Slashdot Mirror
Metallica Remains Silent
As you may already know, 30,000 Napster users have appealed to Napster on the basis that they feel they've done nothing wrong in the recent Metallica-inspired crackdown on accounts. Rap artist Dr. Dre has turned in his list to Napster, and we can only assume that there will be appeals there, too. Also, after numerous attempts and promises from Metallica's publicist, we still haven't gotten Metallica to answer the questions that our readers asked on May 4th. We have made several good-faith efforts to work with Metallica and their publicist, but it looks like they're never going to respond. On the lighter side, The Onion has posted the sad news about Kid Rock, and someone sent this image to us. [Updated 18 May 2000 7:40 GMT by timothy] Metallica's publicists have promised to try to get our questions answered "early next week," and that would be both more fun and more satisfying for all involved, I'm sure, than stony silence and accusations. Attn: Lars: The real debate is online :)
Forget the browser. They should sue Microsoft for their "Network Neighborhood" piracy software. As we all know, the only purpose of the Network Neighborhood is to allow people to access files on each other's computers, including MP3s of copyrighted songs.
The obvious answer is to use freenet, which is being built so that even the file TRANSFER is anonymous. You can't see who's downloading from your box. They can't see whose box they're downloading from. With any luck, features like this will work their way into gnutella and mabye even napster in the future.
I'll grant you that freenet is still a work in progress, and that its anonymonity features may not be perfect...
But,like cryptography, it doesn't have to be PERFECT. It just has to be good enough that breaking through becomes more trouble/expensive than it's worth.
(very hypothetical example here...)
After all, if it turns out that it takes the NSA a week on a Cray to break the crypto key and expose a raw IP; do you think for a second that the NSA considers it worth their computer time to help a bunch of burned out metalheads harass their "fans"???
john
Imagine all the people...
Anyone remember Zoog Zoog Sputnik? They had adds on their album. Hair care products if I remember correctly.
The hurting, the hurting...
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
hot bowls of grits down their pants. i can understand, it might ruin their hard rock image
I know that hot grits down my pants would stop me from being rock hard...
Oh, you said "hard rock". My mistake...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I'm sorry, but Napster was created to get music without paying for it. Sure there are independent artists out there, but that's not what the users are sharing and downloading. If people wanted independent music, they could just go to mp3.com
How can a company be allowed to exist when it's sole purpose is violating copyright laws? This isn't about the freedom of information, it's about getting music people are too cheap to pay for.
Instead of whining about how expensive and unfair CD prices are, why don't you let artists and record companies know you're willing to buy CDs at $5/CD instead of $15-18/CD? Hell, last night I bought 12 CDs for $126.xx. If you know where to shop, you can get them at much less than full price. (Although I'd much rather cut out the record companies and pay the artists directly.)
"That car is too expensive, and that's unfair, I think I'll steal it!" This is no different.
People need to grow up and start telling artists to find a better distribution model. If you downloaded an album, it could let you listen to it a few times, and then pop up with a dialog box, "Send $2 to the artist?" I know I'd be happy to pay 20% of what I normally spend on an album.
450 CDs in my collection and growing...
Well, atleast I'll give my own name because I can stand up for what I believe.... That's why I created the message board on the site, to find out what people think. It's a free country, so if you think www.screwstaver.com accurately describes your position on this issue, then so be it.
MD5 shouldn't ever output the same signature for two different files... And the volume of metallica songs isn't that large... even with all the variations of encoders and quality, etc... there would probably only end up being 10,000 or so unique signatures that needed to be blocked... As they found more, they could add those on to the list, and still be possitive that they weren't blocking anything that shouldn't be blocked.
Thinking about it, if Napster really wanted to try to show itself as being responsible, they should start incorporating the signatures into their software to make it easier for artists to opt themselves out of their "service". An artist could just call them up and say hi, i'm so and so and i'd like you to block all of my songs from being downloaded, except for these 3 specific ones, which i want to distribute on Napster.
It's completely managable and feasible...
Oh, and having just read the post above mine I'd like to point out that both my brother and his girlfriend are making money out of music, although neither is yet signed to a record deal etc.
They're not making much cash at the moment as they are both still in school, taking A levels (UK exams at 18 years old), which takes a large amount of their time, but both could probably support themselves on the level of income they could get if they where gigging full time. This is without any distribution of recorded music, just on word of mouth and a few demo CD's that are sent around to tour promotions people.
What I am curious about - since the laywers for Metallica are making an accusation that the Napster users who were offering Metallica songs for download are breaking the law - and if any of those users were *wrongly* accused, what remedy do they have?
If I am wrongly accused of a normal crime, I have channels I can go through to see recompense. What recompense does DMCA allow? Any?
Check out Magic Firesheep!
Wow! All three of them suck! Amazing how poor minds think alike...
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Hey! Aren't 1040 forms public data? It seems like every year I hear about the President and Vice President's tax filings, including earnings, deductions, etc. Does anyone know how to go about getting this info from the IRS? It sure would be helpful if we could document the fact that Metallica's members make $x/yr, and how little they have lost due to Napster...
My 2 bits.
- REv.
Although it seems counterintuitive, piracy can actually increase sales. I'm sure there are a good number of people who would never have heard of an album (or for that matter a game) they loved if they didn't first hear it though someone's pirated version. They like it, so they actually buy it. People still buy on principle, if they think stealing is wrong, they will buy it if they like it.
For instance, I've bought games that I would have ignored had it not been for others in my dorm getting and trying the warez version and getting me to try it. Works for music too, although everytime I walk into the store, the $15+ price tag usually discourages me and I end up buying less and spending less _total_ money than if the prices per unit were lower.
Metallica are well within their right
Technically, I have to concede this point. I do not, however, agree with them. Their efforts in this regard indicate such a lack of understanding of the current state of technology that i wonder if they're still using 4-tracks to record their work.
i like their music too, but if i intentionally illegally copy their work then i must suffer the consequences.
i don't like their music any more. your masochistic overtones indicate that you are a troll, whether you know it or not. fuck it, i'll bite.
if i intentionally copy their work it will be solely as an act of civil disobedience to demonstrate the sheer stupidity of attempting to treat information as physicaly property given the ease of duplication. people argue over whether or not "information wants to be free." information already is free. there is no room for argument on this point. anyone trying to treat it any other way is living in the past, denying reality, and will be appropriately left behind as the revolution moves forward.
</rant>
Anthony
"I think any time you expose vulnerabilities it's a good thing." -Attorney General Janet Reno
LOL!
IANAL, but you are so right!
--
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
Yeah, kinda sounds like MyMP3.com doesn't it? You know, where they could determine that I actually had the CD before I could listen to the MP3?
Of course, what sounds like a rational idea to 99% of humans ends up being shut down by RIAA.
The RIAA and their members aren't going to make anything available online until they figure a way to screw you at least as badly as when you buy a CD.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
What's the difference between tap water and bottled water
Unfortunately, where I live, there really is a difference - yuck!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I'm not sure who's "paying the bills" right now, but I'm sure the long term goal is to set up Napster as a web-based equivalent of a brick-and-mortar record label. More people certainly know about Napster than Gnutella, etc. They mention "proprietary MusicShare technology" that their client uses, so I'm sure they could try to parlay that into some kind of subscription-based service.
Remember that all these software clients are just at the beta or preview stage, so once they are finally at the release stage, they could also sell the client software for profit. And, since they control the database of MP3's, they could easily make it so older/beta clients would no longer work.
Screw the record industry, the dirty bastards have been ripping me off for years! It couldnt cost more than about a buck fifty to make a cd but they still cost $20!! Fuck that! Making a CD
costs
a fraction of what it does to make a Cassete, but prices have still been going up for 20 years! Well they have been sticking to us for so long, we don't have to take it! They can take their price
fixing, profiteering, gluttonous asses and SUCK IT! ITS A MUSICAL REVOLUTION AND THE MAN IS GOING DOWN! WE WONT BEND OVER AND TAKE IT ANYMORE, DOWNLOAD
UNTIL
YOUR MODEM BURNS!
DOWN WITH METALLICA!!! DOWN WITH DRE!!! VIVA LA NAPSTER!! VIVA LA RESISTANCE!!
P.S. This isn't flamebait, I'm serious.
Sigs are awesome huh?
So you want Napster to hire 10 people to search through millions of shared music files? Good God, no way in hell you could pay me enough money to take that job. Stare at a computer screen for 12 hours a day and flip through individual user lists removing offending material. Yay!
Hey Metallica!
I just copied 3 of your albums of MP3's across our LAN via SMB, from one NT server to another.
Since Network Neighborhood is what allowed me to freely violate your copyright, then you ought to sue Microsoft!
(sorry, cheap shot)
I just remembered this old Metallica song. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Or, on the other hand, they could just sue you anyway. You don't need the permission of someone to sue them. Otherwise, our courts would be very, very empty places.
That "notice" was propaganda, designed to frame the issue as Metallica vs Users, instead of Metallica vs Napster. Unfortunately for Metallica, and especially bad for the RIAA, the badly written DMCA appears to be firmly on Napster's side. They are complying with the law fully.
When the RIAA wrote the DMCA and presented it to Congress to rubber stamp, the ISP provision was intended to protect themselves, and the rest of the members of the long-established good-old-boys media-conglomerate club. They never imagined that an outsider company like Napster would be able to use it to protect themselves against attack by the Entertainment Trust.
Not their first mistake, and probably not their last.
IANAL.
I have made lots of pro-Metallica posts. I am a huge Metallica fan. They are legally in the right here. The people having copyrighted Metallica songs for download on napster are in the wrong.
And like RatBastard said, it pisses you off because I am right.
--
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
Nothing, you idiots! Dr. Dre's dead, he's locked in my basement!
:-)
Ok, now *I'm* violating copyright for quoting Eminem, right? Oops.
Raptor
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
So can we say hypocrite?
How can you control how your music is distributed when you PREVIOUSLY allowed people to come in and bootleg your concerts!?!?!?
Lars, stick to drumming and being one of the most annoying rock stars since David Lee Roth... and leave copyright law to the lawyers. You've alienated a good percentage of your fan base.
The next tour will have banners like Spinal Tap:
"Puppet Show with Metallica"
[Connection closed by foreign host]
2 Words: Wesley Willis.
Wesley Willis puts a plug for some store or company on the end of every single song he has.
"Rock over London, Rock on Chicago.. Toyota! Wow what a difference!"
The subject line says it all; Metallica has already alienated lots of their fans. Listening to the Napster users' appeals isn't going to change their public image; they have commited a MAJOR screw-up; it's even likely that they realize it, but can't turn back now.
The damage has been done; I can't say I feel sorry for them.
They were supported by the aristocracy. This is why music of that era was lacking the plurality and richness, and diversity of todays music.
Musicians of the future will be supported in the same way Mozart and Beethoven were:
In short, "nonsense".
Patronage. In the modern case, it may be corporate or governmental support,
Great. So JP Morgan and Janet Reno determine what music we listen to ? I hope you're not intending to apply this model to the software industry !
Comissioned work
Again, why should the JP Morgan and the aristocracy determine what music we listen to ? I can understand why you feel that "rich people" should buy all your music for you, so you get something for nothing, but it doesn't sound terribly attractive. IMO, it would be a retrograde step.
Performances
A lot of music is not written for live performance. Not to mention the fact that nowadays, touring is expensive ( especially if you're writing orchestral music )
Not only do I find it hard to believe that we will turn the clock back seversal centuries, I do not believe that this is a desirable thing.
I can just see it now....
"Hush little baby don't say a word
And never mind that noise you heard
It's just the beast under your bed
In your closet, in your head!
Exxon Gas! You car'll go fast!
Funnnncoland! And Disney're sponsoring our band!"
I honestly shudder at the idea of corporate patronage being the trust behind advancement of the arts... :)
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
That is, why Metallica hasn't answered yet. Did they *promise* us an interview, is it something that their publicists had said previously might happen or what. If this is something they agreed to, hell even if it isn't, it really paints them in a bad light. Also would it be possible to update with exactly which questions got sent along? It may provide some insight into their reticence.
Sigh. You know, before this, i was willing to give Metallica the benefit of a doubt. No longer.
Fucking cowards.
If you were half the men you were back when you had to work for your "art", you'd have the guts to face your fans.
On the off chance that anyone from Metallica or their management is reading this... you've just lost a fan who has been with you for 15 years. I will not buy the music of a bunch of cowardly has-beens who will lash out at their own fans through the long arm of the Authority Figures you so boldly pretend to stand against, but don't have the guts to speak to those same fans face to face and answer our honest questions.
Has-beens.
If you ever really were what you posed to be at all, and not just puppets on strings.
--
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
In case you haven't seen it, take a peek and witness firsthand some of the backlash they've generated (Flash req)
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
Isn't it 330,000? Or am I Whacked?
Well I have to disagree about one point...it was all downhill after the justice album..(Ride the lightning being the best IMO). And as far as Dave Mustaine and Megadeth goes they are just as bad! I used to be the biggest Megadeth fan on this freaking planet ...well at least until Rust In Piece came out...their best is Peace Sells and Kiling is my business....I have a VERY LARGE megadeth collection available for sale if anyone wants it...it has rarites from Japan the UK records CD's singles tapes backstage passes pieces to the megadeth game ( I told you i was a huge fan) ...I ditched allthe posters and T-shirts in anger over the loss of Vic hehehe
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
>I find it interesting that so many non-musicians
>have all this advice for changing an industry
>they aren't part of.
I find it interesting that so many non-computer-programmers have all this advice for changing an industry they aren't part of.
>Who are YOU to say how musicians can and cannot
>make money? Isn't it up to THEM?
Who are YOU to say how computer geeks can and cannot make use their machines? Isn't it up to THEM?
>(Whatever...I know the mp3-loving Slashdot
>moderators will moderate this into oblivion.)
Yet another transparant attempt to gain karma through reverse psychology.
john
Imagine all the people...
Besides, for Napster to proactively identify Dr. Dre or Metallica songs would be expensive and bandwidth intensive. It would require additional bandwidth to actually download the songs, and personnel to listen to the songs to determine whether or not they were actual Dr. Dre songs, or other songs that happened to have the same title.
Dr. Dre just hired the same outside contractor as Metallica to identify his on-line fans so he can have them banned from Napster. I doubt that this contractor did the work for free for either of them, yet Metallica and Dr. Dre want the courts to force Napster to do the identical work without compensation.
They just want a free handout. The law clearly says that it is their responsibility to identify copyright infringement, yet they want to force Napster to do their work for them, and they don't want to pay for it.
