Slashdot Mirror
Dr. Dre Might Sue Napster Users?
Chad Schmidt linked us to a ZD story where they suggest that Dr. Dre, following his suit against Napster, may go after users directly. I'm kinda torn, I mean, these users are committing theft by distributing MP3s, but there sure are a lot of them. On the other hand, this does open up a new and exciting revenue stream for music superstars who just aren't making as much money selling albums any more *grin*.
How's this: I only wanted 2 Dr. Dre songs but his monopolistic recording company bundled these other songs with the pacakge and is forcing consumers to pay extra for something they don't want.
Or, I'm protesting his illegal use of Lucasfilm's THX deep note by downloading and listening to his songs, though I would never buy his albums he believes I'm huring him. This may be illegal but it is a crime of protest and passion, if you find me guilty 10,000 angry Star Wars fans will tear this courthouse down and string Dre like the hypocrite he is.
You should be paying mefor MY services! I'm giving the record industry a free wake up call. Their ancient CD format and pricing schemes will not be tolerated any longer. Viva compressed formats, rewritable digital media, and cheap music.
Screw Dre, he probably realized what Lucas is gonna take from him and is gonna make it back by suing you and me. Exactly what part of the gangsta-rap tradition involves copyright protection when the whole genre evolved from ripping off hooks and melodies of other artists and *talking* over it.
Where's Suge Knight when Dre really needs him?
1. Napster put advertising into their program.
2. Allow only MP3s that have a certain signature that can be used to positively identify the artist.
3. Allow MP3s to be freely traded. Each time a particular MP3 file is downloaded to completion, the transaction is recorded, and advertising revenue from #1 is used to pay the artist.
So the idea is that Napster than can be used to trade music freely, the artists get paid, the users don't pay anything. It's sponsored music trading. 4. Possibly restrict the MP3s to be under a certain bit-rate.
Problems: 1. How to do the advertising.
2. Must modify all MP3s to add "signature".
3. Omnipresent user profiling possibilities.
4. How much do the artists get paid?
If Napster just capitulates a little bit and allow something like this, or partially so, then maybe, just maybe, there wouldn't be all these people suing. Then we wouldn't have a site to Pay Lars.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
If they're getting a cut from every digital recording device sold in order to compensate for losses due to copyright infringement, why isn't it legal to distribute copies? After all, you're compensating them for it. That recording device tax is one of the shadier things I've heard of them doing. There's gotta be some way to invalidate it. It just seems completely illogical.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No, you'r not depriving them of the material. You are, however, (for all practical purposes) depriving them of the ability to get compensation for work they did that you're benefitting from.
Funny, my dictionary explicitly mentions "intangible property". Anyway, while copyright infringement is "theft" in a sense, it isn't theft of the data. It's theft of the creator's right to profit from their work.
If someone creates some "content", they should be able to ask whatever price they want for it. If you want it, pay the price. If you don't like the price, go elsewhere. Your rights aren't being infringed any more than they would be if the person hadn't come up with the content in the first place. Obtaining a copy of the content without the (explicit or implicit) consent of the creator hurts content creators because it sginificantly reduces their chance to get a return on their investment. It's partly because of people who think it's okay to violate copyright that we have to put up with crap like copy protection, SDMI, and DMCA.
You lose everything when you die. Does that mean you have no property at all?
To be honest, I could care less what is or isn't "Constitutional". I'm not an American. What I do care about is what is fair. Is it fair that someone spends a great deal of effort developing something in the hopes that they can make a living off of it, and instead they get nothing while others benefit from their work? I don't think so.
Copyrights are very different from patents. If someone has a copyright on some content, you're not deprived of anything. If you don't want to pay to use their content, you can freely develop your own. Your rights are the same as if the content was never created in the first place.
With patents it's different. If someone patents something, and you independently develop the same thing, you're in trouble. So when a patent is granted, the "rights" of non-patent holders have been reduced. If you have a patent on "Kangarooskicizers", I am no longer allowed to develop one, even if I don't look at your design. With copyrights it's different. If you copyright a piece of software called "Kangarooski Office", I can make a virtually identical piece of software, as long as I don't actually copy your code.
So in the case of copyrights, the things I can do if I don't want to license from you are the same as if you'd never developed the thing in the first place. In the case of patents, I actually lose my right to develop a "kangarooskicizer", even if I don't know that you've already developed such a thing.
