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...
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!
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
- 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?"
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
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
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.
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.
Whowa. wheres the cave you live in?
BTW, the labels were accused of pricefixing and recently settled with the Justice dept.
HellO? brain in there?
-- dieman - Scott Dier
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?
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.
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.
*hehe* I could point you towards other noise artists who literally were doing just that- cat something_or_other > /dev/snd :) personally, I think that's cool- some people have put a lot of effort into finding picture data or programs that sound neat when played as audio. That's not what binary is: binary is the performance of a shortwave radio picking up some sort of satellite, run through a homemade three-band compressor being played like an instrument :) all of the Hard Vacuum album will sound more or less like that, it's 'noise' music. If it had a beat or notes it wouldn't be noise music :) it's impossible to explain, if you like it good and if you don't then don't DL the other Hard Vacuum tracks or buy the CD :) You're gonna freak when you start listening to 'anima', that's just as different :) want a pointer to the guy on mp3.com who's doing noise music from raw computer data? That would be Monessen :)
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
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
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
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."
this ModernHumorist episode of 'Encyclopedia Brown - Case of the Missing MP3's' just kills me :))
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
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!
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)
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?
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.
go read the thread on the shugashack about what you have to do to get napster working. I believe it leaves some reg keys lying around even after install, and you have to manually remove them before reinstalling.
-Spazimodo
Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
Millennium Crisis Line: 0890 900 2000 [calls cost 50p/min]
No, tax forms are not public information. Politicians will release them as part of their public disclosure (makes them look good) but that's their choice.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
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/
"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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
"...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
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
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.
Don't even have to do that. Different people will put different info in the ID3 tag, so my version of an MP3 will have a different MD5 signature than yours will of the same song.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
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.
(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
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
can be fond here, courtesy of Camp Chaos.
========
<sig>Guvf vf abg n frperg zrffntr
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:
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.
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?
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