That makes them THIEVES.
So you really think that this Napster thing is going to destroy the majority of Metallica's fan base?
I can't say that I agree. In fact, I think you're dead wrong. Many Metallica fans have stuck with them since the 80's and into the 90's and agree with them in their quest to stop the piracy of their music. I'm one of them.
-Stu
Whatever you think of copyright infringement and the unauthorized copying of IP, in general, sharing is good.
Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation
Information is not Knowledge
I can search at least 5 terabytes everytime I use Gnutella, so I think the Gnutella has a lot more space to search than Napster.
It was more a slap on the wrist than a Smackdown. They agreed to stop forbidding stores from advertising CD's below the minimum price set by the record company. No penalties.
"Oh, yes sir FTC, I promise I won't do it again... honest"
As a DJ, I have a certain interest in having the original copy of an album. The colors on the label and the original, un-[encoded/decoded] feed make a big difference in a booth on a 5,000 watt system. If we win and the industry changes in the MP3 direction, I sure hope the CD market doesn't collapse (this is all hypothetical, as it *probably* wouldn't). If I was forced to burn my own albums at 3 per week and the record labels were sending my URLs instead of CDs, I think I'd quit.
I fully support MP3.com, who has been honorable and actually provides original CDs. They have been sadly grouped with Napster mainly due to the fact that they both provide MP3s. Supporting Napster to me is like supporting Cable Descramblers. It's kind of neat, but I feel kind of funny (that funny feeling means it's WORKING!).
On another note, as we have seen before, Metallica is a puppet, strings attached, and I think we are pestering the wrong target. Why don't we try to pull the weed up from the roots? Let's ask these questions to the recording industry!
Hmmm... too much caffeine?
-Effendi
-Effendi
As far as I am concerned, technology will not destroy the record industry. If anything, the record industry will make attempts to destroy technology -- to beat technology until it complies with its current business model! The recording industry absolutely must change their business model to survive in this new world. Their traditional business model is no longer effective and is aging quickly.
That has to be the funniest friggin thing I have ever read...
Dijital
Diji
"I came, I saw, I WTF'd!"
Small tag to an article
Courtney Love, the singer and actress, says the real music pirates are not kids at their computers
companies that rip off artists.
cbc.ca article
"Working at 7 Eleven would have been a better deal," says Love.
That what should be happening. If I stab you, you don't go after the knife maker, you go after me.
unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material is illegal.
whether or not they really lose money is irrelavent to my point, but I know for a fact at least 1 band has made money because of napster. I use napster to try different songs by an artist if I'm going to buy a CD.I hate hearing a song on the radio, then buying the CD just to find out they only have 1 good song.
I enjoy the higher sound quality CDs have over mp3s.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
As for why music prices have gone up, there is only one good answer: because enough of the public is willing to pay! It's the same with the inflationary spiral seen in sports - despite constant criticism of athlete salaries, people still clamor to pay hundreds of dollars for tickets to big games.
Assuming you're a Bruins fan, at least your boys had the smarts to hold onto Pat Burns.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
If Napster truly did not want people to use their service for piracy, they could easy stop it. How hard would it be for Napster to hire a couple of people to police their service? Just go around looking for pirated songs and ban anyone who has pirated songs offered (after a warning to remove the pirated material, of course).
Not their job. The DMCA makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the copyright holder to notify Napster of violations.
That's what's so delicious about this. The law is malfunctioning exactly as designed.
I'm sure the RIAA would be more than happy to provide them with a list of copyrighted songs.
Song titles are not copyrightable. Next time you're in a record store, thumb through the Phonolog. Most song titles have multiple entries -- because songwriters tend to re-use the same song titles over and over again for different songs.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
If I understand correctly, they are accusing the Napster users of commiting a tort - they are planning a civil action, not a criminal one. If Metallica actually went to the trouble of suing individual users (a waste of time) and lost horribly, there could be provisions for the defendants to recover court costs and maybe punitive damages, but I believe that depends on the local/state legal environment.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I must respect Dr. Dre's move here. If you're going to protect your work, THAT is the way to go about it. Don't penalize people, don't jump down their throats, simply take a technologically valid and sound approach to blocking work that specifically matches your work. It's definitely a good move, and you can tell he consulted a programmer before making his press release. That to me is a sign that he is tech-savy enough to eventually release his own work in mp3 format, if he can find a way to profit from it.
Once again, proving the quickest way to spread something is to try to squash it with corporate jackboots, I just found about this cool agent clone and grabbed the RPM. Thanks, man, you're the greatest :>.
Is it because people are willing to pay, or is it because of the oligopoly of record labels and distributional channels of CDs?
I'd like to see the baseline trends of music-bought and CD prices BEFORE Napster et al., and see where they would be now without those technologies' wildfire-like spread.
Oh, and I see your point about sports, but I think it could be different. Athletes might play 'for the love of the game,' but some artists say EXPLICITLY in their music, 'screw the corporate machine,' and then go and make love to it. Plus, city leaders coerce city citizens into spending lots of money on new stadiums, arenas, etc. for 'city spirit,' and taxes, fees, and high ticket prices are necessary to recoup costs sometimes.
Ceterum censeo Microsoftam esse delendam.
"Metallica didn't make 17,000 mistakes," King said... "What Napster has done is create 17,000 liars."
these 17,000 people were not liars before they used napster, and they would not have been liars had it not been for napster. as we all know, napster created these liars from formerly perfect law-abiding citizens.
Aside from the sarcasm and italics, where is your rebuttal? Do you really think that the average citizen of Vienna in 1800 had access to the quantity and range of music that even an average Wal-Mart customer has today?
>What the original poster proposes is no more than a pay-by-worth system: one pays to support music one like.
Hmmm, 'paying for music that one likes', that seems to be exactly what Metallica is asking for. We already have a pay-by-worth system, it's called the mass market. The difference between a consumer market and a patronage/commisioning system is that in a mass market, anyone who can scrape together $15 for a CD gets a vote, not just those who can afford to underwrite a band of their own.
Of course communications technlogy might enable some hybrid of mass market and patronage by allowing individuals to cooperate to underwrite works of art and other IP. For an interesting take on this, see Ray Gardener's payvoting scheme
Several weeks ago I downloaded a few songs from Napster because I hadn't heard them in years. Ironically enough later that week I bought FOUR of their CD's while standing on line at blockbuster. When I found out I was banned from Napster I was definately outraged, and really don't think I'll be listening to them anymore.
As much as I don't want to steal from an artist, I do spend a great deal of money on music. but paying for $15 for a cd I may listen to twice and the same for one I may listen to 1,000 doesn't make sense. I just think the pricing structure should be changed. In all honesty how much music can one person listen to?(I would like to join a service which gave me any song they carried at any time and they could charge me a monthly music charge with unlimited access. I can only listen to one song at a time anyway. They can keep track of what songs I listen to, and how often, and distribute it to the artists appropriately. The service provider with the best service/price/selection will get my business.
I just wonder how long till this is technically and economically feasable?
In case anyone missed it, Howard King, the lawyer in this case has accused the metallica file sharers of being liars, because every one on them was 'making Metallica tracks available for upload'.
This man is a fool.
Additionally, what's to stop the profusion of the warez naming convention arising? How long before m3t4771c4 or similar is de-rigeur?
It's been fun, but I guess the jig is up...we'll all have to erase Napster from our lives, because Longing has exposed us like the cockroaches we are. Oh the pain. The shame. I mean, after all, we collectively killed Kid Rock.
-- www.bteg.com | bleh.n3.net | hac47.dhs.org
Surely such energy could've been harnessed for the betterment of everyone involved. Why not work with the fan community rather than against it?
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
>Yet another transparant attempt to gain >karma through reverse psychology.
have you ever seen an anonymous coward with karma?
And I go to their concerts and buy their subsequent CDs as well. I would assume any band would rather have me pirate one album, but go to 2 concerts (at outrageous ticket prices these days) and buy the next 3 CDs as well. Don't forget I'm not going alone to the concert so that's at least one other ticket sale for each show and possibly another fan who will start buying their shit as well. They may have lost the sale on the first CD (or maybe not if I liked it enough to go buy it), but I'm gonna make it up to them in the long run. Damn, this Napster thing is like a pyramid scheme run by the labels!
Maybe we should all forget Napster and go back to Hotline. If only we didn't have to sign up for AllAdvantage to get access to Hotline sites...
MacSlash: News for Mac Geeks
Since kroq.com hasn't posted any transcripts or audio files of the interview, here's what I remember:
Disclaimer: anything in quotes is what I remember them saying.
First of all, Kevin and Bean are L.A. KROQ's morning drive goofball personalities. This wasn't exactly a hard-hitting interview, but some good questions and issues were raised.
This all started when Metallica was in studio working on "I Disappear." They had several working versions and apparently someone leaked a copy, which wound up on Napster, and was actually played by 35 radio stations. Lars, citing Metallica's obsessive, perfectionist control over their finished product, said their first reaction to hearing their work-in-progress released was "let's get those guys." When Napster presented Metallica with the "smug attitude" that they were just a service with no knowledge of what their users were doing, Metallica was all that more determined to stick it to Napster.
Lars went on to say that this was all about control over the music. Metallica owns the music, and they should be able to control when and how it's released. (No one pointed out that it was actually someone from their inner circle who robbed them of this control). He admitted that Metallica has plenty of money, saying it's not about money, but control. He added that "no one has control over this thing [Napster, the internet], and it has to be controlled." No one asked how he envisions this happening.
A caller asked why he was so upset about fans downloading and listening to music: as artists, didn't Metallica want their fans to hear their music? His response was that Metallica doesn't make music for their fans, they make it for themselves. "If you don't like our new album, our short hair, the fact that we record with symphony orchestras, go f--, um, beat yourself."
He did make some good points. He maintains that artists have a right to be compensated for their work, but since art is "created out of nothing", people think they have a right to enjoy it free of charge. Especially with the spread of computers, the internet and, finally Napster.
When asked about the band's history of encouraging bootlegging, he said the band still does. He claimed that only id's of people who had downloaded Metallica masters were turned over to Napster. Bootleg mp3's of live shows, etc, are still ok to trade, and he encouraged it. He said NetPD was looking for 96 songs that Metallica had mastered in the studio and released on CD. When a caller challenged that there was no way NetPD did any more than look for people that had downloaded files with the word Metallica in the title, he basically claimed technical ignorance.
However, it seemed clear that there were no lawyers in the studio prompting him. When asked how he felt about people buying used CDs in record stores, he stammered, "uh, uh, whoa, I hadn't thought about that... um, yea, that's ok with me".
He did make some contradictory statements. He cited a letter of support from an independant record store near Sycracuse that has seen it's business drop 90% in the last 3 months (i.e. since the rise of Napster). But when a caller later challenged him by stating that industry-wide record sales were up 20% since the introduction of mp3's (i.e. people are able to sample before buying), he stated that "you can't even make that argument, because we don't have the alternate universe were mp3's don't exist to know if that's really why it's happening." Note to statisticians: change careers.
There was a quick question on Lars' comments about Fred Durst. Basically, Lars' comments were that since the Limp Bizkit tour had sponsors paying the bills (and the bills aren't paid by Limp Bizkit), Limp Bizkit couldn't claim the credit for putting on a free concert. Ok, whatever.
Overall, Lars had some good points and I can see his point about artists having control over, and getting compensation for, their art. He says he understands that "brick and mortar" record stores are eventually going to go away, and that a dialog is needed to plan for the future. However, I didn't get the impression that he _truly_ understands where the technology is going, that the current music industry structure is already obsolete or the scope of the invasion of privacy Metallica committed against their fans. And I didn't get much hope from his statement that "Napster will go out of business. They tell me that six months from now there's going to be a technology that you can't trace like you can Napster. But six months and five minutes from now there'll be a way to beat that technology and control it. There has to be."
...they must not have any assets.
Unless NetPD was wrong and they -really didn't- upload or download Metallica MP3s, these users are taking a big risk.
The hope is that "if enough of us appeal, Metallica won't be willing to sue each of us individually". But what if they choose to just sue the first 1000? Or even 1? What if that's you? Do these people not realize that they really were violating copyright laws, whether the laws are "fair" in their minds or not? "But the CD costed too much!" isn't going to win a lot of points with a judge.
Of course this whole thing is ridiculous. As I and many others have said before, if artists just find a better distribution model so they can sell their music at reasonable prices - less than $5/album - then these blatant copyright abuses will mostly subside. And we can all sleep better because the Big Bad Record Companies will be going out of business.
I saw this on PBS (Charlie Rose show). Lars was insisting that the issue is not money, but control. The fact that Napster users had access to "perfect digital copies" of their songs, "undistinguishable" from the master copies (which they own), was supposedly the big deal. Of course, the fact the MP3 are not perfect digital copies (since they employ lossy compression) doesn't seem to have gotten to him.
Either Lars is doing this out of boredom, without informing himself about the issue, or their lawyer is the real "Master of Puppets." (Well, Lars could be simply quite dumb, too).
First, you are right that no one is saying anything new, except I think people are very interested to hear a main player in this ordeal answer questions more to the heart of the subject.
/. posted the story because it was unresolved. You can't say "We'll have the answers for you on friday." and then never mention the subject again.
I think
- I like pudding.
Only the searches and results are passed host to host--the actual file transfers are via a direct HTTP connection, which could certainly be encrypted.
Well, I'm not the biggest fan of rap, but considering Dre's recent actions, I just had to download his new album now. Loaded up Gnutella.. searched for Dr. Dre 2001, and boom. In less than 4 minutes I had downloaded the entire album. It's a beautiful thing. A bit childish yes, but so is blocking all files that have a certain checksum on them.
Now here's an interesting question though. I have a copy of it. I have not listened to it at all. What are the moral implications of that? To my computer, it's just a collection of arbitrary bits. Metallica certainly wouldn't have a problem with me lending a CD out to a friend, would they? What about if I ripped the CD, then destroyed it. Could I enjoy it on my computer? Now what if I didn't listen to it, but e-mailed it to my friend Bob? Suppose I keep one song, and e-mail one song to each of my friends? According to copyright law, I believe we can make backup copies, correct?
Yeah, I could have read up on copyright law and answered these questions myself, but what I'm more concerned with is ethics, what is right and wrong, not necessarily what works for the lawyers.
Grue
Geez. I've been had. But, unfortunately, the RIAA thing is sufficiently realistic that I actually bought it. Nicely done--I was wondering why they hadn't gone after the major distros for including uuencode/decode.
That was an interesting artical, I might check out #gnutelladev sometime.
