.e. love) *cue touchy feely music*
--
+&x
particularly in that you're at least willing to pay for some fraction of the music you listen to.
/. folks who don't understand Free Software as a concept, or you mean Free Loading, as in introducing software into your life that is Free (Libre).
Thanks!
I actually like the try-before-buying aspect of MP3s. But, unfortunately, it looks less and less like any significant number of people "try" instead of simply failing to "buy".
Internet becomes popular in 1995, it's now 2000. Number of homes with broadband, 1995:Ha-ha, 1999: 3.25x10^6
Talk to your friends with 24-hour high-speed Net connections about "try" and "buy" musical consumption behaviour. It might be interesting..when it will be able to be studied in a few years. This whole market is just getting started.
Further, I really am starting to wonder if the freeloader culture that seems dominant on places like Slashdot leaves any room for more than a few rare people to make any money by distributing MP3s of their work.
O.k., this one set me off a bit. First off, let me make this clear, you will not find my name anywhere in the Linux kernel, nor the GNU Utils, or on much of any publicly (or privately) distributed software for that matter. However, I've only known about it for a year or so (one of the busiest of my life), so be patient.. That being said, I hardly see how you can call this culture freeloading. Unless you mean the most recent influx of
However, the vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their creating artists.
You might think this rebuttal a technicality, I think it's the whole fuckin' point (hey, it's 4:24 a.m...). The vast majority of MP3s out there have not been freely shared by their copyright owners.
They've been stolen.
Now THAT, I'll agree with.
And before you argue this one, I suggest you read this.
Especially this quoted part (in light of this thread)
How does work made for hire treatment benefit artists and consumers?
Work made for hire treatment allows for the effective promotion and distribution of a recording so that payments can be made according to contractual agreements. If the termination right could be exercised by all collaborators on a sound recording, all of the collaborators would be in competition with each other and commercial exploitation (especially the offering of exclusive rights to the sound recording) would be impossible without the agreement of all of the collaborators, to the detriment of both artists and consumers.
If that's not excessive hubris............
--
+&x
in an interview that you can watch on http://www.abcnews.com the CEO of napster says napster is made for fans to find out about new music, to help underground bands.
This is something people forgot. This is what I use Napster for. I'm talking with a couple friends. Someone mentions a band. I go home, DL, and listen for a bit. Those of you "Napster is the Dread Pirate Roberts" whiners, need to hear some good music, it might open your mind a bit. And don't argue with me what Napster is for, argue with them. And you wonder why the RIAA is suing them for 100k a DL....the best way to capitalize a market is to destroy competition.
--
+&x
Thanks for the link. If I hadn't seen that I wouldn't know their new album's name is "Chocolate Starfish and the Hot Dog Flavored Water." ROTFL, tell me that's a joke..?
Regardless, I'll be in Denver to watch the riots of people trying to get in. And to buy some CD.
--
+&x
I'm not sure, but I think I might be the "idiot" you refer to.
:) (you shouldn't make it so easy)
/., America, and really good Trolling!!
Yup, sure looks likes it.
Do you think people would create art full time if the knew there was no way they would get any compensation for it?
Where did you get this idea that there was "no way they would get any compensation"? That's what the government's job is to do, IMHO, control who has the right to profit from protected works. M'kay? If the owner of the work is the only one who can legally profit from a work, why can't we give it away. This has never been an issue before. We used to have this thing called scarcity. That law alone said that you should never, economically, give stuff away.
If the creation sucks, and/or the creator sets their price too high, no-one will buy it.
You remember supply and demand right? As a function for determining price? If you have an infinite supply, the price is zero (unless you have infinite demand*). So, if you follow simple market economics, the price for digital music should be $0, which is actually the exact same amount as it costs the original creator to attain worldwide distrubtion and produce (or allow to be produced) 6 billion copies (isn't this Internet thing cool?). You might be wondering how to make money in this situation, and if you're nice, I'll tell you..in the same vague philosophical terms this thread is producing....
It's like if I had a farm, and I produced food there. Way more food than I could ever eat. Now, I should be able to ask whatever price I want. If I say "$80 for an English cucumber", that's the price. You can't say "oh, that's too much, I'll just take one. He'll never know, and he's got way more cucumbers than he could eat on his own anyways."
It'd be like that if it was one of those farms were when you pull a cucumber out of the ground, it stay there for the next hungry man. Which is to say, it's not like a farm at all.
You have to realize that scarcity is no longer an issue in this environment for this product, unless your examples include that attribute, they will be easily refuted.
--
and in case you we're wondering what else I was doing while Typing this response, click below. God Bless
Big Hollow Band Page!!
hehe.
*be nice and I'll tell you how, although that would be a bit recursive, no?
--
+&x
That works, until they start blocking all incomming connections, on any port. That's what my school did, although they claim to be doing it for security reasons. IF YOU WANT TO RUN ANY SORT OF SERVER, DO NOT GO TO REED COLLEGE! I asked for an exception to the firewall months ago, and I have recieved no reply.
-Dave Turner.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Personal taste aside (their music is simplistic boring mainstream-sounding crap), I'm not at all surprised. They've always struck me as a "corporate band".
I don't use Napster (don't have time to play around with it). A while back I downloaded or obtained from friends MP3's of some groups (and musical styles) I didn't know about, but really liked -- because of my "piracy", at least a dozen musical groups' bottom lines were improved when I subsequently bought their CDs.
As for resolving this dispute: I don't think there are any "easy answers". Artists who devote their time to their work are trying to make a living just like the rest of us, and I can certainly respect their desires to not see their income reduced or eliminated when everybody wants their stuff for free (this includes Metallica and Dr. Dre even though I don't care for their work). I'm perfectly willing to pay (and help support) artists whose work I like and respect.
I'd like to think that responding to this by "boycotting" their music would have a significant impact, but somehow I don't think so. How are they to calculate "damages" (lost revenue) in this? How many Napster users who acquired Metallica's music for free would have otherwise purchased their CDs? All of them (not!!)? A significant majority? I don't think so.
Would it be valid to consider the present case (Metallica's current sales in a world where Napster enables sharing of Metallica MP3s) compared to a hypothetical present-day world without Napster (no, sales records from 3 years ago don't count)? It'd be hilarious if it turned out their sales were actually greater in the long run...
If I like the guy playing at the bar, I put a buck or two in his tip jar. He doesn't come around and demand a nickel from me before he plays each song.
These companies want to "share" their changes only to the extend of making me pay for a copy - then if I then tried to share that copy, they'd be all over me. That's hypocracy.It's always been recognized as ok to share music by performing it; now that recordings can be so easily shared, we need to realize that making a copy of a song you like for a friend is as natural as singing it for them. Making a copy should be viewed like performance - which is free for non-commercial personal, even if you're performing in front of a hundred people, but requires a royalty if you're making money off it.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Ok. Now, presumably they're doing this in order to sell their binary-only software, right? After all, if you're giving away a program, there's no reason not to include the code. (Companies giving away free-beer programs today generally also have a pay version built from the same code base. Either that, or they've got something to hide and ought not to be trusted.)
No, I'd be laughing my ass off at the Cosmic Justice of it all. Some bad person tried to take my ideas and make something that they could keep for themselves, but your "turkey"'s program has prevented them from doing so.The GPL is a response to copyright, a defense against the use of copyright to hinder your rights to use, copy, and modify software. Remove copyright, and the need for the GPL pretty much goes away - without copyright, no one can step on your right to use or share software, and social pressure and market forces will be sufficient to keep the code open and defend your right to modify it.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
We break the law all the time. My crimes include speeding and other traffic violation, underage drinking, violation of open container laws, forbidden consensual sexual activities, and even blasphemy (yes, the laws are still on the books here in Maryland). I'm sure there are others that I don't even know I'm commiting, since I don't have the entire legal code memorized. (I do think that ignorance of the law should be an excuse, when the law is bloated, volumous, and obfuscated such that no citizen can fully know it...but I digress.)
There's nothing sacred about the law; anyone who thinks otherwise would have made a fine slave catcher.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Actually, Metallica have been known to make more revenue from T-shirt sales than from CDs on some years. Maybe that's partly to do with the pathetic cut that music publishers give artists.
True. But Metallica *are* rich and successful.
BTW, "unlicensed" music is sometimes in accordance with the law. I've just ordered an album which will take weeks to get shipped to me. I'm listening to the mp3s right now. That's "fair use". I'm just "time-shifting" my album to somewhen more convenient. I couldn't have done that without a so-called "illegal" site.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Yes, equalization of "classes" doesn't work well with capitalism, because it stratifies by it's very nature (at least when money==prestige). However, much of Europe is democratic socialism in one form or another. Many countries have very high taxes, but provide for their citizens SOCIALIZED health care and education, and in many (democratic) countries industry is socialized. Heck, Medicare is a socialist healthcare program, and the FCC and Dpt. of Energy does a good job of effectively "socializing" telecommunications and the energy industry ("socializing" being hand picking the few companies that are allow to compete and setting very strict rules).
