Slashdot Mirror
Will This Genie Ever Go Back In The Bottle?
For several years now, the distribution of free music online has been evolving into a bitter, costly and signficant test of whether new information technologies will change the nature and meaning of copyright, or alter the ways in which culture and ideas have been owned, marketed and distributed. The Net has made possible, for better or worse, the free acquision of music and other kinds of intellectual and creative products.
MP3 technology -- a format which jumped from obscurity to ubiquity in 1999 -- has turned out to be revolutionary. Millions of people whose access to music was previously limited to radio and CDs suddenly had instant and free access to much of the music recorded in modern times. MP3 sparked a cultural and economic revolution that is just beginning to be understood.
An entire generation has grown up seeing the acquisition of music as a right. This generation has a voracious appetite for music, something that should please the makers of it. Industry executives and many artists, of course, see the way they satisfy that appetite as nothing more than a pervasive form of thievery.
A number of artists have bitterly complained that the downloading of music on sites like MP3.com is simply piracy. They have criticized writers like me (with justification) for not highlighting artists' rights as well as those of music lovers. Friday's ruling by a federal judge against MP3 was the clearest and most powerful blow yet struck against the by-now deeply ingrained tradition, especially among younger music lovers, of acquiring vast music libraries for free. MP3.com could face stunning penalties.
At issue is something complicated and important, something not taken into account, or even acknowledged, by the Federal court ruling. There is hardly anyone reading this who hasn't acquired some form of free intellectual property on the Net, from music to text to software. Artists definitely have a right to be paid for their work, but branding a whole generation of music fans thieves seems simplistic, even self-destructive.
The question now becomes political and cultural, as well as legal and technological. Judge Rakoff issued a startlingly brief order Friday holding MP3.com "liable for copyright infringement." The suit, brought by RIAA (The Recording Industry Association of America), a consortium of the world's largest record labels, seeks to shut down MP3.com. But over the weekend, some music industry officials, including Paul Vidich, an executive vice president for Time Warner, said RIAA wasn't trying to put MP3.com out of business as much as force it to change.
The court found that MP3.com had violated copyright law by creating an online database -- MyMP3.com -- of 80,000 major label records. The ruling doesn't affect the use of MP3 compression technology (not owned by MP3.com) to make copies of music via the Net.
It follows a growing number of lawsuits -- some by recording artists like Metallica and Dr Dre -- against Napster. RIAA also has a suit pending against Napster in federal court. MP3.com shares dropped sharply in late Nasdaq trading Friday afternoon.
As strong a victory for the music industry as Judge Rakoff's ruling sounded, it seemed both short-sighted and far from clear cut. MP3 has altered the music industry for good. Shutting down MP3 and Napster would hardly mark the end of the battle.
"The shame here," a dissident, savvy music industry executive said in a phone interview over the weekend, "is that the record labels could have embraced MP3 and Napster, rather than going to war against them. What they don't grasp is that while piracy issues have a lot of validity, Napster constituted a rebellion against monopolistic music industry practices and greed, as well as a copyright problem. Instead of reforming, and grasping a real chance to change, the industry simply used the most heavy-handed method in dealing with these issues. Those of us who know the Net know this ruling will last for about a week. Piracy issues aside, the industry has a full-blown rebellion on their hands. These kids are never going back to the old way of buying music. We need a new system that responds to them and really does protect artists."
There were hopeful signs over the weekend. Danny Goldberg, one of the industry's most enlightened execs, and chief executive of Artemis Records, an independent label that releases CD's and runs Internet radio and music subscription services, said of music-sharing: "It seems counterintuitive, but an increase in free downloads coincided with an increase in paid sales. Particularly among the young audience, the people who are most wired, the evidence is that it's bonding a new generation to music." Goldberg's comments suggest that at least some leaders in the music industry grasp that new transmission technologies could be good both for the music industry and for artists.
History suggests that once new technologies like MP3 and Napster exist, they will be used and replicated. Many music industry executives believe the recording artists would make more money, not less, if they embraced digital music-distribution technologies. When the record labels went after MP3, the industry triggered the Napster rebellion. Napster software, spreading wildly on the Web, allows MP3 users to share files. If suits against Napster are successful, why wouldn't yet another technology crop up? In fact, it already has, in the bumper crop of programs both client and server which basically treat the Internet as a searchable and vast remote filesystem.
Pretending otherwise doesn't protect the rights of artists, it simply sets them up to get ripped off forever, and needlessly politicizes the tradition of free music among younger consumers. Selling music more innovatively just might permit artists to get paid and let consumers keep their new-found ability to acquire more music for less money.
Brian Ploskina of inter@activeWeek.com quoted Gene Hoffman, chief executive of EMusic.com, an online MP3 store and showcase as likening the free music legal battles to prohibition, doomed efforts to restrict the sale of liquor. "In the 20's," he said, people made a lot of bathtub gin, but they don't do that today because they can buy it for $20." His well-taken point is that music-downloaders would probably pay for music too, if the prices were more affordable.
It was an apt analogy. The music industry and the Temperance movement both thought they could legislate the social tastes and desires of millions of Americans. Whether they have merits to their arguments or not, history says their task is impossible. Recent legal actions make it likely that key distribution points for both MP3 and Napster -- particularly universities and other institutions that till recently have allowed music distribution software on their servers -- will be shut down. Others will obviously emerge. The legal actions won't stop the proliferation of music-transmission software, or the epidemic resentment and anger at the way the greedy record labels operate. The music industry is in the odd position of winning one court ruling after another while alienating an entire generation of customers.
For years now, millions of music lovers have been acquiring diverse kinds of music for nothing, making music more popular than ever. In l999, the record industry posted an 8 percent growth in revenue -- from $13.7 billion in l998 to $14.6 billion in l999 -- while the number of audio and video units sold rose from l.12 billion to 1.16 billion, according to RIAA statistics. Many executives believe those numbers would have been higher if the record industry were using MP3 for sales and promotion. Hundreds of music-sharing sites exist all over the Net and Web besides MP3 and Napster, including ones which take advantage of instant-messaging systems and privately-built and run Web sites.
Do recording executives really believe that music fans will suddenly give up on acquiring diverse and numerous forms of music for free and go back to buying a handful of expensive CDs a few times a month? That wouldn't protect artist's rights or those of music lovers. This digital genie isn't going back into the bottle. Successful negotiatioins between MP3.com and the music would be the sanest step yet in the music wars, and a healthy precedent for other businesses who sell intellectual property as well as artists.
Note from timothy: Thanks to twiin and other readers who sent word of Metallica's upcoming online chat tomorrow (2nd May 2000) as part of an ArtistDirect promotion, where you can tell them what you think directly. I quote: "Hold nothing back: this is Metallica, after all. They can take it."
Who really pays $16.95 for a brand new CD? Where I live, there are number of different places that sell a new CD for as low as $11.99 or $12.99 (if you are paying by cash). Even on cdnow.com you can get them cheaper (granted you have to pay shipping.)
/cd. I could also mp3 his stuff and put it online if I wanted. There are a lot of ways to distribute for the artist that didn't exist 10 years ago.
I know that its still a lot more than 50 cents -- I just could never understand why that price gets quoted so much; the only place I see that price is in the malls (where they charge $60 for a game you can get at Best Buy for $45.)
Still, There is a lot more that goes into getting a CD into a consumer's hands than the 50 cents that goes into "producing" it. There is the distribution/shipping costs to actually get them to the record stores; advertising to get the consumer's attention as well as promotions, videos, etc...and in the end you have the profits that go to the artist and the record company. So what if they get a cut of the action -- why does it make them "greedy"? If you don't like the way they do business (if you are artist) go start your own damn record company; in fact, that is what more and more artists are doing these days.
I think that the consumer is really not that important to understanding how the equation will change. The consumers basically look for the best deal they can get on the music that they want. period. The real evolution is in the hands of the artist.
There is so much more technology than mp3s changing the playing field. Consider that with small budget, an artist could buy a computer with a soundcard like the soundblaster live (with RCA and digital inputs), some mixing software (like Sound Foundry's product lineup), and a CD burner. There you have the start of your own home studio with digital quality production -- for the price of a couple days of studio time.
My roommate made a demo CD for himself in a professional studio and I burn copies for him. I also came up with a cool graphic label to put on the cds. Now he has his own cd to give out or sell and it only costs: 40 cents for the CD, $1 for the label (glossy) + $0 for my donated labor = 1.40
I don't think it is fair to characterize the music industry as being greedy -- they offer a service, it has a cost, they get a cut -- love 'em or leave 'em. Today at least, the artist has more reason to leave 'em.
Scott
Cars are expensive, but it doesn't make stealing them legal.
But you don't get what the digital information is all about. If I play along with your analogy, once one car were manufactured, there could be 10 billion copies of the car with no cost. So what would be the cost of the car?
The laws and ideas about actually existing material objects simply don't extend well to pure information.
Dude.. The RIAA isn't trying to just stop the distribution of mp3's, it's trying to stop the mp3 format, period. my.mp3.com was set up so that you could have access to your entire CD collection from anywhere in the world -- granted, the system was a little insecure (not much they could do about that, only thing more secure would be to have everyone who bought a CD to send in a photocopy of their recepit as proof-of-purchase, imagine the headaches involved with that), but the RIAA just opened up the doors for the squelching of mp3's in general.
Some of us have thousands of mp3s that we ripped from OUR OWN CD's. I carry 2 CD's with me to work, it makes it much easier than to carry 20 CD's -- each CD has around 10-11 full albums on it. If the RIAA had their way, I would be unable to do this at all. Remember all the litigations over VHS? Over Casette tapes? Right now, there's no law that's protecting people if they want to make an mp3 from music they own. That's why my.mp3.com got burned.
Besides, in argument over mp3's being in circulation -- not all of us has the money to go buy EVERY album in existence if only there is one song on any given album they enjoy. With high prices (There's no way in hell I'm going to pay the $18/CD that any of the twec stores charge these days) that have been *constant* for the past 4-5 years, not everyone can go out and afford 50,000 cd's. Maybe you can, and if you can, you're lucky. For most of us, we'll try the music first.
OK why are in you the tech industry, or do what you do for a living? Would you do it for 1/10 of what you get paid now?
:).
Maybe you would , but you know what? I could not manage to support my family if I was only making 1/10 of what I make now (of course if I had no family probably I would
I hate it when people are saying fuck the artists, they should just work harder and make their money from concerts and tshirt sales, while
giving they songs away for free or a buck a pop on the internet. Chances are they cannot do this themselves and still take the time out to be artists.
Think of all the techies who love what they did and started and manage their own businesses. Go talk to them. How many of them actually have the time to still do the programming and "fun" stuff they love and what attracted them to this industry? Almost none. How did they get their initial capitial? How many of them went bust?
Do you wanna become a management type?
Why should an Artist have to do so to be succesful?
Now try to figure out how these artists are going to start from nothing. How are the going to get the massive influx of cash needed to set up servers and hire techies to deliver their music, how are they going to set up concerts, put together touring infrastructure. They are not lucky enought to have the "venture capitalists" like the tech industry. Most importantly how the hell are they going to have time to write good music if they are spending all their time with accounting, managing, arranging, booking, etc... Damn straight that they will probably be too tired to even write or compose anything.
Unless some third party fronts the cash for an initial pressing (or server setup etc...)and promotion of a group it is extremely unlikey that they will ever go anywhere.
Really folks its the artists your screwing more then anybody else when you possess MP3's you don't own.
cheers. X
OK, I'm really sick of this. Yes MP3's enable "theft", actually unauthorized copying, so what. So do Xerox machines. So do personal computers. Digital is pretty much infinately reproducable, there is nothing you can do about it. As far as the against the law stuff goes, have you exceeded the speed limit lately? Speeding is illegal. It is also very easy to build vehicles that make exceeding the speed limit impossible, has it happened? No. Will it happen? Yeah right. Does excessive speed contribute to deaths? Yes. Does copying mp3's kill? Maim? Hurt? Inconvenience? Appearantly its a bigger crime. The money grubbing megacorps continue to try to control their customers. (Ever notice they never use that word? We're consumers to them.) Here's the simple fact: If you want to maintain control of your "intellectual property", in a age where digital reproduction is so easy and widespread, don't broadcast it in any form, CD's etc included. Once its out there its out. Intellectual property. Please. How many science fiction writers have had their concepts and visions made real? Maybe they should sue and stop the bloody world.
And I went through this whole post without bashing Katz.
:-}
Don't worry. We all have our off days. Try again, I'm sure you can do better
Okay, I see your point. But suppose the car project cost 8 million dollars. Then you make copies of it and manage to sell 10 million copies for 4 dollars each. You win 32 million dollars which you can put into your pocket. (minus taxes naturally)
I was trying to establish the point that with digital information the cost is often one-shot. The money is needed to create the information. After the information exists, it costs next to nothing to have a zillion identical copies of it.
However this isn't suitable for cars, or any such "material" object. It applies well to immaterial stuff such as music, since music can be coded into digital form.
I would like to see such a law, that when you bring out an immaterial product, it would be under "thou shalt not copy" laws for four (4) years, after which it would be placed into public domain. The idea behind this is to give the company who created it a chance to get their investment back (and a profit too), but also take into account the fact that you really can't control the propagation of digital information. If you can read (ie. access) digital information, you can make an exact duplicate. I think such an approach would be more reasonable than the current system. Of course it's nice to just sit back and watch the money flow in from the works of a poet who has been dead for 40 years or something. I think it's plain wrong.
Myplay.com basically offers the same online storage of mp3 (and other formats) as my.mp3.com, they launched their site with the PR pitch of "Your Music, Anytime, Anywhere" - doesn't that remind you of anything?? The PR pitch used by my.mp3.com was "Anywhere, Anytime". I Imagine if myplay had patented the 'online music locker' concept and had sued mp3.com you'd all have lined up alongside mp3.com in response.....
mp3.com are hardly known for innovation - a 5 billion dollar domain name looking for a business plan.
Myplay lets you use your own, mp3s, and it has a loot more features (public playlists). It does mean you need to upload, but that's the price you pay for abiding by the law. If I were myplay I'd be looking at how to do the beam-it system legally - which probably means a lot of deals with a lot of record companies. But those same companies are suing mp3.com - I'd i9magine a legitimate version of Beam-It Would make their case against mp3.com even stronger...
It seems to me that by bringing all these mp3.s together in one place myplay is doing a certain amount to 'control' this culture in the name of the record companies, I'd guess that they pay some sort of RIAA licensing so that the artists are in fact making money. mp3 as a format doesn't have controls, so all those controlsh ave to lie in the services.
So - give some respect to the real innovators here.......
I know quite a few professional musicians and not one of them makes enough money to support themselves - even though one of them made it to #1 in the indy charts in Brisbane recently. They all have at least one other non musical job. So they are already effectively in the position you describe. How is MP3 sharing going to make this worse?
Turning culture into a business has been very successful.
Rubbish. How do you measure "success"? In terms of the amount of money a vanishingly small number of individuals and corporations have made? Profit is not and can never be the same as culture (unless you want a culture that views money above all else, but surely most people would value love, security and happiness above money... right?). It seems to me that all the commercialisation of "culture" has done is made it more and more difficult to listen and see anything that is even slightly outside the tastes of Main Street USA. There must be a million great unsigned bands in the world but we won't get to hear any of them because if a record company releases too many tracks at once it's profits will be diluted. How the hell is that "successful"??
M.
I'd like to turn this around on you: mp3.com got started on the premise that they would bring unknown acts to the forefront of the Internet-using audience. I've found some really good local music via mp3.com. However, can any artist currently claim they got their Big Break from them? Probably not.
Did they deserve to get smacked by the RIAA? Absolutely. But that topic has been bashed to death, given recent events.
So, if you don't like the RIAA stance on this, don't support them by buying albums protected by them! Go to mp3.com, look up the local listings, and get at some really good, local music, and support them. They list a very wide variety of music, although the 'barrier of entry' can be too low.. [ Note: Bloops and bleeps from your Casio keyboard does *not* necessarily make you an "artist".. :^) ]
If not, their lawyers need to read this :)
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
studio recording time is very expensive. production and mixing add more expense, as does promotion of the album. and perhaps the artist even spent a lot of time writing the songs (could time possibly be worth something?)
Not really. Many big records were made on a shoestring budget in the past 20 years, for example REM's first several records. Recording gear is lots more affordable. You're expounding on the labor theory of value. Because I have put alot into something, it is intrinsically more valuable. Not really. It is worth what people are willing to pay for it. That's the market theory of value. As for the cost of a CD. I've been in a few bands that have made CDs. 1000 CD's for ~ $5 a CD was the going rate. In one band, the drummer had a nice studio. In another we went to a local studio. SO the studio time varied from 0 to $800. If we had made more CDs, the cost per CD went down. If you're talking about a serious record, they'll be boxing CDs for $3 each, including studio time. So they mark them up to $17 and wonder why things like Napster evolve.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
the main issue here is theft...
For the RIAA, yes. For me, I just want to listen to my legally purchased music collection without having to bring $1,000+ worth of CDs to my office. Unfortunately making life easier for me makes making money harder for the RIAA, and thus our goals are in conflict.
too many people, katz included, are viewing music as a commodity. and yes, that's the way it's been fed to people, but at the same time, there's a reason why artists create albums. well-crafted songs are one thing, but an album represents a hour-ish long attempt to create a coherent/cohesive mood and statement.
Oh, hogwash. If this was the main issue, then the money side of things wouldn't matter. But really, most of them are more interested in living in mansions, driving expensive cars, and boinking supermodels. Can't blame 'em for that...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
OK here's the thing -- the suit is against the part of mp3.com -- mymp3.com -- that allows people to download mp3's of music they can "prove" that they own. The reason the RIAA sued this part of mp3.com's business -- and only this part, as far as the ruling is concerned -- is that in order for mymp3.com to do this, they had to make and then distribute copies of copyrighted works. Despite the very good intentions of mymp3, I'm not sure that they really have much of a legal leg to stand on. Even taking fair use into account, *you* as the purchaser have a limited right to make copies for yourself etc, but I'm not sure you can argue that the seller does.
It's true that the artists whose CDs are sold through mp3.com have agreed to this, but others haven't and those are the ones the suit concerns.
At any rate, here's the real, sinister, bad reason for this suit and why the RIAA is so hot and bothered about MP3.com. It's about distribution. MP3.com allows "the little guy" artists to sell their music at a low cost and with a lot of exposure. The transactions that occur, be they the buying of MP3s or of CDs, are done between the buyer, mp3.com, and the artists, without the involvement of the RIAA's companies. There's little overhead and less greed than at the RIAA's members, which is why the typical CD from mp3.com is priced around the $5 to $8 range (I've bought a lot of them and I love it). So between the ability to sample the music by downloading the free mp3's, and getting a good deal on CDs, and allowing artists to get a decent cut of the sale prices, MP3.com has a really attractive business model for all concerned. And this is what the RIAA really hates, and legally there's nothing they can really do about it. But the MyMP3 suit gives them a chance to hurt MP3.com and possibly get rid of it as a legitimate competitor. And so the war continues.
Happy Beltaine!
Would you prefer not paying for culture, hence driving all culture works to the fringes of unemployed people working through government grants and donations?
Turning culture into a business has been very successful; let's not destroy that. Instead, let's find business & technology models that allow the free market and human desires for free proliferation of cultural works...
-Stu
I know quite a few professional musicians and not one of them makes enough money to support themselves... How is MP3 sharing going to make this worse?
... it is a VERY small sliver of the U.S.'s total GDP, of which wages take up the vast majority...
By effectively forcing a "if I can't make money at this, no one can" policy into effect. This assumes that some entrepreneur doesn't come up with the technology to ensure proper remuneration with sharing.
Rubbish. How do you measure "success"? In terms of the amount of money a vanishingly small number of individuals and corporations have made?
Vanishingly small? Indie labels are thriving. Many of the big labels' sales are up, but they still struggle to find new and innovative acts that fit the mainstream's tastes.
Profit is a part of success. Music marketing, recording, and distribution is a BUSINESS, and profit is an objective, not evil, part of business.
Profit is not and can never be the same as culture (unless you want a culture that views money above all else, but surely most people would value love, security and happiness above money... right?).
Of course. Profit is not the goal, the goal is to make and distribute music. Profit is just a requirement of being in business: it's not about greed, it's about covering the costs of future investment.
It seems to me that all the commercialisation of "culture" has done is made it more and more difficult to listen and see anything that is even slightly outside the tastes of Main Street USA. There must be a million great unsigned bands in the world but we won't get to hear any of them because if a record company releases too many tracks at once it's profits will be diluted. How the hell is that "successful"??
This is a very peculiar argument.
- The music industry is OVER LOADED with thousands of artists that are mainstream, alternative, and experimental. I'm shocked that you seem to think that the local record store only has rows and rows of the latest Britney Spears or Metallica CD's. When I walk into a Virgin Megastore, HMV, or Borders, I see rows of world music, new age, jazz, classical, metal, alternative, electronica (with over 10 sub-genres in that big umbrella term alone), rock, pop, rap, trip hop, hip hop, r&b, soul, etc. Amazon.com and CDnow.com have THOUSANDS of artists, and you can buy almost every obscure artist imaginable on tape or vinyl off of an indie label's website or mailing address.
- If there are a million unsigned bands now, how does MP3 sharing change this? These bands can be putting out MP3's right now, freely sharing them. They will suffer from the same problem: There's not enough time to take in everything.
What you put out therefore has to be either clearly mainstream so it is marketable, or clearly "innovative" with mainstream sensibility so that word of mouth will carry it.
This is not a fault of the current system, this is a problem that just exists: people can't pay attention to everything, and this problem will just get worse as the internet increases our information overload.
Listen, you seem to be extremely pissed at anyone who makes a profit, but the fact is that if you take away profit, you don't just take away the "profit motive", you take away the fundamental engine of investment available to our society. It rewards those who cater to the market by allowing them to GROW.... Profit is but a small price to pay for continued economic prosperity
-Stu
>Prepackaging songs they didn't like with songs they did like and not allowing previews pretty much put the finishing touches on their coffin.
It's hard to give previews. For a store to have previews, it would have to have a compressed copy on a server in their store on a huge hard disc. If you have a friend with that disc, borrow it to see what it is like. You can also buy used, some places in some countries rent. Borrowing is not illegal. Keeping a copy for yourself is though.
As for the "I only like one song on the disc" thing, I think that's a matter of personal taste. On nearly every disc I have, I like every song on them to varying degrees. I'm fine with paying full price for CDs like that. Often for many songs that play on the radio, singles are available.
Your comment on concert prices may be accurate, but you probably won't believe how much of that price goes toward paying for the hall for a night and city taxes, city taxes alone can easily exceed 20%. That is similar to the 50 cent production price of a CD to the 16$ final sale price. Most of that money goes to the retailer and distribution, and that cost is only the per-piece fabrication cost, it doesn't include mastering, design, audio engineering, corporate taxes and what measly amount the music group gets.
So what! I dearly hope that the idea of a "big break" and "getting really rich from one song" goes away. What we want is for artists to be able to make a good living producing the music they want, rather than what some record exec thinks will appeal to most people and result in largest profit.
The Internet and MP3s give the artists a chance to enlarge their audience and make more money as a result. If their audience is large enough, they will be able to make a living from playing music.
So, if you don't like the RIAA stance on this, don't support them by buying albums protected by them!
I don't (or nearly so, since they own so much stuff). I buy CD from MP3.COM and from a lot of small independent labels. Mostly because the music I like (jazz and blues) never makes it to MTV or commercial radio.
...richie - It is a good day to code.
I thought God was either 1 or 3, which makes him an int ;)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
They don't have to, all they have to do is win a suit against a a single ISP (or other provider University, etc), then the ISP's will filter out the master DB's quickly and quitely.
I keep getting amused by all these negative references to this new tartist 'Sisqo'.
(I work for 3Com).
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
Get a grip. The line you draw between rights and privileges is just as arbitrary as any other.
Why should you have a right to your life? You had no say in whether or not it was created. Many world religions deny your right to take it by your own hand.
Why should you have a right to your property? It's a social construct primarily maintained, tellingly enough, by those who have managed to convince others that they are the owners of much of the world's resource.
In a free society, you do what you like. Don't confuse your notion of a free society with the philosophically objective notion of a free society, viz. one in which everyone is radically free.
