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.
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)
magic
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!
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!!
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
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.
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....
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
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!"
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.
>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...
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.
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
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.
Apparently Katz doesn't even respect his audience here enough to proofread this drivel before posting it.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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.
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!
"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.
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
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."
*cough*... try looking at his post again... *cough*
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
Stealing MP3s is illegal. Get over it.
No, creating the MP3 is illegal. Trading it is an issue after the fact.
Bzzzt. Wrong.
MP3 is nothing but a file format. Provided I have a CD I have a perfect right (acknowledged by courts and basically everybody except for RIAA) to make MP3s off the CD tracks and use these MP3s -- at home, at work, in the car -- wherever I want. Making MP3 from my own music is completely legal.
Now, making those MP3s available for public download (what you call trading) happens to be a copyright violation. But making the CD tracks themselves available would be exactly the same violation: there is nothing specific to MP3s here.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
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.
I'm not sure I agree with that as a reliable way of determining right or wrong.
Consider this example: If 90% of the population decide to beat up the other 10% just because they don't like them, is that therefore right?
I'm not going to go into a detailed discussion of what is "right", however - that particular topic was debated at length in the recent RMS interview. But I thought I should point out that such a simplistic view doesn't quite work...
-Spiv.
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.
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!
Two words: Dischord Records.
Am I the only geek who didn't sleep through the Eighties? You are all going to wake up one day and know which side you've been sleeping on.
-- Support Ometz le-Serev.
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.
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
By no means is this issue concluded - there is a standing legal argument that the copyright holder may determine acceptable copying uses.
The issue is definite -- under the current law, users have "fair use" rights that the copyright holder can do nothing about. It is the law (Home Recording Act or something like it) that defines what's acceptable copying. Of course, the copyright holder can grant additional rights over and above the "fair use" rights, but it cannot take away "fair use".
On the other hand, DMCA is a successful attempt to basically get rid of "fair use" altogether. Under DMCA the the users have no rights other than what the copyright holder gives them -- provided the content is "protected". Thankfully, the audio CDs are not "protected" in any way and thus do not fall under DMCA.
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
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.
Giving them to other people is.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
The price of LP's never went down because of Cassettes.
If you take into account inflation, then there's no way the price of an LP in 1980 would cost less than 1970.
The reason album sales are up is the same reason they always go up.
You hit the nail square on the head there, mon ami!
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
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 was going to have a full reply to this, but I just don't have time today, check my user info (recent posts) for answers to all your questions. For a quick reality check tho....
It doesn't matter if the law sucks, that's what the court system is for.
The court system is too slow to keep up with the current rapidly changing environment. We need to skip a couple steps to catch up.
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!
I'm skipping straight ahead to that shattering laws that don't work part. How do you shatter something? Break it willfully, purposefully, and repeatedly. Putting 300,000 kids in prison in not even close to a realistic solution.
--
+&x
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.
---
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
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!
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?
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!!
What if, instead of simply stealing your car, someone came by and copied it, driving away in an exact replica of your car, but leaving the original intact and unchanged? It may change your answer a lot or not at all, but the question must phrased correctly.
**>>BELCH
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.
why haven't CD prices dropped in the last ten years?
I know that this is slightly off topic, but that's pretty simple. Greed, and inflation.
Why is it that CDs are still more expensive than tapes, even though it's cheaper, faster and more reliable to press CDs than to duplicate tapes (no moving parts, less material, greater demand)?
Simple. When a consumer-media industry decides that their general unit price should be higher, they adopt a new format, and put lots of marketing behind it.
Look at DVDs, for example, $6-$10 more expensive than their VHS counterparts, yet they're cheaper to make.
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
...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
Added Bonus: If they list you as a "copyright violator" on their next list, you have a slam-dunk libel case.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Therein lies the one legitimate objection to Metallica's action. Yes, they have every right to file complaints or take legal action against people who illegally copy and distribute their works -- given legitimate grounds for suspicion in each individual case. I find it rather difficult to believe that a pile of a third of a million names was subjected to even the most cursory check to eliminate bogus hits on a "Metallica" word-search (e.g. descriptions of a song as resembling Metallica's style, clips short enough to qualify as legitimate fair-use excerpts).