In a non-capitalist society,
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Damn straight. There are two issues here:
- Is this particular lisence legal within the constraints of the first amendment or other laws, and
- Should the major music and movie companies be dragged outside and beaten for using monopolistic practices?
If mega-corporations abuse their power to gain a more monopolistic position, and then go on to use a particular law in their favor... that doesn't necessariy imply that the law is faulty.I just wish the two arguments would be separated. Yes, RIAA and MPAA seem to be using their clout to raise barriers to entry along with other monopolistic practices. And yes, the DMCA seems wrong in places, but they are separate issues. Even if MP3's and the DMCA didn't exist, the RIAA should be punished. And if the RIAA didn't exist, then the issue of MP3 pirating and DMCA might be less confusing of an issue to mull over, but it'd still be an important one.
--
What Metalica is saying is that Napster has no legitimate use, and it's only use is to pirate copywrited music.
I can go to mp3.com and download several thousand mp3's that don't have this problem, and napster can transfer them legally.
Metallica is so full of themselves that they think that the only kind of music that anyone would want to trade is copywrited. As a result they want to sue the makes of the software that allows people to pirate the music.
Why don't they sue the people who make CDR drives? How about the makes of cassettes? What about manufacturers of VCRs and VCR tapes?
Hmmm.
/. - I know it offends a lot of people, but it had to be done :-)
An analogy:
If a student wants to have a half decent OS (ie. non-win9x) on their computer the choice boils down to this: either install Linux or get a pirate of Windows NT. (I'm simplifying - be/bsd/whatever people please don't bother flaming)
Technically the piracy of NT is stealing - but it doesn't cost Microsoft anything. The student learns the microsoft product and not linux. When he becomes an IT proffesional he uses WinNT systems not Unix.
The piracy of Microsoft software by people who could not afford to buy it in the first place, who are learning and experimenting with OSes, is GOOD for MS.
People who cannot afford the music would not be buying it anyway. The band lose nothing, and gain a bigger fan base.
Sorry for mentioning MS on
Happiness, actually, does not equal justice, either.
Actually, the whole concept of justice is based on the pursuit of happiness. So happiness, is a sense, DOES equal justice. You have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It can't be taken away by an government, period. This is regardless of whether they think they can.
Transactions should be cooperative and voluntary.
When an artist sells me a CD, that transaction is cooperative and voluntary. When I play that CD for a friend, or show my list of CD's on Napster, that transaction is also cooperative and voluntary. What you are assuming is that some third party has a say in how two people transact.
You speak of rights as though they are granted. Rights can never be granted. You are given freewill the instant you exist in the universe. Rights can only be taken away. In the case of modern government, this is accomplished through fear. You speak as though the government has a right to cause that fear, and that you must yield to it, and ask permission to pursue happiness. All I can say is - no chance. screw that. Live Free.
As far as Napster goes, if Metallica and Dr. Dre don't want me download their songs from Napster, I'll quit. Voluntarily. However, I'll stop buying their CD's and going to their concerts as well. (Not that I've ever bought a Dr. Dre album, though I've liked Metallica since Master of Puppets.) I'll support bands that support freedom. In today's context, that means supporting bands that support Napster.
By the way, the bands Offspring and Limp Biskit have both spoke out in favor of Napster. I'm considering buying the new Offspring album, and sending them an e-mail to tell them why I bought it.
--- "So THAT's what an invisible barrier looks like!" - Time Bandits
I don't understand the whole thing. Metallica is suing some nebulous "thing" that is almost undefinable by suing the interface. It's like me suing Dell because a porn pic flashed on the screen.
On the other hand, you have a bunch of programmers who would scream bloody murder if someone jacked their bread-winning code or stole their cool domain name.
It's like two toddlers bickering in a sandbox. And it's endlessly entertaining.
If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem
Of course they're missing an issue that's obvious to us--it's the pirates that are to blame, not Napster (just like people who copy tapes are to blame, not tape decks with a record button). But from their point of view, they just want to stop this from going on, and they can't see any other way to do it.
Are they trying to stop it from going on, or are they trying to get compensation? Not trying to be sarcastic, it's an honest question... Consider that Metallica did launch the lawsuit without ever contacting Napster, and seeing what could be done. They made a quick judgement, and it was (at least to us) the wrong one.
While I'm not saying that Napster would have solved the problem had Metallica contacted them, I think it would have been good form, at the very least. It would have been a show to their fans that they're trying to protect their work, and work with the fans/Napster, instead of retaliate at people they feel have wronged them.
Jairus Pryor
Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian.
The "Do not sue napster, sue the users, and the MP3 makers" argument is just so incredibly stupid (even if it is the right answer in the long run.) It is impossible to sue everyone, but as I have NEVER seen naptser used for anything other than trading illegal mp3s I feel the artists have the right to sue napster as opposed to the users. It may not be right, but it is the only possible thing they can do.
I think suing the people trading the MP3's would be stupid too. But it's within their rights to do so. As long as people are allowed to distribute music some will distribute music that they do not have permission to distribute. This is in effect stealing as you've pointed out. It's wrong for people do this against the artists' wishes. They should stop but we both know that they won't.
So the record companies either learn to deal with the new environment--by the way they've had record sales this past year--or they find a way to stop people from being able to distribute music for free. If they could stop people from distributing music for free, which is impossible technology-wise, they'd have the added benefit of less competition.
Killing Napster means killing a distribution channel for artists that can't have or don't want a record company to do it for them. That's definately the greater evil. It's not the only option the record companies have. They should try something more creative like:
"Buy and download our cd quality music and get a free album on vinyl."
Sell something more than a cheap jewelbox and a piece of plastic and aluminum. Free distribution of music may hurt the record companies, but stopping free distribution hurts the music and the people that love it. How can it not hurt the record companies to have competition in a market they've pretty much controlled for years. Even if I had any pity for the record labels I still wouldn't be able to just allow them to interfere with free distribution channels.
numb
I think suing the people trading the MP3's would be stupid too.
Just to clarify, I believe red king's point was that it was stupid but if the record companies could do it, they would.
numb
There are bands that still manage to be successful and profitable without trying to control their product once it has been released to the masses. Bands like Offspring and Limp Bizkit have made it quite clear that they do not fear Napster. Just as the Grateful Dead did in the past, the Dave Matthews Band allows fans to record their concerts! Imagine that!
In fact, Limp Bizkit just announced that Napster is sponsoring their free tour. A whole month worth of gigs in major cities--all free. The mention Metallica's lame lawsuit in the press release as well as Fred Durst's view on the whole thing:
Durst himself addressed Napster's sponsorship in a statement announcing the tour, noting, "We could care less about the older generation's need to do business as usual. We care more about what our fans want, and our fans want music on the Internet."
If I didn't already have their latest album I'd go out and buy it. Too bad it's too late to return my Metallica CD's.
By the way, here's the link where I read it:
http://www.limp-bizkit.com/press/press. html
numb
Slashdot and Jon Katz claim to be about people's rights then openly advocate that the rights of musicians to profit from their work be ignored and trodden upon. Slashdot and Slashdotters have proven themselves to be the biggest hypocrites alive with the way they can castigate companies for abusing the GPL (which exists solely because there are copyright laws) in one breathe then say it's OK to steal music that was expensive to create, produce, and market.
One of these days people will realize that trying to group all "Slashdotters" in to one set of beliefs is kind of silly. Anyway what really stands out here is your belief that musicians have a right to profit from their work. If it were a "right" then there would be a lot less starving musicians. The hipocrasy you point at looks more like consistency to me. They're standing up for the freedom of their software, not trying to keep it locked into a particular distibution pattern.
As far as the analogies go, I have to agree most of them (if not all) have had pretty serious flaws. Yours about breaking into a CD store was no winner either.
MP3.com is yet to produce any stars while most people I have met (as well as myself) who use Napster download music from established artists who have cost the record labels million$ of dollars to find, produce and market.
I doubt MP3.com will produce many stars in the immediate future. It's not like you can tune into MP3.com as easily as MTV and passively watch videos. When technology reaches that point you'll probably see more "stars" coming from the net. Also, I'd have to argue that good music does not cost millions of dollars to make. Making it popular sometimes costs that much, but how good it is isn't directly related to the money.