But I really wish that people would learn the diffrence between the internet and the web. They are two diffrent things.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Good start.
However it in no way means that Metallica is "right" and they are "wrong".
Yes, it does. They are infringing on Metalicass copyrights. That makes them wrong, both legally and morally.
What part of Property Rights don't you understand?
If I'm pissed off at anyone, I'm pissed off at Metallica because they refuse to answer our questions here,
Why should they answer our questions? Who the hell are we? We're not the Associated Press. We're not the president of their record company. We are just some webpage full of disgruntled people pissed off because The Man is keeping us from getting our music for free.
because they have sounded clueless and misguided in their other publicity ops,
I'd hate to see how you handle newbies.
and because they don't care how big of a fan you are. If you don't want to spend $16 dollars for their CD, they don't want you as a fan.
They care about their fans. They just don't care about thieves who steal their music. How on earth do you justify saying someone is a fan when they can't be bothered to pony up the cash for a CD?
And just in case you are wondering; no, I'm not a Metallica fan. I like one, maybe two songs of theirs. So why the hell am I defending them? Because they happen to be right on this one.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Sharing and Stealing are independent things. I can steal something, and share it, or I can share something I didn't steal. I hope I'm not being to complex for you there Rombuu.
Anyway, copying is not stealing because the person copied from is deprived of nothing. It's copying, and whether its wrong or right, it should be called that. Nothing is more pathetic then trying to win an argument by using loaded terms.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Theft is theft. Deal with it.
And coping is coping. Not Theft. Deal with it
Why don't you look up the definition of the word. If you are deprived of nothing, nothing has been stolen.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I would love to hear what Chuck D's response was to that. Anyone know where I can find out?
bun-fhuinneog agam!
How? If you are willing to pay for their music then the actions they are taking have no effect on you.
If you get your panties in a twist just because they are trying to keep control of their copyrighten work then you need to grow up and face the fact that "the music is NOT free".
"The informations wants to be free" my ass.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Does anyone have a physical mailing address for Metallica? I'd like to send back some CDs that I don't want any more.
Someone else might have posted this earlier in the discussion (or in one of the previous Metallica discussions), but there is a hilarious spoof on the whole Metallica Napster issue here: http://www.joecartoon.com/buddies/chaos/index.html Its funny as hell, but you'll need Macromedia Flash to see it. P.S. - Theres a whole lot of other funny, non-napster related, stuff on the main page ( http://www.joecartoon.com ) for anyone interested.
Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Nothing will end up happening here becouse they really, as far as I can see, have a legal leg to stand on. If they file suit, the burden of proof is on them. There is no way they can provide a 'beyond a reasonable doubt' case here. But then, it all depends on how they charge. In some cases, all they need is a 'reasonable' doubt to win, but still.. How the heck can they legally prove that one individual pirated their music? 'Someone hacked my account, really'. Maybee I just don't get it. No one signed anything using the service. My understanding of a digitcal signature is certainly not just 'typing your name' in a text box. It is some 'key' that can be used to uniquely identify an individual. Anyone can type 'Rob Malda' in a text box. Should Rob be then held legally liable for the things done under that entity? I should think not..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I tried out gnutella, and it seems like 90% of the mp3's out there in gnutella are metallica mp3's. How ironic!
-elmo
All of this is, of course, IMNSHO. Cheers, Elmo
I used to be one of Metallica's biggest fans. In 1989 I won a particularly grooling radio contest revolving around Metallica trivia which basically boiled down to me getting:
It's kind of ironic. On the "Two of One" video, Lars makes some kind of rant about how MTV sucks and this is probably the only video they'll ever make. Of course, now every time Metallica comes out with a new CD, they are bending over for MTV and doing promos left and right. You see their videos all the time. They all got haircuts, and became good little MTV soldiers.
When I met them, I could see the fame getting to Kirk first. He wanted nothing to do with the fans. He hid in his dressing room and only came out to get a fresh batch of women. Lars was just the opposite; the girls were on him, and he said "These other people are waiting patiently... have some consideration." The man who impressed me the most at the time was Jason; he and I split a hoagie and shot the bull about who knows what. He seemed real down to earth. Of course, he hadn't yet had a chance to let the concept of fame and fortune sink in.
Fast forward 11 years. The fans mean nothing. MTV airtime and record sales are everything. Most of the people downloading Metallica MP3's (myself included) are likely to own legal copies of the music that they are downloading. In my case, it's faster to download than to rip it myself. If I'm on Metallica's Black List, let them come, I am legally covered.
What I have gotten out of this is a real distaste for Metallica. Their attitudes about the establishment were apparently as big a draw as the music itself. Now that they are puppets of the establishment that they used to sing against, going after their own fans, the music has lost its appeal. I've got no interest in their music anymore. This reminds me very much of the big baseball strike of a few years back. I used to have season tickets behind first base for the Phillies... now I have zero interest in professional baseball.
Instant assholes. Just add fame, fortune, then stir.
Screw Micro$oft.
Someone should sue Micro$oft for making the web "browser" that allows people to view child porn, and warez, and illegal stuff like that. Isn't that the same logic that the RIAA is using?
They may be legaly right.
At least that the people are in violation of copyright law, but according to the DMCA, Napster is OK. It will depend on the output of the judge thoug
In any event, What the law says really makes no diffrence as to wether or not something is wrong or right. I would hardly think you'd find many people who said that Jim Crow laws were valid.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The effect of such a title-based ban would be to block other bands' songs because they happened to have the same, or similar name to Dr Dre's songs.
For songs where there is a possibility of confusion, they usually have the name of the artist for that very reason. Yes, they could post without the artist's name, but again that makes it difficult to find what you want.
The point is that it doesn't have to be perfect to be effective. If they just eliminated songs where there was no confusion, that would go a long way to eliminating "contraband" music.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
... but now it happened to me. I submitted the Onion story on Wednesday but it got rejected.
-JeremyH
Excuse me?!?! Where the hell do you get that? The wealthy have NO responsibility to share their (or your) wealth. If I happened to be a billionaire I would not be respnsible to share any of it (taxes not included, of course).
And your use of McDonalds and MicroSoft is flawed. Billy gives away a sh!tload of money to charity. He has for a long time.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Easy, since he (metallica's lawyer) said they were liars, counter sue for slander.
you can add them.. ie Hemi-Sync(r) is the monroeinstitute's pantented means of making them. hmmm look at SBaGen it is an dos / linux app. that makes binaural beats. i mention bb, cause i think that i would be kewl, if an song could help put a person into an relaxed state or add some nervousness to your state of mind. etc. play with them...
/usr/src/linux > /dev/snd :)
and yes, some of your ambient stuff does do it.
d/ling the dragons now.. like the differents seems that some artest get stuck remaking the same album... not you. good to hear something different. although, i sware that binary sounds like cat
zipht@unbounded.com
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
Let's compare say a 40 year window of the Romantic period and see how it compares in richness and diversity to music of the last 40 years, from bebop to cool jazz to fusion to latin jazz to hip hop to metal, etc etc etc.
Evidently, quantitatively, there'll be a lot more music, and in general it'll be a lot more diverse. Well, d'uh. Considering that there are probably more musicians nowadays than there were people in 19th century Europe, that's only to be expected. But it's absurd to make a qualitative comparison between them and arrive at the same conclusion, as I've said in another message in this thread.
This is outright false. I have purchased several albums from small labels. I choose what I listen to.
Good for you. (How big a cut of CD sales are your bands getting? In my experience, small labels can be as evil as big ones.) However, I never said that no non-mainstream music is produced. But what gets played everywhere, what gets bought everywhere, what gets toured everywhere - saying that it's not decided by the big labels is just naive.
The record companies need to produce music that people want to listen to to stay in business.
... so they make people want to listen to it, precisely by making it mainstream and part of the coolness factor, and bombing the listening public with propaganda.
There is no "thought control" conspiracy here, the record companies try to produce music that people want to hear.
Then explain the Spice Girls.
As far as distributed payment systems go, copyright works better than anything else.
Have you tried everything else? Has it been proven somewhere else that all other systems don't work as well as copyright? Have I missed something?
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
Mad bad...
Looked at the name on one post, replied to this one.
But the point still stands. Plenty of people try that reverse psychology crap to try to get their karma modded up. Look around. You see plenty of examples:
"I know this'll be modded down, but..."
"The hypocrite moderators will demolish my karma, but..."
"Mod you down if you must, but..."
etc. etc. etc.
And the fact that he posted anon doesn't make this troll any less of a karma whore. In fact, it makes him more of one, because he's afraid that his precious karma might be knocked down a couple of notches because of the inane schilling he's doing for metalica and the riaa.
At least when I say something that might piss someone off, or get me modded down; I don't hide my karma behind the "Post Anonymously" shield like this troll did.
In other words, put up or shut up.
john
Imagine all the people...
Donovan-
:). Now, I don't want to kill the big bands, or take all of their money - I just want them to shut up for a moment, so I can hear some new stuff. The silicone-enhanced DAT-tape singalongs that the big record companies create and send out on the road can only produce thousands and thousands of dollars through "artificial excitement" - "There's nothing else to do, the TV says to take the kids to Britney Spears, this must be music at its finest, she's sold tens upon tens of albums, thank God for Sony's promotional machine and its lowering of the bar to where even *we* can be herded into hipness. Let's buy things!" Everyone settles for expensive mediocrity when the alternative has been aggressively chased away (cf. Microsoft innovation). The success of many of the record companies' creations is due to the artificial installment of monopolistic business practices and laws where business and law hadn't previously existed. Art has nothing to do with business and law. Other posts talk about patronage and the support of fine arts, so I won't rehash them here, but if you feel that you must reward an artist for doing his or her thing, try patronage or tipping. These are the original "business models" (yechh) of public performance or display of art.
Ass a matter of fact, record companies *do* determine what you listen to, if you spend most of your moments of musical appreciation listening to the radio. Payola and other less-illegal forms of bribery are real-life occurances. My advice is to turn off the radio, and head down to your local jazz club, or take the missus to a night at the opera. Shit, turn off the TV occasionally, too. You'll hear new stuff. If you're still in high school or college, take a music or art appreciation class. What? They don't offer that in your school? Then learn to play the basoon. Do *something* - the world needs more expressive people. And don't do it just because some A&R rep promises you millions - the world needs *less* of that kind of expression.
You will find that as you hear the truly fine music, you will become frustrated with the lesser stuff. I believe that most people have a little music critic in them, just aching to hear something new. They don't want rubbish - they want richness. They want the bar set high, to match their tastes.
The micropayment idea *is* being used today, by the vast majority of real-life musicians. It's called playing for tips, and it's all that most musicians can expect. It's certainly all that most of the big-name "talents" deserve, if the truth be told. Most of these MF'ers can't sing or play for shit. Oops, my bitterness is showing
The Internet might actually break the stranglehold on pop culture by big business, introducing people just like you to new entertainment. Assuming the existance of a micropayment system, it might even let millions of people tip the artist up to a point where they could quit their legitimate job, and actually goof off on stage for a living. Maybe not. But there are people out there, thinking about how this could work. People, like you, who aren't afraid of a rules change. Especially if the "rules" that are being changed are arbitrary and harmful in the first place.
And congratulate /. on another violation of the DMCA.
Napster hack
Perhaps they didn't like the obvious rudeness of some of the messages. After all, nobody likes to have insults hurled at them and questions couched in inflammatory language thrust in their direction. I think they chose not to answer because they didn't want people to find out the extent of their dealings with the industry in suppressing speech and information exchange. In short, they didn't want people to see them as hapless stooges with no real understanding of the issues.
Metallica has a legitimate case: many people are illegally distributing their work. But the erosion of the right to free expression--a right that is fundamental to the nature of the Internet--is not the way to combat the problem.
www.alarmist.org
You are correct. Metallica was against theft back then. They were allowing fans to tape the concert and distribute those tapes. If you've done your homework, you will know that Metallica is allowing the concert bootlegs to be traded with Napster.
Metallica wants to protect their rights for their original studio recordings. That's the issue. Don't try to distort the truth to fit your lame argument.
I do have my facts straight. You do not.
--
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
wohoo! that artical had a great quote, I think I'm going to start using it my sig :)
"In five years there will be software available to download movies."
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
They won't listen. They never do.
All they ever do is whine about the fact that The Man wants them to pay for their stuff.
Damned Entitlement whiners. They think the world owes them everything they want just because they were born.
Their tune might change when they grow up, get jobs and are supporting themselves and their families with the rewards of thier Intellectual Property.
"The information wants to be free" is in direct conflict with the reality of having to pay the rent, buy food and pay for your kids orthidontics.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
>News Flash: Invisible Man arrested for indecent exposure, film at 11
You got your tag wrong. It's "News Flash: The Flash arrested for indecent exposure, film at 11"
They can't actually delete the files, but they could remove the LISTINGS from the database. I think that's what he means.
I don't know how he could prove that any file, say with "dre" in the title IS an actual dre song. It could after all be commentary about the song or something.
W
-------------------
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
METALLICA: MASTERED LITTLE PUPPETS
And so it goes that the light at the end of your tunnel is just a gleam from the RIAA's pile of gold...
Lars: Wow, those are tough questions!
Publicist: You don't have to think too hard, Lars.
RIAA lawyer: Here Lars, sniff up.
Lars: SSSNNNIIIFFF! Gosh, thanks, I feel better now.
LARS! You used to bootleg your favorite bands! I used to bootleg you! WHY DID YOU GO AND SELL OUT!?
you're unforgiven. i'm no longer a fan.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
that is until they make napster clients that filp a random bit in the id3 tag.
Uh, they could just md5 the audio data only....
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
The 'central server', or even a chain of them could be dynamicaly assigned from the pool of boxes running the software.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
As of now no one has personally been sued because of Napster, Scour Exchange, etc. That however, is going to change and programs like Gnutella are going to force that change.
The scary reality is that Gnutella is going to force artists to go after the individual user who is pirating their music. It is true that Metallica has said they will not go after the individual person, but that doesn't mean the next artist won't. I think things will change severely if people themselves are dragged into court because of copyright violation.
Gnutella and its clones are backing artists into a corner, and pretty soon they are going to come out swinging. It won't be pretty.
mr.nobody
--Don't you wanna go where nobody knows your name?
(And yes, I know you're likely to have to reboot or go to someone else's machine to view the animation, but trust me it's worth the effort).