If they've done a bonehead word search and identified every name that came up as an infringer on that basis alone, their lawyers had better understand defamation law as well as they understand IP law.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
While the suit over the Rio may have determined that MP3 playback devices are not illegal, it is still the opinion of RIAA that under the current law you cannot legally rip copies of your CDs yourself.
Me, you and the EFF may think that is BS, but as far as I know this still hasn't been settled in court.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
The court system is too slow to keep up with the current rapidly changing environment. We need to skip a couple steps to catch up.
Yah, so let's cut out the thoughtful and deliberate review process and act from the hip. I know the computer market is changing fast, but that doesn't mean that right and wrong do.
Each new technology pushes the envelope, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying. Let the court draw a line in the sand this year, and in 2 or 5 years, they'll adjust it as necessary. They have made good decisions (Sony v Connectix, etc), they are just reactive. That's the nature of the system. It's not broken, it's thoughtful.
I'm skipping straight ahead to that shattering laws that don't work part. How do you shatter something? Break it willfully, purposefully, and repeatedly.
Civil disobedience and all of that? The whole point of civil disobedience was to put yourself *in* the way of the law and make an example of how it is unjust. Otherwise, you are just protesting from the sidelines -- and anyone can do that.
Are you advocating that people tell Metallica that they are pirating the music so that they can be prosecuted? If you are willing to do this, I take my hat off to you.
Putting 300,000 kids in prison in not even close to a realistic solution.
First, nobody is going to prison. Copyright violation is a civil matter, and certainly not a felony.
Second, Metallica has yet to sue these kids. This is just a list of people to ban from Napster.
Finally, so what? Sure, that's alot of kids... but don't you think it brings home the point? This isn't a distant battle between 2 faceless giants, but affects you too. ("Poor little Johnny didn't know it was wrong to steal" -- heh, riiiiight). Besides, everyone will get their day in court (unless you are really advocating that people work outside the system).
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
You ask, "what do they expect napster to do?"
This puts me in mind of an exchange in the film "Goldfinger"; one of my all-time favorite scenes:
James Bond has been captured by his enemy, Auric Goldfinger. 007 has been strapped on his back to a gleaming gold slab (at least 10 million bucks' worth). A high power laser is cutting into the slab and will soon reach Bond's crotch, vaporizing a vital part of his anatomy, not to mention it will keep slicing up through his entire torso and head.
Bond: "What do you expect me to do? Talk?"
Goldfinger (laughing): "No, Mr. Bond - I expect you to DIE!"
(The above is from memory; I'm sure it's not a perfect rendition, but very close).
Or how about this. It's like Robbie the Robot in "Forbidden Planet". Walter Pidgeon is showing his pride and joy off to Leslie Nielson. He gets Nielson to give him his "blaster" (gun), hands it to Robbie, and calmly instructs the robot to fire and kill Nielson. Sparks dance over Robbie's "brain", and there is an ominous buzzing and clicking. The robot cannot obey the order because its prime directive is not to harm human life (apologies to Asimov). But it must obey a human's order! But it cannot! And so on... So it is slowly short-circuiting, destroying itself because of the insoluble dilemma it is faced with.
Napster essentially said if a user broke the rules the user would be blocked. Metallica thought about this, and sent them a bazillion names of users allegedly breaking the rules. Napster CAN'T POSSIBLY block them all. It would take eons to accomplish, one name at a time. (Still less!) - they can't even begin to think about investigating them all.
Metallica expects napster (figuratively) to DIE. I'm sure they figure the chances are fairly low the move will succeed to its ultimate logical conclusion (napster giving up - dying), but it's a fairly clever turn of the screws.
It has nothing to do with how easy it would be for a clever blocked user to keep circumventing the blockage (which you correctly point out would be easily accomplished, though armed authoritarian thugs could always break down his door in the dead of the night and take him away).
It's a case of the vulnerability of a server-oriented system. The ultimate solution? Make the whole thing a distributed system, with no central vulnerable point (gnutella or something like it).
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.
But anyway, your math is wrong, even with your own bogus numbers. If I sell something for $15 and I spent $1 to create it, that is a 93% profit margin. NOT a 1500% profit margin. I''m left to wonder, do they teach economics in the schools you attended?