You've really bought their line, and you're a sucker for it.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I wish I had mod points. All I can say is.. "amen".
...the second will happen.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Give me a break. Raising CD prices? I've been buying CDs since early 1986, and the prices don't appear to have gone up any more than can be attributed to normal inflation. It'd be hard to argue that the RIAA is more monopolistic now than it was 14 years ago.
Another thing to remember is that the RIAA is an _organization_ consisting of record industry types. It's not really a company in the sense that Capitol or Warner Bros. are companies, and thus you can't really call it a monopoly any more than you can say that the American Medical Association has a monopoly on healthcare-related practices.
:wq
Why shouldn't the kid be cut off from that? I find it incredibly difficult to imagine how the world would be worse off, if the kid couldn't download ripped CD's. It's music. It's a commercial good. And there is no reason on earth that I can see, that they should get it for free, if the artist says otherwise.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
So apparently it's your god given duty to cram alternative distribution down the throats of the RIAA, and their artists? I really don't see where you get off telling others how they need to run their business.
As several others have suggested, Jon, why don't you start your own record label that's MP3 based. Give away the tracks, and make the revenue up elsewhere. Knock yourself out. But don't tell others that they have to do that, just because you want them to. It's their business, not yours.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
"3. Allows the free market system to function rationally and profitably."
We have a free market now. I have never been forced to but a CD that I didn't want. And any CD that I thought was too expensive, I was free to decline to purchase.
"3. Busts up the music industry cartel and monopoly over music, the biggest outside of Columbia."
a. Beautiful job of sequencing thoughts.
b. 2 of my co-workers have their own band. They make money. They make money selling CD's. They have NOTHING to do with RIAA. In their words it's a dinosaur.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
I must say that the populace here, is very entertaining sometimes. The last time I saw this much chatter on a topic here, was when the users found out that their comments were being published in a book, without reimbursement, or attribution.
You can't have it both ways folks. If information wants to be free, than JK & Co, were perfectly within their rights to do whatever they wanted with the comments that were posted here last year.
If you don't believe that they should have done that, then delete Napster, and Gnutella off your systems. Purge your MP3 collection of everything that you haven't bought. And quit foaming at the mouth about how evil the RIAA is.
I really enjoy how the works of "professional artists" are freebies to be traded with impunity. But the comments of the community, are to be cherished, and held close. Never shared with the outside world.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Take basic Econ classes. When people are allowed to specialize on things that they have a comparative advantage in doing, then the system as a whole gains. If "artists" were forced to hold a "regular" job to sustain themselves, they would have significantly less time to create their art, thus creating less of it. In a well functioning economy, you let the teenagers flip burgers at McD's, and the artists create music. The artist is much happier. And the teenager gets to listen to far more music than if he had a kazoo of his own to create with.
Society as a whole, gets both more burgers, and more art, when teenagers, and artists can devote more of their energy to the things that they are best suited to.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
You do have the right to complain, and tell them how you think they should run their business.
You do NOT have the right to take the initiative, and start treating their works, as if they were operating under your "improved" model. It's their perrogative to change the terms of use, not yours.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
True, he isn't trying himself to cram it down their throats. But he's made himself a demogogue, advocating the rights of those that are trying to cram it down the record companies. A thin distinction, frankly.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
What we need is this. (1) A massive reduction in the cost of music for consumers (2) An increase in the income that artists receive for music. What we do not need is middle men who receive the vast majority of the money paid by consumers. As it is, I pay $16 for a CD, the artist receives maybe $1, the retailer receives maybe $5 and the record company receives maybe $10. If I pay $2 and the artist receives $2, both the artist and I are much better off than now. (If I then spend my other $14 on music from other artists, artists in general are *much* better off than now). At this point in technological development, the record companies perform no useful function. I want to see the system of intellectual property rights that allows the record companies to screw both consumers and artists to be wiped out, and the record companies themselves to be eliminated from the face of the earth. Yes, new business models need to come into existence so that artists are compensated, but I have little doubt that they will, as the potential gains for both artists and consumers are so great. (Micropayments are probably part of the solution). What we need is a little free space in which new business models can evolve. What we do not need is a pile of overrestrictive copyright laws designed to maintain an outdated status quo and to maintain the rights of a bunch of parasitical companies.
This is really about a complete shift of power from the few to the many.
Information is power. He who controls the information has power. Even with today's internet where the average person has a louder voice then at any time in the history of mankind, a small group still controls access to the information. With some many people talking at once, its hard to find what you are looking for. Many of us rely on other's to silence all but what we are trying to find. It doesn't matter where the content ultimately resides if you have to go through a centrally controlled choke point, the information filter, the search engine.
The information internet is not a web, its more like a pyramid. No matter where you happen to be, in the quest for information, you will eventually travel up to the top of the pyramid to one of the search engines. It then filters out all but what it wants you to see. You have no way of knowing what you're missing.
Now we have napster and its clones. The central information filter has been removed from the equation. Instead of the large centralized indexes, you have small distributed indexes.
Like most countries, US law works only because of the effectiveness of individual court cases. If mp3.com screws up, you sue them and the problem is solved. 1 case. 1 solution. Now distribute mp3.com across 10,000 people in 100 countries. 1 case. 1 solution. 9,999 to go.
By removing centralized control of information, you are also removing centralized responsibility for that information. The mere existence of software like napster in some ways erodes the fundamental balance of power in business, government, and law.
Do you think anyone is going to stand for this? Do you think anyone is going to stand for you thinking for yourself? The government protects you from yourself. Businesses tell you what you want and what you don't want. Do you think they will sit by and let you turn them off? This is just the beginning, possibly, of the end.
Has there ever been a tale of government or corporate oppression that didn't start with people thinking for themselves?
"No"? What kind of topic is that?? If you're going to make a one-word topic, at least be an optimist and call it "yes" ;-)
Hey all,
....the little guy stays little, and the big oligopoly recording companies enjoy an advertizing barrier to entry in the music market.
One thing has been left out of the equation here. Yes, the net is an awesome marketing/promotion tool for music. It costs next to nothing compared to tradtional promotion. Anybody can use it to promote their album...even the little guys, and that's what makes huge record companies scared.
Right now, the larger member companies of the RIAA, with all their money, have a lock on the music marketing aparatus. Namely, MTV and radio. Try being a garage band or teenie little lable trying to get airplay, competing with Time-Warner or Sony Music who hold leverage over this outlet. Because they're huge, and have lots of money and content to bribe, barter and pressure MTV and radio with
Well, along comes the net and MP3 and the giants find themselves on a level playing field with some fifteen year olds in a garage. How do they compete with the rare gem in the rough...beautiful, masterful music from the ether, when they're mass-producing crappy pop and charging up the ass for it.
The answer is they scare everybody they can away from MP3, so the only way you're going to hear new music is through distribution channels they have control over. And you never hear the good music that could actually benefit and uplift mankind.
The RIAA is protecting themselves against poeple in garages, not people in dorm rooms.
"Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he's doing." --Otto Mann (simpsons)
Whatever we're lucky enough to receive from our fan(s). All the artists who feel that they must be paid must do is put out the technological equivalent of an open guitar case next to the drum kit, so the dancers can throw a buck or two in once they're done.
As a street performer, I can honestly say that this method returns much greater rewards than by charging a flat rate per item. Strange, huh?
Admittedly, I'm not a musician - I do balloon animals (hehehe!) - but the concept is there. If I was to charge a flat rate based on my cost and labor, I'd make far less than I do letting people pay me what they think my work is worth. It's also incentive to start doing what people like - voting with dollars, as it were. If I was only doing red poodles, nobody would want my creations. It's the same with music. If a band is doing something that nobody likes, then they don't get money. I know - it sounds like a gamble. And it is. But it's like the gamble that we as consumers take when we buy a CD unheard. It prevents bands from coasting along on the basis of their past albums.
-- Karma is for people who think they matter.
I don't know if I am the only one thinking this way (reading the other comments I guess I am not...) But since I can download mp3s from everyone and their dog I have been buying even more CDs. Mp3 have helped me discover new artists and new genres that I would never even have heard of withouth mp3s!
Sure, the big names like Metallica and Dr Dre do not need this kind of free publicity and oportunity and I can (if I try very hard) understand to some point why they are mad at this new technology... but the RIAA has nothign to loose and much to win by helping a technology that will help opening doors to lots of younger new artists and help them to become known...
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
I like you idea that the one making the thing (be it a car, music or software or whatever gizmo you can think of) sets the price he thinks is right for his product/art. But sadly it is not the case with music...
Imagine a huge artist going to it's record company and saying "Hey! I had a great idea! We could just give my next CD for free to whoever wants to download it! This way it will help promote my art to those who do not know me yet and give me access to a broader public!!"
What do you think the record company would seriously answer??
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
Are you really not realizing that even if the suit was against my.mp3.com that it is after the whole mp3 concept that the RIAA has somethigns or did you just jumped on yet another chance to flame Katz?
The RIAA is trying to limit a whole concept... my.mo3.com was just the easiest way to attack this concept for now and they took that opportunity. Don't let the name of the author, or his way to approach a subject (the my.mp3.com suit) create your whole opinion of a column... a column is made to share ideas and opinions.
"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
MP3's will go away. Just like every other little format, it will get replaced. :) And, if it weren't for caffine, we'd all still be playing space invaders.
Columbine happend, and probably will again... unfortunately.
And, would people stop calling for JK's death? Sheesh! I mean, 1: He was just giving his opinion on something. 2: Nothing wrong with hitting the bottle. Nothing too wrong seeking writing ideas while under the influence. Rob Louis Stevenson(sp) wouldn't have given us Treasure Island if it weren't for the drugs.
Someone else seems to have already pretty much made this but, but I'll say it differently.
This battle over MP3s is very pointless. How many people, long before MP3s, have made complete copies and/or mix tapes, CDs or minidiscs of music? If MP3 is such a big threat, why are they ignoring these other mediums that allow the exact same thing?
Downloading an album's worth of MP3s from the internet and burning them to a CD is the exact same thing as copying a full album onto a CD, tape or minidisc and sending it to your friend in another city through the postal service. The only difference is that the internet is faster in getting the package to you.
There used to be time when you could go and buy a tape for a LOT less than a CD ($4-5), and if you then liked the album, you'd go for a CD. Or you could "misappropriate copyrighted material" by copying a CD from a friend of yours on a tape, listen tio it, like it--buy it, otherwise ditch it. Nowdays a tape costs just marginally less than a CD ~$10-14, but MP3 replaces it splendidly (including better sound quality).
--AP
Maybe rather than cowardly post drivel like that anonymously you ought to put your name on it?
It's amazing how many people here are in favour of the idea of free speech and the likes but only if it applied to everyone but Jon Katz.
I don't like you trolls here but do you see me post the crap you do?
--
Full Time Idiot and Miserable Sod
Full Time Idiot and Miserable Sod
Nothing is real but the pain
Why do artists have a right to collect revenue from their creations?
:)
Well, in the music biz, if you ever want to hear from a band again, you've got to buy the albums. Period. It is kind of a silly question. Do you have the right to get paid for your job? You want artists to produce for free, why don't you go and tell your boss you're going to work for free from now on? You boss will love you, your S.O. will hate you.
Parents put a great deal of effort and expense into raising children, but nobody suggests that this effort entitles them to make a financial profit on the venture.
I'm gonna guess that you don't have children. There are more things to life than money. I had kids because I wanted to. I had great parents. Quite frankly, having my four year old tell me that I'm his best friend is all the reward I'll ever need for being a parent. Plus I get to play with his Lego.
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
We need to listen to a track, then click a button to send 50 cents or a dollar to the artist (or even the record label). Tracks need to be spun off from albums ; I won't pay $20 to buy an album with one or two tracks on it that I want, but I will pay $1 a pop for them.
nonsense.
if people would really pay to listen to a song or two, there would be a huge demand for (and therefore a better selection of) CD singles. but there is no such demand.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Make it easier to get the music by paying then to pirate it. I'm not going to go through the hassle of looking up a CD in napster or IRC or wherever if it only costs $0.50, or even $0.50 a track. My time is worth something as well, and considering that they only pay the artiest about 10 cents a disk, I will never have a problem 'stealing' from the music companies, no matter how indignant randite /.ers get.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Instead of whining and complaining, just try to set up your own record company, and try to sell your music in another way than CD's. I think that if you would try that, your company wouldn't last very long, because everybody would be copying and stealing your music.
Well, that's what mp3.com is doing, among, uh, other things, And they are doing pretty well.
However, I'm a lazy person, and no matter how indignant you get, I still get free music. And, I get to watch you people get even more indignant, witch is always a lot of fun. Is it morally wrong, a little? Do I care? Nope.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
In order to get the music is the music on CD. If you already have the music on CD, there isn't really much to stop from ripping the CDs yourself, now is there?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Steal music, Steal comments. That isn't hypocracy, thats consistancy, idiot.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
1) Just becase you can't afford it, doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.
That dosn't mean I have to care. If the RIAA wants my money, they are going to have to make it worth my time. Untill then, they won't get it.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I would like to see such a law, that when you bring out an immaterial product, it would be under "thou shalt not copy" laws for four (4) years, after which it would be placed into public domain.
Actualy, thats the way it was orgionaly defined in the constitution. However, media companys have been able to extend to the life of the author, plus another 90 years(!?).
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
It's like all those DeCSS stories that claimed that it was a tool 'that let you copy DVD's'. Anyone who did a second of reserach knew that wasn't the case,
Uh, DeCSS DOES LET YOU COPY DVDS, AND IF YOU HAD DONE A SECOND OF REASARCH YOU WOULD KNOW THAT...
What is so hard to understand about this? With DeCSS, you can get the unecripted mpeg data with a consumer DVD rom Drive (witch can then be piped to a player app, or a file on your hard drive). Without it, you could not. get it?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
There are a number of legitimate costs associated with music production that most people aren't aware of or don't think about, e.g., contributions to pension plans and health insurance for union musicians. There are lots of musical and technical people behind the scenes who support the process and there are longstanding contractual and practical arrangements to insure that these people make a decent living under decent conditions as well.
I'm not saying that $16 is necessarily the perfect price point for cd's -- but let's look at reality, not your fantasies.
The fundamental nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can. -- John Prine
regarding katz's comments about the cost of a cd... yes, cds can be manufactured for under a dollar. however, it doesn't take a genius to realize that there are plenty of other costs involved in making an album beyond physical manufacturing.
studio recording time is very expensive. production and mixing add more expense, as does promotion of the album. and perhaps the artist even spent a lot of time writing the songs (could time possibly be worth something?)
how would katz feel if someone took all of his books and writings, copied them, and posted them on a site for people to read for free? granted, katz isn't a great example... it would probably work better to do this for an author actually worth reading. but consider what a book costs to print, and what it retails for... the music biz isn't the only one making "huge" profits.
It's not just a coincidence that this sounds like a patent.
Jeff
I would really love to see some small label prepackage mp3's on the cd. As in you buy your cd put in your player and it works. Put it on your computer and just copy the mp3's from the disk rather than having to rip them yourself. latra
I may not have much formal Economics training, but I'm not dumb. I just did a field check on CD prices at a department store. The single CD prices in the "classical music" section ranged from $3 to $5. The CD prices in the "popular music" sections ranged from $15-$18. Ask yourself if the composers, performers, producers, manufacturers, distributers, retailers, etc. are making a profit on the lower priced CDs or if they are just losing money on them to benefit you.
Face it, the issue here is the same as the other "IP" battles like "obvious patents". If a controling monopoly is granted to someone, they will expolit it to the hilt to make windfall profits at the expense of anyone they can. Those profits do not go to the actual creator of the IP in most of the cases either. The musicians have little choice but to sign away the copyrights if they want distribution.
You have the choice between giving a small amount of money and giving nothing when you tip a server too.
I suppose you could argue that you're really paying to avoid the embarassment of stiffing a server, but I think most people do want to give a person what *we feel* they're due.
Excellent point.
I think the difference is intention. Parents don't raise children for the money. And, I would argue, artists don't make art for the money. They make it because creating something and sharing it is fulfilling and fun.
But entertainers *are* in it for the money, and the way our society works, you're allowed to charge money for most anything you have or do, and people have the choice of taking it on your terms or leaving it. What we're not allowed to do is take something on terms other than those set by the owner or creator. That's why copying MP3s feels like stealing.
There is a point past which an entertainer's demands can seem unreasonable and ignoring their terms seems okay. Imagine if the author of "Happy Birthday" demanded that we all send him or her $100 each every time we sung the song at a party. Few people would comply or stop singing. It seems that the recording industry has reached that line, and it turned out to be a lot closer to $0 than $100.
However, I don't think that the line of reasonability is actually $0. Just last night I was sitting around trying to figure the best way to give the Arrogant Worms $10 because I like their song The Last Saskatchewan Pirate. $10 for one song! Well, I like it a lot. I played it at my wedding. And the band seems cool, so why not.
If there had been a button on my Winamp that said Tip The Artist, I would have pressed it. If there had been a Paypal link on the Worm's home page, I would have used it. (Well, if they worked with Canadians anyway -- hurry up, PayPal!)
Entertainers need to concentrate on making it easy to send them money, so we fans can reward them for entertaining us. I think if it were easy for millions of people to reward entertainers voluntarily, many talented people could make a living off free music.
Where is the record industry's role in this? Well, they should stick to what they're good at -- promotion. Perhaps artists can hire them like agents, giving them 10% or more of the cut. That's probably a lot less than what the record companies are used to getting. Maybe they should start a band.
(And yes, I recognize that most performers are both artists and entertainers. Which is fine -- there's nothing wrong with getting paid for what you like to do. As long as what you ask is reasonable.)
Tim Mitchell
Yogurt
Bad taste? *rimshot*
Seriously, "copyright infringement" should suffice. There's no need to use inaccurate (and inflammatory) words like "thief" and "pirate". Napster users don't go around breaking into houses and/or saying "Arr, matey!" all the time.
(I guess we should be thankful that the RIAA didn't choose to label infringers "murderers" or "pedophiles"...)
How much of the 20 $ you pay for a CD is actually paid to the artist? 10 $? 5 $? Yeah well...
--- If OS were buildings, then the first woodpecker to come around would erase 95 % of civilization.
Very odd - It was definitely there. Strange that.
If I was going to start a record company, I wouldn't charge $15 for 50c cd and a little slip of paper. What I would probably make that release at like 15% over cost or something.. and free to distribute.. Encode and release the entire album probably in AAC 128VBR or something so it sounds perfect.. free to d/l and distribute.. At this point it would probably be cheaper for an individual to buy the cd then to burn a copy.. You could burn the encoded files cd but you would still have to use a whole cd to burn to cd that's readable by regular cd players. Then.. I might sell another version in a fancy box, throw a book in there and some stickers, stick a hologram on it or something.. For like $20.. Also I would release a limited pressings for $30 that was maybe engraved and made a funny color. Then I'd throw a coupon in there you can mail in to order a dvd full of videos and and a poster signed by the band for maybe another $20.. Record companies used to do this sort of thing more but most don't seem to bother now. Even boxed sets these days are cheap and lame.. I think the answer to the problem for record companies is to give people something that they can't get for free for there money instead of milking copyrights to the extreme like they do now. Those days are over.
IMHO, people deserve recognition when they benefit someone else. In our society, money is the form of recognition that's most convenient. It's not ideal, but it certainly makes things easier. So, commonly, I would expect an artist to get paid for art produced, by the people who benefit. Ideally, from the listeners who like it. Under the current model, by the label that distributes albums, and profits from those sales.
In regards to your counterexample, philosophically, I believe art benefits the world. Whether I as an individual like a particular piece or not, I believe I (and the rest of the world) do benefit. In contrast, there are a lot of parent-raised-people out there whom I don't think benefit anyone at all. 8)
I have heard it mentioned in several places that music CD sales have increased lately. Some then add parenthetically that this is despite the popularity of MP3s. Others go so far as to attempt to relate the two.
There is no way to prove the two are related. MP3 lovers just throw this statistic out there to defend against the claim that much of the MP3s available are pirated copies of commercial music CDs. MP3ers can't prove MP3s help CD sales, and likewise record companies can't prove that MP3s hurt CD sales.
However, I would venture to guess that MP3s probably have contributed to CD sales. Many people probably download a few MP3 and then go out and buy the CD. Why?
Most people probably have a 56K modem connection and can only realistically download two or three songs at a time. They probably heard something on the radio and wanted the MP3. They can't download a whole album, let alone multiple albums, on such a slow connection. But this will change as DSL and cable modems become more prolific.
Most people don't have an MP3 player in their car. I would venture that some plug their portable MP3 players into their car stereo, but most probably don't. I am sure this will change soon. I am sure Sony has quite a quandary on their hands over the following: Memory stick in VAIO, RIP CD to MP3, put memory stick in MP3 walkman while jog, put same memory stick in Sony in-dash stereo in your SUV while you drive over subcompacts on the way to work. Quite tough to look at potential $ sales of electronics based on MP3 technology and also be a record label.
Boomboxes! None of the portable boomboxes out there support MP3 yet. Until then, CD sales. Once there is MP3 support for portables that have loudspeakers and bass tubes, no more need to buy CDs for your current boomboxes for those late night parties in the local park.
So CD sales are probably up because people are listening to more music because of MP3's popularity, but the technology isn't fully accepted into the mainstream electronics market. Once people can download MP3's in seconds over their cable modems to memory sticks and then put them in car stereos and boomboxes, I am sure CD sales will suffer.
IMHO:
Napster has its disclaimer, basically "We provide this as a tool for sharing music legally, and if you use it in other ways, we're not responsible.". It's just like a "use at your own risk" sign at a pool or playground. When the Big Bad Companies drag Napster into court, it seems to me that the Napster people only need to give the judge a copy of their disclaimer and walk out.
Washington, DC: It's like Hollywood for ugly people.
Uh... don't most of these publications already have free websites that we can downoad? At least Atlantic Monthly does. It's a different format, but the articles are there--I also subscibe BTW.
MoatBuilder
1) Just becase you can't afford it, doesn't mean you have the right to steal it. I can't afford to buy a new BMW, but that doesn't give me the right to steal one from the car dealship.
2) If the high prices have been constant for 4-5 years that's amazing. Inflation says they should have gone up in price. CD's are like computers where the technology becomes obsolete.
3) Why do you need 50,000 songs? Assuming each song is 4 minutes long, you would have 138.89 days of music to listen to. If you listen to that music for 8 hours a day (which I would doubt that you do), it would take 1111 days to listen to it all. That's over 3 years of listening to music without hearing the same song twice. For that much music, a lot of people had to put in a lot of time. You don't *deserve* to hear that for free.
provolt
I think you're missing a key fact. The library's is great for getting your precious barbershop quartet CD's, but what about DMX's "Niggas and Bitches"? Or how about the latest Slayer, Cannibal Corpse, or Morbid Angel?
Ok, I understand the preceding albums might not be suitable for library-going audiences, but perhaps they carry the newest CD's by Orbital, Moby, or Sash? I think not.
Nevermind the fact that even if they did, I could just rip them onto my HD and convert them to MP3's.
Jon implies in his article that the real theft is the music companies who charge exorbitant prices for their product, $16.95 for a CD that costs $0.50 to make. That doesn't tell the whole story at all. Sure it costs 50 cents to stamp a CD, coat it in plastic, jewelcase it, stick in a cover, and shrinkwrap it. Factor in a 100% distributer markup, factor in the cost to advertise the latest "pop hit", pay the middleman etc, etc, etc. Suddenly that $16.95 doesn't seem *that* ridiculous. Sure, I wish CDs were cheaper, but people are obviously willing to pay that $16.95, so by the simple laws of demand, record conglomerates can sell it at that price with no qualms.
If you want to get your music cheaper, don't buy from the gigantic record companies who mass distribute primarily mediocre and watered-down music. You think their extorting you? Buy direct from the artist with indie record companies that charge maybe $8 a CD. The music is often better too. Indie record labels have been increasing for years, and there are some really great bands out there who remain loyal to the music and not the money.
As far as MP3s go, I can totally understand why the record companies are suing illegal MP3 distributers. They are fronting the cash to advertise these records, hype "artists" and so forth, and the consumers aren't even purchasing from them! They illegally download an MP3 of the overhyped artist instead. What record companies really need to do, is bite the bullet, and embrace the new means of distribution, so that they can continue to profit from music they distribute and advertise.