Concerts. Several people have commented that artists and record labels should give up on trying to make money from CD sales and should look to concerts as revenue earners. There are several flaws with this proposal. How are are small artistes supposed to pay for concerts? With this reasoning an artist can be massively popular but unable to afford to cover studio costs let alone put on shows.This of course will lead to a new ominous figure in the lives of artists: Concert sponsors : who will probably sign exclusive concerts et al until it's the entire record label fiasco again but limited to concerts. Secondly, how about forms of music that don't translate well to concerts. I have been to several rap concerts in the past few years and half of them sounded like shit even though the actual music when played at home/in the car/on a walkman sounded simply heavenly. Does this mean rap artists (the largest growing and second most lucrative music form in the U.S.) don't deserve to be paid but rock groups do?
You're putting the cart before the horse here. Small artists don't pay for concerts. I'm assuming that by concert you mean a performance at a very large venue. I've been to several stadium shows and had a good time, but the fact is that stadiums really suck for seeing a live performance. If you sign an exclusive contract with a "concert sponsor" or anyone else, it's your own fault if it doesn't work out. As far as rap/rock goes--if they have something to sell that people want to pay for then they get money for it. Whether it's a performance, CD, MP3, or other merchandise.
The I'm a poor student argument. I am a poor student but unlike most Americans don't believe I have a right to stuff simply because I am alive. The "everyone has this so must I" attitude is probably one of the most disgusting aspects of modern American life.
You do have a right to some stuff, and you probably deserve more. I agree with you about the attitude that you refer to, but that was not the vibe I got from the poor student that you're refering to. The vibe I got was that he wasn't going to pay money for the music either way. The difference that Napster made was that he got to listen to it, he appreciates the music, and he passes on his appreciation of music to his friends.
The monetary success of Metallica and Dr. Dre is what gives them the ability to sue Napster. Do you think that struggling college bands whose music is being spread all across the net with no remuneration wouldn't sue if they could affors to and they were being ripped of as much as Dr. Dre and Metallica (every single one of their songs is on Napster).
If they have that whole sense of entitlement thing going on then I'm sure they would. The musicians that I know (about ten of them that I hang out with on a regular basis) are thrilled when their music is passed around. And yeah, they are struggling--every single one of them. But then again, they're doing it because they love music. If they loved money as much as they loved music they'd probably have better paying jobs.
After saying all this I should point out that I've only used Napster once. I really wanted to hear my Final Cut CD, but when I opened the case it was gone. Couldn't find it anywhere. So I downloaded it. I know it was illegal and all but f*ck it. That was already the second copy of that CD I'd bought--the other disappeared too. The MP3's I do distribute are all with the permission--gratitude in fact--of the artists.
I used to be a lot more supportive of laws to protect against "piracy." Now that free distribution of music is being threatened and facing hurdles due to these laws I'm getting sick of them. They're not worth the damage anymore. The RIAA and MPAA keep pushing the idea that free distribution and piracy are the same thing. And people are falling for it--hook, line, and sinker. Free distribution will not be the death of music. Free distribution is a boon to people that care about making and listening to music. It's the people that care about the money more than the music that are pissed off.
Now, I do think that musicians should have the rights to the music they make. They should be able to sell it, make a profit off of it, lock it in a vault--whatever. It's their music they can do whatever they want with it. But don't come crying to me if you can't control what happens to it once it's released into the general public. And especially DO NOT FUCKING TELL ME WHAT SOFTWARE I CAN OR CAN NOT USE TO DISTRIBUTE MUSIC BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHT TO MAKE A PROFIT.
PS: Looks like this former local act gets it -- they're sponsored by Napster. Their press release even mentions Metallica's suit.
numb
Regarding the "poor student" downloading MP3's you made an analogy to stealing a TV from the store. I pointed out that he was not going to buy the music either way--so there was no money to be made off him. I also pointed out that buy getting the music it increased his appreciation of the music which was passed on--we (people that enjoy music) usually tell our friends about it so they can get the same music. Anyway, how this equates to stealing a TV is beyond me.
Of course, I do get your point about it being stealing. Yeah, I've done it before and I did end up feeling guilty about those that I didn't buy. I've made a pact with myself since then. If the artist doesn't want me to download their music and check it out, I won't. Chances are that I won't buy their CD either, but it's their music, and I willingly respect their wishes.
Music is a luxury. If you want to hear the music and you have to pay to hear it, then that is how you have to hear the music, otherwise it is stealing. No matter how you try to justify it. People need to realise the differences between luxury and comodities.
For most of my life so far music has been a luxury. Now I hear as much as I want and contribute back willingly. Is that the difference between a luxury and a commodity? You're right that I should know the difference, but you can explain it if you'd like. Also I'll explain the difference between the past and the present if you'd like. Music was a luxury. Now it's not. As the Wah says, "The Internet makes control of digital media impossible. Deal with it."
Anyway, the gist of my comment is really contained at the end, not the beginning. Pay special attention to the part in caps. I'll repeat in case you didn't get that far:
Now, I do think that musicians should have the rights to the music they make. They should be able to sell it, make a profit off of it, lock it in a vault--whatever. It's their music they can do whatever they want with it. But don't come crying to me if you can't control what happens to it once it's released into the general public. And especially DO NOT FUCKING TELL ME WHAT SOFTWARE I CAN OR CAN NOT USE TO DISTRIBUTE MUSIC BECAUSE IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR SO-CALLED RIGHT TO MAKE A PROFIT.
numb
This really shouldn't have come as a suprise to anyone. It had to happen sooner or later. I'm suprised that Metallica was the first band to do it. Cliff Burton's early compositions for them made them underground metal gods back in the early and mid eighties, and they sold albums to wierd people like me that couldn't find anything intense enough for their liking on the radio. I don't think back then that they would have realized any loss from something like the "horrible N", they toured, made a little money, and wrote some more songs. They had a good time. I hope they're still having a good time. But clearly they are making more money now. Every other song they release is on the radio. Note that I am not one of those people that sold out. It's this simple: Now Metallica is "childs play" when you have people like Manson and ICP running around. Metallica seems rather tame. However, I remember being sent home from school for wearing the Ride the Lightning shirt with the man in the electric chair. Its the standard today. Add to that, the fact that the early songs were long: 6-8 minutes a piece. Songs that long don't get much radio play. People with classical composition backrounds (like Burton) write songs that long because they know how to, because the can set a mood with it. Metallica may still occasionally pop out a song that long, but most of them are radio length now. So, considering the amount of money they CAN make now, it doesn't suprise they want to make all of it. I hate to say "Even artists have to make a living" but its true. And besides, tell me that if your band was one of the most popular bands in the world, you wouldn't want to run your hands through the money like a mieser. Go on ....say it. You know you would.
I agree with you, and I also agree with posters such as Wah and Tom Swiss. I've been thinking about what the impending obsolecsence of copyright will mean for a while now, and I can't reach any conclusions that don't include a *radical* shift in attitudes towards entertainment, play, art, and leisure.
No artist should be paid because they produce art. Artists should be paid when they enter into a binding contract with someone, to perform labor that one doesn't need to be an artist to do. That is, when they "get a real job."
Music production and appreciation is something that musicians do, just as birds do (and I really mean just as naturally as birds). Do we charge people for listening to birds? Do the birds expect to get seeds from us, for being sung at?
Sometimes, we throw crumbs to birds, to get them to stick around the house and do bird stuff, like singing. Sometimes, when we're really moved by a subway musician, we tip him.
Whether an artist labors for years to write a novel, or goofs around on a timbale in the subway for an afternoon, he doesn't deserve anything but attention, and sometimes awe. Philanthropists, such as the emperor, or that dude sitting on the bench next to you, might donate money to ensure that the artist can produce works instead of stopping to work. Artists shouldn't expect that donation to occur. This is because a donation isn't the fulfillment of a debt incurred by one party to another, it's a donation...
This is of course how human society used to treat performance, until the mechanical processes of *recording* a performance (whether through black dots on paper, or bumpy grooves in a vinyl disc) were devised, and with them, the copyright. Now that the mechanical act of saving a work for posterity is trivial, let's remove the middlemen that sprang up when copying was hard. Why support the record companies, the publishing companies, the film industry? We can do it ourselves. And let's not kid ourselves -- those of us that produce the work were "doing it ourselves" even when somebody else was constructing an elaborate Rube Goldberg machine to convince others to pay them (the middlemen) for it. The artists shouldn't feel "ripped off" when the middlemen do this -- they should look up from their performance, blink their eyes in confusion, and ask the people dumping money into these middlemen machines, "Why?"
Hold on: what do you think?
Personally, I don't mind when I find one of my songs on Napster--but then they're mostly released on compilations that sell 2000 copies, so I'm only losing a few bucks. Metallica's making a living at this, so maybe I don't have a right to judge them the same way.