What is 100% of $1? That's right, it's $1. Now, if you were to sell that $1 CD for $16, how much profit did you make? Right, $15. Well, when we remember that the CD cost $1 to make, and 100% of that is also $1, and then we multiply that 100% times the $15 dollars profit, we end up with 1500% profit. Now granted, that isn't all profit since there are middlemen who want their cut, and there's advertising costs as well. But it's safe to say they are making a killing. I don't know where you live, but when I go to Best Buy or Wal-Mart or anywhere else, you can buy CDs for $13 on up. Mostly in the $15 - $20 range though. Older CDs actually seem to cost a lot more.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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
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 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.
Who said anything about prison? Metallica is simply providing Napster with a list of their users that have infringed Metallica's copyright, in accordance with Napster's offical copyright policy:
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
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
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.
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.
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.
You're right that that isn't their "profit margin." I was just fixing the 93% claim made by the previous post. I'm sure the actual profits made by the record companies aren't anywhere near what the numbers in my post suggested. I am quite certain that they are quite a bit higher than they should be. I remember many years ago that the industry was claiming that CDs would go down in price quite a bit after the first couple years. Did that happen? Nope. What did happen? CDs stayed the same or went up. Cassette tapes went up quite a bit in price as well. They usually cost only 2 or 3 dollars less than the CD now, whereas they used to be about half the price. I'm not sure how they've worked things out, but it doesn't even matter what record company a cd is released by, it will cost exactly the same as a cd released by any other company. I don't think that's a market-driven phenomenon. It seems more like a price-fixing arrangement between the.. what.. 8(?) major corps.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
While the suit over the Rio may have determined that MP3 playback devices are not illegal, it is still the opinion of RIAA that under the current law you cannot legally rip copies of your CDs yourself.
OK, so according to the RIAA, I can't rip my own MP3s. The RIAA also says that I can't download MP3s of songs that I already own on CD, cassette, LP, etc from Napster and my.mp3.com. OK, RIAA, how do you suggest I use my Rio, which has been found to be a legal MP3 playback device?
I think that it's about time that we, as citizens do two things: force an investingation of the RIAA (and the MPAA) for anti-trust violations. From where I sit, their stance seems pretty anti-competitve to me. The second thing is to request that the corporate charter of the RIAA be revoked by the Attorney General of the state in which the RIAA is incorporated (probably Delaware).
Since the RIAA is no longer operating in the best interest of the public (i.e. they are trying to shut down all other distribution mechanisms which they do not control.) it's time to exercise our right to dissolve them as a corporate entity. It's gonna be fun to see them on the defensive for once (one last time?)
To email me,subtract my nick from my email address, starting with the second character. (hint: adto.uiuc.edu is wrong)
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?
Each new technology pushes the envelope, but that doesn't mean we should give up trying.
.sig for the feasability of that. If you don't believe me, I guess we could argue some more, but accepting the situation at face value is the first thing you need to do (and the RIAA harbors the same illusion that they can still control us). Once you see the situation as it is, you can then expoit it. That's a fundamental rule.
Give up trying to do what? Gain total control over digital files? Check my
Let the court draw a line in the sand this year, and in 2 or 5 years, they'll adjust it as necessary.
But the problem is that the RIAA has spent loads of money lobbying for the laws we now have to deal with. Give them 2-5 more years with the same records profits and soon they'll have even people (in Congress) convinced that they are right. (sidenote: profits aren't bad. When they are used to lobby Congress to limit artists rights.....)
The whole point of civil disobedience was to put yourself *in* the way of the law and make an example of how it is unjust. Otherwise, you are just protesting from the sidelines -- and anyone can do that.
I run Napster, anything else I need to do to put myself in the way of the law? Maybe speak out against it, perhaps? Maybe talk to a congressman? This is all stuff I am doing or have done, any more (serious) suggestions?
Are you advocating that people tell Metallica that they are pirating the music so that they can be prosecuted?
Fuck Metallica. At this point I wouldn't even touch one of their MP3's with a ten foot RJ-45.
Copyright violation is a civil matter, and certainly not a felony.