Spyky
>> It makes me sick that they sued MP3.com who has done everything in their power to be legal all this time.
No sense getting sick over such a basic misunderstanding. The RIAA did not sue MP3.com over the MP3's they distribute legally, but over the separate "My MP3" service where they were streaming commercial CD's to people who could supposedly "prove" they owned them.
MP3.com did not do "everything in their power to be legal" when they thought that one up. Encoding Mariah Carey onto your servers and streaming it (without permission) to thousands of Internet users on demand is FLAGRANTLY outside the bounds of copyright protection.
Even if the validation system could have been made ironclad, it would have been argued by the RIAA that copyright law does not give you the right to stream a work to a third party -- even if that third party owns a copy of the same work.
However, since the validation system was porous as a popcorn ball, it was never really necessary to test that interesting point of law.
-- Tom Neff
I am from Colombia (not Columbia), and now i see that you don`t have any interest on the truth, and that the only thing you want is a litte nice spot like that Metcalfe guy: You spout things to get attention and hits, without even knowing what you`re saying. Do you know Colombia? Do you know about the rivers of blood running here in the fight against the small band of bastards that are the drug lords? Do you know about the thousands dead in this war? all because those killers want to provide the addicts in YOUR country with drugs? Do you know us? Is it a good idea to treat a WHOLE COUNTRY that YOU DON`T KNOW as a cartel? Eh? Ask Linus, he was here last week.
This is the last time i honor you with a hit.
Learn to respect people, Mr. Gasbag, especially if you don`t know them
"Now you can see that evil will triumph, because good is dumb!"
Not to get too offtopic, but what exactly would it take for a band to "Make It" in the land of mp3? What a cool concept. You would have to have massive banner placement or something else with a sound clip. Maybe in tandem with a cool video with TV advertising it could be done. Now to approach this from the other end of the spectrum, an already established band could really pave the way for something like this. Aren't there artists already releasing singles and such? I wonder how history will look upon the beginnings of the internet as such.
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither. " Ben Franklin
For example, if I copy your column up there and post it on my website, what do you call what I did?
That is a serious question.
But my opinion:
People like to obsess over what things are called. "Hacker" vs. "Cracker". "Stealing" vs. ?. I think that these arguments fundamentally misses the way languages change. The definition of a word is a sort of language-space consensus. Trying to fight that consensus is like holding back the tide. If people call the illegal copy "Piracy", that will be the definition. Whether that word has bad, good, or indifferent connotations depends entirely on how people feel about the act it defines.
The cake is a pie
Napster has neatly proved that when information becomes free, information becomes worthless.
Parents derive a great deal of utility from raising their children. The act gives them happiness, and I'm sure a lot of them would agree that they wouldn't trade that happiness for any amount of money.
Artists, on the other hand, have their own motivations. If I paint a picture for the sheer joy of the art, I don't give a damn whether or not I get paid. If I paint a picture on commission, then I had better get paid because I derive my utility from the art differently.
Dave Blau
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Oh, hogwash. If this was the main issue, then the money side of things wouldn't matter. But really, most of them are more interested in living in mansions, driving expensive cars, and boinking supermodels. Can't blame 'em for that...
then this says more about people producing the music you choose to listen to than anything else.
you know what? sisqo (for example) probably is more interested in a mansion/car/supermodel. so don't buy/listen to his music
everyone's missing the point: artists recieve no compensation when people distribute ripped mp3s of their music. i'm not talking about ripping your collection to your hd to make a huge playlist. i'm not against mp3 as a format. but the way people have latched onto it and justify it over and over again to avoid admitting they don't like to pay for music is sickening.
not all music is over commercialized.
there are bands who have contracts with major labels who still invest effort, talent and time into their albums...buy those instead.
because while you're pirating your mp3s to send "a message of discontent to huge record labels worldwide", smaller bands are getting dropped all over the place because they're not selling 15 billion singles a second.
here i go, replying to a signal11 post...sigh.
the main issue here is theft...the fact is music is not like software. too many people, katz included, are viewing music as a commodity. and yes, that's the way it's been fed to people, but at the same time, there's a reason why artists create albums. well-crafted songs are one thing, but an album represents a hour-ish long attempt to create a coherent/cohesive mood and statement. by pirating mp3s, ppl create a situation that debases all artists, bringing (insert your favorite band here) down to the level of a sisqo or christina aguilera.
just because the law can't keep up with looters during a riot, doesn't mean that guy carrying away a tv on his shoulder is remotely morally or ethically right to do so.
- Prevent any copying of material that would be a copyright infrigement.
- Make it very easy to lend songs, books, movies etc... to your friends in a way that ensures you lose your lisence until the media is lent back or some amount of time elapses. Same as lending your friend a physical book or movie.
- Reduce the cost of media.
The concept of having a licence and what it entitles you to is the same, but the method of distribution, sharing, and price must be changed.>Would you say it's unjust that many techies coming out of college with a B.S. in C.S. get offers
>of $70K+, and some can plausibly dream of retiring by 30?
Yes, when you consider a lot of those with B.S.s in C.S. haven't got a real clue of what they are doing, but they are M.S. certified. Certification has replcaed the actual need to knw what's going on.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
Hm. Is this as beneficial for artists who are already well-known, and thus don't need the extra publicity that a recent starter could use?
A listener might become a new fan of a novice band by hearing one of their singles via a subscription service, but that may be largely because they're new. It's unclear to me that more established artists, whose styles and competencies are already widely known, benefit when their music propagates through the same channels.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Deserve? As much as people are willing to pay them.
Clearly, sufficient quantities of people are willing to pay sufficient amounts of money to encourage rather extravagant lifestyles. As long as that money is taken with the payer's consent for services and products duly (and legally) rendered, what's the problem?
Would you say it's unjust that many techies coming out of college with a B.S. in C.S. get offers of $70K+, and some can plausibly dream of retiring by 30?
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Will their contracts permit this? I don't follow the music world (with an AM/FM clock/radio being my sole source of music -- and that normally for '60s or '70s music...), but my suspicion would be that most publishing firms don't appreciate their artists breaching contracts.
Of course, if Metallica or Dr. Dre publishes independently, then they're probably free to make downloads freely available on Wednesdays with prime-number Julian-calendar dates to people who ride buses, if they choose.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Part of it probably does have to do with something you mentioned -- "music clubs". Odds are, much of the CDs they get are bought at a lower rate than retail, but in bulk. In turn, the clubs expect people to get hooked.
Promotional costs may also go elsewhere. Any form of advertising is going to cost $. In addition, selling albums might subsidize singles... as well as albums that fail, in terms of sales.
And few are the authors who may demand generous terms, such as Stephen King, in constrast to, say, all-boy bands precisely calculated to capitalize on the particular tastes and fiscal imprudence of female preteens.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Would you support somebody scanning every print edition of, say, Time, Newsweek, the Atlantic Monthly, Wired, and the Wall Street Journal? Preserving layout, appearance, and all other attributes?
.ps and .pdf files, without authorization, and despite explicit demands to the contrary? How about if somebody developed a network of people collectively obtained one subscription to each and every one of TW's magazines, and each uploaded a perfect electronic edition? And then added, say, every Applixware, Lokisoft, and id Games product? Would this still be fair game?
Making this freely available downloadable in nicely printable
It's all bits, right? And since it's just sent over the wire, nobody loses, so...
Jon, it's possible to be both a thief and someone who uses technology "to acquire culture".
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Ok, half of this post is on track with my thoughts so i'm following it up here.
n tropy.html
FuriousG is right on. The article is misleading, not for what it says, but for what it doesn't say. If my knowledge of the mp3c court fiasco was based solely on reading Katz's column (normally a reasonably heathly proposition) i'd be under the impression that by signing up for my.mp3, i'd have access to their database of 80,000 CDs! Most of us, including Jon, know this is not the case. I understand that this article is about the digital music revolution in general and how stodgy monopolistic record companies are shooting themselves in the foot and encouraging piracy by not stepping into the 21st century, etc. (which i fully agree with), but, to make a long sentance longer, it seems that if you are going to spend so much space discussing mp3C's court case, you could atleast paint a clearer picture of what the violation in question actually is (well covered in Fridays thread on the court case). In the absense of this clear picture, it is implied that they are giving away copyrighted music.
Jon says:
"A number of artists have bitterly complained that the downloading of music on sites like MP3.com is simply piracy."
Please give me one example of a major-label artist critizing mp3c in these terms.
Jon goes on:
"Friday's ruling by a federal judge against MP3 was the clearest and most powerful blow yet struck against the by-now deeply ingrained tradition, especially among younger music lovers, of acquiring vast music libraries for free. MP3.com could face stunning penalties."
Does anyone else see how this is mis-leading?? No one is aquiring vast music libraries of RIAA copyrighted music via mp3.com! And although you don't say that they are, you are walking the line when instead you should make yourself clear.
I'm not too surprised that the vast majority of the public doesn't understand this case or that the main-stream media portrays this case in vague, broad, and misleading terms, but i'm surprised to see it here.
mermonkey.
find out if i have any taste in independent music: http://stations.mp3s.com/stations/3/underground_e
"They can be the most talented group of fucks on this planet, but if there's no one to buy there music, the label's gonna drop them like rotted pizza."
Or an empty coke vial.
Its NOT just simple supply and demand. Maybe people would buy the album if it were priced lower. If they did not have to pay rent for the cd store, if they did not have to pay for petrol to bring it there, or the epoxy and dies that interfere with lazers.
I would not argue that if they sold a cd for $8, all of a sudden people would flock to the stores. But collectively a threshold has been set, and this has partitioned most produced music into pop, and fringe. This partitioning only amplifies the efficiency of the marketing and distribution machine.
Lets face it- the arena where successful music is surveyed and rewarded is NOT based on a meritocracy. It is based on relationships, and so far these relationships have been effectively centralized.
This is similar to why people buy the music as a commodity. For the feeling it gives them, but also it is the mark of the social tribe they belong to.
Music began as a means for reinforcing our sense of community and belonging. That has not changed a single bit(excepting a community of composers who long ago lost the ability to simply enjoy music). I point this out because it is a community that controls the distribution of popular music, and a fragmenting community that is consuming it.
But so much has to do with the feeling music gives you. Like a medicinal commodity, we swallow a 3 minute dose of pleasure. We bob up and down, we tap pencils, we shake neighboring windows in their own jam(b)s. When we go to buy a cd, do we know of ALL the other GREAT MUSIC out there that could give us the SAME or BETTER FEELING?
No, we don't. We only have the choices immediately in front of us. At the listening station. And of those, we won't even CONSIDER experimenting at a price of $16/experiment. We only go with a clean source for our high. No need to buy crumbling X, when its crisp in the next bottle...
When consumers rationalize a purchase, they think not of minutes, rent, petrol and epoxy- they want the best deal for the best high.
And in this case, everyone graduates to better taste as the internet will only foster more musical exploration which will be liberating for EVERY member in the music making chain.
-Sleen
I had a conversation about this with a guy majoring in music marketing. He revealed to me that, of that $16.95 one pays for a CD, only about a dollar of it goes to the artist. The vast majority is split between two groups -- the label (the Fat Cats wearing gold chains and smoking cheap cigars), and the distribution system (everyone from Tower Records to the big-rig driver who physically hauls the boxes around in an 18-wheeler). If nothing else, the 'free music' movement has elucidated the gross economic inefficiencies in the current music distribution scheme. What is needed is disintermediation -- eliminating the middle-man! Let them feed from some other trough! Why don't the artists see that they're being screwed?
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
One of the main reasons I like mp3's is because I
can have a large variety of songs, in large amounts, readily available for me on my hard drive. It's like our own personal juke box, but instead of a few songs we like, we like all of them because we chose them.
I think the main problem is micropayments. An exec looks at how much a single song is worth, a buck (or two for the first 6 months of release or
so), and can't figure out a way to sell them. A buck charge to a credit card would get eaten up in fees.
What I'm wondering is why no music publisher has set up a site selling their songs in groups of 10-20. You download 10 songs, but when you want the 11th, you have to pay for the first 10. That way they can make everybody happy. (by seeming to give away a few songs, but being able to charge for an 'album' worth at a time to those who want more)
> I have downloaded several MP3s that I did not
> own the rights to. I have
> also listened to songs on the radio that I did
> not own the rights to.
How dim are you?
THE RADIO STATION YOU WERE LISTENING HAD THE EXPRESSED CONSENT TO DISTRIBUTE THE ARTISTS MUSIC FROM THE ARTIST THEMSELVES. THE COLLEGE KID WHO RIPPED THE MP3 DID NOT HAVE ANY PERMISSION, NOR DOES HE CARE ABOUT AN ARTISTS RIGHT TO CHOOSE HOW THEIR WORK IS DISTRIBUTED.
Chances of this being moderated up is very very slim. I'm sick of making this point everytime Slashdot posts a boring "Let us pirate music" story. Yesterday a story was run about Nvidia violating the GPL and how bad they are, yet you're here advocating breaching artists publishing licenses.
Exactly... This is price discrimination and it's one of the most basic techniques of applied microeconomics. There are always going to be limits, some people aren't going to pay for a CD no matter how little it costs; others will pay no matter how much. Taking advantage of differences in personal preference just requires a little effort and intelligence on the part of record exec...
Nope. Being a musician is not a job.
Being a musician is a state that existed half a million years ago, before jobs, or copyright, or even charcoal cave painting. Being a musician is a natural state that exists in everything that utters, or can discern patterns in sound. That's pretty much everything with a heartbeat.
Being a laywer is an unnatural state, forced upon a few hapless, yet heroic, individuals, who decided that they would accept the grim task of sorting through the tangled series of hacks and accidents which is the legal system, which itself is based upon a tangled series of hacks and accidents which is Western morality and religion, and in return, accept some form of payment for assuming their oppressive, huge, unnatural, and stinky burden. Some exceptionally unnatural laywerly examples seem eager to force conformance with this tangled series of hacks upon the unsuspecting musicians (you and me) who refuse to see everything in terms of "job," "earn," "mine," "not fat enough," "power," and "commodity." Other quintessentially Western nouns and verbs will occur to me after I post, but you get the message...
Just because laywers, and for that matter, cops and administrators, wouldn't do their thing without monetary reward doesn't mean that *everything* shouldn't be done without monetary reward.
Permit me to ask an obvious (almost laywerly) question, with your pardon: Did the government pay your mom to have you? Do you expect to be paid for whistling? Where is the contract that must be signed before these activities can legally occur? These activities *aren't jobs* -- yet. Unless, of course, the RIAA has something to say about it.
Whatever we're lucky enough to receive from our fan(s). All the artists who feel that they must be paid must do is put out the technological equivalent of an open guitar case next to the drum kit, so the dancers can throw a buck or two in once they're done.
We could also kick so much ass culturally (that is to say, "create good art") that collectors/connoisseurs are compelled by their love of what they've just heard/read/seen to become our patrons.
No middlemen needed. Automatic, worldwide, grassroots art criticism -- vote with your dollars! Thanks, Internet.
Not to critisize, but the correct spelling is remuneration. Normally this would not be a big deal, but of late I have seen a lot of posts with this mistake. :-)
I hate to sound like I'm just saying "me too!" or something like that, but what Jon has outlined here is very true. For better or for worse, Napster and mp3.com have changed the way that music is handled and distributed and listened to. Completely aside from the sheer impossibility of containing the flow of illegal mp3's, it would be a good business decision for the music industry to actively support them and other forms of downloadable music. Nine times out of ten, when I buy a CD, there's just one or two songs that I simply can't stand. Industry-approved downloads would mean I can get the songs I like--and do it legally. (And I LIKE doing things legally; I have no wish to be arrested.) I seriously doubt that this will in any way stop record companies from selling albums--Jon cited the MPAA's own figures that revenue has increased during the last year. And even if everybody eventually gets portable mp3 players--well, people still use cassette tapes for lots of things.
The argument could go something like this (but better; I'm tired):
In theory, artists are paid not for having expended *effort* (and why anyone would think that they are is baffling to me, honestly), but for having produced something unique (meaning unproduceable by anyone else), the uniqueness of which gives it value (theoretically proportional to its uniqueness).
(The fact that a couple's children are "unique" in a sense might have something to do with your analogy, but not with the point.)
For example, without a living, breathing James Joyce, no *Ulysses* gets made, and the world is a worse place for it (whether anyone here knows that or not). And because *Ulysses* isn't merely a random collection of stray data, of information bein' free and just happening to land in a *Ulysses*-shaped pile--it's a product of the single mind of James Joyce doing its uniquely dirty business on that data--it is in the interest of "the world" (or "society" or whatever) to see that Joyce is encouraged to continue living and doing his work for as long as possible. Paying him is a good way to encourage him. Theoretically, copyright law is a good way to encourage his customers to pay him, and also it's a recognition that he's not a waitress (since so many people here seem to think that he should have had to live on tips because he didn't use a computer).
I could go on, addressing the likely objections (for example, the Spice Girls; but I'm not talking about them (they'd be in the "unintended consequences" dept.), but, say John Zorn or Rafael Toral), but, like I said, I'm tired. Been writing all night. Gotta get out to the streetcorner and lay open my typewriter case.
Your mouth is like Columbus Day.
nonsense. why pay $6 - $7 for 2 songs on a single (which probably doesnt have as much cover art, JC liners, etc, as the full album) when you can pay $16-$20 for 12-20 songs? That doesnt make sense.
Especially in today's case, where many album buys are a gamble, and you may as well spend the extra couple of bucks to see if you can get some more music that you like.
For those of you that havn't read them, here is a nice little link to ESR's page with his essays. Signal11's gift culture idea is straight from these essays.
Here ya go.
I don't agree with everything that ESR says, but on the whole it is well thought out and his writing style is more or less readable.
Rami James
Pixel Pusher
ALST R&D Center, IL
--
rJames.org - illustration
--
not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
They both create a product you can't physically hold with tools.
They are both distributed on the same media (CD, magnetic tape and files).
They are both a form of entertainment (although software can do more)
They both have versioning (different mixes / upgrades) that we pay for.
They can both be considered free speach
Code is art. Music is art.
When you purchase a CD, you are purchasing a license to listen to one copy of your song. When you purchase shrink wrap warez, you are purchasing 1 license to use it. You can purchase more than 1 license.
Just because it is law that doesn't mean it is just/correct. Times are changing faster than the gov't can can create laws to "protect" whatever it is they are supposed to.
It is revolting that the music industry feels it is being screwed after they have _forced_ us to buy CD's full of crap that we can't return and we couldn't try it first. Someone oughta report them to the better business bureau. Hell...that sounds like gambling. Isn't that illegal for minors to risk $$$ on chance? Hey...there we go - we can counter sue for corrupting our youth and causing problem gambling.
To top it all off, their profits increase and they have the gall to say their industry is being hurt. What a bunch of over rich whiners.
Since the MP3 "revolution" I have heard so many new songs (BY "popular" artists) that I have/will go out and purchase. The unfortunate part? I have to buy the whole freakin CD and pay my $20 for a bunch of crap I don't want. Heh...still sounds like software :)
--Clay
DON'T GET SO EXCITED!
#1 -- I am NOT slashdot. Just because they publish an article doesn't mean I agree with it 100% or even at all. How dim are you?
The point I was trying to make was not "Let us pirate music", as you suggested, but that record companies should wake up and start using MP3s to their advantage. Here's a great way to promote new / unknown artists, but the record companies are afraid of it because it's new. I mentioned radio stations because they already promote artists. I'm suggesting that MP3s could be used in a similar way, regardless of current consent.
Webmaster, City of Saint Paul
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
Back in the day when when we used bulky and inneficient media to store music the cost of producing and distributing an album was quite high. Record contracts were negotiated with this in mind and the artists were left with a fairly small chunk of the the revenue. When CDs were released and manufacturing was ramped up the cost of production dropped to pennies.
Record contracts did not evolve to reflect this change in the industry and album prices actually rose. Artists actually get about 1-2% of the price you pay for a CD. Artists can make much more monry touring than selling CDs and only those who make the leap to superstardom top 40 are actually well compensated. The vast majority struggle to get by while the record labels get fat.
The new free music economy does not hurt the artists so much as it hurts the labels. Music distribution as we know it is outdated. If the artists sold music for $1/album on large fast internet servers they would make more money than they do today. The artists would be fairly compensated, the fans would get lots of cheap music and the recoring industry would either lower prices or go out of business.
The industry is already dead, it just doesnt know it yet.
We have the best government that money can buy.
I've read your comments, and I think that solution is the worst thing possible for good music. The current situation is already a sad state of affairs in terms of corporate influence on music; your solution would have musicians be explicitly endorsing products (not that they don't already implicitly).
Besides, I think that this is beside the point. The only way make money off of music is to:
1. make an album good enough people will want to buy it
2. re-arrange your business model so that you are deriving revenue from something besides raw album sales.
With respect to the first point, consider this: most people I know look for MP3s of singles they like; these same people are pissed off when they buy an entire album because they like one song and the rest of it sucks. If anything, MP3s may encourage the recording industry to cut down on 'one hit wonders' and but more care into making sure the albums they DO release are of decent quality. Case in Point - no matter how many mp3s of tool songs there are out on the net, most (rabid) tool fans will buy the album anyway. Out of _respect_.
Point two: Realistically, the major source of revenue for a given artist is highly variable: radio play, album sales, ticket sales. Album sales usually account for very little for a given artist. This is because most artists don't sell that many albums. Metallica is an exception here because they historically have gotten almost no radio play; most of their moeny has come from touring and albums.
Either way, mp3s cut into two of three of those revenue streams - radio and albums. This is because in the current situation (bandwidth/cost, etc.) downloading small files is far more convenient than listening to the radio, and far cheaper. In the 'Future' media will be streamed, once bandwidth allows for widespread high-quality audio streaming. the equation will be simple: why bother downloading something when you can get it streamed to anywhere, on demand? People will PAY for such a service.
and in the mean time:
"The only way to stop [Gnutella] is to turn off the Internet,"
Jon, please clairify how "a new way of distributing music" will help artists. In your scenario, one person buys a very cheap copy, cracks it, and gives it away free to all comers. Your argument works for cassette tape, but it is fairly useless when you talk about digital copies, especially once broadband becomes common.
Maybe the end impact of all this is to return to the pre-rock days when music was made for and marketed to (more affluent) adults. Lawrence Welk anyone?
As I recall, most of Hellmouth was published right here on /. and could have been downloaded in that form. But many people still prefer the feel of a bound set of papers.
I got busy last night and tried something new I'd never done before. I downloaded all the tracks of a CD with Liquid Audio (NO Linux port: BOO!) to my Mac and burned a CD (one copy only allowed). It cost me only a couple of dollars less than a "real" CD and took oodles more time than shopping in a CD store, but I got some music I doubt I'd've found in a store anyway.
I'm allowed to make only one CD from the downloads, and it sounds OK (not 100% of a "real" CD, sounds like an occasional click or something in the quiet passages).
Dunno if this is the future of music distribution, since it was still quite a hassle, but I did get my choice, not some record company's choice.
The IPCC has purposely engineered a massive scientific fraud.
You can pay Metallica right now if you feel guilty.
I'm rather surprised by Metallica's reaction to MP3 and Napster. Before their release of S&M, they had the entire album streaming online for free. IMHO, it was a good example of using the current technology to promote their work.
Somehow, I expected them to be a bit more open-minded about the whole process. Metallica just might have the clout to affect real change in the music industry and to possibly bring about a new business model. I wish they would use it instead of acting on the behalf of the RIAA.
I hope that bands such as Limp Bizkit and Offspring are just the first of many that have the courage to embrace the genie. If they can remain financially successful while doing so, I'm almost certain that more will follow.
The debate kind of reminds me of those about legalization of drugs. We can't stop it, kids are going to do it anyway, why not just make it legal?
It is legal... caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, ephedrine, etc.
