Slashdot Mirror
Shut Down Metallica, Not Napster
Metallica ought to be stopped cold.
The band's efforts to identify and intimidate 335,435 fans and Napster users for alleged copyright violations are a shock. In the perfectly legitimate disagreements regarding the distribution of free music online, this action goes way over the top. It invades privacy, is a blatant act at intimidating mostly younger Net users, and sets a dreadful precedent for resolving the many issues raised by the Net concerning who can own, control and disseminate intellectual property.
This an issue for anyone who believes in a free and open Internet, not just music downloaders.
Yesterday, the band's attorney said his firm will deliver close to 60,000 pages of documents to Napster today, asking that the site block all the indidividuals named from its service. The announcement sent shock waves through the online music community. Napster and a handful of other music-swapping sites have allowed hundreds of thousands of computer users to open their hard drives and share music files online. People can remain "superficially" anonymous but Napster can track individual users to their computers. And that's just what happened: Metallica's Los Angeles attorneys (who also represent Dr. Dre in his suit against Napster) say they hired NetPD, an online consulting firm, to monitor the Napster service this past weekend. The company came up with more than 335,000 individual users who had made the band's content available online.
Artists are perfectly justified in worrying about how they will get paid for their work as the sharing of online music grows. But Metallica has legitimized a wholesale invastion of privacy, and a pointlessly punitive campaign. It's targets include many younger children and younger consumers who have no idea their online movements are being tracked, and who certainly have the right to pursue individual cultural interests without worring that they're being watched.
The implications of Metallica's bone-headed move (this from a group that markets itself as rebels) are awful. Parents, school administrators or political parties will be further inspired to hire consultants to track the movements of kids -- and adults -- who might be listening to music, reading books or visiting websites that are not-approved, or are controversial in some way. One of the miraculous things about the Net is that it has opened up all kinds of information to people who were previously denied access. Metallica seeks to reverse this liberation in the interest of more royalties.
Many people online will now feel justifiably intimidated about moving about freely on the Net for fearing that someone is watching and planning a court action or lawsuit. This chilling effect is particularly outrageous, since the legal issues Metallica professes to be worried about are already being threshed out in negotiations between the music industry and MP3.com and in courts in New York and Los Angeles.There is no reason to go after some of the Net's most vulnerable users -- kids -- or to establish a precedent that privacy can be wantonly violated and free Netizens intimidated every time some company, artist, or group is worried about maximizing profits.
Apart from all these other concerns, Metallica's action is dumb and nearly insanely self-destructive. Even music industry executives are beginning to concede that sites like MP3.com and Napster are helping bonding an entire generation to many different kinds of music, something that is good both for artists and their industry.
Metallica's fingering its own fans on Napster isn't a step forward towards artists' controlling their art. In addition to protecting their own work, artists also have a responsibility to protect freedom and creativity. Metallica's name-gathering is an ugly, excessive and noxious assault aimed at curbing the free movement of information and ideas that characterizes the Internet, while doing little to resolve the many copyright, commercial and other issues involved in the free music controversy.
Everyone reading this can name at least a half dozen alternative sites and programs that have boomed in recent weeks even as the music industry, Metallica and Dr. Dre have moved against Napster and MP3.com.
There is simply no justification for a band to go after hundreds of thousands of its own fans, mostly kids, for the purpose of intimidation. Said Metallica's attorney Howard King: "I don't know if it's going to put a chill on the user end, but it certainly is going to show other artists what they can to do get their work out of Napster."
Metallica and King both ought to know that the action will certainly "put a chill on the user end," to put it mildly. This issue is no longer about money and copyright.
Metallica is invading its fans' privacy, challenging the ability of others to move freely and privately about the Net and the Web -- perhaps the hallmark social, creative and educational feature of the Internet. The band's action will not improve the life or work of a single artist. It will advance the interests of the greedy and invasive corporatists moving aggressively to turn the Net into the cultural and commercial equivalent of a Disney theme park.
Artists have the right to fight for their interests. But Metallica's move against hundreds of thousands of music lovers is outrageous. It needs to be fought tooth and nail.
Step One: Let's Shut Down Metallica's attacks on computer users, not Napster. Stop buying the band's music. Urge everyone you know to do likewise until Metallica calls off its legal Rottweillers, leaves kids downloading music alone, and agrees to slug the issue out in court and other venues where it belongs.
;)
Some of us have been doing it since that stupidass Black Album :).
The Second Amendment Sisters
Finding God in a Dog
Once again Jon Katz has delivered a 5k rhetoric that he is unwilling to back up.
Once and for all, Jon: if you are for freedom and privacy, let me post the text of every book you've written to the web and allow it to be viewed and downloaded.
If you are unwilling to do this, you have no right to vilify Metallica for trying to protect what is rightfully theirs.
love,
br4dh4x0r
http://www.dimensionmusic.com/news/news.php?id=253 6
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Napster said that they would block any user pirating MP3s on their system. They just needed a list. So this is what Metallica did. Stealing MP3s is illegal. Get over it. If you want to do it fine, but don't whine when you get caught or Napster blocks you. If CDs cost too much, don't buy them. Eventually the market will evolve where they are cheaper. But the bottom line is that it is theft, plain and simple. Argue it any way you want but it is still theft. It's their music to sell as they want for however much they want. That is a free market. If it costs too much buy someone elses music that is cheaper.
Yesterdays is also on this subject matter, and is just as funny.
"Never let your schooling interfere with your education" -Samuel Clemens
Sorry, but this just isn't the case. Lawyers are not going to be unleashed. They are just going to ask Napster to ban the users, as Napster has in the past stated they would. There's a difference between unleashing lawyers on people and tryiing to have them blocked from a service. Sorry, katz, get the story straight next time. As for a punitive assault on freedom, since when has it been an assault on freedom to take someone to task for doing something illegal? Don't for a moment think there's anything legal about using Napster to download or host Metallica mp3s (the few users who already own the music aside).
The lawyers would have obtained the addresses of people _exporting_ metallica tracks, not those attempting to download. Downloads they would not have been able to track. But making known copyrighted material available for public download is definitely illegal according to current copyright law (not that the law is practical or enforcable, but thats a separate issue).
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
1) This is such an excellent point I'd pay $5 to be able to moderate it up a point.
.sig link for details)
2) Even if we can't post the text of every book with Katz's name on it, can we at least post the text of the book WE wrote? (follow
--
Have Exchange users? Want to run Linux? Can't afford OpenMail?
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
I heard Metallica was going on tour soon sponsored by Napster. Anyone confirm?
--Josh
"If it is broken, fix it. If it is fixed, improve upon it. This becomes one helluva cycle."
magic
Fnuuy, I misread
But Metallica has legitimized a wholesale invastion of privacy
as
But Metallica has legitimized a wholesale invastion of piracy
The cake is a pie
Jon, do you just not get it? This has nothing to do about the freedom to pursue cultural identity, or any other such crap. It's about breaking the law. Granted, you may not like the law. I don't like the law. I do know that if I break the law, there may be 'consequences and repercussions' to those actions. Deal with it.
:)
You don't like current laws? Work to change them. This isn't working to change them. This is much more like preaching to the choir.
You don't like current music distribution mechanisms? Work on changing that, too. I will warn you that encouraging people to steal from artists isn't the best way to convince those artists to part with the fat cats of the recording industry. They may only get 50 cents per disc, but when someone downloads music via Napster, Gnutella, etc. the artist gets squat.
And another thing: How is monitoring someone's network use invasion of privacy? I didn't realize there was any such thing as personal privacy when one is in public. Believe me, the internet/WWW is most certainly public. It's not like they sent the feds into someone's house and took a small boy at gunpoint... oh, wait. That's another thread! Anyway, when you have a central server like Napster, you have to assume that any traffic across it is open to scanning.
Now get off your high horse, quit whining about persecution of criminals and do something useful with your time (like buying off a few sympathetic Congressmen
Eric
This is going to be the most painless Boycott in history. I mean, it's not like I'm going to ever buy a Metallica CD anyway when I can just download it from Napster.
Down with Music! Power to the people!
First, last night I was witness to that Metallica chat. It was horrid. I am not a fan of Metallica at all, but the guys in that band are so egotistical that it made me wanna puke. If one of my favorite bands ever acted that way, I would crush thier CDs to bits in a matter of seconds. But, I digress...
We have Linux Demo Days when MS releases their latest wares. So why don't we have a GNUtella demo day? I personally can't think of a better place to hold this event than out in the parking lot when Metallica comes to YOUR town this summer.
Last night with their online chat Metallica did a lot of side stepping and almost backtracking as they really didn't fare well with their Q and A. The chat ended before anyone realized and without even a goodbye from the moderator or the band. Ironically the band admited that bootlegging actually helped their career in the beginning but this "was different." I don't think people argue the fact that an artist shouldn't make money from their work. Its just the fact the fans who choose to support their bands will buy the cds, posters, t-shirts, etc.
Look, metalica tried to do this nicely. Nobody paid any attention..
Napster said "identify the users involved in piracy and we'll block them" So metalica hired someone to.
People have made lots of comments that "Napster" and MP3 technology aren't to blame.. The users that pirate the music are.. I agree. I feel no remorse for all those who got caught giving something for "Free" that is copyrighted (I'd like to sell a lot of things I don't own). They're going after those giving it away, not those who have for personal use which I think is fair.
Its amazing the number of people with metalica MP3s.. If each had 3 songs thats almost 1 million bootleg copies.. I think the point is clear. If you argue that 1/3 wouldn't have them because if they wern't free they wouldn't buy them, thats still a lot of albums no sold.
Slashdotters who are on the forefront of technology should relize that information has value and its up the person who creates that information what is done with it.
Actually, as a side question... if I own metalica on vinyl (I guess that dates me) do I have the legally download mp3s of the band?
Jon,
I am usually one of the people that supports your opinions for the most part. There have been a few times (regarding religion) where I disagree and this is one of them.
I am all for anonimity on the internet but lately I have been struggling with people who claim anonimity as the cure all and anything otherwise is an invasion of privacy. I am truly tired of people not taking responsibility for thier own actions. I understand that most of these people on napster are high school kids or college students but enough is enough.
I use napster. All the time. I want to hear an album before i buy it. I want to know if all the songs are what I want to hear or just one good song. Eight times out of ten I buy the album if I like it enough. I have no problem paying for stuff. Not if it's worth it. But there are people who have completely stopped buying cds and are flocking in droves to napster to download album after album with no concern for the artists welfare. I used to be one of those people. To some extent I am. Maybe it's because I'm getting older but some things are just wrong. Mp3's in and of themselves are not illegal ( despite what the RIAA says ) but copyrighted music being distributed via mp3 without the sanction of the artist IS. There is no way around this. Whatever you think about copyright laws, it is just plain illegal.
Stop trying to get something for nothing. Grow up and take some fucking responsibility for your actions. When i was a child i spake as a child and all that.
And for those of you thinking I'm trying to make a point about opensourse software with that last comment about something for nothing you can blow it up your ass. I'm a rabid opensource advocate but this is something completely different. Don't read more into it. Flames and comments welcome.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
>There is no reason to go after some of the Net's >most vulnerable users -- kids --
Oh won't somebody think of the children!!
"consumers who have no idea their online movements are being tracked, and who certainly have the right to pursue individual cultural interests without worring that they're being watched. "
What? The law doesn't only apply when your being watched. Even if no one was watching that doesn't justify breaking copyright law. Katz, your a loon, and your condoning theft.
I don't want Napster to go away, so if blocking people who use it for illegal activity solves the problem, then so be it. Leaving it as the status quo is bound to make the gov. pass some sort of law that makes software like Napster illegal all together. For heaven sakes, you act as if their throwing everyone in prison. Find a real cause.
Going after users who appear to be offering Metallica MP3s that they might have a legal right to have isn't diplomatic. In fact, it's also very stupid, as the vast majority of Metallica fans aren't law-abiding citizens deeply concerned about the protection of intellectual property - at least, none of the ones I happen to know. But it is a legal action to take against people who are possibly violating the law.
Personally, I'm not going to buy anything at all connected to Metallica after this, and I urge everyone else to do the same thing. Just please don't get all indignant and righteous about your actions.
Marissa
I'm not really an elf, I just play one in AD&D.
The ability to trade audio files that are in the public domain. The problem is that less than one percent of the files available at any given time on Napster fall into this category.
And honestly, do you think the kid that wrote the software was thinking "Wow! I can trade John Philip Sousa songs with my friends!" when he started it? I kind of doubt it.
love,
br4dh4x0r
Metallica is perfectly right with this action.
Napster is very public by nature. You take a list of your files and publish it on the net and offer the files for download. Nothing different from putting up a html page with mp3s and not private at all. Those 'kids' got caught in public while illegaly copying (read stealing) their music.
The announcement sent shock waves through the online music community. - Jon
The massive number of individual names to be unloaded on Napster's front door could send shock waves through the online music community. - C|Net
"Yesterday, the band's attorney said his firm will deliver close to 60,000 pages of documents to Napster today, asking that the site block all the indidividuals named from its service." - Jon
"The band's attorneys will deliver close to 60,000 pages of documents to the small software company Wednesday afternoon, asking that Napster block all of those individuals from the service." - C|Net
There's also several references to the "chilling effect", paraphrasing the C|Net article. Jon, are you trying to get yourself and slashdot sued?
What's worse, why is slashdot interviewing Metallica? I mean, it would be like Linus asking Bill Gates to take a look at his kernel. Do you really want to stir up a hornet's nest? I see no productive conversation emerging from the interview and it will likely duplicate the answers given on last night's Metallica chat from Artist Direct.
but I've always thought that Metallica sucked, and the
recent events only reinforced my belief.
Needless to say, I don't have to worry about
getting caught downloading any of their garbage.
Amazing magic tricks
Much like a lot of people on this forum, I do not like what Metallica is doing. They are about the biggest moneymaker out there right now, and cracking down on Napster makes them pretty cheap. But you must admit...
Anyone who goes online believing their privacy intact is fooling themself. The same that goes for corporate email goes for online activity in general. If it is not meticulously guarded with strong encryption, there is no reasonable guarantee of security.
Moreover, Napster is a community, and in order to be one, it's doors must be opened, and yes, to this sort of snooping too as a side effect. You cannot have it both ways. Metallica (I doubt strongly they thought of it) has brilliantly exploited this in order to make their case, something that you must grudgingly respect. You can hate them, but the community has been busted by "the man" for their free ride, and they can be angry about it, but so it goes.
-L
A leagal loop hole you could parallel park a school bus in...
-Earthman
Earthman
Say it to me face w/ out wasting space...
Well, as I think about it, we see class-action suits all the time these days. Might this be the first case of a reverse-class-action suit? I can't say I agree about the invasion of privacy, however, since this is publicly published information. Yes, some of these people are children. Their parents are responsible. If they are using Napster to download music, their parents have the duty to make sure they do so responsibly, and must take responsibility for its misuse by their children. Napster has certain responsibilities about PROVIDING information when it comes to children. I feel Metallica's lawyers have simply accessed information that the children and their parents didn't block, and that Napster served up freely.
That said, the USE of this information is a much greater concern of mine. I don't mind data being collected, and in this society, there's little we will likely ever be able to do about it. Unfortunately, I *DO* mind that data being used to abuse, harrass (as in spam, targeted marketing, etc.), or prosecute me. I wonder though, how much of this is Metallica, the band, and how much is Metallica, the managers, agents, lawyers, whatever. I'm looking forward to the upcoming interview.
These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
You are calling for Metallica to be boycotted or punished for defending their copyright???
Apparently, Katz is advocating theft. I bet he would change his tune, if his work was stolen on a grand scale, such as this.
350K people stealing metallica's music in a weekend... It sure sounds like they are lame and irrelevant to me.
This was sarcasm for those that are sarcastically impaired.
What exactly does Napster contribute to the world? I mean, it's not like they're up for a nobel peace prize or are designing a cure for cancer or anything...
This is obviously a direct attack on Napster itself. 60,000 pages containing 300,000+ userids that Napster is required to deal with. Napster has claimed that they will deactivate any user accounts which are commiting copyright infringement. Metallica's lawyers are putting Napster to the test, and probably hoping that other bands will do the same. Imagine if 500+ bands submitted huge lists of users who are illegally trading MP3s. I think they are hoping that it will cost Napster so much money that they will abandon the whole thing.
-
Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems a little weird. Technology as it exists has pretty much obsoleted the music distribution industry. John thinks this is good. Technology as it exists does not alow one to travel anonymously on the internet. John thinks this is bad. John thinks the music industry should just accept this change without fighting, because it is a reality. However another reality is that your anonymity is in no way protected when you use the internet. In the same way that the music industry is taking a head-in-the-sand look at mp3s and their inevitable effect on the music distribution industry, John is saying 'no, no, though you could find out someone's ip address, you shouldn't cause thats bad'. I don't get the logic. Freedom is freedom. If you can pirate music, I can damn well look and see who you are.
-Spazimodo
Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
Millennium Crisis Line: 0890 900 2000 [calls cost 50p/min]
They agreed to an interview? on /.? ok, so they're either genuinely concerned about ip issues and want some input/discussion, or are stupidly walking right into a giant flame pit.
So im guessing most of the 1 point questions will be , and moderated up questions will be some form of, "Hi. Are you guys evil, or just stupid?", plus the interspearsed pleas to stop the insanity. what else is there to ask?
wisconsin does not exist.
I mean, we have a band here fighting its hardest to get 335,000 users band from Napster for illegally distributing mp3s. This piracy of Metallica's intellectual property hurts Metallica because they lose money on it (supposedly), and this is why they're getting these users banned.
Now, Katz wants us all to boycott Metallica music. If we do that, Metallica will be sure to lose money.
But doesn't that just give Metallica PROOF that they're losing money because of MP3s... "Your honor, we have here record sales from the pre-Napster era. And we have record sales from around the time we discovered 335,000 people distributing our songs. As you can clearly see, the record sales have gone down, indicating that the illegal distribution of MP3s does hurt profits..."
I don't know about you, but this may seem like a pretty stupid plan of Katz's.....
==
==
I don't know exactly what that means, but I'm sure it means something....
Is it just me, or is /. becoming a place where intelligent conversation is becoming a long forgotten ritual? It seems everyone now is just putting in "First Post" or a bunch of worthless garbage.
When will people grow up??????
If Microsoft was never created, who would we have to hate?
Marissa
I'm not really an elf, I just play one in AD&D.
What's sad is that you think you have a RIGHT to privacy on the Internet. As soon as your signal has left your house (via Napster, FTP, whatever) you have just waived that right and they are FREE to anything they want to that data stream including monitor. Don't whine if you get caught pirating music in a PUBLIC forum (or medium in this case). Even if Napster provides the forum, you're still responsible for your own actions. Little kids don't understand this, but their parents will definately be interested in the legal documents. Besides, what do you care if Metallica buries themselves? You weren't supporting them anyway...
..is a fairly ridiculous method of baiting people into not investigating the situation, but rather taking the arguments at face value and fighting against Metallica "for the kids."
This has absolutely nothing to do with children whatsoever.. it could be an 80-year old man in Des Moines (rawk!), or a 13-year old girl in Japan, but the illegality of what they're doing doesn't change. "Kids" just makes better copy.
Sure, the law itself isn't great, and there are certainly improvements to be made to the copyright and trademark systems, but that doesn't make Metallica any less wrong for what they're doing. They're protecting their intellectual property, which is very much the law.
I'm sure many of us wish that Metallica, Dr. Dre, and other artists would accept digital music trading as another form of audience building, but rather they're taking it as a bunch of "kids" trying to rip them off. Bleh.
Katz, quit grandstanding and rabble-rousing. Throwing gas on the flames of an argument tends not to be the best method of putting it out...
-s
---- noi non potemo aver perfetta vita senza amici -- Dante
I'm sure this comment will be repeated many times here today but I don't care.
I just started using napster a few weeks ago. I've primarily used it to try out new bands and new songs from bands I already like, and download old music that I used to have and wish I hadn't lost/sold to used cd shops/had stolen from me during college. Some songs I've downloaded even though I already own legitimate copies - I just want to be able to listen to the songs on my computert at work and not have to lug my cds in.
After this kind of blanket attack by metallica, without them even trying to find out if music downloads could help them in any way (which I'm sure it could - I've bought 10 cds to date because of the mp3s I've loaded - AND I can even burn my mp3s onto CD. But the sound quality just isn't there after compression/decompression of the files...) I don't even feel like listening to their music anymore. I got a few metallica songs off napster, BUT I ALREADY OWNED and HAD PAID FULL PRICE for ALL of them.
This is the type of situation which makes me wish that real worls karma was reliable, predictable, and immediate enough for me to see the effects soon! Fuck off, Metallica!
My question on the whole mess... how do they know that they downloaded this information? Wouldn't they have to sit and watch the systems to see what's moving in and out? Does this constitute a wire tap which, last I checked, requires a court order? So they happen to have the file available in Napster. What if they own the album in question? They have a right to make a copy of it for there own purposes and then give it to others if they also have the album.
Did the lawyers go to each of these people and say "Excuse me. We checked your computer and you have the songs One, Master of Puppets and Leper Messiah. Do you own these albums and have proof that you paid for them?" I own a decent CD collection and have no proof that I actually paid for them so with this logic I could be arrested for shoplifting or robbery because I can't prove where it came from.
Metallica used to be really lenient about their fans making bootlegs of their music and such. I'm wondering what happened to those times. Probaly realized just how much they were loosing in terms of money. Now by this act they are going to loose even more as they make their fans mad. They have a right to protect their work but this is ridiculous. I'm not spending any more money on them that for sure.
Yes, they have a right to protect their interests. That is NOT the issue, the issue is HOW they are protecting them.
What's next, you start tracking the movements of someone "suspected" of stealing (without any proof) an artists music ? You "follow" them around online (what I would call the equivalent of cyber stalking) for the sole purpose of harassment at a later date.
I would have thought that what they did was a violation of those people online rights. Is it legal to track someones downloads of mp3's ? What about the religeous right wing people tracking people who get abortion information, or birth control information ? What if a the KKK used this to track people who support anything that they hate ? What if the anti-semites used it to track jews online so that they could harass them later ?
If this starts happening, more and more ISP's are going to stop logging who is on what and they will just delete all log files after 24 hours (just to avoid any possibility of lawsuits - no info, they can't be forced to supply it).
UPS Sucks
"BLOCK THOSE PEOPLE" It sounds like some technically impaired lawyers think that napster can stop people from using their servers. yeah right. only some people, mostly on college campuses or those with cable modems, have static IP addresses. other than that, blocking IP's is out. block their account? it would take someone 5 seconds to sign up with a new account. even with static IP addresses... I'm at Penn State now, and will be gone for the summer in a few days. When I return in the fall, i will have a different IP assigned. blocking entire domains is a possibility, but not likely.
This has always been an article of faith in the Free Software community as I know it. Larry Wall didn't like the GPL, so he created the Artistic License. Was he wrong? Maybe, but it was his right to choose how his handiwork was distributed.
Even if you hate what giant corporations do to music and culture, trading MP3s of copyrighted material violates an implicit agreement that the artists thought they had with their fans. Personally, whether it is illegal or legal is irrelevant to me. There's someone out there who has made choices in their life, maybe foregoing other means of employment because they thought music was a steady source of revenue for them. (Yeah, I know Metallica are probably millionaires -- but so what? Hardly anyone in the music biz reaches that level of success.)
That said, I am all in favor of Napster and Gnutella and FreeNet, for privacy reasons and because I think it will be better for our culture if we have a non-corporate channel for music. However, I am willing to wait for a new generation of artists who embrace this technology wholeheartedly.
Giving away one's work sans copyright is a revolutionary act. Trading copyrighted music is NOT a revolutionary act. It's just selfishness.
Well, good, they should! I see far too many people comporting themselves in a way that they may regret later. Does anyone use Usenet? Ever checked your posting history in Deja? Unless you set your x-noarchive header, everything you've said in a newsgroup is available. I envision data-mining companies forming profile databases just based on usenet posts alone, nevermind all the public messageboards that track your IPs.
It's targets include many younger children and younger consumers who have no idea their online movements are being tracked, and who certainly have the right to pursue individual cultural interests without worring that they're being watched
Ignorance is NO EXCUSE. And I'm sorry, in a perfect world everyone would have the right to do web stuff anonymously, but this just isn't the case. You have to watch your own ass. *snickers* "individual cultural interests", that's rich. "Mom, I'm gonna go steal some CDs from Tower Records, so I can induldge my cultural interests in the latest album, 's ok with you?"
As for whether Metallica has the right to persue users: sure they do! I mean, sure, it's a stupid PR move, but there's nothing patently wrong with persuing people who are ripping you off. They could certainly handle the situation in a more positive way, but that's their choice. To call it an "assault on freedom" is absurd. "Wahhh! I can't distribute pirated music anymore! Metallica is SO MEAN!"
Anyone who has used Napster and has a Metallica mp3 may be on the list.
There is a "bug" in the Windows Napster client which causes files outside of the specified in and out directories to be shared.
I store my mp3's in:
C:\archive\mp3\{genre}
Napster is configured to use:
C:\archive\mp3\2move
for the incoming and outgoing directories.
The problem is that Napster shares my entire c:\archive\mp3 tree. I know this because I regularily see people downloading mp3's outside of my c:\archive\mp3\2move directory.
I have 1 Metallica mp3. I own the CD the song is on and I haven't shared the song. However, because of a Napster bug, I may be in the lawsuit. My advice is to rename ANY Metallica mp3 you have whether you rightly own the CD or not.
lysdexic
"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."
lysdexic
"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a t
No, creating the MP3 is illegal. Trading it is an issue after the fact.
f CDs cost too much, don't buy them. Eventually the market will evolve where they are cheaper.
This is ridiculous - why haven't CD prices dropped in the last ten years? Its innovations like Napster that force the price down! Do you think prices drop on their own? They drop in response to a changing market. Napster changes the market.
hat is a free market. If it costs too much buy someone elses music that is cheaper.
When did Metallica CDs cost more or less than others??? This is the whole idea - there is no free market for music. The prices for new CDs are essentially fixed. Where is your free makret???
The good news is this:
Mettalica is part of the old world of popular music, in which teenage kids worship rock stars because they are marketed to them as being larger than life. Though Mettalica continues to exist, they will see their emphasis on the minds of the masses wane as MP3 (or the next generation of multimedia compressed file format) turns the traditional recording industry on it's ear.
The beauty of MP3 is not that it allows people to bootleg and distribute copyrighted material. The beauty is MP3 is now making music available that would otherwise never be heard. Real musical art has found it's greatest medium... the internet.
So quit downloading those illegal Brittney Spears M3s. Forget bootlegging Mettalica's precious recordings. Those artists were created for mass consumption. Find those MP3s created by all those garage bands around the world. Sure. Some of it may suck, but there is some good music out there... and it's free.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
How many people have actually bought a metallica album since the black album anyway? It won't be hard for me to resist the temptation
Oh, and those who missed the chat last night, Metallica said that they delivered the names to napster because napster dared them to prove that people were trading illegal mp3's on their system. They also blamed napster for bringing fans into this issue when it should be between napster and Metallica.
Since napster isn't actually providing any content, the only way they could be held responsible for user activity is if it was determined that they have a responsibility to make sure that no illegal content is traded on their system. But if that were the case, wouldn't ISP's have to monitor customers email attatchments, IRC transfers, ftp servers, etc?
Let me explain it for you really, really simply, Jon.
First, Metallica finds out about napster. "No, our music is being stolen!" they cry. Then, they contact napster and say: "Stop letting people steal our music", Napster then replies, with an angelic look on their faces: "Sorry, but we don't distribute your music, we can't control what our users do", so Metallica responds by saying "Ban everyone who trades our music", and Napster replies, " But we have no way of tracking them"...
So Metallica had to prove that they did. Don't be a fool, Mr. Katz. Every Metallica fan was breaking the law as soon as they started distributing music that didn't belong to them. I don't like what Metallica did, but I can't condemn it, if you're going to take away others rights, you'd damn well better be ready for your rights to be violated. Besides, what Metallica did wasn't even illegal. It was napster itself that allowed the invasion of privacy, Metallica simply took advantage of it.
Let me just say that I do not like Metallica's music anymore, and I don't really like their stand on Napster, though after the latest interview, I do have a better feeling of what they are trying to do. Their biggest problem is that they're unrealistic, with FreeNet and Gnutella just around the corner, napster is just going to be a martyr, and it's going to cost Metallica bad publicity. Especially on sites like this one.
How would you people feel if Napster had started selling it's software, and used something that was GPLed? That would suck, wouldn't it?
Well... all they would be doing is breaking copywrite laws.
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
Subject line with apologies to the disclaimer on Ixnay on the Hombre
Question. What is the difference between me stealing a car and stealing an mp3 (piece of work that someone sweated to make and wants to make money off of)... Answer... If the cops hunt me down for the car I go to jail. If someone tracks me down for the mp3, hundreds of ill infomed anarchists come to my defence and say how wrong it is.
Why is it not ok for someone to defend their right to copyright something in the manner of their choosing? None of us complain when someone goes to the wall and screams lawyers in cases of GPL violation. Even though these are often unintentional! But let someone try and protect something that we want for free, and it's battle stations.
Lose the dual standards. Never has my sig been more valid!
This one I just didn't get.
I mean, if they were going after people who were using Napster to download mp3s of their stuff, that would be more open to question. Some people who already own the CDs may want to do that to for various reasons (perhaps to save the effort of ripping themselves). But this is talking about going after people who were _distributing_ mp3s. That's a whole different kettle of fish. If you're serving non-PD mp3s to anyone who asks via Napster, you're a pirate and should be prepared to deal with the consequences. That's all there is to it.
And what's all this "For the sake of the children!" stuff? Honestly. I'd expect that from a politician looking for cheap publicity, but here? Gah.
Mat.
This is the beginning of a revolution.
-idealego
I hate every song from Metallica that I've ever heard, but the fact that Metallica is doing this to Napster makes me want to d/l every Metallica song I can find. Just to be a badass....or something like that.
>They may only get 50 cents per disc, but when
>someone downloads music via Napster, Gnutella,
>etc. the artist gets squat.
... Because I just bought The Mighty Mighty Bosstones new CD, "Pay Attention" last night, on the first day of it's release.
But I had downloaded many of the songs that appear on Pay Attention via Napster weeks ago. Those MP3s just made me that much more anxious to get the actual CD and hear the songs at full quality, AND hear the songs I coundn't find an MP3 for.
So tell me, Mister Copyright Guru....
If, by virtue of my having downloaded the MP3s ahead of time, "the artist gets squat", just where does the Bosstone's royalty money from my CD purchase go? If "the artist gets squat" where does the money I'll pay for admission next time I see them live go? If "the artist gets squat" where does the money I'll pay for a T-shirt at the show go?
Obviously, none of that money goes to the Bosstones, because, as you say, when you download MP3s, "the artist gets squat".
So just where DOES the money go?
I'm waiting.
john
Imagine all the people...
This all doesn't make any sense. Why would a band like Metallica that makes millions of dollars a year even care about royalties when they know that they aren't losing any money and people are still buying their albums. It would make more sense for a smaller band that depends on royalties to care about such a thing.
What I mean to say is...Is it possible that the record company put Metallica up to this? Did they target Metallica because of their big name? It just doesn't make any sense. As far as I know...Metallica has always done their best to please their fans. I've never heard a bad Metallica record or have seen a bad show.
That's what this is all about. F*ck metallica. They are digging their own grave. I will personally make available every single metallica mp3 I have to gnutella (sorry napster I like it better) and on my ftp. They are beyond rich, and yet they cry like little pussies that they are losing money. Less people are getting wealthy and MORE people are getting poor. It because of ideals of people like metallica that all these rich mofo's think they can own us. Screw buying overpriced cds from these companies and groups anymore. I have gnutella, DSL, a huge HD, and a burner. Never will I pay 15+ (getting closer to $20 a pop usually) bucks for a cd again!
But then again, the record industry isn't going to just go poor and pop off the face of the earth. CD's only cost like $.50 to make, yet they cost $16.95. From the figures i've heard...bands get very little of this. probably like $2-$3 per cd. I imagine a powerhouse like metallica can get way more.
how are they finding the people? isn't there a privacy policy on napster?
easiest way if you are served with a notice...go buy the albums. if you have the music recorded any where you have to have the album...this would be cheeper than getting sued...cuz its like software and you have to have a license.
to metallica...what the hell happend to you guys...you used to be so hard core. and just when i thought...hey these guys are getting back to the fundimentals (S&M was cool) you do this. you are making people hate you. i didn't buy concert tickets just cuz of this.
kirk hammet was on tv and he was talking about a bet that he made saying if they sold over 10 million albums, that he would give his porche to the producer(?). Come on...lay off the money dudes. Everyone loved you so much...at least i did...and now i'm not sure what to say.
JediLuke
JediLuke
-Do or Do Not, There is no Try
Which way do you want it, Katz? Either what Metallica is doing is right (going after the people who have violated the license on their intellectual property) or Napster itself should be held liable. Intellectual property rights are being violated, so someone must be doing the violating.
So either it's the fault of the people sharing the copyright material without permission (ie the 300k people that Metallica is trying to block from Napster) or it's the fault of Napster itself. Napster provides the technological framework for sharing of MP3s both legal and otherwise. They don't watch for legality at all. I say, then, that the people trading MP3s are the ones who are committing the crime. Are they hurting anyone? I don't think so--the number of CD sales lost are, IMO, miniscule. But until either the laws change to allow no-charge trading of IP between private parties or the record companies (who own the IP) decide to change the licensing terms, that's a moot point.
Napster has nothing to do with freedom. Thats a bunch of bunk to say metallica is going after innocent 'kids'. Stealing is stealing, EVEN IF its on the internet, and napster is a breeding ground for pirating. Down with napster!
Im not sure if this has been suggested yet but...What if every napster user took one legal mp3 file and renamed it as a Metallica mp3... That way EVERYONE would appear to be trading Metallica files, and the lawyers would have to download and verify every since mp3...Just a thought...
I bet the band in question hasnt had this much publicity since..well ever.Yes i did used to be a fan,14 years ago,but do i care now?no, bfd,I hope the nabster users are banned for wasting bandwidth on this crap. ear ache my eye!
Second, I think we need to turn the majority of our focus to this interview with Metallica. We need to compose thoughtfull, and point-making questions. Our intentions should not be to make Metallica out to be some evil hypocritical band, but to show them that not only are their fans against these actions, but that such actions are totally destroying a digital goldmine that they can take full advantage of.
So I would like to urge everyone to think about some questions to ask Metallica. This is a rare opportunity for our community to be heard. We need intelligent questions to be posted. Don't hold anything back, but don't troll.
In fact, do what I'm doing right now. Put together some questions ahead of time. That way you can post them right in.
Equally, if not more importantly, we need INTELLIGENT MODERATION! Those who will be blessed with moderation points, I urge you to use them more wisely than ever! You are the ones who will ensure that those questions reflecting our community most are asked. YOU ARE THE KEY!
Lastly, we need to thank Metallica. Although, their recent legal actions have hurt our feelings. We need to remember that they are volunteering their time to listen to their fans. They're participating in online discussions, and subjecting themselves to a slashdot interview.
Why didn't Metallica go after all the fans that trade tapes, record bootlegs, etc. when those technologies were the current thing? Because it wasn't easy to trace. Why is this any different for their bottom line? It isn't, really. BOYCOTT 'EM!
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
There is nothing inherently illegal about MP3's, or copying them, or even sharing them - but you can't say that downloading music you haven't paid for is any more correct or moral than taping a CD borrowed from a friend. Most everybody does it, but it's not right, fair to the artist, or legal.
Most of the efforts to stop MP3 as a format have been analogous to the blank tape tax we suffer here in America. This is different. Metallica and Dre have suffered real (but hard to quantify) financial harm by the actions of these users. My only problem with Metallica's action is that many of these Napster users may have only made the files accessible - it is likely that nobody downloaded Metallica songs from them.
-- Jeff Paulsen
I usually read Jon's arcticles and smile to myself, but these two most recent articles really irk me.
Jon continues to refer to the concept of "free" music. The fact of the matter is that this music is not free. It is in fact the property of a group of individuals. These individuals are asserting their right to not have their property distributed, and they are well within their right to do so.
Furthermore, his version of privacy leaves a lot to be desired. Individuals connected to Napster are no more private than a person standing in a crowd of people watching a live band. Like the band analogy, people may not know each others real name, but they are certainly not in a private place. In my opinion blocking users (as opposed to seeking legal action against them, which would be close to impossible) is a reasonable action, and does not seem to violate anyone's privacy.
I don't know Jon, would you be this critical of a software company going after a service that made pirated copies of their property "free" on the internet? I didn't think so.
Metallica,
Please compile a list of people who have made mix tapes with your songs on it and we can drastically increase the number of kids we can sue.
Thnx,
Howard King
Even if Napster does ban users that pirate mp3s, it should be Metallicas job to PROVE it. If they can say that all 330,000+ users do in fact not own the CDs, fine ban them. However we are running into a very slippery slope if Napster agrees to ban anyone who simply downloaded a song.
If this precident is set now, then it will be very soon until virtually every IP will be banned. Until it is shown that someone does not own the CD, the IP should not be banned.
The beauty here is that it will be close to impossible to prove anything, but that's the type of culture we live in, if you can't prove guilt, or in this case a proponderance of the evidence, actions should not be taken.
In Metallica's defense, they *were* only doing what Napster said - provide them the names of pirates, who will be removed from the system. Besides that, if you post information to a public system, even under an alias, I can't see how you could call searching the public system invasion of "privacy" - the shares are up for *everyone* to see! I don't think anybody made any promises that using an alias on the Internet somehow guarantees privacy.
Unless, of course, Metallica's violated the anti-reverse-engineering clause of the DMCA.. :)
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
Reality check...
:)
- For Metallica: You're old and lame and haven't had a good album in a long time. Who really cares about metallica's new stuff? I know I don't. Those people probably just downloaded those files in queue with toni braxton mp3's just to have them sitting around on a cd somewhere and say to their friend, "hey, I got the new metallica cd on mp3". Who will then say, "oh, ahh, cool, let's go play quake"
<br>
- For napster users: Don't get me wrong, I love napster, I use it every day and if napster goes down in flames I'm ready to help anybody make an alternative. Which _will_ happen if something happens to napster, since the server is open source already. We can just change the port and all of you sysadmins at colleges will be screwed. Or maybe we should have it select a random unused port every time. Then how will napster be blocked? We need to make the client act as a server, so we have an akamai effect and they can't be blocked. But back to my point...
<br>
- For napster users: You knew the first time you installed napster and made all your mp3's publicly available for all to see and downlad that something was a little fishy. But you did it anyway because napster works so great!
<br>
- For legislators, lawmakers, and other guys with guns and billy clubs: It's too late. The cat is out of the bag. Sure you own the phone lines, but who knows how to keep them running? We do. The ball is rolling and we are never going to give up our new freedoms. Just like Tyler durden said, we make your food, we fix your brakes, we write your lame word processors, <b>Don't fuck with us.</b>
<br>
...these opinions are not those of my employer....
<br>
___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux
hyperpoem.net
Can anyone shed some light on how NetPD did this fingering thing and obtained 350000 usernames/addresses? If they have at some point scanned the network for which I am the abuse admin, then I will file quite a few abuse complaints :). So can anyone shed a light on this?
--
Full Time Idiot and Miserable Sod
Full Time Idiot and Miserable Sod
Nothing is real but the pain
Metallica is right. These users are are pirating music, which is not only illegal, but it is also wrong. They have never paid for those songs.
As for you, Jon - I'm not sure whether this so-called "article" was "written" because you genuinely feel that this is an important issue and that the sequence of events infuriates you, or whether this is just another of your blatant rants of self-promotion. I am willing to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume it is the former.
In fact, the reason I learned how to play guitar was Metallica's "The Four Horsemen" and "Seek And Destroy". I would spend hours upon hours a day practising and honing the art of the Metal Riff. I even went so far as to buy a cassette deck with a quick pause and backtrack so I could hear and reconstruct riffs and phrases in their music. Things got better for them until they released their "Black Album", and then I realised that they were getting weak.
As far as a Metallica boycott goes, I haven't bothered buying any of their new albums, and I doubt I'll ever repurchase any of their old albums. This assault on their fans just confirms my suspicion that they weren't in it for money, but a shitload of money (to paraphrase Spaceballs). Yes, I think that artists should get compensation for their art, but whining that your music is being used as a commodity is baseless. It already was a commodity.