Of course they're missing an issue that's obvious to us--it's the pirates that are to blame, not Napster (just like people who copy tapes are to blame, not tape decks with a record button). But from their point of view, they just want to stop this from going on, and they can't see any other way to do it.
So just telling them they're wrong won't have much effect. We have to figure out how to explain to the artists that going after Napster isn't going to help them. And I'm not sure how to do that.
no
RMS doesn't want someone to be able to take emacs, change the name, and release it as commercial software. People want to be able to take emacs, change the name, and release it as commercial software. Solution: Don't release emacs.
Stephen King doesn't want people to email around transcriptions of his books. Fans want to email around transcriptions of his books. Solution: He doesn't release any books.
What you're essentially saying is that nobody should ever release anything if they want to make any money off it, or retain any control over it. As I said before, after the People's Glorious Revolution, sure, all creative output should be free (like everything else--or at least everything that isn't scarce).
But how do artists make a living until then?
no
You're making the exact same points that people make when they justify pirating software. And my position is the same here. I agree that it would be ultra-spiffy if the laws allowed us to treat everything as "shareware" (download the songs, and then either buy them or destroy them), but what you're advocating is allowing us to treat everything as free for the taking, and I definitely don't agree.
Why? Well, personally, I like the idea that people can make a living as songwriters and performers (even if I probably never will...). I suppose that after the people's revolution against capitalism, this won't be an issue, but until then, do you really want your favorite musicians to have to keep a day job?
There is one more point in your post: The musicians (and labels) are making enough damn money, so your stealing from them is ok. Well, there are a lot of people who aren't making as much as Metallica--who are, in fact, making just enough that they have to make the tough choice between giving up their day job or putting less effort into their musical career. Many of the bands I listen to are in that position. As Napster gets bigger and bigger, and their earnings go down, fewer and fewer of them will make the choice I want them to.
no
In the end, this is not an issue of free software. People using napster are engaging (for the most part) in piracy. Most open source advocates recognize that not all software projects are really suitable for open source solutions; why do so many people believe that all music should be free (as in beer, not speech).
The argument that the people who download the music will then go out and buy the CD is specious. I remember college and I know that if I had music from 600 CDs already recorded somewhere, not only would I not feel any need to buy the music, I would not be able to afford it.
For those who can/do buy all the CDs they listen to, there is a solution. Take the CD off your CD rack, put it in your computer, rip it yourself.
Easy. I'll name three right now, sitting here on my desk.
- _Dynamic HTML_, by Danny Goodman, published by O'Reilly.
- Fireworks 3.0, by Dennis Griffin et al, published by Macromedia
- Bounty Hunter Leia figure, by George Lucas et al, published by Kenner
None of these consumer products would exist without copyright law. If outside groups could freely copy & distribute O'Reilly's text, how would Danny Goodman eat during the months of work to type up his manuscript? If all software were free (like beer), how would the folks at Macromedia pay their rent while writing upgrades? If everyone (including movie theaters) could make pirate copies and not pay the studio, how would any big-budget movie ever get produced?Stiletto, you're proposing a world view (all property is theft) that has already been tried and simply did not work.
> 2. You can't afford to buy records. Well, I feel
> sorry for you, but it's still not okay to steal
> something just because you can't afford it. (If
> I'm wrong here you are welcome to explain to me
> when it's okay, I have some stuff I can't afford
> myself.)
I really don't want to start ANOTHER flamewar on
this point but...here goes....
Trying to reason out...why is stealing wrong?
In my view of morality, there is 1 and only 1
reason why stealing is morally unacceptable.
Simply put, if I steal your car, you lose a car.
The fact that I have the car is irrelavent. it is
not wrong because "I have it" it is wrong because
You don't. Therefore I can not take it, without
depriviving the rightful owner of it.
With music, this is not the case. It is copying.
If I see you have a fountain in your yard, and
I decide I want a fountain...so I go down to the
hardware store, buy some cement, pipes whatever
and build myself a copy of your fountain, then
I have a very hard time calling that "stealing".
You are completely not involved in the transaction
, it has nothing to do with you. This is the very
nature of a "Copy".
> So, even if Napster is a great way to get the
> MP3's you want, you should be aware that you are
> doing something wrong everytime you download a
> copyrighted song.
Yup...the same way women all over the world are
doing something wrong by leaving their house
without covering ALL body hair. (according to
islamic law). Its morally wrong, the Koran says
so. You should be aware of it.
Oh yea, and not everyone agrees with your moral
veiwpoint (see above). Much like those billions
of women who go out without all of their face
and hair covered.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> And how about your own web page: "This page is
> the sole property of The Carp". Then you go on
> to list terms on which other people can copy it,
> such as "proper credit is given to the author".
>
> You hypocrite.
Good eye...however...what you don't know about
those pages is that I wrote them a LONG time ago.
That page has not been updated in a LONG time.
In fact...that particular page probably hasn't
been substantially updated in 4 years. (other
than perhaps when I converted some of the gif's to
PNGs....I don't know if I even uploaded that
update to the public pages.)
Rest assured, when I come out with my new pages,
and take those down, that statment will apear
nowhere in the text....As I no longer believe that
I have the right to say it.
> Hey, guess what. I just made a copy of your
> site. Next I'll see if I can sell advertising on
> it,
Hey cool! I am glad you like it. Have fun with it.
However I would apreciate it if you would not call
it MY pages, since, when you put it up, its no
longer my pages, and claiming I said or put up
pages that you have put up would be a form of
fraud.
Beyond that....enjoy. I am glad that something I
wrote may be useful to someone. (actually I know
some parts have been useful to people already -
so I already feel good about it)
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
> They made their career choice just as everyone
> here did, or will once they graduate college.
So did the people who used to work in the Ice
industry. You know...the people whose job it was
to go to places where water froze naturally and
ship it into cities to be sold.
New Technology (refridgeration) was invented and
made affordable to everyone...everyone could make
a cheap copy, that was practically in every way
the same as the ice they would sell....so the
ice industry disapeared.
Now people still make plenty of ice, there are
just no (or very few) professional, full time, ice
makers/collectors. Most of the people who do it
now are amature ice makers, who do it for the
personal benefit they gain from making ice.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc...
I take it you mean the harder trance stuff rather than the progressive house stuff that's so prevalent today. I'm personally into acid techno and minimal techno, and they're even harder to find - it's all on vinyl as singles, and mixes are as rare as gold. In fact, finding it on Napster is still a challenge.
Actually, if you're in the US then I can imagine it's pretty hard to find decent stuff. I know dance music is just about taking off over there - there's quite a big acid techno scene in NY nowadays, but it's not quite as universal as it is here in the UK and across Europe.
Try Hard To Find Records for decent stuff, and they do worldwide delivery as well. Okay, it's not free, but it's better than the local store I'm sure ;)
You mean ftp, right? We should all go and sue everybody whose code ever got into any ftp software. Or maybe you mean Usenet?
No, that would be unreasonable. We should instead sue the people who run ftp warez servers.
Your comparison of Napster to ftp software is ridiculous. Napster doesn't just supply code. Napster plays an active role in the trading of mp3s: the filenames are listed on their servers, and it would be a simple thing for Napster to take minimal steps to block the listing of certain files on request by musicians; a filter would not be perfect, but it would be a step, but they have arrogantly refused to take even this step.
Not surprising, if you just think about what Napster's motivations are: they know, as well as you do, that Napster has been immensely popular because it makes it easy to pirate copyrighted music. I admit, I download music through Napster too, but I don't kid myself into thinking that I have a right to take without permission.
If you think Metallica is doing themselves a diservice by suing Napster, then let them do themselves a disservice. Fans will boycott them, people will hate them, and Metallica will die. And good riddance. But if they prefer this course over having their music distributed through Napster, then so be it.
Out of courtesy? That's a bit too much to ask. Out of a moral sense? ... Because it legally has to? Well, that's the question being asked right now.
Slashdot isn't a court. Slashdot readers don't have the knowledge or authority to decide on legal issues. I can only speak from a moral point of view, that from what I see, Napster's refusal to stop listing songs at the request of the copyright owner, are wrong and unreasonable.
Your own, I presume. So if you were running Napster, you would honor requests for blocking listings. Fine. Of course, other people will not necessarily have the same set of morals as you do. I have no problems with people who think that what Napster does in morally repugnant. I do have problems with people who think that because they believe so, everybody else should act according to their beliefs.
So according to you, all morality is relative. There's no room for a discussion of ethics. Everyone do as you please. If I kill and rape*, that's merely because my beliefs differ from yours.