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
but where's the fun in that?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
easy way to get around it: append 1 second of near silence to the end of the song and voila; the md5sum is now different.
rename the file slightly and its impossible to tell which song is a literal copy of a cd and which is 'almost the same'.
music industry still doesn't get it.
price the music realistically and the "crime" will go away. just like booze in the early part of this century.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Metallica delivered the list of users to Napster swearing they had shared Metallica songs under the penalty of perjury. If a user who has appealed to Napster for reinstatement can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they never actually had or shared Metallica, what kind of penalty would Metallica face? What kind of penalty would there be for perjury, what laws would apply? Surely you can't sue, but if they can try to impeach a president for it, I'm sure Metallica can be stuck for it somehow... Another happily unbanned non-shit listening user.
From a legal standpoint, you're right. But ethically, it's not right. Napster knows there are copyright songs on there. It knows the law is being violated. They just don't care because they rely on users sharing copyrighted songs for the majority of their userbase.
Song titles are not copyrightable.
Did I say song titles? I said SONGS. You even quoted me saying songs and not song titles. You're looking for a technical loophole, and that's dishonest. First of all, the majority of mp3s list the artist in the filename (for the exact reason you state above). Second, most people share multiple files from the same artist, so that could be a secondary check. Finally, a person could simply download the file and check it manually as a last resort.
You wouldn't have to get every single copyrighted song. Just make it a big enough pain in the ass to share copyrighted songs that people stop bothering.
f.
Excellent point about the Jim Crow laws. They were the law, and they were definately not right.
I have no problem with Napster. It is a piece of software, incapable of doing right or wrong. The crux of the biscuit (RIP Frank) is how people use it. (Please reference gun control arguments here)
Metallica is legally right. And, I think morally right in protecting their work and right to earn a living. I wish they had researched the problem a bit more before taking this course of action. It sounds like they got some bad advice from someone down the path.
The people using napster to violate copyright violations are legally wrong. And, I think morally wrong. Technology has made it easy for people to unthinkingly commit crimes. I would be willing to bet that a good number of people that wouldn't think twice about downloading a copyrighted song with napster (and thusly break the law) would not be able to work up the courage to shoplift a CD. People who want to be able to download copyrighted music without paying for it are advocating theft. Why don't they call for the local music store to start handing out CDs for free?
--
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
I don't know if I'm doing something wrong or if others who were banned (like myself for having live Metallica concert recordings) have tried to recreate a new account and was still banned.. but it happens to me. I've uninstalled Napster, reinstalled it.. and tried to make many different logins, and even use different email addresses, etc. But Napster keeps saying the username is banned per Metallica. Maybe I just HAPPEN to be picking a bunch of usernames that other people have used and also had banned? I don't know. I'm curious what other people's experiences have been. I for one REFUSE to sign that legal document and would rather just make a new account.
Thanks,
-Matthew
, Dr Dre -> Dr Dray
md5 sums of the non-id data?
I'm sure you can dick with the audio data though...
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
this ModernHumorist episode of 'Encyclopedia Brown - Case of the Missing MP3's' just kills me :))
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
RatBastard, I owe you a beer.
--
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
But as will all things, the rebels become conservative. Metallica isn't worried about changing the world, they just want their piece of the pie. They've become part of the status quo.
It's the same with Dr. Dre. Wasn't he supposed to be a bad gansta from da hood? For anyone who didn't know it already, I think these debates have pretty much revealed him to be no different from any of the other so-called artists.
Art is about art, not money. Ask the great painters and composers and sculptors who died poor and alone.
Got Rhinos?
Those of you using Napster, please target the following artists for starvation:
I promise to make it worth your while. Thanks for all your help on Kid Rock.
Keep hope alive!
bun-fhuinneog agam!
None of your points change the fact that it is wrong to steal peoples work, be it physical or intellectual.
Theft is theft. Deal with it.
Freeloader.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
ever heard of commands like chmod, chown, etc? (Or whatever their equivalents are in Windows). Noone is fscking going to delete anything off my PC's disks.
no sig
...through Flash. Quite entertaining.
http://64.224.123.49/cartoons/napsterbad/
Profit is for here and now. Making something that is =good= requires something for the future. Just looking in the here & now will get you nowhere.
I think Metallica's attitude to their music is commendable. I think they'd have done everyone a favour thinking more carefully about MP3's and Napster, though. BUT IT IS STILL THEIR MUSIC! They can release it under whatever licence they choose! Same as any Open Source programmer.
To argue that Metallica should not restrict binary copies of their music is stupid. The GPL does it all the time! So what's your problem?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
A quick buck? They've been around for nearly 20 years right? Sounds like they've been in it cause they love music.
If you watched or read a metallica interview in-depth, they say they're not doing this lawsuit for the money, and I believe them. What they DID say is that they're doing it for CONTROL. This obviously makes more sense than money.
New artists trying to get name-recognition will love Napster. What does Metallica have to gain? Most of their "good stuff" is from years ago. Most fans already bought the CDs. All they forsee happening is cheap people downloading their songs and burning their own CDs without the band having any say in how it happens.
Actually, I would say that semantics is at the root of the whole thing. The words you use can bias the argument a certain way and if you can't agree on the terms you are using, you will be arguing at cross purposes anyway.
Too bad your definition of theft won't hold up in court
Actually, it would. Someone who copies CDs will be charged with copyright infringement, not theft.
information or "intelectual property" is *not* the same as physical property. To try and lump them together as the same thing is unsane and precludes rational discussion of the correct handling of it. Clearly, if I copy something that I wasn't going to buy anyway, the creator has lost nothing. It may not be right and it may certainly be illegal but it is definitely *not* the same as me nipping into the creator's house and pinching the sculpture he's been working on for the last three months.
Let's agree on the words and concepts and then the real discussion about "intellectual property" can begin.
Rich
I think a possible poll to go along with this whole Metallica/Napster issue would be regarding illegal .mp3's. What percentage of your .mp3 collection would technically be illegal? Do you keep them long? Do you buy the album? Etc.?
.mp3's.
.mp3's we have are typically from foreign imports or just plain unavailable.
.mp3's. The issue with the Diamond Rio established legal .mp3's.
This may provide insight as to the extent of damage that can be caused by illegal
In my house, between me and my roommates, we have contributed several thousand dollars to the music industry by way of CD's and probably have about $100 worth of pirated music. ~2-5%. And the illegal
Remember, this is dealing only with illegal
Hrmm...a Beowulf cluster of one-time genuii hampered by lawyers and huge bureocracies. I believe that it's right here
We now return you to your regular insanity.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
I for one am quite glad that Lars, Metallica's drummer, is fighting for the rights of artists everywhere to have complete control over their intellectual property: http://www.metallica.com/news/2000/napfaq.html. I believe that his next target should be the Napster-like scourge which has been allowed to propagate for several centuries, the "Public Library".
These "Libraries" take the COPYRIGHTED work of artists and distribute them for FREE to the community, despite having NEVER been given permission to do so. They wrest control of the valuable work out of the hands of the artists; libraries are nothing more than greedy thieves. Why is it okay to get works of literature for free? Why should it be free, when it costs authors time and money to write and publish it? Libraries exist for one reason and one reason only; to pirate literature, nothing more, nothing less. The same people who frequent these Libraries are the same type who frequent Napster--crooked teenagers and college students. Worst of all, who funds this scourge? YOUR VERY OWN GOVERNMENT. Yes, your tax dollars are going to fund this theft of intellectual property.
These "Libraries" will be the DEATH of literature. Metallica must fight for what is right on behalf of the many authors who cannot afford it because so many "Library Patrons" have already stolen their work. I have heard that some of these greedy Library organizations have even expanded their theft into free distribution of music and videos. Who will save our children from this evil?
Fight on, Lars!
I have to shrug and cheer on the napster kiddies- even though they're being dumb- honestly, there's lots of good music out there _already_ being made by people who understand this stuff. The big record companies, the MTV bands, are just locked in a sick codependent relationship and it's dumb to support it at all. People are frothing at the mouth over the 'right' to download metallica for free but... why Metallica, exactly? What have they done, what has Dre done that's so great? Open your mind, listen to other music- there is SO MUCH music out there of all kinds and people still fixate on what they are fed, like Windows users.
Still, whatever: never try and teach a pig to sing, etc.
The last time I posted to an mp3 thread on Slashdot, someone or other pulled me aside (in ASCII) and said, basically, "Give it up- people don't want to listen to you because you AREN'T metallica, you're wasting your breath". And certainly I've seen some evidence of that. But I've also occasionally seen a person or two like what I have to say, or like the music I pointed them at. Turns out I had some decisions to make- am I doing it to beat Metallica, or am I doing it for me, because I make music like some slashdothackers write code?
I chose the latter.
So, I went quiet for a bit, rather than arguing loudly that I ought to be listened to seven times in every mp3 thread. And since the last time I posted, I cut an entire new album, "Cirrus", which is the anti-metallica ;) it's ambient music, with more of an edge to it than your usual musak ambient stuff, done with a synthesizer I took apart and hacked with the electronics of. I finished up the "Dragons" album, and made the CDs of both Cirrus and Dragons available (they're $5.99: a previous poster thought all CDs should be under $5. I'd do that in a heartbeat but $5.99 is as low as mp3.com will allow me to go- still beats $17, doesn't it?), and "anima" is still there, and "Extended Play" and "Hard Vacuum" (I wish the confounded site would put anchor points in so I could have these links refer to the spots on the page where the songs are) and I even went back and put up 700x700 cover jpegs of all my covers. This lets you see what the CD will look like a little better- and can also be used if people want to just download the songs and the cover and burn the CD themselves (which I am happy to let people do- that's why I'm making it so easy to do).
And, after about two days of rest, I'm going back into the studio to do yet another album. These days I prefer to just DO MUSIC rather than bitching about Metallica. If you think my music sucks, check again in a week and I'll have done something else. Check again in a month and God knows what I'll be up to. If you haven't checked in a week or a month, there's new stuff. It's like any form of art (or indeed the art of programming)... you learn by doing, not by arguing about it.
These days I get really crappy page stats, the idea of 'push' marketing totally failed me. When I stopped pushing, people stopped showing up. So I'm giving up and going with 'pull' like I should have all along- just plain trying to do good music, lots of it, huge amounts of it with something in it for just about anybody. Every now and then I'll mention that somewhere (like I'm doing now) but don't expect a recurrence of the BUY MY ALBUM stuff- that was fun but the time I spent doing it was time not spent doing more music.
Sorry guys- not optimal. You may be on top of the heap now, you may be in a position to turn the screws on your fans and squeeze money out- I'm in no such position- but check back in ten years and we'll see who's better. You keep right on playing with lawyers and I'll keep on playing guitar and bass and programming synthesizers and stuff... and I can only say, in all honesty, I don't think I will ever, ever need or want to be as stupid and shortsighted as you are being.
Get back to the music- or get pushed out of the way. It might take a while- that's OK, I and a legion of hipper mp3-oriented indie musicians have all the time in the world, and we're not tied up with perverted entertainment industry contracts like you guys are. Enjoy your glide back to the bottom, 'cause there's plenty of air beneath your wings but there's no power in your engines. (heh, thinking in aircraft metaphors- as it happens the next album I'm doing is on the theme of cool WWII aircraft :) ) Cheers, all the slashdotters who've checked out my music- and all the slashdotters who haven't and won't :) 'cause we're all in the same boat, really, aren't we?
"Workers of the world unite."
If you got rich, you didn't do so in a vacuum. You very likely abused and exploited everyone and anyone you could get your hands on.
Gosh, and I thought that people got rich by producing a good or service that a LOT of people thought was worth paying for.
Yes, there are those that get rich preying on other members of society, but there are thos who make their money by producing what people want.
Care to guess which one Metallica falls into?
Hint: It's not the one with J.P. Getty.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Aside from the sarcasm and italics, where is your rebuttal? Do you really think that the average citizen of Vienna in 1800 had access to the quantity and range of music that even an average Wal-Mart customer has today?
Consider that the average Wal-Mart customer (note that I'm saying this never having visited a Wal-Mart, trusting only that the situation there is equivalent to that which one encounters in a Lojas Americanas store here in Rio de Janeiro) will only purchase the pre-fabricated, made-for-mass-marketing, custom-built-to-go-with-MTV music from at best three to eight "top o' the charts" different bands in each of the styles that most mainstream music seems to fall into nowadays - "boy bands/girl bands/pop-like dancey music in general" (*cough*Britney Spears*cough*Christina Aguilera*cough*Jennifer Lopez*cough*whoever MTV's decided you should watch now), "pop-country" (believe it or not, pop cowboy-clone duos - "duplas sertanejas" are actually popular here, pushing a sad mockery of the real regional Brazilian music and making millions from doing it), "pop-rap" (*cough*Puff Daddy*cough*), "pop-rock/pop-hardcore/pop-metal", perhaps others. Sure, there's some quantity: each of these starlets spews out - I mean releases - as many crappy albums a year as the label feels it can squeeze the money out from said customer. Add to that the huge number of "secondary acts", most crappy but some actually decent, and none of which get nearly as many buys as do the "top o' the charts" people - these guys only get record deals because they're very cheap to hold for the labels, and they're useful for a variety of purposes, must notably serving to increase the volume of sold albums and to promote the label's main stars - and you get HUGE volume.
However, amidst all of that volume, there's remarkably little musical production of quality comparable to that of even one of the least fine Mozart symphonies. There are some great names such as Keith Emerson and Rick Wakeman on prog rock, Keith Jarrett on jazz (I'm citing only piano keyboard players because that's the area with which I'm most familiar); that's only to be expected of, given that the number of musicians alive today is probably much larger than that the entire population of Europe by the end of the 18th century. (No, I don't have any statistics to back that up.) Unsurprisingly, those three are heavily influenced by music of earlier periods (particularly the Romantic, where the piano really flourished); try to find on Napster a recording of the Pathétique played by Wakeman. Anyway, the point is that even though there's a far larger quantity and volume of music available today, qualitatively we're still dwelling in the 1800s.
Hmmm, 'paying for music that one likes', that seems to be exactly what Metallica is asking for.
Um, no. First, they're not asking - they're demanding. With legal action. They're claiming to own every piece of music they've ever recorded on studio, and to have the inalienable right to determine on an individual basis who should be allowed to copy their music. It's paying for music that you like because it's being sold to you, not because there's a social contract in action between you and the musician, where you recognise that by paying him, you're helping him make more music you like. There's a huge difference.
We already have a pay-by-worth system, it's called the mass market. The difference between a consumer market and a patronage/commisioning system is that in a mass market, anyone who can scrape together $15 for a CD gets a vote, not just those who can afford to underwrite a band of their own.