-- Count Spatula: The Culinary Vampire "...because my cooking sucks."
>Real people discuss things as a way to resolve differences
The difference:
People who used Naspter to get Metallica songs: I am going to get your songs for free.
Metallica: Please buy our cds.
Why didn't the Users of Naspter go to Metallica to discuss things first like you suggest "Real people" do? Metallica using lawyers came AFTER their songs were available on Naspter.
>This is just an example of how to abuse people with lawyers
And Metallica feels that this is an example of how people are being abused by technology.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
What's happening is illegal believe it or not.
Let's examine a ficticious scenario here for a second.
You have fame, you have money, you have one small problem. A movie/song/sex video you put blood, sweat and tears into making is being distributed freely to anyone that has the time to get it. What would I do? Hire a sh*tload of people to stop it. DoS, fingering & prosecuting perpetrators, and anything else it takes. I must admit, I love free music, but there is no such thing as a free lunch.
I say again, this is a violation of copyright law, it's being violated, and Metallica is the only group with enough balls to do anything about it. Yes they are being protective, and yes it's their personal right to put an end to stopping copyright infringement. Personally, I don't like Napster, so I really don't care, Gnutella is THE way to go, and it's very difficult to stop or trace!
I don't understand Katz's anger at the violations of privacy that he seems to think Metallica has perpetrated. If you want to use Napster, you are required to create a log-in name and password. If you're required to give them some kind of identification, how can you expect to be anonymous? People who know how the Internet works (even on a very basic level) know that it's a trivial matter to see the IP address of a computer you're connecting to. The people that have been caught have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
I also am upset by Katz's assumption that these are "kids." I suppose that some people may consider us kids, but as a college student I am amazed by the level of music piracy going on here. We have free, fast Internet connections in our dorm rooms, so most student have MTV on their TV, and when they hear a song they like, they turn around, get on Napster, and download it. Now, after criticizing Katz for assuming they're kids, I can't really assume they're college students, but colleges have been banning Napster faster than ISP's.
Katz seems to think that using intimidation is a bad thing. I think Metallica is trying to show people that you can't get the product of their labor and give it away for free. They are trying to show people that there are consequences to stealing property, even if it is intellectual property, and if the lawsuits keep other people from pirating music, then we're all (US citizens) saving money from not having to pay for the court costs in more lawsuits. Personally, I hope Metallica wins. I'd much rather see criminals punished for using Napster as a medium for theft than see the entire medium be banned.
It already appears like Mr. Katz has been corrected, but I just wanted to pipe in as well so that my opinion can be republished in his next book.
To address a couple of points.
Metallica is not sicking lawyers at 335,000 people. They are instead asking Napster to ban these 335,000 people from using the Napster service. This is what Napster has agreed to do. This was their "claim" to legitamize their service, i.e. "We don't endorse pirating, if you see piracy going on let us know."
As far as Napster providing more to the world than Metallica. How can that possibly be true? Napster provides nothing of any value, all they provide is a mechanism for exchanging music. The only content of any value is the pirated works of groups like Metallica which are exchange over Napster.
So in essense without Metallica, Napster would be worthless.
Metallica, Dr. Dre and other bands have a right to protect their work, after all it's their work and not yours.
I think the basic point that Metallica is making is that Napster is in fact a service whose sole purpose is to encourage the distribution of pirated content.
Supposedly Napster is this legitimate service and there are only a few rogue individuals using it for pirating. Or so claims Napster, and so claimed Mr. Katz until today when he began to defend the pirates, who as it turn out are the majority users of Napster.
One of the things which puzzles me is what kind of business plan does Napster have? It's a company, they are providing a service. But how do they anticipate making money off this service? Or even how do they expect to pay for their support costs to provide the service?
I have not used Napster, but I suspect at some point here, they're going to be pushing advertising at you, or something like that. That's where the RIAA get's pissed off, because here's a company whose business plan is to make money off the redistribution of copyrighted works without reimbursing those artists for their work.
MP3 has it's uses in the recording industry. It's an awesome format for what it was intended for... providing samples of music. I love being able to listen to a 30 second segment of a track to realize that it is the kind of music I like, or it's the song I thought of. I've used this a lot on cdnow.com before buying CD's.
I see an unfortunate trend amongst Open Source advocates such as Mr. Katz that they feel it is their right to take advantage of the work of other people.
Witness this latest book by Mr. Katz. What does it contain? Well it contains all of the responses that we have posted to slashdot.org. I don't know if my respones are in there because I'm not stupid enough to buy such a book, but if they were... did I give permission to be republished? Am I getting royalties off the sale of the book?
You do realize that this message is copyrighted?
I would just like to say that you hit the nail on the head Jon. By trying to curb the use of Napster metallica and all other artists who choose to fight against free information (obviously to include music) are corporate slime. They do not realize that free access to information is the way of the present and the future. It is the only possible way for our culture to potentilally unite. And we must unite for a better future. The only thread which holds our society together is our mutual access to information. By limiting this we run the potential of destroying the final thread which holds us together. In order to identify with each other we must have some common ground. This being anything which everyone can access and share. Though all of this may be a bit off topic it is relavent. If we allow small restrictions of knowledge in our online community big restrictions will follow i guarantee it. In closing please help the fight by boycotting Metalica's music do not buy their music. Everything since kill em all sucks anyway.
Napster said that they would block any user pirating MP3s on their system. They just needed a list. So this is what Metallica did. Stealing MP3s is illegal. Get over it. If you want to do it fine, but don't whine when you get caught or Napster blocks you. If CDs cost too much, don't buy them. Eventually the market will evolve where they are cheaper. But the bottom line is that it is theft, plain and simple. Argue it any way you want but it is still theft. It's their music to sell as they want for however much they want. That is a free market. If it costs too much buy someone elses music that is cheaper.
I was at Metallica's chat last night, and this was certainly the impression that they gave. According to them, the list was only to back Napster Inc, into a corner for not following their own Acceptable Usage Policy. The ``list'' was only done to put the legal ball back into Napster's court in an attempt to make them look bad.
They also went on to say that they're using their cult following and status as the Almighty Metallica to help new, upcoming bands continue to profit from the current economic guidelines that rose them to success. They say they're out to protect other bands who don't have the money to defend themselves, and they're out to protect their right to choose the distribution channels of their music.
One of the things that they were constantly slamming home was the fact that they have nothing against the mp3 format as a music medium. They say they are against Napster, Inc, from profiting $$$$$ from Metallica's music instead of Metallica earning the $$$$$ from their music. Napster Inc, according to them, is simply an IPO hungry company of leaches who seek giant profits off of musicians work.
That's what the Almighty Metallica is saying- while I'm a hardcore fan, I'm feeling torn whether to follow the band that has helped me grow stronger throughout my life, or to instead follow my own heart and say that what they're saying is bull#$%*. And, even as a platinum fan club member, I'm leaning towards the ``Metallica- you guys have changed'' feelings of my heart.
And that makes me hurt inside.
All ripping on Metallica aside, what I find very humorous in all this is the comment from the attorney:
"I don't know if it's going to put a chill on the user end, but it certainly is going to show other artists what they can to do get their work out of Napster."
Is that an ad for other musicians or what? Seeing as how he's the attorney also hired by Dr. Dre (more fine music), I think this should be paraphrased as:
"Hey, I don't know anything about the technology here, and this might not have any effect at all, but every musician in the world should hire me."
I dont use Napster,and all of the Metalica cds I own I purchased.But I no intention of ever buying there so called art again .When Metalica comes to the bay area show them silicon valley has a long memory dont go .
Show up at 4th & El Camino Real to show your support! h.
And yes I realize the irony of posting this as AC. Until Katz publishes his book, we don't yet have a list of exactly who's comments were STOLEN. On that day, class action lawsuit baby and free money for registered /. users!!!! Feel the pain Mr. AC only poster!
And what has Napster contributed to the world? What has Metallica contributed?
-hj
I love Metallica's music to a point that many of my friends call insanity. I also love the Internet and believe in all the privacy stuff that is being invaded here. I had been telling my self that all this was their lawyers ideas not the band memebers. It is obvious now that the band itself is taking action in this too. However, I cannot boycott Metallica. And I think there are thousands of others out there like me. People who own every Metallica CD that was ever made and will continue to buy them. This little boycott may stop the Slashdotters from buying the next album but Metallica has millions of loyal fans who dont even know what Napster is and could care less if Metallica sues them.
When are artists going to start stand up to record companies? Granted right now they don't have a better distribution channel but the day will come. The situation is almost like any other industry. In the medical community, doctors have never stood up as a group against HMO abuses, drug company abuses, etc. Engineers have never stood up against corporations that pollute or make otherwise poor products that benefit the company but harm society. Why don't artists stand up against record companies, who charge too much and put out the worst drivel possible?
Limited distribution is possible right now, though. Charge a few bucks for a cd length amount of material. Hell, metallica could do this today! It's not like they need huge amounts of marketing. To me this is the middle ground of the argument. As long as we're living in a capitalist society, money has to change hands somewhere. I have no problem giving a few bucks to artists I listen to, and I don't care if it makes them rich. More power to them if they're that good.
No one in the slashdot community seems to take this stand. It's either the "holier than thou" "how can you steal from artists you pathetic pirate" argument or the "fuck the man" argument. It's almost as polarized as a debate on religion.
Back to my original topic. Why are so few artists really interested in online distribution methods? Well, people are afraid of change, but actually I think its the "ethical" side. My idea of ethics in the topic is not the same as what society usually deems as ethics. If you are a professional (engineer, doctor, etc) the "ethical" way to go about things is to keep your mouth shut. Don't be a rat. This is unfortunate and doesn't really help the cause of humans as a whole. People are afraid they might lose their small gains for the small chance to do good for everyone. This situation is no different. Hearing Lars Ulrich spew out comments like "how dare these napster users commodify our music" when that's exactly the function of record companies to begin with makes me sick. Jon Katz' opinion aside, doesn't anyway really want to protect some freedom? Or creativity? The more things change the more they stay the same is the perfect cliche, I think.
Obviously more time is needed for the technology to mature. The game is not over for either side, the outcome is not determined. The internet is neraly impossible to censor, yes, but never underestimate the power of the record companies OR the government taking donations from them.
Alright this privacy thing went to far with the PIII id but this is jsut ridiculous. Personally I support the mp3 traders even though it is illegal it is not necesserily immoral. We need a change in copyright laws in this county and voting or letter writing isn't going to do it. The big companies control the legislation via donations and the jobs they provide (ever wonder why copyright keeps getting extended b4 mickey mouse enters the public domain?) so civil disobediance is justified. As metallica doesn't have a prima facia right to Y amount of profit it isn't stealing.
However metallica, just like anyone else, is entitled to use information they find on the internet. Come now if we can hack DVDcss then surely they can save the results of a search. This privacy styff is BS...sure if the government legislates awa our anonimity its a big deal but if i am stupid enough to give away my info then its my problem.
Moreover Mr. Katz metallica is pursuing no legal action against those users as stated in various news sources. All they are doing is blocking their napster accounts. While I disagree with the copyright system as it is (direct government payment is better) this hardly constitutes abusive behavoir.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
I think Jon brought up an important point about the need for secure communications. I know that many ISPs, schools, and businesses log network traffic like crazy. Some will watch the actual web pages that you are browsing. Others just log every single packet that goes through their big routers. That's a tremendous amount of information about where people are going and when.
That is why this isn't just a Napster issue. That is why people need to get involved.
--
Ski-U-Mah!
Stop the MPAA
Both Napster users and Metallica are guilty. Napster users for blatant piracy of copyrighted material, and Metallica for being so self-righteously reactive (not necessarily a bad thing). I think that Metallica could have handled this a little bit better, and some of the things said and done is just not well thought out.
The Internet, MP3, Napster - these are things that grew out of people's desires. Does that say that we are a society of criminals? No. Maybe people are just tired of paying so much to all the middle-layer entities taking such big cuts of the money that people were willing to pay their favorite artists, not the record labels and/or distributors and managers and agents and such.
Maybe people are tired of large corporate entities controlling what they can see/hear/consume and how much they are getting charged for it.
Metallica and artists have to remember, it's not about them, it's about us, the people, the fans. Without us, they are absolutely nothing. The problem I have with Lars/Metallica is simply that they have gotten too full of themselves. I believe that they should get paid for their work, after all, work is work and you should get paid for it. But maybe they should watch and listen a little more. If lots of their fans are downloading their music instead of buying their CDs, they should ask themselves, why are they doing that? Do the fans think that our music is not worth shelling out $15-$18/CD? Are our fans a bunch of thiefs? Maybe something else can be done to work with the fans rather against the fans?
No matter what Metallica says, the Napster users who download their music are most likely fans of their music. To take the actions they have taken is definitely fighting against their own fans. I'm not saying what the Napster users are doing is right, I'm just saying it's certainly within Metallica's power to overlook such things and possibly work out a solution that would be more ideal.
This whole fiasco just says to me that Metallica (and Lars specifically) is greedy and egocentric, and not that they are fighting for what's due them.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Metallica has the right, as copyright holder, do do it. It is the correct thing to do in the current model. Naming 300K Napster users is nothing more than a scare tactic; They want to make damn sure their music isn't being traded illegally, so they're going to push every proto-script kiddy offline.
But what I don't understand is Katz calling Metallica boneheaded. If you had sold your life's work into the horribly flawed monopoly model, wouldn't you be fighting for album sales? You can't sell you music online without the record companies permission, and even if you do they insist on the sane 95/5 cut.
Perhaps we should get the actual figures on who makes what from Metallica's albums, and call them on it tomorrow. Say all 300,000 names are downloads of a single song. Thats 25,000 albums. Say Metallica makes a buck off of each album (Who gets the other $16?). They prolly paid the lawyers more than that before even entering court.
Anyone from the recording industry have better figures??
.sig: Now legally binding!
Excuse me? "no justification" for them asking Napster to ban people who are, by the very TERMS of the NAPSTER USER AGREEMENT, *ABUSING* the service by offering copywritten, illegal work for download?
I'm all for alternative distribution mediums, I'm all for *free* music, but only if the artists CHOOSE to distribute their works that way.
Who are YOU to tell an artist which distribution methods they're allowed to use, and how they are allowed to ask for payment?
If you're that upset with the concept of people selling albums, don't listen to their music, end of story. Stealing their music is *NOT* the way to get things to change.
I dislike record companies as much as the next guy, but the fact is, we live in a free market economy where they have the RIGHT to choose who consumes their product and HOW they consume it. As a consumer, you have the RIGHT to choose not to consume their product.
If more artists would simply circumvent the entire record company/record store/radio/TV music video paradigm of distribution, it would collapse. But they have a right to exist if they choose to.
Basically, my question is this. Are you, Jon Katz, a communist?
I myself am fairly left leaning and socialist, but I *also* beleive in a market based economy (not absolutely free, but somewhat free). I don't use communist as some sort of prejorative term, it's an honest question. If that is your actual view, I can respect that.
If on the other hand you're just spouting stuff which you think will stir up conversation which you don't actually beleive in, at least say so. Please be honest when playing the devil's advocate or you're just insulting our intelligence.
I usually lean towards the 'defend Jon' side of things, but you're SO off base here it's not even funny. Having almost ALL the facts wrong *really* erodes the basis of your argument.
Greg
it seems that your main point is that altho sharing music on napster is bad, metallica's invasion of privacy in this case is worse. but however you choose to justify it, downloading music from napster _is_ stealing music. sure, i've heard the arguments that a lot of people end up buying the music they download, but that doesn't change the fact that they stole it in the first place.
but to kind of brush over this and call metallica the real bad guys seems wrong to me. metallica is doing what they can to prevent the theft of their art. the theft of stuff is generally seen as a pretty bad crime in our society, and once you commit this crime you should be willing to put up with the consequences. if you're going to use the 'it's technically illegal, but it's kind of okay' excuse to defend napster, i believe you should extend metallica the same courtesy.
for the record, i have downloaded my share of music from napster, and i personally believe the argument that it does more good than bad in the end. but i am also personally willing to deal with the consequences of my actions. i think that metallica is being pretty bitchy about this whole issue; they're not the most financially strapped band in the world. but i also believe that they are in their right to be bitchy. let's try and be fair about this and consider that an invasion of property ownership might warrant a (relativly slight!) invasion of privacy.
Jon, do you believe that someone has the right to own something? If so, then you cannot condone illegal copying of music on the 'Net, pure and simple.
This music is Metallica's PROPERTY. They own it. This is not open-source music.
Maybe we'll move beyond this idea of personal ownership someday, and I think the free software phenomenon is the very first baby steps, but for now people own things. If you don't like it, get some free music or make your own. That's more in tune with the 'Net and OSS philosophy anyway.
"There is no reason to go after some of the Net's most vulnerable users -- kids -- or to establish a precedent that privacy can be wantonly violated and free Netizens intimidated every time some company, artist, or group is worried about maximizing profits. "
1. they're not violating net privacy. they haven't released the names or IP's of the individuals. They've just asked Napster to ban them from the Napster network for breaking the Napster TOS (thou shalt not break copyright law). They haven't included them (yet) in the lawsuit.
2. there is every reason to go after kids. if kids don't learn that pirating intellectual property is wrong, then they will continue to do it. yes, they should get slapped on the wrist. this is illegal and should remain illegal. and they're lucky they're only getting slapped on the wrist. if they were doing the same thing with software, they'd be getting their asses sued off and both you and I know that.
3. as with everyone else... if you're so for giving away intellectual property, why don't you put all of your books, in their full format, online in the form of free-downloadable pdf's with no encryption on them and allow everyone to download them without money, email addy's, or any guarantees?
4. this is not about maximizing profits. metallica produced an album. there are costs involved in producing the album, marketting the album, and selling the album. making this music IS THEIR JOB. that's how they pay their bills. regardless of how much money they make doing so, it is not our right to say "you've made enough money off of selling these albums, we're just going to rip some mp3's and distribute them since we should be allowed to because you charge us too much for cd's and it should all be free in the name of privacy and free digital transmissions."
5. kids knew they were doing something wrong. they were getting all the music they wanted for free. and if they had a burner, they were creating all of the mixes and cd's they wanted for the cost of $300 for the burner plus $1 for each cd. hell, they were even selling them to their friends. they knew it was illegal, or had to be... it was the biggest scam since selling "Olde Time Lemonade" that costs $2.00 for a big jar for 25 cents a glass. Don't give me that bullshit they didn't know they shouldn't be doing it.
So what? Nearly everyone has MP3's these days, and nearly everyone KNOWS that this is practically the same thing as pirating software. I use Napster, but if I was one of the blocked, I really don't have any reason to complain. I got caught doing something I know is unlawful. Oh well, too bad for me.
Ok, do nearly all of the previous responders have their heads up their butts? They would rather blow off the whole point just because Katz wrote it, rather than actually read it for what it is. Not that I am defending Katz here, but it constantly amazes me just how easily people will roll over and play dead when it comes to relinquishing bits and pieces of their privacy . How long will it be until we have willingly given up every last bit of our privacy for the 'greater good', whatever that may be..
Metallica is a bunch of 40yr olds who have more money than they know what to do with it. They just want more and more and more.
They are wasting how much money on lawyers to attempt to reclaim 'lost sales' from 355,000 people, many of which are underage. What do they hope to get? Money out of these people? Um.. if that is the case, then they are severely mistaken. C'mon, now.. really.. think about it.
The best that will come of it for them will be that they manage to alienate a bunch of their fans, and, hence, lose money.
Sure, the trading of songs on a mass scale is like walking through KMart with a blue light on your head, but what gets me is that we seem to go through this same argument over and over.. Remember when cassette tapes came out, when VHS came out, when computer games were made on that Commodore 64 (aka. they _knew_ people were going to copy them), when CDROM writers came out, etc., etc.. It's the same thing over and over again. I seem to remember something about being able to have a backup copy for safe keeping..
There is no easy solution to the MP3-sharing phenomona. I mean, it comes down to ethics. People are pissed off at the recording industry and the artists because they are shelling out >$20 for CD's with 2 good songs on them, and the recording industry and artists swim in money. Artists claim that they don't make all that much, but they aren't fooling anyone when they move into their $3M mansion and are carted around in that super strecth limo with the outdoor hottub. People in general have the feeling that they are getting blatantly screwed over every time.
Despite that whole argument, the probing done by Metallica (the lawyers represent Metallica, so, yes, it is correct to say that Metallica is doing this) is simply an effort to continue raking in the dough.
There are plenty of other ways to get the point across than to come into people's homes via their internet connection.
To Metallica: I say piss off! .
Okay, let's see...
.sig. Their music isn't up to the old standards, but that's life. They've done nothing wrong or illegal in this case. They have every right to protect their rights. If one does not fight for his own rights, who will fight for him? I don't think Metallica has a right to get Napster shut down, because it can be used to legally trade non-copyrighted materials. But, Metallica is well within their rights to stop people from giving away their music. Period.
1. Metallica is bad for wanting to protect their rights. Katz screams invasion of privacy.
2. People steal Metallica's music. Katz says good.
3. I'm starting to bleed from scratching my head over this one.
From what I can gather, Metallica should be making music and charging nothing for it. I think Katz should produce books and charge nothing for them.
Katz, Metallica has broken no laws (well, with regards to this case). Some of the people using Napster have committed theft.
Let's cheer for the criminals and boo Metallica?
What the fsck is wrong with you? Are you just trying to justify your theft of people's comments for the Columbine book?
I've been a Metallica fan for a long time. I still am. Check the
--
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
Metallica has been one of the top grossing live acts in the 90's. They all have huge houses in Marin County and they all drive the biggest, most rediculous Mercedes' you can buy - all except for James Hetfield, who drives a massive Dodge truck, he hasn't managed to shed his hill-billy ways. Suffice it to say, they're intensely stinkin' rich .
As soon as one considers this thing called Metallica in this new light, it begins to make more sense. Why not sick a bunch of lawyers on Napster users, they certainly don't need to please their fan base any more and they've got to protect their creative genius (pause here for laughter).
I guess I should disclose my bias and say that I think Metallica is mostly a pretty lame act. But remember, they're a corporation, not a band.
Metallica has spread the word and desires of satan over a vast population of people. Its true that satan encourages stealing and pirating. It is the way he likes it. Yet, when people follow this and satan cheats this band, they lash out. Why would they want to stop the spread of evil they worked so hard to achieve?
Well, I will never BUY a Metallica album again, I will only, copy the cd or rip it off the net in MP3 format!!! Think, I used to like them!
I was introduced to Metallica by a young African American man who loved hard rock, especially Metallica; and got that way from listening to the band's earliest recordings. I cried, late one evening, when I heard Unforgiven II (oh my God did I just violate something or other? Please don't hurt me I'm too poor to pay anything more) and it literally bridged a gap of memories leading back to when I set out into this world on my own; worked two jobs and commuted 3 hours and went to college at night and was homeless and got my GED at 16 and struggled, struggled to reach that particular night in my life and their music touched on those emotions deeply and severely. This media fiasco completely ruined my perception of the band. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Metallica became popular because their demos and "garage" tapes and bootlegs were disseminated amongst their young, often penniless, fans; they then grew up and started buying albums and made these guys as rich and 'mainstream popular' as they are. I know I am not the only person that downloads a song or two and when I have the money buys the album. I wonder if Lars, James, and company realize this or if it's just their lawyers trying to create a precedent. In any case I'll return this S&M CD set before I open it; I'm too disillusioned now to enjoy it.
I think with the interesting people, their lives can't possibly be wrapped up into a nice little package.
We're not the enemy, We're their customers.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!
Metallica should be more worried about the price of their CD's being artificially inflated by the music companies. CD's cost, in bulk, under $1 each to master (including the costs for paying all of the people involved in it), yet they still manage to charge up to $17 or even $18 at your local mall Sam Goody. Most kids who listen to Metllica can simply not afford to spend this much money for CD's.
...should not be illegal. It may be time to rethink our values. Do we value privacy and freedom, or do we value the "right" to profit? There may come a point in time when people will leave this land for a place that once again puts the rights of the individual above the rights of goverment, be it government of the state or of music. This is no longer the land of the free and the home of the brave. It is a land of gray landscapes, lies, and litigation. Where is my sweet land of liberty?
...yellow number five, yellow number five, yellow number five...
Im curious here, when you sign on to Napster, you agree that downloading unauthorized mp3's are illegal. That enters you into a binding contract, right? Well what if your under 18..... You cant be entered in a binding contract unless your parents give their concent.
Now, if this applies or not, I don't know. Not that I want the blame going back on Napster because I'm a minor, it just means that we minors can't be targeted by these pointless proceedings. (I'd rather this backfire on the bastards formally known as Metallica)
After this BS, I can tell you now, that I'm never going to buy another Metallica CD for the rest of my life. Even after being a devoted fan of them and actually purchasing 4 of their CD's. But now, I'm not sure if I can even give them away in my area, everyone is trying to dump Metallica CDs, and stores are actually starting to refuse them because they have too many CDs.
Biggs
(BTW: I'm usually open to discussion about my posts)
Visit my site at www.samizdat.cx
Biggs
AIM:Biggs0016
aside from nearly a nearly word-for-word copy of the c|net article (bad enough), he makes some really outrageous statements, none of which have any relevance to the industry or law...
I won't ever buy 90% of the music that I've heard on mp3, and the other 10% is my own stuff anyway. If I can get one Metallica song for free, what the hell. Saves me a whole lot of money. It's really not encouraging me to buy the CD. Granted, it *did* encourage me to purchase Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, but it also stopped me from purchasing the Episode 1 soundtrack (all DVD concerns aside).
The point is, Jon saying that this band should be stopped from taking action against people that are stealing from them is a ludicrous position. It doesn't matter how much money they've made before, or how much they are losing, but they are being treated unjustly as artists. More power to them for standing up for their rights. I wish them luck, if only to set an important precedent.
I'm against invasion of privacy and all that, but hell, don't use the service if you don't want your illegal activities tracked! If you break the law using somebody's system, be prepared to stand the consequences. Deal, people.
I wasn't going to buy any Metallica merchandise before, and this isn't going to change anything, but it almost makes we want to support them.
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-1798138.html? tag=st.ne.1002.thed.1005-200-1798138
Are your issues with the music itself or with unrelated shit that doesn't matter?
Good question. My problem is with the music itself. I bought that album expecting some great speed metal. What I got was pop. I can respect that they changed their sound, but I can't respect what they changed their sound to. Megadeth at least has harmony; Anthrax at least has interesting composition. Slayer at least has a gut-wrenching evil sound, which has always been their hallmark. Metallica's just got image. If I wanted that I'd buy Marilyn Manson.
I still think the Napster lawsuit matters, but it would be dishonest of me to say that my real reason is the Napster lawsuit.
The Second Amendment Sisters
Finding God in a Dog
Ignorance of the law does not give one the excuse to break it.
The fact that many users of Naptser are "children" (I would disagree, it appears that most are high school/college age students) does not give them the right to break the law, even if they are unaware of it.
I believe that Metallica is doing the right thing in this case. By requesting that Napster disable these accounts they are trying to avoid the alternative -- suing each and every illegal distributor of Metallica's music. They are going after the problem at its source, the individual users of Napster, and not Napster itself. They are avoiding needless legal action. They are giving the internet a chance to clean itself up. They are make a clear statement that they are against piracy and I respect them for it.
Lastly, this is _not_ and invasion of privacy. You don't need to give your name to Napster, and Napster is not distributing the names to Metallica. When you are logging on to Napster look what you are already giving up, namely the ability for other people to see what music you have download from your hard drive. It you don't want the whole world to see that information, don't use Napster! Metallica has the right to use this information to protect their own copyrights.
What Metallica is doing is not an invasion of "privacy" but an invasion of "piracy". (ok so its cheesy).
They're musicians, not rocket scientists. Some lawyer comes to them and sayt that "This company is costing you $X per day and I think we can stop them." These guys aren't the cream of the crop intellectually. They're a bunch of white bread suburbanites who would be pumping our gas if they couldn't play instruments and make "tough" faces when someone brings a camera around.
This is not the 1960's. Rock is not the vanguard of social and societal commentary and change. These guys aren't forward thinking revolutionaries. They're a garage band who 15 years ago wrote and played some original tunes.
My point, once again, is that these guys aren't evil. They've got lawyers, managers, and record company execs all over them what else do you expect them to do?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
-Elendale (Still likes Metallica)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
" Step One: Let's Shut Down Metallica's attacks on computer users, not Napster. Stop buying the band's music. Urge everyone you know to do likewise until Metallica calls off its legal Rottweillers, leaves kids downloading music alone, and agrees to slug the issue out in court and other venues where it belongs. " - JonKatz
{begin whine}
That sounds strickingly like a comment I post in both the articles about Metallica and Dr. Dre. It's not the exact same wording ( Mettalica Comment 1, Dr. Dre (last line), and I think there is another I lost track of), but the jist is the same. I am also not the only one who posted ideas similar to this. I just wanted to point out that the detailed explanation is original, but the above suggestion isn't.
{End whine}
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
You seem to be making the following argument:
Unfair copyright law + Right to lawbreaker's privacy outweighs the rights of copyright holders. It's a romantic argument, but it totally ignores the rule of law. The fact is that if I go to Blockbuster and rent The Phantom Menace, then make copies of it and hand it out to all my friends, my right to privacy isn't going to protect me from the rule of law. Your repeated focus on the fact that most offenders are kids is irrelevant and inflammatory, and I'm offended that you chose this cheap tactic in a nearly transparent effort to raise the ire of your readership. It's appalling.
I'd guess that most software pirates are kids, also, I can't remember meeting a warez sysop in the old days that was over 17. Do you defend the rights to privacy of illegal siteops on the basis of the fact that intellectual property law is outdated and ambiguous?
How about the DOS attacks? The mean age of these kiddies seems to be about 14 -- let's hear your argument that the anarchic nature of the internet combined with a user's right to privacy equals special protection for the lawbreakers.
Like everyone else, I believe the record industry is screwed up, and it's governed by 50-year old ideas about cannibalization and control that don't hold true anymore. The music industry would make a lot more sense (and money) embracing the technology instead of running scared.
But I also believe that the only coherent and meaningful argument in favor of Napster is that copyright law is immoral and injust, and must therefore be resisted, or at least ignored. I don't think that's a good argument in this case, but at least it makes sense, and it puts you on the side of something.
Which side of the Napster debacle is Jon Katz on? Oh, he's Pro-Child.
And why wasn't he thinking that? Could it be that all his life MTV has been telling him what music is cool? MTV, and other media sellers who profit from selling few bands to many people. What does it benefit MTV if people like listening to a wide variety of music? Less diversity means more sales for one particular artist, allowing a select few creations to be catapulted to superstar status. Other artists are tempted to try to reach for this gold ring, to try to make their creations more like the things on MTV, because that's what great (popular) music is.
What does an artist do when they create a musical work? They sit down, take pen in hand, and try to express feelings they have inside them. Maybe people will like their art, maybe they won't. The artist just wants to express herself and make something that she thinks is beautiful that she wants to share with the world.
What does the media do when it wants to promote a musical work? It sorts through all the music produced and finds the one that appeals to the most number of people. The one that contains the lowest common denominator. Something that's guaranteed to please for a moment, and not offend anyone.
A marketplace of ideas works when everyone speaks their mind and says what they believe. In this honest discourse, ideas are traded, and people evaluate and compare them to their own views, perhaps even revising the way they think when presented with new information. The idea of profiting by adding false or contrived ideas to this mix runs contrary to the benefits of free thought and free information.
Now, I'm not as radical as I might come off here. I can accept that there will be advertising, that people will say things that they don't believe in order to make a profit. Overall I think people are smart enough to filter out bad information most of the time. I'm just wondering, why do we see it as such a good thing that MTV and the record companies are making so much money? Does their success increase the quality of the music that is made? Does it promote honest discourse? Does it advance the cause of art?
--
share and enjoy
So, instead of depicting these people as pirates who are distributing illegal mp3s to people, Jon Katz depicts them as helpless children who didn't know they were downloading something illegal. Does Jon even know how Napster works?
...that's what a lot of us are. We get all huffy when some corporation violates a portion of the GPL (either on purpose or as an "oversight"), but we seem quite willing to ignore the "licensing agreement" that we all must adhere to when we purchase a CD. If you don't like the GPL, don't use GPL'd code. If you don't like the copyright restrictions that are placed on music, don't buy it or violate those restrictions by making unauthorized copies of the music.
I initially thought "Napster good. Metallica bad." too, but when I stopped to think about the obvious parallels, I realized there's more to the issue than a Free Software zealot might have you think. Now, I stand firmly behind many of the ideals that the FS and OS communities endorse, but I can't with clear conscience say that I disagree with Metallica's actions. BTW, Jon, Metallica's lawyers aren't after these kids with subpoenas and threatening them with jail time, they're just blocking them from a site...because they violated a copyright agreement. And mind you, this isn't an "oversight" (as I mentioned in my analogy with the GPL above), it's a conscious decision to violate a licensing agreement...something that we would be flipping out about if MS grabbed a portion of the linux kernel and smacked it into Windows' kernel for sale under different licensing terms.
EVERYTHING that may be a barrier to "information exchange" (if that's what you want to call MP3 trading) is not inherently bad -- just as all government regulation is not inherently bad. A lot of the zealotry out there would have you believe otherwise, but there is definitely a place for the goverment to protect the intellectual property rights of people who have chosen to license access to their work in one manner or another - whether its a violation of the GPL or a violation of a record label's copying restrictions.
How many of us are happy that it finally appears that MS is going to get what it deserves? This is just another example of GOOD government regulation. The market isn't going to take care of the problem. It would if all consumers were:
a) Well educated with regards to the product
b) Not lazy consumers
...but they're not. As a result, we don't have "perfect competition" and the government needs to step in to restore some semblance of competition in the industry. I am not at all an advocate of large-scale government regulation, but it is painfully obvious that the market will not solve this problem by itself. Consumers need to be protected from shady suppliers in some cases, just as suppliers (Metallica, in this case) need to be protected from consumers who have figured out how to exploit their product.
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed by some out there for the analogies that I chose to draw, but really...how would you feel if you GPL'd some little app you just wrote only to find it integrated into the next version of Outlook. Same thing.
Has anyone set up an organized boycott of Metallica yet? If so, please post the URL... What I mean is this: remember when the Exxon Valdez struck that iceburg and spewed oil all over the place, killing wildlife and contaminating miles and miles of ocean? When that happened, people from all over the country cut their Exxon credit cards in half, placed them in a ziplock bag filled with motor oil, and mailed it to Exxon with a note indicating their boycott of corporations who screw with the environment. It seems that the same thing would work well here. Sure, Metallica sucks pretty bad now, but most of us have a copy of Kill 'em All, Ride the Lightning, etc. So why not start mailing them back? Why not start up an organized campaign to get everyone to mail back Metallica CDs en masse, with a letter saying that we won't buy anything (CDs, concert tix, etc.) from them until the lawsuit is dropped... Hey, they'll probably ignore us, but Exxon ignored the people who sent their cards back, too. Yet it still made the news--and it made an impact on other corporations. The worst thing we can do right now is just sit around while a cool program/company like Napster gets railed. Even if we're just one candle in the darkness, at least we can make some noise and try to draw attention to the issues at work here. Again, if anyone knows of an effort to do something like this, please post the URL.
who have no idea their online movements are being tracked, and who certainly have the right to pursue individual cultural interests without worring that they're being watched.
They aren't "pursuing cultural interests", they are stealing Intellectual Property.
isn't a step forward towards artists' controlling their art.
Stopping people from illegaly copying your IP, is a perfectly valid step towards controlling your art.
In addition to protecting their own work, artists also have a responsibility to protect freedom and creativity.
But their priority, is to protect their own work. And it's their perrogative to do just that.
Metallica's name-gathering is an ugly, excessive and noxious assault aimed at curbing the free movement of information and ideas that characterizes the Internet, while doing little to resolve the many copyright, commercial and other issues involved in the free music controversy.
It's not ideas, and information that's moving about freely, it's pirated IP. Nothing less. Once again, JK characterizes everything as an assault on poor, helpless computer nerds.
Everyone reading this can name at least a half dozen alternative sites and programs that have boomed in recent weeks even as the music industry, Metallica and Dr. Dre have moved against Napster and MP3.com
Everyone reading this can name at least a half dozen alternative sites and programs that have boomed in recent weeks even as the music industry, Metallica and Dr. Dre have moved against Napster and MP3.com
In the eyes of the mass public, Napster, and MP3 have the mind-share. They worked to get noticed, and they have. They are the largest sources for trading in material like this, so they are the biggest target to aim at.
There is simply no justification for a band to go after hundreds of thousands of its own fans, mostly kids, for the purpose of intimidation.
I'd say that protecting their IP, is a perfect justification. If the pirates are intimidated, maybe some of them will stop engaging in a blatantly illegal activity.
Metallica is invading its fans' privacy, challenging the ability of others to move freely and privately about the Net and the Web -- perhaps the hallmark social, creative and educational feature of the Internet.
Actually, they are pursuing thieves. They are pursuing people that have no respect for the rights of Metallica, why should we worry about the "rights" of people that don't respect the rights of others?
Urge everyone you know to do likewise until Metallica calls off its legal Rottweillers, leaves kids downloading music alone, and agrees to slug the issue out in court and other venues where it belongs.
I suppose we could leave it until later. But when existing IP rights are validated in the courts, professional musicians will have lost millions potentially in revenue to piracy. Would you prefer if they sued for back potential losses?
Jon, no matter how much you paint the picture, as being helpless little geeks, against the big bad system. The fact of the matter is, that under current law (and by the way, Napster's End User License), these kids are engaging in illegal IP piracy.
Based on your staunch defense of the rights of computer users to copy IP freely, I assume that I have carte blanche to set up a site, with copies of all your works Jon? I would be freeing information, so that the community can read it, without having to pay a rapacious author.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
to change the music industry's distibution system. If we want, and I'm assuming we all do, all music to be legally distributed as MP3's on the 'net we are going to have to show the music industry, and the artists that they won't take it in the shorts from massive online piracy as soon as they release an album on MP3. Napster does not help to advance this goal. The type of music trading that goes on via napster is just plain illegal, not even the the broadest interpertation of fair use covers sharing music with 300k of your closest freinds. I've always beleived that as soon as music is legally released on mp3 for sale over the internet (meaning "pure" mp3s, not some distorted SDMI release, and without a complex registration proccess attached) at a reasonable price (say 25 cents per song maybe more/less?) music piracy will dry up almost completely, who would waste a few hours searching for free illegal mp3's (with no gaurentee of quality, from a slow ass site) when you can fork over a quarter for what you want and download from a T3 site? Only handful of losers with way more time than money, no biggie.
If Napster doesn't honor it's promise to block users known to be breaking the law, it pretty much aknowledges that all of us MP3 advocates are just a bunch of pirates too cheap and dishonest to actually buy music we enjoy, and that will get us nowhere.
"Listen: We are here on Earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different!" - Kurt Vonnegut
Message starts a little OT, then swings back to the particular topic at hand.
Fine, if people want to stop Metallica from protecting their work from being stolen by illegal MP3 trading, then I don't want to hear or read another word on Slashdot about any company violating the GPL.
What Metallica is being asked to do is to allow the free and unrestricted trading of their music, their work, by any means the end user sees fit. If people think that the band should allow this, then how dare anyone criticize a company for not releasing the source code to a program? After all, restrictions are being placed on how the code can be used or changed with the GPL. This is hardly free and open as the majority opinion wants Metallica's music to be. Is there a difference here?
As for the "violation of privacy" that has occured...please. Napster users are not having their privacy violated when they are sharing MP3s with the world in an open and searchable database. Finding those users stealing from Metallica hardly requires "invading" their privacy. It just requires typing the word "metallica" into the search function of Napster.
mr.nobody
--Don't you wanna go where nobody knows your name?
Second, I personally don't have a problem with the idea of artists (including Metallica) being compensated for their recorded work. Nor will I defend pirating mp3s. Rather, it's Metallica's stance that annoys me. For example:
They're mad because their "art is being treated like a commodity rather than the art that it is"? And what, Best Buy cares about art? Bullshit.
They concede that "underground tape trading was a big part of their early success" but maintain that this is "irrelevant to the issue." Again, bullshit. They want piracy to exist when it benefits them, and they want it to go away when it doesn't. Very convenient.
Napster could "kill Metallica and music"? Bullshit. Music will always exist, including music just like Metallica, and nowadays much better music than they're doing. It might kill big record companies, but thy don't want to defend that; they want less informed people to consider this a bid to save Metallica. As Lars has said, this is indeed about money; specifically, Metallica's money. Anytime they talk about art, or rock music in general, or anything like that, I'm starting to get reeeaaaaal skeptical. I mean, hell, they even want to start "policing the internet" to get more money. Setting aside the impracticality and their lack of technical knowledge, have they lost their fsking minds?