It used to be like that. You ever hear about the DMCA?
from here
Prof. Jane Ginsburg was quoted in an article titled "Battle Brews on Rights to Web Content, Those Who Think Material Should Be Free Are at Odds with Owners, Current Law." Referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA), a federal law that, according to the article, made it a felony for someone to even attempt circumvention of protective code, Prof. Ginsburg said that she worries about the inability of code to identify motives behind the copying of a film in the wake of the DMCA. "The same device that could stop me from copying a whole movie could also stop me from copying a small amount of the movie to show to my class," she said. "In that case, the copy would be locked up and I couldn't circumvent the lock because of the DMCA. Here is where the existence of an alternative copy is very important." The Boston Globe,
March 26, 2000
You were saying....?
This isn't a distant battle between 2 faceless giants, but affects you too.
This a simple battle between us and them. Which side are you on? And why?
--
+&x
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
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.
*sigh*
Back up copies generally refer to software. Or rather, a back-up is generally referred to as 'fair use'.
However, metallica is going after those who are SHARING metallica files, not those who are downloading.
In other words, just because you have the CD, and have the right to a backup copy, does not mean I have the right to give you that backup copy.
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....
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 mean, obviously the judge in the my.mp3.com case disagrees with you here. my.mp3.com was only sued for compiling a database of 80,000 tracks. So they were either found guilty for making the mp3s, or for organizing/categorizing them, and I doubt it's the latter. Remember the suit didn't have anything to do with broadcasting or their customers listening to copies that WEREN'T their own copies. It was simply that mp3.com made mp3s of this music without the artists' consent, and the judge agreed with this.
Where's that amendment? I'd like to look it over.
tunesmith
skkkoooonnnggggkkk ptui
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"'
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.
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...
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??
- First, according to the RIAA you cannot legally make an mp3 of a CD even if you own it. This is because of the Audio Home Recording act which regulates how you make digital copies.
Copyright law says otherwise. As long as you plan to use the MP3 only on devices in your possession, then it is legal (besides, who the hell is going to know if I take one of my CDs and rip/encode to MP3 to keep my CDs stored away but still listen to the music?). Only when distribution enters the picture is it illegal. I guess CD copying to protect my master CDs is illegal now too...- Second, mp3.com lost a big court case in which they did what you just said -- they let you download mp3s of CDs you already own. This was found to be illegal, though I'm not sure on what grounds.
As I said above, this involved distribution, therefore I see it as being illegal. However, if I use one of the 'internet hard drive' services available, and upload MP3's that I own the CD for and that I ripped and encoded to MP3, and that are only for use when I am at another machine, it would be perfectly legal.Standard disclaimer applys - IANAL and all that good sh*t
_______
Scott Jones
Newscast Director / ABC19 WKPT
Commodore 64 Democoder
FC Closer
regarding those 330,000,
if the metallica laywers or consultants only went by file names, did they account for the number of people that have their max uploads set to zero? It's pretty annoying when you find some rare track, only to find out you can't get it because the user has their max count set to zero.
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"'
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...
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.
I disagree somewhat. I think that a vendor should have the right to be clueless and set prices higher than he or she would have if s/he were smarter, or to use less-than-intelligent distribution models. Being clueless doesn't seem to morally allow stealing. (OTOH, when an entire industry is clueless and they have the clout to prevent newbies from new distribution methods, then I personally think it's okay to steal from them. At least, that's my personal justification for the week).
Consider this analogy: a busker strums folk tunes on a street corner... Has he been "ripped off"? Have his artistic rights been violated?
No... he or she didn't set the stipulation that the listeners would have to pay before the song would be performed. Other artists put in extra time in the expectation that they'll get payed for the songs that they produce, and the law tells them that the government will protect their ability to get payed for each album distributed. There's no guarantee that people will want their albums though. Ideally, there should be enough good music out there that if a few vendors are clueless, then the consumers can ignore them and get their entertainment somewhere else. Again, that doesn't seem to be the case, so I'm able to sleep at night after the horrible act of theft.
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,"
Yes, I agree that consumers should have rights... but I don't think that consumers should be able to do anything they want to either. Hrm, I can't think of many. Mostly things like slander, theft, stuff like that.
--
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.
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...
I have many problems with your rebuttal, and took the time to write a rebuttal to your rebuttal :). I have used Napster and find it a tantalizingly easy way to find and get music. However, unlike you, I have no illusions using Napster to distribute music is legal or right. Anyway, I don't feel like composing a version of my response in Slashdot's HTML code, so I'm just going to provide a link to it.