Yes, there are a lot of difficult issues here. But to me, Metallica suing Napster is only adding fuel to the fire. IMO, Metallica music is terrible, but as a huge selling act they must make literally millions every year. And we are supposed to feel sorry for them? Are they suing Napster because they are afriad they will only get five million instead of six million in royalties this year? Most of us have to work hard for our money, and are more likely to see groupers than groupies. I don't want to steal from people who need it, but every time someone from the music business says "We want to protect the rights of artists" what it really means is "We want to make sure we can keep selling CD's at the artificially inflated price of $15" I live in L.A. and know many hopeful musicians. Believe me, the music business (with some exceptions) is now just one more cog of huge multi-national conglomerates. They are looking for the next Ricky Martin or Britney Spears, or whatever other fad seems current at the time. I am willing to pay for music, but why should maybe 90% of the cost of a CD go to various middlepeople? I look forward to a day when it will be common to download music directly from musicians, rather than being limited to what CD's some executive has decided will sell 10,000 copies or more per year. Also, there is a lot of old music that can be re-released digitally since there will not be the cost of CD production and distribution to worry about. Tom Rombouts, Torrance, CA
This is the same feeling I got when some idiot in Philosophy 101 says "but how can we know anything?...." Anyway.... It all comes down to incentives. Sure, the artists may not have a "right" to be paid...but a starving artist isn't going to make much music, unless it's the beautiful sound of someone rummaging through a dumpster looking for dinner.
Warning: Disjointed and hastily written rant below.
I am really sick of the idiotic argument that usually runs something along these lines: If the record companies would just change their marketing and/or stance on MP3s, then the music buying public would gladly pay for MP3s.
There just isn't a nice way to say it: This argument is stupid. Period.
Mr. Katz asks if the genie is out of the bottle. Yes, its out of the bottle, and the genie is free. Do you think that people are going to now start paying for the genie? Answer: NO!
Is not the fact the Linux is free one of the chief arguments of its supporters? What about GPL'd software? Did not Netscape have a stranglehold on the web browser market once they released it for free?
People are not going to pay for something they got originally as free. That's just the way people are. Why is this concept so hard for everyone to grasp?
mr.nobody
--Don't you wanna go where nobody knows your name?
Say what? You yourself say in this article that the mp3 format has exploded in popularity only recently. (Actual quote: MP3 technology -- a format which jumped from obscurity to ubiquity in 1999 -- has turned out to be revolutionary.)
How do you figure a time period of less than two or three years has changed the moral perceptions of an entire generation ? Whatever. We all knew what piracy was before mp3 and high speed internet, and we all know what it is now. The 100 people in my dorm building with 6+ Gigs of mp3s make me sick. If you like an artist, and you respect an artist, buy their stuff.
And what's this?:"Millions of people whose access to music was previously limited to radio and CDs suddenly had instant and free access to much of the music recorded in modern times." Huh? What does this even mean? The stuff on the best-selling CDs and pop radio stations is the stuff being pirated the most! People snagging this stuff isn't encouraging freedom of jack spit!
The rich, popular artists (Metallica, Dre) are the ones pissing in the smaller artists/genres pool. But I still don't agree that we should all have the right to download 23 Gigs of free music and keep it indefinitely without the artists getting a cent.
While I do think that the RIAA sucks (and the MPAA while we're at it) and is handling this situation completely wrong, I have no idea why JonKatz's article is so long and full of nonsense statements. I know I'm digressing from the main issue at hand, but JonKatz just pisses me off the way he talks like music should be free for all without regard to artists.
For the record, I am not against mp3s. I do have some (less than 200 megs, mind you), but this is limited to one-hit wonders and artists I don't respect (including Metallica now, for one). They are also wonderful for try-before-you-buy.
-JimTheta jimtheta@beer.comMy stupid web site
> Making this freely available downloadable in nicely printable .ps and .pdf files Granted that they have authorization to do so (so it doesn't really kill your argument, but rather complements it), but libraries do this - they let you borrow that book and copy parts of it - or let you go through said papers on microfilm and make a hard copy of the articles you like. In fact, you can also borrow CDs and videos and stuff, and copy them at home. Not that this is legal or anything. Except, in this day and age, many people have forgotten that libraries even exist, and so they don't pose a threat to RIAA. The question for Jon - not trying to make an argument for or against anything - but let's say that I set up a store front, where you could walk in, with a copy of your book. Show me that you bought "Geeks". If you can show me that book, then I give you access to read it online from anywhere you might be, so that you don't have to bring that book with you wherever you go. While this would be an AWSOME service for people who buy books, how would you feel about it? Of course, I am still free to buy books only from people who have that kind of business model, so, if you DON'T have your book available in that way, I really don't feel like buying it. And if more people do that, then you and your publisher have a more compelling reason to "go digital".
Who Wants To Date A Norwegian?
I think the artists that see the internet distribution methods as a threat are missing something big. In a previous post it was mentioned how little of the cost of a CD actually goes to the artist. If the artist were to distribute over the net and really work it they would increase profits. The consumer would also be happy because single songs could be purchased and the price would go down significantly.
I think the big reason that mp3.com is being sued by the RIAA is that the RIAA sees them as a threat. Not by stealing music as the court case said but by stealing artists. Each artist that distrubutes over mp3.com is one less that will be railroaded into the rip off contracts that are offered by record companies.
We need to encourage artists to use alternate publishing forms. We must encourage the destruction of the restrictive monopoly on music that the record companies have. There is no excuse for theft but mp3.com did everything in thier power NOT to steal. We need to protest this death of our rights and authors rights to distribute thier art in the forms they want.
I think if the people of the world initiated a complete boycott of music, don't buy any cd's and don't buy products advertised on radio. I know the more the record industry shows that they don't really care about the people that buy thier music and only want thier money the less I am inclined to shell out $15 for what they sell.
ENCOURAGE ARTISTS, DISCOURAGE THE RESTRICTIVE RECORD INDUSTRY
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
I find it very strange that I can buy a DVD like the Matrix for $16.99 and the soundtrack on CD has roughly the same price. One is full length major motion picture and the other is just a bunch of songs. What this all comes down to is a simple equation: price someone is willing to pay = (perceived quality) / (ease of copying) Unfortunately for artists the ease of copying is very small in the case of music. My price: a downloadable 128k MP3 should cost between 25 and 50 cents, 256k = $1. The prices I've seen so far ($2.50 - $4) are well outside this range.
jonkatz sed: "What would really protect artists..and believe me, I am for that...is a new way of distributing music that offers it more cheaply and with more choice." On 'more choice': How much more choice do you need? Have you every walked into a Tower Records? What most people mean when they say they want more choice is that they want the music they like to be pushed by the record companies, rather than . On 'cheap': The price to the consumer has to be less, otherwise pirating is just too desirable (and as we all know, piracy is getting easier every day, and technically impossible to prevent). But the artist needs to be able to make a living, preferably a good one, or there will be 'less choice'. And there needs to be enough money in it to support the delivery systems. Right now we can download MP3s for 'free', but that only because there's no rational pricing for bandwidth use at this time. I just wish I had the answer - whoever comes up with it will be _rich_! What is not going to happen: prices for current delivery systems (CDs) will not drop. Shortly after they were marketed, CDs were less expensive to produce than vinyl. But corporations get addicted to high profit margins, and they collude to keep prices up. (If we could get the anti-trust people to drop M$ and go after the RIAA, then they'd be serving the interests of the people. Collusion is _much_ worse than a monopoly - it creates a mechanism for co-opting the competition). If alternative delivery systems become more popular, CD prices will go _up_, to preserve profits. Don't take sound quality too seriously. Most people who listen to MP3s listen to their digital music on crappy little PC sound systems, or dub it to cassettes. I used to tape songs by putting my cheap portable cassette recorder in front of my cheap AM radio. Quality helps, but people like music. If all there is is a drunk beating out a rhythym on a cardboard box, then people will settle for that.
jonkatz sed:
"What would really protect artists..and believe me, I am for that...is a new way of distributing music that offers it more cheaply and with more choice."
On 'more choice':
How much more choice do you need? Have you every walked into a Tower Records? What most people mean when they say they want more choice is that they want the music they like to be pushed by the record companies, rather than .
On 'cheap':
The price to the consumer has to be less, otherwise pirating is just too desirable (and as we all know, piracy is getting easier every day, and technically impossible to prevent). But the artist needs to be able to make a living, preferably a good one, or there will be 'less choice'. And there needs to be enough money in it to support the delivery systems. Right now we can download MP3s for 'free', but that only because there's no rational pricing for bandwidth use at this time. I just wish I had the answer - whoever comes up with it will be _rich_!
What is not going to happen: prices for current delivery systems (CDs) will not drop. Shortly after they were marketed, CDs were less expensive to produce than vinyl. But corporations get addicted to high profit margins, and they collude to keep prices up. (If we could get the anti-trust people to drop M$ and go after the RIAA, then they'd be serving the interests of the people. Collusion is _much_ worse than a monopoly - it creates a mechanism for co-opting the competition). If alternative delivery systems become more popular, CD prices will go _up_, to preserve profits.
Don't take sound quality too seriously. Most people who listen to MP3s listen to their digital music on crappy little PC sound systems, or dub it to cassettes. I used to tape songs by putting my cheap portable cassette recorder in front of my cheap AM radio. Quality helps, but people like music. If all there is is a drunk beating out a rhythym on a cardboard box, then people will settle for that.
Note: The first time I submitted this, I got a message saying that it had been submitted previously, which obviously wans't true. Perhaps there's a bug - I submitted just after the article dropped off the home page.)
What most people mean when they say they want more choice is that they want the music they like to be pushed by the record companies, rather than (#insert the-artist-you-love-to-hate).
(I WILL preview messages before I post them)
The people trying to stop the trade of mp3's are going to have about as much luck as someone trying to save the Titanic with a bucket brigade. It's such a huge thing that apart from Nazi-like tactics, it won't even be dented.
Part of me doesn't understand the war, because I have never seen or even heard of anyone going out and downloading an entire album of songs just so they could avoid paying for it. I myself download only music that I can't find, things that are much too rare or obscure to go buy at the nearest used CD store, or things I've been wary of buying because of mixed reviews. One or two songs to judge the album by.
The record companies shouldn't be the ones complaining. They're not going to lose out, because there's no way they can with the kind of money they rake in. It's kind of sad, because the real losers in the war are the artists themselves. But people might feel better about buying CD's instead of pirating music if they didn't cost 20 bucks a pop. I know I would.
-You're wearing...A bag? I have misplaced my pants.
If someone decides that I have to buy a CD, if I like the music, I will.
How do you know whether or not you like the music until you listen to it (which, in RIAA's plan, entails purchasing the CD)? If a CD has three listenable songs (as determined from MP3 previewing), and it has been released in a market where an vendor exists that delivers to Indiana (too bad that a lot of Euro stuff gets released only in Europe), I buy it. But most of the albums out there are one or two halfway decent tracks and twelve tracks full of SHIT SHIT SHIT.
Will I retire or break 10K?
"Brian Ploskina of inter@activeWeek.com quoted Gene Hoffman, chief executive of EMusic.com, an online MP3 store and showcase as likening the free music legal battles to prohibition, doomed efforts to restrict the sale of liquor. "In the 20's," he said, people made a lot of bathtub gin, but they don't do that today because they can buy it for $20.""
THIS was an apt analogy? People in the 20s made bathtub gin because it was *illegal* to *buy* gin or any other alcoholic beverage, **period.** Nobody makes bathtub gin anymore because you can go down to the store and buy it legally, not because its $20 cheap. An apt analogy here would be people stealing said $20 bottles of gin out of the liquor store and passing it around for free.
Of course I can hear the rebuttal now, "But of course its an accurate analogy, I cant buy my mp3s online, so I have to trade them." No, you can go out and buy a cd. Everyone complains about the greed and money grubbing of the music industry, but then they refuse to spend 15 bucks on a CD and demand their music for free! I suppose its a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
We need to listen to a track, then click a button to send 50 cents or a dollar to the artist (or even the record label). Tracks need to be spun off from albums ; I won't pay $20 to buy an album with one or two tracks on it that I want, but I will pay $1 a pop for them.
Sites that let you 'build your own' CD are a step in the right direction, but the major labels so far have refused to let their artist's work appear on them, probably out of fear that it would reduce album sales, which are, after all, the traditional lifeblood of the labels.
The technology for micropayments already exists. I know I'd pay $1 a track to build my own CD online, then have it mailed to me, providing the track library was large enough. You could even (shock, horror) do it with downloadable MP3s...after all, who here doesn't know how to rip a track from a CD? ;-)
The record companies could do this themselves. They own the libraries, they have the money to develop the web tools and production lines. They'd gain *valuable* demographics...the list goes on. All they'd lose would be a reliance on album sales as the be-all and end-all metric of the industry.
I guess it's easier to litigate than inovate. After all, they already have thousands of lawyers on their books, and all the good web designers are working for the indies...;-)
As for point 2. You know that I said the same thing, that is to say forget about making money from albums in the future. Instead bands are going to make money from corporate sponsors
Once streaming media becomes commonplace people will set up servers to upload songs for free.. heheh like the radio.. hallo. I don't pay for my radio service... remember they make money from corporate sponsors as well. hehehe.. see music is going to get more corporate and thats the way its gonna be. Look at athletics.. you got Michael Jordan doing hotdog commercials, but he aint complaining, he's just rollin in his cash. In the end its all about the Benjimans babay.
Well except for some of respectable bands like Fugazi... Oi!
Griffis www.rounin.com
This is exactly what i posted earlier.. hehe, why you bitin off me bizaatch!! Griffis www.rounin.com/prj/musc/musc.asp
Griffis www.rounin.com
What is going to happen is recording studios will eventually learn that their fight is a losing one and will adopt my way, that is to find corporate sponsors to pay for artists that they broker. Smaller artists may be able to go directly to the corporate sponsors, but it will be hard to get to the better paying, more established companies. The mainstream artists will more likely go through music houses turned music broker.
Yes you heard me right, in order to survive the music houses will have to turn into music brokers, who broker their artists like shares in a company.
These corporate sponsors will shell out millions to the most popular and/or talented artists in exchange for the artists marketing their companies in commercials and online/offline ads.
I also believe that concerts will be a bigger source of revenue for these bands as a result of the wider exposure that they will get from the free distribution of mp3s.
For more see: http://www.rounin.com/prj/musc/musc.asp
Griffis
You seem to forget the unique privileges the entertainment industry already enjoys.
All revenue they get from other sources than actual product sales comes from the consumer population as a whole, which also includes music haters. Record companies get payed royalties for having their products promoted by radiostations and television stations. Even if they plug a number (paying for it to be played often), they still pay way less than the normal advertisement rates.
I am also paying for music I don't buy because of radio taxes (here in Europe), restrictions on the use of radiofrequencies due to the amount of radiostations all sending out the same music that I am not interested in, or shops forcing me to listen to and paying (royalties) for music I don't wanna hear.
Let's also not forget the pressures for putting extra taxes on blanc CD's and tapes; just another way to have the public in general pay for the pirating by individuals.
Until the moment that the industry is prepared to get ALL their revenue from the people who actually want their product, I see no problem with encouraging piracy in any way I can.
As the difficulty of copying approaches zero, this becomes the model, laws notwithstanding. The remaining question is whether the guitar case is fitted with a slot that rejects any currency not in quanta of $16.99
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
It makes me sick that they sued MP3.com who has done everything in their power to be legal all this time. The first time I visited MP3.com who knows how many years ago, they were distributing anything and everything, copyright or no. After threat of suit, they cooperated and went to what they are now.. only distributing music they were given artist permission to distribute. Personally, I rather thought they sold out.
They were cooperating, and they got sued anyhow.
I bought some CDs online about a month ago. When I bought them, this thing came up, "You can listen to your music instantly!" I thought it was kinda cool, though a bit annoying, because I couldn't seem to download the songs.. only listen to it streaming. (So I still had to rip the CDs).
I mean, I couldn't even distribute the music had I wanted to! All I could do was hit the button, wait for it to cache, and listen to it. If I wanted to hear it again, I had to do the same thing. They had sufficient proof I had purchased the CD (after all.. I had just bought it). I don't see what the RIAA's problem is.
Ok, I'm done now.
I understand they were being sued over their mymp3 feature. (I do beleive I said in my email that I had used that service).
My only experience with My MP3.com is when I bought a few CDs online. Again, to me, there's no better proof to me than that. I bought them, cheap-cds.com had my credit card number, they were shipping me the CDs, and I got to listen to those CDs before they ever arrived at my house.
Granted, I never tried listening to My MP3.com with CDs I had previously purchased. I have a ripper, so why listen to them streamed when I can just rip them myself? But I would assume they use that, what is it called, CDDB or whatever. The one where you put in your CD and your computer goes and checks the site, and comes back with the artist name and song titles?
They may not have been using that, in which case, it would have been insecure (if I could just log in and say, "Yeah, I own it"). But if they are using that CDDB thing, that's fairly secure in my mind. It's as just as secure as keeping people from burning ripping songs and making tapes of other people's CDs. Because you HAVE TO HAVE THE CD (or a burned copy) in order for it to be verified. No CD, no verification. The only way for you to pirate would be if you borrowed a friends CD, put it in, let MYMP3 verify it, and return the CD to your friend. But why go to all that trouble when you can just rip the thing while you have it, and have the MP3s local? That's assuming you have to borrow your friend's CD to begin with, since the songs are all on Napster, and even if they weren't on Napster, they'd be on one of the half a dozen other file sharing services, or, barring that, they'd be on several of a million websites and FTP servers and IRC channels? They can't stop this without suing everyone in the world. And even then, they wouldn't stop this. Their best bet is to find a way to fit into the new way things are done. Otherwise, they will die.
quite so, the vast majority of artists are not rich and drowning in champagne snorting cocaine or whatever. many have jobs related to the entertainment industry, using their media profile for promotions, advertising, endorcements et cetera
without the image building of the "evil" record industry they might not be able to do this though
This 'piracy' as presented by the music industry is an old problem. Mix tapes and concert boot legs are old buisness. They just never got the attention of mp3's since they weren't easy to mass distribute. Mix tapes and other bootlegs often accomplished two things.
1) Help people collect rare, hard to find, and out of print material. Obviously to say that this hurts artists is bs.
2) Introduce people to new bands and new types of music. Liking the new music they go out and buy things by albums. Obviously this is actually a boon to artists and record companies.
mp3's do two similiar things. Most of what I and the people I deal with have small mp3 collections. These are primarily songs we own the album for, plan to buy the album for or can't find on albums. How this hurts anybody is lost on me.
"[Y]our wise men don't know how it feels to be thick as a brick." -- Ian Anderson
Distributing music via the internet is a huge profit stream the Music Industry could easily exploit. The RIAA should help MP3.com become the Blockbuster of music distribution. I have discussed the Napster issue with several friends and we all agreed we would be willing to pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $10-20 per month to have available on line whatever music we desired. I can tell you that 120-240 per year is more than my current budget for music. I simply can't afford to go out and buy every CD that has a single song on it. Even if I could afford it, it is a royal pain trying to assemble those songs into a format that is convenient to play at work, on my walkman, in my car, in my home, etc. As for copying music and distributing it to my friends..well some people do that, but for most people that is just too much trouble.
I'm not a geek. I'm an artist with a deep admiration for the intellectual prowess of geeks.
But enough kissing of butt.
I work as an actor and playwright in (that decidedly old-economy art form, that creaky, mad old uncle) the theater. However, it's no secret that almost no one can make a living in the theater. (I think it was Oscar Wilde who said that while one can make a killing in the theater, one can't make a living.)
Here in New York, as in most places, a theater artists have the grim reality of demeaning day jobs, late rent, etc. Blah, blah, blah. Insert violin music.
I have tried applying the open source model to producing theater. While not an unqualified success, it gives me hope that artists might be able to use it to (finally) find a better way to earn their keep and make their art.
In 1993, I wanted to direct "Romeo & Juliet". I had about $800 to spend. I quickly learned, however, that theater rental would run about $7,000! And that wasn't counting other budget items like programs, costumes, props, fight directors, actors, etc. I quickly despaired.
Then I found out that I could get a park permit for $25. But the catch was this: I couldn't charge the audience. It had to be free.
That was seven years ago. By doing productions in the parks for free, I have been able to raise more money faster than most theater companies. Thousands of people come every summer to enjoy Shakespeare in their local park. They make contributions, as does the government, corporations and foundations. I make a goodly portion of my annual income doing Shakespeare. (How many people can say that?) But it wouldn't have worked if I had charged people money.
How does this relate to MP3? I think that musicians (and the rest of the artists) don't necessarily have to buy into the current economic structure. Maybe there is another way of doing it. Maybe there are other ways to create art and support yourself at the same time.
Maybe you open source guys can teach us a thing or two. Maybe you can help us apply what you've learned to our dilemma.
I would encourage you to do so. The economic model for producing theater, dance, art, music, is old and stodgy. It needs a breath of fresh air.
We would all be better off. Artists and audiences.
(By the by, if you need to make a tax-deductible contribution to a fine non-profit organization, let me know. I can hook you up.)
One answer is that we (society) want to encourage artists to share what they create, and to encourage this we grant them some amount of control over their work. Without this many artists might choose not to share. This is a demonstration of respect for the artist, and because we respect them we allow them to decide the terms under which they will share their work with us.
P.S. The difference between being a parent and an artist is that there is no need (in general) for society to encourage people to be parents.
It seems to me that the current dispute between the RIAA and my.mp3.com is a similar argument. In both cases the argument was about who controls the use of the material. This is not a distribution issue - because my.mp3.com is not (legally speaking) distributing the material as long as they provide reasonable means to limit access to the material. They simply supply a storage mechanism.
The difference today is that the VCR manufacturers were large companies who had the financial means to fight it out in court. Mp3.com needs to find some wealthy friends - fast!
Napster, on the other hand, is a whole different ballgame...
"mete" as in "Meter" like the "Metric system" perhaps?
Trolls, it must be cool to be that bored.
If a kid with a cable modem steals mp3's and burns them on a cd, he must be a theif. Therefore if he's a theif mp3's must be illegal.
If information wants to be free then information must be freedom. If information is power then people's freedom is an asset you can take and capitalise on.
What's the real formula at work here? I know this is kinda basic, but I'm trying to potray the absurdity of the issue as obviously as I can. The RIAA wants to preserve it's monopoly on music information distribution, marketplace dissemination of that information and inflation of it's worth. I'm not implying that all music should be free but basic economics say it should be getting cheaper given the technical revolution being ignored. If a dynasty of power is eroded in ther interim then so be it.
Trolls, it must be cool to be that bored.
Boy, I's sure like to know who gave Katz the figures he cited in the beginning of his piece. I like even more to know who gives that kind of deal. The figure of 50 cents for a cd is ludicrous. If you press in the neighborhood of 10,000 cds, most production houses will charge you about $1.00 per cd. Although this goes down if you do your own mastering, which means you pay the mastering costs yourself. Then you have to pay for art and that runs a fair amount of money. Add to that the legal costs associated with copyrights and trademarks and all that, and you get a cost that comes closer to $2.00 per cd. Of course, this scales better the bigger the label, but there's only so far those economies can go. That said, labels take the real hit in going from production to distribtion, and consumers take the hit from distribution to retail. Like I said in my earlier post to Katz first article, the distributor ain't gonna give a label much better than $6.00 per cd to the label, even if it does get marked up to $17 bucks at retail. This is where your money goes folks: to the middle men.
Enter MP3s, or whatever the digital media du jour is. The enterprising label invests in some decent servers, eliminates the physical production costs, cuts out the middlemen, and presto: Your costs go way down, and your profits go up. People come directly to you site and pay you money directly. And, the best part is that you can deal with other web sites as retailers with no friggin distributor, increasing the availablity of your artists works, while keeping costs real low. If you're smart, you pass this onto the consumer through something like a music subscription service where you grant download rights for a period for a reasonable fee, or you just price stuff real low. For instance, would you rather pay say $5.00 for your favorite artists mp3 collection and burn your own CD, or would you rather pirate it and watch the poor fool go broke? I'm optimistic that with reasonable prices, and free sample pieces, and innovative retail services--like a subscription service--that people would buy into the system. I see this whole digital media thing going the same way that cassettes did; ultimately increasing profits. Two things have to happen first: People need to realize that artists and producers use their money to make works that they put out. And, the music producers have got to realize that the current prices for physical media are outrageous and that they can reduce the costs asociated with physical reproduction by going digital.
I think that people need to think about what copyright law really means- it is a relatively new anomoly of the modern age, something that has exploded in the last hundred years. Human history goes back many thousands. What does it really mean to 'own' something? Can we really 'own' anything? What would Jesus or Buddah have thought about this situation? My point is that there is a deep and very significant question that has been brought to light by the internet, and we need to take off our 21 century dollar-bill blinders to really address them.