If While I do agree that copyrights shouldn't last forever, I think that arbitrary timeouts (in programming, or in life) are a Bad Thing. What if someone spends 20 years developing something? What if someone spends some time developing some content, but isn't able to find a suitable use for it until 15 years later? I'm not sure how best to resolve this, but I don't think an arbitrary time limit is the right answer.
No, you'r not depriving them of the material. You are, however, (for all practical purposes) depriving them of the ability to get compensation for work they did that you're benefitting from.
Funny, my dictionary explicitly mentions "intangible property". Anyway, while copyright infringement is "theft" in a sense, it isn't theft of the data. It's theft of the creator's right to profit from their work.
If someone creates some "content", they should be able to ask whatever price they want for it. If you want it, pay the price. If you don't like the price, go elsewhere. Your rights aren't being infringed any more than they would be if the person hadn't come up with the content in the first place. Obtaining a copy of the content without the (explicit or implicit) consent of the creator hurts content creators because it sginificantly reduces their chance to get a return on their investment. It's partly because of people who think it's okay to violate copyright that we have to put up with crap like copy protection, SDMI, and DMCA.
You lose everything when you die. Does that mean you have no property at all?
To be honest, I could care less what is or isn't "Constitutional". I'm not an American. What I do care about is what is fair. Is it fair that someone spends a great deal of effort developing something in the hopes that they can make a living off of it, and instead they get nothing while others benefit from their work? I don't think so.
Copyrights are very different from patents. If someone has a copyright on some content, you're not deprived of anything. If you don't want to pay to use their content, you can freely develop your own. Your rights are the same as if the content was never created in the first place.
With patents it's different. If someone patents something, and you independently develop the same thing, you're in trouble. So when a patent is granted, the "rights" of non-patent holders have been reduced. If you have a patent on "Kangarooskicizers", I am no longer allowed to develop one, even if I don't look at your design. With copyrights it's different. If you copyright a piece of software called "Kangarooski Office", I can make a virtually identical piece of software, as long as I don't actually copy your code.
So in the case of copyrights, the things I can do if I don't want to license from you are the same as if you'd never developed the thing in the first place. In the case of patents, I actually lose my right to develop a "kangarooskicizer", even if I don't know that you've already developed such a thing.
does he want my 16.6 cents for the two songs I've downloaded? What else could he sue me for?
Depending on the state, he may be able to receive up to 5 times actual damages. You're looking at a possible judgement of 83 cents. Don't panic, you can probably settle the case for half a dollar.
Their argument is that they get a cut from each digital recording device sold to address piracy, and computers don't count as digital recording devices. Thus, since they don't get money when you buy a computer, it's illegal to copy digital music to your computer.
*shrug* I am not a lawyer, but I play one on TV.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Yep, that's right. This is the last time I ever pirate one of their songs!
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
I keep arguing this point with my wife. :) There is nothing illegal about Napster. It trades files across the net. That's not illegal.
:-)
However, 99.9% of said files are copyrighted material. Trading these files is illegal. Makes perfect sense to me - go after the (ab)users, not the tool.
"Napster doesn't pirate music, people pirate music."
---
According to this C|NET article (last paragraph), Lucas is suing him for using the THX sound effect on his album. He apparently *asked* to use it, but was denied (and used it anyway).
Hypocrite!
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Now we just need to get Garth Brooks to sue Napster. Then we'll have the 3 lamest "forms of music" all lined up like idiots trying to stuff a genie back in his bottle.
On the other hand, do country music listeners even know what 'nturnet is?
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I think a better question is: How do Dr. Dre's recordings qualify as "intellectual" property? :)
If he actually decides to sue you, would it not be just as easy to go out and buy whatever albums have the offending songs on them? It's legal to have the MP3's if you own the album, right? Then they would have to somehow prove that you didn't own the album at the time of download...
everyone that's gotten warez off of an IRC channel, raise your hand!
now, is that the fault of IRC, the IRC client you happen to be using, or the explicit fault of the users that happen to be pirating copyrighted software?
should Adobe and Microsoft and all those other companies try to shut down Internet Relay Chat? Should they sue the companies and individuals that make IRC clients? NO. They should go after the people distributing the copyrighted material. And yes, I'm sure it would be quite easy for lawyers to come in and shutdown the larger purveyors of the mp3's. I'll be there are server logs somewhere... hell, traceroute.
anyway, this is clearly illegal, but showing how idiotic lawyers, media, Dr. Dre, and the RIAA are, they're going after the wrong problem, and they're going after the symptom. This won't SOLVE anything. People will just find another way to get around paying $18 for a cd where you only really want 1 or 2 of the songs and the rest are crap. Until the music industry get's it's collective head out of its @ss, more applications are going to be created, more secret (or not so secret) trading grounds will pop up, and burners will become more and more popular.