How wonderfully idealistic. I thought this was already blatantly evident, but apparently I was wrong: it's not Average Joe who chooses what gets played/sold/toured, it's the record company. Thus the 'dictatorship' part of my post.
And as you yourself say in the next paragraph, practical and widespread micropayment technology might make it feasible for many bands to be "underwritten" by many people at once, each paying a trivial amount, and still make a decent amount of money out of it (at least enough to be complemented by touring if necessary), even without full control of the rights to redistribution of their music.
Sure, such a scheme would certainly mean the ruin of most absurdly well-paid, hugely-followed mega-bands that account for today's music market. But it's nothing short of necessary. This bubble is artificial, and it's only being kept to the detriment of the listeners. It's gotta be burst, and if it means that no artist will ever become a multimillionaire out of their music alone... well, I'm not going to be grieving.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
If you run strings on the napster beta6 client you'll find what looks like a user survey. Targeted marketing fodder, perhaps?
Another funny thing is when you watch what files the beta client is acessing you'll see that it reads your MS-aIEeeee! cookies, history and cache datafiles.
Wait a minute - is this you LARS?
/., the Snake Pit on the black album tour was not a bootlegger pit. It was a fan pit. Metallica had set up an area where fans could plug in their tape recorders and get a tape of the concert. IIRC, you had to be a member of the fan club to get into the Snake Pit. Anyone could bring a tape recorder and plug in.
/. existed back then, I seriously doubt that I would have been flaming them and their fans when it happened. To this day, when I hear the song New Year's Day on the radio, I still crank it up. That song rocks. That's what U2 has been and will be to me. There's no anger, no hatred. Just a guy who likes old U2 songs enjoying one of them.
No, I'm not Lars. I'm a Metallica fan.
If you're allowing people to record your concerts - you're allowing musical piracy.... thus you are pro-theft.
Bullshit. You crash your own argument right here. If you allow people to record your concerts, it is not musical piracy. Gasp! It's giving something to the fans.
(3) we'll never cut our mullets (check)
Oh, you are one of those people. Metallica cut their hair! They must suck now! Get over it! Have you ever had hair that long? I have, three times, and it really is a big pain in the ass to take care of. You really get to the point where you get sick of the hair and just chop it off.
(2) we'll never record a ballad (check)
When did they say this? True Metallica fans will recall that on the album Ride the Lightening there was a little song named Fade to Black. That qualifies as a ballad to me. And that was released when, '83 or '84?
(1) We'll never do a video (check)
True. I think they are still kicking themselves for having said this, and also kicking themselves for not having done a video sooner.
(4) we don't care if our fans illegally tape and trade our music (check)
You know, your ability to ignore half of a fact is amazing. Metallica is being stolen from. Period. Can you not get it straight that they don't want their studio recordings being stolen? They have no problem with the allowed bootlegs of their concerts being freely traded/given away on the internet.
And, in reference to some of your other posts on
Dude, what axe do you have to grind with Metallica? If you don't want to be a fan, that's fine. Just walk away. You can pidgeonhole Metallica into what you want them to be, and leave it at that. Listen to nothing but Master of Puppets for the rest of your life, and that's all that Metallica will be to you. I really liked U2 when they first came out. They really had a good sound. Lots of energy and noise. As their next few albums came out, they changed their sound a bit. I really was not into it. So I didn't buy the albums. I still like U2's early stuff. Just because they changed their sound, I didn't stop liking the early stuff. I don't have a personal vendetta against U2. I just walked away from U2. Had
--
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
Hmm... it seems that Dre's team did some homework, but neglected the rest. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't this an impossible request? Since napster doesn't store a single Mp3 on their servers, nor does any mp3 data ever actually pass through napster's servers, wouldn't napster's only recourse be to disallow listings of particular song titles? The md5 checksum idea may seem like a good idea, but a simple solution would be for napster users to alter ONE BYTE of the song, either in the tag or in a lead-in frame, to invalidate the checksum. A good try, though...
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
This came to me by accident. Its a Flash 4 animated video of Metallica and Napster. Funny. http://208.55.130.93/cartoons/napsterbad/napsterba d_56k.html
I used to think it was bitterness, but it turns out he was right.
File Metallica under "The Band That Should Not Be."
I have a "Zero Policy" tolerance.
*/
I suspected that they would back out of the Slashdot interview because I "attended" the Yahoo Chat and saw the type of questions that they would respond to. When even the slightest hint of criticism emerged, it was either blatantly ignored by the moderator or dodged by the band member answering the question. I honestly do not think that Metallica expected the backlash that would result from their actions. In the Yahoo chat, they stated that it was their manager's idea to file against Napster and their responses gave me the impression that they were not familiar with the intricacies of the service. Now, they are caught between a rock (no pun intended) and hard place. They cannot undo the damage to their image at this point. Even backing down would make it seem that they were simply vying for publicity instead of raising a legitimate complaint against another company. Metallica is hopefully learning an important lesson: when you take on the Internet community--you will lose!
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
I guess they were against theft back then too. They're a bunch of f***ing hypocrites!
Get your facts straight.
Now it's all about Timmy!
TIMMMAY!!!
[Connection closed by foreign host]
Metallica's motion to ban the users from Napster
signal, noise, to me it's all the same.
I heard it. I coulnd't believe the guy. He's obviously a complete moron and a sarcastic one at that. His parting shot killed me. Something like "and we realise that even if napster goes out of business, in six months time there will be other technologies that can do the same thing, but there will always be a way to track down the pirates and nail them". DUDE! I hope the gnutellaNG group has taken note. ( http://gnutellang.wego.com/ ). How about total anonymity for client and server and 1024 bit encrypted socket connections between servents tough guy!
Just had to look at the domain it was posted on to know it was a joke =)
LRJ
-Legion
Wish I may
Wish I might
Have this wish tonight
Are you satisfied?
Dig for gold
Dig for fame
You dig to make your name
Are you pacified?
All the wants you waste
All the things you've chased
And it all crashes down
And you break your crown
And you point your finger
But there's no one around
Just want one thing
Just to play the king
But the castle crumbled
And you've left with just a name
Where's your crown
King nothing
Hard and cold
Bought and sold
A heart hard as gold
Are you satisfied
Wish I may
Wish I might
You wish your life away
Are you pacified
All the wants you waste
All the things you've chased
And it all crashes down
And you break your crown
And you point your finger
But there's no one around
Where's your crown
King Nothing
I wish I may
I wish I might
Have this wish I wish tonight
I want the star
I want it now
I want it all and i don't care how
Careful what you wish
Careful what you say
Careful what you wish
You may regret it
Careful what you wish
You just might get it
Then it all crashes down
And you break your crown
And you point your finger
But there's no one around
And it all crashes down
And you break your crown
And you point your finger
But there's no one around
Where's your crown
King Nothing
Just want one thing
Just to play the king
But the castle crumbled
And you've left with just a name
Where's your crown
King Nothing
(We're off to never never land)
-Elendale (worst part is I didn't have to change the lyrics at all)
IANAT (I Am Not A Troll)
Has anyone ever wondered just how long it will take before Metallica actually sues THEMSELVES for DEFAMATION of character? Right now, I wouldn't put it past 'em!
....move along....nothing to see here....
It is basically just Lars stating his general position and Chuck D. doing the same, maybe its some stuff that has been said before, but it does sum most of the stuff up concerning each artist's opinion. They talk about what's happening now, and what each of them think should be sought in the future.
Microsoft, on the other hand, got a lot of bad press, when Bill Gates commented that they would NOT give ANY money to any charities any time soon.
What are you talking about? Microsoft gives huge amounts of money to charity. www.microsoft.com/giving/
Interesting enough, I was not distributing their music, no matter how hard that is for you to believe. Also, if you're going to make a statement like that, why are you afraid to post your name next to it?
"Dr. Dre has requested, however, that Napster simply delete his works from their directory rather than blocking users from using the service at all."
I'm sure Dr. Dre is going to get raked over the coals for this. To be fair, it's possible that he meant to block at the directory level, rather than simply deleting users.
Honestly, it's a little disingenuous for Napster to claim that they can't block individual music at the directory level. They certainly could look for all the Dr. Dre songs and block those individual titles. There's not going to be that many combinations. Yes, users can just rename the files, but it's a war of attrition that Napster will eventually win. Eventually, the renaming will get unrecognizable, and people won't be able to find the songs anyway.
In any case, none of this is going to stop Gnutella anyway. But I predict that Napster is going to go down.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Here's another related funny picture.
It may be total nonsense, but it's the truth - CD sales keep climbing and climbing, despite price increases and bellyaching from some circles. Obviously enough of an audience is willing to pay what the record companies are asking. Whether you consider them mindless rubes accepting whatever is given to them is up to you.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
The Washington Post printed a fairly well-informed article today explaining how Gnutella is different from Napster and why it's got some people scared.
I dont know about you all, but that kid rock article on the onion contained so much BullS**t it was piled sky high! where the hell is the people attacking this, this is insane, the RIAA is blaming the whole dam thing on mp3s ,its a publicity stunt!!!!!!!!!!
From a legal standpoint, you're right. But ethically, it's not right.
...
I disagree. The enforcement of Metallica's copyrights is not the job of Napster. Napster has no legal or ethical obligation to perform copyright enforcement services on Metallica's behalf without compensation from Metallica.
The DMCA says so. The RIAA, and all of the record companies paid a lot of money for the law, and they must abide by it. The law clearly places the responsibility for notification infringement on the copyright holder. Napster has complied completely with both the letter and spirit of the DMCA in every way.
Whether the DMCA is an ethical law is another question.
But to continue
Microsoft includes a "Network Neighborhood" feature with Windows that allows two people to play MP3s from each other's computers. This creates no ethical imperative on the part of Microsoft to develop a "blacklist" of filenames that may not be shared in the Network Neighborhood. The FTP program can be used to transfer MP3s back and forth, but the various companies that provide network software have no ethical imperative to employ elaborate content checking on the part of third party copyright holders who do not pay them.
In fact, Napster can be and is used for completely legitimate, authorized trading of copyrighted songs. Many bands, including Metallica, have authorized the free trading of concert recordings by their fans. Other bands have made studio recordings available freely as MP3s for promotional purposes -- just as the entrenched record industry uses promotional records and other materials for exactly the same purpose. The purpose of Napster is to facilitate legal activity, just like the purpose of the Network Neighborhood is to facilitate the legal activity of authorized data transfer and file sharing. The actions of Napsters' users no more reflect on Napster then the actions of someone who robs a bank and uses a Ford as a getaway car reflect on the Ford Motor Company.
Napster knows there are copyright songs on there. It knows the law is being violated. They just don't care because they rely on users sharing copyrighted songs for the majority of their userbase.
Well, that's your opinion on Napster's motivation. My opinion is that Napster is probably resisting demands to regulate content because the law says that once you start regulating content, you become responsible for that content. This seems more likely to me then your theory that their primary motivation is to facilitate criminal activity.
Did I say song titles? I said SONGS. You even quoted me saying songs and not song titles. You're looking for a technical loophole, and that's dishonest. First of all, the majority of mp3s list the artist in the filename (for the exact reason you state above). Second, most people share multiple files from the same artist, so that could be a secondary check. Finally, a person could simply download the file and check it manually as a last resort.
I'm not being dishonest. I'm simply one step ahead of your argument. It isn't a technical loophole. Your theory is fundamentally flawed.
You can't identify a song without listening to it.
MP3s are, as you said, identified by their filename -- presumably their song title, possibly including the name of the artist. For Metallica to demand that Napster ban a song title that they happened to use is Metallica claiming an intellectual property right that they simply do not have. Metallica simply has no legal authority to prohibit the distribution of songs containing the word "Metallica" in their titles.
Also, Metallica has stated that they have absolutely no problem with people sharing MP3s of their live concert recordings. Banning the use of certain filenames would have the effect of stopping the distribution of live Metallica MP3s as well as studio recordings.
Finally, for Napster to simply ban, for instance, songs with the word "Metallica" in them, would result in people deliberately misspelling song titles, like "Meta11ica." All this would accomplish would be to pollute the Napster namespace, with no benefit to Napster, Napster's users, or third party copyright holders.
Also, the notion, advanced by others, that checksums can be used to identify copyright infringement is not useful. All that a checksum can verify is the integrity of a file transfer. Anyone who has ever ripped a CD knows that bit errors happen all the time. The odds are that if two people rip the same track, they will end up with at least one random bit error in the audio file, which will result in a different checksum. If Napster were to start examining checksums, the result would simply be that people would simply use a utility to change one or two bits before creating the MP3, which would result in a different checksum.
And finally, for Napster to outlaw, for instance, the sharing of any file with the word "Metallica" in it would have the side effect of silencing criticism. If I were to write, perform, and record a song called "Metallica sucks" and put it on a Napster server, title-based censorship would effectively censor my song.
Fact is, the only practical way to positively identify a Metallica song is to incur the bandwidth expense of actually downloading the song, and the expense of hiring a human to listen to it and decide what the file contains. The bandwidth and staff requirements of your proposal would be extremely expensive.
What Metallica wants is for Napster to implement an expensive, labor and resource intensive program of proactive copyright enforcement services on their behalf. When Metallica went to an outside consultant to identify some 300,000+ users with files matching the names of Metallica songs, I doubt that the outside consultant did the work for free. I'm sure that they were compensated for their work.
Why should Napster be required to perform essentially the same service on behalf of Metallica for free?
You wouldn't have to get every single copyrighted song. Just make it a big enough pain in the ass to share copyrighted songs that people stop bothering.
Your proposals constitute a technically workable method for a copyright holder to identify specific instances of probable copyright infringement, but nothing in the law requires Napster to do this work on behalf of any copyright holder. Remember, copyright is an entirely synthetic right. Copyright did not legally exist until it was invented, and the justification of copyright is not based on natural law, it is a Constitutional restriction on free speech, for the sole purpose of promoting the arts, that is based on statute and regulated by the copyright acts, the DMCA among them. Nothing in the law creates a legal imperative on the part of Napster to "make it a pain in the ass" for their own customers to use their product, and there is no moral imperative to do so either. The only moral imperative on the part of Napster is to follow the DMCA to the letter, which is exactly what they have done.
Again, if Metallica wants Napster to proactively enforce Metallica's copyrights, which would be expensive and labor intensive, then Metallica should take the ethical approach and offer to compensate Napster for the work done on behalf of them and their record label, rather then take them to court to try and force Napster to perform ongoing, expensive work for them for free.
I call that stealing.