I am looking for an objective discussion, not ludditical(if there is such a word!)
love is just extroverted narcissism
perhaps you are an open source programmer, and you write programs not for money, but rather for the experience of writing them, the prestige, and the proceeds earned by supporting said programs.
However, the musicians in question published these songs with the explicit intent to make money by selling those songs to people. Maybe that does not line up with the open source philosophy, but then the music is not open source! Open source is a good idea, but that does not mean that some gangsta rappa who's never touched a computer in his life must suddenly change over to your point of view.
Further, perhaps it is unfortunate that the businesspeople involved did not take the "opportunity" to switch over to a different method of distribution. Maybe it was even financially unwise of them to make the choices they made (I doubt it). But that also does not matter, because they own the businesses in question. If they want to deliver their music to the public through a method involving trained squirrels with cute little backpacks, that is their perogative. You have no right to demand that they run their businesses in a particular way, even if that way is more sensible.
Lastly, I must say that this article is not news. It contains news, but the article itself is an argument. A heavily biased rant against a perfectly sound court decision. The law said that unliscensed MP3's are illegal, and then it said it again, and then it said it again. The law is not unclear on the matter. If you are unhappy with the law, vote. I agree that Stupid laws must be changed, but they also must be obeyed until they are changed, lest those who are working for a change be branded as criminals.
Judge Pag, the Learned, Impartial, and Very Relaxed
Isn't that what objective journalism is? Seems as though everytime an article crops up in which the journalist injects some opinion slashdotters (negativly) brand them as biased. Katz does a peice of a piece of objective journalism and he gets flamed for not being biased.
Hmm, I wonder why Katz isn't mad that they stole his articles? Maybe he should be just as pissed!
Oh, wait, right. They asked him. Maybe next time they'll ask the posters?
(Of course, if post anonymously, you can't expect to retain ownership of the comment!)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Any one would think that copying music had only just started.
A couple of years ago Phillips (and probably others) produced a "CD-Recorder" and nobody batted an eyelid.
For years people have been recording onto cassette from vinyl and from the radio and sharing it.
How old are mpeg and avi?
So you attack mp3. How about attacking radio stations. How about attacking tdk. How about attacking manufacturers of stereo cassette recorders. How about attacking the postal service for carrying copied tapes.
The words of Graham Chapman in Monty Python's "And Now For Something Completly Different" spring to mind:- "Stop it, this is silly."
MP3 is not the problem. Over priced music is the problem.
Personally I love MP3. As an amateur musician and song writer I've finally found an outlet for my music that does not involve playing in dingy bars or sending demos to countless radio stations.
On the off chance I become popular (ah we can dream) I won't be signing a record deal. Oh no, I'll use MP3 to sell music far cheaper than a record company would, but at a price that rewards me more than a record companies royalties would.
I might even give them away to entice people to come see me gig and earn the pennies that way.
Long live MP3.
Phil.
Here's an interesting legal question for the lawyers out there who read slashdot (I know you guys are out there!!).. My girlfriend is starting a dance studio. To be able to play music on CDs for the kids to dance to, she was to pay ASCAP/BMI a yearly licensing fee (something on the order of $500 / year). My question is, since she's paying a music licensing fee, can I download MP3's for her to use at her studio? Or is she basically just purchasing an extension of the rights she receives when she buys a CD? Or, more probable, have I not provided enough info for anyone to grasp what it is I'm talking about? :)
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
Instead of whining and complaining, just try to set up your own record company, and try to sell your music in another way than CD's. I think that if you would try that, your company wouldn't last very long, because everybody would be copying and stealing your music. You just try to think of a way to distribute music AND make (some) money at the same time (not the same amount as the big record companies, those b*astards make way to much money).
How to make a sig
without having an idea
Well this whole article seemed to miss the point entirely. My.mp3.com allows you to listen to your CD's. You cannot simply listen to any copyrighted music they have available, only what you have in YOUR CD collection, for the beamit software samples the CD to make sure it is genuine.
Of course there are ways to get around this. You could copy your friends CD's and then beam them onto my.mp3.com, but then YOU are doing the copyright violation not my.mp3.com. You can borrow your friend's CD's and beam them directly, no copying or whatever. But this would be the same as if you made the mp3's yourself, so YOU made the copyright violation, not my.mp3.com.
My.mp3.com is a great service allowing you to listen to your music where ever you wish, without needing to take your CD's along with you. It is not some way to gain access to multitudes of free music. My.mp3.com is also FREE so they aren't making money directly from copyrighted material. For some reason that's what I thought this article was going to be about. Probably no one will read this post anyway.
So let me get this straight the only good bands out there are bands that came from nowhere and suddenly have record contracts with the big record companies. They never played some shit hole club while working a second job. Oh wait there are those genetically engineered boy bands if you like them. And what is it with "Making it big" Is it playing stadiums or selling out 1500 seat halls. What? What does it even matter to people who just love to play good music. I know of local bands that can and do sell out the 1500 seat halls. But they don't have a record contract so you won't care. And as to being around along time. I saw this little band play the Red Lion Inn many years ago. Back before the internet back when word of mouth was word of mouth. The lead singer said " This is a new song that we may get recorded on an album. We hope you like it." It was Dream Boat Annie by Heart. And by the way you can download Mp3s of their current side project The Lovemongers off of emusic.com
Actually selling recorded music has only been around for little over a hundred years. Before that artist only got paid for performing. The reason people are into music so much now is becasue of the way they can access the music. Access has thus lead to learning about new music that then leads to purchasing of something be it tickets to a show or a record. There is a reason people steal the lack of funds. I know this from personal experience. Why would anyone shell out $20 to see if they might like a cd form someone the have no clue about. Or look them up on the net and listen. THIS has lead me to purchase more CDs then I ever would have. lizard boy
Okay mister fucking clueless. MP3.com is the startup venture capitalists. They do help. I personaly didn't like the layout of there site so I found other sources. I am in the tech industry but don't make alot of money. I can setup a hell of alot for local bands in my area with little cash up front. For under a hundred bucks we burn CDs with nice printed covers. They sell them at shows for a few bucks and make some extra cash. They tell everyone at the show to goto their website and download what they like. Plus they post to all the larger MP3.com type sites and see people the never even heard of them start calling to buy full CDs and ask were the can see them play. It can be done and is being done. So when you have a clue about something go help a local band that needs alittle tech experience. Its fun.
It may seem unimportant, but once upon a time, artists had no protection at all. They wrote a song and sang it in a pub for whatever the innkeeper would pay and the audience would tip. Such was the life of a singer. His songs might be heard and sang elsewhere by other singers who would make money on songs they did not write.
I'll bet that pissed of the original writer. Or maybe it didn't. Maybe he was flattered that other's liked his music so much that it spread. I don't know.
I do know that protections came about because some people did not like that their art was imitated/copied. So here we are today, with artists enjoying a lot of protection.
Things are changing again. I don't recall anything in the constitution that ensures a persons right to make money. If the music industry does not adapt to the changing market for music, why should I care if they lose money? Companies rise and fall daily on the changing marketplace. Just because it's the way it's been for a few decades does not mean that's the way it should always be. So they try to pass laws that force the marketplace to remain the same, to protect their pocketbooks. Scarey that there are people in here cheering legislative attempts to control progress.
Once upon a time, alluminum was very expensive. Very expensive, because it cost a small fortune to produce the required temperatures to needed to extract it from the ore. Then came cheap and powerful electricity. With it came electric furnaces that could heat the ore to required temperatures all day long for cheap. So we have alluminum cans everywhere and the tin can makers were probably pretty pissed. Maybe they tried to get laws passed to protect their industry, but we can all be thankful any such attempt failed.
Professional hair stylists got tired of not making any money cause anybody could cut and style hair in their living room and make money on it by charging much less the the professional, school attending stylists who had shops. So they got laws passed that say you have to be schooled and licensed to cut hair. Result? If you cut hair at your house without a license for money, you can be arrested for breaking the "law". Such people are criminals. Of course, so are people who speed or throw cigarette butts out the window. They cite all kinds of reasons why this is good for everybody, but it's all about protecting their little financial world. Money. That's it.
Lars complaining about how napster types are trading his "Art" likes it's a commodity pissed him off. Of course he fails to mention that the industry sells it like a commodity on a daily basis. He complained about the pictures that are taken of the band that is part of their art. And their being traded without him making any money on the deal. So he is pissed off about money, and his perceived loss of revenue.
My point is, that it is not a god given right to make money on anything. Has anybody heard of supply and demand? You can buy dirt if you want, but you can also head out the forest and fill your truck for free somewhere in your state. You pay for convenience and quality. I buy CD's. Not for convenience. MP3's are convenient. I buy CD's for quality.
I make my living as a computer sysadmin. Lots of folks out there who are smart with computers that are not making money doing it or not making as much as I do. Well I had to work to get where I am and I have to work to stay here. I also have to change as times change if I want to continue to make money. And if Unix suddenly goes away and Bill gets NT to take over, I'll have to change or find another line of work.
But no, wait. I'll just sue that I'm being robbed of my livelyhood by and uncaring, changing market...
Venyce
remove all references to 007 to email me
1999?!? MP3's were huge on irc, not to mention the sites oth.net, allmp3.com, etc. that were established WAY before 1999. Winamp has been out for what, over 5 years? How can you possibly say it was 'obscure' before then?
If you are saying that MP3s were ubiquitous because they were "huge on irc" then you need to get out more. If something is discussed or traded mainly on irc, then it is most definitely obscure. How many people use irc? 1 in 1000? Less, probably?
The fact is: a year ago, when I talk to my non-geek friends they were talking about buying minidisc players (so they could listen to their vinyl record collection while driving, ect.). I mentioned they should get Mp3 players instead. They had no idea what I was talking about, and expressed disbelief of the whole concept. Cut to a year later and MP3 is front page news and everyone knows about them. The same kids have mp3 players, have set up their computers to connect to their record players... And as I said, these are not computer-savvy kids. It's definitely big time now, much more so than a year ago.
Josh Sisk
The only way free music (and movies and books, for that matter) will be stopped is if the entire Internet is put under strict control, which is an unlikely senario. The future for creative artist looks like this--if you want to be paid millions for your work you will first have to become popular over the net. Your popularity will get the attention of the megacorps who will pay you handsomely for your endorsements. You will, of course, have to give up some creative freedoms and you will be rightly labelled as a sell-out. For those working for the love of their art and unwilling to protitute themselves to the suits, they will have to survive on the proceeds of live performances.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Uh, no, thats how the law sees it.
Go back to square one and figure out what you're talking about.
Hello, Jon. Haven't POSTed much on /. to date, but I figure this is a decent spot to jump in. You seem to be a bit contradictory in your article, simultaneously trying to say that you support a new way of distributing music that offers it more cheaply while also saying that it has become a "tradition" to young people (like my sister...) to download MP3's without paying for them. Calling that which is illegal under current law a "tradition" is not a good way to get people on your side, IMHO. The kids who are downloading MP3's of copyrighted work without paying for them are stealing under current copyright law. MP3.com violated current copyright law by making MP3's off of copyrighted CD's with the express intention of using that MP3 database to lure people to their site to generate advertising revenue, and did so without a liscensing agreement with the RIAA or individual record companies. While it is true that the ruling against MP3.com could produce enormous penalties, I don't think they can exceed the advertising revenue that MP3.com made off those MP3's plus or minus whatever is considered "appropriate" fiscal damages. If MP3.com simply deletes the archive, the damages would likely be much less. OTOH, if the RIAA is smart, they'll basically ask for their share of profits made to-date and then ask for a liscensing agreement to be made or the archive deleted, thus minimising the fuss and getting a foot forwards into the MP3 market.
:-) Glorifying kids' theft and demonizing the RIAA doesn't do anything but get a lot of arguing going on. Pointing out the specific business benefits that could be gained by tapping into the new distribution format will get execs and stockholders listening to you.
:-)
Okay, back to the kids as theives deal. A rewriting or re-interpretation of the "fair use" clause could eliminate most of this problem, if and only if the music companies and/or the record labels and/or the artists themselves change the way they sell the music. Charging $1 each for the songs themselves in digital form is fine and seems perfectly reasonable to me. Then charge $1 for whatever medium it is put on if you don't bring your own. (IE: "No blank disk? We sell 'em for a dollar when you buy music. Here ya go!") The industry could still offer it's pre-packaged full CDs with all the liner notes, photos, etc. on them and special sets and whatnot all they want. People would buy less of them, but the music industry would more than make up for that in a huge increase in sales volume.
You do have valid arguments and ideas, your wording just seems to be a bit contradictory from time to time from my view here. Sure, this whole thing can be seen as a revolution, but since this is basically a revolution in the business model it needn't be shown as a revolution in a socio-political sense. It's free-market capitolism at work. Supply and demand. The masses are demanding, and the music industry has to supply or die. If they're smart, they'll take this as an opportunity to liscense MP3.com as a distributor, thereby cutting themselves on a possibly huge new market. And they wouldn't even have to change any written laws to do so!
The whole issue of freedom of speech and open source and free software and whatnot all else is not directly related to this issue except from an overall revolutionary standpoint that is striving to change the whole system. Too big a picture to drag in to such a small case.
As for the Napster lawsuit, it will take a bit but a level-headed judge and jury will be able to get it cleared up. Copyright law doesn't apply to Napster directly. It's like trying to sue the DOT for providing roads to stores where you steal CD's. Going after the people trading unpaid MP3's would be more appropriate, though darned difficult in practice. Again, a smart solution would be to make MP3's available legally and cheaply. $1 each for exactly the songs you want? I can't tell you how many times I've forgone buying a CD because I only liked one song on it! Ergo, if I could combine all those "one hit wonders" the record company will make $12-15 off me when they wouldn't otherwise when I don't buy the CD because I don't like the rest of it.
Okay, this has been really rambling and not so coherent, but the issue keeps getting dragged all over the place anyway.
Okay, if anyone wants to rebut, go ahead. This is a discussion after all, the object of which is to share ideas and viewpoints so as to approach a better overall understanding of the issue. No one person has it right first, constant discussion hones all!
-Will
That's exactly what it is, at least according to the law, whether you consider copying it "theft" or not.
"The music suffers, but the music business thrives." -- Paul Simon, The Rhythm of the Saints
This space for rent.
People are tired of the bullsh!t of the record industry, and are finally able to fight back. I know people who are connected with this industry, and they're all worried about being screwed by the big labels. However, now we have MP3, digital recording, and studios that can be built on shoestring budgets, the fact that the big labels are about to be cut out of the loop scares them.
So what happens is, they take a company that, for the most part, takes small bands and gives them a soapbox, and tries to run them into the ground. What'll happen next is probably the same thing they've done to every threat they've seen so far: kill it, or bastardize it so that they can make money off of it. Hopefully, although at this point it seems unlikely, is that MP3.com will stay alive, that this starts the downward spiral of the big labels, and this is just the last real battle. However, what the action probably is is just a squirmish, and the big fight is yet to come. At this point, it even seems possible that the big labels may even cause a recession just to keep their monopoly on the music industry a few years longer
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Not well said
No longer is music made for music's sake. (I realise that this is a naive view, but bear with me here, I'm a makin' a point.) It is made with the singular purpose of selling as many possible records within a very short amount of time.
As a DJ at a college radio station, KTRU I have to strongly disagree with your statement that music is no longer made for music's sake. If you stick to the realm of commercial radio stations I might agree with you, but even then have a hard time agreeing. There are many mainstream bands out there who have "made it" and could care less. They are making music because it is what they want to do. Many artists may dream of "making it," but most of them don't and continue to publish and perform music reguardless.
Now as you extend in to other realms of music outside the world of commercial radio, word music, scordatura, avant-garde jazz, and many of the other things I feature on my shift you will find scores of artists who perform for the sake of music. I am good friends with many of the members of bands that I play and can tell you that their genuine interest is in expressig themselves through their music.
Don't extend the views of a small portion of the music industry to the industry as a whole. There are easily 1000 times more performers who perform for the love of music then performers who do it for the money.
--MikeOC (aka Quincy)
"Oomp omp went the little green frog..."
Oh, and if you want to follow the above link to the radio station web site you can listen to my shift Tuesday morning from 7 - 9 am. We broadcast over Real Audio in addition to the airwaves. I give out the station number over the air and would be more then happy to continue this converstaion from there.
MikeOC (aka Quincy[WRC]) KTRU DJ (91.7FM Houston, TX -or- www.ktru.org)
Most radio stations do not play songs of of cd's. The station I work for does (KTRU, 91.7 Houston, TX), and yes if you call us we will play any song off of the cd so long as we have the cd in the station (and yes, this is an "educational" station so we play a lot of offbeat music rather then mainstream). Most radio stations put the single or singles on to something caled a cassette that looks nothing like a cassette tape, looking more like an 8 track then anything else.
Then again most people calling radio stations don't want to hear anything but the single anyway.
--MikeOC (aka Quincy[WRC])
Listen to me at www.ktru.org over streaming Real Audio, Tuesdays, 7-9 am (for another 2 weeks anyway)MikeOC (aka Quincy[WRC]) KTRU DJ (91.7FM Houston, TX -or- www.ktru.org)
I really don't care about much else, I just want to stop seeing that stupid car analogy.
How many boards would the mongols hoard if the mongol hordes got bored?
You must not listen to country music then. I don't listen often, but there's some song about how much this guy likes Mercuries... of course it was bastardized for a commercial about Ford trucks (Mercuries apparently don't apeal too much to the redneck demographic)... "gonna buy me a Ford truck and cruise it up and down the road"
It's actually kinda sad.
As a musician and educated artist who has experienced the "executive offices" (big clue here, folks) of the biggest record company on the planet I believe there is an issue being fundamentally ignored here. The words "music" or "artist" have little to do with the RIAA jumping down the throats of MP3 providers. The truth is that a recording artist is nothing more than a commodity for an -industry-. That's right, it's not called the "Community for Distributing Music,"it's called the "record industry." This is beacause major labels only see aesthetic issues thorugh the filter of capital. They are not concerned with any of the other, more important, goals of music (community, social change, fun, etc.) For example, the main building for Sony records (in New York) is NOT filled with musicians having an interesting conversation or a good jam session, but it IS filled with people in cubicles, behind desks and on telephones. There are big charts on the walls documenting the "commercial" (not critical) success of Sony's "artists." If I sound embittered... good, I am. It upsets me to see talented people dehumanized and the work they do regulated by large corporations. As an artist, musician, and producer who works damn hard to get a message out to a wide audience without the double-edged aid of large companies, I'd like those who don't work in the art field to know that it is possible to make a decent living doing what you love without completely commodifying and homogenizing your work. This may seem like idealist crap to those of you who make a living working for large corporations, but consider this... open source code! Something created by an individual (or group) that is distributed freely for others to improve upon. This is what music is to me. It should be freely (or cheaply) distributed so that it may influence others to create new and interesting work of their own... the issue of capital is small and can easily be solved if one is resourceful. The main point (if there is one in this mess) is that when art is regulated by capital it becomes impotent. Art is supposed to enrich the lives of humans everywhere and it cannot do that if it must be bought (not everyone could afford it!) Keep art free. BTW- Look at Star Trek, you never see the crew of Federation Starships paying to listen to music. The advanced earth culture of the future realizes that art should be free!
"The first aeronauts: a sheep, a duck, and a rooster. -1783"
Actually, you're slightly incorrect.
Musicians used to make money, also, by selling the sheet music that they composed.
Somewhat unrelated, music stores attempt to compensate for the great unkown of the content of CDs, by providing boots for listening to a few seconds of various songs. Unfortunately, this seems limited to music you'd hear on the radio anyway, but it's a step in the right direction.
Though I won't add anything of importance to the statements already made to this, I'd like to add my support to what they've said.
Your article didn't talk at all about the effects on my.mp3.com, but rather how the RIAA is uses a broken model and only hurt themselves by asking the courts to enforce the laws regarding their intellectual property rights.
And then you attempt to claim otherwise, and just make an ass out of yourself. I'd say that's fairly rude.
Though I won't add anything of importance to the statements already made to this, I'd like to add my support to what they've said.
Your article didn't talk at all about the effects on my.mp3.com, but rather how the RIAA uses a broken model and only hurt themselves by asking the courts to enforce the laws regarding their intellectual property rights.
And then you attempt to claim otherwise, and just make an ass out of yourself. I'd say that's fairly rude.
The lawsuit wasn't over the use of mp3s, or mp3.com's usual mp3 distribution system, but rather over their 'broadcasting' of copyrighted music, based upon their CD authentication scheme.
This case has no real impact on the use of mp3 as a format for the distribution of music, nor will any other. The RIAA may dislike the entire concept of music distribution without their cut, but their real beef is with the proliferation of their property, without compensation.
Regardless of whether or not one believes the recording industry deserves to earn a living, they're legally entitled to. And just because it's easy to steal their intellectual property, doesn't somehow make the industry an "obsolete business model" or whatever other nonsense people use to rationalize the theft.
In the future increasingly more artists may go their own way with online music distribution, and then perhaps use their profits to distribute on CD, tape, or whatever else, themselves. They may even form loose co-ops to cut costs. Of course it may not splinter like this, and we'll be stuck with the giant corporations we have today.
Generally speaking, it would seem better to instead of using thievery and unrealistically looking to end intellectual property, to promote the distribution of music by individual artists, or small artist co-ops, or public domain music.
Instead of saying that "most music is crap" and not worth my money" to rationalize theft, go out and construct or support your preferred model.
Attempting to deny the recording industry of their ability to function seems unrealistic and rather unjust, even if they are yet another evil and stupid end result of U.S. economics.
On the other hand, Mr. Katz's colorful language is at least as inaccurate, if not more so.
It's not "FREE" music that you are talking about, Jon. It is UNPAID music. Free means it was given away willingly (like GNU and free beer). If that was the case, there would be no lawsuits, would there?
There is no "REVOLUTION" going on here. Most of the kids copying MP3's don't know or care about where the music comes from. They just want their Dr. Dre songs, and hey look - I can get them for free on Napster! Neat!
This is not a recent development or change of any sort, other than one of medium. When I was a student, we traded tapes of each other's records, and later burned copies of each other's CD's. Now kids swap MP3's. Same thing, different method.
Jon, I know that your brand of "journalism" depends on always being on the edge of some startling new paradigm (usually catalized by the Internet, which I'm sure was a hot new story when you started writing professionally), but you need to take a breath once in a while and recognize it when what you are seeing is really just the same old crap.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'm inclined to agree with you. A product is worth what a consumer is willing to pay for it, no more, no less.
"Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure." --Robert LeFevre
Also, because I don't think non-rap musicians deserve their loot either, if you think they deserve "as much as people are willing to pay them," then I say that the price for their music should be brought down to a level where more people have access and will pay. I'm not going to pay $20 for a CD, but I'd pay $5, and I bet I'm not alone. and if 5x as many people buy $5 CDs, then the music people make more money. They just don't believe that that could happen.
Another alternative would be encryption to prevent copying, as digital media replaces CDs, but they'd have to eliminate CDs to prevent copying from them, and that would wipe out a major market: people without computers, who, by the way, are also too poor to buy many $20 CDs, anyway.
I think we should think about everything's long term impact on society more than the immediate fiscal bottom line.
Instant Crisis
Psych junior, Carnegie Mellon
By not using their brains on this one, they've lost countless amounts of money on disgusted former fans never wanting to buy another album again, along with all kinds of legal fees and wasted time. The money's out there, guys; it's just a matter of pleasing your fans enough to get it from them. Don't spout a bunch of crap about "art" and nonsense like that. I realize you have to get paid for what you do; it's a fact of life. But the "old school" days of being paid to physically listen to CD's (or music of any format) are OVER. Figure out some other ways to get paid for what you do these days, and sit back and make your music. But for God's sake, keep your fan's happy. They're all you've got (and they're beginning to dwindle...).
I think there is a lack of logical algorithimic problem solving logic these days. Damn, I hate it. Let's think about this for a minute. 1. Napster, scour agent, etc. are basically search engines. They can be used for other file types then MP3. When did a search client become illegal? Well at my stinking school they are.