It's just kinda sad - back in the day, it did indeed seem to be about music. Now, it's about keeping James Hetfield from having to get a day job. Sigh. I hate Limp Bizkit, but they're right - Metallica is the Establishment now.
-brennan
One question: Metallica is sueing (or trying to) users that have been distributing their music. I OWN various Metallica records (LPs)... Cant I LEGALLY download the songs from these records? If I can, and I download it from another user, that also own original records, isnt it legal? Like a website that claims no responsability for piracy or copyrights infrigements, hasnt a person the same rights that a website? He/she owns that record, ripped and encoded it to MP3 and let it in his/hers computer to be shared to other people who owns the same records. If someone who hasnt the right to download it isnt that the only person who can be sued?
I just read the link the parent poster refers to (Slashdot publishing our posts without our authorization) and if these statements are true, who is Slashdot to editorialize a subject concerning privacy and copyrights???
If Metallica play a concert publicly, their live performance does not become public domain.
Cant say they didn't warn us....
HALLS OF JUSTICE PAINTED GREEN
MONEY TAKING
POWER WOLVES BESET YOU DOOR
HEAR THEM STALKING
SOON YOU'LL PLEASE THEIR APPETITE
THEY DEVOUR
HAMMER OF JUSTICE CRUSHES YOU
OVERPOWER
THE ULTIMATE IN VANITY
EXPLOITING THEIR SUPREMACY
I CAN'T BELIEVE THE THINGS YOU SAY
I CAN'T BELIEVE
I CAN'T BELIEVE THE THINGS YOU PAY
NOTHING CAN SAVE YOU
JUSTICE IS LOST
JUSTICE IS RAPED
(c) Metallica 1988 (oh yeah, better add this or they'll come after me)
Unless you believe it's OK to track down surfers on the web; sic attorneys on them (many of whom assumed that if the music was available, it was OK to download it); and to use intimidation as punishment while the 'jury is still out'... then perhaps your obvious disenchantment with Katz over other issues is coloring how you read this particular article.
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
Nothing else matters indeed!
Warning: Before reading this I will warn you, this post will probably contain profanity because I am very angry at Metallica
Now ever since slashdot and Jon Katz started attacking Metallica, Dr. Dre and the RIAA for exerting their rights granted by law to prevent theft of their copyrighted materials I have been vociferously on the side of the RIAA et al. This situation changed after I read this article. My points of contention are the following:
First Metallica is talking about spearheading a lobby to push "government" to get involved in the Napster proceedings, specifically "There has to be some laws and guidelines to go by before it gets too out of hand and sucks the life out of musicians who will stop making music," and this has to be done "before this whole Internet thing runs amok.". Now as if it isn't enough that my rights have been robbed by UCITA and DCMA some drug-adled rock group wants to create even more restrictive laws to preserve the status quo. Instead of being like Off spring, Limp Bizkit and Chuck D and realizing that a paradigm shift is taking place. If there is no outside intervention (i.e. from the government) eventually the RIAA as it currently exists cannot continue enforcing it's cartel like behavior which include illogical pricing of CDs and cassettes, raping of musicians financially (TLC sell millions of albums and are bankrupt???) and the bribing of radio station executives to play only member chosen material. The RIAA is fit to be replaced by a pro-artist digital distribution model that can benefit consumers (lower prices) and artists (more money instead of 50 cents per dozen song CD, 50 cents a song or more) alike. The only thing that will kill this revolution and stop it from ever happening is if the government steps in and passes laws that reinforce the status quo. Die Metallica
Secondly Lars Ulrich stated "The goal is clear and simple: Put Napster out of business." in their online chat session yesterday (which I missed due to taking finals, AAAAARGH). After reading the Halloween documents and all the MSFT internal emails that circulated when the DOJ case was active, such comments have instantly struck a negative chord within me. Now for a more rational response, Metallica wanting to ruin Napster as a company because of the behavior of it's users is the stupidest, vendetta-motivated shit I have ever heard. I am black and have never entertained thoughts of ruining slashdot because I browsed at -1 and read some ACs racist rants. I have never entertained thoughts that AOL should be destroyed because some of its users were rude to me in a chat room or sdent me spam. If Metallica has a problem with Napster's users that is fine, but to attempt to destroy the company due to the behavior of a percentage of it's customers is wrong.
Finally, I have tried to find the online firm NetPD that metallica claims to have used and cannot find hide nor hair of them on the Internet neither with Google, Yahoo nor at netpd.com. The reason I have sought them out is because until I see all 60,000 pages of logs showing 335,435 people downloading songs by Metallica in one weekend I refuse to believe it.
With all these Metallica/Napster posts going on, should there be a new icon?
I recommend the Binge and Purge stick figure crossed with the Napster head logo.
-ElJefe
Send them to me - I'll Xerox and turn into PDF's -and then publish (for free of course) at Katzster.net. I mean that's what it's all about right Katz?
I mean god forbid some kid has to go to the bookstore and shell out cash for your artistic work!
For that matter - send em to me and I'll read em aloud and record MP3's and put em on Napster... :)
There's no way on Earth the band, its attorneys, its management or its record company is going to take over 300,000 defendants to court over minor copyright violations. Napster knows this, Metallica knows this, and I think Katz knows this.
What Metallica's lawyers are doing is choking Napster with its own policies. Napster's membership agreement allows Napster to pull any account for IP violations, among other things. Napster has also publicly stated its policy of banning the accounts of users demonstrated to be sharing copyrighted material illegally.
So, Metallica has called Napster's bluff. Napster never expected to be handed such a huge pile of complaints, and has neither a mechanism nor the resources to process them.
Napster shouldn't have promised what it couldn't deliver. Now, other artists and their labels will follow Metallica's lead, dropping ton after ton of complaints on Napster and watching the company strangle on the red tape of its own policy.
Ironically, if Napster had played the "common carrier" game--disavowing all responsibility for content transmitted over its service--it might be on better legal footing. By promising diligently to ban the accounts of violators, it's attracted the very legal actions it sought to avoid.
-- He's fantastic, made of plastic....
What you say hits the nail on the head entirely. According to these punks (Metallica) Napster is nothign but a piracy tool. You and I both know that is bull crap. Unfortunately, the "metallica rulez!" crowd that was on Yahoo! last night bought it hook line and sinker.
I totally agree with your comment about them being egocentric. Every damn thing they said started with "As Metallica". I really wish the transcripts would be posted asap so people can see what I saw. To me they were saying "We are Metallica and you are not - now bow down before us and kiss our asses". That was exactly how they portrayed themselves.
In their chat they said they want to put Napster out of business. Well, they may just do that. But in the end, will they have won? Hell no.
I really pity those guys. They are sad little people.
My first reaction when I heard the news that Metallica was going after the people who had shared the files on Napster was complete shock; I thought "What? How can they do this?" But now that the news had time to sink in, what they're doing makes perfect sense.
...yeah, right...
Let's say you're an musician, and you find out that lots of people are stealing your songs. You feel your rights are being violated, so you want to do something about it. Who should you go after? Does it make sense to go after the service that is supplying the users with the means to share the files, or the users themselves? What's that? Neither, you say? Wrong answer - the law is being broken, your rights are being infringed upon, and nobody is going to do anything about it unless you take some action. So, does it make more sense to go after the service (which has a huge disclaimer, and does not censor any particular songs, and therefore may fall under "common carrier" status), or the users who are putting the songs online, knowing that they will be downloaded by people who aren't entitled to them (and, according to Napster's own licence agreement, are liable for any copyright infringement that occurs)? Get the point? (Yes, I realize they're actually going after both... but since this story is about the "outrage" over them going after the people posting their music online, that's what I'm responding to...)
Oh, and one more thing...
"It's targets include many younger children and younger consumers who have no idea their online movements are being tracked, and who certainly have the right to pursue individual cultural interests without worring that they're being watched."
Huh? How is this any different than, say, the mall? A teenager walks into a CD store, grabs a CD, sticks it in his jacket pocket, and walks out the door. The store clerk sees him on the security camera and has the security guards go after him and catch him. His defense? "Oh, I didn't know I would be caught, or else I wouldn't have done it! I should have the right to pursue my musical interests without anyone stopping me from it! You're surpressing my rights!"
-Trevor
First off, let me say that I almost universally avoid reading the "Katz, you suck!" comments, and indeed, go out of my way to moderate them down when I have points. But this is just rediculous. The basic message this article is conveying is:
Stealing is good.
Bringing attention to the person commiting the act of theft is a HORRIBLE PRIVACY VIOLATION! (Oh, and let's toss in 'Think of the CHILDREN!' on top of that.)
I will admit at this point that both I and my girlfriend download and listen to commercial MP3s. I am fully aware that what I am doing is illegal (although I don't feel it is immoral.) If the music police came to my door, they'd have me cold.
My response to a situation like the above could take many forms. Certainly, I'd point out that it was for all intents and purposes a victimless crime. That the MPAA and RIAA have embedded taxes in media in order to make up for the so called loss of revenue, and therefore were justly compensated for my act.
I would most certainly NOT exclaim at the top of my lungs "HOW DARE YOU GO THROUGH PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PROVE I AM A THIEF. THIS IS A BREACH OF MY CIVIL RIGHTS."
Basically, in closing:
Katz, the trolls are right. You are goddamned brainless, and everything you say is just meaningless rhetoric. You have absolutely NO journalistic credibility, NO original ideas, and, frankly, NOTHING to contribute. This article itself should be moderated down as Overrated, flamebait, troll, redundant, and offtopic.
Oh, and I am in the process of compiling a book, "The articles of JonKatz", which I believe I will market through amazon. After all, this IS a public forum, and there's nothing wrong with stealing IP, right?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Does it not seem to everybody here that Jon Katz seems to be going for the position of patron saint of children, whether they currently happen to be in the right or wrong?
Ever since that Columbine thing, Jon seems to pick out any current media issue, pick it apart for anything that might have to do with harassing, intimidating or prosecuting children, and then proceeds to act like he's the only one who can see the injustice being done to these "innocent" children.
Well, news for you Jon--there's probably just as many adults using Napster as there are children. And, what you and many Slashdotters seem to keep ignoring is that copyrighted MP3 distribution is illegal. It is not illegal to create MP3's if you already own the music, meaning that you effectively have licensed it from the artist (or the artist's lawyers). But when you decide you're going to rip all of your 300 CD's and then proceed to share that 3,000 MP3's on Napster, you are committing a crime. Regardless of how little money the artist actually gets from the music, you are ripping off the band you claim to like so much. It's the same as creating bogus band T-shirts and selling them at a concert. The band gets nothing from it. Maybe some additional publicity, sure, but it doesn't sell records.
It really bugs me that this community I am a part of uses the rallying cry of "information wants to be free" to justify stealing every MP3 possible. MP3's that you do not own are not yours. It is a violation of copyright law to posess or distribute such MP3's, and if you choose to do so, you should not be surprised if someone decides to bring the law down on you!
Jon, defending all these poor, defenseless "kids" who are being so brutally harassed by lawyers accomplishes nothing. It tarnishes your already questionable reputation (you are known by the company you keep), and in my opinion makes you look like a fool with very little understanding of the issue at hand. Please quit trying to turn every current event into a soapbox crusade to protect the children. This is not some government conspiracy to persecute the geek children. This is lawyers doing their job. Metallica and their lawyers have not only the right, but the legal responsibility, to attempt to prevent piracy of their music.
Get over it. Until the laws change, all you MP3 pirates are going to have to lose some sleep at night worrying about things like this. That is, unless you stop pirating music, and actually buy it once again.
the information that was collected on the users, was just the user name, by Metallica's investigators. The law was primarily focused at making people targeting that age group jump through hoops before collecting information, they should be ok. The onus, if any, will likely fall on Napster, to collect more information on it's user base, or possibly to ban users that claim to be under a particular age.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
I'm this close to disabling Jon Katz articles in my profile...if it weren't that he has that train-wreck sort of "stop and gawk at all the carnage" appeal, I probably would.
Jon, where are these lawyers you refer to in your first paragraph? As far as I know, Metallica hasn't yet named any of the 335K users as codefendants in any of the 10 "John Doe" slots they've got listed. All they've done was had a private agency look at Napster and compile a list of all the names showing up as having Metallica stuff. Hell, you or I could do exactly the same thing just by doing a search on "Metallica" and taking a screenshot of all the names that came up.
They haven't threatened to sue any of them; it would take much more time and effort than it would be worth. They've just asked Napster to carry through on the promise it's been hiding behind. "We'll block any user who you can show us is trading illegal MP3s," they say to Metallica & Dr. Dre. So Metallica's ponying up a list of names, and what Napster does in response could have a lot of power to help or hurt them--if they meekly remove those users, they could take a lot of the wind out of Metallica's legal sails.
This reminds me of a poem I once came across...
Nobody can honestly say that rampant MP3 trading of stuff you didn't buy is not illegal. No one. People can, and do, try to justify why they do it (myself included)...but in the end, their arguments come down to knowing it's a bad thing, but, like the verse says, "I like it."While Metallica may be making a rampant P.R. blunder, and their "art vs. commodity" quote belongs right up there with some of Danny Quayle's famed utterances, I can find no legal fault in what they're doing. They're perfectly within their rights. I'm an amateur writer, and if I ever write something worth getting paid for, I'll be very annoyed if someone rips it off without paying me.
As for Jon's much-vaunted "chilling effect"--well, maybe people need to be chilled. Hello, MP3-traders of the world, this is your wakeup call! Stuff you do on the Internet is traceable! It always has been, and unless you take extreme precautions, it always will be. If you make information publically available, as your userID on Napster when you put a song up for download, it's not an "invasion of privacy" to collect and collate that information.
This is why we say never to post stuff to the Internet (when the saying originated, it was "to USENET," because that was the only publically-postable area of the Internet back then) that you wouldn't want your parents, kids, future employers and employees, etc. to see. We cheer and hoot and holler when this is used to track down spammers--but oh how conveniently we forget that it's a double-edged sword. If you do something that's illegal , why yes, you can be tracked down and held accountable. Surprise!
Wake up, grow up, and get real. "Because I want to!" is not sufficient legal justification to be able to do something.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
First off, I LOVE the band. I think they've been one of the most consistently high-quality groups of recent times.
Also, I'm impressed by the relatively high number of posters that have avoided blindly defending MP3. MP3s, generally, are illegal. I'll use them, but I won't defend them.
And had this been ANY other band, I'd probably have said nothing at all about the whole situation. Napster DID say that they'd remove people that were REPORTED to them as providing copyrighted material. Metallica is just asking them to do that.
BUT (big but), Metallica is a band that was MADE FAMOUS by an underground music scene. In the 80s, it was the HUGE heavy metal tape trading culture that MADE them who they are now. Were they bitching when kids were making bootleg tapes back then? HELL NO. Because it served their purpose (namely, gaining name-recognition). But NOW, people are doing the EXACT SAME THING and Metallica is threatening to SUE THEM?
Come on. THAT is just plain old hypocrisy folks. And it's inexcusable.
If some fan was so impressed by your work that he scanned "Running to the Mountain"--did I get the title right?--and posted it on his website for all to read for free. That means no payment to your publisher, and no royalty check back to you. That's a pretty fearful thing for someone trying live off their creative work. Sad fact of the matter is that barring a major break through, creative artists make a pretty marginal living, and a lot of us never get to quit our day jobs. Now, I'll come out and say I'm bashing neither Katz nor new technology, but rather trying to get the idea across that this free ride a lot of people have been getting costs the artists. Now, I'm not sure how much it costs, nor if the cost is infact an investment; if the incresed exposure via Napster leads to increased sales, then its a good return indeed. The simple fact is that the technology is out there and you can never undevelop the technology. You're gonna have to live with it and adapt. Question is how? That's what artists, producers and labels are trying to figure out. Some like Metallica are taking the wrong approach; hiding from it behind lawyers and lawsuits. I think they would be much better off using the technology to lower the cost of their music and to make it more available to their fans. That approach will require a radically differnt business plan than the traditional idea of pressing albums and selling them at retail outlets. Still it can be done, and it can be implemented easily. What Metallica and the rest of the old shcoolers need to realize is that with the current retail scheme and its burdensome costs, consumers feel like they are being ripped off--and they're right. So when a technology like Napster or MP3s come out, consumers have no problem in sticking it to 'the man' by trading tunes with friends. Besides this is little different than trading 'mix' tapes with friends. And how many times have we listened to something off a tape like that and said "I must possess this!". Plenty I bet. In closing, if I sound ambivalent about the technology its because I am. I'm a producer who got into the business right as the world changed. The business plan I created last year is being rendered moot by the changing technology and I'm trying to figure out what to do now; trying to figure out how I can help my artists and finance further productions. As crass as it is, money still drives art because the artists need to pay for equipment and everything else, and the producer needs to pay for studio time, mastering, and distribution. Until that much changes money will still be the lifeblood music.
Did you even bother reading JK's article? He wants Metallica to be compensated; he just doesn't think that their methods were good. I don't recall reading Jon ever saying "you should all rip off Metallica" or anything like that.
Don't you mean:
"Your honor, we have here record sales from before the Black album, when we didn't suck. And here, we have record sales from around the time we discovered 335,000 people distributing songs from our first 4 albums and Garage Days, via Napster. If you notice, none of the songs are from an album released after The Black Album except Garage Days, which is pre-Black Album music anyway. As you can clearly see, our albums have done nothing but get horribly worse since The Black Album, and the illegal distribution of MP3's does hurt profits, but not much since our old cd's are getting harder and harder to come by, and the new ones suck."
I personally will be boycotting Metallica, because I remember when they _enjoyed_ having people bootleg their music. Why? Because they wanted to be heard and distributed.
Metallica needs to learn from Phish and the Grateful Dead... oh wait, not the Dead anymore, but maybe Dave Matthews Band and Phish.
Metallica: You've lost a fan. A paying one, at that.
M
Sure, I have a thankless job. That's okay. I have a lot of (non
You know, I bet Metallica and Dr. Dre would feel a lot different if their record company had developed the software. They would have said it was a wonderful way to spread music around the world and to people who might normally not buy their albums. But instead it is piracy and evil, evil, evil. I'm not saying that musicians shouldn't protect their work nor that we have a right to download whatever we want, but--since the people who have problems with Napster are thinking in $$$--they'd probably make more money if they worked with Napster.
For instance, although I'm not a huge Limp Bizkit fan, I think they have the right idea having a free tour sponsored by Napster. If I'm not mistaken, Fred Durst even said he doesn't care that Limp Bizkit songs are out on Napster because those who really want the album will go and get it, mp3s or no mp3s. And I think the most telling sign is this: Limp Bizkit fans certainly seem a lot happier right now than Metallica fans....
I don't buy it, did this firm really check all those MP3's if they are remixes the users shouldn't be blocked. You can get people to download files consisting of /dev/null with napster.
Cd's will not get cheaper...if anything they will get more expensive and less usable. If the music industry gets their way, CD's will be replaced by audio DVD..so they can completely control music distribution by the licensing of cyrpto keys.
Here's the senario...the major record labels endorse audio DVD including all the nasty crap that DVD has now: Propietary encryption, and regional labelling..you can forget your valuable import CD's...european or japanese audio DVD's won't work on the US players.
Since it has major label support, major hardware manufacturers will start producing players that can read both CD and audio DVD, but as the major labels stop producing cdroms and jsut audio DVD's the major hardware manufactures would stop including cdrom support.
Now you could argue that there would be market pressure to keep CDrom, and mp3 support in an audio DVD player, but the the record industry could force the audio DVD hardware maker to not include support for CDROM or mp3. Like DVD, the audio DVD format is proprietary, and te hardware makers have to pay for a license to get a cyrptokey, how restrictive that license is is up to the record industry. Whats worse is that the record industry could also force indie record labels to pay a hefty license to be able to record in the format.
Pretty soon we could be in the same situation with audio DVD as with DVD. Only certain players are allowed to read the damn things, and we'd have to give up the functionality and flexibility we are now starting to finally see in cross platform mp3, cdrom players. The 5 major record labels could pretty much dictate terms to all the indie labels who wanted to produce on the "popular" format. And as a bonus, the major record labels could prevent any hardware manufacture from making an audio dvd reader that could download digitally to a computer hardrive...wiping out this mp3 problem almost completely.
Now in context to the original problem, people are drawn to Napster not becuase they like stealing music, they are drawn to napster becuase the want the new flexibility that online distribution allows. I would humbly suggest that if the record industry quickly co-opted naspter's idea and created a closed server model and charged a monthly premium for downloads you'd see a large number of people use the service. Instead the record companies are trying deseperately to keep CD sales as the primary distribution method so that when they introduce the audio DVD model there will not be another competiting open standard.
There will always be black market distribution, but if the record industry would come up with a decent legal online system, the blackmarket stuff will have little appeal to most. It's the stick and carrot approach. The recording industry has gotten really got at using the stick, but they don't have a carrot to win people over. They need to suck it up and realize that mp3 is here, online distribution is here, and they need to work with the leaders in the field to produce an online system that works for both fans and artists.
If I put up a bunch of MP3s on a public web server, and artists vistit my site, and I am in violation of their copyright, they have every right to pursue me legally. If they come to my site, how is it "invasion of privacy"? It's a public FTP site.
If I put all my MP3s up on a napster server, I'm putting them up in a similar public forum. If I do a search for "Metallica" I get back a list of songs and the usernames of the users who have them. Napster is in no way an anonymous service. How is it that when I do a search for Metallica and find out Quartz has some songs I can download is NOT an invasion of privacy, yet when Metallica does the same search, and tells Napster to disable Quartz's account, that IS an invasion of privacy?
We all know that services like Napster let us try music before we by it, and diversify our musical tastes, which helps the industry, but if Metallica believes that this isn't true they have a right to that belief, and I think they have a right to do what they're doing. It might make them look like jerks, and it's certainly very obvious that they have no idea where the future of music distribution is, but they have a right to be jerks. The darwinist nature of our economy will ensure that those unwilling to adapt will fall by the wayside.
I have to agree that Katz has once again dished out a heavy load that he won't back up. Also from many other of the posts, I also have to agree that I think this situation is no longer something that
I personaly don't use napster, however, I think it's great way for alot of people to sample some music they may later deside to buy. Granted it isn't always used in that mannor, but what on this world is always used for it's intended purpose. Nothing.
I'd like to see the PayLars site turned into a fund not for him, but for the 300k odd users who's privacy the band intends to invade. This way those people can launch a counter suit. Sure, it would be another stupid lawsuit to stack on the fire, but at least katz would have something else to write about.
Trying to be different, just like everyone else.
Slashdot has a proud history that I'm glad to take part in of supporting peoples rights, and I'm so far in agreement over most issues I'm surprised to disagree with Jon so much here. I think the DeCSS lawsuits are garbage, I think the DMCA is a PoS, and overextended copyright law, and more. But here, Jon, you're just way off base.
I've been reading slashdot since the napster debate started, laughing at people suing over a directory service. It's been absurd. All along, my thoughts have been: if you want to get the pirates, you'll have to sue the users. Personally, I'm amazed they're actually doing it. It's obviously going to cost them a ton more to pay the netPD people and the lawyers than it will help save/make them. So they're putting their $$ on the line to save other artists.
Obviously, Napster represents more than a community of music pirates. Lots of people (not me, of course, really!
Finally, there's a big educational opportunity. With all the press, someone should really analyze (survey says...) what the REAL cost is to the artists. I'd like to see a breakdown of people who got metallica mp3s online, and see what the percentages were of:
People who pirated the music who WOULD have bought it if it wasn't available
People who pirated it first, and bought a CD because of it, who wouldn't have otherwise
People who pirated (technically) the mp3, but own the CD already (for me, its faster to napster a copy down than it is to rip a copy of a CD)
It's often portrayed, either out of ignorance or for PR value, that the users pirating copies of a song are, in fact, costing each artist $16 each time, and obviously that's not nearly true. Such information might help convince artists to get online in a productive way.
We all have some element of hypocrisy in our characters, but the Slashdot community takes it to a level of cognitive dissonance that can only be characterized as literal insanity.
... and I agree, the GPL, being based on copyright, should be awarded by all thinking people exactly the level of courtesy and compliance that RMS extends to the holders of copyright on music. (You may wish to review his interview, in case you somehow missed that; it can be paraphrased as "none whatsoever".)
How on earth is it possible to simultaneously hold the expressed opinions about the unquestionable inviolacy of copyright when applied to code expressed in the "GPL Violation - NVIDIA" posting on Sunday, and the equally unquestionable irrelevancy of copyright when applied to music expressed in this posting?
Granted, the posters are merely following the lead of their cult leader RMS
But if anyone *does* have any substantive argument why anyone should respect the GPL in any way shape or form when its author and advocates freely and publicly repudiate its sole legal basis as soon as it inconveniences them in the slightest, I would truly love to hear it.
Notice that the User has a period in the front.
Hal Duston
hald@sound.net
Boring is good. A conformist in a nonconformist world
Say Im traveling and i didnt bring my cd collection with me. I use Napster and dowload some songs which i already own in cd format. If I dounload an mp3 of a cd that i already own from someone elses hard drive is anyone braking the law?
This is all a big waste of time and effort; think about it, it can go either 1 of 2 ways. Napster wins, nothing changes, music continues to be freely downloadable. Napster looses, and worse case scenario, shutdown. What happens here? . It's just as easy to get whatever song your heart desires using Gnutella, as it is Napster, except for one key issue, there's nobody to go after. No centralized server(s) linking user databases together, etc. It will never end, this is how it is. As long as the internet exists, there will always be a vehicle for piracy.
"True refinement seeks simplicity."
Going after users who appear to be offering Metallica MP3s that they might have a legal right to have isn't diplomatic.
It's pursuing people that are attempting to illegally distribute goods. Nothing more/less. I doubt very highly, that any of the named Napster users, have a license to distribute Metallica MP3's. They have no legal right to be doing what they are being accused of doing.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Ironic, isn't it, that the first of Metallica's crummy albums is Justice For All.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
INVOLENTARY sponsorship.....
"If it is broken, fix it. If it is fixed, improve upon it. This becomes one helluva cycle."
Anyway, when you have a central server like Napster
:-)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Napster was a piece of SOFTWARE. There is no 'central server', just a bunch of mp3 hogs with big hard drives who open their systems up to other mp3 hogs so they can trade files...
But like I said, maybe I'm wrong...
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
1. The lawyers provided Napster with a printout of the user IDs, so that Napster would -- as they stated they would -- block them from connecting to Napster's servers. The users were not served with subpoenas, or cease-and-desist orders, or beaten with truncheons, or taken to concentration camps for "re-education".
2. "Many of them kids"? So what? Besides being presented throughout the entire article without any evidence, claims like this -- matter how self-evident they may seem -- are meant to tug at your heartstrings until the reader agrees to whatever is needed to protect "the children". The same techniques are used in accusations of ritual Satanic abuse, or arguments about gun control (on both sides), or just about any issue at all: "Won't somebody think of the children?" It contributes little, if anything, to a rational discussion.
3. "Napster contributes a lot more to the world than they do." So from this we can conclude: rights depend on worth to society; a program meant to circumvent what (clumsy, out-of-date, easy-for-record-companies-to-abuse) copyright protections exist is worth more than an artist providing the material that is being copied; Metallica should just shut up and take it like men, dammit, rather than take any of the legal remedies open to them.
Written baldly like this, rather than left as implicit assumptions, do these statements still seem rational? We might well argue that unequal access to money and lawyers has already created a second-class citizenship; should we attempt to write this into law too? Does being right depend on not being rich, not being a "crappy" band, or not being successful in your field?
4. "[Metallica's] targets include many [...] who have no idea their online movements are being tracked, and who certainly have the right to pursue individual cultural interests without worring that they're being watched." Does "the right to pursue individual cultural interests" extend to illegal acts? What about illegal duplication of copyrighted material? Why doesn't Metallica have the right to pursue their cultural interest of, say, prosecuting criminals? Is it any more or less silly to define one as a legitimate cultural interest than the other? Why should the expectation of privacy -- and, I think we would agree, an ill-founded one (the debate about whether there should be privacy on the net, or of what kind, is another matter) -- confer immunity from prosecution for illegal acts?
Now for what we do agree on.
"Metallica's action is dumb and nearly insanely self-destructive." Well, yes. I think there are a lot better ways they could've tackled this: through something like the Pay Lars site, or through lobbying their record label to change their behaviour toward Napster.
I agree that there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. I agree that the RIAA is being overly heavy-handed in their actions, and in the long run will only hurt themselves by passing up the opportunity to get involved in MP3 distribution earlier. But the problem with Napster and with sharing MP3s is that there is no way for artists to get paid for the duplication of their material. Record companies pay duplication fees; radio stations pay fees to ASCAP or BMI; anyone using music in a movie, or a commercial, or a tv show must pay as well. But there is no method in place to ensure artists are paid when someone gets a copy of their song from Napster.
I would propose that this is the perfect opportunity to involve ASCAP, BMI and other broadcasting-rights organizations. Monitor Napster and disburse money to artists for downloads of their music, in the same way they are paid for radio play. As for where this money would come from, I would say that Napster (or competitors) pay the licensing fees, as currently paid by radio stations. They would then have the option of either passing the charges on to users by charging to connect, or by passing the charges on to advertisers and allowing users free access.
The problem with this is that record labels would then be denied a potentially huge source of revenue -- because the fees in question would not be duplication fees payable to the copyright holder (almost always the record label), but broadcast fees payable to the writer (the artist or songwriter) and/or the publishing company (these days, most often the artist or songwriter as well). And how eager would these corporations (or any other) be to go along with a proposition like that?
In any case, Mr Katz's inflammatory article helps us not one bit. If we urge politeness and restraint upon everyone when dealing with NVidia accidentally using GPL code in a closed-source driver, then why don't we do the same in this issue?
Carousel is a lie!
end if
believing the big bang requires a certain amount of supernatural faith
Metallica didn't rip their own MP3s. You scan Jon's books, make them available, then we'll see if your argument holds water.
Hamish
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato
I was at first very upset with you because I disagree with you on nearly every single point. The only point I will concede is that some of these problems relating to MP3 trading shouldn't really have surfaced, though I feel we need to repeal some of the more pro-corporate copyright restrictions rather than just ignore it altogether. However, on every other point I disagree with you on grounds of artistic or legal morality. As someone who feels strongly that copyright law (and the willingness of the public to honor copyright) is beneficial and advantageous to the public good, and as someone who actually makes a living producing copyrighted work (I write software), I was quite obviously angered with this article.
/. wants to agree with you. I honestly think this is because the surest sign that some cause people are fighting for was built from mindless propaganda and any campaigns in favor of said cause weren't really thought out is that Jon Katz will speak out in favor of it. The best thing you could have done was take sides with the average copyright infringer because now Slashdot will wake up and realize ``Maybe we should respect copyright. Not only does the GPL depend on copyright law, but Jon Katz thinks it shouldn't be enforced!''
But when looking through the forum I must say, Thank you, Jon! Nobody on
If Metallica hadn't sued Napster (it's the users that infringe on copyright, not the folks that wrote the software), I'd have gone out and bought every one of their CDs. I still won't boycott them, though. To be honest, the only reason Napster is immoral is because most songs traded are copyrighted, but that's only because copyright laws have been changed over the last century to ridiculously extend the lifetime of the [once] temporary copyright monopoly.
---
"Duane Dibbley?" -- Duane Dibbley
Well, maybe for you it is, but yelling is not intellectual property. But the posts on this page are OWNED by the poster, and they are intellectual property.
Screaming is not copyrightable, but intellectual property is...
Remember, JK seems to mouth the "information wants to be free" mantra, whenever anyone but his publisher is listening. Of course he's gonna rip someone elses work, rather than writing his own column.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
"curing dandruff with decapitation" Is what Mr. Frank Zappa called what the PMRC was trying to do when they were attacking the "problem" of profanity in music with legislation and beaurocracy. I think the same situation applies here.
I am still 100% unconvinced that Metallica, or Dr. Dre, or anybody else has lost a dime. I have yet to see any evidence. Have sales dropped? Not on your life. What then is the problem? Got some dandruff Lars? More likely Metallica is being a stooge for some music industry wank, but that's just a theory of mine and I really don't know one way or the other.
Now, lets try and put this in a historical context, even though the anologies don't match up, you can interpolate the results a little bit.
Everyone knew that VCR's would destroy the motion picture industry. Why would anyone go out to a movie when they could just buy a tape. For that matter, why not just copy a tape from your friend? Why not just tape a free movie on TV rather than paying to go to a motion picture. Why indeed?
The answer is complicated, but basically, the act of going out and seeing a picture pleases many senses, and is worth hard currency. Owning the actual movie is more satisfying than looking at your hand scrawled markings on an old TDK blank. So despite piracy, and availability, and ease of duplication, the motion picture industry is thriving, and to top everything off they haven't learned there lesson and they are trying to do the same with the DVD thing. Okay, fine whatever.
I have another great idea for Metallica. Sue tape deck manufacturers! When cassette tape decks first came out the recording industry (does anyone else remember this) wanted to tax every tape deck sold because it would obviously be used for piracy and would steal income from artists like Metallica who so obviously are in it just for there fans. I wonder how many Metallica fans got turned on by having a friedn make a tape for them back in the 80's. The anology now is that your friend would burn some MP3's onto a CD for you, or you'd download them from the Napster.
But why would you ever buy an album? Why go to the movies? No one wants to have some crappy blank cd with hand written setlist on it when you can have the real deal. Not if your a FAN. And how do you get to be a FAN if you've never heard any Metallica? They're not on the radio that much. Droop 20$ bucks on some band you've never heard before? Not likely.
I am not a fan of Metallica. I haven't even heard one album in entirety. But I am a fan of the grateful dead. I can download about a bazillion MP3's for free with no problem. Its allowed and in fact encouraged by the band's organization. (only bootlegs, not studio recordings) Interestingly enough, I also own about twenty of their CD's, along with a bunch of crappy sounding bootleg tapes with handwritten scrawled labels. That's because I am a FAN.
www.avacal.com -- the home page of pete shaw
I don't see Metallica suing makers of CD burners, tape recorders, etc. I see them going after Napster.
Now, I admit to seeing both sides of the issue here - it's made me think a lot about how I feel about copyrights and copyright law. However, I see Metallica targeting Napster - Napster isn't targeted for what you can do with their service, they're targeted because their service is effective.
I know people burning CDs illegally. Should Metallica go after them next, maybe give a few CD-RW manufacturing companies a lawsuit? Or is it just that its not as easy and as public as Napster so thus misses their attention?
Or is it that technology, copyrights, freedom, and responsibility have just collided in one damned ugly mess?
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
If it was 1 guy somewhere, making a copy of it, then it wouldn't be worth the trouble to pursue it. That doesn't justify it, it would just be under the radar. People will let the minor things go because it's not worth the time.
So why pursue the issue about theft/piracy/copyright violation? Because it's never just one person. If you don't stop it in its tracks then it will continue and flourish. Copy one track and it's no big deal, but if you get away with it then you copy more. If you get away with it, then other people are more likely to do the same thing.
The great thing about Metallica's threat is that it doesn't target some faceless company (mp3.com, Napster), but the actual kids who think they are above/outside the law. They blithely get by using whatever software they scavenge off warez sites, listen to whatever music they can squeeze on their HDs, and nobody is the wiser. Most parents are not technical enough (or don't pay that close attention) to even understand what is going on. This lawsuit is a wake up call for all of these kids.
It doesn't matter if the law sucks, that's what the court system is for. Litigation isn't a bad thing, it is designed to get to the heart of the matter -- setting precedent or shattering laws that don't work!
This isn't just some guy fighting for a penny each download, but making a stand to protect something he's worked hard to build. You can mock Lars all you want, but I'd do the same thing and I'm sure many of you would too. Is there something you have written/designed/created that you thought was worth something, dammit, and you don't want broadcasted because one person saw fit to post it? Even if you haven't yet, can't you imagine the day when you do? Who is going to fight for your rights then?
JonKatz is arguing that they are taking away your rights right now, but there is no right to violate copyright -- by definition the right belongs to the author. He is trying to defend it the only way he can -- using the law! Next week, they will try to take away someone else's rights, and they are gonna fight too. What will will you do when they come for yours?
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
...the other day I wrote a rebuttal to a recent interview on Salon.com...here it is again. Hilary, are you listening?
.5b
...
--
To Hilary Rosen. A Retort. v1.1
This is a quick dissection of your recent interview with Salon.com. Please respond if you have a moment.
Your quotes are in italics, questions are in bold, my comments are in plain text.
While ultimately I don't think litigation is the right business strategy over the long term,
Would that be 20 years long term? It will take at least that long for a generation to forget.
I do think that Napster is guilty of copyright infringement, and we will have both a favorable court decision and some precedents set for companies that try and commercialize file sharing.
Why is sharing so bad? And I am shocked that you didn't say "commercialize file pirating." Some would call that a Fruedian slip.
There is certainly a lot of intrigue in the notion of file sharing -- for community reasons and for marketing reasons and for putting like people with like-minded interests together.
Nice, it even sounds good coming from you.
Clearly I understand all that.
For some reason I don't believe you.
But those issues really should be divorced from the very unique and specific issue, Does a company have a right to create a system that is so deliberately designed to take other people's work?
Why do we need another divorce? This country needs healing. It needs the power of community. I lost you after "does a company have a right..."
It's interesting in court -- the Napster lawyer tried to make the argument that file-sharing services like Napster actually bring the Internet back to its original purpose and history, which was when university researchers would share their research with their colleagues around the world.
Perish the thought. Please tell me, again, why this is a bad thing for anyone?
That was a very valuable and exciting thing that happened, but there's a principal difference between that activity and what businesses like Napster are engaged in -- it was those professors' works that they themselves were sharing!
Again with the sharing? This is the word we're talking about right? "a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common" That's the bad word?
As a practical matter going forward, lawsuits get a lot of headlines and they raise a lot of passion -- I understand that.
Not yet you don't. I still have three friends that haven't heard about you yet.
But ultimately the future of music on the Internet is not going to be about legalities and litigation, it's going to be about how are we bringing music to fans -- new music,
Yes, it is. But I don't think you know what "we" means yet.
established artists -- what are the new business models that people are adopting and how do you make all the new opportunities win-win.
BY SHARING THE MUSIC. YOU HAVE A FREE RESOURCE. USE IT! I can explain this philosophy in greater detail if you like. So can a bunch of others around here. Click that "user info" button and look for a conversation (still ongoing) with Eric the
I don't think anybody has illusions about controlling all transmissions online.
I do (think some have illusions, not have them myself).
The question is, How do you compete if services available to give it away without regard to the creators are allowed to flourish with such customer-service-friendly tools?
If you ask the wrong question, the answer doesn't matter. Remove the words "without regard to the creators" and you are on the right track. The Net is like that, it doesn't really make sense in most traditional terms.
Gnutella is a little harder to use than Napster, but there also ways to enforce against Gnutella users that you don't have with Napster.
Hehe, that would be funny to watch. I don't think you want to try and fight that battle.
Are Napster and online distribution of music causing the record industry to rethink or change its business models?
It doesn't necessarily change -- it expands. I personally believe people will want to buy CDs for a long time to come, [agreed] but I also believe they want to have subscriptions, kiosks in stores and airports, digital downloads
I don't, but then again I'm one of your core customers. At least I used to be.
I believe the expansion is where the conflict and the opportunity arrives. It behooves technology innovators to help develop those concepts in partnership with the music community. It's not accurate to say that the record industry says no.
What is it accurate to say? The record industry says "go for it, we have good lawyers and lots of money?"
There's no question that the industry has been slow to the marketplace, but it's too simplistic to say that the slowness or speed is out of some fear.
Simplicity sells technology. Just something I've noticed. I see fear in all your actions. Most creatures that are panicing don't notice it themselves, but again, those are just my observations.
It's more accurate to say that these are very complex transitions with a lot of interests and players involved -- artists and publishers and distributors and retailers and technology partners. There are a whole host of changes, and new structures that have to be created to move into these worlds.
That's the big problem. There are so many players involved. We need two players. Artists and Fans. Which one are you? We don't need new structures either. We have the Net. It's a new structure, we like it. How much of it have you guys built? How much have you tried to destroy? Can you see why we (I) don't like you (plural)?
It's not necessarily what people always want to hear, but I do believe that it is complex.