Certainly I do not, and should not, be able to enforce my moral values on you. That's something for a court of law to decide. I can, however, make an argument for a certain course of action.
*I'm not suggesting here that music piracy is at the same level as murder. I'm just pointing out the problems with moral relativism.
So, on the basis of a filename you are willing to make conclusions whether copying the contents is a copyright violation?
If the filename contains "metallica" and "the name of some metallica song", then I can say with 99.9% certainty that a Metallica song is being traded. So yes, I'm willing to come to that conclusion.
What the copyright owner asked (and Napster refused to do) is "Please stop listing my songs." A simple and perfectly reasonable request, no?
And I still don't see what Napster is guilty of
Napster may not be "guilty" of anything. But a very good case can be made that Napster should stop listing songs upon request by the copyright owner.
Wether or not you charge for it is totally irrelevant. "Personal use" "non-profit" etc are equally so.
What matters is if your hurisdiction has a "fair use" clause. ie You can make copies for backup, timeshift or spaceshift. (Taping a TV-show or copying a CD for use in your car)
Educational institutions usually have a deal that allows them to make limited copies (like 15% of a book or something) That is an *extention* of the general "no copying" rule not a right.
Defend Napster, if you like, but check your facts first.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
What you're essentially saying is that nobody should ever release anything if they want to make any money off it, or retain any control over it.
There are bands that still manage to be successful and profitable without trying to control their product once it has been released to the masses. Bands like Offspring and Limp Bizkit have made it quite clear that they do not fear Napster. Just as the Grateful Dead did in the past, the Dave Matthews Band allows fans to record their concerts! Imagine that!
Control is an illusion.
Napster and Gnutella are different in that Napster controls the database, right? With Gnutella, anybody can run a server, right?
My take on this is that at a subconscious level, Napster wants to become a distribution channel for music. The music industry is struggling against this, of course, but they may actually embrace Napster if Napster agrees to become a legitimate distribution channel. After all, Napster has central control over the database. Gnutella, then, is vastly more dangerous because it's not a an entity and centralized database that can be controlled.
I don't think that Napster becoming a distribution channel would actually work, but it would seem that with a large user base, they have significant power. What the music industry should really worry about is something like Gnutella, if they are really concerned about piracy.
I'm not saying CDs cost that much because they have to - I'm sayin CDs cost that much because we are all led to believe - both artists and consumers - that they have to cost that much, that the middle layers are absolutely essential.
The music/recording industry have always been there to control and run everything, including making sure that the artists "get paid for their work". Of course, the problem is that the artists don't get the majority of the proceeds from record sales. The music industry does. The music industry and the artists alike are concerned about potential widespread (implicitly endorsed by general population - if you've used napster to download a copyrighted work, you've implicitly endorsed it) piracy.
We complain about high prices that are charged for these CDs and some point to it as a reason for Napster's popularity - that if CDs were cheaper, we'd buy more of them, and Napster and/or piracy would not be so relevant. But the high prices are from the music/recording labels. They have high overhead in terms of promotions, distributions and so on. They have to spend all that money to promote the albumns so that they can sell more and pay everybody. Of course, a lot of the money line the pockets of a few very rich people too - not necessarily the artist either.
Until there's a way that artists can be paid for their work without having to charge a lot of money for their works because they have to pay for all the music/recording label's work, artists will worry about piracy. After all, this is their livelihood too.
Metallica is, one of my favorite bands. So when I read what they had done I was very disapointed.
From a free speach aspect, this is morally wrong not to mention stupid. With all of the people that listened to their music online, I bet at least 25% of them bought one of their cds. Just think... it is not very easy to listen to mp3s in the car, unless you happen to have a laptop with a far better then adverage sound system.
From a legal aspect, it is their music. Whether it is art or just another way to make money, it is theirs. I write programs for a living. If someone got my code and gave it out to everyone, I would lose money. Not to mention the fact that I think of my source as art. I don't like it when I am forced to share my code with the people I work with much less complete strangers. Now I know that this is not the best analogy but It will have to work for now. In short Metallica, and any other band for that matter, should have the right to restrict people from downloading their music.
To sum up this "post" they are in the right legally, but ethically and morally what they have done is wrong and just plain stupid.
I have to appoligize for the spelling, apperently I devoted all my resources to more important things...everything else.
Sanity is the playground of the unimaginative
Napster makes a tool which allows people to distribute MP3 files to other people. It doesn't care what the contents of these files are. It seems to me that charging Napster for making a distribution tool is wrong. This would be like charging PKware for making compression programs that can be used to aid in the distribution of illegal software. I mean, why else would you compress something on your machine. Perhaps every system that runs a news server should be charged since they are running a service that permits the distribution of illegal software.
You may believe that the statement of suing Napster users is ridiculous. IMHO they are the only ones who have really violated the copyright of the artists. The reason that Napster is the target, is because it is perceived as a control point. Take it out and you have the ability to affect the highest number of users. The music industry is fighting this out as a war, and really doesn't care about anything more then buisness.
to the question of whether they're trying to stop it or get compensation. as far as i know, napster doesn't charge money for their service (i know i didn't pay for it) and if they make any money it's very little. originally, i wondered how much metallica is sueing for, thinking that if it was more than 5 million or so then it was for the money, but now if it's for more than 5 million i think it can't be for the money. why? simple. napster doesn't have very much money and any large suit against them would only be to break the company (which is what the RIAA's suit is trying to do). fred durst as well as chino moreno of limp bizkit and the deftones, respectively, have voiced opinions in favor of mp3s and online trading. i don't think metallica has anything against mp3s. durst says that people can download mp3s using napster as an aid as to whether or not they'll buy the cd (perfect use for mp3s, in my opinion), but can't bands put mp3s on their webpages and do the same thing with no possibility of legal problems? maybe you say that not all bands have large, popular websites. well, of course not. in an interview that you can watch on http://www.abcnews.com the CEO of napster says napster is made for fans to find out about new music, to help underground bands. well if bands put mp3s on webpages, and napster didn't allow mp3 trading, then they'd be doing EXACTLY what their CEO says its for and i can't imagine any band having a problem with that. and i'll be sure and check out the chat tuesday.
What if you had easy access to the only songs you wanted and you downloaded them by using Napster or Freenet or Gnutella? What If you liked the song AFTER you listened to it a time or two? If you think the music is good and you would listen to it again, and if a dialog popped up on your computer asking you to pay a couple of bucks to the group who wrote the song, would you pay?
Doesn't it make way more sense to pay for the stuff you like and not for most of the garbage that is on your CD? If you like the entire CD, wouldn't you actually buy one from a store?
So here is a suggestion for Metallica and other artists:
Instead of trying your futile attempts to impose your own rules upon the Internet users, please recognize that you can not really control what is going on on the web. If it's not Napster, it's Gnutella, if it's not Gnutella, it's FreeNet or Hotline.
Listen, instead of fighting for something you can not control, why not step into the action and start promoting something that you could in fact control: Directed microtransactions.
Your fans would download your stuff song by song (not by CDs) and listen to your songs a few times.
After that, some mechanism should ask them to pay for the song if they liked it and want to listen to it again. The microtransaction should consist of making a micropayment in the form of a few dollars for a good song and of the formal appropriation of a license for your product by your fan. What it means is that you get the money and your fan gets a license to listen to your song from all possible media channels.
You would not have to sue MP3.COM nor Napster, nor would you have to tear your last hair off your heads because of Gnutella, FreeNet or Hotline networks, which you could not do much about anyway.
Instead of being behind the progress and trying to slow it down, be infront of the progress, push the progress, actually create a new market for your product. You will see that it will double, triple and increase by ten fold your audience.
(I would like to insert a picture with thousands of hands holding burning candlesticks and lighters right here...)
You can't handle the truth.
Umm, not exactly what I meant, but funny none the less.
My point was that if someone could make the infrastructure for napster - then someone else could do it just as easily if napster were to go away. If it is popular, there's no killing it off.
BlackNova Traders
Sure Metallica and that other group are big artists with lots of money, but most musicians are not. I don't know if the Slashdot crowd realizes how marginal the music business is for the most part. The big names and big labels are indeed rolling in cash and could use a good loosening up. Most musicians, even fairly well known ones, do not fall into this category. To give you an idea on what the artist gets back, the average rate I've been quoted by pro musicians and industry reps alike is 10% of the wholesale price. Now, the avergage CD retails for something like $14-16 these days, but the best you're gonna get a distributor to go for is $6.00. So, the label sells the cd to the distributor for $6.00 and the the distributor marks it up when they sell it to the retailer, and so on til you wind up paying $16 for a cd these days. The artist gets a whopping sixty cents out of that. Even if they sell like 10,000 cds they only get $6000 out if it. That's pretty damn pathetic if you're trying to eat. Most bands and musicians make their real money touring. Now y'all come in and rip the music, burn your own cds and never spend a cent. Pretty good for you, but for they guy trying to make living with his art, that's really bad.