Actually he's released an album that has gone quadruple platinum which is more than Eminem's (triple platinum).
This is not about "piracy" at all in my mind. Sure there are plenty people downloading copyrighted music out there, but there are also plenty of people taping stuff off the radio. CD sales are up despite napster and despite CD-R availability, and studies have shown that the people who copy music are also more likely the people buying more records.
If it isn't about piracy what is it about? Up until the arrival of MP3s there was very little way for the average Joe to get digital copies of original copies without considerable cost. The report you link to is a red herring (it is from before MP3s when copying meant burning CDs or dubbing tapes and even then in 1989 it was inconclusive).
Dr. Dre, the RIAA and Metallica have shown themselves to be more technologically savvy and able to spot trends than most of the people posting to this thread. In a few years broadband will be ubiqituos and devices that play/record digital music will be cheap. Already my roomate and I who are music fans and probably own a combined total of 200 CDs, have almost stopped purchasing CDs. Between his portable MiniDisc player, my computer that always has Napster open, our entertainment center and my car Minidisc player we have myriad ways to listen to digital quality music we downloaded off Napster for free. This weekend, every song we saw on MTV or heard at the club on Saturday has been downloaded of Napster and is enjoyed by myself and my roomate in digital surround sound at no cost. In a few years, once DSL-like access is as common as 56k modem dialup and Minidisc players cost as much as Walkmans(sp?), the average person (not the music fanatic who MUST have that perfect digital sound) will see no reason to pay for music.
Now I am against paying $18 for a CD that contains only 1 or 2 songs I'll like as much as the next person but even I realize where this will eventually lead. I recently downloaded "Living la vida loca" which from an MTV special I saw cost $900,000 in production costs to create a video for. The reason I downloaded the song was because of the rather cool video. Now eventually when everyone and their mother has broadband and has access to cheap MP3 players (or other digital sound dplayers), where will the music industry as it currently exists be? The answer is Shit Outta luck. I have thought about different ways that the music industry can thrive in a digital world and none come to mind because no matter what the music industry comes up with it
- cannot prevent people from simple taking their content and giving it away for free like people do with Napster (just for fun once I tagged a music file with my initials to see how many people would copy it after having it up on Napster for a month, currently I get at least 50 hits anytime I search for it).
cannot use encryption as a panacea because it will broken.Given the above reasons, even if the music industry was going to embrace digital distribution just as they did CDs, it will take the elimination of competition that seeks to commoditize product that is expensive to promote, produce and market.
What I would really like to see on slashdot instead of the typical bitching and moaning by music pirates (of which I admit to being) who feel it is their right to disrespect the rights of copyright holders to save themselves a buck (of course, these same people would scream copyright violation if MSFT used GPL code in the next edition of Windows without open sourcing windows or if slashdot puts insignificant snippets of their rants and ravings in a book to help enlighten people). Instead I would like to see proposals for how the music industry can still make money in a digital. After all the music industry is in a life threatening situation and thus all their actions are understandable when placed in that light.
This isn't about piracy at all - it's about an industry that is afraid to change with the times. Get over yourself, Dre, and take a hint from your buddy Chuck D: the reason the industry is scared of napster is because it gives small unknown artists the power of distribution without having their work extorted by music industry gatekeepers!
What is that supposed to mean? How have is Napster giving artists the power of distribution. When last I checked Metallica and Dr. Dre were artists and they seem to be suing Napster for taking that right of distribution from them and giving it to cheapskates like me who will probably never contribute to the welfare of Dr. Dre, Metallica or any other artists whose music I steal and redistribute.
PS: Why doesn't slashdot talk about the artists that support Napster? Such as the fact that Napster will be sponsoring Limp Bizkit's next tour which by the way will be free.