You just keep on digging into the unnecessary complexities of the business models you have created. I'll be listening to some music.
It's not whether or not somebody is killing CD sales this week -- it's whether music has value, and is perceived to have value in and of itself by fans, and by technology companies and venture capitalists who are investing in new businesses and have to pay for everything from their server space to their telephone lines to their lunchboxes.
Simplify, simplify. How many venture capitalists do you know that would give money to a company that starts out with the idea "First, we sue everyone with a different business model..." (step three: Profit!)
Paying for the content they are using is not an unreasonable request. I think it's a value quotient, not necessarily a piracy fear, that is also important to consider.
You should search this site. I'm sure somebody will give you a clue as to the nature of supply, demand, and value quotients on the Internet. "Not necessarily a piracy fear", I thought you guys weren't scared?
It goes back to the earlier issue that whether or not the record companies and artists are making money selling CDs is irrelevant to Napster; they are building a business on the backs of artists.
And your business would be built where?
Just because [artists] are making money elsewhere doesn't mean Napster has the right to do this. It's a self-serving argument for Napster.
*COUGH*
No one is arguing Chicken Little here;
Sometimes you should listen to a little pen^H^H^Hchicken. The sky has indeed fallen.
what we are saying is that if that geometric [try exponential] progression is such that music has less and less value, ultimately you do get to a scenario where it's hard for the legitimate businesses to compete. No one says we're there, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where we're going.
No it doesn't. Have you ever seen a fifty-year-old rocket crash into the ground? Be patient. Shouldn't be too long now.
It's an artists issue. Cynics say the record industry doesn't like that model because it takes them out of the equation. But it's not true -- artists like it when they have a record that's so successful that they get to stay home for a few months rather than go on tour.
Do artists also like "works for hire"? Here's a link from your page. And here's a link about where you paid to get the law changed. And here's one to a quick rundown on how artists fare with your current business model.
You are limiting the artists' choices. And secondly, a significant part of the meaning of the music is creating the demand for the work.
i.e. Marketing. Yea we've heard of it. I don't remember that in my music appreciation class in college though. Must'a skipped that day after a ragin' Rage show.
And creating that demand for the music and the artist is very much a marketing and promotional function the record company does. The costs associated with that have to be absorbed somewhere.
Yes, those costs must be absorbed. And we, the fans, would be more than happy to do it. Just let us copy, digitally, our music files (that we bought and paid for) and allow us to take care of that marketing part for you, and that distrubution part for you, and that reproction part for you. You just sell CDs. We'll tell our friends what sucks. And what kicks ass. MP3 is about as good as quality as radio, if you haven't noticed. CD's sound better. They still travel better. They look good on coffee tables. We're not going to stop buying CD (unless you quit fretting and bring us DVD-AUDIO, and yes, it will get broken)
Things will evolve and the industry has always given away music for free, but it's really inappropriate that the only ways that artists should be able to make money off their craft is touring, if in fact people are enjoying their music anyway.
Remember we are paying for that promotion and distrubution so you don't have to. You can take all that money you save and give it straight to the artists. And why don't you give their copyrights back after you stop promoting them? That doesn't seem fair to me, but then again I didn't lobby to have copyright extended for an additional 20 years after death.
Not to mention the whole crop of artists that don't have the ability to tour.
I'm sure studio musicians will still have skills that are useful to somebody. Perhaps they can teach in schools after the sudden revival in the public's taste for live music? I mean, MP3 is great, CDs are better, but you can't beat the real thing. Don't forget that.
What was your reaction when you heard that Napster was sponsoring the Limp Bizkit tour?
I thought Napster must be desperate to have to pay $2 million to get someone to support them.
I think you might have wanted to think about this one for a second or two. Exactly how much did you guys spend last year on Congress? What's the annual promotion budget for New York?
I didn't think it was a thoughtful statement about the long-term economics of the record industry -- it was an anti-establishment, rock 'n' roll publicity thing for them to do.
Yes, and...? You 'member Elvis shaking them hips don'cha? What an anti-establishment, rock n' roll thing for him to do.
There's no question that the multitude of artists who have spoken out against Napster far outweigh this kind of publicity stunt, but I hope that their fans realize that these artists actually care about their work, and care about their art, and care about their ability to keep making it.
No question, eh? No question? Now would that be artists as in "signed, sealed, and delivered on the dotted line" or artists as in "a person skilled in one of the fine arts." I don't remeber seeing that national statistics poll, I must've been asleep at the wheel.
I think if Napster has ideas for alternative business models, they haven't said them yet.
Since when did "put music in the hands of fans" become an alternative business model. What is radio supposed to be? What's MTV for again? What do you guys do?
I don't think it's my place to do that. If people are creating businesses that use other people's work like that, it behooves them to come up with some other scenario at the outset that does the right thing. Where they go from here is the subject of obviously complicated scenarios.
Obviously complicated scenaries, i.e. lawsuits. You've got that part of the business plan down pat. Keep the course.
There are mutual responsibilities, but obviously as this case is in litigation, suffice it to say that Napster has never come up with a scenario. And I don't think anybody in the record industry has any indication that that is a viable option.
The record industry? What's a record? Oh, you mean those big plastic CD's? I remember seeing one of those when I was five (and music never sounded so good, analog is a good way to preserve quality, hint, hint) Of course you don't see it as a viable option, that's the problem.
The business models that MP3.com have put forward are interesting business models. The issue with MP3.com is simply of them not seeking licenses prior to the launching of their system.
So you mean in addition to buying your CD, I have to get some ethereal "license" to listen to it? We are talking about my.mp3.com, right? Try and stay on-topic, that's what the lawsuit is about. That, and bankruptcy.
I do get a particular laugh out of technology entrepreneurs who try and say that the record industry has screwed artists over the years. But what is it, now it's their turn?
Oh, we're doing the screwing all right. But the artists have had enough, if you catch my drift. I get a particular laugh too, haw-hah!
We have gone through an interesting shift here. The RIAA is a trade organization that was never a public entity or necessarily had any public profile. So it's quite a different role for us to all of a sudden respond not just to the music community but to the public itself.
The Internet exposes dark organizations. Have you heard about Echelon? Area51? There's some pictures around here somewhere... Unfortunately the power has shifted. You no longer are dealing with someone coming to you for a resource only you control. Now you have to deal with us, and we control the resources.
But I've learned a lot: A lot of people don't know what record companies do and what they bring to the equation -- helping to develop the talent and create the demand. That's been interesting.
Oh, just wait. This party is just getting started. Most of the players aren't even here yet. We live in interesting times, indeed.
When you go to buy a Chevy, you generally know something about General Motors being a decent company.
Define decent for me. I do not think it means what you think it means. (Not a knock on GM, just a question about your example)
When you want to buy a Bruce Springsteen record, you don't think much about Sony Music; that's been deliberate by these companies over the years. As a result, a lot of other people have painted on that blank canvas. If we could do that over, maybe we'd do that differently. But maybe not.
A painting on a black canvas. What an apt metaphor. No wonder it's taken so long to see it clearly.
I cheerfully await a response. I fervently hope that this crosses your desk at some time in the future. I've been harsh, perhaps unnecessarily so, but I hope you can get around my sarcasm and cynicism and see what I have for you here. Don't be afraid to by cynical in response. A little laugh might do us all good at this point. Let's get a conversation going and maybe we can save you some litigation costs.
Thanks,
Roy M. Taylor
a.k.a. Wah
--
+&x
Technically mp3's aren't an exact copy of the artists music. They get rid of sounds in the range that humans can't hear (And sometimes sounds we can here) to make the huge compression of the music possible.
What's happened to you man? I used to love reading your stuff. It seems that your stories have been reduced to poorly crafted attempts at insighting the emotions of posters to generate traffic to /. Has Malda put you up to this?
-ryan
"Any way you look at it, all the information that a person accumulates in a lifetime is just a drop in the bucket."
The views expressed in your sig are completely alien to the concepts of open source, freedom of speech, and community that I am familiar with. So when they are expressed as the "typical slashdot person"'s views, I would have to disagree. If I write a book about politics and I quote Clinton, Bush, or Nixon, I can say, "And a past president has said, 'I did not have...'" There is nothing immoral about such non-specific quoting.
As for Katz and digital copies of his book, it would seem a little weird of him to not put a digital copy of his book online (unless he signed a contract that prohibits him from doing so). I reference www.codebits.com/p5be, (Perl 5 By Example) as an excellent example of a high quality book available online, and paid for by advertising. There's no reason Katz couldn't do the same.
It's not copyrights we are fighting against, and it's not that we're fighting against the music industry because we want music to be free. No, I would gladly pay for music, and I traditionally do pay for music. I want material available on the media that are most convenient for me, and I don't want the producers/distributers of content, such as Metallica, Katz, or the Library of Congress, to fight against certain types of media because they're afraid of them or uncomfortable with them.
Give me quality mp3s to buy, and I will buy mp3s.
I, for one, won't let you get away with this blatant hypocracy. Do you want people trying things like CSS to provide technical remedies for copyright infringement, or do you want them using existing remedies to enforce laws against copyright infringement?
Metallica is absolutely correct here. This isn't a case of a freebie being given away by Metallica for promotion, this is a case of people breaking the absolute letter of the law. You may be able to justify making MP3 copies as "backups," but when you distribute them across Napster, up on FTP sites, whatever, you are breaking the law.
"Napster has consistently refused to remove specific artists' content from its service, noting that it is only a directory for the individuals who are trading the files. But the company has said it would eject users who are specifically identified as copyright violators." -- CNN
So, Metallica would seem to be doing exactly what Napster demands.
"As a condition to your use of the Napster service and browser you agree that you will not: (i) use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way;" -- Napster terms of use.
And where's the outrage against people using Napster against Napster's own terms of usage? These people are using Napster to perform illegal acts that are against Napster's terms of usage, and no one seems to care?
Jon, when kids shoplift, we demand that they be punished. Currently, we have copyright laws in existence. Whether you like them or not is a seperate issue. Go ahead and work to get copyright laws changed/whatever, but as stands they do exist, and they do make a great deal of sense given the current economy. You can't exactly sell service to recoup the cost of selling CDs. Yes, the RIAA is massively overcharging for CDs, but that doesn't give you the right to break the law to get them.
Again, this is exactly what we WANT the RIAA to be doing: going after the offenders in a court of law, not doing stupid, ineffective, non-cross-platform technical solutions to a legal problem.
In fact, you ought to be even more upset at Napster: "As a condition to your use of the Napster service and browser you agree that you will not: ... (iii) reverse engineer any portion of the Napster service or browser." I thought we didn't like anti-reverse engineering clauses.
--
Ben Kosse
Remember Ed Curry!
Screwm! Nub, Spunk
we had a premonition of this sort of action when they all cut their hair. they professed it was because long hair is too hot (or some such nonsense), but we all knew we had seen the last of Metallica the group (replaced by Metallica the corporation). now we get CD releases of Billy Idol remakes--I can understand their desire to protect their art, and the art they have borrowed!
I'm all for protecting copyrights and state that up front. But I agree the motivation is money, but there's something above that they fear (as with the MPAA). The record companies fear the loss of control. When a record company signs a band, they essentialy own them, from what they do, produce, hell, probably decide for them the boxer/briefs question. the REASON they can do that is the record companies have the CONTROL, and the distribution. Any group NEEDS them if they seek that 'fame and fortune'. While one may not hit the levels of a band under contract, the new medium, ie, the web, napstar, or anything else that proliferates allowing distribution they do not/can not control, will allow the name recognition, 'fame' if you will, before they've ever signed on the line. They may sign with a label at some point, but now they have a MUCH better bargaining position with the record labels, as they'll be sought after by many, not crawling in saying 'sign me, and take my firstborn'. This is all about control, just like the MPAA. The copyright issue is their justification for their actions. Just an opinion.
Metallica: Most popular metal band of the 90s, publicly pioneered the movement for metal from glam to down-to-earth grunge.
Their art is their life and though money comes first, I'm sure they aren't stupid. They know as well as anyone that doing this would lower their popularity and sales. The gain in such a venture is not the issue. Is it a coincidence that they are a leading icon in the adolescent music industry? No.
I believe they are being leaned on by their record label who wishes to keep their hands clean. Can a record label do this? I believe so. From wha we have seen so far, they operate pretty much like a mafia.
Dr. Dre is currently on Interscope, Metallica on Elektra and I could find no relation, however no band that has kept up it's popularity for so long would not willingly sacrifice that popularity for a few bucks.
-Effendi
-Effendi
You know, I was thinking, and I'm no lawyer here, but... The whole illegality happening by trading mp3's occurs by distribution, am I right? Now, when a person shares mp3's on Napster, they do not actually give them to anyone, they merely offer them for the taking. They are not forcing anyone to actually download them. In this case, wouldn't it be the people who are selecting to download the mp3's that are committing the crime? And since your download directory can be a different one than your shared directory, you can't really tell if anyone's doing anything illegal just by poking around in Napster... does this sound at all reasonably correct?
"Metallica has every right to fight for its interests. But the unleashing of lawyers on more than 330,000 Napster users -- many of them kids -- who allegedly downloaded the band's music last week is an outrage, a punitive and thoughtless assault on privacy and freedom."
That's rich! On the one hand you defend Mettallica's "right to fight for [their] interests". But they can't go after Napster -- after all it isn't any different from FTP since it does have a 'widespread' legal use (NB: you can't even redistribute free MP3.com music due to copyright). And they can't go after the users making their music illegally available (they're accused of serving files, not downloading them - get your facts right!) -- since they're only a bunch of poor confused kids with fast net connections. And it's not even as if they decided to sue anyone for copyright infringement, only trying to get them to stop infringing the law.
But I forget. This is slashdot.
Story posted to Marijuana.Com, that will get their attention.
And justice for all?
Hooray! Stealing is OK! Atleast Slashdot told me so. To get this down to real life: Robbing a bank is bad, but 300.000 people going out to steal some chewing gum is OK? JonKatz, think of yourself as the owner of the chewing gum factory and tell me again its OK...
You are totally correct about the music industry delaying online music. It takes a mere $1 to produce a CD and they are making at least a 1500% profit on the sale of CDs. Look at the bands, I bet they make more money performing at concerts where the seats go for $40. Online distribution of music can EASILY be delay is they LOWERED the price of CDs! Simple economic concept that will prevent this problem and even increase the firm's profit margin!
Has any of you just bought a CD and thought it wa terrible or only had two songs that you liked? Look at Filter's new album "Title of Record." That CD blows! What happened to Filter! I wasted $15 to buy a CD I was hoping to have good guitar and at least some nonrepetitive lyrics. Artists run out of material fast! Look at Metallica for example, their last two CDs contained material they produced years ago. S&M is the biggest joke from Metallica, it may sounds good, but what is the point? TO MAKE MONEY! They probably do not have any idea what they are going to come out with next. I remember seeing Metallica say on Behind the Music on VH1 that they "Sell out, everytime" at a concert...WHAT ARE THEY COMPLAINING ABOUT? Protecting the rights of their music? Online distribution of their music is making consumers buy their CDs! Many people believe Metallica is a hardcore metal band and don't like them because of that. Napster (a form of online distribution) opened up Metallica to the public, even more than radio could ever do. Let's look at Dr. Dre...his music just got worse and worse (look at DMX also). They wine about their sales when it's themselves. It's not our fault your music is crap! They don't put any effort into their albums anymore. Why would anyone want to pay $15 for that?
LOWER the price of CDs...
PROMOTE online music to increase awareness...
BETTER music will sell more CDs...
STOP wining about Napster and get to the studio...
Using Napster to trade illegal copies of copyrighted works is against their stated policy, and it's against the law. There's really no arguing that point. If Metallica goes after people who steal their works, I say more power to them. I'd rather see them go after the abusers of Napster than Napster itself. Napster can be used legitimately. But if you use it to break the law, well - you just might get the consequences.
It makes you & Slashdot look bad to say "If Metallica is going to assert their rights against theives (many of them are kids!) then by golly, let's not buy their CDs anymore!"
Cripes.
---
Although metalica's actions are not perfect, they are getting closer to the right way to handle this.
For a long time corporate groups like the RIAA etc.. attack 'infrastructures' for contributing to piracy, such as the napster/gnutella file sharing infrustructure or the DeCSS code. As many have noted this is the wrong way to go about it as it penalized legitamate users for the (alledged) illegal actions of a few.
Metalica has taken a step in the right direction by recognizing that the individuals who pirate their music are the ones who should be targeted rather than blanket-targeting all users.
What metalica _should_ do is drop their lawsuit against napster and procecute users who pirate their material to the fullest extent of the law. This is alot more work than attacking just one company but it the only solution for punishing the guilty without affecting the innocent.
While I may not agree with the IP laws of this country they are still the laws and if enough people want them changed badly enough to get off their couches and do something then they will be changed.
Katz was justified in attacking the lawsuits against infrustructures; but defending (and supporting!) blatant piracy on the part of individuals is throwing big stones from a glass house. Mr Katz can choose to provide his IP to free to anyone who wants it. But I don't think he does (nor would his publisher let him). I think Mr Katz would be very upset if he chose to retain his IP rights by restricting access to his work only to find nobody is coming to him for his works as they might all be available for free on the internet. Am I wrong? I doubt it. Otherwise I challenge Mr Katz to put his money where his mouth is and open all his works to the public domain.. Not 'open source' or any license; _public_domain_.
No? Yeah, thats what I thought.
-- Greg
PS: these comments are in the public domain. Abuse them as you see fit.
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
One of the broader points that seems to be missed by the responses is the implications genereated by the investigative methods portion of this program. The lawyers hire a group to conduct what seems to me very similar to a wire tap. The group NetPD monitored the transactions of computer users to the Napster sites. Then collated a list of names and reported thier finds. The legitimacy and legality surrounding this type of investigative technique, without the approval of law enforcement or the courts, is truely in question. The invasion of privacy is the really topic here. Would the Rebel Metal charge just be a rubber tubber attack without the list? John has stated and restated that Metallica and it's Label have the right to protect it's IP. What he enfactically disputs are investgative methods used to collect this information. Yeah so he goes on about attacking thier fan base... so what. Keep your eyes on the donut not the hole. If this were to go unchallenged and become uncontestable policy. How much privacy will we have on the net? The really focus in my opinion is not a boycott of Metallica. Which I do anyway be I think they a just KISS wannbe's. But to open hearings on the law firm and potentially charge them with privacy violations, crimial wire tapping charges, and potentially file a civil class action for damages against them for thier conduct. The ends do not justify the means, that is the really message.
I thought it was legal for me to create an MP3 of music I own, and therefore to also download from somebody else an MP3 of music that I own. Does Metallica have proof that these 300K people do not own the music that they're downloading already?
"May the Code bless you and keep you until the day of your Compiling." ~Requiem
Jon, While I agree with some of the posts placed on slashdot regarding the lawsuits over media distribution over the internet, I disagree with the idea that this is a "privacy" violation on the part of Metallica. If this is privacy related, it is a problem with the way Napster operates. Napster provides the link between "Login" and "Users". Napster also provides usernames to anyone who searches. If this is a privacy violation, you should talk to napster about it, not metallica. Secondly, each user *chooses* to place the mp3's on his hard drive "in the public view". Metallica is merely searching through *public* information, Metallica is not viewing *private* information on the computers hard disks. While you have had some decent points in the past, I don't think you've hit the nine inch nail on the head this time. -- Twivel
For the most part, they own the debate and the channels through which the debate is presented to Joe Sixpack. Evidence simply does not matter. They'll make it up if they need to, or even if they don't.
As an aside to all you whose arguments are appeals to higher authority (But it's illegal!): Dumping tea into Boston Harbor was very clearly illegal, but that's part of why it was so important and so necessary.
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
That said, Will Pendarvis, the dj on K-ROCK in New York wants people to email him to petition Metallica to come to NY. From his page on the station's website:
So here's the email I sent him:
__________________________________________________ ___
rooooar
Yes, you do. If you own a copy of the music, you hold a license to it.
That's why it irritates me that copying technology is so restricted after a new format is released. I'd like to get all of my old material copied onto the new format as soon as possible, and such restrictions only serve to hold me back.
As for my Metallica MP3's, I hold licenses to all of them. I own an original copy of everything Metallica's released in the U.S., except for some videos which I will not purchase until they are made available on DVD. In short, I have a right to my music in any form I choose.
You don't have to stop buying the music, you can make the music. Here is an easy way to voice your opinion and protest. 1. Make a recording of yourself voicing your opinion on the Metallica-Napster issue. 2. Convert the recording to an mp3 file. 3. Name the mp3 file: Metallica_is_Wasting_My Hate.mp3, Metallica_is_Fading_to_black.mp3 or some other pun of a metallica song. 4. Share the newly created file on napster. Now you can't be banned for voicing your opinion. So, if Metallica wants these files off of Napster, they want to prevent Free Speech. Note: Don't slander them, just present your arguement as if you were talking to Metallica
Well, for all you suckers out there, Metallica has once again demonstrated their naivety by posting live pics from their "chat".
Ok, so this isn't a very long post, but hey, is there really any commentary needed on this?
I don't know about you, but these pics and just the fact that they have been posted, is suspicious.
If they really wanted to prove to us they were live, they should have answered some real questions, and addressed the real issues, instead of wasting everyone's time with bs.
----(o)----
I had the same thought, but you know... Jon doesn't really put out anything of value. All he peddles are his "insightful" opinions (down with the man, open source will rule the world, teenagers are misunderstood) and republish the stuff that people send to him. He doesn't produce a product or own any of this stuff, he just packages it up to keep stirring the controversy.
;)
Until he produces something of value, why should he care if people republish his works? Gee, all it would do is stir up more controversy! Think of Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, and all the others... Jon has just found another niche: techno-teens.
The more talk and controversy he can generate, the better for him: more book deals, more speaking engagements, and more paid opinion articles he is offered. Jon doesn't produce a product that's worth pirating, he spews an opinion that people pay to hear (or tune in to argue against). That's why he doesn't care about copyright. That's his choice -- to put his content out there for free.
(Unfortunately his content advocates that stealing my content is justified, no matter what I think it is worth -- and that's where the problem lies.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Normally I agree with most of what Jon Katz says. Such is not the case with this article.
Jon Katz whines about 330,000 users having their "privacy violated." And some of them are kids. My god! Think of the CHILDREN! That should be your first clue that he's full of hot air.
The firm Metallica used to find these "kids" didn't do anything the kids themselvesdidn't do in the process of findind the music they stole. They did searches -- but the firm wrote down the usernames of people they found rather than actually downloading stuff.
Metallica would be *entirely* justified in adding these 330,000 law breakers (and make no mistake, that is *exactly* what they are!) to their lawsuit, but they have not. They have strated that they will not. Instead, they simply ask that Napster obey their own publicly stated policy of blocking known pirates.
You can argue until you are blue in the face that record companies are greedy, glutonous pigs, but the fact is that the law gives them certain rights over the material they produce.
Metallica's actions have proven to be incredibly mild compared to what they *could* be doing. They are taking measures to stop hundreds of thousands of pirates right now (without hauling them off to JAIL, where they legally belong!) and trying to stem one of the big causes of the problem in stopping Napster.
Napster is not a good thing. It is JUST a tool for piracy. It does not legitimize online music, it legitimizes piracy -- the THEFT of other people's work. And why does this tool exist? Why does it prosper? Because we all have this entitlement mentality. We are *entitled* to music. Why should we have to pay for something which musicians work hard to make, which record companies spend lots of money to promote and distribute...
Katz: Stop whining. Nobody's privacy got violated. If you are standing in a crowd you cannot reasonably expect privacy. Likewise, if you are letting people download files from your computer, you cannot reasonably expect privacy. Metallica's actions are NOT heavy handed. The RIAA's actions against My.MP3.com are heavy-handed: They are using the letter of the law to crush competition despite the fact that no actual piracy has been committed. Metallica on the other hand is witnessing more piracy occur in *one day* than has likely happened in the past *10 years*. (before Napster)
-JF
MrJoy.com -- Because coding is FUN!
Until recently, we all knew and understood that theft of copyrighted material is immoral. We were taught this in school as we plagarized our book reports from the library. Just last year we knew that copying CDs was illegal now suddenly it has become legal? It's those of you who feel that it is legal to steal copyrighted material that make me wonder what is happening to the world. We're going down people. I'm worried.
Are you trying to say that making ripped MP3's available for anonymous download on this Internet is not a violation of copyright? Or are you saying that it should not be a violation of copyright?
If you are saying it is not a violation, you are wrong. Radio station can let you hear songs for free because they were given permission by the copyright holders. Smart bands and labels are starting to grant the same permission to MP3 broadcasters and even to Napster users in some cases. The fact is that Metallica is not one of those smart bands, and since they own the copyrights they have the exclusive rights to be dicks about this.
If you are saying that MP3 distribution should not be copyright violation, and that the law should be changed, I am willing to accept that, but it does not justify getting all pissy about what Metallica is doing.
The sad reality about copyright law is that if you do not defend your IP against violators, it slips into the public domain, and you lose all rights. This is why Coke, Kleenex, and Band-Aid worked so hard to prevent their trademark names from becoming generic terms. Metallica's lawers know very well that if they take no action against the unauthorized duplication of MP3's now, they will have no ability to stop it when their music shows up on an unauthorized "Napster's Greatest Hits" CD a few years down the road.
If I were Metallica's business manager, my advice would be to extend their copyrights to permit free trading of ripped MP3's to anybody who wants them. It would serve the dual purpose of protecting their IP at minimal expense, and it would also promote their music at a time when they are building a new fan base to replace all the metal-heads that think their new stuff is crap. That might be my advise, but it is not what they are doing... and there are no laws against being stubborn and unwise.
It is also worth mentioning that Metallica is not the only "corporate" interest in this fight. Napster is not distributing all this "free" music out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it to create traffic so they can sell ads. There is nothing wrong with this business model, except that they are not paying for, nor authorized to use, the content that captures the eyeballs.
It all comes down to the issue of copyright and authorization. Let me try to crystalize my point with an example:
If I ran a commercial radio station, and taped Garrison Keilor's "Prairie Home Companion" from an MPR broadcast (Minnesota Public Radio, who produced the show), then turned around and re-broadcast the tapes on my station (with my own station's commercials in place of the spoof ads for "Powdermilk Buscuits" and "Ah-hoo-ah Hot Sauce"), you'd better believe that MPR would sue my ass off.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Someone who has never heard of OCR captured a chat log of a portion of the Yahoo chat with Metallica.
After reading that, I can begin to understand and sympathize with Metallica's reason for suing Napster. It should be noted that the list of names ("LON"?) is not for the purpose of prosecuting those individuals, but to demonstrate actual examples of pirating as evidence against Napster. Metallica is only going after Napster, and with not-unjustifiable reason. (Or you can just say it's justifiable reason, whatever.) Napster knows that their software is being used for piracy, they expected it, it may even be that they promoted it to get people to use the software, and why? Napster is a for-profit corporate entity with a single purpose: to make money. They don't care about freedom of information, or community, or sharing. All they want is to either have a spectacular IPO, or that some other money-grubbing corporate entity will swallow them up, giving them a considerable amount of cash in the process.
But I can't completely support Metallica's lawsuit, because of the possible precedence setting it may create, and Metallica is aware of this. But because they are just as much a bunch of money-grubbing profiteers as Napster, they are flippant about what affect this may have on freedom of information. If this results in something other than a settlement or narrow ruling, it would allow other software or service providers to be sued because of what their clients do. Imagine EFNet being shut down because of #MP3 and #Warez. And this wouldn't be very good news for Gnutella, either.
So I hope that either Metallica loses or Napster settles. Or we could help Metallica out in their goal to see Napster shut-down. Just stop using Napster, there's already a perfect replacement that's not made by some money-grubbing faceless corporation in Gnutella. Or we could use FreeNet, or any number of ways to trade mp3s other than Napster.
And, on a completely unrelated topic, be sure to check out the RomeroDance!
Any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Gods.
So let me get this straight, we don't think Metalica should be sueing napster for allowing people to trade pirated music thru their system. BUT now they shoudln't be allowed to go after the people who are actualy doing it because its an "invasion of their privacy?" DUH! so what is being said is that Metalica should just set back and watch their record sales slip just so a bunch of cheap punks can get free music. If they can't afford to buy the CD then they don't get to have it. Period. Everyone is mad because record lables force people to buy CD's if they want the music, well napster users are trying to force the record labels to give it away for free. What makes the napster people's way better? And i still don't see how this is an invasion of privacy. the useres distributing the illegal copies were putting them up for all to see, and now metalica is calling them on it. and guess what, the law is on metalica's side, and not because they have more money, but becuase the way things happen on napster are just plain wrong.
Inside the liner notes, James talks about Lars' impressive record collection, and had this to say: "[It was] fucking huge. When Lars first came to the States, he had all these singles with devils and pentagrams and rough-looking guys with leather jackets on the covers: Motorhead, Diamond Head, Witchfynde, Sweet Savage, Tygers of Pan Tang. I would stay over at his place for days at a time, making tapes of his records and sleeping on the carpet." Wow! What a dedicated pirate James was back in those days, bootlegging Lars' collection round the clock. Shouldn't those bands be compensated? Is there a statute of limit on copyright violations?
For the few who couldn't read between the lines.
- --------------------------------
The Boston Tea Party
-----------------------------------------------
{Popular name} for the action taken on December 16, 1773, by a group of Boston citizens to protest the British tax on tea imported to the colonies.
{napster}
Although most provisions of the Townshend Acts, taxing imports to the colonies, were repealed by {Parliament}, the duty on tea was retained to demonstrate the power of Parliament to tax the colonies.
{music industry}
{The citizens of Boston would not permit the unloading of three British ships} that arrived in Boston in November 1773 with 342 chests of tea.
{napster population vs. Metallica}
The royal governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, however, would not allow the tea ships to return to England until the duty had been paid. On the evening of December 16, a group of Bostonians, instigated by the American patriot Samuel Adams and disguised as Indians, boarded the vessels and emptied the tea into the Boston Harbor. When the government of Boston refused to pay for the tea, the British closed the port.
{Boycott}
Pretty simple.
'Alittle revolution is always good from time to time.' Thomas Jefferson
Privacy is a sticky issue. First off, despite what Katz may like to believe, privacy isn't meant to protect people from reprecussions for breaking the law. It is to protect people from invasion into their social lives. The world does not need to know who I am sleeping with or what I like to read unless I chose to share that. Also, there are often social reprecussions which attach to particular behavior which I may want to avoid.
However, the situation becomes muddied when people are unhappy with the laws. Many people use privacy as a shield to protect themselves from persecution under laws which they feel are unfair. Thus, advocates of marijuana use privacy laws to keep the police from searching their homes or tapping their phone. This is another example. People who dislike copyright laws hide behind the issue of privacy on the Internet in order to break them with impunity.
However, one should never lose sight of the fact that this isn't what privacy laws are supposed to do. Katz asserts throughout the entire article that the right to privacy of the Napster users is more important than the rights of the artists to protect their work. This is simply untrue. Privacy isn't even an issue here. A crime was committed, whether you like the law or not, and in the course of criminal investigations, privacy isn't really a valid issue.
Well, that's not entirely true. It is an issue if you have something to hide.
Eric Christian Berg.
Hey lets boycot Metallica. It can be just like our Amazon boycot! This will really work! Oh wait, they're already filthy rich. From what I've read of their stupid excuses for going after Napster, they're more woried about their music being treated as objects (rather than the fine quality art they believe it is). We all know the true reason they're suing Napster is because it means more publicity for them! Look at all the press they're getting! If you mention Metallica enough in the news, drones are obviously going to buy more records. I don't know anyone that's bought any Metallica after like "Ride the Lightning" anyway. They're just another washed out alterna-wannabe band now. They're a bunch of greedy bastards. Enjoy
No he did'nt bother reading the article, he's just followng the crowd of sheeps, bashing Jonkatz just because it's the thing to do, and maybe collect a few karma points this way.
Recipe for collecting karma points on slashdot currently:
Et voila.
ObFlame: Metallica is for retarded acneic teenager. MODERATE ME DOWN!!
Um... Did you read the article?
Katz wasn't saying that the band didn't have a right to protect their intellectual property. The point that Katz was making is that their actions were pointless if their goal was to establish legal precedents for distributing music on the internet. MP3.com is already dealing with negotiations about that.
But Metallica's actions don't seem to be geared towards legal precedents. They seem to be geared towards terrorizing young netizens, so that they are afraid to download music, no matter WHAT gets decided.
Metallica's seem to be aimed a lot more towards terrorizing people than anything else.
And that is what the point of the article was. Katz was not condoning the actions of napster users. He was condemning Metallica's intimidation tactics.
...are you smoking!
You must be kidding me! Do you actually think that if you don't buy albums that the price will go down? If you actually belive this then I NEED to get some of that good crack you are smoking.
Record companies don't think that way. I understand that in a simplistic world, it might work but in this world we realize that greed is the main driving force behind the record companies (and the RIAA).
I "aquire" music online. Which often leads me to buy an album if I like it enough. This actually happens quite often. But there are a few times where I wasted $12-$18 on an album that I thought was going to be good and it turned out to be crap. Mp3's are a useful media. For concumers especially.
I also wonder how the hell this comment got moderated up to (5) Informative ? All it informs me of is the fact that some people live in lala land.
flatrabbit,
peripheral visionary
"Never wrestle with a pig, you both get dirty and the pig likes it."
I left that piece of info out by mistake. It's inside the liner notes of Garage Inc.
how did they get this list of names? did they actually download an mp3 from every one that posted having Metallica songs available or did they just do a scan for "Metallica" and pulled all the names from that list. Unless they're saying that I can't even name a file after their group, that'd be a pretty inaccurate way to look for pirates.
I do think that in a way Napster was asking for this. They've used the "we only shut down users for pirating, not our whole service" defense line for awhile now. Someone just called their bluff. I still wonder how accurate their list of offending users is. Besides - if you get banned, just create a new user name. I doubt Napster keeps a record of your IP or MAC address...
Based on the chat yesterday night, it's obvious that Metallica is clueless. They don't know what's going on or what they are really doing. All they know is that they want to save their profits. I would guess that they are being told by their record labels and their lawyer that to save their profits, they should shut down Napster. And between listening to their record label (who they get paid by) and listening to fans (who they think are stealing their music), they choose to listen to the record label. Metallica is just a puppet being used to get what the record label wants. In a way it's kinda sad that Metallica will probably get screwed the worst by this and that the record labels tricked them into it. So fighting against Metallica is rather pointless, the fight should be against the puppet masters, the record labels. Too bad Metallica is unable to see through the lies of the record label . . .
How is this an outrage? The individuals that Metallica is going after did commit a crime, after all. What happened to everyone thinking it was rediculous to be suing Napster -- after all, wasn't there a recent ruling saying that companies aren't responsible for what goes through their networks?
Metallica is taking a much more rational course of action by going after the people who are actually breaking the law. This is aside from the fact that Katz seems to have conveniently forgotten Napster's offer to shut down any accounts that they were told were trading the band's music. If you want to bitch at anyone for a "thoughtless assault on privacy and freedom," this time it's Napster's turn to take the heat.
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Something that I think a lot of people are missing is that music is released under licenses just like software. Music can be public domain just like software.
/. cried bloody murder when a closed source commercial software package is released containing GPL'ed code? Tonnes. Why? Because someone worked very hard for little or no money to create the software and now someone is taking advantage of it. Metallica looks at it this way too. They spend a lot money making each CD and they want equal return. Napster threatens that.
But Metallica did not release their CD under public domain. NOT!!! NOT!!! NOT!!! NOT!!! Therefor, people do not have the right to buy the CD and distribute CD's information to others, even if the third party also owns the CD. No different than distributing a Windows 98 CD on the web.
Think about it this way: how many times has someone on
If people are going to bitch about Metallica, I think they automatically lose the right to bitch about GPL violations, and vise versa. Is that fair?
Ozwald
I wonder if the Private Dicks saw who actually downloaded the music on top of who was offering it? 0
--
--
It's not the rambling I object to, so much as the mumbled incoherancies...
...making those MP3s available for public download (what you call trading) happens to be a copyright violation...
Close, but technically false. Making them available for download is not a crime. Actually transferring them is. It's quite possible (and has been true for me in my Napster usage) that one can "list" a copyrighted song without it ever being transferred, particularly if one likes obscure bands or does not stay online with Napster very long.
For Metallica to claim I broke their copyright requires them to show I transferred a file to a person who did not own a legit copy. To have a real legal case (AFAICT, IANAL), they would have to mount a sting for each person so accused: attempt to actually download a file from me (and confirm that the file really was "their" content).
--LP
Everyone keeps saying "Jon is dumb...it's not about this issue...all of Jon's remarks are unsupported...etc." Don't you understand that JK is the ultimate Slashdot troll? But, Slashdot and Andover love him because he makes them money! Look at the number of responses to all the other articles, then look at the responses to JK articles. JK articles have significantly more responses, which means more pageviews, more banner impressions, and more money for Slashdot/Andover. If you really think Jon's articles are crap and you don't want to see any more of them, stop posting about them! It only encourages Slashdot to post more inflammatory JK articles.
...if a political candidate makes a comment in public, isn't THAT public domain?
I agree to some extent that napster is being used largely for the illegal trading of copyrighted material...
...
... so a black/gray market has sprung up because there is a need that is not being fufilled ...
... what they want to do is ensure that any form of music that the consumers is exposed to has been paid for and counted ...
...
...
... do we stick with the traditional method of music and be glad to hear the (insert the current billboard top 10 artist here ) for the 50 th time in 3 days .. or do we move on to a medium that gives the consumers what they want ?
...
But how many of those downloads are actual people trying to find new and intresting music to listen to ?
Radio only plays the same top 200 songs over and over and over again... the record stores only cary the most popular and better selling cd's
consumers are only getting a small taste of what is out there to offer via traditional and legal means of distrubition.
so what has happened ? consumers have found that there is more to music than korn , backstreet boys britney spears,garth brooks , M&M , and(insert top mtv artist here)
so the mp3 format becomes widely popular because the consumer can find what they are looking for
not what the record companies wants them to listen to
and the record companies are to blind and to unwilling to try and fufill this need
they cant have the consumer listening to brangha beat or cuban dance music or zimbabwaian dance or what ever else a consumer may be exposed to via the mp3 format
the consumer must be manipulated in to likeing brittney spears and the back street boys . and the same goes with the artist as well if they dont sound like nirviana or wail like whitney
then they will not get picked up
so americas music all sounds the same wether it be alternative, country, rock, or metal if it cant be labeled it must not be good enough for a label so it will be ignored.
so here we are faced with a decision
its not about disrespecting the artist its about ITS TIME FOR A CHANGE!!
and the consumer is moving in that direction we are tired of the same crap being forced down our throats we want variety we want excitement we want music that captures the vibrant energy of the world not some corporate remix of the same sounds of the last 20 years
and mp3 is the medium
music the paint
dancefloor the canvas
Music the Paint dancefloor the canvas your body the brush
Does that not mean that:
Laws that are broken by people because they had access to something someone created (Metallica songs) that Metallica is therefore guilty of those crimes?
I'm sure I heard somewhere that back in the 80s that some kid somewhere went on a shooting spree because 'Metalica's lyrics told him to do it'.....
I have noticed that every time the rights of the artists get brought up in this discussion, there is a flurry of rationalizations based on the cost of CDs, whether or not the person would have bought the album anyway, how much the band is making, etc. This isn't surprising, since these are the sorts of inconsequential things people tend to focus on when they are rationalizing an action which they know is wrong. They pick out details in an attempt to justify themselves, both to others and in their own mind, so that they can leisurely continue to do whatever they are doing without a guilty conscience.
However, what people seem to be missing is the principle of it all. The question of how much money is lost or not lost isn't relevant. Right and wrong are not decided on pragmatic grounds such as these. No, the question is simply: what are the rights of the artists and have they been ignored?
There are few people who would argue that the artists don't have any right to their own music, but they tend to start waffling when this fact is inconvenient for them. The fact is, however, that they have as much right to the product of their labor as anybody else. How reproducable this product is isn't really an issue. It is simply a matter of respect to honor an artists' wishes concerning his or her work. If I want to lock my car in my garage and never drive it, this doesn't give someone else the right to steal it just because they disagree with how I've chosen to use or not use my property. Similarly, just because you don't agree with an artists' choices on how his or her music is distributed doesn't give you the right to steal it, either. To do so is an act of ultimate disrespect to the artist and I would venture to guess that this, more than money issues, is what is getting under the skin of these performers.