If you have visited my site, you would see that I'm calling for a boycott of Metallica, and basically the music industry as a whole. I'm not so mad at Metallica for going after their users, as I am at the Record Labels producing a CD for less than $1, then selling them for $20. I'm not exactly asking for free music, just reasonable prices. They are completely talking advantage of the consumer, and the government is protecting them and not us. That's not why the laws in this country were created, they were meant to make life better for all people, not just a select group. Yes, downloading music for free is probably wrong. BUT, if that's the only way the record industry is going to pay attention to our demands for better/lower prices, then damn it, I will do what it takes for the consumer to get a fair shake. If the music industry loses enough $ because of Napster, they might finally pull their heads out and get real about the pricing of music.
What are they doing with the money, besides buying fancier cars and bigger houses?
These artists, in an effort to squeeze every last dime from their audiences, are letting down the facade. They're showing that they're not really artists, just some people out to make a quick buck.
Fsck 'em if they can't take a joke, I say.
Got Rhinos?
Is it just me...Or are more and more Metallica CD's showing up in the "used" bins???
I usually spend a couple of hours a week looking through the used sections at different stores -- and since this whole Napster thing broke, I would bet a good chunk of cash that the amount of CD's "turned in" has been up 500%
Good job guys!!!....The only thing better is if we could have a "burn your metallica stuff" day....With a big bonfire and lots of press!!
IMHO
(+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
I have created the site ScrewLars.com in response to the senseless banning of Napster users by Metallica, and soon to be Dr. Dre. That image of the banner ad on the metallica site is priceless. Hypocrites....
So music from the Classical and Romantic periods is lacking in plurality, richness and diversity. Riiiiiiiight.
You complain that, under the proposed model, the "aristocracy" would determine what music we listen to. As we speak, that choice is made by the marketroids in the big RIAA labels, and, thanks to their control over the traditional means of music distribution, if you don't have a record deal with them you're nothing.
What the original poster proposes is no more than a pay-by-worth system: one pays to support music one like. Some have a lot more money than others; some are willing to pay much more than others. Either way, by eliminating the middleman, the control over what we listen is put back into the hands of the listeners; each individual in what is now the "music masses" will be forced to develop a (*gasp*) musical taste of their own - and to stand behind it, to put their money where their mouth is.
The way I see it, just about anything would be better than the current state of musical dictatorship.
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.
That's very sad. The very vehemence of your words is rather telling, don't you think? The original poster wasn't really saying anything all that astounding, was he? That being rich and well off implies some responsibility on your part to others less fortunate? That's just common sense, except for those who never grow up, who think they live in an isolated bubble of entirely their own creation.
Grow up, Slashdotter.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
Unilateral assertions regarding the moral and ethical responsibilities of other people aside, this is a shocking thing to say. You seem to concede that Metallica's rights have been abridged, but justify it on the basis of the fact that they've got money. Please explain to me how your assertion differs signifigantly from the following statement: "I agree that rich people have the rights to things they own, but they have a responsibility to let other people take it."
Clearly, we do not live in the same world. I refer you to The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, the largest charitable foundation in the world, which gave $57 million dollars this year to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa. Or to the official "Microsoft Giving" page.
Perhaps you were thinking of Eric Raymond, who warned charitable organizations against hitting him up for money?
"We are also providing a list which contains the MD5 signature of each offending music file," said the notice. "We require you to remove this content from your service. If you remove this content, you are not required to delete the distinct users from Napster. We would prefer that the specific offensive files be blocked by their MD5 signature, instead of blocking specific users."
In their own words, "Gimme fuel, gimme fire, gimme that which I desire!" And dammit we want our MP3's! They might be able to stop some of us but there is no way that they are going to be able to stop ALL of us. This is way to big at this point. And it's not like it's really that big a deal, I mean what are they going to do to 30,000 (or 300,000 or even 3,000,000!) people?!? toss them in jail? If ANYTHING happens, which is doubtful, some people will get a slap on the wrist and possibly a fine. Metallica, Dr. Dre and the entire music industry need to get with the program and relize that no matter what they do MP3's are always going to be there. DEAL!!!
Why not anonymously post all their songs to alt.binaries.mp3.metallica and alt.binaries.mp3.dr_dre? Actually someone else will have to do it, since I have none of their CDs and don't feel like downloading all the MP3s just to post them somewhere else (God knows I wouldn't be listening to them.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
By the way, I think it is a little naive to say that art has nothing to do with business and law. Art has nearly always been created in the service of the powerful, whether that power was based on money, governmental authority, or religon. The concept of the artist as someone outside the bounds of society doing art for its own sake is a very recent development. Ironically, it is a development made possible by the exponential increases in prosperity and leisure time that are themselves direct results of the very economic system that you seem to despise.
Slashdotters asked some tough questions, and I doubt Metallica (or their lawyers) could think of a good way to answer without looking even worse. Slashdot has been in the convential media a bit lately, so they probably realized that anything they say to Slashdot could end up in the NY Times or some other "respected" news source.
I think they're just trying to avoid having to say things which would make them look even worse.
---
Dammit, my mom is not a Karma whore!
A pretty dumb and unworkable request to say the least.
People could just rename stuff to get around it, Dr Dre -> Dr Dray or whatever. Although I think it was sensible of him not to go about shoving lawsuits up peoples arses, as seems to be an obsession for some people.
And besides, now that I can listen to bands before I buy, I actually buy more CD's. I'm sure I'm not the only one who does this.
MP3 and similar technologies are, as many people point out, the future and not the nemesis of the recording industry. Though there will always be a market for CD's / Audio DVD for people after the higher quality.
Ali
------
If the only internet you are presented with is AOL, then AOL is the internet.
------
Ph33r m3!!!
A master can say it better than me:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit. That is all." -- Robert A. Heinlein ("Life-Line")
Music and all forms of artistic work are changing, as copyright is becoming harder to enforce or protect. The entertainment industry that depends on it might hold back the tide and keep a repressive status quo. They might not.
We might have 1/10 the number of band's in 20 years. We might have 10x the number. Nobody knows the mid-term or long-term consequences of letting the clock tick. We DO know that the industry as it is now will be radically changed. But, we can make some guesses (with DMCA, UCITA, Sony Bono copyright act, or WIPO) as to what will happen if the clock gets stopped.
The only people guarenteed to win are those who have a product that other people want and are willing to voluntarily pay for.
So people who are rich got so likely because they abused and exploited people?
This sounds like sour grapes. Sure, it happens. That doesn't mean it's the rule.
-Stu
> Now, the real question is, can Metallica be held responsible for mislabelling these users as "pirates"?
As long as whoever representing Metallica has used the term "pirates" with their consent, yes.
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
It doesn't seem to be responding, are they under attack?
In its time, Netscape Navigator too, being the successor of Mosaic, was a commercial application...
But since the HTTP protocol is an open standard, free browsers came, and after a while Navigotr itself became free (as in beer).
Now for Napster : the problem with it, as well as its inherent weakness, is the use of a centralized server.
Gnutella doesn't make use of a central server. It's only a protocol, an open protocol. So methinks the next step will be (is becoming) the shift towards GNutella.
No one can be banned for Gnutella. No lawyer can sue Gnutella, because Gnutella is nobody.
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
the article also mentions that they have md5 sums of the offending files. that implies that they downloaded each file. now that they have a db of md5 sums they can now automate the screening of mp3s.
download mp3 ---> get md5sum --->see if its in db ---> if it is report the person to napster
this method has promise... that is until they make napster clients that filp a random bit in the id3 tag.
john
-- john
It seems that when it comes right down to it, both of these artists are more interested in the money than anything else. Of course, this comes as no suprise; anyone who thought that either Metallica or Dr Dre were anything but corporate sycophants would do well to listen to some albums by Crass.
And while I always thought that Limp Bizkit was clearly a producer's invention to make some quick cash off the popularity of Korn, I've been impressed by their support of Napster and MP3s, which includes having the beleagured Napster sponsor a free tour. I guess even in the heart of corporate rock, you can still find a little soul.
Last night I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know.
How, precisely, does any notion of "patronage" or a presumed obligation of the wealthy to give back to their society change or alter the fact that Napster users distributed copyrighted material?
Nice try. Sorry, I don't spend most of my time listening to the radio. When I do, I don't listen to the "commercial" stations, I usually listen to college/community radio or the like, and my experience has been that they play very non-mainstream music.
My advice is to turn off the radio, and head down to your local jazz club, or take the missus to a night at the opera.
I often do just that. I'm near NY, so there are a lot of good clubs.
If you're still in high school or college, take a music or art appreciation class. What? They don't offer that in your school? Then learn to play the basoon
Took classes in music and art/art history in high school. Played clarinet and percussion in the orchestra, piano in the jazz band. I've finished my undergrad degree now.
It's called playing for tips, and it's all that most musicians can expect.
I don't believe all musicians should have to live in poverty. It's true that a lot of musicians are willing to accept a life of poverty if they can focus on their music, but that doesn't mean they shouold have to.
I just want them to shut up for a moment, so I can hear some new stuff.
You don't have any decent radio stations where you live ? For the most part, I've had no problem hearing lots of very non-mainstream music on the radio.
Sure, the pro-patronage arguments have been heard, but so have the arguments against it. The main problem with it is that it just isn't very practical. If it was practical, there is nothing stopping people adopting that model, instead of using a copyright based model ( which even the underground bands use )
As for your internet distributed payment model, it might or might not work. But it will succeed or fail on its own merits, and is not in itself a reason to destroy existing models.
I don't see how that follows. With more people, you'd expect a larger output of music but, I don't really see how you'll get more diversity as a result of having more people ( unless you're talking about a very small number of people )
How big a cut of CD sales are your bands getting? In my experience, small labels can be as evil as big ones
Maybe the small labels aren't "evil", and are merely doing what they can to make a modest profit ? Maybe CDs cost what they do for a reason -- that making and distributing CDs is expensive. It's absurd to claim that CDs are "overpriced" when you have no idea what the costs of manufacturing and distribution are.
so they make people want to listen to it
What ??? Your attitude is so patronising. You can't "make" people want to listen to anything.
Then explain the Spice Girls.
Have you heard the saying no one went broke underestimating public taste ? The fact that they've done well implies that at least a lot of people like their music. The fact that you don't like their music does not imply that the public are the victims of some sort of mind-control conspiracy.
Have you tried everything else? Has it been proven somewhere else that all other systems don't work as well as copyright? Have I missed something?
Yeah, you've missed the whole point. If you want to dismantle the copyright system, the onus is on you to show that something works better. The people who are pushing other systems of payment have simply not been able to demonstrate that their systems are viable. IOW, they're just blowing smoke.
Of course, there were problems with that method as a means of art/artisitic expression distribution:
Patronage kept a lot of the works litterally behind closed doors. A great deal of the works of classical musians and writers that we take for grated today were never heard by the general public when the artist was alive. Instead, the performances were held for the court(s) and their friends (ie, the rich and powerful of the day).
Commisioned words have much of the same problem: Who other than those who have can aford to get some? More to do with your example, is when was the last time you ordered a jingle to get that car you wanted or that job you deserved? Not lately I imagine. While on the surface it may sound good, the everyperson cannot begin to aford this.
Performances, well, that has been talked to death here, but I'm willing to beat it some more. I understand that this is how most bands make any sort of money at all. It is unfortunate that this is the way of the world right now. But that is not always the way it was. Until we had methods to record music, performances were by and large, free. To go back in time, and I mean more than a century, how many cases did the courts of europe hear of one muscian accusing another of "stealing" a song? Not ever as far as I know. If a song was good, and the people liked it, the muscian most likely got a room and some food. The next day the villiage had a new song to help pass the time. The song would mutate and change and go the course of everything else in the public. The muscian would have been laughed out of the courtroom for trying to claim it as theirs.
Maybe they were banned, too (^_^).
-- javaDragon is an instance of JavaDragon.
What did they expect? Metallica's lawyers knew the law. They certainly had to know that some large percentage -- in this case, 10%, would appeal their ban, and they also knew that the law required that they all be individually sued, or go right back on Napster.
All that they have accomplished so far is to alienate about a quarter million of their fans. In 10 days, some 30,000 users will go back online, and laugh in Metallica's face.
These guys should do something more useful with their money then hire idiot lawyers who can't strategize their way out of a wet paper bag. Maybe a couple thousand dollars in drugs would bring them back to the reality of the corporate rock world and let them get back to what they do best -- writing bad music for adolescents -- instead of thinking of new and original ways to say "fuck you" to the very people on whose money they depend on to carry out this ridiculous, self-absorbed crusade.
They are way out of their league.
Delete them? Could he be serious? This only shows how ignorant the artists are to the technology they are up against.
Not at all. All he has to do is have them implement Zapster on their asses.
:-)
Couldn't get to it, man... have you been /.ed already? ;-)
For my 2cents, I'm pretty tired of hearing everybody rattle off the same arguments. We've had a half dozen Metallica/Dre stories here and none of you are going to say anything new now. But the story got posted because they know you'll converge on it like vultures.
Ick, I feel all dirty now.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Regardless of the manouvers that have cheezed off many of their fans, this lawyer for Metallica is only fanning the flames by calling the protesting Napster users "liars" in blanket statements. There's an argument that Metallica can make regarding the protection of their copyrights, but it does them no good to needlessly offend tens of thousands of their (former?) fans in the process.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I've not doubt that someone representing Metallica read through the various posts relating to the topic here on Slashdot. If so, they'd have to see that's there is a rather overwhelming "bad Metallica" vibe. It'd probably be bad PR to play the interview game here.
Of course, it's possible that they learned from the live chat, which did little to improve public perception of Metallica's intentions.
Now, the real question is, can Metallica be held responsible for mislabelling these users as "pirates"?
-Jer
This is kinda off topic, but for a while now I've been wondering, how does napster make any money?
I mean, assuming they got venture capital to start with, they have to have some sort of business plan...
But the client is free...
And I have yet to see advertising on their website or within the client itself... (other than ads for themselves...)
What's up? Who's paying their legal bills?
Or am I missing something obvious?
"You want to kiss the sky? Better learn how to kneel." - U2
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
- Please explain to me how your assertion differs signifigantly from the following statement: "I agree that rich people have the rights to things they own, but they have a responsibility to let other people take it."
It differs because I did not ask people to go steal the music. I am indeed saying that Metallica has all the right in the world, and yes, it is wrong to copy their songs. However, given their wealth, they should be giving more things freely. I know that it might be a hard concept to grasp, and it's not mathematical, but the more you give, the more you get.- Clearly, we do not live in the same world. I refer you to The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, the largest charitable foundation in the world, which gave $57 million dollars this year to prevent the spread of AIDS in Africa. Or to the official "Microsoft Giving" page.