.cda files. The RIAA and MPAA does not seem to understand that this generation has access to more information than any before. And we are beginning to use it. They will never stop the new formats and utilities, because it is us who writes the code! However, imagine what they would have done, if the RIAA had invented MP3. They would have "protected the artist" and it would be deCSS all over agian. Where is the logic?
2. There are plenty of LEGAL MP3s out there. A lot of them are online distros for little known bands and djs.
3. Does anyone outside the IT industry remember shareware/trial version? Most self respecting geeks try the program, and if they like it they respect the author and send him the license fee. I am not going to buy a CD for $16 bucks when I might not even like 10 of the songs. And if I do it will be a good one, like Tom Petty or GNR, where I know I will like every song, not some flash-in-the-pan band that has one really good song wrapped in 9 bad ones and hyped by a huge PR machine.
4. Natural Selection. Why carry 50 CDs when I could carry 5 MP3-CDs with 115 songs on each? Soon we will be able to play them in your car, on your hip, and on your desktop. That is why I love the computer industry, we live (mostly) by natural selection. If you can do it faster, better, and more efficiently, you will survive. It doesn't matter how old you are, what color you are, what sex you are, OR what company you work for. We are the Equalizers! RIAA, You can work against natural selection, but you probably wont win.
Those are my thoughts. I say HACK LIFE! I want the smartest, best way to do everything! I wont buy another CD if I can help it. Nobody uses tapes anymore. Eventually CDs will go too. We will chose MP3, DVD-Audio or something else. This whole mess will not really delay it much in the end. Think about it, with storage going the way it is, you could almost just collect
"He is beginning to believe"
Why doesn't Napster or MP3 countersue the recording industry with charges of monopolistic price fixing? I think we've got the right administration in office for it!
Just think: pennies to make a CD, that means that 12-18 USD are going to the label! Do you really think that the actual artist sees much of this? Why do you think all of these 80's bands are touring again? They made a few million (before tax), the label made a hundred million, and the money's gone!
That's why the companies are really suing. They aren't so much afraid of free transactions as they are afraid of having to drop the price of music to a more reasonable price so people will buy it.
MP3 technology -- a format which jumped from obscurity to ubiquity in 1999 -- was has turned out to be revolutionary. 1999?!? MP3's were huge on irc, not to mention the sites oth.net, allmp3.com, etc. that were established WAY before 1999. Winamp has been out for what, over 5 years? How can you possibly say it was 'obscure' before then?
Just a little review of some semantics (stop me when I'm wrong...) .doc or .txt file (also compresses music at somewhat less quality but 1/12 of the size of the file)
MP3.com - an online company that distributes MP3s (without a liscense to do so which is why they got sued)
myMP3.com - the distribution agent (which was declared illegal since its owners had no liscense)
MP3 - a digital format which can be declared illegal no more than a
Napster/GNUtella/etc. - distribution agents with a blatent disclaimer, no music owned in their name, disavowing all relations with illegal activity. Also, one of the most effective ways to download music.
MP3.com was sued for illegal distribution. Not posession of an illegal music format. Even though they made sure everyone who downloaded their music owned it previously (which is good), they made copies of that music (debatable legality), and DISTRIBUTED IT (illegal).
Napster's suit is a LOT easier. They have disclaimers, they don't share any of it, the company doesn't even distribute it. It leaves distribution to the people downloading. It provides a forum for illegal trading, sure, but so does a local park provide a forum for illegal trading (if you burn the CDs for it). It makes less sense for Metallica to sue the local park, 'cause the park doesn't have a disclaimer saying it's not responsible. (but you knew that already)
For the record, I'd agree that music wants to be free (else God wouldn't have let us create the radio), but I'd be willing to pay a REASONABLE amount for some songs. I'm not going into the ethics of copyright, nor the evils of the RIAA, because it's not that easy. But as it is, the format is legal, the ownership is legal (as long as you paid for it), but the distribution is not.
Please, like I said at the beginning, stop me if I'm wrong, I'd really like to know.
Busco a alguien que me quiera como yo la quiera.
The debate kind of reminds me of those about legalization of rape. We can't stop it, men are going to rape women anyway, why not just make it legal?
... I just recently read the posts about banning of www.lyrics.ch and this article has only helped fuel my fire
... goodbye copyrights, lefts and wrongs
Thats it 4 me...
good bye CD's
Say hi to MP3-CD players
-Aman
However, they chose to go after the distributors, where the law is much more ambigious. I couldn't figure out why they did this until I realised, they basically could give a fsck about pirate MP3s. They're really no differant from when my sister makes a mix tape of her favorite britany spears crap to give to her friends, which has been going on forever.
What they do care quite a lot about, however, is the fact that MP3s, and moreover digital distribution represent the last link in the chain from musician to consumer. Cheap electronics have made it possible to set up a studio for 1/100th of what it used to cost. Musicians I know have cut CDs with only a day or so of commerical studio time, because most of what they need they have at home. This kills the recording industry's ability to control the creative end.
What they're left with is the production and distribution end, and the final genesis of the revolution that MP3.com and Napster have started would be a set of competing online services providing for pay songs online. Moreover, the fact that the Internet lowers cost of information makes advertising less important. This leaves the recording industry in a bad position, and they are acutely aware of it.
They can't tell musicians not to buy cheap recording equipment, and they can't tell consumers that the only thing they can buy is CDs. So they have to take a page from the Microsoft playbook and attempt to keep the distribution protocols proprietary. Looking back at technologies like DAT and to a lesser extent CDRs (which they're still pushing to have a tax on) they have only very rarely gone after anyone who was actually infringing on copywrite. It has always been about keeping their methods on top.
So, in closing, they realise that you will always be able to get pirate MP3s on the Internet. If it's kept underground, it doesn't harm them (in fact it may be helping them). However, if you try to compete with them in a credible way, they will go after you with everything they have.
This Sig Intentionally left blank
With the advent of MP3s you now need to market like shareware ... Try before you buy. Also ... i am SURE people would buy a song from you in MP3 format if the cost was right ... Couple of bucks a song. I dont waste 13 bucks on an album unless ive heard it before.
The issue is not only what is the best way they should be paid but how much they should be paid as well. Why should I as the consumer pay for a whole CD of music when only 30-40% of it appeals to me. The music industry is notorious for this, releasing an album with 3 or 4 'hits' - or even worse a 'greatest hits' compilation with say 2 *bonus* tracks of new material. The Net will allow and encourage the sale of individual songs.
As has been mention a number of times previously - the consumer has been ripped off for years by the record industry by them not passing down the savings they have seen as CD manufacturing costs have come down. The MP3 revolution may help bring the price of music to its 'true' value which the market allows. Maybe musicians will not be able to command enough money for their work to afford them the opulent lifestyle a successful album (or 2 or 3 songs) would give them in the past because the consumer is not willing to pay that much - this might even force some artists to push out the record company middleman - possible? It will be interesting to see.
And soon it won't be just CDs. Moore's law all but stipulates that anything desirable and non-tangible will eventually be available online, whether legally or not. As rocketing bandwidth and tumbling storage prices make online CD archives as commonplace as JPEGs are now, all media will eventually succumb. Missed a TV show last night? Ask around on IRC for someone who captured it. Fancy that new DVD release? Rent it, rip it, return it. Websites that now carry ten thousand MP3s will be joined by sites carrying ten thousand movies. Find a cheap way to automatically OCR literature and watch the biggest library in history spring up overnight - its virtual shelves filled entirely with bootlegged books that are always available for permanent loan.
The fundamentals of intellectual property will have to be reassessed over the coming decades. MP3 has opened the can of worms, but to focus on its particulars simply defers the real debate: how can copyright have any meaning in an age of instant, global, unmetered, unmoderated information sharing?
D.
I do agree that we should abide by the wishes of whomever has created the product. Although, in a case such as Metalica or Dr. Dre, I question their steadfast clinch to such a capitalistic imposition upon what is supposed to be the field of art (which would normally imply that such a form is created for the sake of an aesthetic rather than what personal gain may come of it - other than the eminant psychological satisfaction). I am in a group which has made it's last three albums available in full CD quality on the internet for FREE. We also sell our CDs for the cost of the materials ($2). In between the three of us we have one computer programmer; one graphics designer; and one webmaster/internet publications specialist, which equals a massive PR machine. Without the aid of the industry this Progressive Rock Trio (dying form of rock), has managed to get the attention of magazines the world over, and find thousands of devoted fans, without ever having to sell one album, or play one show. We have explicit instructions on our site, giving permission to give, perform, or re-record our songs, hoping that this will further embrace the idea that art shoukld be created for art's sake. We also include a segment stating that the afore mentioned songs are not to be sold or traded for personal gain - after all, the albums being produced anonymously and without any financial gain to it's creators, it would undermine the great efforts we have taken to make these albums available for everyone without question or necessary deliberation. I have been told "Bands who are not successful, or accomplished musically can afford to give away their music, because they would otherwise not have a chance". This is an interesting argument which might apply to some of the mp3.com groups out there, but most of us who listen realize that the caliber of musician is really not indicitive of whethor or not they are known, or are a part of the mainstream music scene. Often times, those who are part of the mainstream not only work less to make their albums, but also do less of the creative work, and yet they are still payed an exhorbitant amount of money, (ie. the difference between a pop group and an orchestral musician. Both do what they are told to do, but one requires far more technical capabilities, as where the other pays much more, if seen to it's fruition). Problem #1: Record companies do not sign bands to write great music... They sign bands to entertain a specific demographic, which includes a long touring schedule, and a short recording schedule, because no fans are entertained while you are locked away in a studio. Problem #2: Musicians Themselves Do not care about art for arts sake (some care about personal catharsis, but normally record execs do not buy into that, although metal is coming back?) Problem #3: Litigations brought about by the fascist groups are making it more difficult for those who want art to be free!!! Problem #4: The current times are less sympathetic to the minimalistic (artisitic) lifestyle, as the glamour of rock stardom has once again mesmerized most young musicians. (At least where I live). Problem #5: Terms of ownership and appropriate compensation (as directed by a market driven economy) have blurred the defining lines of art, craftsmanship, and expression. I know I am alone in this view, but the atrist/craftsman as a species has almost died out completely due to ill compensation (It takes yngwie malmstein to finish an album than some punk bans), ie. It took Michelangelo much longer to sculpt the DAVID than it would take for me to take a urinal out of my bathroom and hand it to you, saying "here it is art". One is truly art, as where the other simply mocks a craftsmanship and aesthetic ideal. I will close with a slur that will discredit all that I have said (which thus far has been rather slurred nonetheless). With all of the great music that man has created over the past 400 years, and the dedication that was once put upon singular works, I find it extremely (EXTREMELY!!!) disturbing that a group such as Metallica who has not the slightest comprehension of devotion towards the creation of art, and yet takes it upon themselves to sacrifice the newest addition to our means of global awakening(In light of Big Brother) - our modern day Gutenburg Press. As far as I am conscerned, they are nobodies, and regardless of the amount of money that they have, should not be permitted to enfringe upon the rights of a majority lower class, whom in most cases care far more about the field in which these nobodies have planted themselves...
Anyway, since when should we be forced to pay for our culture?! This makes me so angry. Record companies promote music which (like it or not) becomes integrated into our everyday lives, but it's not legal to own a copy of that music unless you give a whole bunch of people a whole pile of money - we don't even get to own our own culture. It'll probably soon be illegal to sit around a campfire singing spice girls songs (actually, if it was just spice girls songs that it was illegal to sing, I probably wouldn't mind so much ;-).
Worst of all, personal copying of music is not the only avenue of income for these greedy companies and individuals who would persecute people for downloading files. Record companies and artists make money from the clubs, pubs, on-hold music, WAY overpriced concerts, and TV and radio stations that play their music in public for a profit. We the consumer get it from both ends - we buy our drinks and listen to the advertisments so we can hear the music in public with our friends, and then we have to pay again if we want to hear it at home in our own time. How does that work??
Sharing of MP3s means that less well known bands might actually get a chance to do a gig for 5000 people at $20 a pop. $100K is not bad for a night's work. Probably more money than most indy bands ever see from CD sales, anyway.
M.
People are not going to be _coerced_ into paying something they originally got as free.
I personally have had three different CDs sold on mp3.com for $5.99 when every single track is available for free. If asked I would provide even the cover art graphics to someone who wanted to make their own copy of my CD for free but couldn't or wouldn't pay. I already make it as convenient as possible to download every single track. My guess is that at least three people (each, interestingly, choosing a different album) independently decided that they would be willing to pay $5.99 to mp3.com for the convenience of having an audio CD made for them with a nice cover and all, and because I get half of the $5.99. I assume all of these people did originally get this as free- in fact I know it, because even if they didn't _take_ it, they got the music free because I made a point of giving it to them.
It seems that my experience flatly contradicts your concept, and this makes me happy and speaks well for the ability of an artist to earn money off free artwork through access to global distribution over the Internet. It's not much money but it's more than you'd credit, and I could do better still by working to produce greater music (or more commercial, accessible music): I know an artist (Bassic) who earns over $5000 a month on mp3.com from downloads and CD sales, and one important reason for this is simply that his music is more simple and accessible than mine. He loves Mike Oldfield, I love Mothers Of Invention- who do _you_ think is going to sell more CDs? ;) but I am happy about this because I _can_ produce the music _I_ like. Nobody is forcing me to make it like his in order to sell more of it. That's the beauty of being-paid-for-free-music, nobody can bitch if I'm not TRYING HARD enough to BE COMMERCIAL. I heartily endorse it to other artists who want creative freedom.
(And yes I also still endorse going and downloading my music and buying my CDs- by now the CDs of free music sold have been anima, Extended Play, and Hard Vacuum. So _every_ _completed_ _CD_ I've done has found at least one person who liked it enough to support it with their creditcard- I get a huge kick out of that, because I never expected that _all_ of it would see CD buys. Big appreciation to whoever's doing it, and I'm still making more and still making a point of giving it to you first and foremost)
"Face it, the system is broken. If you're not a record exec or one of the top "artists" selling "15 billion singles a second", then you're getting screwed, plain and simple. Guess which ones are doing the screwing.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Yes, because it's the basic unit of record company contracts. An artist signs a contract agreeing to create a certain number of albums, not a certain number of songs.
well-crafted songs are one thing, but an album represents a hour-ish long attempt to create a coherent/cohesive mood and statement.Sometimes, but rarely in my experience. Most of the time an album sounds just like the collection of all songs written since the last album was released. And all too often there's the phenomena of an artist putting out an album, not because the creative juices are flowing, but because of being obliged to do so by their contract.
Keep in mind that thanks to radio and MTV, people are used to thinking of songs as the basic unit of music, not the album. One of the strengths of MP3 is the ease with which it lets a person create a personal jukebox, freeing them from the tyranny of having to listen to the songs album by album, always in the same order.
False, it's about control, but please.. continue.
there's a reason why artists create albums
Yes, I think it may be related to why they're called "artists".
ppl create a situation that debases all artists, bringing (insert your favorite band here) down to the level of a sisqo or christina aguilera.
False, again. The Grateful Dead didn't go out of business because people bootlegged their concerts. The Offspring (a MN band) isn't losing money because I loaned my CD out to a friend. There's a concept of "fair use" for non-commercial purposes that you need to be brought up to speed on. In some cases, it is (and/or should be) perfectly OK to listen to music without buying it. Shocking, huh? Second - yes, it's bad and wrong and evil for me to leech mp3's. Is it such a big deal though that we need draconian legislation like the DMCA to combat it? Isn't there something in the constitution about "cruel and unusual punishment"? Our justice system is supposed to mete(sp?) out punishment based on the severity of the crime. Why should people be liable for "billions" of dollars in "damages" and be sent to jail for years for this?
...the movement of college kids to other music-sharing sites this weekend was amazing..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
You're fighting the wrong fight here. Everybody involved is saying artists should be paid for their work. The question is what's the best way. Read the comments of the music industry execs in the column. Some are actually acknowledging that they will make more money and artists will be better protected if they use the Net to sell music differently, rather than cling so stubbornly to the current mode.s
jonkatz@slashdot.org
...column above..he acknowledges that free music has increased sales and revenues, thus helped artists..It's an interesting take.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
...maybe I was online too late, but my version doesn't have a "was" in it..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
..Since the Net changes the dynamics of music publishing, this is a great question...how much should artists be paid for digital music downloads?
jonkatz@slashdot.org
It says twice -- in the intro and column -- that this ruling was about my mp3.com, not mp3.com
but mp3.com is the party held liable, since it owns mymp3.com
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I'm at a loss as to what my about-face is. I feel exactly the way I felt last week. I just want to acknowledge that I haven't been as clear about artist's rights as I have about users. But I think RIAA is way off base with these suits, as would be clear if you read the whole column. But I'm responding to the many artists writing me saying they feel I haven't been as clear on the one as I have been on the other. If that's an about face, I'm happy to make it.
Using terms like "steal" and "piracy" are the problem. An eight year old who goes online and learns to love all kinds of music..jazz, rock, rap..isn't a thief. he or she is using technology to acquire culture in an amazing way. No way these kids should be cut off from doing that.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Even the recording industry is acknowledging that simplistic notions of theft and property, good and evil don't work here. The fact is we need a new system of distributing culture that accomplishes a number of things:
l. Protects the rights of people who have grown up with access to free forms of culture, via new technologies.
2. Protects the rights of artists to be compensated in ways (new ways probably) for their work.
3. Allows the free market system to function rationally and profitably.
3. Busts up the music industry cartel and monopoly over music, the biggest outside of Columbia.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
This is critical point of view..And it needs to be heard more often, IMHO. I can sympathisize with the feeling that artists need protection, but some of the portrays of the record companies as victims are nothing short of creepy. These new technologies have permitted lots of artist to get their music out. Sure, they will ultimately need to get paid, but this very articulate post is another reminder that the issue isn't as black and white as thieves vs. white hats.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Although this may fall on some deaf ears here at Slashdot, it's hard to argue that making something free is the best long-term antidote to monopolistic practices by industry leaders. If anything, doing so is at best a short-term, last-ditch solution when all else fails.
I don't disagree that MP3 and Napster may represent revolutionary new ways of distributing music, but that's almost a separate issue from that of making the music free. As an earlier poster pointed out, the music artists have to make money somehow. Mr. Katz' implies that the record industries growth figures have something to do with the advent of Web-based music distribution, but this is probably only an insignificant part of the picture. The growth is more likely due to the state of the economy and the much more pervasive ad campaigns launched on behalf of the artists by their record labels.
Just remember: Linux won't have been the biggest contributor if and when MS is broken up. MP3 and Napster certainly don't spell the end of the music industry as we know it.
:wq
As far as I can tell, the legal issue in this case is not that people are pirating the music, since they are required to own the CD before listening to the music on my.mp3.com. Rather, the issue is that MP3.com illegally copied some 80,000 CDs, which I suppose is a violation of DMCA. (Someone please correct me if I'm completely wrong.)
So, as I see it, the phenomenon demonstrated by MP3.com is that people are willing to purchase CDs, but want additional functionality, ie. the ability to listen from anywhere, or have the music in a more robust format. The recording industry could take away from this that if they sold music in a format that people prefer, with capabilities that people want, then people will buy it. And a CD (or web-accessible CD) won't be require much more effort to copy than is currently needed to rip a whole CD.
Bottom line: we'll pay for music if it fits our our modern music-listening needs.
Along the same lines, I suspect that DVD's don't cost much more to produce than VHS tapes do, other than the cost of creating the extra content and getting someone to "program" the menus, etc. on the disc, but I could be wrong...
That said, at least 75% of the MP3's on my computer are ripped from my own CD's. I would never have bought the CD's for most of the ones that aren't, as I tend to buy CD's that contain 50+ minutes of GOOD music, as opposed to 2 good songs and a whole lotta crap. MP3 doesn't really work for me if I want to listen to my Glory Soundtrack or to my Simon and Garfunkel CD, as those CD's are meant really to be played all the way through. I defy anyone to say the same thing about Mariah Carey's latest CD.
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
All around the world there seems to go a hunt against "musical pirates". If RIAA and other organisations manage to get their ropes tight then we are all in big danger. 95% of us hear music regularly. It's in our human nature to listen to melodic sounds. It differs from culture to culture what kind of music we may like to listen. However this last century gave a huge predominance to anglo-saxon music. It's everywhere. Turn any radio in most places on heart (except on certain paria states). 25-80% of it is coming from America or England. And most national music carries now deep roots on such kind of music. I don't wanna discuss here if this is good or bad. This is a question with a lot of sharp sides.
However imagine that RIAA and alikes manage to make their side dominant in our world... Imagine that you have to pay for every song, every lyric, for every shirt, cup, mug, pen with names such as Mettalica or BeachBoys. You don like it? Then what will you do? Stop listening to music? Stop to do something your own nature demands as a form of distress, confort or meditation? So hope that birds will not be forced to have their voices licensed by RIAA. Because it is probable that you may not listen to anything else.
It is a monopoly much more subtle than Microsoft. You may refuse to accept Microsoft rules of the game. Well maybe you will not be able to use a computer but, generally, this doesn't affect your life in fundamental aspects (you won't die of this). But not listening to music???? A thing that a common ancester between me and you did already in his times?
Yes you may choose to listen to music not-RIAA or even anti-RIAA. But, considering the way RIAA plays its hypocrisy in the table, you'll have to choose some underground cave to listen to it. You'll have to download music from warez or non-US sites that may still survive the grasp. So you become a paria, an outculture, a punck, a freak, someone that refuses the culture 90% of people live in. By happily paying their fee to live in society... The minimum? $15-20 for the late hit CD from their lovely group. If you want to be a social being, apart of paying taxes and buying goods, you'll have to pay, each month, your right to listen your lovely sounds. Consequently you'll have the right to communicate, to rest, to love or to concentrate...
Jon,
In your comment, you forgot one very important aspect of this entire debate: the cost of buying a Compact Disc.
Right now, the average cost of a CD is somewhere between US$13 to US$17 if you buy it at a record store; it's even MORE expensive in places like Japan, where album CD's cost 3000 yen, around US$28.50 at current exchange rates. That's pretty expensive for most everyone, and frankly, people are tired of paying these high prices.
If the RIAA were to decree that the record companies lower their prices for album CD's, I think much of the piracy problem will disappear VERY quickly. If CD's were priced at US$7.99 to US$8.99, the artists will make it up in more volume sales. After all, CD manufacturing technology has advanced enough that stamping costs is measured in a few cents PER CD!
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
The reason that artists create albums is because that's the basic unit that music is sold in.
Before CDs displaced records, an artist had the option of selling 45 rpm singles, with two songs. Hence the "singles charts."
Since the demise of the 45, an artist no longer has the option of releasing singles. In order to join the party, to get your one or two songs into the record store, you have to crank out an hour of filler so that you can release a CD. Granted there are some musicians who use the CD format to "create a coherent/cohesive mood and statement", but there are plenty of albums that are one or two good songs, plus a whole lot of filler.
Another effect of the music distribution monopoly.
Will this internet that we know exist forever? As the net slowly changes, I see a tug of war occuring in everything online. It appears that the "share" way of thinking is in constant struggle with the "control" way of thinking. Each little upgrade to an internet application seems to show a tug to one side or the other.
So what am I getting at? Well, every person who connects helps to contribute to either way things will eventually work. And lately, I think the number of people who don't realize this are outnumbering those who do realize this. The balance of power is shifting to a more controlled environment where a minority may rule.
It sucks.
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Granted, insofar as "beaming" (the process where it supposedly verifies that you have the CD or atleast all the data) the CDs goes, bandwidth concerns are nominal. On the other end, usage and downloading, though bandwidth clearly affects the worth of the method relative to the worth of alternative methods of piracy (e.g., ripping and encoding at home) and/or purchasing. As far as I've seen, my.mp3.com doesn't actually offer to let you download the tracks, however it would be all too trivial hack a client to save those streams to a file. If you're on 28.8, you can't listen to "your" high quality mp3s in real time (on my cable modem, I actually find I can get music faster than many CD players can ever seek the next track...and certainly where the user must search for the CD). Likewise, if you're on 28.8, "beaming" and downloading (with the hack) a CD in mp3, may be slower than ripping and encoding the CD on your own system (obviously contingent on your CDROM, processor speed, and realized network bandwidth). That being said, this does not mean it is useless as a piracy tool for modem users. First, if there are technical vulnerabilities in my.mp3.com's protocol (which I'm quite sure there are actually), the user can gain access to a very large collection of mp3s archived in an excellent fashion, far more CDs than he could ever hope to put his paws on in person, or even over the napster, and other similar methods). Second, if my* is vulnerable, the user may find it preferable to just setup his machine to download an infinite number of mp3s while he is not there (even though it is slower than his actually burning it by hand while he is attending to it) (e.g., while he sleeps, is at classes, work, etc.)