The question of whether or not these rights have been violated is simple: they have been. Quite clearly. If they choose to sell a CD to you with the understanding that only you will use it, you are ignoring their rights completely by ripping it and uploading it for anyone to have access to. You can justify it any way you want but no neo-anarchstic whining about property laws is going to change that you have disrespected the artists' wishes. They have given you this product, this music, which they worked hard on and you have stolen it for a bunch of people you don't even know.
So, rationalizations aside, I would like to know why Katz believes that the petty criminality of a bunch of kids should be protected, and the rights of hard-working artists should not?
Eric Christian Berg
Well, guess what - so is Metallica.
I can accept that you disagree with their beliefs, or that you think it's a stupid move. But they are simply attempting to defend their rights. We'd applaud them if they were an open-source software group, and the offenders were corporate big-wigs.
As to an "invasion of privacy?" BULLSH*T. As a user of Napster, you understand that your user name will be listed, when people find a song that you're sharing. There's no Anonymous Coward in Napster. However, it's just a USERNAME, okay? They simply had a creative use of the system, to defend their rights. I agree that it's a silly way to do it, but I don't think they acted illegally, as JK seems to imply.
Boycott? Fine - you can boycott whatever you want to. Don't be hypocritical about it, though, kids. I imagine many SlashDot readers write commercial software for a living. Imagine that someone STEALS what you've worked hard to produce. How does that make you feel? You've lost your livlihood because some jerk, acting in the name of Freedom violated your rights?! Now, imagine the idiot left a calling card - a way that you could identify them. You wouldn't pursue them? I don't care if it is a 12-year old. Ignorance of the law is not protection from it. There's no "right" that Metallica is infringing, here, folks.
As a content provider, they have every right to expect to receive compensation for what they produce.
If I made BlueHat, a DIRECT RIP-OFF of RedHat, including their user manuals, and I didn't even bother to add anything new to it, you think I'd be left alone? Hell no - I'd be lambasted.
Education is the silver bullet.
I would love the lawyers to try to sue me for downloading a song off a CD I already own. So, why would I download it and not just rip it ? I bought the CD a couple of years ago and it became badly scratched and there is NO way I am going to spend $20 for a CD that cost $10 when I bought it. I would not even spend the $10. Sure, this is one legitimate use of MP3s and I am sure that not eveyone is doing that though. I am not suprised that they are doing this. They where *GREAT* back in the day. Now there all washed up and looking for a handout. Face it, they suck now. After the black albulm that went down hill. I guess that would be the same for Dr. Dre. I have lost a lot of repect for them. Know, don't get me wrong, they do own the music. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Hey, who will metallica, sue next?? IRC users for use of copyrighted nicks??
Who is this "Dre" guy (it is a guy, right?)? Is he really a doctor? Has this got something to do with smoking and the koop.com bankruptcy? Jocelyn Elders? Does he work for the government?
Why are the record industry not suing the manufacturers of Microsoft Networking ? MS Networking is being used every day to "share" terabytes of "illegal" MP3 copies of the music owned by the major record companies.
It was going on before napster was a gleam in a teenagers eye, too... Seems to me BMI/ASCAP should take on M$ before they start going after the small fry. Maybe they're just getting warmed up.
Face it: the advertising industry (and the entertainment industry, by extension) will not be happy until they control every sensory path into your conciousness. They are the enemy. Know them.
"The Internet is made of cats."
Do you think you will get more popular by suing fans? Did you ever consider that you may lose MORE money suing (lawyers costs and loss of fan money [boycotting concerts, albums, memorabilia]) than by letting new fans get your music through Napster, and then you getting money when they go out and get the album or go to your concert? Travis forkspoon@hotmail.com
Until this, I personally understood and generally agreed with Metallica's position of trying to sue Napster. However I cannot believe that they are going after users. This is an unforgivable violation of privacy. I have great deal of concern about how artists are going to be compensated for their work when technology has made ever increasingly easy to not pay for what we consume. However this latest action by Metallica seems way too mean spirited and will likely cause a huge backlash within their own fanbase.
Obviously the technology is here to stay we need to find a way to make sure that artists are compensated for their work. We also should keep in mind that it is usually the record companies who make most of the money, not the artists. I do think that it is fair for Metallica to continue to sue Napster under current copyright law, but they should not go after users this way. If Metallica was smart they would use their clout to explore new ways of collecting revenue for their work in the digital age, because no matter how many people they sue, music sharing is not going away.
These guys have balls, something you nerds can only dream about.
Taking on the on-line community like that, making millions of ennemies on the fly... Awesome.
Yes, it is safer to dutyfully repeat Katz' politically correct whinings, but is it a life?
Microwaving a CD is pointless, CDs cannot (the best of my knowledge) be heaten by our ovens' 2.45 GHz microwaves. Better break the CDs to tiny pieces and throw it in the plastic section of selective trash, for burning it would cause more harm to the environment than Metallica is worth.
Metallica is offering metallica.com email addresses off their website mail.metallica.com.
;)
Do with this information what you want
-marsh
gimme_your_cash@metallica.com
"All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2000 Andover.Net." I seem to notice this at the bottom of your page. How would you like it if another site were to steal all your content and put it on there webpage in order to gain popularity. It is the same thing..
Perl coder, Webmaster, and www.gamerzuniverse.com pimp.
Your "Audio DVD" scenerio seemed more likely a couple years ago, when a elite corps of "Audiophile" early adopters was driving the market. But now, who is going to buy into this "upgrade" that will be indistinguishable from a normal CD unless you have a really good stereo?
If anything, this whole MP3 schbang proves that the market values other features like transportability over quality. CD-quality is too good for a huge number of users with boom boxes and computer speakers. The record industry knows this -- they've been tossing about DVD-Audio for years, and they've never gotten substantially behind it. If they thought there was a market, they would be selling it.
(Not to mention that if they used an improved encryption scheme, DVDAudio would be incompatible with the DVD installed base. It's a pretty new market, and the consumers won't be happy to see their hardware obsoleted so quickly.)
Rather than trying to upsell the market to new-and-improved, they should be trying to downsell to the MP3 market. If an 'honest consumer' could buy a sub-CD quality album electronically for $3-$5, a good chunk of the MP3 trading would go away. Of course the non-warez MP3 version would be in a 'secure' format, acomplishing the same thing that DVD-Audio would.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Go ahead Metallica. Sic your lawyers on these kids. Trump up the charges some. Yeah. Get about 100,000 tossed in the can where they can languish for awhile. Tecnically, they have ripped you off. So they deserve to become the sex slaves of some tough con all because they took something that didn't belong to them, right? Most are guilty of larceny, right? Well, when people commit larceny by physically stealing as opposed to electronic larcency, they get sent to prison, don't they? Well then let's just stop all this huffing and puffing and get a little action going. Go ahead and do it! There has been much discussion about this topic. It's been hashed and rehashed. OK, Metallica, go ahead and test to see who is right. It'll be more interesting than the recent bout between ABC and Time Warner.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
The same group that loses so much money by not selling CDs has 6 albums in the top 100 for the most listened-to CDs on the internet (http://www.cddb.com/top100.html). That makes you think...
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Sorry if this is a repost, I'm not sure if my first submitted with the correct formatting.
Hi guys,
I'm new to this forum, and I'm certainly not at the same technical level of expertise about MP3s and copyright as most of the rest of you seem to be. I've been reading a lot of these threads on Metallica vs. Napster with much interest, though, and I'd like to get your feedback if you're willing to provide it.
1) Do you believe that copying music based off of MP3 reproductions, as folks have been doing with Metallica's music, is per se illegal? I know that there are music executives and others who will claim that MP3 distribution has some positive benefits, such as increasing awareness of music in general and perhaps even encouraging people to buy the CDs after they hear excerpts off of MP3s. However, I am asking whether ethically/legally it is illegal to copy MP3s in the manner people have been doing, regardless of whether it is justifiable by any possible benefits.
It seems to me that it is illegal to infringe on copyright, and that music producers should have the right to protect their own material. It is true that perhaps the music industry exploits consumers by overcharging on CDs, but is this enough recourse for folks to take Robin Hood-esque approach and pirate music because they feel unfairly treated? You can attack the premise of the argument; I am merely saying that it seems from a lot of the posts I've read that people acknowledge MP3 distribution as being illegal but do an ends-justify-means type of logic as their main rationale.
2) It is true that music companies have low cost for producing CDs, but does this mean they're necessarily exploiting consumers? It takes 5 cents for McDonalds to produce a soda, and most of that charge is for the actual container. Likewise, in software industry, it might take $1 to make a CD, but e.g. CAD packages such as Alias|Wavefront go for tens of thousands of $$'s because of the costs associated with producing the material on the CD. Is it not reasonable that these costs be taken into account? Said another way: in our capitalist society, if record companies were really exploiting us consumers, wouldn't someone have long since opened up a legal record store where he was able to undersell other companies by staying more to the "true" cost of the CDs? It seems to me that if CD are $15.00, this is because they're a reasonable price given the overall production costs, otherwise they should be lower in our competition market.
3) Is there a difference between what is ethically correct, versus what is practically enforceable? For example, the government made a stance on alcohol during prohibition, but repealed this by in large because of the impossibility of enforcing such a law (am I correct? Maybe I'm off my rocker here). It seems that people are saying that MP3s shoudl be legalized, and folks like Metallica should not sue, because it is "fighting against the inevitable." However, I've never seen that as a just cause to override morality -- otherwise, you might get into a ludicrous situation in the future where murder is legalized because there's no way to stop it. Notwithstanding the above example, I'm wondering whether people like Metallica have a right to fight with extreme recourse against what they perceive to be illegal? Isn't it true that people pay exorbitant fees to protect their copyrights and engage in lawsuits over intellectual property? Isn't it also reasonable that, given that Metallica justly views MP3 distribution as illegal and a compromise to their business goals, they likewise use whatever means available to protect their own rights? Perhaps the way they're going about it is incorrect; but is not the underlying premise of a company protecting its own interests from illegal activity reasonable?
4) I agree that prosecuting young kids and such is probably a bad idea. Invasion of privacy is likewise a very touchy issue. However, is it also not true that a large portion of illegal pirating comes from our younger generation? I know that MP3 copying is replete in high school and college, from my own experiences. If younger folks grow up in an environment where they believe they can engage in illegal activities without fear of consequence, what does this say about our future society when they grow up with these values? Perhaps I am being too goody-two-shoes (sp?), but it seems that you should probably stop this at a young age, because it involves the overall tide of morality in our society. If you punish kids early and teach them that it's illegal to exploit pirating, and convince them that this is a serious issue, then you pave the way for a society where this sort of thing is respected when those kids become adults. I don't mean that you should stick them all in jail... but if you ignore the problem and let them get away with it because they're kids, that seems an equal evil.
IIRC they allowed bootlegging of their live shows, not of their albums. (Except for maybe before they were even signed.)
I'm curious to know how many of these Napster users were trading live bootlegs as opposed to songs available on their albums.
MacSlash: News for Mac Geeks
How is anybody going to be able to use Napster to tell that she has a Metallica song on her hard drive if that's not the song she submitted to Napster as available for download? Unless Napster somehow makes her whole hard drive viewable by others, in which case it's a bit much to complain about privacy invasion by Metallica.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I read that it costs only 50 cents to manufacture a CD. I went to Sam's yesterday to buy a Neil Young CD and it was at 14.99 marked down from 21.99 ... I bought then and looked around a bit. 2pac's greatest hits was going for 44.99, his album R U still down was going for 41.99 ... these albums are years old, they have already recouped whatever it cost to produce them.
On another note:
I doubt I would have bought that Neil Young album if I could have found it on line, but i wouldn't have even known that I would like it if I hadn't listened to all kinds of his previous work online. You can't really get a feel for an artist standing up in the store with those headphones on..
Metallica may be going about this the wrong way, but I'm of the opinion that the VAST majority of today's top artists share the same viewpoint, but are laying low, feeling fortunate that someone else took action so they might not have to themselves. The rest of the industry's artists can now sit back and wait for whatever legal precident Metallica's actions bring about, without taking any public relations risks themselves with their own fan bases. At least Metallica took a stand and told their fans what they think, for better or worse. I prefer that to the deafening silence currently eminating from the rest of these artists. For it or against it, at least Dr. Dre, Chuck D. of Public Enemy, and Metallica tell you where they're at on the issue.
Metallica's just doing this wrong, I think. The music industry's sales/distribution model is a dinosaur, and speaking as a former fan (everything pre-black album), the Metallica of 10 years ago probably would have struck up this debate at the heart of the problem (the monopolistic, exploitative music industry) instead of acting like out-of-touch, self-absorbed rock stars. The Metallica of 10 years ago was proactive, unlike now, apparently. Too bad.
Bush is a cylon.
The moment you enter a public domain to excerise whatever right you deem fit you loose all privacy.
E.G.; if you are using the Internet which is a public network you have no privacy. You have no right to privacy. Privacy is what belongs to you within items that you own. For example your clothes - I don't need to know what color underwear you have or your home in general. It is not my business what you are doing with that pickle behind the closed door of your home.
Get your PostgreSQL here: http://www.commandprompt.com/
What about the bands that know they are not getting love from "Radio or MTV"...Their biggest want/need is promotion, so they can fill the seats at concerts and sell T-Shirts -- I believe in this case they would love Napster.....However, bands like Metallica who have had to console themselves to the fact that 95% of what their CD's sell for, is going to "Promote Them" (Into the record companies pockets), then I guess they figure that since 95% is going to "Promote Them via love from Radio & MTV/VH1"...Then they don't need any more promotion from the mp3 movement...... So be it......However, I bet things would be a lot different if this were the "Ride The Lightning" days, where it would be a cold day in hell before Radio would play them. They swore never to make videos, or sell out to the man (they lied their). I can guarentee they would have loved the 350,000+ napster users who were now potential concert goers, and t-shirt buyers, regardless of where they had been "exposed" to the music. Well -- I guess they can now sleep better at night.
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
I think that not only should we organize to boycott Metallica (I too haven't bought an album since the descent into crap signalled by the Black Album), but also other artists that seem to have the same level of contempt and disrespect for their fans...i.e. most of the established "major" music industry... support bands like Phish, Ween, the Black Crowes...while they are all on the majors, they have developed good relationships with their fans by allowing not only mp3 trading, but recording and trade of their live shows.... Support these guys, and independent artists, and boycott the 19.99/cd list prices of the majors... maybe we can make music ours again, and take it out of the hands of money-obsessed fat cats like Metallica. Adam (first real post, eh?!)
"Place your lips around this sound, and slowly blow yourself away." --- Mercury Rev
The more I read of Katz, the less surprised I am about him being kicked out of various post-secondary institutions. I'd kick him out of any liberal arts program with the fallacious logic he regurgitates.
It's been said many, many, many times before, but for the slow of learning, here it is again: Metallica is within their rights to sue.
We don't have to like it, but the truth hurts. Sure, everyone knew that what they were doing was illegal regarding MP3 trading an such.
After all, who hasn't run a red light? Or broken the speed limit? Or run a stop sign on a deserted country road at 0300 in the morning? To get away from moving violations, one last one: smoked pot at one point or another?
There we go. Sins, stones, throwing, all over again.
The problem is really evident when everyone starts doing it. What's the point of having red lights at intersections if everyone runs them? (Ahhh, Montreal...so what if I can't turn right on a red light, because tabernacle, I can RUN RIGHT THROUGH IT!)
An artist is not going to suffer if one or two (or a thousand) pirate their music (the signal to noise ratio is low). They will if hundreds of thousands (or millions) do (lots of noise, no signal).
Sure, it's the new economy, but the old laws are still around. Plain as day.
Oh yeah, while we're at it, do you even own a Rottweiler? Quit propagating a negative stereotype on a perfectly fine breed. It's not as if they're as bad as journalists.
Not exactly. You're overlooking something. Metallica gave them a list of people who showed up in a list as potentially offering the song for download. *Offering*, not *pirating*. There's a difference, a crucial one for a (gasp) legal user of Napster such as myself. (I have used Napster to get recordings on my computer that I have already purchased in cassette form.)
Offering songs for download is not a crime. Actually transferring them is. It's quite possible (and has been true for me in my admittedly limited Napster usage) that one can "list" a copyrighted song without it ever being transferred, particularly if one likes obscure bands or does not stay online with Napster very long.
Napster also provides chat facilities and the ability to detect that someone is downloading your file and the ability to boot them. These enable me, the purchaser of the product, to enforce the copyright provisions that I have always been responsible for as with previous technologies by checking to see whether the recipient is pirating rather than getting a legal (fair use) copy from me. Given the way the Napster software scans my hard disk and does not offer me an up-front choice of exactly which songs to list, this is a quite-likely possibility for someone with a mix of free (i.e. Grateful Dead) recordings mixed with a list of non-free ones who legitimately and legally wants to use Napster to share music while storing his/her own music on their computer.
To accurately and properly accuse 335,435 users of pirating (breaking copyright), Metallica would actually have to demonstrate that each one of them had not just offered a file, but transferred it to someone else illegally (in the process, verifying that said file was, in fact, a Metallica song for which they held the copyright.)
So I see this as one big PR move in an attempt to intimidate Napster and Napster users. Those 335,435 names (handles, actually) are nothing more than a huge list of "subversives" using the "wrong" software, not a list of 335,435 criminals. Innocent until proven guilty (in the US), right?
Now, the *real* problem with the Napster approach: But just because a legal loophole may knock this issue off the table, don't get arrogant. The labels can subvert Napster whenever they want by flooding Napster with falsely-named files, if they ever get enough clue and guts to do so (hiding their fingerprints to avoid backlash by pointing to those anarchist internet trolls as the culprits.) For example, instead of a real track, put a 30-second promo clip appended with 3-5 minutes of white noise. There are countermeasures to this, but ultimately the only real solution to limiting unjust corporate power is for citizens to either stop buying or organize politically and press for *real* "fair use" copyright provisions.
--LP
I participated in last night's chat, although they didn't answer any of my questions (The moderator liked picking easy ones). Metallica's view of the situation, or at least the impression they are trying to get us to believe, is that they only gave the list to Napster to prove how common their files are on the service. They said they have no intention of going after these fans, whatever their intentions may be. More disturbingly, their idea of an ideal resolution to the situation is to shut down Napster permanently. Despite the fact that they acknowledge bootlegging as an acceptable practice, they don't want us to have the option of trading even legal files over Napster.
I realize it is sometimes problematic for what we consider to be more reasonable laws. The concept of intellectual property hasn't yet caught up with what technology makes available, and needs to rethought.
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
heres a log of the chat last nite for those of you who were fortunate enough not to be there
yahoomusic: OK gang...here they are... please welcome Metallica!
metallica_james_live: Hi friends, I'm here live and well!
metallica_lars_live: Hi, I'm Lars.
metallica_james_live: Jason: Howdy friends!
Pitchfork89asks: I'm a fairly new fan, and the first song of yours that really got my attention, the Unforgiven, I heard in mp3 form. I've now bought five of your albums and you guys are my favorite band. Would you guys agree that there is at least some merit in mp3 technology when it gets your music out to more potential fans?
metallica_james_live: Jason: It can be used for good things, if used lawfully, certainly, just as any part of the computer can be used for good or bad.
metallica_lars_live: It's important to understand this is not about MP3 as a format. It's a vehicle that carries music, like a CD. It's not about MP3, it's about who controls the format. We have no problem with MP3. We realize that we will reach fans through these vehicles. It's about who's conditions and who controls it.
zangfamasks: Is this entire Napster ordeal, along with the crackdowns of the past few months, a direct result of purely the band, or have Elektra and/or your management been part of the driving force behind it?
metallica_james_live: We have managers for a reason, they look out for us. We don't know everything that goes on in this business world.
daneanegasks: Do you think people even realize the ethical implication really, as they download?
metallica_james_live: Jason: Probably not, an element of danger in it probably draws some people to it, so knowing that they are doing it probably makes it more exciting. Probably a little of both. It's just a matter of Metallica trying to stand up for all artists, not just Metallica, it's for every artist who wants to share their music. They didn't ask us to share our music and steal our money.
metallica_james_live: They could have asked us, and we could have shared in the distribution and it could have been done properly. metallica_james_live: There has to be some laws and guidelines to go by, before it gets too out of hand, and sucks the life out of musicians who will stop making music.
metlover55asks: first of all you guys rule. Do you guys feel stabbed in the back by Limp Bizkit, who is supporting Napster?
metallica_lars_live: I think that once again that the only people Limp Bizkit are stabbing in the back are themselves. The only thing about this is we have done many shows for free over the course of our career. It truly is for free because we pay for it, we don't get sponsors When Napster is paying for the tour you have to wonder how much money is going to Napster and how much is going to Limp Bizkit. I think they're just pulling the wool over eveyone's eyes. Every one respects him as a musician and a songwriter, but he's really good at making everyone hate him, he continues to alienate himself because of his behavior. Everything we do is about long term right and wrong. When Limp Bizkit wraps its arms around Napster, it's...
metallica_james_live: Jason: It's important that this free thing, Napster is paying them to perform, you have to understand that. metallica_lars_live: That's the whole issue, someone else is paying for it other than the kids.
caname2asks: Lars has admitted in prior interviews to collecting bootlegs and the MetClub magazine So Let It Be Written section gives reviews of bootleg recordings, also In 1991 you allowed fans to record your concerts knowing full well that they would become bootleg recordings released to those who know where to buy them. Why the sudden change in attitude towards bootlegs?
metallica_lars_live: This is not a change in attitude whatsoever. WE have always and will always continue to condone allowing people to record our concerts, to freely trade live concerts, interview. This is not what it is about, it's about the master recording that we have recorded and written and clearly own. We are not going after Napster for anything that relates to Metallica bootlegs, it's about Metallica Master studio recordings as they appear on our studio records
metallica_james_live: This is a clear case of a middle man cutting us out. metallica_james_live: Of rewards we should reap for being a band and paying dues since the day we formed. m Live recordings are absolutely a separate issue. We choose to allow fans to do that. For this, we did not have a choice. It's a middle man cutting us out of the loop. This is NOT some kid in the garage thinking this is a cool thing to do. Napster is a big machine funded by big money. They are trying to smokescreen everyone into thinking this is a free thing for the fans. It's a cheap ploy, in trying to associate free and Napster together. Napster is a big machine. The person who invented Napster is an employee of the big machine as we speak.
metallica_lars_live: Remember one thing that Napster is a company that has employees who get paid to do what they do. metallica_lars_live: This is not a service that they're offering for the good of man kind, to spread love and music. They're doing it for potential IPO's for alignment with a big company where there will be a major cash transfer to the investors. This is about money. The people who work for Napster are not doing it because they have nothing better to do with their time. It's the American Way!
athena_metalchicasks: What do you hope to accomplish with this lawsuit?
metallica_lars_live: The ideal situation is clear and simple - to put Napster out of business.
metallica_james_live: Jason: Also to spearhead some kind of activity within the powers that be, the government, to lay down the laws with the computer, to exercise some kind of control, and govern companies like Napster that steal outright from artists.
metallica_james_live: We are trying to get someone to pay attention to that and make it fair for everyone involved. For people saying Metallica has all kinds of money, this band has been together for 20 years working very hard. We were playing probably before a lot of you were even born.
smdevoasks: Isn't it true that the underground tape trading in L.A. was a big part of your early success?
metallica_lars_live: But that once again is irrelevant to the issue. We're not saying that bands who want to be part of Napster should not be allowed to. We were never given the choice or option about whether or not we wanted to partake.
mephallickaasks: When an individual joins the Napster community, that person agrees to hold the sole legal responsibility for trading mp3 files. This is all very straight-forward. Isn't your lawsuit akin to suing Eudora for allowing individuals to send copyrighted material, or suing Hewlett Packard for allowing individuals to print out copyrighted images? Why don't you bite the bullet and sue each of your 335,435 fans who are trading the files?
metallica_lars_live: We're suing Napster for one reason and one reason because they exist to pirate music, nothing more, nothing less.
i_am_takerasks: How is Napster different than radio? Anyone can make a CD or a tape off of radio.
metallica_james_live: Jason: There is no way to have it the same quality, or to make CD's like you can off the computer.
metallica_james_live: James: That is our choice, it is our way of bringing the music to the people. We can control that. We feel Metallica should be in control of how our music is brought to the people. We've always been in control of that since day one.
lcsmdq2lasks: I'm a little illiterate about this but what if Napster paid a fee for the rights to use your music
metallica_lars_live: They know how to get in touch with our managers and lawyers. It's not just about money at the end of the day. It's about trying to put your foot down before this whole internet thing runs amok and get people to start a debate about, to get Congress to start setting relative parameters about where technology is going. Technology progresses so rapidly that Congress has a hard time keeping up. metallica_lars_live: We want to start a debate and get people to understand what the issues are, and try with other people to figure out what the best solutions are. Paying the artists through the internet, setting up police monitors to see who's trading. some kind of monitoring or policing of the internet is what people are talking about possible solutions, not police. So the artists can get paid for their property that's being transferred from one entity to another.
viperasdasks: How might someone obtain Mp3's "legally"?
metallica_lars_live: There are sites that sell artist sanctioned MP3s and Metallica is looking into that for the future as a way of getting our music to our fans. MP3 is just a format.
marphious_manasks: do you really think Napster will slow down your CD sales
metallica_james_live: Jason: Saying the same thing over again - it's about representing the artists who make music today and tomorrow and who want to continue making it the way we do without getting ripped off and undermined.
metallica_james_live: There has to be some laws set up now for the future so it's not ruined for the big guys like Metallica, and the little guys, it's just about making it fair for people. metallica_james_live: We have nothing to do with the internet being used to share, but when it's done illegally it's wrong, plain and simple.
Wyndborneasks: Why do you think you guyz are the first to take this to court? m
metallica_james_live: Jason: There has to be someone that is established, with integrity, and who has respect from all aspects of the music industry and beyond, and Metallica is one of those bands.
metallica_james_live: There are only a few people doing it now, stealing with this service, but what about in five years from now? There has to be somebody who steps up to represent musicians. No one else had the balls to step up and take the first step. Metallica has never been in the back seat, we've always been in the driver's seat. We've always had opinions on it, and we're voicing them as we speak, if I may be redundant.
destro_187asks: Am I going to be sued because I have d/l your songs?
metallica_lars_live: We're gonna send James over to your house. lol
metallica_james_live: We are going after Napster, the main artery here. All the people doing illegal things here, whether with good or bad intentions, we are not going after individual fans. Metallica has always felt fans are family. The list we are going to deliver to Napster is hopefully just to show the world and artists how huge this is and how important, and hopefully other artists will join our fight.
metallica_lars_live: Once again, I said this before, this is a battle we feel is being fought on many fronts. One of those fronts is education. Two weeks ago when we served Napster with a lawsuit, there was a high degree of ignorance about this issue. There has been a lot of education, these kinds of chats, and people being able to give their opinions is helping. This can redefine the way people have access to music and redefine the relationships between artists and their fans and friends. That's why it's so important that everyone who partakes in it understands Remember the reason we're giving these names to Napster is because they dared us to come and prove to them that people were trading Metallica around through their vehicle. They refused to take Metallica off their list, so they asked for it. Now the ball is in their court again. Basically what Napster is doing, they're trying to make this an issue between Metallica and our fans and our friends, when the issue is really between Napster and Metallica. they're trying in a PR way to make Metallica the bad guys in the eyes of our fans and that's what pisses us off even more.
metallica_james_live: Jason: There are a lot of questions from people saying why shouldn't music be free.
metallica_james_live: My question is what is your occupation, what do you do for a living? And would you go do your job five days a week for absolutely nothing, just to do it? This is a love of ours, buy not just a hobby. Anyone who has a hobby it doesn't sustain them living. If we were doing this just for the joy of playing music, we could not focus on what we do and come up with new challenges for ourselves, we would have to have regular jobs. And that was one of the reasons I started playing music, so as to not have a regular job. So essentially, this could kill Metallica and music if we were doing it for free.
metallica_james_live: Jason: As fast as the computer thing is growing, what happens when it develops, what could this become? That is what we are trying to stop from happening, something both the artists and the fans couldn't handle. There has to be some control.
Most I know who use Napster purchase far more music now than before they began to use the program. Moreover, the music purchased is that which they download and listen to the most. What do you think of the argument that despite the wider (and admittedly uncompensated) distribution of your music, you are still likely to receive at least as many receipts as before, if not more? Second, can you speak to whether or not you have conclusive evidence of a falloff in sales of your music since the advent of Napster?
metallica_james_live: Jason: The future - it takes a long time for laws to pass - it takes a long time for these rules to come into play. It has to start somewhere. It is about what is in the future. We want to keep playing music for people along with other artists.
metallica_james_live: The computer is going to play such a big part of our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives. There has to be something to sustain musicians. The computer is going to play such a big part of our children's lives and our grandchildren's lives. There has to be something to sustain musicians. :
etownstaffasks do you believe that music distribution will be almost entirely done digitally one day?
metallica_lars_live: Yes I do.
mccluckerasks: Why don't you just sue to have YOUR music removed? Why shut the whole thing down?
metallica_lars_live: That's what we have done, and they have not responded to that, so the only way we can get our music removed is to shut the whole thing down. If Napster removed "Metallica Studio Masters", It's not about interviews, or bootlegs. If they would just do that, thank you, we're done, bye bye
Natron_44asks: Evening fellas. Thanks for getting in touch with your fans to clear the air. It's always appreciated. My question is, what do you say to those who say that Metallica is being "hypocritical", being that Metallica - by your own admission - made it to where they are today by depending on others to circulate your first demo? Why should it be any different in 2000 than it was in 1982?
metallica_james_live: That was exactly how we started, and that was our choice. We started that!
metallica_james_live: Jason: We invented it!
metallica_james_live: James: NOT!
metallica_james_live: We are not stopping the legitimate cool underground fan trading that they do and love doing, whether its the live show from Greenland or Kirk's sweaty underwear!
metallica_lars_live: I'd like to respond to a question I saw up there earlier. The question was about if we realized that we have lost the respect of a lot of our fans because of this. My answer is if some of our fans do not respect the fact that we want to and have the right to do what we feel is important about what's right for us, then I don't want them to respect us, and I don't respect them.
metxxxmanasks: Any plans for an ANTI-NAPSTER Free Tour?
metallica_james_live: James: If the money's right! LOL! ROTFL!
metallica_lars_live: Maybe when we can get Limp Bizkit to come support us on that tour.
roughneck1970asks: What do I do with all my Metallica music I downloaded? Delete it?
metallica_lars_live: Howard King our lawyer is going to answer that one. Enjoy it, don't transfer it.
yahoomusic: what about other sites, who do what Napster does? will you go after them all?
metallica_james_live: We can't fight every battle, we had to choose what we felt was the most important, to send a message out there to other artists, Napster and our fans about how we feel about this.
Ziggy8675309asks: Has Metallica ever used or seen the Napster program?
metallica_james_live: Who?
metallica_lars_live: I've never been on any of these internet sites.
bananaphonicasks: Assuming that you are not filing your lawsuit simply for monetary gain, then why not withdraw it, and file a criminal charge against Napster for "aiding and abetting a criminal", since they are helping people to break copyright violations?
metallica_lars_live: Were not the government or the f**king cops.
lars_rocks_99asks: Hey guys, I think you are getting more publicity, and for every song I've gotten from Napster, I own the CD, whatever happens U GUYS ROCK!
metallica_james_live: We appreciate all the positive comments we are getting, even though they are not in question form, we appreciate your support!
pharcyde_the_clown_16asks : Would you ever consider dropping your music career for professional golf?
metallica_james_live: Hi Tiger!
jerryteacupasks: So do you guys know HOW your new unreleased song got out?
metallica_lars_live: Yes, this is definitely triggered by the release or appearance of early working versions of the song "I Disappear." We don't know exactly how it got leaked, but we have suspicions, and beyond that it's not necessary to go into.
metallica_james_live: It's unfortunate that Metallica cannot choose how to present it's music to people. When we make songs, when we create songs, and we put them out there for our fans to enjoy, we put a whole package together. We put pictures, lyrics, something with impact to go along with the music, that don't get around through the internet. As Metallica, we should choose how our music is represented.
wolvesspirit1asks: What does Metallica see for itself after this Napster ordeal is over?
metallica_lars_live: Continuing to do what we do best which is focusing on our music.
metallica_james_live: Whatever happens with all of this bullshit, at the end of the day Metallica is alive for the music, That's what we enjoy doing. We don't want to have to worry about being lawyers, we like playing music for us and our fans, and I would like to thank everyone who has been behind us through all of this bullshit. Love - James!
metallica_lars_live: I would like to say that the last two weeks we've had an overwhelming amount of support for what we're doing, and there are obviously people who do not agree with what we're doing, and that's ok But people have to remember that Metallica is about believing in what you do and believing in who you are and Metallica has always been the underdog Over the past 20 years, we've weathered a lot of storms and taken a lot of shit for the things that we thought were right for us. Thanks for your support and for the doubters out there, Metallica will carry on for the next 20 years, whether your along for the ride or not, that's your problem, not ours.
SeanMclauasks: Where can we email letters of support?
metallica_james_live: metclub@aol.com
Metallica has always been the best!!! metallica_james_live: thanks for all your support!
devon003asks: Metallica isn't in it only for the money!!!! They love there fans
metallica_james_live: see you this summer! metallica_lars_live: Once again, thanks for the support and the belief.
metallica_lars_live: Don't let anybody f*ck with you for what you believe in!
yahoomusic: I'm afraid that's all we have time for tonight folks thanks for coming out to share your thoughts with Metallica we're sorry if we couldn't answer your question but Metallica chatted for over 1 hour and we received many many many thousands of questions
LOL. Subjecting themselves to an interview... sounds like real torture, huh? Actually we should give them a hand. We start flaming and they respond... Hmm...
-Elendale (Still think Katz is jumping on the bandwagon here, but that's beside the point)IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Make a point...
Make a small MP3, in it just say something like "Metallica, Leave Napster Alone!"
Now copy this MP3 over and over with different names, such as the ones below:
Metallica Sucks.mp3 [...]
The lawyers searching for people trading metallica MP3s will see that and if everyone does it, they wont be able to track down the real MP3s from ours
And what about non-lawyer Napster users who just want to download the music? How will they find it? This suggestion, just like the asinine movement to widely distribute a fake "DeCSS" program to confuse the MPAA is totally wrongheaded: both just do the censorship work of the "intellectual property" fascists for them more effectively than they could ever do by themselves, by making their "property" impossible to find amidst all the crap.
If you agree with Metallica's position and your goal is to make Napster useless, this kind of spam bombing is a great strategy. I'm sure nothing would make them happier. In fact, this very technique has actually been tried in other contexts by everyone's favorite original copyright Nazis, the Scientologists.
I don't like him all that much (sorry, Jon, but sometimes you just sound too much like my high school teachers back then...), but he has got a point this time...
I think Metallica etc. stepped into something here that is far too big for them to comprehend. I understand that Metallica is in it for the money and doesn't want to lose any of it, but to sue individual Napster users was surely the wrong move.
Who's the master of puppets now, you dumb fscking sellout of a band!
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
I haven't noticed anyone posting this just yet, but I recall reading in Metallica interviews and possibly hearing on Behind the Music that Metallica themselves were participating in similar piracy in their day.
After James met Lars, James would sleep over Lars' house and copy Lars' Europeon and otherwise heavy metal albums to tape and keep them for himself. Guess they weren't concerned with those bands getting paid for their "art."
How is this any different from what Napster users are doing? I know it's on a much larger scale, but the philosophy is the same. James just didn't want to buy those albums, so he copied them from Lars. Lars willingly let him do this.
And now, they decided to chastize their fans for doing the same as they did? If I don't get a chance to ask them about this tomorrow, I hope somebody else does.
I love Metallica, and their music. Even their craft after the black album excites me. I'm one of their most loyal fans. However, I myself have been guilty of making their music available to the masses. I figured that they wouldn't mind based on their history, but I was wrong.
I must quote the Bible here, although I just about know that everyone will hate this, but the book says "Let he among us without sin cast the first stone."
Metallica is far from being without sin on this count. Sure, they have the legal right to do what they're doing, but it makes them out to be evil hypocites.
Ignore the rantings above. Poster is an idiot.
"...thoughtless assault on privacy and freedom."
I am afraid the base point is gettting all too lost. Do you deny that the aquisition of something that people expended their talents/time on without paying for is ok? There is not way around it. Napster is a vehicle for theft. That simple. End of sentence.
I just got moderator status, and I'm trying to figure out how to moderate JonKatz's editorial. :)
The Face -= o_O
-.Shaun.-
Cool! huh-huh this is C-O-O-O-L Beavis! ./ sometime ago). It seems that they are making more money than ever.
Metallica rocks!
I don't understand why anyone bothers about MP3 downloads. Is it because it is decreasing the profit margins of Record Companies??! Last year thay had a record $15 billion in profits (info posted
It is just plain stooopid from the part of Metallica to be involved in this isuue at all - especially when it is evident that they don't have the brains/education to do so. ButtHead out!
Do you think MTV pays when they "download" music from the record companies and than "uplaod" it to ther viewers who watch. No! because it is promotion on the part the record companies- go get it....
A hungry bear does not dance!
instead of 50 cents per dozen song CD, 50 cents a song or more
This is a difficult number for me to believe. I can buy a song for $1 over the 'net, and I can not believe that half of that goes to the artist. Especially not when all those IPO buyers start wanting to see their company turn a profit.
Anyone have hard numbers on artists percentage from emusic &c?
Everyone should remember that there's been a lots of attempt by the music industry to regulate or shutdown anything that could be considered another version of music distribution.
I found this quote on the net:
Entertainment lawyer Ken Hertz represents Alanis Morissette, who has been involved in digital distribution. He says, "Piracy and loss of artist revenue has never been the issue. The perceived threat to the industry is democratization of distribution--a concept the industry has little control over.
Remember when the RIAA tried to keep anyone from making MP3 players? Despite the continual attempts of the RIAA and other groups to make illegial every alternate flow of music they keep losing ground slowly.
Marissa
I'm not really an elf, I just play one in AD&D.
I find it amazing that a website that is partially devoted to Open Source could possibly say that Metalica is wrong by trying to protect their songs/business in this manner.
Essentially, what John is saying is that because he doesn't like the record industry, that we should all be able to pirate their IP, and that if they try to stop it then it is just an invasion of our privacy.
If this were Open Source software being appropriated and then distributed in binary only format the Slashdot community would be justifiably outraged because of license violation. The license is there to protect the work created by the authors and their work.
Metalica has made the decision to issue their songs in a closed format manner. It doesn't matter how much you don't like that because you did not create the work.
It would be just as wrong for Red Hat to take leaked code from Sun, SGI, or Microsoft and incorporate it into their product--even though they don't like closed source development, and even though getting the code was easy to do.
Users of Napster are breaking the law in broad daylight, in full sight of everyone, and then braging about it. It is not an invasion of privacy to stop them. What Metalica and the recording industry do or don't do does not change this.
If you don't like it then change the law. Until the law is changed then Metalica and the record industry are right and most napster users are willfully.
Boy, is the e-mail flying on this one. Good stuff, pro and con.
/., and otherwise, am happy to see my work distributed (books are a very tiny part of my income..maybe 10 per cent) for free. Consider this permission to link, reprint and post my columns anyplace, at no charge. This is, in fact, the model the music industry will be using in a few years I predict.
One point. People keep asking me, thinking they are devastatingly clever, whether I'd be happy to give my books and articles away. Here's the sitch:
I can't give people permission to download my books (my publisher would sue me) but I can give people permission to download my columns and reprint them on the Net and Web. I get no copyright or other royalties for them, and a few years ago, or in print, I would have.
So I constantly give permission to link, mirror and distribute my work. I feel it makes me more valuable, though I'm certainly not valuable.
I make some money on books through advances, but have never earned royalties on any of my books. I would be happy to go to a flat fee for writing..that's what I do on
jonkatz@slashdot.org
How many of the people who were found to be trading Metallica mp3's do you think were framed using this or similar methods that any script kiddie could come up with?
I dont know .. I think this whole thread is pretty damned rediculous. I'm all for Metallica suing the IDIVIDUALS who are violating their copywrites. It is absolutely absurd for them to sue someone who is in no way liable or responsible. The only people who should AND THANK GOODNESS are being target, the people who are doing the actual illegal piracy/distribution.
What is with this?! You are worried about 'protecting' the kids ? So suddenly those under 18 don't need to bother following the copywrite laws? Thats a REDICULOUS IDEA -- unless you are going to furthermore say I (being under 18) should also be able to go into the software store, take whatever I want and copy it it and return it so it will cost me nothing etc..