So things have changed. There are other examples, but I can't think of them off the top of my head. But for the sake of the argument, let's look at Metallica - at one point, they were the rebels. So what if anyone copied their music, it was great PR. It got them filthy rich. Then they got greedy and decided to strike down on any unauthorized reproductions. A substantial amount of people are now turning away from them.As a point of the matter - I did copy a friend's CDs when I went to middle- and high school. Because I liked the music so much, I bought the CDs years later, when I could afford it. So did I illegaly "preview" the music? I guess so. But had I not been able to copy the music then, I would not have gotten as attached to it, and probably never goten the CDs myself in the end. Which means that in the long run, this "illegal copy" turned into a delayed profit for them, rather than no profit at all.
On the flip side, because of the incredibly rediculous lawsuits going on these days, it is also in my might to not support RIAA. As such, I do my best to avoid buying any products that support any member of RIAA. And no, I don't even download songs from any band associated with RIAA. Downloading would get me attached to the song. Getting attached to the song means that I would eventually cave in and buy the CD and support the artist. Instead, I'm looking at all the other music there is in the world, that RIAA doesn't own.
With RIAA sueing newsreaders, it is only a matter of time before they sue Netspace, Microsoft and Opera for making web browsers that could potentially be used to download MP3s, they'll sue Microsoft for makig an operating system with a file system that could potentially be used to store illegal MP3s, but what will be most fun is to see them sue Al Gore for inventing the Internet... I mean, he was just asking for it, now, wasn't he?
Who Wants To Date A Norwegian?
"...was just a freight train heading your way." (in the form of a technological and social change your sorry dinasaur ass couldn't be bothered to adapt to).
... not any more. They made pretty cool frisbies before shattering against the brick wall of my building, adjascent to the dumpsters.
I thought I was the only one so consiquent in my disgust. I used to have a couple of Metallica CDs
The one (count them, one) metallica mp3 I had (with the SF symphony, singing the exact same song
I already had recorded on my VCR) has been deleted, with prejudice. In this respect, Metallica may have achieved its goal. However, the money this has netted them (exactly $0) doesn't even beigin to offset the money they've lost in future CD sales (including older Metallica stuff I used to have on my "to acquire" list).
Oh, and I reused the videotape to record an episode of "Sliders." I am now, most happilly, metallica-free, and am surfing mp3.com and elsewhere for my music needs.
The RIAA and their lackeys could have held on a few years longer, if they weren't actively pushing their erstwhile fans and customers toward vastly more palitable alternatives such as mp3.com. Through their actions they have considerably shortened their window of oppurtinity to adapt and survive the coming changes, a situation which is entirely their loss (and the consumers' gain).
Good riddence to Metallica and all those of their ilk.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
>Do you think bands make their music for the fans?
:)
>Think again; they do it for themselves, not for
>you or anyone else.
As a corrollary, you must keep in mind the following:
Do you think I buy music for the band? Think again, I buy music for myself, not for the band or anyone else, because I enjoy the music. Duh.
Of course the band should make music for the fans. I give _them_ money, don't I?
What's your problem? Do you think that corporate entities, like music bands, are entitled to create whatever they want and expect people to give them money for it? Not if they expect to get paid. If they sell stuff _to me_, they had better make stuff that _I like_. Otherwise, why on earth would I bother?
-Dean
Earlier this week I caught a Charlie Rose interview with Lars Ulrich. To tell you the truth he put up some pretty convincing arguments for banning MP3s on Napster. Lars pointed out that what they were objecting to was digital copies or their digitally recorded albums. He openly supports fans recording live performances. When the other guy in the interview accused him of being greedy he took the pragmatic stance by saying that though the record companies have a virtual monopoly, all Napster is trying to do is become the new monopolist (with no revenue going back to the artist). Lars also seemd to focus on the Artists right to coltroll the artistic work. I'm not sure that is a valid point. My personal feeling is that while the artist has the right to decide how to produce the art, it a general way it can't be called art unless the audience sees/hears it. The expression is controlled by the artitst, but the audience controls how they see/hear/interpret it. In this way I think it is valid to record performance and redistribute it since the recording itself becomes a new piece or art. Maybe Slashdot needs to interview Napster and really press them on their goals for generating revenue. Is their model based on finding the best online MP3 content and servicing it to the consumer, without the artist getting a cut? Is the software ging to eventually cost money? Will they start pushing ads down to Napster clients?
At any rate I can respect someone for standing up for what they believe is right. If someone basically crapped over all my work and then flipped me the bird when I ask them not to steal my work, I reckon I'd get a little pissed myself.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
There is nothing wrong advertising MP3 players if they do infact have plans to begin distributing their music *themselves*, from *their* website. Of course since they probably don't.. the point is moot.
My personal thoughts all along have been that;
a) Although it is in contradiction to the stance that the band has taken against commercialism. They do have a right, in our society, to be reimbursed for the work that they do. If they want to ban Napster users, who might or might not (depending if they own the albums), be stealing music, then they should be able to.
b) This stance does them no good publically to appear so advesarial (SP?) to their listening public. What they should offer as a remedy is the ability to download MP3's from a Metallica controlled website. That would require some sort of registration with Metallica, that would also include proof of purchase for the albums that have been bought. Sort of like a fan club distribution.
For those of you who never belonged to a band's fan club, the band usually sends out singles once a year to its members. If they were to distribute such singles off their website they would gain; direct contact with their fanbase; a distribution system that would eventually allow direct to consumer selling, they could double the normal price of a single, and the consumer would still be seeing a savings.... anyway, I'm rambling.. bottom line is Metallica is wrong to be attacking Napster, right to be asking Napster to ban fans, and wrong not to be offering those same fans the opportunity to purchase or recieve copies of those songs directly from Metallica..
anyway just my $0.02, (well 0.01 cents since I'm in Canada.)
The only Napster users Metallica targeted were those who were distributing copyrighted Metallica songs. This is illegal, the last time I checked.
I know I'm picking a nit here, but, strictly speaking, when I offer a file for download, be it via FTP, http, or some other protocol (e.g. napster), I am not distributing anything.
Users have to proactively come to me and take the aforementioned data. I am not shipping it to their machines, they are taking it from mine, by their own actions.
Now, if I spammed a newsgroup, or sent out a bulk emailing, of Metallica music in, say, mp3 format, then I would be guilty of distribution. No doubt the courts will redefine distribution to include having something in a location others might be able to copy it from, just as they absurdly redefined the notion of a "person" to include corporate entities, and no doubt they can enforce such legal and linguistic absurdities with the use of force, but even with the collective gun of the RIAA and its lackey, the US Government, in my face, I will be no less correct in saying "you are full of shit, I didn't distribute a thing." Alas, being right won't stop the bullet from splattering one's greymatter all over the wall, so the victory, if such it is, is only moral, at best.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Metallica must love money more than thier "Art". They claim that thier "Art" is being stolen by 300+ thousand napster users? How flattering is that? I was in a band for a long time, we were signed, and I loved giving away music! Just because people are downloading MP3's of you music doesn't mean that you're not making money. I'm mean come on! People still go see thier shows and thats how they make most of thier money anyway!! I think its time for them to give back to thier fans anyway!! We made them rich and it's the least that they could do to let us listen to thier "Art" on our home computers! Whatever!
"I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
You might have seen this it is funny http://campchaos.com/cartoons/napsterbad/index.htm l
Superficially, it does seem that Metallica is standing up for themselves. That's why this lawsuit can hold up for so long in the first place. However, laws must follow ethics, not the other way around. And there is little doubt that Metallica and the Recording Industry is unethical by suing Napster. It is impossible to point out all the arguments, but I will say one thing. Metallica's lawsuit is never about helping artists. In fact, many artists, such as Limp Buskit and Public Enemy, support Napster because they know that Napster would help independent artists get publicity without having to slave for greedy recording companies. Only big, multi-millionaire artists and companies benefit from current copyright laws. Furthermore, recently the court ruled against the recording companies for wrongful price-fixing to increase the cost of CDs. For years, recording companies, thanks to copyright, has been able to scam us millions of dollars due to their unlawful and unethical practices. It wouldn't even surprise that the Napster debate played a significant role in influencing the court's decision.
Mystx
That's why this is different than something like FTP. The vast majority of people use an FTP application for legitimate purposes. I suspect that it's probably harder to find non-copyrighted material on Napster than it is to find copyrighted material.
Of course, I'm just bitter because people put "Anime" into their list but never have any anime songs shared.
f.
damn dude, you crack me up.
At first, I didn't catch it... every so often I would see "cluster" post. Now I see it and fall out of my chair. You even got me piping into meetings with jokes about turning everything into a Beowulf cluster.
So is anyone double-checking to make sure that they are using recycled paper? Beyond that, when they are done with the whole silly thing, I hope they recycle all the documents...
Me
- Sighuh?
Personally, I've never felt that this price is fair, especially since it's usually only one or two songs that you buy a CD for (At least, that's how it always seemed to be with me) I know that if I tried to buy every CD to equal the songs I had in my collection of (Varied artists and bands) I would have WAY to many CD's, not to mention songs I never really listened to. Usually I only download a few songs from any one band/artist, which is the reason that my music collection is so ecclectic. I can see why Metallica would get mad over people that would go and download entire CD's of music worth of their stuff instead of paying for it (Even though the prices are steep, IMHO). But for the people who simply download one or two or three songs, I think it's completely unfair to ban them. (Not that this will stop them from just creating a completely new account. Rinse, lather, repeat?)
Surgically remove pole from ass to E-mail.
Just because something is better doesn't mean it's good.
You have to see this ::
Napster v/s Metallica
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
Lars was on KROQ this morning. If anybody recorded it and could throw it up on napster that would be gret.
Anyway, his whole argument is that it is their music and they should be able to distribute it how they want to. They don't care about money, they are rich. They don't care about the fans, they make the music for themselves.
That pretty much sums it up.
Q.
Metallica Remains Silent
Phew. Thank you Napster!
We all know that crap is king
Give us dirty laundry!
This is a grotesque over-generalisation. There is a lot of cheesy rubbish out there, largely because that's what most people want. There's also a lot of quality not-so-mainstream music available. You are making a lot of gross over-generalisations here.
However, amidst all of that volume, there's remarkably little musical production of quality comparable to that of even one of the least fine Mozart symphonies.
Mozart was one of the best musicians of his century. The best musicians of our century also produce quality music.
it's not Average Joe who chooses what gets played/sold/toured, it's the record company.
What a load of hogwash. If the record company don't produce music that people want to listen to, they go out of business. The record company don't dictate what we want to listen to, and no one is forced to buy anything they don't want to hear.
And as you yourself say in the next paragraph, practical and widespread micropayment technology might make it feasible for many bands to be "underwritten" by many people at once, each paying a trivial amount,
Well if that's such a good idea, why aren't people doing it today ? Is it because the copyright model is in fact vastly superior ?
Sure, such a scheme would certainly mean the ruin of most absurdly well-paid, hugely-followed mega-bands that account for today's music market. But it's nothing short of necessary.
Sounds like neo-Marxist rhetoric to me. Kill the big evil landlords/bands and take all their money.
Many have said it before, but Metallica has screwed the pooch but good on this one.
I, and I am sure many others, will not buy Metallica product henceforth.
Yes, they are protecting their rights as musicians. They could have been smarter about the whole thing.
For the slow of learning in the music industry, two words to save your sorry behinds in the big bandwith future:
VALUE ADDED
It's not just a CD. It's a whole whack of other things (ie: decent liner notes, merchandising cupons (buy the CD and get 20% off of all Metallica merchandise, for instance), etc.)
What's the difference between tap water and bottled water (sans marketing)? Perceived added value for the consumer. Other examples: is it a cup of coffee or Starbucks?
Do the math. People will pay a premium for something that they perceive value in.
'Nuff said.
(1) Note: no rebuttal offered.
(2) You're comparing hundreds of years of music history to today's music. Let's compare say a 40 year window of the Romantic period and see how it compares in richness and diversity to music of the last 40 years, from bebop to cool jazz to fusion to latin jazz to hip hop to metal, etc etc etc.
As we speak, that choice is made by the marketroids in the big RIAA labels
This is outright false. I have purchased several albums from small labels. I choose what I listen to. The record companies need to produce music that people want to listen to to stay in business. There is no "thought control" conspiracy here, the record companies try to produce music that people want to hear. This doesn't mean that everything is "mainstream" either. There are a lot of niche labels that cater to niche markets.
What the original poster proposes is no more than a pay-by-worth system: one pays to support music one like.
The problem is that most of us don't have the money to feed a band, so this calls for some kind of distributed payment system. As far as distributed payment systems go, copyright works better than anything else.
Either way, by eliminating the middleman, the control over what we listen is put back into the hands of the listeners
... or at least those listeners who can afford to pay the salary of AN ENTIRE F*CKING BAND out of their disposable income. I guess under your system, I don't qualify, I can't afford to hire a band. I'd rather just buy a CD !
he way I see it, just about anything would be better than the current state of musical dictatorship.
ou state your "dictatorship" conspiracy theory as though it's an irrefutable fact, when in fact it's merely a theory and a very dubious one at best ( moreover, one which I don't accept ).
Los Angeles, CA -- Today the New Kids On the Block (NKOB)
continued the the record industry's war against Napster. The New Kids
management gave a copy of 5 Napster users who had illeagally put
NKOB songs on their virtual servers. "This probably doesn't even begin
to touch the number of napster users pirating our art!" said former
NKOB member Jordan Knight Thursday. "We have evidence that
their may be as many as 9 people on napster with our songs!" New Kids on the Block
joins Dr. Dre and Metallica in the ongoing war against music piracy.
"I think we're the ones hit hardest" said Knight, "Metallica and
Dr. Dre have sold millions of albums in the last few years; We've
only sold 7 since napsters introduction and I think it's quite
apparent piracy is to blame."