My Response to your Rebuttal
I too cheerfully await a response from you.
Sig goes here
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).
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!
I don't know the exact citations for it (and IANAL, etc.) but I seem to recall that insofar as Diamond's RIO MP3 player went, the judge ruled that a computer is not considered a "digital recording device" and hence not subject to the restrictions pertaining thereunto. I've also heard that there's case law precedent that "spaceshifting" (ie, making a copy for compatibility purposes, like copying your CDs to tape to play in your car) is considered fair use. Of course, this is all hearsay, but I'm pretty sure it's somewhere near right...or else all those blank tape manufacturers who put "Perfect for CD!" on their boxes would get sued into oblivion.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
So? Everyone has lobbyists, and sometimes laws are passed based on that -- laws that you may or may not agree with. There are big problems with the system, and someone is always gonna end up cheesed off.
:)
;0
Yes, but I don't like lobbying from industries that try and get laws passed that hurt their workers (or at least their worker's rights). Read the links from here If you don't believe me. Yes, I. Am. So. Cheesed. Off. right now.
Sure, I think Disney got a bad law passed (copyright extension), but I think many of the copyright laws are still pretty darned good in design.
You might think they're "pretty darn good". I think they suck ass. This is a fundamental difference. I don't expect it to change, today, or even tomorrow. But that's why we talk about it, no?
I tip my hat to you then -- you are standing up for what you believe.
I say "Howdy". And I'm screaming it at the top of my lungs to anyone who's paying attention, not just standing there.
You ever read it?
No, I haven't read the entire code. I have read various abstracts and conversations, as well as citations from the code. Mainly I think I understand its spirit, and where that spirit has been tainted by self-interest.
First, it addresses the circumvention of copyright protection systems, not actual violations of copyright law. This means they'll go after the DeCSS people (another place where we disagree, I'm sure), not the kid in his basement burning himself a copy of the Matrix.
Just wait until they convince a judge or someone who picks judges (What's up G-Dub!?) that the "horrible" act of "ripping" an MP3 goes against the spirit of the law, in that it is a "circumvention" of the natural protections afforded by the inherent differences between a physical medium and a digital one.(i.e. "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title" that's from here word find: "circumvent"
Second, the section on criminal offenses and penalties is very explicit in that it applies to violations for "commercial advantage or private financial gain". I haven't seen the list of 300,000 names, but I'm pretty sure most of them haven't made any money.
I think that's our loophole. We just want to give it away, we don't want to sell it. Read some of the those conversations under my user info for more details on this. Keep reading for the kicker...
I make a living by creating and selling IP, not music but software. I expect that these laws will help protect my work (and my job), and I fully endorse them. I'm not trying to get something for nothing, I'm trying to feed my family.
Software might be a tough business in a few years. A bunch of crazy hippies are giving a whole bunch away for free in hopes of capturing market share, and eventually maybe some bucks...some way or another. Or maybe they're just doing it for fun, but the stuff seems to work. Even if it is a BIT cryptic. But I understand your point. I think we need to protect absolutely the power of "selling IP" of software or any other media. Keep reading...
I am all for open source -- people who want to spend their time on something they will give away. I respect that decision, and I've even put some stuff out in the public domain. However, I resent the fact that some people on the other side don't respect my decision, my copyrights, and steal my product.
I used to be for open source. Then I realized I was more interested in Free Software. As an ideal at least, open source will most likely represent the reality of it. I also (back on topic) believe in Free Music. We'll see if it catches on.
My final solution to the whole deal is to add two words to this.
This part specifically...
"The congress shall have the Power To promote the progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
the two words I want added are "profit from". See if you can figure out where I want it. Shoot, even Republicans could get behind a "Profit From" movement....
This is the "dealing with it" part.
--
+&x
sharing seems fair to me.
--
+&x
In support of Metalica I'm renameing several Conway Twitty mp3s as Metalica mp3s and logging on to Napster!
metallica is not a citizen, it's a company. and that is not a compliment. basically, metallica is just another money-hungry monopolist who'll do anything to screw over those who have supported them for a long time, and I want nothing to do with them any more.I sold my metallica cds, and I hope this whole thing bankrupts them. And before you start saying things like 'if you support cann^H^Hpitalism'... I don't.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
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
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
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=-
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.
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
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
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