Boy oh boy you are fucked in the head.
Napster isn't responsible, only those illegally sharing their files are. WTF!
Oh, you've never microwaved a CD before, have you? I suggest trying it with an AOL CD or somesuch, it's quite entertaining (and destructive to the CD). Just make sure not to keep it in there too long.. it starts to smell.
A quick google seach found this informative site:
http://raptor.physics.wisc.edu/wacky/cd/
Bitchslapped. Neat.
I don't know much about the recording industry, but there are many fixed costs involved before the cd is actually made for 50 cents. I would totally agree with you that they appear to be grossly overpriced. But if that is true, then what is stopping somebody from starting a company that does this for less? Since the musicians see little of the huge markup, they have no incentive to stay with the establishment. So why doesn't anybody jump in and undercut the music industry giants? Probably because the fixed costs involved are much bigger than you or I guess, and it really does cost them much more than 50 cents to get that CD to you.
With regard to the Tupac CD you mentioned, my guess is that the revenues from older collections like Tupac go in part to pay for the loss on new musicians. Record companies no doubt sponsor many musicians with the hope that at least a certain percentage become profitable, which in part pays for the risk on the others. If you take away their profits on low-risk artists, you will likely diminish the risks they will take on new unprofitable artists. This is essentially how all businesses work.
On a side note, I'd be glad to see the entire industry go out of business as websites like mp3.com revolutionize the distribution model. The market will be much more ideal and truly competitive over the internet because the barrier to entry will be lower.
Try this: create your very own MP3, perhaps containing your voice saying, "Metallica sucks. Metallica sucks. Metallica sucks." Then name it something like Metallica_Go_To_Hell.mp3. Then make it (and no real Metallica songs) available via Napster. I'm guessing the Metallica 'bot isn't smart enough to check the legitimacy of the file, nor will the humans involved (if they can identify 335,000 individual 'violators' in a weekend, they're not doing it manually). If Metallica tells Napster that you're infringing on their copyright and to remove you, BANGO! time for your *own* lawsuit. Defamation, tortious interference, slander, yadda yadda yadda. Enlist your friends and make it a class action suit. Fun for the whole family!
OK, Napster helps me violate copyright laws. I do illegally gain access to music that I didn't pay for. I'm not going to deny it.
But guess what? 150 years ago, people like you said the same about runaway slaves, and people like me were helping them escape. In an unjust society, the only place for a just man is in prison. If a society does not allow me my freedoms - be it citizenship, in the case of slavery, or pursuit of happiness, in the form of sharing (what you call 'stealing' or 'pirating' art (you know copyright laws exist to benefit the consumer and the arts, not the artist right? Or at least that's the premise they were based on)), I do not wish to follow the rules of that society.
Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet. The Internet: Designed for UNIX.
a completely agree with you. I have already started telling people to do this, ever since i heard the new last week. i'm glad your getting more people behind us. -Ben
DEAR GOD, wake up!!
/. and linux community seem to apply the GPL 'mentality' to EVERYTHING. im sick of the justified stealing attitude around here... first the i-opener.
The band's efforts to identify and intimidate 335,435 fans and Napster users for alleged copyright violations are a shock.
ahem... pardon me. YOU ARE STEALING THEIR MUSIC. how can you possibly justify this? answer: you cant. there is absolutely not a single valid justification. NONE.
why do you think its unjust to prosecute criminals, jon katz? or do you not consider them criminals? (im not above mp3 piracy... but i dont pretend its alright and justifiable)
STEALING music is a CRIME. CRIMINALS are punished in court. these people stole and are being prosecuted. i dont see the moral dillema or threat to my freedom as a surfer. i suppose chasing down hackers PARDON ME, CRACKERS is an invasion of privacy too. you cant punish someone... youre invading their privacy. yeah, right.
It's targets include many younger children and younger consumers who have no idea their online movements are being tracked, and who certainly have the right to pursue individual cultural interests without worring that they're being watched.
OH FORGIVE ME! i didnt mean to disturb the naive illusion you were invisible on the net. if you believe that you shouldnt be on the net. and i guess its pretty wrong to track criminals on the internet. i mean, theyre on the INTERNET and unaware they are being tracked. bullshit. what, we should make exemptions on the internet now!? ha!!
frankly... 90% of this crowd needs to GROW UP. too many dumbasses in the
yes it was legal at first. but now it is not... it was morally wrong from the start so dont bitch about the outlawing of stealing the machine.
now mp3s
another person made those. they were (99% of the time) not made to be distributed freely on the net. dont try and justify it. suck it up. you are THEIVES.
another poster made the excellent point, that jon katz wouldnt want the entirety of all his books released on the web. or would you? if you feel that is the way to go... please do so.
why are there so many doofus slashdotters these days!?
the real shiftaling has user number 5134
Karma: -43 and DROPPING!!!
If the major labels stop pressing CD's and press DVD instead then you will buy DVD if you want to hear their artists...the costumer will not see much of a difference in quality, but the music industry would gain much control through the cryptokey licensing.
I know that the market values what mp3 has to offer. My point is the music industry, meaning the big 5 music labels, don't necessarily have to respond to market pressure since they work in a cartel environment. The big 5 try to find ways to artifically keep prices up. For the cartel, mp3 are not a good thing, and they are in a position to control technology in a way that limits future access, thanks to the DMCA. If they can introduce a pripietary encryption standard then they can keep control over any redistribution through licensing.
The history of DAT is a good example of the big 5's power. The music industry fought against DAT and as a result DAT tapes and hardware prices were inflated by a large surcharge imposed by the music industry to offset the expected lost royalities from the unlawful copying of DAT tapes. Since the big 5 didn't take up the technology, there were few hardware offerings and it quickly became a niche market.
Maybe the next big media offering won't be audio DVD, but I don't see the music industry getting behind any open standard again. The big 5 are doing everything to keep control and are doing nothing to innovate by giving the market what they want. What ever comes next, it seems safe to assume it will be propeitarily encrypted and the big 5 labels will try their damnedest to control who and what can interact with the new media, even though the market would prefer and open standard.
I hope they keep debating over SDMI, audio DVD or whatever it is they are going to use to "protect" their profits, becuase the longer the majors holdoff introducing the next big media the more bands and indie labels will follow the market demand for mp3. But if you aren't willing to give up listening to the artists owned by the major labels you will be forced to buy into the new format whatever it is...becuase you won't be able to easily steal the next format.
1.) I'm writing a Napster-clone which (tee hee) Metallica knows NOTHING about! That way, I can share and distribute all the illegal material I want with absolutely no repurcussions! (this is so genius, I can't believe no one thought of this before)
2.) I'm not using Napster anymore, 'cause they buckle under the pressure of multimillion dollar corporations with lots of high-paid lawyers who can prove that the software basically provides for basically illegal activities far too easily.
3.) I'm writing a nice letter to Metallica (address: Metallica, c/o anybody. California, USA) politely asking them to not delete all the mp3's on my hard drive.
4.) I'm going to law school, like, tomorrow, so i can figure out exactly what this whole "intellectual property law" stuff is.
Fight the power! Damn the man! Make illegal things legal and stuff!
This is absolutely hilarious! Moderate it up!!
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Ever hear of the Golden Rule?
How about if i came to your place of employment and copied every bit of work you did. For doing such, i was paid a salary similiar to yours. I "latch" on to you, one can not be fired without the other. But after a while, the boss stops seeing the purpose of paying so much for the little work that we do. He then fires you (us).
Did I "take" anything from you? Did all the work you do still make it to the boss? So i didn't "steal" from you. Are you happy with me?
Do you see the harm now? While you didn't physically "take" anything, you prevent (as in your example) Ford from making money from future SVT Cobra sales. What's the harm in that you ask? Well, pretty soon, Ford will stop designing new cars. Slashdoters must admit that this is a capitalist society, like it or not. Money talks.
Wake up, grow up, and get real. "Because I want to!" is not sufficient legal justification to be able to do something.
I couldn't agree more. We are producing another generation that thinks they are entitled to anything they can get their hands on -- and with digital media, the rationalizations are *so* much easier. The ability to do or take something doesn't equate to the right to do so.
The *only* rights that are being trodden on here are those of the artists. There is no right to free music, no right to free television, no right to free books. The fact that there *are* such things doesn't justify the theft of the rest.
When little Johnny wants candy in the store, he shouldn't just dip into the bin and chow down. When he wants his streaming music, he shouldn't take it without paying either.
Jon, please stop teaching kids that stealing is right!
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
The main points I see you making against Metallica's actions(and their lawyers) are the following:
"Information wants to be free"
Metallica has the fundamental right to control how their intellectual property is distributed. Yeah, it'd be nice if they let everyone listen to their music for free, but the don't, and they don't have to. Deal with it.
"The're attacking little kids!"
That, my friend Katz, is the mating call of the politician. "It is for the children!" And whenever a politician says that, you just know that someones rights are being taken away. In this cases, its Metallica's intelectual property rights. The "save the children" cry is just a smoke screen. You never say why it is you believe that the Napster users are children. You never say why punishing children that do illeagle things is wrong in the first place. All you do is throw out "Save the children!"
"The are restricting peoples privacy
Well, gee Katz, when its Metallica's intellectual property, "information wants to be free," but when its information about precious little Napster users, well thats just a different story, right? Freedom of information, and the right to privacy are mutually exclusive, you can't have both.
Yes, napster and napster users have the right to seek privacy, but what is wrong about a person using legal means to eavsdropping on an open "conversation" on an open network? If you don't know, the answer is nothing. I have the right to listen in on a conversation you and your friend are having in a shopping mall. You and your friend have the right to move to a different store, but I have the right to follow you(restraining orders not taken into account).
"Metallica is alienating their fans!"
The musical group, Metallica, has the fundamental right to being complete and total assholes if they want. Metallica never agreed to give their music away for free. This is not bad, this is not good. It just is. Metallica has the right to decide what happens to their music, even if it involves them being assholes.
"This an issue for anyone who believes in a free and open Internet, not just music downloaders."
Damn straight it is. What you, Katz, are trying to do is greatly limiting to internet freedoms. Napster has the right to decide who can use their service, not you. Metallica has the right to decide who can distribute their music, not you.
Katz, all along you seem to be preeching for a more "open" internet...but as soon as someone puts one or two packet sniffers out you start crying for ... for ... well, what the hell are you crying for?
All that I hear you saying is that somewhere, somehow, there is a problem. And there is a problem: It is people who belive that freedoms that apply to them shouldn't apply to others, and who argue in vague uncertain terms just to stir up protest.
Get a clue
Why should Metallica be shut down for defending their intellectual property rights? Although their move isn't the best one for PR, it is by no means an unwarrented invation of anyone else's freedom or privacy. Distributing copyrighted material is illegal. Metallica is only asking actions to be taken against those who have broken the law.
If Metallica is be publically condenmed, where do we draw the line? It seems OK by many people to steal from a rich and famous band that has the means to defend itself. Does this mean its OK to steal from muscians struggling to make a living as well?
Before you judge him, why don't you find out what kind of agreements he has with the publisher(s). Perhaps he wants to, but cannot legally do so because of contracts he signed.
After all this Metallica hoopla with them acting a bit dumb I went and downloaded all the songs from Garage Days Rerevisited. I have the tape somewhere in a drawer or a box or something, but it was eaten by my old car stereo a long time ago. It felt good to hear Last Caress seeing as how that's exactly what this is. Metallica are sellouts. I'll be erasing the songs from my drive as soon as I'm bored of them.
I'm sure that Metallica's record sales will really be hurt when a bunch of poeple who have already decided that they'd rather download Metallica mp3s over buying Metallica albums decide to boycott them. It reminds me of the time that a bunch of local vegans organized a boycott of Taco Bell -- you just can't boycott a product that you don't normally buy. By the way, since when did Metallica market themselves as "rebels?" They've never seemed to have anything against Corporate America to me. They're just a band with strong ideals, none of which I see as inconsistent with their current actions.
Finally, I have tried to find the online firm NetPD that metallica claims to have used and cannot find hide nor hair of them on the Internet neither with Google, Yahoo nor at netpd.com. The reason I have sought them out is because until I see all 60,000 pages of logs showing 335,435 people downloading songs by Metallica in one weekend I refuse to believe it.
Go to napigator.com and get the free program there that lets you log on to any Napster server. The UI lists all servers and gives total servers, users, files, and gigs of songs.
My current (4:33pm 5/3/00) users total: 13367 users.
This is a LONG way from 335,000.
---
Today I went to my preferences and remove John Katz from the list of Authors that I read. He writing is more inflamitory and less factual than John Taschek's. So come on Boys and girls, remove him from your list, If enough people do it he will be gone. And once more we can have thoughtful intellectual discussions.
Do you ever feel like there are people watching you? You're not alone.
I think Ulrich statement that we need some new laws 'before this whole Internet thing runs amok' pretty much answers for what they really know about this. I mean H-E-L-L-O! They just don't know what they're dealing with.
They have to realize that programs like Napster can't be stopped, for there will always be (are) others. And if Napster can be held legally responsable for what their users are doing, where do you draw the line? Applications like irc-clients, and web-browsers are also enableing their users to download pirated mp3s. They really need to come up with a good alternitive.
Now, pirated mp3s are bad mmokay? So give us an option!
get xited
Finally, I have tried to find the online firm NetPD that metallica claims to have used and cannot find hide nor hair of them on the Internet neither with Google, Yahoo nor at netpd.com. The reason I have sought them out is because until I see all 60,000 pages of logs showing 335,435 people downloading songs by Metallica in one weekend I refuse to believe it.
Go to napigator.com and get the free program there that lets you log on to any Napster server. The UI lists all servers and gives total servers, users, files, and gigs of songs.
My current (4:39pm 5/3/00) users total: 13337 users.
This is a LONG way from 335,000.
---
I think that Metallica is invading people's privacy, and that they actually putting commericial interests over privacy, and that's bad, VERY BAD. They shouldn't be going after their fans. They should be going after the music industry, for selling CDs for freaking $20 a pop. If a CD was around $5, I wouldn't waste my time downloading their songs, I would just spend the $5 and buy it. It would be simpler, but I'm in college, and there is no way I can afford those high prices...
They are completely attacking the wrong people in this case, and they will pay dearly for it. I for one will never purchase another Metallica album as long as I live. Up to this point, I do own all but 2 of their albums. In the future, they will not see a dime of my money.
BTW, to the slashdot moderators, I hereby give you full rights to post this submission in a book! All that I ask, is that you DO use my handle or name. I think it would be great if I got something I wrote to be published in a book....
A few points on 'the law' here as the above poster is fond of talking about. Exactly which laws prove that Napster Inc or the end users are at fault for anything? Copyrights? Are you refering to bootleg laws? Where is the money? The point of sale? Where's the proof of a violation? How many search warrants have been issued, don't know whats in my CD collection without breaking the door in.
This case is important because it will define and set a precedent for what can and can't be done online. Don't assume anything illegal has been done until we see the results of the courts. Innocent until... You know what I'm talking about.
Maybe I prefer to live an ignorant life but from what I can tell Napster users are the fans interested in the music. Metallica has always been there for their fans, not in the industry for the money. I grew up with Metallica in northern California and even had the chance to meet Lars. Before everyone starts bashing Metallica, calling them sellouts or what not, lets take a look at who started this whole mess.. LAWYERS. I'm willing to believe they (Metallica) have been consumed by their own industry, taking a little too much advise from lawyers and advisors. This is a prime example of what happens when people of power who are technology illiterate battle the other side.
I cant believe that metallica is doing that kind of action. I will never buy anything from metallica from now on. I used to be a fan, now they are my enemy.
Linux RULES!
The problem with the whole industry right now is that they're wasting all of their money trying to fight battles in court. Things have changed. They should be spending all of their money on business analysts to determine how to make money off of this new market paradigm. The companies that realize this in time will be wildly successful.
Why should there be an interview? What justifies such a huge waste of time? Unless Metallica will tell you the reasons for their action in all honesty then what is there to be in the morning after report but another dose of sensationalism?
Nuff Respec'
DeICQLady
7D3 CPE
I suspect it's an age thing, Metallica's beyond my ken. (Hell, so is sound on Linux, so much for my downloading MP3's).
But the banned Napster content providers are a miniscule portion of Metallica's fan base. Likely, so is that portion of Slashdot following this because they're also Metallica fans. They really can afford to piss off that portion, most of their fans don't download, and most don't care if Metallica unleashes lawyers on either Napster or its providers.
But piss off 100% of their fans? I doubt they've approached 1%.
Ed Craig
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
Bullshit!
Napster is a service. They are _facilitators_. They are not making a contribution as much as they are helping along interactions.
Metallica are a band. They create art. Sure, it may be crap art, sure they might not be able to make as good art as they used to, but let me tell you about a guy named Ernesto Cortazar and maybe you'll understand a little better...
Ernesto Cortazar is the king of Easy Listening on mp3.com. He dominates the charts, sometimes in genres that aren't even Easy Listening- he dominates the Classical charts in spite of many complaints that his music isn't really Classical- he has 11 CDs available on mp3.com, _all_ a humble and reasonable $5.99- he's earned over 29 thousand dollars in downloads alone, again on mp3.com.
Ernesto makes music that would make a Metallica fan puke! He's totally committed to Piano Easy Listening, love songs, the complete 'not even new age' approach lacking only the candelabra on the piano. But he _means_ it. That's what he _likes_. I am telling you from the viewpoint of a musician (one who's only made $54 off downloads and makes infinitely less 'easy listening' music, except for "Wood Dragon": mp3.com/ChrisJ) that Ernesto contributes more to the world than Napster, because Napster _facilitates_ and Ernesto _creates_.
By the same token, of _course_ Metallica contributes more to the world than Napster! You don't have to _like_ what they contribute, but saying they contribute less than Napster is damned insulting because Napster never wrote a song in its life! It's not _about_ contributing, any more than TCP/IP is about contributing. It's about _communicating_.
I could wish that, instead of trying so hard to tear Metallica down, you spent some of that effort trying to build the musicians who _do_ cooperate and share and communicate, up... yes, of course I say that as I'm a (and only one of the) token slashdot musician, and of course I would like to actually be able to buy strings more often and get more of the tools I use to create with. But frankly I would be nearly as happy to see you go out there and hype Ernesto, or Bassic who also makes plenty of money by, again, doing what _he_ genuinely enjoys, which is Mike Oldfield-influenced synthesizer music that's very pretty and peaceful, most of it. These people are doing things the right way, as am I... must the whole story be about tearing down Metallica, can't some of it be about building up us?
Yes, copyright is an implicit agreement.. It is a contract between the public and the copyright holder.
Can you explain to me why its fair to RETROACTIVELY change it? After all, Disney, by publicizing Mickey Mouse in the 20's did after all agree to the (28 years maximum) copyright term at that time. But, they seem to keep on buying lawmakers and getting them to change that agreement retroactively. How does retroactively changing the contract encourage people who origionally made their music under the old contract. If a 28 year copyright term was long enough for Disney to release Mickey Mouse in the 20's, then why does extending it retroactively encourage them to produce more?
I'll make a promise to any copyright holder that if they set the copyright term to the origional fixed term of 20 years that I won't duplicate anything. If they want to change the contract after they agreed to it, well, I see no moral reason to keep me from doing the same.
Can you imagine a copyright of 28 years? What things would be public domain? In only 7 years, we could freely use characters and films like the origional Star Wars. People could build collages of stills taken from I Love Lucy. Can you imagine what us fans of Doctor Who could do if we could rearrange and distribute the origional films and be free to make our derivative works? How about the Dragonriders of Pern?
With current laws, my kids might see StarWars or Doctor Who leave copyright. They wouldn't have a chance of seeing Dilbert leave copyright.
Our culture is being locked up by THEM retroactively changing their side of the bargain. StarWars, Star Trek, Dragonriders of Pern, I Love Lucy, Mickey Mouse, 2001: A space Oddysee, Ringworld, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Cinderella (the disney movie).
Thomas Nast, the creator of Santa Clause, died in 1902. If the copyright term was as long then as it is now, Santa wouldn't have entered the public domain until 1977, the year I was born. If you're over 30 years old, can you imagine a childhood without Santa Clause? Having to pay the `Estate of Thomas Nast' everytime your school had a play. Or sitting on Santa's lap. You couldn't even paint Santa Clause and sell the painting! All this from a guy who's would have been DEAD for 60 years.
See: http://www.public.asu.edu/~dkarjala/what.html
as a resource for the history and status in hostory.
I just want to say, as a smoker, I found your poem (or graham's poem) thought provoking and special.
/.going by bringing such fine art to the masses.
It's people like you who keep
HA!
thanks again
Ok, imagine Metalica wins, and has the right to spy on us. Metalica == Big Brother, most likely. What then?
I seem to remember that Metalica's music causes people to kill, and do other acts of evil. I think that we should all remember that we can all work that spectre if needs be.
-- James
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
It's funny, the best thing about Jon Katz's stories is the discussion that follows them. Until I started writing this post, I had forgotten that it was in reply to a Katz story.
Cmdr. Taco, Hemos, everybody at Slashdot, could you please try to hire/sign/whatever, more journalists for feature articles? Perhaps someone who's willing to support their arguments with factual information? I think that this would be a step in the right direction for slashdot.
To email me,subtract my nick from my email address, starting with the second character. (hint: adto.uiuc.edu is wrong)
'Shutting Down' Metallica isn't the answer. If in protest we refuse to buy their music, this will only provide their lawyer's with more ammunition to back up their claims that Metallica is loosing profits from online trading of their music.
PayLars.com is one idea but it maybe asks too much by playing on the good will of the very fans that Metallica's lawyers are attacking. Also, given the media attention that this has received and the time, money and effort spent so far by Metallica, backing down now would see them no results for a lot of bad publicity.
I agree that this move by Metallica is a foolish one but helping by provide their lawyers with a drop in sales that can be blamed on increased online trade isn't the answer.
They aren't trying to 'intimidate' these fans, and why should they be stopped?
Look. We all get mad.. right? we all don't like what metallica is doing.
Is their work being traded illegally? *YES*
Do the people doing it know this? *YES*
Has napster said that napster is not to be used for illegal purposes? *YES*
has napster said it will remove users who are using it for illegal purposes? *YES*
What's the big deal then? Seriously?
I'm positive, that if you were willing to take a huge haircut on your advances, your publisher would give you the rights to post your material for free on the web, as soon as it's in dead-tree form.
Oddly tho, you don't seem well inclined to negotiate those sorts of terms. Even tho the books are a very small portion of your income, you still want to make as much as possible for writing them. How does that differ from Metallica? They work hard to produce that which provides the bulk of their income, and you want them to cede rights to distribute it for free.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
I haven't listened to them in years. i must be getting old. Their site, though is nauseating. Apparently they recently changed access to their chat and forums to be "members-only" - probably were sick of getting shit for their position on the whole digital music thing, would be my guess.
they even have advertisements on there for wine and chocolate! How lame can you get...
Doesn't matter what you see? Or into it what you read You can do it your own way If it's done just how i say Independence limited Freedom of choice Choice is mad for you my friend Freedom of speech Speech is words that they will bend Freedom with their exception
Uhh... how are they stretching it here? How is it sickening?
Napster Co. Says EXPLICITLY and CLEARLY that TRADING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC IS ILLEGAL. Everyone should know this anyway, but they say it. They also say that THEY WILL BLOCK USERS IF COPYRIGHT HOLDRS INFORM THEM OF VIOLATIONS OF THE LAW. They did not say 'we require a court order stating that said users have broken things'. They said that they would cooperate fully to stop the violation to protect the copyright holder.
What is wrong with what metallica is doing? They are doing EXACTLY what napster aksed them to do.
However, I do not think that the actions that you've taken against the theft of your music is practical, nor do I think they are directed to the right people. MP3s have exploded into being something bigger than anyone predicted. MP3s are used everywhere -- kids take advantage of their school's high-speed internet connections to install Napster and download music, Rio and other electronic makers have released portable MP3 players, Lycos.com and Altavista.com have both opened their own sub-search engines exclusively for free music, and Sony is planning on actually selling MP3s. The bottom line is, MP3s are everywhere. Regardless of the fact that I think you can not stop the MP3 revolution, even with a thousand law firms and guys in suits, I most importantly think that directing your anger and efforts at chasing people who use Napster, the same kids who pay to go to your concerts, is absurd and childish. Yes, they are violating the law, but haven't you ever made a copy of your records onto tapes and given it to your friends? This is exactly the same, only the form is different. Technology made it easier and faster to copy music for friends, which might be a downside because it's abused, but technology has also brought with it some great things such as the ability to cure diseases, and conduct research in other important areas. Areas I'm afraid that are more crucial than your music, or anyone's. I think that you need to face those facts, and not just blindly fire at those who take advantage of current technology and are not the source of the problem. Try to use your resources and power to find an alternative, or a solution instead.
``Crime is like a disease, like any other malady, and is a product of the prevalent social system.''
-- developer_fuze
Are these pages printed in a large font? Or maybe each user's biosketch is included with every name? Perhaps the pages are very small?
I and confused, and I think there is a bit of exaggeration going on somewhere....
It's time for this to stop.
Yes, a lot of people are going to respond to this by saying that it's still wrong, and against the law.
But, this is just another case of the law, particularly copyright law giving no consideration to the internet.
It's time for a change. It's time for people like Metallica to realise the intangible benefits of communities like Napster. If people trade lots of Metallica songs, it still means their music is being played, it means that it's being heard more, and helps make them a household name.
People aren't going to stop buying the albums because of Napster. Any true fan would have the real hard copy. In most cases, the money spent using your net connection to download a whole album would be close enough to the price of the CD anyway.
I used to like Metallica. Now I'll never buy another one of their CDs.
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
"How much truth can advertising buy?" - iNsuRge - AK47
... and the maker of what ever got you drunk and who ever sold you your last drink. Sueing is not about illegal or legal it's mostly about money. If you kill someone while driving drunk I don't sue you. A district attorney files criminal charges against you and you go to jail for manslaughter. I don't sue you though I could. (I wouldn't really do this, but my point is that sueing isn't about legal its about money)
I would *never* have bought a Metallica cd before I got into mp3s. I don't like spending $16 just to see if I like a particular type of music or not. But with the advent of mp3s, I can now experiment with different genres that I never would have tried before. And let's face it -- portable mp3 technology has either insufficient storage or a ridiculous price tag. CDs are still the leading portable medium for music. The bottom line is this: after having listened to several Metallica mp3s, I now own four of their CDs which would not have purchased otherwise. I love their music. Metallica was wrong to attack Napster. -peanutbadr-
What is this? You can't defend music piracy like it's a double-sided issue; there is no gray in this purely black and white subject.
335,000 people stole their intellectual property. According to law, they've done something wrong... and no matter what crap you write, they're still wrong.
So you say that this is a "punitive and thoughtless assault on privacy and freedom." Yes, privacy and freedom are our human rights, but only so much as they don't overlap on someone else's rights.
In this case, 335,000 napster users violated Metallica's rights over their intellectual property. That's it, end of discussion.
As stated before in one of the first few posts, I'm sure your tone would not be the same if your own books were posted on the web to be viewed and downloaded by anyone in the world. The fact that Metallica probably has loads of money doesn't matter either. It's their choice to charge for their music, not yours... or any other bigot, for that matter.
You mean "the emperor's new clothes?"
;->
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
If napster had been around when they were starting out they would have been HUGE years earlier.
now having made it to the top they seem to be trying to shut down the means for newer younger hungrier bands (that still have long hair) to get out there.
doesn't money just change everything?
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
I love the fact that at the bottom of every /. discussion page, it says "Comments are owned by the poster." Look now if you don't believe me. It seems they have this little disclaimer on the page just to cover their own asses in case someone says something dumb on here, but willfully ignore it when Katz wants to publish a book. Then, they strip the names off the comments and claim them as their own. This is pretty stupid and has, IMO, significantly eroded whatever credibility Katz and /. had on intellectual property issues.
They have no way of knowing how many of those people are actually acting legally, i.e. have already bought the song. If I have an album on cassette/vinyl, and "upgrade" it to mp3 via Napster, it's completely legal. Metallica may hate it if they want people pay for albums all over again on CD, but that's just tough.
What if some people *are* acting illegally, but would never actually have bought the album at the monopoly CD price, even if mp3 did not exist? Then Metallica is losing precisely nothing from these people copying their music. Whether or not you think illegal copying is morally wrong, you can't claim that every instance of copying denies the copyright holder another royalty payment.
Taking both of the above into account, that 335,000 figure probably needs a substantial reduction. I hope that people in the first category I mentioned don't get their accounts shut down due to Metallica's threats, without anyone bothering to discover that they aren't actually breaking the law.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
A boycott of Metallica products is only a humble beginning, and, in fact, thinking small. A lot of us adminster mail servers and name servers...what would happen if we suddenly, as a political protest, refused to (a) relay e-mail for either Metallica or their attorneys, and (b) blocked their URL's on our web servers... Just a thought...a boycott in meat-space is a start..we need a NEW black hole for self-declared enemies of the net..
"It is morally wrong to initiate the aggressive use of force.." Of course, defensive force is fair game...
Jon do you know how to do anything other than providing us with these insanely boring, generalized, rhetoric-filled columns that are supposed to show your "understanding" of our community?
Privacy shmrivacy. People need to learn that actions on the internet are traceable. They need to learn that you do not magically escape real life on the planet earth when you're in front of a computer screen. So what if a lot of newbies think what they do is untraceable? Just cause you feel or want it to be that way doesn't make it so.
As far as I'm concerned, the freedom on the internet YOU talk about isn't even reasonable. When I think of the freedoms the net provides, I think of people spouting off rants against things that piss them off, creative types who want their artworks shown on a global scale, merchants who can now sell things all over the world, rather than on their corner store. TRUE freedom is not recklessly breaking laws and expecting to be anonymous. What if I email a bomb threat to someone? What if I hack a bank's computer and transfer a million or two into my account? Ya gonna defend that?
The laws we have in place now allow metallica to do exactly what they're doing. They are 100% within their rights. You don't like it? Change it somehow. (I know, laws today are stupid and impossible to change for the average Joe, but that's another story).
As far as I'm concerned, this isn't even an invasion of privacy. YOU must voluntarily sign on to napster, YOU must make files available, YOU must search for and download the files, YOU must agree to the disclaimer. It's all YOUR fault if you get caught. Besides, what could even be IN that list, except a handle(username)? I suppose IP addresses could be collected, but then you would have to go to each ISP to figure out exactly WHO it is. All metallica is asking napster to do is ban these USERNAMES. It doesn't go past that, no loss of anonimity.
Katz, I also like the nice thumb of the nose to metallica by saying "this from a group that markets itself as rebels"...Nice, really nice. You know what, I don't care HOW an artist/band/thrasher/etc "markets" itself. They deserve protection under law anyways. On a related note, I wish so many slashdot posters would stop making comments such as:
--"Metallica is supposed to be rebellious/Dr. Dre raps about illegal stuff all the time"...so what? That's all image, they still deserve protection.
--"Metallica/Dr. Dre is washed up and they can't make money any other way" Also Irrelevant. (BTW, you want washed up? Look at the Napster/MP3 poster child, Chuck D. He NEVER was as popular as Metallica, and especially Dre)
--"Dr. Dre's "music" isn't even music". Gosh, you would think that people as intelligent and diverse as slashdotters could respect someone else's opinions.
You know what? Metallica has no reason to look after the "freedom" of the internet that you propose. They do have an interest in what happens to their music. Now maybe this move will backfire, maybe not. BUT the point is that they have every right to do what they are doing, and all your talk about them preserving the freedom of the internet is nothing but touchy feely BS.
Remember from now on that slashdotters are not the usual rhetoric-eating braindead fools you may encounter elsewhere. We think logically (most of us anyway) and rationally. We look at hard facts, not a bunch of empty rants that boil down to nothing at all.
And most of all, we are nerds, geeks, techies. We are not hippies or anarchists like you make us out to be.
I recently discovered that recent versions of Napster share every MP3 on a user's hard drive no matter where they may be. In former versions I could specify a shared song directory and then put other copyrighted MP3s in a seperate folder not available to the public, this is no longer the case. This new feature of Napster bothered me so much (somehow it seems like an exploit waiting to happen) that I now use an Open Source clone called JNap which not only does not have that feature but also gives one the option to browse a other people's music libraries as opposed to getting only hits specified from a search.
:-)
PS: The JNap author recently told me he has quit maintaining it and I'm interested in hacking in some new features. If anyone is interested in being a beta-tester or hacking some stuff in, give me a holler.
The great irony of Katz's proclomation of the death of intellectual property is that he survives on it. For example, he has a book with a cover price of $22.95 (which is way more than the cost to print, only has a few good chapters, 'n like that . . . ), and which is NOT available on-line.
Let's teach Katz a lesson. We need to steal HIS book and put it on-line. Let's just buy it, spend the time typing it up, and make copies EVERYWHERE. He will no longer be able to earn any income on the book. Maybe he will learn what is wrong with stealing. Perhaps he will quit saying "information wants to be free" and other such cliches. The most interesting this is how long it will take for him to sue us. And I _guarantee_ you he will which makes him completely unprincipled. I, of course, agree that he _should_ sue, but that's the point - he thinks this is all just free information, and hopefully he will change his tune after seeing how it affects him.
I'm serious about this. Want to help type it up and make mirrors? Mail me at vaxman@palindrome.org.
I see I got here too late...
I think it's pretty clear that the 333,000 people who are distributing Metallica's songs through Napster are in violation of copyright law.
Did the copyright holder (I'm assuming the standard predatory practices are in effect and the record label holds the copyrights for all the songs in question) give all people who bought Metallica CDs permission to freely copy AND DISTRIBUTE the songs on those CDs?
No?
Then all that remains is whether Metallica or the record company owns the copyrights. If the record company does, Metallica will lose because they can't sue over something they don't own. If not, it's likely they will win.
And dare I say it: This action is ESSENTIAL if artists want to be able to make a living off of their art. If you can't sell albums because your music can be downloaded by anyone for nothing, and you can't make money from tours, why bother?
Moderate down as necessary, Slashdot sheep. But what if it happened to you, especially if you can't really afford it like Metallica can?
About the only thing I can argue against is how they determined that the 333,000 offenders were, in fact, offenders...
P.S. Really, there is only one question to be asked:
Did Metallica do this on their own, or are they "only following orders" from their label?
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
Lemme see if i get this right... you say that those poor inocent people who were breaking the law shouldnt be punished?
//I read all replys
*gasp* it doesnt matter who they are, how old they are, or wether or not they knew they were being watched. They broke the law. Deliberatly. If i deliberatly steal someones car, and someone sees me its not gonna help to say "But i didnt know they were watching me".
To Jon:
ive liked some of your other articles, and ive found them interesting, but please... pull your head out of your ass on this one.
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
I couldn't fail not to disagree less. I think that everyone has a right to decent access to the arts. It is an opinion held by many great thinkers throughout history (including the authors of the US constitution, who stated that copyright should be for a limited period to ensure that everything comes into the public domain eventually).
I'm not suggesting that you should agree with me about this. I just think you shouldn't assume that anyone who holds this opinion does so selfishly.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Jon - If you want to be considered a serious journalist, why not start by behaving as a serious journalist; such as stating facts instead of emotion-wrenching keywords to get your readers incensed? What public service do you think you're providing by simply becoming the Matt Drudge of /.?
But the unleashing of lawyers on more than 330,000 Napster users -- many of them kids
Exactly what basis do you have for this argument? Do you have a breakdown of Napster users by age group? And since when does a person's age determine whether or not they are guilty of a crime? (Remind me to stay away from 12 year olds lest they shoot me and then we become outraged that we charge them with a crime!)
It invades privacy...
Excuse me? I don't remember anyone holding a gun to my head and forcing me to use Napster? I distincly remember agreeing to a licensing agreement with Napster that I would not commit copyright fraud and then providing identifying information. (Yes, IP address counts)
Psst... here's an idea. Don't want to be tracked? Don't break the law!
is a blatant act at intimidating mostly younger Net users...
At least you got the intimidation part right. I believe the point here is to intimidate people to stop stealing other people's intellectual property. How old they are is immaterial. I think as a 16 year old you're better off learning that stealing is wrong by being shut out of a website than it is by going to prison. Also, remember the users are not being charged with a crime, they are simply being held to the agreement they signed on to with Napster. Steal copyrighted material, get shut out.
and sets a dreadful precedent for resolving the many issues raised by the Net concerning who can own, control and disseminate intellectual property.
At the risk of repeating myself... just because you can do a thing, doesn't make it right. I can go to my local library, take a Metallica music sheet book, photocopy all the pages, and then take it home and never actually pay for the book. I don't see anyone here arguing for the freedom from being harassed of making large-scale photocopies of copyrighted material. Why? Because a.) making that many photocopies is a pain in the butt, leading to b.) the general acceptance that such behavior is wrong.
Just because computers has made some things easier doesn't make it right. While the non-techie portion of society has been slow to wake up to the changes that technology has brought to entire industries, the rest of us seem to have gotten this idea that their continued pressure to apply "real world" standards to "virtual world" problems is out-dated. In some cases it is. Certainly copyright and patent law won't be able to survive as is, and any attempt to do so will just make public faith in copyright diminish to the point of non-existence; which I believe will actually intimidate new creative works. (Why should I work on a new novel if I can't enforce my rights to make money off of it? While the idea of public accolades on the merit of my work is nice, it won't put food on the table.)
One of the miraculous things about the Net is that it has opened up all kinds of information to people who were previously denied access. Metallica seeks to reverse this liberation in the interest of more royalties.
Man, you have the most twisted circular logic. People are free to still access information. But information is not free of its own right. The New York Times publishes information; but if you want to be able to read it in printed form you have to pay. Currently you can also get it online for free. What if they decide to charge? Using your argument, this is a restriction of free information. Bullshit. It takes money to make information. I have no problem with the creators of information deciding to charge for its usage if they want to.
I could go on, but it would become pointless. To the moderators of /., Matt Drudge was a big name for a while, and now his own ridiculous ideas of journalism have lost him most of his fans, and his own TV show. I think you need to seriously consider the same natural evolution of Jon Katz out of this forum.
Somedays it's just not worth chewing through the restraints...
Quousque tandem Catilina abutere patientia nostra?
It really looks like everything that matters is
somewhere else.
How 'bout that Russian server that published
just lyrics. BTW, I checked some lyrics against
my CD sleeves, most of what's posted is transcribed by
the fans.
So, Russians are violating your dearly beloved
copyright laws, and at the same time Metallica is
Evil because they're protecting their labour?
Heh, Katz, one day you'll be in Metallica place.
KuroiNeko
MTV and all other broadcast media pay royalties every time they play a song!!!
I fail to understand what is the fuss about Metallica identifying 300k users and delivering a bunch of boxes containing useless annonymous names to Napster. Who at Napster will have the will and the patience to sift through all those names, anyway? There's nothing chilling about that exercise in futulity. If you think you are on that Metallica list, just change your userid, period!! Well now that Metallica has shown what is capable of doing to its fan for a few miserable dollars, I hope that you now be aware of these so-called Rock Groups who clothe themselves in anti-establishment, rebel, progressive, anything-that-appeals-to-you garments because they are NOT. It is just a way to turn on and keep ringing the cash register 24/7. That's what they only care about.
When CD's were in their infancy - and thus a vulnerable format - didn't all the record companies insist that CD's were 'only $15 until production gets up' then presumably it gets cheaper, no?
Why is it then that CASSETTES are cheaper than CD's? I will bet every penny I have that it cost more to mass produce a tape than a CD. SO why then is the price so unrealistic. BECAUSE THE RECORD COMPANIES HAVE AN UNSPOKEN AGREEMENT TO CONTINUE RIPPING US OFF.
Legally, due to anti-trust laws, record cannot discuss pricing among themselves, as this would be evidence of price-fixing. They seemed to have arrived at fixed priceing regardless.
Metallica fingers 300,000 Napster pirates? Weren't they an anti-authoritarian band, before they "left their anger on the barber shop floor"? Former glory or not, say hello to the new boss, same as the old boss.
I WONDER what effect say 300,000 signatures to Washington DC would do regarding recording industry price fixing and Metallica's possible involvement (as a label) in CD price-fixing.
These kids may be guilty, but their parents can vote! I hope Napster contacts these named users and successfully gets them to become a PAC lobbying group to put some constraints on these out of control copyright laws. Where do I sign up??