That said, this situation still isn't Napster's fault. Napster is at worst a file sharing program. Infact, the only reason I could see for banning Napster is the traffic load it can put on network--that's why the UofM banned it here. People have got to get away from the free ride mentality and respect the needs of the musicans they listen to. As a music producer myself, I find the notion of people trading my artists music freely a bit annoying. In my case, I run a real marginal operation and my artists are basically using proceeds from their music to finance their equipment. Free trading like this can break my operation and shutdown my artists. Even larger labels will run into this problem and will dump anyone who can't move CDs, leaving us with nothing besides, oh, the 'Back Street Boys' or whatever trash they decide to push tomorrow.
How do we resolove this situation? First look at the costs for producing an album run of 1000 cds. I'll use my own cost structure as an example. Your mileage will vary. I return 10% of revenue to my artists on the first pressing and increase the share the more we sell. Now lets get some real cost figures here:
- Label Art: $500--and only because I happen to know the artist.
- Mastering: $500--real easy to master electronica.
- Reproducion:$2500--includes packaging and UPC code.
- Legal fees $500--copy right and trademark stuff
- Total Cost: $4000
Now, I'll turn around and sell that to someone like Amazon or Orhcard--a distributor--for something on the order of $6000 or $7000 depending on how much I wanna soak the customer for. If, and that is the big question, I sell if all, I get back $1400 to $2400. The artist gets $600 or $700. If we get into a second run, prices go down and profits increase. The biggest cost here is the price of reproduction onto physical media. If I could cut that out, I could save $2500. Now, if I can cut out the middleman, I could retain more of my investment. So, selling MP3 downloads is looking real attractive. I still need to work on the figures, but I think MP3 downloads could go down to $3.00 for an entire album. So, looked at one way, the optimistic way, technology like MP3s and Napster even, could represent an opportunity to the industry and a deal for fans.If your assumptions are correct, then it is illegal for anyone to overhear me playing any music I have a copy of.
Think of all the copying and translation involved in *normal* use of a CD. First, a laser copies from physical to optical form, then a diode from optical to digital. After that, a microcontroller chunks the digital stream into 8-bit long bytes. Then a DSP decodes the signal into a square wave. A DAC then creates an analog signal based on the digital square wave. Finally, the speakers copy the analog wave over to the set of air molecules in immediate proximity to themselves. Each and every air molecule then passes the data on through millions of it's neighbors until it reaches my ear, where it's converted back to an analog electrical signal.
Do you mean to say, that after literally billions of instances of copying for personal use have taken place, it becomes illegal for my friends to have it copied once more by *their* eardrums instead of mine? If not, what makes copying at the level of molecular vibrations any more legal than copying at the level of minute digital electrical signals. Must the data carrier have a nucleus for copying to be legal?
Electrons are not criminals.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
Do you even have a clue as to how corporate-controlled the radio stations all are? In my city, one big company controls about 90% of the radio market. So for anyone who really wants to spread their music, the internet is a Good Thing.(TM) The entire record industry is built on corporate control and manipulation. The entire concept of selling recordings is a 20th century invention. Music on the other hand, has always been around, has always been free, and one way or other always will be.
Not only that, but I would bet if anyone did a study they would find that the free transmission of MP3's works to increase a given artists sales, not decrease them.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Metallica probably has already enough money to support themselves and their children for life, so I really don't understand why tehy are so vocal about this. Also, artists like Metallica make most of their money through concerts and gadgets like t-shirt and so on. If their albums aren't selling as they used to they shouldn't blame it on Napster.
whether it's a digital copy...or a CD...it still belongs to Metallica. On another note, slashdot's article claims that ICQ and AIM are mp3 sharing programs as well. They are, but so is the WEB,FTP,.IRC....but they aren't getting sued are they! If Napster was Smart, they should have used their technology on sharing in a general form. So music,pix,movies,anything could be shared. Then they wouldn't be getting this much attention. But, on the other hand. How Else are they going to get Free publicity on huge tv stations =).
also when people claim that Napster is like recording off of the radio, It would be like a radio station telling everyone exactly what was on, and playing full albums of artists 24 hrs a day.
Harvard Will Not Restrict Napster Use
Katz' post also claims the defendants are "University of Southern California, Harvard, [and] Yale University". But according to the article it links to, the defendants are actually "University of Southern California, Yale University, and Indiana University".
My 2 cents: Harvard might be dumb sometimes, but you gotta begrudge 'em some respect for refusing to cave in so far.
I've read quite a number of posts on this issue, and if there's one thing people can agree on, it's the importance of this issue.
As a producer and recording artist, I certainly have my own perspective, which may (or may not) be interesting.
The mainstream recording industry is historically not exactly friendly to artists. Basically, we're just audible dollar signs. The whole business of marketing music is certainly not an ethical or honest one, with fans and artists alike often paying the price.
Some of you already know how some of sketchier things get done, like how songs get added to playlists, how much money artists and producers get from record sales, what it costs to produce a record for the mainstream market, and how chart positions are acheived.
And I'll admit to having done some things I'm not comfortable with. It's hard not to in this business. Everyone gets a little dirty.
I'm a bit perplexed, though, why there is so much animosity directed toward Metallica. As much as I have no love for the recording establishment, I basically support what they're doing (in principle).
If you've worked in the industry, you probably know how difficult is to actually get paid for anything. Very little actually makes money in music. And when it does, everyone wants a piece--of the success, the credit, the recognition--and, the money.
I think consumers have over-inflated ideas about the lifestyle of successful musicans. (These, of course, have been fed to them largely by media and record company sources.) Even very successful writers, performers, producers and engineers, at the end of the day, often have very little to show for their effort.
I don't think anyone has anything against songs being traded around in an underground fashion. I don't think, though, that this is what Metallica is upset about.
There's a definite line between trading music with a free-flow of ideas, and stealing. Unfortunately, that line is difficult and (I think) often dangerous to define.
If people everyone trading MP3s really did just that, to foster exposure to new music and forms of expression, artists would be delighted. (Record companies, though, would probably not be. But they never are.)
Unfortunately, a lot of the MP3 trade has become people simply getting music for free instead of buying it. As much as some people want to say this isn't true, I think we all know it is. And if was just a bit of it going on (there's always been piracy), that would be OK. But we have a very different situation.
Then, there are some people who don't feel they should have to pay for music. Fair enough, but don't count on other people to pay for your music collection.
It's hard to take Limp's side, because Napster paid them $2,000,000.00. They're riding a great rollercoaster, and they're at the top right now. But see what they say in ten years, when those ASCAP checks don't cover the bills any more. And no radio station will play their single, no matter how much you pay them.
I don't blame Limp or Metallica--they're just doing what they can to survive in a business that cares for no one.
I guess I expect more from Slashdot readers, though, than "Fuck Metallic" and "I'm throwing out all my Metallica." Why is there so much anger? Metallica doesn't just support themselves from record sales, but a lot of other people in the extended organization. These people work hard and have families. And they never got rich.
I do find it hard to take Metallica seriously when talk about their "art", when they've basically been as much a part of the corporate machine as anyone else. I don't think they're heros or villains. They're just trying to get paid for their work.
I do think things need to change in this industry. I don't like the old ways of doing things, and I do think free speech is more important than money.
Bill Evans
open-source-music.org
I think they got it almost right - it's more along the lines of a commercial-government complex - the government in this country does not listen to it's citizens - it listens to the dollar sign and money'd interests. Which is dissapointing, considering that we were supposed to be a democracy.
I have yet to find an (informed) individual out there who agrees that the DMCA is necessary, or that Metallica should be suing it's fans (great way to encourage sales, eh?). I DO however see on a daily basis the rising frustration with our government - it is largely ineffective at solving the day to day problems people want solved.
Here's what people want solved - they want their big screen TVs, SUVs and low gas prices. They want job security and freedom from advertising/marketing. They want access to the internet so they can easily satisfy their need for entertainment - whether it be listening to music, reading/watching the evening news, grabbing the latest Southpark episode. They want to watch the Matrix on anything with a DVD player, or for that matter the Titanic or the next "chick-flick".
The flip-side of this is that they want to feel safe doing this - they want to explore the internet without fear that some government or corporation is watching their every move. They want to be able to hop online and gossip about the above-mentioned things. They want to be able to do it as easily and efficiently as possible.