As for broadband, atleast on my connection, with the CDs I have access to (not necessarily own!), it is a joy to use all-around; it is far far easier and faster than ripping and encoding by hand. Combined with an exploit against this database, broadband users could pirate from my.mp3.com at, say, 100x the efficiency of other means.
Further, if you check these CDs, you will more than likely find them not to be put out by any major record label (though there are always exceptions), and hence, they're sold at "generic goods" prices instead of "name brand" prices, and there's no co-op advertising restriction on these CDs (especially since they aren't the sort to be advertised anyway). Which means the stores could well be selling them at below wholesale just as a loss leader to get people into their stores.
What's more, if you look for the "famous name" performers of classical music, like Pavarotti, etc., you'll usually find their prices to be more in line with normal CD prices than the discount classicals.
I'm not debating that record labels may be monopolistic in regard to their signing policies. But...consider that Metallica owns all their own music--not the label. Do they sell their CDs at substantially lower prices than all the other acts?
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
(It's also a great source of e-books and e-texts, via EBSCOhost, that I can download to my Visor and read, or my hard drive and keep, without having to pay a penny because my local tax dollar support it.)
Y'know...it's really a good thing that libraries are grandfathered into existence. If they wanted to invent libraries today, you just know all the copyright issues would sink them. And that's kind of sad, really.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
The company name is MP3.com, and that's who's in court and who will pay any penalties and make any deals. JonKatz has his facts in perfect order.
my.mp3.com is just the name of a service they provide.
Watching people jump at any opportunity to criticize JonKatz is about as entertaining (and compelling) as watching Republicans criticize Clinton, or Democrats criticize George W...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
If every artist had to have a day job, how much worse a place would the world be? Even if some artists should receive financial rewards for their work, is the copyright system the best practical way to allocate those rewards?
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
> As a DJ at a college radio station,
As a tangential note, I'll mention that radio, like MP3, is a technology that the music industry has had a devil of a time coming to grips with. Free music for the masses; all they have to do is bear with the commercials. Outrageous!
So sometimes the record industry wants to pay the stations to play their songs. (Reasonable enough, considering that nothing sell records like having them on the air. Too bad the scheme is now illegal and universally despised under the name "payola". At least with payola there is no pretense that the music industry was about anything but marketing.)
Other times, the music industry wants the radio stations to pay them for the privilege of broadcasting free music to the masses.
Admittedly, digital copying adds a significant new twist to the old conundrum, but it's refreshing to know that the basic problem and basic conflict of interests is nothing new. And that the economy didn't collapse after the introduction of radio.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
(2) Individual artists may or may not take a profit hit (and may even see a profit boost) as a result of IDM, although it is likely that many of the largest names (Metallica, Madonna, etc.) will take a hit.
(3) There is no reason to suppose that IDM will have a seriously negative effect on the range and quality of recorded popular music available to the average listener, and it may even have a positive effect.
# # #
Are these right?
They've already managed to extend the length of copyright to an unreasonable amount of time, now they're trying to remove the limits on the monopoly they have. This is wrong and should be stopped.
They are currently trying to take away any hope an artist might EVER have of controlling their own work.
It's the first link on their homepage, they're proud of it. Any of you artists out there who really need an ass-reaming, come on over
BTW, they lobbied pretty hard for this. That's your $.02 from every album purchase, hard at work keeping music scarce.
--
+&x
Have you looked at a top 40 chart lately? How many of thouse bands are any good vs how many of them are made by members of RIAA? How many more times are we going to be forced to listen to beach boy's untalented offspring if we listen to the radio? Has Madona's kid been signed yet? When is the single going to hit? Some record exec in Oz is building the next spice girls. You can even pre-order their new album -- no thanks, I will listen to them first and then decide if I like the music. I can make decision like that on my own and I don't need someone else help.
I put up mp3's of local bands and so far I've had some mixed attitudes from the bands. Some love people all over the world downloading their songs while others are very protective of their music and others would like to sell their CD's but are not in a position to do so. How do you sell a AU$15 cd to someone 1/2 a world away. E-commerce is helping that but by the time the CD gets there its cost has doubled and there is a fair amount of loss. I've got mp3s from 4 groups and a few thousand downloads of most tracks and the bands do get positve feedback. Within a day of putting on the second bands work, they got their first international order. Another band got a gig overseas in part becuase of the MP3s. None of these bands will hit the US top 40 but they play good stuff and you can listen to it now and if you like it you can try to find some arrangement to get a CD. Its like buying a CD after a gig out of the band van except the nets now in between.
Interesting, but if I scanned in the entire text of Hellmouth and Geeks and put it on Wrapster for everyone to download, you or your publisher may be a little miffed. However, I would have you own best interests at heart :)
The debate kind of reminds me of those about legalization of drugs. We can't stop it, kids are going to do it anyway, why not just make it legal?
Dana
But ease of copying doesn't mean that an item was cheap to produce.
You have to pay the people to design and create the product. There are costs. The ease of stealing something doesn't justify theft (although it may make insurance more costly)
Dana
I thought that was very well put. My opinion (if you want something a little more developed, run a search on my last couple of posts) is that the record companies' days are numbered. Music has been around much longer than contracts, and it won't be long before the contracts die, so people will quit going into it for the illusory goal of "making it big" and artists will once again be supported for being good. I think if you are good enough at what you do, then society should allow you to do it full time. You don't have a right to make a lot of money doing it, or be rich, but that SHOULDN'T be why you do it to begin with. Money is there to enable you to do what you love full time, without having to worry about food. Work shouldn't be there to make money.
SO....hopefully we will see things go that way again, where artists are paid for their performances and donations from the (rightfully) adoring fans...until then, it might get bloody, but we will fight it out.
roamer
I don't respect your opinions, but I respect your right to hold them
t would be great if artists made music free or cheaply available via download. But, as it stands, they don't and I believe that whoever creates the music (or software) has the right to set the license associated with it. If someone says, "Distribute my music however you like." Great. Fine. If I like it I will. If someone decides that I have to buy a CD, if I like the music, I will. No matter how much you talk about revolutions, Napster is still all about distributing illegal music (by and large). Most people I know don't have illusions about being internet revolutionaires. They know they are breaking the law, they just say they are too cheap to by the CDs
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
They didn't see the MP3 phenomenon and the internet as a viable business venture for them a few years back. If they had, I'm sure they would have thought up a good way to take advantage of it. Instead, they are now resorting to lawsuits to try to stop this new way of doing things from interfering with their business.
Unfortunately for them, it is too late for them to stop the widespread use of MP3s, however what they are doing in court may set the stage for a final victory by the movie industry, who is currently trying to stop people from being able to view movies in the content they demand.
And I went through this whole post without bashing Katz. ^_^
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Great Points!
However, you don't need a broadband connection to the internet to gain access to all of your friends CD's. The amount of data transfered to mymp3.com to verify each CD is extremely small, so any connection would work.
Sig goes here
I have downloaded several MP3s that I did not own the rights to. I have also listened to songs on the radio that I did not own the rights to. When I was 13, one of my favorite passtimes was recording the radio, and then making a compilation of my favorite songs. Apparently, this is all considered immoral by the record industry. (shame on me).
However, I think it's also important to note that of the MP3s that I have downloaded, more often than not I've rushed out to buy the CD after hearing a few of the songs. In every case, it's been an obscure band that I hadn't heard of, or had no interest in until listening to the music. Long story short: If I hadn't downloaded the MP3, I wouldn't have purchased the CD.
So, IMHO, not only are the Record Companies screwing themselves over (their choice), they are also screwing their artists over (hey, I didn't even know who the Old 97s were! but I'm glad I found them!), and they're turning away potential fans.
So for the record companies to worry over someone hearing their music, what's your problem?!? If anything, the record companies themselves should provide MP3 sites as a promotional service!
Webmaster, City of Saint Paul
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
Yeah, but Heinlein was a visionary and idealist like Stallman.
We all know in Real Life the unwritten precepts of law that include
There's no doubt the genie is out of the bottle as far as costless digital copies.
One solution I can suggest comes out the 17th century. That is, assume that once a copy is made of an original score that the cost will rapidly spiral down to zero. Given that's the case, let musicians, visual artists, movie producers, provide a command performance at their pleasure to the highest bidder or group of bidders at an accumulated auction site.
This is more like the model that supported music originally, like nobility of Vienna supporting Mozart (not implying that Mozart got the money he deserved). Then, once the initial price is overcome, anyone possessing a copy may provide it to others at whatever cost (free, for example) they want to charge.
In this model, the renumeration for already-released works rapidly dwindles to nothing, so artists past their prime will suffer. But, artists that are prolific and in demand should be able to release a 10 second snippet and be able to hold the rest of the song hostage until they get as much as they deem needed, whatever that amount happens to be.Want the next release of a new Metallica song?
Click on "I promise to contribute $1 for its production", along with 10000 other metalheads.
Then, if Metallica gets enough subscribers/patrons, they can release the song. Or not."Provided by the management for your protection."
Part of the problem is that we've all been socialized to accept that intellectual property belongs to one individual or organization. Even the founding fathers of the United States only promoted copyrights to give more of an incentive for people to create origanal works.
Before copyrights all information was free. People got paid for the work that they did not the ideas that they came up with. A musician was paid for a performance. A playwrite for writing a play. These people didn't own these ideas they made their money off of the use of commonly held ideas. Copyrights and patents in my opinion only slow inovation. A company that had to create something new to stay on top instead of hiding behind their patents would create many more products. Cost would also be lower.
What if we completely eliminated patents and copyrights. Society as we know it would not collapse. Musicians would be paid by radio and websites wich would make their money from advertisements. Writers would create a work and people would buy it. Lets admit that for books we all like to have the feel of a book in our hands and no one could copy whole books more cheaply then publishers could mass produce them. Publishers would be forced to sell books, cds, and videos at prices low enough that pirating wouldn't make any sence.
I for one do not believe that just because someone came up with an idea first that it should be theirs forever. If the patent system and copyright system in this country were sane I wouldn't have a problem. But, no song writer, movie maker, or book writer deserves to exlusivly own copyrighted works to the detriment of the society for more years then they'll be alive.
I don't expect to see any more important copyrights expire in my lifetime.
What changed my views was when I was showing my nephew the books on project guetenburg and he asked how it could possibly be legal for people to place whole texts on the internet. I mean who should be able to keep anyone from viewing classics like Poe, Verne, or Doyle. Yet he could not understand how any book could be free. That bothered me.
I realise what we are talking about at the moment are mp3s. Anyone can hear the same music for free on the radio. Does that keep people from buying the cds? You can copy songs from the radio and with good enough equipment and a good signal get very close to cd quality. Does that keep people from buying cds? I like to see what I'm buying before I pay for it. With a book I can sit at the bookstore and read it *before* I buy it. Hell I can check it out from the library and read the whole thing. Does that keep me from owning the book? No, I own several hundreds of books. If I want to buy a pair of shoes I get to try them on first. I can test drive a car before I buy it. Why is it wrong to want to download and listen to these songs before I buy them. Software, music and movies are the only things you *have* to buy on faith why is that?
Go ahead and read back the propoganda that our society has filled your head with. Ideas are free. Deal with it.
Information wants to be free.
Man I used to think that was a korny line but the more I see information being shut away and reserved for the people that can afford it the more I believe that information not only wants to be free it must be free.
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
Isn't that what objective journalism is?
If Jon Katz was a reporter and this was a news site I would expect this from him but since the format of his article was more editorial than reporting I expeced it to actually contain a meaningful opinion or some insight and not merely be a restating of the news in long form.
Simple: Being a musician is a profession. It is no different in this respect than administrators, lawyers, or cops. They're jobs, they expected to get paid.
And although raising kids is a substantially different venture, parents still get some amount of money back from the government in most countries, sometimes even moreso to stay at home fulltime to raise the kids. Pretty close to the same idea.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I wasn't aware that there was a Colombian music cartel. Where can I find it? Colombian um, 'institutions' provide for many of my needs in a very satisfactory way right now - maybe I could get one more taken care of.
Seriously though...
. Protects the rights of people who have grown up with access to free forms of culture, via new technologies.
Are you nuts? You bring this up again and again: that people who have grown up with something have some kind of inexplicable 'right' to it. Examine this concept. Why?
If I grow up with a $1,000,000 trust fund, do I necessarily have a 'right' to it? If it's the torn and twisted hands of sweatshop children that contributed to it? Would it be better if I'd taken those profits personally? I'm using this analogy because so much of this discussion seems to center on how rich the record companies are, and how they just want to preserve the status quo. Your argument for preserving the culture these kids ostensibly grow up with is the same argument.
The "right" that you're talking about here is in no way a right. It's a comfort level, it's a societal trend (maybe), it's a convenience. It is not a right. Preserving the mp3 sharing 'culture', no matter how much I approve of it and/or take part in it, is not a right. I don't have rights to someone else's property. Period.
In other words, what I do is wrong - but I choose that wrong. If you took the opportunity to acquire mp3's of copyrighted material away from me, I'd be disappointed for many reasons. But I would not have been wronged.
Please cease and desist with the inflammatory language - it will not help your arguments among thinking people inclined to agree with you, and it certainly won't convince hard-line record execs (or the people at Pinkerton, or anyone else with an accountant) that maybe some of your points are credible. I tend to agree with where you're going, but your methods are uninformed. You preach to the choir far too much.
[|]
In the world where the Internet is replacing all other means of communication and data transfer how is RIAA to survive if they are blinded by their own greed? The artist (Dr. Dree and Metalica excepted) should take the initiative and invest into technologies that will allow them to get paid for their forms of art. If it was possible for a musician to get paid for a specific song directly from the consumer, what would be the point of RIAA and record companies?
Artists should help create the market targetted at the Internet users and they should embrace electronic form of distribution. If you are the consumer, to you this means paying for specific forms of art (songs, video, paintings) you like without having to pay for overpriced CD's and for other crap on those CD's you don't need. So did mp3.com go against copyright? You bet they did, they copied music without permission and without actually buying it. Did the judge make the right decision, you bet he did, if he did otherwise he would be going against copyright. Is RIAA right for placing their charges? You bet they are, they will lose their monopoly on music distribution. HOWEVER. It is the artists themselves who should take their music to MP3.com or Napster or other companies and artists should invest into electronic forms of distribution, they should go around RIAA and CD distributors and then the artists will win because the consumers will win.
You can't handle the truth.
The record companies have no interest in protecting the artist. The only interest they have is protecting themselves.
MP3's do only one thing that scares them: removes the middle man. THEY are the middle man. They're providing a tangible object.. A CD in a jewel case with a nice label. It is the artist who is providing the intellectual property. Without the need for the CD with the shiney wrapper, there is no more record company, and now it's just between the artist and the listener. That's what they're afraid of. They are loosing that control.
They've already proven their disinterest in the artists' benefits. Look at the suit against Chuck D, an artist. He puts his songs on his website for free download. Embracing the MP3 technology, knowing that the more people who can listen to his music, the more people will buy. Guess what? He's sued by his own label. They are out only for their own paychecks. The RIAA is full of crap when they claim to be protecting the artist.
Think about it: What thing does a signed or unsigned artist want more than anything else in the whole wide world? Airplay. There have been movies with plots where bands go to all lengths to get their music on the radio. They want the fame and they want the chance to sell their music. If it goes unhead, no one will buy it.
That's why you see an increase of music sales corresponding to the MP3 era. At the risk of incriminating myself, I have a vast collection of MP3s, and when I find an artist I really like, I go buy their CD. In some cases, I've bought all their CDs. My favorite artists I discovered online. Artists with labels, but that they rarely play on the radio (at least around here.) I've been happy with all the CDs I've bought based on MP3 listening, versus the large number of CDs I hate that I bought based off of listening to the radio. It helps, doesn't hurt, the industry, that I'm happy with the music I buy.
Of course, this doesn't help popular radio artists that really do suck, but it helps the bands that are really good, that the PEOPLE like...
As I've been saying for the past 3 years, music is currently in an unnatural position. Up until the 60's/70's, "the people's" music was ALWAYS free and unrestricted. (By the people's music, I mean music the common person listens to, the short-format popular music, which, 500 years ago were bar tunes and folk dances, in the 30's, jazz, now pop/country/rock, etc.) Humans who have usually had very little control over the rest of their lives had control over one thing: their music. Serfs, peasants, even slaves, had their music. It's something no one could take from them or dictate to them. They could choose what they liked and discard and mock what they did not like.
Now that people have all this freedom in their lives, music is not free. By free, I don't mean free from cost. I mean free to migrate, free to choose. The songs we hear are force-fed to us on the radio. We are told who is popular, and who is not. We can't so much as hum a tune without being sued by the label, and god-forbid we should actually use the lyrics in any way.
This is what's causing the revolution. We want our music back. It's always been ours, and now we want it back again. We're tired of Backstreet Boys and Britany Spears and we just want to hear honesty again. We want to be able to choose that honesty as we see fit, as individuals and as a society. For me it's not so much the fact that I don't have to pay for the music as it is that I can choose my own music -- as I want it, when I want it -- without getting ripped off.
And I'd much rather see a worthy artist get my $16.95 than to see the record co get $14 of it and the artist getting two bucks.
As somebody who used to be in the music business (as another underpaid artist) I totally agree. The people getting rich from the music business are the record labels and whoever owns the publishing rights to the music (usually the same entity).
Artists, especially new ones, don't make squat from their albums. They have to pay the record company for distribution, studio time, manufacturing, the CEO's coke habit, etc. Most of them would love to see as much as $0.50 per unit sold. Most of the time, it's much lower than that.
That's why the whole Metallica/Dr. Dre thing is so strange. (That is if you ignore the whole sellout/corporate bitch thing) For the first time, it's possible for an artist to record and widely distribute music WITHOUT having to sell his/her soul to a record company. It's just that nobody has made it big that way yet. Just wait...it will happen.
I really don't see what the difference is between "unsanctioned" MP3 distribution and trading bootlegs of live shows. Certainly, nobody can argue that the Grateful Dead, Phish, or anybody else who allows taping and bootlegging has suffered from this. The real threat isn't to the artists, it's to the record companies who are discovering that the value in their "value added" service to the poor artists is rapidly disappearing. It's disintermediation all over again. (And you thought you'd heard the last of that meme...)
Just like everything else in the new economy, the record companies will either adapt or die. It's going to take a little longer than it should because they have tons of lawyers to feed, but it will happen. The physical medium (CD's, flash-memory albums, or holographic storage) will always be here, but it won't be the primary revenue stream. It will be on the same level as sheet music is today.
PS: In case somebody from Metallica reads this...I don't like you since you sold out, but I'm going to download and upload every one of your songs as much as possible just because you're being dicks.
---------------------
I've got your sig right here.
That rationale is the reason people pirate sotware and music. Copying something digitally doesn't cost anything and I wouldn't have bought the music anyway - right? Well the reality is that it does cost something to the artist. All the people here who complained about Katz and Slashdot copying their articles for the book - hey, what's the problem? It's just a digital copy and those don't cost anything.
Cost is more than a direct monetary thing. It is indirect money, but it is also control and ownership.
I make something, you buy something; that has been the basis for economics since thousands of years.
The fact that music (and software) is easy to copy doesn't change a thing - it is theft!
You think that just because it's not a solid object, it's suddenly "intellectual property"??
Please think again!
How to make a sig
without having an idea
Now have Jon Katz tell the same story. Presto! Instant dissent. A large wave of slashdotters appears from the ether to pick apart every detail of the story. And you have some real debate on the issues.
I like the Katz stories for this reason alone. Jon, when are you going to write a story that condemns Microsoft? Now, that would be interesting.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
When will the argument be turned from whether or not distributing mp3s are legal to whether or not posessing mp3s are legal?
What is there to argue? Distributing/Posessing MP3's are no different than doing the same with Software. Whether or not it is legal depends on whether or not it is yours to distribute or posess.
The RIAA is quickly making posession illegal -- even if I own the CD, I'm not allowed to have the mp3's from that CD.
I'm pretty sure that this is not the case. If you own a CD legally, then you are allowed to make copies of that CD for your own personal use.
That is not what my.mp3.com has done though. They have made copies of CDs that they have purchased for the use of their customers, and are profiting from it. What's more, they cannot ever be sure that the people they are distributing those copies to do own an original copy legally. If you want an mp3 of a CD you legally posess, go make it yourself. It's not as if it will cost you to do it, and it may even be faster than d/ling it from the internet.
There should not be any debate here. If it was the IP of a /.er that was being distributed by some other company, they would be raising hell too. Disagree? Go read "Postscript:Who owns the Hellmouth Posts?".
-Tommy
------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
"I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
Jon Katz is pretentious. He is no more than an average writer - he isn't an expert witness on anything. He presents his shallow opinion as fact.
Now, for the music industry:
If artists aren't able to make the money by selling their music, they will turn to in-song/in-movie advertising. It has already happened in some places.
In Pakistan and India, where there are very few laws to protect artists from pirating, the movie companies have found a different way to make money.
They make their money (as everyone must) by selling advertising that dances across the screen. Imagine your favorite scene from SW/ST/Matrix with a dancing cigarette pack imaged over the screen.
If artists intellectual/musical property isn't protected in a way that allows them to make money by selling it, then expect to start hearing songs about how great Pepsi tastes and how much the artist loves his Dodge truck.
Soldier(R)
Soldier(R)
The music industry cannot police the entire internet, and, as with the lyrics website, would have problems with some other countries like Russia.
Also, besides large MP3 providers like MP3.com, or the Napster service, there will always be groups of interstate friends in which only one person will need to pay for the music for everyone to benefit.
I agree with the article's claim that the best way for the industry to maximize its profits would be to lower its prices. 10 songs should not cost $20, or even $10.
How much money to the artists deserve for some music? Oh, darn, the rappers made less than a zillion dollars this year. I guess they won't be buying all the useless, expensive cars and jewelry that inspire their songs about how many cars and pieces of jewelry they own bling bling.
Instant Crisis
once more people realize just how evil the RIAA is, and see mp3 as a viable alternative, maybe their sales will go down, and they will be forced to compete, or offer a more fair, legal alternative.
:)
I hope. In any case, I haven't bought CDs in a while. I've gotten a couple as presents, and I got The Matrix on a gift certificate. I was thinking of joining one of those music clubs ("11 Free CDs For $1" or whatnot), but they don't have much in the way of 11 decent CDs.
So what are you going to do, RIAA? Sell CDs at cost + royalties? Heck, give the artist a buck or two, I'll pay for that.
What does the current model look like?
cost
+ royalties
+ 3 cents for the artist
+ legal bills
+ media kickbacks
+ mafia kickbacks
+ money lost from drug seizures
+ legal bills from fighting the war on mp3's
I mean, really, *explain* where that $15-20 goes and I'll be impressed. That's a lot of money to account for. A book costs $5, and that's paper, wood pulp. The author gets money, the publisher gets money, the cover artist gets money, the book gets printed on a press that is already paid for. So where's the extra $10-15 that goes into the cost of the CD? Hmmm?
Or how about singles? They make money off of those, right? And they're about half the price of the CD. With nothing to make them cheaper. Implying that CDs could be half their current cost and *still* be very profitable.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It's just reaffirming copyright laws in protection of the artist, which is what copyright is all about.
Copyright is not "all about" the protection of the artist. That's what the RIAA would like us to believe, but you shouldn't buy that line. Copyright exists in order to increase the number of artistic and/or literary works that people have free access to (i.e. works existing in the public domain). The goal is to provide an incentive, namely a limited, temporary monopoly, for artists to produce new works. After the monopoly period is up, those works are added to the public domain, and can be freely accessed, distributed, and built upon by anyone. THAT is what copyright is all about. Don't let the music or movie industries convince you otherwise. They've already managed to extend the length of copyright to an unreasonable amount of time, now they're trying to remove the limits on the monopoly they have. This is wrong and should be stopped.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
The problem is that RIAA was afraid of digital music when it first gained popularity. They had the opportunity to take the bull by the horns, grab control of the industry, and made even more money.