Unfortunately, if the RIAA doesn't get their cut, they'll do everything in their power to stop any change from happening. exactly, does anyone really think metallica are smart enough to carry out this lawsuit themselves? the riaa is scared that the're losing their stranglehold on musicians and are coming off looking greedy by fighting napster themselves. so they pay metallica to do it because they've already whored away everything they had for money.
Hmmm... reasonable doubt... perhaps not... depends one the jury....
I'm assuming here that NetPD didn't actually download 300 thousand songs in one weekend, if they did I want their net connection, couldn't some of these songs not actually be a Metallica song?
Perhaps I played a Metallica song on my harpsicord, recorded it, thought it was kewl and kinda geeky, so made it available through napster, perhaps I wrote a 1 million word essay on the suicidal tendency inducing words from a metallica song, and named it *.mp3 cause it was my third attempt and I'm a dope called Michael Pollen.
What if the mp3 file of a Metallica song was corrupted, corrupted since I downloaded it, and never listened to it, but made it available through napster, have I distributed pirate music? And I'd be willing to bet there was at least one in this category.
My point is that each case of distributing software should be examined and judged on it's own merits... like in that court system thing most countries have.
If I found a way to convert full texts of arbitrary books to big decimal numbers, and it just so happens that Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet converted into the same number as a Metallica song, would Metallica thus own Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet?
/dev/sound
It would be funnier if you happened to obtain the text of Ernest Hemingway's "For Whom The Bell Tolls", and typed:
# cat for_whom_the_bell_tolls.txt >
...then heard Hetfield wailing "TIME MARCHES ON" through the white noise.
Look, I'm as aware as anyone of the technical issues that make it hard to protect content these days. But does the ease with which theft can occur make it morally justified, much less legally? Why are Metallica being cast as the "bad guys" in this situation?
If someone took your wallet or your car, you would use every available means both to recover your property and to punish the culprit. If nearly a third of a million Napster users are robbing Metallica (which these users are doing, and I don't think anyone reasonable disputes that Metallica and their label have the right to decide how their property is used), why is it wrong for Metallica to go after the culprits?
Everyone trading illegal MP3s knows they are breaking the law. Napster warns you about this in their signup process, and each time you log in. The users named may be surprised to learn that their anonymity was thinner than they'd expected; burglars get pretty bummed when they're identified, too. So what?
Yes, we all know that new forms of music (and general media) distribution will replace what we have now, and quickly. The current situation resembles a Walmart with no walls and no security. But the people shoplifting from it are still shoplifters, and know they are.
You can disagree with the wisdom of how property is being used, but you can't just swipe it and justify the theft based on that disagreement.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
I believe that you are mistaken. You have the right to record your own copy of the song for your personal use, but not to record someone else's. If my vinyl copy of Excitable Boy sounds like shit I can't legally record a friend's copy onto tape to listen to in my car. If I want better sound quality I have to buy the cd.
...that noone really cares. thousands of metallica songs offered for download. why is beyond me though
News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
well it's worth pointing out that fair uses of copyrighted materials _are_ copyright violations, they're just considered to be okay.
Yes Virginia, quoting another work is copyright infringement, but it's deemed more important than the copyright is, and so it's permissible.
Big media corporations would like nothing more than to wipe out fair use infringements. They've started with DMCA and UCITA. So it's important to be very careful when making statements like yours to avoid playing into their hands. Just think carefully is all.
-- 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.
I think you are confusing "illegal" with "morally wrong". I agree nobody can deny it's illegal. But whether it's morally wrong is a matter of opinion. For instance, there's a point of view that says downloading mp3s purely for try-before-you-buy purposes is morally ok. I might certainly believe, in some circumstances, that an avid fan who had no money would be acting morally soundly if he obtained some copied music.
What Katz seemed to be saying is that Metallica were being cruel and stupid. As has been pointed out, many of those 335K users may be acting legally or trying before they buy. Metallica can't possibly have examined each of these 335K cases in detail, so they're bound to be burning the fingers of plenty of true fans as well as all the casual users. I hope (probably in vain) that they find that their CD sales and concert audiences drop and then put two and two together and stop doing this. Using the law to kick fans who really, really like you is stupid, shortsighted and (I think) somewhat gratuitously nasty.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
look, i hate to bring my musical prejudices into this, but metallica sucks, and the fact that they are going after little kids even lowers them on my scale. its bullshit. if all they are after is more money (wouldn't surprise me), then maybe they should (*gasp*) get back in the studio and release anotehr cd.
Ok, you may be right - the case law is different in different countries, even though there is the Bern Convention. However, in the case of old CDs which have become worn, you definitely *are* entitled to a new copy. The music industry has told consumers that, correctly used, CDs will "provide a lifetime of listening enjoyment". This is an implicit guarantee that, if you have been reasonably careful with your CD but it has got old and worn and stopped working, then you are entitled to a new one. Something similar may apply to vinyl and cassettes, I don't know what claims were made about their quality and durability at the time.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I downloaded several .mp3 clips for metallica songs off CDNOW. These are apparently legal files. They are available in my .MP3 directory. If I'm blocked from Napster, will I have a right to challenge the bad detective work of Metallica's hired guns?
/. I downloaded a few seconds of a Dr. Dre file. I listened to the first few seconds, and quickly terminated the download (total crap!). If that file is still on my hard-drive, am I illegally distributing Dr. Dre's song?
:-)
NO. CDnow is licensed to distribute those files, you are not licensed to distribute them. Kinda sucks, huh?
When the previous story about Dr. Dre was on
As long as your file is not in the shared file's path, you are not distributing it. However, since you attempted piracy (ahoy matey!), we are forced to take you to court for copyright infringement. Our lawyers will be in touch.
Note- I totally agree with you about how ridiculous this shit is, but since you're asking, may as well answer
First time poster, and I'm sure I'll put a few of you off here....but here goes:
What is wrong with you bunch of theives?
YOU ARE COPYING THEIR MUSIC (regardless of how good or bad it is), AND HELPING TO DISTRIBUTE IT TO OTHER THIEVES.
They have every right to sue every single person who copies their songs. Every time you pirate something, you take a risk. In times gone by, people understood that risk, now there are hoardes of newbie lamers who are more akin to AOLbies than anything else on the scene who have NO idea about the consequences.
Get over yourselves. Metallica's music was obviously good enough to copy and serve in the first place. You took the risk, and the risk bit you in the arse - that's real life.
I may not agree with them targeting individuals, but as long as they're not suing you, count your lucky stars - you got off lightly!
my 2 cents...
Well, it would be committing hari-kari to stop pressing CDs now when that's their primary market.
Agreed that future formats will be 'secure' -- it's inevitable. But until then, we've got the CD Audio format, which probably can't be starved off the market for at least a decade, if ever.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I am in complete disagreement with the notion that everyone should respect "the rights of the artist". Sure, the law is the law, but I fail to see why a musician deserves to be paid simply because they produce music which is being listened to. If I borrow a CD from a friend, listen to it for a month, and return it to him, should I be legally/morally obligated to pay royalties? What if I dub some tunes onto a cassette tape to listen them on my walkman, is that a crime against humanity? Should such things as used record stores and CD stands at flea markets be banned? Should we instill fees for putting on albums in public places, since anyone in the vicinity could be taking in the music without having paid anything? What if the increased "cost-free" exposure of a band's music ends up benefitting them - is the act itself still a disservice?
Consider this analogy: a busker strums folk tunes on a street corner for three days straight, and hundreds of people walk by, hearing his music as the pass, even stopping to listen every so often, and at the end of it all, nobody has dropped any change into his case. Has he been "ripped off"? Have his artistic rights been violated?
In my opinion, revenue should come from people who are compelled by the quality of the music to the extent that they willingly, consciously shell out their hard-earned cash to support the band and promote the continuation of its music. These people are called fans, and they will not disappear with the advent of MP3. If anything, fans will become easier to acquire, since music communities, word-of-mouth and album sampling will become a more prominent force than ever before. A piece of music could be all over the Internet without the slightest hint of paid promotion - that's the beauty of it. Essentially, it leans toward a scenario in which the middlemen (record companies, CD retailers, commercial radio stations) are cut out of the equation, and a band's financial success is directly proportional to the number of people who, out of their own free will, purchase the albums, go to the concerts, and load up on the merchandise, for no reason other than the fact that they want to.
I also disagree with the idea of a musician having the right to sanction the way in which his/her music is heard. Once the cat's out of the bag, you can't honestly expect people to obey your "conditions". I could release an album with fineprint that says "you may not listen to this music if you wear boxer shorts, nor may you distribute this music to anyone who does, because I created it, so there," but no reasonable person is going to pay attention to that. No matter how fervently you flaunt an artist's rights to his own material, it is ultimately the people who will decide the manner in which music is listened to and distributed. Anyone who releases their music to the public has to accept that.
And yes, it's unfortunate that many will neglect to support the bands they listen to, but that's the way it is. You may call this callous or greedy, but I don't give a shit about the welfare of musicians. They are capable human beings just like the rest of us, and they can get real jobs if need be. If they can live comfortably on their listeners' financial support, that's wonderful. But if ten million people pirate an album and nobody buys it, I have no sympathy whatsoever for the artist - the failure to acquire any passionate supporters speaks volumes about the quality of the music. No one cared, so no one paid, so you find other work. That's life.
Basically, the situation we're headed for with the advent of MP3-trading is this: if people want to get a band's music for free, they will. Under such a system, hit-and-miss garbage like Sugar Ray will generate little revenue, whereas music which inspires dedication and loyalty in its listeners will succeed. People have been so ingrained by years of music being treated like a physical commodity to be bought and sold in units that they forget what it actually is - art. Artists whose work breeds no supporters will make no money, regardless of how much exposure it receives. That's the risk inherent to being an artist. I see little injustice in it.
Actually the Voices book will go online. I've seen plenty of open sourcers who hate being asked for favors at any odd hour and I think they have every reason to be pissed. Open Source is not Communism. What you are suggesting is communism. Jon Katz can open or close any book he likes asshole.
Open sourcing means opening things when you are able. When someone else directly depends on your work, then you need to open it the moment it's changed.
Finally slashdot will have a comment permissioning option in the future as was already mentioned. It amazes me you can't for one minute accept that the crew did not see anything wrong with printing those comments.
They even went through the trouble of saving your asses from your local redneck parish who might also buy the book as a way to crack down on substantial thought processes.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I have used Napser. I have downloaded full albums and many singles. But to often I am disconneted in the middel of a download or the server is just to damn slow. This has often irretated me, that the servers (the other users)are not reliable... Much of the music I have downloaded I later has bought because I either liked it allot or because the quality was way to bad on the mp3's I could get. One thing I personlly would like to see on napser was the possbility to download the albums directly from the band that made the music... How should that be possible.. Well. If a band choosed to make there music avaible with napser, they good get 1$ each time a song was downloaded. Enter your credit card nummer and when you logged into the officel music you could find the songs. In good quality. from 56 bit to 196 bit. Sure. Someone could then buy the music and make it free by the same product. But I am sure that does songes could be blocked. By name of the song, artist and size and lots of other things. I would go for that option. Great quality. You could get the songs you wanted for 1$ each and the server would not go down in the middel of a download. And the the people making the music would get access to thousans of users. Just waiting to get there favorit song.. Well..I know allot of similiar things have been suggested, but I think this really good work. Yes...The songs would be very easy to spred...But arent they allready...? Why don't more bands test the possiblites of this media instead of trying to destroy it like Metallica. Well just my few cents....
People don't seem to realize the crux of the issue: the burden of proof for Metallica is much higher than they would have you believe. Having an MP3 on your computer that merely has the word "Metallica" in it is not illegal. It does not provide probably cause for Napster to terminate your service.
:) Otherwise, we have nothing to fear.
Anyone ever heard the song "Metallica" by Chemical People? Have it on MP3 on your computer? See the problem here? Metallica cannot legally force Napster to terminate your service for copyright violation without first _______MAKING SURE YOU VIOLATED THEIR COPYRIGHT______. And there is only one way to do that: download the song and listen to it. Do you really think they downloaded 300,000 songs over one weeked and listened to them all to ensure they were actually Metallica songs? NO! Just having things on your computer named Metallica does not violate their copyright - so presenting a list of people who have files containing the word "Metallica" is ludicrous. It doesn't demonstrate a copyright violation.
Metallica can front like they are fighting back, but someone at Napster, Inc. is bound to realize this and call them on it (assuming they already haven't). If Metallica wants to spend years listening to hundreds of thousands of tracks on Napster and nailing people who actually have their songs, I'm all for it. Maybe it will keep them out of the studio
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
If what you say is true, nobody will be able to download Metallica...they win.
But it isn't true anyways because you can search for song titles, and you can just not download ay MP3 that's only like 10k.
I am no lawyer, either by profession or by hobby. My understanding of COPPA is far from good, as I have only a few second-hand descriptions of it to work from, so correct me if I'm wrong.
By bringing COPPA to bear on Metallica, they would be forced to slog through those 300K+ names and remove all the ones of people under 13. There may not be many, but the simple act of doing it would be very expensive. Add to that any laws we can find that apply to minors. When all is said and done, it might be funny to see whether they "lost" more from Napster or the Black Attack.
Ahh, to savor the thought... this revenge would be deliriously sweet. I never thought about thanking the legal system for being a double-edged sword.
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
Dont get me wrong, I like Napster. Its just clear to me that the current CD model of business doesnt work as well as it always has. I'd pay a montly fee to legally use a program like napster... if I could get all the music I want.... Wouldnt it be great if we all paid for music like cable TV... and the bands got paid directly.... Everyone but the fat cats over at Sony would benefit...
Originally for 17 April 2000
NO BOWIE BONDS FOR YOU, MISTER
"We take our craft ... very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art that it is."
Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich, explaining his band's decision to sue fans who trade song files over a CRT screen, E! Online, 14 April 2000
"We really felt -- and ultimately were proven right -- that this would be the first major creative marriage between a song, a rock band and a film."
Ulrich, explaining the band's decision to commodify its art for the silver screen in the upcoming Mission: Impossible 2, Metallica.com, 14 April 2000
---------
As you can see, it's only ok to cheapen one's art as a commodity so long as it's your pockets being enriched. :-) That's what copyright does: it provides a convenient shield for artists when they alienate their fan base by declaring war on them.
Metallica stopped being relevant musically about four CDs ago.
AFA what artists make from CD sales, it's not a huge slice of that $16.99 price tag. Most of the proceeds go to the label, and a portion of those proceeds indeed go toward paying for promotional costs incurred by the labels when new bands don't catch on with the public. We pay for the failures of A&R reps everytime we buy a new CD.
And those CDs you get from BMG or Columbia House? Guess how much artists get from those sales. Try zero. It's pure profit for the labels, because music club sales apparently don't count as direct sales.
The average music contract is 40-50 pages long. Sony's is from 70-80, as reported in a long ago article in Musician magazine IIRC. Most of that contract is devoted to screwing over the artist.
And that's the real issue here, the issue Metallica and Dre have either missed, or are choosing to ignore. The labels aren't protecting the artists; they're protecting themselves. How much is Sony's stock going to plunge when the next Offspring comes along and decides that, instead of jumping from Epitaph to Sony, they're going to publish electronically?
But until they smarten up and purchase a clue with those fat MI2 checks, Metallica needs to get back in the damned studio and write some Metallica songs.
Jack
cool..
I gues I don't have to buy that laser reading record player..
thanks
Its clear to me that Metallica is a band fading away and is trying to grab every last penny they can before they devolve completely into Van Halen. Having not put out a decent album in almost a decade, Metallica is desperately trying to squeeze cash from the slack-jawed mouth-breathers who think Metallica (make the Sign Of The Horns with your fingers as you say it) "Roolz, d00d!"
Metallica has completely missed the point of MP3s. On my hard drive I have over 5 gigs of MP3s. All of these are from albums I already either own, or don't wouldn't buy in the first place ("Oh hey! Twisted Sister!") Since I'm not using MP3s in place of purchasing the album, and since Metallica spent no money in the creation or distribution of the MP3, I fail to see how this over-the-hill band is losing any money.
Ultimately, Metallica will shoot themselves in the foot with this. They have revealed themselves to be the corporate apologists and sycophants that they once rebelled against. I guess the ultimate moral from this whole Metallica debacle is to be careful of what you hate, because you may just become it.
Britt
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
Why is it that Anonymous Cowards have some of the best points to make yet oftentimes don't get seen? Oh well, back to the point.
Copyright Infringement is a fancy term for theft - plain and simple. If it is inferred that you shouldn't sue the vehicle... I agree! Sue the driver - that is what Metallica is doing. If you say that the young will be intimidated by this action brought by Metallica's lawyers; then that is surely the intention! I think the action is drastic for sure but it seems that they, Metallica's lawyers, feel that there is no other option?
I'm all for freedom! The more the better. But, my freedom ends where your freedom begins. I don't have the freedom to walk across your land without getting permission to pass, I don't have the freedom to steal your car, and I don't have the freedom to go into your house and take stuff; should people have the freedom to (Dare I say it?) pirate music and other works of intellect? I say no.
I love my MP3's but.. if it comes to a choice between Napster and Metallica... I choose Metallica. Yeh-heaaah!
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Online distribution of their music is making consumers buy their CDs!
Somebody should do a study on online music exchange and the amount of piracy, then study offline music exchange and the amount of piracy. Then somebody could bring real proof to the battle. As it stands, both sides have only speculation.
"It is a beautiful and terrible thing, and should therefore be treated with great caution." ----Albus Dumbledore, speaking about truth in _Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone_
-- LoonXTall
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
then when I said they have already recouped whatever it cost to produce them I meant they have sold so many copies that they have got their investment out of whatever they put into recording etc, and everything they make now is pure profit.
I can't wait to see what the new model is as well, because this one sure isn't going to last much longer. Somebody said this is going to be a common problem for all content (movies etc) and i agree with that as well...
to this damage. The band clearly does not recognize that it is a pawn in this game. That is a surprise to me, as I had always thought them to be somewhat intelligent. RIAA is using Metallica, Dre, etc. to take the heat. I'm pretty sure that these acts are being largely misled by their agents (who may be acting in the intere$ts of others) and also to some extent coached. Check out the interview with Phish in this weeks Onion (theonion.com) to see what I mean.
I assert ownership of all trademarks and copyrights on this page.
It's really ridiculous to see how many people in /. defend the use of pirated MP3 as if it was a Good Thing or regard the Metallica's action as an "invasion of privacy".
/.ers:
:) MP3s because I don't like that stuff, but if I did, I'd go to buy the CD, thus promoting the things that I like. Needless to say, I don't consider "fans" those who don't get it the right way.
I have some points i'd like to share with you all
Why do you keep thinking the MP3 should be treated in a different way as we treat software? Allow me to explain:
First of all, I live in a poor country, a perfect example country on how people say they can't afford paying the rent, but have two or more TV sets at home. Here I keep hear people saying all the same stupid excuse: "I don't have money, I'm a poor ______ (insert words like 'student' here)", while they dump the "few" bucks they have in overpriced pirate stuff.
Toys and software falls into this same category as people (who allegedly can't "afford" to pay even for food) buy PlayStation bootlegged games at the price of US$4~$30 ea., while the price for manufacturing here is like US$1 ea. Obviously they're being ripped off, yet they feel more comfortable throwing away their money, their rights and warranties instead of buying a fricking original product! Other countries I've been into are exactly the same, regardless of their economic situation.
I despise marketing-pushed music, and of course I also can compare it with my hate for monopolistic software BS that is marketing-pushed.
But don't get me wrong, when I like a band (let's say Depeche Mode, for example), I do buy all their discs, and the same with video games (I bought Metal Gear THREE times: the original, american and Integral versions). Why? Because I'm a FAN!!! And that can't be helped.
I'm not rich, yet I have what I like because I work hard for it! So I will NOT download BS (Britney Spears?
I also try to contribute in any way I can for the promotion of GNU, FSF, OSS, etc. So I do agree with those who say that MP3/Internet is a new way to hear and promote music that otherwise you wouldn't, like garage bands. But make no mistake, these bands are WILLING to give away their stuff, just like Linus Torvalds likes to license the Kernel through GPL.
So, my point is: Why defend the use of illegally obtained content, when we do exactly the opposite with commercial and open source software?
You can get Photoshop from a warez kiddie, yet we Open Source/Free Software advocates say: "No thanks, we like the free stuff better", and develop/promote things as good as GIMP.
Music really should go this way, too. But bootleggers, pirates and "counterfeiter stimulants" like Napster deserved to be punished. How do you feel to know that Napster as well as porn-sponsored pirates are making money out of your "freedom ideals"?
-----------------------------------
PS: I own a licensed copy of Photoshop, I also love GIMP. I consider Metallica as marketed-BS so I hope they win this battle, lose all their fans and disappear. I really like good music and software, whether is free or not. I'm a developer and my parents are both musicians to boot.
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
Somebody call ESR. I think it's time for him to update the "astroturfing" entry in the jargon file:
s troturfing
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/jargon.html#a
... so as to include shills who troll on behalf of the MPAA, RIAA, Metallica, etc. as well as those who do so for gates and his cronies.
"deCSS is only for copying DVDs"
"MP3 is only for music pirates"
"you doodz suck.... lars roolz!"
blah, blah, blah...
Just how pathateic are these trolls' lives that they have nothing better to do than lower the signal to noise ratio and disrupt the discussions of others?
john
Imagine all the people...
Metallica started out as a garage band who depended on live shows and bootlegs of those shows to grow into the corporate monster they have unfortunately become. They need to think about the bands who are starting out like they did years ago. Bad Metallica .
:P
I just can't believe that they are the ones who initiated this jihad against napster. I would have expected Britney Spears or some other teen-pop band
I was once a tallica fan...really got into AJFA, then took a look at the earlier stuff. Then they gave us this Load/reLoad, and s&m crap. It seems to me that metallica have become what they were once fighting against. Once upon a time they would have ENCOURAGED free trade of their music. I bet Cliff Burton is rolling around in his grave with what metallica have become. They have been on a downward sprial since he died and they replaced him with that dick Jason, who is not as one user suggested "the only musician in the band" he is the least musical...Kirk would be the most musical in my opinion. I use Napster as a source of rare recordings that i am unable to locate or have lost over time. And if the band wants to sue me for taking an intrest in the past they so readilly shun, then fine, bring it on.
;)
Its stupid to think that a "rebelious" band would stoop so low as to "spy" on their own fans...People, listen to meshuggah, they are the new breed....and frankly they rock harder then metallica ever did
I can't see how you posibly can be MAD at a band for protecting what is theirs. No matter who it is or what they play, copyrighted music is NOT to be distributed without consent. About the lawsuit, it isn't AGAINST their fans...they are not threatening legal action to them at all. And Metallica also ALLOWS...even PROMOTES recording bootlegs. They are just concerned about their master recordings.
The fact that a group such as Metallica would pull a stunt like this is totally shocking to both the music community and the internet community. I'm wondering what the group would have to say for itself if someone were to ask what happened to that rebellious spirit. It seems as if they're trying to get the people who like them most, to dislike them..
Huh? Per US Code, Title 17, Section 107 (the fair use clause):
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including (...), is not an infringement of copyright.
Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
Ok protecting whats theres is in the right, i agree with that...but invasion of privacy isnt..i cant speak for everyone, but for me i am not mad at the band protecting their copywrite, i am mad at the change of attitude from one that faught the establishment, to one that is only concened about the money they get paid...metallica have lost their way...and have become another poprock band...and now they are stooping to invasion of privacy just because a few ppl downloaded their songs....i download mp3z, and if i like the songs i buy the album, if i dont, i delete them, i am sure other ppl work this way too...if metallica wants to stop this "illegal trade" of their music, maybe they should do the world a favour and stop recording...at least until they realise that what they have become is what they were fighting in the first place...and until they drop this crappy pop-rock comerciallised sound, and until they stop acting like spoilt children, i wont buy anymore CDs...and neither will a lot of other fans. I mean, dont they make enough money already?
while [ 1 = 1 ] # Must be manually killed /evil/ part
do
ping -f www.metallica.com & # the
sleep 3000 # Hopefully not enough time to be tracked
kill %1
ifdown ppp0
ifdown ppp0
ifup ppp0
done
Sorry, I had to say it
---
What exactly are the commercial possiblilities of Ovine Aviation?
HOW THE HELL IS NAPSTER MAKING MONEY?
In case no one has noticed, I believe Slate and Salon have both done articles (here for the Slate one, can't find the Salon one) showing that Napster isn't a money-making thing. Isn't it a bit preposterous to accuse Napster of being more acquisitive here?
I'm not saying Metallica has no IP rights here, just, Napster seems to have no profit model.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
No, really, I'm serious.
We're being asked to believe that it would be some sort of apocalypse, and I find that hard to swallow. We'd just be bootlegging anything we could get our hands on... other countries already do.. and the world dosen't end.
*snif*, as I shed a tear for all the millionaires out there holding "Intellectual Property Rights".
(sorry Jon, I'm sure you'll make a living somehow... hahaha... as if this would ever happen anyway ;)
-=sig=-
Not that I've followed Metallicas career closely, but if they were anything like the other Metal bands of the time they must have broken the law at will and for fun uncountable times. Drugs, sex & drunken mayhem are what at least these bands PR people want us to think they're all about.
And now they get all self righteous to the world and their fans about copyright legislation? How funny is that??
The Clash wrote a song (Clampdown), about young rebels becoming older establishment people:
So I believe in this
and it's been tested by research
he who fucks nuns
will later join the church
Have a good one everybody! You've been great!
Oh! C'mon!!! Are you gonna tell us you don't have a few MP3's on your hard disk???? Are you?? Are you going to tell us you don't have a few apps on your hard disk you didn't pay for??? Let's not be hypocrites here, ok? Leave it to the Republican prostitutes in the US Congress.
Boycott Safeway!!!! They wont let me steal stuff from them!!!!
I would like to get back to the boycott.... I have deleted the Metallica MP3's. I have never had time to research their work ... they are now off my list.. I will not consider them again.... I think they are in trouble ... they probably have sales that are dropping ... and are blaming MP3's I wish we could find out how their sales are doing.
If you're thinking of buying some Metallica, you may want to check out the free alternatives.
There is one mp3.com artist who sounds rather like 80s Metallica with a bit of electronics (and a somewhat eccentric concept).
I apologize if someone already brought this up, I will not take the time to read all these blasted posts. I just read the back of my ticket to a recent nin concert. I quote: "Holder grants permission to orginization sponsering event for which this ticket is issued and their desidnees to utilize holder's image or likeness in connection with any live or recorder transmission or reproduction." In all likelyhood, each member in the crowd of any concert in the last 10 years has agreed to such terms. Therefore, if "Metallica plays a concert publically" and records it, along with crowd noises, they have permission to use those noises.
Timothy J. Agen -- The University of Minnesota, Morris
Come on, Moderators. By leaving this post as a troll, a lot of ./-ers won't even look at this (and the replies to it)
Just my $.02
cheers
patrick
Agreed
Erm... I hate to break it to you, but...
Metallica tracked down users that were *providing* their songs to others, not those who were downloading them. Why? Because that's what copyright is all about - stopping other publishers from publishing your material. It's not to jail consumers from obtaining this material from those illegal publishers.
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Just to throw some flavor into the descussion, I was wondering if it is the band members we need to be concerned with or the coperate lackey's who make all legal rulings that are responsible. It sounds alot to me as though we are seeing the beginning of what could be the future with regards to "intellectual property" suits. Si non ad lucem inde ad inferni
Prozac? One or two?
mr katz,
it seems that you are a little ill-informed and unknowledgeable about the subject on which you speak. that and your assumptions are quite exquisitly preposterous at the least. please allow me to rebute your case.
1. these 'children' that metallica is bloodthirsty in persuing are innocent.
i'm not quite sure where you get this idea.
first. who said that these were children?
second. (this is my opinion and is probably just as off base as your suggestion) i believe that several (not all, not the majority) of these children are also the same script-kiddies that think they are l33t d00dz and try and pull their DOS shit. the same d00dz that you scream for their blood when the safety of a 'open source hurray for our savior linux' website may be at the end of one of these attacks.
my thought is that you know nothing of these people whom are fingered by metallica's lawyers and as such have no right to decide whom or what they may do or be.
third. the safety of the free world is threatend by a monitoring of napsters users. who ever believed that the internet was totally anonymous? the internet was designed so that a person knew (or with little effort, could find out) exactly where something or someone came from, what they/it did, and where they/it were going. the internet is not now nor ever was anonymous. anyone who thinks that it is is simply fooling themselves into false security.
fourth. you claim this is not about copyrights and money.
this has everything to do with copyrights and money. if someone posted your book freely on the web and you didn't see a penny of it. you and your publisher would go ape-shit trying to stop the proliferation of free copies of your book.
allow me to give an itemized example of an albums costs:
an band like metallica will spend 15 days (on average) in the studio.
studio fees: $2700USD/day * 15days = $40500USD
post production of an album can in many cases be double that. but for our purposes we will say that it is equal to the studio time.
post production fees: $40500USD
an initial cd run is usuall 10000 units. average cd price is $0.02USD when in such a large bulk. printing and packaging is another $0.08USD/cd.
price for initial run of 10000 units:
$0.02USD + $0.08USD = $0.10USD * 10000 = $1000USD
for our purposes we will not include advertising, touring, emotional drain on musicians (quite high i can tell you), etc.
just for the production of a standard studio album the total comes to:
$40500USD (studio time) + $40500USD (post production) + $1000 (initial production run) = $82000.
as an audio engineer, i didn't pull these figures out of my ass. these are reasonably accurate figures.
mr katz, i ask you to put up $82000 of your money and not defend your rights to recoup your loses as well as make profit on it. i know very few people who would willingly part with $82000 without expecting a return.
yes, i realize that they bring in much more money than they put out, but, that is the nature of the society in which we live. if you promote a capitalistic society, people will be capitalistic. don't persecute them for doing what is encouraged. why not take your fire and brimstone speaches to the pirates who cause this lawsuit in the first place. no, i'm not talking about napster. i'm talking about the pirates who use it.
i used to (occationally) enjoy reading your articles. at first they seemed to have facts and be written intelligently. now... now they are as sensationalist as all the other so-called 'news' that i will not lower myself to read. i must truely say that this is the lowest you've ever written. a piece that condems so many with so little facts. i must honestly say that this is the last story of yours that i shall read.
eric maultsby: audio engineer
(no, i do not work for the recording industry. i am a freelance theatrical audio engineer)
Reading this thread, I have become extremely frustrated. Sure, we can talk abuot resisting this "bonehead" meneuver, but we have precious little clout as far as the courts are concerned.
I wonder what the ACLU would think about this. The supporters of the MP3 'scene' need a legal force of their own. I've donated to the ACLU for the past three years for the fight against internet censorship; I would gladly help support an organization fighting this stupidity.
I'm an American -- I vote with my checkbook.
"That's all I have to say about that" --Forrest Gump
The last time I checked, stealing meant to take something away from someone -- to cause them to no longer have that something. There is no such thing as stealing by copying, because by copying you do not cause the person you are copying from to no longer have that which you are copying. Why? Because it's mere information, something that cannot be contained (prove me wrong by touching information sometime).
If I built a machine that made duplicates of objects, such as a table or a chair, you would not have a complaint. You'd be happy, because I'd also make copies of that machine. There goes the concept of scarcity. If everything becomes unlimited, who needs capitalism?
--------
"I already have all the latest software."
Much has been said about so-called copyrighted music, copyrighted software, etc. BUT do you really own the music or the software?? We all know that different musicians and singers play and sing in different styles and we had come to classify those styles, like pop music, jazz, rock, hard rock, heavy metal, etc. As soon as you listen to one of those styles, you immediately know what kind of music it is. If a particular style of music appeals to an immemse number of people and you, as a musician, want a piece of the action there, you will start by listening to the most popular group and try to immitate the style they use as close as possible. So now you begin the imitation, you will listen to their songs, you will pay attention and check the kinds of musical instrument they use; the way the music is composed, etc., etc. , etc. So are you original??? Of course NOT!! If all of your music content is based upon a long chain of ideas of other before you, do you really have a right to copyright something that really didn't originally come out of your brain?? These are issues that sooner or later the courts will have to decide. who really owns music? Do you have the right to copyright something which is NOT entirely yours??
I was in the chat last night, and I noted how all the questions were slanted so Metallica could answer in very easy ways, "This is wrong, we are right". The chat was advertised proudly: "Here's your chance to ask Metallica about Napster. Don't hold back, this is Metallica after all. They can handle it." I didn't see anything that they would have to "handle".
I asked a question about how they felt about SDMI, even though it had the potential to take away consumer's fair use rights, and if they were in favor of that instead of MP3s on Napster. I know now there was no way they were going to answer that - they admitted they aren't internet savvy. Quote from Lars: "I've never been on any of these internet sites."
What irritates me is when people get all up in arms about something without obtaining even rudimentary information about the subject. If they had tried Napster, I'm sure they wouldn't change their opinion about it, but at least they would have the most basic exposure about what it is they are fighting.
Why not start a campaign where people against this action by metallica post a metallica mp3 on their website? (The campaign page could be linked to so the full story is told...)
It's easy to stop 300,000+ napster users for a little bit (how hard is it to sign up for a new account...) but not to take 300,000+ songs off a number of personal website all over the internet.
"We take our craft ... very seriously, as do most artists. It is therefore sickening to know that our art is being traded like a commodity rather than the art it is." -- Metallica drummer Lars Excuse me, but I think that Lars should re-examine his career choice especially if he thinks he's an "artist" by his definition. Lars, wake up, everytime someone forks over $20 bucks for a CD, your "art" is being traded as a commodity. Face it, you are a whore for the corporate monster, not an "artist." You are more concerned about making money than creating meaningful "art." BTW Lars,If it wasn't for the loyal fans passing your "art" around in the early days, Metallica wouldn't exist today. Before I leave, let's get some common definitions, in case Lars needs some clarification. commodity 1. Something useful that can be turned to commercial or other advantage. 2. An article of trade of commerce. artist 4. One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit Okay, so the definition of artist isn't exactly accurate in context, but it does identify musicians that charge $20 for a $.02 CD. HiroPro
Tired of being the only one on your block who hasn't issued a rambling, meaningless legal threat to Napster? Can't afford high priced, low moral legal representation to craft elegant claims of damages and wrongdoing you have suffered at their cruel and perverted hand? Just click through this easy multiple choice form and your one hundred percent screwball legal threat will be generated and sent by Low Pass catfish to the acting CEO of Napster, Eileen Richardson.
Don't delay, start now!
http://www.lowpass.net/index.php3/products/008
Note: For those who missed the actual chat, we present this transcript in the interest of clarity and historical accuracy.
/. community?
YAHOMUSIK:
All right, everyone -- here's who you've been waiting for: Metallica!
james_metallica:
I'd like to thank everyone for joining us on this online chat.
lars_metallica:
I think this will be a good chance for us to clear the air regarding our recent lawsuit against Napster.
james_metallica:
I'd also like to thank everyone for joining YAHO-chat, and providing your full names, addresses, e-mails, and phone numbers.
lars_metallica:
And, to those of you who asked about that checkbox that said you agree to be interpleaded -- don't worry about it.
james_metallica:
Yeah, you'll find out soon enough.
YAHOMUSIK:
Okay, then, let's get to the questions!
shadowfan:
It seems to me that going after Napster is one thing, but going after individuals is another. Do you guys even believe in privacy?
james_metallica:
Hey -- privacy rules! We strongly believe in privacy, even if it has to be enforced by security cameras, gates and armed thugs rented from Pinkerton.
lars_metallica:
Privacy isn't free, kid. I'm rich; I know these things.
realfan:
What about streaming media, like RealPlayer?
lars_metallica:
We'd love to find a civil challenge to take them down, as well.
james_metallica:
Absolutely. I mean, the Internet is a broadcast medium, and it directly competes with radio. Radio licensing -- and DJ kickbacks -- are a major secondary revenue stream for us!
alienatedfan:
You say this lawsuit's not about money. Why not withdraw the suit and file criminal charges?
lars_metallica:
What? Of course it's about money! My god, man, do you think we're *artists*? Do you really think that we write lines like "I dub thee unforgiven" with a straight face? This isn't exactly Nabakov here, buddy. Black leather ain't free.
james_metallica:
Let's not lose sight of the fact that Metallica is a corporate entity. We retain the right to control our intellectual property.
lars_metallica:
Intellectual?
james_metallica:
In the purely legal sense, of course.
lars_metallica:
Of course.
lemmingfan:
Metlica RULES! You guys KICK ASSS! Metalixa loves there fans
lars_metallica:
Thanks for the support, kid.
james_metallica:
Don't forget that we're hosting a very special "Pop-Up Videos" on VH-1 this coming Saturday!
technofan:
Has anyone in the band ever used Napster?
james_metallica:
Actually, no. We don't use the Internet. Our secretaries handle our e- mail correspondence for us.
lars_metallica:
That's not entirely true. Howard King -- who has purchased a 15% stake in Metallica -- has used Napster in conjunction with a very qualified evidence presentation firm. We'll be using the results as an exhibit in the upcoming civil trial.
james_metallica:
That's correct. As a voting member of the board, Mr. King is technically a member of the band.
lars_metallica:
Though you won't see him on stage! LOL! RTFM! AOL! POP3! CORBA!
slashfan:
You've agreed to an interview on Slashdot. Do you think you could change your mind -- and your legal strategy -- after hearing the questions from the
lars_metallica:
Yeah. Right. What are they going to threaten us with, five thousand Anonymous Cowards bitching about how they're going to buy the next Shawn Colvin album instead of ours?
james_metallica
Besides, just *try* to quote us in "Voices From the Hellmouth!"
rabidfan:
I love your music, but I first really heard you on an MP3. Do you agree that there's a place for MP3s in the future?
lars_metallica:
I'm sure there's a place for them, but we need to work on the security arrangements -- especially when it comes to pay-for-play. If this means that the courts are going to have to reaffirm the principle that an abstract entity can be reified into a physical item -- such as us "owning" the music represented by the magnetic field on the hard drive you own -- then so be it.
james_metallica:
Our lawyer, Howard King, is working on a legal theory that states that we even own the particular electrochemical signature generated by your mind as a result of listening to our music.
lars_metallica:
It's based on the concept of adverse possession. Essentially, we argue that our fans weren't using their minds anyway....
james_metallica:
I think that's enough, Lars.
metalikafan:
I use Napster, AND I buy your albums.
james_metallica:
We appreciate that, and if you'll send us your full name, address, social security number, and anything else Napster can use to identify you, we'll reward you suitably.
scaredfan:
What should I do with all my downloaded Metallica MP3s? Delete them?
lars_metallica:
It really doesn't matter. The FBI has an excellent record of retrieving data from overwritten magnetic media.
whoisthatfan:
I let a friend, uh, borrow an MP3 of one of your songs.
lars_metallica:
"Silent Lucidity," right? Don't worry about it, Mister Donny Dougle of 1535 Sunshine Way, Irvine, CA. Our lawyer, Howard King, will be issuing a subpoena tomorrow.
james_metallica:
Actually, Lars, "Silent Lucidity" is a Queensryche song.
lars_metallica:
It is?
james_metallica:
I'm pretty sure.
lars_metallica:
Yeah, but didn't we buy them out last year?
james_metallica:
No, you're thinking of Ratt -- that was a LBO so we could get their songs and sell off the rest.
lars_metallica:
Then what about KISS?
james_metallica:
That was a stock swap. Jesus, man, don't you ever read the documents you sign?
lars_metallica:
Nah, I'm more of a soft-strategy guy. Sales and marketing.
YAHOMUSIK:
Well, that's about all the time we have today! Thanks, Metallica!
lars_metallica:
Thanks, everyone!
james_metallica:
And don't forget, this chat is (C) 2000 Metallica, Inc. Don't even think about saving it to disk or posting it on the Internet!
lars_metallica:
You guys rule! Compassionate conservatism rocks!
Does this mean that the workstation you supposedly brought in your honeymoon was a joke too? =)
PS:(feel free to answer this one, couldn't resist :-) I bought Q3 for Linux, but I'd like to play it on Win32 too. Can I expect a Win32 patch to come out?
Jason Newstead
Drinks: Bordeaux, Barolo, Barbaresco wines. Evian, Metrx Shakes
Eats: Thai Curry, Frosted Flakes, Bananas, Ginseng
Lars Ulrich
Drinks: Dry white wine, Evian, tea
Eats: French food, tuna, sushi, frozen yogurt
Kirk Hammet
Drinks: Martinis, Sky Vodka, green tea
Eats: Sushi, Mexican food, pasta, Indian food, Thai food
Sports teams: None ("I hate sports!")
Boy. These sure are tha hard core bad asses they make themselves out to be...