As geeks, we built the infrastructure to allow this - most of it, anyway. Online people can satisfy their entertainment needs. With alittle help from software we produced, they can also provide a good measure of privacy for themselves. They can e-mail their friends to gossip, or hop into chatrooms. Key point: people are going to keep doing the same things online that they were doing in the real world before the 'net existed.
Now along comes the corporations and say "Hey, where's my share?" And then all hell breaks loose - the government "swings" into action at about 1 foot a fortnight and starts passing draconian legislation, trying to restrict these people's newfound freedom (freedom of choice, not freedom of speech) - and they are rightfully pissed.
This is the core of the matter, and why people are pounding their fists on the table - they have everything they want.. and now some greedy corporation is coming to make it harder to get ahold of, more expensive, and less appealing. Only one problem - it is backfiring badly for the corporations - they trained these people to blindly consume and consume and consume.. and now they can't make them stop.
It's going to be a long, bloody, legal war to get this one straightened out.
let's say that some turkey writes a program that enables anyone to transfer this obviously illegal material to anyone else in the world instantaneously, furthering the 'theft' of your ideas, per se. You'd be pretty fscking pissed, right?
You mean ftp, right? We should all go and sue everybody whose code ever got into any ftp software. Or maybe you mean Usenet? That's even better -- let's sue all sites that carry news. Or maybe you mean the web -- you know, this newfangled way to "transfer material to anyone else in the world instantaneously"? Then we can sue AOL (current owners of Netscape) and Microsoft -- woo-hoo! We'll be coming into some serious money!
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Metallica got a big boost when them started out by the boot legging industry with "No Life...Leather". Now they have the money and public eye, they turn like snakes? What kind of meassage does that send to fans?
What about the 15-16 yr olds that aren't making much money, but want to hear the orignal "Garage Days" CD and cannot pay the large marked up price? "Sorry kid, you can't hear our 'art' if you don't have the cash" Does this seem like somthing an artist would say?
Will Picasso sue me next for having my wallpaper set to one of his paintings downloaded from the net?
I also enjoy hearing live stuff, and there aren't many metallica albums live. Would they rather not have thier music heard unless it means turning a dollar for every song?
I'm disenchanted... They owe allmost everything to there fans... Oh well... I still have Nine Inch Nails. They might have an internet-only album out in 4-5 months.
"Justice has been raped..."
Snoop
Now, I think I'll ask Jason's mom (who I know) for his address so I can return the picture, and also every tape of theirs that I own. I think it's really sick for a band who's perhaps the most famous in its genre to start whining about revenue lost to Napster. I mean, who can even find "kill em all" anymore? Why not trade it around?
But, even if they want to whine about that, it's their legal right. It disgusts me, but they're entitled, I guess. But to attack universities, which are non-profit organizations, even when they're ivy league, is just wrong. And moreover, this is an oblique attack on a freakin' tool, which is just as easily used for good as harm.
Yes, I know about the ratio of legal-to-illegal stuff traded on Napster. But it is a significant, if misguided, statement by thousands of people that they're sick of the markup the RIAA would have them pay. And instead of reaching out to their fans, Metallica -- who are all millionaires, BTW -- has decided to pitch a fit about a few thousand dollars in lost revenue.
So, maybe I can get one of their home addresses, and while I think it'd be irresponsible to spread that around the internet, I don't feel bad about sending a letter or two there. Anyone else want to send back your tapes/CDs to tell 'em how you feel? Give me a buzz!
Damn it, I'm so sick of people who don't understand this. Napster is not illegal because it can be used for illegal purposes. Do understand the consequences of this if it were law?
Lets see:
get rid of all ftp servers / clients because I can download warez
get rid of all web servers / clients because I can download kiddie porn
get rid of all guns because their owners are able to commit murder
Do you have a better picture now? MP3's are not inherently illegal anyway!! They have to be copyrighted works to begin with. This fact alone should nullify any suit against them. Look, I know 99% of napster use is illegal, but this is NOT, I repeat NOT the way to go about solving this problem.
There is no solution that works for the average person as well as the corporations. You either end up with a very reactionary and contolling economy and government, or you move to a type of "infromation is free" type of economy. Isn't technology supposed to be for the benefit of all?
You can't stuff the genie back in the bottle.
The internet is international, and not subject to the laws of one country... Sure Napster might suffer, but the same thing could spring up tomorrow in Canada, France, China, whervere...
Cliche as it is, knowledge is power, and the true force behind the internet is knowledge.
BlackNova Traders
Piracy schmiracy! Arrgh, matey! The word 'pirate' is misleading as all hell.
don't believe the hype
Short version: Jon, you're full of crap.
Long version: Jon, arguing that Metallica's exercising of their right to protect their copyright is going to crush the open source movement is equivalent to arguing that a homeowner protecting the crap on his/her lawn from thief is going to destroy the yard sale movement.
Down the road, Metallica -- which has always marketed itself as rebellious and independent -- may be better known as the first major music group to challenge free (or, depending on one's perspective, "pirated") music
Oh, so because they (were) "rebellious", they can't be concerned about copyrights and other "corporate matters". Give me a break! This is their living. If they didn't care about who was and wasn't buying their records, the Black album, "Load", "Re-Load", "Full'er Up Again", etc., wouldn't happened. (Wait... that might be a good thing...)
IMO, "Free" music is music that is given away for free by the artist. "Pirated" music is music given away for free by someone other than the artist. One has *nothing* to do with the other.
And a final point, if Napster folds and dies because "pirated" music doesn't flow though its service, I don't think it deserved to live in the first place. They even have a policy against piracy; if their survival *depends* on it, doesn't that make them hypocritical?
George Lee
...projects like Freenet are so important. It denies the media heavies an organization to sue, and the .edu's a central site to block. If your university starts blocking traffic on port 19114, just start your node on 80 ;-).
But you can help now. This page allows you to write to government officals concerning laws like the DMCA and others. (This was rejected by Slashdot earlier BTW)
Getting on topic now, I think everyone's just greedy. We need a system where everyone is equalized, and which would prohibit anyone from being lower or higher than others. Information will also not have limits on it, and limits would be barred.
I doubt this will happen though. People won't live without a way to gain power and control.
US businesses that currently accept chip and PIN/signature
Even back in the middle ages, minstrels moved from town to town with the earnest hope of earning a few coins so they could continue their adventures. One could liken that to making money touring, but the sad fact is that we live in a world dominated by MTV, oppressive record contracts, and an attatchment to a flavor of the week, so far as music goes. None of that bodes well for artists touring...
True, if it's going to be hard, why even try... As for the MTV dominated world (it's actually Viacom, who is currently lobbying the FCC to relax network ownership rules, since their recent merger with CBS(?) creates a bunch of illegal situations, luckily for them, they have the money to change the law...), we all shape the world we live in, identifying the bullshit is the first step, throwing it in the garbage is the second.
For one, most tours are conducted at a loss in order to stimulate record sales. The majority of those sales go back to pay back the people that put up the money to record the CD in the first place.
Well then stop losing money on tours. The big cost is promotion. If you let the music free on the Net, that takes care of itself. Tours are NOT money-losing as a rule, just as a side-effect of the current business model, which would have already crumbled into the dust of the past if they didn't have so many lawyers and ways to push music on children.
The prevailing mentality around here is one which completely devalues artists. If you enjoy their work you should be paying them for it. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just saying "you're worthless".
No, the prevailing mentality is that the Internet completely devalues the business model that currently runs the music business. If you enjoy looking at a woman walking down the street, you should be paying for it. It's that simple. (the previous sentence contains sarcasm, parse it accordingly)
The internet may cover the world, but so should respect.
Yes, it should. Respect is a two-way street. The record business hasn't respected consumers since I've been alive, fuck 'em. The artists will come around...when they see what a good time we're having.
--
+&x
Let me share this comment from The Swindle, my response in the discussion thread on this very topic to the question "How do you justify saying Napster promotes CD sales instead of detracting from them?":
Sure. I contend that Napster, and free distribution of MP3 tracks actually promotes CD sales, as opposed to detracting from them.
I base this assertion on the idea that Napster and MP3 is just another way to listen to music. Plain and simple. You can hear music for free on the radio. You can hear music for free on television. You can also hear music for
free on the Internet. Granted, the net now gives you the ability to be VERY specific about what you hear - but common sense tells us that only a tiny fraction of Napster traders actually hoard every MP3 they download and store it in a giant collection, to be pulled from as their only means of listening to music. To think otherwise is
absurd, like saying that most people tape all their music from the radio and only use their cassettes to listen to their favourite tunes.