Click here to read too much about my personal life
think about it. we all know that metallica corporation does not make the majority of its money through album sales. especially not the last two or three pitiful ones (s&m was OKAY but they could have done away with all the load and reload crap on it). it just makes no sense for them to fight so hard to keep mp3s off the internet. they really have no vested stake in doing so. in fact, it would be great for them for their music to spread around the world just as it was great for them when their underground tape spread around the world. none of this makes sense... until you put two and two together. it's the riaa who has the most to gain from all this and the most to lose if musicians actually break free from their clutches and start to promote themselves in more creative (and likely more effective) ways. god forbid that these groups start developing DIRECT relationships with their fans and start learning things like incremental sales. god forbid licensing revenues for commericial and movies go directly to the creators. luckily (for the riaa), they saw that metallica was quite content sucking the dick of corporate america and very ignorant of all of these possibilities. so the riaa offers them cash to file suit against napster (god forbid metallica make money by creating QUALITY heavy metal again). now the riaa has a high profile act saying that napster is uncool and gives its campaign legitimacy. nice idea but it's a losing battle. fans are going to trade napster or no napster and all metallica is doing is making some short term cash while cutting its longevity short. i can't say that i'll miss them. ever since load, i've been hoping something would put them out of their misery. they sound so sad. at least there's a chance for that! -- ...And Justice for none: Why Metallica Corporation is DEAD WRONG about Napster
--
J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet
Ejercisio Perfecto: from Geek to GOD in WEEKS!
--
And Justice for None
ANYONE?! Was this on 'Politically Incorrect' or some other show? I would REALLY like to read this as Chuck D has proven time and time again that the man is only there to put you down, and if you dont FIGHT, you dont stand a chance to win.
I eat the flesh off the living, and I vote!
I am only a moderate fan of Metalica, but I know plenty people who have spoken to me at length on the issue, enough so that I can concretely form an opinion and a stance. I've come to wonder how a band, who in the past has been 'all about the fans' has pulled a total 180 and decided to pioneer such a bold move. This does not sound like the Metallica many have come to know and love. I think that maybe the same person(s) responsible for such things as 'Hanson' and the 'Spice Girls' is also at work behind the scenes of this fiasco.
In truth, I think that the mp3 format has done much to bolster the music industry. I recall hearing that the music industry, despite their complaints of lost sales, has a great year in terms of albums sold, with a projected INCREASE of sales. So what is the problem? I am wiling to bet the farm Metallica is far from going hungry due to insufficent funds, Dr. Dre, too.
Truth be told, I have bought more CD's, and of various genres, since I have access to almost any concieveable song writen in the past 40 or so years. The record companies defeat themselves, and I'll tell you how. Record Moguls, are you taking notes? (1) The market serves only to target groups that are seen as profitable per music genre, when in truth, that Puff Daddy fan could become a closet Korn worshiper, and vice versa. The advent of MP3's allows that person to sample a taste of what's on the record to find out if that's really what they want. And once you're hooked on a band, all you want is more. Trust me, this isn't just speculation. I live in the real world, it works. (2) This is horrible PR. By allowing these kind of actions by bands, it alienates the fans, who will in turn follow the bands that are embracing the digital revolution, and they are out there. These will be your big sellers of the future.
It is time for the dinosuars to roll over and die. Sometimes progress is inevitable, to fight it is to make yourself obsolete. And all of the debate over digital music between fat hog corporatiana and middle class 12 to 24 internet surfers is going to come to a close very soon. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded who ultimately needs to win.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
REDUNDANT?! bull fucking shit
redundant would be more appropriate for the "metallica used to be good, but now they suck cause they dont like me getting free muzICk"
fuck off you fucking dolt moderators.....
Rather than a single application, gnutella is a public protocol with numerous independent implementations, and it is architected to survived both nuclear blasts and lawyers - there is no centralized server.
There is some anonymonity, although it is far from perfect (I'd like to see both the downloads and searched done through encrypted channels) but because there is no central server, search engine or user registry there is no central point of control (or chokehold).
There probably aren't as many titles available as through Napster, but that's mainly because it's not as well known. But if I run Gnutella now, let's see how many files there are available this afternoon... well I'm tired of waiting, it's over 3700 hosts, 413,000 files, and 7,700,000 MB. So even though there may be fewer files available than Napster, there's a lot out there.
Mike
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
1)They already have too much money.
2)They suck.
Either you rock, or you suck. There is no "Oh, we're getting into a new sound so our old fans might not like us as much"
I pity the fool.
[pink beam of light]
can be fond here, courtesy of Camp Chaos.
========
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
Uh, booze was just plain banned - hence the black market of which you speak (similar to the drug market of today). Price had nothing to do with it...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
My day job is internet application development, and my full time hobby is a little independant punk/industrial label (http://www.absolutezerorecords.com). You could say I speak PERL and powerchords. The point is this - I'm kind of on both sides, so here's my two cent insight: MP3 is a double edged sword, and you just have to find ways to make it work for you as an artist, instead of fighting it. Points to ponder: - Bands, especially big ones, make thier money at the concerts. The CD sales keep them fed between tours, the tours buy them houses and cars. For small time bands like the ones I work with, CD sales usually come out red - it's just a way to get people to the shows. - EXPOSURE is enemy #1. If you are the greatest band in the world, you're still working at wendys if no one has ever heard you. CDs have to cost about four bucks for the band to even consider pressing them - too much for 'fans' to buy on spec. Compilations are cool, but again, no following, no comp invites. Opening shows up for other bands is good, too, but, whoops, the band doesn't know who you are! Distribute MP3's for free - a pretty good price for the demand scale - and you get instant exposure. - Piracy isn't new it's just easier. You wouldn't think fans in your own home town would be too cheap to buy your cd for four bucks, but MY OWN FRIENDS dub my stuff. Not that I sympathize with Metallica a whole lot, but imagine putting your heart into your music, and then finding it dubbed on some twenty year old tape deck (MP3s don't sound as good as CDs - see ARS TECHNICA's comparisons) in your best friends car! My limited experience in the music industry has taught me what metallica fails to grasp - you better learn how to make it work. 'it' is what the fans are doing. getting high and mighty about your copyrights looks good to the lawyers, but piss off your fans and see how much money you really save. The world is adjusting to new opportunities through technology, and the old garde is going to make it ugly. I wonder if Guttenheim cought much flack back in the day?
Remember last year's "interview" with John Vranesevich of AntiOnline? Not only did he refuse to answer the submitted questions, his response was dismissive of and insulting to the questioners.
--
Weblogging Considered Harmful:
Well, at least Dre decided to request that member's files simply be blocked, rather than the users being banned in a Nazi fashion...
I think Dre understands the people and the potential that technology has, as opposed to Metalica and Lars' "600000000 sheets of paper scheme". Forget Metalica, I'm going out to buy the new Dre album. 'Cause he ain't actin like a @#$%% like metalica
---------------
CoyboyNeal is God
--
--
fat lenny's gonna lick your brain today.
Erm yeah like I'm gonna sit and let Napster read and MD5 all 5 gigs of mp3 files, which are different for each encoder, and can be hex edied to screw the MD5.
And I have a little feeling other people are gonna think likewise.
This is yet another example of Companie$ wanting to controll the uncontrollable, but lacking a complete understanding of what they are dealing with.
"Know your enemy" They dont...
The record companies are of course entitled to try to stifle the illegal distribution of their property, that I agree with. This post is meant as an observation of the futility of their efforts.
Oh and yes I admit I am a pirate, I dont care.
Ali
--------
Pirates are bad... but they have the rum.
--------
Ph33r m3!!!
In their chatroom appearance recently, Metallica said that one of their goals was to educate fans. [The chat was a lame PR pitty-party which avoided any clued-in questions from the other participants.] More likely, they're receiving a crash course in techology. So I'm hardly surprised that they blew off Slashdot.
Perhaps they're starting to realize that their "Let's fight for Good(tm) by suing pirates" crusade is hopelessly misdirected. Their industry is changing with technology--viewing these technological shifts as a simple piracy issue is hopelessly misguided.
The current model only works because CDs are expensive to produce and distribute. But as music becomes trivially cheap to exchange, is that the end of professional music? Will the artists starve?
Hardly. Painful though it is to use the names Mozart and Metallica in the same post, an even cursory look at history shows that artists have flourished for a very long time without expensive, monopolistic distribution schemes and lawsuit bullying.
Musicians of the future will be supported in the same way Mozart and Beethoven were:
Patronage. In the modern case, it may be corporate or governmental support, perhaps like auto-racing teams, in echange for logo or ad messages. Or think of it like an investment: companies put money into talent in the hope their tours will be profitable. (Isn't this what the record companies do now?)
Comissioned works. Poets and sculptors are often hired to create works for the public. Increasingly, popular bands write ad jingles, for instance. It's easy to imagine a CD sponsored by a company.
Performances. Of course, popular acts already make a good portion of their money from tours.
The new technology kills the costs that necessitated the big companies: 1) access to fans via printing and advertising, and 2) manufacture and distribution of the music. Both are now effectively costless.
Smart bands will figure out that CDs aren't just art, they're also ads for their band. They'll get their word out as far as possible with the Napsters and Gnutellas, then reap the rewards of name recognition and touring fees.
It was the Charlie Rose show.
http://www.pbs.org/charlierose/
For the "Metallica has all the right in the world" advocates... I agree to this. Metallica does have all the right in the world. However, the wealthier you are, the more responsibility you have to share that wealth. Look at McDonald's, for example - they solved a lot of PR problems just by starting to donate to charities. Microsoft, on the other hand, got a lot of bad press, when Bill Gates commented that they would NOT give ANY money to any charities any time soon.
There is also the other factor, that what you give to the world, you get back threefold. It really is good karma to give things away. Within limits, of course, (gotta maintain that self sustaining balance) but the better off you are, the more you're able to give. And it will only do you good in the long run.
Of course, I am now actively boycotting anything that comes out of RIAA, and I'll be buying my CDs from non-RIAA organizations like mp3.com instead. Not because they are executing their "rights", but because they are being greedy, and are radiating bad karma.
Who Wants To Date A Norwegian?
I'm not surprised, but it makes me sad. I really loved Metallica in high school, and I hoped that they'd take this chance to show that, if nothing else, they may be genuine. Instead, they completely dodge it. No explanation, no reasoning, not a word.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Metallica is the Man now. They deserve no more of my money.
-brennan
I found this the other day, a Napster-like client purely for distrubuting Metallica media, even concert videos!
I'm sure it could be adapted to allow Dr Dre as well.. :-)
wrighty
> We have made several good-faith efforts to work with Metallica and their publicist, but it looks like they're never going to respond.
Maybe they listed their reply on Napster, forgetting that none of their ex-fans would see it?
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Is not gnutella. Freenet sounds like the best concept out there. All it needs is a nifty end-user client for pix and mp3's.
Metallica and drde wouldn't have anybody to sue..
This post is protected under Copyright, DMCA, ASPCA, and has a patent pending.
Master of Napster
End of m-p-3, crumbling away
I'm your source of implication
Banks that pump with fear, sucking money clear
Leading to corporate destruction
Find them, Net-PD
More is all we need
We're dedicated to
How I'm suing you
Come download faster
Away with Napster
Our cash burns faster
Away with Napster
Napster
Napster of Puppets I'm pulling your strings
Warping your mind and trashing your dreams
Blinded by greed, just buy the CD
Just call my lawyer, `cause I'll hear you scream
Napster
Napster
Just call my lawyer `cause I'll hear you scream
Napster
Napster
Free music, no way. Were R-I-A-A
Loss of cash becoming clearer
Sound monopoly, financial misery
Chop our breakfast on a mirror
Download you will see
More is all we need
We're dedicated to
How we're suing you
Napster of Puppets I'm pulling your strings
Warping your mind and trashing your dreams
Blinded by greed, just buy the CD
Just call my lawyer, `cause I'll hear you scream
Napster
Napster
Just call my lawyer `cause I'll hear you scream
Napster
Napster
Napster, Napster, Where's the song that I've been after?
Napster, Napster, You promised mp3's
Laughter, Laughter, All I hear is corporate laughter
Laughter, Laughter, laughing at my cries
It's not worth all that, stupid little spat
Just a rhyme without a reason
Neverending ways, drift on jury days
We don't even know the reason
Download you will see
More is all we need
We're dedicated to
How we're suing you
Come download faster
Away with Napster
Our cash burns faster
Away with Napster
Napster
Napster of Puppets I'm pulling your strings
Warping your mind and trashing your dreams
Blinded by greed, just buy the CD
Just call my lawyer, `cause I'll hear you scream
Napster
Napster
Ha ha ha ha
I dont want to get my a** flamed off, but I really cant blame Metallica (and others) for what they're doing. Major label artists (except Britney Spears) work hard and sacrifice to produce (some) good music. Now, their hard work is being undermined by piracy. Obviously a band like Metallica isnt going to starve to death over the loss of revenue, but what about the groups that are just starting out? What about the groups who wait tables at night to pay the bills so they can record music that is pirated the day after its release? Im not supporting the actions of the RIAA or Metallica, but I dont think we as tech-savvy individuals should blast them for protecting their own interests. If my copyrighted commercial software (the proceeds from which feed my family) was being openly pirated by a service like Napster, I would do everything in my power to stop it. Im not suggesting that we stop the use of MP3s. I love MP3s. Im simply suggesting that we think about the issue from both sides before making rash judgements and blatantly blasting anyone who wants to protect themselves.
... and the part that really pisses you off is that you know he's right.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
I figured the real debate would be in court and all this "online" stuff was just noise. Silly me.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
And you know what? Metallica doesn't give a festering rats' ass about "fans" that ripp them off.
And the very people who'se money they need to support their "crusade" are not the people they are saying "fuck you" to. The "fuck yous" are aimed at the people who steal their work.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
Something Lars said on Charlie Rose when he and Chuck D were on his show:
"Napster allows perfect digital copies of our works. I don't care about tapes or personal recordings there's a generation loss in quality. Napsters copies are exactly like the CDs we sell."
Two things: 1. False. MP3 quality varies wildly.
2. If an MP3 is the same as the CD in his opinion then wouldn't that mean MP3.com is in the right in playing MP3s of CDs already bought.
But what freaks me out is: Why in the world would they not just create a filter list on napster? NetPD is superflous and unnecessary.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Metallica explains it all to newgrounds.com. So get the scoop and shut up!
It seems mettalica is acting just like Recordings Industry's Puppets.
A famous (real) band here in Brazil is selling his new Album for R$22 (~ US$12), the money each of the 4 members receives per CD is R$0,08 (~ US$ 0,04)...
I think I'll open my own record inc.... galmeida records
...and no one freaked out on him. Could be that they're just taking their time to answer the questions (or that their lawyers are taking their time answering/editing the answers). And If I'm not mistaken, Douglass Adams hasn't answered yet either... The gathering of questions for him was two days BEFORE Metallica...
I guess if you like someone you give 'em a break, but if you're upset with them you give 'em as much hell as you can.
Addlepated - punk & metal