Unfortunately, they didn't do that. They scoffed at MP3, and the result was only too predictable. They left it to the pirates, so the pirates jumped on it.
Music piracy is hardly a new thing. It's been around for decades. Prople were taping records, radio, and later CD's long before MP3 arrived on the scene, amd moreover people still do this (probably as much as if not more than MP3; the format does take a small amount of technological savvy after all). RIAA acts as though stopping MP3 will stop piracy for good; it won't. Other means will arise, and unless RIAA works within these new systems they'll lose big time.
For one, RIAA shouldn't be so averse to selling MP3's. There's no need to worry about SDMI and all that; while piracy will still exist, of course, there's lots of money to be made. Need I remind the music industry Bill Gates and Larry Ellison both sell software, and together they are worth more than the entire music industry? So clearly piracy may be a problem, but it's not a real barrier to making a whole planeload of cash.
Piracy is a problem, of course. But it's never going to go away; you simply cannot eradicate it. The best you can hope for is to minimize it. Sell MP3's over the Web for a dollar apiece (this being roughly proportional to the retail cost of a CD, which is higher than the price the industry itself gets for every disc). You'd be surprised how many fans will pay a buck apiece for music, particularly in places where you can't use Napster. The first company to actually try this (assuming they can get a decent-sized fanbase) will prove the model's validity.
It's a different way of doing things, yes. And of course it's scary; moving away from a model that was known to be lucrative in the past but is now losing out to technology is always a risk. But technology is evolving, and unless the music industry is ready to face that and work within it, they're going to be left behind.
In short, the RIAA shot itself in the foot - with the high cost of CDs and the even higher cost of going to a concert/show, people weren't left with much alternative. Prepackaging songs they didn't like with songs they did like and not allowing previews pretty much put the finishing touches on their coffin.
So common people like their free stuff, and who cares about the law? (insert long idealogical rant here)
The other component of this is that geeks enjoy their online freedom - whether information "wants to be free" or not, geeks are out there making sure it gets shared to as wide of an audience as possible. Part of this is that geeks operate on a kind of gift culture - you get more popular when you give away more, and partly because many (most?) come from a recent history where geeks were ejected from society and scorned in schools and communities. This is a kind of self-conscious revenge - a little bit of "damn the man!" .. ideologies aside there is a definite ego rush in standing up to authority. Now, I know I'm going to get flamed for the above statement - I'm not saying that everyone is like this, so keep that in mind, ok?
The last point I want to make is that the internet was designed specifically to share information. It was something of an accident and convergence of technologies that made it so you could share virtually everything - images, movies, pictures, text, it's all going into a huge funnel of digitalization making it even easier to share. The internet was designed to share information. The internet was designed to share information. From the hardware to the protocols to the software to the users, end-to-end it was designed to share information. What shall we do to put the genie in the bottle? Well, dismantling the internet and locking up all the geeks would be the only feasible way to do it. Good luck, guys.. there's a helluva lot more of us than you.
No, as a person who makes (or almost makes) a living off of being paid for published work, I am not saying it's okay to pirate music. I am saying what you are saying and what Danny Goldberg, who is quoted in the column is saying...music-sharing has been good for music, generated enormous sales and potentially, can be great for artists. It doesnt' protect artists to protect that music can't be downloaded and shared. They will just get ripped off forever. What would really protect artists..and believe me, I am for that...is a new way of distributing music that offers it more cheaply and with more choice.
Nobody should be forced into open source, of course, but I don't see most of this kids as thieves. new technologies have given them access to unimaginable amounts of music, and they are using and loving it. If the record industry would get off its butt..as its own execs are urging (see above) then artists could be protected, they could make money, and people wouldnt lose this amazing new access to cheap and plentiful culture. I am not advocating music piracy, just trying to see this music revolution in a different context than: you're a thief, not I'm not!
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I believe in intellectual property. If an artist makes music, the artist should be free to declare whatever terms on its use he wants. As it stands right now, the current legal interpretation of copyright law defines most of your rights in regards to their music. In other words, we must assume the artist is selling his work under a set of terms and conditions, which is generally known as copyright law. If you violate these terms, the artist may or may not be incentivized to continue creating work as he was before.
The artists can (and do) transfer their rights to the label. While it may seem "unfair" and "unnecessary" for the labels to shut down services like my.mp3.com, the service does, in fact, violate the labels' rights, and can consequently erode value of the artists' rights. If the labels' rights were entirely intact (and consequently the artists'), they might be enabled to sell a second digtal copy--my.mp3.com denies them this right. Similarly, the growth of my.mp3.com through the violation of the labels' rights, could marginalize the market position (not necessarily monopoly) of the labels. The artists could potentially use this as a bargaining chip, but my.mp3.com strips them of this. Likewise, due to technological flaws, my.mp3.com may, in fact, make piracy and far far more trivial, and the denial of the labels' right to control the distribution may negatively impact their profits. For example, I can borrow CDs from all my friends, hundreds of them, and gain access to all of the mp3's of those CDs in an hour or two with a cheap computer on broadband--No other technology enables this to be done so quickly and efficiently (e.g., nominal ripping (reading) time, no encoding, no storage space, etc.), not tape, not VCR, etc. I realize you, Katz, are no technological wonderkid, but I also have real doubts about the security of the my.mp3.com services insofar as internet piracy (as opposed to CD distribution amongst friends) goes, so it does not entirely follow that just because beam-it, my.mp3.com's client software, is challenged by the server to produce samples of the CD, that the user actually has the CD in their drive at the moment, or even an equivelent sized chunk of data.
The bottom line is that you should assume the artist is releasing his work under the current understanding of copyright law, and all that it implies. Unless the artist grants you that right to do otherwise, you are simply not entitled to do whatever you wish, no matter how just you may feel your reasoning to be. Any violation of the copyright law has concievable consequences, thus we generally don't leave it up to the individual to decide. If we, as a society, choose that it would be better to weaken copyrights across the board such that a single purchase in any format entitles you to get the work in any other format, and that it is ok for 3rd parties to provide that alternative medium service at a profit, that is acceptable. Until such time, however, we should respect the law.
Leaving aside the dead horse of "It's piracy!" "No, it's not! Information wants to be free!" "Tell me that when they start pirating your books." which has been so ably flogged elsewhere in this discussion, let's look at the issue of another straw man Jon's set up and whacked on a little in the article, which I haven't seen addressed as much.
So CDs only cost fifty cents to make and are sold at $15. So what? Despite the implication here that the record labels are uniquely evil for overcharging so, this is hardly a one-of-a-kind case. I would wager that many or even most of the things we pay $10 to $20 for are knocked off at, at most, $2 to $3 of actual manufacturing cost. Take a class in basic Economics, Jon. Better yet, take two, one each of Macro and Micro. I'm sure a college in your area offers them as night courses.
As someone who has had them, and had a surprising number of misconceptions cleared up by them...Jon, that $14.50 is not pure profit--at least, not for the record companies. There's the $5 markup by the record store middleman, the fixed setup costs not represented in the 50 cents figure, the factory overhead...and, yes, the profit. Companies do have to make a profit, you know. That's how they stay in business, satisfy their shareholders, and continue to produce the products that we want.
Despite what many of the "free as in beer" crowd would have you believe, profit is not an evil or bad thing. You're making a profit yourself when you get your paycheck--getting paid at least as much as and probably more than you think your labor is worth--or else you'd go work somewhere else where you were.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
The fact that an artist put a lot of effort into creation does not, in and of itself, establish a right to be paid. A simple counterexample: Parents put a great deal of effort and expense into raising children, but nobody suggests that this effort entitles them to make a financial profit on the venture.
--
"But, Mulder, the new millennium doesn't begin until January 2001."
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
For the record, I can't stand what RIAA has become: a cudgel used by non-human immortal entities (read that: corporations) who exist solely for the purpose of maximizing profits for their few shareholders at whatever cost. In my opinion, the recording industry has suffered at RIAA's hands, becoming linked with the heartless materialism at the core of big business. And the industry's insistance on holding back the use of digital channels to move entertainment to the people (both RIAA and MPAA are guilty here) will most assuredly backfire.
Frankly, the time has never been better for a company to spring up who will sponsor digital recording of smaller acts in exchange for the rights to give away one (1) song from each act on the Internet. Skip the pressing of CD's and the add campaigns. That same company should purchase and give away Rio players to radio stations to give their acts air time.
But that idea does not give people the right to steal, and that is what most of those who are complaining about the lawsuits, and RIAA's actions, are doing. This is not a revolution; it is plundering. Those who are suing have every right to do so; indeed they have a responsibility, if they're going to protect their copyright.
Mr. Katz, you strike me as someone who was always in "rebel" mode. I went to school with plenty of them, and I've worked with some. They always had an axe to grind against "the establishment". Often, they were right. But they were just as often wrong, and I believe you're wrong on this one. You shouldn't be glorifying theft as "revolution".
Incidentally, as a network admin, I also point out that the universities who've banned Napster are doing so for several reasons, one of which is due to the unprecedented load of network traffic the music-traders (or thieves, if you will) are generating. And I fully agree with their decision.
Believe nothing, not even if I say it, if it violates your sense of reason -- Buddha
Its not stealing, its half stealing. I get something for free, but you are deprived of nothing, other then the possibility of making money by selling it.
Taking things from others is wrong; getting something for free is not. New technology allows us to do one without the other.
If I pirate software that I would never have purchased, I deprive no one of anything. Distributing NT in china doesn't loose MS any money, because the people can't afford it anyway.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
As a musician that uses mp3.com I feel like I need to say something here. This has let people hear us that would have otherwise never even heard of us. I don't see it as losing money or a waste of our time or resources. The people that listen to us are probably more likely to go to a show when we play close to them, which makes them more likely to by stickers, or shirts or cd's.
I don't see what all these huge bands are whinig about either. Sure there are going to be people that don't buy theur albums. Those people would be just as happy with a cassette or mini disc, either way it's a moral issue rather than a money issue. Almost everyone I know has an old cassette of some metallica album.
And for the money... I know that a indie band can record and produce cd's for 1 - 3 dollars per disc. At shows these are usually sold for 8 - 10 dollars. That's some helacious profit. I mean at worst that's 70%. I know that these major labels are getting a better deal on CD's. The manager at a music store that Ionce worked at told me that it was about 97 cents a CD for a major label. And the honestly want us to pay 15 - 20 dollars and NOT see if we really like the album first?
When will the argument be turned from whether or not distributing mp3s are legal to whether or not posessing mp3s are legal? The RIAA is quickly making posession illegal -- even if I own the CD, I'm not allowed to have the mp3's from that CD. That's what struck me the most about the ruling of my.mp3.com. If it's proven that just posessing an mp3 is illegal, no matter the source or means, then the RIAA has already won -- they've proven that mp3's are equivalent to thievery.
The only way for a middle ground is to have a ruling that posessing mp3s from albums you own is legal, the same way that having a backup casette is legal, or having a backup set of disks from early software is legal (this is no longer embraced in the software industry, but was a standard in the early days of software being distributed on 3.5" disks.) Giving away music may be a crime, and wanting a profit (banner ftp sites, donation sites, etc) for distributing music is most certainly a crime, but we need to first establish that we are entitled to have mp3s for cd's we posess.
I think things like Open Source, Free Software and the GPL are wonderful notions, but only if they are voluntary.
:)
Jon, you seem to be saying that it is alright to pirate music, basicly because music is expensive and we geeks are supposed to believe that Information Wants To Be Free (tm). Cars are expensive, but it doesn't make stealing them legal.
It would be great if artists made music free or cheaply available via download. But, as it stands, they don't and I believe that whoever creates the music (or software) has the right to set the license associated with it. If someone says, "Distribute my music however you like." Great. Fine. If I like it I will. If someone decides that I have to buy a CD, if I like the music, I will. No matter how much you talk about revolutions, Napster is still all about distributing illegal music (by and large). Most people I know don't have illusions about being internet revolutionaires. They know they are breaking the law, they just say they are too cheap to by the CDs.
You can't force Open Source on people who don't want it. It would be like someone decompiling, say, Unreal Tournament, declaring it GPLed and posting it on a webpage.
As a side note, I think it would be interesting to convince one of the Napster friendly artists to release a GPLed song, with a license that stated that anyone who sampled it have to make the new song GPLed as well
Dana
Despite the current illegality of most MP3 trading, the trade is so huge for two main reasons: 1) Given the fact that making a digital copy of a song is essentially "free," many people question the fact that a CD with 10 or so songs on it will run you $16. 2) People want the distribution format and the current legal channels are not providing it. MP3s encoded files are very convienent even if all you're doing is burning your CDs to your hard drive so you can queue up 16 hours of music without shuffling CDs. Never mind that the very act of encoding the MP3s is usually illegal by way of violating the Frauhauf institute's patents on the format.
Patent violations aside, the only way to shut the RIAA and their minions up is to not trade their music. Instead, trade garage bands (Many of whom suck MUCH less than Metallica) and independent bands who have explicitly released their songs for free trade. Encourage the LEGAL distribution of music that is legal to distribute. If you have a garage band, offer all songs in MP3 (or some non-encumbered -- they're starting to show up) format, even if you distribute only a few of them freely. If your music is good, we'll pay a fair price for the legal songs, and you'll end up making more money than you would have affiliating with the RIAA anyway. If your music isn't so good, you'll still get more exposure than you would have with the RIAA.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
But, the web is not a bottle. There is a big difference. A genie does not mirror itself all over the world.
With CPHack and DeCSS genies, once the genie got out, it got out and replicated itself to make sure that even if it was forced back into the bottle, there is still thousands of the same genie that is still out of the bottle.
Fight Spammers!
There are other ways for people to share MP3s, Napster and now Gnutella are just easier methods than others. Things like HTTP servers and FTP servers can be easily used, and illegal digital items have been traded on IRC for ages. The alt.binary newsgroups are another good source for illegal material.
The real point is that there is no easy way to stop the spread of MP3s. The music industry instead needs to change it's outlook on how it distributes music. Sueing the current sources of illegal MP3 distribution into the ground won't stop new sources from popping up.
Yes, downloading MP3s of copyrighted songs is theft. Most people understand that. Some argue it shouldn't be. But it's not the issue here, the issue is the fact that the music industry needs to change it's way of doing buisness, and that since the MP3 "genie" has been released, there is no real effective way to put it back in it's bottle.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
Why is it that Jon Katz not only refuses to mention artist's rights except for this one line but also refuses to accept the fact that people who misappropriate copyrighted material without rewarding the copyright owners is stealing.
Actually, he mentions artists rights in at least one other, and probably two depending on your interpretation. The funny thing is that you quote both of these lines later in your post. Now, as for your statement here, I don't entirely agree. People "misappropriate copyrighted material" because the current system of distribution doesn't work. This isn't the fault of the people downloading MP3s, it's the fault of the music industry. People are realizing just how much music is out there, and they want access to it. Up 'til now, they knew what the top 40 was and beyond that, they had very little opportunity to hear anything else. CDs cost too damn much to buy on a whim. If you haven't been able to listen to the music first, you can easily end up with a $16.99 coaster (or maybe sell it to a used cd store for $3). What makes things even worse is that most radio stations play the exact same crap. They're all owned by the same people. Now people can listen to all sorts of music that they wouldn't want to buy because they hadn't heard it yet. They can hear more tracks from a band rather than making their purchase decision based on the one song they heard on the radio. I've downloaded a bunch of mp3s, but it hasn't cost the music industry a dime. If I liked the group, I bought the cd. If I didn't like them, I ditched the mp3s. Who got screwed? The main problem is that the RIAA is used to being the one that does the screwing. Now they won't be able to do that. Signing an artist up for a 5 album contract, spreading the good songs out across those 5 albums and filling the rest of the space with crappy filler songs isn't going to work anymore. Sorry if I don't shed a tear for them.
It isn't like if I started printing copies of his books and gave them away he would respond with "Hey, that's OK information want's to be free,anyway"
You're probably right about this. Until it happens we can't really know. Jon, care to enlighten us? What do you think about this claim? It strikes me as being similar to Jeff Bezos' claim that the patent system is screwed up, but that he has to play by the current rules in order to survive. Katz wants to make a living from his writing, so he needs a way to do that, even though copyright is becoming even more perverted than the patent system. Personally, I'd like to see Katz put his money where his mouth is and propose a solution and show that it can work by using that solution for his own work.
Of course not, and that is exactly why they are trying to shut down Napster.
His point here was that shutting down Napster and the others won't help. There's too many options out there and there are more cropping up all the time. He's saying they WON'T go back to the old system, and the RIAA can't make them go back. That's why suing is not the answer.
Why wouldn't it? Currently the rights of artists to decide who distributes their copyrighted material is being abused regularly by Napster users. Secondly, it would also protect the right of artists to be paid for their work.
This is true, but you also ignore the fact that the RIAA is doing the artists they represent a major disservice by overpricing their products. It's been shown time and time again that the more overpriced a product is, the more theft you will see. If the RIAA wasn't so busy gouging its customers, and if the system wasn't so broken, we wouldn't have this situation to begin with. They could fix it, but they won't do that. Why? Greed.
You may say that that still doesn't make it right, and maybe you have a point. That won't improve the situation though. The music industry's own greed is setting itself up for a fall. It's not the artists. They don't have much alternative right now. They sign over the ownership of their music in order to make a living. They could do much better, and so could their fans. We just need to get the RIAA out of the way. If they sold their albums for a reasonable price, more people would buy them, and if the RIAA wasn't sucking up the vast majority of the profits, the artist would get a much bigger cut of the sales, and wouldn't have to sell as many albums to make a good living. On top of that, more artists would be able to make money because people could buy more music. So rather than just those who get the most promotion by the industry making money from their work, many more would be able to profit from their music.
PS: Why does he keep calling MP3.com MP3? How out of it can he possible be?
Katz needs an editor... or a better editor if he already has one.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Now normally I just read a JK column and shake my head, but:
>>Friday's ruling by a federal judge against MP3
>>was the clearest and most powerful blow yet
>>struck against the by-now deeply ingrained
>>tradition, especially among younger music
>>lovers, of acquiring vast music libraries for
>>free. MP3.com is certain to face stunning
>>penalties.
John - please. The suit was about my.mp3.com, not about the main business of mp3.com. And it ISN'T about getting music for free. It's about control.
my.mp3.com lets you listen to music that YOU HAVE BOUGHT in a more convenient way. It is nothing like napster, or cutemx, or gnutella or
I'm sure it took you a fair amount of time to write this column. Could you *please* spend just a bit more time up front checking the facts first??
"was has"? Sounds like Katz has been reading Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's guide to time-travel grammar....
Then again, if anybody could be said to be channeling the spirit of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation, it has to be Katz. :-]
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
While I personally believe that music should be free (or for that matter, all art should be free; hence my personal unwillingness to sell my art) and available to all, I do understand that as an artist, you must devote all your time and energy towards the art and cannot split it with working a fulltime job. I do this now and let me tell you, my art suffers. A lot.
HOWEVER.
The vast majority of the shit that comes out of the recording industry today is vile and base. It does not succeed by it's own merits, it succeeds by the merits of the corporation's large and well-funded marketing machine.
No longer is music made for music's sake. (I realise that this is a naive view, but bear with me here, I'm a makin' a point.) It is made with the singular purpose of selling as many possible records within a very short amount of time.
I absolutly refuse to support that kind of nonsense any longer. When the day comes that music is pushed by the people that make it and those same people make the large percent of the profit, is the same day that I will stop taking any music that I still bother listening to and start BUYING IT. (I'm not gonna start with the inflated price of CD's..)
How many here believe that 50 years from now, people will listen to britney spears and the spice girls and think, "Wow. That stuff had soul!"
Go back thirty to fifty years. Louis Armstrong.. eternally cool. You know?
I went to a club last night and it was open mike night. There were musicians and beatniks galore. I may be making a generalization here, but the people there weren't in it for the money; they got beer, bagels and applause if they were lucky -- beer and bagels if they weren't.
That's the way music should be.
===
I realise that this was a completely incoherant post. My ability to make any sense seems to have taken an airplane from New York to New York.. the long way.
My apologies. I know that my point was in there some where.
Rami James
Pixel Pusher
ALST R&D Center, IL
rJames.org - illustration
Every time I read about the RIAA or the MPAA flailing against internet media distribution, it reminds me of a quote from the 1939 Robert Heinlein story, "Life-line".
In Life-line, an inventor has built a machine that can accurately determine the day a person will die. He is sued by the entire life insurance industry, who want to put him out of business because they are being bankrupted by his accurate predictions.
In rejecting the claims of the insurance company lawyer, the judge says:
Before we leave this matter I wish to comment on the theory implied by [the insurance trust lawyer], when you claimed damage to your client. There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all.
Same today as it was 61 years ago.
Wow, I have never read a more content free article in my life. Jon Katz's entire article contained no opinions nor offered any insights but simply summarizes news that has already been on Slashdot or is easily available from glancing at the headlines provided by the any portal or news site. I hardly ever respond or read Jon Katz's articles but delight in reading the responses he evokes but I recently decided to actually read his articles and have now discovered why he is so badly tolerated by slashdotters. I have responded to the only parts of the article that are actually original content as opposed to regurgitating of readily available news.
Artists definitely have a right to be paid for their work, but branding a whole generation of music fans thieves seems simplistic, even self-destructive
Why is it that Jon Katz not only refuses to mention artist's rights except for this one line but also refuses to accept the fact that people who misappropriate copyrighted material without rewarding the copyright owners is stealing. It isn't like if I started printing copies of his books and gave them away he would respond with "Hey, that's OK information want's to be free,anyway"
Do recording executives really believe that music fans will suddenly give up on acquiring diverse and numerous forms of music for free and go back to buying a handful of expensive CDs a few times a month?
Of course not, and that is exactly why they are trying to shut down Napster.
That wouldn't protect artist's rights or those of music lovers.
Why wouldn't it? Currently the rights of artists to decide who distributes their copyrighted material is being abused regularly by Napster users. Secondly, it would also protect the right of artists to be paid for their work.
This digital genie isn't going back into the bottle.
Agreed, but before the Record labels will embrace the digital revolution they will try their best to make sure they are not going to be robbed blind before investing in or creating an online business model.
Successful negotiatioins between MP3.com and the music would be the sanest step yet in the music wars, and a healthy precedent for other businesses who sell intellectual property as well as artists.
This completely true. If record labels can make deals with MTV and radio stations I don't see why similar deals could not have been made with MP3.com. From the exchange between MP3.com CEO and the RIAA representative when all this started it seems the RIAA just wanted to be unreasonable from the start. This leads me to believe that they are interested in creating such a service themselves if not now then later on in the future and that is why they decided against even considering MP3.com's offers to license the music.
PS: Why does he keep calling MP3.com MP3? How out of it can he possible be?
You know, even a month ago, I'd a have disagreed with Jon violently about this. But now, a month later, I've had my eyes opened. I'd never really experienced the joy and convenience that free and ready access to music outside my collection brought.
/. and the purely corporate attitude of the straw-man that you would propose the music idustry to be...and that there are already solutions in place, on the ground, that provide that?
But then I found a source of free and easy-to-obtain music, so that I can stand in my kitchen and listen to stuff I wouldn't ever buy without testing it first. I found some of Robert Palmer's solo stuff -- really good -- and an a capella group called _The Blenders_ -- musically better than The Bobs, but not as intellectually challenging. I got a bunch of old Elvis Costello CD's, with their bonus tracks; by God, I'm updating my vinyl.
And I'm confident that the RIAA won't be coming after me. They'll never find me, and even if they did, they wouldn't dare bother me.
BECAUSE I BORROWED THESE CD'S FROM MY LOCAL LIBRARY. What a lot of this debate misses is one key fact: there are ways of getting the good parts of MP3 and Napster without breaking the law. That's why the music industry wants you to be tied to a physical object, and that is why they're right. I have to return these CD's, but I'll buy some of them. And I won't be able to keep the ones I don't buy. And that's a perfectly reasonable compromise: I can listen to stuff that I don't own, without taking the artist's and the companies legitimate right to make money.
Now why is that so hard, Jon? Why is it so hard to distinguish between "borrowing" and "stealing", and why is it so hard to understand that there are middle grounds between the purely anarchistic attitude of