People buy CDs for many reasons that radio OR MP3 will never be able to undermine. They buy the CD to support the band. They buy the CD because it's a status symbol to have the CD if you call yourself a "fan". You buy the CD to impress your friends with your exceptional musical tastes, the CD sitting on your music shelf. You buy the CD for the material such as the lyric sheets, the cover art, the funny liner notes. You buy the CD so you
can listen to the music in your car, or on your walkman, since you're part of the 99% of people who don't yet have MP3 players in their cars or own a portable MP3 player.
For these reasons, you have to conclude that MP3 / Napster is a medium, NOT a replacement for the media. And as a very, VERY effective medium, just like radio, the promotional benefit far outsrips the revenue loss tied to that tiny fraction of people who will abuse the medium strictly to avoid ponying up for the CD. Yes, I could fire
up Napster and find each and every track off the latest Linda Perry record. But how many people do you know, and be honest, that have the hard drive space/CD Burner that allows them to archive all the albums they want in MP3 format, and that actually abuse this medium to expressly have all digital music collections?
To assert that MP3 / Napster should be eliminated is absurd, and ignorant of the inevitable new medium that WILL supplant radio as we know it today. If we ban or outlaw MP3 or Napster, we really should ban radio as well - because there ar e people that tape songs of the radio, make mix tapes, heck make recordings of complete albums, and not only NOT buy the CD, but (gasp) make copies of their tapes for friends! Heck, since
we're at the beat-piracy game, we should outlaw all current CD, cassette, and stereo equipment, which could easily be used to make copies of CDs and cassettes for friends, as is commonly done.
It just doesn't add up. MP3 is not the problem. Napster is not the problem. The fear that the music industry has over the new medium that is digital music is the problem. With the old medium of radio, the industry had ALL the control over who got "pushed", when artists got "pushed", and how popular that "push" would be. With the
new medium, the record companies have virtually no control - it's like what would happen if every radio station in the country decided tomorrow to just play whatever the hell they wanted to. That control over promotion, THAT is the key motivation that the record industry has to do everything in their power to obscure, cloud, and reposition this issue into one of "piracy" and "copyright infringement".
Now, if only Dr. Dre could see this. Maybe he'd understand.
All right, let's get one thing straight. Metallica is not attacking free speech and free software. Not one bit. The trailer into this article is damn well the most misleading statement ever. I challenge anyone to go into court on a copyright violation charge and try to defend themselves using their first amendment rights.
Let's pose a hypothetical for all the Slashdotters out there. Say you write some code, GPL it, and release it on the 'Net. Everyone can download it for free, use it, according to the provisions of the license, correct? Now, let's say that someone takes your code and uses it and releases a binary-only version of their software. You contact them, you talk to them, you threaten them, and maybe you get the FSF to help you sue them, I dunno. But, before you get a chance, let's say that some turkey writes a program that enables anyone to transfer this obviously illegal material to anyone else in the world instantaneously, furthering the 'theft' of your ideas, per se. You'd be pretty fscking pissed, right?
When Metallica releases their music, they're doing it under a sort of license, called a copyright. When some violates this copyright, that gives Metallica the right to sue. When some organization aids in this lawbreaking, they are guilty of basically being an accomplice. Napster's in a grey area because their systems are being used to break the law, but they can theoretically claim a sort of immunity as a service provider.
I like MP3s. I think they're a great way to preview music. I've even pirated MP3s to try out new music that I've heard was good. But I don't grab a program like Napster, grab all the MP3s I want, and when someone accuses me of theft, claim that the information wants to be free and that I'm being denied my right to download free music. You have no fscking right. You don't even have the privilege because you don't have the permission.
Jon, quit trolling Slashdot. This is a story aimed at getting a large percentage of Slashdot behind you. The fact is, it's illegal, and if someone were to copy your entire book which you make money off of and give it away for free online, you or your publisher would sue the bastards. The information wants to be free, someone could say, but that doesn't mean that laws aren't being broken, and when those laws are broken, it's the author that's getting screwed over, not the individual.
I think people have a very misguided view of what is going on and are attacking the wrong aspect of the entire thing.
First of all, to all the whining over getting mp3's off the 'Net for free, I should inform you that with the current legal system that most of the world uses, copying music and distributing it (even if you're not making money) is a violation of copyright. Get over it. You're crooks. Not violent criminals, just IP crooks. To the argument regarding copying music as not being theft because it deprives no one of any good, you are correct. It is not theft. This is a bad term. That is why they made the term "copyright infringement" and that is what you are violating when you copy/distribute music.
On the flip side of this argument is the issue of democracy and coporatism. The whole idea of being able to download stuff off the 'Net and listen to it is the most appealing aspect of the entire experience. It is very easy, and people like that. I don't think people are realizing that they are saying something with this, because they never back it up with anything but bitching when confronted by issues such as lawsuits to Napster from big bands. It's not whether or not the band should or shouldn't do that. I'm sorry to inform you that this is entirely the wrong issue to attack.
What you should be noticing is that with all this downloading, you, as the people living in a democratic society (theoretically, anyway) don't like the current laws. What you are clamouring to say is that "We don't like the current system. Change it". You're rebels, fulfilling your teenage angst. However, you still acting like teenagers (and if most of you are, grow up - fast!). You gave go to tell the representatives in government that you do not like it.
Ok - I can hear the nay-sayers already. However, think about this: the corporations that are pissing you off so much understand this basic principle. Use (for abuse) the system. They already went to the government and got stuff like the DMCA passed and now, they are attacking you with it. They use money and ideas like "Our customers support us on this" to do so. You shouldn't stand for this. Right now, we live in a coporate democracy because people don't say or do anything about what irks them. They seem to think that just because they think it is right, it is right and thus, it will prevail. Sorry, man, but you have got to do something about it. Is the system broke? Damn right it is. Can we fix it? Yes, but it's gonna be a helluva a fight.
Bitching at Metallica is as useless as Metallica is right now (sorry - had to get in a cheap shot =)). They are simply doing what is within their rights. They are exercising it like any citizen should be able to. As much as I think they aren't helping the situtation at all (Hey Lars, James! You used to be good. Step back and fsck'ing think what you are doing!), they are doing what our society allows them to do by what we have defined as a society.
(This may be a bit North american-centric, but lots still holds for European countries as well. Corporations are going global, you know.)
Katz got one thing right in the article - Artists have a right to be paid for their music, but the rash of lawsuits don't solve the copyright problems spawned by the Net, they simply drive them underground.
Just think about it - carefully.
Woz
Metallica is having an online chat on May the 2nd, as part of an ArtistDirect promotion... Somehow, the idea of a few thousand slashdotters arriving, and voicing their opinions about the Napster fiasco is amusing... At the very least, a good way to let them know what you think.
Jairus Pryor
Any event, once it has occurred, can be made to appear inevitable by a competent historian.
Alright, I'm tired of hearing the same old arguement over and over again, so here's the reasons I use Napster now instead of buying CDs (I own several hundred CDs btw).
First, I'm into trance, a form of eletronic music, that I can't seem to buy ANYWHERE, not even online. Sure I can find some albums every once and awhile, but most of the time the stores have never heard of what I'm looking for, can't get it, or it will take weeks to get, etc...
Second, in the electronic music spectrum, there's alot of stuff I don't like. I used to try buying CDs, then find out they were junk. Waste of money. Sure, I'd buy CDs of artists I liked that I could actually get ahold of, but I'm listening to alot of bootlegs and things from Europe that can't be purchased, at least in the USA...
Third, I'm poor. Now more than ever, it's difficult being a college student. I couldn't buy albums at all (maybe a couple a year) if I even wanted to. I'm sure alot of other people feel the same way. Most of the people who are pirating on Napster (including me) I bet would not buy the album of the person they were pirating anyway, either because they don't like it that much, it's just something novelty they wanted, or they're too poor to go out and actually buy it. You can argue then that the person should not have that recording, but the artist still is not losing money anyways and perhaps smaller ones gain from sharing their music to people who would have never heard it otherwise.
Fourth, everywhere I look, record sales are booming. They're having no problems pushing CDs, even though they're generally $3 - $5 more than 5 - 10 years ago when I was in my teen popular artist CD buying phase.
The only thing I can find in my local record stores are asshole employees, limited selection (plenty of the MTV crap), and high prices. I could buy online, but it's more of the same except the salesperson is taken out and replaced by phony reviews.
I'm glad Napster exists, it has opened me up to music I would not have found otherwise and allows me to get my hands on things I wouldn't be able to get my hands on.
(P.S. I've posted this before, but it never gets moderated up very high, if at all)
- In my original post I asked that instead of the typical bitching and moaning by music pirates we should instead discuss how the music industry (artists included) can survive in a digital world. Please read my
- original post and respond below.
Damn, I have to go code....PS: I think it was stupid of Dre's lawyer's to mention something as ridiculous and difficult to enforce as suing Napster users.