Dusty Hodges
Wake up, grow up, and get real. "Because it's legal!" is not sufficient ethical justification to be able to do something.
If you do something that's immoral, why yes, you can be tracked down and held accountable.
That's exactly what's happening to a) mettalica and b) RIAA. Just because it's illegal, that doesn't make it wrong. And just because it's legal, that doesn't make it right. Yeah, people know that a lot of Napster shit going down is illegal. But that doesn't make it wrong or bad. I know for a fact that these are mostly artists that these "pirates" support, except the odd one who downloads ten times as many cds as they'd ever bought, but I only know about one in ten or fifteen like that and believe me I know quite a crowd. And the record companies don't make their cut and they're pissed, but they can eat shit and die. Because we all know they make a living ripping everybody off anyway, and besides this isn't their stuff that they made, not their property, except that often it is as part of some badass contract they get some naive artists roped into.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Wow. /. crew is turning into on this issue...I mean, if you agree with Jon Katz, doesn't that automatically worry you ?
//end fake quote//
What a bunch of hypocrites the
Let's start.
Metallica and their record company spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to create, produce and distribute music. People steal that music, and Metallica is lambasted for protecting it's rights...
Slashdot.org, a website, with no physical product, and no actual 'original thoughts' of it's own, compiles a buttload of comments that were freely posted by its readers, and creates the infamous 'Hellmouth' book.
And you guys go fucking nuts, wanting recognition and compensation.
So, let's clarify...your pithy comments are worth more, and should be protected more, than the creation and physical product of someone else?
You really need to think this through folks. Napster has one usage, and one usage only. What would happen if someone was standing in your neighborhood selling 'alarm de-activators' and crowbars, and pointing people toward your house, politely providing a list of what valuables you own? You would have his ass in jail, or maybe just beat said ass...
Sigh. We are all (mostly) adults, and we know right from wrong. It's fun to be naughty, but it's naive to become upset when you get caught.
As RMS once said "If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime"...
Ya know...I was going to post this as an AC, but, I have the courage to post, so, you shold have the courage to look deep, and eek out the truth within yourselves...
"Don't try to confuse the issue with half truths and gorilla dust."
Bill McNeal (Phil Hartman)
sharing seems fair to me.
--
+&x
A lot of the best shit out there is from nobody's, and you never would have heard 'em if it weren't for the internet. A lot of them sell =$10 cds to people who only know about them through mp3 (often distributed by the bands/artists themselves)
And that's damn cool.
In fact, three of my five favorite bands right now are ones who put their mp3's up.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
Metallica certainly DOES have the right to sue anyone infringing their copyright material.
This article is of an absurd hypocrisy. On one hand, it praises the fact that many more methods of stealing artist's productions are being created all the time. On the other hand, it criticizes Metallica for fighting back! Shame on you!
Metallica might be making a wrong move as far as marketing is concerned, and we might be in need of a new copyright law, but the day a citizen cannot fight in court to have HIS rights preserved over other people's invasion will be a terrible day.
As for those being sued, if they are innocent they have a number of counter-suing options.
(8-DCS)
Aren't you mostly geeks/nerds? You have everything in your hands/brains/keyboards. Stop shouting on musicians and make a new way of music distribution to forget RIAA forever and to help music overcome.
Solution is in meaningful distribution format and micropayments - it doesn't exist till now (ask RIAA why:) If a musician wants to give away something, everybody gets info it's free. If he/she wants 5 cents, for instance you would have to be able to listen to a piece once and if you like it and play it again, micropayment system takes 5 cents from you. Etc.
There would be no more unhappy people among musicians that can't get into old monkey business of RIAA companies and have no other chances to make some small money for their living.There would be no more confused people that do not know whether they steal a song if they download it from Napster or Gnutella etc.
Make a distribution format and micropayment system as an open source and see how glad all people will get. With that you can iniciate absolutely new laws of living of music thanks to the Net and for the Net - and for the Net users and for musicians as well. You CAN give the world a key to open new ecology of cultures around the world.
Shouting is bad. Cleverness is much better. Take your chance to come with needed changes. IT'S JUST UP TO YOU.
Trying to make chaos pieces meaningful. The more meaningfullness I get, the more new chaos appears.
This one's insightful...
not that it bring's anything terribly new into the mix, but it's well put.
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
10 years ago metallica couldn't get played on the radio. Their only means of distribution was kiddies handing around bootlegged recordings on cassette It's a scientific fact that Metallica (c) peaked on January 23rd 1989. Cliff should have taken the whole band with him.
In support of Metalica I'm renameing several Conway Twitty mp3s as Metalica mp3s and logging on to Napster!
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/2/978/1093.html
WAITS v. FRITO-LAY, INC., 978 F.2d 1093 (9th Cir. 1992) seems to be a previous case tried by Howard
King, in which he represented Tom Waits in
suing Frito-Lay for using a Waits sound-alike
in a commercial based on Waits' "Step Right
Up."
This is assuming it's the same Howard King.
http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/2/979/772.html
involves this same Howard King but isn't
terribly interesting.
Howard King is also a lawyer for The Temptations.
http://lawstreet.com/celebrity/dr_dre/cs01.html
is an article about a previous suit by Dr. Dre
over the use of the phrase "The Chronic."
http://chartattack.com/damn/032098.html is another
Metallica suit about a bootleg tape called
"Bay Area Thrashers." Some bogon took some early
demo tapes, added crowd noise and then sold
it as a "live" tape. This story identifies
Howard King as Metallica's "manager" but that
sounds bogus.
I'm from Sweden, and I'm ashamed of myself for beeing a swede when I have country men who are doing like this.
"This is the day, this is the price, no one ever makes it taking loosers advice" (from the song Sympathy by Mesh)If it had been an American band who did like this, I probably would not have been so upset (since suing is "The American way of solving problems"). Well it seems like Internet are making us more equal than we think!
//stalle
I definetly agree. I have been a loyal fan since Garage Days and have spent countless dollars on them . I am now so disgusted that people cannot "try before they buy" that I have destroyed all my cd's . I have NOT uploaded any of their mp3's, and am ashamed that I ever appreciated their music ...I shall never show an interest in them again .
I'll apologize ahead of time if I re-iterate what others might have already said. I haven't had time to read all the posts...this is a big topic. With the genie out of the bottle, who can possibly put the cork back in? Pirated digital information is too easily passed around, quickly and with little effort. If Napster is stopped, there is still Gnutella. And FTP. And IRC. If the .MP3 extension becomes blacklisted somehow, it'll just be renamed. I've been to tons of sites where files are renamed with different extensions to hide from prying administrators and persecutors. I think that Metallica and Dr. Dre would be best served in finding council with advisors that understand technology. They would soon drop this case, because the only people that are going to be hurt by attacking their own fanbases are they and they alone. Do you think that any significant prosecutions will come from this list of 3xx,xxx Napster users? Maybe a few token ones. Economically, it's impossible to go after that many people. It's a scare tactic, pure and simple. What it will do is polarize so many people against them that they will become worse than washed up, they will be vilified by a large segment of the population that previously adored them. No government in the history of this planet has been able to completely crush an underground movement. And that's exactly what we are talking about here. There are millions of MP3 transactions happening every day on the internet--anyone who thinks that from a half-baked threat such as this, that all these transactions will get exterminated, to them I say stop smoking the reefer because you are completely deluded. What the government should consider doing is attacking the music companies for price fixing. CD's cost significantly less than cassette tapes to produce, yet cost a lot more to purchase. Huh? We were promised that as production of CD's ramped up, they would pass the costs on to the consumer. Obviously this never happened, the prices have even gone up slightly over the past year. Maybe if the record companies were regulated, CD's would only cost $5-$6 each and the average person would be less motivated to try the illegal alternatives. As far as music distribution goes, I'm silently laughing at the lack of significant progress in this field. Could it be that the music companies realized that it would only be a matter of weeks before someone cracked the encryption methods they outlined? Of course, I view this all as short-term thinking. What I envision is most of people using a hosting service for storage (and collection) of music files, video files, movies, whatever. The future of computers is portability, and I think that most people will just store their files on an off-site server. The files stored on these servers would be analyzed by software agents for copyright information. To the user, they would see advertisements on their computer screens, goggles, whatever, and that advertising would pay the copyright owners for usage when those files are accessed. There will still be a dark underworld though. These are people that will have utilities to store files on their own storage devices, bypassing detection and disabling copy protection. I have no doubt that this will still exist. By acting soon, however, I believe that the majority of people will choose to be honest. If they wait too long, searching for MP3's will be known by everybody, and not just the upper crust of computer users. Then the battle will be truly lost for the music companies-no one will ever pay them another dime. Gee, I hope my rant made sense. I don't normally do this.
10 years ago metallica couldn't get played on the radio. Their only means of distribution was kiddies handing around bootlegged recordings on cassette It's a scientific fact that Metallica (c) peaked on January 23rd 1989. Cliff should have taken the whole band with him.
I think it's time for a Slashdot poll. I believe Jon is way off beam on this one.
Personally, I don't care for Metallica's music, but I believe they are in the right in terms of this action against Napster users, as copyright law stands today. The legal team of Metallica seem to be trying to call Napster's bluff and are probably waiting to see if Napster act on the information they have provided. I do not think they are in the right in terms of total warfare against all forms of digital copying, provided the user has bought a legitimate copy (or license) to play the music.
Napster et al are probably not a legitimate form of fair use of copyrighted material as copyright law stands. Since setting up Napster appears to be an invitation for other people to 'share' (make copies) of your personal music collection you are at the very least aiding and abetting copying of music by numerous others. It is obviously fine if all the music in your collection is distributed freely, but most peoples MP3 collection probably consists of copies of CDs they have bought.
I *do* have more sympathy for mp3.com, since their system at least attempts to ensure that you are only allowed to use MP3 files if you already have bought a legitimate copy of the music already.
IMO, legislators should wake up and respond to the needs of the digital age by dramatically shortening the copyright period; probably to about the duration of patents (about 15 yrs) or less. I doubt this will happen though, because you would hear the screams of anguish from real publishers, artists and Disney from off-planet if such a thing were to be proposed. Copyrights, like patents, should encourage the pushing of ideas into the public domain.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Honestly, Mr. Katz...who is really going after the people who swapped Metallica songs? Someone has collected their IPs or email addresses or whatever. This information has been sent to Napster to remind them of their copyright statements. Quote from their web site:
Users are responsible for complying with all applicable federal and state laws applicable to such content, including copyright laws.
And, Mr. Katz, remember: there is big money behind Napster. There is big money behind mp3.com. These are not Robin Hoods. They want to make big money. Napster wants to do it at someone elses cost. You proclaim your freedom at someone elses cost. At the cost of musicians.
Reading your article makes me so incredibly sick. Because it is polemic, it is cheap propaganda. It tries to agitate the crowd against a small group of persons, who tried to defend their rights. Shame on you.
I used to like your articles. But now it is about time you lose your forum on slashdot. You abuse it.
Cheers Wolfgang
From the Napster web site:
;-)
As a condition to your account with Napster, you agree that you will not use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way. Napster will terminate the accounts of users who are repeat infringers of the copyrights, or other intellectual property rights, of others.
Metallica is just helping them to do their job
...if it weren't for the fact that i've downloaded mp3's of....certain groups....i would never have known that i liked them! but i listened to the mp3's, decided the bands were cool, and have bought & am going to buy a lot of their CD's. mp3's don't take away from artists! they ultimately lead to their gain. anyone remember those "negative profits" that mp3 pirates stole from the music industry? you'd think that anything that ends up getting you MORE money would be welcomed, not hunted! just my 2 cents..- ------
----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
(((one more time to kill the pain)))
I want my Cowboyneal
As an aging band of decreasing popularity struggling to keep up with newer, fresher artists, it seems to me quite foolish that Metallica is not exploiting the MP3 format, mp3.com, and Napster in general to expand their dwindling audience.
Streaming Internet music is probably one of the next big things (and no, I'm not talking about RealMedia, which is still quite primitive), and those who jump on the bandwagon early, much like the pioneers of the original dot-com craze, are going to make a lot of money because MP3's tend to lead to the actual purchase of the real CD. Sure Metallica may be insulted that people are using their music in illegal ways, but they would be better off making the best of things. Besides, they haven't lost any actual money, only potential profit.
And what is up with that Metallica chat? Talk about a bad PR move! Now those who sponsored it are trying to pass it off as a success? The moderators let only the weak questions through. Sort of makes you wonder if Metallica really can 'take it'.
As for more bad PR, exactly how did Metallica think most of their fans were going to respond when they announced their intention of "putting Napster out of business?" Metallica had best be careful whom they piss off. It only takes a few script-kiddies with chips on their shoulder to bring Metallica.com to its knees. Who gives these people advice? Where is their common sense? Does Metallica even use the Internet? Oh, wait... metclub@aol.com -- nevermind. ;-)
9 times out of 10, my MP3 habits will lead to a purchase for the bands and record labels. Typical MP3 scenario for me: I don't know about the rest of you MP3 collectors, but I use MP3's to listen to my music when I cannot for some reason use my CD player, like if another CD is occupying my drive, and my handheld is missing (which happens quite often). Now at 2.5MB (typical of my MP3's) a pop, downloading 12 tracks (a typical CD) would take, let's see... ((2.5 MB * 12 tracks) * 1,024 KB/MB) / 8 KBps typical 56Kbps modem speed = 3,840 seconds. In that amount of time (a little over an hour), I could spend 64 minutes downloading all those tracks (excluding lags, disconnects, and searching for the damn things), only to have 12 tracks in one location -- on my computer. But wait! My computer is running Photoshop and Painter! No memory for MP3 players! ;-) Well, I happen to use non-computer CD players (portable MP3 players that use ISO CD's aren't out yet, I don't think) more often, so I would want to convert the MP3's to AIFF, and make a CD out of them, monopolizing my CPU thanks to the !@#$ing burner. Add on another 72 minutes, minus prep and defects in the CD-R media. 136 minutes. Instead, I could run down to Tower Records, buy the CD, be back in time for Photoshop to catch up with my tremendous demands, and relax with a good book (purchased at the adjacent Tower Books) and new music on my break. Does the outrageous cost of music CD's outweigh the trouble I have to go through with the MP3's? You bet your /. ass it does. :-) If I had a digital line, it would shave, what, an hour off that time? Whoop-dee-doo. I could still have my break and eat it too.
My point is that MP3's, regardless of distribution methods, help the music industry, and musicians and the RIAA should be thanking Napster/Gnutella/FreeNet/irc/ICQ/HotLine/everyone else for spreading the word. Yes, most of the world's MP3's are illegal, but shutting down MP3.com/Napster/etc. isn't right because there is still some legal MP3's put there by desperate artists. Would you want to shut down the Web just because there is illegal content on some sites? It's all about the music until you're rich. Then it's all about the money. When musicians are poor, they just want their music distributed by whatever means necessary in an effort to gain popularity and a contract. Now that Metallica/Dr. Dre are rich, they have forgotten their roots. Heh, the mutha!@#$ing D-R-E ain't keepin' it real no more, I guess. Both bands' heads are ringing with bad advice from uninformed legal council.
Finally, one last bit of food for thought. Metallica encourages bootlegs. What would they say to concert recordings in MP3 format being distributed via Napster/MP3.com? Then, Lars wouldn't be able to dodge the questions that point out the hippocritical aspects of this whole thing.
- Leam who enjoys every minute of the insanity he suffers!
So metallica don't want to encourage MP3 of their work, so why then do they have a banner ad on the Metallica.com site at the very bottom of the opening page to download the icast radio player, that player that uses icecast as the radio server, the radio server that broadcast from users pc/unix boxes. And just remind me, what format does Metallica encourage users listen to and broadcast their net Radio in? Ah yes MP3. Users can take their favourite illegally downloaded Metallica MP3's, set up an account at icast, set up an icecast server, and broadcast it to all who want to listen, all with the endorsement of Metallica through their placement of a banner ad. Cool guts, nice strategy.
A Skoda is for life, not for casual humour.
In my eyes, it is not the mind of the law to criminalize masses of people. If so many of us adopt to illegal behavior we are likely to see a change in the interpretation of copyright law sooner or later.
-- dune73
Yep. That's right. Lobby! Lobby!
And when there is no-one left prepared to spend months working on an album for no reward whatsoever, are YOU going to entertain us?
Besides, there WILL be solutions. There ARE ways of enforcing rights of digital content.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The copyright allows Metallic to sue somebody for copying and selling or claiming ownership. It also allows them to demand a copy be destroyed so long as the ORIGINAL WHICH THE COPY WAS MADE FROM WAS NEVER PURCHASED. TRANSMISSION OF DIGITAL SAMPLES OF A PURCHASED COPY FROM ONE INDIVIDUAL TO ANOTHER ISNT CONSIDERED INFRINGEMENT SO LONG AS NO PROFIT IS MADE. Once a CD is sold to somebody they can basicly sample the CD at will and distribute (in digital form) as much as they like so long as they dont SELL OR CLAIM CREDIT. Other wise certain other musicians will be in trouble for making samples and incorporating it in their music. Do they owe a royalty for using a sample taken from a movie....nope. Read up on your copyright laws before saying somebody should close their forum.
"Are your issues with the music itself or with unrelated shit that doesn't matter?" Except it does. What good could have come from taking in a third-rate musician from a third rate band? Flotsam&Jetsam sucked and dear Jason does too. Oh, I forgot - "...And Justice..." sucked more than anything... Should have quit after that terrible thing in '86... And, to remain on topic, it's not that clear using Napster is piracy, but if it is: hail piracy. Wouldn't waste money on some soft-dick fagots now, would we?
Sieg
Their habits probably changed since the Black Album...
IMHO Metallica stopped being artists when their first MTV video appeared.
Since then, they're just another company producing and selling tunes. Nothing more, nothing less. And as a company, they try to defend their profits, as all companies do. What's so special about that?
A company, but not artists.
--- The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a burning truck.
One was the individual user putting his tape in a twin-deck system and copying it for his mates, which the RIAA doesn't really fundamentally care about and they're happy to turn a blind eye to because it introduces people to the music.
The other was the factories in Asia and elsewhere that print hundreds of CDs per hour and flog them cheap on the side of the road. They have a major issue with this because it loses them a fortune.
The problem, from their point of view, with Napster, gnutella and the rest, is that whereas before a single person might copy an album once or twice, now he makes it available to millions of people across the world at little or no cost. These new technologies are changing the first type of piracy into the second by giving it scale.
Your argument that people will go and buy the album anyway is incorrect in the main, because when they have the choice between buying it in the USA or the UK at $16, or buying it in Asia for $3, they buy it in Asia, that's why the losses due to CD ripping run into the billions and one of the reasons why the US has had some difficult discussions with China, Hong Kong etc during the GATT talks and regarding the WTO. If they're prepared to buy a copy that contributes nothing to the original artist, what makes you think they're unwilling to download it off the internet? Especially when nowadays, they're only going to put it on a minidisk or an MP3 player anyway - the days of having your collection on shelves lining your walls are almost over.
Salocin.com
First time post, sorry if this pisses anyone off :)
Hmmm.
And to think I used to like Metallica, and stand affirmed of their anti-corporate stance, most notably their staunch refusal to provide video fodder for MTV up until 'Justice'.
Recent years have seen them take a slide into an MTV friendly, corporate cash funded musical sewer, and whilst I view this as slightly depressing and telling of my stance as a pensionable stagediver, I think it's only fair punishment for releasing such a _turd_ of an
album as their self titled fecal slab.
Seems to be the more money you make and the more
succesful you eventually become, silly little things like Integrity, Honesty, Drive and Originality pack their bags and leave the studio.
Metallica, you suck - as far as I am concerned, your'e not the same band who once extolled the virtues of honesty over financial gain (Gee, Am I hitting a raw nerve here?) or the importance of
remaining true to your ideals.
I'm thinking, hmmm, Boyzone in Black with Beards?
Jason, James, Lars, Kirk; Go home, go back to your garages, use your old setups and start writing decent music again.
Oh, and try not to make yourself look like complete imbeciles when your individual napster
prosecutions bite the dust.
Poor old Cliff must be spinning in his grave...
ER
Now hands that do dishes can feel as soft as your face, with mild green LARD
You already have to pay to use samples (from movies or other records or whatever). If you don't pay for them and your record goes somewhere, you will get sued for compensatory damages.
Disclaimer: IANAL - however, my dad does work in the music business, doing royalties accounting, so I do know a fair bit about this subject...
Regards,
Denny
# Using Linux in the UK? Check out Linux UK
Police State UK - news and
This is indeed an outrage on Metallica's part. Metallica has had much success and that success is only made possible by fans. There is no possible way for them to be successful without fans. This band has been through alot to get where they are and I understand where they are coming from and can see why they would be upset about there music being downloaded. But now they need to go all the way. They need to sue all buyers of blank video and audio tapes as well as people with cd burners. Maybe they should sue anyone they catch humming or singing their songs while going about there day. After all, those people didn't ask permission before reproducing there music. Don't get me wrong, I'm a very big fan of Metallica. But when they started acting ridiculous I lost all respect for them. This is truly one of the most ridiculous things ever done by band. And what is funny is that this will obviously blow up in their face and recording industry is going to sit back let them do it, because their whole mission is to make money off them and many others.
Metallica, do you think they care about your talent and what you have contributed to music. Hell no they don't. The fans do though.
This is the disembodied voice of RMS here. Please try to refrain from using such loaded terms as "piracy" and "theft" in an objective discussion. Theft mainly relates to tangible objects and well, piracy implies that these people are raping, pillaging and dressing like lunatics.
I hate to tell you this, but about the ONLY use for the word "piracy" these days is for the unauthorized copying of music or software that you don't have a legal right to so duplicate (fair use and all that). If there are any *real* pirates out there that are offended, I freely apologise to them (and their parrots).
Theft is taking something without its owner's consent in a manner considered illegal by the laws of the place you live - The fact you may disagree (and many people do) that some IP rights shouldn't be as restrictive as they are is beside the point. Get a life....
--
-=DaveHowe=-
If you credited his work then it would probably just end up bringing a few more hits to slashdot.
+++++
+++++
The harder you look the less you see. That's what we're up against.
Well, since Katz and slashdot appeared to basically ignore the copyright on the Hellmouth comments, I'm not really surprised by this.
Your repeated focus on the fact that most offenders are kids is irrelevant and inflammatory
Perhaps they were wearing trenchcoats.
I'm offended that you chose this cheap tactic in a nearly transparent effort to raise the ire of your readership.
Again, you seem to have forgotten who wrote this article (well, who claimed to write it, anyway). Katz is full of nearly transparent cheap tactics and rhetoric. It's what he does. When you're digging through shit, don't expect to find any diamonds.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
How can pirates make a profit on a $3 disc. For this price they can press up the disc, print the packaging (substandardly...), distribute, store it, sell it and make a tidy profit for all involved?
When we buy a disc over here where do the other $13 (nearer $17 in the uk) go? Granted the sales tax is probably more, and the costs of production might be higher (except that the music industry can produce on a larger scale than any pirate) Surely this means that someone is making or wasting around $10 per cd sold!!!!
+++++
+++++
The harder you look the less you see. That's what we're up against.
I know you think this question is devastating, but it mostly reveals ignorance both of me and publishing (i've answered it many times including in these Threads). I don't own my books, so I can't give permission to download them. My publisher would sue me. My income overwhelmingly comes from my columsn, which I do control, and which I do give away.
My columns are used in schools, linked to reprinted all over the U.S. and the world (maybe not all over, but lots of places). I don't get any royalties, or claim any copyright. It wouldn't be possible, and it wouldn't be right. Of my income, between five and 10 per cent comes from books and those are book adances (I've never earned a royalty). I believe the right model for writers like me to is to charge a flat fee..I'm under contract to Slashdot and have the column reprinted for free which it is. I hope this answers the question. Please e-mail me: jonkatz@slashdot.org if you have any questions about it.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Let me get this straight. I put a Metallica file on my HD, fire up Napster and tell everyone in the world, "come get free Metallica MP3s."
How is Metallica in any way invading privacy by identifying individuals who are publically making available Metallica MP3s? Do you even think through this nonsense before you post it, Katz?
Hmmm...how about if I scanned in your new book and put it up on my web page in PDF format and then emailed all my friends to come and download the piece of crap. A couple days later I get slapped with a copyright infringement lawsuit.
If I follow your logic, Jon, your publisher would be violating my privacy.
Personally, I think Metallica is on the right track -- don't get rid of something like Napster but instead go after those users who are violating copyright laws by illegally distributing copyright material.
Despite the enthusiasm here, this is a sophomoric point. The model I'm moving to in my life..getting paid up front for writing, then distributing it for free, is the one I think the music industry will eventuall adopt. My column could generate revenue if I syndicated it or charged for reprinting..but I don't. I give it away all over the place and never charge for linking..This is the model I think intellectual property will evolve to..I'm amazed at the hypocrisy on this discussion..How many of you link, download and have taken free music? Never? Please.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I totally agree. This guy has it down - the whole ISP angle is right on. And if it wasn't before, then record company execs are now going "F**k yeah! We've got to buy ISP's!"
Check out this article at www.theonion.com - it's an interview with Trey Anastasio, lead guitarist of Phish, a band known for their free-music distribution. At the end, they touch on some really great points about just why Napster does suck and the other side of recording albums.
lf.o
Hey when we broadcast MP3s via Napster my understanding is we are doing something illeagal. It really isn't okay. If you speed and get caught by a traffic cop and you get a big fat ticket, guess what, you are going to have to pay. Metallica just found a bunch of speeders and said guess what you are gonna have to pay. We can't just pick and choose to follow the laws that we want to. And when we knowingly break a law we ought to be prepared to accept the consequences. I wouldn't like it if someone walked into my house and stole my shit, and I think that's how Metallica feels. They are not wrong to do this and are practicing their right.
Even though I like to download music "freely" and expand my collection, I find myself getting things over Napster that I would *NEVER* purchase in a store. Just because I liked that one sound or that little bass riff. I would shudder at the prospect of spending $15 to listen to that crap, but as long as its free I can afford the download time. This is illegal. I'm doing a Bad Thing (TM). But again, this is my problem to deal with, not this forum's.
You Mr Katz, are waving a banner and shouting "What you're doing is okay! We should be allowed to trade MP3s." Is this some desperate attempt to get followers? I personally am repulsed by your misrepresentation of the facts simply to generate outrage and gain a following.
Metallica has claimed that they are simply trying to get Napster to follow it's own Terms of Service. If they do not comply with their posted rules then Metallica will attempt to shut them down.
We can't hide behind bogus Terms of Service anymore people. We write those things, we have to live by them.
Don't get me wrong. I love MP3s, trade em, rip em for my own enjoyment, and think they are a marvelous tool for easy music access and portability. But let's face it, the MP3 culture is Rome, and it's beginnig its decline. We had our fun, downloaded lots of stuff, but now it's over. If we want to keep going, we need a law that says we can, not civil disobedience.
-Militant Elf (A PFY for a BOFH)
Remove the sos for deliverable flames
As far as the actual economics of it are concerned, I have no idea what the relationship between volume and marginal cost is when pressing CDs, but I do know that it's possible to get recent CDs (music or software) for between $3-$5, and there are a great many people who are very eager to flog them, so someone's making money...
Salocin.com
Your argument that people will go and buy the album anyway is incorrect in the main, because when they have the choice between buying it in the USA or the UK at $16, or buying it in Asia for $3, they buy it in Asia
Who the hell buys cds from Asia? By the time they get them to the states they'd cost nearly as much as a cd here anyway. Why bother? I don't know a single person who has bought a black-market cd. It may lose the RIAA significant amounts of money over in Asia, but it doesn't seem to be anywhere near the same magnitude of a problem over here. I'm talking about going out and buying the cd from a store, or ordering it online from the record company or one of its distributors. That's how I've bought the cds I own. I'm not a big mp3 junkie or anything. I probably have less than 500 megs worth on my drive, the vast majority of which are legal, either because I own the cd or because they were distributed for free by the band. Everyone I know does pretty much the same thing I do. We download mp3s, listen to them, and then either toss them because they suck, or keep them because they're cool. Then we go out and buy the cd because it's a good cd. Not to mention the fact that we tell each other about the cool music we find, which causes more sales for the record companies. So, I KNOW that what I'm doing isn't hurting the record industry, unless you count the fact that I'm no longer buying crappy albums because I can listen to them before I buy now. If you count that, then you're as corrupt as the RIAA.
the days of having your collection on shelves lining your walls are almost over.
Not bloody likely. Who is nuts enough to not keep some sort of master copy of their music around on a cd or some other form of portable, and mostly non-corruptable media? If I buy something, I'm going to make sure I get to keep it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Intellectual property laws were designed to increase the dissemination of information (the reason why all copyrights expire a certain time after the author's death).
Any work created on or after 1923 will remain under copyright forever. Every time the year approaches when copyrights will start to expire again, The Walt Disney Company buys a retroactive copyright term extension from the United States Congress so that o (Mickey Mouse) doesn't fall into public domain. This time it was the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (PDF factsheet here), passed in October 1999 by voice vote; representatives and senators didn't even have to account to their constituents for their votes. IANAL, but IMHO this retroactive extension is unconstitutional; it violates the "limited times" provision of Article I Section 8. What kind of cr4ck were our representatives and senators smoking to think that extending copyright 70 years after an artist's death would "progress of science and useful arts"?
My current recording artist boycott list:Will I retire or break 10K?
The "search" and "chat" functions are hosted on a whole bunch of servers at napster.com. "Sharing files" means uploading a list of your valid MP3 files to the Napster central server.
Will I retire or break 10K?
I've asked this before, and Jon has not seen fit to answer, but I'll keep trying anyhow...
Jon, why have you negotiated a contract, that doesn't give you control over your work? I'm sure that if you wanted to, you could arrange to have whatever rights you want on your books. There has to be at least one publisher that would be willing to give you nothing up front, to publish your books. And then you would just get whatever royalties there were on the books. Then you could let the books be distributed as widely as possible over the net.
If you truly believed that information wants to be free, then you would arrange just such a contract. I'm also quite sure that it would mean taking a significant haircut on your earnings from your books. But according to you, it's the model that is applicable to the digital age, and I don't see how you can possibly advocate something that you refuse to back with your actions.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
I'll keep asking this, until he responds.
Jon, when are you going to stop negotiating contracts with your publishers, that don't allow you rights to your books?
I'm am 100% positive, that you could find a publisher that would allow you to reprint your material on the web, as freely as you claim to want it. I'm also sure that you'd have to take a haircut on the advance, which is why you don't negotiate just such a contract.
Until you're willing to give away your "art", then stop insisting that all the musicians in the world, must give away theirs.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Havn't you ever heard of IRC?
Say it again, "The web is not the internet"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
You have some interesting points, but I think they suck. :)
1>Yep. That's right. Lobby! Lobby!
I'm no fan of lobbying - soft money should be outlawed entirely. BUT - if the recording CARTELS can pass so called "IP laws" that OUTLAW OPEN have ALREADY successfully lobbied for unconstitutional laws that OUTLAW OPEN SOURCE (Linux DVD player anyone?) who will lobby for us?? What think you of that?
2> And when there is no-one left prepared to spend months working on an album for no reward whatsoever, are YOU going to entertain us?
No, I'll just keep hitting Reload at Slashdot. To put it another way, do YOU want to listen to an entertainer who's ONLY in it for the money? I prefer semi-underground bands, which Metallica once was, because they just like to fuck off and have FUN. Artists deserve to be rewarded - encouraging the arts is a good thing. But bands like Metallica are just like those whiney major league baseball players who strike because a million dollars is not enough for them...
>There ARE ways of enforcing rights of digital content.
Yes, welcome to the brave new world my friend. The latest Stephen King book is ONLY available in digital form. Under current "copyright" laws, yyou can give away a paperback after reading it. Giving that digital book away could land you a 30 THOUSAND dollar fine or maybe jail.
But I see this Napster isn't black and white - fine - but here is what I feel:
I REFUSE to yield my consitiutional rights in a compromise to support some industry's not-well-thought-out business plan.
We'll see more conservative politicians take the side of the big corporations (in exchange for soft money). Maybe there are a few who really do believe in the founding fathers, and keeping the government out of our lives.
Do you also favor mandated back-doors into crypto, because crypto has the potential for abuse?
..again.
l. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking Kent, but I'll be happy to try and respond. The whole point of a publishing contract is that a writer gives the publisher the right to his books..Otherwise why would the publisher pay anything? They pay for the rights to books, even though few books make a profit, and none of mine ever has. If you're asking will I seek a publisher that will allow my book to be e-distributed for free, I doubt that I will find such a publisher, nor do I know of one. But if you're asking will I seek a publisher that will distribute publishing material using different models, sure.
2. I don't do "art," I'm a media critic and author. The better example is my columns, from which I make 90 to 95 per cent of income. I charge a flat flee for those, and those are freely distributed all over the Net and Web, and I don't charge anythig for them. That's the model I think publishing will get to and that' sthe model I think the music industry will get to.
3. I find your notion of me as a corporate fat cat because I have a book contract hilarious. I get paid less for my books than you spend on CD's a year. Mid-list writers rarely, if ever make money. I get small advances and have never gotten a royalty check, so your sort of sneering assumptions mostly reveal a complete ignorance of publishing.
4. I have actively urged my publisher to start distributing copyrighted material different, and I believe they will. Fatbrain and other places are experimenting with those m odels too. But your 100 per cent assertion that you can find a commercial publisher that would give away my books for free is hilarious. It's also utterly false. Have you ever met one of these people? If you're so sure, go find one. I'll talk to them, I promise.
5. I have never argued that musicians shouldn't get paid for their work. I actually believe they should get paid the same way I do..in flat fees or advances, and then understanding that because of the Net and the Web it isn't possible to collect copyright fees.
6. I do put my money where my mouth is, unicorn, but sadly, my mouth is much bigger. I have turned down a lot of syndication and fee offers for my columsn. they are free to anyone. If you want to take it or link it, do so. I will not hire an online PI to track you down and threaten you. Since almost all of my income is from media writing, and almost none is from books, I think that's about as much putting up as I can do.
7.I appreciate the issue you're raising, but painting me as a corporatist fatcat cause I write books is beneath both of us. If this answers don't help you, plse e-mail me (you or anybody else) and I will keep at it.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Metallica is invading fan privacy!? Last time I checked it is illegal to distribute mp3's. Napster warns that some mp3's are illegal and that the responsibility lies solely in the hands of the user. To claim that some people don't know this is also stupid. If you don't read the warnings then you are guiltly. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If you bother to read the chat transcript from Tuesday night that is avaiable at Metallica's website, you will see that their fight is because they want and deserve the right to control where they music is distributed. They own the music, there is no question about that. To bring up privacy issues in a matter such as this is very stupid and I am disappointed that Slashdot is posting this garbage. That's like saying if I kill someone in the privacy of my own home, it is okay. Most of the people who are advocates of privacy are the people that have something to hide.
I just had a brief dialogue with Eric S. Raymond (you might have heard of him Jon). The most recent bits of the conversation were...
"Bunn, Kent :
> Thanks. I'm involved in a discussion with someone, and they are claiming
> that it's simply impossible to find a publisher that would allow someone to
> make their material available on the web, while it's being sold as a dead
> tree version. Do you know of any such? It seems like O'Reilly has in the
> past published stuff, that was available for free on the web. And I know
> that Red Hat at least used to print a hardcover copy of the LDP.
I haven't had any trouble finding such punblishers. O'Reilly, Macmillan, and
MIT Press spring to mind."
As I mentioned in my question to him, Red Hat had/has a copy of the LDP available as a book form. And that's certainly something that's freely available on the web. And he lists at least 3 publishers that would apparently be interested in publishing material thats available free on the web.
In item 1 of your piece, you said The whole point of a publishing contract is that a writer gives the publisher the right to his books..Otherwise why would the publisher pay anything? That's besides the point. You have the option of what rights to your words, you are willing to give the publisher. It's your decision to give them control over the electronic (or lack thereof) distribution of those words. I'm sure that you retain some rights to your books. All I'm suggesting, is that you retain a few more, so that you can distribute your books over the web for free, just like music should be distributed in your view.
In item 4, you accuse me of telling you to find a publisher that will gove your works away. Again, I'm not saying that at all. First and foremost, I don't expect your publisher to do the giving at all. I expect a community of avid JK supporters to spring up, sharing your writings across the web via assorted means. Much like the MP3's that you so love.
In the email that you sent me, you said Besides which, the comparison between books and songs is a bit of stretch...There are millions of songs, but far fewer books. They take longer and are more cumbersome to distribute. CD's are a bit of a chore to distribute too. But once it's reduced to an electronic media (mp3's/.txt files), they are almost equivalent. Tho frankly, the txt files are alot more manageable over a modem, maybe the books should have been available over the net a long time ago. Txt file formats have been around alot longer than mp3's. Whatcha been holding out on us for Jon? And in terms of numbers, have you ever worked for a bookstore Jon? There are tons of books released every week. I would guess at least as many books are released, as there are albums in a week. Probably many more.
Regarding point 5, if your publisher won't pay you for stuff that is available to the world for free, why do you expect a publisher to pay Metallica for things that are just as free?
And regarding 7, I never intended to paint you as a fatcat. I intended to point out, the hypocrisy in your stand. You want other people to give away their work for free, while paying for yours.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
regarding point 3, In the last 6 months the only CD that I have gotten, was a Xmas present from my girlfriend. Coincidentally enough, Metallica S&M. And I don't begrudge the price that she (we) paid for it. I sure hope you make more than that on your books.
And no, I don't use Napster, or Gnutella, or anything else like that, in lieu of paying for CD's. I buy what I like, and never listen to most of the CD's that I own. I wish they were cheaper, but I'll continue to support the musicians that make the stuff that I enjoy.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
The boycott may be old news people, but it's time to put up or shut up... I suggest you get off your asses and write or call your local radio stations and TELL THEM THERE'S A BOYCOTT, because those pay for play whores don't know about it. I just sent this to the program director of WMMS in Cleveland, Ohio.Mr. Pennington, There is an Internet organized call for a boycott of Metallica. Everywhere I go, every chat room or BBS has hundreds of irate, former fans up in arms over Metallica's arrogance. I am writing this to inform you that if I hear Metallica played on your station, or any other for that matter, I will change the station. There should be many letters and phone calls from others as well. You can also inform the labels that push their so-called 'music' on us that many will be leaving their new releases to rot on store shelves, that includes the Mission Impossible 2 soundtrack. We've been burned by those guys since their radio-friendly LOAD was dumped on fans worldwide. No more. No more Metallica. Thank you, Christopher A. Joseph Parma
I live in Sao Paulo and I saw at MTV Brasil the Vj commenting about this "lawsuit"...Hey Lars and James, you guys are pretty smart !! Now Napster got a lot of advertising all around the world because of none other than YOU !!!
You got something totally wrong here. Metallica (did I spell it right -- I'm not exactly a fan?) didn't invade anybody's privacy. It's Napster that is broadcasting the contents of the users' hard drives to the world. Running Napster on your machine is the equivalent of putting a small classified ad for free MP3s in half the newspapers around the world. It's debateable whether Napster is invading privacy (the user does choose to run it, but Napster is way less than clear about how much they broadcast, too). Metallica is not invading anybody's privacy, they are just collecting publicly broadcast information.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
I joined the screw Metallica movement others might want to join too. There really is no site for it I know of, it just means boycott them or whatever you feel will show your anger over metallica banning people from napster, and how they really are wussys because they have to sue people when they act like they are hardcore rockers!! Boycott!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -BARTMOSS
Is this in the name of "artistry?" CD sales are up fool. Metallica is greedy. Metallica doesn't seem to realize that they started producing what we like to call "trash" a few years ago. Metallica has hit the snooze button on their 15 minutes of fame long enough, and are looking for scapegoats. Just because someone Downloads a bootleg doesn't mean that They aren't going to buy the CD. I like to know what shell out for, before I get it. You check under the hood of a car before you buy it to see if you like what's in there, right? It's the same thing. For instance, I downloaded the MP3 of a Pink Floyd CD I really liked, so I'm saving up for it right now. If I thought that CD was trash, I would have deleted the MP3. If I own the CD, it's a fair use. If I don't buy the CD and delete the MP3, no big loss to them. Another thing is albums. I own albums I like, but I don't have a record player. Since this music has been payed for, don't I have the right to get a copy of it in another format under fair use? I'll stop downloading MP3s if you start pricing CDs fair AND let me listen to the CD before I buy it.
Don't call my crazy, that's what they called me back in the home!